Deren's Meshes Of The Afternoon: Soundtrack as Narration

‘Meshes of The Afternoon’ baffled me the first time I saw it. The situation I was in did not allow me to fully appreciate it.  A crowded room full of chattering students without a satisfactory speaker system does not make the perfect viewing experience. It truly was a ‘silent’ film in this instance. Like most surrealist projects I encounter I do not like to delve deeply for meaning; I’d rather appreciate it for what it is; another persons mental expression through metaphor. Maya Deren and her husband Alexander Hamid created the film and both star as husband and wife. Maya Deren’s character experiences a complicated lucid dream that involves her husband, multiples of herself and a specter with a mirror for a face. The film uses many symbolic props including a key, a single flower and a knife. It is important to note how ground breaking this film was at the time; it explores the subconscious well and includes the notion of ‘dreams within dreams’. This notion has become well used in many films and television series.

A second screening allowed me to hear the audio composed by Teiji Ito; it incorporates many different instruments to create a diverse musical range of emotion. The score adds the necessary element of ‘intrigue’ to the piece. What also stood out regarding the music is its incorporation into the narrative. Without the option of dialogue, silent films rely on the music to communicate the events further than what the visuals can. It doesn’t override the visuals as the key element, but it has a major part in the story and is definitely incorporated as a diegetic element. The basic element of this would be when Ito’s score is used as sound effect; at 01:37 the eclectic metallic drumming fits perfectly with the moment the key drops out of reach. However it seems that the director’s efforts to marry audio with visual goes further than that.

The first example of this is seen at 02:52; the first Maya enters the house, ascends the stairs and proceeds to remove a needle from a vinyl player. The music finishes at this moment; Maya then descends the stairs and falls asleep in a comfy chair. As her eyes shut the first act finishes, the dream sequence begins and the music continues. This sequence of events allows the audience to understand the difference between the characters conscious and subconscious. This notion is further explored at 06:44 when the second Maya (or first ‘dream Maya’) floats above her sleeping self, she notices the vinyl player beside the chair. She floats towards it and turns it off. However unlike before, the music does not stop when the needle is removed. Perhaps this event represents Maya’s own understanding that she is in a ‘lucid’ dream. This notion makes sense if you consider that she then, after turning off the player begins to walk rather than float and gives no sense of anguish as she observes the events that follow in the dreamscape. Her husband awakes her at 11:10 and the music continues. At first I thought this blew my theory out of the water, but the music gently fades moments later, signifying Maya’s emergence into reality once she realizes that there is nothing to be afraid of. The theory is put under further attack when the music starts up again; while supposedly out of her dream, Maya observes her husbands actions that mimic perfectly what the mirrored faced specter was doing beforehand. The foreboding music that always accompanies the specter now accompanies the husband.  The inclusion of the music also gives the audience the clue that she may not have actually woken up yet. Things get weird again and it becomes obvious that she hasn’t, the music relentlessly continues until she breaks out of this false world at 12:49.

 The end of the film still baffles me. Once she breaks the mirrored image of her husband, the shattered mirror reveals the open sea. Her husband walks into their apartment and is greeted by a dead Maya, covered in shards of mirror and seaweed. The music incorporates as many instruments as possible for the revealing finale, only adding to the confusion. If she turned off the vinyl player and she is not dreaming, how can the music continue? The only way to explain this would be to look towards Edgar Allen Poe’s poignantly named poem ‘A Dream Within a Dream’, which ends eerily similar to the film if thought from the perspective of the husband:

“O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?”

