In the 1930's directer Busby Berkeley reinvented musicals on film media. By drawing from the burlesque elements of the previous decade, Busby Berkeley manages to combine film, acting and dancing in such a way women are portrayed sexually as objects. An example of this combination is is 1941's Ziegfield Girls. Ziegfield Girls deal largely with the male gaze. However, try envisioning a film with its gender roles reserved, with a predominantly female gaze attached, say Zigfield Guys? To envision such a film, we first have to analyze aspects of the male gaze in Zigfield Girls.
To envision a film like Zigfield Guys, we first have to take a look and analyze how Zigfield Girls was constructed and how the women were objectified for the male gaze. Right from the beginning, we see how director Busby Berkeley brings us into his world, with a man ending his confession to a woman. This serves to tell us the purpose of what we were about to see, which was a "love story". However, if we pay closer attention to how the following sequence was constructed, we know this not to be true, that it was just a mere cover story for the "main event" which followed. This sequence begins with sexual attraction, where Tony Martin serenades a woman, confessing his love and pleading for her affection. However, as the sequence goes on, it slowly turns from sexual attraction into sexual objectification.
Even as Tony Martin belted out his love song, we see how the woman is objectified. The wardrobe in this opening scene betrays the intention of Busby Berkeley, to portray his women as glamorous beauties, and here we see how the woman is dressed in a long white dress, closely resembling a wedding gown. Also, a soft focus camera angle is used to induce of aura of mystery around the woman, emphasizing her beauty. In addition, as the scene unfolds, we do not see or hear the woman talking at all. According to feminist theory, sexual attraction is the being physically and emotionally attracted to the a person, compelled by that person's appearance, personality and individuality. Sexual objectification, on the other hand is the viewing of another person as de-personalized objects of desire, not taking into account his or her individualism, instead purely focusing on his or her physicality. And this, is a clear example of sexual objectification, as we do not learn or know of this woman's personality nor identity, and her mere purpose here is to be the object of Tony Martin's affection and to draw the male gaze.
We also see more evidence of sexual objectification in the scene where the Zigfield Girls slowly descend a flight of stairs in their long flowing robes. Here, it can be clearly seen that Busby Berkeley intends these girls to be objectified. The stairs in this scene is a signifier of how these women descend from a "higher" place, coming down from above and gracing us with their presence. Also, by coming from above, it shows how these girls are "untouchable", thereby increasing the male desire even more, playing to the innate human desire of the forbidden. This motif is of the forbidden has been constantly repeated, however the most obvious being how Adam and Eve succumbed and partook of the forbidden fruit. Also, another important element which reinforces the fact the these women were intended to be objectified as objects of sexual desire was the uniformity seen here in this scene. As they descended the flight of stairs, the women moved in a slow uniform manner, thereby eliminating the individuality of each of these women, instead turning them into a single unit of beautiful women, aimed at the male gaze. The casting of these Zigfield Girls is also reflective of the sexual objectification in this scene. Every single girl here was the stereotypical all American beauty, with blonde hair and blue eyes, unblemished "virgin" girls. It is also notable how similarly all these women look, that no one women in that scene was distinguishable from one another, reinforcing the fact that these women have no individuality.
So, moving on to envisioning a movie like Zigfield Guys, how then would the element of the male gaze be transferred to the female gaze? A good example of this would be Kylie Minogue's The One music video. Standing in stark contrast to Zigfield Girls, Kylie Minogue's video is all about the female gaze. As it opens with a half naked man dancing to the background of some fireworks, it immediately subverts the male authority over the female. By degrading males to the level of female sexual objectification, the males here in turn are no different from strippers, parading their body to satisfy the sexual fantasy of women. However, here is where the similarities end. As a male gets sexual gratification from the submission of a woman, females in turn are sexually gratified by the secret indulgence in their fantasies. This is mainly because in today's patriachal society, it seems perfectly fine for a man to indulge in his sexual desire, however it is shocking to say the least, if a female does the same. While a man gets sexual fulfillment from a woman's submission, a woman gets hers from the subversion of the male authority, or in other words, dominance over a man.
As the intro of the song begins, we see half naked male dancers literally "bending over backwards" to the music. This, in a way, is the subversion of the patriarchal power, a literal bowing down of the male, in the worship of a female. Also, the partial nudity in the opening dance sequence also serves to expose the vulnerability of the male. This is simple a toned down version of how a fully naked man is vulnerable, with his phallus exposed. Subsequently, the image of the male dancer is replaced by Kylie Minogue, symbolizing how Kylie, or the woman, is more powerful and dominant. Also, while the women in Ziegfield Girls are demurred and perfect, reinforcing the image of the perfect woman, Kylie Minogue portrays a woman who is wild and and confident of herself, imperfect as she may be. In fact, she embraces the male gaze, and turns it into something in her favor. By doing so, she turns herself into something of a femme fatale. In subverting the male power for the sexual gratification of the female, that would be the equivalent of the female sexual objectification.
Again, similarly to Ziegfield girls, the males in this sequence are not named, nor given an identity. In the same way this uniformity steals a person's individuality, this anonymity again robs the male of his power. As in a patriarchal society, the patriarch, or head of the family, gains his power from recognition. However, here precisely the opposite is happening. The man loses his power in his anonymity. He is degraded to a piece of eyecandy, for the pleasure of women. When a man is used in a way that bypasses his identity, that is where sexual objectification comes in.
In comparison to today's world, in view of gender equality, many films such as this Ziegfield Guy already exists. For instance, one of the biggest popstars of our century, lady Gaga, exercises the female gaze in many of her videos. In her video "Bad Romance", lady Gaga surrounds herself with hulky male dancers, embracing her sexuality and feminity, strengthening the concept of the female gaze. In the 50s, such an explicit video would have caused a furore, sparking cries of satanism, as men were expected to be given due respect, and such a video would have undermined them. Hypocritically, yet it is okay for dancers to be female, attracting the male gaze.
Friday, 9 December 2011
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Final Essay: Titanic (1997) and Metropolis comparison essay
Both Titanic (1997) directed by James Cameron and Metropolis by Fritz Lang were set in a society where a vast gap separates the upper class from the lower class. In many ways, Titanic is a reflection of Metropolis, and Metropolis of Titanic. Both movies explores the issue of class struggle with Jack entering the world of the upper class society while Freder discovers the hidden underworld of his utopia. Although quite subtly, both these movies have many Marxist elements to them. While Metropolis ends with a change in terms of the class struggle faced by the lower class workers, the change in societal order in Titanic was only temporal. Water, which is used excessively in both movies, a universal symbol, represents many things including purity, renewal and also equality. Both movies have many similar representations of the class struggle and Marxist theory, however differ in terms of their protagonists (Jack and Freder, Rose and Maria) and their representation of water.
The class struggle, In both Titanic and Metropolis, the subject of class struggle is explored in many ways. The class struggle is very much a power struggle, with the strong dominating the weak. In the case of Titanic, Cal is the representation of the dominant upper class male, with abundant wealth and power at his disposal. On the other hand, Joh Frederson in Metropolis is very much like the state, as Karl Marx puts it, in his supremacy as the creator of Metropolis, subduing the weak. As the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker, it is the epitome of capitalistic ideals. The two different views Titanic and Metropolis contrast the power struggle in society; the first being an upper class view, where Freder ventures into the dark abyss of the workers living underneath the city; another by Jack, a lowly nobody, breaking through into the posh upper class society of the rich. By comparing these two films, we are able to juxtapose the difference in they way both movies portray the upper class and lower class, and even more than that, the similarities between them.
As we take a deeper look into Titanic, we see how differently people are treated simply because of their class status. In the scene where Rose tries to commit suicide, after being saved by Jack, instead of being congratulated a hero, he was instead arrested under the accusation of trying to outrage her modesty, and all this simply because he was from a lower class. As the incident was cleared up, we then see Cal offering Jack a $20 as a reward for saving Rose, his so-called "fiance". This shows Cal's clear disdain of Jack because of his class status, and even so, he only did it to seem grateful, under the prodding of the master of arms. In contrast, in Metropolis, in the scene where Freder met Maria for the first time by accident, we see how Maria and the children were hushed and ushered back out of the utopia by the four gleaming ushers, clearly not wanting Freder to see or know about the hidden underworld beneath the utopia of Metropolis. At the time, the dirty rags the children were wearing clearly has a double meaning. It is not just physically dirty, but in a way, the ushers didn't want these "dirty" people from the underworld, coming up and spoiling the perfect and gay illusion of utopia Metropolis that the upper class had. This clearly reflects how the dominant class in society exercise their power in trampling over the weak.
The way the different classes of society are separated in both movies are also interestingly similar. In Titanic, the upper class mainly occupied the upper decks, while the lower class lived below, in the bowels of the ship. This is a direct metaphor for the different classes in which people belonged, with those of upper standing occupying the higher decks, as with many other things in life as well. This is especially evident in the moral dilemma the audience was presented with as Titanic went down, that how could one's life be valued higher than another's, where the rich had the priority to all the life boats. Everyone should be given an equal chance for their own survival. Besides the physical separation, there is also a mental wall that sets the upper class apart from the lower class. An interesting character to note here is Molly, whose husband had made an overnight fortune, and landed themselves on Titanic. The mental barrier is clearly seen here, as Mrs. Ruby called her, "new money", meaning someone who only had become rich recently. The class separation is portrayed in the behavior, tone and norms Molly had, from her rougher language, texas accent and mannerism, earning her the cold shoulders of the other upper class women. This is especially intriguing as outwardly, she seems to be a normal upper class woman, but insides she's still the same rough and tumble person inside. What we see and what we know contradict each other, just as how many people are not who they seem to be.
Feminist roles in society also adds another dimension to this analysis of class struggle. As feminism and power go hand in hand, we can see how feminist roles in Titanic and Metropolis links the class struggle, or otherwise the power struggle in society. The most important women in each of these movies are Rose and Maria. Rose is a classic representation of what an upper class woman should be, gentle, well brought up. The "upper class" society expects a young woman like her to be demurred, submissive, and not to mingle with men, especially those with a lower social status. However, she doesn't conform to those expectations, instead she runs around Titanic with Jack, romancing him and even posing naked for him. What more, all that while, she's actually engaged and set to be married soon. Her actions do not reflect her status as an upper class woman, instead resembling more of a (excuse the language) whore, which she actually was called a few times. The archetype of a young woman is representative of patriarchal power, because that in having a powerful patriarch, would it be possible for a undefiled, pure virgin woman like Rose to come forth. However, by associating herself with a lower classed male, in a way, she is actually surrendering the patriarchal dominant power which the upper class has over the lower class. In Metropolis, Maria is a similarly curious character, a compassionate young woman bringing hope to a hopeless world. Maria stands out like a sore thumb among the plainly dressed workers of Metropolis' underground world. It is also highly unusual for a girl to be alone like that in a lower class society, which is today's equivalent of a young white girl to live alone in Harlem. Maria acts as a beacon of light in the darkness, and even her name, Maria, is derived from Mary, which was the name of the mother of Jesus. In a way, Maria preempted the "savior", as how a mother always comes before her child, or in the words of the movie, the "heart" between the brain and the hands, who was Freder. Here however, the patriarchal power here comes in terms of God, the father. This is evident with the countless references Maria made to the bible, telling her sheep to be patient in waiting for their savior. And in the same way Jesus came and saved men from their sins, Freder would then come down from above (the upper class) and finally free them from the oppression of the state.
