The Wolf Of Wall Street- Scorsese and DiCaprio’s venture into debauchery.

The boys are at it again!

Leonardo DiCaprio as stockbroker "Jordan Belfort"

Leonardo DiCaprio as stockbroker “Jordan Belfort”

DiCaprio’s interpretation of the memoirs of stock-swindler and drug-addict Jordan Belfort, is the long awaited romp directed by Martin (Marty) Scorsese.

The collaborative work of Scorsese and DiCaprio are (almost) always box office gold. One must take a step back and appreciate their input into the world in cinema, with work such as Shutter Island (2010), The Departed (2006), Gangs of New York (2002) and The Aviator (2004). These final two pictures received a mixed bag in terms of recognition and reviews upon their release. Gangs of New York proved to be an anti climax for the ages, whilst The Aviator was a snore-fest of the highest caliber. However, The Departed won cinematic acclaim in abundance. This was down to Scorsese’s extensive experience when dealing with mob films and the gun toting’  slick one liners that tend to come along with the quintessential mob flick. Shutter Island on the other hand was a rare foray by Scorsese into a psychological thriller. This proved to be a roaring success, mainly because of the intriguing ending and the interpretive concepts offered to the viewer.

The subject matter of The Wolf Of Wall Street doesn’t offer something new to the world of cinema. Viewers are well versed in the story… young up-start dreams of success, strives for it, achieves it, relishes in it, is corrupted by it, squanders it and is ultimately humbled by it. Everyone has heard the tale before. At first glance, one would think that the rampant consumption of  alcohol and the vast, vast, VAST array of drugs consumed by Belfort throughout the film would be sufficient in keeping the viewer enthralled. This is one of the pitfalls of cinema today, as audiences are well versed in this “controversial” subject matter. The scene in which DiCaprio is seen blowing copious amounts of cocaine up a strippers sphincter would have caused an uproar a couple of decades ago, whereas now all it drew from the audience were a few chuckles and one or two groans of “Oh what’s he like!”. Do not let this observation take anything away from the film, this isn’t a fault of the film, rather than a fault of the industry in general.

The magic lies in the relationship between DiCaprio and Jonah Hill displayed on screen. What we are shown is an unlikely alliance between a farcical comedy giant (Hill) and a dramatic kingpin (DiCaprio) mixing together with the backdrop of decadence of the highest degree. Hill plays Jordan Belforts slimy sidekick Donnie Azoff. Laugh-out-loud moments are in abundance. Although as the film winds down, an interaction between a now sober,drug free and bankrupt Belfort and Azoff is of note. Azoff asks Belfort in earnest, “How is it? You know..being sober?” to which Belfort replies, “Its fucking boring..so boring. I feel like I’m going to kill myself.” the character interactions between the two are wholly believable, which is why the duo manage to bounce off one another so convincingly.

At a mammoth run-time of three hours long, one would imagine that even the most patient of viewers would start to shift in their seat. However this is absolutely not the case .This would suggest, that although the film offers nothing new in terms of its narrative; it is constructed in such a way as to hold anybody’s attention for its duration. The tale of Jordan Belfort and his days as the wolf that prowled wall street, and how he managed to amass a fortune by praying on the naive sheep that dared venture into the lucrative world of the stock market; is indeed a story worth telling.

Belfort’s memoirs are undoubtedly an alpha-male,testosterone and chemically fueled macho marathon and the film reflects this entirely, although the viewer is left seeking some depth and meaningful interaction from the characters involved. The tragedy is that their is none to be had, as the film is based on an egotistical maniac who’s character presumably lacks any real humanity in the first place.  Scorsese and Dicaprio have pulled off another triumph, but one can’t help but feel the film wasn’t the howling success it could have been.

Film Review: “12 Years A Slave”

12 Years a Slave offered a seldom seen opportunity to delve into the world of American slavery through the narrative of film. This particular subject matter tends to be pushed to the wings of the stage within our cinema content of recent. The film has created an incredibly accurate depiction of the slaving economy of the United States, not only on a visual level, but when considering an introspective look at the people living under the circumstances of the time.

The film is Steve McQueen’s latest project where the  British director, who’s reputation for acknowledging strong topics of human emotion and their complexities has been taken to the next level. His past works include “Hunger”, starring Micheal Fassbender who played a prominent member of the IRA, undergoing hunger strikes during the troubles in Ireland. And “Shame”, a braver film again which dealt with a mans sex addiction and how he had to suffer in silence due to the lack of acknowledgement of the condition, under our society. “Hunger” dealt with the human sense of willpower. “Shame” dealt with social taboo’s and the concept of shame in its truest meaning. “12 Years A Slave” has successfully dealt with both of these concepts, whilst bringing it to an entirely elevated level.

