Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Movies AND Politics
If you've been reading my blog, "Random Reflections on Movies & Politics," you've undoubtedly noticed that the overwhelming majority of my posts have been about politics, with only a few about movies. The reason is simple: although I am equally passionate about both subjects, the political matters have been more urgent to write about and/or share.
Well, this morning's post is about movies AND politics.
ITEM #1 - I just became aware of this story which was in last Tuesday's New York Times: A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html
The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures
* * *
People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.
The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History showed the IMAX film "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" to a sample audience. According to Carol Murray, their director of marketing: 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous." In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
One theater owner was quoted as saying "We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public."
So apparently the jury is still out on the Scopes trial. I guess if Gallileo were alive today he'd fare no better with this crowd than he did 500 years ago.
* * * * *
ITEM #2 - Terri Schivao and the Kuleshov Experiment
In thinking about my post from yesterday, about how the widely circulated 5 minute video showing Terri Schivao's supposed "reactions" to social stimulai was actually edited down from about 4 1/2 hours in which virtually nothing happened I was reminded of the famous Kuleshov experiment.
In 1991 the Russian filmmaker Lev Kuleshov performed an experiment to prove that by simply juxtaposing two unrelated images through montage (editing) he could create meaning. Kuleshov created a brief film in which he alternated footage of various things (a bowl of soup, a smiling child, and a dead body) with an archive clip of an actor (Ivan Mozhukhin); the clip of the actor was carefully chosen to be one in which the actor's face was totally expressionless, not conveying any emotion whatsoever. The shots were edited as follows: bowl of soup ... actor's face ... smiling child ... actor's face ... dead body ... actor's face. When this film was shown to an audience everyone felt that the actor was conveying a different emotion (hunger, love, grief) with each combination even though it was in fact the very same shot; they were reading a different meaning into Mozhukhin's expression with each combination. This experiment demonstrated the power and effectiveness of film editing.
It's relevance to the Terri Schiavo case is that, as in the experiment, context determines our interpretation of images. Terri has but one facial expression. Though careful editing of the video it is suggested that Terri has a range of emotions or reactions. But it is merely our perception, not the reality.
Well, this morning's post is about movies AND politics.
ITEM #1 - I just became aware of this story which was in last Tuesday's New York Times: A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html
The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures
* * *
People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.
The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History showed the IMAX film "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" to a sample audience. According to Carol Murray, their director of marketing: 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous." In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
One theater owner was quoted as saying "We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public."
So apparently the jury is still out on the Scopes trial. I guess if Gallileo were alive today he'd fare no better with this crowd than he did 500 years ago.
* * * * *
ITEM #2 - Terri Schivao and the Kuleshov Experiment
In thinking about my post from yesterday, about how the widely circulated 5 minute video showing Terri Schivao's supposed "reactions" to social stimulai was actually edited down from about 4 1/2 hours in which virtually nothing happened I was reminded of the famous Kuleshov experiment.
In 1991 the Russian filmmaker Lev Kuleshov performed an experiment to prove that by simply juxtaposing two unrelated images through montage (editing) he could create meaning. Kuleshov created a brief film in which he alternated footage of various things (a bowl of soup, a smiling child, and a dead body) with an archive clip of an actor (Ivan Mozhukhin); the clip of the actor was carefully chosen to be one in which the actor's face was totally expressionless, not conveying any emotion whatsoever. The shots were edited as follows: bowl of soup ... actor's face ... smiling child ... actor's face ... dead body ... actor's face. When this film was shown to an audience everyone felt that the actor was conveying a different emotion (hunger, love, grief) with each combination even though it was in fact the very same shot; they were reading a different meaning into Mozhukhin's expression with each combination. This experiment demonstrated the power and effectiveness of film editing.
It's relevance to the Terri Schiavo case is that, as in the experiment, context determines our interpretation of images. Terri has but one facial expression. Though careful editing of the video it is suggested that Terri has a range of emotions or reactions. But it is merely our perception, not the reality.
