Identity and Cindy Sherman

The question of identity is something often explored in art. As artists we often draw from our life experiences (which are essentially what makes us, us) to create meaning in our work. For me these experiences are always what inspire me to create something new. Obviously there are other reasons and inspirations in creating art, but for me identity is a key base point. Cindy Sherman is an artist who comes to mind when thinking about identity as her work is very much based around an exploration of it, and in particular her Untitled Film Stills (Sherman, 1977 – 80.) collection. As Michael Archer stated:

‘The lie to one’s instinctive grasp of Sherman’s identity in these pictures is given by the next in the series, and the next, which each present her as an entirely different person.’(Archer, 2002, pp. 175.)

Suggesting that her constant change in appearance was not to become the stereotype she was portraying but to erase her own sense of self (Archer, 2002.) This confuses identity rather than clarifying it, but I think this is really interesting, as after all, ones own identity is pretty confusing anyway. Rather than trying to portray to the public her own self, she takes up the role of different women’s’ stereotypes, like the housewife, or the (film noir) damsel in distress. So I would say that she explores the identity of women in her work as she very rarely dresses up in the persona of a man. I think she is trying to show that a woman cannot just be categorised into a stereotype as they so often are, and she is made up of many different experiences that give her different aspects to her identity, in just the same as men are. 

References:

Archer, M. (2002.) Art Since 1960 – new edition. London: Thames & Hudson.

Sherman, C. (1977-1980.) Untitled Film Stills [Photograph.] New York.

Postmodernism and Peter Greenaway

It can be quite difficult to determine postmodernist film from modernist film, as they are often both interlinked with the avant-garde meaning they have some similar qualities. However, there are some distinct differences too, such as the use of intertextuality or the subversion of high and low art (Long and Wall, 2009.). Peter Greenaway is a director who I feel really portrays postmodernist ideas in his films in a unique and daring way. His 1986, a Zed and Two Noughts, is a particularly disturbing and provoking film that is made up of a few of these techniques. His use of intertextuality is perhaps one of the most postmodern traits in this film. He constantly references other artworks, including his own future work. E.G. He recreates Vermeer’s painting ‘The Music Lesson’ in visuals, not only referencing Vermeer but also shattering the idea of high art at the same time. The woman (Alba) and the entire mise-en-scene represents the high art, yet she plays the song ‘Teddy Bear’s Picnic’ which represents a mass culture or low art, breaking the boundaries, bringing one up and the other down. While at the beginning of the film the shot of the newspaper article, if you look carefully also signifies some of Greenaway’s (future) films such as ‘a hot bath heart attack’ which suggests at the film Drowning by Numbers (1988) (FilmWalrus, 2008.). Alongside this intertextuality the sheer story behind z00 is utterly disturbing and completely distinct from the mainstream or ‘modern’ cinema. The twins begin with filming decomposing animals, using more and more complex animals. They finally realise that the only conclusion to their experiments is to film a human decomposition, in which they end up using themselves. You won’t find that in a Hollywood film.

References:

A Zed And Two Noughts (1986.) Directed by Peter Greenaway [Film.] UK: BFI.

Drowning By Numbers (1988.) Directed by Peter Greenway [Film.] UK: Film Four International.

FilmWalrus. (2008) 'Review of A Zed and Two Noughts' Film Walrus Reviews, 1st January 2008. Available at: http://www.filmwalrus.com/2008/01/review-of-zed-and-two-noughts.html (Accessed 20 April 2012.)

Long, P. and Wall, T. (2009.) ‘Modernism, Postmodernism and After’ in Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Modernism in cinema and the soviet montage

‘Thus one can really speak of two ‘modern’ cinemas, a silent cinema of Murnau, Dreyer, Lang, Bunuel, and Eisenstein and a sound cinema which crystallizes in the 1960s and early 1970s.’ (Orr, 1993, P.2.)

