2015 Elections- Stop and Think

I have been shocked and concerned by a few rather worrying conversations over the past few weeks when discussing the elections.

I’ve been asking friends and work colleagues who they might vote for in May. Some have given me decent and valid answers, not all of which I agree with, but they are at least understandable. However, I have come across one particular answer which has cropped up a surprising amount of times- “I’ll vote for whoever my parents vote for.” Some expand on this “I don’t really understand politics. I know my parents get it.”

I believe that we all need to be as informed as possible. I will admit I am not the best when it comes to understanding manifestos, but there are websites that simplify the different party’s key intentions. Plus, I think every person in this country, as an individual, has a duty to try and grasp each political party’s view and vote for issues that they care strongly about. There might be things that really surprise you and that you might vote for, but your parents might not. For example, a proposal that clarifies my point is that the Greens want to decriminalise cannabis and axe prison sentences for possession of other drugs.  This might well be the sort of point that really appeals to you, but that your parents may not agree with, and is the sort of controversial issue that will influence whether or not you decide to support them. But only if you make sure you are informed.  

Please stop and think this election. Your vote counts.

Entertainment time: Short Screenplay- Game of Chance

Entertainment time: Short Screenplay- Game of Chance: Game of Chance Sc1  INT BOSS’S LIBRARY Adam (19), is sitting nervously in a big library in an old house he once p...

Science fiction- popular film genre

Science Fiction has the most philosophical elements of all the genres. The science element explores facts and knowledge, but the fiction deals with fabrication, so it is paradoxical at the core. It is difficult to define the genre as it has so many overlaps: horror, thriller, western, and action-adventure. The great advantage in exploring ethics and self-identity within this genre, is that in science fiction the antagonist is frequently fantasy alien or technology itself, and so any philosophy communicated is not directed at a particular section of society, and so nobody should be offended. Therefore, such a film can deliver a powerful message, covering such tensions and conflicts as anxieties about death, free will, imperialism, and the definition of humanity itself. The danger for a filmmaker is that the fantasy element involved allows an audience to transfer their hegemonic views into a realm where they no longer need to be addressed; for example, replicants and Klingons can take the place of despised foreigners. The added element of time travel that exists in many films of the genre encourages the audience to ponder on causality and the effects that slight alterations in circumstance might have on a future world.

There are many films in which the treatment of predominant tensions and conflicts contribute to the consideration of Science Fiction as philosophical in nature, but particular films do have deeper philosophical implications and assumptions. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stanley Kubrick), The Matrix (1999, Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski), and Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott) all question ideas that have been addressed by philosophers and film theorists, based around the idea of what it is to be human. Such science fiction films build on the traditions of historical precursors. Greek Myths explored humankind’s relationship with the Divine and questioned what would happen if man thought he could be God. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in 1818 used a combination of horror and technology to question what makes an individual human. The medium of film is an excellent way of providing allegories about the current condition to speculate on the future of contemporary society. It is no coincidence that the 1950’s saw a huge popularity for the genre in the climate of the Cold War and the refinement of the atom bomb. At this time, particularly in the United States, the hegemonic belief in the importance of self-defence and superior weaponry transferred easily into film fantasy that presented opposing military might as an alien threat.  

 2001: A Space Odyssey is possibly the most philosophical of all the three films, in that the plot takes second place to the abstract inferences of evolution. “…Kubrick’s masterwork leads us beyond the borders of our conventional world of familiar perceptions and invites us to ponder abstract questions and ideas that seemingly transcend the boundaries of the sensory and perceptual world of everyday human experience.” (M.Sanders, Steven, 2008, The philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky). Every time an individual touches the monolith they gain a new kind of understanding. The implication is that all human development and discovery has been initiated, and perhaps even manipulated by an alien source. Kubrick wants the audience to question ideas. For example, why were humans put on earth and what is our true purpose? The scene in which Dave is getting thrown through space and time after shutting down the computer is visually beautiful and mesmerizing, whilst also causing the audience to question what is really happening to him physically and mentally. However the most philosophical scene has to be the last one in which Dave (now much older) reaches out to touch the monolith and suddenly becomes a small baby in a womb looking down on earth. The implication is that he has reached full understanding, and is re-born. The audience is left wondering what this new start will herald and has the rest of humanity also experienced this same transition?

