By Matt Zoller Seitz
On this blog I will periodically offer lists on particular topics under the heading, "5 for the day." Here is the first entry. The subject: "The 5 Greatest Uses of Contrapuntal Narration," inspired by "Hiroshima Mon Amour," which I'm introducing today at the Museum of the Moving Image.
First, a note on terminology: contrapuntal narration is a specific type of narration that is not merely decorative or functional (i.e., giving the audience a bit of extra exposition, papering over plot holes, or even establishing a mood -- as in most Raymond Chandler-derived, hardboiled movies). It is, rather, narration which functions in counterpoint to the action; narration which undermines, contradicts or otherwise pushes against the images; active narration that defines an internal, personal world, a world that exists apart from (or parallel to) the world depicted onscreen.
A music dictionary defines contrapuntal narration as:
1. Melodic material that is added above or below an existing melody.
2. The technique of combining two or more melodic lines in such a way that they establish a harmonic relationship while retaining their linear individuality.
3. A composition or piece that incorporates or consists of contrapuntal writing.
4. A contrasting but parallel element, item, or theme.
Definitions 2 and 4 are my favorites. The describe the sort of narration I think is most active, most justifiable, most aesthetically interesting. I am talking about narration that does not tell in lieu of (or in addition to) showing, but rather, narration that describes a somewhat different reality than the one depicted in the images.
Here, then, is The House Next Door's very first "5 for the day:"
The 5 Greatest Uses of Contrapuntal Narration.
1. "Hiroshima Mon Amour." (Alain Resnais, 1959). Originally envisioned as a documentary about the aftermath of Hiroshima, this film became something else once the young novelist Marguerite Duras got involved: not so much a story as a mental and emotional experience, one which simultaneously unfolds along parallel, coexisting but forever disconnected tracks. Two lovers, two marriages, two cities, two theaters of war, two traumas, and last but not least, two different planes of existence. Resnais and Duras distinguish between the transformatively powerful pasts that the French heroine wishes to imagine (her Japanese lover's and the city of Hiroshima's) or re-experience (her own past; specifically a doomed love between her and a German soldier) and the cool, jagged fragments of memory and empathy that she is actually able to conjure up. "Hiroshima," critic Barry Forshaw writes, show us "...how history and the past are always seen through present eyes; and likewise the writing of history-as-narrative is wrought with the imperfections of language, memory and history itself."
2. "Wings of Desire." (Wim Wenders, 1987) To be able to eavesdrop on people's thoughts is to be like God, or an angel, or a moviegoer. But the hero, eavesdropping angel Damiel (Bruno Ganz) becomes mortal. He loses his ability to gaze into the souls of mortals, but gains the chance to woo a onetime object of his eavesdropping, a beautiful trapeze artist (Solvieg Dommartin) who wears fake angel's wings and flies on wires. While Damiel is ethereal, he hears (narrated, fragmented) thoughts that run the gamut from mundane to amusing to deeply moving. But although he can imprint some good feelings on his mortal subjects, he can't make their lives tangibly better. Descending from heaven to earth, he trades detachment for immersion, omniscence for subjectivity. None of this could be communicated without the narration. The screenplay, narration included, was written by Wenders and poet Peter Handke, and draws on images and themes from Rainier Maria Rilke's poetry.
3. "Days of Heaven." (Terrence Malick, 1978) Malick's World War I Texas Panhandle drama -- about a love triangle between a young, rich, sickly landowner (Sam Shepard), a beautiful young immigrant worker (Brooke Adams) and the lover who pretends to be her brother (Richard Gere) -- juxtaposes innocent-to-banal narration by an ex-street urchin (12-year old Linda Manz) against luminous images of an endless grass sea. The contrast between the girl's understanding of life and life itself is the film's aesthetic backbone; the tension between the girl's casually affected wisdom and the actuality of her life is sad, funny and mysterious. The narration, which talks of heaven and hell, sin and apocalypse, runs parallel to Malick's images of rare frolics and idylls, much toil and accidental death, real pestilence and fire. The girl's perceptions never really intersect with, much less engage with, the world. Yet she is still a part of it. (What I say here goes for "Badlands" as well.)
4. "The Thin Red Line." (1998) (Terrence Malick, 1998). Like "Days of Heaven" times ten, writer-director Malick's adaptation of James Jones' novel about the war in the Pacific emulates the techniques of a truly omniscent novel. The storyteller feels free to dip into the consciousness of any character that strikes his fancy, for as long or as short a period as he thinks necessary, while reserving the right to occasionally step outside of (or perhaps rise above) the characters' heads, and take a panoramic view of armies, nations, species. Then, moving up one plane in perspective, Malick contrasts warring human armies against documentary-styled images of plants and animals, fixing the difference between humanity's self-importance and nature's utter indifference. (What I say here goes for "The New World" as well.)
5. "Taxi Driver." (Martin Scorsese, 1976) War vet turned cabbie Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro) preaches the values of fitness and military discipline, but smokes, pops pills, stays out all night and softens his breakfast cereal with Thunderbird. He bemoans society's decline, declares that all the animals come out at night and says he wishes a real rain would come and wash all the scum off the streets, but he's a sociopathic, combative loner who's so comfortable in hardcore porn theaters that he takes his dream girl there on their first and last date, then channels his wounded anger into "protecting" a child prostitute and stalking a presidential candidate. The difference between Travis and Travis' self-perception is is the true subject of this movie. Written by Paul Schrader, "Taxi Driver," like all great contrapuntally narrated films, exposes the gulf between our sense of our own importance and our actual importance, between what we think we know about ourselves and the truth of the matter. And it shows us, though both narration and subjectively distorted imagery, how feelings warp our sense of life. Scorsese's film is all tension, no closure; all schism, no merger. The blowout finale solves everything and nothing. The hero is a lunatic. The lunatic is a hero. A core of mystery is preserved.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
5 for the Day: Contrapuntal Narration
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
My five:
1. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
2. WINGS OF DESIRE
3. GOODFELLAS
4. CARLITO'S WAY
5. AMERICAN HISTORY X
1. FIGHT CLUB
2. AMELIE
3. THE THIN RED LINE
4. BADLANDS
5. THE BIG RED ONE
1. THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS
2. THE ELEMENT OF CRIME
3. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE
4. DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST
5. SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE
I'm not going to throw 5 on there or strictly follow the contrapuntal definition, but here are some titles of movies with good narration that spring to mind.
