1. Select a scene that impressed you in Cabiria and another one that you did not like, and explain why you feel that way.
2. Respond to two of your classmates' posts.
I was pretty impressed by the scene with the volcano eruption and the pillars falling everywhere. That entire sequence was probably revolutionary at the time and it was interesting to see what was considered once "high-tech."
A scene I didn't like was the one where they were sacrificing the children; yes, the concept it awful, but what bothered me was that they clearly used the same clip of the little boy being placed in the cradle-thing twice. Repetition like that bothers me. They were probably trying to show that there were a lot of children and they didn't have the time or tech to film more than one sequence, but things like that still bother me.
I also liked the volcano eruption scene, but did not like how it was used 3 times. It was easy to spot because the same actors were moving in the same exact way. We knew that the eruption was still continuing. Why would they show the eruption multiple times? The special effects were very impressive for the time period.
To the negative about the sacrifice, I feel like my previous comment applies. Repetition also bothers me a great deal, in addition to irrelevant sources.
i agree on the volcano scene, i thought it was pretty good for such an old movie, i had really low expectations but that kind of impressed me and it definitely had my attention for quite some time. the screaming and panicking was a little overdone, but no movie is perfect!
The volcano was ingenious as far as the ability of the director and editors to make the scene seem legitimate. I'm not sure where the villagers were supposed to be coming from. I'm really curious as to how many times they had to film the falling pillars scene before they got it just right or if any of the actors or people working on the set had been hurt by the falling rubble. I didn't even notice that they had used the same clip twice in the sacrifice scene. The idea of burning children bothered me quite a bit even though I knew it was fake.
Yes, the volcano eruption was probably very high tech at the time. What I loved most about that scene was watching the carefully constructed ancient city set that had been giving us a look inside the peaceful lives of Sicilians just moments before collapse into a pile of rubble. It must have been a powerful scene for the audience to watch when it was first released.
A scene that impressed me was the Temple of Moloch. Granted the scene was gruesome and horrifying, it presented a dynamic atmosphere in which the ritual was conveyed. The first time that we saw the inside of the temple, in the film, the thing that struck me most was the lighting. At first the lighting was so dark that it actually prevented us from seeing the whole scene, until slowly the lighting started to brighten, in which we started to notice the horror that was taking place. I do not know if it was done purposefully, but it interested me to know what was taking place in the scene.
A scene that did not interested me very much, was when they were offering things to the gods to stop the eruption of Mt. Etna. The acting was so dramatic that it distracted me from taking it seriously.
I agree with the ridiculous acting, a lot of it was really overdone and even though the scene was really serious, i couldnt help laughing a little, because it reminded me of that overly dramatic person who has a melt down over the littlest things!
I really like the details you noticed! I did not notice that was the intention. I originally thought most of the things to do with lighting were just mistakes due to the horrible film equipment they used to use. In retrospect, I find that the lighting was very creative. Compared to the movie we watched earlier, which used no realy dynamic movement of camera or lighting, besides light and dark.
I also agree with the comment about the horrid acting. I understand that it was a method used in classic theater to get the message across to all members of the audience, but I would think that someone would realize the technique was not very effective in this type of Drama while editing.
Temple of Moloch was my favorite scene too. Your response though made me realize that not only was the set revolutionary, but so was the subject matter. To the original audiences, this scene must have been terrifying as well.
The slow lightening up of the scene when we first see the temple from inside was definitely done on purpose. I myself was struck by how closely this effect imitates the reaction of our eyes when we enter, say, a dark cave, and they slowly adjust to the dim light. The temple is only lighted by torches, so compared to the glare of the North-African desert light outside, it must be pretty dark inside the temple.
I really loved this scene too and when I saw the dark temple slowly start to light up and we get the picture of the large crowd and the incinerator I sat up in my chair a little. It was a very powerful image, and part of the reason is because they started using effects that draw you into the scene. The other effect was that the incinerator that they were putting children in lit up like there was actually a fire in it bringing us closer to believing the sacrifices.
