|
ESSAYS, ARTICLES, AND THEORIES ABOUT CINEMA
|
|
| |
|
|
| Thursday, July 8, 2010
|
|
FAMILY MATTERS: DOGTOOTH (2009) |
Dogtooth (2009), or as it is referred to by its Greek title, Κυνόδοντας, is more than just a film. It’s an experience for the audience, and an exploration into rules, morals, and patriarchal hierarchy in the family structure. The film contains a bold satirical undertone in the way it portrays the extremities within the way in which the family operates. Filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos officially joins the ranks of contemporary auteurs, which have and still are challenging audiences to submit themselves before pieces that push society’s boundaries of taboo and extremes through their representation of sex and violence. Specifically, Michael Haneke with his grossly honest and sadistic amusement, Funny Games (1997), Todd Solondz with Happiness (1998), a disturbing tale about how everyone contains twisted fantasies, Christophe Honoré with Ma Mére (2004), a beautiful adaptation of Georges Bataille’s novel about masochistic obsession and desire within an incestuous love between a mother and son, and Gaspar Noé’s Irreversible (2002), which successfully alienated viewers with roller-coasteresc movements and one of the most brutal rape scenes ever filmed. Lanthimos joins these individuals by making a film that more than likely will take viewers out of their comfort zones and introduce them into a world of difference, which makes them vulnerable. The film’s social relevancy is shown within its lustrous and depth-induced cinematography, emphasizing clarity of detail. Whether inducing perspective by showing Brother staring at the fence with the camera at a fixed angle, using long shots to detail the jungle-like scenery of the yard, framing heads out shots when dialogue occurs, or the sharp quality of the image in and around the pool to mesmerize the viewer’s eye, it clearly shows that Lanthimos has a lurid cinematic eye within his aesthetics. Many will either ignorantly dismiss the film as “trite” and “pretentious,” or will be completely disgusted by the violence and sex, and refuse to read into the film, however, one thing is certain: no matter what negative criticism this film may pick up when its distributor, Kino International, hopefully acquires more theaters to showcase, the film does engage its audience. The mere negative responses alone will in fact strengthen the core of the film. In between the latest Summer blockbuster sequel or 3-D enhanced blockbuster, there could not be a better time for the release of Dogtooth.
In the film, the plot is the least intriguing element, compared to how the film operates and how it delivers open-interpretive understandings. Dogtooth is about a father who keeps his family inside and around the yard, contained by an electronic gate that he opens primarily for him to venture out and keep him family in. There are no names attributed to the members of the family. They are merely identified by their role within the family: Father, Mother, Older Daughter, Younger Daughter, and Son. By doing so, Lanthimos establishes an environment where the characters are deidentified by their individual characteristics. Each character might do or say something in private, however everything always comes back to the family. The family alone is a unit, a strong base that thrives off everyone working together to strengthen its core. While the family may work together, everything is, on the other hand, dictated by Father. And the only way Father knows how to control his family is through force. The film operates on two different levels. The first level is containment and the second, natural course.
Containment is literally and metaphorically shown through moral intent. The fence, set in place by Father, is used just as much to keep, what he feels are negative influences out, than to keep the family in. While his actions may appear extreme or absurd to some individuals, he is doing nothing more than preserving his family’s innocence by any means necessary. Every family operates differently. Father reinforces the rule of the house through containment by keeping the family in constant fear of what exists beyond the fence. This is illustrated by him redefining the role of the cat. He paints the cat as a beast, one capable of eating children’s flesh, because he wishes to keep the family aligned within his order. “If you stay inside, you are protected,” he tells them after Brother impales a cat with a pair of garden hedge clippers. By getting the entire family on all fours, barking, he sculpts them into dog-like personas to ignite their animalistic side. The father partakes in numerous tasks in order to delude their status to that of a dog. Father brings in Christina to have sex with Brother. This can be associated with a master introducing a female dog to his dog for breeding. When Father discovers that Older Sister traded Christina oral sex for videotapes, he contains his anger, asking her to bring him masking tape. He binds the tape to his hand and repeatedly strikes her in the head. This act can be can be associated with a dog urinating on the floor and the master rubbing the dog’s face in the urine. Another example where Father acts with intent to preserve innocence within the family is show in the scene where he plays Frank Sinatra’s “Fly to Me to the Moon.” While Sinatra plays on the record player and as he sings each line, Father recites moral subtexts like, “Dad loves us,” “Mom loves us,” “I love my brothers and sisters,” and “My parents are proud of me, because I do my best.” Since the language barrier is present, Father uses it to insert subliminal messages within the workings of the song. Overall, Father makes decisions that better contain the family within the environment and in the submissive grasp of his authority.
