Blue Velvet presents a hyperreal “good” and sinister “evil,” showing Lynch’s mockery of 1950s ideals. Yet, it seems as though he brings a more conservative view to the film that shows the need for morals. I don’t necessarily follow the opinions on Lynch’s belief in the innocent. His characters both in the “good” and “bad” worlds both show dynamic characteristics on both sides of the spectrum, showing a how characters and people can easily switch to the other side of the spectrum when a moral system is lost.
This film to me seemed to present an internal struggle to maintain moral ground. I approached this film with a more psychoanalytical approach after seeing a focus on human psyche. The entire emergence of the darker world unseen in the 1950s nostalgic world comes to existence because of Jeffery’s internal desires, causing him to view a scene that could represent a primal or subconscious desire of the character. Frank shows a clear Oedipal complex. As he reverts back to an Id like state, primal and instinctual, Jeffery witnesses an abusive relationship, which begins the sharp focus on morality (Super-Ego) in the film. Had Jeffery properly suppressed his desires, which are not to solve crime but are sexual, the evil would have been avoidable. Jeffery, like many of Lynch’s characters as explained by the reading “The Po-Puritan”, surrenders himself “to the inexplicable forces beyond their conscious control.” Even more terrifying is that these forces exist within him, suppressed into his subconscious and emerge into his Ego when he makes a “bad” decision, lurching him into a world without morals where his pleasure principle comes to the forefront. Sexual perversions would have been an acute interest during the 80s when the film was made, as the AIDs epidemic and resurgence of an intense Christian moral majority altered the more open sexual exploration of the 60s that carried into the 70s. Sandy was justified in her remark to Jeffery about whether he is a detective or a pervert.
Music in the film played an interesting role. It seemed to be a portal allowing good and evil to merge as a relatively safe exploration and portrayal of subconscious desire. When Dorothy sings, Frank is mesmerized and so is Jeffery and for those fleeting moments, they cohesively live on the same plane where “dreams [subconscious] and reality conjoin.” I took Frank’s drugs use represents, another portal to an ulterior perception and existence. His constant use can be seen as Lynch again showing the importance of maintaining a moral code and not letting oneself slip too far into perverse desire. An example of an artist delving too deeply into this state, the Van Gogh reference is even more support of this, offering a physical and visual example of perversion. With his filmmaking, Lynch could himself be exploring his own perversions in a morally “right” way.
I agree with the reading in quoting about Protestantism in relation to Lynch and its “reform of the individual.” Through the use of archetypal characters and the an idealized nostalgic setting, the 1950s back when America was still in its mind relatively a good place where nothing is expected to go wrong, Lynch’s shows how the moral weakness of his characters results in evil. Unlike other 1980s films like Repo Man the critique is not on industry or Reagan era politics but on the individuals struggle, “scoring his individualist’s mark of survival like a scar across the prairie.” References to brands and labels seen in postmodernism appear in this film as well but are consumed at the giving in of the character. Ultimately Blue Velvet on the surface is a narrative about a character seeking truth “in the dark crevices between the material world” and the world of subconscious desire tamed by the moral self. Truth is never found, there is no singular reality, and Lynch ends again with idealized images and subconscious is repressed but not resolved.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Stepford Wives
The 1960s saw the understood national belief that our nation was generally good and progressing towards a higher state of being stall out. Institutions set during the era when this belief was most prevalent, the 1950s, began to be examined through a different lens as “the end of history” approached in the sense of this dead end in progress. The nuclear family, and the gender roles inflicted by this institution went under great scrutiny in The Stepford Wives. As the reading points out, second wave feminism brought a shift of focus away from the existence of womanhood as infinite housework to issues such as rape, domestic violence, and pornography. No the less, the image of the housewife still persisted in 1970s ideology and became an embedded feature of our culture.
The Stepford Wives uses a staple of the 1950s, a presumably better time when the narrative of progress was still prevalent, as a feminist critique on the present roles of women in 1975 when this film was made. The Stepford wives represent a 1950s ideal, women as homemakers and mothers, subservient and beautiful. Joanna’s character, after moving to the Stepford community feels out of place as she does not embody or embrace the characteristics of these women. As the community and her husband continue to enforce the importance of having these housewife ideals, it is clear that in order to fill the role of an idealized housewife Joanna cannot have any self-identity as her own. In the case of the film, the gender roles enforced on Joanna are literally a trap, as she is turned into a Stepford wife robot, than the men benefit from. This in a much more tangible sense illustrates a feminist view on how patriarchal institutions trap womanhood in time, dehumanizing females into a gender reduced to housework.
I think this film is successful in introducing a mainstream middle class audience to the feminist arguments of the time. It was mentioned in class that a student felt as though they could not relate to the characters and therefore the film. I think a successful aspect to the film is that the characters lack a certain self-identity, representing a type rather than a person. This shows how insertion of women into gender roles benefiting a male dominated society as an universality, even if not to the extreme of become an enslaved house wife. Even so, the patriarchal power structure shown in the film is existent today and I think is very relatable from no matter what gender perspective, if any at all, you want to analyze this film with.
Even though the Step Wives does a good job at presenting feminist concerns I think it fails to enforce some key concepts as well. For instance Joanna before her robotic makeover, is meant to represent a “liberated” women; she has a self identity and interests outside of her marriage and motherhood. Yet her within her main passion, photography, she never reaches beyond the institutions feminists called argument against. The two subjects we see her capture are her children and a man carrying naked female mannequin. Both are arguably images of patriarchal entrapment of identity. So in a sense, even though Joanna seems to have a work outside the home, her art never goes beyond but merely captures her roles as a wife and mother. Also the film clearly demonizes housework, never allowing for the possibility for a woman to choice and feel self fulfilled as a housewife.
The Stepford Wives uses a staple of the 1950s, a presumably better time when the narrative of progress was still prevalent, as a feminist critique on the present roles of women in 1975 when this film was made. The Stepford wives represent a 1950s ideal, women as homemakers and mothers, subservient and beautiful. Joanna’s character, after moving to the Stepford community feels out of place as she does not embody or embrace the characteristics of these women. As the community and her husband continue to enforce the importance of having these housewife ideals, it is clear that in order to fill the role of an idealized housewife Joanna cannot have any self-identity as her own. In the case of the film, the gender roles enforced on Joanna are literally a trap, as she is turned into a Stepford wife robot, than the men benefit from. This in a much more tangible sense illustrates a feminist view on how patriarchal institutions trap womanhood in time, dehumanizing females into a gender reduced to housework.
I think this film is successful in introducing a mainstream middle class audience to the feminist arguments of the time. It was mentioned in class that a student felt as though they could not relate to the characters and therefore the film. I think a successful aspect to the film is that the characters lack a certain self-identity, representing a type rather than a person. This shows how insertion of women into gender roles benefiting a male dominated society as an universality, even if not to the extreme of become an enslaved house wife. Even so, the patriarchal power structure shown in the film is existent today and I think is very relatable from no matter what gender perspective, if any at all, you want to analyze this film with.
