Freudian theory and Media

Freudian theory about the structure of the psyche (Id, Ego, and Super ego) show up in film quite often.

An example of this are movies done by the "Marx brothers", where each of the three brothers often represents a part of the psyche.

(On a side note: on stage there were five Marx brothers, but once they stared in movies only three of them became widely popular)

Harpo, representing Id:

Harpo, like the Id, cannot speak at the level of consciousness. Harpo can only communicate through signals and whistles. Harpo, again like the Id, is generally aware of what's going on and often witnesses key points in the plot, but can't tell that to the other characters.
Harpo often has clashes with the rest of society. Like the Id, Harpo's unbridled demands often put him at odds with people.

Harpo, like the libido part of Id, chases after whatever he wants. Often, Harpo is chasing women, however, he will drop the chase immediately if something else catches his interest. (Like a harp)
Harpo (Id) often has friendly clashes with Groucho (who represents Ego) when interrupting whatever Groucho is trying to do.

Chico, representing the Super-Ego:

Chico is like the Super-ego in that he is always forcing a compromise between Harpo (Id) and Groucho. (Ego) Chico is always the first to recognize that the three brothers should help the romantic couple get over their obstacles.

In some of the movies Chico plays a Super-ego more closely in line with the desires of the Id, (chasing women is what got him named "Chico" in the first place) but even then he always is loyal and does what he knows to be right.

Chico is like the Super-ego in his being the bridge between Harpo (the Id) and Groucho. (Ego) Chico is almost always the companion of Harpo, and acts as his translator.

Groucho, representing Ego:

Groucho, like the Ego, is always scheming to try and get a comfortable life. He is almost always making sarcastic remarks, and smart-mouthing in general.

Groucho is the Marx brother who interacts the most, and the most successfully with the people around him. Groucho is almost always chasing wealth instead of women, this is often the reason he is interested in Margaret Dumont's characters.

Often, Groucho is trying to get the three brothers to follow his plan, he almost always ends up explaining his plan to Chico. Chico often confuses him to the point where his plans don't even make sense to him! (Notice the relationship of the Ego submitting it's ideas to the scrutiny of the Super-ego)

Conclusion:

The three of them always have to work together before the story can end. The three brothers represent a complete, though incredibly wacky character.

*The source for all the pictures in this blog posting is the movie "Duck Soup" I used Jing (A TechSmith product) to capture these images from my copy of the movie.

Narrative theory and Napolean

Napoléon Bonaparte was a man who changed the equilibrium of Monarchical Europe.

Old equilibrium:

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15th 1769 in Corsica, the son of a minor nobleman. He joined the French military in 1785, and was mainly in Corsica during the beginnings of the French revolution.

At the time of his birth, the monarchy in France was almost unquestioned, having been established for several centuries, and bolstered by the strong and lengthy rule of King Louis the XIV, the "sun king" who had ruled France for 72 years.

Louis XIV:

While Louis XIV was long dead, and his successors were not as powerful as he was, you have to remember that neither the Seven years war (Which caused tension between American colonists and the British parliament, and weakened France), nor the American Revolution had taken place yet. Monarchical power was still on top.

Breaking of the equilibrium:

Not 20 years later, the French revolution had begun. The aristocracy was threatened by the common people, something that was the reverse of how things had been for the last couple of centuries. Over the next ten years, the monarchy of France was replaced with a radical democratic republic.

Here the storming of the Bastile is depicted:

Once the commotion of the "reign of terror" was over and the establishment of the National Convention was completed,

Napoleon's fortunes improved. He was promoted to Commander of the Interior and given command of the Army of Italy. He was given the task of invading and conquering Italy.

Here Napoleon is depicted crossing the Alps; the painting hearkens back Hannibal crossing the Alps:

In 1801 Napoléon, who was by this point a high ranking general and well liked by the people for his successful military exploits in Italy and Egypt, was approached a member of the directory (The governing council that ruled France) asking for his support in a coup to overthrow the government. He accepted the offer.

The coup was successful, and from 1801 to 1803 Napoléon was one of the three consuls of France.

Here Napoleon is depicted in the coup de etat:

New equilibrium:

In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France.

It is very interesting how this action mimicked Julius Caesar's becoming an emperor; consider: a triumvirate was present with both, (Napoleon being one of three Consuls) Napoleon is a great military leader, (like Julius Caesar) and the symbolic presence of the golden olive wreath. (The physical sign that they are the same kind of man)

Here is the sketch drawn at the coronation and final painting by Jacque-Louis David. As you can see, the pictures tell very different stories. In the sketch, the Pope is sitting looking sullen, and Napoleon looks proud and arrogant. In the painting however, the Pope has his hand raised in blessing, and Napoleon simply looks majestic. Napoleon knew the value of propaganda, and had Jacque-Louis David paint the picture the way He wanted it instead of the way it happened.

Napoleon was excellent at portraying his efforts as a new era, in tune with the spirit of fraternity, brotherhood, and patriotism.

*

This is not the end of Napoleon's tale; however, this is merely the end my study on how Napoleon changed the way rulers governed in Europe.

Napolean at Austerlitz:

The battle of Trafalgar:

The battle of Waterloo:

The Russians marching into Paris:

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napolean_bonapart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars#Political_effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

All pictures used in this blog posting are public domain as specified by US copyright law.

Arsenic and Old Lace

A closer look into genre and character archetypes.

Mytheme: Fish out of water. (Mortimer Brewster is forced to sort out his family's life.)

Genre: Screwball Comedy.

Character Archetypes (Vladimir Propp):

The Princess- Elaine Harper (Priscilla Lane) * The Hero- Mortimer Brewster (Carry Grant)

The Villain/The Shadow- Jonathan Brewster (Raymond Massey)

Dispatchers-The Aunts. (played by Josephine Hull and Jean Adair)


Introduction:

The story begins on with an author (played by Carry Grant) who has made a name for himself by writing "The Bachelors Bible" is going to get married.

He tries to do this secretly but when a few reporters see him he thinks about calling the whole marriage off.
Calling marriage a superstition,and talking about how senseless it is for him to be married is quickly silenced by one look into his sweetheart's eyes.

They are married, and the only thing left to do is to break the news to his aunts.


1Preparation:

He and Elaine intend to visit briefly, and continue on to their honeymoon. Mortimer goes to his aunts house while Elaine visits her family who live in the neighborhood.

Mortimer comes back to his old home to tell his aunts about what is happening, everything is going well until Mortimer find a body in the window seat; thinking that his younger brother Teddy(Who thinks he's Theodore Roosevelt) is responsible. He tells his aunts only to find out that They have killed eleven other men and have had Teddy bury the bodies in the cellar, which they call the 'panama canal'.

Mortimer figures the only way to cover this up is to have Teddy take the blame, since Teddy is crazy he can't be charged with anything. Mortimer now has to try and get Teddy to 'Happy dale' Sanatorium as soon as possible.


2Complication:
Mortimer now has to get a psychiatrist to examine Teddy and a judge to sign approval of Teddy's admittance to happy dale.

In one of the more brilliant moments of dialogue in film history, Mortimer somehow manages to convince Teddy to use the code name Brewster instead of Roosevelt, his "real" name.

Mortimer and the psychiatrist leave the house to get the Judge's approval.

The Aunts have Teddy bring the body down to the cellar, so they can have a funeral for him.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Brewster, Mortimer's older brother who is also a serial killer, shows up at the Aunts house. Jonathan has had massive plastic surgery to hide his identity (Making him look like Boris Karloff) and is trying to have another operation because the police are looking for him.

The body of Jonathan's latest victim is in the trunk of his car, he has it moved to the window seat to keep it hidden.


3Transferance:
Mortimer comes back from visiting the judge, and finds Jonathan's latest victim in the window seat.

Shouting "Ye gods, there's another one!", Mortimer brings the aunts downstairs and confronts them again.
They don't recognize the body, and tell him it must be Jonathan's.

Mortimer meets Jonathan again, they quarrel briefly but Mortimer is too distracted with getting Teddy to the insane asylum to pay close attention.


4The struggle:

Mortimer tells Elaine that he can't marry her because "Insanity runs in this family, it practically gallops!"

Mortimer, while talking about the stupidity of characters in plays he has critiqued outlines how character was captured, while he is saying this Jonathan does exactly what he says!

The police show up and Jonathan starts to fight them after misunderstanding what they were talking about.


5The return:
Jonathan is subdued by the police and taken into custody. The aunts agree to go to happy dale with Teddy.


6Recognition:
Mortimer finds out that he is not a Brewster at all!

He can marry Elaine!

The Screwball Comedy

My favorite genre of all time has to be the 'Screwball comedy' of the 1930's to 40's.

Films like: "It happened one night", "You can't take it with you", and"Arsenic and old lace" are films that in my opinion, are some of the best films ever made.

Characteristics of the genre include:

• Romantic leads who are initially portrayed as complete opposites.
• Witty, fast paced dialogue and repartee.
• A range of backgrounds from the poorest to the ridiculously wealthy.

While some of these elements continued to be incorporated into comedies even today, I feel that on one has quite come up to the same level of artistry that they achieved with this genre.

One of the reason I think no one has been able to reproduce that same level of comedic quality is the development of cinematography. I feel that the cinematography of the time was just simple enough that the focus was on the dialogue and story rather than on the camera angle.

