Positive Western Reception
-Cult reception
-Complex narrative
-Symbolism of eating the octopus
-Age consent
-Powerful film...depths of the human heart
Negative Western Reception
-Harming animals - octopus
-Sadmasochism
-Puerile
-Does not reach the standards of a puritanical minority
-Age consent
-Style over substance
Adolescent target audience
Hollywood remake reception
-CHN - less morally ambiguous ending
-Commodifies morals (Capitalistic greed)
-Alignment (Backstory)
-Hammer scene (separate shots)
-Ending = completely different
-Insulting to the Hollywood audience
Tuesday, 9 June 2015
Wednesday, 11 March 2015
Theories on 500 Days of Summer
Kaplan argues that the spectator always aligns with the male in film and argues that the spectator must have a conscious decision to align with the female in the film. For example, a spectator may align with Summer consciously in the scene where she's explaining her dream to Tom, If the film is viewed through subconcious male gaze, the spectator may not align with Summer, as the audience cannot hear her perspective due to the voice-over explaining how this was a big moment for Tom, not her. In 500 days of summer, Kaplan's theory of the submissive female gaze is presented to a certain extent. Although the film is thrown primarily from Tom's point of view and how he sees the "relationship", the negative parts of his encounters with Summer can possibly be from her perspective. Summer is a dominant and independent character who takes on masculine qualities, reversing/challenging stereotypes of Hollywood cinema, therefore making Tom the subject instead of her. Summer adopts qualities of being a femme fe tale character, becoming the central aspect of the story line as opposed to being the subject.One may adapt a negotiated reading from this film; if the spectator is not white, straight and male due to the film being created by a white, male director and the entire film being focused around a straight, white, males relationship with a women who is not falling all over him. For the audience to take a conscious decision to take the woman's perspective then they will most likely take a negotiated or oppositional reading due to the gaze being an oppositional gaze.
Linda Williams is another female film theorist who suggests that when a woman becomes dominant in film, she usually pays for it and is punished. In 500 Days Of Summer, it's not Summer who's punished, but Tom. Summer adopts masculine qualities that make her independent, leaving Tom to be the fragile and emotional character. An example of this is when Tom and Summer are in the pancake house and she ends their "relationship", describing that their Sid and Nancy. When Tom argues this, Summer says that she is Sid, enforcing more ideas that her masculine qualities make her strong and independent, challenging Williams' theories seeing as Tom is the one who suffers emotional damage, not her.Summer is not punished diegetically for this but she is punished by the spectators response to her unconventional attitudes. Spectators may have an oppositional reading to the film due to the way Summer is presented in such a masculine manner, causing the audience to align with and feel sympathy for Tom.
There are specific parts of the film where the Male Gaze is clearly presented and conforms to the stereotypical Hollywood film. An example is the scene where Tom has sex with Summer for the first time and it breaks out into a massive dance scene in the middle of the street. Although this is a comical part of the film, it displays the male gaze on a large scale; a large celebration of Tom conquering Summer with his penis, making Summer the subject and Tom regain his masculinity. Another example is when Tom and Paul are talking about Summer and Paul is only interested in knowing the sexual details of their relationship, enforcing more ideas that the male gaze is a dominant aspect in Hollywood cinema. Based on theories of Freud, Bellor and Metz, Laura Mulvey explores the Male Gaze and how women are the subject of the film, only making an appearance for visual pleasure. The narrator describes her physical features, causing her to be the object of visual pleasure only by through the male gaze of the spectator
Linda Williams is another female film theorist who suggests that when a woman becomes dominant in film, she usually pays for it and is punished. In 500 Days Of Summer, it's not Summer who's punished, but Tom. Summer adopts masculine qualities that make her independent, leaving Tom to be the fragile and emotional character. An example of this is when Tom and Summer are in the pancake house and she ends their "relationship", describing that their Sid and Nancy. When Tom argues this, Summer says that she is Sid, enforcing more ideas that her masculine qualities make her strong and independent, challenging Williams' theories seeing as Tom is the one who suffers emotional damage, not her.Summer is not punished diegetically for this but she is punished by the spectators response to her unconventional attitudes. Spectators may have an oppositional reading to the film due to the way Summer is presented in such a masculine manner, causing the audience to align with and feel sympathy for Tom.
There are specific parts of the film where the Male Gaze is clearly presented and conforms to the stereotypical Hollywood film. An example is the scene where Tom has sex with Summer for the first time and it breaks out into a massive dance scene in the middle of the street. Although this is a comical part of the film, it displays the male gaze on a large scale; a large celebration of Tom conquering Summer with his penis, making Summer the subject and Tom regain his masculinity. Another example is when Tom and Paul are talking about Summer and Paul is only interested in knowing the sexual details of their relationship, enforcing more ideas that the male gaze is a dominant aspect in Hollywood cinema. Based on theories of Freud, Bellor and Metz, Laura Mulvey explores the Male Gaze and how women are the subject of the film, only making an appearance for visual pleasure. The narrator describes her physical features, causing her to be the object of visual pleasure only by through the male gaze of the spectator
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
500 Days of Summer
In 500 days of summer, Kaplan's theory of the submissive female gaze is presented to a certain extent. Although the film is thrown primarily from Tom's point of view and how he sees the "relationship", the negative parts of his encounters with Summer can possibly be from her perspective. Summer is a dominant and independent character who takes on masculine qualities, reversing/challenging stereotypes of Hollywood cinema, therefore making Tom the subject instead of her. Summer adopts qualities of being a femme fe tale character, becoming the central aspect of the story line as opposed to being the subject.
There are specific parts of the film where the Male Gaze is clearly presented and conforms to the stereotypical Hollywood film. An example is the scene where Tom has sex with Summer for the first time and it breaks out into a massive dance scene in the middle of the street. Although this is a comical part of the film, it displays the male gaze on a large scale; a large celebration of Tom conquering Summer with his penis, making Summer the subject and Tom regain his masculinity. Another example is when Tom and Paul are talking about Summer and Paul is only interested in knowing the sexual details of their relationship, enforcing more ideas that the male gaze is a dominant aspect in Hollywood cinema.
Linda Williams suggests that when a woman becomes dominant in film, she usually pays for it and is punished. In 500 Days Of Summer, it's not Summer who's punished, but Tom. Summer adopts masculine qualities that make her independent, leaving Tom to be the fragile and emotional character. An example of this is when Tom and Summer are in the pancake house and she ends their "relationship", describing that their Sid and Nancy. When Tom argues this, Summer says that she is Sid, enforcing more ideas that her masculine qualities make her strong and independent, challenging Williams' theories seeing as Tom is the one who suffers emotional damage, not her.
There are specific parts of the film where the Male Gaze is clearly presented and conforms to the stereotypical Hollywood film. An example is the scene where Tom has sex with Summer for the first time and it breaks out into a massive dance scene in the middle of the street. Although this is a comical part of the film, it displays the male gaze on a large scale; a large celebration of Tom conquering Summer with his penis, making Summer the subject and Tom regain his masculinity. Another example is when Tom and Paul are talking about Summer and Paul is only interested in knowing the sexual details of their relationship, enforcing more ideas that the male gaze is a dominant aspect in Hollywood cinema.
Linda Williams suggests that when a woman becomes dominant in film, she usually pays for it and is punished. In 500 Days Of Summer, it's not Summer who's punished, but Tom. Summer adopts masculine qualities that make her independent, leaving Tom to be the fragile and emotional character. An example of this is when Tom and Summer are in the pancake house and she ends their "relationship", describing that their Sid and Nancy. When Tom argues this, Summer says that she is Sid, enforcing more ideas that her masculine qualities make her strong and independent, challenging Williams' theories seeing as Tom is the one who suffers emotional damage, not her.
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Different gazes in contemporary cinema
Mulvey, Metz and Bellor - Male gaze: the woman is the subject
Kaplan - submissive female gaze: looking at the film through the eyes of the secondary female
Williams - Dominant gaze: the woman gets punished for having sexual control
Crazy/Beautiful
-This 2002 film contrasts these theories of how characters are viewed by spectators.
