This year myself and Rhys Jones created and put together the weird anthology Twisted Showcase, it proved quite a success on the web, and it was always the plan to take this forward to TV. The anthology show used to be huge on TV, I won't list examples because a lot are named below, but they seemed to have disappeared from TV, which I find a shame.
What I love about them is the variety, each week a whole new story, and satisfying too as that story reaches it's end each week, there's no cliffhanger to entice you back in a sluttish manner. It's a format that champions ideas, imagination and story in abundance.
Before I'd even seen the show I knew what The Twilight Zone was, which is something we tried to achieve with the bold title of Twisted Showcase. When I finally saw The Twilight Zone i was blown away by the stories and the themes that seemed to run through them all of them chiming with the modern fears of the time, again something that Twisted tried to achieve.
I also love the Britishness of Tales of the Unexpected and how freaky it could be in a truly odd way. I've always hunted out anthology series, I even enjoyed Masters of Horror which i believe doesn't have that much of a good rep, and have recently purchased Mystery & Imagination and Thriller boxsets.
Anyway, enough of me, in honour of the anthology show some brilliant British writers who are linked to Twisted Showcase have let me know of their thoughts in regards to anthology shows.
Neil Jones ( Bedlam,Waterloo Road, Grange Hill, Hollyoaks)
I grew up on Hammer House of Horror and Tales of the Unexpected, and I've always said that something of both shows is hardwired into Bedlam, which you pointed out is an anthology show itself in many ways. But I was never really allowed to watch more than few episodes, especially of Hammer, no matter what I pretended in school! So it was the 80s American anthologies like Tales from the Darkside that really hit home. If I had to choose one episode from any series, it would be Final Escape from the remake of Alfred Hitchcock Presents (I've still never seen the originals, shamefully). It's about a woman sentenced to life for murder who formulates an escape plan with a Morgan Freeman-lite prison doctor. Of course it backfires horribly in a truly terrifying twist which left me reeling as a kid and has lived with me for years. The story is perfectly formed and pulls off the trick of having every scene point towards the twist, but still making you feel that it came out of left field. It does it by subtly dangling another possible ending that you think you've been clever enough to work out. I always remembered the heroine as being deliciously nasty and there is an element, as is often the case in these stories, of her getting what's coming to her at the end (she is told at the beginning that she's going to find out what justice really means), but in this one it's so horrible and final that you don't wish it even on her. The final shot before Hitch comes back on and makes his joke from beyond the grave is properly chilling.
I've just gone back and had a look at the episode for the first time in ages, and if what I've said above doesn't sell it to you, it's worth seeking out just for the killer's amazing 80s shoulderpads in the opening scene, which are even more frightening than the ending.
Stephen Gallagher (Chimera, Chiller, Crusoe, Doctor Who and many more)
The '60s was a bit of a golden age for anthology series and one of the
greatest was Tales of Mystery and Imagination, which adaptated classic
stories with a heavy emphasis on the macabre and supernatural. They were
mostly introduced by David Buck in Victorian character. There was no
such framing device on the BBC's Out of the Unknown but, playing to a
niche audience in the early days of BBC2, it remains unsurpassed in
British TV SF. Others that made a big impression were Conan Doyle's
Tales of Medical Life, and, again from the BBC, a series of ambitious
plays under the title Detective, a series of one-off dramatisations of
works of detective fiction produced by Verity Lambert. They were strong,
standalone dramas. These days the same material would get shunted in the
direction of series production, where the setup is more of a
consideration than the story, and would suffer for it.
Roland Moore (Land Girls, Doctors, Smack the Pony)
I think my favourite anthology shows are all pretty well known series. The original Twilight Zone is a show I could watch all day (and have to limit myself to a couple of eps at lunchtime otherwise the whole system would fall apart). I could watch them again and again. I love the structure - the introductory and closing narration; the atmosphere and the storytelling ability. The high quality makes it amazing to think how quickly the episodes were written and produced...
Other favourites include Tales of the Unexpected (the darkness and bleak endings of some of these stories is quite disturbing even now) and Alfred Hitchcock Presents (the theatre feel of some of these stories means the acting and writing have to go the extra mile - and the eps are always intriguing).
Rhys Jones (Twisted Showcase)
Tales of The Crypt was the bed rock of my friendship with a lad called Danny in school. As I remember it now we talked about it all the time. I don't really remember much about the show itself anymore other than the crypt keeper himself, who we absolutely loved and would endlessly try to imitate. We liked his bad puns.
Feel free to leave your anthology memories, favourites, etc in the comments. It saddens me that there is a generation that hasn't been afforded the opportunity to enjoy an anthology, and there seems to be so many who remember them fondly.
Who knows, maybe Twisted Showcase will become a TV anthology, but for now we're going to keep delivering you some Twisted weirdness.
Keep checking www.twistedshowcase.com
Monday, 24 December 2012
Sunday, 23 December 2012
Treat Eleven: Monster London
Earlier this year I purchased a book which literally opened up a new world to me, that world was created by Jonathan Edwards and is called Monster London.
The book is 36 pages of profiles of monsters from an alternative London. I think it's an alternative London anyway because sometimes when reading a belly laugh emanates caused by recognising certain characteristics that may relate to certain people you may be aware of.
I was startled at one point to notice a past relative of mine in there, Twigrin Bell.
The original exhibition of Monster London took place at Foyles, London over the summer. But now you can go back and read and then re read the wonderfully witty descriptions that go along with each stunning character.
The overall effect, for me, created a highly original and imaginative world populated by these characters and I was amazed by the amount of personality in both their bios and the images. I think they'd make a brilliant TV series there is so much detail in there, I'd like to see more and I recommend it wholeheartedly to anyone with an imagination.
To buy this (and why wouldn't you it's only £4) head here.
Or check out more of Jonathan's work at www.jonathan-e.blogspot.co.uk
Treat Ten: Twisted Showcase stuff
You may have heard of Twisted Showcase? It's the anthology web series that I'm co creator of, and I'm immensely proud of it.
It was named Top 25 web TV show in the Guardian Guide, and has recently been the reason for a few meetings.
Last week, it even appeared in the Guardian again.
We're celebrating the year with a new cut of where it all began, our first film Peter & Paul is now on the site. You can see it below or if you want to watch some of the other episodes go have a rummage at www.twistedshowcase.com
Saturday, 22 December 2012
Treat 9: Top Ten TV of 2012
Here's my favourite TV from 2012 in the form of a top ten list. Note i'm catching up with quite a lot of shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad on DVD, this is just stuff I'm up to date with or managed to series link fast enough.
10. Justified Season 3
9.Red Dwarf X
8.The thick of it
7. Alan Partridge Mid Morning Matters
6. Wolfblood
5. Sherlock
4. Doctor Who
3. Hit and Miss
2. Borgen
1. The Fear
10. Justified Season 3
9.Red Dwarf X
8.The thick of it
7. Alan Partridge Mid Morning Matters
6. Wolfblood
5. Sherlock
4. Doctor Who
3. Hit and Miss
2. Borgen
1. The Fear
Friday, 21 December 2012
Treat 8: Reality Trip
Drugs had ceased to exist. Instead, people were experimenting with microchips in the brain. New ‘experiences’ were always being programmed into these microchips, making hallucinations seem a natural part of daily life.
Jon Richardson was a high end user. This meant his whole life was spent inserting new experiences into his brain via microchip’s which interacted with his brain neurons. He opened the gateway in his skull, and inserted the new microchip. By the time the microchip was in place, it was too late for Jon to recognise the telephone chip in his brain which someone was calling. They would have to leave a message for him to pick up when he came back from his trip.
“Jon, don’t use that new microchip. It’s been contaminated, manipulated to create reality incarnations.”
Jon was sat on a beach, faced with a man in flowing black robes with a pale, scar filled face that conjured up a hundred nightmares.
“I am reality Jon, and you’ve been avoiding me for too long.”
With that reality exploded in anger, and hooks on meaty tentacles came bursting out of all the scar tissue on his face wrapping around Jon with a bone crushing force and carving and slicing his body into tiny pieces of flesh.
Reality returned to the sea leaving Jon with his body ripped open with a small pulse rippling through his exposed innards. One neuron continued firing against a microchip in Jon’s brain, repeating the image of death over and over again.
Jon Richardson was a high end user. This meant his whole life was spent inserting new experiences into his brain via microchip’s which interacted with his brain neurons. He opened the gateway in his skull, and inserted the new microchip. By the time the microchip was in place, it was too late for Jon to recognise the telephone chip in his brain which someone was calling. They would have to leave a message for him to pick up when he came back from his trip.
“Jon, don’t use that new microchip. It’s been contaminated, manipulated to create reality incarnations.”
Jon was sat on a beach, faced with a man in flowing black robes with a pale, scar filled face that conjured up a hundred nightmares.
“I am reality Jon, and you’ve been avoiding me for too long.”
With that reality exploded in anger, and hooks on meaty tentacles came bursting out of all the scar tissue on his face wrapping around Jon with a bone crushing force and carving and slicing his body into tiny pieces of flesh.
Reality returned to the sea leaving Jon with his body ripped open with a small pulse rippling through his exposed innards. One neuron continued firing against a microchip in Jon’s brain, repeating the image of death over and over again.
Thursday, 20 December 2012
Treat Seven: Phobia
An article I wrote for Gorezone on the Thai portmanteau Phobia.
Phobia
Asian horror gained prominence in the late nineties beginning in Japan with Ringu. This 1997 hit spawned a sequel, a prequel, a Korean remake, an American remake and a sequel to the American remake. It also spawned the rise of Asian horror on a global scale, with journalists coining the term J horror. This expanded to Asian horror when the Korean market kicked off, as it did in Hong Kong, and now Thailand. The most famous Thai horror, Shutter, has already suffered from a less impressive American remake, the American film industry pig headedly forgetting what makes these films so original and scary in the first place; using the countries deep rooted local folklore, traditions and history to tell their stories.
Since the current boom of Asian horror began the film-makers behind these films have been extremely clever to weave these traditional folkloric tales into something modern, from Ringu’s use of the evil spirit using the television and a cursed video to attack, to Takashi Miike’s One Missed Call (another victim of an appalling American remake) using mobile phones as the method of attack. Takashi Miike’s prolific work has jumped around the Asian countries, but has also encouraged innovation from directors in these countries as he was one of the first directors whose name broke out of the scene, followed by The Pang Brothers, Park Chan Wook and Bong Joon Ho.
Add to this list, Banjong Pisanthanakun and Parkpoom Wongpoom the co directors of Shutter, who are now part of new Thai horror sensation Phobia, or 4bia. The Thai horror portmanteau features four stories concentrating on phobias. See what they did with the title? Clever, eh? Well, no not really, it didn’t work with Se7en, and it doesn’t work now. Luckily the film does.
The idea came from Parkpoom Wongpoom who had a story that he knew wouldn’t stretch to feature length. This forms the last story of the portmanteau, and was the first idea to originate; aptly considering the story takes place onboard a plane, the idea was conceived on a flight, “On the plane, I got the idea of doing a scary movie about an air stewardess flying solo with a dead body.” says Parkpoom.
The director approached his Shutter co director first and then Thai production company GMM Tai Hub, the fully integrated Thai film company who brought the world Shutter and which has led to successful and daring projects like Phobia. They were a huge part in organising two more adventurous and innovative directors to complete the picture. These were Yongyoot Thongkongtoon and Paween Purijitpanya.
Everyone involved knew the risk of creating a horror portmanteau, made famous by the British horror studios Hammer and Amicus but very infrequently seen since. Stephen King and George Romero made the portmanteau’s Creep show 1 & 2 in the eighties and recently we’ve seen another Asian horror portmanteau with Three Extremes but it is never a style of horror film that has caught on in a major way. Like most countries Horror portmanteau’s had not done good box office business in Thailand in the past, but the other co director of shutter, Banjong Pisanthanakun, explained the reasoning behind doing this particular portmanteau.
"The horror craze is starting to see a decline, especially when there are so many horror movies now, some of which are good and some are not, (but) there will always be horror movie fans. As long as we have a good script and a good concept, the movie will definitely be successful." says Banjong. Discussing working on Phobia Banjong goes on to explain. “Such movies did not do well because the directors were all trying to outdo one another in terms of whose short film was scarier and the final product had no unifying theme. However, there is no competition among us. We ensured that the four short films were linked to one another in subtle ways, making the movie complete."
This was the great challenge of the film for Banjong and the other directors, he explains, “to make the four short films stand out from one another yet ensure that they are still linked. That's the hard part.”
It’s hard enough getting the tone right for one feature film, so imagine having to set the tone for four complete different stories and for that tone not to be too jarring so that the four films can be viewed as a whole as well as separate. It’s something Phobia struggles to manage in all honesty, but only because the ideas on offer here are so potent, fresh and different in style and tone, but it remains entertaining and is intriguing in its elements that link the story, the mysteriousness of which adds to the re-watch value.
After a stylish blood soaked credit sequence, the first film, Loneliness begins. It’s directed by Youngyut Tongkontund, who previously helmed the two Iron Ladies films, the first being one of the milestone Thai films in the late 1990s based on the actual story of a gay volleyball team, and the 2006 comedy with the same broad sensibilities, Metrosexual. Discussing his move from comedy into horror Youngyut jokes that ““I have multiple personalities, so I feel like doing different things.
