Blog Assignment #6: Animation Deconstruction

I chose to use two stills from the animated movie, The Secret of Kells. The topics I’ll be comparing are color and movement. To contrast the two, the first image uses a larger variety of hues, and while there is some saturation the colors are primarily lighter. On the other hand, the second image is very dark by comparison, the background completely black. The colors are limited too; aside from the main character, teal is virtually the only color used, in varying shades and brightness. Toward the center of the second image the colors are brighter, creating the illusion of an eerie glow. As far as color goes, the two images have very little in common. The biggest thing they do have in common is that they primarily contain cool colors. For movement, both images create an illusion of movement. In the first image, Aisling’s hair appears to be blowing in the wind, and the line her hair creates is paralleled by the tree branch she is perched upon. In the second image, there is a distinct downward movement, due to Brendan’s positioning and the creature above him. The creature’s teeth are quite literally arrows pointing diagonally doward and at Brendan, drawing our attention to him and his downward descent, as well as his precarious position between the jaws of a monster. The lines behind him emphasize his movement as well, as they are parallel to his descent, yet at the same time could be seen as going in the opposite direction, drawing him straight into the creature’s mouth. The second image contains much faster, emphasized movement than the first one, and the movement in the second image is on the vertical plane, creating that sense of falling and urgency, while the first image’s movement is on the horizontal plane, creating a calmer, more balanced image. As such, the images are similar in that they both contain movement, but contrasting in that the movement contained moves in completely conflicting directions.

Blog Assignment #5: Storyboard Imitation

The first shot is aligned so that we are looking directly at the side of the 180 degree line, and the following two shots remain on the same side of it, as well as change what we see dynamically, which follows the 30 rule. First we see a side view of Tulio and the thug, then a close-up of the dice, then a top-down view of the thug as he tries and fails to make the dice change position. The fourth shot also remains on the same side of the 180 degree line with a medium shot of Miguel and Tulio. The last shot, however, is a wide shot of the main gambler and the other gamblers around him, and the camera seems to be sitting directly on top of the 180 degree line, zooming away from the gambler as the other characters on screen turn to look at the camera. The rule of thirds seems to be well implemented through all of the shots, except, again, for that last one. I suspect the director sort-of-almost broke the 180 rule and ignored the rule of thirds (centered object of focus) in order to emphasize that all of the attention is being turned on to Miguel and Tulio, who due to the previous shot we know are position directly behind the camera, across from the gambler they were dealing with. Because the shot is moving away from the gambler, it is therefore moving toward Miguel and Tulio’s position, and the fact that all the other bystanders turn to look at the camera as it moves back really focuses the attention on those two. If the shot had been placed more to the side in order to accommodate the 180 degree line, the feeling of focus on the two main characters would have been much less poignant, and the zooming out wouldn’t have fit either, as we’d end up feeling like we’re moving in a random direction rather than toward Miguel and Tulio.

Blog Assignment #4: Song Deconstruction

Original song:

Cover:

The song I chose was Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God) by Kate Bush, and a cover version by Placebo. To contrast the two, the original song had a much more soulful, hopeful groove, while Placebo’s version was much more relaxed. While the instruments themselves were similar, the digital effects used on them different greatly, being much more affected in Placebo’s version to make them soft and muted. Placebo’s version used recognizable piano as well, while Bush’s version used only keyboard-like or synth sounds. Bush’s version sounded like it had more depth due to a louder intensity in general, although it’s possible that both songs had a similar amount of instrument layers. As for what was similar, both songs had a similar repetitive drum beat throughout virtually the entire song, and both occasionally used chorus-like background vocals. The melody and structure were very similar as well, the main difference being the lower intensity of Placebo’s version, though the organization of the song itself was primarily the same. Overall,  Placebo’s version remains faithful to the core beat and melody of the original song, but gives it a much more soft-spoken, almost eerie feel. As for which I like better, I like both versions in their own right, but I prefer Placebo’s version. I like 80’s music just fine, but that 80’s sort of overly bright synth feel is a little too much for me sometimes. Placebo’s version doesn’t have that problem, so I could listen to it in any mood. I also enjoy the way that the slow, soft-spoken feel of Placebo’s version almost grabs your attention and makes you think about the words more than the strong, forceful vocals of the original. Kate Bush’s original version has powerful emotion in it, like a prayer directly to God, but Placebo’s feels less like a prayer and more like it’s speaking to the listeners themselves, as if to say we have the power to stand in each other’s places.