Component 1a Essay 2

“The director is always the most important influence on a film.” Compare how far your two chosen films support this statement.

As film has progressed over time, the term ‘auteur’ has become synonymous with directors that employ a distinctive style to create a desired effect. The critic Andre Bazin (of Cashiers du Cinema fame), is noted with first using this term. He hypothesised that all films made by the same director contain similar themes and features, due to the directors signature style; hence auteur. This theory suggests that the director is the most influential factor in determining a films aesthetic. Whilst this is usually the case nowadays, prior to 1950 and during Classical Hollywood, the studio was responsible for the tone and feel of a film. As such, the studio could be said to have operated as auteur. With that said, it is notable that the collaborative nature of filmmaking was much more prominent in Classical Hollywood, restricting the opportunity for directorial auteurs. As studio control lessened throughout New Hollywood, more directorial auteurs began to emerge.

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) exemplifies the type of films that were produced during Classical Hollywood. Therefore, it offers an interesting view into how MGM used their control over the production process to create an economically successful film. Rather surprisingly, in some scenes, MGM give the creative freedom to Curtiz to be independent. However, these moments are so brief that it doesn’t warrant Curtiz being labelled as an auteur. Contrastingly, Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) begins the transition between Classical Hollywood and New Hollywood. This is most evident by the freedom in which Penn was given to be innovative. His use of explicit themes and contemporary film form was instrumental in developing directorial auteurs. However, the fact that he borrowed heavily from the French New Wave of cinema suggests that he can’t be labelled as an auteur.

MGM had a definite house style, acting as, essentially, a set of identifiable features that most of their films displayed. One of the most striking reminders of this, is MGM’s use of lavish constricted sound stages, to construct sets and faux locations. Sound stages were used in many MGM films because they were affordable and ensured that the film crew remained in one place. Sound stages also allowed for some creative meaning to be explored. For example, during the ending of Casablanca, the runway is hidden by heavy fog and low visibility. Thus mirroring the dubious circumstances in which Victor Laszlo escapes. This enhances the narrative but was a feature common to many other MGM films, thereby suggesting that the studio had control over the film rather than the director, Michael Curtiz.

One of the key differences between Casablanca and Bonnie and Clyde is the use of location. Rather than being confined to a sound stage, Penn was able to shoot on location in Texas. This enhanced the historical accuracy of the film, something that Penn would become known for, having also shot on location in New Mexico during filming of The Left Handed Gun (Arthur Penn, 1958) – a film about Billy The Kid. This suggests that Penn showed some auteur – type innovation. However, the innovation is limited because French New Wave filmmakers had also used this. The key difference between both is that Penn used this out of creativity versus the French directors who used the locations out of necessity. This suggests that whilst Penn borrowed ideas from France, he made them his own with unique meaning and effect.

During the Classical Hollywood era, most studios utilised a standard binary opposition between a clearly defined protagonist and a clearly defined antagonist. Subsidiary to this, was usually a female character who acted as Propp’s Princess archetype. MGM and Casablanca don’t buck this trend. We see Ilsa in a reductive role, merely acting as a love interest for Rick. Ilsa seems innocent and naive, as shown by the soft lighting when she firsts visits Rick’s bar. For a modern viewer, this seems demeaning and critically speaking, this portrayal of Ilsa conforms to Laura Mulvey’s Male Gaze theory. This choice was probably out of convention, as this was something that studios had been doing for years. In this regard, Curtiz doesn’t seem to innovate and challenge the submissive roles of women in Classical Hollywood but no other directors were doing so either at the time. This highlights the misogyny present in studios and further highlights the level of studio and executive control over the film, relative to the director.

On the other hand, Penn’s portrayal of Bonnie is much more nuanced and modern. Bonnie and Clyde don’t conform to the archetypical character roles used by studios in Classical Hollywood. Instead, their violent actions juxtaposed with their care for each other suggest they are anti-heroes. A new term coined during this era. Bonnie in particular subverts the Male Gaze because in the opening sequence Penn suggestively styles her with red lipstick and no clothes, showing her traditional femininity. The gunfight at the end of the film contrasts with this and the dichotomy suggests that there are layers to Faye Dunaway’s character, something that was revolutionary at the time. This suggests that Penn is very much an auteur as he popularised prominent female roles in film, beyond a simple love interest. This carried over as more New Hollywood films started to be produced with intricate character roles for female actresses. It is interesting to note that Penn popularised this, instead of borrowing from the French New Wave, perhaps implying that he is more of an auteur than first thought.

One element of Casablanca that Curtiz had absolutely no control over was the sound design, I taking the lead instead, was a composer – Max Steiner. Steiner repeats his composition of ‘As Time Goes By’ throughout the entire film. He uses this romantic score as a leitmotif to explore the complex love between Rick and Ilsa. He mixes diegetic and non-diegetic versions of the score to suggests different ideas. For example, during the flashback to Paris, the score is non-diegetic, completely removing the viewer from the action. This informs the romance between Rick and Ilsa, suggesting that it is a relic of the past. This is contrasted with Sam playing the song on the piano in the bar (diegetic), implying that their romance might have reignited. The subsequent return to non-diegetic sound at the culmination of the film, extinguishes this hope. This creativity by Steiner enhanced the meaning in the film but suggests that Curtiz’ influence on the film was even more diminished.

