Recently,I have been watching some major and mainstream films. Possibly the most uninteresting sentence you will hear today but I am unemployed and need something to occupy my brain. One thing has struck me about a lot these films: there seams to be a lot of surrealist undertones.
"so what? Get a life and a job, hippy!"
fair point but to me this is uncharacteristic of Surrealism .The Surrealist movement was seen as a very ‘underground’ and exclusive world at its conception, encompassing such great names of the art and film world like the great surrealist artist Dali and director Andre Breton. Up until the nineteen twenties and even nineteen thirties no one in the film industry ever took too much notice of the surrealist world (despite many collectives and groups having sprung up all over Europe and South America, the ‘Dada’ group being its most profound) either because its depictions of eyes getting sliced by moon light, the sexual undertones, taken from Freudian psychology, or the dream-like qualities Surrealism was founded on, visible in such films like ‘Un Chien Andalou’ and ‘Exterminating Angel,’ were seen as too risky for the times or people just were not aware of this movement. Yet in the nineteen thirties, surrealism had found its way into mainstream Hollywood. This would seem the irrational choice for the direction of surrealism (perhaps that is why it took it!), its founding principles were generally to spite Hollywood and embrace the ‘uncanny’ while embracing Marxist and anarchistic ideologies. To Surrealist directors Hollywood was the epitome of bourgeois values. So how did Surrealism become so visible in Hollywood? Could it be that the Surrealist influence in the mainstream was coincidental? Or could we even find ‘involuntary’ Surrealism in these films? Or perhaps some Surrealist directors had abandoned their political principles?
Hollywood, a symbol to this day of the mainstream, as I have already stated, is normally hated by the Surrealist community. To them it regulates their dreams and has destroyed many potentially surrealist films. But as Hollywood was entering its ‘golden age’ in the nineteen thirties and twenties, more and more producers were looking for talented and original directors. This would have been a very compromising position for many surrealist directors. On the one hand they did not want to conform to Hollywood and its values but on the other the lure of a big film to put across their ideology must have been very tempting. Many Surrealist directors did not take these offers up but certainly some directors, who were at least influenced by Surrealism like Clarence Brown, Josef Von Sternberg and Alfred Hitchcock, did. Despite not many surrealist directors not wanting to be part of the ‘production line’, Hollywood could not regulate all of its expansive regions so mavericks and non-conformists stepped up and filled the void
Yet despite this intake of surrealist directors, many films still have seemingly surrealist moments and views. Is this just me seeing things or 'involuntary surrealism?' Involuntary surrealism can be identified in two ways in mainstream films: accidentally or ethically. Involuntary surrealism comes more from a moral side, in that it is up to the individuals consciousness to recognise what is surreal and what isn’t. To non-surrealist directors, involuntary surrealism could be seen as a problem. Different interpretations could ruin the message of the film and make it be seen in a different light, disturbing narratives and opening up themes that did not mean to be opened and therefore leaving the film with an inconclusive message. On the other hand, involuntary surrealism could give the film a new perspective. It opens the film up to ‘irrational enlargement’. Irrational enlargement is an arbitrary question that helps you look at a film in a new dimension. So, if I asked ’at what moment did a snowfall take place in the film’? Even if there was no snowfall, the question induces the viewer to see what is invisible in it. Another example is: ‘in what location outside the action does the film take place?’ The answers are no less arbitrary than the questions and do little to tell us about the film itself.
What it does do though is take the viewer away from the obvious points of the film and engages their imagination as well as encouraging an acceptance of the ‘uncanny’. So say If were to ask the question ‘in what location is the film ‘vertigo’ (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) set in and where did the action take place?’ The answer would be San Francisco but really the action and the set are in a studio in Hollywood. San Francisco is the place of desire, where the ‘desiring lens’ of the viewer wants the action to be taking place but in actual fact it takes the viewer to a place where neither are true, (the film is not in San Francisco and the studio is not the reality) but yet, in a sense both are true, as, for the viewer, the belief allows him/her to think the film is set in reality and therefore the set is breading truth.
Other than deliberately looking for Surrealism, some genres of film gave Surrealism a breading ground and a chance to flourish. comedy, horror and love are the most key genres for surrealism inside the mainstream. Comedy, in particular, was a fantastic platform for surrealism. Such actors like Charlie Chaplin (despite not being a surrealist, his films could be arguably surreal with or without th help of involuntary surrealism),Harold Lloyd and the Marx brothers all brought their taste of anarchy to the set, creating what has been called a ‘custard pie morality.’ The ideas that surrealism were founded upon can be seen in the ideas and thoughts of these comedy greats. Groucho Marx agrees:
“We hold the theory that we shouldn’t be suppressed. When we see a pompous fellow in a high silk hat swelled up with his own importance and sniffing and sneering at folks as they pass, we do exactly what the rest of the world would do. We heave a ripe tomato at the hat. If we suppressed that desire we would not be normal.”
Here we can see one fundamental points of surrealism: freedom from suppression. This could be seen as surrealism with in comedy at least. Despite not being an out and out Surrealists, acts like the Marx brothers do highlight a surrealist ethic.
Horror was again a breading ground for Surrealism within the mainstream. Horror films confronted the audience with such prominent themes of surrealism like death, hidden desires as well as examining our morality. The horror genre confronts us with our worst fears. It scairs us with thoughts that the fragile comfort of hard working societies will be ruined, that nothing will remain of the ordinary circumstances of humanity and that death is impending. King Kong would be a great example. the miraculous nature of a giant gorilla bring the infallible New York almost to its knees confronts us with a thought that the miraculous in life is out to get us. Also the model of King Kong with the way it moves is surreal enough, showing off another theme of surrealist film: embracing the uncanny. Models and claymation are favourates with Surrealist film makers. Look at Tim Burton if you disagree.
Love, again was a topic that surrealists could easily manipulate. Contrary to a traditional Hollywood love film, Surrealist interpretations of love usually shows it in a negative light, full of strife and longing along with Freudian undertones. Blue Velvet is a great example(Ok OK tequnically a thriller but still). An all American boy with a suppressed love for a foreign, crazed woman, who should, by societies standards, choose the beautiful all American girl. Not to metion Frank, the crazy sadist of a man who screams out "MUMMY!" when he comes.Freud! I've found you your birthday present!
So what has been the point of pointing this out? who cares wither surrealism has got a grasp on the mainstream? If you dont really care about these thing I wouldn't expect you to but I recon to understand a film, to fully enjoy it, to get the most out of it, its good to ask these questions and examine films properly. If you disagree then I suggest you go watch 2012 or Sex in the City or some shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment