Readings: Week VI

Kellner, Douglas; "Poltergeist":

Summary:

Douglas often sees Spielberg's career as serving as a celebration idealization, and affirmation of the values of the middle-class, suburban, nuclear family. He notes the beginning of this trend in most - if not all - of Speilberg's work from Jaws onwards. Poltergeist uses the metaphor of supernatural forces at work to present the everyday middle-class fears tied around loss of home and possessions. His New Mother - who can be both domestic and hip and sexy - emerges as the moral center of the film, presenting a new female figure that also reaffirms traditional roles. Ultimately, the family emerges triumphant and intact. Though bringing middle-class fears to the surface, he ultimately soothes them by allowing the middle-class family to overcome them.
However, Douglas makes the distinction that, while Spielberg supports middle-class ideologies, he does not support the economic or political establishment. In many films, Poltergeist being no exception, the businessman, the politician, or the militar is the ultimate villain.

Thoughts:

I buy Douglas' argument that Poltergeist serves as a film which reaffirms middle-class values and addresses middle-class fears of the dark underside of suburbia and the loss of lifestyle. I think he gives Spielberg too much credit, however, for not being critical of many aspects of middle-class life, especially where the family is concerned. Many Spielberg film present an absent or inadequate father figure, an out-of-touch mother, and troubled children. Poltergeist itself contains many scenes of the father figure being removed somewhat from the family, giving priority to other concerns, or failing to serve as a lead.

White, Dennis; "Poetics of Horror"

Thoughts:

Too little content, too much summarazing and example-giving.

Buckland, Warren; "Directed by Spielberg":

Summary:

Buckland examines the previous work of both Hooper and Spielberg, compiling statistical data on the compositional elements of the film (e.g. shot length, type of shot, etc.) to decide, based on similar data gathered from Poltergeist who was really responsible for directing the film. He ultimately concludes that Hooper's influence was obvious enough in the pre-production and production phases to make the film a Hooper, rather than Spielberg, production.

Thoughts:

Meh. I still think that - except for a few scenes - it's pretty much a Spielberg film.

Readings: Week V

Gordon, Andrew: "Close Encounters: The Gospel According to Steven Spielberg"

Summary:

Gordon, from the outset of his article, laments "Close Encounters" as an exploitation of 1970s religious sentiments - the revival of fudamentalism and the popularity of cults and gurus - which provides such an emotional joyride that audiences aren't likely to notice its shoddy plot and trite message on first viewing. It presents, he states, a narcissistic tale which absolves the individual of their earthly responsibilities, ultimately fulfilling the unconcious desires of the audience itself. Furthermore, the aliens in this film provide no clear motivation for many of their actions, including abducting a child and causing power failures. Gordon sees these unmotivated actions as a shallow excuse for Spielberg to play around with emotional and visual effects while ignoring logical content. This, Gordon says, goes beyond simply allowing the audience to fill in the gaps with their own interpretation, insulting its intelligence instead. In his comparision of "Close Encounters" with "2001", Gordon accuses Spielberg of dumbing down the content of his film to appeal to the lowest common denominator, with the intent of comforting mankind that "God is on our side," rather than forcing him to ask larger questions.

Thoughts:
I think Gordon's criticism of Spielberg moves beyond pointing out the weaknesses of Spielberg's film - its sometimes hole-ridden and superficial plot - to expressing some strange personal vendetta, as if Spielberg had stolen his prom date or something. What valid points Gordon does make are completely overshadowed by the smug, elitist language he uses to describe them. Furthermore, his analysis of the film as ultimately appealing to "the dumb" is more telling of Gordon's character than of Spielberg's, especially in light of his criticism of "Close Encounters" when juxtaposed with "2002." The fact is that Kubrick, like Gordon it would seem, was a bit of an elitist, refusing to compromise his own intellectual vision in favor of the audience's pleasure. The fact that Spielberg takes the opposite route isn't neccessarily a sign of his weakness as a director. After all, isn't film first and foremost intended as a form of mass entertainment. Gordon needs to come to terms with the idea that most films are made for audiences - audiences which are generally the type of everyday Joe portrayed in this film - and not film critics. Using that point as a weapon against Spielberg just made me not care very much about his other contentions.