Even though the Step Wives does a good job at presenting feminist concerns I think it fails to enforce some key concepts as well. For instance Joanna before her robotic makeover, is meant to represent a “liberated” women; she has a self identity and interests outside of her marriage and motherhood. Yet her within her main passion, photography, she never reaches beyond the institutions feminists called argument against. The two subjects we see her capture are her children and a man carrying naked female mannequin. Both are arguably images of patriarchal entrapment of identity. So in a sense, even though Joanna seems to have a work outside the home, her art never goes beyond but merely captures her roles as a wife and mother. Also the film clearly demonizes housework, never allowing for the possibility for a woman to choice and feel self fulfilled as a housewife.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Manchurian Candidate
In a shift towards complete paranoia, binary narrative prevalent in previously viewed class films is dropped as the nuclear family turns on itself. This film marks a transition into the 60s where social movements began to questions to the demonology seen in 1950s film. Manchurian Candidate has fear without a side to trust. Brainwashing, political assassination, and conspiracy are at the forefront of this film, all at the hands of an over bearing mother.
The representations of women in this film were striking. For obvious reasons, Angela Lansbury’s character, Mrs. Iselin, is a striking reflection of early 60s ideology. As the reading discusses there is an interesting dynamic between men and woman, husband and wife at the time this film was made. Men felt dependant on women for their freedom as women attended to men domestically and sexually. In return, women gave up their identity as they assumed the role of housewife and were given “substantial indirect power” in the home. As female reform movements gained attention, opponents pushed for women to return back to the home, fearing the transition of mother to emasculating force. Angela Lansbury’s character illustrated this fear on a grand scale, going as far as portraying a conspiracy that the far right is controlled by the Russians.
Mom is clearly the demon in this film, plotting assassinations and mind control. But I found Leslie Parrish’s character, Jocelyn Jordan, equally as perplexing. She is really the only major female character in this film yet her role is more or less obsolete and certainly passive. Most of her presence in the film is through memory, giving her much less importance than Angela Lansbury’s character for instance who is affecting the action in the present narrative. The memory of her helping Raymond Shaw when he gets bite by a snake could have been a very romantic tender moment; instead she can’t stop rambling about her father. She sits on the arm of her father’s chair in her bathing suit as they speak with Raymond, showing the ideal of a women’s sexually controlled by her father then by her husband. She could have been a progressive character, with her knowledge of cleaning snake bits and pants apparel but she is still held back by 50s womanhood ideals. I thought this was visually obvious in the scene when Jocelyn and Raymond are watching Raymond’s father convict Joceyln’s father of high treason on television and her face is completely blocked out by his shadow, concealing any reaction from her face. She is present yet passive, and therefore attractive and desirable. I found it particularly interesting how in a strange turn of events, Raymond kills Jocelyn, preventing her from ever becoming the emasculating force his mother was.
What do these parallel representations of womanhood represent? How do you see these representations and the shift in the demonizing of the “other” changing as we move from the 50s and into the 60s?
(6 minutes 40 seconds into this section of the film you can see the scene I mentioned)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaT91QZ2DCk&feature=related
The representations of women in this film were striking. For obvious reasons, Angela Lansbury’s character, Mrs. Iselin, is a striking reflection of early 60s ideology. As the reading discusses there is an interesting dynamic between men and woman, husband and wife at the time this film was made. Men felt dependant on women for their freedom as women attended to men domestically and sexually. In return, women gave up their identity as they assumed the role of housewife and were given “substantial indirect power” in the home. As female reform movements gained attention, opponents pushed for women to return back to the home, fearing the transition of mother to emasculating force. Angela Lansbury’s character illustrated this fear on a grand scale, going as far as portraying a conspiracy that the far right is controlled by the Russians.
Mom is clearly the demon in this film, plotting assassinations and mind control. But I found Leslie Parrish’s character, Jocelyn Jordan, equally as perplexing. She is really the only major female character in this film yet her role is more or less obsolete and certainly passive. Most of her presence in the film is through memory, giving her much less importance than Angela Lansbury’s character for instance who is affecting the action in the present narrative. The memory of her helping Raymond Shaw when he gets bite by a snake could have been a very romantic tender moment; instead she can’t stop rambling about her father. She sits on the arm of her father’s chair in her bathing suit as they speak with Raymond, showing the ideal of a women’s sexually controlled by her father then by her husband. She could have been a progressive character, with her knowledge of cleaning snake bits and pants apparel but she is still held back by 50s womanhood ideals. I thought this was visually obvious in the scene when Jocelyn and Raymond are watching Raymond’s father convict Joceyln’s father of high treason on television and her face is completely blocked out by his shadow, concealing any reaction from her face. She is present yet passive, and therefore attractive and desirable. I found it particularly interesting how in a strange turn of events, Raymond kills Jocelyn, preventing her from ever becoming the emasculating force his mother was.
What do these parallel representations of womanhood represent? How do you see these representations and the shift in the demonizing of the “other” changing as we move from the 50s and into the 60s?
(6 minutes 40 seconds into this section of the film you can see the scene I mentioned)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaT91QZ2DCk&feature=related
Friday, August 27, 2010
Atomic Cafe
Doused in frantic paranoia, United States citizens during 1940s and 50s Cold War era were inherently concerned of their conduct and appearance. As observed in the 1982 film Atomic Café, and supplemental videos “The House in the Middle,” and “Operation Cue,” Cold War attitudes were as much about fear of nuclear attack as they were about fitting into the identity of an American citizen living in a nuclear age. What was striking while watching the tactically edited military training and educational videos, which comprise Atomic Café, is how cleanliness and wholesome image became synonymous with ones safety and survival during nuclear attack. The government produced atomic procedural films were key in promoting ideals of the era that were influential in defining the roles of citizens.
There is (as what is meant to be viewed as inadvertent) advertisement throughout the “educational” films. In one news like film clip, the reporter takes a moment to mention “two outstanding shopping centers” after reporting on town that staged a mock communist takeover (0:19:41). This declared the importance of shopping in newly founded shopping malls away from the home. Appearing several times throughout Atomic Café, are film clips of a congressmen discussing nuclear warfare in front of a large sign advertising the watch company Longines (0:24:50). Again this reinforces the idea of consumerism and identity, advertising what Americans should be buying. Something that really stuck out oddly to me was a print of Van Gogh’s “Vase with Twelve Sunflowers” hanging on the wall above the family eating at the kitchen table (0:42:00). To me, this image seemed to imply that the depicted family was worldly and educated. If they watch television after dinner to find out what’s going on in the news then I should too. Embedded in these films meant to educate citizens on the protocol during a nuclear attack, are product placements for American etiquette and consumerism.
Reading “Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women,” illustrated further the American identity emerging from Cold War fear. Living in suburban dwellings became the norm for the white middle class, instilling a sense of safety to those who had the means to live in a repetitious ranch on a cul-de-sac. But just living in the right house wasn’t enough, conforming to the new template of the nuclear family was the only way to ensure safety and patriotism; this constructing the idealized family out of the desire to appear wholesome and normal. The video of “The House in the Middle” particularly harked back to this ideal in stating that the whitest, cleanest, and well-kept homes would be the safest during nuclear attack.
Some viewed the intensity of the fear in film to be contrived or exaggerated. It’s clearly evident that people during this era were constantly terrified of nuclear attack. Being so prevalent and intense, atomic fear directly altered societal values. The solution to this anxiety was to become a model family and citizen. To be entirely conservative became a defining value and by doing so, allowed you to calm act calm in knowing you are fulfilling your civic duty. Atomic fear was incredibly influential in constructing American identity in the 1940s and 50s and I believe a lot of these core ideals remain major aspects of the idealized American identity today. Do you agree?
