Sunday, December 26, 2010

My Film Marathon / Film Festival

This week I went on a massive film binge. Like that of the Cannes, Venice and Berlin Film Festivals, I watched eleven pictures in about four days.

These were:

Looking for Mr. Goodbar -
Richard Brooks, 1977
Deconstructing Harry - Woody Allen, 1997
Crimes and Misdemeanors - Woody Allen, 1989
The Purple Rose of Cairo
- Woody Allen, 1985
Women in Love -
Ken Russell, 1969
A Touch of Class - Melvin Frank, 1973
Bullets over Broadway - Woody Allen, 1994
Mighty Aphrodite
- Woody Allen, 1995
Julia -
Erick Zonca, 2008
Junebug - Phil Morrison, 2005
Sunday Bloody Sunday - John Schlesinger, 1971

And like the way they do in these film festivals, and on
Filmspotting, after they've finish a marathon, they give out imaginary awards.

So after much consideration with me, myself and I, in my one-man jury, I'd like to present my fake awards for:

  • Best Supporting Actor to Martin Landau for Crimes and Misdemeanors.
    Honourable Mention: Jeff Daniels for
    The Purple Rose of Cairo.

  • Best Supporting Actress (Ex-aequo) to Mira Sorvino for Mighty Aphrodite and Amy Adams for Junebug.
    Honourable Mentions: Dianne Wiest
    for her scene-stealing cameo in The Purple Rose of Cairo and Jennifer Tilly for Bullets over Broadway.

  • Best Actor to Peter Finch for Sunday Bloody Sunday.
    Honourable Mentions: Alan Bates
    for Women in Love and, of course, Woody Allen for Deconstructing Harry, Crimes and Misdemeanors and Mighty Aphrodite.

  • Best Actress (Ex-aequo) to Diane Keaton for Looking for Mr. Goodbar and Tilda Swinton for Julia.
    Honourable Mention: Glenda Jackson for her award-winning performances in
    Women in Love, Sunday Bloody Sunday and A Touch of Class.

  • Best Screenplay to Woody Allen for Deconstructing Harry.

  • Best Director to Phil Morrison for Junebug.

  • Grand Prix/Jury Prize/Runner Up to Erick Zonca for Julia.

  • Gui d'Or/Golden Mistletoe/Best Picture to Woody Allen for The Purple Rose of Cairo.

That indeed was a fun exercise, and soon I shall write a discursive report on all that I learnt from the marathon experience.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

An Unmarried Woman: Reviewed

Sometimes it’s hard to be open minded, particularly with films whose politics and social polemics seem so, not outdated, but dated. It’s even worse when the film’s (contentious) philosophies are not supplemented by valiant direction and technical work. Here, I am not talking about Fritz Lang’s proto-fascist Metropolis (1927), nor D. W. Griffith’s Ku Klux Klan-memorialising Birth of a Nation (1915), nor Leni Riefenstahl’s guileful Hitler-propagating Triumph of the Will (1935); all of which are imbued with a cinematic technical proficiency that now render them as ‘high art’. No, instead I am talking about Paul Mazursky’s feminist manifesto An Unmarried Woman (1978).


Belonging to the ‘reconsidered domesticity’-themed films of the windup of the New Hollywood Wave, An Unmarried Woman fits companionably with Kramer vs. Kramer (1979), The Turning Point (1977) and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974): then-contemporary women’s pictures thinly veiled as ‘radical’ feminist declarations. Through their leading women, these films entertain the view of a woman’s right to choice (in relationships, in marriage, in work) with strong conviction; yet narratively revert back to an intuitively patriarchal conception of their lives.


An Unmarried Woman
starts off unsuspectingly, with Erica (Jill Clayburgh) and her husband Martin on their morning jog through the pavements and bridges of Upper East New York. There is a brief but prescient depiction of their tensioned marriage in this scene, as Martin steps on dog shit and absurdly blames Erica for wishing such a fate on him.


In the beginning, we are shown their relatively sunny domesticity, and so it comes all the more abrupt when Martin breaks the news that he’s fallen for a (younger) woman. Michael Murphy delivers quite a solid performance here, imbuing humanity and understanding into this pivotal character – on paper, it seems that he’s been written off as a one-dimensional dickhead and, indeed, he could’ve very much played to the audience's expectations, but something in Murphy’s acting chops seriously uplifts and affords credibility to the picture. I could fathom the pain, shame and confusion in his confession/declaration to Erica that he’s fallen for another – simultaneously crying and chuckling. Later on, I even sympathise with his query of how Erica could not love him anymore after sixteen years together (regardless of the extra-marital affair and his subsequent jettison). I feel that the build up of these moments makes his final plea to Erica to take him back (after his new girlfriend dumps him) and exonerate his behaviours as the workings of a “sick person” all the more heartbreaking. I did not expect such a performance to exist here – from the way the film had been marketed, it seems to be all eyes on Erica/Jill Clayburgh. Murphy’s performance is similar to Meryl Streep’s Academy Award-winning performance in Kramer vs. Kramer as the villainous half of the wedded couple, only I feel that Murphy’s performance is a feat more unique, as we hardly ever see men being “weak”, of men walking away and confessing their flaws. Moreover, Murphy’s performance is also rather subtle – you try to hate him, but seeing the way the whole domestically hapless situation also takes a toll on him, only makes him more relatable and human.



