VOL. 22

NO
ABUSIVE CAN'T A
DIRECTION RELA- TOUCH GILDEDHOME TIONSHIP THIS
END
mad men and contemporary nostalgia

the disconnect between
film and videogames

SAYING
MORE
WITH
SILENCEromance, television, and rene clair and the end of embracing film form
postponing satisfaction
silent cinema
over period pastichebyq uinn ga n c ed obyn i c h o las sobyz oe t of fal et ibymadel ine ser ybymichae l lu ci an i

11

19

26

33

41

LETʼS
JUST
STAY
HOME

REAL
POINTS DONʼT SHADOW
TELL
ME
TALK
OF CON- WHAT TO CRIMIWITH
NALS
ISSA RAE TENTION DO
the mis-adventures ofawkward black girlhollywood and theremakewhy amy poehler is myhero

the dark world of
outcasts, gangsters andsamuraiby
aus ti n k ov a c s

bywi ll f elk er

byr y an mcdonal dbyconnie pet ersonbyt ravis w adde ll

46

50

60

67

70

the domestication ofcinema

EYECANDY STAFF
CO-EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
kelsey carterleo robertson
DESIGN EDITORS
lynn henicholas irizary
DESIGNgabrielle kovacich
laura hartungadalayne stevenson
WEB DESIGN
brittany goulliou
nicholas so
BUSINESS
theresa barton
mitch quesada
COPY EDITOR
molly kossoff
FACULTY ADVISOR
b ruby rich

FEATURE WRITERS
will felker
quinn gancedo
austin kovacs
michael lucianiryan mcdonald
connie peterson
madeline serynicholas so
zoë toffaleti
travis waddell
WEB WRITERS
natasha blass
laura hartungalan sanchez
lindsay wachs
COVER ART
max capacity
www.maxcapacity.tumblr.com
CONTACT US
eyecandyjournal@gmail.com
eyecandy.ucsc.edu

PORTRAITS
travis waddell

Art by Max Capacity

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS
That film means a lot to us isobvious. But what does film mean toyou? The answer to that is as varied andinfinite as film itself. Our identifications
with a particular film or television show
are ones which we hardly ever forget,
and the associations are ones we carrythroughout our lives; whether it besomething as simple as a hilariously
executed Amy Poehler joke or as complex
as the nostalgia felt when visiting the
1960s alongside Don Draper. No matter
what, those identifications are our own.
The implications, however, are not. They
are a product of a larger ideologicallandscape, one that we all share andhave hoped to bring to the forefront inthis issue.
EyeCandy is the canvas on which
we tease out those implications and cullout of those passions an insight into theactual state of our community. And thisis a transformation we prize above all
else. In the construction of this journal
we were presented with a challenge thatmirrors the very objective of the journal
itself: building up our creation fromnothing. This journal was an infant in thecare of a collective, a group of people
who came together to experience weekby-week the real struggle to have afunctional, communicative, and caring
community which unifies to create
something meaningful. And we did it.

This volume stands not only asa testament to the growth of both thatgroup and that journal, but of what itmeans to build the awareness of a real,
thriving community here in our town of
Santa Cruz - and by extension the world
at large. What we hope you gain isn’t justa greater appreciation of film. Whether
you love the art form with a passion, orjust like a good popcorn-filled evening,
our goal is the same. What we hope you
realize is that the values we’ve imparted
to our “newborn” of an issue are those wehope to impart to you as well: creativity,
agency, awareness, and change.
We needn’t sit in the cinema in
awe at what intricate commentary has
been laid out before our eyes. Makers
and writers of film alike can see thatthe cinema doesn’t just “say” something
about society. It actively does something
to it. It’s a two-way street, and one youlive on; regardless of whether your career
has anything to do with film. This is what
we hope you’ll realize when readingthese articles. We’ve not just sat back andlistened to these films say something
to us, but have taken it upon ourselvesto do something with our love for thoseimages by giving back to our peers. And
you can too. We suggest you start byhaving a good read.

KELSEY CARTER & LEO ROBERTSON
CO-EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

Don Draper (Jon Hamm) in Mad
Men (2007, Matthew Weiner)10

NO DIRECTION HOME

mad men and contemporary nostalgia
by quinn gancedo

When I started out writing thispiece, I knew I wanted to look at nostalgia, as
it seems to have dominated visual culture in
recent years. Looking at Hollywood, this was
obvious; the two major Oscar contenders thisyear were Hugo and The Artist, films dedicatedto remembering and reconstructing the age ofsilent cinema. Then there were films like Midnight in Paris, My Week with Marilyn, War
Horse, and the seemingly endless stream of reboots, remakes, and superhero films. Even films
perceived as forward-looking — think Drive
and The Tree of Life — were imbued with that
nostalgic impulse. I felt its presence locally as
well, most strikingly in the Del Mar Theatre’s
rehashing of its midnight movie programming
to include films like Space Jam and Good Burger,
films whose sole value is nostalgia for the 1990s.
I wanted to write about nostalgia because it felt
dominant and at the same time unexplained. I
wanted to know why we are so fixated on the
past.
Settling into the subject, I knew theone thing I didn’t want to write about was
Mad Men (2007–). It felt too bluntly obvious,

utterly uninteresting. Then I realized that towrite about contemporary nostalgia without
including Mad Men would be ludicrous anddeliberately myopic. Mad Men is one of thosecultural landmarks that people feel connected
to beyond its entertainment value. Like The Sopranos (1997-2007) before it, it’s one of thoseshows that people bond over and debate about.
A quick Google search will yield dozens of fansites and blogs dedicated to episode recaps andoverly impassioned discussion. This is anotherreason I wanted to avoid writing about theshow: I’m too big a fan. Simply put, I like Mad
Men too much, and I was afraid of ruining it
for myself by looking at it critically. Fortunately,
the opposite turned out to be true. It’s a show
riddled with problems and complexities, andthere is a lot about it that’s uncomfortable, but
this is what ultimately makes it vital and interesting.
The eminent Marxist literary theorist
Fredric Jameson formulates the nostalgia film as
one that “does not reinvent a picture of the pastin its lived totality,” but instead “reinvents the
feel and shape of characteristic art objects of an11older period.” 1 The effect of this, for Jameson, is ies were rigid and a clear power structure wasthat the nostalgia film abstracts from “real” his- in place. The plot’s focus on an advertising firm
tory to create a representation based on “stylis- — a new, powerful, and cynical entity in thetic allusion.” The nostalgia film is thus not a true early ‘60s — is significant. Mad Men’s characengagement with the past; it’s too busy mythol- ters haven’t completely subscribed to the dreamogizing it to provide any kind of critical reading. of their era — they are the ones constructing it.
While there are elements of Jameson’s sense of Their job is to understand American consciousnostalgia in the show, Mad Men’s brand of nos- ness and desire and simultaneously to shapetalgia feels like it’s doing something different. it. Furthermore, they are manufacturing thisThe nostalgia in Mad Men is labyrinthine and dream at the precise moment it begins to uncontradictory; it refuses any kind of simplistic ravel. The question, then, is what Mad Men has
reading. I want to highlight what I see as Mad to say about this dream.
Men’s deeply conflicted relationship to the past
it depicts, and ultimately argue that its particu- A Nostalgia of Seduction
lar form of remembering reflects the nostalgia
The visual grammar of the show isof its audience.
largely borrowed from the era it depicts, andrejects modern cinema’s tendency toward what
The Times They Are a-Changin’
film historian David Bordwell calls “intensified
Mad Men positions itself in a time pe- continuity.” 2 This term refers to a formal stratriod rarely depicted in mainstream visual cul- egy in modern filmmaking marked by rapid
ture: the beginning portion of the 1960s. While editing, close framing, a wide variety of focal
the 1950s and the “turbulent” late ‘60s are often lengths, and a highly mobile camera. Mad Men
portrayed, the first half of that decade is often rejects these strategies in favor of more classicalneglected. This period is a kind of hybrid era; it formal tactics. For instance, the show eschews
retains some of the perceived innocence of the Steadicam and handheld camerawork in fa‘50s while the seeds of the tumult that marked vor of a static frame and elaborate, fluid dolly
the late ‘60s were just starting to sprout. It was shots. It favors wide, inclusive shots in deep
pre-Watergate, pre–civil rights, and America’s focus that include both the characters and thelast war was seen as a just one. The Beatles were interior spaces they inhabit within the frame.
just emerging and Bob Dylan still went by Rob- Additionally, the show has a predilection for
ert Zimmerman. It was the tail end of the sort of employing old-fashioned effects like fades andyouthful, innocent period that nostalgia films dissolves, rare in modern film and virtually ablike to invoke.
sent from television. The color scheme of the
Of course, the ‘50s and early ‘60s were show, marked by solid colors that are sharply
never really the idyllic Caucasian nuclear fan- delineated, hearkens back to the days of Techtasy that nostalgia films portray, but Mad Men nicolor. The effect of all these classicist formal
deliberately narrows its scope. It makes itself a tendencies is a beautiful, cinematic image. The
show about white people with money, and thus show looks too good for television, and seems a
is able to shut out some of the more troubling better fit for one of the lavish old movie houses
aspects of its era. In other words, the world of of cinema’s golden age. The reactions to the
Mad Men reflects the world of its characters. In show reflect this, as it’s hard to find a review
this way it aligns itself with its target audience: that doesn’t pay lip service to its meticulous vithe affluent over-30 crowd.
sual style.
All of these observations are an attempt
Perhaps the most seductive elements ofat finding an answer to the question of what Mad Men’s aesthetic are those that populate theexactly Mad Men is nostalgic about. It seems frame itself — the fashions and period set piecto me that they want to recreate the moment es. The appeal of the Mad Men style is evident
before the storm, when identity and boundar- in the way its influence has manifested itself in

12

certain cultural zones. For instance, Oprah, arguably the most influential woman in American
culture, produced a Mad Men-inspired episodeof The Oprah Winfrey Show called “Oprah Goes
Back in Time: The ‘60s” back in 2009. 3 On theshow, she interviewed the cast of Mad Men andshared some of her “favorite things” from theera, including a Jackie Kennedy Barbie and hairrollers. Banana Republic, the Gap-owned retailstore, has developed a popular Mad Men clothing line. Pencil skirts are popular again and suitsales have apparently gone up since the series
began, according to a piece in The Guardian.4 I
can’t help but wonder if Lucky Strike’s stock has
risen recently as well. The appropriation of ‘60s
fashion and paraphernalia by fans of the show
is hardly surprising, as the show takes pains toconstruct a world both period-accurate andsumptuous. Even for a critical viewer like me,
the show’s style is one of its central pleasures.
This is not solely because the fashions
featured on the show are draped over extremely
attractive people. In the logic of Mad Men’s universe, style is an essential part of character andis a source of meaning for the audience. For instance, Peggy begins the series in rather frumpy
attire and becomes increasingly chic as she gains
power, while Joan maintains a certain kind of
power and agency largely through her sexuallycharged wardrobe. Betty and Don both take agreat deal of care in their appearance, but neglect it in their lowest moments. My point hereis that style is not incidental — it’s one of theshow’s most important signifiers.
The popularity of the fashion in Mad
Men becomes troubling when you consider
much of what’s being signified. A central function of fashion in the show, quite explicitly
sometimes, is to indicate gender roles and identities specific to that era, many of which areproblematic in a contemporary context. Don
Draper’s tailored suits, his combed hair andclean-shaven jaw, his cocktail and his perpetual
cigarette all represent an archaic myth of American manhood. They point to a powerful, dominant will, rugged individualism, and a solitary,
masculine intelligence. Don is well groomed
without being overly so, and we sometimes see

him disheveled in the morning or channeling
Brando in tucked in white t-shirt and khakis.
These digressions from his typical dark suit andtie only bolster the sense of a powerfully masculine character. Less virile forms of masculinity find their expression in style as well. Sal, oneof the only significant gay characters, is more
likely to incorporate patterns, colors, and accessories into his wardrobe. These stylistic flairs,
his pinstripes and occasional scarf, codify his
queerness. Pete Campbell, whom we are madeto sympathize with but not admire, represents aslight stylistic departure from the Don Draper
ideal. For some reason, be it because his hair is
too perfectly combed or his suit is slightly offcolor or ill-fitting, his appearance always falls
slightly short of that masculine ideal. In the logic of the show, this is in line with his character,which is spoiled, self-pitying, and occasionallycowardly.
The women, particularly the wives, express the myth of the domestic feminine in theirappearance. Betty Draper takes pains to always
look pristine, and indeed she always does. She
always wears a modest amount of makeup andknows how to dress appropriately in different
contexts. At home, in a sundress or form-fitting
sweater, she exudes a quiet, domestic sexuality. In public, she performs the role of Don’s
wife with special finesse. She is cosmopolitan
but slightly coy, she looks wealthy but never“The women, particularly
the wives, express themyth of the domestic
feminine in theirappearance”
gaudy, her dress is somewhat sexualized but she
is far from a tramp. Betty’s narrative is that ofa woman constantly performing, and her styleis an extension of this. In moments when that
performance begins to break down, her appearance follows suit, as in season one, when she
momentarily decides to stop her masquerade
and lounges around the house without makeup

13

in a bathrobe for a week.
As with the men and masculinity, other styles of femininity are signified through thewomen’s fashion. There are the secretaries, inpencil skirts and form-fitting blouses — which
are often removed in office sexual liaisons. They
seem to always come to work in lingerie. Joan is
the ideal of this archetype, in heels and clothes
that advertise her body while remaining appropriate for the workplace. The ad-men, as well as
the camera, are endlessly interested in her appearance. Her body, constantly alluded to by
the males and lingered over by the camera, references Marilyn Monroe. Her bombastic sexuality is a source of power for her, as it allows hera mobility and agency beyond that of the othergirls, but she is ultimately punished for it when
she is raped by her fiancée.
While the show invites some of thesedescriptions to be read as critique — Betty is
miserable in her endless performance and Don
is utterly lost in his masculine identity — thatkind of reading ultimately fails. The critiqueis there on some level, but is submerged, overshadowed by the way the show glamorizes anderoticizes its own world. The style of the era
is foregrounded and offered up as a source ofpleasure in itself. The show’s impulse to criti-

14

cize Don Draper, occasionally showing itself,
is counteracted by the impulse to idealize him.
He is a failure of a family man and terribly unhappy, but he is also undeniably, astoundingly
cool. His place is in a long tradition of iconic
American males — Jack Nicholson, Marlon
Brando, Charles Bukowski—that demand both
our pity and admiration. His masculinity isstrong, solitary, hard but understanding; traditional but not rigidly so; sexy; normal but notoverly conformist; and damaged in a romantic
way. He is John Wayne meets Jack Nicholson,with a touch of Cary Grant’s class. Draper
may be an awful role model, but his appeal isstrong. For this reason, I’m not convinced that
Mad Men critiques, but it’s not accurate to say
it fully endorses, either. It’s hard to tell whether
the show wants to condemn or commemorate
its own world. It’s clear, though, that it aims to
seduce. While sometimes it feels that Mad Men
wants to be an indictment of a repressive era, it
just as often feels like a eulogy for a time when
men were men and women were women andthe meaning of that was clear. When you could
see all the boundaries and life had a stable texture.

Nostalgia and Knowingness
The show’s aesthetics — the classicist
cinematography, the color palette, the meticulous attention to period detail — all contributeto a sense of “hyperreality” that pervades theworld of the show. In other words, Mad Men
is so painstakingly constructed, its world so fulland autonomous, that it moves beyond realism
and becomes something completely its own; itfeels otherworldly. One of the effects of this hyperreality is that Mad Men feels completely selfcontained. Everything that occurs in its world
feels like a product of that world alone. The
early ˈ60s as constructed in the show, despite
us knowing it is supposed to represent our past,feels broken off from our own time. The show
establishes a disconnect between its world andour own, resulting in a kind of emotional cleavage between the past and the present.
Insofar as it fosters a sense of disassociation, Mad Men encourages its audience toadopt an attitude of “knowingness,” by which I
mean the sentiment that “we thankfully know
better now.” This isn’t solely a result of theshow’s visual style; it is also a matter of focus,of what the show chooses to highlight. Especially in the early seasons, the show turns its
critical eye toward practices and attitudes thatare largely outdated. For instance, the show
takes special pleasure in its pregnant characters,
and emphasizes the ignorant practices of midtwentieth century motherhood. The image ofthe mother-to-be happily downing cocktails
and chain-smoking is a recurrent one and epitomizes the knowing attitude: Images like theseare meant to shock us, but they are palatablebecause we feel we are above them. The factthat these practices are outdated renders themnon-threatening. They are utterly foreign to us,
and thus obscure our connection to the actual
history. These images effectively localize theproblems of the past onto outmoded practices,
encouraging the attitude that we are beyond
the issues of that past. The virtues of our present
day are thus emphasized and exaggerated. The
knowing attitude fosters the idea of progress; it
is history patting itself on the back.
In contrast, many of the deep sociopolitical problems of the era, those that we still

struggle with today, are often glossed over. The
emerging civil rights movement is acknowledged but backgrounded. There are a handfulof black characters, mostly in service positions
around the office, but we don’t really have anyaccess to them. Race is always peripheral in the
Mad Men universe. Similarly, the Cold War is
acknowledged — one episode has the Cuban
Missile Crisis as its backdrop — but it is nevera focus. The deeper problems of the era are eachpaid lip service but have no narrative force. Instead, they simply add to the atmosphere. Because these problems go unexplored, they remain impenetrable, and ultimately contributeto the disassociation we feel from Mad Men’sworld.

“...Mad Men encourages
its audience to adopt an
attitude of‘knowingness’...”
What I am trying to show here is that
Mad Men’s vision of the past is easy to reckon
with because it is only vaguely our own. This
world is simultaneously seductive and alienating. It’s sumptuous and invites us in, but wefind it largely inaccessible. We are encouraged
to pass judgment on it but also replicate it. Mad
Men creates a world that is both ours and notours. Looking into that world, you don’t knowwhether to denounce it or mourn its passing.
Don Draper as Mirror
The finale of season two has Don
Draper pitching a new campaign to the people
at Kodak. “Nostalgia,” he says, “takes us to aplace where we ache to go again, a place where
we know that we are loved.” He speaks theselines slowly over slides of him playing with hiswife and children, showing a seemingly happy
Don Draper, an unfamiliar sight. For those absorbed in Draper’s story, this is a crushing moment, a hallmark example of the feeling of deep
and irreparable loss that permeates the show.
The speech is deeply felt; one teary ad-man even15

feels the need to leave the room. At the sametime, it exemplifies Mad Men’s profound cynicism. While the speech is eloquent, even poetic,at the bottom of it all we are aware that it is anad pitch, and a particularly exploitative one
at that. Don’s position here is ambiguous. We
don’t know whether he is sincere or cynical, andwe suspect he’s both. His nostalgia in this scene,conflicted and near unreadable, epitomizes thenostalgia of the series.
It makes sense that Don Draper is ourprimary access point into Mad Men because
his relationship to his world mirrors the audience’s. He has rejected his own past, his nefarious parentage and poverty inflected youth, andremade himself from scratch. He’s an apparent
success; confident and strong willed, he is theenvy of his peers. While he is outwardly stable,
the foundations of this identity are extremely
fragile. He is the eternal drifter, always vacillating between nostalgia and flight. Like Odysseus,that other great nostalgic hero, his journey is toward home. Unfortunately for Don, that home
is unclear. It’s not a place as much as a void thatdemands to be filled. His relationship to thepast is ambiguous; it is both a source of comfort
and a source of terror. When he flees it he finds
himself lost, but when he moves toward it hefinds it lacking, always out of reach.
Don’s nostalgia, with paradox at its
core, is profoundly of this moment. The mythof America, the land of freedom and innovation in all its youth and vitality, no longer holds
the weight it used to. The old historical narratives, once stable and consoling, are contested.
Despite the political right’s attempts to proveotherwise, American identity is an unstableconcept, in a constant state of negotiation. New
technologies have multiplied the voices in thisconversation exponentially. While this potentially means democracy, it also means disorientation, a massive rootless shrieking that drowns
out the sense of who you are. The nostalgia
film (think American Graffiti or Dazed andConfused) has always addressed the conflict ofidentity by attempting to restore the past andrepresent it in idealized form, but this model
is no longer effective. When our conception of

16

home is contested, Mad Men is what our homesickness looks like. The show returns to the last
moment in which America still saw itself as innocent and dwells there. It finds warmth as wellas cynicism, beauty, and terror. The show longs
for an older, more solid world while it exposes
its shortcomings. It is ashamed of — and tries
to cover up — its own longing.
After his nostalgia speech, Don Draper
returns home with the intention of blowing off
work and joining his family on a Thanksgiving
trip. He walks in the door and informs Betty of
his change of heart. Her smile exudes authentic warmth, the children are overjoyed, and weare treated with a rare moment of domestic
bliss. Don is finally home and the dream is realized; the viewer experiences a catharsis like anencounter with the sacred. But then the scene
begins again, Don walks in the door and calls
out for his family. But they’ve already left. The
resolution, the triumphant return home, is outof reach, and he’s going to spend the weekend
alone. This is the space that Mad Men lives in; it
revels in the pleasures of a mythical era but undercuts it with a persistent coldness. It creates
the warmth of nostalgia but saturates it with asense of inevitable loss. Right now, this speaks
to us.
Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism and Consumer Society.” Postmodernism and Its Discontents.
Ed. E. Ann Kaplan. London: Verso Press, 1988.
13-29.
1

2
Bordwell, David. “Intensified Continuity: Visual
Style in Contemporary American Film.” Film Quarterly 55.3 (2002): 16-28.
3
http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Oprah-GoesBack-in-Time-The-60s

Allister, Graeme. “How Mad Men became a styleguide.” The Guardian TV and Culture Blog. The
Guardian, 1 August 2008.
4Art by Christophe Smith

Resdient Evil
(2002, dir. Paul W.S. Anderson)

CAPTION TITLE.
Nequiscia ant, arum que
nis parupta que num fuga.
Nonsed quuntodolorpossi
vendaectur?

ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP

the disconnect between film and video games

by nicholas so
Films and video games have had a very
rough and one-sided relationship over the past
couple of decades, especially in recent years.
The film industry has become overbearing andabusive toward video games while games haveremained soft-spoken and underappreciated.
Like most unhealthy relationships, the abusestems from an acute lack of understanding intertwined with a distinct sense of self-righteousness — resulting in the film industry continually dispensing films whose only goal is to cashin on the market that the video games have established on their own.
Video games have become one of themost profitable media, grossing a larger annual
income than both the film and music industries
combined, so it comes as no surprise that thepowers that be would have interest in dipping
their hand into the virtual pot. This is not dissimilar to the superhero movie phenomenon
that has become so profitable in Hollywood,
but for many reasons, video game movies tend
to be of a far lesser quality. In fact, I would venture to bet that if one were to survey fifty different video game advocates on why the movies

based on their hobby of choice tend to be sohorrible, one would receive fifty different answers that focus on different aspects of the relationship. However if one were to break those
fifty responses down, there would be three basic
problems from which all the others flow: low
budget, misunderstanding the appeal of games,and severe lack of fan service.
The budgets for video game movies
are pitifully low on average; a majority of thefilms lie anywhere within the $10-50 million
range of production budgets — a significantly
lesser value than that of almost all Hollywood
films. However, one must realize that most of
the films based on video games don’t come outof Hollywood; they are produced by smaller
production companies or individuals who areattempting to profit from the booming video
game market. Interestingly, this used to be thereverse — video games had attempted to takeadvantage of the pervasiveness of film in order
to expand their consumer base. An example ofthis is more than apparent in the 1989 film The
Wizard, which was produced by Universal Pictures and heavily funded by Nintendo. The film

19

Tron (1982, dir. Steven Lisberger)

follows the exploits of a group of ragtag gamers
but is more akin to an extended advertisement
for Nintendo — which becomes evident as the
young gamers encounter the wielder of the Nintendo Power Glove, a product that Nintendo
had released earlier that year. Furthermore, thefilm culminates in the revealing of then-unseen
footage of Super Mario Bros. 3, which would be
released in the following months. Yet, by representing Nintendo products so faithfully in thefilm, it manages to capture the essence of gaming culture in ways that many films have since
failed to do.
It is this failure to capture the essenceof the gaming community, those mentalities
and sensibilities that gamers share, that mostclearly defines the failure of video game movies.
The complete disregard for gaming culture, history, and growth causes video game movies tobecome shallow and disconnected from boththeir origins and their audience. Yet for themost part, superhero and comic book movies
manage to adhere to the deep mythologies fromwhich their characters are born, so it should not
be assumed impossible to appease the scrutinizing eyes of nerds of other persuasions. Unfortunately, those of us who are persuaded toward
virtual realms have been forced to suffer an ut-

20

ter decline in the quality of films ever since Steven Lisberger’s 1982 film, Tron.
Tron was released during the declining yearsof what has become known as “arcade culture,”a time during which the video arcade was theplace to be — so much so that it was even common for a young man to take his date to thearcade after a romantic dinner. This cultural
phenomenon, the golden era of arcades andthe proliferation of virtual gaming across age
and gender, paved the way for a movie like Tron,
which focused not only on pop-culturally relevant circumstances but the escapism that any
form of media provides as well. It did so in a
way that pushed the boundaries of film while
exploring and broadening the appeal of video
games through Lisberger’s implementation ofcomputer-generated graphics. The visual effects
that have become the defining characteristic ofTron were met with hesitation from Disney studios, despite the fact that they were looking toattempt daring productions. Luckily, Lisberger
managed to convince the studio of his abilities
and Tron was made and met with praise andsuccess, an occurrence that an extraordinarily
few video game movies can truly boast.
If Tron was able to do so many things
correctly, then where did video game moviesmake their first mistake? That question is certainly open for debate, but the most prominent
film that comes to mind is Rocky Morton andAnnabel Jankel’s 1993 atrocity, Super Mario
Bros. This film was so far removed from the actual game that it was nearly unrecognizable. Almost everyone in this day and age knows the basics of the Super Mario Bros. video game: a little
man in overalls travels through the Mushroom
Kingdom in pursuit of the kidnapped Princess
Peach. Where Morton and Jankel got the idea
for power crystals and jet boots is unknown,
but they certainly did not come from the “Mario universe. In fact, the character names may
be the only signifier that the movie is actuallybased on the game.
While Morton and Jankel may havesoiled the most renowned video game in history, at least they knew when to throw in the
towel — unlike Uwe Boll, who continues todesecrate video games and enrage fans by cease-finances his films largely through exploitationof the German government, which gives grants
and tax exemption for German-made films. The
law surrounding the tax-based funding of German films changed in 2005, but by that time,
Boll had saved what he calls a “tax shelter fund,”and in spite of the law change, investors in German films receive a fifty percent refund fromthe government. This, in conjunction with thepoorly made films, has created quite the stigma
against Boll from gamers, film critics, and theGerman public alike.
One must realize, though, that making a film that adheres to the world of a video
game is more difficult than simply recreatingthat world for the silver screen. Logistics andmarketing often get in the way and force a redirection of films toward a broader demographicof viewers. Not to mention the difficulty of capturing a video game’s narrative (which can span
anywhere from ten to eighty hours) within thetwo hours of a feature film. Because of thesehindrances associated with film, the possibility of video games being depicted on television
warrants investigation. The episodic structureof televisual content allows video game-based
shows to span across multiple hours, thus remaining faithful to the lengthy narratives thatgames often employ, and the lower budget of
production allows for the creators to limit the
influence of funding studios.
Sadly, video games within the realmof television are almost nonexistent. Mostof the video game-based shows that do exist
are animated, such as The Adventures of Sonic
the Hedgehog and The Super Mario Bros. Super Show, which benefits both the show andits faithfulness to the game-world in multiple
ways. Firstly, animation allows for the manipulessly churning out horrible straight-to-video
lation of physics in ways that would be difficult
films based on numerous video game franchises.
to reproduce in a live-action situation, allowing
One might expect that the studios backing Bollforthe notable mechanics and aesthetics of awould have eventually pulled the plug after every one of his films resulted in failure at the box game to be recreated in the show with relative
office, and this has largely been the case. Unfor- ease. Secondly, animation is cheaper to produce
tunately, the absence of studio funding has not than live-action projects, which allows for an
stopped Boll from creating his films. Instead of allocation of finances that focuses on the narworking with and through studios, Uwe Boll rative quality with respect to the franchise overvisual effects — the reverse of what is typically“The golden era of arcades
and the proliferation of virtual gaming... paved theway for amovie like Tron, which
focused not only on popculturally relevant circumstances but the escapismthat any form of media
provides as well.”21

seen within the film industry. Lastly, because
the shows are animated, there is little dispute
over who the target demographic should be; it
is commonly accepted that cartoons are widely
aimed at children. Thus, the narrative and production of the series is not subject to manipulation by marketing executives who are trying toreach a larger viewer base.
This is not to say that animation isuniversally better for creating game-based media but that it is easier. However, in the age of
the Internet, we are beginning to see the potential of live-action productions based on video
games, the likes of which we would never haveseen in theaters. Many web-based videos focus
on games and gaming culture, and due to the absence of a production studio and money-driven
executives, the creators of the videos are able toform their projects as they see fit, often resulting
in a more pure and unadulterated product. For
example, the two-part short film Escape from
City 17, directly based on the Half-Life franchise, takes place in a parallel storyline to thatof the second game in the series. The short was
produced by two fans of the game, the Purchase
Brothers, on a budget of $500 and using equipment from previous projects. The final productwas met with praise from critics, fans, and even
Valve, the game studio responsible for Half-Life.
Its success is largely attributed to its uncompromising loyalty to the game’s universe and its narrative, accomplished through the props, settingsand overarching tone of the entire short.
Clearly, a large contributor to the success of the short is the fact that the Purchase
Brothers are fans of the game that their film isbased on. This is the factor that separates theirproject from commercial video game movies
that boast large production values; the content
captures the experience of the game as seen
through the eyes of the player and does not
feel the need to adhere to the profit-concerned
Hollywood mode of production. Instead, it allows the project to remain a labor of love, whichcomes through in the final product in the best
way possible. This new outlet for fans to reacha broad audience has created a space in which
projects like Escape from City 17 can prosper.

22

One person who has taken full advantage of the proliferation of the Internet toexpress her love of video games through film isactress Felicia Day. Perhaps best known for herrole in Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, the actresshas found most of her work in Internet videos.
Aside from her work on Dr. Horrible, Day has
created and starred in two web series that are
based on video games. Her first series, The Guild,focuses primarily on the culture of gamers whoplay Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO)
games, such as Blizzard’s World of Warcraft. In
fact, Day has stated that the series is a product ofher previous addiction to Blizzard’s game. Riddled with references to the fantasy MMO, theshow takes a comedic stance by commenting
on the bonds that players make with each otherwithin the game and how those bonds carry over
into the real world. What is notable about theseries is the fact that it successfully and accurately captures the culture surrounding MMOs,
particularly World of Warcraft.
The Guild has won multiple awards
across its five-season run, earning Felicia Day
the chance to create her second web series,
Dragon Age: Redemption. Redemption is inmany ways a step forward for video game cinema as a whole because the game developer,
Bioware, requested and paid for the videos asa direct tie-in to its video game series. The six
installments of Redemption act as a prequel andback story for a new character in the Dragon
Age game. Bioware even timed the release so thatthe new character became available in-game as
the video series ended. This contiguous relationship between the videos and video game isunlike any other conjunction between film andgame, if only because the developer created acomplete event surrounding the circumstancesof the video game franchise — both in the gameand out of it — adding another level of depth tothe universe.
With two successful web series, Day
has yet to slow down. In fact, she has increased
her output six-fold. In April 2012, Day started
a YouTube channel called Geek and Sundry,
which focuses primarily on gaming and different modes of nerd culture. Day, along with Wil

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time(2010, dir. Mike Newell)

CAPTION TITLE.
Nequiscia ant, arum que
nis parupta que num fuga.
Nonsed quuntodolorpossi
vendaectur?

Wheaton and others, created six shows that arefeatured on the channel, each targeting a different area of nerdy interests. The show topics include video games, tabletop games, comics, andeven a science fiction and fantasy book club. Although the channel is young at the time of thiswriting, it is already receiving hundreds of thousands of views every week, a number that is sureto grow as knowledge of the channel spreads.
Like The Guild, Dragon Age: Redemption, andEscape from City 17, we can attribute the successof the channel to two facts: First and foremost,it is a labor of love, a “dream come true” for Felicia Day. Secondly, the channel’s content is madeby and for nerds and does not feel the need tocompromise its content for the sake of profit.
We have established that film and television have tapped into the video game market
by attempting to recreate that which makes thegames so popular, but what about the inverse ofthat relationship? What have games taken fromthe film industry? Certainly, we must take into
account the most literal inversion of the relationship: the adaptation of existing movies into
video games. While these games exist in droves,they tend to suffer from a dilemma similar tothat of movies based on games. Specifically, it is
the problem of translating a two-hour film intoa twenty-hour experience. That is not to say all
games based on films are bad; there are some exceptions, though not many. Those particular instances of success usually function as side-stories
to the film. For example, the universe of Riddick
originally established itself and its charactersthrough the films Pitch Black and The Chroniclesof Riddick, but has since expanded through thegames Escape from Butcher Bay and Assault on
Dark Athena, which function as prequels to thefilms. The games were well received by both critics and fans of the universe; they even served as
the entry point for many new fans who were notaware of the depth of the universe. It is these
instances in which the game deviates from therigid narrative of the film to expand the universethat we find movie-based video games to be successful or worth playing.
However, video games have takenmuch more from film than direct translationsof a product from film to game, subtly taking
film tropes and techniques regarding camera
and narrative and reapplying them appropriately. The most prominent example of film withinvideo games is realized in the controversial narrative technique of cutscenes. A cutscene is an
occurrence that is common within narrativebased games during which control is taken from23the player to allow the screening of a cinematicsequence that is used for narrative progression.
Cutscenes adhere to a purely cinematic mode,using camera movement and stylistic techniques that one would commonly find in the
narrative-focused structure of film or television
rather than the ludic structure of games. This is
the source of much of the controversy surrounding cutscenes; they remove the agency from theplayer, shifting from active playing to passive
watching. Yet, cutscenes have been —and continue to be — a staple in the structure of commercial video games.
Regardless of the controversy, it isundeniable that cutscenes are an attempt tocapture the narrative techniques of film and reapply them to the narratives of games. Square
Enix, the development team behind the Final
Fantasy franchise, has employed cutscenes as astaple in their game design for a large majority of their games. The cutscenes have steadily
gotten better aesthetically and continue to be alarge source of praise for the series. The positive
response, coupled with improving technology,
enticed Square Enix to explore the possibilities
of extended cutscenes to deepen the narrativeof the universe. This prospect reached a highpoint in 2005 with the release of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, a feature-length film
composed of computer-generated graphics thatacts as a sequel to the game Final Fantasy VII.
What is particularly interesting about Advent
Children is that the film was made by the developers of the Final Fantasy franchise, many ofwhich had no experience creating films. Simply
by using the techniques they had learned fromvideo games and previous experience creating
cutscenes, the developers at Square Enix wereable to create a well-crafted film that adheredfirmly to the Final Fantasy universe.
The idea of implementing games asfilmmaking tools has also manifested itself inmachinima, which is the creation of films using
the tools, environments, and characters withina video game’s engine. Most commonly, machinima is created through the manipulation of
in-game cameras to imitate camera movements
common to film and replacing or creating dia-24

logue in the game to create narrative. Usually,
these productions are created by fans and focus
on expanding the existing narrative of a game,or creating narratives outside of the games. The
latter is often slated toward a humorous glimpse
into the lives of the game characters that players
don’t see. One of the most popular instances ofmachinima is Red vs. Blue, a comedy based in
the universe of Bungie’s celebrated first-person
shooter, Halo. Using the first person perspective
as a manipulable camera and subtle movementsof onscreen characters to simulate talking, theworld of Halo ceases to be an alien-infested
warzone and becomes a set for the comedic antics of the RvB cast. The simply made and wellwritten machinima series quickly became a wildsuccess and has paved the way for hundreds ofothers to explore this inexpensive yet potentialfilled fusion of film and video games.
Another way in which the cinematic
approach of cutscenes has affected the worldof gaming is through the development of a newstyle of games and gameplay. In these games,such as Quantic Dream’s Heavy Rain, the focus
is centered primarily on the narrative within thegame and less concerned with the actual challenge of playing it. By prioritizing the narrative
over the ludic nature that is assumed in games,
much of the player’s agency is removed.
Unsurprisingly, this has been thesource of much debate over the definition ofa game, as well as the role of cutscenes withingames. Many ludologists (those who advocate
for gameplay over narrative) do not consider
Heavy Rain to be a true game due to the excessive removal of player agency; they view it morein the vein of a movie or an extended cutscene.
Meanwhile, narratologists (those who placenarrative’s importance above gameplay) consider the Intellectual Property (IP) to be well within the definition of a game by arguing that any
interaction with the software, no matter how
insignificant, implies gameplay. However, thecorrect approach may be to view these works asneither game nor movie but as a new methodof experiencing a narrative altogether, a way tobring the audience closer and to give them control over the outcome of the narrative, almostlike a digital Choose Your Own Adventure book Hollywood juggernauts may be closer than one– an interactive drama, if you will.
would like.
Perhaps somewhere down the line in- Still, I cannot look toward the future of video
teractive dramas will become the standard in game films and not feel hopeful. From 1982’s
entertainment and the ludology vs. narratol- Tron to present-day Resident Evil, video gameogy arguments surrounding them will become movies have improved in production quality
null. I would certainly be open to the option of — now the quality of the content just needs tointeracting with my favorite movies and televi- catch up. With fans producing films and dission shows. Imagine if Lost had been an inter- tributing them via the Internet, the standard
active drama, allowing the audience to choose for that quality continues to rise and expectathe paths the characters take or participate in tions continue to grow. Video games explore
solving the puzzles of the island. But, as they say, film’s structure with interactive dramas and thewishful thinking gets you nowhere.
line that separates film from games has become
The future of video game films is over- blurred. Those who once focused only on games
flowing with potential; movies such as the Resi- are beginning to take a chance in films, and vicedent Evil series show that video game movies versa. Video games have begun to stand up forare beginning to be taken more seriously, and themselves, and their relationship with film has
they are being allowed larger budgets that are finally started finding some equilibrium.
comparable to those of other Hollywood productions. Now, all that is missing is the right
director with the right vision, someone who is Salen, Katie, and Eric Zimmerman. The Game
Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology. Camwell versed in video games as a whole — enough bridge, MA: MIT, 2006. Print.
to recognize all the subtle cues, aesthetics, andgameplay mechanics that create a game’s unique “Uwe Boll Loses German Tax Shelter Funds.” Hottest Game News & Rumors. Web. <http://n4g.
appeal.
com/news/100048/uwe-boll-loses-german-taxLuckily, Ubisoft Studios, the develop- shelter-funds>.
er/publisher responsible for Assassin’s Creed andSplinter Cell, has recently opened a new film “Uwe Boll: Money For Nothing.” Uwe Boll: Monbranch in Paris, which has already began pro- ey For Nothing. Web. <http://www.cinemablend.
duction of films based on the previously men- com/feature.php?id=209>.
tioned titles. However, the creation of this stu- “WTF IS Geek and Sundry? Felicia Day Indio was a result of the financial success of Prince troduces The Flog.” YouTube. YouTube, 19
of Persia, another IP of Ubisoft that was adapted Mar. 2012. Web. <http://www.youtube.com/
to film by Disney in 2010, so the influence of watch?v=CfbwiB3PZHE>.

25

Pushing Daisies (2007-2009)

CAN’T TOUCH THIS

romance, television and postponing satisfaction
by zoë toffaleti
Television, especially in today’s ratings-driven world, relies on what film professor
Amelie Hastie calls the promise of “imminentrevelation.” The thrill of anticipation, that suspense created by knowing what’s coming but
not knowing when, is what enables television
programs to retain viewers through multiple
episodes and seasons. “Television itself — itsvery structure constituted by breaks, by a schedule that produces ellipses and interstices nomatter what channel you are watching or even
how you are watching — is always on the cuspof something. This structure moves us towards
a continuous state of imminent revelation.”
This state of being “always on the cusp” is whatmakes television great as well as a difficult medium to work with. Pacing in television shows isalways a delicate art, and especially on shows inwhich romantic relationships are a significant

26

focus, there’s a fine line between jerking the audience along on a five-season game of will-theywon’t-they and boring them with relationshipsthat never progress.
In shows such as ABC’s Castle (2009–),
which gains viewers with the incredible chemistry between Kate Beckett and Richard Castle
and subsequently loses them with the frustrating lack of developments, the financial needto extend a show’s run for as long as possible iseven more at odds with the artistic vision thanin more plot-driven television. In response to
Castle star Nathan Fillion’s statement that “thelack of resolution is what keeps people coming
back,” media scholar Henry Jenkins wrote, “Iknow what Fillion’s worried about — he’s worried about seeing something like what has happened to House this season. But the problem
with House is not that House and Cuddy arein a relationship. The problem is that the writers do not have a clue how to depict a relationship between House and Cuddy in a way whichshows any kind of emotional maturity, any kindof psychological depth, any kind of personal
growth.” But in spite of Jenkins’ belief thatmeaningful, committed long-term romanceson television are possible, such relationships arestill extremely rare. Generally, writers confinecharacter relationship to the safer route of timetested on-again-off-again couplings, because
serialized broadcast narratives and romantic
closure are an unlikely friendship.
Romances in the form of dime-store
novels and cheesy Hollywood blockbusters are
popular because consumers know what to expect: 150 pages or two hours of romantic tension, a few surmountable obstacles, and eventually the deeply satisfying closure that comeswith a Disney-style happy ending. Television,of course, tries to cash in on the emotional investment (and subsequent crowds of viewers)that Hollywood has mastered ever since Harold Lloyd stuttered his way to love in Girl Shy(1924), but the truth of the matter is that television is not cut out for romance in the way thatmovies and books are.
Romance is an appealing genre largely
because of its promised closure, and the television format functions primarily by denying closure between episodes. In some romance-fueledshows (such as Gossip Girl [2007–], in which
Serena van der Woodsen has an endless stringof scandalous lovers) the desire for closure combined with the need for sufficiently tantalizing
plot developments leads to a steady stream of
new romantic partners. In other shows (suchas Felicity [1998–2002], in which Felicity Porter essentially waffled between Ben and Noelfor four seasons), the conundrum is solved byrotating repeatedly through one or two major
couplings that constantly have borderline ridiculous obstacles thrown in the way of “true love.”
Both approaches have their benefits and drawbacks. In a show like Gossip Girl, it is difficult to
get too invested in (and get that all-importantsense of closure from) a relationship that will
be dust in the wind by the mid-season premiere,

but in a show like Felicity, running laps aroundthe love triangle can be exhausting. However,
Felicity, Gossip Girl, and even Castle are commercially successful and generally well-liked. At
times, the repetition and lack of substantial developments can be frustrating, but the ratings
don’t lie: As much as I hate to admit it, something about these tactics does work.
But once in a while, a show manages
to maintain some kind of narrative anticipation while avoiding the clichés and repetitionof most romantic TV shows. Two shows aired
in recent years have navigated the treacherous
waters of television romance with surprising
freshness and admirable skill. Pushing Daisies(2007–2009), Bryan Fuller’s hyper-saturated
detective fantasy, and Misfits (2009–), Howard
Overman’s gritty sci-fi teen soap, both exhibit
their narrative ingenuity through very unusual
relationship arcs.
Although the shows are extremely different, with Pushing Daisies portraying a saccharin world of near-excessive whimsy and Misfits
taking a much darker and grittier route withan equally off-the-wall concept, both use thestrangeness of their respective premises to side-“Writers confine character
relationships to the safer
route of time-tested onagain-off-again
couplings.”
step the tired old plotlines of romantic sitcoms
and soap operas by avoiding the consummation(and subsequent loss of emotional investment)of romantic relationships altogether. By using
their (somewhat convoluted) mythology tocreate a reason for characters not to touch, bothshows manage to create a relationship dynamicthat is never quite satisfying. And because thislack of satisfaction is based on canonical foundations, these shows avoid making their audiences feel teased and taunted. The obstacles tothe relationship are presented as part of the27

Misfits (2009 - Present)

broader mythology of the show, not obstacles nothings are enough for a modern couple.
purely for obstacles’ sake.
Some very successful shows (like GosIn Pushing Daisies, Ned can bring sip Girl) focus much more on physical intimacy,
the dead back to life with a brush of his finger. treating sex not just as a voyeuristic spectacle,
However, as you might expect, there is a ca- but also as well-established shorthand for relaveat: If he touches the formerly-dead a second tionships. A single act of intercourse conveys atime, they die again — for good. Ned’s formerly certain kind of relationship between two chardead childhood sweetheart, Chuck, lives in his acters, and requires less screen time (not tohouse, works at his restaurant, and helps him mention writing or acting finesse) than a lesssolve mysteries. However, although their rela- sexual approach. Pushing Daisies, however, attionship is apparently exclusive, they can never tempts to build a relationship between Chuck
touch each other in the ways a normal couple and Ned through banter and significant looks
would. Over the course of the show’s two sea- alone, and, for the most part, succeeds. Granted,
sons, there are a few instances of pseudo-phys- Pushing Daisies isn’t aiming for the same goals
ical intimacy, when the couple kisses through a as more explicit shows like Gossip Girl. In fact,
barrier of saran wrap or, more commonly, finds Pushing Daisies has more in common with Casa way to simulate hand-holding.
tle; just as Castle’s “imminent revelation” is the
It is worth noting that the show ad- always-just-out-of-reach kiss between Castle
dresses sexual interactions between the two, or and Beckett, Pushing Daisies fans always hopelack thereof, euphemistically at best; Chuck and for a solution to Chuck and Ned’s problem.
Ned long for casual affectionate touches rather There is a constant focus on one central relathan sexual gratification. In “The Television tionship, what fan studies refers to as the “oneWorld of Pushing Daisies,” Alissa Burger writes true pairing,” between two characters who arethat “the sweet talk in The Pie Hole celebrates an clearly meant to be together. Shows like Pushalternative form of intimacy, one focused on lan- ing Daisies and Castle, which have an obvious
guage rather than physical touch.” The show uses “one true pairing,” sacrifice the opportunity forwhat creator Bryan Fuller called “more written” gratuitous sex scenes with multiple partners in
dialogue to create a lighthearted world of whim- order to more fully develop fans’ emotional insy, where hand-holding and alliterative sweet vestment in the couple.

28

But for the most part, the chemistry
is enough in Pushing Daisies, and the flirting
between Chuck and Ned has sustained an audience for two seasons and beyond. (After theshow’s cancellation, Bryan Fuller began working on a much-anticipated comic book to bring
the series to a close, but the deal fell throughwhen the WildStorm publishing company
shut down.) Fans of Pushing Daisies watched
for many reasons; some came for the dialogue,
some for the characters, and some for the stories. But the relationship between Chuck and
Ned, whether it was a major draw or simply
icing on the television cake, kept Pushing Daisies fans interested without making them angry.
The relationship doesn’t feel forced, because
the reasoning behind the couple’s no-contact
policy is firmly rooted in the show’s mythology.
It is excitingly frustrating in a way that makes
viewers tune in next week, not the kind of frustrating that drives audiences away out of dissatisfaction.
The British series Misfits is heading
into its fourth season on E4, and an American remake headed by Gossip Girl creator Josh
Schwartz is currently in development. It’s ashow with a much darker tone, and its premiseis even more complex than Pushing Daisies’. Ina world where a magical storm has given many

people superpowers, one character in the ensemble cast, Alisha, has the less-than-desirable
advantage of creating uncontrollable and mindless lust in anyone who touches her. When she
begins dating another character, Curtis, their
desire for a more conscious and “real” connection forces them to keep their relationshipstrictly hands-off. Although on the surface Misfits has little in common with Pushing Daisies,
considering its much grittier take on reality andits hyper-sexual perspective on the no-contact
romance, it uses the same method of postponing romantic gratification in the name of its
supernatural premise. Whereas Pushing Daisies expresses the strangeness of an emotionallyserious relationship through simulated casual
touches and overwritten dialogue, the relationship on Misfits seems to be held together mostly
through sexual attraction. Alisha and Curtis
have a committed, exclusive relationship, but
their relationship relies much more heavily on
physical intimacy (or something like it) thanon emotional intimacy. Their most serious conversations are on the subject of sex, and almost
all of their interactions as a couple consist ofnothing more than scenes of mutual masturbation. Unlike Chuck and Ned, who are caught
in a perpetual state of wanting to hold hands,
Alisha and Curtis reach climax many times over29

the course of their relationship, but never as characters who candidly express their feelings
a couple, sexually or in a narrative sense. Their for one another, and still somehow maintaining
sexual gratification always occurs separately, on a sense of “imminent revelation,” is impressive
opposite sides of the screen, meaning that the — even if that sense of imminent revelation isaudience never sees a true physical connection slightly artificial. There is no will-they-won’tbetween them.
they, and there is no logical possibility that
Unlike on Pushing Daisies, the rela- their relationship’s supernatural obstacles will
tionship between Alisha and Curtis is not the evaporate. And yet, in the heart of each audi“one true pairing.” Their relationship lasts for a ence member is a tiny spark of hope that one
little over a season and then ends, not because of day, Chuck and Ned can ditch the saran wrap,
the strain of their lack of physical intimacy, but and Alisha and Curtis will be able to just holdsimply because they grow apart and become in- hands. Intellectually, we know it will never hapterested in other people. Both characters move pen. But we feel the need to tune in next week,
on to more normal relationships, with sex, cud- just in case.
dling, and actual conversations. Misfits denies
us the satisfaction of a complete emotional andphysical relationship, but after a season of TV
relationship purgatory, the closure of a concreteend to the relationship is almost as welcome. Deans, Jason. “Josh Schwartz to co-write US
The writers cleverly played with television ro- remake of Misfits.” The Guardian. 20 Oct. 2011.
mance traditions, taunting the audience with Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
a not-quite-relationship in an incredibly inno- Droege, CB. “Pushing Daisies Comic Book
vative way. But in the end, they did something Dleayed Again, Art Released.” TG Daily. 28 Apr.
braver (and possibly even rarer): They let a tired, 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
old TV relationship die.
Hastie, Amelie. “Imminence.” FlowTV. 30 Oct.
The television medium has depicted 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
many tropes that spring from financial motivations: commercial break cliffhangers, off-again- Jenkins, Henry. “A Rant About Television’s Diffion-again couples, repetitive procedurals, and culty In Representing Committed Relationships.”of an Aca-Fan. 6 Apr. 2011. Web. 12
big melodramatic mysteries that the “tune in Confessions
Mar. 2012.
next week” voice always implies will be solved
soon. Pushing Daisies and Misfits both found a Parmiter, Tara K. “Sweet Talk in The Pie Hole:place for honest, straightforward storytelling Language, Intimacy, and Public Space.” Thewithin those TV tropes. Pushing Daisies and Television World of Pushing Daisies: Critical
Essays on the Bryan Fuller Series. ed. Alissa
Misfits prioritize their bizarre premises, working Burger. Jefferson: McFarland and Company, Inc,the limitations of the format into the core con- 2011. Print.
cept instead of the other way around. Writing30