Similarly to Curtiz’ minimal input towards the sound design, Penn had next to no impact towards the editing of Bonnie and Clyde. Instead, editor Dede Allen was able to manipulate some elements of the film through a highly expressive and stylised attitude towards editing. Whilst she borrowed some of the French New Wave’s experimental editing techniques, she was extremely influential in ending the linear continuity editing that was omnipresent during Classical Hollywood. During the end sequence of Bonnie and Clyde, the 51 rapid cuts make the viewer feel uneasy and don’t explicitly give away the ending. Equally the final shot uses a canted angle, further contributing to an uneasy and unresolved tone to the denouement. Allen’s unique editing here allows her to present a tone of excitement but also of chaos, that enhances the themes that Penn presents previously. However, since Penn handed the responsibility of editing to Allen, there is a varied style of storytelling in Bonnie and Clyde that makes the action more engaging.

During Classical Hollywood, the Production Code was enforced to its fullest effect, so studios had to be creative with how they portrayed explicit themes. This meant that Casablanca told a romantic story against the backdrop of a war, without much violence or romance. Instead, much of the violence is implied through character. The protagonist Rick is established from the offset as a hardened man but his grizzly, rugged persona is endearing to the audience. The antagonist, Major Strasberg, is even more clearly defined by his Nazi allegiance. On a more macro level, there is an allegorical element to each character, with Rick resembling USA and the Major resembling Nazi Germany. This allows MGM to explore WW11 on a micro level, through character interactions. Since the war was ongoing at the time of the film’s release, the strong undercurrent of violence would have been petrifying to the audience due to its gritty realism. The idea to frame this seemingly romantic movie during WW11, was as a result of collaboration between the filmmakers. Most notably, executive producer Jack Warner, whom was intrigued by stories of war and terror. Even though this allegorical device was innovative, it was as a result of collaboration within the studio and the studio acting as an auteur. This further highlights how Curtiz was solely there to follow the instructions given to him by MGM and Jack Warner.

The violence in Bonnie and Clyde is much more on the nose. Arthur Penn decided to completely ignore the ageing Production Code and this is evident throughout the film, where guns and gunfire are on full display. Equally, there is more intense sexuality on display, in the opening sequence and when Bonnie and Clyde attempt to have sex. This appealed to a new generation of viewers (The Baby Boomers), who had a much more open and free thinking attitude to sex and violence. In fact, Penn was one of the first major catalysts in developing this mindset in younger viewers. At a similar time, bands such as: Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith were accelerating this mentality with suggestive lyrics and heavy music. There was definitely a symbiotic relationship between media, such as Bonnie and Clyde, and the changing outlook of a young and optimistic American generation. This further implies that Penn was an auteur as he had a big influence on changing what was accepted by an entire generation. He ignored the production code, followed by the studios, instead presenting divisive themes. This intense sexuality and violence was to become a mainstay of most New Hollywood films, so Penn very much pioneered this in Bonnie and Clyde.

Whilst nowadays most directors have complete freedom and creative control over their films, this was not the case during Classical Hollywood. The studio system that films were produced under lead to commercially successful but creatively similar and repetitive films. However, after the success of Bonnie and Clyde, many more directors began to enjoy creative control. Penn was the catalyst in moving away from the studio system and allowing for many auteurs to be established over the subsequent years. It is therefore interesting that Penn himself is most probably not a complete auteur because of his borrowing from the French New Wave. Equally, his lack of control over editing implies that he knew his film could be enhanced by collaborating with Allen, herself using ideas from the French New Wave. This collaboration during the filmmaking process is a distinct link between Casablanca and Bonnie and Clyde. This suggests that the best films do not really solely on the input of one person and that the sharing of ideas and techniques lends itself to the most engaging films.

Component 1a Essay

Compare how far your chosen films reflect their different production contexts.

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) and Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) were released within 25 years of each other. Within that timespan, America grew from a somewhat influential country to the preeminent global superpower it is today. Consequently, the landscape of film was completely flipped on its head and there was a sudden shift from Classical Hollywood to New Hollywood that took place at the start of the 1960s. This was mainly influenced by the French New Wave of Cinema that started during the mid-1940s. This affected the way in which films were produced, with a much more experimental attitude underpinning films produced during New Hollywood. Bonnie and Clyde being one of the earliest and most influential examples of this. Like Bonnie and Clyde, Casablanca challenged some contextual norms; however, the film had much less of an impact on societal behaviour and people’s expectations from storytelling. It can be argued that the greater independence given to Arthur Penn facilitated Bonnie and Clyde to be more innovative and influential. Whereas, Michael Curtiz consolidated the rigid ideas established under the studio system, with slight nuances and intricacies to be somewhat innovative. The institutional shift from the studio as auteur (Classical Hollywood) to individual filmmakers as auteurs (New Hollywood) is most evident when comparing these films and is most definitely the fundamental reason as to why they differ in their presentation.

