Comedy: Before and After the Production Code

Before the Production Code came into effect in 1934, films tried to get away with as much taboo material as possible.  Once the Code was brought into play, there were a significant amount of restrictions.  After the ratings system was introduced, more and more filmmakers have tried to transgress beyond what people were used to seeing in film, especially in the comedy genre.  This was risky because people laugh at different things, so one can’t be sure whether a viewer will find it hysterical or offensive.  Two films that display the larger culture and state of the American film industry before and after the Production Code are Lowell Sherman’s 1933 film, “She Done Him Wrong,” and Peter and Robert Farrelly’s 1998 film, “There’s Something About Mary.”  Each film is a case in what a comedy could get away with in its era

One significant comparison between the two films is how the dialogue uses double entendres for comedic effect.  In Thomas Doherty’s book “Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930-1934,” he has a chapter that describes the evolution of the wisecrack.  He states, “The inability of slow-witted censors to keep up with the implications of fast talk from ‘ultra-modern slanguists’ made for a fun game of hide-and-seek between the hip and the hapless,” (181).  Many of Lady Lou’s (Mae West) lines of dialogue are double entendres.  Right after we first see her get out of the carriage, a woman calls her “a fine gal, a fine woman.”  To which Lady Lou replies, “One of the finest women ever walked the streets,” making a subtle comedic reference to the sensitive subject of prostitution.  

Another way filmmakers were able to get around the censors is if the delivery and tone of a risqué bit of dialogue went over the heads of the censors: “For a few actors, the wisecrack lay not in the words but in the delivery.  A consistent source of trouble for tone-deaf censors was the remark that read innocent on the page but sounded suggestive to the ear, notably in the insinuating octaves of Mae West, Groucho Marx, and Jean Harlow,” (181).   Although “She Done Him Wrong” came out before the Code’s censorship, it has an excellent example of this kind of line.  Mae West tells Captain Cummings (Cary Grant), “Why don’t you come up some time and see me?  I’m home every evening.”  On paper, this would just sound like an innocent invite for Cummings to visit Lady Lou, but the way how she delivers the line with her flirtatious expressions and tone make the audience fully aware of her real intentions.

For “There’s Something About Mary,” there is an entirely different approach to the way double entendres are spoken.  They are made to sound more obvious.  In Geoff King’s book, “Film Comedy,” he says, “Some film comedies are subtle, nuanced and ‘respectable’.  Others are decidedly not.  ‘Gross-out’ has become one of the most lucrative elements in contemporary film comedy: comedy based on crude and deliberate transgressions of the bounds of ‘normal’ everyday taste,” (63).  At the start of Ted’s (Ben Stiller) masturbation scene, his friend Woogie (Chris Elliot), tells him to “clean his pipe” before going out with Mary.  When Stiller doesn’t understand what he means, Woogie begins to say several not-so-subtle double entendres to masturbation, including “choke the chicken” and “spank the monkey.”  Although these are supposed to be double entendres, they aren’t subtle in the least.  This reflects highly on the state of the film industry in the 1990s because it presented how filmmakers didn’t have to be as subtle as they used to be if they wanted to get a gross-out gag across.  They are actually funny in their lack of subtlety because the audience knows full well what the characters are referring to.  

One scene in “There’s Something About Mary” that can be said to have transgressed certain boundaries is the “zipper” scene when Ted goes to pick up Mary for the prom.  As he’s going to the bathroom at the start of the scene, he gazes out the window and looks at a pair of doves, while the Carpenters’ “Close to You” plays as non-diagetic music.  This provides a comedic effect because it’s a romantic song that’s playing as Ted is going to the bathroom, and then the doves fly away and Ted is able to see Mary changing, both of them exchanging embarrassed expressions.  But then, there is the part that contributes to the gross-out effect, which is when Ted gets his testicles caught in his pants zipper.  During this scene, the directors play with the audiences’ expectations as to what they are and aren’t going to get a view of.  There are four people who come into the bathroom to have a look at what has happened: Mary’s father and mother, a police officer and a fireman.  As the first three have a look, the audience is tricked into thinking that it will have a look at the damage when the characters see it.  That is not the case.  By doing this, the directors toy with what painful visions the viewers have in their heads.  So, by the time the fireman walks in, the audience will have most likely let its guard down into thinking they won’t see the testicles in the zipper and the scene won’t take it any further by showing us what happened.  However, it is here that the viewers do see it, throwing them into a painful and funny surprise.  

After having gone this far, the viewer might think that there will be more to come in this scene, especially when the police officer recommends unzipping the pants.  The viewer thinks he knows what will be shown, so the directors play with expectations again by having the police officer count to three slowly, prolonging the wait with painful anticipation which will cause most male viewers to either cross their legs or squeeze them together.  However, editing contributes to the comedy when the bathroom scene cuts to another officer yelling “We got a bleeder!” just as the other officer is getting to “three.”  By showing the viewer the testicles in the zipper, but cutting away from the unzipping, it highlights how the directors were tricking our expectations as to what will and will not be shown.  According to King, “Gross-out films…seek to evoke a response based on transgression of what is usually allowed in ‘normal’ or ‘polite’ society.  They test how far they can go…,” (67).

A scene in “She Done Him Wrong” that represents what audiences can and can’t see is when Lady Lou first comes into the hotel and shows Sergei Stanieff pictures of her.  The tone of her voice when she asks Sergei, “Do you want to see the pictures?” sends a signal to the audience that these photos are sexual in nature, especially when she describes one as being “for the bedroom” and “a little bit spicy.”  For this, the audience has to picture how Lady Lou is posed in the photos, and the way she describes the photos is this scene’s comedic effect and allows for the viewer to form some sort of image in his mind.  

What was shown in comedies decades ago is highly different from what is shown today.  Comedies have been allowed to evolve from viewers being restricted to picturing certain things in their heads and filmmakers needing ways to sneak around the censors, to viewers being presented with startling and hysterical imagery because of the filmmakers’ new artistic freedom.  How comedy is depicted in film is the product of how the film industry operated in different eras, as well as what is deemed as acceptable in society.  

Works Cited

Doherty, Thomas.  “Comic Timing: Cracking Wise and Wising Up.”  Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930-1934.  Columbia University Press: New York, 1999.  172-193.

King, Geoff.  “Transgressions and Regressions.”  Film Comedy.  Wallflower Press: London and New York, 2002.  63-92.

“A Streetcar Named Desire”’s Representations of Masculinity in Stanley

The character of Stanley can be seen as a man of unrelenting brutishness who always gets his way.  Women, and even some of his male friends, don’t stand a chance to overpower him whenever he’s around.  In Elia Kazan’s film, "A Streetcar Named Desire," based on the 1947 play of the same name by Tennessee Williams, the narrative emphasizes the control that Stanley Kowalski has on his wife, Stella, and her sister, Blanche DuBois.

According to “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation,” an essay by Robert Stam, “Cinema has available to it the visuals of photography and painting, the movement of dance, the décor of architecture, and the performance of theater,” (Stam, 61).  Cinema is very much related to theater, because they are both visual mediums of storytelling and have set designs.  The film version of "A Streetcar Named Desire" is very much like the play, so the viewer gets the feeling of also watching a theatrical performance as they are watching Kazan’s film adaptation of the literary piece.

Since the play and film are almost the same, it relates to what Dudley Andrew detailed about “narrative codes” in his essay, “Adaptation.”  He says, “Narrative codes, then, always function at the level of implication or connotation.  Hence they are potentially comparable in a novel and a film.  The story can be the same if the narrative units (characters, events, motivations, consequences, context, viewpoint, imagery, and so on) are produced equally in two works,” (Andrew, 34).  Also, both the play and film have some of the same actors and actresses play the leads, such as Marlon Brando for Stanley, Kim Hunter for Stella and Karl Malden for Mitch.  Since the film remains very faithful to the source material, we are given a faithful look at Stanley of how he was in the play, and we see all of his brutality and masculinity that he expresses towards those around him.

