The Paradox of Conformity and Non Conformity in "The Man With the Movie Camera"

"The Man With the Movie Camera" is undoubtedly an avant-garde and experimental film. It seems to have no real narrative or plot, shows us what happens behind the camera (something films rarely do), and uses a strikingly wide range of interesting filming techniques, such as when the camera becomes "drunk" in the bar, double exposure, slow motion, split screens, and fast motion. Additionally, the film uses unique transitions such as the extreme close up of the editor's eye and when we actually see the editor cutting together scenes from a beauty parlor with images of manual labor. The film is also singular in the way it uses the camera not just to capture and passively reflect to the audience what is happening in the misc-en-scene, but also to actively reflect what is happening, such as when the camera does a magic act of its own during the shot with the magician. What makes this movie especially memorable, however, is that it seems the cameraman has no boundaries; he even ends up in a beer glass.

Experimental films, a category which "The Man With the Movie Camera" certainly belongs to, are inherently non-conformist, and while watching this interesting film there is no question that Vertov openly flouts our expectations of cinema. Yet, while reading Graham Roberts analysis of the film, especially the chapter regarding the film's history, I could not help but reflecting on the irony of how, when stripped down to just a central message, the film is in reality incredibly conformist. It is not only a documentary and experimental film, but a piece of propaganda meant to glorify Stalin's ideas of "socialism in one country."  The glorification of machines, workers, and transportation throughout the film is in direct concordance with Stalin's goals of industrialization.  Moreover, the portrayal of peasant drunks juxtaposed next to the "good" Soviet worker is a not-so-subtle criticism of the peasantry, who often opposed Stalin's policies, such as in the case of the non-existent grain surplus they were expected to share with the rest of the country mentioned by Roberts.  The film, as a whole, is a celebration of the Soviet city, the heart of Stalin's Soviet Union.

"The Man With The Movie Camera" is a paradox.  Although it shocks us by its lack of normalcy, when examined farther it is actually a piece of conformist propaganda hidden beneath the facade of an experimental film.

Man With the Movie Camera

In the opening credits of The Man With the Movie Camera it was humorous for me to see the words across the screen stating "A film without a scenario." Since I had not read the book upon viewing the movie I knew that this production was one of the first documentary films automatically after reading this. Knowing that it was a documentary, I immediatly tried to detect the message of the film. This was very hard for me to accomplish with all the flashes of scenes and fast imagery in a world I am not accustomed to. However, when the camera flashed back to the audience I was able to understand that there was a profound meaning in the images and political statement being made which I was not able to grasp. I am happy however, that I was not aware of Vertov's message since this enabled me to focus more on the visual beauty which was on screen as well as the musical score presented. I normally do not get this opportunity when watching many films since I am so captured by the plot and characters. Watching The Man With The Movie Camera before reading the text, gave me an appreciation for the art of the film which I am confident I would not have noticed had I known the context and message of the film.

The first of it's kind?

I found Robert’s reading of The Man with the Movie camera to be exceptionally helpful in trying to understand the film. Unfortunately, history is not my strong suit so understanding a film like this in the context of Russian history is incredibly hard for me to grasp on my own. His chapter on “The Historical Context” was invaluable in allowing me to make some sense of a film that made absolutely no sense on first viewing. In addition to Film Analysis, I am also taking a French Cinema class this semester. One of the films that we screened in that class was called Ballet Mecanique. It was made in 1924 by Fernand Léger. The film is only 19 minutes long and is visually similar to The Man With the Movie Camera. In the film we see montage of people, instruments, transportation and machines. In an analysis, the film can be understood as a critique of the rise of industrialization and humans as machines. This came to mind because of the first sentence of the Preface of Roberts book “… [The Man With the Movie Camera] is unlike anything that came before or after it… in the history of film”. Although Ballet Mecanique may not be a political commentary similar to Man with a Movie Camera, it is interesting to note that there are similarities present that Roberts does not allude to. After reading this book by Roberts, I am intrigued to watch Man with a Movie Camera again to get a deeper understanding of the film.

I am pasting below a YouTube link to the first part of Ballet Mecanique if you are interested in taking a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SgsqmQJAq0

Man With A Movie Camera

The ManWith A Movie Camera, was quite interesting to say the least. The more and more that I think back on watching the film, I would have to say that I enjoyed it, in a “weird” abstract artistic way. After watching and reading the film, and the book I came across things that I hadn’t anticipated. Not having any previous knowledge about the film, I thought that it was interesting that one of the first few lines in the book stated that the film had NO formal plot. When I think of all of the films that I have watched over the time, I don’t ever remember a film not having any type of formal plot to follow. I think no having a plot made the film more interesting, but at the same time it also made it difficult to follow. I found the film jumping from scene-to-scene often, and sometimes things didn’t really make sense. I loved the different camera angles such as; ESL, split image, freeze frame etc. I notice a lot of different camera techniques and angles and it made the film much more interesting. This was probably my first and last film to watch without dialogue! Until now I never realized how important dialogue to me is, in the films that I watch. Though it was difficult to follow and understand without dialogue, the sound in my opinion was the “savoir” to helping me understand the film. I noticed an array of orchestral arrangement in the film. I also took note of the crescendo and decrescendo’s that took place. The crescendo’s and decrescendo’s in the film went along with the scenes for the most part and played the role of the Rising Action.

Jordan Goldblum- I had to post on Aleandra's because my blog account won't let me log in.

The man with a movie camera was "interesting".   It is definitely an artistic film which was probably a rebellious move to go against the soviet norms of that era.  There was great emphasis placed on the daily rituals of soviet citizens. I'm not accustomed to watching black and white films, but this one appeared to be rather clever.  The double exposures, split screens , and fast and slow motion appear to be ahead of its time for a movie made in 1929.  The shot of the man being superimposed into the picnic was very impressive.  As well as the shot of the two buildings intertwining.  Vertov was very risky for his time with the sexual overtones of the women riding exercise bikes and shots of women's bare breasts.  Although the movie would begin to drag out at times the change in pace of the music would help it to move along.  

The Man with a Movie Camera

I think that the movie was kind of weird since its my first silent documentary film. I did not really understand how different shots relate to each other. The music made the movie a little more easier to watch and I could relate more the music with the shots that was really going on. What I could understand about the film is that film can go anywhere, for example he films ordinary things like women doing her hair, people getting dressed to go out and people doing sports. I think what Vertov was going for is that cameras can go anywhere but yet they are noticed. The reading did explain certain aspects of the movie since I didn't really understand what was really going on in the entire film.

Really?? A Political Film??

