Film Studies Essays Film or Book

Film Studies Essays Film or Book Which is better the film or the book? The debate over the superiority of literature over film or vice versa seems to rear its head every time a major piece of literary work is adapted. Even unbridled success stories such as Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy have dissident voices unhappy with his changes and omissions. However changes and omissions are absolutely necessary when adapting hundreds of pages of prose into a couple of hours of film. This essay will look at how narrative is adapted and retold in two films; Mrs Dalloway (Marleen Gorris, 1997) and The Color Purple. (Steven Spielberg, 1985) Mrs Dalloway is not a conventionally narrated novel. Over the course of a day it follows the eponymous protagonist through her preparations to host a party and how the unexpected arrival of am old suitor makes her reminisce about her youth.   At the same time we see how Mrs Dalloway and her associates lives intersect with that of a shell-shocked solider. What is produced is a type of mosaic narrative, which is then left for the reader to interpret and discern meaning. In the beginning of the film as she walks about London on her way to collect the flowers for her party we are allowed to view moments of her youth in flashback. These flashbacks are generally triggered by something in the present. For example a meeting with Hugh reminds her of how Peter Walsh ‘never to this day forgiven her for liking him.’ (Woolf, p 8) These are transitioned in and out of aurally, as she hears voices of people she knew in her head and the visual waits a beat before transitioning back as well. This replicates the mosaic narrative style of the book. There is however one major difference between the beginning of the book and the beginning of the film. The character of Septimus (Rupert Graves) is much more quickly established as a major character within the film. In the book he is introduced as a car backfires and he is shocked rigid by it although no immediate reason is given why. Over the course of the novel we learn more about his experiences at war and the lasting effect upon him. Mrs Dalloway and Septimus never meet in the novel, yet we are led to discern they are connected thematically through the mosaic narrative. The Film version of Mrs Dalloway opens with a brief sequence of Septimus (Rupert Graves) in the trenches of world war one.   The shot is thick with smoke and is filmed in slow motion to give the sense of a dream sequence although the title Italy 1918 suggests that this is a flashback. The camera slowly zooms into Septimus face singling him out as the protagonist of this sequence. We see his reaction to a friend being blown up by an explosion and as he sinks into despair the smoke fills the screen fading it to white and softening focus. This soft white backdrop then becomes the drapes in the bedroom of Mrs. Dalloway (Vanessa Redgrave).  Ã‚      These two environments could not be more different; however the transition is not jarring or unsettling; we are taken from the horror trenches into the gentile and elegant world of a Whitehall socialite with the greatest of ease. The transition leaves the viewer with the impression that the two people’s lives are somehow connected, but perhaps is not as subtle and gently persuasive as the book. The Color Purple tells the story of a young black woman in the Deep South. It is about the oppression and abuse she suffers in a racist sexist world and the bonds of friendship she finds with other women. The climactic emotional moment of the novel is the sequence ion which Celia tells her husband that she is leaving him and moving to Memphis. The dialogue form the scene in the film is taken almost word for word from the book. It is a moment of great personal emancipation for Celia, and a moment of fantastic performance from the unusually restrained Whoopi Goldberg. She has been abused and sub-serviant all her life and she finally has enough sense of self worth to speak up load and powerfully. â€Å"You’re a lowdown dog is what’s wrong, I say. It’s time to leave you and enter into the creation.† (Walker, p180) First of all the scene is set in Mr.____’s (Danny Glover) House as opposed to Harpo’s (Willard Pugh) in the book; this is significant because it has been Celia’s prison for several years; a place where she has been continuously abused. This adds extra dramatic tension to the scene and focuses it on Celia. However this does to some extent detract from the arcs of the other characters such as Squeak (Rea Dawn Chong) and Sofia. (Oprah Winfrey) In the novel there are continuous references to Squeak being Harpo’s mistress and mother of his child. This is less prominent in the film and as such leaves Squeaks departure with much less dramatic weight. Also the film omits the visit of Eleanor Jane and reference to Sofia’s probation. In the novel Sofia is denied her emancipation by the legalities she is still embroiled with, the film instead reinstates Sofia as a dominant force at the dinner table. What is clear from this scene is that although as the stories protagonist Celia’s narrative arc has remained intact, omissions have had to have been made on behalf of other characters within the novel due to the narrative constraints of time. Film can strive to imitate the stylistic form of literature successfully as in the case of Mrs Dalloway or unsuccessfully as in the case of The Bonfire of the Vanities (De Palma, 1990) In certain cases such as The Godfather (Coppola 1972) and Jaws (Spielberg 1975) the film adaptation can surpass the source material. Although argument other which form is better may be mere sound and fury; direct comparison of the two different narrative forms can lead to a better understanding of narration itself. Bibliography Bordwell and Thompson. (2001) Film Art: An Introduction, New York: McGraw Hill. Kawin, B (1992) How Movies Work, London: University of California press. Thompson, K (1999) Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding classical Narrative Technique. London: Harvard Walker, A (2004) The Color Prurple, London: Pheonix. Woolf, V (1996) Mrs Dalloway, London: Penguin popular classics. Filmography Bonfire of the Vanities (Dir Brian De Palma, 1990, US) Color Purple, The (Dir Steven Spielberg, 1985 US) Godfather, The (Dir Francis Ford Coppola, 1972, US) Jaws (Dir Steven Spielberg, 1975, US) Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (Dir Peter Jackson, 2002, US, New Zealand, Germany) Mrs. Dalloway (Dir Marleen Gorris, 1997, UK)

Pierrot Le Fou, Art, and You

Pierrot Le Fou, Art, and You Jean-Luc Godard's film Pierrot Le Fou is in itself a challenging piece of cinematic art. The film, which experiments with elements of mise-en-scene, cinematography, and editing in an unconventional, intricate, and artistic manner, represents a milestone in the film genre known as the French New Wave, and continues to be important to the history of cinema today. With Pierrot Le Fou, director Godard expresses commentary on such things as mass culture, politics, America, literature, music, art, and cinema itself.These opinions are communicated to us throughout the film not only through the filmic techniques employed, but by the actors themselves; through their dialogue and their acknowledgment of the spectators presence. It is Godard's choices to employ a garish color scheme, references to mass culture, narrative intransivity, and the destruction of the â€Å"fourth wall† that allow for Pierrot Le Fou to highlight the dominant pop art movement occurri ng at the time as well as to confront viewers, express commentary concerning literature and cinema, and break the audience's willing suspension of disbelief.Bright, vivid, and often primary shades of color, in addition to subject matter concerning references and depictions of elements present in mass culture describe the collective term of the artistic phenomena occurring in the 1950's and 60's known as â€Å"Pop Art. † In Pierrot Le Fou, we are made highly aware of such a movement as much of the film is styled according to such. This can be seen as early as in the opening credits, which slowly piece together in shades of bright red and blue (depicting at first a bunch of A's, B's, and C's) a title and credit screen.With such a flashy opening, characteristics of pop art are instantly alluded to; and continue to remain present throughout the remainder of the film. One of the most significant scenes in which this is conceptualized is the sequence in which the main character, Fe rdinand, attends a cocktail party. The party sequence, which is shot entirely on a 2D plain in which the actors are arranged facing each other against the wall, is also filmed through bright, primary colored filters. Throughout this sequence, every cut is marked by a change in color scheme.Beginning in a garish shade of red, the sequence then alternates between shades of bright white, yellow, blue, and finally – in the last shot, a combination of yellow, orange, pink, and purple hues. This sequence, through Godard's choice of color filtering, represents not only colors characteristic in much of the â€Å"Pop Art† produced during this period; but makes reference to advertising and consumer products. This is evident in a shot during the sequence in which we are shown a man and a woman sitting together against a wall within a blue colored frame.During this shot, the woman speaks about her â€Å"hairdo†, which is, â€Å"able to keep it's shape all day thanks to a c loud of Aquanet. † After uttering this, she continues to enthusiastically talk about the Aquanet product to the man as if she were advertising it to the general public. Not only are references to consumer culture made here through such dialogue, but the depiction of her hair after having been sprayed with Aquanet allude to the Pop Art movement of the time in its reflection of consumer culture.Besides making us aware of such a dominant artistic phenomena, Godard's use of episodic structure to separate scenes in Pierrot Le Fou constantly challenges us to re-concentrate and re-focus our attention, as well as explores the notion of cinema as a topic in the narrative. The film, which is divided into different chapters; thus enables for the introduction of interruptions into the narrative. It can be said that such a technique is borrowed from literature – which is a theme that is present not only in this way throughout the film, but implied in numerous other scenes.While chal lenging the viewer with such narrative intransivity – a term used to describe Godard's constant interruptions via his introduction of new scenes as â€Å"chapters† – Pierrot Le Fou also challenges the notion of the power of the cinema to â€Å"capture† it's audience without apparently having done so (in terms of making it think or changing it). i In terms of the narrative and cinema, Godard also introduces to us in Pierrot Le Fou the idea of film as a process of writing in images – and by doing so, raises the topic of cinema itself within the narrative.Throughout Pierrot Le Fou, there are numerous instances in which elements of cinema are dissected, and are representational of what they construct. In one such instance, Marianne is shown looking at the audience in a close-up shot with a scissors literally â€Å"cutting† across the screen to mark the cut