Tokyo: Fun for the whole family!

While I wouldn't call Ozu's Tokyo Story funtastic or tell everyone to break out the popcorn at the very mention of it, the film left me with a few questions:

Does this film remove or redeem humanity, so often removed by modernist cinema?
What does the effect of the still camera give the film?
How do camera angles present domesticity in the film and how does this contrast to the title of the film?
And How much did Bridgestone pay to get that tyre in there?

On first watching the film, it seems that it highlights the absence of humanity in the family. However, perhaps the greatest commentary on humanity is through its absence. Noriko is the most human character and we see how she is affected by the death of her mother in law. In contrast the detachment of other characters may be seen as a mechanism to deal with the loss of their brother and later their mother, and also with the war which is implicit in the film. Where other films question humanity through commodities ('House') or exaggerating humanity (Mabel's dancing in 'Piccadilly'), the absence of humanity in Tokyo Story raises more appropriate and less cynical questions. It is an absence due to loss, specifically human loss. This is primarily a film about relationships and relationships lost.

This is the first of the films we have seen in which the characters move around in the frame while the camera remains still. This cinematography gives a fly on the wall effect. Perhaps it is more of a fly stuck on the wall. I found myself wanting them to do something more exciting. Maybe that is just my image of modern Tokyo or current films but the lack of emotion coupled with the lack of movement really slowed down the film. I was reminded of Rose Hobart and how it was slowed down to become almost hypnotic. It was like Ozu has the same obsession with this family as Cornell had with Rose Hobart.

The human is also represented in camera angles. In what seems at first to be a game of how-low- can-Ozu-go, the low placement of the camera encapsulates the audience in the world of the characters. Alternatively, other films look down upon characters. We are placed within the living space of the film. And this is exactly what we see throughout the film; living. Characters perform everyday tasks like cleaning and locking doors. It is almost anti-cinematic.

The title implies a focus on the city and yet we see very little of the cityscape or even the streets. It is as though the city is made of domestic spaces. The story isn't about going to Tokyo or even being in Tokyo. The setting is Tokyo and yet the story is exclusively about the family. The domestic space and the everyday activities focus the story on the people in the film, not on the settings or the costume. Eames' 'House After Ten Years' is also focused on the domestic but the absence of people means the audience is detached. Where House defines humanity through commodities, Tokyo Story presents humanity as relationships (no matter how dysfunctional they may be).

xoxo

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead is a story which leaves nothing to the imagination. It is a single dimension where nothing is insinuated or implied. This novel and its film counterpart are the answer to the shadows and newspapers of Piccadilly. The characters are as subtle as buildings. The psychological intrigues, hidden desires and ambiguities which are pivotal to other films, novels and artworks are made explicit in The Fountainhead. Everything in the work is physically represented.

The existence of the novel itself,as a precursor to the film, is physically present as a precursor in the film. The characters thoughts and feelings are stated plainly, be it through dialogue or an over dramatic staring at ones self in the mirror.

An attempt at subtlety may be seen in the scene where Dominique visits the quarry and first sees Rourke. I am a fan of euphemisms as much as the next former-catholic-schoolgirl, but seriously, suggestively drilling into stone doesn't leave much room for interpretation (of all the machinery he could be using?!).

The use of dialogue in this novel and the film is surprisingly refreshing. Very rarely do people explicitly state how they feel and what they think. This is because the characters in The Fountainhead are just that, characters and not people. They are not real, not layered, not morally and psychologically conflicted. They are the physical embodiment of an idea of a perspective.

Real Rebels?

The whole concept of a rebel architect was a little lost on me. I was unsure whether this was meant to be a serious issue. In the beginning f both the novel and the film, Rourke is expelled because he such a dangerous little architect. I could imagine the other architects being outraged that he refrained from using columns both inside or outside. And as their monocles fall into their glasses of champagne Rourke puts on a pair of aviator sunglasses and a leather jacket and rides off on a motorcycle.

This comical rebel reminded me of The Crying of Lot 49. A rogue postal service just doesn't seem that hardcore and yet they seem to think they are the message delivery mafia. Perhaps it is just the years of dramatic tales of good and evil and characters who are genuinely rebels which makes these institutions so funny.

