Blog Posts – Page 3 – Beyond Four Corners

Spaghetti Western – The Dirty Art form

Saloons flocking with tramps, merchants and gunslingers. Women with braided hair, carrying pails to and fro. Horses trotting through the streets. Men wearing ragged shawls to avoid the dust waves that endlessly plague those who travel on the roads of the desert. Farmhands working tirelessly to turn an honest penny at the end of the day. These are some of the most commonly found elements of any western film that you may have watched or wish to see.

Westerns are usually considered to be part of the older wave of American culture, and is still preserved, although in recent times, production of such films has abated. The lucrativeness that these films carried were profound in the early second half of the 20^th century, but are no longer the key to commercial success.

Westerns have been around since the beginning of cinema. The common perception to anyone in the world would be that Westerns are usually pertaining to the native culture of America, with large parts of a western film being set during the days of the American civil war. But, the prospect of profits brought a lot of attention with it. Americans usually used to star and direct the majority of westerns. But, the bandwagon cannot be profitable and only fill the pockets of the Americans. Ever since the start of the western wave of movies, the world had adapted its own versions to join in on the action.

The first and most significant group of people to capitalize on these movies were the Italians. And to no surprise all the Italian made westerns were given the prefix of spaghetti, the latter being an element of the Italian staple diet. The perceived beginning of the genre, which was usually set against the American west dates back to the final years of the 19^th century and throughout the first half of the 20^th century. But, the elements that shaped the spaghetti western genre as an art form had not come into the picture until Sergio Leone stepped in.

Why I choose Leone as an anchoring point to elaborate on this genre is because of the widespread critical acclaim and box office success that followed suit post his arrival onto the scene. His father and mother were both no outsiders to theatre and film, making Leone interested in filmmaking from a rather young age.

To give you a better understanding as to what Spaghetti Western is, here is my self-styled definition –

“A film that is bankrolled and usually helmed and acted by Italians, with the budget of the film being cheaper than the usual western movie “

The economic and thrift approach that the production house has towards the film is clearly evident from the above definition. But from the perspective of comparing both the American western and the European western, what distinguishes both of them is something to look into.

Visual Presentation

A scene from The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (1966)

The key difference that is almost immediately evident to the viewer is the rather cheap nature of proceedings in the film. The film is visually shabby, it’s characters usually smeared with soot and oil, the costumes ordinary. It almost appears that the sets have not been cleaned just to add to the theatrical effect, making it contrasting to the American westerns where there is a clear presence of tidiness. The structures and objects in the film are usually disarraying because of the lack of attention to visual appeal, which makes sense, given that the directors are not equipped with a budget to devote time to visual factors, and these kind of spaghetti westerns are usually driven by substance more than serenity. The camera in these films are used as an additional tool in adding to the effect of storytelling. To help emphasize the stark difference between the two genres, here is an image from The Searchers (1956)

It is immediately visible that the costumes are different, looking brighter and much tidier. The backdrop alludes to the farmers whose houses are rather humble in appearance. The American western tries to act as the actual representation of the agrarian and rural side of America, therefore the clean presentation of crimson red sunsets, formal attires, vast ranches, and the social structures of the society are all shaped to be as approximate as possible, trying to adhere to the steadfast believes of the early American society. A key difference is because Spaghetti westerns are usually shot in European locations such as Spain or Italy, usually against an American set-up, like the civil war in America, whereas American westerns are shot in America itself. This is usually done by production houses situated in Europe to make it cost efficient by increasing the geographical proximity.

Ideals and Morals

Ideals and morals that are usually within the film resonate to high-held American values such as integrity and justice and faith. Contrastingly, the Italian version usually draws from violence that may have arisen from greed, which leads to violence. This is why Spaghetti westerns are characterized by key incidents linking to crime and dacoity. Although the latter does exist in Westerns also, Spaghetti westerns are inherently based on bounty hunters and crime fighters. The idealistic values about family and contribution to the society are usually never present within the lead characters.

Here. Let’s take the example of the iconic Tuco Ramirez from The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (1966) to elaborate on that point. The scene is constructed by Leone to bring out the difference between Tuco and his brother, the morally wrong and right, and equips his character with a resound argument that is justifiable from his spur-fitted shoes. Leone’s characters are usually driven by their actions, and moreover, carry justifiable statements for those actions. The entire film is loosely hung on the spine of an incident about crime or bounty hunting, but the treatment that usually makes Leone’s films extremely engaging to watch are his characters. Be it throughout the duration of the film or for a single sequence, each character is usually shaped to be distinct and different from one another, and therefore adding to the dramatic value of the film.

The Storytelling Toolkit

The final Mexican stand-off in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly can be a fine example to highlight how Leone uses his storytelling toolkit to elicit, in my opinion, one of the most engaging sequences in the history of filmmaking and also draw a comparison between the elements of this toolkit to how normal westerns are treated. The two elements that standout to make this scene memorable, apart from fine acting, are the music and the camera.

Ennio Morricone is a genius in film scoring and his finest work is with director Sergio Leone, and especially highlighted in this one key sequence. His film scores are usually unconventional, and are a culmination of musical sounds that are not usually found in the American western. Il Buono il Brutto il Cattivo, the main theme of the film consists of sounds that are rather unconventional but resonate to the theme of the film. The quirky noises in the background score are similar to that of the howls of coyotes, whistles, and humming. The music helps in adding to the prevalent intensity that the narrative carries, and this is further aided by the camera to multiply the effect of intensity, helping the viewers grasp what is in the frame completely. Tonino Delli Colli, the cinematographer for the film usually adopts close up shots because all the three films of the Dollars trilogy, are based on a single key incident of crime or bounty hunting, and therefore, intensity can usually be elicited from characters by giving a close up shot in any sequence. The close-ups play a major role as Leone builds the suspense in the final sequence, as the standoff is first shown from a wider perspective and then moving into a closer perspective, slowly taking the audience from their seats, closer to the audience.

