Key Elements Of Hitchcock's Style - Essay Example

Through detailed analysis of scenes from two films by each director discuss and evaluate how concepts hip can be applied to the study of films by Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsasee. Your answer is expected to display understanding the critical issues at work on the debate of film authorship. "Hes a prophet and a pusher - partly true, partly fiction, a walking contradiction." - Kris Kristoferson - quoted by Betsy in Taxi Driver (1976). Key elements of Hitchcocks style that promote the idea that he is an auteur of the cinematic medium are: 1) the way in which his passion and dedication to his own vision superceded external influences at the time to break new ground within the film industry. 2) The degree to which he directly participated in the films creation. 3) His technical and theoretical consistencies across a range of films - including his innovative use of camera angles and movements to establish mood, his use of distortion and the uncanny to evokie feelings of suspense and horror, his use of timing to build anticipation, his refusal to adhere to standard narrative forms and his ability to utilise scenery, sound, aesthetics and symbolism to create a unified effect for a common purpose. Throughout Vertigo and Blackmail, Alfred Hitchcocks directorial fingerprint can be evidenced in each films cinematic techniques, aesthetic vision, dominant themes and stylistic consistencies. Each of these ingredients comprise Hitchcocks identity and classification within the theoretical school of auteurism - whereby the politique des auteurs ("the policy of authors")(Rohmer & Chabrol, 1957, 95) in the text. is governed by the directors own creative vision - bearing their own trademark style and transcending the limitations of mainstream demands and corporate economic considerations. The slightly abstract image at the start of Vertigo emerges into a state of clarity that defines its context and physicality within the realms of reason and understanding. It is a visual representation of the shadowy unknown, the indistinct and the mysterious - which can take shape and become more than initially meets the eye - and which inspired so much of Hitchcocks creative vision. From the blurry bar, the opening scene plays out as a sequence of unpredictable, unexpected events - dislodging the audience on a thematic level from any sense of stability. The image of Scottie dangling by his fingertips from a rooftop is a perfect allegory for the nature of suspense and fear - another example of Hitchcocks penchant for mirroring the situational against the thematic. The fear of death that is set up in this scene -and intensified by Hitchcocks expert use of sporadic changes in camera gaze from the subjective to the authorial - continues throughout the rest of the film. Central to Hitchcocks auterial gaze is the need to disconcert and de-stabillise the audience - whether through shock, use of the uncanny or clever cinematic techniques that confuse, elucidate and captivate simultaneously. We see an example of this in the films key pursuit scene where the audience is jolted from their subjective position through the eyes of the protagonist and subjected to a kind of out-of-body voyeuristic experience - they are positioned to see the person whose gaze they once inhabited as though they were running in front of him. This disjointing of identity and sense of insecurity and indefiniteness is a core component of Hitchcocks signature subtlety - best evidenced in his handling of suspense. The unseen presence or threat is another element that heightens both expectation and discomfort in the audience - and it is used to great effect in Vertigo by way of the first scene -where accidental death becomes a very real possibility for the protagonist. Hitchcock repeatedly alludes to this initial threat - consequently re-invoking the attached fear and trepidation - by way of matter-of-fact verbal references and visual cues which start to appear in the second scene. Allusions to past events come full circle in a kind of inescapable narrative ellipsis when the films closing scene mirrors its onset. By virtue of the same technique a kind of narrative symmetry is established - and themes of timelessness, eternal return and predestiny surface to give a worldly, archetypal weight to the films paradoxically anti-climactic climax. There is symmetry, cohesion and completeness as the circle completes itself - but on the surface there is inconclusiveness, doubt and disconnectedness. The films failure to cater to the systematised expectations of popularised linear narratives - particularly those of a resolution and happy ending - showed Hitchcocks own willingness to follow a non-conformist path - a key characteristic of the auteur. In breaking with convention he was also risking the ire of audiences who - used to being co-authors by way of their consumer demands - had become used to neatly opackaged plot structures and films that left them with a sense of satisfaction and understanding. In an almost sadistic fashion, Hitchcock was true to his artform and catered only to his desire to translate his vision to the screen. This diversion from mainstream filmic structures would become another auterial characteristic of the director - who continued to experiement and develop techniques