Action Post- Audio
|
20th
century art has been defined by self-aware reflection, best represented
through the idea of deconstruction. Deconstruction is the idea that a thing can
be best understood by exploring the inner workings, connotations, and
ideological underpinnings within a thing, the way we relate to a text is as
much a part of the text as the words on the page. To quote Jacques Derrida the
originator of deconstruction:
“There are things like reflecting pools, and
images, an infinite reference from one to the other, but no longer a source,
a spring. There is no longer any simple origin. For what is reflected it
split in itself and not only as an addition to itself of its image. The
reflection, the image, the double, splits what it doubles. The origin of the
speculation becomes a difference. What can look at itself is not one; and the
law of the addition of the origin to its representation, or the thing to its
image, is that one plus one makes at least three.”
Simply put
deconstruction is systematically dismantling an idea from every possible
angle, and is arguably the defining stylistic characteristic of
postmodernism. The application of such deconstructive critique can be seen in
Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Adaptation. These films where chosen
because they are ideal examples of the deconstructive form taken by their
respective cultural movements: Postmodernism and metamodernism.
The Holy
Grail is a parody of historical epics and in particular the story of king
Arthur. The film takes an episodic form as the knights bumble their way
towards the Holy Grail.
Throughout
the film there are constant references to the fact that this is a film. The
opening scenes display the deconstructive mission of the piece: first the
production of these films is deconstructed by making a joke about the credit
artists being fired commenting on the commercial nature of cinema, the film
begins by literalizing folly art showcasing the artificiality of these films,
then the
glamorization of the period is commented on in the bring out your dead
sequence, finally the ideological implications of these films is directly
confronted in the dirt farmer scene. These four deconstructive elements set
the tone for the films primary thesis: films that are looking back at the
past are trite both in their creation and message. Reflecting a pure
deconstructive postmodern framework.
Adaptation is
a movie about the writing of the movie adaptation. In the film Charlie is
unable to adapt a book he is contracted to write the script for. He wants to
make something truly original, a film about flowers where nothing really
happens. Unable to write the script Charlie writes his process of writing the
script. At the same time his twin brother, Donald, writes an insipid thriller.
Cross cut with this main plot we see the writer of the book Charlie is
adapting, Susan Orleen, writing the book about a Floridian flower expert,
John Laroche. Eventually Charlie goes to a screen writing seminar at Donald’s
request, where he is explicitly told the tropes he is trying to avoid in his
script are just as real as a story where no character change occurs. He
invites his brother on to the script and it becomes a thriller about the
flower being a drug ending in a climactic scene in the Florida swamps where
Donald dies. In the conclusion of the film Charlie finally knows how to write
the script and drives off into the sunset. Ultimately this is a film about capitulating
to the cinematic standards while equally critiquing those standards.
Reflecting a metamodern framework.
These two
films provide excellent examples of deconstructive cinema, coming to distinct
conclusions about what can be done after deconstruction is completed. This is
a product of the two social contexts they were created in, those being 1970s
England and turn of the Millennium era united states.
Since the
end of the WWII Britain slowly lost its empire slinking away from being the dominate
global power to being a standard first world country. Film during this era
looked back at British history remembering the good old days, expanding their
national mythology. The creators of Holy Grail grew up in this period of
social transition, and by the start of their artistic careers England’s
empire was reduced to a few ceremonial holdings. This social transition set
the stage for postmodernism to take hold in England. Postmodernism can be
easily defined as deconstruction without any constructive element.
Meanwhile,
90s United States was a period of unchecked global dominance and ease. With
the fall of the USSR, the united states was left as sole global superpower.
This stability was met with feelings of malaise. Film during this period
reflected a feeling of being trapped by stability, with the drab office
representing films of the late 90s and early 2000s. During this period people
began to question postmodernism’s cultural relevancy with artists such as
David Foster Wallace fighting for a return to sincerity, this new cultural
movement has been called metamodernism. Metamodernism incorporates the same
deconstructive elements as postmodernism while also making an effort to
construct something new after.
The
comparison between these two films is useful in addressing the question: How
has film changed in the way it deconstructs itself through the cultural
transition between postmodernism and metamodernism?
The first
major element of comparison in this study will be the narrative structure of
each film. Both of these films have the process of film making influence the
plot. However in holy grail the process of creation is only used to further
the plot, while in adaptation the process is the plot. In holy grails opening
scene Arthur’s squire, patsy, rhythmically bangs coconuts together to
represent the galloping of a horse. Because it would be too difficult to
actually record the sound of a horse galloping, filmmakers traditionally use
folly effects to represent the sound. By placing the coconuts on screen the
practice of folly is placed into the deconstructive lens. These coconuts are
then commented on by the nights at the top of the castle Arthur approached,
with the guards arguing over if a swallow could carry the coconuts. This
discussion of swallow’s returns in scene 24, in which we see the bridge
keeper. Finally both swallows and the bridge keeper are brought back as they
are going over the bridge. In this way the deconstructive element of the
coconuts is made a key guiding factor to the overall plot of the film. In
comparison the deconstructive element of adaptation is the plot. The movie
deconstructs the way Hollywood forces adaptation in the opening scene calling
out the plot of the movie. Video Quote: “I don’t want to turn the flowers
into poppies” This idea
returns with the movie eventually showing the orchid as a drug. In this there
is commentary on the cliché nature of the plot, however the movie still uses
that plot. The general structure creates a bothandistic relationship between
the deconstruction and construction.
