Hollywood Film

During WW2 , foreign imported films were limited due to the Nazi occupation of France. After the war was over a huge number of Hollywood films made their mway into the country, and these strongly influenced the Cahiers group, a collective formed of cinephiles obsessed with filmmaking. Amongst others, the group contained celebrated filmmakers JEan-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut, both of whom became associated with the French Nouvelle Vague (New Wave)

With the arrival of so many imported Hollywood films, the Cahiers group recognised that certain directors (though not all_ displayed common traits across their respective films, in spite of studio stipulations. In Une Certaine Tendance du Cinema Francais (1954), Truffaut developed auteur policy, with two overriding principles: Mise-en-scene is crucial to the reading of cinema and essential in film analysis and criticism. The director's personal expression is key in distinguishing whether they should be afforded the title of auteur

Auteur Theory:

A film director whose personal influence and artistic control over his or her films are so great that he or she may be regarded as their author, and whose films may be regarded collectively as a body of work sharing common themes or techniques and expressing an individual style or vision. The word means 'author' in French ; the word derives from the prefix 'auto', meaning 'one'.

Andrew Sarris : Questions whether a director can be the author of a film, whether he or she can be solely responsible for its distinctive quality. Filmmaking is a collaborative proocess, involving multiple artists whose input is ignored when auteur theory is applied. He believes there are three circles to a filmmaker. Technique, personal style and interior meaning. All 3 must be personalised to be considered an auteur.
Peter Wollen refers to additional layers of film production as 'noise' ; spectators have to separate the 'voice' of the director from superfluous noise. The noise includes actors, producers and camera operators. This noise might introduce other candidates for the role of auteur.
Noise contributors that could be considered auteurs: Jim Carrey, Hans Zimmer, Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood

Roland Barthes Death of the Author: believes meaning comes from reader not author

Auteur as star:  films are also commercial products, and the “auteur as star” should be considered. A director is “a kind of brand-name vision whose contextual meanings are already determined”. So, we go into a Tarantino film with certain pre-conceived ideas of what it will look like.

Considerations for an Auteur : Recurring themes, authors biographical details, similar aesthetics, production (same crew and actors?)

Casablanca

Note the directors name is small, the production company larger, and the actor even larger - an insight on auteur.

Film auteur - not much room for creative control for the director as the film was controlled by the production company. The creative process included a collaborative process from the studio, for which the objective was commercial rather than artistic

Institutional context - all studio

Film form - in a studio, everything is in your control and created with the cinematographic process in mind, the budget is in your control and likely to be smaller.

The studio system

• From the 20s to the 60s, Hollywood was dominated by the 'Big Five' (Warner, Paramount, Fox, MGM, RKO) and the 'Little Three' (Universal, Columbia, United Artists), controlled distribution of 95% of films

• The Big Five were vertically integrated, controlling production, distribution and exhibition, giving them complete creative control

• Each studio developed a house style, determined by its chief executives - directors had less autonomy over the films

"Studios had faces then. They had their own style" - Billy Wilder

Traits of Warner Brothers films:

 - big screen realism

 - crime

 - no sentimentality

 - urban settings

 - pacy

 - protagonists aren't male idols, more charismatic rather than conventionally attractive


Executive Producer : Jack Warner. Didn't like nazis what??!?!? Fully committed to the war effort
Michael Curtiz : 100 films for WB. Efficient, accomplished, commercial, did many genres. His style is high crane shots to establish a story's environment, unusual camera angles and complex compositions in which characters are often framed by physical objects; much camera movement ; subjective shots; in which the camera becomes the characters eye; and high contrast lighting with pools of shadows.

Cinematographer : Arthur Edeson, known for film noir - low-key lighting and use of shadows

Humphrey Bogard : Hardboiled, mans man, PI/Detective, laconic dialogue

Casablanca is film noir and melodrama. All key talent were on contract with WB. Made under Production/Hays Code which was a set of rigid moral guidelines. Rick is the embodiment of the USA's initial reluctance to enter the war. The film is a propagandist celebration of the eventual partaking in the war . Casablanca was a French Colony and became a holding place for refugees escaping Nazi rule while attempting to get exit visas to Lisbon.


