Comparative essay

The Zodiac is a film based on the pseudonym of an unidentified serial killer who operated in Northern California from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. The film was directed by David Fincher and was based off Robert Graysmith’s nonfiction book “zodiac”. Fincher is a golden globe winning director, He’ well-known for directing Se7en and Fight Club. Most of his films stick to the thriller/mystery genre and so he suited this film perfectly. Fincher also obsessed with the subject and was extremely meticulous to make sure that the film was an accurate representation to the real events. 

The Zodiac is mainly focused on Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) who worked at the San Francisco Chronicle as a cartoonist where he quickly became obsessed with the zodiac killer’s case and devoted his life to catch him, He works alongside Paul Avery (Robert Downey, JR.) who is the criminal journalist at the Chronical. They both strive to catch the killer and become very involved in the investigation both working with and against the detective David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo). The Zodiac killer taunted the police with letters and ciphers bragging about what he had already done to his victims or what he will do. The case remains one of the most infamous unsolved cases in history.

The Boston strangler is loosely based on the murderer or murderers of 13 women in the Boston area during the early 1960s. It was directed by Richard Fleischer who directed the first Dr Dolittle and The Narrow Margin. Fleischer had to overcome some hurdles when creating the horrific murder scenes due to the restrictions at the time.

Due to Hays code which was the set of industry moral guidelines that was applied to most United States motion pictures released by major studios from 1930 to 1968. These rules meant that films such as the Boston strangler had to be careful with how graphic the scenes were. This is why Richard Fleischer chose to shoot the murder scenes like he did. Rather than showing the killings themselves he showed the reactions of the people who found the body’s which was equally as horrific.

The Boston Strangler was one of the earliest serial killer films which paved the way for directors like David Fincher with his films like Se7en and The Zodiac. In the 60’s a “serial killer” was not a commonly recognized genre of film because it hadn’t been explored much. One of the first major serial killer films was psycho which definitely influenced Fleischer when making The Boston Strangler. This is my favourite genre of film because of how the directors portray the killers and show their motives

The film focuses on the whole city’s fears towards the strangler, the audience is shown interviews with the citizens showing their fear because of how unpredictable the killer was. The same applies for The Zodiac as his killings didn’t have a pattern and so the whole city was in fear. I think that the directors exaggerate the idea of the killings being random to scare the audience as the films are set in major cities and so one of the motifs of these films is to strike fear into the audience and make them aware of serial killers.

The zodiac was released in 2007

The Boston strangler was released in 1968 just 4 years after he was caught, this timeline means the story was still relatively fresh in the public’s memories and so would have been very meaningful for audiences of that time. As well as the strangler, there was another famous killer in the 60’s nicknamed “the railway sniper”. The sniper was active between 1963-1978 so the Boston Strangler would have really struck fear into the audience at the time.

When watching both films I realised many similarities and differences for example the layout of the films was similar in that it was a race against the clock to find the killer before he killed again. The editing in Boston strangler is very unique because it uses a lot of split screen shots when showing the murders which u don’t really see in modern films. Fleischer uses these split shots to show the reaction of the people who find the murdered bodies rather than the actual killings, this technique creates a theme for the audience so the murders stand out in the film. In The Zodiac Fincher shows the killings but never the killers face to add confusion and keep the audience guessing.

Fincher is considered by many as an auteur because of his masterful use of lighting, he is extremely skilled at creating an atmosphere just through the use of lighting, Vashi Nedomansky said “the final image is Dark Clarity and matches the mood and tone” I find this depiction represents exactly what the atmosphere is like in Finchers films, especially The Zodiac with its dark story line to coincide. Richard Fleischer on the other hand is not as renowned for any specific specialities, I personally thought that in The Boston Strangler the main element is the editing.

When we watch old thrillers today we don’t find them too shocking because modern cinema is much more graphic but the Boston strangler is shocking even today, not because of the visual aspect but because of the constant references to rape and the details given by the policemen in the film. I found the film shocking and so can’t imagine what the audiences of the 60’s were feeling after it but I’m sure it would have had a big affect on them. I think this is the main difference between the films, audiences in the 60’s wouldn’t be able to handle The Zodiac because of the graphic killings and the sinister undertones throughout the film.

How the Sphagetti Western allows for innovation in film genre’s by inspiring a innovative narrative structure format?

• Propps characters, anti heroes
• Film Structure
• Where they become similar, auteur theory, directors ideas in story
• Western to a Western Sci-fi
• Where Cameron innovates and evolves from Leone’s structure

Propps Characters

Man with No Name=Sarah Connor, the hero

Tuco= T-800(Arnold Schwarzenegger), the helper

Angel Eyes=T-1000, the villain

Gold=John Connor, the dispatcher, the prize

General=Miles Bennet Dyson, The donor

Bounty Hunters=Dr Peter Silberman, False heroes

Similarities, refers to man with no name as Clint and T-800 as Arnold

The two movies main characters can be seen as clear parallels to each other accept for the Gold and John Connor what represent ideally the same things but are visualized as different.

