English AS – Write about the ways Fitzgerald tells the story in chapter seven

Write about the ways Fitzgerald tells the story in chapter seven

 

Fitzgerald conveys key events of the narrative in Chapter Seven through a range of methods to foreshadow plotlines, reveal truths and support events. He uses techniques such as strong imagery combined with harsh vocabulary, pathetic fallacy and eyewitness accounts to help convey chapter sevens narrative.

 

Fitzgerald uses methods such as the conflict surrounding the two affairs and Myrtles death within the chapter to foreshadow the ending of the novel through these recent turn of events. We are presented with grotesque imagery to portray Myrtles death used to deliberately shock the reader, especially a contemporary reader whom are naive to such strong vocabulary used by Fitzgerald. Myrtle’s “breast was swinging loose” after her death, the use of this thorough physical description highlights Myrtle’s role within the affair being purely physical and sexual, suggesting Myrtle is a possession used by Tom only for his satisfaction, supported by Tom’s reaction to her death being unemotional and nonchalant, proving his disinterest in Myrtle’s character for any reasons other than the affair. Fitzgerald uses animalistic imagery that “her mouth was wide open and a little ripped at the corners” to dehumanise her character and devastate the reader. Using Myrtle as a corpse “mingled her thick dark blood with dust”, supplies the reader with sympathy for her as she is portrayed in a violent and grotesque manor, which is a complete contrast to her “continually smouldering” character. Fitzgerald refers to the Valley of the Ashes as her blood mingled “with dust”, symbolising that her death reunited her with her home, just as the Valley of the Ashes symbolises death, despair and hope, appropriately fitting Myrtle’s death. Her death also signifies the immorality of New York and the ambiguity which is attached to the place, symbolising hope, whilst also symbolising sin and wrongdoings. This is used to signify Myrtle’s death as sinful, but also the relationship as wrong and inappropriate, therefore, some may argue that Myrtle reaped what she sowed. By Fitzgerald using her death in such a manor, it creates tension within the reader and sets up the novel for the later events in which Gatsby takes the blame for Myrtle’s death, prefiguring even further events in which Gatsby is killed because of her death.

 

Throughout Chapter Seven, the reader is presented with Pathetic Fallacy used by Fitzgerald in order to allow the weather to parallel the mood and tone of the atmosphere. Vocabulary surrounding the heat is used extremely regularly at the beginning of the Chapter “Hot, Hot, Hot”, “Is it hot enough for you”, “The next day was broiling”, “Certainly the warmest day of summer”, “perspired delicately”, “The sun’s getting hotter every year”, “stagnant in the heat” “But it’s so hot” conveying very detailed imagery of a “stifling” day which helps the reader in imaging the atmosphere. Fitzgerald does this in order to create pathetic fallacy as the day is “uncomfortably hot” which parallels the atmosphere being uncomfortable and “intense”, foreshadowing the conflict about to arise regarding the affair and the suspense through our lack of knowledge of the ending as the reader. Fitzgerald uses the heat to create tension as the atmosphere rises and the mood lessens, creating a negative tone in which the reader can understand will symbolise the negative events nearing further into the chapter. Disagreements start to become apparent on a smaller scale such as “but it’s so hot”, signifying that if the weather is paralleling the mood that some disagreements on a larger scale will in turn be revealed. This makes the audience more keen to find out why the weather is conveyed in such a mass and why it is portrayed negatively, foreshadowing the rest of the novel.

The Eye Witness account we receive on Nick’s behalf in Chapter Seven is biased and unreliable as it is a third party source due to Nick’s lacking presence at the scene of the death. Instead Fitzgerald has Nick’s character narrate eye witness events he has viewed from a newspaper “The ‘Death Car’ as the newspapers have called it” proving that this event in the novel may be unreliable and fictitious as this information is third party by the time Nick receives it, so it isn’t the exact happenings which is relayed to the reader disproving the validity of the novel and with this, the reader’s trust within the glorified details of the event. Newspapers have a reputation for sensationalising stories and Myrtle’s death may be the prime example of a fallacious hyped headliner. Newspapers speculate many accounts which would lead the reader in thinking that the falsehood within this story is only to convey the immorality liked with New York, prefiguring Gatsby’s death later in the novel. This makes the reader yearn to know the truth and the legitimacy behind this story, symbolising the ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the novel as a whole due to Nick’s narration and now a third party unreliable source. This makes the reader slightly less naive towards the novel as we are aware that Newspapers signify their tendencies to over exaggerate therefore we are more open minded and not as easily deterred by headlines or other unreliable sources.

 

English AS – Write about some of the ways Hosseini creates the characters in The Kite Runner

Write about some of the ways Hosseini creates the characters in The Kite Runner

 

In the Kite Runner, Hosseini creates the character of Assef as a direct parallel to Hitler, acting as a plot device and the main antagonist. This comparison amplifies his evil through the similarity of Hitler and his hatred of the Jews, and Assef’s hatred of the Hazaras, which is evident as Assef refers to them as vermin ‘they pollute our homeland, dirty our blood’, suggesting that the Hazara race are diseased, unclean and a virus the Pashtuns want to steer clear from. Assef also believes that the Hazaras do not belong in Afghanistan as it is not their home through the use of ‘our homeland’ which proves Assef’s ideas of segregation and discrimination. He thinks that the Hazara blood is different from the Pashtun blood ‘our blood’, showing us that he wants a ‘pure’ Pashtun race, just like Hitler ridding Germany of the Jews. Paralleling Assef to Hitler magnifies his reputation of power and control, as we fear him, just like we feared the malevolent cultural figure, this broadening our pity for Hassan. Hosseini chooses to compare an evil leader of the wars and segregation to his antagonist in the novel as Hitler is well known for his villainous ways, which increases the fear factor of Assef as we question to what extremes he will go, and how racist he will be. Ironically, Assef is not a pure Afghan as his mother is German, just as Hitler wasn’t German but in fact Austrian, suggesting jealousy of both antagonists, wanting to be pure to their homeland so targeting the obvious ‘impure’ characters such as Hassan. Hosseini uses Assef as a plot device, due to the idea that all events that determine Amir’s future depend on Assef, who is only ever presented to us through one view of Amir whom is a biased narrator and we cannot guarantee all information about Assef is reliable especially when we learn that Amir is a writer later in life.  Assef is a character who should be feared by all, pure blood or not, as he is referred to as a ‘sociopath’ and Amir tells us ‘I was afraid of Assef’ which shows us his extreme ways , as does ‘turning the brass knuckles’ as this causes tension, fear and devastation. Overall we not only hate but also fear Assef as his antagonistic actions increase throughout the novel, however there are some whom agree with Assef and his ways as he shows passion and determination for his country and pride in his race, resembling the Taliban’s honour in their country – conveyed in extremities.

Hosseini creates the character of Baba as a hero through the eyes of Amir; however some of his actions may detract this heroic status and even label him as a villain. Baba has many hobbies which are deemed inappropriate and in some cases forbidden in Afghan culture, however this doesn’t stop him carrying out these hobbies anyway.

 

Hosseini presents the character of Baba as a hero through the eyes of Amir, however this hero status could be argued due to various events within the novel. As we hear the characterisation of Baba we begin to paint a picture of a well respected man whom is a large figure in Amir’s life, however we later realise that all the stories Amir hear about Baba, in fact come from Rahim Kahn – his father’s friend. Amir tells us that he dreams about Baba and ‘in those dreams, I could never tell Baba from the bear’ which highlights Baba’s physical appearance being strong, powerful, and intimidating which reflects on his actions in the shop in America. The idea that Amir is dreaming about Baba proves that he is a massive influence on Amir’s life, also showing us the admiration Amir feels towards Baba, however we do not see this admiration be returned in any way and in some respects, Baba acts cold towards Amir and shows a non parental side as ‘he shut the door, leave me wondering why it was always grownups time’. This tells us that Baba does this often as Amir emphasises ‘always’, making us sympathise with Amir as Baba appears to never show Amir affection or even notice him and the use of the declarative ‘shut’ sounds definite, – a metaphor – shutting the door on him paralleling shutting the door on their relationship, leaving Amir lonely. Amir takes this personally and blames himself ‘i think I have saratan’. He believes he is diseased and this is the reason Baba dislikes him and avoids him, however his love for Baba still doesn’t waver and he remains respectful and loving towards his father.  The problem was that ‘Baba saw everything in black and white’ which shows that Amir has noticed his narrow, closed minded, straight forward way of life. This could be why he can’t accept Amir’s differences and wants everything his way, disregarding Amir for a man ‘real men didn’t read poetry, real men, real boys played soccer’ suggesting that Amir is not normal because of his interests being different and not as traditional as Baba’s stereotypically male opinion.

However these negative views only seem apparent towards Amir, as Baba is seen as a well respected figure in society, shown through his fully personal payment and construction of the orphanage, his birthday present for Hassan – the surgeon to fix the hare lip – and his generosity of his wealth in general. However his idea and payment for the surgeon on Hassan’s birthday is seen as a kind and loving thing to do, but could present negativity as Baba is paying to remove an ‘imperfection’, conveying to us that Baba is very conscious of aesthetics and maybe is embarrassed to have a son that has a facial disfigurement which could ruin Baba’s reputation he has gained in society.