“I believe that everything changes,” he adds. “As time changes, I change, my movies change, and the viewers change. If we understand this, we’ll understand how to make movies that respond to the present. And the viewers will understand us too.”
The plot focuses on a young girl who is confined to her high rise apartment. With exquisite and innovative camera shots we see her life, isolated and secluded from the busy world below, her only connection her mobile phone and internet. From the off we’re introduced to a different setting, and maybe that’s what has become so tired with American horror, we’ve seen every setting possible explored; be it suburbia, high school, spoilt upper class teens or the Deep South again and again. It’s all been done, and horror works best when it focuses on the unknown, unfortunately through cinema every aspect of America has become known, whilst everything about Loneliness feels new. The way open spaces are revealed from the girls balcony outlining her loneliness feels fresh, the way the camera glides out of her room over a closed door is innovative, but it really shouldn’t feel all that new. It begins as close companion to the Rear Window premise; someone stranded in a plaster cast watching the world she can’t interact with, then it’s given a modern spin by using the net and her phone as a portal to the outside world. A modern American counterpoint would be DJ Caruso’s Disturbia, itself a modern rehash of Rear Window, but Loneliness handles this modernisation with ease, using the ‘new’ elements of this story in a way which blends in with everything around it to create a coherent film world, and effortlessly upping the suspense of the plot through a text conversation on a mobile phone. This is the opposite of mainstream Hollywood horror whose first goal is to discard the mobile phone. How many times have characters not been able to get signal? Or had their battery run out on them at crucial times in the plot? The film ratchets the tension up so expertly I didn’t even notice it is completely without dialogue, to open a horror anthology with a twenty five minute silent horror film is a brave move, but one that pays off.
It works because of the way Loneliness makes you really feel and identify with the lead character, through long and slow tracking shots, measured close ups, and great use of music the audience can fully identify with the lead character’s position. When was the last time you identified with some spoilt American brat? Or were you like me and counted the seconds until their death, which you greeted with an almighty cheer?
Unlike its US counterparts Thai horror, in general, relies on fear and suspense rather than in your face gore, making it essential for you to care for the characters. An unnerving atmosphere offset against the release of a terrifying jolt, is something which Loneliness does to great effect. First with the line “Look again, I’m by your side” offering something as scary, weird and downright creepy as the white faced man from David Lynch’s Lost Highway claiming he’s at your house right now when he stands in front of you on the phone, in both cases when you see it you’ll understand. To give away the second jolt would be to spoil the surprise. It’s a must see, and a stunning move into horror from the multi personality of Youngyut Tongkontund.
As I mentioned before the film doesn’t flow with and the stylistic difference between these two films is the most jarring. Paween Purikitpanya, director of Body, jolts us into the second film, Deadly Charm, which relies heavily on his music video past. In stating his intentions for this film he said “I prefer my films to be like rides in an amusement park, instead of being objects in a museum, I always want my audience to enjoy themselves, to feel as if they’re part of the movie, and to be continually excited by what’s happening on the screen. Surprise is important to me, too. When I make a movie, I see myself knocking on the front door preparing to give flowers to the person who opens it. I want to see the look on his face. I want to see how my flowers surprise or startle or move or shock them.”
It begins with warm oranges and browns reminiscent of South American Cinema like City of God before descending into an editing and lighting frenzy, resulting in direction overkill, causing horrendous migraines. It feels so out of place and unnecessary and by the time you begin to get used to the style, it confounds you again by pulling another stylistic rabbit out of the hat. The style resembles Zack Snyder’s ADHD visuals, especially with the start/stop slo-mo. Someone needs to tell film makers that no one likes this computer game imagery and technique overkill, it ruins the story. In its defence the film does have some stunning imagery and ends on a cracking image for the gore hound in everyone. To be honest the director probably did fulfil his intentions, I just wish it didn’t cause me such a headache.
This highlights the strengths and weaknesses with portmanteaus. The weaknesses being the way in which each short film can be affected and the tone ruined by what has gone before, the strengths being the fact that you know that each film only lasts around twenty five minutes, so even if it’s not for you, another story packed full of different ideas will be along soon to pin you against the wall with an axe pick.
The next film to come along is the first by one of the two directors of Shutter. The Middle Man is a light hearted offering. Even Banjong Pisanthanakun, the director says that “though The Middle Man is fundamentally a ghost story, it has the wry humour and self-mocking elements that defy the genre codes. It’s something I would love to invite all my friends to see since I know they’ll have a good time.” The first half of this film is a bumbling buddy comedy with self referential dialogue, mocking ghosts in films and Banjong also mocks his own film Shutter, one character claiming that the Thai film copied the James Cameron blockbuster Titanic. The script is littered with references and in jokes and ambles along amiably, the main riffs being the fact that the characters keep divulging spoilers of other horror film endings such as The Sixth Sense and The Others. Why it does this is anyone’s guess, as is how anyone thought the lame debatable ‘twist’ ending was a good idea.
Luckily the fourth section Last Fright does not disappoint at all. Directed by Parkpoom Wongpoom who conceived the project in the first place, the final film delivers on its claustrophobic premise. It’s practically a two hander between a female flight attendant and a princess. Gothic horror conventions are introduced early on, especially the ‘all in black’ princess, with her mysterious ring.
A dark and tense atmosphere is created from the claustrophobic surroundings and tense dialogue. The final five minutes being one of the creepiest finales in horror this year with a final shot that perfectly concludes the story referring back to an earlier conversation between the characters to provide a satisfying denouement.
Thai critics seemed to love the idea, one of them stating the obvious on the appeal of the portmanteau “When you watch "4bia", you not only pay for the price for one horror movie but four put together! What a bargain! It's rather refreshing to see this kind of anthology played on the big screen.
However, "4bia" was definitely a unique blend of horror and comedy; and it does give a good scare-you-out-of-your-pants reaction that makes it worth the watch.” Wise Kwai a respected Thai film critic had this to say of the film, “four 25-minute horror segments work together to create a package that proves the gathered talent from GMM Tai Hub can actually make movie that doesn't have a nice, neat, tied-up-with-a-bow happy ending like all the GTH movies do. That was what I was hoping for with Phobia, and they gave it to me -- four times.”
Both these reviews outline why portmanteau’s are a great idea, the fact that they can appeal to a wide audience, which is something American mainstream horror seems intent to achieve, commissioning plenty of remakes to appeal to the older fans of the original and create a new teen fan base. It also converts itself into good box office as Thai horror seemed to be on the decline, until the release of Phobia which took just 24 days to shoot, was the top-grossing film in Thailand when it was released in April, beating Hollywood flicks such as Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Its final box office was 85 million Baht, which is around one and a half million pounds, making it the 2nd highest box office earner released in 2008 in Thailand. It was such a huge success in Thailand that a sequel was instantly given the green light and is about to be released, which shows trust and ambition from GMM Tai Hub, the production company behind these films. They seem to have a very innovative, and in todays market a very different, franchise on their hands. We all know how American studios love a good franchise, will they be able to resist?
Although Hollywood has seen an increase in box office for its recent horror releases, Saw being a modern successful franchise akin to the eighties franchises of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, but like with those franchises it’s also seen a dearth of ideas. As most of American horror cinema has, relying on Asian horror for new ideas. Hopefully Phobia could be an indicator for how any horror industry could expand and thrive.
In these times of instant downloads and TV on demand where everyone wants everything right now, instead of having to provide jump scares every ten minutes, a anthology makes it so horror jumps can happen more frequently, and more organically to the plot, rather than feeling forced. It also allows for more ideas and more techniques to be explored within the genre, a virile breeding ground for new directors to perfect their style and even try new things.
After the remake of Shutter Hollywood discarded Thailand’s horror credentials believing it had taken all it could from them, and it seemed the Thai horror movement was slowing down, hopefully 4bia will have pricked the US industry’s ears, but hopefully they won’t bleed every sliver of innovation out of a film that was a brave decision to make in an era when horror portmanteaus weren’t being made. This and Three Extremes could be at the forefront of the beginning of a comeback. A modern spin on the Amicus and Hammer portmanteaus would be something I know I’d be interested in, and I’m sure many others would to. Even if the big studios are too dumb to do this, we’ve still got the brilliant Thai franchise which will hopefully grow and grow with its innovation and downright intense creepiness. Roll on 4bia 4.
Phobia
Asian horror gained prominence in the late nineties beginning in Japan with Ringu. This 1997 hit spawned a sequel, a prequel, a Korean remake, an American remake and a sequel to the American remake. It also spawned the rise of Asian horror on a global scale, with journalists coining the term J horror. This expanded to Asian horror when the Korean market kicked off, as it did in Hong Kong, and now Thailand. The most famous Thai horror, Shutter, has already suffered from a less impressive American remake, the American film industry pig headedly forgetting what makes these films so original and scary in the first place; using the countries deep rooted local folklore, traditions and history to tell their stories.
Since the current boom of Asian horror began the film-makers behind these films have been extremely clever to weave these traditional folkloric tales into something modern, from Ringu’s use of the evil spirit using the television and a cursed video to attack, to Takashi Miike’s One Missed Call (another victim of an appalling American remake) using mobile phones as the method of attack. Takashi Miike’s prolific work has jumped around the Asian countries, but has also encouraged innovation from directors in these countries as he was one of the first directors whose name broke out of the scene, followed by The Pang Brothers, Park Chan Wook and Bong Joon Ho.
Add to this list, Banjong Pisanthanakun and Parkpoom Wongpoom the co directors of Shutter, who are now part of new Thai horror sensation Phobia, or 4bia. The Thai horror portmanteau features four stories concentrating on phobias. See what they did with the title? Clever, eh? Well, no not really, it didn’t work with Se7en, and it doesn’t work now. Luckily the film does.
The idea came from Parkpoom Wongpoom who had a story that he knew wouldn’t stretch to feature length. This forms the last story of the portmanteau, and was the first idea to originate; aptly considering the story takes place onboard a plane, the idea was conceived on a flight, “On the plane, I got the idea of doing a scary movie about an air stewardess flying solo with a dead body.” says Parkpoom.
The director approached his Shutter co director first and then Thai production company GMM Tai Hub, the fully integrated Thai film company who brought the world Shutter and which has led to successful and daring projects like Phobia. They were a huge part in organising two more adventurous and innovative directors to complete the picture. These were Yongyoot Thongkongtoon and Paween Purijitpanya.
Everyone involved knew the risk of creating a horror portmanteau, made famous by the British horror studios Hammer and Amicus but very infrequently seen since. Stephen King and George Romero made the portmanteau’s Creep show 1 & 2 in the eighties and recently we’ve seen another Asian horror portmanteau with Three Extremes but it is never a style of horror film that has caught on in a major way. Like most countries Horror portmanteau’s had not done good box office business in Thailand in the past, but the other co director of shutter, Banjong Pisanthanakun, explained the reasoning behind doing this particular portmanteau.
"The horror craze is starting to see a decline, especially when there are so many horror movies now, some of which are good and some are not, (but) there will always be horror movie fans. As long as we have a good script and a good concept, the movie will definitely be successful." says Banjong. Discussing working on Phobia Banjong goes on to explain. “Such movies did not do well because the directors were all trying to outdo one another in terms of whose short film was scarier and the final product had no unifying theme. However, there is no competition among us. We ensured that the four short films were linked to one another in subtle ways, making the movie complete."
This was the great challenge of the film for Banjong and the other directors, he explains, “to make the four short films stand out from one another yet ensure that they are still linked. That's the hard part.”
It’s hard enough getting the tone right for one feature film, so imagine having to set the tone for four complete different stories and for that tone not to be too jarring so that the four films can be viewed as a whole as well as separate. It’s something Phobia struggles to manage in all honesty, but only because the ideas on offer here are so potent, fresh and different in style and tone, but it remains entertaining and is intriguing in its elements that link the story, the mysteriousness of which adds to the re-watch value.
After a stylish blood soaked credit sequence, the first film, Loneliness begins. It’s directed by Youngyut Tongkontund, who previously helmed the two Iron Ladies films, the first being one of the milestone Thai films in the late 1990s based on the actual story of a gay volleyball team, and the 2006 comedy with the same broad sensibilities, Metrosexual. Discussing his move from comedy into horror Youngyut jokes that ““I have multiple personalities, so I feel like doing different things.
“I believe that everything changes,” he adds. “As time changes, I change, my movies change, and the viewers change. If we understand this, we’ll understand how to make movies that respond to the present. And the viewers will understand us too.”
The plot focuses on a young girl who is confined to her high rise apartment. With exquisite and innovative camera shots we see her life, isolated and secluded from the busy world below, her only connection her mobile phone and internet. From the off we’re introduced to a different setting, and maybe that’s what has become so tired with American horror, we’ve seen every setting possible explored; be it suburbia, high school, spoilt upper class teens or the Deep South again and again. It’s all been done, and horror works best when it focuses on the unknown, unfortunately through cinema every aspect of America has become known, whilst everything about Loneliness feels new. The way open spaces are revealed from the girls balcony outlining her loneliness feels fresh, the way the camera glides out of her room over a closed door is innovative, but it really shouldn’t feel all that new. It begins as close companion to the Rear Window premise; someone stranded in a plaster cast watching the world she can’t interact with, then it’s given a modern spin by using the net and her phone as a portal to the outside world. A modern American counterpoint would be DJ Caruso’s Disturbia, itself a modern rehash of Rear Window, but Loneliness handles this modernisation with ease, using the ‘new’ elements of this story in a way which blends in with everything around it to create a coherent film world, and effortlessly upping the suspense of the plot through a text conversation on a mobile phone. This is the opposite of mainstream Hollywood horror whose first goal is to discard the mobile phone. How many times have characters not been able to get signal? Or had their battery run out on them at crucial times in the plot? The film ratchets the tension up so expertly I didn’t even notice it is completely without dialogue, to open a horror anthology with a twenty five minute silent horror film is a brave move, but one that pays off.
