以戲服人 Film Analysis: January 2018

Friday, 26 January 2018

La Ronde

This time, I will talk about a film by Max Ophüls, known as ‘La Ronde’.

The story of ‘La Ronde’ was adapted from a play written by Arthur Schnitzler, who also wrote ‘Dream Story’, the novel that inspired Kubrick's ‘Eyes Wide Shut’. Schnitzler's visionary look at the sexual relationships and psychological aspects of the human condition was inspiring even for today's readers, as he seemed to see through the universal and anthropological traits that have governed human's behaviors all the way - our desires, our imaginations, and our needs for love and recognition from others. Freud, a contemporary of Schnitzler, was very impressed by the writer's ideas and was also amazed by how close their outlooks resembled each other, going as far to call Schnitzler his ‘double’.

The story were formalized in a sense, because it involved ten love stories, where they were interconnected and consecutive. To put it plainly: let’s say the ladies were represented by [A, C, E, G…]; and the gents were represented by [B, D, F, H…]. So A flirted with B, then when the relationship ended; B hanged around with C; then C with D; and D with E… and all the way back to A, rather ironically. Very stylized from a 19th century writer, isn't it? It can be considered as a round dance of love. What is more interesting, not only the sexual relations appeared random, they also transcended all form of class relations, which was really a core value back in the 19th century. Hence, the blue-blooded and aristocrats got a bang on with the low lives. If there existed a reason why the firewall of ideology could be crashed, then it would be that the clockwork of lust (I cannot find a word more appropriate than ‘clockwork’) here were driven by the desire and impulse to feel love and pleasure. The encounters in ‘La Ronde’ may sound amoral, if you really take it seriously within the framework of monogamy or ‘respect’ for someone you love. Yet, I do not feel Schnitzler and Ophüls were passing any moral judgments here. They were just merely reporting the truths of human nature.

While the play itself is a fascinating story on its own right, Ophüls’ creative approach

In his treatment of the story was also noteworthy. Not only it stood as a testament for his unique style, the theme was also addressed nicely through Ophüls’ style. For the design, the story was told by an operator of a carousel, and it was evident that the analogy of a carousel fitted well with the structure of the story because of their circular forms. It also signified the filmmaker’s fluid and mobile camera style, and reinforced the interaction between style and content. All the love stories were locked in as if they were separate components of the carousel, yet it was important to appreciate that they are all connected at the same time. It can be ironic to realize that, while the stories belonged to the ten or so characters, it was the operator which was orchestrating all the stories, and telling the stories with a full control, as if he was a conductor of a symphony. The complexity of the plot also stemmed from the fact that the stories itself were not all objective, they resembled layers and layers of memories and opinions, which might be subjective or even considered as rumors. Deleuze, who has admired Ophüls and cited the filmmaker’s work as examples in his philosophy of cinema, has put it nicely that the structure of ‘La Ronde’ resembled a crystal of memories – which was a form of time-image for his categorization. He pointed out that the reason why it was categorized as time-image was due to the fact that the stories were not merely objective recollections, meaning that the audience had to actively engage with these memories and discovered any (subjective) meanings for themselves. This active participation often distinguishes the ‘time-image’, often served as an ideal of film art, from the films with a more conventional narrative. All in all, Ophüls’ version of ‘La Ronde’ illustrated a formal beauty that signified the filmmaker’s achievement as a cinematic artist.

by Ed Law

27/1/2018

Film Analysis

Saturday, 13 January 2018

Cinematic Poiesis

For some filmmakers, the approach to cinema is not very different from the approach to poetry. The approach is to look for a 'poetic' in cinema, which is advocated by many film theorists. The word has a history as far as the dramatic theory from Aristotle, and this approach of art has been embraced by various thinkers throughout history.