Baba is created as a very religious character as he has high morals, however he is rebellious and follows little of the rules he should to be deemed as religious. He drinks and smokes and enjoys these privileges without a worry that he is being unfaithful to the religion, showing many signs of a ‘liberal Muslim’ following the rules to a certain extent. Baba is a character created both to like and dislike at times but I think in total he is shown as a character who that doesn’t have an opinion and lives his life in the ways he wants, not necessarily benevolently or malevolently, he is prnm oud which can be conveyed as passionate but also a flaw.

 

Rahim Kahn is presented in the kite runner as a high status, respected character whom acts as a father figure towards Amir and is the only other narrator in the novel. Rahim Kahn is the first character we are introduced to in chapter one ‘my friend Rahim Kahn’ showing they have a good friendship which is elaborated further to a father, son relationship. Amir tells us ‘I am in his arms, but its Rahim Kahn’s pinky my fingers are curled around’ showing that he may be Baba’s son but Rahim Kahn was his true father figure whom cared for him and was the source of information in which Amir found out all the stories he knew about Baba. He is an aging character as ‘my knees and back were always aching’, ‘with my arthritis, it was getting harder for me to maintain the house’ but he still sustains the caring characteristics he adorned, ‘I did not want your father’s house go to rot’. These kinds of actions are what gains him the respect within the novel and Hosseini chooses to characterise him this way because he is the plot device for which Amir can atone himself and his sins, using Rahim Kahn as a role model and guide to good deeds. Rahim Kahn is the reason Amir tries to harmonies his errors as he tells Amir ‘there is a way to be good again’ which is the motivation Amir needed to carry this task out. Rahim Kahn verifies Hassan’s characters, introduces Sanaubar back to us and tells us things about the Afghan culture and history that Amir can’t possibly know which makes Amir’s narrative have more truth behind it. Rahim Kahn, although being portrayed as a protagonist, may be arguably villainous as he is aware of the fabricated watch plot and the rape of Hassan and chooses not to tell anyone. This could be considered to be in the best interest of Amir and so many audiences may say he was not being selfish and was looking out for Amir, the consequence being that Hassan was ‘the lamb that had to be sacrificed’.

English AS – Fra Lippo Lippy Section Ab Question

Section Aa:

Write about the ways Browning tells the story in lines 1-80 in Fra Lippo Lippi

In the poem Fra Lippo Lippy, Browning uses various methods to convey the narration to us, such as the use of creating a poem in the style of a dramatic monologue. Using this method constructs a first person narrative which helps create a more personal tone, helping us to connect to Fra Lippy more, however it also makes the poem extremely unreliable as we only have one viewpoint from one source, making us question whether Fra Lippi is speaking the truth or not. However Fra Lippi openly admits; “And here you catch me at an alley’s end”, proving he was up to know good, conveying he knows he was doing wrong as he is “caught”, which would be unnecessary if he were doing nothing wrong. The fact that he admits to this crime along with “zooks, sir, flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, makes us believe that this dramatic monologue is rather reliable as he admits to his wrong doings and explains it to us using “zooks” a blasphemous word which is extremely frowned upon in during this time period in Italy, along with the declaration: “flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, acknowledging that he is only human and that he has given in to temptation. Browning has created a blank verse poem as there is no rhyme scheme present within the narration, linking with the comic tone used; together creating a drunken imitated narration conveying Fra Lippi’s drinking hobby. This is also supported through Browning’s use of italics, “If I’ve been merry, what matter who knows?” symbolising a chatty, informal speech reminiscent of a drunken man. Due to the informality of certain parts of the poem, we also see a colloquial tone, again resembling a drunken man with a conversational manner – unusual for a monk who has just been caught doing wrong. There are over twenty exclamatory sentences in lines 1-80 to portray a loud mouthed, chatty, over the top monk, again supporting the idea that he is drunk. This theme is maintained through Browning’s use of hyphens, dashes and ellipsis “Master – a….,  “a monk you say – the stings in that” portraying disjointed speech, mimicking speech from a stereotypical drunken man.

Browning uses the setting “the streets are alive” to draw attention to Fra Lippy’s willpower and present to the audience the pace at which he gives in to temptation. Rhetorical questions are included by Browning to show the monks confidence as he challenges the guards “Who am I?” “You know them and they take you?” “Come what am I a beast for?”, this confidence suggests he is indifferent to his status as a monk and has no feelings towards maintaining this status.

Throughout lines 1-80 we are presented with several semantic fields such as the semantic field of art “I’m the painter since you style me so”, highlighting the subtitle “Florentine Painter 1412-69” prefiguring what Browning is referring to in later events within the poem such as his views on painting and the monasteries views on painting. We are also shown a semantic field of religion as he breaks many of these guidelines “zooks” is used throughout the poem many times, a blasphemous phrase meaning the nails used during the crucifixion – in other words “gods hooks”. This blasphemy is extremely wrong for the status of a monk to use which illustrates his feelings towards the law, religion and his attitude to being a monk on the whole.

English AS – How does Hosseini create a sense of hope in the closing of The Kite Runner?

How does Hosseini create a sense of hope in the closing of The Kite Runner?

We are introduced to a strong sense of hope for the future in the closing pages of The Kite Runner as Hosseini uses characterisation, use of time shifts and Amir’s narrative viewpoint.

Throughout the novel, time shifts are used to convey the guilt Amir feels, suggesting events in his childhood which may be capable of changing his future. Hosseini creates a sense of hope through the circular narrative as both his childhood in 1975 and present day 2001 centres around winter and with that snow. In the opening of chapter seven, ‘the streets glistened with fresh snow and the sky was a blameless blue’, giving us some powerful positive imagery whilst using words such as ‘blameless’, prefiguring events which occur later in chapter seven, also being a complete opposite to the key theme within the novel which is Amir’s guilt. This gives us the idea that the guilt Amir feels isn’t present in the opening of chapter seven and arises in the later parts of chapter seven as it completely contrasts the closing of the chapter where ‘tiny drops that fell from between his legs and stained the snow black’ whilst directly paralleling the imagery in the closing pages of The Kite Runner where the ‘park shimmered with snow so fresh, so dazzling white. The portrayal of the snow being ‘fresh’ and ‘white’ symbolises purity and whit that, a sense of hope in atoning Amir’s sins.

We are presented with a link back to the Kite tournament which supports the idea of a circular narrative, ‘the last time I had felt a rush like that was that day in the winter of 1975, just after I had cut the last kite, when I spotted Baba on our rooftop clapping and beaming’. We see that Amir was most happy during the kite competitions as a child so the use of this happy nostalgic event back again shows there is way to relive the past as he uses ‘Hassan’s trick’ telling us he is able to remember the good times as well as the bad.

Spring is referenced towards the closing of the novel which can be depicted as ‘new life’ through both Sorab’s smile and Amir’s new, almost free self as he has recompensed for the guilt he once felt.

The idea that it is set present day shows that the past is behind Amir, he can now look to the future ahead of him which contains uncertainty and because of that, hope.

In The Kite Runner, we are introduced to many places all locating many significant events, some creating a sense of hope and others dismissing this idea. Throughout the novel Hosseini places the characters in many locations which have a range of effects such as Baba in the shop in the USA which is a negative experience and sets the tone as a negative and trapped journey. The fuel tanker shows no sense of hope or survival and back in Afghanistan was unsuitable for them too, however the closing of the novel changes entirely as the USA is shown to be an ‘open’, ‘free’ location where Amir feels ‘alive’ in San Francisco conveying the sense of hope Amir had dreamed of.

We are presented with the narrative voice of Amir throughout the novel using a retrospective narrative. Amir explains his guilt feeling when he remembers the rape and how Hassan was ‘just a child’, however when we hear this we remember that Amir too was ‘just a child’ so how can he be expected to have stopped or even helped Hassan during the rape when he was a powerless child therefore he should not need to atone for his sins and a sense of hope is ahead for him.

The narrative voice is comparable with a circular narrative as Amir finds himself saying ‘for you, a thousand times over’ reminiscent of Hassan, contributing towards atoning himself.

Hosseini also creates a sense of hope through the characterisation of key figures in the novel, playfully subverting the stereotypes seen earlier in the novel. Many parallels are obvious in the closing of the novel such as the ‘boy with the crew cut’ and ‘rebellious t-shirt’ whom parallels Assef’s description, however his characteristics are contrasting to those of Assef’s as ‘he looked at me and smiled. And waved’ – something Assef would have never done, helping Amir feel a sense of closure at the idea that this child may look like him but is very dissimilar in mannerisms, aiding to create a sense of hope and optimism for the future.

