Disconnect between Form and Content in Remember the Titans

Matt Levenberg

Final Paper

            “Film works on the meaning systems of culture, it is also produced by those meaning systems (Turner 178).”  Graeme Turner offers several ways of analyzing the connections between film and culture, but one method which makes sense to use in my analysis of Boaz Yakin’s Remember the Titans (2000) was to delve into the historical context of the film and compare the film’s narrative meaning to the dominant ideology of the time.  In order to analyze the relationship between film and society’s ideologies of the time, the critic must research and understand not only the historical context of the film, but also the conflicts which shape society during the time which the film takes place.  I will argue that the dominant ideology of the time was that the races can and should be fully integrated; however Remember the Titans is not successful in conveying this message.

            Understanding the historical context of this film is complicated when discussing Remember the Titans considering it is set in 1971, but it was produced in 2001.  In order to fully understand the underlying themes of racism that occur in Remember the Titans, we first must realize the extent of racism present in Alexandria, Virginia in 1971, where the movie is set, and also in 2001, when the movie was released.  Despite Yakin’s attempt at conveying the political belief that racism can be overcome, he fails to successfully convey this message throughout the film because Remember the Titans is shot in a society in which racism is always present, and the filming techniques constantly remind the audience of this.  I will prove this by closely analyzing a clip from the movie, and also by providing descriptions of the historical context of both where the movie is set, and when the movie was produced.

            In Alexandria in 1971, racism was expressed openly.  The story takes place just three years after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, a time in which racial tension was a major problem.  The movie recognizes this by referencing Martin Luther King Jr. and also by referencing the Civil War.  Though the movie takes place over a hundred years after the Battle of Gettysburg, Coach Boone (Denzel Washington) takes the team to a Gettysburg cemetery (Shown below).  By including this scene in the movie, Yakin reminds the audience that this movie is not just feel-good story about an integrated football team, but a story that confronts the key racial conflicts in society.  This coincides with society’s view at the time.   Just two years before the integration of T.C. Williams (before the movie takes place), racial tension was so prominent at George Washington High School (Another Alexandria, VA high school), which was half black and half white, that football games were cancelled due to fights stemming from racial tension.  These fights even escalated to a fire-bomb throwing near the school (Mathews). It was no secret that the integration of the schools was controversial, and several cynics believed it would never be successful.

            Although it is not as obvious, racism also existed during the production cycle of this film.  According to a study conducted at the University of West Florida in December 2001, just a year after the movie was released, all races agreed “racial hostility is still felt although not openly expressed (Biasco).”  The findings also found that students have a “hidden reservoir of racial animosity and suspicion’ underneath a ‘veneer of anti-racist attitudes (Biasco).”  Although the amount of explicit racism may have decreased between the story and the production cycle, unfortunately it is safe to say that racism still exists in today’s society.  Because of this underlying racism, at the level of enunciation, Remember the Titans cannot show true unification and integration.

            The theme of underlying racism also is evident in the clip that I will analyze shortly.  Graeme Turner argues, “Realism is the dominant mode within Hollywood cinema (Turner 207).”  Turner states that the primary reason filmmakers construct the film in such a realistic way is so that the spectator can recognize it and “draw analogies between the world of film and their own world.”  A clear example of this occurs in the following scene, which takes place in a mess hall in Berry College, which is in Mount Berry, Georgia.  Yakin filmed the entire camp sequence at Berry College.  By shooting at a real college rather than on a set (The real Titans stayed at a college for their training camp), Yakin gives the film a verisimilitude; a realistic mood, which allows him to attempt to convey his message that racism can be overcome.  In this clip, Coach Boone threatens the players by demanding that players of different races must integrate and get along or else they will have three-a-day practices.  This speech is essentially Yakin stating society’s ideology that racism can and must be overcome; however, because the filmic techniques and the form still exhibit inherent racism, he is unsuccessful in conveying his message.

            The five-shot clip that I will analyze begins at 6:16 and continues through 6:43.

            Shot one is a close up clean single of Coach Boone.  He is framed from below to make his figure seem physically large, intimidating and powerful.  The background is very mundane, but it contains a cafeteria wall and a window.  During this shot, Coach Boone begins his speech.  He says that each player will have to get to know a teammate of another race.  He is looking back at the camera into concrete off-screen space during the entire shot.  Since the setting has already been established in a previous shot, the audience knows the subject, his audience, which is the entire team.  It is also important to note the dramatic score that begins to build up during this shot.  This non-diagetic score serves to emphasize the importance and drama of the content and meaning of the speech.  Coach Boone’s speech to integrate his team serves as a microcosm of society’s movement to integrate society and schools.