Clint and Sarah are their movies main characters despite being in ensemble casts are standouts through being the two characters who keep the film grounded. Both are serious characters who overcome difficult situations in the film with Clint walking through a desert with no water and Sarah in a mental asylum. However both are these anti-heroes where the audience sees their true personalities despite both clearly trying to hide who they truly are, these glimpses can be seen by Sarah going to kill Dyson in front of his family while Clint committing fraud, from saving criminals from hanging who he gave into the law. The idea that both characters are not truly heroes but act out in heroic emotions show. The fact they are these flawed action heroes appeal clearly in the movies and has been clearly used by Terminator 2 to differentiate their cast as much as possible.

Clint: Last night. You see in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend – those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

Sarah: Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you’re so creative. You don’t know what it’s like to really create something, to create a life, feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction -!

Also both need a distinct style to show their true identities

An antihero or anti-heroine is a main character in a story who lacks conventional heroic qualities and attributes such as idealism, courage and morality. Although antiheroes may sometimes perform actions that are morally correct, it is not always for the right reasons, often acting primarily out of self-interest or in ways that defy conventional ethical codes.

Tuco and Arnold are similar to each other by the idea you don’t know if you want to trust either character as Tuco is a bandit who continues to rival with Clint while Arnold is a replica of the first films previous villain and you don’t know if he will change sides. While both characters become more human further into the movie by the idea that Tuco becomes a friend to Clint while Arnold becomes like a father to John in the movie. As well both are used for a comedic affect.

Angel Eyes and T-100 are presented as the same person as both are emotionless killers who are tracking down the main characters. Both also represent the Law in the movies.

The ending scenes between both have similarities by how its standoff between three characters. The villains both die with both ending in a pit. While the only big difference is Clint shoots the noose before Tuco is hung while Sarah lets Arnold destroy itself.

a lean, mean survivalist with a cold, raspy voice-Voice

How do the early films of auteur director Stanley Kubrick compare to his later works in terms of the use of cinematography as a principal storytelling device?

(Explained using examples from “2001: A Space Odyssey” – 1968 and “Full Metal jacket” – 1987

What is an Auteur Theory ?

Auteur theory is a theory of filmmaking in which “The director is viewed as the major creative force in a motion picture” (1)

“The auteur theory, which was derived largely from Astruc’s elucidation of the concept of Caméra-Stylo (“camera-pen”), holds that the director, who oversees all audio and visual elements of the motion picture, is more to be considered the “author” of the movie than is the writer of the screenplay.” (1)

In essence, An auteur is a director who is in full creative control of their film, this is usually identifiable by having original traits or styles that they may have popularised / invented or are known for using often.

What are Kubrick’s textbook characteristics/ styles/ themes than run through most of his films?

Symmetry – the use of one point perspective. Although one point perspective is not an exact representation of symmetry in cinema, it is a way of creating cinematic shots with near perfect symmetry. O.P.P is perfect for drawing the viewers attention into the center, Kubrick used it to encapsulate the viewer in his fictional environments, this is so effective due to the fact that there is only one way out – forward, for example in “The Shining” – 1980 When following Danny through the halls, the viewer is constantly moving forward with Danny, therefore immersing the viewer into the film as if they are in just as much danger as Danny. It can be very subtle but many films have used it especially 2001 and Full Metal Jacket

• 

• 

Tracking shots – especially the “Steadicam”. This is another technique used in many of his films. Tracking shots are any shot where the camera moves forwards, backwards, or along the side of / with the subject as it moves. Usually tracking shots are constructed by putting a camera on a Dolly then on a track however if following in front or behind the subject, the tracks will be seen. This is the reason for the invention of the Steadicam, not only is it easier to maneuver and set up (no need for a track) but there is no trace of presence unlike a track. Kubrick uses this constantly to help connect his audience with the characters and incite all the different emotions the subject might be exposed to. In 2001 the tracking shots helped preserve the symmetry as Dr Bowman moved through the space station’s tunnels because the camera moved with him. In Full Metal Jacket, tracking shots follow the sergeant as he speaks to each of the soldiers in a line, its a smooth way to follow him looking from soldier to soldier whilst preserving symmetry.

Wide angle lens – Kubrick was extremely interested in the wide angle lens in his early photography and he has carried it into his films as a beautiful technique that he likes to pair with one point perspective. The wide angle lens is like a feast for the audiences eyes as there is much more to take in, its subtle and extravagant at the same time, enough to become a staple technique but no enough that it seems disruptive or uncomfortable. Kubrick has created a perfect balance of subtlety and originality. This is what makes Kubrick such an amazing film maker.

Monolithic themes: Kubrick often uses monolithic beings/elements in his films that are far more powerful than our characters, these beings / elements convey a sense of dystopian control. This can be obvious in 2001 in the example of HAL: being a super computer with immoral intent and nearly full control over our protagonist and his surroundings. Or it can be very subtle like in full metal jacket the idea of war being a type of dystopian control, as if referencing to a future world where everyone fights for survival. This links to the timeline of Kubrick’s films where before “A Clockwork Orange” – 1971 Kubrick’s films presented these monolithic beings/ elements in very visual ways like in 2001, The Shining and Dr Strangelove – 1964. Whereas after Clockwork, the style did slightly change, and these monolithic elements started being displayed in a more conceptual way. In fact, a quote from Gilles Deleuze talks about these monolithic beings / elements as being products of a “cinematographic brain”. He talks about how the Mise En Scene is a brain and the beings inside it are on a journey through it, these monolithic beings / elements are catalysts for change and evolution and propel our character through not only the story, but through the cinematographic brain. However it is worth mentioning that in Full Metal Jacket the drill sergeant also represents the monolithic themes, He is extremely harsh and inhumane. But as well as that he is a catalyst for change, similar to the obelisk / monolith in the 2001. He is the reason these characters become what they are and is a very big part of the “Cinematographic brain” that Deleuze talks about. This obviously is a very visual representation of the monolithic themes, similar to 2001, which begs the question how much of Kubrick’s cinematographic auteur style, relies on Alcott, and how much is influenced by him?

“If we look at Kubrick’s work, we see the degree to which it is the brain, which is the Mis[e] En Scene. Attitudes of body achieve a maximum level of violence, but they depend on the brain. For in Kubrick, the world itself is a brain, there is identity of brain and world, as in the great circular and luminous table in Dr strangelove, the giant computer in 2001: a space Odyssey, the overlook hotel in the shining. The black stone of 2001 presides of cosmic states and cerebral states, it is the soul of three bodies, earth, sun and moon. But also the seed of three brains, animal, human, machine. Kubrick is renewing the theme of the initiatory journey, because every journey in the world is an exploration of the brain“ (3) –
Gilles Deleuze

Here, it seems, Deleuze is referencing to how kubrick’s style is exponentially more than what can just be seen on the screen. Each different component seen in his film is like a catalyst to spark emotions, they all work together interchangeably and form a giant “brain”

“For in Kubrick, the world itself is a brain, there is identity of brain and world, as in the great circular and luminous table in Dr strangelove, the giant computer in 2001: a space Odyssey, the overlook hotel in the shining.” (3)

Even though Kubrick’s later films did not have Alcott as a D.O.P, regardless of how it visually looks, Kubrick’s ability to create a deep and incredibly complex world that’s almost representative of a brain is still there and that plays a big part in distinguishing his style.

How did Kubrick’s Style Develop and where did it come from?

A large proportion of kubrick’s visual style was derived from his previous work as a street photographer, capturing the highs and lows of life in New York.

most notably his use of the wide angle lens and O.P.P – the vanishing point:

• 

• 

• 

• 

At this age, Kubrick’s style was still developing, however we can see some early inspiration for the deep focus that is an important factor in the wide angle shots we see in his later films, especially 2001:

Kubrick’s partnership with Alcott

Kubrick first started to work with Alcott on the film “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968). It is evident here that Alcott helped Kubrick to voice his style, all the early ideas blossomed into reality during this partnership. 2001 was a breakthrough in cinematography and Visual effects, in fact, it won an academy award for best visual effects. This was kubrick’s first film that left an immense impression on the world and brought his name to the top. Alcott & Kubrick introduced multiple beautiful cinematographic techniques into this film like the O.P.P, tracking shots and the wide angle lens + deep focus. And although there was evidence of these techniques earlier on in his career, Alcott really helped him to bring it into practice in his films. After 2001 Alcott worked on 3 more films with Kubrick as his cinematographer:

Clockwork orange – 1971. Barry Lyndon – 1975. The Shining – 1980.

These were all visual masterpieces, anything from the Mise-En-Scene in Clockwork Orange to the cinematography in Barry Lyndon and The Shining. However The Shining was the last film that they worked on together due to Alcott’s death in 1986. This leads us to Full Metal Jacket where the cinematographer is now Douglas Milsome.

How does his visual storytelling change throughout his career.

In order to answer this i will have to closely look at the cinematography in from one of Kubrick’s earlier films: “2001: A space odyssey” 1968. And compare it to one of his last films “Full metal Jacket” 1987. I will assess the range and volume of cinematographic techniques and decide whether each one is narrative driven or visually driven – through the cinematography.