I agree with you about the acting. Sometimes it was just to over dramatic that I wasn't able to pay attention on what was going on, I would just think how funny they looked and by the time I realized what I was doing I was already lost. But the acting part is still funny.
I was very impressed with the scene that involved the temple. it was very theatrical and very dramatic but i was impressed with the explosions and the fire that came up, i thought the lighting and the music was very tasteful in the scene and the angle of the camera shot gave the audience the impression that they were spectators in this horror and it conveyed that sense of helplessness to the audience when you cant help people in trouble.
I didn't like a lot of the dialogue scenes because i had no idea what was going on and it frustrated me because in classical theater the dialogue is so important and conveyed most of the plot. but i am aware that this was like...the 1920's or so so state of the art technology is a high expectation :)
I agree with you with being impressed by the temple. It was a very well thought out scene and the lighting and other effects made the scene even better. I agree with you also on the music. Compared to the first film we watched the music was much better and fit very well with each scene and made the necessary changes when the scene would change.
The temple was pretty cool, very over-stated and kind of funky with those random elephant pillars. Did you notice the eyes on that big statue blinking? I thought that was a nice touch, if not a little questionable as to how such a thing could be possible in those times. And I totally agree, the music is much better in "Cabiria"!
I had some trouble lining up who was saying what for the dialogue slates at first. It took some getting used to!
The dialogue parts of the movie really helped to explain what was going on and then the acting just reiterated it for me. The music really helped me to get into the film and was done really well in my opinion. I really appreciated the dynamism of the camera as well as the lighting throughout the scenes but it was especially well done in the sacrifice scene. The camera combined with the music, lighting, and acting really helped bring the film to life.
To me the dialogue seemed very simple. It's always fascinating to look at different movies from different eras and see how the story and action change. To me, it seems silent movies have very simple and easy to follow stories, with a lot of exaggerated action, while movies today can have very complex stories, with or without a lot of action.
For me personally, the intertitles are too long and too turgid in style. They are maybe the one feature in which this movie resembles the earlier "Marcantonio e Cleopatra" the most. At the same time, I am aware that the contemporary audience probably wasn't bothered by these texts at all. On the contrary, many Italians were huge fans of Gabriele d'Annunzio, the poet who had composed the text, and his collaboration on this movie was one of the reasons people wanted to see "Cabiria".
I thought Cabiria was a pretty good movie, compared to the movie we watched before-hand. I really liked their use of dynamic motion in the backdrop. It really makes the scene and enviornment come alive. It probably had a greater effect for the people first watching it, not used to seeing a bustling city on a small screen in front of them. It was very innovative and impressive to see.
I did not like, however, the acting. I just am thoroughly annoyed when I see people over-acting any of the characters they play. The use of extreme motion was used in classic theater to convey messages that even the back row could read. In the case of a movie, I don't really think that any of the extreme action is necessary.
I actually enjoyed this movie also. I think that the music and little details made a huge difference in enjoying the movie. I thought that the change of music for each scene made it even more dynamic and easier to watch, unlike the first movie we watched where the music was just horrible in general.
I also agree with you on the backdrop making the scene "come alive". I really enjoyed seeing what was remarkable back when this movie was made and comparing it to the movies we have nowadays. The technology jump is unbelievable.
I agree with you on both parts. The constant motion in the background was very effective in creating the illusion of a bustling city that was probably completely mind-blowing for the original viewers.
I have trouble taking things seriously when the acting is so over-done like it was in this movie, but in this case it really shows how new this whole "film/motion picture" thing was to people back then and it's pretty cool to watch (though I bet these old actors would be blown away if they ever got to see how subtle you can actually be on film!).
I agree, the overacting can take me out of the movie sometimes. But other times it just makes me laugh because it's so ridiculously over-the-top. However, back when the movie was first released, I think the overacting would have been welcomed. Considering it's a silent movie, the only things the audience has to go on to find out what's happening are the bits of inserted text and visual cues. And considering the film's so grainy, maybe the only way to adequately convey emotion was to wave your arms around.