Martin Scorsese used it well in Taxi Driver, GoodFellas and The Age of Innocence, but not in Casino.
Billy Wilder has two great ones: Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard.
It's not a narration by any of the characters, but I love the one in Network.
Wings of Desire and Fight Club are worthy mentions.
A Clockwork Orange succeeds mainly on Malcolm McDowell, but the movie itself gets weaker upon each viewing.
Morgan Freeman's narration adds to The Shawshank Redemption, but I don't think it added much to Million Dollar Baby.
The Royal Tenenbaums' narration was used well enough that I almost forgot it had narration until I saw another poster mention it.
L.A. Confidential also used it well.
I can think of plenty of examples of bad use of narration, but I'll leave poor Malick alone and only mention "Platoon."
"Poor Malick"? Why, I oughta...
Surprised nobody mentioned Barry Lyndon...
See post below ("They are all equal now") for a valentine to Sir Redmond Barry. You're right, though, "Lyndon" has one of the best contrapuntal narrations in movies. Scorsese seemed to pay tribute to it in "The Age of Innocence." Both narrations are third person, and put passionate characters in the context of their societies. I.e., put them in their place.
Chris Marker's Sans soleil too, obviously v. indebted to Resnais. Great post, great thoughts, great blog!
Also, AMERICAN PSYCHO. "I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip." That's Patrick Bateman, not me.
Not contrapuntal, mind you, but we've already wandered interestingly far afield.
Matt, I'll be curious to hear (read) your thoughts on the new cut of THE NEW WORLD. I saw it last night, and even though the press promised it was just "trims", there's been substantial reworking of some of the film, it seems to me. The biggest differences are in the beginning (where a whole *scene* appears to have been added). And the narration works differently in certain parts, too. A lot of Smith's initial voiceover plays out over images of "the Naturals" as opposed to images of Smith walking through the grass, as before. One feels like Malick wanted to tease out the counter-images a bit more this time, and I definitely felt the contrast more.
This cut definitely feels a bit more narrative to me -- a couple of scenes seem to have been re-edited to tighten the drama, whereas before they kind of jumped and drifted.
I definitely didn't mind it. It's still the best movie of the year --just kind of different than before.
Hey, Bilge--
Unfortunately, being at TCA means working 12-18 hour days for just over a week in January and two weeks in July, a horrendous interruption in my normal moviegoing schedule, so I haven't been able to make it to NEW WORLD screenings out here. I will probably have to wait till it opens and write a review for the blog. That's OK, though -- I've basically written two NYPress columns about it plus every other post on this blog, so a bit of a breather isn't going to kill me.
As for the differences, well, how could it possibly convince anyone who didn't like the first version? If you don't like the taste of radishes, a slightly smaller radish won't change your mind.
I am getting pretty goddamn tired, though, of Malick detractors implying that because Malick took the opportunity to keep working on his movie, that somehow means he's implicitly acknowledging that it's not as good as it could have been, and that therefore anyone who praised it is full of shit. (Incredibly, the sentiment is more common than you might think.) There is no artist worth a damn who wouldn't seize an opportunity to take one more pass at a work on someone else's dime, and whoever doesn't understand that has no business writing about movies.
Hey Matt,
Yeah, the differences in the new cut won't change the minds of the Owen Gleibermans and Charles Taylors of the world, but I do think that some fence-sitters (such as Dave Kehr and a couple of others) might be compelled to give it another look.
Actually, I think a second viewing of this film would help a lot of people, as what may seem like a freeform mess to some on first viewing actually reveals itself to have a fairly tight structure on second viewing. Getting them to the theater, though, that's another problem.
Either way, it took nearly a decade and a half before people were allowed to say "BARRY LYNDON is Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece" without getting lynched. Let's see what happens with TNW. We shall overcome...
Hey, Bilge--
In his year-end roundup, the fun but infuriating Erik Childress at Hollywood Bitchslap names THE NEW WORLD as the year's worst film, calls it "an abomination," and writes, "His undying loyalists are contradictory to everything they have studied about film and will continue to look foolish until they can admit that Malick is an experimental hack with a budget, no storytelling prowess to speak of and an unending collection of nature shots."
But then he goes on to write, "I imagine Malick barking orders on the set like one of the Knights Who Say “Ni” – “Get Me A SHRUBBERY!”, which I have to admit is pretty goddamn funny.
"Get me a shrubbery!" is probably a lot closer to Kubrick, who did indeed get lots of shrubbery and all sorts of other plants transported to the industrial outskirts of London for FULL METAL JACKET.
As far as the rest of Erik's review goes: I do believe "experimental hack" is something of an oxymoron. And I can rest safely in the belief that at least four of the films in his Ten Best list and runner-ups are on my Ten Worst list, so clearly we share little common ground, save for our fondness for REVENGE OF THE SITH.
The greatest contrapuntal narration I've ever heard is in Manoel de Oliveira's Abraham's Valley. It is without peer.
Post a Comment