The Stuff Films are Made of

Without question the most poignant and emotionally devastating scene I connected with in A Single Man was the dance sequence between George and Charley. As he pours their drinks, Charley queues up a record, a brief scratch is heard, but then the loveliest song cascades throughout the room. She walks up to him and slowly caresses his back; George smirks with affectionate approval as Charley gives the briefest yet saddest of giggles. He turns to her and they smile at one another, Charley rubs his chest, as George slowly grasps the back of her neck and leans her in upon his chest. It is this moment which truly tests the emotional capacity of one’s soul, as Charley’s expression just makes you believe everything she had ever hoped for or wanted from George was finally coming true. It is as if she is exhaling emotionally as she falls into his arms, but his expression is still lifeless and stoic. She leans her head back and takes in his form, slowly moving her hand to the back of his neck as well. She quivers oh so subtly and quickly falls back into the safety of his arms. George just continues and embraces her all the same. She looks into his eyes again, as he gently caresses the side of her face, she clearly wants to kiss him, but something in her compels her not to. George then begins to pull back, but Charley desperately holds on and asks him to wait. She races to the record player, he pours another drink. A faster tune blasts through the room, and so she begins to twist, he takes another sip and refuses to partake. Charley bates him more and more, and sure enough the good professor begins to unwind. A moment of pure bliss and happiness as two kindred spirits dance the night away and they collapse to the floor lying next to one another as laughter drowns out the music. They look into each other’s eyes again and look as if they are about to kiss, until suddenly George jumps up and tells Charley not to move. End of scene and the end of one of the most tense, joyful, sad, heartbreaking, fun scenes all rolled up into one that I have ever had the privilege of viewing. It is not to say that I did not enjoy or did not understand the film thus far, but when that scene came and went I had finally connected with A Single Man on a level I truly did not understand yet. Inside me boiled this emotional and passionate response and I was confused. I didn’t know whether I wanted to cry, laugh, or scream in rage at what I had just witnessed, and all in all it was a pretty low key scene. It was just two people in a living room really dancing and having a few drinks, but honestly it was so much more than that. So many of us understand how Charley must feel wanting someone so badly who they just can never be with, and poor George of course so distraught and ruined by the memory of dead partner. So many emotional levels are explored in that one scene which lasts just a little over three minutes, but essentially captures the emotional essence of the entire film. It is without question that I experienced a cinephilic moment and damn Sontag’s incessant chastising of my need to express how I felt. I can certainly agree with her to some extent that the overanalyzing of film can compromise the essence of what it attempts to evoke to and from its audience, but how else are we supposed to find other kindred spirits out there that we can possibly relate to without putting into words what we experienced. Are we supposed to be these isolated creatures alone in dark despondent rooms watching one film after the other and internalizing our every emotional response? I don’t think so and quite honestly I refuse to do so.