Modernism in film is hard to determine, as a new movement in cinema has not really come about to change this classical system we have come to know so well, and we are still living through it. Even postmodernism can be seen to be just a rebellion against this system. As Orr suggests, this art form is hardly even 100 years old (Orr, 1993.), and art movements don’t always change this quickly. So for me I class the early period of modern cinema as the real modernist cinema, as it was what pioneered how we see film today. I studied early silent cinema last semester and already have quite a good understanding of the history: like how the industrial revolution was happening at the same time, and that really cinema and the film camera was a product of this (just as modernist art was a reaction to this industrialisation). Filmmakers like the Lumiere brothers and Eisenstein were pioneers in capturing this modernisation, yet I think that soviet montage in particular stands out the most in this ‘modern cinema’. Directors like Dziga Vertov and his film Man with a movie camera (1929) rebelled against the classical cinema system that was arising and instead were working against such bourgeois (high society) conventions. As Long and Wall suggest they wanted to shatter the ‘illusions’ and ‘ideologies’ of the dominating mainstream of Hollywood. They merged images and ideas together, with their montage style editing, to create a new reality (Long and Wall, 2009.)

References:

Long, P. and Wall, T. (2009.) ‘Modernism, Postmodernism and After’ in Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Man With a Movie Camera (1929.) Directed by Dziga Vertov [Film.] Soviet Union: VUFKU

Orr, J. (1993.) Cinema and Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Semiotics and The Royal Tenenbaums

Living in such a visual world, it is important to understand semiotics, as Chandler suggests, ‘Living in a world of increasingly visual signs, we need to learn that even the most realistic signs are not what they appear to be’ (Chandler, 2002, p.11.) So instead of studying it in a context that bores me (most of the books on it do just this), I am going to apply semiotics to film. Peirce, one of the theorists who came up with the idea of semiotics (along with Saussure), stated that ‘Nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign’ (Peirce, 1931-58, P.172). If what Peirce suggests is true then the science behind interpreting meaning in film, is all to do with the, oh so confusing, theory of semiotics. So far I can just about grasp the concept of the signifier and the signified combining together to create the sign. Yet I think its necessary to relate this model to a film in order to really understand what it means. As an audience we can interpret meanings from the smallest, most insignificant prop in a film, even if it was not what the director intended.  Which to me suggests that all the elements combined to create a film, such as: cinematography, lighting and mise-en-scene, could each be described as signifiers.  For example, in Wes Anderson’s The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), almost every scene has a little something that can be picked apart and interpreted. However, one of the more significant signs within the film is that of the hawk. Conventionally to a David Attenborough enthusiast for example, the hawk would signify connotations such as predator or swift. Yet within the context of the film, (as the hawk is set free at the start) it signifies the freedom and nurture that the three children wish for themselves, whilst later changing (as it flies home at the end) to signify that they all have now received their wishes through Royal Tenenbaums metamorphosis and somewhat unconventional plan to right his family. I.E. Sign= signified (freedom/nurture) + signifier (hawk).

 References:

Chandler, D. (2002.) Semiotics: The Basics. 2^nd edn. Oxon: Routledge.

Peirce, C. S. (1931-58) Elements of Logic eds. Hartshorne, Charles. and Weiss, P. (8 Vols.) Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.

