She won't take any Bull tonight.

Lots of Bull tonight.

From what I gather from films and stories from couples, asking your girlfriend to marry you is one of the hardest things any man has to do.  Up to that point, surely things are going great in the relationship, and taking the risk might ruin things.  I wanted to explore, then, the trials and tribulations of a man preparing to propose to his girlfriend.  Graciously, my roommate Luke chose to pose as the man.

Clearly, the emotion experienced if she says yes is happiness; thus, doing a story that ended with that would not be much of a study for me.  My plan, then, was to have the man prepare to propose, but then have the girlfriend not show up.  I left the reason for her absence up to the viewer – maybe she worked late, decided not to come because she heard he might propose, etc.  While I had no real idea in mind there, I left some visual cues to answer that open-ended question.

Having never experienced a botched marriage proposal, I had to do some research on the psychology of proposing.  Apparently, the man goes through a stage of excitement, then wonder, then regret, then nervousness – he will propose in the nervous stage.  If she says yes, then he goes to happiness.  Of course, since she is not there to even hear the proposal, the assumed emotional response stems from rejection: sadness and frustration.  Thus, I tried to capture this cycle throughout the photo essay.  In the first frame, we see the man brushing his teeth, almost with a look of encouragement to himself in the mirror.  Then, on the bus – looking at the ring – he begins to wonder and visualize what’s going to happen.  Once we see him at the restaurant, we see him thinking and, perhaps, regretting the idea.  Unfortunately, since she never showed up, it was never possible for the man to reach the nervous stage; thus, I did the last shots attempting to display sadness and frustration – the emotions of rejection.

While telling this story, I also wanted to vary the types of shots of the man – some were close to him, others were far away.  Sure, the man (Luke) can give clues as to what he’s feeling, but other things can give visual cues.  For example, the shot of the man alone in the restaurant – this only adds to his feeling of loneliness and despair.  The shot of him with his meal and hers, since he knows what her favorite meal is at their favorite restaurant, is also supposed to show, perhaps, the regret and frustration in one shot.  This was my attempt to combine emotions at different stages into one shot.

By the end, I don’t know if I know what it feels like to have a marriage proposal rejected.  However, after having studied the psychology and trying to capture the emotions in a still frame, I may felt some of those emotions – frustration, sadness, despair.  Regardless, for me this was an exploration of something I hope I never have to encounter – the rejection, that is.  In this way, this photo essay allowed me to study something completely different.

In conclusion, then, we are encountering a man who wants to marry his long-time girlfriend, but never gets the chance to.  Whether he was rejected or whether his girlfriend could honestly not make it, that is up to the viewer.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42541026@N04/4150888753/in/set-72157622791691655/

The commercial posted above is an advertisement for the language firm Berlitz in Germany.  We find an officer for the German Coast Guard starting his first day on the job and getting a thorough overview of his new work environment.  His superior gives him a tour and explains the function of every instrument in the facility.  This section, which begins the ad, is cut into a montage, which is meant to show that he got an extensive explanation, but of course the true seminar could not be fit into a 40-second spot.  After the young officer has received his entire lecture, his superior then leaves him in charge of all matters concerning his section of the German coast (which, by the way, is not all that extensive).  Practically as soon as he sits down, a distress call comes in from what appears to be an American ship.  The rookie officer, then, after he looked so poised, displays his weakness by speaking in broken, accent-heavy English to the worried captain.  We find out that the captain’s ship is actually sinking, and this man in charge of their safety on the ground does not even understand him, laughably answering back, “Vat are you sinking abouwt?”

This commercial succeeds in many ways.  First, it plays off the typical German stereotype of the very organized, well-planned workers.  One would think that if any country were ready for anything, it’d be Germany.  Then, by having the dimwitted employee, the breaking of that cultural stereotype is emphasized, which adds for a bigger laugh.  Second, it does well not to insult people who don’t understand English very well.  Although the character is meant to look useless in this scenario, by no means is he stupid – indeed, to get to the position he would be in, he must be a good Guardsman and smart person; however, the commercial is highlighting the fact that even the smartest people, when they are not prepared, look foolish.  In other words, by insinuating that even the smart look stupid when they don’t know what they need to know, it only alarms the consumer into feeling that they need to learn a necessary language soon.  Finally, since the commercial was such a simple concept, the success of the spot relied heavily on the quality of the acting by the main character, which I believe was flawless.  He hesitated at the moments he needed to, and portrayed someone with poor English skills trying to communicate.  If it turns out that an unreliable source I read told the truth by saying that all the main actor was in fact British, then his acting prowess is elevated because he did the part of a German very well.