There is (as what is meant to be viewed as inadvertent) advertisement throughout the “educational” films. In one news like film clip, the reporter takes a moment to mention “two outstanding shopping centers” after reporting on town that staged a mock communist takeover (0:19:41). This declared the importance of shopping in newly founded shopping malls away from the home. Appearing several times throughout Atomic Café, are film clips of a congressmen discussing nuclear warfare in front of a large sign advertising the watch company Longines (0:24:50). Again this reinforces the idea of consumerism and identity, advertising what Americans should be buying. Something that really stuck out oddly to me was a print of Van Gogh’s “Vase with Twelve Sunflowers” hanging on the wall above the family eating at the kitchen table (0:42:00). To me, this image seemed to imply that the depicted family was worldly and educated. If they watch television after dinner to find out what’s going on in the news then I should too. Embedded in these films meant to educate citizens on the protocol during a nuclear attack, are product placements for American etiquette and consumerism.
Reading “Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women,” illustrated further the American identity emerging from Cold War fear. Living in suburban dwellings became the norm for the white middle class, instilling a sense of safety to those who had the means to live in a repetitious ranch on a cul-de-sac. But just living in the right house wasn’t enough, conforming to the new template of the nuclear family was the only way to ensure safety and patriotism; this constructing the idealized family out of the desire to appear wholesome and normal. The video of “The House in the Middle” particularly harked back to this ideal in stating that the whitest, cleanest, and well-kept homes would be the safest during nuclear attack.
Some viewed the intensity of the fear in film to be contrived or exaggerated. It’s clearly evident that people during this era were constantly terrified of nuclear attack. Being so prevalent and intense, atomic fear directly altered societal values. The solution to this anxiety was to become a model family and citizen. To be entirely conservative became a defining value and by doing so, allowed you to calm act calm in knowing you are fulfilling your civic duty. Atomic fear was incredibly influential in constructing American identity in the 1940s and 50s and I believe a lot of these core ideals remain major aspects of the idealized American identity today. Do you agree?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Kung Fu Hustle
For my first kung fu movie, Kung Fu Hustle had a lot going on visually that was exciting to watch as well as many elements that seemed familiar. There were lots of very clever moments in the film such as when Sing is running from Landlady and uses the knives stuck in his arms as rear view mirrors. I also thought all the extra lurking it the back of scenes with their pants half way down their butts’ was so funny.
I looked up Wuxia to see how this would apply to the film. An interesting thing that I read is that in this genre concerning the adventures of martial arts, is that the heroes are often of a lower class. Sing seems to be somewhat of a loser and it is unexpected that he is “the one.” Wuxia stresses Buddhist ideals of forgiveness and compassion. This can be reflected in the final fight with Sing and The Beast in which Sign doesn’t kill but offers to teach The Beast. Set in ancient China, Wuxia works promote ideals of honor, upholding justice, and helping the poor are promoted.
Kung Fu Hustle seems to exist in this genre but as purely a mode of entertainment and not so much a means of promoting ancient Chinese culture and ideals. It seems to imitate this genre more so than fully follow the recipe for a Wuxia film. Kung Fu Hustle points out how the ideals of chivalry and honor no longer exist. The scene when the kids pee on the young beaten up Sing made me cringe; who would do that to a young kid! (or really anyone I guess) In the beginning when Brother Sum shots the women was also really surprising because it broke that male chivalry of gun slinging westerns that spared the pretty little ladies.
By incorporating elements from other genres of film, and other films themselves, Kung Fu Hustle was insanely amusing to watch with so many badass scenes. References to movies other than Kung Fu movies allow it to leak out of the Kung Fu universe for the sake of entertainment. A moment of this that stands out for me is the Hulk like freak out inside the streetlight, pounding on the metal leaving huge handprints. But the references, is postmodern tradition, do not add up to a greater understanding of ancient Chinese culture or even a deeper meaning. The parody leaves behind tradition by referencing American films, and containing imagery I’m sure older kung fu movies would never include (young men walking around with their asses exposed) to create a stylistically interesting film.
I looked up Wuxia to see how this would apply to the film. An interesting thing that I read is that in this genre concerning the adventures of martial arts, is that the heroes are often of a lower class. Sing seems to be somewhat of a loser and it is unexpected that he is “the one.” Wuxia stresses Buddhist ideals of forgiveness and compassion. This can be reflected in the final fight with Sing and The Beast in which Sign doesn’t kill but offers to teach The Beast. Set in ancient China, Wuxia works promote ideals of honor, upholding justice, and helping the poor are promoted.
Kung Fu Hustle seems to exist in this genre but as purely a mode of entertainment and not so much a means of promoting ancient Chinese culture and ideals. It seems to imitate this genre more so than fully follow the recipe for a Wuxia film. Kung Fu Hustle points out how the ideals of chivalry and honor no longer exist. The scene when the kids pee on the young beaten up Sing made me cringe; who would do that to a young kid! (or really anyone I guess) In the beginning when Brother Sum shots the women was also really surprising because it broke that male chivalry of gun slinging westerns that spared the pretty little ladies.
By incorporating elements from other genres of film, and other films themselves, Kung Fu Hustle was insanely amusing to watch with so many badass scenes. References to movies other than Kung Fu movies allow it to leak out of the Kung Fu universe for the sake of entertainment. A moment of this that stands out for me is the Hulk like freak out inside the streetlight, pounding on the metal leaving huge handprints. But the references, is postmodern tradition, do not add up to a greater understanding of ancient Chinese culture or even a deeper meaning. The parody leaves behind tradition by referencing American films, and containing imagery I’m sure older kung fu movies would never include (young men walking around with their asses exposed) to create a stylistically interesting film.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Mulholland Drive
Mulholland Drive criticizes the “dream factory,” while at the same time providing insight into the creativity abundant in the masses. Interplaying between the real and surreal, the film is presented in a non-linear form, loosely (if at all) defining what is supposed to represent reality. In his commentary on Hollywood, Lynch manipulates time, space, and characters in a way unseen in traditional Hollywood cinematography, yet the film incorporates stereotypical movie elements; mobsters, hit men, a femme fatal, beautiful women. Watching this film, there are many elements to identify with, as you feel as though you have seen them before, yet there is a large sense of the irrational which may be uncomfortable for viewers. Hollywood taught us to identify with a protagonist and to follow their reality. In this case, Betty, and her attempt to make in Hollywood, would be expected to be the main character. We know this by her perky blonde behavior, her cheesy bubblyness that is apparent in so many movie mainstream movie characters. She comes from a small town, full of innocence and charm, as the characters always do. But if we try to watch the film latched onto her, it would appear to make very little sense. If instead, we consider Hollywood as the protagonist, the driving force manipulating the character’s actions, a greater analysis may be drawn.
For me, the main message I gathered from Mulholland Drive was how Hollywood can kill, and is killing, creativity through forced convention. The director embodies this idea most readily. He is forced by mobsters and “The Cowboy,” an iconic image in American movie yet holds no meaning in the film specifically as a cowboy, to feature a main actress who he does not want, stifling his vision of the film. Just the fact that Lynch uses so many aspects from other films illustrates that most Hollywood films are just remakes of each other. Through commercialization there is a homogenization of what a movie should be and the elements in should have. Mullholand Drive has a lot of those elements but is certainly not a Hollywood film. One example that really stuck out for me was the splattered pink paint in the argument between the director and his wife. As they fight over the jewelry, paint splotches them both like blood in a fight. Pink paint came to represent blood, which is an element of gore in many movies. When the director is going to see the Cowboy, his suit covered in paint, the image recalls so many other movies when disheveled men in proper clothes look tough covered in battle’s blood. In this sense, Lynch shows that all is not stifled by Hollywood, free thinking and the unexpected still exist.
