Film Sequence Blog

The scene I chose starts at the cafe with Sydney and Al.  It starts at about the 5:40 mark and goes to 7:30 or so.  I ended when Sydney and Dith Pran flee the scene.

It begins with a man rocking a baby in a cradle and then the waiter enters.  The camera is following his path and it is pretty dark in the restaurant.  He walks outside and heads to a table of soldiers, and here we get the first glimpse of Sydney and Al.  We see pedestrians behind them and do not understand what is being said.  The language barrier is broken when Al asks what they want to eat as the waiter approaches them.  They carry on a meaningless dialogue about what kinds of food they like and do not like.  Out of nowhere there is a massive explosion and Sydney and Al jump up.  Al begins to take pictures of what he sees, and Dith Pran seems to appear out of nowhere.  Sydney and Dith Pran talk and eventually enter a cab.

In terms of sound, the diegetic sound is a very important part of this scene.  At first we hear a language that we cannot understand, and are completely out of the loop.  Eventually English begins to overlap with this.  Shortly before the explosion, we hear a motorcycle but cannot see it.  This is an example of offscreen sound.  We are aware that there is a motorcycle due to the noises, but we cannot see it.  This contributes to our inability to really grasp what is happening in this scene.  It is interesting that there is both direct and offscreen sound here, as it makes the offscreen sound that much more apparent and important.  Right before the explosion we hear someone yelling.  We are unaware of the source but know that something bad is about to happen.  The lack of identity surrounding the screamer makes the noise stand for the overwhelming and universal plight of these people.  The scream represents the destruction of Cambodia and its people as a whole.  We then hear an explosion but again do not know where it is coming from.  The explosion and scream are that much more jarring because of what comes before it.  Sydney and Al are engaged in an extremely unimportant conversation and seem bored and disinterested.  But as soon as fire emerges, they jump up and are quick to action.  Thus, the offscreen sound takes precedence over sound that has a defined origin.

In terms of lighting, at the beginning of the scene, the restaurant is relatively dark and not particularly eye-catching.  As the waiter moves outside the scene brightens, but is not overwhelmingly vibrant.  This reflects the relaxed and inactive nature of everyone in the scene.  The scene uses lower key lighting (obviously on a smaller scale, as there is color and some brightness) to demonstrate just how shocking the impending events really are.  This also enhances the fact that we are left in the dark, both in terms of language and also what is happening.  But the explosion is incredibly bright and intense, a stark contrast to that which came before it.  The high-key lighting of both the bombing itself and the aftermath depict a tragic telling, particularly when contrasted to that which came before it.

At some points there is the use of deeper space (Again on a lesser scale than demonstrated in the film analysis guide).  We see this when Sydney and Al are at the table but we see people walking behind them and sitting around them.  This places them in the larger context of the scene and denotes their involvement in the events.  At some points there is frontality during their conversation at the table.  This asserts the viewer into their dialogue and makes us feel as if we are a part of it.  But there is also a large use of shallow space, particularly at the table and when Al is taking pictures.  The beginning of the scene gives us point of view shots of the waiter.  We are taken on his journey from the front door to the outside seating at the cafe.  This scene is largely reliant on panning in and out to portray what is happening.  We see close ups of Sydney and Al and then the camera pans out to show what is happening around them.  We consistently see people that are pretty inactive.  Two men behind them are sitting in chairs and people are wandering around further in the background.  This seeks to demonstrate how shocking the bombing was, as everyone was blatantly unprepared and unaware.  People also cut in front of the camera during the conversation at the table, a fact that further contributes to our blurred (literally and metaphorically speaking) understanding of the narrative.  At some points the faces in the back are blurred, an effect that places greater importance on Sydney and Al.  When the explosion happens, we only see the fire and nothing else.  This overwhelming shot cites how massive and horrific the bombing was.  And the fact that we cannot see anything else tells the audience just how shocking this moment was.  There seems to be no source of the bombing.  It instead appears to have come out of nowhere.  But its effects are devastating and overwhelming.

