Wednesday, 27 March 2013
Introduction
The following posts on this blog focus on the central protagonists in mainstream Hollywood motion pictures and explore why they are always alienated in some way. I will base my argument on several texts including analyzing some of my personal favourite films, look at their characters and observe why Hollywood always has to create a space for those who are alienated or rebellious in their potential blockbusters, especially when the men who produce them (hollow, corporate money makers) could not possibly fully understand the characters in the films nor the audiences they attract. I am arguing from the perspective of one who is rebellious towards the mainstream.
What is a Protagonist?: Skywalker Vs Darko
Hollywood has always focused on the outsiders to tell their stories. The classic protagonist is often someone who is down on their luck in some way and going through a chaotic time in their lives, perhaps stuck in a dead end job, has personal problems, difficult relationships with friends/family or alienated or disliked by superiors and peers for any reason. By having the every day problems we all experience, the characters are made likable to the audience so we can recognize and identify with them. Archetypes are created so that a characters basic personality can be conveyed quicker and easier. To illustrate I will look at a classic Hollywood blockbuster with traditional archetypes ("Star Wars", 1977) and a more obscure piece but still with similarities (Donnie Darko, 2001). Both films were written and directed by one person (George Lucas and Richard Kelly respectively) and both used Hollywood as a vehicle to release the film.
The perfect blockbuster - great special effects, iconic characters, memorable lines, an old fashioned story and a catchy theme, Star Wars is inspired by ancient myths and legends,
so is rife with the classic archetypes:
Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill): the central protagonist; a likable adventurous 19 year old farm boy desperate to leave his home.
Han Solo (Harrison Ford): the rogue; not quite a side-kick, but someone for the hero to share the adventure with. An almost polar opposite to the protagonist, holding fewer morals, causing arguments and humorous situations between the two.
Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher): the damsel; for the protagonists to rescue and possible love interest.
Governor Tarkin (Peter Cushing): The primary antagonist; a cold militaristic leader.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness): The guide; a wise beaten soldier, shares a father/teacher-like relationship with the protagonist.
Darth Vader (David Prowse/James Earl Jones): the muscle; the antagonists right hand man, a towering black clad figure perfect to intimidate enemies.
C-3P0 & R2-D2 (Anthony Daniels & Kenny Baker): the comic relief; the funnier characters, two bickering droids who also serve as the protagonists companions.
These are the basic ingredients to any story that will not want to spend too much time on character development. Luke Skywalker is probably the classic hero in modern motion pictures. We root for him in completing his quest of destroying the evil galactic Empire over a course of three films. It is because he is a likable character who was once just a young farm boy with nothing in his life, all of his friends are gone and are having successful careers while Luke has highly unreachable dreams, not helped by being turned down on every opportunity. I would imagine his counterpart Han Solo however would appeal to a different crowd. While Luke's audience would mainly be children, Han's more pessimistic attitude would identify with older audiences, most likely teenagers. Both protagonists are outsiders, Luke is frustrated with home life and Han must have been once disappointed in work life to turn to an alienated life of crime. The entertainment value comes from the glimmer of hope each gets in the film and them eventually succeeding with everyone applauding. The advantage for Hollywood here is that there are two protagonists, each one to suit a major demographic, pulling in considerably more cinema tickets. While still being an entirely fictitious story, characters like this fill a mainstream audience with inspiration and hope for their lives also, and if not, it still takes them away from their dead end jobs for a couple of hours...
While Luke and his friends are likable, easily understood and always have a happy ending (it's mainstream after all...) some films outside of the mainstream that find their way into Hollywood are not so friendly. Take "Donnie Darko", a tale of a dangerously disturbed youth who is foretold by a giant rabbit that the world will end in one month. The film was certainly no blockbuster but has since gained a cult audience. Quite a stretch from Star Wars, but lets compare and contrast the central characters.
Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal): the protagonist? we are constantly with the character throughout the narrative but are constantly questioning his actions and motivations.
Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone): Donnie's sympathetic girlfriend.
