hal-film - Tumblr blog

[hal-film]

The abuse of subject matter in cinema for commercial growth – how films profit off trauma

From fear to the advertisement of the admirable, as spectators we are constantly sold ideas, belief and motives that are manipulated by an actor’s portrayal of a character or subconsciously through semiotics, the subliminal responses we idiosyncratically have to colours, mise en scène and pathetic fallacy. Amongst this list of sensory attributes that create a films world, the fabrication we are subjected to can often be pasted over a precursory event or idea. At times, this can be of deep importance to the story, however there is an argument that these events can be exploited for commercial growth, with the topic at hand being sensitive, tragic even, and therefore triggering a deeper emotional response.

By stripping a story down to the key plot points, you can often find it will fit a typical narrative theory or theories. For example, you can apply Proppian theory and assign each character a role (hero, helper, donor, false-hero, villain, princess etc.), though it is worth mentioning that these titles are not necessarily characters; the ‘princess’ is the prize, which in typical folklore would be a princess, however we can translate it to be what is desired by the hero. Another example would be binary oppositions (e.g. police verses criminals) or the equilibrium (equilibrium – disequilibrium – new equilibrium). Once these theories are applied to narrative you can deduct what cinematic techniques are required and what is unnecessary. In Andrei Tarkovsky’s writings of Sculpting in Time, he used the metaphor that a films narrative is like a sculpture, the filmmaker removing what is irrelevant to leave what remains. Throughout most films there will most likely be moments written into the script that have no purpose to the story, sometimes these are little details however they can often serve no real purpose other than to give the audience more world building. These moments are never narrative triggers or major plot points in the story, just information, however it becomes more of an issue when an aspect of the narrative is not of any purpose to the story other than to ‘sell’.

When ‘selling’ the audience something, the filmmakers often use sex as it is part of our raw impulses built into our id and this is used in TV, advertising, music etc., however far more can be sold than just sex; films can shape a world any way the filmmakers please leading to some films handling topics that are distinctively sensitive as a way of attracting publicity (cue ‘all publicity is good publicity’ ethics). The heavier the topic, the harder it is to handle, the more it effects the psyche and is digested by our ‘superego’. This is a strong contrast from our id because it requires far more rumination than the animalistic nature of our ids thought processes, which is more primal desires. This leads us onto which films do this and how.

After the popularity of Christopher Nolan’s Memento(2000) Gasper Noé was able to capitalize off non-linear narratives after successfully pitching a film that would unravel in reverse, a film that was shot using lightweight widescreen Minima Super16 mm cameras and became notorious for a rape scene lasting nine minutes, titled Irréversible. The extremity of the films content was not out of character for Noé’s work, however this scene in particular caused intense discomfort and raises moral debates of whether it is right to show such a scene. It is worth mentioning the nature of this scene is exemplified by a depraved lack of editing, just a single take. The psychology of the 180/90-degree rule abiding continuity editing is that we, as spectators, are always waiting for the cut – the cut often taking place as the action is imminent, for example the cut is at the swing of a punch, or the sitting of a character. In Irréversible, the notorious rape sequence simply does not cut, so the audience feels the urge to continue watching, anticipating the cut that doesn’t come for thirteen minutes, longing the ending of the take. If a member of the audience has had an experience relating to the events depicted by Gasper Noé then this would make the sequence far more uncomfortable. An unequivocally challenging cinematic experience to endure, one can only imagine how much more difficult the scene would be to watch if you had endured something similar. I would argue this is a case in which the subject matter was abused heavily to cause a reaction; the film is notorious for the scene and created a polarising response – people still talk about that scene.

Through the haze of motion pictures that use subject matter to evoke an emotional response, certain it will cause a stronger intrinsic reaction, there are some films that discuss subjects matters with ‘taste’, discussing an issue and bringing it to the public eye.

An example of this would be Jean-Marc Vallée’s Dallas Buyers Club(2013, 2014 UK), a film that discusses the stigma of HIV & AIDS, set in mid-1980s Texas. The Academy Award winning film was made with a budget of a mere $5M USD (making $55.2M USD at the box office) and was largely well received. Tackling issues of homophobia, substance abuse and the conspiracy of silence against the disease, the brave steps made by the film was pushed by Matthew McConaughey, who plays Ron Woodroof, an electrician who contracts the disease through unprotected sex and substance abuse, seeking medication illegally and ultimately becoming a dealer and smuggler of unapproved pharmaceutical drugs to others who required the medication. This market was largely the LGBTQ community and leads Woodroof to having to overcome his prejudices as his prior peers associate him with the LGBTQ community, distancing themselves from him bitterly. A story that is deep routed in truth and great sadness, the motion picture strikes me as being infinitely important, as the stigma of HIV & AIDS still exists. The film is not beautiful in a classical sense, but the story of a homophobic electrician who dedicates his final years to helping others he previously had a prejudice against is incredibly pure; the heart of the story is a beautiful change in a horrific situation. An emotional cinematic journey, it is an example of a story that does not trick the audience into having to evoke a response for commercial gain: it is raw and real.

The appeal of film I found since a young age has changed overtime, originally thinking the cinematic universe was infinite and without boundaries, therefore a way of discussing anything, later learning there are greater forces within the film industry that dictate a films direction. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America, the association responsible for the classification of films has been criticised for the limitations they put on films they deem one way or another and showing more scrutiny towards LGBTQ films; just as the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is in charge of the age restrictions of films, the MPAA can put its foot down and decide who is old enough to see a film. This can result in films having to shift the way they are sold or constructed to cater more aggressively to one audience (like how The Woman in Black (2012) had to try and get a rating of 12+ to assure the younger Harry Potter fans could see the film with Daniel Radcliffe starring in Susan Hill’s gothic novel adaption).

This is only one form of restriction, as many more exist, like how films that feature the US military need to have the military approve and give the green light. This leads to what I would consider a form of corruption that can be seen in war films – in the gaudy, overtly fantasy-based Transformer films by Michael Bay, the US military is praised highly throughout, guns-blazing throughout the global slaughter depicted in the semi-dystopian, problematic narratives.

The film industry is a branch of the arts, and the industry of the arts is notoriously and inherently fierce where the parallel between films costing millions and needing to break even is far apart – more films fail than succeed, therefore it is attractive for filmmakers to try and assure a certain response through the techniques discussed in this disquisition, though it leads to what I would consider low-level corruption within the industry. This is a moral debate, and at times by chance the subject being discussed through the film needs to be talked about and destigmatised, though there have always been films designed to evoke a certain response, such as wartime propaganda films.

[hal-film]

How The Shining disorients the audience

Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 adaption of Stephen King’s The Shining misdirects, disorients and disturbs the viewer, straining your grasp of a setting that seamlessly changes stylistically, rendering the audience incapable of navigating their way through the labyrinth that is the Overlook Hotel.

Being one of the first dozen films to use the Steadicam (invented by Garrett Brown), the camera angles glide, arc and sweep fluidly through the heavily stylised hotel, allowing you to observe the surroundings Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), Wendy Torrance (Shelley Duvall) and Danny Torrance (Danny Lloyd) are subjected to during their stay while Jack is writing, using the location as a catalyst to work more efficiently through the “tremendous sense of isolation that” is “exactly what I am looking for”, Jack tells Mr. Ullman (Barry Nelson). By the camera shots being so stable and moving so slow at times, you are able to soak up every aspect of the setting and become immersed by how stylistically designed the location is, however this is then contrasted as you lose your bearings, the style of the hotel seeming to change style, the layout of the doors resulting in the rooms needing to overlap with one another or lead to suspension in mid-air; this superficially plausible location at first glance soon becomes a labyrinthine structure with winding corridors and paradoxically constructed rooms. Losing your bearings, Jack’s unravelling sanity is vicariously passed on through the construction of the film rather than the character of Jack.