Commercial Bandwagon and Lack of recognition at the awards –

After Leone had tasted success both commercially and critically, he was followed by many of his countrymen who saw this as an opportunity to boost their financial prospects, which lead to the proliferation of spaghetti western films released with the sole intention of making money. Ruthless infringement saw narratives being repeated with tweaks, and the genre becoming a commercial avenue with Italian filmmakers trying to ride on the success of their predecessors with little to no effort on their own, causing the Spaghetti western genre to die down before the 80’s.

This diaspora of Italians overhauling the cherished American western, caused the Americans to coin the term Spaghetti western. This was not actually a compliment as it is evident that the Americans were patronizing their European counterparts, scrutinizing the majority of Italian filmmakers for their uncouth representation of the American culture and the rampant infringement. This was present even amongst the Jury of The Academy in the year 1967, which saw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly not receiving any nominations. The interracial differences prevalent in those days had led to one of the best films not being recognized for commendable work.

To conclude, Leone and his team had deserved recognition for his work in the Dollars trilogy, but due to political reasons, were not given the privilege of having their work being recognized in their time, although the film is now considered as a masterclass amongst most of the current generation because the film was watched through the naked eye and not political lenses. Art is art, it doesn’t matter if it was a painting created by a poor boy under dim lights or by a young girl in a lavish mansion, and should never be seen in a political perspective unless intended.

Lucid Fantasy – A dish served fresh by Wes Anderson

Watching a Wes Anderson film is like waking up in pajamas and slipping on your flip flops, opening the screens, basking in the warm, yet tender sunlight and grabbing yourself a cup of coffee and sitting down to read your favorite story book. As you flip through the pages that tingle your nose with the fresh smell of paper, your eyes fixated on the verses, have you ever wondered what it would be like if these fictional characters were thrust into real life or given a physical embodiment? What it would be like to slip into their shoes for a day?

I feel that these questions would have constantly been piquing a young Wes Anderson’s interests. As a result, his films deal with people, who on a daily basis, you would consider bizarre or eccentric. They would seem as if they popped out of a story book, from a world forgot or never known, trying to fit in the dynamic box that we call the real world. The drama that stems from his film is drawn from the basic contrast between realism and fantasy. Two elements, completely unrelated to each other, put in a jar and given the rattle treatment.

But, what I am going to address is how Wes Anderson, being the auteur he is, brings out this contrast so sharply and so vividly, yet moist and tender at parts. The two elements, theatre and literature, that I believe constitute every Wes Anderson film, and how he magically brings them to life.

Theatre and the performing arts –

The striking feature of any theatrical performance is the magnificence of its backdrop. It gives the viewer a visually enriching experience that lingers on in memory. The first element that Wes Anderson’s films are always characterized by is the attention to detail on the production design and how the set is staged. The set on which the events proceed is always designed in a grand manner, or simply put, something that you would particularly see in theatre performances. Taking the Grand Budapest Hotel, the entire film is based on events from the 20^th century. Every sequence has a different colour contrast in its backdrop, alluding to the magnificence that Europe’s elite lived in.

The second element that can be found in Anderson’s films parallel to theatre are the narrations. Narrations are seldom found in modern day ventures given the stark contrast of a narration to the pace of the films. However, theatrical performances, both from the past and the present, are always found with narrations. It helps in describing the events as they are, like a story following a linear pattern. Narrations are also an effective tool to reveal more about a character without shedding out more screen time for the same purpose, allowing the director to focus on the other aspects of the story’s progression. If you ever watched an Anderson film, the events would always seem easy to recollect, thanks to the crystal clear narration, notably Alec Baldwin in The Royal Tenenbaums or Bill Murray in The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Literature

Anderson, much like Tarantino, uses a table of contents structure in his films. Their content may be wildly different, but the structure is an example of a classic revival of story-telling in literature. By following a chapter wise progression, Anderson always keeps his audience in the loop of events, be it in a linear or nonlinear story-line, ensuring that they understand the sequence of events, freeing them to pay more attention to the characters and visuals, absorbing this world of infused fantasy.

The second element that Anderson draws heavily from literature is his characters. Anderson’s characters are always unique, odd, and bizarre and are often the anchoring point of his films. His films deal with characters that are portrayed as reverent figures but are usually flawed in their lifestyle. This was what I had earlier described as the physical embodiment of a character. The best of children’s literature or even fictional novels often describe a character as they seem to appear. But Anderson gives his audience a feeling to walk in their shoes. Feel what they feel, see what they see and listen to what they listen, in the course of their days and weeks.

To help me illustrate my point better let me take a scene from the final stages of the resolution of The Fantastic Mr. Fox. Mr. Fox feels that he should not have toyed with the farmers, which has brought upon ill-fate to all of the animal community. When asked why by Mrs. Fox, he gives a reason he believes is what caused him to commit these acts. Coupled with George Clooney’s voice, it almost feels as if you could understand what Mr. Fox feels – guilt and regret, but not pity for himself. He is not ashamed of his actions, he just feels his ambition had got the better of him. This is a classic example of how characters from a book would be like if they were given a voice and a visual embodiment, and in this case, it is Mr. Fox from the Roald Dahl classic.

Another fine example would be from Moonrise Kingdom, when Sam and Suzy have a conversation about being an orphan. Suzy states that being an orphan is what she has always wanted and had never wanted parents. She thinks orphans are special because most of her favorite books have orphans as their lead characters. Sam replies that Suzy does not understand the pain of not having parents and that books don’t tell you what it feels to not have parents. In a way, Sam is an embodiment of an orphan character from a storybook, and giving him a physical presence and emotional perspective, Wes Anderson brings the character closer to real life while he keeps the peculiarities intact.

The Magic of Wes Anderson – Camera Movements

All elements stated, now comes the big question. How does Anderson bring these characters to life? How does he engage the viewer to such a great extent? Does he have a secret vial hid inside his coat that carries the essence for visual resplendence? The answer to all the questions is perfected camera movements and shots that place the audience in a much closer proximity to the physical embodiment and mental space of the character, giving the viewers a much more enhanced physical and emotional connect.

Anderson considers his viewers like the audience of a drama/theatre performance. And their eyes which are used to see the events of the stage is the camera that captures the film. I’m going to take instances from four of his films The Royal Tenenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom, the Darjeeling Limited and The Grand Budapest Hotel to help my point.

In the Moonrise kingdom, the opening scene follows the disappearance of a young khaki scout Sam Shakusky. As the Scout master and the other khaki scouts search for him, Anderson places this scene, where Scout master Ward notices the tent is zipped from the inside and opens the tent and it can be seen that all characters involved in the scene are directly staring into the lens of the camera. By using this type of a shot, Anderson creates a suspense effect, as the viewers would be pondering as to what the characters see. Although it is momentary, in any stage of the film, it helps in establishing a better actor-viewer relationship, making it more engaging for the viewer as they follow the actor.

In The Royal Tenenbaums, Anderson extensively uses Medium shots that focus on a single character, from a medium range that depicts only the character and his/her immediate surroundings. By using this as a camera method, Anderson can effectively increase the proximity between the actor and the viewer, bridging an emotional connect as I had earlier mentioned. In this case, Royal Tenenbaum can be seen sipping a drink as he enjoys reading the book, amidst all the medication and machinery that he had put up to fake his medical condition. The shallow nature of Royal and his idea of life being concerned with his emotional and physical wants, without any concern for the emotional state of his family is shown throughout the film and this is just one instance where Anderson uses the contrast between the surroundings and the actor to give a better understanding of what the actor is feeling, thinking or doing.

In The Darjeeling Limited , the funeral sequence is a brilliant example of Anderson using the track shot or the crab shot in lesser known terms. The shot follows the three main characters from a medium range. By fixating the three characters, Anderson gives emphasis to the surroundings and in this case the preparation for the funeral. The main characters are constant, and this enables the audience to see what the characters see as they move through the sequence. By fixating the characters, Anderson also makes it possible to see what the characters go through as they move along in a sequence. The opening scene of Moonrise Kingdom is also a brilliant example for this.

In The Grand Budapest Hotel, his most acclaimed venture, Anderson uses quite a few camera movements to give his story the right treatment. One of the most common camera shots that can be found across all of Anderson’s films are the Insert shot wherein an object or a note is given a close up, parallel to the use of a picture in a storybook or a certain excerpt or letter. The close-up focuses the object solely or with a backdrop, so that this can help put the audience in the character’s shoes as they can see what the actor sees from his/her perspective.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is also filled with a series of hard cuts and whip pans. The whip pan is used within a sequence or a scene, as Anderson tries to shift the focus from one character or object to another character or object. This shift in emphasis is used to aggravate the intensity in a scene due to the shift in focus, which is a very effective tool to keep your viewers glued to a scene and only focus on the events in which the characters act or react, with lesser focus to the environment. A hard cut is usually when the shift in focus is from one place to another or one situation to another, which Anderson uses to completely spin the action and divert it into another direction.

Since I’ve laid down all my observations, another question that would arise is the commonality of these type of camera movements and shots, what makes them unique in a Wes Anderson film? The answer would be because of the strenuous effort that goes into achieving perfection in this camera movements. Without the symmetry in the shots, or perfection in the tracking movements, it would create a rather disconcerted feeling amongst the viewers of the film. Wes Anderson expects to create a feeling of release from the banality of the mundane. His films aim to deliver rich and stunning visuals with memorable characters, and therefore no effort is spared to create the best Wes Anderson experience which is nothing but a lucid fantasy.

With Blood, From Quentin – Fleshing out Character and Intensity

Broken hinges covered with fresh blood? Bullets piercing through people as if they were pillows? Dead men adorning the red velvet carpets?

If your answer is yes to all the three questions above, you are undoubtedly in the middle of a Quentin Tarantino film. From the days of Psycho, when Alfred Hitchcock used the Bosco Chocolate syrup as blood to modern day chemical preparations, blood and violence have been the key element of Tarantino’s films. However, more than just being a tool for bringing out realism, Tarantino uses it to fill every pocket of screen space with maximum dramatic value. In this take, I’m going to explain about the purpose of violence and blood, as I see it, in Tarantino’s films.

Illuminating Character

I believe along with its ability to create jarring, carnal feelings within the viewer, blood, is also a brilliant tool to illuminate or shed light on the characters of a film, and Tarantino has been using this since his full length feature debut, Reservoir Dogs. When characters are exposed to asinine violence, it creates an interesting question to peel off the layers of a character. When the value of life, a moral question that has prevailed from the advent of society, is posed to the character, we see the response or reaction can convey to the viewer more about the character. In the post heist car scene in Reservoir Dogs, Mr. White can be seen trying to comfort Mr. Orange, who has just been shot in the gut. The car is smeared with blood, as Mr. White is trying to drive his partner to the rendezvous point, instead of a hospital.

To reflect on the scene, both these men do not know each other very well. But when Mr. Orange is shot and starts to bleed, Mr. White feels that the incident was his fault, causing him to feel compassion. However, he understands he cannot drive him to the hospital because the former happens to be the only one to know his real name, and fears that upon questioning, would reveal his identity. This internal friction between the characters is what Tarantino aims to depict, which in turn helps in creating drama. By over emphasizing the presence of blood, or by serving a scene with infused realism, the director draws the audience closer to the character, therefore creating a more engaging experience.

Taking another example from Tarantino’s greatest work, Pulp Fiction, this is yet another scene where Tarantino brings out character through a momentary act of violence. Vincent shoots Marvin in the face, causing blood to splatter all over the car. Along with the infused sense of realism that blood brings to the scene, it also brings out character. After the round is fired, this interchange between Vincent and Jules brings out the external contrast between the two main characters. The loss of life, to Vincent, is no longer a matter of pressing importance. Killing people is his occupation, causing him to become numb to the aftermath. However, Jules is the opposite of Vincent as he values life much more than that, hoping that this would be his last job as a contract killer. When you put both of them into a single frame, you are creating conflict, and with conflict, you are creating drama.

