Blog Feed

La La Land – Deep Dive

Context:

La La Land is unique in that it relies almost completely on homage and pastiche to present a completely niche topic to the audience – jazz culture. In blending two extremes, Chazelle allows the audience to feel a sense of familiarity and certainty when viewing this film but at the same time, the content feels new and fresh. This produces a surprising sense of harmony and allows for the audience to experience escapism at its finest.

In many regards, Americans had never been as divided as they were in 2016 (the release date of La La Land). Amid a rising terror threat (both domestic and international), the USA was in the process of electing a new President amidst the ending of a generally successful Obama Presidency. Top contenders in the reigning Democratic Party were:

  1. Hilary Clinton – former First Lady during the Bill Clinton two term Presidency of 1992-2000. This was not an immensely beneficial period for Hilary Clinton as she became entangled in a very public affair concerning her husband.
  2. Bernie Sanders – the most left-leaning candidate. Sanders was very much in favour of a socialist reform to the country and had no real allegiance to the Democratic Party.

On the Republican side of things, the primary debates were extremely interesting because there was no real leader in the race. Instead, the following candidates seemed best placed to be the Republican nominee:

  1. Donald Trump – nicknamed ‘The Donald’, Trump is a businessman first and politician second. He drew a lot of media attention (both good and bad) for his outspoken views on, well, everything.
  2. Ted Cruz – the Texan performed well throughout the primaries and drew a lot of support from his home state.
  3. Marco Rubio – as one of the younger candidates, Rubio was frequently questioned over his lack of experience in politics.
  4. Jeb Bush – the relative of two former Presidents, Bush was initially thought of as the most likely candidate.

Alas, Hilary Clinton beat out Bernie Sanders in a hotly fought contest but at what cost? There is a definite argument to be made that Clinton was deemed unlikeable due to the ‘email leaking’ scandal. Many voters also felt that she symbolised too much of a steady Democratic process that wouldn’t bring anything new to the table or seek to innovate. On the other hand, Sanders could’ve been too liberal in his ideas that he risked scaring off the undecided voters with his radical policies. In many respects, the Democrats felt that they chose the candidate most likely to win.

On the other side of things, the Republican contest was much more open. In fact, the number of major contenders was one of the largest ever. Ultimately, Donald Trump beat out Ted Cruz, with the latter supporting Trump in his bid to become President. Nevertheless, throughout the primaries, Trump frequently made headlines for his free speaking attitude. With lines such as “my turn now, be quiet”, Trump was frequently labelled as rude, which many believe would cost him the race. In fact, the extra media attention almost definitely created a world that encouraged undecided voters to vote for Trump.

During the debates between Trump and Clinton, there was a distinct sense of a weakened American democracy, with Trump even refusing to answer whether or not he would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power if he lost. There were also a fair share of revelations throughout the race, the most shocking one being a video of Trump’s sexist comments towards women.

Interestingly, instead of alienating voters with his derogatory comments, Trump won the election. What seemed to take place, was that many former democrats felt entranced by the change Trump was promising and fell for the lullaby of his ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan. In the end, despite winning the popular vote, Hilary Clinton proved too unlikable and untrustworthy.

Unfortunately, the polarising effect of Trump’s comments severely exacerbated existing tensions within America, with the volume of hate crimes rising exponentially in the immediate aftermath of his triumph. Most vulnerable and attacked, were ethnic monitory groups. Trump’s promise to “build a wall” and make the “Mexicans pay for it”, combined with his “illegal hombres” comments, normalised racism. This was a backwards step for a country that had just elected its first African American President.

Consequently, La La Land was a necessity for many Americans. The target audience, urban millennials, felt the most downtrodden by Trump’s win, with most young city dwellers voting blue. Therefore, Chazelle almost made this film for these sullen citizens, with the aim of providing effective escapism. It is therefore peculiar that he looks to do this through homage. However, I would argue that this is effective because it presents a glamorised world only seen on movies and television. With the negative aspects of the 1950s and 1960’s (sexism and racism) all but removed.

Potentially one of the more complex aspects of La La Land, is how Chazelle was able to popularise such a niche genre – the musical. Very much a mainstay genre of the 1950’s and 1960’s, it is fair to say that many Hollywood studios had hesitations about financially backing La La Land when Chazelle first started pitching his script in 2010. Consequently, it took the success of Whiplash, a film by Chazelle and published in 2014, to turn the tides.

Whiplash also focused on the niche subject of jazz but was financially successful and critically acclaimed. Therefore, Lionsgate (a huge media conglomerate) agreed to finance and distribute La La Land in a very similar way to the studio backed films of Classical Hollywood. Contrastingly to Classical Hollywood, Chazelle was given sole artistic power and was able to produce his film exactly how he had envisaged it whilst writing it in college.

Thankfully, this paid off, with the film making over $10 million at the domestic box office and winning three Oscars. It is clear that whilst the film resonated with many millennials looking to escape an increasingly terrifying world, this would not have been possible if not for the backing of Lionsgate. Which, in turn, would not have been possible without the success of Whiplash. From my point of view, this underlines how important it is for a filmmaker to build up credibility and that great films that are financially successful are rarely, if ever, accomplished without a history of hard work and perseverance.

Aesthetics:

The aesthetic of La La Land is a abrasive concept theoretically but the execution is nothing short of phenomenal. Namely, Chazelle utilises jarring binary oppositions, most noticeably of realism vs expression and of old vs new. This results in a unique tone throughout the film that isn’t characteristic of any film I’ve seen before, even though it pays homage to classics through inter textual references in the film form. I believe that Chazelle took this approach to completely subvert audience expectations of a musical genre. The aspects of the film that exemplify the musical genre features (elaborate dance sequences, sudden singing and beautiful sets) are sometimes immediately positioned next to realistic plot points or narrative devices, such as when Seb is fired from his job at the restaurant. This encourages the viewer to think inwardly about their life and how their youthful dreams might not have played out as expected but that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing (given the generally upbeat ending).

One of my favourite instances of this aesthetic in action, is at the beginning of the film. We are given glimpses of a contemporary urban setting and the audience can most likely conclude that it is LA. Equally: the heavy traffic, variety of cars (suggesting a hierarchy of wealth) and beaming sun indicate that the setting is familiar to many citizens of urban environments. Immediately, Chazelle blends the realism of the setting with expressionism in the mise-en-scene (a mainstay of the entire film). We see an elaborate dance sequence set to the non-diegetic composed score of “Another Day Of Sun” and citizens emerge from their cars, revealing brightly coloured costumes that seem almost fake. This blend of realism and expression immediately sets an uneasy tone of conflict, which is further established in the plot (Mia and Seb at conflict over their career progression). It also enables Chazelle to conform to the musical genre expectations and then immediately subvert them.

The subversion is achieved through the immediate and jarring transition to Seb. Chazelle uses oppositional ideas to signpost the character of Seb as the protagonist. For a start, the interior of his car is brown, suggesting that he has different tastes to the other residents, perhaps older and more sophisticated. The change in sound to the diegetic jazz music on Seb’s radio also signals a change in perspective. However, the tracking shot that comes in from behind Seb’s head allows for Chazelle to build up a sense of mystique around the character and encourages the audience to invest in him from the offset. This juxtaposition between the expressive and the real is emblematic of the character similarity between Seb and Mia, with the two being hyper aware of the hardship they face in the real world. This is set against the backdrop of an almost unreal world that evokes both a sense of pity for the characters and a sense of dramatic irony. In this regard, it can be said that Chazelle uses the jarring aesthetic to propel the character arcs of Seb and Mia forwards and develop a bond between them.