The word 'poetics' was derived from the Greek word 'poiesis', which meant active making. David Bordwell believes that film should be studied as a process of construction. To him and those who support the approach, an appreciation of cinema should in no way be limited to a mere analysis of plot or narrative itself. That means ‘story’ is not the only metric to assess a film, as for those who thinks ‘If you have a great story, you have a great film’ may insist. Even if one has a dull story it may still be metamorphosed to a brilliant film, and the greatest plot can appear like a high school video project if that falls onto the wrong hands. What is the magic behind that? If is the other side of the coin – form (or style).

A poetic of cinema is a delicate entanglement of three elements of films: image, sound and word. It is the combination of the aural dialogue, music, sound and also the visual composition, lighting, editing, and narrative aspect that leads to an organic unity. Often, if it is done satisfactorily, the effect is not merely additive, and the sum can be greater than the parts. While Poetics concerns film form or the formal aspects of cinema, it is not necessarily the same as the movement of Formalism, popularized by the Russians in the early 20th century - though there may be certain common aspects between them.

Filmmakers like Kubrick, Ozu, Welles, Antonioni and Tarkovsky, and many other great ones, have put together the various aspect of cinematic techniques, leading to an active construction of cinematic experience for the audience. The great thing about poiesis is that it demands an active participation from the members of the audience, not just passively receiving filmic images under the power of the so called ‘plot’ or ‘narrative’.

Bordwell contributed intensely to this field by studying in depth the style of Yasujiro Ozu, who I will talk about in later articles. What is quite ironic about the analysis of Ozu is that he has been labelled as traditional and the most Japanese by some critics, who seems to have only observed the surface of the issue. It turns out that Ozu has put up more Western and American references that one can expect, even in his earliest films. As Bordwell has pointed out and elaborated in detail, Ozu's style was among the most original and innovative towards the Western audience, because he defied many rules and techniques what most American filmmakers would see as the norm and were comfortable with.

Bordwell presented his ideas in 'Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema', and then he also published ‘Poetics of Cinema’, in which he developed his central thesis and provided more examples throughout the history of cinema. I recommend these books to anyone who is interested in cinema and want to understand more how cinematic style can lead to an impact on its audience. You will see cinema in a completely new light!

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Friday, 5 January 2018

2001: A Space Odyssey - The Quantum Leap

The year 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of Stanley Kubrick's ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, and that makes total sense for us to continue our exploration of this modern classic. This time, we will do something special. I will concentrate on only a single scene in 2001. While that may seem a bit of an excess, it is justified because that scene in question is widely considered at one of the most iconic moments in all of cinema, and serves as a testament to Kubrick's genius. It is a scene signified by both simplicity and complexity, and thousands of words can be devoted to one’s interpretations of what that cinematic image means to him. Indeed, the reason why Kubrick's masterpiece was termed an ‘Odyssey’ was because he intended this cinematic experience as an exploration, one that even every member of the audience had a place in.

To remind ourselves where we are coming from, Moon Watcher, an ape-man from the ancient times, was inspired by the presence of a black monolith, and he developed the idea of using a bone as a tool. This new found technology was put to good use when he used it to kill, or bash the brains in, the leader of a rival tribe of ape-men. The success of this encounter meant that Moon Watcher and his friends could claim authority to a property - a water hole, and it was the very first time they felt they were in control of their lives. As Moon Watcher was finally alone, he gave a gratifying roar and threw the bone up into the air. Then, cinematic magic emerged. A match cut led the audience to an image of a space ship of a similar shape. This represents a leap of millions of years in only 1/24 of a second, which is the duration of a single frame in cinema.

This memorable scene is one of the most ambiguous images in Kubrick’s cinema, or probably in all of cinema. The reason why Kubrick adopted ambiguity rather than a clear explanation for his masterpiece was because he was trying to illustrate the complex nature of the many issues regarding humanity. Certain viewers prefer ‘Yes-or-No’ type of answers all the time, where a binary opposition has to be established for whatever issue they are concerned with, be it morality, social structure, or preferences. In reality, most issues we encounter in real life can be made sense of with multiple perspectives. In fact, contradicting sides often emerge from the very same issue. Is technology good or bad for us? Does culture lead us to a better taste? Can we use morality as a metric for everything? Kubrick wanted contribution from the audience, and demanded them to give their own answers to these issues.