Jill Clayburgh, who won the prestigious 1978 Cannes Best Actress Prize (tying with Isabelle Huppert in Violette Noziere) and an Academy Award Best Actress nomination for this role, is likable, endearing and sympathetic, but what ultimately prevents the performance from being fully developed, is the emotional disequilibrium that spans between her and her character. Considering she had won Cannes, I thought her performance would have been all-immersive, rather it seems that she’s just going through the motions. [*Not saying that histrionic, all-immersive acting is the ‘best’ acting, but there is very much a historical trend with Cannes Best Actress winners to tend towards that style of acting]. Even when Clayburgh is enacting out Erica’s suppressed secrets and fears in a therapy session, it just didn't seem to resonate truthfully with me. Hence, this has led me to believe that Clayburgh and her star vehicle film garnered much of its praise due to the film's then-politically-progressive feminist standpoint; its raison d'être was to show that a woman can, and should, continue living even when confronted with divorce at age 35-45; that now in the 1970s America, times have changed and a woman will survive without a man! She will survive and make it until she meets a sexy British painter (the ever charming and sexy Alan Bates) who also happens to be extremely rich and who’ll sweep her off her feat.



Lastly, look out for the very famous impromptu underpants Ballet simulation dance by Jill Clayburgh early on. It’s come to symbolise both her as a charming and lovable actress and the film.


Friday, December 17, 2010

In Celebration of Jacki Weaver: Best Supporting Actress Oscar Predictions

I am a lucky duck: I had the rare opportunity to see Jacki Weaver on stage in the Sydney Theatre Company's 2010 production of Uncle Vanya. I felt very privileged and ahead of everyone - who, apart from the rest of Sydney theatre-goers, can say that they had just recently witness the live aura of a soon-to-(hopefully)-be Academy Award nominee, and current 'IT-girl' of the moment?

This was, strangely, even before I watched David Michod's multi-Australian Film Institute Award winning Animal Kingdom, the part for which Jacki Weaver has been getting all the buzz. Weaver is a forceful presence in the film - she plays Janine 'Smurf' Cody with such subtle ambiguity that the overarching effect comes to be much more powerful than expected. In this way, she is a prime candidate for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar gong - her performance is reminiscent of some of the best winners of the support actress, as well as the support actor, category.

On the surface, it may seem that Weaver's performance is like that of Mo'Nique's over-the-top, cliched ham, that won the prize last year. But it is so far from. Indeed, they are both monstrous mothers whom have a quasi-incestuous relationship with their children. But Weaver handles the role with so much more depth, integrity, knowingness and understanding. No superfluous histrionics here. Everything Weaver/Smurf does is calculated to the bone --- yet you'd just never expect it. Weaver is more like Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton, Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men and Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds: villains with silent, wry intentions.

Personally, I'm also of the opinion that a 'good' supporting actor/actress performance should be one that leaves an indelible impression, but not one that runs away with the whole film, leaving all the other actors and the script high and dry. Though, admittedly, I am generally a fan of histrionics, sometimes less is more! And if you check out the list of previous supporting actress winners, you'll see that this is also generally the equation that the Academy adopts when choosing its winners (ceteris paribus all other variables - such as 'overdue-ness').

A few past examples of subtleness, wherein the actress did not take the film and run! Rather just let her performance and talent speak for itself.

1939: Hattie McDaniel - Gone with the Wind
1951: Kim Hunter - A Streetcar Named Desire
1958: Wendy Hiller - Separate Tables
1966: Sandy Dennis - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
1976: Beatrice Straight - Network
1977: Vanessa Redgrave - Julia
1985: Anjelica Huston - Prizzi's Honor
1986: Dianne Wiest - Hannah and Her Sisters
1996: Juliette Binoche - The English Patient
2004: Cate Blanchett - The Aviator

and the aforementioned:
2007: Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton

Weaver's performance does ring a slight bell with certain previous winning performances. But also, not to forget, there has been some pretty histrionic past winning performances too (as it's the only category where a character actor can take charge and dash for a home-run). So really, it'll depend on how the Academy's feeling this year, and where it'll go for histrionics or subtly.

This year, nevertheless, the cards seem to be falling like this:


1. Melissa Leo - The Fighter: playing an overbearing, trailer trash but ambitious and business-minded mother to Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale's boxer brothers. Keeping in mind that the Academy really really love her, since her surprise nomination in 2008 for Best Actress in Frozen River, and probably would have given her the award had it not been for the five-time-losing nominee and eventual winner Kate Winslet. So she is, in some sense, 'overdue', and white trailer trash is always a winner, so I think it's pretty much hers to lose. The Washington DC Film Critics and the prestigious New York Film Critics Circle named her the year's best supporting actress.


2. Helena Bonham Carter - The King's Speech: a beloved kooky actress from the '90s. I've always been a fan ever since seeing her in A Room with a View (1986) and Howards End (1992), she's the gypsy-type variation of the popular independent-intelligentsia British woman that we see much of in cinema. Like Leo, she also a past loser, having shockingly lost her 1997 Best Actress bid for The Wings of the Dove to, not Judi Dench (Mrs. Brown) nor Julie Christie (Afterglow) nor Kate Winslet (Titanic), but the hideous Helen Hunt in the vapid As Good as it Gets. What were then thinking back in 1997? The other three scorned women of 1997 have now gotten their apology Oscars, will Helena finally win hers too? She hasn't garnered many critics prizes, but did manage to, so far, snatch the British Independent Film Award.