In its most simplistic description, the story is centralized on Solomon’s story of how a black man living in upstate New York, was unlawfully abducted and sold into slavery. The film deals with his strife and efforts to stay faithful to his idea of freedom that he has lost; throughout 12 years of living as a slave in the Southern United States of America.

The cast includes stellar Hollywood talent of our time; with names such as Pitt, Fassbender and Cumberbatch as well as many other cameos and appearances of prominent talent within the industry. However, within the film several other emerging talent, or rather dormant talent, have been given the perfect stage on which to showcase their repertoire . Chiwetel Eijofor plays the central role of “Solomon Northup” with a towering performance of passion and pain, whilst a relatively unknown Kenyan/Mexican actress Lupita Nyongo’  plays an accompanying role as “Patsy”, a slave girl who serves as a vehicle in which to represent the black woman’s strife of the time period.

In my opinion the true success of the film comes down to the intricacies of the characters and the acting talent behind them. Not often are we served a film that  gives us the opportunity to see stalwarts such as Pitt and Fassbender oppose each other in such a circumstances. Most prominently, Fassbender is truly detestable in this picture with his portrayal of slave owner “Epps”. The concept of torment and savagery is present within Epp’s display of love and obsession of the slave girl Patsy. Epps consistently declares his love for the girl, whilst punishing her as a slave master. In one savage scene he forces Solomon to lash Patsy in front of a congregation of Epp’s slaves. Epps takes over the lashing and whips Patsy to within an inch of her life. This is undoubtedly the most painfully realistic scene of the film, but also where it stays true to the historical accuracy of the time.

McQueen is without doubt a visionary director and auteur. His past works of “Hunger” and “Shame” showcased strong elements of his auteur-signature, with unmistakable strokes of the director within his work. This consisted of long, drawn out shots of a character’s face, often in times of great duress during the films narrative. For example; the penultimate climax of “Shame’s” story included an extended scene where Fassbender’s character was seen standing on a bleak quayside in New York City, clearly undergoing a complete breakdown of the senses. We could see all of the characters inner insecurities and anguish in his facial expressions. The viewer expects the shot to change, but the moment is drawn out on camera, in order to draw in the viewer. This technique , within this example, can be very effective. However with “12 Years a Slave” this technique is far, far overused. McQueen utlised one scene which included an ongoing shot of the slave’s quarters that ran for roughly two minutes, where nothing of interest happened, no dialogue, nothing. It was as if he was determined to demonstrate to the audience that he was an artist at work. However through this particular method it only serves to take away from the linear structure of the film.

What can be taken from this film could be discussed indefinitely. There is so much that is challenged within the film, be it our current perception of race and how far this has (and has not) evolved since this era in Western society that the film encapsulates. Also, the human perspectives we are offered through the films stellar acting cast genuinely motivate some interesting thought processes. I’m sure if anyone was asked what they would do, if they were involved in the slave trade, would utterly deny that they would have any part in it. This is the case for myself as well. However what we are shown is how these real people of the time learnt to deal with their lot in life, and at times had to sacrifice a sense of moral pride, in order to protect both themselves and the ones they loved.

McQueen’s latest work should serve as an example to his fellow filmmakers, that the industry should challenge difficult subjects and indeed challenge the audience themselves.

What is the cultural significance of past and present Icons of Cinema? In what way have these figures interpreted the role of the Hero?

Throughout Hollywood’s history certain actors have burst onto the world of popular cinema and attained the status and recognition of a cultural icon. An icon can be defined as a symbol or a representation of a specific ideal. When this concept is transferred to the world of cinema, and when one takes into account the reach the industry has in terms of perception and influence, these individuals attain a level of great cultural importance. Often actors within Hollywood will tend to be directly linked to the roles they play on screen. This is often regardless of the true personality and likeness to the actor their characters embody. This essay seeks to discuss and analyse actors of past generations, whose work within the industry still resonates to this day. As well as this, emerging actors of the present will be compared to these past icons. Conclusions will be drawn in respect to whether the most popular actors of today will stand the test of time, and potentially be regarded as icons of cinema in the future.

Perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of any Hollywood actor is that of Steve McQueen. “The King of Cool” was well known for his notorious behaviour on the film set and his personal life. He typically settled into roles in which he played the “anti-hero”. He fitted this role on and off screen and throughout his career he gained a certain reputation of notoriety. McQueen often neglected to speak of his rough upbringing, but the true reality of his childhood was a grim reality. He was born to a teenage prostitute in Indianapolis, who would subsequently abandon him for years at a time. It could be speculated this is where his well-documented mistreatment of women, both physiologically and physically stemmed.

During McQueen’s teenage years he associated himself with street gangs in Los Angeles, before joining the United States Military. It could be speculated that this is where he found the discipline and direction for his acting career that followed. He then eventually found himself on Hollywood’s main stage in films such as “The Great Escape”, “Bullitt”, “The Thomas Crown Affair” and “Papillion”. McQueen died aged 50 due to lung cancer. Part of his popularity was due to the fact that his career erupted during the height of anti-Vietnam activity in the U.S, during the 1960’s and 70’s. For this reason a persona that represented anti-establishment tendencies, on and off screen was of obvious adoration by the masses.

Steve McQueen

One could propose that McQueen was a powerful public figure of the 1960’s and 70’s America. The public held him in high regard; another reason for this was he epitomized the American dream. His success in the film industry came from desperate beginnings. “When I believe in something, I fight like hell for it.”(McQueen) McQueen’s constant rebellion against all forms of authority throughout his life and career gave him the cultural recognition that the name “Steve McQueen” now signifies. Retrospectively the actor symbolises the counter culture of an era. The actor achieved the status of an Icon through this perception that the public embraced. Baudry and Meltz reinforce this theory that, “(…) the spectator’s relationship to the screen is no longer discussed with pictorial reference alone, but to the institution itself.” (Price, B 2010)Cinema goers were relating their feelings towards the government to McQueen himself, as a vehicle for their discontent.

When considering actors who represent the “hero” character in film, the Hollywood leviathan Clint Eastwood fits the role. There are few actors or directors within the film industry that have continued to produce work of such consistent substance than Eastwood. He acts and directs much own his own work. He was born in 1930 in San Francisco, and spent much of his childhood moving around northern California. His family settled to Oregon where he spent much of his youth. In 1951 he moved to Seattle where he joined the military. It wasn’t until 1955 that he found his way to the world of acting, when he secured a role on the television show “Rawhide” (1959-66) for six years.

Eastwood’s first three films “A fistful of dollars” (1964), “For a few Dollars More” (1965) and “The Good the Bad and the Ugly” (1966) are prime examples of the spaghetti western genre, which dominated Hollywood. Although Eastwood was cast as the hero of these epic westerns, he was an un-conventional hero. The character he played in each film, “The man with no name” was not the typical hero of the western narrative. He portrayed a socially absent character whose dialogue was extremely minimal. His character questioned the typical ideological conception of early Americans on the frontier. It appeared that he was the outsider in the wild-west storylines, as opposed to earlier films of the genre where white American characters were in abundance. The depiction of the West in these films was of a vast and disjointed landscape and peoples, which does not depict the accepted reality of the early foundations of the United States.

Clint Eastwood

This characterisation was attributed to Eastwood throughout his career. He was cast as, and continues to be cast as the stone faced hero, who neglected any rewards that came with his unintentional morally just actions. Eastwood’s trademark squint and hissing line delivery has cemented his persona in Hollywood to this day. He is an elder of Hollywood and a cultural icon, this is not due to the sheer span of his career but to the pedigree of the work he has been involved in. His significance comes from the fact that he has displayed heroism in his roles, but in such a way that forces the viewer to re-assess their concept of it. “Any filmmaker seeking to create a film that positions the spectator as an independent must break the spell of cinematic illusionism” (Wheatley C: 2009). Eastwood has become his on screen persona, as the unintentional hero of Hollywood.

Here two examples of Hollywood icons are outlined. The two figures have transcended their roles on screen, and attained a status reserved for only the most accomplished in Hollywood. At present there are an abundance of Hollywood actors that are known the world over. However in order to determine on whether their personas on and off screen, will stand the test of time is worthy of attention. Big budget narratives tend to dominate cinema screens at present and often these pictures tend to utilise popular stars for the fan base they inevitably draw. However, the stars demanding the most acclaim today, amongst cinema purists and the casual observer tend to have a successful background in independent cinema.