When Al and Sydney jump up from the table, there is a coupling of wide shots and close-ups.  There are close-ups of individuals that have been killed and lay bleeding on the road, and then the camera pans out to portray the scene as a whole.  In the wider shots, we hear screaming and other noises.  People are in a state of panic as they see the destruction around them.  Dith Pran eventually appears from a seemingly invisible place.  Sydney and Dith Pran talk and are surrounded by smoke.  We do not know what is happening around them in this moment.  Dith Pran is eventually able to give some details as to what has happened, but we are still unsure.  Here the shot is established and reestablished, as the camera moves between close ups and wider shots.

The Killing Fields

    The film begins with a voice over inviting the audience in.  As the scenes progress, Dith Pran and Sydney Schanberg's narratives appear as one.  We come to understand their tellings as a common situation in which they search for the same things.  Something that stuck out to me was just how powerful the images were.  This served as a stark contrast to the monotonous and unemotional telling of the news.  It also served as a nice partner to the more honest and open articles we read from The New York Times.  But I soon began to wonder if the press is heartless too, as in the wake of a horrible scene, they take pictures as if they are blind to what is really going on. 
     We discussed the idea of how different groups come across in the film, and at one point, a member of the media refers to Cambodia as "this sad little country".  While the situation is obviously sad, this comment ignores the greater implications of the situation and the fact that help is desperately needed.  I was interested in Schanberg's difficulty in gaining access to information, as this made the unclear and seemingly incomplete news telling more understandable.  Perhaps people only had access to so much, and revealed what they could.  Throughout the film, the pair struggles to get places and gain access, which furthers the previous point.  At one point, the bombing is referred to as a rumor, which speaks volumes to the confusing media portrayal.  As I watched, I continued to struggle with the role of the media in all of this.  What good was their reporting doing, if any?  Were they there to further their own self-interest, or did they really want to make improvements?  Sydney eventually makes the front page, which again makes me question his motives.  Does he really care about the people of Cambodia, or does he merely want credit? 
  A link to other narratives from the semester comes in the overwhelming sense of unpreparedness.  The soldiers seem far too young to be involved in anything like this, and there are various scenes of mass hysteria.  People wander through the streets unsure of what to do or what will happen next.  The most poignant moment occurs when Sydney asks if Dith Pran wants to stay or leave.  Here their dynamic becomes one where Sydney has all the power and dictates his partner's behavior.  Dith Pran is willing to leave his family for his friend, something that evoked powerful emotions.  Dith Pran seemed almost indiferent when separating from his family.  Was this a defense mechanism or an accurate portrayal of his feelings?  We then can wonder if anyone really understands what is going on, as no one seems to have a realistic grasp of the situation.  Even those fully immersed in it seem lost.  A question that stuck with me was the effect of the news media here.  I already asked a similar question, but here I am wondering more how others saw the reporters.  At one point, citizens begin talking to Sydney.  They seem to think he can save them by telling their story to the world.  But perhaps he only follows along in order to get a good story, and does not really want to help them at all.
     Another powerful scene is when Dith Pran is talking about his current situation.  The desire to escape and erase the past of Cambodia is overwhelming here.  Why would these people want to forget about something that completely altered everything?  I understand wanting to erase the memories of the horrors, but so much more came out of this event.  It could be seen as a learning experience and a time of rebuliding, as opposed to a situation that cannot ever be spoken of again.  While Dith Pran suffers and is brutally beaten, Sydney gets to walk away.  This truth really made me question his motives.  He was in Cambodia for a while, but gets to walk away unaffected.  He has his moment to make his mark, and eventually wins an award for it.  When he accepts the honor, I really wondered how genuine his speech was.  While he raised incredibly important points, perhaps he went to Cambodia and did what he did knowing full well he would receive this award.  But by the end he finally comes to terms with what he has done.  Sydney understands that he never really gave his friend any choice in whether or not he stayed.  They talked about it, but it certainly was not a discussion.  By the end of the film, I am leaning towards believing he is sincere, but am still on the fence.  I am ultimately left wondering what to make of the pair's relationship, as the dynamic largely is in Sydney's favor.  Did he do all of these things for recognition, or does he genuinely believe in bettering the world? 