No class struggle analysis would be complete without Marx, and in both Titanic and Metropolis, we see many elements of Marxist theory. In accordance to Marx that human societies divide, we see the division of societies here in both Titanic and Metropolis, in which case are the upper class and lower class societies. Marx states that there is only one driving force in this world, which is materialism, and that nothing else mattered. In a way this is true as both Titanic the ship and Metropolis the city are the epitome of materialistic idealism, two great monuments testifying to the economic power of man. Titanic was the biggest ship ever built for its time, and was touted "unsinkable", Metropolis on the other hand, was a utopia, and idealistic city of the future, created single handedly by a man- Joh Frederson. Marx's critique of capitalism also rings true in that capitalism has to do with exploitation, as seen in Metropolis, where the underground workers are ceaselessly exploited, to create this utopia, but only for the rich. Marx states that in a capitalism society, the value of labor of both the workers in Metropolis and the lower class people in Titanic are distorted, for instance, the reward Cal offered Jack for saving Rose. Furthermore, another example of alienation of labor according to Marxist theory is in the throngs of purposeless workers seen in the bowels on Metropolis. As Marx said, the workers are alienated from the products of their labor, producing things which do not benefit them, and therefore get discouraged easily, as what they do does not affect them in any way. The only way for this to change is for the working class to rise up agaisnt the "state", as we saw how the workers in Metropolis revolted and destroyed the heart machine.
Semiotics of water Water is a defining element in both Titanic and Metropolis, as both films climaxes with an overflowing of water. To gain a deeper understanding of what the water means in these two movies, we first have to understand the semiotics and signifiers of water. Water is a universal symbol, recognizable by everyone in the world. In my cultures and religions, water represents life, as without water we cannot survive. In man religions, water also represents cleansing, physical and spiritual cleansing on sins. From baptism to washing before prayers to Hindu devotees taking baths in river, water is a symbol for cleansing and healing. Furthermore, water also represents purity and closure, giving things a sense of finality.
Water in both these movies serve to bring change and new life. In Titanic, in the scene where the bow of the ship had already went under, the strings quartet continued to play, which then faded to silence, it was as if the water had taken over the sound. All we hear when the ship goes down is silence, before the frantic screaming begins. In a way, this water which brings silence, also brings equality. Before this water, everyone is equal. All the class struggles are swept aside, just as how a flood sweeps aside everything in its way. This water that washes over the ship, albeit deadly, brings peace along with it as well, purifying, cleansing and making new. In the same way new life is birthed out of death, this water has seemed to bring a new life to all those who survived it. The usage of water in Metropolis is slightly different than Titanic. In a way, the water is a personification of the workers rebellion, sweeping across the city. As the heart machine is destroyed, we see the water gushing into the underground city. However, as this water is pouring in, a sense of relief or awakening seems to wash over the crowd of workers, that they were misguided by the "witch". The water here also served to unite the people, in the scene where all the children gathered around a faltering Maria in the middle of the underground city. In addition, this flood or water seemed to have matured Freder, where we can see a different Freder emerging from the water, as if he were baptized, who then went on and defeated Rotwang.
In Titanic and Metropolis, we see both Jack and Freder, along with Rose and Maria, transcend the class barrier which the societies they lived in has set up around them. In a parallel comparison, we see Jack and Maria ventured upward, while Freder and Rose went down into the bowels of his city. These two people each acted as the heart, the mediator, the man middle man between the class struggle. And in the end, just as Marx said, that all previous exploitation institutions must go; the workers rose up, like a flood, and swept over the city. Like in titanic, as the ship was being swallowed by the sea, whatever wealth and status symbols that previously had separated the classes were wiped clean, everyone was equal before the water, however temporal.
In a way, Titanic and Metropolis are about the clashing of ideals. It personifies the difference between idealized capitalism against Marxist communism. Just as how Titanic and Metropolis are capitalist monuments, our world today is filled with many other monuments which show off the "patriarchal power" of the ruling class, of a country, such our very own Petronas Towers. However, at the same time, hidden beneath the surface are the working class people, dominated and exploited. I particularly like how Titanic ends, that in the end, everyone was left in the water regardless of class, equal, wiped clean.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
The class struggle, In both Titanic and Metropolis, the subject of class struggle is explored in many ways. The class struggle is very much a power struggle, with the strong dominating the weak. In the case of Titanic, Cal is the representation of the dominant upper class male, with abundant wealth and power at his disposal. On the other hand, Joh Frederson in Metropolis is very much like the state, as Karl Marx puts it, in his supremacy as the creator of Metropolis, subduing the weak. As the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker, it is the epitome of capitalistic ideals. The two different views Titanic and Metropolis contrast the power struggle in society; the first being an upper class view, where Freder ventures into the dark abyss of the workers living underneath the city; another by Jack, a lowly nobody, breaking through into the posh upper class society of the rich. By comparing these two films, we are able to juxtapose the difference in they way both movies portray the upper class and lower class, and even more than that, the similarities between them.
As we take a deeper look into Titanic, we see how differently people are treated simply because of their class status. In the scene where Rose tries to commit suicide, after being saved by Jack, instead of being congratulated a hero, he was instead arrested under the accusation of trying to outrage her modesty, and all this simply because he was from a lower class. As the incident was cleared up, we then see Cal offering Jack a $20 as a reward for saving Rose, his so-called "fiance". This shows Cal's clear disdain of Jack because of his class status, and even so, he only did it to seem grateful, under the prodding of the master of arms. In contrast, in Metropolis, in the scene where Freder met Maria for the first time by accident, we see how Maria and the children were hushed and ushered back out of the utopia by the four gleaming ushers, clearly not wanting Freder to see or know about the hidden underworld beneath the utopia of Metropolis. At the time, the dirty rags the children were wearing clearly has a double meaning. It is not just physically dirty, but in a way, the ushers didn't want these "dirty" people from the underworld, coming up and spoiling the perfect and gay illusion of utopia Metropolis that the upper class had. This clearly reflects how the dominant class in society exercise their power in trampling over the weak.
The way the different classes of society are separated in both movies are also interestingly similar. In Titanic, the upper class mainly occupied the upper decks, while the lower class lived below, in the bowels of the ship. This is a direct metaphor for the different classes in which people belonged, with those of upper standing occupying the higher decks, as with many other things in life as well. This is especially evident in the moral dilemma the audience was presented with as Titanic went down, that how could one's life be valued higher than another's, where the rich had the priority to all the life boats. Everyone should be given an equal chance for their own survival. Besides the physical separation, there is also a mental wall that sets the upper class apart from the lower class. An interesting character to note here is Molly, whose husband had made an overnight fortune, and landed themselves on Titanic. The mental barrier is clearly seen here, as Mrs. Ruby called her, "new money", meaning someone who only had become rich recently. The class separation is portrayed in the behavior, tone and norms Molly had, from her rougher language, texas accent and mannerism, earning her the cold shoulders of the other upper class women. This is especially intriguing as outwardly, she seems to be a normal upper class woman, but insides she's still the same rough and tumble person inside. What we see and what we know contradict each other, just as how many people are not who they seem to be.
Feminist roles in society also adds another dimension to this analysis of class struggle. As feminism and power go hand in hand, we can see how feminist roles in Titanic and Metropolis links the class struggle, or otherwise the power struggle in society. The most important women in each of these movies are Rose and Maria. Rose is a classic representation of what an upper class woman should be, gentle, well brought up. The "upper class" society expects a young woman like her to be demurred, submissive, and not to mingle with men, especially those with a lower social status. However, she doesn't conform to those expectations, instead she runs around Titanic with Jack, romancing him and even posing naked for him. What more, all that while, she's actually engaged and set to be married soon. Her actions do not reflect her status as an upper class woman, instead resembling more of a (excuse the language) whore, which she actually was called a few times. The archetype of a young woman is representative of patriarchal power, because that in having a powerful patriarch, would it be possible for a undefiled, pure virgin woman like Rose to come forth. However, by associating herself with a lower classed male, in a way, she is actually surrendering the patriarchal dominant power which the upper class has over the lower class. In Metropolis, Maria is a similarly curious character, a compassionate young woman bringing hope to a hopeless world. Maria stands out like a sore thumb among the plainly dressed workers of Metropolis' underground world. It is also highly unusual for a girl to be alone like that in a lower class society, which is today's equivalent of a young white girl to live alone in Harlem. Maria acts as a beacon of light in the darkness, and even her name, Maria, is derived from Mary, which was the name of the mother of Jesus. In a way, Maria preempted the "savior", as how a mother always comes before her child, or in the words of the movie, the "heart" between the brain and the hands, who was Freder. Here however, the patriarchal power here comes in terms of God, the father. This is evident with the countless references Maria made to the bible, telling her sheep to be patient in waiting for their savior. And in the same way Jesus came and saved men from their sins, Freder would then come down from above (the upper class) and finally free them from the oppression of the state.
No class struggle analysis would be complete without Marx, and in both Titanic and Metropolis, we see many elements of Marxist theory. In accordance to Marx that human societies divide, we see the division of societies here in both Titanic and Metropolis, in which case are the upper class and lower class societies. Marx states that there is only one driving force in this world, which is materialism, and that nothing else mattered. In a way this is true as both Titanic the ship and Metropolis the city are the epitome of materialistic idealism, two great monuments testifying to the economic power of man. Titanic was the biggest ship ever built for its time, and was touted "unsinkable", Metropolis on the other hand, was a utopia, and idealistic city of the future, created single handedly by a man- Joh Frederson. Marx's critique of capitalism also rings true in that capitalism has to do with exploitation, as seen in Metropolis, where the underground workers are ceaselessly exploited, to create this utopia, but only for the rich. Marx states that in a capitalism society, the value of labor of both the workers in Metropolis and the lower class people in Titanic are distorted, for instance, the reward Cal offered Jack for saving Rose. Furthermore, another example of alienation of labor according to Marxist theory is in the throngs of purposeless workers seen in the bowels on Metropolis. As Marx said, the workers are alienated from the products of their labor, producing things which do not benefit them, and therefore get discouraged easily, as what they do does not affect them in any way. The only way for this to change is for the working class to rise up agaisnt the "state", as we saw how the workers in Metropolis revolted and destroyed the heart machine.