The best example of the use of the aesthetic to present Mia is the transition between her first audition and at her house. In her first audition, the lighting is very dark and Mia wears blue clothing against a blue background. In truth, she doesn’t stand out at all. There is one long take of a close-up of Mia’s face, ironically emphasising how isolated she is amidst a sea of other aspiring actresses. The scene immediately afterwards ensures that the audience acknowledges the significance of Mia’s failing career. The expressive dance that she partakes in with her three friends seems to almost compound the misery that she faces. In a Hollywood world that is so glamorised in the media, she can’t find happiness. Instead, in a group, she feigns interest in order to try and fit in. This allows Chazelle to develop the narrative idea of Seb having something (the ability to stand out with his jazz music) and Mia needing a similar thing (something unique to pride herself on). This aesthetic sets up the entirety of the events in the film and is critical in showing how the protagonists can connect (through realistic hardship) in this very unrealistic world.

Representation:

The representation of particular demographics and groups in La La Land is really interesting because it is a film that relies quite heavily on the nostalgic appeal of the past and, more specifically, Classical Hollywood. It has often been said that nostalgia is the best selling factor and this is certainly a valid point. The notion that people resonate with something they have fond memories over isn’t exactly groundbreaking. However, I believe that when we look back at events or activities retrospectively, we tend to gloss over weaknesses or drawbacks and become somewhat blinkered in our viewpoint. This is especially true when we look back to Classical Hollywood and Classical Cinema in general. It’s deceptively easy to overlook the lack of representation in greats such as: Casablanca or Citizen Kane but unfortunately, these films, as fantastic as they are, are still very much symbolic of their time. That is to say, that even though 21st Century conventions have seen a more balanced and meritocratic view towards equal casting in movies, La La Land almost has an obligation to stay true to the restrictive and diminutive casting of Classical Hollywood, given its reliance on nostalgia.

This is perhaps most evident in the portrayal of ethnic minorities. Even though also Los Angeles is one of the most diverse cities in the world in terms of a varied cohort of ethnicities, minority groups operate very much on the periphery of the film. Some African American actors are seen in the opening of the film but as nothing more than extras and the only major role played by a Black actor is that of John Legend. This in itself has some problems because Legend is almost portrayed as an antagonist, driving a wedge between the relationship of Seb and Mia. It must be said that Chazelle doesn’t portray or represent ethnic minorities in a wholly negative light. Instead, Legend’s somewhat negative character traits encourage the audience to take more of a liking towards Seb and Mia, rather than expressly disliking Legend himself. Equally, I am certain that the lack of roles for ethnic minorities was out of convention and realism, rather than more problematic reasons.

On the other hand, the representations of gender in the film are much more nuanced and clouded in mystery. This is because we explicitly see why Seb is failing, he is too experimental and disobedient so gets fired. It’s also revealed that he made some bad business decisions in the past. It’s therefore easy to appreciate that Seb faces hardship because of his own doing. Contrastingly, we don’t get any insight into why Mia isn’t succeeding, she seems to work hard and tow the line of responsibility. This could suggest that Chazelle is critiquing the Hollywood casting system, that seems to be too discouraging of aspiring actresses. This is a generally positive narrative portrayal because it allows the audience to get some satisfaction at the ending of the film, where Mia achieves success. However, a negative portrayal of women is in line with historically patriarchal views, in that a woman only achieves success because of a man’s actions. In this circumstance, it could be hypothesised that Seb acts as the facilitator in allowing Mia to achieve success (pushing her to write and perform a play). This archaic idea downplays how far society has come in allowing women to achieve individual success and is a severely negative portrayal of women.

Chazelle’s approach to age in the film is certainly interesting and it is clear that he spent a long time thinking about it, through changing casting decisions, for example. Seb and Mia are not old but neither are they young. Consequently, we get a sense of youth running out for the two of them and this goes a long way in explaining why they seem so eager to succeed in their careers. Equally, their sudden change of outlook and drive could be attributed to the common saying of a ‘mid life crisis’, whereby the protagonists seem to relate on a more human level with a large part of the audience. The ageing millennial spectator may too feel unhappy with how their life has panned out and this encourages them to connect with the narrative on a more personal level. On top of this, the nostalgic references to Classical Hollywood suggest to the audience that whilst it’s okay to feel nostalgic, it’s not possible to live successfully in the past. Only when Seb and Mia find their own path built on new ideas (a one woman show and jazz fusion) are they able to find true success and happiness. This is a very positive message to send to the audience because it allows for the escapism that the film offers to be amplified.

Ideology:

One of the more prominent ideas explored in La La Land is the intangible concept of the ‘American Dream’ and the dominant western societal conventions of capitalism and meritocracy. That is to say, Chazelle uses his film to reflect these dominant ideologies back to the audience to show how successful one can become in America. Rather than being an expressly nationalistic and unilateral presentation, we see the trials and tribulations faced by the protagonists before we see any glimpse of success. In many regards, it’s important to see the extent to which Seb and Mia suffer hardship because Chazelle can show the two sides of a developed world, where success isn’t predetermined or easily accessible. Whilst this may be uncomfortable for the audience to realise (that even if they work hard, they might not even be rewarded), it’s a much more accurate depiction of 21st Century life than the almost perfect life shown in many other Hollywood blockbusters and musicals. Whilst the ending of La La Land might seem to conform to this, the fact that Mia and Seb don’t end up together is symbolic of wishful dreams that eventually don’t develop into anything more than that.

Another idea that Chazelle suggests is that no matter how hard you try, you cannot live in the past. The use of nostalgic imagery from past movies, for example the iconic observatory and overtures which are synonymous with Classical Hollywood greats, creates a sense of familiarity and nostalgia. However, the economic struggle faced by Mia and Seb seems like a very contemporary issue, where the wealth divide has never been larger. In this sense, the audience can appreciate a clear divide between this beautiful and enticing past and the supposed suffering of the modern world. This initially makes the audience seem to long for a past that Seb and Mia too wish to be a part of, with the former often commentating on how jazz used to be so much more popular. Nevertheless, Seb’s eventual realisation that jazz has changed subverts the notion that the past is much better than the present. The success that the protagonists achieve is as a result of them moving forwards in their lives. Chazelle offers a comforting message of hope to the audience that everything will work out okay if you focus on living in the present.

La La Land asks more questions when you take a feminist approach towards analysing its content. In many regards, Chazelle’s film conforms to Mulvey’s male gaze, with Mia often featuring as ancillary to the action and Seb’s passion for jazz driving the film forward. After all, Seb is the character whom first achieves success with his band. Equally, there is a negative connotation of regression with regards to Mia’s character. For example, she admits failure in the middle of the film, going to live back with her parents. This could be interpreted as a suggestion that women are weaker minded than men and have less willpower and resilience to succeed. This is because whilst Seb and Mia both face hardship, Seb is the character who consistently fights and makes sacrifices in his pursuit of happiness, whereas Mia chooses to quit. Equally, another interesting approach, is the idea that even though Mia does eventually achieve success, she becomes a mother and the narrative shifts to focus on her child-caring responsibilities and life as a parent. This could be interpreted that the film illustrates the idea that a woman should be a mother first before advancing her career. This recessive idea conforms to patriarchal societal conventions that have all but disappeared in modern society. Nevertheless, it’s important to acknowledge these alternate viewpoints because it encourages analysis that challenges accepted social norms.

It must also be said that positive things can also be said about La La Land from a feminist perspective. In fact, some critics have argued that the film offers a beautifully contemporary look into a modern woman’s life, with the narrative focusing predominantly on Mia, with Seb acting as an ancillary character. This is hypothesised through how much of the on-screen time is spent on Mia, especially at the beginning of the film. It is also made apparent that Mia’s actions directly impact Seb’s life, perhaps more so than the other way around. It is Mia’s short play that encourages Seb to follow his true dream of owning his own jazz club, rather than being content with being in a band. Equally, it is Mia’s move back to her parents’s house that causes Seb to drive over to spur her back on. The idea that Mia is the instigator of action debunks the notion that she is the more passive protagonist. Essentially, Chazelle could be suggesting that the changing roles of women in the 21st Century has also impacted how men live their lives. This suggests that the power dynamic between men and women has been drastically flipped on its head.

