PhoenixBurd
New Member
I understand what you're saying, because context provides a lot of understanding about cultural and social ideologies. For example, the ways in which contemporary culture is desensitised to things which in the past were considered controversial. In the context of my research however, I am looking exclusively at the films, and contrasting how the directors approach the films in their own ways, and what they bring to each film. Technology definitely develops - therefore expanding what films can do (Avatar), new actors bring new dimensions to film (namely Dumbledore), and new ideas from directors (such as Cuaron vs. Columbus) produce different aesthetics. While it is easy to incorporate the books in a textual analysis of the films; my focus is purely on the films. So, in saying all of this: I argue that Columbus' film does not have the same depth as Cuaron's film, through the cinematic techniques they each employ. For example, the use of the camera and space, editing, cinematography etc, which are all aspects of mise-en-scene. However, this is of course only one example that I am sharing in this forum.Wow, nice. I understand what your saying, but you have to take into account the context of the times that led to the different films. In a sense the first and second are completely different films to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7ths... because of different technology, actors and ideas. I would agree on the whole space thing to an extent, but take into account what the movies were trying to portray - two different harry potter years with very different 'feels' about them. I wouldn't necessarily say one actor is doing something better, or more effectively.
A good but hard choice here! Well done so far.
Thanks for your support too!