screenspirit

[screenspirit]

20 Years of Quentin Tarantino’s Brilliantly Bloody Kill Bill: Vol 1

Defined by its killer soundtrack, striking visual design and engaging, unforgettable characters, acclaimed filmmaker Quentin Tarantino’s senior feature Kill Bill: Vol 1 made its breathtaking debut on October 10th, 2003 and has culminated in persistent acclaim and adoration since. An American love letter to the classic Japanese martial art and Jidaigeki (period) works, especially Toshiya Futija’s 1937 masterpiece Lady Snowblood, the film features the dazzling casting choice in the amazingly talented Uma Thurman as The Bride. Thurman’s role is a mysterious assassin who seeks revenge on her former group of assassins after they left her and her unborn child for dead during her wedding reception. The first installment in the two-part project, which Tarantino considers one whole film himself, sees The Bride travel to Tokyo to take down the viciously skilful yakuza.

As mentioned, Tarantino’s work took the film industry by storm after its October 2003 release. Thanks to its brilliantly executed plot and action-packed sequences with an overall blend of impassioned drama, it attracted countless critical acclaim and audience praise and grossed over $180 million worldwide having been made from a $30 million budget. This turn out makes it one of the director’s biggest successes and highest-grossing weekends. Furthermore, the first volume of Kill Bill rightfully holds an unmovable status in American film. It exists as a work that defines the Western take on the medium as combining thrills with drama and intense character examinations. Tarantino’s writing never misses, pacing the fight/kill scenes alongside the dialogue-driven ones that display character motivation and progression. It additionally offers witty quips to add a dark comedic tone to overall atmosphere of brutality and violence, showcasing the versatility that has helped cement Kill Bill: Vol 1 in the cinephile psyche.

It’s visual design demonstrates some stark and stylised iconography, from costuming to choreography. First of all, The Bride’s iconic yellow and black tracksuit borrowed artistic influences from Bruce Lee’s attire in the 1972 incomplete film Game of Death, written, directed and produced by the martial arts icon himself. Here, Tarantino pays further tribute to the martial art works that inspired his love for watching and creating cinema in every little detail in his own work that are artistically inspired by the efforts of those who defined the cinematic genre. From visual to audio quality, the infamous sound design of alerting sirens which are embedded into the score every time The Bride faces an opponent have become a pop and film culture phenomenon. This stylistic trademark has been replicated and immediately recognised in subsequent films that go on to pay tribute to the work Tarantino created as an act of appreciation himself.

Furthermore, Kill Bill: Vol 1 is also a bold and ambitious execution of Tarantino’s artistic staple of excessive and graphic violence that strays away from gory shock value seen in most modern horror. The feature makes use of buckets on buckets of blood as limbs are shredded off the body and torsos are slashed open by The Bride’s attentive sword work and passion for revenge. This is most evident in the brilliantly tense and climatic climax which sees The Bride take on the Crazy 88, an elite group of masterfully trained fighters against dreamy blue landscapes that illuminate the characters’ shadows during battle. Once we see the fight in the forefront, we are astounded and sometimes repulsed by how each severment of a limb triggers an ongoing spurt in blood. Each spurt immediately follows the other before in some sort of gruesome rhythm until the redness takes up the screen.

This quest for revenge mirrors a hidden desire audiences suppress and, in the case of Kill Bill’s unforgettable protagonist, a brutal and extreme display of ‘feminine rage’. This cinematic notion is structurally characterised as a strive to be heard and fulfilled on a woman’s part, executed by intense and “unfeminine” outbursts of repressed emotion from screaming to physical conflict. As a brilliant female lead dignified with a profound backstory and layered depiction as conveyed in a terrific performance, The Bride is introduced in the first installment as working under a more serene and controlled demeanour that covers her festering feminine rage. Despite a powerful taste for blood leading her every move, the character remains unflustered throughout the narrative, even when she’s engaging in prolonged violent combats and kills. This accentuates her layered characterisation because it offers a harmony between her rageful quest for vengeance and her collected sense.

The character reads as a thorough and detailed portrayal of how there is no force nastier and more persistent than a scorned woman, with audiences relishing in her journey of executing “an eye for an eye” (a more fitting analogy in the sequel). She lets nothing stand in her way of getting revenge and leaves a bloodbath in her wake with hardly a bat of an eye. Through this graphic rhythm of violence interjected into her emotional backstory, The Bride as a central woman in film challenges conventional tropes of a more “well-behaved” and approachable cinematic leading woman. It’s virtually impossible not to immediately align with Thurman’s character and support her. Audiences recognise, understand and resonate with her backstory, identifying the severe betrayal she was a victim of. The unapologetic aggression The Bride showcases in this film is something many women connect to, with many critics suggesting they come to fantasise about doing the same to those (possibly men) who have wronged and scorned them.

Two decades on, Kill Bill: Volume 1 is appreciated as a masterful visual work that encompasses compelling cinematography to showcase its unique character writing and stark violence. It’s thrilling from opening to conclusion with a perfect structural and tonal disposition between the emotive drama, dark comedy and explicit violence. Tarantino’s directing skills that convey thorough character development, memorable iconography and immersive action allow for both compelling expressiveness and decorative appeal, appeasing audience’s need for stimulation and entertainment. Such artistry and storytelling are cherished by cinema lovers, leading to Kill Bill: Volume 1’s everlasting status in film.

#kill bill #kill bill vol. 1 #quentin tarantino #bellatrix kiddo #uma thurman #cinema #film #film analysis #film critic #classic #american film #2000s cinema #movie #Youtube

[screenspirit]

Where You Can Find Me and My Writing

Film and Social Politics on Medium: https://medium.com/@rosietibbs-co-uk

Film on A Rabbit's Foot: https://www.a-rabbitsfoot.com/

Film on Far Out Magazine: https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/author/rosietibbs/

Film on Best of Netflix: https://best-of-netflix.com/author/rosietibbs/

Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/okcoolros/

Journalism Twitter: https://twitter.com/wordsbyros

Overall Portfolio: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-wh_r_0lBvmRvUlhrO7SZY9el35McbIMWuUi6UC-g_8/edit

#film critic #film journalism #journalist portfolio #portfolio #writer #writing

[screenspirit]

Goodbye Ghosts and Killers. Hello Politics and Commentary: Horror in the 2020s

Spoiler Warning for Get Out, Candyman and Squid Games. Some spoilers refer to racial tensions and attacks/murders.

What is it about horror that draws so many people to it? What fears shown in horror scare people the most? Expected answers would involve getting to watch dumb teens get slashed one by one or unworldly forces terrorising a family during the night. The horror genre has given a lot of different scares over the years- vampires in gothic castles to evil computers in a teen girl’s bedroom chilling audiences to the bone. As time goes on and external factors change, the genre may fully delve into something a little too realistic to get some fresh scares. Recently, the contextual background of our own political climate has been inspiring horror screenwriters’ imaginations and has been bleeding onto our screens. Rather than masked knife-wielding maniacs making us jump, the 2020s may be the decade that sees the torch handed to ghastly representations of political figures and events.

Films, similar to most mediums, can be documentation of current events. Our culture is always influencing creatives and horror is beginning to demonstrate this. Each era or trope of horror can be tied to a decade or two. The 70s brought us chilling supernatural stories and exploitation films, the 80s and 90s gave killers Jason and Ghostface the spotlight, and the 2000s to 2010s concerned themselves with torture porn. Now, social allegories are looking to be the latest craze, with recent horror exposing societal ills in metaphors. Writers and directors are utilising their stories and mise-en-scene as tools to execute social commentary. It’s important to note that while these political metaphors are only now becoming popular, the genre has dipped into this before. Profound directors such as Romero and Carpenter steered some films to critique societal issues: Romero’s Night of the Living Dead attacked ideas of civilisation while They Live was Carpenter’s disapproval of excessive materialism. But now politics is heavily and frequently reaching the visual arts in correlation with an influx of widely absorbed social justice.

One figure who can be credited with springboarding socio-political horror is Jordan Peele, whose award-winning screenplay and complemented direction in Get Out (2017) referred to racial issues in society. The film received accolades and praise for exploring and performing the psychological horror of racism in America. In turn, it generated not only an intense emotional reaction as horror does but also a display of critical evaluation among audiences in their reflections. Get Out’s terror didn’t reside in something shallow and familiar in horror, but instead something powerful and familiar in societal structures and attitudes. Chris becoming a victim of a psychological hijacking as a means of exploiting his traits was Peele’s outlet to communicate the disgusting culture vulture mistreatment that black people experience. There was also a critique on white liberalism and pandering to black people shown in the white family, lacing the film with some painfully true aspects.

Peele contributed to another racial allegory featured in the horror genre, as he wrote and produced alongside director Nia DeCosta in her re-telling of Candyman (2021). This film told a story of a cursed killer breaking through the gap of life and death to get his victims, but also a story of racial injustice and tribute to the victims. Candyman’s origin displays prejudice and unfairness, as he was murdered by a white mob after being accused of harming a white girl, not proven to, accused. This echoes the devastating murders black people fall victim to at the hands of police once those officers decide they’re a threat over nothing. The hook (pardon the sudden pun) of Candyman’s curse is that you have to say his name. As Candyman had a pushed back release due to the Covid pandemic, it came after the murder of George Floyd and the BLM marches that followed-where Say Their Name is a verbal signal of acknowledging the victims of racially charged murders. The story reflects the Black Lives Matter movement in its events and characterisation, further cementing horror blending with political landscapes and social critiques which serve as the backdrop for its stories.

Presidential campaign debates and elections can be harrowing events to maintain track of. The sheer hypocrisy and inconsistencies one has to endure when watching the televised debates always proves to be a challenge and concern for America’s future. If this is the case, surely you would switch the TV off and turn over to a film as a means of escapism instead? Not if you choose to watch The Purge franchise, as the sequels to the original 2013 flick are a hyperbolic presentation of American political leaders and climate. These films follow an annual night of all legalised crime, justified by an alleged claim of “purging” civilians’ negative emotions, however, the sequels show how this is a false cover-up. The elite population take this night as an opportunity to murder minorities; the lower class, POC, basically anyone who does not suit their narrow-minded manifesto. The government see the purge as an opportunity for population control and a sick case of natural selection to keep America “great”. The third instalment, Election Year, came out during one of the most controversial and discussed presidential elections- Trump v Clinton. Since Trump’s unfortunate win, The Purge sequels that followed only became more on-the-nose and extreme with their political satirical commentary, paving the way for more representations of politics in horror that, given the current political climate, will stop seeming so over the top.

What does torture horror have to say on the matter? Darren Lynn Bousman and Josh Stolberg provided an answer to this with Spiral: From The Book Of Saw, a spin-off to the Saw franchise. Despite the misplaced classification of the previous films as shock value, buckets of gore driven torture porn, the franchise has always held political and philosophical undertones (the whole sixth film is a massive f you to the American health care system for being heavily commodified), however, this spin-off was less under and more overtone. Chris Rock plays a cop who finds himself in a web of a Jigsaw copycat’s sick games, where seedy corrupted officers are murdered for shooting innocent POC and the witnesses who can get their jobs taken away. The traps aren’t testing the officers but instead simply punishing them for abusing their power in such vile manners. Likewise to Candyman, this film got pushed back a year due to the pandemic and so viewers watched it with George Floyd in their minds, something that gave the twist ending an unforeseen kick in the stomach of realism.

If you spent any time on Twitter last year, it’s safe to say you know what Squid Games is, even if you didn’t watch it. The smash-hit and record-breaking Netflix original series constructed a gripping horror story using class inequality as a value. A group of players crippled by debt compete in childhood games with a deadly twist in order to win a mass sum of cash. The situation is a literal matter of life and death, correlating with the metaphorical one debt creates. The show’s scare factor was distributed between the “loser’s” deaths and the uncomfortable but powerful portrayal of class division influencing concepts of humanity. The death scenes in the games are of course chilling, but that cannot compare to the horror of the players killing one another to get rid of too much competition. Squid Games held a mirror to our capital-mad society and its detrimental flaws, in turn, displaying how horror is employing social commentary in the 2020s.

Social commentary horror doesn’t appear to be letting up any time soon as we move into the new decade, with the Covid pandemic possibly sparking new ideas for horror stories of infections destroying civilization. A strong chance of a new wave of zombie movies that are more hard-hitting given the context is therefore on the cards. Peele has to our screens with his mysterious feature Nope and a remake of capitalism satire The People Under The Stairs, so it looks as if the 2020s will be brimming with horror grounded in political discourse.

#horror #horror movies #scary movies #film #cinema #film analysis #film critic #film studies #social commentary #politics

[screenspirit]

The Phenomenology and Cognitivism of Kon’s Perfect Blue

Introduction

Psychological thrillers are stylistically designed to create emotional responses such as suspense and unsettlement, using their portrayals of distorted mental perceptions and a dissolving sense of reality. This formula attracts interpretations under cognitive theory; an analytical toolset that concerns itself with the mental reactions that carry out during spectatorship, and Phenomenology: an assessment of how film creates sensations during the viewing experience. Satoshi Kon replicated the psychological thriller’s credentials in his 1997 animation Perfect Blue, a cult classic that follows the story of a pop idol who finds her sense of reality slipping as she is stalked by a possible murderer. Perfect Blue corresponds with both the psychological thriller and both phenomenology and cognitive film theory as a result of the thematic values lacing its story and visuals. Kon’s narrative consists of perception, identity, the distortion between reality and illusion, and finally psychological distress as its thematic values. These story elements being explored generate cognitive and emotional activity in spectators, ranging from character alignment to responses of fear and confusion.

Perfect Blue’s Cognitivism: Narrative and Visual Style

Furthermore, identity and perception are explored cognitively through the story element of Mima acting in her first TV performance in a psychological crime show; the genre echoing the tone of the film. Mima’s character in the show experiences a traumatic rape and as a coping mechanism, changes her identity by creating a new persona free from the trauma. This stylistically echoes what is happening to the real Actress Mima in real-life as she too is experiencing issues with establishing a set and true perception of her own identity. Mima’s character’s first line “Excuse me who are you?”, can serve as a demonstration of this because audiences can interpret this as her not only asking the other TV character but also herself as her two personas clash. As a result, this illustrates Kon’s psychological presentation of both identity and perception in Perfect Blue’s narrative; not only is the real Mima experiencing her identity conflicts but the character is she portraying in the aftermath of this identity split is as well, in turn elevating the theme and unsettling the audience. Kon combines identity and perception as cognitive elements with conventions of the psychological thriller in the narrative reveal of someone imitating Mima’s identity online. Mima is shocked to discover an imposter has taken her identity and is writing what they want Mima to write and doing what they want Mima to do, further creating a severance in her identity and perception as people take the imposter’s writing as veracity to who she is. This mysterious imposter is later revealed to be Mima’s psychologically disturbed stalker, this addition to the story signals its classification as a psychological thriller due to its unsettling nature. This creates an emotional response of fear for Mima’s safety as well as a disturbance in spectators, and as it is done as a straight narrative element rather than the use of visuals it provides support for Plantinga’s claim that “narrative scenarios are the most important structuring mechanisms in the movies” (2009).

Perfect Blue’s classification as a psychological thriller is further emphasised in the murders of people around Mima. The identity of the killer remains unknown for the majority of the film, creating a sense of mystery, however, an answer is suggested in that of Mima who we see murder a photographer for exploiting her body This leads to an implication that Mima is the one committing all the murders, as “the skilled filmmaker may provide intentionally ambiguous or contradicting affect cues, typically for specific effects such as the elicitation of suspense or curiosity” (Plantinga, 2009), meaning that spectators have been invited to pin the murders to Mima even though they only have the confirmation she has committed this one. During the brutal killing, Mima is juxtaposed against the pop idol version of herself who is projected behind her. This is effective as it demonstrates the two identities existing at the same time as a suggestion of what created such an inner turmoil and disturbance that caused her to allegedly commit these murders. This element of the visual style being used to solidify the themes can steer audiences to align these personas with the violent act as an understanding of who Mima is, even though this contrasts a great deal with how Mima was portrayed in the beginning. Mima begins to question herself as innocent of the other murders, further emphasising her inability to recognise who she is and her actions, in turn, leading spectators to struggle to rely on Mima to assist in them aligning herself and her actions.

Kon combines his thematic values of identity and perception with that of the distortion between reality and illusion, as Mima’s loss of identity elevates the loss of reality and immersion into the illusion. As previously mentioned, Perfect Blue’s narrative involves a TV show, called Double Bind, being shot within the film with Mima having a minor role. This creates a sense of reality and illusion being blurred because spectators have to focus and cognitively align what is Perfect Blue’s story and what is Double Bind’s, something that poses as challenging as scenes that appear to take place in Perfect Blue’s story are later revealed to be the shooting of scenes from Double Bind, with no sharp and separating editing from real life to the film being shot. The story world of Double Bind shares themes with Perfect Blue which steers this confusion in alignment, one notable scene that exemplifies this is the one in which a private investigator claims that one fixed persona is an illusion and that illusions cannot come to reality, fitting with what Mima is struggling within her loss of identity and so audiences can interpret this as reality, however, it is immediately revealed to be a scene from the film and so illusion. This narrative element, as conveyed through the visual style confuses the audience who can struggle to align Mima’s reality with the illusion of the fictional world she is acting in.

Overall, a cognitive inspection of Kon’s Perfect Blue as supported by Plantinga’s interpretations and criticisms pioneers a landscape of thematic evaluation, genre, narrative and visual style as a means to identify and understand how spectators are mentally engaged to create alignment. Plantinga’s emphasis on a film’s narrative is the key source of cognitive activity applied to Perfect Blue as a result of its thematic values deriving its meaning, despite being communicated stylistically through its visuals for audiences to use.

Perfect Blue’s Phenomenology: Narrative and Visual Style

Kon’s Perfect Blue can be interpreted not only using cognitivism and its mental activity but also phenomenology’s emphasis on sensory qualities during viewership. Sobchack expresses how “contemporary film theory” has been neglectful of “cinema’s sensual address and the viewer’s corporeal material being” (2004), severing the mind and body in the process. Whilst Plantinga would observe Perfect Blue using associations of mental engagement as proposed by the narrative and visual style, Sobchack would describe the sensations of both the film and its effect on audiences as a “phenomenon”, meaning it is an experience. When phenomenology is applied to film, it concerns itself with the worldliness of a film and how spectators are steered to perceive this world the director has created, as when spectators watch a film they engage with the film world as if it were their primary environment. Perfect Blue’s world is kept in the spaces of the TV studio, the subway, Mima’s room and occasionally the pop stage; spectators become immersed in Mima’s situation as carried through the spaces she occupies and is consistently reacting to what is going on. Kon has assigned these areas as the key spaces the audiences’ perceptional field is held to, thus, their understanding of the film world is constructed by the frequent presence of these significant spaces. The order of presentation of Perfect Blue’s film world is dependent upon its narrative and this as an overall and cohesive playing out of events is what engages spectators with a bodily experience. This is supported by phenomenology’s key claim that we perceive experiences as wholes as opposed to parts, therefore, when spectators are perceiving and experiencing a film they do so through a consistent story made up of a cause and effect chain of events. Sobchack speaks to this in her writing, outlining how “the sensuous is located in the events of the narrative” (2004) and signalling phenomenology’s emphasis on a compilation of parts to create an overall experience. In this, Sobchack echoes Plantinga’s interpretation of narrative serving as the key provider of perception and understanding for spectators, however, her interpretation relies upon an engagement with a primary engagement of feeling in experiencing film using senses whereas Plantinga advocates for narrative as endorsed by secondary cognition.

Phenomenology as a lens for watching Perfect Blue would invite spectators to shift focus on which senses are being engaged as the driving force of the film experience, this shift being sight to touch and more bodily sensory reactions. Sobchack comments on this engagement of these two senses in the film viewing experience, “our vision and hearing are informed and given meaning” (2004), illustrating how the perception and understanding of a film are tied to sight and sound as vital tools. This would be exemplified in Kon’s use of visuals, most notably the symbolism of Pop Idol Mima’s reflection creating contrast against Actress Mima which, as previously analysed, is important in spectator understanding of the film. This use of visuals taps into spectators’ senses of viewing to make sense of Perfect Blue’s narrative, this is also paired with hearing as a sense when spectators listen to the dialogue of “I’m the real Mima”. Essentially, spectators are invited to use their bodily senses of sight and hearing as tools for perceiving Mima and what she is experiencing; steered by Kon’s objectives in storytelling. One could propose that Kon’s visuals are phenomenological descriptions used to create meaning, ones that his spectators are trusted to perceive and interpret using their own sensuous understanding as a way to experience his story in an ideal manner. Cognitivism is the methodology that would highlight the significance of Perfect Blue’s visual symbolism, as it generates stimulation for alignment and identification, however, Sobchack encourages perception and engagement that transcends this, as “we do not see any movie only through our eyes”, but rather “feel films with our whole bodily being” (2004). Phenomenology calls for an emphasis on the body and the sensations carried through it, thus, when one is watching Perfect Blue as a phenomenon they would do so without reliance on sight alone.

Kon steers his spectators to engage with their sensuous being to rather extreme levels, notably due to Perfect Blue’s status as a psychological thriller which serves as the core for its choice of meaning, therefore spectators will have their senses combined with some rather unsettling experiences. A significant example of this is the scene where a psychologically distressed Mima cuts her hands using glass to make them bleed; an image that is effective due to its connection to the senses. This is due to how the visuals of sharp glass penetrating Mima’s skin and drawing blood call to the spectators’ senses to live the painful experience themselves, an objective shot of cut skin and bloody hands causes spectators to understand the feeling of this sensation on their own skin. Sobchack speaks to this by stating “our lived bodies sensually relate to things that matter onscreen”, demonstrating explanations for how the film experience of watching Mima’s skin as it is cut open has a visceral effect on the spectator’s body. She progresses with this proposal by arguing how “we see and comprehend and feel films with our entire bodily being, informed by the full history and knowledge of our sensorium” (2004), meaning spectators perceive and respond to films with a sensuous landscape that transcends just sight as exemplified by responses to this unsettling scene.

To conclude, Phenomenology provides an understanding of spectators’ bodies and senses during the experience of watching Perfect Blue. One can use this methodology to interact with the sensory realm of film spectatorship, free from claims of a mind and body separation and instead can combine the two. Perfect Blue, likewise to cognition, relies on its narrative and visuals to engage with spectators’ senses. Mima’s experience as communicated through the story and its visuals are where bodily reactions derive from and is supported by its genre of a psychological thriller which influences how it is perceived by consisting of intense and complex subject matter.

Bibliography

Plantinga, Carl R. Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator’s Experience. E-book, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009

Sobchack, Vivian Carol.. Carnal thoughts: embodiment and moving image culture. Berkeley : University of California Press, c2004.

#perfect blue #satoshi kon #film analysis #film critic #film essay #phenomenology #cognitive theory #film studies #anime #90s

[screenspirit]

Analysing The Debate on Controversial Films And Filmmakers’ Place in Contemporary Society

I. Introduction

The film industry is in a never-ending dialogue of complicated discussion and debate, ones that question what counts as cinema and what doesn’t, or ones that evaluate ways spectators consume film to locate the most ideal. When observing discussions on film in very recent years, a topic that has been the core of a mass division among academics and everyday fans is the dispute of whether or not we can separate art from the artist when consuming and interpreting films. As audiences, we can do more than just simply watch films passively. We can connect with the style techniques of the story, visuals and characters in an emotional realm, in turn aligning our own identities and outlooks with the films we choose to watch. Our favourite films are an exegesis of our passions and interests in life, something we share with others to convey who we are and generate this same interest in others.

But what do we do when those favourite films we watch, love and connect with are made under controversial means or by controversial people who have displayed a severe absence of morals? Suppose audiences classify a film or a director’s filmography as representing parts of their identities and passions. Building from this, one has to ask do any problematic or corrupt elements tied to either the film or director also represent them.

These questions have been dissected and analysed in both academic and casual film-orientated discussions, with critics attempting to compromise a director’s unethical actions in real life, such as abuse or bigotry, with their artistry in quality filmmaking. However, as Elizabeth Shaffer cites, despite “the intersection between art and morality” being “a huge topic…the majority of scholarship dedicated to what happens when bad people make good art has stopped before posing a solution” (2019, Page 2). This shows the difficulty in initial attempts to approach this discussion, as the binary opposition between a “bad” person constructing “good” art effectively establishes the challenging compromise of the situation. The dominating element of our morality and emotional responses to enjoying a good film is when we know that the person who provided it for us does not uphold moral values. This can prove to be too close to home for a large number of people, and thus, a “solution”, as Schaffer says, is avoided for the time being. The lack of morals or ethics in question can reside in the techniques a director uses when making a film. A prominent example of this is Stanley Kubrick, who submitted his main actress Shelley Duvall to borderline abuse when filming The Shining. The matter becomes more complicated when observing how they can also be found in a director’s life outside his art, such as Roman Polanski, who made quality contributions to filmmaking in Rosemary’s Baby. However, the act of rape he committed against a minor ten years after the film’s release has clouded every move he has made since.

Taking knowledge of both these situations into account, film critics and consumers are faced with the challenges and dilemmas that come with this debate. Shaffer references how, when she consumes and critiques art pieces, she is “operating wholly under my (her) own moral compass and aesthetic taste” (2019, Page 2). These are the tools needed to decipher a ‘bad’ person who has made ‘good’ art, a process that incorporates issues of objectivity and subjectivity. The interpretation that art of any medium can be objectively good or bad is one that has been tackled and dissected consistently throughout art criticism. Films like The Shining and other Kubrick works are deemed objectively good, masterpieces even, by film scholars and fans. However, one can find that his actions during the filming of The Shining are subjectively bad due to a varied classification of what counts as abuse and perfectionism. One’s aesthetic taste can direct to regarding The Shining as a ‘good’ piece of art, and their moral compass can contrast this by citing Kubrick as a ‘bad’ person, but not a ‘bad’ artist.

The relationship between art, artist and consumer is challenged and explored in the debate of separating art from the artist. Some propose that you can separate art from the artist because of what art can mean to those who consume it, overriding whatever the artist did wrong, that art belongs to those it is made for. However, this is counteracted through the emphasis on the artist as the one who put time, creativity and effort into composing whatever medium of art they created. Some take the perception that “art is not created by the people. The poet, composer, or painter is the creator and can do as he pleases with his creations” (Wilkinson, 2010, Page 18), claiming the artist is the sole creator and should be held accountable for anything their art achieves. This dynamic between the creator, what they create, and the audience they create it for is a frequent addition explored in critical and casual readings on the matter.

I would propose the thesis that whilst a prominent majority argue that a severance between art and artist is possible, contemporary analysis on the matter signals mostly to the opposition; severance between the two cannot be done. I will be analysing academic works and casual film fan posts using CDA, hoping to identify the thematic values of both sides to draw a conclusion on the matter.

II. Kubrick and Duvall: When The Artist Goes Too Far For His Art

Kubrick’s enlivenment of Stephen King’s novel The Shining was released in 1980 as the 11th feature in the director’s filmography and his first contribution to horror. Despite an initial wave of criticism for tampering with the book upon release, there has been a re-evaluation. The film is now heavily praised in both horror and overall filmmaking. It is cited as one of the greatest horrors and films ever made, being ranked the 75th greatest film of all time in the Sight & Sound directors’ poll in 2012. As is the case with most globally iconic pictures, The Shining’s filmmaking history is branded in alleged trivia and stories, ones that are rather challenging to hear. The central point of focus in these stores lies in the performance of Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrance, a performance that has been panned and attacked by both critics and film fans and resulted in Duvall receiving a Razzie award for worst performance.

In recent years, Duvall’s performance in the film has been reassessed and interpreted as an unfortunate repercussion of Kubrick’s perfectionism bleeding into his directorial methods. To achieve what he decided to be a believable performance in psychological horror, Kubrick tarnished the wall between reality and pretence by commanding the cast and crew to not show any sympathy for Duvall and asking them to ignore her completely. He placed all praise and encouragement on leading actor Jack Nicholson while submitting Duvall to criticism and verbal disappointment. Kubrick actively tried to maintain Duvall’s high-stress levels on set, all for the sake of art in his quest for an authentic performance on Duvall’s part, who channelled her emotional reactions into her acting as seen in the film. Duvall’s health and well-being deteriorated under this quest for art she did not consent to, evident in how “this intensive training of the mind with isolation and “torture” for the role was too stressful for Duvall to bear, who started losing hair and was “in and out of health”, having been pushed to the very threshold” (Sur, 2021).

Kubrick’s mistreatment of Duvall during the filming of The Shining has generated consistent controversy and debate on whether such actions are ethical when done for the objective of quality art. Is it morally right that Duvall was forced to endure psychological torture every day on set, with the only available outlet being her performance as Wendy just “to appease the filmmaker’s expectations regarding the character”? (Sur, 2021). Contemporary film culture appears to neglect Kubrick’s directorial methods. On March 31, 2022, the Razzie committee officially rescinded Duvall’s nomination, stating, “We have since discovered that Duvall’s performance was impacted by Stanley Kubrick’s treatment of her throughout the production”.

III. Polanski

The issue of separating art from its artist to enjoy it freely can also derive when aligning the artist’s antics alongside the quality of their official work. Polish-French director Roman Polanski contributed to cinema history in his adaptation of Ira Levin’s psychological novel Rosemary’s Baby, released in 1968 and cementing the director’s place in filmmaking. Likewise to Kubrick’s cinematic take on The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby received critical acclaim upon release and continues to this day, being ever credited as one of the greatest horror films of all time. As high quality and praised as the film rightfully is, spectatorship and interpretation of the overall film and its subject matter were compromised upon Polanski’s conviction after raping a minor during a photography session in 1977. In an attempt to avoid his sentencing, the director fled to Paris, where he received protection and has since avoided repercussions for his actions. Despite his crimes, Polanski continues to make films that are widely watched and well-received, even obtaining a standing ovation at the Oscars in 2002, exactly 25 years after his act of assault.

Observing Rosemary’s Baby’s thematic material and characterisation under this knowledge of Polanski generates unsettling and confusing outlooks. The film is about the physical and psychological abuse of women and the exploitation of their bodies. It is evident in how Rosemary is used to carrying and birthing the antichrist for a Satanic cult and is gaslit whenever she voices uncertainty or resistance. Under the interpretation of the film critiquing women being exploited in this manner, one can only conclude this narrative is hypocritical and perplexing when this is exactly what Polanski did himself to a female child. However, suppose the interpretation of a critique is removed. In that case, the film automatically becomes laced with a sinister and sickening undertone, almost as if Polanski is manoeuvring the film to be an exercise of his outlook on women. As mentioned, the film’s plot is adapted from a book; while Polanski did not write the actual story, he still chose to bring it to the big screen. It is even stated that Polanski contacted Evans immediately after finishing the book to tell him it was an “interesting project” he would love to adapt.

After consideration and any evaluation of this mass context when watching Rosemary’s Baby, separating the art from the artist soon becomes unobtainable in this example. Audiences sometimes struggle to stomach Polanski’s work, so much so that there have been incidents of direct action against him, such as “feminist groups in France have regularly staged protests against Mr Polanski, including outside a retrospective of his career at the prestigious Cinémathèque in October 2017 (Alderman and Peltier, 2019).

IV. The Debate Of Separating Art From The Artist In Readings

Proceeding from the outlines of prominent examples in this debate, there have been proposals that separating art from the artist in consumption is a possibility, thus, arguing one can enjoy The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby for the highly-rated contributions to their craft that they are on the surface.

Writing for The Daily Free Press, Eden Mor tackles the challenge of disassociating the two with an immediate establishment and admitting that she felt guilty when consuming art from a problematic creator. This emotional response of guilt is a frequent occurrence in the discussion around separating art and the artist, as well as one alleged reason that it cannot be done. Therefore, one can identify emotions of guilt as a theme in this debate and research it. However, Mor attempts a counteraction to this by asking if there is logic and rationality in the argument that you can’t separate the two, does it “make sense to associate…actions…with the art?” (2021). This standpoint varies on the example to which we are applying it; some artists have committed acts that are a lesser evil when compared to others. Taking this standpoint under the hypothetical answer of no and applying it to Polanski’s films, it is possible to separate the artist from his art. Focusing on Rosemary’s Baby following the outline of context, one has to consider that Polanski isn’t responsible for creating the story, characters and messages. The author Levin has to receive the credit for what the film presents to its audiences, as it was his imagination that conjured up Rosemary as a character and the events she engages with. Mor alludes to this consideration by mentioning how countless people are paid when one consumes art, not just the one director who may be “the face” but “there are hundreds of other people profiting” (2021). When watching a film, one must consider that despite the head figure of a director leading the actors, what you see on screen can also result from the actor’s interpretation of the character. Mia Farrow (Rosemary) is the one who pours emotion into the role to, in turn, generate an emotional response in audiences. She deserves just as much credit for bringing Levin’s character from page to screen to life as a result of her chosen craft as Polanski does for his. Thus, the incorporation of other professionals involved in a film negotiates to grant a sole figure full credit. Mor expands her stance on the matter by bringing it directly to the audience, who are responsible for separating the art from its artist. Mor communicates her belief that “there isn’t a yes or no answer to this question. The art which you consume — whether it be movies, TV shows or music — is your own decision” (2021). This illustrates a conclusion offered to those undecided on the debate, one that can be explained as separating art from the artist exists as a “personal decision” (2021). Overall, Mor’s contribution to the matter is concerned with a reason as supported by a broader picture being evaluated, one that hands responsibility to audiences following this objective and thorough inspection and illustrates the debate as something that cannot be decided on without this.

Any counteraction to this claim is never far behind, evident in Ella Adams’ commentary on the matter as read in The Appalachian. Adams assures an overall contextual awareness in the opening of her opinion article, made clear in how she acknowledges social media’s placement as “the conversation on whether you can separate the art and the artist is hotly debated in social media comment sections whenever a new scandal involving a popular artist pops up” (2021). When tying this to the two established case studies, this is evident in film Twitter accounts posting about Rosemary’s Baby on the anniversaries of its release, where the comments will be split between praising the film itself and mentioning how Polanski is a paedophile and confusion about why the film is being posted due to this, combated with the debate. Adams echoes Mor’s interpretation in highlighting that “art is a personal expression of one’s perspective of the world. A piece of art’s relationship and meaning to its creator is exactly what makes it art.” (2021). However, Adams uses this element of the debate to provide a counteraction that you cannot separate, stating “because art is so personal…filmmakers and other artists cannot be separated from their creations” (2021). This is relevant to both case studies as a personal tie is employed. This element of personal expression serves as a further theme in the discussion’s research. Kubrick’s take on filmmaking and directing his cast is the controversy surrounding his work The Shining, and Polanski’s crimes bleed easily into the narrative and message of Rosemary’s Baby. When taking these examples into account, it can become rather controverting to propose you can separate art from the artist because of how much of the artist exists in the art. Adams progresses with this reasoning by highlighting the issue of income and profit as derived from art consumption, “art can also be a means of income. By supporting an artist’s work, you are supporting the artist themself,” when audiences consume art, they “support his (the artist) career and ability to create more content” (2021). This point of capital given to the artist, as another key theme, is a prominent addition when observing the matter of audience consumption, the fact that artists who have done wrong gain financial aid through being distanced from their work for the sake of consumption and enjoyment create a great deal of unsettlement. Adams’ argument is centred around this aspect, that the power that comes with the capital these artists receive outweighs any other claim to separate them from their art. Therefore, a difficult compromise is proposed when seeking any outcome to the debate.

Commenting on the debate in Triton Times, writer Reid Corley opposes the arguments similar to those seen in Adams’ piece with an immediate establishment of his ‘you can’ stance. He writes, “there must be a separation of art from the artist, especially given the current era we live in”, highlighting how he claims to be evaluating this stance under contemporary attitudes, an interesting thing to assure as most examples in this debate took place decades ago. Corley navigates his argument with a hierarchy of art consumption, stating that if we wish “to maintain the diversity of film and appreciate the artistic passion and creativity of individuals for the sake of the product, we must employ separation” (2019). Thus, Corley is proposing we place an art’s display of passion and creativity above artists’ actions. He progresses with the acknowledgement of “the backlash people receive from supposedly “endorsing” artists’ behaviour” when consuming their art, something fans of The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby are familiar with as the directors’ actions heavily cloud the films. However, there resides the opposition to this in Corley’s claim that “the appreciation for a piece of art should not indicate or imply the endorsement of the morality and actions of the artist”, thus, outlining the perspective that consuming and loving art has no place in being tied to supporting artists’ actions. This is a clear and precise negotiation of the attitudes as shown by Adams and others in perceiving art to be a personal exegesis of its artist. It relies on the ability to perceive and interpret the art purely on what the art is, not what its creator did or said. It is implied that Corley separates the two inevitably and with no further consideration, conveying that the art and whatever it is expressing is his biggest priority. Corley adds to this argument in an acknowledgement of others who contributed to the body of work, claiming that “to throw out an entire work for the sake of the involvement of one person is unfair to the thousands of others who work on projects” (2019). Here, Corley is supporting the previously outlined proposal that by dismissing Rosemary’s Baby, one also indirectly dismisses the effort Farrow put into her title performance, which is unarguably unfair to her. Corley strategically concludes his stance piece by communicating his standpoint that in claiming you cannot separate the art from its artist, one is employing the artists’ crimes as a measurement of art, something he perceives as wrong because “if we continue to dig up the crimes and vices of artists and use that in our judgment of art, we are openly evading satisfaction and pleasure from the artistic expression” (2019). In his conclusion, Corley argues for sake of enjoyment and remaining unbias in consuming and interpreting art because “it is not only necessary but imperative we establish this division” (2019). The division in question is between what a piece of art can bring and anything immoral its creator did. Overall, Corley’s verdict on the matter emanates from focusing on art specifically and what it can provide for audiences.

When conjoining his opinions with the case study films, one could conclude that Corley would advise watching The Shining under the analytical scope of what it shows about filmmaking and storytelling, to subtract Kubrick’s actions from the equation and instead recognise how the film represents a great deal of what makes visual horror. This would mean not even considering any information of what happened during filming to create the final product as it brings nothing to the final and ever-present imprint or messages the film has in its overall craft. This would be likewise when observing Polanski and Rosemary’s Baby, in that one who is consuming the film for the piece of film art it is should do so in the tunnel vision of its commentary on false pretences in seemingly prestige conservative societies and women’s liberation. However, as Corley emphasises the importance of art’s potential messaging from an isolated perspective, he falls short in considering the financial gain problematic artists gain from this and the power this provides. This, in turn, subtracts objective analysis of the debate under all potential arguments.

Ashley Griffin contributes to the discussion via OnStageBlog, where she opens rather heavily and emotionally with a reference to Dylan Farrow’s open letter about the abuse she endured at the hands of her filmmaking stepfather, Woody Allen. Griffin highlights how in the letter, Farrow asks, “What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.” (1994). The section of the letter Griffin focuses on strategically ends with Farrow’s statement, “Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.” (1994), which sets up both the tone and the stakes of the piece and the debate. Using this personal letter, Griffin is transferring the heavy emotional burden that resides in the debate of separating art from the artist, something she accentuates by mentioning her own abuse to develop the tone and stating how her experiences led her to decide “maybe I’m the perfect person to have this conversation about separating art from the artist” (2021). This emotive weight carries through the psychological abuse Duvall suffered in order to create a character in The Shining as well as the trauma Polanski’s young victim is now left with; Griffin makes sure to acknowledge this in writing “people who have experienced abuse and, because of their experiences, are triggered and forever impacted when the artist is ignored so that their art can be untarnished” (2021). Griffin emphasises the consideration that “there may not BE a way to have a truly neutral discussion about it”, proposing there are minimal opportunities to be objective, proposing an answer to why many written takes on the matter fail to be.

However, she does take a moment to consider the separation is a possible stance, expressing the claim that “but if every artist has to have a perfect, upstanding moral character we’d never consume art again. No one could live up to those standards” (2021), a statement she does agree with “to some degree” (2021). As a method of compromising with both sides, Griffins argues for informed consumption because, in her eyes, “there’s a difference between censoring something because of a disagreement about the content and censoring because the creator is a bad person” (2021). This conveys how Griffins is distinguishing the standard responses to problematic art made by a problematic person when the root of the problematic classification can be varying. To Griffins, one has to recognise and assign where the controversy lies in the consumption of a piece of art, as this can influence the issue of separation. This could be interpreted as being directed to the emotive and intellectual responses audiences make to art, meaning that if the art itself is problematic in subject matter, then it calls for censorship easier than if the artist were to have committed a problematic act. Therefore The Shining has the potential to remain consumed and praised because it is not problematic in the subject matter. Instead, it is a well-told horror story. However, Griffins finalises her own personal stance with a clear assignment of guilt to herself when consuming art she knows to be made by a controversial figure. She states how she “can’t help feeling a bit icky” (2021) whenever she engages with the art, and this is something she claims is “not an intellectual discussion I have with myself. It’s a gut response” (2021), thus, proposing the response is instinct over intellectual evaluation. This can relate to the case of Polanski in that Griffins would be unable to watch Rosemary’s Baby or any of his other films without a fight or flight response of negative feelings stemming from the knowledge of his paedophilia, thus, implying that separation between art and creator is virtually impossible due to this inner and natural emotional response. Griffins is clearly centring emotion in her piece and, in turn, looking away from a rational standpoint which is an occurring theme in the online discourse on the matter.

Unlike pieces previously analysed, Griffins draws attention to an outer audience and references opinions and interpretations other than her own, stating she recognises “those who are most willing to do mental gymnastics to justify continued enjoyment of works by newly revealed problematic creator” (2021). This highlights the potential strategy that has kept figures like Polanski free from persecution despite his crimes; film consumers connect to certain works to such a strong degree that repression and negotiation follow as cognitive responses when faced with any immoral acts committed by the film creators. Through this statement, Griffins acknowledges the intimate relationship between creator and consumer and the sphere of art reception. She suggests that emotional ties to a visual piece of art can override facts surrounding the artist in her argument; people push themselves to repress the knowledge and guilt to enjoy art. Griffins diplomatically follow with the aftermath of this repression on the audiences’ part, as she connects support with helping artists hide as through this repression when consuming, “money is going into their pockets…their power in the industry is strengthened” (2021). This is offered as a direct consequence and criticism of separating art from the artist; to make this severance means to allow abusers such as Polanski to still flourish under financial aid. In her conclusion, Griffins advises art consumers to search out alternate methods of consuming art and hold people accountable rather than cancel, as “if you do want to continue consuming a problematic artist’s art, find ways to do so that won’t financially profit them” such as using a library to take out films. A further piece of advice is to counteract any controversy in artmaking by making “your own good art” as “that means it’s your turn to make a platform for yourself” (2021). Overall, Griffins’ articulation on the debate of separating art from the artist is one that exists between an intimate and first-person experience as well as an exterior examination of what the majority do to ensure separation.

In 2018, Constance Grady opens her piece titled ‘ What Do We Do When The Art We Love Was Created By A Monster?’ with a direct and potential answer. She writes, “One of the common answers to that question has been repeated so often it has come to seem as though it’s an ontologically self-evident truth: You must separate the artist from the art”(2018), conveying how this side of the debate is treated as one that is non-negotiable as it is a universal ‘truth’. She continues by including how “separating the artist from the art, this argument goes, is the best way to approach all art, no matter what you try to get from it. And to fail to do so is both childish and gauche because only philistines think it necessary to reconcile their feelings about a piece of art with their feelings about the people who created it.”(2018). This statement draws from the argument for a separation with reference to its emphasis on an alleged logic. This trait can be interpreted as what makes this stance a “universal truth”. However, Grady counteracts this claim using an overarching perspective and observation of art criticism; “the idea of separating the artist from the art is not a self-evident truth. It is an academic idea that was extremely popular as a tool for analyzing poetry [art] at the beginning of the 20th century, and that has since evolved in several different directions” (2018). Grady is criticising classifying ‘you can separate art from the artist’ as a universal truth by considering how critics have manoeuvred the stance in a way that allows further analysis of art to branch it into a scientific realm, as it eliminates acknowledgement of who created it which can cause tension. This displays an ideology that explores and questions art’s potential essence because it’s negotiating any corruption in an artist’s character in a quest to push the actual art itself to higher boundaries.

Grady elaborates by underlining how critics call for an evaluation of art based on its ability to ‘stand-alone, as “the text had to stand on its own, and if it didn’t, the New Critics argued, that proved it wasn’t really good art” (2018). This highlights ideas of separating art from the artist, such as claiming art is only of quality when one can consume and acclaim it with no reference to who the artist is or what they’ve done prior, as “the best way to engage with any really good piece of art is to treat it as a transcendent work that can stand on its outside of history and speak to anyone from any place and time.” (2018). Essentially, Grady establishes how the mindset of consuming and critiquing art based on its ability to transcend from any indication of its creator and instead exist as its own artistic entity influences the separating art from the artist debate. This is an analytical lens that calls for an emphasis on art and art alone, generating critics and consumers to have a tunnel interpretation of asking what is the art saying. Furthermore, it is prompting that consuming art to conclude that the art’s quality relies on being able to perceive it without the artist’s influence. When tying this to our case studies, one would conclude that the New Critics Grady references would direct film fans to watch The Shining as a horror film and decipher their stance on it based on its ability to generate the appropriate emotional response and its quality in visuals and storytelling. Therefore, Kubrick’s methods and any behind-the-scenes knowledge would have to be absent from consumption and interpretation.

This mindset can be negotiated or made difficult when it relates to ideas of audience identity and stance when watching films and other forms of media. To elaborate, if one watches The Shining as a horror fan, then this would be a simple route to take because, for them, the art is standing separate from its creator as they focus on genre and its effect. However, suppose one watches and interprets The Shining from a Kubrick fan rather than a horror fan. In that case, this mindset is challenging as they are watching for the creator and the creator alone, thus, consistently considering Kubrick and his complicated methods when viewing. As a result, audience identity and what has drawn the spectator to the film significantly challenge the stance New Critics are calling for. Anyone consuming The Shining under the identity of a Kubrick fan would potentially be submitting to Auteur theory, the belief that the director is the head creative force behind the film as a whole who imprints their own identity and vision onto a script, thus, “the film artist is thought to make films in the same way the writer creates books” (Demiray, 2015).

Kubrick’s position as an auteur filmmaker with a distinct style proposes complications with consuming any art outside the artist as the New Critics strive for. His recognisable vision in filmmaking collects a dedicated fanbase who consume his work for him. Therefore, they reflect back to him as a creator when consuming his art. This leads to further stances against separating art from the artist, in that if the director leaves such a heavy imprint on their work that it becomes an extension of their identity, then it becomes challenging to separate them as a person from what they have created. However, whilst “classic auteur theory has commanded much of film scholar debate since the 1960s”(Tredge, 2013) and, thus, has influenced the audience’s perception in associating a film so heavily with its director, it can be negotiated as the set in stone outlook. One can argue against both auteur theory and its impact on the debate when considering the numerous roles that exist in filmmaking other than the director. To elaborate, “feature films are never made by a single person. From the writer to the director to the studio executives, many ideas and hours of hard work go into collaborating on film production. It is important to know that one theory of authorship will not answer the question for all films” (Tredge, 2013), an attitude previously explored by Corley. Expanding from Corley, this can liberate a film from any controversy or lack of morals its director holds because it removes the director as the sole provider, thus, proposing audiences consume a film no matter any errors on the director’s part. Under this attitude, one can recognise the other efforts and creativity that went into creating Rosemary’s Baby or The Shining, such as the score composers who assist in executing the atmosphere or the actors who bring the script to life. Overall, one can use the stance of a film as “a primarily collaborative medium” to identify how it would “seem odd that theorists are constantly searching for the singular artist responsible for authorship (Gerstner and Staiger 5)” (Tredge, 2013), thus, separating art from its artist (in this case the director) becomes inevitable due to the other credits a film has in creation.

In his article On The Possibility Of Separating Art From The Artist in The Stanford Daily, Jacob Kuppermann offers an opinion that issues counteractions to these ideas. He references how this debate is heavily significant and present in entertainment and cultural discussions as “there is perhaps no story repeated more often in the annals of pop culture than that of the brilliant artist who is revealed to be a vile person” (2017), offering the binary opposition of a “brilliant artist” who can offer amazing art to negotiate how they are a “vile person”. He recounts previous and overall dialogue on the matter to solidify his own upcoming opinion, for example, highlighting “the idea that we must not abandon works of art solely because of the misdeeds of their creators is a popular one” which created a decision that the “only thing that should matter when experiencing a work of art is what’s actually going on in the work itself” (2017). This constructs a narrative thread for his readers using a planting of immediate perspectives on such a complicated debate, in turn, creating anticipation for his own take that may agree or disagree, which he soon offers in “I agree that personal guilt is not a useful part of the work of critically assessing artists who have done reprehensible things, but the idea that a work must only be evaluated based on its direct content is trickier”. Here, Kuppermann is communicating the opposition between having emotional responses to art made by a controversial figure and the critical and logical observation needed to come to a conclusion. This opposition in question is stemmed from how emotional reactions prevent critical evaluation of information even though they are cognitive processes resulting in the gathering of information. By deeming emotions of guilt and shame as “not useful”, Kuppermann is critiquing delving into emotions during this discussion and branding the act as an interruption in evaluation. This proposes moving forward into a more logical headspace once one has classified the emotions of guilt towards an art they enjoy upon finding out the artist is problematic.

Furthermore, Kupperman proposes a counteraction to the rejection of auteur theory in finding a solution. He does so by proposing a filmmaker chooses to invest personally in their project as“the artists themselves don’t separate themselves from their work” (2017), an outlook made evidently in Kubrick’s emphasis on himself as an auteur. This makes it difficult to separate the artist from their work because“a critical approach that refuses to consider outside factors is limited and foolish, blinding us from a full consideration of any creative work” (2017). To Kupperman, one cannot eliminate consideration of external factors in creating art, such as Kubrick’s emotionally taxing director methods used to make his film, because it refuses to observe the art fully. Essentially, Kupperman is questioning the rejection of how the art was made in a problematic manner by arguing it means rejecting a large portion of the artistic product itself. He carries his argument on by adding a further emphasis on auteurship and the personal elements of creating art, stating how“in modern pop culture, persona and identity so deeply intermingle with art that the artist themselves often becomes impossible to disentangle from their art fully. Consider the films of Woody Allen. The protagonists of movies like “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Annie Hall” and “Manhattan,” in all of their neuroticism and sexual dysfunction, are less characters and more proxies for the director himself, who plays all three” (2017). This serves as a critical element in separating art from the artist debate, calling out how directors can invest a huge amount of themselves into their films and manoeuvre them to be an extension of their own emotions, lifestyles and persona and therefore negotiate the ability to be separated from their art by having their art be them. The extreme emotional range Duvall displayed in The Shining is a direct result of Kubrick’s belief in creating a real-life psychological breakdown to portray a fictitious one. Polanski’s real-life actions sinisterly align with the conflict and oppressive themes represented in Rosemary’s Baby. Their intimate attitudes and perspectives are elements of their filmmaking with regard to narrative, visuals and themes, thus combining themselves and their art.

Kupperman further emphasises cognition and logic when evaluating art made by controversial figures by highlighting the specific processes audiences go through, as “to appreciate one of these films while simultaneously remaining aware” of an artist’s problematic behaviour “is an exercise in cognitive dissonance” (2017). This mirrors Griffins’ exploration of the mental justifications made to enjoy art for art despite the knowledge the creator lacks morals. Yet, Kupperman cites it as dissonance and, thus, the elimination of harmony between art and what the creator did. This displays a more in-depth evaluation of the emotional and psychological aspects involved when it comes to separating the art from the artist, one that locates the processes one inherits to be able to do so as distancing the artist’s act from their work to fully appreciate the work as its own physical entity. To gain some objectivity in his piece, Kupperman goes on to examine why and how one could not separate the two, as “every creative work is inherently the unique product of the person (or persons) who made it” (2017), implying the relationship that comes from someone creating a piece of work may be too powerful to separate. Kupperman makes an example of this in how the “same minds” that create works are the same ones that can “sexually assualt” numerous people, conveying how “the personal elements of their crafts are powered by the same people who have done despicable things” (2017). This “ever-present blurring of the lines between the personal and creative spheres” serves as a compromise to separating art from the artist in Kuppermann’s eyes. The personal acts artists commit cannot be severed from their art because both are products of the same person. Kuppermann progresses this perspective by incorporating a familiar criticism of any attempt to distance the art from the problematic artist, as “the fact of the matter is, in our capitalistic, fame-obsessed culture, being a critically or commercially successful artist gains you a significant amount of influence. This influence, when in the hands of certain unfortunate individuals, can be leveraged to do harm to others” (2017). Here, Kupperman is pinpointing the capital and power artists gain when audiences consume and support their work, presenting it as a gateway to further assaults and immoral acts. This argument dresses the debate in the manner of it not mattering if one can separate art from the artist but instead should one separate the two? This brings the issues of ethics and morality straight to the art’s audiences rather than just the artist themself, prompting those engaging in the debate to reflect on their own morals as implied by their standpoint.

Kupperman situates the stance that you can make the separation against the credentials needed for it to be maintained, the same ones that are associated with issues of ethics and morality. He informs that “separating the art from the artist would be a perfectly sound critical school among many in an ideal world, one where the power dynamics and imbalances fueled by fame and industry influence did not exist and were not vital tools used by sexual predators of all stripes” (2017). This works to identify and call out the idiocies in the entertainment industry that inflict onto the separation debate, ones that Kuppermann is presenting as valid reasons to not separate art from its artist as these are detrimental issues for victims and those vulnerable. To Kupperman, to separate art from the artist means to ignore the harmful abuse of power that problematic artists carry out once audiences have ignored previous acts to enjoy the selected art. This is supported by Kupperman’s direct acknowledgement of the victims who have suffered at the hands of abusive artists. He addresses how “by creating a culture that excuses the misdeeds of the powerful, talented or rich, we make it harder for their victims, from fellow celebrities to anonymous teenagers, to retain their dignity in society” (2017), which demonstrates the emotional turmoil victims go through. This situates the debate further against the emotional aspect, mentioning how society separating art from a problematic artist allows victims to suffer and remain publicly humiliated. This very statement supports the stance of not separating art from the artist. It emphasises how separating the two prioritises a physical art piece over a person who has been exploited and left traumatised, thus, displaying a grounded perspective that calls for emotional well-being to be considered.

Russell Smith wrote his opinions on the debate the same year as Kupperman, therefore, has the same amount of knowledge on relevant events. However, his take differs vastly. He is immediately in illustrating his stance by stating to his readers, “the knowledge of the immorality of the creator does not distract from my enjoyment of his creation; indeed, I am made even more curious to know how beauty is perceived by a violent man” (2017). Therefore, Smith displays confidence in his ability to automatically serve art from the actions of its creator. He does, however, suggest some form of conjoining high-quality art with the disturbing acts of its artists, which is something unfamiliar in academic discourse, implying that one should delve into the bitter irony surrounding the perspective. Smith does echo previous pieces analysed in shifting from his own personal experience with consuming art to an overall cultural experience, done so when analysing any judgment he receives for separating art from the artist. He writes, “and if I do this and am judged immoral for it, is it because it is bad for just me or bad for society at large?” (2017), conveying the potential argument that engaging with art made by problematic people has detrimental effects on our society as a whole. This does make sense to a degree because it alludes to supporting abusive figures who exploit the power consumption of their art provides, something Smith considers in highlighting “the problem of engaging with art by bad people, it is said, is an economic one”(2017). This is expanded on when Smith underlines the overall issues in the entertainment industry and supports abusive figures such as Polanski, as “ it is also argued that the culture of movie-making in Hollywood is pervasively sexist and abusive and that contributing to its economic success as a whole is a subtle approval of its tactics. An essayist in The New York Times tweeted that “the critical acclaim and economic clout of the art facilitate the abuse.” (2017). Smith is directly referencing other conclusive statements on the matter. Such statements are drawn from an overall observation of the dangerous aftermaths of still providing finances for someone like Polanski. This proposal still praising his work, allows his sexual abuse to fester and flourish.

Despite this, Smith remains grounded in his stance that separation is both possible and needed. He supports this stance by opposing the syntax used when it comes to discussing consuming art made by controversial figures, shown in “I want to take issue with the idea of “enjoying” art as well. Yes, one does enjoy it, sometimes, but that’s far from the only reason for art’s existence” (2017), thus, challenging the ways people have been discussing and evaluating the debate by suggesting their view on art and its purpose has been one dimensional and therefore, lacklustre. Smith’s worldview on the matter is given as “to consume art is for me as necessary a means of understanding the culture around me as reading the news is; it is necessary and automatic, almost involuntary” (2017). This grants art as an educator, similar to what Grady’s presentation of the New Critics was underlining. Smith is illustrating how art isn’t just wanted for entertainment purposes and is instead a vital window into societal views during any time of creation. Therefore, it holds intellectual merit alongside enjoyment. Smith goes on to dissect this newfound intellectual aspect of art as a medium, tying it into his reasoning of separating any art from a problematic creator in stating how “If I were to stop delving into unpleasant, embarrassing or possibly immoral art for any reason, I would feel cut off from my own intellect. I would feel stupid” (2017). Here, Smith argues for the separation between art and artist for the alleged sake of intellect that art offers, regardless of its content or tone. This emphasises art’s ability to stand on its own, separate from its creator, in generating cognitive action in the form of education for audiences. Essentially, Smith is asking his readers to consider that, no matter what the creator of artwork has done, the potential education art can offer has to exceed the controversial actions because it can elevate individuals and society.

Smith continues in his stance of separation being possible by stating his opinion in consuming art aligns inherently with upholding its direct subject matter. He communicates how he is “baffled, genuinely baffled, by the idea that by consuming art one is somehow perpetuating the ideas in it”(2017), a clear emotive presentation of his viewpoint. This showcases a precise separation between the act of engaging with art and agreeing with any distasteful content it demonstrates, something that can be made evident when looking at Rosemary’s Baby as watching a horror film about a woman being exploited doesn’t automatically mean one agrees women should be exploited for childbearing. Instead, the film is being viewed and loved for its quality display of emotive genre filmmaking with regard to visuals and storytelling. This display is frequently used in the education of filmmaking, even 54 years post-release. Using Smith’s well-argued logic, Rosemary’s Baby is used as a tool example in teaching what makes a high-quality film has to relate to Polanski’s sexual misconduct. Is it an endorsement of it rather than a direct celebration of the film itself as a piece of visual art and that alone? Furthermore, Smith supports his stance using the thoroughly and frequently discussed issue of artists gaining financial aid when their work is supported, stating, “I get the concern about the financial support of criminals, but that economic question really only applies to living artists and only to certain art forms” (2017). This argument is limited in where it can be applied as not every controversial artist dies before any knowledge of their crimes or mishaps emerges. For example, one can carry on watching The Shining and purchasing any merchandise related as Kubrick has been deceased for 22 years now, thus, liberating consumers from the mental war of economically supporting a problematic creator. However, Polanski is unfortunately still alive, therefore, still benefits financially from engagement with his work. This means one has to await his passing in order to freely enjoy his films. Even then, this only tackles the issue of finances and not ethics or morality. Overall, Smith’s argument in the debate proves to be thorough and holds interesting content in distinguishing art from being purely entertainment based and instead intellectual and educational.

Noah Keate submitted a piece on the debate for The Boar in October 2021, one that opens with the ethical area. He begins his article with the summary statement, “questions of morality prove themselves to be so enriching and exciting, to me at least, precisely because they are the guiding force for how humans can live their best life” (2021); thus, outlining the theme of morality as a principle perspective to interpreting his piece. He goes on to incorporate art and its definition, proposing the attempt to identify a direct definition is never-ending. However, one can conclude that “artistic creations relate to how humans seek to express something to others and pinpoint their view on the world” (2021). This again ties art with the purpose of personal expression, as previously mentioned, as well as assisting in constructing an outlook of society as a whole. This is placed in Keate’s piece as what is compromised or potentially lost when he follows this with the concept of expressive art being created by an immoral person. He attaches the two by articulating, “there then comes the question of whether we can separate loving artistic creations while also loathing the individuals who made such pieces of work” (2021). This poses the binaries of good art and bad people who are artists against one another. Like many academic writers, Keate places the idea of good art before the unethical creator when articulating the concept, thus, implying the line of thought he and others have on the matter. The fact that the art piece is of high quality in expression and education comes before the fact the artist has committed immoral acts, therefore, echoing how one initially goes to praise a work of art but is then reminded of the sour downside involving the creator. Keate immediately proposes his solution to this issue by swapping the binaries’ placement in his statement, “an individual artist may have made some wicked remarks should not detract from the fact that their art, which could be completely unrelated, remains superb” (2021). This outlines the belief that the personal actions of the artist have no correlation with the quality or effect of their art. Keate is foregrounding art’s importance, despite the framing of the statement putting art second, in an attempt to saviour it from the crimes of its creator. To Keate, “art as a worthwhile end and something to celebrate, regardless of the creator themselves” (2021). Therefore, isolates art to be its own separate entity that provides benefits for people and culture. He states a more personal perspective to exemplify this thought process “an artist might have political views I deplore, but I still should be able to appreciate their art from that”. Here, Keate offers a clear and precise division between art and artist. Not only that, but Keate suggests that this should be done, which is an interesting contrast to the previously proposed questions of whether should art be separated from the artist rather than just can it be? Keate gives an answer of yes to the question of ‘should’ and directs it to art, arguing one has to appreciate art separately from its artist.

He provides a contextual example within the case study of Polanski, stating“while I will always deplore Roman Polanski, I would never campaign for his films to be censored”. Once again, Keate prioritises art, in terms of film, despite an acknowledgement of Polanski’s crimes. This implies that one can and should appreciate good art as long as there is an acknowledgement that the artist has not demonstrated morality. Keate concludes his piece by illustrating “there should be a celebration that artistic judgement — both of the art and artist — can only come with artistic freedom”, meaning people should be free to consume and critique art how they please because “the public are individually entitled to have whatever view on the culture they like”.

Academics and cultural entertainment journalists tackle the debate of separating art from the artist using a thorough and intellectually driven landscape. Their pieces inspect multiple areas of the discussion at a time, analysing art’s multiple purposes and their extents, in addition to analysing the ethical elements on both the artist's and audience’s part. Crucial stages of both the creation and consumption realm of an art piece are explored as a means of identifying potential arguments for either side. Authors sophistically outline both sides to present an objective dissection. No matter what their proposed one is, the other is marked off in analysing. This shows a genuine objective of and concern in locating an authentic solution to a challenging discussion. Those who argued for art to be separated from artists displayed an emphasis on the art itself and what it means for culture and entertainment, implying that art’s purpose can override an artist’s actions when its quality means it impacts society and audiences enough. However, the other stance outlines their morals, arguing that allowing abusive people to gain financial growth because they are good artists is unethical. This demonstrates the highlight of who the artist is as a person and audience responsibility, rather than focusing on any impact their art has.

V. The Debate Of Separating Art From The Artist In Online Discourse

Casual conversations among general film fans who may not study film academically are something that is added to every day, sometimes jumping from one extreme side to the other daily. This provides an opportunity to observe and analyse opinions and questions directly from the general public who choose to consume or ignore the art in question.

The immediate online site one can find almost infinite film discussion on is Letterboxd, a social networking platform designed for fans to share opinions on films and chart what they watch, with the former being done so through reviews. This provided insight into recent opinions on both my case study films and directors, for example, the re-evaluation of Duvall’s performance in The Shining following examination of Kubrick’s extreme methods. This shift in attitudes is identified in the freely structured Letterboxd reviews, such as “The fact that Shelley Duvall is constantly overlooked whenever I see anyone talk about this film is a fucking crime, especially considering the mental and emotional abuse Kubrick caused her so she could maintain a realistic performance and critics didn’t even mention her once upon this film’s release”. This highlights a calling for Duvall to receive some sort of justice for what she endured on the set of Kubrick’s film, something that can only come from an acknowledgement that one cannot completely align with Kubrick’s actions toward her. In addition to this, users have displayed a complete and grounded rejection of praising the film alongside knowledge of Kubrick’s mistreatment of Duvall, shown in “I don’t think any movie, not even The Shining, justifies treating Shelley Duvall like that. Made me extremely sad this time around thinking about it. I just think the way we treat each other is more important than the art we make”. This as statement illustrates ideas of separating art from the artist in a coincidence with ethics, one that asserts no artistic merit or quality within The Shining as created and exerted by Kubrick can account for the psychological deterioration experienced by his leading lady. This user conveys a clear inability to separate art from artists and enjoy The Shining because they cannot eliminate their belief of compromised ethics in the form of extreme mistreatment on Kubrick’s part. Thus, the film generates negative emotions during viewing, which has the potential to lead to a refusal to watch. This refusal to engage with The Shining addresses the debate by showcasing how an artwork can be censored personally or officially due to knowledge of something the creator did. This user isn’t showing an inability to watch the film due to low quality in its elements such as visuals or narrative, which is the expected norm in disliking a film; instead, all criticism this user exerts derives from how Kubrick pushed Duvall to extreme measures for the sake of his art which exemplifies how art cannot be separated from its creator. Overall, Letterboxd reviews on The Shining are frequently attached to Duvall, whether that be showing sympathy towards her alongside criticising Kubrick or calling attention to her characterisation of Wendy, for example, “Perfect except for Shelley Duvall who delivers an extremely mixed performance”.

Polanski also faces a display of critiques towards his actions in areas provided to discuss his films on Letterboxd, alluding to an inability for the actions to be separated from expressing enjoyment or praise towards the art on a consumer’s part. An example of this is found in such Letterboxd reviews of Rosemary’s Baby that highlight immediate addressing of Polanski’s crimes or immoral character in the tongue-in-cheek statements of “Trust the devil to make such a great movie about the devil” and “ironic that a movie about a woman horrified that she has no control over her own body was made by Roman Polanski”. These came up as two of the most popular reviews of the film. Thus, are presented as the most shared and supported summaries of Rosemary’s Baby yet are dedicated mostly to referencing something the director did outside the film. As a result, this illustrates film fans’ inability to separate Polanski’s crimes from the film he made years prior, thus, displaying how his art cannot escape him as a person. Furthermore, others alluded to an attempt to disassociate Polanski as a director and person from his work to acknowledge the quality of the film comfortably, evident in “Pretty crazy how such an iconic movie didn’t even have a director. Truly amazing”. One even proposed that the film’s plot alludes to Polanski as a person in “and I believe that this is an autobiographical film about roman p*lanski’s birth”. This demonstrates how challenging it is to separate Rosemary’s Baby as a film from the life of its director, as this viewer’s public summary of the film has to connect it to and critique Polanski’s unethical actions, such to an extent they exemplify a wish he was not the one who created it.

Film fans addressing and critiquing Polanski as a person is a theme identified in nearly all reviews of all his work as accessed on Letterboxd; for example, one review of his 2002 film The Pianist, which was also heavily acclaimed, is just “movie good, polanski bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad”, conveying the binary oppositions of isolated art and the exterior knowledge of its artist with regards to one being praised and the other attacked. This was further emphasised in the dark humour reviews such as “Polanski takes time out from bathing with pubescent girls to make another masterpiece of film” and “Polanski is one of the great directors, there is no denying it. Just be wary if he suggests he babysit while you’re out at the movies”. Letterboxd users are consistent and straightforward in ensuring Polanski’s sexual misconduct is always associated with his work, maintaining the stance that art can not be made separate from its artist and their problematic persona.

The popular social media site Twitter is vehicled to express a range of opinions on infinite topics, film culture proving to be a well-favoured and massively supported niche among users. As both a form of social media and an exertion of current events, the site generates insightful discussion into topics such as separating art from its artist; users show extreme and obstinate stances in refusing to separate the two and display their opinions on problematic filmmakers unapologetically. When one searches Roman Polanski on the site, praise for his art is kept rather minimal among the immediate and most like tweets. For example, one account expressed their stance with the filmmaker in “Roman Polasnki is 88 and walking the tightrope of death and i am waiting for him to fall”. This communicates an extreme emotional response to Polanski and his crimes. The fact it is one of the first tweets found when his name is searched represents how he, as a figure, is being moved further away from his isolated art and what it means to further emphasise his previous crimes. This implies that separation between art and artist is coming towards a place where a creator’s art isn’t even considered in mentions of them once they’ve committed immoral acts. Other popular tweets about Polanski aren’t as emotionally driven. Instead, they aim to communicate information on the acts that have clouded reception towards his art, such as “Roman Polasnki tried suing a journalist for defaming his good name by reporing the multiple rapes he was accussed of but then couldn’t go to court in fear of being extradited for the rape of a minor he pled guilty to”. This further shows how Polanski is becoming more known for his crimes than his art by being one of the initial popular tweets about him. Film culture on Twitter concerns itself mostly with educating and keeping the information on Polanski alive and circulating, almost ignoring any praise towards his work when discussing him.

Even when official film and entertainment accounts post about Polanski’s films, there appears to be a conflict between praise for the film itself and attacks on Polanski in the response comments. These tend to be structured in binary oppositions, likewise to statements made in academic readings and Letterboxd reviews, thus, establishing the qualities of the art that are put against acts of the artist. In one official post to honour Rosemary’s Baby, captioned as “Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby” with screenshots of some of the film’s iconic moments, one of the immediate and most liked responses states, “Great film would be nice if someone else’s name popped up at the start though”, the one following it mirrors the binary opposites as “He’s a rapist but what an amazing film”. These response tweets are direct representations of the issue of separating art from artist; they show that Rosemary’s Baby cannot be praised for the brilliant film that it is without mentioning the distasteful fact that a man who committed rape directed it, alluding to how it is difficult for the majority of people to separate the two. Furthermore, it implies that film fans on Twitter feel that praising the film without still mentioning what its director did is a reflection of their own morals, that they may appear ignorant of his crimes if they don’t bridge them with their appraising response to a post about his film.

Stanley Kubrick and The Shining also receive this treatment from film fans on Twitter; searches for Kubrick’s name on the site embody a shift in attitudes towards him as a filmmaker and person in addressing his harsh actions towards Duvall on the set and mentions of these actions cloud searches of the film too. The first is evident in film accounts tweeting statements such as “Stanley Kubrick was a sexist and problematic man”, focusing on his negative actions and the personality these imply rather than any of his work and what quality it has. As a result, this alludes to Kubrick’s problematic actions may be overriding his art in terms of receiving mass attention. Others blend both criticisms towards him as a person. His credibility as a filmmaker in “Stanley Kubrick was brilliant, but he was also problematic”, communicating how one who engages with Kubrick and his work must face this harsh truth of him being an amazing artist, but this isn’t the case for him as a person. The latter is also evident when one searches for either Kubrick or The Shining and observes the most popular tweets, one prompt for serious discussion on the matter is, “At what point does cancelling everybody start to stifle the art? A lot of the best artists in history were problematic, and this applies to all mediums. Stanley Kubrick was a psychopath, but The Shining is still a masterpiece”. This tweet shows a consideration for the art, worrying about it being diluted and diminished at the hands of censoring its problematic artists. It highlights the opposition between the two under the categories of good and bad. It also acknowledges the fact that many of the best artists have done immoral things but questions if art should suffer as a consequence of this. This applies to The Shining because even though the film is credited for its skilful display of storytelling and visual elements to create a high-quality horror film, shown in the classification as “a masterpiece”, the stories of how Kubrick pushed Duvall to such extreme emotional lengths negotiates fans expressing their love for the film which this tweet aims to reject. This implies a stance of separating art from the artist, especially in the last line of the tweet, which argues that Kubrick’s unorthodox manners do not negotiate The Shining being a master in filmmaking.

Likewise, the official film accounts posting tributes to Rosemary’s Baby only to be met with criticism towards director Polanski. These accounts posting tributes to The Shining also receive criticism towards Kubrick’s actions during the filming. One post aimed to be a tribute to the film received a top comment that embodies the binary opposition between a good film and a bad filmmaker, stating, “The Shining is a good movie, but fuck Kubrick for torturing Shelley Duvall”, thus, establishing praise for the film being a well made one but also holding the director accountable for mistreating one of his cast. This further conveys examples of art not being separated from the artist because it shows no tribute to The Shining is free from Kubrick being criticised, even if that criticism comes alongside an appraisal of the film. Another post showed a behind-the-scenes photo of Kubrick and Duvall on set, a seemingly interesting piece of film memorabilia to a film fan who has no knowledge of what happened between the two. However, comments from users with this knowledge do not align with the sentimental and tribute tone of the post, one stating, “from what I remember working with Kubrick was a living hell for Duvall”, and another, “Kubrick put Duvall through way too much”. These responses decipher art not being separated from the artist because they exemplify the artist’s controversial acts being consistently mentioned when the art is brought up on Twitter, as well as an absence of praise directed towards the Shining as a film, implying Kubrick’s acts override the art. Some exemplify this stance in a grounded manner, such as “I’ll never forget the torment Kubrick put Duvall through; she deserved better”, thus, establishing their feelings of Duvall deserving justice for how she was treated as well as condemning Kubrick as a controversial person rather than praising him as a innovate filmmaker.

Reddit is an online site that attracts controversial subject matter and multi-layered discourse. The site has a reputation for possessing some conservative and problematic elements. However, there does reside counteraction. When observing the issue of separating great art from controversial artists, one finds the shift into the stance that you can’t, evident in a response to the straightforward question of can you separate the two stated as “ I think the art comes from someplace within the artist. Imo as long as the work itself doesn’t describe evil things or stands in connection to anything bad, it’s not problematic to enjoy”. This thought is interesting due to its grey area; it immediately acknowledges the self-expression and personal value all art holds from its creator, yet argues if the art itself is separate from anything the artist has done in the subject matter, then separation is possible. Polanski would fall short under this scenario, as Rosemary’s Baby as a story and his later crimes echo one another to some extent. The violent act of oppressing and violating a woman’s/girl’s body is a disturbing similarity between Polanski’s fiction and his real life. This ties in with another statement made that discusses art’s intentions. One Reddit user writes, “In most cases, I would argue that art cannot be separated from artists. Art is grounded in the particular political and historical contexts that shape the artist’s motivations. Furthermore, the identity of the artist is fundamentally intertwined with the work as it is being created and with the message the piece is intended to convey. At its most basic level, all art is political, which means that endorsing art is endorsing certain messages”. This illustrates art’s ability to educate and communicate political messages, something that people argue for when aiming to show art’s importance further than entertainment. Polanski’s thought process of abusing and traumatising young females is made exemplified in Rosemary’s Baby; his crime is a ‘historical context that shapes’ his ‘motivations’ as ‘the artist’, thus this knowledge makes it difficult to separate his acts from the film to enjoy it.

One opinion response asserted their stance of separation being possible by heavily observing the artist themself, proposing “they can create things, but they can never create themselves, it doesn’t matter how hard they try, they will never exist inside the work”. This takes a slightly philosophical route in its claim that artists can never truly cement themselves inside their art and, thus, exert any morals or personal history on their part into the culture. This user believes that despite being a Kubrick film, The Shining does not contain any of Kubrick as a person; he does not exist within the film’s story or any credibility the film gains in entertainment and culture. They would propose Polanski isn’t Rosemary’s Baby as a film, he cannot place himself or his actions in the art he has created, and therefore, the film is free to consume and enjoy as a stand-alone piece of visual art. As what happens in online debates around such matters, counteractions and further arguments are made against this statement. Another user responds by pulling apart from this perspective, stating, “I’d beg to disagree with this. Surely the true meaning of art is self expression? Therefore the art is not just individual to the artist but also a reflection of some part of them. They do very much exist inside the artwork…But it’s still their work. It came from their mind and is therefore a portrayal of a selection of their thoughts”. This viewpoint relates to interpretations previously explored and is a solid counterclaim. Claiming Polanski’s actions do not exist within his art of Rosemary’s Baby is easily argued against when one acknowledges his later acts echo those carried out by the antagonist cult in the narrative; he exploited a female similar to them, one that was a child in fact. The film can simply and straightforwardly be explored and classified as a ‘reflection of some part’ of him. Therefore, it is made difficult to separate Rosemary’s Baby from its director’s crimes.

Similar to Twitter, Reddit has its very own film fan culture, where tributes to and opinions of films circulate and receive expansion from other users. Classic auteur directors such as Kubrick have a solid fanbase and connection with Reddit users, one posting a behind-the-scenes clip of his work on The Shining. The clip features Duvall, who, according to the poster, is being treated badly. As a result, a debate on whether his actions are justified continues in the comment section. One user claims Kubrick “was an asshole” and no one on set “deserved to be treated badly”, therefore showing their belief that Kubrick was wrong as well as illustrating emphasis on Kubrick as a person rather than an artist. However, another user counteracts with an emphasis on the final product of the film as a piece of art, stating, “yeah but you can argue her performance was brilliant because of Kubrick”. Here, Kubrick’s treatment towards Duvall is being argued as good because, in this user’s eyes, it ended up elevating her performance and, thus, elevating the overall art of the film. This argument not only justifies Kubrick’s controversial and unorthodox actions but praises them, attaching this praise to the art. This dynamic displays an interesting and straightforward conflict that dictates a large proportion of the debate, one side argues using and for observation of who the artist was, and the other does so with the art and what it ends up becoming. This illustrates how in the discussion of whether art and artist should be separated, the two are separated by the arguments. One side is displaying how Kubrick should be viewed as a person who was not the most appropriate to another, rather than some transcendent genius creator who shouldn’t be challenged, thus, showing criticism towards him. The other position just focuses on the art, implying the stance of separating The Shining as a film from its director and the actions that took place during its creation.

Polanski’s actions also come under scrutiny and condemnation on Reddit. One article shared on the site discussed the issue of Polanski still receiving Oscar nominations and wins, asking if it's moral to let such a person succeed and be awarded for what he creates. One comment took a collaborative stance, arguing, “those people who won because they worked on his movies do not deserve their wins to be credited to him. It’s their own hard work”, thus, arguing for Polanski to be separated from his art as the sole creator.

Attitudes displayed on Reddit accentuate this shift in attitudes towards Polanski as both a filmmaker and a person, ones that are shown as counter remarks when Polanski and his successes are mentioned. This is evident in another article being posted about the director, the title classifying him as an “acclaimed” creator by also mentioning how he is a “known” sex offender, which had an immediate response of “Acclaimed Sex Criminal and Known Director and Screenwriter”. This spin on the wording of the title operates, to the user, as prioritising what Polanski should be most known for and, thus, receive certain attention for. This directly represents the belief that Polanski should be separated from any appraisal credit he can receive for his art and instead should just receive condemnation for his crimes, therefore, demonstrating an inability to separate art from the artist as his crimes are too extreme. A following response also took a critical tone, outrageously asking, “Acclaimed? Whose acclaiming him now?” exemplifying how the knowledge of Polanski’s crimes overrides and compromises any praise he receives for his art in filmmaking. Lastly, one meme on Reddit featured a picture of someone sitting in a pose that implies waiting, captioned with the statement, “me waiting for Roman polanski death soo i can finally buy Rosemary baby on DVD”. This joke represents issues and arguments previously and consistently explored in any written discussion on the separating art from the artist debate. The user is making jokes about how some art consumers choose to wait for a problematic creator’s passing so they can freely engage with their art, illustrating a route to a moral high ground in the matter by avoiding financially benefitting the artist.

YouTube provides diverse opinions and discussions within and under the videos posted there by users. After public shifts in attitudes towards engaging with art created by someone who displays a coloured moral compass, creators on the platform have compiled examples, research and their own interpretations in videos on the matter. One video titled ‘Can You Separate Art From The Artist?” posted by Rowan Ellis, serves as an invitation for her subscribers or any other users to share their feelings and learn from others. Ellis provides the context of artists who have been morally questionable but have created enjoyable art, across numerous artistic mediums other than film, alongside prompts of both sides, such as financial aid or personal interpretation of an art piece. The responses to her video were a diverse landscape as some agreed you can while others disagreed, and some admitted to being unsure and unable to pick a side. One of the top comments stated, “My instinctive answer is no because of how interconnected everything feels in life. It feels personal because humans are so centred on emotions in response. It’s such a nuanced question!”. This reply emphasises the huge personalised and emotional investment that comes as a reaction or association with art. As audiences sometimes interpret films as art to be personal extensions of their creators, the idea of separating the two becomes impossible. This is elevated when audiences consume art and, thus, invest their own emotions in it alongside those the artist felt when they created it. The user expands upon this idea in a later sentence of the same comment, “maybe when one person involved in the creation of the thing messes up, we see that one thing as forever tainted”, demonstrating the changed perception of art once knowledge of the artist is established. Essentially, this user is articulating how they come to associate the artwork’s image in the same vein as the artist’s immorality. They feel that the work becomes demolished and altered once the artist exemplifies unethical actions, thus, communicating a psychological reason as to why and how they cannot severe art from the artist.

This opinion is opposed by another user who establishes a stance of being unable to avoid artists who are completely ethical throughout their whole careers and life. They write, “I personally separate the art from the artist. Why? There’s so much art in the world that’s been produced by people that have done morally wrong things in their life.”, therefore, demonstrating the belief that you have to separate the two because problematic people create the majority of art, but art is essential to the culture. This viewpoint argues for art’s sake while submitting to a fatalistic tone when it comes to considering the artist and their actions. Under this perspective, one has to negotiate between art’s importance to society and to humans, in terms of both education and enjoyment, and the acts of its artist. You cannot escape controversy in artists, and you cannot ignore every piece of good art because of this consistent controversy. This comment argues for The Shining and Rosemary’s Baby as two widely acclaimed and artistically brilliant films, both exemplifying their genres and visual storytelling to a degree that has been considered a genius and master-level decades after release.

As expected, the substantial occurrence of a moral compass and ethical consideration provides counteraction to the signalling of what art means to and for us. Another user explains their answer that you can’t separate art from the artist, “I refuse to support people that are doing things that I consider morally bankrupt. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it means you have to cut out art you really love because you feel unable to support the artist morally”. Here, the tug of war between emphasis on art and emphasis on the artist is illustrated in the scenario of sacrificing art’s meaning and emotional value because the moral issues surrounding the artist prove to be too detrimental to one’s psyche when engagement is still given. This means Rosemary’s Baby, in spite of its status in American and horror filmmaking, would have to face the consequences of what its director did because the weight of his crimes hangs over the film to a great extent. This user addresses the hard-hitting and challenging process of not separating art from the artist; it is painful to cut off a piece of art one enjoyed and invested in emotionally because they are unable to forget the ill acts of its creator. However, for them personally, the compromise of ethics bears too strong and overrides this and, thus, leads to the stance of conjoining consuming art with supporting its creator. This stems from both the belief in personal expression in art and the financial elevation provided by consumption.

Other comments focused more on further questions to ask and consider when engaging in the debate. One user wrote as a response, “I think the question shouldn’t be ‘Can we separate art and author?’, but ‘Should we?’ I think the issue seems way more like a moral one than a theoretical one if you ask like that”, which echos previous interpretations explored when considering the ethical incorporations. It restructures the entire debate and any arguments made to be philosophical rather than alleged physical, as supported by the ethical landscape. Even if one can separate The Shining as a film from the events that took place on set, if the question is, can it be done, the question then moves to the placement of whether is it right to do that. This is proposed as another way of examining the debate as a whole. However, it can also be situated as the second stage if there is the decision that one can separate art from the artist. Another video posted by The Art Assignment titled ‘Love the Art, Hate the Artist’ also generated interesting discourse around the subject. The video addresses how “our reading of an artwork is always affected by the knowledge we either have or don’t have” about its conditions and its creator. It also voices “our own personal choice in the matter” and how audiences of art have a choice to engage with artwork under the knowledge of the artist. These ideas serve as a foundation for the viewers to build on and voice their own interpretations in the comments. One comment admits an opinion that there’s an inability to make a final decision as “this is one of those dilemmas that will never be satisfactorily resolved, but is really important to grapple with!”. This illustrates the struggle that resides within the discussion at hand; some feel these problems prove to be too large and unsolvable due to the dire tackling of morality at hand.

Another comment strategically proposes a compromise between the entertainment of art and the ethics of engaging with problematic artists, writing how “you can enjoy problematic art (or media) and problematic artists. The challenge is be honest with yourself and others and do not defend the problems or dismiss them”. Here, there is a distinct separation between engaging with and praising art one enjoys purely for what the art means and acknowledging that what the artist did is wrong and deserves condemnation. This means one can appreciate Rosemary’s Baby's mastery of filmmaking and other crafts, such as performances. However, one must distinguish how they separate this artistry from what Polanski did and also emphasise how one feels he must be held accountable for his crimes. It highlights how one can be free to consume and praise art as long as there is a clear and precise establishment of not defending anything immoral the artist did alongside creating the art. Furthermore, other users demonstrated a similar compromise between the two binaries as a means of settling the debate where both parties are satisfied. One comment states, “I personally agree that art should be viewed separately but I also think educating is important. We also shouldn’t separate what the artist has done and not highlight it when we’re talking about it”, an interpretation that pays attention to both the art and the actions. This illustrates that re-stating what the artist did wrong should be established in order to ensure education on the matter, something that is coincided with praise towards their art. This appears to be evident in conversations around The Shining, in which Kubrick’s treatment of Duvall is always mentioned and criticised in both academic and casual conversations surrounding the film. This underlining of Kubrick’s actions runs alongside praising the film’s visuals and generation of fear in audiences, showing that one can separate the high quality of the film as art and the unethical procedures that took place in creating it.

Overall, the internet displays some extreme stances on whether art can be separated from its artist, the majority of them aligning with the belief that you cannot and also that artists should face never-ending consequences for their immoral acts. Those who use the internet to express this opinion, whether the context is beginning a discussion or partaking in one, use tones that are sometimes tongue-in-cheek or overall humorous for dramatic effect. Interestingly enough, when compared to official written articulations on the matter, the opinions on the internet lack sophistication or direct intellect. However, the same effect is still present when observing the message being communicated. This implies that the meanings and interpretations are so profound and prevalent that no matter the tone or source of communication, one can still identify and engage with them. Users on sites such as Twitter or Reddit are still able to mirror the arguments and perspectives demonstrated in academic writings and rejuvenate them using different moods and formats. The majority of users are consistent in arguing art should not be separated due to the issue of personal expression in art, artists gaining financial advancement and ethical compromise. The time these perspectives are outlined exemplifies how contemporary attitudes signal mostly towards prioritising the ethics of whatever the situation is over the status of the artist or the overall art.

VI. Is There a Conclusion?

Toculminate, in light of all that has been highlighted during this evaluation, the debate of separating art from this artist has proved to be one that positions ethics, economics, entertainment and education against one another as stances of argument. With these serving as ammo on either side, art critics and consumers are challenged to find some common ground with the opposing side. Art of any medium is vital to society and culture. Its creation and imprint stand the test of time due to how people invest in it both emotionally and intellectually. This means it can move beyond who its creator is and what they have done once it is consumed and interpreted to such high-level countless times. However, the extreme presence of immorality on the artist’s part, especially if combined directly in the creation, can pull it back from such a high realm. In Kubrick’s case, his unethical behaviour weighs on The Shining in a negative personal way. This is because of the breakdown he pulled from Duvall to create the emotions necessary for her character at certain stages. However, the art was not worth such personal exploitation. In order to find a compromise, critics and consumers cannot ignore or dismiss what Kubrick did during filming and how it was wrong, yet, they can still praise The Shining for the well-made film that it is. It is possible to address both the positive residing within the art and the negative present in the artist’s methods or personal life. One does not have to choose in a black or white manner, nor have to sacrifice a piece of artwork they invested with or learnt from because its creator compromised their moral compass, as long as there is established awareness of the latter. Once an artwork of any medium has been consumed and had attention drawn to it through praise and recommendation, the artist can build their finances, which can protect them from consequences due to the power handed. This is evident when looking at Polanski, who can shield himself from a prison sentence because of the money he gains when Rosemary’s Baby is purchased. This outlines the compromise between morality and enjoying art, with the issue of money serving as the overall issue. However, this can also be combated and solved, as there are alternate methods to engaging with the film via purchasing, such as borrowing a copy from public libraries. One can also demonstrate the grey matter perspective by assuring a critique of Polanski’s crimes is made when praising his work. Essentially, make sure Polanski never escapes condemnation for his actions alongside praise for his craft, separating his stance as an artist to allow applause from his stance as a human who has done unforgivable crimes.

An overall addition I have concluded after my research is the acknowledged importance of and need for art, established on either side of the debate. Consumers who have written their stance voice how they feel a sense of guilt when engaging with art made by a controversial figure, something that has to derive from a strong attachment to the work. Art’s ability to entertain, educate and create emotion is what negotiates the unprincipled behaviour exemplified by the artist, thus, preventing an immediate censoring of both itself and its creator. In the case of film, the artistry, demonstrated in both stories and visuals, has multi-purposes of representing and influencing society, as well as providing catharsis for spectators. Films have the power to represent us and others. Thus, we learn about ourselves and those around us. Their positioning in the art realm is what speaks to audiences. In most cases, films become separated from their director because of the excessive emotional investment directed towards them from these spectators. This means a film can become an extension and expression of a watcher, not just the director. Essentially, I have concluded that a shared solution to this debate is far from being found. The dilemma of choosing between an artist’s emotional and educational impact or the alleged mislaying of morals poses a clash between emotional and rational approaches in responses. These two perspectives struggle to be compromised, thus, cementing the inability to find common ground. With contemporary society’s search for progression as advocated through extreme liberalism, art’s status in culture will remain compromised if its creator behaved immorally.

VII. Bibliography

Academic Journals and Articles

Protecting the Bookshelf: Reading at the Intersection of Art and Morality by Elizabeth (Ellie) Schaffer, A thesis presented for the B.A. degree with Honors in The Department of English University of Michigan Winter 2019

Shelley Duvall’s traumatic experience while shooting Stanley Kubrick's film 'The Shining', Debadrita Sur, Far Out Magazine, 2021

Roman Polanski Accused of 1975 Rape, Liz Alderman and Elian Peltier, The New York Times, Nov 9 2019

Can we separate art from the artist?, Eden Mor, The Daily Free Press, November 30 2021

Opinion: You can't separate art from the artist, Ella Adams, The Appalachian, Apil 2021

Should we separate art from the artist?. Reid Corley, The Triton Times, May 2019

Separating Art from the Artist: A Guide to a Consistent Principle, Ashley Griffin, OnStageBlog, March 2021

What Do We Do When The Art We Love Was Created By A Monster? Constance Grady, 2018

Authorship in Cinema: Author & Reader. Başak Demiray, CINEJ Cinema Journal. 4. 4. (2015).

A Case Study on Film Authorship: Exploring the Theoretical and Practical Sides in Film Production David Tregde* Media Arts and Entertainment Elon University, 2013

On the impossibility of separating art from artist, Jacob Kupperman, The Stanford Daily, October 27 2017

Good art by bad people: Why it shouldn’t be thrown away, Russell Smith, The Globe and Mail, November 16 2017

Separating art from the artist, Noah Jeane, The Boar, October 12 2021

Online Sites

Twitter

Reddit Pages

Letterboxd Reviews of The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby, and The Pianist

Youtube

#film criticism #film debate #debate #separating art from artist #the shining #rosemary's baby #roman polanski #stanley kubrick #shelley duvall #film critic #film essay #film #movies #cinema

[screenspirit]

Outlining and Explaining Contemporary Horror’s Obsession with Technology

As a more versatile and reflectional genre, horror has seen many formats, tonal shifts and subject matter, leading to distinct eras that can be tied to cultural periods. The Universal era of the 1930s saw ghoulish monsters such as Dracula frightening audiences. With each passing decade, the ’60s and ’70s eventually created suspenseful slashers to pre-date the ’80s eccentric and gory artworks.

After the ’90s occupied themselves with toned-down slashers or psychological examinations, the millennium began relying on CGI and overall technology to construct their terrifying tales. Ghosts were now CIGIed onto screens, and sometimes, technological items were horror movies’ source of terror.

By the mid-2010s, sinister spirits no longer haunted houses built on burial grounds but reached their victims through computers and phones. It is a vast difference from the previous examples of the horror subgenre because the villain is not a physical entity like a vampire or killer in a mask, but something contemporary audiences will be highly familiar with, the internet.

So what is it about technology and its properties that attracts so many modern horror filmmakers and audiences?

Despite residing as a 2010s feature, the grandparent of the technology horror trope, possibly one of the few compelling examples, came in 1999. Ringu is a chilling Japanese horror directed by Hideo Nakata, who adapts from Koji Suzuki’s 1991 novel. In the film, a cursed videotape collects unsuspecting victims who die seven days after watching its unnerving content. It’s up to a journalist and her ex-husband to trace the origins of the curse to break it, leading them to a murdered young girl called Sadako, whose vengeful spirit is the culprit.

Ringu brought this new scare to the genre as a response to the incoming technological wave that saw every household becoming dependent on recent advancements. The horror in the film comments on what growing technology does to human survival, posing it as a fatal threat and using socio-cultural landscapes to derive an absolute terror.

Kiyoshi Kurosawa followed in Ringu’s footsteps with the 2001 Kairo, also known as Pulse, which tracks a group of young adults in Tokyo who experience terrifying visions transferred across the world wide web, leading to mysterious disappearances. Three narratives present the attempts to discover the truth behind the ghostly images infiltrating computer monitors.

Like Nakata’s recruitment of technology, Kurosawa places the devices as a vessel for the ghoulish entities, situating technology as a cursed item that threatens characters. As the growth of civilisation’s dependency on technology was well established, Kairo reads more as a direct reflection of its time and demonstrates an awareness of what familiar and grounded sources could frighten its viewers.

Over time, these technology-driven horror movies dropped in quality and scare factor, instead appearing as quick tasteless gimmicks to cash in on how immense technology’s power in culture had become. Unfriended is one of the first examples of the screenlife style, in which an entire film’s runtime, images and plot are depicted on the appearance of a computer screen as though the audience member was using one. Levan Gabriadze’s 2014 horror tells the story of the ghost of a bullied high school student who committed suicide haunts and terrorises the Skype call between her classmates, each holding a secret connection to her torment and death.

The high school group who occupy the entire runtime read as the stereotypical tech-obsessed teenagers with devices glued to their person as though they were body parts. This succeeds in elevating the subject matter and adding some sense of realism, despite the tiresome personalities, showcasing the upsides to this example of horror’s contemporary approach. Overall, Unfriended is a promising film that wasted its potential to showcase a commentary on technology through a brand-new visual approach. However, a rushed plot and some of the most unlikeable characters shown on film sour the contextual potential. To have the interior techniques, such as plot, performances and pacing, jeopardise the exterior landscape of context and commentary is always dismaying for a creative or consumer, especially when that contextual scope echoes a familiar topic that society has diverse opinions on, such as mass use of technology.

All the above-mentioned movies employ obsession and dependency on technology as a metaphorical scare factor in a transparent manner, needing little critical dissection to identify, process and understand. It presents occasional realism as technology and devices infiltrate and dictate everyday lives, careers and casual. Be that as it may, technology as a horror monster or threat can be seen as dampening the genre with monotonous repetition, unfulfilling plots and unlikeable cliche characterisation. The idea of a ghost haunting a phone, as seen in Takashi Miike’s One Missed Call in 2003, or a computer virus managing to take lives, looking at F. Javier Gutiérrez’s 2017 film Rings, borders between creative and ridiculous in its efforts to appeal to contemporary society.

#Horror #horror movies #unfriended #scary movies #film critic #film analysis #film criticism #film studies #film essay #ringu #the ring

[screenspirit]

Personal Stories and Memory in Jay Rosenblatt’s and Su Fredrich’s Avant-garde Cinema

Avant-Garde offers distinct artistic strategies that can be steered to hold aesthetic representations of the filmmaker’s mindset and objectives set when creating the film. To elaborate, some experimental filmmakers choose their aesthetic strategies concerning how well they highlight experiences they aim to convey through their work, one particular example being their personal stories and memories, which they use as stimuli for Avant-Garde films. Two prominent examples of this idea in Avant-Garde are Jay Rosenblatt’s Phantom Limb (2005), a communication of the filmmaker’s experience and growth surrounding his younger brother’s death and Su Fredrich’s Sink or Swim (1990), which articulates how the filmmaker’s relationship with her father impacted her outlook on her childhood and personal identity. Both these experimental features draw on the filmmakers’ subjective memories of their past events which serve as their works’ narratives, all conveyed through the stylistic devices that highlight their position in Avant-Garde cinema.

One crucial artistic strategy used by both filmmakers which assists in elevating the anecdotes presented narratively is the use of found footage as the imagery. Rosenblatt and Friedrich both rely on shots and sequences that have been previously filmed by someone else and through the use of editing and placement, tell their own story through found footage. This feature of avant-garde cinema conveys how they partake in first-person filmmaking where everything shown is ‘overtly filtered’ by their ‘sensibility and ‘point of view’ [Rascoroli, 2009]. It is this artistic choice of structuring personal films through recycled sequences that serves as a distinct bridge between the Avant-Garde and the documentary, emphasised by Rascaroli who states how ‘their foregrounding of autobiography and their expression of authorial subjectivity position them in between…that of the Avant-Garde…and that of first-person documentary’ [2009].

Therefore, these filmmakers are expressing their autobiographies through a combination of Avant-Garde and documentary style, with found footage being one primal artistic choice. Friedrich’s example of the use of found footage connotes heavily to her memories of her father and childhood, exemplified in one of the earliest sequences shown in the film titled ‘Witness’, in which spectators see shots of a father holding his young daughter in what appears to be a home movie. Rosenblatt mirrors this in his film by showing personal home movies of him and his younger brother from their childhood as an opening to his visual storytelling.

Both these examples fulfil the purpose of building up context and introductions to the filmmakers’ individual and personal narratives and their themes; Rosenblatt’s story of loss visually articulates what he had before his brother’s death and Friedrich introduces ideas of parenthood and childhood using her images of parents interacting with their children. Taking this choice in source of footage into account when observing ideas of memory and personal stories, one can identify the filmmakers’ objectives because ‘home movies have much the same status as family photographs as regards of temporal reference’ and thus, ‘offer an image of the past of individual shown’ [Turim, 1989]. Thus, both filmmakers are using footage they did not capture themselves to present past events that connect to their narratives. This aesthetic action causes the sequences to immediately hold a personal and unique characteristic to them since spectators are observing what should be private moments in a young family’s life that have been captured on film for nostalgia and memorial purposes. As a result, identification of the filmmakers’ memories and stories can be easily distinguished since they are using found footage from the past to build up the narratives.

Found footage as an aesthetic decision articulates the contexts relating to the storytelling and with separate motives about emotional responses and cognitive approaches to their work. Rosenblatt’s example of recycled footage showing his brother before his passing is working to drive emotions of sadness and sympathy from his audience because he is allowing them to witness the memories he has of his brother visually through the shots shown. Additionally, they will later observe Rosenblatt’s experiences following his brother’s death such as the funeral and healing process. As a result of this, they will recall back to the opening sequence of the film and find themselves sharing the feelings of sadness Rosenblatt must be experiencing since the home movies allowed them to see a minor example of what the filmmaker has lost. Friedrich, however, is aiming to produce a separate instance of sympathy towards her personal story using her recycled footage. Her spectators will take in the imagery of the father holding his young daughter and identify its associations with family and child development since relationships and bonds with parental figures are credentials in a child’s early life.

It is these connections the audience has made from observing this example of found footage in the film that will assist in creating emotional responses of pity towards Friedrich when they later see such articulations as her parents’ divorcing and father leaving through voiceovers. The spectators will then think back to the recycled footage of the father and daughter and feel sympathy towards Friedrich as her family has broken up and she may no longer have interactions demonstrated in the home movies. Thus, both examples of found footage in the films are soon laced with specific emotions which assist in building the filmmakers’ personal stories since they are showcasing their past which hold significance to their storytelling.

It is this concern with the past that serves as a critical element to the recycled footage aspect of the Avant-Garde, it provides an opportunity for experimental filmmakers to demonstrate their creativity because they are taking fragments of film that were captured for one reason and editing them into their narrative. Usually, the past is engaged within film through the temporal editing technique of a flashback which helps to ‘merge the two levels [shared and recorded] of remembering the past’ and is used in the Avant-Garde as an ‘element in creating an expressive manipulation of the image and film montage’ [Turim, 1989]. Thus, they are a device that breaks the current narrative time shown which bridges the past with the present.

However, Rosenblatt and Friedrich have instead placed their examples of footage connected from the past in the openings of their films in a chronological structure to provide their spectators with ideas of their past which will benefit how they interpret the events they witness in the upcoming sequences. This mirrors the use of flashbacks as a device because it coheres to the story and elevates character development since spectators observe events in the film subjects’ lives that affect their character. Furthermore, the past and how it is demonstrated holds connections to one’s memory which can be explained as ‘a system of storing and retrieving information’ [Baddeley, 1997]. This means that the filmmakers offer their interpretations of events psychologically held in their memories through the already recorded footage in which the memories are visually stored. This effectively links back to Turim’s claim that the two levels of recalling the past coincide with one another to structure the filmmakers’ personal-based narratives and convey further emphasis on how important the artistic strategy of found footage.

Friedrich emphasises the presence of personal stories heavily and consistently throughout her film, combining her story with those of her mother and father which all share connections and influences. Friedrich’s story is the focus of the narrative, highlighted in a majority of the sequences such as the one titled ‘Journalism’ in which a series of experimental techniques combine to convey the story and its themes. One of these is the voiceover that plays over the images shown; a young girl, who is telling Friedrich’s story throughout the film, shares with the audience how Friedrich was given a diary when she was young in which she wrote down her stories, thoughts and secrets. One can interpret the symbolism of the diary as a manifestation of Friedrich documenting and expressing her personal story, as a diary consists of one’s ‘record of facts and events…own impressions, ideas, sensations, self-analysis and reflection’ [Rascaroli, 2009].

A diary also mirrors the epistolary novels of the 18th century, a genre consisting of novels telling stories through letters and journaling which takes an ‘interest in individuality and the inner self’ and a phase of ‘deep transformation and great expansion’ [Rascaroli, 2009]. The Avant-Garde is a cinematic style that draws inspiration from other mediums of art, particularly ‘relating to the fields of literature’ which it ‘pays homage to and finds inspiration in’ [Rascaroli, 2009]. Therefore, the diary mentioned throughout this sequence of the film links with how Friedrich is presenting the story of her parental relationships and childhood as well as conveying the influence literature as a medium holds on Avant-Garde cinema and how it is incorporated into it.

The childhood aspect is emphasised using the footage of young girls playing in a playground; a further example of filmic techniques used to elevate narrative ideas since the images connect to the voiceover articulating an event in childhood. The voiceover then mentions how Fredrich’s parents divorced and this serves as the pivotal point in the narrative and a painful memory Fredrich documents in her diary, which we are told is erased by her mother as it was written in pencil. Here, Friedrich is drawing ideas of different levels of memory which coincide with Turim’s claim on recorded and shared past. Her mother may be able to erase the physically recorded presentation of Friedrich’s memory of the divorce kept in the diary yet is unable to do so to store it in her daughter’s mind, thus, conveying ideas of memory and personal stories in Fredrich’s narrative with relation to how they are documented and interpreted.

In addition to this, Friedrich develops the memory of her parents’s divorce by combining events she can recall that serve as their personal stories and memories. Friedrich first does this in the sequence titled ‘Ghosts’; a calling which holds connotation to figures of the past haunting individuals connected to them which alludes to the idea of memory and the past throughout the film, where the shots are of a letter addressed to Fredrich’s father being written by her on a typewriter. This links to the previous connection between the Avant-Garde and literature, specifically this film and the form of an epistolary novel since a letter is being used as the source of articulation of events. The use of the letter as a stylistic strategy is effective in that it elevates the personal element to Friedrich’s work, mirroring the symbolism of the diary and allowing further insight into her deepest emotions at this point of her story thus progressing the development of that personal story.

In this letter, the spectators learn more about how the separation is impacting Friedrich’s mother when Fredrich writes about how she watched her mother spend most nights alone and crying while listening to a song called ‘Gretchen at the Spinning Wheel’; an articulation on the loss of a loved one which coincides with the experience both the mother and Friedrich are experiencing yet this particular communication is tied more with the mother. Here, Friedrich has captured one parental figure’s personal story in the film in which the medium of music is how her mother expresses her emotions, with lyrics such as ‘Where I do not have him/That is the grave/The whole world is bitter to me’ [Schubert, 1814] which link to the experience of a breakup. In contrast, her daughter does so in writing and later filmmaking.

The letter ends with a statement made by Friedrich on how difficult it is coping with the ‘conflict between memory and the present’, therefore, Fredrich is emphasising how the positive memories she has of her parents do not match what is taking place in the present time, specifically when watching her mother cry and this must be creating emotions of bitterness and grief within her. The memory of watching her mother go through this while writing it in the letter must bring these emotions forward and in turn connect the feelings and memory as one. Baddeley highlights this when stating ‘anything experienced in a given mood will tend to be recalled when that mood is reinstated’ [1997], thus memories and events in a story are tied with emotions that echo them.

The audience observes this in the later sequence ‘Drinking’ where Friedich communicates how watching her half-sister and father interact reminds her of her memories of her childhood with him as ‘her childhood was being played out in front of her’. This conveying of her mother’s story is connected to Friedrich’s memory of having to witness her mother go through this and this memory is then incorporated into the personal tale shown in her work. Friedrich then adds her father’s personal story during the ‘Envy’ sequence in which the voice-over articulates how her father wrote poems to express his own emotions towards Friedrich and the situation. The poetry as a medium echoes Friedrich’s diary, letter and filmmaking in addition to the mother’s choice of music, thus, elevating personal stories being compressed into different formats of artistic medium with the experimental film being the overarching form since Friedrich has collected all mediums implied in her Avant-Garde work.

Overall, both filmmakers recruit the Avant-garde film model in a tapestry of aesthetic organisation and sentimental essence, the former stemming from pre-filmed footage and the latter ideas around memories of family as part of an individual’s personal story, highlighting the mode’s unique stylistic and storytelling properties. Rosenblatt’s feature recruits its footage, as building off from its subjective contextual messaging, in a somewhat raw and touching manner. He narrates a stage of life any audience member can resonate with, using the experimental aesthetic toolset of a collective archive of diverse found footage he can edit together into one cohesive personal meaning. A sufficient portion of this can additionally be applied to Friedrich’s work, one that encompasses the power of using pre-existing objective footage and other mediums of art to communicate stages of her subjective experience. However, Sink or Swim’s story is slightly more niche in its subject matter and aftermath. Regardless, Friedrich’s creation also resonates on profound levels due to the immersive emotion in vision as combined with the relentless quality in execution.

Bibliography

Nardelli, Matilde. (2010). Laura Rascaroli (2009) The Personal Camera: Subjective Cinema and the Essay Film. Film-Philosophy. 14. 191–195. 10.3366/film.2010.0058.

Constance Balides, Maureen Turim, Flashbacks in Film: Memory and History, Screen, Volume 32, Issue 1, Spring 1991, Pages 120–125, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/32.1.120

Schubert, Franz, Gretchen am Spinnrade, Part One, scene 15 of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust, 19 October 1814

Baddeley, A.D. (1997) Human Memory: Theory and Practice (Revised Edition). Psychology Press, East Sussex.