Spectatorship:

Undoubtedly my favourite element of La La Land is how Chazelle manipulates his film to effect different age demographics. As a result of some of his techniques, I believe that Chazelle has produced a film that is capable of a variety of different readings, beyond that of the preferred. With that said, it is clear in my view that the preferred reading of La La Land is that a meritocratic society rewards hard work and perseverance, in spite of many failures and setbacks that are almost omnipresent. In this regard, there is a connective line drawn with younger viewers, particularly millennials. In my opinion, Chazelle encourages his target audience to succeed and follow their dreams in spite of the contextual issues continuing to cloud America. In many ways, this is an immensely important message to send because younger people are the future of humanity’s collective success. The success achieved by both Seb and Mia shows that failures and setbacks are almost a prerequisite of success and are nothing to be looked down upon.

Another incredible feature of La La Land is how it rewards viewers for paying eager attention to the film form. For example, the observatory seen on screen is the same location used in such great films as Rebel Without A Cause (Nicholas Ray, 1955), for example. This makes the film seem profound and important because it references such films. A downside of this, is that it subliminally encourages the audience to try and spot as many of these intertextual references as they can, rather than pay direct attention to the preferred reading. As a result of this, a negotiated reading arises, whereby a viewer may believe that the events in the film, as real as they might seem, are completely unrealistic and unrelatable because they exist in the world of cinema. This may be the most common reading as it pertains to more elderly viewers, whom might have grown up with these Classical Hollywood movies. It is also possible that ‘film buffs’ would lean towards this reading and whilst it doesn’t completely ignore the message of the film, it does diminish the efficacy of its message.

I think that it is also fair to propose that many people would not find the expressive elements of the film form at all appealing or enjoyable. From my point of view, I think that Chazelle finds a good balance between pure expression and pure realism and that the strength of the emotive realism allows for things such as dance sequences. On the other hand, I am also aware that this oppositional dynamic may be very different to the linear narratives seen in many other mainstream films and, as such, may be unfamiliar with a large section of the audience. This expression is almost exaggerated from the offset with an extended dance sequence that features countless extras, clad in brightly coloured clothing. Consequently, this may cause an oppositional reading to develop, that seeks to undermine the validity of Chazelle’s moral ending. If anything, an oppositional reading might suggest that due to the elaborate nature of the expression, Seb and Mia are completely fictitious and, as such, there is nothing to learn from their actions. This may be the common reading with baby boomers, whom might be unfamiliar with this style of filmmaking or younger children whom might not be able to comprehend the significance of it.

Naturally, the best feature of La La Land is how Chazelle employs the Camera’s Gaze to subvert the inherent fallacy of the film and, in turn, almost subvert the oppositional reading. This is also achieved through a ‘text within a text’ but this is very minimal and used to a much lesser extent. Nevertheless, this gaze in particular is most evident when the action concerns Mia, after all she is an aspiring actress. Chazelle frequently gives his audience an almost ‘behind the scenes’ view on the inner workings of the film industry. Not only do we see sets being constructed but we also see a film being shot on location and auditions taking place. This is an extremely interesting feature of the film because it reminds the audience that what they are watching isn’t real. Perplexingly, this suggests that a viewer may struggle to find escapism in the film; however, the contrary is true and the meaning and importance of the film is accentuated by this. This is because by consistently reminding the audience that the film is a work of fiction and as such can never truly depict reality, the spectator is encouraged to look around them and think holistically about their life. They are an active spectator to the fullest extent. It is clear that Chazelle is hyper aware of the fiction plaguing modern day society (through social media etc…), so it’s crucial that he reminds his audience of this: one can only judge one’s success individually. Even Mia isn’t sure about how successful Seb’s club will be (she leaves after one song). Equally, Chazelle suggests that whilst your ideas of success might change throughout your life, it is always important to focus on how you want to achieve your idea of success and happiness, even if it means suffering through some trials and tribulations along the way.

Beasts Of The Southern Wild – Deep Dive

Context:

In the Summer of 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated large parts of the American ‘Deep South’ and in particular the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. Whilst America’s geography lends itself to certain ‘hurricane seasons’, Katrina was a beast like no other. In truth, the effects of the tropical storm are still having an impact on many American citizens even today.

Hurricane Katrina seemed to ravage New Orleans with a vengeance. Some reports suggest that up to 80% of the city was submerged under polluted water. Therefore, in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, many people sought answers as to how a busting metropolis could have succumbed to this predictable and preventable storm.

Consequently, these questions were raised to those in positions of power. The primary issue that arose was the lack of adequate flood defence systems. Like most things in the world, money comes into play in determining why New Orleans was not able to defend itself.

When thinking about preventing flooding there are two main methods that are employed: soft engineering techniques and hard engineering techniques. Soft engineering involves using natural architecture to manage and lessen the impact of a flood. Inherently, this is much less effective than hard engineering techniques; which use man-made artificial structures to prevent flooding altogether. Interestingly, New Orleans had a mixture of the techniques but the primary flood defence was levees.

A levee is a raised embankment on either side of a river, thereby increasing the carrying capacity of the river and increasing the maximum volume of water that can be held. This is very similar to how a flood wall works and the same effect can also be achieved by manually digging into the river bed and deepening it that way. Nevertheless, for the most part, these methods are cheap and effective soft engineering strategies that defend against low energy storms, which of course Katrina was not.

The intriguing aspect about New Orleans’ levees is that they fall into the categories of both soft and hard engineering. Whilst levees are naturally occurring, many can be expanded using artificial techniques. Unfortunately, many of the levees artificially expanded or even created in New Orleans were done so in the 16th Century and not updated since then. This was due to a lack of Government spending on flood defence.

It has since been put forward that up to two thirds of the flooding in New Orleans was a direct result of levees being overflown or of levees completely buckling under the velocity of the water. As such, a public enquiry was conducted that concluded that New Orleans’ flood defences were complete inadequate and that with better defences, countless lives could have been saved.

Instead, upwards of 1500 people died due to hurricane Katrina, with over 700 being citizens of New Orleans. The trauma of seeing bodies strewn across streets had a tremendous impact on the people of New Orleans and informed their outcry for help. It can therefore be argued that Beasts Of The Southern Wild draws on this idea of a natural disaster to evoke empathy towards the protagonists. Released only 7 years after Katrina, many Americans would remember the horrifying disaster and feel sympathetic towards characters in a (somewhat) relatable situation.

Another key aspect of hurricane Katrina is how it had the largest impact of the most vulnerable members of society. In fact, the disaster had almost an unjustifiably greater impact on those: poorer, sicker and of ethnic minorities. This lead to an uproar at how the Government but specifically, acting President George Bush, appeared to show a lack of compassion and support, potentially due to the groups of people that were affected.

This lends itself to a larger point about how America has been battling a racial endemic since what seems to like the beginning of time. By this I am referring to the disproportionate number of African Americans in prison compared to other ethnic groups. I am also referring to the growing number of far-right groups and Q-anon members. Whilst these events seem to have arisen in popular media in the last few years, it would be incorrect to suggest that racism has only been an issue since then.

In many ways hurricane Katrina was a catalyst for change in people’s attitudes. There began to be an increase in speaking out against racial injustice; which we now label under the umbrella term of ‘Black Lives Matter’. Hurricane Katrina seems to go hand in hand with the changing face of America, as only 3 years later in 2008, Barack Obama was elected the first African American president of the USA. This marked a monumental shift towards racial equality; however, it is clear that more needs to be done.

