Space Oddities: La Belle et la Bête (1946) film review

La Belle et la Bête, Director: Jean Cocteau (1946)

This review will cover the impact of the set design to contemporary films and audiences. As the director, Jean Cocteau uses the genre of the film as a fantasy fairy tale to influence his set design. The themes of the film that are left in the symbolisation as characters visit the Beast’s castle become prominent as this is where the film becomes focused on this element. It is set in the 16^th century, however the castle designs are far more abstract and juxtaposing to the more realistic depictions of forest are villages with a mystical tone. It was a concept by Christian Bérard who was a fashion illustrator for Coco Chanel and Nina Ricci and was brought in to be the films’ production designer. Minimalistic darkness interspersed with arms holding candle sticks give the film a memorable aestheticism without having to have a large budget or expensively designed set. In this comparison of La Belle et la Bête to the 1991 animated adaptation Beauty and the Beast by the Disney production company, Eric D. Snider of the film blog website Film.com, who has said that “Cocteau was part of the avant-garde movement that also loosely included the Dadaists and Surrealists,” and talking over what it influenced for design in the Disney adaption and for other cinema, he went on “They [Disney] took Cocteau’s idea of talking doors and food that magically serves itself a step further, giving the sentient inanimate objects actual voices and personalities. In Cocteau’s version, the hallways are lined with candles held by human arms coming out of the walls; rather eerily, details like that are never explained… you can also see Cocteau’s whimsical, imaginative visual style reflected in the films of Tim Burton, Michel Gondry, and Terry Gilliam”. (Snider, 2011)

As a poet and a painter himself, a thought about Cocteau by audiences and reviewers is that in his direction, he wanted to bring greater impact of moods and a feeling of dissatisfaction after the end of World War 2, which brought a difficultly to filming as well. In film critic Roger Ebert’s Review of the film on his website, he writes “Cocteau, a poet and surrealist, was not making a "children's film" but was adapting a classic French tale that he felt had a special message after the suffering of World War II: Anyone who has an unhappy childhood may grow up to be a Beast.” (Ebert, 1999) The film lingers on feelings of dissatisfaction and even after a happy conclusion there is still lingering discontentment. At the end of the film, the Beast is transformed back into the archetypal ‘Prince Charming’ character, and Belle appears to be left slightly dissatisfied by this, as an ordinary fairy tale ending. As Michelle Aldredge of Gwarlingo, an online journal or creative media says, “Cocteau implores his audience to suspend disbelief—to watch the film as a child would. Just as the opening credits on the chalkboard are erased, and the shot of the erasable clapperboard stopped, the filmmaker asks us to erase our preconceptions and expectations.” (Aldredge, 2012)

The film is notable for using camera tricks and stylistic choices prevalent in cinema before computer effects were used in modern filmmaking. Aldredge also describes the effects that Cocteau and the film’s cinematographer Henri Alekan used, including “reverse and slow-motion shots, mirrors, and other camera tricks to striking effect. Cocteau’s decision to keep the camera still was against the prevailing fashion of the time. According to Cocteau’s diary, this was a source of some friction with Alekan.” (Aldredge, 2012) The surreal imagery of the film influenced the 1991 animated adaption for the anthropomorphic servants of the enchanted castle and the film is still hailed for its heavy poetic style, notably by Ebert himself, who described it as “one of the most magical of all films”, according Snider’s review.

Bibliography

Sources

Snider, E.D.

2011

What’s the Big Deal?: Beauty and the Beast (1946)

http://www.film.com/movies/whats-the-big-deal-beauty-and-the-beast-1946

Ebert, R.

1999

Beauty and the Beast Review

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-beauty-and-the-beast-1946

Aldredge, M.

2012

Jean Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast: More Than Meets the Eye

http://www.gwarlingo.com/2012/jean-cocteau-beauty-and-the-beast/

Images

Film Poster

La Belle et la Bête

http://vintagemoviepostersforum.com/discussion/40/la-belle-et-la-bete-1946 [Accessed on 07/11/15]

Fig 1

La Belle et la Bête film still

https://scribehardonfilm.wordpress.com/2012/05/ [Accessed on 07/11/15]

Fig 2

La Belle et la Bête film still

www.cineplex.com [Accessed on 07/11/15]

Fig 3

La Belle et la Bête film still

www.literature.hss.ed.ac.uk [Accessed on 07/11/15]

Space Oddities- 2001: A Space Odyssey Film Review

2001: A Space Odyssey, Director: Stanley Kubrick (1968)

This essay will discuss the meanings and thoughts behind 2001: A Space Odyssey. As a film which has notable acclaim, it still divides audiences, who may be taken in by the how the film looks in the cinematography, beyond to the deeper meaning behind certain moments, whereas the rest of the audience may be put off by the slow pace of the film, which leaves the audience expectant but unsatisfied when tension is built up but goes on building. Like many of the long zooming shots of space crafts, which take up a few minutes of screen time, the director Stanley Kubrick challenges the viewer and establishes his dominance over expectation. This quote from the Guardian review of the rerelease of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Peter Bradshaw can explain some of the theories the viewer may have of the film as a whole: “Maybe only rocket science and deep space could absorb Kubrick’s famous coldness and control and tendency to visionary gigantism. It has become customary to place 2001 in a challenging or dark or dystopian sci-fi tradition... actually, 2001 doesn’t exactly fit that first camp either: something in its mandarin blankness and balletic vastness, and refusal to trade in the emollient dramatic forms of human interest and human sympathy.” (Bradshaw, 2014)