3. Jacki Weaver - Animal Kingdom: like with Lesley Manville, I know I shouldn't be ranking her so high here. But I'm hopeful for both cases. Weaver today got snubbed a SAG nomination, which out of all the major precursors, is arguably the most indicative of an Oscar nomination; it's the actors of the actors branch that vote for the nominees, and if the guild (which houses many Academy actor voters) isn't supporting her, then she is pretty much out of the running. But this is just me being pessimistic. I have a feeling Weaver will be included over the likes of Hallee Steinfeld and Mila Kunis. She's after all already won the National Board of Review and Los Angeles Film Critics' awards.

Weaver should get out there and start promoting herself. Ditch her thankless role in
Uncle Vanya
and go for it. But I guess, she wants to remain loyal to her prior engagements; after all, how was she to know that both her and the film would get such a positive reception in the US?


4. Amy Adams - The Fighter: Amy rids herself of her innocent self and notches up the Sass! She will get in! But she won't win! I find her a charming and exciting actress, can't wait to see what she dishes up in this role.


5. Mila Kunis - Black Swan: Natalie's nemesis; the one instigating all the drama! She may get in.


6. Dianne Wiest - Rabbit Hole: I have a slight feeling they may want a goldie oldie here, and her role in the film is pretty substantial, so who knows?

7. Hailee Steinfeld - True Grit.

The prize will ultimately be a three way fight between Melissa Leo, Helena Bonham Carter and Jacki Weaver. I think ultimately it'll be given to Melissa Leo - she's got the struggling jobbing actor story behind her (not that Weaver doesn't have that story behind her too), but Leo is American and that means a lot more than anything else! Helena - though also being in the industry for almost thirty years - is younger than Leo and thus, will have to wait! Voters may have long forgotten turns in Fight Club and Hamlet.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The Figuration of the ‘MISSING’ Dead Body in Vertigo, Blowup, and The Conversation: Trauma Theory and Cinema

The figure of the ‘missing’ dead body comes to be the central filament of Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958), Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966) and The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974); a fine thread that weaves together the narrative, characters, cinematography, representations and allegories within the individual films as well as among them. On its most base level, the ‘missing’ dead body signifies death – its prominence and promise even in the banality and ennui of the everyday. However, because this is a ‘missing’ death, one that is essentially unexplained, unaccounted for and in conflict with the official stories and understandings of death, its incidental and sinister appearance on both the protagonist’s and the movie camera’s visual radar overwhelms and traumatises. For the protagonist, there results in a traumatic sense of loss – either a partial or complete loss of one’s agency, belief in the social system, trust in the institutions that govern, feeling of security, and identity. This tone and spirit of the protagonist inevitably translates onto the respective film and, in turn, becomes allegorically representative of the tone and spirit felt by society at the time. Thus, these films in their recreation and enactment of a differentiated, singular traumatic event are then able to explore and elucidate the varied symptoms and crippling side effects of psychological trauma as endured by individuals, nations and cultures dealing with trauma that’s pertinent and inherent to their own historical milieu. This reading of the films in terms of trauma theory is facilitated by the fact that all three protagonists either subtly or manifestly exhibit the signs of mild psychological trauma, all the way down to post-traumatic stress disorder. Accordingly, this essay will map out the symptoms and effects of trauma as they come to affect the behaviour and actions of John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson (Jimmy Stewart) in Vertigo, Thomas (David Hemmings) in Blowup and Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) in The Conversation.

Analogous to the developments of trauma theory and other psychoanalytical approaches to cinema was Gilles Deleuze’s theory of the “crisis of the action-image” and the resulting extended affection-image. Deleuze in his two-volume study, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image and Cinema 2: The Time-Image, examines the history of cinema and, through that, ambitiously maps out a typology of images and signs. He notes that for the first half of its existence, cinema had been content to reproduce human perception of movement as ‘action’, however, at certain points in history, that is the Second World War and its devastating aftermath, this schema for perception was thrown into a state of crisis and so to was its cinematic representation.[1] A new mode of cinema emerged and instead of being a traditional sensory-motor drama, where perception-image flowed smoothly onto affection-image and then action-image, these cause-and-effect links are now loosened, sometimes, even broken. This is because as the character encounters a unique situation, however ordinary or extraordinary, that is beyond any possible action or to which he or she can’t react for it is too powerful, too painful or too beautiful, the image follows accordingly and too lags behind, becoming trapped in the lacunary interval, the ‘any-space-whatever’.[2] Some cinemas, such as post-war Italian Neorealism, revelled in this entrapment and explored its possibilities with the creation of crystal-images and other incarnations of the time-image. Meanwhile, American cinema, even during its New Hollywood wave, remained traumatised by the gap and was unable to move beyond the affection-image.[3] Deleuze recognised that, for Hollywood, this crisis of the action-image – the opening up of the interval between perception and action – was a traumatic event, yet companionably, it was also a new ideal cinematic economy through which Hollywood was able to represent and deal with the traumas of the Vietnam War.[4]

Although Hitchcock’s Vertigo appears just a few years prior to America’s involvement in the Vietnam War and a decade before the beginning of the New Hollywood wave, it still ostensibly deals with the themes of male subjectivity, paralysis and figurative castration. This loss of masculinity and sense of impotency, according to Robert Samuels in Hitchcock’s Bi-textuality, is the result of the realisation that male attempts to control and master the representation of the female subject are ultimately futile. This feeling of lack then motivates the male subject to find new forms of representational plentitude, forms that are even more misogynistic, sadistic and masochistic than before.[5] Moreover, the character of Judy Barton (Kim Novak) in acting as a canvas for male representations of femaleness and femininity comes to highlight not only the constructed nature, but also the performativity, of gender and sexuality. Judy is also the ‘missing’ dead body in the film as well as the catalyst for the narrative and the prime cause of Scottie’s post-traumatic stress disorder.

