Feature Posts
This is the place to make connections between the films I encounter...
they may be more similar than meets the eye.
they may be more similar than meets the eye.
Who should we root for?Almost every story imaginable comprises of a hero and villain. Regardless of how extravagant the actions behind the good guy or the bad guy may seem to be, they all remain consequential. Since the very beginning of the semester, our class has viewed films that challenge the audience to determine who the hero is, who the villain is, and what their fate dictates in the end: anti-hero stories such as Lou Bloom from Nightcrawler , archetypal heroes such as Howard from Treasure of the Sierra Madre , or perplexing character dynamics brought forth by Diane from Mulholland Drive - twisting the idea of factious or realistic personality traits and narratives making it nearly impossible to figure out if she is the one to root for. All of the paths sketched out for audiences are not clean cut. However, this move made by each director seems all too purposeful. Each film digested throughout the course of the semester has left a curious, wondering, and challenged audience by the time the credits role. In the end, how can a film have any substance whatsoever if there were no questioning of moral sensibility throughout the plot? Most importantly, how do directors, cinematographers, and writers develop such social and ethical inquiry through the technique of film making? Hopefully, I can try to clearly theorize some possible explanations to these questions within the article below. I will be focusing on the films listed below: Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Atlantic City, and Take This Waltz. Not one character can go without our skepticism.In order to determine who to root for, or ultimately see who had the moral high ground within these films, weighing the pros and cons of each character obviously ranks as important. In each of these movies the director makes it difficult to stick to one character to cheer for throughout the whole plot. Therefore, as an audience member, questions must be raised, and behavior analyzed. This type of technique allows us to participate by placing ourselves in the shoes of each character in order to better evaluate who to root for.
The camera angles sit outside her window, giving us the feeling that we are spying, the camera moves in closer to her inside of her house and we can't look away. Right away, this sense of connection to Lou's voyeurism makes the viewers a bit uneasy. It isn't until later that we begin to dismiss the creepy feelings that crept up on us before, and attach Lou's obsession with being a protector - more importantly, Sally's protector. This is another reason the audience is led to believe that Sally is the gal to root for - because if we are somehow placing ourselves in the shoes of Lou early on, and trying to find an excuse to explain our spying on Sally, then being her protector, someone that we want to see succeed, makes complete sense.
This is when the rooting for Lou stops all together, and at this point, rooting for Sally to escape the trap it seems Lou has set for her in a world of crime and trouble appears to be the only probable thing left to do as a viewer. She was just robbed of all her chances in achieving the goals she had set out, when in reality she never necessarily did anything immoral to be punished in such a way. Some people get the sense that she was using Lou for his money, but I did not get that impression. What I saw, was a confused, stressed young woman that was swept off her feet for a moment by someone that was caring and generous to her in a time of chaos. In the end, I am glad she ends up rewarded with majority of the money Lou had, his car, and an escape. I think Sally ended up saving Lou from himself - the arrogant gangster trying to redeem himself of a past he was dissatisfied with deep down.
To Conclude...In each of these films, the audience is constantly battling with who they think they are being persuaded to root for in the eyes of the director, who they actually root for, and if there is any right or wrong answer in the end anyway. By the conclusion, we weigh the course of reward and punishment to find better hints, and we always trace back to our initial doubts of whoever we decide deserves our cheering and support.
Above, I picked the characters that made the most sense to me based upon the overall intentions of the film: how it made me feel, question, and backtrack. However, I think anyone can make a good case for any combination of the characters in each of these movies. Tug-of-war controversy lies at the root of all these plots, making all of these challenging to digest and easier to debate about. Honestly, I can't even tell if I can root for the directors simply due to the fact that they can make us question ourselves and others for hours on end. On the contrary, a film that evokes no frustration, isn't a very interesting film in the first place.
0 Comments
Unseen, Unpeopled, or Underwhelming It's up to you to decide. Baby Doll, Days of Heaven, The Assassination of Jesse James, and A Most Violent Year are all very different movies. However, they can be categorized under three factions that end up having the same effect on the audience. Each of these films has a plot that seems under-developed or extremely simplistic, providing a unique twist on how people can tell a story, and how the audience interprets it. The UnseenIn Baby Doll, Elia Kazan (director) and Boris Kaufman (Cinematographer) make it a point to push the envelope of censorship while somehow remaining within the boundaries of the 1950's regulation.
