LECTURE TWO

Films have texts and sub texts. he text is the story, the subtext is an underlying meaning. Moby Dick may be an action adventure sory on the surface but has strong religous subtext about the relationship between people and god.

The ideas in the film are conveyed to the audience through words, sounds and images. The director has a story in mind and wants to film it. In effect the director wants to "translate" the story from words into something visual. The words in general will not disappear but he story will be told through all the technical methods the directors have at their disposal. (Check Sunset Blvd. in which Norma Desmond says "I can say anything with my face". (She doesn't need words to communicate).

There are many ways to send (encode) messages. Most rely on symbols. A symbol is something which stands for something else in an arbitrary way (i.e. there is no real connection between the symbol and its referent. The word dog means the animal but there is nothing about the word that directly relates to it, the way the footprint of the dog does. When there is a connection between the two it is often called "a sign" rather than "a symbol". The word "dog" is a symbol. the dog's footprint is a sign.

Some symbols are very abstract like the concept of "sacred" or "private vs public property". These are things physical scientists can not tell from the materials themselves. Cultulres are in many ways collections of symbols.

When a film maker makes a film, each technician/artist attempt tp tell the story through the technical means at their disposal. The directors of photography (DP) tells th story by manipulating the variables at their disposal as do set designers, costume designers, and so on. Each one triess to tell the story through the part of the film they have some control over. Since each one of these people may have a different "take" on the story, they need to be brought together by the director who makes sure that everyone is interpreting the story the same way.

Once the film is made, it is shown and the audience has to decode all the messages in the film by coming to grips with the way the people who made the film handled the variables in their area. The process of decoding the text is called hermeneutics. It is through the hermeneutic process that the film analyst reveals the messages sent on tectual and subtextual levels by the film makers.

Text and subtext can be thought of almost like "plot" and "theme" The story may be something that the audience sees as a specific example of the theme or it may be that the audience is given a film in which one generalizes from the films. This should be clearer from the analysis of this film.

What is important to remember is that different people will come up with different interpretations of the same film. We can not talk about a correct or incorrect interpretation. The important thing os to support the interpretaion by demostrating what a specific interpretation is based on. "I feel that.." is not an acceptable analysis unless it is followed rapidly by a "because".

It is also important to remember that films are a product of their times and film directors are products of their time as well. It is often difficult for the viewer to put themselves in the position of being in a time when a film was made, when the viwer hadn't even been born yet!

For every film, one has to look at many places where people manipulate variables by making choices. The choice is potentially significant. Some of the areas are lighting, set design, costume design, hair styles and so on.

An important aspet of films relates to the connection between shots. Shots are like words, editing is like grammar. Ir is possible to hold at some level all of the other aspects of film making may have symbolic aspects to them.

IT IS IMPORTANT to know the meaning of something used as a symbol within that culture. What does it mean? How is it related to other works of art? What is its referent in general within the culture? (reindeer and Santa Clause)

A general education should make students familiar with many of he symbols found in art.

We try to look at all of these to see how they impact on the story telling aspect of the film.

Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Dr, Caligari)
1920
Robert Wiene, director

Some terms

Mise en scene

A rather loose phrase from theater meaning “everything in the set. In film tends to refer to everything in the frame – sets, props, costumes, arrangements of people and so on. Different writers define the term somewhat differently.

Does not include editing and camera positions and movements

Horror is a genre which is typified by:

Although it often crosses with science fiction, the latter films are generally more involved with world catastrophy than individual problems. Alfred Hitchock's Psycho is often considered a classic horror film in these respects. What kinds of sub-genres are there in horror?

Are monster movies "horror" films?
Psycho is a kind of psychological horror.
Are there are supernatural horror films? Consider films like The Exorcist. How Would you classify films such as Curse of the Demon or Cat People where there is some question as to whether the events are real or imagined?
Are the three films we are about to see similar? How similar are they? Consider the structure of the film. How is it put together? Would a different structure alter the film's meaning - that is would we read it differently?

I. Variables in film:

1. tells you something about where, when or who made the object. “In the style of the people of the Pacific” in the style of the 1800’s”, “in the style of Shakespere”.

2. Some styles are named: modernism, postmodernism, impressionism, expressionism. This last is awkward since almost all art expresses something, but in this case it is an internal state of the artist (often) that is being expressed. The result in film is that expressionist films do not look like the real world.