It is hard to spot a definitive moment in which the audience notices that Jack is fundamentally unsound in comparison to how behaviour at the beginning of the narrative, rather we endure the peculiar symptoms through the abstract technical construction of the film, as what can be described as “ghosts” of the hotel start to emerge, one of the most obvious and sudden to interrupt the narrative being Lloyd (Joe Turkel), a barman. On Jack’s second visit to the bar, the room is filled with an outdated congregation that I would assume to be from 1921 (due to the black and white photograph at the end of the film features the same congregation and says the photo was taken in 1921). Fitting with the aspects of Jack’s fantasy previously mentioned, Jack’s bourbon is free of charge, another unsettling aspect of the sequence, however as the scene progresses, what we find is that Jack is hostile, unpredictable and though he does not snap into a violent splurge, it could be anticipated. As he dances to the music being played in the background of the gathering with his much-appreciated beverage, he bumps into a waiter, who we later discover is Delbert Grady, spilling the drinks he was carrying over Jack – expecting him to react violently, the passive aggressive nature of his reaction further keeps the audience waiting for Jack’s inevitable psychological collapse. Grady offering to help clean up Jack results in the tense playful banter of Jack saying “looks like you may have got a spot on yourself there Jeevesy old boy” before patting his back and getting some of the advocaat on his back. The next stage of this scene plays with the audience as Jack asks what Grady’s name is. Once this is unveiled, the audience feels tension and second-hand scepticism as the dots are connected and Jack begins to press Grady about how he was the caretaker and murdered his family. The main way in which this disorients the audience is that the composure of Grady is trustworthy and controlled, however Jack’s volatile and unpredictable demeanour results in a very gothic style of narrative whereby the narrator (character we are aligned with in this case) is unreliable – as gothic conventions have been the foundation of horror literature, this is a very classical style of character development.

Abandoning the Proppian narrative formula, The Shining adopts binary opposition as a means for creating a story around a set of consequential and, at times, seemingly directionless events, however these two sides are challenging for the audience to endure, as the opposition is between Wendy (the protagonist) and Jack (who becomes the antagonist). We are in allegiance with Wendy but alignment with Jack, causing the binary opposition causing the viewer to be aligned with who we morally oppose, however this can be interpreted as the “preferred/dominant reading”.

The subject matter of The Shining is distant to reality, the fiction in The Shining being based on a very subjective perspective and one that echoes ghost stories and paranormal experiences. With this perspective in mind, the film uses these themes as a way of operating within its own reality; the film features shots like a man in the dog costume performing oral sex on a man in a tuxedo (which has been speculated to be a former owner of the hotel in the book), and the reoccurrence of the supernatural appearances and disappearances of the twins, Young Woman in Bath and seamless metamorphosis into Old Woman in Bath. Once these traits of the film are accepted, the viewer can be open to being subjected to these impossible occurrences and is able to revel in the nonsensical, impossible even design of the hotel. The genre “torture porn” is normally considered a subgenre of horror and relies on the sadism of watching someone else’s discomfort, however it can also relate to the masochistic pleasure of receiving a ‘negative’ feeling. In The Shining, this is more to do with disturbing visuals than gory visuals. Jack Nicholson’s improvised yelling of the phrase “Here’s Johnny!” through the splintered and cloven door is a phrase that was used by Ed McMahon to introduce Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. With this context, it is a far more disturbing phrase to yell and will also resonate differently with American (predictably) viewers. As The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson ran from 1962-92 and was a popular, friendly show, the audience will have positive connotations of the phrase “here’s Johnny”, so when being said by a murderer to his wife who he is attempting to murder, all positive connotations are tarnished and it becomes disturbing. This serves the use of an intertextual reference, relating to reality therefore forcing the viewer to add a personal side to their viewing. Even if the viewer was not aware of this phrase, the fact jack refers to himself as “Johnny” (Carson) is still very verbally disorienting and will cause the viewer to doubt their memory and what they thought they knew: the name of the characters.