One of the first scenes of the film that portrays Stanley’s jurisdiction over the female characters of the film is when he’s describing the Napoleonic Code to Stella.  He does this as he’s rummaging through Blanche’s belongings: “In the state of Louisiana we have the Napoleonic code according to which what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband and vice verse…It looks to me like you have been swindled, baby, and when you’re swindled under the Napoleonic code I’m swindled too. And I don’t like to be swindled,” (Williams 34-35).  Although this policy seems to be equal for both the husband and wife, it seems as though Stanley is more concerned with how the Napoleonic code will affect only him.  Whenever Stella tries to look through Blanche’s trunk, Stanley tries to take Blanche’s stuff from her so he can inspect it himself.  So it seems as though he wants to have the final word on the matter, since he’s the man of the family.  Even when Stella tells Stanley not to look through Blanche’s trunk, he does so anyway against her wishes.  This is an example of the man disregarding his wife.  

In this scene, Stanley also doesn’t take too kindly to orders.  When Stella tells Stanley to leave the bedroom while Blanche gets dressed, he responds with, “Since when do you give me orders?” (Williams, 37).  This is ironic because Stanley just discussed the Napoleonic code to Stella, which expresses some equality between a husband and wife.  But in this verbal exchange, we revert back to Stanley being in control of himself, and refusing to be given commands by a woman.

Another scene that asserts the man’s power over the women of the family is when Stanley presents the bus tickets to Blanche.  Before Blanche comes into the scene, Stanley reveals to Stella that he knows some of Blanche’s secrets.  This is an example of a man being more informed than a woman.  He tries to influence his wife to side with him and make Blanche leave.  For a little bit, we see a somewhat gentler side to Stanley that’s out of his normal character; but this will be followed by an act of cruelty towards Blanche when she is given the tickets.  Stella continues to face away from Stanley, as though she’s trying to avoid being submissive to the truth, to the man’s word.  Stanley quickly returns to his roughness when he’s irritated by Blanche and angrily throws his coat down on the kitchen floor.  He reveals to Stella that he has told Mitch about Blanche.  In a way, Stanley is controlling Blanche’s destiny; because if he tells Mitch about Blanche’s secrets, he won’t want to be with her.  

While at the dinner table, Blanche is seated in between Stanley and Stella.  This could emphasize the fact that Blanche is the center of the problems that are occurring in the apartment.  In this scene, we’re shown again that Stanley doesn’t like being given orders by a woman.  He slams his fist on the table and shoves his place settings off the table when Stella tells him to help her clear the table and wash up.  The women cower in fear as he says, “That’s how I’m going to clear the table.  Don’t ever talk that way to me!...Remember what Huey Long said – ‘Every Man is a King!’ And I’m the king around here, so don’t forget it!” (Williams, 107).  There is then a low angle shot of the women as they cower in fear.  The several shots of the table show it being crowded with dinner items.  This reflects the dinner with Stanley, Stella and Blanche.  Three is a crowd.  Stanley shows his compassionate side a little more as Stella tells him that everything will be alright when Blanche leaves them. 

He then asserts his power over the women again when the phone rings.  Blanche says that she’s expecting a call, but Stanley tells her to stay in her seat.  When the women talk during Stanley’s phone conversation, he says, “QUIET IN THERE – We’ve got a noisy woman on the place. – Go on, Mac.  At Riley’s?  No, I don’t wanta bowl at Riley’s.  I had a little trouble with Riley last week.  I’m the team-captain, ain’t I?  All right, then, we’re not gonna bowl at Riley’s, we’re gonna bowl at the West Side or the Gala!  All right, Mac.  See you!” (Williams, 110).  In this bit of dialogue, we see that Stanley even has control over his male friends.  Stanley then gives Blanche the bus tickets.  Again, this shows a man trying to control a woman’s destiny.  He’s telling Blanche to leave.

Stanley exhibits his brutality the most when he rapes Blanche towards the end of the play/film.  While Blanche continues to go along with her delusion, Stanley plays around with it and tries to get in her head.  At one point, he tells her, “It goes to show, you never know what is coming,” (Williams, 124).  This line could be a foreshadowing to Blanche unexpectedly getting raped.  He then starts to yell at her again when he knows she’s lying when he finds inconsistencies in her stories.  This leads into a physical struggle between the two.  The film cuts back and forth from high-angle shots of Stanley leaning over Blanche, where we get a sense of her helplessness, and low-angle shots of Blanche under Stanley, where we get a sense of Stanley’s brutality and power.  Blanche then takes the phone and calls for help, referring to herself as “caught in a trap.”  Here, the female is trapped by the male.  

As the fight continues, Blanche breaks a beer bottle and looks as though she’s trying to tame a lion, who is Stanley in this case.  Stanley slowly approaches her, like a predator to its prey.  Stanley creepily smiles as he nears Blanche.  He will have his fun because since he’s the man, he’s in control of the situation.  He knows that she won’t hurt him because she’s weak; and when she threatens to injure him with the beer bottle, he says, “I bet you would do that!” (Williams, 130).  As he finally grabs her, the mirror cracks, symbolizing that Blanche’s life is officially fractured.  Her “death” is predicted earlier in the scene, when Blanche sees the woman in the street selling flowers for the dead.

The power of men over women is a recurring theme in A Streetcar Named Desire.  It shows the control that men had over women back then, and how both sides managed it.  Stanley gets whatever he wants, no matter what.  This is pivotal in him expressing his masculinity throughout the play and film.

Works Cited

Andrew, Dudley.  “Adaptation.”  Film Adaptation.  New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000.  28-37.

Stam, Robert.  “Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation.”  Film Adaptation.  New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000.  54-76.

Williams, Tennessee.  A Streetcar Named Desire.  New York: Signet, 1947.

Wes Anderson’s Dramatic and Quirky Family Quarrels

Working with certain types of film will determine what kind of space in which the narrative will unfold.  Such spaces are characterized as being either determinate or indeterminate.  According to genre scholar Thomas Schatz, “The iconographic arena in determinate genres is entered by an individual or collective hero, at the outset, who acts upon it, and finally leaves.  In contrast, genres of indeterminate space generally involve a doubled (and thus dynamic) hero in the guise of a romantic couple who inhabit a ‘civilized’ setting…,” (27).  Some examples that Schatz provides for films with determinate space include westerns and gangster films, and some examples that he provides for films with indeterminate space include screwball comedies and social melodramas.  Schatz describes how while films of determinate space have a hero who is trying to regain control over a given area, films of indeterminate space often deal with the characters trying to have their views connect with each other’s, or with those of the whole community.  

Comedy is a significantly broad genre in film.  Any other genre can be paired with comedy and still have the humor work, whether they are romantic comedies, horror comedies, science-fiction comedies or action comedies.  According to Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s book, “Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre, the author states,” “Genre is a French word meaning ‘type’ or ‘kind’.  Thinking about film genres, therefore, employs ideas about different types or kinds of film…furthermore, genre films carry connotations flavoured with ‘American, low-brow, easy…,” (7).  There are many directions that a comedy can go in because it has all of these other genres with which it can play off of.  Therefore, these sub-genres allow for fresh takes on comedy.

In terms of the romantic-comedy subgenre, audiences expect for the couple to remain together in the end and live the rest of their lives together.  According to a definition that McDonalds offers on the subgenre, “A romantic comedy is a film which has its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light-hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion,” (9).  In a traditional romantic comedy, the couple will end up together in the end, however, there are alternatives in the approach to this subgenre.  There are neo-traditional romantic comedies, as well as radical romantic comedies.  The latter will diverge from the genre conventions and prevent the couple from staying together in the end, while the former will throw some quirks into the formula, but will still come out with a traditional ending of the couple staying together.  Two films that can be considered radical romantic comedies and transcend the conventional happy ending are Mike Nichols’ “The Graduate” (1967) and Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” (1977).  The end of The Graduate has the protagonist, Benjamin Braddock, end up with Elaine Robinson, and it seems as though the film will have a typical romantic-comedy ending, however, this is not the case.  McDonald states, “…The Graduate’s final moments imply that the impulsive elopement may have been just one more mistake.  Ben and Elaine’s silence on the bus suggests there will be life after the happy ever after, but it may involve the couple splitting up,” (63).  It is realized that this film is a radical romantic comedy after all because the camera lingers on the faces of Ben and Elaine as their expressions transition slowly from happiness to uncertainty.  While The Graduate leaves its ending ambiguous, Annie Hall is more assertive in its denial of a happy ending.  The last few seconds of the film involves the frame that is barren of both Annie and Alvy.  McDonald says, “Significantly, the film frame stays empty for some seconds, creating a mood of longing and suggesting that either of the pair might return.  However, the film ends without further action, Alvy falling silent just before Annie sings the final word of her song,” (79).  This film has a more definitive ending in its separation of the two main characters.  

Neo-traditional romantic comedies have end results that audiences are more accustomed to, but may be different in terms of execution and visual style, and McDonald provides a few examples.  Sleepless in Seattle is one film that falls into such a category.  In the film, the female character and male character, who are destined to be together, don’t officially unite until the end of the film.  In the film “You’ve Got Mail,” both of the main male and female characters have partners that they live with, but these couples don’t have sexual relationships within them.  McDonald says of the characters, “No sex with Joe is thus more fulfilling for Kathleen than sex with Frank; this downgrading of the importance of sex is greatly in contrast to the significance it attained as an index of individuality in the 1970s films,” (97-98).  In the film, Kathleen and Joe e-mail each other instead.

Wes Anderson can be classified as a neo-traditional filmmaker because of how he presents families within some of his films.  Throughout these narratives, he has the families go through times of turbulence that threaten to sever the connections that keep them together.  In the end, however, he reasserts the values of family and the importance of having loving people in the characters’ lives.  His style of comedy is vastly different from the mainstream because of its trademark and memorable eccentricity, which fits the neo-traditional criteria of having unique visual elements, however, underneath the unconventional ways of his comedy are realistic situations that the viewer can connect with on a deeper level.  In the sense of indeterminate space, his films have their characters attempt to connect in terms of their views of the given situation within the characters’ families.   I

In Wes Anderson’s 2009 film, “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Anderson tells the story of the title character whose family is going through some issues, such as those between him and his wife, as well as between his son and nephew.  This is all occurring while the family tries to avoid three dangerous farmers.  In his 2012 film, “Moonrise Kingdom,” Anderson’s narrative tells the tale of a lonely foster boy who leaves his Boy Scout troop to have adventures with his new love interest.  He doesn’t fit in with his foster family or his family of troops, and his girlfriend feels alienated within her own family.

Anderson creates these situations that can connect with the viewer because both films present scenarios that viewers can find relatable, such as rebelling against parents, sibling rivalry and the first romances of childhood.  Through subtle details in the mise-en-scene and the positioning of these characters, Anderson stages authentic situations that visualize what these characters are experiencing within their families.  For example, the character of Sam Shakusky in Moonrise Kingdom feels out of place at a boys’ foster home.  In “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Kristofferson is temporarily residing at his aunt and uncle’s house, much to the dislike of his cousin Ash, while his father gets over a case of double pneumonia.  What both characters have in common is that they are very mature for their ages, almost like a mechanism to help them cope with being the “outsiders.”  Kristofferson is athletic and intelligent, whereas Sam is fluent in wilderness survival skills that he has learned from his Boy Scout troop.

Animosity between Ash and Kristofferson can be detected at the start of the scene where the latter arrives at Ash’s home, because red and other “hot” colors are very present in the setting.  The camera focuses on the Mrs. Fox vacuuming the kitchen where red is spotted on the curtain covering the area below the sink and the red in the red-and-black checkered floor, Ash sitting in a red chair, and the viewer sees the orange of the walls.  When Kristofferson first arrives at Mr. Fox’s home, he’s wearing a sticker that says “Unaccompanied Minor.”  While that can be taken as a comical quirk to this character’s first appearance, it’s a hint at how he’s without company in terms of people his own age with whom he can relate to at the time, meaning Ash.  Although the cousins’ history isn’t detailed, the viewer can tell that it’s not a positive one, given Ash’s evident disliking of Kristofferson coming to visit.  There’s hostility in Ash, and although they are cousins, there is still that feeling of sibling rivalry because Ash appears and feels inferior when in the presence of his cousin.  According to Richard Brody in his article, “Wild, Wild Wes,” “Anderson, whose understanding of childhood is one of the hallmarks of his art…builds another axis of drama by giving the Foxes a nephew, a gallant young athlete, and setting him up as a rival to their more idiosyncratic son,” (13).  Right away, Anderson presents the competition between them.  During a diving contest, Mr. Fox says about Kristofferson, “He’s slightly younger, but a cuss of a lot bigger.  That’s just genetics, I guess.  Ash has a littler body type.”  The film then cuts to the humorous visual punch line of seeing the two standing next to each other, with Kristofferson appearing taller than Ash, and the latter’s facial expressions conveying his aggravation.  Red becomes a prominent color in several scenes where Ash is clearly angry.  In this sequence, the color of the pool is red, as is most of his bathing suit.  During this scene, Mrs. Fox is painting a thunderstorm.  These paintings appear in several moments throughout the film when tension rises among the characters.  

As in “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” the viewer sees a disconnection among young children in Moonrise Kingdom, particularly in the opening scene with Suzie and her brothers.  As the film begins, there is a long take that tracks and pans through the upstairs level of Suzie’s house.  In a medium shot of the room, the three brothers gather around a music player to listen, while Suzie is in the room with them.  However, she brings her cat in with her as company, looking cut off from her brothers.  She sits near a window and begins to read a book, which then cuts to a close-up of her.  The expression on her face is one of deep concentration, and even a little bit of anger.  Through her face, the audience can detect a feeling of separation she has from her brothers.  Red figures prominently in this scene, as it defines the tension that goes on in Suzie’s home.  Not only is she wearing a red checkered dress, but as the camera zooms out her window, it is revealed that her home is predominantly red.  The framing of her in the window helps to convey her entrapment.  Throughout this opening scene, which acts as a tour of the house in its tracking and panning shots, Suzie is never in the same room as her brothers, making the audience fully aware of their lack of a sibling relationship.

Just as the mise-en-scene of the house reflects the tension and disconnect between Suzie and her three brothers, the same goes for Ash’s bedroom when he and Kristofferson are getting ready for bed.  In this scene, heated colors are just as significant here as they are in the opening of “Moonrise Kingdom.”  There is an abundance of warm colors that compliment Ash’s anger and jealousy, such as the orange walls and his red bed.  Ash is on his bed, which is stationed at the top of high bedposts.  Now, it is Ash who appears to be bigger than Kristofferson and more in power.  At several times throughout the film, Ash expresses his annoyance through a subtle visual clue, which is the twitching of his right ear, and it happens twice in this scene.

Later in the film, as Mrs. Fox is stitching a wound where Mr. Fox’s tail had been before it was shot off moments before by the farmers, there is another episode of tension between Ash and Kristofferson.  Ash makes a joke about Kristofferson’s father’s illness, which upsets him.  There are appearances of red in this scene as well, such as the first-aid kit, the bloody bandage, the red in the curtain covering the area beneath the sink and the red in the red-and-black checkered floor of the kitchen.  After Ash gets told by his parents to apologize to Kristofferson, he says, “Me?  Me have an apology?  He just got here and got a bandit hat?  Where’s my bandit hat?  Why didn’t I get shot at?  Because you think I’m no good at anything!  Well, maybe you’re right, thanks.”  He then exits through a door that has a painting of a thunderstorm, reflecting the anger that Ash holds against Kristofferson and his parents.  

