Media AS Lighting Task

Media AS Sound Exercise

Media AS Preliminary task

James Bond Thrillers.

The James Bond Films are vast and many, here is a list of all current James Bond films in order of release:

Dr. No (1962)

From Russia With Love (1963)

Goldfinger (1964)

Thunderball (1965)

You Only Live Twice (1967)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Live And Let Die (1973)

The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Moonraker (1979)

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Never Say Never Again-add in (1983 - not EON)

Octopussy (1983)

A View To A Kill (1985)

The Living Daylights (1987)

Licence To Kill (1989)

GoldenEye (1995)

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Die Another Day (2002)

Casino Royale (2006)

Quantam of Solace (2008)

Skyfall (2012)

James Bond movies are classed as classic thrillers, each one is intrinsically the same, the only thing being altered being the Maguffin. Here are the key elements of a James Bond Movie:

The Rifle Barrel

Going all the way back to Bond’s first cinematic appearance in Dr. No, almost every film opens with the iconic rifle-barrel sequence. Connery wore a hat, Lazenby went down on one knee, and Brosnan got an updated CGI look, but it is this simple imagery that let you know a James Bond movie was starting.

The Pre-Titles Sequence


Early in the history of James Bond films, audiences became accustomed to seeing a cool opening sequence filled with action and stunts before the main titles rolled. Sometimes it was used to introduce the villain, like in From Russia with Love. Other times it had little or nothing to do with the plot and served as nothing more than a way to whet the audience’s whistle for the action yet to come, lithe one depicted;  the skydiving sequence in Moonraker.

The Song and Main Titles


While listening to Adele’s “Skyfall” on continuous loop until you see the film, think back to all the brilliant Bond themes. And while thinking of that, flash back to all the half-naked ladies in the title sequences, designed by the visionary Maurice Binder until the time of his death. Some songs are iconic – like Shirley Bassey’s “Goldfinger.” Others are epic fails – like Madonna’s “Die Another Day.”

However, they are all welcome additions to the Bond franchise.

The Bond Girls


Even if the filmmakers skimp on any of the other key elements on this list, they never leave this essential element out. Since Ursula Andress stepped out of the ocean like Venus being birthed from the sea, the sultry, sexy Bond girl was a staple to the series. Some may have been dopey characters without a brain in their heads, like Tanya Roberts from A View to a Kill or Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist in The World Is Not Enough, either way, the women are all portrayed rather misogynistically, which I do not aprecciate. The franchise even toned down the number of girls in The Living Daylights, but there was always some pretty face next to Bond’s.

The International Intrigue


Imagine how lame a Bond movie would be if the whole thing took place on the streets of London around the corner from the Universal Exports office? Let’s save those kind of adventures for the BBC. The multinational travel of a Bond film is part of what gives it such pizzazz. James Bond has literally traveled around the world. He’s even been to unsavory locations like Afghanistan (in The Living Daylights), Kazakhstan (in The World Is Not Enough), and North Korea (in Die Another Day).

The Colorful, Eccentric, possibly insane Villains.


Henchmen (and henchwomen) come and go, and they’re sometimes absent. The Bond villain stays. Count on the villains to be brilliant maniacal sociopaths bent on world domination. Sometimes that world domination includes controlling water or just stealing a boat-load of money, but they’re brilliant maniacal sociopaths nonetheless. Sometimes the Bond villain is overly cartoony, like Dr. No or Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Other times they are all too real, like La Chiffre.

I must say, I very much like Raoul Silva.

The Booze


If we’ve learned nothing in 23 movies over 50 years, it’s that James Bond is one of the most charming, likeable alcoholics on the planet. He’s known for his signature martini “shaken, not stirred,” though he has downed plenty of other spirits as well. He invents the Vesper in Casino Royale, and he has a taste for Dom Perignon and Bollinger champagnes.

The Slight Dash of Racism and Sexism


Now this is not necessarily a popular ingredient in today’s politically correct times, but you cannot appreciate the suave sophistication of the Bond movies without acknowledging a bit of racism and sexism in the 60s and 70s. From the nonsensical turning-Japanese surgery (aka, heavy eye make-up and a bad wig) that Connery’s Bond gets in You Only Live Twice to the ghetto treatment Moore’s jive-turkey Bond undergoes in Live and Let Die, the series has made some uncomfortable moves. As for the sexism angle… yeah, that’s still going on, but at least Bond’s just slapping women in the rear now instead of slapping them across the face.

The Manchurian Candidate.

There are two versions of 'The Manchurian Candidate', a political thriller, the first being released in 1962, the second released in 2004.

Comparatively, the two are quite different, in more ways than one being older than the other.

Many of the character roles are different in the later version, for example, the character 'Major Bennett Marco' is fully replaced by 'Ben Marco', who's name is obviously derived from the former.

Another dissimilarity is that, in the earlier movie, the horrific threat is that of the Communist Party, the basis of a few character arc's being only to present a glorified communist witch hunt, which was more realistic during the 60's - this was exchanged for a big internationally corporate company longing to take control of the political system, which may in fact equate to a real life plausible threat of this time.

The CGI capabilities of the modern era also is cause for some changes - the war-zone scenes are much more realistic, due to the budget being much higher than the older version as well.

In general, both of these films served as good psychological, paranoid thrillers, even though they were not to my particular (extremely picky and critical) tastes.