Buster Keaton
circa 1930

A GILDED END

by madeline sery

In light of modern filmmaking, media, and digital technology, silent film could
be viewed as a breed of lost art. With the coming of sound and the decline of silent film inthe 1920s, cinema may have seen the death ofan art form that allows viewers to escape into
pure dreamscape. The enchantment of going to
the movies once provided an escape from reality. With the onslaught of “the talkies,” those
who made and appreciated silent films had toendure the industry’s change to sound and theloss of silence. This shift was accompanied bya loss of the unique beauty that had been bornwith silent film’s creation. Early- to mid-twentieth century filmmaker René Clair testified
to this loss by explaining how the end of silent
cinema ushered in “the gilded age” of capitalist
commercial production. Film that used words
to keep audiences entertained created a vastlydifferent atmosphere and effect on audiences.
The poetic majesty of movies that seemed likesurreal dreams was suddenly lost amid thenoise of films that strove to create an illusionof reality based on verisimilitude. This artistry
seems to have been erased nearly completely,

yet its traces remind audiences to appreciate
simplicity.
Nevertheless, the introduction ofsound brought with it innovative technologythat opened doors to new possibilities and capacities to tell stories. In their essay, “Statement on Sound,” filmmakers Sergei Eisenstein,
Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Grigori Alexander
suggest several doors that sound could open
but with which silent cinema had previously
struggled. By examining what has been lost andtaking into account film’s many gains, obtained
over generations of leaps and bounds of change,
it becomes possible to see how the birth of cinema and the work of film’s early silent period canbe held up to the gilded age of films made eversince. By studying the era of silent film, it canbe seen how silence is in fact golden. Film’s firstand oldest generation should be prized next to
its many offspring — not only for its originality
and antiquity, but for the effect it was able toachieve using silence and simple means of technology.
For René Clair, the loss of silence wasinitially thought to mean the complete dis-33

avowal of an art. Clair indicates this sense of
uncertainty in the statement: “We who haveseen an art being born may also have seen it die”
(Fischer 34). Clair believed that silent film wasa form of poetry, an artistry crafted to express
a purity that came through the singular unionof music and imagery. He suggested the recipe
for this surreal quality was “born with the blessings of prestidigitators and magicians.” Clairexplains that it was “because the cinema of theearly years ‘believed in every enchantment’ that
it found its poetic vein right from the start andawakened in our hearts that love of the miraculous which heightens our childhood years”(Fischer 36). The dreamlike atmosphere thatsilent films allow viewers to enter can be compared to a state of reverie. With the dawn of thetalkies, Clair and his fellow comrades of silent
cinema voiced sensible concerns that the poetic
voice of film would be muted by the birth ofprosaic sound. He voiced the cost of sound by
likening film to literature and using poetry as a
metaphor:

panied the growth of the commercial film industry amid a profit-driven capitalist economy.
Viewers easily lost sight of the art of silence next
to the clarity and accessible delivery of talkies.
Not everyone was able to see that cinema waslosing anything, yet Clair addressed this loss
explicitly:“The screen is losing more than it is gaining
by this ‘progress.’ It is conquering the worldof voices but losing the world of dreams
over which the silent cinema reigned. I
observed the spectators leaving after hearing a talking picture. They seemed to beleaving a vaudeville theater. They were notplunged into that comfortable numbness
which a trip to the land of pure images used
to bestow on us. They were talking, laughing and humming the last refrain they had
heard. THEY HAD NOT LOST THE
SENSE OF REALITY.” (Fischer 37)

Clair felt that the merging of sound and cinema
made movies inseparable from reality and sub“ Yesterday poetry which seemed to be los- ject to a loss in their affective value. After witing its power over literature and exhausted nessing the rise of the talkies, Clair predictedwords, was being reborn with its still hesi- that cinema was headed for a “gilded end.” Hetant rhythms and its pristine purity, on the believed that money would kill the industry
great white canvas toward which the whole and challenge creative intelligence and art makworld were leaning. Now this canvas is ing. He feared that the roles and rules of fiemitting a voice, sentences, and words so nances would come at the cost of independence
often heard before . . . Can the talking pic- (Fischer 35).
ture be poetic? There is reason to fear that
Today, film has indeed entered its
the precision of the verbal expression will “golden age.” Hollywood has become the homedrive poetry off the screen just as it drives town of America, with movies as one of ouroff the atmosphere of daydream.” (Fischer biggest past times and at the forefront of en37)
tertainment; cinema has become a creation of
expensive spectacle. The industry’s financial
Clair was indeed correct in his fear that silence capital has skyrocketed while many narratives’
would be overtaken. As the sounds of speech meaningful qualities have, in modern times, bequickly overtook the sounds of silence, silent gun to dwindle and diminish. What’s left of thecinema drifted into a realm of an art no longer style of filmmaking Clair upheld as magical andpreserved or created. Audiences were immedi- artistic now lies mostly in the past, preserved
ately immersed in film’s new lifelike quality and in silence and cherished only by the select cineswept away by modern means of storytelling. phile. Can modern audiences reclaim silent
With the rise of the twentieth century, audienc- film? Or will the era be forgotten? With thees embraced the immediacy and instantaneous making of films like The Artist (2011), it seems
understanding of the talkies, which accom- silent film may be capable of a resurgence.

34

When Rene Clair realized that the artof cinema was facing a conversion to sound, herefused to be defeated by the industry’s insensitivity to his art form. Clair found ways to adapt
to the changes of the talkies and to preserve thenature of film’s beauty by attempting to recreate the quality of “unreality” that he was able toachieve in silent movies. Clair used innovativetechniques of abstracting sound to preserve theartistry inherent in his silent movies, despite
the introduction of dialogue. Clair explained
his new approach to the changing industry bysaying, “I conceived that it would be possible
to recapture the unreality of the light comedy

Symbol and narrative carry viewers
into their imaginations and accomplish feelings
comparable to those rendered by dreams andvisions. Clair once defined his dreams in filmwith the statement: “There will perhaps come aday when a simple series of images with no definable link but united by a secret harmony will
arouse an emotion analogous to that arousedby music” (Fischer 38). Perhaps it was a similar
harmony that Clair achieved between soundand images that was capable of recapturing
the feeling of magic in the age of sound. Music
took the movies out of the realms of reality andrearticulated them in the space between reality
and fantasy, illustrating life’s synchronicities —its ordinary moments of successive beauty andconvocation of life’s surreal qualities, as well as
the subtle intricacies and inexplicable patterns
that often go unnoticed.
Clair referred to the musing of Marcel
Proust to relate the abilities inherent in musicby replacing words with music and songs. From reappropriated through the cinema. He related
that moment on my work began to interest that, “Marcel Proust wondered ‘whether musicme” (Fischer 40). Clair reinvested himself in were not the unique form of what the communihis work with a new gusto for recapturing what cation of souls would have been if language had
might otherwise have been lost. Clair described not been invented, words formed, and ideas anthe resulting product as a “hybrid” film moving alyzed.’” He corrected himself, however, saying,
between silence, song, and speech. Clair com- “No, not unique. Marcel Proust would not havemented that he understood how “in theory” this written that if he had known the possibilities ofcombination might sound as “indefensible” aa visual art, the cinema” (Fischer 39). Neverthemethod as that of “opera comique” but neverless, Clair’s use of music in his films proves thattheless it worked (Fischer 42). By allowing his
it is neither visual art nor music alone, but thefilms to be governed by music, Clair created apairing of the two that accomplishes a commuquality of abstraction that turned his pictures
nication that conveys life’s fluid progression in
into musical montages. Characters moved ina wordless fashion. Words are not needed withtime to the music, creating a sensory experience
the use of music, for the combination of musicthat was fluid and highly imagistic.
and images speak in ways that surpass language.
The perfection of “silence” is ironically,
Rather, they speak to the language of emotions
not derived from films’ silence but from theand capture the magical synergistic moments
dance between sound and images that forms athat defy explanation.
perfect symbiosis. Clair describes it saying:
It is no wonder, upon realizing the“The imaginary words we used to put into themajestyofthe silent artistry, that artisans likemouths of those silent beings in those dialogues
of images will always be more beautiful than any Clair would find the induction of sound jaractual sentences. The heroes of the screen spoke to ring. Silent films were original in their powerful
the imagination with the complicity of silence. To- ability to tell stories, composing comedies andmorrow they will talk nonsense into our ears and tragedies, from heartwarming and charming towrenching and breathtaking, and at times powe will be unable to shut it out” (Fischer 38).
tentially life-altering. Sound that possessed grit

“Silent films take viewers
away from the pace andnoise of the everyday...”35

and voices robbed silent cinema of its musicalbackdrop. Clair described this, saying:“If almost everyone is in agreement on thevalue of mechanically reproduced music .
. . the same is not true for the noises thatare added to the action. The usefulness ofthese noises is too often questionable . . .
when you have heard a certain number ofsound films and the time of wonderment
has passed, you discover not without surprise, that the world of noises seems much
more limited than you would have believed
earlier.” (Fischer 45)
The introduction of “noises” seemed to Clair tobe a disruption of what film should be. Nevertheless, Clair believed strongly in the pursuitof capturing “unreality.” He refused to let thechanging industry rob his films of their potential beauty. The mastery of “unreality” evolved
from the synchronous harmony of sound andimagery. In her commentary on Federico Fellini’s La Strada (1954), Claudia Gorman describes how music can undermine a film’s senseof reality. She states that:“There is a degree of stylization achieved bymanipulating the characters’ action so thatthey submit to musical division of timerather than dramatic or realistic time. The
characters in the narrative film whom weconventionally accept as subjects, unquestionably become objects when their movements and speech coincide strictly with themusic; for we can consider musical rhythm— an abstract, mathematical, highly organized disposition of time — to be theopposite of spontaneous “real” time. We
sense that the characters have been created
and they do not inspire us to identify withthem” (Fischer 43).
The characters of silent films move between
frames like figures come to life out of frozen
artworks. In the essay “Statement on Sound,”“montage” is referred to as the “principal method which has led cinema to a position of such

36

great influence” and the “indisputable axiom
upon which world cinema culture rests” (Statement on Sound 1). Silent films often relied on
the use of montage to a highly effective degree.
In some sequences, perfectly orchestrated to appear as a montage of well-composed images, every instant becomes photographic. The character’s movements and gestures, facial expressions
and actions, are bold, dramatic, and carry an airof theatricality; conveying magical undercurrents by turning down the volume on the constant chatter of everyday life and turning up thevolume on life’s quietly memorable qualities. Silent films capture life’s vivid passion and intensity without the barrage of thoughts that so often accompany our modern waking lives. They
draw threads to the hearts, minds, and souls of
those watching through their ability to touch
us silently. When dialogue is not a film’s primary mode of communication, we are compelled
to deepen our engagement and draw from ourexperience of what composes life’s most basic
human elements. It calls upon our ability tobe empathetic by taking an active stance in understanding the actors’ thoughts, feelings, andexpressions. Silent films take viewers away fromthe pace and noise of the everyday to enter intoa trancelike state, to engage with life in a more
profound way which conveys its most potent
qualities by silently entering worlds of the surreal.
The writers of “Statement on Sound”
address their fears for the film industry by commenting, “Sound is a double edged invention
and its most probable application will be along
the line of least resistance, i.e. the field of satisfaction of simple curiosity.” The immediacy ofspeech as a form of communication makes dialogue appealing in movies. Yet, despite the clarity of communication through language, many
movies do not seem to speak to deeper levels of
meaning in the way that enables moving pictures to be truly moving. “Statement on Sound”
asserts that an “incorrect understanding of thepotential of the new technical invention might
not only hinder the development and improvement of cinema as an art form but might also
threaten to destroy all its formal achievements

A Trip to the Moon (1902, dir. Georges Méliès)

to date” (Statement on Sound). This fear is ac- tal sound, vis-à-vis the visual fragment of moncompanied by the writers’ prediction for the tage will open up new possibilities for the develfuture of cinema: They state that there will be opment and perfection of the montage.” They
commercial exploitation “of the most saleable explain that experimentation in sound should
goods, i.e. of ‘talking pictures.’” This prediction, create dissonance and use a “hammer and tongs”
one could easily argue, seems to have come true. approach to create the effect of a new “orchesSurrounded by constant streams of communica- tral counterpoint” (Statement on Sound 2). Detion, commodity culture, and technological in- spite the writers’ demands on the filmmakers’
novations, the pace and mindset of modernity techniques, the writers of “Statement on Sound”
is reflected in the movies. Too often, they seem do suggest that technological innovation may
designed as mere eye candy, fed to American au- entail certain benefits for creative liberation by
diences through advertising and commercial in- allowing cinema’s avant-garde to escape “blind
dustries but lacking intricacy to their narratives. alleys” caused by the boundaries of limited
The most expensive films too often seem to feel technology. Examples they offer of these blind
the cheapest within the context of originality alleys include the intertitle and its integrationand creativity. What the writers see as more into montage composition and explanatory seharmful, however, is their second prediction. quences (e.g. long shots), which complicate the
They see this as “the loss of innocence and puri- composition of the montage and slow down thety of the initial concept of cinema,” stating that rhythm. They express that “problems of theme“cinema’s new textural possibilities can only in- and plot continue to grow more complex” andtensify its unimaginative use for ‘dramas of high offer that “sound cannot fail to provide new andculture’ and other photographed presentations enormously powerful means of expressing andof a theatrical order.” It is this loss of innocence resolving complex problems” (Statement onthat has overtaken us and continues to be in ef- Sound 2). The incredible potential for sound tofect.
“solve problems” suggests that film might have
The writers of the “Statement on Sound” the potential to touch upon larger global anddo not give up hope. Just as Clair refused to be cultural problems that are largely unaddressed
defeated, they argue that the use of “contrapun- in popular entertainment.

37

Many of the methods and techniquesthat early filmmakers relied on remain lying
in the graves of the silent films they were bornwith. Nevertheless, just as these films can be
stirred from the depths of dusty archives, perhaps from observing cinema’s early skeletons,
those techniques filmmakers first created may
be resurrected. “Statement on Sound” suggests
that:Film has enormous potential to create social
impact simply by its widened accessibility. Itnevertheless remains necessary for film to retain quality of both purpose and form, artistic
merit and considerate social intentions. In order for modern cinema to rise up and meet thechallenge of creating meaning, we may needto seek new means within the industry. Thismeans exploring uncharted territories, seeking
untold stories from the throngs of society, cul“The contrapuntal method of structuring ture, and history. Film must seek higher means
film not only does not weaken the inter- of expression, whether by investing in the pownational nature of cinema but gives to its ers of technology or investigating the beauty of
meaning unparalleled strength and cultural antiquity, where a treasure chest of resourcesheights. With this method of construction already lays waiting.
the sound film will not be imprisoned within national markets, as has happened withthe theatrical play and will happen with Fischer, Lucy. “Rene Clair, Le Million, and The
the ‘filmed’ play, but will provide an even Coming of Sound.” Cinema Journal. 16.2 (1977):
34-50. Print.
greater opportunity than before of speeding the idea contained in a film throughout Eisenstein, Sergei, Vsevolod Pudovkin, andthe whole globe, preserving its worldwide Grigori Alexander. “Statement on Sound.” Film
Theory And Criticism. . 7th ed. New York, N.Y.:
viability.” (Statement on Sound 2)
Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. Print.

38

Photo by Hannah Louise Denyer

Photo by David Murakami

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) in
The Artist (2011, dir. Michel Hazanavicius)SAYING MORE WITH SILENCE
embracing film form over period pastiche
by michael luciani

A prominent theme in cinema thispast year was the romanticization of film history. On the surface, films like The Artist andHugo emphasize and explore our childlike rediscovery of early cinema. The Artist strategically
employs silent era aesthetics and film language
to properly contextualize and stylize its story,
while Hugo advances its plot by immersing its
audience in the magic of silent movie making.
Together, these films breathe life into an otherwise stagnant public perception of silent cinema. While Hugo acts a heartfelt reminder ofthis long lost genre, The Artist is more of a revelation. Through its form, it flagrantly forces us
to look back and question the premature deathof silent cinematic language.
Traditionally, a film like The Artist
would have been conservatively conjured up
as an era-appropriate, period piece. Instead, it
challenges these conventional cinematic strategies, choosing not to rely on tributary pastiche
to punctuate its points. The Artist is unique because it actively infuses prominent formal elements of silent filmmaking into the structure
and makeup of a story about silent filmmaking.

