What is film? (According to Christopher Nolan)

            There were two major forms of storytelling found in the beginning years of film – the actualities of the Lumiere brothers, and the trick films of Melies. The Lumiere brothers attempted to recreate the world around them; to record the world as it is. Melies, on the other hand, saw film as having the potential to both trick and entertain audiences; his prior career as a magician obviously played a large factor in determining this point of view. The Prestige is a film that deals with two magicians right around the time Melies was doing his own stage magic and transitioning in to his film work. After understanding this connection, it seems logical that The Prestige follows the paradigm of what film should do as established by George Melies. But while director Christopher Nolan seems to follow in this path first laid down by Melies, he has certain sensibilities that lean more towards the Lumiere brothers’ work that he adheres to while performing these tricks in his films. By looking at a specific line of dialogue and the greatest trick of The Prestige, it is possible to better understand Nolan’s views on what film should be.

            In the film, the characters of Angier and Borden are both magicians and perform a similar trick known as “The Transported Man.” Borden’s version works because there are twin brothers performing the trick; Angier’s first version relies on his use of a double, and then relies on actual cloning from a machine created by Nikola Tesla. If thought of in modern filmmaking terms, Borden represents practical effects, while Angier represents CGI and digital effects. Borden’s trick hinges on something real, something that is concrete and real (albeit altered for illusion); to analogize to another Nolan film, this would be an actual semi-truck being flipped over in The Dark Knight.  Angier’s trick is performed because of technology and because something entirely new is being created; to compare to another modern film, this would be the robots found in the Transformers film franchise. Nolan’s choice of which type of effect he prefers is evidenced in his own filmmaking career, but is also confirmed when Angier admits in the film to Borden that “You always were the better magician.” Nolan seems to be saying that he values more the practical creativity of a filmmaker on set than the creativity of digital artists in post-production.

            Nolan performs his own trick in the film by always hiding one of the twin Borden brothers as Fallon. The camera never lingers too long on Fallon, most likely as Nolan’s way of not giving away his secret. However, when Fallon says goodbye to Borden in the jail cell, there is a close up of him that does not instantly cut away; Nolan is giving the audience a chance to figure out the trick for themselves before it is revealed in the final scene. What is fascinating is that for a film that deals with wild tricks and magical illusions, this is Nolan’s greatest trick of the film - he hides Christian Bale under some make-up and a wig and the audience can’t figure out it is a twin. If a film is meant to trick the audience, Nolan finds it uncouth to create something with no basis in reality; it is the repurposing of reality that he finds to be an essential element of film. He does not see the ideals of the Lumiere brothers and Melies to be dialectical oppositions, but two forms that should come together for the fullest potential of film.

Outline - Essay 1

Main Argument: There are vastly differing approaches to writing about film, with two main styles being a formalist approach and an ideological approach; while no writing style is perfect, I believe a formalist criticism of film is the more effective, accessible, and intrinsically valuable approach to studying film.

Claim 1: Formalist criticism allows the critic to fully investigate important moments of a film, which can then provide a better understanding of the film.

Support: Quotes V.F. Perkins’ Film on Film article examining Psycho

Claim 2: Formalist criticism is a more accessible form of film study, as prior knowledge of the subject enhances the understanding, yet is not a requirement for it.

Support: Quotes from Siegfried Kracauer’s “Basic Concepts”

Claim 3: Formalist criticism requires the critic to examine what is present in the film (as opposed to projecting a specific reading on a film).

Support: Quotes from Louis Baudry’s “The Apparatus” and Sergei Eisenstein’s “The Dramaturgy of Film Form”

Extra: To clarify what I mean when I say that a formalist approach is more “intrinsically valuable” – I mean to say that examining a moment of the film can help a viewer better understand a film, while examining the film through a certain perspective (e.g. Marxist) can help a viewer better understand Marxism. The value of formalist criticism, then, is that it relates back to the film, giving the film intrinsic value. I’m not positive if this is going to work as an argument, and I’m not sure if the term “intrinsically valuable” is the best to describe the advantage of formalist criticism, but since it’s only a rough draft I thought I’d entertain the idea.

Grapes of Wrath (1940)/ Auteur Theory

            The difference I would like to analyze between John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath and John Ford’s subsequent film of the same name is the ending. The novel ends with Rose of Sharon giving birth to a stillborn baby, and then feeding a dying man her breast milk. The film is much less controversial, ending with Ma Joad giving an impassioned monologue saying that, “We’re the people that live. They can’t wipe us out, they can’t lick us. We’ll go on forever, Pa. Cos’ we’re the people.” While I consider some moments in the film to be cinematic (such as the wide shot of the Joads surrounded by the vastness of nature, and the chiaroscuro lighting of certain scenes), I do not consider this ending to be that cinematic. It is simply framed, starting out in medium three-shot, and then cutting to a closer medium two-shot to punctuate the end of the monologue. The characters are all riding in the truck, as it has become an important fixture during their journey; however, the importance of the truck is communicated in the novel as well, so I have a hard time believing that the scene taking place in the truck is to be considered cinematic. The cutting in closer to punctuate the ending would (in my opinion) represent the most cinematic part of the scene, which I do not rate as being that cinematic. While it may not be cinematic, I do consider it Hollywood. By that, I mean to say that it is an uplifting ending that strays away from controversial material – in this case, the prospect of a stillborn birth, and then a young women feeding a man her breast milk. With this in mind, it is difficult to determine if Ford is to be considered an auteur. Truffaut would argue that he is not an auteur if he simply recreates the book. In the production of this film, however, it is almost a certainty that the studio would not allow Ford to recreate the ending of the novel, regardless of whether he wanted to or not. Under Truffaut’s logic, Ford is almost an auteur by default. If Ford is to be considered the auteur of this film, which I believe a strong case can actually be made for, it is not as a result of the ending of the film; to me, the aforementioned cinematic elements of the film that appear earlier (framing/lighting) lend a much stronger argument.

            

            I am split on auteur theory, as even though I think it is a valid form of film study, I find it to be an unfair paradigm in which an argument can be made for almost any director. Also, I believe that auteur theory rewards directors who repeat themselves in style and themes. Sarris outlines auteur theory as having three circles, “the outer circle as technique; the middle circle, personal style; and the inner circle, interior meaning.” If there are common tropes between a director in these three areas of his or her films, then the director is an auteur. On the surface, this sounds quite grandiose in the scheme of film history. However, I believe under these criteria, an argument can be made for director such as Guy Ritchie to be an auteur. Playing devil’s advocate, I would say Ritchie often deals with crime and the underworld in his films, and often varies the speed of the film (in terms of slo-motion, not pacing) during action scenes. This would seem to fill the criteria for Sarris’s outer and middle circle, and any English major worth his or her salt could argue for a tension between the material and the way the director approaches it (constituting the inner circle). Now, I could possibly just not be giving Guy Ritchie enough credit, and maybe Sarris would consider him an auteur, but I believe this is not the case. Instead, it shows how Sarris’s vague standards for what an auteur is result in a useless definition. The reason I think it is still worthwhile as a form of film study, though, is I believe examining a film in the context of a director’s complete work is very useful, and can shed light on the film that can be missed if taken as a singular production.

Maculin, feminin (1966)

          Slightly more than 12 minutes into Masculin, feminin, there is a dialogue scene between the characters of Paul and Madeleine. After framing the characters in a two-shot to start the scene, the film moves into singles of each respective character, both of which are framed in close-ups. At this point in the scene, a Hollywood-made film following the Institutional Mode of Representation (IMR) would use a shot reverse shot editing pattern as the dialogue continues. This would help build a connection between the 2 characters, as well as add an energy to the scene (depending on how quickly the cuts between the characters are).

            In a technical sense, Godard does employ a shot reverse shot editing pattern in this scene – however, it is difficult to say that it follows the IMR, as the length in between cuts between the characters is considerably long. The film spends a full minute and seven seconds on the first single of Madeleine, and then cuts to Paul, who’s single is held for approximately a minute and twenty-five seconds. This editing strategy is not because each character has a long-winded monologue; instead, both sides of the conversation are heard, yet only one character is seen at a time. To me, the effect is the complete opposite of the traditional shot reverse shot pattern; I feel the characters are disconnected rather than connected, and I (as the viewer) feel uncomfortable with how long the shots are held.

            Taking this into consideration, what conclusions can be drawn about how Godard believes film should work? First, I think Godard is completely fine with the idea that the viewer is aware that he or she is watching a film. Suspension of disbelief is not of the utmost importance to him. This is not that radical of a concept, as Bertolt Brecht’s distancing technique had been in use in theater plays well before Godard, and further analysis could trace the German’s influence on Godard. Second, and possibly more importantly, Godard feels that the effect achieved by breaking the IMR is more important than the IMR itself. In this case, I as a viewer felt uncomfortable with how long the shots were lasting. The fact that I felt uncomfortable is just as essential to Godard as how the characters feel in the scene. To elaborate, I mean to say that a Hollywood-made film would want the viewer to connect to a character, and then feel uncomfortable when the character feels uncomfortable; the goal is for the viewer to identify with that character. Godard, on the other hand, is not as concerned with the viewer identifying with a character, and thus relies on a non-traditional editing pattern to force that feeling of being uncomfortable on the viewer, regardless of identification.

            At this point, it is possible to make a connection between Godard and the Cinema of Attractions discussed in class. When Georges Méliès performed in his short films acting as a magician, the viewer did not feel connected to the magician as a character, but felt astonished at the tricks being performed on screen. In early actualities, when audiences saw a train coming at them, they were not scared because they thought the hero of the story was in danger – they were scared because they thought they were in danger.  Character identification was not essential to early filmmakers; rather, it was getting a certain reaction from the audience. This is what I believe is Godard’s view on how film should work is – the filmmakers are responsible for making the audience feel a certain reaction; how this reaction is achieved is irrelevant, only that it is produced.