This final architecture video was
shot in Stuttgart, Germany. The idea was to show the how two different people,
namely a tourist and a local view the city. This was done with perspective
shots, periodic photos for the jittery excited tourist and a video for the more
relaxed local. The style was that of a video game, with a map showing the paths
on the side. There's a scene you may miss if you're not paying attention where
the tourist falls over and the contents of his bag litter the floor. That is
the only point where the two characters cross.
Friday 27 April 2012
Agadir Intervention
This video also takes
place in Agadir. The task was to do an "intervention" in the town. If
you saw the last video, you would have gained some knowledge about the history
of Agadir. Long story short, earthquake, city was relocated below the hills
using more modern styles of construction. So our idea was to recreate the old
city which still exists on the hill, onto the beaches of the new city, using
sand to portray the more primitive dark materials of the old contrasting
against the plush whiteness of the new. The tide messed us up twice, during one
of which you may be able to hear me let of a curse. Some people may say this
was just a way to make sand castles instead of working.... some people might be
correct...
Architectural Analysis: Jean-Francois Zevaco's Hotel de Ville, Agadir, Morocco
Now for some
architecture related posts. These videos were made in groups, almost consistent
members for all the videos.
So this first video is study of the Agadir town hall in Morocco.
The video starts with some history of Agadir which is relevant to the next
video I'll post. We made a 3D model of the building to create a CGI video which
explores it which can be seen at the end. The camera was hard to control hence
the awkward turnings. We also got an interview with the Mayor of Agadir who was
more than happy to see a group of young foreign students.
The Greek Tyrant Cleisthenes
30-11-2006
How elitist were the reforms of Cleisthenes?
Cleisthenes came from the Alcmaeonoid family of
Athenian Greeks. Previously, Pisitratus had set up a tyranny in Athens which
Pisistratus’s son Hippias had inherited. With the help of the Alcmaeonid
family, Cleisthenes was able to overthrow Hippias, but lost power to Isagoras,
another Athenian seeking power, who began another tyranny with none being
able to match his power in Athens. He was not a popular ruler and was
eventually banished by the council backed up by the people of Athens.
Cleisthenes returned and took over as ruler of Athens. Cleisthenes was a
revolutionary in that he brought about radical forms of democracy to Athens for
the first time through his reforms.
“Now
Cleisthenes of Athens, following the lead of his grandfather and namesake
Cleisthenes of Sicyon, decided, out of contempt, I imagine, for the Ionians,
that his tribes should not be the same as theirs, so as soon as he had won the
support of the common people of Athens, previously held in contempt, he renamed
the tribes and increased their number…” [1]
Cleisthenes abolished the traditional four tribes that existed (who were chosen
on family and descent) and instead organised the people into ten tribes based
on where they lived. The new tribes were named mostly after Athenian heroes.
The way the tribes were organised now meant that a more political and fair
system was in placed compared to the former social division where the heads of
the most important families would rule. Every tribe had members from the three
regions of Athens (city, coast and inlands). This was so that all the interest
groups possible were being represented. It did bring unity of Attica because
all the three areas were being equally represented and each could voice their
opinions better. The assembly of the council where they vote on issues and
discuss various aspects of economic and politic interest, was opened to any
registered citizen which allows them to see and feel closer to the workings of
their economy. As well as serving to be a more fair representation of the
people, the new tribe system served to weaken the power of the aristocracy who
had in fact been the cause of tyrannies of the past. [2]The
other aristocrats had their regions split into different tribes which served to
reduce their influence. Cleisthenes however did maintain his own family and
tribe stay a lot more powerful than the others. Their strongholds were not
split up between the other tribes.
Cleisthenes also changed Solon’s (the previous law-giver over fifty
years before Cleisthenes’ rule) council structure from the four hundred four
tribe based council to five hundred ten tribe council. Each tribe contributed
fifty people each who were chosen by the people to represent them. The fifty
people chosen had to be from the top three economic classes as well as be over
thirty years old. In this way, although power has been diluted past the
oligarchy of past, the reform is fairly elitist in that you still had to be
rich to have a chance of leading. Another point to note is that although all
male citizens could vote, some of them in the more rural areas of Attica chose
not to as it would mean going on a trip to Athens. In these areas, aristocrats
had a better chance as they could afford the journeys.
