Neither Far From nor Close to Heaven

Far From Heaven
Dir: Todd Haynes

Mise-en-scene Analysis by Gökçe Erdem

Todd Haynes’s Far From Heaven is visually strong narrative which presents dramatic social conflicts from 1950s America. The film mostly uses the color in order to demonstrate color and homosexuality taboos of that era. Although film’s cinematography, setting and acting are quite satisfying, some storytelling points are missing.

It is the fall of 1957 in Hartford, Connecticut. The Whitakers are an all-American family. Cathy Whitaker (Julianne Moore) is a housewife and mother with two children and a rising social prominence. Her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) lives two lives—the loving father and husband who works late every night and the man who is arrested for “loitering” and secretly seeks out establishments entirely frequented by men. One night, Frank calls home, saying he’ll be late again, and Cathy decides to surprise him by bringing dinner to his office. Needless to say, she discovers his secret when she catches her husband kissing another man. Frank confesses his secret to his wife, expresses his desire to change, and decides to start psychiatric treatment for his homosexual tendencies. Cathy is forced to keep all of this quiet, and life continues for the Whitakers. Then Cathy meets their new gardener, an African-American man named Raymond Deagan (Dennis Haysbert), who has taken over his family’s business after the death of his father. The two have a connection, and eventually conversations lead to meetings. The whole town begins to talk.

Film’s one of the most significant visual aspects is clearly its stunning cinematography. Although I do not consider Academy Awards as the biggest criteria for the cinematic art, we can indicate film’s director of photography’s, Edward Lachman, nomination for Best Cinematography award in 2003 as a reference. Lachman’s technique flows smoothly with the movie and at some point helps storytelling of the piece. We start watching every scene prepared with Lachman’s lighting, color and shadow preferences. First of all, for Whitakers’ house, pale blue and green walls and décors are preferred. In the scenes between Cathy and Frank, grayish blue color and shadows which make us feel depressed too are definitely dominant. On the other hand in Cathy and Raymond’s scenes, Lachman highlights red-orange color referring to autumn leaves which frequently appear in the background of some scenes. While grayish blue makes us feel distressing ambiance between Cathy and Frank, autumn leaves force us to think about the “forbidden” friendship between Cathy and Raymond. In both cases, costumes’ colors support this as well.

There is one specific scene in which director creates a strong metaphor between people’s color issue in 1950s America and modern art’s unfamiliar usage of shapes and colors through Joan Miró’s painting, Nightingale’s Song at Midnight and the Morning Rain. At a modern art show, Cathy discusses the painting with Raymond while they are subjects of stares by the other people at the show. After Cathy indicates she adores that painting without knowing the reason, Raymond mentions that it confirms something he has always wondered about modern art and says “That perhaps it's just picking up where religious art left off, somehow trying to show you divinity. The modern artist just pares it down to the basic elements of shape and color. But when you look at that Miró, you feel it just the same”. Just after this Miró discussion, we hear journalist woman’s short line which attracts attention to the perfect sense of humor created by fast transition between these two scenes. She confesses to preferring actually classic paintings such as Rembrandt’s or Michelangelo’s. Finally, Haynes makes a unique comparison in this particular scene. He relates conservative, kind of racist view to being bigot, whereas relating egalitarian view to modernism.

Film’s cinematographic elements fascinate the viewer until Miami vacation scene of Whitaker couple. After that, the storytelling progress disappoints us a little bit. Especially after the pool scene, through some strange looks and unnatural acting, we are forced to think that Frank has some feeling to the young boy he saw and probably had an intercourse with. I felt like there is a missing scene which should more clarify the relationship between these two characters after Miami scene. Because when the couple gets back home, we refocus on colored people’s story and completely forget about that weird scene. However, in that process, Frank confesses to being in love with that boy and surprises us in unsuccessful way. This is a significant point which makes the film’s homosexuality story weaker than the other story concentrating on colored people.

Far From Heaven showed me once again that the different aspects of a film or motifs of mise-en-scene should be analyzed separately. Although every department of film works independently, they affect each other regarding overall content. Thus, when one element is completely stunning, another one might be mediocre or disappointing. Furthermore, if there are multiple stories in the script, they might not have the same power in terms of mise-en-scene like Far From Heaven’s colored people and homosexuality stories.