The Matrix’s main philosophical conundrum is the concept of freedom of choice for humanity, and at what point reliance on an increasingly intelligent technology becomes dangerous. The Matrix presents the idea that “humans have been reduced to the role of batteries supplying energy to a race of machines.” (King and Krzywinska, 2000, Science Fiction Cinema From outerspace to cyberspace, Wallflower Press.)  However, the film also has clear religious references to both Christianity and Buddhism. “The film looks as if it has metaphysics and an epistemology of its own that are akin to Plato’s and Descartes’.” (M.Sanders, Steven, 2008, The philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky).  Neo (Keano Reeves) has to question the true nature of his reality and whether or not God exists as his maker. This is explored initially in the second scene of the film. The film also focuses on “whether the mind is a different substance from the body” (M.Sanders, Steven, 2008, The philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky), this is shown clearly throughout the film. The first time Neo goes into The Matrix and Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) teaches him how to fight and how to use his mind to control his power instead of actual strength, the film diverges from the usual macho portrayal of a hero. The casting of Reeves, of slight build and mixed race, as Neo, also enabled the directors to explore elements of masculinity and racism. This allowed the sequels to construct a plausible messianic figure capable of embracing both a real and fantasy existence.  

Blade Runner raises many key questions such as is it possible to distinguish humans from artificially engineered robots, and if so what criteria should be used; what role women have in society; and should corporations have absolute power? The film has a strong moral message, using the replicants to represent a race which is considered inferior but threatening. The main theme of the film considers the consequences of the advancements in the creation of artificial intelligence.  “The replicants in Blade Runner… illustrate complex philosophical questions about the relationship between mind and body, as well as the role played by memory, on the one hand, and the emotions and desires, on the other, in our understanding of human life.” (M.Sanders, Steven, 2008, The philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky) All the replicants are considered highly dangerous and skilled, but the females are also all utilized occupations which service the carnal needs of men. This film questions whether natural is better than artificial, where should lines be drawn in the development of technology, and even whether it is valid to replace humans with robots in particular circumstances. This reflects a theme that runs through many such films and shadows the very real fear that exists of the implications of tampering with human beings. Only this week, guidelines issued by HFEA on the manipulation of mitochondrial DNA have hit the headlines. This film is an example of one posing the questions: “Are scientists, and the technologies they use, heroes or villains? Is their ‘scientific rationality’ a force for the improvement of mankind or a threat?” (King and Krzywinska, 2000, Science Fiction Cinema From outerspace to cyberspace, Wallflower Press.) When the audience is first introduced to Deckard in the debriefing room of the corporation, they are left in no doubt that he is used to exterminating replicants with complete emotional detachment. The mid point reversal of the film comes when Deckard realizes that the replicants are completely convinced that they are human and their memories are real. The audience then accompanies Deckard in his quest to reassure himself that he is not also a form of artificial intelligence. This question, as to what constitutes humanity, is still being explored in current films such as Prometheus, another Ridley Scott film (2012). Here, Charlize Theron’s character is far more calculating and unemotional than that of the android, David, who seems to act out of jealousy and shows compassion in the final scene of the film as he persuades Shaw that she will benefit from his company in her future adventure. In conjunction with Deckard’s journey of self-discovery, the audience is also asked to consider his involvement in such a policed, exploitative society. “Blade Runner also calls attention to the oppressive core of capitalism and advocates revolt against exploitation.” (Kuhn, A., 1990, Alien Zone Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, Verso).  

That the science fiction genre should be considered philosophical in nature is undeniable. “…philosophy and science fiction are thematically interdependent insofar as science fiction provides materials for philosophical thinking about the logical possibility and paradoxes of time travel, the concept of personal identity and what it means to be human, the nature of consciousness and artificial intelligence, the moral implications of encounters with extraterrestrials, and the transformations of the future that will be brought about by science and technology.” (M.Sanders, Steven, 2008, The philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky) Since the initial emergence of the genre, such films have attempted to address the predominant conflicts and tensions that exist in contemporary society. In contrasting the realistic with a fantasy alternative, the plots investigate real implications of trends in an entertaining and non-threatening way. “Dystopia is often presented as failed utopia, as a demonstration of the dangers of attempting to engineer any kind of perfect world.” (King and Krzywinska, 2000, Science Fiction Cinema From outerspace to cyberspace, Wallflower Press.) Telotte used Todorov’s theories of the fantastic to elucidate the many ways in which science fiction films work, identifying three subgroups of narrative: 1. Marvellous- the impact of forces outside the human realm; 2. Fantasy- the possibility of changes in society and culture wrought by science and technology; 3. Uncanny- technological alterations, and substitute versions of the self. All three of the above-mentioned films use all of these subgroups of narrative to entertain whilst stimulating their audiences to consider the deeper implications posed by the fictional worlds they represent.