Relating this back to Beasts Of The Southern Wild, it is apparent that Zeitlin chooses to include apparent suffering of African Americans within a natural disaster-like event, for particular effect. This could be for one of two main reasons:

  1. By showing the impoverished conditions that Hushpuppy resides in, Zeitlin could be suggesting that the relief package given after Katrina, was inadequate. That there is still immense poverty in cities. If anything, Zeitlin is implying that the divide between poor and rich has never been larger (the mystical themes and beasts amplify the surreal poverty). This could be a hint towards perceived negligence by authorities to ensure adequate housing.
  2. By showing Hushpuppy’s resilience in the face of hardship, we grow aware of the immense bravery that impoverished children must have. Zeitlin suggests that these children are some of the most resilient and that we, in a position of comparatively extreme privilege, should be envious and admire these qualities.

Something quite unique to America, is the privatised healthcare system. Whilst the UK has a free at point of access NHS, the USA requires citizens to purchase insurance, if they want to have access to healthcare. Zeitlin explores the negative consequences of a privatised healthcare system through Wink’s non-descript illness and the inevitability of his death.

From the offset of the film, it appears as though there is a feeling of looming dread and that Hushpuppy is yet to face her greatest obstacle. As the narrative progresses, it is shown that Wink doesn’t want to receive healthcare. This is a decision that many Americans have to make, either access healthcare and become less sick or refuse healthcare, potentially die but not plunge your family into debt. This is not a decision people should have to make in the 21st Century.

Zeitlin expresses his dislike of this system through the interplay of Wink and Hushpuppy. Since Hushpuppy is the one tasked with lighting Wink’s deceased body on fire and setting him ‘free’, Zeitlin suggests that this lack of adequate healthcare extinguishes youth. That the blaze of youthful curiosity and playfulness has left Hushpuppy, for good. This places immense emotion on the audience, to view this healthcare system as abhorrent because a young girl has just lost her father in a potentially avoidable predicament.

One of the more unique factors about independent film concerns institutional factors, most specifically how the film is distributed. More often than not, the content and themes of an independent (indie) film contributes to how economically successful it is upon release.

As a precursor to the distribution of indie films, it is important to think about how and why they display creative freedom. Critically, an independent film is not tied to a studio or major production company. Therefore, there are no targets to hit or executives to appease. As such, the director can explore unusual or even controversial themes on a wider level because they don’t have to produce an economically successful film. This links in with the idea that indie films and directors value creativity and emotion over spectacle and popularity.

Zeitlin doesn’t buck this trend. He portrays emotive themes (likely to distress) through a character exploration, instead of focusing on a high-octane narrative. Zeitlin’s decision to prioritise beauty over money is evident in the fact that Beast Of The Southern Wild was initially only released in 4 cinemas across the USA. This highlights the fact that Zeitlin values expression of art over monetary gain.

Critical to the exposure of indie films is the role that film festivals play. Festivals such as Sundance have an immense impact in broadening the audience of a film. This is achieved through screening the movie to and eclectic mixture of: critics, journalists and ordinary audience members. From this point the growth in popularity of the film can be exponential. Travelling by word of mouth and increasingly through digital means (blogs, social media etc…), a film may become so highly praised that it becomes ‘must see’. In fact, Beasts Of The Southern Wild was so well received at the Sundance Festival that at one point it was being screened in 318 cinemas.

Of equally key importance is the impact of awards shows, predominantly but not limited to, the Oscars. Beasts Of The Southern Wild was nominated for best picture and best director at the 2013 Oscars. This clearly had a tremendous impact on the popularity of the film, with some reports suggesting a rise of 2000% in takings from subsequent cinema screenings.

Potentially the biggest roadblock in the economic success of an indie film, is a lack of funds to properly and effectively distribute the film and get the film shown in cinemas. Fortunately, a trend has emerged in recent years, whereby indie films parted with a major studio to get their film shown in cinemas. Beasts Of The Southern Wild was distributed by the media conglomerate Fox but, more specifically, by the independent wing of Fox – Fox Searchlight Pictures. This enabled the film to be shown on the ‘big screen’ and this allowed for critics to review the film, increasing its exposure even more so.

Aesthetics:

Perhaps more so than any other film I have watched, Beasts Of The Southern Wild seems to contain an entirely unique and independent aesthetic, as a pose to paying homage to other films through borrowed features. As a consequence of this, the film seems different and perhaps necessary.

The defining aesthetic of this film is the overall tone of surrealism and mystique, contrasted with a very real theme of suffering. That is to say, Zeitlin employs creates the films aesthetic around the diametric opposition between realism and fantasy. This aesthetic clashing provides a sense of unease and tension that is only resolved at the ending, when Wink dies. With the idea being that death is a unifying force that can link all citizens emotionally and keep us grounded in realism.

The ending best exemplifies the film’s aesthetic, with a focus on Hushpuppy to show her change in the film and to an extent, her ‘coming of age’. This focus is achieved primarily through close-up shots with a shallow depth of field, pinning the audience’s attention on Hushpuppy, only. She is humanised with these emotive shots and it’s important to see her resilience in the face of her father’s death, giving a message of optimism for the impoverished citizens. It also directly links Hushpuppy with realism because the audience are encouraged to relate to her.

Since much of the film is concerned with Hushpuppy’s development, Zeitlin allows the fantastical aesthetic of the film to develop through Wink and the consequences of his actions, subliminally impacting the audience. For example, much of the Wink is shot with hand-held cameras, this creates an overwhelming sense of fantasy and surrealism, that is juxtaposed with the realistic portrayal of Hushpuppy and suffering.

This is shown best through the scene in which Wink and co. try to destroy the flood defence that is causing their homes to be flooded. We see extremely shaky camera footage and a series a fast cuts, that completely disorientate the viewer. Zeitlin chooses to conceal information to give a sense of fear in the unknown. This is contrasted with the shots of Hushpuppy, where the camera remains much stiller and the cuts become less jarring. Overall this exemplifies the mood of the film, a conflict between two ideas, fantasy and realism, shown through the two protagonists.

Another scene in which I found to be very indicative of this aesthetic, was when Hushpuppy set her house alight. This seems to be purely concerned with fantasy, as the focus on Hushpuppy is lessened, in favour of Wink. Instead, our senses are inundated with images of raging infernos of fire and the diegetic rattling of furniture. The rapid edits and dark lighting dazzle the audience even more. In this instance, it’s important to see this complete fantasy (it’s not relatable for a young child to have their own house, let alone be a pyromaniac) this early on in the film, so that we can contrast it with the ending.

It’s important that the ending uses fire to evoke emotion as well. However, the fantasy is toned down because Wink (symbolic of the surreal) is dead and the fire goes with him too. I liked this callback through the mise-en-scene because it suggests that Hushpuppy understands the severity of her situation and that her father isn’t coming back. It also suggests that the aesthetic had a purpose beyond amplifying the beauty of the cinematography. That, in the end fantasy is just that and as the audience, we can’t lose track of the poverty that is very prevalent in society today.

My favourite instance of the aesthetic being used perfectly and the clashing of fantasy and realism coming into the foreground, is the scene in which Hushpuppy is relocated to a welfare facility. Zeitlin shows a turning point in the character arc of Hushpuppy, through her interaction with realism in this setting. For example, we see Hushpuppy’s costume change into a neat dress and she looks much akin to the other children in the facility. This indicates she is integrating more into realistic society.

Additionally, we see Hushpuppy interact with patients who are near the end of their life. Not only does this foreshadow Wink’s ultimate demise, it also suggests that the aesthetic exists to show how Hushpuppy’s life is changing to become less fantastical, as she becomes familiar with the idea of mortality. Much of the dialogue is done through voice over at this point, giving a self-reflective feel. This also feels past tense, as if Hushpuppy herself acknowledges this interaction with a dying man as an important event in her short life. Consequently, as Hushpuppy shows more relatable traits and behaviour, she clashes more with her father and the oppositional aesthetic intensifies. This suggests that Hushpuppy is at a crossroads and the narrative will increase in pace and head towards a tragic crescendo.