I think that the acting is advanced for the time. The actors were doing what they knew how to do. Since they didn't have words to convey what's going on in the scene they have to display it in a way that everyone will understand. If the actors hadn't overacted I don't think I would have understood anything in the movie. True we are blessed with more advanced technology that allows actors to be able to use the slighted raise of an eyebrow or a different connotation in speech to mean something but I wouldn't have caught that in a silent film.
I also really liked this movie! But I am not sure if it was just me personally, but all the action in the background was slightly distracting. I thought it was kind of irrelevant and film nowadays seems to have progressed in a way that makes it far less overwhelming to the audience.
The acting annoyed me as well, even though there isn't sound, the audience can tell what is going on without the acting having to be that over the top. I found it distracting.
I really enjoyed Cabiria. Although the movie was made when movies were just starting to develop and become popular, I found that it sort of grabbed me and dragged me into the story. The piano playing was eons ahead of the organ which was featured in the last film and the acting had jumped exponentially as well. I will admit that the acting might have been a bit over the top, but being that it was a silent film, the overacting helped the director explain to the audience what was happening when spoken words were not possible.
My favorite scene was most likely the sacrifice scene due to the dynamism of the camera as well as the actors. Even though the scene was done wonderfully, the sacrifices bothered me because the director got me to believe that those children were really being offered up as sacrifices to be burned alive for the gods. Meanwhile, my least favorite scene was the brief sequence when Cabiria and the nurse(?) are in the market and the man comes by and checks them over like dogs or sheep up for sale.
One scene that impressed was the temple of moloch scene. It might be a bit campy by today's standards, and possibly inaccurate, but I loved how dramatic it was, and it also made me think how advanced this scene was for the era. One scene that did not impress me was the volcano scene. Though this scene was also advanced for the era, with the volcano erupting and superimposed civilians fleeing on the hillside, it was very noticeable that the same shots were used over and over again.
The scene I liked the most (out of what we've watched so far of Cabiria) has to be the interior of the Temple of Moloch. It was interesting to see how much attention was given to detail in set design, even so early on in filmmaking. The other set that impressed me in this regard was the Sicilian city early in the film, which appeared to be constructed in a way that the camera could capture lots of background action as well as the initial subject (Cabiria's father). The effect of this would be giving the audience the feeling they are looking at an actual bustling city as opposed to just a one-sided film set.
I'd have to say my least favorite scene so far is when the pirates take Cabiria and her nurse from the shore of Sicily to Carthage... in a tiny row boat. It took me out of the immersion of the film because I had to wonder how difficult it would be to cross even just part of the Mediterranean in a craft that doesn't even have a sail. In contrast to the sets I mentioned, there doesn't seem to be much attention to detail here.
I had the same least favorite scene! And I also really liked the inside of the Temple of Moloch. The set design in this movie was really quite amazing. I am not quite sure how realistic it is, but they definitely could have done a worse job! One of my favorite sets was the one within their home, with the grand columns and all the stereotypical Roman items. Their sets really enhance the story for me.
Cabiria is exponentially more advanced than Anthony and Cleopatra which made it more interesting to watch. One scene that stood out in my mind was the frame of the innkeeper where the Romans were patrons, and the innkeeper is staring right into the camera as if talking to the audience. This stood out because it was an evolution from the over the top acting and seemed much more real. I really appreciated the scenes where everyone was running around as the building was caving in. The set is really spectacular for the time because the set was truly falling down on people as they were filming. It must have taken a lot of coordination to film that scene and it really shows. One scene that I really didn't like was when the nurse was hiding behind a pillar and the Romans are on the other side talking. Her acting was so over the top and child like, even more so than the rest of the film. I also wasn't impressed with the close up of the hand. It was so dark that I couldn't even see the ring that it was showing.
I did not even realize we where supposed to be seeing a ring. I do like the scene you chose for your favorite. It was really interesting to see that change from all those open shots of the scenery to all of a sudden the close up of the innkeeper.
I was also really impressed with the set used, as it was composed of so many different details. It really allowed the viewer to understand that there was more depth to the scene then at first glance and that there was a certain amount of intricacy and layering that could be unraveled if truly studied.