The second level is natural course. Being in such a hazardously strict household, the kids adapt to the standards by submission due to their susceptibility within their environment. Throughout the course of the film, Older Sister, Younger Sister and Brother are met with temptations. Whenever temptation presents itself, it is human nature to either give in or disregard entirely. In this case, all siblings give into their own curiosities. Father might enforce Nurture, however Nature finds its way into the home. The course of Nature is too powerful for Father to keep out. He continues to assemble borders in between the kids and their curiosities, however it seems the kids are capable of digging through the borders and give into their desires. Since they are contained inside the fenced-in area, they are left with the house and the yard to play games. Outside, they lie in the grass and play with a small toy airplane, obviously a symbol for their yearning to fly away from their current location. Inside, the sisters play doctor, both inhale an anesthetic until they pass out, and the winner being the first to wake. Other games include walking around the yard blindfolded until they find one Mother. Nature makes its way into the house more or less in the form of Christina. She is brought into the house for “arranged sex” with Brother. Father sets this up in order to ease Brother’s transitional phase into puberty. After having sex with him, Christina approaches Older Sister. Bringing in objects from the outside, Older Sister is fascinated by Christina. One day, Christina teaches her the act of bartering. In return for Christina’s head clamp, Older Sister performs oral sex on her. Older Sister takes this knowledge and teaches Younger Sister, offering the head clamp if she returns with licking her shoulder. Bartering is not the only knowledge taught, but also the act of raising the stakes. When Christina attempts to barter with Older Sister again, it is Older Sister who makes the demands for a set of videotapes Christina brought into the house. When Older Sister watches one of the tapes, she later reenacts a scene from what obviously is one of the Rocky films. By doing so, Older Sister develops instinct naturally through observation. This can be taken as a critical jab to individuals who believe media dictates action. In this context, it is not the film itself to create her reenactment, but the strict rules set in place by Father that cause her curiosity towards watching the tapes. Alongside Father’s containment of the family, Nature itself adapts within the structured morality. One night, Younger Sister takes a hammer and hits Brother’s leg, but when Father and Mother enter, she says, “It wasn’t me. I saw the cat with a hammer jumping out the window.” Father suddenly finds himself in a difficult position. He can either punish the son or the daughter: protect the myth of the cat and keep his family vulnerable, or condemning Younger Sister for using the cat as an excuse, thus making him appear weak and potentially exposing his lies. By choosing to punish the son, he does not strengthen his values, but in fact sets an example that it is okay to use his rules against him. One of the rules set in place by Father is that a child may leave the house if their dogtooth falls out. Right from the beginning, the objective is set for all the kids. At one point, Older Sister asks Younger Sister to check the flexibility of her dogtooth. The tension builds to the point where she is forced to take matters literally into her own hands. With a weight in hand, she powerfully knocks her own dogtooth out. The weight itself serves as the metaphorical weight, or pressure compressed on her by the strict rules and harsh environment, and in turn, she uses it to meet the standards of admittance into the outside world. She makes her transition from child to adult by naturally developing the responsibility of taking a stand. It in a way is her own initiation, getting into the trunk, awaiting her freedom, however the film leaves her fate up to the viewer since it ends with her still in the trunk of the car.
Dogtooth contains a shock value for the sake of breaking norms. In today’s society, when popular “shock icons” are Lady Gaga and Eli Roth, who shock for their own sake, then nothing is accomplished. When the idea of “shocking” becomes a household name, the value diminishes. There was a time when Rhett Butler said the word “damn” and audiences were offended. Now that times have changed and course language has become a norm thanks to crude teen comedies, it no longer contains the shock value it once cast. Some of the best films that shock, do so because they encompass something deep that registers feelings of alienation. Sometimes they show parts of ourselves we choose not to acknowledge. Maybe they reveal our own inner dark sadistic side, and the only way to cope with the film is to be shocked. What makes these films different may be the fact we victimize ourselves. In order to find what unease’s audiences, one should look no further than their own self and how they function in the twisted world around them. One could see Dogtooth showing no more of a horrid world than our own. Rules are rules, values are values, morals are morals, and dogtooths are dogtooths.
|
|
posted by Will Lewis 11:40 PM
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD! The Greed and Glamour in THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL (1952) |
Famous American filmmaker Orson Welles once said, “Hollywood died on me as soon as I got there” (Think Exist). Welles’ quote is quite relevant for the very reason it attempts to shed light on one of the largest debacles in film history: What is Hollywood? The meaning of the quote brings attention to the aspiration of success from actors and actresses dazzled by the bright lights and majestic world depicted in movies, only to be let down by the discovery of Hollywood only as a mere town filled with a false image. In Vincente Minnelli’sThe Bad and the Beautiful (1952), the world of Hollywood is sliced open with a scalpel, allowing the audience to glimpse the true sense of the world behind the scenes. The title alone raises the imaginative scale of Hollywood consisting of both bad and beautiful attributes. The “bad” symbolizes betrayal in the possible worst scenario – also bringing forth a symbol of capitalism as a system in which Hollywood religiously adopts as a competitive, prophet-driven ideology (Naremore 45). The “beautiful” in the film symbolizes the vast glamour surrounding the mysticism Hollywood creates, but even deeper into opportunities for aspiring figures. The Bad and the Beautiful is so far the most accurate representation of Hollywood as a transitioning representation from the Classical Age of Cinema to the New Hollywood Era and as an entity, invoking qualities of glamour and greed.
The film opens with the intentions of giving a story delivered through the classical way. Director Fred Amiel is introduced as a major figure in which he refuses to accept an important call from a “Jonathan Shields.” The scene juxtaposes to famous actress Georgia Lorrison, who also receives the same call from Shields, but lies in order to refrain from discussion. Right away, it is obvious that Shields is now an important figure. The scene juxtaposes to another with easy-going writer, James Lee Bartlow accepting the call from Jonathan and exclaims, “drop dead” (The Bad and the Beautiful)! Jonathan’s character is clearly defined within the first few minutes without him ever appearing. After all three characters show loathsome feelings towards him; Jonathan is revealed as the head of his own motion picture studio, Shields Productions. All three characters are summoned by new studio owner Harry Pebbel to discuss a new project being produced none other than by Jonathan himself.
The film transgresses to another direction at this point, leaving the classical style behind and transitioning into a newer style not only through flashbacks, but multiply narrated by all three characters – something unheard of in the Classical Era of Hollywood (Hayes 117). The film was released in the 50’s, a time of disaster and progress. Disaster, in the sense of more than 300 actors/writers/directors were blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the emergence of television: the motion picture villain, but progress in the sense of a new era to experiment with the medium of film even further (Naremore 113). The Bad and the Beautiful is remarkable, because it shows, within the structure of the film itself, the very change occurring in Hollywood, from pictures that appeal to all, to pictures that appeal to selected individuals (Naremore 114). This is meant in the way how the Classical Era produced films that spelled everything out for the audience and focused on the overall plot, compared to the emergence of the New Hollywood, which combined symbolic nuances and focused less on plot and more on the psychological analysis of individual characters (Naremore 125).