Scottie’s first encounter with a traumatic event is, however, during the film’s opening after the title sequence. A close-up of a man’s hands grabbing onto a steel bar soon zooms out to reveal the San Francisco skyline at night and Scottie with his policing partner chasing a suspect. During the chase, Scottie jumps across from one ledge to a roof but fails to get a solid grip. He eventually starts falling but then latches onto the rooftop’s drain. It is there and then that he discovers he suffers vertigo when looking down from heights. Scottie’s partner tries to help him up but then loses his balance and falls to his death. This scene ends with a close-up of Scottie precariously hanging on with dumbstruck expression on his face: this image is both a hyperbolic and literal illustration of the affection-image, Scottie cannot react because what he has just seen is too tragic and, even if he could, it is physically impossible for him to do so. Naturally, it is highly fitting to find such an exemplar of this image in Vertigo, as Deleuze, in theorising the crisis of the action-image, employed a number of Hitchcock’s films to enunciate this concept. This first scene along with the next one in Midge’s apartment elucidate how Scottie has pre-existing acrophobic tendencies as revealed by his sudden onset of vertigo, and because the experience resulted in the death of his colleague, it quite rationally fortified his fear of heights. The experience paralyses Scottie and makes him feel feminised, further literalised by his corset: “Midge do you suppose many men wear corsets?” It is also revealed that he voluntarily quit his job and has recurring nightmares of the traumatic event, signifying that Scottie has been paralysed physically, professionally and psychologically. Moreover, it is also curious to note how his vertigo is attached to a fear of femininity, as Samuels explains, a fear of falling in love with the mother-substitute Midge.[6]

Later on, Scottie is hired as a private investigator by Gavin Elster to follow and survey his wife. Little does Scottie know that she is Judy, playing the dual role of Madeleine and Carlotta. Elster knowingly scripts her as the ideal woman, or rather as the type that Scottie desires. It is not so much Madeleine’s physical attributes that Scottie is attracted to, of course her platinum blonde appearance doesn’t hurt and is in stark contrast to Midge’s librarian look, but rather her mental and behavioural attributes: Madeleine’s ‘damsel in distress’ act and her emotional instability. This and the fact that he is being employed again to do a job, to contribute back to society, allows him to attain a sense of agency and masculinity, almost one that is hyper-phallic. This is especially pertinent when he saves her life after her (contrived) act of suicide. Scottie, in this scene, takes on the role of the hero and is able to help Hitchcock fulfil the Kuleshovian montage of perception, affection and action. The rescue is soaked with sexual overtones that spill into the next scene in Scottie’s apartment: Madeleine’s dress hanging in his kitchen, her sleeping naked in his bed and wearing his bathrobe.

All these little triumphs, which Elster and Madeleine afford Scottie, eventually lead to another bout of vertigo and consequently his complete loss of masculinity and identity. When trying to save her life a second time, he is unable to catch up to her running up the bell tower. The audience, through Scottie’s perspective, sees her fall down through the window, and then a shot-reverse-shot confirms (the real) Madeleine’s dead body. Scottie is clearly traumatised by this event as he shivers uncontrollably with a wild look in his eyes, a look reminiscent of his first vertigo attack – suggesting how this new traumatic event has reactivated emotions associated with prior ones. Scottie is unable to respond appropriately and walks away without a thorough inspection of the body. The most obvious signs of his post-traumatic stress disorder, however, come in his sleep. A close-up of Scottie with his head on his pillow segues into a dream sequence as he relives the event; the multicolour tint of the film stock along with the melodramatic score not only create a nightmarish atmosphere but also a dizzying effect.

Later on, in an attempt to work through this trauma, Scottie visits the places that are associated with Madeline – the courtyard of her apartment, the restaurant where he first saw her, and the gallery with Carlotta’s portrait. In fact, Scottie becomes so intent on retracing this event and ‘translating’ this trauma (i.e. to make meaning out of it) that he sadistically makes over his new girlfriend, Judy, to look like Madeleine. Scottie uses her to obsessive-compulsively review the event step-by-step, moment-by-moment, eventually unveiling the conspiracy he was unwittingly accomplice to. Meanwhile, Judy mimetically fulfils the fate that she had subscribed to in the first half of the film. The replaying and repetition of the traumatic event here could be interpreted as being inspired by the ‘missing’ dead body. The dead body is missing because Scottie is mourning the death of the wrong woman and, in achieving closure, he requires the right dead body to mourn over. Scottie wants to intellectualise this event; to understand its circumstances and not just regard it as a supernatural occurrence; to unmask the betrayal and its motive; to reconcile the identities of the real murdered Madeleine, the carbon copy Madeleine, and the actress paid to play her as well as his relation to each of them; and to ultimately be able to see the world objectivity again. The final shot is again an affection-image, but its use here is enigmatic because on the one hand, both the narrative and Scottie’s dilemma have been resolved and the action-image has resurfaced again, yet on the other hand, this event could have further traumatising effects later on despite Scottie’s vertigo being seemingly cured.

At the conclusion of Blowup, however, the protagonist Thomas, after enduring the trauma of discovering a dead body at the local park, has a newfound subjective perspective on the world. Due to the experience, he is able to step outside himself and see the world, not from an egocentric, one-sided ‘objective’ point of view, but rather from a viewpoint that is open to the perils and possibilities of the world. This consequently reaffirms the notion that trauma, in damaging one’s systems of perception and representation, creates new subjects, subjectivities and meanings, and opens the mind’s eyes. In the final scene, Thomas impartially watches the mimes’ game of tennis and when indicated to participate in this seemingly ridiculous activity he complies and shares in their subjective but meaningful experience. This scene, when read through the trauma theory discourse, uncovers how quiet, personal and secretive the symptoms and side effects of trauma can be; how often the general (mis)conception or definition of “trauma” is that of something that occurs only from monumental historical events like WWII or September 11, or of experiences that affect entire nations, communities or collective groups such as colonialism, immigration and diasporas, when in reality trauma is much more pervasive and universal.[7] Trauma affects everyone, can be caused by anything that “shatters the psychic identity” and its symptoms vary considerably – from light melancholy and anxiety through to hysteria and depression.[8] Just as E. Ann Kaplan in her insightful book Trauma Culture explains: “[a] daily experience of terror may not take the shape of classic trauma suffered by victims or survivors, but to deny [this] experience as traumatic would be a mistake … one [should] recognise degrees and kinds of trauma.”[9] Thus, both the film and Antonioni do not explicitly announce the trauma that’s been inflicted on Thomas, but subtly display behaviours, traits and other codes that suggest his degradation. For example, Thomas becomes obsessed with locating the dead body and after confirming his suspicions begins to withdraw from the activities and pleasures which define his identity.

This onset of trauma is a belated one, and the realisation of a dead body and a murder is first suspected in the dubious behaviour of Vanessa Redgrave’s character. She draws Thomas’ attention to the photographs, and eventually he blows them up to discern whether or not such a criminal act occurred. The photos reveal an indistinct shadow, a blob, only interpretable via his imagination. Thomas revisits the park and his suspicions turn out to be correct, yet strangely, the dead body bears a strong resemblance to the gentleman whom Redgrave was frolicking with at the time when the photos were taken. Moreover, the fact that the body was not disposed of earlier and later goes missing along with his photographs implies that the whole event could have just been the product of Thomas’ own inventive imagination. Regardless of this possibility, Thomas still remains disturbed and traumatised by the experience. He feels betrayed by the persons, who could commit such a crime in his backyard, who have such little regard for the laws of society. Thomas’ frustration is further perpetuated by his business partner’s disinterest in the story, which again illustrates the personal nature of trauma as well as alluding to the notion of “empty empathy”.[10]

Blowup is a film where its aesthetic is entirely influenced by the interval afforded by the crisis of the action-image. When in this interval, it does not remain trapped in the affection-image but rather goes on to explore the cinematics of the time-image. This is due to its “balade-form”, i.e. the aimless wanderings that Thomas engages it, which according to Deleuze is one of the five instances that result in the emergence of time-images.[11] Additionally, Christian Keathley in the essay ‘Trapped in the Affection Image’ acknowledges two ‘genres’ of art cinema – ‘realism’ and ‘authorial expressivity’, and curiously Blowup fits into both camps. This is emblematic of the fact that Antonioni as an Italian director is both an apprentice of the Italian Neorealists and a renegade of that tradition. His film aims to explore the “contingent daily reality” of its characters but in a way that stylistically draws attention to its construction and disregards the continuity norms of Classical Hollywood.[12] The most notable example being when Thomas returns to the park the second time to find the body missing: a shot-reverse-shot schedule is first set up as he looks down on the bare ground but then it gets discarded.

The third film which will be briefly discussed here is Coppola’s The Conversation. This film discernibly borrows the motifs of unsanctioned surveillance, murder and the ‘missing’ dead body from both Vertigo and Blowup and rearranges them to provide a politically-charged critique and reflection of American society in the 1970s, amidst the Vietnam War. The Conversation fittingly conjures up the claustrophobia and paranoia of the McCarthyism era, of which America’s involvement in the Vietnam War has its political origins in. Coppola explicitly uses the affection-image close-up and the son-sign of a woman screeching to depict Harry’s blackout response to the traumatic event. This screeching son-sign and the screen’s fade to black are used again when Harry discovers the ‘missing’ dead body, or rather, its blood residue. The Conversation, like most films of the New Hollywood period, such as Bonnie and Clyde (Penn, 1967), The Graduate (Nichols, 1967), Midnight Cowboy (Schlesinger, 1969), Klute (Pakula, 1971), McCabe and Mrs Miller (Altman, 1971), Chinatown (Polanski, 1974) and Shampoo (Ashby, 1975), is infatuated with the affection-image because it is the most potent cinematic image that depicts, and deals with, the traumatic death of the American Dream.

In conclusion, this essay has provided a reading of Hitchcock’s Vertigo, Antonioni’s Blowup and Coppola’s The Conversation in terms of trauma theory. It has emphasised that the figure of the ‘missing’ dead body, as a potent symbol of death, is the prime catalyst for the three protagonists’ regression and development of, either mild or severe, post-traumatic stress disorder. The essay employs the films’ intricate narratives and characterisations to elucidate the different theories of trauma and its varying symptoms and side effects. Attention is also paid to the filmic techniques that these directors use in their exploration of the affection-image, also known as the crisis of the action-image. All three directors openly adopt this cinematic image in their representation of a traumatic event and the desolating effects that it has on the protagonist.


Bibliography

Bogue, Ronald. Deleuze on Cinema. New York. London: Routledge. 2003.

Kaplan, E. Ann. Trauma Culture: The Politics of Terror and Loss in Media and Literature. New Jersey. London: Rutgers University Press. 2005.

Keathley, Christian. ‘Trapped in the Affection Image: Hollywood’s post-traumatic cycle’. In Thomas Elsaesser, Alexander Horwath, Noel King’s (eds.). The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam U P. 2004.

Samuels, Robert. Hitchcock’s Bi-textuality: Lacan, Feminisms, and Queer Theory. New York: State University of New York Press. 1998.



[1] Christian Keathley, ‘Trapped in the Affection Image: Hollywood’s post-traumatic cycle’, in Thomas Elsaesser, Alexander Horwath, Noel King’s (eds.), The Last Great American Picture Show: New Hollywood Cinema in the 1970s, Amsterdam: Amsterdam U P, 2004, p. 294.

[2] Christian Keathley, op. cit.

[3] Christian Keathley, op. cit.

[4] Christian Keathley, p. 295.

[5] Robert Samuels, Hitchcock’s Bi-textuality: Lacan, Feminisms, and Queer Theory, New York: State University of New York Press, 1998, p. 77.

[6] Robert Samuels, p. 79.

[7] E. Ann Kaplan, Trauma Culture: The Politics of Terror and Loss in Media and Literature, New Jersey, London: Rutgers University Press, 2005, p. 30.

[8] E. Ann Kaplan, p. 5.

[9] E. Ann Kaplan, p. 1.

[10] E. Ann Kaplan, p. 21.

[11] Ronald Bogue, Deleuze on Cinema, New York, London: Routledge, 2003, p. 108.
[12]
Christian Keathley, p. 294-5.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Rabbit Hole, or: How I learned to stop worrying and revel in the Multiverse

At the risk of sounding like an Americanphile, Broadway is where Theatre is at.

I'm sorry but regardless of how much effort Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton of the Sydney Theatre Company and Neil Armfield and Ralph Myers of Belvoir St. Theatre inject in their attempts to create a niche, progressive and specialist theatre milieu for Sydney (which, they are doing quite a superb job, given the limited resources), it is just unable to rival that of Broadway, or Off-Broadway for that matter. The sad and ironic thing is that I reside in Sydney and not in New York City. I have to make-do with Sydney's theatre scene, which I would argue, due to it not being so established and wrought by investors, is much more experimental and aspirational. It's a theatre that tries harder to attract crowds, as it doesn't inherently possess the spectacle of Broadway lights and other niceties.

This is why I was so excited to have been access to a video recording of Daniel Sullivan's 2006 Manhattan Theatre Club's original Broadway production of David Lindsay-Abaire's play Rabbit Hole. And despite the bootleg's jarring cinematography, I was happily mesmerised.

I had been dreaming the impossible dream of witnessing Cynthia Nixon's Tony Award winning performance as Becca, the still-grieving mother of Rabbit Hole. Since, Sex and the City, I always had faith in Nixon as a formidable and provocative actress, and though Sex and the City was no dud, it surely was no Eugene O'Neill either. To see Nixon in a role that was worth her weight, was more than worth my wait. Soon, we'll also come to see Nicole Kidman's rendition of Becca, and it'll be interesting to compare the two.

Director Daniel Sullivan unceremoniously opens the play in midair. Becca, folding what we soon come to discover are the clothes of Danny, her four-year-old deceased son, casually banters with her sister Izzy (Mary Catherine Garrison) about Izzy's recent, seemingly random bar-fight with a romantic rival. Izzy is, most indeed, a kook, and Becca is surrounded by more than a few of them in the play. You'd think, Becca, a woman on the verge, would suffer no fools but rather it is these kooks, more than her seemingly rational and sensible husband Howie (John Slattery), that give both her and her grief sporadic release.

Nixon delivers a naturalistic performance, one that is inherently wry and standoffish, as she works her familiar gestural toolkit to great effect. I find Nixon to often express very sharp and incisive facial gestures, a characteristic, which if belonging to another (lesser) actress, I would strangely think her as limited. With Nixon, however, her toolkit of incisive gestures comes to be part of her appeal and the means by which she has continued to be able to play these aloof, self-contained women. Nixon stoically charts Becca's subtle emotional and rational disintegration in the face of her son's aging eight-month old wake.

The supporting cast adds enough variation and lightness to the play's intrinsically mournful undertone. The standout player is Nat (Tyne Daly), Becca's mother, who too has suffered the same fate as her daughter, albeit in less innocuous circumstances. And just as we have written her off as a needy, neurotic but well-meaning and funny fuss-pot, she offers a pot of gold of advice to both Becca and the audience.