Hosseini tells us that Amir is reminded of Hassan through Sorab and his ‘chipped nailed, calloused hands’. This representation is neither good nor bad, just recognition but it does allow the reader to realise that Amir is able to think of the ‘hare lipped boy’ without feeling guilt, just being able to have a memory. The idea that no guilt or shame came from him when thinking of Hassan shows that there is a sense of hope for Amir as he is beginning to atone for what he thinks is his fault. Sorab’s age in present day is almost a direct parallel to Hassan’s age in 1975, supporting the relevance of Sorab and his ever more correlations to Hassan. Sorab’s smile is key to Amir’s atonement as it has been concealed throughout the entirety of the book and only now is it making an appearance, showing that after everything, a smile shows happiness and with Sorab’s happiness comes a future, new life. Amir tells us that Sorab’s smile looks ‘alert, awake, alive’, the use of this tripling has more effect on the audience as it amplifies the complete contrast from the Sorab earlier in the book who seemed diminutive and meek, barely speaking at all. Although Sorab still doesn’t speak, we are introduced to a light as he is ‘alert, awake alive’, acting as a plot device for insight into a light and positive future.

 

I think that Hosseini creates a sense of hope through the circular narrative and the use of Hassan being mirrored in Sorab. We see many parallels direct and contrastingly, all of which help to make Amir realise his atonement and longing for hope. The characterisation of Sorab and the ‘boy with the crew cut’ all help to make Amir feel atoned and with this be able to live his live with a bright future ahead of him, this future carrying with it a sense of hope.

 

English AS – The Great Gatsby chapter 3 presentation

Write about the ways Fitzgerald presents the Gatsby to us in chapter 3 of “The Great Gatsby”?

 

Fitzgerald presents Gatsby to us in chapter 3 using various techniques such as Daisy’s portrayal of his character, Jordan’s narration of Daisy and Gatsby’s past, the rumours and speculation about his character and Nick’s retrospectively framed narrative.

 

Initially Gatsby is revealed through Nick’s vivid description of both his mansion and his lavish party, thus creating a sense of intrigue around his character. Nick uses vocabulary such as “corpse of caterers” in order to emphasise the clear sense of luxury surrounding Gatsby’s character, whilst implying the feelings of mystery encasing his character, “corpse” conveying imagery of a stagnant life, possibly prefiguring Gatsby’s death, or presenting his monetary value as unimportant and lifeless, using alliteration to emphasise these theories. His wealth is evident as Gatsby has “eight servants”, an “orchestra” and “several hundred feet of canvas” enough to cover “Gatsby’s enormous garden”. His influence is apparent as “men and girls came like moths among the whisperings and champagne of the stars” providing a semantic field of fantasy, using an over literary style, presenting us with more wealth and importance imagery such as “champagne” as it is an expensive luxury which Gatsby has access to, along with “a bar with real brass rail was set up, and stocked with gins and liquors”. We are made aware that “on weekends his Rolls Royce became an omnibus, bearing parties”, supporting the idea of his copious amount of money due to his vehicle of choice being a “Rolls Royce” and his over elaborated parties.

 

Fitzgerald uses rumours as a way to present Gatsby to the reader, rendering him as a mysterious, intriguing, almost illusory character. Rumours are speculated about him being “a German spy during the War” said by guests who wish to appear like they know Gatsby creating a sense of mystery. Contrastingly, more rumours spread that Gatsby “was in the American Army during the war” generating confusion and gossip around his character. However these assumption are made into facts later in the chapter when Gatsby tells Nick that he “was in the Sixteenth Infantry” of the War “until June Nineteen Eighteen”, proving that the latter rumour about Gatsby was in fact correct and he was not a “German Spy”. This then makes us believe that the rumour regarding Gatsby being “the nephew to the German Kaiser Wilhelm” is also untrue if he fought the War on the American side; it is unlikely he is from German descent. There are also more descriptive, more vivid rumours “I bet he killed a man” giving us strong imagery as, if this theory is true, changes our outlook on Gatsby. This rumour stereotypically should cause Gatsby to receive a bad reputation as it makes him seem dangerous and unsafe, which could cause his popularity to decrease, however it doesn’t as the audience, along with the characters, are rendered to be intrigued, therefore the mystery as to whether Gatsby really did “kill a man” cause the audience to be more interested in Gatsby and our longing to know the truth increases Gatsby’s reputation rather than decreases it. Most rumours regarding Gatsby are speculating a negative view of him, constructing Gatsby’s facade as the outlook of his character is hidden and obscured by these stories.

 

In chapter 3, Fitzgerald reveals the character of Gatsby through two juxtaposing descriptions via Nick’s narration from his initial meeting with Gatsby being unbiased and non opinionated, compared to the second meet when Gatsby’s identity is exaggeratingly developed. When we are first introduced to Gatsby on page 48 we get a concise description “a man of about my age” formulating that the “man” is irrelevant and unrelated as Nick doesn’t know the name therefore the personality of this “man”. However, on page 49 Gatsby uncovers his identity of whom Nick wasn’t aware, due to the fact that Gatsby openly admits he’s “not a very good host” which is ironic considering the number of parties he hosts and the immense size and responses to them, contradicting his comment about not being “a good host”. Contrastingly, page 49 presents us with dramatic delayed revelation as Gatsby starts the chapter as “a man of about my age” but as soon as Nick is told of Gatsby’s name, we see another side to the “elegant young rough neck, a year or two over thirty”, thus conveying that social status and hierarchy are determined by name and possessions. Nick elaborates on Gatsby’s personality for a total of 14 lines which is not only a complete contrast but also a lot more in depth in description compared to “a man of about my age” which doesn’t even fit a line, Nick tells us all about Gatsby’s “rare smile with a quality of eternal reassurance in it” which is almost comical as we wonder how Nick could possibly know this from the first meeting where Gatsby only says “I’m Gatsby”.  Nick then continues to elaborate on Gatsby’s smile “It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you like you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey”, again strong and powerful imagery is being conveyed about a Gatsby’s smile whom Nick has known for mere minutes. This tell us that in the 1920’s social status was important and hierarchy meant everything, Nick met “a man of about my age” whom until he knew his name was just “a man of about my age”, but as soon as the name was mentioned Gatsby turned into “elegant young rough neck, a year or two over thirty”, which is ironic and pretentious, proving that class and name was the factor that made your dialogue turn into “elaborate formality of speech”.

 

Fitzgerald uses Nick’s indirect and direct observations of Gatsby in order to reveal his true character, his lifestyle and his past to the reader. Nick notices that Gatsby has tendencies to use dialogue, primarily English “old sport” making him an anglophile, a character whom admires England and English people and so uses their dialogue to support his speech. This is evident when they speak about his education and him attending Oxford. We are offered insight into the life of Gatsby through the interpretation of events from the slightly unreliable narrative, composed by Fitzgerald as he uses over literary description of Gatsby “his tanned skin was drawn attractively tight on his face and his short hair looked as though it were trimmed everyday”, highlighting Nicks admiration and adoration for the character of Gatsby, also suggesting hints of envy towards the characters appearance and lifestyle. This idea furthers the literary style and complementary tone of Nick’s narrative, making him a respected but unreliable and invalid narrator. The use of the retrospective narrative implies that Fitzgerald is promoting a bias view on Gatsby that may not be entirely true and leaves us to question our own opinion of Gatsby as the reader

 

Fitzgerald initially presents Gatsby in chapter 3 through his material possessions such as the lavish descriptions of his party and his mansion, progressing to convey the rumours and speculation focusing on Gatsby and his lifestyle choice creating mystery and intrigue centring his character. We are then presented with two completely contrasting descriptions from Nick’s own narrative from his initial meet with Gatsby to his eloquently described introduction with him formulating suspicions around social class and status. Finally we receive Nick’s retrospective narrative which frames the whole narrative, helping the reader observe Gatsby’s surroundings, meetings, guest choice, his own dialogue and Nick’s slowly uncovering feelings for Gatsby producing a sense of envy however idolisation, conveying the true charm of Gatsby’s character.

English AS – The History Boys Essay

Hector is a charismatic and passionate teacher. Yet he is ultimately presented as pitiful and so out of place in a comedy. Explore how far you agree with this view of Hector’s role in “The History Boys”.

 

Hector is a construct of Bennett’s writing, and can arguably viewed in diverging ways, the first supporting the idea that he is a “charismatic” and “passionate” teacher, contrastingly highlighting that he is a “pitiful” being who has achieved no real fulfilment out of life. Some audiences believe that Hector is too “pitiful” to compose a comedy, whereas other audiences have a diverse view that his pity helps to formulate the comedic elements.

 

Hector’s charisma is outlined when Bennett describes him as “a man of studied eccentricity. He wears a bow tie”, conveying that Hector is well educated, later revealing his attendance at Cambridge University. We sense through Bennett’s portrayal of his physical description that Hector is a well respected teacher for both his knowledge and his professional demeanour, maintained during school hours. His knowledge is intensified through his love for poetry and music; for example when Scripps plays “a version of La Vie en Rose”, showing the versatility of his talents proving that Hector’s character is a big influence on the boys lives for them to be skilled enough to play such a unique song, uncommon for musicians of their age. Hector is able to involve the boys in eccentric tasks – supporting Hectors physical description being “eccentric” – such as the French scenes and the content within them. The boys re-enact “a brothel” scene or a “masion de passé” portrays not only the unusual matter at hand but also Hector’s abilities at teaching as the boys know unsuitable but gifted translations into French. This proves that Hector has made an impact on the boys educationally as he has successfully engaged them within the work, whilst making it enjoyable for the boy’s character’s as his teaching methods are dissimilar to other teacher’s character’s methods.

