Thursday, 20 May 2021

The masterpiece that killed George Orwell (1984)

The masterpiece that killed George Orwell

George Orwell 

The Observer

In 1946 Observer editor David Astor lent George Orwell a remote Scottish farmhouse in which to write his new book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. It became one of the most significant novels of the 20th century. Here, Robert McCrum tells the compelling story of Orwell's torturous stay on the island where the author, close to death and beset by creative demons, was engaged in a feverish race to finish the book

 1984 thought crime? Does it matter that George Orwell pinched the plot?

George Orwell

Robert McCrum

Sun 10 May 2009 

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

Sixty years after the publication of Orwell's masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, that crystal first line sounds as natural and compelling as ever. But when you see the original manuscript, you find something else: not so much the ringing clarity, more the obsessive rewriting, in different inks, that betrays the extraordinary turmoil behind its composition.

Probably the definitive novel of the 20th century, a story that remains eternally fresh and contemporary, and whose terms such as "Big Brother", "doublethink" and "newspeak" have become part of everyday currency, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been translated into more than 65 languages and sold millions of copies worldwide, giving George Orwell a unique place in world literature.

"Orwellian" is now a universal shorthand for anything repressive or totalitarian, and the story of Winston Smith, an everyman for his times, continues to resonate for readers whose fears for the future are very different from those of an English writer in the mid-1940s.

The circumstances surrounding the writing of Nineteen Eighty-Four make a haunting narrative that helps to explain the bleakness of Orwell's dystopia. Here was an English writer, desperately sick, grappling alone with the demons of his imagination in a bleak Scottish outpost in the desolate aftermath of the second world war. The idea for Nineteen Eighty-Four, alternatively, "The Last Man in Europe", had been incubating in Orwell's mind since the Spanish civil war. His novel, which owes something to Yevgeny Zamyatin's dystopian fiction We, probably began to acquire a definitive shape during 1943-44, around the time he and his wife, Eileen adopted their only son, Richard. Orwell himself claimed that he was partly inspired by the meeting of the Allied leaders at the Tehran Conference of 1944. Isaac Deutscher, an Observer colleague, reported that Orwell was "convinced that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt consciously plotted to divide the world" at Tehran.

Orwell had worked for David Astor's Observer since 1942, first as a book reviewer and later as a correspondent. The editor professed great admiration for Orwell's "absolute straightforwardness, his honesty and his decency", and would be his patron throughout the 1940s. The closeness of their friendship is crucial to the story of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's creative life had already benefited from his association with the Observer in the writing of Animal Farm. As the war drew to a close, the fruitful interaction of fiction and Sunday journalism would contribute to the much darker and more complex novel he had in mind after that celebrated "fairy tale". It's clear from his Observer book reviews, for example, that he was fascinated by the relationship between morality and language.

There were other influences at work. Soon after Richard was adopted, Orwell's flat was wrecked by a doodlebug. The atmosphere of random terror in the everyday life of wartime London became integral to the mood of the novel-in-progress. Worse was to follow. In March 1945, while on assignment for the Observer in Europe, Orwell received the news that his wife, Eileen, had died under anaesthesia during a routine operation.

Suddenly he was a widower and a single parent, eking out a threadbare life in his Islington lodgings, and working incessantly to dam the flood of remorse and grief at his wife's premature death. In 1945, for instanc e, he wrote almost 110,000 words for various publications, including 15 book reviews for the Observer.

Now Astor stepped in. His family owned an estate on the remote Scottish island of Jura, next to Islay. There was a house, Barnhill, seven miles outside Ardlussa at the remote northern tip of this rocky finger of heather in the Inner Hebrides. Initially, Astor offered it to Orwell for a holiday. Speaking to the Observer last week, Richard Blair says he believes, from family legend, that Astor was taken aback by the enthusiasm of Orwell's response.

In May 1946 Orwell, still picking up the shattered pieces of his life, took the train for the long and arduous journey to Jura. He told his friend Arthur Koestler that it was "almost like stocking up ship for an arctic voyage".

It was a risky move; Orwell was not in good health. The winter of 1946-47 was one of the coldest of the century. Postwar Britain was bleaker even than wartime, and he had always suffered from a bad chest. At least, cut off from the irritations of literary London, he was free to grapple unencumbered with the new novel. "Smothered under journalism," as he put it, he told one friend, "I have become more and more like a sucked orange."

Ironically, part of Orwell's difficulties derived from the success of Animal Farm. After years of neglect and indifference the world was waking up to his genius. "Everyone keeps coming at me," he complained to Koestler, "wanting me to lecture, to write commissioned booklets, to join this and that, etc - you don't know how I pine to be free of it all and have time to think again."

On Jura he would be liberated from these distractions but the promise of creative freedom on an island in the Hebrides came with its own price. Years before, in the essay "Why I Write", he had described the struggle to complete a book: "Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist or [sic] understand. For all one knows that demon is the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one's personality." Then that famous Orwellian coda. "Good prose is like a window pane."

From the spring of 1947 to his death in 1950 Orwell would re-enact every aspect of this struggle in the most painful way imaginable. Privately, perhaps, he relished the overlap between theory and practice. He had always thrived on self-inflicted adversity.

At first, after "a quite unendurable winter", he revelled in the isolation and wild beauty of Jura. "I am struggling with this book," he wrote to his agent, "which I may finish by the end of the year - at any rate I shall have broken the back by then so long as I keep well and keep off journalistic work until the autumn."

Barnhill, overlooking the sea at the top of a potholed track, was not large, with four small bedrooms above a spacious kitchen. Life was simple, even primitive. There was no electricity. Orwell used Calor gas to cook and to heat water. Storm lanterns burned paraffin. In the evenings he also burned peat. He was still chain-smoking black shag tobacco in roll-up cigarettes: the fug in the house was cosy but not healthy. A battery radio was the only connection with the outside world.

Orwell, a gentle, unworldly sort of man, arrived with just a camp bed, a table, a couple of chairs and a few pots and pans. It was a spartan existence but supplied the conditions under which he liked to work. He is remembered here as a spectre in the mist, a gaunt figure in oilskins.

The locals knew him by his real name of Eric Blair, a tall, cadaverous, sad-looking man worrying about how he would cope on his own. The solution, when he was joined by baby Richard and his nanny, was to recruit his highly competent sister, Avril. Richard Blair remembers that his father "could not have done it without Avril. She was an excellent cook, and very practical. None of the accounts of my father's time on Jura recognise how essential she was."

Once his new regime was settled, Orwell could finally make a start on the book. At the end of May 1947 he told his publisher, Fred Warburg: "I think I must have written nearly a third of the rough draft. I have not got as far as I had hoped to do by this time because I really have been in most wretched health this year ever since about January (my chest as usual) and can't quite shake it off."

Mindful of his publisher's impatience for the new novel, Orwell added: "Of course the rough draft is always a ghastly mess bearing little relation to the finished result, but all the same it is the main part of the job." Still, he pressed on, and at the end of July was predicting a completed "rough draft" by October. After that, he said, he would need another six months to polish up the text for publication. But then, disaster.

Part of the pleasure of life on Jura was that he and his young son could enjoy the outdoor life together, go fishing, explore the island, and potter about in boats. In August, during a spell of lovely summer weather, Orwell, Avril, Richard and some friends, returning from a hike up the coast in a small motor boat, were nearly drowned in the infamous Corryvreckan whirlpool.

Richard Blair remembers being "bloody cold" in the freezing water, and Orwell, whose constant coughing worried his friends, did his lungs no favours. Within two months he was seriously ill. Typically, his account to David Astor of this narrow escape was laconic, even nonchalant.

The long struggle with "The Last Man in Europe" continued. In late October 1947, oppressed with "wretched health", Orwell recognised that his novel was still "a most dreadful mess and about two-thirds of it will have to be retyped entirely".

He was working at a feverish pace. Visitors to Barnhill recall the sound of his typewriter pounding away upstairs in his bedroom. Then, in November, tended by the faithful Avril, he collapsed with "inflammation of the lungs" and told Koestler that he was "very ill in bed". Just before Christmas, in a letter to an Observer colleague, he broke the news he had always dreaded. Finally he had been diagnosed with TB.

A few days later, writing to Astor from Hairmyres hospital, East Kilbride, Lanarkshire, he admitted: "I still feel deadly sick," and conceded that, when illness struck after the Corryvreckan whirlpool incident, "like a fool I decided not to go to a doctor - I wanted to get on with the book I was writing." In 1947 there was no cure for TB - doctors prescribed fresh air and a regular diet - but there was a new, experimental drug on the market, streptomycin. Astor arranged for a shipment to Hairmyres from the US.

Richard Blair believes that his father was given excessive doses of the new wonder drug. The side effects were horrific (throat ulcers, blisters in the mouth, hair loss, peeling skin and the disintegration of toe and fingernails) but in March 1948, after a three-month course, the TB symptoms had disappeared. "It's all over now, and evidently the drug has done its stuff," Orwell told his publisher. "It's rather like sinking the ship to get rid of the rats, but worth it if it works."

As he prepared to leave hospital Orwell received the letter from his publisher which, in hindsight, would be another nail in his coffin. "It really is rather important," wrote Warburg to his star author, "from the point of view of your literary career to get it [the new novel] by the end of the year and indeed earlier if possible."

Just when he should have been convalescing Orwell was back at Barnhill, deep into the revision of his manuscript, promising Warburg to deliver it in "early December", and coping with "filthy weather" on autumnal Jura. Early in October he confided to Astor: "I have got so used to writing in bed that I think I prefer it, though of course it's awkward to type there. I am just struggling with the last stages of this bloody book [which is] about the possible state of affairs if the atomic war isn't conclusive."

This is one of Orwell's exceedingly rare references to the theme of his book. He believed, as many writers do, that it was bad luck to discuss work-in-progress. Later, to Anthony Powell, he described it as "a Utopia written in the form of a novel". The typing of the fair copy of "The Last Man in Europe" became another dimension of Orwell's battle with his book. The more he revised his "unbelievably bad" manuscript the more it became a document only he could read and interpret. It was, he told his agent, "extremely long, even 125,000 words". With characteristic candour, he noted: "I am not pleased with the book but I am not absolutely dissatisfied... I think it is a good idea but the execution would have been better if I had not written it under the influence of TB."

And he was still undecided about the title: "I am inclined to call it NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR or THE LAST MAN IN EUROPE," he wrote, "but I might just possibly think of something else in the next week or two." By the end of October Orwell believed he was done. Now he just needed a stenographer to help make sense of it all.

It was a desperate race against time. Orwell's health was deteriorating, the "unbelievably bad" manuscript needed retyping, and the December deadline was looming. Warburg promised to help, and so did Orwell's agent. At cross-purposes over possible typists, they somehow contrived to make a bad situation infinitely worse. Orwell, feeling beyond help, followed his ex-public schoolboy's instincts: he would go it alone.

By mid-November, too weak to walk, he retired to bed to tackle "the grisly job" of typing the book on his "decrepit typewriter" by himself. Sustained by endless roll-ups, pots of coffee, strong tea and the warmth of his paraffin heater, with gales buffeting Barnhill, night and day, he struggled on. By 30 November 1948 it was virtually done.

Now Orwell, the old campaigner, protested to his agent that "it really wasn't worth all this fuss. It's merely that, as it tires me to sit upright for any length of time, I can't type very neatly and can't do many pages a day." Besides, he added, it was "wonderful" what mistakes a professional typist could make, and "in this book there is the difficulty that it contains a lot of neologisms".

The typescript of George Orwell's latest novel reached London in mid December, as promised. Warburg recognised its qualities at once ("amongst the most terrifying books I have ever read") and so did his colleagues. An in-house memo noted "if we can't sell 15 to 20 thousand copies we ought to be shot".

By now Orwell had left Jura and checked into a TB sanitorium high in the Cotswolds. "I ought to have done this two months ago," he told Astor, "but I wanted to get that bloody book finished." Once again Astor stepped in to monitor his friend's treatment but Orwell's specialist was privately pessimistic.

As word of Nineteen Eighty-Four began to circulate, Astor's journalistic instincts kicked in and he began to plan an Observer Profile, a significant accolade but an idea that Orwell contemplated "with a certain alarm". As spring came he was "having haemoptyses" (spitting blood) and "feeling ghastly most of the time" but was able to involve himself in the pre-publication rituals of the novel, registering "quite good notices" with satisfaction. He joked to Astor that it wouldn't surprise him "if you had to change that profile into an obituary".

Nineteen Eighty-Four was published on 8 June 1949 (five days later in the US) and was almost universally recognised as a masterpiece, even by Winston Churchill, who told his doctor that he had read it twice. Orwell's health continued to decline. In October 1949, in his room at University College hospital, he married Sonia Brownell, with David Astor as best man. It was a fleeting moment of happiness; he lingered into the new year of 1950. In the small hours of 21 January he suffered a massive haemorrhage in hospital and died alone.

The news was broadcast on the BBC the next morning. Avril Blair and her nephew, still up on Jura, heard the report on the little battery radio in Barnhill. Richard Blair does not recall whether the day was bright or cold but remembers the shock of the news: his father was dead, aged 46.

David Astor arranged for Orwell's burial in the churchyard at Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire. He lies there now, as Eric Blair, between HH Asquith and a local family of Gypsies.

Why '1984'?

Orwell's title remains a mystery. Some say he was alluding to the centenary of the Fabian Society, founded in 1884. Others suggest a nod to Jack London's novel The Iron Heel (in which a political movement comes to power in 1984), or perhaps to one of his favourite writer GK Chesterton's story, "The Napoleon of Notting Hill", which is set in 1984.

In his edition of the Collected Works (20 volumes), Peter Davison notes that Orwell's American publisher claimed that the title derived from reversing the date, 1948, though there's no documentary evidence for this. Davison also argues that the date 1984 is linked to the year of Richard Blair's birth, 1944, and notes that in the manuscript of the novel, the narrative occurs, successively, in 1980, 1982 and finally, 1984. There's no mystery about the decision to abandon "The Last Man in Europe". Orwell himself was always unsure of it. It was his publisher, Fred Warburg who suggested that Nineteen Eighty-Four was a more commercial title.

Freedom of speech: How '1984' has entrusted our culture

The effect of Nineteen Eighty-Four on our cultural and linguistic landscape has not been limited to either the film adaptation starring John Hurt and Richard Burton, with its Nazi-esque rallies and chilling soundtrack, nor the earlier one with Michael Redgrave and Edmond O'Brien.

It is likely, however, that many people watching the Big Brother series on television (in the UK, let alone in Angola, Oman or Sweden, or any of the other countries whose TV networks broadcast programmes in the same format) have no idea where the title comes from or that Big Brother himself, whose role in the reality show is mostly to keep the peace between scrapping, swearing contestants like a wise uncle, is not so benign in his original incarnation.

Apart from pop-culture renditions of some of the novel's themes, aspects of its language have been leapt upon by libertarians to describe the curtailment of freedom in the real world by politicians and officials - alarmingly, nowhere and never more often than in contemporary Britain.

Orwellian

George owes his own adjective to this book alone and his idea that wellbeing is crushed by restrictive, authoritarian and untruthful government.

Big Brother (is watching you)

A term in common usage for a scarily omniscient ruler long before the worldwide smash-hit reality-TV show was even a twinkle in its producers' eyes. The irony of societal hounding of Big Brother contestants would not have been lost on George Orwell.

Room 101

Some hotels have refused to call a guest bedroom number 101 - rather like those tower blocks that don't have a 13th floor - thanks to the ingenious Orwellian concept of a room that contains whatever its occupant finds most impossible to endure. Like Big Brother, this has spawned a modern TV show: in this case, celebrities are invited to name the people or objects they hate most in the world.

Thought Police

An accusation often levelled at the current government by those who like it least is that they are trying to tell us what we can and cannot think is right and wrong. People who believe that there are correct ways to think find themselves named after Orwell's enforcement brigade.

Thoughtcrime

See "Thought Police" above. The act or fact of transgressing enforced wisdom.

Newspeak

For Orwell, freedom of expression was not just about freedom of thought but also linguistic freedom. This term, denoting the narrow and diminishing official vocabulary, has been used ever since to denote jargon currently in vogue with those in power.

Doublethink

Hypocrisy, but with a twist. Rather than choosing to disregard a contradiction in your opinion, if you are doublethinking, you are deliberately forgetting that the contradiction is there. This subtlety is mostly overlooked by people using the accusation of "doublethink" when trying to accuse an adversary of being hypocritical - but it is a very popular word with people who like a good debate along with their pints in the pub. Oliver Marre … as it’s our birthday month, we have a small favour to ask. It’s not every day you turn 200. As you’re joining us today from India, we hope you’ll help us celebrate two centuries of independent, high-impact Guardian journalism. Since 1821, tens of millions have placed their trust in our quality reporting, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. And this is just the beginning. 





Thanks to funding from more than 1.5 million Guardian supporters in 180 countries, we’ve remained open to all, and fiercely independent. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we set our own agenda and provide truth-seeking journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.

Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.

Over the past 200 years, we have reported on the most critical issues and events of the day, and published countless exclusives that have held the powerful to account and exposed incompetence, injustice and impropriety. From Windrush to Wikileaks, Snowden to Cambridge Analytica, and from the climate crisis to racial discrimination, our journalists investigate wrongdoing in the hope that revealing it will help put it right.

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future.


George Orwell's book "1984" is a dystopian novel published on 8 June 1949, portraying a totalitarian society ruled by a tyrannical government led by the Party and its leader, Big Brother. The story follows the protagonist, Winston Smith, and his struggles against the oppressive regime.

8 June 1949

Characters:

Winston Smith: The central character of the novel, Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, altering historical records to match the Party's propaganda. He harbors rebellious thoughts against the Party and Big Brother and longs for freedom and truth.

Julia: Winston's love interest, Julia, is a young woman who works at the Ministry of Truth. Initially portrayed as a fervent supporter of the Party, she reveals herself to be rebellious and joins Winston in his quest for freedom.

O'Brien: A high-ranking member of the Inner Party, O'Brien appears to be a friend and ally to Winston and Julia in their resistance against the Party. However, he later reveals himself as an agent of the Party, using deceit to entrap Winston.

Big Brother: The enigmatic and omnipresent figurehead of the Party, Big Brother symbolizes the totalitarian government's control over its citizens. The Party uses his image and persona to instill fear and loyalty among the populace.

Plot Summary:

Set in a dystopian future, the novel portrays a world dominated by perpetual war, surveillance, manipulation, and suppression of individuality. Winston Smith, disillusioned with the oppressive regime of the Party and its constant rewriting of history, secretly rebels against its control.

Driven by a longing for truth and freedom, Winston begins a forbidden love affair with Julia. They engage in clandestine meetings and attempt to resist the Party's control through their relationship.

Winston's skepticism towards the Party's absolute power grows as he discovers a secret resistance movement. However, their rebellion is eventually discovered, and they are captured by the Thought Police, led by O'Brien. Under torture and brainwashing in the Ministry of Love, Winston is coerced into betraying Julia and confessing his rebellious thoughts.

Ultimately, Winston's spirit is broken, and he succumbs to the indoctrination, ending with him loving Big Brother. The novel ends on a bleak note, highlighting the triumph of totalitarianism over individual freedom and the obliteration of independent thought.

George Orwell's "1984" is a powerful critique of totalitarianism, surveillance, and the manipulation of truth, presenting a chilling warning about the dangers of authoritarianism and the erosion of personal freedoms.


For an overall understanding can you re-arrange the George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ in the 15 beats of Blake Snyder?

Certainly! Here's a re-arrangement of George Orwell's novel "1984" into the 15 beats of Blake Snyder's story structure:

Opening Image :

Introduce Winston Smith, the protagonist, living in a dystopian society under the oppressive rule of the Party. The bleak and controlled environment sets the tone for the story.

Theme Stated:

Themes of surveillance, manipulation of truth, and totalitarian control are subtly introduced through the Party's slogans and propaganda.

Set-Up:

Establish Winston's life as a Party member, his job at the Ministry of Truth, his dissatisfaction with the regime, and his secret rebellious thoughts against Big Brother.

Catalyst:

Winston begins a forbidden love affair with Julia, an act of rebellion against the strict societal rules imposed by the Party.

Debate:

Winston grapples with the risks of rebelling against the Party and fears of being caught. He contemplates the consequences of his actions.

Break into Two:

Winston commits to his rebellion and starts writing a diary, documenting his thoughts against the Party, signifying a departure from his compliant past.

B Story:

Winston's interactions with O'Brien, an Inner Party member, and their ambiguous relationship hint at a potential ally or adversary.

Fun and Games:

Winston and Julia enjoy moments of freedom and love in their secret hideaway, away from the watchful eyes of the Party.

Midpoint:

Winston and Julia are captured by the Thought Police, exposing their affair and rebellion, marking a significant turning point in the story.

Bad Guys Close In:

Winston faces brutal interrogation and torture at the Ministry of Love, where O'Brien reveals himself as an agent of the Party, shattering Winston's trust.

All Is Lost:

Winston's spirit is broken through torture and brainwashing. He betrays Julia and embraces the Party's ideology, relinquishing his rebellious thoughts.

Dark Night of the Soul:

Winston reflects on his defeat and fully submits to the Party's control, losing all hope for freedom and individuality.

Break into Three:

Winston's acceptance of Big Brother as his savior marks a decisive turning point, symbolizing his complete indoctrination.

Finale:

Winston's final transformation is solidified as he fervently loves Big Brother, embracing the Party's doctrine entirely, and erasing all dissent.

Final Image:

Winston sits at a cafe, having fully assimilated into the Party's propaganda, representing the complete triumph of totalitarianism over individual freedom.

This re-arrangement illustrates how George Orwell's "1984" aligns with the beats of Blake Snyder's story structure, showcasing the progression of Winston's journey in a dystopian society ruled by a tyrannical government.


Saturday, 13 June 2020

In My Blood It Runs

In My Blood It Runs’ Review: ‘I Want to Be an Aborigine’
In plain vérité style, the documentary follows an Arrernte Aboriginal family in Alice Springs, Australia.


Dujuan in “In My Blood It Runs.”
Dujuan in “In My Blood It Runs.”Credit...Sentient.Art.Film
Teo Bugbee
By Teo Bugbee
June 11, 2020

In My Blood It Runs NYT Critic's Pick Directed by Maya Newell Documentary, Biography, History1h 30m
FIND TICKETS
When you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed film through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.

Colonialism is a war that began hundreds of years ago and never ended. Its modern tactics and its weapons are noted with precision in the ferocious documentary, “In My Blood It Runs.”

The film follows an Arrernte Aboriginal family in Alice Springs, Australia, focusing on Dujuan, a 10-year-old boy, and his mother Megan, as they navigate his education. In plain vérité style, the documentary exposes how language and school are corrupted to become bludgeons for the system built by settlers.

At home, Dujuan is a gifted healer who speaks three languages, and he is a gentle comfort to his mother. But at school, his teachers are white, and they mock Aboriginal spiritual beliefs while teaching a whitewashed version of colonial history. Dujuan is disengaged and angry, and his grades, attendance and behavior suffer. Megan’s fear is that Dujuan could be taken from her and placed in juvenile detention, and as Dujuan’s aunt warns him, if he goes to detention, he’ll either leave it for jail or a coffin.

Would you like recommendations for more stories like this?

Yes
The director Maya Newell gains access to both worlds that Dujuan traverses — home and school — and the trust that she seems to have built with all participants is vital to the success of this film. In both settings, her subjects rarely acknowledge the camera directly. She captures natural behavior, whether she observes care or cruelty. Voices rarely raise, but the film still vibrates with fury.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

In the final minutes, Dujuan is given an opportunity to express what would satisfy him, which he does in language simple enough that even his teachers should be able to understand:

“Leave black kids alone.”

“Stop killing Aboriginal people.”

“I want to be an Aborigine.”

