These are my 3 earlier reports: (1) Paradise Now: (2) Evening with Zhang Yimou; and (3) Lost Seminar. I'll be sending my blog on the Ebert seminar tonight on another post.
1. PARADISE NOW:
Big Theme:
subject of the Middle East and suicide bombers has been mentioned frequently in class discussions. The subject brings up nearly all of the themes that are integrated the course. Paradise Now tells a story about two suicide bombers in Palestine. These men, Said and Khaled, are expected to set off their bombs together in Israel, but they are separated during their mission, and during the course of two days, both men are faced with a problematic situation and wrestle with what is good and bad and what is the right thing to do. The theme of "doing the right thing" was evident. The movie also centers around the theme of a martyr. The movie reminded me of some questions mentioned in class: What is a martyr? Is a suicide bomber a martyr? Are suicide bombers only perpetuating existing problems? Does it really bring you closer to God? The audience sees the two main characters wrestling with these questions when their mission fails. The movie shows what a psychological journey of a suicide bomber may be like. The movie brings up the individual vs. the system theme. Will the two suicide bombers submit to the system and finish what the system set out for them--will they still carry out the mission even though it had nearly failed? By the end, someone (not going to mention who) defies the system, and someone doesn't. The audience sees the psychological journey each bomber took in deciding whether to submit or to defy the system. Is it right to defy the system, or is it right to submit to the system? The movie represents both sides of the question.
In dealing with the issues between Palestine and Israel, the movie, of course, dealt with political and religious issues. Paradise Now, however, went beyond the issues seen in the media. There were other, more human issues dealt with. The director mentioned that the movie shows human issues behind the violence. Indeed, the theme of "doing the right thing" is a very universal, human issue. Basically, is it right to commit suicide and kill others along with you for your country? This is the first movie I've seen that gets into the head of a suicide bomber. It suggests what a suicide bomber psychologically goes through during a mission. One of the purposes of the movie was to accurately show the audience the lives of suicide bombers. It shines light on why people become suicide bombers in the first place. As a viewer, you grow to sympathize with the characters, you become scared for the characters, but most importantly, you grow sad for the characters. Sadness, loneliness, isolation, and confusion are constant themes in the movie. When the characters are separated, they become very confused about not only the purpose of their mission, but also the purpose of their life, and they feel very alone and lost.
The movie also successfully represents many views of suicide bombers. Some Palestinians sees suicide bombers as a loss cause. Some believe that Palestinians have no other option but to protest in such drastic ways. Others see suicide bombing as an act of revenge or as an act of religion. Many Palestinians have a combination of these beliefs. Overall, the movie gives a fresh look at suicide bombers during a time when, I think, America needs it. I think Americans have very biased views on how a suicide bomber thinks. We assume that it's an easy decision for the people in the Middle East to blow themselves up and others up for their country. Paradise Now clearly shows that it is not the case. In this sense, the timing of the movie release is perfect.

Crafting Decision:

The director made two very important crafting decisions. First, he decided to have no music during the movie. There even wasn’t music during the ending credits. The only music heard was from a radio in the background. This was an effective decision because music would've altered the direction, the meaning, and the feel of the movie. The director wanted his movie to represent reality as much as possible. He said that music is too "artificial" for the issues dealt with in his movie. It would’ve taken attention away from the rawness of the movie. The absence of music highlighted the tension, the raw emotion of the characters, and the issues dealt with in the movie.
Secondly, the director chose not to depict any kind of violence, even though the movie revolved around a risky, violent subject. This was a good idea because the issues behind the violence were emphasized—the things behind the violence that we don’t see. For example, we see enough violent and disturbing images in the media, and we see little of the conflicts behind the violence. We don’t see, for example, the personal lives of the suicide bombers, and we don’t see how suicide bombers prepare to die. We don’t see the men’s reactions when they’re told that they are commissioned to be a suicide bomber, and we don’t see the bombers’ family life or personal relationships. We also don’t see the inner conflict bombers have as they face death in an instant. The director said that the purpose of a movie is to take the audience somewhere they would never have been able to go. In the movie, he took us into the lives of a suicide bomber, which is definitely someplace an American audience has never gone before. He added that the purpose of a movie is to have the audience experience something they would have never been able to experience. Again, the American audience has never experienced the suicide bomber’s conflict. Paradise Now succeeds in doing this by taking the audience deep into a suicide bomber’s personal life. So, why show violence, something that is seen all the time, when you can give insight on the things that is behind the violence—things that are hidden from the world? In many ways, not showing violence was a message in itself: violence is unnecessary. Hardly any blood was shown, except for a nosebleed. The ending, especially, was great because, technically, it was expected to be really realistic and graphic. But the director treated it in a way that made it painless, which is a relief and was a surprise. I won’t mention the ending because it would spoil it. (the movie’s coming out everywhere soon).
Both the absence of music and violence made the picture much, much more powerful because it was unexpected and because it highlighted the main issues and messages of the picture and gave the movie a certain kind of rawness, something that movies today tend to lack.