One example of an actor who is appearing in both big budget and indie films is Michael Fassbender. Fassbender is the son of a Northern Irish mother and German father. One of the most provocative films he has appeared in was “Hunger” (2008), directed by Steve McQueen (director). The film addressed “the troubles” in Northern Ireland which spanned from the 1960’s to the late 1990’s. Fassbender played the role of the IRA political prisoner Bobby Sands, who initiated a hunger strike whilst in prison in order to oppose the British government, “I lost about 14 kilos and weighed 59 kilos by the end. It was the only way we could do it and make it convincing” (Fassbender). Sands died after 66 days of self-imposed protest. For the role, Fassbender had to endure a substantial weight loss regime to emulate the reality of the event. His interpretation of Bobby Sands final moments transfer to the film with dramatic effect. The film does not follow the traditional narrative framework as the importance of the characters is not immediately explained. Many scenes are deliberately monotonous and at times make for uncomfortable viewing. This is an effort from the director to transport the viewer into the films setting and psyche.

Fassbender

Fassbender has since appeared in large franchises such as “X-Men: First Class” (2011). The actor’s ability to transfer his talents to larger productions is a testament to his diversity. He was cast as “Magneto”, a role previously held by Sir Ian McKellan. Fassbender succeeded in creating his own persona under the character and managed to execute an approach that was distinctly different from McKellan’s interpretation. However Fassbender has simultaneously been involved in smaller projects. For Example in “Shame” (2011) Fassbender is cast as a sex addict, struggling with an unorthodox addiction. The film was also directed by Steve McQueen. The pair has a tendency to tackle social and political issues with their work. Fassbender has the capacity to become an enduring presence in Hollywood if he succeeds in incorporating roles consisting of substance whilst appearing in larger franchises.

A further example of an article of this calibre is a Canadian, Ryan Gosling. The actor has managed to achieve not only an iconic status, but a cult following. Gosling has appeared in a large catalogue of films, however recently he is appearing as the lead in several films of merit. These include “The Ides of March” (2011) and “Crazy Stupid Love” (2011). Although he was initially known for his role in “The Notebook” (2004), he has gone on to become arguably one of the biggest male actors in Hollywood. Although his film catalogue continues to achieve commercial success, he has managed to compile an impressive list of indie films including “Half Nelson” (2006), “Blue Valentine” (2010) and the exceptional neo-noir film “Drive” (2011).All three of these examples were directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.

Gosling

Gosling and Refn had a very specific goal when it came to creating Drive. Gosling’s character is never named throughout the films entirety. The film makes use of minimal dialogue, especially from Goslings character and the soundtrack is an entrancing mix of 80’s electro which instils the film with certain uniqueness. Goslings performance held a reminiscent feel of Steve McQueen’s role in “Bullitt”, as he echoed McQueen’s impassiveness and sombre exterior his character portrayed. The same could be said of many of Eastwood’s performances. Again with Gosling, he has succeeded in lending his acting talents to both non-conformist indie productions as well as big budget traditional narratives.

The public’s seemingly universal acceptance and devotion to actors such as Michaell Fassender and Ryan Gosling does not go without a fair explanation. A large proportion of content produced by Hollywood in this era consists of overused plots and structures. For an actor to establish him or herself within the largest hub for entertainment production on earth, they must seek to separate themselves from the conventional actor. However the actors and films that have been discussed within this essay all concern leading male characters, which are responsible for portraying the “hero” figure.

A common factor that can be applied to both McQueen and Eastwood is that both sought to redefine the traditional portrayal of the “hero”. Both of the actor’s efforts to break the mould have been successful and they have subsequently cemented their positions as film and cultural icons. With the case of Fassbender and Gosling, the point could be made that these actors are indirectly creating this impact again. By their examples of leading male roles, both have chosen to incorporate a different approach than those that have gone before. Their portrayal or the “hero” does not consist of a testosterone fuelled “Statham” or “Seagal” esque performances. Haneke suggests, “All the viewer requires- although he requires absolutely- is that the actor should behave as though he is not being seen(…)”(Price B: 2010).These actors have attempted to portray a more realistic and ultimately more human approach to Hollywood’s most clichéd role in film.

Fassbender and Gosling have succeeded in redefining the role of the “hero” in this respect. Much the same as McQueen and Eastwood did before them. As Hollywood continues to produce more and more categorized material, the opportunity for actors to achieve this status, largely falls upon their efforts in the indie genre. However the actors in question are showing intelligent career choices with the films they are choosing to dedicate their talents to. Also, the approach the two are bringing to the machismo role is paying off, as the universal acclaim both continue to receive stands as a testament to their talents.

Chris Durham. (2012). Absent Heroism: Reconsidering Clint Eastwood’s Star Persona. Available: http://www.scope.nottingham.ac.uk/article.php?issue=7&id=191. Last accessed 20th April 2012.