In My Blood It Runs
Not rated. Running time: 1 hour 24 minutes. Watch on The Future of Film Is Female.




Wednesday, 3 June 2020

Types of Movies

Types of Movies 

Action
Adventure
Comedy
Crime/Gangster
Drama
Epics/Historical
Horror
Musicals/Dance
Sci-Fi
War
Westerns

Action
Adult
Adventure
Animation / Anime
Biopic
Childrens
Comedy
Crime / detective /spy
Documentary
Drama
Horror
Family
Fantasy
Historical
Medical
Musical
Paranormal
Romance
Sport
Science fiction
Talk Show
Thriller / Suspense
War
Western



The Seven Basic Plots
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
‹ The template Infobox book is being considered for merging. ›
The Seven Basic Plots
The Seven Basic Plots, book cover.png
Author Christopher Booker
Language English
Published 2004
Pages 736
Preceded by The Great Deception 
Followed by Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming 
The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories is a 2004 book by Christopher Booker containing a Jung-influenced analysis of stories and their psychological meaning. Booker worked on the book for thirty-four years.[1]


Contents
1 Summary
1.1 The meta-plot
1.2 The plots
1.2.1 Overcoming the Monster
1.2.2 Rags to Riches
1.2.3 The Quest
1.2.4 Voyage and Return
1.2.5 Comedy
1.2.6 Tragedy
1.2.7 Rebirth
1.3 The Rule of Three
2 Precursors
3 Reception
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Summary
The meta-plot
The meta-plot begins with the anticipation stage, in which the hero is called to the adventure to come. This is followed by a dream stage, in which the adventure begins, the hero has some success, and has an illusion of invincibility. However, this is then followed by a frustration stage, in which the hero has his first confrontation with the enemy, and the illusion of invincibility is lost. This worsens in the nightmare stage, which is the climax of the plot, where hope is apparently lost. Finally, in the resolution, the hero overcomes his burden against the odds.[2]

The key thesis of the book: "However many characters may appear in a story, its real concern is with just one: its hero. It is the one whose fate we identify with, as we see them gradually developing towards that state of self-realization which marks the end of the story. Ultimately it is in relation to this central figure that all other characters in a story take on their significance. What each of the other characters represents is really only some aspect of the inner state of the hero himself."

The plots
Overcoming the Monster
Definition: The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.

Examples: Perseus, Theseus, Beowulf, Dracula, The War of the Worlds, Nicholas Nickleby, The Guns of Navarone, Seven Samurai (and its Western remake The Magnificent Seven), James Bond, Star Wars.[2]

Rags to Riches
Definition: The poor protagonist acquires power, wealth, and/or a mate, loses it all and gains it back, growing as a person as a result.

Examples: Cinderella, Aladdin, Jane Eyre, A Little Princess, Great Expectations, David Copperfield, The Prince and the Pauper, Brewster's Millions.[2]

The Quest
Definition: The protagonist and companions set out to acquire an important object or to get to a location. They face temptations and other obstacles along the way.

Examples: The Odyssey, The Pilgrim's Progress, The Lord Of The Rings, King Solomon's Mines, Six of Crows, Watership Down, Lightning Thief, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Voyage and Return
Definition: The protagonist goes to a strange land and, after overcoming the threats it poses or learning important lessons unique to that location, they return with experience.

Examples: Ramayana, Alice in Wonderland, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Orpheus, The Time Machine, Peter Rabbit, The Hobbit, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, Brideshead Revisited, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Gone with the Wind, The Third Man, The Lion King, Back to the Future.[2]

Comedy
Definition: Light and humorous character with a happy or cheerful ending; a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance, resulting in a successful or happy conclusion.[3] Booker stresses that comedy is more than humor. It refers to a pattern where the conflict becomes more and more confusing, but is at last made plain in a single clarifying event. The majority of romance films fall into this category.

Examples: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, Bridget Jones's Diary, Music and Lyrics, Sliding Doors, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Big Lebowski.

Tragedy
Definition: The protagonist is a hero with a major character flaw or great mistake which is ultimately their undoing. Their unfortunate end evokes pity at their folly and the fall of a fundamentally good character.

Examples: Macbeth, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Carmen, Bonnie and Clyde, Jules et Jim, Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, John Dillinger, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Citizen Kane.[2]

Rebirth
Definition: An event forces the main character to change their ways and often become a better individual.

Examples: Pride and Prejudice, The Frog Prince, Beauty and the Beast, The Snow Queen, A Christmas Carol, The Secret Garden, Peer Gynt, Groundhog Day.[2]

The Rule of Three
Main article: Rule of three (writing)
"Again and again, things appear in threes . . ." There is rising tension and the third event becomes "the final trigger for something important to happen". We are accustomed to this pattern from childhood stories such as Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood. In adult stories, three can convey the gradual working out of a process that leads to transformation. This transformation can be downwards as well as upwards. Booker asserts that the Rule of Three is expressed in four ways:

The simple, or cumulative three, for example, Cinderella's three visits to the ball.
The ascending three, where each event is of more significance than the preceding, for example, the hero must win first bronze, then silver, then gold objects.
The contrasting three, where only the third has positive value, for example, The Three Little Pigs, two of whose houses are blown down by the Big Bad Wolf.
The final or dialectical form of three, where, as with Goldilocks and her bowls of porridge, the first is wrong in one way, the second in an opposite way, and the third is "just right". [4]
Precursors
William Foster-Harris' The Basic Patterns of Plot sets out a theory of three basic patterns of plot.[5]
Ronald B. Tobias set out a twenty-plot theory in his 20 Master Plots.[5]
Georges Polti's The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations.[5]
Several of these plots can also be seen as reworkings of Joseph Campbell's work on the quest and return in The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
Reception
Scholars and journalists have had mixed responses to The Seven Basic Plots. Some have celebrated the book's audacity and breadth. The author and essayist Fay Weldon, for example, wrote the following (which is quoted on the front cover of the book): "This is the most extraordinary, exhilarating book. It always seemed to me that 'the story' was God's way of giving meaning to crude creation. Booker now interprets the mind of God, and analyses not just the novel – which will never to me be quite the same again – but puts the narrative of contemporary human affairs into a new perspective. If it took its author a lifetime to write, one can only feel gratitude that he did it."[6] Beryl Bainbridge, Richard Adams, Ronald Harwood, and John Bayley also spoke positively of the work, while philosopher Roger Scruton described it as a "brilliant summary of story-telling".[7]

Others have dismissed the book, criticizing especially Booker's normative conclusions. Novelist and literary critic Adam Mars-Jones, for instance, wrote, "He sets up criteria for art, and ends up condemning Rigoletto, The Cherry Orchard, Wagner, Proust, Joyce, Kafka and Lawrence—the list goes on—while praising Crocodile Dundee, E.T. and Terminator 2".[8] Similarly, Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times writes, "Mr. Booker evaluates works of art on the basis of how closely they adhere to the archetypes he has so laboriously described; the ones that deviate from those classic patterns are dismissed as flawed or perverse – symptoms of what has gone wrong with modern art and the modern world."[

