{"id":38679,"date":"2018-01-05T20:55:57","date_gmt":"2018-01-06T02:55:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=38679"},"modified":"2018-01-08T17:45:31","modified_gmt":"2018-01-08T23:45:31","slug":"everything-new-is-old-again-stories-from-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2018\/01\/05\/everything-new-is-old-again-stories-from-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Everything new is old again: Stories from 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Silence.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

This is a sequel to an entry posted a year ago<\/a>. Like many sequels, it replays the ending of the original.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0don\u2019t want to leave the impression that as I\u2019m watching new release a little homunculus historian in my skull is busily plotting schema and revision, norm and variation. I get as soaked up in a movie as anybody, I think. But at moments during the screening, I do try to notice the film\u2019s narrative strategies. Later, when I\u2019m thinking about the movie and going over my notes (yes, I take notes), affinities strike me. By\u00a0studying film history, most recently Hollywood in the 40s, I try to see continuities and changes in storytelling strategies. These make me appreciate how\u00a0our filmmakers creatively rework conventions that have rich, surprising histories.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Parts of those histories are traced in the book that came out in the fall, Reinventing Hollywood<\/em>. Some of my blog entries have already served to back up one point I tried to make there: that contemporary filmmakers are still relying on the storytelling techniques that crystallized in American studio films of the 1940s.<\/p>\n

Relying on<\/em> here means not only utilizing<\/em> but also, sometimes, recasting<\/em>. In keeping with earlier entries (including one from the year before last<\/a>), I want to explore some films from 2017. These show that the process of schema and revision creates a tradition. Hollywood is constantly recycling, and sometimes revitalizing, Hollywood.<\/p>\n

Of course here be spoilers<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Back to basics<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Big Sick.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The US films I\u2019ll be considering all adhere to canons of classical Hollywood construction. Some of these are laid out in the third chapter of Reinventing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Classically constructed films have goal-oriented protagonists who encounter obstacles, usually in the form of other characters. The goals are often double, involving both romantic fulfillment and achievement in some other sphere. (Somewhere Godard says that love and work are the only things that matter. Hollywood often thinks so too.) Alternatively, the goal might be prodding someone else to action (Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri<\/em>). Often there\u2019s a clash between the goals, as when work tugs the protagonist away from love (La La Land<\/em>).<\/p>\n

The plot is typically laid out in large-scale parts. A setup is followed by a complicating action that redefines character goals. In Downsizing<\/em>, once Paul has gotten small, he has to reconceive his goals in the face of his wife\u2019s last-minute defection from their plan. There follows a development section that delays goal achievement through characterization episodes, backstory, subplots, parallels, setbacks, digressions, twists, and new obstacles. That marvelous slab of show-biz schmaltz, The Greatest Showman<\/em>, relies for its development on a potential love triangle and a secondary couple\u2019s romantic intrigue.<\/p>\n

There follows a deadline-driven climax that resolves the action and an epilogue (sometimes called the tag) that celebrates the stable state achieved and perhaps wraps up a motif or two. The Greatest Showman<\/em> presents Barnum\u2019s success in creating a genuine circus and reconciling with his family. The tag shows a big production number, with the subplot resolved (Carlyle embracing Anne) and the motif of swirling points of light\u2014initiated in Barnum\u2019s spinning Dreams gadget\u2014washing over the final spectacle and his daughter’s ballet performance.<\/p>\n

\"\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Classical narration\u2014what\u2019s usually called point of view\u2014typically attaches us to the main characters. But not absolutely: we\u2019re usually given access to things they don\u2019t know, mostly for the sake of arousing curiosity and suspense. And throughout, the film is bound together through recurring motifs that reveal character (and character change) or significant plot information. Think of the roles Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2<\/em> assigns to \u201cBrandy, You\u2019re a Fine Girl,\u201d Pac-Man, David Hasselhoff, and that \u201cunspoken thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or take The Big Sick<\/em>, a semi-serious romantic comedy. Kumail\u2019s initial goal is success in standup comedy, but he also falls in love with Emily. His Pakistani-American family constitutes the main antagonist, as his mother and father want him to go to law school and submit to an arranged marriage. He hasn\u2019t told his family about Emily, which precipitates the couple\u2019s big quarrel: \u201cI can\u2019t lose my family.\u201d Kumail\u2019s goal shifts when Emily is stricken by a mysterious disease. In the development section , as she lies in a coma, he gets to know her parents, and a tense sympathy develops between them. The crisis comes when Kumail confesses his true goals to his parents, they disown him, and Emily\u2019s disease hits a life-threatening phase.<\/p>\n

In the climax portion, Emily revives and breaks off with him, his parents grudgingly accept his move to New York, and he mounts a somewhat successful one-man show there. The film is tightly tied to Kumail\u2019s range of knowledge, so we\u2019re surprised when he is\u2014as when Emily\u2019s parents decide to move her to another hospital, and when Emily pops up in his New York audience, ready to reconcile with him.<\/p>\n

The Big Sick<\/em> exploits many comic motifs: the parade of would-be fianc\u00e9es Kumail\u2019s mother invites to dinner, the photos he keeps of them (which ignite Emily\u2019s jealousy), the repeated sit-downs he has with his family, the dumb catchphrases deployed by other comics, and especially Emily\u2019s \u201cWoo-hoo!\u201d heckling, which eventually attests to the rekindling of their love.<\/p>\n

The power of classical plotting is shown in its ability to spotlight a Pakistani-American protagonist, an Islamic family demanding that a son adhere to tradition, and the pathos of parents facing the death of a daughter. But that ability to flexibly absorb new subjects and themes and emotional registers has kept the classical template going for about a century.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Time travel<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Wonder Woman.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the hallmarks of Forties cinema, I argue in Reinventing<\/em>\u2019s second chapter, is a eagerness to explore what flashbacks can do. Flashbacks were already well-established, but a more pervasive acceptance of nonlinear storytelling, so familiar to us now, became firmly part of Hollywood sound cinema in this period.<\/p>\n

One-off flashbacks are so common now we don\u2019t particularly notice them. In The Big Sick<\/em>, when Kumail visits Emily\u2019s apartment with her parents, he peeks into her closet, and we get glimpses of her wearing the outfits earlier in the film. In this case, flashbacks function as memories. At the climax of Guardians 2<\/em>, Quill flashes back to moments of listening to music with his mother. Similarly, in Get Out<\/em>, Chris recalls his childhood TV viewing and, at the climax, he remembers earlier moments at the Armitage garden party when he asks, \u201cWhy black people?\u201d<\/p>\n

Flashbacks usually aren\u2019t pure representations of memory, though. They often include information that the character doesn’t or couldn\u2019t know. In fact many flashbacks are addressed simply to us, coming \u201cfrom the film\u201d rather than from a character\u2019s mind. These may remind us of things already seen, or fill in gaps, or plant hints about things that will develop.<\/p>\n

So, for instance, in Logan Lucky<\/em>, when Logan says, \u201cI know how to move the money,\u201d we get a flashback to him studying the pneumatic pipes that feature in the heist plan.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

He\u2019s not necessarily recalling the moment; the filmic narration seems merely to be tipping us the wink. At the climax, other “external” flashbacks plug gaps we didn\u2019t notice earlier. These reveal some aspects of the heist we weren\u2019t aware of, such as the extra bags of money carried off.<\/p>\n

1940s filmmakers also explored how flashbacks could be \u201carchitectonic,” how they could inform the overall shape of the movie. Here the flashback rearranges story order to build up curiosity and suspense, and it may come from purely from the narration or be motivated as character memory.<\/p>\n

