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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment