London in Film [Academic Musings]

So, obligatory “I spent a Summer studying FILM in London.” It was an incredible experience, watching these films and going to the locations that still look so incredibly similar. I love British film. This class really instilled a deep appreciation for how London has been depicted in film and TV over the decades.

This is the final term paper that I wrote for the class.

London In Film: A Study

2012

            There is a dichotomy when it comes to depicting the East and West End London in films.  Films depicting London have often relied on class stereotypes to tell their stories.  There is also a focus, or preoccupation, some would say, on class divisions in British cinema.  These themes have passed through the years, and across different genres.  In this paper we will discuss this dichotomy between film representations of East and West London in films such as Piccadilly (E.W. Dupont, 1929), We Are the Lambeth Boys (Karel Reisz, 1958), Bermondsey (Claude Whatham, 1972), and Sweeney Todd (Tim Burton, 2007).

            We will discuss these films in terms of personal relationships along class-divides, visual differences in the hard city of London, actual buildings, and differences in the soft city, or, what we can glean from the representation of social life in these films.  Through this exploration, we can hope to find what these common themes say about the city itself, and we can understand the ways in which London is used as both character and setting.  London as a setting is completely unique, as there are few cities with such distinct and historically significant landmarks.  This film exploration will follow these films chronologically.

            Piccadilly, a film from 1929, set in a swinging London, begins in an upper class club, filled with white waiters and patrons.  The film opens up displaying the intense affection between the club owner, Valentine, and his star dancer, Mabel.  Soon, however, Valentine falls in lust with an enigmatic Chinese dancer from Limehouse named Shosho.  He makes her his new star attraction and raises her into the echelons of the upper class, though she is never truly accepted as anything more than a novelty.  The rest of the film plays out this love triangle with the appropriate amount of misfortune befalling Shosho for her presumption to try to enter upper-class British society.

            In terms of the relationship between Shosho and those of the East end with those of the West end, there are some key differences, and key failures on the part of the filmmakers to adequately adapt the manner of speech communication to the different classes.  Valentine does not speak to Shosho like she is of a lower class, and conversely, Shosho does not speak as if she is a member of a lower social class.  Jon Burrows[1] mentions in his article “A Vague Chinese Quarter Elsewhere,” that the story was written by Arnold Bennett, a British writer who spent much of his life in France, and not enough time in London to adequately understand the differing types of language and accent which occur amongst different classes.  The relationship between Shosho and Valentine is exceedingly equal-- he treats her like he treats his British lover.  However, he joins her more often in Limehouse than she joins him in high society, showing that while she has succeeded as a novelty, she will never be truly recognized by higher society.

            In terms of the hard city, the consensus is that London is not represented accurately.  Burrows[2], once again, asserts that Dupont created a London with a lack of British culture. Dupont presents critical reviews which call the environment too continental.  The sets and the buildings, representations of the hard city, do not necessarily present the uniqueness of London.  Besides the thick fog in Limehouse, the film could have been filmed in any city.

            The soft city representation is also criticized by Burrows as being too continental, and inaccurately representing the social life of London in the 20’s.  The upper class seems frivolous and carefree, and the lower class seems lazy and dishonest.  Valentine is portrayed as a womanizer with business troubles, but he is morally ambiguous; whereas, Shosho and the other Chinese residents of Limehouse are seen as cheats, liars, and in the end, murderers.  They revel at living in squalor and do not work hard for their money.  A key scene of this in the movie is when Valentine buys Shosho a costume.  The shop owner refuses to sell the costume for less than an exorbitant amount, and Shosho holds Valentine hostage, refusing to dance for him unless he purchases the costume.  The whole scene feels like a conspiracy between the Chinese characters to take Valentine’s money.  There is a racial connotation of Shosho and the Chinese being novelties, and their actual presence within the culture of London as an intrusion.  The Oriental decoration and dancing is alright when it is in abstract, an idea for amusement, but when the people invade with their physical being is when immigration and integration of the Chinese into upper-class British society becomes an area of contention in this and other films of the time.

            A different type of film which has consistently focused on the class divide, North vs. South, and East vs. West, is documentary.  We have just discussed a silent film of the 1920’s, and our next film is “We are the Lambeth Boys,” a late 1950’s documentary depicting the lives of working-class youth in the Lambeth area.  This documentary film begins with a look at these youth in their club, then moves on to talk about where they work and their daily lives.  In the end, the film focuses on holidays or field-trips in which the males get to play cricket and have afternoon tea at an upper-class club-- a once-a-year event.

            It is this tea and cricket game which is most interesting.  The event affects the boys’ behavior in a negative way, as they lean out of a truck, shouting and screaming at people on the street.  The West end’s citizens in the street appeared scandalized on many occasions by this lower-class disturbance to their everyday lives.  The relationship between the boys and the upper-class males during the cricket game is telling, because the “main” game takes place on the prime area, in white uniforms, situated right by the upper-class women and men having their afternoon tea, whereas the boys from Lambeth were playing their louder, rougher cricket game on the end of the field farther away.  The film gives the sense that the boys are shoved out of the way, and that their purpose and presence at the club is charity, especially as the narrative tells the audience what a treat it is for these boys to get to visit the upper-class club for afternoon tea.

            Besides the appearance that the relationship between the Lambeth boys and the club members is one of pity, and that their presence in the club is a novelty, it seems that class and socioeconomic level is split by the Hard city itself.  The moment the boys cross into Lambeth over Westminster Bridge, they immediately become calm and pacified.  The documentary gives the class divide a physical divide at the river.  The focus on the hard city of London is generally south of the river, except in that last scene, where we drive by many London landmarks, including Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament.  There is a distinct sense of London as a city which transcends time.  In the background, there is the history of the second World War, which can be reflected in the relative boredom of these youth found in the soft city in this film.

            Boredom was prevalent for these youth, who lived in the years following World War II.  Peter Ackroyd[3] discusses how Boys Clubs (such as the Lambeth Boys’ Club) and youth clubs were emerging and “flourishing” in great numbers, and how this was probably due to an “air of mild oppression, like a hangover after the excitement of war.”  He addresses issues of class by stating “the chummy egalitarianism of enforced contact between the classes, were phenomena strictly of the past.” This is an interesting assertion, which can be utilized to analyze the oddness of an upper-class establishment allowing working-class men into their club once a year.  It seems a charitable thing, as well as, perhaps, a way to maintain some of the camaraderie which emerged almost a decade before during the war.

            The fashion in this documentary is reflective of the soft city as well.  All the boys are dressed well when they go to their clubs.  They wear suits and ties to go dancing at the youth clubs, while wearing more traditional garb on many of their laboring jobs.  Ackroyd[4] discusses how they used this garb to distinguish themselves from youth in other working class areas and from the upper-classes.  This feeling of neighborhood spirit is reflected in their language, the way they speak, and the song they sing in the trucks while driving through Westminster-- announcing to people that they are the Lambeth Boys.

            The baby boomer generation of the 1950’s, when there was a large youth culture emerging, eventually blossomed into the middle-aged 1970’s, which is when our next movie, Bermondsey, takes place.  This movie is about a lower-middle-class homosexual man, Bob, and his upper-class lover, Pip.  It contains a substantial amount of dialogue between Pip and Bob’s wife Iris, about why Pip spends his holidays “slumming” with their family, and not in his mother’s “castle.”  Pip takes offense to this assertion.  Instead, he says that he prefers being with them, because they have real love and real relationships, whereas his mother and he have a cold, unfeeling relationship.

            Both Pip and Iris have skewed visions of what it is like to be from another class.  Iris imagines that the Christmases are more glamourous with the finery and high-born guests, whereas the idea of a quiet family Christmas with Iris, Bob, and their children is much more appealing to Pip.  He feels their house is more homey and more welcoming than his mother’s.  This is a case of people desiring what they do not have, and thinking that the things they have are not good enough, or not as good as another option.  The reality of Pip’s life is never shown in this film in terms of the Hard city, as the film’s setting is a two rooms of Bob and Iris’s home.  The setting appears rather cosy and comfortable, filled with personal artifacts, and Christmas decorations, with people coming and going constantly.  The film’s visual aspects and the mis-en-scene match Pip’s vision of Iris and Bob’s life, though, as we know, reality is never what one sees on the outside.  Rarely does emotional and relational reality match the visual scene.

            As for the visual scene, or the Hard city of London-- there is none of the actual city of London in this film.  It was shot entirely in a studio, inside.  The story takes place in their connecting kitchen and sitting rooms.  The room itself is very British;  it is a basement living space, the decor is very 70’s, and the sound effects of drinking and camaraderie waft down the stairs from the pub under which they live.

            The drinking sounds and the merely the concept of the English pub is indicative of the Soft city.  This Soft city element is one which has endured throughout much of British history, though the pubs of the 70’s were different because they reflected the social life and culture of 70‘s London.  The idea of class problems is also a reflective of British society throughout the ages since the enlightenment and John Locke brought about ideas of social reform and human rights.  This film is unique because it discussed the envy not only of the poor to be rich, but also of the rich envying the poor their freedom.

            The last film we will discuss is Sweeney Todd, a modern film about Victorian London, which was also shot almost entirely in a studio.  The film opens with a dark, establishing shot of the London skyline, including the Tower of London.  By using the Tower as his establishing shot, even re-colored and darkened in his auteur fashion, Tim Burton can be criticized to have chosen the most expedient and convenient, according to Ian Sinclair[5], of London landmarks.  Sinclair gives the impression of the Tower as a tired, overused landmark which has lost much of its meaning and individuality except as a cinematic symbol of London.

            Everything in Burton’s drama is dark, and the representation of the hard city is extremely affected in Tim Burton’s visual style.  All the gothic elements of the buildings are exaggerated to a level beyond which they appeared in real buildings of London.  The hard city is comprised of sets, and re-imaginings of what London would have looked like in Victorian days.  It is also reflective of the social feelings of the soft city.  Which is evidenced in the opening song’s lyrics which Todd, played by Johnny Depp, sings:

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit,

and the vermin of the world inhabit it,

and its morals aren't worth what a pig could spit,

and it goes by the name of London.

At the top of the hole sit the privileged few

Making mock of the vermin in the lonely zoo

turning beauty to filth and greed...

I too have sailed the world and seen its wonders,

for the cruelty of men is as wondrous as Peru

but there's no place like London!

            Todd’s words speak not only of the Hard city, London, as a place which is dark, dirty and damp, but also of the Soft city, the culture as one of cruel and greedy men in all class levels who corrupt the good of the city until there is nothing left.  The line in which he talks about the “privileged few” is foreshadowing of the story, as Todd has already suffered great hardship on the part of Judge Turpin, who, out of greed, ruined Todd’s life and took everything he loved from him.  It is important to note that Todd, at this point in the story, is well-traveled, and is finally returning home to a London he has grown to despise, his only hope of happiness being that somehow, in some way, his family has managed to survive under the oppressive immorality of the city.

            Burton paints a perfect reflection of the Soft city in the way he builds the set of the Hard city of London.  The relationships between the characters is also representative of the Soft city, as they all fall into their social roles and play them out in the way, and with the same motivations that Todd has prescribed them in the opening song.  Judge Turpin continues to be greedy and steps on the lower classes in his drive to get what he wants-- going to Todd for a shave to impress his ward-- who happens to be Todd’s daughter.  The characters interact in the movie through personal motivation.  Mrs. Lovett, who appears to love Todd, is revealed in the end to have forced their relationship by making Todd believe that his wife had committed suicide.

            Victorian London is presented by Burton in a different way than many directors have presented it in the past, with the East End being completely industrialized.  Burton, on the other hand, has created an East End of London which is lacking in industrial fog, and simply appears dark, dirty, and full of people and shops.  There is no Jack-the-Ripper sense of danger when people are on the streets; the danger lies within the walls of Todd’s Fleet Street Barbershop.  In this way, Sweeney Todd is a genre-breaking Victorian-era film.

            A genre-breaking film which presents the East vs. West class struggles on a much more personal scale than we have discussed before.  Where Bermondsey discusses class as an abstract thought, there is no oppression which goes along with being a member of the lower classes.  In Sweeney Todd, the main character is personally oppressed by the power that Judge Turpin has in his upper-class position.  Shosho, by contrast is not oppressed, but rather is a taint on upper-class society as a Chinese woman, and the boys in We are the Lambeth Boys are not oppressed by the upper-classes, but are rather living in tandem with them, albeit with a different type of life.

            Comparing the class system and the East/West divide in London films is quite easy as these are such common themes throughout the years in British cinema.  Racism and class go hand-in-hand, and class and oppression as well.

Bibliography:

• Ackroyd, P. Fortune not design.  In:

• P.  Ackroyd, London: a biography.

• London:  Chatto & Windus, 2000, pp. 753-768.

• Burrows, J.  (2009)  A Vague Chinese Quarter Elsewhere: Limehouse in the Cinema 1914-39.  In Journal of British cinema and television 6 (2) pp. 282-301.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

• Sinclair, I.  Cinema Purgaturio.  In:

• I.  Sinclair, Lights out for the territory: 9 excursions in the secret history of London.

• London:  Penguin, 2003, pp. 271-321

Filmography:

• Bermonsey. Dir. Claude Whatham. Perf. Sharon Duce, Edward Fox, Dinsdale Landen, Rosemary Leach. BBC, 1972. Thirty-Minute Theatre.

• Piccadilly. Dir. E.A. Dupont. Perf. Gilda Gray, Anna May Wong, Jameson Thomas. British International Pictures, 1929. Film.

• Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Dir. Tim Burton. Perf. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman. Dreamworks, 2007. Film.

• We Are the Lambeth Boys. Dir. Karl Reisz. Perf. Jon Rollason, Tony Benson, Adrian Harding, Brian Mott. Graphic Films, 1958. Documentary

[1] Burrows, J.  A Vague Chinese Quarter Elsewhere (Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh) pp. 295

[2] Burrow, J. pp. 296

[3] Ackroyd, P. Fortune not design. (London:  Chatto & Windus, 2000) pp. 753

[4] Ackroyd, P.  pp. 754

[5] Sinclair, I.  Cinema Purgaturio.  (London:  Penguin, 2003) pp. 304

Rear Window [Academic Musings]

This was a fun paper! In this exercise, I talked about how important editing is to Hitchcock’s filmmaking style.

Rear Window’s Unique Narrative Form

            Hitchcock’s film Rear Window is a prime example of many prolific editing techniques, several of which were mainstreamed by the film itself. The most interesting editing technique used by Hitchcock speaks to Lev Kulishov’s theories relating to the juxtapositions of images to each other in the editing of a film. Additionally, Rear Window is unique in that the protagonist, Jeffries, is completely confined to a single room in his apartment for the entirety of the film. Finally, Hitchcock’s direct treatment of subplots makes the film notable.

            We begin with Kulishov’s theories relating to images surrounding an actor’s facial expressions -- in this instance, the facial expressions of James Stewart and Grace Kelly. The meanings of their gazes were completely controlled by editing in this film, as the camera must always be placed in between the actor and the object of their gaze because of the set’s layout. The character’s face can be shot in profile looking out the window, or from the exterior of the window (with the camera looking inward) as the actor gazes outward. These shots are then edited by Hitchcock to sit in between images depicting what the actor is supposedly looking at during filming. What Kulishov’s experiments discovered is that the editor has great power to influence the meaning of an actor’s facial expression by what images are placed around it. Elizabeth Cowie explains, in her article on the film, that if you take an image of James Stewart’s Jeffries smiling as he looks out his window at the little dog being lowered in its basket down to the courtyard, it brings to mind a much different different connotation than if he was smiling while watching a little girl undressing in her bedroom.

            The form of Rear Window gives the director greater control over the content of the film than its contemporaries. The acting is dependent on editing for the performance to be interpreted with the correct meaning. Hitchcock could have changed the connotation of James Stewart’s entire performance by substituting surrounding images with other images. The way that Stewart expresses emotion informs the way that the audience thinks, not only about what Jeffries is seeing, but about the character of Jeffries himself. If his reactions do not match what the audience expects them to be, it can change the audience’s opinion of the character. With the voyeuristic nature of the film, it would have been easy to make Jeffries into a lecherous old man even after the filming was over, simply through editing.

            Changing the character of Jeffries in post-production would be quite easy, due to the necessity of filming all the scenes in segments. Hitchcock had to film action in Jeffries’ apartment separately from events the characters are reacting to in the apartment building across the courtyard. The film’s characters are limited to observing the action from Jeffries’ apartment; therefore, the entirety of Rear Window is filmed from the vantage point of the apartment. However, Hitchcock is able to expand the action far beyond the four walls of Jeffries apartment. Jeffries’ nurse and his girlfriend Lisa involve themselves in the investigation of Lars Thorwald (the suspected murderer) by digging up the garden and by breaking in to his apartment. The audience is limited by Jeffries’ limitations -- we can see, but we cannot leave his apartment. Very few films are able to be successful with this format, but Rear Window actually excels with this format. Hitchcock has essentially created a film within a film. Jeffries finding ways to entertain himself is the main premise. Naturally, this has led him to one of the most basic forms of entertainment: people-watching. Essentially, Jeffries is doing exactly what every film audience does, though what he is watching is real in the context of the film. We can imagine that a modern-day Rear Window could have Jeffries setting up video cameras and viewing the action on different screens in his apartment. The different windows of the apartment building are like television sets, each showing different films. Jeffries observes each story of these films equally in the beginning of Rear Window. The Lars Thorwald story seems to be a subplot to the more interesting stories of Ms. Torso, the Newlyweds, Ms. Lonelyhearts, and the Songwriter. We soon find, however, that the Lars Thorwald story becomes a murder mystery, and the most riveting. The other stories become subplots, much less important than the murder of Mrs. Thorwald.

            The creating of literal subplots in Rear Window is almost completely unique to this film. You have everyone in the film living in the same, yet completely segregated world. The only thing that connects the story of Ms. Lonelyhearts to Lars Thorwald and Ms. Torso is the main character’s insistence on watching them. When the action lulls, when Lars Thorwald leaves his apartment or when he spends time alone smoking in the dark, the story focuses on the different subplots -- the different windows. At one point, the subplot of Ms. Lonelyhearts actually competes with the main story-line. She begins to commit suicide, but is stopped from hurting herself when she hears the beautiful music of the songwriter in another apartment.  Though the characters in Jeffries’ apartment are the only ones who know about Ms. Lonelyheart’s attempt at suicide, they would not have been able to save her.  This parallel’s the notion that sometimes knowledge is not power -- the omniscient audience has already learned this through the suspense of knowing things which happen while Jeffries is asleep.

            Thus, for these three reasons, Rear Window’s editing is central to its plot.  The editing makes this film work, if it was done with less flourish and skill, Rear Window would be completely disjointed, the facial expressions of the actors could easily have been misaligned with the action, the suspense could have been broken up with scenes occurring outside of Jeffries’ apartment, or the subplots could have been pointless and unwoven into the story-line. Instead, the subplots, the confined space of Jeffries apartment and his limitations and his inability to act reflect the experience of the viewer. The actor’s facial expressions are subtle and effective against their surrounding images.  Thus, Rear Window is a triumph of editing.

Sometimes I write papers including my dad... [Academic Musings]

So, I was going through my old papers when I found this gem about interpersonal communication. Specifically nonverbal communication. I’ve recently been working on the Great Course about Understanding Emotion, which talks a lot about communication studies, so I’ve been thinking about these classes I used to take. My poor family and friends have had so many papers including them over the years… :D

Conceptions of Space

Katy Hannah

Leap Day/2012

           Our conceptions of space are absolutely fascinating.  The fact that standing a foot apart from someone that you are talking to means different things in different circumstances is ridiculous, yet completely understandable.  Being on a subway packed tightly with other people is deemed “normal,” but coming up and sitting directly beside someone on a couch in the student lounge is “abnormal.”  Or at least uncomfortable.

           In Knapp and Hall, they discuss defense mechanisms to deal with crowding (Knapp and Hall145).  People adapt to situations where they are forced to be in a high density area.  For instance, when we take the subway, we block inputs as a coping mechanism.  We block the discomfort we feel at having to sit next to someone, and perhaps we even block our discomfort at actual physical touches, because we know that neither us nor the person next to us can avoid the touch, as much as we would like to.

           It is also interesting how we treat public areas which are not particularly crowded.  The studies by Russo in our Nonverbal Communication textbook are equal parts hilarious and fascinating (Knapp and Hall 141).  In his experiment, he goes up to female college students in a library and tests their reactions -- their physical and verbal reactions to his approach, whether or not they leave, and if they do leave, how quickly they left.  I think the study says something interesting about Russo, because he had discomfort to overcome simply in doing the experiment.  We do not want to invade other people’s territory.  It is even in the code of ethics with which we are raised.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  We would not want people invading our space, so we subconsciously and consciously avoid invading other’s space.  Of course, this varies from person to person.

           My dad is a key example of this.  He is a fascinating human being when it comes to his nonverbal communication.  There is his chair in the living room, and it is “his” chair; however, when someone sits in the chair before him, he rarely makes them move unless he is sitting down for the night to watch one of his Masterpiece shows.  My family is odd in that we do not have a set way in which we seat ourselves when we watch television.  Most of my friends and other family members have a sort of unspoken seating arrangement in their houses.  I have some friends whose family members have their territory is so clearly marked out, that they would not even sit in someone else’s seat if the other was out of the house!  These people even feel uncomfortable when their guests sit in their “father’s” chair, regardless of the fact that he is at work at the time.

           My family may have our own territorial areas of the house, but none of us is particularly perturbed when those areas are disturbed.  I am not sure why this is the case, it was not exactly like this when I was a child.  When I was younger, I would freak out if my brother went in my room.  A classmate mentioned in class that in her culture, the parents room even remains a locked and “forbidden” place in the house for children.  I find this odd and confusing.  I suppose that my parent’s philosophy about raising us in an honest household spilled into the way that they treated their and our territories.  Everything, including both territory and knowledge, is shared in our home.  We eat dinner at a round table where there is no “head” to the table.

           But back to my dad.  He is weird about public territory.  When one goes to parties, ones generally finds a place to sit, and that becomes their seat for the night, but my dad tends to move around and find various places to sit throughout the night, regardless of who may have been sitting there before.  Of course, he does not do this at a dinner party where you sit and use the utensils in that one area, but he does this for most any other party.  You may say, well he must be very social, very interested in meeting new people if he is moving from place to place.  Nope.  My father is, if not antisocial, not outgoing.  He is very much an introvert like myself.

           Also, he frequently talks about meetings at work where he moves to a different seat for every meeting.  Apparently it drives his colleagues crazy, because he never sits in the same place twice.  I can imagine that they would “dread” coming into a meeting, because they never know if they will be able to sit in “their” seat.  He simply thinks it is hilarious; says it “keeps people on their toes.”  My dad has actually encouraged me to try it in class, and I must say it sounds tempting, but I do not want people to think I am weird.  Also, if I move around from place to place, I feel as if I will not have a particular rapport with anyone in my classes.  This type of behavior is not consistent with making friends because it defies norms.  I think that it offers my father a distinct disadvantage in his workplace to move around from place to place during meetings, because it may give his colleagues a poor impression of him when they come into a meeting and perceive that he is in “their” seat.

           It is not something that we think about, but our use of territory and our treatment of other’s territory makes an impression on how others see us.  For instance, when I sit in the student lounge in the Engineering building, I will frequently take a small round table to myself to study, and I know that this will be deemed acceptable, because it is common behavior.  However, I am very careful not to take more than one armchair, because these are separate pieces of territory.  This is how the armchairs are arranged:

ABC

D

(Except that chair D is facing right instead of at you.)  I find that people will look poorly on me if someone is occupying chair D, and I sit in chair B, because this closes off chairs A and B from being comfortably occupied.  If I sit in chair A, however, I am sitting too close to the person in chair D, so this is a wrong choice, also.  The only option, then is to sit in chair C, which is uncomfortable for me, because it is right next to the door, and facing away from it.  This instance, however, has occurred more than once, and instead of sitting in chair B, which would be the most comfortable option for me, I will sit in chair C to appear as polite as possible.  Of course, the location of the wall outlets is also a problem, so if I need to charge my computer, the only correct option is B, because the wall outlet is directly behind chair D, and my cord will not reach all the way to chair C, but I should still not sit in chair A because it is too close to the occupant of chair D.  Therefore, I will sit in chair B, and no one will think me rude, because they will see my short tether to the wall.