The Catharsis Effect

“Catharsis – the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions”

Like any other Tarantino film, Inglorious Basterds, also has its share of intense sequences. Taking the iconic bar scene, where Lt.Archie is in a standoff with Major Hellstrom, as he has just been discovered as an undercover agent. Firstly, the scene is crafted with intensity given the nature of the meeting, by having an interchange between two contrasting characters. Every sequence has a definitive beginning, middle and end. Tarantino is an extremely intelligent director as he realizes that conflict is what draws audience towards the film. The sequence begins with three officers going into the bar to meet an undercover agent, Bridget von Hammersmark, an actress. The scene quickly escalates in intensity as they are intruded by Major Hellstrom, and from there it progresses towards reaching a resolution, building up on intensity.

When the sequence reaches the highest point of intensity, Tarantino uses violence and blood as a release from the build-up of emotions within the viewer, therefore the catharsis effect. This is a very effective, and acts as a payoff to its lengthy build-up. All hell breaks loose as everyone starts shooting everyone, transitioning the scene from a high to a low. As all gunfire dies down, you as the viewer, get a moment to calm yourself down and can focus on the progression of the plot.

In this scene from Django Unchained, Tarantino uses the catharsis effect to much use. As Calvin Candie is shot By King Schultz, it’s followed by complete mayhem. Django, the protagonist, draws out a pistol and starts shooting his captors. This is a brilliant sequence as the repressed emotions of the characters burst onto the frame. Stephen can be seen embracing his master. Albeit being a slave, he has grown to become fond of his master, considering him a friend. After he is killed, he can be seen embracing him, mourning his loss. However, Django, on the other hand, sees this as a moment of freedom, and decides to act on it. We can see him gunfight his way through the house, seeing the people in front of him as mere obstacles rather than lives with value. Conflict, either internal or external is what helps generate the dramatic effect that is needed to fuel a story. The blood in this scene only gives us a closer experience to the character’s standpoint, but the act of violence that caused it, acts as the trigger to release the viewers from the intensity that was built-up to that point, acting as a moment of relief to completely grasp what the film offers.

I am not trying to convey that abrasive violence is the face of Tarantino’s films. Quentin Tarantino is a fine director whose films are laden with well thought out dialogues delivered in a brilliant fashion, a screenplay that is structured in an unusual yet intellectual manner and performances that are often memorable and linger on in the viewer’s memory. However, the blood and overemphasized violence that is used in his film is not to be disregarded as another cinematic gimmick, or regarded as the main theme of his films. I believe that it is an effective tool, as the incident of murder can bring out interesting sides of a character or act as the resolution of an intense build-up, both key elements in film-making.

To conclude with an interesting moral question that arises, does violence in movies instigate violent acts in real life? In his own words, Tarantino believes violence to be simple in movies, as it’s merely a theatrical effect, and must not be drawn parallel to real- world violence. Cinematic violence is merely a depiction of the asperity of violent acts that take place or have taken place in the world around us. A director is not accountable for the actions of the viewer as each individual is responsible for his or herself. Sadly, the question still continues to plague directors and producers alike.

Silence – The Resplendence of Theatrical Tranquility

When was the last time you watched a film that spanned over two and a half hours with sparse dialogues? Most people of the current generation find the absence of dialogue in long choreographed shots to be unsettling, or rather boring. However, the presence of dialogue and exchanges have overwhelmed the roots of establishing a character. Cinema began by exploring characters through the idea of moving images. Citizen Kane, the Orson Welles film that was regarded the greatest feature film in the first half of the 20^th century, used moving images, lined one after the other, to show the audience the relationship between protagonist Kane and his wife,Emily. However, as Cinema evolved, the emphasis for dialogue grew more than before.

Martin Scorsese in his historical take on Christianity in Japan during the 17^th century, Silence (2016), uses long pauses, abstaining from dialogue, because the emotional core of the character can only be found through solace. It wasn’t much of a surprise when the film opened with highly mixed set of reviews, from both critics and audience alike. Many however stated that the journey that they endured throughout Scorsese’s arduous take on Christianity to be frustrating, lacking pace and vigour. Although everyone are entitled to their own opinion, given the title and genre of the film, all the aspects that are used to criticize the film have no business to be a part of the screenplay.

Theatrical Tranquillity, as I would like to call it, is fast vanishing. Moments of silence are being viewed as awkward and unsettling, rather than being seen as a moment of intimacy or comfort. Silence is beautiful. The early directors of theatre and film used to adorn their films with picturesque backdrops, beautiful music, well-crafted dialogues and indefinite pauses of silence, be it Jean Renoir or Alfred Hitchcock. However, with time, the importance of silence has vanished, and dialogue has overshadowed the technical side of film-making. Silence attempts to revive the beauty of visual storytelling, like the life of Christ himself, told through painted images that can be found in Museums that span across Europe.

Silence in cinema is not the complete absence of sound. The combination of visuals and an occasional underlying background score is what cinematic silence or theatrical tranquillity is about. Scenes can be either devoid of sound or use music to give more emphasis, whichever the filmmaker prefers to use for complete effectiveness. Scorsese, throughout his career, has mastered the art of cinematic silence, and Silence, in my opinion, is the finest achievement of his career. In the lines to follow, I would like to elaborate about how Theatrical tranquillityweaves together the emotional core of its characters.

Silence follows the journey of Christianity into Japan during the period when preaching the religion was considered a crime, and in many cases, an offense punishable by death. Father Rodrigues and Garupe are entasked with finding the lost missionary, Father Ferreira. Scorsese does not take time in establishing the dramatic need of the protagonist, and place emphasis on the journey of the two Jesuit priests. It is not until their discovery by the natives, the emotional core of the protagonist, Father Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield), begins to establish itself.

