After watching The Godfather part 1, I have finally found out how I characterize a great movie—one that uses unique film techniques to convey as much plot elements as it could, using less technology, along with an indeterminate ending. Furthermore, I have learnt the true beauty of movie, whereby technology doesn’t determine how great a movie is, instead, the film techniques and story plots determines that.
Throughout the movie, there were several different plot elements and film techniques, which helped to build up the main message of each scene. The most memorable one for me was the verbal irony. When Michael swore faith in church, the director used continuous jump cuts of him saying his faith, and a scene of people getting ready to shoot someone. These two scenes contradicts each other, and the first thought that came up to my mind was how clever it was for the director to create the message of how Michael means the opposite of what he’s saying, and his true evilness simply through jump cuts. It was effective, as it has not only clearly conveyed its message, but it also has helped to increase the viewer’s expectation of what would happen next. All these different film techniques and plot elements helped the movie free from any monotonous scenes and portrayal of characters. Of course, there are much more plot elements and film techniques in the movie one can anticipate.
What amazed me the most was that even though this movie was made in the 1970s, it still is as interesting as the current high-tech movie, Transformers. After watching The Godfather 1, I started valuing movies for its plots and film techniques, rather than the types of technology (such as robots) that are shown in other movies. I believe that movies were originally found for the purpose of relating to real-life, and teaching the viewers valuable lessons; unfortunately, technology has destroyed that purpose. Objects that current technologies make, such as robots, aliens, spaceships seem to distort the main theme of a movie. For example, teenagers and children often watch the movie just to see the new cool effects movie directors have found. Therefore, I have learnt that technology is more like an element used as a back-up or support for the lack of great story plot; in contrast, a movie that has no form of technology but has a great plot helps defines how great a movie is. Therefore, I have concluded that movies that can have a high rate of viewers without any form of complicated technology are considered successful.
I believe this movie could be compared with other current movies, like Transformers, today and still be voted as the top five movie ever made for having the great usage of film techniques, and showing plot especially without any forms of complicated technology inscribed in the movie.
Throughout the movie, there were several different plot elements and film techniques, which helped to build up the main message of each scene. The most memorable one for me was the verbal irony. When Michael swore faith in church, the director used continuous jump cuts of him saying his faith, and a scene of people getting ready to shoot someone. These two scenes contradicts each other, and the first thought that came up to my mind was how clever it was for the director to create the message of how Michael means the opposite of what he’s saying, and his true evilness simply through jump cuts. It was effective, as it has not only clearly conveyed its message, but it also has helped to increase the viewer’s expectation of what would happen next. All these different film techniques and plot elements helped the movie free from any monotonous scenes and portrayal of characters. Of course, there are much more plot elements and film techniques in the movie one can anticipate.
What amazed me the most was that even though this movie was made in the 1970s, it still is as interesting as the current high-tech movie, Transformers. After watching The Godfather 1, I started valuing movies for its plots and film techniques, rather than the types of technology (such as robots) that are shown in other movies. I believe that movies were originally found for the purpose of relating to real-life, and teaching the viewers valuable lessons; unfortunately, technology has destroyed that purpose. Objects that current technologies make, such as robots, aliens, spaceships seem to distort the main theme of a movie. For example, teenagers and children often watch the movie just to see the new cool effects movie directors have found. Therefore, I have learnt that technology is more like an element used as a back-up or support for the lack of great story plot; in contrast, a movie that has no form of technology but has a great plot helps defines how great a movie is. Therefore, I have concluded that movies that can have a high rate of viewers without any form of complicated technology are considered successful.
I believe this movie could be compared with other current movies, like Transformers, today and still be voted as the top five movie ever made for having the great usage of film techniques, and showing plot especially without any forms of complicated technology inscribed in the movie.
I feel like you used a lot of film techniques, and things making it seem more like an assigned writing. However, good analysis of the film MinJee!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree about the value of a film's plot rather than the graphics used in it.
Interesting comparison to Transformers...it's unique and interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteHaha, so true. I wrote my adaptation essay referring to the same point. Micheal Bay(director of Transformers) tends to have that outlook upon all of his movies; explosions, robots, and aliens.
ReplyDeleteIt does appeal to the modern audience however. Times seem to have changed.
It's good to see that what we've learned in class has sunk in with you. I wish I had a better sense that you were sincere in your "I've finally learnt what makes a good movie" main idea--beating up on Transformers 3 is pretty easy when you're comparing it to The Godfather. I want to see more of your own ideas, your connections and interpretations, and less of what you think I want you to say.
ReplyDelete