of flashbacks, non-linear sequencing and irregular camera angles to distort the world that he created, while likewise distorting cinematic convention. Secondary thematic undercurrents alluded to are those of recurrent nightmares and fears that are inescapable - usually by virtue of their internalised psychological potency. This potency is channelled through the unwavering way in which Hitchcock approaches Scotties stealthlike surveillance of Madeleine. In stark contrast to camera techniques harnessed elsewhere in Vertigo, he seems to portray the scenes in objectivist deference to the characters own intent and linear, unwavering fascination with his subject. There is a kind of intimacy to these scenes, a shared secrecy that increases its voyeuristic components twofold and renders the viewer as a co-conspirator. It is an intimacy that is later dismantled in typical Hitchcock fashion - bearing testament to the recurrance of displacement and disturbance as key elements in the legendary directors personalised auteurial vision. This skill for harnessing the unnerving in a cinematic guise is also played out to great effect in Blackmail - where Hitchcocks use of the camera lens in sees it acting as much more than a humble, complacent observer or situational conduit. The movement of the camera is kinetic in places - acting as an indicator or reflection of the internal trauma and chaos that Hitchcock so enjoys juxtaposing against calm, everyday scenarios - a technique that serves to awaken tense, unseen undercurrents and further set the stage for unpredictable events. The films first scene sets the pace using a simple series of events - an arrest, a line-up identification - and the obvious mystery surrounding these circumstances and the half-veiled nature of the plot as it unfolds in an unhurried fashion. The tactic of the director here is to lull the viewer into a state where they perceive very little below the surface of ordinary events - beyond a lingering curiosity. This is a representation of yet another masterful signatory staple of Hitchcock: perfect timing - the manipulation of anticipation and narrative pace and the ability to stretch time like a taut tightrope across the viewers consciousness. From the relative calm of the opening scene, the camera undergoes a character change throughout the second scene - becoming an emotive instructor and revelatory device as it pulls in for a series of Hitchcocks characteristic facial close-ups. As a technical device, the close-ups serve to invade the intimacy of characters in a bid to disconcert and unsettle the audience. Sudden, jerky camera movements continue the unnerving scenic surveillance of a camera which seems slightly posessed, slightly sinister and insistently chaotic in what it is trying to reveal. The camera seems to portray a strong degree of synchronicity with the films characters in Blackmail - particularly in a key scene where it follows the gaze of Ondra and Longden as they observe a policeman standing nearby. Just as the lens unnervingly shifted perspectives in Vertigo, taking the viewer from one point of understanding into another and dislodging their sense of temporal identity - so does the camera again change guises - albeit in a different direction from the broader, authorial view to a more subjective perception of events. The effect is no less unnerving however, as the comfort of distance and separateness is suddenly struck down by a moment of intimacy and unrestricted access to the subjective gaze of the characters. It is another evocation of intrusion - an impasse between private and public worlds brought about by the adoption of a dual perspective. As a technique, it effectively renders the pathway and position of narrative experience as a malleable, transient conduit for meaning - one that is both all seeing and subjectively temperamental. It also forms another valuable addition to Hitchcocks auterial arsenal. On a thematic level, Blackmail reenforces another Hitchcockian trademark with its melding of image to meaning. Both iconography and symbolism intensify and enriching the films narrative gaze, but Hitchcock keeps there presence understated and subtle - in accordance with his preference for poignancy and intensity over unnecessarily cluttered frames. In line with his well considered approach to every component of a scene (insert quote), Hitchcock utilised presence throughout Blackmail as an atmospheric indicator of mood and as a contrast to thematic undercurrents. On the screen of Blackmail - and many of other Hitchcockian classics - scenic presence is enhanced through buildings or objects that convey as much meaning and carry as much character and importance as do some of the films human players. Notably - the tenement images throughout the arrest scene are as weighty in terms of their stoic presence as any other cast member. Setting and scene are key players for Hitchcock - and seem to whisper their mimetic imperatives softly into the ear of a captive audience. Key elements of Maryin Scorseses style that promote the idea that he is an auteur of the cinematic medium are: 1) His consistency in producing dynamic, visceral and confronting depictions of realism. 