Rose and Eddie Darko (Mary McDonnell & Holmes Osborne): Donnie's parents.
Elizabeth Darko (Maggie Gyllenhaal): Donnie's sister.
Dr. Lilian Thurman (Katherine Ross): Donnie's psychotherapist
Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore): Donnie's English teacher.
Dr. Kenneth Monnitoff (Noah Wyle): Donnie's Science teacher.
Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze): Motivational speaker at Donnie's school.
As you can see these are no archetypes. While the characters in Star Wars are slightly one dimensional, each character in this film is much more complex and quite vague. They're very detached and distant from the audience, probably because it is our job to figure out the characters rather than have them already there for us. None of them really have an explicit introduction to us, we see the narrative through Donnie's eyes and he obviously already knows these characters. Donnie is a complete weirdo, a disturbed misfit and so of course, an outsider. I suppose the story was far too out there for it to be a success, only having a release because of big star producer Drew Barrymore and some star power with her and Patrick Swayze, but still it has gained a cult audience. Its been identified and understood by someone at least and is now is quite a famous film. So while its not the typical pop corn film and the characters do not fill us with inspiration or hope, Hollywood big shots still recognized something in it, maybe it was the intriguing story or maybe it was Donnie himself, Hollywood and the audience seem to like a rebel, whether it's a good natured farm boy or disturbed freak.
At 0.20, Donnie speaks freely and even proudly about his "emotional problems"
The perfect blockbuster - great special effects, iconic characters, memorable lines, an old fashioned story and a catchy theme, Star Wars is inspired by ancient myths and legends,
so is rife with the classic archetypes:Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill): the central protagonist; a likable adventurous 19 year old farm boy desperate to leave his home.
Han Solo (Harrison Ford): the rogue; not quite a side-kick, but someone for the hero to share the adventure with. An almost polar opposite to the protagonist, holding fewer morals, causing arguments and humorous situations between the two.
Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher): the damsel; for the protagonists to rescue and possible love interest.
Governor Tarkin (Peter Cushing): The primary antagonist; a cold militaristic leader.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guiness): The guide; a wise beaten soldier, shares a father/teacher-like relationship with the protagonist.
Darth Vader (David Prowse/James Earl Jones): the muscle; the antagonists right hand man, a towering black clad figure perfect to intimidate enemies.
C-3P0 & R2-D2 (Anthony Daniels & Kenny Baker): the comic relief; the funnier characters, two bickering droids who also serve as the protagonists companions.
These are the basic ingredients to any story that will not want to spend too much time on character development. Luke Skywalker is probably the classic hero in modern motion pictures. We root for him in completing his quest of destroying the evil galactic Empire over a course of three films. It is because he is a likable character who was once just a young farm boy with nothing in his life, all of his friends are gone and are having successful careers while Luke has highly unreachable dreams, not helped by being turned down on every opportunity. I would imagine his counterpart Han Solo however would appeal to a different crowd. While Luke's audience would mainly be children, Han's more pessimistic attitude would identify with older audiences, most likely teenagers. Both protagonists are outsiders, Luke is frustrated with home life and Han must have been once disappointed in work life to turn to an alienated life of crime. The entertainment value comes from the glimmer of hope each gets in the film and them eventually succeeding with everyone applauding. The advantage for Hollywood here is that there are two protagonists, each one to suit a major demographic, pulling in considerably more cinema tickets. While still being an entirely fictitious story, characters like this fill a mainstream audience with inspiration and hope for their lives also, and if not, it still takes them away from their dead end jobs for a couple of hours...
While Luke and his friends are likable, easily understood and always have a happy ending (it's mainstream after all...) some films outside of the mainstream that find their way into Hollywood are not so friendly. Take "Donnie Darko", a tale of a dangerously disturbed youth who is foretold by a giant rabbit that the world will end in one month. The film was certainly no blockbuster but has since gained a cult audience. Quite a stretch from Star Wars, but lets compare and contrast the central characters.
Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal): the protagonist? we are constantly with the character throughout the narrative but are constantly questioning his actions and motivations.
Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone): Donnie's sympathetic girlfriend.
Rose and Eddie Darko (Mary McDonnell & Holmes Osborne): Donnie's parents.
Elizabeth Darko (Maggie Gyllenhaal): Donnie's sister.
Dr. Lilian Thurman (Katherine Ross): Donnie's psychotherapist
Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore): Donnie's English teacher.
Dr. Kenneth Monnitoff (Noah Wyle): Donnie's Science teacher.
Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze): Motivational speaker at Donnie's school.
As you can see these are no archetypes. While the characters in Star Wars are slightly one dimensional, each character in this film is much more complex and quite vague. They're very detached and distant from the audience, probably because it is our job to figure out the characters rather than have them already there for us. None of them really have an explicit introduction to us, we see the narrative through Donnie's eyes and he obviously already knows these characters. Donnie is a complete weirdo, a disturbed misfit and so of course, an outsider. I suppose the story was far too out there for it to be a success, only having a release because of big star producer Drew Barrymore and some star power with her and Patrick Swayze, but still it has gained a cult audience. Its been identified and understood by someone at least and is now is quite a famous film. So while its not the typical pop corn film and the characters do not fill us with inspiration or hope, Hollywood big shots still recognized something in it, maybe it was the intriguing story or maybe it was Donnie himself, Hollywood and the audience seem to like a rebel, whether it's a good natured farm boy or disturbed freak.
At 0.20, Donnie speaks freely and even proudly about his "emotional problems"
Beginnings
A classic outsider story starring the iconic rebel, James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause" (1955) Here in the 50s, American youth culture had split into many sub-cultures and this was one of the first films to illustrate being a teenage outsider and the problems associated with it. In the film, Jim Stark a 17 year old who is new to the city of Los Angeles experiences problems with his parents and his peers at school. This was in an age of Hollywood perhaps more innocent and less corporate, 20 years before the blockbuster. The main goal was to tell an interesting story rather than to make money, but still was both a critical and commercial hit at the time. Jim Stark is introduced drunk being held in a police station so we are not sure whether to like him or not perhaps because of the suggestion of the films title; what kind of rebel is he exactly, how far does he go? If he's too much of a rebel to the extent of committing crimes that highly effect innocent others then the audience will not like him. But if he is the misunderstood outsider who only rebels because he questions his place in this life then that's something everyone can enjoy watching. But still we have to make up our minds until after the opening scene is over. The fact that he is giving a dishonest representation of himself due to his drunkenness goes against normal Hollywood rules. Usually in an opening scene we must get a feel of everything and everyone and a sense of the film's tone. If our protagonist is not himself in the first 15 minutes, then it will take a lot longer to convey his true self, making the film slower, a huge risk especially in those days when drama films were prone to several walkouts during screenings.
The relationship between Hollywood and the movie was probably much closer then than it is now. Producers may have been more open minded towards the writer/directors creative decisions, not that producers did not pressure the filmmakers, but probably gave them more creative control than today and mostly understood the subject matter. Due to the whole greaser/rocker sub culture controversy in America at the time the film would have been crucially relevant to America. Of course the film became a must see for the greaser sub culture, even if it portrayed them in a negative light it still included them. They identified with it of course because it understood them, an aspect that really pulls in audiences. The success of the film proved to film makers that Jim Stark, young, alone and faced with life changing situations, was the appropriate template for a main character and that all mainstream films that followed should do the same.
0.30 - "Today's most vital controversy!" - easily relatable for the audiences.
The relationship between Hollywood and the movie was probably much closer then than it is now. Producers may have been more open minded towards the writer/directors creative decisions, not that producers did not pressure the filmmakers, but probably gave them more creative control than today and mostly understood the subject matter. Due to the whole greaser/rocker sub culture controversy in America at the time the film would have been crucially relevant to America. Of course the film became a must see for the greaser sub culture, even if it portrayed them in a negative light it still included them. They identified with it of course because it understood them, an aspect that really pulls in audiences. The success of the film proved to film makers that Jim Stark, young, alone and faced with life changing situations, was the appropriate template for a main character and that all mainstream films that followed should do the same.