According to McDonald, “The basic ideology the romantic comedy genre supports is the primary importance of the couple,” (13).   The significance of “Moonrise Kingdom”’s couple comes into full view during a brief flashback, where the viewer sees how essential Sam and Suzie’s love for each other is because they aren’t receiving that same love in their homes, which is similar to how Kristofferson isn’t receiving any kindness from Ash, and how Ash thinks he’s inferior to Kristofferson in his parents’ eyes.  The audience sees how Sam and Suzie, much like Ash and Kristofferson, have a difficult time fitting into their living situations.  In a flashback depicting Suzie and Sam writing letters to each other, the film cuts back and forth between the two as they narrate their hard times as they read letters they sent to each other.  This shared narration between the two of them helps to convey the sense of connectedness they feel with each other, while at the same time, they are very disconnected within their separate worlds.  The positioning of the characters helps to define how different Sam is from his foster brothers.  At one point, we see Sam writing a letter to Suzie in a garage, while the other boys are seen in the background outside fixing a car.  While the other boys participate in activities that can be considered more masculine, it is shown that Sam takes more interest in artistic endeavors, such as painting, and the viewer sees some of the paintings that Sam has given to Suzy.  The viewer then sees Suzie writing to Sam as her three brothers play in the background.  Both characters have brothers they can’t tolerate, whether they are foster or biological.  The camera then cuts to Sam throwing away trash, while the other boys are at the top of stairs jeering at him, asserting their dominance as they look down on him.  A few moments later, the camera cuts to Suzie in her classroom, describing how she got suspended for fighting with a classmate.  In this brief take, the viewer sees that, while all of the other girls in the class are wearing blue plaid uniforms, Suzie is wearing mostly red plaid, the color setting her apart from the other girls, placing her in the same outsider status as Sam experiences at the foster home, and also emphasizing the tension she holds.  Every time the viewer sees Sam, he’s wearing an outfit that is different from that of the other boys, emphasizing his own outsider status.  Despite their shared contempt for their lifestyles, there is a difference between Sam and Suzie.  At one point in this scene while Sam is on his bunk bed, the viewer can see a black-and-white photo of his parents on their wedding day, which then cuts to Suzie arguing with her parents.  The difference is that Sam, an orphan, wishes to have true parents, but Suzie longs for freedom and fantasizes a life as an orphan.  In a later scene, she even reveals her envy for Sam being an orphan, telling him, “I always wished I was an orphan.  Most of my favorite characters are.  I think your lives are more special.”  The “opposites attract” notion works well here because the characters each have something that the other wants.  They have opposing desires.  

Besides the rivalry in the two films between the child characters, there is also the tension between children and their parents.  In “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” this tension is shown between Ash and his parents.  This is first seen towards the beginning of the film when the family is getting ready for the day.  Ash stands at the kitchen threshold several times and speaks in a dissatisfied tone, saying he doesn’t want to go to school and expressing concern about having to share his room when Kristofferson visits.  Every time Ash appears, he is framed within the threshold of the kitchen.  There is a sense of his entrapment, conveying the idea that he’s not good enough to satisfy his parents’ expectations, to break out to reach his potential.  Before Mr. Fox leaves for work, he and Ash are both visible within the shot.  Ash fits perfectly in the frame because of his size, while Mr. Fox is only visible up to his waist.  This continues Ash’s sense of entrapment because he is confined to the frame, whereas Mr. Fox’s figure extends beyond the frame.  Between them, leaning against the wall, is a painting of a thunderstorm done by Mrs. Fox, the contents of the artwork reflecting the tense dynamic between Ash and his parents.  Part of Ash’s outfit is a cape, relating to his want of being something more than he is, for him not to be seen as inferior when in the presence of his cousin.  He wishes to me something of a superhero because later in the film, the viewer sees him reading a comic book titled White Cape vs. the Black Dog, and his bedroom has posters of this comic-book character.

Just as in “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” there is a child-parent tension in “Moonrise Kingdom.”  The animosity between Suzie and her parents comes after they find her sleeping in a tent with Sam.  As Suzie and her family are sailing back to her home, Suzie and her father are sitting across from each other.  The camera first frames the father in a medium shot from Suzie’s point-of-view, which is then followed by point-of-view focalized through his perspective.  As the two begin to talk, the camera frames them in close-ups so the viewer can get a taste of the tension that’s brewing between them.  Suzie is sitting on the side of the boat with her mother on her right and her brothers on either side of her.  Suzie’s family is closing in on her and limiting her life experiences.  The viewer realizes Suzie’s feelings about her family in this bit of dialogue:

Mr. Bishop: “Be advised, the two of you will never see each other again.  Those were your last words.  Do you understand?”                                                                                                    

Suzie: “I’d be careful if I were you.  One of these days, somebody’s going to get pushed too far, and who knows what they’re capable of.”                                                                                           

Mr. Bishop: “Is that a threat?”                                                                                                              

Suzie: “It’s a warning.”                                                                                                                        

One of Suzie’s brothers: “You’re a traitor to our family.”                                                              

Suzie: “Good.  I want to be.”

Following this is a scene where Suzie’s mother is giving her a bath, almost as to cleanse her of what she’s been feeling for Sam.  Suzie is in somewhat of a fetal position, as if she is trying to close herself off from her mother.  In this scene, however, the viewer gets the sense that the mother is the more reasonable of the two parents, whereas Mr. Bishop decides to take out his anger by trying to chop down a tree.  Suzie and her mother begin to bond, albeit slightly, over their current romantic encounters, which are Suzie with Sam, and Mrs. Bishop with Police Captain Sharp.  There is a lack of intimacy between Mrs. Bishop and her husband, as exemplified in the opening scene in their house, where the two are constantly separated within the frame.  As a result, Mrs. Bishop tries to form a relationship with Captain Sharp, much to the obliviousness of her husband.  It is here where there is a glimmer of understanding between Mrs. Bishop and Suzie, especially as Mrs. Bishop comes closer to Suzie, which then sparks a hint of an intimate mother-daughter bond.

In the two films, some younger characters find others to fill in for the role of an absent parent(s).  In “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” Ash thinks that his father prefers Kristofferson over him (although this isn’t the case) because Kristofferson has more character traits that connect with his uncle, like his smarts.  In one scene where Mr. Fox is stealing cider, he tells Ash to turn back when he follows him and his dad’s friend, Kylie, however, Mr. Fox allows Kristofferson to stay with them when he catches up moments later.  The bandit hat that Mr. Fox gives Kristofferson to wear acts as an emblem for a rite of passage that allows Kristofferson to join his uncle on his adventures.  Mr. Fox is really one of the only characters that Kristofferson can relate to because they’re both smart and athletic, the latter trait is displayed in a previous scene where the children at school are playing a game called whack-bat.  Kristofferson excels at it and Ash does not, and the viewer gets knowledge of Mr. Fox’s talent for the game upon seeing a trophy he won when he was in school.

