The Fall of the House of Usher (Roger Corman – 1960)
This film fits into the horror genre because it generates responses of fear, horror and terror from viewers. We can instantly tell that this is a horror film by the dark, cold, barren looking landscape, at the start when Philip Winthrop is on his horse, the camera moves round in a sneaky style, this gives the audience the impression that someone is watching him. The mist that blows across the landscape creates an intense atmosphere and adds tension and suspense. Throughout the film there is a great detail of obvious iconology, like bibles, long shadows, cross, myths, and other gothic surroundings. This film was made by AIP (American International Pictures). The Director and Actor Steve Berkoff wrote the play based on the story. The footage of the house burning (which was on-site footage from a real burning tragedy) would be used in many later Corman productions. In the early 1960’s, low-budget filmmaker Roger Corman convinced American International Pictures to give him enough money to make a movie based on Edgar Allan Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher." The film would be entirely in colour, a first for AIP, and would also feature something unheard of for such a low budget studio. Vincent Price is the most effective piece of atmosphere in the movie. It is his talent to portray haunted and tortured twisted together into a single emotion. His voice expresses horror, both given and received. He rarely speaks in anything stronger than a whisper, and yet his presences dominates the film as if Roderick Usher was the very core of the Usher curse. The audience would have enjoyed many aspects of this film.
Tuesday 27 January 2009
Monday 26 January 2009
Frankenstein Merchandise
From a standard Google image search for ' Frankenstein Merchandise ' it came up with the original monster, none of the monster that was featured in Mary Shellys Frankenstein.
Tuesday 20 January 2009
Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale – 1935)
Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale – 1935)
What about the film makes it fit within the horror genre and could it fit in with other genres?
We can easily tell that this film fits within the horror genre because people in the film experience fright, terror, threats, and violence, and it is the monster himself that causes all of this. For example, when the doctor asks him to work with victor, he uses the beast as a threat towards victor to work with him. This film can fit with other typical genres, like romance for instance, victor and Elizabeth are deeply in love and experience many problems during their relationship. This film also fits within the comedy genre, because there are a few humorous moments, like when the beast started smoking, and the mad old women.
Who produced the film and what were the circumstances in which it was made? Universal studios/pictures. The circumstances were terrible because of the recession, there was a lot of depression and nobody had much money.
From a modern day viewpoint how do you fell about the film?
I thought the film was very good, I liked the way that everything in the film is very gothic especially the mise en scene, it adds to the suspense and creates a more intense atmosphere. I also like the way it combines horror, romance, and mild comedy because it makes the film appeal to a wider target audience.
How would the audience of the 1930s enjoyed the film?
I think they would have enjoyed it because it would have been something new to them and also because it would have been a lot scarier back then, but its not so scary for people watching it these days because there are many more other scarier events that often occur, such as murder, and crime related events. Also there wouldn’t have been many other horror films made before the release of Frankenstein.
What is the benefit of genre to audiences?
Genre is a benefit to everyone, especially audiences. It gives the audience an idea of what the film will be about.
What is the benefit of genre to producers?
The benefit for the producers are that they can aim at a specific audience ( horror fans ). They also know what the fans want from that specific target audience.
What about the film makes it fit within the horror genre and could it fit in with other genres?
We can easily tell that this film fits within the horror genre because people in the film experience fright, terror, threats, and violence, and it is the monster himself that causes all of this. For example, when the doctor asks him to work with victor, he uses the beast as a threat towards victor to work with him. This film can fit with other typical genres, like romance for instance, victor and Elizabeth are deeply in love and experience many problems during their relationship. This film also fits within the comedy genre, because there are a few humorous moments, like when the beast started smoking, and the mad old women.
Who produced the film and what were the circumstances in which it was made? Universal studios/pictures. The circumstances were terrible because of the recession, there was a lot of depression and nobody had much money.
From a modern day viewpoint how do you fell about the film?
I thought the film was very good, I liked the way that everything in the film is very gothic especially the mise en scene, it adds to the suspense and creates a more intense atmosphere. I also like the way it combines horror, romance, and mild comedy because it makes the film appeal to a wider target audience.
How would the audience of the 1930s enjoyed the film?
I think they would have enjoyed it because it would have been something new to them and also because it would have been a lot scarier back then, but its not so scary for people watching it these days because there are many more other scarier events that often occur, such as murder, and crime related events. Also there wouldn’t have been many other horror films made before the release of Frankenstein.
What is the benefit of genre to audiences?
