New York City: Woody Allen vs Martin Scorsese

How do Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese use the city of New York City not only as an object of affection, but as the means for an ideological stance in their work?

New York has long been ‘base camp’ for East Coast filmmaking in the USA. In many ways, it possesses clout that Hollywood has only ever dreamed of. In a filmmaking sense, the spirit of New York has forever been evident in the art that is exported from America’s largest city. One might even argue that New York is the true home of modern cinema rather than Hollywood as the world’s first film featuring synchronized dialogue sequences showcased the Jewish ghettos of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, an area that over time became synonymous with present day storytelling (When Harry Met Sally and Once Upon A Time In America etc). If asked to name New York’s first quintessential film, modern auteurs would more than likely place Alan Crosland’s The Jazz Singer at the top of that list. Through that film, filmmakers like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese were able to feel what it is like to not only see, but hear their city on the big screen for the first time. It is a memory that I am sure they both share, as their work has gone on to provide the more lasting examples of how New York has looked and sounded through the ages of cinema.

While there are noticeable similarities regarding their New York-based work, the pictures painted by the two directors are greatly contrasted. A parallel fondness is evident in their films, but only in the way that their relationship with the city is like a relationship with a lover. Allen’s New York is the quirky, easy-going life-partner, while Scorsese’s is the short-tempered, domestically violent prone bitch that you can’t divorce because you’re Catholic.

In Allen’s ‘comedy of manners’ aptly titled Manhattan, his admiration for his hometown is evident within the opening sequence through a variety of attractive establishing shots of the city coupled with a male voice-over (his own) that lists numerous reasons as to why he ‘adored New York’. This is presented through the device of a writer trying to write the first line in the first chapter of a book. Literal scene setting as it may be, it never feels like a gimmick. Through this voice-over, Allen covers temperaments ranging from soppy (‘this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin’) to aggressive (‘to him it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture’) while never losing sight of his key point; love, beginning every passage with the line, ‘he adored New York City.’ The entire opening sequence (not coincidentally) is shot in black and white with a Gershwin soundtrack. Somehow, through these opening frames of Manhattan’s bustling streets and regular Joes, none of the magic is lost through the lack of visual colour. Even though the bright lights and neon signs of the city are dulled visually, Allen more than makes up for this by allowing New York to shine through his light; an appreciative opening voice-over that poetically dances with Gershwin, proving that sometimes through words, there can be colour. Or even, that colour is irrelevant when you’re saying the right things, a viewpoint that Allen commonly credits to the work of Ingmar Bergman, who trademarked the use of colourful, realistic, and often improvised dialogue between his characters.

Scorsese’s ‘Mean Streets’ in which ‘he drew on his youth in New York’s Little Italy’, though entirely different tonally, still draws parallels with ‘Manhattan’ during it’s own opening sequence. Its features shots of the city at its most alive (during 9-5 work hours and evening street parties) and features a voice over from the director (as Harvey Kietel’s character, Charlie). Scorsese though, paints a slightly different picture of the city he calls home.

‘You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it.’

Between this voice-over and the Motown-laden title sequence, Scorsese is able to establish the tone for his entire film in a short scene featuring the film’s protagonist. Charlie disturbedly wakes up in his apartment; visually panicked and alone. It’s daytime outside, but the blinds are drawn. He gets up and inspects his face in the mirror only to lie back down as police sirens sound. Using only this short sequence, Scorsese managed to completely convey a character living in constant fear of his surroundings. So afraid, and so stressed that even the sleep he eventually manages during daylight hours is disturbed. Questions are instantly asked. Why is he afraid? Why can’t he sleep at night? What is it that happens at night that has affected his sleep pattern so?

The sequence portrays New York as a dark, shadowed city of sin. With the subtle addition of siren-sound and a lack of natural light, Scorsese creates feelings of threat and isolation; both themes conveyed in under 90 seconds. All of these questions begging answers that will reveal themselves during the film. To be able to establish location, character and atmosphere and ask this many questions in such a short space of time is classic cinematic storytelling at it’s strongest.