           I find territoriality to be a very interesting field of nonverbal communication because it certainly affects us more than we care to say.  Common courtesy is very often based upon how we use space.  For instance, holding the door for someone while standing in the doorframe and expecting them to go under your arm is considered rude or odd, even though the gesture may be meant as a kind one.  Instead, we know that when we open the door for someone, we open it fully and stand back so they can get through.  It is a nonverbal signal that they may go in front of us, and in the process, it may disrupt the flow of traffic and others must adjust their personal territories by slowing down or distancing themselves psychologically from those around them by looking away and withdrawing into themselves.

           It is also fascinating, because the way we use territory directly affects what people think about us and how we react to each other in everyday encounters!

The History of Rhetoric [Academic Musings]

Taking a full-on history of Rhetoric class was one of my favorites in undergrad. The format of the class was also fantastic — we only had one paper for the course and it was a review and overview of what we learned with some sort of argument. I don’t remember the exact prompt for the essay, but I remember loving writing this essay. All 5600 words of it. I’ll argue all day long that no education is complete without understanding rhetorical history. 

 Rhetoric

Katy Hannah

            Prior to this class, I had no definite thoughts or opinions on the subject of rhetoric.  It seems to me to be a broad, undefinable idea of which one could give examples, but no clear definition or quintessential example.  Rhetoric seemed to be irreversibly intermingled with political argument and political discourse.  It seemed to be more than a simple tool, but a way of expressing argument, spreading idealistic information, and especially a way to deflect negative criticism through "spin."  To me, rhetoric was the use of old ideas and party lines; what defined it was its inherent use of spin to persuade and, perhaps, dazzle the audience.

            I will go chronologically through the class and discuss my changing views on rhetoric.  Like many of the people who have delved into this subject, I do not believe that there will ever be a universal definition of rhetoric, or a single correct rhetorical theory.  The main reason for this is because rhetoric has been defined in so many different ways over the years and all of these definitions have been so often refuted that no one can trace the term back to what it was originally intended to mean.  Even if one could find rhetoric's original meaning, that would necessitate the term be deemed archaic and useless to today's society.  Rhetoric and language, like society, must develop and evolve to remain relevant and useful.

            In the time of Gorgias, Plato, and Aristotle, rhetoric was thought of as a definable term; it meant the use of oratory to persuade.  It was during this time that education was becoming viewed as the way to transfer power.  People the elite did not want to rise to power were receiving educations.  Though the idea that power is transferred and gained through education is practically null in today's society due to accessible education to many, especially in the United States, it is fascinating to me that the ancients placed so high a value on education in an oral society where knowledge was transferred through discourse.  I would think that the transfer of knowledge would happen inherently and that rhetorical education was merely superfluous and necessary for those who wished to speak from the place of the educated elite.  Rhetoric, the only available form of education, was the study of being a persuasive orator.  The ability to persuade is how people gained power through politics in those days. Rhetorical education was helpful in this respect, but not necessary in the eyes of people such as Isocrates who believed that the educational part was only secondary to a speaker's natural talent.  In many people's eyes, education, or the ability to use rhetoric, was power.  The fact that rhetoric was associated with power early in its study, is the main point that I will take from the ancient Greeks.

            In their individual theories and ideas, I am inclined to agree with Aristotle above the rest of the Greeks in his theories and applications of rhetoric.  Plato flipped flopped in his views of the subject and although I admire his ability to grow in his opinions and theories, I do not think that he ever grasped the importance of rhetorical oratory in society, and its positive uses.  He thought that rhetoric could be used to uplift the individual soul and get closer to the Gods.  Plato's ideal use of discourse was to raise oneself and the audience up to the first order form through valuable and moral discourse, as he believed was inherent of true rhetoric.  Gorgias believed that one could charm an audience through decorous, highly persuasive speeches.  I believe that Gorgias would be in favor of playing on an audience's naivety in order to persuade them to a certain point of view. However, I do not think that this would provide positive lasting results for the speaker.  If one were to play on the audience's fears, hopes, or dreams to persuade them to come around to one's way of thinking and if rhetoric truly had the ability to enchant and work magic on the listener, then, from my understanding, this magic and charm of persuasion would be temporary in most of the listeners.  Common sense reigns supreme.

            A good example of this comes later in history, with the Salem Witch Trials.  Women were using persuasive speech when giving testimony against other "witches" in order to save their own lives.  By passing the blame by playing on the citizens' fear of witchcraft, evil, and the Devil, these women were able to save their own lives by convincing juries of their peers that other women were witches, and that they were only under other's enchantments.  The other townspeople who were involved in the witch hunt also used persuasive speech in order to continue their search for evil and to pick apart each other's lives.  Arguments of ergot poisoning and mass panic resulted in mob rule aside, it was speech and oratory that fueled the trials and kept the witch hunts going as long as they did.  If people had stopped talking about it, lost interest, or realized that their superstitions and accusations were unfounded, the entire incident could have been averted or stopped before so many people lost their lives to irrational fear.

            I believe that using rhetoric as a persuasive tool by playing on human and society's weaknesses (the use which Gorgias describes) can be a natural reflex.  The use of persuasion in tense or dangerous situations is the evolved instinctual "fight or flight" response.  The uses of speech (and Gorgias's uses of rhetoric) evolved as human language skills evolved.  Persuasive language is frequently more effective for changing or manipulating someone's mind than physical force.  I think that Gorgias and other Sophists (whom Isocrates would later go on to critique) based their teachings of rhetorical speaking methods on their discovery of this instinctual use of speech.   It makes sense that the Sophists would want to harness this ability and teach it within rhetorical education.  People, when in a tight spot, can do and say very creative and powerful things.  Even when people are not emotionally compromised or in danger, they are able to persuade and to be persuaded because we all have underlying fears and concerns about life and society which, if were are not vigilant, can be exploited.

            Aristotle presents the idea that rhetoric, while being a tool, should be used in a moral way to uplift, not only the speaker and the audience, but society itself.  I agree with his ideas that rhetoric is not inherently good or evil, nor a single type or means of persuasion.  His opinions on the use of rhetoric, saying that it should be used to come to practical decisions about clearly definable subjects, differ from mine, in that I would not separate rhetoric from dialectic.  Dialectic was the discussion of philosophy and the search for the ultimate Truth.  In today's society, we do not believe in an absolute truth, we believe that truth is relative.  I believe that rhetoric can be defined as dialectic, or, in Aristotle's day, persuasive dialectic.  When one is persuading another to understand their personal philosophy on life, they are speaking of a logical argument about philosophy.  The difference between rhetoric and dialectic, I believe, may be reconciled.  Rhetoric does not have to be completely logical, it can be based in opinion and emotion, but dialectic does not have to be merely logical or scientific, it can be persuasive.  This is especially the case because one's views on philosophy are often things of great personal and emotional value.  We argue and attempt to persuade others in favor of things which we find valuable.

            Another thing which I find very valuable about Aristotle's writings concerning rhetoric, is that through his outlines of what  makes a good speaker, he practically lays down the groundwork for the study and analyzation of public speaking as we know it today.  He presents proofs and persuasion as inartistic and artistic, which places agency on the speaker to use available information, and to present it to his audience in a convincing and interesting way.  His presentations of the ideas of Ethos, or credibility, in a speaker are revolutionary.  We now know that credibility is a fundamental need for any speaker who wishes to be relevant, heard, and accounted.  Aristotle also presents two important ways to draw conclusions within a speech: inductive and deductive reasoning, and he does this through his two types of logos, enthymeme and example.  Making your audience use their reasoning skills improves the quality of the speechand will make them remember what you say for a longer period of time causing them to be more likely to act on what you say.

            One of the most valuable things that Aristotle presents as an ideal quality of the orator is pathos.  The speaker must not only feel emotionally connected to what he is saying, but to also persuade; the speaker must effectively convey these emotions.  This is an important note on rhetoric:  if one does not truly feel the emotions they are attempting to convey, they will not succeed, and their message will ring false to the audience.  "Rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites," --Aristotle.

            Cicero lived in Rome on the cusp of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.  He is important and influential to my ideas on rhetoric in the fact that he laid out the Five Canons of Rhetoric.  I believe these are a crucial step in the history of public speaking.  They are still a relevant and effective tool used in oration today.   (Though, I must branch out and say that they are also an effective tool for persuasive writing.)  Cicero had little beyond this to contribute to rhetorical theory and analysis; however, he was greatly influential in developing ideals on how to use rhetoric and persuasion.  Cicero was greatly dedicated to the restructuring of and return to traditional Roman democracy over the oligarchical and corrupt government in which he lived.  He believed that rhetoric should be used by wise politicians for the good of society.  It was his belief that society could be changed and remade through elegant, wise and persuasive speech.

            I greatly agree with Cicero's assertions that speech and rhetoric should be used for the benefit of society, and am inclined to believe that when he says the ideal speaker is both wise and eloquent, that he is referring to the long-held Aristotelean belief that the wise speaker who speaks honestly and from the heart will prevail.  Cicero seems to believe that if one speaks the truth from a place of wisdom, they can change society.  This would account for the fact that we are more inclined to trust politicians with age and experience.  It makes sense that these wise orators (politicians) would be able to question the status quo eloquently and persuasively to an audience and thus move the status quo back to a more fair and just place.  Of course, this would be a utopian society, and Cicero was not living in one.  He was therefore killed for his negative views on Roman society moving toward elitism and empire.

            After Cicero, the next notable and influential on my quest to define rhetoric is Quintillian.  He presents some important ideas about rhetoric. Firstly, he mirrored Cicero's beliefs that rhetoric should be used for the betterment of society but presented this idea under the benefits of rhetorical education.  Quintillian said that a moral rhetorical education was necessary for the glory and betterment of Rome (suggesting that Rome needed to be bettered).  This was an indisputable idea at the time (the betterment of Rome), though his contemporaries must have suspected his desire for the return to a more democratic form of government.  Quintillian is harkening back to the idea that education facilitates the transfer of power.  If the Roman citizenry was learning to be moral, fair, and just, as well as persuasive, it makes sense that they would take the power of their education and shift the government in a more fair and just direction.  Education is power, and Quintillian wanted to give a good education to students, therefore giving them the power that was being taken away from them via the bad education which they were receiving under the eye of the Roman Empire.  Quintiallian disagreed with the fact that he was being forced to teach obedience under the guise of a rhetorical education.

            The Cicero and Quintillian era through the middle ages is interesting to me because these people were not attempting to define rhetoric, they were attempting to define how, when, where, and to whom rhetoric should and could be used effectively.  It is in this era that we shift from rhetorical theory to people arguing for their rights to use rhetoric and persuasive speech.  This was an era of oppression in which oppressed peoples were asserting their right to use rhetoric.

            After the Roman Empire fell and Christianity rose to prominence, there was a slew of rhetorical "theorists" all asserting their ideas on the subject and their right to use rhetoric.  During the middle ages, Renaissance, and Enlightenment there was Augustine, Christine de Pizan, Erasmus, and Margaret Fell, all of whose ideas revolve around the fact that they lived in Christian society and viewed their lives through the lens of their religion.  In my view of rhetorical history, the only person whose ideas I believe were particularly important to the development of rhetorical theory is Erasmus.  Augustine presented the idea that rhetoric could be used in conversion.  Pizan wanted women to receive rhetorical educations in order to persuade their husbands and children to make good decisions and be moral within the female arena of the private sphere.  Margaret Fell argued for women's rights to speak in church.  Erasmus was the main person who presented new ideas to the world of rhetoric, and introduced important notions to the world of public speaking.

            Ideas reflecting humanist beliefs were revolutionary.  To me, it is Erasmus's widespread and accepted humanist ideas that were the impetus for the whole direction of rhetorical theory in the future.  Humanism in the Renaissance period was essentially the empowerment of the individual man through an education which taught him to be critical of society and the world and encouraged him to form his own opinions and perceptions.  It is in this way that humanists believed and accomplished changing their views and even physical situations.  It can be attributed to the rise of humanism that the Protestant Revolution, Enlightenment, and the breaking of the Catholic Church occurred.  When it comes to Erasmus, humanism was important in that it gave him a unique view on the world which resulted in his ideas concerning copiousness.

            He presented the value of saying something in many different ways in order to reach one's entire audience.  He supports speaking with different mannerisms and levels of emotion and decoration.  It is also important to Erasmus to speak with a plethora of examples and enthymemes.  He supported the use of variety in oratory and using whatever possible means at one's disposal in order to communicate the message to the audience.  It was important, for instance, that he supported the use of the vernacular in his time since this helped facilitate the shift from speaking Latin in church to speaking in the vernacular in church.  He also set the basis for one of my favorite ideas from Bacon's rhetorical theory:  the idol of the marketplace. 

            Erasmus was one of the first of his time to introduce decorative, grand speaking styles back to the world of rhetoric.  Previous to this, the goal of the speaker was to present new ideas to make the audience think.  In Ancient Greece, the audience was consisted of educated citizens, so they perhaps had a need for plainer language in order to impart the appearance of honesty in their speeches.  Since Erasmus and speakers of his day were speaking to the uneducated masses, it makes sense that their oratory would move toward being more decorous.  The uneducated would be less likely to be skeptical of grand speaking styles.  As humans, we are programmed to trust strong emotions in others.  This is rooted to our biological responses to tone in the human voice.  If someone is speaking with a fearful tone, we feel fear.  We have empathy towards people who are impassioned and who display commonly shared human emotions; therefore, we can be manipulated through the speaker's use of these emotions.

            The next person to really impact my views of rhetorical theory was Sir Francis Bacon.  I agree completely with his belief that invention occurs outside the realm of rhetoric.  Our understanding of something is only represented through how we speak and share discourse about it.  Bacon's use of rhetoric within the realm of science was especially noteworthy because he was putting the idea in to more definable and certain terms than the Christian ideas of rhetoric which was to decipher the Bible.  I agree with Bacon's assertion that language neither constructs nor reflects reality but is in itself inherent in reality.

            Though we created language long ago, it is my view that within the modern, highly developed English language, every thought one could ever have can be expressed.  To Bacon and myself, rhetoric neither constructs nor reflects reality.  How we express these things does, indeed, reflect the way they will be viewed and accepted, or rejected by society.  Because we want to share our discoveries and claim credit for our ingenuity in discovering or creating new uses for things, we want to express these discoveries, and the means and the main mean we have for expression is discourse.  Discourse can be either written or spoken, but the way we represent both ourselves and our "discoveries" will directly affect the way they are perceived.

            It is because of this that Bacon developed his four idols.  He believes that these notions are crucial to understanding the human condition, and I would agree.  The idols of the theatre refer to false notions and beliefs we have towards things which blind us to seeing the world in other ways besides our own.  Here I would place superstition and harken back to my example of the Salem Witch Trials.  Their fears of evil came from their belief in evil, and this warped their senses of morality, and allowed them to do evil, while still believing that they were doing good.  Idols of the theatre are social understandings and social constructs such as religion, race, philosophy, and other ideals which blind us to other ways of thinking and other people's truths.

            Idols of the tribe refer to humanity's innate point of view, due simply to the fact that we are human.  We see the world around us in relation to our species.  The sky is not somewhere we can explore on a daily basis, as it is for a bird.  We see the world parallel to the ground, unlike birds who's views are perpendicular, and give them a sightline of everything from above.  We see fire hydrants as ways to keep buildings from burning down but dogs see them as something on which to urinate.  We see things in a certain way because we are human.  Of all the idols, I am inclined to believe that this is the only one which a completely "innocent" and open-minded person possesses.  It's simply impossible to not be under the influence of this idol, for even when one allows oneself to see the world from the perspective of a dog, one will never fully understand this perspective, because one will never actually be a dog.

            The idols of the cave, while also being based upon inherent biological traits, is less innocent and insubstantial then the idols of the tribe.  The idols of the cave are the unique quirks which make us view the world differently from other individuals.  Eye color, biological sex, height, age, and hair color are all idols of the cave.  We can understand other's points of views who have different traits from us, because these idols are based upon our physical experiences of the world.  To understand other's points of view, you can always change your appearance to experience how others are treated.  This, to me, is a very innocuous idol, and perhaps has less impact upon us in today's society.  We constantly live with people who are different from ourselves.  A good example of where this idol has had historical importance, is Nazi Germany.  The ideals of the master race were primarily concerned with physical traits.  In Nazi Germany, blonde hair, blue eyes, and white skin was considered superior while arians were really the same biological race as jews (caucasian).  In this case, the majority race and its ideal views of beauty were considered preferable.  On the other hand,  in Asian societies, even today, having blonde hair and blue or green eyes is considered desirable and attractive, because these are traits different from the norm.  These examples represent polar opposites of how the idols of the tribe can effect society's views, individuals experiences, and societal prejudices.

            Bacon's final idol, the idol of the marketplace has often been cited as the most troublesome of the idols.  Bacon himself thought that this idol was the biggest concern and barrier to effective dialogue.  Idols of the marketplace are the different conceptions that we all have of words and phrases.  We could say that these idols are the connotations (emotion, image, prejudice associated with certain words) as opposed to the denotations (standard, textbook definitions) of words.  We all have different understandings and definitions of every word within our vocabulary.  This can be as complicated and loaded with history as the words "cult," "fundamental," "extremist,"  (even the use of these three words together will come up with a very different idea in one's mind than if they were used apart) or, as simple and unloaded as the words "pants," "cone," and "salt."  These conjure up less loaded and emotional ideas, but will still conjure extremely different images in each person's mind. 

            One of the best examples I can give as to each of us having different definitions of words, is in our reactions to names.  Every name will conjure up a different image for each of us; especially common names.  For example, we all think of different Jessica's, George's, Bill's, and Joe's.  There are very few names of which we will all conjure up the same image and even among those names, there will be variances in our particular images of these people.  Especially among Biblical names and religious figures (Jesus, Moses, Mohammed).  For some, in order to conjure the same image of a name, both a first and surname are necessary.  For example, we will all conjure different images of the name "Margaret," but when it is specified that one is talking about "Margaret Thatcher," we will have a more specific and universal idea of whom is being spoken.

            I think that Bacon presents some of the most fluid and inclusive ideas on rhetorical theory.  He includes the value of education on discourse, includes the necessity of copiousness (though, he approaches this necessity from a less decorous and persuasive standpoint, and more from a scientific and logical standpoint), and reflects, what, to me, are the true boundaries of that which rhetoric can define.

            For me, rhetoric and language are almost interchangeable terms.  There is the key difference in that language is that which constructs rhetoric, and rhetoric is the use of language to understand, argue, and discuss social norms and the status quo.  Some may argue that I place rhetoric in a place which should be held by dialectic, but I disagree.  Dialectic is an antiquated idea.  It is limited and irrelevant in modern society and because of our scientific and contingent views of the world.  Because we are no longer searching for the ultimate Truth, we are no longer using dialectic in the way it was used in ancient times.  Rhetoric has taken over for dialectic as the aegis under which discourse falls.  Rhetoric is special because it takes into effect humanist views while it teaches and works with the knowledge that every individual's perception and experience of the world differs.  Rhetoric's job is to reconcile these differences.  Public speaking, social discourse, scientific discussion, debate, and many other fields which use discourse, are constantly engaging in rhetoric.

            Though I hold modern, humanist views of the uses and values of rhetoric, I disagree with many theorists whose ideas have come out in postmodern times. Our later readings had little to do with my understanding of rhetoric and my ideas on the true usefulness and nature of rhetoric.  I would go so far to say that I agree with Neitzsche in that we create groups and shared knowledge, but I believe that he and other postmodern theorists take rhetorical theory too far.  He says that every fact we know is simply a metaphor we've created to describe something.  I disagree with this assertion and would argue that truth exists outside of our individual language, in other languages, and nonverbally.  We understand a chair as a chair, but we are not constantly reminding ourselves that a chair is a chair and is used for sitting (or relaxing, or lounging; the variety of language simply reflects the subtle inherent differences in each of these actions).  If we had no language, we would still have an understanding of the uses of certain things, especially things which are self-explanatory in their appearance.

            Nakayama and Foucault pass beyond the realm of rhetoric in their discussions, though I agree with many of the conclusions which they draw about society.  With Nakayama, I agree that we need to expand from our general understanding of the world in relation to the dominant majority.  I believe that he is correct in saying that media is over-reflecting and supporting the status quo and that we should begin to address the ideas that what is considered normal is not really the norm, it is the norm which we have constructed socially.  Abnormality is more normal than the norm.  It is from Foucault that I take my ideas that discourse can be anything and everything, verbal and nonverbal.  I agree with his ideas on knowledge, the status quo, and societal norms and ideals being the result of the discourse of the powerful.  I admire his urgings for us to look at everyone's views of history, regardless of their power and influence, or lack of power and influence.  His introducing the idea of historiography was invaluable to my understanding of how we view rhetoric today because our entire understanding of rhetoric is based upon our interpretations of people's past ideas and the conclusions and connections we draw between these individual's ideas.

            Foucault's ideas on discourse as being disciplinary also struck a chord with me, though I would interpret the role of discourse as a disciplinary function in a much milder way than Foucault would.  I believe that discourse will make us self-police in certain instances but that people are always going to go against the status quo if they so inherently desire, or if they believe they are doing the right thing.  For example, the environmental movement and other "counter-culture" movements are often considered to be noble so much that discourse has changed.  We are now self-policing to make ourselves act against the status quo because it has become the ideal in many societal groups to make changes to our lifestyles (become more green, earth-friendly, active, etc.).   This supports Foucault's assertions that discourse is constantly questioning the status quo and changing it (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, sometimes to keep things the same).  I enjoy the postmodern idea that every time dissident discourse appears, even if the status quo is later restored, the discourse leaves its mark, and will remain in the memories and subconscious of the people, even after the idea is defeated.

            The one rhetorical theorist with whom I almost completely disagreed with is Burke.  First, I disagree that the main use of rhetoric is to induce cooperation and conform people to societal norms through invented social ideals.  I also disagree with him that it is only through language that we can manipulate our environment.  We are perfectly capable of changing our environment in an animalistic way (that is, we can physically change our environment).  I highly disagree that humans "are the inventors of the negative."  I believe that the positive cannot exist without the negative.  A good example of this is the naturally occurring phenomenon of magnetism.  Animals are capable of saying no; anyone who owns a dog knows this.  My dog Gilbert is an example, he will absolutely refuse to go outside when it's raining because he hates getting wet.  There is little biological imperative for this, because he is accustomed to a life where becoming wet is only an inconvenience, not a detriment.  He will literally stop himself from going to the bathroom until absolutely necessary because this is what he wants, not what he needs.  Anyone who has a domesticated animal knows that animals are capable of saying no, of refusing our verbal or nonverbal requests.

            Animals and humans learn through negative and positive reinforcement.  It is only with a combination of these that we develop into effective, responsible, and properly functioning adults.  Too much negative reinforcement can cause someone to become callous, can create feelings of misuse or abuse, can make someone mistrusting, or even create a person who feels the need to constantly please others and search for positive reinforcement.  Too much positive reinforcement, however, can be just as damaging because this can manifest in selfishness, God complexes, need to rebel, or the inability to accept failure.  Burke says, "Humans are separated from their natural condition by instruments of their own making."  I fiercely disagree with this assertion; humans are always subject to their nature as an animal.  We all have hygienic and bodily needs from which we cannot separate ourselves.  No matter how high one climbs in society, we will always be connected to our natural condition.  Also, he says that our natural condition is to form groups, and overcome differences through speech and rhetoric.  I believe that this natural condition does not come from our need to find belonging in social groups, but because our understanding of safety in numbers is a survival instinct.

             Burke says that rhetoric, rather than being a tool used to persuade, is a tool used to create identification, and to close the gap between humans. It is through discourse and rhetorical devices which we communicate our personal identities and get to know others and become socially intimate with them.  It is my belief, however, that the ability to use rhetoric, to craft speech, is a natural ability of humans (of course, some humans are more adept to it than others, but this can be attributed to the fact that certain humans are more fit for certain tasks and occupations).  Though language and human methods of communication are "unnatural" to the world, I assert that they are inherently natural to us.  Human nature has natural and unnatural states of existence.  To humanity, invention is a necessary and vital part of the way that we interact with the world around us.  We are creatures of change while also being creatures of habit.  Though, through invention and the formation of groups, we create outsiders, it is through exclusion that excluded peoples create groups.  Often, these excluded, or fringe, groups can become powerful and influential to society.

