with going too far over old ground I reworked through in line with comments from my tutor to get a much more structured and coherent piece of work, however was time when on a further research was carried out I felt that it required a little bit more what tutor calls oomph in arrears and yesterdays post is the second rework.

The rework includes:

• a more succinct title, that reflects the subject matter better;
• clearer more focused and referred opening paragraph, without throw-away openning statement;
• more focus toward censorship;
• a more appropriate example of films using metaphor referenced from academic literature, not a website
• more appropriate reflection on how the French New Wave influenced later films with specific examples

Overall I am much happier with this version of the essay, and it is a million miles from what was submitted in October/ November.

Censorship in cinema normally refers to one of two things: either a government-mandated restriction on the political ideas expressed within a film, or the self-regulation of the entertainment industry to “maintain the moral, social and ideological mores of their national culture” (Maltby, 1997). There have been very few occasions in mainstream Hollywood when the former has been required, so it has been primarily through self-regulation that the film industry has flourished. Such is the dominance of Hollywood in the film industry that this practice of self-regulation has dominated throughout cinema history (Maltby,1997). The most famous of these self-regulatory practices was the Hays Code, which was in place until the late 1960s and laid out a specific list of “don’t”s and “be careful”s, covering the portrayal of not only sex and relationships but also crime and morality. Films released during this period had to work carefully within these guidelines to ensure they would be able to be distributed to mainstream cinemas and consequently to their target audience (Mondello, 2008). This essay examines three films released during this period, Brief Encounter (David Lean 1945), Breakfast at Tiffany’s (Blake Edwards 1960) and Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard 1961), and reflects on how this self-regulation affected their portrayal of the attitudes of the day.

Brief Encounter, a quintessentially British film released immediately after the Second World War, is a film about the “repression of excessive romantic emotion”; however, “it uses cinematic techniques in its lighting, camerawork and lighting which can only be described as excessive” to provide the viewer with an “equivocally subjective viewpoint” (Nelmes, 2011). In this way, the film clearly builds empathy for the protagonists, who are involved in an extra-marital affair, thereby giving credit to the theory that there is a hidden underlying message in the film—homosexuality.

While extra-marital affairs were scandalous post-war, homosexuality was at the time illegal in the United Kingdom and strictly a taboo subject in society. The film’s screenwriter Noël Coward was private about his homosexuality throughout his life; David Lean, on the other hand, was more avant-garde with his relationships, having been married six times (Thomson, 2010). With this in mind, Coward could be seen to be reflecting on his sexuality and writing a parable about the difficulties facing gay couples in post-war Britain, a time when such relationships would have had devastating consequences for all concerned if made public. Brief Encounter could be a metaphor for how gay men had to live—not openly expressing their feelings, only having “close friendships”, and maybe even (although not in Coward’s case) entering into a marriage of convenience (Thomson, 2009). This use of metaphor is common in cinema. Two more recent examples are Soldier Blue (Ralph Nelson 1970) and Little Big Man (Arthur Penn 1970), which used the treatment of Native Americans as a metaphor for the Vietnam war and race relations (Doughty and Etherington-Wright, 2011).

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (Blake Edwards 1960) is based on a novella by Truman Capote which tells the story of a prostitute. While morality had evolved by 1960 for the baby boomer generation, the same could not be said for their parents. Under the Hays Code, the themes addressed by the novella could not be openly shown in the cinema. Therefore, in contrast to the source material, the film does not overtly mention that Holly is a prostitute, removes all trace of the pregnancy with Jose’s child and concludes with a romantic happy ending that brings Holly and Paul together.

On the face of it, Holly and Paul are living the American dream, with money, nice apartments in the heart of New York City and little need to work. The opening shot of the film demonstrates this by showing a taxi driving along 5^th Avenue, the immaculate Holly Golightly stepping out of it. However, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is also a film about loneliness and unfulfilled dreams, and showing Holly as a solitary figure dwarfed by the buildings of New York in this same opening helps to reinforce this impression to the audience. Holly is a complex character who fails to realise that she is the architect of all her own problems; her desire is to have a stable life, but she is fixated on the idea that this can only come through money.

There are many reasons as to how and why anaudience interacts with a movie, and a major factor is escapism (Doughty and Etherington-Wright, 2011). Therefore the self-imposed censorship of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, where vague dialogue explaining how Holly earns money (“I always get fifty dollars for the powder room”; Edwards, 1961) clearly alludes to her being a prostitute but does not mention it explicitly. The casting of Audrey Hepburn in the role of Holly also affects the way the audience views the character. An audience in 1961 would not immediately believe Hepburn to be a prostitute, as she was not perceived to be sexual or common enough; perhaps if one of her more sexual contemporaries, Kim Novak or Janet Leigh for example, had been cast, the veil over Holly’s employment status would have been thinner (Thomson, 2015).

These traits in the film allow it to maintain the escapism while permitting the darker themes of loneliness and prostitution to come through, especially when combined with the overall mise-en-scène, including costumes which were stylish and elegant; the use of lighting and colour in the cinematography depicts New York as glamorous without being over the top. Even now, over 50 years later, the film’s style remains attractive to the viewer. The self-regulation at the heart of Hollywood stopped Edwards from dealing with the underlying theme of a potentially unachievable American dream head on, which would have been more relevant to teenagers of the day but would have made the film unpalatable to the average audience.

Finally, Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard 1961) was a contemporary of Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Being made outside of the Hollywood studio system, however, the film deals with love, lust, and relationships much more directly, with an overall mise-en-scène far different to that of Brief Encounter and Breakfast at Tiffany’s. The use of handheld camera techniques and on location shooting (including the interior shots) gives the film the casual, more documentary look which made the French New Wave revolutionary (Thompson and Bordwell, 2016).

Working outside of a studio system, Godard takes the conventions of film noir and gives them a contemporary setting, creating an homage to that golden age and sowing the seed for movies where the main protagonists are outlaw lovers, such as Bonnie and Clyde (Arthur Penn 1967), Badlands (Terrence Malick 1973) and True Romance (Tony Scott 1993) (Thompson and Bordwell, 2016). The Hays code of conduct specifically identified that film makers should be careful of “excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a ‘heavy’”. As Jill Nelmes suggests, Godard did not have to invite us to like his characters and thus could produce a film which provided no excuses for the protagonists’ objectionable behaviour (Nelmes, 2012). In contrast, Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Brief Encounter go out of their way to have the audience empathise with their protagonists.

Breathless shows that in the late 50’s and early 60’s, young people of the day were starting to live outside of the traditional family unit. Patricia is living an amoral lifestyle as a young American in Paris. Paul is self-centred and fixed on sexual conquest. Patricia also appears committed to the promiscuous lifestyle, even when she finds out she is pregnant. They are a particularly amoral couple, happy to live their lives as they see fit without regard for convention.

In summary, while the absence of the restrictions imposed by the Hays Code allowed Godard to produce a film with more realism than Edwards and Lean, censorship did not stop Edwards and Lean from attempting to tackle issues of the day. While they are more shrouded in metaphor and mystery, their films do allow contemporary audiences to take watch the wanted from the movie – peer behind the veil if they wanted, whereas Godard’s film can be viewed as a more accurate record of its time that Hollywood audiences of the era may have found difficult to accept.

Bibliography

Badlands. (1973). [film] Directed by T. Malick. USA: Warner Bros.

Bbfc.co.uk. (2017). British Board of Film Classification | British Board of Film Classification. [online] Available at: http://bbfc.co.uk/ [Accessed 3 May 2017].

Bonnie and Clyde. (1967). [film] Directed by A. Penn. USA: Warner Bros/Seven Arts.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s. (1961). [film] Directed by B. Edwards. USA: Paramount Pictures.

Breathless. (1960). [film] Directed by J. Goddard. France: Films Georges de Beauregard.

Brief Encounter. (1945). [film] Directed by D. Lean. England: Eagle-Lion Distributors Ltd.

Doughty, R. and Etherington-Wright, C. (2011). Understanding film theory: Theoretical and critical perspectives. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ebert, R. (2003). Breathless Movie Review & Film Summary (1960) | Roger Ebert. [online] Rogerebert.com. Available at: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-breathless-1960 [Accessed 3 May 2017].

Gristwood, S. (2010). [online] Breakfast at Tiffany’s 50 years on. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/classic-movies/8032801/Breakfast-at-Tiffanys-50-years-on.html [Accessed 1 Dec. 2016].

Hitchman, S. (2008). FRENCH NEW WAVE HISTORY. [online] Available at: http://www.newwavefilm.com/about/history-of-french-new-wave2.shtml [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

Krone (2014). 15 famous movies that have subtle hidden meanings. [online] Available at: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-famous-movies-that-have-subtle-hidden-meanings/ [Accessed 20 Nov. 2016].

Lewis, J. (n.d.). Hollywood v. Hard core page 301 15. [online] New York: New York University Press. Available at: https://www.oca-student.com/sites/default/files/oca-content/key-resources/res-files/hollywood_v._hard_core_page_301-15.pdf [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].

Little Big Man. (1970). [film] Directed by A. Penn. USA: National General Pictures.

Maltby, R. (1997) Censorship and Self-Regulation. In Nowell-Smith, G. (1997). The Oxford history of world cinema. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mondello, B. (2008). Remembering Hollywood’s Hays code, 40 years on. [online] Available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301189 [Accessed 10 Aug. 2016].

Motion picture production code. (2016). In: Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.

Nelmes, J. (2012). An introduction to film studies. 5th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

Screenonline.org.uk. (2014). BFI Screenonline: The Hays Code. [online] Available at: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/592022/ [Accessed 3 May 2017].

Soldier Blue. (1970). [film] Directed by R. Nelson. USA: Embassy Pictures.

Temple, M. and Witt, M. (2008). The french cinema book. Palgrave Macmillan.

Terms, P. (2016). French new wave cinema – film techniques. [online] Available at: https://prezi.com/fouzcnvw2qqg/french-new-wave-cinema-film-techniques/ [Accessed 15 Aug. 2016].

Thompson, K. and Bordwell, P. (2016). Film art: An introduction. 1st ed. United States: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Thomson, D. (2009). Have you seen? A personal introduction to 1,000 films including masterpieces, oddities and guilty pleasures (with just a few disasters). London: Penguin Group UK.

Thomson, D. (2010). Brief encounter: The best romantic film of all time. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/16/brief-encounter-romance [Accessed 21 Sep. 2016].

Thomson, D. (2015). How to watch a movie. 1st ed. Profile Books Ltd.

True Romance. (1993). [film] Directed by T. Scott. USA: Warner Bros.

YouTube. (2012). Professor Dreyfus lecture – Breathless (À bout de souffle) Active & Passive Nihilism. [online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th52fhMlsDA&t=926s [Accessed 3 May 2017].

It is the product of a great deal of further reading and a better understanding of the Harvard Referencing system. As with the previous version, I am happy with my idea, but in this version, I believe I have expressed them in a better and more expanded way. And again importantly the sources and background reading are much more clearly and correctly referenced.

Looking back over it now, I think it could do with so further tweaking as I do not believe I have integrated the paragraph on the Hayes Code particularly well with the rest of the essay.

Below is an exchange of email with my tutor following the submission of the re-work to him (although I do appricate tutors do not give formal feedback on re-works).

On 7 Dec 2016, at 9:29 PM, Andrew Conroy <andrewconroy@oca.ac.uk> wrote:

Pete,

I’ve only very quickly glanced at it, but it looks far more efficient and well organised (the content is another matter though, and I haven’t gone through it in sufficient detail to offer any sort of reasoned judgment).

Coincidentally enough, I was looking through Brian McNair’s Striptease Culture last night, and it touched on a few things that you may find useful, namely how maleness and masculinity have been represented in cinema. There’s a really interesting section that looks at the films of Michael Douglas and how they can be seen to express certain anxieties about men and maleness and male sexuality- all really interesting stuff, and a book that will also potentially be useful for helping you think about the previous section in the unit.

Best regards,

Andrew 

On 7 Dec 2016, at 10:38 PM, Pete Walker <peter514508@oca.co.uk> wrote:

Andrew, 

Thanks, the content may still need a bit of work but, the fact that looks better helps me sleep better.

I think onwards and upwards to a3 and I’ll drop back to revise a2 as I develop my essay skills further.

Thank you again for the support over this last couple of weeks it has been invaluable.

Sex runs through all lives; it is fundamental to our existence as a species, and it could be argued that it underpins almost every aspect of human society, but what is does lead to is conflict which is usually central to any story about relationships.

The film industry has always been relatively self-regulating with regards to moral standards and to help with this self-regulation a code of conduct was adhered to in Hollywood up until the late 1960’s – The Hays Code. This code laid out a specific list of “don’t”s and “be careful”s covering the portrayal of not only sex and relationships but crime and violence too.  (Lewis, no date)

Films released within this period had to work carefully within these guidelines to ensure that the film would be able to be distributed to mainstream cinema and as such to their target audience. (Mondello, 2008).

