Part II: A2 Film Studies Small Scale Research Project - Ken Russell (2009-2010)

Here is the main part of my small scale research project, the annotated catalogue. What frustrated me about the specification is that it ignores the greater part of your research: the note taking. I spent hours watching and analysing Russell’s films to then only be able to choose three; which I flippantly had to evaluate.  It also shows no evidence that I actually took the time to annotate and select the written sources that suited my argument.

This research would have been more productive if an academic essay was the result of it. I guess this is the problem with A’ Level study, the curriculum is too restrictive to the mark scheme. As a result It only allows for schooling (your only to taught to pass an exam, the institution only interested in the league table- the politics of education?) which does not have the ability to provide scope for a wider education.  I understand that this then becomes the role of higher education.

I can only apologise for any grammatical, lexical or errors regarding my syntax. I have posted this coursework unedited from when they were originally submitted.

…………………………………………………………………………………

Stewart Williams: A2 FILM STUDIES (FM3) – Annotated Catalogue: ‘Excess: An Investigation into Ken Russell’s Status as Auteur’


FILMS

Item 1:  Women in Love, 1969. Film. Directed by Ken RUSSELL. UK: Brandywine Productions     

This is Russell’s third feature and in my opinion his most accessible film. Russell has adapted D.H Lawrence to his unique, although I believe in this case relatively tame, cinematic style.  I feel there are already themes and stylistic techniques evident in this film which are later repeated in his work. I consider his cinematic style, themes and issues addressed had already been developed while working as a director for the Monitor and Omnibus arts programmes for the BBC throughout 1960s.

Item 2:  The Devils, 1971. Film. Directed by Ken RUSSELL. UK: Russo Productions.

I consider this text as the premature peak of Russell’s directorial talent, this being his most self-indulgent film which is considered his ‘masterpiece’. I feel the style and tone has more to do with European Auteur Cinema than of British Cinema of the period. Over time The Devils is still a Controversial film, dealing with religious corruption and political power, I have concluded it is reaction to Russell’s own personal disillusion with the Catholic faith.  Although a historical film I feel the issues are still prevalent today. A weakness of this film is that it is not in its complete form, denying the spectator Russell’s original vision, as the studio imposed cuts upon it’s theatrical release. The film was adapted from two sources: The Devils of Loudon (1952) by Aldous Huxley; and the stage adaption, The Devils (1960), by John Whiting.  I regard Russell successfully adapting source material by applying his unique, and personal, cinematic style through his manipulation of mise-en-scene, themes and issues.

Item 3:  Tommy, 1975. Film. Directed by Ken RUSSELL. UK: Hemdale Films, Robert Stigwood                Organisation Ltd.

Russell had previously directed a musical (The Boy Friend, MGM, US/UK 1971, Dir. Ken Russell), which although commercial unsuccessfully I feel transcends the source material by becoming a pastiche of Busby Berkeley, and was renowned for his distinct biopic’s of classical composers. As a commercially successful mainstream film, I feel Tommy is perfect example where Russell has to comprise his artistic vision with that of another; Pete Townsend. I am impressed how Russell translates The Who’s concept album Tommy to fit into his own themes, by imposing his visual style.

BOOKS

Item 4: BAXTER, J., 1973. An Appalling Talent: Ken Russell. 1^st ed. London: Michael Joseph.

This book consists of part critical analysis and part interview with Russell up to the making of the film Savage Messiah (Russ-Arts, UK, 1972, Dir. Ken Russell). The interview is focused towards Russell’s style of direction and the meanings thus created in his work so I did gain insight into his directorial methods. I found this piece of research useful as Russell discussed both Women in Love and The Devils so I had on offer the preferred reading of the films.

Item 5: GOMEZ, J.A., 1976. Ken Russell: Adaptor as Creator. 1^st ed. London: Frederick Muller.

This essential piece of research which I have used extensively as not only is it a critical perspective of Russell’s work but it also provides an argument regarding Russell’s status as Auteur. Despite only covering his films up to the date of publication, which limited the choices of films to choose, I feel this was Russell most creative and innovative period. I believe the majority of the films he directed after the 1970s, unlike his television work, were diluted products as he lost his ability to shock but they are still distinct enough to be recognised as Russell’s work. This is the most useful piece of research in the catalogue.

Item 6: LANZA, J., 2007. Phallic Frenzy: Ken Russell and His Films. 1^st ed. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.

I found this piece of research very useful as it is an up to date account of both Russell and his work. As analysis is integrated with biography, I feel the text is not for an entirely academic audience; sometimes it can become difficult to decipher between biography and analysis. I conclude this is the most accessible book written about Russell, not only because it is the most widely available but also in its simple tone. I found it useful as it put the meanings of his films in context with events in his personal life which have impacted upon his filmmaking.

Item 7: MUNDY J., 2007. The British Musical Film. 1^st ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

This intriguing piece of research is a critical analysis of musicals made in Britain. I found this useful as there was a small section entitled: Ken Russell, visual excess and visions of dystopia (pages 226-231). I feel the approach of setting Russell against the conventions of the musical film shows how different, and personal, his approach to the genre is. The section mainly consists of analysis of two films, The Boy Friend and Tommy (one of the texts I have focused on), and their context not only within the musical genre but also within Russell’s body of work.