-In some respects, the main character Nicole is seen as the subject but very rarely sexualised, excluding the ideas of the male gaze being over-powering in this film
-The film does follow Kaplan's theories of the submissive female gaze, as the story is partly told through the eyes of Nicole and we side with her as an audience, we are also shown the story through the perspective of Carlos, her other half
-Williams' theory of the dominant gaze is not-existant in this film; Nicole does not get punished for having sexual control - the only part of this film that she is punished for is her reckless and rebellious behaviour which results in under-age drinking
Kaplan - submissive female gaze: looking at the film through the eyes of the secondary female
Williams - Dominant gaze: the woman gets punished for having sexual control
Crazy/Beautiful
-This 2002 film contrasts these theories of how characters are viewed by spectators.
-In some respects, the main character Nicole is seen as the subject but very rarely sexualised, excluding the ideas of the male gaze being over-powering in this film
-The film does follow Kaplan's theories of the submissive female gaze, as the story is partly told through the eyes of Nicole and we side with her as an audience, we are also shown the story through the perspective of Carlos, her other half
-Williams' theory of the dominant gaze is not-existant in this film; Nicole does not get punished for having sexual control - the only part of this film that she is punished for is her reckless and rebellious behaviour which results in under-age drinking
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
How is the spectator effected in A Clockwork Orange?
In A Clockwork Orange, directed by Stanley Kuberick, the spectator is heavily affected by the explicit content that is exposed and presented throughout the film. As the story follows a psychologically damaged main character, spectators are involuntarily siding with this character as his journey unfolds, despite how disturbing and morally wrong it is.
The start of the film explores Alex, the main character, and his gang causing havoc and indulging in reckless behaviour such as assaulting a homeless man, breaking into a writer's home, damaging his belongings, beating him mercilessly and then making him watch as they rape his wife. Another disturbing event that Alex finds pleasure in is when he breaks into another woman's house to rape her and as she retaliates he ends up killing her without remorse. At this point in the film, the spectator would be increasingly uncomfortable and have a firm decision that they are not going to side with this character. An oppositional reading would have been adapted by the spectators due to the fact the film shows an explicit depiction of rape, gang culture, delinquency and violence. The diegetic and non-diegetic sounds in the first part of the film would also affect the spectator; Alex sings "Singing In The Rain" as he breaks into the writer's house, beats him and rapes his wife, making it impossible for the audience to listen to that song in the same way without feeling disturbed. Another song that changes the spectator's perception on how they listen to it is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony which is played throughout the film and what Alex views as his theme music as he indulges in violent and immoral acts.
As Alex spends time in prison, he is experimented on with what's called the Lodovico Technique, forcing him to watch videos of the immoral behaviour he used to live by whilst having Beethoven's Ninth Symphony playing over it - eventually resulting in him hating these acts of crime and the music that he once loved. As Alex's perception of the world is changed and he apparently changes his ways, the spectator is obligated to feel compassion for him as they've seen him on the journey of averting from his old way of life. When Alex is released from prison, he is kicked out of his parents' house due their discovery of his immoral behaviour, attacked by the homeless man whom he assaulted in the beginning of the film and nearly drowned by his former gang members. These events would cause divisional opinions between spectators; some spectators would feel sympathy for Alex seeing he is now a reformed man whereas some spectators would feel no sympathy whatsoever and have the idea that he deserves the torture from his previous victims. When Alex accidentally stumbles across the writer's house, the writer recognises him when he sings "Singing In The Rain" again, and when Alex passes out the writer locks him in a room and plays Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, driving Alex to insanity and a suicide attempt. At this point, the spectator opinions would still be divided between feelings of sympathy and hostility.
The style of the film is dream-like and abnormal, exploring the ideas of abstract art and different depictions of sex. The film itself is a representation of Alex's distorted and disturbed frame of mind in terms of how violence is displayed as enjoyable and that sex is tangible, despite whatever form it comes in. An example is when Alex kills the woman with a penis-shaped statue - combining both violence and sex, representing his inner thoughts and desires. The animation as he impales the woman makes the film more surreal and abstract, further symbolising that Alex has a very distorted and controversial frame of mind. In the first part of the film there is a vast amount of sexual symbolism; the art-work in the cat-woman's house, the mannequins at the start of the film, the rape scenes, Alex masturbating to the statues of Jesus and Deltoid grabbing Alex at the crotch when he wants him to listen. These depictions of sex may cause the spectators discomfort seeing as the year the film was released (1971), such explicit content was seen as a taboo which resulted in this film being banned from cinemas seeing as it could offend, damage and influence audiences and society.