One large-scale pattern is the extensive embedded flashback, as in How Green Was My Valley, I Remember Mama<\/em>, and innumerable biopics. Wonder Woman<\/em> gives us a framed inset of this sort, when a modern-day Diana opens the chest harboring the World War I photo. That scene segues to the past. The origin story and war episodes are ultimately closed off by a return to the present, and a reminder of a motif\u2014Steve\u2019s watch (which, in one of the film\u2019s jokes, stands in for something more private). The purpose of this is to provide what I call in the book “hindsight bias.” While building curiosity about the past, the opening primes us to expect certain things to have been inevitable (such as chance meetings).<\/p>\n

Another common framing strategy begins at the climax and then a long flashback lays out the conditions that led up to it. A reliable source tells me that Pitch Perfect 3<\/em> does this, starting with an explosion followed by a title announcing that the action began three weeks earlier. In films like this, there may be no closing frame; the internal action of the flashback catches up, perhaps via a replay, with what we saw at the outset, and the film proceeds to the resolution and epilogue. The somewhat phantasmic opening number of The Greatest Showman<\/em>\u00a0comes to fruition during the finale.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To and fro<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Loving Vincent.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Sustained blocks like this are fairly rare nowadays, I think. More common, as in the Forties, is an alternation of past and present. The main examples in Reinventing Hollywood<\/em> include Passage to Marseille, The Locket, Lydia, Kitty Foyle<\/em>, and Sorry, Wrong Number<\/em>. Again, though, these are motivated as memories, while current examples tend to be more \u201cobjective.\u201d<\/p>\n

A simple instance is Film Stars Don\u2019t Die in Liverpool<\/em>. Here clusters of events in 1981 alternate with incidents in 1979: Gloria Grahame returns to her young lover, and we flash back to their earlier affair. Neither protagonist is firmly established as recalling the 1919 events. Another feature of 1940s flashbacks, the replay from different viewpoints, comes in here as well. The couple\u2019s crucial quarrel in New York is shown first from Peter\u2019s perspective, and later from Gloria\u2019s. He suspects her of infidelity, but \u00a0we learn that her secret involves her cancer. As often happens, our restriction to the protagonist is modified by knowledge he doesn\u2019t gain at the moment.<\/p>\n

The alternation of past and present is given a more geometrical neatness in Wonderstruck<\/em>. In maniacally precise parallels, Rose in 1927 runs away to Manhattan to find her mother, while in 1977 Ben runs there to find his father.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The parallels are reinforced by a host of motifs: wolves, movie references, the asteroid in the Museum of Natural History, a bookmark, and so on. The linear chronology gets straightened out, and the gaps filled, by an integrative flashback played out among miniatures and cutouts adapted to the scale model of Manhattan. The dovetailing flashbacks create a sense of cosmic design; in many films, convergences like these\u00a0can suggest destiny<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For modern audiences, Citizen Kane<\/em> is the prototypical flashback film of the 1940s, and its investigation structure, while not completely original, was hugely influential. I was surprised to see Kane<\/em>\u2019s schema revived this year in Loving Vincent<\/em>. Once the postman has given Armand his mission, to take Vincent\u2019s last letter to brother Theo, we embark on an inquiry into Vincent\u2019s life and death. It\u2019s refracted through the testimony of many who knew him during his sojourn in Arles. Armand\u2019s goal gets recast when he learns of Theo\u2019s death, but in the course of his travels he comes to understand how Vincent\u2019s kindness and art touched many lives.<\/p>\n

As in several Forties films, Loving Vincent<\/em>\u2019s past scenes jumbled out of chronological order, so we must piece together the story Armand gradually discloses. And there’s the driving force of mystery, a distinctive thrust in many Forties genres, for reasons I talk about in one chapter of\u00a0Reinventing<\/em>. Very modern, and not so much like the 1940s, is the brief, fragmentary quality of the flashbacks; I counted thirty-six of them.<\/p>\n

The boldest experiment in nonlinear time I saw this year was Dunkirk<\/em>. The film juxtaposes timelines consuming a week or so, a day, and an hour, and then aligns them in unexpected ways. In this staggered array, the distinction between flashbacks and flashforwards loses its force. Any cut may constitute a jump ahead of the moment just shown, or a jump back to an earlier incident.\u00a0Christopher Nolan has acknowledged the influence of 1940s cinema on his thinking about time schemes, and here he explores yet again how crosscutting different lines of action can stretch or condense story duration<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Their eyes and ears<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Get Out.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Like flashbacks, subjectively tinted storytelling has a long cinematic lineage. Silent films displayed dreams, visions, anticipations, and deformations of mind and eye. Those devices mostly dropped out of 1930s American cinema, which was to some extent more \u201cobjective\u201d and \u201ctheatrical\u201d in its mode of presentation. Subjectivity came roaring back in the Forties, which is why Reinventing Hollywood<\/em> devotes two chapters and several other passages to various techniques that go beneath the surface.<\/p>\n

Memory-based flashbacks are common options today, but the inward plunge can take other forms. For most of its length, Get Out<\/em> restricts us to Chris\u2019s range of knowledge, and it relies on optical POV in many stretches. Through his eyes we see\u00a0Mrs. Armitage staring at him while stirring the tea.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

More complex is his view of Georgina at the upper window. That’s followed by a shot going beyond his range of knowledge: she’s looking not at him but herself.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We take a deeper dive \u00a0into Chris\u2019s mind under hypnosis. The boy Chris sinks into a stellar cavity and becomes Chris staring at Mrs. Armitage as if she were appearing on the TV screen. The shift dramatizes his guilt at his mother’s death and his susceptibility to this Bad Mom figure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Once Chris becomes a prisoner, the narrational range widens again to show Rod\u2019s efforts to rescue him, along with the family\u2019s plans for him. But the film tightly realigns us with Chris at the climax, so that the attacks from Rose, Jeremy, and others come as surprises.<\/p>\n

Chris, a photographer, channels his experience through vision, though the hypnotism scene blends sounds from the present with the rain drizzling in the past. Subjectivity goes more fully sonic in Baby Driver<\/em>, about a whey-faced lad who lives in the auditory ether.<\/p>\n

Edgar Wright, now exercising straight the percussive dashboard details he parodied in Hot Fuzz<\/em>, punches up the visual exhilaration of Baby’s rubber-shredding takeoffs and getaway 180s. He locks us into Baby\u2019s auditory world as well. We\u2019re almost completely attached to Baby, learning what he learns when he learns it. Notably, the robberies are rendered from his perspective, including optical POV shots as he waits in the getaway car.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Again, fragmentary flashbacks replay his mother\u2019s death and the childhood damage to his hearing.\u00a0We even get a fantasy, with Baby imagining his escape with Debora in black and white.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

What\u2019s just as subjective, though, is the music Baby incessantly cues up on his iPod. Blocking out the shriek of his tinnitus, it provides a soundtrack to his life\u2014danceable tunes as he bops down the street, ballads when he flirts and falls in love with Debora, and pulsing rock during robberies (what the psycho Bats calls, \u201ca score for a score\u201d). Through volume and texture, Wright suggests that we hear the music as Baby does; only the loudest environmental sounds poke through. Sometimes, when he pulls out one earbud, the volume drops. His growing attachment to Debora is signaled by his dialing up a song using her name and sharing his precious buds.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Some scenes are handled objectively, as we witness the gang\u2019s conversations in front of Baby. He can read lips, though, and he can keep the iPod cranked up. So a little bit of Baby’s custom soundtrack leaks in for us underneath others’ dialogue. At other times, the score takes over to become nondiegetic accompaniment, as when gunshots in a firefight land on the off-beats of “Tequila.”<\/p>\n

As you\u2019d expect, the music comments on the action throughout (\u201cNever ever gonna give you up\u201d when Baby defends Debora from Buddy) and supplies motifs. Queen\u2019s \u201cBrighton Rock,\u201d Baby\u2019s favorite heist accompaniment, briefly enables him to bond with Buddy.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A song about a couple\u2019s devotion reminds us that both thieves are loyal to their women.<\/p>\n