[ Research done on separate document looking at specific examples to compare cinematography ]

research:

2001:

timestamp 17:12 starts with a establishing shot of the current world, although this isn’t the first shot in the film, it is establishing the narrative jump in time, from a more primitive time with primitive basic shots to this futuristic society, we get to see the earth from the space as if to represent mankind evolution and colonization of space. The cinematography is able to express the narrative without any human subjects or dialogue

if we compare this to full metal jacket where at 1:16 we have another establishing shot, we can see that the scene is more narrative based, rather than using the cinematography as its own device by enticing the viewer with brilliant cinematic shots, it directly follows the character to keep them in shot, moving with them – the narrative moves the camera.

2001 does this constantly throughout it’s film, extraordinary shots of space with little to no human subject, creating the narrative on its own. Whereas full metal jacket uses many simple tracking shots to represent the narrative pulling it along with the characters.

This uncovers the foundation of my argument about Kubrick’s use of cinematography as a story telling device changes throughout his career:

during the start of his career his films were heavily based on beautiful cinematography, i believe that Kubrick’s partnership with Alcott inspired him and drove him to create these masterpieces. In films like 2001 or the shining, the magnificent shots are what create the narrative and story, to the point where it seems that if the human subjects were removed, the story would continue. We can be introduced to their worlds without any context, just what we can see, however in Full Metal jacket it felt very narrative based, we move with the subject and every shot seems to be based around the character.

It is evident then, that in Kubrick’s later films (specifically after the loss of cinematographer John Alcott) the narrative carries a heavier priority in the end product over the cinematography.

2001: 24:38 camera not moving but the moon in the background is represents that the film is less based upon the characters and the narrative but rather of the evolution and progression of that cinematic universe.

older films seem artificial because the cinematography is so innovative, however newer films are made so cinematography brings viewer into the narrative, the Steadicam brought the viewer in whereas 2001 kept them away, stopped them empathising and rather made them watch.

2001’s cinematography seems artificial because it very obviously is. Practical effects were used over CGI to make it seem like the characters were actually in zero gravity, large spinning sets were actually created to simulate the ship, the camera would stay fixed as the set rotated and the actor walked to stay upright, because the camera moved with the set, it made it look like it was the actor that was the odd one out and was moving giving it a impossibly weird, centrifugal gravity effect, because 2001’s cinematography was so stylistic and artificial, it pushed the viewer away, this mean’t that the viewer would view the film from an outside perspective, as a member of the audience rather than being immersed into the narrative. By the time FMJ was released, Kubrick had started to value the importance of narrative and immersing the viewer into it, additionally, with the invention of the Steadicam, Kubrick was able to do combine beautiful shots with perfect immersion to help encapsulate the viewer into the narrative.

Additionally, the way Kubrick used the camera as a narrative device changes by the time we get to FMJ. In 2001 the monolithic themes are represented very literally in the example of the obelisk type monument. From 48:07 onward in that scene, Kubrick

FMJ – monolithic theme is the camp and the drill sergeant is the output for it. In fmj we have an emotional connection and we interact with the monolithic themes through joker – immersing us into the narrative, in 2001, there is no emotional connection between HAL and Dave. in 2001 moon scene with obelisk, the absence of dialogue, facial close ups and emotional connection helps portray the scene as more aesthetic than as narrative progression to the story.

2001 in 1:29:36 the close up of Dave reminds us of private Pyle, dehumanised by the situation, however unlike in FMJ there is no counterweight, no output to connect emotionally to the situation, there is no Joker for us to see the world through, since there isn’t this emotional connection, once again, it seems an aesthetic move rather than a method of storytelling. The audience has to force themselves into the film (2001) because there is no perspective to see the world through like Joker is to us in FMJ.

The drill sergeant is never flinching even up to his death.

quotes:

1: https://www.britannica.com/art/auteur-theory

2: http://www.mediafactory.org.au/natalie-milidoni/2014/03/14/astrucs-camera-stylo/

3: https://books.google.je/books?id=2pzfL7PJWBsC&pg=PT167&lpg=PT167&dq=the+cinematographic+brain+of+2001:+space+odyssey+marcia+landy&source=bl&ots=E-IOfNXINb&sig=ACfU3U037TTXsdNps40Q0X1HhuXDBt33bQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigqaz_0_fiAhXNasAKHdB-BwsQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20cinematographic%20brain%20of%202001%3A%20space%20odyssey%20marcia%20landy&f=false

general research:

http://criticaltheoryindex.org/assets/naremore%2C-james-stanley-kubrick-and-the-aesthetics-of-the-grotesque.pdf

born August 28, 1962 Alien 3 (1992)

Se7en (1995)

zodiac (2007)

Gone girl (2014)

The social network (2010)

panic room (2002)

the game (1997)

Golden globe for best director

BAFTA for best direction