In discussing Planet Terror (2007) and the larger work in which it was presented, Grindhouse (2006), I'd like to take the opportunity to define and then clarify a few literary terms. I consulted Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, and the expertise of an Emerson College junior majoring in Writing, Literature, and Publishing. I should state that my definitions may be inaccurate. Writing this entry is primarily an attempt to educate myself. So, if you, the reader, notice errors in these definitions, please feel free to say so in the comments.
Homage: "An homage typically repeats a recognizable scene or stylistic element from another work."
Allusion: "A brief reference, explicit or indirect, to a person, place or event, or to another literary work or passage"
Pastiche: "A literary technique employing a generally light-hearted tongue-in-cheek imitation of another's style; although jocular, it is usually respectful."
Parody: "A work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation"
Self-Reflexivity: "Self-reference is possible when there are two logical levels, a level and a meta-level"
Metafiction: "It is the literary term describing fictional writing that self-consciously and systematically draws attention to its status as an artifact in posing questions about the relationship between fiction and reality."
Homage, pastiche, and parody are related terms in that they all describe works which imitate other works. From what I gather, they, as a group, can describe a continuum of respectfulness. Homage is reverential imitation; pastiche, a comedic yet respectful imitation; and parody, an imitation which exaggerates characteristics inherent to the work(s) being imitated and is typically more derisive than that of pastiche. Though parody may "sometimes be done with respect and appreciation of the subject involved, while not being a heedless sarcastic attack," it is the most common technique used in satire, which targets social, cultural, or political trends and problems, so it seems to have a more negative, derisive connotation. Furthermore, pastiche is more concerned with congealing together various stylistic elements of a given work(s) into a cohesive imitation, whereas parody can be more isolated and scattered in its imitation.
Homage, pastiche, and parody are all self-reflexive in that they exist on two levels, 1) the reality the work portrays, using conventions of fiction 2) the reality engendered when implicit or explicit indications within the work acknowledge the fiction of the first reality. The second level is meta. All self-reflexive works possess this meta level. By virtue of its considerable exaggerating, parody is the most self-reflexive technique. One may view a pastiche or an homage without being aware of the meta level. One cannot view a parody without awareness of the meta level because it's precisely the irony or disparity between the first level and the meta level that initiates the joke and renders the comedy.
Despite that metafilms encompass self-reflexivity, not all self-reflexive works are metafilms which specifically use meta to draw attention to the relationship between reality and film as well as the production of the film itself. Adaptation. (1999) is probably the best example of a metafilm in that the story depicted is representative of the process of writing the screenplay, including the pressures that its writer, Charlie Kaufman felt to conform to Hollywood conventions.
Based upon my understanding of these terms, I've concluded that Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror is more accurately a pastiche, whereas Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof is more accurately an homage. Neither are metafilms, in that larger truths about the filmmaking or artistic process are not important facets of their creation.
Before even delving into how these films utilize and/or encompass pastiche and/or homage, it is important to discuss what exactly it is that they are imitating. They are both imitative celebrations of low-budget exploitation movies, specifically the kinds of horror and action movies that either played in grindhouse theaters in the 70's or that were direct-to-video in the 80's. Death Proof has an even more specific object of praise and homage: Vanishing Point and other movies from the 70's whose narratives were window dressing for extended car chase scenes.
Exploitation cinema provokes raw sensation in the viewer, either through hyper-violence, nudity, and/or lurid subject matter. Most are cheaply made and low-quality, though not all. They are amoral or eschew conventional codes of morality. Many are, in a word, nasty. An important corollary to consider is the theory that the entire horror genre is a form of exploitation cinema in the sense that horror films, above all, provoke strong sensations of fear in the viewer. Though there is much more to the genre, the expectation that scary things will be depicted on film is the genre's most unifying characteristic.
Horror films like Psycho (1960), Roman Polanski's Apartment Trilogy, The Shining (1980), Sporloos (1988), and more recently, Let the Right One In (2008) have brought respectability to the genre and provide a bulwark against the tide of criticism forever directed towards it. Each of those films demonstrates an intention and ability on the behalf of their auteurs to depict multi-faceted characters in compelling, well-structured narratives. Implicit and explicit horror elements convey the stories' themes better than elements traditional to drama. These movies hold up a mirror to the unpleasantness of existence and society, and the horror elements enlarge the reflection, capturing he grotesque essence of what it is reflecting.
For example, The Shining utilizes gruesome violence, ghosts, and an oppressive, ominous location to convey, respectively, the hideousness of domestic abuse, the enduring pain of personal failure and addiction, and finally, the isolation, suspicion, and hatred that festers within the American nuclear family. Nevertheless, in addition to serving vital thematic functions, horror elements simply make The Shining and other horror classics, so much damn fun! We come back to them as equally if not more for the high of fear as we do for the rich characterizations, thematic textures, and narrative sophistication. But still, this does not prove that all horror films are exploitation because there are many varieties of fear, and an important criterion for classifying a movie as exploitation cinema genre is the kind of fear it provokes.
For the sake of brevity, there are two types of fear which horror films can provoke: shock and terror. Shock is raw sensation, whereas terror is connected to the substantive aspects of the film and is a more emotional and intellectual feeling of being disturbed. When seeing a film like Psycho for the first time, it provokes both. We are shocked by the scenes of violence and the increasingly disturbing unraveling of the yarn, yet we are also terrified by the film's tone, its overarching themes, and the implications inherent to its structure. One reason Psycho endures is because the concept of a man killing a woman because he is sexually attracted to her speaks to the link between violence and sexuality that has plagued human civilization forever. The film's knowledge and grasp of age-old themes is self-evident in its grisly modern spin on the Oedipus Complex. Furthermore, the narrative structure of Psycho is arguably its most disturbing aspect. The audience relates and empathizes with Marion Crane (Janet Leigh)- her struggle is our struggle. When she is killed off within the first forty minutes, it is shocking, but it is also disturbing because it makes us as an audience feel inconsequential, and equally vulnerable to the cruelties of an unjust world- but to the calculatingly cruel and violent society. This technique has been repeated successfully in modern torture porn films from 2005, Wolf Creek and Hostel .
So, upon repeated viewings of Psycho, as is the case with The Shining, while the sensation of being shocked dissipates, the terror lingers and endures. They are both drugs. Shock is a narcotic which loses its potency over time, while terror increases its potency.
No comments:
Post a Comment