Bringing Up Baby

Bringing Up Baby is a black and white film produced in 1938. Howard Hawks directed the film and is perhaps the greatest director of American genre films. Hawks made films in almost every American genre, and each of these films could well serve as one of the very best examples and artistic embodiments of the type: …screwball comedy (Bringing up Baby)… (Gerald Mast).

According to Gerald Mist, Hawks was a master of point-of-view, knowledgeable about which camera perspective would precisely convey the necessary psychological and moral information. The type of shots that are done throughout the film are establishing shots, crane shots and moving in up close with a crane especially when the scene has the dinosaur bones in it. The shots with Susan Vance, played by Katharine Hepburn, and Dr. David Husley, played by Cary Grant is very different than with Cray Grant’s character and his fiancé, Ms. Hannah. As a couple they are not on the same page. Dr. David has the idea of having both a marriage and work, he wants love, but his fiancé wants it to be about his career. During their interactions the audience can feel the awkwardness and see the magic between Susan and David.

Tim Dirks claims that Bringing Up Baby is one of the funniest, wackiest and most inspired films of all time with its characteristic breathless pace, zany antics and pratfalls, absurd situations and misunderstandings, perfect sense of comic timing, completely screwball cast, series of lunatic and hare-brained misadventures, disasters, light-hearted surprises and romantic comedy. With the way Hawks uses the different situations between Susan and David, there is nothing but pure comedy. Both characters share the comedy of equality which is very different from the Old and New comedy traditions. The characters evoke laughter equally at the idea that men and women are different and at the idea that they are not (p 122 Cavell). Cavell continues this idea of comedy of equals with saying that is it a comedy of privacy, evoking equal laughter at the fact that they are, and are not, alone. Some of the scenes that fit this description is when they are looking for baby around the house, in the forest, and at the end when she comes to visit him at his museum.

This film also does a great job showing the female pursing the male which back in the day was not really common. It was the men who planned everything out and would win the over the girl’s heart. But in this film, Susan is the one who is after David. She is the one in control and has David in a daze. He wants to get away from her but somehow he is drawn to her. She plans when she is going to see him again and is the one that can manipulate him to do anything she wants. David fights with her through the whole film but also during the fighting he shows his feelings for her for example when he rushes over to check on her because he thinks baby has done something to her. The ending, resembles the idea of the walls of Jericho and how it had to come down in the film, It Happened One Night. The bones had to come down for David to finally give in and spend his life with Susan in common love.

The Philadelphia Story

George Cukor directed the black and white film, The Philadelphia Story, in 1940. This film fits the screwball comedy genre but is not one of the funniest films of this genre. The entertainment comes not from what the characters say but how they deliver what they say. The film deals with love, marriage, human growth and class distinction. Things that can be relatable back in the 40’s and even still today to some extent.

There are two events that foreshadow what will happen later on. One is when the Spy magazine gets trampled on by the horse’s hoof. The camera makes sure to follow the magazine till it hits the ground and the horse running over it. Its meaning is later explained when viewers finally learn that George is not the right one for Tracy because he is only worried about his reputation and how this marriage will make him more popular in the press. The significance of the horse running over the magazine shows that Tracy will not end up going through with the marriage. The other is when Dexter gives Tracy a model of their boat that they sailed on in the summer after they got married. Tracy puts in the boat in the pool while she is swimming. The boat is close to her and then the audience sees her get out and the boat continue to sail in the pool. This shows that Dexter has always been close to her even after their breakup. He is working on a way to get back to her.

Stanley Cavell makes two great points in his book the Pursuit of Happiness. One point is the audience is torn between what guy they want Tracy to end up with. Both men, Dexter and Mike, are great guys who love and appreciate Tracy and vice versa. Cavell claims that the one picked is the one chosen by the genre that makes the perfect fit. One reason Dexter is chosen is because Mike belongs to the wrong class. The thing that Dexter has on Mike is that Tracy and he grew up together. It also fits the notion that the heroine can rewin or win back the female character. In the film, when Dexter gets in the car to check on Tracy to get her to come inside after she has been drinking is probably the most intimate moments throughout the whole film. Mike and Tracy have a shared interest in books and such but they do not have memories together like Dexter and her.

Another point that Cavell mentions is Tracy and her father’s relationship. The two of them have a showdown when he returns. Tracy has assumed his position as the figure head when he lefts and now he has come back to reclaim is position and she is not willing to give it up so easily. The father is able to reclaim his wife quite easily from Tracy. This shows that Tracy’s mom can’t and want offer her comfort or protection which the film shows their loss of connection through the rest of the film. One example would be when they are at the party and Tracy thought her mother left a long time ago.

I leave you with a line from the film, Tracy: The time to make up your mind about people is never.

The Age of Innocence

Age of Innocence is a film in color that is directed by Martin Scorsese in 1993. The film is set in 1870 in New York where who you are and what you have is of the up most importance. This is shown through the film’s genre of mis-en-scene. The two major visual components of mis-en-scene are composition and design which is mastered quite beautifully.

In the very beginning of the film, different shots of the same scene are shown to achieve one point of view. According to Roger Ebert, observe how Scorsese sets up the dynamic of the film before a word has been spoken between Newland and May or Ellen. It involves a point-of-view sequence, and Scorsese told me: "We look through his opera glasses, seeing what he sees.” This is something that would have to be pointed out after watching the film or would incline several viewings for an audience to realize its importance. The editing consists of fast cuts to different parts of the characters i.e. earrings and buttons that contribute to the composition of the film.

Several camera angles that were eye catching and intriguing were when the camera was on stage looking out at the audience during the Opera performance. The audience was able to see what it is like to be onstage and to look out into the audience. Another is when the camera is off stage, the viewers are able to interpret the play within the film. The pan of all of the art whether is be classical or contemporary shows the design and contributes to the films as a whole. Lastly, is when the camera is up above showing people eating at the dinner table and at the ball when people are dancing. It is like the audience is God and they are getting to look down from heaven to observe those two scenes. Roger Ebert comments on how Scorsese has two great strengths in adapting it. The first is visual. Working with the masterful cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, he shows a society encrusted by its possessions. Everything is gilt or silver, crystal or velvet or ivory. The Victorian rooms are jammed with furniture, paintings, candelabra, statuary, plants, feathers, cushions, bric-a-brac and people costumed to adorn the furnishings.

The characters with the way they dressed and look fit well with the films design and composition. It made the audience seem like they were actually in the 1870s. Michelle Pfeiffer’s character Ellen always wore rich colors like blue and red. She always stood out compare to the other women in the film. This contributed to her actions and what she said as a unique and stronger character than any other person in that society which is was attracted Newland to her. The irony of it all is how social customs are more important that legislation. Throughout, people are more worried about up holding traditions and how people think of them more so then what is right or wrong especially how it might hurt someone in the process.

The film is very slow which makes people lose interest in the actual plot of the film and more on the set, angles, and costumes. The beginning and the ending are the best of the entire film. Rogert Ebert put is best when he said, “the final scene, on a park bench in Paris, sums up not only the movie but Scorsese's reason for making it; it contains a revelation showing that love is more complex and secret than we imagine. Archer's son Ted says his mother told him his father could be trusted because "when she asked you to, you gave up the thing you wanted most." Archer replies, "She never asked me." We reflect, first, that she never did, and second, that she never needed to.”

It Happened One Night

Frank Capra directed the black and white film It Happened One Night in 1934. According to Lauren Rabinovitz, this film is a rag to riches story much like a modern folk tale reversal of Cinderella. This screwball comedy raises the issues of relationships, romance and gender issues. While those issues are occurring, the audience is able to not only see how things will pan out but also develop a sense of humor with not only the characters but also themselves.

Ellie Andrews is the female protagonist who is very much a kid at heart. She comes from a wealthy background, use to getting her and being taken care of. Ellie can also be very stubborn; this was shown when she jumped off the boat because she was angry at her father. She thinks that she can handle this big o’ world by herself but Capra shows several moments where she is not able to. Two examples are when she asked the driver to hold the bus because she was going to be a little late getting back on and when she was laying in the hay and Peter goes to find her something to eat, Ellie starts to get upset when she realizes he is gone even though before she said that she didn’t care if he left. When Peter Warne meets Ellie, it is hard for the audience to know at first if they are both just using each other or if their relationship can be legit. After all, Peter is interested in getting an exclusive interview with Ellie and Ellie is only interested in not being caught and taken back to her father. Lauren Rabinovitz claims that both characters discover a mutual independence of spirit, feistiness, and resilience.

In the book Pursuit of Happiness, Stanley Cavell raises a couple of interesting points about the film. One is the notion of the Walls of Jericho. Cavell mention the fact that as soon as the film introduces the idea of the Walls of Jericho that the film foreshadows the ending with the Walls of Jericho tumbling down. It is hard at first for the audience to understand the meaning behind the blanket because it is so easy to tear down so Cavell seems to think that there is a correct way in the walls tumbling and that both characters seem to be in awe of what is holding it up. Another issue being raised is the genre of remarriage where the male educates the woman which correlates with her desires. Lastly, Cavell discusses the ordeal about Ellie not eating. She would not accept food from her father and at times was told not to eat some things by Peter. Ellie seemed to not want her father’s food because she did not want to give away her intimacy and release a sense of her freedom. With Peter, she eventually decided to let down her guard and accept what all he was trying to teach her. When she ate breakfast with him that morning the cabin, he was a father figure to her. He then controlled her by not allowing her to eat those chocolates and in the diner because she had no money. When he did offer her something to eat something healthy like carrots she was disgusted which Peter took personally to mean that she didn’t want him. Finally, she became desperate enough to the point where she decided to try his carrots. She becomes open minded and willing to acknowledge her feelings for him and that it is he that she wants.