Each part of the scene, while overlapping the others, represents a different idea and emotion: Pippin’s song symbolizes the sadness and futility of what the Steward’s son has been ordered to do, the Steward’s meal characterizes the unspoken brutality of how he’s ordered his son to his death, and the Steward’s son and knights are the physical representation of the sadness and brutality the other two characters are portraying. This juxtaposition of three different characters illustrating three different parts of the same scene inspired me to create my own three-way split scene, using one character singing as the “voice”, another character as the “unspoken idea”, and the third character as the physical representation of the two.

The resulting concept I and my partner want to film will also consist of three overlapping parts. In one, a girl will be sprawled across a pew, singing a capella “Keep Breathing”, a song by Ingrid Michaelson, which is about being apathetic. The idea behind this part is apathy, and it is the “voice” section of the scene. In the second, there will be a mid shot of a person standing straight, arms stiff at each side, and eyes shut as tight as possible in attempt to block out the argument between his or her parents standing behind him or her. The idea behind this part is that it is difficult to stay apathetic, and it is harder still to be ignorant of what’s going on around you; this will be the “unspoken idea” to the apathy. Finally, the third part will be of a girl standing in front of a bench in a public place who is crying hysterically, and although she is visibly and unmistakably upset, the people who walk by don’t care. Some even stop for a moment to watch her cry before walking away. This part of the film physically represents the idea that being apathetic to others and ignorant of what’s going on in the world results in others not caring about you in return, some to the point of disliking you for your actions (or lack thereof). Furthermore, the fact that each part of the film consist of different characters and settings show the idea that the dangers of being apathetic apply to everyone, in a multitude of situations.

For this assignment, I read two movie reviews of The Fifth Element, and was pleased to find that their praise of the film echoed my own. What the review from IMDB.COM remarked on extensively, for example, was how well the plotline was thought out and how everything tied back into the main concept without being too boring or predictable (Such a well thought-out plotline is not so common these days, in my opinion, as Hollywood blockbusters woo viewers more with their special effects and explosions than anything else). A scene that personally impresses me in the movie is when Leeloo, an alien girl, explains what happened to the four elements, which are being sought after by a bad guy as well as her, and while she does so, the movie switches between the scene of the bad guy discovering he doesn’t have the four elements that he thought he did, and Leeloo explaining the story to another character, a priest. The clever way the movie snaps between questions, answers, synonyms, and emotions is simply genius!

Another aspect of the film that both reviews remark on is the fact that for a movie produced in 1997, the special effects used are very well-integrated into the movie – meaning they enhance the scene, rather than distract from it – and that they’re pretty impressive for a film of the time (and are still impressive today, considering). The special effects are especially remarkable, because they allow the director to make the futuristic world believable to the viewer – a world with flying cars, flashing lights, chinese take-out “boats” that fly through the air, and skyscrapers that are literally scraping the sky. The review from FUTUREMOVIES.CO.UK captures the sentiment exactly when it says the movie is “a great visual spectacle” that entertains the viewer.

What I disagree with, however, is the FUTUREMOVIES.CO.UK review’s take on the second half of the movie. The review holds that the plot unravels when another character is introduced to the movie that is extremely – but purposefully – annoying (played by Chris Tucker). Furthermore, the review judges that the hotel setting of the space cruise the characters travel to is not as interesting as the setting in the first half of the film, in future New York City. And finally, the review claims that the explosions, the fighting, and an opera scene involving an alien singer are simply used as filler to take away from the plot-lessness of the film. I am in complete disagreement with this reviewer, and believe that these judgements on the film are more personal than they are constructive. For example, it’s a personal judgement whether or not Chris Tucker’s character is too annoying, as shown by the IMDB.COM review’s praise of the same character and his personality. The same can be said of the location of the film; it’s up to the viewer if he or she prefers the scenes in New York or on the space cruise ship. But finally, I have to say I’m honestly appalled at the review that disparages the opera scene with the alien singer, because it’s one of the most well-known and loved scenes of the movie, and can be found all over the internet (as I’ll show, when I stick the Youtube vid at the end of this post). And second, the fighting and explosion scenes continue to be full of witty repertoir and clever scene splicing just like in the beginning of the movie, so I can’t understand how the reviewer could like the first half of the film and not the second.

But then again, this is my all-time favourite movie, so perhaps I am a little biased. That being said, this movie deserves to be watched at least once by everyone. So, if you haven’t seen it- you should definitely check it out. I know you’ll enjoy it.

ARTICLES:

• “The Fifth Element (1997)”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119116/usercomments
• “The Fifth Element Movie Review (Film)”: http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=133

In terms of her films, I was really taken by her style in her Scene In short documentaries. Every shot was full of vibrant color and action, so the eye was always entertained, moving to take in every new scene. It was like eye candy! I especially enjoyed the video about Capital Hill, because it’s always interesting to see how people manage to dress up a boring suit in creative ways. The small excerpt from an interview with a Muslim convert was also very unique, because in today’s political world in America, the topic of Islam is a sensitive one, and seeing that a Muslim woman can be creative and express herself as well is refreshing. Overall, I enjoy Garcia’s style of filming in this Scene-In series.

The majority of the documentary is shot with the middle shot, showing the mother and father of the family from the waist up as they sit on the couch and talk to the camera. This serves to put them on an “equal” level with the viewer, and makes what they’re saying seem like something shared between concerned friends, rather than, for example, a complaint against the government. This also lends a sense of truthfulness and sincerity to what the couple is saying. Another shot that’s used in the documentary is the pan, as the autistic child runs around the corner from the living room into the kitchen, where his mother is trying to find information about health insurance on her laptop. At the same time, she’s talking about how confusing it is to be able to navigate these different options of health care and how difficult it is to understand which one is the best. The pan in this situation serves to show how her time is often occupied with being a mother to her children, leaving her with little time or concentration for the task of finding health insurance. It also shows that her children are active, and require more attention and care as they run around the house – again, leaving the mother with less time to find health insurance. In this instance, the shot the camera used served to emphasize the point the mother was making.

It was released in 1997 by director Luc Besson, and the cinematographer was Thierry Arbogast. The main characters of the movie are: Korben Dallas (played by Bruce Willis), who is a retired military officer; Mr. Zorg (played by Gary Oldman), who made a deal with the “Evil” coming to destroy the world to stay alive in exchange for aiding it; Leeloo (played by Milla Jovovich), who was engineered by an alien race to save the world every time the “Evil” comes around; Father Vito Cornelius (played by Ian Holm), who was “designated” by the alien race to guide Leeloo into saving the world when she appears; and Ruby Rhod (played by Chris Tucker), who is a highly-beloved and well-known radio talk show host that gets stuck with Korben Dallas.

The basic storyline of the movie is that every 5000 years, “Evil” comes into the universe and plans to eliminate everything that is alive in that universe. For this reason, the Mondoshawa, an alien race, engineered a being to combine with the four elements to create a weapon against this evil. This being therefore becomes the fifth element. However, as “Evil” enters our universe this time, it has made a deal with Mr. Zorg and his lackeys to aid it in its cause. As a result, the fifth element gets lost somewhere on Earth and falls into the hands of retired, barely-getting-by, cab driver Korben Dallas who’s just looking for a girlfriend since his wife left him. Korben Dallas gets sucked into this extravagant, ridiculous campaign to find the other four elements (which are specifically-engineered stones) along with the escaped fifth element, an unwanted priest, the priest’s sidekick, and a loud-mouthed talk show host reporting on the action. After much flying-car chase scenes, a trip to a cruise ship in space, an opera performed by an alien, a race to get to an ancient temple and actually figure out how the stones and the whole system work….they save the world. Naturally.

I fell in love with this movie when I first saw it as a kid, and I’ve never stopped. Every time I watch it, I find something else that I hadn’t noticed before that enriches the whole film. Luc Besson is truly a creative director who makes a film down to every little detail. I also love the whole idea of a future that’s so vibrant and the idea of cruises in space and alien races being able to “engineer” people as weapons. But aside from the action and scifi, there’s so much humor and creative cinematography in this movie that the viewer can’t help but comment on the cleverness of it all. It truly is a work of art, and I don’t think I’ll ever stop loving this movie.