Semiotics of water Water is a defining element in both Titanic and Metropolis, as both films climaxes with an overflowing of water. To gain a deeper understanding of what the water means in these two movies, we first have to understand the semiotics and signifiers of water. Water is a universal symbol, recognizable by everyone in the world. In my cultures and religions, water represents life, as without water we cannot survive. In man religions, water also represents cleansing, physical and spiritual cleansing on sins. From baptism to washing before prayers to Hindu devotees taking baths in river, water is a symbol for cleansing and healing. Furthermore, water also represents purity and closure, giving things a sense of finality.
Water in both these movies serve to bring change and new life. In Titanic, in the scene where the bow of the ship had already went under, the strings quartet continued to play, which then faded to silence, it was as if the water had taken over the sound. All we hear when the ship goes down is silence, before the frantic screaming begins. In a way, this water which brings silence, also brings equality. Before this water, everyone is equal. All the class struggles are swept aside, just as how a flood sweeps aside everything in its way. This water that washes over the ship, albeit deadly, brings peace along with it as well, purifying, cleansing and making new. In the same way new life is birthed out of death, this water has seemed to bring a new life to all those who survived it. The usage of water in Metropolis is slightly different than Titanic. In a way, the water is a personification of the workers rebellion, sweeping across the city. As the heart machine is destroyed, we see the water gushing into the underground city. However, as this water is pouring in, a sense of relief or awakening seems to wash over the crowd of workers, that they were misguided by the "witch". The water here also served to unite the people, in the scene where all the children gathered around a faltering Maria in the middle of the underground city. In addition, this flood or water seemed to have matured Freder, where we can see a different Freder emerging from the water, as if he were baptized, who then went on and defeated Rotwang.
In Titanic and Metropolis, we see both Jack and Freder, along with Rose and Maria, transcend the class barrier which the societies they lived in has set up around them. In a parallel comparison, we see Jack and Maria ventured upward, while Freder and Rose went down into the bowels of his city. These two people each acted as the heart, the mediator, the man middle man between the class struggle. And in the end, just as Marx said, that all previous exploitation institutions must go; the workers rose up, like a flood, and swept over the city. Like in titanic, as the ship was being swallowed by the sea, whatever wealth and status symbols that previously had separated the classes were wiped clean, everyone was equal before the water, however temporal.
In a way, Titanic and Metropolis are about the clashing of ideals. It personifies the difference between idealized capitalism against Marxist communism. Just as how Titanic and Metropolis are capitalist monuments, our world today is filled with many other monuments which show off the "patriarchal power" of the ruling class, of a country, such our very own Petronas Towers. However, at the same time, hidden beneath the surface are the working class people, dominated and exploited. I particularly like how Titanic ends, that in the end, everyone was left in the water regardless of class, equal, wiped clean.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
Friday, 2 December 2011
BOOP BOOP DE BOOP
Marilyn Monroe is widely touted as the sex symbol of the 60s and 70s. In one of her more renowned works, she shows us exactly why that is so. Some like it Hot is rated one of the best comedies is American Cinema to date. Throughout the entire length of the film, the director played with semiotics, feminists theory and the male gaze to "seduce" the audience. This is especially evident in Marilyn's number, "I want to be loved by you". In this short sequence, we further analyze the how male gaze is manipulated and the use of symbolism in manipulating it.
Right from the very beginning, we see the choice to use chiaroscuro lighting to highlight Sugar and the disco ball in the middle of the ballroom. Amidst the grey and dark mass of people, Sugar stands out like a sparkling diamond, outshining everything else in that ballroom. The high key lighting used here to create contrast shows how enchanting and beautiful Monroe is, to an extend even portraying her like an angel. As the camera closes in on Sugar, we see her standing higher than the mass of heads below her, in a way elevating her to a higher level than them. Also, this could represent how the male gaze worships her, and even more so, her body. At the same time, we also can't help but notice how seductively she is dressed. In wearing a body hugging dress the same color as her skin, it instantly draws the audience in to pay closer attention to her bust line, while at the same time, the dark shadow dances tantalizingly up and down her bust. Effectively, this has drawn us into the world of Marilyn Monroe, we hang on to her every word, and at that instant, we were completely at her mercy.
We are drawn to her every gesture, from moving her hands seductively up and down the length of her body to the slightest flicker of her eyes. Her movements were innocent yet and the same time seductive, with every movement of her hand- inviting us to come closer; a shrug of her shoulder- innocence; and even near the end, her eyes rolled up into her sockets, even as if she was having an orgasm singing to us. With the last line of the song, "boom boom de boop", it was as if she was blowing a kiss towards the audience, drawing us even deeper into her charm. As she turned away, she revealed her bare-backed dress, effectively showing us what we had wanted to see throughout the span of the song, and with a playful shrug, walked off the stage. Monroe knew what men wanted, and that she became. A full bodied young women with the innocence and playfulness of a child.
The male gaze in this sequence is embodied in the brief but sure shot of Osgood Fielding waving at Daphne and Josephine while they were playing. With a smug smile and a wave of his hand, he was showing them his pleasure from watching them perform for HIM. And that essentially is the male gaze, the sense of dominance a man feels when a woman does something for his pleasure. In a way, a man feels self gratified when a woman submits, albeit indirectly to his will. The male superego is gratified when a man is able to establish this dominance over someone or something. In this case, a man feels powerful when he is able to get women to do things for his pleasure. However, what Osgood Feilding didn't know was that he was actually flirting with a man. And that is where symbolism comes in.
Drawing our focus to symbolism in the movie, the shot of Daphne and Josephine receiving flowers from each of their admirers no doubt draws some laughs from us. However, it is also extremely ironic as they are not who they seem to be. In actual fact, they are men dressed as girls. Symbolically, someone who acts like a girl, talks like a girl and dresses like a girl is a girl. However, this is not the case with them, as it is also not with many other things in the movie, which aren't what they seems to be. For instance, at first glance, one may write off Osgood Fielding, simply by the typology of his face, that he was a dirty old man who craved for sex. However, we soon find out that it is not the case, that in fact he was a sweet gentlemen who genuinely desired love. Another example is in the case of Mr. Shell Jr., Sugar thought that she had met the man of her dreams, rich, caring and what not. However, we know all too well that he was actually Josephine, and Josephine on the other hand, was actually Joe. Nobody is who they seem to be. The symbolism here is intriguing. On the surface, it seemed that Mr. Shell Jr. was a rich billionaire, when in fact he was Josephine; Josephine seemed to be a demure woman from a conservatory, when in fact she was actually Joe. In addition, we also see how symbolism was used by Joe to get intimate with Sugar. Symbolically, Mr. Shell Jr. was a man, yet, Joe tells Sugar that he does not have the "potency" of a man, wherein he suffers for erectile dysfunction. So does this make him a man or not? This manipulation of signifiers in the movie sends confusing signals to Sugar, which finally induces her to get intimate with him.
The signifier of sending flowers also has a dominant cultural meaning. The meaning of a gesture lies in the interpreter of the gesture, where a sign has no meaning unless it is interpreted. In many cultures, flowers are sent by men to women. By sending flowers, a men establishes his dominance in the relationship as he is actually the one whom is in control. An unmannered/rude man wouldn't send flowers like what a gentlemen would do. In this sequence, we see Osgood Fielding sending flowers to two men instead of women. However, the meaning of this gesture is distorted to the audience, as we know that Daphne and Josephine were both men. Also, through a simple signifying gesture of sending flowers, we actually see the difference in character between Osgood Fielding and the Bellhop. We discern that while one is a true gentlemen, the other is simply a sexually charged teenager, from a mere simple gesture. Semiotics are widely used throughout the rest of the movie. As many issues discussed in this movies are culturally sensitive or inappropriate, many forms of symbolizers are used to cover up what is actually being said. For instance, when Sugar said that she always got the "fuzzy end of the lollipop," she actually meant some other "lollipop". Also, words like "toothpaste", "italian opera" and so on are some of the signifiers used throughout the movie to mean something else entirely. Even the "problem" Mr. Shell Jr. meant when he took Sugar on his boat was referring to something more culturally sensitive which was erectile dysfunction. Taking it even further, this "problem", which was supposed to make him "safe" from girls, was actually turned on its head and used to take advantage of Sugar.
From a feminist view, symbolically, Josephine, or Joe was a man, in the sense that he was in love with Sugar, yet he was dressed up as a woman. On the other hand, Daphne was the embodiment of a woman, in finally becoming a real "woman" even accepting the captain's proposal, but in fact he was actually a man. This is extremely ironic. The use symbolism in this movie truly adds another layer of humor to it. The classic player, portrayed by Joe here, is actually a man dressed up as a woman playing a man, and using his/her friendship with Sugar to take advantage of her vulnerability. However, the woman, Daphne, actually falls in love and gets whisked on a fantastic romance with Osgood Fielding, who in actual fact, a man! As we take a closer look at the characters portrayed by both these men, we actually see elements of feminity in both of them. Physically they are fully male, but because of this transformation, we see them actually incorporate elements of the female physique into their character. And not forgetting Marilyn Monroe, although she plays the naive blonde in this movie, underneath that, she's actually the a femme fatale. She leverages her beauty and seduction to her benefit, playing to the male gaze, so as to getting what she wants. And this is true even today, that because of that vulnerability, today she's one of the most well known sex-symbols on the planet. And it is no wonder that this kind of humor and irony that has garnered Some like it Hot a top spot as one of the best comedies ever made.
Right from the very beginning, we see the choice to use chiaroscuro lighting to highlight Sugar and the disco ball in the middle of the ballroom. Amidst the grey and dark mass of people, Sugar stands out like a sparkling diamond, outshining everything else in that ballroom. The high key lighting used here to create contrast shows how enchanting and beautiful Monroe is, to an extend even portraying her like an angel. As the camera closes in on Sugar, we see her standing higher than the mass of heads below her, in a way elevating her to a higher level than them. Also, this could represent how the male gaze worships her, and even more so, her body. At the same time, we also can't help but notice how seductively she is dressed. In wearing a body hugging dress the same color as her skin, it instantly draws the audience in to pay closer attention to her bust line, while at the same time, the dark shadow dances tantalizingly up and down her bust. Effectively, this has drawn us into the world of Marilyn Monroe, we hang on to her every word, and at that instant, we were completely at her mercy.
