The world of dystopia; a place where human civilization has finally hit rock bottom or are pretty damn close to doing so. Offspring of George Orwell’s 1984, the dystopian societies found in such films as Brazil, A Clockwork Orange, Blade Runner and the recent V for Vendetta are dark, dreary places of oppressive, totalitarian rule that despite their fictional origins often serve as a mirror to troubles in the real world.

Go here for more.

I have added a link to an article from Culturewatch on The Lives of Others that you may wish to read. Culturewatch  describes their work as exploring the message behind the media and it has a Christian focus.  Here is an extract:

The Lives of Others is one of the finest new films I’ve seen in a long time. Winner of the 2007 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, it is all the more amazing as this is German writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmark’s first film. Set in East Berlin in 1984, it is the story of two men. The first is Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch), a playwright who is thought by the authorities to be alone among his peers in his loyalty to the Socialist Unity Party. The second, State Security (Stasi) Captain Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), is absolutely committed to the Party and highly effective in his work. He has his doubts about Dreyman’s loyalty when he watches him at the premiere of his new play. Wiesler’s former classmate, Anton Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur), has become head of the Stasi culture department and laughs off Wiesler’s suspicions. But Minister Bruno Hempf (Thomas Thieme) has his eye on Dreyman’s girlfriend and leading lady Christa-Maria Sieland (Martina Gedeck). It would be useful for him if Dreyman was found to be disloyal, so he suggests to Grubitz that Dreyman should be placed under surveillance. Grubitz, eager to curry favour with the Minister, immediately agrees with the wisdom of this action, and entrusts the case to Wiesler. Wiesler has Dreyman’s apartment bugged, and sets up his listening post in the loft of the building.

 

By focusing attention on this one operation, Donnersmark examines the mechanisms of the entire German Democratic Republic. A title card at the beginning of the film informs us that the Stasi had nearly 100,000 employees at this point in history, and a further 200,000 informers. The goal was ‘to know everything’. The ruthlessness with which this goal is pursued is shown starkly by an opening sequence in which shots of Wiesler teaching a class of Stasi trainees are intercut with shots of one of his interrogation sessions. As he plays the recording of the interrogation to his students, he describes what he is trying to achieve: ‘The best way to establish guilt or innocence is non-stop interrogation. An innocent man becomes more angry; a guilty man becomes quiet and calm, or he cries. A liar has prepared statements; a man telling the truth can reformulate the truth.’ Donnersmark intensively researched the Stasi for four years before filming (which lasted just 37 days), including interviewing former employees and those who had been detained, in order to ensure the accuracy of the situation he portrayed. He was insistent on using original locations for such a film: notably the Stasi headquarters in Normannenstrasse and the Central Detention Centre in Hohenschönhausen.

 

They have also discussed Children of Men – Hinting at Hope and Children of Men Discussion Guide.

I know that some of you are interested in the film V for Vendetta so go here for a short discussion guide.

For information on AS 90721 (the novel) go here. You will find old papers, assessment schedules, exemplars and reports.

Only eight days left until the exams. Are you studying hard enough?

We watched the films several times, watched the director’s commentary and discussed auteur theory. However, we seemed to have lost a bit of that knowledge … so lets recap.

Auteur theory holds that a director’s films reflect that director’s personal creative vision, as if he/she were the primary “Auteur” (the French word for “author”). The auteur theory,  holds that the director, who oversees all audio and visual elements of the motion picture, is more to be considered the “author” of the film than is the writer of the screenplay. In other words, such fundamental visual elements as camera placement, blocking, lighting, and scene length, rather than plot line, convey the message of the film. Supporters of the auteur theory further contend that the most cinematically successful films will bear the unmistakable personal stamp of the director.

To be considered an auteur, a film-maker must have a body of work which can be analysed for ongoing themes and considerations, whether they occur intentionally or unintentionally. One example would be the theme of the distant father in Steven Spielberg’s work.

The most common examples given to support auteur theory are Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Jean-Luc Godard. Each presents a strong case, though perhaps the most well known example for modern filmgoers would be that of Tim Burton.

However, others working today such as Woody Allen, Francis Coppola, Ron Howard, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, even Baz Luhrmann and the other directors of their stature are certainly auteurs.

Marqueestars believes that the auteur concept was quickly co-opted to refer principally to storyteller directors with their own distinctive personal vision. They believe that it is a far more romantic and compelling, but simplistic idea: the film director as Horatio Hornblower, almighty captain of his ship and master of the cinematic seas. It’s also much easier to sell a single “auteur” as part of a film’s ad campaign.In their words an auteur is seen as an outstanding filmmaker who could blow away the stuffy boredom of convention with a breath of fresh cinematic imagination.

Want to read more? Try How to recognise an Auteur.

Go here to find past papers and exemplars for the Visual Texts paper.

This post is about the Commander. We see his type in some of the other texts we have studied. He is a great believer in Gilead yet he thwarts its principles. His office is full of books, “No wonder we can’t come in here. It’s an oasis of the forbidden.” He seems to want to retain some aspects of the past and he certainly wants to relate to Offred. He even trots out the cliched ‘my wife doesn’t understand me’ line. Offred realises, “That was what I was there for, then. The same old thing. It was too banal to be true.” Offred can’t reject him as he could send her to the colonies. He takes her to Jezebels and says, “It’s like walking into the past …” He claims that brothels are human nature and can’t be repressed. The thing that differs now however, is the prostitutes at Jezebels tend to be intellectuals forced to be there. They would not have been prostitutes in the past. So in Gilead the Commander has all the benefits of the regime and he retains aspects of the past. He can do this because he is male and he has the power. The Commander represents the hypocrisy, the corruption and the power of the Gileadean regime.

If you want extra help, remember that there is a tutorial this Saturday from 9-12. Check the notices for more details.