In “Moonrise Kingdom,” Sam finds a father figure in Captain Sharp after the foster home refuses to take him back.  As the two are having dinner, the connection between them emerges through costuming.  Both are wearing white t-shirts and glasses.  Also, the dull colors of the trailer in which the captain lives help to emphasize the loss of vivaciousness in both of their lives when they aren’t able to be with those whom they love.  For Sam, it’s Suzie, and for the captain, it’s Suzie’s mom.   Captain Sharp knows that he can’t be with Suzie’s mom because she’s married, whereas the love between Sam and Suzie is still there.  Their costuming plays a part in this notion as well.  Both characters have a position that calls for them to help others, with Captain Sharp working in law enforcement and Sam being a Khaki Scout.  While Captain Sharp isn’t wearing any significant part of his policing outfit, such as his badge or hat, Sam is wearing the yellow scarf that he wears with the rest of his Boy Scout uniform.  In Captain Sharp’s case, this could be a symbol that he has, at the moment, lost his manhood because he is unable to be with the woman he loves, whereas Sam is still wearing his scarf, representing his version of manhood in terms of the Boy Scouts, and still having a chance with Suzie.  Also, the place settings for their dinner reveal that half of the table is folded down because there is only a need for one-half of the table with only two people using it; the other half is unused.  Showing that only half of the table is used, Anderson calls to mind that neither of the two characters in this scene have anyone to share dinner with, except each other.  This is also the first real interaction that Sam has had with an adult who understands what he is experiencing in this stage of his adolescence:

Captain Sharp: “Look, let’s face it.  You’re probably a much more intelligent person than I am.  In fact, I guarantee it.  But even smart kids stick their finger in electrical sockets sometimes.  It takes time to figure things out.  It’s been proven by history.  All mankind makes mistakes.  It’s our job to try to protect you from making the dangerous ones, if we can.  What’s your rush?  You’ve got your whole life in front of yourself.  Ahead of you, I mean.”                    

Sam: “Maybe so.  Anyway, you’re a bachelor.”                          

Captain Sharp: “So are you.”                  

Sam: “That’s true.  Did you love someone ever?                          

Captain Sharp: “Yes, I did.”              

Sam: “What happened?”                          

Captain Sharp: “She didn’t love me back.”

Reconciliation within these families commences in the face of impending danger.  In “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” the characters are being threatened by the three farmers.  The first time the viewer sees this reconciliation is when Ash approaches Kristofferson to ask for his help in getting Mr. Fox’s tail back from the farmers.  During this scene, the costuming plays an important role, and Ash’s costuming has a different meaning than it did in the beginning of the film.  Ash is wearing the cape that he wore earlier in the film, and Kristofferson is wearing a plain buttoned-down shirt.  For someone his age, Ash wearing the cape in the beginning seems juvenile.  However, now it has switched to a more significant meaning.  It helps to display the act of heroism that Ash is proposing.  Meanwhile, Kristofferson is now the one who seems ordinary compared to Ash because of his clothing.  Ash realizes that he is meant for something.  When they go to steal the tail, Kristofferson puts on the bandit hat his uncle gave him earlier.  However, Ash now has a bandit hat he modified out of a tube sock.  Because it’s white, it matches his cape and the rest of his outfit, and because he made the hat himself, that shows he’s taking his own initiative to reach a potential he didn’t realize he had at first.

When Mr. Fox almost gets his friends and family killed in a flood underground, he has a moment where he thinks about how his mistakes brought them to this situation, and his wife comes to comfort him.  Although this is a comedy, there is still that emotional depth that comes with his marriage.  According to Brody’s article, “For instance, Mr. and Mrs. Fox…bring to life a view of marriage – of a couple whose extraordinary complicity is threatened by ambition – that’s as bittersweet and insightful as that of any live-action romantic movie of recent years,” (13).  Mr. Fox clearly sees the mistakes he has made since the beginning of the film, such as lying to his wife, stealing chickens and trying to embarrass the farmers.  His character develops in a way that has him realize that he has cared too much about having others be  “…completely knocked-out and dazzled and intimidated…” by him, and how that can’t always be the case.  In this scene, there are sections that have Mr. And Mrs. Fox framed in close-ups, which express the love and intimacy they still have for each other, even though Mr. Fox is at fault for everything that has happened.  As the two are standing in the sewer, there’s a waterfall that can be seen in the background.  When Mr. Fox is explaining his theory as to why he is the way he is, he is framed in a medium shot with the waterfall in back of him.  He has realized his mistakes in life, and the waterfall acts as a cleansing mechanism for his change. 

In “Moonrise Kingdom,” the reconciliations among the characters come during the storm that has been predicted throughout the movie.  By placing this storm into the story, Anderson once again uses water to symbolize the change in people’s behavior in order to make them better.  Outside of the scene with Captain Sharp and Sam, the viewer gets a better understanding of how much Sharp cares for him and how protective he is towards him.  In this scene, everyone has gathered in a church to seek shelter from the storm.  Sam and Suzie are hiding from the adults inside the same church.  At one point, Sharp turns to the balcony of the church, and sees a group of children wearing disguises, two of whom he thinks are Sam and Suzie, with Sam’s raccoon hat in plain sight, giving them away.  This is framed in a point-of-view shot that zooms in on the two characters and then a reaction shot from Sharp, letting the viewer know that Sharp realizes where the two are.  Throughout the film, Captain Sharp can be seen as a pushover and someone who, even though is a police captain, doesn’t display an aura of tough authority.  When Social Service wants to look for Sam, however, there is a shot of Captain Sharp framed at a bit of a low angle as he holds a stick with nails in it, and the balcony with Sam and Suzie is seen in back of him, as if he’s protecting it.  His character development in this scene has him stand up to Social Services, revealing a protective nature in him that has been brought out by his caring nature for Sam.  

In the film’s closing scene, the viewer is brought back to Suzie’s house, where the feeling among the family is less tense than in the beginning.  Suzie and her brothers are in the same room together as they were in the first scene.  The brothers and Suzie are doing their separate activities.  As Suzie is reading, she doesn’t have as intense of an expression on her face as she did before.  She seems to be more at peace with herself.  The cat that she brought into the room with her in the beginning is now in the hallway, so she doesn’t mind having her brothers as company.  Her yellow dress in this scene draws comparisons to her red dress in the beginning when there was a lot more tension within the family.  The yellow of her dress helps to present a more optimistic side that her character has for her life.  In terms of Sam’s clothing, he is dressed in a police outfit similar to Captain Sharp’s, solidifying the father-son relationship that the two share, as he is now Sam’s guardian.

Although these two Wes Anderson films are seen as comedies, they still have distinct elements of realistic drama to which viewers can relate.  Behind the quirky wit, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “Moonrise Kingdom” reveal the tension that all families are susceptible to experiencing.  Through Anderson’s use of mise-en-scene and shot composition, he provides lush details that present an in-depth look at these broken families and their new-found connections. 

Works Cited

Brody, Richard.  “Wild, Wild Wes.”  New Yorker  November 2009: 48-57.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. 

Schatz, Thomas.  Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System.  New York: Random House, 1981. 

Figuring Out Life: A Graduate’s Drift Through a Sea of Troubles

In director Mike Nichols 1967 comedy, “The Graduate,” he takes the character of Benjamin Braddock, a recent college graduate, and puts him through experiences that he never imagined he would have.  In a world where Ben is now being pulled in various directions, he is being suffocated by those around him.  In Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s book, Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre, she says, “‘The Graduate,’ for example, does not seem to be a full romantic comedy because, although the hero, Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman), does fall in love with a girl, Elaine (Katharine Ross), the story is more about his inability to fit into society than about her importance to his life,” (62).  Through elements of shot composition and mise-en-scene, Nichols establishes the sensation of drowning that Ben feels during the film, and makes the viewer feel it with him.

The graduation party scene at the film’s beginning immediately places the viewer in Ben’s entrapment.  In a long take, Ben is positioned in front of his fish tank, giving the impression that he is in the tank as well, with the diver figurine representing Ben.  There is an invasion of space when his father sits down right in front of him and is very close to the camera, and this provides the viewer with Ben’s feeling of being suffocated by people.  Soon, the mother comes in and positions herself even closer to the camera than the father, and she completely blocks the viewer from the other two characters for a few seconds.  She is suffocating the viewer and Ben, just like the father.  As the three walk downstairs, there is a painting of a clown at the top of the stairs.  This relates to Ben because the clown has makeup on, and Ben is reluctantly putting on a contented face in front of his party guests, even though he is worried and confused behind the cheerful expression.  