I must say that watching Cabiria came as a relief after the disaster that was “Marcanonio e Cleopatra”. The scene that impressed me the most was actually the opening scene. It is the one in which Batto returns from the field to his home. It is so impressive because of the use of the vertical stage. The way the camera was set up you could see out the door and see that there was more to this shot than just the set. It showed that the scene had depth in it. It goes back to what we as a class discussed yesterday in class about how revolutionary it was for people that things where no longer confined to a stage. It somehow made the experience so much more real, as if this plot line could actually be happening. Much like Bea, I also was unimpressed by the volcano scene. Although I do understand the difficulty of the shot, and how it must have blown people away at the time, for me it did seem like the same shot playing over and over again.
From what we saw, I really enjoyed Cabiria. For some reason, the scene that was the most resonant in my mind was one in the very beginning, when Cabiria was surrounded by her family and those that loved her. They enveloped her in a hug and that part of when the acting felt the most realistic and truly genuine for me. I also liked the part where the doll was swinging back and forth. My least favorite scene was when the people tried to steal the boat of the Phoenecian pirates. I know that the acting was a lot different in those times, but I couldn't help but be slightly annoyed by the fake violence as the pirates were grabbing Cabiria and Croessa. The struggling just did not look realistic at all. This also caught my attention during the sacrifice scene, when the men would be carrying the children to the roaster. The little children would be swinging their legs back and forth in a comical way.
I definitely agree about the scenes with the pirates. It was incredibly frustrating to watch them pretend to kill all of the slaves when it was so incredibly obvious that they weren't even touching them. Same with the scene where Croessa was being punished. I know that they didn't really have the means to make her punishment look real but it was still pretty painful to watch.
I agree with you aout the scene in the beginning. That scene seemed genuine and showed her love. I guess and the doll part was cool too. I found it kind of funny. Funny how things change, now everybody plays video games.
Hi everyone! I also enjoyed the volcano scenes and don't blame them for showing it multiple times, because even though it wasn't enjoyable for me necessarily, all I could think about is how the people of that time probably couldn't get enough of the scene. What I liked the most was comparing the two movies (Antony & Cleopatra to Cabiria) because the scenes in Cabiria had so much depth! I didn't really like how long the word scenes took to end because I had enough time to read it multiple times and wanted to see the action.
Hey class. My favorite scene, as a lot of others have already said, was the chaos that ensued after the volcano erupted. Some of the acting was a little corny but they did do a pretty good job of conveying a true sense of panic as pillars and ceilings and everything else crumbled around the residents. I also really liked the scene where Croessa and Cabiria are sold as slaves, just because of Croessa's reaction. It seemed somewhat genuine, unlike a lot of other interactions, and seemed to actually convey a sense of desperation at the prospect of Cabiria being taken away from her nurse. My least favorite scene was probably when the children were being thrown into the fire, mainly because it was the same shot of the same child being thrown into the fire again and again. Repetition like this absolutely kills me.
My favorite scene had to be the whole of the volcano erupting scene. My reasons for this was because of how they combined different view when they showed the volcano erupting and the people in front of it. Also I like the part after the actual eruption where all the buildings are all falling down and yeah that one had good effects.
My least favorite scene would have to be he ones where they repeated the same scens over and over again. I can think of two...i think but the one that was like super obvious was when they were sacrificing the children and all that and it was just funny how they showed te same shot like three times and expect us to not notice that its the exact same thing. But whatever it probably saved money.
My favorite scene from Cabiria was the volcano scene. Although under our standards the special effects weren't that great, for the time period seeing something like that would've been truly incredible. One thing that i didn't like about the movie was the fact that there were number of scenes that didn't seem to relate to what was going on in the movie. For example the way they introduced the Innkeeper was very random.
I was pretty impressed by the scene with the volcano eruption and the pillars falling everywhere. That entire sequence was probably revolutionary at the time and it was interesting to see what was considered once "high-tech."
ReplyDeleteA scene I didn't like was the one where they were sacrificing the children; yes, the concept it awful, but what bothered me was that they clearly used the same clip of the little boy being placed in the cradle-thing twice. Repetition like that bothers me. They were probably trying to show that there were a lot of children and they didn't have the time or tech to film more than one sequence, but things like that still bother me.
I also liked the volcano eruption scene, but did not like how it was used 3 times. It was easy to spot because the same actors were moving in the same exact way. We knew that the eruption was still continuing. Why would they show the eruption multiple times? The special effects were very impressive for the time period.
DeleteTo the negative about the sacrifice, I feel like my previous comment applies. Repetition also bothers me a great deal, in addition to irrelevant sources.
i agree on the volcano scene, i thought it was pretty good for such an old movie, i had really low expectations but that kind of impressed me and it definitely had my attention for quite some time. the screaming and panicking was a little overdone, but no movie is perfect!
DeleteThe volcano was ingenious as far as the ability of the director and editors to make the scene seem legitimate. I'm not sure where the villagers were supposed to be coming from. I'm really curious as to how many times they had to film the falling pillars scene before they got it just right or if any of the actors or people working on the set had been hurt by the falling rubble. I didn't even notice that they had used the same clip twice in the sacrifice scene. The idea of burning children bothered me quite a bit even though I knew it was fake.
DeleteYes, the volcano eruption was probably very high tech at the time. What I loved most about that scene was watching the carefully constructed ancient city set that had been giving us a look inside the peaceful lives of Sicilians just moments before collapse into a pile of rubble. It must have been a powerful scene for the audience to watch when it was first released.
DeleteA scene that impressed me was the Temple of Moloch. Granted the scene was gruesome and horrifying, it presented a dynamic atmosphere in which the ritual was conveyed. The first time that we saw the inside of the temple, in the film, the thing that struck me most was the lighting. At first the lighting was so dark that it actually prevented us from seeing the whole scene, until slowly the lighting started to brighten, in which we started to notice the horror that was taking place. I do not know if it was done purposefully, but it interested me to know what was taking place in the scene.
ReplyDeleteA scene that did not interested me very much, was when they were offering things to the gods to stop the eruption of Mt. Etna. The acting was so dramatic that it distracted me from taking it seriously.
I agree with the ridiculous acting, a lot of it was really overdone and even though the scene was really serious, i couldnt help laughing a little, because it reminded me of that overly dramatic person who has a melt down over the littlest things!
DeleteI really like the details you noticed! I did not notice that was the intention. I originally thought most of the things to do with lighting were just mistakes due to the horrible film equipment they used to use. In retrospect, I find that the lighting was very creative. Compared to the movie we watched earlier, which used no realy dynamic movement of camera or lighting, besides light and dark.
DeleteI also agree with the comment about the horrid acting. I understand that it was a method used in classic theater to get the message across to all members of the audience, but I would think that someone would realize the technique was not very effective in this type of Drama while editing.
Temple of Moloch was my favorite scene too. Your response though made me realize that not only was the set revolutionary, but so was the subject matter. To the original audiences, this scene must have been terrifying as well.
DeleteThe slow lightening up of the scene when we first see the temple from inside was definitely done on purpose. I myself was struck by how closely this effect imitates the reaction of our eyes when we enter, say, a dark cave, and they slowly adjust to the dim light. The temple is only lighted by torches, so compared to the glare of the North-African desert light outside, it must be pretty dark inside the temple.
DeleteI really loved this scene too and when I saw the dark temple slowly start to light up and we get the picture of the large crowd and the incinerator I sat up in my chair a little. It was a very powerful image, and part of the reason is because they started using effects that draw you into the scene. The other effect was that the incinerator that they were putting children in lit up like there was actually a fire in it bringing us closer to believing the sacrifices.
DeleteI agree with you about the acting. Sometimes it was just to over dramatic that I wasn't able to pay attention on what was going on, I would just think how funny they looked and by the time I realized what I was doing I was already lost. But the acting part is still funny.
DeleteI was very impressed with the scene that involved the temple. it was very theatrical and very dramatic but i was impressed with the explosions and the fire that came up, i thought the lighting and the music was very tasteful in the scene and the angle of the camera shot gave the audience the impression that they were spectators in this horror and it conveyed that sense of helplessness to the audience when you cant help people in trouble.