Brief Encounter (Dir David Lean 1945) released immediately after the Second World War, is the story of the doomed love that grows between housewife Laura Jesson and Dr Alec Harvey after a chance meeting in a railway station café. The director David Lean and writer Noel Coward explore conflict by telling the story of an unconsummated love affair conducted by two decent married people who, at their heart, are conflicted by their feelings.

There is a more open affair happening on the fringes of the film with the flirtation between that station guard and café manageress. This acts as a nice counterpoint to the main narrative by discreetly illustrating the inner thoughts of Laura and Alec. While the primary relationship is portrayed more like a teenage romance, happy to be in each other’s company stealing what time they can to have dates in the movies, but there is no symbolism required as the couple never have sex.

Noel Coward appears to have been the calming influence on Brief Encounter, always private about his homosexuality throughout his life; he knew how not to offend middle-class sensibilities especially since David Lean was more avant-garde with his relationships (being married six times) (Thomson, 2010). Coward’s script never actually discusses why the couple are disenchanted with their current lives or that they are looking for excitement.

Following on from David Thompson’s observation that is Coward’s private nature that makes the film so quiet; perhaps Coward is reflecting on his sexuality and writing a parable about gay relationships in post-war Britain, a time when if such relationships were made public it would have had devastating consequences for all concerned. The film could be a metaphor for how gay men had to live, not openly expressing their feelings, living, only having friendships and maybe even, although not in Coward’s case, being a marriage of convenience (Thomson, 2009). Cinema has often used metaphor in this way, for example, High Noon (Fred Zinnemann, 1952) is often seen as a parable for the effect of McCarthyism (888, 2014).

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (Dir Blake Edwards 1960) is based on a novella by Truman Capote and tells the love story of Holly and Paul, one an escort and the other the “kept man” of an older married woman.

Morality had evolved in the 1960s for the baby boomer generation; though not for their parents and the Hays Code. The film, in contrast to the book, does not overtly mention that Holly is a prostitute, it removes all trace of the pregnancy with Jose’s child and concludes the film with a romantic happy ending that brings Holly and Paul together.

To avoid specific reference to Holly’s career, symbolism and metaphor within its dialogue lead the audience on a journey to the real meaning should they wish to follow it. For example, when Holly says, “I always get $50 for the powder room.” she explains what happens on her dinner dates, apparently eluding to the financial underpinning of her dates and that she is a prostitute.

The film is portrayed to the audience as an old-fashioned romance between two lonely people. The opening scene of the movie of the taxi driving up a deserted 5th Avenue sets the tone of this. Holly, in particular, is a complex character who is conflicted by her attraction to Paul, who is very much like her, and her desire to have a stable life that the money from being an escort can bring her. This conflict is only actually addressed in the final emotional scenes where Paul professes his love for Holly and spells out to her that she is the architect of her problems.

Director Blake Edwards, as well using symbolism in the dialogue, distracts the audience from the underlying issue of Holly being an escort with the overall mise-en-scene. Through the use of costumes which were stylish and elegant, the use of lighting and colour in its cinematography depicts New York as glamorous without being over the top. Even now, over 50 years later, its style remains attractive to the viewer, distracting from the lives of the lead characters.

Breathless (Dir Jean- Luc Goodard 1961) was a contemporary of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, however, Breathless dealt with love, lust, and conflict much more directly.

The overall mise-en-scene is much different that the two previous films, the use of the handheld camera and guerrilla shooting style gives the film the casual, more documentary look which made the new wave revolutionary. (Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith, p480).

Working outside of a studio system, Goddard uses the conventions of film noir and gives them a contemporary setting creating an homage to that golden age and sows the seed for movies where the main protagonist are outlaw lovers such as Bonnie and Clyde, Badlands, and True Romance (Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith, 2016). As Jill Nelmes (Nicholls 2011) suggests, Godard did not have to invite us to like his characters and produced a film which gave no excuses for the protagonist’s objectionable behaviour. (Nicholls, 2011, pp. 85–85)

Conflict appears not an issue for the protagonists. Patricia is living an amoral lifestyle, as a young American in Paris. Paul is self centred and fixed on sexual conquest, Patricia appears committed to the promiscuous lifestyle, even when Patricia finds out she is pregnant. They are a particularly amoral couple they are happy to live their lives as they see fit without regard for convention.

Comparing Breathless and Breakfast at Tiffany’s as contemporaries, Breathless addresses the issues of the day more directly as it is outside of the studio system. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is flawed in the fact that disguises the issues in Hollywood wrapping, for example, the beautiful set pieces and happy ending love story.

Moreover, of the three again Breakfast at Tiffany’s is the weakest at dealing with the social issues of the day, although credit is due to bringing these matters to the screen even if heavily masked, while for all its repression Brief Encounter reflects a situation that is still as relevant today as it was then.

References

888, krone. (2014). “15 famous movies that have subtle hidden meanings”, Taste of Cinema [online] Available at: <http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-famous-movies-that-have-subtle-hidden-meanings/> [Accessed: 20 November 2016].

Bordwell, P.D., Thompson, K. and Smith, J. (2016) Film art: An introduction. United States: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

(Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith, 2016)

(Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith, 2016, pp. 418–422)

(Bordwell, Thompson, and Smith, 2016, p. 480)

Lewis, J (no date)Hollywood v. Hard core Available at: https://www.oca-student.com/sites/default/files/oca-content/key-resources/res-files/hollywood_v._hard_core_page_301-15.pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Mondello, B. (2008). “Remembering Hollywood’s Hays code, 40 years on”, NPR [online] Available at: <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301189> [Accessed: 10 August 2016].

Nicholls, B. (2011) Introduction to film studies. Edited by Jill Nelmes. 5th edn. New York: Taylor & Francis.

(Nicholls, 2011)

(Nicholls, 2011, pp. 372–372)

(Nicholls, 2011, pp. 85–85

Thomson, D. (2010) “Brief encounter: The best romantic film of all time”, The Guardian [online] Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/16/brief-encounter-romance> [Accessed: 21 September 2016].

Bibliography

888, krone (2014) 15 famous movies that have subtle hidden meanings. Available at: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-famous-movies-that-have-subtle-hidden-meanings/ (Accessed: 20 November 2016).

Bordwell, P.D., Thompson, K. and Smith, J. (2016) Film art: An introduction. United States: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

British board of film classification (2016) Available at: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Central board of film certification (2016) in Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Board_of_Film_Certification (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Breathless movie review & film summary (1960) (2003) Directed by Roger Ebert .

Hays, W.H. (no date) BFI Screenonline: The Hays code. Available at: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/592022/ (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Hitchman, S. (2008) FRENCH NEW WAVE HISTORY. Available at: http://www.newwavefilm.com/about/history-of-french-new-wave2.shtml (Accessed: 15 August 2016).

Lewis, J. (no date) Hollywood v. Hard core page 301 15. Available at: https://www.oca-student.com/sites/default/files/oca-content/key-resources/res-files/hollywood_v._hard_core_page_301-15.pdf (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Mondello, B. (2008) Remembering Hollywood’s Hays code, 40 years on. Available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93301189 (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Motion picture production code (2016) in Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code (Accessed: 10 August 2016).

Nicholls, B. (2011) Introduction to film studies. Edited by Jill Nelmes. 5th edn. New York: Taylor & Francis.

pangeaprogressredux (2012) Professor Dreyfus lecture – breathless (À bout de souffle) active & passive nihilism. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th52fhMlsDA (Accessed: 20 September 2016).

Snyder, Exploration, N.A. and International, C. (2016) “Hand-held camera,” in Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-held_camera#New_Wave_revival (Accessed: 15 August 2016).

Terms, P.I. (2016) French new wave cinema – film techniques. Available at: https://prezi.com/fouzcnvw2qqg/french-new-wave-cinema-film-techniques/ (Accessed: 15 August 2016).

Thomson, D. (2009) Have you seen? A personal introduction to 1, 000 films including masterpieces, oddities and guilty pleasures (with just a few disasters). London: Penguin Group UK.

Thomson, D. (2010) Brief encounter: The best romantic film of all time. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/16/brief-encounter-romance (Accessed: 21 September 2016).

Witt, M. and Temple, M. (2008) The french cinema book. Available at: https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=gG0dBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=eclair+camera+new+wave+cinema&source=bl&ots=fHJeBNRtG4&sig=1RZbLGslN14rg6cxU30KZyNMlvY&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=eclair%20camera%20new%20wave%20cinema&f=false (Accessed: 15 August 2016).

(No Date) Available at: https://www4.uwm.edu/psoa_er/manuals/cameras/Eclair.pdf (Accessed: 15 August 2016).

(No Date) Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/classic-movies/8032801/Breakfast-at-Tiffanys-50-years-on.html (Accessed: 1 December 2016).

Above is the highlighted tutor feedback from assignment 2 (received on 16th November) and as with the feedback from A1 it was comprehensive and extremely insightful.

