Film Studies: Realism - Movie Review Example

Ques) Refer to a film of your choice and explain how your chosen text might be labeled 'Brechtian'. Ans) It's not astonishing or shocking to registerthat Bertolt Brecht is acknowledged by many literary critics as one of the foremost thinkers and playwrights of the early twentieth century. What is in fact, amazing when one studies the pioneering work of this genius is that his theories and arguments are still as relevant and are subject to practical use even in today's time. His observations on society and culture are as relevant today as they were earlier. What he attempted was not to alienate the audience but to encourage a passive acquiescence as that found in the old bourgeois theatre. The entire theatrical performance was shaped so that it functioned as a stimulating pedagogical event. Before I refer to the film of my choice which is deemed a visual translation of Brechtian thought into celluloid it's important to give due recognition to the man behind the magic and the very definition of critical realism. When you begin to delve deeper into what realism is about you can begin to comprehend that it actually attempts to explore the relationship between consciousness (thinking and, as consciousness is embodied, feeling) and consciousness of the social conditions (our social being, as Marx put it) shaping our consciousness. Moreover the theme that remains predominant all throughout a movie that makes it Brechtian or subject to critical realism is its reflexive quality that shines through each frame. Especially not in a narrow stylistic sense, but in the sense that it explores the relation between consciousness and its material ground. What is perhaps important is that the goal of a critical, dynamic and a realistic movie remains that it spins and kick starts the thinking mind to connect webs that pull consciousness and the social being closer together. Magnolia-released in 1999, and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, is a movie that beautifully narrates about all the things important to us. Two parallel stories are in motion that dramatizes men about to die; who in spite being different are both estranged from a grown child and their attempts at making contact with their children seems to fail miserably. What remains consistent throughout this movie is the choice in its three forms-the present, the past and the future, made by different age groups and how we come to either succumb to one over the other, or sometimes completely negate logic and take a different route. Earl Partridge's son is charismatic, Jimmy Gator's daughter on the other hand is a on drugs. The story progresses with a nurse's intervention in Earl's life who helps him in reaching out to his son. In an almost similar fashion through outside interception an upright officer meets Jimmy's daughter, bringing more calm and piece in her life. In all these variations and role reversals, Earl's young wife, with two whiz kids-one grown and battling with life, the other wonderfully young and pressured are shown to be coming to term with their own ghosts and problems, in various permutations and combinations. Another common component that sustains itself, throughout in the characters, is the emptiness that gnaws at them. We also find in the same breath a common thread in the two distinct characters-that of regret. The thought that drives the movie is real and critical to each frame, the way the movie takes shape because it talks about what most of us have to face up to everyday. It doesn't seem like an alien concept, which one cannot relate to. What it does achieve is, connect. An awesome plot where two lives, share the same transitions and the same conflicts. It is reminiscent of how things usually take shape, for people depending on the choices they make in life-completely real in all its reel magic. Although many lives seem to be woven into the movie, they seem like voices from the field of life. The film actually begins with a narrator and then moves into three lives, based on the rather debatable them of coincidence. From there on, we meet nine different characters (some of whom were mentioned earlier) whose lives are all connected in some way or the other. Paul Thomas Anderson's movie actually revitalizes the Brechtian approach to drama. The use of the alienation effect from stage to screen is identifiable. Almost similar to Brechtian play, the film breaks down the 'fourth wall' and silently calls attention to its own theatrics at work and display. The movie manages to make a point-it smoothly talks about and the present day suburban America, however cleverly leaves it up to the viewer to discern what that. Almost synonymous with Brechtian's prolific work, it's not an easy watch. It needs time and patience and the perusal of thought in the end. It delves on the modern condition which is made obvious through social estrangement and the very common and often repetitive features of chance and coincidence. It is refreshing and reminds one distinctively of Brecht's philosophical manifestations at work. Although, over the year's Brecht's work seems synonymous with political, and rather self conscious art, Brecht's theory of how drama should be focuses on how drama or a performance should be powerful enough to rid the audience of complacency, in turn stimulating thought and participation. Obviously there is no variable and rather, in-your-face link with the current politics, however, politics is intertwined instead in this complex narrative. It's clear right away from the self reflexive beginning that the objective of the movie remains not to dive into political sentiments that are rather obvious. What it attempts though is to make the audience familiar with the world of today with a narrative. Familiarization, that reaffirms provocation of thought, rather subtly is how the movie can be mildly translated frame by frame. As mentioned earlier, the narrator's voice which is distinct right in the beginning of the movie is hints at the self reflexive nature of the movie. What's more the voice over is not heard till the end of the movie, which is yet again important to take note of, since the director has very pragmatically introduced an element which has led to awareness by the audience. The rearrangement of the different opening scenes in a singular frame also evokes another thought. This visual field which is created by Anderson is reminiscent of earlier films. Naturally this putting together of scenes in one frame, is not just to make it visually more appealing but to remind the audience the continuity of the theme-of coincidence, that is paramount to the sequences that unfold. It also cleverly gives an insight to the viewer of the artificial nature of the film that is about to follow soon. Anderson's characteristic cinematic style actually sustains the awareness of artifice throughout the movie. His ever roaming camera, that dips here and there; fast pulls, canted angles and bizarre as well as sometimes unnatural edits seem to intentionally be at play so that Magnolia is deterred from achieving even the illusion of realism. Infact he takes this further by showing the flickering effect that result from the filming of a television screen to be visible. It again is a reminder of the kind of rhythm that he wants to maintain throughout the movie. He's also unperturbed by the tongue-in-cheek references made to the artefacts at work by the conventional filmmakers. One of the sequences in the movie, where the father is trying to speak to his son, has a very deliberately used reference. The reference is used of the movies where it's conventional for a dying man to seek the people who mean a lot to him. The realization and the statement made afterwards regarding the nature of how things like wanting to meet your loved ones are put in the movie, primarily because they are true remind one of the introductory narrations. The self consciousness of this statement would otherwise infuse humor in the narrative, however, while Parma's (the character in the movie that talks about dying people remembering loved ones in movies) comment helps to again maintain a defined distance between the audience and the film, this self reflexive nature that is present throughout is what makes magnolia essentially a social Brechtian drama. What makes the movie even more Brechtian is the way one can draw a parallel between an epic theatre and a movie through the infusing of music into the sequences. When characters break into a song singing Aimee Mann's "Wise Up", this insertion into a non-musical movie is obviously Brechtian, especially since this element helps in subverting the tendency towards realism through the disruption of the narrative, which actually becomes a catalytic agent of thought for the audience. Magnolia, similar to a Brechtian play raises a number of social issues for contemplation. There are obvious undertones in the movie with regard to the American media and the alienated social condition one is forced to live in, however there is no such thing as 'final solution' or resolution in the movie. It ends with something totally unexpected-a rainstorm of frogs, that give it a rather absurd and completely loose ending. This absolutely bizarre end gives it the ultimate Brechtian seal of approval-it becomes hard to leave the theater while contemplating the ridiculous grand finale. As if this wasn't enough, the narrative comes back right in the end over all the sequences, making one final comment about the nature of the celluloid dream and the flux of modern day living-Making one contemplate their nature of belief and direction of thought in all its entirety. Bibliography: 1) Essays in critical Realism (A corporate study of the problem of knowledge) by Durant Drake, Arthur O. Lovejoy and others. 2) Critical Realism: History, Photography, and the Work of Siegfried Kracauer (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society) (Hardcover) by Dagmar Barnouw. 3) The movie, Magnolia itself. 4) Theses on realism and film by Mike Wayne. 5) Jstor, Film Quarterly. Read More