The mood I chose for my photographs was ‘Structured’, since I am a business major and thought this related to business in a creative way. The original photo that I manipulated into this business card was of a tall bulding with interesting architecture, which connected to my mood in that it had taken a lot of planning to build that building; it was planned, organized, structured. Then, when I manipulated this image, I wanted to bend that structure that I had seen in the building so as to give a new perspective on the word. I found a filter on Photoshop that bent my photograph and the building in a way that made it appear as if the viewer is standing underneath the building, and not next to it, as I had when I took the photo. Now, though there is still structure to the image, the perspective has been changed and the viewer watches the structure (the building) sore up into the clouds. This idea of having the building extend up into the clouds was also interesting to me, because it was similar to the idea of having a goal, something that is important to reach once you have a structured plan. Finally, the business card is divided into little tiles that seem to be coming apart from the card is to remind the viewer that the card, too, is structured and made up of a bunch of little things that come together to form something else.

“Waiting Game for Sudanese Child” by Kevin Carter

Comparing this photograph to “Defending the Barricade”, I think the most immediate difference is the entirely different moods that the photographs depict: where Balilty’s photograph was about defiance and belief in oneself, Carter’s photo is pure helplessness and despair. In essence, this makes the subject matter of the two photographs almost opposite, in terms of the message they send. In this photograph, it is hard not to sympathize with the child, whose position on the ground is almost a submissive bow, her forehead pressed into the dirt in frustration and weakness. Furthermore, the landscape around the child is barren, devoid of vegetation and animal life (apart from the vulture), and in doing so, gives meaning to the child’s wordless plight; the poor Sudanese child can get no food or water from the surroundings shown in the photo. The only other life present in the photo is the vulture, sitting patiently in the background and calmly watching the child, a silent omen of impending death. This only adds to the despair emanating from the photo. Furthermore, the photograph depicted here is mostly washed-out colors, with the only dark spots being the Sudanese child and the vulture. This draws the viewer’s eye between the two dark spots, and as the viewer must choose between looking at the vulture or looking at the child first, he/she understands the photograph as the struggle it is: vulture versus child. Something similar happens in Balilty’s photograph, in that the viewer sees the larger portion of the photo taken up by the approaching, dark-clad men first, and then the lone woman trying to push them all back; in this way, the viewer understands that Balilty’s photograph is the many versus the one. In addition, the washed-out colors used in Carter’s photograph send a similar message of bleakness that Balilty’s does with the dull colors he used.

When I sat at the Ethics Center, this very photo came up as one of the questions: would I have taken the photo and left the scene untouched, or would I have helped the child instead of taking the photo? I chose the second alternative, because I decided saving life was more important to me than a photograph. I was disappointed to learn that the photograph in question, Kevin Carter, had not. But the page went on to say that after having decided to only take the photo and leave, Carter was wracked with guilt and regret for not having helped the child among other things, and he committed suicide 3 months later. The power that this decision had on this man’s life astonished me, and made me see the importance of ethics in photography in a new and more serious light. The movies always depict reporters and journalists as these foolhardy men and women without consciences. I can see now that this view couldn’t be further from the truth, especially for these Pulitzer-winning photographers, who take their photographs in the darkest corners of the earth and are forced to leave things the way they are, if the world is to see these photos and learn from them.

Another decision I made was whether or not to reveal to the world that a famous athlete had contracted AIDS. But while I do respect every individual’s right to privacy and would never want my own to be violated, I easily picked the choice to publish an article about this man, deciding that all athletes willing consign themselves to be public figures all their lives. The next page had a video from the actual athlete, telling a press conference that he objected to this violation of his privacy and describing how he thought it would affect his daughter. I hadn’t even considered anyone else in my decision besides this one athlete – or even the fact that he’d retired from competition many years before the news about his AIDS surfaced. Having to face this other ethical decision also changed the way I looked at people with careers in the media, and how they must look at all these factors of one story before bringing it to press. It is a much harder decision to make when so many more people are affected by telling the world about one.