While watching movies, we focus primarily on the actors on screen or the theatrical moves of the director while trying to enjoy and understand the film. We often forget, however, that we the audience play an equally important role in the movie experience. In his essay on Classic Hollywood Cinema, David Bordwell asserts that “classical narration… depends up on the notion of the invisible observer” (Bordwell 24), the people behind the camera.
So what is it we as the silent observers are expected to do to make the movie-going experience all that it is meant to be? Bordwell proposes that our role is to “come to classical films very well prepared” (28), ready to read the emotions of characters, follow the logical flow of events, and of course, interpret the unfolding film in order to understand what is going on. When I first read this I couldn’t imagine a more obvious statement. How could we possibly watch movies and not understand what’s being spoon fed to us (as is often the case in Classic Hollywood Cinema)?
Then I saw this re-cut of the movie “Sleepless in Seattle” (Nora Ephron, 1993) in which some clever editors took clips from a classic romantic comedy and made it into a trailer for Sleepless in Seattle, the horror movie. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frUPnZMxr08
So what is it that makes us root for Annie (Meg Ryan) as she, in a manner that could easily be interpreted as eerily creepy (as seen above), seeks out the man she heard on a radio program across the country? In my opinion, it is a combination of good direction and our deeply ingrained understanding of the romantic comedy plot structure that lets us empathize for Annie.
Annie (Meg Ryan) watching Sam (Tom Hanks) from afar, but not in a creepy way
Certain directional moves are made throughout the movie that help to build a connection between Sam Baldwin (Tom Hanks) and Annie. There is the obvious sync in words and actions that we see splattered throughout the movie, such as finishing sentences the same way during radio talkshow scene. There is also the less obvious use of eye line matches made between Annie and Sam which help to close the distance between the two. The shots are laced together in such a way that it seems like the two could be standing right across from each other, eye to eye, talking to one another, when in reality, thousands of miles separate them and neither has exchanged words directly with the other.
Musical score also plays a big role in dulling down the creepiness and amplifying the “oh that’s cute” factor. The re-cut trailer uses dark, ominous music during the scene where Annie watches Sam and his son play on the beach. This leads the audience to suspect evil intentions. On the other hand, the original movie keeps the music both upbeat, and at time emotional, to convey a sense of deep connection between the characters and what they feel for one another.
Perhaps the most important contributing factor, however, is our base knowledge of Classic Hollywood Cinema. This entails us “recognizing the recurrence of a star’s persona from film to film and recognizing generic conventions” (Bordwell, 29) associated with the film’s genre. In this case, we know that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks excel at playing sappy romantics (“You’ve Got Mail” 1998) and anyone who has seen one romantic comedy has seen them all. Everyone ends the same. (I’ll give you a hint: they end up together, despite those setbacks). It’s these preconceptions that prevent us as an audience, the invisible observer, to suspect nothing but good intentions from Annie.
In film, it is the director and actors’ job to give guiding cues to the audience, but it is the audience’s job to interpret for themselves what he or she seeing, to insert their own ideas and feelings into the movie to make the film experience a more involved one.
For anyone responding to this, feel free to think about these questions:
How much do our previous conceptions play into our movie going experience?
It is possible for a director to lead us too heavily and not let us think and interpret for ourselves?
Tucker,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your "Our Job" approach to looking at Sleepless in Seattle- specifically the way you utilized the youtube horror recut to set up your question of what makes us read movies in the manner we do. I thought your points were well condensed when you said that "a combination of good direction and our deeply ingrained understanding of the romantic comedy plot structure that lets us empathize for Annie," although I would add good editing to the list, as it a major player (which you discuss in many ways). For instance, you discuss the soundtrack, which differs drastically from the suspenseful sound effects used in the horror trailer. Songs like "Wink and a Smile," the soundtrack to perhaps the most "stalkerish" scene (when Annie spies on Jonah and Sam at the beach) have an automatic, and precise effect on our interpretation of situations that might be interpreted elsewise (aka creepy). Also pertaining to editing, you discuss the way in which eye line matchups and other manifestations of continuity editing create an aura of love between Sam and Annie, making her pursuit for Sam acceptable, rather than odd. Editing in the horror trailer produces opposite results-- for instance, the makers of that video took an out of context sound clip ("There are a lot of desperate women out there")and placed it with a visual (Annie lying in bed, wide awake) that suggest Annie is a desperate woman.
Your point about the knowledge that we naturally bring with ourselves to the movies is wonderful. Who has been more type-cast than former America's Sweetheart Meg Ryan? We clearly know what the outcome of this film will be. We grow up in a culture that atunes us to cinematic expectations from an early age-- it is innate.