Thursday, 28 May 2020

Pan's Labyrinth Interpretation

Pan's Labyrinth Interpretation

Pan's Labyrinth is a fairy tale about the importance of moral disobedience: for refusing to harm her brother, even at the cost of her own life, Ofelia is resurrected before a heavenly Trinity with the rose of eternal life imprinted on her shirt.[1]
By setting Ofelia's tasks against the coming of the full moon (associated with femininity in the Western tradition), Del Toro invites us to read his story as a passage to adulthood. The bleeding book ("what comes next," Ofelia asks?) is clearly menstrual in nature, while the tree cave (with its vaginal entrance and theme of repressed fertility) requires Ofelia to assert control of her own sexuality. In this sequence, it is no accident that in destroying the toad, Ofelia also destroys the "pretty" clothing the Captain uses to tempt her into an infantilized adulthood. [3] Likewise, growing up requires her to abandon her preoccupation with physical beauty and abandon the world of the fairy tale for the more bleak suffering of adult society.
As in other Christian films like Inception, the labyrinth is offered as a symbol of the mortal world. And this is why the fantasy elements in the film are so bleak: for just as the real world is filled with characters who torture and kill (note the repeated images of hunters and hunting), so must the underworld be inhabited by their equals: carnivorous fawns and fairies, and the Pale Man who feasts on whatever children are unlucky enough to stumble within grasp. The message is about the savage nature of humanity -- something communicated most elegantly through the story of the mandrake root, a creature which is made human by acclimatizing it to a diet of blood.
Critics who argue that the fantasy elements serve as a psychological coping mechanism for Ofelia miss this point.[4] Yet we can be sure Ofelia is not engaged in psychological projection not only because seemingly fantastical events actually influence developments in the real world, but also because developments in the underworld thematically anticipate what happens later in the film. And then there are the clear thematic parallels between the two plot strands. The magical toad's repression of the tree's fertility clearly mirrors the Captain's repression of feminine sexuality, while the Captain's staggering pursuit of Ofelia at the climax is visually evocative of her earlier flight from the Pale Man. The equivalence in the former case is emphasized by the script's insistence on the Captain's appetite, while the similarity in the latter is evident in the repeated visuals of both sitting at the heads of their respective tables, as well as through more subtle narrative touches: just as Ofelia's theft of food from the forbidden table awakens the deadly monster, so does the theft of supplies from his pantry awaken the Captain to the feminine betrayal within his own household.
So very unlike the senseless kind of "magical realism" we see in authors like Murakami, what we have in Pan's Labyrinth is deliberate moral pageantry that makes an ethical argument about what it means to be an adult. The fact that all of her underworld tasks require Ofelia to embrace moral disobedience (rejecting the fawn's demand for unquestioned authority and disobeying the instructions of the magic book) suggests that the correct role models in the film are of course those of Mercedes and the doctor, characters Del Toro not coincidentally paints as doubled parental figures for the young girl. As the subplot involving the Spanish resistance makes clear, both Mercedes and the doctor reject violence as a tool of resistance, but act humanely in service to others even when doing so requires paying a blood price. And when the doctor is challenged by the captain on this point, threatened with death for preventing him from torturing a captive prisoner, his answer speaks for the morality of the film itself: "to obey without thinking... that's something only people like you can do."
The cost of the Doctor's disobedience is death, and yet in the eyes of the film it is this sacrifice that defines adulthood. For the pain and suffering individuals accept -- the tax imposed by the thorns in the fable of the rose -- is the cost paid for the symbolic rebirth. Thus the film ends with Ofelia -- who has accepted her own suffering as the cost of protecting her brother -- transformed into the Mother Mary figure of stone, a symbolic mother-figure who has now paid the blood sacrifice required of all mothers. The Christian defeat of death is communicated exactly with this assumption of motherhood.
And with this the rest of the film's thematic subtext falls into place. In terms of overarching Christian symbolism, just as the doctor stands in opposition to the Captain, we also have the opposing symbols of the true and false fathers, an undercurrent which lends significance not only to Ofelia's continual rejection of the Captain ("he's not my father"), but also the more political undercurrents in the film, which show the Franco regime co-opting the Catholic church and assuming the image of a false God through the distribution of the "daily bread" of the community.
We see repeated visuals of gaping mouths (symbolizing the world's cycle of violence and associated thematically with it through the statue that sits at the entrance to the labyrinth) as well as images of missing eyes (symbolizing moral blindness and unethical behavior). In one of the film's many nice touches which passes almost unnoticed, it is the humane and ethical doctor who wears glasses[5] and thus "sees", while at the opening of the film we also see Ofelia replacing the missing eye of a decrepit statue. It is Ofelia who will likewise come to "see" and whose refusal to be complicit in evil is the act which transforms her from a child into a maternal figure whose blood sacrifice restores moral order and biblical fecundity to the world.
And now we reach the end of the film. Just as the captain dies sonless, denied eternity through the thematic loss of his bloodline, we see Ofelia gain eternal life not only through her symbolic assumption of motherhood as well as the afterlife sequence mentioned above, but even through the defeat of time itself, as the forward momentum of the timepiece which condemns the captain to death is reversed in the closing moments of the film as Ofelia's blood flows backwards in time, pushing the film itself into a thematically circular loop that is visually suggestive of eternity.
[1]: this is the rose from the fable Ofelia tells her unborn brother. As the story goes, it provides the bearer with eternal life, but sits withering because man's fear of death keeps him from accepting the price of death which must be paid for it. It may also be an allusion to the rose from the Empyrean in the Divine Comedy, which symbolizes the love of God.
[2]: the core message here is that behaving ethically requires the willingness to accept pain and suffering as the cost of doing good. This pain and suffering -- the tax imposed by the thorns/death in the rose fable -- is now presented in this maternal imagery as the blood associated with childbirth. The Christian image of the mother is invoked as a figure who echoes Jesus in giving life to others by willingly assuming pain and suffering. And in this light, note how Ofelia first rejects motherhood out of an unwillingness to pay the price, only to reverse her choice at the climax of the film. And through this reversal, Ofelia becomes a symbolic mother-figure to her infant brother by paying the price thematically required through her own blood sacrifice.
[3]: when Ofelia asks Mercedes if she considers her mother beautiful, this reflects a childish concern for her own beauty that Ofelia overcomes most visibly through the first task which leads to the destruction of her pretty dress and shoes. We return to symbolism of clothing reflecting true beauty only at the end of the film, which presents Ofelia resurrected and possessed of more beautiful clothing than she before gives away.
[4]: for two examples, see http://www.sdentertainer.com/arts/pans-labyrinth-a-psychological-analysis or http://monsterawarenessmonth.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/pans-labyrinth-review-2.
[5]: the captain is shown wearing glasses at one point, but these are sunglasses which obscure rather than illuminate. His vision is - thematically - cloudy, just as his behavior is - as seen through the mirror - ultimately self-destructive.
If you liked this, you might like my similar readings of The Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall. And if you'd like to be notified when I publish more, please send me an email at david@popupchinese.com. Constructive feedback and criticism is also very welcome. (March 24, 2013)


What is the message of Pan's Labyrinth?
The theme of “Pan's Labyrinth” — the subject explored — is “Good vs. Evil vs. Innocence.” The sobering message of the film — the conclusion drawn — is that in a war torn between good and evil, there is not place for innocence.


Labyrinth (Symbol)
The labyrinth itself is symbolic throughout the movie. It symbolizes Ofelia's desire to escape her reality and find some kind of redemption from the hardships of life, while also representing the complexity of escaping such difficult circumstances.


Mindhole Blowers: 20 Facts About Pan's Labyrinth That Might Make You Believe in Magic
By Cindy Davis | Lists | November 28, 2011 | 0 Comments

FacebookTwitterFlipboardRedditCopy Link
Guillermo del Toro is a fantastic storyteller, evidenced not only by this beautiful film, but also in the way he shares his thoughts on the director’s commentary. If you loved Pan’s Labyrinth, I highly recommend watching the DVD extras, which has a wealth of interesting information. This alternately heartbreaking and hopeful Academy Award winning film was made with so much thought and detail and love, there is no doubt it was, for del Toro, like birthing a child. The director clearly has a longing to recall and share some of the universal thoughts and feelings of childhood; his explanations of particulars (like the chalk appearing in Vidal’s quarters) that prove the magic is real is enough to make even a cynic like me believe.


1. Guillermo del Toro begins his commentary by saying that the film almost destroyed … nearly killed him. He lost 40 pounds during the process. The film’s origin was a story of a pregnant woman who arrived to a mansion in Spain; her husband worked for the mansion owner, restoring the home. The woman fell in love with a faun in a labyrinth—they made love—and he asked for the blood of her firstborn in order to open the gate and let her enter the magical kingdom to be with him. The ending was this woman sacrificing her son to go with the love of her life, the faun. Eventually, del Toro realized it was more interesting to talk about the magic through the girls’ eyes.