Long before the film’s conception, Hollywood
had thoroughly exhausted the story behind The
Artist. The same basic narrative structure canbe found in a myriad of 20th century classics
like Singin’ in the Rain and Sunset Boulevard,among others. The Artist separates itself fromthese past films by exploring the shift to soundthrough an overwhelmingly self-reflexive form.
In the film, George Valentin embodies
almost every quintessential, redeemable aspect
about silent cinema. When talkies take over, his
character rightfully spirals out of control andout of the spotlight. However, unlike the act ofsilent filmmaking, George’s character doesn’t
die out. Instead, he’s saved by another actor,
Peppy Miller. Much like Hugo and his quest to
rebuild a broken-down George Melies, Peppy
rushes to revive Valentin, because she wholeheartedly believes in everything he represents.
In a way, the rebirth of George Valentin lays themetaphorical groundwork for the reawakeningof silent cinema in the 21st century.
The Artist’s ambitiously optimistic final
sequence argues, through the form, that silent
filmmaking and some of its core characteristics,

41

should never be forgotten. Film critic Daniel
Mumby sums up the significance of the theselast few frames: “the film’s resolution, with a silent actor and talkie actor working together, isa demonstration that... different stories can andshould be told in different ways within a given
medium.” The Artist is a film that flaunts thismessage, that our ongoing negligence against
outdated or unusual cinematic genres, like silent film, is both ignorant and wasteful. As afilm, The Artist acknowledges and respects thetalkies, but it also pushes film makers and viewers to question our strict over-reliance on standard storytelling techniques in modern movie
making. The quality of the film as an entertaining, engaging piece of work is proof enoughthat silent filmic language can and should still
be used to weave worthwhile cinematic stories.
It’s official - The Artist, and even Hugo
to a certain extent, have briefly lifted silent cinema out of the margins and into the mainstream.
The charm and warmth of The Artist helps it disprove a common stigma held against the genre.
Watching a well-made silent film is not as physically demanding or difficult as we’ve been led
to believe. The truth is, The Artist successfully
mixes melodrama and comedy in ways that outshine an awful lot of contemporary films with42

sound. Although many would argue against it,
I firmly believe that a well received, successful,contemporary silent film like The Artist has thepotential to revive this sleeping giant of a genre.
There are three ways in which thisspike in public appreciation could conceivably
aid in a resurrection of silent film. The first andmost reasonable outcome involves an increaseof interest in preserving and screening old silent films. Another plausible aftereffect is thatsome of the more obvious and effective silent
cinematic conventions will be openly integrated into contemporary sound-based films. The
third and final result would be far less likely, but
possible nonetheless: the critical and financial
success of The Artist could potentially resultin the production of new, contemporary silent
films in or around the industry.
That’s not to say there haven’t beensome openly negative reactions to revisiting silent cinema. In the UK, a group of viewers angrily demanded a refund to The Artist, feeling as
if they’d been tricked into seeing a silent movie.
To a certain extent, the “uninformed audience
member” is almost impossible to avoid at nearlyany event. Art house films like The Artist are especially frustrating to viewers who stubbornly
stick to movies that predominantly employ

modern, conventional storytelling techniques.
Earlier in the year, Drive drew similarly shocked
reactions. Many were disappointed and someeven sued, stating it didn’t live up to the trailers
because they made it look like Fast and the Furious.
Beyond these petty scuffles, there havebeen two major arguments against The Artist.
Online journalist Jeffrey Overstreet declaresthat the film was unfairly predestined to succeed, due to its self-affirming praise of the industry. “The Academy Awards are the biggest
annual party that Hollywood throws for itself,
and The Artist is a movie that worships Hollywood — its vanity, its values, its people-pleasing, its superficiality. Looks like a done deal.” Itis true; together, the film and ceremony actively
service their individual legacies. That could
explain it winning Best Picture, but not much
more than that. The second argument is twiceas legitimate and thrice as thought provoking.
Jaime N. Christley, film critic for Slant Magazine, strongly states that The Artist is a shallow,
incomplete sketching of silent cinematic form.
Jaime states that the film “ignores everythingthat’s fascinating and memorable about thesilent-film era, focusing instead on a patchworkof general knowledge.”
I actually agree with Christley. The
Artist is a basic, fundamental take on silent
film, but that’s exactly why it works so well. For
many modern moviegoers, The Artist could end
up functioning as something of a gateway drug
to silent cinema. Christley ends up dismissing
the film because it refuses to be a summationof the most critically lauded or memorable silent filmic moments. She fails to see that The
Artist was purposefully made to be more thana mere history lesson. By utilizing some of themost redeemable, core conventions of the genre,
The Artist effectively shatters the myth thatsilent movies cannot be accessible to the average, modern viewer. Looking to the future, ourability to revitalize this lost genre relies on thesame mainstream market that so easily turned
its back on silence before.
It took more than thirty years to perfect the form of silent film. Today, most of thisold filmic language has either been absorbed
into or abandoned by cinema with sound. In
more ways than one, The Artist proves that silent filmmaking was a prematurely deserted art
form, and that many of its classical conventions
can still entertain a majority of moviegoers. The
truth is, a large amount of these silent cinematic
traits have continued to be covertly deployed
in a number of successful contemporary films.
This only adds to my point, that the public isready and willing to undergo a resurgence in silent cinema.
Let’s return to the final sequence of
The Artist. The film’s conclusion reveals that thesaving grace of silent cinema lies in finding andutilizing an endlessly translatable, universal film
language. At the end of The Artist, this universal language turns out to be dancing, an activity
that doesn’t rely on dialogue or diegetic sound“The Artist could
end up functioning
as ... a gateway drug
to silent cinema.”
to get its point across. Another unrestricted, allinclusive aspect of the genre is physical comedy.
Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd were among themany slapstick masters of silent cinema. This
universally appealing comedic style lives on today in characters like Mr. Bean.
The international popularity of Rowan
Atkinson’s television and film personality Mr.
Bean, is an overlooked, yet entirely valid indicator of the potential allure of a silent film revival.
His character is mostly mute, relying on speechless, physical comedy to make his audiencelaugh. At the same time, producers purposefully steer away from using a black and white film
stock, even adding a comforting laugh track toeliminate any potential fear of colorless silenceon screen. International language organization
Pimsleur Approach recently ran an article about

43

The Artist and Mr. Bean, revealing the multinational significance of silent comedic traditions.
“Rowan Atkinson’s blundering clown doesn’tnecessarily carry off the balletic wit of Chaplin, Lloyd or Keaton, but there’s a reason why
this character is welcomed with open arms inninety-four different countries and has earned
Atkinson an estimated seventeen million dollars. The universal language of silence can belucrative, and Atkinson is no fool.” This internationally appealing aspect of silent cinema
can be found in even more recent and popular
examples. Take a look at Pixar, one of the industry’s least threatening, undeniably mainstream
production houses.
WALL-E and Up both begin withsilent cinema inspired sequences. For WALLE, the crew spent an extended period of time
studying the films and comedic styles of thesame slapstick artists I mentioned earlier. Its
first act is almost entirely silent, except for theoccasional robot noise. Especially for a children’s film, this was an enormous risk, but it
paid off in the end. Pixar returned to the silent
introduction with 2009’s Up. Without any dialogue, the now infamous montage of a man andwoman’s love and life together is a comedic, sentimental, and melodramatic feast of visuals. For
most moviegoers, this silent film within a film
was the highlight of Up, helping it become only
the third animated feature ever to be nominated for Best Picture. Although these two examples alone could have convinced the industry to
reinvest in silent film, most cinema makers andviewers missed the connection I just described.
The more realistic route that silent film will takeafter The Artist involves looking back rather
than forward.
If there is going to be a movement torevive silent cinema, it will most likely takeplace in film preservation. Ideally, at least a portion of the audience members who thoroughly
enjoyed The Artist or Hugo will seek out ways
to satisfy their new-found interest in silent cinema. The ongoing restoration of silent film isessential to keeping the movement alive. Dueto a lack of commercial interest, coupled witha dangerously flammable film stock, more than

44

90% of silent films have been lost since the transition to talkies. These vital preservation efforts
can pique the interest of new fans in two varying ways: home and theatrical screenings.
There is new evidence of a upward
shift in the enthusiasm and sale of silent cinema.
LOVEFILM, the European equivalent of Netflix, recently released some telling statistics on
the subject. In the week leading up to the Academy Awards, the streaming and rental rates ofsilent film increased by forty percent, deliveringa direct correlation between the success of The
Artist and a new public interest in silent cinema.
With evidence like this, preservation houses
will undoubtedly step up their efforts to restore
more of these films. In fact, the British Film Institute is currently working on the restoration of
all nine remaining silent Hitchcock films. BFI
also plans to include a comprehensive reworking of canned scores with brand new, accompanying music for each of the films. This brings up
one of the most pressing problems facing silent
film today. Traditionally, silent cinema was almost always screened alongside a live musicalaccompaniment. To avoid this contemporary
dilemma, and see silent film as it was meant tobe seen, a new crop of theatres and festivals aresprouting up all over the world.
The largest of these silent film festivals, at least in the United States, takes place in
San Francisco. For more than fifteen years, theSan Francisco Silent Film Festival has screened
a diverse selection of silent movies, as well as
showcasing a variety of preservation efforts.
Each showing includes its own individual musical accompaniment, from solo pianists to fullorchestras. Although this breed of specialized
film festival has traditionally been left to serious
cinephiles, the success of films like The Artist
and Hugo may seriously change that.
Tying it all together, Vanity Fair’s annual Hollywood issue featured an article about
the Silent Film Festival in San Francisco, written by none other than Martin Scorsese. In it,
he praises the festival for its monumental restoration and screening of Abel Gance’s 1927 epic
Napoleon. “Don’t wait for it to come to a theater
near you - getting Gance’s magnum opus up on

a screen is a herculean task. This is a major event.” Somehow, someway we must shatter this myth
Coming from Martin Scorsese, in a magazine as that silent cinema is a period of filmmaking,widely read as Vanity Fair, proves once and for when it’s really a distinct filmic style and form.
all, that this is a transformative time for silent Only then will we be able to move away fromcinema. Silent era aesthetics have even worked our continuously tenacious disregard for silent
their way into the actual design and layout of cinema and learn to embrace it once again.
this year’s issue. For a magazine that touts its
ability to find and foster cultural trends, this is “The Art of Silence – Exploring Silent Film.”
just another example of how the idea and im- Pimsleur Approach. N.p., 30 Jan 2012. Web. 30
Mar 2012. <http://www.pimsleurapproach.com/
agery of silent film remains intriguing after all blog/foreign-films/the-art-of-silence-exploringthese years.
silent-film>.
The Artist transcends its lazy labellingas a novelty film by crafting a charmingly self- Christley, Jaime N. “The Artist.” Slant Magazine. 16 Oct 2012: n. page. Web. 22 May. 2012.
referential form that reaffirms the timeless value <http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/theof silent cinema. To quote Daniel Mumby once artist/5846>.
more: “[The Artist and Hugo] demonstrate thevalue of what was once written off, showing that Mumby, Daniel. “3 Reasons Why Cinema About
it is possible to create a genuinely great audi- Cinema Has Become So Popular.” What Culture.
N.p., 25 Jan 2012. Web. 30 Mar 2012. <http://ence experience whether in black-and-white or whatculture.com/film/3-reasons-why-cinemacolour, sound or silence, 3D or 2D.” Although about-cinema-has-become-so-popular.php>.
the practice of silent filmmaking is often attached to a specific period of time around the Overstreet, Jeffrey. “THE ARTIST (2011, HAZANAVICIUS).” filmwell. The Other Journal, 09
start of the 20th century, The Artist confirms Jan 2012. Web. 30 Mar 2012.
that silent cinema is much more than just an
era of movie making. People tend to think that Scorsese, Martin. “The Quest for Napoléon.” Vansilent films are just talkies without sound, when ity Fair. Mar 2012: n. page. Web. 30 Mar 2012.
in fact, they should be understood as an unique- <http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/03/
ly different way of making and watching movies. brownlow-spotlight-201203>.

45

LET’S JUST STAY HOME

by austin kovacs

Cultural analyst Mark Jancovich recently argued that “public spaces of interaction
have become increasingly redundant” and activities that once required us to venture outside thehouse are now brought to us through the wonders of modern technology. We no longer feelthe need to actually meet up with a friend, nowthat texting will save us so much time and energy. No one wants to go through the laborious
process of preparation for going out to dinner
anymore — not when they can just leave theirsweatpants on and order in. One of the greatest thrills used to be packing up and traipsing
all the way to the movie theater to get some entertainment, but who can afford the ten bucks
it now takes when illegal online streaming is somuch quicker and cheaper? Essentially, the way
we interact with each other has evolved tremendously because of technological advancements

46— to a point where our relationships with thesepublic spaces, as well as with technology itself,have been changed irreversibly.
Movies were once an occasion for a
grand night out and an excuse to look your best,
meet up with friends, and share an experience
together. Now it is more common to view a film
at home on your own, and you may re-watch
your favorites dozens of times, giving you anentirely different viewing experience than if you
had just seen a film once in the theater. The arrival of television signaled a real change in theway people viewed and consumed all forms of
media. Audiences were thrilled that they could
now gather the family on their very own couchand enjoy the nightly news or half-hour comedy
shows on a daily basis. However, in the 1950s,
having a relatively small pool of programming
to choose from and only one TV in the housepreserved the group aspect of the experience.
Since everyone was still watching the sameshows, it remained a larger cultural phenomenon. Today, with an endless variety of programming on television and increasingly so on theinternet, chances are you are not watching thesame shows as your next-door neighbor or yourco-worker the next cubicle over.
One of the greatest changes to the consumption of film occurred when film studios
realized they could use television and homeviewing to their advantage. First with VHS andthen with DVD and Blu-ray, film studios haveturned home consumption into a huge market.
In fact, the executive vice president of Buena
Vista International, Daniel Battsek, said in 2004
that if the VCR was the savior of cinema, thenthe DVD was perhaps the “savior of the entire
film industry.” This is further proved by the factthat “for approximately two decades, more U.S.
viewers have been watching Hollywood films
at home than at the theater, and the revenues
generated from the distribution of feature films
in the nation’s households have surpassed bigscreen box office takes.” Film Professor Barbara
Klinger explains this when she says, “Stockedwith an array of devices for audiovisual entertainment, the home is a place where individuals
can withdraw to engage in private shows andreveries via the playback of cinematic and otherimages.” By the end of the 1980s, many of thefeatures of the cinema were beginning to findtheir way into thedomestic sphere. The traditional televisionscreen format of 4:3 ratio began to be supple-“The viewer no longer
needs to leave the houseto go to the cinema, because the cinema has
now all but cometo the viewer.”mented by the 16:9 widescreen format, which
was able to show many feature films without theneed for cropping. Indeed, the viewer no longer
needs to leave the house to go to the cinema,
because the cinema has now all but come to theviewer.
This is most clearly demonstrated
in the explosion of illegal downloading andstreaming taking place on the web over the last
decade. Programs like BitTorrent and the now
defunct Megavideo have played a distinct rolein promoting the already popular home viewing
experience. It is undeniable that “there has been
a rapid and dramatic expansion of what it now
means to even be an audience.” What was once a
public activity has become increasingly private.
All of these changes have affected the way viewers think about themselves in relation to film
as well as in relation to the outside world. Improvements in technology have pushed us further and further into our own private worlds,
and today we are even able to construct our own
technologies and viewing environments.
This ability to bring films into thehome has also allowed us to experience themdifferently through the practice of repeat viewings. This habitual watching did not really takeoff until the introduction of the VHS playerand since then has evolved through DVDs, Bluray and Internet viewing. Indeed, any of us who
have come of age in the last thirty years most
likely has fond memories of screening a favorite
film over and over again on the family television, perhaps even multiple times in the sameday. Now that films have become objects in
the home, “they can attain an intimate, quasifamilial status that affects their meaning and influences individuals’ perceptions of themselves
and the world.”
This practice of repeat viewings haschanged the way we feel about technology
in general. It is now more of a “friend,” something familiar and reliable, and has made public
spaces increasingly redundant and undesirable
as a result. Most of us have films that we fell inlove with as children or teenagers and watchedso many times that the VHS copy wore out andhad to be replaced. We know every line, every
scene, and even every preview that will comeon before the feature presentation. While VHS

47

tapes may now be obsolete, the children of thisdecade will grow up with memories of streaming films on Netflix and have those same comfortable feelings of nostalgia upon seeing thosesame films for the fiftieth time years later.
Our identities are now not only
formed and constructed by the people we surround ourselves with, but now also by the movies we watch and the values we cull from them.
A favorite film can shape the ways we think
about ourselves and our place in the world justas much as an actual person can; our relationships with consumed media instantly changed
when we began to create our own personalizedversions of the movie palace right in our bedrooms. No longer forced out of the home toview films and use them as a tool to socialize,
we have begun to socialize with the films themselves through repeat viewings. These newly
formed emotional relationships have had a lasting effect on the way we relate to film and media, to each other, and even with ourselves.

48

Klinger, Barbara. Beyond the Multiplex: Cinema,
New Technologies, and the Home.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.
Hanson, Stuart. From Silent Screen to MultiScreen: A History of Cinema Exhibition in
Britain Since 1896. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007.
Ross, Karen and Virginia Nightingale. Media andAudiences: New Perspectives.
Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003.

49

REAL TALK WITH ISSA RAE

the mis-adventures of awkward black girlby will felker
The Misadventures of Awkward BlackGirl (or ABG) is a web series that premiered in
February 2011, with the pilot garnering 995,044
views to date. Issa Rae created the series andstars in a lead role. Co-producer, Tracy Oliver initially planned to package the series as a halfhour comedy for network syndication. But after
the viral success of ABG”s ﬁrst season, finding
a network home may be unnecessary. In summer
2011, when it looked as though ABG wouldn”t beable to ﬁnance new episodes, Rae sought viewer
support on the fundraising website Kickstarter.
The show’s backers contributed nearly $60,000(the goal was $30,000), enough to complete fiveremaining season one episodes. ABG”s ﬁrst season, which concluded on January 12, 2012, wascelebrated for its original biting humor, funding
methods, guerilla approach to production and utilization of social media. Even in its infancy, ABG
is a groundbreaking example of independent production and distribution. EyeCandy was thrilled to
speak with Ms. Rae.

imate film program until my senior year, so it was
too little too late. I [took a leave of absence] mysophomore year to go to New York Film Academy.
[Stanford] had a film society, but that just wasn’t
enough for me. I needed to immerse myself in
filmmaking and N.Y.F.A. definitely provided that.
And yes, Palo Alto sucks, by the way!