            Shot two cuts to Boone’s audience, his team.  This functions as the reverse-shot, or answer to shot one.  There are 20 players within this shot spread throughout three separate tables.  The distribution of these players is the most important part of the mise-en-scene.  In the background of this shot, there is one table with five black players and no white players.  In the right side of the background there is another table with five white players and no black players.  Lastly, there is a table with ten white players in the foreground of the shot.  The players are all sitting at different tables, which emphasizes segregation on the team, and serves as a metaphor for the segregation within society.  Although the white players’ table in the foreground may be just a few feet from the black players’ table in the midground, because of a shallow depth of field, it seems that they are very far from each other, and the white players are the only players in focus during this shot.  Not only do the white players greatly outnumber the black players in this shot, but because they are closer and in focus, they are the only characters with whom the audience can identify with in this shot because the audience cannot clearly see the black players’ facial expressions.  We can see the uneasy expressions on the white players faces which allows us to identify with them.  In the far background of this shot there is a cafeteria wall with windows.  It is also clear that during this shot the light shining in through the windows only reflects off the white players, not the black players.  This further draws the audience’s attention to the white players, forcing the audience to identify with only the white players.  The mundane backgrounds in these shots direct the audience’s attention to watch the players and listen to the powerful words of Coach Boone instead of being distracted by something insignificant in the shot.  Throughout this shot, Boone is still speaking and due to a sound bridge the score continues to build.  All the players are looking off-screen back at the camera into concrete off-screen space to continue the shot-reverse shot sequence.

            Shot three is similar to shot one.  It is the same close-up of Coach Boone, shot from below to emphasize his power.  The main difference between this shot and shot one is that he turns his head in the middle of speaking.  The audience is unsure of who he is looking at now because Yakin has not matched Boone’s new eyeline.

            Shot four is the answer to shot three.  The audience sees that Boone was looking at a table of black players, specifically Julius Campbell (Wood Harris), Blue Stanton (Earl Poitier), and Petey Jones (Donald Faison).  This shot is a medium shot, and for the first time in this sequence we can see the facial expressions of black players and thus this is the first time that we can identify with them.  The black players have similar facial expressions to those of the white players from shot two, which can be characterized as uneasy or nervous.  The players are all looking back at the camera into concrete off-screen space, where the audience knows that Coach Boone is standing, orating.  The spectator again sees a mundane background featuring the walls and windows of the cafeteria.

            Shot five is a parallel to shot four replacing the three black players with three white players, in particular Gerry Bertier (Ryan Hurst), Ray Budds (Burgess Jenkins), and Alan Bosley (Ryan Gosling).  All three characters are in focus, and the audience again sees nervous expressions on the players’ faces.  This shot is the first shot which features a new background; however, it is still out of focus and does not feature anything meaningful of exciting.  Again, Yakin’s use of dull, unexciting backgrounds is to make sure that the audience focuses on what is truly meaningful in these shots: Boone’s voice, and the players’ visages.

            It is important to realize that the white players and black players are given unequal screen time.  We identify with the black players in just one shot during this sequence, whereas we identify with the white players in two shots.  It is also significant that black and white players do not share the screen together with the exception of one shot, and during this shot they are separated, and only the white players are in focus.  This is a common film technique throughout the movie.  This shot-reverse shot sequence does not permit the whites and blacks to share screen space.  Yakin does this to group together the black players’ reactions and the white players’ reactions to certain situations, but by shooting each group separately he is further segregating the team, which goes against his point, the message of Boone’s speech that desegregation is the goal and it is achievable.

            This serves as a smooth transition to my next point.  I believe that film critics Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Narboni would classify this film as a “type d” film, supporting my claim that Remember the Titans is ineffective in conveying its political message. Comolli and Narboni believe that every movie is political, whether it is explicitly or implicitly political is a key question (Comolli).  Though Roger Ebert argues in his review of the movie that the movie is “more about football than race relations (Ebert),” I would argue that Remember the Titans is obviously explicitly political because it focuses on the theme of integration and takes place in the South during a time of a tremendous amount of racial tension.  The entire first half of the movie focuses on racial tensions within the team, and the filmic techniques emphasize this.  Yakin’s use of shot-reverse shot to group together the white players and the black players often.  Even after the team begins to integrate, the surrounding town does not.  Because there is racial tension or divides present in almost every scene in the film, I would argue that Ebert is wrong in his statement.  The amount of screentime allotted to football games and practices is very minute compared to amount of screentime spent on racial themes or conflicts in the town.  Therefore, I feel that Remember the Titans is explicitly political.

  The next element in Comolli and Narboni’s analysis is whether the film goes with society’s dominant ideology on both the level of narrative and form.  Remember the Titans clearly wants to propel the belief that true unification and integration can be achieved on a level of narrative, as demonstrated by Coach Boone’s speech; however; through its use of conventional Hollywood cinematic techniques, such as shot-reverse shot and continuity editing, it emphasizes the racial divide rather than showing that the races are equal.  There is clearly disconnect between this film’s political content and its form.

            Just because Comolli and Narboni would argue that this film is ineffective in conveying its message that racism can be overcome does not make it fact.  Generalization is not good in film analyses, and there may not be a black and white answer (no pun intended).  “The text is a battleground for competing and often contradictory positions (Turner 198).”  While one spectator or critic may interpret a film’s message one way, another viewer may interpret it slightly differently.  The same is true for a film’s political meaning and its effectiveness.  During my presentation to the class on my shot-by-shot analysis, I faced several questions from peers, fellow film critics, who have seen the movie and said that upon first glance they felt the movie was inspirational and effective in its message.  One possible view of this film is that the team could serve as a microcosm for society; however, film critic James Berardinelli argues that the “team’s new found racial harmony does not necessarily reflect that of the outside world, which regards the racially integrated team with mistrust, and, at times, disdain (Berardinelli).”  Berardinelli’s claim supports my thesis because this cynicism in society, which he brings up, is one of the ways how the film embeds racism.   I believe that if Boaz Yakin would have had more freedom in directing the film (hence if it were not based on a true story), he could have made the town of Alexandria much more integrated thus less racist.  Had Yakin successfully been able to create a fully integrated society where the Titans played, he could have achieved his goal of both overcoming racism on the narrative level and the filmic level. That being said, each person is entitled to his/her own position, whether it be competing or contradictory to mine.

 Although film is subjective, open the the viewer’s interpretation, after using several analytical techniques, researching the historical context of the film, and closely analyzing clips from the film, I strongly believe that there is too much political disconnect between this film’s narrative content (that integration is possible) and its form (the two races will never be equal) for this film to effectively convey its ideological message.

 

Works Cited

Berardinelli, James. "Remember the Titans." Reelviews 1 Jan 2000: n. pag. Web. 2 Dec 2009.

Biasco, Frank. "College Students' Attitudes Towards Racial Discrimination." College Student Journal 35.4 (2001): 523-29. Web. 2 Dec 2009.

Comolli, Jean-Luc, and Jean Narboni. "Cinema/Ideology/Criticism." Film Theory & Criticism. 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Ebert, Roger. "Remember the Titans." Chicago Sun-Times 1 Jan 2000, Print.

Mathews, Jay. "Sports Camp Tests School Integration." Washington Post 24 Aug 1971: C1. Print.

Turner, Graeme. Film as Social Practice IV. 4th. New York, NY: Routledge, 2006. Print.

 

Racism as the Dominant Ideology in Remember the Titans

Shot-by-Shot Analysis

By Matt Levenberg

            Though at the surface, Boaz Yakin’s Remember the Titans seems to be an inspirational, intense sports movie, it several persistent ideological themes centered around racism emerge throughout the film.  Though the film critiques racism in society, it is ineffective in its criticism because it is made in a society in which racism is always present.

            In Jean-Luc Comolli’s and Jean Narboni’s article Cinema/Ideology/Criticism, they attempt to classify all of Hollywood’s films.  They argue that “It is the nature of the system to turn the cinema into an instrument of ideology.”  Essentially, Comolli and Narboni strongly believe that every movie has some political undertone and significance.  The stratifications can then be broken down further depending on if the film is explicitly political versus not explicitly political.  The next question asked by Cahiers, was if these films went with the “dominant ideology,” or society’s ideology, or if they went “against the grain,” either by criticizing society’s beliefs or by supporting a conflicting ideology.

            Shot 1 Begins at 3:52, and my analysis continues through shot 6 which ends at 4:09.

Based on my understanding and interpretation of Comolli’s and Narboni’s reading and my close reading of Remember the Titans, I believe that this film would be classified as a “type d” film according to their specifications.  A “type d” film is defined as one with “explicitly political content,” but it does not “effectively criticize the ideological system in which they are embedded because they unquestioningly adopt its language and imagery.”  The first requirement, that the film is explicitly political, is clearly fulfilled by Remember the Titans as its main plot is about desegregating the high schools, and more specifically, desegregating the football teams.  The second requirement is a little more difficult to classify.  On one hand the film has a happy ending, wherein the teammates end up coming together.  However, on the contrary, the film does portray a very racist society, and for the vast majority of the movie, a segregated football team.  The following shots will emphasize that the latter is true, thus proving that Remember the Titans is a “type d” film.

            Just prior to shot one in the six-shot sequence, Denzel Washington’s character, Coach Boone, is in the gym with all the African American players.  Coach Boone is taking roll call, and there is just one white player, Louie Lastik in the crowd of African Americans.

            Shot one shows Coach Yoast leading all the white players into the gym.  Coach Yoast is foregrounded and in focus.  Behind him, there are several white players walking into the shot.  Most of the players are out of focus, as is the background which contains the gym doors and windows.  The opening of the gym doors exposes the windows which allows sunlight to flow in.  This lighting serves as a spotlight on all of the white players.

            Shot two cuts to a clean single of Denzel Washington.  This shot is a close-up which allows the viewer to see his face and emotions.  The background is out of focus and it features nothing noteworthy.  There is no lighting behind him.  There is a recurring theme about lighting during these shots.  The whites often have bright lights shining on them while the African Americans are not lit as bright or as obviously.

During this shot the sound changes.  This marks a significant moment.  The sound changes from the diagetic sound of doors opening and footsteps to a dramatic score.  The score features drums and signifies the importance of the showdown that is about to occur.  The non-diagetic score serves to build up the drama of the confrontation and plays for the rest of the sequence.

When shot two begins Denzel Washington is looking at the camera, but then when the doors open he turns and looks to his left (off-screen right).  The audience is unsure of what or whom he is looking at, but they assume he is looking towards the white characters.

Shot three matches Denzel Washington’s eyeline, thus confirming the audience’s belief that he was looking at the white coaches and players.  This shot is similar to shot one, but it is a longer shot.  By utilizing a longer shot, more players can be shown in the shot simultaneously, and they also can walk towards the camera, which builds up the drama.  Again, bright lights flow through the windows in the background.  Coach Yoast is still leading the white players, which emphasizes that he is their leader.  The focus on Coach Yoast and Coach Boone through these first three shots emphasizes that there will be a power struggle and rivalry between these two, which begs the question, if the coaches of different races cannot co-exist peacefully, how will the players manage to do so?

Shot four cuts to a mid-shot five African American football players.  In the center of the shot is Julius Campbell.  He is wearing a blue collared shirt, and is dressed the nicest out of the players in the shot.  He also is the tallest, and all of these cinematic techniques lead the audience to believe that he will play a significant role in the movie, perhaps taking on a leadership role.  All five players are looking off-screen to the left (their right) in this shot.  The audience assumes that they are looking at the white players who are now walking towards them in the gym.  One of the most important aspects of shot four is not necessarily who is in the shot, but rather who is not in the shot.  Louie Lastik, the one white player in the crowd of African Americans, is left out of this shot.  The director clearly did this on purpose to emphasize the segregation, the divide between races.  This gives the audience the impression that the races are not integrated at all during this shot.

Shot five cuts back to the white players.  Within this shot, there is a mid-shot of Gerry Bertier and Ray Budds having a conversation, the first dialogue of this sequence.  Ray is very hesitant and cynical of the new regime, while Bertier is confident.  While on one level this portrays Bertier as a leader, on another level it undercuts the racial critique of the film.  The film criticizes society for being racist, but it re-inforces the notion that we are inherently racist.  Ray says that none of the white players will play under the African American coach.  He is therefore implying that he does not believe that the two races can co-exist on this football team.  Although Bertier thinks that whites will play, he implies that Coach Yoast, the white coach, will be in charge.  Neither player expresses confidence in the decisions of a player or coach of the opposite race.

In the final shot, the two groups finally face off for the confrontation.  This shot is filmed from the entrance to the gym.  There is a clear divide between the races.  The black players are on the left while the white players are on the right.  Nobody dares to cross the line.  This shot speaks volumes for the film.  This is the first time the two groups share the screen, and they are still extremely segregated.  This shot reinforces the dominant ideology of society which is that the races cannot get along.

Another interesting thing worth noting about this shot is that Louie Lasik is seen standing with the African Americans.  Although he is in the shot, he is clearly in the background.  He is the largest character in the movie, yet one of the smallest in this shot.  This technique is used to show that he is the outlier rather than the norm.  Although one person, one player, is comfortable around the other race, nobody else is.  This serves as a metonym for the south in 1970, which is the setting where Remember the Titans takes place.

At first glance the players appear to be the most important part of this shot; however, upon further examination, there is a massive American flag on the far wall of the gym.  It is now clear why the director chose to shoot this shot from this camera position.  By positioning the camera facing away from the entrance to the gym, the audience sees this flag hanging.  This flag serves as a metaphor to remind the audience that racism has an incredibly widespread effect which reaches millions of people.  Racism is a problem much larger than this high school football team.  In fact, it played a major part in shaping American history.  Later in the film, Denzel Washington gives a speech in a Gettysburg cemetery and states that so many people died lost their lives fighting for equal rights.

 Although the fight for equality has been going on for so many years, has much progress been made?  Even though the basic interpretation of this movie shows that progress has been made (Integrating schools is a start right?), by closely analyzing and seeing that the races do not share any screen time (and when they do, there is an obvious divide between them) or exchange any words it gives the impression that no progress has been made in society. There is inherent racism in society, and clear segregations within the team.  Therefore, although the film criticizes society for featuring racism as a “dominant ideology,” it is ineffective in conveying its message because it is a product of racism.

Is Chinatown a film noir?

            While watching Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, I kept on going back and forth on whether or not it qualifies as a “film noir.”  It has several key aspects of the noir, but also lacks others and obviously was not made in the post-WWII era.

            In John G. Calweti’s “Chinatown and Generic Transformation,” he attacks the same problem that I do.  Calweti says that “there is something not quite right” about the mood generated in Chinatown, the color.  I completely agree with this assessment.  When I think of a film noir, the first things that come to my mind are black and white, darkness and night.  For instance, Alfred Hitchcock utilizes shadows in his film noir Vertigo as does Edgar Ulmer in his film noir Detour.  Seeing a movie where so many scenes are shot in daylight and feature “rich golden light” throws off the viewer.  Calweti argues that these scenes are insignificant, or “outside the world of the hard-boiled detective story.”  In some cases I agree; however, often Jack Nicholson’s character J.J. Gittes does his investigating in broad daylight.  For instance, when Gittes discovers the Noah Cross’ glasses in Evelyn Mulwray’s backyard, it is sunny outside.  This discovery is crucial to the investigation of Hollis Mulwray’s death, and proves to be the piece of evidence that convinces Gittes that Noah Cross murdered Hollis.