What I also found interesting in the concept for the commercial was the undertone that learning another language is crucial.  As someone who had to grow up learning a new language, I have found that the learning of a new tongue can not be underestimated.  To somewhat parallel helping sinking members of a ship learning a language to help them – saving their lives – is a powerful, although subtle message.  It could be construed, then, that learning new languages saves everyone, because we can all communicate instead of be separated by pre-applied sounds.

I was also a fan of the way it was shot.  While the main character had only two lines, the first one was shot as a close-up, so the viewer had no choice but to closely observe his struggle with English.  On his second line, when the captain of the ship is desperately calling for help, the camera views his response from far away, which puts the whole room in view, which means that not only is he important, but the place he works for (German Coast Guard).  Indeed, it adds to the effect that if not even the German Coast Guard knows the necessary languages, then society is in trouble, which means it’s YOUR responsibility to go out there and learn a language.

With this in mind, very forceful classical, operatic music plays and forces you to pay attention to it.  The message is simple – “Improve Your English.”  By having that music be imperialistic, it is almost like a mandate that you “Improve Your English.”  It is quickly followed by the logo for Berlitz, letting the consumer know that this is the firm that can help you learn the languages you need to learn.  Thus, I believe this commercial succeeds in multiple ways – it plays well off of stereotypes, it emphasizes it’s point in more ways than one, and it’s very funny, which is a powerful tool to attract people.  I think this commercial, then, is very well done.

This is the Lumiere Film that Billel, Justin and I wrote and shot.  It is done in the style of the Lumiere Brothers – no sound, no editing, and 1-minute long.  It tells the story of a business man on his lunch break.  Typically, business must be professional, but when the tie is loosened, the true “fiend” within is unleashed.  Enter a beautiful woman, who sits next to him at the lunch area of his office building, and all of a sudden is becomes overly aggressive in trying to court her.  She tries to get away, but a professional not acting professional is hard to get rid of.

This is also an homage to any man who has ever tried to woo a woman – it’s not easy.  Clearly, this method is not the best, but at least he tried.  We did five takes, and the last one was the best, since it was exactly one minute and (we felt) the best acted.  Takes 1-4 were too short from our original idea, so we kept adding new dimensions to the film as the shooting went along.

We are all very proud of this film.

Special thanks to my friend Elsha who agreed to help with the film and portray the unfortunate woman in the film.

The video above is entitled “Better Than” by John Butler Trio, a band I love from Australia.  The whole point of the song is how money doesn’t necessarily buy happiness (“So all you want is/What you can’t have/And if ya’ just look around, man/You’ll see you got magic”).  The video itself tries to convey this message with visual cues, and certain words.  For example, the first shot shows a fake poster which says “Make Money!: Buy All You Can.”  This sets the tone for the theme of the entire video, especially for those who don’t know the song – it allows the viewer to get the message of the song/video without doing anything yet.

The whole video is set in a clearly CGId world.  From that first poster, the camera pans right as we follow an array of signs that convey the same message with different alphabetical text and visual text.  Then, we encounter what look like advertisements for a live show, but it is actually John Butler and his “trio” being moving images in what is supposed to be a still poster.  What is interesting, of course, is that they are performing as if they are performing live in that poster, even though we know it’s a music video, so it’s not live, and also that they’re playing live in a live poster – quite a paradox.  Also, the beginning used the “open up” technique, since we began with just that one advertisement, and then the scene “opened up” for us to see what was to the right of the ad.  I guess panning and “opening up” can be used simultaneously.

One thing I noticed in this music video, and I have noticed in others, is that the biggest difference between these and movies is that music videos always cause a “broken wall”.  Indeed, actors in a film are not supposed to look directly at the audience . because they are supposed to exist in their “cinematic universe”, but in this video, the band is constantly looking at us.  I believe this is done because they want to have a personal connection with an audience to convey a message.  What I’ve found, then, is that movies seem to be more disengaged with their audience, while music videos, much more often, look and directly interact with the viewer/listener.  I feel like a video like this would need that kind of interaction, so I’m glad the band and director chose to break the already broken wall.

I would also argue that this video has undergone a lot of “color seeping” – in other words, it has received a lot of color contrast.  Clearly, the band does not look 2D and black and white while the rest of the world is in color, so I think contrast was used to make a sharper distinction between the band’s environment and them.  There was also some certain “chroma keying”, since I’m sure the band performed in front of a green screen, and then were added to this computerized world.

Finally, there seems to be a lot of “pull back retraction” going on throughout the entire video – it’s almost like the camera is pulsating.  I think this is done for a few reasons: 1) actually look like a heart beating, as if money were the heartbeat of the world, 2) to bring us into the band, who think they make sense, but then have “society” pulls us back, and 3) hell, why not?  It looks cool.  I understand that a choice is done most of the time for a reason, but why can’t it be done just to look cool?  It’s something I’ve been wondering about recently.  But yes, it pulls out, then goes right back, so it is undoing the “pull back retraction.”

I’m a big fan of this video because it tries to convey two messages – don’t care about material things, and that one shouldn’t really care too much.  The first message was already talked about, but we get the second in part from the first, but also the fact that we seem to be flowing from one street to another, quite carefree.  Skateboarders, part of the “f*** the world” lifestyle, constantly skate by in front of the screen, reminding us that we should be that way, carefree.  I feel like that is the overriding theme of the video: don’t care too much, and live your life.  Indeed, life isn’t about what’s “better than”.

In case these messages were not evident, all throughout the video, there is text with messages to be decoded, but all have to do with the main message.  It is done with a graffiti font, once again to code for the “street” style and the “carefree”, “f*** the world” feel.  I think that feel was conveyed perfectly, and the visual choices fed well into that.  Overall, terrific video by a terrific band, that unfortunately not many people know about.

"Rear Window" Movie Poster

The poster and opening scene above are from the classic 1954 film “Rear Window”, starring Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly.  The film was directed by movie legend Alfred Hitchcock.  The film is a comment on the Cold War culture of skepticism, where you did not know who was a Communist spy among you.  Therefore, in this film, the analogy is a murderer, and Stewart’s character, L.B. “Jeff” Jeffries, is suspicious of a possible murderer across the street from him.  Jeff broke his leg, and is so bored he spends his time watching people, and came across this suspicious gentleman who is now going around his house without a woman around.  Jeff swears he saw her murdered, and tries to get his girlfriend, Lisa (played by Kelly) in on it.  She does side with Jeff, and even tries to aid him in on his quest to prove his neighbors guilt.  The movie ends somewhat ambiguously, as you really don’t know who the aggressor and the victim is by the end of the film.

The beginning of the film is breathtaking.  Windows begin to open right in front of us as we slowly approach it, and then we go on a continuous shot to see our immediate area, and each little window we get to peek in is like its own story.  For example, when we start to see the Ballerina, Mrs. Lonelyheart, the piano player, and, eventually, the suspected murderer.  We don’t know much about these people, only what we see.  What’s interesting is we’re seeing these people only through the eyes of Jeff, who has a story for everyone.  The camera does a great job mimicking this too, as every shot into someone’s window looks like we’re Jeff, peering into the window without anyone noticing.  I also find interesting is that while we look into other people’s apartments, our sense of “creepiness” never really sinks in – we almost feel privileged.  Indeed, a movie camera gives us privileged views, but we still aren’t entitled to look into the private lives of other people.  Yet, that thought doesn’t surface right away.

