Final Film Critique
10 Criticism and Analysis
In the arts, the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.
—Pauline Kael
© W
al t D
is ne
y Co
./c ou
rt es
y Ev
er et
t C ol
le ct
io n
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 255 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?
Chapter Objectives After reading this chapter, students should:
• Understand differences between a film review and a film analysis; between simple personal opinions and critical analysis
• Be able to break down films into elements of their construction to evaluate elements for the ways they work individually and together
• Recognize some basic theories of film analysis and criticism and be able to apply them when appropriate
• Understand what goes into writing a popu- lar criticism of a film targeted at a typical newspaper or magazine readership
• Understand what goes into writing a structural or technical analysis of a film and relate it to how effectively it tells its story or presents its message
• Understand what goes into considering a film in some broader context (e.g., social, historical, ideological, body of a director’s work or a genre) and writing a scholarly critical analysis
• Analyze a movie using one of the scholarly approaches discussed in the chapter
10.1 What Is a Critic?
What is a critic? There are many definitions, some of which are unflattering, including as they do charges of jealousy, mean-spiritedness, and flat-out incom-petence. Ironically enough, one of the best definitions comes from a character in a film, and in an animated film, at that. In Pixar’s film Ratatouille (2007), Peter O’Toole provides the voice of Anton Ego, a famous food critic feared for his discriminating palate and his withering criticism. When he samples food that has secretly been prepared by a rat, everyone fears the worst (particularly the rat). However, Ego begins his review with a spirited defense of the art of criticism, observations that apply just as much to film criti- cism as to food criticism. In the movie Ego says,
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a posi- tion over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism desig- nating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations; the new needs friends . . . Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. (Bird, 207)
This character Ego (and the writers who gave him his words) offers an explanation of one of the most important—and most satisfying—roles the critic plays: as someone who can introduce little-known but worthy work to the public. This requires both expertise and confidence—expertise in the understanding of how films are made, as well as con- fidence that their opinions are correct. Film textbooks such as the one you’re now read- ing, along with simply watching a lot of movies, can help with the former. The latter, a belief in the validity of your opinion, can be practiced but not taught. It requires both
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 256 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?
technical expertise as well as a belief in yourself and your skills, a belief that your opinion and your evaluation matter.
Most people think of a film critic as someone who goes to a movie, takes notes, comes home, and writes his or her opinion of it. And there is, in fact, a lot of truth to that notion, though it’s not quite as easy as that sounds. This defini- tion applies largely to popular critics. With the combination of a faltering economy sapping advertising dollars and the increasing amount of information available for free online, the professional popular critic is becoming more and more an endangered species. As with most jobs in mainstream media, the movie critic once held a lofty outsider ’s position. Most newspa- pers, magazines, and wire services employed at least one movie critic (as well as a television critic, a food critic, and perhaps even a book critic). Economic realities have diminished their number, but a few critics remain in mainstream media. However, film criticism has exploded. How can this be?
Perhaps no one has written more passionately about this development than Roger Ebert, one of the nation’s best-known critics for the past 30 years, who offers this explanation on his blog:
This is a golden age for film criticism. Never before have more critics writ- ten more or better words for more readers about more films . . . Film criti- cism is still a profession, but it’s no longer an occupation. You can’t make any money at it. This provides an opportunity for those who care about movies and enjoy expressing themselves. Anyone with access to a com- puter need only to use free blogware and set up in business. Countless others write long and often expert posts on such sites as IMDb, Amazon, Rotten Tomatoes and in the comment threads of blogs. (Ebert, 2010)
We discussed this “new army of critics” briefly at the end of chapter 1. Ebert also notes, however, that people writing about film must resist a growing trend to ramble on with uninformed personal opinions, to offer immediate reactions to what they’ve just seen, or to cater to popular celebrity-based fads. A good critic, he says, is a teacher who can help readers broaden their perspectives and discover their own answers.
A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy
Roger Ebert is a critic who appreciates all kinds of films. For him the best filmmaking is not only popular entertainment but also an art.
Photo by Michael Germana/courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 257 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?
specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged. (Ebert, 2008)
Ebert goes on to bemoan the modern culture’s embracing of fame and glamour with no desire to think critically or question what they are told. “It is not about dumbing-down. It is about snuffing out.” Ebert’s comments are a powerful warning and serve notice to both those who believe the popular critic is too highbrow as well as the academic who consid- ers much popular culture, not to mention criticism of it, beneath serious consideration. In truth, popular film criticism may be neither better nor worse than scholarly analysis; the simple exist side-by-side.
Popular Criticism
Movie reviews are the most familiar form of popular criticism. A simple movie review may indeed be no more than the reviewer’s personal opinions. However, such a review typically will hold little weight with anyone whose own opinions are no less valid. This is not to say that reviewers should avoid opinions, but rather that they should also evalu- ate the acting, directing, story, and production values in ways that will be useful to read- ers. Many popular movies, designed primarily to entertain wide audiences, may not lend themselves to deep analysis, but they can still be evaluated on how well they accomplish what they set out to do. Far too many amateur critics look at only the story content and ignore cinematic techniques, while perhaps just as many concentrate only on technical aspects or only on star personalities and completely overlook what the story is about.
A. O. Scott’s review of the “documentary” Catfish cuts to the heart of the truth test. “It seems either disingenuous or naïve to say that what happens is ‘just true.’ . . . [Catfish] is bluntly simple-minded even as it makes a great show of its epistemological sophistication.” (Scott, 2010) The critic asks us to carefully consider the question: How do we distinguish between justifiable certainty and mere opinion?
© Rogue Pictures/courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 258 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 What Is a Critic?
A reviewer who is conversant with the principles of mise en scène, cinematography, and editing can point out far more effectively (and believably) how well or poorly a film might be made rather than saying “it’s fantastic, a must-see” or “it sucks big time.” A reviewer who can recognize narrative techniques (or lack of them) will be able to explain why certain characters come off as strong or weak, why the plot holds together (or doesn’t), and how the film may present various themes or explore various issues in a satisfactory way (or not). A good way to start thinking about criticism would be to go back to the truth test introduced in chapter 1. Is a film true to itself, and does it reveal some truth about human nature? What is it trying to say, how well does it say it, and was its message really worth saying? Once a film, however, can stand up to this test, it deserves deeper scrutiny, careful considered analysis, and a more scholarly approach—analytical criticism, which we will discuss later.
The kind of movie reviews typically printed in newspapers and magazines, or presented verbally on radio or television, are very short in comparison to a scholarly analysis or even a moderately in-depth critique. Professional film critics are limited in page space or air time, so they must become expert at cramming in as much important information, obser- vations, and evaluation into as few words as possible. A review may average between 400 and 1,200 words (the equivalent of one to four double-spaced, typed pages), so it must concentrate only on the elements that most impressed the critic (for better or worse). If a reviewer wants to discuss any serious issues, there is no space to include more than a sentence or two of plot summary, just enough to put critical comments in a context readers (or listeners or viewers) will be able to understand. It is also worth noting that, depending upon publishing deadlines, most published movie reviews must be written very quickly, within a few hours to perhaps a few days after seeing the film, without the luxuries of re- watching portions of the movie or making extensive revisions to the review.
The more space a critic is allotted, however, the more time that can be spent on deeper analysis and interpretation that will give people useful information to influence their interest in the film one way or another. It can be a real challenge for newspaper critics to say what they’d like to say in less than a thousand words. Magazine critics often have double or triple the space available that newspaper or radio/TV critics have. But even though magazine reviews might be able to present more information and a more genuine analysis than a quick newspaper review, they usually contain less depth than an analyti- cal essay for a critical journal or chapter in a book. Film criticism on personal blogs, since they tend to be self-published, runs the gamut from pure personal reaction to simple plot synopses to informed critical and technical discussion to in-depth critical analysis and interpretation. Let’s look now at how even just a little analysis can turn a simple review into a piece of criticism that others are more likely to take seriously. “Criticism,” unlike how some may interpret the word, does not mean “pointing out faults.” It means discuss- ing something intelligently and being able to recognize a variety of approaches to it.
Analytical Criticism
Film scholarship is another, more academic discipline of analysis than writing popular reviews. Scholarly critics may, instead of reviewing a single film, consider it in the larger context of other films of its type (i.e., a genre study), and/or of its director (i.e., an auteur- ist approach). They will be certain to place it within its historical and social context as well. Effective critics are able to see through technology, styles, and attitudes of whatever time a film was made to recognize human truths in the story and characters, and what they can tell
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 259 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning
us about both the filmmakers and their intended audiences. That is, a critic may genuinely believe in the moment that Goodfellas, for example, is a great film. But how does it compare to other gang- ster movies? How will it hold up 20 years after its release? How will it hold up 20 years after that? And, perhaps most importantly, what does it say about society, both at the time it was made—the late 20th century—and about humanity on a larger scale? Does the fact that Director Martin Scorsese invites us to identify with and even root for sadistic killers, monsters whose solution to almost every problem involves a fist or, worse, a gun, speak to a violent culture in which morality no longer has a firm grip on us? Or is it meant to be enjoyed simply as a thrill ride, falling back on the “it’s only a movie” excuse? (Hint: In the case of Scorsese’s films, the latter is never the case.)
As you can see, these are weighty issues. What makes the evaluation even trickier is that, at least on a basic measure of competence, films must suc- ceed on a technical level as well. The dialogue and acting may be flawless, but if the director shoots the film in such a way that, for instance, mean- ingless shots of scenery distract from the actors’ performances, it will be less satisfying, both in the short term for popular critics and in the long term for scholarly critics. Another film might be a tour de force showcase for brilliant cinematogra- phy and flashy editing, but it is weakened by poor acting or rendered meaningless by an incoher- ent, pointless story. The director, as we have seen, must perform a balancing act, and any slip-up will be noticed and discussed in detail.
10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning
The easiest way to explain a film to someone is to give a simple synopsis, telling all the main things that happened in the story and maybe describing a few memorable special effects, followed by a personal “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down.” But a synop- sis, no matter how detailed, is not a film review, and it certainly is not an analysis. It’s the equivalent of a typical fourth-grader’s first book report—or amateur bloggers and Internet Web forum contributors who simply are incapable of seeing past the obvious. Such people are simply unaccustomed to looking below the surface layers of a film, and often may not even recognize the difference between the story they are following and the specific elements of that story that the film’s plot is actually presenting them in a certain order, for a certain length of time, and sometimes more than once, as we learned in our chapter on storytelling.
The greatest films and filmmakers, like the greatest novelists, offer rich, dense work. The more we bring to a film, the more we can take away. Federico Fellini is a filmmaker whose elaborate fantasies seemed to overflow the screen, such as in 8⅟�, shown here.
Courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 260 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning
Some films are conscious, perhaps even self-conscious personal statements by directors who consider themselves artists who use film as their medium and who are not expected to reach wide audiences. Other films are designed specifically as mass-market entertain- ment in the hopes of becoming blockbuster hits, made by directors who specialize in fast- paced action-adventure and spectacular visual effects. Although one film may provide richer material for analysis than another, both types can benefit from scratching below the surface. Only in that way can we find a better understanding of them. Next we’ll briefly discuss David Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986) and Zack Snyder’s 300 (2007), looking for mean- ing by using four progressively deeper levels of interpretation.
Referential Content
The things that happen in the plot and that we understand about the story, even if merely mentioned rather than dramatized, are part of the first and most basic level of understand- ing. This is sometimes called referential content, as it refers directly to what we see and hear in the film. A one- or two-sentence summary in a TV movie listing or video catalog is a good example of something likely to explain only the referential content. It tells what happens, something that anyone who sees the movie will agree with, but it is unlikely to explain what a movie is about on a deeper level, what it might be trying to tell the viewers. It takes looking below the surface to interpret the film rather than describe it, and there are three deeper levels we can find, with meanings that become increasingly more com- plex, that reach a point where not every viewer may agree with any given interpretation. A description that uses only referential content to explain David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, for
Wall Street, directed by Oliver Stone, is a film that refers to the pre–Great Recession financial services industry. Its explicit content takes on new resonance today. Gordon Gekko is named after a cold-blooded lizard. He proclaims: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.”
Photo by Mary Evans/20th Century Fox/Ronald Grant/courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 261 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning
example, might mention that it is a crime drama in which a college boy and high school girl investigate a mysterious severed ear, only to discover drug dealers, kidnappers, and police corruption in their own small town. But anyone who has seen the film is likely to realize there is much more to it than that.
Explicit Content
Below the surface, or the referential content, is some explicit content that lets the viewer know some point the filmmakers are trying to make. This, as the term implies, is explicitly stated in the film, whether by a superimposed title, a voice-over narrator, or dialogue that comes directly from the mouths of characters in the film. This may be a kind of “moral to the story” or social, political, or philosophic commentary the filmmaker wants the audi- ence to be sure to get. One line of dialogue in Blue Velvet that is repeated numerous times at various points is “It’s a strange world,” something most will agree that film depicts viv- idly. Visually we see and hear numerous instances of the “ear” motif as well, from the dis- covery of a severed ear, to a superimposed ear as a character is walking down the street, to an extreme close-up of Jeffrey’s (the protagonist’s) ear as he sleeps, to Sandy, his girlfriend mentioning “I hear things.” Additionally, Jeffrey overhears a phone call while hiding in a closet. Jeffrey and the antagonist Frank later listen in on talk on a police radio. All this is obvious (explicit) representation of the film’s pervasive theme of voyeurism, particularly hearing things one might be better off not knowing, things that can get one into trouble. We also hear the evil Frank at one point tell the naïve Jeffrey to his face, “You’re like me,” but such an explicit statement has much deeper implications that take a deeper level of interpretation to uncover—the film’s implicit content.
Implicit Content
Beyond explicit content, which is typically stated in so many words, or depicted in visual symbolism so obvious it is difficult to miss, is implicit content, or meanings that are implied rather than revealed directly. We can infer some of the implicit content from dia- logue, but it usually takes thinking back on what we’ve seen to make the connections. In Blue Velvet, we see all the trouble Jeffrey gets himself into from his insatiable curiosity; we see him start to change from a clean-cut all-American college boy to someone driven by obsession to experience a dark world he never realized existed. We see him torn between his decent nature, seemingly ideal life, and beautiful girlfriend, and his increasing attrac- tion to a troubled, sadomasochistic woman with dangerous criminal companions who has irresistibly drawn him into her dark world. The film’s opening two-minute scene is implicitly a metaphorical miniature of the entire two-hour film. To the strains of the romantic title song, we see a beautiful small American city, a storybook neighborhood, a pleasant-looking older man watering a perfectly kept yard. The man looks healthy, but something inside his body suddenly gives way and he has some sort of stroke. The grass looks nice from a distance, but when the camera moves down for an extreme close-up, we see ominous-looking black insects and hear creepy noises. Things are constantly happen- ing that we’d rather not think about. By implication, the film is telling us that the average American town and the average American person has a darker side, however much it may be hidden or denied. Blue Velvet is packed with much more implicit content that dif- ferent viewers may well interpret in different ways.
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 262 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning
Symptomatic Content
The referential, explicit, and implicit meanings that a critic can identify to explain what a film is about all come from details that can be observed within the film itself, what is called internal evidence. However, a deeper interpretation must look outside the film, using external evidence to explain its symptomatic content. A film’s symptomatic mean- ings are symbolic of something above and beyond the film’s plot and even past its explicit or implicit meanings. Interpreting a film symptomatically literally means treating the film as a symptom of a greater influence than its own characters and motivations. The things that happen in the film are a symptom of the time and culture in which it was created, perhaps even of the director’s personal life or point of view.
Blue Velvet’s plot of crime below the surface of small-town America is a symptom of the realization by the 1980s that drug-related crime had spread beyond major urban slums and that police corruption could happen anywhere. The film’s unusually frank depiction of sexual perversion (for its time), especially in connection with violence and brutal lan- guage, might be seen as symptomatic of declining morals and loosening standards—par- ticularly in America, with implicit symbolism of the film’s pervasive motifs of red, white,
This scene from Blue Velvet ironically contrasts an idealized white picket fence suburbia complete with baby and puppy, and its brightly lit underside of menace and violence—an explicit visualization of its symptomatic content. The disturbingly comical juxtaposition of the dog happily drinking from its stricken master’s spraying hose sets up the dark satire that pervades the film.
© De Laurentis Group/courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 263 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Digging Deeper: Levels of Meaning
and blue. It can be interpreted as a powerful statement on the duality of human nature, with good and evil constantly warring within each individual. Despite its dark themes, like other Lynch films, it is also often an affectionate satire, some might say even a campy parody, on the banality of everyday conversation and personal relationships. By looking at the symptomatic content, one might also see the film in relationship to other films and themes treated by director David Lynch: Blue Velvet repeats motifs Lynch had explored earlier and sets up others he would elaborate upon in later films.
Putting It All Together
Not every film will lend itself to examining all four levels of meaning to the same degree, but serious thought and analysis of any film should reveal at least something on each level, even for films not considered to be “arthouse” fare or part of an auteur’s canon of work. For example, the historical-action-war film 300 was a huge box-office success and can easily be analyzed for each level of content. On the surface, it’s a retelling of the ancient Greek story of 300 heroic Spartan soldiers led by their king, Leonidas, to hold off an overwhelming force of invading Persians at the Thermopylae pass. A referential description would merely recount what happens in the plot, and for many people who saw it, that’s all they paid attention to and all they remember.
Analyzing some of the film’s explicit content would mention how speeches of characters promote the ideals of fighting for individual freedom against imposed foreign tyranny, of devotion to national duty over personal concerns, and of willingness to stand by one’s comrades and fight to the death for something one believes in.
On an implicit level, the film is a rousing celebration of the benefits of military prepared- ness, of extreme personal self-discipline, of a “Spartan” lifestyle (i.e., simple and utilitar- ian instead of lavish and ostentatious), and of the inspiration found from heroic deeds, especially martyrdom, for a just cause. The film’s implicit content also shows the danger- ous (in this case, deadly) resentment that can develop from rejection of a person’s honest desires despite that person’s lack of ability.
To examine 300 on a symptomatic level, we must understand that the film was released in 2007 while the United States (founded on ancient Greek and Roman ideals) was involved in a Middle-East war that was threatening to expand. Ancient Persia was roughly the loca- tion of present-day Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the film’s depiction of Spartan sol- diers appears to be an idealization of some elite corps of the U.S. Marines. The self-serving and aging, decrepit, and inbred rulers who refuse to give support to the idealistic warrior king thus can be seen as direct parallels to the U.S. Congress, while the invading Persians are depicted as deformed, gigantic beasts rather than as normal fighting men. This may be easily interpreted on the symptomatic level as a not-so-subtle post-September 11th demonization of present-day Middle-Eastern regimes out to conquer the civilized West- ern world of Europe and America.
The 2007 film 300, then, can be analyzed as a rousing action-adventure set in ancient times but also as a strong modern sociopolitical statement symptomatic of the time and place where it was created. Far from being historically accurate, it is an allegory whose deeper meaning is vastly removed from the time, place, and characters actually depicted on the screen.
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 264 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation
10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation
Analyzing levels of meaning below the surface story can greatly enhance enjoy-ment as well as understanding of a film. However, different people can approach the process of analysis from different perspectives and with different purposes; it is entirely possible for five different people to come up with five entirely different inter- pretations of a film that are all equally valid. Long essays and entire books have been written to explain many specific methods of film criticism in great detail. We’ll look very briefly at several of these approaches below, some of which may cover mainly the referen- tial, explicit, and implicit levels of meaning, while others try to identify varying types of symptomatic content and ideological meanings to explain what a film is ultimately trying to tell its audience.
A few of the many approaches to examining a film will be discussed next. In writing a critical analysis, many of these may overlap or be used together with one or more other approaches, especially the auteurist approach that we discussed in some detail in chap- ter 7 on style and directing, and the generic approach that we examined in chapter 8 on film genres. Topics and issues that interest particular critics usually determine which approaches they use to interpret films, but it’s worth remembering that no one approach should be considered definitive. In fact it can be a worthwhile exercise to try to apply as many approaches as possible to analyzing a film, just to see how looking for different things can color how you understand what the film is really trying to say. Some approaches focus on understanding how a film communicates its ideas, whereas others look more at what the film is saying (whether the filmmaker is conscious of the statement or not). Let’s look at these approaches now (See Figure 10.1 later in this section for examples of each of these approaches).
A formalist approach to analysis is concerned with film form, or how the basic elements are organized to convey certain meanings. Critics using this approach study the film itself, and possibly its screenplay—the internal evidence we discussed earlier. This includes things like plot structure, mise en scène, camera techniques, editing, sound—all the ele- ments that have been discussed in the chapters of this book. A formalist film analysis that is strictly concerned with narrative elements, however, might ignore most or all of its cinematic techniques to focus on characters, plot development, story structure, motifs, foreshadowing, motivation, and the like.
300 can be read as a commentary on U.S. wars in the Middle East. This image reinforces a belief that discipline and superior technology (in this case cool oversized shields) make a mighty fighting force invincible.