Significant Scene:
The Ending! But I don’t want to talk about it because it would spoil it! Besides the ending, there was one shot before the big ending, which was appropriately suspenseful. Said was missing after the failed mission, and when he was found, he had to speak to the head of his resistance. The head believed that Said had betrayed them, but Said convinced the head to give him a chance to redeem himself. Khaled is in the hallway outside the door in which the conversation is taking place. Khaled doesn’t know what’s going to happen to Said. The significant shot is the longest shot in the movie. It starts with Khaled walking down the hallway, and he washes his face, he hears the door open, he turns suddenly, walks around the corner and sees Said standing in front of the door. Said is standing with his legs spread apart and his hands in his pockets. The audience and Khaled don’t know what Said is going to do to redeem himself. Both men stare at each other. It’s an awkward moment because only Said and the Head know what’s going to happen. The length of the shot was appropriate because it established the anxiety of the moment. Also the shot establishes the first time Said is confident in what he’s about to do. It starts the beginning of the end.

Interesting Fact:
The director got nearly all his information about the psychology of suicide bombers from lawyers who defended bombers, whose bombs failed to explode during a mission.
2. EVENING WITH ZHANG YIMOU
Quick Summary of What Happened: 6:45 pm – 10: 15 pm
There was a brief introduction and description of ceremony. There was a short movie reel, which Zhang Yimou cut himself, consisting of clips from all of his past movies. Zhang Yimou came on stage and talked briefly about the movie he had chosen to show for the night. The movie, Not One Less, which was made six years ago, was played. Audience went upstairs to reception hall to eat and take pictures. Founder of HIFF gave a speech about the history of HIFF and the history of HIFF’s relationship with Zhang Yimou. Award was presented to him, he gave a short speech of thanks, and there was a short time for Q&A.

Response:
The event didn’t focus on Zhang’s crafting approach as much as I had expected. It was mostly an event to simply to “be in the presence of a master filmmaker.” However, Zhang Yimou did say some things, which were thought provoking, especially to a student. I almost wish there were more students present at the event because Zhang Yimou’s message really felt directed to younger students. Of course, the whole audience was made up of adults.
Before the screening of Not One Less, Zhang Yimou said that the movie is about children. He said the reason he chose to screen this film was because “it has been my lifelong wish that children will have a good childhood and that they’ll grow up to be excellent contributors in society.” The film Not One Less definitely is about this wish, and it concerned the inner strength and the coming of age of kids. It also emphasized that kids’ have great potential influence in the world. The movie is about a poor school in a rural country town in China. A 13-year old girl, Teacher Wei, comes to the town to be a substitute teacher for a class of little kids. All the kids are poor, and they tend to run away from school. Teacher Wei was instructed by the teacher that if he came back and all the kids were still at school, “not one less,” he would pay the girl 15 yuan. The meat of the story involves Wei going to the city to find a student, a naughty boy, who went to the city to work. It’s an emotionally driven story with an innocent child-like humor. The movie ultimately shows how kids, if they keep on pursing their goals with hard work, can influence society on a large scale. Teacher Wei finds the boy by going on national television, and from the show, she gains sympathy from people all over China. Then, her rural village gets tons of monetary donations and school supplies.
The other thing that Zhang Yimou said was that, in his storytelling, he goes for the most visually stunning images—the images that will stay with you even when the story does not. Zhang Yimou values images that are stunning and tell the audience a lot about the story. He gave an example that when he watches foreign films, he cannot understand the lines; however, he understands the story by paying attention to the images. To Zhang Yimou, lines are less important than images because the images tell the story rather than the lines. Zhang Yimou’s use of stunning images is seen in his two most recent movies, Hero and House of Flying Daggers. In Hero, the images that stick out in my mind are the images with the vibrant colors. I have an image of two men fighting on a pristine, blue lake and two women in red fighting under yellow trees. In House of Flying Daggers, I have an image of the girl doing something in the middle of a circle of drums with pink silk fabric with flying rocks everywhere. Zhang Yimou uses a lot of color to make images memorable. In Not One Less, the ending shot showed kids drawing Chinese characters on the chalkboard with colored chalk, which was rare in rural villages. The entire board was filled with colored markings, and Zhang Yimou used this shot to show the credits over.




3. LOST SEMINAR

I don’t watch the series, but I thought it might be interesting to hear them speak about how they develop and craft Lost, which has gotten so much success. I mean, they must be doing something right. Overall, I gained a lot from the seminar, even though I’m not a fan of the series.

#1: Producers of Lost approached casting in a totally unique way. Usually, in the casting process, characters are already set up in detail, and casting directors look for the actors to best suit the role. However, in Lost, the characters weren’t developed by the time casting started. There was only a very vague description of some of the characters—some of the characters weren’t even created yet. There were no racial distinctions between characters in the beginning. So, instead of casting in the traditional way, the makers of Lost cast actors who simply caught their attention and were interesting and diverse, and then created the characters based on the actors who were cast. Therefore, the characters were molded to the actors, not really the other way around. During casting, there was no solid script—there were only short generic lines. So, the personality of the actor really had to stand out. The casting process was kind of like a puzzle: they shifted people around to different parts until the combination fit. It can be said that the casting was successful, for millions of people have grown to care of these characters. So, although this wasn’t the traditional way of casting, one could argue that it isn’t a wrong way to approach casting.
#2: Getting the right people in the right roles is essential in order to audiences to fall in love with the characters. This, of course, involves consideration for chemistry and personality clashes from producers. For Lost, the crew would be living in Hawaii for a while, which is a whole new environment, so producers definitely had to make sure the cast and crew got along.
#3: Many times, the writers start with a general, brilliant idea, and then they fill in the blanks later. The creators of Lost started with a general idea: plane will crash on a island that the passengers will have to survive…blah,blah. They sold that idea first. Then, they filled in the detailed story line. The co-executive producer said that the writers, when they write the script, first, come up with certain destinations that will occur in the script. For example, the writers, from the beginning, knew that a hatchet will be opened and the characters will eventually take a raft into the ocean; however, they had no idea how they were going to get there in the script. The writers filled in the blanks later on. How the writers are able to do it? It wasn’t mentioned. The producer described the “destinations” as “peaks” of mountains. The writers establish the peaks, then they climb up the mountain to get there.
#4: Timing of when the series or movie is released is important. They believe Lost came out during a time where co-existing races work together, conflict with each other, and interact with each other in the world. Lost has very cultural diverse characters that deals with everyone working together, conflicting with each other—interacting with each other. Producers believe that Lost came out during a time when that kind of cultural unity is needed. They mentioned how the cultural diversity of the cast and the unity between them is part of what attracts audiences to the show.
#5: Successful crews are like families, and the bases of good relationships on set really trickle from the top-down. The people at the top including, the producers, the directors, the main creators, set the tone of the production.
#6: “If you have something good, kill it before it dies.” Steven King wrote an article in Newsweek that claimed that Lost was the best series on television since twilight zone. But he warned Lost creators not to put the series at the mercy of the corporations. If a series is a hit, corporations tend to force the show to continue on and on and on. Basically, Steven King told Lost creators to let the series tell its story, then kill it before the corporations force the show to stay on air and force the writers to stretch the story out too much. Producers said that once Lost’s story is told, it will be over forever. Today, there are too many unsuccessful sequels that tend to ruin the successful, original versions for audiences. I think a lot of movies and television series should take this advice as well.

Funny fact:
During the middle of the seminar, two people fell off of weak chairs. One person was the main cinematographer, and the other person was the discussion moderator.