Momentary sound changes are rendered through our protagonist\u2019s viewpoint. Wright lets us hear the whine of Baby\u2019s tinnitus as Bats taps his ear. When Buddy blasts his pistols alongside Baby\u2019s head, we suffer his hearing loss and the distorted voices that wobble through it.<\/p>\n

Such streams of auditory perception occasionally emerged in early talkies (e.g., Gance’s Beethoven<\/em>). Those experiments got normalized in 1940s manipulations of sound perspective in different environments. More fancily, in A Double Life<\/em> (1947), party chatter subsides when the hero covers his ears, and in\u00a0Pickup<\/em> (1951), the gradually deafening protagonist hears high-pitched noises. Wright extends these one-off devices to the texture of an entire film.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Confidants<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Keys of the Kingdom <\/em><\/strong>(1945)<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Large-scale and small-scale, the heritage of the 1940s seems to be everywhere. Many of the flashbacks and fantasies I mentioned already are primed by a track-in to a character’s face, just as in classic studio pictures. There’s also block construction, either unsignaled as in the Wonder Woman<\/em> and Greatest Showman<\/em> cases, or signaled, as in the date-stamping in the early alternations of Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool<\/em>. We also get explicit chaptering, as in The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)<\/em> and Norman: The Moderate Rise and Tragic Fall of a New York Fixer<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Voice-overs come along with flashbacks, as a way of guiding the audience to understand the time shifts. In the Forties, as I discuss in the book’s sixth chapter, voice-overs became more flexible and fluid. Sometimes they were external, issued from an all-knowing commentator (Naked City<\/em> and other police procedurals). Sometimes they were sonic equivalents for letters and diaries, letting us in on what characters were writing. Deeper intimacy could come from voice-overs serving as inner monologues, the voice of a character’s mind. These, like flashbacks, are associated with film noir, but also like flashbacks they actually emerge in many genres–as they do today.<\/p>\n

The voice-over can be perfunctory, as in All the Money in the World<\/em>. Young Paul Getty, kidnapped in the opening reel, has a couple passages confiding in us, but he’s not heard from again. Moreover, his explanation of his grandfather’s rise to power (during the inevitable flashbacks) could have been supplied in other ways. Paul baldly tells us that we need to know all this to understand what follows (who’s he talking to?). He admits that he’s an expository shortcut. This is why voice-over is sometimes considered lazy storytelling.<\/p>\n

It doesn’t have to be. Take Martin Scorsese’s Silence<\/em>. In subject and strategy it reminded me of The Keys of the Kingdom<\/em> (1945), which dramatizes the diary of a young missionary to China. Via this novelistic device, we get flashbacks to his youth and his years of service. We get as well the reaction of the skeptical priest whose voice reads the journal. This fairly straightforward schema is in effect revised by Scorsese and co-screenwriter Jay Cocks, who create a floating dialogue among voice-overs.<\/p>\n

After initial exposition via an old letter from Father Ferreira, which is recited in his voice, two young priests set out for Japan. They hope to maintain the clandestine Christian community there, and they want as well to discover if Ferreira has truly renounced his faith . The bulk of their grim adventures is commented on through the voice-over of one of them, Father Sebasti\u00e3o Rodrigues. At first he’s vocalizing a letter, which he calls a report, summing up the struggles of the Jesuit mission and their encounters with Christian villagers. In the course of his report, we also get an embedded flashback narrated by Kichijiro, their guide and a sporadically lapsed believer himself.<\/p>\n

But at a crucial moment, Father Sebasti\u00e3o’s report ceases to be such and turns into an inner monologue. Seeing a Christian village devastated by the shogun’s forces, he asks, “What have I done for Christ?”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Soon his voice presents a kind of stream of consciousness–praying for the villagers as they walk off in captivity, thanking God when he has a vision of Jesus on his prison wall. His inner voice urges his colleague Father Garupe, severely tortured, to apostatize.<\/p>\n

