Product Grizzly

I don’t believe I have watched a Canadian film before until today. I have watched Hudson Bay Company show that used to air, which was a TV show. Hudson Bay Company was really interesting with its history about fur trading between the Aboriginal people and white settlers. Racism was huge problem for the Aboriginals during that time, as well as today. White settlers didn’t believe they were collecting goods so they would raid the Aboriginal traditional lands, which forced the Aboriginals to pack and move a lot. That show was really good, and had a lot of footage to Project Grizzly that was the same with its wild nature shots.

As for what makes Canadian cinema unique it is normally documentary, I find, and full of lots of forest nature views. Research tells us that for a film to be considered Canadian it must be selected by a panel of filmmakers and industry professionals that deem it Canadian. “In order to be eligible, films must be directed by a Canadian citizen or resident and have been released commercially or played a major film festival in Canada” (Staff, 2014). According to Scott MacKenzie from the University of Glasgow, “my contention that in relation to cultural production, in many ways, Canada is already post national and multicultural in nature and therefore offers us insight into what shape a multicultural, post national cinema might take” (MacKenzie, 1992). From these evidences, I would believe there isn’t much to define what truly makes a Canadian film unique besides the fact it is selected as being Canadian because of the sake that a Canadian director, filmmaker, or producer had a large role in how it was created. Still, there is hardly enough Canadian films since most are American.

My reaction to this film is it was good. In the following I will explain why I believe Project Grizzly is a good film. The short small random clips of bears throughout the film to keep the audience’s attention did a good job, as just talking about bears wouldn’t have kept people interested. The film crew making the film did a good job with linking the story line to the additional information provided to keep tension raising throughout the film. I could understand the film would have made some profit in the cinema.

This film was a formal system, narrative. Reason being that throughout the film it connected suspense through out to keep the audience eager to learn more, as the story keeps being unfolded. The film was a realism style of cinema because if was documentary, which was a good choice for director as the truth could be told in the best possible way. Emphasis on the content by showing the main character retelling his story with the grizzly bear repeatedly. Subject matter is supreme because it really gave the audience a detail understanding of how the main character wishes to connect with the grizzly and reasoning behind making the suit. There was some spontaneous action of events for example when they found the dead elk, the characters knew a bear would be around. Capture the surface reality near the end when they were tracking the bear and couldn’t get close. Sometimes non actors would be used in some of the shots as the emphasis would be on the suit’s creation.

This film would have realist theory as it looks at the correspondence between the small film clips of black bear and what the realism of the story being told. There were some restrictions on stylistic manipulation. For example, the suit was far away from the last sighting of the bear and they didn’t just show another suit but what actually occurred.

Elements of film structure was present during the film in the content and structure. The story, characters, and theme for content was through out the film is a documentary film of someone creating a suit to meet bears. Camera lighting, production design, sound and performance for structure was though out. The film uses a lot of nature lighting during the film. During the night a lot of campfires would offer nature light.

Cinematic time had been elemental though out the film a lot when adding in different parts of the content of the story being told. For examples of this would be when main character was speaking about his story with the bear, the native village his father made, and the reason he would use knives in the woods. Composition of nature lighting was used in these shots, positioning of actors would emphasis to give more dramatic affect, and camera positioning for overall telling of the film was important.

Camera position was different though out the film. At the beginning of the movie during the credits extreme close-up shots were used on chain mail. Main character playing the flute and martial arts in the grass fields used extreme long shots. Long shots were used in some shots when the truck would drive around with the suit at truck, and the horses climbing hills. A lot of the story telling shots were taken in medium shot.

I believe sometimes the director was trying to use the Kuleshov Effect during the film when the main character first explains his story with the bear. A short clip of bears fighting is shown then it transferred back to the main character. In this moment in other moments in the film, I believe the Kuleshov Effect might have been tried to come though. Leaving an idealism in the audience mind what the main character could have been thinking during the time of confronting the bear.

Editing was a lot of cut/match on action or straight cut between scenes. There didn’t seem to be much different types of other cuts in the film. The only possible juxtaposition in the film would have been the last sighting of the bear, when the camera goes from the bear to the people on the hill. Back and forth during the action to create suspense in the audience.

Mise-en-scene was show able in varies scenes though out the film. For example, when he shows that during his off-time from bear research he is in the metal yard. Or when the unit was on the move with helicopter carrying the suit, the horses below carrying the people, and the equipment following. Even, the scenes with the crew speaking at the diner with showing the menu boards. The staff in this film didn’t have to dress up the characters with much besides army wear and guns. Since most of the shots are outside dealing with grizzly bears, but the characters still needed to protect themselves for the horrible threat of the bear.

Since this was a documentary, they did a great job of not showing any special effects that would make the film seem unrealistic. They did audio recordings of the radio beyond the scenes and show footage of the crew testing out the main character’s old suits. They did a great job with us to show the steps that had to be taken to test out the suit over time.

I believe this film was a documentary with the style of direct cinema. Reason being that the filmmaker was about to get close to the characters and therefor making the film more personal. The audience really gets to understand the whole story and the suspense of way meeting the bear with the suit on would have been really cool to watch. Yet, left feeling disappointed like the main character that the job is left uncompleted. 

References

MacKenzie, S. (1992). National Identity, Canadian Cinema, and Multiculturalism. Retrieved from University of Glasgow: https://www.uqtr.ca/AE/vol_4/scott.htm

Staff. (2014, January 10). The C Word - What Makes A Film Canadian? Retrieved from tiff: https://www.tiff.net/the-review/the-c-word-what-makes-a-film-canadian/