Tài liệu miễn phí Sân khấu điện ảnh
Download Tài liệu học tập miễn phí Sân khấu điện ảnh
Workman’s background as a trailer-maker convinced him that “you could capture
the essence of a memorable film in as little as a single shot—if you chose the shot
carefully enough.” (Birchard, 91) His assemblage of these “essences” places images
together for broad generic or thematic reasons, as well as on the basis of simple physical
resemblance (similar shots of darting eyes, people popping bubble-gum) or gag value
(one clip finishing a sentence from another). But the only real meaning-based common
denominator of the transitions throughout the montage is the fact...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
By the year of this Oscar montage, 1990, the cultures of home video viewing and
movie taping had taken hold, and while the widespread development of the domestic
cinephile would await the phenomenon of DVD collecting as characterized by Barbara
Klinger, the accumulative spectatorial pleasures of the Workman montages foretell the
dynamic of the contemporary movie collector. According to Klinger this is “a dynamic
that occludes the relations the collection has to the outside world, particularly to the
social and material conditions of mass production.” (Klinger, 147) Like the collector,...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
This discourse participates, in turn, in a broader discourse of accumulation, the
irrevocable flow of advertisements interwoven with the Oscar show itself. While these
high-priced advertisements—ads during Oscar telecasts, like Superbowl ads, are often
themselves celebrated as elaborately produced showcases—are for a variety of products,
their metonymic linkage to the film history montage overdetermines the montage’s
celebration of spectatorship as accumulation and consumption.
Accumulation is an endemic feature of the cultural landscape of the information
society, according to Scott Lash,...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Naturally, during the years I’m considering,American films have changed
enormously.They have become sexier,more profane, and more violent; fart
jokes and kung fu are everywhere. The industry has metamorphosed into
a corporate behemoth, while new technologies have transformed produc-
tion and exhibition. And, to come to my central concern, over the same
decades some novel strategies of plot and style have risen to prominence.
Behind these strategies, however, stand principles that are firmly rooted in
the history of studio moviemaking. In the two essays that follow I consider
how artistic change and continuity coexist in modern American film....
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
To track the dynamic of continuity and change since 1960, it’s conventional
to start by looking at the film industry. As usually recounted, the indus-
try’s fortunes over the period display a darkness-to-dawn arc that might
satisfy a scriptwriter of epic inclinations.We now have several nuanced ver-
sions of this story, so I’ll merely point out some major turning points.
1 The
appendix provides a year-by-year chronology.
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
At the start
of the 1960s, the studios were providing lucrative prime-time television pro-
gramming, but theatrical moviemaking was not a great business to be in.
Attendance was falling sharply. Road show pictures like The Sound of Mu-
sic (1965), playing a single screen for months on end,were for a while bright
spots on the ledger, but the cycle of epic road show productions, already over-
stretched with the failure of Cleopatra (1963) and Mutiny on the Bounty
(1965), crashed at the end of the decade. Soon studios faced huge losses and
were taken over by conglomerates bearing mysterious names like Gulf +
Western (which bought Paramount in 1966)...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Yet by 1980 the industry was earning stupendous profits.What changed?
For one thing, a tax scheme sponsored by the Nixon administration allowed
the producers to write off hundreds of millions of dollars in past and future
investments. The studios also found ways to integrate their business more
firmly with broadcast television, cable, the record industry, and home video.
3
Just as important, a new generation of filmmakers emerged. Some, model-
ing their work on the more personal European cinema they admired, pro-
duced Americanized art films like Five Easy Pieces (1970) and Mean Streets
(1973). ...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
By the early 1980s, mer-
chandising was added to the mix, so tie-ins with fast-food chains, automo-
bile companies, and lines of toys and apparel could keep selling the movie.
Scripts that lent themselves to mass marketing had a better chance of being
acquired, and screenwriters were encouraged to incorporate special effects.
Unlike studio-era productions, the megapicture could lead a robust afterlife
on a soundtrack album, on cable channels, and on videocassette. By the
mid-1980s, once overseas income and ancillaries were reckoned in, few films
lost money....
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Under the U.S. Constitution, the censors had every right to wield their scissors at whatever
offended their eyes. In 1915, in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio,
the Supreme Court ruled that the movies were not a revolutionary new communications
medium but “a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other
spectacles, not to be regarded … as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public
opinion.”1
Being a commercial enterprise, motion pictures could be regulated and run out of
town by cities, states, and, by logical and ominous extension,...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Picture Association of America, the MPAA), and appointed as its president Will H. Hays,
the former postmaster general in the administration of Warren G. Harding and an upright,
teetotaling elder of the Presbyterian Church. Hays put the industry on a solid financial basis
with his contacts on Wall Street, kept federal censors at bay with his influence in
Washington, D.C, and placated the moral guardians with soothing words and Protestant
probity. In June 1927, in his most reassuring public relations gesture, Hays promulgated a
prim list of cautionary injunctions for motion picture content called the “Don’ts and Be
Carefuls” and...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
To placate the resurgent opposition, the MPPDA promised to abide by a set of guidelines
more extensive and restrictive than the simple nostrums enshrined in the “Don’ts and Be
Carefuls.” The document that articulated the new commitment to screen morality was the
Production Code. Written in 1929 by Martin J. Quigley, an influential editor and
publisher of motion picture trade periodicals, and Reverend Daniel A. Lord, a
multitalented Jesuit who first lent his spiritual expertise to Hollywood as the Catholic
advisor to Cecil B. DeMille’s biblical epic The King of Kings (1927), the Production
Code was the...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
The document crafted by Quigley and Lord contained two sections, a philosophical
justification titled “General Principles,” followed by a list of prohibitions titled “Working
Principles.” The first section of the original Production Code was later titled “Reasons
Supporting the Code.” The document that later became known as “the Code” was a
summary of the original prepared at the direction of Will H. Hays, because, said Lord, “in
the abbreviated form it was a more workable and convenient set of instructions.”2
The first section laid out a theory of media that recognized the cathartic and escapist
function of...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
The first section laid out a theory of media that recognized the cathartic and escapist
function of motion picture entertainment but deplored the photoplay that “tends to degrade
human beings.” Italicized references to “moral importance” and capitalized imperatives that
“the motion picture has special Moral obligations” animate every line of the text. A key
passage asserts the profound moral obligation filmmakers have toward young people
because “the mobility, popularity, accessibility, emotional appeal, vividness, straight-
forward presentation of fact in the films makes for intimate contact of a larger audience and
greater emotional appeal.” ...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Hollywood submitted to the rigorous oversight of the PCA because the alternatives to
“censorship at the source” were far worse. After all, censorship had been a fact of
creative and commercial life for motion picture producers from the very birth of the
medium, when even the modest osculations of the middle-aged lovebirds in Thomas
Edison’s The Kiss (1896) scandalized cadres of (literally) Victorian ministers, matrons,
and other variants of a sour-faced species known as the “bluenose.” By common consent,
the artistically vital and culturally disruptive spectacle of the motion picture—an
entertainment accessible to all levels of society and degrees...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
I hate the fact that fans who want to do what readers have always done are expected to
play in the same system as all these hotshot agents and lawyers. It's just stupid to say that
an elementary school classroom should have to talk to a lawyer at a giant global publisher
before they put on a play based on one of my books. It's ridiculous to say that people
who want to “loan” their electronic copy of my book to a friend need to get a license to do
so. Loaning books has been around longer than any publisher on Earth, and it's a...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Copyright laws are increasingly passed without democratic debate or scrutiny. In Great
Britain, where I live, Parliament recently passed the Digital Economy Act, a complex copy-
right law that allows corporate giants to disconnect whole families from the Internet if any-
one in the house is accused (without proof) of copyright infringement; it also creates a
“Great Firewall of Britain” that is used to censor any site that record companies and movie
studios don't like. This law was passed in 2010 without any serious public debate in Par-
liament, rushed through using a dirty process through which our elected representatives
betrayed the public to give a huge,...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Most of my previous books have been released under a slightly different Creative Com-
mons license, one that allowed for derivative works (that is, new creative works based on
this one). Keen observers will have already noticed that this book is licensed “NoDerivs”
-- that is, you can't make remixes without permission.
A word of explanation for this shift is in order. When I first started publishing under Creative
Commons licenses, I had to carefully explain this to my editor and publisher at Tor Books.
They were incredibly forward-looking and gave me permission to release the first-ever
novel licensed under CC -- my debut novel Down and...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
My foreign rights agents are the inestimable Danny and Heather Baror, and collectively
they have sold my books into literally dozens of countries and languages, helping to bring
my work to places I couldn't have dreamed of reaching on my own. They subcontract for
my agent Russell Galen, another inestimable personage without whom I would not have
attained anything like the dizzy heights that I enjoy today. They attend large book fairs
in cities like Frankfurt and Bologna in order to sell the foreign rights to my books, often
negotiating with one of a few English-speakers at a foreign press, who then goes back and
justifies her...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
The point is that this is nothing like my initial Creative Commons discussion with Tor. That
was me sitting down and making the case to editors I've known for years (my editor at Tor,
Patrick Nielsen Hayden, has known me since I was 17). My foreign rights are sold by a
subcontractor of my representative to a representative of a press I've often never heard
of, who then has to explain my publishing philosophy to people I've never met, using a
language I don't speak.
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Danny and Heather have asked -- not demanded, asked! -- that I consider publishing books
under a NoDerivs license, so that I can consult with them before I authorize translations
of my books. They want to be able to talk to potential foreign publishers about how this
stuff works, to give me time to talk with them, to ease them into the idea, and to have the
kind of extended conversation that helped me lead Tor into their decision all those years
ago.
And I agreed. Free/open culture is something publishers need to be led to, not forced into.
It's a long conversation that often runs contrary...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Every time I put a book online for free, I get emails from readers who want to send me
donations for the book. I appreciate their generous spirit, but I'm not interested in cash do-
nations, because my publishers are really important to me. They contribute immeasurably
to the book, improving it, introducing it to audiences I could never reach, helping me do
more with my work. I have no desire to cut them out of the loop.
