Custen Reading

Upon the completion of Custen’s “BIO/PICS: How Hollywood Constructed Public History,” I needed to take a bit of time to reflect. Although refreshingly easy to read following the Barthes text, there was a LOT of information in this document. It would take quite a while to address all of the intricacies and examples put forth in this article, and it would be boring and redundant to summarize it, so at best I can discuss a few of the piece’s more general points.

For one, I immediately noticed Custen’s desire to create formulas and equations for all of his arguments. In particular, he talks about a formula that can be used to ensure the would-be success of a biopic. By reducing the bulk processes of the film industry to mere matters of business and marketing (citing “product differentiation,” “consumerism,” etc.), Custen lays out the blueprints for any filmmaker aspiring to create a successful, yet hassle-free, biographical picture. He first identifies, in his opinion, the quintessential biopic, which happens to be Disraeli. He then breaks down the film into its bare “formal elements” and “narrative elements.” Once these elements can be isolated and defined, he treats them as variables that can be substituted/replaced/exchanged at the filmmaker’s discretion. If George Arliss is successful in Disraeli, he should be able to be packaged and sent off to the studio to create a string of biopics that, by his mathematic reasoning, should be equally as successful. The same can be said for the time periods of the pieces. If one film set in the Elizabethan period proves to be profitable, a succession of films set in this same time period should, theoretically, be equally as lucrative (supposing the proper research is done by the studios that put them out). Even directors can be commoditized, as evidenced in the career of William Dieterle, which was marked by a prolific chain of biopics for Warner Bros. (and eventually MGM and Paramount).

Custen also notes the importance of slapping a seal of authenticity upon each of the arbitrarily produced biographical pictures. For one, the studio must seek employees and a bloated budget to satisfy the audience’s need for historical research to be done. It is not enough to watch Susan Hayward prance around on screen, the audience must actually learn something as well. The theater-going experience, though entertaining, needs to be sufficiently educational. A movie’s critical praise could only go as far as its historical accuracy could take it. Audiences were attentive to small glitches and inconsistencies, and if there were even a small detail left unattended to, riots would ensue. As a result, there were steps that could be taken to ensure that the film would be “sold” to its audiences as real. Of course, the most obvious, the patronizing “the following is a true story,” so forth, etcetera. You could also employ the same person to play a recurring role in a number of films that feature the same historical figure. One may even look to give the real live person a part in the film, as either a central character or in a small cameo. This may, however, be an actual disappointment to some movie-goers (after watching the antics of Keira Knightley as Domino Harvey in the film Domino, images of the real reformed stripper in the end, as she attests to the films accuracy, seemed to be a small let-down).

I can’t say I completely disagree with Custen on all of his points, but there are things that I have to differ on. In my mind, films are made to evoke a certain emotion or feeling from their viewers. Additionally, they may fabricate new ideas in the audience’s mind, painting a picture of something that may or may not exist. Either way, a film can be enjoyable regardless of its historical accuracy. And to think that there is a definite formula that all biographical films fall under, simply to generate profit, is a condescending truth for viewers. I, personally, would rather see Julia Roberts in a Wonder-Bra than the real Erin Brokovich. I am not taking anything away from the real woman, but in certain arenas (i.e. film), she simply does not belong. Does the fact that Julia Roberts and Erin Brokovich look nothing alike worsen my attitude toward the particular film? No. In The People vs. Larry Flynt, I would much rather watch Woody Harrelson play the role of the publisher than the man himself. That’s his job. Larry Flynt’s cameo performance as the Ohio judge wasn’t mandatory for my approval of the film, it was simply ironic and humorous. Unless I read Custen completely wrong, I think that he goes against one of the most important aspects of film: innovation. As I read the article, he dotes on the need for filmmakers to understand and apply a formula, when in reality, they should be going against the grain and creating different kinds of viewing experiences. If anything, the conventions he mentions should be broken more often, to create a piece that’s not prototypical (the documentary feel of Natural Born Killers made it seem like a nonfiction piece; this is obviously not an educational viewing experience, but it’s a different one).

