AS FILM EXAM BOOKLET & GUIDE
OVERVIEW Exam Date - 16th May 2017 Exam Length - 2.5 Hours What You Do - 3 answers as 3 essays
Exam = 60% Coursework = 40%
Section A - 20% Section B - 20% Section C - 20%
Section A Producer & Audience The Business of Film
This will focus on PROFIT motive of the PRODUCER
&
PLEASURE motive of the AUDIENCE.
Audience ● How do people watch films? ● Why do they watch them? ● How are films made for people?
Producer ● ● ● ●
Why are films made? How are they made? Who are they made for? How are they distributed and exhibited?
How do you do well in the exam? Engage with the material Question it | Argue with it | Agree with it ENGAGE WITH IT Use your own CASE STUDIES A bespoke answer - not one from memory! Wide understanding of the industry, especially in its complexity and use of marketing. Personal answers do well, as long as they’re supported by evidence. KEY AREAS -
MARKETING | AUDIENCE | EXHIBITION | CONSUMPTION | FINANCE | ORGANISATION | PRODUCTION | DISTRIBUTION
Hollywood - The Studio System
Overview The studio system (which was used during a period known as the Golden Age of Hollywood) is a method of film production and distribution dominated by a small number of "major" studios in Hollywood. Although the term is still used today as a reference to the systems and output of the major studios, historically the term refers to the practice of large motion picture studios between the 1920s and 1960s of - (a) producing movies primarily on their own filmmaking lots with creative personnel under often long-term contract, and (b) dominating exhibition through vertical integration, i.e., the ownership or effective control of distributors and exhibition, guaranteeing additional sales of films through manipulative booking techniques such as block booking.
The Big 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
RKO Paramount MGM Warner 20th Century Fox
Vertical Integration This is a business term which means ‘the combination in one firm of two or more stages of production normally operated by separate firms.’ In film terms it means that one company had control over production, distribution and exhibition.
Block Booking If a cinema wanted to run a popular film, they’d also have to book other films from that studio. This left no room for independent films. This led to Oligopoly. Oligopoly: A small number of companies who have control of a large market (i.e. The Big Six)
Star System Studios had a lot of control over the stars. They managed their publicity, appearance, roles and lifestyle. They would often suppress negative press. This was known as the star system. We’ll look at this more later.
maximised profits,
This tightly controlled industry
minimised risk.
New Hollywood - High Concept
Overview The New Hollywood Studio System is still recognisable today. With the development of technology, the major studios were investing heavily into the ‘high concept’ film - focusing on visual appeal and the offer of adventure and escapism to it’s audience. After the demise of the studio system and the rise of television, the commercial success of films was diminished. The "New Hollywood" period, spanning the mid-1960s and early 1980s, was a period of revival. Though they largely continued to follow classical norms, the films made in this period are characterised in that their narrative logic and blockbuster aesthetic. We’ll look more closely at these traits below…
High Concept
High concept cinema = High investment / High return Typically, high concept films combine several elements: -
A narrative that could be summarised in a single phrase
-
An image or song that the potential audience associate with the film
-
‘Total look’ style of cinematography characteristics of TV, magazines, advertisements and music videos
-
Pre-sold stars or subject matter
-
Character typing rather than character exposition
-
Merchandising tie-ins.
Essentially, it’s a blockbuster film.
Risk Reduction Techniques Marketing Synergy - ‘Combined or related action by a group of individuals or corporations towards a common goal, the combined effect of which exceeds the sum of the individual efforts.’ (Nelmes, 1996: 42)
2 + 2 = 5
Types of Synergy in Film - Product Placement Companies pay to feature their product in a film, which often leads to a deal in which the film’s protagonist or other characters are featured in their advertising campaigns. Tie-ins Promotional Partnerships, where the film or its characters will feature on existing products. This may be in the form of competitions. Spin-Offs Products based on the original, i.e. the Film. A film may be a spin-off of a television series, or a television series may be created as a spin-off of a film. We can also think of this as media convergence. Pre-Existing Property If a film is based on pre-existing material (for example a video game, novel or comic book) the pre-existing material is often re-released featuring imagery from the film on its cover, or a special edition is released in synch with the film’s scheduled cinematic release. Merchandise Companies created products specifically for the film, for example toys, calendars, video games. These products not only help market the film, but the audience’s knowledge of the film brings their awareness to the merchandise. Vertical Integration When distribution and some forms of exhibition are kept in-house, meaning other subsidiaries of the conglomerate (who owns the production company) distribute the film and create DVD releases of it.
EXAMPLE - Casino Royale Casino Royale was produced by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (M.G.M), Columbia Pictures, United Artists and EON Productions. MGM and Columbia Pictures are both subsidiaries of Sony Corporation. Sony Pictures Entertainment and MGM then distributed the film. This is the first level of synergy we see behind Casino Royale - vertical integration. However, the soundtrack was released on Sony Classical and the artist Chris Cornell (of Audioslave) who performed the title song “You Know My Name” is signed to Epic Records, part of Sony BMG. The film was released on Sony Blu-ray, PSP UMD Video, as well as on DVD, and was offered as part of a package deal for customers buying the Playstation 3 (another Sony product). These releases were organised by Colombia Tristar Home Entertainment, yet another Sony subsidiary. There is a lot of product placement in the film; in fact this is how a large percentage of the budget was raised. Several Sony products include the Vaio, Sony blu-ray and Sony Ericsson phones all appear in the film. However other companies engaged in a synergy partnership and their products featured in the film: FedEx, Omega Watches, Martini, Heineken Beer and Ford Car. The image of Daniel Craig was used in the advertising for Heineken, Martini, Omega Watches and Ford Car. The Sony Ericsson website also featured Daniel Craig as the character of James Bond.
Viral Marketing Look at your Star Wars: The Force Awakens Case Study! ● ● ● ●
Celebration Live Event - 50,000+ attendance! BB8 Toy Behind the Scenes Fandom
Why do producers do it? Why do the audience like it? Trailers Trailers can: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Reinforce genre conventions Produce narrative enigma (making the audience crave more) Create a ‘Must See’ appeal Highlight Stars Highlight Critical Acclaim Reveal previous characters (if a sequel) Reinforce Iconography
Check your Case Study!
Hollywood Stars - Star Theories Risk Reduction Techniques Stars Overview -
There are many reasons as to why the audience would go to see a film. Normally it is because of who makes the film (director), sometimes it is because of the story itself and how it is sold to the audience (trailers, posters). Another reason would be because of who the film has starring in it and Star Theory considers this issue.
Star Theory #1 - Gledhill (1991) ● ● ● ●
Construct Capital Value Cultural Value Deviant
Capital Value i.e. they make money for the film companies ● Films with stars will make more money than films without stars (even if it is the same ‘film’) ●
How much are they worth, what can the make for the Studio
●
They add monetary value to the film and reduce the risk of loss
Construct ‘Stars are very much involved in their own mythification.’ Christine Gledhill wrote that stars ‘reach us through their bodies’; ●
As an audience we are interested in the ‘real’ and ‘reel’ (constructed).
●
Real person - their life outside of the screen
●
Reel person - If we go to the film we will learn who they really are (character-type, ideology, movement).
●
Gledhill suggest audiences are interested in the ‘overall star persona’ ie a combination of both
Deviant ●
They live their lives to excess, outside the normal rules of behaviour
●
We hear more about Hollywood stars breaking the rules than the films they are in but this adds to our interest (identification, wish fulfilment).
Q. No such thing as bad press?
Cultural Value ●
The represent ‘ideals’ - this could be charitable work, inspirational figures/‘role models’, good values and beliefs.
●
The news covers these stories, conveniently when the star may also have a film released.
Star Theory #2 - Dyer (1979) ● ● ● ●
Promotion Publicity Films Criticism and Commentary
Promotion Studio markets their star of their film - with character types, genre and quality of film, producers have to the ability to make the star liked or disliked. This may be details about their personal relationships, philosophies and lifestyle.
Publicity The way the media portrays a film star in their personal and professional lives constructs how audiences feel about a film star. Getting an insight into their lives makes an audience feel closer and we carry these connotations of stars into the films they’re in.
Films ‘Stars’ are often associated with certain types of films and roles - it may draw on their pre-established star qualities. Star quality often includes qualities of personal life (interests, values, personality), and professional life (previous roles). The producers will also have a great contribution in constructing and reinforcing these star qualities with previous and future films (from same studio) and marketing.
Some stars attempt to get away from this preconception and avoid being ‘typecast’. For some stars, their star quality is that they star in a range of film genres and roles. Q. Can you identify examples?
Criticism and Commentary How stars are judged/reviewed to be considered as a star. Essentially, the current value of the star. ● How are they debated as a star? ● Great performance (what makes a great performance? ● To what extent is there work critically acclaimed? ● Incredible screen presence? ● Style of acting? ● Do their own stunts? ● Is it the character?
Why are stars so important for audiences?
Star Theory #2 - Dyer (1989) ● Social Phenomenon ● Constructed Images ● Signs Social Phenomenon Audiences see good on screen and associate this with the star’s own personality off-screen? ● A star’s symbolism becomes associated with their works ●
Often these will include present the ‘ideal social’ behaviours
●
Often this will be linked together with something they do outside of film i.e. charitable/awareness campaigns, interviews, appearances, social media.
Q. Who is responsible for creating this image?
Constructed Images
●
Suggests that the star, their managers and the studio are responsible for creating their image.
●
The image becomes associated with the star and expectations will be set for audiences for character roles and film types - help with marketing and ticket sales.
Signs ●
Stars as signs is about the problems associated with a star and a particular representation of a character in a film and how the two interact.
●
This causes discussion and can have a position or negative effect on the star’s image. Whichever it may be, it creates discussion and only adds to star quality.
Do the stars get all the money? Check your Case Studies!
Independent US Film Overview Professional films that are made outside of the control of the major studios. They are free of constraint which enables them to become more unique.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
They are cheaper to make (than blockbusters) Not as constrained by narrative and genre Opportunity for first time directors and actors Allows for personal expression Allows for more controversial subject matter Gives more variety of films Less predictable More likely to cater for the ‘educational’ gratifications
Why has there been such a rise in the success of ‘Indie Film’ ?
● ● ● ● ● ●
Offers an alternative to the generic High Concept cinema Allows audiences to explore new ideas More artistic Offers a greater sense of realism Trend - has a ‘cool’ factor Stars are appearing in Indie Film more regularly
Are they really independent ?
Financial Times Article - The unstoppable rise of independent films In 2015 the only bona fide studio film with a shot at winning best picture was American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood and its $58m budget financed by Warner Brothers. The rest of the nominees were made up of indies (Boyhood, Whiplash), quasi indies distributed by the studio’s speciality divisions (The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman), British imports (The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything) or studio movies in name only (Selma, which was distributed by Paramount but financed independently). Increasingly, the Oscars seem to be functioning almost as a kind of wish fulfilment — a visit to an alternate universe where, for one night of the year, the industry can reward the very films it spent the other 364 days of the year coming up with watertight reasons not to make.
“I had a former studio executive say to me, ‘We all love Boyhood because it’s the kind of movie we wished we could make and can’t,’ ” says Jonathan Sehring, the president of IFC Films, the independent New York distributor that gave director Richard Linklater the $200,000 a year needed to shoot Boyhood over 12 years. “This was from someone who used to run a studio, successfully, for many, many years. Would a movie like Boyhood ever be made by a studio? No. Just the return on investment is not something that makes a lot of sense for them. “They’re talking global economics,” he continues. “I sat at a round table several months ago with all of the studio heads, and all they were talking about was China. Could Driving Miss Daisy travel to China? I doubt it in this day and age. It’s just a different economic model. The middle-budget movie has, more-or-less, disappeared now and the independents, or speciality divisions within the studios, are filling in the gap.”
Independence in Hollywood: Budgets & Box Office At risk of oversimplifying the industry, the Hollywood of today makes three levels of films: 1. Blockbusters produced by the current majors – 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Warner Bros. Pictures – with budgets in the hundreds of millions. The box office success of Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977, produced by director George Lucas’ studio) birthed a new blockbuster mentality, reinventing the spectacle-driven pictures of the 1950s; high concept premises, tie-in merchandising, and sequels drive this modus operandi. “Something that looks like a blockbuster is much more likely to be funded and supported,” explains professor Joseph Lampel of Cass Business School in London. “Everyone buys into this formula, and if it fails no one gets blamed.” 2. Independent content produced by subsidiary studios, rarely for more than $20 million, notably the eligibility cutoff for The Independent Spirit Awards 2014. 3. Independent content produced by small studios and freelance producers, rarely for more than $10 million, purchased at festivals and elsewhere.
Marketing Is Key To Indie Success For every dollar spent on producing a major film, the studios have been spending 51-58 cents to release and market it in the United States and Canada. Big studios behind Hollywood blockbusters put at least half and sometimes as much as twice their production budgets into grandiose marketing campaigns, and they handle all publicity. It must be nice, with the national TV ads, billboards, bus wraps, online contests, and corporate sponsorships… you just lay back and watch people flock to theatres. Example - Paranormal Activity (2007) The $15,000 horror movie, directed by San Diego filmmaker Oren Peli, first gained a cult following after screening at the 2008 Slamdance Film Festival, eventually catching the attention of Steven Spielberg. The blockbuster director initially wanted to direct a big-budget remake of the film, using the original cut as a DVD extra, but instead brought the film to Paramount/DreamWorks, where it took on a new life of its own. Fans across the country could demand -- literally, it turns out, by hitting a "Demand" button on its website -- that the movie screen in their area. That, in turn, determined which markets Paramount would select for a series of midnight screenings -- all achieved by using a bare minimum of select TV spots featuring reaction shots from Hollywood screenings and a smattering of online and radio ads. An experience Mr. Greenstein said the focus throughout has been to sell "Paranormal Activity" as an experience rather than just a movie. "Traditionally, when you cut TV spots or a trailer, you show the scariest parts of the movie, you build suspense, and then you actually have visuals from the movie to support it," he said. "But because the movie works so well as a truly slow build into terror, we didn't want to show your usual kind of scenes and cutting-style horror movies have been using. We wanted to use an experiential sell to help dictate how and where it rolled out to the consumer." All the online buzz and viral marketing surrounding "Paranormal Activity" resembles the path first paved by "Blair Witch" 10 years ago, but with one notable difference -- credibility. At no point has Paramount pretended that the camcorder footage in "Paranormal" is anything but fiction, a conceit that became the focus of Artisan Entertainment's viral push to make "Blair Witch" seem like a real, mythical phenomenon. The company even went so far as to create websites perpetuating the myth of the fictional "Blair Witch," while Paramount seems to be skewing more toward audiences' reaction to the movie itself rather than tacking a deceptive "based on true events" tagline onto the marketing materials. Four lessons from 'Paranormal Activity' Let consumers dictate distribution. Once "Paranormal Activity" reaches 1 million Demands on its Eventful page, Paramount will release the movie within a reasonable radius of all the fans who demanded the movie by providing their age and zip code. "It totally transforms the brand into a benefactor," Eventful CEO Jordan Glazier said of the site's marketing model. "You now have a self-identified list of participants who are passionate about entertainment, and the event brand has even more value to them." Don't waste money on large-scale TV campaigns when you can talk directly to your fans. "[Paramount is] using social media as a marketing vehicle as well as a market-research vehicle," said Sarah Hofstetter, a senior VP at 360i, an independent digital-communications agency that has worked with Paramount on previous campaigns. Don't create false hype. Ten years ago, "The Blair Witch Project" struck gold with one of the most successful viral movie marketing strategies to date by trying to pass itself as a documentary rather than a fictional horror movie. "Paranormal Activity's" theatrical trailer and TV spots are focused more on marketing the audience's terrified reactions to the movie itself.
When there are low financial barriers, have fun. "Paranormal Activity" cost a mere $15,000 to produce, with little spent thus far on traditional media, so Paramount stands to recoup any overhead costs thousands of times over if the film catches on with a national audience. But despite the initial success, "If it all ended today we'd be very happy," said Paul Greenstein, the studio's co-president, marketing.
Check your Case Studies!
British Film - Major & Minor Overview What exactly makes a film British? Do we define its identity by financing, story, talent, setting, filming locations, or a combination of all these elements? If we clarify what we mean when we discuss the precise nature of British productions, they fall into three different categories:
1. Homegrown films 2. International co-productions 3. Iconic franchises HOMEGROWN FILMS This category covers films that are 100% produced by British companies. They can – and often are – picked up by US distributors, but that doesn’t mean that a US company financed it. Sometimes, the label gets confused by even the most established organisations, such as when BAFTA decided in 2007 that The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) was a ‘British production’, so it could be nominated for Best British Film (a silly category that still exists, whilst for years a Best Documentary one did not). Why they did this when it was funded by a large American studio (Universal) is beyond me, but when productions are based here – and that film was based at Pinewood Studios – there is a temptation to call them British productions. But I would resist this slippery definition and simply follow the money and the companies that provide it. Also worth noting is the separation between production (the making of a film) and distribution (the releasing of it), as films are often made here but often picked up for distribution by foreign companies. Example: The King’s Speech (2010): Reportedly turned down by Film4 and BBC Films, this was ultimately produced by See-Saw Films and Bedlam Productions with assistance by the recently closed UK Film Council. The talent involved (director Tom Hooper and stars Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush) obviously saw the potential of the material and were ultimately vindicated by the massive commercial success of the film. The Weinstein Company also snapped up the US distribution rights early on and their awards campaign – which culminated in several Oscars – played a significant part in the film breaking through to the multiplexes. It also proved to be a cash bonanza for UK distributor Momentum Pictures which released it here.
INTERNATIONAL CO-PRODUCTIONS This is perhaps the broadest term which can cover a multitude of productions but that in turn is reflective of the nature of film financing which can come from multiple sources. There are so many examples of co-productions that it is probably most useful to focus on one British company that typify this type of film. Working Title are probably the biggest success story of the British film industry over the last two decades and were co-founded by producers Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe in the early 1980s They were acquired by PolyGram in 1992, when Eric Fellner joined Bevan to become co-chairman, and the music company was a subsidiary of the Dutch conglomerate Phillips. During a period in the 1990s Working Title had considerable international success with movies like Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) and Bean (1997). Four Weddings seemed very British but was a co-production with Channel 4 films (an earlier version of Film4) and Polygram. After Universal bought Polygram in 1999, they continued to carve out an impressive niche in partnership with a large US studio, which saw them produce films such as Bridget Jones’ Diary (2001), Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Atonement (2007). An example film is Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011), an adaptation of the John le Carre spy novel, starring Gary Oldman as an agent who has to find a mole in the higher echelons of British intelligence. Despite its very British seeming surface, it is a co-production with StudioCanal, the French company which owns the third-largest film library in the world, and will be distributed here under the recently renamed StudioCanal UK distribution arm (previously known as Optimum Releasing). It was also directed by a Swedish filmmaker, Tomas Alfredson, and shot by a Dutch cinematographer, Hoyte Van Hoytema, who were both hot off the success of Let The Right One in In (2008). Does it matter that a non-UK talent was chosen to direct it, or that a French company are helping finance and distribute the film? I don’t think it does, as long as the film is good (and it is very good), but if it wins awards and certain British newspapers proclaim it a ‘British success’, it is worth remembering who stumped up some of the cash for it and who directed it.
Sometimes our British successes are a little less British than we like to think.