By far, probably the weirdest film I've ever seen. Even from when it started I knew this would be a long screening: no dialogue, black-and-white, awkward sequence of random shots. My theory was reaffirmed after 70 minutes of total chaos- was this a documentary? If so, of what? Soviet Russian life? I could hardly keep up. One second orchestra music is playing as the camera lays wedged between two trains, and the next you hear a soft melody while a woman gets her hair done. Unusual sequence? I should say so.
Graham Robert's analysis of the film The Man with the Movie Camera definitely answered a few of my lingering questions (more like 200). For starters, Vertov made documentaries, claiming they were "the only valid form of film." I thought it interesting how he referred to this genre of non-fiction as "unplayed film;" in other words, clearly this was unscripted and not rehearsed. I can definitely agree with that- had a pretty hard time trying to uncover any sort of plot. But what really took me by surprise was this film's intent: politics. Rather than a whole lot of everyday life shots in 1920's Soviet Russia meshed into what we call a movie (as I had presumed it to be), this was a testament to "the history of the Soviet Union, of modernism and Constructivism- indeed of the cinema itself."
Wow! Who would have thought that so much political depth lay under the surface of a bunch of shots of people sleeping, elevator doors opening, and women packing cigarettes into tiny boxes? When put into the context of time, however, I can more easily understand how the political unrest and upheaval is mimicked by the chaos of what lies on-screen. All-in-all, knowing the director's intent, I get it now (and can see it from the viewing) that his film depicted "the Stalinist policies (which were) about to unfold: crush resistance in the countryside, urbanize, industrialize, purge opposition."

The Man with The Movie Camera

After watching the film and reading the book I found the book helped me understand the movie more. Robert's explanation of the time period and context and the fact that the film was actually political make some of the images we see in the movie (such as the coal miners) more significant.
One thing Roberts discusses in his textual analysis, although it is not related to the context of the film, is how the audience becomes a part of the audience on screen in the movie theater. "The viewer has been welcomed into the film's diegesis. We are invited to join the audience on screen," (48). I found this interesting in the film because it makes the audience feel as though they are included in the story, and that they are pulled out of whatever environment they are in and into this time period to watch a normal day in the Soviet Union.

Response to Man with a Movie Camera

Upon initial viewing, I perceived The Man with a Movie Camera as a film about the reflexive construction of a film and the creation of a narrative of the daily life in Soviet Russia as experienced by the title character (the man with the camera). As I watched it, I embraced it as a documentary, using the titles at the beginning of the film as a guide to lead me throughout its entirety.

Thus, I was appropriately surprised, after reading Graham Roberts novel, to find out that the film also functioned as a political tool used to enhance the power of the Stalinist regime. Graham explains:

"The Man with the Movie Camera, is the product of the state of crisis which led to the abandonment of the NEP and the reassertion of more clearly Bolshevik policies" (14).

Now thinking back, I do remember the confusion I experienced regarding the scenes involving agencies of the NEP. I only assumed that Vertov was highlighting their existence in a positive way instead of victimizing them in a greater agenda toward cultural revitalization.

After reading Grahams interpretation of the film, I now understand that the multiple scenes of industrialization (miners, machines, smoke stacks) were meant to instill a sense of impending economic change in contrast to the traditional agricultural sector. And, that the use of repetition is meant to leave a large impression on the viewer, regarding the role they should be playing in society. Additionally, scenes involving washing are symbolic of "cleansing" meant to signify a purge of of NEP political policy.

Ultimately, while Graham also comments on the way Vertov manipulates the film medium by using many different (and blatantly obvious) editing techniques, his analysis of the political message the film presents is not only necessary but also widely intriguing as it fully explains the function of the film and the way multiple formal elements have achieved this task.

Graham Robert's The Man with the Movie Camera

The Man with the Movie Camera was definitely a stranger than usual film for me. Not only did the film seemingly contain no plot, but the actual film was just a series of shots randomly put together. As I watched the movie, however, I knew there was something more to it. Even the first few “scenes” where an audience gathers into a theater to watch the film gave away the film’s intention to create a story, even if it seems convoluted or nonsensical. Graham Robert’s book about The Man with the Movie Camera helped me (sort of) discover what Vertov was thinking when he created this film. While viewing it, I thought that the repetition of people doing their daily activities was a huge part of the film’s message. Robert solidified my belief; he points out that the movie shows people sleeping, working, and performing leisurely activities, the three major tasks that we humans participate in. Robert also proves his point further, saying that Vertov’s intention was to portray a “perfect” society or a purely harmonized one where nothing is confusing. While certainly not as entertaining as Rushdie’s analysis of The Wizard of Oz was, Robert’s book about The Man with the Movie Camera answered the many questions I had for the film after viewing it.

The Man With the Movie Camera

After reading this book and watching the movie, I realized how much the book helps in understanding what is going on. Had I only watched the movie I would have just considered this a strange experimental film and probably not have given it much thought. However, after learning about what film and culture were like at this time in Russia the film began to make more sense. It was interesting to see how Vertov tied all of the elements together to make a political message. In the book they talk about how the scenes of the streets being washed followed by a cut of a woman cleaning is supposed to symbolize how the cinema needs "cleansing of old bourgeois narrative". Without reading the book ahead of time I would have not connected the two events, and it helped with my understanding of the narrative. Also in the book they quote Vertov talking about the movie, " a little man armed with a movie camera leaves the little fake world of the Film Factory and heads for life...unlike the film factory where the camera is almost stationary and where the whole of life is aimed at the camera's lens in a strictly determined order of shots and scenes, life here foes not wait for the film director or obey the instructions." Knowing that this film was intentionally made to break the typical film mold somehow makes it more intriguing. There is more than meets the eye, and instead of being told what we are seeing and how we should interpret it, the audience is left to figure things out for themselves. You never know what is going to happen next and you are constantly changing your expectations to try and match the film. Overall I enjoyed the book and found it very helpful in interpreting and understanding the film.

Bellour's "The Obvious and the Code"

Although Bellour's detailed analysis of the car scene in "The Big Sleep" was difficult for me to grasp on first reading, our in class analysis of the 12-shot scene along with viewing the shots again helped me to grasp his thoughts about how certain codes dictate meaning. On first viewing "The Big Sleep" in class, I didn't pick up on the subtle differences in the ways hat the two main characters profess their love for one another. However, the focus on the duration as well as the content and level of close-up of the different shots helped to highlight these differences. It was very interesting how when Viviene tells Marlowe that she loves him, she is caught in a close up and completely lit--both elements, which show her to be sincere. Conversely, when Marlowe professes his love for Vivienne, it is not a close-up shot and encompasses both of the main characters. As a result, we as viewers may not take Marlowe's claim as seriously. Bellour also points out how various repetitions in structure can create meaning. He specifically points to Marlowe being shown driving a car, which portrays Marlowe as the active driving force in the narrative. Through Bellour's article I was able to see how I had deduced specific meanings through formal structures of cinema and editing.

Response to Jenkins

I found Jenkins’ article to be very interesting. There are some franchises, such as the ones he mentions: Harry Potter, Twilight & Star Trek, that have picked up a large number of devoted fans. But while some franchises have successfully used transmedia narrative practices, the majority of films and television shows that exist do not. Even shows such as Friends or Frasier may have had devoted fans who would never miss an episode, but they were not looking into the histories of the characters on the show.

Today, this seems to have become so much more common that it seems as though every movie or TV show that comes out has transmedia practices, audiences really do not want any secrets or unanswered questions. Looking at the Harry Potter franchise that Jenkins brought up, one can see that fans enjoyed the anticipation of waiting for new books, and new films, but when the series ended there was nothing left to wonder about. Harry Potter has achieved successful transmedia practices, but the ending left little to the imagination—a drastic change from the rest of the series.

It would be interesting today to see films leave information and parts of the story up to the imagination, and only use the transmedia practices to enhance what is already known in the films.