            Calweti states that one of the most important factors in film noir is that the protagonist is a “private investigator who occupies a marginal position with respect to the official social institution.”  These are all completely accurate characteristics of J.J. Gittes, Polanski’s protagonist.  Also, Gittes seems to be in over his head, another common element of a film noir. 

Heroes in classical Hollywood cinema are “smooth,” can save the day, and get the girl. Typical Hollywood heroes include James Bond and Indiana Jones.  They always win the fights, save the innocent bystanders, and have the charisma to win over anybody.  Gittes is the anti-hero with regards to all of these.  Gittes is not witty as shown by his telling of the Chinese joke.  Also, he is caught doing investigation early on, and his nose is cut.  While Gittes is walking around the whole movie with a large bandage covering his nose, it may be difficult for people (the audience included) to take him seriously.  When all is said and done, the girl dies and the guilty walks free, thus showing that Gittes was in over his head and did not “save the day.”

            Another recurring theme in film noirs is the dangerous woman, or the “feminine antagonist.”  For the first portion of Chinatown, the audience believes that Ida Sessions is the antagonist.  Sessions poses as Evelyn Mulwray and asks Gittes to follow Hollis Mulwray.  Thus, Sessions is the reason why Gittes follows Hollis Mulwray in the first place.  As the plot develops, it is shown that Evelyn Mulwray is the antagonist.  Although she is not the murderer, she lies to Gittes on several occasions, and she also hides, sometimes forcefully, her “daughter-sister” Katherine Cross.  At first glance Evelyn may seem to be innocent and have good intent (unlike Vera in Detour), it is clear when we see her holding Katherine that she is just looking out for herself rather than looking for justice.

Though Polanski often veers from the noir mood, it is clear that Polanski wanted the final scene to be shot in the mood of the noir.  He succeeds in doing so.  In Chinatown, it is nighttime and the audience is reminded of the corruption that is clear in the film.  After Lieutenant Escobar witness the murder of Evelyn Mulwray, and Gittes explains Noah Cross’ corruption in the Los Angeles Water Supply, Escobar fails to arrest Cross, and it is even implied that he will not follow up on any leads.  When Gittes mutters “as little as possible,” to Escobar, he is reminding both Escobar and the audience that corruption is a recurring theme in the film.  This brings the film full circle in the noir theme.  Calweti writes that in most film noirs “the police and the courts are incapable of effectively protecting the innocent bringing the guilty to appropriate justice.”  This is clear in Evelyn’s death and Noah Cross’ freedom.

It is also worth nothing, that traditional film noirs have dark, solemn moods, but Chinatown incorporates several comical scenes.  Though none of the characters laugh at Gittes’ Chinaman joke, the audience finds humor in it.  Gittes also makes other witty remarks throughout the film.  When he is eating with Noah Cross and the fish is served with their heads still on, Gittes remarks “Fine…long as you don’t serve the chicken that way.”  In most of the film noirs I have seen, the ominous mood dominates so much that I cannot recall any witty or humorous remarks.

Even if it is very difficult for me to accept a film with so much light and color as a film noir, I think Chinatown has enough key elements that it should be considered a film noir.  Its final scene and specifically the results of it, lead me to believe that Chinatown embodies even elements of the noir mood for it to be considered a film noir.

Cache

Director Michael Haneke’s Cache (2005) is an extremely discomforting, mysterious French thriller, which violates several codes and conventions of Hollywood films.  The film focuses on Georges Laurent and his family.  They receive tapes in the mail along with pictures, which imply that his family is being watched and threatened.  The film follows Georges’ quest to find who is watching him.  Georges faces both external and internal conflicts, resulting in a psychological “thriller” (although it is not always so thrilling).

The movie lacks a concrete or explanatory introduction, so the audience has no idea what they are looking at during the exposition.  The opening scene is an extremely long, boring, shot of the Laurent household.   The audience assumes that this shot is live; however, when the audience realized that the shot can be paused and rewound, and pairs that realization with the non-diagetic sound, the audience realizes they are not watching a live shot, but rather a video.  Once the audience realizes that they are seeing a video, because of Hollywood conventions, the audience expects to see who is filming this shot or how the film arrives on the Laurents’ doorstep, but Haneke refuses to give the audience that information.   This is the first instance when the audience understands that they cannot trust that camera.  This approach is unusual because in the vast majority of Hollywood movies, the camera serves as the collective eye for the audience, and they do not even think twice about trusting what the camera shows them.  After this opening scene, the audience is cynical with each new scene and asks the question, is this shot live or is another videotape?

An example of this is the collection of shots leading up to Majid’s apartment.  The first time we see Majid’s apartment is in one of the tapes sent to Georges’ home.  When Georges himself approaches the apartment, the shot is filmed from a point of view shot, in the same exact fashion that the video was filmed.  This forces the audience to step back and question what is going on?  Haven’t I seen this already?  Haneke again forces the audience to step back, thus forbidding the audience from “losing themselves in the film,” or forbidding the audience from being sutured in.