During Classical Hollywood, studios developed distinct house styles. This was a collective set of features that distinguished films produced under MGM, for example, to films produced under Warner Brothers. Casablanca, produced by Warner Brothers, is no different. One of the most defining features of Warner Brothers films was their lavish, constructed sets. In Casablanca, the action takes place on a large sound stage. This allows for greater manipulation of the environment. For example, in the ending of Casablanca, the heavy fog and low visibility mirrors the dubious circumstances in which Victor Laszlo escapes. This enhances the narrative but was a technique employed in various other Warner Brothers films, suggesting that the studio controlled the film’s presentation.

This house style was made a relic by the release of Bonnie and Clyde. With Penn’s new found independence, he was able to shoot the film on location in Texas. This was unusual at the time; however, it heightened the historical accuracy of the narrative. This focus on accurately depicting interesting historical events was something that Penn became renowned for. He also shot on location in New Mexico in The Left Handed Gun (Arthur Penn, 1958), which told the story of Billy The Kid. This was one of the pivotal features in labelling Penn as an auteur and encouraged New Hollywood filmmakers to start shooting on location.

One aspect of Casablanca that subverted the Warner Brothers house style was the use of a flashback. Michael Curtiz employed this narrative technique in the editing stage of Casablanca, to show how Rick and Ilsa’s love was cemented in Paris. Flashbacks were rarely used in Classical Hollywood because the editing style remained linear so that the narrative was easy to follow. Curtiz added this to develop some depth to the story and create more emotion, encouraging the audience to sympathise more with Rick at the culmination of the film, when Ilsa leaves. Whilst not substantial enough to label Curtiz as an auteur, it marked the historical trend towards more expressive editing devices in film and away from the linear storytelling in most other Classical Hollywood films.

Building from the fleeting moments of expressive editing in Casablanca, editor Dede Allen edited Bonnie and Clyde in a similarly suggestive and expressive way throughout the film. Most notably of which is the montage sequence that ends the film. Whilst heightening the drama of the shootout, the montage wouldn’t have worked in Classical Hollywood, where cuts were done out of necessity. The 51 rapid cuts in the montage evoke feelings of danger and shock, as the audience struggles to follow the action. This was extremely innovative in that it developed a sense of showing, not telling. The audience were left to understand the story in a way unique to them, a revolutionary idea that was given the green light by Penn. Further cementing his status as an innovative auteur because this expressive editing style grew in popularity after the release of Bonnie and Clyde. Often being employed in films by Quentin Tarantino, for example.

In the Classical Hollywood era, most films utilised a standard binary opposition between a clearly defined protagonist and a clearly defined antagonist. Subsidiary to this, was usually a female character who acted as Propp’s Princess archetype. Casablanca doesn’t buck this trend. We see Ilsa in a reductive role, merely acting as a love interest for Rick. Ilsa seems innocent and naive, as shown by the soft lighting when she firsts visits Rick’s bar. For a modern viewer, this seems demeaning and critically speaking, this portrayal of Ilsa conforms to Laura Mulvey’s Male Gaze theory. This choice was probably out of convention, as this was something that studios had been doing for years. In this regard, Casablanca doesn’t seem to innovate and challenge the submissive roles of women in Classical Hollywood but no other films were doing so either at the time.

Contrastingly, the portrayal of Bonnie is much more nuanced and modern. She and Clyde don’t conform to the archetypical character roles used in Classical Hollywood. Instead, their violent actions juxtaposed with their care for each other suggest they are anti-heroes. A new term coined during this era. Bonnie in particular subverts the Male Gaze because in the opening sequence she is suggestively styled with red lipstick and no clothes, implying she is traditionally feminine. The gunfight at the end of the film contrasts with this and the dichotomy suggests that there are layers to Faye Dunaway’s character, something that was revolutionary at the time. This suggests that Penn is very much an auteur as he popularised prominent female roles in film, beyond a simple love interest. This carried over as more New Hollywood films started to be produced with intricate character roles for female actresses.

During Classical Hollywood, the Production Code was enforced to its fullest effect. This meant that Casablanca told a romantic story against the backdrop of a war, without much violence or romance. Instead, much of the violence is implied through character. The protagonist Rick is established from the offset and his grizzly, rugged persona is endearing to the audience. The antagonist, Major Strasberg, is even more clearly defined by his Nazi allegiance. On a more macro level, there is an allegorical element to each character, with Rick resembling USA and the Major resembling Nazi Germany. This allows Casablanca to explore WW11 on a micro level, through character interactions. Since the war was ongoing at the time of the film’s release, the strong undercurrent of violence would have been petrifying to the audience due to its gritty realism. This wasn’t seen before in Classical Hollywood. The idea to frame this seemingly romantic movie during WW11, was as a result of collaboration between the filmmakers. Most notably, executive producer Jack Warner whom was inspired by stories of refugees being held at Casablanca. Even though this allegorical device was innovative, it was as a result of collaboration within the studio and the studio acting as an auteur.

The violence in Bonnie and Clyde is much more on the nose. Arthur Penn decided to completely ignore the ageing Production Code and this is evident throughout the film, where guns and gunfire are on full display. Equally, there is more intense sexuality on display, in the opening sequence and when Bonnie and Clyde attempt to have sex. This appealed to a new generation of viewers (The Baby Boomers), who had a much more open and free thinking attitude to sex and violence. In fact, Bonnie and Clyde was one of the first major catalysts in developing this mindset in younger viewers. At a similar time, bands such as: Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith were accelerating this mentality with suggestive lyrics and heavy music. There was definitely a symbiotic relationship between media, such as Bonnie and Clyde, and the changing outlook of a young and optimistic American generation. This further implies that Penn was an auteur as he had a big influence on changing what was accepted by an entire generation. This intense sexuality and violence was to become a mainstay of most New Hollywood films, so Penn very much pioneered this in Bonnie and Clyde.