12-Shot Analysis: One Really, Really Long Take

Bellour's analysis of narrative in The Big Sleep was very interesting- and very in-depth. His entire argument for the narrative is based upon the final sequence between the scenes in which we are taken from Mars' garage to Geiger's living room and where so much occurs (the death of Canino, the proclamation of love between our two heroes, and the death of Mars- to name a few). Bellour uses "codes" to describe the 12-shot scene of Vivian and Marlowe in the car. This segment embodies all references to the term dramatic. He notes how long the take is, and I found it interesting how he referred to it as "relative poverty-" that is to say that not too much action occurs within a very vague episode, but that those subtleties give rise to a very loaded narration. Bellour than goes into much detail discussing each of the 12 shots. The one I found to be of most interest was his discussion of dialogue. In it, he reaffirms the importance of the moments of silence that are pivotal in the narration. As a result, the silence actually becomes part of the narration and adds to the folding effect of the storyline. The quintessential dialogue comes when Vivian remarks, "I guess I am in love with you," which is then reciprocated in a mirror effect by Marlowe- a perfect act of balance. Fianlly, Bellour wraps up his analysis by discussing the incorporation of repetition and symmetry within this sequence, something very visible and discernible to the onlooking viwer's eye.

Transmedia and the Consumer

It seems difficult, as a consumer, to argue against transmedia. I think of my own guilty pleasures such as Sex and the City, True Blood, and, on the other spectrum, my intense love for independent films such as Lars Von Trier's Dancer in the Dark. When I see real, developed characters, I want to know their pasts, their motivations, and their thoughts. When the acting is there, and the writing is right, one becomes completely consumed by the text. The characters become real people who pop out of the screen, who are relatable and sympathetic. When you follow characters around like that (especially in a melodramatic television series), as a consumer, I cannot help but want for these transmedia texts to exist; I want a plot beyond the screen, I want director to make the text real in all dimensions.

Jenkins argues that transmedia cannot be entirely effective in all texts because most films rely on the consumer's anticipation, caused by the gaps in the plot. Although I do agree with this, I don't see how a later text would disrupt this. If another film or say, "Behind the Scenes Featurette," explained these gaps, would our anticipation truly be destroyed? If nothing else, would it not greater our understanding of the film? I feel as thoguh it would only motivate me to re-watch the film (perhaps even buy the DVD for numerous screenings!) in order to capitalize on my new esoteric knowledge of the plot.

Another note in which Jenkins mentions, is the overdesign of certain films, particularly, Scorsese's Gangs of New York and the work of Tim Burton. He claims that the intricately detailed background of Tim Burton's films take away from the story that he is telling. Is Jenkins naive to think that this was not the director's intent? Films can be looked at in different realms, perhaps Burton is attempting to cross the realm of commercial and art film? By looking at films strictly in terms of the story it is telling, takes away from the artistic impact of a film. Perhaps the emphasis of some films is to create an alternative world, complete in every aspect, with incomplete stories. Is that not parallel to what we do in real life? Are the "extras" in our lives not at least as interesting (perhaps even more interesting) as the main characters in our lives? Do we not wonder about them as they pass? Although commercially releasing a slightly subversive film as I've described may not be wildly successful, that is not to say that it is not an interesting, worthwhile look into another realm.

Response to Jenkins and Transmedia

I found Jenkins analysis of Bordwell and Transmedia storytelling to be extremely interesting. Transmedia storytelling is something that my Media Analysis class discussed last semester, and to do so we also read a Jenkins article Searching for the Origami Unicorn: The Matrix and Transmedia Storytelling. In this article he expands on some of the topics he discusses in the blog, but with reference to the Matrix he makes the assertion that for one to actually fully understand the films and the story, you must also take part in the other media involved, like the video games, comic books and websites. He states that the Wachowski brothers intentionally create gaps in the films that confuse the lay viewer, but which complete the story for those completed enveloped in all aspects of the transmedia text. I think this tactic can function well in the genre of science fiction, however I think it can be troubling for a viewer when taken outside of this genre. In a science fiction world, everything is alien to the viewer. So when something seems incongruent with previously held schemas of the world, it does not seem shocking or upsetting to the viewer. The use of gaps here would be acceptable, and the use of transmedia to fill in those gaps can be utilized extremely successfully. However let’s take a romantic comedy for example. If we are left unaware as to why the female lead breaks off her engagement to the male lead, we would not just be intrigued; we would be confused and possibly pissed. Unless this was somehow resolved – the viewer would most likely leave unsatisfied. However, in a science fiction film if we aren’t explicitly told why character A one day is green and the next day blue, we may just attribute it to the science fiction world that they live in. In this case, having a transmedia outlet (for example a website) that provided information on the color changing abilities of the characters in the film would be useful and most likely entertaining for those interested enough to engage. In conclusion, I agree with Jenkins in that transmedia has an absolute place in the film world, however should not be blindly used on every film and in every genre.

World Building to Viral Marketing in Transmedia

Transmedia has not only been a staple for television due to its seriality, but also to film for much of the past decade. Take, for example, the development of the DVD, with its special features options. There are often mini-films that expand back-stories or the scope of an alternate reality, which fall into what Henry Jenkins described as the core aesthetics of transmedia. These approaches to the film expand the understanding of the climate and situations in which the characters live, while in some cases, over-developing areas of the story that should’ve been left to the viewer’s imagination. Another part of transmedia that has been incorporated into film is that of viral marketing. Viral marketing is when a company or, in this case, studio uses pre-existing social networking to create buzz for an upcoming product/film. This can be anywhere from vague banners online to much more pro-active, if not reckless techniques. A film that recently incorporated viral marketing into their ad campaign was “The Dark Knight.” This campaign saw the use in incorporating multiple media sources to create buzz, even taking it to a somewhat irresponsible level. It incorporated brilliant marketing strategy in most cases, such as the bakery example in my link, but also got the police and news agencies involved when they sent a box with a cake in it that….ticked. Needless to say, that got a good amount of attention, and ethical or not, “The Dark Knight,” viral marketing and all, ended up being one of the most successful films of the decade.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/12/05/the-dark-knights-viral-marketing-gets-very-real-cakes-cell-phones-and-all/

transmedia storytelling

As defined by Henry Jenkins transmedia is storytelling across various forms of media which each form making different contributions to the viewer's understanding and perspective of the narrative. One example that Jenkins provides is the 2005 movie Batman Begins, before Warner Bros released the movie DC comics published several comic books to give a back story before the movie was released, this example shows how the use of multimedia help carry out background information of the protagonist's past and where he came from and also to explain further information about a story.

True Blood and Transmedia

Regarding "The Aesthetics of Transmedia: In Response to David Borwell," Jenkins explains that, "transmedia seems so far to work best in relation to television, which is increasingly relying on seriality (and back story) to create a particular kind of aesthetic experience, and where it is applied to film, it seems to work best for franchises which will have a series of increasingly planned sequels." I could not agree more regarding television, and I find this especially true for HBO series.