In Daniel Dayan’s writing “The Tutor-Code of Classical Cinema” he introduces the concept of “the absent-one.”  Dayan states that the“Absent one is masked, replaced by a character,”then replaced by a “false origin.”  This is the case in most movies, but in Cache, the absent-one is never replaced by a character, but rather Haneke lets the audience imagine who is watching.  In most movies where shot-reverse shot is utilized, the audience's is shown who is watching, eliminating their imagination, and thus is "at the mercy of the code."  In Cache, the audience is at the mercy of the director who forces them to use their imagination (unlike other films which don't allow the audience to use their imagination).

Haneke does what most directors are afraid of; he does not utilize the shot-reverse shot, thus avoiding an extremely common in Hollywood cinematic technique.  During Cache, the audience is often shown a shot, but the audience never sees the “absent-one,” or who is watching the shot.  An obvious example of this occurs during all the surveillance scenes  Someone obviously must be watching the Laurent family, or setting up the video camera, yet Haneke never tells us who it is.  This allows the audience's mind to wander and step back from the film.

This inclusion of the unknown absent-one can serve as a metonym for the film itself.  Georges never gets a concrete answer on who is watching his family or why they are torturing him, and the audience fully understands who the absent-one is, or why Haneke leaves them so confused and uncomfortable throughout the movie.  There is also a parallel with mistrust.  The audience finds out early that they cannot trust what is shown to them.  They must always think and analyze to decide if what they are seeing is live or if it is a video, and they also must decide what the purpose of each shot is.  Georges is also constantly questioning.  While the audience cannot trust the camera, Georges does not trust his friends who he has over for dinner, nor does he trust his wife when he leaves her in the dark on his past and most of his theories.  Because he leaves his wife in the dark, he also leaves the audience in the dark, which leaves the audience hungry for answers.  Most viewers of this movie have an extremely unsatisfying feeling at the ending of this movie.

District 9 Review

District 9

            At the surface, District 9 is an action packed, visually stimulating, sci-fi thriller, but in the film, director Neill Blomkamp makes a strong statement on themes of racism and segregation.  This movies appeals to various audiences because they can interpret it on the basic level, as an alien fantasy drama movie, or they are free to look at it as a documentary and commentary on apartheid in South Africa, or even more generally, racism and segregation throughout history.  The movie’s title is a spinoff on District 6, which is infamous for the forced removal of all non-whites in the 1970s during apartheid command.

The film comes across as extremely realistic, even for a sci-fi movie with such an abundance of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery).  Blomkamp’s decision to shoot the movie in Johannesburg, South Africa adds to the realistic feel.  Director Neill Blompkamp told wired.com in an interview, “The environment is 110 percent real. It’s pure, pure Johannesburg.”  The special effects team does an excellent job of making the aliens seem natural.  There are several scenes where the shot is shared between humans and computer generated aliens, but it all looks very real.  The aliens are not too flashy, and they seem to fit in well with their environments.  The lack of embellishment combined with the camera techniques presents the audience with a realistic setting.  For example, there are no zoom shots used in the movie.  The human eye cannot see how a zoom shot sees.  Therefore, by using camera techniques which the human eye sees daily, the audience is more likely to accept what is on screen as real, rather than stepping back and realizing that they are watching a movie through the collective eye, the camera. 

Another unique characteristic of this film is that it is told using a combination of documentary footage, recovered government footage, and news broadcasts.  None of these media are specifically elegant or embellished, further giving the viewer a very real feel. If certain shots were too contrived, the viewer would be able to step back and see that he or she is watching a movie; however, by keeping the footage earthy, the audience sees images that they are used to seeing.  Seeing a news broadcast is an everyday occurrence to most viewers, so when those viewers see the news broadcasts in District 9, they are likely to accept the news broadcast as true.

            The film begins while Wikus van def Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is in his office at MNU, Multinational United.  Wikus is a likeable, hardworking field operative placed in charge of relocating the aliens.  This is an extremely difficult job because the aliens do not react favorably to being evicted without a say.  Quickly, this situation escalates into a battle of humans against aliens.  Wikus’ role is fairly clear until he becomes infected while confiscating a canister of some alien fluid.  When he realizes that his left arm transforms into a claw, he seeks medical attention and realizes that soon he will completely transform into an alien.  Wikus delivers a great, compelling performance and makes it very easy for the audience to identify with him.  When Wikus begins to transform, he begins to see the situation from the aliens’ perspective, thus allowing the audience to relate to the aliens.