© Warner Bros./courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 265 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation
The opposite of a formalist approach would be a contextualist approach, which includes most of the other approaches mentioned and sets a film within some sort of context using varying types and degrees of external evidence—something completely removed from the world of the film’s story and characters and cinematic techniques. A contextualist approach would be looking very much at a film’s symptomatic content. For example, one type of contextualist approach would be a culturalist approach, or seeing the film as symptomatic of the culture in which it was created. Another type, a feminist approach, would look at a film as a statement on women’s place in society, how women are treated, and various issues related to gender and equality. A Marxist approach would examine how the plot and characters in a film reflect Karl Marx’s sociopolitical views on class conflict, labor vs. management, oppressive governments, and more. Typically a Marxist approach will identify instances of everyday people struggling to survive in the face of some unsympathetic authority. A psychological approach is especially concerned with how a film provides examples of various psychological theories and concepts, particularly those of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung (e.g., sexual symbolism, subconscious repression and dreams, the id, ego, and superego, the collective unconscious). A dualist approach tries to identify pairs of opposites in a film’s content and how they’re used in the story to express certain attitudes. Such opposites often are character types (good–evil, male– female), but also may be symbolic concepts such as light–dark, urban–rural, quiet–noisy, civilization–nature, and the like.
A structuralist approach is similar in some ways to a formalist approach, as it examines the film’s structure and how the constructions of scenes and shots tell the story, but it digs deeper to find meaning. Instead of merely examining how narrative and cinematic techniques enhance our involvement in and understanding of the story, structuralists are more likely to search for hidden symbolism they believe may be present in various ele- ments of the film. They tend to look at filmmaking as another type of language for self- expression and try to determine how and why we respond to what we see, and how par- ticular films illustrate their theories. Structuralist critics often use semiotics as the basis of their analysis, which is a theory for identifying symbolic content encoded in patterns of cinematic elements, including mise en scène, framing, and editing. Semiology and other extreme forms of structuralism get into detailed and highly technical explanations, often with various psychological and ideological interpretations, of how specific elements of a
Made in Dangenham, a film about organizing for equal pay for women workers, could be viewed from both feminist and Marxist perspectives. A culturalist approach would focus on the 1960s setting of the story.
© Sony Pictures Classics/courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 266 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation
film express meanings—in a manner comparable to how the study of linguistics tries to explain the various ways people use the words and syntax of language to express meaning.
An auteurist approach may concentrate on either cinematic techniques or ideological the- matic material, or both, but always within the context of the director’s other films. Some directors specialize in films that are in specific genres, and an auteurist analysis may eas- ily incorporate a generic analysis. Likewise, the generic approach treats a film as one of many within a genre, trying to interpret meaning by looking at recurring symbolic motifs, character types, plot formulas, visual styles, and anything else common to films with the same genre. As we noted in chapter 8, genre films are often perceived as simple entertain- ment, but filmmakers often disguise various ideological themes related to contemporary life in the trappings of some film genre (such as a fantasy or a western). Making genre films may get the filmmakers’ ideas out to viewers who would never consider watching a straight drama about social issues or political ideas, and thus genre films often have much ideological and symptomatic content worthy of analysis.
A realist approach tries to describe how a film depicts “reality.” Of course, film as a medium is an artificial and artistic reproduction of something real, and always a subjec- tive interpretation of the director. However, most mainstream filmmakers try to make techniques “invisible” so that viewers will be concentrat- ing on the characters and plot rather than on the filmmaking process. A few films, on the other hand, do try experimenting with cinematic tech- niques, especially the cinematography, sound, and editing, to simulate some sort of reality one of the characters is experiencing—intoxication, love, aging, memory, insanity—and the result may appear confusing at first, until a viewer realizes what is going on and why. This type of film may require multiple viewings to under- stand the way the filmmaker is hoping to com- municate. A few examples of films well suited to this type of analysis include David Lynch’s Mul- holland Drive, Ingmar Bergman’s Persona, Rob- ert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and films written and/or directed by Charlie Kaufmann, such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Synecdoche, New York, Being John Malkovich, and Adaptation.
A genetic approach to analysis requires much out- side research and access to earlier versions of a film and its script. This approach traces a film through the process of its creation and release. It will docu- ment and discuss the meaning of various changes made in screenplay drafts, during production, scenes cut or added during editing, the theatrical release version (or versions), alternate endings (if
Billy Wilder is an auteur who worked across genres, from film noir (Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard) to romance (Sabrina) to a comedy based on cross-dressing and mistaken identity (Some Like It Hot). Within the studio system he was able to create films that reflected with his cynical take on modernity.
Courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 267 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation
any), and any altered re-release or television/video versions, up through a final and defini- tive “director’s cut.” Such a study is not typically a mere chronicle of changes, but a critical evaluation and interpretation of their impact on the film and its meaning. This can be difficult to do for most films without being an insider in the production process, but a few films have been released to DVD or Blu-Ray with two or more versions, along with copies of deleted or alternate scenes, and documentaries about the production. Some of the most prominent titles that can be studied this way include Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, Steven Spielberg’s Close
Figure 10.1 Approaches to Film Analysis
Analyzing Rear Window from a Variety of Approaches
Approach Possible Things to Consider
Formalist Focus on plot structure, the limitations of the setting, the use of music from within the setting rather than traditional underscoring, the use of mise en scène to establish character and advance the plot, the camera and editing techniques that heighten viewer involvement
Feminist Examine the portrayal of Grace Kelly’s “Lisa” character for female stereotyping and reversals of stereotyping; contrast her character with other female characters such as Stella the nurse (who might also be examined in detail for reversals of stereotype), Miss Lonelyhearts, Miss Torso, and Mrs. Thorwald
Psychological Explore various personality and sexual issues inherent in Jimmy Stewart’s “Jeff” character, including phallic symbolism of his camera’s telephoto lens, the obsession with voyeurism into his neighbors’ private lives, his inability to commit to the prevailing standards of married life
Dualist Discuss various pairs of opposites, such as Jeff/Lisa, Jeff/Thorwald, Jeff/detective, Jeff’s apartment/the outside world, single people/couples, privacy/socialization, following due legal process/taking law into own hands, active life/passive life
Auteurist Examine the film’s relationship to other films by Alfred Hitchcock, in style, subject material, types of characters (e.g., cool blondes, an accused man, a persistent investigator), popularity with audiences and critics
Generic Compare Rear Window with other murder mysteries, suspense thrillers, and romantic comedies for shared and differing elements and approaches
Culturalist Look at the film as a metaphor for the public’s fascination with watching other people’s lives on movie screens (comparing window shape to movie screen shape); see how characters reflect common personalities and attitudes associated with the 1950s; find parallels in Jeff’s refusal to settle down with postwar soldiers who preferred the adventurous life away from a cramped apartment (contrasted with unexpected husband of Miss Torso); look at influences of society and fashion- makers on public tastes
Marxist Focus on Thorwald’s character as the overwhelming pressures of capitalist service to meet sales quotas and satisfy demands of a selfish consumerist wife pushing the man to commit murder; note how the common people of the apartment complex can band together in support of each other when needed
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 268 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Approaches to Analysis and Interpretation
Encounters of the Third Kind, Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, and James Cameron’s Avatar. For instance, in Apocalypse Now, Coppola struggled to come up with an ending and shot several different ones. There are bootleg versions that last nearly five hours. And in 2001, Coppola released Apocalypse Now Redux, which restores 49 minutes cut from the original film, much of it taking place at a French plantation. The restored footage and alternate endings do not necessarily change the film’s message appreciably, but they do add more context to what Coppola was trying to say and can be analyzed using this approach.
Figure 10.2 Examples of Critical Approaches
In the following links you will find examples of some of the critical approaches discussed in the text:
• Essays from noted film professor David Bordwell:
MAD DETECTIVE (2007) Nov. 2010 generic and auteruist approach http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/maddetective.php
LADY IN THE WATER (2006) Sept. 2006 “making-of” book review that includes auteurist, genetic, and culturalist approaches http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/hearing.php
• filmreference.com essays
BICYCLE THIEVES (1947) by Joel E. Kanoff social-historical context http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Kr-Le/Ladri-di-Biciclette.html
BLADE RUNNER (1982) by John McCarty both generic and genetic context http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Bh-Bo/Blade-Runner.html
MANHATTAN (1979) by Doug Tomlinson auteurist context http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Manhattan.html
METROPOLIS (1927) by B. Urgosikova social and historical context, including audience reception http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Metropolis.html
PERSONA (1966) by P. Adams Sitney structural and psychological context http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Or-Pi/Persona.html
REAR WINDOW (1954) by P. Adams Sitney formal approach with psychological context http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ra-Ro/Rear-Window.html
• Bluray.com Quite a few of the reviews on this site (especially those of classic, foreign, and independent films) include concise but surprisingly comprehensive film critiques from one or more contextualist approaches (most often a generic and/or auteurist approach). http://www.blu-ray.com
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 269 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance
10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance
We have discussed several times the need for all elements of a movie to work in concert if it is to be successful, and that this is, ultimately, the responsibility of the director. However, it is not necessarily essential for each element to work equally well, and this is important to note when you approach a critical analysis of a film. As we just examined in chapter 8, there are many kinds of movies made in many kinds of ways. Thus, it is obvious that no magical formula, no uniform percentage of acting, writing, directing, technical competence, and whatever else goes into making a movie can be prescribed universally. We will look at two examples to show that it is possible for the scales to be evened, for one element to pick up the slack for another. (We should also acknowledge that it is possible for a rare movie to fire on all cylinders equally well, as with Schindler’s List, the first two Godfather movies, or classics like Casablanca and The Wizard of Oz. It just doesn’t happen very often.) We do not need to look only at low-budget or independent productions to find films that have some merits but don’t quite succeed at everything they attempt. Apocalypse Now and Avatar both had huge production budgets. Both were even Academy Award nominees for Best Picture and Best Director, but both lost those two most prestigious Oscar categories, winning only technical awards.
Apocalypse Now is regarded by many as one of the finest films ever made, in spite of a number of flaws partly due to its legendarily chaotic, bloated, near-disastrous production. In direc- tor Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 film, in which U.S. Army Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is dispatched to find Col. Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and terminate his com- mand—in other words, to kill him—the film follows Willard’s travels through the jungles of Vietnam. Filming in the Philippines, Coppola faced several obstacles during the production of the film, including a typhoon that destroyed sets and added to the ballooning budget. Brando showed up overweight and did not know his lines. Sheen had a heart attack during filming, delaying production further. It seemed that the film would be a spectacular bust.
And yet, somehow, it wasn’t. The chaos is reflected in the final film; it actually works to make it seem like a more realistic depiction of Vietnam than it might otherwise have been. This is probably a combination of happy accident and genius, for Coppola is a uniquely gifted director.
Apocalypse Now is a monumental film, but Marlon Brando’s over-the- top performance and Francis Ford Coppola’s extravagant jungle setting could be critiqued as a caricature of the madness they are trying to portray. This image from a behind-the-scenes documentary catches them in the midst of the process.
Courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 270 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance
In the case of Apocalypse Now, most of the elements are in place for success, despite the craziness of production. Coppola shot millions of feet of film, making editing a Herculean task, but this gave him plenty to work with. The visuals of the film are spectacular, as are the complexly layered sounds that accompany them in an experimental use of stereo sur- round effects. Whether the movie is a realistic portrayal of what Vietnam was like during the war (a question that can be debated, and has been, many times), there is no doubt that Coppola achieved the sense of madness for which he was looking. Nevertheless, something had to give, and it did—the acting is somewhat unhinged, with all the main characters seemingly operating at varying levels of insanity. The stress clearly affected Sheen’s health; Dennis Hopper shows up as a lunatic photographer loyal to Kurtz. As for Brando, he whispers most of his lines, lying in a darkened room. Whether this is simply an idiosyncratic actor doing what he wants or a savvy portrayal of a man who has lost his grip on reality—even if it is both—it is often remarkably haunting and effective.
Where Apocalypse Now falls even shorter for many viewers is in the story. Based on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, it meanders. Coppola cut out long stretches of the film, some of which he restored in later versions. Many critics find the last half hour to hour the weakest, although some actually prefer the film’s final third and dislike the first two- thirds. Coppola famously could not decide on an ending, shooting several variations, and it shows. Whereas chaos actually helped the film in some aspects, in trying to tell a coher- ent story the chaos betrays the story. To try to follow the narrative is like listening to a crazy person talk. It starts and stops, jumps around, and leads the audience down paths that it leaves hanging, never to be revisited.
Yet Apocalypse Now genuinely deserves its status as a great film, a brilliant work of art. How can that be, when the story is such a mess? Because the rest of the film is so superla- tive, balancing the scales of quality. Some critics hint at this. Writing in The New York Times, Vincent Canby suggests such a balance: “Vittorio Storaro, who photographed Last Tango in Paris, among other fine films, is responsible for the extraordinary camerawork that almost, but not quite, saves Apocalypse Now from its profoundly anticlimactic intellectual muddle.” (In fact the film won the Oscar for its cinematography, as well as for its sound.) Yet despite his misgivings, Canby also praises the film as being “as technically complex and masterful as any war film I can remember” (Canby, 1979).
Avatar, James Cameron’s 2009 film, is another example of an inequitable balance of form and function, relying as it does upon the jaw-dropping technological mastery of its director to make up for the banal story (Cameron wrote the film, as well) and wooden acting. Set in the
Much of the success of Avatar can be credited to the seamless juxtaposition of two literally alien worlds.
© 20th Century Fox/courtesy Everett Collection
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 271 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 Criticism: Weighing the Balance
year 2154, the film takes place on a moon in outer space called Pandora, where continued mining by humans threatens the ecosystem of the Na’vi, the blue-skinned indigenous beings living there. To more fully interact with the Na’vi, humans have developed avatar technol- ogy, which creates a human–Na’vi hybrid that the human host controls with his or her mind.
Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a Marine recruited for the avatar program, grows increas- ingly sympathetic to the Na’vi’s plight, despite the objections of the corporation doing the mining and the paramilitary security force it employs. Jake will eventually lead the Na’vi in a successful war against the humans and, after his human form is exposed to the poisonous-for-humans Pandora atmosphere, become a full-fledge Na’vi himself.
The film was a stunning success, taking in more than $2 billion at the box office on its way to becoming the highest-grossing film in history. Its Oscar-winning art direction and visual effects are truly stunning, incorporating technology that Cameron himself invented. And beyond the impressive computer-generated settings and characters, its 3-D format both accentuates the visuals beyond anything ever seen in a movie before and serves as a dem- onstration of how 3-D technology might be used as more than the revisiting of a gimmick. The colors, the textures, the flora and fauna Cameron and his effects team created digitally in three dimensions are genuinely amazing.
Yet Cameron may have invested too much time in developing the technology at the expense of almost every other aspect of his film. The story is a mishmash of plots and themes found in films such as Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas, among others. Its poli- tics are preachy, predictable, and banal, an oversimplification of the effects unchecked capitalism and industry can have. The acting, meanwhile, is almost as much of an after- thought as the plot and dialogue, despite the presence of many talented actors. Sam Worthington’s Sully is wooden, a disappointment because Worthington is so good in other projects. Sigourney Weaver is given little to do as a scientist in charge of the avatar project, which is actually preferable to the work done by Stephen Lang as the leader of the security force. He is a cigar-chomping cliché, a laughable cartoon instead of a real character. Giovanni Ribisi fares little better as the boss of the mining operator, a greedy villain so stereotyped that he lacks only a top hat and mustache to twirl to be even more of a silly character.
Nevertheless, critics and audiences warmed to the film, even while pointing out its defi- ciencies. Why? For one thing, Cameron’s sheer audacity is winning. He creates an entire universe from scratch; years were spent just on the language that the Na’vi speak. That is ambition on a scale not usually found in filmmaking or any other endeavor. It is, quite simply, something audiences had not seen before. The emphasis on effects may sacrifice some of the quality of the other elements of the film, but the finished product is so over- whelming that some never noticed its faults, and for many, it at least evened things out.