0.30 - "Today's most vital controversy!" - easily relatable for the audiences.
The Mainstream & Me
I feel that I am rebellious against today's mainstream culture. I find that I appreciate and enjoy the films of older generations whether it be a mainstream blockbuster or something slightly more abstract. Today however I can easily recognize the unoriginality, corporateness and therefore shallowness of it all. An argument would be that films then were made back then for money purposes as well, but it feels less obvious when you watch them, what with the rampant product placement in movies today. It is possible that things have not changed at all and I just can not recognize the falseness of older films because I was not around then. When I do walk into a cinema however, it is all too obvious and it bothers me constantly - cinemas that make more money on popcorn than the films, around 20 advertisements before the film starts not to mention the trailers and sponsors. My awareness on the subject grew with further research particularly the writings of film critic Mark Kermode, whose views I find very entertaining (going as far to liken Michael Bay to the Anti-Christ).
Being disillusioned with Hollywood says something about my identity and today's society would probably pin me down in a certain sub-culture, most likely an anti-mainstream hipster sort, or just an uptight and pretentious person. This is something I ignore since I am not anti-mainstream by any means. If something in the mainstream is inspirational or enlightening to me in any way then I will make no attempt to hide my admiration for it. There are a fair few films released every year that I greatly enjoy, for example Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises" I thought had some very powerful moments. There is a paradoxical nature to this though - It could be only because of the identification and familiarity I already held with the films characters that I found the film very striking. Say if it had been an original film, something I and others yearn for, then in all honesty, I probably would not have cared all that much about seeing it.
The same thing can be applied with these older films I like so much. By the time I was born, most of these films have become world famous or even enormous franchises, so while you grow up you hear and learn things: characters names, iconic scenes or phrases, elements of the plot (I certainly wasn't shocked when I learnt that Darth Vader was Luke's Father).The problem with my generation is that you never go into a film completely cold...
Here, respected British film critic and theorist Mark Kermode, who is highly critical of the industry today, gives a positive review for Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises". At 11.40 he gives insights into the politics around the film and the industry behind it.
Being disillusioned with Hollywood says something about my identity and today's society would probably pin me down in a certain sub-culture, most likely an anti-mainstream hipster sort, or just an uptight and pretentious person. This is something I ignore since I am not anti-mainstream by any means. If something in the mainstream is inspirational or enlightening to me in any way then I will make no attempt to hide my admiration for it. There are a fair few films released every year that I greatly enjoy, for example Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises" I thought had some very powerful moments. There is a paradoxical nature to this though - It could be only because of the identification and familiarity I already held with the films characters that I found the film very striking. Say if it had been an original film, something I and others yearn for, then in all honesty, I probably would not have cared all that much about seeing it.
The same thing can be applied with these older films I like so much. By the time I was born, most of these films have become world famous or even enormous franchises, so while you grow up you hear and learn things: characters names, iconic scenes or phrases, elements of the plot (I certainly wasn't shocked when I learnt that Darth Vader was Luke's Father).The problem with my generation is that you never go into a film completely cold...
Here, respected British film critic and theorist Mark Kermode, who is highly critical of the industry today, gives a positive review for Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises". At 11.40 he gives insights into the politics around the film and the industry behind it.
Critcisms - Can Pop Culture be Art?
While I will try to avoid any negative criticism about the films I enjoy, I have to consider the opinions of others on this. Personally, I love pop culture things like films, rock music, comic books and the like. Those with more Marxist views however would be very much against all of this, their excuse always being that high art is no longer made and pop culture commodities are their to keep the powerful in power. To argue, I quote the definition of "art":
1.The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form.