2) His refusal to be censored or to sweeten themes addressing the dark sides of human nature and his bravery in expressing and addressing the same. 3) A number of stylistic trademarks - including his use of religious icongraphy and thematic undertones of romanticism. One of Martin Sorceses stylistic signatures is his fearlessness in portraying lifes visceral elements and hard edges through the cinematic medium. Raging Bull exists as a fine example of this couragous determination to bring the bllod and gristle of real life into a thematically relevant context with the goal of both enlightening and shocking the audience. Heightened sensory stimulation - dynamic colours. lights and gritty realism all colour Scorseses chosen palette in Bull - and much of his filmic work. It can be seen that Scorseses style in this regard stands in stark contrast to Hitchcocks under-stated subtlety - achieving a level of rivalling intensity through completely different means. Sublimated qualities, which in Hitchcocks films simmer quietly beneath the surface to unnerve the audience under constant threat of eruption, are also pertinent elements of Scorseses approach to film - but, again, the approach and treatment of the same elemental forces is vastly different. For Scorcese, in both Taxi Driver and Raging Bull - the energy is potent, violent and dynamic - it is a muscled, sinewed and unapologetic force that erupts without restraint both on the screen - and within the actions and internal battles of the films key characters. In this sense, there is a crossover in the creative aims of Hitchcock and Scorsese - with both reflecting inner dynamics and conflicts in the outer realm and transforming the unspeakable or unknowable inner world into a world of objects, action, violence or mimesis. The filmic text of Raging Bull breaks with convention by giving the audience an intense encounter with raw brutality during the films opening scenes - allowing no time for build-up or narrative graduation into a violent climax - Scorsese opts for immediate impact and one that will resound throughout the films duration. Scorsese adds vividness and immediacy to Raging Bull through intertextual cross referencing of popular culture and the re-appropriation of documentary style or mass media filming. The effect is one of heightened realism - the achievement of which, Scorsese admits, is one of his prime goals as a fil-maker: "The violence has got to be plain, straight, and fast, and awkward, awkward and stupid-looking, just the way it would happen in real life. Its got to be just as if the Daily News photographer went there and shot the whole thing. Its gotta be just like a tabloid." (Goldstein and Jacobson, 70, cited in cited in Anderegg, 1991: 70) In his role as director on raging Bull, Scorsese gave attention to all levels of sensory expression in the films brutal fight scenes - right down to the use of squashing melons and tomatoes to evoke the sound of punches contacting flesh - and the use of growling and shrieking animals as sound effects to particularly violent and chaotic sequences. Yet, he did not approach the movie as its sole creative force - harnessing the cinematic skills of Michael Chapman to bring his vision to life with true aesthetic elegance married to unrestrained intensity. Utilising strategies such as 360 degree pan shots and angular positions to capture the stylised, yet brutally real footage, Chapmans expertise was no doubt a co-author in achieving the visual clarity, crisp black and white tonality and slow-motion variances that have colluded to make the film such a highly acclaimed classic. Similarly - a haunting musical score by Italian composer Pietro Mascagni infuses the movies drama and dynamism with an additional, harmonious layer of expertly wrought emotive intensity. But, the role of auteurship is not defined by exclusivity or even breadth of influence - as Ellen Cheshire (2000) elaborates - it is more about management and the ability to synthesise elements into a final form that remains true to the overall vision of the work: "The role of director comes closest to co-ordinating all stages of production which have most impact on the way a film looks and sounds. The director must have control over and responsibility for the myriad of tasks required to make a film, and combine them to fulfil one voice and one vision. The role of a director can be seen to be similar to that of a conductor of an orchestra. The conductor may not be able to play all the instruments, but he must be able to combine them to create a harmonious arrangement of music." A secondary stylistic consistency that lends Scorseses work to the Auteurial school of thought is his tendency to superimpose religious or spiritual motifs over modern, graphic scenes to create a kind of displaced reverence or spiritualised perception of an otherwise base or instinctual encounter. There is a romanticism in Scorseses portrayal of madmen, grossly flawed egocentrics and violent protagonists that elevates them - through clever use of iconography and subliminal inter-referential allusions - to a band of questing, poetic lost souls who are trying to find their way in a hostile world. To meet these characters would be to regard them as vile, socially awkward, half-crazed or even frightening - in the case of Travis Bickle , but through Scorseses gaze, they are placed in a grand historical schema - where the elegantly formed strains of classical music marry the blood spillage and pain of sanctioned combat as