Trying to make sense of every image and plot point in this film would be incredibly difficult. There are far too many surreal aspects that I don’t think are supposed to be explained. Some elements and turns in plot seem forced in the unexpected, such as Betty and Rita’s attraction. Secretly, I think audiences want to see a lesbian relationship in film when there are two women living together such as they were, alone trying to piece together Rita’s life in an expensive L.A. apartment. Although unexpected, the movie gives us that, which was a surprise to me as Betty seemed rather asexual. These characters seemed to be manipulated by a higher force and not by their own will, like Hollywood is forcing this to happen. I felt that especially when Betty repeats “I love you” to Rita, it seemed very flat, said because that is what is supposed to be said during a sexual encounter.
Ultimately, I think Lynch is pointing out the creative potential in American filmmaking when the filmmaker is open to create at will. Lynch confined himself to traditional Hollywood elements yet by altering the narrative structure, created a completely different film.
For me, the main message I gathered from Mulholland Drive was how Hollywood can kill, and is killing, creativity through forced convention. The director embodies this idea most readily. He is forced by mobsters and “The Cowboy,” an iconic image in American movie yet holds no meaning in the film specifically as a cowboy, to feature a main actress who he does not want, stifling his vision of the film. Just the fact that Lynch uses so many aspects from other films illustrates that most Hollywood films are just remakes of each other. Through commercialization there is a homogenization of what a movie should be and the elements in should have. Mullholand Drive has a lot of those elements but is certainly not a Hollywood film. One example that really stuck out for me was the splattered pink paint in the argument between the director and his wife. As they fight over the jewelry, paint splotches them both like blood in a fight. Pink paint came to represent blood, which is an element of gore in many movies. When the director is going to see the Cowboy, his suit covered in paint, the image recalls so many other movies when disheveled men in proper clothes look tough covered in battle’s blood. In this sense, Lynch shows that all is not stifled by Hollywood, free thinking and the unexpected still exist.
Trying to make sense of every image and plot point in this film would be incredibly difficult. There are far too many surreal aspects that I don’t think are supposed to be explained. Some elements and turns in plot seem forced in the unexpected, such as Betty and Rita’s attraction. Secretly, I think audiences want to see a lesbian relationship in film when there are two women living together such as they were, alone trying to piece together Rita’s life in an expensive L.A. apartment. Although unexpected, the movie gives us that, which was a surprise to me as Betty seemed rather asexual. These characters seemed to be manipulated by a higher force and not by their own will, like Hollywood is forcing this to happen. I felt that especially when Betty repeats “I love you” to Rita, it seemed very flat, said because that is what is supposed to be said during a sexual encounter.
Ultimately, I think Lynch is pointing out the creative potential in American filmmaking when the filmmaker is open to create at will. Lynch confined himself to traditional Hollywood elements yet by altering the narrative structure, created a completely different film.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Heathers
“Heathers” is very effective in presenting the problems plaguing American high schools, yet lacks the neat final summary John Hughes movies conclude with. This being the case, I don’t think “Heathers” had a message or moral it was trying to portray. Things happened in this movie with irrelevant action, questioning expectations in Hollywood movie plot and characters. J.D. is not an antihero, just doing things for fun and not acting on a higher power of improving society.
I’m not sure if I agree with Nick Burns’s statement that “Heathers” “robs youth, all youth” by taking away value and meaning of things in youth culture. Ultimately, the vapid emptiness in the film resulting from countless cultural references with no meaning points out the shallowness in society and adults rather than the youth. There is no sane adult intervention in this film. We can see how the society in which these kids live could lead to suicide (even though there is only one actual suicide in the film). It’s like the adults expect the kids to be suicidal, not questioning the murders believing them instantaneously to be suicides. If anything, I think this movie robs adults of their power, exploiting to the youth the lack of power they in the social hierarchy of the American high school. It is as if this Ohio high school is its own society, seething with power struggles and intimidation.
Here are some links to things I thought of while watching this film:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/16/video-game-shoppers.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg
I’m not sure if I agree with Nick Burns’s statement that “Heathers” “robs youth, all youth” by taking away value and meaning of things in youth culture. Ultimately, the vapid emptiness in the film resulting from countless cultural references with no meaning points out the shallowness in society and adults rather than the youth. There is no sane adult intervention in this film. We can see how the society in which these kids live could lead to suicide (even though there is only one actual suicide in the film). It’s like the adults expect the kids to be suicidal, not questioning the murders believing them instantaneously to be suicides. If anything, I think this movie robs adults of their power, exploiting to the youth the lack of power they in the social hierarchy of the American high school. It is as if this Ohio high school is its own society, seething with power struggles and intimidation.
Here are some links to things I thought of while watching this film:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/16/video-game-shoppers.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Vanishing Point
As far as the visuals go, I really loved the out of focus close ups of Kowalski through the driver window. I don’t know if there is a term for this but I love how it really breaks away from the more traditional camera work. It also helps to distance viewers a bit more from Kowalski; instead of getting glorified dreamy close-ups there are a couple instances of these blurred zooming ins. Also visually, the title is really appropriate for this movie. In perspective drawing a vanishing point is where parallel lines converge on the horizon line. Long shots of the road in front of Kowalski, surrounded by desert, show the asphalt melting into nothing in the horizon. I saw the image of the light beam between the bulldozers at the end of the film as the actual “vanishing point,” into which Kowalski, well, vanishes.
About halfway through watching the film, finding myself wanting Kowalski to dodge yet another cop car, I asked myself, “why am I rooting for this guy?” As someone who used to travel at any chance I got, driving hours on end to go to a concert that was really just the excuse for driving, I understand Kowalski’s desire to live life on the road. Although there is nothing heroic about his frantic driving habits. Paradoxically there is nothing about Kowalski that should allow him to be condemned. He is a deadpan driver, the anti-hero who the movie is about yet he has practically like what, ten lines? Without Super Soul, an external force pumping up Kowalski’s ego into stardom, Kowalski has little importance.
Even in the background information viewers obtain through Kowalski’s own flashbacks, he is neither a hero nor villain but rather a regular guy who tends to get screwed over in life. When looking back at being a cop, he flashes to a scene in which he stands up to a superior but ultimately gets fired. In another flashback he is with a foxy girl but she dies, surfing. In a sense it seems like he has convinced himself that he could never be the hero and doesn’t try to be, he just wants to deliver a car in three days. He wants to be “fitter, happier, more productive,” feed by the popular logic of being an efficient fast worker, a contributing member to society.
In this since, Kowalski can never experience absolute freedom on the road as it brings up memories of him being unsuccessful at what he sets out to do. (All of the flashbacks involve a motor vehicle of some sort; a police car, a jeep, a motorcycle.) Actually cars are really the ultimate vessel for containment in the system. Cars run directly on capitalism, gas, on roads preset by the government and for the government, expanded for Cold War purposes. Vanishing Point dispels the romanticism of a counter culture fighting “the Man”, escaping the confines of traditional society, and shows that road narratives are really a contradiction. Instead we have a man who is driving really fast to deliver a car for his boss, dependant on speed stay to up for three days, and is getting chased by the cops. Kowalski hasn’t escaped anything.