The opening scene continues with brilliance.  After we’re done stalking the outside world, we are confronted with Jeff’s face, sleeping and sweating in the heat.  Thus, we learn it’s hot – the next shot being the thermometer tells us that, too.  We start to follow down his body, and we see that one of his legs is broken, which explains why he’s laying there in the heat and why he’s in a wheelchair.  All this we know about the character, WITHOUT ONE WORD BEING UTTERED!  Don’t worry, it continues!  We then pan over to a busted camera, which we can only imagine is his.  We confirm that it’s his after we see a picture of a car crash, with the totaled car heading in the direction of the photographer (which, one can only assume, is him).  This explains, then, why he’s in the wheelchair and why his leg is broken.  Again, no words yet, just pure camera genius.  Then, the conundrum.  There is a negative photo of Lisa, framed, among his collection of photos.  I did not know what this meant at the beginning, but having finished the movie, I believe it is that Lisa and Jeff tend to swap gender roles (Lisa = more masculine, Jeff = more feminine), and so the negative shows that the “opposite” of her is the real one.  At the end of the film, rather, she wears a man’s shirt and reads a “man’s magazine” when Jeff isn’t looking!  This is only a guess, though.  The cool thing, however, is I can make that assumption, simply from the visuals the film gives me.  There has been no dialog, just visual spoon feeding.  A split second later it becomes apparent that Jeff took the photo, as it was a negative of a cover shot of Lisa for Paris Fashions – lucky guy.

Speaking of Lisa, when we first meet her, it’s a little weird.  She is leaning into us, approaching us, and then it “slow-mo’s” into a wake up kiss for Jeff.  Again, lucky guy.  The camera stays tight in the two of them as they ave a typical couple chat, and it’s very playful.  But, with her face on above Stewart’s, she is being the aggressor, and looks more dominant – another reason why I find that symbolism in the negative photo.  These are all visual cues that give a deeper meaning to the film – I’ve learned  that there is much more to a film than just what is said.  There’s a lot said that you can’t hear.

The last scene I will find very memorable.  When the “bad guy” shows up in Jeff’s apartment, his eyes are cast in light – normally something done to the good guy in films.  Jeff, on the other hand, is completely dark, and you can barely make out his figure.  Again, it is hard to tell between the aggressor and the victim.  While it looks likely, we really have no proof that the mysterious man killed his wife; if he didn’t, the Jeff is harassing him, in which case he would be the victim.  So, while we’re on Jeff’s side, we almost sympathize with “the bad guy”.  The visuals in the film, then, help with our brain process – the visuals direct where our thought process goes.

As they talk in this scene, it becomes apparent that “the bad guy” did, in all likelihood, kill his wife.  He starts asking some menacing questions, but with an air of begging (“what do you want?”, he asks).  Jeff remains calm and patient, covered in that dark light, that eventually envelops the top half of “the bad guy”.  When Jeff gets menacingly approached by “the bad guy”, he starts to take flash photos of him, blinding him.  Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it’s almost as if flashing him with light, “revealing him”, ends up being his downfall.  Of course, he does get to Stewart and the flash only slows him down – but that’s just it, it slows him down.  Once again, we see all these visual metpahors being said, without words being uttered.  I find that fascinating.

I think this film made AFI’s top 10 in the Mystery category because it is well-acted, well-directed, but most importantly, it tells multiple stories within one film.  Each window, in essence, is a mini-story waiting to be told.  Since no one will tell it, we just take Jeff’s “point of view” (wink!).  The visual metaphors add different layers and components to the story.  In fact, we probably would not understand certain aspects of the film had we not seen some of the well-placed visual material.  Hitchcock does a master job of using visual cues to give us information that give whole new elements to the movie, so it’s not just about the acting or dialog.  Perhaps, though, it’s the entire metaphor for the Cold War culture that does it.  At the end, the whole struggle was to get a Search Warrant, not even a conviction.  While the “bad guy” appears guilty, all we know from the film is circumstantial evidence.  It may turn out that it was all a hyperbole on Jeff’s part, but the film does not address this issue.  Thus, the film, to me, is saying that it is practically meaningless to try to find out if some is “bad” just form observation.  More often than not, if someone doesn’t want you to know something, they won’t let you find out.  Overall, the hierarchies, positive-negatives, light-dark, good-bad: the film was a constant struggle between two forces, and sometimes the viewer doesn’t know which side to choose.  In my opinion, that makes a great movie – let alone the wonderful shots of the surrounding area with no cuts.  I would be this technique was not common in the 50s!

I did enjoy this movie, and I feel that everyone should see it!