Guadagnino's I am Love: Characterization Study

I am Love follows the story of Emma Recchi (Tilda Swinton), a woman married to a wealthy Milanese businessman Tancredi (Pippo Delbono). The drama comes into her life when she meets her sons close friend Antonio. Emma soon develops an intense relationship with Antonio, one that will change her life irreversibly. To really understand the films characters, it is important to look at their relationship with Emma. The filmmakers follow her actions throughout while the other family members and Antonio only seem to appear when they can be used to develop the films plot further. The films main focus is Emma’s personal rejuvenation and enlightenment found through the act of adultery. She commits the act after much trepidation; once she has she looks for ways to reveal her sins to her family. Through her actions we see a longing to break away from the loveless marriage she once naively chose. The relationships between Emma and the other members of her immediate family also give fuel to the story, particularly helping to explain why Emma’s character choses to act on her baser instincts in regard to Antonio.  Her husband, a quietly cold man; epitomises the opposite side of the Ricci household. He out of all of the characters I will mention is kept out of focus the most. This works well as it shows the rift that has developed between Emma and Tancredi over time; well before the beginning of the film. Tancredi’s lack of passion can be seen at its clearest near the end of the film, In reaction to the news that Emma is in love with another, he eventually replies; ‘You don’t exist’.

Emma and Antonio’s love is a bourgeoning force. Antonio is depicted as nervous after the first rendezvous with Emma. He longs to see her in again, even letting his imagination envision she is there when she is not. Even after meeting her again he cannot bring himself to touch her in any sort of intimate way, this may be because he is insecure and cannot decide if such an action would be appropriate, or he might just react this way through fear as they have met in a public place. Either way Emma shows her age and decides something for both of them by laying her hand over his. This reassuring gesture helps to continue the affair unhindered. Antonio’s character is not very revealing apart from that; he is a good listener however, through conversations with Emma we manage to hear her backstory, her leaving Russia at a young age with Tancredi explains a lot about her current isolated predicament. No one could judge her harshly after hearing where she has come from.

The children can be seen as secondary characters that mimic the overall events shown; on a smaller scale they mirror elements of both parents, but it is easier to see the similarities between the mother and daughter and the father and son. This similarity can be shown by the lifestyles they choose. The son Edo (Flavio Parenti), is shown in the film to be closely following his father’s footsteps, however it is unclear how happy he is in his current situation. He himself shares a unique friendship with Antonio. Mirroring his mother’s love for him in a way, however the closest example of taking after Tancredi, is in his reaction to his mother’s confession; ‘You’re nothing to me!’ Both father and son react badly to the news and dismiss Emma in a very similar way. The daughter Eva (Diane Fleri), mirrors the actions of her mother; she tells her mother early in the film that she is in love with a woman. Her mother supports her and it can be assumed that Emma uses her daughter’s example to help her make her own decisions about life and love. Through the moments we see Eva, we see gradual changes; she cuts her hair short and dismisses an ex-boyfriend in front of her mother. Edo and Eva meet in London later in the film to catch up; Edo is there on business, Eva’s reason is not revealed. Eva questions Edo’s happiness, but we don’t get told what exactly Edo is unhappy about. All we can assume is that he wants to be with Antonio in some capacity be it as brothers or lovers it is never brought to the audiences focus. Edo’s eventual death sets Emma up to leave the Recchi household for good. Her daughter of course knows immediately to support her mother who did the same for her. However, love is bitter sweet and leaving the Recchi household means leaving the people that inhabit it, Emma leaves a moment before it is revealed that Edo managed to impregnate his partner before dying. Eva, having understood the gesture of pregnancy looks to where her mother was standing. Emma caught up in her own world has already left.

Godard's Pierrot le fou (1965): Contextual study

Dear diary....

I write this diary after recently seeing Ken Loache’s: Sweet Sixteen. I’d rather not talk about this latest screening as it too well emulated growing up living with a Scottish side to your family; minus the drugs and murder. Sweet sixteen came across as a ‘rags to riches’ story; it could be described as a young ‘scarface’, set in Glasgow. Personally I felt Loache captured a reality that was perhaps more relatable to the mockingly stereotypical Scotsmen it portrays. However, I make the assumption that most of the students appreciated this film over another film previously screened, Pierrot le fou (1965). P.L.F is a French film that culturally fits into the ‘new wave’ era. The film follows the ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ antics of Fernando (Jean-Paul Belmondo) and his femme fatale mistress, Marianne (Anna Karina). The film was directed by the unique talent Jean Luc Godard; known for making films that are hard to watch for many. The renowned film critic Roger Ebert mentions the barrage of emails he receives about the films of Godard; to quote Roger from a rewrite of his original 1966 review of the film: ‘You probably won't like ‘Pierrot le Fou’.”

