mengjia097
的电影”。 1.1.2. the 2nd stage: Classical Hollywood Cinema( 1920s-1950s) The period of classical Hollywood cinema is usually taken to run from the early 1920s through to the late 1950s.Sound and color emerged in the period of Classical Hollywood cinema.声音和颜色出现在经典好莱坞电影时期。Sound was first introduced in Don Juan(唐璜) in 1926 by Warner Brother .华纳兄弟公司在―唐璜‖（1926）中第一次使用声音。 From the industrial perspective, the period of Classical Hollywood cinema is characterized by the emergence of the ―studio system‖ and the domination of five major companies (the so-called “Big Five): Warner Brother (华纳兄弟公司)， Loew’s-MGM (米高梅公司)， Fox（福克斯公司)， Paramount (派拉蒙公司) Radio-Keith-Orpheum (RKO雷电华公司). Alongside the five majors were smaller companies(the “Little Three”): Columbia (哥伦比亚公司) Universal (环球公司) United Artists (联美公司) In classical Hollywood cinema, some of the main features of the ideology（电影的意识形态） are：Property, enterprise and initiative （财产、事业和进取心）are the fundamental American values； American as a Land of Happiness（美国是一片乐土）, even if they haven’t yet done so； The ideal female（理想女性）is wife and mother, perfect companion and mainstay of the home. 1.1.3. the 3rd stage: Post-classical Hollywood cinema (1960s--) Hollywood faced a number of significance challenges from the 1960s onwards. In the New Hollywood period, a new generation of directors（新一代导演） produced a lot of immense films（推出了一系列脍炙人口的作品）. Among them, Close Encounters was directed by Steven Spielberg（其中有史蒂文.斯皮尔伯格的“第三类接触”）. 1.2. Categorization of Genres（影片类型的分类） Generally, generic categories are defined on the basis of subject matter（题材）, formal properties（形式）, style（风格） or affective response（观众的情感反应）. The table gives a schematic overview(纵览，全面的评述) of how this approach might be used to identify genres: var cpro_psid ="u2572954"; var cpro_pswidth =966; var cpro_psheight =120;Categorization of GenresGenreDefining Criteria Differentiating CriteriaSocial DramaSerious social topicRomanceRomantic relationship between loversGangsterGangsters in urban AmericaWar FilmSpecific military conflictsScience FictionFuturistic technologies/future worldsFantasy(奇幻片)Impossible worlds/fantastical charactersWesternAmerican WestDisasterNatural or man-made catastropheCrimeCriminal activities and investigationEpic（史诗片）Biblical(有关圣经的) or ancient histroryActionPresence of action set-piecesMusicalPresence of song and dance performanceBlockbuster(强档片)StyleSpectacular eventsComedyIntended to generate laughterHorrorIntended to horrifyThriller(惊悚片)Intended to thrillSubject MatterFormal CriteriaAffective Response（观众的反应）
长腿蚊子
"King Arthur" Movie Review--------A New Take On An Old LegendMy knowledge of the legendary King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table comes chiefly through watching movies based on the heroic figures. If asked prior to this film if King Arthur really existed, you’d probably have elicited an answer from me which amounted to a maybe. Now after seeing “King Arthur,” I’m relieved to find my ‘maybe’ answer would have been appropriate.There isn’t a kindly Sean Connery figure in this 2004 version of “King Arthur.” No, this version takes viewers on a journey with the man who may have been the inspiration for the legend as he fights to serve and protect Rome and its interests. Wanting nothing more than to put down his sword after more than a decade of fighting and return to his life in his beloved Rome, Arthur (Clive Owen) and his Knights are forced to take on one final mission before being released from their commitment to serve Rome. When their last task leads Arthur to the conclusion Rome as he knew it no longer exists, he comes to believe everything he stands for and all the battles he’s waged on behalf of his country and religion were for naught. Left to decide on his own who to fight and who to befriend, Arthur joins with his former enemies to save Britain from the invading Saxons, changing his destiny while changing the course of history.Almost right off the bat, “King Arthur” had a major hurdle to overcome as the action on screen echoed the action in Disney’s disastrous “The Alamo” – the battles in both films are depicted as bloodless affairs. However at least in the case of “King Arthur,” the fight scenes themselves looked brutal. The stunts were choreographed so that while we didn’t see much blood flowing, the illusion of violence and death exists. Most of the violence is done while actors block the shots of their weapons penetrating flesh from the camera. Even when wounds are shown, they are shown without the gore. And while this might make the battle scenes easier on the eyes, it doesn’t lend itself to looking authentic. Audiences have grown accustomed to seeing blood on film, so it’s very obvious when there’s a lack of blood in fight scenes it is a choice made by the filmmakers/studio in order to get a gentler rating from the MPAA. Some say this is selling out, others contend it’s just a necessary evil in order to get to the largest audience. Whatever the thought process behind the decision was, the result is a film cleansed of its realistic brutality. And while that’s not always necessarily a bad thing, in a movie such as “King Arthur” where we’re told upfront the filmmakers are attempting to base their version on facts, then the decision to follow through and make the entire film realistic should have been given more weight than the decision to release a sterilized version of the film wiped free of blood. This “King Arthur” does benefit from an impressive cast, headed up by Clive Owen (“Croupier”). As King Arthur, Owen – aside from being unarguably sexy – exudes a sense of righteousness onscreen. He becomes this leader men will give their lives to follow. And in this screen version, Guinevere is no shrinking violet. She’s not a woman to be loved and protected. She’s a fierce warrior capable of fighting alongside knights, standing up for herself and her people (while clad in thin leather straps), and is the one woman who can command the attention – and love – of Arthur. As Guinevere, Keira Knightley shows the spunk and physical strength needed to handle a tough role, while at the same time not distancing herself from her feminine wiles. It’s an interesting role for the young actress and one that expands on the role she had in “Pirates of the Caribbean.”Ioan Gruffudd as Lancelot, Hugh Dancy as Galahad, Mads Mikkelsen as Tristan, and Stellan Skarsgard as Cerdic are standouts among the ensemble. Their strong performances in supporting roles aid Owen and Knightley in making all the characters connect and come to life for the audience.At 130 minutes, “King Arthur” wraps itself up nicely without becoming tedious as some ‘epic’-type stories are wont to do. The dialogue’s a little heavy and plodding, the lack of blood is something I had a tough time getting past, and during the film’s first ½ hour it’s hard to figure out the good guys from the bad (and I don’t believe that was the intention). But there’s enough to like about “King Arthur” – the acting, the cinematography, the grace of the fight scenes, the romance, the depth of the story – that the distractions can be overlooked or are at least balanced out by what’s worthwhile about the film.