            Although the aliens live like savages and commit crimes, Blomkamp succeeds in forcing the audience to sympathize with them.  Although the aliens look like giant insects, Blomkamp gives the aliens with very big eyes.  Other films starring wide-eyed aliens include Steven Spielberg’s E.T. and Pixar’s Wall-E.  E.T. and Wall-E both feature aliens as the protagonists.  The audience relates to these aliens and roots for them because they show emotions like humans do.  Even though the aliens are not the protagonists in District 9 (Wikus definitely fills the role of protagonist), the audience easily connects with the aliens. This is in contrast to Michael Bay’s Transformers in which the aliens have tiny eyes.  In Transformers, the aliens are extremely flashy, and lack emotional depth, thus removing the realistic feel and discouraging the audience from feeling affection for the aliens.  In District 9, the aliens’ large human-like eyes help the audience to humanize the aliens and see the situation from their point of view.  Another technique Blomkamp implements which allows the audience to empathize with the aliens is that humans call them “prawns.”  Through history, various derogatory terms have been coined aimed at most discriminated groups and ethnicities.  The constant use of the word “prawns” forces the audience to view the aliens as mistreated, poor humans, rather than the savage aliens that they are.  Another way Blomkamp makes the audience identify with the aliens is by giving them human names and children.  After Wikus is infected, he hides with an alien named Christopher Johnson and Christopher’s son.  By giving the aliens names, children and families, Blomkamp is humanizing the aliens and thus, the audience easily empathizes with them.

            Though Blomkamp ensures that the audience pities the aliens, there are a few questions left unanswered.  Whereas most alien films, including The Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds, focus on first contact between the aliens and humans, District 9 picks up twenty years into the aliens’ occupancy on Earth.  The audience never is explicitly told what brought the aliens to Earth in the first place, though it is implied that their ship ran out of gas or broke down above the planet.  Blomkamp does not focus on first contact because the discrimination and segregation developed over time.  By concentrating on the discrimination, the film effectively serves as an allegory to apartheid.

            Another pending question is, why did the aliens choose Johannesburg?  As stated above, the audience can guess that the aliens’ ship broke down or ran out of fuel above Johannesburg, but Blomkamp’s motivation is clear.  Blomkamp chose to shoot the movie in Johannesburg to make clear the direct connections to apartheid.

            District 9 does what very few movies do.  It combines visually stunning effects with very powerful underlying themes and it does so extremely successfully while giving the film an especially realistic feel.  This combination gives it appeal to a very wide audience and makes it worth seeing.

 

David Bordwell's "Classical Hollywood Cinema" and Cinema Paradiso

             Though Cinema Paradiso adheres to particular aspects of David Bordwell’s “Classical Hollywood Cinema: Narrational Principles and Procedures”, many significant characteristics of classical Hollywood cinema are missing, so I would argue that Cinema Paradiso does not conform to classical Hollywood guidelines.

            One of Bordwell’s key principles is that a protagonist drives the story.  This is clearly the case in Cinema Paradiso; however I would argue that most characteristics in this film differ than those of classical Hollywood.

            Bordwell places an emphasis on “straight corridor narrative.”  Cinema Paradiso violates this narrative linearity because it tells Salvatore Di Vita’s life in the form of a flashback.  The flashback is a modern Hollywood technique which violates Bordwell’s “straight corridor” theory. In the exposition, Salvatore is a grown man, and he receives a phone call from his mother informing him that Alfredo, his mentor and father figure, has died.  Upon learning this, we flash back to his childhood, to his experiences with Alfredo. Though director Giuseppe Tornatore extensively uses flashbacks in the movie, he still follows Bordwell’s ideas of causality.   The phone call causes protagonist Salvatore Da Vita to recall his relationship with Alfredo, so right after the phone call Tornatore cuts to Salvatore’s childhood.

            Another momentous characteristic of classical Hollywood film is to present tow plot lines, one of which is a heterosexual love story.  In Cinema Paradiso, there are definitely two plot lines; however, neither main plot line follows the Hollywood standard of a heterosexual love story.  There is a love story that exists between Salvatore and Alfredo.  It is not a sexual or romantic relationship, but it plays a key role in the movie.  Alfredo is the person who introduces Salvatore to film, and he is also the only person who consistently respects and cares for Salvatore when Salvatore is young.  Salvatore’s adoration for Alfredo is clear when he fakes an injury just to ride along with Alfredo.  Salvatore beams with happiness and asks Alfredo question after question about life.  Tornatore juxtaposes Salvatore’s troubles in the real world with Alfredo’s care.  This is clear when Salvatore’s mother hits him after he causes the fire.  His mother hits him, but Alfredo comforts him and teaches him more about film and movies.  Another clear example of this is when Salvatore is in school, the teacher hits the students, and students ridicule each other.  Salvatore tries to help the situation, but he ends up being helpless.  He goes straight to Alfredo after school, and Alfredo lets him watch the movie being shown.

At age eight, movies have already provided Salvatore with a medium of escape, and thus the second plot line has begun.  Whenever Salvatore has any free time, whether it is after school or when he is supposed to be buying milk for his family, he sneaks to the cinema to see Alfredo, watch movies, and learn about film.  Salvatore becomes dependent on movies as a constant in his life.  Alfredo teaches Salvatore valuable life lessons using film quotes.  First, he quotes the movie Fury in order to explain to Salvatore about mobs and mob mentalities.  Later, he quotes John Wayne to teach Alfredo about love.  Salvatore’s dependence on movies emerges again when describing his summer without Elena.  He talks about his life as a movie, using terms like shots and cuts.  He says that if he lived in a movie, the director could just cut to the end of summer and he would be with Elena already.  Tornatore includes this quotation to show the audience that movies are Salvatore’s first love.  Salvatore thinks in terms of movies and he cannot survive without them.

