Comparative Study: Action Post --Complete Script
*When I copied this from the word doc, and for some reason the right column didn't format correctly
|
20th
century art has been defined by self-aware reflection, best represented
through the idea of deconstruction. Deconstruction is the idea that a thing
is best understood by exploring the inner workings, connotations, and
ideological underpinnings within a thing, the way we relate to the text is
equally a part of the text to the text itself. To quote Dirida the father of
deconstruction: (Stand In quote) “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 nights bumble their way
towards the Holy Grail. Throughout the film there are constant references to
the fact that this is a film. In the first few scenes the film deconstructs
first the production of these films by making a joke about the credit artists
being fired commenting on the commercial nature of cinema, opening with a literalization
of folly showcasing the artificiality of such films, then the glamorization
of the period in the bring out your dead sequence, finally the ideological
implications of these films with the dirt farmer scene. These three
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,
on the other hand, 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 script for a thriller. Cross cut with this main plot we see the
writer of the book Charlie is adapting, Susan Orleen, writing the original
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 secret drug ending in a
climactic scene in the Florida swamps where Donald dies. 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 20th century America. 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 the 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 for comparison can be seen in 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 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
deconstructed. 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 swallows returns in scene 24, which is
purposefully called scene 24 by the narrator, 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 deconstuctive 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 plot of the movie eventually being about the orchid being a
drug. In this there is commentary on the cliché nature of the core 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 cliché
insipidity of its use by using narrators to cop out developing certain plot
points. Such as the death of the narrator. 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 retrospective 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 extending the caricature of them. 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 architypes 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 narcissistic. Donald and Charlie are used to
represent each of their supposed styles, and the acting of each is used to
deconstruct each style. However, once Donald comes on to the 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 it’s “Get on with it sequence”
which allows for and undercutting of even the insecure deconstruction that occurs
before those scenes. 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 in 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. 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 rules to be broken, metamodernism provides a ground for new
rules 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