Classical Hollywood Film Form:

Telling stories clearly, vividly, entertainingly. The technique of continuity editing, set design and lighting for were designed to provide attractive images and to guide audience attention to salient narrative events.
Narratives are a chain of events in cause and effect. Films were shot in controlled environment, on studio lot, yet display verisimilitude. One main plot with limited sub plots.
The scene should first establish time, place and relevant characters.
Location indicated with exterior shot
Characters take over narration
Scene reveals characters' spatial positions (where they are and their states of mind)
Once location and character are established, characters then act out their goals.
Classical scene ends with a step towards the goal and/or a character's reaction to a new piece of information,

Casablanca happens right before Pearl Habour

Age: Rick is an older leading character. HE is world-weary and cynical, a man who has loved and lost. Younger Rick is happier. Younger Ilsa

Gender: Rick's masculinity defined by toughness and cynicism, is typical of 'tough-guy' characters in Warners detective films. Ilsa is traditionally feminine, innocent and emotional. She is an object of the male gaze and is lit to make it so. Rick has the most agency.


Compare how far your chosen films reflect their different production contexts [40] :

Studio system
Classical hollywood film form
Warner
Producer vs DIrector
Propoganda - WW2
Date - 1942

B) Compare how far your chosen films reflect the different production contexts

'Studios had faces then. They had their own style' Billy Wilder states how, in Casablanca, we can see the Warner Brothers signature. Notably, the big screen realism of a melodramatic love triangle, the elements of crime, and a charismatic male protagonist. The studio had control, therefore, the director had little creative control. He is not well known, reflected in the small name on the film poster. This also meant the inner meaning, the key to auteurship as Andrew Sarris proposes, is not created by the director, but by the producers. Although, having directed over a hundred films at Warner Bros, there is still some debate as to whether Michael Curtiz can be considered an auteur. At the time the film was made (1942), the Hollywood Era was at its peak, and so the Hollywood film form was solidified - continuity editing, cause and effect narratives are reflected in Casablanca.

The Classical Hollywood film form reveals itself in the introduction of Rick and his bar. The trope of an engineered high crane shot (enabled by the studio system), establishing a location with its exterior,  tilts down and tracks into the bar. As we move into the bar, a series of tracking shots drifts from one sphere of action to the next; cinematographically, this is meticulously choreographed, with deliberately fluid camera movements introducing disparate groups of characters. These movements are cued by a combination of dialogue and blocking. This kineticism sutures the spectator into the diegesis of the filmic text. This is further complemented by the editing: we cut to static camera shots of peripheral characters seated at tables, with three point lighting in evidence, again reflecting the tropes of Classical Hollywood film form. In the studio, lights could be rigged above the sets – most of which did not have ceilings – so that heavily stylised effects could be created. The chaos of multiple spheres of action funnels the spectator’s gaze to a single character – Rick. This is another feature of classical Hollywood cinema.

Our first view of Rick is via a static close up from the chest down. Whilst this creates an enigma code around him, built up via references to him from the diegetic audience, it also serves to focus the attention on the props on the table in front of him – a cheque book, chessboard and a wine glass. These props respectively connote money and power; strategy and intelligence; and an inner turmoil. The fact that he is playing chess against himself could also imply a suppressed internal conflict that manifests itself when Ilsa comes back into his life. In terms of proxemics, Rick is isolated, surrounded by chaos. This represents the isolationist policy of the US during WW2. One could take the bar itself as a metaphor for the global conflict, with Rick being the embodiment of the US. He repeatedly declines offers to drink with customers, which parallels the Allied Forces’ desperate pleas to join their cause. To further contextualise this, the purposeful close up on the chequebook reveals it is dated 2nd December 1942, five days before Pearl Harbour. Therefore the events in the narrative directly correlate with the US’ entry into WW2. The chequebook itself can be said to represent the huge financial investment in WW2 by the US.