Cambodia: News Clips and Articles

It was really interesting to watch these news clips and compare them to the ones we saw from the Rodney King period.  The first clip provides a very straightforward telling, and while the portrayal is different, we can still draw links to Rodney King.  First, someone labels individuals involved as hoodlums and shady characters, something that was highly prevalent in Los Angeles in the 90’s.  Also, like the King incident, the leader of Cambodia was away when the problems escalated.  By the time the second clip begins, American soldiers have entered the war in Cambodia.  Unlike later news, people here are incredibly willing to share their opinions.  Why was the nature of the media so different in this time period than later times?  We see various political individuals saying they disapprove of what Nixon has done, a stark contrast to the LAPD and their attempts to present a united front.

         Also, at the beginning, few details are made available regarding the extent of U.S. involvement.  Again, we can wonder why the nature of the incident is so secretive.  The most notable difference is the tone of voice of the newscasters. They speak in overwhelmingly monotonous voices and do not hint at the nature of their feelings.  What are the implications of this, meaning how do we react to this telling in comparison to the Rodney King reports? 

         Next we look at three years later, and the fighting has continued and escalated.  There is an overwhelming lack of concern for human life, and the bombing is referred to as a holding action.  It is interesting that there is a call for considerably more American assistance.  I am intrigued that this call was made for, as America is a place so removed from the realities of Cambodia that I wonder how much they could really help.  This is more of a call for money than real and involved assistance.  People also begin to question what is really advisable from the standpoint of the national interest.  Is there anything America could really do that would be beneficial for all parties involved?  I am also interested in further discussing why Slesinger does not face the camera during the news conference.

         The most shocking thing to me is how long the American bombing went on without anyone knowing about it.  The feelings of deception and outrage here are very palpable and understandable.  Here we must consider the role of hypothetical questions in an attempt to understand what has happened and will happen.  We come to learn that the bombing went on for 9 years before being discovered.  I was also overwhelmed by how long it took for the news to appropriately depict real pictures of the destruction.  This incredibly sad and tragic reality could benefit from a more emotional and honest telling.  One of the only instances of true emotion we see is in the American soldiers who had hope they were going home, but were told that this would not be happening.  This is accompanied by the imagery of unloading the bombs.  The overwhelming message is that in trying to present an unbiased and unemotional story, the news does quite the opposite.  Americans and those involved are depicted as emotionless and unaffected by the tragedies of this situation.  The story then becomes just as biased and reflective as those we saw previously.

         In terms of the newspaper articles, early ones demonstrate a lack of anger towards Americans as well as how corrupt the government there really was.  Later, we see the beginning of very surface level reporting.  The only instance where people delve deeper seems to be in reporting about the tragedies.  Families are separated and people are dying, which contributes to playing on the reader’s emotions.  These articles were largely reliant on pathos as a means of affecting the reader, something that I found quite effective.  We learn that some people are profiting quite well from the war, while others cannot even afford to eat.  The imagery here was also really powerful, as we read about specific instances of people breathing their last breath before dying.  We are inserted into the situation here, as we become bystanders.  There is also a reliance on a now versus then mentality, as we read about how dire the situation is now compared to a few years ago. 

         One article in particular made me contemplate a couple things.  This article talks about coming to a place of peace, something of the utmost importance.  Why is Kissinger so unwilling to discuss a topic that could potentially benefit people all over the world?  Here there is a lack of detail, making the report come across as unreliable and even somewhat shady.  Something surprising were the little glimmers of hope and ambition that came across, even when the situation was incredibly dire.  Why would people who are directly immersed in the horrors be more optimistic than those across the globe?  Perhaps this is a commentary on the nature of Americans and their leaders to go to the worst place possible quite quickly. 