The emotional core of a character is linked to their dramatic need. It’s what defines their actions. A strong emotional core can help in effectively communicating the emotion of the character to the audience. Scorsese understood the importance of the emotional core of his characters, and he delivers exactly what the scene requires to illuminate the character. In the case of Father Rodrigues, he is a staunch Jesuit priest, whose entire life has been built around the principles and teachings of Christianity. He believes that salvation lies within the palm of god, and those who pledge themselves to him, shall not be harmed. But, after he reaches the shores of japan, he is confronted with one obstacle after the other as he witnesses people being murdered for upholding their beliefs, which causes him to question his place and his beliefs in the island nation.

When directors/ screenwriters write or direct a story that originates from a specific time period that is set in the past, factual accuracy is important on one hand. But being solely adherent to the latter would end up resulting in a flat narrative. The tool that is used here when writing a screenplay is called as creative research. Creative research is when a screenwriter adds elements of emotion to a scene in a period drama, so that the actions of the character can be presented in a clear and concise manner to the audience. This is done because there is no account of the actual emotions or experiences, which leaves the screenwriter with the option of fabricating them. Jay Cocks and Martin Scorsese have written each scene in a manner that shows Father Rodrigues questioning his beliefs and God as he traverses Japan in solitude.

The sparseness of dialogue does not make scenes dull or boring. The purpose behind this is because the silence of the character can speak volumes in itself. Silence is ambiguous. A dialogue would only convey to the audience the amount of emotion that is surging within a character in a mere sentence, limiting the power of human perception. However, the ambiguity of Silence can heighten the perception of the viewer, giving them access to determine the level of emotion that a character is displaying in a given scene. This coupled with the soundtrack that is laced between, can prove to be the most effective tools of visual storytelling.

Upon release, Silence drew heavy fire from critics for being flat in its most crucial moments. Silence is a film that requires your attention from start to finish. Yes, it does have moments that can gnaw at your attention span, but if you can endure them, it can deliver a riveting resolution in the end, which can be very thought-provoking. I believe that in the generation of technological advancements, our attention span has been cut short, depriving us of the ability to enjoy the silence around us. Be it in our relationships, our films, our day to day life, silence has become undesirable as we are progressing at a rapid pace.

Drawing to a close, I believe Silence is Scorsese’s greatest achievement as he truly brings out his film making prowess, and is arguably his most arduous venture till date. Silence is a beautiful attempt at reviving the early elements of film and theater, by giving emphasis to character establishment through theatrical tranquility coupled with sparse, yet beautiful dialogues and cinematography. I decided to use the Oil paintings of the frame because i believe that Silence is a testament to visual film-making. A story told through pictures and paintings.I do not wish to highlight the brilliant moments of the plot, and hope that you would find the will to watch the film and appreciate the dexterity of the various aspects of film-making involved.

Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Palette : The French Revolution

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”

These words uttered by Robespierre during the Reign of Terror were not words that could be pointed to as mere rhetoric. These words laid the foundation for the walls of the French revolution within which they were to echo long after the battle was won. Many believed that these words had political underpinnings, the ideals, merely pillars of the French nation on the whole. It took a man from the dry, barren lands of Warsaw to show the world that these famous ideals are intertwined in everyday human life through the illusion of the camera.

Krzysztof Kieslowski did not try to dig deep into the annals of history, point out an instance, call forth the best of production designers and stage a grand depiction of the values in their political sense. All three of the values can be connected to Human emotions as well. Adopting the tri-colours of the flag that stand for the three values, he alludes to them as the main element of the three films, but places multiple layers beneath them, some visible, some hidden.

The Colours trilogy is an adherent of true French Cinema. The French preach art, almost worshiping the exquisiteness that flows through the mundane. The little things, as one may state, are often unnoticed. The feeling of wet soil, spilling between the clenched fist and the smell of the canvas after being summoned to life by the resplendent colours that graced the tip of the brush. Kieslowski devotes the same kind of attention in making each one of the three films before his tragic death. I would be merely pointing out to the sheer brilliance in the hope of doing justice to the artistic film-making and the ideal behind each colour.

Blue: Memory and Emotional Liberty

“It’s a little place on the Pacific Ocean. You know what the Mexicans say about the Pacific? They say it has no memory. That’s where I want to live the rest of my life. A warm place with no memory.” – Stephen King

Blue opens the Colours trilogy by talking about Liberty. Kieslowski takes the life of a woman who loses her husband and daughter in an accident. The large silence that dominates the establishment of the dramatic premise is vital, because Cinema as art tries to convey meaning through moving pictures. Waldo Salt, the famous American screenwriter, once stated that dialogue could always be altered by the actor, and the establishment of a character solely lies on the way the film unravels. Julie experiences grief, and as a natural outcome, seeks liberty. Not just physically by distancing herself from her world, but emotionally, by refraining from making relationships. The opening sequence shows her crying, for the first time in the film, but from that point onwards, her dramatic need is to seek emotional liberty, and her actions show her distancing herself, step by step, trying to find solace.

However, the quote and the color blue that represents liberty form the underlying theme of the film. Blue in this film stands for emotional liberty, and all emotions that flood the mind stem from memory. Julie runs from her life because she is unable to shoulder the burden of living alone. Kieslowski uses the mise-en-scene, or the settings that depict an event, to complete effect, almost immersing his viewers in the film.

An example of this is the swimming pool that Julie often swims in. The colour blue depicts water, and as the Mexicans state, the ocean is a place with no memory. Julie tries to leave the pool, but sinks back in and submerges herself in the water. The state of feeling warm, without memory is what Julie seeks. But Kieslowski forms a character arc that follows her tackle events of her previous life that keep coming back to her, and leading her to the resolution of the film that draws to a close with Julie making love, and appears to be crying, thereby embracing her past and accepting that love is more important than liberty. Kieslowski uses the effect of fade to black with purpose in four instances, or rather milestones in the character arc, with Zbigniew Preisner’s music along with Juliette Binoche’s brilliant performance, create much impact.

White: Equality

As pacifying as the colour may seem, Kieslowski presents White in a poignant manner. The only overlap between the previous instalment and White is the opening courtroom scene that Julie intrudes in Blue. But what Kieslowski presents after that is rather an anti-comedy, filled with moments of the bitterness that intimate relationships serve. Equality, as the colour suggests, does not allude to the horse and buggy generation that preceded us. It refers to how modern relationships involve a tussle of equality between partners. A bitter battle of getting back at each other, until love flows out in time. White talks about Karol, a Polish immigrant who is divorced by his wife, Dominique for not being able to consummate after marriage, and is turned into a vagrant that walks the alleys and tunnels of Paris. Karol is visibly still in love with his ex-wife, who albeit despises him. She torments him until he decides to flee to his homeland, where he tries to forget everything he shared with her. Kieslowski portrays his homeland as dry, barren and out of life compared to the ever-buzzing streets of Paris, almost trying to imply the inequality that exists. Karol progresses along an arc of seeking equality, which ultimately turns into exacting revenge, by burdening his ex-wife with the same pain the he endured. Through this progress, Kieslowski also questions the notions of equality, and how individuals and nations alike, seek to attain equality by hindering each other’s progress.

Red: Fraternity and Relationships

Red is my personal favourite amongst Kieslowski’s colour representations. Although the film talks about fraternity or friendship/brotherhood, the film is an embodiment of many different themes such as cynicism, romance, altruism and even serendipity to name a few. Red follows Valentine, a young model who is seen to have a dull relationship with her travelling boyfriend. Kieslowski tries to convey that digitalization has deprived relationships of their ability to convey emotions completely. Through an accident, she meets a retired judge, Joseph Kern, whose hobby is to spy on the telephone conversations of his neighbours. In my opinion, Kieslowski tries to bring out two elements. Valentine represents the world that lives and sees through a bubble, and Joseph Kern, with all his cynicism, tries to preach that altruism or relationships, be it friendly or sexual, are for individual satisfaction. The rather passive conversation that takes place in Kern’s study, is where character is revealed through dialogue. Two different point of views, with Kern stating that no act can be completely altruistic, or the driving notion is self-satisfaction in any act, while Valentine disagrees and walks away.

Red pays tribute to all of its characters, and Kieslowski gives complete attention to detail in his last film. The relationship between Kern and Valentine develops in a beautiful fashion. Kieslowski however closes his last film on rather mystifying grounds, which left me puzzled. Without touching the more intricate details of the plot, I’d like to state that Kieslowski tries to point out to the tragedy of death and destruction which culminated the French revolution, and in the end, love unites people, almost alluding that people meet by fate, either by chance or as some may believe, the plan of a greater force.

Something that I noticed and I believe many others would have as well, was that the three films were revolving around a woman. Delving into more detail, France as a nation is Feminine and by constructing each story around French-speaking women, Kieslowski tries to speak about the three ideals of the French Revolution. It was evident from how the films were constructed that Kieslowski was no moralist, he only merely tried to bring these ideals onto the frame, and as Tarkovsky states – “Never try to convey your idea to the audience — it is a thankless and senseless task. Show them life, and they’ll find within themselves the means to assess and appreciate it.”

Drawing to a close, The Colours trilogy of Blue, red and white is a testament to the artistic cinema that France adores and produces. These three films can stand alone, but viewed as whole, they serve as a much more satisfying watch, giving you much to ponder about once you conclude, like any other Art form.

Dawn of Justice – The three holy sins of Zack Snyder – Part 2/2

“Batman V Superman is undoubtedly one of the worst superhero films that could have released since the start of the century. Once again, Zack Snyder did a miserable job. He doesn’t know anything about directing, nor about the characters in his films. The film is riddled with unacceptable portrayals, cliched setups and payoffs, and a lousy plot-line. He’s insulted two of the world’s biggest superheroes in one go. “

Before I get into another process of debunking all the above mentioned criticism surrounding Snyder, I’d like to state that BvS is not a benchmark in film-making. It has its flaws in screenwriting and progression. But they are not even close to the accusations that represent them. Portraying the Dark Knight in a Grotesque Manner, portraying Superman in a bad light yet again, and using poor plot progression devices – these are the three holy sins that Zack Snyder supposedly committed while making Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice and I’m going to be explaining in detail about each one of them. For this purpose, I’m going to be referring to the Ultimate edition as it contains everything that Snyder actually wanted to convey.

The Dark Knight’s Portrayal: The First Holy “Sin”

Before I begin I’d like to put out an image that is going to aid my point and also help you understand better about the timeline of a superhero.

The Continuum

The Portrayal of Batman in BvS is as accurate as it could have been. Although I’m a big fan of Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, I believe that Ben Affleck is much more intimidating as Batman than Christian Bale ever was. The major criticism against this version of Batman was largely directed at the killing involved, because “Batman must not kill”. The main reason as to why many people found this version of Batman jarring was because they have been so accustomed to remembering Batman the way Nolan showed him, and there is nothing wrong in that. The difference here is the timeline which you must acknowledge. If you refer to the continuum that i created, the events that take place in the Dark Knight trilogy are between the Established Code of Conduct and the beginning, meaning that was the beginning of his journey against crime, over the course of which he decided that he should stand as a symbol against moral corruption, hence his “no killing” code. On the contrary, Batman vs Superman is set 20 years later, when Batman is nearly worn out taking on one criminal after the other. The first scene that takes places in the abandoned house is set-up in a tone that mirrors that of a horror film, indicating that Batman has derailed from his path of high held standards to brash and brutal interrogation methods. Through his own words in the opening sequence of the film, Bruce’s voice-over talks about his fall from grace.

In this film, Batman’s acts are justified by himself and Snyder merely brings this out on the screen. In Part 1, I had mentioned about moral integrity and a character is only relatable when he is constantly tested. If a character is pre- established, does what he is supposed to do, and keeps moving forward it makes the character dull to watch and his motives would appear placid. All drama stems from conflict, either internal or external. In BvS, the film is drawn from Batman comics that follow him in the later stages of his life, where he justifies the loss of life that is caused indirectly by him because he needn’t assume the blame for those caught in the crossfire. However, everyone who noticed all these trivial nuances, failed to notice the actual conflict the character goes through that makes him even more cynical turning him into the arbiter of criminal acts.

The actual conflict begins when Batman’s resentment for Superman is highlighted when Alfred states that the feeling of Powerlessness turns good men cruel. With each passing instance, Batman sees himself growing powerless by watching the acts of Superman in the media. The feeling of powerlessness causes Batman to resort to increasingly brash methods in criminal encounters.

The term “Murder” is not exclusive to the act of ending someone’s life. It also includes the intention that leads to the act. In relation to the case of Batman, the intention stems when he is manipulated and pushed over the edge by Lex Luthor to steal the kryptonite in order to kill Superman. Snyder shows this version of Batman without any compromises, and puts the character to test, in order to give more dimensions or layers. The character arc of Batman in this film is to move backwards in the continuum to reach his established code of conduct again.

Much of the criticism that against this version is because of the high standard set by its predecessor in the Trilogy, but the two versions are completely incomparable because of the difference in the timeline, and being unaware or blind to it is purely the fault of the viewer as Snyder mentions in many instances the time period in which the film is set in.

The Portrayal of Superman: The Second Holy “Sin “

Much of what I wish to say about Snyder’s Superman is covered in Part 1, but I’m going to be tackling the criticism against Superman in this film. The first criticism is almost parallel to that of Man of Steel, with people labelling the Superman in the film to be too dark or rigid. To clarify, this is not a Superman film. This is largely about Batman and the dark events surrounding Superman cannot be attributed to his nature. He is merely engaging in a process of acting against/reacting to them. If you refer to the continuum, Superman is still moving towards the point where he establishes a code of conduct, or in simple terms, when Superman becomes the “Superman” everyone expected him to be in this film.

Secondly, Social media forums chastised Snyder for not showing their beloved superhero the way he is supposed to be. Just to state, a hero does not appear out of thin air. He goes through moral tests that question his integrity and has to make decisions that encompass the welfare of people. The events that take place in Dawn of Justice are set right after the final fight of Metropolis in Man of Steel, meaning Superman is still a relatively new superhero. He is trying to do what is right by abstaining from Political acts. But that brings another question of whether any act by an individual could be free of political intent.

Superman goes through a phase of indecision and self-discovery, pondering over the choice to act. He begins to discover about Batman taking the law into his own hands, whereas on the other hand, he is accused by many for doing the same. But after the bombing at the Congress commission, he decides to fly away because he feels that acting on what is good based on instinct can prove to be catastrophic, and not acting at all would seem a better way out. His character arc focuses on his journey from indecision to taking responsibility for doing what he believes is right. He does not owe the people of earth anything, but the final exchange between Lois and him explains that he loves Lois and that she is his world, meaning he would do anything to protect the earth and its people because Lois is human. Snyder does a brilliant job by building this arc, because we learn more about Superman with each scene that involves him.

Lousy Plot Device/ the “Martha” Fiasco – The Third Holy “Sin”

This has to be the most ridiculed scene in the entire movie. People literally pinned everything wrong about the movie to this one particular scene. People labelled this as lousy and clichéd. But, I’m going to tell you why this is the most important scene in the entire film.

Since the opening sequence of the film, the movie has moved towards this point. The opening film shows a young Bruce Wayne witnessing the murder of his mother and father, right in front of his eyes. This feeling of being unable to do anything eats away at Bruce, which is showed through many instances in the course of the film, causing him to grow increasingly violent. Powerlessness makes good men cruel and Lex Luthor uses this to his advantage to fuel Batman’s existing grief and turn it against Superman.

People may argue that Superman could have said “ Save my Mother”, but in the exchange of dialogues that precede this scene, Batman states that he does not care about Superman’s parents, because in his eyes until this moment, He can only see Superman the alien. He is blind to the human side of Clark Kent, due to the anger that is consuming him. The anger is helping him in justifying his acts. It would make no sense for Snyder to make Superman say that.

Martha is more than just a name in this scene. By uttering the name, Superman links the incident to a person, and Batman strives to save people. But it so happens as a coincidence that both their mothers share the same name. The compounded effect helps Batman wake up from his trance and realize his actions, and we can see him withdrawing.

Batman and Superman do not become the best of pals because their mothers share the same name. People should really stop slinging baseless and puny comments to degrade a film on purpose. The actual reason why Batman stops Superman from rushing to save his mother is because, he views this as a chance at redemption. A chance to stop feeling tormented by the death of his mother to whom he was very much attached. It is evident that he is in clear state of mind now than he was before, and this scene is what causes Batman to turn and move backwards in the continuum, to re-establish his code of conduct in the fight against crime.

This brings me to the end of my 2 part series. I’m not a fan of Snyder, but I believe that his work in the DCEU is commendable. However, the success of MCU has caused the executives at Warner bros to rush the DC films, in the hope they would turn out to become Cash Cows like the movies of their counterpart. This has limited the scope of the director and the work he wishes to deliver. In the case of Batman v Superman, I’d like to state that the film went through something which I would like to fondly refer to as the “Studio slaughter”, because the editors of the film have vehemently ignored the crucial scenes that highlight character or include vital elements of the screenplay. My only request to the producers is that they should give the filmmaker the liberty to convey what he wishes to and not make a mess of it by intervening.

Don’t mess with Batman.Period.

