kelsey_asa

1. Hitchcock uses montage to add a somewhat chaotic rhythm to the scene so the audience can relate to the chaos running through the main characters mind as he watches his wife speak to another man. 2. Hitchcock puts us into the main characters mind as we watch his wife speaking with another man in close proximity through a mirror. By cutting to the mirror, then to the dancers, back to the mirror and seeing the main characters reaction, the audience is able to see the jealousy on his face. His mind is spinning like the record, the thoughts are running through his head haphazardly like the women dancing in the middle of the room. The scenes within the montage fade into each other. He envisions his wife kissing another man and he yells at the lively room to stop ultimately stopping his thoughts from running wild. 3. Hitchcock uses the montage as an editing technique to show the main character becoming more jealous. He places the action outside of the room where they are speaking about the fight. This room has women dancing, alcohol, a piano playing along with a record spinning. The audience can see the the main character losing control of his thoughts when he envisions his wife kissing his competitor as the scene moves faster.

1. Compare the opening of The Lodger to the opening of The Pleasure Garden - what similarities and differences do you see between the two films? The Lodger opens with an eery image that resembles a falcon shadow, cutting to a woman screaming across the frame. The audience is immediately met with excessive emotion and questioning why she is screaming. The Pleasure Garden is more playful. The audience see's women running down a staircase into a performance onstage. 2. Identify elements of the "Hitchcock style" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. Even if you are not sure if it is the "Hitchcock style," what images or techniques stand out in your mind as powerful storytelling? Or images that provide an excess of emotion? The closeup of the actress stands out to me. Since this is a silent film, the audience is unable to hear her screams but we can see the emotion in the way she expresses her fright on camera. 3. Even though this is a "silent" film, the opening image is one of a woman screaming. What do you notice in how Hitchcock frames that particular shot that makes it work in a silent film even though no audible scream that can be heard. And what other screams like that come to mind from Hitchcock's later work? Her face spans across the foreground, middle ground and background of the frame. Hitchcock uses an extreme closeup to compensate for the lack of audio.

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. I do see the Hitchcock touch in this film in the camera angles he uses. He has films shot in a way that the audience knows exactly what Hitchcock wants them to see. For example, he wants the audience to see the women running down the stair case and nothing else which is why the stairs are the only thing in the frame. Also, he wants the audience to see the women from the spectators point of view. He switches from both the women p.o.v. and the spectators p.o.v. 2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? I do think that this film gives insight into the next 50 years of Hitchcock's career. 3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue? I don't think there are any limitations in the scene. I think the dialogue would have been beneficial in the end of the scene where we see the men steal the woman's money. However, the audience can see the humor in the part where the dancer gives the spectator her hair and you can feel the emotion of the woman who realizes she has lost her money.

I love this short slapstick film. I've seen it previously when I was going to school for film at ASU. It's so great because it's just every day life. My siblings would do the same during a summer day of watering the lawn. The audience knows the boy is going to do something to the hose as soon as they see him walking behind the gardner. I do wonder what the relationship is between these two characters. However, it's not necessary to know that information to know what is going to happen. It's so funny seeing the water splash into the older man's face and having his character wet the child. This film reminds me of the feature film Bicycle Thief and Italian neorealism.