         Overall, I still feel confused about the situation.  It is hard to completely grasp what is going on, particularly when the reporting comes across as incomplete.  I feel as if something is being hidden from the reader.  Perhaps this is because there was a lack of understanding regarding U.S. involvement and activity.  I hope that it will be cleared up as we continue to examine the issue.  Mostly I am wondering how Cambodians will continue to handle and react to a situation that largely destroyed them.  In contrast, will America ever present a united front regarding their involvement or perhaps accept that they may not have done the right thing?  

Twilight Los Angeles- The Film

In examining the film version of Twilight Los Angeles, one can first make general statements about what it brings to the overall understanding of the events.  Primarily, the visuals of both the riots themselves and the spoken interviews are incredibly powerful.  They bring a new element of comprehension to what each individual truly felt. The viewer can understand tiny details such as hand gestures or tonal changes as contributions to the overall message being sent.  Next, in the media coverage watched in class, the riots were portrayed as acts of violence by black people that affected nice people just trying to make it in Los Angeles.  But in both the interviews and images, it becomes even more apparent that this is untrue.  Not everyone on the street was a criminal or a black person looking for revenge.  And not everyone affected was identical to the Latino family depicted in the news.  Overall, the film made it possible to grasp these people's stories more completely.  The emotions felt are that much more real, and the intended message is easier to understand.  

To further the discussion, one can compare the interviews read in class to their physical manifestation on the screen.  First, the anonymous man who was on the jury can be looked at.  In the book, one sees that he is trying to hide out.  It is also clear that he is providing a commentary regarding the press and the way they should be doing their job.  Also, he provides a commentary about how everyone seems to be a juror in their own way.  It is necessary to question the sincerity of what he is saying and wonder what his overall message is.  When watching the film, a more complete story emerges.  The man cannot look at the camera and is almost in complete darkness.  His tone of voice is fairly monotonous as he struggles to get the words out.  The on screen portrayal paints him as a much more affected and real man, as he is emotional and clearly pained by what has happened.  While only part of his commentary is provided, his voice and delivery seem less accusatory than they appeared in the book.  In this case, the movie fills in the gaps by providing more concrete evidence.  The audience can understand better where an individual is coming from and what their tone really is.

Next, one can examine the character of the Hollywood Agent.  In the book version, he seems to demonstrate how the white middle class feels about what happened.  His guilt is described as generic, which points to his separation from what is going on (both literal and metaphorical).  He then seems to mock the reactions of the people around him, as they are reacting with a mass hysteria.  The agent includes himself in this through demonstrating an us versus them mentality, a fact that makes his words incredibly poignant.  He understands that so many people reacted to a situation that did not directly affect their lives in any real way.  So many others suffered physical and mental damage.  In the film, his thoughts are enhanced.  He talks about how so many people o not understand what guilt really is or what  is going on.  He admits to his distance from the danger and comes across as quite aware of the magnitude of the situation.  His narrative is an incredibly powerful one, something that came across as surprising.  In reading his thoughts, it was harder for me to grasp exactly what he was talking about and what the overall message was, due to the fact that his tone was hard to decipher.  But in hearing his words, it became clear that he understood the implications of what was happening.  Beyond just noting the immediate effects, the agent called into question the racial and economic inequality that is ever- present in Los Angeles.  

Another example of this lies in the character of Angela King.  In her written account, she talks about the paranoia she experiences and the overall effects of what has happened.  She speaks of past violence in her family, and much like her nephew Rodney King, calls to humanity.  An implication of her speech is that the racist Los Angeles she lives in is so different from what it was like when she was growing up.  Times have changed for the worse.  Angela also provides a commentary on the police and questions what they really stand for.  An essential theme in her narrative is the importance of perspective and positionality.  Where she stands, the story is incredibly different than how it would be for someone else.  In the film adaptation, she seems distracted while talking.  But more importantly,  she comes across as more put together and collected.  Her cynicism towards the system and the situation is also more pronounced.  Her portrayal was one of the more surprising ones, as her tone seemed to shift completely.  In the written word, she comes across as afraid and like she cannot ever escape what happened.  And while her feelings of anger do exist somewhat, in the film, this particular emotion is much more apparent.  She appears only remotely interested in what is being discussed, and, in turn, much less affected than it once seemed.  This particular instance points to the realities of a shift in medium: that what comes across in one form can be overshadowed by another completely different fact when portrayed in a different way.  

