Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Goodfellas in High School? Well, probably not...
2-8-08
The opening two minutes of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas is perhaps one of the most shocking and brilliantly filmed pieces of cinema of the twentieth century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBohe2dezjM&feature=related
The film starts with a simple black background, with white credits. The credits roll from right to left, accompanied by traffic sounds, evoking the image of a car on the highway before the actual scene begins. The white on black credits are deceptively simple. While this movie appears fast-paced, the white and black imagery connotes a simple morality and journalistic reporting of the truth. The final opening message of “This film is based on a true story” adds to the initial impression of journalistic integrity.
The opening shot is a slow zoom onto a Pontiac GTO driving down a country highway at night. The shot seems to be from a car passing the GTO. As the camera draws next to the GTO, however, the shot cuts to a 3 person shot of the interior of the car. We are now inside the GTO, almost directly in front of the driver, played by Ray Liotta. Robert Deniro is half-asleep in the passenger seat, and Joe Pesci is looking out the window in the back. There is a bumping noise in the car, and the three characters exchange some low dialog, almost inaudible. The only very clear line is from Pesci, stating that the driver should pull over so they can investigate what is wrong with the car.
The next shot is an establishing shot of the three men standing behind the vehicle. Liotta is holding the car keys, Deniro seems to be holding a shovel, and Pesci is grasping something under his jacket. What is most interesting about this shot is the lighting. The three men are bathed in the red taillights of the car, and the rest of the setting is the darkness of the nighttime. This lighting is obviously symbolic – the three men covered in red and standing in darkness indicates evil and sin. The camera slow zooms onto Deniro and pans across the three men, and then zooms in on the trunk, from which the bumping noise is emanating. When Liotta pops the trunk, we see a bloody man wrapped in bloody white fabric, and he is brilliantly lit by the bright white trunk light. Each of the three characters steps into this light, and his role in the movie is “brought to light” by his actions against the man in the trunk.
Pesci swears and brutally stabs the man with a large butcher knife he had in his belt. His character is immediately established as psychotic and unstable.
Deniro calmly and coolly then steps up to the trunk and shoots the bloody man four times. While Deniro is also murderous, he is dispassionate and businesslike.
Liotta then walks back to the trunk and closes it. The camera zooms in on his face, and his character is established as the narrator of the film as Liotta begins voice over, with the famous line “As far back as I could remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” Tony Bennett's "Rags to Riches" swells festively in the soundtrack.
We then return to the black screen, this time with the title credit of “Goodfellas”, but this time the text is written in red. The “black and white” reality of the opening credits has been changed, and characterization has been made. We have seen the fellows that this movie will portray, and they are certainly not “Good”; the red letters indicate the blood-stained crimes they have committed.
While it is probably not going to be acceptable to teach this particular scene in a high school setting, this sort of film-making perfectly illustrates why it is so important to teach film to students. The “literary terms” of characterization, symbolism, point-of-view, and narrative are all utilized in the first two minutes of this film. And if we want to connect the concepts we teach in class to a what students would consider a “real-world” medium, there is no more effective means of doing that than film. I often tell my students that great directors – like Scorsese and Michael Mann and Stanley Kubrick – use film in the same manner that writers like Hemingway or Fitzgerald use the blank page. Every scene, every image, every shot is carefully planned, and the visual fabric of the film emphasizes the narrative and thematic structure of the story itself.
The opening two minutes of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas is perhaps one of the most shocking and brilliantly filmed pieces of cinema of the twentieth century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBohe2dezjM&feature=related
The film starts with a simple black background, with white credits. The credits roll from right to left, accompanied by traffic sounds, evoking the image of a car on the highway before the actual scene begins. The white on black credits are deceptively simple. While this movie appears fast-paced, the white and black imagery connotes a simple morality and journalistic reporting of the truth. The final opening message of “This film is based on a true story” adds to the initial impression of journalistic integrity.