ICONIC FRANCHISE This term only really applies to two British franchises that are both brought to the screen with American money. They are only British in the cultural sense of the term, but deserve a category because it shows how British stories can be repackaged and monetised by foreign money. Harry Potter (2001-2011) The most profitable film series of all time is notable for being bankrolled by US studio Warner Bros, but I would guess that a lot of people regard them as British. After all, the saga seems very British on the surface: the source material was written by J.K. Rowling and all the films have been brought to the screen after being shot here with predominantly British crews and cast. You couldn’t get a more British setting than a posh boarding school and even when the film ventures outside Hogwarts it is nearly always remains in Britain, unlike James Bond who is constantly globe trotting in his pursuit of villains, women and martinis. But like Bond it is a series that has resonated around the world and become like the Star Wars for this generation: a fantasy that has dug deep into the hearts and minds of children and their parents. Its place in the British film industry is fairly unique as over the last decade it has become a huge Hollywood series based over here, employing vast numbers of people. The series has effectively created its own mini-industry, as cast, crews and post-production facilities continually worked on the latest Harry Potter film from 2000 until 2011. Perhaps the lasting legacy of the franchise is in visual effects. Although US companies such as ILM worked on the earlier films, British effects houses such as Double Negative and Framestore grew in size and stature as the series went on and led to them working on other Hollywood blockbusters such as The Dark Knight (2008) and Inception (2008). By the final film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, the UK visual effects triumvirate of Framestore, Moving Picture Company and Double Negative were doing world-class work – it was just a shame that the decision to release the film in 3D obscured the brightness levels. So despite the fact that US money has bankrolled what appears to be a very British series, the knock on effect has been considerable for related parts of the UK industry. The big question now is what will fill the gap now that the films have ended? James Bond (1962-Present) Bond was the most famous British film icon before a certain young wizard came along. Like Potter, he was a very British creation that was brought to the screen by American money. Although the franchise has always been a family affair, tracking how it has reached cinemas worldwide through various distributors is a mission which 007 himself might find taxing When producer Cubby Broccoli acquired the rights to adapt Ian Fleming’s books for the big screen he formed Eon Productions with Harry Saltzmanin order to make the movies. They also formed the US parent company Danjaq, which became Eon’s holding company, meaning that although Eon is registered in Britain, the company which ultimately produces the films is American. For many years US studio United Artists distributed the Bond films – which were a significant cash cow for them – and in 1975 Harry Saltzman sold his shares of Danjaq to them. When Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer acquired UA in 1981, MGM/UA Entertainment Co. was formed and acted as distributor until 1995 when the series was restarted after a six-year hiatus with Goldeneye (1995).
Although Cubby died in 1996, Eon Productions is still owned by the Broccoli family, with his daughter Barbara and Michael G. Wilson still acting as producers. After United Artists ceased being a major studio in the late 1990s, MGM then acted as distributor from 1997 until 2002. Then in 2005 Sony Pictures Entertainment bought a stake in MGM (in a consortium that included Comcast, TPG Capital and Providence Equity Partners) and they distributed Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace (2008). After MGM’s complicated financial troubles, which saw it emerge from bankruptcy, Sony re teamed with Danjaq to produce the upcoming Bond film. Like Potter, Bond films have employed a lot of British crews down the years and even have a stage named after 007 at Pinewood. But they also represent that curious paradox – a film franchise that people think of as being British, whilst actually being bankrolled by America.
What do these three types of British film mean in a wider context? A simple commercial fact is that Britain is not a major production centre for films – our output pales in comparison to countries like the US, India or even France. So by producing fewer films we obviously struggle to get international recognition by sheer volume. However, you could make a case for British talent – as distinct from actual films – making a significant global impact. Films such as The King’s Speech and Slumdog Millionaire have broken through internationally, winning Oscars and achieving impressive box office figures. So certain British talent punches well above its weight and manages to make a global impact,.
IS IT BRITISH?
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Narrative driven by recognisable British themes (social history) Produced by UK production company / film studio Majority of cast is British UK literature adaption Target towards UK audience - setting, cultural themes, comedy Based on British historical event Recognisable UK character types - stereotypes Lower budget compared to US Funded by UK
Genre & Narrative Genre Genre is a means of classifying that enables us to group together films according to narrative and film style. However, within each genre we can classify further into sub–genres. For example, a film may fall mainly into the classification of science fiction but may feature a relationship that means a love story is a strong factor in the narrative. Mainstream genres provide structure for audiences and institutions alike; they represent a shorthand expression for defining expectation. The Western for example has become a brand with powerful iconography that audiences immediately comprehend. With frequent repetition, connotations are gradually reinforced. The characters, mise-en-scene and narrative, are all formulated rather predictably as a guarantee of profitable success for the industry and satisfaction for the audience. This notion of expectation however, provides a fantastic opportunity for innovation by filmmakers to exploit the established conventions of genre by subverting the generic principles. The limitations of genre instead become a tool for creativity. The Pleasures of Genre Viewing
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Emotional Pleasures = Emotional Connection Visceral Pleasures = Physical Response Intellectual Puzzles = Active Audience Counter-culture Attraction = Crime Films Hybridity = Mixture of Genres
Descriptive Approach to Film Genre The first, and most straightforward approach to analysing film genre is descriptive, which involves viewing a film as belonging to a category, or as being an example of an established type. The film is perceived as sharing aspects and attributes (such as structure, theme, or visual style) with other films in the same category, and is analysed comparatively. This approach relies heavily on the use of genre paradigms, or readily identifiable elements such as costume, location, character archetypes, shot transitions, or plot content. Functional Approach to Film Genre The second approach is functional, where the genre film is perceived as “collective expressions of contemporary life that strike a particularly resonant chord with audiences” (Experience & Meaning in Genre Films BK Grant, Film Genre Reader 1986). The repetitions of patterns in a genre film are the repetitions of social questions that we need answers to as part of our shared social experience e.g.
● What is frightening, or what possibilities do we fear? (horror films) ● What is criminal, or what are the boundaries of social morality that we must not cross? (gangster films) ● What is morality? (melodramas) ● What is acceptance and belonging? (romantic comedies) ● What is alien? (science fiction) ● What is the future? (science fiction again)
Benefits to Producer? Genres are a form of identification for the audience, in order for them to ‘identify’ in a type of film. Producers will use this information in order to maximize the selling potential of a film by aiming it at a specific demographic. Producers use set codes such as themes, settings, characters, props and narrative conventions to allow audiences to identify the genre. The use of the repetition of these codes clearly identifies the genre and allows producers to be relatively confident in selling the film. In the 1950s, Musicals and Westerns were extremely popular genres and the studios, both in Hollywood and in the UK (Rank) made many of these film types, as it was a tried and tested formula.
NARRATIVE Traditionally, narrative structures followed a formula which was identified by the theorist Tzvetan Todorov. Todorov studied classic fairy tales and stories. He discovered that narratives moved forward in a chronological order with one action following after another. In other words, they have a clear beginning, middle and end. Todorov also suggested that the characters in the narrative would be changed in some way through the course of the story and that this would be evident by the resolution. This traditional story arc format is known as a linear narrative: Steps
What happens
1
The narrative starts with an equilibrium
2
An action or character disrupts the equilibrium
3
A quest to restore the equilibrium begins
4
The narrative continues to a climax
5
Resolution occurs and equilibrium is restored
Todorov came up with his theories after making a study of Russian folk tales. So too did Vladimir Propp, who came up with the theory that there are only a certain number of characters, who crop up in most narratives. It is easy to spot the hero and villain in most cases, but here are some others:
Character Type Protagonist (or Hero)
Role within narrative Leads the narrative, is usually looking for something (a quest) or trying to solve something (a mystery). Does not have to be male :)
Antagonist (or Villain)
Gets in the protagonist's way
Heroine
Is usually some sort of prize or reward for the hero. NB if your hero is female, your heroine can be male :)
Father
An authority figure who offers a reward to the hero for completing their quest. That reward might be a prince or a princess or a cool new job
Helper
Helps the hero - often acts as a sidekick
Donor
Gives the hero something - a clue, a talisman, a special power - which helps them complete their quest
Mentor
Teaches and guides the hero
These characters and the typical things that they do can be seen across a wide range of narratives. We expect them to be there, and to behave in a certain way. Try identifying them in Star Wars and then think about how they are used in Shrek. Benefits to Producer Genre makes films instantly recognisable so can be used as an effective marketing tool. Genre is like a package that announces what is to be found inside, and thereby calls to the target audience announcing that this is a product they may wish to purchase. With so many products on the shelf the film business needs ways of enabling the consumer to be able to distinguish one product from another. Genre offers one way of achieving this. The use of narrative is one of the fundamental ways in which we make sense of the world; stories could be said to bring order and structure to our otherwise chaotic experiences. As a result, as viewers who are already familiar with the storytelling conventions of narrative structure we approach film with definite expectations. We expect to see a range of characters, or character types, involved in a series of structured events that occur in certain places and at certain moments in time. There are likely to be conflicts, and these are likely to be finally resolved in some way after having reached some climactic moment of confrontation. One of the key functions of narrative is to deliver certain gratifications to us as an audience films if they are to be successful in box-office terms must pleasure the audience in a very particular, very predictable ways. We are ‘pleasured’ by knowing Todorov's pattern and seeing it unfold before us. We receive gratification from seeing out expectations confirmed but also from existing within the tension of wondering whether our expectations will be fulfilled or undercut. And perhaps we are most intensely ‘pleasured’ by finding surprise of a new and unexpected twist that we are not able to add to our back catalogue of expectations.
Check your Case Studies!
Technology & Consumption ● ● ● ●
Piracy - high speed broadband > easier to download. Decline in sales in 2000’s. Avatar most pirated film of 2010 but still most profitable. Production - 3D, CGI, camera technology, digital. Distribution - digital projection Marketing - viral marketing, social media
THE CINEMA Avoid spoilers and be part of the conversation. Let's face it, social media has taken over the world such that no one can really keep a secret anymore, especially if that secret is something along the lines of "OMG, can you believe that [SPOILER] was the killer in [MOVIE YOU WERE TOTALLY GONNA SEE WHEN IT WAS AVAILABLE ON NETFLIX]?!?!?!" If you want to be party of the latest pop culture conversations with your pals, you actually have to consume the latest pop culture in a timely fashion, which, when it comes to movies, means you're probably gonna have to leave the comfort of your couch on a Friday (or Thursday) evening. Your home theater might be good, but it's not that good. Maybe you've dropped a small fortune on a 90-inch 3D TV, complete with surround sound and Blu-ray player, but there are some theater experiences that just can't be replicated in a home theater. Spectacles like Gravity or the breathtaking skyscraper climb scene in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol belong on a screen that will never be able to fit inside your house. Movies are made to be seen in a theater. A great film will always be amazing, no matter where and how you see it, but filmmakers always intend for their movies to be seen in a darkened theater, on that big screen where you can't pause in the middle of the climactic scene just so you can go put your laundry in the dryer. Support the types of movies you love and maybe more of them will get made? The movie biz is just that, a business, and bigwigs in charge decide what movies to make based on what does well at the box office. So vote with your dollars and let them know what you like. If not, they'll keep giving us new iterations of Teenage Mutant Transformer Rangers From Space. It's all about the shared experience. When you watch a movie at the theater, you're sharing it with everyone around you. There's nothing quite like a room full of people laughing, crying or gasping at the same moments as they journey through a story together.
DEATH OF THE DVD The figures are in for 2016, revealing that streaming and download services have finally overtaken physical media as the prime format for home film-watching. It’s a decisive win for convenience culture, but will we come to regret it...? The way we consume films has changed. Netflix, iTunes and Amazon Prime have, in the last few years, swiftly ushered in an age of slick convenience. You can’t buy an Apple computer with a built-in DVD drive anymore. Charity shops, boot sales and recycling centres are now heaving with DVDs and Blu Rays as consumers free up their living rooms of physical media, safe in the knowledge that every film they could ever want to see is now available to them on their phone, tablet, computer and Smart TV. They can watch anything, anywhere, anytime and that’s the happy ending we’ve all dreamed of. So here are some thoughts to arm yourself with against the vengeful spirit of DVD: 1. You don’t technically own the films you download. Effectively, you’re leasing the content. Where you would have been able to give, or sell, a DVD you owned on to anyone you chose, your iTunes account does not allow for this. When someone dies, iTunes has the right to terminate the account and negate all ‘ownership’ of its contents. 2. Films can disappear in a digital landscape. Between November and January, Netflix US is reported to have dropped 163 movies from its catalogue and added only 131. Commentary suggests that Netflix is shifting its focus to generating its own material. Which is fine, but when the market moves fully to streaming and the market leader has the power to decide what content is made available to consumers, what happens to a lot of older or quirkier films or even just films where the rights-holders expect to be paid fairly in the future? When you put all of your eggs in the streaming basket, there is no guarantee that the films you want to see will be available to you ever again. 3. Digital film preservation is not proven to be safe. We might assume that once something exists digitally, it is safe forever, but that is not necessarily the case. Famously, when Toy Story was released on DVD, Pixar discovered that almost a fifth of the original digital files they stored had corrupted - so the DVD had to be mastered from a 35mm celluloid print. Hard drives, discs and chips physically degrade FAR faster than film. Also, digital file formats quickly become obsolete and software updates render whole technologies useless. Film preservation - traditionally an under-funded area already - will struggle to preserve modern films reliably. And don’t expect your streaming service to be investing in preservation. 4. What if the internet goes down? We’ve all got very used to internet access, we consider it almost a basic human right, but what happens if we lose our access? Or are subject to attacks? When you put all of your film access into an online state, you’d better be confident in your provider.
The role of the audience in the filmmaking process So, in general terms, what exactly is the role of film audiences within the film industry? At its simplest the role of producers is obviously to create product, in this case films, and following this line of thought the role of the audience is to turn up and watch the films; but more importantly from an industry perspective the audience has to be prepared to pay money for the product on offer. In order for this to happen the audience clearly have to see the product as being worth the price being asked. If they are unsure of this and marketing is unable to convince them, then the whole business of filmmaking on a commercial scale is no longer viable. The power of the audience within the film concept-to-screen process becomes clearer if we bear in mind from the start that the industry could churn out as many films as they wish, but unless the punters materialize in the cinema the products on offer will never come to represent a commercial proposition. Hollywood spends millions of dollars trying to persuade audiences to queue up at the box-office and no multinational corporation is going to do that unless it feels the returns are likely to make that marketing outlay a sound investment. Clearly audiences coming to a movie in their droves or staying away in equal numbers can either make or break a film as a commercial proposition.
Technology & Consumer New technologies might be said to offer consumers: ■ an improved overall qualitative experience as a result of better sound and/or image reproduction; ■ a heightened emotional experience as a result of a stronger sense of empathy with characters who in some way seem more real; ■ enhanced spectacle perhaps through the sheer overpowering size of the screen or the impact on the senses of a surrounding wall of sound; ■ improved ease of access, or ease of use, for instance, through enabling people to own their own film collections in various formats; ■ new, easier and intensified ways of using film to pleasure themselves, for example, IMAX would seem to offer an intense ‘fairground ride’ for the senses; ■ an enhanced intellectual experience through the provision of increased knowledge or understanding, for instance through the use of commentaries by directors on DVDs; ■ the chance to use new, ever cheaper and more compact devices to make films for themselves.
Technology & Industry New technologies offer the industry: ■ the possibility of an improved opportunity to create profits (the costs or required expenditure involved in bringing in the new technology will be carefully balanced against the projected additional income before any new technology is introduced); ■ a way to protect current market share in the face of new potential competitors (in this case the costs will be set against the potential loss of income arising if the new technology is not adopted); ■ the chance to repackage and resell old products, especially cult and ‘classic’ movies, thereby establishing a new audience base, or even fan base, for an old product (note that this is even true of an older technological change like the move to sound); ■ an opportunity to place products for sale in new ‘windows’, thereby lengthening the commercial life of each film (a film may now be sold to consumers via the cinema, satellite and cable TV, DVD and terrestrial TV); ■ the chance to encourage multiple purchases of essentially the same product (so any one consumer might pay to see a film in the cinema, then later pay to watch the same film on pay-to-view, before later still buying his or her own copy on DVD); ■ a means of still managing to make a profit or break even on films that initially perform poorly or below expectations at the box-office (such products can be repackaged, remarketed and resold through a succession of ‘windows’); ■ overall, enhanced production, distribution and exhibition possibilities.
The Internet & Marketing In an era in which film promotion routinely outpaces a movie’s production budget, viral marketing has become one of the most attractive targets for a successful advertising campaign. But unlike conventional marketing, which targets things like television ad space or billboards, viral marketing is far less understood and much more unpredictable. However, the upsides of a successful viral campaign are almost limitless. Carrie - To promote the reboot of the classic horror film Carrie, New York viral marketing specialists Thinkmodo set up a Carrie-like scene in a New York City coffee shop. A handful of actors and effects coordinators completely terrified a bunch of customers by making everyone think a young woman’s out-of-control telekinesis was set off when a guy accidentally spilled coffee on her Macbook. Thanks to a tethered stuntman and some spring-loaded props, the stunt looked real. The video Thinkmodo put together after the fact quickly went viral, earning 60 million-plus YouTube views, coverage in news media around the world, and a gold award in the Key Art Awards’ theatrical category. According to Thinkmodo founders James Percelay and Michael Krivicka for content to go viral, such as this video for example, the idea within it has to really be new. It also has to be engaging and also easy to search for. Because it’s new, when you search for it you will find it because there’s no other video quite like it. Viral content also has to be newsworthy, so the media picks it up and turns it into a story. For them, having fascinating and entertaining content is the key to what makes content go viral.
Viral content has other characteristics that lend to its success. ● Exceptional content. It needs to be a meme or an idea, behavior or style that spreads from one person to another. These ideas then spread and replicate like any virus out there. ● Appeal to influencers. Without influencers the spread will not be so widespread. Influencers really have a say on whether content is good enough to go viral or not. In this case, based on the amount of write-ups and stories about the video it seems that the influencers were all pretty hooked on the idea. ● Easily shared. If you can’t show it to other people then it won’t go viral. The reasons viruses are so dangerous is because they are easy to spread. The same is true here. If you can spread the content easy then it can go viral. YouTube is an ideal spreader. So are other social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Fan Power – Demand Dictating Supply It is often said that the critical factor for any film is whether or not it manages to obtain good ‘word-of-mouth’; essentially whether or not those people who initially go to see the film come out singing its praises and telling their friends to go. But of course, in addition to good ‘word-of-mouth’, a film can also receive bad ‘word-of-mouth’ and probably what is even worse, indifferent ‘word-of-mouth’; at least bad ‘word-of-mouth’ means the film has roused some sort of impassioned response. What is interesting about ‘word-of-mouth’ is the increasing speed and intensity with which it can now be delivered by fans. Websites, email, mobile phones and text messaging now mean that verdicts on any new release can be communicated instantly and with increased potency. Furthermore, with new technologies at their disposal fans are much more able to interact and maintain an ongoing fan base for particular types of film product whether that is with a genre, director or star focus, or taking some other perspective as a starting point. Fan clubs and conventions have traditionally been maintained via newsletters and paper-based fanzines, but now e-mail newsletters and website fanzines magnify and intensify the possibilities. Fans have always been able to create slow-burning cult classics out of films that have initially flopped at the box-office but perhaps there is now greater opportunity for this sort of activity.
Exam Technique - Section A Grading Criteria ❏
Response will be distinguished by a very good knowledge and confident understanding of the subjects studied for this unit.
❏
Response will display a very good understanding of, and a lively engagement with, the issues raised by the question set, and display a very good ability to select relevant material.
❏
This will involve as appropriate: an very good ability in interpreting stimulus material, recognising key points; a very good ability to provide appropriate material from their own studies.
❏
References made to both stimulus material and candidates' own study material will be both accurate and relevant to the argument developed. The work will be well-structured. There will be a clear and confident 'voice'.
