He simply cannot escape these expectations. So, when Robert DeNiro takes on a comedic role, such as the role of the potential father-in-law in Meet the Parents, the moment he comes on the screen, the audience is aware that he is Robert DeNiro, in addition to the character that is being portrayed. Therefore, his character can do things that other characters could not. Who but Robert DeNiro could portray a father who would give an actual lie detector test to his daughter's suitor (Roach)? Another actor who has made a career of playing essentially different versions of the same basic role is Hugh Grant. In each of his films, Grant plays a bit of a romantic doofus, who is handsome, and because he is handsome, has some success with women, but is essentially clueless about women. This is a characterization that he brings to each of his roles. Therefore, when his characters end up being cads, the audience is not even angry with him; they knew he was a cad before the movie even started.
What all of the examples above make clear is that characterization in a film is complex. It involves combining what the character does on screen, what the actor is known for off screen, and whatever is directly said about the character. What this means is that some movies are not at all effective at creating character. Even some of the best and most talented actors have been miscast in movies, where their presence simply did not sell the character correctly. On the other hand, some of the more memorable characters in film were created by relatively unknown actors, who were able to seize upon a role and make that role their own. In fact, the most effective characters in movies are so believable that they become real people in the minds of the audience. One prime example of this is Gregory Peck's portrayal of defense lawyer Atticus Finch in to Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus was not even the main character in the film; the film actually focused on Atticus' daughter Scout, and was her coming-of-age novella. Atticus was a relatively absent father figure, who raised Scout with a type of loving negligence. However, Peck took the role of Atticus and breathed life into it. He dressed the part of a Southern lawyer in the time of the Depression, complete with glasses and sharply ironed clothes, which the audience just knew had been washed and pressed by his hired woman, Calpurnia. Peck was handsome enough to make Atticus attractive, so that the overt flirting by the women in the neighborhood seemed plausible, but not so handsome as to seem fictional (See generally, Mulligan). No wonder then that, when asked who inspired them to enter into the field of law, more lawyers site the fictional Finch than any real life lawyer. That is the power of excellent characterization in a movie; the character becomes a living, breathing human being in the minds of the audience.
This paper will begin with an examination of direct characterization. How do films directly convey information about their characters? Moreover, the paper will investigate whether or not direct characterization is likely to be somewhat dishonest? Do films that have narrators generally have omniscient narrators, or narrators who are limited in the scope of their knowledge? If limited, are these narrators hampered by their lack of total perception? Do the narrators actually convey a direct characterization of the characters in the movie, or does the audience still tend to rely primarily upon its own instincts in order to form opinions about the various characters in a movie?
Next, this paper will examine the five different types of indirect characterization. In the speech section, the author will address not only what a character says, but also how the character says it. Next, the author will examine thoughts, and how film can reveal what a character is feeling even without employing a narrator. Then the paper will look at how characters interact with the other characters in the movie, and how these interactions reveal things about their character. After that, the author will look at how a character's actions reveal details about that...
The thread's broken. What you came to find isn't there. What was yours is gone. You have to go away for a long time... many years... before you can come back and find your people. The land where you were born. But now, no. It's not possible. Right now you're blinder than I am Life isn't like it is in the movies. Life is much harder." Then he commands
The manager tells him it closed because the economy changed and because of television and videos. What this really means is that the theater closed when the audience left, emphasizing the close community relationship involved in film. In the old days, when Toto was a boy, the people would line up for every show. This was the only entertainment they could find, and they were loyal. They did not
The film version of the 'GodFather' became famous. The reason is that it was essentially a portrayal more on the family and emotional side rather than the gun toting violence. Thus the viewer shows the discernment between a good and bad movie by analyzing the depth of the portrayal rather than stunts. The argument that violence in cinema begets violence in real life falls flat. The viewers are not imbeciles,
Cinema The emergence of cinema as a medium at the fin de siecle was the result of technological innovations resulted from the Industrial Revolution, but it was also in response to a growing demand from entertainment consumers who were desperate for more exciting alternatives. Developing quickly from its early silent forms with accompanying piano and on-screen narration to increasingly sophisticated "talkies" that changed the way people thought about things, the
Cinema 1950s 1950s was a decade of change for the U.S. - cinema was no exception, as it modeled itself to accommodate the social changes U.S. society was going through. Films not only provide entertainment to masses but are also believed to express the general outlook of society by the way it sets and adopts trends. 50s was marked by postwar prosperity, rising consumerism, loosening up of stereotype families, baby boom
Art Cinema and Theatre of Absurd In "The Art of Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice," David Bordwell provides a definition of what he believes constitutes art cinema in order to define the style as an artistic movement. In "The Theatre of the Absurd," Martin Esslin provides similar arguments about theatre as Bordwell does about film. Bordwell and Esslin both provide an analysis of the elements that distinguish art cinema
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now