The same lighting technique continues to be used throughout the length of the number, effectively drowning out the performers at the back, solely focusing our attention on the one person that mattered in the sequence, Monroe. No doubt that she has become the object of sexual objectification here. This, in addition to the one sided lyrics such as "I wanna kissed by you, just you." couldn't be any more subtle. From this, we can see that the sexual objectification of Monroe was specifically aimed at the male gaze, as the lyrics were clearly aimed for men, not women. Lyrics like these play to the male superego, as it exposes Monroe's vulnerability, almost as if she was yearning for a man to sweep her off her feet and kiss her. Obviously the same wouldn't be true if a woman was listening to this. It was as if she was calling to every man who was listening to her, "come and get me!"
The male gaze in this sequence is embodied in the brief but sure shot of Osgood Fielding waving at Daphne and Josephine while they were playing. With a smug smile and a wave of his hand, he was showing them his pleasure from watching them perform for HIM. And that essentially is the male gaze, the sense of dominance a man feels when a woman does something for his pleasure. In a way, a man feels self gratified when a woman submits, albeit indirectly to his will. The male superego is gratified when a man is able to establish this dominance over someone or something. In this case, a man feels powerful when he is able to get women to do things for his pleasure. However, what Osgood Feilding didn't know was that he was actually flirting with a man. And that is where symbolism comes in.
Drawing our focus to symbolism in the movie, the shot of Daphne and Josephine receiving flowers from each of their admirers no doubt draws some laughs from us. However, it is also extremely ironic as they are not who they seem to be. In actual fact, they are men dressed as girls. Symbolically, someone who acts like a girl, talks like a girl and dresses like a girl is a girl. However, this is not the case with them, as it is also not with many other things in the movie, which aren't what they seems to be. For instance, at first glance, one may write off Osgood Fielding, simply by the typology of his face, that he was a dirty old man who craved for sex. However, we soon find out that it is not the case, that in fact he was a sweet gentlemen who genuinely desired love. Another example is in the case of Mr. Shell Jr., Sugar thought that she had met the man of her dreams, rich, caring and what not. However, we know all too well that he was actually Josephine, and Josephine on the other hand, was actually Joe. Nobody is who they seem to be. The symbolism here is intriguing. On the surface, it seemed that Mr. Shell Jr. was a rich billionaire, when in fact he was Josephine; Josephine seemed to be a demure woman from a conservatory, when in fact she was actually Joe. In addition, we also see how symbolism was used by Joe to get intimate with Sugar. Symbolically, Mr. Shell Jr. was a man, yet, Joe tells Sugar that he does not have the "potency" of a man, wherein he suffers for erectile dysfunction. So does this make him a man or not? This manipulation of signifiers in the movie sends confusing signals to Sugar, which finally induces her to get intimate with him.
The signifier of sending flowers also has a dominant cultural meaning. The meaning of a gesture lies in the interpreter of the gesture, where a sign has no meaning unless it is interpreted. In many cultures, flowers are sent by men to women. By sending flowers, a men establishes his dominance in the relationship as he is actually the one whom is in control. An unmannered/rude man wouldn't send flowers like what a gentlemen would do. In this sequence, we see Osgood Fielding sending flowers to two men instead of women. However, the meaning of this gesture is distorted to the audience, as we know that Daphne and Josephine were both men. Also, through a simple signifying gesture of sending flowers, we actually see the difference in character between Osgood Fielding and the Bellhop. We discern that while one is a true gentlemen, the other is simply a sexually charged teenager, from a mere simple gesture. Semiotics are widely used throughout the rest of the movie. As many issues discussed in this movies are culturally sensitive or inappropriate, many forms of symbolizers are used to cover up what is actually being said. For instance, when Sugar said that she always got the "fuzzy end of the lollipop," she actually meant some other "lollipop". Also, words like "toothpaste", "italian opera" and so on are some of the signifiers used throughout the movie to mean something else entirely. Even the "problem" Mr. Shell Jr. meant when he took Sugar on his boat was referring to something more culturally sensitive which was erectile dysfunction. Taking it even further, this "problem", which was supposed to make him "safe" from girls, was actually turned on its head and used to take advantage of Sugar.
From a feminist view, symbolically, Josephine, or Joe was a man, in the sense that he was in love with Sugar, yet he was dressed up as a woman. On the other hand, Daphne was the embodiment of a woman, in finally becoming a real "woman" even accepting the captain's proposal, but in fact he was actually a man. This is extremely ironic. The use symbolism in this movie truly adds another layer of humor to it. The classic player, portrayed by Joe here, is actually a man dressed up as a woman playing a man, and using his/her friendship with Sugar to take advantage of her vulnerability. However, the woman, Daphne, actually falls in love and gets whisked on a fantastic romance with Osgood Fielding, who in actual fact, a man! As we take a closer look at the characters portrayed by both these men, we actually see elements of feminity in both of them. Physically they are fully male, but because of this transformation, we see them actually incorporate elements of the female physique into their character. And not forgetting Marilyn Monroe, although she plays the naive blonde in this movie, underneath that, she's actually the a femme fatale. She leverages her beauty and seduction to her benefit, playing to the male gaze, so as to getting what she wants. And this is true even today, that because of that vulnerability, today she's one of the most well known sex-symbols on the planet. And it is no wonder that this kind of humor and irony that has garnered Some like it Hot a top spot as one of the best comedies ever made.
Tuesday, 29 November 2011
Singing in the rain (revised)
Singing in the rain is and always will be one of the all time Hollywood greats ever made in modern cinema. With intricately crafted numbers like "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love", "Good mornin'" and even the show's namesake, "Singing in the rain", Singing in the rain will go down as one of the most beautifully crafted musicals in Hollywood. In each and every musical sequence, directors Stanley Donan and Gene Kelly pays detailed attention to every aspect of the mise-en-scene, from the choreography, costumes, setting, all the way to the lyrics and placement. In this essay, i especially want to highlight some of these songs which I find particularly intriguing. Interestingly, each and every song is perfectly placed at every important junction or turning point, to highlight the plot points the director intends to carry through.
Fit as a fiddle
In this beautifully choreographed number, we see Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor dancing on stage in a vaudeville fashion. This number was intercut between Gene Kelly's narration of his dignified childhood days. Ironically, in this number, instead of dignity, we see Gene Kelly making a fool of himself for the audience's entertainment. In the fashion of vaudeville, we can see the childlike playfulness of Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor as they performed, with jumping on each other's backs, tap dancing and what not. Also, the lyrics "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love", here reflect a pair of eager young men, ready to go out and conquer the world, naive as they may be.
The setting and costumes here play an important role in the narrative. The green striped suits the pair were wearing was aimed at drawing out laughs from the audience, while at the same time not fully exposing their vulnerabilities. The choreography seen here, while at the same time comic, is actually quite degrading. In fact, this is a stab at how Hollywood in actual fact is all a big lie, where so many things are made up to be more than what they are. Furthermore, this piece serves to introduce us to the two main protagonists in the movie, to show us who they really are on the inside, and their journey to achieving fame. Also, this piece injects a burst of energy into the audience, helping this film start off on a high note.
Good mornin'
We see our 3 protagonists at their lowest point in the film, where Gene Kelly is facing the end of his career with the flopped debut of his first talking picture, the "Dueling Cavalier". At the beginning of this number, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor renews his hopes by suggesting he turn the "Dueling Cavalier" into the "Dancing Cavalier". The lyrics and setting were precisely constructed to symbolize the optimism and new hope felt by the characters. With lyrics like "the sun was shining bright", and "sunbeam will soon shine through", this song serves to bring out the joy and optimism felt by the characters. The clearing sky after a storm also serves as a metaphor for the end of bad times. Also, the time, 1.30am, is right after the darkest hour of the night has passed, preempting the dawn of a new day.
The title of this song, "Good mornin'" also carries a double meaning where it is not just simply a greeting, but a celebration of a truly good morning. In this piece, the choreography is in itself brilliant. As the characters are dancing, they move from room to room, exuding energy, and to an extend of being boyish maybe. This type of choreography reminds us of the same playful boyish energy in the first number of this movie. Also, as the characters danced around the house, they began to pick up the same raincoats which they wore for the Dueling Cavalier's premier. When before, these raincoats served to protect them from the rain and the embarrassment, but now they were part of their celebration in the coming of a new dawn.
Singing in the rain
Lastly, we come to the film's titular song, "Singing in the rain". In a way, this is actually the most romantic song in the whole movie. In that simple gesture of sending his driver off, he metaphorically walked away from his previously glamorous Hollywood life into the simplicity of the rain, even as he is also walking away from the love and adoration of many to needing the sole love from Debbie Reynolds. This song is the culmination of Gene Kelly's passion and ecstasy that followed his kiss with Debbie Reynolds.
Here we see Gene Kelly shedding his outer raincoat, along with sending his driver off, symbolizing his move away from the need of the adoration of the people to the sole adoration of Debbie Reynolds, liberating himself from the conventions of Hollywood. His raincoat, which had previously always served to shield him, now was nowhere to be seen. As the song progresses, Gene Kelly waves and smiles to random strangers he meets, and dances around on lampposts, regardless of his own dignity. After awhile, he feels the raindrops, and simply closes his umbrella, his shield, in a way embracing the new life he now has. The symmetry of the film is also starkly ironic, in a hypocritical way, the very same man who previously bragged about the way he lived with dignity, was now without a trace of it. The mise-en-scene in this number is also very powerful. Water is used abundantly and freely drenching Gene Kelly from head to toe. Traditionally, water has been a symbol of purification, freedom and also new life.
From the lyrics, with lines like "Such a glorious feeling, I'm happy again", and "The sun's in my heart, I'm ready for love", we can see and feel Gene Kelly's unbounded joy and happiness, along with his euphoric love for Debbie Reynolds. This indicates Gene Kelly's sincere joy from his breaking free of the conventional norms that had tied him down due to his position in Hollywood. As the song reached its climax, Gene Kelly jumps and dances around in a puddle of water by the roadside. In that very instant, he became a kid again. The playful boyish energy that he had once had had returned, marking his transition into a man, fully confident of who he is.
Fit as a fiddle
In this beautifully choreographed number, we see Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor dancing on stage in a vaudeville fashion. This number was intercut between Gene Kelly's narration of his dignified childhood days. Ironically, in this number, instead of dignity, we see Gene Kelly making a fool of himself for the audience's entertainment. In the fashion of vaudeville, we can see the childlike playfulness of Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor as they performed, with jumping on each other's backs, tap dancing and what not. Also, the lyrics "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love", here reflect a pair of eager young men, ready to go out and conquer the world, naive as they may be.
The setting and costumes here play an important role in the narrative. The green striped suits the pair were wearing was aimed at drawing out laughs from the audience, while at the same time not fully exposing their vulnerabilities. The choreography seen here, while at the same time comic, is actually quite degrading. In fact, this is a stab at how Hollywood in actual fact is all a big lie, where so many things are made up to be more than what they are. Furthermore, this piece serves to introduce us to the two main protagonists in the movie, to show us who they really are on the inside, and their journey to achieving fame. Also, this piece injects a burst of energy into the audience, helping this film start off on a high note.
Good mornin'
We see our 3 protagonists at their lowest point in the film, where Gene Kelly is facing the end of his career with the flopped debut of his first talking picture, the "Dueling Cavalier". At the beginning of this number, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor renews his hopes by suggesting he turn the "Dueling Cavalier" into the "Dancing Cavalier". The lyrics and setting were precisely constructed to symbolize the optimism and new hope felt by the characters. With lyrics like "the sun was shining bright", and "sunbeam will soon shine through", this song serves to bring out the joy and optimism felt by the characters. The clearing sky after a storm also serves as a metaphor for the end of bad times. Also, the time, 1.30am, is right after the darkest hour of the night has passed, preempting the dawn of a new day.
The title of this song, "Good mornin'" also carries a double meaning where it is not just simply a greeting, but a celebration of a truly good morning. In this piece, the choreography is in itself brilliant. As the characters are dancing, they move from room to room, exuding energy, and to an extend of being boyish maybe. This type of choreography reminds us of the same playful boyish energy in the first number of this movie. Also, as the characters danced around the house, they began to pick up the same raincoats which they wore for the Dueling Cavalier's premier. When before, these raincoats served to protect them from the rain and the embarrassment, but now they were part of their celebration in the coming of a new dawn.
Singing in the rain
Lastly, we come to the film's titular song, "Singing in the rain". In a way, this is actually the most romantic song in the whole movie. In that simple gesture of sending his driver off, he metaphorically walked away from his previously glamorous Hollywood life into the simplicity of the rain, even as he is also walking away from the love and adoration of many to needing the sole love from Debbie Reynolds. This song is the culmination of Gene Kelly's passion and ecstasy that followed his kiss with Debbie Reynolds.
Here we see Gene Kelly shedding his outer raincoat, along with sending his driver off, symbolizing his move away from the need of the adoration of the people to the sole adoration of Debbie Reynolds, liberating himself from the conventions of Hollywood. His raincoat, which had previously always served to shield him, now was nowhere to be seen. As the song progresses, Gene Kelly waves and smiles to random strangers he meets, and dances around on lampposts, regardless of his own dignity. After awhile, he feels the raindrops, and simply closes his umbrella, his shield, in a way embracing the new life he now has. The symmetry of the film is also starkly ironic, in a hypocritical way, the very same man who previously bragged about the way he lived with dignity, was now without a trace of it. The mise-en-scene in this number is also very powerful. Water is used abundantly and freely drenching Gene Kelly from head to toe. Traditionally, water has been a symbol of purification, freedom and also new life.
From the lyrics, with lines like "Such a glorious feeling, I'm happy again", and "The sun's in my heart, I'm ready for love", we can see and feel Gene Kelly's unbounded joy and happiness, along with his euphoric love for Debbie Reynolds. This indicates Gene Kelly's sincere joy from his breaking free of the conventional norms that had tied him down due to his position in Hollywood. As the song reached its climax, Gene Kelly jumps and dances around in a puddle of water by the roadside. In that very instant, he became a kid again. The playful boyish energy that he had once had had returned, marking his transition into a man, fully confident of who he is.
Citizen Kane (Revised)
As the credits roll and the lights are turned up, we are left with a crucial question, nonetheless center concerning the interpretation of the film Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is widely regarded by many to be the greatest movie ever made, but who actually is this man? Citizen Kane is about Orson Welles. In making a movie about William Randolph Hearst, Welles incorporated the very essence of his himself into the character of Charles Foster Kane. Though he was portraying another man, he was very much telling us a story of himself. We see many clues he left behind for us which concerned him more than the man whom the movie was based on. For instance, in the opening sequence, a young Kane was given away by his parents; stands in similarity to the tough childhood of Orson Welles, where he desired the love of his parents. For in telling one man's story, he was actually telling his own.
For in Citizen Kane, Orson Welles has erected a lasting monument to himself, just as how Charles Foster Kane had Xanadu. Through this, Orson Welles shows us a part of his true character, the good, bad and even the ugly. And little did he know, the life of Charles Foster Kane foreshadowed his own. For in telling one man's story, he was actually telling his own. This repeating theme of power and control is reflective of Orson Welles' own life, where he yearned to be in control of his own destiny, to have the power to shape his future. The story of Citizen Kane is actually the story of Orson Welles, hidden behind the cover of William Randolph Hearst, just as Citizen Kane hid behind the "No Trespassing" sign. It is story of what makes Orson Welles Orson Welles, the things that motivated him to do what he did. It is the last piece of the puzzle, the key to his life.
From the very start, we see the image of a man's lips, uttering his dying words. As those words came off his lips, a snow globe rolls down from his hand. Then we hear silence. In this short montage of the last moments of Charles Foster Kane's life, albeit not knowing it at the moment, we had already learnt the true identity of this man. The cracking of the snow globe in a way resembles how Kane's life has fallen into shambles. And in the same way Kane could not control his death, he was rendered powerless in life as well, losing his grip the things that mattered to him the most.
In the establishing sequence, we are greeted with a "No Trespassing" sign, that we are about to enter the life of a man, cut off from the world. He never explains his actions to anyone, nor does he need to. This is especially evident in the scene where Emily confronts him about his affair with Susan Alexander, Kane gave up his wife and son, and chose to stay in the election. Contrary to what the audience would have expected, Kane shocks us when he chose his ambition and mistress over his wife and son. When we think about it, we never really see Kane for who he really is, we never actually know what motivates him to make the decisions he makes. In a way, even as we think we know who Citizen Kane is, we are never really able to trespass into the deeper workings of his being. In choosing Susan Alexander over Emily, Kane was actually choosing more than simply just a woman. In this scene, for the first time, we actually see Kane not being in control of the situation. In choosing Susan, it was a vain attempt to prove that ultimately, it is he who makes his decisions and not his situation, and no matter how outrageous his choice, it will be him who will ultimately bear the consequences. Kane had always done everything right up till that point, but when he chose to seize control, it was the beginning of his downfall.
Another key character crucial in explaining Citizen Kane is Jedediah Leland. Before we even got to know him, his hebrew sounding name had already impressed upon us that Jedediah was someone who upheld honor and morality. In a way, the story of Kane is also the story of Jedediah Leland. Jedediah acts as the moral conscience which holds up the story of Charles Foster Kane. Every action Kane makes eventually comes back to Jedediah Leland. As Leland's life unfold, from his humble beginnings to the peak of his career, and finally ending up as an unsightly drunkard, in a way, it is the personification of Kane's moral conscience. As we are introduced to Leland, we see how Kane and himself drafted the declaration and principles, setting in place codes of honor. This stands in stark contrast to the scene where a drunk Jedediah Leland lies asleep on the typewriter over an unfinished review of Susan Alexander's horrid performance, which was also the point in the film at which Kane's moral standards were at its most corrupt. In part, Jedediah Leland was THE reason behind many if not all of Kane's decisions. Or more accurately, Kane wanted to prove something to himself, his own moral conscience, that what he did was infallible, and that no matter how wrong his decisions, that he was always right.
From the words of Jedediah Leland, we truly begin to catch a glimpse of Kane's true character. "He married for love -- that's why he did everything. That's why he went into politics. It seems we weren't enough. He wanted all the voters to love him, too. All he really wanted out of life was love. You see, he just didn't have any to give." From Leland's narration, we begin to learn a bit more about the real Kane, what motivated him to do what he did. Kane wanted to be in control, in control of people's love and adoration, in control of the people around him, and above all, in control of his friendship with Jedediah Leland, his own moral conscience. Yet in cruel irony, these were the very things he couldn't control. In the scene where Leland sent him the copy of the declaration of principles he himself had drafted, it was the culmination of his own hypocriticism, like a stab in the back by his own conscience. Also, that declaration of principles was also his last chance at redemption, however, pride won over, and he ended his life in shambles.
For in Citizen Kane, Orson Welles has erected a lasting monument to himself, just as how Charles Foster Kane had Xanadu. Through this, Orson Welles shows us a part of his true character, the good, bad and even the ugly. And little did he know, the life of Charles Foster Kane foreshadowed his own. For in telling one man's story, he was actually telling his own. This repeating theme of power and control is reflective of Orson Welles' own life, where he yearned to be in control of his own destiny, to have the power to shape his future. The story of Citizen Kane is actually the story of Orson Welles, hidden behind the cover of William Randolph Hearst, just as Citizen Kane hid behind the "No Trespassing" sign. It is story of what makes Orson Welles Orson Welles, the things that motivated him to do what he did. It is the last piece of the puzzle, the key to his life.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
ET: 16 ROSEBUD
What is Citizen Kane about? How is it about what it is about?
As the credits roll and the lights are turned up, we are left with a crucial question, nonetheless center concerning the interpretation of the film Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is widely regarded by many to be the greatest movie ever made, but who actually is this man, Charles Foster Kane? We know that the he is played by a young prodigy by the name of Orson Welles, and many references have been made in and out of the film regarding a very powerful gentleman at that time by the name of William Randolph Hearst. But who actually, is this film about? Orson or William Randolph Hearst? Or maybe someone else entirely. Citizen Kane is the story of Orson Welles, yet it is not. It is a narration of Hearst's grand rise to power, yet it is also not. So who or what exactly, is Citizen Kane about?
As the credits roll and the lights are turned up, we are left with a crucial question, nonetheless center concerning the interpretation of the film Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is widely regarded by many to be the greatest movie ever made, but who actually is this man, Charles Foster Kane? We know that the he is played by a young prodigy by the name of Orson Welles, and many references have been made in and out of the film regarding a very powerful gentleman at that time by the name of William Randolph Hearst. But who actually, is this film about? Orson or William Randolph Hearst? Or maybe someone else entirely. Citizen Kane is the story of Orson Welles, yet it is not. It is a narration of Hearst's grand rise to power, yet it is also not. So who or what exactly, is Citizen Kane about?
Essentially, this movie revolves around a single word "Rosebud". From the very start, we see the expressionistic genius of Orson Welles, at Kane's deathbed, the last words uttered from his dying lips -"Rosebud". As these words were uttered, the one object he treasured and desired, a snowglobe, fell from his grasp, and was smashed into pieces. We hear silence, marking the end of the life of a man. In this short montage of the last moments of Charles Foster Kane's life, albeit not knowing it at the moment, we had already learnt the true identity of this man.
In the establishing sequence, we are greeted with a "No Trespassing" sign, that we are about to enter the life of a man, cut off from the world, yet still very much a part of it. And this sets the tone for very much the rest of the movie, that we were about to enter the life of a man secluded and cut off from the world. The narration in Citizen Kane is also brilliant, where director Orson Welles manages to tell us the story of this man's life using individual accounts of the people Kane's life to allow us to piece together and understand who the man was. Using rosebud as the McGuffin in the movie, Orson Welles sends us on a wild train ride exploring the life of one Charlie Foster Kane.
In the opening minutes, we see the narration of Charlie Foster Kane from the view of the media, of the people and of the public. To them, Kane was a mere newspaper tycoon, a rich and powerful man, a person who had lots of promised yet failed to lived up to them. He was neither hated nor loved, just a man. We see him for what he has done, but not for who he really is. The media tribute by news on the march to Charlie Foster Kane was never about him as a person, but merely about him as an object. And in this way we are introduced to Kane, distant, unattached; a mere figure in their lives. In this manner, the Kane whom we are introduced to is distant and far away. Throughout the movie, we are never really able to see into his heart, he never really explains his decisions to anyone, for instance, choosing the stay in the election even at the cost of losing his son, we never really know what motivated him to make that decision. Merely knowing that he did it because he could.
As the narration progressed, we begin to see Kane from the eyes of his guardian, Tatcher. In an unbiased narration, we see how Kane was taken away from his home, on the very same snowy day in his snowglobe, just before his death. We see how he was given away by his parents for something they deemed more valueble, money. Before he was taken away, we saw the very Kane for who he really was, innocent, carefree and youthful. The symmetry in the movie here is beautiful. In cruel irony, as Kane slid closer and closer to his end, we see him vainly buying everything with the very thing his parents gave him away for, money, yet he could not get what he wanted the most. Also, as we see Kane grow older, we see him lose his childhood innocence, his freedom and his boyish energy.
Next up was the narration of Kane's life through the eyes of Jedediah Leland, the man who was Kane's closest friend. In him, we see Kane's moral conscience. The story of Kane is also the story of Jedediah Leland. As we are introduced to Leland, we see how Kane and himself drafted the declaration and principles, announcing to the world how they were unafraid to tell the truth, to uphold their moral principles and to be righteous. This stands in stark contrast to the scene where a drunk Jedediah Leland lies asleep on the typewriter over an unfinished review of Susan Alexander's horrid performance, in a vain attempt to prove to Jedediah that he still held firm to those principles, Kane finished the review for Jedediah. From the words of Jedediah Leland, we truly begin to catch a glimpse of Kane's true character. "He married for love -- that's why he did everything. That's why he went into politics. It seems we weren't enough. He wanted all the voters to love him, too. All he really wanted out of life was love. You see, he just didn't have any to give." From Leland's narration, we begin to learn a bit more about the real Kane, what motivated him to do what he did. Yet however, in a cruel twist of fate, in the culmination of his humiliation, after his second wife flopped at the theaters, Leland sent him the very copy of declaration of principles he himself had drafted, a sorry reminder of how Charles Foster Kane had strayed from the very road he set for himself.
So what exactly, is Citizen Kane REALLY about, and how does Rosebud fit into this? To some, it is just a mere fictional biography of a man by the name of Charles Foster Kane, a man with great promise, yet failed to live up to it because of his own vanity and obsession for love. Yet, many see this movie to be about the life of William Randolph Hearst, a stab by Orson Welles at the media tycoon, about his rise and fall from power, and the self absorbed vanity of the man. And rosebud? Maybe it was all just a joke in reference to the nickname of William's mistress' private parts.
Yet at the same time, Citizen Kane is about Orson Welles. In making a movie about William Randolph Hearst, Welles incorporated the very essence of his himself into the character of Charles Foster Kane. Though he was portraying another man, he was very much telling us a story of himself. We see many clues he left behind for us which concerned him more than the man whom the movie was based on. For instance, in the opening sequence, a young Kane was given away by his parents; stands in similarity to the tough childhood of Orson Welles, where he desired the love of his parents. For in telling one man's story, he was actually telling his own. And there is where the brilliance lies. In many ways, this movie foretells the life of Orson Welles even before he lived it out. Welles was Kane, and Kane was Welles. It was the story of the rise of fall of a great man, and as many have said about Welles, this was really his first and last movie ever made. To me, Citizen Kane was really about Orson Welles. And rosebud? It is a representation of all the things that made Orson Welles Orson Welles, the very thing that motivated him to do what he did, love. It is the last piece of the puzzle, the key to the life of a man. In the closing scene, we see the sled being thrown into the fire, gone forever along with Rosebud. And in the words of Jedediah Leland, Citizen Kane was the story of how he lost it.
Next up was the narration of Kane's life through the eyes of Jedediah Leland, the man who was Kane's closest friend. In him, we see Kane's moral conscience. The story of Kane is also the story of Jedediah Leland. As we are introduced to Leland, we see how Kane and himself drafted the declaration and principles, announcing to the world how they were unafraid to tell the truth, to uphold their moral principles and to be righteous. This stands in stark contrast to the scene where a drunk Jedediah Leland lies asleep on the typewriter over an unfinished review of Susan Alexander's horrid performance, in a vain attempt to prove to Jedediah that he still held firm to those principles, Kane finished the review for Jedediah. From the words of Jedediah Leland, we truly begin to catch a glimpse of Kane's true character. "He married for love -- that's why he did everything. That's why he went into politics. It seems we weren't enough. He wanted all the voters to love him, too. All he really wanted out of life was love. You see, he just didn't have any to give." From Leland's narration, we begin to learn a bit more about the real Kane, what motivated him to do what he did. Yet however, in a cruel twist of fate, in the culmination of his humiliation, after his second wife flopped at the theaters, Leland sent him the very copy of declaration of principles he himself had drafted, a sorry reminder of how Charles Foster Kane had strayed from the very road he set for himself.
So what exactly, is Citizen Kane REALLY about, and how does Rosebud fit into this? To some, it is just a mere fictional biography of a man by the name of Charles Foster Kane, a man with great promise, yet failed to live up to it because of his own vanity and obsession for love. Yet, many see this movie to be about the life of William Randolph Hearst, a stab by Orson Welles at the media tycoon, about his rise and fall from power, and the self absorbed vanity of the man. And rosebud? Maybe it was all just a joke in reference to the nickname of William's mistress' private parts.
Yet at the same time, Citizen Kane is about Orson Welles. In making a movie about William Randolph Hearst, Welles incorporated the very essence of his himself into the character of Charles Foster Kane. Though he was portraying another man, he was very much telling us a story of himself. We see many clues he left behind for us which concerned him more than the man whom the movie was based on. For instance, in the opening sequence, a young Kane was given away by his parents; stands in similarity to the tough childhood of Orson Welles, where he desired the love of his parents. For in telling one man's story, he was actually telling his own. And there is where the brilliance lies. In many ways, this movie foretells the life of Orson Welles even before he lived it out. Welles was Kane, and Kane was Welles. It was the story of the rise of fall of a great man, and as many have said about Welles, this was really his first and last movie ever made. To me, Citizen Kane was really about Orson Welles. And rosebud? It is a representation of all the things that made Orson Welles Orson Welles, the very thing that motivated him to do what he did, love. It is the last piece of the puzzle, the key to the life of a man. In the closing scene, we see the sled being thrown into the fire, gone forever along with Rosebud. And in the words of Jedediah Leland, Citizen Kane was the story of how he lost it.
Monday, 24 October 2011
Singing in the rain!!!!!
Singing in the rain is and always will be one of the all time Hollywood greats ever made in modern cinema. With intricately crafted numbers like "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love", "Good mornin'" and even the show's namesake, "Singing in the rain", Singing in the rain will go down as one of the most beautifully crafted musicals in Hollywood. In each and every musical sequence, directors Stanley Donan and Gene Kelly pays detailed attention to every aspect of the mise-en-scene, from the choreography, costumes, setting, all the way to the lyrics and placement.
In this essay, i especially want to highlight some of these songs which I find particularly intriguing. Interestingly, each and every song is perfectly placed at every important junction or turning point, to highlight the plot points the director intends to carry through. The first song I want to highlight is the song "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love". In this beautifully choreographed number, we see Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor dancing on stage in a vaudeville fashion. This number serves to further exemplify the point Gene Kelly's character was trying to make, that his rise to fame had always been based on dignity. Ironically, in this number, instead of dignity, we see Gene Kelly making a fool of himself for the audience's entertainment. The brilliant choreography seen here, while at the same time comic, is actually quite degrading. In fact, this is a stab at how Hollywood in actual fact is all a big lie, where so many things are made up to be more than what they are. Furthermore, this piece serves to introduce us to the two main protagonists in the movie, to show us who they really are on the inside, and their journey to achieving fame. Also, this piece injects a burst of energy into the audience, helping this film start off on a high note.
As the film progresses, we come across another brilliant number "Good mornin'". In this uplifting number, we see our 3 protagonists at their lowest point in the film, where Gene Kelly is facing the end of his career with the flopped debut of his first talking picture, the "Dueling Cavalier". At the beginning of this number, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor renews his hopes by suggesting he turn the "Dueling Cavalier" into the "Dancing Cavalier". The mise-en-scene is extraordinary here, where the weather changes from being dark and rainy to the dawn of a new day. The title of this song, "Good mornin'" also carries a double meaning where it is not just simply a greeting, but a celebration of a truly good morning. In this piece, the choreography is in itself brilliant. As the characters are dancing, they move from room to room, exuding energy, and to an extend,of being boyish maybe. This type of choreography reminds us of the same boyish energy in the first number of this movie "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love", telling the audience that Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor are still the same inside, although their standing in Hollywood has changed. This boyish theme is repeatedly seen throughout the entire length of the film, for instance also in numbers such as "Moses Supposes" and "Make Em' Laugh". This boyish theme is interspaced with a couple of more mature numbers all the way up till "Singing in the Ran", signifying the internal struggle Gene Kelly had in choosing between boyish playfulness and the maturity of being in love.
Lastly, we come to the film's titular song, "Singing in the rain". This is a brilliant brilliant masterpiece by Gene Kelly. In the beginning of this number, Gene Kelly motions to his driver to drive off, and in this, incorporates his symbolized move away from the need of the adoration of the people to the sole adoration of Debbie Reynolds. In a way, this is actually the most romantic song in the whole movie. In that simple gesture of sending his driver off, he metaphorically walked away from his previously glamorous Hollywood life into the simplicity of the rain. In a way, he is also walking away from the love and adoration of many to needing the sole love from Debbie Reynolds. As the song progresses, Gene Kelly waves and smiles to random strangers he meets. After awhile, he simply loses his umbrella, in a way symbolizing his desire to break free from the normal constrains of Hollywood, that a big movie star should carry himself in a certain way. The symmetry of the film is also starkly ironic, in a hypocritical way, the very same man who previously bragged about the way he lived with dignity, was now without a trace of it. The mise-en-scene in this number is also very powerful. Water is used abundantly an freely drenching Gene Kelly from head to toe. Traditionally, water has been a symbol of purification, freedom and also life. And if we observe closely, we can see his energy and liveliness growing the wetter he gets, as if the rain soaking him is actually energizing him, renewing him.
This particular sequence represents a crucial plot point in the story, where it marks his transition from a boy into a man, yet not a man who is constantly wearing a mask, but one who carries his boyish energy with him. In a way, this is the most romantic number because it shows how Gene Kelly is actually in ecstasy following his kiss with Debbie Reynolds. In this, he finally establishes himself as a man, no longer needing to hide behind a mask. As a result, he finally manages to break free from the bondages of the Hollywood circuit, instead directing all his attention and love towards her. Through the blissful choreography, we see that he no longer cares about anything for nor want anything else besides her love.
In this essay, i especially want to highlight some of these songs which I find particularly intriguing. Interestingly, each and every song is perfectly placed at every important junction or turning point, to highlight the plot points the director intends to carry through. The first song I want to highlight is the song "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love". In this beautifully choreographed number, we see Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor dancing on stage in a vaudeville fashion. This number serves to further exemplify the point Gene Kelly's character was trying to make, that his rise to fame had always been based on dignity. Ironically, in this number, instead of dignity, we see Gene Kelly making a fool of himself for the audience's entertainment. The brilliant choreography seen here, while at the same time comic, is actually quite degrading. In fact, this is a stab at how Hollywood in actual fact is all a big lie, where so many things are made up to be more than what they are. Furthermore, this piece serves to introduce us to the two main protagonists in the movie, to show us who they really are on the inside, and their journey to achieving fame. Also, this piece injects a burst of energy into the audience, helping this film start off on a high note.
As the film progresses, we come across another brilliant number "Good mornin'". In this uplifting number, we see our 3 protagonists at their lowest point in the film, where Gene Kelly is facing the end of his career with the flopped debut of his first talking picture, the "Dueling Cavalier". At the beginning of this number, Debbie Reynolds and Donald O'Connor renews his hopes by suggesting he turn the "Dueling Cavalier" into the "Dancing Cavalier". The mise-en-scene is extraordinary here, where the weather changes from being dark and rainy to the dawn of a new day. The title of this song, "Good mornin'" also carries a double meaning where it is not just simply a greeting, but a celebration of a truly good morning. In this piece, the choreography is in itself brilliant. As the characters are dancing, they move from room to room, exuding energy, and to an extend,of being boyish maybe. This type of choreography reminds us of the same boyish energy in the first number of this movie "Fit as a fiddle and ready for love", telling the audience that Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor are still the same inside, although their standing in Hollywood has changed. This boyish theme is repeatedly seen throughout the entire length of the film, for instance also in numbers such as "Moses Supposes" and "Make Em' Laugh". This boyish theme is interspaced with a couple of more mature numbers all the way up till "Singing in the Ran", signifying the internal struggle Gene Kelly had in choosing between boyish playfulness and the maturity of being in love.
Lastly, we come to the film's titular song, "Singing in the rain". This is a brilliant brilliant masterpiece by Gene Kelly. In the beginning of this number, Gene Kelly motions to his driver to drive off, and in this, incorporates his symbolized move away from the need of the adoration of the people to the sole adoration of Debbie Reynolds. In a way, this is actually the most romantic song in the whole movie. In that simple gesture of sending his driver off, he metaphorically walked away from his previously glamorous Hollywood life into the simplicity of the rain. In a way, he is also walking away from the love and adoration of many to needing the sole love from Debbie Reynolds. As the song progresses, Gene Kelly waves and smiles to random strangers he meets. After awhile, he simply loses his umbrella, in a way symbolizing his desire to break free from the normal constrains of Hollywood, that a big movie star should carry himself in a certain way. The symmetry of the film is also starkly ironic, in a hypocritical way, the very same man who previously bragged about the way he lived with dignity, was now without a trace of it. The mise-en-scene in this number is also very powerful. Water is used abundantly an freely drenching Gene Kelly from head to toe. Traditionally, water has been a symbol of purification, freedom and also life. And if we observe closely, we can see his energy and liveliness growing the wetter he gets, as if the rain soaking him is actually energizing him, renewing him.
This particular sequence represents a crucial plot point in the story, where it marks his transition from a boy into a man, yet not a man who is constantly wearing a mask, but one who carries his boyish energy with him. In a way, this is the most romantic number because it shows how Gene Kelly is actually in ecstasy following his kiss with Debbie Reynolds. In this, he finally establishes himself as a man, no longer needing to hide behind a mask. As a result, he finally manages to break free from the bondages of the Hollywood circuit, instead directing all his attention and love towards her. Through the blissful choreography, we see that he no longer cares about anything for nor want anything else besides her love.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
ET 12: Feminist Critique of Busby Berkeley
In the 1930's directer Busby Berkeley reinvented musicals on film media. By designing elaborate production numbers featuring hundreds of chorus girls dancing and singing, he essentially created a new form of musicals. Never before have actors been used in such a way. By drawing from the burlesque elements of the previous decade, Busby Berkeley manages to combine film, acting and dancing in such a way that no one has ever seen before. Of course, such a media would have its fair share of audiences too, in effect, throngs of men were drawn into movie theaters by "musicals" like these.
The 1941 production Ziegfield Girl is a classic example of director Busby Berkeley new and innovative style. Because of movies like these, the Ziegfield Follies were iconized as the sex symbols of their day. In the number "You Stepped Out of a Dream", the women are portrayed as beautiful and mysterious, fanning and arousing the male desire. In closer analysis, we can see that Busby Berkeley only selected the most perfect looking women to be casted in this number, and this was to serve the purpose of creating the illusion that all women were perfect, unblemished and beautiful. The wardrobe used in this number also served to enhanced that illusion. By dressing the women in long flowing white robes and dresses, paired with puffy ribbons and elaborate outfits, Busby Berkeley manages to enhance the appeal of the women, making them look surreal and exaggerated. The ever smiling facial expression of the women in the movie further solidifies the illusion the director was trying to create. But more interestingly, was the choreography and the lighting used in the sequence. More often than not, the women waltzed down a long spiral staircase, always coming from somewhere higher up. The women were also lit in a way that made them look glowing, radiant and exuding beauty. This often made them look like they were surrounded but a glowing halo, to the extend that one might even say, angelic?
At the same time, a number of the scenes were intercut with shots of men, decent, upper class, respectable men, seated among the audience, ogling silently at the bevy of beauties thrown at them. This in itself perverts the entire sequence. Through these scenes, we see the true intent of the director. These men who were watching were in fact living out their secret fantasies and fetishes, to which the society at that time vehemently rejected. The thought of pure, upright gentlemen indulging in their fantasies of row after row of beautiful showgirls, taunting them, enticing them and arousing them were a strict no-no. Even more so, the subject of a person, in this case the women, doing something solely for the viewer's pleasure was extremely taboo in a society where women were expected to be well mannered and gentle. The idea of women too having a raving sex drive was too outrageous to be accepted. On the other hand, if a movie like this were to be made about men in our society today, it would still be difficult to accept. This is because at the very least men are expected to retain their dignity and abstain from such acts which demean their self worth. Furthermore, the thought of women enjoying such a film would be disgusting to say the least. Yet if the tables were turned, and such a movie was made of men, it would seem unacceptable and demeaning. Therein lies the sexism within our society.
By portraying women in this manner, they are objectified into nothing more than sex objects to arouse men's pleasure. This is especially so when Busby Berkeley portrays women in this film as monotonous creatures with only one emotion, thereby removing the human element from them. In addition, the sexual objectification also starts when the women in the sequence proudly parade their body in front of crowds of ogling men, tantalizingly flashing their long legs and sultry smiles. Not only does this make the men feel less like voyeurs but more like participants, simultaneously removing the guilt of watching such a indecent performance by making it seem like the women enjoy what they are doing. Such scenes are hauntingly similar to the burlesque erotism of the previous decade where bevies of beautiful women shamelessly fault their chops for the viewing pleasure of men. Although subtle, many of these techniques and details in the number slowly but surely demean and reduce the worth of a woman and her sexuality. This film brings to light many new age ideologies such as that a women's worth only lies in her sexuality. Indirectly, this film set in motion the downward spiral of a women's worth. Younger and younger generations of girls are brought up thinking that their worth lies in their beauty and sexuality.
To close, we take a look at a Kylie Minogue music video. In terms of production and filmography, it is very similar to Busby Berkeley's work. In the music video, many similar lightning techniques, wardrobe and choreography were used. While it definitely enhances the sex appeal of Kylie Minogue, it is however completely different from what we have seen the Busby Berkeley's work. Instead of serving as an erotism fantasy, the techniques used in the music video simply serve to create an air of mystery and beauty around her, and enhances the audience's focus on the lead character in contrast to Ziegfield Girls where it served to arouse desire of the male audience.
The 1941 production Ziegfield Girl is a classic example of director Busby Berkeley new and innovative style. Because of movies like these, the Ziegfield Follies were iconized as the sex symbols of their day. In the number "You Stepped Out of a Dream", the women are portrayed as beautiful and mysterious, fanning and arousing the male desire. In closer analysis, we can see that Busby Berkeley only selected the most perfect looking women to be casted in this number, and this was to serve the purpose of creating the illusion that all women were perfect, unblemished and beautiful. The wardrobe used in this number also served to enhanced that illusion. By dressing the women in long flowing white robes and dresses, paired with puffy ribbons and elaborate outfits, Busby Berkeley manages to enhance the appeal of the women, making them look surreal and exaggerated. The ever smiling facial expression of the women in the movie further solidifies the illusion the director was trying to create. But more interestingly, was the choreography and the lighting used in the sequence. More often than not, the women waltzed down a long spiral staircase, always coming from somewhere higher up. The women were also lit in a way that made them look glowing, radiant and exuding beauty. This often made them look like they were surrounded but a glowing halo, to the extend that one might even say, angelic?
At the same time, a number of the scenes were intercut with shots of men, decent, upper class, respectable men, seated among the audience, ogling silently at the bevy of beauties thrown at them. This in itself perverts the entire sequence. Through these scenes, we see the true intent of the director. These men who were watching were in fact living out their secret fantasies and fetishes, to which the society at that time vehemently rejected. The thought of pure, upright gentlemen indulging in their fantasies of row after row of beautiful showgirls, taunting them, enticing them and arousing them were a strict no-no. Even more so, the subject of a person, in this case the women, doing something solely for the viewer's pleasure was extremely taboo in a society where women were expected to be well mannered and gentle. The idea of women too having a raving sex drive was too outrageous to be accepted. On the other hand, if a movie like this were to be made about men in our society today, it would still be difficult to accept. This is because at the very least men are expected to retain their dignity and abstain from such acts which demean their self worth. Furthermore, the thought of women enjoying such a film would be disgusting to say the least. Yet if the tables were turned, and such a movie was made of men, it would seem unacceptable and demeaning. Therein lies the sexism within our society.
By portraying women in this manner, they are objectified into nothing more than sex objects to arouse men's pleasure. This is especially so when Busby Berkeley portrays women in this film as monotonous creatures with only one emotion, thereby removing the human element from them. In addition, the sexual objectification also starts when the women in the sequence proudly parade their body in front of crowds of ogling men, tantalizingly flashing their long legs and sultry smiles. Not only does this make the men feel less like voyeurs but more like participants, simultaneously removing the guilt of watching such a indecent performance by making it seem like the women enjoy what they are doing. Such scenes are hauntingly similar to the burlesque erotism of the previous decade where bevies of beautiful women shamelessly fault their chops for the viewing pleasure of men. Although subtle, many of these techniques and details in the number slowly but surely demean and reduce the worth of a woman and her sexuality. This film brings to light many new age ideologies such as that a women's worth only lies in her sexuality. Indirectly, this film set in motion the downward spiral of a women's worth. Younger and younger generations of girls are brought up thinking that their worth lies in their beauty and sexuality.
To close, we take a look at a Kylie Minogue music video. In terms of production and filmography, it is very similar to Busby Berkeley's work. In the music video, many similar lightning techniques, wardrobe and choreography were used. While it definitely enhances the sex appeal of Kylie Minogue, it is however completely different from what we have seen the Busby Berkeley's work. Instead of serving as an erotism fantasy, the techniques used in the music video simply serve to create an air of mystery and beauty around her, and enhances the audience's focus on the lead character in contrast to Ziegfield Girls where it served to arouse desire of the male audience.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
"M", Melodrama?
"M" for Murderer. "M" for Morder. "M" for marked. A man marked by the letter, the murderer. But is he who he is because he is, or is he who he is because we say he is? "M" by Fritz Lang is a brilliant piece of expressionist art, challenging and provoking the norms of the society we live in, overturning values which we live by, and more frighteningly, blurring the fine line between whats righteous and just, and what isn't. "M" is a rebel, a daring testament to the adversity of its creator, Fritz Lang.
So what exactly is melodrama? Oxford defines melodrama as a piece of dramatic work which exaggerates plot and characters to appeal to the emotion. In melodrama, the characters are clearly defined and identified with a certain characteristic, be it good or bad. In all the films that came before "M", each character was usually clearly defined and placed where it should be. A great example of this would be Rise of a Nation, where the white people are portrayed as weak and helpless women, children while their black oppressors tormented them. "M" is a game changer in the world of cinema art. Never before has a character been cast in the grey area between the good and bad. On the surface, Hans Beckert is the heartless child murderer in "M" who's deeds disgust even the most hardened crooks, and seemingly no excuse could possibly justify him. Yet however, Fritz Lang throws us off when he begins to show us the flip side of this man. And this is where his expressionist brilliance truly shines. Through the most subtle elements, Fritz personifies the inner struggle Hans was facing through the use of light and shadow. As Hans was justifying himself before the jury, Fritz kept half of his face constantly shrouded in the darkness, whereas the other half was always lit. Through this, Fritz portrayed the humanity in him. As with all of us, there are always 2 forces inside of us, constantly in conflict. This amplified the emotions of the character and made the audience relate to his plight. The use of sound in this piece also served to magnify the humanity of the murderer. The character's desperate, heart wrenching pleas are punctuated with moments of bone chilling silence, serving to allow the audience to reflect on themselves, and how much actually separates them from this demented murderer.
Another aspect explored by this film is the question "Are you really who you think yourself to be?" Fritz uses irony to its full effect where he portrays the jury and the judge of this man. The very people who are themselves criminals, are themselves sinners, are themselves murderers are condemning another equally guilty man to death? And as people go by, the character who is the "judge" is himself wanted by the police for 3 manslaughter charges. So how could one man condemn another simply because more people deem his crimes more heinous or despicable than what they themselves have committed? The montage in the film brilliantly juxtaposes the difference between a man who has to kill and a man who chooses to kill. However, the irony is that the one who chooses is walking free whereas the one who cannot help himself is condemned as a monster. Shouldn't the one who chooses out of his own free will to kill be punished first? Through this, Fritz challenges the make up of our society. He questions our choices, our morality and he condemns it. He shows us how ignorant and selfish people are, how self centered society is. When one of our own is hurt, like the men and women who screamed for his death, we fervently stand up and hurl insults at the so called murderer, condemn him and punish him. In the name of justice, we wouldn't think twice to do to him what he did to us tenfold. Unknowingly, we ourselves have become more heinous murderers ourselves that the man we seek to condemn.
In the closing sequence of the film, we see Hans Beckert being arrested in the name of the "Law", and then sentenced and punished in the name of the "People". Yet however, we are not told whether he was actually found guilty or not. Although subtle, Fritz Lang manages to use this scene as the coup de grace as the ending to this fantastic masterpiece. Through this, he shows us that we, the people, are not always as right as we think we are. Under the cover of "law" and in the name of "justice", how quickly we willingly give someone else up for our own selfish reason. Yes Hans Beckert was a murderer, but whether he was found guilty or not does not matter, nor do we want to know, for if by any chance he wasn't. Through this film, Fritz Lang laments our society, how we are quick to judge but slow to forgive, that we see the needle in someone else's eye while failing to see the log in our own.
Which brings us back to the question, so is "M" a melodrama? It is and it is not. In essence, "M" is a murder mystery set in the mise en scene of a German town. The protagonist are the people, while the antagonist is the murderer by the name of Hans Beckert. However, it is also a reflection of the world we live in. Through this, Fritz aims to evoke us to see both sides of our own society and its people, where not everything is clearly defined, that those who seem to be in the right may very well not be. And in that definition, it is not a melodrama. So, hats off to Fritz Lang, a brilliant filmaker.
So what exactly is melodrama? Oxford defines melodrama as a piece of dramatic work which exaggerates plot and characters to appeal to the emotion. In melodrama, the characters are clearly defined and identified with a certain characteristic, be it good or bad. In all the films that came before "M", each character was usually clearly defined and placed where it should be. A great example of this would be Rise of a Nation, where the white people are portrayed as weak and helpless women, children while their black oppressors tormented them. "M" is a game changer in the world of cinema art. Never before has a character been cast in the grey area between the good and bad. On the surface, Hans Beckert is the heartless child murderer in "M" who's deeds disgust even the most hardened crooks, and seemingly no excuse could possibly justify him. Yet however, Fritz Lang throws us off when he begins to show us the flip side of this man. And this is where his expressionist brilliance truly shines. Through the most subtle elements, Fritz personifies the inner struggle Hans was facing through the use of light and shadow. As Hans was justifying himself before the jury, Fritz kept half of his face constantly shrouded in the darkness, whereas the other half was always lit. Through this, Fritz portrayed the humanity in him. As with all of us, there are always 2 forces inside of us, constantly in conflict. This amplified the emotions of the character and made the audience relate to his plight. The use of sound in this piece also served to magnify the humanity of the murderer. The character's desperate, heart wrenching pleas are punctuated with moments of bone chilling silence, serving to allow the audience to reflect on themselves, and how much actually separates them from this demented murderer.
Another aspect explored by this film is the question "Are you really who you think yourself to be?" Fritz uses irony to its full effect where he portrays the jury and the judge of this man. The very people who are themselves criminals, are themselves sinners, are themselves murderers are condemning another equally guilty man to death? And as people go by, the character who is the "judge" is himself wanted by the police for 3 manslaughter charges. So how could one man condemn another simply because more people deem his crimes more heinous or despicable than what they themselves have committed? The montage in the film brilliantly juxtaposes the difference between a man who has to kill and a man who chooses to kill. However, the irony is that the one who chooses is walking free whereas the one who cannot help himself is condemned as a monster. Shouldn't the one who chooses out of his own free will to kill be punished first? Through this, Fritz challenges the make up of our society. He questions our choices, our morality and he condemns it. He shows us how ignorant and selfish people are, how self centered society is. When one of our own is hurt, like the men and women who screamed for his death, we fervently stand up and hurl insults at the so called murderer, condemn him and punish him. In the name of justice, we wouldn't think twice to do to him what he did to us tenfold. Unknowingly, we ourselves have become more heinous murderers ourselves that the man we seek to condemn.
In the closing sequence of the film, we see Hans Beckert being arrested in the name of the "Law", and then sentenced and punished in the name of the "People". Yet however, we are not told whether he was actually found guilty or not. Although subtle, Fritz Lang manages to use this scene as the coup de grace as the ending to this fantastic masterpiece. Through this, he shows us that we, the people, are not always as right as we think we are. Under the cover of "law" and in the name of "justice", how quickly we willingly give someone else up for our own selfish reason. Yes Hans Beckert was a murderer, but whether he was found guilty or not does not matter, nor do we want to know, for if by any chance he wasn't. Through this film, Fritz Lang laments our society, how we are quick to judge but slow to forgive, that we see the needle in someone else's eye while failing to see the log in our own.
Which brings us back to the question, so is "M" a melodrama? It is and it is not. In essence, "M" is a murder mystery set in the mise en scene of a German town. The protagonist are the people, while the antagonist is the murderer by the name of Hans Beckert. However, it is also a reflection of the world we live in. Through this, Fritz aims to evoke us to see both sides of our own society and its people, where not everything is clearly defined, that those who seem to be in the right may very well not be. And in that definition, it is not a melodrama. So, hats off to Fritz Lang, a brilliant filmaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)