The stylistic practices that the Ozu’s Tokyo Story (1953) undertakes have been the reason why this film has remained a film studies favourite. I was particularly interested in the temporality of the film. The film was very serene in its approach to depict the universal concerns that we all face in life when it comes to relationships with our family.
The de-emphasis on plotline could be argued as a way of drawing the audience away from results but towards process. Ozu’s idiosyncratic style of relying on insinuation to progress with his story is demonstrated by the exclusion of events within the film’s narrative. The narrative ellipses left out critical events in the characters’ lives but in doing so they remained effectively insightful. Thus the ellipses dictated the pace of the film which, as it turned out, to be quite slow. But rightly so as it allowed for character development and a plot that unravelled at a pace that allows you to be immersed in the atmosphere of the film. This level of restraint in the film’s narrative that Ozu implements allows for an almost ‘special effect’ when the peak of the film arrives. We see this in Noriko’s breakdown towards the end of the film demonstrating the true acting ability of Setsuko Hara which was otherwise quite bland and wooden before this moment in the film.
The slowness of pace was also a testament to a different way of representing modernity; this transcended also to what was on screen. The film displayed a very calming and tranquil feel about the atmosphere. The imagery in the first few scenes where there are shots of various elements of the city including trains, a clothes line, automobiles and so on were visually composed to create sense of tranquillity. Ozu was very much patient with his imagery and was devoid of the need to hectically edit. In terms of narrative, there is an almost circular feel about the film’s temporality. In the beginning before the grandparents leave, their neighbour says “Your children will be looking forward to your arrival”, in the end however, the grandmother dies. As a result we have come full circle; life is a resolved and there is a sense of completed feeling.
Ozu’s use of the narrative ellipses reminded me a lot of the recent film Atonement (2007) directed by Joe Wright. Similar to Tokyo Story, the film involves the relationships wrought by time and the inevitability of separation and loss. Atonement characterised the same temporal attributes Ozu executed in Tokyo Story in that it was slow-paced and imbued with omitted critical events. The film is divided into the three different periods of time that span throughout the characters’ lives. In between these periods of time, critical events occur and are not included in the film. I felt that the slow momentum of the film was really effective in building the narrative. Again, we see the emphasis of the process over outcome.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Questions of Gender in Vidor's 'The Fountainhead' (1949)
Rand’s The Fountainhead (1949) delve into themes of ideology and gender. Rand introduced the philosophy of objectivism whereby every man must live for himself and the individual is supreme and selfishness is a virtue. This philosophy seems to cross over to her portrayal of gender in the film. Also, what I found most intriguing about the film was the representation of sexuality through the metaphorical use of architecture.
The film creates a strong sense of masculinity. We see this through the film’s protagonist, Howard Roark, a man who strives for individuality, never wanting to compromise his creative integrity and vision in life. Roark’s strong-willed and inherent virility renders him the epitome of masculinity. For Rand, Roark represents the ideal of her objectivist philosophy; he symbolises the attributes of selfishness and self-righteousness that all people should emulate and admire.
The inclusion of skyscrapers combined with Roark’s character were symbols of her most revered principles of superiority of reason and rationality over emotion. Rand’s fascination with skyscrapers alluded to American achievement; it symbolised the society and culture that constructed and sustained such a building type. Roark’s towering stature is a visual symbol of m asculinity and his ego as are the skyscrapers he designs and builds. This is depicted in the film where the camera zooms in of what appears to be a life-size skyscraper but is then revealed to be a miniature version model next to which Roark stands as the camera pans out.
Moreover, the only female character, Dominique Francon, in the film is herself masculine. She characterises a woman who is only capable of self-dominance and destructive acts – all traits that are masculine. Her wardrobe changes throughout the film are a testament to this as well. From the beginning we see her dressed in a glamorous negligee to wearing masculinised attire including riding pants as well as wielding a crop. Rand labelled her a masochist and it seemed this is what drove her affair with Roark. In Dominique’s eyes, Roark was the only man that could ever match her standards. He was a man of power and self-dominance. Dominique becomes irrevocably in love with Roark as a result of the masochistic nature of their relationship, where to sustain their relationship, they must draw away from eachother.
Perhaps what I found to be profound was the philosophical ideas the film manifested. The idea of living a life by the judgement of one’s own mind is a philosophy that I try to live by. Although this philosophy is and has been proven to be quite controversial in that it contravenes attitudes towards moral institutions like religion and governmental organisations, I stand from a bi-partisan viewpoint. Whilst the philosophy of objectivism promotes personal freedom and individual thinking, it goes against the views of humanist philosophy whereby morality calls for people to sacrifice themselves for others.
The film creates a strong sense of masculinity. We see this through the film’s protagonist, Howard Roark, a man who strives for individuality, never wanting to compromise his creative integrity and vision in life. Roark’s strong-willed and inherent virility renders him the epitome of masculinity. For Rand, Roark represents the ideal of her objectivist philosophy; he symbolises the attributes of selfishness and self-righteousness that all people should emulate and admire.
The inclusion of skyscrapers combined with Roark’s character were symbols of her most revered principles of superiority of reason and rationality over emotion. Rand’s fascination with skyscrapers alluded to American achievement; it symbolised the society and culture that constructed and sustained such a building type. Roark’s towering stature is a visual symbol of m asculinity and his ego as are the skyscrapers he designs and builds. This is depicted in the film where the camera zooms in of what appears to be a life-size skyscraper but is then revealed to be a miniature version model next to which Roark stands as the camera pans out.
Moreover, the only female character, Dominique Francon, in the film is herself masculine. She characterises a woman who is only capable of self-dominance and destructive acts – all traits that are masculine. Her wardrobe changes throughout the film are a testament to this as well. From the beginning we see her dressed in a glamorous negligee to wearing masculinised attire including riding pants as well as wielding a crop. Rand labelled her a masochist and it seemed this is what drove her affair with Roark. In Dominique’s eyes, Roark was the only man that could ever match her standards. He was a man of power and self-dominance. Dominique becomes irrevocably in love with Roark as a result of the masochistic nature of their relationship, where to sustain their relationship, they must draw away from eachother.
Perhaps what I found to be profound was the philosophical ideas the film manifested. The idea of living a life by the judgement of one’s own mind is a philosophy that I try to live by. Although this philosophy is and has been proven to be quite controversial in that it contravenes attitudes towards moral institutions like religion and governmental organisations, I stand from a bi-partisan viewpoint. Whilst the philosophy of objectivism promotes personal freedom and individual thinking, it goes against the views of humanist philosophy whereby morality calls for people to sacrifice themselves for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)