Having no interest in progressive architecture (seriously, can you imagine how many people it will take to wash the windows on the new law school building?), I could not relate to the ideas of Howard Rourke. The coldness and flatness of his designs were matched only by the coldness and flatness of himself. They raised the issue of function over fashion as well as designer and audience. If Rourke wants to make his buildings without compromise then he and his ideas can live on the street for the rest of his life. Art is more eternal than anything functional. Function is temporal and is explicit and is not what people want. People want fantasy, not reality.

There are elements of The Fountainhead which did not annoy me. The explicit nature of the characters was a good thing. The unmediated honesty is a welcome change from other novels and films.

King Kong vs Wise Blood

The similar experience of the cinematic in both King Kong and Wise Blood is most significant given the juxtaposing themes and beliefs exemplar in these texts. The aesthetic and meaning in the two works are so different that the cinema experience becomes a uniting factor and this is the strongest perception of the cinema in these two texts.

In the beginning...

To start with the differences, these films are definitive opposites. King Kong is a story about an expedition whereas Wise Blood is about homecoming. The image of the wold in these works is subsequently very different. King Kong is a worldly film. This is not only seen in the juxtaposing of New York and Skull Island. It is apparent with every reference to other countries which are scattered over the globe. They are western and oriental, big and small. What is most important about these references is that they are fluent. Where Wise Blood is isolated to Southern American culture, a region synonymous with racial distinctions and judgment of neighboring cultures, King Kong is not judgmental but curious about foreign culture.

This is best shown in the scene where the characters first interact with the native population on the island. That the two groups communicate in the native is significant. When I went to Hong Kong with family, they seemed to believe anyone could understand English if it was spoken loud and slow enough. For this reason, I was surprised to see the respect that the Americans in King Kong had for other cultures. They seem to acknowledge the customs of the natives. The initiative to try film the ritual suggests curiosity and want to understand this.

In contrast, Wise Blood is focused on judgment. The characters believe they have knowledge and are not curious about others or the world. This is subsequent to the world experience they believe they have. Belief is an interesting concept in Wise Blood. The nature of religion is belief without knowledge. What faith is there in a church without Christ?

Human vs Divine...

As Wise Blood debates the nature of divinity, King Kong offers question on the nature of humanity. Apes behaving as humans, humans dressing and acting as apes. Humans, perhaps, are trying to capture these primitive instincts. It may suggest that humans are not so progressed from apes. In the film they are driven by desire and not controlled by reason. It exposes the animalistic in the human.

Alternatively, human is all there is for Wise Blood. The very title insinuates reason and knowledge. Furthermore, Blood is aesthetically human and, more importantly, mortal. The absence of ultimate divinity assumes a certain divinity in the human.

After reading/watching these works consecutively we are left with a definitive human experience, between the animalistic and the divine.

And now, the cinema...

The balance which is humanity is dramatized in the cinematic experience. It allows for creation of people through characters, the control of fate within the plot and it creates followers. It also provides for expression of unrestricted desires, as seen in Piccadilly. In the experience, film allows for escape from reason and can expose innate emotions, as seen in Wise Blood. The cinema construction and experience is what unites these two opposing films.

Musings on Manhatta

After watching Manhatta I was surprised at how similar that representation of New York is to the modern city. I was in New York over Christmas and some of the pictures which define the modern city were mirrored exactly in the definitive symphony, Manhatta.

There is a constant flow of people. The images of construction in the film are eerily prophetic of the modern identity as a major attraction is the World Trade Centre site. The symbol of trains is still indicative of cosmopolitan life in Manhattan. The global image of New York as a leading world city and a dynamic city is at odds with the persistent, static industry which defines the city.

"Piccadilly": Illuminating Desires

This film exposes the tension between public and private and the realm of spectacle. There is the division of backstage and the dance floor, the club patrons and the performers and the club restaurant and the kitchens. There is the choreographed, self-conscious realm of the public and the individual, desire-driven space of the private. This idea of hidden or private spaces is also seen through the use of newspapers, screens and closed doors. The news print is indicative of public knowledge and mass production and hiding behind this medium is an allegory for the private lives of topical characters or the real stories behind topical events. In the opening scenes both Vic and Mabel step out from closed doors as though they are entering their public persona's. The private space of Mabel can be seen to encourage the tension between these worlds as she is always dressed as though for performance. She seems to conduct herself as though she is being watched even in the privacy of her room. There are parts of her character which do differ from public to private. When performing she wears very little and shows a lot of skin. She is highly energetic and outgoing. Backstage she is covered with scarves and hiding behind newspapers and her face is shadowed.

