Bubble #7 (Reading Response: Due 3/17)

Deborah Shaw, “You Are Alright, But…”

1. How does the multi-plot structure of Traffic lead to a reversal of traditional ethnic hierarchies and a weakening of the traditional hero-centered narrative?

With the varying story lines the viewer cannot pinpoint a traditional hero, mostly because every single one these characters are driven by this war on drugs, which acts as the central anchor among the characters who come from different national and racial backgrounds. Because of their diversity and the differing successes they each have with the war on drugs, all traditional ethnic hierarchy’s go out the window.

2. Despite the “positive” Mexican, Latino and African-American characters in the film, how does the film nationalize and racialize the drug trade and drug users?

The film does so by giving each different nation or race it’s own part in the process of drug producing, trafficking, and using. The Mexicans are portrayed as the growers and traffickers; the Latinos as the buyers and distributors; the African-Americans as the dealers; and the Anglo-Americans as the users and drug addicts.

3. How does cinematography reinforce differences between U.S. and Mexico? What are the cultural associations associated with each? What is Shaw’s argument about a sepia-toned point-of-view shot?

Soderbergh used sepia colored filters to present Mexico, giving it an undeveloped, overheated, sweaty, and desolate feel. On the contrary, the U.S. is filmed with blue metallic filters that gives it a cold, heartless, powerful look. In a certain scene in the movie, Michael Douglas looks through binoculars over the border of Mexico. The room he stands in is in the U.S. and has a blue filter. However when he looks through the binoculars over into Mexico, the filter changes to the Sepia tone, suggesting that the U.S. sees Mexico in the way it wants to—poor, corrupt, and in need of guidance from the U.S.

4. How does the General Salazar character reinforce common Hollywood stereotypes? How does Javier (Del Toro) reinforce common Hollywood representations of Mexico as a country in need of guidance from the U.S.?

General Salazar reinforces the stereotype that Mexicans are corrupt and require guidance from the U.S. by being corrupt himself. The general acts as the man in charge of keeping drug traffickers away from U.S. borders, yet he also has a hand in the drug war himself. In the case of Del Toro’s character, he is a good, honest Mexican cop who cannot seem to succeed without the intervention of the DEA, a U.S. government association. This situation reinforces the idea that Mexican culture cannot thrive without the help of the neighboring U.S. government system.

5. How does the representation of the drug trade in Traffic reflect larger assumptions about American foreign policy?

There would be no need for multiple drug rings and organizations in Mexico if the demand for those drugs was not as strong as it is in the United States. Though Mexico is presented as the dealer, it is the U.S. that acts as a primary customer. This refers to the state of Mexico working under the U.S., acting as the maker and supplier of many exports, only to have them imported and purchased by the United States.

Kaufman, 125-165

“Emotion, Truth, and Celluloid”

6. What are some of the key lessons Soderbergh took away from the Richard Lester project, and how did he apply those lessons to specific films?

Soderbergh learned that you have to be casual in your filmmaking process. Though it’s important to take your work serious, you can’t forget about your instincts and gut feeling because that is where part of your creativity comes from. Soderbergh states that “I’m serious about what I do, but I think there’s a real benefit to not being precious and working quickly and going strictly on instinct. It’s something I lost and I absolutely got back from [Lester].” Another thing Soderbergh learned is the importance of being rigorous with his films, something he feels he failed upon with The Underneath.

7. How does Erin Brockovich represent a key change in how Soderbergh viewed “personal filmmaking”?

Soderbergh had a newfound understanding of what a “personal film” means. Just because a film is not about yourself or your personal experiences does not make it any less personal. Soderbergh states that he felt just as emotionally connected to Erin as he did sex, lies. When he realized this, he decided to branch out, think out of the box, and in his own words “get out of the house”. Erin Brockovich was the first film that he allowed himself to do that with.

Bubble #6 (Reading Response: Due 2/22)

1. Why was 1989 considered a transitional year for independent distribution? In economic terms, what was the meaning of the term “indie-blockbuster”? How did the industry respond to the “indie-blockbuster”?