Finally, Classical three point lighting is used on Rick, though this is notably different to the lighting employed for Ilsa. For Rick, a strong key light is used with a weaker fill and back light. This creates chiaroscuro with heavy shading across his face, which highlights his wrinkles. This makes the character seem more worn and world weary, suggesting that his enigmatic past is somewhat troubled and eventful.

This is in contrast to the lighting used on Ilsa’s face, evident in the scene where Rick and Ilsa reunite. While the lighting on Rick is still creating chiaroscuro, Ilsa’s face is made soft, with a glowing effect, done through the use of Softbox, honeycomb and fresnel lighting. A complex lighting set up is possible  as Classical Hollywood films were shot in studios, where the ceiling was a lighting grid specifically designed for this purpose. This minimises any shadows on her face to make her seem youthful and attractive. Her youthful look creates an impression of innocence and naivety as opposed to connotations of Rick’s weary past. Implications of Ilsa’s innocence and attractiveness reveal contextual values of women at the time. She is seen only as an object of beauty to be gazed at or fought over. This is anchored through use of blocking once Rick is introduced to Lazlo - the three men (Renault included) are all standing, while Ilsa stays seated, also being the only character to face away from the camera. The literal height the men have over her subliminally infers to the viewer a sense of superiority, and her facing away from us, the viewer, directs our attention away from her, as she plays a passive role in any situation that doesn’t involve the romantic relationship between her and RIck. The intentional blocking, combined with the cinematographic techniques that follow are revealing of the dynamic at hand between Lazlo, Rick and Ilsa. Ilsa is seated between Rick and Lazlo, showing how she is torn between the two men. Shot/reverse shots between Rick and Ilsa and also between Rick and Lazlo respectively connote the two parts of the main plot -  of Rick and Ilsa’s past, and helping Lazlo and Ilsa escape. When they get up at the end, blocking Ilsa between Rick and Lazlo, with her facing Rick, excludes Lazlo and so infers her feelings towards Rick are stronger. The importance of characters’ spatial relation to one another is a key convention of Classical Hollywood storytelling. Conveying story through multiple mediums is also part of Classical Hollywood film form, where the story is told to the viewer with absolute clarity that makes it easier for audiences to consume. This reflects why people during the WW2 era would go to the cinema - for escapism and entertainment, not to provoke deep thought. Narratives at the time for all Classical Hollywood films were thus all made to be conveyed in through multiple mediums, to guarantee a message is clearly conveyed.

IN the final scene of Casablanca, many tropes of classical Hollywood film form are in evidence. Aesthetically, the look of the film is determined by its production context: shot on a studio lot, the scene had to be covered in swathes of fog in order to mask the studio backdrop; the aeroplane was a miniature model; and its midget mechanics. This helps to create verisimilitude through the illusion of perspective in the initial location establishing shot, which is also a trope of classical Hollywood. These final moments in the film are an amalgamation of built up narrative and emotion from when Rick and Ilsa reunited. Naturally so, the scene is heavy in its melodrama, and this is displayed mostly in the editing and cinematography (excessively theatrical performance aside). The camera pushes in, multiple times, on Rick and Ilsa exactly on cue with dialogue e.g. when Rick says he’s not getting on the plane. The camera acts as a vessel for emotion, which requires a precision unachievable with chaotic on-set shooting. The studio system also creates a controlled environment than allows for such long takes evident in the scene, without the pain of restarting should something happen. These long takes are between Rick and Ilsa, which, paired with a close up, creates an intensity so that the viewer can empathise with their relationship. This intensity is only broken when the film cuts to Renault, a reminder that there are forces at play larger than their relationship which will influence that direction of the story. Similar to when the 4 main characters are seated at a table, this scene uses deliberate shot reverse shot to present the two parts to the narrative: shot reverse shot of Rick and Laslow as the story of getting them visas is concluding; shot reverse shot of Rick and Ilsa as their love story is concluding. This has the effects aforementioned in the above paragraph. The final shot is fitting for the traditional male protagonsit in Warner Brothers films. It would make sense for the charismatic, sentimentality lacking, cynical detective to walk off into the mist, having let go his love. He is the typical male ‘tough guy’. The crane up combined with fade to black gives a sense of resolution, at least to this chapter of Rick’s story. One could draw similarities to the ending of Casablanca and western films, where the lone gunman walks off into the sunset, perhaps showing how contextual influences of the western era were still present in the first half of the 20th century.

New Hollywood

Came from Godfather 1 and 2 with money thrown at him and an inflated ego and so could invest in this film, it was his film so he had complete control. There was complete freedom of operating outside a studio. Susceptible to interruption of e.g. typhoons and army taking their helicopters

Coppola was at the forefront of the so called film school generation, from the 60's onwards. This included Scorsese, Lucas, Spielberg.

This new generation of directors had studied at film school ; were well versed in film theory ' had absorbed the influences of New Wave filmmakers in France ; were given big budgets to work with. Films were regarded more as artifacts that can be analysed and weaved with intertextuality and subtext. Film became more open and free rather than a systematic process. 

Technological advancements meant more freedom e.g. steadicams

Hollywood looked favourably upon film students as directors. They were uncritical of the industry, eager to succeed in it, and appreciative of its history. They could also be paid less than older, more experienced directors. Film gradually became a feature of a contemporary liberal arts education.

French New wave influenced new Hollywood

French New Wave:

Location shooting
Handheld camera
Low Budget
Discontinuity editing - audience become aware of the cut
Jump cut
Natural sound
Lack of artifice in cinematography and editing

Coppola as Auteur:

'Straddling the margins of European art cinema and the centre of commercial Hollywood, he is one of the original directors of the contemporary blockbuster.'
'His experimental goals seem most threatened by the financial and commercial demands of his blockbuster successes.'
The chaos behind the shooting of Apocalypse Now could be due to Coppola attempting to please arthouse styles yet on a massive Hollywood scale.

Box office successes of expensive auteruist movies like Godfather, JAws, Star wars led to an industrywide focus on blockbuster box office revenues. The success of auteur films in the 1970s did not, as Coppola had hoped it would, give auteur directors increased access to film financing, Instead, directors became increasingly dependent on studio financing to produce and distribute such big films.

The auteur theory is fine, but to exercide it you have to wualify, and the only way you can qualify is by having earned the right to have control, by having turned out a series of really incredibly good films. Some men have it and some men don't. I dont feeel that one or two beautiul films entitle enayone to that much control. A lot of very promosing directors have been destroyed by it. Its a big dilemma, of course, because, unfortunately, the authority these days is almost always shared with people who have no businesss being producers and studio executives. With one or two exceptions, theres's no one running the studios who's qualified, either, so you have a vacuum, and the director has to fill it.

Even as a contemporary auteur, surrenders the choice of three different endings to a battery of advisers and piles of computer printouts that surveyed the expectations and desires of different audiences. He is an art house director yet still needs to please audiences, the statistical side is very unusual to art house.

- Vast budgets

- Connections with bankers, with persuasive abiltiy

- part of the brat pack of scorcese, coppola, spielberg, lucas, de palma

- Often involved with businessmen

- expertimental up to a point where it fails commercialy

- straddled commercial vs artistry

- chaotic shooting behind the process of Apocalypse now

- Coppola tried to find himself through the making of his films - however too much monet seemed to be put into Apocalypse now for him to show his true self/personal style through the film

- influenced by french new wave

- with lighter film equipment opened more possibiltiy and freedom for technological innovation

Apocalypse now at 40 - Independent Article

Met with mixed reviews on US release

Coppola - 'little by little we went insane'

a phalanx of young people ran down the aisle dressed as Vietnamese peasants and plonked themselves in the front row. Was this some sort of protest against the almost complete lack of Vietnamese characters or perspective in the movie. The lack of Charlie perspective could be deliberate and political

Could be argued as a pro or anti war film, Coppola argues no film is anti war. Ride of the Valkyries scene could be argued to prosecute. It was imitated in life during the Iraq War (interpretated by them as pro war rather than anti war), which art then imitated in Jarhead.

The multiple version still being released of Apocalypse now  is not 40 years old, but 40 years in the making. It has its flaws and Coppola could never find a satisfactory ending however many times he re-arranged the footage because perhaps he has never really worked out what he was trying to say (was Kurtz mad or sane? Was he as resigned to his death as the sacrificial caribou?).

