Estes dias no Porto foram num instante, só deu para ver dois filmes do Fantas, mas deu para perceber algumas coisas. O meu lugar é aqui, onde o meu cérebro gosta de trabalhar. O que e quem é importante faz parte de mim onde quer que eu esteja.
E para não perder o fim à meada do cinema, cá vai mais um trabalho escrito para a Middlesex University, o terceiro.
Excessive stylization in a work of art is a concept I have always been very reluctant to approach since in my opinion it implicates a large number of issues that do not necessarily have to do directly with the work of art in itself, but might be questions of circumstance or of idiosyncrasy of the author. It is difficult to determine where style becomes excessive in the communication of a message and, more importantly, it is even more difficult to determine which, in a work of art, is more important: the message or how it is conveyed. In writings of film studies we often encounter the idea that style is, or should be, at complete service of content and discussion on the history of style and its prevalence in the making of a film is commented with disdain. However, the manifestations of style on the screen are the only way an audience can reach the content and, as Bordwell argues, ‘from a filmmaker’s perspective, images and sound constitute the medium in and through which the film achieves its emotional and intellectual impact’ . In this light, style becomes of critical importance in the achievement of artistic value, for it is the outcome of the process the theme goes through under the filmmaker’s imagination. Furthermore, according to this, we might consider it ill-suited to evaluate whether style is excessive or not, since it is simply the manifestation of a point of view.
In order to illustrate and clarify my views, I will approach Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s work, especially the films of his Sirkian period, which were studied in the lectures. However, it is essential to know his background and influences to understand his stylistic choices, especially the facts I shall describe in the next paragraphs.
Fassbinder was part of the German New Wave, which rejected the heritage of post-WWII German cinema and drew influences from the French New Wave and Italian Neorealism to create a new national cinema that reflected ‘German thoughts and German ways of life’ . He was particularly interested in portraying the exploitation of feelings in relationships in quite extreme situations, and he would always turn his camera to characters on the edges of society. For example, in Fear Eat Soul (1974), Fassbinder transforms Sirk’s All that Heaven Allows (1955) into an impossible love story between an old cleaning lady and a young Moroccan immigrant. In his films he combined the experience from his tumultuous life with an extensive knowledge of film culture and was thus able to produce, very prolifically, extremely sensitive films that shocked the audience and provoked uneasy feelings.
To the negative criticism at the gloom of his films, he would explain that his work was not supposed to offer a solution to society’s problems, or work them out for itself. Instead, he wanted his films to ‘reveal such mechanisms in a way that makes people realise the necessity of changing their own reality’ . This is something we must take into account when analysing his style. Another powerful influence in his style is Douglas Sirk. Besides from importing choices of mise-en-scene, what he also drew from Sirk’s films was the female perspective, which he considered far more interesting to portray than male perspective because ‘on the one hand women are oppressed, but in my opinion they also provoke this oppression as a result of their position in society, and in turn use it as a terror tactic’ , that is to say, a perfect stylistic choice to play out what Fassbinder wanted to show.
The first film I will consider – I believe the first to feature all the alterations in Fassbinder’s style after the viewing of Sirk’s work –, The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (1972) is very interesting in the way it is constructed. In the scene where Petra and Karin dine together (00:37:00 – 01:02:54), we witness a play of mise-en-scene, camera-work and performance without which the depth of the content would be lost or dismissed. This is noteworthy especially in this film, where the autumnal colours of the set often clash with the brighter colours of the costumes (distancing the audience), space is divided by small flights of stairs into different stages of action (indicating hierarchy between characters), and the camera frequently frames characters through shelves, mirrors and mannequins (symbols of entrapment, doubling and frivolity); above all, the picture which covers an entire wall, Midas and Baccus , is exceptionally used to hint deeper meanings as the characters play out the drama. In this scene, the nude figure of Midas, particularly his genitalia, is generally centered in the frame between the two characters adding to the sexual tension. Hence, we conclude that Fassbinder took into account every element of mise-en-scène and all contributed for the transmission of the message.
Another remarkable technique used by Fassbinder, which he imported from his experience in theatre, is the placement and movement of the characters through space. One might think this only adds to the aesthetic beauty of the film but in fact, and especially if used as Fassbinder does, it might be a very efficient way to expose certain things. This same scene starts off with a shot of Marlene, Petra’s personal assistant, stopping what she is doing to satisfy whatever wish Petra has. In this case the camera follows her as she helps Petra get ready, but remains at the level of their feet, showing a choreographed dance which not only contrasts Petra’s exuberant clothing and shoes with Marlene’s sober black skirt, but also Petra’s dallying steps with Marlene’s hesitant steps circling and attending her. These mere seconds where the camera works very self-consciously expose visually their relationship in a very direct way.
In addition, this kind of treatment of mise-en-scène, performance and camerawork increases the sense of an underlying discourse during the unveiling of the plot. As Thomsen points out, referring specifically about the acting style in Martha (1974), ‘its slight artificiality also contributes to removing the situations from a naturalistic context and turning them into symbols of social and societal forms that are exposed with a radicalism rarely seen on screen’ . Perhaps the best example of how far Fassbinder goes in stylizing a scene to intensify its meaning is the one where Martha and Helmut meet for the first time (00:07:39 – 00:08:54). Here, several pieces of information about the characters are at play. Martha’s father has died in the Spanish Steps, and just as she has left him behind, she has this overpowering encounter with a stranger. Moreover, she is being followed by an Arab man who has offered her his sexual services and, as she walks to the extraordinary encounter, the Arab is there in the background, representing her sexual desires. On the other hand, as Helmut walks to the encounter, he is framed opposite to a domineering statue of perfect proportions. These symbols work graphically and at subliminal level to represent what both of these characters bring to their relationship. So, as they pass one another, Fassbinder’s camera circles around them 360 degrees, and they circle around themselves as well, to make up this whirling, mind-spinning, overtly mocking image of what is supposed to be love at first sight between the two main characters of a melodrama – but between two people who will develop a sick, self-destroying relationship. Other weaker visual metaphors display themselves throughout the film – for instance, at the end of the scene where Helmut possesses Martha after her whole body has been sunburnt (00:49:31 – 00:51:08), the camera pans to a view of the sea through the bars of the veranda – as to finish a sentence about the interdependency of Helmut’s sadism and Martha’s masochism. Another example is the very next scene, when the couple drives home in their car (00:51:09 – 00:53:19). In a couple of shots, Fassbinder shows them in the top third of the frame, the front of car covering them up to their necks and leaving only their heads visible, which transforms them in an image of asphyxia.
Taking this analysis into consideration, I think the idea that style is indeed in the service of theme (not narrative though) but has exceptional value becomes more explicit. Exemplary, these very elaborate and aggressive strategies used by Fassbinder do not take away from Martha its extremely raw feeling, for all the technical, stylistic devices exist solely to intensify the scrupulousness of its portraiture of human relationships – from which the feature benefits a great deal, as a work of art Therefore, we may conclude that excessiveness is not an appropriate word to use when refering to style. Extravagant, crude, baroque, self-conscious or other adjectives to that effect are more fitting, as one is qualifying the expression of a feeling or happening, so the more extreme it is, the more vibrant its representation must be. We must not forget, as Bordwell reminds us, that ‘those decisions [stylistic ones], like any human action, are open to influence from an indefinitely large array of social factors’, and I would add cultural and personal factors to the equation.
1 comment:
vou seguir :)
Post a Comment