Kubrick encouraged the audience to discover self-knowledge through the confrontation of his many great films. Self-knowledge does not necessarily guarantee reassurance - we have to face the positive but also the negative sides of our own nature, even if we often attempt to avoid or deny the latter. It is through the sincere appreciation of ourselves that would lead to hope for the improvement of our well-being and the discovery for the meaning of our existences.

It is significant to note that the editing style of this scene is a match-cut. Since the development of montage from the American and Soviet filmmakers at the start of 20^th century, many innovative uses of editing have been employed to generate visual impacts for the audience. The preference of Kubrick to use a match cut in his most famous cinematic usage served a purpose far more important than a mere shocking effect. The match cut emphasized the similarity between the image of the bone and the space craft, not only in terms of physical appearance but also the underlying concept behind that. The two images, when placed side-by-side, led to a continuity. That suggested we could not detach ourselves from our origin. The connection between the bone and the spacecraft could be seen as a manifestation of the will, an aggressive energy and drive that motivated humanity throughout history.

On the surface, this scene shed a positive light, because one should be in awe how much humanity has done in terms of progress. The bone is visually a homogenous material, and the spacecraft is composed of numerous components. Through a first concept and the application of our intellectual faculties, we have been able to instill complexity to our creations, and the voyage to the outer space is a testament to humanity’s achievement. This scene can be easily seen as the most optimistic moment in cinema.

Yet, the flip side is, it can just be the most pessimistic outlook from Kubrick, where a demand for contemplation from the audience is evident. He might be suggesting that we have not made any fundamental changes at all – no matter how much we have appeared to be evolved or developed throughout such a long span of time. The pessimism originated indeed from the continuous nature of the match cut, which, in a symbolic point of view, not only nothing apparent has been changed, but it also signified that the only thing that has been passing through time is our nature to survive at all costs, including the use of violence and aggression to achieve this end. Humanity’s dark side may just be so intense that it cannot be eliminated. It can only be transformed, from primitive violence to institutionalized violence. Kubrick was not trying to pass any moral or misanthropic judgment in this possible interpretation, he was merely telling the truth about our nature.

As I have already pointed out, many things can be seen in contrasting perspectives. The duality of issues in life often reflects the duality of Man. Violence and aggression are not a side effect of technology and innovation, but the other way round. Kubrick's antihumanist vision showed that violence has always been part of us, the representation of our animalistic origin. Humanity is often at the most creative and inspiring when it comes to violence and destruction. There has not been another form of organism on our planet that has the power or intelligence to cause such fundamental impact to a place they call home.

It should be ironic to appreciate that, the process of mechanical dehumanization commenced at the very point when we were enlightened to use technological artifices to improve the well-being of our species. The consequence of losing our humanity was not something to lament on, but it was seen as inevitable by Kubrick. It is the self-knowledge that we can discover by ourselves that will prove to be more fulfilling that any forms of gratification or false hope derived from movies that merely aim for profits or easy 2-hour comfort – the ‘Oh, we are getting better and better’ cliché.

As Kubrick has pointed out in an interview, ‘we are born of risen apes, not fallen angels’. An evolutionary and secular point of view is one that will lead us to a constructive understanding of ourselves. Having a realistic view does not entail one to undermine anything great and beautiful about humanity - our imaginations, creativity and courage are among the key reasons why humanity has arrived at such a sophisticated status in the first place. After all, as Kubrick reminded us at the same interview, ‘we are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses’. A delicate balance has to be struck if we desire to arrive to the knowledge of ourselves, and what we can become.

After all, how would anymore not wonder with awe the tremendous achievement our species have done throughout the long passage of time? Kubrick was certainly among one of these. As Kubrick’s quantum leap ferried the audience from watching the moon to exploring the moon, we are ready to embark on the second part of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’…

by Ed Law

6/1/2018

Film Analysis