2. The film is intended to be a companion piece to The Devil’s Backbone; in the five years between the two films the world changed completely (after September 11th) and so, everything del Toro had to say about brutality and innocence, childhood and war changed dramatically. The Devil’s Backbone was set in 1939—he wanted to do a film set exactly five years later— so he chose 1944 Spain. The time period would mirror how much the world had changed then and how much the world had changed today. The director felt if the ghost story in Devil’s Backbone was made to illuminate the microcosms of the Spanish Civil War, then this movie should be about choice and disobedience, which are themes he felt were as urgent in the world today as they were in 1944.

3. Del Toro said the opening image of blood going back into Ofelia’s body and the writing of the first 10 minutes of the film was “the hardest thing,” he was stuck (on the beginning) for months and months. When he saw the image of the blood going back to her nose, he understood the rest of the movie; it was not about a girl dying, but about a girl who was giving birth to herself the way she wanted to be.


ofeliadying.jpg

The film’s opening also went through many, many changes. The director realized if the movie was going to be two stories intersected, then along with the beautiful fairy tale prologue in the narration, the audience should see images of a destructed Spanish city torn by the war—as a contrast to the fairy tale narrative—so the stories would start to juxtapose from the very beginning. He wanted to show how the material world scoffs at the girl’s interest in the fantasy world, starting with her mother. Del Toro believes that children have a perfect personality and then we (adults) ruin it with our “intelligent decisions to educate them; someone in the 19th century said that it was our duty to deal with children as if they were the ambassadors of a higher culture and not like we want to educate them, but like we want to learn from them.”

4. The moment of Ofelia’s (Ivana Baquero) arrival at her stepfather’s home is almost a direct mirror of Devil’s Backbone, when the young boy arrives at the orphanage. Del Toro wanted the two movies to be similar, he constructed them to have a circular opening and closing type of structure, with a narration; a child arriving to a new building with an adult, then having the child be visited the first night by a magical or fantastic creature and having to solve the mystery that the creature would pose that night. The director spoke of the similarities between the films’ two antagonists and the two protagonists. In Devil’s Backbone, the children—one writes and one draws pictures; Ofelia is sort of a combination of those two characters. The fascist in Devil’s Backbone is a “proto-fascist,” who is not intellectual enough or political enough to really be called a fascist. But Captain Vidal (Sergi López) is a full-fledged fascist. Del Toro also wanted to blend the films by them each occurring in a single building. He feels the essence of the Spanish Civil War is seen by displaying it as a household war, a war that occurs within the walls of a building and between members of a family, so to speak.


5. Vidal’s watch is the only memory he has of his father—it presses him to be a great, famous man and it also oppresses him. Del Toro felt it important that the Captain is obsessed with details, for him the rebels are just a concept and little pinpoints that he has to look at on a map with a magnifying glass. Vidal is so obsessed with the little things, how shiny his boots are how well his watch runs, how neatly he pinpoints the strategy on the maps, that he loses perspective of the larger stuff. He loses perspective of life and people. When Vidal meets Ofelia, it is with a direct quote from Dickens’ David Copperfield (the first time Copperfield meets his stepfather, the stepfather tells David, “That’s the wrong hand”). Pan’s Labyrinth is peppered with references to other fantasy movies and to novels (Hans Christian Andersen’s The Little Match Girl, The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Oscar Wilde, etc.).

6. The way the insect was filmed, everything—including a close-up—was because del Toro wanted to emphasize with the camera how significant the insect was. The insect is very often favored by the camera; it was important that this creature was the guide to take the girl into the labyrinth the first time. Del Toro highlighted in both Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth that the first discovery of the ghost and the labyrinth was done in daylight. This shows the fantastic in a mundane context; the director feels that one of the things that makes the fantastic tangible is to make it mundane; treat it like any subject.

bathinsect.jpg

7. Storytelling without words is what interests Del Toro the most, he “hates words.” The first few days of filming he worked with Cinematographer, Guillermo Navarro (Jackie Brown, From Dusk Till Dawn, Hellboy) on a shooting technique, where the camera is always drifting and moving very subtly. The camera moves very deliberately, with sounds all around; of the scene with Ofelia and her mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil) in bed, del Toro says with surround sound you can hear all sorts of things around them. He learned the importance of immersive sound design from video games which, the director said, when really well designed for a surround sound system have “a very beautiful, immersive quality that makes you feel as if you’re in the middle of the atmosphere and the action.” Del Toro wanted to capture the intimacy of “a kid at night in bed with your mother, chatting—the sort of thing one misses as an adult ” and then the first transition into fantasy using a horizontal wipe (as the girl lays her head on her mother’s belly).

8. The first fantasy introduces the new color palate of warm, golden reds and scarlet tones, being integrated into the colder, real world palette. The color palette is meant to reflect the fact that the two worlds are completely opposite; fantasy scenes are warm, rounded, uterine and reality is rust, grey, blues, cold greens and straight lines. Fantasy scenes have more playful, active camera moves than the fascist’s world. Filters were also used (green gel) for the blue-hued, nighttime pit (where Ofelia meets with the faun), which magnifies greens in blue elements. The pit scene has lot of moss to give it a sense of magic. Greens are accentuated there because it colors the scene of the underworld, which is a mix of reality and fantasy. Certain objects are mirrored in both worlds, a key, a knife and a dining room table. Trees echo the faun and fallopian tubes and magical pollen is present every time a magical creature is near in the daytime world.

The design of the pit and fantasy world is done around circles and curves, meant to feel very Celtic, with simple praises and elaborate patterns. Del Toro mentioned that “While most people link Celtic with Ireland or the UK, it actually came through the North of Spain first.” The director showed fairies being carnivores; he wanted ambiguity in fairies and fauns so the audience would wonder if they’re good or bad. Del Toro explained, “It’s very important that they’re never fully good or bad. The faun in classical mythology is neither—it represents nature.” (Only in America is the film called Pan’s Labyrinth, originally, it is The Faun’s Labyrinth). The director didn’t want the girl to have a safe choice, the important thing is how she goes about the tests, not whether she accomplishes them. At the labyrinth entrance, an inscription reads “In your hands (In your decisions), lies your destiny.”


9. The first act of violence was based on an oral account of a post war occurrence in a grocery store, where a fascist came in and a citizen inside didn’t take off his hat; the fascist proceded to smash his face with the butt of a pistol and then took his groceries and left. Del Toro wanted to put that story into the film. The detail of the bottle comes from a personal experience where del Toro and a friend got into a street brawl, del Toro was being beaten with a chain while his friend was being beaten with a bottle. The only thing the director noticed as it was going on, was that the bottle didn’t break. The scene is done with the action becoming more and more and more intense, then releasing to a quiet moment—to show that the death of these two guys is inconsequential; Vidal just shot and killed them and the crickets are chirping, the train is moving in the distance and it’s not a big deal. According to del Toro, violence and the death of civilians in Civil War Spain (and post war) was completely inconsequential. He thought it was important to show (an example) that out of the approximately 500,000 people that died in the Spanish Civil War, approximately 250,000 of them were either summarily executed or killed in cold blood, without battle engagements.

The first act of violence is the most violent. From this point on, the violence gets more and more simple until the final death occurs in single shots, in almost throwaway moments.

10. The director’s favorite magical part of the film is when Ofelia is reading and the insect turns into a fairy. Using the drawing (in Ofelia’s book) as a reference, “the transformation is done in objective way, with no fuss…very simple.” The fairy design was thought up during Hellboy, which featured pickled, jarred fairies.

insectfairy.jpg

11. Del Toro designed the faun’s leg system, of which he is very proud. He said that DDT Efectos Especiales laughed at him, because they didn’t think it would work. The faun legs are connected to the legs of the actor—the actor puppeteers them with his own legs. The giant puppet frog was supposed to move around and del Toro disagreed with DDT about how the frog would move—it was too heavy and would look small on a large set. The director was again correct and they had to shoot in the gallery of roots instead of a huge set that had been built; the frog looks bigger in a small set. Half of the frog footage is CG and half puppets, then they were blended. The vomit shot was done and redone more times than any other movie scene del Toro has done.

PanLegs_.jpg

12. The faun (Doug Jones) is much older in the beginning of the film, he gets younger and younger as the story progresses. He is almost blind when first seen, with white hair; he’s messy and dirty and more spastic, with a different voice. At the end of the film, the faun is young (Jones’ first day of filming).

13. The first day of shooting with Sergi López (Vidal), the character is shaving. López got frustrated with the very exact instructions del Toro gave him to do everything, the director’s instructions were quite specific, (e.g. “three puffs of smoke then walk over here”). Del Toro knew how he wanted the camera to shoot (with vertical wipes) and the actor wasn’t used to working that way. But, del Toro said that by end of filming, López was the most precise actor of the bunch. The director emphasized it was important to use the vertical wipes (moving left to right), because the film is two stories that seem completely separate. As the movie progresses, the two world starts to intertwine and eventually they will lead to a single outcome.

The director wanted to do one unflinching, single shot of how unstoppable Captain Vidal is (sewing up his own mouth); he’s the big bad wolf. This defines the character and who he is going to become. And in order for Ofelia to be truly afraid, to say “No” to the faun, Vidal has to be terrifying.

wound.jpg

At Vidal’s end, he is the most human he has ever been (mirroring a Devil’s Bone character). Del Toro said he liked the way Vidal’s eye rolled back as he died. The director used to volunteer in a mental institution and he would walk through the morgue to a cemetery to have lunch. He once saw a man who had been shot in the face, with his eye rolled back, like Captain Vidal.

14. Of the bath scene, the director points out the circles that are related to the girl (everything else is straight and square and lines).

bathcircles.jpg

Ofelia reads from the “Book of Crossroads.” Del Toro wanted to create crossroads for every character in the film. (He did a similar scene in Cronos, that also involved a green dress). Ofelia sees the moon birthmark on her shoulder, so she knows she is a princess, in fact. The director says, “You are who you think you are, as long as it comes from a genuine place in your heart. It doesn’t matter what you have in the material world, you can always believe in your true essence.” This is something he tried to get across in Hellboy too; Hellboy knows that he his a person, human, even though everyone is telling him he’s a monster and a freak. Del Toro believes Ofelia becomes immortal, saying “Only if you dare to die would you reach immortality.”

Ofelia’s mother says she doesn’t believe in fairy tales but she believes in the Republic. To del Toro, organized politics and religion are much more fairy tales than anything else—they’re fantasy. “I don’t believe in borders or geography, in religion making us different. I believe in spiritual conceits making us equal, not different.”

15. In the dinner party scene, we see the dining table and chimney and all the squares and straight lines that will be echoed in the Pale Man sequence (with monster sitting at the head of the table).

captaintable.jpg

palemantable.jpg

Del Toro felt it was important to notice the banquet in this time of 1944, when most people were boiling roots and “literally making almost stone soup for dinner—nobody had food.” But the Captain is hoarding food and medicine to make rebels come to him—using this banquet to host these people—he sees himself almost as a overlord with his subjects. The Captain really believes he is doing everything for the good of the community, even though he is a sociopath. At the feast, Carmen’s speaks of Ofelia’s father, a tailor (chosen because cobblers and tailors used to pass on fairy tales, according to del Toro). The director wanted to make it appear that it’s possible Vidal had the father taken out so he could date Carmen. Del Toro said he loves loose ends like that, threads for the audience to speculate over and discuss.

16. The legend that the civil guard captain reads is printed on the containers of bread; this comes from a war reality—propaganda with bread was handed out (to send a message to rebels that they should give up).

17. When Ofelia is looking at the book, as the red spreads across the pages echoing fallopian tubes/the fauns horns, the soundtrack grows into a musical montage inspired by one of del Toro’s favorite bands, Pink Floyd. The director say it is reminiscent of the prologue to Is There Anybody Out There? The magic book predicts the upcoming miscarriage and the color palette begins to subtly and slowly change.

bookred.jpg

18. Del Toro explained that writing the movie was extremely difficult because it took a long time to sort the tasks and elements in the film. There is a magical element in every other scene, almost like a checkerboard, patterned very carefully. Every two scenes you get a magical and reality scene and it got more complicated as the two elements started merging. Financing on the film fell through several times, but del Toro wanted to do the movie so much, he called friend and Producer, Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Y Tu Mamá También) to let Cuarón know he was putting in $100,000 of his own money so they could go on. Cuarón offered to put in $50,000 of that himself and both del Toro and Cuarón gave up their producers’ salaries (del Toro also gave up his director’s salary).

Casting went against the grain of the Spanish actors’ usual fare. Mercedes (Maribel Verdú) was normally a “sex bomb actress.” López had done dark, charming characters in foreign films, but in Spain he was known for comedy and melodrama. Ariadna Gil was usually cast as an independent, fully fledged woman. An important Spanish producer told del Toro he didn’t understand how to cast these actors because del Toro was Mexican, that the director was miscasting them all. The producer said the actors’ careers would be over and del Toro said, “Screw you. I can cast them how I like.” Del Toro said that he heard (second-hand) that the producer had apologized after seeing the film and its success.

The scene where Mercedes is surrounded by soldiers on horseback was the first shot. Del Toro said horses are “nasty, psychopathic animals,” he “hates them” (and cows).
The director said it was a good thing they shot it right away because after he saw how they acted in that first scene (one of the actors almost had his chest crushed by a horse), he would never have put Mercedes in front of the horses again.

19. The violence of the real world appears fully-shaped in the Pale Man, which echoes Vidal’s dining room and the facelessness of fascism. Del Toro originally designed the Pale Man like an old man who lost a lot of weight. Later he had the face removed and put his eyes on a platter, which was as del Toro had once seen a statue of St. Lucy—with her eyes on a platter and blood pouring out of her sockets. The director wanted a “church-like and a concentration camp feeling, with shoes piled up in corner; this perverse creature has a lot of food in front of it, but only eats children—innocents.” The three doors Ofelia must pick from are an element in many fairy tales (threes). The director feels it is important that disobedience has different outcomes. Ofelia disobeys and picks the right door with the dagger, then she disobeys (because she’s hungry) and eating the grapes gets her in trouble. Del Toro, “But no matter what, she follows herself, at the end of the movie, she learns to trust herself. No matter what dangers she went through, she still doesn’t distrust her nature and her instincts. She chooses herself and remains true to herself.”

paleman.jpg

Several artists have influenced del Toro, especially Goya. The shot of the Pale Man eating the fairies is taken directly from the artist’s “Saturn Devouring His Son.”

Saturn devouring.gif

Del Toro said he “had the privilege” of watching the Pale Man chase scene, sitting next to Stephen King and it remains “the best screening experience ever,” watching King squirm. The director described it as “the best thing that ever happened to him in his life.”


20. For the scene when the rebels come down the mountain, they had only 20 minutes of sun to film. A digital head had to be subbed in for the doctor because as he walked by, the actor (Álex Angulo) looked directly at camera and they had no time to reshoot.

The fighting in woods was supposed to be against a large, green palette, but the area was in the middle of a drought, so a lot of fake moss, grass etc. was used. Every blank or spark from bullets hitting trees was digital because they weren’t permitted to use any blanks. All these digital effects made budget go way up.


Sadly, Cindy Davis is no princess.

Sunday, 24 May 2020

10 Blockbusters That Feature Positive Muslim Characters


10 Blockbusters That Feature Positive Muslim Characters

As with the majority of minorities, Muslims have not enjoyed a healthy relationship with Hollywood. Muslim characters are more often than not heavily soaked in stereotypes, lacking nuance or depth. While Muslims are not the only minority to receive this kind of treatment, upon reading or viewing the work of academic Dr. Jack Shaheen, you will quickly find that Muslims and Arabs have had a particularly bad time. His work, Reel Bad Arabs, highlights the extent of Hollywood’s problem with Arabs and Muslims. In a world where movies are watched a lot more than books are read, the images that they are delivering become all the more important. The following is a list of movies that while being far from perfect, offer a nice antidote to the one-dimensional “movie Muslim” offered up by the orientalist mind.

