Ideology: An Essay

How valuable has ideological analysis been in developing your understanding of the themes of your chosen films?

An ideology is a set of beliefs held by an individual or group that defines their world view and societies have dominant ideologies, which influence the people living within that society and the products they create. As an audience living in Western society, we expect the films we watch to reflect back our own ideologies and conform to Western conventions; however, a director is able to guide the film according to their ideology, which the audience can either accept, negotiate with or reject. Both La La Land (Damien Chazelle, 2016) and Beasts of the Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin, 2012) are heavily influenced by their director’s ideology, La La Land as Chazelle’s passion project and Beasts of the Southern Wild as an independent film, although audiences have brought their own ideologies to the films by applying different readings.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is an independent film, which means Zeitlin was more focused on presenting his artistic vision than purely making profit. He “live[s] in New Orleans [so] was interested in telling a story about people who are staying in South Louisiana and why they’re holding on”, choosing to reflect the ideology of a low-income community, rather than the dominant ideology in America of family-importance and capitalism. Although independent films are usually limited to a festival audience, Beasts of the Southern Wild‘s success at numerous festivals enabled a cinema release on 318 screens in America. This opened the film up to a more mainstream audience, whose ideology was more likely to be challenged by watching it.

Zeitlin wanted to make the film accessible to audiences even with different ideologies; for example, the film portrays the devastation caused by climate change and was arguably inspired by the impact of Hurricane Katrina on people of colour and those in poverty; however, Zeitlin claims there is no intentional political message and “even people who don’t believe in global warming [can] sit down and watch it”. This suggests his ideological presence in the film is only implicit as he tries to refrain from pushing a strong message.

The film seems to conform to aspects of Marxist film theory, as it presents the Bathtub community and praises the nature around them through close-up shots of nature in documentary-style, particularly in the opening of the film. These realistic shots fit with the ideology of Italian neo-realism, in addition to Zeitlin’s use of non-professional actors, real locations and conversational speech. By focusing on the Bathtub community and framing their eviction as aggressive, Zeitlin sides with the community’s ideology and positions contemporary capitalist society as a threat to this, thus challenging dominant ideology. Furthermore, Hushpuppy is then dressed in more stereotypically feminine clothes in the hospital scene, making her conform to society’s ideology of what a girl is.

Hushpuppy continually challenges societal expectations of both girls and children, which could fit with a feminist reading of the film, as she is shown to be independent and strong rather than passive and weak. The wide-shot with her and the aurochs towards the end emphasises her power, as she is physically small in comparison, but the aurochs “lowers her head with respect” and stops before Hushpuppy. On the other hand, Wink reinforces dominant sexist ideology by suggesting strength is a masculine quality and only praising Hushpuppy for being “the man” when she engages in a display of strength with the arm wrestle, then calling her “a stupid little girl” when she shows perceived weakness.

Although the strong presence of a community in the film fits with Marxist ideology, some aspects of the film do not, mainly the fact that the film is focused more on Hushpuppy as an individual with the Bathtub community as the background. Additionally, Zeitlin pushes this focus on Hushpuppy through editing, instead of allowing the audience to choose their focus as is encouraged in Marxist film theory. Hushpuppy appears in nearly every shot and even Wink’s death scene has a lot of close-ups on her because her response is more important for the viewer than Wink’s actual death. Hushpuppy dominates the film aurally with her narration, which again reinforces the subjective nature of the film and Hushpuppy’s perspective.

La La Land, in contrast, is a mainstream Hollywood film funded by a studio, although Chazelle uses its niche genre to provide flexibility for the ideologies he portrays on-screen. Chazelle had the idea for La La Land before his debut film, Whiplash, which he used to gain more recognition and funding for La La Land. He was given large amounts of freedom when making the film, although arguably it does still largely conform to society’s dominant ideologies.

The film challenges the audience’s expectations of Hollywood protagonists with its fairly realistic and ordinary leads Mia and Seb. The ending particularly challenges convention of musical happy endings by separating the characters, although they are materially successful. This success fits with the dominant ideology of the American Dream that anyone can succeed with enough hard work; therefore, although La La Land challenges some expectations, it mostly fits with American society’s ideologies.

This is also true of the relationship portrayed on-screen between Seb and Mia: a typical heterosexual relationship where the woman is more passive, shown by Seb being the one to find Mia and ask her out at the cafe. Throughout the film, Mia supports and admires Seb, repeatedly watching him perform from when she first meets him in the restaurant to Keith’s concert, whereas he fails to turn up to the opening night of her show. Additionally, Seb plays the role of educator, preserving and preaching about ‘pure’ jazz, whilst maintaining his artistic integrity by struggling to play Christmas carols for money instead of playing what he wants.

However, a feminist interpretation suggests it is actually Mia and her journey as an artist that is the focus of the film, because the audience is first positioned in Mia’s perspective to learn about her ambitions and struggles. Although she plays the role of an audience member for Seb, she is never passive in her appreciation and the close-up shots maintained on her face during his performances show the importance of her above him. Anna Leszkiewitz argues that “We rarely see [Seb] perform if not through [Mia’s] gaze, and we see her emotionally develop through her evolving reactions to his music.”, showing her artistic growth rather than focusing on Seb’s. Moreover, it is ultimately Mia who is able to innovate as an artist, whilst Seb stays safely stuck in the past to recycle what others have already done.

Throughout the film, there is mostly a balance between the two characters and they are treated as equals, which contrasts typical Hollywood films where the woman is purely a love interest and has no personality of her own. This is best indicated with Seb and Mia’s first meeting: the start of the film follows Mia until she walks into the restaurant and we expect the male gaze to be subverted when she watches Seb play, but Chazelle cuts before we see the piano player and instead introduces Seb individually, which eventually leads to their gazes lock as equals with no male or female gaze present. In addition, this initial meeting subverts audience expectations of a romance film ‘meet-cute’ because Seb barges past Mia, setting up the challenge to Hollywood film relationships that Chazelle continues throughout.

The two films are very different in the ideologies they portray on-screen: a Marxist interpretation can be applied to Beasts of the Southern Wild, whereas La La Land fits very nicely with the dominant ideology of the American Dream in the capitalist society. Both challenge stereotypical portrayals of women – Hushpuppy is independent and Mia can be seen as the true artist over Seb, because she innovates whilst he continues to recycle and live in the past. As an independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild has more room to challenge ideologies, which it does through representation of a different community to what is usually shown in mainstream cinema. Though La La Land does offer some variation in the ideology it portrays, it still overwhelmingly fits with the dominant representation of a heterosexual, white couple portrayed on-screen, perhaps due to the nostalgia of the film that pays homage to the Golden Age of Hollywood where this was the expectation. Both films use implicit ideology that is presented through the worlds they create or reflect, rather than making explicit statements on the dominant ideologies they challenge.

Spectatorship: A Plan

How far do your chosen films demonstrate the importance of visual and soundtrack cues in influencing spectator response?

Introduction –

• Films typically place the audience in the position of passive observer, but they are able to engage the audience to become active in different ways
• Spectatorship theories have presented various models for the activity level of the audience when watching a film: the Uses and Gratifications Model suggests the audience members are even active when deciding to watch a film, as they do so for different reasons. Watching for education or integration reasons enables the viewer to be more active throughout the film than someone choosing to watch as escapism or pure entertainment
• Filmmakers are also able to force more activity in the audience by challenging conventions and expectations; for example, through narrative structure, representation or the ideologies they portray
• However, the filmmaker cannot entirely decide the meaning the audience takes from the film: Reception Theory proposes a compromise between viewer and filmmaker in the ‘negotiated’ reading, whilst the ‘preferred’ reading is the filmmaker’s intention and the ‘oppositional’ reading is when the viewer counters this, choosing to reinterpret the film in their own way

Beasts of the Southern Wild –

Independent filmmakers usually encourage active spectators by creating a film that differs from mainstream cinema and its conventions. Beasts of the Southern Wild achieves this by focusing on a natural disaster that shares similarities with the 2005 Hurricane Katrina and its impacts on people of colour and in poverty. The government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was met with criticism, and though Zeitlin claims he did not make the film to be explicitly political, the film opens the audience’s eyes to the struggles a community faces in a changing world.

• Setting makes the film more educational and its realism is conveyed through the cinematography – shot on 16mm film to give a grainy quality, feels more grounded
• Additionally, real locations and use of non-actors adds to the realism
• Dwight Henry, who plays Wink, personally experienced Hurricane Katrina reflecting reality much more closely on-screen as he “understand[s] a lot of what the people in that movie, who live on that island, what they go through.”

---

• Zeitlin places the audience with Hushpuppy through techniques such as voice-over, careful editing so she is in the majority of shots and frequent close-ups to ascertain her emotion
• Although some audience members are able to take an identification view as they have experienced a similar situation and can imagine themselves in Hushpuppy’s shoes, once the film reached a more mainstream audience, an assimilation view may have become more common – feel sympathy and witness from an external perspective

---

• The preferred reading of the film is the importance of community and the devastation climate change is wreaking on them; however, the film presents the help offered to the Bathtub residents as a threat to their lifestyle – Hushpuppy and Wink being physically dragged to the hospital and then trying to escape
• An oppositional reading would see this as problematic, whilst a negotiated reading could appreciate the independence of the community and still accept that institutional help may benefit the community

---

• Criticism of the film provides more scope for oppositional readings – bell hooks argues that the film plays into racial stereotypes: Wink embodies regressive ideas of black masculinity – he is violent towards Hushpuppy and drinks frequently
• Similarly, hooks argues that Hushpuppy is presented as a child version of the stereotypical ‘strong black female matriarch’ – she looks after Wink, but is also independent and does not back down from the aurochs, showing her strength and bravery
• Recent context of the Black Lives Matter movement raises awareness about problematic representations of black people on-screen, making the audience more active when watching a film that engages with this (especially when the filmmaker is white)

La La Land –

Mainstream Hollywood films often aim to purely entertain the audience and therefore facilitate a passive spectator. However, La La Land has both intentionally and unintentionally created a more active viewership. Intentional = subversion of expectations in the ending where Mia and Seb do not end up together, leaves the audience questioning the American Dream and the balance between ambition and love. Unintentional = representation of gender and ethnicity that has raised criticism and engaged the audience as they evaluate their views on this.

• As a musical, audience is somewhat able to sit back and passively enjoy the spectacle presented to them on-screen; for example, the opening number ‘Another Day in the Sun’ is very bright, colourful and energetic – good for escapism (Uses and Gratifications Theory)
• The camera does work to engage the audience in this sequence – it is also very active, gliding in and around the performers to be more immersive for the audience
• Similarly, the use of real locations such as the Freeway 105 in the opening makes it more realistic and immersive
• However, the frequent references to other films makes the audience aware that the film and characters are constructs they are observing, e.g Mia standing in front of the screen as Rebel Without a Cause plays behind her

---

• La La Land pays homage to the role of viewer through the character of Mia: she is a consumer of art – jazz, cinema, theatre, but becomes an active participant – instead of continuing to watch Rebel Without a Cause, she takes Seb to the setting of it (The Griffiths Observatory) and creates her own scene with him
• Anna Leszkiewitz uses this to support a feminist interpretation of the film, seeing it as an exploration of Mia’s development as an artist, from consumer to innovator
• Such an interpretation is arguably a negotiated reading of the text as Chazelle does not make it explicit that the entire film is Mia’s perspective, although choices such as positioning the audience with her first and using close-ups on her whilst Seb is performing aid this view

---

• A more oppositional reading to the film can be seen in criticism of the ethnic representation – Keith is the only significant black character and he is criticised by Seb, the apparent (white) protector of ‘pure’ jazz for selling out to play commercial jazz
• This lack of representation is problematic, as is Seb’s desire to return to the olden days of jazz, which were characterised by racism towards black people even for the clothes they wore
• Geoff Nelson comments that “the past represents liberation for one group, a horror show for another” – nostalgia is only beneficial for white people, who can reflect on the past without being reminded of brutal racism and repression

---

• The preferred reading sees the film as unproblematically apolitical and a romance where both characters achieve their dreams, although lose each other in the process
• By creating the fantasy sequence at the end of the film, Chazelle reinforces the audience’s longing for the characters to be together, but subverts the romance genre when they do not really end up together
• The use of ‘City of Stars’ as the motif for Mia and Seb’s relationship encourages the viewer to support their relationship and links together the key moments in their romance

Conclusion –

Both films seek to encourage active spectators through their visual and aural elements, but an active audience is also able to move away from the preferred reading of the director and problematise aspects, such as representation of ethnicity. A viewer is more likely to choose mainstream film La La Land to fulfil a desire for escapism, whereas Beasts of the Southern Wild has more aim to challenge expectations as an independent film. Nonetheless, La La Land does still subvert expectations with its melancholic ending and feminist interpretation of the film offers a reading in which subversion of gender expectations is improved, showing the power of an active audience.

Ideology: A Plan

How valuable has ideological analysis been in developing your understanding of the themes of your chosen films?

Introduction –

• Ideology is a set of beliefs that fit together to form a person’s world view
• Often, large groups share the same ideology and this can be affected by the culture one has and the society that they live within
• As an audience, we usually expect to see our own ideologies reflected back to us on-screen, particularly in mainstream cinema; however, independent film seeks to challenge the audience and therefore may present a different ideology for us to engage with
• Ideology is influenced by our experiences and interactions, which is true of filmmakers, leading to their individual approach to storytelling and often films that are guided by their ideology
• La La Land is a studio-funded Hollywood film, but in a niche genre, and Chazelle’s freedom when making the film, as well as it being his long-time passion project, means it likely follows his ideology
• As an independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild has more aim to challenge audience ideology, which Zeitlin does by presenting a community not usually seen in mainstream cinema

Beasts of the Southern Wild –

It is an independent film, which means it has an element of risk and artistic vision as a project and is not solely a profit-making mission. Zeitlin made Beasts of the Southern Wild because he “live[s] in New Orleans and was interested in telling a story about people who are staying in South Louisiana and why they’re holding on.” Inspired by the community around him, Zeitlin reflects their ideology on-screen, which is a challenge to the capitalist, family-dominated society in contemporary America.

Audience:

• Beasts of the Southern Wild was on the festival circuit and won lots of awards, so was able to obtain a release in 318 cinemas, making it available to a wider audience
• A festival audience is more likely to be open to different ideologies portrayed on-screen, but the film’s cinema release meant a more mainstream audience could experience it
• Zeitlin wanted to make the film accessible to all, even those who don’t believe in climate change, and he counters that the film has an intentional political message; however, by presenting the struggles Hushpuppy and her community face, he challenges the dominant ideology of capitalism – they survive as a collective, not individuals striving for success, forcing audience members to re-evaluate
• Zeitlin doesn’t lead the audience to an easy ending, either – it is tinged with sadness at Wink’s death, though remains optimistic and open-ended about Hushpuppy’s future

Filmmakers:

• Through his backdrop of the Bathtub community, Zeitlin applies Marxist film theory by praising their community and the nature around them – close-up shots of nature like in a documentary. This also fits with the ideology of Italian neo-realism (along with use of non-professional actors, real locations, and conversational speech), although the fantastical element of the aurochs contrasts this realism
• The film challenges the dominant ideology of contemporary capitalist society by showing it as a threat to the Bathtub community – they are forcibly removed from their homes and then separated at the hospital
• Hushpuppy is put into a dress and shoes – making her conform to the dominant ideology of what a girl is

---

• Hushpuppy challenges what society expects of a child and a girl – she is independent and strong (could fit with a feminist interpretation) – shown by the wide-shot near the end, which contrasts the size of her with the massive aurochs, suggesting they are the powerful beasts, but then the auroch stops moving whilst Hushpuppy holds her position. After that = close-ups of Hushpuppy’s face as she addresses the aurochs, like a leader instructing others – screenplay reads “Hushpuppy raises her chin in confident defiance” and “the aurochs lowers her head with respect”
• However, Wink reinforces stereotypes of female weakness and presents strength as a masculine quality that he encourages Hushpuppy to display – arm wrestling competition, “Hushpuppy you the man” vs “that’s just a side effect of being a stupid little girl”

---

• Some of Zeitlin’s decisions do not fit with Marxist film theory – the film is focused on Hushpuppy as an individual, rather than allowing the audience to choose their focus
• He manipulates audience attention through editing – majority of the shots include her, even scene of Wink’s death has a lot of close-ups on Hushpuppy because we are encouraged to feel empathy towards her rather than grieve at Wink’s death
• The use of Hushpuppy’s voice-over particularly contributes to the subjective nature

La La Land –

It is a mainstream Hollywood film, funded by a big studio, but was Chazelle’s passion project even before he made Whiplash, which made him more recognised, and is a niche genre film, giving more flexibility in the ideology it portrays on-screen.

Audience:

• The film challenges the audience’s expectations of main characters in a Hollywood film – they are not heroes who get a happy ending, they are realistic: we follow their struggles, relationship, success and sacrifice
• However, they fit with the dominant ideology of the American Dream, that anyone can achieve success if you keep striving and don’t give up
• Additionally their success is marked by what they achieve in their work lives, not personal lives – they both achieve their dream careers

Filmmakers:

• It shows a typical heterosexual relationship and the woman seems more passive in the relationship – Seb goes to Mia’s workplace and asks her out
• Throughout the film, she acts as an audience member, watching Seb perform (when they meet in the restaurant, at the party, at his and Keith’s concert)
• Seb seems to be the one with artistic integrity – trying to preserve ‘pure’ jazz, unable to force himself to play basic Christmas carols at the restaurant
• He teaches Mia about jazz – superior knowledge, fits with patriarchal ideology

---

• However, a feminist interpretation suggests Mia is the focus of the film and it shows the development of her as an artist – the film initially positions us with her and we learn about her dreams and struggles
• Even though she watches Seb perform and he fails to turn up to the opening night of her one-woman show, the shots stay focused on her reaction, rather than the actual show performance itself, e.g. concert with Keith’s band has prolonged shots on Mia’s face as she dances in the audience
• Anna Leszkiewitz argues that “We rarely see [Seb] perform if not through [Mia’s] gaze, and we see her emotionally develop through her evolving reactions to his music.”
• Mia ultimately creates something new, whereas Seb stays stuck in the pastt

---

• Mia and Seb are treated largely as equals in the film, which contrasts typical Hollywood films where the woman is just a love interest for the heroic male
• When Mia enters the restaurant hearing the piano playing, we expect the male gaze to be subverted as she looks at him; however, Chazelle cuts away before we see Seb and we follow his perspective until they meet with their gazes locking as equals
• Chazelle also subverts expectations of a typical ‘meet-cute’ because Seb barges past Mia instead of talking to her in the restaurant
• Arguably the two switch roles in the film – at the start, Seb drives away from Mia after the traffic eases (he is more driven in his goals), but at the end, Mia is the active one who walks out of the bar, whilst Seb sits there gazing longingly after her

