500 Days of Summer - Essay

Hollywood is the most popular and respected film industry around the world. It has many variations of film. But it was studied intensely in the 1970s, when the first French and then British and American film theorists began applying psychoanalysis to film in an attempt to discuss the spectator-screen relationship. As well as the textual relationships within the films, this essay focuses on theorists like Laura Mulvey, E.A Kaplan and Linda Williams. Theorist Laura Mulvey (1975) believed that the world of cinema is dominated by men, therefore women are on screen only for visual pleasure. She debated by demonstrating the domination of the male gaze, within and without the screen, at the expense of the woman's; so much so that the female spectator had little to gaze upon or identify with. Her theory was challenged by theorist E. Ann Kaplan (1983), who believed that in mainstream Hollywood cinema, it is men on the whole who can act on the desiring gaze. She debated that the spectator has to make a conscious effort, in order to feel aligned with the female character on screen. Both Mulvey's and Kaplan's theories were explored further by theorist Linda Williams (1984) who believed that when the woman is powerful with the dominant gaze, the woman's gaze is punished. She will have to pay for it with her life if she's dominant. Thus, the spectator usually would not want to align with the on screen female character as she suffers. These theories have been explored in Marc Webb's Romantic-comedy, 500 Days of Summer (2009). It is about a woman, Summer, who doesn't believe true love exists, and the young man, Tom, who falls for her. The short outline of the story gives away the exploration, and automatically supports Mulvey's theory. The young man, Tom falls for her, therefore, this tells the audience that they will be watching the "man" who will be desiring the "woman"; does he get her or not? This is what drives the story of the film.

Theorist, Laura Mulvey argued that women are on screen for the visual pleasure of men as films are made for men to watch, by the male dominant industry. Whether the person is a writer, producer or director, all these jobs are handled by mostly by men. Therefore, Mulvey invented the term Male Gaze, which means that the audience (male or female) are looking at the woman on screen, through the eyes of the male character on screen. The man is always the subject who desires the woman, the object. Thus, the audience and the spectators see, feel and align with the male character on screen. This is very clearly explored in Tom's imaginative and descriptive scene, on Summer. Tom's yearning for Summer is very clear when he lists the "perfect" Summer. He thinks about her appearance and lists her body parts and her smile. While he describes her, we are shown his thoughts, where the camera (cinematography), shows close-ups of her breasts, knees and smile, which makes the scene sexualised. Hence it makes Summer a visual pleasure for male spectators watching her. However, as the film is from Tom's perspective, the audience (male or female) align with Tom and see it as pleasure as well. But this scene can also be taken as either preferred reading or negotiated reading, depending on how the spectator feels while visualising this scene. The same scene is repeated later in the film, however this time Tom disapproves her beauty and calls her breasts, knees and smile ugly. Again, the audience align with Tom as the objectified woman he desires, is being seen negatively by him, followed by the audience. However, as she's sexualised exactly like the previous desirable scene, some male spectators may not agree and align with Tom. As they might see her attractive the way they did before. This depends on the negotiated and preferred readings, yet again and on how the spectator views the scene and who they align with. Is it the subject (Tom) or the object (Summer), who is defenceless, as she cannot do anything about the way she's being desired and looked at? This then links with E.A Kaplan's theory on the submissive gaze and alignment.

Kaplan had argued that women are not active but are submissive. They are objectified on screen, and it is the spectator who has to align with the female character consciously, in order to understand them and not just see them as objects on screen. In 500 Days of Summer, Kaplan's theory is explored during the expectation versus reality scene. As we know what Tom is desiring, however we are unaware of Summer's thoughts and feelings. The scene deliberately makes the audience feel aligned with Tom, as the screen is split in half, with "expectation" and "reality" written underneath the screens that are being portrayed. Because as the audience we know what Tom is thinking and feeling, we automatically feel for him and align with him. We feel distressed the way Tom does and does not think about Summers thoughts and feelings. On the other hand, it is the spectator who will consciously make the decision of aligning with Summer, and try to understand how Summer must be feeling, during Tom's expectation versus reality scene. This could possibly depend on the oppositional reading, and how the male/female spectators view the scene from their perspective.  Another scene that exemplifies Kaplan's theory is after Tom and Summer have consummated, and Tom exits the streets, while dancing. This particular scene is centred around him, as he celebrates his 'conquer of Summer' and his masculinity. Following Kaplan's theory, it is very clearly shown that Summer is not active in this celebration, which leads the spectators to consciously question how she feels about the current situation. However, Tom is portrayed very feminine in this scene, with him dancing and singing away, while imaging the Disney animations. But he has phallic objects (fountain), around him, to make the audience celebrate along with him. Yet, the sense of femininity within the scene, consciously makes the spectators think about Summer, and what her thoughts may be.