While we have progressed in our understanding of cinematography, I think we have lost that simple style which enabled a clearer telling of a tale.

Another thing which separates us from the genre of screwball comedy is that the 'shark has been jumped' concerning how far filmmakers will go to portray romantic interest.

Filmmakers today don't work with the same kind of tension and innuendo that they did then, they dive right into situations that are intensely personal and private, making the situations visceral instead of comedic.

As stories, they were much fuller in their list of characters. Films today don't have the same broad, 'real life' perspective that they did then.

While there was still the focus of the story on the main couple, there were often several minor couples who also had to work things out before the story could be fully told. I think this added to the overall enjoyment of the film.

One of the things I hope to do someday as a filmmaker is to revive this genre; perhaps the time has come and gone and what was done can't be done again... but even if it cannot be revived, I intend to tip my hat in their direction...

My Favorite clothes:

My favorite clothes are not something I can wear down the street.

I can't go to the grocery store in my favorite clothes without getting at best disapproving scowls, and at worst getting kicked out of the store.

If I walked into your living room in my favorite clothes, you would probably wonder what the cat dragged in.

To briefly list their faults:

• These clothes are mismatched.

• These clothes are torn.

• These clothes are filthy.

These clothes seem to say that I don't understand basic hygiene, that I'm probably someone who isn't right in the head, or that I have no respect for order and decency.

Why would a sane person be dressed like this?

Because I use these clothes when I go caving.

For me, these clothes have a different meaning than can be seen at first glance:

• These clothes do not mark me as an outcast, they show that I belong.

• These clothes do not say that I'm unable to take care of myself, they show that I have gone beyond the edge of the world I know.

• The dirt on these clothes is not careless, it is hard earned.

Part of the tradition I have developed while going caving is that every time I go caving and put my clothes in the washing machine, my caving shirt becomes a shade darker from the mud.

The day (years from now) when you see an old geezer walking down the street in a tattered ruddy-brown shirt... don't scowl at him, or wonder why he has that stupid grin on his face...

Go up to him, and shake his hand... congratulate him on a job well done.

Cavemen

I belong to a group of what I'd like to call Modern Day Cavemen.

Ours is a distinguished group, a band of brothers, a noble order of explorers.

*

While the main focus of our group is to have fun, the unofficial aim of our group is to teach young men and boys some of the skills they need in order to be Men.

The method we use to teach these skills is to go caving.

Being always careful to have the owner's permission beforehand, we explore the caves in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia.

The skills we teach are things you can't necessarily learn in a classroom, things like self-confidence and the ability to face challenges anew.

One of the ways we teach these things is when we come to a difficult part of the cave, and you don't know how to get beyond it, we walk people through things and teach them the best way to handle challenges.

1. We teach people how to step back and remain calm.
2. Re-evaluate the situation they find themselves in.
3. And find a new way to overcome the obstacles they face.

I believe these principles can be applied to almost any challenge an adult will face in their life.

What is semiotics?

Semiotics is the study of the possible conditions of meaning.


Semiotics is related to Semantics except that semantics (Coming from the Greek word "Semata" meaning sign) is the study of meaning, whereas semiotics is the study of the possible meaning of signs particularly within codes.

You might ask at this point: What is a sign?


Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the founders of Semiotics said:

"A sign is the basic unit of language (a given language at a given time). Every language is a complete system of signs."


A sign in it's simplest nature is anything that points to something else. "Something else" can be an image, an object, a time, a place, anything.

For example, the letters I'm using to write this are each signs, and those signs work together to form words (also signs), and these words (working within the system of signs or the "code" we call the English language) work together to communicate ideas.


To understand the nature of signs we have to understand which part of the sign we are talking about. To clarify we therefor divide signs into two categories:


Signifier -The sign itself, the thing that points.

Signified -The thing pointed to.


For example:
DOG -This word is a signifier, it points to something.

What does it point to? If you are reading this it probably brings up an image of a dog you've either had as a pet, or just the idea of "man's best friend". These images are what is signified.

But what if you were someone from a middle eastern country? First of all, you might not speak English, so the letters D-O-G might not mean anything to you. (The only thing you see signified are a bunch of squiggly lines)

Assuming you do speak English however, in the middle east dogs are culturally not considered to be man's best friend. (Perhaps the image brought to mind is a vicious street mongrel?)

So as you can see, the word "dog" does not have a universal meaning. Within different codes of understanding, "dog" can have many meanings.


Signification is not universal, things signified have a infinite number of signifiers to go with them.

Semiotics is the study of the link between signifier and signified, studying the codes of meaning we employ in order to communicate.