In the “Film Audience” chapter of Graeme Turner’s “Film as a Social Practice IV”, he discusses the viewers of these films and their influence on the film itself. Turner writes, “Movies might be made by actors, directors and producers, but they are ultimately made successful by audiences.” (pg. 130) I found the section on “Audience Identification” was very interesting. Turner analyzes the relationship between the viewer and the character on screen. “We have always been told that we ‘identify with’ ourselves in characters on the screen.” (pg. 151) Is this the reason why we go to movies in the first place? To see a modified version of ourselves on a large screen? This element of identification with a character seems somewhat narcissistic, which is one of the categories of Freud’s discussion of human sexuality. “There is the narcissistic (seeing oneself reflected on the screen), the voyeuristic (enjoying the power of another’s image on the screen), and the fetishistic (a way of exaggerating the power of material things or people in order to deal with one’s fear of them).” (pg 153)
In class we watched clips from films such as “Rear Window”, “Peeping Tom” and “River of No Return”, which to me exemplified voyeurism at its finest. In “Rear Window”, we as the audience are seeing through the eyes of L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Though I do not feel like I identify with Stewart’s character, I can definitely relate. I mean, I do not think that it is hard for anyone to relate to his character. When I was younger I would take my binoculars, look outside my window from the 38th floor and see what people were doing in their homes (creepy? I hope not) But I think subconsciously I was hoping to see something I should not have, like a fight between a couple that they are hoping no one next door can hear. Unfortunately, I never found anything interesting. In any case, I think “Rear Window” is a film of voyeurism because Jeffries places himself in quite the predicament that no viewer would ever want to be in. Therefore we enjoy seeing the power of Jeffries image on the screen.
Though the viewer may not enjoy seeing the power that “Peeping Tom” has on others, seeing as he is a murderer, it still is a clear example of voyeurism. The scene, where is killing that young woman, we never see his face. We are watching the entire murder through his eyes. And I do not think that Powell (the director) intended for the audience to relate to this killer but in order to truly gage the fear of the victim. Placing ourselves in the eyes of the murderer almost makes us feel as though we, as innocent onlookers, are killing her. This filming technique along with the continuous shot (using 3 cuts) intensifies the suspense and adds to the horror. Another aspect of this scene is the sexuality of the female. As we discussed in class, as she is walking up those stairs to her doom, the camera cuts her up: feet, legs, hips and back. She becomes the object of desire both to the male audience and to “Peeping Tom”. When she realizes that she is being filmed she is sitting on the bed with no skirt on and as he slowly approaches her, she slowly leans back onto the bed with a “female vulnerability” that is appealing the male audience.
Similarly, we saw this female vulnerability and “the body chop up” sequence in the clip of “River of No Return”. First off, this film stars Marilyn Monroe, the sex symbol of the fifties. Therefore, we know that this film will use camera techniques to emphasize her sexuality. The scene that we saw in class showed a “body chop up” sequence and once the camera got to her face there was a long hold on her face. The entire set up of the scene, a beautiful woman sitting on a piano in a sparkly leotard (or whatever the get up was) singing surrounded by men, seemed to be targeted for the male audience. Turner claims, “The male does not identify narcissistically with the female object of his voyeuristic look. Similarly, a female spectator is unlikely to indentify with the object of the voyeuristic look.” I tend to disagree with the second half of this statement. I think a female audience can identify with the object of desire. I agree that the female body is fetishized for male pleasure however; I also tend to think that a woman can relate or desires to relate to the object of voyeurism. I think that even though some female audiences may be offended by an overly sexualized character, other women can be envious of these women: not necessarily in an insecure manner, but in order to be inspired or in fact boost confidence. Perhaps it is just me, but I have always thought that viewers are way too sensitive about the images shown in the movies or even on television. But that is a whole other discussion…

Off-Screen space

As Laura stated in her post, "Cache breaks all the traditional narrative and cinematography rules." I tend to agree with that statement as Haneke (the director of the film) uses "off-screen space", which is a technique that enhances the mystery of the film. Off-screen space implies a blindness that an audience is not used to in classical narrative. We, as an audience, are used to knowing the secret and figuring out major clues, however when we do not have these elements we feel unsettled. For example,Hitchcock's Suspicion, the audience did participate in the scene where Beaky is murdered, as we usually would be in most classical narratives. However, this allowed the audience to feel the anxiety that Lina felt; her burning question, "did my husband murder Beaky?". In this case the off-screen space shapes the emotions of the audience. Another example, of off-screen space is in the first scene of Cache, Haneke gives the audience an establishing shot of the Laurents home. This image is held for a while, longer than the typical establishing shot. Why did Haneke decide to do this? As many of the posters stated, after the first 30 seconds of the establishing shot the audience no longer has the attention on the house but what is off screen. Who is watching this house? why? what is the interest? This is where off-screen space becomes essential to the narrative. Throughout the film, the family's stalker leaves video tapes and drawings in order to torment Georges. Once we discover that the images are related to Georges past, we realize that everything that is happening off screen is connected to bad memories from Georges past. And just as an interjection! when Georges is confronting Majid, you would think that he would be trying to make up for their bad relationship as children however he gets very defensive and angry, which just proves some kind of guilt, that we are unfortunately unaware of. It is also important to the last scene in the film, where the two sons are seen meeting on the steps after school and yet we, the audience, cannot hear there conversation. Throughout the movie we were not under the impression that the two sons knew each other. So we end the film as we started: unaware voyeurs.
Another interesting element of Cache is the lack of music, which is something Tyler and Annie discussed in there posts. I think this silence emphasizes our blindness throughout the film. There are no musical cues to let us know something bad is about to happen. I feel like this is uncommon in films, however I think it adds to the suspense and even frustration that there are really no major clues for us to pick up on.