It works because of the way Loneliness makes you really feel and identify with the lead character, through long and slow tracking shots, measured close ups, and great use of music the audience can fully identify with the lead character’s position. When was the last time you identified with some spoilt American brat? Or were you like me and counted the seconds until their death, which you greeted with an almighty cheer?
Unlike its US counterparts Thai horror, in general, relies on fear and suspense rather than in your face gore, making it essential for you to care for the characters. An unnerving atmosphere offset against the release of a terrifying jolt, is something which Loneliness does to great effect. First with the line “Look again, I’m by your side” offering something as scary, weird and downright creepy as the white faced man from David Lynch’s Lost Highway claiming he’s at your house right now when he stands in front of you on the phone, in both cases when you see it you’ll understand. To give away the second jolt would be to spoil the surprise. It’s a must see, and a stunning move into horror from the multi personality of Youngyut Tongkontund.
As I mentioned before the film doesn’t flow with and the stylistic difference between these two films is the most jarring. Paween Purikitpanya, director of Body, jolts us into the second film, Deadly Charm, which relies heavily on his music video past. In stating his intentions for this film he said “I prefer my films to be like rides in an amusement park, instead of being objects in a museum, I always want my audience to enjoy themselves, to feel as if they’re part of the movie, and to be continually excited by what’s happening on the screen. Surprise is important to me, too. When I make a movie, I see myself knocking on the front door preparing to give flowers to the person who opens it. I want to see the look on his face. I want to see how my flowers surprise or startle or move or shock them.”
It begins with warm oranges and browns reminiscent of South American Cinema like City of God before descending into an editing and lighting frenzy, resulting in direction overkill, causing horrendous migraines. It feels so out of place and unnecessary and by the time you begin to get used to the style, it confounds you again by pulling another stylistic rabbit out of the hat. The style resembles Zack Snyder’s ADHD visuals, especially with the start/stop slo-mo. Someone needs to tell film makers that no one likes this computer game imagery and technique overkill, it ruins the story. In its defence the film does have some stunning imagery and ends on a cracking image for the gore hound in everyone. To be honest the director probably did fulfil his intentions, I just wish it didn’t cause me such a headache.
This highlights the strengths and weaknesses with portmanteaus. The weaknesses being the way in which each short film can be affected and the tone ruined by what has gone before, the strengths being the fact that you know that each film only lasts around twenty five minutes, so even if it’s not for you, another story packed full of different ideas will be along soon to pin you against the wall with an axe pick.
The next film to come along is the first by one of the two directors of Shutter. The Middle Man is a light hearted offering. Even Banjong Pisanthanakun, the director says that “though The Middle Man is fundamentally a ghost story, it has the wry humour and self-mocking elements that defy the genre codes. It’s something I would love to invite all my friends to see since I know they’ll have a good time.” The first half of this film is a bumbling buddy comedy with self referential dialogue, mocking ghosts in films and Banjong also mocks his own film Shutter, one character claiming that the Thai film copied the James Cameron blockbuster Titanic. The script is littered with references and in jokes and ambles along amiably, the main riffs being the fact that the characters keep divulging spoilers of other horror film endings such as The Sixth Sense and The Others. Why it does this is anyone’s guess, as is how anyone thought the lame debatable ‘twist’ ending was a good idea.
Luckily the fourth section Last Fright does not disappoint at all. Directed by Parkpoom Wongpoom who conceived the project in the first place, the final film delivers on its claustrophobic premise. It’s practically a two hander between a female flight attendant and a princess. Gothic horror conventions are introduced early on, especially the ‘all in black’ princess, with her mysterious ring.
A dark and tense atmosphere is created from the claustrophobic surroundings and tense dialogue. The final five minutes being one of the creepiest finales in horror this year with a final shot that perfectly concludes the story referring back to an earlier conversation between the characters to provide a satisfying denouement.
Thai critics seemed to love the idea, one of them stating the obvious on the appeal of the portmanteau “When you watch "4bia", you not only pay for the price for one horror movie but four put together! What a bargain! It's rather refreshing to see this kind of anthology played on the big screen.
However, "4bia" was definitely a unique blend of horror and comedy; and it does give a good scare-you-out-of-your-pants reaction that makes it worth the watch.” Wise Kwai a respected Thai film critic had this to say of the film, “four 25-minute horror segments work together to create a package that proves the gathered talent from GMM Tai Hub can actually make movie that doesn't have a nice, neat, tied-up-with-a-bow happy ending like all the GTH movies do. That was what I was hoping for with Phobia, and they gave it to me -- four times.”
Both these reviews outline why portmanteau’s are a great idea, the fact that they can appeal to a wide audience, which is something American mainstream horror seems intent to achieve, commissioning plenty of remakes to appeal to the older fans of the original and create a new teen fan base. It also converts itself into good box office as Thai horror seemed to be on the decline, until the release of Phobia which took just 24 days to shoot, was the top-grossing film in Thailand when it was released in April, beating Hollywood flicks such as Iron Man and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
Its final box office was 85 million Baht, which is around one and a half million pounds, making it the 2nd highest box office earner released in 2008 in Thailand. It was such a huge success in Thailand that a sequel was instantly given the green light and is about to be released, which shows trust and ambition from GMM Tai Hub, the production company behind these films. They seem to have a very innovative, and in todays market a very different, franchise on their hands. We all know how American studios love a good franchise, will they be able to resist?
Although Hollywood has seen an increase in box office for its recent horror releases, Saw being a modern successful franchise akin to the eighties franchises of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, but like with those franchises it’s also seen a dearth of ideas. As most of American horror cinema has, relying on Asian horror for new ideas. Hopefully Phobia could be an indicator for how any horror industry could expand and thrive.
In these times of instant downloads and TV on demand where everyone wants everything right now, instead of having to provide jump scares every ten minutes, a anthology makes it so horror jumps can happen more frequently, and more organically to the plot, rather than feeling forced. It also allows for more ideas and more techniques to be explored within the genre, a virile breeding ground for new directors to perfect their style and even try new things.
After the remake of Shutter Hollywood discarded Thailand’s horror credentials believing it had taken all it could from them, and it seemed the Thai horror movement was slowing down, hopefully 4bia will have pricked the US industry’s ears, but hopefully they won’t bleed every sliver of innovation out of a film that was a brave decision to make in an era when horror portmanteaus weren’t being made. This and Three Extremes could be at the forefront of the beginning of a comeback. A modern spin on the Amicus and Hammer portmanteaus would be something I know I’d be interested in, and I’m sure many others would to. Even if the big studios are too dumb to do this, we’ve still got the brilliant Thai franchise which will hopefully grow and grow with its innovation and downright intense creepiness. Roll on 4bia 4.
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Treat Six: Top 10 films of 2012
By no means a comprehensive lits, these are just my favourite 10 films of the year.
10. The Muppets
9.Iron Sky
8.Skyfall
7. The Dark Knight Rises
6. Cabin in the Woods
5. We Bought a Zoo
4. Chronicle
3. Sleep Tight
2. Berberian Sound Studio
1. The Descendants
10. The Muppets
9.Iron Sky
8.Skyfall
7. The Dark Knight Rises
6. Cabin in the Woods
5. We Bought a Zoo
4. Chronicle
3. Sleep Tight
2. Berberian Sound Studio
1. The Descendants
Saturday, 15 December 2012
Treat Four: Dark Knight - Superman:The Movie Comparative Study
For Treat 4 it's another article I wrote for Splice. My first written in 2008 or 2009. Quite a while ago. hope you like.
‘Is it a bird? No, it’s a psychopath.’ The Dark Knight and the New Superhero Film
by Robin Bell
I’d like to introduce this analysis with two personal memories which relate to the subject. A huge part of any student’s analysis should come from their personal consumption and feelings towards film, as I believe it heightens any analysis. Every person’s viewpoint comes from a specific angle which will reflect how each film is seen and read.
The first story goes all the way back to my childhood and the moment I received a batch of comics including The Beano and Dandy and many containing superheroes such as Superman, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk and Batman. I remember how happy I was sitting on my bedroom floor reading all of these. The Hulk and Batman were my favourite. I re-read these comics again and again, devouring them for a whole summer. They were tattered by the end of the school holidays because I had handled them so much and, even now, reminds me of childhood.
Jump forward twenty years to summer 2008. I found myself in New York the week that The Dark Knight, the biggest film of the year, was released. That week it proved extremely difficult to get tickets to any screening of the film anywhere in Manhattan. Every screening was fully booked. With much persistence we managed to get two spare seats to a midnight screening on a Thursday night. We took our seats in a completely packed IMAX cinema and the excitement began.
Two hours later the film had finished and as we walked through the streets of New York I felt utterly shell shocked. The intense atmosphere of the film had really gotten to me, and I couldn’t believe that what I had just watched was, in fact, a mainstream superhero summer blockbuster.
To think that these two experiences come from the same source – the superhero genre – shows how much development has occurred within this genre. From generic codes and conventions through to the production side, distribution and exhibition and even consumption The Dark Knight has broken barriers, something I want to explore here.
Superheroes, The Origin Story – From Page to Screen
Before there were comic books, there were comic strips, the first of these appearing in The New York Sunday World in 1895. But it wasn’t until the 1930s that the comic book as a distinct medium became popular and this was mainly because of the rise of the superhero.
Superheroes were mostly strong, muscular men, who had an alternative identity. There were usually two sides to the superhero; the everyday person with a regular job and life, and the strong superhero who only appeared when there was an emergency, or a life threatening situation. It was what America and the world needed during this time of upheaval, from the Depression through the Second World War. And the three top selling superhero comics were Superman, Captain America and Batman.
Superman and Captain America are self explanatory, both being patriotic, straight-laced forces for good (‘Truth, Justice and the American Way’). Batman was different. From the start, Batman’s stories were grim and gritty – in the first episode, seen in Detective Comics, the villain fell into a vat of acid, which killed him. Not showing any remorse for causing his death, Batman observed "A fitting end for his kind”. Not what you expect from a wholesome superhero that kids might look up to. So Batman had already separated himself from the usual superhero formula.
What attracted the audience to Batman was the fact he was perfectly pitched between the noir, detective heroes of the time and the superheroes. He might not have had super powers but he had a great mind, and cool gadgets (the bat suit was something kids have always admired).
The next rung of popularity for the comics came through television. The Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves came to US TV in the 1950’s after a popular 15 part Columbia film serial. This series was hugely popular and paved the way for more superheroes on the television. One of the most popular was the Batman TV series from the sixties, featuring Adam West as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Burt Ward as his sidekick Robin and featuring a wide array of colourful villains. “They called it "Camp," ironic comic perfection. The key to Batman was in the lead actors playing outlandishly fantastic situations with a straight face, and the stunt-casting of hot TV personalities.” The success of this TV show contributed to the rise in sales of colour televisions, and also led to a feature length Batman film (1966).
The 1st Superhero film?
When looking at the origin of the superhero genre in film, there is some debate as to which film is seen to be the first, the one which established the conventions of the genre that we know today. Was it Batman, the movie?
Not many of the genre’s conventions are present in the film, especially compared to, for example, Superman: The Movie from 1978. Both films are brightly coloured, family friendly movies, featuring the titular superheroes in tightly fitting costumes. Both of them had simple good against evil storylines, and both of them had the hero saving ordinary civilians. The main difference is that Superman takes the material seriously whilst Batman parodies it.
The Superman producers – Alexander and Ilya Salkind and Pierre Spengler – bought the film rights for Superman from DC Comics. Tom Mankiewicz who was the film’s creative consultant gives the Salkind’s all the credit, stating “I guess they saw the future in making a film out of Superman... nobody thought this would make a very good picture. Everybody, I guess, had the memory of the Batman television series and they thought this is going to be campy, and you can’t have two and a half hours of camp.”
To get credibility for the film the producers had to get bankable names on board. They first enlisted Godfather writer Mario Puzo followed by star of that film and screen legend Marlon Brando in the role of Superman’s father Jor-El. Gene Hackman then joined as the villain Lex Luthor, despite initial reservations: “At first, I was afraid that my image as a serious actor would be tarnished. I had thought of it only as a cartoon character, and I recognised that I could make Lex Luthor into something that I could be proud of.” Through these people being involved the project gained legitimacy. The big names also gave the film makers freedom to cast an unknown in the lead role and still advertise the film using Brando and Hackman as the main focus. The focus was successfully moved away from Superman being a comic book, or a television show, to being a movie.
Even though the film lays down all the conventions of the superhero genre that are still adhered to nowadays, and became the first ever comic book superhero epic, it begins by using the conventions of science fiction.
The film opens with a prologue in which we see red curtains being pulled back to reveal an Action comics comic book, a neat juxtaposition of the two forms of media, which sets up that we are viewing a filmed version of the story of the comic book character. A caption reads June 1938 and a child reads from the comic book and introduces the Daily Planet. This is an important introduction to the main setting for the superhero and action elements of the film in its second half. After that the camera pans up into space for the title sequence, names whooshing towards the camera, before we arrive at the planet Krypton, where the opening twenty minutes of the film take place.