Take True Blood for instance. Based on the highly successful Charlaine Harris novels, True Blood was readily equipped with a steady fan base, largely composed of readers of the books. Using this predisposition as leverage, the show was able to construct a different perspective into the series, serving up new characters and in-depth story lines and adding personality and importance to minor characters within the books. As a reader of the books, it is interesting for me to see how the series has taken off, more or less maintaining the same storyline with the main characters (Sookie and Bill), yet connecting important events from the later books into season two (which I only assumed would follow the second book, as did season one with the first). And, if that weren't enough, the creation of fan blogs, facebook and twitter pages (BonTempsGossip: http://twitter.com/BonTempsGossip) have allowed fans to continue their obsession with the characters after the show and project their thoughts on what will happen next season.

Needless to say, I do think that film can benefit from the transmedia platform, yet obviously not as easily as something constructed around multiple installments. I most definitely agree with Jenkins in that some type of framework has to be established in order to determine the success of a certain genres franchise and that some shouldn't even attempt to market themselves in that way. The problem is figuring out how to determine that. I can just see the day when every main stream film offers a novelty food item to accompany its release in order to extend its fictional world into the real.

O wait, a 4-pack of True Blood is already available online for $16.00!

heres the link if your interested

http://store.hbo.com/detail.php?p=105736&ecid=PID-900001344&pa=SEM_HBOShowTrueBlood_true%20blood%20drink&esvtk_s=bgss

Transmedia Storytelling

As described by Henry Jenkins, Bordwell critiques the use of transmedia story telling. While I do agree somewhat, it really depends on the kind of movie and whatever world that movie creates and whether or not this world should be explored. For example, while not extreme as the transmedia storytelling that Star Wars accomplishes, "The Blair Witch" project benefited from the use of transmedia storytelling. I remember when I was younger that I was freaked out by the Blair Witch, because I thought she was real. This seems normal, but the makers of the film expanded the story of the film by creating fake websites dedicated to describing the history of the Blair Witch. Not only was this a creative way of detailing a back story to the film, but it also developed interest for the film among the masses, allowing it to rake in tons of money compared to its original budget.

Unfortunately, there are certain movies that attempted to create a story told through different types of media, but failed. My favorite example would be the Matrix. The first film was awesome, I'm willing to admit that. However, as more films were made, the story was convoluted, filled with plot holes that would eventually be filled through direct to DVD cartoons, comic, and even video games. In the case of a Matrix video game, there was an online RPG game based off the Matrix released after the last film. This game was supposed to explain the story of the Matrix after Neo's story. Sadly, barely anyone bought this game, and interest for the story died down.

While certain films can benefit from transmedia story telling because of interest from fans or potential fans, certain films should just be left for the viewer to decide what happened in the story.

semiologists prefer blondes

This is one of my favorite portraits taken by photographer Richard Avedon. In truth, I would take any opportunity to incorporate his work and wisdom into a conversation, but this opportunity seems valid considering a photograph of Marilyn Monroe is cited in the explanation of semiology. This image is extraordinary by virtue of its candidness and subsequent deviation from the connotative and ideological function prescribed to a similar photograph in the article; "[...] Hollywood is about reproducing the institution, culture of ideology of the White middle-class United States to which all should aspire, or, if they do not, they will perish." Understanding the intricacies of this reading was definitely a challenge, so I found myself trying to apply the somewhat clinical and borderline existential definitions to more accessible expressions of semiotics in visual theory. Avedon spoke often about the role of the image, the subject, and the artist as both products and producers of meaning. Though he never specifically connected his ruminations with the various levels of signification as outlined by the reading, I think his artistically-minded approach still speaks to the same conclusions about film theory in relation to semiology. Avedon once said, "A portrait is not a likeness. The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion. There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." Semiotics contributes to the debate around cinema (and perhaps visual image) as language by asserting that "language functions as a system of signs but not in a simplistic one-to-one relation [...] language does not therefore reflect reality." Avedon's quote supports this claim, and similarly, his contribution to the canon of photographs of the famous Hollywood starlet certainly activates the latter half of the "myth of Hollywood: the dream factory that produces glamour in the form of the stars it constructs but also the dream machine that can crush them-all with a view of profit and expediency." This photograph is one of my all-time favorites because it deconstructs a star, the much photographed Monroe, with its level of honesty or dare i say "reality"- and in doing so simultaneously supports and complicates the ideology represented by its subject.

Harry Potter and World Building

In his response to Bordwell's critique of transmedia film franchises, Jenkins discusses how certain films and genres could, infact, benefit artistically from transmedia practices like intricate, exploratory websites that build the film's world and corresponding profiles on social networking sites.  Jenkins briefly mentions Harry Potter and its transmedia nature but instead mentions how the wealth of information Rowling provides her readers in many cases detracts from the mystery of her series by leaving fans less to wonder about and talk about.  I disagree completely.  I believe, instead, that Harry Potter benefits from a transmedia approach just as much as Jenkin's believes Dante's Divine Comedy or Tim Burton's films would.

Harry Potter is an incredible example of the type of transmedia franchise that is richer because of its transmedia nature. The Harry Potter books and movies are not just exciting narratives.  In her books and the corresponding movies J.K. Rowling creates an incredible and complex world that's charm lies not just in the unfolding of a well crafted story, but in the description of magic wands, games on broomsticks, and intricate histories.  As an adolescent obsessed with the Harry Potter series I thirsted for any and all information I could get about this fantastic world.  I bought Rowling's short books about magical monsters and quidditch, and this extra information did not give me less to imagine about when I read the books or watched the movies.  Instead they gave me what I felt was a greater understanding of a world I was enthralled with.  Visualizing the movie on the big screen, also, did not lessen the participation of my imagination with the books.  However, visualizing fantastic things like the battles between Harry and Lord Voldemort and quidditch matches was exciting and fun.  Every day in middle school I would log on to mugglenet.com to hear about the latest Harry Potter news, search through the archives and lexicons to familiarize myself with all things Potter, and talk in the chat rooms and discussion boards.  Harry Potter was a very social experience for me, both online and off.  I went to release parties with my other obsessed friends, dressed as a wizard with a lightning scar on my forehead and fake glasses.  I was incredibly excited when J.K. Rowling's website launched and I was able to read about a new wizard every month and learn interesting back stories.  My adolescent experience with Harry Potter was truly a transmedia one.  It was literary, cinematic, on the web, and social.  Harry Potter even influenced the way I dressed.  I had a Harry Potter polo that I sometimes wore.  I believe that this transmedia experience was an awesome way to experience the world of Hogwarts and wizards.  This world was too complex and rich for an avid fan to sufficiently explore in 7 books and movies, and if J.K. Rowling came out with another booklet of backstory today I would be on line at the bookstore to buy it.  As for Jenkins' issue with the epilogue, there is so much even the most nuanced reader and viewer of the Harry Potter series does not know about J.K. Rowling's carefully constructed world.  Simply knowing vaguely how the characters in the future end up does not detract from our imaginative experience.  We all knew Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny would end up together anyway.  J.K. Rowling could release seven more books, presenting us with more and more information about her world and we would still be left to imagine and fill in the blanks.

Finally, not every movie needs to be a transmedia experience with an overload of information the way Harry Potter is.  Part of the beauty of Casablanca is not knowing if the lovers will ever reunite.  If we were given an epilogue that explained the character's subsequent passionless and unfulfilling marriage to each other the magic of their love story might be destroyed, and the message of the movie would be entirely different.  Although we may crave to know more, and to know what happens next, it is not expedient to the artistic purpose of the film for us to do so.  Nevertheless, many narratives would benefit from a rich, transmedia model.  Fantasies like Harry Potter are prime example.

