Conform or Subvert Hollywood

This 3rd blog post is in accordance to course work for the module Cinema and Society: Select two or more films of your choice and discuss the manner in which they either conform or subvert hollywood / mainstream filmmaking standards and techniques in at least 500 words.
 

For the following blog post I am going refer to the seven deadly sins of hollywood cinema vs the seven cardinal virtues of counter cinema, by Peter Wollen in "Godard and Counter Cinema: Vent d'Est".

Narrative transitivity vs Narrative Intransitivity
Identity vs Estrangement
Transparency vs Foregrounding
Single Diegesis vs Multiple Diegesis
Closure vs Aperture
Pleasure vs Un-pleasure
Fiction vs Reality

The first film which I am going to discuss whether it conforms or subverts Hollywood is Blake Edwards 1961 film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" starring Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard.

The early romantic comedy follow a regular narrative transitivity where an up and coming author played by Peppard moves into an apartment block where Hepburn's character Holly Golightly lives with her cat "Cat-Cat". Hepburn's character is identifiable to any woman who just wants to be loved, or those who can see the naivety of her actions. The seamless flow of the film does not put any doubt in the viewers mind that this is a mainstream Hollywood production, lacking the broken linking between scenes you could imagine from a counter cinema piece. Everything you witness within Breakfast at Tiffany's belongs as part of the film, from Golightly's apartment to Tiffany's the jeweler's itself, none of it is put there to make the viewer think, why is it there? The meaning of the film is simple and it is about love, it would be hard to find any deeper meaning (unless you consider the novel - which for this purpose we are not). Breakfast at Tiffany's is a happy fictional film, you would not watch it and feel sad, or would you consider it to be reality. This film definitely conforms to the standards and techniques of a Hollywood mainstream movie.

The second film I am going to discuss whether it conforms or subverts Hollywood is Peter Jackson's adaption of Alice Sebold's "The Lovely Bones" (2009) starring Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and Saoirse Ronan in the leading roles.

Peter Jackson is known for making his Hollywood blockbusters, and although this is know exception, there is aspects which may be slightly different. Jackson has made the narrative intransitivity evident throughout this film as the viewer is always left thinking whether Saoirse Ronan's character Susie Salmon is going to choose between retribution or the peace of her family. Viewers can identify with the characters, through the family loosing the members and being in the position where you have to make a decision, maybe not just for your benefit. Although the film does flow seamlessly, it is broken up by the fantasy like dream scenes of Susie in the "afterlife" where she is willing that someone finds her body so her family can get some peace. In regards to the dream scenes though, there is a single diegisis where the viewer is not left wondering what is happening. Considering this piece is fictional, and about a young girls murder, as the viewer you are still left with pleasure at the end, you are not left questioning what happened. I believe this also conforms to Hollywood, although not in as a direct way as Breakfast at Tiffany's did.


Sources:

http://www.imdb.com

NICHOLS, B., 1985. Movies and Methods: An Anthology, Volume 2. 2nd ed. London: England, University of California Press.