Here's Johnny!!!

I've found it really difficult to write much about the Structuralism: Binary Opposition lecture. I found some of it quite interesting but I don't think it's a very effective way of analysing a film, scene or character, at least not as effective as denotation, connotation, myth. However, I've had a go, looking at Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.

The two binary opposites I identified in the film are;                  love - hate
                                                                                               reality - imagination
It is the fact that both of these thing blur together which makes the film so terrifying.

When the film starts, Jack appears to be a family man who loves his wife and child, although as his sanity slips away he begins to hate both of them more and more. At first he shows this just with contempt and annoyance, but this quickly transforms to murdurous rage. This makes the audience extremely uncomfortable, more so probably than during a different type of horror film, as a father/husband figure is supposed to be someone the family can trust and who loves them. This monster is much more frightening than say a vampire, with whom there is no emotional connection.

The blurring of reality and imagination is both interesting and alarming to the audience, as it makes the film totally unpredictable. Jack seems to be imagining many things - a party full of people in 1920s dress, conversations with the bar man and with the waiter, the waiter convincing him that he needs to kill his family... However, after his wife locks him in the food-store cupboard, it is the "imaginary" waiter who releases him. This could have been a figment of his imagination too - he could have made his own escape in reality - but there is no sign that this may have happened.

Another example is the old lady in the bathtub - it wasn't just Jack who saw her - his son, Danny, saw her too, and he even came away with bruises from her. We know that Danny can "shine", which is why he can see her, but niether the audience nor Danny realised that these images of people which he can see were capable of harming him.

Molly Chambers' gonna change your mind

I have heard that the brain cannot invent something totally new and original, it can only take previously seen ideas and make them it’s own.

I found it interesting to look at conscious and unconscious intertextuality.  I guess conscious intertextuality either wants you to notice it, or wants to re-invent the thing it’s referring to as its’ own e.g. song covers, some film re-makes, or music samples such as the sample of Enya’s Boadicea used by the Fugees in the song Ready or Not (The Fugees were so successful in making this there own that a lot of people seem to think it is).

In the way of films and Television I think it’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the link is conscious or unconscious.  Obviously some text is simply paying homage to another e.g. in Black Adder II when Black Adder falls in love with Bob, a eunuch, who later turns out to be a girl. This is very reminiscent of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, in which Olivia falls in love with a eunuch, who also later turns out to be a girl.  However sometimes it’s not so obvious, such as I’ve always thought that The Secret Garden, Frances Hodgson Burnett was based on Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte. There are so many similarities in the stories and in the atmosphere of both stories, and this may have been an unconscious influence on Frances Hodgeson Burnett or perhaps one author paying homage to another.

Something I looked up that I found really interesting was the phrase “Molly’s chamber”.  The Kings of Leon used a version of the phrase a couple of years back in their song Molly Chambers, but it is most commonly known from Thin Lizzy’s Whiskey in the Jar:

“Being drunk and weary I went to Molly’s chamber

Takin my Molly with me and I never knew the danger”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrguJziuq9s

However, in the traditional Irish folk song (or at least all the versions of it I could find) Molly’s chamber is not mentioned, in fact in many versions the name is Jenny not Molly:

“I went into my chamber, all for to take a slumber,
I dreamt of gold and jewels and for sure it was no wonder.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIlDymYg1WM

I think Thin Lizzy inserted the phrase as an erotic reference taken from Molly’s chamber pot, from James Joyce’s novel Ulysses (1909), in which there is a Freud-like erotic pleasure found.

Intertextuality is especially present in, and I think essential to, Character Creation.  Linking in with last weeks lecture on semiotics, the image of a character (in particular a created character) is very symbolic and conveys many things to the viewer.  For instance, Hellboy –he’s big, red and has ram’s horns and a tail – he’s basically the standard image of the devil.  His character is obviously not entirely original, if it were then the viewer would not understand his character as they should.  When making my own characters/models I always look for inspiration before even making any sketches – I don’t see it as lazy or copying, but I think intertextuality is an essential part of creating anything;

“Life imitates art”

    

I'm Just a Sweet Transvestite, from Transsexual, Transylvaniaaaahhhh!!

I wasn’t so keen on last weeks lecture, although putting the semiotics we learnt into practise in the seminar was pretty cool – still not sure I completely get it though. I’ve had a go at putting it into practise on my own a couple of times:

Number one; The Rocky Horror Picture Show’s Dr.Frank’N’Furter

Denotation

Frank is obviously a transvestite who loves being in drag, always appearing in stockings, a corset, heels and drag make-up, although he’s still very masculine.  He’s extremely charming and overly sexual, and appeals sexually to both men and women. He’s enthusiastic, fun-loving and charismatic, and very persuasive.

He’s also a performer, a major attention seeker, very spoilt, self important and extremely temperamental.

Connotation

Frank is sexually obsessive.  Many female viewers find Frank attractive, which may sit uneasy with them as he is so openly bi-sexual and constantly dressed as a woman. 

When he doesn’t get his own way he loses control and momentarily loses his charm.  This is unexpected and so takes the viewer by surprise.  He then becomes extremely dangerous and even murderous and cannibalistic. This is extremely shocking to the viewer, although the film is a comedy throughout, so the audience find it amusing as well as shocking.

After these outbursts, when he regains control, he turns the whole situation into a dramatic performance, and is never without an audience until the very end.

Myth

I think Frank is an extremely damaged soul, abused in the past and now obsessive and psychopathic.  He doesn’t know what he wants, he’s never happy, and doesn’t really know who he is.  He has made his whole life into a performance, and without an audience he becomes manic depressive.

Number two; Gangs of New York’s Bill the Butcher

Denotation

Bill is dressed in smart, middle class clothing – long coat, shirt and waistcoat and often a hat, although the clothing is scruffy and dirty looking.  He has a bushy moustache which makes him look middle class, but his hair is unkempt and greasy.  He calls himself a “Native American” and is fierce about this identity; he wears a glass eye with a bald eagle where the iris normally is.  His general manner is authorotive and quite gentlemanly.

He is a butcher by profession, and offers good quality meat to many of his acquaintances.  He is also a brutally violent gang lord, but he does have certain morals and a certain amount of respect for others.

 

Connotation

He is extremely calm and collected, even when making threats. This makes the viewer very uneasy as they have seen at the beginning of the film the brutality that he is capable of, and so we know he is unpredictable.  His scruffy but middle-class appearance also make the viewer feel wary of him, especially when he’ spattered with blood.

In the fight scene at the beginning of the film, we witness the violence the butcher is capable of in gory detail, but he also shows us his morals and respect for others, in letting no-one touch the Priest’s body. 

We later see a picture of the Priest that the Butcher displays, and we learn that when the Butcher had previously been defeated but spared by the Priest, the Butcher had cut out his own eye to remember it by.  We realise that the Butcher had an incredible amount of respect for his enemy.

            When Bill finds out about the betrayal of his new assistant, it’s the first time we see him really lose his cool.  This disturbs the viewer as he becomes even more unpredictable, and the violence he uses in this scene is cruel and meditated, not just brutal.  We realise here that the Butcher is not entirely empty inside, he’s obviously been hurt by the betrayal.

            Another thing that makes the viewer slightly uncomfortable is the enthusiasm of the public when they witness the violence of the Butcher – they shout out encouragements and applause as if they were at a pantomime.  But by performing his bloody actions in front of an audience, Bill is making an example in order to continue his fear reign.

Myth

            Bill’s Father died trying to carve out a place for “Native Americans” in New York, and Bill sees himself as continuing his Father’s work.  He was brought up in a rowdy gang environment and doesn’t know any different.  He does not lead a normal life; he says at one point regretfully “I never had a son”.  He lives the life of a gang lord – prostitutes, drugs and violence.

He is good at what he does and knows that the only way to rule is with fear.  He admits that what has made him live so long is fear for himself – he sleeps with one eye open.  It is fear that fuels the violence, but he is not entirely immoral.

                       

Morlocks and Crappy Accents

After Thursday’s lecture I was thinking about realism and how I understand the word.  I came to the conclusion that realism to me is more about being believable and authentic than “realistic” – I’m not sure how much sense that makes but I’ll try to explain what I mean…

Looking back at old films such as The Time Machine or One Million years BC; in their day they were pretty impressive, as they were looking at unexplored ideas.  The Morlocks in the Time Machine, like the aliens from the old Dr Who episodes, were genuinely quite frightening to some people because they were so believable, and so this was 1960s realism.  Of course when I watched the same film, the same Morlocks were hilarious in my eyes.  I suppose this is because my generation has been so spoilt – film, effects and ideas have developed so much over the last few decades that we’ve become hyper critical, but I think this is a good thing, it just means that we demand much higher levels of so called realism.

For example, a modern day film that really pissed me off was The Prince of Persia, mainly because everybody was white and English, or white and American with a false English accent.  Is this the real Persia?? There were also more explosions (which fail to impress me now as I’ve seen so many bloody explosions in films) than substance in the movie.  Although accents and physical appearance of characters could be considered a small detail, I think they are extremely important ones in live action films, as if they look and sound as they should it gives the films much greater authenticity.  Another good example of this is the recent Robin Hood film, where Russel Crowe decided a mixture of every kind of British accent he’d ever heard was better than a good Nottingham one.

What I’m labelling authentic films are ones such as Amelie – due to its being entirely in French the viewer gets a true view of the character, and the environment and culture in which she lives.  At the same time, the viewer loses themselves so much in the film that the fact that they’re having to read subtitles is unnoticeable almost straight away.