Critic Roger Moore asks at one point, “Did I mention how stupid Avatar often is?” He calls it “dumb entertainment” and berates its “broad characters, corny dialog,” and other faults. Yet he goes on to praise the film overall. “But Cameron, sparing no expense, sucks us into that world and entertains us for most of the two hours and 42 minutes [ . . . ] It’s the first 3D movie to transport us to a place we’ll never see. As visionary tour guide, Cameron has no equal. Predictable story, clichéd dialogue and logical lapses aside, he’s still the man we want leading us into his Pandora’s box” (Moore, 2009).
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 272 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Chapter Summary
Apocalypse Now and Avatar both have elements that impressed numerous critics and moviegoers and elements that disappointed or completely turned off many other critics and moviegoers. There are countless other examples of films that fall into these catego- ries; in fact, most do. Every film, no matter how “good” or “bad,” has people who love it, people who hate it, and people who fall somewhere in between. Nit-pickers may find fault with the most popular or the most artistically successful films. On the other hand, even the most derided movie disasters will still have their champions or at least people who can find something worthwhile in them. Mind you, an utter failure in a single facet can sink a movie, no matter how strong the others may be. But that failure has to be near- complete to merit a wholly negative analysis. In the case of these two particular films, one can also now examine, evaluate, and debate changes made by the directors between each film’s original theatrical release and a substantially extended “director ’s cut” released to home video. And knowing all that goes into making a film, whether a mega-budget stu- dio production or a no-budget independent, makes it easier to appreciate just what the filmmakers were able to accomplish, even if you don’t particularly like it.
Chapter Summary
You Try It
1. See a movie of your choosing. Find and read a review from a professional critic; then use the Internet to find the same film reviewed by a blogger or online-only writer. Compare the two for writing and analytical skill. Which better reflects your feelings about the film? To find samples of reviews, go to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/, http://www.metacritic.com/movies, or http://moviereviewintelligence.com/.
2. Again using a movie of your choosing, pay attention to a single element from the list of questions in this chapter (e.g., acting, directing, effects, lighting). Evaluate how this element contributed to the movie’s success—or failure.
3. With a movie of your choosing, write a popular review. That is, review the film as if your writing would be published in a newspaper or magazine, with atten- tion paid to whether the people reading it should attend the film. Make a case for the film being a success or failure at the truth test. Again, samples of popu- lar reviews can be found at http://www.rottentomatoes.com/, http://www . metacritic.com/movies, or http://moviereviewintelligence.com/.
4. Use a contextualist approach to analyze a film. Do not limit yourself to current or even recent releases. Instead, choose a film or films and examine them from the perspective of what they say about the culture in which they were cre- ated, as well as how they speak to our culture of today. Your analysis may also include an auteurist, generic, feminist, or psychological perspective, or any other external influence that you believe help explains your interpretation of the film. Some samples of brief critical essays that incorporate various contex- tualist approaches (social, historical, auteurist, generic, genetic, psychological, etc.) can be found at http://www.filmreference.com and on noted film profes- sor David Bordwell’s blog at http://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/ (note that most of these assume the reader has already seen the film being discussed).
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 273 1/5/11 4:00 PM
CHAPTER 10Chapter Summary
Auteurist approach: Analysis that looks at a film as part of its director’s overall body of work instead of as a single entity.
Contextualist approach: Analysis that treats a film as within a broader context rather than as an isolated unit.
Culturalist approach: Analysis treating a film as symptomatic of the culture in which it was created.
Dualist approach: Analysis that identifies pairs of opposites within a film and describes how they are used to express attitudes.
Explicit content: Meaning that a film commu- nicates to viewers directly, typically through lines of dialogue or obvious visual symbol- ism in the plot that the director expects audiences to understand as something they should remember (e.g., “there’s no place like home”).
Feminist approach: Analysis concerned with describing the roles of and attitudes toward a film’s female characters.
Film scholarship: In-depth study, evaluation, and interpretation of a film, aimed at a sophis- ticated readership who most likely have already seen the film.
Formalist approach: Analysis treating a film as an isolated unit, concerned with film form and how its basic elements (narrative structure, mise en scène, cinematography, editing) are organized to convey certain meanings.
Generic approach: Analysis treating a film as just one in a genre of similar films, rather than as an isolated unit.
Genetic approach: Analysis that traces a film’s development through various stages, from script to screen to revised reissues.
Implicit content: Meaning that viewers can infer from a film by the ways characters act, react, and grow throughout various situations during the course of the story (themes, ideas, and attitudes that are implied but not stated explicitly—e.g., “crime does not pay,” “love conquers all”).
Marxist approach: Analysis concerned with applying Karl Marx’s sociopolitical views, par- ticularly those related to class conflict and capi- talist excesses, to interpreting a film.
Popular criticism: A relatively superficial dis- cussion evaluating a film, aimed at the mem- bers of general public who most likely have not seen the film.
Psychological approach: Analysis concerned with examining a film as a demonstration of various psychological theories and concepts, especially those of Freud and Jung.
Realist approach: Analysis that is especially concerned with the ways a film is representing some sort of reality.
Referential content: Content of a film that would be considered an objective description by anyone who saw it, referring only to what can be seen happening rather than interpreting deeper meanings (e.g., a simple synopsis of the plot).
Structuralist approach: Analysis similar to a formalist approach but often employing semi- otics (indentifying symbolic content encoded in patterns of cinematic elements).
Symptomatic content: Meanings in a film that can be determined only by looking at the film as a symptom of something outside of the film itself (plot, characters, techniques, form), such as the time and place it was created, or the filmmaker’s personal life, experience, and attitudes.
Key Terms
goo66081_10_c10_255-274.indd 274 1/5/11 4:00 PM