Webb's 500 Days of Summer, also explores theorist, Linda Williams' theory, who argued that when women have the dominant gaze in films, they are often punished because of their "active gaze". Therefore, the spectator does not align with the dominant female, because she suffers. Throughout the film Summer is shown to have more power over Tom, thus, this challenges Williams' theory instead of supporting it, as Summer has a fairytale ending by the finale of the film. Another example of Summer's power is explored, when she describes herself as 'Sid' and Tom as 'Nancy'. By doing this, she reverses the typical male and female roles, as she makes herself dominant by comparing herself to a male complexion. Therefore, Tom is left being seen as the 'damsel' character, who sobs when he doesn't get what he desires. This is because of his fragile femininity and desire for love. But, Summer is still 'punished', in terms of response. The audience aligns with Tom throughout the whole film, which leaves us disliking her character because we feel the way Tom feels. The reason being for this is the film being shown through Tom's point of view, which again links with Kaplan's theory. This is up to the spectator to consciously make the decision of aligning with the female character (Summer), and understanding her point of view. Through this, not everyone in the audience will feel completely aligned with Tom, and dislike Summer.

Overall, the three theorists and their theories have a strong point while challenging and debating each other's theories. All three theories are significant, however Laura Mulvey's Male gaze and Kaplan's Submissive gaze theories seems to be the two dominant theories used throughout 500 Days of Summer. Evidently because the whole film is from Tom's perspective, the audience are deliberately forced to feel the way Tom does. However since the film is a central imagining film, it has purposeful use of micro elements to incite feelings for the spectator. This is why the film is seen through the eyes of Tom.

Theorists and 500 Days of Summer

https://prezi.com/bovrfgopbb_6/theorists-and-500-days-of-summer/#

How is the spectator affected in 'Clockwork Orange?'

In 'A Clockwork Orange' directed by Stanley Kubrick, the spectator is affected by being forced to align with the central character Alex, a mentally deranged sociopath. Throughout the film, the spectator watches scenes of Alex performing and enjoying acts of violence and rape. However, Alex is positioned in the film as the narrator in a linear narrative which means that the spectator see the film from his perspective and are compelled to sympathise with him. The film is also visually symbolic of Alex's own disturbed and sociopathic outlook on the world.

In the first twenty minutes of the film, The character Alex is introduced to the spectator along with his gang members, which he calls his droogs. The audience is shown Alex and his droogs physically assaulting an old homeless man, they have a brawl with another similar gang in a old casino, they steal a car and drive recklessly down the countryside causing other cars to crash before finally stopping at a old writer's house where they break in, beat the writer crippling him and rape his wife. Whilst the audience watch the scenes, classical music plays over the top of the scenes, for example Beethoven, which when combined with the film's surreal near future setting make the violence seem stylised and strange. This constant stream of violent images with classical music played over them straight from the start of the movie is metaphorically similar to Alex's Ludovico technique he experiences in the film, where he is subject to violent images whilst strapped into a cinema seat. The positioning of this metaphorical Ludovico treatment for the spectator is to desensitise them, much like how Alex is desensitised to violence because he is a sociopath. Kubrick does this because he wants the spectator to reject an association or any alignment with Alex because he is performing violent acts.

It is not until the second part of the film where Alex's develops a physical aversion for violence or conflict after his Ludovico treatment where we begin to sympathise with him. The film's narrative in the second part is similar to how it was in the first part of the film. Firstly, Alex is thrown out of his home by his parents and their new lodger, he is recognised by the homeless man he beat earlier in the film who take his things and beat him. Then, his former droogs, Georgie and Dim, are revealed to become police officers and drive him to the middle of the woods, where he is nearly drowned. This drowning sequence is similar to how Alex throws them into the water during the first part of the film when they are walking across the marina. In pain, he comes across the old writers home who doesn't recognise him at first but after hearing Alex sing 'Singing in the rain' which was sung during his wife's rape, the writer locks Alex in a room whilst playing 'Beethoven's 9th' through speakers, knowing that as a byproduct of the Ludovico technique, Alex is physically averse to the song. Unable to take anymore, he throws himself out of the window in a attempt to commit suicide. This seemingly karmic sequence of events are an attempt to make the spectator align with Alex and feel sympathy for him, for example, the use of non-diagetic sad music during the scene where he is thrown out by his parents. We also see the writer character taking pleasure in Alex's torment when he is locked in the room, mirroring Alex's own love of violence and Beethoven in the first part of the film.