3. Germany in the 1920’s experimented with an expressionist style which we see in the two short films today “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and “Nosferatu”. Since many German film makers fled Germany for the US shortly after this, the style has some impact on American on American film in a somewhat diluted version. Americans by and large have been growing away from this style of film making, looking for more and more reality in the films. No matter how fantastical the film, it should LOOK real. These films do not.

4. Expressionism can not use the real world to film in. All the scenes are shot in doors where directors have complete control over all aspects of the film making process.

5. Expressionism is important for films which lie outside the “real world” in some way. The are usable for fantasy, supernatural and supernatural horror and other films of that sort.

Cabinet of Caligari:

What is the structure of the film?

Who is mad? If the scenes with the mad man in them are equally distorted who is the narrator?

In the end section (the second half of the frame story) do the sets appear naturalistic or expressionistic?

Are there times when the film appears to link Caligari and Mr. Francis, the narrator.

There are moments when both are positioned in the same way in the frame relative to others.
When goes and sits behind Dr. Caligari's desk.
When he is put in the strait jacket
Are there people in the asylum who resemble (or are) those in the enclosed narrative?

What does the film says about "control"?

Caligari is interested having people commit acts they normally would not, but that someone could get them to do that. This questions the nature of how people could have ben misled by a government in WW I, hence the film has strong overtones about war, and WWI in particular.

Some questions to ponder

On a subtextual level, the film deals with the question of the control of people by governments in leading them into wars.

The expressionistic sets which are distorted reflect the mental instability of the narrator. The high chairs of public officials are used to represent their "high" status. The shift in the se design from the relatively realistic (but perhaps overgrown) garden constrasts dramatically with the expressionist sets of the narrated flashback which makes up the major portion of the film. The final sequences in the film are also distorted but not quite as badly as the narrated parts. So it is possble by looking at thre 3 styles of the sets to say which narrator is telling the story - the unamed one who is telling the story, Mr, Francis' narrative (flaahback) and the final sequences which are unclear. This tripartate division is also reflected in the three archways in the institution, the three stripes on Calagari's glove and the three stripes in his hair.

We realize finally that the narrator of the flashback may be insane and hence we have an "untrustworthy" narrator. We can not be sure whether what we are hearing is true or not. While analysts often talk about a "point of view shot" (POV shot) this usually refers to the a shot in which the camera replaces the "eyes" of one of the characters. In this case, it is not a visual point of view shot, it is almost more a "inside the mind" shot. The audience sees not just what hits the retina, but how that image is interpreted.

The story narrated by Mr. Francis (whether it is true or not) deals with thee question of whether or not a person can be compelled to commit a murder against their will. The narration says "yes" and additionally such am event has happened previously in the ealy 1700's when the "real" Caligari caused a somnambulist named Cesare to commit murders which the asylum director is now trying (and succeeding) in replicating. Since this narrated story is being told by a mad man we can question whether or not the message is that such control is possible or does it mean that such a belief could only be that of a mad man. In arriving at the subtext, we can generalize that this is an example of a person controled and it can be enlarged to te point where it is the popuation of a country being moved to commit acts which are against their nature by a government. (Remember the film is made shortly after WWI). So the film can be taken at a subtextual level as being one in which the film maker holds that the German government led an unwilling and disinterested population into a terrible war virtually against their will. (Notice in the story the government yields its control regularly to Mr. Francis - the police follow his instructions and he also gets the doctors in the institution do as well. In effect the police can be equated with the doctors in that they run something and are also capable of being taken over by a single "citizen".

The problem with the interpretation of the film comes from the end where the expressionist sets (in a more relaxed mode) continue once Mr. Francis' narrative stops. Does this imply that the audience is also capable of being made mad? There can be many interpretations of the film. There is no right or wring interpretation, but the important thing is to be able to make overt why a specific interpretation has been made.

There has been a great deal of argument about the structure of this film. The original writers maintain that the "frame story" was added later against their wishes. Actual ecidence shows a frame story from the start. It would appear however that the original frame story is different and implies the narrator is not insane. The addition of an unreliable narrator makes one suspect that the idea of control by another is in fact a mad idea since it is told by a madman. That is to say the framing story completely stands the internal story on its head.