Monday, August 20, 2012
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Sorcerer's Apprentice
So, what do you think? Is this a movie or a film? In a 75 word reply to this post, tell me what you think. If it's just a movie, does it work as entertainment? What was entertaining about it? If it's a film, what is artistic about it? What was the deeper meaning or how was it particularly "arty"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think The Sorcerer's Apprentice should be classified as a movie. It came across to me more as a piece of entertainment than a piece of artwork. I did not see any possible deeper meaning or a particular moral behind the story. It was enjoyable and that is about it. I also think that if I watched it again that I would not pick up on anything new which helped me make the classification. The work was entertaining because of the interesting main character and gruesome ending.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was entertaining too, but what does that say that we found a woman's death entertaining?
Deletehttp://insertfunnyblogspotnamehere.blogspot.com/2012/08/my-thoughts-on-sorcerers-apprentice.html
ReplyDeleteThe Sorcerer's Apprentice gives a lot of reasons why to classify it as a movie, although I believe there is a deeper meaning which would classify it as a film. The meaning to me is that everyone gets what they deserve (the woman getting killed for lying to the young boy and persuading him to kill "the magic man"). This does bring up the question of what did "the magic man" do to deserve to die... Yes, the simplicity of the episode portrays it as a movie, but I think the deeper meaning over rules that fact and it should be classified as a film.
ReplyDeleteGood question. What did the magician do to deserve to die. That's an important consideration when deciding on the theme.
DeleteAlfred Hitchcock Presents: The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
ReplyDeleteI will concede that upon watching it a second time there probably wouldn't be much more to get out of it. What I pulled from it from the first time had enough higher meaning in my mind to classify it as film though. There was the play on the devil and angel, good and evil, and the boy in between being swayed and deceived either way. I believe this symbolizes society and all man kind. There is that constant tug between good and evil, doing right or wrong. And the boy ended up choosing sides based on what would give him what he desires or at the least the power to allow him to get it himself which is human nature
If your Google ID doesn't show your name, please make sure that it appears somewhere in your reply.
Deletehttp://gmille63.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteCan you move this reply to the post about sharing your blog so that all of the blog listings are in one place? Once that's done, then delete this reply. Thanks!
DeleteIn my opinion I believe that this video was a movie. Throughout it you always knew what was happening with the characters and the plot and it was easy to follow. While watching I never felt that I was learning any life lessons with it.The movie was very entertaining but if I were to watch the movie again I wouldn't learn anything new about the characters or plot. Some could argue that their was a deeper meaning behind the story but for me it was just pure entertainment.
ReplyDeletehttp://lyndseysblogspot.blogspot.com/
i think it is a film because it has a deeper meaning to it like how huego was a special kid and he thought he was a master magician just like the actuall magician but insted of him learning a lesson he had killed 2 people because of 5 words " u are a master magician" also its a film because its based on 2 back stories one is a small run down boy found in street getrts token in and he kills the people that helped him out and another is how a woman was sick of her man so she had someone kill him for her so she can put the blame on him but instead she says the wrong thing nd now like the movie said " she's beside herself now lol
ReplyDeleteCan you include your name in replies if your name doesn't appear in your Google ID? That way Ican give you credit for your work.
DeleteThe Sorcerer's Apprentice is a movie. It didn't have any deeper meaning to be gleaned from more viewings. It was simply entertaining. The entertaining factor was the diabolicalness of the wife, Irene, and the irony present. The irony was how the one that Hugo thought Irene was an angel when she was the “devil” and that Victor was seen as the devil when he was, in fact, the “angel”. Then Irene is actually undone because she tells Hugo that the wand is magic, but since that’s a lie she is killed by him, along with her husband, the true target.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the sorcerers apprentice was a movie because I didnt feel like i got anything more out of this movie than entertainment purposes. If there was a meaning it would be not to trust people all the time about what they say about themselves
DeleteThe Sorcerer's Apprentice should be classified as a movie. This particular episode by Alfred Hitchcock had very little deep meaning. The only deeper meanings I found were: do not tempt fate, and the ongoing battle of Heaven vs. Hell is all around. After picking up on these the first time through, there is really nothing left to find within this episode. No true deeper meanings or life lessons were in this episode. The Sorcerer's Apprentice, with the twists and turns, was made for entertainment, and should be classified as a movie.
ReplyDeleteThe show "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" to me was a movie. There was not really any big meaning to the show. It was mainly to just entertain the audiance watching. If there was a meaning to it then it would be just to show a point that not all people seem to be who they are or that they lie about themselves. So you should not judge people by the way they look or by the way they act.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://sadlynofilmblog.blogspot.com/
DeleteCan you post this link in a reply to the "Share Your Blog" post so that all of the class blogs are in one place? Also, make sure your name appears somewhere in the reply. Thanks!
DeleteThe Sorcerer's Apprentice, in my opinion, is a movie because if you were to watch the episode again you wouldn't get anything else out of it. I feel like it is more for entertainment than a device used to teach a life lesson or to display a moral. When the episode was finished I did not feel like I had much to talk about when it came to the underlying ideas of the The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Some people may feel like it is a film but in my opinion it is just an entertaining movie.
