I think you have to be careful not to superimpose totalising theory onto film, when you say 'film' we have to ask which films? Not all films are written, directed or structured in the same way. I'd also ask what is a theme in a film? What is the theme of Melancholia (for example)? Is it the end of the world? Family? Marriage? Horse riding? Sisterhood? Emotional distance? Mental health? In the first 8 minutes we see a poetic realisation of some of these themes but all of these themes do not emerge until the end of the film. If we went by dialogue and action we'd have to assume that the film was about cars and weddings. If all these themes are present how many are on the surface and how many are subliminal, existing within the narratives depth and viewer's interpretation rather than the literalism of the main character uttering a line of meaning?
I'm also interested in how you'd define a main character, who is the main character in Reservoir Dogs?
Also how you would define dialogue? Is it spoken or is something that can also be gestural? Can the main character convey meaning without speaking?
I don't think you can find thematic meaning in such an easily decoded form.
As to The Ghost Writer, is it the book that kills or the memories? Is it being embedded in somebody else's persona that kills or the act of writing? As the irreplaceable needing to be replaced, couldn't this be indicative of the struggle the character faces? The nature of authenticity (surely the ghost writer is always already a replacement). There are a multitude of interpretations to any movie, so I'd question Blake's thesis....
Jack
On 12/01/2012, at 4:33 AM, Henry M. Taylor wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
> This may be a bit frivolous for this forum, but here goes: according to screenwriting theorist Blake Snyder ('Save the Cat'), films typically state their theme - what the individual film 'is really about' - very early on (ideally, according to Snyder, around page 5 of the screenplay [c. minute 5 of the film]). Often this is supposed to be a line of dialogue spoken to the main character. Following this logic, I've been trying to figure out what the main theme is of Polanski's The Ghost Writer, but have got somewhat bogged down. In the film Ewan McGregor plays a nameless English ghost writer asked to rewrite the memoirs of the former British prime minister Adam Lang (Pearce Brosnan, Tony-Blair-like), after the previous ghost, Mike McAra, has died under mysterious circumstances. Now there are two interesting lines spoken in the first five minutes of the film: one is by McGregor's literary agent who says that what really killed McAra was the book (the memoirs), literally suggesting that 'books can kill.' The second bit of dialogue comes pretty much after exactly five minutes screen time, when we are told that the deceased ghost writer 'was irreplaceable, but now he needs to be replaced,' indicative of what? The treachery of words? The hidden meanings of discourse?
>
> Once more, thanks for all pointers!
>
> Henry
>
> --
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
> --
> Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy Conference: http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> --
--
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference: http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
Contact: [log in to unmask]
--
|