            I do hold great respect for Sarah Grimke, hooks, Frederick Douglass, and other abolitionists, feminists, and activists who asserted their right to speak in public and engage in discourse.  I believe that their struggles for their right to use rhetoric and engage in public discourse was important to our development in society, but not our understanding of rhetorical theory.  It is more of a social commentary on discourse, which, while it falls under the aegis of rhetoric (in my opinion), and these commentaries are necessary for the development of discourse, these instances and works need to be separated from ideas which affect rhetoric as whole.

            Having given my definition of rhetoric, and my supporting arguments for my definition by expressing my opinions and understandings of ideas by rhetorical theorists throughout the ages, I will endeavor to express why I feel that rhetoric is still as relevant in today's society as it was in ancient Greece.  First, rhetoric is a constantly changing and evolving term.  It grows with society and technology; furthermore, speech, discourse, and debate, three key exercisable components of rhetoric, are necessary to talk about the growth of technology and society.  Without rhetorical devices, we would have no means of communication, of discussing our lives, and putting meaning and order to them orally and nonverbally.  Without language, we would lack basic knowledge structures, such as the ability to categorize our lives intellectually and theoretically, as opposed to simply visually.  Lastly, and most importantly, to me, rhetoric will always be applicable, and will always be relevant because it is an inherent ability in humans.  The ability to communicate is a natural human ability, as akin to us as breathing.  Just as the ability to hunt allows us to survive, the ability to use language and rhetoric has always been that which has allowed humans to thrive, to live amongst other humans, and to practice civilization.

Creative Writing Challenge: Moving Through Time

This is a Grad school creative writing assignment. The challenge was to write something in the world of the film Minority Report. This something would have to show the passage of time. This is a bit of an experiment for me. I tried to write with a voice very different from my normal one. I wrote from the perspective of a “precog” who lives with Dr. Iris Hineman, aka “the old one.”

…

Dolls Eye. Baneberry. Carnivorous vines that enjoy the strips of red meat that this one tosses near the estate wall. It lines us all around except the gates in the north and south. Of course those gates are always closed. We don't go out there. The elderly one used to leave, but no more. Now the gate hinges rust. Every month they scream when the man brings the cans and frozen foods. I hate that noise. The man is boring. I like him. No dreams come of him. No pain. He makes safe choices. Drives slow. Exercises regularly.

A vine snaps at this one's leg. We dodge it as it happens, easily. We always know when pain is coming. This body floats around it. Our hand tosses meat strips to the next group of Dolls Eyes. They snatch at the ground, their mouth-like, thorn-filled maws snag up steak bits amongst the rotting autumn leaves. Then they curl back up in the cracks and broken pieces of the stone wall.

We're inside. Benevolent plants snatch at this one's hair as we deliver tea. Dandelion. We find it disgusting but we drink it with the old one. She adds heaps of sugar, but it makes us gag. It's worse with sugar. It just sits beside the bitter. But drinking it with the old one, the woman, Dr. Iris, settles the place. Settles her demons. Makes her feel less guilt. For this one. And the others who see things further away.

We drink dandelion tea. We tend to plants. We trim, we rake, we compost. The winter is always calm and quiet. Our dreams are stable. We steer the old one toward agreement, peace, safety. Quiet winter.

…

Spring is vicious. Vibrant colors and sunshine burn out eyes. The old one is cheerful, but only because she cannot see the death surrounding us constantly. Birds peck the eyes out of their competition. Male squirrels tear out each other's throats in displays of dominance. Spring is violent. We long for the sleep of winter.

Long into the spring blooms, a man comes. Short, dark haired, desperate. This one hides behind a tree as he passes. He means no violence. He seeks answers. He must be avoided. We cannot save him from his turbulent future. There is too much pain there. We must skip the tea. She will drink it with him. He will trouble her. But he is here and there is nothing we can do about it. We only saw him coming briefly before he arrived. No time.

He has been pierced by the thorns of the Dolls Eyes. She will heal him. She has the antidote. She will point him to the ones who are like me. It doesn't matter. He will not hurt them. He is a creature of good despite his capacity for violence. At least that is what this one thinks.

We toss strips of meat to the disturbed vines. We are careful not to be seen. Spring is violent. It is a season of avoidance.

…

The intensity of green lightens for summer. Nothing is as wet. The rush of spring is over and parenthood ages. This one's mind is calmer with the decrease in violence.

We spend more time outside. We drink dandelion tea less. The old one stays in her room more. This means more work for us. We trim more plants. We re-pot more. The old one's experiments languish, but they are not our responsibility. We care. We maintain. We do not experiment. We are an experiment. 

The news screens we glance at occasionally show the others have been freed. No more "precogs" worshipped. No more "precriminals." The old one says they have gone to live a secluded life like this one. Away from people who can make them dream violence. This one doesn't dream violence. We simply see violence. But we are useless. We only see what happens an instant before it does. Enough to move. Enough to suffer.

This one should be with the others. We would be symbiotic. Like the ant and the aphid. But this one must wait. Summer persists.

…

Autumn falls. Leaves fall. The old one falls. This one travels. It is torture. Until finally this one arrives in a tundra. It is different from the swamps of the old one's home. There are different plants to tend and cultivate. They will be this one's choice. We will avoid the predatory plants the old one favored. This one prefers plants that bear fruit and vegetables.

We do bring with us a fern. It is native to our old swamp home. We tell the others about it. We tell them of the old one. We never speak of our dreams. This one steers the others around dangers and we live in fall. Constant fall to the sleep of winter.

Nightcrawler dialogue analysis [Academic Musings]

LOU

Could I please speak with your boss, please?

OWNER

I’m the owner.

LOU

How about 800 in store credit?

OWNER

What are you looking for?

LOU

A camcorder and a police scanner.

This is one of my favorite exchanges in the film. Now, at first glance, it’s kinda a boring exchange. BUT, this is the pivotal point in Lou’s journey. He’s experienced Nightcrawling from the outside, and now he’s going active. He’s going off on his own. Before this, we know that Lou is interested in Nightcrawling, but he was begging for a job. Now he’s taking things into his own hands. He’s starting his own business. Just because he wants to. He takes a bit of a daring approach, steals a bike in broad daylight. It points toward the amount that Lou wants to Nightcrawl.

I also appreciate that the language is so direct. There’s no questioning Lou’s intentions. He wants a camcorder and a police scanner. The direct nature of the language allows the audience no room for interpretation. We know what Lou is going to do next. It also stands in juxtaposition to a lot of Lou’s dialogue. He tends to speak through his thoughts a lot of the time. He asks a lot of questions. He often appeals to authority of facts that he’s learned. But he doesn’t do that here. I think that’s important.

LOU

Something like this?

NINA

That’s right.

LOU

Bloody.

NINA

That’s only part of it. We like crime.

Not all crime. A carjacking in Compton,

for example, that isn’t news, now is it?

We find our viewers are more interested

in urban crime creeping into the suburbs.

What that means is a victim or victims,

preferably well-off and/or white, injured

at the hands of the poor, or a minority.

LOU

Just crime?

NINA

No. Accidents play. Cars, buses,

trains, planes. Fires. Suicides.

LOU

But bloody.

NINA

Graphic. The best and clearest way that

I can phrase it to you, Lou, to capture

the spirit of what we air, is think of

our newscast as a screaming woman running

down the street with her throat cut.

LOU

I understand. I’ve always been a very

fast learner. You’ll be seeing me again.

This moment. OOF. In my opinion, this moment acts, for Lou, as the permission he needs to really let loose with all his worst instincts. “We like crime. Not all crime…” You know, not the boring crime that happens to the poor and the disenfranchised. They don’t like the type of crime that Lou is currently doing. Missing manhole covers are boring. BUT, crime that happens to the upper crust, that’s shocking. Especially the graphic stuff. This points Lou on a much more direct path. He starts ignoring the police calls to “bad” neighborhoods in preference to the “good” neighborhoods. He starts chasing suicides in hopes of seeing something bloody and gruesome. Maybe even catch someone jumping.

This dialogue serves to further aim the bullet that is Lou. It also directly states the theme of the film, the excess that is the “if it bleeds, it leads” shock-news culture that we all live in. That’s what Nina and her network seek. They literally exploit tragedy. They make it into news. They cultivate fear for views. That’s why they want to see “urban crime creeping into the suburbs.” Because that’s terrifying for the suburban white folk who want to live in peace and comfort.

LOU

Thank you, because I don’t think it’s a

secret that I’ve single-handedly raised

the unit price on your ratings book.

NINA

Our ratings book price?

LOU

I’m a very fast learner, Nina. We had a

conversation and I specifically mentioned

that. Do you remember? Well do you?

NINA

Yes.

LOU

I recently learned, for instance, that

most Americans watch local news to stay

informed. I also learned that an average

half-hour of Los Angeles television news

packs all its local government coverage --

including budget, law enforcement,

education, transportation and immigration

-- into 22 seconds. Local crime stories,

however, not only usually led the news

but filled 14 times the broadcast,

averaging 5 minutes 7 seconds. And

K.S.M.L. relies heavily on such stories.

With Los Angeles crime rates going down I

think that makes items like mine

particularly valuable, like rare animals.

I imagine your needs will only increase

during next week’s rating sweeps period.

NINA

We certainly appreciate what you do.

LOU

There's certain good things in being alone.

You have time to do the things you want

to do, like study and plan. But you can’t

have dinners like this. Or be physical

with a person, I mean beyond a flirtationship. 

NINA

Where are you going with this?

LOU

I want that. With you. Like you want to

keep your job and your health insurance.

YUCK. Okay, so I highlighted two lines of dialogue here, because this moment really served for me as the moment where Lou went from a shitty person to being a shitty, skeevy person. Lou is the type of person who is always listening and keeping receipts. He specifically remembered and catalogued the fact that he was helping Nina raise the unit price of their ratings book. He catalogued that and later used it to help him manipulate Nina into having a sexual relationship with him. Does she want to keep her job and health insurance? Well, looks like she’s got to keep Lou happy, then. And in order to keep him happy, now he’s saying she needs to have sex with him.

There’s a psychological difference between types of criminal behavior. For me, this is the moment where we understand that Lou is a true psychopath or sociopath. Lou doesn’t have the capacity to be in a real relationship or to charm someone. He doesn’t even try. We see him earlier in the film utterly fail to charm someone. So now, he jumps straight to manipulation. He knows he’s in a position of power, and he waits  until now to approach Nina for a sexaul relationship because now he’s pretty sure he can pressure her into it.

These lines also serve to increase the tension in the scene. What starts as a simple date that is a bit awkward, progresses into a planned manipulation in which we are waiting for Nina to respond. How is she going to react to Lou’s inflammatory statements? What is she going to do? Lou has crossed a boundary with what he says here.

This is the point in the film where I actively start rooting for Lou to die.

Literary Tool Kit: RomCom Themes

This is the fourth (and last) in a series of blogs wherein I work to create a “literary toolkit” on writing the Romantic Comedy screenplay by analyzing Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Some Like It Hot. This is adapted from an assignment I worked on for my graduate degree at SNHU.

What are they?

MERRIAM-WEBSTER DEFINES THEME AS “a subject or topic of discourse or of artistic representation.” I hate this definition. Talk about BROAD. It almost never helps me to think about the theme as a starting point because it’s so broad. Besides, the themes of screenplays are so open to interpretation that sometimes the films made from them have a different theme. Additionally, for rom-coms, the theme is generally something pretty obvious and related to the cliches surrounding romance, love, friendship, and family. Time and audience perspective can also change how the theme of certain films are interpreted.