We are first introduced to Krypton by zooming through space and into the blue planet. Its surface is mostly ice and we keep travelling towards a glacier city which in the centre holds a white dome emanating with light. Pointedly, the first words spoken are “This is no fantasy, no careless product of wild imagination”.
These are science fiction conventions the audience would be used to, whilst also taking the material intensely seriously as outlined by the opening line of dialogue. By opening with familiar and respected actor Marlon Brando it perhaps assuages the fears of a sceptical audience that the film might be comic, childish, ridiculous and camp, it also provides the audience conventions they know and understand.
The first forty-five minutes track Superman, or as he’s named on Earth Clark Kent, through his upbringing, and how he deals with his powers during these years. Basically everything Smallville covers now. The main thrust of Superman: The Movie is the origin story, and this film can be considered the sine qua non of the genre. Every superhero has an origin story, telling how they gained their powers and decided to fight crime. It may be revealed in their first appearance, or not until an eventual flashback, but once established it sets ground rules for which tropes are applicable to that particular superhero. This itself has now become a narrative convention of the superhero genre.
The action then moves to Metropolis, and Clark’s adult life, for the first time. Metropolis serves as the film’s alternative representation of New York. The urban, capital city location is a hugely important aspect of the superhero genre. For one thing it represents America, the American way of life and the American Dream. Secondly it provides the film with the sense of scale required. Most importantly it gives the superhero the opportunity to save lives on a large scale, and it provides plenty of opportunities for action situations that a sparsely populated location wouldn’t.
The city portrayed through Metropolis in this film is very different to other cinematic portrayals of contemporary New York at the time. Sure, there is crime in the city as we see in Superman’s first hero montage; after saving Lois from her helicopter he goes to foil a comedic robber, what looks like a drug deal on a boat and then save a cat from a tree. But there’s no gang warfare or street violence in the clean, mostly friendly streets of Metropolis. When citizens meet Superman it’s always with a friendly smile, glance or witty one-liner. It’s a brightly coloured, vibrant place to live, and obviously a fantastical contrast to the New York that was being presented on the screen at the time. Compare this to Taxi Driver, Martin Scorsese’s 1976 masterpiece. Although only two years earlier Scorsese’s depiction of the city is far more squalid and depressing, showing a totally different side to the city. DoP on Taxi Driver Michael Chapman says that “Whatever else Taxi Driver is or isn’t it is a kind of documentary of what New York looked like. In the seventies New York was at its nadir. It was scummy and awful.”
A key scene to examine when looking at Superman the Movie is the confrontation between Superman and arch enemy, Lex Luthor. The scene begins with Superman burrowing down into Luthor’s underground lair. He bursts through an iron door and steps into Luthor’s office with commanding power. Luthor unveils his plan, to make money through real estate by blowing up the West Coast creating a coast line out of the apparently worthless desert land he owns. Superman’s reaction is restrained, never rising to all out violence. He calls the plan a ‘sick fantasy’, until realising that two rockets are already in flight. Lifting Luthor up by his collar is the only physical threat Superman offers. This is followed by Superman labelling Luthor a ‘diseased maniac’ and throwing him, non-threateningly onto a cushioned sofa. The film does not dwell on violence, and no physical harm comes to anyone. Also notice in this sequence there is no grey area – Superman is unconditionally ‘good’ and Lex Luthor is unambiguously ‘evil’ (if charming). Superman does nothing that a true hero wouldn’t do. When Luthor overcomes Superman with the aid of some cleverly hidden Kryptonite, he claims he is better than Superman by outsmarting him with “mind over muscle”; but Superman actually escapes through the compassion of Luthor’s maligned assistant Miss Teschmacher. This showing that humanity can be a force for good is another theme and convention of the superhero genre.
In being the first of the genre, Superman was a successful endeavour for all involved, not only in box office terms with a $300 million worldwide intake, but also in paving the way for the genre with a raft of new conventions. From the brightly coloured tightly fitting suit worn by a character with a dual personality who hides his superhero side by living his daily life as a well-meaning citizen, mirroring the humanity as a force for good message that prevails throughout the genre. The dual worlds are also explored through the mirroring of superhero and villain, which in their basest sense portray a battle between good and evil, but can represent much more.
They follow a simple pattern in terms of narrative, the audience realising that by the end the superhero will overcome the villain and equilibrium will be restored, the evil plan thwarted. Audiences would also become used to the origin story, that particular narrative device being used ad infinitum with regards to the superhero genre. These conventions jumped straight from the page of the comic book, as did the look of Superman; bright colours, comic book panel framing of scenes, events culminating in the unbelievable and the fantastical. For example, the climax of the film features the titular character flying around the Earth so fast it begins to spin backwards upon its axis to reverse time, so Superman can save Lois’s life.
Superman proved this fantastical quality need not lead to parody, a la the Batman TV series. Audiences began to embrace the fantastical elements, they wanted to believe a man could fly, and not laugh at the suggestion. They wanted superheroes and escapism. It was just the right time to capitalise upon it also, as the dawning age of the blockbuster had begun a few years earlier with the double whammy of Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977). The rise of the blockbuster picture came after years of Hollywood having to turn to independent producers as they had become out of touch with their audience. This allowed directors more control, which was then taken away as through the above films Hollywood found a way to regain control through these ‘event movies’, thus leaving the landscape ripe for the release of a superhero film, and Superman was perfect to be the first of these.
Things are very different in the present. X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, The incredible Hulk, the Fantastic Four have all graced the big screen in recent years. Marvel Comics have their own production company now, with Captain America and Thor films planned. Every summer the multiplexes are full to the rafters with superhero films. And in 2008, the biggest and highest-grossing (so far) of all was released.
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight was released 24 July 2008, the sequel to the critically and commercially successful Batman Begins (2005) again directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Christian Bale in the dual role of Bruce Wayne and Batman. Expectation was high and a lot of the hype during pre release focused on the Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker. This was heightened by the tragic death of the star months before release.
Being the blockbuster hit of the summer and also obtaining widespread critical praise, The Dark Knight took over $1 billion worldwide box office, only the third film ever to do so. Was it because it was good timing, being released at the peak of the superhero boom? Was it because it’s dark themes struck a nerve in these modern times? Or was it because of the audience’s morbid fascination with seeing a dead actor play a raving psychopath so convincingly? Whatever, it was it is obvious that The Dark Knight is a film that needs to be explored to see how it relates to the times we live in; how it has changed the superhero genre, and also how it adheres to its conventions also; and finally how it has changed the genre and maybe even modern mainstream cinema.
The first aspect to look at to see how far the superhero genre has come is the director. Christopher Nolan, was a strange name from leftfield to come in and make a superhero film in the first place. But also the first sign that this version of Batman was to be more complex.
You could argue that Batman has already had an auteur behind its reigns with Tim Burton directing the 1989 version of Batman and its sequel Batman Returns (1992). For me Burton is a more visual and stylistic director whereas Nolan is more technical, story-based and complex. So whilst Burton’s gothic Gotham looked great, arguably it lacked substance and corporeality. This is something which Nolan doesn’t lack. He also brings a clinical eye and a complex take on character and story to the superhero genre. All which add to how the genre is taking a different shape, and how it is moving away from the fantastical elements or blending them in more with the world and environment of the film.
Opening Sequence
There is no better place to start to examine all of these facets of The Dark Knight than from looking at its opening sequence. Within an opening sequence a lot of exposition needs to be done – it’s an introduction to main characters, the environment and world of the film and also the tone of the story.
The Dark Knight opens with ominous clouds, billowing out in explosion, and the faint outline of the bat symbol heading towards the camera through the blue flames, but only briefly. It’s a matter of seconds before we are plunged into events. The opening shot is of a pale white cityscape, we are surrounded by mirrored buildings and the aerial camera zooms us towards one building in particular, until we’re uncomfortably close. There’s an eerie calm on the soundtrack achieved by Hans Zimmer’s score which is an ascending violin note stretched out, whining and grating.
As we arrive at the window it is shot out from within, and a quick edit takes us to a side on mid shot of the gun-man who is wearing a grotesque clown mask. After firing a cable out of the window, we are quickly taken to a corner of a street somewhere in the city of Gotham.
The camera tracks slowly to the back of a figure waiting on the corner of the street. He is framed centre of the screen, with a holdall bag over one shoulder and a clown’s mask hanging loosely from his other hand. He stands inanimate and hunched. The camera zooms in upon the mask and its empty eye holes. Tyres screech, a van pulls up, and the figure we’ve been watching draws the mask up to his face and enters the van. The music picks up a pace as we are taken back to the two masked people who are travelling down the cable across to the other building. The martial-sounding music is what you might expect from a crime film, as is the muted colour scheme. The city is alabaster white almost the only colour comes from the hideous clown masks. Aerial shots follow their descent, with a very dramatic vertiginous viewpoint, constantly moving and then swiftly editing back to the van. The camera sits in medium shot in the back seat of the van, as if the viewer is part of events. Conversation in the van regards the plan, which we now discover is masterminded by someone called ‘the Joker’, and there follows some speculation as to why he is so named. But as the action is happening at a hurtling pace the dialogue doesn’t feel like exposition.
We’re whisked along into the action with loud gunfire and screaming as their target, a bank, is held up by the criminals. A man is violently thrown over the counter, before a close up of a woman who works at the bank as one of the clown criminals moves swiftly towards her. We cut to the roof again, with a close up of the clown silencing the alarm. Once he has done so, he is shot by his accomplice, and so it is unveiled that the Joker’s plan involves members of his gang killing each other after their specific function is completed. A harsh loud drumbeat kicks in propelling the action, people are given live grenades to hold and beaten with guns as the safe cracker begins his job. Resistance comes from the bank manager who fires a shotgun at the criminals. It doesn’t take long before he is shot in the leg. As the plan comes to its end we see the back of one the criminals stalk the bank, before we’re down to just two surviving clown criminals. One is tricked to stand in just the right place as a bus comes crashing through the wall to take him out.
At the end of the scene there is some key dialogue as the bank manager states that criminals in the town ‘used to believe’ in such things as honour and respect, suggesting that the bank had criminal ties. The Joker answers that everything that doesn’t kill you ‘makes you stranger’, before revealing his scarred and painted face. He drives away from the bank and blends in with the traffic in a school bus.
The degree of violence in this opening sequence is astonishing, especially when considering that generic conventions dictate this is a film most people would assume is aimed at a family audience. This sequence and quite a lot of the film have the look and feel of a stylish crime film, perhaps Michael Mann’s Heat. We are introduced to the world of film in a number of ways in this opening sequence. Firstly the camerawork highlights the epic nature of what lies ahead, constantly zooming into the city, drawing us into the action. This is heightened by this sequence being filmed on IMAX cameras specifically for the IMAX experience. Nolan states on documentary Shooting Outside of the box, that “opening with an IMAX sequence seemed a terrific way to make an impression upon the audience, and really throw them into the action.” [Robin – reference for this quote?] He also states that the IMAX cameras were intended as dramatic tools, with a higher resolution and more sound the IMAX sequences were reserved for big, important moments in the film.
We’re economically introduced to the Joker and the chaos that ensues around him. The violent nature of the film is heightened by the swift edits, and the fact that everyone is a victim – the helpless functionaries in the bank, the manager who tried to fight back and also the criminals who helped the Joker carry out the job. Many facets of the Joker are introduced also, from the snippet of dialogue that introduces how he looks to the fact that he leaves the death of one person to chance by waiting for a bus to crash through the wall and hit him, and also his sadistic nature in how he kills the bank manager. It is this exchange which is in fact most intriguing in the information it reveals about the setting, tone and characters within the film. Firstly with the bank manager revealing that criminals used to ‘believe in things’, he also reveals that he has worked with them, this bank probably held mainly criminal money. The assumed good of humanity that is a convention of the superhero genre is subverted here, bringing a grey area to proceedings; there is no division between good and evil people, life in the real world is not that simple. The Dark Knight thus takes a step away from the fantastical world of the superhero genre almost instantly. The line the Joker delivers back says a lot about his character, that he’s seen the dark side the world has to show, and survived it, but has been affected by it and continues to be. The only way he has managed to survive in this world is to slip into anarchic psychosis. Not really a family friendly theme for the film, then.
The last shot of the Joker getting away in a school bus is also a subversive image. The school bus is a symbol of innocence and hope for the future, in that our children are being taken to school to be educated. Does this symbolise the Joker’s regression to childish ways; or is the metaphor in this shot that in all good there is something dark creeping in? Is the Joker the thorn within the roses? Later in the film the Joker will pass himself off as that most trusted of public servants, a hospital nurse – before blowing up the hospital. By the film’s end, the viewer may believe that no area of society can escape being sullied by the darker shade of humanity.
Comparison sequence
To truly analyse how a genre has developed, it is necessary to compare specific aspects. The scene from The Dark Knight that would best illustrate this is the first confrontation scene that the Batman and the Joker share, this can be found one hour and twenty three minutes into the film during chapter 23. This is after the Joker has allowed himself to be captured (it transpires) and has been placed in a holding cell as the police try to extract information. This is the first time the opposing forces come face to face to share dialogue, much like the first time Superman meets Lex Luthor in his extravagant underground bunker/home that we discussed earlier, occurring during chapter 33, one hour and forty seven minutes into the film. The difference is quite extreme.