❏
Quality of written communication will be very good. It will be fluent, well-structured and accurate,showing signs of sophistication
❏
The question will be addressed directly and encourage debate about visual effects.
❏
There will be evidence that the issues suggested by the stimulus material have provided a platform for developing a lively and engaged response to the Question.
❏
The candidate will draw upon relevant and productive case study material and establish links to developing their response to the question.
❏
The best candidates may show an ability to argue for factors, which are not obvious and may debate that visual effects are the main attraction or part of the attractions for audiences.
Differences between levels: Level 4 (A) - an excellent demonstration of all of the criteria Level 3+ (B) - a good demonstration of all of the criteria Level 3- (C) - an adequate demonstration of all of the criteria Level 2+ (D) - sufficient Level 2 - (E) - some Level 1 (U) - limited
Key points of success; Direct address to resource material and used as platform to own examples. Strong, well informed and appropriate application of case studies. Key terminology (in particularly the business jargon). Excellent information about the production processes. Excellent link between producers and audience. Strong arguments informed by a variety of films (budgets/production values and themes). ● Well structured, fully developed points with sophisticated arguments. ● ● ● ● ● ●
Past Questions
❏ What are the key factors influencing what kind of films get made today? ❏ What are the ways in which films of the past are made attractive to contemporary audiences? ❏ How do independent films sometimes achieve success? ❏ How far are new technologies changing the way audiences watch films? ❏ How important is film marketing in attracting an audience? ❏ What are some of the issues for UK producers and audiences in Hollywood’s domination of the UK film industry? ❏ ‘The current revolution in technology is changing the way both producers and audiences think of film and the film experience.’ How far do you agree with this statement? ❏ Neither producers nor audiences need stars any more.’ How far do you agree with this statement?
HAVE A GO AT A FEW QUESTIONS AND TRY TO BREAK THEM DOWN INTO CASE STUDIES
EXAMPLE ANSWER SECTION A: PRODUCERS AND AUDIENCES 1. Study the items in the resource material and use this, together with your own studies to answer the following question:
What, in your opinion is British Film? (40) Resource Material
Item 1: Newspaper article: ‘British cinema is booming ’ British cinema is booming
You have only got to listen to Jonathan Ross when interviewing British film actors – the British Film Industry is booming. ● British films such as 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Philomena and Skyfall have been winning awards and achieving critical and commercial success all around the world. ● Two of the top-grossing films at the UK box office this year are British (Skyfall and Gravity). ● British films no longer have to rely on DVDs sales for commercial success. Paul Webster, Producer and co owner of Shoebox Films states:
‘I doubt the current success will last. The problem for British film is that it needs regular funding and a sustainable distribution network. The UK Film Council, now the BFI assisted British Film up to a point but mainly with smaller grants to independent films.’
Eve Gabereau, co-founder of Soda Pictures suggests that: ‘mainstream revenue is important for British films but what we see regularly at multiplex cinemas is dictated by the tastes of the British public. We would love to produce a commercially successful film like The King’s Speech but we don’t feel the opportunities are there.
Adapted from the Huffington Post, October 2013 Item 2: Department for Culture, Media and Sport report on the British Film Industry After consulting with a number of institutions including BAFTA, Skillset and the BFI, the government has made the following recommendations for British film to build on current success and allow the industry to make a positive contribution to the economy.
The key findings suggest: ● A need for film education in all schools – all pupils must have the chance to learn about British film. ● Major British media institutions need to invest more in the British film industry, particularly in relation to British film distribution. ● There needs to be more of a collaborative approach in relation to British film funding. ● Digital film programmes need to be rolled out to rural areas and not just focus on densely populated urban areas to assist independent filmmakers. Q1. Recent February 2014 BAFTA British film success for 12 Years a Slave and Gravity followed by Academy recognition in March would suggest that the British Film Industry is continuing to undergo a form of renaissance. British film stereotypically used to be associated more with critical success but in the last 5 years with box office hits like Slumdog Millionaire and The King’s Speech commercial success seems to be within reach. Paul Webster’s comment is crucial however in relation to maintaining this success when he talks of a sustainable distribution network but fundamentally the question remains – what is British film? This has been open to a number of different interpretations with the Jonathan Ross argument suggesting that any British content in a film defines it as British which parallels the cultural protectionism of the UK Film Council who once defined The Dark Knight as ‘British Film’. Problems of definition are historical and not uncommon with 12 Years a Slave and Gravity and contemporary examples reflecting a raft of films that are more accurately described as UK/US collaborations – Gravity had a Spanish director in Alfonso Cuaron and was funded and distributed by the Hollywood studio, Warner Bros., one of the ‘big six’ that form the oligopoly that dominate the film industry and were also responsible for the Harry Potter franchise. However, much of the film’s visual effects were supervised by the London based company Framestore (all bar 17 shots) and much of the footage was shot at the UK physical studio spaces, Pinewood and Shepperton. Rendering and post production was then completed at Prime Focus, London with further supervision by Framestore. Interestingly then, Gravity by definition has been described as British because of the technical production work on the film which is in conflict with many audiences’ identification of films being British by their cultural representations.
Eve Gabereau’s comment about audience tastes is relevant only in that when film goers rock up to a UK multiplex cinema they have a choice from a range of American films with the occasional British collaboration showing like Slumdog Millionaire which in the end was shared in terms of distribution by Warner Bros., Fox Searchlight and Pathe but with a British crew, writer and director. The same could be argued for The Full Monty which was claimed for many years to be the most successful British film of all time but with little of the money being ploughed back into the British film industry as the funding and distribution was from Fox Searchlight – for Philomena the same applies as distributed by 20th Century Fox ensuring a wider theatrical release. Every now and then a British film comes along however, like East is East and like The King’s Speech that can be legitimately described as British film without American investment – funding for The King’s Speech came primarily from a UK based private equity firm, Prescience and from the UK Film Council. There have been many attempts to classify British films over the years to protect the British film industry including the Cinematograph Act in 1927 and New Labour’s points based definition in the late 1990s but The King’s Speech maps well onto the BFI’s definitions that a film can be culturally or institutionally British - it is in fact both. Both in that it represents British culture but also in that it was produced, funded with money for distribution based in the UK. For independent British film however, the idea of ‘Britishness’ is easier to define with most films being described as culturally and institutionally British. The problem however for films like Fish Tank, part funded by BBC Films and the UK Film Council is limited distribution with the theatrical release used as a platform to launch the DVD which ensures a revenue drip rather than a revenue stream. This can be challenged by the newspaper article’s comments that British films no longer have to rely on DVD sales for commercial success – digital technology has meant there are more opportunities for independent British films like A Field in England who exploited a multi platform release on 5th July 2013 in PictureHouse Cinemas (Ritzy, Brixton), Video on Demand (Film4) and various online sites including iTunes and VODzilla.co Film 4.0 (Film4’s digital arm) and the BFI’s Distribution Fund (used to be the UK Film Council’s P & A Fund) ensured this niche, culturally and institutionally British film loosely about the English Civil War reached an audience that ordinarily would not have seen the film. The UK has many indie production and distribution outlets like Warp and Momentum producing culturally British films like Submarine and Tyrannosaur that offer a slice British culture and life not found so readily in mainstream films. Independent British film has also benefitted from a long running, mutually beneficial relationship between Film4 and the UK Film Council to the point that Film4/UKFC productions became almost as well known as the mainstream Working Title/Universal relationship – a recent example is The Selfish Giant which used money from the national lottery to produce a hard hitting, regional social realist film exploring familiar themes for British film of social class. Regional identity is also important in terms of identifying the concept of British film with Submarine a good example of a rites of passage drama that was filmed in Wales with part Welsh investment. British cinema is indeed booming but within the parameters of perception by different audiences’ perception in what their understanding of British film is – purists would argue ‘British’ films have to be culturally and institutionally British while for many, any film with UK cultural content will do. Until such time that UK media institutions can invest in a distribution framework that challenges the historical dominance of the British Film Industry, problems of definition will always be an issue.
Section B British Horror Eden Lake & The Descent
British Horror This section will focus on... -
How the themes and messages, including representation have been influenced by British context - when the film is made - politics, society, economy influences, as well as production influences.
-
Distinctive British style and identity, including the representation of the UK and their/our values.
-
Codes & conventions of horror. Differences & similarities to American horror.
-
Two key texts - Eden Lake (Watkins, 2008) & The Descent (Marshall, 2005)
British Film History ●
Frenchman, Le Prince developed film technology in Leeds in late 19th Century
●
Produced Roundhay Garden Scene in 1888
●
World War I effectively halted the industry in the early 20th Century.
●
After the war, technical advances made abroad, particularly in the US, had outdated the UK and the British audiences wanted to watch American films.
●
D.W. Griffith, who was making a lot of motion pictures in the US; The Great Train Robbery (1903), The Birth of a Nation (1915).
●
British film production stopped in 1918 due to lack of finances.
●
The development of sound in film (late 1920s) helped the film industry in the UK and were producing a lot of films due to a quota legislation.
●
These were rushed films that were poorly made and that nobody wanted to watch.
●
However, Alfred Hitchcock and Alexander Korda were making hits.
●
1940s is considered as ‘The Golden Age’ of British Cinema.
●
WWII did interrupt production, but Britons were looking for ways to improve their mood and escape the misery and looked at the cinema after the war.
●
Ticket sales boomed as did the quality of British films. A billion tickets were being sold each year.
●
The government used cinema to promote propaganda films.
●
80s and 90s saw films that reflected British society, particularly the working class and youngsters, in films such as; Trainspotting (d. Boyle, 1996), Brassed Off (d. Herman, 1996) and Full Monty (d. Cattaneo, 1997).
●
2010 - Government axed UK Film Council, lottery funded financed and supporter.
●
2011 - Government partners with BFI to allow the institute to become a lottery distributor, (funding film development and production; training; distribution and exhibition; film certification).
History of Horror ROOTS OF HORROR The history of horror is a vast and perhaps foolhardy thing to tackle. No matter how hard you try, there are films and horror subgenres that will slide through the cracks.. But horror is somewhat unique among the film genres in that there is a recognizable pattern that happens again and again. A film will come along and terrify an audience capturing their imaginations and making bank- Filmmakers flock to the cash cow like vampires to blood which leads to sequels and imitators – sometimes better than the original. But eventually the sequels run out of steam and the subgenre created by the original smash hit fades into memory lurking in the corners of history waiting to be rediscovered and reborn- this process is commonly referred to as cycles. Although other genres behave similarly, the unique appeal of horror from its low budget requirements to broad multinational appeal, make horror especially susceptible to these boom and fade cycles. But as we look at how the genre changes over time, we must not think of the history of horror as being a rigid one way street. New films borrow from old films all the time, a constant remix of sub genres and new techniques to make something for the contemporary culture. So who did the first horror films borrow from? Monsters, murderers, demons and beasts have been around since antiquity, ghost stories told round camp fires since we learned how to talk. But the roots of filmed horror were an extension of a genre of literature that got it’s start in the late 1700s: Gothic Horror. Developed by writers in both Great Britain and the United States the Gothic part of the name refers to pseudo medieval buildings that these stories took place – think of a old castle on a dark and stormy night – gloomy forests, dungeons and secret passage ways.
Famous gothic writers include Mary Shelly, Bram Stoker and of course Edgar Allan Poe.
HORROR IN THE SILENT ERA It was from Gothic literature that the first horror films found inspiration. And why not? The genre was popular in both books and theater at the time. Although the term horror did not come into use for film until the 1930s, early filmmakers and film goers certainly showed an interest in the macabre as evident In this snippet of a “Spook Tale” from 1895 created by the Lumiere brothers. In 1896 Georges Méliès would go on to create what is considered to be the first horror film ever made: “The Manor of the Devil” – with bats, castles, trolls, ghosts, and a demon – played by Georges Méliès himself, you can see the elements of gothic horror are already firmly entrenched by this time in the public psyche. Silent films in the teens and 20s were still exploring the possibilities of this new filmmaking medium. Several experiments were conducted including the first Frankenstein adapted by Thomas Edison’s studios in 1910 and Dante’s Inferno by Giuseppe de Liguoro in Italy in 1911. But the heart of horror in silent films would start to beat only after conclusion of the first world war and in ashes of the tattered country of Germany. GERMAN EXPRESSIONISM German Expressionism was a style of cinema that emphasized expression over realistic depictions of reality. Starting off as a rising movement throughout Europe, German filmmakers and artist developed this unique style inside a cultural bubble that was the result of embargo in place during World War I. Without the influx of an already internationally powerful Hollywood, the German cottage film industry grew quite quickly and creatively. A consortium of German industries came together and convinced the German military of the importance of a German film unit – this would become the Universum-Film Aktiengesellschaft – the UFA. But by the time the company was operational, Germany had lost the war, and the UFA turned it’s goals to producing films for profit. On the slate in 1919 was a film written by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz with Robert Wiene set direct. The result would be a film that would be go on to be the Great Grand Daddy of all horror films: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. In the first few years of the Wiemar Republic, electricity was still scarce and German industries were allotted power on a quota basis. UFA had used up almost all their quota that year so the filmmakers decided to paint the shadows on the set rather than try to create them naturally with electric light.
This technique combined with the sharp angles and bizarre perspective distortion created an unforgettable look that established German Expressionism both artistically and as a commercially popular style of cinema. German filmmakers continued the tradition of Expressionist horror films with The Golem: How He Came into the World in 1920 which was lensed by Karl Freund who also shot Metropolis and F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu In 1922.
The German film industry did well in the immediate post war era… much better than the rest of the German economy which was mired in runaway inflation due to the War reparations Germany was obligated to pay under the Treaty of Versailles. Fortunately for the film industry, people flocked to the movies because it was the only form of entertainment that people felt they were getting their money’s worth. Berlin became the cultural center of Europe despite the shaky economy. To stabilise the currency, the WWI allies offered Germany the Dawes Plan in 1925 which was a system of loans and agreements aimed to try to get the economy back under control. Unfortunately the Dawes plan also curtailed German film exports – the result was many independent studios lost financing shut down for good. Even the national studio UFA was at the brink of collapse in 1925. A good opportunity for Hollywood to swallow up a once powerful foreign competitor. Paramount and MGM lent $4 million in exchange for collaborative rights to UFA Studios, theater, and personnel establishing the Parufamet Distribution Company in 1926. This agreement effectively moved German Expressionism into Hollywood as scores of artist traveled to the US to work in Hollywood studios. Many German artists decided stay permanently, some even returning as refugees from the growing German Nazi movement in the 1930s. The German Immigrant contribution would leave a lasting mark on the style of films in the coming years. HORROR FILMS LEARN TO SCREAM It’s hard to overstate the effect that sound had on transforming cinema in the late 1920s. It was a radical artistic leap, and probably more so for horror than any other genre except perhaps the musical – just try turning off the sound on your favorite horror film – it just wouldn’t have the same impact. In the tightly controlled Hollywood studio system of the 1930s, there was one studio that would be responsible for the first cycle of horror films – Universal Pictures. One rung beneath the big five were the little three:
Universal, Columbia and United Artists who made and distributed pictures but didn’t have any theater holdings. During the silent era, Universal was responsible for the few achievements in American horror most notably The Phantom of the Opera and Hunchback of Notre Dame both starring Lon Chaney. But in the 30s, Universal really sunk their teeth into horror, kicking off the Universal Gothic horror cycle: Their first hit was Dracula, directed Tod Browning and lensed by UFA cinematographer Karl Freund starring the Hungarian Bela Lugosi in 1931. James Whale continued the cycle with Frankenstein with Boris Karloff also in 1931.. Karl Freund even got a shot at the director’s chair with The Mummy in 1932. Followed by James Whale again with the Invisible Man in 1933, Stuart Walker’s Werewolf in London 1935 and Hambert Hillyer’s Dracula’s Daughter in 1936. But the Universal Gothic Horror Cycle began to lose steam and fall into the pit of self parody with titles like The Invisible Man Returns, The Mummy’s Hand, and Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man in 1943. Moving into 1940s, the Universal Monsters stable started to be treated like Batman villains bringing all the characters together in 1944’s House of Frankenstein and 1945’s House of Dracula. And by 1948 when Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein in a surprising popular comedy outing, Universal would retire the first string of monsters from serious horror filmmaking. While Universal’s offerings slipped from horror to formula, a small division at RKO, the smallest of the big 5 studios would start to lay stylistic foundation for low budget horror films to come. Val Lewton, a journalist, novelist and poet turned story editor for David O Selznick was put in charge of a low budget division at RKO to produce horror films for a measly $150,000 a piece. The catch? The studio would provide the title, Lewton would develop the story. The first title? Cat People - which would be directed by Jacuqes Tourneur and photographed by film noir veteran Nicholas Musuraca in 1942. Using leftover studio sets and creating the scares by using mood and shadows rather than makeup and monsters – Cat People was truly a glimpse at the more psychologically scary films in the decades to come, Costing $141,000 but bringing in over $4 million in the first 2 years Lewton’s low budget horror division was practically saving the always cash strapped RKO. MUTATED MONSTER MASH The period between the post World War II years and the 1950s was perhaps the most difficult time Hollywood had ever gone through. From Supreme Court rulings ripping apart the studio system to a death match against television for patrons, this time period saw an increasingly protective Hollywood trying desperately to stay relevant. Horror films got relegated to strictly B-film status as Hollywood preserved it’s A-list talent for lavish epics. But the horror film was still popular with the teens who wanted thrills even if the plot lines were ludicrous. The Icy Soviet-American arms race meant the nuclear boogey man was always top of mind. Horror films tapped into this cold war fear of invasion blending into a Pulp Science Fiction cycle with films like The Thing From Another World, The Day The Earth Stood Still both from 1951, and Forbidden Planet and Invasion of the Body Snatchers both in 1956.
But monsters didn’t only come from outer space, Creatures also emerged from the deep like the Beast from 20,000 Fathoms in 1953, Creature from the Black Lagoon in 1954 and of course the Japanese nuclear monster Godzilla also 1954. By the mid 1950s the Pulp Sci-Fi Horror cycle would start to wear down and be taken over by exploitative producers like William Castle who relied on gimmicks to sell tickets to low rent horror outings.
WILLIAM CASTLE
In Macabre 1958, Castle promised every customer a $1,000 life insurance policy should they die of fright. House on Haunted Hill in 1959 was filmed in “Emergo” which triggered a skeleton that would fly around the theater suspended on wires. Once kids knew this was coming they’d bring their slingshots and see who could be the one to shoot it down. And the Tingler, also in 1959, wired up movie theater seats with joy buzzers and encouraged the audience to scream as a way of calming down the spine monster that was let loose in the theater. PSYCHOLOGY, SEX, AND GORE From the 1960s on we begin to see a massive explosion of styles and cycles into the horror genre as it gained both in popularity, Prestige and freedom once the restrictive censorship of the Production Code was abandoned in 1964.
No discussion of the horror film could be even self respecting without the mention of the Maestro himself: Alfred Hitchcock. Honing his precise abilities to play an audience like a musical instrument, it was 1960’s Psycho that shocked audiences into believing horror could be more than B-Film Fare. Unlike the monsters of previous horror cycles, Norman Bates was rooted in reality – an everyday human on the outside but a psychological monster in the mind. Hitchcock would deliver another natural horror with The Birds in 1963. On the other end of the Atlantic Ocean, Hammer Films Productions in The United Kingdom began rebooting Universal’s Gothic Monsters – but adding sex and gore. Shot in full color, Hammer’s first Gothic horror reboot was Terence Fisher’s The Curse of Frankenstein with Peter Cushing as Dr. Frankenstein and Christopher Lee as the monster. For the first time in a Frankenstein film, blood was shown on screen and in full chilling color. Between 1957 and 1974, Hammer cranked out 7 Frankenstein movies, 6 Draculas, 9 other vampire outings, 2 Jekyll & Hydes, and 3 Mummy films. The Hammer Studio, located on the banks of the River Thames between Bray and Windsor even became the setting of it’s own parody – as it’s country style Down Place mansion was used as the set for Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1975, a film that in itself is a send up of the Hammer Horror style.
ROGER CORMAN
Back in the US, perhaps inspired by the success of Hammer’s approach to sex and gore was the legendary B-movie producer Roger Corman. Whereas Alfred Hitchcock would meticulously storyboard his films and often times enjoyed studio financial backing, Corman pumped films as fast as he could – Little Shop of Horrors in 1960 was shot in just under three days with a budget of just $30,000 using sets that had been left over from Bucket of Blood. Corman knew what audiences wanted, blood and babes and he delivered. His greatest acclaim as a director came with his Edgar Allan Poe Cycle released between 1959 and 1964 collaborating with screenwriter Richard Matheson and actor Vincent Price in films like House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), Tales of Terror (1962), and The Raven (1963). Horror was starting be taken seriously both at the highest craft of film production and at the lowest: setting the stage for important horror films subgenres that come in the following decades. The Occult – films about the Satan and the Supernatural – were popular big budget subjects starting with Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby in 1968 which was actually a William Castle project. Then came what many consider the greatest entry in the Occult cycle 1973’s: The Exorcist directed by William Friedkin, followed in 1976 with Richard Donnor’s The Omen and Stuart Rosenberg’s Amnityville Horror in 1979. The Film school generation – a group of filmmakers who grew up on and formally studied horror began to to inject B-movie horror devices into their mainstream work. Steven Spielberg’s Jaws in 1975 made creature horror big business – igniting not only a Shark cycle but the the whole summer blockbuster style of production and marketing. Brian De Palma’s Carrie in 1976 set the stage for a Teen Horror cycle by turning Stephen King’s first novel into big box office and Oscar Nominations for the leads. 1979’s Alien by Ridley Scott successful remixed horror and science fiction as did John Carpenter’s remake of The Thing in 1982 which was a neither a box office or critical success but has stood the test of time to be one of most terrifying special effects films ever made. Spielberg would return to horror with 1982’s Poltergeist working with Tobe Hooper to create a masterful ghost story which was released only a week away from Spielberg’s other 1982 hit: E.T. And then there’s 1980s The Shining which in true Kubrick fashion, defies any category or imitation. Again, not a critical hit -it won Kubrick a Razzie Nomination for worst director – and only a mild box office success in its time The Shining would go on to become an absolute must watch for any student of horror. INDEPENDENT HORROR AND THE SLASHER Horror has been a staple of the low budget world since the Universal Creature days and as film production technology progressed and costs steadily declined the rise of independent filmmakers meant a rise of new takes on horror.
Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 1974, based on the plot of serial killer Ed Gein who was also the inspiration for Psycho and Silence of the Lambs, was shot on a skeleton budget in the sweltering Texas summer heat. Mired in money issues, the cast and crew didn’t see much financial reward from the film’s success, but the rawness of the teenagers in peril inspired many more teen horror slasher imitations. Then in 1978 came John Carpenter’s Halloween one the most successful independent horror film ever made. Produced on a budget of $325,000 and grossing nearly $240 million dollars as of 2012, Halloween is the first of it’s kind Hitchcock inspired slasher film.. Unlike many of it’s followups and imitators, Halloween actually contains very little graphic violence or gore. Without much money to spend on sets and props, Carpenter constructed his horror inside everyday suburbia – the Michael Myers mask was just a $2 Captain Kirk mask painted white. But terror in the backyard worked.
Friday the 13th directed by Sean S. Cunningham in 1980 and A Nightmare on Elm Street by Wes Craven in 1984 were both studio backed slasher films that followed the similar horror in the backyard formula to tremendous success and numerous numerous sequels. But independent horror wasn’t just about the slasher.
In 1981 a group of young kids Bruce Campell, Sam Raimi, and Robert Tapert released a small independent film which they had made by raising $150,000 from local investors. The film, The Evil Dead. was heavy on splatter effects and stop motion gore, gain a cult following especially after being released in the relatively new Home Video Tape market in 1983. In fact it was the promise of distribution through this new technology video tape and cable that unleashed a flood of blood soaked horror films that were never made for the theater. THE 90S AND MODERN HORROR When the 90s came around, the slasher cycle had pretty much run its course and was starting to fall into parody. Even Raimi’’s Magic Spell Zombie cycle was being parodied by Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive (also known as Braindead) in 1992 which ratcheting up the Evil Dead splatter effects to a comical 11. Wes Craven’s self aware slasher film Scream in 1996 about a killer among a group of kids that already know all the rules of slasher films rebooted a new Teen Horror cycle which led to I Know What You Did Last Summer directed by Jim Gillespie and Final Destination directed by James Wong.
Monster films turned increasingly to CGI effects for scares such as Species, and Anacoda.. Psychological Horror and Thriller have remained popular throughout the 90s and 2000s including films like Silence of the Lambs, The Sixth Sense, Se7en, The Others and The Ring. But there are Three modern horror film cycles arose in late nineties and into the 2000s that are somewhat unique to our modern era. Torture Porn as it is disparagingly labeled, is the modern reboot of the Splatter films going back to the Hammer Horror era. This latest cycle emphasizes intense gore, grunge and often tortuous violence. The Saw franchise, the most successful horror film franchise of all time, is considered the first in the latest crop of splatter films with it’s first installment in 2004 by James Wan. This was followed by Eli Roth’s Hostel in 2005 – where the moniker torture porn was coined by critic David Edelstein.
The Blair Witch Project directed by Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick and released in 1999 represents the first major film in the modern found footage horror sub-genre. Though a borrowed idea from Cannibal Holocaust from 1980, The Blair Witch Project used the device of piecing together first hand footage to reconstruct the last terrifying moments of the original eye witness. Blair Witch also holds the title of being one of the first films ever to be marketed almost entirely through the internet. The found footage device would go into common use from small films like Oren Peli’s Paranormal Activity in 2007 and even large creature films like Matt Reeves’ Cloverfield in 2008. And finally, we cannot end this overview of horror without the most recent Zombie Cycle. With roots going back to George A Romero’s Night of the Living Dead in 1968 the modern Zombie Apocalypse Cycle began when Danny Boyle breathed a new life into the undead genre with 28 Days Later in 2002. Recent Zombie films feed our fears of a medical pandemic and the breakdown of society fears brought on by the financial meltdown in the mid 2000s. Still going strong with films like World War Z and the long form Television melodrama The Walking Dead, the Zombie Cycle may be seeing it’s fade out as comedic outings like Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead have poked fun at the formula. There’s something about horror films that can transcend national and cultural boundaries. As the digital democratization of filmmaking continues horror will be a genre that can delight or terrify people no matter where they are from or what language they speak. This is because horror works on us differently than other genres- a topic I’ll explore in the next video on the psychology of horror. But as we’ve seen in this detailed but no way exhaustive survey of the history horror, the next big scary movie can come from anywhere, no matter the budget, stars, or the country of origin. Horror is very much a director’s genre – All that matters is if can you make an audience shiver with fright? Go out there and make something scary.
Representation Film and ways of seeing the world All films may be said to attempt to re-present what we might call the ‘out-there’ world or the world as it exists. In doing this they present to the audience a specific and particular way of seeing that world. Therefore, in reading films of all types we should consider the ways in which such concepts as class, gender, race, sexuality, and national, regional, cultural and religious identities are being addressed. With one eye on the so-called ‘war on terror’ and our experience of living with its consequences, we might also note that during any period of potential political intolerance ways of seeing the world become especially contentious. Gender In considering the representation of gender identities we need first to ask how we might define the idea of ‘gender’: what is it and how is it acquired? In particular we need to define the term ‘gender’ as distinct from ‘sex’ and ‘sexuality’. Basically, a person’s sex is denoted by their genital make-up or the biology of their body; a person’s sexuality is defined by their sexual feelings and behaviour; and a person’s gender is that male or female construction of self given to a person by the society and culture they inhabit. In considering gender in any given film we need to investigate: ■ whether men and women are represented in particular identifiable ways; ■ whether the film makes an assumption that gender is fixed, as opposed to recognizing that gender as a social construct may vary across time and between cultures; ■ whether the dominant descriptions of femininity and masculinity presented to the audience are simply those that fit the standards of a patriarchal society, or a society built upon fundamentalist religious beliefs; ■ whether men are shown as active and women as passive; ■ whether men dominate the narrative while women tend to be marginalized. Sexuality
In considering representations of sexuality we might begin by looking to see: ■ whether sexual identity is seen to be fixed from birth or acquired via socialization; ■ whether sexual identity is seen as being certain or something more fluid and ambiguous; ■ whether there are clear representations of heterosexual behaviour, homosexual behaviour and/or bisexual behaviour; ■ whether sexual stereotypes are being employed, and if so from where they might derive (whether for instance this is again a case of a patriarchal society displaying its machismo beliefs or fundamentalist religious attitudes); ■ whether any particular sexual behaviours or feelings are being presented in a negative or positive light; ■ whether there is any awareness of how sexual norms and expectations may have changed over time.
Class In considering class representations, which is basically the idea that a society can be seen in terms of a hierarchy of stratifications with those in higher classes having more power, wealth and status than those in lower classes, we could investigate a film to see: ■ whether class is seen as fixed from birth, or is used as a flexible concept; ■ whether there are clear representations of working-class, middle-class and upper-class values; ■ whether these are stereotypes, or more complex representations; ■ whether these major class definitions are shown as subject to further subdivision; ■ whether a hierarchical class structure is questioned, or simply accepted by the text.
THE MALE GAZE (Mulvey, 1975) The concept of ‘gaze’ is one that deals with how an audience views the people/subject represented. Mulvey argues that women are objectified in the media - women are the object of the gaze, whilst men are the subject of the gaze. This offers the audience visual pleasures and gains a certain response from them. The camera captures and lingers on the female body, positioning the audience as a voyeur (sexual pleasure from looking/watching). The narrative events which occur for the women are presented largely in the context of a man's reaction to these events. Relegates women to the status of objects. The female viewer must experience the narrative secondarily, by identification with the male. The Male Gaze theory, in a nutshell, is where women in the media are viewed from the eyes of a heterosexual man, and that these women are represented as passive objects of male desire. Audiences are forced to view women from the point of view of a heterosexual male, even if they are heterosexual women or homosexual men.
The male gaze is the way in which the visual arts and literature depict the world and women from a masculine point of view, presenting women as objects of male pleasure. The phrase male gaze was coined by feminist film critic Laura Mulvey in 1975. The male gaze consists of three perspectives: ● ● ●
that of the person behind the camera, that of the characters within the representation or film itself, and that of the spectator.
THE FINAL GIRL (Clover, 1992) According to Clover horror films, most notably slasher films, contain females that suppress the monster and survive. Clover notes that this character is usually uninterested in sex and is resourceful and capable E.g. Scream (95) and Halloween (78) Also, Clover argued that the function of the ‘Final Girl’ was not to portray a strong woman. Instead, she served as a gender-neutral platform where the male viewer could experience a masochistic position (deriving pleasure or sexual gratification from being abused or dominated) The ‘Final Girl’ is the sensitive body through which a male viewer identifies with her pain, fear and vulnerability. In films, women are often portrayed as weak and timid characters, a damsel in distress who is always in need of saving. They are stereotyped as sex symbols, attracting the men’s gaze for cinema showings and rarely make it to the end of a film without the help of a man. On the other hand, some women are seen as strong and smart, posing the characteristics of a masculine hero, such as Ellen Ripley in ‘Alien’ and Sarah Connor in ‘Terminator.’ These types of characters are found mostly in horror films, which are the smartest and bravest to be able to survive the whole film, while all the other characters, including the men, have died. This is known as the “final girl” The concept of the “final girl” was created by Carol Clover. These final girls usually have the same characteristics in any horror film. The women are usually sexually unavailable, and sometimes have a unisex name such as Billie or Georgie. Sometimes the final girl is even related to the killer. This was true in Halloween 2, where Michael Myers is revealed to be the brother of Laurie Strode.
THE MONSTROUS FEMININE (Creed, 1993) Monstrous-feminine is constructed and represents the real fear men have of women. In Clover’s view, the Final Girl was merely a stand-in for male identification, a ‘subject’ for men to identify with. To Creed, the Final Girl is a result of male desire, an ‘object’ to fear and desire. Female characters are monstrous in horror films. Represented in number of ways: spilt blood, vomit, sweat, flesh. Also essential for Creed is the crossing of a border (normal and abnormal society, hero and monster). However, the hero can become a monster.
Creating and Reflecting Fear Horror – Not a single genre The most common way to consider genre is through the identification of its most commonly used visual and aural characteristics. These characteristics, sometimes called iconographies or codes and conventions, are used by media audiences to identify the genre of text being accessed. Once recognised, these iconographies ‘frame the audience’s expectation’ (Chandler) of the type of story the text will tell and the way the story will be constructed. The horror genre can be considered in this way and there are some iconographies that are often associated with horror films. Within the general term ‘horror’ there exist many different subgenres. Some horror films are dark and gothic and include iconographies such as large country houses and misty graveyards. Some horrors are set in a familiar suburban location – perhaps a high school or a suburban town whilst other have an isolated rural location. The different subgenres of horror may appear on the surface to have little in common in their mise en scene.Three different mis en scene – all recognisable as codes of horror: the gothic mansion (The Others: 2001), a suburban house (Halloween: 1978) and an isolated rural location (The Descent: 2005). Chandler says that texts are grouped by genre when they have a number of ‘shared characteristics’. Given the variety of characteristics that could identify a text as horror, this approach is not wholly useful when attempting to define the genre. However, the one thing that all horrors share to a greater or lesser extent is the audience reaction they are trying to generate. All horrors are constructed in an attempt to scare the target audience. Activity: Being Scared: A pleasurable experience? What pleasures do you think the genre offer its audience? Why is being scared so pleasurable? Uses and gratification theory offers some possible pleasures that might be experienced when watching horror films. For example: • Identification • Entertainment • Diversion • Escapism • Social Interaction However, horror offers more than just these simple pleasures. The following does not offer all the potential pleasures offered to audiences by horror – you may have had other equally valid experiences and ideas. It is worth considering how horrors you are studying may provide some (or all) of the following: • Physical effects – adrenaline etc - the visceral • Empathy • Intrigue/mystery/suspense/problem solving (Enigma) • Catharsis/Vicarious experience • Perception of anti-mainstream activity / subcultural belonging • Exploration of taboo subjects • Voyeurism • Preparation for death • Playing out cultural/personal fears • Confirmation of dominant ideologies and values • Masochism (&/or sadism) • A sense of community / belonging • Communicating repressed desires • ‘Acting out’ – challenging enforced values and repressions
Horrors Create Fear There are many techniques used by horror films to attempt to scare the audience. Some are relatively simple to identify such as the use of atmospheric music or sounds to create a feeling of unease or uncertainty. Jump cuts in editing, camera techniques like extreme close-ups and low key lighting can create a similar impression. All subgenres of horror use a range of deliberate media language choices to promote the appropriate audience response for the text. It is a good idea to think carefully and note the way that texts you are analysing are using media language choices to attempt to frighten the audience. However, horror films have been around for a long time and when watching texts from other eras often we, as modern audiences, find that horrors lose their impact. Clearly then, creating fear is more than just a collection of eerie and creepy media language choices. In addition, audiences get bored. Whilst it is important for a genre to be recognisable from its use of iconographies, if these codes and conventions are overused, audiences may find the genre too predictable and clichéd. One of the main challenges that filmmakers have to deal with is how to find a middle ground between a recognisable genre text and one that offers something new and unique to its audience. Horrors tap into cultural fears In addition to the audience needing changes to genre codes to maintain its interest, society changes. Different eras have different ideas and values and experience different problems, fears and concerns. Successful horror films are ones that tap into specific cultural fears and exploit them to meet the needs of the genre. The best way to create fear for the audience in a horror text is to play on the fears that already exist. Tudor identifies this as he says that horrors provide a ‘monstrous threat’ and this threat is ‘based on notions…from the producing society’. Horror films won’t meet their primary objective of scaring the audience if they do not in some way represent the fears of the people watching them. Different Monsters for Different Fears A useful way to identify the type of fears being identified by horror texts is for analyse the monsters within the films. Neale identified that horror texts have different types of monster. The monster is the source of the fear. • The External Monster – an outsider. The external monster will be one who comes from ‘somewhere else’ and brings the threat to a community. Vampire films are good examples of this as traditionally they come from Transylvania and were shown terrorising a British community. They are outsiders as they are not (and never can be) members of the community and they invade a previously safe and peaceful environment. The Man-made Monster – man’s creation. The archetypal man-made monster can be found in Frankenstein (1931). A collection of body parts is put together and Dr Frankenstein brings the creature to life. The creature then brings death and danger to the community. Like the vampire he could never be part of the community, the difference is, he is a creation of a member of the community. The Internal Monster – man gone wrong. Here the monster is human. The human may come from within the community but they are thinking or behaving in a way that creates a threat from the inside. The archetype for this kind of monster is Norman Bates in Psycho (1960). He is a mild mannered ‘boy next door’ character on the surface but the film reveals that he is murderously insane. Some monsters have traits of more than one of Neale’s categories. Frankenstein’s monster for example is ‘man made’ but when he goes to the village he brings in violence and death as an ‘outsider’ to the community. Norman Bates is an internal monster but the implication is that his flawed psychology has been caused by bad mothering. This way of looking at the monster in horror can be very useful. In the first half of the 20th Century the external monster dominated the genre. Vampires, mummies and ghosts are outsiders who threaten communities. There were early examples of the man-made monster during this period and this is often where horror and sci fi intersect. In these films, scientific advancements often backfired and created monsters from giant insects to deadly robots. This convention of horror became more dominant in the post-war period. It is often observed that these monsters can be seen to represent specific cultural fears of the time. For example: • The threat of invasion generated by global political uncertainty between the two wars (1918-1939) is reflected in
the external monster • The fear of the way science could be used in a destructive way in the post war ‘atomic-age’ (post 1945) after the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan at the end of World War II reflected in the man made monster The idea of the internal monster dominates modern horror. The shift away from the external to the internal may allow us to identify some of the fears and preoccupations that dominate contemporary society: • World War II demonstrated that mankind was capable of horrific acts, for example, the genocide of the Holocaust. Rather than fearing outsiders, this has caused the culture to fear other humans – even those within their own communities • Since the 1950s, public understanding of psychology has increased, particularly what has been known as ‘abnormal psychology’ – adding to the culture’s fear of other people within the community who could look ‘just like us’ but think and behave in dangerous ways • Modern society has become less actively religious. ‘Evil’ is therefore often perceived as a possible human trait rather than something that comes from elsewhere Different Locations for Different Fears Early horror often used distant locations for their settings. Typically, monster movies and Hammer Horror was based on the middle European world of the fairy tale which distanced the audience even further from the monster. The Victorian era was a common setting for early horror too, whereas today, most horror tends to be set close to home (with an American bias in Hollywood films) and in mundane environments such as high schools, suburban homes and university campuses. This reflects the close proximity of the internal monster – many modern horror monsters are school friends or people we could meet at any time. These familiar locations bring the horror closer to the audience. Some modern horror, especially since the late 1960s, uses a countryside location for its setting. A common plot deals with a group of town dwellers who find themselves stranded in the countryside. Here they can meet all manner of monsters: • external monsters in the caves in The Descent (2005) or in the woods in The Blair Witch Project (1999) • man made monsters in The Hills Have Eyes (1977/2006) • internal monsters in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974/2003) The rural location is often used to symbolise a wild and dangerous place where monsters can stay hidden. Modern horror often uses this location to show what dangers exist outside the safety of the civilised towns and cities where most of us live. Conclusion Whatever the monster represents and wherever the monster is located, ‘normality is threatened by the monster’ (Wood). Horror texts can be seen as metaphors for things perceived as different or outside the cultural norms. The monsters are ‘difference made flesh’ according to Cohen and this difference can be ‘cultural, political, racial, economic [or] sexual’ (Cohen). By analysing the types of monsters presented to us in horror texts and identifying what fears they represent we can identify the behaviours and ideas that the producing culture perceived as different, frightening or that represented the ‘abnormal’. This approach is far more useful than a simple media language identification of horror conventions as it allows you to analyse the values and ideologies presented by the text and can give you an insight into the context of production.
HORROR CODES & CONVENTIONS Horror Codes & Conventions The Horror Film, Stephen Prince (2004, Rutgers University Press, USA) Secluded location - Generally, horror movies place their protagonists in a locale where there's no one around to help them. Characters forget about threat - Many times, there is danger, death, a curse and some people know about it, but they conveniently put it out of their mind. It is almost always a negative thing in a movie. Power is cut - The lights suddenly go out towards the climactic phase of tension. The audience feels for the protagonist and usually it’s a ‘hide behind a cushion’ moment. Communications are cut - The killers always take out the phones, even in their own home (Misery -1990) so that no one can call for help. Almost all horror films where a phone can be seen will have the phone lines cut. In the recent age of mobile phones, things have had to change - a phone's battery runs out, it’s damaged, or goes has no service. Someone investigates a strange noise - This is one of the most unbelievable, yet most overused horror movie conventions. All of your friends have been brutally butchered and eaten by an unseen maniac. You hear something odd coming from the woods but wonder what it could be? Now would you, even on a dare, walk into the woods alone to investigate? I wouldn't either, but it seems every movie character would. Someone runs upstairs instead of outside - You will frequently see potential victims running past open doors, which could lead to the outside world (and safety) but instead run upstairs where they can lock themselves in a ‘safe’ place bathroom. Vehicle won’t start - This can happen with any vehicle, from cars, snowmobiles to motorcycles to spaceships to the chain falling off a bicycle. Victim cowers in front of window or door - Technique to scare the audience is to have someone hiding from the killer against a door/wall/window only to have the killer's hand break through the door/wall/window and grab them. Or the victim looks out the window (car windows too), sees nothing, and when they turn away, the killer jumps through. There are hundreds of possibilities, and this particular scare can certainly be done effectively. Victim inexplicably falls over - They fall, slip, hurt themselves or there is something blocking their exit. An annoying convention, particularly as an audience we are willing the protagonist to get away. Warning goes unheeded - It seems in horrors that it is human nature to go where one is told not to go, and do what one is advised against. Placing themselves and others in danger. The Fake/false scare. They can take on any shape and size, but in general, any scare in a film that is not
connected to the threat.
A friend jumps out, a door slams, someone looks into a mirror, someone new enters the room unnoticed, the phone rings, someone bumps into a department store mannequin, something falls, someone is tapped on the shoulder or grabbed, a policeman knocks on the car window, a balloon pops, a bird flies out of the trees, etc. As an audience we laugh at our own fear. Someone is killed in the first 5 minutes - A particular trait of slasher horror films. A narrative code that is used to set the mood of the rest of the film and can be very effective. The stormy night - Suddenly the weather has turned. Pathetic fallacy - weather that reflects the mood of the scene/film. X Years Before/Later - This indicates either a prologue, setting up the events that happened before our story (such as the first couple minutes of The Descent) Or a film where we see the latter effects of an incident (like I Know What You Did Last Summer), or an extensive flashback used to explain things. Titles like “... Years Later" will be superimposed on the screen. The Short Cut - If you are driving somewhere, why not go off the beaten track and take a short-cut? Better still, go somewhere completely out of the way where there is absolutely no chance of being able to find anyone to help you. Even better still, take the advice of a creepy local and head down that deserted road. You’ll be alright.
DO THESE APPLY TO EDEN LAKE & THE DESCENT?
Eden Lake
“if you had a bunch of public school kids in blazers, it just wouldn’t be scary”
(Watkins 2009)
HOODIE HORROR (Shortened) Linn Lönroth This article examines an emerging sub genre in contemporary British horror film: the ‘hoodie horror’. Typically set against the backdrop of Britain’s low-income housing estates, these films locate their horror in a milieu associated with the ‘new British “underclass”‘, as film scholar Johnny Walker puts it (2012, 438) and almost invariably follow a peaceful middle-class couple or family as they are ruthlessly attacked and terrorised by a group of deprived hooded youths. Besides Citadel, films like Eden Lake (James Watkins 2008), Cherry Tree Lane (Paul Andrew Williams 2010), Harry Brown (Daniel Barber 2009), F (a.k.a. The Expelled, Johannes Roberts 2010), Community (Jason Ford 2012), The Disappeared (Johnny Kevorkian 2008), and Heartless (Philip Ridley 2009) are often mentioned in these discussions and can be seen as forming a part of this new subgenre. What is particularly striking about these films is their portrayal of working class youths as revolting, violent, and sometimes even demonic monsters (as in Citadel and Heartless), posing a great threat to British bourgeois life. As the Sight & Sound letter suggests, many of the hoodie horrors were soon criticised for reinforcing negative stereotyping of already-marginalised groups in society, particularly in the aftermath of the 2011 England riots as those participating were likewise demonised in tabloid media. Yet in exploiting this largely media-invoked fear of a ‘Broken Britain’ and the supposed slow moral decay of Britain’s ‘lower classes’, other parts of the audience accepted these films as realistic representations of a naturally savage and uncontrollable ‘feral underclass’. Regardless of whether the figure of the hoodie is politically questionable or simply realistic (or perhaps even a parody of a warped media view), it seems that British horror film has made itself a new monster with roots in the right-wing media’s portrayal of the ‘dangerous’ classes. From a film historical perspective, the American backwoods genre could in many ways be seen as a predecessor to hoodie horror (and to some extent the home invasion film, on which, for example, Cherry Tree Lane draws). These genres often base their plots around similar scenarios in which white, middle-class people either venture out into rural America where life is depicted as backwards and primitive and in which savage and uncivilised inbred creatures thrive (e.g. Deliverance (1972), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), The Hills Have Eyes (1977) or, as in some branches of the home invasion genre, where the peaceful middle classes find their quiet domestic sphere invaded by these feral groups (The Last House on the Left (1972), When a Stranger Calls (1979), The Strangers (2008). Some films also inverse this class violence by twisting the genre and letting the rich classes hunt down the poor rather than the other way around, in a kind of reversed hoodie horror scenario in films like The Most Dangerous Game (1932), The People Under the Stairs (1992), Hard Target (1993), and more recently Tucker and Dale vs. Evil (2010) and The Purge (2013). The hoodie horror that has been most widely discussed for its supposed social commentary and reference to class is Eden Lake. The film follows Jenny and Steve, a well-to-do, middle-class couple who go for a weekend break in the countryside. Despite obvious warning signs, such as billboards announcing that the area is to be
redeveloped into a gated community, mothers with heavy accents slapping their children in the local pub, and the couple’s own satnav literally telling them to “turn around at your first opportunity,” Steve and Jenny drive straight into a horrific nightmare. Not long after arriving, they are terrorised by a group of murderous teenagers with a Rottweiler. “The film bites deep into a growing social problem in Britain,” film scholars Marc Blake and Sara Bailey write in their book Writing the Horror Movie: “The Daily Mail culture of a fatherless underclass on benefits with no morals, responsibility or fear of reprisal. A pack of youth with a sense of entitlement to ‘respect’ and instant gratification may be a narrow view, but it became all too real in the England-wide riots in the summer of 2011” (2013, 143). This comment makes a connection between the feral teenagers in Eden Lake who stab Steve to death and try to burn the couple at the stake whilst recording it on their smartphone, and the youth taking part in the 2011 England riots. While admitting that associating violence and immorality with the British ‘underclass’ seems narrow minded, the authors nevertheless justifies this very association when they deem the film realistic and “all too real.” The director James Watkins argues in equally confused and contradictory ways when claiming that Eden Lake “isn’t an attack on a particular social group” yet adding, “but if you had a bunch of public school kids in blazers, it just wouldn’t be scary” (Watkins in Graham 2009).1 As in Citadel, where the violent kids are unambiguously associated with a poor working class living in social housing, the youths in Eden Lake are likewise unambiguously portrayed as ‘lower class’ citizens by adopting well-known stereotypes of bad-mannered and poorly socialised working-class ‘chavs’ wearing branded tracksuits, trainers, and hoodies. Their accents are distinctively different from the boarding school English of the middle-class couple they terrorise (who drove from their home in London to Eden Lake in a Range Rover with a built-in satnav, wear Ray-Ban sunglasses, and go scuba diving). The kids themselves get around on BMX bikes (while their parents drive white vans), own an aggressive Rottweiler, and play loud music on their boombox. We find similar working-class stereotypes in the other films mentioned: In Heartless and Harry Brown, the youths also hide their faces behind hoodies and spend their time causing trouble in dark alleyways and underpasses in their deprived communities. Cherry Tree Lane portrays the violent young offenders as money greedy, illiterate, and foul-mouthed rapists with an attention span so poor that they cannot even be bothered to find the button to change the channel on the TV remote, and Community sees its hooded monsters as living in a council estate so excluded from the rest of society that they have started communicating through howling. Whether or not we can justify Watkins’ argument that his film is not an attack on any specific social group, it seems safe to suggest that the hoodie horror genre makes use of ready-made stereotypes of the working class in order to enhance its genre-specific effects. This is something that its audience was fast to point out both by ways of praising and condemning it. Realistic or not, violence and crime are almost invariably associated with the working classes in these films. Journalist Libby Brooks continues this discussion when writing in The Guardian that Eden Lake leaves her with a bitter aftertaste because it suggests that: ❏ what we fear today is not the supernatural or the alien, but children – specifically working-class children – and their boozy indiscriminately shagging, incompetent parents. And the reason for that lingering aftertaste is that it’s true […] Eden Lake frightens because feral youth (or knife crime, however you want to identify it) exist as much as truism as a trope (2008). As Brooks suggests, Eden Lake does not simply end with Steve’s murder but goes so far as to propose that Jenny is killed (and possibly raped) by the kids’ parents, thereby allowing critics like Brooks to associate the dangers of British society not only with certain troublesome youths but with a whole class of problem families, whose immoral and ‘incompetent’ behaviour is passed down the generations through uncontrollable reproduction (or ‘shagging’, as Brooks puts it). Some of the commenters on this article agreed that the ‘broken’ families of Britain were to blame for the real-life violence they saw reflected in the hoodie horrors. One reader expressed his concern about the “ultra-violent, almost subhuman, underclass that currently infests this country” (Ibid.) and suggested that Eden Lake should be taken as realism. Similarly, one blogger argued that
❏ Eden Lake is the closest thing I’ve found to a satisfactory ‘explanation’ for our ‘inexplicable’ summer of unrest. It satisfies because it lays bare our innate distrust of our children. It satisfies because it provokes indignation and fury; because it gives the audience its ‘feral rats!’ moment, because it appeals to the latent vigilante in all of us, who ‘won’t stand for it’ and desires an eye for an eye (Tutorphil 2011).
The Daily Mail critic Chris Tookey praised Eden Lake as a “thought-provoking” film that said “what other films have been too scared or politically correct to mention” in its accurate portrayal of parents who had “lost their moral compass and any feelings of responsibility towards their children” (2008). Perhaps the most outrageous response to the supposed realism of Eden Lake, however, came from an IMDb user who went to great lengths to express his/her anger at the societal collapse portrayed in the film: ❏ “With Eden Lake, I’ve been shown the terrifying truth about one of the biggest evils currently plaguing the UK (I’ll give you a clue: it likes to wear Burberry and has lousy taste in music!)”. That’s right: I’m talking about Chavs! If, like me, you find that yob culture makes your blood boil, then you too will be absolutely seething by the end of this excellent film, which cleverly taps into the viewer’s fury, fear and frustration with loutish teenagers who are free to terrorise the innocent because the law lacks the power to punish them. In Eden Lake, Director James Watkins presents a harrowing fictional account of one such incident in which a couple are subjected to unbelievable pain and humiliation by a gang of nasty young thugs. The sickening atrocities perpetrated by Watkins’ lawless delinquents are terrifyingly real (reports on similar real-life events can all-too-often be found in today’s tabloids) and serve only too well to highlight just how far our society has sunk in recent years (Ba_Harrisson 2011). In this sense, part of the audience not only recognises that these films associate violence and criminal behaviour with an ‘underclass’ of people existing outside of ‘normal’ British society but also accepts these representations as realistic.
Articles - (Search in Google)
Hoodies strike fear in British cinema https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/nov/05/british-hoodie-films
Eden Lake: the film that frightened me most https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/29/eden-lake-the-film-that-frightened-me-most
The Descent Sample Analysis The film opens with shots of the main characters white-water rafting. The soundtrack is diegetic, made up of whoops and screams – of excitement rather than fear which the audience might expect at the beginning of a horror film. The sequence uses rapid cuts between a variety of extreme close-up and long shots. The close-up on the rushing water and the faces of the women emphasize the mood of exhilaration. The first scene also sets up the narrative tension; while Sarah and her daughter hug each other, her husband and Juno exchange intense looks. Beth is alone. A close-up on her face suggests that she doesn’t know what is happening but that she has guessed – much like the position of the audience. With the sudden tragic accident in the next scene the genre would seem to be a thriller or drama centred on the emotional response to an explicable accident. The first indication that this is a horror film comes at the hospital where Sarah is recovering. Instead of the realistic space of the river and the road seen previously, there is the first of a series of Sarah’s hallucinations or dreams about her dead daughter. As Sarah stands in the hospital corridor, a green light surrounding her, it is not clear if this is a real experience or not. This has a disorientating effect on the audience which is further emphasized by the use of a reverse zoom shot. Sarah’s costume – her hospital gown, wild hair and staring eyes – also recall iconic moments from other horror films such as Carrie (there is another reference to Carrie at the end of the film when Sarah’s hand thrusts out of the earth). As Sarah runs down the hospital corridor in terror she is enveloped in darkness – an image which foreshadows her experience in the cave. The conflict between the characters in the film is also further developed for the audience as the camera pulls back to show Juno watching Sarah and then running away. Many of the elements of this pre-title sequence indicate the structure of the film as a whole, with the shifts between different genres evident in the film language. The mixing of the real world, dreams, hallucinations and the supernatural also continues throughout, culminating in the ‘two’ endings of the film.
REPRESENTATION
Representations of Gender The Descent is an unusual film because all the main characters are women. In fact there is only one male character of any importance and he only appears in the first few minutes of the film. It is debatable whether the monsters in the film are male – ‘that was not a human being’ one of the women says when they finally realize they are not alone in the cave. One of the main areas of study of women in films has been the way in which many female characters only seem to exist to be looked at, to provide romantic – and sexual – interest for the male characters (and audience). The role of women in the horror genre has been a controversial area (see information box below) and therefore The Descent provides an interesting case study for the changing representation of women in the genre.
Some points to note on the representation of gender in The Descent
Costume in the film is predominantly the clothing and equipment needed for the extreme activities the women take part in – white-water rafting and caving. The clothing is functional and worn for a purpose rather than to accentuate feminine characteristics. This is also the case with the women’s ‘everyday’ clothes which consist of high-necked heavy sweaters and jeans. The props (such as ropes and pickaxes) also emphasize the physical strength and abilities of the group. The relationships between the women provide the conflict and dynamic which drives the plot forward; this means that the film defines the women through their relationships with each other rather than to men. Only one of the group fulfils the conventional female role of wife and mother. The dominance of female characters in The Descent does not necessarily mean that the representations are positive – part of the conflict within the group is
to do with betrayal between characters – and are very far from a feminist idea of the sisterhood. The main conflict is between Sarah (the wife and mother) and Juno, whose desire for adventure and challenge leads them into the ‘wrong’ cave. The character of Juno raises interesting questions about the representation of gender, particularly the way in which strong women are often signified through masculine characteristics. (A forerunner of the character of Juno may be seen in Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 and Ripley in Aliens.) The setting of the cave means that the characters are in darkness for most of the film, further removing the opportunity for the women to be objectified by the audience – the need to identify the characters in such a setting also means that their faces in close-up dominate, rather than their bodies.
Modern Primitive and Monstrous Feminine
1.
LOCATION AND SARAH
The caverns themselves are intertwined with Sarah’s development as a character, pushing her and becoming part of her as she moves through the story. Each transition in her character is signalled by a ‘birth’ from the caverns These ‘births’ allow Sarah to transition into something ‘other’. A monstrous feminine and modern primitive. 2. FIRST BIRTH The first of Sarah’s births occurs as they descend deeper into the caves. Sarah becomes stuck and is pulled screaming from the tight space into the open. This first ‘birth’ signals the change in space in the cave and in Sarah’s role within it placing her as traumatised survivor rather than explorer. 3. SECOND BIRTH - BIRTH OF MODERN PRIMITIVE This scene marks a change in Sarah’s character, shifting her from traumatised woman into a primitive one At the start of this sequence Sarah has already engaged in the most vital of actions for a primitive, the creation of fire. This is in direct contrast to her friends who remain using their modern flares and neon glow sticks. She then takes part in her second primitive action, unarmed combat, killing a child ‘crawler’ and in turn. During this fight Sarah is stripped of her climbing equipment and modern utilities, further pushing her towards a role as a primitive Rather than the axes and modern tools used by Juno, Sarah is forced to use bone tools to defend herself using a piece of antler to kill the woman whilst using a bone club to defeat the male crawler.
4. BIRTH OF THE PRIMITIVE Her scream marks her change into a primitive, echoing throughout the cave Her friends mistake this for the screams of the crawlers further cementing her transition from modern to primitive for the audience. Although this scene is clearly empowering it can also be interpreted as “a masculine fantasy in which the feminine is constituted as horrific” This scene marks the point where Sarah assumes the masculine role in the film, her muscular body drenched in blood and her violent acts allow her to cross She has defeated the monster herself, defying society's status quo and therefore has become the monster herself. 5. THIRD BIRTH Sarah’s final birth should be one that allows her to survive As she pulls herself free from the cave, breaking out from its symbolic ‘crotch’ formed by the roots a tree she gasps and screams. Unable to speak or comprehend her trauma she attempts to drive away, only to be transported back to the cave.
6. THE MONSTROUS FEMININE- CREED Horror films function as terrifying because of their emphasis on the imagery of “abjection”. To “abject” something is to reject it, and create a mental barrier between themselves and the abjected thing. Creed states that the notions of rejections can take place in 3 ways... ● The first relationship to rejection can be created through imagery. An ‘abjected’ image is one that can contain: Spilt blood Vomit Saliva Sweat Putrefying flesh etc… ● The second relationship to ‘abjection’ is the notion of crossing a border This is not a physical border but more a societal one, stepping away from what is acceptable and instead moving towards unacceptable or ‘abjected’ behaviour ● The third relationship to ‘abjection’ is through maternity, the mother herself becomes the monster The mother becomes the monster holding onto the mother child relationship while the child attempts to break free of it. 7. MONSTROUS FEMININE AND THE DESCENT Watch the ending of The Descent. Thinking of this scene and the ‘Second Birth’ sequence from before how can Sarah be considered ‘abject’? 8. FEMALE + MONSTER The idea that the female and femininity is threatening is not a new concept in horror, but this concept is fully realised in The Descent. Sarah undergoes a transformation from traumatised housewife, to modern primitive
and monster in one. Her position as a broken mother forces her to stay in the cave, creating a psychotic delusion to which she cannot escape. The space she inhabits is constructed to resemble the female womb, normally a comforting life giving space, that has been distorted and twisted into realms of horror whose distorted foetuses (crawlers) live and thrive. The women's prowess at the start if the film is slowly stripped from them as they move deeper into the cave system, until one of their own becomes the monster.
URBANOIA James Rose (2007)
A subgenre of horror Deals with the collision of two cultures (past and present)
Wilderness VS Modernity As the group diminishes the character that is usually deemed to be the weakest prevails and hunts the hunters The sole survivor of modernity stumbles back into civilisation bloody and traumatised.
THIS IS A HUGE PART OF YOUR REVISION. THE PAPER IS TOO LARGE TO INCLUDE IN THIS GUIDE.
PLEASE REMIND YOURSELVES OF THE WHOLE PAPER.
URBANOIA
Exam Technique - Section B
DISTINCT DON’T IGNORE SETTING TECHNICAL CODES ICONOGRAPHY NARRATIVE STRUCTURE CHARACTER TYPES THEMES
PAST QUESTIONS You should discuss a minimum of two British films in your answer and base it on one of the following: Horror or Comedy.
❏To what extent are the narratives of the films you have studied for this topic typical of their genre? ❏How important is the representation of a particular time and place in the films you have studied for this topic? ❏To what extent do the films you have studied for this topic try to narrate specifically ‘British’ stories? ❏In what ways do genre conventions determine how particular characters are represented in the films you have studied for this topic? ❏How far are the characters in the films you have studied for this topic typical of their genre? ❏What have you found to be distinctively ‘British’ about the genre films you have studied for this topic? ❏How are narrative devices used to increase the impact of horror or comedy in the films you have studied for this topic? ❏How is gender represented in the horror or comedy films you have studied for this topic?
Section C US Film Comparison
Goodfellas & Wolf of Wallstreet
US Film Comparison The key feature of this unit is...
COMPARISON OF CONTEXTS. You will be identifying similarities and differences between the two films. You will be comparing the two films in terms of: ● ● ● ● ●
Context (conditions of production e.g. social/economic/political/institutional) Style/techniques Themes/messages Representation – time/place/setting Impact of genre
Context - 80’s America Overview For many people in the United States, the late 1970s were a troubled and troubling time. The radical and countercultural movements of the 1960s and early 1970s, the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War, uncertainty in the Middle East and economic crisis at home had undermined Americans’ confidence in their fellow citizens and in their government. By the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the idealistic dreams of the 1960s were worn down by inflation, foreign policy turmoil and rising crime. In response, many Americans embraced a new conservatism in social, economic and political life during the 1980s, characterized by the policies of President Ronald Reagan. Often remembered for its materialism and consumerism, the decade also saw the rise of the “yuppie,” an explosion of blockbuster movies and the emergence of cable networks like MTV, which introduced the music video and launched the careers of many iconic artists.
FINANCIAL CHANGE ● Recession of 1982 ● High Interest Rates ● Industrial Depression ● Farming Depression ● ‘Greed is good’ ● Yuppies ● Personal Appearance ● Consumerism ● Materialistic Tendencies DRUGS ● Effects of free 60s/70s start to impact ● War on Drugs - Just Say No ● Money increased drugs (Yuppies + Cocaine) ● Recession increased drugs (Deprivation + Heroin/Crack)
The Gangster Genre Given the typically violent and controversial content associated with the gangster film genre, it is quite likely that no other genre of filmmaking has been so heavily critiqued and censored by the Motion Picture Association of America in the history of cinema. Nevertheless, despite the MPAA’s attempts to prohibit these films from screening, not only has the gangster film genre continued to thrive for nearly a century, but it has also established itself as one of the most critically acclaimed film genres of all time. But since the genre is laced with an abundance of visceral brutality and is focused on ruthless characters with loose morals, what is it about the genre that has captivated innumerous viewers and earned wide critical praise? In my opinion, this fascination can primarily be attributed to the genre’s innate capability to depict the Shakespearean tragic figure in their pursuit of a glamorous façade of the “American Dream.” However, given the figure’s typically stubborn fallibility and quest for more power, typically the ramifications of this pursuit are made apparent by the film’s conclusion. Through this approach, not only does the gangster film genre cater to our primal fantasies of abandoning morality to whatever we please, but it also provides a critical perspective on the American Dream that warns us of the consequences associated with consumerism and greed.
Similar to most of cinema’s largest genres, the gangster film dates back to the silent era of film. Although it wasn’t the first gangster movie ever made, D.W. Griffith’s The Musketeers of Pig Alley (1912) is widely recognized as the first significant gangster film, as well as a film that established preliminary interest in the genre (Dirks). With that said, it wasn’t until the advent of sound in the 1930s that gangster films truly developed into an entertaining and rapidly expanding genre, as sound enabled the films to come alive via the inclusion of screeching car tires, gunshots, and so forth. Moreover, given that these films were released during the time of the Prohibition Era and when organized crime was on the rise in urban areas, audiences’ intrigue in the subject matter was heightened.
With Warner Bros’ release of Little Caesar (LeRoy, 1931), The Public Enemy (Wellman, 1931), and Scarface (Hawks, 1932) at the start of the 1930s, the genre’s blossoming reputation was solidified. Moreover, in each of these films, the lead’s charismatic personality enabled viewers to identity with the character, but through the character’s inevitable violent downfall, viewers were reminded of the consequences of crime, and an effective formula for the genre was established. Nevertheless, given that these films did glamorize crime and glorify the criminal, initial attempts to censor the gangster film genre were quite strong, and the Hays Production Code forced studios to make moral pronouncements and present criminals as psychopaths after 1934 (Dirks).
‘Hays Production Code forced studios to make moral pronouncements and present criminals as psychopaths after 1934’
Although these initial attempts to censor gangster films did hinder the genre’s progress for several years, by the 1940s, gangster films began to stretch the limitations of what they were allowed to show, which made them darker and more brutal, as noted by films like White Heat (Walsh, 1949). This progression slowly continued for several years, and with the release of the landmark film, Bonnie and Clyde (Penn, 1967), new screen standards for violence were set and the criminal lifestyle was greatly romanticized. With the 1970s, Coppola’s The Godfather (1972) and The Godfather, Part II (1974) brought a radical revival to the gangster film genre and proved the genre’s critical worth to the history of cinema. Since then, the gangster film genre has remained rather successful, gaining critical approval for films such as Scarface (De Palma, 1983), Goodfellas (Scorsese, 1990), Carlito’s Way (De Palma, 1993), Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994), and recently, The Departed (Scorsese, 2006).
‘new screen standards for violence were set and the criminal lifestyle was greatly romanticized’
Ultimately, by contesting stipulations placed on it, the gangster film genre persevered and has become one of the most notable genres in the history of cinema. Through the depiction of characters that operate outside the constraints of the law, the gangster film genre enables viewers to vicariously experience a morally loose lifestyle, condemned by society. However, more often than not, the gangster film genre simultaneously functions as a platform to voice concerns with skewed interpretations of the “American Dream,” as central characters in these films typically allow their excessive greed and consumerist tendencies to lead to their downfall. With that said, even in the midst of violence and illicit behavior, as viewers, we can still derive vital lessons and reflect on our personal nature when watching movies associated with the gangster film genre.
Scorsese's Crime Trilogy
Director Martin Scorsese also explored the theme of family ties being torn apart by unpredictable violence, in a world of losers, loners, outsiders and low-lifes. His intense films regularly starred actor Robert De Niro. Scorsese's so-called 'crime trilogy' included two mob pictures in the 1990s. The first film in the trilogy was Mean Streets (1973) - the one that established Scorsese's reputation. It was about the lives of aspiring, small-time crooks in the Little Italy section of New York. The other two films - both with the same scriptwriter Nicholas Pileggi - were GoodFellas (1990) - adapted from Wiseguy, which followed thirty years in the lethally-violent criminal careers of rising mobsters and was based on the life of actual ex-mobster Henry Hill, and Scorsese's Casino (1995) examined a Mafia criminal dynasty making its presence known in a brutal takeover of a gaudy, neon-lit 1960s-70s Las Vegas.
Goodfellas
“As far back as I can remember I always wanted to be a gangster. To me being a gangster was better than being President of the United States.”
The mythology of the American Dream.
OVERVIEW Institutional Context
Goodfellas was directed by Martin Scorsese and co-written by Scorsese and Nicholas Pileggi who wrote the 1986 non-fiction book Wiseguy that the film is based on. Scorsese is well known for directing American films that explore gang culture (in particular Italian American gang culture) but also that explore problematical masculinity in films with similar themes like Mean Streets (1973), Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980), The King of Comedy (1983), a remake of Cape Fear (1991), Casino, which has been described as a film that very much borrows from the Goodfellas template (1995), Gangs of New York (2002), The Departed (2006) and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013). Like many directors, Scorsese as an auteur has used the same actors in several of his films, in particular Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Leonardo DiCaprio.
Goodfellas is from the genre of Crime Gangster Thriller. Gangster films have evolved over time to become a subgenre of crime thrillers with their own set of recognisable codes and conventions. Star marketing was important, showcasing actors who had become typecast playing violent hyper masculine roles such as De Niro, Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta. Goodfellas is BBFC classified as 18 certificate in part reflecting the violent conventions of the gangster genre but specifically for the ‘strong violence and hard drug use’. This made Goodfellas aspirational for younger target audiences who arguably aspire to the dominant male representations. The target audience of gangster films is stereotypically 15-24 male skew mainstreamers and aspirers from the C2, D and E socio-economic groupings. Goodfellas was also based on a true story. This is one of the key appeals to the above demographic that understand the films as having exaggerated narratives and characters but based on real life events. Narrative and Genre Drugs underpin the narrative. Goodfellas focuses on an individual, Henry Hill, but fully references his collective identity both in terms of family and his membership of the Italian American Lucchese crime family. The primary narrative of Goodfellas also takes place in the late 1960s and early 1970s in East New York. Subtitles at the end of Goodfellas explain that Henry has been clean since 1987 but separated from Karen in 1989, Paul Cicero died in
prison in 1988 while in 1990 (the year of the film’s release and a natural end) Jimmy was serving a life sentence in a New York prison. In this regard a convention it follows the rise and fall of a particular character. This character is often hero and villain with Henry a brutal killer but also incredibly protective loyal family members. Henry ‘starts off small’ but ends up becoming an iconic revered figure. Henry quits school and works for Jimmy; he works for a powerful older violent man who he learns from. Goodfellas explores the classic conventions of the American Dream with the acquisition of wealth and power as the primary driving force. It is violent - containing graphic representations with guns and knives as key iconography. Goodfellas uses a first person narrative voice over technique to lead audiences into a preferred reading, but also to ensure identification with and sympathy for Henry Hill. While audiences have a choice in how to interpret the narrative chain of cause and effect Henry is a character who endears himself to the spectator through humour with a childish innocence that is in binary opposition to his actions.
It follows a linear in format with use of flashback or asynchronous narrative and most of the action takes place in and around New York State: East New York, Harlem and New Jersey, where binary oppositions of rich and poor are all too evident. Success is measured by ownership of flashy cars, expensive clothes and sharp suits, domesticity in large mansions and apartments. There is still however a lack of acceptance into mainstream society, which is seen often as the antagonist. In Goodfellas there are several antagonists but also anti heroes. There is some justification given within the narrative for the negative characters that get ‘whacked’ apart of course from Tommy that perhaps links with the encoded themes and messages. Representation of Character, Time and Place Our hero is both protagonist and antagonist: he is an anti hero in that he does the right thing and the wrong thing but is more personable than any other characters in the film. Henry comes from a low status immigrant background which links well with the American Dream. In Scarface (1983), for example, Tony Montana is a lowly Cuban refugee who arrives in Miami with nothing and builds a fearsome crime empire. Henry is intensely loyal to his immigrant roots but wants more in that his background and previous poverty (like Tony Montana) dictate a greed that is clearly evident. With Henry, his womanising is also seen as a measurement of his success with the spectator convinced that he physically will not be able to cope with his cocaine addiction, addiction to sex with Sandy and Karen, but also an addiction to his family. This is not to mention his fluid relationship with his crime family. Henry lives at a fast pace. Henry lives by his id: when he is hungry he eats, when he wants drugs he takes
them, when he wants sex he goes and gets it. Many of Scorsese’s films have been set in New York and Goodfellas is no different , it was shot in Queens, East New York and Long Island to ensure narrative authenticity. East New York in the late 60s and early 70s is seen to have a very close Italian American community, which conform to cultural stereotypes including obsessions with cooking and eating, heavy accents, dress code, hair cuts, family tradition, loyalty and patriarchy. When Karen holds a gun to Henry’s head after she finds out he has a girlfriend, in narrative voice over she tells the audience how she cannot kill him because she still wants him so much. Predictably Henry talks her into putting the gun down and then ruthlessly beats and threatens Karen. The city of New York is seen as aspirational and as a platform for the American Dream and almost too ‘easy’. At several moments during the film the narration informs the audience just how ‘easy’ the acquisition of wealth has been for the narrator. Messages, Themes and Values The message in many gangster films is that crime doesn’t pay. A major theme is loyalty: at the outset of the film Henry states “Never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut” but this is rebuked at the end of the film. Henry enrolls on the witness protection programme. Loyalty is explored consistently throughout the film with loyalty to the crime family and extended biological family seen as paramount. Family loyalty is key; Henry fights an internal battle between his hedonistic lifestyle and his loyalty to his extended Italian American family. He cheats on Karen but is always there for her and arguably needs her. He is the patriarch of his family and exerts an element of control despite stereotypically strong Italian matriarchal characters that maintain old country traditions. His ethnicity is important to him and it is something he values. Institutions however are challenged by Henry who is anti establishment by his very nature. In Goodfellas cocaine has a visible presence in the film. It is the perceived value, however, that these drugs represent that is important to understand. On his release from prison Henry thinks that he has a nest egg of drugs stashed away while he discovers that Karen has flushed them all down the toilet. The power of his reaction is testament to the fact that he and his family are wholly reliant on his drug dealing to survive financially. Hierarchical rivalry is further illustrated by the Goodfellas Billy Bats scene when a made man is half beaten and kicked to death because of a masculine put down. This ultimately leads to the self-destruction of Tommy who naively believes he also will become one of the untouchables. In Goodfellas there is also the ultimate respect to the homeland and their Italian roots after Billy is beaten. At Tommy’s mother’s house with what they believe to be a dead Billy Bats in the trunk of the car Henry, Jimmy and Tommy eat pasta in the middle of the night with Tommy’s mother. Eating together is seen as a fundamental Italian tradition despite any chaos that may be going on in the outside world.
Micro Analysis Goodfellas - Pittsburgh Connections ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0WMl9No0mg A two shot of Henry and Paulie cuts to a glamourous escapist close up of cocaine on a mirror surface being chopped up by playing cards. This is anchored by an aspirational Rolling Stones non diegetic music track that reflects the time period. Non diegetic narrative voice over informs the audience of the phenomenal financial success of his Henry’s latest drug deal as the camera slowly tilts up to reveal a sexualised Sandy mixing the drugs. She is framed in close up next to Henry who drapes his hand around her with the patriarchal connotations that he is her property as he puts a joint into her mouth.
Henry is shot sitting down, immaculately dressed and, like Frank, in an expensive beige suit and tie reflecting his status. He appears stylish and well groomed as the camera pulls back to a wider shot to reveal Henry framed centrally flanked by his old wise guy buddies Tommy to his left and Jimmy to his right. An iconic close up shows a significant amount of cash as genre conventions are reinforced. Henry in narrative voice over informs the audience that his operation is so successful that he needed the help of Tommy and Jimmy and as he speaks to each character a hand held camera pans left and right avoiding the need for a cut. Close ups of both men hear Tommy swear expressing his excitement and anticipation. This acutely patriarchal scene mirrors the male camaraderie and togetherness that underpins their loyalty to each other. A sound bridge connects with the next scene (the same piece of music) as Jimmy is seen at the Department of Probation. In wide shot he is called into a meeting while diegetic sound identifies a request for his pay slips as the camera zooms in to the Department of Probation sign. Here clear binary oppositions are encoded between Jimmy’s new criminal activity with Henry and Tommy and his apparent legitimate work after release from prison. Sound in this whole episode is of particular interest as three layers of sound are used – non-diegetic music, non-diegetic narrative voice over and diegetic dialogue. The music is at high volume during key moments (shots of the cocaine) and low level to ensure audiences hear relevant dialogue but also Henry’s narrative voice over which leads the audience by the hand for the large part of the film.
Attitudes Towards Crime American cinema seems to have always had a preoccupation with crime and criminals, which is a testament not just to the proliferation of the crime genre, but to the quality of its luminaries. Of course it helps that James Cagney and the gangster flicks of the thirties and forties were drawing in crowds at the same time as one of America’s greatest crime writers, Raymond Chandler, was creating private eye masterpieces such as The Big Sleep, and adapting other works such as Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944) for the screen. So we can see that cinema has had an active preoccupation with criminality for the best part of seventy years. Whilst film noir and the gangster films of the thirties tend to focus on the structure of good versus bad and the devolution of the good, Tarantino’s earlier works fuse together conventional cinematic notions of crime and criminality with the comic-realistic spanner-in-the-works of occupational mishaps (e.g. killing of a victim and the ensuing difficulty in covering up the mess, or a consideration of how long it actually takes an abdominal gun-shot wound to kill a man). One of the few Scorsese films post-Raging Bull (1980) to receive much critical acclaim (along with most recent outing The Aviator, 2004), Goodfellas maintains the ambivalent attitude toward violence that we can also see in Raging Bull and Taxi Driver (1976), although it is a far less visually brutal film. Instead the brutality comes through the constant underlying pressure of impending violence, which exists throughout like a drum track pounding out the rhythm in every scene. Similar also to these two other films, and to Mean Streets, there is a tension that exists is his work between the repellent nature of his characters’ violent outbursts, and our sympathy with, for instance, Travis’ loneliness and isolation, Jake’s feelings of betrayal and the cultural limitations laid upon his masculinity, or Henry’s drive for success and his relative restraint compared to his associates.
Steve Neale and Murray Smith state that:
“This ambivalent attitude to its protagonist is what makes Taxi Driver a great film. It is a film fuelled by the tension of sympathising with Travis’ loneliness while being repelled by his violent, anti-social behaviour. This is echoed in the tension between the reality of the street scenes and the lavish and seductive cinematography (by Michael Chapman) and music (by Bernard Herrmann).”