About halfway through watching the film, finding myself wanting Kowalski to dodge yet another cop car, I asked myself, “why am I rooting for this guy?” As someone who used to travel at any chance I got, driving hours on end to go to a concert that was really just the excuse for driving, I understand Kowalski’s desire to live life on the road. Although there is nothing heroic about his frantic driving habits. Paradoxically there is nothing about Kowalski that should allow him to be condemned. He is a deadpan driver, the anti-hero who the movie is about yet he has practically like what, ten lines? Without Super Soul, an external force pumping up Kowalski’s ego into stardom, Kowalski has little importance.
Even in the background information viewers obtain through Kowalski’s own flashbacks, he is neither a hero nor villain but rather a regular guy who tends to get screwed over in life. When looking back at being a cop, he flashes to a scene in which he stands up to a superior but ultimately gets fired. In another flashback he is with a foxy girl but she dies, surfing. In a sense it seems like he has convinced himself that he could never be the hero and doesn’t try to be, he just wants to deliver a car in three days. He wants to be “fitter, happier, more productive,” feed by the popular logic of being an efficient fast worker, a contributing member to society.
In this since, Kowalski can never experience absolute freedom on the road as it brings up memories of him being unsuccessful at what he sets out to do. (All of the flashbacks involve a motor vehicle of some sort; a police car, a jeep, a motorcycle.) Actually cars are really the ultimate vessel for containment in the system. Cars run directly on capitalism, gas, on roads preset by the government and for the government, expanded for Cold War purposes. Vanishing Point dispels the romanticism of a counter culture fighting “the Man”, escaping the confines of traditional society, and shows that road narratives are really a contradiction. Instead we have a man who is driving really fast to deliver a car for his boss, dependant on speed stay to up for three days, and is getting chased by the cops. Kowalski hasn’t escaped anything.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Dr. Strangelove
Dr. Strangelove is intriguing when studied as a “moral protest of revulsion against the dominant cultural paradigm in America.” While the Hays Code constructed industry standards of appropriateness, Dr. Strangelove not only presented many sexual references, a subject of censorship, but also was satirically critical of the government. This film questioned the understanding of the United States as a relatively good place, rattling the “Ideology of Liberal Consensus” by referencing World War II movies as well as confronting hypocrisy in the American political system.
In the “age of conformity,” Kubrick points out the stupidity in American. World War II movies aggressively promoted a binary narrative, portraying the Americans as heroes against a corrupt enemy. This helped in legitimizing the Cold War and nuclear proliferation. Media plays a huge role in public perception of government action and society in general. Some sources at the time made argument for nuclear war as an option. News and World Report carried a side story “about how well survivors of the Japanese bombings were doing.” Dr. Strangelove shows the desire of military men to be Wolrd War II heros, but in the context of the “Dooms Day Machine,” could never be because it would kill them all and everyone else on the planet. With this Kubrick points out the absurdity in nuclear warfare against a formulated enemy. Communism became such a focus of paranoia because our society constructed it as a driving force attempting to crush our suburbia. Kubrick was obviously commenting on the paradigm set up and carried into the 1950s and 60s of America being a good place with the sole threat of communism by showing the American soldiers and government officials as rather blundering idiots, too concerned with the lipstick in their survival packs to realize their actions will kill them all.
On the surface, like in all war movies, the commander Slim Pickens would appear to be a symbol of patriotism and masculinity with his cowboy hat, and willingness to straddle a nuclear weapon. The rather obvious irony being that these men, supposedly fighting to save America against a brutal enemy, are really going to end the entire human race when they drop of a nuclear weapon. The way Kubrick makes viewers question the legitimacy of the soldiers’ roles is great. Often people view war movies as a proud triumph, accepting the United States as a sound just and brave nation. Dr Strangelove puts this into perspective, presenting us with a president too much of a wuss to take any really action and American soldiers who attack their own base. By doing this, he questions the reasons behind war and our judgment of ourselves as the “good” country. With the way Kubrick presents the film’s characters, it is really revolutionary at the time of what film could say about the status quo.
The only contemporary example I could think of as a satire of the Iraq War was Borat. It definitely points out Americans’ perceptions of minorities in a shocking way. The scene that really comes to mind is when Borat is in the arena getting the audience riled up by saying things such as, “I hope President Bush drinks the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq!,” only to be met by whooping applause.
In the “age of conformity,” Kubrick points out the stupidity in American. World War II movies aggressively promoted a binary narrative, portraying the Americans as heroes against a corrupt enemy. This helped in legitimizing the Cold War and nuclear proliferation. Media plays a huge role in public perception of government action and society in general. Some sources at the time made argument for nuclear war as an option. News and World Report carried a side story “about how well survivors of the Japanese bombings were doing.” Dr. Strangelove shows the desire of military men to be Wolrd War II heros, but in the context of the “Dooms Day Machine,” could never be because it would kill them all and everyone else on the planet. With this Kubrick points out the absurdity in nuclear warfare against a formulated enemy. Communism became such a focus of paranoia because our society constructed it as a driving force attempting to crush our suburbia. Kubrick was obviously commenting on the paradigm set up and carried into the 1950s and 60s of America being a good place with the sole threat of communism by showing the American soldiers and government officials as rather blundering idiots, too concerned with the lipstick in their survival packs to realize their actions will kill them all.
On the surface, like in all war movies, the commander Slim Pickens would appear to be a symbol of patriotism and masculinity with his cowboy hat, and willingness to straddle a nuclear weapon. The rather obvious irony being that these men, supposedly fighting to save America against a brutal enemy, are really going to end the entire human race when they drop of a nuclear weapon. The way Kubrick makes viewers question the legitimacy of the soldiers’ roles is great. Often people view war movies as a proud triumph, accepting the United States as a sound just and brave nation. Dr Strangelove puts this into perspective, presenting us with a president too much of a wuss to take any really action and American soldiers who attack their own base. By doing this, he questions the reasons behind war and our judgment of ourselves as the “good” country. With the way Kubrick presents the film’s characters, it is really revolutionary at the time of what film could say about the status quo.
The only contemporary example I could think of as a satire of the Iraq War was Borat. It definitely points out Americans’ perceptions of minorities in a shocking way. The scene that really comes to mind is when Borat is in the arena getting the audience riled up by saying things such as, “I hope President Bush drinks the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq!,” only to be met by whooping applause.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Window Water Baby Moving
Stan Brakhage’s quote, “Somewhere, we have an eye (I’ll speak for myself) capable of any imagining (the only reality),” for me really defines the purpose of Deren and Brakhage’s films. What he is implying, is that that is no singular reality as we each construct our own, rooting itself in imagination. Therefore he is not trying to create films that appear true to life but rather expressive of the reality of imagination. He does this by abstracting recognizable forms, as he does in “Window Water Baby Moving,” and “Mothlight.” Through abstraction, we are able to see with our eyes instead of our minds, which like to place associations and narrative on familiar subjects. By taking the signified from the signifier we allow experience through sight, overcoming previous boundaries.
This week’s viewing was definitely my favorite so far. Although I appreciate Maya Deren’s work, I really gravitated toward Stan Brakhage’s work. There is simplicity of subject matter in each shot that looks extremely thought out and determined, allowing for a focus on textures, shapes, and hues. Especially in “Window Water Baby Moving,” every shot was lit beautifully and composed with, what appeared to be, careful consideration that they could have stood on their own as photographs. These film shorts celebrated film making itself as art and was very enjoyable to view.