Allen’s leftist emphasis on the collective and communal offers up the city as the home of ‘beautiful women and street smart guys who seemed to know all the angles’. It is defined in his opening monologue as a city that is ‘tough and romantic’; a place that is both edgy and beautiful, with something for everyone. A New York that is varied in character, but ultimately equal in its appeal.

‘Mean Streets’ very much takes up a rightist, hierarchical stance through a use of the instillation of fear as a leadership tactic over the course of the picture. The idea of a fearful respect for chains of command is a theme that plays out from beginning to end, immediately instilling that fear in its opening scene. If rightists insist that that ‘the brightest and best are entitled to a larger share of power and wealth’, then the characters of Michael (the head strong loan shark) and Johnny Boy (the reckless gambler and borderline psychotic) are literal support of this particular ideology within the film as a whole. The idea that authority should be respected and that privately owned institution (Tony and Michael’s bar) should be driven by profit are two further examples of the rightist stance that is evident throughout Scorsese’s film.

While both films share strengths in their initial narrative footholds, glorifying New York as the perfect place to tell a story, it is in their ideologies that they differ considerably. When considering the two films from a ‘Democratic vs Hierarchical’ point of view, they could not be more different.

Allen, Woody (1979) Manhattan, USA: United Artists

Bordwell, D and Thompson, K. (2010). Ch. 12 - Film Art and Film History: The New Hollywood and Independent Filmmaking. In: Film Art - An Introduction. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. p478-479.

Linzer, D.A. (2011). The Left-Right Ideological Spectrum in Global Mass Opinion. Available: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dlinzer/Linzer-leftright.pdf. Last accessed Nov 2011.

Löthwall, L. (1968). AN INTERVIEW WITH INGMAR BERGMAN Originally published in Take One 2, no. 1 (September-October 1968): 16-18. Available: http://bergmanorama.webs.com/takeone_68.htm. Last accessed Nov 2011.

Scorsese, Martin (1973) Mean Streets, USA: Warner Bros.

Old School Movie Ratings

I've been meaning to watch 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' for absolutely ages. It's been years, and this cold November evening seemed like the perfect opportunity to revisit THE action adventure film of my youth. But wait, kids are allowed to watch this movie? Check out this list of stuff that happens and then tell me how this film is rated P-freaking-G.

1. A rotting dead guy on some spikes

2. Alfred Molina dead on some spikes

3. South American guy dead with loads of peashooter arrows in his back

4. Indy shoots guy on fire IN THE FOREHEAD (blood everywhere)

5. Indy shoots Arab swordsman in broad daylight

6. Nazi Colonel's face shrivels like a raisin with blood pouring for every orifice.

7. Indy runs over blonde Nazi in big truck.

8. Belloq's head EXPLODES during the opening of the ark.

9. Toht's Nazi face melts and all his skin comes off and there's blood everywhere.

10. Big Nazi guy gets churned up by airplane propellor blades and blood goes everywhere.

I feel like I could go on! In this day and age, I would expect 'Raiders' to warrant at least a 12A. If someone can explain how 'The Matrix' is a 15, and 'Raiders' a PG, I've love to hear it.

This is not to say that I didn't enjoy 'Raiders'. Of course I did. Faces melted and heads exploded. It just left me wondering just how film classification has evolved in the last 30 years. What other films were incorrectly classified simply because of the era in which they were made? I've managed to rustle up a few examples, but I'd welcome any more suggestions anyone might have. So...

1. 'Hostel 2' and 'Once'. One involved slashing penises and blood showers. The other was about two Irish musicians falling in love. Yet, in America, both received an R-rating meaning that if you were under 17, a parent or guardian was required to accompany you. Go figure.

2. 'The King's Speech' receiving an R-rating in the States. Are you seriously telling me that kids under the age of 17 shouldn't be watching this charming, period drama just because it has a teeny tiny amount of swearing in a purely therapeutic context? Come off it.

3. 'Watership Down'. That whole movie should have been at least a 15. Apparently the BBFC still receive complaints about it's U-rating to this day.