that follows. In another occurrence, Ferdinand is shown in a close-up pointing a gun at th e audience – to signify a shot. Representationally, both of these instances convey elements of cinema directly to the audience through the objects that the characters present.Thus, these shots, while raising topics concerning the cinema; also break the narrative surface by allowing for the characters direct engagement with the audience. This intentional destruction of the â€Å"fourth wall†, brought to us in the film by shots featuring a confrontation between the spectator and the characters (where we can observe them observing us), not only breaks that spectator's willing suspension of disbelief, but poses questions about the level of truth in the diegesis but also in terms of cinema itself.Such notions of the misleading and deceiving nature of appearances are constantly touched upon throughout the film, always in a way that is confrontational; and at times, representational. In the scene in which Marianne is asked by Ferdinand about whether or not she will ever leave him, instead of a shot of Ferdinand asking the question, a fox is shown walking around. After the question is asked, a close-up of the fox looking at the audience is presented as Marianne answers, â€Å"Of course I won't. † Immediately after answering, this shot is cut to another close-up shot of Marianne looking out at the audience.These two shots are representational not only of each other, but of such notions of deceit. First of all, it is obvious in the presentation of these two shots that we are to draw a parallel between the creature and Marianne – as they look very similar and both are framed and looking out to us in the same way, one immediately right after the other. The deceptive and cunning nature known to be associated with a fox is also representational of Marianne's expression in the shot, as she appears to look so – and such qualities are further highlighted by the close-up framing of her face.By these two shots alone, notions associated with cin ema and fiction are raised as well. It is as if, by being directly engaged with the fox and Marianne, the audience is asked to actively participate in the formulation of questions concerning such things. By allowing for characters to directly engage themselves with the audience, Pierrot Le Fou, through such shot compositions, challenges the audience directly to engage itself in the film not simply as a spectator, but rather, as active participants questioning and creating meanings.By implementing such elements, with Pierrot Le Fou, Godard has created a film stylized to not only highlight, but to comment upon and furthermore challenge notions of Pop Art, cinema, and literature/fiction. It is through such unconventional means of expressing his ideas in his use of mise-en-scene present in the lighting of the garish color scheme, the cinematography choices he made in terms of framing the characters, and how editing was employed to draw parallels and create meaning, that the film conveys its intentions in a diegesis that is complex, artistic, and confrontational.While the entirety of the diegesis's motives may not be initially apparent, due to the complexity of the narrative and the amount of themes and questions Godard raises with the film; we as an audience can recognize how such filmic techniques employed by the director have come together to create such meanings. After all, the movie, like an intricate artwork, takes some studying to truly figure out. Nichols, Bill. Movies and Methods. Vol. II. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 1985. Print.

Racial Formation in the United States (1960-1980) Essay

Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s book, Racial Formation in the United States, identifies race and its importance to â€Å"America†. Saying, it â€Å"will always be at the center of the American experience† (Pg.6). Challenging both mainstream (ethnicity-oriented) and radical (class-oriented) analyses, Omi and Winant argue that race has been â€Å"systematically overlooked† (Pg. 138) as an important factor in understanding American politics and society. They set as their task in construction of â€Å"an analytic framework which to view the racial politics of the past three decades† in America (pg.5) The book is organized in three parts. Part one surveys three perspectives on American race relations: â€Å"ethnicity-based theory†, â€Å"class-based theory† and â€Å"nation-based theory†. Omi and Winant have arguments with each. Ethnicity-based theory is criticized for its tendency to consider race under the rubric ethnicity and thus to overlook the unique experiences of American racial minorities (blacks, Native Americans, Asians). Class-based theory is similarly taken to task for overlooking the power of race in social, economic, and political relations in its concern with economic interest, processes, and cleavages. Finally, nation-based theory is challenged as geographically and historically inappropriate for analyzing the structure of American race relations. What is needed according to Omi and Winant, is a â€Å"racial formation perspective,† one that can deal with race as â€Å"an autonomous field of social conflict, political organizations, and cultural/ideological meaning† (p.52). Part two is an elaboration of racial formation perspective. Omi and Winant define â€Å"racial formation† as â€Å"the process by which social, economic and political forces determine the content and importance of racial categories, and by which they are in turn shaped by racial meanings† (pg.61). The racial formation perspective emphasizes the extent to which race is a social and political construction that operates at two levels: the â€Å"micro† (individual identity) and the â€Å"macro† (collective social structure). The two levels  interact to form a racial social movement when individuals (at the micro level) are mobilized in response to political racial injustice (at the macro level). Through racial movements, social and political conceptions of race are â€Å"rearticulated,† and a new racial order immerges. Then the new racial order itself becomes a target of reactionary challenges and re-rearticulating. In part three, Omi and Winant discuss the period since the 1950s in the civil rights movement and its increasingly militant demands for American political reform, continues through the actual body of civil rights legislative and policy changes enacted by American political system, and culminates in the racial reaction of the new Right and the Reagan â€Å"revolution.† While they argue for the continued importance of the role of race in American politics, culture, and economics in their conclusion, Omi and Winant make no specific predictions. They sate, in fact, that â€Å"the nature of the racial contest the next time around remains open.† This lack of specificity is not limited to the conclusion, but a lack of thoroughness throughout the book. The result explanation of Racial Formation in the United States is interesting but ultimately not very compelling or a useful book. The authors present their ideas in an engaging manner but fail to provide detailed analysis. We are told that â€Å"race has been a key determinant of mass movements, stat policy, and even foreign policy in the United States† (pg.138), yet we are given only the occasional examples as support for these assertions. The authors remind us that â€Å"one of the first things we notice about people when we meet them (along with their sex) is their race† (pg. 62). This is not news. To live in American is to know the power of race in society. In addition to a lack of efficient evidence, the authors’ criticisms and arguments are often inconsistent and unclear. For example, the three literature review chapters in part one are far from encyclopedic, are rather dated, and draw from a very narrow range of the bodies of writing they are supposed to cover. Such incomplete and unconventional citations rise suspicious arising from selectivity combine with confusion arising from  inconsistency. After devoting a chapter to a critique of ethnicity-based theory, the authors conclude that â€Å"ethnicity theory†¦comes closet to our concept of ‘racial formation† (pg. 53). Similarity, after spending a chapter outlining uselessness of nation-based theory, the authors cite â€Å"Chicago nationalism† (pg. 104-105) as evidence of the primacy and longevity of race in America. Perhaps most confusing in the whole presentation is Omi and Winant’s insistence that American sociology’s use of the concept of â€Å"ethnicity† has blinded us to the importance of â€Å"race† in America. Never in the book’s 201 pages do the authors define either term. We are left to conclude that race refers to some bundle of a body of differences, while ethnicity refers to linguistics, religious, or cultural divisions among populations. The implication is that physical (racial) characteristics are more powerful than social or cultural (ethnic) characteristics in shaping inter group relations and ethnic politics. This implication reveals the authors’ conceptual short sightings resulting from their exclusive focus on America’s narrow expedience. While color constitutes a powerful ethnic boundary in the United Sates, any broad understanding of racial and ethnic relations in America or elsewhere cannot ignore the reality and unpredictability of no grouping of ethnic boundaries, for example, among black Africans in Nigeria, Uganda, or Zaire, or among white Europeans in Northern Ireland, Belgium, or Spain. Class lectures and discussion expressed many different experiences of Immigrating groups in the U.S. Omi and Winant’s book explore a theory-based approach to understand racial formation, and the development of immigrating individuals and groups. The class was introduced by four â€Å"main concepts in immigration†; Uprootedness (Handlin), Transplantation (Bodnar), Assimilation (Higham) and Ethnicity (Conzen). All important components of the immigrating experience, although assimilation is the most important. The ability for an immigrating individual and/or group to assimilate is imperative for future prosperity, which is the consistent intention behind emigrating from original homelands. Higham’s theory of assimilation ignores original cultures and identities, classifying many specific cultures under one pluralism. Omi and Winant, criticize this phenomenon and suggestion in the  Ethnic-based theory. Believing in specific contribution each American minority makes socially, economically and politically. The diversification of cultures and experience is the â€Å"continual building on which America was founded† (pg. 32). Constant with the book, there is no suggestion to improve the ignorance of racial and cultural grouping in assimilation and the books theories are left short at criticism. Despite its conceptual and evidentiary shortcomings, Racial Formation in the United States makes two important contributions: to assert the independent or at least interdependent power of race and ethnicity in society and emphasizes the extent to which ethnicity is a political phenomenon enacted both in social movements and in political policy. The book will be most useful reading for sociologists who adhere to what Omi and Winant identify as class-based theories of ethnicity, that is, that ethnicity is really class disguise.