The next long take is of Ben walking through the house as party guests come up to him every few seconds.  Everyone is framed in a close-up, continuing the main character’s feeling of suffocation.  A handheld camera is used for this take, and it has the viewer feel dual emotions.  On the one hand, the audience feels for Ben because it is experiencing these uncomfortable close-ups with him.  On the other hand, it can also make the audience feel like the party guests because how close it’s getting to Ben.  Whenever Ben tries to get somewhere, he’s always deterred by another party guest.  Ben is then approached by a guest, Mr. McGuire, and both are framed in a close-up.  He asks Ben to come outside to talk with him, and afterwards, there are more people out there who want to talk with Ben.  All of this shows how Ben is being pulled in multiple directions in regards to his future, and he’s not ready for this.  In Roger Ebert’s 1967 review of the film, he says, “His (Ben’s) family and their social circle demand that he perform in the role of Successful Young Upward-Venturing Clean-Cut All-American College Grad,” (1).  As Ben heads back inside, a tracking shot shows him walking through the party as the viewer gets a full sense of how many people are in attendance, and the viewer sees that all of the guests are older than Ben, and they all have expectations of him.  Through the use of these long takes here and in other parts of the movie, this technique relates to the drowning effect because there aren’t any cuts in the edit, relating to Ben’s inability to come up for air.

The seduction scene places Ben in another “drowning” scenario because he can’t seem to escape Mrs. Robinson, as she expresses clinginess and a needy personality.  The deep-focus long shot of the front of the house hints at the Robinsons’ affluent lifestyle, and Ben will soon be drowning in objects.  The deep-focus long take as the two walk through the hallway helps the viewer to see the lavishness of the Robinsons’ house, as well as the bigness of the on-screen space that is engulfing Ben.  The set design of the living room presents a materialistic lifestyle, as it shows many chairs, a television, a big couch and a bar that’s covered with bottles and drinking glasses.  On the outside, there is an abundance of plants, which not only enhances the sensation of drowning in objects, but also gives the impression of wildlife, complimenting Mrs. Robinson’s predatory nature.  

During this long take, Ben and Mrs. Robinson are in the frame together for nearly the entire time, displaying Ben being trapped with Mrs. Robinson.  This also happens during a long take when the two are in Mrs. Robinson’s daughter Elaine’s room.  Even during the times when the frame just has Ben, the viewer still has Mrs. Robinson’s voice from off-screen, coaxing Ben to join her back in the frame.  During the long take when Ben is getting Mrs. Robinson’s purse and she is off screen, the viewer still gets the sense of Ben being unable to separate from her because she tries to use her demands to bring him to her.  When Mrs. Robinson appears naked and tries to seduce Ben when the two of them are back in Elaine’s room, the audience gets the same feeling as it did in the beginning of the film with Ben’s parents.  When Mrs. Robinson has her back to the camera, she is very close to it, and the viewer sees Ben in the background.  The viewer and Ben are being suffocated by Mrs. Robinson, just as they were being suffocated by Ben’s parents in the beginning.

In the scene with the scuba suit, Ben is drowning because he’s reluctantly being a part of something that his parents want him to be a part of, and Ben’s father isn’t listening to him when he wants to talk with him.  When the audience gets a view of Ben in the scuba suit, the image immediately recalls that of the diver figurine in his fish tank.  His scuba suit appears heavy to wear and is basically suffocating him.  In a point-of-view long take, through the use of a subjective camera, the audience is put into Ben’s place to make it seem as though it is looking out of the goggles of the scuba suit, just as he is.  The viewer can’t hear anything because Ben can’t hear anything from inside the scuba suit.  Soon, the audience goes right into the pool, and there is a suffocating feel as he tries to get out of the water, but is being pushed down by his father.  The scene then cuts to a medium shot of Ben, and the camera begins to slowly track back in a long take to get a better sense of Ben in relation to the depths of the pool.  He continues to resemble the diver with not just the suit, but with how he just stays in place.  He slowly fades from view as the camera tracks back farther and farther away, emphasizing the distance he feels from the world around him.   

Mike Nichols films his scenes in such a way that makes this film, as McDonald suggests, more than a romantic comedy.  Through his shot composition, he brings the story of an alienated young man to full visualization by having him engulfed by the elements within the frame, be it people, objects or both.  The romance, of course, plays a part, in that it helps Ben figure out who he is, however, the way he traverses through a world where many people have different views for him is what truly creates his journey into adulthood.  

Works Cited

“The Graduate.”  26 Dec. 1967  www.rogerebert.com.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

An Unconventional Presentation of Love Lives

In Woody Allen’s 1977 film, "Annie Hall," he doesn’t follow the romantic-comedy genre conventions to tell his story like other films in the genre.  Instead, he allows for a greater sense of realism in the construction of Alvy and Annie’s relationship.  Unlike the traditional romantic comedy, Allen doesn’t follow the pattern of the boy and girl meeting, falling in love, fighting, eventually breaking up and then falling back in love again.  Instead, he begins their relationship somewhere in the middle of their time together as they’re facing certain problems with each other; and the viewer, along with Alvy, tries to piece together his memories to find the source of the relationship problems.  

In Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s book, “Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre,” she says, “The whole of the film’s narrative can be understood as Alvy’s attempt to sift ‘the pieces of the relationship’, working out where things went wrong through examining his life, trying to explain his actions,” (73-74).   Through this narrative format, Allen uses a nonlinear structure and different methods of shot composition and mise-en-scene in each scene to tell the story as be goes back and forth from the present to the past to detail how the relationship started, what happened before and what happened along the way that caused their bond to become fragile.  This back-and-forth allows for the viewer to make comparisons between Alvy’s girlfriends and how each situation played out.

The viewer is provided with a greater sense of Alvy and Annie’s relationship as they recount their previous romances that are broken up into several scenes.  In Sam B. Girgus’ book, “The Films of Woody Allen,” he says, “The special relationship between desire and narrative, as described by de Lauretis, in which desire operates as a function of narrativity and narrativity in turn processes desire, can be found in 'Annie Hall'…,” (45).  Alvy and Annie’s desire for companionship and a sexual relationship within each other help stimulate the flashbacks of when they tried to find those two things with other people.  And, the narrative stimulates the desire because of how it recounts several of the two main characters’ relationships and their want for romance.  The viewer first sees one of Alvy’s past relationships, one of which was with a girl named Allison.  This starts in a scene where Alvy and Annie are in bed.  Alvy is trying to encourage Annie to have sex with him, but she isn’t in the mood.  In the scene with Allison and Alvy in bed together, the situation is reversed, with Alvy trying to avoid sex with Allison.  Also, their positions in the bed heighten this sense of reversal.  As the viewer is looking at Alvy and Annie as they’re in bed, Alvy is on the left side and Annie is on the right side.  In Allison’s bedroom, she is on the left side and Alvy is on the right side.  The switched positions of the characters’ in bed reflect the reversal of who wants sex and who’s avoiding it.  With Alvy and Annie, the camera stays in one place and doesn’t move, keeping Alvy and Annie together in the frame the whole time.  With Alvy and Allison, they are oftentimes separated from each other within the frame.  As Alvy gets off the bed, he begins to walk around Allison’s room with only him in the frame as the camera follows him in a long take.  This heightens the sense of detachment that Alvy had felt for Allison before Annie entered his life.  There is also the factor of being distracted from sex.  Annie is busy reading as Alvy is attempting to have sex with her, and Alvy is using a discussion of a JFK assassination conspiracy theory to avoid having sex with Allison.  Alvy says, “I’m sorry, I can’t go through with this.  Because I can’t get it off my mind, Allison!  It’s obsessing me!”  To which Allison replies, “I’m getting tired of it.  I need your attention.”  Even when the film just has him in the frame and he’s talking about the assassination, he is speaking in a way that makes it look and sound like he’s just talking to himself and ignoring Allison.

This scene then transitions to an early time in Annie and Alvy’s relationship.  This scene involves Alvy and Annie cooking lobster in a house near the beach.  The sequence is filmed in a long take with a documentary style, with the shakiness of the camera emphasizing the fun dynamic that the two used to share in their relationship, contrasting the still camera in their bedroom scene where they lack intimacy.  During this scene, the two are almost always in the frame together, symbolizing how they were once inseparable, and how the viewer wishes for them to remain inseparable, even though their relationship is facing some turbulence.  The smallness of the kitchen allows for the two to be closer together in this scene and for their intimacy to be shown as they share this little space together.

The scene that follows immediately after that now has Annie discussing her past romances.  She briefly mentions Dennis, her high school boyfriend from back home in Chippawa Falls, Wisconsin.  Then, she mentions one of her most recent boyfriends, Jerry, with more detail.  The narrative structure of the film in this scene doesn’t just deal with time in a nonlinear sense, but also has Annie and Alvy literally walking into the past in this sequence.  The two walk into a room where they find a past Annie with her then-boyfriend, Jerry.  This is another scene that’s shot as a long take that keeps the four characters within the frame the whole time.  There is a wall that Jerry is leaning against, and the way that the shot is composed makes it look as though the wall is dividing Jerry and past-Annie from present-Annie and Alvy.  So, although the two time periods have come together, present-Annie and Alvy don’t interact with the other two, and are merely observers of Annie’s nostalgia.

The narrative then jumps further back to when Alvy was with his second wife, Robin.  The two are attending a party for Robin’s book publisher, where she’s annoyed about Alvy’s hostility.  He quickly retreats to a bedroom to watch a Knicks basketball game.  The viewer gets a sense of disconnection between them because when Robin tells Alvy that she doesn’t understand the appeal of a basketball game, Alvy responds with, “That’s one thing about intellectuals.  They’ve proven that you can be absolutely brilliant and have no idea what’s going on.”  This scene then cuts to them having sex, only to be interrupted by a siren from outside.  The camera films all of this in a long take from a distance from the bed to help the viewer continue to share with Alvy that feeling of disconnection that he feels when with Robin.  

This is then followed by a scene at a tennis court where Alvy and Annie first meet.  As the two are getting ready to leave, it’s noticeable that Annie’s dress is very different from Allison and Robin’s, and is more similar to Alvy’s style of clothing, hinting that the two are a match.  While Allison and Robin wore clothing that was more dress-lie, Annie wears clothing that is more masculine, such as a button-down shirt, vest and dress pants.  Alvy is wearing something similar, minus the vest.  Annie is completely different from the other two women.  While Allison and Robin can be considered intellectuals, Annie is more of a down-to-earth free spirit who is an aspiring actress.  And, unlike Allison and Robin, Annie isn’t originally from New York.  Once Alvy and Annie are in her apartment, Alvy finds a book of Sylvia Plath’s poems, and he says, “Sylvia Plath.  Interesting poetess whose tragic suicide was misinterpreted as romantic by the college-girl mentality.”  To which Annie replies, “Right.  I don’t know.  I mean, some of her poems seem neat.”  By merely calling them “neat,” the viewer can tell that she doesn’t have a strong insight into literature, but still feels comfortable around Alvy.  This scene is shot in another long take.  As Annie is talking to Alvy, although there are times when they aren’t in the frame together, the viewer can sense their connection, especially as the camera is focusing on Annie as she’s getting the wine and excitedly sharing family stories with Alvy, who is out of the frame.  

Woody Allen’s use of an unconventional narrative structure is what brings the film its realism.  Introducing the relationship as it’s in the middle of several problems presents a jarring departure from what the viewer is used to when watching a romantic comedy.  It allows for the viewer to contemplate Alvy and Annie’s love lives along with them as they think about their pasts, and this provides a better understanding of their characters.  "Annie Hall" isn’t just about what happens within the relationship between the two main characters, but is also about what happened beforehand and what events delivered them to each other.

Works Cited

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Girgus, Sam B.  The Films of Woody Allen.  Second Edition.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

The Concept of Time and Its Bigger Implications

“How far back do you want me to go?  College?  Oh, I was totally outgoing.  A real people person.   In high school, I felt like that mouse that gets dropped into the snake cage and just kinda sits there, frozen, trying to blend in.”  The part about college is false because although the film’s protagonist, Darius Britt (Aubrey Plaza), says she was outgoing, the viewer sees brief scenes of her as a sort of loner as her voiceover narration is speaking these words.  The part about high school, however, is true, and the viewer sees her standing in the middle of a party, looking as though she doesn’t know what to do.  With the help of the visuals, this quote at the very start of the film expresses the feeling of boredom and monotony in Darius’ life.  What’s clever about it is when Darius asks, “How far back do you want me to go?” it reflects the film’s overall premise of time traveling.  Her opening narration holds the film’s earliest example of going back in time because Darius first explains her time in college, and then goes further back to high school, and then goes back as far as her childhood. 

In director Colin Trevorrow’s 2012 film, “Safety Not Guaranteed,” he makes the theme of time as relevant for the characters who want to go back in time as he does to those you want to stay directly in the present and make their changes there.  In what could have been a typical romantic comedy about finding love and traditional relationships is instead a romantic comedy-drama with a tender sci-fi twist.  In the film’s blend of these genres, the story derives a lot of its comedic elements through the establishment of first-time relationships, or establishment of relationships through second chances.  

The story revolves around Darius (Aubrey Plaza), a displeased intern at a Seattle magazine.  A fellow writer, Jeff (Jake Johnson), suggests that he, Darius and another intern, Arnau (Karan Soni), write a story on an ad written by Kenneth Calloway (Mark Duplass), who is offering those interested to go back in time with him.  They then head to his hometown to see what he is all about.  In Thomas Schatz’s book, “Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System,” he says, “As a popular film audience, our shared needs and expectations draw us into the movie theater.  If we are drawn there by a genre film, we are familiar with the ritual,” (29).  In the case of Safety Not Guaranteed, this isn’t the typical film for an audience that just seeks popular films.  It’s an indie movie, and indie movies tend to be more grounded in reality.  So, in going into a film that revolves around the possibility of the two main characters achieving their goal of going back in time, the viewer doesn’t know whether to believe that this will actually happen, or if this film will stay in reality, as is the case for many independent films.  Because the film has a few different genres working together, it’s difficult to tell which way the film will go.

The scene where Darius meets Kenneth for the first time is one of many that has the underlying theme of time; not exactly of the passing of time, but of what the times of these characters are like in the present moment.  It’s a boy-meets-girl type of situation, but isn’t as typical as we’re used to seeing.  There aren’t any star-crossed gazes or the like.  Their first meeting is like that of two people conspiring for a secret mission.  The clothing of the characters and their surroundings in this scene detail the monotonous nature of their lives.  The viewer sees the rows and rows of Campbell’s soup cans in front of Kenneth, everything neatly in place.  No variety is present.  Both of their outfits’ colors express a sense of loneliness in their lives because the viewer sees Darius wearing the faded jeans and the darker colors on top, and Kenneth is wearing very dull colors, such as a light blue shirt and beige vest.  These colors match the state that their lives are in now because they can both be seen as loners.  This monotony illustrates how they are stuck in time and that their lives aren’t going anywhere, as of now.  The deadpan humor that Aubrey Plaza gives to her character is also a small, yet important, detail that further expresses the dullness of her life.   According to Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s book, “Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre,” she says, “Crying frequently occupies an important space in the narrative of the romantic comedy: as an index of the pain a lover feels when apart from the beloved, when rejected or lonely,” (10).  Darius transcends this cliché because of her seemingly stoic expressions in this scene.  She doesn’t need crying because her expressionless face reflects how lonely and unattached she is to the world around her, but also serves a comedic purpose because of her humorously pokerfaced line delivery.  However, as she begins to bond with Kenneth throughout the film, see begins to open up to him and show emotion little by little.