Hector’s role within the comedy is questionable as Bennett presents us with the motorbike scenes involving the molestation of the boys, and in later events; his death, both of which are unlikely appearances within a comedy making us question Bennett’s motives for including him in the play. However, the French scene included in the play is actual comedy, providing humour and supporting the genre of a comedy. The scene rapidly turn into a role play taking place in “a brothel”, using shocking phrases “Voilà votre lit et voice votre prostitutée” translated into “Here is your bed and here is your prostitute”, a phrase you would hope to never find in a classroom. This is humorous as all the boys are involved in numerous ways and Hector corrects not the context of their role play but the content of their translation instead of “I want to stretch out on the bed”, he corrects it to “I would like to stretch out on the bed in the conditional or subjunctive”. This makes us laugh as the character of the teacher is being irresponsible to the boys learning, however when we realise how superior and skilled their French vocabulary is we begin to comprehend that, although this content is inapt, it is to very high quality, proving that Hector’s teaching skills are more than satisfactory and have been beneficial to the boys learning. This French scene is known as a “Farce” within comedy as stated “In theatre a farce is a comedy that aims at entertaining the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant or improbable situations disguise and mistaken identity, verbal humour of varying degrees – sophistication which may include word play. Farce is also characterised by physical humour the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense and broadly stylized performances”. We are presented with many of these methods from Bennett like disguise and mistaken identity “I am the chamber maid”, “I am called Simone” which includes “improbable situations” and “deliberate absurdity”, the audience are greeted with extravagance “Ooh la la” which can also be classed as “verbal humour of varying degrees”, especially when we hear two boys say “place your mouth at my breasts and agitate” as the vision of a room full of boys saying these unbelievable phrases is extremely comical. Not only do we see Hector’s contribution towards Bennett’s construction of a comedy, but we also see Bennett’s portrayal of the “passion” Hector exerts towards teaching and the boys education, supplying the audience with verification that the boys respect him and are also willing to learn from him.

 

Although Hector’s eccentricity is respected by the boys, we wonder why his life seems so pitiful. Many audiences contend that his activity on the motorbike in which he molests the boys is completely inappropriate, not just for his character but also in the making of a comedy. I agree with the view that the molestation of the boys is completely unacceptable for the role and status of a teacher, however the boys attitude towards this molestation seems comical as Scripps sighs “I’ll come, sir”, “The things I do for Jesus” making it seem like a chore but accepting it gracefully, contrasting to the shock effect it has on a modern day audience. Hector is presented as a pitiful character as he outlines “un-kissed, un-rejoicing, un-confessed, un-embraced” showing the audience that he has no real fulfilment out of life and nothing important to be passionate about, portraying deflation and “a parody of despair” as Bennett later reveals how his home life is negative “saddish life” and his marriage is uninteresting too “I’m not sure she’d be interested” conveying that the only passion Hector still has for life is for the boys and the motorcycle rides. This amplifies the idea that Hector needs the boys in order to live passionately, generating the audience to come to the conclusion that Hector is too pitiful to make a comedy, therefore questioning Bennett’s ideology.

Hector however is not what he appears as Bennett formulates a facade for his character as we realise that the real Hector is the school Hector, where as the pretend Hector is the home life Hector, showing he lives two contrasting lives as his school life is “appreciated”. This makes us believe that Hector refuses to share lessons with Irwin due to the idea that his character’s time with the boys is precious and valuable and a key role in keeping his character alive. His view on education relates to his lifestyle choice as he believes that “The transmission of knowledge itself is an erotic act” supported through his teaching ways and the activity on the motorbike. Because of this some audiences believe that Hector is not what he appears and is in fact a flawed hero, who is lonely, isolated and pitiful in an empty existence behind the passionate artifice he constructs.

 

I think that Hector’s character is represented as a disguised protagonist who wants to achieve all enjoyment out of life but can only accomplish this with the help of the boys, so he carries out the activities on the motorbike in order to feel this passion again. This makes the audience empathise with his character as he is “a parody of despair” and Bennett conveys that he “cries”, creating a sense of sympathy from the audience towards his character. I disagree that “Hector’s character is so out of place within a comedy”, although he is presented as “pitiful” and lonely I believe that the relationship between himself and the boys is key in order to create the bond we see such as the locking of the door, symbolising the boys and Hector shutting out the world. This helps to elaborate on the volumes in which the boys value Hector as a teacher, which is expanded at the end of the play at his funeral where they celebrate his life and the times they have shared with Hector, resulting in them learning the “game I wanted you to learn”, which was to “pass it on boys”. Clarifying the ideology that Hector’s character has achieved his primary goals; enjoying life and for the boys to “pass it on” proving that whether done in a positive or negative way Hector managed to accomplish the tasks that mattered most to him. Due to this fact I believe that Hector’s pity foreshadows the events leading up to it and eventually his death, making his death a crucial element within the play in order for the boys to celebrate him and outline the good deeds he has attained, therefore, I think that Hector is not “so out of place within a comedy” or “too pitiful” but in fact the complete opposite as I believe these tragic events are necessary in creating the comedic effects throughout sectors of the play.

English AS – Much Ado About Nothing – Aristotle

The use of ‘deception’ is a key method by which Much Ado About Nothing is developed as a comedy. Explore how far you agree with this view.

 

Deception appears as the tool of villains to spread chaos and unhappiness. However deception is also a device used by the male comradery: Don Pedro, Claudio and Leonato in Act 2 Scene 3 when they trick Benedick into thinking “that your niece Beatrice was in love with Signor Benedick”. Shakespeare does this in order to convey that the men are trying to change Benedick’s stubborn opinion about marriage seen in the protasis that he will “hang my bugle in an invisible baldrick, all women shall pardon me” and that “I shall live a bachelor”. Shakespeare has Benedick state that he is strongly against marriage and that he wants the men to “pick out mine eyes” “and hang me up at the door of a brothel house” if he ever fell in love, which is extreme imagery used by Shakespeare, highlighting his ‘hatred’ for the themes of love and marriage, which is why he we see the men deceiving Benedick through extreme views, giving Benedick motive to speak of his true feelings, ridding himself of the marriage hating facade.  Beatrice and Benedick are presented at the beginning of the play, in the midst of a “merry war”, signifying the hostility between the two, and with it, the uncomfortable atmosphere they share “you are a rare parrot-teacher”, suggesting the semantic field of war which surrounds these characters “a bird of my tongue is better than the beast of yours”. Shakespeare uses this semantic field in order to emphasise the feelings Beatrice and Benedick have for one another, supporting the idea of a “merry war” and the tension it symbolises, also using animalistic imagery to convey the resentment the characters feel towards each other, “you always end with a jade’s trick; I know you of old”, this also highlights Beatrice and Benedick’s past relationship, proving that they were once in love, creating a comedy in the sense that they now seem to despise each other, causing a “merry war” and conflict.

This deception carried out by the men works in the way they had planned as Benedick finds himself revealing “when I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live until I were married”. Benedick is unaware of the deception used, proven when he counteracts the thought that he believes that “This can be no trick”, trusting the men due to the input from Leonato “wonderful that she should so dote on Signor Benedick” as he is a well respected character being the Governor of Messina, conveying the idea that such a high status figure would avoid the use of deception, making him a reliable and trustworthy source in Benedick’s eyes.

Similarly, the females, Hero and her Waiting Women, Ursula and Margaret, fool Beatrice using the same techniques of deception as their “talk to thee must be how Benedick is sick in love with Beatrice”. This deception is a benevolent form as “Cupid’s crafty arrows made, only wounds by hearsay”, proving that Benedick’s love for her isn’t true and is just deceit which is necessary in creating what is first seen as illusory love. Beatrice’s character creates a discord in the play as Shakespeare has playfully subverted the stereotypes of women’s behaviour and actions during the Elizabethan period, where they were expected to be subservient towards men and obey their husbands whom they should have obtained at the age of about 12, in order to fulfil their longing for marriage. However Beatrice is adamant that she will not marry or fall in love, proven when the women state that “I know her spirits are as coy and wild as haggard’s of the rock” meaning that Beatrice is an “evasive, untamed mature female who is of unruly and reluctant nature”, showing us that Beatrice does not follow the specific gender roles in which society has allocated, as her character is almost aggressive, creating comedic elements due to her “scornful” behaviour.

Both Benedick and Beatrice convey extreme animosity towards marriage in the opening of the play, which causes disharmony due to the expectations of this society to marry young and be happy, which neither character agrees to, however the audience in the 21st century can relate to their views as there is no rush for marriage in our society today. Once the deception from both the male and the female friendship groups has occurred, Benedick and Beatrice find themselves professing their love for one another with Benedick stating; “Love me? Why it must be requited”, likewise, Beatrice expresses; “I will requite thee”, this in turn creates harmony and restores order within the society due to the newly announced love which reinstates the stereotypes of the Elizabethan society.

Deception in this form is benevolent as it reveals the truth and reality, proving that this deception is necessary, presenting the audience with humour as harmony is restored. Harmony has now created a union; we question how real the newly found love is due to the immediate reaction and abrupt change in opinion, conveying that the love the two characters feel is illusory, presenting a facade which is created so rapidly it is comedic, proving that the deception is a key method used by Shakespeare to create comedy within the play. By the end of the play we see that the love initially presented to us as illusory, is actually true love when Benedick asks Antonio “Which is Beatrice?” as he exposes his real love for her, in turn Beatrice does the same. This ends the play with harmony and restores the order, as Aristotle said “Deception has the ability to reconcile bitterest enemies”, which is exactly what Shakespeare intended when he created the deceit found within the play. Comedy is created through the harmony which is restored as the play ends with music – a key convention that creates a romantic comedy.

Shakespeare provides the audience with the parallel couple Claudio and Hero whom are conveyed as a complete contrast to Beatrice and Benedick in the sense that they both meet their expected roles, within the society. Claudio’s character proves to be what he seems, creating no illusions or facades, he is described as a “Lion” which elaborates his bravery, power and strength, he is a high status and well respected character who carries war credentials and lots of respect with his name. This provides us with the character of Claudio who could be deemed as perfect and desirable within this society, unlike Benedick, giving him the title of the “romantic hero”. Hero’s character is paralleled through her name as we associate a hero to be the good willed protagonist, which is what Hero can be seen as. She is represented by her beauty, modesty and honesty, along with her high status, supporting the idea that she is well respected, fitting her required gender roles of the Shakespearian society. Hero is characterised to possess these desired traits and upon revelation at the end of the play we realise that Hero is the only character throughout whom remains true and virtuous as she is portrayed at the beginning. Here the harmony is maximised when we realise that Shakespeare has portrayed both characters similarly, both almost perfect and desirable, proving they are a “matched” couple due to “matching” traits, seen initially with Beatrice and Benedick’s “matching” traits subverting stereotypes, breaking required gender codes.

However Shakespeare suggests probable disharmony as Claudio is tentative, uncertain and easy to manipulate, creating a naive characterisation which immediately foreshadows negativity soon to occur, which Claudio is blind to, constructing dramatic irony as the audience are aware of the deception which challenges Claudio’s naivety, revealed further in the play.

Don John, who openly admits he is “a plain dealing villain”, carries out his deception when he tells Claudio; “my brother is in love. He is enamoured on Hero” “I heard him swear his affection”, and although Claudio should know this isn’t true, Shakespeare highlights his vulnerability as he believes Don John, proving he is susceptible to suggestions when regarding his honour being violated. This mediocre malevolent deception prepares us for the main deception of the play where Hero is maligned and suggested impure; “The lady is disloyal”, where Claudio then plans to “not marry her” and “shame her”, without confirmation of the truth. Shakespeare subverts reality creating an illusion, causing disharmony as he presents the audience with the high status characters too naive to see the truth as they are blinded by appearance and what they think they see and not what is really present. This is supported when a vengeful Claudio is unable to see a truthful and virtuous Hero who is so obviously and ironically the only character to be exactly what she appears to be. Here we are presented with a large amount of dramatic irony as the high status of the Aristotle is too blinkered to see the truth.

The only thing that saves the audience from real horror is the Friar’s plan as he can see the truth, providing the audience with dramatic irony as he plans to deceive Claudio using benevolent deception in order to restore the harmony between them. Beatrice and Benedick unite to help restore order, and together they prove themselves to be stronger in order to provide justice and truth along with hope and optimism. These parallel couples provide comedy as they all struggle to see what is real but by the end of the play the harmony is restored and their love for one another is real between both couples.

Although deception is used in Much Ado about Nothing to cause havoc and distress, deception is also used to create harmony and restore order. We are presented with harmony again at the end of the play when the deception is revealed, as with all harmony involving music, laughter and happiness which are the keys to creating a comedy, therefore deception is used in “Much Ado about Nothing” to construct a comedy.

Media A2 – Theory Bank

Narrative Theorists

Narrative is the art of storytelling, something we all do every day. It is an important part of our lives and something that we value highly. When we watch a film or TV or read we are receiving narratives.

We are going to look at narratives in Film & Broadcast Fiction although there are narratives in ads. and news items.

The narrative begins with the opening of the film or TV drama.

We are used to watching TV and films and getting meanings out of them and working out the plot or story is a key way we do this.

Plot and Story.

In Media Studies there is a difference between the meaning of plot and story.

The plot is what is present (visibly & audibly) in the film and in the order in which you get it.

E.G. Lord Pasta is found dead. Detective Bolognese is called in to investigate. She discovers the murderer was his nephew Douggie Spaggs who was next in line for the title and inheritance.

The story is all the things that happen in the narrative, both the ones that we see in the film and the ones we infer or are referred to. The story includes things that we can assume are happening (like eating and sleeping) which are not shown because they would be boring as part of the plot. It might include things we only find out later, such as Norman’s mental condition in Psycho.

E.G. Douggie Spaggs is short of money and kills his uncle to inherit but is caught by Bolognese of the Yard.

The plot of a thriller might include things in the wrong order – it might include flashbacks for example – and yet we try and work out the ‘solution’. We can only use the evidence in the plot. We would feel cheated if parts of the story were suddenly revealed at the very end that we couldn’t have possibly guessed.

The story of Pulp Fiction would be the film reassembled in the right order.

Think about:

  • Do we (as viewers) know more that the characters in the film or the same? (About some things, irrelevant to the plot, we obviously know a lot less.)
  • In a thriller or detective story, do we know who did it or are we working at the same pace as the detective? Do we try to get to the solution before Morse/Frost/Rebus/Poirot? Do we use the clues in the plot to work out who did it or media conventions? (e.g. the murderer is always the least likely suspect)
  • Give examples of dramatic irony.
  • How is suspense built up in a plot?
  • What is the effect of flashbacks on the building of suspense?

The Voice.

Another part of the construction of narratives involves the ‘voice’ telling the story.

A first-person narration will use “I” as the voice of the teller. Such a narrative cannot give the reader access to events that “I” could not have seen or been told. In a film or TV narrative they will need a voice-over to tell the story from a personal point of view.

A third-person or impersonal narrative is a story which seems to be written by God/Goddess. This is common in film or TV narratives where events seem to be unfolding before us.

  • Blade Runner was made in two different versions – with a voice-over and without (The Director’s Cut) Do you know why?

Narrative theories suggest that stories (in whatever media) share certain features (but particular media tell stories in different ways.)

Narrative theory 1: Propp

Propp looked at folk tales and saw some structures they shared in common. He found 8 character roles and 31 functions that move the story along.

The 8 character roles can also be types of action because they are not the sort of roles which appear in the cast list. One character in the film or play can occupy several of his character roles or types of action. They are:

  1. The villain
  2. The hero (not always good but always carries the story along, the central character and not always male)
  3. The donor (who provides an object with some special property)
  4. The helper (who helps the hero)
  5. The princess (the reward for the hero and object of the villain’s schemes)
  6. Her father (who rewards the hero)
  7. The dispatcher (who sends the hero on his way)
  8. The false hero

The 31 functions include events such as:

The hero is prohibited from doing something

The villain learns something about the victim

The villain is punished, etc.

  • Does this work for your favourite film? A Bond Movie? A news story? Star Wars?

Narrative Theory 2: Todorov

Todorov also saw underlying structures to narratives.

He argued that stories all begin in “equilibrium” when all forces are in balance.

This is disrupted by a problem to cause “disequilibrium”. Then more events take place before a “new equilibrium” is established.

Many film makers today don’t bother setting up the normal world in order to disrupt it with a problem (a killer shark, etc.) and go straight for the problem and disequilibrium. However, there will always be a sense in the film of what life was like before the problem came along and therefore what the characters can return to if they can only sort the problem out.

  • Does this work for your favourite film? A Bond Movie? A news story? Fatal Attraction?Jaws?

Narrative Theory 3: Barthes

Barthes suggested that narrative works with different codes which the reader tries to make sense of. The most obvious is the use of enigma codes. These are little puzzles which the audience needs to solve throughout the plot. This makes us work but gives us pleasure when we solve them correctly. The plot might need the solving a big enigma code but there will be little ones along the way.

Narrative Theory 4: Lévi-Strauss

He argued that all meaning-making, not just narratives, depend on binary oppositions – a conflict between two sides/qualities which are opposites.

E.G. Westerns where there can be many binary oppositions such as:

Cowboys Indians
settlers natives
Christian Pagan
domestic savage
weak strong
garden wilderness
The law outlaws
helpless dangerous
clothed naked
whites redskins
telegraph smoke signals

Ads. also use binary oppositions such as spots/Clearasil

Dirty/Persil, Daz/Brand X, young/old, dandruff/Head & Shoulders, etc.

Myths use binary oppositions all the time such as God/Devil, Good/Evil.

  • Make a grid, as above, for Sci-Fi films

Narrative Theory 5: Syd Field

Syd is a practicing screenwriter and his theory is more of a piece of advice for potential film makers. He is interested in the way one thing leads to another or causality. As you watch a film you should see a structure of events develop as things lead to other things.

Field says a typical Hollywood film can be separated into three separate dramatic sections or acts.

Act 1 is the setup. The first 10 mins is very important to grab the audience. If they like it in the first 10 mins they are unlikely to change their minds later. The film maker should show the audience who the main character is and why they should care what happens to him/her. They should see what style and genre the film is going to use. The next 20 mins show the audience the nature of the problem the hero has to face or this can be left to plot point 1.

Act 2 is the confrontation. The longest act shows us the hero in more and more extreme problem situations. He/she is helpless against the opposing forces. There may be a mid-point where they start to turn things around but not until plot-point 2 will they realise the way to succeed…

Act 3 is the resolution. The hero wins out (often by confronting the opposing forces on their own territory)

Where Act 1 becomes Act 2 and Act 2 becomes Act 3 there is a plot point – a particularly important piece of the plot which turns around the lives of the characters, change their relationships and alter the tone of the film. Films often have a number of plot points like these but Field points to two major ones between the acts and a less important one in the middle of the film.

  • Does this work for your favourite film? A Bond Movie? SpeedFatal Attraction?

Narrative Theory 6: Stanley Kubrick

Director of Dr Strangelove, The Shining, 2001, and others had the theory that all you needed for a captivating narrative was seven Non-Submersible Units. These were scenes, images, actions, sounds or a combination of these that created a strong impression on the audience that they couldn’t ignore, shrug off or forget.

This is similar to the claim of a script writer of The Avengers that he thought of ten really good scenes and then found a plot that would link them up!

 

THEORIES AND THEORISTS

 

LEVI-STRAUSS

He stated that there need to be a binary opposition within a film or programme. This is usually presented through good vs. evil.

BLUMLER AND KATZ

Uses and gratification theory

LIBERAL PLURALISM

Buy into the dominant ideology however accepts alternative represetation

MARXIST/ GRAMSCI

Dominant ideology

STUART HALL

Active/ Passive audience

GERBNER

Mean World theory

GOLDBERG

Racist Culture

STANLEY COHEN

Moral panic

TWO STEP THEORY

Audiences theory – one audience member views a text then passes on to other potential viewers

 

 

 

 

LAURA MULVEY

Male Gaze

BARTHES

Enigma Codes

PROPP

Proppian Hero

MEDHURST

Stereotypes – suggested that stereotypes can be seen as a type of media shorthand that provides an easy point of contact when the text needs to communicate quickly with the audience

TODOROV

Equilibrium in narrative

GAMMAN AND MARSHMENT

Female gaze

RICHARD DYER

Star Theory

TESSA PERKINS

Ways of referring to complex social relationships. She states that there are false assumptions about stereotypes. No single reading of a stereotype

KEY CONCEPTS

CLOSE ANALYSIS

AUDIENCE

Two step theory

Stuart Hall

Blumler and Katz

Moral Panic

Hypodermic Needle Theory

Laura Mulvey

INSTITUTION

Hegemony

Gramsci

Utopia

Mulvey

Richard Dyer – Star Theory

IDEOLOGY

Marxist

Gramsci

Liberal Pluralism

Laura Mulvey

Bogle

Cultivation

Medhurst

Giroux

LANGUAGE

Levi Strauss

Propp

Todd

Roland Barthes

REPRESENTATION

Marxist

Gramsci

Liberal Pluralism

Laura Mulvey

Medhurst

Giroux

 

Audience

 

Ideology

 

Mainstream/Alternative

Mean Girls vs Lilja Forever

Institutions

 

Positive/Negative

Mean Girls –

Cady Heron – Sweet, innocent girl vs

Regina George – Plastic

Lilja Forever –

Seen as a kind, helpful friend by Volodya

Shunned by all adults – seen as a delinquent

Platform/Genres

E-Media – Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Selfie/Blogs –

Mean Girls – Scheming plans via mobile phone

Easy A – Video Blog through the film

John Tucker Must Die – Advance of technology, ‘boob cam’, web chat

 

Media A2 – The Studio Star System

The Studio System

The studio system is an arrangement of film production and distribution dominated by a small number of “major” studios in Hollywood. Although the term is still used today to refer to the organisation and output of the major Hollywood studios, historically the term refers to the practice of large motion picture studios between the 1920s and 1960s of producing movies primarily on their own filmmaking lots with creative personnel under often long-term contract, and which dominated exhibition through vertical integration, i.e., the ownership or effective control of distributors and exhibition, guaranteeing additional sales of films through manipulative booking techniques.

The studio system was challenged under the anti-trust laws in a 1948 Supreme Court ruling which sought to separate production from distribution and exhibition and ended such practices, thereby hastening the end of the studio system. By 1954, with television competing for audience and the last of the operational links between a major production studio and theatre chain broken, the historic era of the studio system came to an end.

The period stretching from the introduction of sound to the court ruling and the beginning of the studio breakups, 1927/29–1948/49, is referred to by some film historians as the Golden Age of Hollywood. (Many modern film historians dispute that this age was so golden in an artistic sense, due to censorship and the mediocrity of many films made by the studio “moguls.”)

During the so-called Golden Age, eight companies constituted the so-called major studios that created the Hollywood studio system. Of these eight, five were fully integrated conglomerates, combining ownership of a production studio, distribution division, and substantial theatre chain, and contracting with performers and filmmaking personnel: Fox Film Corporation (later 20th Century-Fox), Loew’s Incorporated (owner of America’s largest theatre circuit and parent company to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, and Warner Bros. Two majors—Universal Pictures and Columbia Pictures—were similarly organized, though they never owned more than small theatre circuits. The eighth of the Golden Age majors, United Artists, owned a few theatres and had access to two production facilities owned by members of its controlling partnership group, but it functioned primarily as a backer-distributor, loaning money to independent producers and releasing their films.

Sound and ‘The Big Five’:

The years 1927 and 1928 are generally seen as the beginning of Hollywood’s Golden Age and the final major steps in establishing studio system control of the American film business. The success of 1927’s The Jazz Singer, the first feature-length “talkie” (in fact, the majority of its scenes did not have live-recorded sound) gave a big boost to the then midsized Warner Bros. studio. The following year saw both the general introduction of sound throughout the industry and two more smashes for Warners: The Singing Fool, The Jazz Singer’s even more profitable follow-up, and Hollywood’s first “all-talking” feature, Lights of New York. Just as significant were a number of offscreen developments. Warner Bros., now flush with income, acquired the extensive Stanley theater chain in September 1928. One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company, more prominent than Warners itself not long before. With the First National acquisition came not only a 135-acre (0.55 km2) studio and backlot but another large string of movie theaters. Warners had hit the big time.

The last of the “Big Five” Hollywood conglomerates of the Golden Age emerged in 1928: RKO. The Radio Corporation of America (RCA), led by David Sarnoff, was looking for ways to exploit the cinema sound patents, newly trademarked RCA Photophone, owned by its parent company, General Electric. As the leading film production companies were all preparing to sign exclusive agreements with Western Electric for their technology, RCA got into the movie business itself. In January, General Electric acquired a sizable interest in Film Booking Offices of America (FBO), a distributor and small production company owned by Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president. In October, through a set of stock transfers, RCA gained control of both FBO and the Keith-Albee-Orpheum theater chain; merging them into a single venture, it created the Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation, Sarnoff chairing the board. With RKO and Warner Bros. (soon to become Warner Bros.–First National) joining Fox, Paramount, and Loew’s/MGM as major players, the Big Five that would remain for thirty years were now in place.

Although RKO and Universal were exception, the heads of studios on the west coast, the ‘movie moguls’, had mostly been in place for some years: Louis B. Mayer at MGM, Jack Warner at Warner Bros., Adolph Zukor at Paramount, Darryl F. Zanuck (at 20th Century Fox from 1935), and Harry Cohn at Columbia.

Reign of the majors:

The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the Golden Age: MGM was number one eleven years running, 1931–41. Paramount, the most profitable studio of the early sound era (1928–30), faded for the better part of the subsequent decade, and Fox was number two for most of MGM’s reign. Paramount began a steady climb in 1940, finally edging past MGM two years later; from then until its reorganization in 1949 it was again the most financially successful of the Big Five. With the exception of 1932—when all the companies but MGM lost money, and RKO lost somewhat less than its competitors—RKO was next to last or (usually) last every year of the Golden Age, with Warners generally hanging alongside at the back of the pack. Of the Little Three, United Artists reliably held up the rear, with Columbia strongest in the 1930s and Universal ahead for most of the 1940s.[1]

Hollywood’s success grew during the Great Depression, possibly because films helped audiences escape their personal difficulties. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said of Shirley Temple, “When the spirit of the people is lower than at any other time, during this Depression, it is a splendid thing that for just fifteen cents an American can go to a movie and look at the smiling face of a baby …” By 1939 there were 15,000 movie theaters in the United States, more than banks; the number of theaters per capita was twice that of the mid-1980s. The cinema industry was larger than that for office machines or supermarkets. While only the 14th largest by revenue, it was second in the percentage of profits that its executives received. Top stars like Bing Crosby and Claudette Colbert were paid more than $400,000 a year ($6,601,914 today).

The end of the system and the death of RKO:

One of the techniques used to support the studio system was block booking, a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Such a unit—five films was the standard practice for most of the 1940s—typically included only one particularly attractive film, the rest a mix of A-budget pictures of lesser quality and B movies.[4] As Life magazine wrote in 1957 in a retrospective on the studio system, “It wasn’t good entertainment and it wasn’t art, and most of the movies produced had a uniform mediocrity, but they were also uniformly profitable … The million-dollar mediocrity was the very backbone of Hollywood.”[5] On May 4, 1948, in a federal antitrust suit known as the Paramount case brought against the entire Big Five, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed block booking. Holding that the conglomerates were indeed in violation of antitrust, the justices refrained from making a final decision as to how that fault should be remedied, but the case was sent back to the lower court from which it had come with language that suggested divorcement—the complete separation of exhibition interests from producer-distributor operations—was the answer. The Big Five, though, seemed united in their determination to fight on and drag out legal proceedings for years as they had already proven adept at—after all, the Paramount suit had originally been filed on July 20, 1938.

However, behind the scenes at RKO, long the financially shakiest of the conglomerates, the court ruling came to be looked at as a development that could be used to the studio’s advantage. The same month that the decision was handed down, multimillionaire Howard Hughes acquired a controlling interest in the company. As RKO controlled the fewest theaters of any of the Big Five, Hughes decided that starting a divorcement domino effect could actually help put his studio on a more equal footing with his competitors. Hughes signaled his willingness to the federal government to enter into a consent decree obliging the breakup of his movie business. Under the agreement, Hughes would split his studio into two entities, RKO Pictures Corporation and RKO Theatres Corporation, and commit to selling off his stake in one or the other by a certain date. Hughes’s decision to concede to divorcement terminally undermined the argument by lawyers for the rest of the Big Five that such breakups were unfeasible. While many today point to the May court ruling, it is actually Hughes’s agreement with the federal government—signed November 8, 1948—that was truly the death knell for the Golden Age of Hollywood. Paramount soon capitulated, entering into a similar consent decree the following February. The studio, which had fought against divorcement for so long, became the first of the majors to break up, ahead of schedule, finalizing divestiture on December 31, 1949. By this time, there were 19,000 movie theaters in the United States.[6] The Golden Age was over. Through Hughes’s deal with the federal authorities, and those by the other studios that soon followed, the studio system lingered on for another half-decade. The major studio that adapted to the new circumstances with the most immediate success was the smallest, United Artists; under a new management team that took over in 1951, overhead was cut by terminating its lease arrangement with the Pickford-Fairbanks production facility and new relationships with independent producers, now often involving direct investment, were forged—a business model that Hollywood would increasingly emulate in coming years. The studio system around which the industry had been organized for three decades finally expired in 1954, when Loew’s, the last holdout, severed all operational ties with MGM.

Hughes’s gambit helped break the studio system, but it did little for RKO. His disruptive leadership—coupled with the draining away of audiences to television that was affecting the entire industry—took a toll on the studio that was evident to Hollywood observers. When Hughes sought to bail out of his RKO interest in 1952, he had to turn to a Chicago-based syndicate led by shady dealers without motion picture experience. The deal fell through, so Hughes was back in charge when the RKO theater chain was finally sold off as mandated in 1953. That year, General Tire and Rubber Company, which was expanding its small, decade-old broadcasting division, approached Hughes concerning the availability of RKO’s film library for programming. Hughes acquired near-complete ownership of RKO Pictures in December 1954 and consummated a sale with General Tire for the entire studio the following summer. The new owners quickly made some of their money back by selling the TV rights for the library they treasured to C&C Television Corp., a beverage company subsidiary. (RKO retained the rights for the few TV stations General Tire had brought along.) Under the deal, the films were stripped of their RKO identity before being sent by C&C to local stations; the famous opening logo, with its globe and radio tower, was removed, as were the studio’s other trademarks. Back in Hollywood, RKO’s new owners were encountering little success in the moviemaking business and by 1957 General Tire shut down production and sold the main RKO facilities to Desilu, the production company of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Just like United Artists, the studio now no longer had a studio; unlike UA, it barely owned its old movies and saw no profit in the making of new ones. In 1959 it abandoned the movie business entirely.

The studio system in Europe and Asia:

While the studio system is largely identified as an American phenomenon, film production companies in other countries did at times achieve and maintain full integration in a manner similar to Hollywood’s Big Five. As historian James Chapman describes,

In Britain, only two companies ever achieved full vertical integration (the Rank Organization and the Associated British Picture Corporation). Other countries where some level of vertical integration occurred were Germany during the 1920s (Universum Film Aktiengesellschaft, or Ufa), France during the 1930s (Gaumont-Franco-Film-Aubert and Pathé-Natan) and Japan (Nikkatsu, Shochiku and Toho). In Hong Kong, Shaw Brothers adopted the studio system for its wuxia films throughout the 1950s-’60s. India, which represents perhaps the only serious rival to the U.S. film industry due to its dominance of both its own and the Asian diasporic markets, has, in contrast, never achieved any degree of vertical integration.

For instance, in 1929 nearly 75 percent of Japanese movie theatres were connected with either Nikkatsu or Shochiku, the two biggest studios at the time.

Star driven system:

In the 1950s Hollywood faced three great challenges: The Paramount case ending the studio system, the new popularity of television, and post-World War II consumer spending providing many other leisure options. The industry lost its captive audience, and United States box-office revenue declined. The scale of both successes and flops grew, with what Life magazine described in 1957 as a “dangerous market” in between consisting of films that in the previous era would have made money. A filmmaker stated that “[t]he one absolute disaster today is to make a million-dollar mediocrity. One of those you can lose not only your total investment but your total shirt.” By that year Hollywood was only making about 300 feature films a year, compared to about 700 during the 1920s.

The powerful movie moguls that had led their studios with unchallenged authority were no longer present by the late 1950s.[5] Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century Fox, had no direct involvement with the studio from 1956 to 1962, and Louis B. Mayer, sacked in 1951 from MGM, died in 1957. The last old-fashioned studio head was Harry Cohn of Columbia, who was reportedly “aghast” at the changes occurring in Hollywood. Cohn informed investors in the studio’s 1957 annual report,[5] the year before he died, that:

We find ourselves in a highly competitive market for [stars, directors, producers, writers]. Under today’s tax structures, salary to those we are dealing with is less inviting than the opportunity for capital gains. We find ourselves, therefore, dealing with corporations rather than with individuals. We find ourselves, too, forced to deal in terms of a percentage of the film’s profits, rather than in a guaranteed salary as in the past. This is most notable among the top stars.

Financial backers increasingly demanded star actors, directors, and writers for projects to reduce risk of failure. The shortage of such talent increased their salaries, while fewer contract players were available because studios had failed to renew many contracts during the 1950s because of declining domestic revenue. The growing importance of the overseas market—40 to 50% of Hollywood’s total revenue by 1957—also emphasized stars’ names as box-office attractions. With their new power, the once-rare “working for nothing”—receiving a percentage of profit instead of a salary—became a status symbol for stars. A top actor could expect 50% of profit, with a minimum guarantee, or 10% of gross revenue. Cary Grant, for example, received more than $700,000 from his 10% of the gross for To Catch a Thief (1955), while director and producer Alfred Hitchcock received less than $50,000. In one extreme case, Paramount promised Marlon Brando 75% of the profit of what became One-Eyed Jacks (1961). (Because of Hollywood accounting, studios still received much of the revenue before any profit sharing; thus, they preferred 50% of profit to 10% of gross.) The larger paychecks also increased the power of talent agents such as Lew Wasserman of MCA, whose office was now nicknamed “Fort Knox”.

By 1957, independent producers like Hal Wallis made 50% of full-length American films. Beyond working for others, top actors such as Brando, Gregory Peck, and Frank Sinatra created their own production companies and purchased scripts. Top independent directors like George Stevens, Billy Wilder, and William Wyler also saw their paychecks increase, to about $250,000 to $300,000 by 1957, in part because their involvement attracted star actors. Studios increasingly provided funding and facilities to independent producers as opposed to making their own films. Hollywood had once viewed television as its enemy, but TV production companies like Desilu and the film studios’ own TV divisions helped save the industry by using otherwise-unused facilities, and executives expected that television would eventually become more profitable than film. While some studios like Paramount had long worked with outsiders, former leader MGM adapted to the new business climate slowly and experts believed that its survival was uncertain. A possible model for the industry was United Artists, which focused entirely on financing and distributing independent productions.

Syndication, television, recession, and conglomerate Hollywood:

At the beginning of the 1960s the major studios began to reissue older films for syndication and transformed into mainly producing telefilms and b-movies to supply TV’s demand for programming. Between 1969 to 1971 the industry underwent a severe recession, due in part to big-budget flops, but soon recovered artistically with such films as The Godfather (1972) and Chinatown (1974).

The onset of George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977) became the prototype for the modern blockbuster. The release of films at hundreds of venues became the norm with hits such as the sequels to Lucas’s Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Spielberg’s back-to-back successes with Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, and the development of home-video and cable television. Meanwhile, the uncontrolled budget of Heaven’s Gate (1980), and its limited box-office revenue, led to the sale of United Artists.