4. Whilst researching questionable movie ratings, I just discovered that 'Jaws' is a PG. SAY WHAT?

5. 'The Witches'. Anyone who remembers the film adaptation of this Roald Dahl classic knows exactly what I'm talking about. When the witches all take their wigs off? Remember? Absolutely bloody terrifying. Nevertheless, rated U!

6. 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'. Say what you want about this Disney classic. The child catcher was a massive paedo and that film would get slapped with an 18-rating if it were released today. And to think people are calling for films with smoking to be reclassified. Pfft.

7. 'Poltergeist'. Strangely enough, this was a 15 in the UK and a PG in the states. That's right. A PG. Not only is it scary as balls but a man RIPS HIS OWN FACE OFF.

It's hardly surprising then that Steven Spielberg is in fact partly responsible for the existence of the PG-13 rating in the States. So many of his films pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable in a PG that a good few of them (including 'Temple of Doom') were reclassified once the PG-13 rating was introduced as the median between PG and R. This was as a direct result of Spielberg lobbying Jack Valenti and the Motion Picture Association of America to push the rating through so that the Temple of Dooms of this world could exist without parental scrutiny. As far as I know though, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' remains but a PG. Shocking.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Dissertation banter

So, my girlfriend is writing her dissertation this year. Luckily for me (we live together), she's writing about one of my favourite films, 2001: A Space Odyssey. When I say she's writing about it, of course I mean that she's become completely besotted by everything 2001. Every book, every documentary; she's seen it and she's read it. She's even spoken on the phone with the writers of the books (well, the ones that live in Norwich anyway). Witnessing this kind of passionate (but not quite obsessive), 'dive right in' attitude has got me thinking. What film or filmmaker is going to win my heart in two years time? At the moment it's a toss up...

1. Christopher Nolan/Inception - As much as I admire Nolan and all of his work (even Insomnia!), I can't imagine I'd be alone in my wonderment. In my first week on the course I met a girl who was writing her dissertation on 'Batman Begins'. Point proven.

The philosophy of 'Inception' is fascinating to me. It has been since the first time I saw it. In the year or so since release, at least two books have been published about exactly this. It's definitely something I would consider, but as I say, I would fully expect the work of Nolan (especially 'Inception') to be a hot topic among the minds in my year group and would probably opt for something a little bit more personal to me.

2. Terrence Malik/Cinematography - Another director who is fascinating to me; not only because of the quality of his work, but because of the way he makes movies. A man shrouded in privacy, Malik one of the most respected but most reclusive figures in the history of cinema. These reasons alone make him of particular interest to me.

Should I choose to focus on a particular element of Malik's work, it would (without hesitation) be the cinematography on display. 'The Tree of Life' and 'The Thin Red Line' are modern classics by all accounts, beautifully shot and beautifully told from start to finish. I, of course, would want to go back further still to his earlier films, 'Badlands' and 'Days of Heaven'. The latter of which, Christopher Nolan himself cites as one of the main reasons he felt compelled to dedicate his life to filmmaking. Big talk, no?

There are certain cinematograhical traits Malik possesses that I would certainly like to explore further at some point over the next three years. Whether or not I end up deciding to undertake something (and someone) so grandiose, God only knows.

3. Saving Private Ryan and it's importance in modern culture - Had there been no 'Saving Private Ryan', there would be no Call of Duty, no Band of Brothers, no The Pacific, and almost no renewed interest in World War 2. The success of 'Saving Private Ryan' offshot into a million directions and is still regarded just as highly almost 15 years on. Spielberg was able to capture the glory and the humanity of war, and as a result spawned a new generation of WW2 films, and eventually video games.

4. The symmetry of Wes Anderson - Anyone who's ever watched more than one Wes Anderson film has more than likely recognised that one of his most interesting traits is the fact that almost every shot of every scene is almost entirely symmetrical. This is no accident. Wes Anderson is a master of set design and shot framing. It makes his films easy to watch and easy to feel, when everything is so concisely placed.