Twilight Los Angeles

The following blog details the play Twilight Los Angeles and its overall themes, messages, and implications.

This text is largely about several things, but it is important to highlight the most crucial ones.  A big one is the manifestations of what has happened, as demonstrated by the different characters.  Each person tells a story of how their lives were affected, whether through a physical injury, a loss of a family member, or property damage (as seen, for example, in Richard Kim's narrative where his mother is shot).  This text also seeks to prove that not everyone was outraged by the outcome, questioned the system, and failed to believe in justice.  One character goes so far as to say that "I believe that there is an extraordinary justice" (90).  While this is just one person's voice, they are speaking for others that adopt the same thought processes.  Next, one comes to understand that individuals come to question everything they once knew and believed in as a result of the riots.  But the reader also learns that not every result of the riots was negative--an essential fact to comprehend.  For Reginald Denny, the aftermath demonstrates his incredible gratitude for the heroes that saved his life (110).  It also becomes apparent that no one was spared.  Everyone was affected on some level, whether on a small or very large scale.  This demonstrates the wide-sweeping effects of the riots on so much of the city, and, in turn, the country.  Perhaps the most important textual claim is that "everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood" (161).  People tended to rely on this portrayal of the situation without understanding that individuals behaved in ways they thought necessary in order to protect themselves and play their part in an attempt to bring justice to the situation.  Next, the reader sees both the literal and metaphorical distance between so many people and the brutality.  A vast number of citizens had never been to South Central and really had no concept of what it was truly like (208).  Lastly, Twilight Los Angeles tells the reader that this is an incredible period of transition, and one contingent upon a move towards change and progress.

The argument is made through a series of interviews that seek to shed light on an incredibly complicated situation.  In interviewing a broad group of people, the narrative demonstrates varying viewpoints, but also commonalities that can be drawn across the board.  Through this particular style, it becomes clear that everyone has some vivid memory of the events and can be understood as a part of the larger tale.  A common narrative is created when people come together to form the story of what exactly happened.

Next one can consider the implications and assumptions of what is being said.  The first one lies in the fact that not only black people were affected and involved.  This is demonstrated in the fact that a Korean man had his store destroyed in the riots.  It seems that sweeping generalizations came out of these events, one being that there was a general consensus surrounding the decision to employ violence as a tactic.  But in reality, not everyone was pro-violence (89).  An important claim is grounded in the fact that heroes were all over the place in these scenarios, as demonstrated by a woman running over to help a bleeding stranger (92).  Perhaps one of the most moving statements is in the call to humanity when Judith Tur says that "people are people" (97).  This is a base statement, but encompasses so much of what has happened.  As addressed before by the distance between South Central and Hollywood, so many people have no idea what violence really looks like.  This is implied in Reginald Denny's narrative where he states that, "does anyone know what a riot looks like" (104)?  People may claim to, but when it comes down to it, many people actually have no idea what violence really is or means.  Next the reader sees a manifestation of the reality that history repeats itself, especially when people fail to learn from it.  The riots of '65  could have been an important lesson, but because people did not alter their attitudes, it happened again (130).  In terms of politics, the narrative sheds light on the reality to keep everything in a little box (163).  While people sought to address the situation, it was done so in a tidy manner to avoid further complications.  In the interview with Dean Gilmour from the Coroner's office, an important statement is made.  Through his dialogue, one learns that it is impossible to know the full magnitude of the situation.  People cannot know the real number of how many died, were hurt, and suffered.  For this reason, it becomes that much harder to bring justice to the situation.  This speaks to the need for closure on behalf of everyone involved.  The story ends with images of violence and brutality that are present in the minds of many.  And while there is some semblance of hope, these images will probably always remain.