Ruby Mason
Mr. Skeldon
Film as a Cultural Lens
October 23, 2007
Hitchcock: An Auteur?
There is some debate as to whether or not to consider Alfred Hitchcock as an auteur director. Many believe that Hitchcock’s set style and themes, as well as a few trademark moves of his (i.e.-his cameo appearances, etc) are consistent and significant enough to allow him the title of an auteur. Others think that although Hitchcock did have some similar themes in his movies, they were all far too different overall to be considered “marked” by the director and his own personal style. Regardless of the few dissenters on this topic, it is of a general consensus that Alfred Hitchcock is not only an auteur, but one of the first strong examples of one in movie making history.
To determine whether or not Alfred Hitchcock is a good example of an auteur, one must first understand what exactly it takes to be one. The Auteur theory was developed over fifty years ago by Francois Truffaut (among numerous other French film critics) and was basically applied to any film maker who had distinct characteristics and styles that were evident throughout their movie making career. Usually the mark of an auteur is left through continuing themes, a set sense of style, an established technique, and consistent views of the world. “The works of an auteur director are stamped by the personality and unique artistic vision of its creator…and [they] are distinct”. (Auteur?)
One very strong similarity in all of Hitchcock’s films was the suspense aspect. He once said “There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.” He knew how to scare the audience, grab their attention, and keep them on the edge of their seat until the end of the film. Some of his works are even classified as horror, and in the era in which he was releasing his most popular films most of his work was considered rather graphic and gory compared to other movies of the time. Although one never saw the knife actually stabbing the woman in the infamous “shower scene” in Psycho, the blood and hectic editing style was enough to disturb most of the audience. In Strangers on a Train the murder of Guy’s wife was not particularly gruesome, but the suspense leading up to it gave it the famous Hitchcock flair of thrills and the dramatic. Some say Hitchcock even “helped to shape the modern-day thriller genre” with his work with films like The Lodger and Blackmail. Because of Hitchcock’s preference for the dark and disturbing, his style became quite clearly one of suspense and chills and this style was apparent in all of his work. (Dirks, 1)
Another aspect of Hitchcock’s work that remained a constant throughout all of his films was his “McGuffin”. A McGuffin was his way of grabbing the audiences’ attention and misdirecting it. It is an object, and it is what pulls the plot along while usually not having that much significance in the end. For example, in Psycho the McGuffin was the $40,000 of stolen money and in Strangers on a Train it was Guy’s lighter. In other instances McGuffins have been coded messages (The Lady Vanishes 1938), radioactive material (Notorious 1946), and secret formula for an anti-nuclear missile (Torn Curtain 1966). While important in moving the story along, they are not crucial to the actual plot in most cases, and they are another one of Hitchcock’s trademarks. (Dirks, 1 2)
Alfred Hitchcock has a number of other little quirks that have become well known signature moves in his films. For example he tends to make a brief cameo appearance in his films. In Strangers on a Train he is seen briefly putting luggage on a train and in Psycho the audience catches a glimpse of him as he almost unnoticeably blends in with the background of the scene as just an average man seen through a window. Another reoccurring theme in at least the two films we watched in class was the mother figure role. In both Strangers on a Train and Psycho there was a distorted relationship between mother and son, particularly in Psycho where the son kept her dead body and let himself mentally turn into her. Another signature move of Hitchcock’s was his unique camera work. He was fairly experimental in his editing techniques, like when the audience sees the murder reflected in Miriam’s glasses in Strangers on a Train, or sees Guy punch Bruno in the face from Bruno’s point of view. The musical scores in his movies are also fairly consistent in nature, all done generally by the same composer (as he pointed out in his interview) and all adding to the suspense with unsettling violins. These reappearing traits in Hitchcock’s films factor in to his signature style that allows the movie to be “identified as son as the picture begins”, as Truffaut put it. (Auteur?)
As one inspects Hitchcock’s work more closely, one can clearly see that he has earned himself the title of an auteur director. Not only do his movies carry common themes and ideas, but they are all shot in basically the same manner. The soundtrack along with his signature cameo appearances all contribute to his ever present personal style as he asserts himself as one of the leading auteurs in suspense films.
