Analysis City of God Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Analysis City of God - Movie Review Example The film received several accolades, including four Academy Award nominations. City of God is a highly violent and fast-paced film (Meirelles and Lund, City of God). The film’s events are seen through the eyes of a destitute black youth, Rocket who fears being an outlaw, but is also too smart for underpaying, menial jobs. The scene chosen for analysis is the opening scene, which begins with a close up of an extremely sharp blade making a rock sharper by scrapping it. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the opening scene of City of God, discussing the filmmaking elements inherent in the scene and the film as a whole. Shot by shot analysis table Framing Characters M= Medium Shot B= Blade CU= Close-up R= Rock F= Full Shot C= Carrots L= Long Shot CH= Chicken H= Handheld Pan= Pan Shot Dolly= Dolly Shot T= Tilt f= forward b= backward Formal analysis The fundamental reason for choosing the opening scene for analysis is its presentation of unique filmmaking aspects. Mise-en-scene refers to the sets and settings of the location where a scene is filmed. As the opening scene is introduced, the audience gets a sneak peak of the situation of the slum or favelas. Flash shots are used to crosscut shots of the chicken being slaughtered, boiled, having its feathers stripped to the people of Cidade de Deus in their pathetic living conditions. ... Towards the climax of the film, the director used darker lighting and color. Another prominent filmmaking aspect evident in the scene is that of mise-en-shots. This involves a myriad of elements, including the positioning of the camera, duration and scale of one shot, camera movement and editing pace. Throughout the film’s narration, the director uses numerous flash backs and extreme close up shots. The director utilizes 360-degree camera movement, especially around Rocket as the scenes transition from the present to the past and vice versa (Meirelles and Lund, City of God). Therefore, the film’s overall length can be considered as short, particularly as a result of the nature of pursuing and murdering between the film’s characters. Sound is also a vital element in filmmaking since sound can be utilized and edited with the same amount of intelligence and complexity that image can. Directors typically have the option of choosing one or both diegetic sound and a no n diegetic one. The director of this film chooses to apply both forms of sound. Throughout the film, the audience hears music intrinsic to the 1970s, gun fire, and chaos, conversations of distant people and enduring background narrations of Rocket (Meirelles and Lund, City of God). The integration of music into a film enhances the feel of the movie, thereby providing the audience a greater experience of the story. Interpretation The director makes use of flash shot and crosscuts within the film’s opening scenes in order to provide a succinct description of the poor living conditions inherent in the Cidade de Deus slum of Rio de Janeiro. The director further makes use of extremely rich lighting and color, especially in the retro

The combaination between delphi and scenario methods in future studies Literature review

The combaination between delphi and scenario methods in future studies - Literature review Example In doing this therefore a variety of models are used. Two basic models are used on which this discussion is going to be based on: the Delphi technique and scenario planning. The Delphi technique and scenario planning The Delphi technique is a kind of survey that makes use of the intuitive knowledge of experts in a given field. This technique is therefore flexible and provides a wide range of both qualitative and quantitative results which are important for planning. The technique involves rounds of surveys in which experts are asked questions concerning a given topic. Their varied opinions are then analysed and extremes are generated. The experts with these extreme opinions are asked to explain the reasons as to why they settled for the opinions (Armstrong, 2001, pp. 127-129). The rounds continue in this manner until a consensus is achieved. Feedback is very important in the whole process which must take place at the end of each round. Scenario planning on the other hand has also rec eived a lot of attention from scholars with very little consensus on the exact meaning of the term. Cutting across the major definitions of scholars it is possible to say that scenario planning is seen as a strategic management tool that is used to describe sets of future environmental conditions which are uncertain and upon which decisions have to be made to address them. However there is a strong agreement among scholars that scenario planning is not a prediction but rather a tool that makes visible the large scale forces that are usually uncertain due to the ever changing nature of the world so that a planner can recognize them and act on them on the verge that they do happen (Lindgren & Bandhold, 2003). Combining the Delphi technique and Scenario planning It is of great importance that before combining the techniques a thorough understanding of the various design approaches is made of both techniques to find out how the Delphi technique can fit into the approach used by the scen ario planning method. The scenario planning method has various approaches and this is because of the various schools of thought that are in existence. The technique actually involves a number of approaches each with stages that range between six and ten. There are three approaches that have been used widely and these are: the intuitive logic, trend impact and cross impact approaches. However later on, the last two approaches were combined by Bradfield et. al (2005) into one method called the probalistic approach and introduced the la prospective school as the third school in scenario planning (Bradfield, 2005, pp. 795-812). A closer examination of these approaches reveals they have varied stages that could be seen to serve the various interests of the authors with very little consensus on what should be the common approach. Each of these approaches is seen to work in the same manner with the other though there exist slight variations. Nowack, Endrikat & Guenther (2011: 1606) in thei r research identify one generic approach that cuts across all the three schools and which was built on the generic foresight approach proposed by Bishop et. al. The approach is divided into six stages for it to be complete and includes two main phases of scenario planning which are: scenario development and scenario transfer. In the first phase the planner sees various states of the future while in