Whilst both Casablanca and Bonnie and Clyde challenge their production contexts to varying degrees, Bonnie and Clyde is much more of an experimental film and is more influential for it. There are few reasons as to why this may be the case. Firstly, under the studio system of Classical Hollywood, there was an unwritten rubric that most studio films followed, leading to commercially successful productions but artistically dry films. Casablanca is no different. Equally, being produced under the studio system, Casablanca was a collaborative project between many different filmmakers within the studio. Therefore, there wasn’t an opportunity to be creatively different as an individual filmmaker for Michael Curtiz, as the studio operated as the auteur. Contrastingly, Arthur Penn had a great deal of independence, allowing him to create a film that he had the majority of creative control over. Hence, Penn can be labelled as an individual directorial auteur. Additionally, Casablanca was produced during the height of the Classical Hollywood era, so there was no need for innovation because the films had been, up until this point, hugely commercially successful. So, Casablanca followed most of the other Classical Hollywood films in its style but added a few innovative features, such as narrative disruptions via. flashbacks. On the other hand, Bonnie and Clyde marked the genesis of New Hollywood, so it was incredibly unique and was a complete detachment from Classical Hollywood. In other words, there were no contextual norms for Bonnie and Clyde to conform to, so it had a completely different presentation to anything previously seen during Classical Hollywood. Bonnie and Clyde completely defied Classical Hollywood ideas yet established a template for future New Hollywood films to build upon and typified this era with features such as: expressive editing and more prominent and textured female character roles.

Arthur Penn: Copycat Auteur

It is important to remember that the French New Wave had been going on for some time, albeit to varying degrees of success, before truly arriving in America and New Hollywood. Nevertheless, there is an overwhelming sense of experimentation that can be associated with the French New Wave. This experimentation was all encompassing, given that the new filmmakers completely ignored prior conventions and tried different techniques across the entire breadth of the film form.

Some features that were completely left field included shooting on location, rather than on a constructed sound stage. For the most part, this gave the film a much greater sense of realism and grit, intensifying the drama and facilitating more intense themes to be explored more fully. Another feature was improvisation by actors. Whilst there was a script, there would be much more leeway for the actors to add their own individual flair to scenes. This also opened up the avenue for longer takes, where dialogue might have been cut back, in favour of character interactions or actions that enhanced the story. Another intriguing feature was the way in which filmmakers sought to use hand-held cameras and natural lighting to shoot their footage. This was more so out of a lack of funds initially; however, the end result was that of a realistic piece of footage.

Clearly, the experimentation done during the French New Wave provided the consumer with a much more intense and realistic exploration into relatable ideas and themes. The questions still remain over why this happened and why it took such a long time to gain success and popularity in America. I believe that the answer to both questions belongs in the roots of WW11. First and foremost, in terms of why this took place. During the war, most of France was under Nazi control, where most forms of media were outlawed, books were burned and films were banned. This most probably led to new filmmakers not being exposed to Classic Hollywood films in the same way that their parents were. So, after the war ended, these new filmmakers were free to experiment on a blank canvas and the economic downturn after the war facilitated this through a more cut back production process.

To the second point, we probably have to think about the war geographically. America was very much isolated, not joining the war from the beginning. France, on the other hand, being sandwiched between Great Britain and Germany was potentially the most devastated country during the fighting. The suffering felt by the French was unmatched, not least in America. Therefore, the horrors of war most likely had a direct effect to the changing landscape of film. Instead of wanting more fantastical films for escapism, the French longed for films that drew on their own experiences and explored them in a cathartic way, so that they could potentially put some of their fears to rest.

Since this suffering was much more muffled in America, it took another traumatic event to catalyse this shift to realistic cinema. This could have been the assassination of JFK in 1963. Interestingly, the French New Wave had a much different effect in America to that of in France. The Americans chose to escape their fears rather than the French who confronted them. Youthful Americans had a ‘tune out and drop out’ attitude towards life. So, even though these New Hollywood movies retained realistic undertones and they sought to explore relatable themes, the action was often much more elaborate and impressive.

Screenwriters: David Newman and Robert Benton:
Newman and Benton were known to work together on most of the films that they produced, with Bonnie and Clyde being no different. In fact, Bonnie and Clyde was their first ever film script that came to life on screen. It should also be noted that Newman and Benton took careful consideration in ensuring that the script was stylised, akin to films from the French New Wave.

Director: Arthur Penn:

Penn was one of the fore founders of artistically-driven cinema in New Hollywood. Obviously, borrowing a lot from techniques associated with the French New Wave, Penn was able to implement realistic features into commercially and critically successful films, such as Bonnie and Clyde. Penn was fascinated with key historical events and bringing them to life for a new audience to learn about. This can be exemplified in Bonnie and Clyde and The Left Handed Gun (Arthur Penn, 1958), his directorial debut exploring the escapades of Billy the Kid.