Brunheim, Bruno: The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fariy Tales

Summary:
Brunheim's article isn't a film analysis piece because Brunheim himself is not a film analyst. Hei s a psycholist who works primarily with troubled children and, as such, his article focuses on that. More specifically, Brunheim makes an article in favor of exposing children to traditional fairytales rather than attempting to "shield" them from the more gruesome aspects of them. According to Brunheim, fairytales are essential in teaching children important lessons they may have trouble grasping from modern modes of etertainment: the idea that they can and will make a significant contribution in their life, transmitting cultural heritage, teaching independence and reassuring the child of his or her ability to achieve rewarding relationships (especially romantic relationships) on his or her own, addressing problems he or she may face in his or her own life, the benefits of moral behavior, bringing the unconcious and man's darker nature to the forefront instead of supressing or denying it, and teaching them that unfairness and hardship in life is inevitable. The means in which a fairytale can accomplish this is by simplifying all situations and creating clearly drawn characters. Evil becomes as omnipresent as virtue in order to allow good to be defined in comparision in it, by making simple, understandable juxtapositions between the two. The hero and his sense of morality become appealing to a child because his characteristics resemble the child's more closely, in contrast to the villain, whose characteristics the child cannot empathize with. Fairtales which do not center around the duality between good and evil give different lessons, such as that even the meekest can triumph.

Thoughts:
I found this article particularly interesting in light of Gordon's article. Brunheim would probably respond to Gordon's declaration that "Close Encounters" is a simplistic tale of wish-fulfillment by stating that this is exactly the point of a fairytale: to present its message through simplicity. Were Spielberg to complicate things he would reduce the impact, both moral and cultural, of his film, narrowing the audience it was intellectually accessible to, especially chidren.

Buckland, Warren: Directed by Spielberg

Summary:
Once again, Buckland does a pretty straightforward analysis of Spielberg's films. He begins by talking about the basis for "Close Counters", how much it drew from Hynek's The UFO Experience and how much it deviated from Paul Schrader's original, much darker script. The rest of the piece tends to focus mostly on camerawork, as well as pointing out certain visual elements that make it uniquely "Spielberg": visual match-ups, "tricking" the audience by dissapointing their expectations, lateral tracking shots, experimenting with syntagmatic narration, and only gradually revealing the aliens to the audience.

Friedman, Lester: Citizen Spielberg

Summary:
Friedman's analysis, as it pertains to "Close Encounters", focuses less on the technical aspects than Buckland and more on examining it, along with "E.T.", "A.I.", and "Minority Report" to find consistent thematic elements as well as elements which changed over time. His primary focus is on the representation of troubled children (which he argues is far darker and more honest than the idyllic examination of childhood that critics accuse him of), the absent or neglectful father figure, and the desexualized and ineffective mother figure. Furthermore, Friedman focuses in on the representation of the religious in these films and how different those shown before and after Spielberg's work on "Schindler's List." With films like "Close Encounters", Friedman sees Spielberg as using Christian iconography to allow audiences to easily relate to larger ideas of the spiritual being created by the human imagination. His later work, Friedman argues, is far more critical of Christian iconography and ideals, a viewpoint shaped by his research for "Schindler's List", which led him to the idea that Christianity was in large part responsible for the Holocaust. Finally, Friedman makes the argument that Spielberg's films are far from the conservative propaganda that some critics have argued. Rather, films like "Close Encounters", promote an acceptance of, and even respect for, diversity.

Readings: Week IV

Noel Carroll, “The Nature of Horror”

Summary:

Carroll attempts to establish the criteria for “art horror”, a genre crystallized after the publication of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In particular, Carroll focuses on these specifications:
1. Art-horror is differentiated from both “tales of terror” (e.g. the tales of Poe), which focus on psychological aberrations that are, nevertheless, very human, and fantasy films, in which monsters are not presented as disturbances in the natural order. Horror, then, must deal not only with aberrations from reality but must be differentiated from the average monster movie by the affective responses of the characters present.
2. The emotional responses of the audience are guided by that of the character. Our responses to what occurs on the screen are intended to mirror, or mimic, the emotions expressed of the characters themselves. These feelings include not only fear, but “revulsion, nausea, and disgust.” The monster must not just be viewed as terrifying, but also as unwholesome. This sense of impurity may occur when
3. The existence of a physical dimension alongside an emotional one. This means that a physical agitation (e.g. tension, cringing, shuddering) must occur alongside emotional responses of fear and disgust.

Carroll also explores why art-horror has the ability to horrify, when the viewer knows all too well that what they are seeing is fictional. The Illusion Theory – in which the viewer becomes literally convinced that what they are seeing is real – and the Pretend Theory – in which the viewer recognized that what they are seeing is fictional but pretend to feel horror anyways – are both rejected. Instead, Carroll settles on the Thought Theory: the thought of the possibility of the things we are seeing existing, although we do not commit to this belief.

Finally, Carroll distinguishes between two sorts or plot lines. The Discovery Plot, whereby the protagonist(s) discover the presence of a monster and must prove its existence, and the Overreacher plot, whereby the protagonist(s) unleash some monstrous force by seeking forbidden knowledge.

Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny”

Summary:

Freud refers to the uncanny as, “that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long familiar.” For the remainder of the article he explores how the familiar can become uncanny and frightening, exploring such instances as symbolic representations of castration, the figure of the “double”, involuntary repetition, the effacement of the distinction between imagination and reality, and the confrontation of certain repressed beliefs or desires. Like Carroll, Freud believes that our horror can be explained when we are confronted with the idea of the things we believe to be fictional being real.

