Introduction to Film

I thought the discussions about digital editing and effects was particularly interesting. The textbook author raised the question of whether digital effects and editing undermines the actor's skill and imposes a sterile artificiality in films that rely heavily these digital processes. It has always seemed to me that people become overly excited about films that have great special effects, such as I, Robot, newer Star Wars movies, or other films with a fantasy or outer space setting. When I saw these movies, my immediate reaction was positive. But these films were not memorable. Looking back on these movies months after seeing them for the first time, I think of them now as mediocre. When I read the insert in chapter 3 about The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, the quote from the film's visual effects cinematographer Alex Funke, which read, "At some subconscious level, viewers can tell when they're seeing real photography," made me realize that perhaps this was what made these films less memorable to me than others. In contrast, I found the films in The Lord of the Rings trilogy to be very memorable and inspiring - their sets were convincing and epic, the acting and characters were memorable, and the films did not possess the sterile quality of many other fantasy movies.

While reading chapter 4, I was surprised at the lack of rehearsal actors have time to do.
I also found the difference between method and technical acting interesting. I always thought that actors connected emotionally with their roles as characters in a film, and that was what made their acting convincing. I wonder about the legitimacy of James Cagney's claim that his scene in White Heat was not due to empathy for his character's feelings but to his ability to switch into his character's highly emotional role in such an automatic and emotionless fashion.