"The Prestige": Revealing Secrets About "What Film Has Been"

“What has film been?”

It was once easy to say that film has simply been a source of entertainment for the masses, an art form. However, after watching The Prestige this answer seems utterly insufficient. The Prestige attempted to serve as a metaphoric explanation of movies and cinema in general—what they truly are. It sought to justify why certain information is always withheld, why illusion is so important, why it would harm us to know all of the “cinematic tricks,” etc. Thus in a sense, the film was trying to explain the history of film and what film has always been—a trick, an illusion, a spectacle of secrets. I can no longer think of the question "what has film been" in simple terms.

If we are to look at the history of film, we are following Historicism. This approach yields to many questions such as (but not limited to): “How does history create film?” “How does film create history?” “What stories do certain groups of people want or need or fear?” and “In what style must these stories be told?”

I believe that The Prestige walks hand in hand with history—using history to create it’s world but also serving as a part of history. This movie was released in 2006 but the film’s action took place at the end of the 19^th century. Elements from the past—dialect, clothing, technology, etc—were taken and used to create “life” within the movie. Furthermore, the character of Tesla was a real historical figure! The entire film depended on the past to create its future as a successful film. It's interesting to note that most of the best films are those based on things that have happened in the past. Perhaps history is something that resonates with all generations. It literately is "timeless." In addition, as I mentioned before, The Prestige subtly tried to explain the history of entertainment—the reason that people used to attend the theater to see plays and magicians is the same reason that they watch movies today.

Another thing to note: In The Prestige, people were portrayed very interestingly. There were certain “stereotypes” of what type of people we should trust vs. those that we should fear. Much of this was appearance based. This of course pertains in particular to magicians. After seeing this film, it would be hard not to think of magicians as disturbed, murdering psychopaths  if it were not for the barrier created between the film’s world and our own. That brings us to the style in which the story is told. In order for us to walk away from a film with the understanding that it was simply a movie and not reality, we need to be reminded that everything was an illusion. In The Prestige, this was done so in two ways—through the dialogue and the structure. The dialogue mentioning how audience members “want to be fooled" enabled us to be reminded that we were in fact also being fooled as we watched the movie itself. This was done so though, in such a subtle way, that it did not ruin the magic of the film. In regard to the structure, there were drastic time jumps that revealed information slowly, but not in chronological order. This at times led to confusion, again creating certain barriers and preventing us from having a full understanding of the story until the very end. 

Favoring Formalism (For Now?)

In the realm of film studies, there are many ways to examine and analyze film. Of course, every individual in the world is entitled to choose what he or she wishes to focus on upon seeing a film. However, there are some methods of film study that are clearly defined. In the 1960s two seemingly competing methods emerged—Formalist Film Criticism and Ideological Film Theory—thus creating a divide between the US and the UK.

In order to determine which of those theories is most effective when it comes to analyzing film, it is of first and foremost importance to define and understand the characteristics of each.

Formalist Film Criticism is focused on “the formal, or technical, elements of a film: i.e., the lighting, scoring, sound and set design, use of color, shot composition, and editing” (Wikipedia). Formalism considers the “synthesis” of various internal elements of a film, using them to extract meaning and understand how they give a sense of understanding to the audience. Overall, Formalist theory takes a very direct look at the film. Ideological Film Theory on the other hand, is more focused on the overall content of the film and what the film is trying to do, rather than the miniscule details. The ideological approach is very concerned with “how socio-economic pressures create a particular style, and auteurists on how auteurs put their own stamp on the material.” (Wikipedia)

·      Supports/sources for this are Wikipedia and an article found here-- http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/FilmTheory&Analysis.htm

Based on my understanding of these theories, it is my belief that the Formalist Approach is the most effective method of studying film. My claims for this:

Claim #1: People go to see a film as an escape from reality. As we watch a movie, we become immersed in the film’s reality. Therefore, it’s not necessarily important to focus on what external things are going on in the world (as we would using the Ideological approach). Rather, we should focus on the internal elements of the film—the very elements that have the ability to transport us, and make us believe in the story we are being told. These elements—lighting, angles, use of montage, etc.—are what constitute the magic, and the attraction.

·      (Planning to support this using Tom Gunning’s “The Cinema of Attraction,” Sergei Eisenstein’s “Montage of Attraction” and “The Dramaturgy of Film Form,” as well as any other sources I come across next week at the library!)