Andrew has pointed out that while there are some good ideas within my essay, it is littered with typos and grammatical errors from the first sentence; that it is unstructured and disorganised; and referenced; and lacking in enough analysis.

Andrew as also point out that I should not have struggled along alone when I was unsure of how to approach this essay, instead of blindly handing in substandard work we could have exchanged an email or 2 to help guide me in the right direction. Andrew was also kind enough to include a marked-up version showing me where the errors were and give a few pointers to think about in would need to be a substantial re-work.

Below is an exchange of emails with Andrew about the feedback:

On 17 November 2016 at 14:48, Pete Walker <peter514508@oca.ac.uk> wrote:

Andrew

Thank you for the email and first let me say OMG some of there errors are glaringly bad – I know my proof reading can be bad but that is just embarrassing. I use grammarly as a spell & grammar checker It is usually very reliable however, I did have some internet issues with it on the day of submission which might have compounded things. However It is fairly clear that my approach to essay’s is way off the standard required for the course together with the fat that i need to reference with the body of text not just in a bibliography and the end (additionally do I need to reference the screen shots?). Any advice you can give around this would be great weather that is ti or places I can look for for support would be greatly appricated.

Your feedback is encouraging, I’m sorry I didn’t email over my concerns, it was mainly out of a sense of embarrassment as I was almost going to be saying I don’t know what to do. Knowing that my idea and observations are good is a major step forward in building my confidence, with the first essay on the 7 Samurai etc I had a much bettering feeling that I was heading in the right direction. However, as I did with the A1 i found myself writing a lot from within as I was struggling to find the literature about the films I had chosen.

Taking brief encounter I read the comments about the Noel Coward reflecting his own sexuality in the script in book by David Thompson which I have referenced in the Bibliography however, I did not find any further literature on this – would be appropriate for me to expand with why I agree with the statement? Similar with the side story in brief encounter of flirtation guard and mangeress – could not find literature on this.

I also found the word limit challenging, as you say I have spent too much time describing and not enough on analysis, however i dad find myself rapidly running out of words without being able to say much – did try including some screen shots but I think I haven’t used the correctly? you haven’t mentioned the in feedback were they a help or another hindrance to clarity.

Would a general idea for he rework be:

Brief introduction (100 words)

introduction of hays code and comment (250 word)

Comments on Brief Encounter (250 word)

Comments on Breathless (250 word)

Comments on Breakfast at tiffanies (250 word)

conclusion/wrap up (100 word)

Are there particular point that you recommend I follow-up on or areas i should “dump” completely. Another thing I find myself doing is writing solely about the plot / story often neglecting the technical aspects of the film; is this something I should address in rework and further assignments?

Many thanks again for going the extra mile with this feedback it is very much appreciated and I am encouraged again my rework and the assignments to come.

I think video feed back would be good going forward however, would a brief chat be ok before moving on?

On 17 November 2016 at 17:02, Andrew Conroy <andrewconroy@oca.ac.uk> wrote:

Pete,

That’s ok. Proofreading should be about much more than just checking for spelling errors and typos, and needs to be more focused on structure, coherence, logic, clarity. I’d recommend spending much more time on it with future assignments, possibly to the point of producing a couple of drafts before sending any over to me. n.b., I’ve copied in Eddie and Lia, two of my esteemed OCA colleagues, who I’m hoping will be able to offer further guidance with some of the questions you’ve raised.

Beyond this, what your email seems to suggest is that you’re taking a rather limited approach to how you search for and use literature, and I get the feeling that you may be putting the cart before the horse. To write about a particular film doesn’t necessarily have to entail finding a piece of literature that’s specifically about it. The censorship article in the book I mentioned doesn’t necessarily touch on the films you mention, but this doesn’t mean that you couldn’t apply aspects of what it says to them. Likewise, while shedloads has been written about Brief Encounter, you wouldn’t necessarily need to look for anything specifically about the film in order to find useful stuff- literature on British cinema of the era and film and representations of sexuality are just a couple of things that you could research and incorporate in some way. What you need to do is find material that will help you understand film and its innumerable wider contexts, and then bring these into your discussions of the specific films you look at. If you do this, then your own ideas will be stronger and better informed, so you won’t just be casually expressing an opinion. For example, ‘In his article *****, David Thompson suggests that Brief Encounter was a parable about Noel Coward’s sexuality. At the time Coward wrote the film blah blah British social history blah blah and censorship was a major obstacle to filmmakers blah blah blah Hays Code blah blah blah. While it’s tempting to read the film in this way blah blah blah other have suggested that blah blah blah. The use of parable, metaphor and allegory in film is a device that has often been utilised blah blah blah and many films, such as **** and ****, have been read as expressing certain ideas in this way blah blah blah’ (I hope that makes at least some sense, btw, but the point is that anyone can express an opinion. To make it stick with a piece of academic writing you need to carefully develop your argument with reference to other literature and ideas. Oh, and it wasn’t clear that the point you were making about parable and sexuality was Thompson’s, so you definitely need to look at your referencing, otherwise it brings in the thorny topic of plagiarism)