The Woman in Black

Usually I am not one to watch scary films, but I thought, as I am trying to produce one for my coursework that I should look into a few.  So I decided to watch the current feature The Woman In Black  (James Watkins, 2012) knowing from previously watching the 1989 T.V movie version, that the story is compiled of suspense rather than gore to create the horror, which is what I am trying to create in my film. I wasn’t sure if I would be able to take Watkins remake seriously as he cast Harry Potter as the main character, Arthur Kidd, yet as Watkins (2011, p.30.) said to Radcliffe ‘well, if that’s what the audience is thinking about, then we’re buggered anyway.’ So I went into the film with my eyes wide open, big mistake, as they spent the rest of the time squinting out from behind closed fingers. I even thought that Radcliffe’s performance was a pretty convincing portrayal of a young widowed father, much to my surprise, he does a good job of reacting against nothing, as Empire journalist Olly Richards (2012, p.40.) said ‘He’s got good eyes for looking terrified: huge and always a little bit aghast, even in repose.’ However, more importantly, the chilling cinematography took my attention away from Harry Potter completely, yet it wasn’t over exaggerated as many horror films are. The simplicity in the way Watkins built his tension and suspense made it all the more terrifying for me. Even just the tone of colour and eerie fog ridden house completely matched how I imagined the setting when I previously read the novel by Susan Hill.  I feel like I have gained some helpful tips on how to edit and light a horror, or more fittingly a psychological horror, just from watching this film, and will now put on a brave face and watch (the originals of) films like The Wicker Man (Robin Hardy, 1973) and The Innocents (Jack Clayton, 1961), to try and find even more inspiration, as they also focus on suspense to create terror over gore.

References:

'First Look - The Woman in Black.' (2011.)  Review of The Woman in Black, Directed by James Watkins. Empire, October 2011, pp. 28-31.    (Author unknown.)

The Innocents (1961.) Directed by Jack Clayton [Film.] USA: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation.

Richards, O. (2012) 'The Woman In Black - Harry Potter and even more chambers of secrets.' Review of The Woman in Black, Directed by James Watkins. Empire, March 2012, pp. 39-40.

The Wicker Man (1973.) Directed by Robin Hardy [Film.] UK: British Lion Film Corporation.

The Woman in Black (2012.) Directed by James Watkins [Film.] UK: Hammer Film Productions.

American Horror Story

When I first read about American Horror Story, I was dubious as to how successful it would be; bearing in mind it’s from the same creators as Glee: Brad Falchuk and Ryan Murphy (IMDB, 2012).  Yet even just from watching the title sequence I was amazed at the difference between the programmes. I did really enjoy the series, the story was completely messed up and twisted, but it was the title sequence that has really inspired and helped me with my own work. I find it really creepy, the way the light flashes on for a second to give you just a glimpse of basement, or pickled baby part, and the next shot will change rapidly so as to disorientate and disturb. The majority of it is actually in the dark, with scantily lit jars and dark corners, but I think this creates tension, and keeps you wondering what you are going to see in the next flash of light. Whilst parallel to the unsettling imagery, the sound, by Caesar Davila and Charlie Clouser (Wikipedia, 2012), is even more disturbing and really helps to create suspense and tension. Each weird click brings up a new flash of imagery, which is edited really well against the sound. They also show photos of young Victorian clad children, but alternate between positive and negative flashes. I find this really interesting and played around with it in my own film when I was editing. Although the title sequence was created by another company (Prologue) for the programme, Murphy and Falchuk will have told Prologue exactly what they wanted out of it, and the imagery seen is gradually explained throughout the series (Wikipedia, 2012). Whilst editing and shooting my coursework, I have incorporated some of the techniques used in this title sequence, and feel that they have really helped me make my film more creepy and unsettling. It has helped me realise that often in this kind of genre, less is more.

References:

'American Horror Story' (2012.) IMDB. Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1844624/  (Accessed: 14 April 2012)

'American Horror Story' (2012.) Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Horror_Story  (Accessed: 14 April 2012)