In last stretch of the film, new voices are heard. There’s Jesus, perhaps filtered through Sebasti\u00e3o’s mind (subjectivity again), and then, more objectively, there’s an account from the Dutch trader Albrecht. He drily reports that Sebasti\u00e3o apostatized and followed Ferreira in leading a Japanese life. Albrecht’s narration is interrupted by a dialogue between Sebasti\u00e3o and Jesus, capped by the priest’s blurting out: “It was in the silence that I heard your voice.” Albrecht’s voice-over concludes the film, with his final claim that the priest was “lost to God” belied by the closing image.<\/p>\n

From the 1940s onward, voice-over has been a rich resource–describing settings and external behavior, judging other characters’ motives, giving us access to the deepest thoughts of the speaker. I try to show these capacities at work in a fairly ordinary film, The Miniver Story<\/em>, but for our time, the soundtrack of Silence<\/em> is another vivid demo. In the juxtaposition of different voices, it achieves some of the density of a novel, and by the end we better understand the initial words and emotions of Father Ferreira, the priest whose apostasy launches the plot.<\/p>\n

Passed-along voice-over gets a bigger workout in Dee Rees’s Mudbound<\/em>. The original novel is somewhat like As I Lay Dying<\/em>; its sections set various characters’ voices side by side, shifting viewpoint as each takes up a portion of the tale. Constant commentary and perfect alignment with a character’s range of knowledge are hard to sustain in cinema, so what we have onscreen are objectively presented scenes accompanied by an occasional voice-over. Still, it’s a rare option. If Silence<\/em> gradually opens its voice-over horizons near the film’s end, Mudbound<\/em> introduces polyphony from the start. Six characters share their thoughts and feelings in alternation, providing backstory and deepening our access to their reactions.<\/p>\n

As in Silence<\/em>, there’s a pattern to the voice-overs. The bulk of the film is an embedded flashback, triggered by the McAllen brothers setting out to bury their father and encountering the Jackson family riding by.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The intersection of two families sets up not only the flashback episodes but the floating voice-overs. As the visuals anchor us initially to the white family, the first voice-overs issue from Laura, the wife of Henry McAllen, and from Henry’s brother Jamie. In the flashback stretch, as America enters World War II, the voice-overs shift to the Jacksons, the father Hap and the mother Florence. The plot proceeds to add the voices of Henry and the Jacksons’ oldest son Ronsel. All the characters narrate the action in the past tense, as if recalling it from a distance in time, but no listener is ever specified–a common feature of voice-overs in the 1940s and afterward.<\/p>\n

During the film’s second half, the development and climax sections, the voice-overs nearly vanish. For over an hour, we hear only Laura and Florence, and only once apiece. Jamie and Ronsel, both disaffected returning vets, don’t confide in us during their growing friendship or during the persecution of Ronsel by the local white men. The women are left to provide a sporadic chorus.<\/p>\n

At the end, however, a spurt of brief commentaries give the men their inner voices back. We return to the present and see Hap Jackson help the McAllen men bury their father (the inciter of KKK violence against Ronsel). The epilogue features brief comments from Ronsel, Jamie, and Hap, and not the women. Ronsel gets the last word. Ironically, because of the KKK savagery, this narrator has become mute.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Again, I felt a current film’s kinship to those I studied for the book. Mudbound<\/em> traces the rural home front, the military experiences of a white man and a black one, and the veterans’ problems of adjustment upon returning home. These elements hark back to some of the powerful films of the 1940s, including Home of the Brave<\/em> and The Best Years of Our Lives<\/em>. The sympathetic portrait of African-American families isn’t unprecedented either, as seen in Intruder in the Dust<\/em>\u00a0and Lost Boundaries<\/em>. Mudbound<\/em>‘s passed-along narration, like the ones we find in other modern films, constitute contemporary revisions of the shifting voice-overs we get in Citizen Kane<\/em> and All About Eve<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Career women careening<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Molly’s Game.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Molly’s Game<\/em> and I, Tony<\/em>a offer good wrapup examples of many of these strategies, with some unreliability thrown in.<\/p>\n