easily as it would interplay with a series of ballet minuetes. In the early Raging Bull scene where Jake La Motta (Robert De Niro) shadow boxes in slow motion - his face partly veiled by a monkish hood, moving in graceful time to an operatic soundtrack - he is historically contextualised as a modern day warrior on a quest of sacrifice and his actions take on the intensity of a ritual. Scorseses ability and desire to romanticise and mythologise the grotesque and the primal is central to his personal film-making signature - and a powerful informant on the decisions he makes in the role - whether exclusive or not - of the filmic auteur. Such poetic inclinations - albeit tempered by the violence and vicera of everyday agonies - also evoke the theoretical origins of auterial theory - which have their roots in 19th century Romanticism. If Scorseses films could be seen to contain a biographical element - the notion of the auteur would then become a self-reflexive component of the filmakers actual auterial signature - neatly tying theory to practice. Just as violence underpins Raging Bull, it similarly exists as Taxi Drivers dominant undercurrent - with the experience of violence an untold horror that acts as a precursor for psychological disintegration. The immediacy and reality that Scorsese strives for - and which helps to identify his position as auteur - is helped along in Taxi Driver by camera angles and movements, as well as scenic structures and characteristics - that all parallel the characters state of mind - whether disordered, focussed on the erradication of filth or totally disconnected from reality. This sense of disconnection is shown as Travis visits a cafe - with the camera focussing in on him as a means of evoking disorientation, detachment and alienation from his surroundings. The camera follows Traviss line of vision, then returns to his state of self-absorption and oblivion - heightening it by following his gaze to his glass and panning in for an extreme close up - mirrorong how it would appear to him in his subjective, self-contained universe. this moment is accomapnied by silence, until Travis himself returns to reality. Scorsese - in a similar vein to Hitchcock - also utilises scenery - by way of Taxi Drivers New York nightscape - to act as an external reflection for his protagonists internal conflict and agression. Mindscape becomes landscape becomes cityscape in Scorseses vision - and the war of Vietnam - still raging in the inner turmoil of Travis Bickel - begins to merge with the environment around him - taking on the subjective qualities of a war zone and gradually dismantling as his mental coherence does likewise. This also acts as a self-reflexive mechanism for, just as Travis begins to externalise the internal, so do Scorsese and Hitchcock - by way of the craetive process - bring their personal visions into the public domain. And, in introducing them into the public domain - they also commodify them - just, as Cynthia Fuchs (1991, cited in Anderegg, 1991: 35) Travis sees much of his world being bought and sold: "Specifically, Traviss obsession with the "filth" represented by prostitution as a sign of "otherness" leads to the texts formal and narrative rupture. The relation between sex and violence is based in the violation of the commodified body in a degenerate cultural market. Whether sold for cash (to a john) or for ideology (to the military), the body is betrayed and defiled. Paralleling the films narrative concern with such transgression is the continual rupture of the textual body (through nondiegetic voice-over, jump cuts, and time lapses), leading to what several viewers have identified as a violent sexual climax." It has been suggested by some critics of auteurial theory that economic imperatives supercede any true artistic merit - with the film industry itself the prime co-author in determining the types of movies that get produced. Lewis (1998, 3) refers to what Corrigan (cited in Lewis, 1998: 32) refers to as the commerce of auteurism :"the notion that late sixties and seventies American cinema has at its root an economic imperative. . . because cinema is an industrial art, the literary historical concept of authorship and ownership promoted by the auteur theory at once conflates and confuses issues of art and commerce that are essential when one considers studio-produced movies. . . it is impossible to talk about movies, even outstanding, original, auteur movies like The Godfather ( 1972) or Taxi Driver ( 1975), without first accounting for the industrial conditions that enabled or disabled their production and release." In this sense, it could be said that the audience at large are themselves co-authors - influencing - as with all market structures - output with demand. According to Cheshire (2000) economic realities have made the idea of Auteurs redundant: "As with all theories, there is always another point of view. Thinking about the film-making process logically, the Auteur Theory does not stand a chance. Compare the process of writing a novel - one person sitting in a room writing - to that of film. Film is a collaborative effort, which needs the input of a multitude of trained professionals to create the finished product. One only needs to sit through the end credits of any feature film to see how many people are involved in making it. Each person