10 History

This week we dealt with the notion of history and once again Kirsten Dunst was the protagonist. This week, however, Sofia Copella was giving us her interpretation of Marie Antoinette ‘s (2006) life. The two different concepts to debate this week are history on film and aesthetic.

What is history? Habits determine perceptions: food, architecture and language. This is vernacular history and shows a certain period. It can also reflect how one can date the film’s construction. Could one argue that a melodramatic or period drama, although obviously more dramatic, is, in some cases, more faithful to history? Institutional histories rely heavily on dates/legal/governmental/family events. When represented through a media outlet are they an attempt a realism or simply a concept mediated through a set of ideals or perceptions. To say that anyone doesn’t have preconceived ideas about a certain subject is an alien idea. All subject matter has some way of invoking a feeling. One could look at historical bodies, how people we have never met due to distance in time yet there is usually a “conceptual personae- the historical concept of a person or figurehead” (Robert Young White mythologies: writing, history and the West).  This leads to aesthetics and how contextual context will affect the lens that shapes the film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422720/

Copella’s subject matter is first an interesting point. It is almost semi autobiographical. She is hollywood royalty; even the film itself is proof as the family play vital roles: Jason Schwartzman her cousin and her husband plays a musician. 2006 was around the time Paris Hilton and other millionaire heiress were flaunting their inheritance around L.A. So already we see that Copella is effected by her contextual context as we all are. The film remains in Versailles and thus we are trapped in this safety net of enormous wealth along with the young princess. Copella’s aesthetic doesn’t really remain true to the period of time 1776-1793. She has used the influence of some artists yet there is an obvious hybrid between the vestiges of preRafaelita artists and her teenage angst/punk rock/converse style rebellion. Elisabeth Vigee-Lebrun meets Adam and the Ants. Does Copella ever claim to want to represent the history of this Autrian princess’ fall from power. Is this her interpretation of a life worth living? This is what teenage royalty do. Vibrant colours and a 40 million dollar budget go some way to reflect how these super rich live. From this one can deduce that it is almost impossible to make a film without influence any opinion made from either the audiences’ own history or the director’s cultural contexts and own preferences/views. One could ask the question why bother to represent an historical realism at all?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uspRqElks

.  

8 & 9 Samson and Delilah (Warwick Thornton 2009)

This week the topics revolve around love and community/colonialism. Last week we looked at how colonies were effected by foreign rule. This week has a similar feel as we arrive in Australia and the story of a young couple is told, with added pathos from the off set. The interesting thing that one should note about Australia is that there are two alien groups that perceive the third-party as sub-human. The settlers and criminals/exiles when they first landed stated that the land was terra neuralist (unoccupied) yet the indigenous where of a high volume; many different tribes. In 1901 the aborigines were not part of the Human rights acts but instead placed under the flora and fauna act. The film Rabbit proof fence depicts how this white invasion sought to breed out the recessive gene; this meant if a child was under the age of 16 it no longer belonged to its own parents. So before the film has even began we notice how misshapen the relationship between these communities is. We have a bias to side with the down trodden society; Thornton himself being of indigenous birth. In this film I feel it is his prerogative to give us the Affect of this western takeover to his native people. With regards to problems faced when the colonists return home one can reference the troubles arisen in the film La Bataille d’Alger (Gillo Pontecorvo). This deals with a country as the French are on their way out. One could take from both of these films that colonialism is a European concept.

• “Europe undertook the leadership of the world with ardour, cynicism and violence.” (Franz Fanton, 1961 The Wretched of Earth)

These are both negative portrayals of the effects of western influence and I am struggling to find an example of positive portrayal of an invasion. This is disregarding colonial propaganda. Perhaps the Mission (1986) or merely Jeremy Irons’ character; one could argue as being an almost positive representation of western culture in a foreign land, although I would hasten to add that it is more a crusade than an invasion.

Love in this film is dealt with in a native way. There are many gestures and little speech that allow Delilah to be wooed by Samson. He seems resilient in his pursuit and although their activities are very physical their actual relationship seems very innocent. I am unsure as to whether this is due to the western biblical (Christian) set of morals brought by the settlers or an indigenous custom. I mention this as the names both reflect an old testament influence. They are “star-crossed lovers” forced together as they are both outcasts forced out of their community and also exiled by the white Australian population. This is where Warwick uses the bridge as a metaphor, they are stuck in limbo with a man fallen from grace. Samson is still able to maintain his first love of petrol sniffing that he slowly finds himself sharing as Delilah is forced to solvent. Driven to the bottle by the lack of compassion from her fellow Australians.   

7 Sound

This weeks screening was on Jean-Luc Godard’s One plus one (1968). The film itself is hard one to catorgorize but I shall deal with that aspect later on. The film aims to show the process of how a song is made, it takes an entire thought and manufactoring process and mediates it. It is shot in the style of a documentory which is typical of Godard and the French New wave film makers. The Rolling Stones’ are the featured band so the whole thing would have been all quite cosmopolitian. It is not the easiest thing to watch although we were told there were two different edit; one more commercially viable and the other the directors own complete aesthetic. I am not aware which one I was watching as I found it very difficult to watch. The constant cut aways to other scenes reflecting what was occuring in the main linear narrative; I imagine the semiotics were there but they completely eluded me in some cases.

Godard is typical of his situation really. He moved to Paris from his Swiss comfort and thus was exposed to an array of new excitement. I think this is an important affect that he is able to put in his films; often the subject matter is alien or the protagonist is a foreigner. He is with the audience as a spectator looking in, through the eyes of a voyeur. I say Vvoyeur as most of his films are shot with th Bill Nichols-esque type of realism:

• Expository
• Observational
• Interactive
• reflexive

The films take a quite naturalistic documentary format. I believe Godard plays into Cashiers aesthetic somewhat, “The director’s role (new Wave) was to manipulate conventions and formulas to place their personal and artistic stamp on film.” This could be translated to read as viewing the world through Godard tinged glasses. The aesthetic is a familiar one yet somehow the affect is one of an alien nature. What I find odd is that, even with the Italien neo-realists, one could create realism; surely an oxymoronic statement.

 Godard was a result of the culture he was quickly educated in. he started as a film critic and thus was able to look back on past masterpieces to create his own work. He was also educated in a way that all his references were of merit. He was learning around the time of the “art et esaai” revival it would seem that Paris was “a somewhat unorthadox standpiont.” I feel this to be reflected in his work. If i was asked about the relevance of Godard’s work I would answer, it had its place. He was a creation of the culture he adorded and the avant-garde work he produced stands today as it helpped shape the films/aesthetics of todays cinema. His most recent film would probably account for his lack of touch although if one gave a modern audience one plus one they might think it too post modern. His films are very difficult but have both political and artistic benefit/merit. He plays with hot issues such as the black panther movement.  Godard was at the forefront for a time yet culture will always react and thus change even against itself.