Godard exhibits in P.L.F a technique mainly associated with theatre, known as ‘breaking the fourth wall’. This aptly named technique means to directly communicate with the audience, in a way that recognizes that a play is being performed. Suddenly making this jump from fiction and reality allows the audience to look at the actions on stage from an abnormal perspective. By emulating this, P.L.F recognizes that film is not ‘reality’ by talking directly to the viewer. At 39:41, Fernando looks at the camera whilst driving and quips regarding Marianne; ‘All she thinks about is fun’. When she asks whom the comment was meant for, he replies; ‘The audience’. No better example of ‘breaking the fourth wall’ could be given. The technique is further referenced at 01:39:17; the soundtrack purrs a gentle melody, Ferdinand engages with a gentleman who seems distraught by the music. However, Ferdinand cannot hear the music. The gentleman then starts an engaging monologue regarding his relationship with the music we all can hear, apart from Fernando. When compared to today’s screening, P.L.F seems poles apart. But Godard and Loache share a commonality through one of their major influences in the sixties, namely Berthold Brecht; the first theatre director to champion the ‘fourth wall’ concept. To use Loache’s own words; “It was the time of the French new wave, it was the time of a great interest in Brecht and exposing the mechanism of drama was something we talked a lot about”. This similarity can be better recognized in Loache’s earlier work. In his book The cinema of Ken Loach, Jacob Leigh mentions that Brecht’s influence was strongest in Loache’s film; The End of Arthur’s Marriage (1965). It is no coincidence that P.L.F was released the same year that this film was released. Remembering the sixties in hindsight, Loache explains why he didn’t carry on a trend of using ‘brechtian’ techniques in his films; “But the danger of it as a technique to sustain for a long time was that it could become mannered”. Godard however, continued to use the technique.

Godard’s later work would show a deeper affiliation to the ideals shared by Brecht. The Routledge companion to theatre and performance explains that Brecht had a strong belief in Marxism. In P.L.F we see Godard’s views on touchy subjects including consumerism and the Vietnam War being expressed. At 06:12 Fernando attends a party hosted by his wife’s parents; the characters assembled at the party simply drone on about products they have purchased or would like to purchase. They restlessly informally advertise cars and cosmetics while Ferdinand passes them on the search for something to call interesting. He finally finds it in notable American auteur Samuel Fuller, this is only brief solitude as Ferdinand delves back into the consumer driven wasteland. The film doesn’t just poke fun at the bourgeoisie; at 56:35 Fernando and his partner put on a show for some American naval officers on shore leave in order to earn money. They draw an image of Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro crudely with chalk under the moniker; ‘modern day slaves’. Not amusing the soldiers they change their approach. They perform a racially stereotypical performance entitled ‘Uncle Sam’s nephew versus Uncle Ho’s niece’. Regarding America’s history with Vietnam this reference can be referred to as ‘on the nose’. Ferdinand’s character points a gun at the audience; in a mocking American accent, he addresses Hollywood with the message; ‘communist, yeah’. This intense moment gives an indication that the films director was sending a direct message. Godard seemed to go through a ‘transition from cinephilism to radicalism’ according to the book The radical faces of Godard and Bertolucci. Godard it seems focused more fully on anti-capitalist thoughts later in his career.

R. Ebert, 1965. Pierrot le Fou review [online] copyright 2012, rogerebert.com Available at: <http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19661010/REVIEWS/908240301/1023 > [Accessed 30 January 2012].