brings their own creative input. Some get a chance to use it, others do not. Therefore, how can it be believed that the director (any director) is the films true author and creative genius when millions of dollars are being spent on specialist creative contributors. William Goldman states that he has never met anyone working in the Hollywood film industry who believes in the Auteur Theory, including the directors themselves. He states that it is the combined effort of trained professionals that bring the films coherent vision to the fore and claims that the seven most important contributors are, in alphabetical order: the actor, the cameraman. the director, the editor, the producer, the production designer and the writer." Whether or not a director can be considered an auteur is - despite all of the broader theoretical entanglements that have attached themselvesto the question of authorship in the past - largely dependent upon the individual circumstances surrounding each film. This issue becomes more problematic when one considers the concept of the director as star or legend - whereby mythology surrounding a film-makers talents - and the degree to which he contributes to an end product - could easily supercede reality. Similarly, where money and marketing are concerned - it is in the interests to promote a central person or figure - and the glamour and sparkle of opening nights rarely rub off on the shoulders of behind-the-scenes workers. This is an aspect of the commercialisation of film-making that necessitates a simplification of the creative process as a means of streamlined promotion and engineered Hollywood-style hype. Cheshire (2000) elucidates: "One of the primary reasons the Auteur Theory persists and the acceptance of the Director as Star continues is for marketing and promotional reasons. It is far easier to sell an established directors film to an already educated audience than to sell a film from a first time director. Marketing campaigns are planned around the logical premise that if you liked Xs last film, youll love their new one, thereby reaffirming that it is the Directors input alone that creates a films individual style." In conclusion - both Scorsese and Hitchcock have succeeded in establishing their own signature film style based on creative aims and technical expertise. Although niether directors act in isolation from the many hands on deck that are required to make a film - they still serve a vital role as principle influencers and holders of the dominant creative vision. As such - despite economic realities, new theoretical trends, changing social and cultural influences and the fickle nature of the film industry, their identity as true artists in their chosen fields - and true auteurs who were primarily governed by their innate creative passions - remains timelessly in place. Bibliography Allen, Richard & Sam Ishii-Gonzales. (eds.) (2004) Hitchcock: Past and Future, New York: Routledge. Anderegg, Michael. (ed.) (1991) Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television, Temple University Press. Blake, S.J. (1996) Redeemed in Blood, Journal of Popular Film and Television 24, no. 1, 8. Braudy, L. (1968) Hitchcock, Truffaut, and the irresponsible audience, Film Quarterly 21, 21-27. Burke, Ken & H. Mario Cavallari. (2000) Integrating Theories of Cinema and Communication, International Journal of Instructional Media 27, no. 1, 83. Cheshire, Ellen. The Singer or The Song? by Ellen Cheshire, at Kamera.co.uk, Internet WWW page at URL: http://www.kamera.co.uk/features/authorship.html (accessed 05/01/06) Curran, Daniel. (1998) Guide to American Cinema: 1965-1995, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Golden, Cameron. (2004) From Punishment to Possibility: Re-imagining Hitchcockian Paradigms in the New York Trilogy, Mosaic 37, 43. Leitch, Thomas. (2003) Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory, Criticism 45. Lewis, John. (1998) The New American Cinema, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. McAuliffe, J. (1993) Plays, Movies and Critics, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Parker, Hershel. (1995) The Auteur-Author Paradox: How Critics of the Cinema and the Novel Talk about Flawed or Even "Mutilated" Texts, Studies in the Novel 27. Peele, S. (1981) Reductionism in the psychology of the eighties, American Psychologist 36, 807-818. Peele, S. & A. Brodsky. (1975) Love and Addiction, New York: Taplinger. Rohmer, Eric & Claude Chabrol. (1957) Hitchcock, Paris: Editions Universitaires. Rohmer, Eric & Claude Chabrol. (1979) Hitchcock: The First Forty-Four Films, trans. Stanley Hochman, New York: Ungar Publishing Co. Rothman, W. (1982) Hitchcock: The murderous gaze, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Spoto, D. (1976) The art of Alfred Hitchcock, New York: Hopkinson & Blake. Spoto, D. (1983) The dark side of genius: The life of Alfred Hitchcock, New York: Ballantine. Trilling, L. (1950) Art and neurosis in The liberal imagination: Essays on literature and society, New York: Viking. Truffaut, F. (1967) Hitchcock, New York: Simon and Schuster. Truffaut, F. (1984, November) Slow fade: The declining years of Alfred Hitchcock, American Film, 40-47. Truffaut, F., with H. G. Scott. (1984) Hitchcock, New York.: Simon and Schuster. Wood, R. (1965) Hitchcocks films, New York: A. S. Barnes. Read More