"NOT IN FRONT OF THE KIDS!"
SEXUAL AWAKENING IN BEAUTY AND THE BEAST AND THE LITTLE MERMAID
"All good teenagers, take off their clothes"
-Aladdin…
Although Disney fiercely contests it, the presence of this sexually unambiguous phrase in Aladdin (1992 Musker, Clements) is well documented by the Internet community.(1) Although it is highly dubious that the Disney Corporation would knowingly release a film with such explicit sexual innuendo, one would be naive to think that the theme of sexual awakening is completely absent in the fairytale worlds put on screen. Walt Disney himself notes that '[he does] not make films primarily for children' (2) , which implies that an adult audience is considered to be integral to the success of a release. As such, it is conceivable that 'adult' content needs to be, and is, included to satisfy an older demographic. It is also of significance that many of the animated Disney films released over the last thirteen years a have central protagonist of adolescence age; Ariel The Little Mermaid (1989 Musker, Clements) is said to be sixteen, Belle in Beauty and the Beast (1991 Trousdale, Wise) is eighteen and the implication is that Hercules (1997) is approaching his eighteenth birthday. Intertwined with a character's quests for independence is their own development as sexually maturing youths, dealing with and learning how to relate to members of the opposite sex in a non-platonic sense.
It would be easy to label the Disney Corporation as irresponsible or even perverted for including 'adult' sexual material in films that are appealing to children. Bettleheim however, suggests that as fairy tales Disney's animated films are performing a beneficial function to a child's emotion and personal development (3) . It is said that these films are preparing children for the onset of adolescence, almost acting like a rehearsal with the child combating (sometimes mature) problems in conjunction with their an on screen surrogate character. Janet Wasko notes that The Little Mermaid had a large fan base of young girls (4) who would have admired and empathized with the main character as much as they enjoyed the film's story and musical numbers. However much of this audience would have been younger than Ariel herself. The film itself follows the plight of a mermaid Ariel who feels uncomfortable and ill fitting in an underwater world and is curious of life above the surface. One is forced to consider how immature children are when faced with adolescent problems and why they find Ariel's struggles with alienation, love and more importantly sexual awakening so accessible.
Ariel initially strives to be human to "be where the people are"; she later revises this desire after saving Prince Eric's life. She no longer wants to be part of "that world" she now specifically wants to be part of "his world". After meeting the object of her affections Ariel becomes fanatical about marrying him, wanting to become pleasing and accessible to Eric by specifically becoming human. Wasko notes that Ariel is 'sensual, savvy and independent'(5) and at the age of sixteen Ariel embodies all the requisite qualities of a 'new' Disney heroine.
'Disney heroines are always beautiful, shapely and often sexually attractive, while female villains are typically ugly and either extremely thin or grossly fat, thus perpetuating norms of physical beauty prevalent in mainstream American culture.' (6)
Ariel is thus both headstrong and attractive, a 'cross between a typical rebellious teenager and a Southern California fashion model' (7) . Although in terms of the world she inhabits she is confident, the implication is she has had little involvement with the underwater community, and it therefore follows little interaction with mermen. The implication is that it is only once she has visited Ursula that she becomes aware of the powers of her own sexuality and realizes her own qualities both as an individual and as a sexually maturing female. Ariel believes that in order to meet Eric, she must become human and to do so she must give up her voice. As a human mute, Ariel would be sacrificing her charm and wit in order to become what Eric would find physically attractive and enticing. Ursula's insistence on the "importance of body language" leaves Ariel little doubt that in order to marry Eric she must "use her looks and her pretty face". One can draw a subtle sexual theme from this exchange. Ariel becomes convinced that Eric will only find her attractive as a human; the principle difference between humans and mermaids of course being the presence of legs. As a mermaid, Ariel and Eric would not be sexually compatible. Her fin like tail prevents intercourse. A rule of the underwater world is that mermaids may not interact with humans. However Ariel openly defies this when she saves Eric from the shipwreck in the end of the first act. One may suggest that Ariel would be willing and could conceivably have a romantic relationship with Eric while being a mermaid, even though her community would frown it upon. The little mermaid though never considers this option, immediately adapting her desires of being human for pleasure to being human so she can have a physical and romantic relationship with Eric. From this one may deduce that Ariel's desire to be human is routed in a desire to be physically intimate with Eric, or at least be able to sexually function for him.
A more complete sexual awakening is portrayed in Belle, the heroine of Beauty and the Beast. Initially portrayed as a somewhat reserved girl in provincial France, Belle is a stark contrast to the harlots that seem to populate her "quiet village". While other women seem to openly flaunt their figure, taking pleasure in the lecherous stares of the market stool workers, Belle's blue pinafore dress and white shirt conversely covers her cleavage giving her an almost angelic appearance. Marina Warner suggests that Belle 'wears a variation on the pseudo-medieval dress of Snow White' (8) , so one could presumably suggest (as Bettleheim does with Snow White ) (9), that the white alludes to Belle's virginity and her conservative appearance is an attempt to shield herself from the amorous males around her. One specific male is focused on, Gaston, 'the ultimate vain, macho male typical of Hollywood films of the 1980s' (10) . Presumably bored with the less virtuous girls of the village Gaston focuses his attentions on "the most beautiful girl in town", namely Belle. Gaston's self-deception includes all the traits associated with male potency and desirability. As he sings he emphasizes his own strength, virility and even suggests that "every inch of [his body] is covered with hair". However, Belle refuses Gaston's numerous advances instead falling for the eponymous Beast. The unnamed Beast while embodying the amiable qualities of selflessness, compassion and generosity also seems to echo Gaston in many ways. His stature suggests strength and virility, while he also is covered in hair being a fur-based mammal. However, the underlying theme is that beauty is in character and Belle accepts and embraces these overtly masculine traits having fallen for the virtuous man within. Belle has completed what Bettleheim labels her childhood 'growth process', she 'no longer views the other sex as threatening or demonic, but is able to relate positively to it' (11) . She has developed from a naïve and innocent virginal character into a self-aware woman, and the culmination of this development can be found in the ballroom scene.
While spending time with the objects of her affections, Belle has worn increasingly revealing and less restricting dresses. The ballroom scene marks the point where Beauty and the Beast come together romantically. Belle now wears a yellow low cut dress displaying aspects of her figure her partner would find sexually enticing specifically her shoulders and cleavage. Belle's appearance is no longer distanced from the other women in the opening scenes; she has discovered her physical allure and is no longer ashamed of concealing it beneath stifling dresses. (12) The relative proximity and intimacy of the couple in this scene has certain implicit sexual connotations. Belle encourages Beast to embrace her while she then later in the scene nestles against his chest. One can draw further sexual implications from the scene, although some allusions can be debated. The accompanying song, 'Beauty and the Beast' has an almost sexual overtone and when one looks at specific lyrics critically both sexual and romantic readings can be made. As they dance, Mrs Potts sings that there has been "just a little change, small to say the least". One may argue that this simply means a romantic movement of the couple from captor and captive to boyfriend and girlfriend. Alternatively, the lyrics could indicate that they have moved from being a romantic couple to being an intimate or sexual couple. Alternatively the "little change" may allude to the Beast become sexually aroused by Belle. Further lyrics "both a little scared" imply either their fear of romance or their fear of physical involvement. There is also a lyrical focus on things "rising" again making allusions to Beast becoming increasingly erect as the dance continues, supported by the images of phallic like candles illuminating the ballroom. The scene itself ends with Mrs. Potts telling her son Chip to leave the room, since its "past [his] bedtime", while the older character stays. Chip can be read as a surrogate character for the younger children in the audience, so it therefore is conceivable that what follows immediately after the dance is specifically inappropriate for children to observe. This once again brings us round to the question, regarding what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion in a film that is so accessible and appealing to children. Oakhill and Garnham suggest that when looking at a specific media or literature text, children only read the denotative meaning. (13) Interpretation of connotative implications depends on a specific cultural, social and moral awareness that is lacked by younger children. Child analyst Victor Lee concurs saying that studies indicate "that younger children have the ability to make the same sorts of inferences as older ones, but the younger ones tend not to make inferences spontaneously; they only exhibit their ability when prompted'. (14) It therefore follows that while children may be watching the same film as their parents, interpretation of a specific sequence or sexual implication will be observed but not recognized by the child. Disney antagonists who all too quickly label the corporation as being perverted for including salacious adult references, must consider that they are viewing a given text from the perspective of an adult. Children although not naive, would watch the aforementioned Beauty and the Beast sequences not noticing that it perhaps foregrounds Belle's sexual awakening, but instead reading it literally, they simply see that Belle and the Beast are dancing to celebrate their newly found love. As Bettleheim suggests, 'as with all great art, the fairy tale's deepest meaning will be different for each person, and different for the same person at various moments in their life' (15) .
Although it is always shown implicitly within a text, sexual awakening and sexual attraction is always shown as a positive intimate facet of a characters relationship. One must remember that a desire for sexual intimacy is not isolated from a character's desire for romance. At no point does Ariel or Belle pursue the objects of their affections for solely base lustful reasons, love is always fore-grounded and any intimate contact is therefore an extension of that unity. In a society where promiscuity is generally accepted, this moral notion seems to be positive to society rather than detrimental. Disney, rather than being perverse for including adult themes is arguably being realistic given the modern media climate. Since much more explicit sexual themes and issues are explored on television, the treatment of sexual awakening in Disney characters seems to be subtle, relevant and beneficial to parents and their children.
(C)2002 J Hill
Julian Hill
Directly Quoted
(1)'Disney Urban Legends' (2002). 'http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/aladdin.htm
(2) Wasko, J (2001). Understanding Disney. Polity Press. p118
(3) Bettleheim, B (1991). The Uses of Enchantment: The meaning and substance of Fairy Tales. Penguin Publishing. p12
(4) Wasko, J (2001). Understanding Disney. Polity Press. p133
(5) Ibid. p134
(6) Ibid. p116
(7) Giroux, H A (1999). The Mouse that Roared; Disney and the end of Innocence. Roman & Littlefield Publisher inc. p96
(8) Warner M, 'Beauty & the Beasts' in Science Fiction / Horror; A Sight and Sound Reader. Newman, K (ed.) (2002). Bfi Publishing. p129
(9) Bettleheim, B (1991). The Uses of Enchantment: The meaning and substance of Fairy Tales. Penguin Publishing. p199
(10)Giroux, H A (1999). The Mouse that Roared; Disney and the end of Innocence. Roman & Littlefield Publisher inc. p100
(11)Bettleheim, B (1991). The Uses of Enchantment: The meaning and substance of Fairy Tales. Penguin Publishing. p12
(12)In some following scenes, Belle does once again return to wearing concealing clothing. However I would suggest that this is due to practically reasons and weather conditions rather than a regressive movement in her sexual development.
(13)Oakhill, J V and Garnham, A (1998). Becoming a skilled reader, Blackwell Publishing.
(14)Lee, V and Das Gupta, P (ed.) (1995). Children's cognitive and language development, Blackwell Publishing. p293
(15)Bettleheim, B (1991). The Uses of Enchantment: The meaning and substance of Fairy Tales. Penguin Publishing. p12
Bibliography
Bannon, L (1995). 'How a Rumor Spread About Subliminal Sex in Disney's 'Aladdin.'' in 'The Wall Street Journal'.