Representation:

Throughout the film, Zeitlin explores the representation of hardship and poverty through the character of Hushpuppy. In fact, Zeitlin chooses to make Hushpuppy the spokeswoman for suffering. She is the ‘true’ minority: black, a woman and a child. Therefore, this focus on minority representation of suffering amplifies the audience’s sense of fortune and privilege. Interestingly, this three-pronged approach to representing suffering is effective because it allows the audience to easily identify the hardships that Hushpuppy faces due to these factors.

Zeitlin uses blends the representation of gender and age into one homogenous mass, in the sense that stereotypical values of these ideas are subverted seemingly simultaneously. For example, the diminutive idea that young girls aren’t as confident as boys is shown to be a fallacy because Hushpuppy remains inquisitive throughout the film. For example, we see her question the teacher on the origins of her tattoo. Equally, she wants to learn more about her mother’s origins. This suggests that she doesn’t conform to these outdated ideas.

Hushpuppy most definitely seems to be much older than she truly is. The fact that she has her own home and is allowed to be independent are examples of this. Perhaps Zeitlin is alluding to the idea that impoverished children miss out on a lot of youth because they are forced to fend for themselves. Whilst this isn’t necessarily a negative portrayal of youth, it does suggest that Hushpuppy’s age is irrelevant to the story. That her character development is in spite of her youth, rather than because of it.

Zeitlin chooses to portray Hushpuppy as androgynous and, at points, even slightly masculine. This conforms to traditionally antiquated ideas that link strength to masculinity. We know that Hushpuppy is strong both emotionally (she doesn’t lament the loss of her mother) and physically (she is a fast runner and willing to arm-wrestle adults). Even though this link to strength and gender is potentially implied, it is as a result of the actions of Wink. If anything, Wink operates as a pseudo-antagonist, lambasting traditional femininity and encouraging Hushpuppy to stop being a “stupid little girl”. This leads to Hushpuppy taking on more feminine ideals, when she wears a dress for the first time in the film. However, her apparent discomfort at this suggests that she prefers her previous clothes. In many ways, Zeitlin is trying to blur the lines between gender and strength because Hushpuppy’s gender is never made front and centre and, like her age, her gender seems ancillary to the ending and that her coming of age is because of her own decisions.

In terms of the representation of ethnicity, there’s nothing outwardly obvious that hints towards any sort of negative portrayal. In fact, Zeitlin forgoes using ethnicity to heighten tension, instead showing a ‘melting pot’ of different cultures in the bathtub. The fact that they operate in perfect harmony and unison could be read as Zeitlin suggesting that racial violence is caused by other forces (e.g. politics or economics). That humans are inherently friendly and welcoming. After the and welfare services get involved with the bathtub towards the end of the film, the tensions increase, which is further evidence of a third-party being the only reason we have racial injustice and prejudice.

Ideology:

Indie films are distinct in that they can be much more creative and expressive that a more mainstream Hollywood film. This doesn’t necessarily always relate to the cinematography or performance but also concerns particular ideological themes that the director explores. In Beasts Of The Southern Wild, Zeitlin uses this ability to question rather than comfort the audience. Namely, the film offers a clear critique on Western capitalist societies rather than exploring purely fantastical ideas, which might have been preemptively expected given the genre of the film.

Zeitlin delves further into this Marxist film theory as the narrative progresses. It is clear that the main suggestion is that capitalism has failed our society. This is alluded to because in the supposedly successful America, there are severely impoverished citizens living in squalid conditions. This is merely an implicit ideological portrayal of the hardships of poverty from the offset because, rather unusually, the bathtub community seems content with their lifestyles.

Nevertheless, the suffering that Hushpuppy endures due to her poverty is amplified throughout the course of the narrative, with a specifically shocking scene being of her house being burnt down. Therefore, it could be argued that this ideology manifests into a much more explicit variant. That is to say, that as Hushpuppy begins to suffer more from the effects of her poverty, Zeitlin encourages his audience to feel more uncomfortable. This is potentially done to encourage the audience to feel anger towards the Government. Perhaps Zeitlin could be hinting that a young girl’s anguish is attributed to the failings of an outdated system of capitalism.

On top of that, Zeitlin goes further, exploring another implicit ideological value of class and hierarchy. This is shown through a visual metaphor. The poor bathtub is geographically isolated from the wealthier city by means of a river. The key turning point comes when Wink goes to blow up the barrier that physically separates the two areas. This action is met with hesitation by the teacher. This is interesting because Zeitlin could be suggesting that this separation is a beneficial thing that provides for different life experiences on each level of the social hierarchy. Alternatively, the elaborate explosion could indicate that Zeitlin believes that this separation between classes should be completely eradicated.

Critically, Beasts Of The Southern Wild is thematically different to most other films because it does not reflect dominant ideologies back to the viewer, instead it chooses to almost shock the audience with how Zeitlin subverts the perceived success of capitalism in today’s society. In many respects, Wink’s death at the culmination of the film is the true reflection of how capitalism has supposedly failed us. The dying embers of a once great system are seen drifting away. It’s also significant to acknowledge the youth of Hushpuppy. It is very likely that Zeitlin uses this to appeal to a younger demographic that are more likely to be accepting of his radical and Marxist ideas. This is important in understanding why different viewers might feel different emotions at certain key points in the film.

Spectatorship:

Beasts Of The Southern Wild offers an extremely interesting look into spectatorship and why people view films differently. This is because, at its core, the film tackles an extremely sensitive and devastating topic – poverty. Consequently, there is a clear distinction between: spectators with an emotional connection rooted in shared life experiences and spectators with an emotional connection stemming from investing in the characters. This distinction needs to be made because it informs why opinions vary across economic demographics.

For example, when the bathtub gets flooded, this might resonate extremely ferociously with some of the poorer victims of hurricane Katrina. However, the use of darkness and long-shots when filming Hushpuppy and Wink’s journey through the flooded settlement is telling, in that it aims to remove the viewer from the action and view the tragedy in isolation. Although, somebody with a personal experience of having their house flooded might empathise with the protagonists to the extent where they find it too hard to continue watching. This deep emotion is powerful because it suggests that Zeitlin can draw on contextual factors to heighten the drama in his story. Rather than being done out of malice, Zeitlin aims to pay respect to these victims. This is achieved through the coming of age of Hushpuppy over the subsequent parts of the narrative. Thereby suggesting that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

One of my favourite features of the film is how Zeitlin blends the intra and extra diegetic gazes, to manipulate the audience’s emotions. This is more of a generalised effect rather than impacting different demographics. This is best seen through the character of Hushpuppy. An intra diegetic gaze is employed when she talks with her dad. For example, in the emotional scene where Wink informs his daughter that he’s sick, we see close up shot reverse shots of the protagonists. This magnifies the emotive power of the scene and the audience can appreciate the drama that is shown.

The intrigue comes when Zeitlin reverses this, in scenes that focus solely on Hushpuppy. This is exemplified at the end of the film, where an extra diegetic gaze is used. Hushpuppy is at her most self reflective with voice overs and close ups of her face that seem to speak directly to the audience. This makes the spectator uncomfortable and accentuates an extremely cathartic moment in the film. In many respects, Hushpuppy is speaking to the audience – telling them that things will work out fine in the end (highlighting her character growth). This will have varying degrees of an emotional effect on different people. This is dependent on how affected they were by the poverty and hardship shown throughout the film.

One of the more complex ideas is looking at why people might choose to watch the film. I’d like to hypothesise that Zeitlin takes an unusual stance towards his film in that he aims to educate. It’s clear that ideas of education are present in the film (the teacher works in a bustling classroom). However, the notion that the film exists to educate is perplexing because of how fantastical it is in parts. When Hushpuppy sets her house ablaze, a dramatic piece of dialogue ensues; which seems completely unreal. Nevertheless, I believe that Zeitlin educates through a suggestion of a moral code that shines through even the darkest and unlikely of places (Hushpuppy and her father eventually make amends despite the tragic circumstances surrounding his death). This is important in not only positively influencing younger viewers but also comforting people in similar circumstances, who might be disenchanted or desolate in their own lives. The implication that we are all unified through decency, despite our living circumstances, is a powerful message that had a profound effect on me.

Beasts Of The Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin, 2012)

There is a lot going on in this film, most of it isn’t that good. Although I’d be the first to admit that fantasy films tie with horror films as my least favourite genre, I didn’t set out to pick apart this film in such a way that I found myself doing. There were some good elements of this film, primarily Wallis’ performance as Hushpuppy but because of a splintered narrative, I didn’t like the film’s direction. Consequently, one of the more glaring issues I had with watching the film was a struggle to follow a story. At the moment I am thinking that the narrative concerned the coming of age of Hushpuppy but there are countless other possibilities. In truth, Zeitlin chooses to explore too many themes, leading to a film that exemplifies style over substance.

Perhaps the most prominent theme and probably the only one I found to be provocative was how death was dealt with. Zeitlin presented death to be looming throughout the film, through a variety of methods, most notably with a prehistoric beast approaching. Nevertheless, I liked that Hushpuppy grew to become fearless in the face of death. I also found enjoyment with the bookending of the film with fire. To me, this seems like Zeitlin is pointing to the circularity of life. How death is as inevitable as life and youth.

One theme that I thought was overused was the idea of primitiveness. The usual impoverished conditions of a city were swapped for more recessive representations of poverty, for example Hushpuppy was encouraged to eat with her hands. Not only that but the set design amplified a really desolate and almost prehistoric setting. I’m not sure if this had the desired effect because I found myself questioning why civilisation hadn’t yet reached the community, in a location clearly in contemporary USA.

It must be said that I did enjoy the film much more towards the end, when Hushpuppy and co. entered much more of an urban environment. At this point I found the juxtapositions between the jurassic bathtub and the organised shelter really engaging. This was especially noticeable when Hushpuppy was briefly seen in a neat dress and combed back hair. This does also raise a few questions about the depiction of childcare in this film. Whilst Hushpuppy’s father is by no means criminal, he treads this line carefully and this made me feel conflicted at the ending.

By far the most off-putting in aspect of this film was Zeitlin’s insistence on using hand-held camerawork for the entire film. On top of this, his over-reliance on the score to evoke emotion got increasingly boring. Yet it was the camerawork that at points made me feel dizzy. I can’t understand why the rawness of the community couldn’t have been shown with much more static shots. I feel like letting the often times melodramatic action unfold with a fixed shot would have been more effective. Instead, the: erratic camerawork, extended dialogue and emotive score actually took away from much power or emotion, in my opinion.

Whilst I didn’t necessarily enjoy the experience of watching this film, I engaged on some level with the content that Zeitlin showed. In many respects, I found the film unique and I appreciated the experimentation used in presenting a stubborn society in such a a prehistoric way. Equally, I enjoyed Hushpuppy’s connection with the other children, suggesting that youthful joy knows no boundaries. Even though I found parts over the film overly dramatic, the ending was effective enough in raising a few questions about the fairness in changing people’s way of life, especially if they’re not doing anything particularly wrong.

La La Land (Damien Chazelle, 2016)

It would be fair to say that I have already expressed my dislike for expressive dance sequences in films (see https://ollystanilandsfilmstudiesblog.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/curfew-shawn-christensen-2012/). Therefore, it would also be fair to say that I had some hesitation about enjoying La La Land. This meant that I didn’t go into the film with an open mind. Incidentally, this lead to one of my favourite phenomenons when viewing a film, where my enjoyment levels increased exponentially as the action progressed.

It goes without saying that I struggle to find an abundance of meaning in some of the dance sequences. At the moment I’m leaning towards suggesting that they are used to condense long pieces of exposition into shorter segments; however, this might not be the case and I personally don’t find emotion in this form of expression. In other words, it’s style over substance (for my taste). When the action did follow a coherent plot that was very much set in reality, I enjoyed the interplay between Seb and Mia and I found their relationship to be believable and engaging.

With that said, it is necessary to mention how much I enjoyed the ending of the film. It played on my dismissal of the dream-like dance sequences to really question to what extent is love a viable force in hindering personal goals. Not only that, it made me think more deeply about how Chazelle subverts the entirely expressive elements to evoke happiness, with a much more somber realisation that Mia and Seb are destined to be apart. I thought this was really effective as an ending because it caught me completely by surprise.

Another thing that stood out to me was how timeless the film felt. With the fleeting references to pop-culture, e.g. Casablanca, you really can’t place the film in a particular era. Additionally, the costumes and architecture remained non-descript, seeming both unreal and ubiquitous. This is particularly interesting because it suggests that Chazelle believes that love (the primary theme) transcends the boundaries of time. This implies that the film’s message will remain critical and relevant for generations.

I also found myself questioning why Chazelle chose to portray the fallacy of movies on-screen. We see casting meetings, film sets and movie-stars, so La La Land really feels like it contains a film within itself. I believe that by doing this, Chazelle attempts to disregard the idea that his film is a piece of written and manufactured fiction, instead presenting a highly stylised movie world to take on this role. In this regard, the main values from La La Land seem much more relatable and attainable.

When all is said and done, I really enjoyed La La Land. Even though I don’t think I will change my opinion of dance sequences any time soon, Chazelle certainly encouraged me to think more deeply about having an open-mind when going into a film. For me, certain preconceptions can cloud my enjoyment of a film but Chazelle does a great job of playing off of my expectations and presenting something different. The sudden change of narrative perspective about 20 minutes in caught my attention, which skyrocketed from that point onwards.

Children Of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006) Review

There are so many textured things about this film, that it is literally impossible to avoid spoilers. So, there’s your warning.

Below is an explanation of the distinguishing feature of this film, which is necessary to acknowledge, before further analysis:

Cuaron’s interesting approach to narrative structure certainly cements his status as an auteur. He’s gone on record to say how much he dislikes the use of exposition – so obviously the film starts in media res. However, what is interesting is how Cuaron applies this idea throughout the entire film. Whilst many filmmakers might use a shocking idea to initially hook the audience and then go on to explain its significance, Cuaron relies totally on the progression of the narrative to act as the sole exposition. Consequently, at some points I was left slightly confused as to what was happening. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because it fuelled my curiosity and made me feel rewarded for predicting subsequent events. It also heightened the feelings of tension because there was no foreshadowing. At all.

Before delving into specific parts of the film, its prudent to talk about what ideological themes Cuaron explores.

Children Of Men is a psychological thriller that answers the question – what happens when women can no longer give birth. The answer – the world collapses, Britain becomes the only ‘civilised’ country but has now become a police state, intent on exporting all immigrants. If that sounds full on, I would go as far to say that this film is the benchmark for dystopian settings. It’s intense and in parts you really do have to pause and take a break.

Key to the film is the idea of conflict. Even though violence accompanies this theme, Cuaron makes more of a passing remark on the futility of war and violence, focusing more on conflict. I would hypothesise that Cuaron believes that conflict instigates violence, so like many other parts of this film, he focuses on exploring causes rather than effects. Nevertheless, one of most obvious examples of conflict is the clashing of different groups. The protagonist, Theo, battling with the false heroes, The Fishes, comes to mind. However, I believe that Cuaron emphasises the importance of conflict as a theme by presenting other themes as being in conflict with each other. This contributes to a feeling of unease as nothing ever seems resolved.

I always find enjoyment in watching older films that are set in the future and seeing how many things they ‘get right’. Whilst most of the superficial items they get complete wrong, for example people are still using earphones with wires – imagine that! Cuaron does; however, do an eerily excellent job at painting the picture of a divided world that we clearly find ourselves in today. This is, perhaps the most prominent instance of him focusing on effect. We see cages of people being held against their will and nationalistic propaganda, aiming to scaremonger. This could be read as a warning against current events.

In my opinion, the most eye-opening comparison is that of Religion and Science. Cuaron doesn’t take a side, instead opting to stay neutral to allow the viewer to form their own opinion (this is true throughout the film’s different themes). The key thing to notice is that there is literally no explanation to the infertility. Science can’t explain it nor can Religion. So Cuaron unites both themes with a shared identity. We also see degradations to both ideas. Religion is presented as fanatical and something practised by lunatics. This is seen when Miriam feigns religious lunacy, to distract the police officer on the prison bus. *It’s a good thing they managed to find Pam Ferris after she blew away from Privet Drive because she was excellent in this role.* Of equal importance is the idea that civilisation is perhaps too reliant on science as a safety net. The fact that science can’t answer everything is entirely humbling and paints a bleak picture, the transition from Miriam’s scientific nature as a nurse to her spiritual persona, is Cuaron suggesting that humankind turns to faith, when there’s nothing left to hope for.

The imagery used by Cuaron is some of the most profound I have ever seen. It is beautiful. The way he blends literally every plausible element of film form to create different meanings is nothing short of outstanding. However, my favourite imagery is present towards the end of the film in the refugee detainment camp, where the baby comes down a series of steps. I believe this is representative of a genesis of sorts and the preciousness of youth. Although, with the use of light and gunfire, I’m certain there are alternative impressions.

The point is, there are so many ideas and meanings to extract from this film. The way light is used to reflect Theo’s changing personality especially springs to mind. It is therefore impossible for me to list off every feature I enjoyed. I also think that it takes away from the enjoyment as a viewer of appreciating these meanings. Children Of Men is one of those films that you can rewatch countless times and find different messages upon each viewing. I’m almost certain that there were some key ideas I missed.

Cuaron explored tension with a simple editing technique, not cutting. In many action scenes, there would be a prolonged shot of Theo, with the camera tracking his movement. This ensured that as a viewer, we had limited understanding of what was happening around us, so Cuaron essentially conceals information – intensifying the horror.

Equally, Cuaron’s use of escalating violence left an extremely open-ended message at the ending. We see one person die, then a group of people, then a building is bombed, then multiple buildings are completely destroyed, then the entire camp is wiped out but then Theo dies. Ignore my use of anaphora but this violence doesn’t seem to escalate with Theo’s death, yet it does because Theo is symbolic of the hope that humanity has. So with Theo’s death, juxtaposed with the hopeful boat arrival, Cuaron gives really mixed messages, creating an ending that leaves more questions than answers about the future of humanity.

As you can see through my scrawl of thoughts, arranged in a sporadic order, it’s difficult to talk about this film without getting sidetracked. Everything links but nothing is connected. I hope I have done this film justice because it’s truly one of the best things I have ever seen. There are countless characters and themes I haven’t even spoken about, each of them bringing something unique to the narrative. Even though you can barely scratch the surface of what makes this film great in a dissertation, let alone a review, one thing is for sure. The juxtapositions and comparisons throughout Children Of Men are intoxicating. Even the title is an oxymoron. This enables Cuaron to explore dominant ideologies (Religion, the role of media, equality etc…) and question the viewer’s attitudes towards these. It’s scarily eye-opening.

You really need to watch this film.

Right now.

5 stars.





Ideology: An Introduction

In relation to film, I believe that an ideological analysis of the medium is extremely useful in contextualising it. That is to say, that by deciphering what the filmmaker is suggesting, we can gain greater insight into the thinking behind designing the film and the society that produced it.

Of critical importance is acknowledging that a filmmaker decides to display everything in a formatted way. That everything inside of a film is constructed and carefully thought about. Therefore, we can presume that the entire film is a reflection of the filmmakers’ views on the world. Most of these views are shown through the protagonist’s interactions with their environment. Since most modern mainstream American films encourage the audience to align with the protagonist, the filmmaker can implicitly encourage the audience to accept their views as truth or fact.

In terms of the specifics of ideologies or ideas, we are mainly referring to how society accepts particular notions. Consequently, ideologies have changed throughout the years. These changes have been both positive and negative. For example, the move away from the reductive attitude towards women as homemakers to parity between genders in the workplace, is wholly positive. It can be argued that the transition from an open society into a ‘cancel culture’, has had negative implications towards free speech and expressionism. This is especially poignant in certain genres of film; which almost have an unwritten duty to push the boundaries of what is accepted and challenge certain beliefs and moral codes.

There is also a disparity in how ideologies vary geographically. This is perhaps most evident when you look at political ideas and structures. In the United Kingdom, we have a democratic system of electing a Government, where people vote on who they want to lead the country every four years. This is extremely different to North Korea, which uses a dictatorship, where one person has sole leadership for the duration of their life. This difference in ideology ensures that beliefs held by a North Korean will be entirely different to those held by somebody living in the UK. It cannot be forgotten that spectatorship plays a further part in highlighting the nuances between individual beliefs and that ideologies are a general consensus and not true for all.

This can be shown by looking at some of the recent events in America. Whilst they have a similarly democratic system to the UK, parts of the American population believe that Donald Trump should stay in office, even though he lost the election. They seem to ignore the democratic ideology that most American’s take as fact. This will upset and confuse some Americans, as this signals a disrupt to the status quo. Whilst I would argue that this is a negative situation, it highlights that ideological changes aren’t always positive (as I believe that anything less than democracy is a regression).

This raises an important point about dominant ideologies within a society. That is to say that everything accepted as: fact, lawful or morally right by a large section of a population, falls under the umbrella of a dominant ideology. There are lots of examples from the UK, for example, we value education and it is offered for free. We also value healthcare, which is available for free as well. These are services that we believe are conducive to a healthy society. In terms or moral beliefs, most people in the UK believe that crimes should be punished in a fair way. Many people go to court where a jury decides how they will be punished. Lots of people also believe that everybody should be entitled to free speech.

The point is, that dominant ideologies are beliefs held by the majority of a population. Films and the media in general, conform to these dominant ideologies in how they display content. More often than not, these ideologies are reflected back to the audience because the viewer finds comfort in this familiarity. The issue arises when structured ideologies are considered. These concern how particular sections of society have their ideologies shaped by other organisations, rather than by general consensus. For example, religion sometimes warps people’s ideologies and moves them away from dominant ideologies. Whilst this isn’t abjectly bad, it can sometimes incite animosity between different groups and viewpoints.

Even more specialised categorisation of ideologies can occur. How far a filmmaker goes to persuade their audience to side with their viewpoint can be denoted by three separate categories:

  1. A film with a neutral ideology does little to nothing to persuade. The action is generally played for laughs or excitement and isn’t concerned with questioning morals. This isn’t necessarily bad because most mainstream films present neutral ideologies to entertain rather than question and persuade, which is mainly the role of alternative films. What is critical to remember is that although a neutral ideology may be presented, the ideology is still most probably the dominant ideology of the target audience.
  2. Implicit ideologies are still rather common. Usually we see a the filmmakers’ ideological stance suggested through some sort of binary opposition between the protagonist and the antagonist, with the protagonist usually coming out on top. This allows for the filmmaker to subtlety hint at a message but nevertheless remain quite neutral. This can be effective in situations where the director has a slightly unorthodox ideology that they want to present to their viewer but it can be just as effective in reinforcing traditional values and ideas for comfort and familiarity, for example in family films or films primarily aimed at young children.
  3. Explicit ideologies are films that have an ideological message that the filmmaker is determined to teach or persuade their audience into believing. Whilst a film might start off with an implicit ideology, if the outcome for the antagonist is extremely negative or the outcome for the protagonist is extremely positive, the film can be labelled as having an explicit ideology.

