Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: metaphoric and metonymic

Expand Messages
  • Michael Brooke
    ... If you want a left-field suggestion, how about the British director Frank Launder? I ve been watching a lot of his films over the past few months, and it
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl" <madlyangelicgirl@y...>
      wrote:
      > Some advice needed...

      >
      > Finally, could anyone recommend some good women's films by one
      > director? I'm thinking of writing a piece on gender
      > representation.

      If you want a left-field suggestion, how about the British director Frank Launder? I've
      been watching a lot of his films over the past few months, and it seems to me that if a
      single thread runs through an enormously varied body of work (he did everything
      from straight drama to farcical comedy), it's an overwhelming fondness for strong,
      independent female characters, whether we're talking the factory workers of 'Millions
      Like Us' (1943), the feisty inhabitants of an internment camp in 'Two Thousand
      Women' (1944), Deborah Kerr's spirited Irish patriot in 'I See A Dark Stranger' (1946),
      Margaret Rutherford's indomitable headmistress in 'The Happiest Days of Your Life'
      and the entire female cast (plus Alastair Sim in drag) of 'The Belles of St Trinian's'
      (1954) and its sequels.

      More info (including a biography and detailed notes on all the above films and more)
      here: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/460455/index.html

      Michael
    • Henrik Sylow
      ... I dont like the term metaphoric auteur, I prefer Auteur who employs metaphores, but as he also employs metonymy, what is he then? Coming back to the
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
        <madlyangelicgirl@y...> wrote:
        > Some advice needed...
        >
        > I think Luhrman is a metaphoric auteur. Everything is very
        > transparent in his films and meaning is easily signified. Now, am I
        > wrong, or does anyone agree with me?

        I dont like the term metaphoric auteur, I prefer Auteur who employs
        metaphores, but as he also employs metonymy, what is he then?

        Coming back to the metaphor, Luhrman uses them and they are quiet
        complex.

        The curtain call (opening) when the orchestra plays the overture of
        "Sound of Music" is clearly metaphoric, as we have a score designated
        for one film used to designate another. But the metaphor is far more
        complex.

        To demonstrate how complex a metaphor it is, let us look at the
        Montmartre introduction, which is a mere second in an elaborate
        sequence. The word Montmartre can be split into Mont and Martre, which
        in French mean Mount Martyr. But Martre can paradigmic be read as
        Matre, meaning Mother, and by a simple paradigm we get Mount Mother
        --> Mountain / Hill and Women. Second there is a priest warning us,
        "turn away from this village of sin..." This evokes several
        juxtapositions (Man / Woman, Patriarchal / Matriarchal, Celibacy /
        Promiscuity). And finally the entry, the gate to Montmartre is in the
        shape of a face with its jaws wide open, so you walk into its mouth,
        much like the sacrificial alters of Moloch or Baal, which is
        underlined by the priest's words "...for it is a veritable Sodom and
        Gomorrah", evoking juxtaposition between the priest and the entry
        (Christianity / Cultism, Celibacy / Sin). It is underlined by the
        geometry of the shot, as it goes (priest, thru the gate, prostitute).

        Thus "the hills are alive, with the sound of music" becomes a metaphor
        for Montmartre (hills, women, full of life, sin) and Moulin Rouge
        (music, women, a lot of sin). Yet again the true meaning the
        Montmartre, the hill of martyr, premeditates Satine's death for love.

        What Luhrman does is creating a new code. Equally as he placed "Romeo
        and Juliet" in modern Miami, he uses contemporary pop to substitute
        dialogue, from the subtle interjection by Madonna into "Diamonds are a
        girls best friend", over Ziegler's "Like a Virgin", to the pure bliss
        of Crawford's "One day I'll fly away", interjected by Sting. Yet the
        clearest example of this new code is the love song medley, starting
        out with Beatles, Kiss and U2, where song lines are blended with
        dialogue lines, imitating metric, rhyme and rhythm, continuing to
        present the greatest modern love songs ever written, finally meeting
        eachother in Bowie's "Heroes" and escalating in Houston's "I will
        always love you".

        By creating a code understandable to us, Luhrman allows the use of
        metaphors previous not understandable. I dont agree that Luhrman's
        metaphores are transparent. While every trope is somewhat transparent,
        since it automaticly evokes a relation, Luhrman plays with them and
        thru the new code he creates attibutive metaphores and new
        compositional metaphores.

        An example are the girls of Moulin Rouge, who are prostitutes, but
        high priced ones, so they are called "The Diamond Dogs", suggesting
        both that they are "man's best friend" and their low social status and
        societies contempt for them. Satine is "The Sparkling Diamond". Note
        how she has broken free from "dog", note how she blinds "sparkling".
        Luhrman continues to play, when he uses the song "Diamonds are a girls
        best friend", suggesting a social symbiosis (Dogs are a man's best
        friend, Diamonds are a girls best friend), but also, by her name,
        suggesting that she is the one all "dogs" aspire to become.

        I know Bill mentioned Jackobsen and Genette, but Genette also coined
        another usefull idea "Transtextuality". Luhrman very much so replies
        on transtextuality, especially quotation and allusion, especially
        audial, to create his code.

        Henrik
      • Rebecca Shone
        Henrik, Thank you!! I m having difficulty getting through film theory jargon. It s a complex subject. I spotted the underworld typewriter which Christian
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Henrik,

          Thank you!! I'm having difficulty getting through film theory jargon. It's a complex subject. I spotted the underworld typewriter which Christian writes his story on, would this be a sign or a metaphor? I think it is reminding the viewer of the Orpheos myth which the film is obviously based upon. I also think that Luhrman plays with Brecht's alienation device, as the viewer is constantly aware that they are watching a film.

          Regards,
          Rebecca
          Henrik Sylow <henrik_sylow@...> wrote:
          --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
          <madlyangelicgirl@y...> wrote:
          > Some advice needed...
          >
          > I think Luhrman is a metaphoric auteur. Everything is very
          > transparent in his films and meaning is easily signified. Now, am I
          > wrong, or does anyone agree with me?

          I dont like the term metaphoric auteur, I prefer Auteur who employs
          metaphores, but as he also employs metonymy, what is he then?

          Coming back to the metaphor, Luhrman uses them and they are quiet
          complex.

          The curtain call (opening) when the orchestra plays the overture of
          "Sound of Music" is clearly metaphoric, as we have a score designated
          for one film used to designate another. But the metaphor is far more
          complex.

          To demonstrate how complex a metaphor it is, let us look at the
          Montmartre introduction, which is a mere second in an elaborate
          sequence. The word Montmartre can be split into Mont and Martre, which
          in French mean Mount Martyr. But Martre can paradigmic be read as
          Matre, meaning Mother, and by a simple paradigm we get Mount Mother
          --> Mountain / Hill and Women. Second there is a priest warning us,
          "turn away from this village of sin..." This evokes several
          juxtapositions (Man / Woman, Patriarchal / Matriarchal, Celibacy /
          Promiscuity). And finally the entry, the gate to Montmartre is in the
          shape of a face with its jaws wide open, so you walk into its mouth,
          much like the sacrificial alters of Moloch or Baal, which is
          underlined by the priest's words "...for it is a veritable Sodom and
          Gomorrah", evoking juxtaposition between the priest and the entry
          (Christianity / Cultism, Celibacy / Sin). It is underlined by the
          geometry of the shot, as it goes (priest, thru the gate, prostitute).

          Thus "the hills are alive, with the sound of music" becomes a metaphor
          for Montmartre (hills, women, full of life, sin) and Moulin Rouge
          (music, women, a lot of sin). Yet again the true meaning the
          Montmartre, the hill of martyr, premeditates Satine's death for love.

          What Luhrman does is creating a new code. Equally as he placed "Romeo
          and Juliet" in modern Miami, he uses contemporary pop to substitute
          dialogue, from the subtle interjection by Madonna into "Diamonds are a
          girls best friend", over Ziegler's "Like a Virgin", to the pure bliss
          of Crawford's "One day I'll fly away", interjected by Sting. Yet the
          clearest example of this new code is the love song medley, starting
          out with Beatles, Kiss and U2, where song lines are blended with
          dialogue lines, imitating metric, rhyme and rhythm, continuing to
          present the greatest modern love songs ever written, finally meeting
          eachother in Bowie's "Heroes" and escalating in Houston's "I will
          always love you".

          By creating a code understandable to us, Luhrman allows the use of
          metaphors previous not understandable. I dont agree that Luhrman's
          metaphores are transparent. While every trope is somewhat transparent,
          since it automaticly evokes a relation, Luhrman plays with them and
          thru the new code he creates attibutive metaphores and new
          compositional metaphores.

          An example are the girls of Moulin Rouge, who are prostitutes, but
          high priced ones, so they are called "The Diamond Dogs", suggesting
          both that they are "man's best friend" and their low social status and
          societies contempt for them. Satine is "The Sparkling Diamond". Note
          how she has broken free from "dog", note how she blinds "sparkling".
          Luhrman continues to play, when he uses the song "Diamonds are a girls
          best friend", suggesting a social symbiosis (Dogs are a man's best
          friend, Diamonds are a girls best friend), but also, by her name,
          suggesting that she is the one all "dogs" aspire to become.

          I know Bill mentioned Jackobsen and Genette, but Genette also coined
          another usefull idea "Transtextuality". Luhrman very much so replies
          on transtextuality, especially quotation and allusion, especially
          audial, to create his code.

          Henrik



          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          ---------------------------------
          Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!Messenger

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.