Thoughtful reading on the codes and conventions that inform our response to films.
ReplyDeleteI was thrown off guard by the questions and statements you wrote about in your blog because I was expecting a typical blog that I could comment about. However, you presented us as readers questions to ponder and you looked at the film in a new way. Just as your blog threw me off, the horror film threw us all off as well. Are we so easily persuaded by director cuts and a genre? You made a good point when you said that Sleepless in Seattle “is a combination of good direction and our deeply ingrained understanding of the romantic comedy plot structure that lets us empathize for Annie.” When we watched that horror remake of Sleepless in Seattle, Annie did seem very stalkerish and creepy! We as the audience go in to the theaters with the expectation of seeing the genre we paid to see. In addition, it is the role of the director to carry out which direction the film will go. The cuts in that remake made the romantic comedy have a feel like a horror movie. We are lead so easily by these cuts because of the great techniques used to make the cuts (namely the musical additions and the editing- like the shot reverse shot, the zoom, and the quick cuts). I would say that my previous conceptions of the movie really does influence my view/enjoyment of the movie and that the director/editor have this opportunity to interpret a story for us.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTucker, I think that you do a great job in your blog in raising several questions that are not clear upon first reflecting on the movie. While I agree with all of your statements about eyeline matching and continuity editing, I think you overemphasize the power of previous conceptions about actors. When I see Tom Hanks in a film, I think of Cast Away, Saving Private Ryan, and The Da Vinci Code rather than You've Got Mail. The movies which I recall when thinking of Tom Hanks, are not "chick flicks," they are not of the romantic genre; however, I still have no problem empathizing with Sam in Sleepless in Seattle. I think that more of the empathizing comes from the audience understanding the codes and conventions of romantic movies. Playing calm, love music, rather than loud, ominous music allows the audience to feel the intimacy between Annie and Sam rather than see Annie as a stalker or a creeper. Though I agree that audience's previous conceptions play a role in their understanding of the movie, I think our conceptions about codes and conventions of movie genres play a larger part than conventions of the specific actors or actresses.
ReplyDeleteTucker, this is very well said. I definitely agree with how the director is playing with eye line shots and also with the conventional romantic comedy feel of the whole film. It is weird thinking about how creepy the woman is. I am overly critical with things like that, and because of it, I felt that the relationship would not work. Then again, the movie takes place in an alternate reality, I would say. Things like that just do not happen in the real world. However, in romantic comedy disneyland, it is well done and understandable. Good blog man.
ReplyDeleteI think that your blog presents a fantastic point, that we focus on the actors primarily when watching the film. Because we have two likable, good-looking leads (Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan), we immediately assume we should root for them. Why would a woman as good-looking as Meg Ryan stalk anybody? However, put Rosie O'Donnell in the lead, and everybody would be disturbed. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are (almost) defined by their affable personas, and we expect them to always be likable, in spite of what they actually do (say, abandon your faithful and supportive boyfriend, stalk a single father, and probably break a few privacy laws in the process).
ReplyDeleteI was actually hoping that someone would write a post at some point dealing more pragmatically with the other side of any good film, story, or presentation - the audience - and you've really delivered that in spades! I absolutely love the fact that you took the analysis on a 180 degree turn and, rather than focusing solely on how a film is PRESENTED, focused on how it is RECEIVED by the people who are, in fact, the bread and butter of the film industry. The expectations and personal experiences that the audience brings into the theater definitely impacts how a film is viewed and interpreted.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that you might want to think about, or elaborate on later, is how the film's demographic target populations influences the reception of the film as well. After all, business is business, and the film industry is as profit-seeking as any other. I'm fairly certain that most films are designed with a certain audience group in mind: the action-loving man, the emotional middle-aged woman, the urban youth, etc. It would really be interesting to delve deeper into how the INTENDED audience impacts the structure and presentation of the film as well.
In any case, bravo on a novel idea and a well-substantiated presentation on said idea!
The comparison with the recut really supports your argument. Reading your post and the comments makes me think about just how much we sometimes enjoy being manipulated by cinema, by directors, be genre. Indeed, although it seems that as audiences we don't have to "think" in order to make sense of this kind of film, we have actually been "trained" by hundreds of films before it precisely how to think we're not thinking it into sense. So, in answer to your questions: A lot. and Of course!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your assertion that the viewer brings a certain preconception with them to the cinema and the director plays off that. As shown with the recuts we are often given clues, the music, the actors, as to what genre the type of film is. For example in the recut of The Shining, the song Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel comes on and we immediately think of a romantic comedy because we have heard that song used before in romantic comedies. Great blog!
ReplyDelete