Simple Love Story

Garret Cooper quotes Heath saying, “The look, joins form of expression- the composition of the images and their disposition in relation to one another—and form of content- the definition of the action of the film in the movement of looks, exchanges, objects seen and son on… One wonders how the look can mediate a relationship to which it is itself a part.”

In class we watched a short film where Alfred Hitchcock described how it is through editing that the audience understands certain emotions. For example, in one shot there is a mother and child playing in the grass and in the next shot is an old man smiling; the audience would therefore perceive the old man as an almost grandfather type figure. In the next shot there is a young woman lying in the grass wearing a bikini and in the next shot is the same old man smiling; however, in this case the audience reads the expression of the old man as creepy. I believe Heath’s concept of ‘the look’ narrated an entire scene without cuts is exemplified in love stories such as, Sleepless in Seattle There are certain scenes where a glance from either Meg Ryan or Tom Hanks expressed the entire emotion of that one scene without edits or cuts.
For example, in multiple scenes where Meg Ryan is listening to the radio, the camera remains on her face, since she is reacting to a radio. Even though sometimes the camera cut to Tom Hanks character, it is not the combination of shots that create this love narrative. It is clear through her countenance that Meg Ryan is sympathetic to Tom Hanks and at the same time hesitant about her own engagement to Bill Pullman.
Another example is when Meg Ryan flies to Seattle and sees Tom Hanks playing with his son. Yes, there were edits back and forth from Ryan’s face to Hanks however they were not essential to the narrative. Ryan’s face without the editing made it clear that she was witnessing something she should not be but at the same time wanting to be a part of whatever she was witnessing.
For me however, it is the last scene in the film that epitomizes the importance of the look in the narrative of a film. Cooper says, “ Sleepless in Seattle joins Sam and Annie’s look first across the limits of the frame, then within them in a long-shot that tracks with Sam as he walks towards Annie to frame the couple at last in medium two-shot. But it is not difficult to locate other ways of putting together the same sort of sequence. Because the look itself is the common denominator in any number of different ways of framing it.” Though there is no set look for love but the gaze that is captured in the last scene describes it all.
When I first got out of the film, I honestly was not that impressed by the film. I thought that it was cute, predictable, your typical love story. However, as I read Cooper’s article, which at times for me was dense, I started to appreciate the film a lot more. I respected the film and the actors in it because I think the ability to narrate a whole entire scene with a gaze with very difficult (for an actor). I think the simplicity of the film is what is so appealing about this movie. It is your typical love story and I think audiences appreciate films like Sleepless in Seattle every now and then. And after analyzing the film, I have discovered to appreciate it more too.

Everything Is Not What It Seems

I have always argued that the media affects the way people behave, talk, dress and make decisions. Some people put these actors on a pedestal as they are sometimes the solution to people's problems or even the object of desire. Film allows people to escape from the reality of their own flawed lives. For example, in love stories, the two main characters always end up together... it is the love formula in hollywood. How can that not be appealing to the woman in the audience who recently broke up with her boyfriend? Or the man who cannot find a date to save his life? These films therefore become a guide to happiness, a solution to their problems, a way to leave their problems behind.

However, I think that films such as Fight Club are an exception to this rule. The interesting twist in the end, when the audience realizes that Brad Pitt's character exists only in Edward Norton's character's mind we find that everything is not as it seems. For me, before I realized that Brad Pitt was just a figment of imagination, there was a sense of escapism for Edward Norton. His bland and dishonest life made the audience feel sympathetic to his character, however when he finds Pitt's character he is finally freed from his miserable life... Through the blood, the sweat and the violence there is a sense of happiness for Norton's character because he seems to have found something honest that makes him feel in control of his life for once. When watching the film I almost felt the need to do something extreme in order to gain more control of life or even to just be more adventurous and once the movie took a certain turn I realized that Norton's character actually had completely lost control of his life. His ability to create an altar ego demonstrates an unstability that is no longer appealing to his audience. And even though this film does not have the happy ending formula it is still considered one of the most important films. 

What makes this film popular and affective is the cinematography. There was a sense of reality in the way this film was made; it was very dark and when there was light it was a fluorescent which made the film seem documentary-like. The opening scene where the camera is weaving through a brain, outlining the whole structure immediately  shows the audience that they are going inside the mind of a very interesting man. The most interesting cinematographic technique was the subliminal flashes of Pitt's character. It was as if he was with Norton all along, slowly but surely taking over him and consuming his very identity. The overall point is that this film expresses to the audience that EVERYTHING IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS (and to get some sleep... haha)