Trauma, loss, grief and sadness open one's mind-eyes and often transfigures the view of the world. Rabbit Hole illuminates this concept and, in doing so, further opens the audience's mind-eyes. The play poetically and poignantly offers the audience with two lessons, or rather, two possibilities. The first is from Nat, as she explains to Becca the way that a mother's grief can change; transmogrify from something that smothers to something that comforts:
"At some point it becomes bearable ... and you forget it every once in awhile, and then you reach in for what ever reason, and there it is ... sometimes it's kind of - not that you like it, exactly, but it's what you have instead of your son, so you don't want to let go of it either. So you carry it around and it doesn't go away - which is / fine, actually."
The second belongs to Jason (John Gallagher Jr.), the teenage driver of the car that killed Danny. In the short story that he writes and dedicates in memory to Danny, Becca unravels the scientific hypothesis of the Multiverse; a theory of rabbit holes and many-world parallel universes. Jason nonchalantly explains that if one accepts the most basic laws of science, - here referring namely to Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics - the Multiverse is not only plausible but probable, and with an infinite version of Beccas, Johns, Howies, Nats, Izzys, mes and yous. And somewhere out there one of those Beccas is "having a good time." This, certainty, is a nice thought!

These two ideas, along with the film's subtle reference to the Butterfly Effect/Chaos Theory (wherein it's revealed that each member of the family is to be blamed for the death; each is as guilty as a butterfly is in the creation of a tsunami), graciously transpire this tragicomedic kitchen-sink drama into a play about esoteric ideas. These never come across as didactic, but rather as insights that both Becca and the audience painstakingly crave, as a way to make meaning of Danny's death. Yes this is so, even in light of Becca's plea,
earlier in the play, to stop people (such as her mother) counselling her with the 'God-talk'.

I did not have an authentic live 'theatre' experience of the play, but the fact that it still affected me deeply is a testament to the power of
David Lindsay-Abaire's words, Sullivan's direction and the ensemble cast's acting.

The 2010 film adaptation of the play will be out soon, and it'll be interesting to compare the two productions. From the trailer, it seems that director John Cameron Mitchell has decided to leave the comedic aspects behind and, instead, mine the emotional intensity to its paroxysmal end.

I couldn't find any YouTube clips of the 2006 Broadway production, but found a video of Cynthia Nixon talking about theatre and briefly mentioning her role in Rabbit Hole. Here are a few teasers from the upcoming film version, starring two-time Academy Award winner Dianne Wiest.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Oscar Time Again: Best Actress Nominations Prediction

Yippee!

It's that time again. And as The New York Times magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/12/12/magazine/20101212-oscars.html) has already stylishly announced its own predictions for the best actor and actress gongs, albeit grandiosely veiled as "the actors who defined cinema in 2010", I think I too will put in my two cents and present who I think *deserves* to be nominated for a (leading actress) Academy Award Oscar.

The women which the Times assured were Lesley Manville for Another Year,
Chloë Moretz for Let Me In, Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone, Natalie Portman for Black Swan, Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right and Mother and Child, Noomi Rapace for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo franchise, and Tilda Swinton for I Am Love. They have indeed selected well, and it is likely that three or four out of the group will come to be nominated, and one will eventually win the Oscar. In the group, interestingly, only one (Tilda Swinton) is a previous Oscar winner.

My (educated) guess pretty much echoes what the Times critics thinks, and this is a very good thing! This year, the actress (and actor and director and picture) categories are jam-packed with
strong, artistic creations - wherein a performance like Sandra Bullock's cliched The Blind Side and Meryl Streep's silly Julie and Julia would not even be up for consideration.

The 2010 line up will be:


1. Annette Bening - The Kids Are All Right, as my earlier post suggested, the odds are all for her. She delivers two strong performances this year (the other in Mother and Child) and has a back-story/track-record to die for: thrice Oscar nominated and twice frontrunner to win. The voters will be inclined to reward this 'Hollywood-royalty' (married to Oscar playboy Warren Beatty, sister-in-law of Shirley MacLaine and on the board of the Academy). She also doesn't have a too showy histrionic performance, which always has the chance of alienating some viewers.


2. Natalie Portman - Black Swan, a very buzzed-about performance in an exciting Aronofsky film. She is the only real contender to threaten Bening's 'time' back-story. Though the film has received mixed reviews, her performance has been positively / immaterially (and damagingly) compared to the likes of Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose, Robert De Niro in Raging Bull and Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice - all previous Oscar winners winning for their tour-de-force/extreme Method-kind of performance. Indeed, this seems like great praise, but I, however, do find these comparisons to be damaging because they offensively suggest that a 'good/great' performance is one that has to be wholly entrenched in the Method approach (or seeming to be wholly entrenched in the Method approach); that there is no real difference between Cotillard, De Niro, Streep and, now, Portman's performances. After completing a course on theories of acting, I no longer see this extreme-Method approach as the holy-grail of acting. I mean, going over the top with histrionics (in fact, Meryl's performance in Sophie's Choice is hardly paroxysmal histrionics, so I really don't get the comparison) can often be an amazing spectacle and efficiently convincing, but it's not the only way to act. Nevertheless, this ideal of acting is still very much pervasive within the Hollywood milieu, and it could be for this reason that Portman wins, and she'd be winning for the wrong reason. Despite all the hype surrounding Portman, she surpisingly did not win the acting Volpi Cup at the this year's Venice Film Festival, which most had expected her to win.