            One last important focus of Bordwell is on the “cliché happy ending.”  Though a case can be made for the ultimate closing scene of Cinema Paradiso as a happy ending, I would argue that the ending definitely contradicts classical Hollywood endings.  Most classical Hollywood films end with a romantic couple together on the screen, sometimes kissing; whereas, Cinema Paradiso ends with Alfredo’s funeral, and the destruction of the cinema.  Those two tragic events definitely clash with classical Hollywood endings.  After those events though, there is one dramatic, emotional embrace that occurs between Salvatore and film.  It is in this scene where Salvatore shows the most emotion of the entire film.  He realizes how much he loves film, and what a tremendous part film has played in his life.  The scenes on the movie screen are symbolic in this scene as well.  The movie shows clips of couples embracing, hugging, and kissing.  Although Salvatore has not ever had a long term relationship or wife, film has been his soul mate, and the intimacy of the lovers on camera mirrors the cherished relationship between Salvatore and film.  It is also worth nothing the inspiring music playing in the background during this scene.  By combining the music with Salvatore’s emotions, the audience can infer that Salvatore is blissful that he made the choices he did, namely committing to film rather than chasing Elena or pursuing other long term relationships.

On another note, during this closing scene, as the audience, we realize that the movie was a magnificent celebration of film.  Within the cinema, Tornatore makes sure that the camera pans across the whole audience to show viewers of all different ages and genders, and they all laugh, smile, roar, and cry together because the power of film unites them.

Unique Camera Techniques as the Focus of Film

Watching a movie is a unique experience because we do not see with our own two eyes; however, the audience shares one collective view.  The camera serves as our collective eyes, and the sound system and sound effects operate as our collective ears.  Because the director and editors can determine what we see and hear, film has the power to revolutionize our senses.  In Walter Benjamin’s, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” he cites that the rise of fascism was directly tied to the growth and influence of the film industry in the 1930s.  Benjamin describes the transition of art from a ritualistic function to a political one.  Marx used film to present an ideal society to the public.  He showed the public exactly what they wanted to see, and conveyed these appealing images using the medium of film.  Marx was one of the first to exploit the power of film. This power is not necessarily due to a compelling storyline or narrative; on the contrary, it is due to inimitable camera techniques.  It is a “criminal error” to make a film in which the essence, and focus is the narrative.  Though a fairly compelling storyline is necessary, what sets apart the masterpieces and the classics from all the rest is their camera techniques and effects.  Benjamin would argue that in order to fully take advantage of the possibilities of film, the movie, television show, or whatever genre it may be, must make a lasting impression on the spectators.

            One successful show without a narrative is Planet Earth.  Planet Earth received great reviews from several critics, and has without a doubt changed the way people view nature and different aspects of Earth.  This show gives the audience a new appreciation for our planet.  In this case, film may provide the medium for new “green” movements.  By viewing the beauty of our planet through the close-up shots, bird’s eye view angles, and other unique techniques utilized on the show, people may collectively work towards protecting and saving our planet from pollution, global warming, waste, and a myriad of other potentially devastating situations.  Planet Earth has the power to revolutionize the way we think of our planet and potentially save the planet from several dangers.  Planet Earth does not have speakers, characters, or a storyline.  It simply has a narrator describing exactly what is being shown on the scene.  What is being shown and how it is presented to the audience is exactly what makes Planet Earth so powerful in changing how we see the world.

            David Fincher’s Fight Club repeatedly often speeds up and slows down the pace of the movie.  By controlling the speed of the movie, Fincher controls the audience’s mood.  When Norton is in reality, the camera speed is normal and there is almost always continuity editing.  Examples of this is shown when he is working and when he attends his support groups.  The contrast to this is shown when he interacts with Marla, Tyler Durden, or when he is in Fight Club.  During these scenes, the camera jolts around and speeds up what we as the audience see.  These different speeds also represent Norton’s emotions.  When Norton is working or at his support groups, he is calm and he can sleep, hence the slow, fluid movements.  When Norton is at Fight Club, or interacting with Marla or Tyler, he is unable to sleep, and his adrenaline is running.  The jolting camera and sharp noises bring the audience into the same emotional state as Norton’s character. 

            Another extremely common technique in Fight Club is zoom shots, such as close ups.  Close-ups were particularly widespread in the same high speed situations where Norton’s emotions are running high.  When the phone rings, the caller dictates Norton’s reaction and therefore dictates the camerawork.  When Marla or Tyler call, the camera zooms forward on the phone until the phone takes up the entire screen.  This zoom embodies a swift shift in time and space.  It creates an illusion.  Other examples of close-ups include Tyler Durden’s projector and negatives when he is describing his job.  The primary purpose for the zooms and illusions when Tyler is the centerpiece of the scene, is that Tyler is the ultimate illusion.

            Though every film needs a plot, a narrative, the lasting impression on the viewer is made by the camera techniques.  If a film forces the audience to think about how they view something, then it has done its job, and Benjamin would argue that it has revolutionized their senses.  David Fincher was very successful in doing this in Fight Club.