Contribution from Books

Item 8: FISHER, J., 1976. Three Masterpieces of Sexuality: Women in Love, The Music Lovers, and The Devils. In: T.R. ATKINS, ed. Ken Russell. London: Monarch Press 39-68.

The analysis of the three texts suggests to me common themes in Russell’s films regarding sexual motivation of the characters and how they have been represented through the photography and mise-en-scene. The essay has provided me with analysis of key scenes from Women in Love and The Devils, although they support Fisher’s argument. This essay led to some of the other material selected in the catalogue.

Item 9:  GOMEZ, J.A., 1976. Russell’s Method of Adaption: Savage Messiah and Tommy. In: T. R. ATKINS, ed. Ken Russell. London: Monarch Press, 69-98.

I conclude this essay is a discussion of how Russell adapts source material and shapes this into his own unique cinematic style while retaining original themes and issues and contributing his own. There were limitations with this source as it only discussed the adaptation of Tommy from concept album to film and how Russell incorporated elements from other projects that didn’t get past the development stage. There was no analysis of the film itself. This was a good introductory piece of research regarding Tommy and I feel this has been revised and expanded on in Gomez’s Ken Russell: Adaptor as Creator.

Magazines

Item 10: WILLAMS, L.R., 2007. Ken Russell: Sweet Smell of Success of Excess. Sight & Sound, 17 (7), 28-32.

This was the starting point of my research as it was the first text I had read about the director in light of watching his films. The source is an overview of Russell’s entire career in light of his tendency to overindulge himself when filmmaking. This article follows a linear progression regarding ‘excess’ in his cinematic style. I understand as this source is part of magazine, even though it is from specialist film periodical, it is an introductory text.

Broadcast Media

Item 11:            Hell on Earth: The Desecration & Resurrection of The Devils, Film Four International. TV, Channel 4. 2002.

This is an important piece of my research as it chronicles the making, the meaning and the controversy surrounding Russell’s film The Devils. It provides context of the atmosphere the film was made in and from this I have realised Russell’s ambiguity towards the meaning of the film as an audience can decipher several readings. I found this source useful as it includes contribution from not only Russell himself but also members of the cast and crew.

Websites

Item 12:            FISHER, I., 2001. Savage Messiah: Ken Russell [online]. Available from:
http://www.iainfisher.com/russell.html
[Accessed 10 October 2009].

I found this an invaluable resource as it has helped me immensely with my research. It not only has a moderate filmography, which has basic analytical information about Russell’s work but details books and essays related to his career. This was useful as could use it to locate material when conducting my research. What is especially interesting is that it contained a table of themes and which films they appeared so it easier to group his works together. Without this research I would have found it difficult to trace some pieces of research.

Item 13:            RILEY, J.A., 2009. Great Directors: Ken Russell. Senses of Cinema [Online], 51. Melbourne: AFI Research Collection. Available from:
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/09/ken-russell.html

A recent publication that I stumbled across which I have found integrates well with my previous research. This Article is an overview of Russell’s career, arguing he should be considered a great director and despite the varied nature of his work there is a distinct authorial voice that runs throughout it. This is relevant as this is the nature of my presentation.

Deselected Material

I found the research concerning Ken Russell difficult as he is not well discussed and there has been little written about him compared to many popular or contemporary film directors. Russell’s peak decade of directorial power was in the 1970s, where it can best be argued about his authorial voice, so majority of the academic research I have found was written within this period. Firstly this makes it quite difficult to attain research about him and secondly it has made it quite hard to deselect material.

The materials I have deselected include work written by Russell himself about his career. His autobiography, A British Picture: an Autobiography (2008. 2^nd Ed. London: Southbank Publishing), I feel does not provide insight in to the reasons behind why he made his films and the meanings he sought to create. I believe it lacks depth as it merely contains anecdotes about his personal life and what happened while in production. Another book by Russell himself I have deselected is Directing Film (2001. 1^st ed. Dulles, Virginia: Brassey’s Inc) as again it deals with anecdotes this time regarding ‘The director’s art from script to cutting room’. Although I feel the source does give some insight into how Russell directs a film, it does not contain material that I could have used within my research.

The film Critic Alexander Walker’s account of the British film industry in 1960s, Hollywood England (2005. 1^st ed. London: Orion Paperback), does contain a review of Women in Love but I believe it quickly descends into a biased attack on Russell’s further work as he saw the self indulgent style as a negative aspect. Although I respect a different opinion on Russell’s work I do believe this source would have been detrimental to my argument. I have deselected further articles from Sight & Sound as they only mention Russell briefly when discussing other directors so to me there is not enough information to use as research. I did not use the BFI’s Screenonline profile of Russell (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/467596/index.html) because I concluded that it was not detailed enough to use as research though a good aspect of it was that it contained many links to other pages on the website regarding Russell’s work on British television.