Initial class reactions to the short film were somewhat shocking. It seems like perhaps it was difficult for viewers to stop thinking and start seeing. Instead it seemed like some jumped to create a narrative about the woman, making her into an existing figure (rather than an abstraction) who is being violated by having this “private” footage taken. I think some viewers, as well as Deren who saw the film as a violation of women believing birth to be observable exclusively by women, got too caught up in what they thought was going on in the film instead of just watching it. As said by Brakhage, “To search for human visual realities, man must…transcend the original physical restrictions and inherits worlds of the eyes.” Aesthically the film is beautiful. The shots are put together with intent, which is obvious just in composition but as well as all the instances when the film jumps from an image of giving birth to the window or bathtub, showing that Brakhage had an intention in editing the film. The graceful lighting and tender bathtub images create a softness and calm. Shadows are deliberately aligned, a windowpane on a pregnant belly.
I don’t believe it was Brakhage’s intent to make a film of his wife giving birth, but rather to make us see through capturing the physicality of the event. The film cannot be a violation of the woman in the film, Brakhage’s wife, as it exsists as an artistic expression, abstracting an actual event by changing time and space and choosing which shots to show and the order they go in. She is as much as an abstraction as the moth pieces pulled apart shimmering on the screen.
It is understandable to see where the argument arising of birth being a “private” moment, but if the film short is viewed as in a “world before the ‘beginning was the word’” it would be a totally different experience. The film doesn’t take the experience of giving birth away from women, or his wife, but presents birth lovingly while giving power back to women. “Window Water Baby Moving” is not presenting an absolute, “This is birth”, but instead a possibility through physicality. I very much appreciate how Brakhage has presented a woman actively involved in giving birth instead of a traditional depiction in which the men, doctors and partners, are the hero’s, which I find more offensive than Brakhage’s flattering film.
This week’s viewing was definitely my favorite so far. Although I appreciate Maya Deren’s work, I really gravitated toward Stan Brakhage’s work. There is simplicity of subject matter in each shot that looks extremely thought out and determined, allowing for a focus on textures, shapes, and hues. Especially in “Window Water Baby Moving,” every shot was lit beautifully and composed with, what appeared to be, careful consideration that they could have stood on their own as photographs. These film shorts celebrated film making itself as art and was very enjoyable to view.
Initial class reactions to the short film were somewhat shocking. It seems like perhaps it was difficult for viewers to stop thinking and start seeing. Instead it seemed like some jumped to create a narrative about the woman, making her into an existing figure (rather than an abstraction) who is being violated by having this “private” footage taken. I think some viewers, as well as Deren who saw the film as a violation of women believing birth to be observable exclusively by women, got too caught up in what they thought was going on in the film instead of just watching it. As said by Brakhage, “To search for human visual realities, man must…transcend the original physical restrictions and inherits worlds of the eyes.” Aesthically the film is beautiful. The shots are put together with intent, which is obvious just in composition but as well as all the instances when the film jumps from an image of giving birth to the window or bathtub, showing that Brakhage had an intention in editing the film. The graceful lighting and tender bathtub images create a softness and calm. Shadows are deliberately aligned, a windowpane on a pregnant belly.
I don’t believe it was Brakhage’s intent to make a film of his wife giving birth, but rather to make us see through capturing the physicality of the event. The film cannot be a violation of the woman in the film, Brakhage’s wife, as it exsists as an artistic expression, abstracting an actual event by changing time and space and choosing which shots to show and the order they go in. She is as much as an abstraction as the moth pieces pulled apart shimmering on the screen.
It is understandable to see where the argument arising of birth being a “private” moment, but if the film short is viewed as in a “world before the ‘beginning was the word’” it would be a totally different experience. The film doesn’t take the experience of giving birth away from women, or his wife, but presents birth lovingly while giving power back to women. “Window Water Baby Moving” is not presenting an absolute, “This is birth”, but instead a possibility through physicality. I very much appreciate how Brakhage has presented a woman actively involved in giving birth instead of a traditional depiction in which the men, doctors and partners, are the hero’s, which I find more offensive than Brakhage’s flattering film.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Last Year at Marienbad
Last Year at Marienbad was an extremely intriguing film. Lacking a traditional narrative form, the focus of the movie was more on strangely beautiful images than plot or characters. The way this film was shot disrupts realism as we view surrealistic images, such as the image of the garden when the trees and bushes have no shadow yet the people have elongated black silhouettes.
Through applying the philosophy of Rene Descarte, “I think, therefore I am,” I gathered an interpretation of the film as addressing the separation between mind and body. In this case, body represents the tactile, raw material of the physical world on which, the mind superimposes its designs. A can be seen as representing the landscape. She fits in to the glamorous extreme artificial setting of the film. Her dress is always very flashy, her feathered robe ridiculous in its intense luxury. In a literal sense, she enjoys being in the landscape, sitting in the garden where she feels at ease. This links her again to the physical world. Her opinions and reactions to things aren’t shown in a definite matter. She seems to exists in the landscape and X is trying to force upon her a reality that isn’t true.
X, the stranger in the film sticks out in the landscape. No one seems to know who he is and he attempts to prove his presence and importance in the landscape. He seems only to acknowledge his thoughts as being truth. Trying to convince A that he has known her, X desperately tries to conquer nature, insisting that he knows the truth. It seems clear that A doesn’t want X around. She pulls away from his advances and asks him to leave her alone. X doesn’t want to acknowledge the existence of A but merely construct his own idea of who she is. This can be seen in the allusions to rape. X wants to make A his lover, even though she is not and never was. He doesn’t ever try to acknowledge the real truth in the landscape, connecting with it to formulate his own perception of reality. He is so removed from the physical in the mental world. This film, through the separation of X and A in which we never really know the actuality of their possible shared time together, illustrates the separation between body and mind and how one cannot ignore or void out the other in constructing reality.
Through applying the philosophy of Rene Descarte, “I think, therefore I am,” I gathered an interpretation of the film as addressing the separation between mind and body. In this case, body represents the tactile, raw material of the physical world on which, the mind superimposes its designs. A can be seen as representing the landscape. She fits in to the glamorous extreme artificial setting of the film. Her dress is always very flashy, her feathered robe ridiculous in its intense luxury. In a literal sense, she enjoys being in the landscape, sitting in the garden where she feels at ease. This links her again to the physical world. Her opinions and reactions to things aren’t shown in a definite matter. She seems to exists in the landscape and X is trying to force upon her a reality that isn’t true.
X, the stranger in the film sticks out in the landscape. No one seems to know who he is and he attempts to prove his presence and importance in the landscape. He seems only to acknowledge his thoughts as being truth. Trying to convince A that he has known her, X desperately tries to conquer nature, insisting that he knows the truth. It seems clear that A doesn’t want X around. She pulls away from his advances and asks him to leave her alone. X doesn’t want to acknowledge the existence of A but merely construct his own idea of who she is. This can be seen in the allusions to rape. X wants to make A his lover, even though she is not and never was. He doesn’t ever try to acknowledge the real truth in the landscape, connecting with it to formulate his own perception of reality. He is so removed from the physical in the mental world. This film, through the separation of X and A in which we never really know the actuality of their possible shared time together, illustrates the separation between body and mind and how one cannot ignore or void out the other in constructing reality.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Orpheus
Even though Orpheus was at times difficult to grasp, I found it held its suspension of disbelief. The first time we see Death go through the mirror, common constructs of reality would tell us that this is not possible. Orphée’s disbelief and shock in viewing this phenomenon reassures us of this, which is reinforced by the image of his face pressed against the mirror, unpermitted to enter the portal, at first. We see some sort of pain on Orphée’s face; his hold on reality slackens and he enters into the other world through the mirrored portal.