The structure you’re suggesting looks ok, but this really is up to you, not me. What I will say is that 250 words is not a lot to introduce and assess a film, but with word length you do always need to play the hand that you’ve been dealt. Perhaps consider starting from the opposite end and get together some notes on what you want to say about each film and then take it from there. Structure is important, of course, but it’s not necessarily always about saying that section A will fit into 250 words, B into 200, etc etc. Get the ideas and content right and the structure should follow in a fairly straightforward manner (or so the theory goes).

To be honest, I didn’t really pay too much attention to the screenshots. They can have their uses, of course, but they do need to be thought about carefully. And, yes, they do need to be referenced in a separate ‘list of figures’ and numbered, e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 2, etc..

Hope that all helps. Good luck, and I’ll see you on Skype post-A3.

This exchange of email was very helpful, as it not only helped to vocalise my insecurities around my work, but it also allows me to gain some insight into how to structure a proper academic essay. This my first real foray into higher education, anything else I have done at this level has been quite practical based, so extended writing is very new.

Research and reading are the key to success here as this allow we to work with ideas that are out there already and expand on the to produce a reasoned piece of work. I have the books I have to sit down and read them not just have them sit on my iPad. However, I need to reference my reading correctly; this not only evidences my research to my tutor and assessors but it also avoids that thorny issue of plagiarism – how my essay was structured and presented in Assignment 2 I could very easily have been accused of plagiarism when that was never my intention.

Following on from this I concentrated on reading through my books to expand on the ideas I had, ensure that I had the appropriate references to put together a much more coherent reworked reversion of the assignment,

Demonstration of subject-based knowledge and understanding.

While I am happy with parts of the essay, I’m unsure of what I should be talking about and also am I talking about the right films. I am satisfied with the idea I have presented, but they are not expressed in the best way. I don’t think there is much difference in the essay’s structure to assignment 1; which is not ideal

Demonstration of research skill

This area is weak – while following on from assignment 2 I invested in several books I was overwhelmed with the amount of information and also on which information to use. I have found myself falling back to internet research. This needs to be improved and discussed with my tutor.

Demonstration of critical and Evaluation skills

Again relating back to the first point and assignment one this is a little thin – idea are not fully expended.

Communication

This a think needs work, but I believe that it is better than assignment 1.

Student Number: 514508

Introduction to Film Culture: Assignment 2

Reflection on cinema has explored and expressed contemporary social and moral attitudes over the years.

The sex runs through all lives; it is fundamental to existence as species, and it underpins almost every aspect of human society. What is unique to humans is their morality and sensibilities about sex, and therefore the concept of love and lust is born.

In this essay I look to illustrate how film makers have worked with this morality in relecting the issues of the day.

Brief Encounter Dir David Lean 1945

Brief Encounter released immediately after the second world war, it is a story of the doomed love that grows between housewife Laura Jesson and Dr Alec Harvey after a chance meeting in a railway station café.

Britain of 1945 was moral on the surface were to repress desire that was still a level of “Victorian type values”, but the country had just emerged from 6 years of war and hardship. People lives had changed significantly as the war touched them, either with the sudden death of a loved one or close friend, because you thrust into new situation either as a soldier or as for woman thrown into working in factories and farms. The underlying nature of people was changing but not always on the surface.

The director David Lean and writer Noel Coward with Brief Encounter explores that morality by show a story of an unconsummated love affair conducted by too decent married people who at their heart are conflicted by their feelings. David Thompson is his 2010 Top Ten romantic film alludes that the sedateness of this movie is out of step with the films of the day which their the lust and desire; all with the Hays Code of course, but Brief Encounter is more about a dream of romance.

The screen shots illustrate that they the relationship between Laura and Alec is very much like that of a teenage school romance; dates in the pictures and the sheer pleasure in the faces that they are just in each other company. There is quietness about Noel Cowards script there is no symbolism required to get around the Hays Code; the couple never has sex. There is a more open affair happen on the fringes of the film with the flirting between that station guard and café manageress.