Photo 1 – Sleep Tight…: While I love being here in D.C. to go to American, I do always miss home.  Every time I go to sleep, I always think what it would be like to go home – in the middle-of-nowhere Massachusetts where all there are, are trees.  At the same time, I realize what a “dream” it is for a kid like me to be at such a great university like American, and I also think about how fortunate I am every time I go to bed.  Thus, I began to realize that I am in a constant sleep mode.  The curtains, then, are open, to signal that my career is open for being at such a school and it allows me to see outward.  It also serves another function – it allows me to see the trees.  Therefore, I am always reminded of my roots in Massachusetts, and what my room at AU and home have in common is that outside my bedroom, I only see trees (which is why I “lighted out” the sky and made sure only the trees were prominent).  I added the phrase “sleep tight” right next to me as if it was reassuringly being whispered to me, for I know that even though I miss home, I’m glad to be here…Methods used: 1) Brightness raised a few points, 2) contrast all the way to 100, 3) uniform noise (for a dream-like element) to 56.56%, and 4) the “underpainting” effect.

Photo 2 – Piano: I have been playing piano for 12 years now, and it has become such a big part of my life that I felt the need for it to become a part of my self-portrait collection.  To me, it symbolizes the years of hard work I put into learning and making music our of a simple keyboard.  This was also the place for where I grew a great appreciation for music itself.  As for the composition, I wanted the piano to be prominent, and myself not so much, which explains the one hand instead of two.  I also made sure to take the photo next to a window that displays the outside world, because the world of piano has brought me to interesting parts of the world and has allowed me to meet people from everywhere.  Also, there were a bunch of trees – again, an homage to my little town in Massachusetts.  When I got to Photoshop, I had a quote my piano teacher, Mrs. Blinder, used to tell me constantly, “piano is supposed to bring out what’s inside of you, turn you inside-out.” in mind.  First, I made the photo black and white, and the I hit inverted it.  I tried to make everything inside-out – the black keys were white, vice versa, etc.  I also liked that it had an X-ray feel to it, which allows the viewer to see me inside-out.  It is simple, but to me the meaning was so strong that I had to leave it that way….Methods used: 1) Black and White – every color up to 300 except yellow which went down to -200, 2) invert, and 3) reduce noise.

Photo 3 – Bull Stud: I have to admit, I was having a lot of fun with this one.  The flag is Spain’s alternate flag, which consists of the national animal, the bull, with “package” and all, staring you down.  The meaning, apparently, is supposed to be “Spain’s Got Balls.”  Anyway, I have it in my room, since it reminds me of my roots in Barcelona, Spain, and I felt the need to convey this side of me.  I didn’t want this simply to be just a “this is me with my flag” shot, so I tried to make it what would seem to be a cool comedy album cover.  I do stand-up around D.C., and was thinking if I ever recorded an album, this would be my cover.  I tried to give a “faux” serious face, even though it took a lot of shots to do because I couldn’t stop laughing.  Then, I was thinking of my album title, and, seeing as the “package” is quite prominent in the photo, I thought I’d name it “Stud”, for obvious reasons.  Then, as I played around with Photoshop, I found that since I was wearing the same shade of red, I could blend into the flag.  Thus, it almost looks like I’m a part of the flag, which adds more symbolism to my “Spanishness.”  Anyway, I thought it was funny and conveyed who I am, which is someone funny who conveys who he is…I think…..Methods Used: 1) Posterize, 2) Fresco, 3) Sprayed Strokes.

The title sequence above belongs to the first Spider-Man film from Columbia Pictures.  This film starred some A-list actors such as Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, along with one of my favorites, the ever-creepy Willem Defoe.  This film garnered enough acclaim – and money – to continue the franchise and make two sequels, with talks of a fourth ongoing.

I remember being the theaters and watching this title sequence, and I especially remember how cool and brilliant it was.  After the “Columbia Pictures” graphic, Marvel showed their graphic, but it clearly had to do with the film, seeing as it was select snapshots of Spider-man comics.  What this did was introduce what was about to happen – this film was going to be an adaptation of the comic book stories that many people have read in their lifetime.  Not surprisingly, but also striking was that Marvel continued to use their comic brand logo and didn’t change it for cinema.  While it was primarily kept for simple logo recognition, I think they didn’t make a “film logo” because then the spirit of the comic book can thrive along with the film.  In this sense, yes, you will be watching a film adaptation of the comics, but one that is “approved” by Marvel, so Hollywood doesn’t get rid of its essence throughout the filming process.