#su friedrich #jay rossenblatt #avant garde #avantgarde cinema #experimental cinema #cinema #film analysis #film critic #film criticism #movies

[screenspirit]

55 years of George A. Romero’s political horror masterpiece Night of the Living Dead

Starring Duane Jones and Judith O’Dea in one of horror’s most acclaimed scripts, George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, released 55 years ago as the filmmaker’s first feature-length film, still holds up as a chilling, entertaining grizzly and layered zombie horror classic. Co-written between the director and famed screenwriter John Russo, Night of the Living Dead focuses on a town’s desperate attempts at survival after a never ending sea of Undead ghouls rise from their graves due to radiation brutish attack. The townsfolk don’t know why the dead are leaving their graves or if or when they’ll go back. All they know is the ghouls want to feast on their flesh and bites can transfer the ghoulish state.

Romero’s work is credited as the first modern onscreen depiction of the now cliched zombie trope even though the film never directly refers to the creatures as that once. Additionally, the classic script drew minor influences from Richard Matheson’s 1954 prose I am Legend in its depiction of a nightmarish disease infecting and decaying a civilised society that was also influential in the zombie apocalypse style. “I thought I Am Legend was about revolution. I said if you’re going to do something about revolution, you should start at the beginning. I mean, Richard starts his book with one man left; everybody in the world has become a vampire,” Romero told Cinema Blend in 2008. “I said we got to start at the beginning and tweak it up a little bit. I couldn’t use vampires because he did, so I wanted something that would be an earth-shaking change.”

He added: “Something that was forever, something that was really at the heart of it. I said, So what if the dead stop staying dead? … And the stories are about how people respond or fail to respond to this. That’s really all [the zombies] ever represented to me. In Richard’s book, in the original I Am Legend, that’s what I thought that book was about. There’s this global change and there’s one guy holding out saying, wait a minute, I’m still a human. He’s wrong. Go ahead. Join them. You’ll live forever! In a certain sense he’s wrong but on the other hand, you’ve got to respect him for taking that position”

Romero’s interpretation of a growing story was made under a budget of $114,000 and was able to gross a total of $30,236,452 worldwide through word of mouth broadcasting its blend of suffocating suspense and stomach-churning carnage. Night of the Living Dead persevered against initial controversy and negative reviews that focused heavily on its explicit violence and gore, refusing to see its artistic and contextual potential, to earn a cult following who did recognise these underlying properties and become one of horror’s greatest and most influential. Romero’s work has also established a prosperous franchise, comprising five sequels that were released between 1978 and 2009, all of which were directed by Romero and an authorised 1990 remake of the original alongside numerous unofficial re-tellings due to the work’s public domain.

Night of the Living Dead utilised its stark black-and-white cinematography, attentive mise-en-scene suspenseful narrative and engaging performances to create a milestone in horror filmmaking. Furthermore, Romero’s direction, despite seemingly working on a gory tale of people being eaten alive, actually commented on the social and cultural developments that were taking the 1960's by storm and this is reflected in the concept of people being hunted by cannibalistic ghouls. The Undead reflect the new generation flourishing with progress and openness and the victims are the older who are restricted by tradition. During Bravo’s 2004 miniseries 100 Scariest Movie Moments, Romero instructed viewers to think of the ghouls as the “new generation devouring the old” in a symbolic sense of cleansing the past with merciless force to seek out something extremely new and different. This coded meaning is evident in the terrifying “feast” sequence which sees the ghouls devour the flesh and organs of one of the character’s charred corpses in a car. Romero’s camera focuses on wide shots to capture the group of ghouls approaching the car and tearing the body apart, before tightening into close-ups of individual ghouls feasting on body parts to accentuate the gruesome horror. This is the exact gore that shocked audiences in 1968 and it’s understandable, given the blunt presentations of internal organs being pulled out of a dead body to be eaten on the spot. However, this carnage can easily be interpreted as a metaphor for the conflict between ideology in generations and the disastrous aftermaths of nuclear action as radiation is the cause for this blood bath.

Night of the Living Dead earned historic status in casting a black male, Jones’s Ben, as his courageous and resourceful protagonist, something nearly unheard of by ’60s standards and further illustrates the feature’s concepts of and push for change. Ben is a true horror hero; headstrong, observant, ambitious and willing to fight till the end. Such a presentation of a black character was considered controversial by 1968’s standards due to bigotry and the film was subsequently linked to the Civil Rights movement. Romero told Bravo that the night he finished filming the project and began driving down to producers, he heard on the radio news that activist Martin Luther King Jnr had been assassinated, a chilling echo of Ben’s unfortunate demise in the film’s conclusion at the hands of rednecks who mistake him for a ghoul. Writing for CineAction in 2018, writer Mark Lager commented that the “connection between Ben’s demise and the racial violence besetting the Civil Rights Movement was all too clear. Night of the Living Dead (a low-budget horror film) had dissected American society in the 1960s more truthfully and unapologetically than any mainstream Hollywood movie.” However, the director was persistent that he did not consider race when casting his protagonist or any of his characters. Instead, he simply cast the actor who impressed him the most during auditions.

A bleak and nihilistic picture that still manages to garner entertainment for horror lovers, Night of the Living Dead is one of the touchstones in the social thriller, something now explored by modern filmmakers such as Jordan Peele. It’s a timeless and unforgettable piece that has allowed several original areas of the genre to take flight.

#night of the living dead #horror #horror movies #george a romero #zombies #halloween #spooky season #film critic #film criticism #film analysis #film essay #Youtube

[screenspirit]

Jennifer’s Body: Marketing and Meaning

Jennifer’s Body is argued as a testimony to the discrepancy between a film’s initial marketing and its direct content. Contemporary criticism observes the promotional factors during its release in 2009 to articulate how there was an alleged misplacement of meaning; focusing on the over-sexualisation of the plot and central character rather than its ‘credibility as a feminist undertone horror film’. Various mediums portray diverse representations of this one film with the employment of craftily used semiotics.

Magazines.

First of all, Fangoria magazine presents an extreme horror image of Jennifer’s Body to capture the interest of its horror enthusiastic audience. The denotation of the first image outlines the character Jennifer displayed with her mouth partially covered in blood that drips down onto her neck, with her sharp fangs and white eyes illuminated as the central focus. This image is purposed with encapsulating the film’s identity which connotates to a mature and gruesome exploration of women in horror, with the character being portrayed as a fearsome vicious predator. The imagery is what constructs an impression of this film as a horror due to the genre being reliant on a threat as a narrative element. The iconography of the blood and teeth signals to the standard codes of horror, conveying the film as a contribution to that genre.

The tagline “Megan Fox will eat you alive” serves as a double entendre, relating to the literal plot concept of her character eating boys alive and the figurative saying of completely immersing a potential lover for one’s own gain. This solidifies the promotion’s horror aspect in addition to the sexually devious nature of the character.

Overall, this image as a method of marketing displays a vision of gore and fear. It stands as the incorporation of horror style elements as tools for marketing to fans of this genre, even though this may not be consistent in other realms of marketing and the film itself.

Posters

However, the marketing posters found in cinemas and DVD covers conjure a completely separate image of Jennifer’s Body as the one previously explored. This marketing area diverted away from any allusion to this being an extreme horror film, instead portraying a grossly excessive sexual image of Jennifer. Denotations of this image offer shallow conclusions of sex with Jennifer displayed in a revealing outfit (that she doesn’t even wear in the film). She is seen showing skin and so connotates to a devious sexual nature as an expression of femininity; a stark contrast to the portrayal of terror and fierceness Fangoria displayed. Jennifer is paired with red in this image, similar to the magazine, however, this presentation is using red to connotate passion and seductiveness as linked to over-sexualisation, rather than representing the horror genre.

This tied with Jennifer’s position of sitting on the desk with her legs displayed alludes to an objectifying image for the male gaze; the target audience of this marketing example rather than overall horror fans. This connotates to Jennifer being the prey; a severing to her presentation in the magazine that built her as a powerful predator. One could propose that Jennifer’s characterisation has been reduced and belittled using this overt sexualisation. To display the central character has nothing more than her conventionally attractive body and sexual nature calls to an omitting of any deeper characteristics.

To conclude, Jennifer’s Body is a film that is laced over with a range of images; all signals to diverse and inconsistent meanings. The marketing’s semiotics lacks consistency and awareness, as the plot rarely aligns with the imagery used in its own promotion. One moment the film is marketed as a horror that focuses on a savage predator, and the next its style is belittled to the objectification of standard feminine beauty.

#jennifer's body #film #feminist film #film marketing #film analysis #film journalism #megan fox #Film Criticism #film studies #film article

[screenspirit]

Analysis of ‘Memento’ and How it Impacted My Screenplay ‘Amygdala’

My screenplay: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SM-EqRAisszWltuZg--KBPkexH8An4MYlyQoXKdOick

Christopher Nolan's 'Memento' provides unique aspects to the screenplay, presenting a narrative which is essentially told in reverse and holds classic tropes to its genre. While studying its screenplay, I gathered a range of knowledge on how scripts can be formed and executed, in addition to how to elevate their creativity. These assisted in developing my own screenplay called 'Amygdala'; focusing on a young man volunteering for a scientific experiment to help conquer his fears which proves to be challenging.

Firstly, 'Memento' is perceived as an innovative screenplay when observing its story and theme; meaning an accounting of events of the narrative, which are connected with a set of values. The story shown follows Leonard Shelby, who is suffering from Short Term Memory loss after being attacked by a man classified as 'John G', seeking revenge for his wife who he believes was murdered in the same attack. However, he faces obstacles as he cannot keep a grasp of reality due to his inability to grasp memories. The narrative's logline demonstrates the film's values; Memory, Identity, Personal Expedition and Revenge, which can be tied together to illustrate more developed observations of the film which are known as the themes. To elaborate, one can conjugate the values provided when breaking down the story to identify the theme of 'Expedition of Revenge destroying Identity'. This suggested theme holds a syntax which correlates with 'Memento', demonstrating the significance of themes and story in dissecting the screenplay. These underlying themes are important as 'When thematic statements become the central organizing principle of a screenplay, they can serve as an analytical tool for reading and evaluating for coherence and unity' [1], thus, it is the themes stemmed from the values which grant opportunities to understand cinematic text in an advanced manner by becoming critical approaches. One sequence which displays this theme is the one in which Leonard and his companion, Teddy, are discussing his work on 'John G'; inviting the values of Revenge and Identity into the sequence. The technique of dialogue is used to convey the themes illustrated here; Leonard states that he is determined to catch 'John G' as he 'Took away my [his] memory. He destroyed my [his] ability to live'. When Teddy tells him he is still living, Leonard retorts with 'Only for revenge', thus, underlying the theme in question as Leonard now believes his only reason for living is to achieve his revenge. It is also important that here, the theme is represented in his ideology. This is significant as the narrative allows opportunity for this ideology to change since 'every story is ultimately a record of value-changes' [2], therefore, the themes of the film are held together by the ideology and values associated with them which can change. We find this theme being developed when we learn that Leonard has spent the film's plot chasing a man whom he has already killed, but because he cannot remember it, Teddy has used him to kill other criminals by letting Leonard believe they are 'John G'. Teddy tells Leonard that he 'gave him a reason to live', which echoes the previous statement Leonard gave on only living for revenge. Teddy has granted Leonard a purpose orientated around a vendetta which Leonard invests his life in, despite being false and not connected to Leonard's past. One must consider that the conversation in the café chronologically takes place after this reveal of information but the non-linear structure exchanges the order in order to heighten dramatic effect. As a result, the values of Revenge and Identify have been changed in the screenplay's structure on the spectator's part; they have realised that Leonard is trapped in a repetitive cycle of his false expedition which is stealing his original identity. After doing so, they are left to question the goal and existence of these values as Leonard is unable to do so. Overall, story and themes are significant to the screenplay in representing the film's core areas for analysis. They cooperate to elevate the screenplay with relation to the critical or analytical conversations it can generate, thus, defining Nolan's skills of writing a screenplay with cohesive thematic structure.

In addition to this, the form of which 'Memento' takes offers evaluations to be made in order to understand the film and its screenplay. By form, we are referring to the cinematic elements which combine to perform the complete systems (cues) spectators experience when viewing. These elements consist of many aspects such as the literary design of the story ideas, the visual design of mise-en-scene and cinematography. These elements are essential ingredients to establishing a film, such as 'Memento', with cinematic credit, specifically demonstrating the rhythmic progression of the plot. Rhythm is key to the execution of a screenplay because 'the aim of rhythm is to provide a unity of experience' [3], thus, a screenwriter has created a successfully entertaining film if the narrative follows a precise rhythm. This comes from 'a creation of patterns within the narrative' [4] and one significant pattern 'Memento' uses lies in the props of the photographs Leonard takes to provide visual marks he needs to remember. The photographs represent important sights or people and some have notes on the back, thus, they are a vital prop to the film in serving as Leonard's memory. Their purpose provides a pattern to the film's plot: any time an important person or place comes into Leonard's life, he captures it on camera and solidifies its importance. As a result, spectators are conditioned to observe the film using this pattern represented in the props to identify characters that will influence what happens in the story. In addition to this, the notes on the back provide clues or predictions that will be developed later on, thus, engendering anticipation and assumptions in the viewer, also feeding into the pattern of the narrative as seeing the photograph on screen with the notes signifies the assumptions. Overall, the narrative is grafted within these photographs by gathering up as a motif of significant stages and developments of the plot.

These props used in 'Memento' which serve as a narrative element also correspond with the film's conventional genre, that is, they convey how a 'screenwork is a set of disparate images' [5].  The film's genre can be classified as a psychological crime thriller after observing the previous logline and the values it demonstrates. There are psychological aspects with the value of memory and how the plot is orientated around Leonard's thought processes. Furthermore, he is trying to solve the crime of his attack and wife's 'murder' in a journey which elicits moods of suspense and anticipation. The photographs Leonard takes during his expedition not only consist of places and people he needs to remember, but also evidence of what he has done, echoing pictures taken of a crime scene. Spectators also observe Leonard taking photographs of crimes he has committed, such as the murder of the real John G which took place before the plot. Therefore, the photographs are not only important in engendering a rhythmic pattern in the plot as an element of form, but they also act as visual codes to the psychological crime thriller as the film's genre; acting as the 'disparate images' to the screenplay to highlight genre. Furthermore, genre is significant to the screenplay of 'Memento' in terms of giving it a structure to be written in, despite the non-linear narrative, which is also linked with the style of the film. Screenwriting relies on 'the combination of genre and style' as it 'provides the unifying framework for all...narrative elements' [6], thus, the conventions which convey the crime thriller genre such as the photographs are vital in defining what is featured in the screenplay with relation to mise-en-scene and plot events. To elaborate, writing a crime genre screenplay such as 'Memento' would require specific sequences and characters which correlate with that genre in question, for example, a villain character type who needs to be brought to justice in a climatic sequence. As a result, there is some level of a structure to the screenplay which can still be identified by both the writer and the spectators watching the final picture. This can be made evident when observing Leonard's hunt for 'John G' to bring him to his interpretation of justice, in the form of a murderous vendetta. The screenplay can be structured with the possibility of a successful capture of 'John G', which can be predicted by spectators as they observe his expedition which in turn provokes the moods of anticipation a thriller needs from an audience. Nolan provides a unique aspect to the structure of a crime thriller screenplay with 'Memento' using the non-linear narrative to play with ideas of when this plot event will take place. As the sequences are displayed in a non chronological or reverse presentation, spectators will undergo a different experience when watching Nolan's take on a psychological crime story, in terms of not being able to predict when which conventional event to a crime thriller; the capturing of the criminal, will take place. The reveal to spectators that Leonard actually fulfilled his revenge against 'John G', who fulfils the role of the villain or criminal, before the spectators were invited to experience the narrative is an example of this innovative experience. Audiences are not granted the chance to witness John G being brought to justice by the protagonist as a plot event because of the value of memory and mental health conveyed in Leonard, thus, elevating how the screenplay of 'Memento' provides a diverse take on the crime thriller genre.

Gathering all the previous identifications and analyses of the screenplay of 'Memento', I was able to draw inspiration from it when developing my own screenplay 'Amygdala' with relation to themes stemmed from values and cinematic techniques. To elaborate, the themes involving personal expedition and identity were significant to me in writing my screenplay, creating a mirroring between the protagonist of Leonard and my own named Xander. Similar to Leonard's journey throughout the plot to fulfil his goal of justice to regain some of his identity despite his memory issues, Xander undergoes his own personal journey of combating his deepest phobias in order to receive some development to his identity. There is a psychological aspect to both of these summaries; 'Memento' with memory or mental disorders and 'Amygdala' with phobias; psychology being a framework which captures my attention and creativity.  Progressing this further, one value of 'Memento' is reality which clashes with memory; creating the theme of 'Memory influencing Reality' and this is presented in the same café sequence the theme involving expedition/revenge and identity is. Leonard articulates how 'Memory's not perfect....[they] can be distorted. They're just an interpretation. They're not a record', thus, conveying how he does not trust memories because he feels they manipulate reality. This ideology is echoed in 'Amygdala' with relation to the motif of the simulations Xander experiences. When facing his first phobia of germs (Mysophobia); manifested in a mirrored reflection of him covered in dirt, that contrasts with his real clean self, it is realising that the germs are exaggerations in his mind which help him defeat it. He then struggles to combat his biggest phobia of abandonment on the first try because he becomes overwhelmed and believes it's real, only to be told by doctors to find an anchor in how it isn't reality and is 'all in his head'. Once he processes this, he faces this phobia manifested in a simulation version of his mother telling him she is leaving and conquers it by firmly telling her she won't leave him. This conveys the presence of reality and illusion in both screenplays as they not only fight each other but also merge in the process. Furthermore, props and visual design to progress the story was also present in my work caused by the influence of Nolan's 'Memento'. Likewise to Leonard's photographs of things to remember with the notes highlighting significant narrative events and information to spectators, my protagonist comes across photos and notes in his simulations which share insight into his story and identity. The photograph of his parents with the father's face scratched out placed next to the note from his mother which informs him she is leaving serve as vital examples of mise-en-scene assisting narrative, similar to Leonard's photos. This is because they explain events which have happened before the plot but are still important to understanding the story and Xander's character; he has a phobia of abandonment from his mother after his father did the same. This is all revealed to spectators through the props of the photo and letter, echoing how information of characters in 'Memento' is hinted at using the props of the notes and generates anticipation and assumptions. In addition to this, both examples of visual elements are representations of the psychological states of the protagonists; Leonard relies on his example of props as he cannot trust his own mind and Xander repressed phobias is what causes the props to exist. Overall, 'Memento' impacted the development of my screenplay by providing ideas related to themes and how to express them using cinematic styles.

Word Count: 2,195

Footnotes

[1]. Screenplayology, 2.5-Theme and Ideology, 2.5.5-Analysis and Interpretation

[2]. Screenplayology, 2.5-Theme and Ideology, 2.5.3-Broad vs Specific Themes

[3]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Philip Parker, Rhythm and Tempo, Page 132, 1998,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[4]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Phillip Parker, Rhythm and Tempo, Page 132, 1998 ,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[5]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Phillip Parker, Explorations of Genre and Style, Page 151, 1998,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

[6]. The Art and Science of Screenwriting by Phillip Parker, Explorations of Genre and Style, Page 151, 1998,Intellect Books,15 Feb 2006

#memeto #christopher nolan #film #film essay #film analysis #screenwriting #screenspirit #mise en scene #film studies #Film Criticism #screenplay #screenplay analysis

[screenspirit]

Maya Deren’s Position and Ability in Avant Garde Cinema

Maya Deren stands as an important figure in the Avant-garde cinema due to her innovative style of filmmaking, presenting her own expression using unique film techniques such as editing and camera angles, predominately her 1943 film ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’. This piece of experimental cinema can be compared to Jean Cocteau’s ‘Blood of a Poet’, released in 1932 and Sergei Eisenstein’s 1925 montage theory film ‘Strike!’, with relation to how they use editing and subject matter to portray the filmmaker’s vision. 

Deren’s ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ comes under the title of an Experimental film due to its ability to re-evaluate cinematic conventions and innovate use of film techniques; these characteristics combine in the film to create a personal expression of psychology in addition to one of the most important pieces of Experimental film. One crucial re-evaluation of conventions in the Avant-garde is its “rejection of linear narrative” which serves as “a defining feature of the independent cinema” [Sitney, 1978], however, Deren’s ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ does seem to offer a story which its spectators can follow to an extent; the female protagonist, played by Deren herself, experiences a dream involving her encounters with a mysterious cloaked figure and doubles of herself. Despite this, the film presents the motif of repetition which serves in supressing a linear narrative because the plot is not shown to progress forward based on the events but instead seems to go backwards as if stuck in time. The film’s visual content involves primarily the woman Deren is portraying repeating specific events such as walking to her house and picking up certain items all in continuous dreams, rather than existing in a reality where cause and effect are heavily present. Deren comments on the aspect of repetition in one of her critical essays and outlines its meaning, stating “the continuous act of repetition in which we are involved is like a strip of memory unrolling beneath the images of the film” which results in the creation of “the invisible underlayer of an implicit double exposure” [1960]. Overall, Deren is proposing spectators observe her work and others’ through relying on recalling from what they have seen previously in the film and using their memory to pay attention to detail and generating ideas, for Deren the “reprinting of scenes” ties in with the “prophetic context of deja-vu” [Deren, 1960]. One could argue that Deren has blended the features of mainstream and experimental cinema through ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ as it is often cited as the first presentation of a narrative in American Avant-garde and thus, is experimenting with ideas of clear storytelling in her art while still straying from mainstream cinematic ideals, impacting her role as a “founding force in the emergence of the avant-garde film movement in New York” [Petrolle and Wexman, 2005].