Their ages play a role in this scene as well.  The director frames Darius and Kenneth together in a close-up, and despite an emotional distance between, there is still that feeling of intimacy in their discussion because of how they are positioned.  Their difference in age can strike some viewers as being unconventional, especially because this has a romantic-comedy element to it.  Although the age difference between the two actors isn’t that great in reality, the way the two are dressed makes their age difference seem bigger.  This difference in age becomes more significant later in the movie because the viewer learns that Kenneth wants to go back in time to fix some mistakes he made with a girl in high school.  So, Darius is almost like a surrogate girlfriend to Kenneth.

The characters’ want for time traveling to the past is cleverly depicted in a scene at a high school football game.  Darius and Kenneth go there to discuss their time-traveling plans.  The two of them are sitting on one bleacher, and Jeff and Arnau are on another.  The placing of these characters at a high school game assists in emphasizing how the main characters are positioning themselves in an environment that reflects the past to that they wish to travel.  Breaking the characters into pairs kick starts the dynamics that will be seen in these pairs in other scenes throughout the film.  As the viewer watches Darius find Kenneth, other couples are visible around them, subtly addressing Kenneth’s need to see his high school crush again, and further hinting at Darius and Kenneth becoming a couple near the film’s end, as well as their need for intimacy.  The movie doesn’t reveal Kenneth’s need for going back in time until later, but with repeat viewings, the viewer has knowledge and a better understanding as to why the director positioned the two characters like this.  

After the exchange between Darius and Kenneth, the film cuts to Jeff and Arnau sharing beers where they are sitting.  With this pair, the viewer can see how different the two are.  Arnau is a nerdy, timid young adult, and Jeff is a more confident and outgoing older male.  Arnau opens his can of beer, takes a sniff, and puts on a face of mild disgust, whereas Jeff just takes a swig, emanating a party-boy mentality.  It also interestingly makes the viewer see Jeff as a teenager because after he opens the beer, he sneakily looks around the bleachers to make sure he isn’t caught with the beer, as if he’s a teenager who is drinking underage; when in actuality, he’s just worried about being caught with alcohol at a high school game.  There are traces of nostalgia and the notion of second chances in the dialogue between Jeff and Arnau.  Jeff tells him, “God, I remember this smell.  The smell of grass.  I used to play a little bit, back in the day.”  Arnau then tells Jeff, “I think you should give Liz (Jeff’s past girlfriend) another chance.  That sucks to spend all that time thinking about her, and you’re finally here, and you don’t follow through with it.”  Just like the people surrounding Darius and Kenneth on the bleachers, the people surrounding Jeff and Arnau on their section of bleachers offer a deeper meaning to their issues.  The two are surrounded by high school girls, and Jeff is telling Arnau that he should ask one out.  This exchange of dialogue between the two will relate to other scenes that they will share together.

A pivotal scene that comes later in the film shows two important actions happening.  Though parallel editing isn’t exactly what’s used, the viewer can distinguish that these two events are occurring at the same time.  One of these events involves Darius and Kenneth sitting around a campfire, an intimate setting that hints that something significant will happen, and the viewer sees a straight-on shot of them sitting close together with the fire between them, as well as shot-counter-shot editing that displays the growing attraction between them.  The viewer can tell that their relationship has evolved into something romantic, some evidence of that being how Darius continues to exhibit some genuine emotion towards Kenneth, never breaking her gaze away from him as he performs a song for her.  The song is called “Big Machine,” which was written by Ryan Miller, who also composed the film’s musical score.  The first few lyrics go as, “Stand straight/Fall back in line/Comb your hair/Get to work on time/Everyone in the big machine/Tries to break your heart/And pull you underneath/Maybe I’m wrong/And all that you get is what you see/Maybe I’m right/And there’s something out there to believe.”  This big machine that he’s referring to is time itself.  From “Stand straight…is what you see,” that all relates to how Kenneth and Darius have felt stuck in the times in which they have been placed.  But, that last line describes how they feel now.  Kenneth singing this song and Darius giving him unwavering attention shows that they have found hope in each other, and possibly an escape from the average lives they have been living.

The second action that’s taking place as this is happening is Jeff insisting that Arnau goes out and gets a girlfriend.  This occurs right after Jeff comes back to their motel after an unsuccessful attempt to reconnect with Liz.  Jeff’s effort to get back with his girlfriend was his own version of going back in time.  This is a strong moment because instead of Jeff being able to reconnect with his past to fix his future, he wants to try and fix Arnau’s present in order to give him a better future.  He asks Arnau, “Why are you sitting here?  Why would you be sitting on your computer?  You are a young man.  You got the whole world ahead of you.  I’m asking you to be a man and try.  Are you ready to have a crazy night with me?  ‘Cause I’m ready.  Say you’re ready.  Say you’re ready.  Let’s do something stupid!”  Jeff brings Arnau out to meet new people, eventually spotting a group of teens outside a convenience store.  The concept of time comes in as Jeff helps them embrace their years as youths by buying them beer, as well as embracing his own youthful side.  They engage in drinking and go on bumper cars and go-karts, all while having the time of their lives.  While this is occurring, the director uses a handheld camera to film the scene, highlighting the wild and crazy nature of the night that the group is experiencing.  This scene relates to a passage in Schatz’s book, in which he states, “Ultimately, the sustained success of any genre depends upon at least two factors: the thematic appeal and significance of the conflicts it repeatedly addresses and its flexibility in adjusting to the audience’s and filmmakers’ changing attitudes towards the conflicts,” (31).  Although Safety Not Guaranteed can’t be classified in just one genre, it still has thematic resonance with the audience because of how it deals with characters who want to change their lives by embracing their youth and engaging in opportunities for once-in-a-lifetime and second chances, themes that click with many moviegoers.  

The two scenes eventually come thematically closer.  After we see Darius and Kenneth kiss for the first time, the film cuts to Jeff trying to make a few changes to Arnau’s image so he can be more confident with girls.  Jeff says, “You’re not gonna get this opportunity very much longer.  You’re not always gonna be 21, young man.  You’re not gonna be your age forever.  This is the moment you live for.”  After Jeff leaves Arnau in the motel room with the girl, they are framed in a straight-on close-up shot, offering a charge of an impending attraction felt between the two characters.  During this, the film cuts back to Darius and Kenneth getting close by the fire, and the viewer sees that both couples have found someone to love.  The music to “Big Machine” plays in the background, reminding the viewer of the lyric, “Maybe I’m right and there’s something out there to believe,” reflecting how there is something in the world for Darius, Kenneth and Arnau, and that their lives have the potential to improve.

Although “Safety Not Guaranteed” can be viewed as a comedy, its use of other genres, such as science fiction and drama, assists the film in transgressing the comedy genre clichés, so as to throw off the audience’s expectations.  The films genuinely funny moments certainly make this a comedy, but the softer and more romantic moments have this film go into dramatic territory as well, sometimes turning the film into a romantic dramedy.  Add in the sci-fi spin, and it results in a film that can’t be classified into just one genre, but one that successfully blends them without any clashing. 

Works Cited

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Schatz, Thomas.  “The Genius of the System” and “Film Genres and the Genre Film.”  Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System.  New York: Random House, 1981.  3-41.