The drowning scene shows the karmic nature of the film. Alex
has been made 'to suffer when others have suffered.'

Him doing the same thing earlier in the film.

Depending on the spectators own extra-textual experiences, the character Alex is purposely made to be dislikable in the first part of the film, the spectator is supposed to take a oppositional reading into the character of Alex who clearly enjoys violence and rape along with classical music and is depicted as a sociopath with no moral compass. However the second part of the film challenges this oppositional reading of Alex by making the audience feel sympathetic towards him in that he is submitted to the same violent behaviour that he caused to others in the first part of the film.

The film is also visually distinctive in order to portray Alex as the narrator of the film. The film's stylised violence accompanied with the score of classical music shows Alex's fascination with art and sexual violence. This juxtaposition between art and sexual violence is notable in the fight scene in the abandoned shot. The establishing shot of the scene is a mural of flowers on top of the stage before the camera zooms out to show Billy boy's gang raping a woman. Another example is the scene in Alex's bedroom where it is implied he masturbates to the small crucified Jesus figurines, accompanied with Beethoven's 9th symphony and jump cuts to the hands, feet and genitals of the figurines. The use of stock footage further reinforces that Alex is masturbating to violence.

The mis-en-scene of the film is depicted as surreal and over-sexualised. In the very first scene in the Korova milk bar, the tables in the film are white naked woman figurines on four legs. The costumes Alex and his droogs wear costumes that accentuate their groin. The milk dispensers in the bar dispense milk out of a naked figurines nipple. The masks Alex and his droogs wear during the break in are phallic in nature. The lobby of Alex's apartment building has been vandalised with numerous penis drawn onto the mural,showing a further juxtaposition of sex and art. Another example is the two girls that Alex picks up at the record shop and he has a threesome with them in which is stylised because it is filmed in extreme fast forward. The cat lady's house which Alex and his Droogs break into is full of sexual imagery, including a big penis statue that the cat lady is very protective over. When Alex rams the big penis into the cat lady's face killing her, it is followed by a jump cut of a picture of a screaming woman with two sets of teeth. This sets a subtext in the film because it implies that Alex's parents used to abuse him. Alex's mother has a set of false teeth, and this is the reason why Alex has a lock on his bedroom door, to keep a physical barrier between himself and his parents. This is further implied through the scene with Deltoid on the bed where he grabs Alex by the balls, putting him into a similar position to the Korova milk bar tables, implying this is a place where Alex has been sexualised.

In the second part of the film, this violent and sexual imagery is not as noticeable. This is because it shows that Alex has been cured by the Ludovico treatment and that he is physically averse to violence and sexual violence. The use of central and a-central imagining to show the difference between the two parts of the film. For example, the first part of the film features a lot of central imagining. The scene where Alex is drowned by Georgie and Dim features a strange synth noise after every hit from the baton. We also see people getting beaten and women being raped in the first part of the film which is stylised through the use of Beethoven and other classical music used. A example of A-central imagining is when the old writer tortures Alex using the 9th symphony played through speakers. The camera zooms out on his face to reveal his pleasure at the torment accompanied by the classical music. This implies that the old writer has become what Alex in the first part of the film, the same zoom out effect is used similar to the first scene of the film where the camera zooms out on Alex.

the first shot of the film. Establishes Alex as menacing from the get go.

Similar close up. The writer also looks like Beethoven.

It can be implied that after Alex is submitted to the same torture that the Old man is enduring, he recognises himself in his own behaviour and kills himself in guilt or to make the pain stop. This affects the spectator because it makes the film visually different on a sub-conscious level to give Kubrick the affect he wants. He wants the audience to not align with Alex in the first half of the film and then align in sympathy for him in the second half of the film. By taking away the strange and surreal visual imagery that Alex sees during the first half, it makes Alex more associable with the spectator.

Full Metal Jacket

Reception Theory

- Was this film provocative, throwaway or intellectually demanding?