Let’s take Some Like it Hot as an example. Back in “the day,” this film would probably have been interpreted by it’s author(s) as a film “about the Machiavellian lengths to which people will go to get what they want, which is never much nobler than money, sex, or self-preservation” (Wasson). The film is meant to please and entertain. Cross-dressing wasn’t some big political statement, it was a sight-gag. The lessons our characters learn are minimal, and honestly, they don’t change much from the beginning of the film to the end of the film. The whole film is about reversal and ironic humor. Nowadays, however, you can very easily draw the conclusion that the “enlightened” gender politics of the film were vastly ahead of their time, advocating for gender being a continuum rather than a binary -- a very modern idea, and one that is not even fully mainstream to this day. The film is so lacking in commentary that it can be interpreted in any number of ways. I personally think that’s some amazing writing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Forgetting Sarah Marshall has absolutely no nuance. This isn’t necessarily a criticism, but it certainly limits the ways that the film can be interpreted. I think the general theme one will come to realize about this film will be some variation on this: “The process of getting over a breakup is messy, and takes time, even when one is leaving a flawed, abusive, or deeply unfulfilling relationship.” The only debatable point there is probably the last part. You could argue that Sarah and Peter’s relationship wasn’t unfulfilling for Peter. But honestly, that difference isn’t particularly important. Getting through the breakup is the part that really matters in the story. This message, and the comedy of the screenplay, are communicated by the constant return of Sarah Marshall into Peter’s life. Just as he forgets about her, she comes back in. Much like how our minds always return to heartbreak when we’re mourning a relationship.

In my own writing…

Theme is probably always going to be a subconscious aspect of my writing. I can’t yet see a future where I will start from a theme as inspiration. I will say, however, that theme plays an important role for me when I'm outlining. I sometimes like to follow Blake Snyder’s beat sheet as a starting point to brainstorm my story structure, and one of the beats in that is “theme stated.” I don’t think it necessary for one’s characters to state the theme in every work one creates, but in practice, it is a good exercise to try to figure out a way to write the theme into the film’s dialogue. I may keep it and I may not, but it’s good practice. I think perhaps theme is much more important in other forms of creative writing than screenplay, but it’s definitely not completely beside the point. I’ll always keep the theme at the back of my mind while I’m writing so that I don’t write a scene completely out of left field… but it’s definitely in the back of my mind.

Also, I’ll certainly make sure to pick an appropriate theme for the appropriate genre. It’s not possible to write an effective romantic comedy with the theme “Love is overrated, you should put your effort into your career instead.” It would be extremely improbable, if not impossible, to write a rom-com in which your audience will feel satisfied if you choose an inappropriate theme.

Brainstorm time: 

I like the two themes of Some Like it Hot and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and I find it interesting to think how these two themes could be combined. I’m not sure it could actually work, though. Perhaps this pitch using the theme would make for an interesting screenplay:

A genderfluid ex drug dealer who presents as a female decides to get out of a dangerous game in which they have found themselves. In order to escape this life, they break off their longtime relationship, move to a different area of the city, change their name, and try presenting as male instead.

Works Cited

• “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By Jason Segel, directed by Nicholas Stoller, Apatow Productions, 18 April 2008.

• Hay, Lucy V. “5 Important Elements of Writing a Romantic Comedy.” bang2write, 20 Mar. 2013, bang2write.com/2013/03/5-important-elements-of-writing-a-romantic-comedy-by-james-rogers.html.

• “Some Like it Hot.” By Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond, directed by Billy Wilder, Mirisch Company, 29 March 1959.

• “Theme.” Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 12 March, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theme. Accessed 22 March, 2020.

• Wasson, Sam. “Some Like It Hot: How to Have Fun.” Criterion, The Criterion Channel, 19 Nov. 2018, www.criterion.com/current/posts/6048-some-like-it-hot-how-to-have-fun.

Literary Tool Kit: RomCom Conventions

This is the third in a series of blogs wherein I work to create a “literary toolkit” on writing the Romantic Comedy screenplay by analyzing Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Some Like It Hot. This is adapted from an assignment I worked on for my graduate degree at SNHU.

What are they?

“Literary conventions” -- to me, a literary convention is a writing technique commonly used in certain genre of writing. Thus, different literary conventions exist in poetry, novels, fables, historical dramas, screenplays, biographies, etc. I think that there is a risk of literary conventions being confused with tropes; however, the literary conventions are functional versus narrative. I think today’s audiences are quite likely to make the error of conflating the two due to our culture of critique and analysis. Social media has created an outlet for anyone to put their own analysis out there, regardless of how knowledgeable they are about literary terminology. I’ve certainly, in my time, heard the term “trope” used to describe a literary convention/technique.

The literary conventions of this genre are easy to identify. One of my favorite conventions is the use of personal misconception and miscommunication, which are frequently central to the conflicts of these films. “Opposites attract” and make for great comedy and chemistry. And people never know what they want. The woman might have a list of things they’re looking for; the man may want a “certain type” of woman. But through the magical process of falling in love, the characters always discover what they really want. These conventions haven’t changed in too many major ways since the conception of the genre, just as the process of falling in love hasn’t changed all that much. It’s a major part of the human condition, and always fun to watch, whether the pair is meeting as members of competing advertising firms, or through an online dating app. 

I especially like when b-story misconceptions/miscommunications are resolved in baffling and/or hilarious ways with little explanation. This happens a lot in the rom-com genre. The weird supporting characters also fall in love. It’s especially hilarious when the two characters are extreme oddballs. In Some Like it Hot, Jerry, the film’s other leading man, ends up being forced to go on a romantic date with Osgood, a millionaire, in order for Joe to sneakily use Osgood’s yacht to seduce Sugar. Naturally, Osgood falls in love with Jerry (aka Daphne in his female disguise), and asks Jerry to marry him. Jerry says yes, of course, receiving a diamond bracelet from Osgood. The whole mix-up is resolved in the end with Osgood, Joe, Sugar, and Jerry running away from the mafia together, Sugar and Joe falling in love, and this incredible exchange:

OSGOOD

I called Mama -- she was so happy she

cried -- she wants you to have her

wedding gown -- it’s white lace.

JERRY

Osgood -- I can’t get married in your

mother’s dress. She and I -- we’re not

built the same way.

OSGOOD

We can have it altered.

JERRY

Oh, no you don’t! Look, Osgood --

I’m going to level with you.

We can’t get married at all.

OSGOOD

Why not?

JERRY

Well, to begin with, I’m not a

natural blonde.

OSGOOD

(tolerantly)

It doesn’t matter.

JERRY

And I smoke. I smoke all the time.

OSGOOD

I don’t care.

JERRY

And I have a terrible past. For

three years now, I’ve been living

with a saxophone player.

OSGOOD

I forgive you.

JERRY

(with growing desperation)

I can never have children.

OSGOOD

We’ll adopt some.

JERRY

But you don’t understand.

(he rips off his wig; then

in a male voice)

Damn it, Osgood, I’m a man!

OSGOOD

Well -- nobody’s perfect.

Please remember. This film came out in the 1950’s. I think it’s one of the most perfect, hilarious endings to a romantic comedy of all time. 

This brings me to the second convention utilized in rom-com screenwriting: tension and release. Romantic chemistry is vital for convincing your audience that two people are falling in love. You need to build the feeling of “will they -- won’t they?” even when we know from our genre choice that they will (end up together). But, regardless of our ending being predetermined as a happy one, you must include moments of near-misses for the couple. “Moments” must be interrupted by another complicating incident that keeps our lovers apart. You gotta build up that tension and release. Give the audience hope, then pull it away. Preferably in a way that makes us laugh.

In Forgetting Sarah Marshall, this happens over and over again in the form of Sarah and her new boyfriend. They show up at the most inopportune moments to remind Peter of his grief and block the progression of his relationship with Rachel. Sarah and William even show up during Peter and Rachel’s meet-cute. They’re a constant source of comedy and frustration for our main character and his blossoming relationship.

In my own writing…

As frustrating as these situations are in real life, I love narrative arcs based upon misconception and miscommunication. Especially when it’s well-founded, funny, or very unique to our characters. The premise of What’s Your Number? always makes me laugh because it’s based upon the misconception that our flighty main character has when she reads a magazine article stating that women who have had over 21 sexual partners are unlikely to marry compared to those who have had under that number. Of course, our main character here is at the 20 mark, so she becomes obsessed with the idea that she only has “one more.” Thus, she revisits every guy she’s ever slept with to make sure that they are not “the one.” Miscommunications, I think, are trickier than basic misconceptions about life or another person’s character. It requires one of your characters to be at least a little bit… well… shitty. The city girl has to write off the carpenter and inn-owner from the small town. The funny male lead has to write off the career-driven woman as a shrew for not laughing at his jokes. Someone’s gotta be a little bit shitty, and they have to grow over the course of the story.

In building tension, I think it’s important to select the correct setting. There needs to be a frenetic element to the goings-on of your story, or else the two characters would have ample time to sit down and talk out their problems. I think this is one reason that so many romantic comedies center around holidays, weddings, and other events. There is also usually a literal or invented “time limit” placed upon the characters’ lives. In some films, the time limit is very clear, for instance, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. In others, there’s a more general time limit of a holiday being over, or a wedding party going their separate ways, or the prospect that one has reached some sort of “limit,” sending them on a quest, such as the plot for What’s Your Number? Without some sort of limit, what spurs your characters into action? This is an issue that I, myself, have run into with some of my stories.

The comforting, and sometimes limiting thing about the rom-com genre is this need for time limit. Though some stories transcend this factor, they tend more towards the “rom” aspect of rom-com than the “com” aspect. (See The Notebook for an example of this. It’s humorous, but it’s more in the romance/drama/comedy genre with the comedy being the last and least important element). Slow burns work much better for drama than they do for comedy. Time-jumps, while they certainly occur, I think are much less important in comedy than drama. And they are usually a symptom of the story rather than a cause… if that makes any sense.

Brainstorm time: The Shut In

Feature film in which Charlotte, a novelist and shut-in, must overcome her agoraphobia and venture out into the world to attend her cousin, and best friend’s, wedding as Maid of Honor. Despite the fact that Charlotte has built herself a functional, if slightly lonely, life, she has finally run into an event which she cannot miss, and she cannot experience from her home. (While her cousin is perfectly willing to have wedding events at family homes, including the bachelorette party at Charlotte’s house, she must get married at the family Catholic church -- a cathedral-like massive church).

Upon hearing about the event, Charlotte’s best friend, Chris, who lives across the country, insists that she has to take him as her date to the wedding, as it is a perfect chance for them to meet for the first time in person, since they met almost a year beforehand in an online game. Chris doesn’t know that Charlotte has been a shut-in for the past three years. The subject, obviously, has been studiously avoided. The miscommunication here has been purposeful, though not spiteful. And I believe that I have somehow avoided the trap of making this miscommunication too shitty.

The first part of the film will include a montage of humorous attempts to get Charlotte out of the house, which eventually, will culminate in (limited) success by the time Chris arrives in town. Then, through a series of carefully-orchestrated events, in which Charlotte and her two best friends (one of which is the bride), design wedding events and dates around places which make Charlotte the most comfortable, and through the copious use of tranquilizers. While in comfortable settings, Charlotte and Chris have plenty of time to connect, though Charlotte is busy with helping out as the MOH. Then, during events outside of homes, Charlotte’s inebriation is covered by her friends, and her interaction with Chris is limited by this. We have cute moments of “will they, won’t they,” interrupted by friends, family, and wedding events. Chris finally discovers Charlotte’s “problem” when he surprises her the night before the wedding with a surprise movie date. He’s bought tickets, he’s rented a car, and he’s bought flowers. He’s decided he can’t wait to confess his feelings for her. Of course… she’s flustered, and she can’t go with him. The truth comes out.

In the end, Chris shows up at the wedding to find a sober Charlotte, terrified and shaking, and hiding in a closet. He convinces her to come out and join the wedding, which she does, and the two end the film with the decision to be together, Chris planning on moving to live in the area, and Charlotte promising to continue on the road towards rehabilitation.

Works Cited

• “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By Jason Segel, directed by Nicholas Stoller, Apatow Productions, 18 April 2008.

• Hay, Lucy V. “5 Important Elements of Writing a Romantic Comedy.” bang2write, 20 Mar. 2013, bang2write.com/2013/03/5-important-elements-of-writing-a-romantic-comedy-by-james-rogers.html.

• “Some Like it Hot.” By Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond, directed by Billy Wilder, Mirisch Company, 29 March 1959.

• “Theme.” Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 12 March, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theme. Accessed 22 March, 2020.

• Wasson, Sam. “Some Like It Hot: How to Have Fun.” Criterion, The Criterion Channel, 19 Nov. 2018, www.criterion.com/current/posts/6048-some-like-it-hot-how-to-have-fun.