Tell me about the fellowship at Public Theater in
New York City and how that immersion experience
inspired you to create ABG.
Rae: I got the fellowship and returned to New
York City after graduation. I didn’t really know
anybody. The only people I knew, and ended up
being roommates with, were a friend from school
and Kiki Harris, who plays Germy Patty [on ABG].
Making friends was really hard for me — I wasvery shy — but the fact that I didn’t really havea social life definitely contributed to my creativity. I was always finding things to create and to
do. While I was there, I watched a Public Theater
workshop between these amazing actors of colorand I thought it would be really cool to start a
short film collective where actors, writers, andaRae: Definitely both. Stanford didn’t start a legit- producers could help each other produce. So I

50

Issa Rae, creater of
Awkward Black Girl .

had that going on in NYC, and I got equipment for In your mind, which networks would be goodit, all this stuff. Then I ended up getting robbed. homes for the show?
Our apartment got broken into and like twenty Gs’ Rae: I think HBO, FX, or Comedy Central; if I had
worth of equipment was stolen. I stayed in NYC the deal that Louis C.K. has, and I’m just not a
for another year and was like, “OK, forget this. “name” — I don’t have the experience that LouisI’m going back to L.A., where I know people and C.K. has, but that’s what I want. He edits, writes,
have more resources.”
produces everything for the series and just gives
it to [Comedy Central] at the end of the day.
You are signed with UTA and 3 Arts Entertainment. That’s what I want to do, and I’d love that opporDo you plan on turning ABG from a web series tunity. Otherwise, it’s not really worth it for me
into a half-hour comedy for cable?
to go to television, because I feel like we’re still
Rae: For season two, we’re definitely looking to being talked about and still being examined, andkeep it on the web. We’ve received offers from I think that the show alone, since networks aredifferent networks, but honestly, the creative con- paying attention, will prove that there is an auditrol wouldn’t exist and my vision and network ence for this type of content. That’s what I want.
television’s vision do not align, yet. I would liketo see it on cable in the future, but it’s not likely You’ve mentioned before that the entertainment
for season two.
industry makes room for a select few black figSince you first imagined ABG as a cartoon, have ures in our national media landscape. As a conyou considered producing it as an animated series sequence, do you feel responsible for reconfigurfor cable?
ing black representations each time you write forRae: I don’t think so. Just because of how it is ABG?
and how it’s playing out right now, I really like Rae: Well that’s the thing I wanted to combat in a
how it’s going so far. I love the cast and I think sense. Black comedy since the 90s is this specificmaybe we could do an animated spin-off for kids thing, and I don’t find that type of comedy funny
because [ABG] isn’t really kid-friendly right now. I anymore. And it was 90s, almost slapstick, sortknow that in my middle school years, I would’ve of making fun of ghetto stereotypes, and it’s thisappreciated someone that I could look up to.
specific race-based comedy that I wanted to getaway from. I created ABG specifically with a black52

lead to share in this wider comedy that existed in love? You’re destroying black love. This was
Seinfeld, in Curb Your Enthusiasm, and whatever planned from the start. How could you?” Things
is associated with white comedy. Because even like that, you just have to take in stride. I don’t
throughout high school, people would think I was necessarily feel a responsibility to uphold certain
funny, but they’d think I was white funny. And I old forms of belief. I don’t find that important.
was like, “What is white funny? What does that But, sometimes I do feel a pressure to becausemean? I can’t be funny? I’m not funny in a black there isn’t much of a mainstream representation. I
way?” So in creating ABG, I wanted to include do feel a pressure to do a good job, to entertain,these little things that we all go through, and and to make people think. And that’s my goal
then specify them with these black girl problems, anyway; that’s what I want to do.
you know — racist boss, or hair problems, andthings like that — so that you couldn’t relegate Can I be real for a second? I went H.A.M. on thethis humor as just solely black. There’s nothing press surrounding you and ABG to prepare forjust black about it. I wanted it to be relatable to this interview. I was really put off by some ofother people. Why can’t I watch George Lopez or the interviewers’ esoteric questions. Specifically,
Friends and find that hilarious? So that’s some- Michel Martin [of NPR] and Fredricka Whitfield [ofthing that I struggle with because I do want more CNN], both of whom seemed eager to link ABG’s
people to watch [ABG]. I want more people to get “universal” appeal with its nearly all-black cast andit, and not just dismiss it as this black thing. But writers. Are you surprised by the idea of a blackat the same time, I want them to appreciate it comedy with “universal” appeal in what might bebecause there are these black characters, a main a “post-racial” era?
black lead, and you can still find her funny — and Rae: The title was my only concern. I’ve been
told repeatedly that I should have just called it
relate to her.
Awkward Girl, but I’m not just an awkward girl; I’m
The awkward comedies that are popular on TV an awkward black girl. So, I wanted to make thatclear. If you’re afraid to watch the series because
it has the word “black” in it, then that’s on you.

“I’m not just an awkward
girl, I’m an awkward
black girl”

right now often include a token black characterin their ensemble. I think 30 Rock would be way
more interesting if it were Tracy Morgan’s show,or if it was just a different show all together. Do
you worry about being compared to widely seen
black comedies, as was the case with Dave Chappelle, Aaron McGruder, and the Wayans Brothers
in recent years?
Rae: Sometimes I do. Even with the season finale,
the fact that J chooses White Jay. J chooses
White Jay because they had a connection, they
had chemistry, and she got comfortable aroundhim.
She was more herself.
Rae: Yeah. She was more herself around him. And[it was received as], “Oh, you’re against black

Like with the finale? Those message forums areinsane.
Rae: I just stopped reading it because I got so
upset. People are crazy!
Why do you think people are so upset that J
chose White Jay?
Rae: I really don’t know. I thought that it was
obvious. I thought that in the sense of a romantic
comedy, people saw it coming. Honestly, I thinkthat people just didn’t expect her to end up witha white guy. I think it just has to do with someof the social norms that we have. I guess noteverybody is ready for it. There are so many politics involved with that decision that people justproject their own personal beliefs onto the series.
I think that has a lot to do with it.

53

In my opinion, bitches were really trippin’ about V-Nasty; just answer the question.
dialogue containing “no lesbo” and “tranny” in Rae: We can’t. I’ve never censored myself from
episode eleven. What is your take on the whole the first episode. If I cross something out because
situation? Does this type of reaction hinder your [it] is offensive, it’s because it really is offensive
and I’m not thinking. Other than that, we poke fun
comedic liberty in future episodes?
Rae: It doesn’t hinder mine, but it does hinder my at everything, and we will continue to poke fun atwriting team’s, in the sense that [co-producer] everything. I think that it promotes discussion andTracy [Oliver] and I go back and forth, and we dialogue. That episode, the fact that we did say
struggle with what is offensive and what isn’t. “tranny,” it educated me and others on the fact
Honestly, “tranny” — we didn’t even think about that that is considered a derogatory term. We’ll
it. We didn’t write that particular line, and we test out all the words and see what’s derogatory,
were reading over it, and we scratched out oth- and see what works and what doesn’t work, as
er things because we thought, “OK, maybe that long as it promotes dialogue and discussion. Thatwould go over some people’s heads or be too of- works for me.
fensive.” But that one we just sort of glazed overbecause we didn’t think it was a derogatory term. I think this is the best place to be in as a writer.
It came out as a surprise. “No lesbo” I’m not What, is YouTube going to cancel your show?
even counting because if you don’t understand Rae: Right. That’s true.
that “no lesbo” is satire, or that we’re poking
fun at the term [“no homo”], then stop watching So, you’re not even up against time block issues
or anything.
the show.
Rae: People could stop watching. That’s all you
can do.
It was also in [J’s] verse.
Rae: Exactly. There is so much behind that. “Tranny” — we just didn’t know that it was a de- Do you consider yourself a satirist?
rogatory term, and it’s crazy how it worked out, Rae: I do. I love satire.
because even the way the line was written, ouractress accidentally twisted the word. It was supposed to be “bitch in tranny heels,” not that The Boondocks creator Aaron McGruder has said,
that’s necessarily different, but it is different from “Satire is the least commercially viable form ofwhat was said. So, it just shows you how it wasn’t comedy.” He also said, “Cable is the only placeintentional; we didn’t know that it was derogatory, where you can still be honest and actually havebut I think that it was taken a little bit too seri- fun.” Where would you say ABG falls, between
ously given the context, and given the fact that those two statements?
it came out of CeCe’s mouth, and she’s known Rae: I think it has elements of satire, but it doesn’t
for saying off-handed, crazy things. So, it was a completely go over people’s heads. I know that
Aaron McGruder is awesome at what he does, butsometimes people don’t necessarily get his references. We don’t go that deep into it. I think that
we’re superficial enough that people can get it,
still laugh, and relate.

“If you’re serious about
producing content thenyou have to learn how to
do everything”

big deal.
Within this context, how do you self-insure against
the unpredictability of fan reaction while using
other complicated words? Don’t make me pull a

54

How does it feel to be an audience-elected representative for every black girl who feels confinedby her own awkwardness?
Rae: It’s pretty awesome. The only time it’s not
awesome is when I meet someone and they just
expect me to be really awkward, like, “What are
you going to do next?” or, “That’s so cute thatyou did that.” Personally, I’m not J. I don’t thinka lot of people realize that I’m not necessarily[the] character. If I post a status, or if I tweet
something, people are quick to say, “Oh, that’s
so awkward,” and it’s not. So, that’s the only
drawback, but otherwise, I love it. I happily accept
that role.

working elements I learned and took a lot from Fly
Guys and incorporated into ABG. There’s just somuch more that I learned from the mistakes. Thisis just a whole different experience.

ABG’s first season relied on contribution-based
funding. Under that model, do fans often feel entitled to some creative input? If so, do you consider
After doing other series, Dorm Diaries and The “F” this a drawback of ABG’s Kickstarter campaign?
Word, what lessons were especially helpful when Rae: Oh, man! [This applies] specifically for epicreating ABG?
sode ten, [which] was our “experimental” episode.
Rae: So many lessons. I want to be like Adam We wanted to do a fun Halloween episode. Tracy
Sandler in that sense, where he just employs all and I have this thing where we like to poke fun at
his friends and it seems like they have such an black Greek life, and so we thought it fit episodeawesome time. That’s what I want to do. Lessons ten. That is our most controversial episode, inlearned: Treat it like an actual show. With Dorm terms of people downright hating it or just loving
Diaries, I was really immature about it and releas- it. The people who hated it and contributed toing whenever I could, and didn’t really promote it Kickstarter were saying things like, “Lemme get
too hard. I just did it. Fly Guys, I tried to treat it my money back for this,” “You’re selling out,”
like a real television show by having it premiere “You’re changing your vision,” “This is ridiculous,”
every Monday at a specific time, and [there was] or they would say things like, “I love the ninth
the fact that it was geared to a certain length episode, but ten? Oh, no, no, no, no, this is over.”of seven minutes each episode, and [we] really It is kind of frustrating when people do contribute,promoted it. For ABG, I think I just learned some and we appreciate their contributions, but [not]of the lessons, like I know that people have short get them to start “contributing” to our creativity.
attention spans, so the first episode was strategi- We’re not going to stick to one particular formula;cally short, and then we would lengthen them over we’re going to create. And they gave us money
time. And different kinds of audience engagement to produce and create — that’s what we’re doing.
— that’s really important, and setting up a fanpage, and a Twitter page, the different social net- You’ve successfully played with the formulas of55

horror, sketch comedy and mockumentaries. What baby-voiced people in general. CeCe [Sujata Day]other genres and/or narrative conventions inter- — people respond really well to her because they
est you?
want a friend like her. And J [Issa Rae], of course,
Rae: I really like what Community does, in terms of because I feel like people relate the most to her.
playing with different genres throughout the show.
I don’t know if we’ll explore that just yet. Just I have to say Ger—in general, outside of ABG, I really love coming- Rae: [Laughs] Germy Patty [Kiki Harris]! She’s acof-age stories. That’s another genre I want to tually my favorite, too. That voice [Harris] puts on
take on.
is disgusting and hilarious to me.
Are there any characters you had in mind for ABG,
but omitted before filming? If so, who were they?
Rae: There was one character I wanted to put in,
but I didn’t want to offend anyone. I had [written]
a stuttering character. I wasn’t necessarily making
fun of the fact that this character stutters, but
the fact that people felt they had to act differently because the person stutters. It was early on
and I didn’t feel like explaining that character, but
we may bring back this notion of how people feellike they have to act differently around people
who have some sort of handicap, disability, or
impediment.

Harris improvises a lot of dialogue for her character, correct?
Rae: Definitely. She adds her own nuances to lines,
or like, “I had thought it was an open audition?”
was all her.
What about, “Hope you saved me some sapodillas, gurl!”
Rae: [Laughs] No, we wrote that, but the waythat was said was perfectly disgusting. That’s justher adding on.

You say ABG began “guerrilla-style” with “TheStop Sign,” a no-budget, technically imperfect
Which ABG characters do you find most success- production, for which you assembled a cast andful and why?
crew of high school and college friends and even
Rae: Everyone always talks about Darius [Tristen used your dad’s office as a location. Tell me about
Winger]. He’s a fan favorite. I guess people can the initial players, how you know them, and who
relate to not being able to hear someone, or just came to join ABG as the season progressed.

56

Rae: The first episode started off with Andrew[Allan James] and my best friend Devin was behind the camera. She was just down to help me.
She knew about the idea for a while. I’d always
admired Andrew from Stanford because he’s justan incredible dancer, and they used to have abunch of dance teams at school and we’d go to
all the shows and he just stood out. He’s justamazing. He talked to me about the fact that hewanted to get into acting, and so I just thought
it was the perfect opportunity. For episode two,Tracy just happened to be in town and Madison[T. Shockley, III] had actually reached out to me
to help him with his own project. Then I just got
them both involved. Pretty much as the series
progressed, people reached out to me and I would
rather work with people who want to be a part ofthe project, as opposed to me seeking out people. It’s been a process of reconnecting with oldfriends and just working with them. I think [there
were] maybe about two or three actors we had tosolicit: Sujata Day, Leah [Antoinette] and Hanna— they’re hired actors, but they just fit right in.

ate about the way things look and is an amazing
artist, director, and cinematographer. He prettymuch lent all his equipment to the series andmade all production changes — the cinematic
value is pretty much all him.
What led to Donald Glover’s guest appearance inthe season finale?
Rae: I’d been stalking him. I really have a love
for him. Tracy was taking meetings for her own
projects and for ABG, and she happened to meetwith one woman who knew Donald personally, andduring that time he was following me on Twitter,because his sister is a fan of the show. So everything just came together and he asked Tracy
and me to come to the studio, and we hung out
with him at the studio. We told him about how we
wanted him to be in an episode. He said to just let
him know. And then when it came to the season
finale, we pulled out all the stops and contacted
him, and we basically had to drive nine hours to
Tahoe to get him in the show, because the time
he was going to be in the states was limited because he was doing a European tour. Tahoe was
the only close city in California, so we made it
happen, and he was incredibly down.

What factors led to ABG’s increasing production
values throughout the first season?
Rae: Well, Tracy came on as a producer for episode four and we had an amazing cinematogra- Both Doublemint Twins songs remind me of Thugpher, Shea Vanderpoort, who is just very passion- nificent and the Lethal Interjection Crew’s music57

featured in The Boondocks. What led you to write then you have to learn how to do everything. At
diegetic music for the show?
Rae: Doublemint Twins actually came before ABG.
I’ve started twenty rap groups in my life, andDoublemint Twins were the most consistent in N.Y.F.A., I didn’t even take the year-length course;
terms of putting out music. I wanted to add
them as a soundtrack to the series just becauseof J’s love for violent, ridiculous rap music. So I took a six-week intensive training [course] about
it just worked out. [Doublemint Twins] started
close to the same time as ABG, and I was like,“This is perfect for the opening song. J shouldbe rapping to this in her car.” We shot a music lighting, about editing, about producing, and thenvideo for “Booty Shawts,” but I haven’t put it
out yet because I’m kind of scared, and I don’t
think my friends are going to understand thestarted [writing] on my own. I think it’s really imimplications [for their] real, legitimate jobs.
Why are you taking ABG on a college tour?
Rae: We’ve been getting requests from different
schools to come and speak on different subjects— either what it takes to finance a web series orwhat this series means for mainstream media —and so we just decided to try to see if people
wanted us to talk to their schools and bring us
out. We thought it’d be a good way to raise money and sort of make a living off of a tour, since
we couldn’t off of the series. Also, it’s a lot of
promoting; it’s a good way to promote the series,
like we’re on a campaign with every school wevisit. So, it seemed like the best way to spreadthe word, grassroots-style.

portant to just learn how to do everything. I thinkthat to compete, you have to know all trades,

and just do it, stop making excuses, and makeyour vision happen. You don’t need money in thisWhat’s up with season two?
generation to start.
Rae: Storyline-wise, we’re obviously going to explore interracial dating, and we’re going to meet
J’s and White Jay’s family. We’re going to see
what happens with this new boss, who is sort ofthe opposite of Boss Lady in terms of his focus
on political correctness. We’re going to get toknow a little bit more about CeCe as well as theseries progresses, and introduce a new reception- REAL TALK.
ist character. It should be fun.
Apart from the same played-out bullshit everyone
echoes once they get their stacks up, what isyour advice for film- and media-makers without a
red cent in their budgets?
Rae: If you’re serious about producing content,

58

Www.surfacecinema.com
SportsDocumentary
Commercial
corporate

RESTAURANTELOS PINOS

燕花

Authentic Mexican Food

FINE CHINESE DINING

Serving the Tastiest Burritos,
Tacos, Enchiladas & Mariscos

Fresh and Healthy Chinese Food!