In addition to stripping the narrative of tight action and reaction, Deren also demonstrates experimenting with her style of editing in order to create the illusion of a fabricated world where logic and structure do not exist. The editing shown in the film allude to the idea of everything shown being a dream since “Cinematic techniques such as superimposition…and slow motion were ideally suited…for representing dreams…and mimicking its procedures of figuration” [Stam,1999] in Avant-garde cinema, one example being the scene where Deren’s character runs up the staircase for the second time when she has transcended deep into her dream. Deren shifts the editing of this shot from that of an ordinary presentation of speed to slow motion, thus, she is deliberately altering the use of temporal editing in order to enhance the surreal and dream environment in which her “narrative” exists in. Deren also plays with the element of space through the unique use of temporal editing as a way of heightening the dream like state of the film, shown in the immediate scene after she runs up the stairs in slow motion where we see the character move through a translucent black curtain which leads her through the window of the bedroom, clearly a non-coherent display of events as the staircase cannot lead to the window showing the outer exterior in reality. This relates to Deren’s statement of “a major portion of the creative action consists of a manipulation of time and space” and this, to her, is the “organic structure of film” [1960], showing her vision on experimental cinema as breaking the traditions of continuity editing and narrative. Deren is further enhancing the theme of dreams in her work by experimenting with the film technique of editing and in turn, defies the very laws of physic as we know them in not only cinema but our own reality in which we exist in. The spectators may possibly relate to sub consciously experiencing an absence of grounded physics when they reflect to their own personal dreams in which time and space did not exist, thus, Deren is fulfilling her goal of constructing cinema which provides an experience in terms of making her audience reflect as well as confusing them. 

As Deren’s ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ can be interpreted to focus on one or two frameworks which is demonstrated through its editing and camera work, one could compare it to Eisenstein’s 1925 silent film ‘Strike!’ which also uses its editing and figures in order to create its meaning. Both directors use their style of editing as a device to convey meaning to their spectators but do so in diverse ways which allude to their visions as filmmakers. To elaborate, ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ has been argued to take a more psychological approach and uses techniques to make connections between the conscious and the unconscious as well as objects presented in the film, whereas ‘Strike!’ holds relevance to political ideas on relationships between the bourgeoise and the proletariat. Deren’s character comes across a collection of objects which take on the position of symbols once the previously mentioned repetition of sequences of which they are present in becomes prevalent. Artaud commented on this as “the most insignificant objects take on meaning” once the filmmaker “detaches them from their ordinary sense” [1966], supporting the connection of the inner objects and the outer meaning they represent. One of these objects is a key which is a reoccurring symbol in the film, it first appears when the character drops it trying to unlock a door and is handed between the doubles as the repetition carries out. To pinpoint this physical object to a psychological interpretation, one could consider how it can be a manifestation of the acts of liberating or concealing when journeying into the unconscious depending solely on how the object is used in the film. When the key is used at first to unlock the door into the house where the character falls asleep and the action of the dreams take place, it can represent descending into an exploration into the unconscious; a process of the mind holding our deepest desires which serves as a highlight to the Psychoanalysis theory and thus opening the liberation of the inner workings of the character’s mind. The spectator can perceive both the key and the door in connection to how they would in reality; you need the key to the door to unlock it, in order to generate the connecting symbolism in terms of the key being needed to unlock the door which hides the unconscious. It is due to the psychologist Freud’s belief that “the dream is the liberation of the spirit from the pressures of external nature” [1900] that is connection between the film and this framework can be proposed. However, one must remember that Deren herself rejected Freud’s Psychoanalysis to be the framework of which one interprets her work but did describe the film as being “concerned with the interior experiences of an individual”. Furthermore, Deren’s editing and camerawork allude to the psychological and dream orientated tone the film holds. This is evident in the slow motion of movement and use of disoriented shots and camera movements showing the windows and bedrooms, emphasising the surreal dream mood as nothing seems to be coherent and structured. Eisenstein offers a different interpretation of how cinema should be constructed, arguing that “shot and montage are the basic elements of cinema” [1949] and serving as a pioneer of the Soviet Montage Theory as well as owning visions of Communism. ‘Strike!’ appears to be a successful blend of these ideals as its narrative, which differs from that of ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ as it is strictly linear, focuses on the working-class rebelling against the oppression of the upper class and showcases these mostly through montage. The most noticeable of this is the climatic sequence which present the violent acts of the strike compared to that of the slaughtering of cows in order to convey a message. The editing style of cross-cut; editing which presents two events taking place in different environments but at the same time, is used in the montage with the shots switching from the working class being beaten by authorial figures to cattle being killed by farmers as Eisenstein is making connections between the worker and the cattle. His message is that the proletariat are nothing more than animals grown to provide one purpose for those who “own them”; the upper class and upholders of law are represented by the farmers, and this connects to his Communist ideology of the working class being oppressed. The editing style of cross cutting montage is vital for his ideals as his message is absorbed as the “realisation is in the repetition of these measures” [1949], meaning Eisenstein believes that only through montage connecting images in shots can a meaning be successfully transferred to audiences. This is known as Associational Form and is frequently used in Avant-garde cinema when attempting to demonstrate similarities or differences which conjoin to a larger meaning. It also ties in with one of Eisenstein’s five modes of montage known as Intellectual montage since the linkage of shots represents a political statement. Deren’s editing and shots are not politically motivated as Eisenstein’s are, nor are they as grounded since Eisenstein’s events in ‘Strike!’ are taking place in a brutal reality whereas events in ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ are happening in an unearthly fantasy deep in the character’s unconscious. 

Critics have proposed that Deren found inspiration for ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ in Cocteau’s 1932 experimental film ‘Blood of a Poet’ due to both pictures exploring the interior workings of a subject character’s mind. Cocteau’s work has been praised for how it “bridges the transition from avant-garde cinema centred in Paris to one dominated by America” [Sitney,1978], thus, Cocteau shares with Deren credit for introducing new ideas to the Avant-garde. In addition to this, both films study the unconscious through an oneiric style, elevated using camera work shown. Cocteau focuses on depicting the torment of the artist as he is sent by a statue into a surreal environment through the object of a mirror, one could argue Deren’s use of the door mirrors this as a gateway into the unconscious as it is through this accession the spectators are taken into the dream state alongside the characters. Both filmmakers seem to be altering objects from our reality which have normal uses into tools that are needed to study the unconscious in their cinematic expressions, granting them to have a transcendent purpose. The two convey the process of transferring between conscious states through their choice of camera work which coincides with how the subjects move. Cocteau chooses to have his camera more grounded and bold as with how his character moves between states, for example the shot that shows him falling through the mirror is sudden and sharp with a water effect and followed by shots of his still body floating in darkness with the camera remaining steady. Deren contrasts with this as her character moves through the halls of her unconscious as her body turns multiple times which matches the camera angle turning with her, this emphasises the gradual loss of reality as everything appears to slip into the fantasy. Both sequences depict the conscious altering into the subconscious but differ in the process as Corteau’s techniques appear to be more focused rather than disorientated likewise to Deren’s. 

To conclude, Deren presents influence in both style and content from Coreau and a contrast to Eisenstein under the same aspects, all while solidifying herself as a name in the cinema of Avant-garde. Her vision of film shows her identity and sense of expression using her stylised take on cinematic techniques that outline Experimental film characteristics, showing how she has taken elements from Avant-garde films before her and re-designed them under her own presence as a filmmaker.

Bibliography: The Avant-garde film: a reader of theory and criticism, P.Adams Sitney, New York University Press, 1978 Sorcery and Cinema Essay, Antonin Artaud, 1966, found in The Avant-garde film: a reader of theory and criticism, New York University Press, 1978 Daedauls, Cinematography: The Creative Use of Reality Essay, Maya Deren, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1960 Women and Experimental Filmmaking, Jean Petrolle, Virgina Wexman, University of Illinois Press, 2005 Film Theory: An Introduction, Robert Stam, John Wiley & Sons; First Edition edition, 1999 The Interpretation of Dream, Sigmund Freud, 1900, Basic Books; Later Edition edition, 2010 Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, Sergei Eisenstein, 1949, Mariner Books; First edition, 2014

#avantgarde #experimental cinema #maya deren #film essay #film analysis #film criticism #meshes of the afternoon #blood of a poet #jean cocteau #psychoanalysis #sergei eisenstein #marxism #strike #meaning in film #women in film #feminist cinema

[screenspirit]

personal stories and memories in the avantgarde

Avant-Garde offers distinct artistic strategies that can be steered to hold aesthetic representations of the filmmaker's mindset and objectives set when creating the film. To elaborate, some experimental filmmakers choose their aesthetic strategies in relation to how well they highlight experiences they aim to convey through their work, one particular example being their personal stories and memories, which they use as stimuli for Avant-Garde films. Two prominent examples of this idea in Avant-Garde are Jay Rosenblatt's Phantom Limb, a communication of the filmmaker's experience and growth surrounding his younger brother's death and Su Friedrich's Sink or Swim which articulates how the filmmaker's relationship with her father impacted her outlook on her childhood and personal identity. Both these films draw on the filmmakers' subjective memories on their past events which serve as their works' narratives, all conveyed through the stylistic devices which highlight their position in Avant-Garde cinema.

One crucial artistic strategy used by both filmmakers which assists in elevating their anecdotes presented in their narratives is the use of found footage as the imagery. Rosenblatt and Friedrich both rely on shots and sequences that have been previously filmed by someone else and through the use of editing and placement, tell their own story through found footage, conveying how they partake in first-person filmmaking where everything shown is 'overtly filtered' by their 'sensibility and 'point of view' [Rascoroli, 2009]. It is this artistic choice of structuring personal films through recycled sequences that serves as a distinct bridge between the Avant-Garde and the documentary, emphasised by Rascaroli who states how 'their foregrounding of autobiography and their expression of authorial subjectivity position them in between...that of the Avant-Garde...and that of first person documentary' [2009]. Therefore, these filmmakers are expressing their own autobiographies through a combination of Avant-Garde and documentary style, with found footage being one primal artistic choice. Friedrich's example of use of found footage connotes heavily to her personal memories of her father and childhood, exemplified in one of the earliest sequences shown in the film titled 'Witness', in which spectators see shots of a father holding his young daughter in what appears to be a home movie. Rosenblatt mirrors this in his film by, after presenting an opening piece of text informing the audience that he lost his brother when he was young, showing personal home movies of him and his younger brother from their childhood as a visual opening to his storytelling. Both these examples fulfil the purpose of building up context and introductions to the filmmakers' individual and personal narratives and their themes; Rosenblatt's story of loss by visually articulating what he had before his brother's death and Friedrich is introducing ideas of parenthood and childhood using her images of parents interacting with their children. Taking this choice in source of footage into account when observing ideas of memory and personal stories, one can identify the filmmakers' objectives because 'home movies have much the same status as family photographs as regards of temporal reference' and thus, 'offer image of the past of individual shown' [Turim, 1989], thus, both filmmakers are using footage they did not capture themselves to present past events which connect to their narratives. This aesthetic strategy causes the sequences to immediately hold a personal and unique characteristic to it since spectators are observing what should be private moments in a young family's life that have been captured on film for nostalgia and memorial purposes. As a result, identification of the filmmakers' memories and stories can be easily distinguished since they are using found footage from the past to build up the narratives.  

Found footage as an aesthetic decision provide an articulation on the contextual situations relating to the story telling and with separate motives with relation to emotional responses and cognitive approaches to their work. Roseblatt's example of recycled footage showing his brother before his passing is working to drive emotions of sadness and sympathy from his audience because he is allowing them to witness the memories he has of his brother visually through the shots shown and they will later observe Roseblatt's experiences following his brother's death such as the funeral and healing process. As a result of this, they will recall back to the opening sequence of the film and find themselves sharing the feelings of sadness Rosenblatt must be experiencing since the home movies allowed them to see a minor example of what the filmmaker has lost. Friedrich, however, is aiming to produce a separate example of sympathy towards her personal story using her recycled footage. Her spectators will take in the imagery of the father holding his young daughter and identify its associations with family and child development since relationships and bonds with parental figures are credentials in a child's early life. It is these connections the audience have made from observing this example of found footage in the film that will assist in creating emotional responses of pity towards Friedrich when they later see such articulations as her parents' divorcing and father leaving through voice overs. The spectators will then think back to the recycled footage of the father and daughter and feel sympathy towards Friedrich as her family has broken up and she may no longer have interactions demonstrated in the home movies. Thus, both examples of found footage in the films are soon laced with specific emotions which assist in building the filmmakers' personal stories since they are showcasing their past which hold significance to their story telling.

It is this concern with the past that serves as a key element to the recycled footage aspect of the Avant-Garde, it provides an opportunity for experimental filmmaker's to demonstrate their creativity because they are taking fragments of film that were captured for one reason and editing them into their own narrative. Usually the past is engaged within film through the temporal editing technique of a flashback which helps to 'merge the two levels [shared and recorded] of remembering the past' and used in the Avant-Garde as an 'element in creating an expressive manipulation of the image and filmic montage' [Turim, 1989], thus, they are a device which break  current narrative time shown which bridges the past with the present. However, Rosenblatt and Friedrich have instead placed their examples of footage connected from the past in the openings of their films in a chronological structure in order to provide their spectators with ideas of their past which will benefit how they interpret the events they witness in the upcoming sequences. This mirrors the use of flashbacks as a device because it coheres the story and elevates character development since spectators observe events in the film subjects’ lives which affect their character. Furthermore, the past and how it is demonstrated holds connections to one's memory which can be explained as 'a system of storing and retrieving information’ [Baddeley, 1997]. This means that how the filmmakers offer their own interpretations of events psychologically stored in their memories through the already recorded footage which the memories are visually stored in, linking back to Turim’s claim of the two levels of recalling the past which are coinciding with one another to structure the filmmakers’ personal based narratives and conveying further emphasis on how important the artistic strategy of found footage.

Friedrich emphasises the presence of personal stories heavily and consistently throughout her film, combining her story with those of her mother and father which all share connections and influences with one another. Friedrich's story is clearly the focus of the narrative, highlighted in a majority of the sequences such as the one titled 'Journalism' in which a series of experimental techniques combine to convey the story and its themes. One of these is the voiceover that plays over the images shown; a young girl, who is telling Friedrich's story throughout the film, shares with the audience how Friedrich was given a diary when she was young in which she wrote down her stories, thoughts and secrets. One can interpret the symbolism of the diary as a manifestation of Friedrich documenting and expressing her personal story, as a diary consists of one's 'record of facts and events...own impressions, ideas, sensations, self analysis and reflection' [Rascaroli, 2009]. A diary also mirrors the epistolary novels of the 18th century, a genre consisting of novels telling stories through letters and journaling which takes 'interest in individuality and the inner self' and a phase of 'deep transformation and great expansion' [Rascaroli, 2009]. The Avant-Garde is a cinematic style which draws inspiration from other mediums of art, particularly 'relating to the fields of literature' which it 'pays homage to and finds inspiration in' [Rascaroli, 2009]. Therefore, the diary mentioned throughout this sequence of the film links with how Friedrich is presenting her story of her parental relationships and childhood as well as conveying the influence literature as a medium holds on Avant-Garde cinema and how its incorporated into it.

The childhood aspect is emphasised using the footage of young girls playing in a playground; a further example of filmic techniques used to elevate narrative ideas since the images connect to the voiceover articulating an event in childhood. The voice over then mentions how Friedrich's parents divorced and this serves as the pivotal point in the narrative and a painful memory Fredrich documents in her diary, which we are told is erased by her mother as it was written in pencil. Here, Friedrich is drawing ideas of different levels of memory which coincide with Turim's claim on recorded and shared past. Her mother may be able to erase the physically recorded presentation of Friedrich's memory of the divorce kept in the diary yet is unable to do so to the storage of it in her daughter's mind, thus, conveying ideas of memory and personal stories in Friedrich's narrative with relation to how they are documented and interpreted.

In addition to this, Friedrich develops the memory of her parents' divorce by combining events she can recall that serve as their personal stories and memories. Friedrich first does this in the sequence titled as 'Ghosts'; a calling which holds connotation to figures of the past haunting individuals connected to them which alludes to the idea of memory and the past throughout the film, where the shots are of a letter addressed to Friedrich's father being written by her on a typewriter. This links to the previous connection between the Avant-Garde and literature, specifically this film and the form of an epistolary novel since a letter is being used as the source of articulation of events. The use of the letter as a stylistic strategy is effective in that it elevates the personal element to Friedrich's work, mirroring the symbolism of the diary and allowing further insight into her deepest emotions at this point of her story and thus progresses the development of that personal story. In this letter, the spectators learn more on how the separation is impacting Friedrich's mother when Friedrich writes about how she watched her mother spend most nights alone and crying while listening to a song called 'Gretchen at the Spinning Wheel'; an articulation on loss of a loved one which coincides with the experience both the mother and Friedrich are experiencing yet this particular communication is tied more with the mother. Here, Friedrich has captured one parental figure's personal story in the film in which the medium of music is how her mother expresses her emotions, with lyrics such as 'Where I do not have him/That is the grave/The whole world is bitter to me' [Schubert, 1814] which link to the experience of a break up whereas her daughter does so in writing and later filmmaking. The letter ends with a statement made by Friedrich on how difficult it is coping with the 'conflict between memory and the present', therefore, Friedrich is emphasising how the positive memories she has of her parents does not match what is taking place in the present time, specifically when watching her mother cry and this must be creating emotions of bitterness and grief within her. This conveying of her mother's story is connected to Friedrich's memory of having to witness her mother go through this and this memory is then incorporated into the personal story shown in her work. The memory of watching her mother go through this while writing it in the letter must bring these emotions forward and in turn connects the feelings and memory as one. Baddeley highlights this when stating 'anything experienced in a given mood will tend to be recalled when that mood is reinstated' [1997], thus memories and events in a story are tied with emotions that echo them.  The audience observe this in the later sequence 'Drinking' where Fredrich communicates how watching her half sister and father interact reminds her of her memories of her childhood with him as 'her childhood was being played out in front of her'. Friedrich then adds her father's personal story during the 'Envy' sequence in which the voice over articulates how her father wrote poems to express his own emotions towards Friedrich and the situation. The poetry as a medium echoes Friedrich's diary, letter and filmmaking in addition to the mother's choice of music, thus, elevating personal stories being compressed into different formats of artistic medium with the experimental film being the overarching form since Friedrich has collected all mediums implied in her Avant-Garde work.

Rosenblatt encapsulates his personal story in 'Phantom Limb' through the use of a sound in a voice over which articulates stages of healing from grief. The eighth sequence in the film, titled as 'Advice', consists of shots of a sheep being shaved while a voice over offers a list of ways parents can deal with the grief that comes with a child passing away, for example 'Know you are not alone' and 'Cry'. The advice given by the voice over could also be useful for Rosenblatt himself and therefore he is expressing his story through the use of a voice over which assists in highlighting his experience dealing with his brother's death; the voice over elevates and presents the process that comes with the film's overlining themes of loss and grief which have served as major developments in Rosenblatt's personal narrative. This is highlighted by Turim who articulates how the use of a voice over can 'reinforce visual cues representing a return to the past' and that 'verbal story telling can ease temporal shifts through sustaining power of the narrative voice' [1989], linking with Rosenblatt's ability to bring his past through to spectators using Avant-Garde film techniques such as sound. The pieces of advice communicated through the voice over are also connected to memories Rosenblatt must have of how he initially dealt with losing his brother because he would have heard this advice and carried it out, such as spending time crying and with other grieving family members, therefore, memories of this stage in Rosenblatt's story are being implied as well. Since one would associate the advice mainly with how Rosenblatt's parents dealt with their youngest son's death since it is directed to grieving parents, Rosenblatt is mirroring how Friedrich incorporated the personal stories of those around her in her art in relation to her experience of her childhood and with her parents' divorce; Rosenblatt and his parents are going through the same experience in losing a loved one but are experiencing it in a diverse way considering the relationship they had with that person. Rosenblatt's use of the voice over in this sequence helps to highlight not only his personal narrative but also that of his parents, both are tied with ideas of loss, pain and healing, thus, his artistic strategies are conveying multiple perspectives on the same event in addition to provoking diverse emotional responses from his spectators which are stemmed from whether they are a parent or sibling.

Furthermore, Rosenblatt's further use of recycled found footage also convey his personal story of grief and loss, specifically the third sequence 'Sorrow' which shows footage of several people crying at events such as funerals. This sequence emphasises how Rosenblatt as an experimental filmmaker has incorporated already filmed shots into his own personal film as an artistic way of presenting his past story through found footage and in turn has offered spectators his perspective on the experience of grief. Rosenblatt is visually representing aspects of his own personal story through these emotionally charged shots of people in the process of grief he did not capture himself by editing them to follow the home movies of him and his late brother, thus, highlighting the stage of this experience through the images of people crying for a loved one. He is manifesting himself in this recycled footage as spectators would recall back to the footage of him and his younger brother and the text stating he then lost this brother and the sequence of grieving people will be connected to him despite it not being his own footage. Therefore, Rosenblatt is establishing his presence as an experimental filmmaker who is able to edit footage not belonging to him to make it an artistic expression of his personal experiences in life, the artistic strategy of recycled footage has been edited and conditioned to serve as a representation for Rosenblatt's objective of articulation and story telling and therefore, demonstrates how personal stories can be told effectively in the Avant-Garde.

To bring forth a conclusion, both Rosenblatt and Friedrich effectively express their individual personal stories and memories in their work through the use of experimental techniques such as found footage, voice overs and inclusions of other artistic mediums such as literature. Spectators are given several interesting cues to associate the idea of the past with specific motifs such as family bonds and loss. Their choice in aesthetic strategies boldly represent their ideal expression and articulation of what memories and stories they aim to communicate to their spectators. 

Bibliography: Human Memory: Theory and Practise, Baddeley Alan, Psychology Press; 2 edition (28 April 1997) Flashback in Film: Turim Maureen, Routledge, 1989 The Personal Camera: Subjective Cinema and the Essay Film, Rascaroli Laura, Wallflower Press; First Edition edition (31 Aug. 2009) Gretchen at the Spinning Wheel, Schubert Franz,  1814, Mentioned in Sink or Swin (1990)

#avantgarde #essays #criticism #film essay #experimental cinema #personal story #memory #meaning in film #film studies #film analysis #film

[screenspirit]

Helena Bonham Carter and Brad Pitt

Fight Club (1999)

[screenspirit]

Critical Approach Question: “A film can be re-interpreted depending on the choice of critical approach” How far have you found this to be true when applying one or more critical approaches to your chosen film? ’Fight Club’

Opening Paragraph

David Fincher’s 1999 gritty cult classic ‘Fight Club’ perpetuates a rather complex and multidimensional narrative under the influence of various critical approaches that can be appropriately applied to the film. It stars Edward Norton and Brad Pitt as two personalities constructed under the values of the contemporary society depicted in the picture who assist in implying interpretations of what the film’s central critical approach is such as identity, violence, materialism and gender representation . This in turn can alter the way spectators perceive the film due to how the prioritisation of the approaches differs based on the individual audience member and therefore causes the film to be re-interpreted depending on the critical approach that has been chosen to be focused on, which is what I am going to be analysing in the following essay.

Arguments/Areas 

Consumerism: The Narrator is a representation of the traditional stereotypical American citizen which the spectators can find a sense of personal representative in- he lives an over excessive lifestyle consisting of material items which he fills with false value. “That was not a bunch of stuff that got destroyed...it was ME [I’d like to thank the academy]” Ikea catalogue scene showing how he’s surrounded by material items that have become his personality. Project Mayhem plotting to blow up credit card companies. “All the debt gets erased”. Tyler Durden is the manifestation of an escape mechanism from the overwhelming emphasis on corporate America and is the complete opposite to the Narrator in the sense he rejects consumption and leaves a lifestyle that lacks material items e.g. his thrift store jacket and decaying house “I reject all the assumptions of civilisation especially the importance of material items” “I am free in all the ways you are not". Interpretation of the film is that it is satire on the modern and illogical value of consumerism in America and is attacking those who live a lifestyle similar to the Narrator (Fincher used to work in commercials so there is irony and a personal element in the attack)

Identity and Duality: Narrative grafts itself on two polar opposite characters, one respecting the laws and values of society and one who rebels against them. The Narrator’s real name is never revealed and he takes on numerous alias in the support group to conceal his identity from the members and the audience. He subconsciously creates the alter ego identity of Tyler Durden which is shown through David Fincher’s technique of one frame flashes acting as a subliminal message, the photocopying scene (“everything is a copy of a copy”), Doctor office scene, Testicular support group scene and after Narrator formally meets Marla. Tyler is the Narrator’s shadow figure and a mental archetype representing all the qualities the narrator represses in his daily life- Jungian Psychology. The Narrator starts off polite and well mannered which our society expects and praises but after the inevitable growth of fight club in a physical and metaphorical sense, he becomes more rough and physical. “I used to be such a nice guy”. He beats himself up to threaten his boss and get him fired. His costume becomes stained with blood and swollen face makeup to execute this transformation from sophisticated and white collar, identical to every other corporate worker to bruised and beaten which he wears with pride (Chuck Palahniuk came up with the story after getting beaten up but his bruises were ignored by co-workers who didn't care). Interpretation is that the film depicts an exploration into the human subconscious and what it is capable of creating after the repetitive cycle of a trite and tedious modern life. 

 Violence: The violence that swarms through the fight club allows the masculine shadow side to vent. The group hug from the support group is replaced with overwhelming and graphic acts of men beating each other changing the film’s overarching symbol of the modern man. The males turn to violence in a desperate attempt to reawaken the senses that have been dulled and watered down by their quotidian existences and corporate jobs. “A guy you met at Fight Club wasn’t the same guy you met on the streets”. “A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough, after a few weeks he was carved out of wood.” The setting of the basement is a visual representation of a place where men can experience a true sense of ‘being’ and provides a space in which they can transcend the reality of their lifestyle, contrasts to the setting of the office with its high key lighting making it appear unsaturated and dull. Narrator brutally beats Angel Face demonstrates how excessive violence can cause a lack of control over one’s interactions with others, micro elements of cinematography and editing- camera is placed beneath Narrator in low angle shot to make him appear powerful and threatening (something that has been given to him through violence and fighting). “I wanted to destroy something beautiful”. Interpretation is that it is a presentation on violence and how it impacts and alters those who partake in it. Review by Robert Ebert:”a celebration of violence” and Megan Koester:”brutality they exercise on each other is borderline pornography”. 

Gender Representation: Marla Singer is the only female presence in the film but what she stands for is adequate enough to counteract and make up for the severe lack of female presence. Macro element of character representation. She invades the support group where the Narrator seeks refuge and comfort to eliminate his insomnia and this symbolises her invading his security with his masculinity and altering  how he perceives himself and makes him insecure. She is found in his mancave and replaces his spirit animal, highlighting how she is infecting his masculine identity. “If I did have a tumour, I would name it Marla”. She has the power to make the Narrator simultaneously despise her and feel unable to ignore her presence, “the little scratch on the root of your mouth that would heal if only you would stop tonguing it but you can’t”. She is brought into the film as a foil character, developed to completely contrast the protagonist’s personality in order to exemplify specific qualities that the protagonist has and lacks which she possesses. She verbally castrates the Narrator in defence of why she has the right to attend support groups which he attempts to take away from her, “technically I have more of a right to be there than you...you still have your balls”. Marla serves as the catalyst to the Narrator’s dissociation and Tyler appears because Marla represents the last descent into gatherer culture. Tyler Durden is seen as the ideal man with his good looks (pretty boy heartthrob Brad Pitt being cast to increase star quality, costume and makeup) , cool and collected persona and confidence to execute his masculine ways through fighting.This again acts as a physical representation of taunting the Narrator by highlighting what he lacks but longs for so badly which is why Tyler is constructed the way he is. “I look how you wanna look I fuck how you wanna fuck”, “I am free in all the ways you are not”. Tyler and Marla are constantly fighting over which sex has the most power, Tyler’s aggressive sexual intercourse with Marla where he objectifies her and makes her submissive but then Marla annoys the Narrator and expresses her sexuality over him by making him examine her breasts which makes him feel uncomfortable. Interpretation is that one sex has to have power over the other, the female can have an even amount of masculine and feminine qualities but the male can only have an excessive amount of one. 

Conclusion

Fight Club’s interesting narrative allows it to be analysed in a variety of ways by spectators due to the numerous critical approaches, these all network in with the various possibilities of how the film can be interpreted and what the overarching message of it is. The themes of the film are expressed successfully within the storyline as well as character representation and film techniques. 

#fight club #david fincher #film analysis #film essay #critical approach #tyler durden #marla singer #90s movies #essay plan #film studies #film theory #chuck palahniuk #brad pitt #edward norton #helena bonham carter #screenspirit

[screenspirit]

The Role of Mise-en-Scene in 'A Quiet Place'

In this essay, I shall be arguing that mise-en-scene plays just as an important role, or even a higher one, as sound in creating tone and emotional response in spectators with reference to the film ‘A Quiet Place’. I will do so by highlighting specific aspects of mise-en-scene, such as lighting and setting, presented in key sequences of the film and analyse how they function to communicate a predetermined tone and emotional response in the audience. I will then offer explanations as to how these said aspects hold an equal or greater amount of success in crafting these effects to that of sound, which is an element that the film is heavily praised for.

 First, one sequence to ‘A Quiet Place’ which uses mise-en-scene as a way of creating a specific tone is when the character Evelyn wakes up in the self-made sound proof basement and discovers that one of the creatures in also there, dangerously close to her new-born child. The overarching mise-en-scene aspect of this scene is lighting, which heavily serves in creating an atmosphere of tension combined with danger. To elaborate, the scene is that of hard lighting as there is a sharp edge to it but is coated with a display of flashing red (1&2), caused by Evelyn switching the normally neutral light bulbs to this colour as a signal for help and this works to create chiaroscuro which communicates the seriousness of the sequence. As a result of this, an undertone of threat and stress has been created because of how such a bold shade of red connotes to a warning of danger, which is extremely appropriate for this scene as Evelyn is seemingly trapped with a ferocious creature that is close to her sleeping baby. Therefore, mise-en-scene is working to build the objective tone of tension and fear, the audience then experience the emotions of terrifying anxiety because of how the lighting has been used to emphasise how the characters are no longer safe. ‘Film Art: An Introduction’ refers to the idea of how “an unexpected change in lighting may enhance a dramatic effect” which is present in this sequence, the change of lighting from neutral to red emphasises the dramatic effect of danger suddenly taking over.  

The switching between states of safety and danger is consistent in the film to elevate the horror genre conventions and is mostly done so with sound, such as alteration between eerie background music and then suspenseful silence, all to communicate tone to execute to the audience. However, here I have outlined how mise-en-scene serves the same function and can arguably overpower sound especially in this sequence. Lighting has a stronger presence than sound here and captures spectator’s attention; it acts as an emotional signifier of fear which is executed to spectators successfully, alerting them that this sequence of the film will not be one where the characters included are comfortable and out of harm’s reach.

 In addition to this, mise-en-scene also crafts tone alongside creating an emotional response within the element of performance. One sequence which I felt executed this strongly was the character Lee Abbot’s sacrifice of his life in order to save his children Reagan and Marcus, who are being attacked by one of the creatures. John Krasinski’s performance in this scene is unarguably the most prominent feature in terms of successfully building the scene’s tone, mostly because of how the emotions his character undergo during are captivated by his expressions and gestures and completely hold the spectator’s full attention. Firstly, the character uses sign language to tell his deaf daughter “I love you and then “I have always loved you", this creates a heavy affectionate tone which interrupts the film’s centre atmosphere of tension and suffocating suspense, therefore impacting the spectator a great amount because of this intense change in mood. 

 However, it holds bittersweet elements as this gesture of the character is being done because he is about to give his own life to protect his children’s and this will be the last time Reagan will see him sign this affectionate phrase. The addition of “I have always loved you” is just as impactful given the narrative context of Reagan feeling as if her father blames her for the death of her younger brother in the film’s opening, here Lee shows that this is not the case and the bittersweet tone is emphasised as Reagan has discovered this liberating truth too late. Krasinski elevates this further using his facial expression which can be described as a combination of tender and doleful, demonstrated by his tearful eyes, a hint of a smile and intense stare (4). Even small acts such as closing his eyes when he signs the word “always” convey the intensity of his love which adds to engendering emotional response and creating tone. These emotions are projected onto the audience due to how much focus is granted to the performance and they experience a feeling of melancholy towards the characters and situation, therefore the performance in this sequence is assisting in conveying the heart-breaking tone. Overall, Krasinski’s advanced performance in this scene serves to build a tragic atmosphere by expressing the character’s heartbreak at what he has to do for his children, the soulful piano music in the background communicates these emotions but performance is assisting and playing just as an important role by capturing spectators’ attention therefore making it significant.

 Furthermore, the choice of setting in ‘A Quiet Place’ is another element of mise-en-scene that is steered to produce and execute the film’s tone, most notably the fact that the setting can connote the idea of isolation. The film’s plot spends a vast majority of its time in the forest, except for a completely abandoned town in the opening, the setting of the forest can convey the lonesome atmosphere the films holds as it emphasises the family’s seclusion from civilisation and the normal procedure of interaction with others. Therefore, the film’s undertones of survival and a strong family dynamic has been highlighted because the setting of a forest as their habitat underlines how they need to depend on each other. The audience can connect to this secluded atmosphere and experience the feeling of existing outside of a normal society, demonstrating how mise-en-scene holds significance in establishing the tone of ‘A Quiet Place’ as well as the objective emotional response in spectators.

In addition to this, setting can also distinguish the separate tones of security and danger. This can be strongly identified in the sequence which shows Lee and his son Marcus sitting by a waterfall which secludes any sound they are making in that one area, making it safe for them to speak, consequently the previous mood of apprehension towards the creatures attacking that comes with being outside in the film’s universe has been eliminated. By placing the characters in such a protected environment, the film has now relocated the film from a plight where no sound can be made by the characters as the creatures can pick up on it, to a more secure atmosphere as loud sounds have been omitted by the waterfall. Consequently, there can be a significant juxtaposition between this scene and others based around the setting. For example, the sequence that takes place in the house where Reagan breaks a lamp which causes a loud noise and there is then an intense moment of waiting to see if the creatures are nearby. The silence serves as a key element in building suspense however the setting of the family home demonstrates the idea of the family being trapped which contributes to the atmosphere of danger, the setting of the waterfall allows safe verbal communication and therefore contrasts with the setting of the house in terms of safety and danger. The audience also experience this shift in tone and allow themselves to indulge in the tranquil atmosphere generated by the setting of the waterfall, therefore mise-en-scene is operating to project the characters’ state of minds of peace onto spectators. This conveys how the mise-en-scene of setting crafts tone in ‘A Quiet Place’, mainly the contrast between safety and endangerment, like how lighting does so in the basement sequence. I would argue that setting is working alongside sound in this sequence instead of overpowering it, because of how the two elements coincide with one another in highlighting the soothing tone. The setting of the waterfall serves as a sanctuary and allows sound to liberated as Lee and Marcus are given the opportunity to communicate their inner thoughts that are important to the film’s narrative; Reagan feeling as if her father blames her for the death of her brother. Therefore, the combination of sound and setting are being crafted to engender a guarded tone and relaxed emotional responses, however, I feel as if sound may receive more attention for causing these effects during this scene so here, I have argued how mise-en-scene is just as important in doing so.    

 Moreover, mise-en-scene plays a huge part in creating tone and emotional response during the sequence in which Evelyn is trapped in the basement with one of the creatures immediately after going into labour. This scene relies on the mise-en-scene aspects of setting and performance to accomplish the appropriate mood and execute it to spectators, sound is also rather important however I feel that the functions mise-en-scene present are just as adequate in crafting tone. Emily Blunt’s performance serves to successfully invoke emotional response, mostly sympathy from the audience. The character’s position during the scene is one of extreme struggle since she is experiencing the pain of labour as well as trying to hide from the creature to avoid death. Blunt conveys the emotions of distress and fear using her facial expressions and body; her eyes are wide, and her breathing is harsh as well as her face covered in tears and her mouth biting down onto her sleeve to prevent her cries of pain. These characteristics have the effect of causing the audience to feel sympathy as well as their own fear for the character, therefore mise-en-scene in the format of performance is elevating an emotional response in spectators and I feel, has a much stronger presence than sound. This is because Blunt’s performance captures spectators’ attention more than sound due to how advanced and central it is, although sound is an important element considering the character must remain silent throughout the scene, but it ties in mostly with the performance.  The setting of the sequence, the house’s basement, captivates the feeling of imprisonment because of how it underlines Evelyn’s restriction of a safe location. By placing the scene in the small basement, it works to engender an atmosphere of panic alongside danger, mostly because of how the setting of the basement is rather closed off and this has the effect of a severe lack of safety in the sequence. This also emphasises the audience’s triggered emotional response of fear and anxiety, alongside performance, because of how the audience can be placed in this claustrophobic feeling and the situation of being hunted down in a closed off location. Consequently, the alternation between safety and danger is once again present in ‘A Quiet Place’ as well as tone being established, all through an aspect of mise-en-scene.

   To conclude, sound in ‘A Quiet Place’ does hold significance in crafting tone and creating an emotional response, however aspects of mise-en-scene such as lighting, setting and performance should be acknowledged a great amount. This is because of how these elements combine and cooperate to communicate a determined tone to specific sequences in ‘A Quiet Place’. The aspects such as setting, and lighting can comply with each other effectively, for example the sound proof basement sequence which demonstrated hard, colour coded lighting combining with the setting of a flooding closed off location in order to create a scene full of tension and causing spectators to undergo emotions of fear and worry. Sound is still an important addition to carrying out the same functions as mise-en-scene, such as the consistent silence highlighting the altering moods of suspense and tranquillity, however, lighting and performance are just as effective in doing so. 

#film essay #essays #a quiet place #mise en scene #horror essay #horror #analysis #film analysis #cinema #film #setting #lighting #dialogue

[screenspirit]

"Visual effects are the main attraction for audiences"-Debate

avatar, 2009, dir: james cameron  

First of all, one explanation that supports this claim is that audiences have grown to have an interest in the development of technology shown within today’s films. This means that movie fans will only go and see a film that offers an advanced visual experience in order to observe whether or not the special effects are going to suspend belief. An example of this is a movie such as the 2013 box office hit Gravity, the company which made this project would have to provide the most realistic and ground breaking visual effects due to the fact that the film’s setting is in space. As this is a movie pitch that has been seen many times before, the visual effects team working on this film would have to upstand the special effects of previous movies revolving around space because this would attract a larger audience. Due to the hard work of the company, audiences would be mainly attracted to a film such as Gravity because they would want to find out if the filmmakers have set a new standard for visual effects in sci-fi movies and not necessarily for the plot.

Despite this, visual effects may not be the main attraction for audiences in terms of film as directors can also be considered a huge marketing success. The directors are the ones who turn a written idea into a global visual experience and there are several of them who are well known and apply to a variety of target audiences. Therefore, if the director of an upcoming film is popular then the chances of their latest work being seen by a large number of people is in their favour. This can be evident by the example of Steven Spielberg, who is one of the most recognisable names and faces in the directing industry, he applies to a large selection of interests of movie fanatics which has the effects of all his movies having an attractive appeal. Furthermore, directors have been around since the days of which visual effects were not as astounding as they are now and this means that majority of directors have a long term fan base who are loyal. Regardless of how spectacular the visual effects are, if a movie is brought to you by a well-known and respected director, then audiences will be instantly attracted to a film as they are a supporter of the director’s work.

However, the statement of visual effects being the supreme attraction for audiences can still be accurate because many people in today’s age enjoy seeing visually stunning films. If a movie has a solid set of special effects that are interesting to witness, then audiences will go and see the movie due to how advanced it looks. Some critics and everyday movie buffs would agree with the concept of “bigger is better” therefore they will only think that a movie is worth seeing if the visual effects are of a high standard. This argument can be developed further by suggesting that audiences have a desire to be blown away by what they see in a movie. This means that someone may go watch a movie because they want to feel an unforgettable experience provided to them by the visual effects. An example of this could be the movie Ben Hur (2016 remake) because it can propose the type of atmosphere that audiences are searching for in this idea. The chariot scene in this remake may shock audiences due to how spectacular the visual effects are as well as the aftermath they may have on viewers. As the scene was done with amazing special effects then audiences watching will be astounded and feel as if they are in the moment of the film because of how realistic the effects are. They make the scene impossible to ignore and all in all giving the audience a worthwhile experience that they will want to share with peer movie lovers.

On the other hand, a solid point that disproves the claim is that it is in fact an A-lister cast that holds the main attraction for movie fans. Similar to directors, many Hollywood actors have supporters of a large scale globally and this has the effect of any movie with themselves featured will be one of the main reasons anyone will see the film. Actors can appeal to children and also adults so a variety of ages will be interested in an upcoming role they are playing. In addition to that they are many actors that are associated with a discrete genre of film. If someone is a huge fan of comedy, then a movie with stars such as Seth Rogen or Kevin Hart for example, will be a movie that they want to see because of the attraction of the cast which works well within the comedic style. Another example is that if a star of a film is an academy award winner such as Jack Nicholson, then people will feel that the movie must be worth putting time into because academy award winners will want to uphold their reputation by being in movies that benefit their winning streak. In order to succeed further in the film industry, actors such as Nicholson will choose to appear in films that they think are going to be popular, this will have the effect of audiences deciding to see a film due to the respectable starts portraying roles in it. 

One more reason as to why the claim is not agreeable is that films share the purpose of telling a story. People enjoy being distracted by the reality of their own lives through the use of an interesting plot a movie has to offer, if the storyline is solid and keeps the audience focused on the movie then they will be attracted to it because of that instead of effects. Many movie fans care more about what they film is trying to tell them in its story and this drives them to only give a film their time if the plot is well drafted, causing them to give less attention to the visual aspect of the experience. Many would agree that a film should provide more of an experience using storytelling involving creativity and emotion rather than providing aesthetically pleasing features using technology, as this gives the film a more grounded feel to it.

In conclusion, I personally feel that visual effects are not in fact the main attraction to audiences as majority of movie fans that I have met tend to appreciate a film’s interesting story and selection of talented actors. Of course, visual effects play a huge part in bringing a director’s story to life for audiences to experience and enjoy for themselves. However, if a film aims to be successful then it must provide a story that stays with the audience for the long term as well as having an effect on how they see future films and the craft of making films. This is done through an emotive story and well portrayed roles of likable characters and so visual effects play no part in having this aftermath of watching a film. 

#essays #film essay #debate #first essay #screenspirit #cinema #special effects #james cameron #gravity #steven spielberg