Genre is a benefit to everyone, especially audiences. It gives the audience an idea of what the film will be about.
What is the benefit of genre to producers?
The benefit for the producers are that they can aim at a specific audience ( horror fans ). They also know what the fans want from that specific target audience.
Mary Shellys Frankenstein
How has the Frankenstein franchise changed from Whale’s until Branagh’s version?
Both Frankenstein films differ in different ways. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein had a lot more money put into it, there are many reasons for this, one is that its modern day, and there is a lot of money within the film studios. Another reason is that back then whilst making ‘ the bridge of Frankenstein ‘ there was a recession, therefore there was a lack of money whilst making the film. The plot and storyline differs in each of the two films and its not a sequel. The Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is in colour, in comparison to the black and white film ‘ the bridge of Frankenstein ‘. The shooting is very similar to the original, and the way in which some of the scenes were shot are almost the same. This film fits in the horror genre, it also fits in the romance genre because victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth experience many problems during their relationship. The narrative has changed because there is a combination of both films within the narrative region. The attitudes towards Frankenstein are the same because it still makes us think that society inflicts terror and fear upon the lives of innocent people.
The audiences expectations change over time because they will be expecting more impressive visual techniques because of the advanced technology. For example, in the original Frankenstein the story ended with the castle falling down, but in Mary Shellys Frankenstein, they use pyrotechnics to create a more realistic ending to the story. It ends with Elizabeth running down the hall on fire with nearby explosions. The pyrotechnical effects really add suspense and create a intense atmosphere to the mise en scene. It makes us feel like we are actually there at times, and draws the audiences attention more frequently. The actors are against type because the plot/storyline is different from the original, which means the actors almost have different roles. In the bridge of Frankenstein, Frankenstein himself was always nervous and unsure of things, like creating a female ' monster ' for the ' monster ' himself. However in Mary Shellys Frankenstein, he is always certain of things and is always keeping a positive attitude on things, there was no draw backs on anything, he always followed his plans. The monster is alot different in Mary Shellys Frankenstein in comparison to the original, he looks too human to be a monster, where as in the original he had the long forehead and drowsy eyes. I think the original monster definitely appeals to more merchandise, like clothing, masks posters etc.
The technology is obviously alot better than the technology used in the old film. For example, the cameras used in Mary Shellys Frankenstein are alot more advanced, therefore it enhances the aesthetics of the film, like the camera shots, angles, pixels etc.
Both Frankenstein films differ in different ways. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein had a lot more money put into it, there are many reasons for this, one is that its modern day, and there is a lot of money within the film studios. Another reason is that back then whilst making ‘ the bridge of Frankenstein ‘ there was a recession, therefore there was a lack of money whilst making the film. The plot and storyline differs in each of the two films and its not a sequel. The Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is in colour, in comparison to the black and white film ‘ the bridge of Frankenstein ‘. The shooting is very similar to the original, and the way in which some of the scenes were shot are almost the same. This film fits in the horror genre, it also fits in the romance genre because victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth experience many problems during their relationship. The narrative has changed because there is a combination of both films within the narrative region. The attitudes towards Frankenstein are the same because it still makes us think that society inflicts terror and fear upon the lives of innocent people.
The audiences expectations change over time because they will be expecting more impressive visual techniques because of the advanced technology. For example, in the original Frankenstein the story ended with the castle falling down, but in Mary Shellys Frankenstein, they use pyrotechnics to create a more realistic ending to the story. It ends with Elizabeth running down the hall on fire with nearby explosions. The pyrotechnical effects really add suspense and create a intense atmosphere to the mise en scene. It makes us feel like we are actually there at times, and draws the audiences attention more frequently. The actors are against type because the plot/storyline is different from the original, which means the actors almost have different roles. In the bridge of Frankenstein, Frankenstein himself was always nervous and unsure of things, like creating a female ' monster ' for the ' monster ' himself. However in Mary Shellys Frankenstein, he is always certain of things and is always keeping a positive attitude on things, there was no draw backs on anything, he always followed his plans. The monster is alot different in Mary Shellys Frankenstein in comparison to the original, he looks too human to be a monster, where as in the original he had the long forehead and drowsy eyes. I think the original monster definitely appeals to more merchandise, like clothing, masks posters etc.
The technology is obviously alot better than the technology used in the old film. For example, the cameras used in Mary Shellys Frankenstein are alot more advanced, therefore it enhances the aesthetics of the film, like the camera shots, angles, pixels etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)