Christie Reading

All in all, I felt that this was a relatively confusing article and it was hard to discern exactly what the focus was, because I am not very familiar with Russian cinema. However, I thought it had a good point in its stylistic approach, especially dealing with the subtleties of metaphor in film. Though I have never seen the film, “ The Devil’s Wheel,” that is referred to in the film, I could envision the ball falling into the hole and how this symbolized this stage of his life. I find these techniques very interesting, and I can understand how formalists would relate it to poetry. Film is very literary when setting up the story and plot; it simply has more technical aspects involved in order for it to be brought to life. I have noticed these kinds of metaphors in numerous films, even most recently in this class. The train entering the tunnel in “North by Northwest,” was a metaphor for the action of two of the main characters who were in the previous cut. These techniques definitely add flavor to a film and create something more that just a narrative. It gives it a certain poetic life that can be appreciated at the deeper level, which seems to be what formalism was all about.

Formalism concepts in Bliss

After reading the article as well as some of my classmates posts, I would agree that as a whole I felt confused my what Christie was ultimately trying to say about formalism and neo-formalism and a comparison of the two.

However, this past week one of my friends had a party to screen his fathers film. His father is a Turkish filmaker, and we watched his film Bliss which is currently playing at certain theaters in the US. While reading Christie's article I found one concept especially salient after that specific viewing experience. In his section on neo-formalism, he references Bordwell's constructivist theory. In this theory, Bordwell draws on cognitive psychology to suggest that when viewing a film we utilize cognitive schemata to help us understand and process different aspects of the film. We must use this schemata to follow and film and identify basic situations, characters and events. When viewing Bliss, because it is a Turkish film set exclusively in Turkey, I found myself often confused with the plot as well as characters. Due to the fact that Turkish customs and behaviors are not part of my cognitive schema, following the film was much more difficult for me. Luckily, my friend was able to help me along and fill in the missing pieces and knowledge that I did not go to the film screening equipped with.

I am including a screen shot from the film. In this picture we see Cemal about to shoot Mereyem (his cousin) because after being raped, she is considered a shame on her family and must be gotten rid of. Cemal is given the duty of killing Mereyam to cleanse his family of her sin. This is the central story of the movie and however not an American costume, is unfortunately still practiced in certain parts of Turkey. I won't tell you what happens because I highly recommend that you see the movie!

Ian Christie reading

This reading seemed to focus a lot on Russian film and literary history, which was a little confusing. It referenced many Russian films, which I haven't seen so it was harder to follow. From my understanding Formalists seem to focus more on how the story is set up and not necessarily what the story it. I thought this was interesting because usually when people talk about film they just discuss the story and plot, but my focusing on how this was developed you can focus more on what the director was really trying to say. It's almost like a mystery novel. The "neo-formalism" section of the article was easier to follow. It referenced Bordwell and Thompson, who do a good job of explaining what formalism is. It seems to get to the point that Christie was trying to make in the first section much faster and easier. However, this doesn't last long before Christie goes back to giving a confusing Russian film history spiel. Overall the article has some good interesting points but it's almost like going on a scavenger hunt to find them in the article.

Come on Christie-- a Little Less Confusing Please...

Ok, so I don't think I could have gotten any more confused about this article. Rather than providing some concrete evidence to which an audience in 2009 might have some experience (frankly, I had never heard of films like October or The Devil's Wheel), Christie more-or-less just threw in some really big words and concepts every other sentence. I'm no film director, and even if I were I don't think words like semioticians, socialist realism, template schemata, and transtextual allusion would give me anything less than a massive migraine. Had Christie perhaps provided a more watered-down, simplistic analysis, I might have found the article to be mildly interesting.

This isn't to say that there were not some attention-grabbing points. I enjoyed the Russian history lesson and the concept of "carnivalism" (yeah for Mardi Gras!), but all-in-all Christie's explanation about the differences between formalism and neo-formalism (which probably could have been said in one concrete sentence), left me feeling more clueless than informed at the end. I really hope our class discussion might clear up the confusion and help me to see its relevance in relation to the films we are watching.

Ian Christie Reading...

I agree with Caroline's posting! I felt that though Ian Christie was giving explanation to his findings, without actually having evidence in front of me to go by it made the points he was trying to get across that much harder for me to understand. Having the "B&T" as a secondary source also helped my understanding about Neo-Formalism as it has "aged" and matured. “B&T” do a much better job of looking into the schema of involving the poetics of cinema. The point I felt Christie hit on best was when he said; "formalism, they believe...crucially implies an active spectator, and to supply this important subject..." and the goes into referencing Bordwells "constructivist theory". I thought that he was absolutely right when he mentioned that linking one's perception and cognition were essential to the understanding of Neo-Formalism. Speaking about Formalism, I thought it was interesting that Christie talked about Eikhenbaums “attempt to answer the question of: what links film phrases?” One of the main differences I took in the difference in Formalism v. Neo-Formalism, was formalism suggest that the viewer is prompted to supply “links” through internal speech by gaining knowledge out of what is implied. Overall I took a pretty good understanding from Christie’s reading, but would love to hear what everyone else thought.

“Formalism and neo-formalism” by Ian Christie

I found the end segment of the article, “Formalism and neo-formalism” by Ian Christie, concerning “Neo-Formalism” to be the least daunting, mainly because it delved into an explanation of the term through the interpretation of Bordwell and Thompson. I think in order for me to understand the traditional concept of Formalism, I need to view some of the early soviet films the article addresses. Perhaps engaging myself in multiple viewings of a certain number of scenes and then comparing my initial thoughts with later ones hopefully representative of a “de-familiarized” and critical mindset, would help me to understand and draw more insightful conclusions. On the other hand, as “Neo-Formalism” is ultimately an updated structure on this antiquated concept, utilizing the tools of Bordwell and Thompson would be the best decision to make, laying out a descriptive and simpler schema, allowing anyone to deconstruct poetics of cinema. I hope this format is addressed within class concerning North by Northwest. Specifically I wish to uncover the devices used to create multiple appeals concerning gender roles, sexuality, the sense of voyeurism it bequeaths on the viewer and the films ability to make swift transitions from normalcy to danger to lust.

The Obvious and The Code"

I was so lost by reading Raymond Bellour's reading! I agree that Rushdie's interpretation of The Wizard of Oz, was by far one of the most interesting and well written pieces of work that i have come across. When it came to Rushdie's book he made it so much more easier to understand and comprehend. On the other hand i found myself reading and re-reading Bellour's article and was still left empty handed. In his article he talks he states; "obviousness is the mark of Howard Hawks' genius,"[5] No doubt—provided we recognize the extent to which that obviousness only comes to the fore insofar as it is coded." And then he list 6 codes. I was able to understand and stay with him briefly, and then he started going off on tangents. The most that I could take from what Bellour was trying to imply was that this "narrative code" he spoke of was in relation tp certain scenes in film, and how in relation they go hand in hand to "manifest" expression to film. PS...if ANYONE understood what the heck he was saying PLZ let me kno :-)

Making Sense of Bellour

Okay, I had a really tough time with this article too, but I think I understand it, and I'm going to try to simplify it for everyone here.