This could be Coward’s way of reflection on his personal life. Coward was very private about his homosexuality throughout his life, whereas in contrast the director David Lean was married many times. Could it be that Coward was writing a parable for a gay relationship in post-war Britain, not just the extramarital affair?

Although, throughout the film, it is evident the couple are disenchanted with you current relationship it does not go into the reason why. We are given a glimpse into Laura’s home life, which seems to perfectly reasonable. The film gives no reason why we should will these too to leave their respective partners which play to the morals of the days and the depiction of Laura with the eye look of an adoring teen help keep the film firmly grounded in the outward morals of the day.

Laura and Alec part at the end of the movie choosing to remain on their current paths although they have clearly fallen deeply in love with each other. The love unrequited and again morals are kept by now allowing the farewell to get too emotional, they final cup of tea is disturbed by an acquaintance and Alec departs with a tap on the shoulder and Laura returning to embrace we husband for being far away.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s Dir Blake Edwards 1960

Based on a novella by Truman Capote tells the love story of Holly and Paul, one an escort and the other the “kept man” of an older married woman.

The film in contrast to the book does not overtly mention that Holly is a prostitute and removes all trace of the pregnancy with Jose’s child and end with the Paul and Holly being together. Morality had changed by 1960 for the baby boomers, not their parents nor the Hayes Code, so these changes were necessary to deal with the mixed morality of the time.

The film employs use of symbolism in the dialogue to lead the audience on a journey to the real mean should they wish to follow it

For example:

“I always get $50 for the powder room” – Holly explains what happens on her dinner dates

“Well is she or isn’t she? Is she or isn’t she….. a phoney?” OJ Berman and Paul discussing

Moreover, below “Do you think she handsomely paid? If had her money I would be richer than she is …” Discussing the stripper breasts and how they would change here life as an escort.

Although she is clearly an escort, the film gives innocence to Holly and allow in contrast to Brief Encounter provides an insight into her background which while not normal like Laura it is not too hard and shown that she still cares for the people she has left behind in the scene below.

The film as a whole is beautiful to watch; the mise en scene is a delight to the eyes. From the opening scene of the taxi pulling up at Tiffany’s; combine with the one-sided love story from the eyes of Paul how no matter what happens he loves Holly cleverly distract the audience from the underlying story of a “golddigger.” It ends with a scene of high emotion when Paul explain to Holly that she is architect of here own troubles and she should let him into her life which brings the story back to an excellent moral conclusion

Breathless Dir Jean- Luc Goodard 1961

Also released in the early 1960’s Jean-Luc Goddard Breathless deal with love and lust much more directly. Freed from the constrains of the Hollywood system and the Hayes Code Goddard was able to produce a film that gives no excuse for its protagonist’s actions.

Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is without redeeming features; he steels from his girlfriend while she is distracted; he ignores Patricia (Jean Seberg) while reading a pinup magazine, and for no reason kills a motorcycle policeman.

Patricia is also amoral she is living a bohemian lifestyle, happy to have a casual relationship with Michel and others. Goddard has not used symbolism to reflect the morality; he is showing it in a very raw way.

Using the mobile camera that was the hallmark of the new wave, the film has the fly on the wall or documentary-style look. The mise en scene and editing are much different to the previous films like the morality it shows it much rawer.

There is some symbolism; although Michel always pesters Patrica for sex, there are no overt sex scenes. The camera does cut away at an appropriate time.

Comparing Breathless and Breakfast at Tiffany’s as contemporaries, Breathless addresses the issues of the day more directly. Breakfast at Tiffanys is flawed in the fact that is disguised the issues in Hollywood wrapping i.e. the beautiful set pieces and happy ending love story.

Moreover, of the three again Breakfast at Tiffany’s is the weakest at dealing with the social issues of the day, although credit is due to bring these matters to the screen if heavily masked, while for all it repression Brief Encounter is reflecting a situation that is still as relevant today as it was them.

Bibliography

pangeaprogressredux (2012) Professor Dreyfus lecture – breathless (À bout de souffle) active & passive nihilism. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th52fhMlsDA (Accessed: 20 September 2016).

Thomson, D. (2009) Have you seen? A personal introduction to 1, 000 films including masterpieces, oddities and guilty pleasures (with just a few disasters). London: Penguin Group UK.

Thomson, D. (2010) Brief encounter: The best romantic film of all time. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/16/brief-encounter-romance (Accessed: 21 September 2016).