3. Lesley Manville - Another Year, like Portman, has received a lot of praise around the festival circuit, having debuted at the Cannes Film Festival in May. And also like Portman, she surprisingly lost the Cannes Best Actress prize to Juliette Binoche for Certified Copy (who sadly isn't in contention for the Oscar). But Manville has been critically praised, and even won the National Board of Review's best actress prize (the other critics bodies' prizes are yet to be released, and so it's too early to say if she will win). I do have a slight feeling that she will go where no other Mike Leigh woman has gone, but logically know that the result will still be the same as Brenda Blethyn's (Secrets and Lies) and Imelda Staunton's (Vera Drake) failed nominations. Let's just hope she doesn't suffer the same fate as Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky) - left out in the rain with no nomination. Note: Blethyn won Cannes best actress prize, Staunton won Venice's Volpi Cup and Hawkins won Berlin's Silver Bear - thus, we know that Leigh's women always deliver, so is it ultimately discrimination on behalf of Hollywood's elite?


4. Nicole Kidman - Rabbit Hole, since the film previewed at the Toronto Film Festival, Nicole has been garnering raved reviews. I was at first disappointed upon learning that Nicole even attained the role, having myself been such a fan of Sex and the City's Cynthia Nixon's Tony award-winning original Broadway interpretation of the role. But upon seeing the trailer, I was happily surprised and am very excited to see what Nicole will do differently. Even with the influx of all these non-Oscar-winning actress delivering the best of their career's work, I have a feeling that the Academy will want to include a previous winner in its final list. And Nicole is a huge box-office queen, and the Academy may also feel bad for snubbing her for her extraordinary post-win performances, namely in Lars von Trier's Dogville and Jonathan Glazer's Birth. Still, she has no chance in hell of winning (due to her already possessing an Oscar) and I would rather see a non-winner grace the red-carpet come Oscar night. Someone like Naomi Watts or Julianne Moore.


5. Jennifer Lawrence - Winter's Bone, she has already won a breakthrough prize from the National Board of Review, and her film has been universally praised since its debut at Sundance. Lawrence does provide the goods in her "non-performance", as some have described it. The critics also like her film better than Precious and Frozen River (other Sundance-winning films earmarked with a "non-performance"). But the question is, will they want her, or will they want Michelle Williams (who is on the verge of entering the top 5). The answer will be determined by critics prizes, but more so by the publicity circuit.


6. Michelle Williams - Blue Valentine, a strong back-story to this performance. It has been said that both she and co-star Ryan Gosling spent much effort in researching and authenticating their difficult roles. Moreover, the NC-17 scandal also placed the film in an artistically-positive light. But now that the scandal's passed (the film's been rated R in America) and *more people* will get to see it, will Michelle's performance (both in the film and in the publicity circuit) be able to overthrow Lawrence's ingenue and Kidman's superstar statuses? I'm hoping so.


7. Naomi Watts - Fair Game, a solid performance as real-life exposed spy Valerie Plame, but irritatingly, the film's unbalanced tone leaves Naomi in the dark. Still, she deserves recognition for her hard work.


8. Sally Hawkins - Made in Dagenham, people have been dying for her to get a nomination (and even a win) since her brutal snub in 2008 for her critics award-winning and Silver Bear-earning performance in Happy-Go-Lucky. Unfortunately, they (and I) will have to wait. Made in Dagenham is TV-movie-of-the-week at best, and even then it's giving the film too much credit. Sally comes, reads her lines and emotes all for the intentions of the film, but because the film is so disastrous, her efforts are, sadly, in vain.

Not likely to be nominated nor in contention to be nominated, but worthy of it:


- Julianne Moore - The Kids Are All Right, if there was any justice in this world, then Moore should also be nominated alongside Annette (who pretty much is more than guaranteed a nomination, if not win). Moore is the co-lead and does as much as Annette does. The only reason she is being overseen is due to the threat of 'splitting votes' with Annette. I understand that reason, and so feel that she should instead be nominated in the supporting category. There she may have a strong chance to win - some may see it as category fraud - but I don't really give a damn. I just want Julianne Moore to have the moniker of "Academy Award Winner" - yes, even at the expense of the magnificent Helena Bonham Carter (in The King's Speech)! (The supporting actress category is jam-packed too - with the likes of Melissa Leo and Amy Adams for The Fighter, Barbara Hershey and Mila Kunis for Black Swan, Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom, Dianne Wiest for Rabbit Hole; and the periphery likes of Miranda Richardson for Made in Magenham, Minnie Driver for Conviction, Sissy Spacek for Get Low and Marion Cotillard for Inception).


- Tilda Swinton - I Am Love, this Oscar-winner graciously glides through this picturesque film, presenting us with a docile character (something which we rarely see her play) and in a foreign language. She is so subtly good that you forget how good she really is in the film.


- Juliette Binoche - Certified Copy, again, another Oscar-winner doing what she does best! With this Cannes Best Actress award-winning performance, she became the first and only actress to have won the European International Film Festivals Best Actress Tripple-Crown; previously having won the Venice Volpi Cup in 1993 for Three Colours: Blue and Berlin's Silver Bear in 1997 for The English Patient.

It is still, of course, early days. I will be able to predict a more correct list once all the critics prizes and some industry awards (Golden Globes) are given out. So wait for that list before you start betting!