- How difficult it is to convey conversations in silent movies, resulting in the usage of gestural language, as was seen among the men at the beginning of the film.
- The physical comedy seen in The Navigator was necessary for a successful comedy, because the amount of time it would take to pull off a verbal joke with the movie's intertitles would completely detach the audience from what was happening in the film.
- It was definitely a good thing that there was no canned laughter in the film, because that would have really detracted from the film as a whole.
- The lighting of the film was well-used, helping to create moods (such as the spooky atmosphere in the "Restless Night" scene) and to point out camera focus as well.
- Contemporary comedies just are not made like The Navigator was. There is less physicality in modern comedies, along with an entire host of differences.

-The first was the numerous "tricks of the trade" that they revealed in the third chapter on production design. Everything from matte backgrounds in Fight Club to the fake outdoor shots in Amistad and the process of doing them is fascinating. The most interesting part of it all are the miniatures that are finely crafted and painted only to be blown up in the name of special effects. My uncle who works in special effects used to tell me about working with them sometimes in the industry. After having seen some of the films that use miniatures I have to say that I think the miniature special effects come out looking better then the CGI ones.

-The section on improvised acting such as the case study we watched with Marlon Brando not handing back the glove in On the Waterfront. Degrees of ingenuity and thinking outside the box have always fascinated me.

1. The Navigator as Road Movie: Narrative. Although not on a real road, The Navigator, however, still has the characteristics of a road movie. Rollo Treadway and his love, Kathryn are on a journey without any clear goal. They encounter various random situations and grow closer together by overcoming these obstacles. This movie is also a romantic comedy. Because they realize that being on an abandoned ship together requires relying on each other, they grow to care about each other more and more.

- I really liked the profiling of the production design or set building of specific films, such as The Terminal. What I found myself wondering, though, after the description of The Terminal's fully functional airport terminal set, was a little more detail about the actual cost of the set, and what it was like to film on said set. As we were reading, we saw repeated statistics about just how much steel and work went in, but I thought the anecdote could have been taken further (the same for a few other film spotlights throughout the chapters).

- I also liked seeing how many films are constantly paying homage to the films that came before, or taking steps to avoid being categorized like previous films in the same genre, i.e., 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner in comparison to The Fifth Element.

- Finally, I enjoyed the chapter on acting tremendously. The explanation of what it is really like backstage on a film set was enlightening, as was the description of how film acting differed from theater acting. I found myself curious after I finished the chapter about how many directors plan their visual design around one specific actor, similar to Ross's question above. What happens if the actor in mind has a previous commitment? Does the director then rethink his or her entire film?

From chapter 3, Prince discusses in detail the role of digital effects and production design. In mentioning films such as Sin City, Jurrasic Park, and Zodiac, he emphasizes the visual impact (and success) of 3-d matting and effects. Why do some films, then, seem to skimp on the effects at the expense of the film's visual quality? Prince mentions Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow as a film that fails visually, but others such as The Golden Compass have been accused of the same.

From chapter 4, I am wondering to what extent actors are written into screenplays, or at least directors' visualizations of them. For example, how much of Vertigo would have been based upon Hitchcock's intent on using James Stewart as the lead actor? Would the film be different with a different actor, or does that much rely on the director? Is there variation?

2. Buster Keaton used wide-angle lenses in many scenes. What would happen if he used long focal lenses and tracking for a camera movement in the scene where the cannibals chased the main characters?
Would tension of the scene be heightened?

The comedy of the film is obviously visual, but relies heavily on understanding of social class and American society: in the beginning, Buster Keaton (privy to extroadinary wealth of ambiguous providence) has his driver literally drive him across the street. Is this comedic device used today? How has it changed?

Another gag relied greatly upon the camera being still. We watch from a distance as Rollo and Betsy run all about the ship looking for each other. Because of the careful framing the audience is aware of each character's relative positions and the separation that is always present between them.

-Richard Lee

2. The comedy of the film is very physical. Why do you think that movies made today do not have as much physical comedy in them? What causes the decrease in physicality?

-Cory Hershberger

My question is how did he not manage to make the transition from silent films to talkies? Many actors gained huge fame without ever talking such as Harpo Marxx, or Teller from Penn and Teller.