Description
Assignment for Film Two
Part 1: View a feature film made between 1970 - 2000 you have not seen before (or will see later in this class) by a great director or featuring a great actor or actress.
Just as you did in the first paper, comment on the specific film you saw. Pay particular attention to the screenplay, camerawork (cinematography) the editing (montage) and the sound (this can include the music). You may also address special effects. Again, as you did in the first paper, talk about what you like, and what you dislike, about what you saw? Why do you like the things you like, and why do you dislike the things you dislike? Is the film a good film, or is it not?
Part 2: Now that you have commented on the specific film you viewed, see if you can draw some general conclusions about the work of the director and one of the main actors or actresses. Be sure to comment on the overall impression you had of the film, including how you see it as an example of the its genre and time period. Remember, this is not a research paper. I am interested in what you have to say, not in what you can learn by reading up on the film or the filmmaker.
Part 3: Go back to the "My Criteria for Quality in Film" page. Based on your viewing of this week's film, add Five new general conclusions. These statements should be numbered (6) through (10). Be sure to include entire page, including all of your previous criteria statements.
**
General Instructions
For each of the two papers, you will be responsible for watching a film and write a 3 to 5 page essay in which you respond to prompts which will be provided for each paper (this means at least 3 pages including the “My Criteria for Quality in Film” page and no longer than 5 pages). These assignments are reaction papers, not plot summaries or research papers. The key element here is that you will be telling the instructor what you have to say about the film, not what others have said.
In a 100-level course, you would perhaps be asked to write about what you saw on the screen. In a 200-level course, you would be asked to say what you think about what you saw. In this 300-level course, you are expected to explain why you think the way you do about the film, and to justify your explanation (using references to subjects found in the weekly content in the LEO classroom.
You will be responsible for turning in these assignments to the proper assignment folder in LEO.
Putting these assignments off until the last possible moment probably will not work very well. Each of them requires you to view an additional film besides the ones you will be watching for the week’s discussion, so you should be sure to leave yourself enough time to view the necessary film, think about it, write a first draft, and then edit and revise.
Part of your responsibility in this course is to make any and all arrangements necessary to allow you to view the films, think and write about them, and turn your assignments in by their respective due dates. Some of the films you watch may be available for streaming via Netflix or another online content provider; others may be available for checkout from your local public library, while others may need to be rented.
Be sure to spell the names of directors, actors, screenwriters, and other people correctly (this can cause "points" to be taken off of the final grade for that paper). Any name that is not listed in the credits that begin or end the film is a name you do not need to mention.
The papers will be graded based on such elements as evidence that you are reading and viewing the material the course content, references and comparisons to other films you have seen (in or out of class and throughout your lifetime as a movie watcher), and especially to films you have previously written about; use of the film vocabulary introduced in class; clear presentation of your opinions; reasonable explanations and justifications to support those opinions; and college-level writing skills (spelling, punctuation, and grammar). Other criteria will be presented to you as appropriate.
You are better off watching these films on the largest possible screen, and at the highest possible resolution.
Explanation & Answer
Find the attached completed work, If you have another one, please invite me to bid. Kindly give me a 5 star review to build my profile.
Outline
Title: The Godfather (1972)
1. Introduction
2. Body
a. Director: Francis Ford Coppola
b. Part 1
c. Part 2
1. Main Character Resolve
2. Main Character Growth
3. Main Character Approach
4. Main Character Mental Sex
5. Story Driver
6. Story Judgment
7. Generally speaking Story Response
d. Part 3
3. Conclusion
4. References
Running head: MOVIES UNDERSTANDING
Movies Understanding
Name
Institution
1
MOVIES UNDERSTANDING
2
The Godfather (1972)
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Part 1
‘The Godfather is one of the greatest movies from the era between 1970 and 2000; the
initial two "Godfather" movies may well have vanquished the shaggy soul of their day with a
resuscitated and limited naturalism one that has since discovered fertile ground on satellite TV.
Be that as it may, there's a suffering vision and stylish longing at the center of Francis Ford
Coppola's mission, and there's not much or self-serving about his artistic accomplishment. At this
age the camera industry was still developing; thus the technology in the films was not as
proficient as the movies we have in the modern era. Despite what might be expected, Coppola's
prosperity happened in light of the fact that his reasonableness happened to concur with a few
temperaments of his contemporary minute. In this writing, we will discuss the styles and the
content in the movie ‘The Godfather.’
What Coppola sought after, through that diptych's exhibitions, creation, and
cinematography was a feeling of style when it appeared to be pointless. He affectionately
recovered a rendition of great age Hollywood style a conceivable multiplication of a material
world and its social connections, with a scarcely visible yet extremely made dimension of guile.
In those films, restriction in acting matches the downplayed effort of intensity by the filmmakers
who were positive about it. The firmly controlled camera work befits the demanding
screenwriting, with its exact conveyance of passionate substance. Also, the fastidious lighting (I
here and there feel that the cinematographer Gordon Willis, with his striking low-light impacts,
is the genuine auteur of the films) brings out a cautiously adjusted state of mind. The consistency
MOVIES UNDERSTANDING
of tone the fe...
Review
Review