Open Daily for Lunch & Dinner
9:00am - 10:00pm

Order Food to Go
2019 N. Pacific Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: (831) 425-2554
15% off your order if you show your
UCSC ID or mention EyeCandy

617 Pacific Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060(831) 423-2574
Open 7 Days a Week
11:00am to 9:30pm
Food-To-GoPsycho (1960, dir. Alfred Hitchcock)

Psycho (1998, dir. Gus Van Sant)

POINTS OF CONTENTION

with the hollywood remake
by ryan mcdonald

I’ve always fantasized about remaking
the Pokémon movie. There’s a much darker
story to be told about a world where wild
animals are captured, enslaved, and thencondemned to spend their entire lives fighting
against other Pokémon. And for what?
Ultimately, they do it so that aspiring teenagers
can essentially collect merit badges and make a
few Pokédollars on the side. I thought my timewith this pop cultural pandemic was over. Yet
here I am, a film production student interested
in conceiving a live-action film about the trials
and tribulations of Pallet Town. I wanted
to write about the remake film to criticize
Hollywood for its continuous regurgitationof popular culture, but it’s become clear to me
that I am participating within the very trend of“pop-culture recycling” in Hollywood that I had
originally sought to critique.

60

A growing stream of films in
Hollywood leech onto pre-existing productsof media culture and repurpose them as
new conceptions of old ideas, rather thanattempting to produce something truly novelin theme or content. Despite my own guilty
fascination with comic book hero movies,
straightforward remakes of old films, and otherforms of cinematic adaptations, I can’t help
but envy those who experienced the earliest
years of cinema — when having an originalidea was the rule rather than the exception.
When the medium itself was still in a process of
exploration, discovery, and experimentation, I
imagine audiences still being able to appreciatea film simply for the fact that the technology
existed at all. Now industry moguls seem toassume that audiences have seen all there is
to be seen, and they are more than willing toThe Girl with the Dragon Tattoo(2009, dir. Niels Arden Oplev)

sacrifice content for commerce. Consider the
language used by Allen J. Scott of the Center for
Globalization and Policy Research, who argues
that Hollywood operates within a “complex
machinery of distribution and marketing” andit is through this machine that “Hollywood’s
existence as a productive agglomeration issustained, while the images and narratives it
creates are dispersed to a far-flung and everexpanding circle of consumers”(Allen 34). I
am willing to accept the notion that I am aconsumer of films, but I would venture to saythat my needs as a consumer are not being met.
Maybe it is “safe” or “practical” to reintroduce
imagined worlds that audiences have alreadyshown enthusiasm for, but for me it is endlessly
more valuable to hear a story that I could never
have imagined but will never forget.
It’s easy to see that this trend has
accelerated in recent years. This year alone isripe with remakes. Mirror Mirror (2012) andSnow White and the Huntsman (2012) are
set to come out, both of which are new takeson the story of Snow White, the 1937 Disneycult classic. 2012 will also include a remake ofPaul Verhoeven’s Total Recall (1990), originallybased on a sci-fi short story by Philip K. Dick,and a revision of the 1995 sci-fi police thriller

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo(2011, dir. David Fincher)

Judge Dredd, originally based on a comic series
originated in the 1970s. By the time you readthis, a 3D makeover of the immensely popular
Titanic (1997) should be in theaters; however,I will not be among the hordes of people
spending three hours and $18 on a good cry.
Keep in mind that this was not always
standard practice in Hollywood. We shouldn’t
forget that there have been plenty of films withunique stories and premises. There have been
films based on scripts that were written withthe exclusive purpose of realizing them throughsound and image. There have been cinematic
articulations of novels that are unique for theway they visually articulate an author’s literary
imagination. We have all heard, “The book isbetter than the movie,” but it seems that wehave entered a moment where we can findourselves saying, “The book is better than theoriginal Swedish version of the movie, which is
better than the American version, all of which
are better than the impending graphic novel,”which can be argued for Stieg Larsson’s The
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009). In a recent
article from The Guardian, Charles Gant speaks
about American director David Fincher’s
version of the Swedish crime novel, describing
how, “Even Fincher set his Girl with the Dragon

61

Tattoo in Sweden, eschewing the usual remake Fear with Martin Scorsese’s 1991 remake of thetactic of transplanting the action to the U.S. The film in order to try to paint a picture of what
resulting movie felt authentic, as long as you qualifies an effectively “remade” film. Althoughoverlook the fact the characters are speaking he attempts to show how Scorsese’s film canEnglish. Unique, sadly, not so much” (Gant). I be valued for the new directorial perspective
agree with Gant in that a loss of originality in that it provides, he still opens his article with amainstream cinema does have an air of sadness critical tone about the transparent commercial
to it. It raises questions about what the general interests inherent in the remake, suggesting thatpublic values in the films they see and what “a remake presents film to audience as capital
they have come to expect from filmmaking as a — rather than aesthetic — product” (Arnzen).
general practice. Have we arrived at a moment Like Arnzen, I think it is important to findwhen films will only be judged based on how redeeming qualities in an otherwise dismal
authentic they are in relation to an original state of affairs. On the other hand, it is very
version? Has Hollywood exhausted the genre unsettling to think that profiteering, marketingof the crime film to the extent that filmmakers strategies, and economics will likely continue tomust look to the far reaches of the world to find take precedent in a medium that was first andunique premises worth making movies about? foremost a creative experiment in perception
In any case, it is encouraging to hear that I and artistic expression.
am not alone in my dissatisfaction with thisIn other words, criticism of the remake
moment of redundancy in Hollywood.
seems to be a question of intent. Are these films
As film students, we are often exposed being remade because their originals have leftto writers like Susan Sontag, who make it quite something to be desired, or is the remake justclear that film culture has lost its luster by a way to guarantee box office success? Perhaps
becoming a capitalist deviation from a once it’s only fair to recognize the give and take ofwondrous creative practice. Sontag goes as far both of these motivating factors in Hollywood.
as saying that the kinds of films that wander Producers, investors, and directors alike need
into the mainstream consciousness can be seen to feel that enough people will be interested inas part and parcel of “the decay of cinema” as their film to prevent them from facing financial
she once knew it, her word choice implying that loss. However, even filmmakers working incinema was once alive but has since died and mainstream Hollywood should aspire to
slowly begun to rot. She argues that we have maintain the creative ambition that drew
reached a moment when films are more and them to filmmaking to begin with. All artists
more often characterized by “a policy of bloated, must contend with this issue if they intend to
derivative film-making, a brazen combinatory or have commercially successful careers. This is
recombinatory art, in the hope of reproducing especially the case with filmmakers who intend
past successes,” and that audiences have slowly to make big studio remakes such as Gus Van
but surely been pacified into a comfortable Sant’s 1998 remake of the infamous Psycho
acceptance of these types of films (Sontag). It (1960). In an interview from literary magazine
seems that the average moviegoer should be The Believer, Van Sant describes his ambivalentcapable of recognizing the emergence of these feelings toward making an adaptation, saying,particular trends but it is unclear how many of “the reason that I suggested Psycho to them
them really have a problem with it.
was partly the artistic appropriation side, but
Other authors have taken a similar it was also partly because I had been in theinterest in criticizing current cinematic business long enough that I was aware of certain
trends. In his article, “The Same and the New: executives’ desires. The most interesting films
Cape Fear and the Hollywood Remake as that studios want to be making are sequels”
Metanarrative Discourse,” Michael A. Arnzen (Rockingham). Although it was Van Sant’s
compares J. Lee Thompson’s 1962 film Cape own idea to redo a Hitchcock cult classic, his

62response suggests that he was also driven by adesire to survive within an industry that is often
dictated by the expectations of executives who
are more interested in a film that pays than afilm that inspires.
Van Sant’s remake of Psycho was an
attempt to recreate one of the most infamous
horror movies of all time. Van Sant used
contemporary Hollywood celebrities andgave the film a makeover with its use of color;
however, this was not enough to allow thecontemporary version to succeed. Roger Ebert
gives an illuminating analogy in his review ofthe film, saying, “Attending this new version,
I felt oddly as if I were watching a provincial
stock company doing the best it could without
the Broadway cast” (Ebert). That is to say, justbecause Hitchcock did it doesn’t mean you can,too, Gus.
The inherent flaw with the second
Psycho is that it is removed from the historicalmoment that allowed the original to have theunprecedented impact that it did in the 1960s.
In his shot-by-shot rendition of the infamous
shower scene, Van Sant seems to pride himself
on making his film “look” like the original, but
I am not sure that he does much more than that.
Anne Heche vaguely resembles and halfheartedly
acts like the Marion Crane character, but lacks
the intensity of the original performance by
Janet Leigh. The close-up on the showerhead,
the shadowy figure approaching through thecurtain, and the unsuspecting blonde bather
are all there. The scene is rearticulated detailby detail, but to me, this is the film’s pitfall. In
trying to emulate Hitchcock’s original, Van Sant
made a film that did not contribute much more
to Psycho than contemporary actors and colorfilm. A remake of this kind can be a perilous,futile, and expensive endeavor. The film’s $60
million budget and $21 million domestic grosscertainly attest to this.
Remaking classics isn’t the only strategy
employed by executive bigwigs to guarantee thecommercial success of their films. The trendof taking hugely popular cultural icons andinserting them into Hollywood seems to be
more prevalent than straightforward remakesof films. Take the superhero or comic book film,
for example. Spider-Man, X-Men, Superman,
The Incredible Hulk, and Batman constituteonly a handful of comic book heroes that haveappeared in graphic novels and numerous othercinematic reiterations. These characters alone
boast a total of 22 films among them: three
for Spider-Man (with an impending fourthin 2012), five for X-Men, five for Superman,
two for Hulk, and seven for Batman (with animpending eighth in 2012). Audiences fondly
recall the comics, cartoons, and action figuresof these popular characters, and if the film does

“Are these films being
remade because their
originals have left something to be desired, or is
the remake just a way toguarantee box officesuccess?”
well, they may be so inclined to buy the DVD,the video game based on the movie, or even theaction figure remodeled to resemble the newest
cinematic version of the hero. Superheroes haveleft the two-dimensional plane of the comic
strip and now move fluidly through a laundry
list of highly profitable ancillary markets. The
theatrical exhibition represents only one phasewithin a complex network of commercial
exploitation.
I have seen many of these twenty-two
superhero films and will admit that I have lostmuch of my interest in seeing any more. The
last film to have any significant impact on me
was Christopher Nolan’s rendition of Batmanin The Dark Knight (2008), which stoodapart from all the other films because Nolan
seemed to have striven for something that is
not present in the previous iterations. Nolan’sfilm represents what any gimmicky pop culture
remake should strive for, because he does justice63

Batman(1966, dir. Leslie Martinsonk)

Batman(1989, dir. Tim Burton)

to the character while simultaneously looking
deeper into the imagined world to find a far
more complex universe at its core. If we cansuspend our disbelief for a moment and try
to actually imagine what a real-life Gotham
City would be like, how could it be anything
but deeply disturbing and violent? As Roger B.
Rollin describes in a 1970 article about comics,
these heroes represent “the fulfillment of our
fantasies as well as of our moral sense,” and it
seems to me the earlier films do not adequately
allegorize the darker side of contemporary
American life (Rollin 432). While Van Sant’s
Psycho failed commercially because it didn’t
find ways to contribute something more to its
original, to me The Dark Knight succeeded
because it was Batman as I’d never seen before.
Despite my enthusiasm for Christopher
Nolan’s take on Batman, I can’t help but
think that the prevalence of adaptations in
Hollywood has left very little room for uniquestories to emerge. We live in an age when it issimpler and more profitable to create films that
do not have to be explained to us because they
have already been explained to us. Generating

64

The Dark Knight(2008, dir. Christopher Nolan)buzz about Batman only requires that his namebe uttered or the infamous silhouette of a bat beshown, whereas new and unique stories require
synopsis, a detailed trailer, good word of mouth,
or even festival success. Putting myself in theshoes of a studio executive, I can see why theywould choose to keep stories simple, familiar,
and therefore profitable, but as a consumer
I find this problematic. Is my favorite film aremake? No, I can’t say it is. Would I rather
see a film with an outcome that I already know,
or is it worth something to experience thesuspense and curiosity that comes with uniquestories? I’ll certainly take the latter. Would I
rather encounter the same ten characters forthe rest of my life, or is there something to bevalued in spending time with new people andpersonalities? I think you get the point. Unless
I can someday infiltrate Hollywood and makechanges from the bottom up, for now I will dothe little I can to demand more of Hollywood
by continuously voicing my discontent, paying
to see good films with original stories, andquieting the voice in my head that wants toremake the Pokémon movie.

Allen J. Scott. “The Geography of Motion-Picture
Distributing and Marketing.” Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 11, No. 1. (February2004) 34.

Alexandra Rockingham. “Gus Van Sant.” The Believer. (June 2008). http://www.believermag.com/
issues/200806/?read=interview_van_santCharles Gant. Is the Hollywood Remake Dead?
(March 29 2012). http://www.guardian.co.uk/
film/2012/mar/29/is-the-hollywood-remake-deadRoger Ebert. “Psycho.” Chicago Sun-Times
review.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/
apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19981206/REVIEWS/812060301/1023

Susan Sontag. The Decay of Cinema. (February 25, 1996). http://partners.nytimes.com/
books/00/03/12/specials/sontag-cinema.html

Roger B. Rollin. “The Epic Hero and Pop Culture.”
College English, Vol. 31, No. 5 (Feb., 1970). 432433.

Michael A. Arnzen. “The Same and the New:
Cape Fear and the Hollywood Remake as Metanarrative Discourse.” Narrative (Vol. 4, No. 2,
May, 1996).

Photo by Lucy Rodriguez

65Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) in Parks
and Recreation (2009 - Present)

DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO
by connie peterson

Amy Poehler is my hero. She is 5’2”,
there to be cute. She wasn’t there to playplatinum blonde, Planned Parenthood supwives and girlfriends in the boys’ scenes.
porter, mother of two, married to Will Arnett
She was there to do what she wanted to do”
of Arrested Development fame, she swears like
(Fey, 144).
a sailor, and she is funny. Tears coming out ofyour eyes, falling out of your chair, gasping forWhen asked about the American Apbreath funny. And not only is she aware of how parel ads that have inundated pop culture (emafunny she is, she understands the power that ciated girls in spandex and leotards, on the cusp
comedy possesses.
of being nude), Poehler attacked.
Speaking about the early days of her
career at Saturday Night Live (1975-), Tina Fey“[The] ads are fucking gross, man.” she said.
drew upon a pivotal Poehler moment:“Look, I love beautiful girls too. I think everyone should be free to have their knee
“She did something vulgar as a joke. I can’t
socks and their sweaty shorts, but I’m overremember what it was exactly, except it wasit. I’m over this weird, exhausted girl. I’m
dirty and loud and “unladylike.”
over the girl that’s tired and freezing andJimmy Fallon…turned to her and in a fauxhungry. I like bossy girls -- I always have.
squeamish voice said, ‘Stop that! It’s not
I like people filled with life. I’m over thiscute! I don’t like it.’weird media thing with all this, like, holAmy dropped what she was doing, went
low-eyed, empty, party crap.”
black in the eyes for a second, and wheeledaround on him. “I don’t fucking care if you
In a recent Saturday Night Live cameo,
like it.”Poehler came back to the news segment “WeekWith that exchange, a cosmic shift took end Update” to make several cutting comments
place. Amy made it clear that she wasn’t on Republican congressman Darrell Issa’s all

67

Amy Poehler and Tina Fey on
Saturday Night Live)

male panel discussing birth control health insurance coverage. And in a candid moment
when the closing music was already playing andthe camera began to track away, Poehler leaned
across the news desk, looking straight into
the lens, and shouted, “DON’T TELL ME
WHAT TO DO!” The moment of passionate
outburst speaks to women across the nation.
She is a beacon of hope in the stagnant
waters of the American Apparel, Twilight, andSarah Palin 21st century post-feminism. Hilarious hope. And it is not only in words that
Poehler takes a fighting stand; it is in action on
Parks and Recreation (2009-), the show thatplaces this female comedian in potentially themost powerful position since Lucille Ball on I
Love Lucy (1951-1957). But where Lucy wasconfined in domesticity and overruled time
and time again by her husband, Leslie Knope(Poehler’s character) is actively pursuing the
career of her dreams while dating the man ofher dreams. On top of that, a thread of female
community and support runs through the series. Leslie looks to her best friend, Ann Perkins,
for support on every issue, seeks the help of thesarcastic but ultimately kind April Ludgate, andworks alongside the sassy and confident Donna
Meagle in practically every episode. Parks and68