Cleisthenes also introduced local councils
(demes) which consisted of hamlets, villages or even cities. This is the
predecessor or mayors. Cleisthenes sought to take the focus away from being a
member of the tribes to being a member of the state. New citizens would be judged on ancestry, but
Cleisthenes changed it so being a member of a deme was enough to qualify for
citizenship. This again was weakening the hold of the elite aristocrats.
Religion was left untouched by Cleisthenes. He was aware of the importance of
religion and so he left the older social structures than had strong religious ties.
Ostracism is often credited to Cleisthenes[3].
This is the process of voting to exile a citizen of Athens for a period of ten
years. This was often used to exile people that seemed to be gaining too much
power so a tyranny can be prevented in the future. Strictly, ostracism is not
the same as exile as property is retuned to the ostracised person when they
return. A possible reason for the invention of ostracism is that as the
aristocratic system was undermined and Pisistratus, the previous tyrant, had
powerful, wealthy relatives that remained in Athens, Cleisthenes hoped to avert
the danger of tyranny.
Cleisthenes ignored foreign policy and relations with Sparta and the rest
of Greece deteriorates into war. He also made it a requirement that each tribe
contribute a general who commanded a hoplite regiment and horsemen. Herodotus
remarks on how effective the military of Athens was in its democratic infancy,
especially in successfully dealing with the Boeotian and Euboean invasions. [4]
Cleisthenes named his reforms ‘isonomia’ which translates to “equality
under the law”. When looking at the reforms of Cleisthenes outlines, we can see
that there are elements of elitism in some of them, the vast majority of the
reforms were quite the opposite. They served to break down the elite and give
the people more power over their leaders. The reforms led to a more active
participation by the people of Attica, especially those that were not
represented in the past. The re-shaping of the Athenian society was definitely
a positive one which led to a more efficient way of governing. So in
conclusion, I would say that the reforms were not very elitist at all but quite
the opposite.
Bibliography
Herodotus – The Histories
Encyclopaedia Britannica – Cleisthenes
Aristotle – Athenian Constitution and Politics
J.B. Bury – A History of
Greece
The Greek "polis"
26-10-2006
What aspects of Greek religion were significant in
the development of the Greek polis?
The Greeks were a polytheistic society who were
deeply religious. Different areas over Greece often concentrated on different
gods whom they thought to be their local or more important deity. They had a
god for pretty much every aspect of everyday life. Before the polis, the Greek
religion was probably a simplistic pagan one where each area praying to their
own god alone.[1]
I would think that basic pagan gods were worshipped and throughout time a myth
grew around their stories, and eventually connected the god’s up to family
trees that now exist. The evidence for this in my view is that all the gods are
in their physical prime (even though some are fathers and sisters and mothers
to each other) although this maybe a show of perfection for the worshippers.
Although one god is usually favoured amongst others in regions, there is a
hierarchy that exists when the basis of the “religion” (the Greeks did not see
it as such) is better established. The twelve main gods (Zeus, Hera, Poseidon,
Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Ares, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Dionysus and
Demeter) are recognised by all Greeks, but there is no universal truth about
too much else The basis of Greek religion revolved around a few things;
building grand temples, animal sacrifice, offerings, honouring and prayer.
Before
the polis in the early Dark Age, all that existed were small settlements with
no society as such except very basic trade. The polis which just means
city-states (cities that governed themselves) is the ancestor of today’s cities
and even countries. By definition, a polis is not a geographical or territorial
unity, but a religious, social and political one. Religion gave a story for the
identity, past and geography of the polis. [2]A
sizeable polis is usually centred around an acropolis, which were basically the
core of the cities where they grow around. One of the better known examples is
the Acropolis of Athens. They are usually situated higher up mountains for
initial defence purposes. A typical polis had at least one temple and we can
already see religion coming into play. Since worship before a temple or common
place of worship was at home where gods could not be so easily publicised to
each other, the significance of religion would have been weaker. As soon as
temples came into play, a social network and moral code was made. In ancient
Greece, temples were more about the gods and we can see that Greeks took great
pride in their work as temples were often extremely lavish and even rebuilt to
increase the aesthetics. Sacrifices and other social events at a temple set
goals and helped to integrate people into the community allow it to flourish
into a more social and eventually political power. Rituals help to solidify the
society’s social basis.
A big
part of the Greek society is athletics and art. The basis of both these acts is
in pleasing the gods. Every grand festival and games held were to tribute the
gods. For example, the Olympian Games are to honour Zeus and Pelops (mythical
king of Olympia).
"One
aspect of increasing solidarity was a stronger cohesion among those who bore
arms.... But despite its general implications, warfare, as well as the exercise
of power that went with it, was the business of only a small fraction of
society....The creation of political organs that institutionalized new modes of
exercising public authority could in itself achieve nothing unless it was
backed up by a social body whose motives and desire for unity were inspired by
something other than war....religion was the only agent to effect the entire
social body....It signalled the emergence of a society that seemed to acquire
self-awareness as it retook possession of the past by endowing it with a sacred
character....It was thus through religious life that a new kind of social body
was gradually to take shape...."[3] As Francois de Polignac says, religion can be
seen as the vehicle for a thriving new society to grow around. The creation of
a polis was helped strongly by the worship of the same god in a region. A
society is more likely to spring up between people with the same beliefs and
this is what happened. The tribes of Athens came to join together as they
shared religious ceremonies, and so the regional loyalty was reduced.[4]
It was also probably a political advantage as you can be united under your god
(e.g. Athens under Athena) and “laws” can be passed for what the gods desired. For
example, the Pisitratide regime used to promote cults in the common people to
weaken the power of the aristocrats. The fact that each polis had their own
deities for protection, their own unique customs and festivals, means that they
were differentiated from other any other polis, but also united within their
own polis.
Despite
all these points for religion being significant in the development of the
polis, we must not forget all the other reasons for a city state, like the
social and political. A polis is far more efficient than a spread of isolated
settlements, or even, for the time, a country. A polis was a manageable size in
which political and other experimentation could take place.
We come
to what particular aspects of religion may have been particularly important in
the creation and maintaining of the polis. The Oracle at Delphi (Pyhthia)
probably provided a basis for leaders to come to for guidance. This source was
obviously infallible, so it connected people under the leader in this way.
Lycurgus of Sparta sought the oracle for help was told to write the
constitutional laws which the people were behind since it came from the word of
the oracle. If the oracle were to say a god was angry and a city would be under
their wrath unless they performed a certain task, again the people would be
united. The oracle certainly helped to bring the people of Greece together.
The priests of temples had a lot of power in
Ancient Greece. As a priest was ‘an assistant to a divinity’[5],
they had a lot of say and could override government laws if they so wished to.
The basis
of a polis is that a relatively small number of people are united under a rule.
To do this, you need patriotism and a common cause. This was provided by the
many aspects of the Greek religion in pleasing gods. The Olympic Games are a
perfect example. They have the people of a polis united in rivalry, but not
with another polis which would hold off the thought of empires and countries.
Since the
development of the polis was in the earlier archaic period, all evidence is
questionable. There are often myths surrounding the creation of a polis
involving oracles and the gods, used by the cities to glorify their ancestry.
This while making the evidence unreliable does prove the point that religion
was an important enough factor to base the grand beginnings of the city.
As
well as religion helping with the founding of the polis, the eventuality is
that the polis provides a basis for the religion to operate. Three outlines on
how the polis provides a framework for religion is outlines by Carrie Dobbs; 1.
the polis interacted with other poleis and with the Panhellenic religious
dimension/ usually done in Amphictionies or Leagues. 2. Religious participation
was only for the citizens of the community which articulated the religion. 3.
If you visited the sacra of
another polis you could only participate as a xenos (foreigner). [6]
Essentially because the specifics of the religion was for a certain polis only,
you find identity within your polis, which is not necessarily a point of how
religion developed the polis, but more a point of how religion continues to
develop a polis.
To
conclude, Greek religion played a big part in the creation of the Greek polis.
The main aspects of the religion that brought about the change concerned things
that united people, whether under a common cause, under fear or under similar
beliefs and practices. This helped to unite people, but only within a smaller
area and therefore create a polis. Only a polytheistic religion than concerned
areas with their own favourite gods could have created a city-state. A
monotheistic religion would have edged towards a larger scale unity such as a
country.
Bibliography
Carrie Dobbs on Christiane
Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter in OXFORD READINGS IN GREEK RELIGION, 2/28/02
Francois de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the
Greek City State (trans. Janet
Lloyd, Chicago, 1995). 151-152
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis
[1]
www.wikipedia.org/ancient_greek_religion
[2] Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter
in OXFORD READINGS
[3] Francois
de Polignac, Cults, Territory, and the
Origins of the Greek
City State
[4]
www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/edelciv1.htm
[5]
www.fjkluth.com/religion.html
[6] Carrie Dobbs on Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood's Chapter
in OXFORD READINGS
Religious Imagery During the Reformation
15-12-2006
Why did
religious images attract so much controversy during the reformation?
In the 16th century,
reformers of Christianity split from the Catholic Church in Western Europe.
It all started with the Augustinian monk Martin Luther (1483 – 1546). He gave
95 arguments for against the use of indulgences as a pardon for sins allowing
the rich to guarantee a place in heaven. His theses were highly controversial
at the time. Despite this, Luther was not burnt for being a heretic but allowed
to present his arguments in front of a court. The printing press brought on the
media who made Luther the centre of religious controversy and sent his message
all over Europe. He questioned the Roman Church and their right to grant
salvation. Martin Luther himself was not against the idea of using religious
images so long as it was still the god they represent that was being
worshipped. In England, the reformation was quite different to the rest of Europe.
It was driven by Henry VIII who created the Act of Supremacy so that he became
the Head of the Church of England. Religious imagery was destroyed as
Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and Andreas Karlstadt supported the
removal of images of god or Jesus. The reformers claimed that the Church had
fallen into idolatry. The destruction of religious icons is known as
iconoclasm. In the words of T.S. Elliot, the reformation left ‘ a heap
of broken images, where the sun beats / and the dead tree gives no shelter’. [1]
“Lord what work
was here! What clattering of glasses! What beating down of walls! What tearing
up of monuments! …etc... And what a hideous triumph in the market-place before
all the country, when all the mangled organ pipes, vestments, both copes and
surplices, together with the leaden cross which had newly been sawn down from
the Green-yard pulpit and the service-books and singing books that could be
carried to the fire in the public market-place were heaped together'.” Bishop
Joseph Hall of Norwich.
As Henry VIII’s son Edward
VI came into power in 1547, the iconoclastic reformers were more influential
and a royal injunction was issued were reformers were told to destroy all
shrines, pictures, paintings and all other monuments of miracles so no memory
remains within the walls of the churches or houses.
Although the roots
of iconoclasm go further back than Christianity, within the religion, it is
stimulated by the Ten Commandments. One of the commandments entails the
following “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the waters beneath the earth:” [2]If
the words are interpreted literally, they are the main justification for
iconoclasm. God by his very nature was beyond representation. Reliquaries which
had veneration powers empowering saints as supernatural beings was also
rejected by the reformers. Another reason was that some of the art was
extravagant not to flaunt the splendour of God but to show the power of the
owner or donor. At the time of the reformation, saint worship and pilgrimages
were especially important as the superstition associated with them was
especially popular. This was strongly opposed by the reformers who destroyed
shrines and any other form of art depicting saints with any superhuman powers.
Instead of worshipping god, reformers claimed that worship was directed towards
the material world.
There was
opposition to the movement as the opposition argued that since God had been
incarnated as Jesus, it was possible to represent him. Another reason they
argued for was that the images were beneficial to the illiterate as they told
stories and helped them understand the religion.The reformers all agreed that
the images of saints should not be worshipped, but they were not so united on
what to do with the existing pieces. This difference of opinion within the
reformers would lead to divisions within Protestantism. While Martin Luther
would rather have had the images removed, Andreas Karlstadt was more
extreme in that he issued an order to the town of Wittenburg to remove all
religious images from churches. Three days after the order was issued, he
complained that the order was not followed and the first iconoclastic riot
began. Karlstadt argued that God was a spirit so attacks on the external being
were pointless. [3] ‘It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail’ John
6.63.[4] In early 1522, Karlstadt wrote “On the Abolition of Images” to
justify the destruction of images. He outlines three things in the document.
Firstly that the images present in houses and churches goes against the first
commandment, idols on altars are worse and that it is therefore right to ban
them. [5] Karlstadt’s main source is the Old Testament, so he denies the
viewpoint that Christ came to abolish the primitive laws of the Old Testament.
