Authors: David Bordwell,Kristin Thompson
B0041VYHGW EBOK (183 page)
If you’re adventurous, you may wish to avoid background information. You can start with one concrete piece of evidence—say, an intriguing scene or detail from the film—before you move quickly to state your thesis. Our
Meet Me in St. Louis
piece uses this sort of opening (
p. 431
).
Writing a film analysis poses a particular problem of organization. Should the body of the argument follow the film’s progress in chronological order, so that each paragraph deals with a scene or major part? In most cases, this can work. We try it with our
Gap-Toothed Women
discussion, which traces out the patterns of development across the film (
pp. 354
–359). By and large, however, you strengthen your argument by following a more conceptual structure of the sort indicated in our outline.
Recall that the body of your essay offers reasons to believe the thesis. You’ll back those points up with evidence and examples. Consider our analysis of
Breathless
(
p. 408
), sketching the relevant Hollywood outlaw movie traditions. The second paragraph shows how the basic story of
Breathless
resembles the criminal-couple-on-the-run movie. The next three paragraphs make the point that Godard’s film also reworks Hollywood conventions: Michel seems to be imitating tough-guy stars, while the film’s form and style seem casual, as if aiming to let the audience enjoy a new, more self-conscious version of an American crime movie.
Since the essay relies on comparison and contrast, the body of the piece explores the film’s similarities to and differences from Hollywood conventions. The next 11 paragraphs seek to establish these points about the film’s narrative form:
1. Michel is like a Hollywood protagonist in certain ways (
p. 409
).
2. The action is, however, much choppier and more digressive than in a Hollywood film. (
p. 409
).
3. The death of the policeman is handled more abruptly and disconcertingly than in a normal action movie (
pp. 409
–410).
4,5. By contrast, the bedroom conversation of Patricia and Michel is untypical of Hollywood genre scenes because it is very static, marking little progress toward Michel’s goals (
p. 410
).
6. Once the plot starts moving again, it stalls again (
p. 410
).
7,8. Moving toward resolution, the plot again picks up, but the finale remains enigmatic and open-ended (
p. 410
).
9,10. Overall, Michel and Patricia are puzzling and hard to read as characters (
p. 411
).
11. The characterization of the couple is thus sharply different from that of the romantic couple in most outlaws-on-the-run plots (
p. 411
).
Each of these points constitutes a reason to accept the thesis that
Breathless
uses genre conventions but also revises them in unsettling ways.
Supporting reasons may be of many sorts. Several of our analyses distinguish between reasons based on the film’s overall narrative form and reasons based on stylistic choices. The portion of the
Breathless
essay we’ve just reviewed offers evidence to support our claims about the film’s reworking of Hollywood narrative conventions. The paragraphs that follow this material (
pp. 411
–413) discuss Godard’s similarly self-conscious use of stylistic strategies. In analyzing
Meet Me in St. Louis,
we concentrate more on reviewing various motifs that create particular thematic effects. In either case, the argument rests on a thesis, supported by reasons, which are in turn supported by evidence and examples.
If you organize the essay conceptually rather than as a blow-by-blow résumé of the action, you may find it useful to acquaint your reader with the plot action at some point. A brief synopsis soon after the introduction may do the trick. (See our
North by Northwest
analysis,
pp. 400
–404, or our
Chungking Express
discussion,
pp. 417
–422.) Alternatively, you may wish to cover basic plot material when you discuss segmentation, characterization, causal progression, or other topics. The crucial point is that you aren’t obligated to follow the film’s order.
Typically, each reason for the thesis becomes the topic sentence of a paragraph, with more detailed evidence displayed in the sentences that follow. In the
Breathless
example, each main point is followed by specific examples of how plot action, dialogue, or film techniques at once refer to Hollywood tradition and loosen up the conventions. Here is where your detailed notes about salient scenes or techniques will be very useful. You can select the strongest and most vivid instances of mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing, and sound to back up the main point that each paragraph explores.
The body of the analysis can be made more persuasive by several other tactics. A paragraph that compares or contrasts this film with another might help you zero in on specific aspects that are central to your argument. You can also include an in-depth analysis of a single scene or sequence that drives your argumentative point home. We use this tactic in discussing several films’ endings, chiefly because a concluding section often reveals broad principles of development. For instance, in our
North by Northwest
essay, we examine the film’s final twist as typical of the way the narrative manipulates our knowledge to create surprise and suspense (
p. 404
).
In general, the body of the argument should progress toward stronger or subtler reasons for believing the thesis. In discussing
The Thin Blue Line,
we start by tracing how the film provides a kind of reconstructed investigation, leading to the killer (
p. 428
). Yet the film goes beyond aligning us with Adams. It also bombards us with a great deal of information, some of it fairly minute, even trivial. The purpose, we suggest, is to urge the viewer to sort out conflicting data and notice details (
pp. 428
–429). This is a fairly complex point that would probably not come across if introduced early on. After the analysis has worked through more clear-cut matters, it’s easier to consider such nuances of interpretation.
How to end your argumentative essay? Now is the time to restate the thesis (skillfully, not repeating previous statements word for word) and to remind the reader of the reasons to entertain the thesis. The ending is also an opportunity for you to try for some eloquence, a telling quotation, a bit of historical context, or a concrete motif from the film itself—perhaps a line of dialogue or an image that encapsulates your thesis. We try this tactic in our analysis of sound in
The Prestige
(
pp. 302
–303). In making preparatory notes, ask yourself constantly: Is there something here that can create a vivid ending?
Just as there is no general recipe for understanding film, there is no formula for writing incisive and enlightening film analyses. But there are principles and rules of thumb that govern good writing of all sorts. Only through writing, and constant rewriting, do these principles and rules some to seem second nature. By analyzing films, we can understand the sources of our pleasure in them and share that understanding with others. If we succeed, the writing itself can give pleasure to ourselves and our readers.
Key Questions for an Analytical Essay
To help you craft an effective analytical essay, ask yourself these questions:
- Do I have a thesis? Is it stated clearly early in my essay?
- Do I have a series of reasons supporting the thesis? Are these arranged in logical and convincing order (with the strongest or most complicated reason coming last)?
- Are my supporting reasons backed up? Do my segmentation and stylistic analysis provide specific evidence and examples for each reason you offer?
- Does my beginning orient my reader to the direction of my argument? Does my concluding paragraph reiterate my thesis and provide a vivid ending?
The following paper was written by a sophomore for an introductory film course. The assignment asked for an analytical essay on Martin Scorsese’s
King of Comedy,
concentrating on two or three scenes of particular importance to the paper’s thesis. A segmentation of the film (not included here) was attached.
Note how the essay begins with some general observations and then focuses its thesis in the second paragraph. In order to trace the greater blurring of fantasy and reality in the film, the author develops a strategy of comparison and contrast. Each paragraph develops specific evidence of the various techniques Scorsese uses, considering editing, sound, camerawork, and staging. The paper concludes by speculating on how these techniques affect the viewer and reinforce one of the film’s themes. A crisp summary line drives home the main thesis: “our final image of Rupert may be an image of the man or it may be an image from the man.”
Fantasy and Reality in
The King of Comedy
by Amanda Robillard
America is obsessed with fame. Television shows and magazines have been created in order to let the masses delve into the personal lives of their favorite stars. Friends gossip about people they have never met, but whom they feel they know because of the mass media. The lives of celebrities may not be perfect, but they definitely are exciting. Learning about your favorite star’s life is an entertaining escape from what can seem a mundane existence.
Fame becomes alluring because a fantasy world surrounds it. Martin Scorsese’s film
The King of Comedy
focuses on Rupert Pupkin’s obsession with fame. Not only is he obsessed with a famous comedian, but he is consumed with becoming a famous comedian himself and comes to believe that his idol is more than willing to help him in his quest. Pupkin’s obsession goes beyond a mere interest in fame; it takes over his life to the point that he can no longer distinguish reality from the fantasies he has concocted. Because the viewer is allowed to see these fantasies through Rupert’s eyes, one can track his progression further and further into his fantasy world. In
The King of Comedy,
Scorsese uses various aspects of style in order to manipulate the boundaries between fantasy and reality in such a way as to draw a parallel between Rupert’s progressive withdrawal into his own fantasies and the viewer’s inability to tell the difference between the two.
The first fantasy scene of
The King of Comedy,
segment 3
, blurs the line between fantasy and reality, but the line is nonetheless still discernible. Here Scorsese uses aspects of style to create a coherent fantasy that is easily recognizable as such. It is distinctly separate from surrounding scenes of reality while at the same time drawing on them in order to create the fantasy.
A combined use of sound and editing is used to tie the fantasy to reality. This is apparent both in the scenes that surround
segment 3
and within the scene itself. Rupert invites Jerry to lunch at the end of
segment 2
. This invitation leads into a shot of Jerry and Rupert seated in a restaurant in the following scene. This link from actual dialogue to fantasy is a continuing pattern throughout the film, brought out by first mentioning the act in a real conversation and then having it carried out in a fantasy later in the film. Editing the scenes together in such a way is one device used to blur the distinction between fantasy and reality.
Within the scene, juxtaposing Rupert’s fantasy with his acting it out in his mother’s basement serves to create a distinction between the two. Sometimes reverse-shots of Rupert show him dressed for lunch; at other moments, the reverse-shots show him in his basement, dressed differently. Similarly, while still seeing an image of Jerry and Rupert eating lunch together in a restaurant, we hear Rupert’s mother yelling for him to keep quiet or inquiring whom he is talking to. The editing and sound techniques guide the viewer back into reality, where Rupert is actually enacting the fantasy in his basement. Again, however, some elements carry over between fantasy and reality. Photographs behind Jerry in the fantasy are echoed by photographs on the wall behind Rupert in his basement. Jerry also happens to be wearing the same shirt and tie that he had in the previous scene, although with a different jacket. Also, the source of lighting seems to be coming from Rupert’s right in both fantasy and reality, although it is softer in the shots in his basement.
All of these elements of style serve to connect fantasy to reality while at the same time drawing definite distinctions between the two. Similarities are needed in order to create a believable fantasy that Rupert would feasibly have at the time. Drawing on these similarities allows the viewer to notice patterns that develop across the course of the film, and the variations in these patterns serve to steadily blur the line between fantasy and reality even further with each fantasy sequence. At this point in the film, there are still enough differences between the two realms to clearly separate the two from each other. This is true for Rupert—as he acts out the two roles of his fantasy, he is distinctly aware that the events are not actually happening to him—as well as for the viewer, who is provided with subjective fantasy shots as well as shots of Rupert’s sad reality and enough stylistic clues to separate what is really happening from what Rupert would like to happen.
One of Rupert’s later fantasies, in segment 15, marks a further progression into the fantasy world. Rupert’s mind is no longer occupied by simple matters like having a lunch date with his idol. Instead, he now dreams of receiving, all at the same time, everything he could possibly imagine wanting: a spot on the
Jerry Langford Show,
fame, apologies for every wrong ever done to him, and the love of his life becoming his wife while millions of people watch. Rupert’s fantasies have become much more complicated as he gets more and more obsessed with becoming a famous comedian with the help of Jerry Langford.
These more intricate fantasies require a bolder use of style. Because Rupert is becoming ever more wrapped up in his world of make-believe, the added time he spends dreaming up this world allows for more special effects. Sound and editing are once again used to blur Rupert’s reality and his imagination. It should be noted that this fantasy sequence is sandwiched between two framing sequences of Rupert in the offices of the
Jerry Langford Show,
waiting to see what they thought of his tape.
This fantasy is not a distinct unit in and of itself, as the first one was, but instead a scene firmly entrenched in the scene surrounding it. An entire phrase is uttered from the fantasy while the image track still shows Rupert looking around the office. Also, this fantasy takes place in the same place where Rupert’s body is really located at the time of his mind’s wanderings. Granted, one is in the studio and the other in the office, but they are both in the same building, unlike the earlier restaurant/basement segment.
Style is also a crucial element in the portrayal of this fantasy. Rupert imagines this scene as if it were on television. The fuzzy picture and the tinny sound of the dialogue serve to suggest this medium. Characters in the fantasy also present themselves directly to the camera. The set design of the show is the same as that really used on Jerry’s show. The more complicated subject matter of this fantasy is portrayed using more complicated cinematography and editing. Throughout most of the movie, editing is made to go unnoticed. However, in this scene, many steps are taken to make sure the editing and camera work are noticed. An extreme close-up of the piano player’s hands zooms out to a shot of him and the piano, before panning up and left as it dissolves into a shot of Rita, and then continues to pan left as she makes her way to Rupert. Here the image zooms out to a long shot of the couple before dissolving into a close-up of Rupert and Rita. This is by far the most complicated sequence in the film, a film that otherwise consists mostly of invisible editing. These stylistic elements are meant to be noticed. They serve as an illustration of Rupert’s more complicated fantasy world, a world that is becoming ever more real to him.
Although it would seem that this fantasy world is becoming increasingly more important to Rupert, the viewer is still aware of the sequence as a fantasy, but through fewer cues this time. Gone are the blatant juxtapositions between the two worlds and the interruptions of fantasy by reality. Rupert is no longer shown acting out both roles in his fantasy. A single voice, that of Dr. Joyce Brothers, sounds unnatural, as if a man were impersonating the higher pitch of a woman’s voice. Within the scene, this is the only sonic betrayal of reality, and it can only be heard if one pays attention. However, the intricate camera movements and editing used to show Rupert’s appearance on the
Jerry Langford Show
also serve to distinctly mark it as a fantasy. It is far more complex than anything seen in any reality segments and thus must be taken to be fantasy.
Although the viewer can tell that this segment is fantasy, it is exponentially more complicated than previous segments and thus also serves to show Rupert’s withdrawal further from reality. If the first fantasy segment was one in which the line between fantasy and reality was blurred but still distinctly there, this segment serves to blur the line even further, so that the line is no longer as clear as it once had been. This segment is an integral part in the process of a complete loss of anything separating reality from fantasy, both for Rupert and for the viewer.
The final segment of
The King of Comedy
is such a segment. Nothing can be said for certain as to whether it is reality or fantasy. The ending is left ambiguous. The two have become completely blurred so that the question of reality or fantasy is left in the hands of the viewer, with just enough stylistic and narrative prodding to leave you second-guessing yourself no matter what decision you make. At first glance, the scene can be dismissed as reality, but a second look clearly identifies it as fantasy. A third, and you’re no longer sure exactly what it is. Even if you think it is one or the other, there is still an inkling of doubt that refuses to be ignored and causes you to wonder. Scorsese doesn’t hand over a clear and concise ending to top this film off but instead forces the viewer to earn it.
Most of this segment (number 29) could be interpreted as simply Rupert’s fantasy of achieving fame, but that would be premature. While its elements may not be completely compatible with reality, they don’t blend completely with fantasy either. For example, the segment begins with an announcer’s voice telling of Rupert Pupkin’s outrageous debut on the
Jerry Langford Show.
This voice is heard first over a black screen. The image is soon replaced by “file tape” from news reports. Was this sound bridge from black to footage meant to be a bridge from reality to fantasy, as the previous ones had been? Or is it meant to separate this segment from the rest of the film so as to be taken as a lapse in time between Rupert’s arrest and his rise to fame? The “file tape” label creates a sense of reality, whereas the flamboyant nature of the announcer does the opposite by creating what Rupert would surely believe to be the perfect sound bite. The grainy television image also brings up questions of reality versus fantasy. Is it reminiscent of the television appearance Rupert made in his third fantasy segment? Or is it instead actually footage from his monologue on the
Jerry Langford Show
being rebroadcast on different news channels?
In either case, the panning, zooming, and craning of the camera over the magazine headlines and book displays all call to mind the wedding-fantasy sequence. However, the number of headlines present is hard to believe as the workings of a single man’s thoughts. And, given the nature of fame in our culture, isn’t it likely that Rupert would receive book and movie offers as a “reward” for his kidnapping of Jerry?
Still, interpretation is then left swinging back toward fantasy when one notices that the news reports never mention his accomplice, Masha. Is this because Masha’s involvement was really deemed too inconsequential by the press? It seems more likely that her absence here would arise from Rupert’s obvious disdain for her. In his fantasy, he would be likely to erase Masha from any involvement in the plan.
The final shot of
The King of Comedy
does little to resolve these issues and instead serves to complicate them further. This shot begins as a high angle and cranes down and in so as to get closer and closer to Rupert’s figure standing in the spotlight on stage as an announcer continues to describe him as a success and the crowd cheers. The lengthy take and the announcer’s repetition of Rupert’s name, along with the applause that ceases to die down, could suggest that we are now definitely in Rupert’s mind, as he prolongs his moment of triumph. Yet the shot is very similar to others we’ve seen on Jerry’s show, and we cannot rule out the possibility that in today’s celebrity culture Rupert has indeed achieved his goal of becoming a famous comedian. After all, the real audience for Jerry’s show did seem to enjoy Rupert’s rather lame jokes.
The fact that this final segment cannot simply be dismissed as fantasy serves to illustrate the fact that Scorsese successfully built up narrative and stylistic elements in his fantasy sequences so as to blur their distinction from each other. Each fantasy remains dependent on the previous reality and fantasy scenes so as to be distinguishable as such. As Rupert’s obsession with becoming famous grows, so too does his fantasy world. As his fantasies grow, they become more entrenched in reality and thus more plausible to the viewer. Our final image of Rupert may be an image of the man or it may be an image from the man. Perhaps Rupert ends up being successful at his craft only in his fantasy world, but Martin Scorsese definitely manipulated stylistic elements of
The King of Comedy
to successfully craft a film in which the line between fantasy and reality is blurred not only for the character but for the viewer as well.