Due to such vast changes, it became more common to analyze the state of the movies themselves, but also Hollywood. Throughout the 50’s a group of films emerged, which questioned the definition of Hollywood, including such as Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard (1950), Nicholas Ray’s In a Lonely Place (1950), Singing in the Rain (1952), Joseph Mankiewicz’s The Barefoot Contessa (1954), Robert Aldrich’sThe Big Knife (1955), and The Bad and the Beautiful (Ames147). These films brought up the question: what is Hollywood? These films echo the message of what Christopher Ames answers, “Hollywood is a state of mind” (1). In other words, Hollywood manufactures films to instill its very image. Of course, Hollywood is a location in California, but the real Hollywood exists in the imagination of moviegoers.The Bad and the Beautiful, more so, not only turns the camera around and captures the people involved with making films and glorifies the glamorous, but also exposes the corrupted greed infected within the system. Instead of showing Hollywood solely negative or solely positive, the film delivers more of a realistic approach dipped in fantasy. Just as everyone has good and bad days, Hollywood as an entity contains good qualities and flaws. The good qualities are shown through glamour and the flaws through greed. Examples of glamour and greed are shown in Fred, Georgia and James Lee’s story as they narrate how it ignites by their own collaboration with Jonathan (Hayes 123).
The first example of glamour exists in Fred Amiel’s story of his collaboration with Jonathan. Fred’s first interaction with Jonathan Shields is at the funeral for his father, Hugo Shields. Glamour is shown through opportunity, where Jonathan teams up with Fred and the two begin collaborating. Fred goes from a nobody to a somebody through befriending Jonathan. Together, they strive to “ram the name Shields down their throats” (The Bad and the Beautiful). A logo is even created to give a picture to their creative effort: two knights protected by a shield. Jonathan even claims the two knights represent Fred and himself. They turn out eleven pictures together until a horror B-film entitled, The Doom of the Catman is handed to them. After receiving great reviews, Fred pulls out his secrete project: The Faraway Mountain – a best selling novel requiring a million dollar budget in which three studios attempted to make and failed. Fred shows Jonathan a scene-by-scene plan and exclaims, “I want to direct it so much, I can taste it” (The Bad and the Beautiful). After Fred convinces Jonathan, he and Jonathan pitch the idea to Harry, who says, “I don’t want to win awards. Give me pictures that end with a kiss and black ink in the books,” to which Jonathan replies, “Now make this picture or I’ll quite! This is my baby. I want to produce it so much I can taste it” (The Bad and the Beautiful). This in a way acts as the first betrayal, however without going to bat for the idea, the film would have never been approved by Harry. Fred does not make it an issue, because at this point, he is willing to do whatever it takes to direct the film. Together, the two of them work on The Faraway Mountain, perfecting the script, organizing sets, location scouting and finally casting. For the leading man, they get Latin heartthrob Victor “Gaucho” Rivera to read the script and attend a conference meeting the next day with Jonathan and Harry. In the meeting they discuss business and after the meeting, greed formulates.
Greed is represented through betrayal. Fred nervously waits for Jonathan to exit the conference room and hear the verdict. Upon hearing it, everything falls apart. An overexcited Jonathan announces to Fred that not only is the film green-lit, but they acquired the million dollar budget, a location shoot in Veracruz and Gaucho to star. Fred’s expression freezes in shock when he hears, “Von Ellstein to direct” (The Bad and the Beautiful). Jonathan arrogantly tries to build him up insisting the title “Assistant to the Producer” will be next to Fred’s name. Fred, at first cannot believe that Jonathan betrayed him all of a sudden, but comes to terms with it angrily. Jonathan tries to rationalize the situation:
JONATHAN: Fred, I’d rather hurt you now than kill you off forever. You’re just not
ready to direct a million dollar picture.
FRED: But you’re ready to produce a million dollar picture?
JONATHAN: With Von Ellstein, I am.
FRED: You’re stealing my picture! It was my idea. I gave it to you!
JONATHAN: Without me, it would have stayed an idea.
Von Ellstein walks out of the conference room and exclaims how wonderful it is working with a producer “who writes like a director” (The Bad and the Beautiful). Fred is forced to witness Jonathan achieving recognition for his own hard work. With a simple goodbye, Jonathan walks out with everything Fred had worked for (Hayes 123). This idea of Jonathan betraying Fred for his own beneficial advancement into the business world symbolizes the epitome of greed.
Click here to watch scene
Fred’s story is important, because it serves as a point in history when the early cinema progressed into the full fledge studio system. When Jonathan is first shown, he is at his father’s funeral. Hugo Shields is important, because he symbolizes the Classical Hollywood system, which had been run into the ground. Jonathan symbolizes the New Hollywood, coming in, making his way to the top and making new and improved suggestions, bringing the studio back up. Fred is the idealist writer/director who wants to make films for the films’ sake. What attracts Fred to The Faraway Mountain is not the fact that other studios have tried to make it and failed, but that it is a genius book that, through his mind, would make a perfect picture. Jonathan wants to make the picture, because he can make money and gloat about the success to the other studios. Jonathan symbolizes the very force Fred is morally opposed to, because Fred cares about what is on the screen compared to Jonathan who cares about how many are in the audience. However, without Jonathan, Fred would not have risen to the amount of success he accomplished.
The second example of how glamour exists is in Georgia Lorrison’s story with her interaction with Jonathan. Her story begins years after Fred’s, with the success of The Faraway Mountain, Jonathan is promoted to the head of the studio. Georgia’s opportunity comes as a leading woman title. She however refuses in fear of being compared to her alcoholic Silent-Era father, and yet keeps a shrine of him in her room. Georgia is based on Diana Barrymore, a real life actress, whose career flourished due to her instability brought on by her alcoholic father, John Barrymore (Naremore 118). One night, Jonathan asks Georgia to do a screen test for the studio, and she, in a drunken sarcasm, insults him. Incredibly unimpressed, he says, “You’re a Lorrison alright” (The Bad and the Beautiful). He approaches the shrine and plays an old record of her father performing Macbeth’s “Tomorrow, Tomorrow” speech (Ames 160). The scene is perfect with Georgia losing control:
GEORGIA: I said turn it off! I don’t want to hear it, I hate him!
JONATHAN: Make up your mind. You hate him and you build this shrine to him? He
died over ten years ago and you’ve been holding your own wake ever since. You can’t be a star in a cemetery.
GEORGIA: Can’t you get that through your head? I’m one girl who doesn’t want to be a star!
JONATHAN: Because he was a drunk, you’re a drunk. Because he loved women, you’re
a tramp. But you forget one thing – he did it with style. […] Look at you, you’re
acting now! You’ve been playing the daughter of the doomed great man. That’s not a God talking, that’s only a man!
Jonathan takes the record and breaks it in half. Out of anger, Georgia throws a glass bottle, striking Jonathan in the head, and in a furious rage, she tries attacking him, but Jonathan with the same aggression, tries to reconcile her. The next day, she agrees to do the screen test. With various reactions from the screen test, Jonathan gives her the lead female role in his next film. The night before shooting, with the inability to relax and sleep, Georgia nervously walks through the empty set. The sights of her labeled chair, the labeled dressing room, and a gift of new pearls from Jonathan, sends her into a nervous frantic, yearning a drink. The next day, she never appears on the set. Jonathan, bewildered and upset, says, “I wanted to make a picture with her. Make a star with someone they threw into the ashes” (The Bad and the Beautiful). He goes to her apartment and finds her passed out drunk. Once she is sobered up, Georgia confesses her love for Jonathan. Not only does Jonathan fail to reply, he says that love is for the young. Upon being asked if he will ever marry her, he responds, “I don’t need a wife right now, I need a star” (The Bad and the Beautiful). And Jonathan in fact, turns her into a star. This opportunity comes with coaching from Jonathan – which in turns makes the film and her performance better. The film scores big and Georgia experiences the feeling of stardom she rejected for so many years because of her father. On opening night, the studio throws a huge party for her, however Jonathan is nowhere in sight. She goes to his mansion and thus greed is once again exposed.
The second example of greed represented through betrayal occurs when Georgia walks in the house and asks Jonathan to accept her love and not “shut her out.” She wraps her arms around him just as a shadow emerges and a woman named Lila excels down the large staircase and whispers, “I thought you were going to get rid of her quick” (The Bad and the Beautiful). This breaks Georgia’s heart. With Georgia’s stare of disappointment and shock, this scene includes Jonathan losing all sanity:
JONATHAN: You couldn’t stay where you were. You couldn’t enjoy what I made
possible for you. You rather have this? You’ve got it all laid out so you can wallow and pity for yourself. A betrayed woman. The wounded dove with all the dribble that goes with it. That’s going through your mind now. “He doesn’t love me at all. He was lying. All those lovely moments and those tender words. He’s lying. He’s cheap and cruel.” Well maybe I like to be cheap once in a while. Maybe everybody does. Or don’t you remember? Who gave you the right to dig into me and turn me inside out and decide what I’m like? How do you know how I feel about you… How deep it goes… Maybe I don’t want anyone to own me. You or anybody!
Click here to watch scene
Jonathan yells, “get out!” several times until he screams it at the top of his lungs. She is instantly betrayed by Jonathan. Georgia, befuddled now, is thrown into a nightmare, stumbling to her car and recklessly driving off. As she drives, she falls apart crying. She experiences everything from jealousy to sorrow, which circles her mind as rain violently pours onto the windshield, causing her to hydroplane into a spinning chaotic frenzy, leaving only but the image of her panicking, flashes of white and the thunderous cry of her scream. And then everything calms down, leaving her sobbing on the steering wheel.
Georgia’s story is a lot more complicated than Fred’s because it contains a historical connection as well as much psychological characterization. Like Hugo Shields, George Lorrison also represents the early Classical Hollywood in the manner of progression. When sound came into the “picture” in the late 20’s, many careers of silent film stars were ruined (Ames 41). In fact, many stars became alcoholics like John Barrymore and Gloria Swanson and suffered even more. Some even committed suicide like Peg Entwistle, who in 1932 jumped to her death from the “H” in the HOLLYWOODLAND sign (Anger 233). The failing career and alcoholism doomed John Barrymore and followed a generation with Diana (Naremore 118). This is perfectly shown allegorically in The Bad and the Beautiful with Georgia being forced to confront the idea of her becoming the very same image of her father. Jonathan comes into the picture and pulls her away from this desperation, however just as she makes a successful recovery and breakthrough, he shatters her world by rejecting her. However, without Jonathan, Georgia might have never amounted to anything and remained a drunk in solitude.
The third example of glamour is exemplified in James Lee Bartlow’s account of Jonathan. His glamour is in the form of Jonathan buying the rights to his best selling novel and offering him a chance to help out on the script for two weeks with all expenses paid. James Lee’s adorable southern wife Rosemary convinces James Lee to go, so both of them set off for Hollywood. Rosemary is hypnotized by the glamour of Hollywood, while James Lee is incredibly skeptical about it, and most importantly – Jonathan. After Jonathan convinces James Lee to stay permanently in Hollywood and write the adaptation of his novel, a different James Lee emerges. James Lee, while trying to work on the script, is interrupted by Rosemary continuously. Jonathan, after seeing that no progress is being made, secretly organizes Gaucho to escort the loveable Rosemary away for the weekend, while he takes James Lee up to his cabin and finish the script. Upon returning home from the cabin, tragedy occurs in the form of greed.
Greed is represented through betrayal by the discovery of a plane crash killing Rosemary and Gaucho. This acts as betrayal even though James Lee knows nothing of Jonathan’s involvement. Jonathan pulls James Lee out of grief and even molds him to resent Rosemary, since Jonathan has established the scenario of Rosemary and Gaucho as lovers. Jonathan keeps James Lee working and shooting begins with Von Ellstein directing the film. Everything falls apart on day four of shooting. Von Ellstein finishes shooting the big diner scene, however Jonathan feels that more could be shot:
JONATHAN: You call that directing?
VON ELLSTEIN: That is what I have been calling it for 32 years.
JONATHAN: Why there’s values and dimensions you haven’t begun to hit.
VON ELLSTEIN: Perhaps they’re not the values and dimensions I wish to hit. I would
make this scene a climax. I would make every scene in this picture a climax. If I did, I would be a bad director. And I like to think of myself as one of the best. A picture with all climaxes is like a necklace without a string – it all falls apart. You must build to big moments and sometimes you must build slowly.
JONATHAN: To be a director, you must have imagination.
VON ELLSTEIN: Whose imagination, Mr. Shields? Yours? Or mine? You see this
picture one way and I another. It will be done your way, but not by me and not by any director who respects himself. You know what you will have to do – you must direct this picture yourself. To direct a picture, a man needs humility.
Click here to watch scene
This scene shows how Jonathan’s greed is all that is left. He cannot allow anyone to have any status or be remotely correct about anything above himself. This also marks the only point when someone stands up to Jonathan. James Lee watches as Von Ellstein walks off the set and Jonathan takes over as director. He even remarks about how great the direction was until they all saw the finished product. Jonathan compliments the editor, the producers, the writer, the cameraman, the set designer, the costume designer, and composer, but announces, “the director shouldn’t have shot this picture, he should have shot himself. I have no tension, no timing, no pace” (The Bad and the Beautiful). He insists the picture be shelved, but discovers that not only did he go over budget, but everyone else around him invested everything in this picture. But once again, Jonathan’s ego causes the shelving of the picture and the studio collapses. He betrays everyone in the studio, forcing them out of work just to protect his own selfish ego. James Lee, in an attempt to cheer Jonathan up, invites him up to the lake so he can finish his new book. While Jonathan packs, they discuss the new book and main character, Sebastian. Jonathan claims, “Oh the things Gaucho could have done with that role. You know, he really was Sebastian. The guy with the world on a string. I begged him, ‘don’t take that plane, Gaucho,’ but no, not him. He” (The Bad and the Beautiful)… Jonathan freezes in mid-sentence when he realizes that he just unknowingly confessed. This is the ultimate betrayal. He slowly comes out of the bathroom with the look of sheer fright planted on his face. James Lee becomes angrier as Jonathan, with consistent arrogance, says, “Jim, I didn’t kill Rosemary. Gaucho didn’t kill her. She killed herself” (The Bad and the Beautiful). James Lee swiftly turns around and punches Jonathan in the face. Jonathan continues badgering James Lee that what happened was in the best interest to him and the picture. Even after he incessantly badgers James Lee, Jonathan continues pushing Bartlow further away from himself in order to build his ego further. James Lee walks off into the gloomy darkness alone.
James Lee’s story is historically relevant because it shows the perfect representation of the lone writer coming the collaborative force of Hollywood. A writer typically never is forced to make compromises when it comes to writing, however when under contract for a major motion picture studio, compromises are forced. This is shown in the scene when Jonathan and James Lee go to the cabin and work on the script. James Lee types page after page and Jonathan takes one of the pages and crosses out line by line. When James Lee questions the destruction of what he calls his best scene, Jonathan tells him they can show it visually. Showing rather than telling is one of the most complicated issues for a writer, and even worse for when the writer is working on something that solely relies on a visual medium. Again, when the studios began turning out Talkies, problems occurred. Dialogue became an important characteristic, so the studios began hiring novelists, playwrights and journalists to write the scripts (Ames 166). The image of being a writer in Hollywood was negative to other writers. Specifically, the most famous two writers from Hollywood were F. Scott Fitzgerald and William Faulkner, who both after a while with the studios began to loathe the process and treatment of story (Ames 166). Jonathan constantly uses the glamour of Hollywood to persuade James Lee. After a while, James Lee becomes dependent on Jonathan – that is until the discovery of Jonathan’s involvement in Rosemary’s death. That is the moment when James Lee tears the connection between Jonathan and himself. However, without Jonathan, James Lee would have never been inspired to write his second Pulitzer-wining novel, where he captures the essence of his late wife.
A scene actually cut from the original release: Jonathan accepts his Oscar for the film he hijacked.
Even though Jonathan is only shown through flashbacks, the focus really stays with him and in the way he reacts with the others rather than vice-versa, therefore a fourth example of glamour is necessary with his story. Although his story is told via everyone else’s view of him, he seems just as defined compared to the other three characters. By making films, Jonathan builds his ego (Hayes 125). However, one cannot dismiss his project as plain moneymaking films. There does exist an artistic merit to his madness (Ames 154). This is shown specifically with him shooting over-budget on James Lee’s film. Money is paper to Jonathan, but recognition and egoism are the most important qualities to him. He is willing to do whatever it takes in order to get what he wants (Hayes 125). His relationship with Georgia is a very complicated issue. There is no doubt of Jonathan’s obvious misogynism, however it is more in lieu of being threatened by women rather than feeling superior to them (Hayes 161). The problem is whether Jonathan truly has feelings for Georgia. His horrific performance along with the terrifying monologue he gives to Georgia in his home, suggests that he might have feelings for her, but no one can control him, not even himself, therefore he is forced to live unhappily with the mistakes he made. The chemistry between Georgia and Jonathan is the only real “glamour” representation of love in the film. Both Jonathan and Georgia are children of famous rejected Hollywood giants in the business. In a way, they both are living to a certain standard bestowed upon them by failure (Ames 156).
As each story is told, the betrayal gradually turns out greater consequences. From deception with Fred to death with Rosemary. The greed exhibited is his own in the film. Jonathan, alone symbolizes the figure every aspiring entertainer dreams of becoming. Now even though he contained an artistic vision, he controlled every aspect of his films because he was the producer, and as Martin Scorsese famously said, “every decision is shaped by the moneyman’s perception of what the audience wants” (Scorsese). Also, Jonathan is first introduced at his father’s funeral. In reference to his father, he tells Fred, “If my father died last year, I’d be a millionaire. A year from now, he’d put up a new studio for me to inherit. But this was the year, so I don’t have a dime” (The Bad and the Beautiful). Jonathan, at the end of the film, after wasting everything and shutting everyone out, finds himself in his father’s shoes (Hayes 119). He comes full circle to a life and a business with as the title suggests, the “bad” and the “beautiful.” If one loses everything on a Hollywood picture, it’s not over, because one can turn out a new film and make back the money lost. Unlike the movies they produce, there is no ending. And that driving force to make product after product in hopes for reciprocation of wealth and fame is greed.
The Bad and the Beautiful is also important in its own relation to future progression of not only Hollywood cinema, but international cinema as well. Just as this film broke away from many Classical Hollywood elements, it laid the groundwork for later rule-breaking modes such as the French New Wave. While Jean-Luc Godard was obsessing over Roberto Rossellini, Eric Rohmer with Howard Hawks and Claude Chabrol with Alfred Hitchcock, it was Cahiers Du Cinema writers Jean Douchet , Jean Domarchi and Jacques Doniol-Valcroze who gave The Bad and the Beautiful its deserved recognition (McElhaney 6). Traffaut and Godard criticized Minnelli for giving too much attention to the spectacle, however as Joe McElhaney beautifully puts it, “the films of Vincente Minnelli address fundamental issues in relation to the moving image and in relation to culture and to history” (McElhaney 5). For without Minnelli’s The Bad and the Beautiful, there would not have been a favorable continuation of movies about movies. Ironically, Godard wrote and directed Le Mepris (1963), a film about the process of filmmaking and the troubles surrounding a writer, director, actress, and producer (Naremore 46). Traffaut also dabbled into the triumphs and hardships of filmmaking in his film Day for Night (1974). So, it is abundantly clear of the influence Minnelli’s film had on many directors. From Godard and Traffaut in the 60’s and 70’s to the 80’s with Christopher Guest’s The Big Picture (1989), to the 90’s with the Coen Brothers’ Barton Fink (1991) and Robert Altman’s The Player (1992), all the way to present time with David Mamet’s State and Main (2000), Woody Allen’s Hollywood Ending (2002), and Guest’s For Your Consideration (2006), one thing is for certain,The Bad and the Beautiful’s idea of exploring and exploiting has become a fascination.
Bits of glamour and greed are shown at the end of the film when Jonathan’s call comes through, their final verdict shows no intention whatsoever to work with him again. All three leave Harry’s office and upon reaching the lobby, in the most redeeming fashion, Georgia slowly walks over to the phone and listens. The mere sound of Jonathan’s voice creates an emotional longing in Georgia’s eyes. Fred, then slowly leans his head over her shoulder to listen as well. And finally, James Lee hovers over the other shoulder. Right before the ending title card emerges, James Lee shows a look of interest. However, it is never answered in the film if they will accept the job or not. The film, against classical Hollywood style, does not conclude with a happy ending, but with a question left with a self-interpretation.
Ames, Christopher. Movies about Movies: Hollywood Reflected. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1997.
Anger, Kenneth. Hollywood Babylon II. New York: E.P. Dutton Inc., 1984.
Hayes, Kevin J., ed. Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Mcelhaney, Joe, ed. Vincente Minnelli: The Art of Entertainment. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2009.
Naremore, James. The Film of Vincente Minnelli. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
The Bad and the Beautiful. Dir. Vincente Minnelli. Perf. Kurt Douglass, Lana Turner, Dick Powell. 1952. DVD. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 2009.
Think Exist. 2006. ThinkExist, Inc. 13 March 2009.
www.thinkexist.com/quotation/hollwood_died_on_me_am_soon_as_I_got/178754.
html>.
Scorsese, Martin, dir. A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies. 1995. Miramax Films, 2009. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 11:27 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE SEARCHERS EXISTS THROUGH WIDESCREEN |
Blu-Ray titles. Oh, if Ford could have lived to experience this film in Blu-Ray...
John Ford could film the Grand Canyon for an hour, and upon watching it in the theater, one would feel they had actually seen its spectacular magnificence. In The Searchers (1954), Ford takes the grandeur of the West’s gigantic valleys, crystal blue dangling skies, never-ending stretches of land, and sets it as the backdrop for one of the greatest Western tales ever filmed. With the newly developed technology of CinemaScope, the screen became wider, and Ford used the wider screen to enhance not only objects within the frame, but used the edges of the frame to enhance the cinematic experience for the viewer. The film opens with the view of the outside seen from inside a cabin. The edges of the door block the rest of the outside, therefore making the opening somewhat of an iris. Ford shows this view, then tracks out to become engulfed into the breathtaking immense openness of the outdoors. The reason for starting inside the cabin with the edges blocked is to show the normal size of a screen, and then upon reaching the outdoors, the screen’s border in itself enlarges to showcase the visual appeal of CinemaScope. In John Ford’s epic masterpiece,The Searchers, cinematography’s aesthetic techniques, specifically the long/extreme long shot, the pan, and the angle are visually enhanced due to widescreen.
Perfect illustration how well Ford used the enhanced edges.
Ford had used the long/extreme long shot many times before, and in fact became famous for showing landscapes before, however with a wider screen, he was able to place the audience even further into the story. With the use of widescreen, a landscape or any scene for that matter, shot from directly ahead would appear flat. So, Ford uses geometrical perspectives to enhance the realistic experience. In the scene where the Indians surround Ethan and his gang, they line up on both sides of the gang. While using an extreme long shot, both edges of the frame show the line of Indians, while in between them centered, is Ethan’s gang. As soon as Ethan’s gang charges ahead rapidly, the two rows of Indians converge to the center of the frame as they reach the foreground. This enhances the angular perspective of the rows and further more, makes the viewer feel the two rows are charging towards him/her.
Movement also plays a huge role in what is seen in the frame, as well as provide further aesthetic analysis. Specifically, the panoramic shot introduces further surrounding environments throughout the process of movement. In the beginning, when Ethan and the Rangers gallop off, the camera pans with them. By doing so, it shifts the perspective of the frame, giving a different and even further perspective. A pan seen through the normal size screen does not capture this effect, however it is through widescreen, that more is seen when panning. Another scene that uses widescreen to enhance the pan is during Martin’s fight with Charlie. As they fight, the camera cuts to Laurie begging Ethan to stop the fight through a medium shot. When he refuses, she runs out of the frame. A few seconds later, the camera pans right to capture a fascinated Laurie in a medium close up. This transition is shown through two ways: character emotion and distance. Laurie goes from being worried in the beginning of the shot, but after the pan, she is seen with a huge grin on her face, excited to see who wins. The variations of distance also plays a key role, being that the shot goes from showing Laurie in a medium shot to a medium close up. The change to the medium close up through the widescreen really accentuates her size, giving the viewer a clear sight of her facial expression.
Ford's use of perspective. There's so much depth to this shot. Ethan himself, in the farground is just as clear as the woman in the foreground.
Placing the camera in the wrong location can ruin a shot. Through the film, it feels as though Ford manages to put the camera in all the right locations for all varied reasons. Being that the use of widescreen requires more preparation for the mise-en-scene, the framing of the shot relies solely on what angle to capture the image. In the scene when Ethan and Martin first discover the burning house, they are seen from a low angle, towering above the viewer. The widescreen allows the sky brightly looming in the background gives all the light to the scene, thus making Ethan completely silhouetted. By using this angle, the widescreen emphasizes their rage, making them seem 100 feet tall, and projecting it through camera placement.
Perspective in this picture is shown with Ford's placements of actors within the frame. Notice how all the characters rest on different planes of action, but CinemaScope highlights the separate planes.
Whether the camera is placed far away, moved or is angled do in fact convey a visual meaning, however are forcefully emphasized when seen through widescreen. Just as the film opens with the camera being introduced to the open wilderness, the film closes with the opposite. As the Jorgensen’s carry Debbie inside, the camera pulls in and the edges of the frame are cut off and leaves the iris effect, showing Ethan as he walks off into the sunset. This puts an end to the story and just as the story ends, the door closes in the very same nature the cover of a book is closed.
Ford's Iris: Ethan walking into the sunset. For some reason, I can't help but bring up the uncanny resemblance to Chaplin's tramp character walking off into the sunset. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 11:26 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MILDRED PIERCE: MILDRED AND HER MEN |
Mildred Pierce is used not only the protagonist’s name, but also the title of the film as well. Perhaps a more suitable title would be “Mildred And Her Men?” It is in fact her entanglement with each male figure that leads her from one event to the next. Her relationship with each of the men in her life, help define their wants and desires from her as well as provide insight into her own wants and desires from each of them.
First relationship explored is Mildred’s with Bert. One value seen in Bert is selfishness. This only contains a negative connotation when compared to another’s needs. His selfishness is seen in the beginning when he walks in the house, appearing standoffish and distant from Mildred. It is clear he puts his needs above the family’s when Mildred calls him out on his infidelity with Maggie Biederhof. He fails to acquire happiness from his family, and therefore he finds comfort selfishly in the hands of someone else. His selfishness is clearly shown with his threat to leave, through a subservient attempt to weaken Mildred to the point where she will give in, however Mildred remains strong and sticks to her convictions, allowing the kids to remain first in the house. Jealousy is the other quality expressed through Bert’s relationship with Mildred. Also shown in the same scene, when the package arrives for Veda, Bert questions the contents. After Mildred explains the content consist a dress she bought with her own hard-working money, Bert, having just gone out of business, is limited by his financial impotence. Even though Mildred is kept in the kitchen, she can, from even in there, make a successful profit over him. While he adamantly considers giving the kids a higher-class experience of life, realistically presenting a false one, he is jealous of her perseverance to do whatever it takes to make them happy. And since he cannot suddenly provide them with the higher accommodations like ballet and piano lessons, he is yet again limited by his financial impotence. His character is devalued because even after he and Mildred separate, he holds off on giving her a divorce until later. He, at first fails to provide her with a divorce because of the business. With everything she owned, half of the business would belong to him, something he does not want to let go. However, he is valued for the same reason when Kay’s death brings him to grips of his past behavior and fails to give her the divorce in hopes for reconciling the marriage. Instead, he is pushed aside by the rise of her newer love interest in Beragon.
From the moment Mildred first lays eyes on Beragon, she is instantly taken aback by his looks, his charisma, and his beach house. One of Beragon’s values is perseverance. Putting something in common between the two of them, Beragon is just as perseverant to acquire Mildred in a love interest, as she is to acquire his land for business. This is shown with the two in the diner. While Mildred first is above him on the ladder, asserting a sense of superiority over Beragon, he convinces her to come down to him level where he finally persuades her to come to his beach house. Another value of Beragon’s is seen as a devalue and that is his immaturity. While at first, he presents himself as a handsome, mature man, while he in turn, reveals to Mildred that he is nothing but a young, immature playboy. This is shown with his reputation, described by Veda as someone seen with the most gorgeous girls around town. The fact he requires the accompaniment of many girls demonstrates him immaturity. While he appears in love with Mildred, he actually gets to a point where he stands in the way of the possible reconnecting of her relationship with Bert. Beragon becomes incompetent with money, thus spiraling his character even further with his “perseverant” need to borrow money from Mildred. Getting caught up in his charm, she cannot help but find happiness with him. Beragon is valued because he provides her with that happiness insofar as making her care about herself for once. Whereas her focus had been on her kids, he is devalued in taking the focus off of them. By occupying her time away from the kids, she is unavailable to be there when Kay needs her, therefore leading to Kay’s death. Beragon is just as fault for Kay’s death as the pneumonia.
Wally’s relationship with Mildred not only serves as additional comic relief for the film, but is vital to the rise of her success. Mildred basically uses Wally as a crutch for progress. One of his values is gullibility. It is revealed that he and Mildred were once childhood friends, which obviously evolved into a plutonic relationship. This led Wally to desire what he in fact could never get. This gullibility handicaps him as a romantic interest and leaves him the only opportunity to provide Mildred with success through her progress. Wally is cast into the limelight when it comes to her other two relationships. This is shown in the scene where Wally throws out the flowers Beragon leaves for Mildred. It is through his business that she was introduced to Bert and Beragon. His apparent infatuation with Mildred is hidden by his flirtatious façade. This leads him devalued as a character through his profession shift in society. Wally goes from being a real estate agent to a restaurant executive, all the way to the owner of a bar. His down-spiral is primarily related to Mildred and her own financial down-spiral.
It was the three men who all drove Mildred almost to the point where she considered suicide. Where, in the beginning, she does not drink and was shown brightly illuminated with light, her descent into men led her to drink and into the darkness. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 11:24 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MILDRED PIERCE: FILM NOIR OR MELODRAMA? OR BOTH? |
Mildred Pierce (1945) is a film that presents such a wide-range of levels. Two levels that stand out the most are film noir and melodrama. On one level, Mildred Pierce contains just as many film noirish principles as, for example, Double Indemnity (1944) has, and just as many melodramatic principles as Broken Blossoms(1919). Using terms like “film noir” and “melodrama” lead to classifying categorically, which in turn, establish both as genres. It is in fact the descriptiveness resulting from the principles themselves that made film noir and melodrama modes.
CLIP (WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!)
Right from the beginning, the film opens with a murder. This establishes the mood as dark and dreary creating a film noirish atmosphere. One of the major principles of film noir as a mode is the use of chiaroscuro lighting. This technique, passed down from the German Expressionists, basically paints with light and darkness, creating a sense of contrasted isolation. When Mildred brings Wally back to her home in the beginning of the film, the entire house is filled with patches of light and darkness. Specifically, a shadow is cast on the right side of Mildred’s face. This effect visually demonstrates the revelation of her two sides: one blissful, the other desolate. Through the flashback, the first part shows her blissful side, but it is her financial troubles and the death of Kay that send her into desolation.
Another film noirish principle is hard-boiled dialogue. This is derived from classic pulp fiction novels of the thirties, including such prominent figures as Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. The scene with Mildred and Wally in the bar, for example, shows the use of hard-boiled dialogue at work:
MILDRED: You can talk your way out of anything, cant you? You’re good at
that.
WALLY: In my business, you have to be. Only right now, I’d rather talk myself
into something else.
MILDRED: Still trying?
WALLY: It’s a habit. I’ve been trying once a week since we were kids.
MILDRED: Twice a week.
This rapid-paced, back and forth dialogue implores film noir as a mode, where characters are able to slip into instant rhythmic conversations. Stemming from the crime novel, the cleverness and sophistication coming from the pace showing how cunning one has to be, trapped in the cunning dog-eat-dog world. Wally, shown as a clever businessman, uses his cunning personality to buy Mildred, and surprisingly wins the deal when she asks him back to her place.
The final film noirish principle is psychologically the act of repressing emotions. Mildred, when introduced, is a closed book. Even after the death of her husband, she refuses to allow the detective in her mind, much less the viewer. Through the flashback, she eventually transitions to the moments of her child’s death and the killing of her husband, however, are almost forced out of her. The police interview with Mildred, in theory, is a psychoanalytical interrogation, hoping to go through her memories, searching for the confession to her killing Beragon.
Out of the shadows and cast brightly into the light, there are, on the other hand, many melodramatic principles, shifting to a different mood. The first and major one is the fact Mildred, as a woman, is the key protagonist in the film. She is a strong figure, who bounces back and forth from stability to instability. During her fight with Bert in the beginning, she does not accept his infidelity, and upon his threat to walk out, Mildred, shown through a close up, powerfully says, “Then pack up!” Of course after he leaves, she falls to instability, but works her way back up.
Another melodramatic principle is music, heightened to elicit a particular emotion. Two parallel scenes that use music heightened to elicit two different emotions are Mildred and Beragon’s love scene and Kay’s death. The first includes a romantic, soft ballad playing as the camera zooms in on Beragon serenading Mildred with poetic dialogue. In the other scene, after the doctor announces the death, Mildred approaches the body and leans down while a somber, heart-wrenching theme drifts in the scene. The two scenes are both melodramatic in that they demonstrate the different emotional impacts when taken to the musically-heighten climactic level. The first scene elated the viewer in happiness as the music delivered a theme of love. The second shocked the viewer in sadness as the music showed a theme of death.
The final melodramatic principle is the apparent middle class family/social/marital struggle. Even deeper, each one struggle affects the other. The family shifts in class through Mildred’s hard work, but also through spousal attachment. Mildred enjoys living on just enough to make ends meet, while at the same time, giving her daughters the fulfillment through feeling apart of a higher class. Despite everything Mildred gave up for her, working for a living evolves into not being enough to please Veda, and in fact is ridiculed for it. Mildred is introduced as a woman in the kitchen, and through her work as a server, develops the desire to open her own restaurant. Veda, spoiled by the vast richness of her rewards, is fascinated by the high class through Beragon. She learns French, takes up smoking and mingles with rich boys, however is her marriage with Forrester that definitely draws the line of the classes. It is obvious what the real high class is when Forrester’s mother does not want her perception of lower class associated with such a prestigious name. Through her association with Beragon, she in fact delves into the higher life as well, and eventually leads to the point where the higher she climbs the harder she falls.
The key principles are mere descriptions from other various films containing the same trends. This leads into the notion that film noir and melodrama were modes.Mildred Pierce was not deliberately made “to be” A film noir or A melodrama, however CONTAINS these principles, constructed by the very ideas within them. The lighting, dialogue, and female protagonist do not make it a film noir, but instead create a feeling or set mood in common with other films containing the same principles. The same goes for melodrama. It is seeing a film in retrospect of acknowledging the principles into a whole and classifying the whole as a category that make film noir and melodrama a genre. It could be argued that film noir and melodrama tend to be considered genres by the various trends in films were recognized and recreated deliberately to tell a story intentionally based around the principles, compared to the original mode, which consisted of the principles surrounding the story. Modern recreations of film noir and melodrama focus on the principles and develop the story around them, leading the very opposite of the mode, and into genre. |
|
| posted by Will Lewis 11:23 PM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think your last point is the most compelling. If you turn the idea on it's head, to many cultures/time periods the "freedom" enjoyed by the average american teenager would be considered gross neglect or even cruelty (the access to drugs, alcohol, sex, dangerous driving situations, etc.) I appreciate a film that uses shock value to make the audience reasess their own lives and values. Sometimes life gets like a long night highway and it's only the terrifying near accident that wakes you up.
I had a few other points I wanted to comment on but my head is throbing and I don't think I'd be cogent.