Karlstadt provided a very extreme view in that he claimed religious images were
as bad as any of the other commandments such as murder and adultery. He
concentrated more on the Word of God as he believed only the Word could
transcend the flesh. As for the arguments that images provided a gateway for
the illiterate (the argument was called the libri pauperum ictum of Pope
Gregory), Karlstadt said images kept the illiterate ignorant and dependant on
clergy.
There is more to the
iconoclasm of the reformation that simply ridding the religion of images. There
are social and political reasons for the move. The images were a gateway to the
Pope. By attacking the images, the reformers were directly attacking the pope.
The idols did not merely represent false gods, but gods of the Catholic Church
of Rome, and therefore to get rid of the idols was to get rid of the influence
of Rome.
John Calvin was another
big name in the iconoclastic attack on Christianity. He outlines his theory of
worship as – ‘to acknowledge God to be, as He is, the only source of all
virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power, goodness, mercy, life and
salvation; in accordance with this, and to ascribe and render to Him the glory
of all that is good, to seek all things in Him alone in every need’. [6]Our
purpose in Calvin’s view was to glorify god through worship and obedience. [7] Calvin
maintains that the only way of worshipping God is through spiritual worship and
this is what justifies his iconoclasm. This is worship without props and other
such human aides. Calvin also maintains that there is a ‘loss of glory’[8] associated
with mixing the spiritual and material in worship.
To conclude,
the iconoclasts were concentrating on the images more than what they
represented during the reformation. For the reformers, abolishing the images
meant more than just ridding the places of worship of pictures, it represented
the break from the traditional bureaucracy of the traditional Church which had
been exploiting the masses. It was a strong force to drive Rome out
of the reformed religion. The legacy of which is every branch of Christianity
today that is not a form of Rome-centric Catholicism.
Bibliography
E. J. Martin, A History of the
Iconoclastic Controversy (1930, repr. 1978)
The Reformation of Images: Destruction
of Art in England, 1535-1660, John Phillips
War Against the Idols: the reformation
of worship from Erasmus to Calvin By Carlos M. N. Eire
De Necessitate, CR 6.460
Film Noir: Reminiscent Works.
21-11-2006
Works reminiscent of different aspects of Film Noir
There are many common characteristics of the genre of film noir.
This can range from the five features of noir to the lighting schemes. This
exhibition is to attempt to capture elements of film noir in six pieces of art.
Each piece in the exhibition compliments or contrasts another to give a whole
sense of unity to the show.
Entr’acte translates from French to ‘between the acts’. The name
is a comical take on the interlude plays that come in between scenes where
actors need to change or scenery needs to be adjusted. The film itself,
twenty-four minutes in length, is an attack of surrealistic madness which
blends together in a unique style to create a short piece of avant-garde chaos.
The film contains scenes of urban life, a ballet dancer from below and a paper
boat sailing across the rooftops, giving an idea what to expect. The lighting
is done is a way to exaggerate emotion and to strengthen the mood of the scene,
much like in film noir. The surrealists themselves admired detective stories
(such as the criminal Fantômas) so there is homage to that within the film. It
shows image manipulation that serves to create a very subjective sequence of
seemingly unrelated scenes that come together to form some sense of everyday
life. Some of the blending techniques, lighting techniques, scene switching,
etc was incorporated by film noir directors and cinematographers that came a
decade or two after this short film. This piece is the one that stands out in
the exhibition in that it is a very surreal film that blends all the other
aspects of the following pieces together to form something very close and yet
very different to film noir.
Level 3: Poetry and Dream: Realisms: Meredith Frampton – Portrait
of a Young Woman (1935)
This work, much in the same style as earlier artists such as
Gainsborough and Van Dyck who also painted tradition full length portraits of
women. The angle of the piece seems to a bit confusing with some of the areas
painted from above and some painted from straight on, which adds to the subtle
surreal element. The vase designed by Frampton emulates the physique of the
woman and colours of the dress. It could be seen as a critique on
metaphorically objectifying women. The string bass is also in the idealistic
figure shape for a woman.
Film noir came a few years after this painting,
but the fashion hints that film noir and the painting are from similar periods
in time. The painting really captures the elegance of the femme fatale through
the very soft curves and colours. She is portrayed very gracefully but with a
hint of fire signified by the confident pose and expression on the face. Really
the only thing separating this painting from the film noir femme fatale would
be a hat of some kind.
Level 5: States of Flux: Machine Eye: Lewis W. Hine - Workers in Tenements (1912)
Acting as a contrast to the Meredith Frampton painting, this shows
another type of female in film noir, the housewife. Although not from the same
era, the picture helps to demonstrate more the state of mind of the housewife
character rather than what it was literally like for her. A very humbling
overtone is shown in the picture which is demonstrated by the figures in
retracted positions with their heads looking down. The lighting serves to
create awkward shadows and illuminate certain objects to bring some kind of
unity and dramatic appeal to the photograph. The housewife character in film
noir is usually obedient of the husband and not as glamorous as the other types
of single females. She is there to serve in the background, and is not as lit
up.
Level 5: States of Flux: Machine Eye: Dorothea Lange – San
Francisco (1933)
This is a complementary piece to the Meredith Frampton piece and
the Lewis Hine piece. The men in the photograph are at an outdoor meeting in San
Francisco
Yellow Islands is a very
fluid and intuitive painting that shows a wild abstract scene. This chaotic
piece is not exactly something you will see in a noir literally like the three
pieces above. However, it does share many characteristics of noir. If we take a
film noir’s point of view, we could interpret the piece to represent different
things. The chaos of the piece itself can be representing the chaos of the
urban city life and settings in noir. High contrasts are something that can be
seen literally in both noir and this painting. In 1947, Jackson Pollock said
“When I am painting, I am not much aware of what is taking place”, much like
the characters in noir. The dripping black in the centre is the blood from the
murder which all the chaos seems to revolve around. The entire puzzle is
masking the real culprit which the detective has to find. Everything is
connected even though it seems hard to see where one thing starts and another
thing ends which corresponds to the messy but structured storylines of noir.
Raincoat Drawing is one of around forty drawings of empty rooms.
The arrangement resembles a set in a play or film so is ideal for noir. The
setting is not quite as extravagant as typical noir indoor setting but it helps
to contrast against the overly busy outdoor setting. This is quite the opposite
of the Pollock piece in which interpretation is the most important factor. The
piece is quite calming with not much going on except for in the painting with a
rather sinister looking tree and possible figures on the left of it. The high
contrast of the room to the furniture also adds a ghostly uneasiness like the
tension that is built in noir. ‘If
the drawings succeed in conveying an emotion, it’s because they might give the
sense that something has happened or is going to happen’, Muñoz said. ‘Either you’re too early or too
late. It's always the wrong moment.’ This sums up the menacing tinge in the air
in this seemingly peaceful scene.
Laura: A Film Noir Analysis
Don't ask why... Not especially well written,
but I figure what's the point of these old essays sitting on my desktop? Maybe
some student can make use of it? The next few essays will be random pieces I wrote a long time ago on history or art. These weren't written for the sake of writing and they're severely less eloquent I feel than I am capable of now.
24-10-2006
To what
extent are Gledhill’s five features of noir evident in Laura? At what points in
your view do they diverge from Gledhill’s model?
Film noir is a fairly recognisable
style but much harder to explain. Gledhill outlines in the 1980 publication, Women
in Film Noir that in her opinion, there are five common features of
film noir. Gledhill’s article is accurate of the general trends in noirs
although the emphasis is on feminism and females in noirs. I will outline these
features and then evaluate how well (or not so well) the 1944 Otto Preminger
film Laura fits these five features.
The first feature of film
noir outlined by Gledhill is ‘Investigative narrative structure’. Essentially,
this is the ways in which the male lead, often a detective investigates in
search of the truth.[1] This
is done through neutral questioning of the characters in the film. The
detective character usually works out who the culprit is before the audience
does and goes on an elaborate scheme to expose him. This adds to the suspense
of film noirs.
The second feature of film noir is flash-backs and voiceovers. The voiceover is
often from the point of view of the protagonist. The voice of the protagonist
gives us a linear way of thinking and allows us to see the thoughts and
reactions of the character. We are given the opportunity to see if the events
we see are any different to the events that the voiceover character describes. The
flash-back device is used to disrupt the linear flowing plot. It is an
effective device for suspense as the character may seem in a certain mood and
we are left wondering what will happen in the flashback to take the character
to where he is.
The third feature of noir
is point of view. Point of view often works with voiceovers as we often
automatically relate better to the voiceover character. There is often a
struggle for dominance within the more technical aspects of the film (like
screen time, camera angles, etc) in an attempt to give a certain individual’s
point of view. Often since we do not see the entire picture, we only get
fragments of characters or events that have happened from different people’s
subjective stories.
The next feature of noir
is the characterisation of the heroine. She is often portrayed as a beautiful
femme fatale who is independent. Usually, at least more than one male character
(if not all), desires her. Since sexuality was strictly forbidden to be shown
literally, a lot more subtle suggestions and hints have to be used. The femme
fatale often distracts the straight-arrow detective who is trying to piece the
clues together. This character contrasts with the good housewives, the victims
and in some noirs, the evil money-hungry girlfriends[2].
Since Gledhill’s article is from a feminist perspective, I would assume from a
neutral perspective, this feature of noir would just be ‘characterisation’.
Detective characters are lone rangers who are often straight arrows that also
become obsessed with the heroine. They usually are flawed emotionally in
someway. The culprit is usually well hidden as the culprit throughout the film,
although there are visual clues. Often everyone in the film has a reason for
the murder.
The final aspect of noir
is the visual style. This includes things like lighting schemes and
camera-angles. This often goes with the other features such as
characterisation, in which the femme fatale is often always bathed in light and
point of view, where the angles are often from the protagonist’s view. The
lighting is also important for the more shady characters that are often in the
shadows. A character that is higher up the social ladder is often seen to be on
a higher plane literally than other characters and take up more of the screen
during shots. Obviously, these are just general trends that Gledhill has
noticed and are not the tick-lists in which film noir has to follow. Because of
this, each noir follows the features in some ways, but also has its own
defining uniqueness.
Laura contains all the five features to different extents. The investigative
narrative structure is clearly evident through the detective, Mark McPherson
played by Dana Andrews. Throughout the film, this character questions and plays
games with the other characters. His questioning of all the characters is quite
forward since he’s there to do his job and not care what other people think, as
shown by him not being phased by Lydecker’s forward suggestions. “Did it
ever strike you that you're acting very strangely? It's a wonder you don't come
here like a suitor with roses and a box of candy - drugstore candy, of course.
Have you ever dreamed of Laura as your wife, by your side at the Policeman's
Ball or in the bleachers? Or listening to the heroic story of how you got a
silver shinbone from a gun battle with a gangster?[3] Since
we do not have his voiceover, often the audience is also left in the dark to
wonder what his intentions and next actions are going to be. Because of the
lack of voiceover, we do loose some sense of the investigative narrative as we
do not have an insight to McPherson’s thoughts. He doesn’t take sides until he
truly falls for Laura. When Vince Price comes in and says that he has not slept
a wink since it happened, McPherson responds with "Is that a sign of
guilt or innocence, McPherson?" [4] The
narrative on the whole is effective with some epic lines amidst the common
pleasantries. “And thus, as history has proved, Love is Eternal. It has been
the strongest motivation for human actions throughout centuries. Love is
stronger than Life. It reaches beyond the dark shadow of Death. I close this
evening's broadcast with some favourite lines...Brief Life - They are not long,
the weeping and the laughter, love and desire and hate. I think they have no
portion in us after we pass the gate...They are not long, the days of wine and
roses. Out of a misty dream, our path emerges for a while, then closes within a
dream..”[5] The
lines uttered in the pre-recorded radio broadcast that plays while the real
Lydecker gets a shotgun to kill his love. This ambiguous speech sums up not
only Laura, but the majority of noirs that deal with the sexual and love
relationships between man and woman.
There is only
one main flashback in Laura where Lydecker describes his history with Laura.
Since we are told from Lydecker’s perspective, we really get a sense of his
feelings for Laura. Every scene she is in, in the flashbacks, she seems like an
idealized exaggeration. “But it was her own talent and imagination that
enabled her to rise to the top of her profession and stay there. She had an
eager mind always. She was always quick to seize upon anything that would
improve her mind or her appearance. Laura had innate breeding. But she deferred
to my judgment and taste.”[6] He
speaks of her fondly, but also as more of a disciple or possession than a
partner. Lydecker seems to be the character that we are led to believe as the
protagonist for the first few minutes. He starts the film with a voiceover; the
flashback is from his point of view, again with a voiceover. This may have been
done to make him seem like a less obvious suspect. Despite being the voiceover
character, it is hard to identify with him as he has an aura of uneasiness. He
watches McPherson like a voyeur in the opening scene and invites him into his
bathroom. It also ties in with point of view as it is Lydecker’s point of view
for a small proportion of the film. Laura for half the film is only ever given
to us from different people’s point of view, whether it is Lydecker, Price, the
maid or Anne. And since all these characters idealize Laura to some level, we
do not get a glimpse of the real Laura until she returns.