IMDB. (2011). Michael Fassbender Biography. Available: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1055413/bio. Last accessed 23rd April 2013.

IMDB. (2011). Ryan Gosling Biography. Available: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0331516/bio. Last Accessed 23rd April 2013.

McQueen Trust. (2012). Quotes. Available: http://stevemcqueen.com/quotes.php. Last accessed 20th April 2013.

Price, B (2010). On Michael Heke. Michigan: Wayne State University Press. pp40.

Price, B (2010). On Michael Heke. Michigan: Wayne State University Press. pp41

Scott, A O. (2011). Fasten Your Seat Belts, the Chevy Is Taking Off.Available: http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/movies/drive-with-ryan-gosling-review.html?_r=0. Last accessed 23rd April 2013.

Wheatley, C (2009). Michael Hekes Cinema: The Ethic of the Image. United States: Berghahn Books. pp39

Film Review – “Killing them softly”

A gangster flick released in late 2012 starring Brad Pitt somehow managed to slip under the radar, for what seemed like a large proportion of movie-goers. The film “Killing them softly” directed by Andrew Dominik is the latest collaboration between the director and Pitt since “The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford.” This film also received a love-hate reception from critics and fans alike. Pitt’s character “Jackie Cogan” is a hitman working for the mob and throughout the film he is responsible for cleaning up a robbery gone bad. Early on Cogan describes how he doesn’t like to kill his victims up close, and prefers to; “kill them softly, from a distance.”

“Killing them softly” was advertised much the same as any other modern gangster film might have been, as a fast moving violence filled gun slinging romp. However the film couldn’t be further from the typical mob film. Dominik has used the setting of the criminal underworld of America to draw comparisons to the financial crisis and presidential elections of 2008, when the film is set. By including sound bites and background footage of Obama and Bush’s presidential speeches periodically throughout the film, it gradually becomes apparent that the metaphoric link is between the US government and the mafia is being made.

The film carries echoes of classic gangster films such as Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas. This is a concept helped along by actors such as James Gandolfini and Ray Liotta, who lend their mobster alter-egos to the film. Several aspects of the film fall into the tried and tested methods of slick gangster movies. For example often there are long stretches of comedic dialogue between characters about murder, as if it was idle gossip. This is all part of Dominik’s attempt to lull the audience into a false sense of security, in order to make the inevitable violence all the more jarring.

Dominik’s efforts with the film may be the foundations of his signature style; there is a certain auteur quality to cinematography of the film. Within several scenes, he utilises filming techniques that would usually be labelled self-indulgent. It’s a good thing it comes across so effectively. The scene where Cogan attempts to assassinate Ray Liotta’s character, “Markie Tratmann” illustrates Dominik’s techniques perfectly. It consists of Cogan pulling up alongside Tratmann’s car at a red light and shooting him repeatedly. The shooting segment is filmed in ultra-slow motion.

The viewer is forced to take in every painful grimace and flailing of limbs within the scene. From the squinting of Cogan’s eyes as he takes aim, to the way Tratmann lifts his hand to shield his face from the incoming bullets, everything is experienced by the viewer. Tratmann’s car then rolls forward into incoming traffic and the camera is positioned within the car, so the viewer can see his head smashing the windscreen. It makes for a brutal and all too realistic effect for the audience.

The film carries on to a loose sense of structure, however the long stretches of dialogue between characters often consist of depressing and bleak discussion. This is a technique seeking to break down the audience to the mind-set of the criminal underworld reality of violence and deceit. Also this theme within the film seeks to reflect the times of financial and emotional hardship of the recession hit U.S of 2008. The film’s actors are dominantly male; there is a very small presence from the opposite sex, this adds to the machismo stereotype of the gangster genre.

The film basically portrays a group male Mafioso’s desperately trying to deal with a conflict within their criminal circle, it paints a picture of chaos in which greedy, unintelligent and depressive figures are trying to come to a solution. Again this could be a metaphor of the financial crisis of the time, and of how the U.S government and banks plunged the country into hardship. The efforts of Pitt’s character as an assassin is necessary in order to portray that people had to pay for the repercussions of the robbery, albeit he may not have been responsible. The films triggering event of the robbery, signifies the collapse of the U.S’s financial “stability” pre-2008.

Throughout the film Cogan is frequently negotiating with the mob’s middle man “Driver” played by Richard Jenkins. He is told that he will be receiving “recession prices” and that it is a consequence of the financial state of the U.S at the time, and that even the mob must get through the hardship as one. This is Dominik’s attempt to make a grand statement about the recession, using the mafia as a format. Although the film’s message isn’t easily decipherable, the audience will be left with the satisfaction of having witnessed a new slant on the mobster flick. If the drama isn’t to the viewers satisfaction, the cinematography will certainly suffice.

