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.

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.