During this period, many of the independent studios that had thrived in the 80s unfortunately fell victim to their overzealous investments. While it could be seen as the death of the independents, one called it the “independent shakedown” since it got rid of the weakest links, leaving the well-structured studios to reap the benefits of the approaching decade of the nineties. Economically speaking, the indie-blockbuster was a film that, “on a smaller scale, replicates the exploitation marketing and box-office performance of the major studio high concept event picture”. In a nutshell, a small investment that reaps the same benefits as a studio film, in relative ratio terms that is. The industry responded by creating sub-studios within their major studio company, sub-studios that would produce indie-blockbusters separate from the workings of “A pictures” being done by the studios.

2. What criteria guided Miramax’s acquisition strategies in the 1980s? What additional strategies by the Weinstein brothers led to Miramax’s growth while other independent distributors failed?

Miramax had three elements of criteria they followed in acquiring their films. First, they “selected movies that could be promoted as quality pictures”. Second, they “selected nonclassical films that focused on unconventional subjects and styles”. Third, they found “marketing hooks that could help the films transition from the art house to the multiplex”. Besides these criterion, they appealed to multiple niches and used sex, violence, and controversy as sales strategies, allowing them to grow while others failed.

3. Who financed sex, lies and videotape, and why did they allow Miramax to distribute the film theatrically? Why did Miramax pursue the the distribution rights to the film so aggressively?

The film was actually financed by RCA/Columbia Home Video and Virgin. RCA maintained domestic rights and Virgin maintained the foreign rights. They gave the rights to distribute theatrically because their initial expectation of breaking even through home video distribution alone was poor judgement in itself, due in part to the booming video rental industry of the time. Plus, the film was a success at festivals, including Sundance. Miramax had been known for being the outbidder among all independent studios, and this was one film they weren’t going to let slip through their fingers.

4. What were some of the key promotion strategies utilized by Miramax for sex, lies, and videotape? What markets did they appeal to simultaneously, and how did they appeal to those markets? What is meant by “finding the high concept in low budget films”?

Their main goal was to provide a soft landing for an art-house film falling into the blockbuster world. They first appealed to the art-house audience with blurbs of critic praise and listings of the awards the film merited. Then they targeted the young audience by calling it “one of the best of 1989” and “an edgy, intense comedy”. In finding the high concept in low budget films, Miramax differentiated itself by running towards controversy rather than away from it.

5. What kind of distribution strategy did Miramax use for the film? Contrast this strategy with current “saturation booking” of Hollywood blockbusters.

During distribution, Miramax never overestimated their position relative to studios. Miramax understood that their films would have to complement the studio films rather than directly compete. With that said, they relied heavily on word of mouth and free publicity. They gradually released the film, allowing time for it to gain appraisal and an appropriate buzz.

6. Why were Amir Malin’s comments about niche films prescient of broader industry trends, at a time where many people predicted the demise of niche films?

His comments suggest that middle-class films are less cost effective because they do not do well in foreign markets if they did not do well at home in the first place. This is opposite of event films that can fail at home and thrive in the foreign market. Malin also used the term “sophisticated” when referring to sex, lies. This alludes to the fact that these niche films were being advertised as films different than the usual studio productions, though they advertised themselves of offering what Hollywood does and more, “full of sex, violence, and risky content”.

7. By the mid 1990s, what function did the term “independent” actually serve in the industry? What was ironic about the so-called “Year of the Independents” at the 1995 Oscars? What were the repercussions of the bifurcation of the industry?

The term became familiarly defined as a “hybrid of the studio’s A picture and the post-studio-era exploitation film”. What was ironic about the “year of the independents” was that all the independent studios were owned by larger major studio companies. The bifurcation of the industry caused two things. The first being that the two Hollywoods, niche-targeted and high-concept, both developed interrelated but fundamentally distinct aesthetics. High-concept maintained superstars and big explosions while nice-targeted maintained gritty camerawork and edgy subject matter. The second effect was that these films would all, officially, need a target audience, one that would be found in the marketing plan.

Bubble #5 (Reading Response: Due 2/9)

Amy Taubin, “Part of the Problem”

1. Rather than answering specific questions about the interview, provide your own reactions to Van Sant’s comments on one or more of the following topics in relation to our in-class discussions/debates about Van Sant and authorship:

--His explanation of why he remade Psycho.

Van Sant discussed when he was in a studio meeting he brought up a question concerning why directors would want to remake a forgotten film, which would, in doing so, “grave-rob” the directors original work and create something new for an audience that didn’t understand the original, the inspiration. This isn’t fair for the original director and gives no chance for the new director to be understood in comparison to the original director. In remaking Psycho, a film everyone knows and loves, Van Sant was able to show off his different directorial vision, even with a shot for shot remake. Though the films look the same, they feel completely different, and thats because of the change in director. Because audiences know the original Hitchcock version so well, they are able to point out the apparent differences when watching Van Sant’s version, allowing people to actually witness a change in the film with the change in director.

J.J. Murphy, “The Temporal Complexity of Elephant”

Why did Van Sant consider the traditional screenplay format restricting? What alternative models for storytelling did he turn to for Elephant, and what specific techniques did he use in developing the film’s narrative and style?

Van Sant argued that with a traditional screenplay, the filmmaking process is far more restricting because there is no room for the “fun stuff”. With a screenplay, a director becomes so focused on copying and transferring everything in the correct manner that there is never any time to sit back and interpret it as it is presented. Once again, there is no time for what Van Sant calls the “fun stuff”. Van Sant chose to cast non actors—in the style of neo realist films—in order to create a stronger sense of reality. Feeding more into this reality, Van Sant threw out the script and approached the film in a more formal way of handling situations as they came about. He also layered the film to create a sense of events happening simultaneously in a medium of real time, in turn giving the audience this sense of temporal complexity.

Given that the film seems to have three acts, how is the second act of Elephant different than most conventional Hollywood screenplays?

The second act is different because at the end of the first act we are introduced to the two killers entering the school. This scene of Alex and Eric changes everything, creating a definite tension in the film. One would expect the second act to be the massacre, but instead it goes back in time to continue on in tracking the development of the characters before the massacre, which ends up not occurring until act three. Because of the unusual back and forth narrative of Elephant, the shooting doesn’t happen in act two, but is instead introduced. The film continues on with its narrative to address the underdeveloped stories before entering into act three, the massacre.

What does Murphy suggest is “one of the startling and largely unrecognized aspects of Elephant’s time frame”? What observation does Murphy make about the use of time in the third act?

The aspect of the time frame that Murphy brings up concerns the shot breakdown. There are just as many shots in the third act as there are in the first and second combined. Obviously, the pacing of the third act has increased in comparison to the slow first an second. Another observation that has been made is that the violence that is carried out in the third act lasts about twelve minutes, which is very similar to the fifteen minutes of violence that took place during the Columbine massacre.

In terms of character development, how is Elephant similar or different than Hollywood and most independent films? What specific strategies does Van Sant use in relation to revealing character? How do these strategies relate to the themes associated with high school experience?

Murphy points out that the movie is ultimately not character driven, leaving little room for any kind of character development. The development that is included, however, is spaced about the movie because of the temporal complexity of the narration, which makes it similar to other Hollywood movies since development happens throughout the entire movie. It is mentioned that simply watching a character provides plenty interpretation for many viewers, and Elephant succeeds in this by literally following these characters around with the camera. However, there is a disconnection in high school that is presented with the same long tracking shots from behind, all of which occur in the mundane prison-like building that is called high school.

Bubble #4 (Reading Response #4: Due 2/1)

1. What are the four ways Leitch argues that Van Sant’s Psycho is unusual? And what “yawning fallacies” are suggested by Van Sant’s approach to the project? What are some of the logistical problems Van Sant faced in remaking the film in the 1990s?

The initial difference that has been pointed out is that, unlike most remakes, Gus Van Sant’s intentions were paying homage to Hitchcock, as opposed to simply re-doing Psycho in hopes of a better version. The second was Van Sant’s fearless approach to the marketing of the film, advertising with a poster that revealed the early murder of the films heroine, an act that originally took audiences by surprise with the original. Van Sant assumes audiences already know Marione is killed halfway through, but just in case they do not, the advertising is sure to clear up any sense of surprise. Thirdly, Van Sants approach to “remakes” differs in that he literally remade Psycho—shot for shot and line for line—which in itself is something original. Van Sants desire is to recreate, not reinterpret. In doing so, his fourth unusual approach is that he recreated the filmmaking process of Hitchcock, and went on to advertise that echoed style of filmmaking, in turn creating a film that “uniquely wasn’t Hitchcock’s Psycho”. Two of the yawning fallacies concerned Van Sant’s classification of the film as as being exactly like the original, yet completely different, in terms of its textual, cultural, and technical characteristics. Think about it; its in color, the actors are different, and it takes place in the the 90’s. Those changes were the logistical problems that were addressed when the film was remade for the 90’s.

2. What is the key difference for the audience’s experience of the shower scene in Van Sant’s Psycho? How is this similar or different from general genre expectations and conventions inspired by Hitchcock’s Psycho?

Audiences have a different experience in watching the remake because they have the knowledge that the famous shower murdering scene is coming. Where the original gave audiences an element of suspense, the remake has no way of giving that entertainment. It stays true to its intent of paying homage by reveling in the fact that there is no way for Van Sant to surprise us, for Hitchcock already has.

3. What are some of James Naremore’s objections to the Van Sant Psycho, particularly in the area of casting and performance? How does he use the story of the Royal Cook to explain his critical position?

Naremore is dissatisfied with both performances of Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. While Vaughn imitates the original character created by Perkins, Heche instead tweaks Leigh’s original character, in turn creating her own updated version of Marion. Naremore considers these choices made by both actors to be “bad choices” as Vaughn is creating nothing while Heche isn’t remaining faithful to the concept of a remake, or in this case, a direct recreation. It is also noted that Heche created a new character to make Marion’s murder more ironic when, in reality, the murder is ironic enough considering the audience completely expects it. Using the story of the royal cook, Naremore concludes that no matter how hard any of them tried, including Van Sant, this new version of Psycho just could not create the same effect of the original.

4. What are some of William Rothman’s objections to the Van Sant Psycho, particularly in terms of the relationship between Hitchcock’s stylistic system and the creation of meaning? How does Leitch question some of Rothman’s assumptions about style and meaning? What are Timothy Gould’s objections to Rothman’s critical assumptions?

Hitchcock used camera gestures to create suggested meaning, meaning that is apparently stepped on with Van Sant’s choices pertaining to camera work. Van Sant’s camera work is seen as imitation rather than genuine gesture through original creation. The latter of the two obviously carries a stronger meaning, which in this case of recreation, cannot be achieved. Leitch poses the question, however, “How could Rothman tell whether Van Sant was, or had become, such an author?” It is interesting to consider that maybe Van Sant’s style of authorship is coincidentally similar to that of Hitchcock’s. Rothmans argument examines Van Sant’s remake directly through a lens of Hitchcock’s Psycho, in turn making it impossible for Van Sant’s Psycho to be seen as a Van Sant film.

5. Why is Hitchcock’s status in academic film studies particularly unique? What parallel does Leitch make between Naremore’s viewing of Van Sant’s Psycho and Leitch’s students’ viewing of Hitchcock’s Psycho?

Naremore, who saw the original Psycho upon it’s release, perceived it as scary and something fresh while Van Sant’s Psycho is perceived to be completely academic and not at all scary. This perception is contrasted with contemporary screeners of Hitchcock’s Psycho who find the original to be far more academic than its successor. Leitch discusses that there is no good time to watch Psycho because if one watches it today, they would have already been jaded by the other horror movies on the market. On the contrary, if one were to view Hitchcock’s Psycho on opening night, the suspense would be enjoyed at the expense of being blind to Hitchcock’s irony which isn’t revealed until later years when everyone has seen Psycho.

6. Why does Leitch suggest that perhaps Van Sant “out-Hitchcocks Hitchcock”?

Van Sant was not creating an image of Hitchcock, but instead was creating an image of modern “Hitchcocks”.

Bubble #3 (Reading Response #3: Due 1/25)

Bubble #3

1. What are some of the broad characteristics of the “Van Sanitized Shakespeare” in My Own Private Idaho, and what are some specific ways in which Shakespeare is fused with contemporary Portland?