The cinema of Ken Loach: art in the service of the people, J. Leigh, 2002, London, New York, Wallflower Press (pg.32)

The Routledge companion to theatre and performance, P. Allain, J Harvie. 2005, Taylor and Francis (Routledge) (pg. 29)

The radical faces of Godard and Bertolucci, Y. Loshitzky. (1995) Wayne State Univ. Press (pg. 54)                                            

Zvyagintsev's The Return (2003): Location Study

The Return focuses on the lives of two brothers as they take an unexpected opportunity to reconnect with their estranged father. With regards to the locations used during filming; the film takes advantage of the Russian parks and wilderness to make a visually pleasing settings for the scenes. Instantly this can be appreciated; the film uses some notable techniques to disperse the non-diegetic elements into the experience.

The film starts with an overhead shot of a lake, close up. The title caption appears through the water, the next shot reveals what resides under the water. The film relies on this lake in several key areas in the film; namely the beginning and end. The scene focuses on a giant rickety wooden tower that leans precariously off the land’s edge. The filmmakers make full use of this location, particularly when the children use it in a diving game that proves machismo; an overhead shot of the older brothers plunge into the lake shows how courageous the drop is. Later on the youngest brother still hasn’t dropped; as the setting sun turns the once grey sky into a weak yellow, the camera pans across the massive expanse, the amount of time that passed can easily be communicated. The next scene shows the children playing football in an abandoned parking garage. Even this scene, the children are framed between two lines of columns, the camera doesn’t frame this shot with complete symmetry, rather it keeps some of the shot free to show the crusty, graphitized wall. Throughout the film, focus will continue to show the stressed buildings and bleak depressing backdrops that in the context of the film; stand out with a poetic beauty. At 06:26 the boys scuffle and chase out of the garage, the second non diegetic event takes place; the filmmakers use this opportunity to show the children running through town, showing of more dilapidated man made aspects of the location while interspersing this with the credits. It makes for a peaceful transition and doesn’t spoil the atmosphere already built up.

Speaking of transitions, the filmmakers managed to use transitional scene changes as ways to put the scenery into the foreground. At 20:51; while the father and sons are on the road the scene change between events is fully taken advantage of in this aspect. The car leaves a layby, but for this shot it is not in focus, it only inhabits about 20% of the screen. The car leaves the shot completely but the shot hangs on what is in the foreground; long grass or wheat, swaying in the gentle breeze. This shot stays the same for at least ten seconds; looking further on it seems the filmmakers find opportunities to fit as much location shots in as possible. At 21:26 we have another panning shot that reveals the situation the characters currently reside in. The youngest son discards a bag to see its trajectory. Once he does, this gives the filmmakers reason to show the scene off; the overgrown Russian country road with leaning telegraph poles. As with most films that focus on a road trip ‘scenario’, it is important to advertise the transition of the characters on this journey, mainly to emphasize the progression that comes with travel. In a way, this is poignant theme of the film itself; the two boys experience a physical progression through travel, while at the same time progress mentally through experiencing time with their father. Location is used to create settings. At 22:15, the party stops to eat, this scene is quite memorable; the farcical charade created by his brother’s unquestioning adoration and his father’s general mystique is broken. This goes further when his father finds a fair way to punish him. To set this sequence of events up the film utilizes a long static shot of a unfinished building or at least the foundations of one. Unlike the uses before, this location shot is symmetrical. Perhaps this represents the father’s character, rigid and foreboding. The older son walks in front of the building, he is tiny in comparison.

When the characters finally reach their destination, they arrive at another large expanse of water. The water it seems is used as a symbolic metaphor for the amount of confusion felt by the two brothers. Always left unknowing, they never really manage to engage their father. Not to the degree any son would hope for. The water is murky and opaque. There is a feeling of unknowing attached to this image. If you were to swim in the water, what would your toes be touching? This imagery can be explored further with the inclusion of the box’s relevance and the fact that the father is eventually buried at sea, despite both of the son’s best efforts to take his corpse with them for a proper burial. The Return was a beautifully shot film that fully uses the hidden beauty of dilapidation.