Literary Tool Kit: RomCom Storytelling Elements

This is the second of a series of blogs wherein I work to create a “literary toolkit” on writing the Romantic Comedy screenplay by analyzing Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Some Like It Hot. This is adapted from an assignment I worked on for my graduate degree at Southern New Hampshire University.

Content warning: I get a bit spicy.

Storytelling Elements: What are they?

Who the fuck knows? The elements that make a great story are nebulous. When you google the term “storytelling elements of romantic comedy,” you come up with this list (bang2write.com):

1) Something Fresh

2) The Protagonist

3) Understand Your Audience

4) Genuinely Funny Moments (whatever that means)

5) A Happy Ending

Thanks google. You know. For nothing. I would argue that this list is the same for any type of comedic fiction. So I’m left with trying to parse together a definition on my own. What are storytelling elements? They are the characters, the setting, the conflict, the theme, the narrative arc. We’re going to focus on that penultimate point (the theme) in its own section, so let’s focus on the two storytelling themes that I feel are the most significant for the rom-com genre.

The main expectation of the romantic comedy genre is that we anticipate a happy ending. The narrative arc should end on a high. People end up together, and they end up happier than they were before. At least for now. You should know, generally, what you are getting into when you pick up a romantic comedy. Some hijinks, some humor, and a happy ending where two people fall in love. Rom-com is generally not great literature or film. And that’s ok. Sometimes you want an emotional cup of cocoa. The world can be dark, and we need to counteract that with levity and silliness.

It also doesn’t really matter if this ending is shoehorned in. As long as the work is done during the body of the film, we can end with a time skip forward to get our characters together. Take Forgetting Sarah Marshall; our characters fall in love, but to get together, they just first do the work on themselves. Rachel must figure out what she wants to do with her life, and Peter has to… well, forget Sarah Marshall. He has to move on. So, at the end of the film, the two separate, Peter goes home, cleans up his house, puts on his Dracula musical, and Rachel, having moved back to California to continue college, shows up at a performance. The two get together right at the very end. We ultimately end on a happy note. 

The second storytelling element most important to this genre are characters. You must write likeable characters. They honestly don’t even have to be realistic. In many rom-coms, the man or woman are “perfect” in all ways but their love life. But, ya’ know... they can’t be too perfect. The best rom-coms strike the perfect balance. Their characters are flawed but lovable. Popular flaws may include, but are not limited to:

• Airheadedness

• Clumsiness to the point of medical concern

• Rejection of romance from prior painful experience

• Fear of romance from prior painful experience

• Being a workaholic/being career-driven

• Being poor (and a musician. These two are almost never mutually exclusive, except in the case of Music and Lyrics.)

• Being quirky and having a weird hobby (I’m looking at you, What’s Your Number?)

• Having “severe” anxiety

• Having strict parents

• Class divides (I would separate this from being poor, as the dynamic is a bit different)

• Being dead (seriously, what the hell, The Lake House????)

The characters in Some Like It Hot are flawed, but extremely likable. Jerry and Joe are poor, Jerry’s kind of dumb, Joe is a rake with a gambling problem, but they’re handsome and charming musicians. And, over the course of the film, through dressing like women, they become sensitive to the difficulties of what it is like to be a woman, thus they become increasingly likable to the audience. Plus they’re funny. Our romantic lead actress, played by Marilyn Monroe, is a standard gorgeous airhead who wants to marry a millionaire, but keeps falling for skeezy saxophone players.

SUGAR

Especially tenor sax. I don’t know what

it is, but they just curdle me. All they

have to do is play eight bars of “Come to

Me My Melancholy Baby” -- and my spine turns

to custard, and I get goose-pimply all

over -- and I come to them.

JOE

That so?

SUGAR

Every time!

JOE

You know -- I play tenor sax.

SUGAR

But you’re a girl, thank goodness.

JOE

Yeah…

In this scene, Sugar bluntly lays out for Joe her weakness, and ill-treatment from, saxophone players just like him. Earlier in the script, before he and Jerry had to go on the run dressed as women, we see Joe treat Nellie this way, using her to borrow money and her car, and standing her up on dates. He doesn't even say goodbye to her on screen, leading the audience to assume that he’s left her in the lurch.

The screenplay builds Joe up as a likable, charming rogue who changes his ways through the lessons of the film. In the end, he tries to get Sugar to give him up, even though he’s charmed her through lies, because he realizes that he’s just a “no-good saxophone player.” Everyone ends up together, happy. For now, at least.

In my own writing… 

Applying rom-com storytelling elements to my own writing should prove easy. I like both happy endings, and I prefer to write characters who, while flawed, are likable. I struggle much more to write characters my readers are supposed to hate. I feel, personally, that characters who are unredeemable are either one-note villains (in which case, I almost feel as if they’re less character than setting/conflict for our characters to overcome), or must be carefully crafted to tug at the readers’ heartstrings by having reverse-flaws. Yes, they’re unredeemable, but it’s because they loved someone so much that their death drove them insane. I feel like these types of villains don’t belong in the rom-com genre, and thus writing standard likable characters is right up my comfortable alley.

Of course, I like the idea of coming up with character flaws that are a little more complex than those I listed above. All of those feel a bit tropey to me. I would prefer to find a way to play on these familiar flaws in new ways. I have no problem with writing Hallmark rom-coms; in fact, I think baking these gooey, chocolate chip-filled cookie films would be an absolute pleasure. But I also want to come up with original characters that feel good to me. I’m a bit sick of the small-town boy meets city girl films that have been all the rage recently. I want to turn out something different.

Brainstorm time: Quarantined By Love

Short film in which a small surgical team are quarantined in an operating room upon the discovery that the emergency surgery car-crash patient has been exposed, and is beginning to show symptoms of the bacteria bacterium Yersinia pestis -- also known as the Black Death! During their mandatory 24-hour quarantine, two single doctors who actively dislike each other (Lydia is a super upbeat “heal-through-positive-thinking” general surgeon and Marcus is a “medicine is hard science only” brain surgeon) are forced to eat, evacuate, and take decontamination showers together in the small, cramped quarters of the operating room, along with the anesthesiologist, Lydia’s good friend, and two male scrub nurses who Marcus hangs out and plays sportsball with. Over the period of the short film, we learn that Marcus’s grandmother died when she refused modern medicine in favor of spiritual healing until her early-stage breast cancer had progressed beyond the point of no return. Lydia, in the end, concedes that the first step is modern medicine, but through her own examples of families torn apart when positive thinking failed them and medicine succeeded, she and Marcus eventually reach consensus and mutual respect. The happy ending will come when everyone is asymptomatic by the end of the quarantine, and Lydia ends up successfully asking Marcus out to dinner.

Works Cited

• “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By Jason Segel, directed by Nicholas Stoller, Apatow Productions, 18 April 2008.

• Hay, Lucy V. “5 Important Elements of Writing a Romantic Comedy.” bang2write, 20 Mar. 2013, bang2write.com/2013/03/5-important-elements-of-writing-a-romantic-comedy-by-james-rogers.html.

• “Some Like it Hot.” By Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond, directed by Billy Wilder, Mirisch Company, 29 March 1959.

• “Theme.” Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 12 March, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theme. Accessed 22 March, 2020.

• Wasson, Sam. “Some Like It Hot: How to Have Fun.” Criterion, The Criterion Channel, 19 Nov. 2018, www.criterion.com/current/posts/6048-some-like-it-hot-how-to-have-fun.

Once Upon A Post-It Note.... [Academic Musings]

Do you ever go back and go through your past academic writing? It’s crazy for me to look back on old papers that I’ve written to see how I’ve evolved as a writer. In some ways, I’ve certainly “improved.” Other ways, I think it’s hard to say something is an “improvement” when it’s really a change in writing voice.

Anyway, I once wrote up the history of Post-It Notes for a Mass Media Communication class. It was one of my favorites.

 Post-It Society, Courtesy of 3M

Katy M. Hannah

           3M was one of the first companies to made "a deliberate decision to give its people the time and resources to be creative:  any technical staffer can spend 15% of his or her time working on their own projects, using company resources." (Marketing).  Spencer Silver was a senior chemist working for 3M in the late 1960's (about).  In 1967, Spencer Silver was working on creating a super-strong adhesive glue when he came up with a glue with a granular texture which did not stick to surfaces permanently;  in essence, he succeed in creating a glue with properties completely opposite of what he intended (nytimes).  3M could find no practical use for the substance.  Then in the early 1970's, they introduced a product called the Post-It Bulletin Board, which they hoped would replace traditional cork boards; however, it was a flop due to the fact that dust and hair also stuck to the board, not just scraps of paper (nytimes).  It was not until 1976, when another 3M scientist, Arthur Fry, decided to put the adhesive on the backs of paper scraps.  Fry sang in his church choir, and he used bits of paper to mark songs in his hymnal, but became frustrated because the pieces of paper kept falling out (Marketing).  He came up with the idea to put Silver's adhesive on the back of his bookmarks, and thus the Post-It Note was born.

           Marketing at 3M was skeptical of Fry's idea, because the product would be many times more expensive to buy than simple scraps of paper.  In 1977, post-its were market tested, with a luke-warm reaction; however, a year later, in Idaho, 3M distributed free samples to four different companies, and 90% of the company workers said they would  buy the product (nytimes).  According to a London-based magazine "Marketing," a 40-50% intent to reorder is extremely high, so a 90% intent to reorder completely removed any skepticism about the possible success of the Post-It Note (Marketing).  They officially launched the product nationwide in 1980, though they continued giving out free samples to Fortune 500 companies (post-it.com).

           The first post-its were 2 7/8 square inches and yellow; a few years later, they introduced the rest of the basic color pallette.  In 1987, Post-it Flags were introduced.  They were the newest thing in organization, serving people as bookmarks, notebook tabs, and helping usher in an era of color coordination.  In 1994, 3M introduced Post-It Easel Pads, which is basically a giant sticky note pad on an easel, which is great for presentations and can even be used as interesting teaching tool.  The geniuses at 3M then released Post-it Pop-up Notes in 1991, which took the classic sticky note and alternated the sticky part of the note to opposite ends on each consecutive note, making them form a sort of accordion (kind of like tissues in a box).  In conjunction with these notes, they came out with dispensers.  Now, if you go on their website, many different colors and variety of dispensers exist for your pleasure.  This was a great marketing ploy for 3M because they began selling the Pop-up Notes as well as dispensers.  People began buying more and more expensive Post-It Products.

           The next release from 3M more than ten years later in the form of Post-it Super Sticky Notes, which promise to stick to more difficult surfaces.  Their ad campaign for this product was brilliant, and produced some of the most memorable commercials of all time.  In one post-it super sticky note commercial, a jack russel terrier goes after a note on the wall with a bone drawn on it, bites it, and instead of the note coming off the wall, the dog remains suspended in the air because of the adhesive power of the note.  This type of hyperbole is really unnecessary for 3M post-it products, because post-it products have permeated pop culture so thoroughly.  Like Kleenex, we barely acknowledge that Post-it is actually a brand name.

           Recently, 3M has come out with the Post-it Labels, Post-it Greener Notes , and Post-it Flag Highlighters in 2009, and Post-it Laptop Note Dispensers were only released last year.  None of the Post-it product releases have been as big as the original sticky note.   (Post-it.com)

           The sticky note entered into our lives as one of the first products for which there was no discernible need.  People had gotten by without sticky notes for thousands of years, so 3M had great reason to procrastinate on the products launch, because they had little reason to believe that people would buy something they did not really need.  America, as a consumer society was still in its infancy in the late 1970's, and people were more apt to save their disposable income or spend it on products they were familiar with.  Post-its were an office supply, but 3M had no idea that they would become so much more.  In current times, Post-it notes have become a popular form of communication, a great way to post personal reminders, a great planning tool, and a funny reference in movies and television.  In the television show Sex and the City, Carrie Bradshaw, the main character, was broken up with by her boyfriend via a Post-it Note saying nothing more than "I'm sorry, I can't.  Don't hate me."  Playing a less depressing role in the lives of television characters, in the tv show "Grey's Anatomy," the main characters Meredith Gray and Derek Shepherd opt to get married on a sticky note instead of taking time from their jobs to go to city hall.  In a more traditional role, sticky notes can be found on the desks of the characters in the hit tv show "The Office," "Glee," and other tv shows set in offices or schools.

           Post-it Notes have become something we think we need.  At the beginning of each school year, I guarantee that this product is on the lists of many students and professors, along with their essential binders, notebooks, pens, pencils, and the less essential laptop covers, phone cases, personalized stationary, designer book cases and agendas, and newest trend clothing.  If I were to label an invention that truly helped shaped the American psyche into a truly materialistic society, I would say that the innocent-looking Post-it is one of many culprits.  Of all the desires one could have for something they don't need, the Post-it is one of the least expensive.  Nowadays many people do not think they could survive without internet connected phones.  Before that it was cell phones in general,  the internet, landlines, all the way back to the first televisions, radios, even Morse code.  As life becomes more handy, we stop believing that we could go back to the way life was before modern convenience.

           Though it helped usher in the age of consumerism, and competition for cutting-edge office supplies, the post-it will always have a place in the hearts of the American consumer.  It is a unique product fully developed by an American company using American innovations.  Even the ideals which led to the development of the adhesive- giving employees company time and resources to work on personal projects- was a uniquely 3M idea, and thus an American idea.  Now, companies hire people to basically think up new innovations and invent new products as their jobs!

           The Post-it may have helped usher in an age of consumerism, and helped make people believe that we need things that we do not, but it is still at its core, an invention which made our lives little bit more convenient.  It is a product that simply gave us a little yellow piece of paper with a bit of weak adhesive on the back, making it perfect for posting inspirational messages on people's lockers, writing down notes about homework, proposing marriage in a cute way, breaking up with people in an impersonal way, and even making pixelated art work.  It is the God-given little sticky note of Spencer Silver and Arthur Fry.

Works Cited:

• Anonymous. "Convenient Dispenser for Post-It Notes; Battery Operated Label Maker."             The CPA Journal Vol. 21, Iss. 61 (1991): pg. 61.  Proquest.

• Anonymous.  "Post-it:  How a maverick got his way."  Marketing  Oct 28 (1993): pg. 31.             Proquest.

• Bellis, Mary.  "Post It Note: Arthur Fry invented the post it note but Spencer Silver         invented the glue."  inventors.about.com.  About, n.d.  Web.  22 February, 2011.

• Havener, Cliff.  "An Insider's guide to the Post-It Story."  Management            Review Vol.   83, Iss. 12 (1994): pg 45.  Proquest.

• Newman, Anderew N.  "Turning 30, an Office Product Works at Home."  The New York       Times 27 July, 2010.  NYTimes.com.

• Sloane, Lucas.  (1999, February).  Post-It sets nutty ad.  Brandweek, 40(5), 8.                   Retrieved February 21, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global.  (Document ID:                 38787855).

• "The Thirty-Year Stick:  How Post-It Notes Have Stuck to Our Culture And History."             newsweek.com.  Newsweek, n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2011.

Literary Tool Kit: Romantic Comedy

This is the first of a series of blogs wherein I work to create a “literary toolkit” on writing the Romantic Comedy screenplay. This is adapted from an assignment I worked on for my graduate degree at SNHU.

I selected two romantic comedy screenplays, analyzed and compared them, and from this, I have created this "writer's toolkit." I selected a 1959 film by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, "Some Like It Hot," and 2008’s “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By picking a classic, Hay's Code Hollywood film and a contemporary romantic comedy, I have identified the differences between the two scripts, as well as the storytelling elements, literary conventions, and themes of this particular genre which have persisted through the evolving film landscape.

My reasons for picking these two films are multifaceted. First, these two scripts were available. Through the process of searching for screenplays, one will make this realization quickly. Transcripts for almost all films are readily available, but if you want the originals, these are much more difficult to find. Especially because scripts are never “finished.” Once a screenplay is optioned for a film, it is alive again and edited into different versions. If you are able to find the original script, it is almost always going to show some differences from the film version. The two scripts I’ve found appear to be originals, not shooting versions, which is why I’ve settled on them. 

Of course, I also enjoy both of these films. Amongst a list of screenplays I searched for, I’m very happy that these two were available. The differences in the two films are indicative of how time has changed the genre. This is something by which I am fascinated, as I adore romantic comedies. When life is crapping on you, when you need a boost, when you need your faith returned in humanity, “rom-coms” are there. In terms of bringing people joy, there are few genres where you’re guaranteed to be able to do this than in rom-com. Sometimes I want to write and consume things that are deep and important and study difficult situations. Other times I want to write and consume comfort. Rom-com is the mac and cheese of film.

The literary conventions of this genre are easy to identify. Misconceptions and miscommunications are frequently central to the conflicts of these films. Opposites always attract and make for great comedy and chemistry. And people never know what they want. The woman might have a list of things they’re looking for; the man may write of a “certain type” of woman. But through the magical process of falling in love, the characters always discover what they really want. These conventions haven’t changed in too many major ways since the conception of the genre; however, there are certainly culturally-related conventions that have changed since the 1950’s. Working women are much less frequently represented as quirky shrews who need love to soften them, as can be seen in quite a few of Doris Day’s films, most notably 1961’s Lover Come Back (one notable exception to this would be the films of Sandra Bullock -- Miss Congeniality, The Proposal, etc). Now, women in rom-coms almost always have jobs, and some are even career-driven. Plus, it’s no longer implied that marriage leads to the ending of a career and the beginning of a domestic life.

The cultural differences between the 1950’s and today might be pretty drastic, but the process of falling in love hasn’t changed all that much. It’s a major part of the human condition, and always fun to watch, whether the pair is meeting as members of competing advertising firms, or through an online dating app. Through my research and analysis of my two chosen texts, I plan to read some journal articles about the topic, thoroughly read the scripts for these films, watch the films themselves, and perhaps even check out some other entries into the genre that are generally regarded as trope-breaking.

…

I adore romantic comedies. When life is crapping on you, when you need a boost, when you need your faith returned in humanity, “rom-coms” are there. In terms of bringing people joy, there are few genres where you’re guaranteed to be able to do this than in rom-com. Sometimes I want to write and consume things that are deep and important and study difficult situations. Other times I want to write and consume comfort. Rom-com is the mac and cheese of film.

Works Cited

• “Some Like it Hot.” By Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond, directed by Billy Wilder, Mirisch Company, 29 March 1959.

• “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By Jason Segel, directed by Nicholas Stoller, Apatow Productions, 18 April 2008.

• “Lover Come Back.” By Staley Shapiro and Paul Henning, directed by Delbert Mann, Universal Pictures, 20 December 1961.

• “Miss Congeniality.” By Marc Lawrence, Katie Ford, and Caryn Lucas, directed by Donald Petrie, Castle Rock Entertainment, Village Roadshow Pictures, NPV Entertainment, and Fortis Films, 22 December 2000.

• “The Proposal.”  By Peter Chiarelli, Touchstone Pictures, K/O Paper Products, and Mandeville Films, 19 June 2009.

Screenwriting Analysis of Classic and Contemporary Work

Screenwriting has not changed much in the century during which it's been developed. Sure, some of the conventions have changed, and of course, vernacular has changed since the early 1900’s, but in terms of form, not much has changed. A major contributor to this is time. Just as few songs have broken into radio fame when outside the 3-minute standard length, the vast majority of feature films are 1.5 to 2 hours in length. (Yes, both films and songs can be argued to have gotten longer over the years… but it’s not by much. See Allain 2014 and Follows 2019).  The reason that screenplay length is so standardized is because pages are directly correlated to time. Each page generally equals one minute of screen time, so space is at a premium in the format. As a result of this, unlike stage plays, screenplays do not include stage (or camera) direction unless it is absolutely vital to tell the story. Why waste space directing? That’s someone else’s job.

In the service of space-saving, several additional storytelling conventions have arisen in the screenwriting craft. Style takes second place to function. Setting is established upfront in scene headings that generally do not go exceed a single line. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. In the beginning of both Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Some Like It Hot, a much more extensive scene description is included in the action at the very opening. This serves the purpose of establishing tone and temporal setting upfront. Some Like It Hot performs this especially well in its first line. It establishes the setting, the period, and the time of year in its first action sentence.

CITY AT NIGHT

A hearse of Late Twenties vintage is proceeding at a dignified pace along a half-deserted wintry street. 

I would argue that the opening for Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a bit more clunky, but it also serves to (through omission, as it is not a period piece) establish these, as well.

INT. PETER’S APARTMENT - LATE AFTERNOON.

PETER BRETTER (26) watches television alone in his dark, creepy apartment. 

SLIT (as I will refer to Some Like It Hot from now on) has a much more prosaic style than FSM (as I will refer to Forgetting Sarah Marshall from now on). In the opening, and continued throughout the piece, SLIT continues to use more vivid descriptive terms for lengthy action sequences than does FSM. The latter is more concerned with brevity and dialogic humor. (There are also humorous physical sequences in FSM, but the humor is much more focused on dialogue and reactions even in these sequences.)

Treatment of the characters is strikingly similar in both screenplays. Characters are introduced with minimal descriptors, frequently just a name and brief descriptor. Jerry and Joe are simply introduced as musicians in SLIT. Peter is only given an age in FSM. The love interests of both films are given a little more descriptive treatment. Sugar is described as “the dream girl of every red-blooded American male” in SLIT. Rachel and Sarah are both described as “beautiful” in FSM. One can’t help but wonder if this is a vestige of Hollywood sexism wherein men can be average but women must be beautiful. Or perhaps it is simply an extension of the male screenwriters’ imagination.

The narrative structure of both screenplays introduce our conflicts early, as is standard structure for most films. The initial conflict sets our characters on their journey for the remainder of the film, and while it isn’t necessarily life-changing in itself, it drives our characters to  change their lives as their conflicts develop and intensify. Jerry and Joe have no money. They are musicians in the prohibition era. The jazz halls have closed. They’re struggling to find jobs. Thus, they find themselves working in an illegal speakeasy during a raid. The operation, of course, is shut down before they can be paid. To make things worse, Joe has a gambling problem. As the story progresses, the two literally lose the clothes off their back in the frigid Chicago winter. Desperate, they end up witnessing a mob hit and must get out of town fast. Of course, they kill two birds with one stone and hijack a job in a women’s band. It’s a complicated, but fully logical set of events that sets up a desperate situation for our main characters while also giving us time to get to know them before the true hijinks ensue.

Much more simply, Peter’s journey begins when Sarah Marshall dumps him. We are given a few pages of exploration into Peter’s character before this event occurs, but it is relatively brief. We learn that he is a slob who is mired deeply in depression. He’s not introduced as a particularly lovable character, though he is relatable, especially once he has been dumped. One especially effective detail, in my opinion, is when Peter pawns the engagement ring for Sarah, getting only $6,000 of his $24,000 back. Of course, he spends this cash on a vacation to Hawaii, where he immediately runs into Sarah… and her new boyfriend. The story progression of FSM is simple. Peter’s main enemy is himself; his own grief and attachment to Sarah is what holds him back.

The theme of each film is delivered by the narrative, of course, but neither film has much of a serious message. The object is comedy and the theme is open to interpretation, as in many effective films. “Love conquers all” works. So does “love can save you.” Or you can find a different read in each movie. The gender bending (potentially extremely controversial in the 1950’s) in SLIT could lead you to find the main theme in those storytelling aspects. Jerry’s move away from womanizer to man in love is a major progression for his character. Additionally, you can read “time heals the wounds of love” in FSM, as Peter and Rachel don’t get together until after Peter has time by himself to get his life together. You can argue on which thematic element is primary for each film, as you can argue in any good story. At the end of the day, these two screenplays tell one hell of a good story.

Works Cited

Allain, Rhett. “Why Are Songs on the Radio About the Same Length?” Wired, 11 July 2014, https://www.wired.com/2014/07/why-are-songs-on-the-radio-about-the-same-length/.

Follows, Stephen. “Stephen Follows: Film Data and Education.” Stephen Follows: Film Data and Education, 16 Sept. 2019, https://stephenfollows.com/are-movies-getting-longer/.

“Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By Jason Segel, directed by Nicholas Stoller, Apatow Productions, 18 April 2008.

“Some Like it Hot.” By Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond, directed by Billy Wilder, Mirisch Company, 29 March 1959.