Then, the actual title sequence begins.  With a dark blue background, a near mystical single white strand (which I now know is a strand of a web) comes flying out from the top of the screen and continues to go forward, thus giving us the depth perception that the strand is flying away from us.  Normally, in the comics, when you see a single flying strand like that, it means Spider-man himself is on the other end and is going to come swing on it.  With the trajectory in mind, it would mean that Spider-man would be coming from that same direction, in which case it would mean that Spider-man is on his way; fitting, since this is the opening sequence to the film – Spider-man is on his way.  After this, we are introduced to a foggy background, keeping that same dark blue color, and on top of it is the text of the title sequence, which is done (smartly) in the same font as the word “Spider-man” is done in for the comics.  This text would prevail throughout the whole opening.  What I also found interesting was that certain letters in the text in certain words were not put linearly, but were offset from each other, giving it a messy look.  I found this interesting, since a spider’s work is fairly neat and meticulous; however, my guess is that the decision makers chose to do this because Peter Parker’s life is not as neat as a spider’s – a great juxtaposition.  For this reason, then, I feel they made this decision.  Finally, with the text, more often than not a flying string of web comes into the frame and “breaks up” the text, which makes the text go in multiple directions.  Again, messy, and also combative, which a hero in a Stan Lee-type comic must do.

The title itself comes in flying again from the front to the back and tilts to land horizontally on a grandiose web – fitting.  While it is in the same font as all the other text, it is in all capital letters, which makes it stand out as the premier thing to get out of the whole sequence.  Also, just in case, for just a moment the title flashes and is highlighted while the area behind it is darkened, making the title stand out even more.  Therefore, there should be no confusion now as to what film is being watched; however, I would hope that the person at the film would know what they were watching.

From the title, we go straight into the actors in the film, and they continue with that messy text format, but it is still done so you know what letter belongs to which word.  The way this is done is that each word, for example “Starring Tobey Maguire) is on a separate level, so the viewer can know that even though certain letters are spread out, they must belong to the word on that same plain, reading left to right.

The rest of the title sequence continues in this manner, but what becomes the protagonist in this title sequence is the background.  While we see webs in the foreground set up the visual language that this film has at least something to do with spiders (which is a pattern of metaphorical nature in itself), the background starts off black after the title and then becomes increasingly more complex.  Once James Franco’s name appears, the background goes from complete blackness to certain clouds of red, coding for the color that is the main theme in Spider-man’s costume.  I see this as a visual metaphor – blackness symbolizes nothing, and the red symbolizes Spider-man the hero.  Thus, since in the film Peter Parker essentially goes from a nobody to a hero, this color change parallels this change.  What also parallels it is that it is a gradual change, not a brutal one.  This makes sense, since Peter’s transformation is a gradual one, as well.  Keep in mind, however, that the webs are still present in the foreground, keeping that symbology alive.

Once we get to Rosemary Harris’ name, that red in the background starts to gain shape – indeed, it is in the shape of that flying strand we were introduced to at the beginning of the sequence.  Again, the gradual rise of a hero is being coded for.  Then, all of sudden, the black and red come together and look like deformed spirals of DNA.  Knowing the movie, this makes sense, since Peter’s DNA made a dramatic change once he was bit by that spider.  After this, people in the theater start to get excited – we are introduced to Spider-man himself.  The background goes dark, after all the gradual building; finally, an arm appears out of the left of the frame and starts to break through webs.  We do not see all of him – this makes sense, we want to see him gradually and the director wants to keep suspense.

After the next set of names, we see his hand come from the body of the screen and destroy the names.  I found this interesting, since Spider-man seems more violent than a hero at this point.  However, this may be deliberate, because the movie makers may be trying to keep a cloud of mystery around the character, or maybe they are playing with the line that Spider-man crosses occasionally about being a hero or not.  It is right after this that we see his chest roll through from the left to the right, and we are now seeing more and more of him.  The background has now lost its red color, since it seems that Spider-man has absorbed the red himself.  All that is left is a cloud of lighter blue than before; however, Spider-man’s back is blue, which is evident after get a close up of his back and we move up his body, and when we get to his head, he lifts it up, and then moves off screen.