Kubrick can be described as an auteur director, as many of his other projects such as The Shining (1980) have the same detail of focus to symmetry into compositions, as well as lighting and simplistic design. Symmetry has effect, such as when one of the focus characters, Dave walks down the tunnel of his exploration spaceship. The tight and constricting area is set into a octagon and shoot with white light so it almost glows, and has the effect of conveying perfectness and control which lends itself to unease, which is the embodiment of the state of control the character of the HAL 9000 has in that section of the film.

The film raises a number of symbols that tie into the climax and ending including the large monolith or monoliths that appear multiple times in the film, the foetus that appears in Space looking over Earth and the scene of the focus character Dave in the Victorian-style luxury house, looking at himself aging and dying. There is little explanation to the significance of these objects, but it is presented so that the audience cannot help question the meanings of film or whether there are any deeper meanings at all. Symbolism of rebirth, evolution and the control of God and the unexplained mysteries of the universe can be called into question and in analysis of audience reaction to the considered confusing nature of the film and for points that are never expressly explained the film, Film Critic Roger Ebert writes on his website, in regards to the bedroom scene “My intuition is that it came out of Kubrick's imagination; that he understood the familiar bedroom would be the most alien, inexplicable, disturbing scene he could possibly end the film with. He was right. The bedroom is more otherworldly and eerie than any number of exploding stars,” (Ebert, 1968) which could mean that Kubrick wasn’t trying to convey realism but metaphoric expression of otherworldly phenomena.

The monoliths seem to spark a connective link to the prehistoric and the future as well as thoughts on infinity and could symbolise as the desire to evolve, as well as knowledge, power and discovery, as the many creatures and Humans that come into contact with it are drawn into discovery. As in the novel based around and written for the film by Arthur C. Clark, who worked with Kubrick on the film, the monoliths are described as ancient alien technology which monitors the progression and helps develop the evolution of apes into man. In an article for the Hollywood Reporter, a review of the film talks about the meaning behind the final scene: “The entire sequence can be accepted as an allegory of the act of conception. At one point during the liquid churnings of a tailed white spermatozoic blob thrashes toward a distant ova shape. Dullea, now aged, lands his space pod in a bedroom whose illuminated floor and walls reveal Louis Seize decor, Empire furnishings, romantic paintings, a womb expressing timeless comfort and personal taste. He sees the alien as himself, and an older, dying figure in his likeness on a deathbed, one arm lifted in supplication or farewell toward the towering monolith. The figure is replaced by a perfectly formed starchild, an aureoled fetus looking beyond this solar system, forming an infinite trinity in the heavens with the arc of the moon and Jupiter, reborn, innocent and aware. Appropriately, all the evidence of transitory technology is absent, leaving only man's vision, perpetuated in eternity.” (The Hollywood Reporter, 2014)

Bibliography

Sources:

Bradshaw, P.

2014

2001: A Space Odyssey review – still after all these years

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/27/2001-a-space-odyssey-review-rerelease

Ebert, R.

1968

"2001" – the monolith and the message

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-the-monolith-and-the-message

The Hollywood Reporter,

2014

2001: A Space Odyssey 1968 review

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/2001-a-space-odyssey-read-747494

Images:

Film Poster

2001: A Space Odyssey

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

Film Still, figure 1

2001: A Space Odyssey

http://2001.wikia.com/wiki/Discovery_1

Film Still, figure 2

2001: A Space Odyssey

http://whatculture.com/film/what-does-the-ending-of-2001-a-space-odyssey-really-mean.php

Film Still, figure 3

2001: A Space Odyssey

http://blog.dotandbo.com/2015/06/10-movie-interiors-that-will-transport-you-to-an-alternate-universe/

Film Still, figure 4

2001: A Space Odyssey

https://citygirlgwen.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/2001-a-space-odyssey/

Space Oddities: King Kong (1933) Film Review

King Kong, Directors: Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack, (1933)

Fig 1, (1933), King Kong, Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, [Movie Poster], U.S.A, RKO Studios, https://vintages-antiques-collectibles.knoji.com/ten-valuable-1933-king-kong-movie-collectibles/

This review will be covering topics of the original Blockbuster giant, King Kong. Research on this topic is about the use of various techniques film makers used for early 20^th century films for visual effects and set design, to convince audiences of the authenticity, though such feats or visuals would not be found in reality. Willis O’Brien, as head of the visual and special effects was one of the men in charge of bringing the particular vision of Kong and the scenery to the screen. According to an article posted on The Film Spectrum by Jason Fraley (2012), O’Brien had been “tinkering with a new technique called stop-motion photography” when he was asked to be part of the production of the film, allowing Kong to be one of the most iconic in its effects with a large portion of the picture with stop-motion Plasticine and plastic, which was revolutionary. The shots of the vast jungle were captured using more camera trickery techniques like layered glass matte paintings in a multiplane style for depth whilst placing foliage in the foreground.