For a start the Superman scene is played in a brightly lit, spacious setting, with extravagant decor. The Dark Knight’s setting is the dull, drab concrete and glass of a container cell, plunged into darkness. The opening dialogue in The Dark Knight scene concerns the whereabouts of Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent. The Joker questions who Commissioner Jim Gordon, Batman’s main ally on the Gotham police force, can trust on his team. The theme of corruption immediately becomes the focus. Behind the Joker is only shadow, his painted face the only thing visible on screen. As Gordon leaves he switches the light on to reveal Batman standing behind the Joker, with the Joker unaware of the situation.
Batman doesn’t even allow the Joker to speak before smashing his head against the table – hardly the even-handed, measured approach the generic formula would have you expect of a superhero film, the sort on display in the Superman–Luthor confrontation. Later in the scene, the Joker tells Batman, “You complete me”, quoting a line from the American romantic comedy, Jerry Maguire (1996), a sly reference of subversion that exemplifies the twisted love story the Joker thinks he shares with Batman. The generic tradition is to suggest that hero and villain are mirror images of each other, similar but intrinsically different. But the power of The Dark Knight lies in the subtle undermining of this convention in that the differences between ‘hero’ and ‘villain’ are not binary, but matters of degree.
Can we describe as the Joker as ‘evil’? He’s certainly sadistic, an anarchist, probably psychotic ¬– but ‘evil’? Can he help what he does, or is he, as he repeatedly implies a product of a twisted society? Similarly, Batman’s behaviour, as the scene continues, is an erratic performance of violence, itself bordering on the psychotic – but this border is critical. He insists that he has ‘rules’ and the Joker knows there is one that he will not knowingly break. That is to kill, and he will always stop short of it. But the Joker doesn’t have any such boundaries and, it is implied, it is this distinction alone, the one between limits and chaos, which separates them.
While formally the action in this scene is quite similar to that in Superman, the execution (pardon the pun) here is more violent. Firstly Batman pulls the villain up by the collar, but instead of the hollow threat from Superman, the Joker is dragged along the table, before being slammed into a wall. In Superman, Luthor is tossed almost playfully on to a sofa, but in The Dark Knight the Joker is slammed onto a hard table then head first into the glass window (this brutally reinforced by the crunching sound design), which fractures under the force of the Jokers skull. Are these the actions of a modern hero? It should be noted that even though Batman has a ‘secret identity’, he has never been a conventional superhero. For one, he does not have any super powers. His power comes from money to pay for weaponry, his armoured suit, and innovative gadgetry. Batman is essentially a vigilante, therefore more identifiable to an audience, as he has no supernatural, alien powers that put him on a higher plateau. He is perceived as a superhero because of his comic book background and because of the presence of the convention of saving humanity. In this sequence we are not seeing conventional superhero behaviour but instead seeing a more human side to the character, resorting to criminal behaviour to try and bring the Joker’s reign of terror to an end.
Themes
In the scene discussed above there is dialogue that forms the centrepiece for the exploration of one of the key themes within The Dark Knight. The Joker says “The people need you right now, but when they don’t they’ll cast you out, like a leper. You see, their morals and their code, it’s a bad joke. You’ll be dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. They’ll show you, when the chips are down, these civilised people, they’ll eat each other.”
This speech yet again focuses on humanity. Is society bigger and stronger than base human urges? Are people inherently good, or evil? What effect does society have on affecting people’s choices? These are serious philosophical themes being explored by what was once routinely regarded as a children’s genre. But The Dark Knight has moved the goal posts on what a superhero film can achieve.
This theme is fully exemplified by the climax of the film. The Joker organises two boats to carry people away to safety from Gotham, now a city in crisis. One is full of prisoners, the other full of normal civilians, and each has a detonator for the other boat. The Joker believes that the panic of the citizens will result in a crumbling morality that will result in them blowing up the prisoners’ boat to save themselves. And on the other side are the criminals, who are supposedly not to be trusted and, knowing that the citizens will be thinking of killing them, will act first and blow up their ship.
The Joker’s experiment collapses when neither of the boats explodes. But this doesn’t prove his argument false. The character who is the spine of the whole film, and who personifies this theme is District Attorney Harvey Dent. Dent begins the film as the saviour of Gotham, even being referred to as the White Knight of Gotham. He is eventually, through the death of Rachel Dawes and the manipulation of the Joker, corrupted to do evil. Could Dent even be ‘the Dark Knight’ of the title? Dent’s story shows that, under the circumstances, even the person most committed to the law might be driven to lawlessness. Morality, in the modern world, is in constant flux. Dent says early on in the film ““You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” In his case he becomes the villain but with Gordon and Batman’s connivance, he is hoisted up as the hero whilst Batman knowingly submits to become the hunted. The ending echoes the Joker’s words from the interrogation scene.
Conclusion
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) awarded The Dark Knight a ‘12A’ certificate, a decision that some found inappropriately permissive, considering the tone of the film. The BBFC has this to say about the decision “The key classification issues noted were violence and threat, though the examining team felt the violence was, in line with ‘12A’ guidelines, both impressionistic and bloodless. Examiners noted some scenes of strong threat when The Joker menaces other, sometimes innocent, characters. The strongest of these include sight of The Joker touching a gangster’s mouth with a knife before killing him (off screen) and a scene in which he presses his blade into Rachel's cheek. Examiners also discussed the film’s tone which included some dark and adult moments.” But still felt it was suitable for a 12A citing these as the reasons for why, “In the case of The Dark Knight several factors were noted which supported a ‘12A’ certificate. These included the film’s comic book style, the appeal of the work to 12 –15 year olds, the clear fantasy context and the lack of strong detail, blood or gore.” I would argue with a few of the BBFC’s conclusions here (without getting into a discussion on censorship per se). Citing the film’s ‘comic boom style’ and ‘clear fantasy context’ is to misunderstand the film. As we have discussed, it is actually a contrast to comic book style and a fantasy context of its predecessor, moving away into a more realistic and disturbing setting as outlined in the analysis above. The question is, why does it?
Firstly, comic books aren’t what they were when first launched. The original superhero films were based on comic books of the 1930s–50s (hence the prologue to Superman opening with the caption ‘June 1938’). In the 1980s the medium of the comic book changed with two important comic book publications. These two releases were Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen. These releases broadened the range of what the comic book could do, and widened the audience of readers for ‘graphic novels’, as they came to be called. The characters in these were human, multi faceted and were not good or evil, black or white, they were characters who had killed in Vietnam, bombed campaigners on the streets of New York, incited violence, even raped women. The old conventions of the superhero comic book had been discarded. Aimed at children these most certainly were not. The film of Watchmen was faithful to the source in that it is set in the 1980s allowing it a sense of distance that The Dark Knight doesn’t permit. There have been a few superhero movies that have had 18 certificates, such as The Crow or the Blade films, but none that have truly presented the superhero world with such a realistic edge.
Why do film-makers want to use the superhero genre to make social comment? That is the main question to ask when looking at why The Dark Knight has begun to move the genre away from the fantastical to more reality-based representation. Could it be the delicate balance of political debate in America since the events of 11 September 2001? The first film to be affected by the disaster was, famously, a superhero film. Spider–Man (2002) originally had a trailer sequence that took place between the Twin Towers which had to be removed in respect of events. Since then, mainstream Hollywood film hasn’t exactly been prolific in its exploration of serious contemporary issues. Perhaps, then, a safe place to explore modern fears of terrorism is through the superhero genre, one step removed from reality so as to give the audience just enough distance to deal with the issues, themes and events presented. Hollywood pictures which have tried to deal with it have proved to be commercial failures, Lions for Lambs (2007) could be blamed on Tom Cruise’s poor image at the time of release but negative press and no appetite for films concerned with political issues are a more likely explanation as other films such as Rendition (2007), The Kingdom (2007) have performed well. This could also be the reason that recent Oliver Stone films such as World Trade Center (2006) and W (2008) have stayed away from the controversial aspects and been watered down, even neutered versions of what the audience is used to from Oliver Stone. Politicised fare is all over the television screens be it the news or intricate dramas like The West Wing, maybe audiences are voting with their feet in making the big screen the place for spectacle and escapism over political and social depth. Hollywood has answered by adding that depth to the spectacle, which is a tough balancing act but one that has certainly worked with The Dark Knight.
Maybe over time the wounds of that awful day and the international conflicts that followed will heal and the boom of the superhero genre will run its course. Or maybe, with such talented film-makers and such great source material that is coming from the comic book world, the films will delve ever deeper into the human psyche and society.
‘Is it a bird? No, it’s a psychopath.’ The Dark Knight and the New Superhero Film
by Robin Bell
I’d like to introduce this analysis with two personal memories which relate to the subject. A huge part of any student’s analysis should come from their personal consumption and feelings towards film, as I believe it heightens any analysis. Every person’s viewpoint comes from a specific angle which will reflect how each film is seen and read.
The first story goes all the way back to my childhood and the moment I received a batch of comics including The Beano and Dandy and many containing superheroes such as Superman, Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk and Batman. I remember how happy I was sitting on my bedroom floor reading all of these. The Hulk and Batman were my favourite. I re-read these comics again and again, devouring them for a whole summer. They were tattered by the end of the school holidays because I had handled them so much and, even now, reminds me of childhood.
Jump forward twenty years to summer 2008. I found myself in New York the week that The Dark Knight, the biggest film of the year, was released. That week it proved extremely difficult to get tickets to any screening of the film anywhere in Manhattan. Every screening was fully booked. With much persistence we managed to get two spare seats to a midnight screening on a Thursday night. We took our seats in a completely packed IMAX cinema and the excitement began.
Two hours later the film had finished and as we walked through the streets of New York I felt utterly shell shocked. The intense atmosphere of the film had really gotten to me, and I couldn’t believe that what I had just watched was, in fact, a mainstream superhero summer blockbuster.
To think that these two experiences come from the same source – the superhero genre – shows how much development has occurred within this genre. From generic codes and conventions through to the production side, distribution and exhibition and even consumption The Dark Knight has broken barriers, something I want to explore here.
Superheroes, The Origin Story – From Page to Screen
Before there were comic books, there were comic strips, the first of these appearing in The New York Sunday World in 1895. But it wasn’t until the 1930s that the comic book as a distinct medium became popular and this was mainly because of the rise of the superhero.
Superheroes were mostly strong, muscular men, who had an alternative identity. There were usually two sides to the superhero; the everyday person with a regular job and life, and the strong superhero who only appeared when there was an emergency, or a life threatening situation. It was what America and the world needed during this time of upheaval, from the Depression through the Second World War. And the three top selling superhero comics were Superman, Captain America and Batman.
Superman and Captain America are self explanatory, both being patriotic, straight-laced forces for good (‘Truth, Justice and the American Way’). Batman was different. From the start, Batman’s stories were grim and gritty – in the first episode, seen in Detective Comics, the villain fell into a vat of acid, which killed him. Not showing any remorse for causing his death, Batman observed "A fitting end for his kind”. Not what you expect from a wholesome superhero that kids might look up to. So Batman had already separated himself from the usual superhero formula.
What attracted the audience to Batman was the fact he was perfectly pitched between the noir, detective heroes of the time and the superheroes. He might not have had super powers but he had a great mind, and cool gadgets (the bat suit was something kids have always admired).
The next rung of popularity for the comics came through television. The Adventures of Superman starring George Reeves came to US TV in the 1950’s after a popular 15 part Columbia film serial. This series was hugely popular and paved the way for more superheroes on the television. One of the most popular was the Batman TV series from the sixties, featuring Adam West as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Burt Ward as his sidekick Robin and featuring a wide array of colourful villains. “They called it "Camp," ironic comic perfection. The key to Batman was in the lead actors playing outlandishly fantastic situations with a straight face, and the stunt-casting of hot TV personalities.” The success of this TV show contributed to the rise in sales of colour televisions, and also led to a feature length Batman film (1966).
The 1st Superhero film?
When looking at the origin of the superhero genre in film, there is some debate as to which film is seen to be the first, the one which established the conventions of the genre that we know today. Was it Batman, the movie?
Not many of the genre’s conventions are present in the film, especially compared to, for example, Superman: The Movie from 1978. Both films are brightly coloured, family friendly movies, featuring the titular superheroes in tightly fitting costumes. Both of them had simple good against evil storylines, and both of them had the hero saving ordinary civilians. The main difference is that Superman takes the material seriously whilst Batman parodies it.
The Superman producers – Alexander and Ilya Salkind and Pierre Spengler – bought the film rights for Superman from DC Comics. Tom Mankiewicz who was the film’s creative consultant gives the Salkind’s all the credit, stating “I guess they saw the future in making a film out of Superman... nobody thought this would make a very good picture. Everybody, I guess, had the memory of the Batman television series and they thought this is going to be campy, and you can’t have two and a half hours of camp.”
To get credibility for the film the producers had to get bankable names on board. They first enlisted Godfather writer Mario Puzo followed by star of that film and screen legend Marlon Brando in the role of Superman’s father Jor-El. Gene Hackman then joined as the villain Lex Luthor, despite initial reservations: “At first, I was afraid that my image as a serious actor would be tarnished. I had thought of it only as a cartoon character, and I recognised that I could make Lex Luthor into something that I could be proud of.” Through these people being involved the project gained legitimacy. The big names also gave the film makers freedom to cast an unknown in the lead role and still advertise the film using Brando and Hackman as the main focus. The focus was successfully moved away from Superman being a comic book, or a television show, to being a movie.
Even though the film lays down all the conventions of the superhero genre that are still adhered to nowadays, and became the first ever comic book superhero epic, it begins by using the conventions of science fiction.
The film opens with a prologue in which we see red curtains being pulled back to reveal an Action comics comic book, a neat juxtaposition of the two forms of media, which sets up that we are viewing a filmed version of the story of the comic book character. A caption reads June 1938 and a child reads from the comic book and introduces the Daily Planet. This is an important introduction to the main setting for the superhero and action elements of the film in its second half. After that the camera pans up into space for the title sequence, names whooshing towards the camera, before we arrive at the planet Krypton, where the opening twenty minutes of the film take place.
We are first introduced to Krypton by zooming through space and into the blue planet. Its surface is mostly ice and we keep travelling towards a glacier city which in the centre holds a white dome emanating with light. Pointedly, the first words spoken are “This is no fantasy, no careless product of wild imagination”.
These are science fiction conventions the audience would be used to, whilst also taking the material intensely seriously as outlined by the opening line of dialogue. By opening with familiar and respected actor Marlon Brando it perhaps assuages the fears of a sceptical audience that the film might be comic, childish, ridiculous and camp, it also provides the audience conventions they know and understand.
The first forty-five minutes track Superman, or as he’s named on Earth Clark Kent, through his upbringing, and how he deals with his powers during these years. Basically everything Smallville covers now. The main thrust of Superman: The Movie is the origin story, and this film can be considered the sine qua non of the genre. Every superhero has an origin story, telling how they gained their powers and decided to fight crime. It may be revealed in their first appearance, or not until an eventual flashback, but once established it sets ground rules for which tropes are applicable to that particular superhero. This itself has now become a narrative convention of the superhero genre.
The action then moves to Metropolis, and Clark’s adult life, for the first time. Metropolis serves as the film’s alternative representation of New York. The urban, capital city location is a hugely important aspect of the superhero genre. For one thing it represents America, the American way of life and the American Dream. Secondly it provides the film with the sense of scale required. Most importantly it gives the superhero the opportunity to save lives on a large scale, and it provides plenty of opportunities for action situations that a sparsely populated location wouldn’t.
The city portrayed through Metropolis in this film is very different to other cinematic portrayals of contemporary New York at the time. Sure, there is crime in the city as we see in Superman’s first hero montage; after saving Lois from her helicopter he goes to foil a comedic robber, what looks like a drug deal on a boat and then save a cat from a tree. But there’s no gang warfare or street violence in the clean, mostly friendly streets of Metropolis. When citizens meet Superman it’s always with a friendly smile, glance or witty one-liner. It’s a brightly coloured, vibrant place to live, and obviously a fantastical contrast to the New York that was being presented on the screen at the time. Compare this to Taxi Driver, Martin Scorsese’s 1976 masterpiece. Although only two years earlier Scorsese’s depiction of the city is far more squalid and depressing, showing a totally different side to the city. DoP on Taxi Driver Michael Chapman says that “Whatever else Taxi Driver is or isn’t it is a kind of documentary of what New York looked like. In the seventies New York was at its nadir. It was scummy and awful.”
A key scene to examine when looking at Superman the Movie is the confrontation between Superman and arch enemy, Lex Luthor. The scene begins with Superman burrowing down into Luthor’s underground lair. He bursts through an iron door and steps into Luthor’s office with commanding power. Luthor unveils his plan, to make money through real estate by blowing up the West Coast creating a coast line out of the apparently worthless desert land he owns. Superman’s reaction is restrained, never rising to all out violence. He calls the plan a ‘sick fantasy’, until realising that two rockets are already in flight. Lifting Luthor up by his collar is the only physical threat Superman offers. This is followed by Superman labelling Luthor a ‘diseased maniac’ and throwing him, non-threateningly onto a cushioned sofa. The film does not dwell on violence, and no physical harm comes to anyone. Also notice in this sequence there is no grey area – Superman is unconditionally ‘good’ and Lex Luthor is unambiguously ‘evil’ (if charming). Superman does nothing that a true hero wouldn’t do. When Luthor overcomes Superman with the aid of some cleverly hidden Kryptonite, he claims he is better than Superman by outsmarting him with “mind over muscle”; but Superman actually escapes through the compassion of Luthor’s maligned assistant Miss Teschmacher. This showing that humanity can be a force for good is another theme and convention of the superhero genre.
In being the first of the genre, Superman was a successful endeavour for all involved, not only in box office terms with a $300 million worldwide intake, but also in paving the way for the genre with a raft of new conventions. From the brightly coloured tightly fitting suit worn by a character with a dual personality who hides his superhero side by living his daily life as a well-meaning citizen, mirroring the humanity as a force for good message that prevails throughout the genre. The dual worlds are also explored through the mirroring of superhero and villain, which in their basest sense portray a battle between good and evil, but can represent much more.
They follow a simple pattern in terms of narrative, the audience realising that by the end the superhero will overcome the villain and equilibrium will be restored, the evil plan thwarted. Audiences would also become used to the origin story, that particular narrative device being used ad infinitum with regards to the superhero genre. These conventions jumped straight from the page of the comic book, as did the look of Superman; bright colours, comic book panel framing of scenes, events culminating in the unbelievable and the fantastical. For example, the climax of the film features the titular character flying around the Earth so fast it begins to spin backwards upon its axis to reverse time, so Superman can save Lois’s life.
Superman proved this fantastical quality need not lead to parody, a la the Batman TV series. Audiences began to embrace the fantastical elements, they wanted to believe a man could fly, and not laugh at the suggestion. They wanted superheroes and escapism. It was just the right time to capitalise upon it also, as the dawning age of the blockbuster had begun a few years earlier with the double whammy of Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977). The rise of the blockbuster picture came after years of Hollywood having to turn to independent producers as they had become out of touch with their audience. This allowed directors more control, which was then taken away as through the above films Hollywood found a way to regain control through these ‘event movies’, thus leaving the landscape ripe for the release of a superhero film, and Superman was perfect to be the first of these.
Things are very different in the present. X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, The incredible Hulk, the Fantastic Four have all graced the big screen in recent years. Marvel Comics have their own production company now, with Captain America and Thor films planned. Every summer the multiplexes are full to the rafters with superhero films. And in 2008, the biggest and highest-grossing (so far) of all was released.
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight was released 24 July 2008, the sequel to the critically and commercially successful Batman Begins (2005) again directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Christian Bale in the dual role of Bruce Wayne and Batman. Expectation was high and a lot of the hype during pre release focused on the Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker. This was heightened by the tragic death of the star months before release.
Being the blockbuster hit of the summer and also obtaining widespread critical praise, The Dark Knight took over $1 billion worldwide box office, only the third film ever to do so. Was it because it was good timing, being released at the peak of the superhero boom? Was it because it’s dark themes struck a nerve in these modern times? Or was it because of the audience’s morbid fascination with seeing a dead actor play a raving psychopath so convincingly? Whatever, it was it is obvious that The Dark Knight is a film that needs to be explored to see how it relates to the times we live in; how it has changed the superhero genre, and also how it adheres to its conventions also; and finally how it has changed the genre and maybe even modern mainstream cinema.
The first aspect to look at to see how far the superhero genre has come is the director. Christopher Nolan, was a strange name from leftfield to come in and make a superhero film in the first place. But also the first sign that this version of Batman was to be more complex.
You could argue that Batman has already had an auteur behind its reigns with Tim Burton directing the 1989 version of Batman and its sequel Batman Returns (1992). For me Burton is a more visual and stylistic director whereas Nolan is more technical, story-based and complex. So whilst Burton’s gothic Gotham looked great, arguably it lacked substance and corporeality. This is something which Nolan doesn’t lack. He also brings a clinical eye and a complex take on character and story to the superhero genre. All which add to how the genre is taking a different shape, and how it is moving away from the fantastical elements or blending them in more with the world and environment of the film.
Opening Sequence
There is no better place to start to examine all of these facets of The Dark Knight than from looking at its opening sequence. Within an opening sequence a lot of exposition needs to be done – it’s an introduction to main characters, the environment and world of the film and also the tone of the story.
The Dark Knight opens with ominous clouds, billowing out in explosion, and the faint outline of the bat symbol heading towards the camera through the blue flames, but only briefly. It’s a matter of seconds before we are plunged into events. The opening shot is of a pale white cityscape, we are surrounded by mirrored buildings and the aerial camera zooms us towards one building in particular, until we’re uncomfortably close. There’s an eerie calm on the soundtrack achieved by Hans Zimmer’s score which is an ascending violin note stretched out, whining and grating.
As we arrive at the window it is shot out from within, and a quick edit takes us to a side on mid shot of the gun-man who is wearing a grotesque clown mask. After firing a cable out of the window, we are quickly taken to a corner of a street somewhere in the city of Gotham.
The camera tracks slowly to the back of a figure waiting on the corner of the street. He is framed centre of the screen, with a holdall bag over one shoulder and a clown’s mask hanging loosely from his other hand. He stands inanimate and hunched. The camera zooms in upon the mask and its empty eye holes. Tyres screech, a van pulls up, and the figure we’ve been watching draws the mask up to his face and enters the van. The music picks up a pace as we are taken back to the two masked people who are travelling down the cable across to the other building. The martial-sounding music is what you might expect from a crime film, as is the muted colour scheme. The city is alabaster white almost the only colour comes from the hideous clown masks. Aerial shots follow their descent, with a very dramatic vertiginous viewpoint, constantly moving and then swiftly editing back to the van. The camera sits in medium shot in the back seat of the van, as if the viewer is part of events. Conversation in the van regards the plan, which we now discover is masterminded by someone called ‘the Joker’, and there follows some speculation as to why he is so named. But as the action is happening at a hurtling pace the dialogue doesn’t feel like exposition.
We’re whisked along into the action with loud gunfire and screaming as their target, a bank, is held up by the criminals. A man is violently thrown over the counter, before a close up of a woman who works at the bank as one of the clown criminals moves swiftly towards her. We cut to the roof again, with a close up of the clown silencing the alarm. Once he has done so, he is shot by his accomplice, and so it is unveiled that the Joker’s plan involves members of his gang killing each other after their specific function is completed. A harsh loud drumbeat kicks in propelling the action, people are given live grenades to hold and beaten with guns as the safe cracker begins his job. Resistance comes from the bank manager who fires a shotgun at the criminals. It doesn’t take long before he is shot in the leg. As the plan comes to its end we see the back of one the criminals stalk the bank, before we’re down to just two surviving clown criminals. One is tricked to stand in just the right place as a bus comes crashing through the wall to take him out.
At the end of the scene there is some key dialogue as the bank manager states that criminals in the town ‘used to believe’ in such things as honour and respect, suggesting that the bank had criminal ties. The Joker answers that everything that doesn’t kill you ‘makes you stranger’, before revealing his scarred and painted face. He drives away from the bank and blends in with the traffic in a school bus.
The degree of violence in this opening sequence is astonishing, especially when considering that generic conventions dictate this is a film most people would assume is aimed at a family audience. This sequence and quite a lot of the film have the look and feel of a stylish crime film, perhaps Michael Mann’s Heat. We are introduced to the world of film in a number of ways in this opening sequence. Firstly the camerawork highlights the epic nature of what lies ahead, constantly zooming into the city, drawing us into the action. This is heightened by this sequence being filmed on IMAX cameras specifically for the IMAX experience. Nolan states on documentary Shooting Outside of the box, that “opening with an IMAX sequence seemed a terrific way to make an impression upon the audience, and really throw them into the action.” [Robin – reference for this quote?] He also states that the IMAX cameras were intended as dramatic tools, with a higher resolution and more sound the IMAX sequences were reserved for big, important moments in the film.
We’re economically introduced to the Joker and the chaos that ensues around him. The violent nature of the film is heightened by the swift edits, and the fact that everyone is a victim – the helpless functionaries in the bank, the manager who tried to fight back and also the criminals who helped the Joker carry out the job. Many facets of the Joker are introduced also, from the snippet of dialogue that introduces how he looks to the fact that he leaves the death of one person to chance by waiting for a bus to crash through the wall and hit him, and also his sadistic nature in how he kills the bank manager. It is this exchange which is in fact most intriguing in the information it reveals about the setting, tone and characters within the film. Firstly with the bank manager revealing that criminals used to ‘believe in things’, he also reveals that he has worked with them, this bank probably held mainly criminal money. The assumed good of humanity that is a convention of the superhero genre is subverted here, bringing a grey area to proceedings; there is no division between good and evil people, life in the real world is not that simple. The Dark Knight thus takes a step away from the fantastical world of the superhero genre almost instantly. The line the Joker delivers back says a lot about his character, that he’s seen the dark side the world has to show, and survived it, but has been affected by it and continues to be. The only way he has managed to survive in this world is to slip into anarchic psychosis. Not really a family friendly theme for the film, then.
The last shot of the Joker getting away in a school bus is also a subversive image. The school bus is a symbol of innocence and hope for the future, in that our children are being taken to school to be educated. Does this symbolise the Joker’s regression to childish ways; or is the metaphor in this shot that in all good there is something dark creeping in? Is the Joker the thorn within the roses? Later in the film the Joker will pass himself off as that most trusted of public servants, a hospital nurse – before blowing up the hospital. By the film’s end, the viewer may believe that no area of society can escape being sullied by the darker shade of humanity.