ReplyDeleteI didn't like a lot of the dialogue scenes because i had no idea what was going on and it frustrated me because in classical theater the dialogue is so important and conveyed most of the plot. but i am aware that this was like...the 1920's or so so state of the art technology is a high expectation :)
I agree with you with being impressed by the temple. It was a very well thought out scene and the lighting and other effects made the scene even better. I agree with you also on the music. Compared to the first film we watched the music was much better and fit very well with each scene and made the necessary changes when the scene would change.
DeleteThe temple was pretty cool, very over-stated and kind of funky with those random elephant pillars. Did you notice the eyes on that big statue blinking? I thought that was a nice touch, if not a little questionable as to how such a thing could be possible in those times. And I totally agree, the music is much better in "Cabiria"!
DeleteI had some trouble lining up who was saying what for the dialogue slates at first. It took some getting used to!
The dialogue parts of the movie really helped to explain what was going on and then the acting just reiterated it for me. The music really helped me to get into the film and was done really well in my opinion. I really appreciated the dynamism of the camera as well as the lighting throughout the scenes but it was especially well done in the sacrifice scene. The camera combined with the music, lighting, and acting really helped bring the film to life.
DeleteTo me the dialogue seemed very simple. It's always fascinating to look at different movies from different eras and see how the story and action change. To me, it seems silent movies have very simple and easy to follow stories, with a lot of exaggerated action, while movies today can have very complex stories, with or without a lot of action.
DeleteFor me personally, the intertitles are too long and too turgid in style. They are maybe the one feature in which this movie resembles the earlier "Marcantonio e Cleopatra" the most. At the same time, I am aware that the contemporary audience probably wasn't bothered by these texts at all. On the contrary, many Italians were huge fans of Gabriele d'Annunzio, the poet who had composed the text, and his collaboration on this movie was one of the reasons people wanted to see "Cabiria".
DeleteI thought Cabiria was a pretty good movie, compared to the movie we watched before-hand. I really liked their use of dynamic motion in the backdrop. It really makes the scene and enviornment come alive. It probably had a greater effect for the people first watching it, not used to seeing a bustling city on a small screen in front of them. It was very innovative and impressive to see.
ReplyDeleteI did not like, however, the acting. I just am thoroughly annoyed when I see people over-acting any of the characters they play. The use of extreme motion was used in classic theater to convey messages that even the back row could read. In the case of a movie, I don't really think that any of the extreme action is necessary.
I actually enjoyed this movie also. I think that the music and little details made a huge difference in enjoying the movie. I thought that the change of music for each scene made it even more dynamic and easier to watch, unlike the first movie we watched where the music was just horrible in general.
DeleteI also agree with you on the backdrop making the scene "come alive". I really enjoyed seeing what was remarkable back when this movie was made and comparing it to the movies we have nowadays. The technology jump is unbelievable.
I agree with you on both parts. The constant motion in the background was very effective in creating the illusion of a bustling city that was probably completely mind-blowing for the original viewers.
DeleteI have trouble taking things seriously when the acting is so over-done like it was in this movie, but in this case it really shows how new this whole "film/motion picture" thing was to people back then and it's pretty cool to watch (though I bet these old actors would be blown away if they ever got to see how subtle you can actually be on film!).
I agree, the overacting can take me out of the movie sometimes. But other times it just makes me laugh because it's so ridiculously over-the-top. However, back when the movie was first released, I think the overacting would have been welcomed. Considering it's a silent movie, the only things the audience has to go on to find out what's happening are the bits of inserted text and visual cues. And considering the film's so grainy, maybe the only way to adequately convey emotion was to wave your arms around.
DeleteI think that the acting is advanced for the time. The actors were doing what they knew how to do. Since they didn't have words to convey what's going on in the scene they have to display it in a way that everyone will understand. If the actors hadn't overacted I don't think I would have understood anything in the movie. True we are blessed with more advanced technology that allows actors to be able to use the slighted raise of an eyebrow or a different connotation in speech to mean something but I wouldn't have caught that in a silent film.