From 1990 to 1995, New Hollywood turned into more of a conglomerate Hollywood and quickly dominating the global entertainment industry. As of 2007, five of the Golden Age majors continue to exist as major Hollywood studio entities, each as part of a larger media conglomerate: Columbia (owned by Sony), 20th Century Fox (owned by News Corporation), Warner Bros. (owned by Time Warner), Paramount (owned by Viacom), and Universal (owned by Comcast/NBC Universal). In addition, The Walt Disney Company’s Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group has emerged as a major, resulting in a “Big Six.” With the exception of Disney, all of these so-called major studios are essentially based on the model not of the classic Big Five, but of the old United Artists: that is, they are primarily backer-distributors (and physical studio leasers) rather than actual production companies.

Sony, in addition to ownership of Columbia, also has effective control of the relatively small latter-day incarnation of MGM and its subsidiary UA; under the Sony umbrella, MGM/UA operates as a “mini-major,” nominally independent of but closely associated with Columbia. In 1996, Time Warner acquired the once-independent New Line Cinema via its purchase of Turner Broadcasting System. In 2008, New Line was merged into Warner Bros., where it continues to exist as a subsidiary. Each of today’s Big Six controls quasi-independent “arthouse” divisions, such as Paramount Vantage and Disney’s Miramax Films (which originally was an independent studio). Most also have divisions that focus on genre movies, B movies either literally by virtue of their low budgets, or spiritually—for instance, Sony’s Screen Gems and Buena Vista’s Hollywood Pictures brand. One so-called indie division, Universal’s Focus Features, releases arthouse films under that primary brand. Both Focus and Fox’s arthouse division, Fox Searchlight, are large enough to qualify as mini-majors. Two large independent firms also qualify as mini-majors, Lionsgate and The Weinstein Company. They stand somewhere between latter-day versions of the old “major-minor”—like Columbia and Universal in the 1930s and 1940s, except Lionsgate and The W.C. have about half their market share—and leading Golden Age independent production outfits like Samuel Goldwyn Inc. and the companies of David O. Selznick

A2 – The Star System

The Star System

The star system was the method of creating, promoting and exploiting movie stars in Classical Hollywood cinema. Studios would select promising young actors and glamorise and create personas for them, often inventing new names and even new backgrounds. Examples of stars who went through the star system include Cary Grant (born Archie Leach), Joan Crawford (born Lucille Fay LeSueur), and Rock Hudson (born Roy Harold Scherer, Jr.)

The star system put an emphasis on the image rather than the acting, although discreet acting, voice, and dancing lessons were a common part of the regimen. Women were expected to behave like ladies, and were never to leave the house without makeup and stylish clothes. Men were expected to be seen in public as gentlemen. Morality clauses were a common part of actors’ studio contracts.

Just as studio executives, public relations staffs, and agents worked together with the actor to create a star persona, so they would work together to cover up incidents or lifestyles that would damage the star’s public image. It was common, for example, to arrange sham dates between single (male) stars and starlets to generate publicity. Tabloids and gossip columnists would be tipped off, and photographers would appear to capture the romantic moment. At the same time, a star’s drug use (such as Robert Mitchum’s arrest for marijuana possession), drinking problems, divorce, or adultery would be covered up with hush money for witnesses or promises of exclusive stories (or the withholding of future stories) to gossip columnists.

Beginnings of the Star System:

In the early years of the cinema (1890s–1900s), performers were not identified in films. There are two main reasons for this.

Stage performers were embarrassed to be in film. Silent film was only considered pantomime. One of actors’ main skills was their voice. They were afraid that appearing in films would ruin their reputation. Moguls such as Adolph Zuckor, founder of Famous Players in 1912, brought theatre actresses such as Sarah Bernhardt into the movies however audiences wanted movie stars. Early film was also designed for the working class. Film was seen as only a step above carnivals and freak shows.

Producers feared that actors would gain more prestige and power and demand more money.

Thomas Edison and the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) forced filmmakers to use their equipment and follow their rules, since they owned the patents of much of the motion picture equipment. The MPPC frowned on star promotion, although, according to research done by Janet Staiger, the MPPC did promote some stars around this time.

The main catalyst for change was the public’s desire to know the actors’ names. Film audiences repeatedly recognized certain performers in movies that they liked. Since they did not know the performers’ names they gave them nicknames (such as “the Biograph Girl,” Florence Lawrence, who was featured in Biograph movies).

Producer Carl Laemmle promoted the first movie star. He was independent of the MPPC and used star promotion to fight the MPPC’s control. Laemmle acquired Lawrence from Biograph. He spread a rumor that she had been killed in a streetcar accident. Then he combated this rumor by saying that she was doing fine and would be starring in an up-coming movie produced by his company, the Independent Moving Pictures Company (IMP).

The development of film fan magazines gave fans knowledge about the actors outside of their film roles. Motion Picture Story Magazine (1911–) and Photo play. They were initially focused on movies’ stories, but soon found that more copies could be sold if they focused on the actors.

The creator of the star system in any form of entertainment was P. T. Barnum in the mid 19th century, a system of promotion he developed for his Museum of Freaks and later his Greatest Show on Earth circus. Barnum’s biggest stars were Jenny Lind, Tom Thumb and Jumbo.

Also, precedents set by legitimate theatre encouraged film to emulate the star system of the Broadway stage. Broadway stars in the late 19th century were treated much like film stars came to be treated by the middle of the 20th century. The main practitioner of the star system on Broadway was Charles Frohman, a man whom Zukor, Laemmle, Mayer, Fox and the Warner Brothers emulated and who later perished in the Lusitania sinking.

Star System in American cinema:

The cinema operates from three eyes: the eyes of the director and the cameraman, the eyes of the protagonists, and finally, the eyes of the audience. The secret of the star system comes with the second one. In movies, the most efficient way to show the emotions of a certain character is by inserting a shot of him reacting to a specific action (generally, the action is placed just before or after). This is what is called a reaction shot.

The reaction shot is a substitution; a mimetic transfer of the spectator’s feelings that brings him to identify himself in the star. It is like a mirror or a double, but with a sublimated image. Marilyn Monroe is a great example of the use of the reaction shot. In many of her films, the audience can appreciate many long close ups of her face reacting. At this point, the spectator has a privileged relationship with her; something even better than being her friend or a member of her family: for a moment, the viewer is Marilyn Monroe. In the Hollywood system, an actor can never really become a character: he is a star, no matter the quality of his performance.

Myths and Dreams of a society:

Another important aspect of the Hollywood star system is the stars’ ability to convey the myths and dreams of their society, such as the myth of the “self made man”, which for many viewers represents the belief that everyone has a chance of happiness in America. For a consumer of the star system, looking at these stars is a way to continue believing that anything is possible, regardless of class or money. Thus, the star system creates hopes and preserves the ideals of a still young country. The film industry is more than aware of this, and puts all of its power into the stars.

 

 

Decline of the Star System:

From the 1930s to the 1960s, it was somewhat regular for studios to arrange the contractual exchange of talent (directors, actors) for prestige pictures. Stars would sometimes pursue these swaps themselves. Stars were becoming selective. Although punished and frowned upon by studio heads, several strong-willed stars received studio censure & publicity for refusing certain parts, on the belief that they knew better than the studio heads about the parts that were right for them. In one instance, Jane Greer negotiated her contract out of Howard Hawks’ hands over the limp roles he had been foisting on her. Olivia de Havilland and Bette Davis both sued their studios to be free of their gag orders (Davis lost, de Havilland won). After completing The Seven Year Itch, Marilyn Monroe walked out on 20th Century Fox and only returned when they acquiesced to her contract demands. The publicity accompanying these incidents fostered a growing suspicion among actors that a system more like being a free agent would be more personally beneficial to them than the fussy, suffocating star system. The studio-system instrument Photoplay gave way to the scandal-mongering Confidential. In 1959 Shirley MacLaine would sue famed producer Hal Wallis over a contractual dispute. This suit was another nail in the coffin. By the 1960s the days of the star system were numbered.

The conspiratorial aspect of the studio system manipulating images and reality, eventually began to falter as the world and the news media began to accept the dismantling of social boundaries and the manufactured virtue and wholesomeness of stars began to be questioned; taboos began to fall. By the 60s and 70s a new, more natural style of acting (“the Stanislavski Method”) had emerged, been mythologized and enshrined; and individuality had been transformed into a treasured personal quality. With competition from TV, and entire studios changing hands, the star system faltered and did not recover. The studio system could no longer resist the changes occurring in entertainment, culture, labour, and news and it was completely gone by 1970.

Contemporary stardom:

The phenomenon of stardom has remained essential to Hollywood because of its ability to lure spectators into the theatre. Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and 60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favourite actors and actresses appear.

Contemporary Hollywood talent agencies must now be licensed under the California Labour Code, which defines an agent as any “person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment for artist or artists.” [8] Talent agencies such as William Morris Agency (WMA), International Creative Management (ICM), Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and many more started to arise in the mid-1970s. CAA represented the modern agency, with new ways of marketing talent by packaging actors, agencies are able to influence production schedules, budgeting of the film, and which talent will be playing each particular character. Packaging gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s with films such Ghost Busters, Tootsie, Stripes, and A League of Their Own. This practice continues to be prominent in films today such as Big Daddy, Happy Gilmore, Waterboy, and Billy Madison. The ease of selling a packaged group of actors to a particular film insures that certain fan groups will see that movie, reducing risk of failure and increasing profits.