Friday, March 27, 2009

American Beauty: Garbage

I had not seen American Beauty until I was required to do so in one my classes last semester.  I knew it was highly acclaimed, but when the film came out, the only thing about it that interested me was the belly button on its poster.  My professor had told us it was a modern-day-esque version of Lolita, the book we were reading in class.  I remember being slightly frightened by the notion thinking that if I saw Humbert on screen, he's certainly be even more terrifying than he was in my imagination.

Per usual, my expectations were completely wrong about the film.  Director Sam Mendes created a masterpiece from Alan Ball's script.  The story itself is brilliant and inspiring as its follows Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) from his mundance existence to his mid-life crisis and, ultimately, to his death.  The characters are developed and explored, the plot is constantly and unpredictably changing, and situations go from hilarious to ironic to melancholy in a matter of minutes.  The cinematography is strikingly beautiful as they adroitly capture the reality of Lester's life and the desperation of his dreams.


But this isn't a movie review.  Nor is it an account of all the things I love about the movie.

Rather, what I found most striking about the film was the character of Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley).  Ricky, a young and allegedly unusual boy who goes to school with Lester's daughter Jane (Thora Birch), spends most of his time behind a video camera.  Ricky's view of the world remains in his room, tapes spanning the lengths of shelves along his walls.  Jane and her friend Angela (Mena Suvari, in roses above) discover that Ricky's new object of film is, in fact, Jane herself.   Ricky explains to them that he isn't obessed with Jane, "I'm just curious."  Jane, for her part, believes him.  She comes to understand that when Ricky says he films a dead bird because it is beautiful, that is exactly what he means. 

In his critical work "The Establishment of Physical Existence," Siegfried Kracauer asserts that the physical existence on camera is always portrayed through recording functions; that is, movement, the chase, dancing, nascent motion and inanimate objects all played an active role of demonstrating an object's/person's existence as a physical entity in film.  Kracauer also says that, in addition to the omnipresent recording function, there exists on occasion the revealing function, a function that allows the viewer to discover something about the film, often revealing things typically unseen or unnoticed.  He classifies these findings as discoveries of phenomena overwhelming consciousness, special modes of reality, and things normally unseen.  Among those things normally unseen exist those "phenomena which figure among the blind spots of the mind; habit and prejudice prevent us from noticing them."  

An example of said phenomena is the refuse.   Kracauer says that "many objects remain unnoticed simply because it never occurs to us to look their way."   Waste, trash, or dirt, those social undesirables are ignored because society has taught us to believe that they are neither beautiful nor worthy of any spectacle.  Such is the case for the white plastic trash bag--ubiquitous, bland, stowed in your kitchen closet or littering the street.  

But to Ricky Fitts, the white plastic trash bag is much more than just litter.  The moment in American Beauty, famous for it's originality, begins with Ricky asking Jane, "You want to see the most beautiful thing I've ever filmed?"




This scene, perhaps one of the most beautiful and eloquent scenes in all of film history, is one that was inspired by small, white plastic bag that someone accidentally forgot to throw away.  It'd be easy to believe that everyone else on the street had passed by the bag that day, save Ricky.  It is likely, in that fact, that should any of us have stumbled upon such a scene, we would have done what everyone else did and left.  Cinema, on the contrary, has the ability to change this.  "Films make us undergo similar experiences a thousand times.  They alienate our environment by exposing it," says Kracauer.  We see things in film that we see often in real life, "and yet it is as if they were virgin impressions emerging from the abyss of traveling nearness."  These quotidian artifacts become new, exciting, and beautiful in a single frame.  It is not only a tribute to the director, cinematographer, and scriptwriter but film itself as an entity.  We could talk about these things in life, pass a plastic bag around or set it free in the park on an overcast, windy afternoon.  We could put our heads in it or carry it with our arms and still, the physical presence and beauty of the bag are not enough.  As Kracauer tells us and Ricky shows us, only film has the ability to make truly aware and awed by the beauty of such things. 

Saturday, February 28, 2009

The Inevitable Identification With Film and Its Many Wonders

After reading Sarah's blog, I had two immediate thoughts:

1) Good grief! we're back to Sleepless in Seattle again. It is interesting (I say that a bit begrudgingly) how such an irritating movie has become so relevant to this class and our study of film and its many elements.  This gives me hope that my mundane and pathetically simple little life will become the best-selling book I so badly want it to be.  I mean, if Sleepless can do it, so can I.  Heck, compared to Ryan's Annie, I'll even look "normal." Score.

2) Sarah's discussion of Christian Metz and his notion of the role that film plays in our lives is striking.  Yet while she offers the erudite and cultured reader an escape (these are "just momentary" influences), I am unable to do the same. I firmly believe that the effect that film has on our sense of (self-)identification is much greater than we can even know and almost certainly greater than we will ever to admit.  

Albeit unprofessional/cheating/informal/etc, I feel obliged to draw upon several personal experiences to make my point.  (Kind reader, do not judge me yet.)

First and foremost, film is omnipresent in our lives, from the time we are born until the time we die. We might begin with television ("Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Sesame Street?" oh, sing with me!) or we might be started on video right away (On account of being the super-eldest cousin of all 14, I've seen "Baby Mozart" more times that I care to discuss), but ultimately we always end up at film. Even if our parents try to keep us from it, inevitably, they fail because film has become such an important educational and cultural tool that children are bound to come across it at school (if they never have before) or after, and since every child is required by law to be given an education, they will all encounter it at some point or another (yes, even the home-schooled ones).  Film is an intricate part of culture and society, and we, as byproducts of both, are shaped and affected by it.  

What's more, we're bound to encounter many different types of film throughout our early lives. The soon-to-be-autobiographer's very own sibling is a prime example.  My youngest brother, devoted Barney fan until the age of 5 (we humor him that it was 3), at which point he moved onto Power Rangers Seasons 3-12, now finds in himself a supreme affinity for James Bond and Seth Rogen.  Shocking? Hardly, considering what came after Barney and during Power Rangers: Mission: Impossible (TBS), Mrs. Doubtfire (mother-approved), Robin Hood: Men in Tights (ditto), American Pie 1&2 (mother-not-knowing), Saving Private Ryan (Father: "Well, your great uncle did fight in World War II..."),  and the Van Wilder special collection.  The child (precocious young thing) has seen more than his share of films from different genres, appreciated them all (sort of), and developed his own tastes.  But what's more, this repertoire has affected him.  He's been clever, resourceful, confident, wickedly funny, a "typical teenage boy," and solemn.  And while he would have experienced all of these things without the guidance of popular film icons, his understanding and impression of these traits has been forever altered by them.  In today's world, it is impossible to not associate Matt Damon with serious, intelligent (ex?) government worker and Kiera Knightly with Renaissance couture, syntax, and custom.  The actors and characters come to personify traits that, when presented by us, echo, even if just momentarily, that characters who once truly embodied them.  

Thus, as Sarah says, the protagonist of the film becomes a role model for us, someone we try to emulate in hopes of coming across the same way that they do or having what they have.  Does my younger brother want to be an unemployed pothead?  Hardly.  But he does like the cavalier demeanor and hilarious stream of consciousness that are part of Seth Rogen's usually (deep-down) nice guy characters.  Does he want to be constantly on the run and in danger of losing his life? Not if Heaven doesn't have X-Box live.  But Bond's debonair nature and lavish lifestyle are undeniably appealing.  

Annie's (Meg Ryan) role model, although unidimensional and porous, is a role model nonetheless (one who reflects the aforementioned traits back onto Annie).  And the truth is, Annie herself becomes a role model as well.  Granted, her dedicated "followers" might be few in number, but they are there nonetheless because they want to believe in Annie's quest for memorable love, the same way that Annie wants to believe Terry McKay (Deborah Kerr).  I would suggest that her waivering isn't so much insecurity or uncertainty as it is reason battling against the siege her heart has just launched.  Annie knows it's foolish to want to be like Terry, but some part of her just can't help it.  

This inner battle is, I'd wager, something we've all seen before.  For my part, I've done many silly things for the sake of  imitating my role models.  After seeing My Best Friend's Wedding (another sneak-by-the-mother film.  Tragically, I was later caught), I wanted nothing more than to dress and speak and look the way that Kimmy (Cameron Diaz) did.  This was short-lived, as I met Rose (Kate Winslet, still my idol) aboard the Titanic not long after, and her gorgeous necklace completely changed my sentiments about jewelry.  And then there was Satine (Nicole Kidman, Moulin Rouge!) a few years later, who re-kindled the French flame that had died out years before.  Most recently, I've aimed to be some hybrid of Audrey Hepburn and Eva Green, an endeavor which has colored my closet a lot blacker, forced my to work of my enunciation of words, and left me in search of, of course, a smart black hat.  

Is this all fruitless?  Almost completely, because just as Sarah recognizes of herself and Annie, the success of these imitations is greatly hampered within the social constructs of the real world.  But my failure to make these imitations work only serves to further reminds me that while life is not like film, mankind will never cease in trying to make it so.  We are forever tied to what we have seen on the screen before, and what we will see before we die.  The images, the relationships, and the characters all endure; we merely serve to fulfill their legacy as we, deliberately or accidentally, strive to achieve the perfection they once attained on screen.  While this may not help women in their quest for good role models, it promises results if one should ever come into a frame.  

Sunday, February 22, 2009

The Academy Awards

Actor in a Leading Role
Richard Jenkins in The Visitor
Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn in Milk
Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler

Actor in a Supporting Role
Josh Brolin in Milk
Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt
Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road

Actress in a Leading Role
Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie in Changeling
Melissa Leo in Frozen River
Meryl Streep in Doubt
Kate Winslet in The Reader

Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams in Doubt
Penélope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Viola Davis in Doubt
Taraji P. Henson in The Curcious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler


Animated Feature Film
Bolt
Kung Fu Panda
WALL-E

Art Direction
Changeling
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Duchess
Revolutionary Road

Cinematography
Changeling
The Curcious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Costume Design
Australia
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Duchess
Milk
Revolutionary Road

Directing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Documentary Feature
The Betrayal (Nerakhoon)
Encounters at the End of the World
The Garden
Man on Wire
Trouble the Water

Documentary Short
The Conscience of Nhem En
The Final Inch
Smile Pinki
The Witness - From the Balcony of Room 306

Film Editing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire

Foreign Language Film
The Baader Meinhof Complex
The Class
Departures
Revanche
Waltz with Bashir

Makeup
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Music (Score)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Defiance
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL-E

Music (Song)
"Down to Earth" for WALL-E
"Jai Ha" for Slumdog Millionaire
"O Saya" for Slumdog Millionaire

Best Picture
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Short Film (Animated)
La Maison en Petits Cubes
Lavatory - Lovestory
Oktapodi
Presto
This Way Up

Short Film (Live Action)
Auf Def Strecke (On The Line)
Manon on the Asphalt
New Boy
The Pig
Spielzeugland (Toyland)

Sound Editing
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL-E
Wanted

Sound Mixing
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
WALL-E
Wanted

Visual Effects
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Iron Man

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

Writing (Original Screenplay)
Frozen River
Happy-Go-Lucly
In Bruges
Milk
WALL-E

Friday, February 20, 2009

Genre, My Middle School Years, & Film Noir

Rick Altman’s critical piece “A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre” seemed me to fit our film class as perfectly as Tania Modleski’s article compliments Rear Window.  As Altman says in the beginning of his article, “We all know a genre when we see one. Scratch only where it itches.”  While this is not, I’m sure, the case for all the members of our class, it most certainly was the case for me.  Before coming to college, I had in my mind a very clear idea of which names classified which films, and I had never really deviated from that.  How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days was romantic comedy (aka “chick flick”), Beauty and the Beast was animation for kids, Robin Hood: Men in Tights was plain comedy, The Bourne Identity was thriller, and Silence of the Lambs was horror. That was that, and I was blissfully ignorant. 

I then believed much in what I know now is the audience’s ritual relationship. I believed that film adhered to the supply and demand theory, that what audiences saw in theatres and the success they brought to released films carefully shaped what would next be produced. Spiderman 1 did well, so they made a Spiderman 2, which did well so they made a Spiderman 3. Suffice it to say, I personally won’t be the least bit surprised if I find myself lined up outside of the IMAX wearing Michael Pennock’s Spiderman shirt (the black one with the glow-in-the-dark Spidey eyes) waiting for the fourth film which is starting (gasp!) five minutes after (!!) midnight on opening day.
 
My middle school years were defined by Friday and Saturday nights at the movies (and Thursdays, as above), seeing whatever new “chick flicks” my girlfriends and I could convince our guy friends to come to while occasionally acquiescing to their demands to see Saw IV or other suitable gore.  It worked beautifully--we saw the same types of movies, which allowed us to continue to see (surprise!) more of the same.  As Graeme Turner discusses in the first chapter of his book Film as Social Practice, going to the movies decades ago was an event all to itself; for us, the same way true.  What was playing mattered less than being at the movie with friends.  Our very own Cocoaplex worked much in the same that the theatre in Cinema Paradiso did.   People mated, people dated, we laughed, we cried, we missed parts of or entire movies for the sake of our own social lives.   Truth was, it didn't matter--our knowledge of Hollywood's use of semantics and syntax allowed us to fill in the gaps, whether they gaps from lapse in attention or cinematographic gaps in film.  

The former can be left at that.  The latter, however, was only made possible by our understanding of genre through the use of Altman's notions of syntax and semantics.  We have been and continue to be "heavily conditioned by the choice of semantic elements and atmosphere, because a given semantics used in a specific cultural situation will recall to an actual interpretive community the particular syntax with which that semantics has traditionally been associated in other texts.  This syntactic expectation, set up by a semantic signal, is matched by a parallel tendency to expect specific syntactic signals to lead to predetermined semantic fields."  It is these semantic elements that allow us, for example, to make the connection between Annie (Meg Ryan) and Sam (Tom Hanks) in the film Sleepless in Seattle and thus classify it as a romantic comedy.  Conversely, when these are not present and our syntactic expectations are not met, as in  Caché, we begin to feel less certain about our understanding of the film and, consequently, find ourselves unable to classify the film with absolute certainty.  

Then there are those films that, despite classification in nomenclature, semantics, syntactics, and form, still manage to puzzle us.  Out of the Past is merely one of these, a paradigm of what is known as film noir.  In his critical work "Notes on Film Noir," Paul Schrader successfully classifies the influences, seven stylistics, and three phases of film noir.  Schrader's list of items captures perfectly the elements of Out of the Past that situate within such a genre.  The lighting, as he says, is mostly at night; and, if not at night, it is indoors.  In fact, it is established early on in the film that it is more a nocturnal thing--Kathie Moffat (Jane Greer) won't meet Jeff Bailey (Robert Mitchum) anytim in Mexico until dusk.  As well, the climax of the film all takes place at night with Bailey lurking in alley ways in San Francisco, quietly entering and leaving dimly lit rooms, and waiting by the fireplace for Kathie.  



Oblique lines, another of Scrader's elements, are also present in the film, most notably at white and Kathie's house--their gate, the architecture, their window panes--but also in the forest where Bailey and Ann Miller (Virginia Huston) meet.  Equal lighting--what Schrader defines as the same amount of lighting given--is to nearly every character in all scenes, save when Kathie is wearing white in Mexico.  Such lighting allows the characters to blend into the background and makes the setting feel authentic and less contrived.  (See image.)  Schrader also says that "compositional tension is preferred to physical action."  A great example of this is the scene of Joe's (Paul Valentine) death.  Joe has followed The Kid (Dickie Moore) down to the river where Joe knows that The Kid will find Bailey.  The tension in the film is high as Joe silently observes the spectacle and then draws his gun to shoot Bailey.  We the spectators are convinced that Bailey is done for until, at the last moment, the kid snags Joe's jacket with his fishing line and pulls him over the edge where he falls to his death.  The scene is pure mastery, full of suspense and tension.   Despite none of the three men acknowledging each other let alone coming in close close contact, we are tense with anticipation. 

The Freudian attachment to water that Schrader notes is most exemplified in Mexico as Bailey  and Kathie meet each evening on the beach.  The movement of the ocean contrasts against their silhouettes, creating brilliant compositions that sexualize their romance and fetishize Kathie.  This compliments another of Shrader's elemets--that of "a love of romantic narration."  Interestingly enough, there are several in this film, most of them overlapping.  But the main two players--Kathie and Bailey--are at the heart of it all, for Whit who loved Kathie hired Bailey to find her, and it is Bailey who is telling this whole story to his current squeeze, Ann.  Schrader notes that in Out of the Past, Bailey "relates his history with such pathetic relish that it is obvious there is no hope for any future: one can only take pleasure in reliving a doomed past."  This relates to his final point, one that boasts of a complicated order--not entirely chronological--in this films.  This is quite true for Bailey's story.  It begins in present, goes back to the past, returns to the present, and then moves forward to Bailey's demise. "The manipulation of time," says Schrader," whether slight of complex, is often used to reinforce a noir principle: the how is always more important than the what."  This is quite obviously true--the events that led to Bailey's death are far more intriguing than his actual death, and they impact Ann accordingly.  

And yet Schrader, in his perfect description of film noir, is unable to succinctly capture the genre.  With lists, history, and various other information, he is able to explain that movies such as Out of the Past constitute what we know as film noir.  But throughout his article, he not once captures the essence of film noir in one sentence.  It is not a fun or satirical film that ends with most everyone happy (comedy) or a story about a man and a woman and their struggles to find peace and happiness with each other (romance).  In truth, it is not even a genre that we can completely understand.  If such a film were made today (it wouldn't be), I still wouldn't see (new) middle school girls dragging their guy friends and crushes to it, or said guy friends/crushes coercing the girls to see it.  There isn't enough consistency to fill in the gaps from those lost moments or cinematographic moves; the semantics and the syntax don't ever quite add up, and even if they do, we still don't get what we expected.  This is, after all, what makes film noir so thrilling.  But it is likely that this same aspect contributed to its cessation in production in 1953--it was great (or later became great) for critics to explore, but audiences were unable to appreciate it in the same way.  "Film noir operates on opposite principles: the theme is hidden in the style, and bogus themes are often flaunted," says Schrader.  Critics and audiences loved it, but they love equally and understood better westerns and gangster films.  Without this understanding, there could never be true appreciation for the genius of film noir.  There is hope for this in retrospective study, as critics come closer to defining and truly understanding the complexity of film noir.  But until then, I'd bet you that given the choice, my friends and I (in Michael Pennock's Spidey-eye t-shirt) would opt to wait in line for Spiderman 4 any day. 

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Women in the Movies: On the Upswing?

While I was  reading everyone's blogs about Metz, Mulvey, and women in cinema, my mind continually returned to one film in particular.  Perhaps it is because I happened to read Wynn's blog first, or perhaps it is because I happen to really love this film. (Likely both.)  Regardless, I couldn't help but think of Casino Royale (the new version) which is a rare example in cinema which refutes everything that has been postulated about cinema women in the blogs and the texts.  

The part of the movie that intrigued me when I first saw it in theatres is the same one that continues to this day to be my favorite scene of the film.  It is when James Bond (Daniel Craig) first meets Vesper Lynd (Eva Green).  Though set in modern day Europe with modern day technologies and the like, it is the story of Bond's origin, how he became a 00 agent whose interest in women cemented them, from that point on, as "disposable pleasures instead of meaningful pursuits," like Vesper tells him in the following scene (0:33-4:51): 



There are several striking things about this particular clip, things that question and complicate what Laura Mulvey and Christian Metz have said about women (in cinema).

The first is that unlike the way the other woman in the film was introduced--typical Bond girl, riding her white horse in a bikini on the beach, bouncebouncebouncing her way past the children in the sun, pausing to kiss her horse while simultaneously showing off her enviable figure--Vesper is introduced to us wearing a black suit that, while fitted, covers her body and gives the appearance of Bond's peer, not his lover. Wynn Hunter talks about Bond girls (and women in cinema in general) being introduced and/or filmed in fragmented ways, objectifying their bodies in a spectacularly dehumanizing way. The "characteristic flatness and lack of depth" that plagues the other Bond girls simply isn't present with Vesper. She is multi-dimensional in both body and mind. And while her opening line--"I'm the money"--is hardly lacking innuendo, her priority is clearly that: working for the treasury.

The second is the brilliant rapport that Bond and Vesper have. They are obviously equals--this much the shots tell us, for the shots of Bond and the shots of Vesper match perfectly, down to their black business suits. Bond's eyes are always looking into her eyes, never below; this is emphasized by the camera, which has only two medium shots that are, again, hardly revealing, compared to the all close-ups of Bond. Because of this equal status, they are able to have a candid and intelligent conversation whose clever quips, reminiscent of Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, reflect as much their interest in and respect for each other as our interest in and respect for them. Contrary to what Mulvey says, Vesper contributes to and advances the conversation as much as bond, thus playing a vital role in the scene. We like that, and we are eager to hear and see more, to learn more about Bond through her interrogations. Yet in this process, we learn about Vesper and ourselves. Bond addresses the issue of women in the world and on screen: "Well, your beauty's a problem. You worry you won't be taken seriously." This is true, as she knowledges, especially for "any attractive woman with half a brain." Bond discusses the issue of (over)compensation and female success amongst male peers/superiors. Indeed, it nearly feels as it he is talking to us--men and women alike--reminding us of the struggles of women, in real life and cinema, to achieve success and respect in a world of voyeurs. It is ironic that for someone who becomes such a libertine, Bond is the only person who is able to articulate the issues that women face.

Lastly, even as Vesper leaves the dinner table, she continues to distinguish herself from other Bond women. She again ignores Bond's sexual suggestions, they politely bid each other good night, and she gets up to walk away. Again, her attire--black suit--combined with the position of her arms and her purse do not serve to make spectacle of her but rather bolster the notion that she is a business woman who happens to be beautiful, not the other way around. Bond's gaze that follower her is does not emanate desire and imminent pleasure but rather respect and amusement. She has thwarted him, and he couldn't be more intrigued. Jacob Harer notes in his blog that the representation of women in film is a reflection of the role that women play in society at the time. Marilyn Monroe was objectified in River of No Return because (aside from being Marilyn Monroe) that was often the role of women at the time. In the new Casino Royale, Vesper represents a modern woman--one who is intelligent and able to work successfully with men. Thus, it would do her (and real women) a disservice to portray her as anything less. And although the film does succeed in later objectifying her (i.e. at the actual Casino Royale, when Bond is recovering, etc), it is not without difficult, and it is indeed Vesper who, metaphorically, gets in the last word. For it is only because of the pain that Vesper has caused Bond that he becomes the insufferable womanizer the world knows him to be.

What's remarkable about this is that the shift from woman-as-spectacle to woman-as-equal does not, as Mulvey suggests, cause contemporary women anything remotely close to "sentimental regret." In some ways, like Stephen Feister says in his blog, "we never feel a desire to join the film, and are rather content just to watch it unfold." The reason for this is important: it is because we are comfortable with the representation of women. It is reasonable and real, and so even if we weren't sutured in (we are), we'd still be more than happy to watch the dinner unfold. We can't begin to feel even the slightest hint of regret because we are so enthralled with what we are witnessing. But what's more is that, as Jordan King begins to suggest in her blog, is our urge to be Bond or Vesper. We are so comfortable and impressed with them that it's all we can do not to be them. Incredible, really, that a woman should want to take the place of another woman on screen; it's even more incredible that we don't desire to do this because she is beautiful (which she is) or polished and sophisticated (also true, eg. the proper English) but because she is respectable and respected. Marilyn Monroe never achieved this.

Metz, Mulvey, and those who have blogged about them are all correct. Indeed, woman have always been and continue to be made spectacle for the voyeuristic and narcissistic pleasure of the audience. However, as the roles of women in society are changing, this can be and is beginning to be reflected in film. It may not work throughout the entire film, but the desire to bring men and women in cinema to equilibrium is present. If a film about James Bond is able to demonstrate this, there is great hope for the future.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Hidden Cameras, Hidden Moments

"Really?" "Are you serious?" "What?!" The incredulity and ire enunciated in these (and other choise) words at the end of the film Caché perfectly captures the sentiments of those who just finished the film.  As David Bordwell duly notes in his critical work on classical Hollywood cinema, we the viewers are conditioned to follow our narrative from beginning to climax to end.  And so when Caché seems to leave us with no clear resolution after nearly two hours of building up tension, we are "really," serious"ly shocked.  

This final shock, however, comes on the heels of a series of shocks that, in theory, should have prepared us for such a dénouement in two ways.  The first is that throughout the entire film, we the viewers have been deprived of information.  We lose the omnipresence to which Bordwell refers.  Certainly, we see more than we could as characters w
ithin the story.  But that is not enough: we want to see everything, most especially he or she who is filming the tapes.  When we are deprived of that one wish, we begin to lose the control we so often feel we have over stories. And "this loss of mastery," says Pascal Bonitzer in his work "Cahiers du Cinéma, "implicates the spectator, call into question his or her place as spectator....it is in this uncontrollable 'off-screen space' that the splitting of the cinematic scene is located."  We begin the film at the center of its operation and are, within moments until the very end, become subjects and agents of it.  

The ability to perpetrate power but not to create and direct it becomes our obessesion throughout the film.  As Michel Foucault postulates in his work The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, power, knowledge and discourse are key, related aspects that dictate society and social norms.  Without one of these elements, the rest of triumvirate becomes ineffective.  In Caché, we are deprived of all three: we have no knowledge of who is filming the tapes and who has the power to instill fear in Anne (Juliette Binoche) and Georges (Daniel Auteuil) with those tapes, thus we have no subject for discourse.  Without any power, we find ourselves at the mercy of the film, blindly following its whims and whirls.  

It comes as no surprise, then, that this clearly unorthodox film would follow an obviously unorthodox storyline to an even more orthodox ending which is not the least bit impacted by what we, the views, believe or would like to think. The lack of music in the film underlines this notion.  A full score would provide audiences with impressions that help them prepare for what is to come and what they should make of it; it provides insights into the movie that even the best actors are unable to offer.  In Caché, however, we have no music.  We have do not have a certain harmony for the anonymous filmer, another for Georges, and yet a separate one for his wife.  There is only directionless silence.  We do not know what to expect, and so we must prepare ourselves for anything: from a resolution via pedagogical peroration (classical Hollywood) to a resolution via sudden termination (Caché).

The second reason that we should have been prepared for the final scene of Caché is that from prior experience (just under two hours) with the film, we know that despite our ignorance, the information that we can glean from each scene is, albeit transient, vital to our understanding of the film.  Within the picture, each interaction, each glance, each movement has meaning.  Within the production, each position, each light, and each background serves to situate us with an understanding of the film. Ironically, this is even discussed in the film.  Early on, Anne and Georges, struggling to make sense of the tape of their home and, without much success, begin with the most obvious of questions: where is this person filming from?  

We the viewers are forced to ask the same questions to understand not only the filmer but also the film; and inadvertently, we conflate the two.  Take, for example, the elevator scene in which Georges is trying to evade François.  The elevator, filled with mirrors, provides Georges, François, and us an omnipresence by use of mirrors not otherwise found.  In his critical piece "The Tutor-Code of Classical Cinema," Daniel Dayan discusses the use of a mirror in Velasquez's Las Meninas.  In the painting, he says, "by virtue of a mirror in the back of the room (depicted at the center of the painting), 
we see what they are looking at: the king and queen, whose portrait Velasquez is painting.  Foucault calls this the representation of classical representation, because the spectator--usually invisible--is here inscribed into the paiting itself.  Thus the painting reresents its own functioining, but in a  paradoxical, contradictory way.  The painter is staring at us, the spectators who pass in front of the canvas; but he mirror reflects only one, unchanging thing, the royal couple."  Almost perfectly analagous to the elevator scene in Caché, it is the mirrors in both the painting and the elevator that provide the viewer with censored, but important information.  The relationship between our elevator king and queen--François (Walid Afkir) and Georges--is the one, unchanging thing as the elevator rises to Georges' office.   We see their eyes, moving to take in that which surrounds them as well as to monitor the other person.  We see distress in their physical statures and the shifting of their weight.  

But more importantly, our unfailing attendance to the "couple" has cost us critical information from the scene.  As Katrinah pointed out in her blog last week, Sergei Einstein identified the shot as "the montage cell."  Nowhere could this be more true.  The object, in this case the mirror, "hides the paintings textuality by preventing the viewer from focusing on it.  However, the text of the painting it totally offered to view," says Dayan.  "It is, as it were, hidden outside the object."  By focusing on the object, the mirror, the mirrors, we lose focus of what is important.  In the case of Caché's elevator, this is the cinematography and art of the film.  We forget that we are in a fully mirrored elevator whose images and reflections offer us the closest chance we have at identifying who is behind the camera.  And while Georges may not be being "filmed" at that very instant, the significance of this lies not in the actual information but in our inability to correctly seek it out and be receptive to it.

And yet, is is obvious that the current misperceptions shape our future conceptions.  For during the final scene of the film, we are watching the fence, the cars, the exiting of students from the school and then the steps.  Soon, the premises are nearly vacated.  Then there are credits.  What happened, we ask? "Really?" someone muttered.  But really, in reality, it wasn't the film--it was us.  Our preoccupation with the "object"--here, the aforementioned inconsequential parts of the scene--precluded us from noticing the only important part: the brief interaction between François and Pierrot (Lester Makedonsky), which has implications that are limited yet tremendous.  And while we may not, despite other clues, have been prepared for this non-classical ending, we really have a resolution and the meaning of this resolution is of a most serious nature. 

Monday, January 26, 2009

Freewater Spring 2009

Spring 2009 Schedule

Indieflix: Thursday, Friday @ 7p, 9.30p
Midnight: Friday @ 12p
Quadflix: Saturday @ 7p, 10p & Sunday @ 2p