As you\u2019d expect in a film by Aaron Sorkin, the flashback organization of Molly\u2019s Game<\/em>\u00a0is fairly complicated. Just as The Social Network<\/em> intercut two arrays of flashbacks triggered by two legal inquiries, the new film scrambles together crucial moments in Molly\u2019s childhood , scenes of her current legal troubles, and sequences showing her rise to become the Poker Princess, the arranger of high-stakes games. The film gains a bit of the structural symmetry of Wonder Woman<\/em> by beginning and ending with a childhood defeat that Molly rises above.<\/p>\n

The flashbacks are stitched together by Molly’s voice-over. A filmmaker who recruits a narrating voice has to choose. Do you show the narrating situation? Or do you leave it unspecified? In this last instance, the narration\u00a0might be wholly internal, a mental summing up of events, or it might feel like a confidence shared with an intimate, even though we’re shown no listeners. In Molly’s Game<\/em>, her bare-it-all confession might seem to be simply her unspoken thoughts, but at one point it’s suggested that what we’re getting is her book’s version of her life.<\/p>\n

Molly’s attorney Charlie is reading her memoir while he researches her case, and he asks her about a passage we saw in a flashback: her boss chews her out for bringing him “poor people’s bagels.” The attorney suggests that nobody uses that phrase, and that probably the boss used a racial slur that she suppressed in the book. This throws a little bit into question the reliability of Molly’s flashback, while also hinting at something we learn later: she sanitized the book to spare the reputations of the high rollers she serviced.<\/p>\n

I, Tonya<\/em> takes another option. Again there are disordered flashbacks and bursts of subjectivity tied together by the voice track. Whereas Molly is the sole speaker in her film, though, Tonya shares the soundtrack with other characters, in the manner of Mudbound<\/em>. But these commentaries aren’t private musings. They’re the self-justifying testimony of people talking to a documentary camera. (Even though these sequences are said to be occurring forty years after the earliest events, the format is an anachronistic 4:3–presumably to help us keep the time frames distinct.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Once you get characters in conflict recounting past events, you have the possibility of disparate stories. Forties filmmakers exploited this in Thru Different Eyes<\/em> and a certain Hitchcock film too famous to mention. Tonya says explicitly that there are different versions of the truth. A brief scene shows her battering Nancy Kerrigan, and a more complicated one occurs in a tale recounted by her husband Jeff. She fires a shotgun at him and turns to the camera saying, “I never did this”–before briskly ejecting a shell.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The comic possibilities of to-camera address on display here were exploited in My Life with Caroline, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House<\/em>, and other 1940s films. Then the momentary breaking of the fourth wall was reserved for the frame story and kept separate from the embedded flashbacks. But I, Tonya<\/em>‘s revision is easy to understand as a zany equivalent for her verbalized denial. Given the defiant way she brandishes the gun, we’re permitted to doubt her denial–which means that the film is refusing to settle the matter. The possibility that the overall filmic narration could be unreliable was rehearsed occasionally in the Forties, perhaps most vividly in Mildred Pierce<\/em> (analyzed here<\/a>, sampled here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Other paths<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Foxtrot.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The 1940s were important for other national cinemas too. The book’s last chapter suggests that filmmakers in Britain, France, Mexico, and other countries engaged in similar narrative explorations–sometimes in imitation of America, sometimes on their own. I go on to suggest that eventually non-Hollywood narrative models came to international attention, and still later those affected American cinema.<\/p>\n

Italian Neorealism was a prime source of alternatives. A good example of its long-term impact, I think, is\u00a0The Florida Project,<\/em>\u00a0which embraces a slice-of-life pattern. Once you’re committed to episodic plotting, you need to organize the incidents coherently. Sean Baker follows European and US indie precedent in tracing a rhythm of daily routines that change in sync with the characters’ relationships. So Halley’s quarrel with her friend Ashley means that Moonee can no longer claim leftover food from the diner, which helps push Halley toward prostitution, which leads to the intervention of child welfare authorities.<\/p>\n