The image of Orphée lying in a puddle of his reflection symbolized the major message I took from this film; poets break their egos to create meaningful art but ultimately can come back to living in the regular constraints of reality. I saw Orphée’s reflection as being the part of him remaining on the other side of the mirror where he was a failing poet, married to a typical housewife, and being overshadowed by up in coming artists; the part of him who didn’t know Death. His physical body represented desire, curiosity, the longing to slip through the mirror to follow Death. Putting the two images together shows a broken ego, a willingness to question what Orphée considered to be true in order to transcend the boundaries he is contained by.
The person’s poetry most revered in the film is Cégeste, who in the beginning of the film, seemed to live closely with Death and therefore closest to presenting another side of reality unseen by others in his work. It is when he losses is ego completely, seduced and taken by Death, is when Orphée become fixated with Cégeste’s transmitted words. For Orphee he needed the separation from Cegeste and his ego in order to consider his poetry valuable.
I can definitely see parallels in the roles played as being a poet and being homosexual in contemporary society. Both have to be constantly on watch for signs, interpreting everything around them which leads to great scrutiny of their character. Both may be seduced by Death, allure offering another side of reality. I didn’t see many references in the film that were obviously nodding to a gay sub text but I definitely see how it could be another message of the film. The one thing that did stand out to me happened in the beginning of the film when Orphée is at the café talking to a man about Cegeste. The camera goes into a very tight close up, the man’s lips practically in Orphée’s ear, whispering about whether or not Cégeste is one of them or not. It seemed like the men were sizing up this poet, checking him out more so then discussing his work.
The image of Orphée lying in a puddle of his reflection symbolized the major message I took from this film; poets break their egos to create meaningful art but ultimately can come back to living in the regular constraints of reality. I saw Orphée’s reflection as being the part of him remaining on the other side of the mirror where he was a failing poet, married to a typical housewife, and being overshadowed by up in coming artists; the part of him who didn’t know Death. His physical body represented desire, curiosity, the longing to slip through the mirror to follow Death. Putting the two images together shows a broken ego, a willingness to question what Orphée considered to be true in order to transcend the boundaries he is contained by.
The person’s poetry most revered in the film is Cégeste, who in the beginning of the film, seemed to live closely with Death and therefore closest to presenting another side of reality unseen by others in his work. It is when he losses is ego completely, seduced and taken by Death, is when Orphée become fixated with Cégeste’s transmitted words. For Orphee he needed the separation from Cegeste and his ego in order to consider his poetry valuable.
I can definitely see parallels in the roles played as being a poet and being homosexual in contemporary society. Both have to be constantly on watch for signs, interpreting everything around them which leads to great scrutiny of their character. Both may be seduced by Death, allure offering another side of reality. I didn’t see many references in the film that were obviously nodding to a gay sub text but I definitely see how it could be another message of the film. The one thing that did stand out to me happened in the beginning of the film when Orphée is at the café talking to a man about Cegeste. The camera goes into a very tight close up, the man’s lips practically in Orphée’s ear, whispering about whether or not Cégeste is one of them or not. It seemed like the men were sizing up this poet, checking him out more so then discussing his work.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Vertigo
Throughout this film, I couldn’t stop thinking about Susan Sontag’s quote describing the action of looking at photographs, which can be applied to the viewing of films; “Like sexual voyeurism, it is a way of at least tacitly, often explicitly, encouraging whatever is going on the keep on happening.” There were many times through out the film when I was creped out by what was going on but it’s not like I ever stopped looking and we don’t want it to stop even if it gets weird and uncomfortable.
There are definite camera tricks that tell us what and who we should be fixated on the screen. The first time we see Madeline, we see a large span of flawless skin through the deep v in her dress, back turned to us. Immediately we want to see what she looks like. This is followed by a tight close up of her face, we take her all in, realizing through tight angle and misty lens that we are suppose to be watching her. As the camera holds for a long time on John’s face as he drives, following Madeline, it is not he we want to see it is her; although this shot is successful in strengthening our view of his obsession.
To me, Midge and John’s interactions represented the idea of identity from separation. Midge is the lost object John knows he cannot have and he separates himself from her, taking a detective job after he retires in order to identify himself and hopefully get past his acrophobia. I thought the shots in the beginning of the film in Madeline’s apartment were very interesting. Madeline on the left, John on the right, a frilly bra framed in-between them in most of the shots. The bra in this case can be seen as a symbol of femininity, and this particularly one with its ultra provocative design, especially for this time, seems to get very little attention. It is safe to say that if a heterosexual man is with a women he is sexually attracted to and her frilly undergarments just so happen to be lying around, he is probably going to be very interested in them. John asks about the bra in a way someone would ask about a new clock on the wall, not like he cares but feels that he should because it is there. If we are following the narrative through the view of male lead, this interaction tells us that we aren’t interested in Midge.
I think this is why the painting is so strange to us. The woman in the painting is posed in a feminine and dainty way, and we are set up to see the glamour in Madeline, Midge just happens to be there so to see Midge in this role is just funny and off-putting. And as John tries to understand himself through the body, misrecognition, he falls deeper into his obsession with Madeline, who is vapid but glamorous. John, watching Judy and following her to her hotel room, grosses us out but yet we are watching too. We are have the same scopophilia.
There are definite camera tricks that tell us what and who we should be fixated on the screen. The first time we see Madeline, we see a large span of flawless skin through the deep v in her dress, back turned to us. Immediately we want to see what she looks like. This is followed by a tight close up of her face, we take her all in, realizing through tight angle and misty lens that we are suppose to be watching her. As the camera holds for a long time on John’s face as he drives, following Madeline, it is not he we want to see it is her; although this shot is successful in strengthening our view of his obsession.
To me, Midge and John’s interactions represented the idea of identity from separation. Midge is the lost object John knows he cannot have and he separates himself from her, taking a detective job after he retires in order to identify himself and hopefully get past his acrophobia. I thought the shots in the beginning of the film in Madeline’s apartment were very interesting. Madeline on the left, John on the right, a frilly bra framed in-between them in most of the shots. The bra in this case can be seen as a symbol of femininity, and this particularly one with its ultra provocative design, especially for this time, seems to get very little attention. It is safe to say that if a heterosexual man is with a women he is sexually attracted to and her frilly undergarments just so happen to be lying around, he is probably going to be very interested in them. John asks about the bra in a way someone would ask about a new clock on the wall, not like he cares but feels that he should because it is there. If we are following the narrative through the view of male lead, this interaction tells us that we aren’t interested in Midge.
I think this is why the painting is so strange to us. The woman in the painting is posed in a feminine and dainty way, and we are set up to see the glamour in Madeline, Midge just happens to be there so to see Midge in this role is just funny and off-putting. And as John tries to understand himself through the body, misrecognition, he falls deeper into his obsession with Madeline, who is vapid but glamorous. John, watching Judy and following her to her hotel room, grosses us out but yet we are watching too. We are have the same scopophilia.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Laura
As I watched McPherson slink back into Laura’s floral stuffed chair, alcohol in hand, I felt uncomfortable as I waited for the camera to do something; it remains motionless as McPherson drinks then looks over his shoulder at Laura’s portrait. In this shot, Laura takes up more space in the frame than McPherson. Falling in love with the painted portrait of Laura seemed perverse, calling into question the intentions of McPherson in solving Laura’s murder case.
After considering Nick Schager’s perspective in his movie review of Laura, the character of McPherson, falling in love with the presumably dead Laura’s picture, is a literal manifestation of the type of obsession the three men have for Laura. Lydecker’s image of Laura as socialite oozing with sophistication makes it unbearable for him to see her with anyone lacking such refinement. Meanwhile, Carpenter imagines Laura as a “gorgeous, expensive bauble to wear on his cheap, philandering arm”. McPherson has literally fallen in love with an image but also the idea of Laura as a person of great manners, politeness and scruples, formed through the accounts of others who knew her. None of them really love Laura, they love the idea of what she can be to them, a malleable material responsive to the roles the men wish to assign. She is a femme fatal not by choice, but because of the men who desingn her to be attractive to them, leading to obsession. Lydecker, Carpenter, and McPherson all think they know who Laura is, but they all have a constructed idea of Laura based on how they have made her fit into their lives, and to see Laura in any other way than how they imagine her would make them question their own grasp on reality.
The way the camera treats Laura reminds us that she is only an idea, a concept of love, companionship, femininity, beauty, that the men are obsessed with having and controlling. Her entrance into the movie after being pronounced murdered is very anticlimactic. In the shot with Laura next to the fireplace, Laura and her portrait take up about equal height in the frame, yet the frilly lap next to McPherson is taller and wider than her in the shot. There aren’t any dramatic close-ups of her that would make us concerned with her reactions to her own murder. Scale in this film places attention on objects such as the lamp, distancing us from Laura as a person.
Her dreamy angelic lighting makes Laura seem translucent next to the men who have strong inky black shadows. The men’s shadows seem to compete with each other. There’s a shot in Laura’s apartment when McPherson is asking Carpenter about the concert he attended. Back to Carpenter, McPherson’s shadow is very dark, spilling onto Carpenter who stands behind him. Leydecker comes to stand behind Carpenter, and the three men are in perfect a diagonal line; their shadows overlap each other’s bodies and Leydecker’s, the most opaque is sprawled behind him on the apartment walls, difficult to discern. It is as though their shadows are trying to prove who has the greatest presence.
The only time I remember Laura’s character ever having a very dark shadow in the film is in the scene at the party when she is on the porch smoking with Carpenter. Lifting the cigarette to her lips, the shadow of her arm and hand goes directly to her neck, as if she is choking herself. (Roughly 8 minutes 13 seconds into the clip___http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLfqnE3VvAw&feature=related) This is also strange when considering her portrait and her pose that is hard to discern exactly but appears as if one hand is up to her neck. All of these can be reminders that Laura is, as said by Schager, “just a blank slate to be written on by others.” Her lack of shadow shows that her character doesn’t have the presence that other characters have, she doesn’t have the mass, the importance as a person.
After considering Nick Schager’s perspective in his movie review of Laura, the character of McPherson, falling in love with the presumably dead Laura’s picture, is a literal manifestation of the type of obsession the three men have for Laura. Lydecker’s image of Laura as socialite oozing with sophistication makes it unbearable for him to see her with anyone lacking such refinement. Meanwhile, Carpenter imagines Laura as a “gorgeous, expensive bauble to wear on his cheap, philandering arm”. McPherson has literally fallen in love with an image but also the idea of Laura as a person of great manners, politeness and scruples, formed through the accounts of others who knew her. None of them really love Laura, they love the idea of what she can be to them, a malleable material responsive to the roles the men wish to assign. She is a femme fatal not by choice, but because of the men who desingn her to be attractive to them, leading to obsession. Lydecker, Carpenter, and McPherson all think they know who Laura is, but they all have a constructed idea of Laura based on how they have made her fit into their lives, and to see Laura in any other way than how they imagine her would make them question their own grasp on reality.
The way the camera treats Laura reminds us that she is only an idea, a concept of love, companionship, femininity, beauty, that the men are obsessed with having and controlling. Her entrance into the movie after being pronounced murdered is very anticlimactic. In the shot with Laura next to the fireplace, Laura and her portrait take up about equal height in the frame, yet the frilly lap next to McPherson is taller and wider than her in the shot. There aren’t any dramatic close-ups of her that would make us concerned with her reactions to her own murder. Scale in this film places attention on objects such as the lamp, distancing us from Laura as a person.
Her dreamy angelic lighting makes Laura seem translucent next to the men who have strong inky black shadows. The men’s shadows seem to compete with each other. There’s a shot in Laura’s apartment when McPherson is asking Carpenter about the concert he attended. Back to Carpenter, McPherson’s shadow is very dark, spilling onto Carpenter who stands behind him. Leydecker comes to stand behind Carpenter, and the three men are in perfect a diagonal line; their shadows overlap each other’s bodies and Leydecker’s, the most opaque is sprawled behind him on the apartment walls, difficult to discern. It is as though their shadows are trying to prove who has the greatest presence.
The only time I remember Laura’s character ever having a very dark shadow in the film is in the scene at the party when she is on the porch smoking with Carpenter. Lifting the cigarette to her lips, the shadow of her arm and hand goes directly to her neck, as if she is choking herself. (Roughly 8 minutes 13 seconds into the clip___http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLfqnE3VvAw&feature=related) This is also strange when considering her portrait and her pose that is hard to discern exactly but appears as if one hand is up to her neck. All of these can be reminders that Laura is, as said by Schager, “just a blank slate to be written on by others.” Her lack of shadow shows that her character doesn’t have the presence that other characters have, she doesn’t have the mass, the importance as a person.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Citizen Kane
A really intriguing aspect to Citizen Kane was the brief reference to communism in the beginning of the film. For whatever reason, it really stuck out for me while watching and interpreting the film. Taking this into consideration, the atmosphere of Citizen Kane, centered on the use of deep focus and skewed camera angles, could be reflective of communist paranoia and fear existing historical when the film was made. Allowing everything in the film to be in focus, possible symbolic meaning and importance could exist in every object. In this fear, society analyzed every detail in an attempt to find “truth”, much like the characters of the film search for the significance of “rosebud”, believing this will solve the mystery of Charles Foster Kane. The experience of the viewing audience is similar to that of the characters in the film. I found myself searching for clues in deep focus shots, trying to eliminate any insignificant visual details to discover reference to rosebud. Roses are prevalent in the film; when Susan marries Kane, one stage with Susan after a performance as well as in a vase next to Susan’s bedroom door, which the doctor brushes against as he exits in the scene when Susan overdoses. The search for truth, rosebud, doesn’t answer any of the questions brought up by the mystery of Kane. Trying to force importance into irrelevant detail to prove Kane to be a more dynamic character is much like how society at the time of this film and after tried to accuse people of being communists based one aspect of that person.
Thinking of Citizen Kane as suggested by the reading, a presentation of the problem, the mystery of Kane, instead of a solution is a compelling way to consider the film. This can lend another purpose for the “showy camera tricks” and dramatic lighting, to remind viewers that the reality presented is a construct created through memory. Perhaps Wells isn’t trying to answer questions, but instead leave us with an opened ended mystery that asks more questions than it answers. In this constructed reality, events no longer have to occur in a linear narrative, but instead events can stack on top of each other, which wouldn’t have been possible if Kane wasn’t dead.
The had a very postmodern feel to me and really reminded me of the novel The Crying of Lot 49, which involves a female protagonist’s search for truth in a mysterious post horn symbol. Anyone who enjoyed the film would be interested in the novel, which explores many of the concepts brought up by the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)