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
Leave a Reply. |
|