The opening shot is a slow zoom onto a Pontiac GTO driving down a country highway at night. The shot seems to be from a car passing the GTO. As the camera draws next to the GTO, however, the shot cuts to a 3 person shot of the interior of the car. We are now inside the GTO, almost directly in front of the driver, played by Ray Liotta. Robert Deniro is half-asleep in the passenger seat, and Joe Pesci is looking out the window in the back. There is a bumping noise in the car, and the three characters exchange some low dialog, almost inaudible. The only very clear line is from Pesci, stating that the driver should pull over so they can investigate what is wrong with the car.
The next shot is an establishing shot of the three men standing behind the vehicle. Liotta is holding the car keys, Deniro seems to be holding a shovel, and Pesci is grasping something under his jacket. What is most interesting about this shot is the lighting. The three men are bathed in the red taillights of the car, and the rest of the setting is the darkness of the nighttime. This lighting is obviously symbolic – the three men covered in red and standing in darkness indicates evil and sin. The camera slow zooms onto Deniro and pans across the three men, and then zooms in on the trunk, from which the bumping noise is emanating. When Liotta pops the trunk, we see a bloody man wrapped in bloody white fabric, and he is brilliantly lit by the bright white trunk light. Each of the three characters steps into this light, and his role in the movie is “brought to light” by his actions against the man in the trunk.
Pesci swears and brutally stabs the man with a large butcher knife he had in his belt. His character is immediately established as psychotic and unstable.
Deniro calmly and coolly then steps up to the trunk and shoots the bloody man four times. While Deniro is also murderous, he is dispassionate and businesslike.
Liotta then walks back to the trunk and closes it. The camera zooms in on his face, and his character is established as the narrator of the film as Liotta begins voice over, with the famous line “As far back as I could remember, I always wanted to be a gangster.” Tony Bennett's "Rags to Riches" swells festively in the soundtrack.
We then return to the black screen, this time with the title credit of “Goodfellas”, but this time the text is written in red. The “black and white” reality of the opening credits has been changed, and characterization has been made. We have seen the fellows that this movie will portray, and they are certainly not “Good”; the red letters indicate the blood-stained crimes they have committed.
While it is probably not going to be acceptable to teach this particular scene in a high school setting, this sort of film-making perfectly illustrates why it is so important to teach film to students. The “literary terms” of characterization, symbolism, point-of-view, and narrative are all utilized in the first two minutes of this film. And if we want to connect the concepts we teach in class to a what students would consider a “real-world” medium, there is no more effective means of doing that than film. I often tell my students that great directors – like Scorsese and Michael Mann and Stanley Kubrick – use film in the same manner that writers like Hemingway or Fitzgerald use the blank page. Every scene, every image, every shot is carefully planned, and the visual fabric of the film emphasizes the narrative and thematic structure of the story itself.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
5472 2-1-09
A rationale for the teaching of media, film, and television studies in a secondary education classroom.
Before we discuss the merits of multi-media curriculum in the secondary classroom in general, and the English class in particular, I think it’s important to identify the skills which we hope a high school student will possess when he graduates, and are typically addressed in an English class:
1.) An ability to derive meaning from a complex text, and the ability to critically think about and respond to this same text. (This is the fundamental motivation behind the study of literature).
2.) The ability to articulately communicate complex ideas through both the written and spoken word. (This is the fundamental motivation behind composition and speech classes).
3.) A complete understanding of the motivation of voice, point-of-view, audience, and purpose when contemplating a “literary” work.
I personally believe that Shakespeare’s plays can stand on their own merits, and should be studied, whether or not he helps me attain the two above goals. I also think that a working knowledge of iambic pentameter and a healthy loathing of the passive voice are essential qualities in a complete human being; however, these are not really the reasons I teach. I remain aware that most of my students will never need to possess the knowledge that Gatsby’s real name was James Gatz, or that Othello strangled Desdemona, or that Langston Hughes thought the soul of a black man could be suitably compared to a river. Once they leave my classroom, each of those choice tidbits of knowledge (so dear to me!) are next to useless to any contributing member of modern society. But the three goals I mentioned above are ABSOLUTELY required in a modern society. (Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is hard ought to read a mortgage agreement).