Even though it’s quite rare for a film to have an explicit ideology, it’s all the more exciting to analyse. This is because it can help to explain why certain features of the film were prominent or highlighted. For example, if a filmmaker used an explicit ideology of patriotism and jingoism throughout their narrative, one can presume that any elements of the film that are made to glorify violence and war are done because the filmmaker believes that these things are important. Whilst this might be a poor reflection of the filmmaker in today’s eyes, if the film was made during a world war, the dominant ideological stance towards violence might have been very different to right now. This is why it’s important to take into account contextual factors when analysing why a filmmaker might push certain explicit ideologies onto their audience.

To summarise, ideologies concern how and why we behave in a certain way and believe particular things. This is important because films most often reflect dominant ideologies back to us. Some of the more complex and questioning films will challenge these dominant ideologies and present alternate ideologies through their protagonists. This might make the viewer feel uncomfortable but it’s necessary, perhaps now more than ever, in progressing our society towards a more optimum level of: equity, happiness and equality.

Spectatorship: An Introduction

As time has progressed, our understanding of the role spectatorship plays in films has developed immeasurably. This has had a few interesting effects and most certainly has widened the variety of films that have been produced to date.

Firstly, it is important to understand that in the early days of film and even up to the 1990’s, there was a very limited understanding and appreciation of the part that audiences played in films. In fact, the ‘Hypodermic Needle Model’ that was accepted during the 1940s and beyond, grouped the audience of a film into one lone category. This disregarded contextual and societal differences that form the basis of human identity.

This dated model assumed that audiences took on a passive role in film. That they merely facilitated more films to be made by exchanging money for this entertainment. It also suggested that everything displayed on film was absorbed by the viewer and that the filmmakers’ intended message was the only thing that the audience took from the film.

The effects of this model were that films became a form of economic profitability, especially under the studio model. This stifled creativity because studio executives were determined to mass market their films to the widest audience. This ensured that films featured similar themes and pop culture references, so as to not exclude anybody’s understanding or enjoyment of the product.

Therefore, we can see that films of the: romance, comedy and western genres were most popular during this time as they sought to entertain viewers, rather than challenge their understanding or engage with them on a more critical level as a documentary might.

Intriguingly, in an effort to be completely inclusive, this model was one of the most exclusive ideas ever proposed. By suggesting that all viewers engaged with a film in the same way, you completely ignore people’s unique experiences of the world. Equally, race, gender or sexual orientation were not factors considered. Whilst this reflects the extremely different cultural landscape of the 1940s and 1950s, it suggests that the Hypodermic Needle Model needed to be replaced.

And replaced it was; although, not immediately. The Uses and Gratifications Theory offered a much more specific explanation as to why a viewer chose to consume a certain piece of media. This theory goes hand in hand with the growing diversification of film after the 1960’s.

Using the graph above, the 1960s was very much a turning point in the emerging popularity of new genres as a result of studio decline. As a result of this, viewers were given a choice in what they watched; however, there was still a disparity in genre popularity, for example between horror and comedy. Consequently, the Uses and Gratification Theory is a requirement in explaining this difference.

In short, the theory puts forward the idea that five key factors determine why a viewer chooses to consume media:

  1. Entertainment. Perhaps most common and most certainly the primary feature of the 20th Century, entertainment can be found from all genres and allows viewers to find enjoyment from the media and film that they consume.
  2. Escapism. Whilst more of a feature in modern society, escapism ensures that viewers can be transported away from their life, even just momentarily and find comfort in fiction.
  3. Personal Identity. Often associated with younger viewers, personal identity relates to viewers associating with something displayed on screen. For example if they find a character in a film endearing, they may replicate their mannerisms and view the character as heroic.

4. Social Interaction. Again, this is extremely evident in modern society. In the early 21st century this was most evident with the emergence of reality tv shows, which stimulated water cooler conversation. Nowadays, people feel part of a community within particular film franchises such as the Star Wars franchise, where blogs and social media pages connect fans from across the entire world.

5. Education. Whilst not necessarily a primary goal of most filmmakers, many people find educational value in film, specifically in documentaries.

The Uses and Gratifications Theory is important because it suggests that there are nuances in why people decide to watch particular things. This was necessary to explain viewing trends as filmmakers became more creative with their output after the 1960’s. Whilst this theory is still accepted today, many argue that contextual factors, such as: age, wealth or location play an even bigger role in determining viewing patterns. Most likely, is a combination of both.

Something that has become an important factor in today’s society is how we consume film. To an extent, the platforms in which we view content influence how we respond to action on-screen. This is true when you appreciate that a viewer watching a mainstream film on a Netflix group on a laptop will have an entirely different experience to somebody watching the same film in a large cinema. It is important that as media changes, film changes to reflect changing viewing habits. More films are going straight to online streaming services, in order to appease our lack of patience. A key drawback of streaming services is a regression to pre-1960’s choice, in that a viewer is more likely to watch similar films that appear as ‘recommended’.

What cannot be understated is how much of a factor an active audience is in terms of spectatorship. The transition from the Hypodermic Needle Model to the Uses and Gratifications Theory marked the audiences involvement in a film changing from passive to active. That is to say, that viewers thoughts and feelings about a film could be independent from those proposed by the filmmaker.

In modern times, we have characterised this by associating different readings to the film as text. When a directors opinion resonates so strongly with a viewer that they share the same opinion, comes under the blanket of a preferred reading. An oppositional reading is when the viewer takes a different view to the filmmaker. A negotiated reading is a mixture of the both, where the viewer is willing to accept multiple different meanings.

Key to this idea of narrative readings is the understanding that the viewer plays a very active role within the film. That they understand the message the director is presenting but that they still have the option of disagreeing. Whilst blockbuster films tend to have very distinct preferential readings, viewers are still able to disagree and alternate interpretations are encouraged. Contrastingly, more avant-garde films with enigmatic endings may contain very subtle themes and meanings. The viewer has to play an active role in deciphering these codes but their final reading of the film may still be preferred.

There have also been different theories put forward surrounding the ‘gaze’ within a film. This essentially concerns how a film goes about revealing the inherent fallacy of the form. In other words, how the spectator is positioned within the film and the cinematography. David Chandler proposed five different gazes that could be present within a film:

  1. The Spectator’s Gaze is the most common use of a gaze. This relates to the viewpoint of the camera. As a spectator, one might derive pleasure in taking a voyeuristic role in the narrative. However, there might also be moments of self-reflection. The differences are due to different personal experiences and contextual factors that have been outlined above.
  2. The Intra-Diegetic Gaze refers to the use of shot-reverse-shot when multiple characters interact. This offers the viewer a more emotive look into the narrative and the spectator can decide how to feel about a particular event based on less explicit factors like body language.
  3. The Extra-Diegetic Gaze describes when a character looks directly at the camera, acknowledging the presence of the viewer. This can make the spectator feel uncomfortable at being ‘observed’ and there being a reversal of the spectator’s gaze. On the other hand, it could offer the spectator a chance to connect on a more emotional level with the character and find similarities between themselves and the fiction.
  4. The Camera’s Gaze is the use of the camera to reveal the technology and design behind the film, hence exposing the fictitious nature of the narrative. This might make the viewer feel relieved at the action not being real or disheartened if they feel their feelings and emotions aren’t important.
  5. ‘Text Within A Text’ is the gaze that uses the most obvious style of breaking the fourth wall. We see characters on-screen have a part in making a film, reminding us that we are watching something constructed. This ensures that the viewer can’t get too invested in the world of the film because they know that it is a product of a filmmaker.

These gazes can be useful in seeing how the camera is used to manipulate the audience’s emotions. Further explanation of why a viewer may express a particular emotion can be done by looking at contextual factors and the personal experiences of each spectator.