The film is both provocative and intellectually demanding. The provocative aspects of the film consist of the horrible activities the soldiers do. The soldiers are racist to each other, the helicopter gunner shoots at innocent vietnamese women and children and says 'Ain't war hell!'' ironically, the solider's pay for a prostitute and take turns having sex with her, and the final scene shows that the solider's want the young girl sniper to die slowly in agony before Joker puts her out of her misery. The content here is intended to disgust us and is showing us that just because America is in Vietnam does not mean that they are the "good guys". The film is also intellectually demanding because it deals with subject matter like war, death and dehumanisation. It also provides morally ambiguous characters as the protagonists, it is very hard to actually like any of the characters in the film, except for Joker (possibly). This moral ambiguity means that it is up to the spectator to distinguish who is a good character or not. There are no character types in the film, instead it is a realistic portrayal of war where all the characters are killing machines.

- What is the preferred reading of the film?

The preferred reading of the film is for the spectator to dislike the characters in the film. Very few of them get our sympathy, such as Pyle. However Pyle does lose that sympathy when he kills the sergeant. Throughout the film, the protagonist and narrator, Joker is possibly the only positive character that most of the audience can sympathise for.  The audience may also associate with Cowboy, who is the leader of the platoon Joker and Rafterman join and seems to be capable of rational thought and decisions, like when he wants to retreat after the sniper kills two soldiers. By disliking the characters and showing their love for killing and war, these aspects make the film an anti-war film.

Central Imagining

- Scene 1

An example for Central imagining is when Private Pyle is insulted in front of the batch. The sergeant makes Pyle strangle himself in front of the whole batch. Kubrick has deliberately made the audience feel connected with Pyle, through cinematography. When Pyle kneels down to get himself strangled by the sergeant, the camera level goes down along with him. Therefore the audience feel like they are at the same level as Pyle, while the sergeant is stood up. This makes the audience feel for Pyle, especially they've  experienced something like humiliation or bullying, themselves. Those particular people will feel aligned with Pyle. Like this scene, any other scene with Pyle being humiliated or bullied, does make the audience feel sorry for him. As he makes a mistake and then gets punished by being humiliated. A lot of the audience including myself would feel similar or the same way because a thing like this has happened in the past.

- Scene 2

In this scene, Kubrick creates a central imagined response through the use of MICRO. The use of mis-en-scene is the blue room which is because it is dark. This darkness is reflective of the content in the scene. The props in the clip are soaps in pillowcase which are used as makeshift weapons to assault Pyle. These weapons show how cruel they are and reflect their want to punish Pyle. The sound in the scene consists of diagetic muffled screams of Pyle and him sobbing in pain. This makes the audience sympathise. The use of the non-diagetic electronic score makes the scene creepy and leaves the audience in suspense in what they are going to do to Pyle. The editing utilizes a long take and symbolises how Pyles pain is extended, the audience is there to watch every hit. The lighting uses moonlight to make the room look intimidating. The moonlight illuminates Pyle's bed symbolising that he is in the spotlight and separate from the rest of them. The camera has an high angle shot which looks down upon the scene.

A-Central Imagining

- Scene 1

Kubrick creates a central imagined response through the use of MICRO. The scene is of the sniper shooting Doc Jay and 8 Ball. The mis-en-scene in the scene represents pain through the blood and the look of agony on their faces while they are shot. The editing in the scene lingers on every bullet impact they suffer, elongating their pain in slow motion. Time slows down for Doc Jay and 8 Ball as they are dying. The sound is a diagetic loud scream of pain that is distorted and slowed down when they are shot. It is important that the sound is diagetic because we can see why are they screaming and it adds to the central imagining. There is only natural lighting in this scene, since they are outside in the day. It also creates the feeling of war, makes it look more realistic. This emphasises that the two of them are completely open and exposed, particularly combined with the camera's use of wide shots.

- Scene 2

This scene shows Animal Mother confronting Joker and having 

animosity towards each other. Its quite clear that from the start

Animal Mother dislikes Joker and threatens to beat him up.

This scene could be quite reminiscent for the audience including me.

Alignment

- Which two characters did you align with most? How did the director make you feel this way?