The drama arises less from crisply defined goals than from circumstances that alter life routines. In addition, like many Neorealist films and others in this vein afterward, the poignancy gets sharpened by the presence of children caught up in adults’ bad choices.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Florida Project<\/em> presents many actions elliptically, leaving us to infer what has happened offscreen. (I think, for instance, that it’s motel manager Bobby Hicks who contacts the authorities, but I don’t think it’s made explicit.) Moving to films made outside the US, Michael Haneke’s Happy End<\/em> takes ellipsis even further.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Haneke uses the strategy of delayed and distributed exposition.<\/a>\u00a0He presents some apparently casual events at the outset, then gradually reveals what’s actually going on, all the while tracing out ultimate consequences. Instead of presenting a clear-cut chain of causes and effects, he asks us to fill in unspoken plans, offscreen actions, and hidden motives. Haneke has specialized in suggesting how vague forces can disturb rich, smug families and their shady schemes. His mystery-driven narrational tactics suit Happy End<\/em> as well as Code inconnu<\/em> and Cach\u00e9<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I speculate in Reinventing Hollywood<\/em>\u00a0that the European art cinema’s story-based mysteries and narrational uncertainties owe something to 1940s American films. So too perhaps does the use of block construction, which emerged in overseas portmanteau films of the postwar era (e.g., Dead of Night,\u00a0<\/em>Le Plaisir,\u00a0<\/em>The Gold of Naples<\/em><\/a>). Samuel Maoz’s Foxtrot<\/em> is a striking example of block construction.<\/p>\n

His Lebanon<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(2009) took POV restriction to a limit by confining its action to a military tank in the heat of battle. (This tactic has Forties precedents as well, as Lifeboat<\/em> and Rope<\/em> remind us.)\u00a0Foxtrot<\/em> operates differently. Broken into three parts, \u00a0it looks at a single situation–a young soldier’s duties at a checkpoint–through shifts in time and viewpoint. The opening shot, at first enigmatic, gets specified in an epilogue that recasts all that went before. Maoz also incorporates monotonous routines into his plot, the better to throw a single shocking incident into relief.<\/p>\n

So classical construction isn’t the only option available. But other choices have histories as well. As viewers we learn these alternative stoytelling traditions, and we use that knowledge to make sense of new examples. No less than the Hollywood model, these other formal strategies engage us through familiar pattern and unexpected novelty, schema and revision.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I don’t mean to obsess over this 1940s thing. Our current films owe debts to silent cinema and to other eras too. It’s just that I continue to be fascinated by finding repetitions and variants of storytelling strategies that got consolidated in the period I was studying. Denounce them as formulaic if you want, but I prefer to think that these and other recent films illustrate, in fine grain, the continuity and sometimes the vitality of a major cinematic tradition.<\/p>\n

Maybe this is my hook to an entry for the start of 2019?<\/p>\n

\n

Many thanks to Michael Barker of Sony Pictures Classics for help on this entry.<\/p>\n

On the four-part structure of classical films see Kristin’s 2008 entry<\/a> and my essay “Anatomy of the Action Picture.”<\/a> Today’s entry deploys the analytical categories trotted out at length\u00a0in this essay<\/a>\u00a0and more briefly in\u00a0this discussion of\u00a0The Wolf of Wall Street.\u00a0<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Silence. DB here: This is a sequel to an entry posted a year ago. Like many sequels, it replays the ending of the original. I\u00a0don\u2019t want to leave the impression that as I\u2019m watching new release a little homunculus historian in my skull is busily plotting schema and revision, norm and variation. I get as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,1,58,46,57,54,33,197],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-film-comments","category-technique-editing","category-film-technique-music","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-narrative-strategies","category-national-cinemas-france","category-national-cinemas-israel"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38679"}],"version-history":[{"count":55,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38679\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38780,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38679\/revisions\/38780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}