Implicit and Explicit Ideology in Film

The explicit or implicit presence of ideologies is an ever present factor within film. As films are a production based on human interpretation and reproduction of events, an element of ideological values and intent are ever present in the storytelling within cinema. The degree of the ideology included within film can either be presented as an integral part of the films plot, or as a certain cultural assumption that goes unaddressed during the film. Often the explicit or implicit ideological content within film is intended to reinforce and present certain societal values for the audience’s contemplation.

An example of implicit ideology in film is included in Disney films and generally in film created for the younger audiences. Often within these films certain underlying messages of good morale is included, which is placed in order for younger audiences to consume positive ethical values. One instance of this implicit ideological material occurs in Disney’s 1994 animated film, “The Lion King.” The film’s villain “Scar” is portrayed as being an outcast to the rest of the lions in the film and when he seizes control of the pride and becomes “king”, the savanna in which the lions live becomes desolate and twisted.

Characteristically speaking Scar represents a selfish and self- serving leader, which could be a comparison to a dictator. During one scene where Scar addresses his hyena accomplices, the imagery shares a likeness to Adolf Hitler’s wartime speeches. However by the end of the film “Simba” the rightful “king” has gained control of the lion pride. Simba is portrayed as a morally decent character and is adored by all. Subsequently his leadership is celebrated and the savannah is restored to its rightful state of lush greenery.

The purpose of a film that is created in order to communicate explicit ideologies is that it is intended to persuade or teach an audience a certain message. One such example lies with the 2007 film, “Into the Wild.” The film’s narrative consists of a young man “Christopher McCandless” who becomes disillusioned with modern society’s basic structure. After graduating from University, he chooses to live a nomadic life in which he shuns life’s normalities such as a career and a family in favour of a life in the wild.

At the beginning of Christopher’s adventure he abandons his car and sets fire to the dollar bills from his wallet. This is to demonstrate his refusal to conform to society’s most basic necessities. Throughout the film Christopher’s anti conformist attitude intensifies, and he chooses to live alone in the Alaskan wilderness. Christopher succumbs to poisoning and dies as the film ends, but not before writing “Happiness (is) only real when shared” in his diary. The film forces the audience to question the modern societal structure and obsession with consumption.

With these two examples both implicit and explicit themes are addressed within cinema. The ideological content of “The Lion King” and “Into the Wild” address certain societal normalities that are either accepted or rejected.

Hess, John. (2005). Film and Ideology. Available: http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC17folder/FilmAndIdeololgy.html. Last accessed 6th April 2013.

Brett, Andrew. (2010). Ideology of Disney. Disney, Politics and Ideology. 1 (1), p9.

Dominant Cinema vs. Counter Cinema

When one is asked to consider dominant or conformist cinema, a prime example would be the bulk of the productions produced by Hollywood and its major film studios. Often these films consist of blockbusters and big franchises that make use of big name actors and directors. These films tend to fall under the genres of crime, thrillers, gangster, westerns and fantasy films. Films that fall under this category of mainstream filmmaking are viewed as more of a “product”, with the aim of making as much profit from the film as possible. However non-conformist or counter cinema tends to ignore many of the traditions and frameworks established by Hollywood. “The art cinema motivates its narratives by two principles: realism and authorial expressivity.” (Bordwell) Within counter cinema not every aspect of the film is laid out in-front of the viewer as is the trend in conformist cinema. Counter cinema has a tendency to challenge the common perception of what filmmaking should consist of.

The 3d phenomenon “Avatar” (2009) directed by James Cameron was the most successful film ever in terms of box office figures. The film is an ideal example of a big budget Hollywood blockbuster, estimates of the film’s financial backing was in the region of $300 million, with an additional promotional budget of more than $100 million. Avatar is a science fiction film set in the future where Earth is mining from the fictional moon “Pandora” however earth’s visitors come under attack from the planets natives. As the story develops, the native’s saviour proves to be a marine, who by the end of the film has joined the natives in their struggle. The films narrative has been repeated several times by large Hollywood productions. These include Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves and The last Samurai.