Thoughts:

I buy the idea that much of what frightens us in horror stems from our own repressed desires or the desires that society seeks to suppress in it. In fact, most of the works we’ve read this week deal with that particular theme. However, I don’t buy Freud’s contentions about the castration complex or “the phantasy (sic) of intra-uterine existence.” The basic premise of Freud’s article is interesting and insightful but I found most of the finer points applied to films such as “Jaws” only if I really pushed the interpretation of the film.

Warren Buckland, Directed by Steven Spielberg:

Summary:

1-29: Buckland begins by tracking the evolution of film, from the Classical Hollywood period (1916-1960), which saw the rise and fall of vertically-integrated studios, to the post 1981-period of MTV and TV ad directors, where directors get their start directing music videos or TV ads and, like the TV generation of directors, carry these aesthetics into their filmmaking. He then goes on to explore how, in this new era of filmmaking, where the demise or the studio has redefined the way movies are made, a director must also be “a power broker, a talent worker, and must also create a brand image.” Along with this evolution of the role of the director, Buckland maintains, came the evolution of the blockbuster: with fewer films being made, there was a much greater need for each film made by studios to be profitable. As a result, they began to invest more money into fewer films and delve into franchises which relied on brand identity. Essentially, a blockbuster can be defined as a film which costs a bundle in production and marketing but is capable of also bringing in huge revenues. This type of filmmaking also changed how films were distributed, moving from platform (releasing films in stages) to saturation releases (releasing films everywhere all at once). This cut down on the importance of critical opinion in drawing viewers to a film, helping to explain the often negative attitude of critics towards blockbusters.

86-109: This section contains Buckland’s person analysis of the film, focusing on individual scenes. He looks at these shots holistically: their aesthetics from blocking to camera angles, what they say about the characters in them, how they guide and/or manipulate our emotions, and how they reinforce larger themes in the movie. Most of the scenes Buckland references we also looked at fairly extensively in class.

Thoughts:

I thought Buckland unfortunately focused more on technical considerations and jargon in his analyses than on what Spielberg’s aesthetic decisions said about his characters and filmic themes. I tended to prefer Friedman’s analyses instead. I did find his history of the film industry consistently interesting and often enlightening, especially the portion where he discusses how the change in marketing and release that accompanied the blockbuster took a lot of power out of the hands of critics, starting some of the critical stigma attached to them. This was especially interesting in light of the many criticisms of Spielberg's films at emotionally manipulative and intellectually vacant that we ave read or heard referenced.

Lester Friedman, Citizen Spielberg:

Summary:

Friedman starts by making the distinction between fantasy, science-fiction, and horror films. Monster films are separated from fantasy films by character attitudes towards the monsters in them: “the monster in the horror film is an extraordinary creature in an ordinary world, whereas in fairy tales and the like a monster is an ordinary creature in an extraordinary world.” Science fiction films are also separated from fantasy films because they originate from a “potentially possible, or at least speculatively imaginable, premise.” Science fiction films, additionally, applaud the impulse to explore the unknown where horror films generally condemn it. Friedman notes that horror movies, especially monster movies, stem from repressed desires that are buried under accepted social norms, exploring the darker side of human nature.

Friedman goes on to argue that Spielberg’s monster movies, though exhibiting skillful craftsmanship and storytelling, lack the intellectual complexity that is possible with such an exploration. He contends that Spielberg makes no efforts to create any sort of audience involvement or empathy with his monsters. Instead, they are “motiveless and mindless” and must be defeated in order for civilization to prosper; his monsters all present external threats which are eventually destroyed by human intervention. Friedman often comments in his analyses of Spielberg’s films that they tend to reaffirm traditional values: the protagonist of “Duel” must rediscover his masculinity in order to face his threat, “Jurassic Park” serves as both a critique of rampant technology and capitalist greed and an argument in support of the nuclear family, and “Jaws” both lauds male bonding, castigates its protagonist for his failure to protect the community and celebrates his transition from boyhood to manhood via the hunt.

Thoughts:

I thought Friedman’s analyses were the most rewarding, both in regards to what they inferred about the films and what they said about the influence Spielberg’s own life and ideology has on them. I found it interesting that, in opposition to what Carroll argues about the element of revulsion and disgust that is necessary for a film to truly be “art-horror”, Friedman’s major criticism of Spielberg’s horror movies is his refusal to give his monsters sympathetic elements, instead using them to uphold societal values and their inevitable triumph over chaos. If both authors are right – and both do have valid points – then either making a film more effective in the genre of horror comes at the expense of its intellectual worth and visa versa or our empathy with the monster furthers our disgust with it.