It is after we see the most of him that we’ve ever seen that we are introduced to the Green Goblin’s mask.  We see it in all its glory for a few moments, and then it breaks into what looks like a blueprint outline.  What is cool about this is that Goblin is created mechanically; so, by giving it the blueprint outline, it codes for the building of the mask and the uniform.  In other words, we see Goblin from its design stage to finished stage, but in reverse order.  Perhaps this is done to code for him being the villain, since he is kind of “backwards” thinking.  A stretch, but a possibility nonetheless.  The minute detail there, though, is in that blueprint design, the eyes are in the form of a web; this could code for “he only has eyes for Spider-man”.  We are then introduced to the city of New York, as we can only see the top of the buildings.  This is clearly a deliberate choice, since Spider-man can really only see the tops of buildings when he’s in “hero mode”.  As the sequence progresses, the buildings themselves become saturated with the red, black and blue colors.  Again, this could code for New York’s gradual progression of liking Spider-man (in the film they don’t take to him at first, but then the citizens of the city become big fans).  Then we start to see webs hanging off the buildings themselves, so we are now aware that “Spidey” is everywhere.  We actually get a quick glimpse of him swinging, and we get to see a piercing white eye as he swings.  At this moment, we have finally been introduced to the alter ego of our hero, but nothing about Peter Parker is present in this sequence – this is 100% Spider-man.

Finally, the sequence ends with a CGI version of a spider web, and then it cuts out into a real-life web in the corner of a random building – a smooth transition from the CGI nature of the sequence to the film itself.  All in all, I found this sequence to be very strong and gives little films as to the nature of the film.  Of course, I believe it is a sequence that one can understand more from once that person has seen the film a certain amount of times.  In other words, I think the title sequence was made to explain the film’s content minutely, and not done as a separate project – it was made to compliment the film.  The film makers must have liked what this sequence represented, seeing as the subsequent films used this formula, with minor changes.

While it may not be the most exciting poster of all time, having seen the film, I believe it is a poster that fits the movie quite well.  First of all, we see just the one character, Lucia, who is titled in the poster.  Not only, then, does it parallel the singularity of the title character, but also shows her loneliness (i.e. just lost her boyfriend, she learns of deceptive secrets, etc.)  I see it as a resemblance of her solidarity, as well as her being the protagonist.  Not to mention that Lucia is played by Paz Vega, one of Spain’s most famous actresses (who has even made the cross over to the U.S. in “The Spirit” and “Spanglish”!)  Also, the emphasis on her being the protagonist is amplified by the fact that she is so close to the front, and the background appears to be an afterthought.

However, I would argue that the background is not an afterthought at all.  We see that Lucia is traveling alone on a road – again, emphasis on her solidarity, with the metaphor of her traveling a lonely road.  Of course, that landscape is that island she escapes to, which gives a “lay of the land” for the film.  My favorite part of the poster, however, is the lighthouse in the back.  Firstly, it codes for the island that she resides on.  Most importantly, I believe, it is a phallic symbol.  This movie does not make it a secret that it is erotic – hence the title with “sex” right in it.  Seeing as Lucia herself in the poster is only about an inch or two away from exposing herself to us, and seeing as she has a huge lighthouse in the back that adds to the second half of the equation, it gives off a message of the kinds of interactions that we will see in the film.

Finally, I would like to comment on the design of the title itself on the poster.  The size of it is fairly big, which takes up a decent chunk of the poster.  I would go as far as to say that it is about 1/4 of the entire poster, leaving only 3?4 available for movie information itself; thus, it wants to emphasize the fact that there will be “sex” and some (hot) girl named “lucia” in the film.  Speaking of those words, they are the same size in the text.  The “and” is turned vertical and made very small, which adds as a bit of a separator, but mostly acts as a code where you really only see “sex” and “lucia”.  By being the same size, it’s as if they were the same thing; “sex” is “Lucia” and “Lucia” is “sex”.  Therefore, the text alone essentially tells you (as if it weren’t obvious already) that Lucia will take part in some sexual interactions in this film.  Of course, the seductive look on Lucia’s face in the poster helps a bit, too.

What is the coolest thing, then, about this poster is that there is not too much going on, but, once having seen the movie, you realize that the entire film is laid out right in front of you.  The girl, the loneliness, the sexual symbols (phallic and feminine), etc.  The director himself barely chose to make his name that big, since he most likely did not want it to be that big of a deal for the poster – he is really letting the poster, and movie, speak for itself.