Conclusion –

The two films are very different in the ideologies they portray on-screen: a Marxist interpretation can be applied to Beasts of the Southern Wild, whereas La La Land fits very nicely with the dominant ideology of the American Dream in the capitalist society. Both challenge stereotypical portrayals of women – Hushpuppy is independent and Mia can be seen as the true artist over Seb, because she innovates whilst he continues to recycle and live in the past. As an independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild has more room to challenge ideologies, which it does through representation of a different community to what is usually shown in mainstream cinema. Though La La Land does offer some variation in the ideology it portrays, it still overwhelmingly fits with the dominant representation of a heterosexual, white couple portrayed on-screen, perhaps due to the nostalgia of the film that pays homage to the Golden Age of Hollywood where this was the expectation. Both films use implicit ideology that is presented through the worlds they create or reflect, rather than making explicit statements on the dominant ideologies they challenge.

La La Land – Deep Dive

Context –

La La Land was produced by Summit Entertainment for a modest $30 million in comparison to the $200 million budget for Rogue One released in the same year. However, the budget was a big step up for Chazelle, who first directed Whiplash in 2014 with a $3.3 million indie film budget in order to establish himself and gain funding for La La Land, his passion project. Chazelle and his college roommate Justin Hurwitz wrote the script and score for La La Land first, and after the success of Whiplash were able to secure Lionsgate’s support. The film was an unusual proposal for a big Hollywood studio and Chazelle was given artistic freedom, shooting it on location in Los Angeles in 42 days.

La La Land is a nostalgic musical genre film, looking back on early jazz and Golden Age of Hollywood cinema. Its release in 2017 perhaps reflects or offers the desire to escape during the Trump presidency, much as musicals were at their height as escapist entertainment during World War II. The film uses intertextual references, such as Sebastian swinging round the lamppost like Don in Singin’ in the Rain’, which evokes fond memories of the films and the period of cinema in which they were created. Chazelle also utilises the cinematography of the film to pay tribute to musicals, filming big musical numbers in seemingly one take (there are a few hidden cuts) just as classical Hollywood musicals did.

The film’s nostalgia has been criticised for its erasure of black influence on jazz and racial conflicts that are tightly linked with the genre. Additionally, the desire to look back is usually associated with conservatism, which is what contributed to the election of Donald Trump, with his slogan of ‘Make America Great Again’. Therefore there is an odd irony in the nostalgic sentiment the film conveys that reflected contemporary feeling, and the escape into the past that it provides from a turbulent time under the Trump administration.

Chazelle uses a 2:55:1 Cinemascope ratio in the film, which mimics the style of ‘Fred and Ginger’ musicals in the 1930s, but is rarely used today. This serves to display the vastness of Los Angles in addition to referring back to classical Hollywood. The film shows off LA in iconic locations, such as the Griffith Observatory, although the interior location had to be shot on a designed art noveau-style set because the real Griffith Observatory had undergone renovations which made it look too modern and did not fit the dreamy, nostalgic feeling Chazelle was aiming for.

Aesthetics –

La La Land blends the past and present in its aesthetics, from the use of the 2:55:1 aspect ratio, to the props and costumes. Apart from Seb’s 1982 Buick Rivera, most of the cars are modern including Mia’s Prius, which forms part of a visual joke about everyone in LA driving a Prius, but there is also the inclusion of some 1960s French and Italian cars to hint at the past.

The costumes in every scene are bright and colourful, from the variety in the opening ‘Another Day in the Sun’ scene to Mia’s bold blue dress for the party and her iconic yellow one. This shows the vibrancy of the people in LA and allows them to stand out from their backgrounds.

However, the backgrounds are also made beautiful, despite being typically bland locations, like the Freeway 105 in the opening number. The regular locations root the film in reality, but are coloured and lighted to give a more ‘fairytale’ feeling. This fits with Chazelle’s aim of making a “love song to Los Angeles” in the same way as other films have done to New York or Paris, for example, with their more recognised and typically beautiful setting.

A particularly aesthetically striking scene is the dinner at Sebastian’s apartment, with very dark lighting and green tones, which create a claustrophobic feel and reflects the intensity between the two characters, who are having an argument. Throughout the film, Chazelle straddles the line between reality and fantasy, using the film’s aesthetic to manage this. Particularly, the editing affects the response to the different scenes, with long takes in the musical scenes to allow the expansion of the film as it bursts out on the screen. In contrast, the more mundane, everyday life scenes have a much faster pace of editing.

Representation –

Age: Originally cast with Emma Watson and Miles Teller, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling eventually ended up playing the parts of Mia and Sebastian, which changed the ages and perspectives of the characters. Instead of being fresh-faced, idealistic young adults, they became more weary and experienced. Sebastian particularly has a jaded and cynical perspective on life that would have not been possible with the younger Miles Teller. Similarly, Mia became more of a struggling actress who is fed up of the constant rejections rather than someone new to the game. This change in casting gives more urgency to the characters’ dreams, as they have spent (or wasted, as they sometimes feel) so much time on them already to the detriment to the rest of their lives.

Gender: The film has a male and female lead, which should provide balance, although there is some criticism that Mia is a passive character, fitting with typical portrayals of women in media and relationships. Sebastian takes charge by finding Mia to ask her out, persuading her to write and perform her show and driving her to her big audition. Additionally, she is encouraged to admire and support his artistic pursuits, as he teaches her to love jazz and she repeatedly watches his performances, whilst he fails to show up even for her opening night.

However, it is arguably Mia who drives the narrative, as we are first positioned with her and then follow the story of her success and fulfilment rather than Sebastian’s. The story explores her birth as an artist, as she ultimately creates something new with the film that breaks conventional casting and writing processes and makes her famous. In contrast, Sebastian is stuck in the past, recycling the old and only remixing when forced to by his friend. Therefore, it is Mia who achieves most success and is able to walk away from Sebastian with her new family and life at the end, rather than live in the past.

Ethnicity: There has been significant criticism for the lack of African-American representation in the film, especially with its focus on jazz which is historically rooted in black experiences. The only major black character in the film is Keith, played by John Legend, who is criticised by Sebastian for not staying true to what jazz really is. This is highly problematic for a white character to try and protect ‘pure jazz’, whilst suggesting his black friend has sold out to become commercially successful. Sebastian is also presented as the one to teach us and Mia about jazz, which is similarly problematic as he passes over the black influence on the genre.

Ideology –

Mainstream Hollywood films often present dominant ideologies, reinforcing societal expectations, often in terms of gender, relationships and power. La La Land initially seems to fit with the dominant ideology that heterosexual romance is most common and men are more active than women in striving for their dreams. Additionally, the idea of the American Dream plays a big part in the film, where both main characters believe they can achieve their high aspirations and they ultimately do, although as is typical for presentations of the American Dream, it fails to acknowledge whether everyone really can achieve this, including minorities. For example, whilst Keith is very successful with his modern jazz band, we see his success through the eyes of Sebastian, who views it as selling out and not a pure love of jazz, therefore this challenges the notion that Keith is happy, fulfilled and has achieved the American Dream.

The film does show a problematically nostalgic return to the past, glazing over racial discrimination, homophobia and gender inequality whilst it focuses on its white, heterosexual leads. It is almost self-consciously apolitical, and seeks to return to a world where this was accepted; Sebastian’s protection is of a jazz that was not political and not engaged with the Civil Rights movement.

However, through the character of Mia, the film is able to challenge the idea of nostalgia and question the benefits of living in the past. Although she has been criticised as a passive character and seems to fit with dominant ideology when she finds success, but also settles down with a family at the end, we can apply a feminist interpretation to her, which critics such as Anna Leszkiewitz have promoted.

The film initially positions us with the character of Mia as we discover her dreams, ambitions and struggles in life, whereas Sebastian only first appears as a main character after 17 minutes of the film. Additionally, Mia is always the audience member watching Seb, which contributes to the idea that she is passive, yet the camera is more often focused on her reaction to what she is watching, rather than the performance itself, suggesting her importance. Leszkiewitz supports this by arguing that “We rarely see [Seb] perform if not through [Mia’s] gaze, and we see her emotionally develop through her evolving reactions to his music.”

The first time Mia and Seb actually meet is in the restaurant where Seb is playing piano. Mia enters the restaurant whilst we are positioned with her, and the audience expects to see Sebastian through her eyes, thus inverting the male gaze; however, Chazelle cuts away before we see him and positions us with Sebastian in his car, taking us through his perspective before returning to the restaurant, where Mia and Seb’s gazes meet as equals.

Spectatorship –

Audiences respond differently to films based on factors such as where they watched the film, age and gender, all of which can have an affect on how they interpreted La La Land. In particular, the gender and racial criticism of La La Land shows that people can take an oppositional reading, where Sebastian’s obsession with jazz is self-indulgent and self-righteous, compared to Keith’s innovative and exciting take on jazz. The film has also been criticised for appearing a male fantasy about artistic integrity, in which Mia is a passive audience member, who supports him but fails to actively pursue her own dreams.

However, the film challenges what it is to be the audience: its intertextual references make the audience conscious that they are experiencing a film and creates an active role for them to spot the references. Similarly, in the film, Mia is a consumer of art and enjoys jazz, cinema and theatre, but goes on to be active in her role towards them; for example, she continues the movie date by taking Sebastian to the location in Rebel Without a Cause and uses the setting for her own purpose, rather than just mimicking the film. Mia is ultimately the one with the dream-life at the end of the film, we follow her from her house on her journey and then as she stumbles across Seb’s bar and whilst she again watches him, she is the active one able to walk out and back into her real life as a movie star, not just Sebastian’s girlfriend. This is perhaps not the preferred meaning of the text, which focuses on the relationship between the two and the dreams that drive their life, but the sacrifice that has to be made.

Beasts of the Southern Wild – Deep Dive

Context –

Beasts of the Southern Wild is an independent film, as it is funded by non-Hollywood financing, has elements of risk-taking, and has a personal vision that values art over money. The focus of the film on poverty and natural disasters does not align with mainstream cinema output and it only had a limited release in four US cinemas, having been produced by Court 13 for $1.8 million and funded mostly by Cinereach, a not-for-profit organisation. The film went on to gross $21 million worldwide, although the motivation for making the film was driven by the desire to tell the story rather than profit, which can be seen by the exploration of a character (Hushpuppy) above pure action and entertainment. Additionally, the film forgoes a typical Hollywood happy ending, instead opting to leave the viewer questioning the fates of the characters in their world.

Beasts of the Southern Wild focuses on a natural disaster and the impact this has on its main black characters, reflecting the reality of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina, which disproportionally affected people of colour and those in poverty. New Orleans particularly felt the effects and Zeitlin “live[s] in New Orleans [so] was interested in telling a story about people who are staying in South Louisiana and why they’re holding on.” The governmental response to Hurricane Katrina was criticised for being slow and ineffectual in a way that it might not have been had the demographic of those affected been different. Zeitlin claims he did not intend the film to be a political one, but it certainly resonates strongly today in light of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The film was very well received at Sundance Festival, and has won 74 awards, which generated enough publicity to warrant its screening in 318 cinemas. In addition to its festival awards, Beasts of the Southern Wild was nominated for four Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actress, making Quvenzhané Wallis the youngest nominee in history at just age nine. The announcement of Oscar nominations caused a rise in box office takings, acting as great publicity for the film.

In order to aid a wider release, Beasts of the Southern Wild was distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures, part of the Fox conglomerate. Using a major studio for distribution means the film’s release benefits from their experience and resources, so Beasts of the Southern Wild was able to attract audiences on the big screen and encourage press reviews. The blu-ray and DVD release, also by 20th Century Fox, then took an additional $11 million.

Aesthetics –

Zeitlin’s aesthetic inspiration comes partly from documentaries and he wanted to utilise close, detailed shots of nature to mimic a child’s fascination with the world around them. He also takes opportunities in the film to create beautiful shots without the need to drive on the narrative; for example, when Hushpuppy looks for her mother in the Elysian Fields scene, there are soft twinkling lights to create a beautiful yet strange environment, reflecting Hushpuppy’s wonder as she enters.

Representation –

Age: The focus of the film is on Hushpuppy as a child of six, compared to the adults around her, including her father. She respects his authority and follows his example, shown by her referring to what “Daddy says” in her narration as she grows up with him as her only parental influence. Wink is shown to be important in the community, as he instructs on how to blow up the levee and is central to the community. As a father, Wink shows two sides: he teaches Hushpuppy how to survive, but also has angry outbursts as a result of his illness, which Hushpuppy does not fully understand. For a child, she has a lot of independence, even having her own house and cooking, but she desires a closer bond with her father and her mother who she does not know. Hushpuppy takes on leadership from her father at his death and she is the one to stand up to the aurochs without fear.

Gender: Wink reinforces the idea of strength as a masculine quality to Hushpuppy and taunts her for “being a stupid little girl” at times, instead praising through calling her “the man” when she accepts his challenges of strength. Hushpuppy engages in an arm wrestle and learns skills from her father, such as catching and gutting fish and is influenced by his promotion of strong masculinity, feeling uncomfortable when dressed in a stereotypically feminine way in the hospital.

Ethnicity: The film offers representation of a community which includes black people and everyone has the same experience. However, there has been criticism of the film for its use of troubling stereotypes, made worse by the fact that Zeitlin and co-writer Lucy Alibar are both white. bell hooks’ criticises the child version of the ‘strong black female matriarch’ that Hushpuppy represents and argues that Wink embodies all the racist stereotypes that media presents as part of black masculinity. All the inhabitants of the Bathtub are presented as poor, dirty and animalistic, unwilling to be helped by ‘civilisation’, as represented by the hospital. The adults are drunk, aggressive, angry and inattentive, which is a concerning portrayal particularly of the black characters.

A positive aspect of the film is the casting on non-professional actors to play the roles. Dwight Henry plays Wink and personally experienced the impacts of Hurricane Katrina, making him a suitable choice to portray a character who endures a similar catastrophe as he “understand[s] a lot of what the people in that movie, who live on that island, what they go through.” Similarly, Quvenzhané Wallis is naturalistic in her performance because part of her personality and world-view were incorporated into the character, which means the characters are more reflective of real black people and their experiences.

Ideology –

As an independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild does not necessarily reflect the dominant ideologies of American culture, such as capitalism and emphasis on family above community. Therefore, it is interesting to apply a Marxist lens to the film, which encourages a challenge to Hollywood’s traditional narrative structure and advocates for the freedom of the viewer to interpret the film as they choose.

In some ways, Beasts of the Southern Wild does not adhere to Marxist film principles, as Zeitlin positions the audience with Hushpuppy and encourages a certain emotional response to her through his shot choices; for example, close-ups of her face when her father is dying. Additionally, the Bathtub community takes a somewhat background seat to the relationship between Wink and Hushpuppy, which fits with dominant American ideology of family over friends.

However, the film overall addresses the situation a specific community is going through and their shared experiences, using Hushpuppy as the connection between the audience and this community. The film challenges accepted society by showing it as a threat to the Bathtub community, such as the forceful removal of them from their home, when they are taken to the hospital and made to conform with Hushpuppy wearing a dress that makes her uncomfortable.

Throughout the film, community and nature are praised instead of capitalism and wealth, which fits with the desires of Marxist theorists. In fact, the two worlds are separated, both literally, with “the wall that cuts [Hushpuppy and her community] off” and societally. The Bathtub community has low income and living standards, which challenges what portrayed on-screen in mainstream cinema. This representation is particularly important in the modern world, where Trump’s presidency sought to exploit social divisions rather than ease them. We are encouraged to support the ‘underdog’ community and admire their survival in the challenging situations, although audience perspective can vary based on personal experience.

Spectatorship –

Independent films often aim to challenge the viewer more, which fits with them as an active spectator, who is able to take away a different reading of the film. Zeitlin’s focus on character rather than action creates more of an emotional connection between the viewer and Hushpuppy, which influences their interpretation. Some audience members take an identification view, where they are able to imagine themselves in Hushpuppy’s situation and empathise with her, whereas others may have an assimilation view, where they are only able to feel sympathy, not empathy, and have to witness the character from an external position.

This can also lead to asymmetry of emotional response, as the viewer is unlikely to feel the same level of emotion as the character; for example, Hushpuppy’s grief in Wink’s death scene is far more extreme than the audience could possibly feel towards that event. Our position with Hushpuppy throughout the film makes us more likely to feel a response towards Hushpuppy’s grief than a direct response to Wink’s death.

The focus on Hushpuppy is central to the film and Zeitlin employs to keep her at the centre of our attention, noticeably through her voice-over, but also in lengthy close-ups on her face with shallow depths of field to encourage our empathy towards her. Although the introduction of the fantasy aurochs could disrupt the audience’s immersion, they allow the audience into Hushpuppy’s imaginary world, making us even closer to her. Additionally, the use of handheld camera, non-professional actors and genuine locations all make the film feel more real and can intensify the emotional response for the viewer.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Beasts of the Southern Wild (Benh Zeitlin, 2012) is a fantasy film following 6-year-old Hushpuppy as her hometown floods and she deals with her father’s angry outbursts.

This is a film that I really feel I need to watch again, because I’m not entirely convinced I understood what was happening. The film has a bizarre feeling of being set somewhat in the future, where global warming is melting icecaps and submerging Hushpuppy’s village, but also aesthetically looks like an older setting. The creation of the fictional aurochs that came from the icebergs confused me further, and I don’t know if I missed something because of my sound quality or if they really only became relevant later in the film? I can’t remember them being explained. Nor do I know why Hushpuppy’s presence was enough to scare them away. Were they going to eat the people?

Aurochs aside, I think the story of a young girl dealing with her father’s declining health in a situation of poverty is extremely touching and the film handled the moment of him coughing up blood outside the hospital and then his eventual death well in my opinion. I think the desire to find her mother is quite a natural one for Hushpuppy, though I’m not sure about how this is explored, but I suppose the character is a six-year-old so wouldn’t necessarily be logical in her search for her mother. Attempting to find her mother just didn’t feel like the main focus of the plot, I think because the story of a young girl seeking out affection from her absent parent was conflicting with the attention on the melting ice and random aurochs.

I thought the film was alright, and sometimes the emotional aspects managed to distract me from my confusion, but I don’t know if the film had too much it was trying to do or I’ve just entirely missed the point of it and need to re-watch. I think the characters were portrayed well and the relationship between Hushpuppy and her father was complex and interesting to watch. Maybe studying the film will help me understand it better.

La La Land

La La Land (Damian Chazelle, 2016) is a musical romance film in which two struggling artists meet each other, fall in love and encourage the other in their pursuit of their dream. Emma Stone plays Mia, a waitress at a cafe on a film studio lot, surrounded by reminders of stars she loves but unable to achieve their success as an actress in her own right, constantly ignored and rejected at auditions, whilst opposite her is Ryan Gosling’s Sebastian, a cynical musician who believes the world has turned against pure jazz and longs to re-educate them by opening his own jazz bar in homage to the legends of the past. Both eventually achieve their dreams, though at the cost of their love.

I have watched quite a few musical films, and am therefore used to the random bursting into song; however, I am not used to prolonged abstract sequences, which I remember confusing me the first time I watched this film a few years ago. When I sat down to re-watch it, I loved the over-the-top opening number and generally the introduction of the characters in the traffic jam was very enjoyable, as was the build-up of Mia and Sebastian’s relationship. When I first watched the film, I felt annoyed, disappointed and maybe even betrayed that I had invested into this relationship as a viewer, watched a prolonged montage of the way their life together could have played out only to have Mia walk out of the bar and them not end up together. Part of my expectation of the ‘happy, end up together’ ending probably stems from my experience of the genre, so it was interesting to see this subverted once I was prepared for the ending on this viewing and on reflection, I feel it suits the film well and shows that success of one kind does not always mean success or fulfilment of another. Then again, I also like to view the character of Mia as fulfilled with her new life and just nostalgic for the past rather than ending up dissatisfied and with the ‘wrong guy’.

Whilst I do like the characters together and the actors have great chemistry, I do see some issues with the character of Sebastian. As a white man, it is perhaps problematic that he is the one trying to educate us as the audience and characters in the film about pure jazz, and looks down on his friend for tainting the genre, or selling out by combining it to form a newer style. I don’t know enough about jazz myself or how other people may respond to the portrayal in this film, but it is worth pointing out as a reason the film has received some criticism.

Overall, I enjoyed the film more watching the second time around and being prepared for the ending, although it still lost me at times, such as the extended sequence in the observatory(?) when Mia and Sebastian are floating around the room. I personally don’t think that adds much to the film, but it is definitely out-weighed with sequences more rooted in reality. I think the film is a nice homage to Hollywood, though I can see why critics think the film is Hollywood being a bit too self-indulgent.

Ideology: An Introduction

Ideology is a set of beliefs that connect to form a world view. Individuals have different ideologies, as they are influenced by various elements, although large groups of the population often share the same/similar ideology. Sometimes, people hold ideologies that are away from what is societally accepted and these ideologies can have an even more extreme effect on how individuals interact with one another.

Personal ideologies – the product of individual experiences and influences

Cultural ideologies – constructed by institutions such as school, law and religion

Dominant ideologies – widely accepted by the majority, e.g voting, freedom of speech, punishment, although these can differ based on country

Structured ideologies – groups with specific, distinctive world views that are clearly defined and categorised, e.g religions

Ideology in the Media

Mass media can serve to “communicate, consolidate and challenge” ideological views and acts as a social connection between groups which may not otherwise interact.

However, frequently the media chooses to reflect back widely-held ideologies in order to appeal to a greater target audience. Viewers are more comfortable with seeing their beliefs portrayed on-screen rather than having to actively interact with new and potentially opposing ones.

Spectatorship: An Introduction

Spectatorship looks at the relationship between an audience and film. There are various models, some of which suggest active participation from the audience, whilst others suggest the audience is passively taking on board what the film presents.

The Hypodermic Syringe Model

This model sees the audience as a group of people passively watching a film. The filmmaker has the control and through the film is able to inject messages into the audience as a collective with no critical response or alternative interpretation. The effectiveness of propaganda could be used to support this model. The theory suffers from overlooking personal experience/identity and how this could impact a viewer’s response to a film.

The Uses and Gratifications Model

This model views the audience as active individuals who are watching a film for different reasons and will respond to it in different ways. It was developed by Blumler and Katz and offers five reasons for interacting with media:

• Information and education – watching something to learn from it
• Entertainment – watching something to purely enjoy it
• Personal identity – watching something because you relate to it/it reflects your experiences
• Integration/social interaction – watching something in order to engage with others about it
• Escapism – watching something to jump into a different world and escape from reality

Reception Theory

This model suggests activity from both the filmmaker and viewer. The creator ‘encodes’ a meaning into the text, which is then ‘decoded’ by the viewer, who has a choice on how to view it. The ‘preferred’ meaning is the one the creator intended to be taken from the text, the ‘negotiated’ meaning involves the viewer recognising the intended meaning, but doesn’t fully accept it and the ‘oppositional’ reading is when the viewer goes against what they have seen and chooses to reinterpret the text.

Casablanca and Bonnie and Clyde Auteur Essay

“The Hollywood machine has always crushed any individuality in filmmaking”. Compare the extent the films you have studied display auteur individuality.

The influence of Hollywood on American films was much more prominent under the studio system during the Golden Age of Hollywood, where films were highly reflective of the studios that made them. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942), for example, is characteristic of Warner Bros’ house style to the extent that the studio could be considered an auteur influence on the film. In contrast, Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn, 1967) was made during the New Hollywood era, when there was much greater freedom for the directors producing under studios, but also more room for independent filmmakers and creative individuality. Bonnie and Clyde takes inspiration from the auteurs in the French New Wave, so although Penn’s style is arguably not that of an auteur himself, his influences from the French New Wave certainly were and as a result, Bonnie and Clyde shows secondary auteur individuality.

Much like many of Warner Bros’ other films during the Golden Age of Hollywood, Casablanca is a realistic film with an urban setting and fast-paced dialogue, conforming to Warner Bros’ house style. In the scene where Ilsa has gone to Rick to beg for the letters of transit, their exchanges are snappy, creating a sense of heightened emotion. Although Casablanca is an urban setting, the foreign city also provides exoticism to the film, which Warner Bros used to compete with the other studios and is shown off in the wide shots in the opening of the film. Therefore, there is some individuality in the film’s unique setting, though it still fits the Warner Bros house style. Additionally, the realistic wartime setting gave room for Jack Warner’s political agenda in wanting America to join WWII, showing his influence on the films produced by Warner Bros. Not every Warner Bros films had a political agenda, however, suggesting a degree of individuality in Casablanca.