Recreation even fulfills the criteria of the feminist Bechdel test for media, which was developed by Liz Wallace and put into practice by
Alison Bechdel. This includes: 1) the film, book,show, etc. has at least two women characters,2) who talk to each other, 3) about somethingother than a man. It would be practically impossible to find an episode of Parks and Recreationthat doesn’t ace this test.
There are a few foundational elements
to Parks and Recreation that position Leslie
as powerful, as equal, and as woman. The first,
Leslie as powerful, is conveyed through the basic information that gets relayed episode after
episode — Leslie is good at her job. In fact, she’s
really good at her job. In episode ten of season
four, entitled “Citizen Knope,” Leslie proves at
every turn how triumphantly talented she is at
her work. The opening of the episode consistsof Leslie sneaking into her office, which she has
been temporarily suspended from, and stealing data so that she may continue to work fromhome. Not doing her job is unbearable, andLeslie excels at every project she touches. Thisis reinforced when coworkers reminisce about
Leslie’s Christmas gifts to them, which were
each perfectly tailored to the recipient. Finally,
although Leslie has been suspended, she can-not remain unproductive; she forms a citizen’s and supportive-under-any-circumstance wife
group that rallies to make real changes. In every character. Ultimately, as a brilliant career woman,
instance where Leslie has power taken from her, Leslie does not have to sacrifice her womanhood
she works immediately to reclaim it. This is Les- for even a minute, because of her successful relalie as powerful.
tionship with the progressive Ben. Leslie is a wellThe second, Leslie as equal, is Leslie’s rounded character who is successfully progressive
position in relation to the men she is surround- because of these three elements — as woman, as
ed by. The most formidable male character is equal and as powerful.
Ron Swanson, the purest form of masculinLeslie is just as powerful as Amy Poeity exaggerated. Ron can build anything out
hler herself has proven to be. Both are fearlessof wood, he eats restaurants full of bacon, andwhen it comes to discussing women’s issues, andhe works for the government because he hates
Poehler knows how to harness the power ofgovernment enough to attempt ruin from the
comedy in order to further the cause. Whether
inside. Understanding this dichotomy, it would
seem that Leslie and Ron would be positioned she is playing Hillary Clinton during the 2008
against each other in a battle of the sexes, but election and reaching mass audiences, or Amthe show finds repeat opportunities to rein- ber the one-legged prostitute who farts every
force their equality. In the same episode, “Citi- time she hops on Saturday Night Live, Poehler
zen Knope,” Ron breaks his rule on never giving isn’t afraid to go for the joke, fight for the cause,
gifts because he feels so grateful toward Leslie and she doesn’t fucking care if you like it. Of
and her impeccable gift-giving that he bands course, we fucking love it.
the office together to get her a quality present.
He is moved to tears over her present to him. Fey, Tina. Bossypants. New York: Little, Brown
He and the office even agree to run her cam- and, 2011. Print.
paign, offering to work under Leslie to help her
Poehler, Amy. “Really? With Seth and Amy: Birthsucceed. It would be easy to position Ron and Control.” Weekend Update. NBC. New York, New
Leslie against one another, but time after time, York. Hulu.com. NBC Universal and News Netthe show finds ways to make the macho man work. Web.
and career woman equals. This is Leslie as equal.
Finally, Leslie’s womanhood in the face Traister, Rebecca. “Amy Poehler, How Will Weof her career is not compromised. The real test Quit You?” Salon. Sept.-Oct. 2008. Web. 08 May
2012.
<http://www.salon.com/2008/09/16/poeof this feminist program is the relationship Les- hler/>.
lie has with her romantic interest, Ben Wyatt.
All too common is the relationship versus career The Twilight Saga. Dir. Catherine Hardwicke. Perf.
dilemma that television and film tend to pro- Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson. Atlantic, 2008.
pose for women as though the categories must Film.
be mutually exclusive. In Parks and Recreation,
Daniels, Greg. “Citizen Knope.” Parks and Recrehowever, Leslie has it all. There was a time in theation. NBC. 8 Dec. 2011. Television.
show when Leslie broke it off with Ben so that
she could run for office. Later, when they came Monaghan, Emily. “The Bechdel Test: What It Is,
to be a couple again, Ben chose Leslie over his And Why It Matters.” Squarise. 1 Sept. 2011. Web.
job and resigned entirely for her. Finally, when 08 May 2012. <http://squarise.com/2011/09/
she was struggling to run her campaign, Ben bechdel-test-is-matters/>.
came to work under her. The way in which Les“I Love Lucy.” IMDb. IMDb.com. Web. 08 May
lie and her career are of the utmost importance 2012. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043208/>.
to both characters is revolutionary for television.
Even further, Ben gender-bends by occupying a “Saturday Night Live.” Hulu. Web. 08 May 2012.
role most often filled by the constant, nurturing, <http://www.hulu.com/saturday-night-live>.

69Driver (Ryan Gosling) in
Drive (2011, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)

SHADOW CRIMINALS

the dark world of outcasts, gangsters and the samurai

by travis waddell
Passing between floors, he spots a pistol in the man’s overcoat. Within the compact
elevator there is no time to stall, and with deftpassivity he steals a kiss the audience has long
pined for. Revealing a duality of passion andvengeance within an instant, he turns on a dime
to deal ruthless blows to the assassin. As his heel
unmercifully crushes his adversary’s skull, leaving his lover behind in psychological anguish,
Ryan Gosling establishes that Nicolas Winding
Refn’s 2011 film Drive is playing true to cinematic form. From Akira Kurosawa’s indulgent
samurai and Sergio Leone’s callous gunman toJean-Pierre Melville’s solitary gangsters, Drive’s
unnamed protagonist walks a road well trodden. As outcasts with an apathetic cool, violence is no stranger to their grim underworlds.
Clad in a beige peacoat and cloaked
beneath a dark fedora, Alain Delon stealthily

70

breaks into a Citroën DS. His eyes look past
the rain-covered windshield as he methodically attempts to start the car’s ignition, solemnly presenting the assassin’s life as one thatordains detachment from the world. Depicting
an underworld comprised of villainous heroes
surrounded by muted colors or moody shadesof grey and with a knack for fine automobiles,
director Jean-Pierre Melville reigned as France’s
master of the bourgeoisie gangster flick. Aligning himself with neither bank of the Nouvelle
Vague movement at its peak, he is neverthelessconsidered “the father of the New Wave.” Melville’s oeuvre is itself a study of masculinity, as
during the 1960s he worked with France’s threemost popular male actors: Jean-Paul Belmondo,
Alain Delon, and Lino Ventura. Belmondo, of
Jean-Luc Godard fame, provides a broody yet
comedic foil to the serious figure of Alain De-

lon, whom Melville specifically sought to silently haunt the screenplay of his 1967 masterpiece,
Le Samouraï.
The taciturn protagonists of Drive and
Le Samouraï are remarkably similar in various
respects. One could even note the films’ uniqueelectronic scores, albeit the sense conveyed
through electrifying current Los Angeles withattitude reminiscent of 1980s new wave music
is starkly different from the futuristic sentimentality evoked by the classicism of Paris. On topof this, each film evades subjecting itself to asingle genre. Melville drew upon an archetypal
Americana gangster, similar to that of Frank
Tuttle’s 1942 film This Gun for Hire. Yet its
form alludes to the loneliness and seclusion of
the Japanese samurai, the assassin and guardian
whose ultimate truth lies in death. Just as Rick
Altman states that “it is simply not possible todescribe Hollywood cinema accurately without
the ability to account for the numerous films
that innovate by combining the syntax of one
genre with the semantics of another” (Altman34), Melville exquisitely strung together the semantics of the gangster film with the syntax ofimmense loneliness that follows the sole proprietor of the samurai genre.

Drive follows suit; while set within theworld of a current Los Angeles crime world, it
details the endeavors of a man whose work varies from professional movie stunt car driver toexpert criminal taxi. Leading man Ryan Goslinglacks even a name, credited simply as “Driver.”While this leads to slightly frustrating interactions between characters, the intention is valid.
The film wishes to speak from the perspectiveof someone who has concealed his identity, enabling him to succeed within his subversive lifeof crime.
The ronin of Yojimbo, Akira Kurosawa’s 1961 tale of a masterless samurai wandering Japan’s medieval roads in search of work, obscured his identity in a similar manner. Under
query by one of the town’s rival gangs to reveal
himself, his gaze wanders beyond the window as
he fabricates an identity that translates roughly
to “Mulberry Field thirty-year-old.” Upon its
release, Yojimbo, whose title means “bodyguard,”
revolutionized the tropes of the samurai film
due to its comically violent plot. The samurai of
Yojimbo emphasizes himself as a rogue killer for
hire; similarly, Melville aimed to recreate thehonor and loneliness of the legendary figure
within Le Samouraï. In a Melvillian homage tothe classic Hollywood police line-up, Alain De-71

lon’s assassin persona, Jef Costello, is revealedby the police. The disclosure of his identity
damages his integrity as an assassin — a gun forhire under investigation cannot be trusted. This
revelation impedes Costello’s work, causing
a struggle as his nefarious connections refuse
their camaraderie. A life of isolation leaves him
with no one to turn to. Even his apartment is ill
furnished, containing merely rows of cigarettes
and a caged bird that bears sole witness to his
seclusion. Yet Costello endeavors to continue
his life of crime, the mechanics of a hit man
ingrained within him. As his identity has been
unveiled, it can ultimately only lead to disaster.
In Drive, Gosling refuses to select anidentity, which bears an attempt at contextualizing him with Clint Eastwood’s onscreen
persona, “the Man with No Name.” To further
untangle a web of connections, Sergio Leone’s
trilogy originated as a direct western restructur-

soft-spoken and endearing femininity to a piecethat focuses on illegitimate vocations. A joyride
along the Los Angeles River and a reserved relationship with Irene’s son develop Gosling’s
character as caring and civil, though it is a civility he emphatically disregards when placedin danger. It is the melodramatic elements thatvalidate his ferocity; his shrouded romantic affections for Irene drive his ambitions to cometo her family’s aid. As the Driver attempts torelease his neighbor’s family from the pressuresof living under crooked debt, Nicolas Winding
Refn allows the melodramatic relationships tobe thoroughly explored.
What enables the melodrama in Drive
is simply negated in Le Samouraï. Melville’s meticulous and evocative fabrication of masculinity within his dark criminal realm famously denies roles of gender. His protagonists at a glance
represent figures from American cinema’s past,and his films emphasize the struggles of theFrench Resistance or concern criminal worlds.
Centering around these types of characters enables what French film theorist and Melville enthusiast Ginette Vincendeau described as “homosocial” cinema, or film in which the worldthat the characters inhabit is almost entirely
male. For while Costello’s former lover serves
as a convenient alibi for his murderous actions
and a charming piano player turns her head tohis crime, Melville notoriously denies his films
romance. Focusing instead on the idiosyncraing of Kurosawa’s savage films. Despite the fact sies of the illicit worlds he invents, his characthat Eastwood is referred to subtly as “Joe” or ters — such as Costello — are invigorated byother mute monikers, his identity is built upon survival and money. They grasp feeble worlds,
his resilience and potential to impart justice their lawlessness warranted by the conviction
within the outlaw communities via ruthless vio- that with one final crime they may be able tolence. Gosling’s character, the Driver, seems a retire into oblivion, as they have successfully
far cry from a modern Eastwood, although his triumphed over the ennui of a capitalistic sysend goal is also vaguer than the obvious bundle tematic hegemony. Yet Costello’s lawlessnessof cash. Drive ventures past underworld bur- is two-sided, for the criminal languor Melvilleglary as the Driver’s shady midnight escapades romances leads to a world-weariness of a life inbecome intermingled with the melodrama of disconnect.
romantic interest. His professional life becomes
Melville further manipulates genre
entangled with his neighbor’s struggle to raise by stripping Le Samouraï of the thriller aspect
her son, and her husband’s release from prison of the American noir film, which he so adores.
only further snarls up the circumstances. Yet, Delon plays the role calculatedly, speaking only
Carey Mulligan’s character Irene presents a when necessary to direct the story, another as-“They grasp feeble worlds,
their lawlessness warranted by the conviction thatwith one final crime they
may be able to retire into
oblivion...”72

pect shared by the protagonist of Drive. Deconstructing Costello’s two assassinations, Vincendeau uncovers that they reveal the character’s
ritualistic nature rather than his passion. Eachkilling is executed monotonously: Costello
wears white Adidas gloves standard to Melville’s gangsters and takes his hands out of his
pockets without a gun. While the next shot reveals the man he is attempting to kill holding
a gun to Costello, miraculously it is Costello’s
gloved hand which appears firing the gun, successfully assassinating his victim. Calculated editing tricks the viewer into recognizing Costello
has succeeded in the crime miraculously. Whilea concise plot summary of the film would haveit seemingly centered on action and death, inreality, Melville exposes the hidden internal assumptions of the genre by toying with the conventions of cinema.
With the Driver trapped inside a hotel
room after his con has gone awry and leaving
Irene’s husband dead, Drive utilizes bloodshed
and exhilarating chase sequences to a different
effect. The Driver, motivated by the unjust debt
placed upon Irene, exhibits a merciless passionthat is quite the opposite of Delon’s calculated
movements. The gruesome ferocity aided bycontemporary cinematic slow motion adds a

hyperreality to the action of thwarting his killers. Yet, this action is validated within the narrative by the Driver’s ritual isolation, an art inits devotion to self and vocation. Similar to themoral coding of westerns like The Wild Bunch,
in which gruesome action is claimed acceptable
for loyalty and fidelity, the viewer is encouraged
to endorse the underdog.
Delon’s Costello in Le Samouraï reaches an unfortunate and dismal fate. Chased by acolossal team of police — even by cinema standards — Costello nearly frees himself before ultimately allowing himself to be abdicated. Paidin advance for his next crime, Costello knows
it will be his last. In one of cinema’s most magnificent turns of fate, Costello attempts his last
hit with the elegance and sophistication of asamurai who has spent his entire life unaccompanied in his exploits. His appointment to kill
the female pianist is fulfilled by his own murder. Establishing his obligatory intention to kill
her, he draws his gun. The bloodthirsty Parisianpolice force surrounds the doorways of the darknightclub, executing Costello. When the police
investigate Costello’s revolver, they find it empty, a metaphor that corresponds directly to theritual harakiri of the samurai.

73

Drive’s Driver amends a trope of the noir conclusion in favor of a more western standard. He
is allowed to survive his grisly escapade; however, the film’s closing shot depicts him struggling
to claim his breath, forcing viewers to deliberate the significance of either his living or dying.
He is allowed to walk free, yet he leaves themoney behind, perhaps a tribute to the potentially good inner nature of the protagonists ofKurosawa’s and Leone’s films. It is a gesture that
rejects the greed and violence of his opponents,
furthering him toward an ideal of sincerity.
Jean-Pierre Melville’s genius cinematic
approach of reconstructing the famed American noir hero for the French public quickly
came to an end. Le Samouraï stands as the pinnacle of his popularity in France, as well as thelast films created in his famed Rue Jenner studio, which burned to the ground just as filming
was completed. Although his next film, L’armée
Des Ombres, or Army of Shadows (1969), received critical acclaim and cultural attention
for its depiction of the French resistance, it did
not achieve sensational success and Melvilletook this nonfulfillment personally. Melville’s
life was contained within the ashes of his Rue
Jenner studio. It remains interesting to note,however, that the only true fatality of the fire
was Costello’s caged bird, sole companion to
Melville’s lost samurai.
In Drive, the Driver plays with the ideals of a hero, and from the get-go, his persona
implores that to live lawfully is out of the question. His scorpion-embroidered gold jacket likens his identity to ideals defined by characterssuch as “Batman,” heroes with a virtuous defiance. The opportunity to earn an honest living
as a racecar driver appeals as a valid means ofliving, even with the possibility of provisional
fatherhood subtly suggested. However, it isevident that a life on a racetrack isn’t what Gosling’s character of the “Driver” had envisioned.

74

Once pressured, Drive’s characters deliver violence with cringing intensity. The Driver andhis scorpion jacket are allowed to survive, begging the question of whether the unnamed protagonist will rise again.
In linking these films the discussion
seems almost haphazard, crossing national borders to link characters not by genre but throughthe dissection of similarities within their endeavors. The cinema is persistently retrospective
and, if contemplated with an attentive frame,
the characters of these films seem to be in conversation with one another. These shadow character’s attributes have been solidified historically, derived from murky periods in which theirloneliness and devotion to their profession is
amplified. A mystique surrounds their actions
as their heroic portrayal is not territory specific.
These classically notorious and silent outcasts
have long haunted the cinema, and it is seemingly their enterprise to continue.
Altman, Rick. “A Syntactic/Semantic Approach toFilm Genre.” In Film Genres Reader III. Ed. Barry
Keith Grant. Austin: University of Texas PRess,
2003.
Danks, Adrian. “Le Deuxième Souffle: After the
Fall - From the Current.” The Criterion Collection.
8 Oct. 2008. Web. 08 Dec. 2011. <http://www.
criterion.com/current/posts/
703-le-deuxiemesouffle-after-the-fall>.
Mitchell, Lee Clark. “Violence Begets.” In Westerns: Making the Man in Fiction and Film. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Melville, Jean-Pierre, dir. Le Deuxieme Souffle.
Criterion Collection, 1966. Film. <http://www.
imdb.com/title/tt0060305/>.
Melville, Jean-Pierre, dir. Le Samouraï. Criterion
Collection, 1967. Film. <http://www.imdb.com/
title/tt0062229/>.