ReplyDeletePlease include your name somewhere in the reply so that you can get credit for it.
DeleteThe Sorcerer's Apprentice I think is a film. It is entertaining and could be classified as a movie but I think it has a deeper meaning to it making it a film. One of the deeper meanings to it is that you can't believe what everyone tells you and everyone gets what they deserve. Jugo trusts everything the woman told him and ended up killing Victor, and in the end the woman got what she deserved by dying since she manipulated Jugo into killing Victor. Also another deeper meaning is that Jugo thinks the woman is an angel and Victor is the devil, and it's a little ironic because it's the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe Sorcerer's apprentice has both qualities of a film and movie. Although it does have a deeper meaning of "what goes around comes around" because having someone kill another was her way out, yet that same person ended up killing her. This film was heavy with irony and I believe the meaning was so easy to detect that it didn't hold any weight in being classified as a film.
ReplyDeleteI think the Alfred Hitchcock episode called “the sorcerer’s apprentice” is a movie because the moral of the episode is pretty clear to the viewer. And there are many morals. One of them being that you can’t believe everything people tell you. So I don’t have to think when I’m watching it. The episode feels more like it’s just meant for pure enjoyment. But none the less I did enjoy the irony that was used throughout the clip.
ReplyDeletePlease include your name in replies so you can get credit for your work.
Deletethis is amanda spies
Deletehttp://tonydinozzofilmblog.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteAlfred Hitchcock's production of the episode of the Sorcerer's Apprentice has characteristics of both a film and a movie. I personally believe that this was a movie. Although there are some deeper meanings that people can take away from the movie, such as you get what you deserve, that shouldn't be the only deciding factor in your decision. I feel the most compelling factor in my decision was that you wouldn't obtain any new information that you may have missed the first time.
Please include your name in replies so you can get credit for your work.
DeleteI would classify The Sorcerer's Apprentice as a movie. As it does contain some of a moral or a lesson, it is mainly just for entertainment. With Hugo's slow comprehension and Iren's evil spirit; it makes for a great entertaining movie. Together, they create a comedy of how bad people always get what’s coming to them and how slow people don’t always know what they’re doing. With the combination of all the characters involved, you’ll find yourself laughing in the end.
ReplyDeletehttp://allieknowl.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteCan you please put this link as a reply to the "Share Your Blog" post so that all of the class links are in one place?
DeleteThe Sorcerer's Apprentice is considered a film because it actully had meanings like, Karmas a B****, Looks can be deceving, Dont trust strangers...
ReplyDeleteBut at the same time you could argure that its a moive cuz it was more entertaing then anything if you didnt really consetrate on the little stuff then it wouldnt really have a meaning... So it could really go either way...
I think that The Sorcerer's Apprentice is considered a movie. I think this movie was made for entertainment, therefore it's a movie. I do belive that this movie has deeper meanings, but I think they were really obvious and that they were acted out in disturbing ways purely to entertain viewers. It was entertaining because of the disturbing sequence of events that lead to the unfortunate murder of and innocent man and a deceiving woman. If I watched it again, I wouldnt get anything more out of it. So I classify it as just a movie.
ReplyDeleteI think that The Sorcerer's Apprentice was a pretty good movie. I think it's a movie. why I think it's a movie is because I didn't have to search for a meaning or in a simpler way, I didnt have to think very hard to understand. I was more entertained by the acting. I just feel like there was a meaning but it wasn't really hiden it was more out there. Movies like that to me, aren't really films.
ReplyDeleteI think the episode of the Sorcerer's Apprentice is considered a movie. I didnt learn anything out of watching it, it was mainly just entertainment for me. Other than the fact of "what goes around comes around" , that wasnt anything new for me . If i were to watch it again i wouldnt take anything else out of it.
ReplyDeleteSorcerers Apprentice watched in class was a short movie not a film. It may have had a lot of hidden elements and irony inside the story, but the plot was not full. There was no resolution to the story besides all of the characters being dead. The short movie did not have a message or meaning behind the story. The movie did not take work to understand the plot, it was pure entertainment.
ReplyDelete-Sorry this took so long to post, I did not realize we were posting directly onto your blog. My mistake!
Thanks
Cassidy Boles
I think it's more of a movie than a film. It does work as entertainment. I found it entertaining because of all of the twists and turns it took. Even from the moment the kid woke up you could tell he wasn't all there. The plot was kind of there: a wife who cheated on her husband used Hugo as a pawn to kill her husband and run away with George. What I didn't understand was that if she didn't want to be with him, why didn't she just get a divorce? I think she may've been the devil in disguise. This was definately for nothing but entertainment.
ReplyDeleteGood question about the divorce. Two problems come to mind. First, when this was filmed (1962) divorce was uncommon - not unheard of but uncommon. Second, she was a golddigger and didn't want to run away with a second stringer; she wanted to be with the headliner.
Delete