Through a complicated dissection of twelve shots from The Big Sleep Raymond Bellour demonstrates how through non-obvious codes the film creates meaning. Bellour describes how twelve shots where there is relative inaction set between two extremely active scenes tell us more about the film, characters, and the film's meaning than the seemingly major scenes. Bellour talks about the relative "poverty" of this segment; he explains how to the average viewer it would seem nothing but a long take, or maybe at most two or three shots, but in actuality the segment is twelve extremely important shots. Although designed so as not to be perceived, in the spirit of classic American cinema, Bellour demonstrates how all of the shots, ordered and edited the way they are, contribute to the development of the movie's narrative and meaning. In order to do this Bellour breaks the shots down into six codes. The codes are dependent on variations of movement and angle between shots (whether the shots are static or moving, and on camera angle), the absence of a character, the way the character uses dialogue to express himself, and the length of a shot. So now let's break it down in easy, plain English:

Shot 1: The only moving shot, and the only shot taken outside the car. Has two different frames, medium shot and medium close shot. The difference between this shot and the following shot is radical. Dialogue is present in this shot, which will be another opposition to the next shot.
Shot 2: Radically different from the first shot. Dialogue absent. Ballour points out how despite the difference between the shots the narrative attempts to preserve the feeling of a continuing shot by keeping both characters in the frame and mantaining the initial camera angle of left to right, which is the simplest way of preserving the feeling of one shot.
Shot 3: Static like shot 2. Preserves original camera angle. One character in shot (a departure from the previous shots), frame shifts (medium close shot to close up), dialogue centers on one character, return of dialogue.
Shot 4: We pass to the other character with the same reduction in framing. Bellour infers that this is to make clear to us the hero and the heroine. However, Vivian does not speak alone as Marlowe did. Also, Vivian is all we see, framed by the car interior. We still saw the night whizzing past Marlowe through the car window in his shot.

After these first four shots Bellour describes how the film organizes itself around this twofold opposition of two characters, and then one character, and the the other characters. Camera angle and the stationary nature of the shot does not change.

Bellour also describes how Vivian alone in shot 11 gives her a privileged status because it is the last shot with one character. Bellour also points out how the order of M/V is inverted around shot 7 as if to pave the way for Vivian in shot 11. Bellour also notes how unlike Marlowe who always speaks in his solo shots, Vivian is silent in shot 11, where she marks her privilege. Shot 12, which shows Vivian and Marlowe together is also silent, giving the segment symmetry as this is reminiscent of shot 1.

Bellour also identifies an important peice of dialogue,"...I guess I am in love with you." This admission is made by both Vivian and Marlowe throughout the segment and corresponds with the motif of repetition and duplicity. However, Bellour points out how it is important to note how they say the dialogue differently. Marlowe says it while gripping the steering wheel and swerving, signifying that he is the action oriented one of the pair. Vivian says it with a tender gesture.

Finally, Bellour tells us about the codic implications of all of this "stuff." Camera angle that blurs Vivian's face and the privileging of Vivian is an easy marking of the "mythologization" of women, a departure from the Hollywood tradition of the woman-object and instead of representation of a relationship of "adult reciprocity." Other codified marks that signal this are Vivian's magnified face which "wholly expresses and receives the admission of love" in this segment.

In summary, through camera angle, number of shots, repetition and corresponding differences, dialogue, and balance Hawks creates meaning in a seemingly unimportant segment of The Big Sleep propped between two action packed scenes.

Blog Entry for “Bellous, The Obvious and the Code”

This is the kind of reading I was afraid of. Unlike Rushdie’s Wizard of Oz reading last week, this work by Raymond Bellour is a much more descriptive or in depth look at something that can be simple. Basically, this reading is a lot more difficult to follow. Despite the multiple times I went through this reading, I still find it hard to grasp. Currently, I think the reading is about Bellour’s different types of narrative code within certain scenes in films. For example, he brings up certain shots being introduced with certain dialogue among the various characters within the film. He also brings up time and length of certain shots to bring about some balance within scenes. Once again, though, I am still unsure of what the author is trying to say. Needless to say, this reading was not even half as enjoyable as Rushdie’s reading was, and I’m praying that tomorrow’s class can clear up some of my confusion.

There is no Such Thing as a Wizard

In reading Salmon Rushdies take on The Wizard of Oz I found many points he made of much significance and importance. However, in the reading something really captured my attention causing me to ponder on the message Rushdie was pointing out. He accomplished this through the analysis of the each character deemed "hollow".
Just as Dorothy stood among the munchkins as an equal, so do the audience in relation to the tin man, the cowardly lion, and the scarecrow. Their anti-heroism and lack of greater qualities make these imaginative characters our equal. It is also their hollowness which allows our imaginations to enter them and compensate for what is missing. One of the rich messages of the movie remains in what we are tricked to believe are hollow characters, and that is "we already possess what we seek so fervently." (49, Rushdie) In order for the audience to fully absorb this message however, we must begin looking for solutions on the outside. We must alter our view so that we regard those we believe to have the answers and whom we label "powerful"- as hollow men . Only once we begin to see wizards as hollow men and ultimatly stop believing in wizards, can we believe in ourselves. This particular message added alot to my viewing experience and interpretation of The Wizard of Oz.

Rushdie and the Wizard of Oz

While reading Rushdie's interpretation of The Wizard of Oz, I was originally somewhat proud of myself because I had picked up on some of the things he mentions, the concepts of Adults vs. Children, the double identities of most important characters, the concept of coming of age. However, as he delved deeper into his analysis I found myself in awe of the things that he noticed, specifically the use of geometric and non-geometric shapes to emphasis beauty, safety and goodness versus ugliness, evilness and weird. Rushdie in enormous detail, recounts the emergence of simple geometric shapes in Kansas, triangles, circles and horizontal and vertical lines. These simple geometric shapes are juxtaposed to the wicked witch who wears a misshapen hat and physically stands with a crouched posture. Rushdie calls this "the films animosity towards whatever is tangled, claw-crooked and weird". Although it makes sense when reading it, my cinematic mind however is not mature enough to notice these details just yet.

Another interpretation that I found amusing as well as extremely though provoking was Rushdie's interpretation of feminism and female characters in the story. Although the film is titled after a male character who we may initially be inclined to assume is the hero of the story, Rushdie explains how the Wizard himself, as well as the other male characters are all weak and flawed. Where as all the female leads, including Dorothy, Glinda and The Wicked Witch either are innately powerful (the witches) or come to find their strength and power through experience (Dorothy). For a film made in this era, it seems extremely progressive to have three women holding more power than their male counterparts. Feminists would be proud.

The part of this that I found amusing was how Rushdie dislikes Glinda and calls her an embarrassment. He suggests that the Wicked Witch is the more appropriate female figure because she shows compassion for her dead sister, while Glinda comments on how bad the Wicked Witch must be because she is ugly. Although, Rushdie chooses not to comment on how the Wicked Witch locks up Dorothy and devises a plan to kill her in order to get a pair of shoes. I don't if feminists would look so proudly at a women who are willing to commit murder for a pair of shoes.

There's no place like...Oz?

