So as you guys know I projected that my site would mainly be about music. However, this is a fair and clear warning that the majority of the post (if not all) that you see under this one (but mainly in the “In Other New Section“) will not be about music. Unfortunately with the amount […]
So as you guys know I projected that my site would mainly be about music. However, this is a fair and clear warning that the majority of the post (if not all) that you see under this one (but mainly in the “In Other New Section“) will not be about music. Unfortunately with the amount of time (or should I say lack of time)
I have, I need make up a “post quota”.
Also I know I have been posting like crazy to get to my 55 post quota so I have been flooding you guys feeds but you know what:
After reading James Agee’s “Comedy’s Greatest Era” I have to say I both agree and disagree with his statements. Let’s start with what I agree with; James mentions that comedians now in days tend to depend heavily on what they say more so than how they say it. Let me explain back in the 1900s […]
After reading James Agee’s “Comedy’s Greatest Era” I have to say I both agree and disagree with his statements. Let’s start with what I agree with; James mentions that comedians now in days tend to depend heavily on what they say more so than how they say it. Let me explain back in the 1900s when they had what was called “Silent Films” the comedians didn’t talk. The fact that they didn’t talk made it that much more important for the use of body language and expressions. So how can you make a joke without talking you might ask? Well back then they did a lot of what is known as gags. Gags are physical jokes; some of the most known gags I say would be the slipping on the banana peel gag, or even the pie in the face gag. In which were, as James Agee’s stated, first thrown thoughtfully then as innocent bystanders began to caught in the fire “every pie made its special kind of point and piled on its special kind of laugh”. That gag is still used to this day, usually found in sitcoms, and is known as a “classic”. Which I have no problem with; however I do disagree with Agee on his comment that “the only thing wrong with screen comedy today is that its takes place on a screen which talks”. Quite frankly I think that sound on films is one of the best things since sliced bread. Sound was first introduced to film in 1927 in a film called “The Jazz Singer” and I couldn’t be happier.
This last Thursday I was introduced to a film called “Bangville Police”; a silent film about a girl who thought robbers were on her, what I believe to be a, farm. The movie starts off with a little girl that’s wants a calf, at some point of time she sees these strange men and runs off to a room and calls for help. At any rate when help arrives it’s all a big misunderstanding and at the end the girl founds out a baby calf was born. Being mindful of the time frame I’ll give that the film was a little funny when it came to the misunderstanding, however I feel the movie took too long to get to the point. The fact that the film is silent makes it, in my opinion, that much harder to watch. For the first minute and a half I was lost. I thought the movie would be about a girl, her father, and maybe a calf. The other thing when it comes to a silent film is that you have to pay close attention to it, turn your head or blink just a second too long you could’ve missed the whole joke.
Agee makes a statement that comedians, such as those in the film mentioned above, couldn’t master sound films because they “cannot combine their comic style with talk”. With which I have no problem with, if they can’t do it then they can’t do it, but to say a film like “Africa Screams” of 1949 was a bad film just because of the fact that there is actually words coming out of the comedians’ mouth is preposterous. Agee seemed like the type to like to guess what’s going on, I’m the type that likes to know what’s going on. I think some of the best jokes are the ones that are, usually, called inside jokes. Inside, or thinker, jokes are jokes that not everyone would get, unless they have the background information to understand it. I don’t feel that whether or not a comedy film is bad should be judged by whether or not it has sound. I also don’t think that all silent films are bad, just different.
1)In your opinion, in general what makes someone funny?
2)What is your favorite comedy and why? What if that movie was made into a silent film, would it be as funny? Why or why not?
I was asked by my Art History professor to go visit the MOMA and review 3 pieces of art work this included Late 19 Century Art and Cubism, Abstraction, and Durational Art. Part 3: Durational Art When I went to the contemporary galleries I saw a film called Felix in Exile. This film was shown in a secluded […]
When I went to the contemporary galleries I saw a film called Felix in Exile. This film was shown in a secluded room, that wasn’t very big. It had a huge screen, sort of like the ones at the movie theaters. The thing that drew me in was the sound. I remember walked through the galleries looking for a piece to watch, hearing the sound and asking “what’s that?”. I walked in and it had a small bench right in the middle of the room, which people were already sitting on. I didn’t think that was such a good idea because that’s basically limiting viewing to three people at a time. The film was a little lengthy for standing so that would just encourage people to walk out.