Bettleheim, B (1991). The Uses of Enchantment: The meaning and substance of Fairy Tales. Penguin Publishing
Giroux, H A (1999). The Mouse that Roared; Disney and the end of Innocence. Roman & Littlefield Publisher inc.
Lee, V and Das Gupta, P (ed.) (1995). Children's cognitive and language development. Blackwell Publishing
Newman, K (ed.) (2002). Science Fiction / Horror: A Sight and Sound Reader. Bfi Publishing.
Oakhill, J V and Garnham, A (1998).Becoming a skilled reader. Blackwell Publishing
Wasko, J (2001). Understanding Disney . Polity Press.
THE APPEAL OF CONTEMPORARY BLOCKBUSTERS
It has become a tradition that Hollywood's summer releases climax with the release of a number of blockbusters. This year saw no exception, since blockbusters such as 'The Perfect Storm' (Petersen, 2000), 'X Men' (Singer, 2000), 'The Patriot' (Emmerich, 2000), 'Titan AE' (Bluth, Goldman, 2000) and 'Mission Impossible 2' (Woo, 2000) lay amongst the summer releases. If one is to presume that Box Office takings reflect audience figures, seven of the ten most popular films of 1999 were blockbusters (1). Indeed the highest grossing film (and consequently the most popular film) of 1999 - 'The Phantom Menace' (Lucas, 2000) (2) exhibited all the requisite qualities of the standard blockbuster.
It is easy to define the typical blockbuster film; a movie that has cost so much to make that it must be extraordinarily popular in order to return a profit. To guarantee massive box office receipts, blockbusters tend to exhibit high production values, 'A list' actors, all finely orchestrated with marketing and promotion. Philip Dodd the former editor of 'Sight and Sound' suggests that special effects are also fundamental to the modern blockbuster as "effects-driven sequences are so integral they can no longer be considered mere punctuation" (3). Dodd subscribes to the notion that blockbuster movies are comparable to theme park 'roller coasters', for in both the participants respond viscerally to the spectacle before them. Indeed, the attention grabbing special effects and the "rollercoster aesthetic" (4) style also glosses over the poor narrative. Warren Bucland suggests that "plot lines are now devised almost solely to link one action sequence to the next" (5). Perhaps this is inevitable since blockbuster films must present a high concept story, elaborate and spectacular. This is essential to maintain the extreme escapism that audiences have come to expect and desire in a blockbuster.
Obviously to achieve the highest box-office returns, blockbuster films must be aimed at the widest audience possible. Consequently it is essential that no sector of society is alienated or disturbed by the film and naturally sex and violence must be minimised. In the main the narrative of a contemporary blockbuster follows a human struggle, be that against an extraterrestrial invasion or indeed an individual facing the problems of life and love. The majority of cinemagoers regardless of age race or ethnicity can understand these stories and consequently a mass audience is attracted. However in attempting to appeal to the largest possible audience, it is hazardous for a blockbuster to be innovative; presenting themes or an artistic style that has not been tried and tested previously. Innovation and originality may alienate and deter an audience; consequently blockbusters follow the reliable genre trends, repeating past success thereby becoming trait and formulaic. Indeed in many cases a blockbuster may be a sequel to an earlier success, mirroring the previous film thematically and stylistically to succeed by capturing the same audience. Alternatively, if the previous film alienated an audience and under performed at the box office the blockbuster sequel may be made to a different format. The original 'Mission Impossible' (De Palma, 1996) for example, confused audiences and consequently 'Mission Impossible 2' (Woo, 2000) dispensed with the formers convoluted plot, depending on action sequenced to succeed and attract an audience. In effect the 'Mission Impossible' series had been re-tailored to be appealing to the mass audience and its higher box office takings show that audiences appreciated the re-design (6). It may be said that blockbusters evolve with audience taste, to remain appealing.
Although blockbusters are aimed at the largest audience possible, teenagers and younger adults buy the majority of tickets (7). Consequently blockbusters are marginally moulded around this audience: Release dates for the largest blockbusters tend to be placed at times when schools have finished and perhaps this explains why so many films are released over the summer and Christmas holidays. Cuts will also be made to allow this lucrative teenage audience to see the picture. 'The Matrix' (Wachowski Brothers, 1999) for example had minor violence excised to guarantee a 15 certificate. Uncut it was deemed only suitable for over eighteen year olds and by lowing the age restriction producers enlarged the audience and consequently increased ticket sales. A teenage audience also notoriously follows a star actor, explaining why it is essential to have an A List name in a blockbuster. Teenage females flock to see the latest blockbuster staring Will Smith or Leonardo DiCaprio while teenage males can't resist the lure of stars such as Sarah Michelle Geller or Cameron Diaz. Indeed, a large proportion of the teenage audience will be initially drawn to a blockbuster film owing to star appeal, regardless of the films quality or genre type. This may explain the appeal of the dire blockbuster 'Wild Wild West' (Sonnerfeld,1999) which took $200 million at the US Box (8) owing to the loyal fan base of the lead actor (Will Smith).
Actors are no longer under studio contract as they were in the Classic Hollywood period, the cost of an actor to appear in a film is determined by an agent. Consequently large stars are able to demand ludicrously high salaries, knowing that their star name is a valuable marketing tool for a film producer. Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts and Will Smith all have demanded in excess of $20 million to appear in blockbuster movies. When we combine the cost of the stars with the cost of special effects (that essential to the modern blockbuster) we can realise why blockbuster production requires a large financial budget. In fact this style of film is most commonly referred to as the 'big budget - blockbuster' as the two phrases are interwoven in the film market of contemporary Hollywood.
To recoup the large production cost, a blockbuster needs to attract millions of cinemagoers. To do this it is essentially an extensive advertising campaign is employed, to raise public awareness of the blockbuster's imminent release. For a larger blockbuster 'event advertising' is used, this being promoting the film so it becomes ingrained in the public conscious, so that it is impossible to ignore the promotion material. To achieve this extent of public awareness advertising on all types of the media will be used including single sheet adverts in newspapers and magazines, images of the film littering buses and billboards while trailers are broadcast on television or in the cinema. Schatz suggests that this media hype illustrates how the modern blockbuster is "designed with the multimedia market place in mind" (9) alluding to the fact that blockbuster movie producers create a film with advertising in consideration. With event marketing, it is intended that an audience of non-cinemagoers are attracted, in so doing the audience for the blockbuster is enlarged further. The blockbuster becomes appealing to the non-cinemagoer, as for the majority it has been marketed as an event in the social calendar.
Ironically, hype advertising is essential to generate a blockbuster's profit yet it costs a significant amount. Up to a third of a films budget is devoted solely towards promotion and marketing (10), emphasising a blockbusters dependence on public awareness to succeed. This advertising is not limited to a blockbuster's exhibition in cinemas; video release dates generally coincide with mass advertising across the media. Indeed post exhibition sales of a blockbuster on video are responsible for generating profits for a studio, as the film's cinema exhibition run generally only returns the initial cost. It would be wrong however to assume that video releases are the only way a studio can generate a profit from a blockbuster. Elaborate merchandising links are forged between a studio and a secondary company to produces products that relate to the blockbuster. Soundtrack music albums are released to accompany the films cinema run, even 'action figures' and 'play dolls' are made by toy companies to be sold on to the younger audience sector. These products also to some extent attract an audience that would not usually visit the cinema. For example, a music consumer may buy the soundtrack CD and may then be encouraged to see the films to find out where the music comes from. In this way the film appeals to a new audience, one that would not usually visit the cinema and profits increase as a result.
To truly understand why blockbusters appeal to audience it is easier to look at a specific film in detail. The logical choice is 'Titanic' (Cameron, 1997) the most expensive and highest grossing blockbuster of all time. To date it has made nearly two billion dollars ($1,835,300,000) (11), which illustrates how appealing a blockbuster can be to the general public. Indeed as with last years highest grossing film 'The Phantom Menace' (Lucas, 2000), 'Titanic' embodied all the factors that make blockbusters irresistible to a mass audience:
On its release it was impossible to ignore 'Titanic's' budget, "costing over $200 million" (12) the epic blockbuster was the most expensive film ever made. The budget of course was necessarily to create the awesome spectacle of the ship sinking. Director James Cameron created a 90% scale replica of original Titanic and this model was destroyed during the filming. The latest computer graphical techniques were used to supplement this replica model and this special effects laden blockbuster, can truly be considered a visual masterpiece. The high-tech effects used in 'Titanic' and its budget were heavily publicised and drew in an audience on their own. Film critic Alexandra Keller admits that "[she] went to see it to see what the most expensive movie in the world looked like" (12) the allure of special effects for an audience is undeniable. Other critics suggest that the computer-generated special effects conceal the "comic book characters" (13) and the strings of clichés that make up the script. Paul Roland admits that "were it not for the great effects [he] would have got up and left - the script was that bad" (14). 'Titanic' like so many other blockbusters is built around a high concept narrative, consequently characterisation and development is overshadowed by the need for a script to introduce action sequences. 'Titanic' is filled with stereotypes, such as Billy Zane's rich egotistic villain Cal Hockley, while the extras that make up the first and second class victims show explicit caricatures of the time. However, these criticisms are irrelevant as the narrative serves its purpose, it offers escapism that attracts a mass audience. 'Titanic' may also be appealing to an audience as it uses the aforementioned human struggle narrative in two ways: Firstly, we are shown the two lead protagonist as star crossed lovers struggling to be together within a society that suppresses their relationship. Secondly we see mankind striving to survive in the face of adversity, physically threaten by the sinking of the ship. The story is not exclusive to a certain class race or sex as the majority of society can relate to the two-fold narrative; a mass audience would find the blockbuster accessible and therefore appealing.
For a blockbuster to succeed in attracting an audience, it is essential that the films content does not upset any viewer. This presented Cameron with a problem when directing 'Titanic' for the real life events killed thousands and consequently were horrific and by nature disturbing.
Cameron had to obtain a PG-13 / 12 certificate for 'Titanic' otherwise the lucrative teenage audience would be unable to see the film. Consequently violence and sex although shown, is "tastefully portrayed and relevant to the plot" (15). The teenage audience was essential to guarantee the success of the blockbuster for it was inevitable that young teenage girls would flock to see the latest Leonardo DiCaprio movie. "'Titanic' drew heavily on DiCaprio's pre-existing fan base" Melanie Nash observes when accounting for the appeal of 'Titanic' (16). The actor had become an instant A list star amongst 12 - 17 year old girls, following his role in Baz Luhrmans' 'Romeo and Juliet' adaptation ('William Shakespere's Romeo + Juliet' -1997). This same audience would inevitable follow DiCaprio onto 'Titanic', to see the latest performance by their favourite actor. In fact teenage girls made up the largest market segment "generate an estimated 30 percent of the movies U.S gross" (17). This audience found 'Titanic' appealing owing to DiCaprio's star name and presence.
'Titanic', like so many other blockbuster films was sold as an event. Posters lined every high street in inner city areas and trailers seemed to appear before each film. The advertising was so vast, a countdown for both the cinema and video release was broadcast on television. Of course this large scale advertising was essential, to recoup the initial cost of the film and it evidently worked as 'Titanic' had made over $500 million by the end of its US cinema exhibition period; the blockbuster, despite its elaborate budget, had made already a profit. David Lubin calls 'Titanic' a film that "everyone has seen, regardless of whether they admit it or not", indeed the film became more appealing as positive word of mouth spread. The blockbuster had become appealing as so many people loved it and for the non-moviegoer it was difficult to resist seeing the film that "everyone was talking about". One can see why contemporary blockbusters are so appealing for the standard modern cinemagoer: This "spectacular cinema" (18) presents escapism, led by a popular actor presented in an exciting visual way that the audience respond and become absorbed in. Narratives are simplistic and follow past success, while recognisable and satisfying clichés are shown in abundance. In effect, contemporary blockbusters appeal to an audience because they offer exactly what we all want in a film, mindless fun escapism.
(C)2000 J Hill
Julian Hill
Directly Quoted:
(1) Based on British Box Office Takings up until 5th December 1999. Acnielsen Edi Ltd.
(2) The Phantom Menace (Lucas, 1999) took £50,681,936 at the British Box Office. SOURCE: 'The Ultimate Review of 1999' in 'Total Film' January 2000 Pg 86. Compiled by Simon Crook
(3) Philip Dodd. 'The Multiplex Future' in 'Sight and Sound'. August 1996, Pg 3
(4) Nick James 'How Bad is it ?' in 'Sight and Sound'. December 1998, Pg 5
(5) Warren Buckland, 'A Close encounter with Raiders of the Lost Ark: notes on Narrative Aspects of the Hollywood Blockbuster' from 'Contemporary Hollywood Cinema'; Steve Neale and Murry Smith (ed.) Routledge, 1998
(6) 'Mission Impossible' took $180.965m at the US Box Office by the end of its exhibition run (24 November 1996) 'Mission Impossible 2' took $215.397m at the US Box Office by the end of its exhibition run (15 October 2000) SOURCE: 'The Internet Movie Database': http://www.imdb.com (Correct on December 3rd 2000)
(7) SOURCE: ''The Mummy' Study Guide' Pg 1. Anita Russell. Film Education Publishing. 1999
(8) SOURCE: 'The Ultimate Review of 1999' in 'Total Film' January 2000 Pg 86. Compiled by Simon Crook
(9) Thomas Schatz quoted in ''The Cinema Book 2nd Edition'. Cook, Bernink (ed.) Bfi Publishing (1999)
(10) SOURCE: 'Film Statistics and Finance' Grey, Aherne (ed.) 1993. Arnold Publishing Ltd.
(11) SOURCE: The Internet Movie Database taken from 'The 50 Best blockbusters in the world ever' in 'Total Film' September 1999
(12) Jusine Wyatt and Katherine Vlesmas 'The Drama of Recoupment: On the Mass Media Negotiation of 'Titanic' from 'Titanic Anatomy of a Blockbuster' Sandler, Studlar (ed.) 1999. Rutgers University Press.
(13) David Lubin ' Titainc: BFI Modern Classic' Bfi Publishing 1999
(14) Paul Roland 'Letters' 'Total Film' March 1998
(15) The BBC quoted in 'Tit-anic for Christmas' 'The Sun' November 2000
(16) Melanie Nash 'Almost Ashamed to Say "I Am One of Those Girls" Titanic, Leonardo DiCaprio and the paradoxes of Girls' Fandom' from 'Titanic Anatomy of a Blockbuster' Sandler, Studlar (ed.) 1999. Rutgers University Press.
(17) SOURCE: 'Time Magazine' quoted in 'Almost Ashamed to Say "I Am One of Those Girls" Titanic, Leonardo DiCaprio and the paradoxes of Girls' Fandom' Melanie Nash. Taken from 'Titanic Anatomy of a Blockbuster' Sandler, Studlar (ed.) 1999. Rutgers University Press.
(18) Philip Dodd. 'The Multiplex Future' in 'Sight and Sound'. August 1996, Pg 3
Referred To:
Philip Dodd. 'The Multiplex Future' in 'Sight and Sound'. August 1996, Pg 3
Nick James 'How Bad is it ?' in 'Sight and Sound'. December 1998, Pg 5
Nick James 'Cavalry against tanks' in 'Sight an Sound' January 1999
'Letters' 'Total Film' March 1998
'The 50 Best blockbusters in the world ever' in 'Total Film'. September 1999
'The Ultimate Review of 1999' in 'Total Film' Compiled by Simon Crook. January 2000
'The 10 must see movies of Summer 2000' in 'Total Film'. July 2000
'Movie 2000, how did it add up?' in 'Total Film' Compiled by Simon Crook. December 2000
'Tit-anic for Christmas' 'The Sun' November 2000
'Contemporary Hollywood Cinema'; Steve Neale and Murry Smith (ed.) Routledge, 1998
'Action / Spectacle Cinema. A 'Sight and Sound' reader; Jose Arroyo(ed.) Bfi 2000.
''The Mummy' Study Guide' Anita Russell. Film Education Publishing. 1999
'The Cinema Book 2nd Edition'. Cook, Bernink (ed.) Bfi Publishing 1999
'Film Statistics and Finance' Grey, Aherne (ed.) 1993. Arnold Publishing Ltd.
'Titanic Anatomy of a Blockbuster' Sandler, Studlar (ed.) 1999. Rutgers University Press.
'Titainc: BFI Modern Classic' David Lubin Bfi Publishing 1999
'Hollywood 60 Great years' Lodge, Taylor, Turner, Jarvis Castell, Kermode. Prion Publishing 1994
'The Internet Movie Database' (http:\\www.imdb.com) Referred to on December 3rd 2000.
SEQUELS
Scream 4: The cat did it, honest.
American Pie 2: Where'd I put that doughnut?
Flinstones 2.. ..and it could happen.
Oh (heaven forbid), one of the above is in fact being made. Scary isn’t it? In situations like this it is only right to look for someone to blame, hang, draw and quarter for their parts in films like Carrie 2, Rugrats 2, Blair Witch 2....and the list goes on. The jury is out on the last two, but common sense dictates that these pictures should never be made.
So who do we mob with rusty forks and big flaming torches? Well, it came to light in 1992 that one major studio (naming no names. COUGHparamount) declared that their release schedules recently comprise two big budget features, one risk and TWO SEQUELS. Though not immediately scandalous, this admission is actually quite depressing. What Paramount were admitting to us was that no matter what the year, whatever the circumstances, they will always release two sequels. Now imagine that they have been having bad times recently; they would be forced into investing in films like Striptease 2, Mrs.Doubtfire 2: truly, anything is possible. These studios (though only Paramount has come forward) are releasing two sequels per year, per quota, instead of making sequels when the film warrants it (Matrix comes to mind. Praise be the Wachowski brothers). But it is this mass production, factory-line mentality which is killing the movie industry. Why should they have to stick to these production guidelines? Well, goddammit, because it is the most profitable thing to do.
And so, next into the witness box is the audience, the green donors, the ‘bums on seats’. We can’t hide, we are as much in the wrong. Some may argue that they didn’t see Lethal Weapon 4, US Marshals or maybe even Lost World on the basis that they didn’t want to encourage this capitalist money-grabbing sequel technique. But how many of you ignored the Phantom Menace? And how many of you would smuggly sit at home while your mates go and see a Blade Runner sequel? I’m coming out on this one; I went to and enjoyed Toy Story 2.....lots of pleasure and bugger all pain.
So, for a million pounds, no phoning a friend or 50/50’s, what makes a sequel work? We’ve had a few decent beasts, but they are pretty much an endangered species nowadays. As befits situations like these, here comes a list: Godfather 2, Empire Strikes Back, Mad Max 2,Terminator 2, Aliens, Die Hard 2, Toy Story 2, Goldfinger, Crow 2 (boy, am I gonna get ripped on that one) - all of these stand up well to their originals, and some even surpass them. But if sequels are being released at this so-called rate of two-per-year-per-studio, then by the law of averages we should get a decent one every so often. So why don’t we?
Obviously I am no film critic, and these are purely thoughts aimed to create a little spark of discussion (or slagging for the Crow 2 mention) but there are several points a casual observer can make.For one, it seems that a lot of sequels fall under the weight of ‘The Expectation’. The Phantom Menace suffered from it, so did Ghostbusters 2, so did Batman Returns. The films that pre-cursored these were blockbusters of the highest order, all of them falling into the top 100 of all time. But their sequels were considered artistic failures at the time of release, and apart from Phantom Menace, they only received a fraction of the original takings. What killed them was largely expectation. This has little to do with hype, though the marketing process does help to intensify and catalyse it. Instead, it is more about how people walk a cinema expecting to see something better than the original film. We all do it, we prepare for a film by telling people how much worse you expect the film to be, but secretly we all harbour a hope that this film may be better than the original. It’s a long shot, but if this hope is not fulfulled we get dissappointed. Any other film; American Beauty, The Beach, you don’t know what to expect. It could be good, it could be bad, and yes, we do walk in with some kind of hope that the film will be good. But instead of sitting in the cinema with the same words rattling around our heads 'Am I enjoying this as much as the last one?', we are sitting there without judgment until the credits. The sequel is no longer enjoyable - it is a comparison.
So how have film-makers overcome this? How do you divert attention from this ‘comparison-making’? The best bet is one that has worked with Aliens, Terminator 2 and Empire Strikes Back: the ‘Revelations’. This doesn’t mean inserting religious messages, instead it is about changing the formula of a film. In Empire Strikes Back the revelation is that Darth is Luke’s father (sorry if I spoilt that for anyone). Additionally the film has aimed to add something fresh , something in contrast to everything the first film stood for. The end of Star Wars was dark, the beginning of Empire is light. Han saves Luke in Wars, Luke must save Han in Empire (or at least he will have to). The ‘event’ of the first film is a space battle; the ‘event’ in Empire is a lightsaber battle. But the most important revelation of Empire, and the one that confused and in turn brought in more punters was that the film ended on a cliff-hanger. Like those Saturday morning Batfink cartoons, we just didn’t know what would happen. What we must understand is that a cliffhanger ending was new in 1980, it had never successfully been applied to film. This was a ‘revelation’ of the highest order, and with the twist at the end this helped to build up the ‘expectation’ that eventually killed Return of the Jedi.
Aliens aimed for an entirely different revelation. Thanks to the expert work of Cameron (Yeah I know, I’ve got a hard-on for Cameron), he managed to claim the film as his own. You can imagine the conversation he had with the studio:
CAMERON
Look, I want to do the new Alien film. I loved the first one, beautiful horror film. I’d just like to take it a little further.
STUDIO EXEC.
Sure James. What did you have in mind?
CAMERON
Well, I want more than one alien.
STUDIO EXEC.
Ok, I think we can do that. It might cost a...
CAMERON
And I want a really big queen alien that laid all the eggs in the first film....
STUDIO EXEC.
Sorry? A queen alien....?
CAMERON
And I want guns. Lots of guns.
STUDIO EXEC.
But this is a horror.....
CAMERON
Plus loads of marines to kill them.
STUDIO EXEC.
Oh god.....
CAMERON
And I want to blow up all the aliens at the end.
STUDIO EXEC.
(exhausted)
Yeah James, sure. Whatever.
Aliens was an art film. Basically Mr.Cameron wanted to drop a bomb on it and make a sumptuous horror film into a war film. At the time it must have seemed like a desecration of Ridley Scott’s grave (yeah I know he’s alive). But it was green-lighted and somehow the film got made; and thank Fox it did. James Cameron had created a ‘revelation’, he had changed the entire feel of the last film. The claustrophobia was replaced with collective paranoia. We SAW the alien in the first 30 minutes. And the aliens were fleshed out beautifully. This was probably the biggest success of the movie; the character of the alien was given a life-cycle beyond that of the first film. We had the Queen, who laid the eggs, which hatched to face-huggers, who impregnated hosts, who burst into chest-bursters, which then became adult. We didn’t know about the mother, we didn’t know about the wall-papering of humans, and we sure as hell didn’t know there was as many of them as there was. Cameron plugged the gaps left from Alien, while also placing them in an entirely different situation. With all this change came absolutely no expectation, since this was a sequel only in name (and Ripley. And the alien). Obviously we can’t go to far with this Aliens³ and Resurrection definitely didn’t work after all. But why didn’t they? ‘3’ was basically a prison movie (though not quite Shawshank) and Resurrection was a Western. And a very French one at that. What happened was people expected the change, the Alien saga had become notorious for its shift in genres, so each film was based on its own merits. And plain and simple, they just weren’t very good.
Of course, you can get by with releasing a sequel which is just damn brilliant. The only reason Godfather 2 was a success was that it was inspired. The only reason Carrie 2 failed was because it wasn’t (all expectation had died down in time for this film. It was based on its own merits and was cack).
So maybe this analysis is pretty much pointless. So come on, get on the discussion page and discuss. Argue with me, Destroy my argument. That is exactly what this essay was made for.
David Osborne
No refernces were given. If you want to find books on this topic try a search in the book shop.
DR SPEILBERG, OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE HIS FILMS.
By definition, a man with a beard makes a great movie director. Scorcese, De Palma, Lucas, Coppola, Carpenter, Leigh; all have gone through their directorial career with some form of facial hair. Even younger, less experienced directors have adopted the chin-warmer. Indeed Darabont, Minghella and Figgis are all pioneers of this new age. But one beard rules over them all, a beard who’s empire stretches as far as his little bespectacled eyes can see. And there is no doubt that he is king, for he is Spielberg.
Spielberg of course is now as omnipotent as the merchandise his film’s spawn. He is film-maker extra-ordinaire, studio-executive par excellence, hell even Tony Blair has paid the man to film over here. He is considered deity by all, a money machine and all-round-nice-guy. And I am sure he is. But as an all-round film maker, I draw a Thin Red Line.
This is not to say that I think his films suck. In fact I think he has made a couple of great films. I would also say that he is the master of ‘event’ pictures. Lucas may try to stand up and argue, but his events are rooted in another world and largely created by his effects wizards, while Spielberg creates feelings in his set-pieces that we are yet to see in a galaxy far, far away. He has brought intense fear to us in Jaws; a gut-wrenching nausea from Saving Private Ryan (and ET, if that counts) and a sense of spiritual purity from Close Enounters (Keanu voice - ‘Woah. Deep’). The magnitude of these feelings are yet to be matched in film, so Spielberg should deserve the plaudits he gets.
So where do I get all nit-picky? Schindler’s List was amazing, Jaws has stopped me from ever learning to swim, Close Encounters had a potato mountain and Jurassic park for the line "uh uh uh, you didn’t say the magic word". They are all defining movies, and I’m happy they exist, but Spielberg just can’t handle story. One of the most important elements of storytelling has always been romance. Half of the greatest stories of all time have had them; Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Romeo and Juliet. The other half have shown a love that has been lost; Hamlet, Citizen Kane, Godfather etc. Now you may think this is cruel, that Spielberg is not a romantic film-maker and never will be, and part of me agrees. His most successful movies have been chocka with action, and a romance would only unsettle it. But he has attempted romance before, and has never pulled it off. The oft ignored ‘Always’ is a fine example of this, and one that he would probably want to forget. The central theme revolved around a man’s burning passion to be with his girl, even though he has just died in a plane-crash. Now this is a pretty hefty premise, and one that would need an awful lot of work, not only from Spielberg, but also from the actors. But to use the old cliché, the chemistry wasn’t right - and this ate up the film pretty badly. He wanted us to feel for the character’s death. And we laughed. The characters (especially Holly Hunter’s) were unlikeable; he seemed to concentrate on the flying shots, and the after-life sequences revolved around shining a light as brightly as possible into the camera. What Spielberg and the film were missing was a sympathy for his characters, and he was unable to achieve this.
This is not the lone example. Alan Grant and Ellie Satler were meant to be engaged right? I don’t think I can remember them kiss or give any evidence that they were close. Schindler and Goeth were womanisers and sadists respectively - no romance there then. Richard Dreyfuss just plain ignored his wife in Close Encounters. Captain Miller wouldn’t reveal his love for his wife in Saving Private Ryan. And in his forthcoming film on Harry Potter it is most likely that romance won’t blossom either. What it boils down to is that Spielberg doesn’t know how to handle women (his divorce is an added pointer), and roles for women in his films are sparse. Therefore, whenever a woman takes a prominent role in one of his films it is in a role where she has to take a very masculine edge, a kind of ‘token’ female role. Ellie Satler for example had the job of running away from raptors with a mild limp and looking very, very p**ed off. Karen Allen in Raiders traded one-liners with Mr.Ford and managed to one-up him on several occasions, and apart from being captured in the typical damsel- in-distress cliché, had very little ‘feminism’ in her.
Many people could argue that Spielberg makes films that don’t need a central female character, that his films are based largely in a world of action, or at least in a world where the action is more important than the sex of the character. But Spielberg is alienating an audience, over half of the population, half of his profits. I have not found one girl, woman, lady, whatever, who actually sat through the opening sequence to the first thirty visceral moments of Saving Private Ryan and enjoyed it. It is a boy showing off his toys, playing soldiers with his mates, making war. I can just see Spielberg as a kid in the playground, melting his plastic dinosaurs and soldiers while pulling girls’ pig-tails when they try and play.
I may be wrong - I have to admit that I am yet to see Sugarland Express, The Duel and Empire of the Sun, but I get the feeling that they won’t change my opinion of Spielberg. But I am not dismissing him because he doesn’t provide female actresses with any decent parts - this shouldn’t effect the quality of each individual film. Instead, my main problem with Spielberg is his devotion to the premise of a film.
Every single one of Spielberg’s films aims to be different - from 1941 (a war comedy!) to Jurassic Park (Dinosaurs! And they’re alive!) to Jaws (Shark!). When he sets a film based largely in this world, then the aim is to shoot it a little differently to give it a trademark Spielberg touch. This goes for Schindler’s List (It’s in black and white!), Saving Private Ryan (Hand-helds everywhere!) and Always (It’s Ghost! But before Ghost!). It is a constant strive to be original, and one where Spielberg often falls on the wrong side of genius/gimmick. I always wince when the girl in the red dress arrives in Schindler’s List; it’s as if he has chosen the black and white format purely for this moment. And it just seems a waste, a moment that is meant to be touching, but instead is muted by the fact that Spielberg is using such a gimmicky effect to achieve it. This is repeated later in the film - a moment which in other hands would be touching, but is instead just unnecessary. Here, Schindler’s Jews arrive in the camp, after we were sure they were saved, and are then marched into the gas chamber. Instead we are treated to them having a shower. Realism is ditched, the moment so contrived (do you honestly think a gas chamber could be adapted to shower like that? And that they would be forced to shower?) and though we are meant to feel overwhelming relief, as was Spielberg’s intent, I instead felt cheated.
What I am trying to say is that Spielberg gets so caught up in his own genius that he forgets the most important element of a story. And that is the story. He gets an idea, the premise for a film, and is so caught up in the culmination of that premise that he forgets to create an engrossing story. He may argue, but The Lost World was all about how the T-Rex reached the shore. If you checked out the opinions of people before the movie, almost every one of them wanted the dinosaurs to reach civilisation. Of course Spielberg delivered on this, but somehow the ending managed to be a sub- Godzilla mess, and that is pretty damning. He forgot Vince Vaughn’s character completely, he ignored Pete Postlethwaite, he dumped Malcolm’s daughter by the way; all in the aid of this final event. It sticks out from the rest of the film like a sore and slightly gnawed thumb. The event here has become Spielberg’s centrepiece, and anyone who can’t fit into the action is unceremoniously forgotten about.
He has tinkered with the elements of the film to create extra anticipation before. But when he does, it is obvious. The clunks and whirrs are almost audible over the dinosaur roars. In the tour car of the first film for example - we pass the dilophosaur pen, we are told all about them, yet there is no sign of them. From that moment we know we will encounter the dilophosaur at some point, a plot point given away already. I mean, if you knew there was an acid-spitting dinosaur in the park and you never got to see it; well, you’d be disappointed. They pass the raptors, "cheetah speed" they tell us, "they never attack the same fence twice". It is all setting the scene, window-dressing for the acts later on. We’d be pretty damn surprised if the raptors didn’t turn up with (huh!) lightening fast speed and (ooh!) brilliant intelligence. It is universal; just sit through a Spielberg film and watch for the plot points shoved plain as day into your face. Saving Private Ryan - the knife, Oppum’s cowardice, even the last scene’s arsenal is so well documented that we can count down how many bullets are left - all of these elements will have to be resolved in the final act.
But what you may have noticed is that there is an awful lot of build up to THAT UFO scene, THAT final battle, THAT shark attack. The middle sags - Jaws took a long time to get going, Saving Private Ryan was interminably boring once you recovered from the first few moments, Amistad was just one long build up that didn’t happen, and ET (whom I have spared, but I could have done a whole section on it alone) was content on showing how ‘out of place’ he was for an hour (he is an alien after all, Steve). It was all build up; preparation for the final ‘event’, the final settlement with the audience, a plea from the bearded one himself to like his work. Think of it as a gift, if you will; a thank you for putting up with what has gone before. Other films have done it better; left the audience with a final few minutes that hasn’t meant a detraction from the rest of the film - Usual Suspects, Sixth Sense, 2001: all are films with a satisfying ending that has hit as a surprise, not a watertight controlled ending built up from the start. On a topical note, I think the same problem haunted American Beauty - the film would have been a whole lot better if we didn’t know that he died, that all the work that had gone in before was purely for the pay-off that we knew was going to happen. The surprise has gone, although admittedly the end is impressive, and instead of being a shock it is merely satisfying. All of Spielberg’s films are like this.
Basically, a film by Spielberg is just like a ride on one of his tour cars in Jurassic Park. It all starts off well, it looks expensive and well made and you know damn well that you are in for a good ride. Hell, there’s even someone famous doing the voiceover. You expect something, but most of all you expect something different - an experience. But it is slow, it takes ages and some of the cages are empty and pretty unsatisfying. Soon the characters get restless and leave the car for no apparent reason, going off on tangents. But the ride goes on, and just as you thought it would all end up poorly, a storm hits. The car stops, the tension builds and then, only then, are you confronted SURPRISE! with the most awe-inspiring thing you have ever seen. And once it is all finished, you leave the car believing you have just seen a masterpiece. Actually, maybe you did....
David Osborne
No refernces were given. If you want to find books on this topic try a search in the book shop.
No comments:
Post a Comment