I was impressed but not entirely surprised by the depth Salman Rushdie derived from his reading of The Wizard of Oz considering he is an important literary figure but not, by narrow definition, a film scholar. His extremely eloquent reading of the film lends itself beautifully to the argument for cinema's catagorization as not only an art form but a legitimate academic text. As Rushdie's recollections of his youth can attest, Oz seems universally embeded in our collective childhood memory; the degree of its influence may vary (I for one, can still very vividly recall nightmares of those flying monkeys) but always includes a regaurd for the film's moral mantra, "there's no place like home" as undeniable fact. It is the inexplicable integration of Oz's moral into both the foundations of our youth and the cannon of classic Hollywood lines that makes Rushdie's argument for the film's underlying "anarchic spirit" all the more compelling. I had never stopped to question the shortcomings of the "home" Dorothy wants so deperately to reach- yet Rushdie's awareness of the black and white Kansas (where both little dogs and little girls are mistreated) and its residents not only undermines one of the great parables of Hollywood cinema but simultaneously transforms a work of technicolor song and dance numbers into something even more universally understood by (former) children- rooted not in the simplicity of fantasy but in the universal reality of "the inadequacy of adults, even good adults. and how the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies, and so, ironically, grow up themselves." (Rushdie, 10)

Salman Rushdie-The Wizard of Oz

Before I read the book I never would of seen so many details that the author mentions.  Before I never got to pay that much attention to the film it's self because I perceived it as childish movie with no deep meaning.  After reading the book and watching the film in class, I realized that the is much more than just the characters and an  adventure, the movie really has a special message that is to appreciate what you have because you will never know when is going to be gone.  On the other hand, paying more attention to the special effects that the author mentions like the contrasts of color from black and white to full color was very impacting, it makes the effect of two very different worlds set apart.  

The Wizard of OZ --Salman Rushdie

I found Rushdie's explanation of the Wizard of OZ to be very insightful into the background of the filming of the Wizard of OZ. As a child the movie was one of my favorites but I never looked at it in any kind of serious way. I found it fascinating to read his explanation of how the film influenced him, and despite the flaws he knew about it was still able to take away a lot of good. When he explained how Kansas was shown in the many different shades of grey in contrast to Toto who is black, and then later to OZ in full fledged color, I found it interesting to learn that the original text meant for Kansas in the story to be even more dreary and really in the middle of nowhere. I also took note of how he described the basic geometric shapes of Kansas in contrast to the spirals and twists and turns found in OZ, making this imaginary place more exciting to the viewer.
Learning more of the history of the relationships of the actors and what actually happened on set makes the movie, as he says, a little harder to enjoy, because you want to believe that there is a place that people can be happy away from home. The way the colors are used draw the audience into the world of OZ was one of the main things I noticed in the film and Rushdie explains how the new use of color on screen would have been even more exciting to a generation for whom this was something new.

Dorothy- the First College Student

In Salman Rushdie's The Wizard of Oz, I found his interpretation of Dorothy's motives, subconscious or not, to be both very accurate- as well as very inaccurate. He begins by noting Auntie Em's scolding of Dorothy in which she tells her to "find yourself a place where you won't get into any trouble!" At this point, we listen as Judy Garland sings 'Over the Rainbow,' embedded with a longing to escape to a different place far, far away. He makes note of her behavior as the simple "human dream of leaving." To me, this makes perfect sense- why wouldn't Dorothy want to be free from a land of adult superiority, to try and seek out new adventures, and to experience the world of color? He sums up his theory by comparing Dorothy's yearning to leave with any of the world's migrants. He says, "It is a celebration of Escape, a grand paean to the Uprooted Self, a hymn- the hymn- to Elsewhere." I really felt that this analogy was quite accurate. Dorothy wants nothing more than to try other things, other places- and this is nothing unnatural.

Where Rushdie failed to allow me to completely buy into his idea was his lack of delving a bit further. He viewed Dorothy's dream of leaving as something that significantly clashed with one of the overall messages of the film (that of realizing that home is really what it's all about.) However, I took it as a very temporary feeling for Dorothy, one in which experience away from home was necessary in order to allow for a love of home to develop. To me, Dorothy is not unlike the college student eager to move away to a new place and try new things. Oftentimes, students are initially "done" with all things pertaining to home. But after a few weeks time, this attitude is often softened as young people realize that they actually do miss homecooking, their own room, or even a chat with mom. So, Dorothy is simply unlike any other young person who perhaps goes to college and then transers back home (something not all that uncommon).

Salmon Rushdie-The Wizard of Oz

After reading Salmon Rushdie’s The Wizard of Oz, I gained much more insight and knowledge about the film than I expected. Growing up I wasn’t too fond on watching The Wizard of Oz, when we watched the film in class that was the very first time I had watched the movie in its entirety. I knew basic background about the movie and that was all I knew. I wasn’t until reading the first few lines in Rushdie’s book, that I knew what the actual theme of the book was. I was quite surprised in some of the “hidden” elements that were displayed in the movie that I missed. I was blown away at some of the point Rushdie noted in his book, which helped me to understand the movie better. The comparison Rushdie made to his Over the Rainbow story and The Wizard of Oz itself were so similar it was bizarre. Each account gave almost the same depiction on a everyday issue that happens in life. You have a young kid who is unhappy with their life and thinks “the grass is greener on the other side.” They wish and hope for something “magical experience” to lift them from the “bad life” and enter them into a world of magical things. Something that struck me was Rushdie’s contrasting of going through a “rite of passage” and The Wizard of Oz. Without reading his book I would have never looked at the movie in that way. Then he goes on to talk about Dorothy having a epiphany and later realizing that won’t always be able to escape things in life and that her family will always be there for her. After reading Rushdie’s book and watching the film, not only did I gave knowledge and understanding, I added a new movie to my favorites.

Rushdie’s look at the Wizard of Oz offered many ideas about the film that I hadn’t thought of before, but among the most interesting of these were the ideas of power and powerlessness as driving forces in the narrative. Rushdie points out Dorothy’s lack of power in Kansas, discussing her fear of Miss Gulch and what she will do to Dorothy’s dog Toto. Furthermore, Dorothy feels powerless in regard to her aunt and uncle who refuse to protect her, something that we have come to know as a reasonable function of adults. Even aunt Em and Uncle Henry seem powerless against outside forces and dismissive of Dorothy. Although I may have recognized the way that Aunt Em treated Dorothy with little respect or concern for her situation upon earlier viewings, I did not grasp Dorothy’s escape into a world where she is in fact powerful and a leader. One of Rushdie’s most interesting points is that this story is somewhat of a coming of age transitioning from a weaker Dorothy who runs away to a much stronger version of herself who is able to confront the wicked witch. Rushdie even analyzes power within the text from a feminist angle showing that the most powerful characters in the story are all women and that the only male character who shows great power turns out to be somewhat of a fraud. If this was the original intention of the filmmakers, it was progressive for the time.

