Final post

Coming into this class, I was expecting movies like most people. It’s partially why I wanted to take it for my first May Term class. However, I thought the films we would be watching would be more varied and not just based off the Middle Ages. I thought the medieval films would be boring and I was going to regret taking the class. I was pleasantly surprised that not all the movies were boring and that I actually liked quite a few.

I was one of those people who associated basic themes, like monarchy, with the Middle Ages. I ignorantly didn’t factor in how big of an impact religion would have in medieval themes, so I’m glad I now know about all the different monks and friars that played big roles in a lot of the films we watched. I’m also glad that I know what is considered medievalism in a film. When I first watched How to Train Your Dragon (2010), I didn’t know that Vikings didn’t have horned helmets, which is one of the main things people associate with them. After watching it with friends for a double feature, I was annoyingly pointing out the misconception.

The readings from the text book were much more like what I was expecting; the literal history of Hollywood. I also wasn’t expecting to learn about films from other countries, but it was interesting to see how production developed within different circumstances. I think knowing how film was developed in different countries helped not judge the movies we watched in class too soon. Without the readings, I probably would have had much more negative opinions on some of the foreign films. Although I have a new found respect for the movie industry, I still have my favorites. I don’t think I can ever get into medieval movies just for fun, but at least I know I have a basic knowledge if I were to watch more in the future.

Open Post 2: Textbook Readings

It is probably safe to say that most people hate reading from a textbook. I find readings from any class boring, but I know that they’re obviously necessary to understand the discussions. With the first two chapters for this class’s readings, I didn’t read as in depth as I should of. However, when the book started discussing specific regions and directors and how they used the then new technology, I started to actually pay attention to what I was reading and surprisingly found it more intriguing than I thought I would.  Eventually, I went back to read what I didn’t fully understand.

I knew the basis of the beginning of film, like the story of the Lumiere Brothers and their short train film that scared the audience. I didn’t know, though, that Le Prince was about to make a major break-through in the film industry just to go missing without a trace. It reminded me of all the conspiracy theories that I’m constantly seeing online and I wanted to know more. It’s also crazy how much actually went on in relation to the film industry, and you can just get a grasp for this by scanning the timeline in the front of the book. Clearly, there’s going to be a lot of dates because it has been over 100 years since the very beginning, but it is still very interesting to see how much those involved actually accomplished. As well, I didn’t realize how much people used films and movies as a distraction during war times. Normally, I watch movies to avoid my obligations and never thought about how generations before did the same thing just under different circumstances. Now since finishing the readings, I’m definitely noticing some of the advancements that were discussed in movies I’ve watched in my free time. I didn’t think about how far the film industry actually came until I really read the textbook.

Critique on How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

When I first saw How to Train Your Dragon, it was around when it first released. At that time, I didn’t care what time period it was about or whether it was accurate or not. I just knew it was about vikings and dragons, and that is all that mattered to me at the time. Now having to watch it critically, I realize how important some of the aspects I didn’t care about are. This movie could possibly be the first time kids are introduced to vikings, and with that they will come to associate things from the movie with the vikings and the Middle Ages. Some aspects are correct, like that they were fighting people, albeit not actually with dragons. However, some may also associate having helmets with horns as a viking normality. We know from our class discussion that those helmets are inaccurate, yet it is one of the first things most people think of when it comes to vikings. It is kind of weird to think that a movie can impact someones knowledge without really meaning to.

I also think the animation in the movie is cool. You can see the depth of the animated characters that we are use to today. It is the kind of animation used with the more recent animated movies like Tangled (2010) and Frozen (2013). It’s also interesting how many action sequences are in this movie. Obviously, they probably used a computer during the animation process, but image if a computer wasn’t used for these scenes specifically. I don’t think the animators would have thought about including them at all.

This movie also shows a common theme that has been seen in a lot of the movies we watched; that everybody can get along. Instead of different religions like that of The Crusades (1935), its peace among the vikings and the dragons. Its interesting how that theme continues to present itself over time.

Open Post #1

Many of the movies we have watched in the past few weeks have left me a little confused, for lack of better words. Alexander Nevsky, for example, was hard to follow. It might just be because it was in Russian, making it very easy to miss a detail in the dialog if you look away from the screen, or it’s because Eisenstein jumps right into the action. The same goes for The Passion of Joan of Arc; I was caught a little off guard. It was difficult to follow if you didn’t have background to the story. In The Vikings, a major point in the opening scenes had to do with Eric being Ragnor’s son. Yet, they never revealed it until almost the very end and it was essentially only Morgana and Einar who knew. I would have liked to see how Eric would have reacted to the news, knowing he killed Ragnor. Did that end battle essentially make Eric king of the vikings and England? The Seventh Seal was somewhat interesting. It  was confusing at first when they showed Jof and Mia, as I didn’t know what to expect from their characters. However, after our discussion, it made a little more sense that they were there to balance out the existential crisis of Antonius Block. I found it interesting that they started the movie off with the biblical quote about the seven angels, and then ended with the dance of death that included seven characters. Whether it was intentional or not, it seemed like a clever detail to tie the movie together. I didn’t think I would like medieval stories initially. Though now, it is interesting to see how similar they are, in terms of costumes, sets, and even story lines.  As unnecessarily confusing these movies seem to be for me, I am looking forward to seeing how else the Middle Ages are portrayed in the films to come.

Comparison: The Crusades & The Adventures of Robin Hood

The Crusades (1935) and The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) were hits within our classroom in their own right; the first introducing us to our first sound film and the latter showing us a technicolor film. While each film showed us a different advancement, they both had very similar aspects in reference to the 9 characteristics of film history. Inserting romance is one of the most obvious characteristics in both films. As discussed in class, King Richard didn’t have Berengaria with him on the crusade. They used Berengaria as a way to attract the female audience of the 1930’s. It is the same for The Adventures of Robin Hood, where Lady Marian was one of the only women in the entirety of the film.  Directors Michael Curtiz and William Keighley used these cliché female leads as a way to insert romance to the history of the story and attract the female audience. Both films clearly simplify the stories to make them fit within the films. You can see this in both films when they display a screen with writing that explains what has lead up to a scene, or what happened in between to events. As well, these films payed attention to the periods detail. In one of the opening scene of The Crusades, we see King Phillip of France wearing a long, velvet cape with the black spots near the collar. When I think of medieval royalty, those capes are one of the first objects I think of. The Adventures of Robin Hood used color to their advantage with this characteristic. The royalty, like Prince John, wear elaborate colors while Robin and crew wear muted colors. Royals most likely wore brighter clothes that were made specifically for those wealthy, so the film pays close attention to that detail. It is also interesting how each film portrays King Richard and Prince John. John was made out to be villainous in both films. Richard had a little character development in The Crusades, going from sort of an arrogant antihero to the hero everybody wanted him to be by saving his wife. In The Adventures of Robin Hood, he was already thought of the countries hero. Although being three years apart, and having many advancements distinguish them, these films are still very similar.