There is a similar relationship between the visual and aural aesthetics in Goodfellas and the constant simmering presence of violence. Far more than these previous dealings with violence, crime and masculinity, Goodfellas is a visually pleasing film, all bright colours and smooth camera work, and even the scenes of violence are not nearly as vividly potent as Travis’ shoot-out in the finale to Taxi Driver. In Goodfellas the up-tempo soundtrack is accompanied by a camera which prowls smoothly on cranes and dollies, and lighting which brings out the colours of his characters’ expensive and brash clothing and houses. More than his earlier works, the aesthetic of Goodfellas is typically cinematic – there is none of the gritty, subversive, nouveau vague inspired imagery. The relevance of this is in Scorsese’s sympathetic response to Henry’s preoccupation with the trappings of power and prestige that his violent ways have afforded him. Even at the climax of the film, when Henry is released into the safe anonymity of the witness protection programme, and surrounded by suburban comfort, he can’t help but miss the privileges and excitement of ‘the life’. When Henry asks Karen to hide his gun for him, having witnessed him viciously beat a young man who came on too strong, she was not repelled by his violent masculinity, but admits that “it turned me on”. In a film of such explosive violence and derogatory machismo, perhaps the most shocking violent outburst comes in the first act when the young Henry is struck by his father for skipping school. What is most shocking is the casual manner in which Henry as narrator recalls this domestic abuse – he recalls he had to “take a few beatings”, but in the long run he stills feels it was well worth it. Henry, like Karen, is intoxicated by the power, money and lavish material gains that ‘the life’ can afford him and his family. The constant presence of violence made erratic by ego, and the need to carry out vile deeds such as burying a foul smelling corpse, or to go through violent domestic abuse, are merely the downsides of the job – like back pain to a construction worker, or knee damage to a sportsman, and it is this tension, this acceptance of violence as an everyday occurrence, which Scorsese explores. Like Henry, who is more sensitive than Tommy and Jimmy, the audience experience the pleasurable excesses and comforts alongside the brutal and repellent nature of the work, and neither is solely celebrated or derided in isolation.
The film is famous for the manner in which its violence explodes out of seemingly innocuous situations, and we can see this reflected in the way Tommy lashes out at the poor young waiter who can’t keep a tight enough hold on his mouth, shooting him in the foot and then later killing him. In this instance, it is the unavoidable flaws in the characteristics of these men that escalate into bloody violence, and this is a theme which is continued throughout – more often than not, it is the characters inability to avoid their own greed or their own machismo which leads to their downfall. The young waiter thinks Tommy is too big for his boots, and can’t help but keep
adding a little smart line under his breath, even though he knows he is pushing it with a dangerous man. In the same way as Tommy, he refuses to let someone steal whatever level of dominance and respect he may have, however little, even if it increases the threat of injury, or even death. Likewise Tommy’s downfall comes in his inability to get comfortable in his station, to tone down his tough-little-guy, bull-in-a-china-shop persona, until he finally realises his mistake with a quiet “Oh no” as he heads off not to become a made-man, but to be shot in the head. It is this terminal ambition, this tendency to always want more – more power, more money, more cocaine, more respect – which instigates the violence.
‘Scorsese seems to be suggesting that crime does pay, just not enough.’ So then we can see not just in Goodfellas but throughout Scorsese’s work, there exists tempered a consideration of the repellent nature of violent crime tangled up in a close study of character, and the forces that drive these criminals to their acts of criminality. For all its set pieces and murders, the most memorable aspect of Goodfellas is the way in which the flaws in these characters personalities and the overtly masculine posturing nature of their world always instigate and escalate the violence, and ultimately bring about their own downfall – Tommy’s slaying of a made man is brought on by the man’s big mouth and his desire to have the last word, as well as Tommy’s indignation at someone trying to confirm his seniority over him. Like many of the scenes in the film, it starts off banal and escalates through both characters’ inability to calm the situation until one of them is dead. At the heart of this is Tommy’s dissatisfaction with his status – he has some respect, but he wants more. Likewise Jimmy has some power and a big share of their Lufthansa cash, but he wants more. Henry and Karen want more cocaine, more time, a more casual lifestyle. Scorsese seems to be suggesting that crime does pay, just not enough.
1. Cast and Crew ● Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) ● Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) ● Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) ● Paulie Cicero (Paul Sorvino) ● Karen Hill (Lorraine Bracco) ● Director: Martin Scorsese ● Editor: Thelma Schoonmaker ● Cinematography: Michael Ballhaus ● Screenplay: Martin Scorsese, Nicholas Pileggi (Author of the book upon which the film was based – Wiseguys) 2. Genre ● Crime Genre – Sub Genre – Epic Gangster saga played out over three decades ● Audience identification – the trappings of the gangster lifestyle: ● “Scoring a dollar here, a dollar there” ● Guns ● Protection Rackets ● Hits ● Drugs ● Opulent lifestyle 3. Narrative ● Linear narrative with a non-linear opening. Starts in 1970 Queens with the brutal slaying of Billy Batts (Frank Vincent). Goes back to Brooklyn, 1955 and then proceeds through 1963 resumes with the Billy Batts incident in the middle then concludes with the Sunday May 11th, 1980 Last Day as a Wiseguy sequence. ● Queens and Brooklyn – fairly run down. “It meant being a somebody in a neighbourhood full of nobodies.” ● Narrated by Henry Hill and Karen Hill. ● Has the effect of locating Henry as being with the gang but not fully a part of it. Henry for example commits no act of on screen-violence which is gangster related. 4. Themes ● Organised Crime ● Murder ● The American Dream ● New York as an Ethnic Melting pot – Tommy – 100% Sicilian. Jimmy ‘Irish Hoodlum’ Henry – Half Sicilian and Half Irish. References to Henry not being Jewish. ● Gender Relationships – women are very much secondary and are essentially used.Corruption references The Young Henry in Court and the Police being bought off. ● Heists – Air France Lufthansa ● Betrayal – Henry – betrays Karen and the whole crew ● Violence – Portrayed as random, brutal, rough justice, redemptive quality ● Redemption.
5. Sound ● Soundtrack feels part of the set – Scorsese uses the tracks on set and works with the cinematography to find the right fluidity of camera movement Layla (Derek and The Dominoes) ● Scorsese only uses tracks you could have heard at the time ● Rags to Riches – Tony Bennett ● Last Day as A Wiseguy – mix of tracks that match the jump cuts ● Guns were loaded with real cartridges 6. Editing and Cinematography ● Fast paced editing ● Fluid camera movement ● Long Tracking shot using steadicam Copacabana Sequence Karen’s descent into the underworld ● Freeze frames – emphasis on Henry’s narration ● Jump Cuts 7. Key Sequences ● a) The Beginning – puts the audience right in the film – tagline ● b) Young Henry ● c) Air France ● d) Introduction to the Bamboo Lounge – direct to the camera. Henry in Court. Joe Pesci – homage to Edwin S. Porter’s The Great Train Robbery ● e) Bruce ‘s pistol Whipping ● f) Copacabana Sequence ● g) Billy Batts ● h) Now take me to Jail ● i) Lufthansa Heist ● j) Tommy Gets ‘made’ and then whacked. ● k) Last Day as A Wiseguy
GOODFELLAS
NOTES
Wolf of Wallstreet
‘There's no nobility in poverty. I've been a rich man and I've been a poor man. And I choose rich every fuc*ing time.’
Jordan Belfort
Wolf & The Male Gaze Martin Scorsese’s “The Wolf of Wall Street” tracks the journey of real-life finance scam artist Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio). Told in part through voice-over narration by DiCaprio, it shows Jordan’s rise from small-time penny-stock trader on Long Island to the founder of Stratton Oakmont, one of the largest brokerage firms on Wall Street in the 1990s — all by the time he is 26 years old. Jordan, a master salesman who develops a cult like following, amasses a fortune by pushing questionable stocks to investors with hard-sell tactics before graduating to stock manipulation and money laundering. Along the way, he and his colleagues indulge in vast amounts of sex, drugs and reckless behavior — all of which the film forcefully foregrounds.
While critics have largely praised the film, it’s drawn some heat for glorifying the exploitative, hedonistic lifestyle it depicts. For one thing, the victims of Jordan’s fraud — i.e., those who spent their life savings on worthless penny stocks or lost big when Jordan manipulated stock prices — are absent from the film. The film is also a comedy — albeit a black comedy — that invites its audience to laugh and even marvel at the crass frat-boy antics on display. What’s received far less attention than merited, however, is the film’s portrayal of women. While “Wolf” is based on a true story and real characters, there is a fine line between accurately depicting the rampant objectification of women in Jordan’s world and succumbing to it. Unfortunately, by using women as little more than playthings throughout the film, the creators of “Wolf” have given in.
‘Erotic contemplation’ “Wolf” fails to say anything interesting about the women who inhabit Jordan’s world. Interchangeable Barbie-doll figures, hookers and strippers serve simply as props for the male protagonists as they carry on with their debauched antics, drawing plenty of laughs from the audience. Scorsese and Winter had plenty of creative freedom in their treatment of Jordan’s story; all that was needed to show how marginalized women were on
the Wall Street trading floors of the 1980s and 90s were a few key scenes featuring prostitutes and parades of strippers. Instead, Scorsese and Winter carry on in shot after shot, displaying dozens of barely clothed or naked female bodies whose not-so-private parts are meticulously waxed or shaven. The breasts, stilettos and shimmying bottoms continue, ad nauseam; with all the titillation, it starts to feel like the filmmakers are being seduced by the very Wall Street machismo they purportedly critique. Put more precisely, “The Wolf of Wall Street” is dominated by the male gaze — the gaze of Jordan, of Scorsese, of Winter and of the assumed audience. Film theorist Laura Mulvey wrote about the concept in a 1975 essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” in which she explains that Hollywood often forces the audience to see a film from a male perspective, causing women on screen to serve as simple objects of desire. This isn’t the fault of an individual director per se. Rather, the problem is systemic. Hollywood creates “magic” through a manipulation of visual pleasure, coding the erotic “into the language of the dominant patriarchal order.” One-dimensional Naomi (Margot Robbie) — Jordan’s second wife and the main female character — is coded all over. In the scene in which the blonde first meets Jordan, she wears a dramatic skin tight blue minidress with a cutout revealing a good part of each breast. Anticipation builds as a Stratton associate alerts the men at the party to look at her. When the camera catches her figure, time almost stands still. In Mulvey’s terms, it’s a moment of “erotic contemplation”: The spectator is invited to drink her figure as she flashes a demure but dazzling smile before the camera. (Someone in the background then shouts, “I'd f--- her if she was my sister,” followed by another, who says, “I’d let her give me AIDS.”) Enter an intoxicated and high Donnie (Jonah Hill), who, upon seeing her, begins masturbating openly at the party. Naomi reacts not with disgust but with bemused laughter.
‘There is a token female trader who utters a few lines, and a tough-talking secretary. The rest are primarily hookers and strippers, whom Jordan ranks by quality and status, naturally.’ Naomi remains an object — and little else — throughout the film. She exists only in relation to Jordan. She first appears in the film’s opening sequence, when she gives Jordan a blow job as he drives his Lamborghini. She exchanges dialogue only with Jordan and seems to have no life of her own. She talks mainly of gardening and maintaining the house, and of the other women Jordan is sleeping with. Her main contribution to the film is aesthetic: We see her fully naked (save black stockings and shoes) in one scene, topless in another and otherwise clad mostly in lingerie and tight dresses. (Nudity was reportedly a requirement for Robbie; we never see DiCaprio in full-frontal glory.) In one notable scene, which takes place in their toddler’s bedroom, Naomi tries to punish Jordan for cheating on her by withholding sex but is ultimately humiliated. While spreading her legs and pushing a pink stiletto onto Jordan’s forehead, she says, “Mommy is just so sick tired of wearing panties,” then spreads her legs to show what he will be missing. Practically panting with desire, he suddenly realizes that the security guards have watched her display through a camera embedded in the daughter’s teddy bear. He laughs while Naomi closes her legs, embarrassed. So much for Naomi’s attempt to subvert Jordan’s misogynistic logic. The other female characters in the film similarly fail to break free of the male gaze — whether that gaze seeks visual pleasure, control, or both. Jordan’s ex wife, Teresa (Cristin Milioti), at first seems to have a moral backbone, as she questions early on whether Jordan should be ripping people off via his penny-stock scheme. But she doesn’t develop as a character and ultimately ends up enthusiastically cheering her husband on. Then there’s Naomi’s aunt Emma (Joanna Lumley), who is tricked into laundering money for Jordan after he charms and flirts with her. In one particularly harrowing spectacle, a female Stratton employee agrees to have her head shaved in front of the trading floor in exchange for $10,000 — which she pledges to use for D-cup breast
implants. There is also token female trader who utters a few lines, and a tough-talking secretary — hardly meaningful characters. The rest are primarily hookers and strippers, whom Jordan ranks by quality and status, naturally.
Coke and mirrors But what if critics of the film’s treatment of women just don’t get it? Are Scorsese and Winter, say, using the Brechtian alienation effect — showing us the gluttony, the abuse, the degradation so that we don’t identify emotionally with Jordan, and instead can look at him with a critical, dispassionate eye? There is, in fact, a good argument the film is using this device vis a vis Wall Street–style excesses broadly. In an early scene, for example, a senior stockbroker, Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) invites young Jordan out to a martini-and-cocaine-fueled power lunch to school him in the ways of Wall Street. Mark tells Jordan to worry only about making money for himself (“Fuck the clients”). “We don’t create s---,” Mark says proudly. “We don’t build anything.”
There’s also evidence that Scorsese and Winter are holding a mirror up to the audience, forcing us to ask ourselves how we can sympathize with the monster that is Jordan. He is, after all, the film’s hero. In the final scene, for example there are hints that we’ve all been duped by Jordan’s charm and salesmanship. Jordan is running a motivational seminar on sales, and his enthralled audience watches him intently as he challenges participants one by one to sell him a pen. That audience is arguably a stand-in for us, the audience of “Wolf.” Like the seminar participants, we are drawn in by Jordan’s charm and encourage him to be who he is. Unfortunately, there isn’t a similar Brechtian argument to be made on the women question — i.e., the notion that the misogyny contributes to some clever cinematic device. As A.O. Scott of The New York Times writes, “the humiliation and objectification of women — an insistent, almost compulsive motif” — is not something the film merely portrays. “Mr. Scorsese, never an especially objective sociologist, is at least a participant-observer.” Is Scorsese guilty of moral failing in “Wolf”? At a minimum, he is guilty of having a blind spot (shared by many others in Hollywood) when it comes to female characters. He doesn't seem to grasp how to develop them or when to acknowledge that the script and film are indulging in double standards. Another nude-women-partying scene may very well please the marketing folks, but directors need to recognize when those scenes add little to the meaning or force of their films.
Context - 2000’s America Overview The growth of the Internet contributed to globalisation during the decade, which allowed faster communication among people around the world. The lack of economic growth of the 2000s had considerable social, environmental and mass extinction consequences, raised demand for diminishing energy resources, and was still shown to be vulnerable as demonstrated during the Global Financial Crisis late in the decade. An online blog (Huffington Post) describes 2000-2009 as ‘America’s Lost Decade’ 2000 - America chooses mediocrity: The decade opened with a divisive election where George W. Bush — an unsuccessful business executive — defeated Al Gore — a wooden but seasoned political servant — in an election decided by the Electoral College and the US Supreme Court. 2001 - America is traumatized: Bush ran on a platform of lower taxes and less government; he wasn’t interested in or adept at governing. As a result, Bush failed to pay attention to early warnings and, on September 11th, terrorists attacked. The US went to war and the Bush administration claimed near dictatorial power.
2002 - America gets angry: When US forces failed to apprehend those responsible for the attacks, the White House launched a propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was the guilty party. Voters bought into this deception and, in the mid-term elections, supported Republicans as the war Party, resulting in GOP control of Congress.
2003 - America gets even: The Bush administration spin machine persuaded Americans that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and constituted an imminent threat. On March 20th, US forces invaded Iraq and, on May 1st, President Bush declared, “mission accomplished.” 2004 - America gets bamboozled: White House propaganda convinced a slim majority of Americans the US was winning the Iraq war and George Bush was a competent President. Bush defeated John Kerry in the presidential election.
2005 - America wakes up: As it became apparent the US occupation of Iraq had fomented a civil war, Bush’s approval ratings fell below 50 percent and continued to deteriorate for the rest of his term. In August, the Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina branded him a failed president. 2006 - Democrats rebound: As Bush’s approval ratings sank, so did those of the Republican-dominated Congress. In the mid-term elections, Democrats retook control of Congress. This ended the destructive Bush legislative agenda, but could not undo the harm caused by administration appointments and edicts. 2007 - The economy tanks: Throughout the first years of the decade, America had a negative savings rate as families borrowed against their home equity to maintain their lifestyle. Faith that housing prices would increase indefinitely led to gross Wall Street speculation. In 2007 the housing bubble burst, resulting in the collapse of the financial system.
2008 - America chooses hope: As the year progressed there were increasing signs of financial panic. The Wall Street firm, Lehman Brothers, collapsed and there was a global financial crisis. Meanwhile, the country was enthralled by the presidential contest, eventually won by Barack Obama. 2009 - America is depressed: Before Obama was inaugurated, it was clear the US was in the grips of a severe recession. As unemployment rose and business activity declined, the mood of the US soured. Divisive Republican political tactics impeded Obama’s legislative agenda, particularly health care reform. 2010 - Oil Crisis: Just weeks after Obama proposed the lifting of a drilling moratorium in east coast waters, an offshore drilling rig leased by BP exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 men and injuring 17 more. Over the months that followed, an estimated 185 million gallons of oil spewed into the gulf 2011 - America get him: US forces hunted down and killed Osama Bin Laden in an attack in Pakistan. America had to borrow again to avoid going into another national recession after another stock market crash. 2012 - Obama gets re-elected.
2000’s
'Wolf of Wall Street' & 'Goodfellas' Have a Lot in Common... Film Style Unsurprisingly, since Wolf and Goodfellas share a director, they share some cinematic styles and devices. Similar to the way Hill explains Goodfellas through a recurring voiceover, Wolf often breaks to let Belfort tell his story straight into the camera, with both men stopping the narrative to introduce characters, give further details about events and reveal the fate of the people around them. Both films also change the type of camera used to give the audience a different perspective, such as when Goodfellas uses personal photographs of Hill and Tommy Conway to show their close relationship and Wolf changes to Belfort's wedding video and infomercial to give more of an outsider-perspective.
The Source Material Both Goodfellas and Wolf are based on non-fiction books, so while there is obviously some cinematic embellishment and Scorsese's own creative license, at their cores are true stories of real people. Goodfellas is based on Wiseguy by crime reporter Nicholas Pileggi, who tells the story of Henry Hill, the mobster-turned-FBO-informant played by Ray Liotta in the film.Hill died earlier this year and maintained that Goodfellas accurately told his story. Wolf is based on the book of the same name, written by Belfort himself, and seems to stick to it pretty closely. So can Scorsese and DiCaprio be blamed for depicting awful behavior if it actually happened? That all depends on the film's tone and purpose—glorification versus indictment. The filmmakers argue for indictment, and some critics disagree, but no one can argue that the Belfort and Hill presented onscreen didn't share similar lifestyles.
Humble Origins With Goodfellas' iconic opening line, Hill flashes back to his childhood as a working class kid in Brooklyn, who idolized the gangsters that worked in his neighborhood. His parents tried to stop him from joining them, but after a threat to the mailman stopped Hill's delinquency letters from ever reaching them, there was no going back. We watched Hill progress from innocent delivery boy who learns an important lesson to a full-fledged, drug-dealing, threatening, hijacking gangster, like he always wanted. When we first (chronologically) meet Belfort in Wolf, he's fresh off the bus from Queens, ready to work his way up on Wall Street to become rich. He falls in love with the lifestyle of the stockbrokers, the insane office environment and of course, the money. He transforms from a hardworking guy who declines a martini at lunch and wants to help his clients to a drug addicted egomaniac willing to screw over any one if it means more money for himself.
Complete Self-Satisfaction If anything, showing the more humble beginnings and aspirations of both of these characters makes the presentation of their later behavior seem more like glorification, because they've gotten exactly what they wanted.
