Halloween Costume ideas 2015
Articles by "Film"


Reception

The first season of American Crime Story has received critical acclaim. The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the season an approval rating of 97%, based on 64 reviews, with an average rating of 8.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story brings top-shelf writing, directing, and acting to bear on a still-topical story while shedding further light on the facts – and provoking passionate responses along the way."[37] On Metacritic, the season has a score of 90 out of 100, based on 43 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[38]
Many critics have singled out many cast members for the performances, particularly Paulson and Vance.[39][40][41] Dan Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter praised Paulson and Vance's performances, writing: "As Clark's discomfort grows, Paulson's collection of tics seem more and more human[...] Vance's Cochran is sometimes hilarious, but he has a dynamic range such that he's occasionally introspective and always intelligent as well."[40] Brian Lowry of Variety praised the casting of the smaller roles, particularly Connie Britton as Faye Resnick and Nathan Lane as F. Lee Bailey.[42]
Despite the praise for the rest of the cast, Travolta's portrayal of Shapiro and Gooding's portrayal of Simpson have received mixed critical reviews. Brian Lowry of Variety called Travolta "awful" in the role, adding: "Yes, Shapiro spoke in stiff, measured tones, but the actor's overly mannered line readings turn the attorney into a buffoon, in sharp contrast to the more nuanced portrayals around him."[42] Nicole Jones of Vanity Fair called his performance "campy and calculated."[43] Dan Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter also criticized his performance, calling it "a mesmerizingly bad performance from the eyebrows down." Feinberg also observed: "His unnecessary accent varies by episode, and Travolta's laser intensity feels arch and almost kabuki at times, turning Shapiro into a terrifying character from the next American Horror Story installment, rather than a part of this ensemble."[40]
Maureen Ryan of Vanity Fair, conversely, became more impressed with Travolta as the season progressed: "I started in the realm of puzzled disbelief, arrived at amusement, and ultimately traveled to a place of sincere appreciation. You simply can’t take your eyes off Travolta, and that is a form of enchantment."[44] Elisabeth Garber-Paul of Rolling Stonealso called it "arguably [Travolta's] best performance since Tarantino brought him back from the dead."[45] Robert Bianco of USA Today wrote that Travolta's was the show's "broadest performance."[46]
Dave Schilling of The Guardian panned Gooding's performance, writing: "his whiny, gravely voice sounds absolutely nothing like the real OJ Simpson’s deep, commanding tones."[47] Michael Starr of The New York Post was also highly critical of Gooding's performance, saying that he "portrays Simpson as a hollow, sad-sack cipher who speaks in a high-pitched whine and sleepwalks in a fog he never shakes after being arrested for the brutal double murder of ex-wife Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. He’s a forgettable, annoying presence in what should be a showcase role for Gooding — who, to be fair, is reciting lines written for him, so he can only do so much with the material."[48]
On the other hand, Joe McGovern was more positive on Gooding's performance, writing that his casting "takes a risk and pulls it off."[49] Elisabeth Garber-Paul of Rolling Stonedescribed his performance as "an unnervingly believable take on a potential psychopath with teetering sanity."[45] Nick Venable of Cinema Blend also opined that Gooding's turn as Simpson "could indeed get him on a shortlist of Emmy nominees."[50]




Preceding film in origin by thousands of years, early plays and dances had elements common to film: scripts, sets, costumes,production, direction, actors, audiences, storyboards, and scores. Much terminology later used in film theory and criticism apply, such as mise en scène (roughly, the entire visual picture at any one time). Owing to the lack of any technology for doing so, the moving images and sounds could not be recorded for replaying as with film.

The magic lantern, probably created by Christiaan Huygens in the 1650s, could be used to project animation, which was achieved by various types of mechanical slides. Typically, two glass slides, one with the stationary part of the picture and the other with the part that was to move, would be placed one on top of the other and projected together, then the moving slide would be hand-operated, either directly or by means of a lever or other mechanism. Chromotrope slides, which produced eye-dazzling displays of continuously cycling abstract geometrical patterns and colors, were operated by means of a small crank and pulley wheel that rotated a glass disc.[5]

In the mid-19th century, inventions such as the phenakistoscope and zoetrope demonstrated that a carefully designed sequence of drawings, showing phases of the changing appearance of objects in motion, would appear to show the objects actually moving if they were displayed one after the other at a sufficiently rapid rate. These devices relied on the phenomenon of persistence of vision to make the display appear continuous even though the observer's view was actually blocked as each drawing rotated into the location where its predecessor had just been glimpsed. Each sequence was limited to a small number of drawings, usually twelve, so it could only show endlessly repeating cyclical motions. By the late 1880s, the last major device of this type, thepraxinoscope, had been elaborated into a form that employed a long coiled band containing hundreds of images painted on glass and used the elements of a magic lantern to project them onto a screen.

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget