Week 6: Warwick, Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies (06/11/10)

Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, 1941): New developments in Expressionism and the introduction of the ‘Deep Focus’ technique. 
This week a lecture about a single film: Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, USA, 1941). It is genreally recognised as an seminal film so it justufiable that we have had the oppurtunity to study it. Though as part of the lesson we also discussed the impact of the ‘Deep Focus’ technique and related it to the development of narrative film.

This week’s lessons led to discussions on cinematography and authorship. In regards to cinematography we considered the work of Gregg Toland and how ‘Deep Focus’, with the introduction of a greater depth of field and the possibilities of several planes of action, led to new aesthetic possibilities; especially in relation in the creation of meaning (e.g. spatial relations and staging) through the mise-en-scène. Due to the collaborative nature of filmmaking we discussed the debatable issue of whether it was either Orson Welles or Herman J. Mankiewicz who could be given authorship over Citizen Kane.  We also explored the themes and aesthetic influences of Citizen Kane and related it to our previous study of
German Expressionism.

Despite this week’s lesson consisting of a single film, prior to the lesson I had done some extended reading in relation Citizen Kane. I also have watched the film on several occasions. As usual I took notes during the lesson.

I was also able to watch other films directed by Orson Welles and some who were significant in their use of ‘Deep Focus’.

Bibliography

Bordwell, David., 1971. Citizen Kane. In: B. Nichols ed. Movies and Methods, Volume 1. 1976. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 96-106, pp. 309-316.  

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2006. Film Art: An Introduction. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. pp. 453-456.

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2009. Film History: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, pp. ‘Chapter 10: The Hollywood Studio System 1930-45’.

Bordwell, David., 1988. ‘Deep Focus’. In: D. Bordwell, J. Staiger, K. Thompson, Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960. London: Routledge, pp. 341-352.

Carringer, Robert L. 1985. The Making of Citizen Kane. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Cook, Pam., ed., 2008. The Cinema Book. London: BFI Publishing. pp. 402-404, 526-527.

Kael, Pauline. 1971. ‘Raising Kane’. In: Raising Kane and other Essays. 1996. London: Marion Boyars.

Larden, J. (2010). Citizen Kane (Orson Wells, 1941): New developments in Expressionism and the introduction of the ‘Deep Focus’ technique., [Lecture]. Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies. The University of Warwick. Open Studies Certificate. Stone Hall Adult Education Centre, 1083 Warwick Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, 6th November.

Maltby, Richard. 2003. Hollywood Cinema. 2^nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 256-257.  

Mulvey, Laura. 1992. Citizen Kane. London: BFI Publishing.

Salt, Barry., 2009. Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Starwood Press, ‘Chapter 17: Film Style and Technology in the 1940’s’ pp. 251-266.


Orson Welles Filmography

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, Mercury Productions/RKO Radio Pictures, USA, 1941)
F for Fake (Orson Welles, Janus Film/ Les Films de l'Astrophore/SACI, France/Iran/West Germany, 1973)
Journey into Fear (Norman Foster, Mercury Productions/RKO Radio Pictures,
The Lady From Shanghai (Orson Welles, Columbia Pictures Corporation, USA, 1947)
Macbeth (Orson Welles, Mercury Productions, USA, 1948)
The Orson Welles Story Part One, Part 1, Arena, UK, BBC, tx. 1982.
The Orson Welles Story Part Two, Part 2, Arena, UK, BBC, tx. 1982.
The Stranger (Orson Welles, International Pictures, USA, 1946)
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, Universal International Pictures, USA, 1958)

Deep Focus Filmography

L'avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, Cino del Duca/ Produzioni Cinematografiche Europee (P.C.E.)/ Societé Cinématographique Lyre, Italy/France, 1960)
The Heiress (William Wyler, Paramount Pictures,USA,1949)
The Letter (Williams Wyler, Warner Bros. Pictures, USA,1940)
The Manchurian Candidate (John Frankenheimer, M.C Productions, USA, 1962)
Paper Moon (Peter Bogdanovich, Directors Company, The/Paramount Pictures/Saticoy Productions, USA, 1973)
Roman Holiday (William Wyler, Paramount Pictures , USA/Italy , 1953)
La Règle du Jeu (Jean Renoir, Nouvelles Éditions de Films (NEF), France, 1939)
Visions of Light (Arnold Glassman/Todd McCarthy/Stuart Samuels, American Film Institute (AFI)/NHK USA, 1992)
Wuthering Heights (William Wyler, The Samuel Goldwyn Company, USA, 1939)

(Understanding Visual Culture, Part 2: Ways of Seeing): Project 8: The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

There is a clear distinction between looking and seeing. We may see, but what we look at is influenced by society.

Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) was a literary and cultural critic who was associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. In 1935, Benjamin wrote a seminal essay in regards to 20^th Century art criticism: ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’. When this essay was re-discovered in the 1960’s it influenced our understanding of the way individuals look and see; it had wider implications in 20^th Century visual culture.

Like much of the theory to be associated with the Frankfurt School, ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ is informed by Marxism. As the essay suggests the democratisation of the arts, it ultimately puts forward a case for the special nature of photography and rather than confronting orthodoxy, it questions it from within.

Benjamin belonged to the Frankfurt School of Marxist aesthetics. He made an analogy to psychoanalysis within his discussion of photography; he believed it was the technology of the ‘optical unconscious’. This was because photography, similar in a way to psychoanalysis, showed us aspects of our world that eluded standard vision. Thus the camera is able to extend human observation beyond its normal parameters.

In relation to the Cinema, Benjamin had differing views to those of Georges Duhamel. Within ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ he discusses the new mediums progressive epistemological impact. The new mass-media forms of photography and film, allowed for new artistic paradigms; reflective of new historical forces. This meant that the new forms shouldn’t be judged by pre-existing standards. Ultimately, the Cinema has expanded the field of human perception and deepened humanity’s critical consciousness of reality.

In ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ Benjamin states his case for the removal of art’s elite nature through mechanical reproduction; especially through photography. The process of pictorial reproduction was freed from the artist and thus it accelerated as the lens could capture instantaneously. As technical reproduction reached a certain standard, it captured its own place within the artistic process. While authenticity, perquisite to the presence of the original, is outside technical reproducibly the reproduction process itself makes the reproduction independent from the original. This allows a copy of the original to be put in situations outside its original context.  Though, this means that the quality of the original is depreciated as authenticity is sensitive. The ‘aura’ is natural to an artwork; defined as unique phenomenon of spatial distance.  Mechanical reproduction of an artwork eliminates the element of the ‘aura’ from the reproductions. I agree with the idea of the ‘aura’ in an original art object, it is the concept that makes it desirable. The ‘aura’ it lacks transmissibility; the ultimate authority of the original is jeopardised and art’s elite nature is removed.
 

Understandably, humanity changing mode of existence has allowed perception to be shaped by historical circumstance. Mechanical reproduction is used by the masses in contemporary life; this desire to bring things closer has decayed the ‘aura’. Society is ardent to overcome the uniqueness of reality by accepting its reproduction.  The technique of reproduction detaches the object from the domain of tradition (the ultimate authority), which substitutes a plurality instead of a unique existence. It democratises art’s position as the reproduction permits the artwork to meet the individual in their own particular situation. Tradition, evident in the ‘aura’, is shattered.

I tend to agree with this statement by Benjamin: “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of quality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction”. Would that implicate that the masses shun aesthetic quality over to quantity and spectacle? Would this further mean that they are ripe from manipulation via cultural hegemony?

Additionally, I would say that the improvements in reproduction methods and possibilities, through technological advancement (i.e. colour printing, digital imagining and television), strengthen Benjamin’s argument or, more precisely, make his ideas more relevant today. It is fitting to our modern western lifestyle that mechanical reproduction emancipated art from its dependence on ritual. Ultimately, the function of art has been inverted as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic function. The traditional ritual of art has become politicised.  