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Dir: Cristian Mungiu

Film Analysis by Gökçe Erdem

Cristian Mungiu’s film is a perfect sign that the recent success of Romanian cinema is not coincidental. I think the film should be analyzed in both ways: content and style. I can say that Mungiu is successful in combining both elements in a complementary way. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is about a case of illegal abortion taking place during the last phases of communism in Romania. Three characters are involved: Gabriela is almost five months pregnant and wants to have an abortion, Otilia is Gabriela’s close friend helping her with the abortion, and Bebe is the man who is going to do the abortion.

In terms of the film’s content, first of all I want to mention its dismal and tense atmosphere. This atmosphere is primarily created by the overtly harsh scenes especially in the hotel room. For instance, in a single uninterrupted shot the camera shows the process of placing the catheter inside Gabriela. Also, Bebe tells the girls that abortion is too risky after certain months and in a way forces Otilia to have intercourse with him because it would be a dangerous surgery. Afterwards we see Otilia washing in the bathroom which is a dramatic scene in its own simplicity. Moreover, the dead baby on the bathroom floor cannot go without mentioning since it is one of the strongest and daring scenes of the film. The tension is constantly building up throughout the movie with the help of these scenes.

I also think that the choice of showing the horror as seen from Otilia’s eyes instead of Gabriela’s is really original and it adds more to the tense atmosphere of the film. The audience would expect to see Gabriela’s stress and psychology in a more dominant way; however the film shows Otilia’s. The dinner scene is a good example to this. There is a long uninterrupted shot of Otilia on the dinner table. The camera does not move much even though people around the table continue to talk to each other or to her. This is an unconventional technique which is in my opinion used to reflect upon Otilia’s alienation and stress.

On the other hand, in terms of style, Mungiu uses a moving camera like a handycam which is a challenge for the audience follow. Hence, it becomes easier for the audience to live through a similar stress and tension as the characters. Moreover, the absence of music and the use of actual sound make it easier for the audience to identify with the characters and their psychologies. The lack of soundtrack strengthens the general dismal atmosphere of the film as well. Then, in terms of sound and camera, one may argue that 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days conforms to the principles of Dogma 95 – the Vow of Chastity. Mungiu tries to give a sense of the harsh reality with his cinema. He does not create a technological illusion as the Dogma 95 directors call it.

(Special thanks to Aslı Erdem)

Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie

Dir: Luis Buňuel

Movie Scene Analysis by Gökçe Erdem

In my opinion, the scene where the soldiers come to dinner in Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie is a remarkable sequence in film history. Luis Buňuel, in his film, constantly reminds the audience that they are watching a fiction movie. This is accomplished with the use of surrealism. According to the Surrealist Manifesto, the artist should produce in the absence of any control over his/her work that is exercised by reason. While shooting Un Chien Andalou, Buňuel stated that "no idea or image that might lend itself to a rational explanation of any kind would be accepted." In this film, Buňuel achieves this both by style and content.

In terms of content, examples could be given from the dialogues and the events that take place. For instance, when the soldier who comes to the dinner table in a hurry to call the army begins to explain his dream in a sudden, the captain listens to him until the end with patience. The audience cannot make sense of this scene. The world of the characters does not come as reasonable since they accept strange events happening to them as normal. This causes a disorientation in the viewer which again reminds him/her that s/he is watching a film on a screen. Another example is when the butler in the house joins the conversation at the table as if he is also from the upper middle class. This is also a scene that the audience cannot make sense in a rational way. I think that Buňuel shows these scenes as irrational in order to criticize the rationalized order of things in real life such as class inequality and inequalities in the army.

Furthermore, in terms of style, the camera movements also reflect the surrealist idea of the irrational flow of events on screen. For example, when the owner of the house comes near the guests to call them for dinner, the camera slowly zooms in to her face. Towards the end of her speech, camera again slowly zooms out of her face to a distant shot where we see her and the guests near the dinner table.

(Special thanks to Aslı Erdem)