But there has to be some good way to turn that generosity to good use, and I think I've
found it....
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Here's the deal: there are lots of teachers and librarians who'd love to get hard-copies of
this book into their kids' hands, but don't have the budget for it (teachers in the US spend
around $1,200 out of pocket each on classroom supplies that their budgets won't stretch to
cover, which is why I sponsor a classroom at Ivanhoe Elementary in my old neighborhood
in Los Angeles; you can adopt a class yourself at ‹http://www.adoptaclassroom.org/›.
There are generous people who want to send some cash my way to thank me for the free
ebooks....
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
If you enjoyed the electronic edition of Pirate Cinema and you want to donate something
to say thanks, go to ‹http://craphound.com/pc/donate/› and find a teacher or librarian you want to
support. Then go to Amazon, BN.com, or your favorite electronic bookseller and order a
copy to the classroom, then email a copy of the receipt (feel free to delete your address
and other personal info first!) to ‹freepiratecinema@gmail.com› so that Olga can mark that copy as
sent. If you don't want to be publicly acknowledged for your generosity, let us know and
we'll keep you anonymous, otherwise we'll thank you on the donate page.
I've done this...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
I will never forget the day my family got cut off from the Internet. I was hiding in my room
as I usually did after school let out, holed up with a laptop I'd bought third-hand and that I
nursed to health with parts from here and there and a lot of cursing and sweat.
But that day, my little lappie was humming along, and I was humming with it, because I
was about to take away Scot Colford's virginity.
You know Scot Colford, of course. They've been watching him on telly and at the cinema
since my mum was a girl, and he'd been dead...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
You probably didn't know that Scot and Monalisa did a love-scene together, did you? It was
over fifty years ago, when they were both teen heart-throbs, and they were co-stars in a
genuinely terrible straight-to-net film called No Hope, about a pair of clean cut youngsters
who fall in love despite their class differences. It was a real weeper, and the supporting
appearances in roles as dad, mum, best mate, priest, teacher, etc, were so forgettable that
they could probably be used as treatment for erasing traumatic memories.
But Scot and Monalisa, they had chemistry (and truth be told, Monalisa had geography,
too -- hills and valleys...
8/30/2018 2:40:11 AM +00:00
Though there exists a body of feminist film making in Hindi cinema, the leading lady of Hindi films has more or
less played defined roles which conform to the values upheld by Indian society. Women in Bollywood have been
uni-dimensional characters, who are good or bad, white or black. There are no shades of grey. This dichotomy
was reinforced in popular films which distinguished between the heroine and the vamp, the wife and the other
woman. Films have also been inspired to a large extent from religion and mythology whereby women characters
were seen as the epitome of virtue and...
8/30/2018 2:39:55 AM +00:00
How real are the women characters in Hindi films? This is something to debate about because values, ideals,
principles; morals have dominated the frame-work in which these films are placed. Thus, women rather than
being depicted as normal human beings are elevated to a higher position of being ideal who can commit no
wrong. Their grievances, desires, ambitions, feelings, perspectives are completely missing from the scene. They
are really portrayed as the „other‟ because they are shown as not belonging to this real and worldly life. For eg:
Abhimaan (1973) begins with premise of the wife (Jaya Bachchan)...
8/30/2018 2:39:55 AM +00:00
Bollywood heroines have mostly been homely, content to stay happily ever after in the institution of marriage
even if educated and keen to carve and identity of one‟s own. Where are the women building careers and
working professionally? They have been almost silenced. Shahla Raza (2003) talks about how Hindi cinema in
the seventies had women in different working roles (Jaya Bachchan as a knife sharpener in 'Zanjeer' and a
singer in 'Abhimaan', Hema Malini as a village tonga (horse carriage) driver in 'Sholay' and the general
manager of a company in 'Trishul', Rakhee as corporate secretary in...
8/30/2018 2:39:55 AM +00:00
In an era of information overload, it is not too radical to expect some social consciousness from the cinema
medium. All this while, there has been discussion about media‟s responsibility to the society. So why cinema
should be engaged only with creating leisure for its audience and not make them think critically? Popular
rhetoric and culture need to be challenged and cinema can do it effectively if it exhibits some sensitivity to
gender issues. This is because Hindi films now enjoy a huge international market in many South Asian and
Western countries. Thereby, operating in a...
8/30/2018 2:39:55 AM +00:00
The narratives of Hindi cinema have undoubtedly been male dominated and male centric. Themes have been
explored from the male audience‟s point of view. The heroine is always secondary to the hero. Her role is
charted out in context of any male character which is central to the script. It may be the hero, the villain, the
father, the boss, an elderly male figure etc. She is devoid of any independent existence and her journey
throughout the film is explored in relation to the male character. This kind of straight-jacketing limits the
women‟s role to providing glamour, relief, respite and...
8/30/2018 2:39:55 AM +00:00