Laura is not really
a femme fatale in the traditional sense of the phrase. She is quite timid and
refrains from being rude. She does possess qualities of a femme fatale like the
independence, ambitiousness and (willingly or unwillingly) infatuating all the
main male characters in the film. All the other main characters are quite
stereotypical; there’s the rich, snobbish, jealous old man, the playboy
boyfriend, the maid who would go to any lengths to protect Laura and her
desperate aunt. Jealousy is a common theme in noirs and one that is often the
cause of the murder as in the case with Laura. Lydecker destroys painter that
Laura was with and eventually the thought of her with anyone else drives him to
murder. “Do you think I'm going to leave it to the vulgar pawing of a
second-rate detective who thinks you're a dame?”[7] Some
of the characters also have some link with objects. Lydecker for example owns
the grandfather clock and dies just as the face of the clock shatters.
McPherson has a little toy he plays with when he is stressed out. These subtle
differences are probably put in to differentiate the characters from their
similar counterparts from other films, and to also add a metaphorical
relationship to the objects.
The
visual style is something that is very apparent in Laura. The sharp contrasts
and dramatic lighting is blatant throughout the film. Laura is often bathed in
light, which there is a small parody off within the film where McPherson
questions Laura with a heavy lamp in her face which she objects to. Even when
the Lamp is turned off, her face is still illuminated. This scene contrasts
with the final scene where Lydecker is hiding in the shadows in the kitchen
where he is in shadow waiting. These small details help us form the personality
of characters on a more subconscious level. Another scene that stands out in a
surreal way is the scene when Laura returns after the detective falls asleep
mesmerised by her portrait. You are left wondering if it is McPherson’s dream
or reality.
So in conclusion,
although Laura contains elements of all five features of noir in someway, it
does go beyond enough to make it not completely formulaic and unoriginal. One
of the strongest divergences is that the heroine is not a real femme fatale.
The dream-like quality of the whole film is also very progressive of future
more ambitious films to come. The necorphilic love relationship between
McPherson and the assumed-to-be-dead Laura also pushes boundaries. The film was
not made to be a noir so you can tell that there are no actual guidelines that
Otto Preminger has gone through to produce this film. He did not make this film
to fit Gledhill’s five features 36 years later. Despite this, the film
obviously had things in common with other mystery-type thrillers of the time
which show through; the snappy wise-cracking detective, jealousy, harsh
lighting, the playboy boyfriend, the confident heroine, flashbacks, voiceovers
and subtle sexuality.
Filmography
Laura (1944) – Otto Preminger
Bibliography
Women in Film Noir ed. E.Ann Kaplan
(1980), Klute 1: A contemporary film noir and feminist criticism – Christine
Gledhill.
Tuesday 24 April 2012
SLU Artshow
I'm doing some artwork
for a Sri Lanka Unites artshow the SLU group is hosting sometime in the future.
Started it today and this is the progress. I'm sure someone's thought of this
idea before. I've heard and totally understand than Sinhalese friends are
uncomfortable with the tiger emblem because of the associations and in all
honesty, I don't think many Tamils are comfortable with the association of the
Sri Lankan flag with the Government of Sri Lanka. So yeah fairly basic idea
Tiger + Lion = Tiglon....
Symbolism aside, both
just incredible animals and a combination of the two is even better
especially if I just take some artistic liberties and just amalgamate anything
I like in either.
The other idea floating
around in my head is of more substance but it is going to be pretty hard to
pull off. Hopefully it will materialise because it's much better....
Thursday 19 April 2012
Skit [2]
While compiling the half finished articles on my desktop, I
realised they were mostly to do with philosophy, politics, faith, religion and
superstition. This is purely because they're such interesting topics for me.
The most important questions about life. So just a preface to avoid the
"militant atheist/lefty" label that is given as libel to
opposing opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)