Melancholia & Mourning: the Death of Cinema

For me the final scene in Melancholia made me wonder what von Trier may possibly be saying about the death of cinema…if of course he is saying anything at all on the subject. Susan Sontag professes that cinema is indeed dying, is on life support, or is all together dead because younger generations are not as enthused and are easily dissuaded from the quality of cinema by cheap theatrics which are produced by the industrial Hollywood film complex. But in this case, when analyzing that final scene in Melancholia, I tend to believe that cinema will yes undeniably change in the face of digital technology, but it is up to the filmmaker and the audience if this change will result in a new golden era for cinema or its last will and testament. Does digital technology sometimes distract and dissuade the viewer from a quality cinema experience? It most certainly does. Does technology sometimes rip out the soul and leaves an empty shell of a film for audiences to mindlessly numb on? Yes it does that to. But is it written somewhere or has some cinematic legislature determined that this is the only way film can be represented in the age of technology? That would be a resounding no. To me von Trier’s work truly transcends the notions of Sontag and Geoffrey Chasire‘s criticism of the digital cinema. Truly I do agree with many of their arguments and there are more than one handful of incredibly bad films which rely heavily on the digital medium, but you know what? They have to endure the criticism and reality of being a terrible film, and honestly what worse reality is there for a self-proclaimed and internationally recognized filmmaker? Now with that out of the way a proper analysis of Melancholia’s final sequence can truly reveal not only the successful use of digital technology in the film, but its absolute necessity. As the camera bobs and seemingly floats from face to face, there is almost a feeling like we as the audience are watching these final moments on a hand held camera. Justine, Claire, and Leo put the finishing touches on their stick teepee and embrace the final moments of their lives. Claire cries uncontrollably while Justine quietly accepts her fate, and perhaps Leo is just too young to understand the ending which waits him. Just as the three of them know they are doomed we as the audience sympathize with their plight, but all of us together wonder how this will all end. The camera falls back and captures the three of them holding hands within the stick teepee, it slowly pans up to capture the horizon, and then suddenly a huge sphere emerges and blows outward. Once it reaches them, the three are incinerated and the film fades to black; a brilliant and pivotal moment that truly captures the essence of the film and the characters emotions. Could von Trier have just fade to black to symbolize their doom? Sure he could have, but it in no way could have been as effective or meaningful without the digital recreation of the blast which he does provide. It such a violent and visceral moment which cannot be ignored and truly delivers a payoff to the audience that they just witnessed the end of the world. Without the digital technology Sontag and Chasire so consistently chastise (see what I did there?) this scene would never have delivered the true intent and vision of the director and the audience would have been denied a pivotal moment which brings not only resolution, but an understanding of what being doomed truly looks like.

To betray, or not to betray, that is the question

The auteurs are under attack and no one seems to be coming to their defense, well no one is defending them with words that is. Instead it would seem filmmakers are just going about their business dropping gems of beauty and intrigue proving that theorists are not the judicial board which can dismiss a consistently neglected theory such as auteurism. In the film The Grapes of Wrath critics find avenues in which the auteur theorist can be dismissed. They accuse John Ford and Greg Toland of compromising the integrity of the original novel the film is based on, and thus discredit auteur theory as a theory which undermines the creativity of other arts. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, because if Ford and Toland are guilty of anything its recreating the Mona Lisa. Constantly there are these arguments which throw filmmakers under the proverbial bus for compromising the integrity of the original source work, but for every theorist who discredits an auteur for his or her version of an adaptation there is a film which proves them wrong. The Grapes of Wrath is such a film and while at times it completely departs from its original source material, it still vehemently maintains the spirit and essence of the works intent. In every shot of every frame my insides are violently ripped out and I feel the destitute, despondent, and utterly tragic experiences of life in the depression era mid-West. One poignant scene which stood out to me most is when the farmer is telling the tale of when his home was run over by the tractor. It is my understanding that this scene is also represented in the novel, but it is the technique and skill which Ford uses that truly makes me feel the pain of these lowly blue collar farmers more than the novel ever could. The expressions on each of their faces, the disbelief and anger in the face of the farmer when the tractor threatens his home, and the boy himself who sits atop the tractor seeming somewhat scared and disillusioned by the whole situation yet resolute by fear of having no work. The novel is an excellent source and is in no way inferior to the film, but it is in Ford and Toland’s work that we can watch and interact on a level text cannot suitably provide which elevates one’s understanding from sympathy to empathy. Then finally the tractor moves forward and the family flees like terrified ants, as they witness the destruction of the home they built and fought for so many years and generations be destroyed in a manner of seconds. These images in motion and backed by a brilliant narrative expresses emotion and understanding that a piece of text just cannot replicate or handle. And regardless of how one may feel about the auteur, it is in my opinion that no other type of filmmaker would be able to adequately recreate an original source work. Auteurs certainly have their place among the pantheon of theorist and they should not be denied credit and prestige simply because they are willing to impose their own understanding of a source material in the final cut of the film. Auteurs are not inherently tone deaf of the desires of the audience and they are more than capable of acknowledging those desires and presenting a film in a manner which both expresses their own views while relating to those of the audience. What Ford and Toland accomplished with The Grapes of Wrath was a recreation, not replication, of a brilliant piece of source material. They elevated certain meanings and ideas which could not be expressed in simple words, yet maintained the integrity and spirit of the novel itself.

Plato's Cave or a Trick on Us

What is reality? A fairly loaded question granted and its answer is always relative to the individual who is asked. But beyond the explanations of multiple dimensions in astrophysics, or the existential pursuits of proving a dream is just as reasonable a reality as "reality" itself (whatever that means) lies one true medium which demands questioning our conventional understanding of reality. Film is a medium that would, in my opinion, bewilder Plato into utter insanity when attempting explains its significance to the concept of reality. While at face value film seems nothing more than a sophisticated version of the allegory of the cave, such a simple explanation omits the significance of the audience's input and participation. Given our modern society which is general ruled by capitalist pursuits of marketing and manufacturing, the cave wall and the images projected are not left to the whims of the guards, but is instead dictated by the free expression of desire for someone or something to relate to. To put it more simply any true filmmaker is out to make a product which relates and connects with an audience primarily to sell as many tickets as possible and make enough money to justify to production studio to finance another film. But the soul of a film, the purpose of any filmmaker is to create something which resonates with an audience and help them feel less alone in the world. Midnight in Paris is a film which presents us with a fictional world which the audience and main character Gil can freely travel through the apexes of modern French history and culture. Is it obvious that this world crafted by Woody Allen nothing more than a product of his imagination? Sure it is, but does that mean it cannot be interpreted as a form of reality...that is not so easily answered. A particular moment in the film which truly struck me on an emotional, physical, and even existential level is when Gil meets Earnest Hemingway. As a Hemingway fan myself I was easily impressed by the introduction of the literary giant, but I still felt firmly in place in the reality that was my cold, stiff rolling chair, sitting before this dilapidated and worn out projector screen. Then something happened, something magnificent had occurred, I was suddenly and violently transported into the film itself. There I sat to Gil's left and Hemingway’s right and I began to imagine a world which went beyond the script and the camera. As I heard Hemingway speak and Gil's astonishment awaken my spirit, I dared myself to step into that window of cinematic brilliance and decided to enjoy delicious ale with my literary hero and lived vicariously through the eyes of Gil. Reality is truly what you make of it and in the right filmmakers hands a film can truly defy your preconceived and unbearably average notions of human reality. To ask whether one should believe in the illusions created by Hollywood or question those subversive illusions is honestly irrelevant to me, what is relevant is that I got to watch my hero on screen relate and converse with what can be considered a postmodern character. Allen may be trying to allude to the deceptive practices of Hollywood, but he can never deny me the simple pleasures of seeing an old friend again in one form or the other. I rather believe in a reality which can bring back our greatest heroes and most beloved of artist, instead of a world which just accepts them as porous bones in worn out wooden boxes. Call me naive or maybe an eternal optimist, but either way I feel more comfertable remembering my heroes by recreating them in new and inventive ways.

What has film been?