Douglas Gordon's: Twenty-four hour psycho

 Douglas Gordon is a film artist/photographer whom I really admire. A lot of his video work uses found footage and he often distorts the footage with repetition, enlargements and slow motion. He seems to have followed in Duchamp’s ‘ready-made’ footsteps and often creates cinematic ready-mades (Martin, 2006.) Twenty-four hour psycho (1993) is probably his best know piece of work, and perhaps my favourite, even though i haven't seen it in person, as I love Alfred Hitchcock. In this piece Gordon plays with the element of time, and slows Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960) down so that it lasts a whole day, or twenty-four hours. The piece was installed as a freestanding projection, rather than simply projected onto a wall, giving the viewer the option of where to view it, completely changing how the film affects the viewer. As Martin suggests, by staging the work this way, it is ‘Unavoidable for them to appear now and again as shadows on the screen – just as, in every one of his films, Hitchcock has a tiny guest appearance.’ (Martin, 2006, p.52.) I think this is brilliant, as artists we are always trying to challenge the audience to perceive our art in new ways; Gordon achieves this with a touch of irony too. Assuming that the viewer is not going to stay and watch the whole 24 hours of this work, means that it encourages their memory to play a part in their perception of the piece. Again assuming that the audience is familiar with Hitchcock’s Psycho, the piece forces them to ‘mentally add foregoing and succeeding events to the moment of viewing the image- that is, completing the story either before or after it has taken place on screen.’ (Martin, 2006, p.52.) Time is one of the most important elements in film and I think the way Gordon plays with it is particularly clever and unique. We have recently had to complete a found footage project in moving image, and I would have never thought to do something so daring. Douglas Gordon has really challenged how I view film art, and has inspired me into realising you really can do anything with it.

'24 Hour Psycho, as I see it, is not simply a work of appropriation. It is more like an act of affiliation... it wasn't a straightforward case of abduction. The original work is a masterpiece in its own right, and I've always loved to watch it. [...] I wanted to maintain the authorship of Hitchcock so that when an audience would see my 24 Hour Psycho they would think much more about Hitchcock and much less, or not at all, about me...'  -  Douglas Gordon. (Tranter, 2007)

References:

Gordon, D. (1993) Twenty-Four Hour Psycho [Installation.] Hayward Gallery, London. 2002-3.

Martin, S. (2006.) Video Art. Cologne, Germany: Taschen.

Psycho (1960) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock [Film]. USA: Shamley Productions.

Tranter, R. (2007.) 'Douglas Gordon, 24 hour psycho', A Piece of Monologue, 5 March 2010. Available at: http://www.apieceofmonologue.com/2010/03/douglas-gordon-24-hour-psycho.html  (Accessed: 14 April 2012).

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Currently, in moving image, I am working on a project surrounding psychological thrillers and the power of suggestion, and felt that this film really inspired me when I was planning my shoot. From reading the reviews and watching the trailer for Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin, 2012), I knew that it was going to be a pretty dark rendition of a woman who manages to escape a particularly sinister cult. However, I was not prepared for just how dark this film turned out to be, and came out of it, just past midnight, utterly disturbed. Durkin manages to present an aura of paranoia and fear through a procession of disturbing flashbacks and haunting cinematography, yet only gives us glimpses of the abuse that the woman endured, parallel with the present time, whilst she is recovering at her sisters. Durkin starts by making us feel sympathy for Martha, by only showing us her abuse, but as the flashbacks build, we see her gradually brainwashed and she ends up as the cult leaders favourite, partaking in much of the mind control and abuse herself. Only one thing turned out to be too far for her, which pushed her to escape the cult, and that was murder. By the end I was not sure whether to feel sympathy for her or not, especially after the scene in which she helps drug and 'cleanse', and by that I mean rape, a young girl, just as a woman had done to Martha previously. The reason I found this film so disturbing was due to the degree of mind control, it is shocking to see how one person can manipulate so many minds to the point of complete control. The way, in which Durkin portrays this control, leaving a lot for the audience to decipher themselves, also built on the already disconcerting plot. The ending is a good example of this as he only suggests and how it finishes, either she will never escape in the sense that they are actually watching her and her family or, in the sense that she is so psychologically damaged that her mind just thinks that they are following her. This film has given me some brilliant markers to start from.

References:

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2012) Directed by Sean Durkin [Film.] USA: Fox Searchlight Pictures.