flirtatious and adds to the depth of the character development, even when the action is happened off-screen and unseen: it's simply implied, and lets the imagination wander. Now, when it comes to the plot, a simple love triangle forms throughout the initial spiteful act of Archie towards Silva's business (which also occurs off-screen) and he wants revenge. Baby Doll becomes thrown in the midst of all the pettiness. There really isn't anything very profound about the story line, but the way it is told is what creates the art within this feature. By utilizing such a unique, mysterious way to maneuver around censorship, Kazan created a provocatively fascinating film that lacks the showing, yet tastefully improves the understanding and interest. The Unpeopled
Viewers do not see exactly how everything unfolds, we are just giving bits of conversations and how people interact with the land, and we are given the opportunity to interpret the rest. Both of these films leave it up to the audience, just in different approaches in doing so. The UnderwhlemingThis scene provides an intensely emotional and powerful climax of the film: The close ups on the faces, the slow, heart wrenching music in the background, a soft natural light shining pale against their tired complexions - all creating a beautiful scene. As an audience member you can't help but become flooded with all the emotion that was built throughout the previous two hours, even though you knew for the past two hours that this was going to happen all along. So what is left for the audience to be surprised by? What do they have left to wonder? We are given all the answers to the straightforward plot in the title of the film, yet we are left with so many questions after the completion of this sequence: Why did Jesse let Bob shoot him? How did Bob get the courage to do it, or is he a coward for it? So many other curiosities arrive because the dialogue is kept to a minimum throughout the story, and lack of explanation for the anchor of the plot leaves it up to the audience for interpretation, just as Baby Doll and Days of Heaven make the audience work. This scene also stands as a climactic turning point for A Most Violent Year. By the name of the title, one would presume that this movie is up to its' neck in gore. On the contrary, protagonist Abel Morales tries avoiding the violence that surrounds him at all costs. Other than abiding by a strict moral code, the audience is never truly exposed to why he takes this route when every other facet of his company and industry seems to be taking the non-peaceful approach. During this scene, the audience becomes on edge about whether or not Abel will fold under the pressures of his environment in New York City crime or if he will continue on the righteous path that he strides on for the previous scenes. With the nerves and anticipation built high as Morales holds a gun to the thief's left eye, the tension of the scene is released as Abel retracts his gun and frees the man under his grasp. This is not to say that this scene dissatisfies viewers in any way, but it does fit the underwhelming category. There are a few scenes of intense action in this film, but in accordance with the title, not as many as anticipated - with good reason as well when analyzing the intent of Chandler (director). This is by far the most intense scene out of the whole movie. Now, we question, why did he let him go? What happens to his business? When he gets everything and Julian is left with nothing, how does this effect Abel's conscience? Much like the films mentioned above, the ambiguity plays a huge role in audience interaction and interpretation. We are required to do some filling in and ask questions. Final ThoughtsAll of these films are trying to reach the same goal. Different techniques are used to achieve goals differently. Whether it be through lack of visuals,
lack of human attachment, or lack of expectations, the overall sentiment of lacking information can provide so much more for spectators than if they had it handed to them.
2.) Instinctively separate yourself from the distinction between the real and the fake. As for the distinction between real and fake in Real Life, the two sort of mesh together. After all, reality TV is Hollywood's version of portraying reality, thus, some contradictions are inevitable. Tom Teicholz of Los Angeles Review of Books, made a comment that I believe hits home about the line drawn between fiction and non-fiction: "Real Life made clear what has now become fact: people in Hollywood have no conception of reality, but every confidence that they know how to deliver a fake version of it". While viewing the film, we realize that in the process of filming a reality program, we are seeing unnatural responses and actions of the family being recorded. However, in the same hand it becomes natural for the family to act in a strange manner when multiple cameras are intruding their personal space. Therefore, as the audience, even our perception of reality versus a performance becomes skewed.
Within the first minute of the clip above, Lonesome Rhodes presents a dynamic enthusiasm for advertising Vitajex - a male enhancement supplement, of sorts. Of course, the business is hiring him to promote their product as a well known entertainer. However, his excitement that rattles the meeting seems so absolutely genuine that as we watch him unfold his plans to hop on the Vitajex express, it become hard for us to measure how much of a performance his introduction really is. Is Lonesome's enthusiasm sincere? Is it entertaining enough that we simply don't care if it's sincere or not?
In each of the films mentioned above, credibility and trust of the main character is usually established, but in the most negative way possible: Brooks as a self-centered fraud dressing in a stereotypical Arizona getup, Bloom as a violent thief, Shields as a narcissist who cares little of other's consequences in wake of his success, Betty as a mysteriously optimistic, robotic wannabe actress, and Lonesome as an alcoholic vagabond. We technically have little to no trust in any of the main characters, which sort of dampens the ethos factor right off the bat.
Before you know it, you've already forgotten.Overall, the point lies in the key words, "...involuntary", "Instinctively," and "Unconsciously". Whether you view my guidelines for the simplistic route to take in order to forget what is actually going on during a film, you will forget anyways. The director intends on the audience to get lost in the relatable aspects of the dreamers, lose grasp on reality and fiction, and lean heavily on pathos. While viewing films - especially satirical in the nature of the five films mentioned above - performance is key when trying to manipulate an audience into much needed memory loss. It provides some sort of escapism for the viewers, therefore we become encapsulated in a scene or overarching theme just because our eyes, ears, and thoughts get lost in the façade of illusion that becomes entirely too believable.
|
|