When considering the film The Prestige by director Christopher Nolan it is important to note the historical significance of not only film thus far, but also the era which Nolan attempts to capture in the film. It is a film set in the 19th century and tells the story of two competing magicians and the lengths they will go to in order to be considered the best. A seemingly straightforward and progressive plot, Nolan elevates this basic theme and inserts pivotal turning points which question how far one is willing to go in the vain of becoming the very best at his craft. Historically film has taken the approach of combining reality and imagination and displaying on the grandest of stages; the beloved silver screen. Just as film progressed through its early primitive history to its golden age and all the way through its modern and now post-modern phases, there has been immense conflict and incredible competition in all facets of film making. Nolan captures the essence of this type of competition in The Prestige between characters Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale). It can be argued that Nolan utilizes the theme of magic as a comparative tool with film itself, in which two autuers of their craft battle against one another to put on the greatest show. Borden and Angier are the directors of people's imagination and it is their competition with each other that drives forward the grandeur and elaborate aspects of their shows. Simultaneously though this competition to some effect drives both Angier and Borden to the precipice of madness in attempting to become the greatest magician. It is no coincidence that the setting of the film is in the 19th century near the birth of cinema. While the common portrayal of magicians in film is not easily recognized in Nolan's film, what is apparent is the modern or post-modern attitude toward filmmaking, a.k.a. 'magic.'  When analyzing and critiquing Nolan's film it becomes clear that he is offering a historical reference on where cinema comes from while detailing the modern perception of what cinema has become. Auteur's consumed by their drive to entertain the audience and be proven as the undeniable best of their particular craft. Borden is driven by the craft, he pushes his limits, and is willing to do whatever it takes for the sake of progressing the art of magic. Angier in his final words admits his drive was the audience and the expression and emotion they felt when witnessing the reveal; it was for "the look on their faces." This bipolar approach to film making is prevalent in modern cinema where one camp is obsessed with entertainment and monetary success, while the others are consumed by progressing the craft itself.

Essay #1 Outline

Main Arguement: The ideological approach to film theory is more sufficient then the formalist approach.

Claim #1: The ideological approach permits a more artistic and thus a greater view of the human condition
Support for #1: Ideology is a relatively systematic body of ideas, attitudes, values, and perceptions, as welas, actual modes of thinking (usually unconcious) typical of a given class or group of people ina specific time and place.

Claim #2: The formalist approach is too limited and narrow in its approach to theorizing film
Support for #2: "Film theory (formalism) has nothing to do with film" Roger Ebert

Claim #3: The ideological approach better expresses the creative intent of film makers whilst not limiting a films meaning
Support for #3: "Theoretical film studies has become really awful. That’s not how you should study film. Abolish these courses and do something else which makes much more sense." Werner Horzog

"Moment" Approach: Godard

A telling moment which reveals Godard's position on the issue of film's meaning, is in the very first scene in his work Masculine, feminine. Throughout film history and up until Godard began work on Masculine, feminine certain norms and conventional approaches to film making had been well established and adhered to. Yet, as any good artist would, there were those like Godard who challenged and questioned the validity of this status quo of film making. For instance in that opening scene of Masculine, feminine Godard does not provide the audience with an establishing shot, thus, slightly disorienting the viewer on where they actually are. Instead the audience is given a super close up of a male character, who Godard offers no real introduction or intimate information on who or why this person sitting directly in front of the audience is writing and reading his work aloud. Seconds later and an establishing shot, or the narrowest definition of one, is provided and it becomes clear that this unknown man in a trench coat is sitting in the middle of a diner and judging by his very thick french accent and the accompanying English text beneath him, the movie must be taking place in France. Many a conventional film maker would point to these subtle departures from the norms of film as irresponsible, disjointed, and entirely confusing. But for Godard it is evident that he strives for something more then just telling the audience where they are, or who is involved, and why his characters are doing what their doing. For Godard what seems essential is that there is a man, he sits alone in a diner in France, and he is working on something that clearly preoccupies his train of thought. Godard is literally documenting this character's life and the brief minutes he spends alone in a diner contemplating whatever he deems important to contemplate. Until of course a woman enters the diner shortly there after and the entire focus of the audience is diverted away from the male character and onto her. Of course the audience can still spot half of the male character on screen and off to the right, this woman takes her seat and occupies the focus of the shot. In this moment it would appear that Godard is physically showing us the male character's attention so easily distracted when a beautiful woman walks into the room and takes a seat next to him. As a whole Masculine, feminine is a piece of film which Godard uses to document the behaviors and actions of men and women in given social situations, whether these are people or characters in a movie is irrelevant to Godard.