Bibliography

Cornea, Christine, 2007, Science fiction cinema between fantasy and reality, Edinburgh University Press

Grant, Barry Keith, 2003, Film Genre Reader III, Austin, University of Texas Press

Grant, Barry Keith, 2007, Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology, London & NY, Wallflower

Kaveney, Roz, 2005, From Alien to the Matrix, Reading science fiction film, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd

King and Krzywinska, 2000, Science Fiction Cinema From outerspace to cyberspace, Wallflower Press

Kuhn, A., 1990, Alien Zone Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema, Verso  

M.Sanders, Steven, 2008, The philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky

My life in Pink- opening sequence- genre, mood, subject matter, characters and plot development

The Opening sequence of My Life in Pink/Ma Vie en rose (Directed by Alain Berliner, 1997) prepares the audience for a European cinema drama. Defining what makes it so is problematic, “It is probably easier to formulate what a European cultural identity in cinema might mean by contradistinction with the cinema of the United States, rather than on its own terms and in isolation.” (Everett, W. (ed) (2005) European Identity in cinema. Page 35. Intellect Books.) This genre is established by the use of a foreign language and naturalistic acting, following in the tradition of such films as La Cage aux Folles (Edouard Molinaro, 1978) in its honest and unembellished portrayal of dysfunctional and unconventional relationships. It is influenced by post-war European realistic cinema as exampled by Les Enfants du paradis (1945). “[This earlier film was] centrally concerned with issues of alienation and powerlessness, and with the plight of marginal, damaged characters.” (Aitken, I. (2001) European Film Theory and Cinema: A critical introduction. Page 204. Edinburgh University Press.) It is clear that, in common with many European films, My Life in Pink has been made with a low budget. For example, in the very first scene, a handheld camera is used to film the couples. Despite the fact that the Belgian film industry is small, this film won a number of awards including the 1998 Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, indicating its strong direction, unique plot and sympathetic acting.

The subject matter is introduced by the cuts between Ludovic (Ludo) and the preparations for the party. The film explores the attitude of conventional families to the challenging behaviour of cross-dressing, and the problems that transgender people encounter. The first time the audience sees Ludo the camera pans down to the mother’s missing red shoes peeping from below a pretty dress. This is followed by Ludo’s head, blurred in a framed shot which focuses on the reflection of his mouth as he applies lipstick. The pretty mouth, the delicate hands, and the gentle relaxed humming combine to convince the viewer that they are seeing a little girl dressing up for a party. This natural assumption is only proved poignantly wrong when the medium close-up of Ludo smiling ends the sequence. The audience is placed in the position of the party guests as the mood threatens to change from carefree and celebratory to shocking. The potential divide between Ludo and the rest of society is enhanced by the set. A birds eye shot shows the rest of the community coming to the party, but to do this they have to cross a road, a communal green planted with trees and a second road. This use of physical distance implies that there is a sociological split. The fact that Ludo is psychologically at odds with the rest of the world is reinforced by the disjointed relationship between the sound and the image as Ludo descends the stairs. Although the introduction of Zoe is diagetic, the audience is aware that Ludo is concentrating so hard on walking in the oversized shoes that he has failed to hear that the resulting applause cannot be for him.

The mood of this scene is a feeling of calm with an undercurrent of impending doom, which cuts through the initial excitement of the imminent party. The feeling that this is an important event builds as the audience is introduced to three households. The carefree singing of the first lady implies that they are just looking forward to a fun social event. In the bedroom of the second family the audience is made aware that this man is the boss of the newcomer and it is very important to him that the afternoon goes well and that his new employee is acceptable to the community. The tension increases amongst the third family as the mother desperately rushes around trying to make sure that they will make the best possible impression. The rhythm of the sequence alternates between the fast-paced preparations for the party and the gathering of the guests and the interwoven cuts to the slower paced calm of Ludo’s isolated bedroom. The editing of this introduction to the characters in the film reinforces the impression that Ludo is at odds with the rest of the world. The external set appears overexposed whilst the bedroom is dark and cosy. The comfortable innocence that surrounds Ludo is reflected in the soundtrack. His calm humming as he prepares to reveal himself to society shows that he is unaware that anyone might consider him to be different. The audience, however, is reminded how different he is from the rest of his male siblings by their noisy interactions outside in the garden. Of course at this point they are led to assume that they are comparing the boys to a girl. The mise-en-scene in this scene helps to create a light-hearted mood. Yellow is used throughout the scene with the car, balloons, and tablemats.