DeleteI also really liked this movie! But I am not sure if it was just me personally, but all the action in the background was slightly distracting. I thought it was kind of irrelevant and film nowadays seems to have progressed in a way that makes it far less overwhelming to the audience.
DeleteThe acting annoyed me as well, even though there isn't sound, the audience can tell what is going on without the acting having to be that over the top. I found it distracting.
DeleteI really enjoyed Cabiria. Although the movie was made when movies were just starting to develop and become popular, I found that it sort of grabbed me and dragged me into the story. The piano playing was eons ahead of the organ which was featured in the last film and the acting had jumped exponentially as well. I will admit that the acting might have been a bit over the top, but being that it was a silent film, the overacting helped the director explain to the audience what was happening when spoken words were not possible.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite scene was most likely the sacrifice scene due to the dynamism of the camera as well as the actors. Even though the scene was done wonderfully, the sacrifices bothered me because the director got me to believe that those children were really being offered up as sacrifices to be burned alive for the gods.
Meanwhile, my least favorite scene was the brief sequence when Cabiria and the nurse(?) are in the market and the man comes by and checks them over like dogs or sheep up for sale.
One scene that impressed was the temple of moloch scene. It might be a bit campy by today's standards, and possibly inaccurate, but I loved how dramatic it was, and it also made me think how advanced this scene was for the era. One scene that did not impress me was the volcano scene. Though this scene was also advanced for the era, with the volcano erupting and superimposed civilians fleeing on the hillside, it was very noticeable that the same shots were used over and over again.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right but I had the impression that the crowds of fleeing people were changing.
DeleteI totally agree with you about the volacano!!!!!
DeleteDid anyone notice the amount of humor in "Cabiria"?
ReplyDeleteThe scene I liked the most (out of what we've watched so far of Cabiria) has to be the interior of the Temple of Moloch. It was interesting to see how much attention was given to detail in set design, even so early on in filmmaking. The other set that impressed me in this regard was the Sicilian city early in the film, which appeared to be constructed in a way that the camera could capture lots of background action as well as the initial subject (Cabiria's father). The effect of this would be giving the audience the feeling they are looking at an actual bustling city as opposed to just a one-sided film set.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say my least favorite scene so far is when the pirates take Cabiria and her nurse from the shore of Sicily to Carthage... in a tiny row boat. It took me out of the immersion of the film because I had to wonder how difficult it would be to cross even just part of the Mediterranean in a craft that doesn't even have a sail. In contrast to the sets I mentioned, there doesn't seem to be much attention to detail here.
I had the same least favorite scene! And I also really liked the inside of the Temple of Moloch. The set design in this movie was really quite amazing. I am not quite sure how realistic it is, but they definitely could have done a worse job! One of my favorite sets was the one within their home, with the grand columns and all the stereotypical Roman items. Their sets really enhance the story for me.
DeleteCabiria is exponentially more advanced than Anthony and Cleopatra which made it more interesting to watch. One scene that stood out in my mind was the frame of the innkeeper where the Romans were patrons, and the innkeeper is staring right into the camera as if talking to the audience. This stood out because it was an evolution from the over the top acting and seemed much more real. I really appreciated the scenes where everyone was running around as the building was caving in. The set is really spectacular for the time because the set was truly falling down on people as they were filming. It must have taken a lot of coordination to film that scene and it really shows. One scene that I really didn't like was when the nurse was hiding behind a pillar and the Romans are on the other side talking. Her acting was so over the top and child like, even more so than the rest of the film. I also wasn't impressed with the close up of the hand. It was so dark that I couldn't even see the ring that it was showing.
ReplyDeleteI did not even realize we where supposed to be seeing a ring. I do like the scene you chose for your favorite. It was really interesting to see that change from all those open shots of the scenery to all of a sudden the close up of the innkeeper.
DeleteI was also really impressed with the set used, as it was composed of so many different details. It really allowed the viewer to understand that there was more depth to the scene then at first glance and that there was a certain amount of intricacy and layering that could be unraveled if truly studied.