Editor: Dede Allen:

Interestingly, Dede Allen probably best exemplifies the changing landscape of American cinema, during the tradition from Classic Hollywood, to New Hollywood. A woman, working independently out of New York cannot be much more removed from the old male editors working closely under the studio umbrellas on Hollywood sound stages. In fact, the independence that Allen had in her editing style allowed for her to experiment with using techniques from the French New Wave, such as jump cuts and J-cuts. These techniques would eventually become integrated into the fabric of American cinema for years to come.

Producer: Warren Beatty:

In addition to playing the titular protagonist in Bonnie and Clyde, Warren Beatty occupied an involved role as producer. Beatty hired Newman and Benton and was a key figurehead in producing a revolutionary screenplay. Equally, Beatty had the principal role of casting most of the actors, another critical point in the success of the film. This exemplifies the new role of a star-auteur in New Hollywood, where lead actors would also take on a producing role, Jack Nicholson is another example of this.

Escaping The Eight: The French New Wave

Most of the films produced in the first half of the 20th Century were done so via. studios. Although each studio had a distinct house style, there were many features common to all films, regardless of the studio in which they were produced. Most notable of which, was a stringent focus on continuity editing, to guide the audience along the movie and ensure that they could follow the narrative structure with ease. In other words, telling, not showing. In addition to this, countless other conventions like the formal composition of shots and the reliance on elaborate sets and mise-en-scene were conformed to by all of the studios. The French New Wave ran over these conventions, with force.

War time France was a depressing place, even more so than one might expect. Nazi censorship was in full effect, with many movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood completely banned, including those from Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles. This meant that France was completely void of personality and art, in addition to being ravaged by wartime violence. Therefore, during the war, there was an immense lust and longing for something new and different from the increasingly stale movies of before. Although it took a few years after the war to truly establish itself, by the late 1950’s, The French New Wave of Cinema had arrived. With the poor economy, stemming from the immense debts of war, the art of this movement was very much driven though economic hardship and adversity, creating a great sense of pathos for all involved, until the positive effects of the style were truly felt, a decade later.

The driving force behind this movement was most probably Andre Bazin. Bazin founded the magazine, Cashiers du Cinema, which periodically published a collection of essays and pieces of writing that offered critiques and thoughts on cinema. The general feeling coming from multiple different writers at the publication was that there should be a much bigger focus on reality in cinema. This is something that the filmmakers in the French New Wave relied on heavily, using techniques from documentaries to develop their styles.

One of the most striking elements of films born out of the French New Wave, is how editing was completely reimagined. Previous films relied a lot on exposition and, as aforementioned, telling not showing. This lead to a reliance on establishing shots when changing location. A dissolve would cut between the two shots, further telling the audience that there had been a change to a new location. Filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard flipped this convention on its head. Dissolves were completely gone, so too was the tedious exposition. What followed was a normal shot, just, in the new location. This encouraged the audience, for one of the first times ever, to think for themselves and piece the narrative along in their head, rather than just following along passively. Another technique used by filmmakers like Eric Rohmer was the use of a jump cut. This quickly took the audience to a new environment, establishing a new tone or mood. This further marked the transition between exposition and a passive audience to showing, not telling and hence a more active audience. This bled over into the 1960’s, where filmmakers from New Hollywood began to use many of these techniques.

Waving Goodbye: New Hollywood (1961-1990)

As the 20th Century passed the mid-way point, a landmark shift was happening in the filmmaking world. The success of cinema, built on the back of the popularity of films made in the studio system, was coming to an end. This was apparent from the increasing number of big-budget flops. However, this enabled greater access into the filmmaking world, with a rise in independent cinema. With this rise, directors were given more autonomy. Whilst they still worked under the umbrella of a studio, they were given much more freedom to create films in a more nuanced and thoughtful way. This facilitated the development of more directorial auteurs. Equally, as actors were given more independence and creative control, they too took on more of an auteur status. With that said, New Hollywood can be best described as a move away from the studio system, as filmmakers began to have more autonomy.

One of the key factors in the decline in studios and the general decline of cinema, was the advent of the television. Before WW11, most households owned a radio; which served as their only form of media consumption. Therefore, to go to the cinema was a spectacle and something that was seen as exciting. This feeling of joy and excitement remained strong throughout the early 1940’s but began to slowly decline after the War, as the economy struggled to stabilise. This decline in cinema was exacerbated during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s as the television became much more widely used. This greatly dampened the allure of the cinema and reduced the economic viability of big budget studio films even more than before.

Clearly, there were two distinct problems that arose from this. Namely: consumers felt ‘burnt out’ by big budget films (due to the years of stagnation and reliance on the studio system) and there was now nothing new or exciting about the cinema (due to the widespread popularity of the television). One feature of New Hollywood that solved both of these issues was the rise of independent cinema; which offered a new and revolutionary take on filmmaking. It must be said that although independent cinema wasn’t necessarily responsible for a big uptake in ticket revenue, it was highly influential in causing a revival of cinema. This is because it was the studio system and independent cinema system working in parallel that caused a change in the fundamentals of the studio system.

At this point in time, independent cinema was somewhat popular but the overall popularity of cinema was nowhere near its initial boom. What independent cinema did do, was encourage new directors to critique their work and draw from it. In New Hollywood, this process was relatively late, given that the same thing happened in Europe a while before. Nevertheless, since studios were more open to handing out creative control to directors, a new style of filmmaking was born. Inspired by independent cinema but very much a thing of its own, directors such as Martin Scorsese has a much more influential role on the filmmaking process, exploring themes and ideas previously unseen on-screen. Most importantly, was the work of Arthur Penn who, in producing Bonnie and Clyde, hammered the final nail in the coffin of the Hays Code. The rampant violence and sexual tension throughout Bonnie and Clyde encouraged other filmmakers to push the boundaries of explicitness. With this, Penn also nurtured a young and more open 1960’s generation into accepting and eventually loving this much more adventurous and dangerous style of filmmaking.

Bonnie And Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967)

The first thing that stuck out to me about Bonnie And Clyde, is the moral positioning of the characters. If we are to imagine the two protagonists on a spectrum of good vs evil, they lie somewhere in the middle. To this effect, I would propose that this marked the genesis of the antihero. Whilst we bear witness to acts of horrific violence and murder, we also see Bonnie and a Clyde in a different light, where they appear somewhat vulnerable. This grounds the story in realism but this is contrasted with the high octane action, creating an uneasy feeling of tension.

The tension that Penn creates, is done through increasing levels of violence. The first murder Clyde carries out seems tame, when compared to the machine gunning of vehicles and the death of the duo at the end of the film. This enables a depressing pathos at the denouement of the film to leave the viewer feeling slightly dissatisfied.

In many respects, the true antagonist of the film is Blanche. This is implied from the personality clash between Bonnie and Blanche. Whilst Bonnie seems quite autonomous and independent, Blanche seems dependent on her husband Buck. This could be Penn exploring how America was changing in the 1960s from a patriarchal society, to a much more liberal and feminist environment. Since the film was set in the early 20th Century, Bonnie seems ahead of her time and an aspirational figure. This furthers the idea that Bonnie didn’t conform to typical character expectations and the audience were intrigued and captivated by her behaviour.

Although the plot seems straightforward, in that Bonnie and Clyde travel across Southern America, robbing banks and interacting with new people along the way, at times the narrative seems overwhelming-not least because of the overt violence. In my opinion, this is due to a plethora of themes that Penn is trying to explore. Whilst some points are pursued further, many ideas are left to bubble away in the viewer’s mind and encourage them to question the violence that they see. Some of the themes that I noticed were: masculinity, feminine independence, manifest destiny, freedom, law and disorder, morality, marriage and relationships, deceit, domestic violence, the loss of youth and coming of age.

Out of all of those themes, I believe that Penn explores masculinity in the most profound and nuanced way. In films of all eras, violence is often glorified as something glamorous and exciting. Whilst this is true to a certain extent in Bonnie and Clyde (fast cars and fast food), we see Clyde suffer with his sexuality and the perception of his manhood. Clyde’s sexual dysfunction, unusually removes sex from its common association with violence and isolates Clyde as a unique character. Penn does this to show the pitfalls of Clyde’s character, ensuring that he is positioned so that the audience sympathise with him and his violence seems less vindictive and more out of a place of emotional vulnerability; which we don’t often see associated with the portrayal of a male character.

Unconventional Auteur: Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)

As previously mentioned, since Casablanca was produced during the Classical-Hollywood period of ‘stars and studios‘, it has a similar feel in tone and look to many other films produced by Warner Brothers at the time. However, the key point to be made is that this Warner Brothers house style was distinct to other studios like MGM, who had their own house styles.

What makes Classical Hollywood films, like Casablanca, so successful is that they are produced with one common goal in mind. Although this is seemingly quite dictatorial in principal, in practice what actually happened was a collaborative effort between all facets of the filmmaking process.

The lead creative vision behind Casablanca was the executive producer, Jack Warner. After being learning of the refugees in Casablanca, Warner felt immediately compelled to produce a film, detailing the horrific aspects of war. Openly critical of the oppressive Nazi leadership, Warner was outspoken in his support for an American intervention in WW11. This probably lead to the allegorical nature of the film.

Hal B. Wallis was the most important producer, after Jack Warner. In many respects, Wallis’ work was the most crucial in bring to life Warner’s vision. He was responsible for buying the film rights and setting the budget for the film. He also was the primary outlet for sourcing the correct actors and he lead the editing team. In this regard, Wallis was the key hand in sustaining the distinct hopeless tone, throughout Casablanca.

Michael Curtiz is surprisingly less well-known than most of his compatriots, potentially because he did not have much of an auteur style. Instead, Curtiz was instructed to film the product of Warner and Wallis’ vision and only a few times is he allowed to showcase his style, through a few high crane shots in the opening montage, for example.

In order to create the distinct film noir style in Casablanca, cinematographer Arthur Edeson and composer Max Steiner had a lot of creative control. Edeson used his expertise in lighting to manufacture an expressionistic low-key style. Whilst Steiner created memorable melodies within scores that accentuated themes in the narrative. Steiner was even able to suggest themes through his own music, known as leitmotifs.

The Golden Age Of Hollywood: Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)

Historical and Political Contexts:

At its heart, Casablanca is a love story set against the backdrop of war; however, on the surface, Casablanca is a war story with a slightly soothing undercurrent of love. Nevertheless, it is critical to appreciate the immense extent to which WW11 shaped the lives of people in 1942 and the production of Casablanca. If anything, the benefit of hindsight enables this now more so than ever before.

In 1942, WW11 was about halfway done. This was unbeknownst to citizens living under the Nazi Germany rule, resulting in many refugees being ‘held’ in the real-life city of Casablanca, Morocco. This acted as a sort of ‘waiting room’; whilst refugees looked to gain exit visas to flee to Lisbon, Portugal. Jack Warner (the president of Warner Brothers) heard stories about these refugees and chose to base a movie around them and with that Casablanca was born.

In many respects, Casablanca can be thought of as an allegorical exploration into the damning impacts of war. Whereby the characters serve to function as countries and the director and producer manufacture the script in a way that suggests failings or missteps of said countries.

Most prominently, Rick represents the USA. His change throughout the narrative is indicative of America’s growing involvement in WW11, for the fabled ‘greater good’. Equally, Victor Laszlo is symbolic of the underground resistance movement, formed out of spite for the Nazi regime. Laszlo is arguably the true hero of the film because his sacrifices are for the benefit of everybody rather than the seemingly selfish Rick.

Of equal importance is the particular dates in which the film is set. The ending takes place a mere two days before the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour and America’s entry into the war. The fact that the film ends with Rick sacrificing his love for Ilsa is suggestive of America sacrificing their neutrality. Both of which are for seemingly selfish reasons.

Social Contexts:

In the early 1940’s, going to the cinema was one of the most popular social outings that people enjoyed doing. Therefore, it is important that Casablanca was to be marketed to target a mass audience, in order to increase the commercial success of the film. This was done in a number of different ways; however, most critically was the location. In fact, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt (the heads of state of the UK and USA, respectively) we’re attending a meeting in Casablanca. This gardened much publicity and encouraged more people to watch the film as it appeared topical and current.

Cultural Contexts:

It is inherently obvious that the cultural contexts surrounding Casablanca are underpinned by the historical and political contexts that ground the film in reality. Whilst the film appears to tell a tale of love, the issue of war is put in direct focus and it is clear that war had a profound impact in the subsequent production of films, reigniting the war genre.

However, it soon became clear that cinema-goers needed escapism from the true horrors of war and that films should be produced to soothe and ease the fears of the American populous. In 1942, a regulating board was established to keep films geared towards a happy and upbeat tone, thus uplifting the national morale.

Casablanca has had an immeasurable impact on the future generation of filmmakers and many films pay homage to it even now. In fact, in 2016, La La Land (Damien Chazelle, 2016), there is a clear symmetry at the end of the film, wherein it is reminiscent of Rick’s surprise encounter with Ilsa in his bar. Whilst Casablanca is too old to invoke a warm sense of nostalgia, it gives the audience a sense of fleeting familiarity and comfort.

Institutional Contexts:

Casablanca is a definite example of a film from the studios era of Classical-Hollywood. All of the actors (both major and minor) as well as all of the production crew, were under contract at Warner Brothers. This ensured that there was one clear vision for Casablanca and that everybody was working towards the same goal, established by Jack Warner.

It’s important to note that in 1942, the Production Code was till in full force. This plains why Casablanca has little to no explicit content; which is somewhat surprising given the gritty and heartfelt story being told.

Technological Contexts:

Whilst Casablanca conforms to technological norms of the time in regards to shooting on studio lots and using continuity editing, the use of montage is certainly an unusual editing feature of the time. The initial montage is emblematic of the documentary genre and the voice-over narration immediately draws the viewer into the world of the film and involves them directly. This borrowing of technological features from the documentary genre is something that carries true today and Casablanca was very much the establishing force in this regard.

Institution As Auteur: Warner Brothers

Warner Brothers House Style:

Throughout the Classical Hollywood era, film studios were easily distinguishable by the notion of a ‘house style’. This was a set of unique features that gave each film published under the umbrella of a specific studio, a distinct feel or mood. This enabled viewers to immediately recognise a Warner Brothers film from an MGM film and vice versa. In many ways, Warner Brothers’ house style was peculiar for the time, they were the antithesis to the lavish ‘feel-good’ films, popularised by other studios of the time. Instead, Warner Brothers “held up a mirror to Depression-era America” in a bid to resonate with the financially insecure American residents. This was achieved through a much more economic method of telling stories. Scripts were kept to the point and dialogue was short and sharp, this ensured that the performances always had the end-point of the narrative kept in firm focus throughout the film. These driven narratives were set against the backdrop of more urban, gritty setting, further encouraging the audience to resonate with the realistic and contemporary world of the film.

Executive Producer – Jack Warner:

Jack Warner was one of the four Warner brothers who founded the titular studio. In many respects, he was also the most captivating. Known as a ruthless go-getting businessman, Warner was known to take no prisoners, even deceptively purchasing two of his brothers’ shares in the company, under false pretence in the 1950s. This lone-wolf attitude was somewhat troublesome when it came to satisfying actors’ demands. More often than not, Jack Warner would pay his performers next-to-no money for acting in his films. In 1936, renowned actress, Bette Davis broke her contract, citing “slave wages”. Jack Warner changed his attitude from this point onwards, paying his actors with much more lucrative fees and creating more sought-after roles. This helped to cement Warner Brothers as being a studio that used actors that were perhaps not extremely famous or glamorous, hence, creating their own stars.

Producer – Hal B Wallis:

It is without a doubt that Hal B Wallis is most well-known for producing the timeless film, Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942). This was most definitely the defining moment in his career. However, it also marked the end of his stint at Warner Brothers. When, at the 16th Academy Awards in 1944, Jack Warner appeared to take sole credit for producing Casablanca. This seemingly discredited all of Wallis’ work. Nevertheless, Wallis resiliently began to work in an independent producing career, that continued until the middle of the second half of the 20th Century.

Director – Michael Curtiz:

Perhaps the key contributor in creating the distinctive Warner Brothers ‘house style’ of hyper-realistic, efficient narratives, was Michael Curtiz. In many ways, he was an auteur in a time where there were little to no directors with such a profound sense of creative control. Throughout Curtiz’ 25 year career at Warner Brothers, he had a hand in producing over 100 films. Whilst not all reaching the heights of his most successful films, Casablanca most firmly established his realistic and emotive style. Incidentally, this proved to be Warner Brothers’ defining film of the Classical Hollywood era, ensuring that their ‘house style’ was to be the precedent for years to come.

Cinematographer – Arthur Edeson:

It seems significant that Casablanca had the top minds in film working intently on it, Arthur Edeson doesn’t buck this trend. It does raise the question of whether or not a great film necessitates collaboration between different facets of the filmmaking process or if one person’s vision can carry a film to greatness. Nevertheless, the iconic cinematography that Casablanca is most famous for can be attributed to Arthur Edeson. Prior to Casablanca, Edeson honed his craft on silent films, where cinematography was the key mechanism of creating meaning. This suggests that Edeson had a big role to play in how the events of Casablanca unfolded in a somewhat subtle manner.

Composer – Max Steiner:

Max Steiner is thought by many as one of the fore founders of film composers. That is, composers who wrote unique music, specific to individual films. Steiner lent his craft to more than 300 films, over a long and impactful career. Whilst well-known for his role in Casablanca, Steiner didn’t actually compose the primary romantic score ‘As Time Goes By’; however, his tremendous impact in the film world cannot be overlooked or overstated.

Classical Hollywood Style

The Classical Hollywood style is rooted in a firm focus on narrative flow and story progression. That is to say that all of the elements of film form are geared in such a way as to aid the progression of the narrative.

The cinematography of Classical Hollywood conformed to a rigid idea of cause and effect. Most commonly, actors and props were deliberately positioned in the frame, so that the audience understood more of the narrative. The spatial positions of the characters allowed the audience to draw conclusions about alliances and motives, thus informing the end-point of the narrative.

Establishing shots were a pivotal part of Classical Hollywood. They accentuated the lavish sets and allowed the audience to get a better sense of place. They also facilitated the narrative’s quicker progression, as there was less exposition needed in the form of dialogue. This ensured that the character-driven storylines were put in full focus.

One of the most universal features of Classical Hollywood is the manipulation of three-point lighting. This is comprised of: a key light, a fill light and a back light. Whilst this method was the most common way of lighting a set, low-key lighting removed the fill light, creating shadows and enigma.

Another manipulation of lighting was the use of soft lights to illuminate female stars. This enhanced their femininity and made their skin look perfectly clear and their eyes sparkle. All of these lighting techniques were used to convey particular moods or feelings. This allowed the audience to subconsciously connect with a particular character or associate a particular emotion towards a character or place.

Classical Hollywood is not renowned for its elaborate use of sound, this is potentially because the conventions of the era were still being established during the 1910s and 1920s, where silent films were being shown.

Nevertheless, there is a definite point to be made about how Classical Hollywood used a carefully selected selection of non-diegetic sound bites. This audio acted as incidental sound, encouraging the audience to feel a certain emotion at a particular point in the narrative.

Equally, sometimes studios would bring in renowned composers to construct a piece of music that the film would use as a backdrop to the drama. This was exhibited as a piece of non-diegetic sound; however, sometimes there would be an orchestral version of this played.

In terms of editing in Classical Hollywood, there was an emphasis on continuity and linear editing to construct a sense of narrative flow that the audience could follow. Edits were used as a necessity to move from scene to scene, rather that to construct a wider meaning. The edits therefore seem invisible.

Sometimes, a film used montages, especially in the opening, in order to establish a sense of location and place. Equally, less common, was the use of flashbacks. These disrupted the chronological flow but served to build characters and encourage audience engagement with the story.

The most striking element of Classical Hollywood was how mise-en-scene was taken to an unprecedented level. In other words, massive studio lots were constructed to house carefully manufactured props and items of note. All of the action was contained inside of these sets, this allowed exotic locations to be featured more often.

This also encouraged limited location movement and, arguably to a detriment, the action was largely contained within one area. However, this did enable the narrative to retain its focus on characters-further creating ‘stars’ in the ‘studios’.

Whilst Classical Hollywood performances were often carefully structured and planned, certain stars were given limited creative freedom to express themselves, for example through facial expressions or gestures. The limited performative freedom is probably down to the practice of typecasting and ensured that many stars tended to tow the line to continue to play the same role.