Man of Steel – The three Holy Sins of Zack Snyder – Part 1/2

Failing to provide Character Development, Diverging from the Comic Universe, and Violating the very morality of Superman – These are the three holy sins that were supposedly committed by Zack Snyder while making Man of Steel, which released in 2013, only to be butchered by the vast majority of the general audience and critics worldwide. I was one of them. I neither understood the movie, nor paid close attention to it. I resorted to baseless criticism. Until yesterday, when I had the opportunity to re-watch the film, only to close my media player with newfound appreciation for Snyder. I’m going to be talking about how Man of Steel is a masterpiece in the field of adaptations by tackling the three holy sins that I stated earlier.

The first “sin” that was committed by Snyder was showing little to none of Superman’s character and only projecting him to be superior to humankind. Now, it’s not the fault of a director if you can’t follow the non-linear narrative that is interlaced in between the film. Much of the first half of the film has scenes that traverse the timeline of Clark Kent’s life. He’s a wanderer and we travel with him, as he tries to find out who he is. Rotating back and forth, Snyder shows the reason behind the actions of Clark by linking the present and the past. In this manner, Synder avoids the usual linear narrative, and adopts a method to establish a causal relationship immediately, making it much more engaging to watch. Superman is Clark Kent, before he gained his superpowers. He went to school, was subjected to bullying, had human parents, and grew up playing in the fields of the Kent Family. This is Synder’s way of conveying that Superman is an Alien, Clark Kent is as human as we are.

An example of the multiple layers within the film, pointed out by Twin Perfect on their YouTube video on Man of steel, is shown in a scene when Clark is bullied while he is reading a book on Plato, the Greek Philosopher. This scene has philosophical underpinnings when relating to the world of Krypton, where Kal- El / Clark was born. Plato argued that society must have specific roles for each human that is born, the exact same system that Krypton followed for centuries. Jor- El, Kal’s father, believed that the element of choice is the greatest gift that is bestowed on life, and by depriving that, the societal model of Krypton is ultimately a failure, and all those born from it are failures as well. The element of choice is a vital element in Superman’s character arc, and I will be relating it in instances to follow.

The second “sin” that was committed by Snyder was not adhering to the illustrious Comic Book Universe of DC. Before I begin, I’d like to define what an adaptation in cinema means.

“A film adaptation is the transfer of a written work, in whole or in part, to a feature film “

Synder was lambasted by the media for adopting a theme that was too “dark” for Superman. I’m assuming that by “light”, the audience expected a Superman that delivers One- liners that are funny. In that case, I can only suggest them to watch MCU movies like Guardians of the Galaxy that overuse humor until it appears to be trite and contrived. The purpose of the film is to show the beginning of Superman, as he dons the cloak of responsibility within a short period of time. That leaves little to no room for exchange of humor.

Moving on, An Adaptation in this case is transferring a part of the written work, because there is only so much you can fit in a space of 2 – 3 hours. Snyder and Goyer bring the world of Krypton to the fore beautifully, making sure to transfer every aspect of the alien world from the books to the screen.

The film opens with Krypton because it’s supposed to show the audience the Journey of Kal- El before he became Clark Kent. I do not know what the audience expected from Man of Steel. This was a phase when the DC universe was rebooting meaning the films begin from scrap. Funnily enough, I believe that people would have understood the film more if it was renamed as Superman Begins and not Man of Steel.

Finally, coming to the biggest “sin” that Snyder committed. He violated the very principles of Superman. He let Superman watch his father die, when he is supposed to save people. How is that even acceptable?!

Keeping the question in mind, a common ideal that unites superheroes is the element of choice that I earlier stated. You cannot question the moral integrity of a character, and if you do not question the character, he or she will fall flat on their face and you have a weak character with no reason behind motive. In the case of John Kent’s death, Clark decided to refrain from saving his father because, that would be violating everything that his father believed in. He wanted his son to conceal his identity until the time was right. This is explained by Clark to Lois in the scene that follows, establishing the reason behind his choice to not act. On the more “superpower” side of things, Clark Kent is still a Kansas teenager, he hasn’t learned the ability to fly or move at a blistering speed yet, and doing anything else would expose him to the people surrounding him.

The second biggest debate that sparked up was the final act of murder that Superman committed by killing General Zod, who would have killed a group of innocent civilians if he wasn’t stopped.

“Superman should never be made to kill, he should always find another way”

This brings me back to the earlier mention of Moral integrity. If you don’t question moral integrity, you don’t have a strong character. Altruism stems from the choices a hero makes. Superman is a relatively new superhero, and he is new to making decisions that involve life and death. Much of the destruction caused by him is a rare outburst of anger that stems from his alter-ego, Clark Kent. He is still naive as he is learning to establish a code of conduct. You could argue that he could have flown away or moved away with Zod, but Zod would ultimately never stop killing people. He stated before engaging Superman that his purpose is to destroy the people that cost the lives of all Kryptonians. After Superman kills Zod, the line between Superman and Clark Kent fades away as he his burdened with the pain of killing that last of his kind, as you can see the agonizing scream let out by him depicts the wave of emotions that has overpowered him.On the other hand, nowhere in the comics is it stated that superman holds a rigid philosophy against killing. It’s just a highly misguided perception on the part of the audience.

Man of Steel is not a milestone in film-making. But in no manner is it bad or inaccurate. The work done by Zack Snyder and David Goyer, coupled with the magic of Zimmer’s soundtrack, Man of Steel is a brilliant superhero film that sets up Superman in the DC Extended Universe and has multiple layers that require you to watch the film more keenly. Does it have flaws? Yes, it does. But much of it remains in the dark as what went down in the final stages of post-production is unknown. Snyder is not to be blamed for a lack of continuity due to the hard cuts made by inexperienced editors. As a director, Snyder had delivered what he promised. I’d definitely recommend a re-watch for this film because it deserves one, and I hope you can appreciate it the same way I do now.

Love how Snyder snuck in the iconic superman pose.