1. The Message (1976)

This epic attempted to tackle the formidable task of telling the story of the birth of Islam. Syrian director Moustapha Akkad, who would go on to produce horror flic Halloween, found difficulty in finding a Hollywood studio to produce the film without casting an actor as the Prophet Muhammad. The film was eventually made without showing the Prophet or the four caliphs, rendering it halal for mainstream Muslims.

Starring Hollywood heavyweights Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas of yesteryear, the story itself covers the period from Muhammad’s call to prophecy through to the re-conquest of Mecca and touches on the lives of great characters in Muslim history such as Bilal, the former slave and first muezzin, Ammar and his parents, the first martyrs in Islam, Summayah and Yassir, among many others. Despite having turned 40 this year, I believe the movie remains as watchable as ever. It is about time another major player attempted to take on this story, though.


2. The Lion Of The Desert (1980)

This telling of the life of Omar Mukhtar, the great 20th Century Libyan revolutionary, features many of the same names as The Message; Moustapha Akkad producing and directing, Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas starring. Quinn’s memorable performance as the ever-noble Mukhtar is complemented by Oliver Reed (of Oliver! and Gladiator fame) as the menacing Italian, General Graziani. The film focused on Libya’s attempts to rid themselves of their Italian colonizers and the war that ensued. In Mukhtar, we see the life of an ethical revolutionary who does not compromise his morals or mercy when attempting to reach his goals. Spoiler alert – it is the first movie I ever shed a tear watching.

3. Ali (2001)

Michael Mann’s take on Muhammad Ali’s life is not without its critics; it was always going to be difficult to encapsulate the life and spirit of one of the most dynamic sportsmen ever.  The film takes us from his first fight with Sonny Liston, through his battles with the U.S. Judicial system over his refusal of the draft for Vietnam, climaxing with the memorable “Rumble in the Jungle” with George Foreman. The film goes for a ‘warts and all’ approach, showing Ali at his best, risking his career and legacy when refusing to fight a war for the U.S. “against other poor people” (“ain’t no Vietcong ever called me Nigger”), while also giving us a look at lower points such as his marriage infidelities. It earned Will Smith an Academy award nomination while earning Jamie Foxx an Academy Award win for his supporting role as Drew Bundini Brown, Ali’s hilarious Jewish motivator.

4. Malcolm X (1992)
Directed by Spike Lee, this biopic spans the life of the great civil rights leader, Malcolm X. Giving us glimpses into his childhood as it is shattered by the murder of his preacher Father at the hands of white supremacists, through to his years as the hustling, stealing, drug-taking, “Detroit Red”, as well as his time in prison and eventual joining of the Nation of Islam. We see his rise within the movement as he proved to be a magnetic presence, helping increase the movement’s popularity, before falling foul of its leadership and being exiled. We also witness his eventual conversion to orthodox Islam. Denzel Washington gives a memorable performance in the starring role that earned him an Academy Award nomination and is supported by the great Angela Bassett, playing Malcolm’s loving wife Betty. Martin Scorsese put this movie in his top 10 of the 1990’s and it is easy to see why. Malcolm’s life story should be known to all; his commitment to exposing and promoting the truth is inspirational while his willingness to disregard his past convictions when faced with new realisations is as refreshing as it is rare.

5.  Kingdom Of Heaven (2001)

kingdom-heaven-saladin-quotes-pictures-QSwCcT-quote

Perhaps the only disappointing aspect of this movie’s heavyweight line-up that includes Liam Neeson, Orlando Bloom, Brendan Gleeson, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, Edward Norton, and Michael Sheen, is the underrepresentation of Arabic actors. Granted, it does include two fine performances by the Syrian Ghassan Massoud and the British-Sudanese Alexander Siddig. The disappointment is deepened given that this movie was initially tipped to be focused on Saladin (to be played by Sean Connery), a prospect many Arabs would have been salivating over. Despite Saladin’s relegation to a screen-time moderate, supporting role, his significance in the film is still pertinent and the film does still provide several opportunities to showcase the great leader’s intelligence, mercy, and justice. The focus of Ridley Scott’s movie on religious conflict makes it all the more worthy of a watch in today’s turbulent times.

6. Salmon Fishing in the Yemen (2011)
Salmon Fishing In The Yemen

This romantic drama starring Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt, and Kristen Scott Thomas, tells the fictional tale of a British Fish expert (McGregor) who is employed by a millionaire fishing-enthusiast Sheikh who wishes to fish for wild Salmon in his native Yemen. I will willfully admit that I began this movie with a heavy heart, expecting a negative portrayal of Arabs; a “Sheikh” who would spare no cost just to fund his own bizarre vision? I anticipated incompetency and stupidity of stereotypical levels. I was pleasantly surprised to find the Arabic Sheikh, played well by Egyptian Amr Waked, to be an admirable character, well stocked in class and vision. As well as this, the movie proves to be an enjoyable, light-hearted watch.

7. The 13th Warrior (1999)

369c85c586f2de809af0e4333760bc8c

This not so famous movie also proved to be the 23rd biggest box-office bomb to date. Based on Michel Crichton’s book, Eaters of the Dead, it tells the tale of an Iraqi poet who is exiled from his land who eventually ends up in the company of Norsemen who are themselves facing an existential threat. Financial ruin aside, the movie provided us with a heroic, Muslim lead. Ok, so we might have had Spanish Antonio Banderas playing an Iraqi sultan, but beggars can’t be choosers, right? Banderas’s character is the perfect antidote to the all too common on-screen Arab; he’s honorable, intelligent, and brave. True to the age within which it is set, he is seen as being advanced, benefitting from the enlightened state of the Arabs of the time when compared to the European’s of the Dark Age. Go ahead, buy a copy and help offset the $100 million it lost.

8. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (1991)

You would be forgiven for thinking the last place you would find a positive Muslim character is a 1991 production of Robin Hood starring Kevin Costner. But lo and behold, the character of Arabic, Muslim ‘Azeem’ is certainly something quite azeem. The fact that the Arabic character is not played by an Arabic actor is almost redeemed by the fact that he is played by the wonderful Morgan Freeman. Dodgy prayer technique aside, Azeem proves to be a healthy representation of Islam and faithful companion to Robin Hood. His knowledge of alchemy, true to the age, gives Robin Hood and his men an upper hand in facing the Sheriff of Nottingham. His grace gives rise to one of the more memorable quotes from the film; when asked by an innocent girl if God “painted him”, he heartily laughs and replies: “Yes, because Allah loves wondrous varieties”.

9. Body Of Lies (2008)
The second entry directed by the Legendary Ridley Scott, this 2008 thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, is worthy of discussion. A case could certainly be made that yet another terrorism-focused movie is not what the world needs, however this movie definitely provides more nuance than most. Another gripe could be made due to what could be argued as favorable white-washing of Arabic Mukhabarat (State Intelligence Forces), however the presence of the character of Aisha, an Iranian-Jordanian nurse, secures its entry to this list. Her character could not be further from either orientalist extreme; sultry seductress or oppressed, housebound, victim. She is strong and feminine, engaging with DiCaprio’s character with confidence while proudly wearing her hijab. Russell Crowe delivers a master class in playing the arrogant, aloof, and delightfully hateable Ed Hoffman.

10. The `Reluctant Fundamentalist (2012)

The ever-impressive Riz Ahmed stars alongside Kate Hudson and Kiefer Sutherland in this political drama about a young Pakistani wrestling with his identity in the post-9/11 world. Based on the novel of the same name, Ahmed plays lead character Changez, a young man brought to the U.S. on a Princeton scholarship. Post-graduate life brings with it high-flying Wall Street work and love with Hudson’s Erica. The shifts taking place in the world around him force Changez to ask himself questions about who he is and where he belongs, questions that I am sure many young Muslims can relate to. Changez is a far cry from the one-dimensional fundamentalist that Hollywood all too often produces.

Have you ever seen any of these movies?

BLOCKBUSTERS CHARACTERS HOLLYWOOD MOVIES MUSLIM POSITIVE
Written by Tamim Mobayed
 Tamim Mobayed

Tamim is a 28 year old Dublin born Syrian who grew up in Belfast. He is working in the Media and studying for a Ph.D. in Psychology, part-time. He's a big fan of Liverpool Football Club and cats.