Filmmakers use red liquid to convince audiences that is a real representation of blood. The perception of this red liquid as blood depends on it’s relation to other elements in the story, because not everything that is a red liquid is perceived as blood (85). Rodje explains how the color of real blood varies depending on oxidation, thus people references to the realistic representation of blood is different (85,86). Obviously filmmakers can not cover all the variations of expectations of audience members, but to make the liquid convincing they focus on color and texture in relation to film stock (87).
To Sofer, props, such as blood, are active elements that interact with ether actors and the audience (89). There are several reasons why the sight of blood, or a red liquid that resembles blood, affects humans. There are evolutionary reasons for perceiving blood as dangerous, because when is flowing outside of the body then is out of it’s place (90). And there are social reasons associating blood with rituals (pagan or religious) or menstruation (90). According to Julia Kristeva, the site of menstruation blood, threatens the social male order, because is associated with the female body (92). However, Rodje does not see these explanation fully explaining the cinematic image, because film allows the same image to have different interpretations by various audience members or why different images have different effects on the viewer (93,94). The author, views Melissa Meyer’s views of blood having relational meaning connected with symbols and rituals more plausible (94). However, Rodje does not find Meyer’s view relatable to cinema studies (95). The meaning of images changes with their juxtaposition with other images and as such blood should be examine in it’s relation to what it does (96). Rodje lists several factors that are required of the red liquid to be perceived as blood by the audience – color, texture, relation to the story (96,97). Therefore, the mise-en-scene (sound, special effects, make-up, actors) and the time matters (97). So, blood in cinema is “relational construct” (97) because it perception depends on four factors – 1) the blood itself, 2) mise-en-scene, 3) juxtaposition and 4) biological and social perception of the audience (97). According to Rodje, in order for the red liquid to be perceived as blood, the liquid enters into a “blood assemblage” (97). The blood assemblage is material, because is created new for every single film or situations in the same film (97). Therefore, the blood assemblage is expressive for each instance (97). Further, the blood assemblage depends on the production – if the production schedule runs on time or if the production budget permits (98). Thus, the blood assemblages can not be fully controlled by the filmmakers, which makes them active (99). Further, the success of the blood assemblage is judged by it’s real life counterpart (100). This observation allows Rodje to view the blood assemblages as actors that perform (101) and as such to displace the human actors as main performers in blood scenes (102).
People who critique moving pictures fall into 3 general classes:
1. Reviewers - are generally journalists who describe the contents and general tone of a movie, with only incidental emphasis on aesthetic evaluation.
2. Critics - are also journalists for the most part, but their emphasis is more on evaluation than on mere content description.
3. Theorists - are usually professional academics, often the authors of books on how movies can be studied on a more philosophical level.
I'm a film critic and I like to write about films that are exceptional and stand above the rest.
"The role of the critic is to help people see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn't be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work that they could see for themselves; he is a great critic, if by his understandings and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. He is not necessarily bad critic if he makes errors in judgement. He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience. The art of the critic is to transmit his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to others." ( Pauline Kael )