The films lead role belongs to Sam Worthington, who is the host to an array of well-known actors in Hollywood. Avatar was filmed for the purposes of 3d viewing in cinemas. This added to the visual qualities of the film as it was showcasing state of the art CGI affects. Throughout the film the narrative follows a very distinct pattern. From the beginning of the picture it is easily relatable as to whom the heroes and villains of the story are, this is typical of the films style. It is un-complicated and includes thrilling scenes of impressive imagery. The viewer is effectively transported to this alien world of “Pandora” for the duration of the film. “In mainstream cinema there is a flow of action with clear developmental pattern and a cause and effect chain.” (Jill Nelmes) Avatar fits perfectly into the conformist category of cinema, as it is essentially an up to date remake of an overused albeit effective narrative.

When considering counter cinema and films that subvert traditional standards, “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) is a prime example.  The film was directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez with a budget in the regions of $500,000 to $700,000, but went on to gross $248,639,099 worldwide. The film is a psychological horror, although at the time of its release it was filmed in a radical new format. It was presented as a real life documentary, and was marketed as “found” footage in the Maryland woods.

The directors deliberately created the film to portray a factual documentary film, using very low quality and grainy footage to make the film appear as an actual reality. During the film the plot follows the story of three students attempting to investigate the legend of the “Blair Witch.” Throughout the course of the film the students become lost in the woods and come into contact with ever more disturbing supernatural interactions during the night. The film comes to a climax where all three meet their demise.

It could be argued that the film re-wrote the rulebook for the horror genre. The amateur style in which the movie was filmed proves extremely effective in communicating the directors intended perception that it was a documentary. Although the plot follows a fairly distinct path, there are sections of the film where large portions of time are unaccounted for. This non-linear narrative serves to jolt and shock the audience.  For example a scene may be cut short in broad daylight, only to come back into focus in the complete darkness of night. The actors performances are disturbingly lifelike, as they themselves were recording the footage themselves in real-time whilst being harassed by the directors. Often the film does not make for comfortable viewing. Throughout the film the “villain” (The Blair Witch) never comes into shot once, the fear is generated through the fear of the unknown.

These two examples of cinema fall under two differing categories. “Avatar” can be described as the Hollywood blockbuster. It consists of an enormous budget, a tried and tested narrative and a visual edge only available to one of the industry’s most prominent directors. “The Blair Witch Project” on the other hand was made with a miniscule budget in comparison. However the ground breaking filming techniques and imagery elevated the film to the same levels of success as a film produced under the financial security of Hollywood.

 

AvatarBlair Witch

Fig 1. Avatar                                                      Fig 2. The Blair Witch Project

References

Jill Nelmes (1996). An introduction to film studies. London: Routelage.

Chris Cowan. (2002). Reflections on The Blair Witch Project. Available: http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue11/cowan2.htm#_edn9. Last accessed 3 March 2013.

Nekeisha Alexis-Baker. (2009). Analyzing Avatar. Available: http://www.jesusradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/AnalyzingAvatarReview.pdf. Last accessed 4 March 2013.

What makes a filmmaker an Auteur?

The word “auteur” is the French word for author. When applied to cinema it means that a director’s vision or creativity is apparent through their work. The term was proposed by the film maker Francois Truffaut in 1954 and the theory have been used to define directors work ever since. For a director to be considered a true “auteur”, their work must be discernible through factors such as influence from studios.

Martin Scorsese is one of the film industries most established and revered directors. Scorsese’s films deal with a wide range of themes, although the more common trends within his work tend to gravitate towards crime, violence, guilt and redemption. Martin or “Marty” was born in New York City to Italian/Sicilian parents and with it came a devout catholic upbringing.

Taxi DriverFigure 1. Taxi Driver

“Taxi Driver” (1976) is among Scorsese’s most critically acclaimed films. The main character, “Travis Bickle” is played by Robert De Niro. De Niro’s role in Taxi Driver is that of an emotionally tortured insomniac, who feels detached from society. Travis sees the city as a centre for moral decadence, and takes it upon himself to cleanse the city. Travis seeks to become the saviour of Jodie Foster’s character, a twelve year old prostitute named Iris “Easy” Steensma. This concept has religious undertones which are common in Scorsese’s work. By the end of the film Travis has rescued Iris from her prostitute lifestyle and has attained fame and recognition throughout the city. This could be assessed as Scorsese’s characters finding redemption as the film reaches its conclusion. Scorsese himself acknowledges the influence his faith has on his work, “It always will (be) in every piece, in every work I do, even in the way I act.”(Scorsese)

Raging BullFigure 2. Raging Bull

Scorsese and De Niro were to collaborate again with “Raging Bull” (1980) Again the main character, played by De Niro, was Jake La Motta who is a character consumed by negative emotions such as jealousy and rage. La Motta was a middleweight boxer known for his savagery in and outside the ring. During the boxing match scenes of the film, we see La Motta unleashing carnage in the ring to graphic effect. However as La Motta sits upon his stool between rounds, water is poured over him in order to wash away the blood from his body. This is biblical symbolism used by Scorsese. La Motta is being cleansed of his sins. Scorsese agreed to make the film with De Niro shortly after experiencing a drug overdose in which he almost died. Scorcese’s theme of seeking redemption not only applied to the main character, but also to himself and his career as a director following his overdose. Raging Bull includes scenes of intense violence that still resonate today, which serves as a testament to the director’s impressionist work.