The start of the film explores Alex, the main character, and his gang causing havoc and indulging in reckless behaviour such as assaulting a homeless man, breaking into a writer's home, damaging his belongings, beating him mercilessly and then making him watch as they rape his wife. Another disturbing event that Alex finds pleasure in is when he breaks into another woman's house to rape her and as she retaliates he ends up killing her without remorse. At this point in the film, the spectator would be increasingly uncomfortable and have a firm decision that they are not going to side with this character. An oppositional reading would have been adapted by the spectators due to the fact the film shows an explicit depiction of rape, gang culture, delinquency and violence. The diegetic and non-diegetic sounds in the first part of the film would also affect the spectator; Alex sings "Singing In The Rain" as he breaks into the writer's house, beats him and rapes his wife, making it impossible for the audience to listen to that song in the same way without feeling disturbed. Another song that changes the spectator's perception on how they listen to it is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony which is played throughout the film and what Alex views as his theme music as he indulges in violent and immoral acts.
As Alex spends time in prison, he is experimented on with what's called the Lodovico Technique, forcing him to watch videos of the immoral behaviour he used to live by whilst having Beethoven's Ninth Symphony playing over it - eventually resulting in him hating these acts of crime and the music that he once loved. As Alex's perception of the world is changed and he apparently changes his ways, the spectator is obligated to feel compassion for him as they've seen him on the journey of averting from his old way of life. When Alex is released from prison, he is kicked out of his parents' house due their discovery of his immoral behaviour, attacked by the homeless man whom he assaulted in the beginning of the film and nearly drowned by his former gang members. These events would cause divisional opinions between spectators; some spectators would feel sympathy for Alex seeing he is now a reformed man whereas some spectators would feel no sympathy whatsoever and have the idea that he deserves the torture from his previous victims. When Alex accidentally stumbles across the writer's house, the writer recognises him when he sings "Singing In The Rain" again, and when Alex passes out the writer locks him in a room and plays Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, driving Alex to insanity and a suicide attempt. At this point, the spectator opinions would still be divided between feelings of sympathy and hostility.
The style of the film is dream-like and abnormal, exploring the ideas of abstract art and different depictions of sex. The film itself is a representation of Alex's distorted and disturbed frame of mind in terms of how violence is displayed as enjoyable and that sex is tangible, despite whatever form it comes in. An example is when Alex kills the woman with a penis-shaped statue - combining both violence and sex, representing his inner thoughts and desires. The animation as he impales the woman makes the film more surreal and abstract, further symbolising that Alex has a very distorted and controversial frame of mind. In the first part of the film there is a vast amount of sexual symbolism; the art-work in the cat-woman's house, the mannequins at the start of the film, the rape scenes, Alex masturbating to the statues of Jesus and Deltoid grabbing Alex at the crotch when he wants him to listen. These depictions of sex may cause the spectators discomfort seeing as the year the film was released (1971), such explicit content was seen as a taboo which resulted in this film being banned from cinemas seeing as it could offend, damage and influence audiences and society.
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Full Metal Jacket Write-Up
Reception Theory
-Was this film provocative, throwaway or intellectually demanding? Why?
Personally, I think that Full Metal Jacket was a provocative film due to the fact it addresses the strict routine of war life. At the start of the film, we see Private Pyle being victimised by Sergeant Hartman and how Pyle's reaction to this constant bullying results in psychological damage and suicide. Events such as these provoke feelings of discomfort and unsettlement from the audience, further causing this film to be provocative. There are certain aspects of "Full Metal Jacket" which follow conventions of it being an intellectually demanding film; exploring the horrors the soldiers are exposed to in Vietnam and informing the audience of what struggles they had to go through, both psychologically and physically, gives the film elements of being intellectually demanding.
-What is the preferred reading of this film?
The preferred reading of this film would be mainly patriotic and nationalistic. In "Full Metal Jacket" we automatically side with the American soldiers, believing that they're seen as the "good guys" throughout the situation.
-What reading did you take to this film and why?
Personally, I took an oppositional reading to this film due to the fact I don't believe in the necessity of war and violence as a solution to disagreements. Seeing civilians in Vietnam being murdered and the horrors that the soldiers were exposed to made me uncomfortable and I didn't believe in their morals and justifications for killing.
Central and a-central Imagining
-An example of central imagining being clearly presented is the scene where Eightball is being shot continuously by the sniper, showing the blood and gore. The diegetic sound of Eightball screaming in agony and seeing his body gradually getting more damaged as the scene goes on gives the audience a more visual understanding of his pain, causing a central response.
-An example of a-central imagining is when Pyle commits suicide, provoking an emotional response from the audience and causing them discomfort and possible sadness/sympathy. The reaction on Joker's face as Pyle turns the rifle on himself is reflective of the audience; anxious and shocked. The mise-en-scene of Pyle's blood and brain on the bathroom wall provokes an emotional reaction of feeling helpless like Pyle, due to his psychological breakdown we understand his motives. Personally, I felt uncomfortable and sad when Pyle committed suicide; him thinking that killing himself was the only solution to the hardship he's endured made me feel compassion and sympathy for him.
Alignment
-I personally only felt aligned with Joker in Full Metal Jacket. Joker has common sense and is reluctant to kill and wears a peace sign, showing his compassion and that he is not fully involved in the violent, war lifestyle. He has patience with Pyle and happily helps him with basic training, further making him the only bearable character.
-Was this film provocative, throwaway or intellectually demanding? Why?
Personally, I think that Full Metal Jacket was a provocative film due to the fact it addresses the strict routine of war life. At the start of the film, we see Private Pyle being victimised by Sergeant Hartman and how Pyle's reaction to this constant bullying results in psychological damage and suicide. Events such as these provoke feelings of discomfort and unsettlement from the audience, further causing this film to be provocative. There are certain aspects of "Full Metal Jacket" which follow conventions of it being an intellectually demanding film; exploring the horrors the soldiers are exposed to in Vietnam and informing the audience of what struggles they had to go through, both psychologically and physically, gives the film elements of being intellectually demanding.
-What is the preferred reading of this film?
The preferred reading of this film would be mainly patriotic and nationalistic. In "Full Metal Jacket" we automatically side with the American soldiers, believing that they're seen as the "good guys" throughout the situation.
-What reading did you take to this film and why?
Personally, I took an oppositional reading to this film due to the fact I don't believe in the necessity of war and violence as a solution to disagreements. Seeing civilians in Vietnam being murdered and the horrors that the soldiers were exposed to made me uncomfortable and I didn't believe in their morals and justifications for killing.
Central and a-central Imagining
-An example of central imagining being clearly presented is the scene where Eightball is being shot continuously by the sniper, showing the blood and gore. The diegetic sound of Eightball screaming in agony and seeing his body gradually getting more damaged as the scene goes on gives the audience a more visual understanding of his pain, causing a central response.
-An example of a-central imagining is when Pyle commits suicide, provoking an emotional response from the audience and causing them discomfort and possible sadness/sympathy. The reaction on Joker's face as Pyle turns the rifle on himself is reflective of the audience; anxious and shocked. The mise-en-scene of Pyle's blood and brain on the bathroom wall provokes an emotional reaction of feeling helpless like Pyle, due to his psychological breakdown we understand his motives. Personally, I felt uncomfortable and sad when Pyle committed suicide; him thinking that killing himself was the only solution to the hardship he's endured made me feel compassion and sympathy for him.
Alignment
-I personally only felt aligned with Joker in Full Metal Jacket. Joker has common sense and is reluctant to kill and wears a peace sign, showing his compassion and that he is not fully involved in the violent, war lifestyle. He has patience with Pyle and happily helps him with basic training, further making him the only bearable character.
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)