Breaking the Rules and Exploring New Psychological and Social Spaces - Coursework Example

Journals Table of Contents Week Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Works Cited Week Week One was about laying the ground rules for theclass, and for surveying the terrain to be covered in terms of the class materials. The material itself seemed promising and exciting, and the initial vibe from the class confirmed my strong positive feelings for what lay ahead. It was a great introduction into what was to happen in the coming weeks. I understood even then that this was as much a journey of self-discovery as much as it was about the subject matter. I also understood that the generation associated with rock and roll, drugs and sex was groundbreaking for film in ways that I could only intuit at that point. I understood that where the generation that preceded it was about conformity, this generation was about breaking the rules and exploring new psychological and social spaces for the rest of us. I could not wait to get started on the materials and the discussions and to participate, reflect and learn. Mostly too at that point I was eager to dive into the books and films. I also understood at this point that the perspectives for viewing the time period and the generation included not just the artistic, but also other relevant perspectives that hopefully would broaden my understanding of the era and give me a rounded overall understanding. The historical, business, and cultural viewpoints are important too, and I understood that these takes on the era would be explored in depth in the coming weeks (“Hollywood Rebels”). The ground rules and expectations for class performance and participation were also clearly laid down during this first week. I learned what was expected of me, and this learning was valuable, because I knew that if I participated in class and applied myself to the tasks in earnest that I would do fine. Moreover, I also appreciated how my inputs were important not only in terms of being able to get good marks but also in terms of the being able to get truly learn and get genuine insights into the subject matter. Taking the high road, I understood that to be able to learn as much as I can from this era, I need to take the class discussions seriously and really try to assimilate the materials as much as I could (“Hollywood Rebels”). Etiquette and attendance were discussed. Etiquette was mostly about respecting the class and giving full attention during lectures. Attendance rules were clearly laid out, to make sure that students knew when they would be marked as late or absent, and what absences mean in terms of passing or failing the class. The syllabus and assignments and their formats were explained, and I learned what was expected of me in the written assignments and in the procurement of permits of films. I learned the importance of academic honesty. I also learned that if I applied myself sincerely to the class tasks and observed the rules I have a shot at excelling in this subject (“Hollywood Rebels”). What struck me further about this initial week was that I was naturally elated that I can get a good grade doing work that I imagine I will enjoy doing in this course. The subject matter has always fascinated me, and it strikes me as fantastic that I have the opportunity to get high marks doing something that will be thoroughly enjoyable and worth my time. I understand that in life very few people ever get the chance to be doing work that they love, and to have the chance to make a life of it. It struck me that this class experience ought to be a model for the rest of my life as well. Personally I would like to believe that the rest of my life can be as exciting and engaging as this class, and that with some luck, I can make choices that will allow me to live a life that is successful and worthwhile (“Hollywood Rebels”). Week 2 Week 2 was very fascinating because we dove right deep into the good stuff, and by this I mean that we dove right into the seminal directors during the transition from what I understood to be from an old, more staid generation of filmmakers to the new artists who would in time become the new icons of the industry. I am talking about Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Arthur Penn, Francis Ford Coppola and a number of other important filmmakers who I came to understand would form that group who would effect a break with the past (“Before the Revolution”). The lecture posed a question about the reasons for this break, and why this period in American film and social history was a period when the film industry was considered to be at a kind of crossroads. This prompted me to think about how the 1960s was a time of a great explosion in youthful energy in general, and how popular culture had come to signify this era with images of beatniks and counter-culture heroes breaking with the old rules and espousing things like sexual freedom, women’s rights, experimentation with drugs, and exploring new and wild themes in art, including in music and in film. The establishment then meant convention, the old rules and the old moral standards that were embodied in the films of the 1950’s and earlier, but this group was fresh and had new ideas, and wanted no part in the old way of life that the old conventions represented. I checked the literature and did my own supplemental research, prompted by the questions raised in this lecture, and I found out that the thoughts that were brilliantly introduced in class were indeed echoed in the literature. There was even a name associated with this fresh wave of Ameican film artistic talent, and that name which is referenced in the literature is known as “New Hollywood”. I came to understand too that from an economic point of view, this period was also about the old formulas in making film, which were big budget and adhered to more traditional conformist American values and modes of storytelling, were failing to attract viewers, and that the success of newer forms of filmmaking that explored sexuality and grey areas in morality and society was partly responsible for boosting the prospects of the so-called New Hollywood. I learned too that the early success of films like ‘Easy Rider’ and ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ represented a break from what the traditional critics deemed as good film art, and that the newer generations of viewers voted for these new films with their wallets. I learned that this shift was about a new generation of Americans being more receptive towards the new ideas and the new forms of filmmaking that the new crop of artists led by Scorsese, Hopper and the like were espousing. These new crop of artists were treated differently partly because they represented a new worldview and a new way of making art that was a break with the old (Hitchman and McNett). When one considers how radically different ‘ Bonnie and Clyde’ is to something like ‘The Sound of Music’, one can see just how big a break the new wave is to what came before. One can see too that without the support of the American viewing public, the new wave would not have gained traction seemingly overnight, and would have just died a natural death. One can see that American society was ready for Coppola new breed of film art, and that this readiness translated to economic and financial viability. The studios therefore had the motivation to get behind the new wave too. Social readiness translated to economic viability and to success of this new wave. The economics followed from a prior social readiness and the shift in artistic tastes that that implied (Hitchmann and McNett). Week 3 This week was very interesting for the way I saw through the lens of film history how the seeds of the greatness of American Zoetrope were laid in the late 1960s. and how in fact, looking back, this development has had a very large impact on the present shape of American cinema. American Zoetrope is of course aboue Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas, and I understand further from my own research on the company that it had come to champion the work of other film greats such as Tim Burton, Robert de Niro, Akira Kurasawa and Jean-Luc Goddard. The class focused on the work of Coppola in 1969 that would form the foundation of American Zoetrope, in ‘The Rain People’, and I am amazed at how much talent and improvisation went into its creation. Reading up further on the making of the film and the rationale and the thinking that went into the creation of the movie, I am still amazed at how much of the present moment went into its crafting. By this I mean that Coppola, it turns out, improvised and ad-libbed on the fly so to speak, making use of circumstances and events that he and his crew encountered while filming on location, and included those into the final film. I am amazed too at how this kind of improvisation was very novel at that time, hinting to me that this kind of spontaneity was not common during or before the time of Coppola. I learned something about the spirit under which American Zoetrope was founded. It was reflected in the spontaneous and independent streak that went into the making of ‘The Rain People’ and the need for Coppola to gain artistic independence, in order to create the film that he wanted to create. Linking this to a greater theme of the break with the past, whereas the old ways of making movies prior to Coppola entailed deliberation, elaborate scripts and sets, and big budget productions, ‘The Rain People’ was about going the other way and striking out on one’s own, relying on one’s genius and having faith in the events of real life as they unfold containing in them the seeds of what is beautiful and worth filming (Landazuri). Coppola inspires me in this way, that he was able to pursue his artistic vision and had the guts to follow his own peculiar genius all the way to the end. This tells me at the same time that film has its technical and artistic aspects that need to be studied formally and with great respect. On the other hand, after having paid due respect and after having studied the formal aspects of film, the creative and innovative aspects of filmmaking are those aspects that separate the mere technically proficient from the artistically great. Coppola and Lucas have talent and artistic vision overflowing, but a large part of that is having the courage to go out there and pursue one’s own vision of what is great and beautiful. When we discussed Robert Altman and Dennis Hopper and their works, I got this same message, and I learned to respect the artistic process and appreciate the importance of the artistic vision as much as the technical aspects of film (“Exile on Main Street”; Patterson). Viewed another way too, American Zoetrope seemed to have acted as a kind of beacon for the radically different sensibilities and artistry of Coppola and his peers, and that brought other serious artists to its fold. This can be seen from the way the company came to champion not just homegrown films, but also foreign films that echoed the same the same radically different vista of life and art that the company came to represent. On hindsight getting Kurosawa and Goddard on the same boat seems to be par for the course. These two are iconic all over the world and they are considered to be artists of the highest rank. Their association with American Zoetrope is not an accident (“Exile on Main Street”; Patterson). Week 4 Hal Ashby is iconic for the way his life was a testament to the transformation of American cinema away from the stereotypes and conventions of the decades that preceded his films. The lecture slides feature Jack Nicholson paying tribute to Ashby by saying that he was the greatest all-time director who was not a director, alluding to his background not as a filmmaker essentially but first an editor who was given a break at the directorial chair. His partnership with Nicholson was via the film ‘The Last Detail in 1973’, while his other credits extend back to 1971 with ‘Harold and Maude’ and forward with ‘Shampoo’ coming out in 1976 (“Like a Rolling Stone”). The discussions prompted more than just this recollection of facts in me, and prompted me to know more about his work and his genius. I learned that his life had been erratic and filled with pain, as his father had committed suicide when he was young He himself had an erratic early life, jumping from one job to another, but it was clear also that he had the talent and the passion for film, first as an editor, and in 1970 as a full-fledged director for ‘The Landlord’ in 1970. Prior to that he would garner an Oscar for film editing for ‘In the Heat of the Night’ in 1967. Norman Jamison would give him his directorial break, but I also learned that this was well-earned, having edited Jamison’s films excellently prior to 1970. His work in the 1970’s would win critical acclaim and would go on to become fixtures at the awards ceremonies. All these details are fascinating because of the unmistakable mark of excellence that pervaded the work, and the awards and acclaim that they generated, but also because it tells me that the artistic vision and the creativity behind it cannot be easily copied. It seemed to come for Ashby already formed fully, and seemed to have come out of the blue (IMDb; Arizona). From a technical standpoint I learned a lot too from the discussions and the readings on the technical and artistic merits of the work of Ashby, which deepened my appreciation for his work and also informed me of my own possibilities. For one, the literature notes that contrary to the more deliberate and tight control that some directors employ in directing films, Ashby was noted for letting his actors and actresses explore their roles. He gave them space in other words, to the point where some dismissed him as not being enough of a director. On the other hand, the discussions also note that where he excelled is in those aspects of directing that highlighted certain aspects of the whole scenarios that he was filming, in ways that reflect his artistic eye, and not at all easily copied. Moreover, his passion for his work was reflected in the way he spent large amounts of energy in the editing work, to such an extent that he had almost complete control of the artistic output from the filming all the way to the editing, and to the exclusion of commercial considerations. He made films for art rather than for the studios, something that apparently made some executives wary of working with him towards the end. That said, in terms of the technical merits of his work, he combined his artistic vision with a keen eye for the technical details of editing. I learned that both the technical and artistic aspects of filmmaking are important in coming up with works of art that are as beautiful as Ashby made them (Arizona; “Like a Rolling Stone”). It is sad that towards the end of his life, Ashby’s earlier work and his legacy would be tainted by his personal troubles, and that his reputation as someone who was hard to work contributed to his eventual marginalization as a moviemaker. That said, I learned that even now his most important works remain respected, which is consoling for me (Arizona). Week 5 Week 5 was about focusing on specific works by specific directors: Francis Ford Coppola and ‘The Godfather’, Roman Polanski and ‘Chinatown’, Bob Rafelson and ‘Five Easy Pieces’, and Dennis Hopper and ‘The Last Movie’. Each of those works are a joy to watch and to discuss, and no doubt the week was not long enough to do justice to each of the films and their directors. In a previous week we had discussed Coppola and American Zoetrope, and there in the discussions we also mentioned ‘The Godfather’ series and how that made the career of Coppola and established him as one of American cinema’s greats. This week I learned to situate Coppola within a larger current of works by a new generation of filmmakers who first established a beachhead in American film in the late 1960’s, as already discussed in class. In week 5 the focus is on the early 70’s, with Coppola’s work appearing in 1972, and Hopper’s work appearing in 1971 together with Rafelson, while the work of Polanski appeared in 1974. By this time I understand that the new wave had become entrenched and that it had more or less made a fairly good break with the past. This decade was firmly in the grasp of Coppola and the others, and their artistic vision was flowering as can be seen from their work. The Oscar success of ‘The Godfather’ too was a reflection of the way the critical taste of the American public was getting in on the beauty and the powerful vision of Coppola. Whereas in previous weeks there was a part of the establishment that seemed to reject the vision of Coppola and the new wave of filmmakers, as reactionaries and as gatekeepers of the old way of making films prior to the late 60’s, this was expected. On the other hand, the work of Coppola seemed to pave the way for the wider embrace of the sensibilities that he and the others championed, and by the time of Polanski’s ‘Chinatown’ this new wave had become a kind of gold standard for what was beautiful and artistic in film. The work of Polanski and its acceptance by the movie public in a way was made possible by the efforts of Hopper, Rafelson and Coppola “The Man Who Would be King”). In my opinion Coppola also stands out in this group and in this wave with ‘The Godfather’, which remains to be very popular up to this day.. This popularity no doubt has to do partly with the genius of Coppola and the way it represented such a stark break with what came before it. The movie itself was said to be a reinvention of the genre of mobster films. The way it was able to break old records and to establish new modes of distribution was also part of the mystique of the film and its iconic status as something that changed the way we see and make films forever. Without Coppola there is doubt whether the new wave would have taken off the way it did, in my opinion. Coppola, with Zoetrope and his work, no doubt too would not have succeeded in the way that he did if he had talent but did not have the conviction and the courage to go it alone, and to put his art out there. Hopper and the others arguably would have had a tougher time too if Coppola had failed. As it happened the success of ‘The Godfather’ made it acceptable and cool to make films the way Coppola did, and to essentially throw away the old ways of making films and the old ways of viewing the world. What I learned in this week in particular that I think I will take with me for the rest of my life is this perspective on Coppola as a kind of artistic hero. It is not enough to be talented and to have a beautiful vision of life. One needs to have the courage to bring it out and live that vision too. Coppola had that in large amounts (“The Man Who Would Be King”). Week 6 Week 6 continued the focus on the directors that mattered during this time period of the Hollywood rebels, with the discussions being very illuminating in terms of introducing me to the works and sensibilities of William Friedkin, Peter Bogdanovich, Robert Altman, and again Coppola, specifically ‘The Conversation’ which came out in 1974. From the lectures I learned about Bogdanovich’s works ‘Paper Moon’ and ‘Daisy Miller’, and Altman’s ‘Nashville’. I learned to contextualize their works too within this larger movement that continued to break away from the old social order that was more conventional, towards an exploration of darker, and even evil themes in the case of Friedkin. I remember growing up and seeing ‘The Exorcist’ and taking for granted that this was standard horror movie fare. On the other hand, I came to learn during the discussions that the work of Friedkin was somewhat revolutionary when it came out, because it broke ground in terms of its visual aesthetics and the new perspectives on evil and even sexuality and religion as those were portrayed in mainstream cinema. Moreover, in ‘The Exorcist’ I came to understand how Friedkin’s early experience working with documentaries came into play when he directed ‘The Exorcist’ from the eye of viewing the film as something that reflected a true happening or event, rather than something fictitious. Moreover,. from the perspective of artistic control and putting one’s personality stamp into films, Friedkin can be considered as somewhat on the opposite end of the scale in comparison to say, Ashby. Where we found Ashby to give his actors and the movie itself enough space to evolve, and where we found Coppola for instance to be more freewheeling in the way he wrote scripts and filmed on set, we learned that Friedkin was more hands on. He put his personal stamp on the films by discussing the dark side of his soul for instance, and in the way he inserted himself and his will into the movie making process by demanding a lot from his actors and his actresses and projecting his toughness into the whole exercise. Meanwhile in the discussion on The Directors Company we see excellent examples of the flowering of this age of the rebels through the works of Bogdanovich and and Coppola. It is worth noting that in the lecture notes the highlighted films from the two, and from The Directors Company in general, came out in 1973 and 1974. This period is a few years from the emergence of this new wave of rebel films from the late 1960’s to 1971-1972, as discussed in the previous week. The discussions allowed us to gain a deeper appreciation for the unique artistic gifts of Bogdanovich and Altman, while at the same time allowing us too to situate their sensibilities within the context of this larger wave and this establishment of a new way of making films first championed by American Zoetrope and Coppola. By this time I had come to appreciate how the materials from the earlier weeks gave me a good