A film that depicts a real event can abuse its subject matter by using music as a means for evoking the preferred emotion by the filmmakers, however with a film where the subject matter is not as tangible as one portrayed in a period drama, there is no subject matter to abuse and music can be used as a way of setting the tone, or an artistic way of reflecting the emotions the characters may feel. Using a high pitched, screeching string section the phrases played are uncomfortable and motifs accompany reoccurring pieces of footage, like high pitched strings being edited together with steady shots of Danny dribbling saliva out of his mouth and shuddering violently. At times, these sequences will also include Hallorann (Scatman Crothers) staring with a pained, fixed expression – this would be because both Danny and Hallorann can “shine”. This makes Danny and Hallorann clairvoyant and telephathic though this is portrayed as a painful experience, as the strings suggest. You are allowed to see what they see and the music used can be seen as either a sound-based representation of the sensation they feel like being telepathic or the sound they actually hear, as the string sound accomplished in the soundtrack is relatively abstract and difficult to tell what it is.

Most films create a paradox of fiction where the viewer is aware what they are witnessing is not real and that the characters are purely fictitious, however still become invested in the story. This applies to The Shining in a slightly different way since the feelings the film creates are legitimate, the tricks the editing plays on you and way the soundtrack accompanies the visuals and the tension, though you know is fake, exists in the minds of the characters, many of which do not exist. Delbert Grady, for example was real but wasn’t alive at the same time as Jack, so by viewing a very abstract perception of the world the film becomes a different experience to many others that depict real, far more tangible forms of reality.

[hal-film]

Irony in The Lobster (2015, dir. Yorgos Lanthimos)

Set to the backdrop of a social dystopia, The Lobster (2015, Yorgos Lanthimos) highlights a view of societies expectations by satirically hyperbolising the state of it. As the narrative unravels through the impassive delivery of the characters, the bleak story of David (Colin Farrell) who suffers from the grief of being left by his wife as well as losing his brother, the audience is subjected to the tale of David after the severance from his wife, leading him to be escorted to a hotel in which he’ll have 45 days to find a partner. By the end of his time, which can be augmented by hunting those who haven’t found a partner by the end of their stay, he is to be hunted as well with all the other guests who cannot find a mate.

 The tone of the film is immediately set from the very first scene, a long take that goes from being a close-up to a long shot, but never an establishing shot, leading the audience to focus on individuals and their facial expressions/body language. Though the contrast in society to real life is strong and undoubtable, the film encourages the audience to accept it and not focus on how strange the absurdist nature of the films reality is, and get involved more in how David is different.

 Our first impression of David is that he is verging on nihilistic and his disconsolate nature seems to have been inherited from the grief he feels, his lifeless delivery and avoidance of communicating with anyone he doesn’t have to being a vestige of his misfortune. Despite him being in an extensively bad place emotionally, he has been placed in the perfect place to find a partner. From the moment he sits down at the desk he is interviewed, his interests and history is logged so he can move forward; there is an emphasis on progression and functionality in relation to society. Sessions on etiquette at mandatory for those staying in the hotel and plenty of social activities take place to give guests the chance to find someone to be with. The irony is that out of this seemingly perfect system, relying on individuals to find someone with the same idiosyncratic, “defining” feature (such as David’s short-sightedness or The Limping Man’s leg injury, causing his faulty, uneven gait). It is suggested that this feature will make the couple compatible and therefore, function as a couple in society.

 Many of the idiosyncrasies of the characters are negative, such as the limp, poor eyesight or a limp. This adds to the bleak tone of the film and helps turn what should a pleasurable pursuit of finding a partner into one that none of the characters seem to enjoy. It isn’t until David escapes to the forest, where the Loner Leader (Léa Seydoux) has organized a way of life for those who do not wish to live as society intends. The downside to this far more liberal way of life is that relationships are illicit. There is dramatic irony in that the place relationships are not enforced nor designed to occur in is where David falls in love with Short Sighted Woman. It could be argued that this irony doesn’t apply since the statement could be that their infatuation with one another blossoms in a natural state, as other romantic infatuations should do. Couples who start to have issues within their affinity are “assigned” children, which could be a satirical comment on couples and societies expectations for marriages.