Not only would I like to explore why he does this, and how effective it is when it comes to storytelling, but I would want to explore a possible link between Anderson's film and obsessive/compulsive disorder. I have a friend who suffers from this disorder and he absolutely adores everything Wes. I would want to know if a link has already been documented, if there is evidence that particular films and they way they are shot appeal to certain types of people who see and feel the world around them in a specific way.

Four is enough to be marinating on, wouldn't you say? Teatime on this cold Autumnal evening.

It's easy to be alone, even if it turns out that we're not.

Tonight I was lucky enough to watch one of the finer indie flicks of this year. I've always been partial to sci-fi that concentrates more on the human element; '2001', 'Solaris', 'Primer', anything by Duncan Jones, that sort of thing. For me, the best sci-fi shines through when the science fiction is a subtle backdrop to what is essentially a well-presented drama. What Mike Cahill's debut feature, 'Another Earth', does so well is that it takes a very normal and possible story, adds scientifically fictional possibilities and creates something that is beautifully impossible. The emotional attachment to the characters is all the more affecting to the viewer because of the implausibility of the story. You find it hard to figure out why you are moved. How can you empathise with something that is impossible? I think that the fact that human stories can be granted infinite possibility when lightly blended with sci-fi is one of the more exciting aspects of modern storytelling. 'Melancholia' is another very good and recent example of this, but as a rookie filmmaker, to see a film like 'Another Earth' is extremely rewarding as far as learning the craft is concerned.

The film, by the looks of things, was filmed entirely on location on a handheld. It even looks documentarian at times. That realism coupled with a gorgeous script and consistently solid performances from the leads lead to an end product that is nothing short of buzz-worthy. I don't really want to go into the plot too far as it is a film that I would highly recommend you see for yourself, but it roughly follows a young woman who forges a friendship with a man of whom she took everything. It takes place four years after she recklessly took the lives of his wife and son in a car accident. Interestingly enough, it wasn't purely her inebriation that caused the crash. Her focus on the road was distracted as she gazed into the night sky to catch her first glimpse of the newly discovered parallel planet, 'Earth 2'.

In that opening sequence, there is already a fine example of that beautifully subtle use of science fiction to tell a story. It could have involved just another drunk teen driver, but the fact that the crash was arguably caused by something entirely impossible opens up the story onto a different plain that it wouldn't have otherwise. This use of science-fiction is something that is hard to get right, but when done well leaves a lingering impression. 'Another Earth' achieves this by the constance of it all. There are no sections of the film that are more impossible than others. The science-fiction is just there, being non-offensive but thought provoking and affecting the characters at every turn.

As impossible as it all is, one's fascination with science-fiction is in fact all about the thought of possibility. The more realistic the story is presented, the more questions about that ultimate question it can ultimately get away with asking. That question of course being, are we alone in the universe? The more realistically this question is answered as 'no', the more humanity is able to be found in something that is impossible. Thus we are able to be moved by it. I found myself almost moved to tears during a scene where the family of the female lead is gathered in the living room watching a live telecast whereby the head of SETI makes first radio contact with what turns out to be her parallel self on Earth 2. It is absolutely astonishing to watch and presented through such a poetic use of dialogue that the mere possibility that we aren't alone managed to somehow tugs on your heartstrings. I've bore witness to the discovery of alien life on more than one occasion, but until 'first contact' was with (this is awesome) YOURSELF, I never felt moved by it. But then your head starts to hurt. It is alien just because it's not of our earth? It is alien just because it's not you? The answer is that is is you. Not being of this earth, it seems, is not the same as being from another Earth.

In short: As beautiful as it is challenging. Asks an endless amount of questions without fully answering, but that is in no way a bad thing. The last scene will leave you floored. 8.5/10*

'Another Earth' is released in the UK on December 9th, and is released on Region 1 Blu-Ray and DVD on November 29th.

*I've tried to put off rating films this way but seeing as what I end up writing seems to be more of an analysis than a review, I thought this was an easy way to sum up how good I actually thought the film was. So yeah. Goodnight, world.