2.Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Human nature could not have changed greatly from the times which Marxist theories favoured as artistic, so great art for the past 500 years or so must all be inspired by the same powerful thoughts and emotions. Plus now that technology has excelled to the point where anyone anywhere can see a film, listen to a song or read a book it is so much easier to access the material as well as become some kind of artist themselves. Of course this is the best way to inspire people, instead of abolishing all capitalism and pop culture they do not seem to realise that even a Marxist like themselves could use the media as a tool to pass on their ideas. Indeed, they already write books and sell it for £8 or £9 (sounds pretty capitalistic to me).
Interestingly, Marxist Theodore Adorno while referring to his theory of pseudo-individualism, said that the true needs that everyone should have are:
His point about freedom may be true in terms of the film, where the filmmaker will be restricted much of the time by studios still this is through no fault of their own but for the general public in everyday life I believe they have all the freedom they could possibly want. "Genuine happiness" I am confused about, I ask how do you know if you are truley or falsely happy and what are the differences between the two? Surely they give you the exact same feelings? While I may not favour much of the modern mainstream myself, I believe that great forms of artistic expression can be present in film. The obsession films seem to have with outsiders allow movies like Donnie Darko to explore alienation, as well as the psyche and paronid nature of humans, quite easily comparable with any "high art" a Marxist puts forward.
1.The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form.
2.Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Human nature could not have changed greatly from the times which Marxist theories favoured as artistic, so great art for the past 500 years or so must all be inspired by the same powerful thoughts and emotions. Plus now that technology has excelled to the point where anyone anywhere can see a film, listen to a song or read a book it is so much easier to access the material as well as become some kind of artist themselves. Of course this is the best way to inspire people, instead of abolishing all capitalism and pop culture they do not seem to realise that even a Marxist like themselves could use the media as a tool to pass on their ideas. Indeed, they already write books and sell it for £8 or £9 (sounds pretty capitalistic to me).
Interestingly, Marxist Theodore Adorno while referring to his theory of pseudo-individualism, said that the true needs that everyone should have are:
- Freedom
- Genuine happiness
- Creativity
His point about freedom may be true in terms of the film, where the filmmaker will be restricted much of the time by studios still this is through no fault of their own but for the general public in everyday life I believe they have all the freedom they could possibly want. "Genuine happiness" I am confused about, I ask how do you know if you are truley or falsely happy and what are the differences between the two? Surely they give you the exact same feelings? While I may not favour much of the modern mainstream myself, I believe that great forms of artistic expression can be present in film. The obsession films seem to have with outsiders allow movies like Donnie Darko to explore alienation, as well as the psyche and paronid nature of humans, quite easily comparable with any "high art" a Marxist puts forward.
Conclusion
At first I believed that the Hollywood of today still creates a place for the outsider and loves the rebels, but through further research I have discovered that this in no longer the case. Outsiders are interesting, entertaining and at times shocking and thought provoking. However, through the rapid change of the studio system of the past years, the "that film made money, lets make a similar one" approach, the formula has changed somewhat. When these first few films explicitly about the outsiders, such as "Rebel Without a Cause" were released, they were socially relevant to the times and as times were always changing in the 1960s, films that focused on the outsider could always be told in more fresh and original ways. The late 1970s saw the advent of the blockbuster and while the characters did not have an awful lot of depth, the film still managed to be entertaining. From the huge sums of money made from them, Hollywood got a little carried away. Suddenly this was the only type of film that they could produce. Sure, they always wanted their films to be successful but the artistic and creative freedom they once gave to their filmmakers was now slim and could only grow if the director was already established. Through looking at the figures, it seemed the more simple you go the more money you make. It has now gotten to the point where the industry churns out the same stuff every year, just because it's safe and easy. They have resorted to something lower than the "Star Wars" formula where the protagonists are now so flat and unoriginal, that it prevents the film from being engaging for me, not helped by the corporate atmosphere of a multiplex screening room. Not to mention the characters are usually played by a big stars which constantly takes me out of the film. You'll have no chance of concentrating if your brain keeps thinking "hey look it's Tom Cruise on the screen". Within the mainstream, the outsider has now been fully replaced by the generic invulnarable hero, and who can identify with that?
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)