Kubrick makes the audience align with Pyle and Joker. For the first half of the movie, we align with Pyle and Joker, we sympathise with Pyle because he is portrayed as a character who is tormented and bullied. The first part of the film is a construct of the alienation and separation Pyle feels, the different scenes show Pyle being ostracized for the mistakes he makes, his weight, his lack of discipline and all these flaws are punished by the aggressive shouting and harassment of Hartman. The sympathetic view of the character comes from the extra-textual experiences the spectator may have experienced of bullying. The audience feel aligned to Joker because he tries to help Pyle at boot camp even though in order for him to fit in, contributes to Pyle's beating, it is shown that he is obviously reluctant to do so,

Joker is the narrator of the film and we see the second part of the film, in Vietnam through his eyes. Joker is the only member of the platoon who shows any type of compassion or sympathy for the Vietcong and the innocent people killed in the warfare. The other soldiers are just hyper masculine dehumanized monsters whose main satisfaction in the film is to kill, Joker is a figure which we can rely on because he is the character the audience can associate with the best.

- Name all the characters you felt allegiance to. What extra textual features made you feel this way?

I felt a bit allegiance with Pyle, this is because I've experienced bulling in the past. Although Pyle's bullying is maybe more extreme compared to mine, I still felt sympathised towards  him, and sorry for him. Pyle is unlike the other soldiers in Full Metal Jacket, as he is physically unfit. He does seem to be like an anti war character. This is because, he is more like a day dreamer than the one who concentrates and listens. For example, he accidentally put the riffle on the wrong shoulder, possibly due to the lack of concentration. To make all of that worse is obviously all the humiliation and bullying that he has to suffer. Which is why he ends up committing suicide, which I think is cowardice and wrong to do. That would be the only scene when I don't feel aligned with Pyle because he wrong. However, I understand the suffering he had to go through, which makes me feel a little sad for him, but that does not make me align with him, as I take those actions of his wrong. 

Alignment

Alignment With Character


 

Scene	Are we aligned with Pyle?	Construction – Reference to MICRO and MACRO
Clip One	Yes – We are aligned with Pyle because of the bullying. The scene is Central imaging, where the spectators feel aligned with Pyle. We feel sorry for him, as the sergeant insults him and chokes him in front of the whole batch. Especially if anyone has experienced any sort of bullying in their lifetime, would align themselves more.  A- Central imaging is probably also used in this scene because the sergeant makes Pyle choke himself, evoking a physical response from the audience, causing them to cringe at his physical torment.	The cinematography aligns us with Pyle, as if we’re observing from the sergeants perspective. It looks like we are watching over his shoulder. The editing works with this also as most of the scene if of Pyle’s torment, further aligning us. The diegetic sound aligns us with Pyle due to the way the sergeant speaks to Pyle. This causes us to sympathise with Pyle. This gives the spectator a preferred reading and sympathising, which is what the director may want from of his audience. Some spectators may empathise with Pyle, if they have been through the experience of being bullied themselves.
Clip Two	Yes – We are aligned with Pyle because of the insult and the bully that the sergeant done with him. Apart from that, the comrades from his batch physically bully/abuse him, which makes the spectators feel more aligned with Pyle, which is Central imaging. Some of the spectators may however sympathise with Pyle’s ‘comrades’ who experience torment due to Pyle’s greed.	The non-diagetic sound strengthens the military/army genre. The narrative  presents an underdog story, perhaps causing the spectator to believe that Pyle may begin to come over some of the obstacles, which is want the spectator might want if they are aligned with him. The mise-en-scene at the end of this scene seems to present Pyle as a child due to his costume, the doughnut Pyle is eating and the prop of the hidden doughnut itself. A child who is alone and is psychologically being tortured, as well as physically.
Clip Three	In this particular scene, we (spectators) are aligned with Pyle until he shoots the sergeant, which is A-Central imaging. The first two scenes might be preferred reading, where as this scene would be either negotiated or oppositional. The spectator could not align themselves with Pyle when he goes insane at the end, killing the sergeant. Spectators may not align themselves with Pyle because they may believe morally that killing is wrong, which it is. Central imaging is also used at the end when Pyle kills himself, the audience may align with Pyle and maybe Pyle’s comrade, as all he wanted to do was to help Pyle, rather than what the sergeant attempted to do.	The Mise-en-scene creates Pyle’s and the Sergeants death scene, bringing a clouded resolution to the narrative. This may have caused spectators to take an oppositional reading to this film if they feel themselves aligned with Pyle, believing his death was possibly unjustified.

CENTRAL IMAGINING

About Time

A- CENTRAL IMAGING

The Grudge