If Hill always wanted to be a gangster, should we be happy for him when he becomes one, even if that means he's dangling someone into a lion cage? If Belfort always wanted to be rich, should we be excited when he buys a mega-mansion and throws $100 bills into a garbage can? At the height of their success, both men are certainly pleased with themselves. Consider two memorable laughing scenes. First is Goodfellas' infamous Joe Pesci "what am I a clown?" scene, when a table full of men laugh as Tommy DeVito beats some waiters. Hill is thrilled to be sitting at a table full of powerful men who never have to face consequences and can treat outsiders however they want. Then there's one of Wolf's more memorable scenes, when Belfort thinks himself so invincible that he tries to bribe Kyle Chandler's FBI agent Denham, and laughs in his face when he calls him out on it.
Reduced Consequences Hill and Belfort both thought they were untouchable thanks to status and wealth, respectively, but in the end both are punished—to an extent. After years in the mafia, doing what people in the mafia do, Hill was miserable because he had to live the rest of his life as a nobody in the witness protection program. Instead of going to prison for the rest of his life, which was an option, he gave up his friends to the FBI and was able to live in peace. After watching his various criminal activity unfold, it really doesn't seem like much of a punishment. Similarly, Belfort avoided a 20-year prison sentence, for stealing money from tons of innocent people, by giving up his coworkers and employees to the FBI. In exchange, he was only sentences to four years and had to pay back what he stole—which he has yet to do. Three hours of complete self-indulgence and absolutely no remorse made this ending seem lackluster, and it's upsetting to remember that this is a true story. The claims of glorification are undoubtedly aided by Belfort getting off easy, but that's what happened to him. Since getting out of prison, Belfort has been working in corporate training, a quasi-motivational speaker who teaches others how to sell and get rich—presumably through legal means this time. How could Scorsese punish him if the real world didn't?
Critical Reaction - The Difference If Wolf and Goodfellas, or Belfort and Hill for that matter, have so much in common, why will one be remembered as the ultimate depiction of greed and obscene and excess, and the other a nearly flawless example of the gangster film? Because men like Henry Hill don't exist outside of movies anymore, and we're all scared of Jordan Belfort. By the time Goodfellas was released in 1990, the Mafia's reign was essentially over. Goodfellas only existed because its main character was put into federal protection and had all of his associates sent to prison. Audiences could watch Goodfellas and be enthralled by a lifestyle that didn't really exist and any of remnant of which still wouldn't touch their lives. Wolf was released as the economy was still in recovery following a recession brought on by people like Belfort who just couldn't get enough. When we watch Goodfellas, we see the classic gangster tale. The Godfather, Casino, A Bronx Tale, these movies have preserved mobster characters as just that, characters. Not many people are worried about people inspired by Henry Hill extorting them. But when we see The Wolf of Wall Street, we see a more modern threat, one that we may all still be susceptible to. That's the difference. Scorsese can be honored for glorifying the gangster era, but he'll be condemned for glorifying a greed that still exists.
And there’s more… Similarities 1) Matters of scope and structure Probably the most obvious trait that both The Wolf of Wall Street and Goodfellas share is the focus on one central character, a successful criminal in both instances, spanning the course of his rise to his fall and his arrest years or decades later. They both have rather large stories to tell, and with the story of Henry Hill’s life clocking in around two and a half hours and Jordan Belfort’s rounding out three hours, they’re given the space to delve fairly deeply into the many defining episodes of each character’s narrative. The rise and fall of the powerful man is each film’s focus, with the rise meant to entice and titillate the viewer to a certain extent, and the fall to shake us out of the hypnotic trance the movie has put us under by seducing us into this lifestyle of power and temptation. The imitation of the style of Goodfellas, even an attempt at recapturing some of its unique and mad energy, is obvious and meant to make certain points that their differences bring up more clearly. Some of the musical choices Scorsese uses, modern cover versions of classic tunes like “Sloop John B” and “Mrs. Robinson,” could also be inserted to indicate his awareness of this.
2) First person, fourth-wall-breaking narration Many who would have seen Goodfellas before The Wolf of Wall Street were likely taken aback for a moment the first time Leonardo DiCaprio directly addresses the camera, met with the sudden realization “Oh, Marty’s doing this again.” Ray Liotta’s narration is such a defining feature of Goodfellas that any film that uses direct address is likely to draw the comparison. It’s not just a vague similarity either; Hill’s famous line, “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster,” is almost quoted by Belfort’s narration early in the film, although his
effect is more like “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be rich.” Dreaming of being a gangster is perhaps too specific and outdated a notion for those wishing to chase the American Dream in the 80s and 90s through to today. But the striking, deliberate similarities also suggest that anyone who has the dream of old mobsters trying to get rich by any means necessary in contemporary America need only go to Wall Street to make their dream a reality. Casting stockbrokers as modern-day gangsters and thugs is a pretty bold assertion. 3) Subjective pleasure with objective judgment Its origins may be difficult to trace, but if Martin Scorsese did not invent popular subjective cinema, at the very least he pioneered and perfected it. Beginning most notably with Taxi Driver and continuing through Raging Bull and The King of Comedy, the subjective experience Scorsese popularized was the type of film that felt as though it could have been made by its own subject himself; the story is told through their eyes, or maybe more accurately, through their frame of mind. This is a bit of a difficult concept to grasp, or at least it was for me. Any time a movie itself—its feel, its tone, its atmosphere, and other descriptors that are frustratingly unclear—adopts the identity of its character, it has a tendency to alienate because its viewpoint is usually so alien to us in the audience. But if accepted on its own terms, it can be one of the most illuminating experiences uniquely suited for movies. So all that being said, the importance of Jordan Belfort’s idiosyncratic narration is to remind us that we’re seeing this all from his perspective, and the similar perspective of his peers, which is why, like in Goodfellas, this has to be expressed through the act of making the lifestyle appealing on some level. Jordan’s parties are crazy, and at times can seem like fun, the way music videos seem like fun for a moment or two before you think of how phony they are. It’s that moment of pause, of witnessing yet another out-of-control party and another drug-induced meltdown, that gives us the distance necessary to step outside ourselves, outside of Jordan, and recognize the whole scene is deeply messed up. 4) Outstanding quality
Goodfellas received numerous awards in the year of its release, was nominated for 6 Oscars (Joe Pesci took home its only trophy), was listed by Roger Ebert (among others) as one of the best films of the 90s, was named the second best gangster movie of all time and one of the top 100 movies of all time by the American Film Institute, and is shown on TV and quoted by its many devoted fans ad infinitum. At this point, it ought to be safe to call the movie an undeniable giant of cinematic history. There’s no way of knowing how the same movie would be received were it released in today’s Twitter-filled and divided cultural climate, but it’s hard to imagine its reception being much different from that of The Wolf of Wall Street. And that’s all fine. There is so much quality output in cinema today that there is room to consider both The Wolf of Wall Street and American Hustle excellent films that could very well improve in stature over time in their own ways. My evaluation of Wolf is that it’s on par with Goodfellas for the strength of its individual scenes, its reconciliation of subjectivity with moral distance, and its unique tone. All it lacks is the time to appreciate it, and for it to appreciate in value itself. That will come. For now, let’s look at some of the key differences between the two films.
Differences 1) Amped up energy For its time, Goodfellas possessed an energy that was relatively unprecedented. It was snappy. Not only was the pace of the editing beautifully manic at times, but the energy exuded by its performers made the gangster life seem like one we’d all want to have, and by the end, that same energy made the results of that life even more devastating. Wall Street is an even higher energy environment than the 1960s and 70s mob scene (or most anywhere else for that matter), and The Wolf of Wall Street had to reflect that. This was the 80s after all, and one of the first pieces of paternal boss advice Matthew McConaughey’s character gives to the young Jordan Belfort is to use cocaine (also: masturbate more). So of course this story is going to have an even more manic energy than the child’s play that was Henry Hill’s crew—the financial stakes are higher, the drugs more plentiful, and the cultural and legal regulations seemingly inapplicable. The energy expended in the highs, though, also leads to the lows reaching far greater depths. Scorsese experimented far more with improvisation in this film than any he has made before, so he says, and it’s one reason Jonah Hill’s contribution can’t be understated. Both Scorsese and DiCaprio cite Hill’s improvisational prowess as a driver of the film’s spontaneous flow. It also gives it an incredibly contemporary (you could say Apatow-esque) feel to its humor. 2) Greater excess The pace and energy of The Wolf of Wall Street is heightened to match the time period, and it does the same with the (supposedly true) stories and antics of these brokers going absolutely bananas. With higher stakes comes even more outrageous and brazen debauchery, which the film does not shy away from. DiCaprio has frequently compared the story to Caligula; the movie itself describes its parties as bacchanalian. What it reminded me of, though, were those teen party movies like Project X or Superbad, even Animal House—a frat atmosphere in the country’s financial epicenter. The brokers depicted here behave like boys left with no supervision and a blank check to bring in chimpanzees, abuse little people, fill the office with sex workers and cause millions of dollars in damages to hotels. Rob Reiner as “Mad Max” Belfort is the only voice of reason, of maturity, in the office, and usually he is being drowned out by animal noises or having his microphone forcibly removed from his hands. Like most types of excess, even the parties of The Wolf of Wall Street begin to get repetitive and stale, to the point where they become pathetic, but it also becomes emblematic of how they do business, behaving like children, thinking short term, taking imbecilic risks. Aunt Emma says “Risk is what keeps us young,” but the causality of those two concepts seem reversed. 3) Different origins Some have pointed out (I think I sort of did earlier, actually) that both Henry Hill and Jordan Belfort come from “humble beginnings” before becoming hardened criminals hell-bent on preserving their power and wealth. But there’s a key line spoken by Kyle Chandler as FBI Agent Denham in my favorite scene of The Wolf of Wall Street, amidst the macho posturing and passive-aggressive attempts by Denham and Belfort to make the other underestimate them. He points out to Jordan that other criminals he’s investigated in the past had bad upbringings of
some kind, but Jordan Belfort didn’t. He got to be the douchebag he is all by himself. He could just as well be talking about Henry Hill, who was born into a neighborhood where the men who were free to do as they please were part of the mob scene, which was a welcome reprieve from his blue-collar upbringing. Jordan Belfort’s parents were accountants in Queens; he went to American University where he graduated with a degree in biology. He presumably was not born into a family motivated to get rich at all costs, but adopted these values somewhere along the way, likely during his time at his first firm, L.F. Rothschild. His progression to becoming a broker with utter contempt for his investors and a sole focus on making billions of dollars was something he learned from the first boss he had on Wall Street, but what drove him to Wall Street was surely something that had been in him all along, albeit less specific than Henry Hill’s gangster aspirations.
4) Different resolutions If there’s one vital distinction between the outcomes of the two stories looked at here, if there’s one takeaway a person can make from considering the clear comparison Scorsese and company are trying to make between these two characters, it’s that Henry Hill suffers some consequences for his actions, and Jordan Belfort ultimately gets off virtually scot-free. Their trajectories up to this point are relatively similar: both men reach a certain height of wealth and prosperity and influence, only to become targets of legal investigations and in the process lose their families and community of friends through some form of betrayal. They both rat out their colleagues and they’re both offered deals by law enforcement. Hill is far more cooperative though, since Belfort reneges on his deal to incriminate Donnie. But while Henry is exiled in suburbia as part of the Witness Protection Program, sentenced to living his life like a schnook and longing to matter again, Jordan realizes that if you’re rich enough in America today, you don’t really pay a price for committing egregious crimes, but can serve 22 months in a luxurious “prison” and proceed to make millions of dollars through speaking fees and book deals (especially if those books get turned into movies).
Goodfellas leaves us shaking our heads at the foolishness of Henry’s desire to continue on as a gangster—the gunshot toward the camera seems like the way he feels he should have gone—but The Wolf of Wall Street is intended, I think, to leave you with a kind of impotent rage at the culture it depicts and a society that is either powerless to or uninterested in harness in any way. The message is almost that if an update to Goodfellas were to be made, Goodfellas 2013, it would consist of today’s criminals fleecing the little guy, in the form of Wall Street, having their fun and, if they’re powerful enough, facing absolutely no consequences whatsoever. If The Wolf of Wall Street is glorifying anything, it’s a past where we were innocent enough to actually expect our criminals to face any form of justice for their offenses.
Comparison You need to consider… Make your own notes on the following -
Context Goodfellas
Wolf of Wall Street
Representation Goodfellas - Men
Wolf of Wall Street - Men
Goodfellas - Women
Wolf of Wall Street - Women
Goodfellas - New York / America
Wolf of Wall Street - New York / America
Similar themes, messages and values ●
Crime pays (for a while) – both Henry and Jordan are temporarily rewarded with power, sex and money/wealth
●
Organised crime / lawlessness – Jordan leads a pack of hungry animals (wolves?) to deceiving and exploiting the public (Hanna: “take money from the client’s pocket and put it into yours”) , while Henry is part of the mob’s criminal lifestyle including stealing (“if we wanted something we just took it”) – a distinction is that Henry follows others like a foot soldier, whereas Jordan leads his “troops” into battle – his rise is more dramatic than Henry’s
●
Materialism / image – Jordan’s status is marked by his association with sports cars (“Ferrari was white not red, like Don Johnson’s in Miami Vice”); Naomi is an extension of this and she is also drawn to the materialism (yacht, huge estate, engagement ring); Karen is “turned on” by the lifestyle at first and is also keen to show off material possessions – the TV that appears from the wall, new imported sofa
●
Myth of the American Dream / Capitalism – The American Dream ends up being a nightmare in both films leading to prison, betrayal and deception, marriages are broken, families torn apart – and not a single lesson has been learnt in either film – Jordan is still a salesman and Henry “misses the life”.
●
Anti-establishment – Both sets of characters (the mob and brokers) exist outside the law – everything can be bought (apart from the FBI); neither Jordan and his crew of Henry’s mob create or build anything
●
The impact of lifestyle on family / children / marriage – the focus on marriage and children is evident in both films – there are many victims, including the corruption of children’s innocence exposed to domestic violence, arguments and drug use
●
Sexual repression – Jordan receives more sexual gratification at work than at home; sex themed parties/prostitutes/sex with colleagues/simulates sex whilst selling to unwitting clients; Henry becomes increasingly frustrated trying to juggle his lifestyle with family and various girlfriends
●
Masculinity – macho codes of behaviour are evident in both films – Jordan’s brokers act like mobsters when they suspect his gay butler of stealing – punch him in the face and threaten him – this is much more the “norm” in Goodfellas; Jordan’s speeches are full of macho posturing and refer to the value in being rich and succeeding; women seen as objects to be owned like a car
●
Violence – in Goodfellas the violence is both ritualistic and spontaneous, as well as domestic; Jordan punches Naomi when she threatens divorce; gay butler is violently threatened – latent homophobia? (and yet both brokers and mobsters are happiest around men)
●
Rise and fall – both protagonists have a dramatic rise and fall – Jordan’s fall begins with his attempts to bribe the FBI and his refusal to leave Stratton Oakmont; Henry’s fall arrives when he deceives Paulie and becomes embroiled in drug business – deception = failure in both films
●
Lack of trust – increasingly marriage is associated with a lack of trust – just 18 months into their marriage Naomi suspects affairs
●
Bribery / corruption – police are bought – although not the FBI who provide a moral compass by which the brokers can be judged
●
Drugs as an escape and extension of hedonistic lifestyle – linked to paranoia and failure in both films
– Henry can be seen as the victim of America’s hard line approach against drugs (Just Say No campaign) ●
Individualism vs collectivism – both Jordan and Henry suffer when they act as individuals – both end up “ratting” on their ‘friends’ – both seem safer when part of a group
●
Power and money – parallels can be drawn between Henry giving money away at the Copa and Jordan throwing money in the air in his offices, throwing $100 in the bin, snorting coke with them; both see money as a drug – it’s never enough
●
Fear / respect – these are confused by the typical gangster – the brokers follow Jordan because they think he can make them rich and fear being poor – “There is no nobility in poverty; I’ve been a rich man and a poor man and I’ll take being rich every time”; Henry is followed out of fear
‘There’s no nobility in poverty.’
Jordan Belfort
Exam Technique - Section C
An A Grade response: In order to To get an A you are going to have to be able to talk about the following terms and discussion points within both films: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Morals, values and ideologies Characters and their character functions Narrative structure of the piece Settings and would they indicate Representation Iconography The American dream The history of the Gangster genre and the films socio/political context. Key Media Terms: LEARN THESE!
Reinforce
verb 3rd person present: reinforces strengthen or support (an object or substance), especially with additional material. "the helmet has been reinforced with a double layer of cork“ synonyms: strengthen, fortify, bolster up, shore up, prop up, underpin, brace, stiffen, toughen, support, hold up; More
Conforms
verb 3rd person present: conforms comply with rules, standards, or laws. "the kitchen does not conform to hygiene regulations“ synonyms: comply with, abide by, obey, observe, follow, keep to, hold to, adhere
Subvert
verb 3rd person present: subverts undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution). "an attempt to subvert democratic government“ synonyms: destabilize, unsettle, overthrow, overturn; More
Transgress
verb 3rd person present: transgresses go beyond the limits of (what is morally, socially, or legally acceptable). "she had transgressed an unwritten social law“ synonyms: misbehave, behave badly, break the law, err, lapse, commit an offence, fall from grace, stray from the straight and narrow, sin, degenerate, do wrong, go astray; More
Key Phrases for essay structure: You must use key evidence from the film
The representation of gangsters reinforces stereotypical masculine traits… This is evident through…. Therefore, this reflects…… The representation of men in Goodfellas conforms to their dominant gender roles. This is evident through…. Thus, this implies….. The representation of women subverts conventional feminine traits… this is evident through…. Therefore, this suggests…… The representation of Police transgresses their position for enforcing the law … This is evident through…. Therefore, this indicates…… This reinforces the stereotypical representation of gangsters… This conforms to the dominant ideology of women/masculinity… This subverts the stereotypical representation of women (Countertype)….. This transgresses the dominant ideology of gangsters / women’s roles …
P.E.E. Structure Point – state your point: the narrative/genre/form of representation/form of social context used in Goodfellas/American Gangster.. E.g. Women in Goodfellas are represented with masculine features. Evidence – give an example to back this up: refer to specific examples of how this is evident in your films (dialogue + micro-elements can be key here).This is evident in the scene when Karen (Lorraine Bracco) attends Mickey’s (Julie Garfield) hostess party. The women are swearing and the women in pink refers to “cutting his hands off”. In addition to this Karen’s Voiceover says “…and they talked about how rotten their kids were and about beating them with broom handles and leather belts”. Explanation – explain how meaning is created though the evidence specified: explain how spectators create meaning from these examples, and how they are positioned (and made to feel). This denotes to the audience that the women are engaged in the gangster lifestyle. Their use of foul language subverts the stereotypical representation of women as polite. The suggestion of cutting someone's hands off connotes to the audience that the women are just as violent as the men in the film. Connoting to the audience that these women are not to be crossed.
You should compare a minimum of two American films in your answer.
❏ How important is place in contributing to key themes in the American films you have studied for this topic? ❏ Discuss similarities and differences in the representation of masculinity in your chosen American films. ❏ How far do the American films you have studied for this topic depend on well established narrative and/or genre conventions? ❏How far do the American films you have studied for this topic express similar messages and values to one another? ❏ Compare the ways in which narrative is used to create dramatic conflict in the American films you have studied for this topic. ❏ How far do your chosen American films portray themes and ideas in similar ways? ❏ With particular reference to the endings of your chosen American films, compare their messages and values. ❏ How useful have your wider contextual studies been in understanding similarities and differences in the American films you have studied for this topic?