A Trip to Oxford: Some Notes on The Arbor (Clio Barnard, UK, 2010) and The Social Network (David Fincher, USA, 2010)

I think this is going to be my first “proper” blog post. Yes, there is a lack of written structure and I’ve succumbed to the power of the rant!

As it was half-term for my Open Studies Module in an Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies with Warwick University, it was mutually decided that I spend a long weekend in Oxford.

It was a great experience exploring and attending the University and its associated Colleges; unofficially, of course.  Academically, I felt like an equal though I thought it was very unusual that the nature of discussion at the Gender Equality group at Wadham College was cyclic. This may be due to the overwhelming number of student’s from similar backgrounds. Shame, as wider experiences expand your perspective on different issues.

I soaked up the vibrant culture and atmosphere and was lucky enough to make two excursions to the Cinema. Firstly to see The Arbor (Clio Barnard, UK, 2010) as I was intrigued by the aesthetic premise after reading about it in Sight & Sound. This is also the first time in my life where I’ve attended a screening at the cinema and the entire audience sat and through the end credits: Fantastic! I then saw the film of the moment, The Social Network (David Fincher, USA, 2010), the hype was justified, and though I am unsure whether the target audience would like it enough – meaning a distinct lack of exploding cars and gross out humour. It may be mainstream but it’s intelligent, something that seems lacking in the majors. Maybe it’s not down to the audience’s intelligence but the quality of the filmmakers.  Oh! I also visited the Pitt Rivers Museum. I don’t think life can much better.

Overall, I had a fantastic time and I am grateful to those who made me feel welcome. An excursion like this makes me more determined to attend a university in the following academic year.


I would like to reiterate that these sections below are not full blown analyses of the films. If I posted anything of merit it would be either ignored or plagiarised because of the nature of the blogosphere. I do have wider notes and material which I feel would be a wasted if I wrote truly in-depth concerning my academic study of film online.

Here are some key notes from the films I saw at the cinema while in Oxford. Even though I have not reviewed them within the post, I highly recommend them to anybody reading this blog.

Notes: The Arbor (Clio Barnard, UK, 2010)

The Arbor did not just concern the life of the late playwright Andrea Dunbar. It actually explored the repercussions of her life and her untimely death, especially its affect on her children.

I understand the film belongs to the performative sub-genre of the documentary film; think Errol Morris’s The Thin Blue Line (USA, 1988).  

The film explored the themes of truth and reality; fact and fiction merged. The perfect synthesis was represented in the film’s stylised form.  The actors “performed” by lip-synching to the voices of the real people they portray; or, the real characters.  Instead of detracting from the narrative, the apparent dislocation of sound and image aided the objectively framed images and the emotions evoked.
 
The self-reflexive form allowed for the film to explore the nature of performance. Dunbar’s first play, The Arbor, was performed on the actual Buttershaw estate. Dunbar’s plays could be seen as partly autobiographical, which is addressed through the diegesis, so it is apt that the performance of the play is enacted in its “real” setting.

Performance is also highlighted through the theme of duality. Danny Webb plays both the abusive ‘father’ in the “staged” version of The Arbor and ‘Max Stafford-Clark’ (would it be to pressing, to say a father figure to Dunbar?). Self-reflexivity is further addressed as George Costigan, who plays Dunbar’s older lover Jimmy 'The Wig', also acted as ‘Bob’ in Alan Clarke’s Rita, Sue and Bob Too! (UK, 1987) which was written by Dunbar.

How would this story been treated on television or other by other directors within British Cinema? Obviously, this highly personal narrative would be subjected to social realism; the fetishisation and artifice of “reality” enabled to portray working class issues. The theatricality of the almost Brechtian alienation forces the audiences to think of the wider implications and consequences that affect society.

Notes: The Social Network (David Fincher, USA, 2010)

I heard someone I know call The Social Network the Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, USA, 1941) of the ‘Facebook Generation’. This is a superficial comparison.  Obviously this person has not seen Citizen Kane (Duh, it’s in black and white! – sarcasm doesn’t translate on the blogosphere) and has been clearly manipulated by the prevailing powers of publicity. Don’t get me wrong The Social Network is a fantastic film but Fincher is never going to be Welles. Maybe it could be more correctly titled the Citizen Kane for the *cough* “IMDB Generation’?

Ok, we’re in familiar territory, not exactly in relation to Citizen Kane: power, money, elitism, capitalism and the corrupting power of American dream on the individual (or should it be the corruption of the American dream by the individual?). The making of The Social Network crystallises Facebook social importance. In such a short period of time it has begun to dominate our lives; media convergence has helped to increase its power.

A question: Is ‘Zuckerberg’ a sympathetic character? Obviously, he is driven by the same motivation throughout the narrative: the unattainable she, ‘Erica Albright’. Really his personality does not allow audience to get to close to him. That is why it is brilliant when we see those glimpses of him. Though it is the relationship between to ‘Zuckerberg’ and ‘Eduardo Saverin’ that drives the narrative.

Brief Notes on Interesting Sequences

• The Winklevoss twins competing in the Henley Regatta: their inevitable loss, visually symbolised through the imagery of the boat race itself, represents that they cannot compete with the all pervading power of Facebook.

• An interesting use of mise-en-scène: When ‘Christy Lee’ sets fire to ‘Eduardo’s’ bed. Though we aware it is out of some form of jealous, her true motivations are unclear. Fittingly, Fincher chooses to her leave out of focus in the background while she alights the bed as ‘Eduardo’ is talking to ‘Mark’ on the phone (which, is obviously what Fincher wants the audience to focus on).

• The Chicken in the Cage: Denotes both ‘Eduardo’ and ‘Mark’s’ situation but also society’s own. When it comes to the chicken and the cage, we are the chicken due to the internet’s domination in our everyday life and ultimately the digitalisation of the psyche.
  

It was a nice parallel that I was sitting amongst students of Oxford University while I watched this. Though, I will have to do a Ronnie Corbett and divulge: the students who sat by me thought it The Social Network was directed by Christopher Nolan. We then had the obligatory superficial oeuvre of Nolan’s work (e.g. “You know Inception was built entirely around that shot...”). Still, it’s no Josef Von Sternberg!