Works Cited
Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock, Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam, Josh Gavin, Vera Miles, Simon Oakland, John McIntire, Frank Albertson, Patricia Hitchcock, Chief Tahachee, Ted Knight, 1960
Strangers on a Train, Alfred Hitchcock, Farley Granger, Robert Walker, 1951
“Alfred Hitchcock: Auteur?” http://tripod.com October 22, 2007
< http://members.tripod.com/.../ >
Dirks, Tom “Hitchcock: The Master of Suspense Thrillers” 1996-2007
October 23, 2007 < http://www.filmsite.org/thrillerfilms.html >
Ruby Mason
Mr. Skeldon
Film as a Cultural Lens
March 24, 2008
Soylent Green and Technology
From the very beginning of Soylent Green, commentary is being made on technology and how it has played into the evolution of man. Throughout the film technology looms in the backdrop of the scenery and plot, as a subtle statement as the story progresses. Unlike many science fiction movies, Soylent Green did not make the advancement of technology aggressively apparent as a setting device with everything metallic and machine oriented, instead technology only came into play when it fit into the plot or helped set a scene/establish a character (such as when the female “furniture” is playing her new video game in the murdered man’s apartment, showing wealth and privilege in comparison to the rest of the characters introduced.) As the story progresses and more details of life in this strange era are exposed, it becomes clear that the tone towards technology in this film is a negative one.
First and foremost in regards to technology’s role in this film is its effect on the environment. The beginning montage sequence states as clearly as possible without outright saying it that while technology aided the rise of man, it also quickly became out of control and began having negative effects: just a more efficient way to kill the earth. The montage begins with the slow shifting of images of families in a rural area and beautiful scenery, gradually picking up the speed as various new inventions are shown. The inventions start out simple, with things like fishing poles and get increasingly more modern. Eventually the tempo of the montage editing as well as the music playing in the background is so fast paced and the images are coming at the screen at such quick intervals that the viewer can not help but feel overwhelmed. As well as picking up in pace, the images start to show more and more of the negative effects of technology and hint that man has gotten carried away (what starts out as a picture of one car turns into a picture of a lot full of cars right off the conveyer belt) and images of pollution are now the focal point, emphasizing the negative effects on the earth. Similarly to Blade Runner, industry and increased populations overtook the natural world; leaving only ersatz in the place of things that are looked at as common place in modern times (ie-food, and as one sees in Blade Runner, even animals).
Another indicator that technology was being condemned in this film was how and where it was being used. It seems like each time technology really stood out in the storyline it was associated with something negative. One of the strongest examples of this is the place to which Sol goes towards the end of the film (which has wall size televisions, speaker systems, and an intercom) and is essentially a room dedicated to a kind of societal euthanasia. The other obvious example is the complex factory that converts dead humans into “Soylent Green”, an edible food substitute. All of the major technology in the film is being used to destroy man in one way or another. While the technology isn’t sentient and on the attack (like in 2001: A Space Odyssey with the malicious computer system HAL or I Robot where robots begin to kill humans), in its own way technology is now out of control and only having negative effects: technology has turned against man, not of it’s own accord, but because of man’s own faults and irresponsibility.
It is apparent that the benefits of any technological advancements are greatly outweighed by all of the negativity said advancements have contributed to or caused. The good that technology has brought is only really enjoyed by the very wealthy while the poor of the world have either nowhere to sleep or if they do, they have to keep their electricity going by riding a stationary bike that is somehow connected to the circuitry. The people of the world don’t even know what nature looks like, let alone what it’s like to have a steady supply of fresh vegetables and meat: a point well communicated in the scene where Sol and Thorn devour a meager meal of old vegetables and a bit of meat, and again when Thorn is staring with awe at the images of nature being displayed in the room where Sol goes to die.
Again and again the theme of technology is brought up and is portrayed as something that has accomplished nothing but stifling all things natural and contributing to the downfall of society as we know it. After building man up through industry and new solutions to old problems, the system that has been established through all of this new technology begins to cave in on itself. Global warming, pollution and poverty due to severe overpopulation are all serious problems that are only getting worse as time passes. Technology is doing nothing to fix all of these problems it has created, and in the film all of the previously mentioned issues are exaggerated in this futuristic world they have created. One can only conclude that the makers of Soylent Green felt nothing but contempt for technology, as this sentiment is clearly conveyed throughout the film.
Email To A Friend