The film uses many different aspects of the micro-elements to introduce all the major characters in this short opening sequence. The significance of shots show the audience how the couples interact with one another. The study of the first couple uses a lot of close-up shots. This indicates intimacy and closeness. This also draws the audience in. The second couple are filmed, much of the time, with two shots. This shows the audience that they are together, but perhaps not very loving. The third couple (Ludo’s family) have a mixture of the both types of shots and also a medium close-up of the mother and a close-up on the father’s face. This establishes that they are main characters as they have individual shots, but it also allows the audience to see that their relationship is complex and that they are going through a time of stress. The Grandmother is the other major character to be introduced at this stage, and she is immediately portrayed as sympathetic in nature through her characterisation (being tactile and open body language). The director makes an obvious decision with the mise-en-scene. Berliner uses lots of mirrors within his set to perform the dual functions of showing the audience that every character has two different sides and all the characters care about what other people think. This is especially pertinent to Ludo, a boy who thinks of himself as a girl, whose face first only appears as a pair of lips in the mirror. The audience is shown that there is possible discord in the partnership of the boss and his wife through the use of movement and mise-en-scene. That they are not functioning as a unified couple is pinpointed by the fact that they bump into each other both in the bedroom and later in the garden. The wife seems incapable of anticipating what her husband is doing or thinking. The boss’s relationship with his son also seems strained, and this thought is reinforced by the shot of a dark blue balloon hovering above the family as he appears to hug his son into him. This seems to be the only dark balloon that exists at the party.

The scene begins with the three couples giving a clear indication that the film will follow these characters. It is obvious to the audience that the plot will develop around these people, and the direction gives clues as to how the relationships will evolve. The first couple, who are attractive and dressed in light coloured clothing, prioritise marital relations over arriving at the party on time. The boss is the only main character who is dressed in dark clothing and this, coupled with his rudeness to his family, immediately indicates that he is a less than pleasant character. When the audience sees them bump into each other twice, the audience is led to understand that she does not understand him. This is why it is plausible later when she becomes upset and suspicion when Hanna kisses her husband and he protests that it means nothing. Much of the third couple’s interaction revolves around her search for the missing shoes in Ludo’s possession, and the fact that she will not stay still long enough for her husband to do up her dress zip. This means that most of their interplay takes place with her talking over her shoulder to him as he struggles to keep up. She turns to face him to give him a loving compliment and to stand by him as he presents his family to his new friends. This indicates to the audience that their relationship is under strain but that they work hard to maintain unity when under pressure. The colours that the director chooses to dress Ludo are very important. He picks red and pink. One, they clash. Two, red is a dangerous colour. Three, pink is a recognised in the Western world as a feminine colour. This gives the audience a sense of foreboding that Ludo’s identity is going to be problematic. The strongest indication that the forthcoming story is going to be troublesome comes in the scene where Ludo’s feet are shown descending the stairs. Staircases are significant in many films and are often used to denote status and the relative power of various characters. For example, Gone with the Wind when Rhett Butler leaves Scarlett. In this film, Berliner uses the stairs to indicate Ludo’s descent from the safety of his heavenly bedroom to the judgmentalism and harsh reality below. The fact that he trips, the stumbled framed in close-up, creates tension and concern for his welfare.

The superb direction of the opening sequence is clever in that it comprehensively prepares the audience for what is to follow in terms of genre, mood, all the main characters and basic plot development, whilst still retaining an element of surprise in the final shot where the subject matter of transgender is revealed.

 Bibliography

Aitken, I. (2001) European Film Theory and Cinema: A critical introduction.  Edinburgh University Press.

Everett, W. (ed) (2005) European Identity in cinema. Intellect Books

Ezra, E. (ed.) (2004) European Cinema. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holmes, D. and Smith, A. (eds) (2000) 100 Years of European Cinema: Entertainment or Ideology? Manchester University Press.

Vincendeau, G. (ed) (1995) Encyclopedia of European Cinema. London: BFI

Some Like it Hot analysis

The film is a romantic screwball comedy set in America, made in 1958 and released in 1959. Billy Wilder not only wrote the screenplay, but also directed the film. Some Like It Hot stars Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon and George Raft.

The film is about two struggling male musicians who witness the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Realising that their lives are forfeit, they escape the city by dressing as women. The all girl band they join is heading to Florida, but unbeknownst to the men, they are booked to play in the hotel where the mobs are massing. Masquerading as women brings problems: one falls for a girl in the band (Monroe) but cannot reveal his true identity, and the other has a rich suitor who will not take "No," for an answer. The film ends with the four escaping on Osgood’s yacht.

The main protagonist is Joe, a saxophonist, caught up with his friend Jerry in the conflict between the Chicago mobs of the 1920’s. Their lives have been intertwined with the gangsters because they play in bands in the speakeasies, but when they accidently bear witness to the St Valentine’s Day Massacre, they are drawn into the violence. This is the inciting incident which sets up the rest of the plot. It is also the first part of act 1 “In this unit of dramatic action you set up your story- introduce the main character, establish the dramatic premise (what the story is about), and sketch in the dramatic situation, either visually or dramatically. “ Field, Syd (1982), Screenplay, New York: Dell Publishing. The end of act 1 comes when the men are committed to living their lives as women in order to escape to a better life. Even as this act comes to a close, the two main characters, Joe and Jerry, are already facing complications in their crossing dressing existence. Act 2 takes place in the Florida hotel. At this stage the subplot developing the main characters’ relationships takes comic precedence. Just as Joe starts to make head way in his relationship with Sugar (disguised as a millionaire) there the midpoint reversal as the gangsters converge on the hotel for their annual party. The climax comes as the two main characters are recognized despite their disguises. The resolution comes in the last few seconds of the film as Joe, Jerry, Sugar and Osgood escape together on the yacht.

There are two main characters, Joe and Jerry, but the audience is lead to see Joe as the protagonist from the first moment that they appear. His interaction with the chorus girl, and the way in which he manipulates his slower-witted friend causes the audience to focus more on Joe. Immediately, he makes Jerry feel guilty for using their first pay for months on a filling. “Dentist? We been out of work for four months- and you want to blow your first week’s pay on your teeth?” The audience knows at once that he is a womanizer and a manipulator. The same conversation begins to indicate to the audience that Jerry is shallow, vain and prefers to leave the thinking to his friend. Throughout act 2, their characters are fleshed out, much of it through the actions rather than dialogue. A good example of this comes when Joe is first alone with Sugar. Thinking he is Josephine, she confides her disastrous attraction to tenor sax players. Apart from his exclamation “You know- I play tenor sax”, it is predominately his actions which indicate his lecherous reaction to her poignant confidences. His character reaches new levels of despicability when he dresses up as a millionaire to trick her into falling for him. Just after the end of act 2, fearing that their relationship will endanger Sugar, Joe at last becomes the hero that the audience long him to be and breaks up with her, putting her safety before his feelings. Meanwhile, Jerry has given up his contest for Sugar, knowing that Joe’s feelings are more genuine than his own, and has settled on wooing Osgood, despite the fact that he is not gay. For him, riches are more important than a relationship with anybody.

The principal antagonist is Spats Colombo, the mob boss, who wants to see both the main characters dead. His character is never more than two dimensional, representing the violent threat from which Joe and Jerry are running. Despite the fact that he has very little screen time, the threat of Spats is ever present, and in the scenes that he does appear, his characterization is extremely menacing through facial expressions and tone of voice.

This a feel-good plot which starts in optimistic mood with the two men in work after four months of unemployment and ends with the fairytale escape to riches and love. With the ever present threat of violence and possible death which has surrounded the main characters despite the interludes of comedy, this escape to a boat on the ocean is the only outcome which could have left the audience assured of a happy ending. The male world of the 1920’s gangster was so dangerous that the main characters could only avoid it by becoming women. Having explored the complications that lead to comical confusion, the film never questions the masculinity of Jerry and Joe. Even as the film ends, with all four of the sympathetic characters going off to an idyllic lifestyle, the audience is fully aware that Jerry is not gay but is quite happy to live with a millionaire man.

I think this is a very good screenplay and a brilliant film. However, without the directors input, skillful acting and inspired casting, this screenplay would not have led to the classic that this film has become. The sweet vulnerability portrayed by Marilyn Monroe contrasts superbly with the shallow, flippant attitude of Tony Curtis’s womanizer. From the moment the audience meets her they want her to not get the “fuzzy lollipop” again.