In order to adapt the Shakespearean tale for the modern world—not to mention for the streets of Portland—Van Sant modernized the dialogue and changed the tone of the language, while maintaining hints of Elizabethan dress among the characters, in turn making it his very own. An example of change in tone is presented in the line “How long has it been, Bob, since you could see your own dick?”. The vastly differing original line was “How long is ‘t ago, Jack, since thou sawest thine own knee?”. Furthermore, the Shakespearean vibe is fused with the city of Portland by fulfilling the roles of Hal and Fasltaff with the characters of Scott and Mike/Bob, respectively.

2. What relationship do the characters of Mike and Bob have to the original texts? Why does Chimes at Midnight become a significant frame of reference in addition to the original Henry IV plays?

Mike and Bob both represent the Shakespearean Falstaff, Hal’s (aka Scott’s) “real father” who represents youthful brotherhood and companionship yet at the same time maintains a role of a wise paternal figure. Mike represents the youthful side of Falstaff (though blurs the lines when the intimate relationship between Mike and Scott develops) while Bob, Scott’s ex-lover, serves as the older and wiser side of Falstaff. Chimes at Midnight becomes a significant frame of reference because it is Chimes that Gus Van Sant chooses to rework in Idaho rather than the original Shakespearean work, that is in fact reworked by Orson Welles in Chimes. Idaho is a recreation of Chimes which is a retelling of Henry IV, to put it simply.

3. What are some of the effects of changing Falstaff from a “knight lowering himself” to street hustlers in Portland? What significance does the rejection of the Falstaff characters have in this new context? Why does Davis argue that Van Sant seems to align himself with the Falstaff characters?

With the Falstaff-representing characters in Idaho starting as lower class hustlers rather than “lowering themselves” to the territory, it erases all possibility that these Falstaff characters find an escape route in the end, since Mike and Bob have no where else to go but where they are, that being the seedy alley streets of ground zero. When Scott leaves Mike and Bob (Falstaff collectively), we have no hope for them in their vulnerable states because we know they don’t have the same options that Scott has, options that will route them away from the margins (streets) and into the center (society). At the end of the film Van Sant aligns himself with the Falstaff characters by focusing on their loss in the margins as opposed to Scott’s success as he merges into his heterosexual life in a norm society.

4. How does the changed context affect our understanding of Scott Favor?

By integrating two Falstaff’s in Idaho Van Sant makes Scott Favor’s act of abandonment towards these characters seem far more severe. The two men, Bob and Mike, represent Falstaff through the ages, in turn creating a more developed and real life character for the audience, making it even more unbearable when Scott leaves them both.

Newman

5. Why does Newman believe that “indie” is a distinction not determined by an industrial definition? What does Newman believe is the “tension at the heart of indie cinema and culture between competing ideals and realities”?

Newman believes that “indie” is not determined by an industrial definition because it contradicts itself in wanting to criticize mass culture and be an alternative to it while at the same time demanding to be a subculture of it’s own with followers alike. The tension springs from these oppositional outsiders that view themselves as the problem solving solution to the mass media, while simultaneously being a commercial group themselves.

6. Newman argues that “there was a stable cluster of meanings associated with “independent,” and that these meanings span various artistic forms and their audiences.” What were these meanings, and what artistic forms were associated with them? Within this discourse, how do independent filmmakers maintain or lose credibility?

I couldn’t find this in the text.

7. What does Newman argue was the “major shift in the popular understanding of “selling out” and its relation to alternative credibility”

The major shift was when indie musicians began having their music play on television commercials rather than MTV. Where MTV was seen as selling out, commercial coverage maintained alternative credibility as it was seen as an infiltration into the mass media.

8. How does Newman support the claim, “Like traditional high art, indie cinema appeals to an audience who has the wherewithal to appreciate it, which is to say knowledge and interest, and a community of like-minded people.”

The “indie” subculture offers its followers and practitioners a sense of distinction from the rest of the social world, allowing them to exist outside the mainstream. They all have a passionate understanding for the culture, allowing them to enjoy amongst each other while “perpetuating their own privilege”.

9. Why does Newman suggest that the example of Todd Solondz’s Happiness “reveals how the indie scene attempts to have it both ways: it seeks autonomy but also profit, authenticity but also a marketing push, art without the taint of commerce but enough commerce to make the art pay.” What role did Universal actually have in the distribution of the film, and how does this complicate the claims about artistic autonomy?

Indie filmmakers would like to think it can all be done without the help of business culture. However, it turns out that the same mass media corporate systems that fund studio projects are needed just the same when it comes to indie films. In the case of Happiness, they were able to spin it their way with the controversial subject matter bringing in curious audiences, while at the same time pointing their fingers at Universal for being to prude to give it the box-office benefits it so deserved.

10. Why does Newman conclude the following about critics who condemn the mainstream co-optation of indie culture: “A central problem with this perspective is that it gives too much uncritical credibility to the “authentic” subculture, failing to identify its function in maintaining class distinction. It also, crucially, misrecognizes the relation of indie culture to commercial culture as one of actual autonomy—as if such a thing were possible.”

Bubble #2 (Reading Response 2: Due 1/20)

Jim Hillier, “US Independent Cinema since the 1980s” [Contemporary American Cinema, p. 247-264]

1. What have been the various uses of the term “independent” in American cinema since the 1947 Paramount Decree, and what are some of the broad characteristics of so-called independent cinema of the 1980s and 1990s?

The term “independent” — when applied to film — has been defined to varying degrees since the late 1940’s-1950’s when “independent” referred to films, usually avant-garde, that were produced and distributed without the financial help of big time studios. These films didn’t follow your usual narrative structure and they were not designed to screen in your average theatre. As John Cassevetes began making independent films in the 1950’s-1960’s, this framework was presented in his films. As “independent cinema” evolved into the 1980’s-1990’s, new characteristics began to form, such as different and unusual story lines with controversial subject matter, distinctive styles of narration and editing techniques, and an escape from the misconception that a “good film” relies on big stars, special effects, and a happy ending.

2. What impact did home video and cable television have on independent film production in the 1980s, and which studios and distributors emerged in this period? Describe the “continuum” suggested by Hillier to describe the range of producers and studios associated with independent film.

With the introduction of home video and cable television in the 1980’s, the distribution of independent cinema became a reality, rather than a hopeful dream, for producers and filmmakers alike. Canon, Vestryn, Goldwyn, and New Line were some of the emerging distribution companies that were a step ahead of the major studios with the distribution market, allowing independent films and studio films to be screened by thousands in the comfort of their own homes. In speaking about the “continuum”, though these studio films and independent films were distributed by these companies with similar intentions (making money), the products themselves were very different from one another, all coming from different producers, directors, and styles.

3. What were the two consensus “defining moments” for American independent cinema in the 1980s and 1990s, and what where the consequences of those films? How did the films affect the relationship between independent studios and the larger Hollywood industry? Which major studio subsidiaries became associated with independent production in the 1990s and 2000s (with Disney, Time Warner, Sony, Fox, Universal, Paramount)?

The two defining moments of independent cinema in the 1980’s and the 1990’s were the critical success of “independent” films sex, lies, and videotape and Pulp Fiction. Concerning sex, lies, and videotape, a consequence that has been brought up is that the film set a benchmark for independent filmmakers, a benchmark that cannot be met. In the case of Pulp Fiction, it is a film that possesses an indistinguishable “independent” quality, considering the film had financial backers and an all-star cast, hence blurring the lines of Hollywood blockbuster and independent cinema. During the 1990’s and 2000’s, studios like Disney and Fox Searchlight became involved in independent projects such as The Royal Tenenbaums and Boys Don’t Cry, respectively. This involvement suggested that “independent cinema” was becoming more of an image to uphold in the eyes of studios, rather than the artistic approach it really is.

4. In the Miramax sidebar: How did the evolution of Miramax help blur the definition between “independent” and “studio” productions?

Miramax, a big time studio, began financing and distributing films of the mainstream and independent caliber, therefore blurring the lines on what films are considered Hollywood blockbuster and art-house avant-garde.

5. How does Hillier describe the career trajectory of Gus Van Sant in 2001, and how does he re-evaluate his assessment in this more recent article?

Hillier suggests that, according to his career trajectory, Van Sant has infiltrated into the mainstream, and more recently, is returning to his “indie” roots. Hillier reconsiders his claim and goes on to suggest that perhaps this is not a return to any previous style, but instead the birth of a third phase in Gus Van Sant’s career as a contemporary artist.