grounding on what this group of Hollywood rebels was all about, and it gave me a good lens with which to view the later works of Altman and Bogdanovich (“Sympathy for the Devil”). I learned this week too that the new wave is not a homogeneous group, and that while some directors such as Ashby worked more in the background and let their artists roam freely so to speak, some directors brought the full force of their personalities into their works and tightly controlled what happened in front of the cameras. They inserted their subjective feelings and thoughts into the set and projected their inner worlds externally for the public to see, as in the case of Friedkin (“Sympathy for the Devil”). Week 7 Week 7 further explored the works and lives of Bogdanovich, Rafelson, Hopper and to a lesser extent Ashby in ‘Harold and Maude’. Some of the perspectives gave us an inside look into the lives of these men, and how their lives and their relationships influenced their thinking and their artistic output. The discussion on Peter Bogdanovich’s life was especially riveting during this week, informing me of how the personal relationships and passions of Bogdanovich came to affect in a way the way he made his films. In particular, I learned about ‘The Last Picture Show’ and how, when it came out, in 1971, it established the talent and reputation of Bogdanovich as one of the greats, then only 32 years old. To recall from the previous weeks, this was around the same time that the works of Hopper, Coppola, and Ashby started to appear. Coppola himself would follow in the Oscar footsteps of Bogdanovich just a few years after ‘The Last Picture Show’ came out. What strikes me too is how ‘The Last Picture Show’ received the critical acclaim that it did from the Oscars, getting eight nominations in total. The R rating for the film too indicated that even during this time when the so-called new wave of Hollywood rebels had established a solid footing in American cinema, the works of Bogdanovich, Coppola and the others were still deemed as out of the ordinary and potentially disruptive to the moral norms of ordinary society. The lecture notes on the other hand discussed how the personal lives of Bogdanovich and the others reflected the moral sensibilities of their films. On the personal side, Bogdanovich would go on to part ways with his then partner Polly Platt to be with Cybill Shepherd. Meanwhile, the quote from Rafelson about the de facto knowledge of Hollywood powerful figures sleeping around reinforced the notions of Hollywood rebels literally rebelling against more conventional norms in romantic relationships and marriages. All these of course would show up in the way the films of the rebels explored the gray areas in human relationships too. I learned that their personal lives and personal morals reflected their explorations of morality and sexuality, among others, in their films. Today we take it for granted that Hollywood people have very colorful romantic lives, but it is still fascinating to learn that the lives of Bogdanovich seemed larger than life then, at the height of their success. One take from this is that in terms of the artistic visions of the directors who made up this crop of rebels, and certainly as seen in the life of Bogdanovich in particular, art imitated life, and the directors lived their personal lives seemingly in the same way that they explored moral sensibilities in their films. Moreover, the clash between their radically different artistic visions and the rest of American society was reflected in their other difficulties too, not just in romance, but also in terms of getting financial support for their films. Hopper for instance would have problems getting funding support for his movie ideas after some initial success. Their lives in other words were difficult in ways that reflected the difficulty of swimming against the conventional tide. This was the risk that they took for their art. This also made what they did all the more remarkable, the fact that they had to suffer too, while their more mainstream contemporaries had more comfortable lives maybe, hewing closer to more conventional work and lives, and working to pander to more ordinary tastes. I wonder sometimes whether I have what it takes to be like them, to pursue my dreams the way they did, without fear it seems, and with no care for what followed next. I learned that their lives were not easy to say the least, and they paid dearly for their artistic freedom (IMDb (b); “The Moviegoer”). 1 Works Cited Arizona, Daniel. “Why You Should Know the Name Hal Ashby”. More Intelligent Life. 2013. Web. 20 February 2015. “Before the Revolution”. Lecture Notes. 2015. “Exile on Main Street” Lecture Notes. 2015 Hitchman, S and A. McNett. “A History of American New Wave Cinema Part Three: New Hollywood (1967-1969)”. NewWaveFilm.com. 2015. Web. 20 February 2015. “Hollywood Rebels” Lecture Notes. 2015 IMDb. “Hal Ashby Biography”. IMDb.com. 2015. Web. 20 February 2015. IMDb (b). “Peter Bogdanovich Biography”. IMDb.com. 2015. Web. 20 February 2015. “Like a Rolling Stone”. Lecture Notes. 2015 Landazuri, Margarita. “The Rain People”. Turner Classic Movies. 2015. Web. 20 February 2015. Patterson, John. “American Zoetrope: In a galaxy not from Hollywood..”. The Guardian. 17 November 2011. Web. 20 February 2015. “Sympathy for the Devil”. Lecture Notes. 2015. “The Man Who Would Be King”. Lecture Notes. 2015 “The Moviegoer”. Lecture Notes. 2015. . Read More