So, where are my students most likely to encounter a complex text which requires a critical response? Will their lives outside of school involve laborious readings of Victorian novels? Or will they be more likely to need to ponder the layered meanings of an attorney’s e-mail? Or the diatribe of an articulate and erudite political commentator?
When my students communicate through the written word, will they be writing five paragraph essays? Or will they be writing e-mails to their congressman, editorial staff, or employer? When they need articulate spoken language, will they be speaking aloud to a group of students? Or will they be leaving voicemails for clients, tele-conferencing, or presenting a PowerPoint?
When they are presented with a work, wherein it is necessary to understand the point of view, audience, or purpose, what is the likelihood they’ll be reading an essay by some pundit? What is the likelihood they’ll be watching a political speech on Youtube? Or just watching a standard news program? What is the likelihood they’ll be watching a Scorsese film?
The idea of a “return to basics” in education is just short of ludicrous. While I agree that a fundamental grasp of grammar, spelling, and punctuation are necessary, neglecting electronic literacy in the 21st century is tantamount to asking our students to use quill pens and inkwells. We live in a world of Web 2.0. We live in a world of television and film. The fundamental way in which the modern student will experience literacy in his lifetime is in front of a computer or television or movie screen. To train a student to read ONLY books and write ONLY essays is the equivalent to preparing her for a job in a buggy whip factory.
I mean, seriously, you are reading this on a blog. Mightn’t it be logical to teach our students the same kinds of skills we utilize daily?
Before we discuss the merits of multi-media curriculum in the secondary classroom in general, and the English class in particular, I think it’s important to identify the skills which we hope a high school student will possess when he graduates, and are typically addressed in an English class:
1.) An ability to derive meaning from a complex text, and the ability to critically think about and respond to this same text. (This is the fundamental motivation behind the study of literature).
2.) The ability to articulately communicate complex ideas through both the written and spoken word. (This is the fundamental motivation behind composition and speech classes).
3.) A complete understanding of the motivation of voice, point-of-view, audience, and purpose when contemplating a “literary” work.
I personally believe that Shakespeare’s plays can stand on their own merits, and should be studied, whether or not he helps me attain the two above goals. I also think that a working knowledge of iambic pentameter and a healthy loathing of the passive voice are essential qualities in a complete human being; however, these are not really the reasons I teach. I remain aware that most of my students will never need to possess the knowledge that Gatsby’s real name was James Gatz, or that Othello strangled Desdemona, or that Langston Hughes thought the soul of a black man could be suitably compared to a river. Once they leave my classroom, each of those choice tidbits of knowledge (so dear to me!) are next to useless to any contributing member of modern society. But the three goals I mentioned above are ABSOLUTELY required in a modern society. (Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is hard ought to read a mortgage agreement).
So, where are my students most likely to encounter a complex text which requires a critical response? Will their lives outside of school involve laborious readings of Victorian novels? Or will they be more likely to need to ponder the layered meanings of an attorney’s e-mail? Or the diatribe of an articulate and erudite political commentator?
When my students communicate through the written word, will they be writing five paragraph essays? Or will they be writing e-mails to their congressman, editorial staff, or employer? When they need articulate spoken language, will they be speaking aloud to a group of students? Or will they be leaving voicemails for clients, tele-conferencing, or presenting a PowerPoint?
When they are presented with a work, wherein it is necessary to understand the point of view, audience, or purpose, what is the likelihood they’ll be reading an essay by some pundit? What is the likelihood they’ll be watching a political speech on Youtube? Or just watching a standard news program? What is the likelihood they’ll be watching a Scorsese film?
The idea of a “return to basics” in education is just short of ludicrous. While I agree that a fundamental grasp of grammar, spelling, and punctuation are necessary, neglecting electronic literacy in the 21st century is tantamount to asking our students to use quill pens and inkwells. We live in a world of Web 2.0. We live in a world of television and film. The fundamental way in which the modern student will experience literacy in his lifetime is in front of a computer or television or movie screen. To train a student to read ONLY books and write ONLY essays is the equivalent to preparing her for a job in a buggy whip factory.
I mean, seriously, you are reading this on a blog. Mightn’t it be logical to teach our students the same kinds of skills we utilize daily?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)