Fig 2, (1933), King Kong, Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, [Movie Still], U.S.A, RKO Studios, http://www.wearemoviegeeks.com/2015/04/king-kong-screens-schlafly-bottleworks-may-7th/

Kong is often described as being the godfather of summer blockbusters, which saw its success in its ground-breaking accomplishments as well as catering to social norm, which date it to being a product of the time. Referring to the film’s racist undertones, The Gothic Other: Racial and Social Constructions in the Literary Imagination- edited by Ruth Bienstock Anolik and Douglas L. Howard (2004), compiles the thoughts of these issues by other critics and reviewers. The reference comes from Elizabeth Young and Harvey Roy Greenberg, two journalists who have commented on Kong, who Young feels epitomises “the white man’s daydream of the black brute, the heartless, mindless foreigner, feasting on violence and rapine” as the metaphor of Kong as a character. In Greenberg’s view, he believes “we discern in Kong’s persona the raw sexuality which the racist bumpkin Driscoll has repressed, and which Ann has aroused”.

Fig 3, (1933), King Kong, Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, [Movie Still], U.S.A, RKO Studios, http://pyxurz.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/king-kong-page-2-of-5.html

The film in this viewpoint could be called a racist artefact, one that inspires a generation but still came from a period of history where stereotyping and generalisation were more prevalent and excepted in mass western culture. Deeper roots in social commentary may suggest that Kong is a sexual rape fantasy, which throw symbolism of the chains he wears in New York as the chain of a slave, oppressed in this new environment and pinned down by his captor: Carl Dernham’s arrogance claiming that Kong was once a king, but he will be taught fear as a captive, which is a point summarized by the critic Josh Larson in 2011, featured on the Rotten Tomatoes film critiquing website. “Kong is a stand-in for victims of modern colonialism, an era that would soon come to an end; the way the movie depicts brute nature succumbing to human hubris,” which reflect upon the way Kong may be perceived as frightening and the story’s villain as well as tragic and sympathetic.

Fig 4, (1933), King Kong, Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, [Movie Still], U.S.A, RKO Studios, http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/buildings/empire-state.html

It was seen as a taboo in that era for an inter-racial pairing, so this can be seen as a self-aware commentary on primal urges. This is brought about in the film by the clash of testosterone brought about by the character of Ann, raising jealousy and primal rage in Kong against Jack Driscoll, the rough sailor who expresses notions that can be seen as sexist, but it is protective of Ann. As a classic characterisation, Ann could be viewed by contemporary audiences as simply the device of sexual desires, whose only role is to be saved by an Alpha male. However, what gives her role purpose is addressed in the closing lines of the film. After being confirmed of the Ape’s demise, Dernham remarks that “it was Beauty who killed the Beast,” meaning that in the nature of sexual desire, the lure of a woman, in this case Ann, piloted the romance to its’ destruction.

Fig 5, (1933), King Kong, Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack, [Movie Still], U.S.A, RKO Studios, http://bobbyriverstv.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/race-and-king-kong-1933.html

Despite being dated in the films’ Depression time period, King Kong is still regaled as a classic and has inspired films and filmmakers after it, for remakes to visual style epics, including Ray Harryhausen, who became a stop motion expert after watching the film at age 13 in 1933 and contacting O’Brien, and has since after worked with him on Mighty Joe Young (1949), becoming a visual effects visionary in his own right, becoming famous for his work on Jason and the Argonauts (1963) and Clash of the Titans (1981) Source 1.  Peter Jackson, director of the 2005 remake of King Kong, had the opportunity while in production to make contemporary changes in regards to technology and scripting, changing the roles of all main leads to better fit a modern audience’s viewpoint. Ann is a more active, empathetic character to Kong; Kong is portrayed with more intelligence and dignity than just brutish desire and the Natives encountered in both stories are changed to be harder to place in reality than the originals depiction of strange savage people as dark-skinned and very Zulu-like, in encompassing fear of unknown strangers, meaning the objections to the original being a product of the Racist and men dominating times, is now less of an issue in the remake.

Bibliography

Source 1: Website

Author: Fraley. J

Year of Publication: 2012

Title of Article: The Film Spectrum/ King Kong (1933)

URL: http://thefilmspectrum.com/?p=5407

Accessed on: 10/10/15

Source 2: E-book accessed by Google

Author(s): Bienstock Anolik, Howard

Title: The Gothic Other: Racial and Social Constructions in the Literary Imagination

Year of Publication: (2004)

Page numbers: 75-76

Source 3: Website

Author: Larson. J

Year of Publication: 2011

Title of Article: Larson on Film/ King Kong (1933)

URL:  http://www.larsenonfilm.com/king-kong-3

Accessed on: 08/10/2015

Source 4: Website

Title: Rotten Tomatoes/ King Kong (1933)

URL: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1011615-king_kong/

Accessed on: 08/10/2015