Analysis of The Wizard of Oz, by Salman Rushdie

When I found out that we were going to view this movie in a film analysis class, I was somewhat surprised. I always thought that The Wizard of Oz, as a film, was simply a children’s film at best and offered nothing when it comes analysis. However, after reading Salman Rushdie’s take on the film, I was proven wrong. For example, Rushdie has the ability, within his book of course, to see what others may have missed or disregarded because of its simplicity. One specific point in his book is the discussion of the cyclone. While viewing the film, I thought of the cyclone as nothing more than a way to advance the plot; an instrument to set Dorothy off into her “dream” world. However, when Rushdie analyzes the cyclone within the film, he claims that it is symbolic of Dorothy’s character because she wishes to change her meager life, and this cyclone is a physical manifestation of all her feelings towards her current position. Rushdie also goes as far as to say that the cyclone is the combined feeling of quarreling amongst Miss Gulch and Dorothy. Rushdie, with his use thought provoking ideas and witty dialogue (specifically his ode to Who Framed Roger Rabbit when he talks about the story related to the munchkins) actually made this an enjoyable piece of critical analysis. To be honest, I thought it was just going to be a long and painful read about a movie that seems to lack depth, however, I was mistaken.

"At The Auction of the Ruby Slippers" by Salman Rushdie

I found the chapter, “At the Auction of the Ruby Slippers”, to be an interesting response and interpretation of the overall message of the Wizard Of Oz. Though its only reference to the film are the red slippers, I think the descriptions surrounding the attendees, the unique desires that propel them into the auction house, and the final fate that falls upon the narrator all create a close parallelism to the events which occur within the film.
Earlier in the novel, Rushdie reveals that the shoes which were found in the basement of the MGM studios were most likely the ones worn by Dorothy’s stunt double whose feet where two sizes larger than Judy Garlands. He remarks, “is it not fitting that the shoes made for the stand-in to stand in should have been passed into the possession of another form of surrogate: a film fan?” He explains that as viewers, we ourselves are ‘stand-ins’ through the products of out imaginations. It doesn’t matter that the slippers may or may not be authentically Dorothy’s, as the desire they fulfill is accomplished and nothing really is authentic without strong belief behind it.
Concerning the story of the auction, the narrator’s desire is only propelled by his ex- girlfriend Gail whom he wishes to win back. Like Dorothy, he is a stranger surrounded by other strangers, bidding (money instead life) in order to reach his goal (winning the shoes in comparison to winning passage home). Like Dorothy, he is overcome by a stronger power, “fictions” and, like Dorothy falling asleep in the poppy field, he loses grip on his goal and awakes with a new sense of fulfillment. Though he does not win the slippers, he is thrown back into pit of desire as the promises of next weeks auction offers another chance at winning back another ex-girlfriend, Toto. I believe this relates back to Rushdie’s final analysis of the overall message of the film. Ultimately, he explains that Dorothy really didn’t gain anything in the end, at least nothing that she already didn’t know before she left. Like the narrator who continues to chase unrealistic desires that will result in a cyclical pattern, Dorothy remains uninspired and unaffected from her trip to OZ as home is and always will be where she wants to be.

Salman Rushdie's "The Wizard of Oz"

It has been a while since I have seen "The Wizard of Oz" and reading Rushdie's interpretation of it gave me a new perspective on the film. I believe that the film seems to emphasize the importance of one's family and that home may not be an actual place but a feeling we get from being with people we love. I also think that Oz isn't necessarily a place Dorothy wants to be instead of home. Instead I think it is a place she needs to go in order to grow up some and begin to appreciate what she has. Oz seems to be a place where Dorothy can make that transition from childhood to adulthood much smoother than she could have in Kansas. It gives her the opportunity to figure out who she is and what she is capable of. She isn't not treated at a silly child but as a heroine who is respected greatly and looked to for advice and help. Throughout her journey in Oz she learns that she the things she really wants (getting back to Kansas or be allowed to keep Toto) don't always come easy and sometimes you have to fight for them. However, unlike Kansas, in Oz she has a say in what happens to her and her fate isn't decided by adults. Therefore Oz is somewhere for her to grow and become a strong woman, not necessarily where she goes in order to escape Kansas.

Salman Rushdie's Oz

What I found interesting about Salmon Rushdie’s take on “The Wizard of Oz,” was that it wasn’t simply a rehash of the story, nor was it a sycophantic praising. It is obvious that this story has meant a lot to him creatively, as it is unavoidable in our society. As I was reading his account of his childhood and how he took the examples of elements of the film to flesh out his own stories, I was reminded of myself, and, in fact, many other examples of media. When I watched the film again on Thursday for the first time in God knows how long, I was taken aback by how almost the entire film has been recreated or referenced in more sources than could possibly be counted. Nearly every line is classic. But besides pointing out how influential it was, and how wonderful everyone thinks the film may be, I found it quite refreshing that Mr. Rushdie was able to address the film critically, and point out its flaws. He did not shirk away on the fact that the film was heavily influenced by Hollywood bigwigs, which cheapened it in the instance of the overly moralizing/sappy ending, or how the song “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” was nearly cut from the film. He also was able to turn a critical eye toward the archetypal characters of Dorothy’s three companions, exhibiting the shortcomings of both the scarecrow and the tin man. I found the ending (Part II) of the book rather bizarre and out of place with the rest of the book, but I found the critical analysis very helpful in how I will try and approach films from now on, with a bravery to challenge the creative choices and praise where there is true and unquestioning inspiration.

Salman Rushdie's "The Wizard of Oz"

In his detailed analysis of The Wizard of Oz Salman Rushdie discusses how the film's explicit message, "There's no place like home," is actually contradictory to the actual message of the film. Rushdie points out how Oz is a much more magnificent place than Kansas, how Dorothy is never treated like a child in Oz, but instead like a heroine, and how it was in Oz, under her own supervision, and not in Kansas that Dorothy asserts herself as a young woman and grows into an adult and hero. Dorothy's character in the Wizard of Oz is dynamic, and certainly matures over the course of the movie; Dorothy becomes a mother figure for the Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Cowardly Lion, and finds the courage to confront the Wicked Witch of the West instead of running away. However, despite all the wonders of Oz and the growing experiences it provides Dorothy with, throughout the movie all Dorothy wants to do is go home. I believe that Rushdie is mistaken in his interpretation of the film's central theme. Despite all the glitz, glamour, and magic of Oz, it is not where Dorothy wants to be. Despite being surrounded by wonder and beauty throughout her time "over the rainbow," she sobs and cries about how she misses her Auntie Em. Dorothy believed that everything would be perfect "over the rainbow," that her troubles would "melt like lemon drops;" however, upon finding herself in Oz she is supremely unsatisfied, and longs to return to Kansas. Therefore I believe the true message of the theme is that truth and happiness are not be found in perfect, colorful lands (which can be translated into perfect, colorful material goods, or perfectly beautiful spouses, or anything else that looks wonderful on the outside but may leave you hollow on the inside), but instead in the people you love. It hurt Dorothy most to leave her new friends, not the glittering Emerald City, but it hurt even more to be away from the people she loved most, her family. Finally, unlike Rushdie I truly believe there is "no place like home," only the home The Wizard of Oz asks us to appreciate is not a place, but instead the group of people whom we love.

Instructions for Posting

In order to be able to add posts to the blog, you need to sign in using a google --gmail-- or yahoo or other account (not your tulane user id). If you don't have one you can register for one easily when you click "sing in" on the upper right hand corner. Once you've signed in it'll take you to "your" page, where you can create a profile and add posts to all the blogs you are an author of.
Hopes this makes sense!