Post #12 4/28/09 "Earth" is a Scary Place

Recently released to theaters on Earth Day was Disneynature's first documentary "Earth." Showcasing the one year journeys of several animal families, namely the African Elephants, Polar Bears, and Humpback Whales, "Earth" gives an in depth analysis of different types of events that these animals face every day while capturing the beauty and essence of nature. So long these details sound peachy keen, and if you have seen the trailerthe scenes are stunning and adorable. However, there are some unfortunate events in nature that take place but are necessary to be filmed. In making this particular type documentary the director must include all of the realities of nature even if it requires shooting a caribou calf being killed and eaten by a wolf or a baby elephant wandering farther and farther away from its mother until it is lost.

Although "Earth" seems to capture some of our planet's most intimate moments and appears as a family friendly film, it drops the ball with a proper rating. According to Jsse Ellison in "Newsweek" he witnessed a child frightened by the scene of a wolf preying on a calf. I myself have not yet watched the movie but for a scene of that nature even giving some of the adults in the theater goosebumps, this docementary should not have been rated G. Sure this documentary may only have a very few scenes like the one just described but one bad scene can easily terrify a child. Just imagine a second grade class going to watch this movie as a field trip. Since the movie is rated G none of the adults would assume that there would be any graphic images. Most likely, only two teachers and a few parents would chaperone, so when that one scary part arrives the majority of the children would not have anyone to comfort them when they are overcame by fear.

In the words of University of Illinois professor, Barbara J. Wilson, states, "As many parents have learned, younger children were more likely to focus on the Tviolent behavior which is concrete and easy to see." With that said, children will be vulnerable and open during this violent scene and will most likely turn away a few seconds later instead of turning away so that they will miss the scene. To be safe, this movie should at least be rated PG. This way a situation like that would never occur, and parents would have to accompany their child to this movie and thus able to be there for their child during frightening scenes and to explain to them the reality of what they just observed. Although the directors meant no harm, there is no such thing as being too safe.

Here is more information on Professor Wilson's article on "Wrong Ratings."
http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article97.html

As for everything else, there seems to be no problem with the movie in general. It looks very interesting and must be spectacular.

Post #11 4/21/09 "Up" with the 3D?

Like the creative genius, Walt Disney, said himself, "We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths," I feel that 3D in movies is a useful technique for cinema's path of curiosity. With the recent release of "Monsters Vs. Aliens" and the upcoming and anticipated release of Disney and Pixar's new movie "Up" 3D has popped up into mainstream once again.

By enhancing the vision of the audience and offering an in depth view of the movie, 3D in movies is one step closer to connecting with the audience. However, some claim that 3D is one of the "Top 10 Movie Gimmicks." They feel that it is another way to boost ticket prices, and complain that all it does is give people headaches.

Aside from these 3D haters are those who claim 3D to be the next big thing. Namely Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of Dreamworks, said that "3-D is the future, but digital cinemas have to be in place first. " Although it is a plus that no one will be able to pirate any movies.

In my opinion, I feel that 3d is not the future of cinema, but a useful device to draw audiences into the movie. I can say that 3D is not going to be equivalent to the innovation of color in films. Its effects increase some of the audience's appeal depending on the movie, but the revival of this century year old practice just takes away your attention from the animation. It draws you away from the improvements in movements and caricatures, and one of its prime uses is to make the movie seem realistic. In addition, 3D is only useful in certain movies. For one thing, the purpose of animation is to make things seem magical and outlandish. If I wanted to see something realistic I would watch a regular movie with live people acting.

However, if the improvements in 3D technology help tell the story instead of showing several scenes in which portray the 3D effect, then it serves no purpose. In the case of "Up" I have had the opportunity to watch the first 45 minutes of "Up" and can say that 3D would definitely enhance the story and draw the audience even closer. In a film like this that is filled with action and the beautiful surroundings of an unknown environment you can feel the depth and the majesty of the scene. It also provides the audience with the chance to look through the eyes of the main character in emotional scenes. In addition the director Pete Docter, director of "Monsters' Inc.", was there to elaborate on the use of 3D and how it truly captures the essence of a film like "Up." I do not want to spoil anything so far but the majority of the scenes would benefit from 3D since they deal with flight and the outdoors.

Anyway I am all for 3D. It has is some defaults, but when it is used properly it definitely adds to some flare to the story. I'll just have to watch animated movies twice so I can admire the animation without the 3D too.

On a side note, so far "Up" is probably one of Disney/Pixar's funniest movies yet and will not disappoint anyone, and is a must see. Just be ready to shed some tears in the beginning. Here are some videos.









Up Exclusive Featurette

Forum Post #5 4/7/09 Cultureless Assumptions

A common misconception that the Chinese who live in a metropolitan area make about the Sichuanese migrants is that they are uncultured. Yet again, like Peter said, this is the usual assumption that people make about anyone who works in a rural area. Although people formulate bitter assumptions Peter goes on saying how the Sichuanese could care less about what others think of them, and how they just focus on the work that needs to be done or the work they can find. This way they can focus on making enough money to make ends meet. It is interesting to think how ignorant the urban population can be in assuming how those working in rural China are uncultured, since China itself and the majority of other countries have been built up from a agriculturally and rural location into a thriving world power. Sichuan itself used to be the most populous province in China and was home to more than 120 million people until it was split into two. The urban society forgets their own roots and are actually the ones who are more cultureless than those in Sichuan. Accustomed to a new age, urban citizens are not familiar with traditional Chinese styles of living that the Sichuan migrants continue to live with. The Sichuanese area is is developing very slowly compared ot other areas, but being in a rural area it holds some of the cultural customs that helped build China into what it is today.