Insomnia

Don’t Lose Your Way

In classic noir films the femme fatale often fills a certain characteristic role. Witty, manipulative and double-sided she encompasses the idea of duplicity. Director Christopher Nolan explores these traits in the film Insomnia and reverses the role to create a homme fatale. Detective Will Dormer (Al Pacino) plays the role of a homme fatale by being duplicitous, desperate and using his intelligence in a manipulative manner. Dormer’s duplicity is expressed in his clothing, attitude and dialogue. He also uses his intelligence to manipulate in various ways often for personal gain. The third femme fatale trait that Dormer presents is his desperation. As the homme fatale he is not only desperate to keep his name clean but also to create further success for himself.

            In classic noir films the femme fatale exhibits a duplicitous nature, the most obvious way they do this is through their clothing. Dormer does the same thing but in a more subtle manner. He is often seen wearing his black coat and this makes you think he is always wearing the same thing. When he is in his hotel room and the few instances when he does remove his coat you can see that he does change his clothing. This is a direct reference to his duplicitous nature, it’s not obvious, and the changing of his clothes is done subtly which mirrors his duplicity, which is slowly revealed throughout the film. This duplicitous nature is also revealed through dialogue. Ellie Burr (Hilary Swank) says, “A good cop can’t sleep because he’s missing a piece of the puzzle. And a bad cop can’t sleep because his conscience won’t let him.” (Insomnia) Both these statements relate to Dormer, which emphasizes his true nature. He acts the good cop and this is initially why he can’t sleep, but he soon becomes the bad cop unbeknownst to the others. Even though he has become the bad cop and his actions label him a murderer and a liar, the other officers are unaware of this and he allows them to still follow his lead. His attitude also reflects this duplicity, during the conversation that Dormer has with Mrs. Eckhart he informs her that the man who killed Kay Connell (Crystal Lowe) shot her husband. She tells him not to arrest him and he silently agrees to this. If Dormer follows through with this agreement he must kill himself. After this conversation he continues pursuing the case knowing that he won’t shoot himself. Not only does Dormer hide this from Hap Eckhart’s wife, but now his motivation for the case has two sides to it. He now has to bring Kay’s murderer in not only for he crime he committed but to also cover his own tracks. The murderer is the only one who knows that Dormer killed Eckhart (Martin Donovan), everything Dormer does after this point has a hidden reason behind it.

            Manipulation through intelligence is also a femme fatale characteristic that is seen in Dormer. “You want me to take you somewhere?” (Insomnia) when Dormer says this to Tanya Francke (Katherine Isabelle) he knows exactly what she is expecting. Even though Tanya initiates the sexual implications Dormer exploits this and manipulates her into revealing the information he needs. He also uses his intelligence to manipulate the evidence that could go against him in Eckhart’s death. Dormer hides his gun in Walter Finch’s (Robin Williams) house to frame him. He knows that Finch killed Kay but he has no evidence and he plans on planting evidence, similar to the earlier Dobb’s case, in order to get Finch arrested. This manipulation is not for purely moralistic reasons. Dormer does want Finch arrested for the murder of Kay but that’s not the sole reason he has for his actions. Finch has to be put away because he knows who shot Eckhart; “It is easy enough to pin the murder on the escaping killer, except that one person knows for sure who did it: the escaping killer himself.” (Ebert) This manipulation is mainly for Dormer’s own personal gain because of his reluctance to explain the truth. When this doesn’t work he is forced to formulate and accept a new plan of action; “His sin is not in killing his partner (circumstances make it clear that this is an accident), but in covering it up, then making a deal with the enemy to keep the truth buried.” (Berardinelli) He can no longer attempt to manipulate Finch so he turns to “working” with him and manipulating the entire case to make the police force focus their attention on a different suspect.

The other major manipulation that Dormer performs is one that happened in the past. At the start of his career as an investigator Dormer was on a case that did not have enough evidence. In order to get the criminal put in jail he planted evidence, his reasoning for this is that there was no doubt in his mind that this man wasn’t innocent so he had to make sure he was put in jail. Dormer considers his actions morally right even though they were against the law. When Eckhart was still alive the two had a small argument about an investigation from Internal Affairs. This investigation was the sole reason they were given a case in Alaska and also the sole reason that Dormer does not admit to “accidentally” killing Eckhart. This investigation threatens to uncover Dormer’s greatest cover-up.

As the film progresses the Detectives third femme fatale trait becomes more prominent. The most obvious subject of Dormer’s desperation is keeping his own name clean, not only from killing Eckhart but also the Dobb’s case where he planted evidence. “Setting a trap for the killer on a misty beach, Will accidentally shoots Hap. Or is it an accident?” (Travers) Accident or not, Dormer’s desperation over keeping the Dobb’s case buried is obvious both before Eckhart’s death and after. While it may have been a conscious accident, Dormer knew that Eckhart was going to help Internal Affairs with their investigation and this would reveal things that would cost him both his title and his “hero-status”. Morally he did not want the criminals back on the street but he also didn’t want his name tainted with the information that he had lied and falsified evidence. After killing Eckhart he now has to scramble to create a solid facts pointing towards someone else killing his partner. After trying to frame Finch doesn’t work he becomes so desperate that he lets Finch frame a teenage boy, “It might even work with a couple of these local cops, who have known you long enough to figure you’re too dumb ever to kill anyone without leaving a couple of witnesses and a signed confession” (Insomnia) Dormer knows that Randy Stetz (Jonathon Jackson) is innocent but he does nothing to stop his arrest. In a desperate attempt to keep his own actions hidden he allows Finch to frame an innocent boy. The last thing that Dormer holds onto in the film is his adamancy that Ellie not become corrupt. Throughout the film he and Ellie grow closer and he starts to see himself in her. She is the complete opposite of him, she is young and hasn’t been tainted in the way that he has. At the end of the film she is willing to through her innocence away by hiding the truth about Dormer but he won’t allow it. He tells her “Don’t lose your way.” (Insomnia) He sees himself in her and throughout the film he pushes her to find the truth even though he knows it will cause trouble for him. He subconsciously is trying to protect her and keep her morally intact because he couldn’t do that for himself.

            Even though Detective Dormer is a male character he still mirrors the classic noir femme fatale. The characteristics he displays and his personality all show that he is the homme fatale. His duplicity, desperation, and the manipulation he uses are all examples of how he fills the role of the noir femme fatale. The one thing that Dormer is granted in this film is the option to redeem himself; this option is presented to him at the end of the film. This is the one thing that deviates from the femme/homme fatale view of Dormer. It is an inversion of the classic ending for femme fatales in noir films. Dormer is given the chance to do the moral thing and in doing this he redeems himself.

Works Cited

Berardinelli, James. Insomnia. 2002. 28 03 2013 <www.reelviews.net>.

Ebert, Roger. Insomnia. 24 05 2002. 29 03 2013 <www.rogerebert.suntimes.com>.

Insomnia. Dir. Christopher Nolan. Perf. Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, Robin Williams. 2002. Warner Bros., 2010. DVD.

Mitchell, Elvis. A Cop Runs But Can't Hide. 24 05 2002. 28 03 2013 <www.nytimes.com>.

Travers, Peter. Insomnia . 08 05 2002. 29 03 2013 <www.rollingstone.com>.

Remakes: The Hills Have Eyes

The Hills Have Eyes

            Movie remakes are often a hit or miss for the viewer. Often the movie is something they enjoyed previously so while the remake does need to have it’s own spin it still needs to appeal to the audience that is already there. The two films also differ in what they focus on within the story itself, and the small changes you see directly reflect the dominant ideologies of the time they were produced in. In The Hills Have Eyes (1997), directed by Wes Craven, and The Hills Have Eyes (2006), directed by Alexandre Aja, you can see differences based on the genre phase, the ideologies, and moral values. While these films both follow the same story, they are presented in different ways based on the time of their production.

            The ideologies introduced in Craven’s film weren’t altered for Aja’s remake, the main one being the family home as a place of horror. This is one ideology that was prevalent in horror films in the 70’s and still is today. The family home is the one place people feel they will always be safe, by invading that space and turning it into the place of horror the director is effectively making the viewer uncomfortable and achieving the scare-factor. Craven’s film is centered on the mobile home for the entirety of the film, while the characters do deviate from this area they always return. In Aja’s version of the film you not only see the invasion of the mobile home but you also see the invasion of the mutants home. Another dominant ideology in horror films is that the killer is an ordinary person who has suffered. This is seen in both films but like the invasion of the family home, it is more exaggerated in Aja’s film. The 1977 version of the film briefly touches on the nuclear testing that took place in the desert hills, the only time you are aware of it is during the title sequence. In the remake you are shown a montage of photos and short video clips, all pertaining to the mutation that the testing caused. You are also reminded of the testing halfway through the film when Doug (Aaron Stanford) finds their houses. Everything has been left behind from when the area was evacuated to do the testing and this emptiness reminds the viewer that these people are mutants because of what the government did. This also gives you a background for the villain, which you aren’t really given in the original. Giving you more information about the villains can be a bad thing though, “One of the rules of this sort of film is that the less we know about the monster(s), the greater the suspense. Because they have been “explained” (if not necessarily humanized), these cannibals aren’t as frightening as their counterparts from 1977.” (Berardinelli) In the remake of this movie, Aja sacrificed the scare factor of the villains to further build on the invasion of the family home. This compensates for what is lost in his film by uncovering the unknown.

            Other differences in these movies can be chalked up to the genre phase they were produced in. While both these films are slasher films one was produced during the revisionist phase and the other was produced during the reflexive phase. Some of the characteristics of a revisionist film were kept in the film for the remake. Both films are extremely realistic. The movies present you with a story that is believable which makes the film more effective.  By including a small portion of background information the realistic aspect of the film is kept intact by the mutant cannibals. Both films also use the technique of showing rather than telling, “…the distancing effect that comes naturally with all the usual Hollywood varnish is totally absent here, and the Carter family’s peril seems far more real than it would if the film have been made according to modern big-studio practices.”(Ashlin) The raw grittiness of this film makes it more believable. The remake does not eliminate these characteristics but following the reflexive phase it starts to veer more in the direction of “torture porn”. The viewer is still shown instead of told but the scenes of violence become more detailed and more is shown. This is especially true for the rape scene in the mobile home, in the original film this is more implied then it is shown whereas in the rape scene it is shown clearly what is happening. Even the violence in the remake has a higher gore factor than the original film. In the original film when someone is killed, be it cannibal or vacationer, they are killed with minimal blood factor and their death is not prolonged. With the remake the blood factor is exaggerated and the characters are often beaten first. When Doug is in the cannibal’s house, he is being chased by one mutant and has already been severely injured. When this chase scene does finally end with the mutant being murdered, and Doug covered head to toe in blood he still goes on to kill the mutant who is incapable of even moving from his chair. Aja used every opportunity he had to throw in more violence and more blood and the audience is forced to watch it, they aren’t shown short clips of what happened they are given the whole thing, no questions asked.

            These films also vary in their structure. While they both use isolation as a major theme, about half way into the film they both take different routes to show what is happening. In the original film only Doug and the baby survive, the whereabouts of the other Carter’s is left unknown, whereas in the remake Doug and the baby as well as the brother and sister are alive and together at the end of the film. While both these films offer the possibility of a happy ending, these vacationers are still stranded in the desert with the cannibals. The original film also presents the viewer with moral issues. Brenda and Bobby are deviant teens and they need to be punished, they are no longer moral characters according to 1977 standards. Bobby swears and Brenda admits to doing drugs, while they are punished for this behavior in both films they are allowed to survive in the remake. These moral issues are not prevalent in society in 2006 so they aren’t punished with death. They are allowed to survive but they are still being forced to suffer. The beginning of these films is also altered; the original simply gives you a title card as a back-story into what happened where as the remake gives you an entire montage illustrating the past. This traumatic past event, while established in both movies, is more intertwined in the remake of the film than it is with the original. Halfway through the film the remake deviates from what the original laid out, “…the movie flips horror conventions midway through, turning the victims into the aggressors.”(Hartlaub) In modern society people are attracted to films where the underdog rises up and takes control. People watched earlier horror films because it made them feel better about their own lives. With the change in society came people wanting to see themselves in the films. The viewer wants to be able to relate somehow to the character and be shown that they can beat whatever is thrown at them.

            At first glance these films are almost identical, a family gets trapped in the desert with mutated cannibals. But once you get further into the film the viewer can see that while these films stick to the same story and follow relatively the same plot the remake does deviate from the original. Aja did this because society has changed and expectations are different. Movie remakes are almost always guaranteed to immediately have a fan base, because it is something that has already been established as successful. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006) are both tailored to the audience they were released to, and because of this there are minor differences in both the story and the way it is shown to the viewer.

Works Cited

Ashlin, Scott. The Hills Have Eyes (1977). 01 04 2013 <www.1000misspenthours.com>.

Berardinelli, James. The Hills Have Eyes. 01 04 2013 <www.reelviews.net>.

Hartlaub, Peter. 'Hills' remake a gruesome, over-the-top thrill ride. 10 03 2006. 02 04 2013 <www.sfgate.com>.

The Hills Have Eyes. Dir. Alexandre Aja. Perf. Ted Levine, Kathleen Quinlan, Dan Byrd. 2006. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2006. DVD.

The Hills Have Eyes. Dir. Wes Craven. Perf. Suze Lanier-Bramlett, Robert Houston, John Steadman. 1977. Anchor Bay, 2003. DVD.

Harry Potter and the Canterbury Tales

This was a short response written for a Humanities course so when I say 'we' I am referring to what was talked about in class. If you are familiar with the Canterbury Tales then you should understand what I am talking about. Although I have realized that the word limit forced me to condense a lot and so this might be hard to follow my train of thought. 

Recently, I was watching all of the Harry Potter movies when I noticed something quite similar between Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, specifically in The Pardoners’ Tale.

 The Deathly Hallows Part 1 follows Harry as he leaves school for the first time and sets out in pursuit of the knowledge needed to defeat Voldemort, and ultimately death. I saw Harry’s journey as very similar to that of a pilgrimage, although he is not on this journey because he sinned, he is doing it for life. In analyzing the Canterbury Tales we talked about a pilgrimage being like a road, a metaphor for life. The pilgrims are on their journey to repent for their sins and to find knowledge, much like Harry is on his journey to find knowledge and this is his journey to adulthood, to find life.

We also talked about human suffering being a result of human sin, and this directly applies to Voldemort, whom has ‘sinned’ multiple times not only with murder and torture, but also by cheating death. By this time in the film series you have learned much of Voldemorts past and you know that he suffered as a young child. In Deathly Hallows you can see the transformation this has caused him, he only cares for complete power and the ability to exact revenge on those who caused him to suffer. The Deathly Hallows film focuses a lot on death, and the consequences that can lead one to death, most importantly greed.

This is very similar to the tale that the Pardoner tells. And this is seen most clearly in “The Tale of Three Brothers” scene. The tale, read to Harry in the Deathly Hallows film, shows him what he must do to defeat Voldemort but it also shows him what the consequences would be if he were to choose the wrong path. When the three brothers are approached by Death they each have to make a decision and which decision, or ‘path’, they take will determine their fate. Two of the brothers act on greed and are later taken by Death, but the third brother who takes a different path lives a long life.

In basic terms the decision is black or white, good or bad, and it is very similar to the decisions Harry has to make, and it is much like choosing a path on the road of life. That decision determines what kind of person you are and what your fate will be. In being forced to make these decisions the three brothers and Harry are similarly on the same journey of self-discovery that the pilgrims are on. In the Pardoners’ Tale the three friends are all taken by Death because of their greed for wealth and power, just as two of the brothers from “The Tale of Three Brothers” are overcome with greed. This is also Voldemort’s downfall, his thirst for power and for greed lead to his death.

The themes presented in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, mainly The Pardoners’ Tale, are the same themes in the storyline of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1, interwoven between Harry, Voldemort, and the three brothers. 

Brokeback Beliefs Deconstructed

A brief essay on the ideological values of the film Brokeback Mountain, directed by Ang Lee. This is strictly my own opinions and I am quite aware that I have left a great deal out of this essay.

In the film Brokeback Mountain (2005), directed by Ang Lee, the ideological beliefs of the viewer are deconstructed. Firstly, the image of a functional heterosexual family devolves into a marriage full of anger and misery. Secondly, the idea of a homosexual male being “manly”, which is not often portrayed, shows the viewer that being homosexual does not diminish a man’s strength. Both of these ideals, the common American belief, are taken apart to create a film in which acceptance of homosexuality destroys the happiness of not only the men involved, but also the people around them.

The image of the happy, heterosexual relationship is deconstructed and the audience is presented with violence and misery. The relationship between Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Alma (Michelle Williams) is seen as very dysfunctional. Jack’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) marriage to Lureen (Anne Hathaway) is portrayed in the same way. Both marriages are constantly overshadowed by the threat of violence, either from Ennis, or from Lureen’s father. The image of the perfect American family is taken apart in the way that wife and husband communicate with each other and also by their surroundings. Both Jack and Ennis are subjected to unhappiness because of societies image of the perfect family: “And for the rest of their lives, unhappily married with children.” (Bradshaw) When Jack and Ennis are on the mountain, vivid colours and vast landscapes of Brokeback surround them. Compared to the colourless surroundings at their respective homes, it is clear that their homosexual relations are much more fulfilling than their heterosexual ones. When Alma discovers her husband’s relationship with Jack the marriage begins to fall apart; “[Alma] has a powerful scene where she finally calls Ennis on his “fishing trips.” But she takes a long time to do that, because nothing in her background prepares her for what she has found out about her husband.” (Ebert) The knowledge that she has is what ultimately destroys their marriage, and leads to multiple arguments in which either Jack or Alma walk away from the situation. The ideology of a heterosexual relationship being the only one acceptable is seen vividly in how after his marriage has ended, Jack pursues another woman. Even though this makes him unhappy he continues with it because society has made him believe it is what is right.

Another ideology that is deconstructed in this film is the image of the homosexual male. This male is often portrayed as a feminine character, but this is not the case for Jack and Ennis. These characters are both seen as the “bread maker” of their families. Alma tells Jack that she would be willing to have more children if he would support them. When he drops his two daughters off at the grocery store his job is also portrayed as more important then Alma’s. Jack is also portrayed as manly when he is seen riding the bulls. The viewer sees both Jack and Ennis as strong men, Jack when he participates in the bull riding, and Ennis when he is working construction in which one of the workers replays a conversation he had about the work being hard on his back. Even the beginning of their relationship is not given the average love and passion that is seen in that of one between a man and woman; “The consummation of their relationship is a brief, violent, loveless episode that over their first summer together becomes an idyll of half-naked wrestling, nuzzling by the campfire and fistfights that inevitably end in an embrace.” (Hornaday) This further increases their “manly” image because even when they care for each other they do physical damage to each other and their consummation is raw and without passion. Their violence asserts their power as men and creates the image of what society would describe as normal men.

            The ideologies portrayed in this film are the downfall of the characters happiness. Neither Jack nor Ennis are happy in their marriages because they can’t be together. This unhappiness affects all the ones around them. Alma and Lureen are both left miserable because they know that their husbands don’t love them. And the children are left without their biological fathers. Even Lureen’s father is miserable, which he expresses with anger, because he wants better for his daughter, and he believes that Jack’s homosexuality is a bad thing. Ennis’ impassionate relationship causes misery for Alma when they are married and after they get divorced. Her knowledge of his relationship with Jack, and her disapproval of it, makes her miserable because she cannot accept it. These ideologies are what create the misery and loneliness of the film. This deconstruction makes the viewer rethink the issue of homosexuality as a stigma.

            Brokeback Mountain deconstructs two main ideologies in American society, first that the perfect family consists of a man and woman, and secondly that homosexuals cannot be “manly”. The film also portrays an image in which these ideologies can destroy a person’s life and their happiness. 

Bibliography

Bradshaw, Peter. Brokeback Mountain. 6 1 2006. 1 12 2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2006/jan/06/3>.

Brokeback Mountain. Dir. Ang Lee. Perf. Jake Gyllenhaal Heath Ledger. 2005.

Ebert, Roger. Brokeback Mountain. 16 12 2005. 2 12 2012

<http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/REVIEWS/51019006/1023>.

Hornaday, Ann. Lost in Love's Rocky Terrain. 15 12 2012. 5 12 2012 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121502059.html>.