Making concrete references to your own experiences as a viewer (and, if so desired, to the responses
formulated by film critics, historians, journalists, public figures and the general public) assess the
aesthetic appeal, complexity, cultural relevance and/or impact of one or more American film(s)
of your choice. (American Hustle 2013. Your analysis should include references to one or more cinematic techniques (mise-en-
scène, cinematography, editing, sound) or feature a less technical focus on the kind of parameters non-
experts tend to dwell on: casting choices, special effects, image quality, action, tropes, soundtrack.
The film also showcases some impressive cinematography that captures the grimy 70s era perfectly —from the costumes to the production design, everything looks authentic and fits right into the world of hustling that’s depicted on screen. Additionally it features a brilliant editing style which makes use of quick cuts between scenes to heighten tension while maintaining pacing throughout each scene.
The soundtrack is also particularly noteworthy – featuring classic songs such as ‘Disco Inferno’ and ‘Live And Let Die’ – all of which provide energy to key moments throughout this movie. Moreover it uses diegetic sound very effectively in order to add depth and realism to certain scenes as well as providing subtle clues about what is happening on screen through background dialogue or sounds made by everyday objects.
Overall, American Hustle (2013) succeeds in creating an exciting yet emotionally complex story with superb performances from its cast; excellent visual aesthetics; intricate plotting; cleverly used diegetic sound elements; and most importantly – an unforgettable soundtrack that ties everything together beautifully. This combination of factors make it one of my favorite films ever made!
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi