Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The Simplest Means

David Brown
3/24/09
Seminar in Cinema Studies
Surrealism is one of the most interesting qualities inherently used to great effect in certain films. It’s that slightly off feeling in a Lynch film or a Bunel film that gives an audience member a sense that they have been witnessing a strange view of reality; an almost dream like view that lacks conventional dramatic structure and logic. Perhaps these filmmakers learned a thing or two from one of the greatest surreal directors: Jean Cocteau. Cocteau was a playwright, and therefore knew more about dramatic structure than Bunel or Lynch. However, this didn’t mean that his films were not unconventional. I’d argue that the best way to depart from convention is to first know how to properly tell a conventional story, and then completely imbue that story with unconventional traits. These traits would not seem arbitrary in the slightest, because they would naturally be contingent upon the story being told on screen. For instance, in Jean Cocteau’s Orpheus (1949), even though it doesn’t necessarily make conventional sense that Orphee (Jean Marais) can’t look at his wife Eurydice (Marie Dea) or else she will die, it seems to not be an arbitrary element in anyway extrinsic from the story either. I can’t think of many other filmmakers who posses that quality of surrealism. It’s no wonder that Cocteau is termed a classical avant-gardist.
Possibly, the elements in Orpheus fit so well in place because the movie is based on the classic Greek myth of Orpheus, and how he lost Eurydice. However, Cocteau has elaborated on that myth in adding the final section involving Orphee’s second chance at getting Eurydice back from the dead. The one stipulation is that Orphee is not allowed to look at her ever again; if he does she dies for good. Cocteau takes this dramatic scenario that should be depressing, and makes it comic. This is highly strange thematically for a dramatist to do, because it’s not the normal route for a story like this to take. It’s comic because both parties decide to continue to live with one another. It gets to the point where Heurtebise (Francois Périer), death’s chauffeur of all people, has to constantly remind Orphee to be careful about staring into the mirror, for fear that he will see his wife. (This could be construed as a metaphor for a marriage falling apart, considering that Orphee is falling in love with Death (María Casares).) However, all of this is made comic rather than tragic, and this is an example of Cocteau’s genius. As a filmmaker, he takes his pretentious artistic ideas and magically makes them unpretentious. This feat is a major moment in art. It’s almost as if a Bohemian avant garde artist finally figured out dramatic construction and consequently had no more stumbling blocks in which to trip over.
At some moments, Orpheus resembles a surreal marital comedy. I think the juxtaposition of these elements works because the film has a structure in which to base its wild ramblings on. I’m sure Cocteau wanted to experiment with juxtapositions of surrealism and normality or banality for this film. In order to do that successfully, Cocteau had to have some kind of structure for his dream like film, or else it wouldn’t make any sense to an audience; and what better structure is there other than the Greek myths?
I think the other element that makes Orpheus such an effective surreal film is the fact that it has such a low budget. Usually, one would presume that a low budget would limit a filmmaker from being creative, particularly if their film has many special effects in it. It appears that nothing daunted Cocteau. If anything, he was probably spurred on by having a limited budget. The constrictions probably allowed Cocteau to experiment in highly unconventional ways, and this fit his unconventional avant garde style. For instance, no filmmaker would ever think of showing the entrance to another dimension by simply putting two people in reverse when they walk. However, this effect works, particularly since it’s in slow motion. This effect is what makes the film dream like; it’s not simply an effect because its adds to the movie’s premise. The same could be said for showing Orphee leap into and out of the mirror in order to get to the other dimension, or the way in which he enters through the mirror (Cocteau uses a water effect.) There’s a statement being made in that special effect, and that is that one doesn’t know which side of the mirror is more real. We all could be living in a non-real universe, and the reflection of that reality could be the real reality. (It seems that The Matrix used this idea as well.) Thank heavens Cocteau doesn’t state this pretentious idea outright; it’s merely hidden in the film. It’s this element of grace and ease with which Cocteau presents his ideas, almost as if they were hidden away in special effects, that is truly commendable. He makes the artistic process look as easy as a skip and a frolic, and this is what is lacking from a Lynch or a Bunel.
There’s a line in Orpheus where at the beginning of the film, Orphee says to Heurtebise, “Astonish me!” That’s Cocteau’s way of showing the relationship between the artist and his audience, and how an artist first and foremost is a type of ring master, and not a deep intellectual thinker. (That part for Cocteau came second.) An artist, in Cocteau’s estimation had to truly pleasure an audience, and he correctly learned that one doesn’t do this by simply making deep statements about society. Doing so would show one’s limitations, particularly one’s lack of a budget. Rather, Cocteau felt that filmmaker’s have to primarily dazzle their audience, especially visually. This working method is an example of what separates Cocteau from other low budget filmmaker’s and artists with lack of funds. Cocteau felt that one has to find a way to make their audience enthralled, or else there is no point in showing their vision to an audience. In other words, he felt that an artist should not be daunted in anyway; if an artist is talented he can accomplish anything. This is the magic element of Cocteau’s working process. He makes everything he does look so effortless. His film Orpheus is an example of pulling a rabbit out of the hat. Transposing a Greek myth to French Parisian life in the 40’s is a daunting task enough. However, doing this on a limited budget is even more daunting, and yet Cocteau pulls off the miracle.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Night Of the Living Dead

I love George Romero's Horror films. Here's a director that not only has great talent at scaring an audience, but also is very politically oriented in the Horror visions that he's showing an audience. What Romero depicts in his films is his prescient fears concerning the direction that this country is headed in. What better way to show those fears then in a Horror film? The Horror framework allows Romero to make his political statements acute to an audience.
His films are not didactic in anyway. Rather, Romero’s films serve as great entertainment. His films are successful attempts at properly scaring an audience, and then making that audience think for a change. It's the interim moments of making an audience squirm where Romero utilizes his social commentary on a given situation. He has a given system of shocking an audience into expectancy and then sharing his criticisms of American existence to that audience. Romero has been well aware since he made his first film The Night of the Living Dead, that the Horror framework hooks an audience member towards the director's argument. An audience member is never bored in a Romero film upon seeing acts of American consumerism, or American sexism, ect. Rather, the audience is experiencing the director's thesis viscerally.
Night of the Living Dead is a masterful Horror film because of the simplicity in which events occur in the movie. For instance, the plot of the film falls into place very easily, which ultimately makes the implications of the film very realistic. The movie doesn’t announce itself in anyway like most Horror films. It begins very innocently, and then thematically becomes more terrifying as day turns into night and more and more zombies start appearing. This structure is highly realistic for a Horror film mainly because so little happens. There isn’t much of a plot or explanation as to why the dead are coming back to life. The television broadcasters are as befuddled as the characters trapped in the house. This attitude of confusion creates a realistic sense of a panic stricken culture. Usually in Horror films, even after the main characters learn why something is the way it is, they still are panicking. In Night of The Living Dead, no one has any answers. This is what makes the film have an authentic sense of dread.
Romero’s political statements in this film are actually very general. Yes, of course, the film deals with the concept of racism. However, the overall arching question that Romero posits to the audience is, what leads to racism? Romero’s answer is a nervous culture. Acute nervousness, in Romero’s eyes, leads to ineffectualness and mental lack of clarity. This is no more apparent then in the actions of Harry Cooper (Karl Hardman), who gets many of the main characters killed in the film. He is so wound up by the onslaught of the zombies outside that he becomes the metaphor for the crazed alarmist culture that Romero fears American citizens are becoming. (The informative tv doesn’t help his state in anyway.) In the movie, he constantly berates Ben (Duane Jones), and yet Ben is right in stating that no one should hide in the basement. Cooper’s lack of mental clarity is what is making him make all the wrong selfish decisions. It’s ironic, and somewhat humorous, that Cooper is trying to protect his daughter, and yet she is a zombie. The zombie metaphor is Romero’s way of addressing his concerns over society’s becoming a brainless culture.
Really, Night of the Living Dead is the ultimate example of the effectiveness of nondescriptness; of having a low budget and using unknown actors. These elements simply make the film creepier. As stated before, the film doesn’t announce itself like other Horror films. It doesn’t initially appear phantasmagorical in terms of its look. Rather, the film has a realistic appearance of nondescriptness; especially the opening cemetery scene. The Horror elements, like the sociological elements, creep up on the audience. The setting of Pittsburgh helps. Here’s a sleepy city basically reawakened by zombies. It’s a city rarely shown in movies; an unknown territory that makes the film have a more original look. If only young Horror filmmakers learned Romero’s attributes! They should try their hand at black and white sometime. Young Horror filmmakers should also come up with original ideas that have something to do with their feelings on society. The Horror framework, as evidenced by Night of the Living Dead, is the perfect framework in which to do so. These young filmmaker’s wouldn’t even have to switch genres in order to make more “serious” socially conscious “message” movies.It’s amazing to consider that Romero already established his directorial style in his first film. For instance, when Ben (Duane Jones) relates to Barbara (Judith O’Dea) about how he felt terrified and powerless upon first encountering the zombies, his soliloquy, as it were, is being told to her just after a frightening moment occurred in the film. Ben’s soliloquy is political in nature. The zombies that Ben mentions are representations of white racist men who set out to kill black men. I feel that the implications that these zombies are brainless individuals, is a statement on Romero’s part, in relation to how murdering racists are not intelligent individuals. Is it a coincidence that the human pact that “accidentally” kills Ben at the end of the film, for fear that he’s a zombie, resembles the zombies in the movie? I think not. It’s Romero’s depiction of human hatred guised in human carelessness that makes Night of the Living Dead a truly terrifying movie.