During the Golden Age of Hollywood the studio system was supported by the star system, with each studio having their own ‘stable’. Whilst Warner Bros did not have a fixed stable, the studio frequently used the same stars, their regular collaborators including James Cagney, Edward Robinson and Humphrey Bogart, all of whom seemed more ‘guy-next-door’ than extremely attractive superstars. This set Warner Bros apart as a studio that favoured realism above everything, even in terms of its actors; for example Bogart’s heavy New York accent in Casablanca stood out from the common Mid-Atlantic accent used in contemporary films. In his earlier Warner Bros’ films, Bogart was known for playing gangster roles, and the studio used this to their advantage, even paying homage to these previous characters at the end of Casablanca, when Rick wears a suit, hat and coat with a turned up collar reflective of his gangster outfits. Therefore, whilst the actors did not have auteur individuality and were frequently typecast within their studio, Warner Bros had individuality from the other studios in terms of the stars that worked for them and the realism of them compared to hyper-glamorous stars at other studios.

Furthermore, Warner Bros showed off these unique assets, which is evident in Casablanca through the catch lights on Ingrid Bergman throughout the film to show her attractiveness. Similarly, in scenes with either Ilsa or Rick and supporting characters, the camera always favours the star; for example, in the conversation between Rick, Captain Renault and the Nazi major the camera remains focused on Rick, even when Rick stands up to leave the table and the other two men remain sat down. Equally, in the scene at the piano with Ilsa and Sam, Ingrid Bergman has a lot more screen-time, showing the importance of stars to the studios’ brands and in this case, Bergman and Bogart making Warner Bros distinct from the other studios.

Even directors at the time submitted to the dominance of the studios, forgoing much creative individuality and conforming to the studio’s house style. This is true of Casablanca‘s director, Michael Curtiz, who regularly worked for Warner Bros and made realistic films for the studio. Additionally, composer Max Steiner used his non-diegetic composed score in Casablanca for the purpose of the studio, manipulating the audience according to who Warner Bros wanted them to sympathise with. Whenever the Nazi characters are shown, the score takes a sinister turn, particularly noticeable during the arrival of the Nazi major at the airport towards the end. However, whilst directors and composers were less artistically powerful than the studios during the Golden Age of Hollywood, their contributions still altered the house style: Steiner composed over 100 scores for Warner Bros and was so influential he composed the signature Warner Bros fanfare that plays at the start of Casablanca, showing some of the artistic individuality of the time, even if it aided the studio’s overall auteur individuality.

Therefore, films produced during the Golden Age of Hollywood, such as Casablanca, were arguably the products of their studio ‘auteur’, which had individuality from the other studios, but many similarities amongst its own films, as all the artists contributed to the studio house style rather than having their own distinctive auteur individuality. In contrast, the individuals became far more important during the New Hollywood era, once the French New Wave had introduced the term ‘auteur’ and the individuality associated with it.

Although stars in the Golden Age of Hollywood did not have much freedom, this changed in New Hollywood, where actor Warren Beatty had enough control over his portrayal of Clyde to emphasise the sexual ambiguity of the character, which might have been omitted without his input and star quality. He also chose to maintain a limp throughout the film to create a sense of naturalism. Beatty’s other significant influence over the film Bonnie and Clyde was as a first-time producer. Despite it being his producing debut, Beatty received 40% of the gross rather than a fixed fee for the film, which shows the increasing importance of individuals compared to the domination of studios during the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Director Arthur Penn is arguably less distinct as a creative presence in Bonnie and Clyde due to the amount of inspiration taken from the French New Wave in the film. For example, Bonnie and Clyde was shot on-location in the deep American South to create a sense of realism promoted by the French New Wave. The South had not fully recovered from the Great Depression era, providing an apt, deprived-looking setting for the film, which would not have been the same in the more stable Eastern cities. Since they were shooting on-location, available light was used more instead of expensive lighting set-ups that would have to be transported. To take advantage of the sun as natural lighting, Bonnie and Clyde was often shot at golden hour, such as in the sequence where the Barrow Gang meets up with family members. The warmth of the sun at this time, along with the filters on the lenses make the sequence look dreamlike, which contrasts the harshness of the rest of the film. However, the shadows also create a sense of conflict, as the meet-up is only temporary and the gang have to return to their life of violence on the run.

Other than the one warmer sequence, the film is very harsh and realistic, from setting to dialogue and editing. The French New Wave encourage improvised dialogue, with less focus on the overarching plot and this is evident in Bonnie and Clyde, as the focus is more on the characters themselves. Additionally, in the opening sequence in which Bonnie and Clyde meet for the first time, they often speak over one another, which is more accurate to reality than the carefully constructed and timed dialogue in films such as Casablanca.

The editing in Bonnie and Clyde moves away from the traditional continuity editing in Golden Age of Hollywood films that aimed to tell the story in a straightforward way. The French New Wave made use of editing as an artistic element and featured jump cuts that Arthur Penn was inspired by in the making of Bonnie and Clyde. The opening has jarring editing between the photographs, with loud camera click noises to emphasise the harshness and set up the violent nature of the film. The photos themselves show effects of the Great Depression, immediately grounding the film in a sense of realism that reflects French New Wave films.

Another huge change in Hollywood films from the Golden Age to the New Hollywood period was the presentation of character. The strict Hays Code implemented during the Golden Age restricted sexual or violent imagery in films, showing the limits Hollywood put on creative freedom and expression at the time. Therefore, the protagonists were reduced to ‘heroes’ and the female characters were demure and pure, evident in Ingrid Bergman’s Ilsa in Casablanca. However, by the time of New Hollywood, cinema had become more bold through the French New Wave influence and in Bonnie and Clyde, Bonnie is sexualised from the very beginning through the close-up of her red lips and her implied nudity. The French New Wave also featured anti-authoritative characters, such as in Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless. Similarly, in Bonnie and Clyde, the protagonists are violent criminals who are against the state and rob banks, yet the audience is positioned with them despite their lacking morals, in stark contrast to the characters in Casablanca.

Ultimately, there was much greater individuality and variety in films made in New Hollywood, compared to the Golden Age of Hollywood, where studios had a monopoly over American cinema and mass-produced films that conformed to their house style. However, through the individual studios, there was auteur individuality in each of their different outputs, meaning the studio Warner Bros had more of a claim to the title ‘auteur’ than director Michael Curtiz for the film Casablanca. Equally, it is not director Arthur Penn that has the auteur individuality in Bonnie and Clyde, but his French New Wave influences, directors such as Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut. Therefore, it could be argued that the ‘Hollywood machine’ had crushed individuality to the degree that it required foreign influence to revive individuality and create the concept of individual auteur style.