No, the failure of the Soviet experiment does not alter the validity of Benjamin’s case.  Marxism has not become obsolete with the collapse of the Soviet Union; capitalisms ever increasing power is still present. I believe his ideas are applicable to today, though like human perception, the nature of capitalism has changed because of historical circumstance.

John Berger (b. 1926) is concerned with the way in which we confront images in ways and places that are very from their original contextual surroundings and explores how this then affects their meaning. Berger was influenced by the Frankfurt School of Marxist aesthetics. His argument, expressed in both the first chapter and first episode of Ways of Seeing, is directly influenced by Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ and develops on certain aspects of the original essay. Berger’s case is convincing as historical circumstances and the development in Marxist theory, marks Berger’s argument from Benjamin’s.

Berger discusses the reciprocal nature of vision and that all images are man-made. In relation to that every image embodies a way of seeing (put there by the image-maker) and our perception of the image depends upon our way of seeing; which is influenced (or maybe conditioned?) society. In an obvious Marxist analysis, Berger believes society perspective of art began to change during the Renaissance; because of an increasing awareness in both history and the consciousness of the individual.

Society has taught us artistic conventions, concerning aesthetics, which are no longer in accord with the modern world.  Cultural mystification of artworks, making them remote, has been openly encouraged by a privileged minority (the ruling classes, or whatever their equivalent in a state of modern capitalism) to justify their control. Therefore mystification is openly regarded as part of cultural hegemony.

Mystification itself changes the original meaning of an artwork as it explains away what otherwise may be apparent. Though, it is human nature to perceive the art of the past in a different way than it was actually conceived; exemplified in the concept of perspective. Conventionally, perspective was treated as ‘reality’, an ideal, though it did not allow for visual reciprocity. The invention and the implications of the camera’s function in human existence exposed the contradictions inherent in artistic perspective.

An image is used for many different purposes; obviously, manipulated to fit many purposes as well. The image’s commoditised status allows it to be become part of an argument that has little to do with its original meaning. The authority of the original is now distributed over the context in which it appears.

Perspective meant that the uniqueness of a painting relied in what it presented. I think a work of art removed from its original site does not either grow or diminishes in meaning; it subverts it. It is no longer what the original shows that is unique.  Instead of a camera reproducing a painting and destroying its uniqueness; its meaning is altered and multiplied into new fragments. Mechanical reproduction has allowed for new meanings to be attached to them, like all transmissible information.

In Benjamin’s sense the ‘aura’ has been removed by the postcard, though if you consider Berger, the uniqueness of an original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. Economically its market value relies on rarity. The status of the original is altered by the reproduction, causing mystification to build up around it. The bogus religiosity of art, in relation to what is deemed authentic and aesthetically beautiful, allows capitalism to bestow a new impressiveness on high art and culture; determined by the market value of the art object.

Nostalgia becomes functional in art because of the camera. If an art object is no longer unique or exclusive it is artificially made mysterious. Rather than familiarity breeding contempt; familiarity breeds apathy. The reproduction is used to suppress; it is used politically and commercially to deny individual existence and reinforce interpellation.

Ways of Seeing screenshot.

-          Ways of seeing part one can be seen on YouTube:

Episode One: Part 1
Episode One: Part 2
Episode One: Part 3 
Episode One: Part 4 

Bibliography

Benjamin, Walter. 1936. ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’. From: Illuminations. ed. Hannah Ardent. New York: Schocken Books. 1968., pp. 217-242.

Berger, John.  1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Publishing. pp. 1-27.

D’Alleva, Anne. 2005. Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.

Edwards, Steve. 2006. Photography: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stam, Robert.  1999. Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell., Chapter: ‘The Frankfurt School’, pp. 64-71.

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!

Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies: Assignment 1 (30/10/10)

The University of Warwick Open Studies Certificate: ‘Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies’; Term 1 “1895-1950: The Birth and Development of Narrative Film"; (30/10/10)

Assignment 1: 500 Word Shot Analysis

Title: A Shot Analysis from Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, Germany, 1922): (from DVD Chapter 11: ‘Ellen’ - 00:51:17 to 00:51:25)

Our task was to analyse any shot from any film from which we have studied on the course and discuss the interacting elements of the mise-en-scène within that shot. Not only in how it conveys meaning but also how the interacting elements support thematic development, the atmosphere and expand our understanding of the characters featured.

Though the film belongs to the German Expressionist film movement it does display stylistic, thematic and narrative elements of the earlier art movement, Romanticism.  The natural surrounding shows the influence of Romanticism within the diegesis. Both movements’ charcaterise externally subjective emotions. The mise-en-scène in my chosen shot, featured below, reveals a deeper understanding of the character Ellen. Her internal motivations are expressed through the external interacting elements of the mise-en-scène.

A screenshot of the analysed shot, Motion is not indicated (includes: the waves and how the wind blows both Ellen's costume and the crucifixes)
  Murnau, F.W. 2007.  ‘Masters of Cinema’: Nosferatu (Definitive Fully-restored version with original score) [DVD]. UK: Eureka Entertainment.

Within the analysis I explore how the mise-en-scène reflects Ellen’s awakening sexuality and how symbolism is used in relation to the wider narrative (fabula) and the omnipresent, catalytic, character of Count Orlock (the Nosferatu of the title).

Obviously, I have not included a copy of the analysis as it is a marked piece of academic work. This formative assessment’s deadline was 30^th October; I submitted it on the 28^th October 2010.

Bibliography

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2009. Film History: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ‘Chapter 5: Germany in the 1920s’ pp. 87-104. 

Coleclough, S. 2009. German Expressionism, FM4. [Lecture notes] German Expressionism. A2 Film Studies. Stafford College, Media Studies Department, Room T24, September.

Gibbs, John. 2002. Mise-en-scène:  Film Style and Interpretation. Short Cuts. London: Wallflower Press.

Larden, J. 2010. German Expressionsim, [Lecture]. Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies. The University of Warwick. Open Studies Certificate. Stone Hall Adult Education Centre, 1083 Warwick Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, 2nd October.

Marriott, James. 2004. Horror Films. London: Virgin Books. ‘Chapter 1: The Silent Era – Nosfertau, a Symphony of Horrors (1922)’ pp. 5-15.

Roberts, Ian. 2008. German Expressionism. Short Cuts. London: Wallflower Press.


Filmography

Nosferatu (F.W Murnau, Prana-Film, Germany, 1922)

Coming attractions…

No I’ve not disappeared or being lazy. I’ve been a tad distracted the last couple of weeks but I’m all sorted out now and am raring to go! Here what will be posted in the few days:

·        

• A post detailing my first assignment of my Open Studies Certificate Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies. This was a 500 word shot analysis from Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, Germany, 1922).

•       After my trip to Oxford (Yes, I survived the Gender discussion group at Wadham College), I’ve written some notes about the films: The Arbor (Clio Barnard, UK, 2010)  and The Social Network (David Fincher, USA, 2010).

•         The notes are collated and a structure devised for my next OCA Project (8): ‘The work of art in the age of mechanical production’. This will be types up as soon as possible.

•        That time of week is looming again. No, I’m quite excited. I’m looking forward to the Open Studies class on Saturday this week (No. 6) is ‘Citizen Kane and the development of deep-focus cinematography’! I’ve been a bit bored so I’ve done my extended reading already.

•         Oh, and two week’s worth of Cultural Activities (those activities unrelated to my courses of study). Well I don’t get out much so it’s going to much of the same; books and films.  

•        I will also be added some more images to the blog as it's in need of a makeover!
  
  
•  Details of my summative assesment with the Warwick Open Studies Certificate, Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies, the 2,000 word question: "Discuss the ways in which Battleship Potemkin demonstrates Eisenstein's theory of montage".