Goodnight & Goodluck

There isn't necessarily a whole lot I have to say that hasn't already been said in class, but I thought I might reiterate a few thoughts.

I found this movie very interesting, while at the same time rather boring. Which is part of the reason it interests me even more. The structure of the film, most specifically the editing and shot framing, was unusual. The use of close shots was far greater than most films and yet the shots pulled back often enough to give the viewer a sense of space so that one didn't feel congested, or confused about where the action was taking place(in the sense of a general space). So, I found the film technically impressive, that is the technical aspects of the film were very well done. But, the story seemed lacking to me, and I made a mention of this in class. It just seemed that there wasn't much creative input towards strengthening a deeper understanding of character. The movie seemed to encapsulate the events that took place and then to not move much deeper than that. To me, the film didn't create a main character that was any more fleshed out than that which one would assume from watching the original newscasts. I found this disappointing and an aspect that made for a lacking storyline.

So, I liked the film. The technical aspects were very well done(which I discussed in class), but the script was lacking(not that it wasn't well written, everything that was there was well done, but there just wasn't enough there).

-cait davis

Layers of Discourse

Following from Cait's observation that Good Night and Good Luck echoed much of the narrative of Citizen Kane, I thought I'd highlight a still that cites the "News on the March" scene in that film:



We will look at that scene from Kane in a couple of weeks. For now, it strikes me that GNGL plays more with the boundary between fiction and documentary but ultimate genuflects more to the historical veracity of the documenatary. Throughout the film, layers of exposition butt against one another:



We have the original news documentary footage, the characters commenting on the footage, and a title placing the historical time of the diegesis. Film theorist Colin McCabe speaks of "hierarchies of discourse" in the classic realist text - narration, that is, signals certain voices and truths to be subordinate to the film's (or novel's) worldview. Here, the hierarchy works through double reversal, shifting the historical into the fictional, then shifting the fictional back into the historical. Formally, the complexity is more destabilizing than the classical historical picture - of the sort George Custen is dealing with - while preserving the basic ideology of historical veracity.

Furthermore, having seen The Queen recently, I'm wondering if this formal complexity/ideological simplicity might be a generalized trend.

Rain as Defamiliarization

The Russian Formalists argued for art as a defamiliarization, an ability to make the ordinary strange. The purpose of literature, they argued, was to make the stones stonier.

Joris Ivens' Rain is stiking for its own defamiliarization. At the most basic level, the film takes an ordinary event - a rain storm hits the city of Amsterdam, then dissipates - then compresses the cinematic time of the experience while expanding the asbtract observations of city life and the poetic resonance of the rainstorm. Take as an example a series of five shots:




The procession moves from sheer abstraction of geometric pattern to more recognizable views of the rain. The spectator is asked, made even, to look through the rain, not just at it.

But if this seems like defamiliarization as montage, there are other closeups that take the surface of familiar sights of urban life and emphasize their surface quality.


Mind you, this abstraction was not alone to Rain. Other city symphony films purport a similar observational gaze, and even the montage of a documentary like The City (think of the Wall Street sequence) makes it point by resignifying familiar imagery. But Ivens' film seems especially poetic in its nonfiction mode.

Syllabus

For those enrolled in the course, the syllabus is on Blackboard. But here is a link for reference.

Welcome

This weblog is conceived and designed for a Spring 2007 course on Documentary Fictions in Temple University's Film and Media Arts department. It will compile students' and my thoughts on films that combine documentary and fictional modes, that blur the boundaries between the two, or that mimic one type of film within the other.

Just as some observers disparage prediction futures markets as "toy markets," there is the danger that a classroom blog offers the worst of both worlds - not a real discussion that unmotivated bloggers would bring, not a formal contribution of academic or scholastic writing. However, it is my hope that this discussion forum can provide a chance to think about and reflect on a cinematic tendency which, suddenly, seems everywhere in our media culture. Significant scholarship is only now starting to pour into this area, and it's my expectation that the writers of this blog will have plenty to add to the conversation.

Note to outside readers: though this is a classroom blog, we welcome comments and participation from any readers. Also, note that any copyrighted material is reproduced only in the spirit and letter of fair use for educational purposes.