I enjoyed the story of the older version more, I believe it was dynamically superior, and made up for what it lacked in grace and aesthetics with articulation and depth in story telling. I did not like the story changes made within the modern version, the absence of the importance of the character 'Joselyn' was something I particularly did not like the absence of. They also did not specify a trigger for Raymond Shaw, and Ben Marco's whole 'hapless hero' psychological brainwashing to be induced. The specification in the older version of the trigger being a certain card within a game of solitaire induces a certain kind of dread within us every-time we even get a glimpse of a deck of cards, it leaves the watched feeling informed and involved with the plot. The modern version lacked such meaningful detail.

It also made certain events seem unimportant, such as the equivalent of Raymond jumping in the lake – after hearing a person say this in the bar. The inharmonious and discordant soundtrack as he walks to the lake echoes and parallels his confused and troubled state of mind. This is absent from when Raymond enters the lake in the modern film, the dramaticism is instead over-emphasized by a conveniently placed unwitting killing on Raymond's behalf.

In the modern version, I believe they played it safe by not including more explicitly the discomforting incestuous attraction Raymond's mother had to him in the original book, and censorship within movies in modern day allows for such things to be seen.

Lighting.

Lighting in movies can be used to create depth, ambiance, and mood to the visual portrayal of events.

Functions of the different lights:
The Key Light is the brightest and most influential light.
The Back Light helps counter the effect of the Key Light, or can be used to create a silhouette.
The Filler Light helps to soften the harsh shadows that the use of Key and Back Light creates.

Different types of lighting:
Underlighting - when the main source of light come from below the subject. It is primarily used in thrillers and horror films.
Top Lighting - when the main source of lighting comes from above, highlighting the subject very angularly. Is thus used to create a dramatic and glamorous look.
Back Lighting - when the only source of light is from behind the subject, perhaps a window, so a silhouette is created.
Low-Key Light - creates using only the Key and Back Lights. It produces a sharp contrast of light and dark areas on the screen, as very deep, distinct shadows are formed.
High-Key Lighting - More filler lights are used to illuminate the subject completely, reducing shadows and thus lighting appears natural.

The Birds

 A wealthy San Francisco socialite pursues a potential boyfriend to a small Northern California town that slowly takes a turn for the bizarre when birds of all kinds suddenly begin to attack people there in increasing numbers and with increasingly befuddling viciousness.

This movie was not personally enjoyable for me. I enjoyed the idea of the ambiguous plot and vague reasoning behind the bizarre occurrences, but I felt that it did not reach a concluding zenith and therefore was slightly anticlimactic.

It’s hard to get your head around, and the first time you see that it actually happened, it’s somewhat astounding. Many people claim that The Birds is Hitchcock’s last great film. While it doesn’t reach the same levels of the three films that came before it, it’s still easy to see why it’s regarded as one of the director’s most well known works.

After meeting a man (Rod Taylor) in a pet shop, a San Francisco socialite (Tippi Hedren) travels to his hometown. While there, suspicious events involving birds begin to take place around the town.

Hitchcock’s infatuation with blonde actresses has been well documented, and his relationship with Hedren just as much. He did know how to pick his actresses though, and Hedren, in her first role in any movie, shines here. She’s natural, playful, and somewhat cold. She plays up that socialite aspect of her character really well.

The rest of the supporting cast is equally as impressive, especially Suzanne Pleshette, who plays the woman that’s been interested in Taylor for years. Watching Pleshette and Hedren interact with each other make for some of the most fun parts of the film.

Hitchcock develops Jessica Tandy and Taylor’s relationship nicely, and the little pieces of character backstory that Hitchcock provides the audience with regarding Tandy’s unwillingness to accept any woman as her son’s girlfriend help expand the character even further, rather than just being portrayed as an overprotective mother.

The film isn’t extremely scary, but the shock factor alone make for some nice chills. Hitchcock showed off his ability to scare audiences with Psycho, so to transition back to color for another horror film, and utilizing the bright color of blood, it allows for something extra that wasn’t available to him earlier.

Even though I appreciate these factors of the movie, I cannot find it in me to like it. It's no way akin to Psycho in it's execution and brilliance, even though being directed by Hitchcock.

I am a person who appreciates a good McGuffin - however, I also enjoy it being resolved. This is probably why I disliked North by Northwest as much as I did, it seemed very single-layered and meaningless. The same applies for this film - the McGuffin was shoved in our faces, we became enthralled, we were made to watch as it eviscerated our orbital cavities, and then it simply disappeared into the distance along with the characters among a feathery sea. I don't appreciate that, and frankly, it leaves me feeling rather cheated at the end, and not in a good way.

I generally like an unsatisfying ending: many character deaths, ambiguous futures, indicative looks, subtextual indications etc etc...however, I do want it to mean something, the McGuffin is there  as a Plot B to add to Plot A. Plot A makes you think, while Plot B sits behind an opaque window and hits you with sporadic doses of viscerally occurring feelings. The way the elements of this Thriller played out made me lack any sort of empathy for...anything, really. The hapless hero being a rather fickle, irritating, misogynistically portrayed damsel , and the villain with better means to make the (evil) cause being birds did not make things any better.

Conclusively: It was a technically good example of a thriller, but not my cup of tea as a movie.