Scorsese has developed a reputation over his career as being the master of mob, or mafia movies. The main character within “Goodfellas” (1990) is Henry Hill, played by Ray Liotta. Throughout the film the audience is seduced by the criminal world of the mafia through the character Henry. The opening quote of the film is, “As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster.” This sets the tone of the film for the films duration. During the film Scorsese sends the viewer into a world where debauchery and violence are strong themes throughout.

Ray LiottaFigure 3. Goodfellas

However throughout this Henry still remains the “hero” of the film, even though his actions are extremely immoral. Scorsese’s fondness for his Italian/Sicilian roots and cultural identity is apparent throughout the film. This is demonstrated by the lavish family dinner scenes. By the end of the film Henry is placed under a witness protection programme, and detests his new lifestyle, “Right after I got here I ordered some spaghetti with marinara sauce and I got egg noodles and ketchup. I’m an average nobody. I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.” As viewers we tend to sympathise with Henry, even though he doesn’t deserve it. This is a testament to Scorsese’s storytelling ability.

Martin Scorsese will be recognised as one of the most successful film directors, both in terms of box office records and the artistry and depth of his work. He is a true auteur as through his films his creativity makes itself prominent time and time again. “Auteurism shares certain basic assumptions: notably, that a film, though produced collectively, is most likely to be valuable when it is essentially the product of its director.”

References

Richard Schickel. (March 2010). Brutal Attraction: The Making of Raging Bull. Available: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/03/raging-bull-201003. Last accessed 3 March 2013.

Adam Karabel . (Oct4 2006). Mean Streets to Goodfellas: An Auteurs Vision of the Mafia. Available: http://voices.yahoo.com/mean-streets-goodfellas-auteurs-vision-the-84624.html?cat=38. Last accessed 4 March 2013.

FilmBlog. (May 2011). Why we are locked in the back of Taxi Driver’s mind. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/13/taxi-driver-reissue-scorsese-de-niro. Last accessed 4 March 2013.

John Caughie (1981). Theories of Authorship . London and New York: British Film Institute . 17.

The Jazz Singer, Alan Crosland (1927)

“The Jazz Singer” was the very first live action film to include synchronized dialogue sequences. With the film’s release it marked the end of the silent genre within film. In its entirety the film includes roughly two minutes of spoken word content, captions are still present in the film. However, the production heralded the induction of the “talkies” into mainstream culture. By sound being coupled with speech the cinema achieved a never before seen level of interaction with audiences. It could be argued, that the plainly racist content of the main characters “ black-face” scenes could be a comparison to America’s diversifying society of the time.

The Great Train Robbery, Edwin S. Porter (1903)

“The Great Train Robbery” was written, produced and directed by Edwin S. Porter, who was a former cameraman for the Edison studios. The film showcased some ground-breaking filming methods at the time of its production. These included on location filming, which took place aboard the moving train. Porter also utilized early examples of camera movement. It could be argued that the film was the birth of the “Gangster” genre within the film industry. Martin Scorsese repeated the film’s final scene of a man firing a gun towards the camera, in his own film “Goodfellas.”

Reference: (2012-10-11). Drama and Adventure. Available: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edmpfr.html#DR. Last accessed 1 March 2013.

A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage dans la Lune) Georges Méliès (1902)

3.”A Trip to the Moon” is considered the first ever science fiction film. The films writer and director, Georges Méliès drew influence’s from two novels of the time: Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” and H. G. Wells’ “The First Men in the Moon.” The film serves as a primitive but pivotal example in cinema’s history, as it displays the basic fundamentals of the narrative structure. Within one scene the viewer first see’s the rocket landing in the moons “eye” and secondly landing on the moon’s surface. This gives the film a theme of illogicality.

Reference: Morwenna Ferrier. (2011). Georges Melies’ ‘resurrected’ 1902 classic Le Voyage dans la Lune to be screened at Cannes. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/cannes-film-festival/. Last accessed 2 March 2013.