The coat room can be seen as an in between place where the ladies are both preparing and performing. They are seen by the other ladies and themselves and yet they are combing their eyebrows (?!) in a mixture of composure and freedom. Their images are multiplied and illuminated in the mirrors. This use of mirrors is followed at the bar with fragmentation and reflection of the customers.

In the first scene of the club the couples dancing appear kaleidoscopic in the centre of the room. From this perspective the cinema audience is looking down on the balcony and dance floor and in turn the people on the balcony are watching the people on the dance floor. It is like taking pictures of people taking taking pictures.

This layering mirrors the layering of public and private domains in the movie. It highlights the spectacle of this space.The exposure of the private exposes the suppressed desires of the characters. For Shosho this is her want of dancing which she can express in her space in the scullery at the beginning of the film. Being discovered and reprimanded begins the pattern of exposing desires and their consequences.
The witnessing of the personal/ private space is reflective of the witnessing of desires. Arguably the film encourages the separation of public and private as the intrusion of the two prove deadly.

The concept of mirroring in the film can be discussed in terms of the film imitating life. As Shosho outshines Mabel in the club, Anna May Wong is seen as the lead instead of Gilda Gray. Wikipedia lists Anna May Wong ahead of Gilda Gray in their entry on the film. Most images of the film feature Wong where there would usually be the protagonist. This is arguably because of the expectations of the cinema audience. This 'ugly duckling' or 'underdog' style plot always captures the imagination and interest of the audience because of the character who is transformed not the one who starts on top. This sounds clichéd and old fashioned but this years Academy Award winner for Best Film, Slumdog Millionaire, had this same age old story line proving this pattern is still a favorite for cinema audiences. The reason, i believe, is that it encourages that desires are attainable and it is always uplifting no matter how many times it is repeated.
Unfortunately for 'Piccadilly' the exploration of desire does not lead to a happy ending but the development of Anna May Wong's character is what makes her the favorite above Gilda Gray.

The Blood of a Poet

The opening of this film looks like someone tried to dress up as a mummy but got confused trying to cover his suit. He eventually figures himself out and his shirt seems to disappear with the wrapping. He still wears his powdered wig though so he seems to have moved on to the renaissance. Upon removing his wig he becomes a modern character. While the costume marks the progression of history the writing reflects a digression from persisting coat of arms to early insignias and enigmas.
The main concern of the film is arguably misrepresentation and artistic expression and hidden truths. The quote about the 'blood and tears' and the similarities of a coat of arms and poetry could be about how artists or poets transform physical and emotional pain into an appealing art form, be it lyrics or a painting. The negative family relations and qualities are hidden behind a coat of arms which stands to represent that family seemingly truthfully. In both cases the reality of the representation needs to be interpreted as the image or lyric is a consciously constructed facade.
The ambiguity of the poet is also seen visually as his silhouette is seen through the canvas. His identity is hidden in his artwork. Then he appears beside his work and we see he is actually shirtless and wearing a funny wig.
The brief images of industry (chimney or buildings) reinforce the theme of construction, reconstruction and deconstruction.
The wire frames also show transparency and subsequent vulnerability. Exposing oneself in any art form opens the artist to personal criticism as well as artistic criticism. Honesty in art is therefore harder and takes more courage. In music it is easy to sing songs which others have written and don't have a real message. And its not only being honest but what you are being honest about which attracts criticism. You can be the millionth person to write and perform a love song and you are praised for your skills but if you write about your experiences with death and depression you are labeled 'emo' and don't get the same respect. It is harder to express to an artists family and the general public an artists hard times and pain than about love or clubbing. The blood of these poets is transformed into tragically beautiful lyrics and they expose issues that mainstream pop or uniform hip hop and RnB don't approach. The personal becomes public and while the purity of the inner emotion and passion is corrupted through this expression, great artists can create the aesthetic and the message.
There is a bit of a conundrum in artistic expression. You can be honest and risk being criticized for personal experiences but maintain integrity and pride. You can mask the experiences behind the art and blend in with everyone else. You can remove yourself altogether and paint or write or perform others work and be successful.