  Debatably, the most romantic aspect of the film is how David considers becoming blind, so that he will be compatible with the woman he truly loves, who had her eyes maimed as Loner Leader ordered, with the intentions of actively proscribing David and Short Sighted Woman’s relationship. The ending is ultimately ambiguous, however surely David would sacrifice his vision so that he could be with the woman he loves?

[hal-film]

Where does the folder go?

Suggestions of where Carl Tanner’s folder of sheet music goes when Andrew Neiman loses it in Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash (2014).

Amid an intense story of passion and obsession, a key narrative trigger seems to be overlooked in Damien Chazelle’s 2014 Academy Award winning feature film, Whiplash. The moment being when Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) loses the folder of sheet music that rival drummer Carl Tanner needs because of his “memory issues”.

This part of the story results in Neiman playing on stage, despite being a secondary drummer in the jazz band and the page turner for Tanner. Though the misplacing of the folder benefits Neiman, he appears genuinely apologetic about his mistake, thus leading the audience to believe the loss of the folder to not be his fault. Is it just a juncture in the diegesis that is irrelevant in the long run?

You could argue that where the folder went does not matter, however as the restricted narrative directs the audience to view the folder being laid down and being seemingly immobile (unless actively moved) one can only wonder where the folder got to. There are only a few characters who would want a folder of required sheet music to be lost. One of these could be Ryan.

Ryan could be described as an antagonist, that is if you consider Neiman a protagonist. Being a film that does not fit with Propp’s narrative theory of character roles, Ryan’s function in relation to the narrative can be inferred by Fletcher’s explanation that Ryan was only taken in to play in the jazz band so that Neiman would have a rival. Since this inherently places Neiman against Ryan, it would be understandable that Ryan would take the sheet music, hoping to get Neiman into trouble, since Fletcher chose Niemen over Ryan. The hostility within the band and unspoken hatred between Ryan and Neiman is evident through the tests Fletcher puts them through, suggesting there is only conflict because of Fletcher. Being the source of antipathy, it is fletcher who fuels the anger of the characters and pushes Neiman’s internal strife to discharge as his obsession with becoming “one of the greats” becomes more challenging due to Fletcher’s methods.

This brings us to another possible individual responsible for the disappearance of the folder: Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). As previously mentioned, Fletcher incites truculence between the rival drummers (Ryan, Tanner and Neiman). This causes Neiman’s passion to mutate into obsession. As Fletcher states the next Charlie Parker wouldn’t be put off by his illicit ways of teaching because their ability to stay passionate would be part of what makes them “great”, his cruel ways of teaching are constant tests of how far Neiman is willing to go and get as good as he can. With that in mind, perhaps Fletcher took the folder. He knew Tanner needed the sheet music due to his memory issues, as well as this he understood Neiman knew all the sheet music by memory. It could be hypothesised that Fletcher took the folder to give Neiman the chance to prove himself. This would be in keeping with his callous teaching strategies and therefore give to the character verisimilitude.

Regardless of how the folder goes missing, whether it be a rival band member attempting to sabotage Fletcher’s reputation (despite being notorious, he is considered highly respected and his performances in small jazz bars exemplifies his passion, winning the audiences respect as well), Ryan trying to ruin his opposing drummer’s chances or even just a janitor mistaking the book of sheet music as rubbish, it is arguably irrelevant. Regardless of how it goes missing, no one finds out how it does, but it results in Neiman having to prove himself. How it goes missing doesn’t add to the diegesis’ depth, in fact it is a nice addition that creates mystery and tension as well as leading to the audience and Fletcher witnessing Neiman proving himself under pressure on stage.