Kristin Thompson, “Modern Classicism”

1. What are the characteristics of “post-classical” filmmaking, and why does Thompson disagree with the term as a description of recent filmmaking practices? How does Thompson use Jaws to support her argument?

Post-classical refers to the approach to filmmaking that remained once the auteur theory and its practitioners came about in the 1960’s. The approach differed from the classical style in that it did not follow the usual narrative structure nor did it employ psychologically developed characters. Thompson does not believe this term can be applied to todays films because “post-classical” was simply a detour on the Hollywood map, though it has had it’s lingering effects.

2. What specific techniques do Hollywood narratives use to achieve clarity and unity?

With the use of continuity editing, cause and effect narration, set design, and lighting, filmmakers were able to create an environment that aided in the clarity and unity of the narration.

3. What are the characteristics of Thompsons four large-scale parts of Hollywood narratives, and how do they help her provide a more nuanced analysis of the script of Terminator 2 than Syd Field’s three-act approach?

The characteristics of Thompsons “four large-scale” approach to narrative are the setup, complicating action, development, and climax.

4. Attempt to break down the structure of Even Cowgirls Get the Blues according to Thompson's model.

In applying Thompson’s model to Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, I found that the following are the four large scale parts to the film....

Setup- introduction of Sissy, her birth defect, and her deep obsession with hitchhiking, The Countess sends Sissy to The Rubber Rose

Complicating Action- The Cowgirls are introduced and rebel against The Rubber Rose Ranch in hopes of saving the whooping crane

Development- Sissy develops a romantic relationship with Bonanza Jellybean which interferes with her mission (commercial) at The Rubber Rose. The cowgirls continue to hold their ground, and Sissy meets “The Chink”. Sissy wants to be normal and has her right thumb fixed, only to discover that hitchhiking is no longer as easy as it used to be.

Climax- The queen gets her third vision she was promised and the cowgirls give up the fight. Bonanza Jellybean approaches the front lines and is shot down by the police, where Sissy is given her last chance to say goodbye to Bonanza Jellybean. The whooping crane fly away.

Epilogue- Sissy visits “The Chink” in the hospital and decides to remain a cowgirl.

Bubble #1 (Reading Response 1: Due 1/11)

1. Briefly compare and contrast The Discipline of D.E. and Mala Noche in terms of film style (mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing, sound).

The first thing that comes to mind concerning the two films is the choice of black and white that exists as a similarity. Both films are also of high contrast, thought Mala Noche has far less key lighting. If anything, the film seems to be even darker than if it had been shot with natural lighting. Then again, the exposure must have played a role as well. The camera movements of Mala Noche seem to have a lot more life behind them as they move around, follow, and get in up close to the characters. The editing in D.E. is quicker and a bit more clean cut while the editing in Mala Noche makes use of the long take, creating a mundane setting for the viewer. Another characteristic to note is that both films made use of a narrator.

2. Briefly comment on the narrative structure of Mala Noche. How is it similar or different from Classical Hollywood narrative?

Mala Noche strays from the Classical Hollywood Structure in that it doesn’t have a solid storyline or framework to carry it along. While this “lack-of-story-framework” is common in independent films today, I’m not so sure it was as prevalent when this film was made. The story hinges on whether or not Johnny will come back into town and when, and that is completely unpredictable. This framework helps us to relate with Walt, who is pining for Johnny. Not only will Johnny’s return serve Walt with some joy and satisfaction, but it will also serve us with some plot development, therefore we yearn for Johnny as well. Classical Hollywood Narrative has been noted for having a heterosexual romance, where the romance (if you could call it that) in Mala Noche is homosexual.

Janet Staiger, “Authorship and Van Sant”

3. Briefly re-state the following passage in your own words: “By conceptualizing authoring as a technique of the self, as a citational practice, an individual person ‘authors’ by duplicating recipes and exercises of authorship within a cultural and institutional context that understands such acts as agency and repetition of such acts as signs of individuality. Moreover, acts that differ from dominant expressions may become favored performatives of authorship for minorities because they distinguish the speakers’ expression from other dominant authoring expressions.”

In order to stand out in today’s society, in terms of art and expression in the realm of filmmaking, an author must have a developed understanding of common techniques and practices that are executed by his/her fellow filmmakers/authors. These fellow colleagues may employ dominant-like or minority-like techniques in their films, however, all techniques are important to recognize as these techniques come from (as stated in the original quote) a cultural and institutional context that understand that these devices and the repetition of such devices can create an image of individuality. So depending on which techniques an author chooses to employ, his/her image of individuality will be altered, but not necessarily in terms of positively and negatively. In any art form, innovation is a strength. To choose minority-like devices and techniques and employ them in your recipe for creation is a great way to stand out among the crowd.

4. In your own words, briefly define the six tactics associated with minority authorship.

creation of alter egos- to employ a fictional or nonfictional character in one’s work as a image of one’s self

silence- silence, at times, can be a performative. In the example given, if one wanted to perform the act of keeping a secret, all they would have to do in order to perform it would be to remain silent.

repetition- to repeat techniques, shots, storylines, or other details in order to gain a sense of authoring individuality (ex. Van Sant using the same Idaho road in the films Idaho and Cowgirls) A direct quote from the reading states that “throwing in references to other works or one’s own texts is part of creating an authorial signature (repetition creates the signature)”.

recombination- to combine many sources into a brand new whole, thus carrying an entirely different meaning from its original parts

inversion- this one is tough to explain. the only way I can put it into words (if i’m even sure i have grasped the concept) is for an author to know what the audience expects, and to give them something that is the complete opposite, not for the sake of being unpredictable, but because the author knew what they expected and wanted to take advantage of such an opportunity as it can create irony.

accentuation- to slightly alter or dramatize a common idea, in order to bring about a further degree of importance to the idea at hand

5. What point does Staiger make when she compares critical speculation about the intent of using Shakespeare in My Own Private Idaho with Van Sant’s own comments about his use of Shakespeare in the film? For Staiger, how does Van Sant’s comments partially explain his use of intertexual references in many of his films?

The point she makes is that some authors make choices that will help them to be the author they want to be. Critical speculation, that is looking for a “grand purpose to the appropriation”, suggests Van Sant used Shakespeare in his film as a way of radicalizing Shakespeare, or bringing it into a modern setting. Van Sant explained himself as using such devices and intertextual references as insight into his characters and “the solution to the compositional problem of linking together episodes...the intertextual references serve as the glue”.

6. What is the relationship between Van Sant’s use of intertexual references and what Staiger calls his “post-gay” stance?

With Van Sant being “post-gay”, he recognizes his homosexuality but has no intention on advertising it or inspiring with it. It is a quality he possesses that carries the same weight of importance as his height or his shoe size. He believes in order to achieve and maintain complete civil equity, his homosexuality should not be seen as his number one feature, the main reason being because it simply isn’t. If you were to accentuate this quality and label Gus Van Sant a gay director, it could be argued that some of his intertextual references are “evidence of Van Sant’s gestures to other gays”. However, he is not just a gay director, he is a man who possesses many qualities including his homosexuality. His use of intertextual references are not attention getters to the gays, but instead are simply employed for the sake of Van Sant creating his own authorial signature.

7. Briefly explain why Staiger argues that ironical repetition is Van Sant’s foundational authorial tactic.

The sources Van Sant chooses to employ in his repetition are usually ironic in nature, and are “motivated by the art movements Van Sant acknowledges as his preferences...postmodernism and pop culture”. Some of the way he uses repetition is by referencing classic plot lines for his films.

8. How is the casting of Van Sant’s Psycho an example of the tactic of inversion?

This part of the article I found to be extremely witty of Van Sant, concerning his casting choices. In the original Psycho, Hitchcock casted a gay man (not necessarily intentionally) to play Norman, a character who was never perceived to be a heterosexual, so was assumed to be a psychotic pervert (which, as noted by the article, portrays some homophobia). Gus Van Sant, in utilizing a practice of inversion, casted an over-the-top straight Vince Vaughn to play the character of Norman this time around, a character who was obviously straight this time, in turn clearing up a plot line that should have been a bit more clear in the first place, and a lot less homophobic, considering today’s standards. The cherry on the top was that Van Sant casted Anne Heche, who had just recently come out of the closet, as Marion. Very clever Gussy.