Beyond how
the deconstructive elements shape the plot of each movie, the plot structure
is significant in how each film creates meaning. When a film takes the
structure of a single cohesive narrative the creation of meaning is
inherently going to occur. Because Holy Grail operates off an episodic
structure it is able to deconstruct tropes without having to properly use
them. While adaptation uses a cross cut 3 act structure which allows for the
films constructive elements. Finally, both films use narration as a key
narrative device
Film Quote “If you use narration god help you”
Adaptation
uses narration similar to its use of the plot point of the flowers being a
drug but in reverse with the narration being pointed to as a bad narrative
element that goes against the conventions however, it adds to the script, “it
feels right”. Holy Grail uses narration to an opposite end pointing out the unimaginativeness
of its use by using narrators to cop out developing certain plot points. Such
as the trip to the holy grail. Furthermore, the famous historian can be
viewed as a narrator and his death is used to justify the literal cop out
ending.
Beyond the
narrative choices in each film, the use of mis-en-scene further displays each
films deconstructive mission. Both the Holy Grail and Adaptation use acting
as a means to deconstruct their respective genres.
Film Quote: “What an eccentric performance”
Actors in
the Holy Grail are all playing with the essential tenets of comedy in which
lack and confidence meet. Every character is acting in the natural extension
of their character architype. For example, Lancelot is portrayed as the brave
knight, however this Is extended to its natural end point with John Cleese
playing him like complete
psychopath. Actors in the movie are not playing characters like real people,
rather caricatures of architypes. In this there is a deconstruction of those
character architypes. Because these characters don’t undergo any real
development as a product of the episodic structure, there is no real
constructive element to this deconstruction.
Adaptation
on the other hand uses its acting to represent the styles of cinema it’s
investigating. With Nicholas cage playing both the formulaic Donald who is
portrayed as a confident fool who stands upright for most of the movie and
the experimental Charlie who is a slouching self-aware narcissist. Donald and
Charlie are used to represent each of their styles, and the acting of each is
used to deconstruct each style. To oversimplify, formulaic films are stupid
and experimental films are awkward and insecure. However, once Donald comes
the help on Charlie’s script Cage begins to have the two characters share
more common mannerisms, further representing the need to use both rule
breaking and following in the film.
The final
notable cinematic element for comparison can be seen in the way each film
uses editing. In Holy Grail basic continuity editing is almost exclusively
used, this allows for the narrative and mis-en-scene elements to take the
central position. The film only uses montage during its “Get on with it”
sequence which critiques breaking the third wall, making sure not even the
narrative of deconstruction can be taken as constructive in some form.
However, The most interesting scene in terms of editing can be seen in the
lead up to the black night in which reaction shots are used as he is fighting
the person before Arthur, this is done to undercut the self-seriousness
typically taken by films of Arthurian legend.
Adaptation
flaunts the use of montage editing, especially in the scenes where Charlie is
writing. In this the film is able to represent the narrative form he is
creating, tying the process to the product. In this there is a consideration
of the process but in addition to not against the product.
Deconstruction
is a process of radically destroying an idea. To deconstruct a thing is to
point out every problem inherent to it not only textually but in its form
itself. Both adaptation and Holy Grail use this process to achieve their
meaning. A movie of Arthurian legend is not only problematic ideologically
but formally. However, in the wake of deconstruction there is an opportunity
for construction. The artist can reconsider the forms they are operating in
and reterritorialize them. Ultimately we must follow the basic rules of
story, but we don’t need to follow them dogmatically. Postmodernism provided
a ground for truth to be broken, metamodernism provides a ground for new
truths to be made.
|
Open with montage of deconstructive films Quote with phantom video behind Return video Posters Imprint cultural movement title cards over posters Pure representation of the scenes discussed
Note on
screen: “*Since the fictional and actual writers share the same name: Charlie
Kaufman, in this analysis Charlie will be used to denote the character while
Kaufman will be used for the writer.”
Side by Side video Era title card over the videos Holy Grail wipes over adaptation Show examples of films from this period as example. Have adaptation slide in from other side Return to posters Narrative structure title card with a list of addressed topics and time stamps Represent discussed scenes Mis-en-scene title card Pure representation Editing title card Pure representation Final scene of adaptation (Allow music) |
Comments
Post a Comment