The filmed was interesting because majority of it was black and white but certain area would be colored in, such as the water or the blood from people’s wounds. The film looked like a big sketch book, everyone and everything in the film was sketched but was able to move. There was no speaking in the film but it had some continuous music that played all throughout the film. This method worked great for the film, although there was no talking you could focus more on the characters actions.
Furthermore, thought that this was both good and bad. Good because it continuous music helps with the flow and setting the mood of situations. Slow music usually indicates a calm or sad moment; where as fast and loud music usually indicates a climax. However the fact that there was no speaking left the point of the film up in the air. You can get a sense of what the film was about but there’s no way to really know without some research of your own. I had no idea who was who, what was going on, or why it was going on.
I was asked by my Art History professor to go visit the MOMA and review 3 pieces of art work this included Late 19 Century Art and Cubism, Abstraction, and Durational Art. Part 2: Abstraction In the “Painting & Sculpture II” exhibit the abstract piece that struck me most was Jackson Pollock’s ‘Stenographic Figure. His use of color […]
In the “Painting & Sculpture II” exhibit the abstract piece that struck me most was Jackson Pollock’s ‘Stenographic Figure. His use of color was great, mainly used the primary colors but when he didn’t the blending of color made sense. Also his use of line and curves was very playful I love how they fed off of each other. For example there’s a curved line which seems to be a smiling mouth but it fits so perfectly with the other curved lines that no matter where it is, it will never be out of place.
The reason why I decided to write about this piece was because it reminded me a lot about myself. I’m the type of person to start of just doodling without a clear idea of what I want the outcome to be. The more I draw, add a line here, or shade there I find myself with an actual creation. Like the term “making something out of nothing’, and that’s what I feel Pollock did. I think he was just doing abstract work and noticed, “Hey that kind of looks like a face” and decided to work from there. Being that there are so many lines just all over the place you can tell that was really the starting point. Once the lines and curves started to connect that’s when Pollock was able to make sense of it all.
I believe this painting is abstract because it is not a depiction of a person, place or thing in the natural world. The artist uses brushstrokes in a way that you may be able to see an arm or hair but you never know if that was the artist’s true reasoning for that stroke. I’ve asked five other people at the museum what they saw and we all had different answers. There’s no clear answer on what is being visualized, sort of like an optical illusion.
I was asked by my Art History professor to go visit the MOMA and review 3 pieces of art work this inlcuded Late 19 Century Art and Cubism, Abstraction, and Durational Art. Part 1: Late 19 Century Art and Cubism The post-impressionism piece by Paul Gaugin, “Still Life with Three Puppies” and the cubism piece by Pablo Picasso […]
I was asked by my Art History professor to go visit the MOMA and review 3 pieces of art work this inlcuded Late 19 Century Art and Cubism, Abstraction, and Durational Art.
Part 1: Late 19 Century Art and Cubism
The post-impressionism piece by Paul Gaugin, “Still Life with Three Puppies” and the cubism piece by Pablo Picasso art two very striking painting at the Museum of Modern Art. It is Gaugin’s use of color, space and line that grabs your attention. The color and line makes everything pop. Placing the objects against the soft background makes them stand out because they are much richer in color. The outlining of each object was great. The use of blue paint instead of black to outline the puppies was a nice compliment to the grey color of the puppies’ bodies. The space is very important because you don’t get a sense of clutter nor do you feel as if you in space. There are three distinctive spaces on the painting which are the three puppies drinking from the large pan, fruits, and the goblets with apples.
The cubism piece “Glass, Guitar, and Bottle” by Pablo Picasso is a college made of wallpaper and newspaper snippets, and paint. You can tell that Picasso really played with the paint in this piece. t looks like he used some stencils and other methods and tools to create the different types of shading and texture in this painting. It is the very distinct lines and curves in this piece that really makes the visual happen.
When you see these two paintings at the M.O.M.A. it’s sort of like walking into two completely different worlds. Gaugin’s piece is realistic, you look at the painting and it literally draws you in. You are there in the kitchen by the fruits looking over at the pups. As for Picasso’s painting you get lost in the glass, guitar, and bottle. You don’t know where one ends and one begins. Both pieces tell a story but Gaugin leaves you to figure out the story yourself, or maybe even to create your own.