The History of the America First Committee of 1940

More than 75 years before President Donald Trump declared â€Å"Make America Great Again† as a key part of his election campaign, the doctrine of â€Å"America First† was on the minds of so many prominent Americans that they formed a special committee to make it happen. Key Takeaways: America First Committee The America First Committee (AFC) was organized in 1940 for the expressed purpose of preventing the United States from entering World War II.The AFC was headed by prominent U.S. citizens, including record-setting aviator Charles A. Lindbergh, and some members of Congress.The AFC opposed President Franklin Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease plan to send U.S. arms and war materials to Britain, France, China, and the Soviet Union.Once reaching a membership of over 800,000, the AFC disbanded on December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.After the AFC disbanded, Charles Lindbergh joined the war effort, flying more than 50 combat missions as a civilian. An outgrowth of the American isolationist movement, the America First Committee first convened on September 4, 1940, with a primary goal of keeping America out of World War II being fought at the time mainly in Europe and Asia. With a peak paid membership of 800,000 people, the America First Committee (AFC) became one of the largest organized anti-war groups in American history. The AFC disbanded on December 10, 1941, three days after the Japanese attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, thrust America into the war. Events Leading to the America First Committee In September 1939, Germany, under Adolph Hitler, invaded Poland, precipitating war in Europe. By 1940, only Great Britain possessed a large enough military and enough money to resist the Nazi conquest. Most of the smaller European nations had been overrun. France had been occupied by German forces and the Soviet Union was taking advantage of a nonaggression agreement with Germany to expand its interests in Finland.   While a majority of Americans felt the entire world would be a safer place if Great Britain defeated Germany, they were hesitant to enter the war and repeat the loss of American lives they had so recently experienced by taking part in the last European conflict – World War I. The AFC Goes to War With Roosevelt This hesitancy to enter another European war inspired the U.S. Congress to enact the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s, greatly restricting the U.S. federal government’s ability to provide assistance in the form of troops, arms, or war materials to any of the nations involved in the war. President Franklin Roosevelt, who had opposed, but signed, the Neutrality Acts, employed non-legislative tactics like his â€Å"Destroyers for Bases† plan to support the British war effort without actually violating the letter of the Neutrality Acts. The America First Committee fought President Roosevelt at every turn. By 1941, the AFC’s membership had exceeded 800,000 and boasted charismatic and influential leaders including national hero Charles A. Lindbergh. Joining Lindbergh were conservatives, like Colonel Robert McCormick, owner of the Chicago Tribune; liberals, like socialist Norman Thomas; and staunch isolationists, like Senator Burton Wheeler of Kansas and the anti-Semitic Father Edward Coughlin. In late 1941, the AFC fiercely opposed President Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease amendment authorizing the president to send arms and war materials to Britain, France, China, the Soviet Union, and other threatened nations without payment. In speeches delivered across the nation, Charles A. Lindbergh argued that Roosevelt’s support of England was sentimental in nature, driven to some extent by Roosevelt’s long friendship with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Lindbergh argued that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Britain alone to defeat Germany without at least a million soldiers  and that America’s participation in the effort would be disastrous.   The doctrine that we must enter the wars of Europe in order to defend America will be fatal to our nation if we follow it, said Lindbergh in 1941. As War Swells, Support for AFC Shrinks Despite the AFC’s opposition and lobbying effort, Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act, giving Roosevelt broad powers to supply the Allies with arms and war materials without committing U.S. troops. Public and congressional support for the AFC eroded even further in June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union. By late 1941, with no sign of the Allies being able to stop the Axis advances and the perceived threat of an invasion of the U.S. growing, the influence of the AFC was fading rapidly. Pearl Harbor Spells the End for the AFC The last traces of support for U.S. neutrality and the America First Committee dissolved with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Just four days after the attack, the AFC disbanded. In a final statement issued on December 11, 1941, the Committee stated that while its policies might have prevented the Japanese attack, the war had come to America and it had thus become the duty of America to work for the united goal of defeating the Axis powers. Following the demise of the AFC, Charles Lindbergh joined the war effort. While remaining a civilian, Lindbergh flew more than 50 combat missions in the Pacific theater with the 433rd Fighter Squadron. After the war, Lindbergh often traveled to Europe to assist with the U.S. effort to rebuild and revitalize the continent.