DeleteI must say that watching Cabiria came as a relief after the disaster that was “Marcanonio e Cleopatra”. The scene that impressed me the most was actually the opening scene. It is the one in which Batto returns from the field to his home. It is so impressive because of the use of the vertical stage. The way the camera was set up you could see out the door and see that there was more to this shot than just the set. It showed that the scene had depth in it. It goes back to what we as a class discussed yesterday in class about how revolutionary it was for people that things where no longer confined to a stage. It somehow made the experience so much more real, as if this plot line could actually be happening.
ReplyDeleteMuch like Bea, I also was unimpressed by the volcano scene. Although I do understand the difficulty of the shot, and how it must have blown people away at the time, for me it did seem like the same shot playing over and over again.
I agree with you on the opening shot, I had almost forgotten about it. It gave a great intro to the movie.
DeleteFrom what we saw, I really enjoyed Cabiria. For some reason, the scene that was the most resonant in my mind was one in the very beginning, when Cabiria was surrounded by her family and those that loved her. They enveloped her in a hug and that part of when the acting felt the most realistic and truly genuine for me. I also liked the part where the doll was swinging back and forth.
ReplyDeleteMy least favorite scene was when the people tried to steal the boat of the Phoenecian pirates. I know that the acting was a lot different in those times, but I couldn't help but be slightly annoyed by the fake violence as the pirates were grabbing Cabiria and Croessa. The struggling just did not look realistic at all. This also caught my attention during the sacrifice scene, when the men would be carrying the children to the roaster. The little children would be swinging their legs back and forth in a comical way.
I definitely agree about the scenes with the pirates. It was incredibly frustrating to watch them pretend to kill all of the slaves when it was so incredibly obvious that they weren't even touching them. Same with the scene where Croessa was being punished. I know that they didn't really have the means to make her punishment look real but it was still pretty painful to watch.
DeleteI agree with you aout the scene in the beginning. That scene seemed genuine and showed her love. I guess and the doll part was cool too. I found it kind of funny. Funny how things change, now everybody plays video games.
DeleteHi everyone! I also enjoyed the volcano scenes and don't blame them for showing it multiple times, because even though it wasn't enjoyable for me necessarily, all I could think about is how the people of that time probably couldn't get enough of the scene. What I liked the most was comparing the two movies (Antony & Cleopatra to Cabiria) because the scenes in Cabiria had so much depth! I didn't really like how long the word scenes took to end because I had enough time to read it multiple times and wanted to see the action.
ReplyDeleteHey class. My favorite scene, as a lot of others have already said, was the chaos that ensued after the volcano erupted. Some of the acting was a little corny but they did do a pretty good job of conveying a true sense of panic as pillars and ceilings and everything else crumbled around the residents. I also really liked the scene where Croessa and Cabiria are sold as slaves, just because of Croessa's reaction. It seemed somewhat genuine, unlike a lot of other interactions, and seemed to actually convey a sense of desperation at the prospect of Cabiria being taken away from her nurse. My least favorite scene was probably when the children were being thrown into the fire, mainly because it was the same shot of the same child being thrown into the fire again and again. Repetition like this absolutely kills me.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite scene had to be the whole of the volcano erupting scene. My reasons for this was because of how they combined different view when they showed the volcano erupting and the people in front of it. Also I like the part after the actual eruption where all the buildings are all falling down and yeah that one had good effects.
ReplyDeleteMy least favorite scene would have to be he ones where they repeated the same scens over and over again. I can think of two...i think but the one that was like super obvious was when they were sacrificing the children and all that and it was just funny how they showed te same shot like three times and expect us to not notice that its the exact same thing. But whatever it probably saved money.
My favorite scene from Cabiria was the volcano scene. Although under our standards the special effects weren't that great, for the time period seeing something like that would've been truly incredible.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that i didn't like about the movie was the fact that there were number of scenes that didn't seem to relate to what was going on in the movie. For example the way they introduced the Innkeeper was very random.
You are right, when the innkeeper first appeared it wasn't really clear who he was.
Delete