Claim #2: When studying film we are so often asked—what can film do that other mediums can’t? If this is so important, shouldn’t we study film with a theory that emphasizes film’s unique qualities? By looking at film in terms of cinematic inclusions such as music, lighting, angles, acting, etc.—we are actually examining it in a way that we cannot with any other form of media. You can’t analyze the lighting in a novel! You could use the ideological approach to look at just about any type of medium—easily seeing how political climate affects a book, or a painting, as well as a film.  There is nothing about that approach that is unique to film.

·      (Planning to support this using “Basic Concepts” by Kraucauer and other texts that I will find at the library! I want to find articles that go into depth on how film differs from other mediums)

Claim #3: Though the auteur theory sometimes is seen as part of ideology, it often goes against it and falls under the realm of the formalist theory. “By privileging the auteur it erases context (that is, history) and therefore side-steps ideology. Equally, because film is being looked at for its formalistic, stylistic and thematic structures, unconscious structure (such as the unspoken dynamics between film-maker and actor, the economic pressures connected with the industry) is precluded.)” (Hayward). What I’m trying to get at here is the fact that the auteur theory wants to focus on the director—his decisions, the ways in which he subtly personalizes a film. When it comes down to it, this falls is a part of the Formalist theory. When we look at what specific angle a director chose, we are focused on him, not the rest of the world. These were his choices, not choices made by society. Yes, we could also look at the film as a whole and try to understand the its overall purpose—but it’s far more interesting to try and pick up on little secret cinematic inclusions placed there by the director.

·      (Planning on using Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts by Susan Hayward, “A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema” by Truffaut, “On the politique des auteurs” by André Bazin, and “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962” by Andrew Sarris to support this claim.”

As far as the film analysis, I’m going to analyze Godard’s film “Masculin Féminin” using the formalist approach. By doing this, I can prove that the formalist approach is more effective than ideological. I want to focus on scenes such as the one where Catherine was eating the apple. This was an artistic decision and clearly had significant. What does the apple represent? [I want to possibly try to relate this to Adam and Eve and the apple. The apple represents temptation just as Catherine tempted Robert?] I also want to go into detail on Godard’s breaking of the shot/reverse/shot rule throughout the film. and why this was significant.

"The Grapes of Wrath" & The Auteur Theory: A Look At Faithfulness and Validity

1) Pick one moment from the film adaptation and describe how it either departs from or remains faithful to Steinbeck's novel. Is this moment "cinematic," and, if so, does it make Ford & Toland auteurs?

Though I haven’t actually read the novel “The Grapes of Wrath,” by Steinbeck, we discussed certain moments from the novel that weren’t faithfully portrayed in the film during class. Going off of our in-class discussion, I would like to talk about the ending scene of the film vs. that of the novel. The movie ended with Tom leaving his family in order to protect them and to avoid being arrested. There is a heartfelt conversation between Tom and Ma Joad mentioning their hope to once again be reunited. Additionally, we are left with the belief that the family is going to be okay as they are living in one of the better camps, with the potential to find work in the future.

Based on what I have read online and what I heard in class, it is my understanding that the book’s ending was quite different. In the novel, the ending moments focus on Rosasharn’s miscarriage. There is a starving, dying man, and in an attempt to help him, Rosasharn allows him to essentially breast-feed from her. In addition, at the end of the novel, we see the Joad family break apart and suffer defeat. We are not left with the same optimism for their future.

I think that this change to the final scene was extremely cinematic. I say this, because the decision to use this alternate ending seems to be for a cinematic purpose. There is much logic behind this difference in conclusion. First, there is the simple fact that this film was made many years ago when film was still somewhat new. It was a big deal to have any kind of controversial material grace the screen—thus it would have been incredibly difficult for Ford and Toland to actually incorporate the breast-feeding scene into a film. Trying to capture that on film would have been an aesthetic and moral challenge.

Second, we need to look at film as a whole. We have discussed this expectation that, we as an audience, have for films to have a “happy ending.” To leave us with the belief that the Joads were going to die would not have made for a very good ending to the film. Novels are different in that sense. In a way novels are supposed to provoke us to think post-conclusion more so than films. Yes, they both follow that beginning-middle-end pattern, but when we watch a film we are “in a cave” and once it’s over—we are immersed back into reality, expected to just accept the story that we have been told. When we read a book, specifically one like “The Grapes of Wrath,” it is supposed to keep us thinking long after we are done with it. Steinbeck in particular wrote this book to make readers more aware of the historical, social, and political climate.

A third possible reason for this change has to do with Ford’s tendency to focus on a small group (i.e. the Joad family). With his focus on the family as opposed to all mankind, it’s much easier to create the aforementioned happy ending. There obviously isn’t going to be a happy ending for everyone who is suffering. However, it’s not so hard to imagine one singular family (like the Joads) being able to find prosperity.

This alternate ending absolutely makes Ford and Toland auteurs. The ending gave the story a whole different meaning, feeling, and spirit than the novel. The novel ends on a much more somber note. In addition, the future of the Joad family differs between the two mediums. Ford and Toland told a different story than Steinbeck. It was the same story up until a point, but ultimately, Ford and Toland “wrote” a different tale.

(2) Most critics today dismiss auteur theory for various reasons. Do you believe it is a valid area of study in film studies? Why or why not?

         I believe that the auteur theory is a valid area of study. However, it is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to film. It is certainly interesting and important to take note of common themes, and patterns that emerge within films produced by a given director. I know from personal experience, that when writing something, it’s hard to stray away from a certain style. Last semester I took a creative writing course and I wrote multiple stories for the course. What everyone pointed out to me is that they all seemed to be variations of the same story. I have a tendency to write white my teacher called, “O.Henry’s.” Every story I produced had a twist ending! Therefore, I can fully buy into the auteur theory in that regard. However, I have to disagree with the auteur theory when it comes to the belief that good directors only produce good films and bad directors only produce bad films. There are always exceptions and this theory doesn’t leave much room for “the underdog” to have a chance. As long as people realize that the auteur has value but isn’t “law” per say—I think it’s useful to study.

Godard: Masculin, Féminin (1966)-The “Moment" Approach

While examining film, it is sometimes beneficial to focus on one particular defining moment in order to gain a greater understanding of the rest of the film, as well as the concept of film in general. The moment that I would like to examine closely occurs while Paul, Madeline, Elizabeth, and Catherine are all at the movies. Upon looking at this scene there are multiple elements and techniques that stand out as unique and purposeful.

First, it’s important to take note of this “film within the film.” This deliberate cinematic inclusion is, in fact, a parody of Ingmar Bergman’s “The Silence.” It seems wonderfully suitable that Godard chose to use that particular film within his own. “The Silence,” like “Masculin-Féminin,” also concentrates on the complexities of youth with respect to sex and relationships. Similarly, both films broach various controversial issues. Additionally, by featuring this film within the film, Godard manages to break down certain emotional barriers between film and reality. He does this by allowing us to see the characters as they watch the film.

As “The Silence” is being shown, the shot not only alternately focuses on the film within the film vs. the characters, but also specifically on one person at a time. This manages to exemplify each character’s own individual reaction to the film. For example, we see Catherine who is subtly smiling and biting her lip at times. Similarly, we see Paul’s face, which conveys utter misery as he averts his eyes from the screen. This is exceedingly complemented by his morose dialogue, which interestingly enough, also manages to break down barriers between cinema and reality through his own expressed wishes for his life to have been like a film:

“At the movies the screen would light up and we’d shiver. But more often we’d be disappointed, Madeline and I. The images seemed old and flickery. Marilyn Monroe had aged terribly. We were sad. This wasn’t the film we’d imagined…the perfect film each of us carried within…the film we would have liked to have made, or perhaps even to have lived.”

Overall, the concept of character reactions seems to be extremely important to Godard—not just in this scene, but all throughout the film. It would similarly appear that Godard was very interested in human nature, and that many of the techniques implemented in his film were utilized to examine natural reactions. For example, he constantly breaks the shot/reverse/shot rule. By having the camera focused on the listener rather than the speaker, we (the audience) are more capable of seeing his or her reactions. Our focus is on the facial expressions and the subtle movements that reveal what the character is feeling.

This leads me to think that Godard wants film to be geared toward a focus on emotional provocation. This can be understood in terms of the emotional provocation in the lives of the characters themselves and in the audience as well. Godard clearly likes to toy with and evoke attitudinal emotions as he incorporates horrifying and shocking moments into his film in an almost humorous way (i.e., the wife shooting her husband, the shooting on the train, the man stabbing himself, and the other man lighting himself on fire.) These actions come out of the blue in such a way that unexpectedly causes us to laugh. Of course these aren’t “laughing matters” but, as explained before, Godard sees film as an opportunity to literally “screw” with emotions. (Perhaps, just as Madeline screws with Paul’s emotions?)

Perhaps it is Godard's ability to impact emotions both internal to the film and external from the film that also allows him to break down the aforementioned barriers between cinema and reality.