Comparison sequence
To truly analyse how a genre has developed, it is necessary to compare specific aspects. The scene from The Dark Knight that would best illustrate this is the first confrontation scene that the Batman and the Joker share, this can be found one hour and twenty three minutes into the film during chapter 23. This is after the Joker has allowed himself to be captured (it transpires) and has been placed in a holding cell as the police try to extract information. This is the first time the opposing forces come face to face to share dialogue, much like the first time Superman meets Lex Luthor in his extravagant underground bunker/home that we discussed earlier, occurring during chapter 33, one hour and forty seven minutes into the film. The difference is quite extreme.
For a start the Superman scene is played in a brightly lit, spacious setting, with extravagant decor. The Dark Knight’s setting is the dull, drab concrete and glass of a container cell, plunged into darkness. The opening dialogue in The Dark Knight scene concerns the whereabouts of Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent. The Joker questions who Commissioner Jim Gordon, Batman’s main ally on the Gotham police force, can trust on his team. The theme of corruption immediately becomes the focus. Behind the Joker is only shadow, his painted face the only thing visible on screen. As Gordon leaves he switches the light on to reveal Batman standing behind the Joker, with the Joker unaware of the situation.
Batman doesn’t even allow the Joker to speak before smashing his head against the table – hardly the even-handed, measured approach the generic formula would have you expect of a superhero film, the sort on display in the Superman–Luthor confrontation. Later in the scene, the Joker tells Batman, “You complete me”, quoting a line from the American romantic comedy, Jerry Maguire (1996), a sly reference of subversion that exemplifies the twisted love story the Joker thinks he shares with Batman. The generic tradition is to suggest that hero and villain are mirror images of each other, similar but intrinsically different. But the power of The Dark Knight lies in the subtle undermining of this convention in that the differences between ‘hero’ and ‘villain’ are not binary, but matters of degree.
Can we describe as the Joker as ‘evil’? He’s certainly sadistic, an anarchist, probably psychotic ¬– but ‘evil’? Can he help what he does, or is he, as he repeatedly implies a product of a twisted society? Similarly, Batman’s behaviour, as the scene continues, is an erratic performance of violence, itself bordering on the psychotic – but this border is critical. He insists that he has ‘rules’ and the Joker knows there is one that he will not knowingly break. That is to kill, and he will always stop short of it. But the Joker doesn’t have any such boundaries and, it is implied, it is this distinction alone, the one between limits and chaos, which separates them.
While formally the action in this scene is quite similar to that in Superman, the execution (pardon the pun) here is more violent. Firstly Batman pulls the villain up by the collar, but instead of the hollow threat from Superman, the Joker is dragged along the table, before being slammed into a wall. In Superman, Luthor is tossed almost playfully on to a sofa, but in The Dark Knight the Joker is slammed onto a hard table then head first into the glass window (this brutally reinforced by the crunching sound design), which fractures under the force of the Jokers skull. Are these the actions of a modern hero? It should be noted that even though Batman has a ‘secret identity’, he has never been a conventional superhero. For one, he does not have any super powers. His power comes from money to pay for weaponry, his armoured suit, and innovative gadgetry. Batman is essentially a vigilante, therefore more identifiable to an audience, as he has no supernatural, alien powers that put him on a higher plateau. He is perceived as a superhero because of his comic book background and because of the presence of the convention of saving humanity. In this sequence we are not seeing conventional superhero behaviour but instead seeing a more human side to the character, resorting to criminal behaviour to try and bring the Joker’s reign of terror to an end.
Themes
In the scene discussed above there is dialogue that forms the centrepiece for the exploration of one of the key themes within The Dark Knight. The Joker says “The people need you right now, but when they don’t they’ll cast you out, like a leper. You see, their morals and their code, it’s a bad joke. You’ll be dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. They’ll show you, when the chips are down, these civilised people, they’ll eat each other.”
This speech yet again focuses on humanity. Is society bigger and stronger than base human urges? Are people inherently good, or evil? What effect does society have on affecting people’s choices? These are serious philosophical themes being explored by what was once routinely regarded as a children’s genre. But The Dark Knight has moved the goal posts on what a superhero film can achieve.
This theme is fully exemplified by the climax of the film. The Joker organises two boats to carry people away to safety from Gotham, now a city in crisis. One is full of prisoners, the other full of normal civilians, and each has a detonator for the other boat. The Joker believes that the panic of the citizens will result in a crumbling morality that will result in them blowing up the prisoners’ boat to save themselves. And on the other side are the criminals, who are supposedly not to be trusted and, knowing that the citizens will be thinking of killing them, will act first and blow up their ship.
The Joker’s experiment collapses when neither of the boats explodes. But this doesn’t prove his argument false. The character who is the spine of the whole film, and who personifies this theme is District Attorney Harvey Dent. Dent begins the film as the saviour of Gotham, even being referred to as the White Knight of Gotham. He is eventually, through the death of Rachel Dawes and the manipulation of the Joker, corrupted to do evil. Could Dent even be ‘the Dark Knight’ of the title? Dent’s story shows that, under the circumstances, even the person most committed to the law might be driven to lawlessness. Morality, in the modern world, is in constant flux. Dent says early on in the film ““You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” In his case he becomes the villain but with Gordon and Batman’s connivance, he is hoisted up as the hero whilst Batman knowingly submits to become the hunted. The ending echoes the Joker’s words from the interrogation scene.
Conclusion
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) awarded The Dark Knight a ‘12A’ certificate, a decision that some found inappropriately permissive, considering the tone of the film. The BBFC has this to say about the decision “The key classification issues noted were violence and threat, though the examining team felt the violence was, in line with ‘12A’ guidelines, both impressionistic and bloodless. Examiners noted some scenes of strong threat when The Joker menaces other, sometimes innocent, characters. The strongest of these include sight of The Joker touching a gangster’s mouth with a knife before killing him (off screen) and a scene in which he presses his blade into Rachel's cheek. Examiners also discussed the film’s tone which included some dark and adult moments.” But still felt it was suitable for a 12A citing these as the reasons for why, “In the case of The Dark Knight several factors were noted which supported a ‘12A’ certificate. These included the film’s comic book style, the appeal of the work to 12 –15 year olds, the clear fantasy context and the lack of strong detail, blood or gore.” I would argue with a few of the BBFC’s conclusions here (without getting into a discussion on censorship per se). Citing the film’s ‘comic boom style’ and ‘clear fantasy context’ is to misunderstand the film. As we have discussed, it is actually a contrast to comic book style and a fantasy context of its predecessor, moving away into a more realistic and disturbing setting as outlined in the analysis above. The question is, why does it?
Firstly, comic books aren’t what they were when first launched. The original superhero films were based on comic books of the 1930s–50s (hence the prologue to Superman opening with the caption ‘June 1938’). In the 1980s the medium of the comic book changed with two important comic book publications. These two releases were Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen. These releases broadened the range of what the comic book could do, and widened the audience of readers for ‘graphic novels’, as they came to be called. The characters in these were human, multi faceted and were not good or evil, black or white, they were characters who had killed in Vietnam, bombed campaigners on the streets of New York, incited violence, even raped women. The old conventions of the superhero comic book had been discarded. Aimed at children these most certainly were not. The film of Watchmen was faithful to the source in that it is set in the 1980s allowing it a sense of distance that The Dark Knight doesn’t permit. There have been a few superhero movies that have had 18 certificates, such as The Crow or the Blade films, but none that have truly presented the superhero world with such a realistic edge.
Why do film-makers want to use the superhero genre to make social comment? That is the main question to ask when looking at why The Dark Knight has begun to move the genre away from the fantastical to more reality-based representation. Could it be the delicate balance of political debate in America since the events of 11 September 2001? The first film to be affected by the disaster was, famously, a superhero film. Spider–Man (2002) originally had a trailer sequence that took place between the Twin Towers which had to be removed in respect of events. Since then, mainstream Hollywood film hasn’t exactly been prolific in its exploration of serious contemporary issues. Perhaps, then, a safe place to explore modern fears of terrorism is through the superhero genre, one step removed from reality so as to give the audience just enough distance to deal with the issues, themes and events presented. Hollywood pictures which have tried to deal with it have proved to be commercial failures, Lions for Lambs (2007) could be blamed on Tom Cruise’s poor image at the time of release but negative press and no appetite for films concerned with political issues are a more likely explanation as other films such as Rendition (2007), The Kingdom (2007) have performed well. This could also be the reason that recent Oliver Stone films such as World Trade Center (2006) and W (2008) have stayed away from the controversial aspects and been watered down, even neutered versions of what the audience is used to from Oliver Stone. Politicised fare is all over the television screens be it the news or intricate dramas like The West Wing, maybe audiences are voting with their feet in making the big screen the place for spectacle and escapism over political and social depth. Hollywood has answered by adding that depth to the spectacle, which is a tough balancing act but one that has certainly worked with The Dark Knight.
Maybe over time the wounds of that awful day and the international conflicts that followed will heal and the boom of the superhero genre will run its course. Or maybe, with such talented film-makers and such great source material that is coming from the comic book world, the films will delve ever deeper into the human psyche and society.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Treat 3: Film marathon before undertaking zombie horror script the Dumb
For one reason or another these were the 6 films I watched in a big marathon before embarking on zombie horror script the Dumb earlier this year.
The Road
Monsters
The African Queen
28 Days later
Moulin rouge
The Truman Show
The Road
Monsters
The African Queen
28 Days later
Moulin rouge
The Truman Show
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Treat Two: Adaptation article
After an inspiring talk on top screenwriting tips from Henry Swindell at Liverpool JMU yesterday, which ended with a clip from Charlie Kaufman's BFI lecture which I loved when I first saw the lecture but took on extra meaning for myself yesterday. I'm not going to tell you which clip was shown as you should really watch the whole thing for yourself.
Well, after that, i began thinking of an article I worked on a while back which ended up in SPLICE magazine, like my previous article on Hidden it's aimed at A level students and teachers but if you like the film you may find it interesting.
Adaptation
Introduction
The most favoured line used by
audiences in describing a film adaptation is usually dismissive, something like
“It wasn’t as good as the book”. The reason for this? “Usually it’s a simple
matter of lost intricacy, or bowing to the fears of those who place millions of
dollars in a film makers hands.” There are a few exceptions to that rule,
successful adaptations which comes down to personal taste, but then there is
the film entitled Adaptation (2002),
scripted by Charlie Kaufman, directed by Spike Jonze and based on the book The
Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean.
It is almost beyond definition,
asking many questions from its audience even before you consider the question
of film adaptations; their fidelity to the source, and what makes a successful
adaptation. Adaptation stares at the
process of adaptation long and hard, but is it an actual adaptation?
One thing is for sure Adaptation is a film which focuses on
the screenplay, many times over in a self reflexive and intricate way, and for that
reason it’s imperative that any exploration of Adaptation should start with Charlie Kaufman.
Before Adaptation, Kaufman was a TV writer, who had broke into movies. Adaptation was his fourth feature
screenplay, the second of which to be directed by Spike Jonze, the first they
worked on together was the one which broke Kaufman as a surreal screenwriting
talent, Being John Malkovich (1999). Human Nature (2001) and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) followed,
until Kaufman and Jonze were to work together again on Adaptation. Before the
film was released there was a huge buzz about the pair working together again,
especially when people realised that Nic Cage was to be playing a character
called Charlie Kaufman, and another called Donald Kaufman.
But it wasn’t to be an original
script like Being John Malkovich and his other screenplays, this was to be an
adaptation of a book concerning flowers; Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief. The
book was released in 1998 and explores the arrest in 1994 of John Laroche for
poaching rare orchids. Already the book was an adaptation of real events.
Kaufman states when asked where he started with the project that the idea
started with the book but “I like to be free. I don’t want to know too much
when I start. I want to be free to go with it where it takes me.”
So is Adaptation an actual adaptation of the book? Charlie Kaufman didn’t
feature in the book so how could he be a character in the adaptation? What is
the film Adaptation about; the art of
adaptation, Fantasy and perception, Surrealism, Flowers, Humanity, The
inter-connectivity of all things, identity crisis, Mortality, Narrative
structure, or, all of the above and probably more?
Adapting
Adaptation is a tricky but often
travelled road for Hollywood film studios. The website Meta Critic did some
research into the numbers of films adapted from pre existing material after
they commented that “It appears that no existing
concept, however tenuous, can escape the reach of Hollywood studios, who will
seemingly devote every resource they have to avoid developing an original
idea.” Their findings show that in 2010 only 40% of films came from
original ideas, and this figure is decreasing year upon year.
There are many ways to adapt
material; stay faithful to the source in every aspect, choose a section of the
story to focus upon and hone in on that making it the central narrative thrust,
completely change it from top to bottom, or keep true to the essence of the
material whilst weaving in your own artistic vision.
This aspect known as artistic
vision is usually attributed to directors, who are given auteur status by
marketing departments, yet in the sixties the auteur theory was more critic led
coming from Francois Truffaut and highlighted in America by Andrew Sarris’
article in the Village Voice, yet in this case it is Charlie Kaufman and his
writing which could be attributed auteur status, and whilst Spike Jonze brings
this to life in a very creative fashion the focus of this article will be upon
the screenplay, as is indeed apt for the film in question.
