Please Answer the two following parts and cite from the textbook I will provide with the page numbers in the citation.
Part one: (250 words)
Please ask any questions you have about the terms you’ve come across the chapters, especially chapter 2. (“Verisimilitude,” for example, can be complicated to grasp, since it can apply to films that are not what we would call “realistic.”) If you would like clarifications, please explain your trouble — begin by explaining what you think you understand and where your source of confusion lies. It’s important to try to write out your “confusion” — and in fact, often times, when we write down what we’re trying to understand when we’re confused, we find that the process of writing actually helps us to become “un-confused.”
Offer general comments about the short films: which ones did you like/dislike, and why/why not? I will post threads where we can get into specific films, and here I will note one thing about the shortest of them: The Big Charade is a parody of movie trailers. It is not a trailer for an actual film (though I think such a film would be kind of cool
Link to short films
Please let me know if link doesn’t work
Part Two: (300 words)
Choose either two or three of the short films: The Hill, Dreamscapes, Passengers, Spam-Ku, The Strip Mall Trilogy. Each of these includes a commentary track by the filmmakers, in some cases more than one track. Watch the films with these commentaries after youve screened the films on their own first. Consider the thought processes that go into conveying meaning even in films as short as five or ten minutes. What have you learned about the relationship between form and content after watching these short films with their commentaries and interviews?