Kaufman’s ‘auteur status’ stems from
the idiosyncrasies of his screenplays as well as the recurring themes
throughout all his work, which make his scripts seem so original. Putting
himself into the work is the first sign that Charlie Kaufman was doing
something completely different with this adaptation of Susan Orlean’s The
Orchid Thief, but it wasn’t something that occurred to him straight away. It
wasn’t his reason to adapt it. That was because “It seemed not to be a movie,
which intrigued me. I liked the book and it wasn’t the kind of thing that I was
being sent – I was getting sent the weird stuff because I’m the weirdo. But
this was a straightforward book, very well written. I was learning things; it
was about flowers – there was very little drama in it. It seemed, “Well it’s an
interesting book, why can’t it be an interesting movie?””
It’s this question which drives
the narrative of the film. Instead of a straight adaptation of the book we get
the story of Kaufman adapting the book, intertwined with his adaptation as he
becomes part of the novel. The first line is from Charlie Kaufman himself,
played by Nic Cage and it is “Do I have an original thought in my head?”
Already taking us into the angst of the screenwriter, and preparing us for the
journey of this individual and entirely original adaptation. These two words
are a strange juxtaposition in Hollywood – an original adaptation – but that is
what Kaufman has created.
Susan Orlean sums up how
Kaufman’s adaptation of The Orchid Thief works stating that “strangely,
marvellously, hilariously, his screenplay has ended up not being a literal
adaptation of my book, but a spirutual one, something that has captured (and
expanded on) the essential character of what the book, I hope, was about.” Also
finding it very apt that a book on orchids was the one Kaufman chose to adapt
in this way, calling it a “strange but perfectly fitting fate for the book. The
book’s subject, nominally anyway, is orchids, which happen to be complex
organisms that have taken on literally thousands of different forms; they are
the most cleverly adaptable living things on earth.”
Meta fiction
What Kaufman created with
Adaptation unfortunately comes with a horrible term to pigeon hole it. Whilst
Adaptation is a wholly original film, critics would try to label it as meta
fiction. The definition of meta fiction
is “a type of fiction that self consciously addresses the devices of fiction,
exposing the fictional illusion. It is the literary term describing fictional writing
that self consciously and systematically draws attention to its status as an
artefact in posing questions about the relationship between fiction and
reality, usually using irony and self reflection.”
Meta fiction came into
literature upon the wave of the post modernists and is now becoming more and
more a part of film language. The most prominent mainstream example of meta
fiction can be seen in the Scream (1996-2011)
horror film franchise; known for deconstructing the horror genre and the
characters being self aware of all the conventions and how to avoid said
conventions to not get killed by an avenger carrying out their own horror film.
For a good example of the meta
fiction in Adaptation, one of the
opening scenes can be used. The scene after the introductory monologue with
Kaufman laying out his insecurities against a black screen with the credits opens
on the set of Being John Malkovich.
The style of the camera is fuzzy and handheld, much like a behind the scenes
documentary. A realistic depiction of an exaggerated world, the sound tinny
like recorded for someone’s home video. They are on the set of the ‘Malkovich,
Malkovich’ scene, where in the film John Malkovich has entered his own brain
portal and everyone has his face, or at least a mock up of that set. The lines
of reality are blurred. This is highlighted by the sub headings that introduce
members of the crew. Firstly, introducing the location, ‘On the set of “Being
John Malkovich” Summer 1998’, then ‘John Malkovich, Actor’, sending up himself
by demanding things on set. We then get a super imposed title for ‘Thomas
Smith, First Assistant Director’, ‘Lance Acord, Cinematographer’ before the
camera pans to Nic Cage and we get the title ‘Charlie Kaufman, Screenwriter’
and this is the first occasion that the reality is subverted, and we’re let in
on the meta joke. The audience know that this is Nicolas Cage but now instead
of the reality of the ‘real’ John Malkovich we’re being asked to invest in a
movie character, drawing attention to the fact that this is a movie, and
drawing attention to the fact that we as a member of the audience have to
suspend our disbelief.
What is being adapted?
With Adaptation, the self
awareness mainly comes during the writing process, so Kaufman is aware he is
adapting material and he deconstructs the adaptation process in front of our
eyes, showing the audience how he made the choices in the adaptation to adapt
The Orchid Thief. To do this Kaufman has to bring to the audiences’ attention
the world of the screenwriter, the world of three act structures, inciting
incidents and character motivations. This makes it a good film to show students
who are undertaking a screenwriting part of the course.
Most importantly, Adaptation
introduces Robert McKee’s Story, through Donald and later Charlie visiting his
Story seminar as well as through playful discussions on narrative structure. This
becomes integral to the plot. Some could argue more so than The Orchid Thief,
and I would like to put forward that Adaptation is more of an adaptation of
Robert McKee’s Story than it is of The Orchid Thief.
The full title of McKee’s 500
page opus is ‘Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of
Screenwriting’, and alongside this ‘screenwriters bible’ McKee runs hugely
popular screenwriting seminars known as the Story Seminar. He is alongside Syd
Field and Todorov as ‘experts’ on structure and story, and a controversial
figure as derided as he is acclaimed in screenwriting circles. So, how is the
film an adaptation of a book and seminar on the mechanics of screenwriting?
Key Scenes
There are some key scenes to
look at to understand how an adaptation of the Orchid thie turned into adapting
a 500 page book on the mechanics of screenwriting.
The use of McKee’s Story as
source material for the Adaptation makes the film a great choice to use in the
classroom to look at structure and some of McKee’s screenwriting principles. It
also allows for discussion on originality in modern cinema versus the commerce
of mainstream action blockbuster fare. And of course allows for a discussion on
the process of Adaptation.
The last point made above is a
theme repeated throughout the movie but never more eloquently than in an early
scene which flashes back ‘Four Billion and Forty Years Earlier.’ After Kaufman
asks “How am I here? How did I get here?” we’re treated to a montage of life
evolving from scenes of lava and a big bang, through sea creatures, plants
growing, dinosaurs being wiped out, time lapse photography of the polar ice
caps ascending and descending, and land shifting before we see the rapid rise
of mankind through buildings, cities, the whole landscape changing, followed by
the birth of a baby. This scene highlights how life has adapted and changed
through time to get to the point we are now. At once a comment on adaptation,
and how life is constantly changing and evolving, everything is in flux, and
also emphasising the point that things need to change to move forward, going
against McKee’s principles that must be followed to create a film. These scenes
are backed up with many references to Charles Darwin throughout the film.
Kaufman even inserts a flashback of Darwin working, and Laroche listens to
Darwin’s work on audio cassette in his truck.
In the very next scene Kaufman
continues to outline the themes of the film as well as linking the film to
McKee’s principles. The scene takes place over a lunch where Kaufman is
pitching his adaptation of The Orchid Thief to a studio representative. The
first line of dialogue that leaps out is when Kaufman says he wants to “Let the
movie exist, rather than be artificially plot driven.” This functions on two
levels; one, as a way of dismissing McKee’s methods which Charlie Kaufman does
constantly throughout the movie to Donald, and secondly, as a put down to modern
mainstream Hollywood and how instead of evolving and adapting they are becoming
stagnant, and recycling ideas rather than adapting them and evolving them. This
second point is hammered home by Kaufman’s next statement which says he doesn’t
“want to cram in sex, guns or car chases.” This functions as another dig at
mainstream Hollywood adaptations which exaggerate the material in a lazy
attempt for a dramatic resolution, whilst also highlighting the insecurities of
Kaufman in adapting an important book. A line which fuels Kaufman’s adaptation
of The Orchid Thief, and that sets up the meta joke that underlines the resolution
of the film.
Resolutions are alluded to
throughout Adaptation. After Kaufman goes on a ‘date’ to the theatre Amelia,
his ‘date’, replies that they didn’t enjoy the ending. Later, Donald Kaufman
states he liked the film Dressed to Kill until the third act denouement,
although he pronounces this wrong, much to his brothers frustration.
The resolution is the main act
of the film where Kaufman uses McKee’s Story as his source material, but this
is built up first, through the allusions mentioned above and some other choice
scenes as well as through the entire structure of the film.
The key scene to build this up,
and for the entire structure of the film concerns Kaufman, whilst struggling
with his adaptation of the novel, going along to one of McKee’s seminars.
Robert McKee is portrayed in Adaptation by Brian Cox. At the seminar he
interrupts McKee’s flow with his self hating voice over concerning the failings
of his script. McKee then stares at Kaufman continuing with his seminar and
saying, “If you use voiceover in your work, my friends, God help you! It’s
flaccid, sloppy writing! Any idiot can write voice over narration to explain
the thoughts of the character.” This is followed by Kaufman being shot down by
McKee in reply to a question he’d asked about his problems adapting The Orchid
Thief, which then leads to Kaufman taking McKee aside to have a drink and a
quiet word about the adaptation of this novel. McKee advises Kaufman to go back
into it and put in the drama. “I’ll tell you a secret,” McKee says, “The last
act makes the film. Wow them in the end and you got a hit.”
This scene is the catalyst for one
of the film’s most elaborate meta jokes, worthy of another Kaufman, the late
comedian Andy Kaufman who would construct elaborate jokes regarding his
identity and play with the audience, as seen in the Milos Forman’s film Man on the Moon (1999). After McKee
plants the seed in Kaufman’s mind that twin brothers wrote the screenplay to
Casablanca, Charlie Kaufman returns home and passes the screenplay to his
brother Donald to look at and figure out. The screenplay for Adaptation is attributed to Charlie and
Donald Kaufman, but the cine-literate audience will know that Donald only
exists within the world of the film. Maybe the two names represent the dual
adaptation taking place, Charlie representing the adaptation of The Orchid Thief
and Donald representing the adaptation of Story.
The film seems to suggest that
Donald is responsible for the resolution of the film. The moment he becomes
involved in the script writing process could be seen as Plot point 2, or the
moment that propels the action into the resolution of the film.
The resolution involves every
Hollywood cliché that Charlie Kaufman wanted to avoid in adapting The Orchid
Thief. There is sex between Laroche and Susan Orlean, a car chase and guns,
lots of gunfire shoot outs. The film ends with a nonsensical action sequence
with all emotions heightened to an unbelievable, but inevitable pitch for your
standard Hollywood film. What makes this resolution startling here is the self
conscious change of tone from what’s gone previously, it’s like Kaufman has
handed the writing over to the part of him that takes guidance from McKee
rather than the writer that wanted the film to exist to be free from
conventional shackles, or in the world of the film, he’s let Donald write the
ending.
It has become apparent that the
film has become an ironic adaptation of McKee’s Story. Using the narrative structure
as the punch line to the actual film is the very essence of what the film is
about on one level. The film itself that is an adaptation becomes about
Adaptation, and actually adapts a screenwriting guide. You can’t really get
more self referential than that. It heightens its meta fictional content to the
point where the audience are fully aware that they are watching a construct, as
they are being told every second by the script which intentionally challenges
the viewer. But, for the majority of the running time the audience are misled
to believe they are watching a constructed adaptation of The Orchid Thief,
where really they are watching a deconstruction of Robert McKee’s screenwriting
guide, Story.
McKee looks at it this way, “The
Orchid Thief could not be adapted, it had to be re invented. Kaufman criss
crosses a Disillusionment plot with an Education plot. A disillusionment plot
opens with a protagonist at the positive, someone with an optimistic view of
the world, then arcs him/her to a defeated, pessimistic end. An education plot
is the opposite. It begins with the protagonist at the negative, clinging to a
dark, pessimistic mind set. Experience then teaches this character to see life
anew, arcing him/her to an upbeat, if not optimistic, sense of world and self.
The former is Susan’s story, the latter’s Charlies.”
And through McKee’s
interpretation of the film we reach the real resolution, that the process of adaptation
is taking from someone else to appease yourself. In adapting Orlean’s book,
Kaufman ruins everything that he held in regard about said book, but made peace
with himself in doing so. Much like most art, adaptation becomes a cathartic
exercise.
Conclusion
The question still remains
whether this is an actual adaptation or not. Is it just an examination of the
adaptation process. My viewpoint would be that in its structure it adapts
McKee’s methods, satirising them at the resolution and therefore, since it’s a
film about a writer writing a screenplay, and we are watching that process, I
consider it an adaptation of Robert McKee’s story. Yet, Susan Orlean sees it as
a spiritual adaptation of The Orchid Thief, McKee sees it as Kaufman fusing two
established stories together in a
surrealistic manner. What this highlights is that the film is open to
interpretation, and allows the viewer to place his own meaning onto it. In
breaking down the barriers of the suspension of disbelief that we’re watching a
movie Kaufman consistently challenges the viewer as to what the movie is about,
and what type of viewer you are will impact upon the outcome of what you get
out of the movie. A passive viewer will see an entirely different movie to an
active viewer, a Kaufman fan will see a different movie to a viewer who
expected an adaptation of The Orchid Thief.
Adaptation, as well as providing
many areas of discussion is perhaps best used to look at spectatorship
theories, especially when analysing pre conceived expectations, as most
adaptations come with expectations of the pre existing material. Adaptation
overcomes this by evolving and adapting into something new; a model which most
Hollywood adaptations would benefit from.
Resources
Kaufman, Charlie & Donald,
Adaptation: The Shooting Script, Newmarket Press, 2002
McKee, Robert, Story: Substance,
Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting’, Metheun Press, 1999
http://features.metacritic.com/features/2011/movie-sequels-remakes-and-adaptations/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)