Autuers and the New Hollywood:
Premature obsession with Tarantino's life shows that if auteurism is movies being the artistic expression of the director, the artistic expression of contemporary directors is fully bound up with the celebrity industry of Hollywood.
When auteuristic codes moved from France to US, they didn't remain pure reincarnations of literary notions of the author as the sole creator of the film. Auteurism has been bound up with changes in industrial desires, technological opportunities and marketing strategies.
In the US the industrial utility of auteurism came from the waning of the studio system, and the subsequent need to find new ways to mark a movie other than with a studio signature.
Since the 70s auteurist marketing proclaims the directors name in the film title to create a brand name who's aesthetic and values are already determined.
In a twist on the tradition of certain films being vehicles for certain stars, the auteur-star can potentially carry and redeem and sort of textual material often to the extent of making us forget that material through the marvel of its agency.

Apocalypse Now Conversation:
Originally George Lucas to direct.
John Milius (writer of Hearts of Darkness) was influenced by Dante's Inferno and Homer's Odyssey.
Milius wanted Wagner and The Doors as the soundtrack. The Doors wrote several songs about the madness of war.
Wagner for Heli attack inspired by true events.
Originally Milius had Kurtz as a huge Jim Morrison fan
Milius and Lucas wanted to shoot a pseudo documentary shot on location in black and white inspired by realism of 'The Battle of Algiers' and 'The Anderson Platoon'
M + L wanted a mixture of scripted and improvised scenes of performers interacting with real soldiers and events.
Coppola radically changed the approach to the film


Senses of Cinema:

"Coppola interweaved film criticism with biography and produced an account of a wasted genius… produced magnificent movies but slid further and further down as time passed."

Coppola Went in directions unanticipated by his critics.
He began his career working with Roger Corman. His first film was made from equipment borrowed from another Corman picture which he worked on as a dialogue director. He was bending the rules of Hollywood film making even at the start of his career. Found in American Zoetrope: a production company that gave many directors a home and help at the start of their career. 
COPPOLA VALUES FAMILY. 
He is fascinated by families:- those created at birth - the godfather- Social forces - the outsiders- Those springing shared goals - Tucker: the man and his dream- Random circumstance - Apocalypse now.
Coppola is intensely interested in how people are able (or unable) to live and work together.
The geography of the godfather trilogy films is also marked by distinct progression from the local in new york: godfather part 1 to the national godfather part 2 to the international godfather part 3.
In jack (1996) and the rainmaker (1997) are more sober affairs than the godfathers, where he adopts a more classical style to tell the stories.

Captain Willard’s trip up river to Colonel Kurtz’s compound is also a journey into Willard’s self as he tries to understand both the Vietnam War and his role in it. At the conclusion of the film, after he has killed Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and declined to become his replacement, Willard (Martin Sheen) turns off the radio in his patrol boat, refusing to respond to the insistent voice calling itself “Almighty”, and thereby hinting that he may have found the new path that eluded Kurtz who merely recreated in the jungle the world and systems he had sought to escape. Coppola ends the film with this brief glimpse of hope – not much, but a start nonetheless.


Willard remains rather unexpressive throughout apart from the first scene, he doesn't show much emotion, doesn't shout when there's choppers, is rather laconic, and in this sense is similar to Rick. He is an empty vessel for the spectator to project their own character on so they are on his journey.

Essay Structure:

Intro- Background of both productions - studio system vs New Hollywood - influence of French NEw Wave and new technologies - auteur theory

Introduction to Rick - tracking shot (sets up context, Rick's influence) - Rick's isolation - estavlishing shot moving to individual - deliberate use of mise-en-scene - how does it adhere to Classical Hollywood film form?

Introduction to Willard - dissolves (non-continuity editing influenced by French New Wave) - prolepsis - Sheen was drunk, scene was improv; method acting - Coppola's method as a director - no establishing shot - Willard is merged w/environment - no title cards (fade in/fade out) - character in an environment in different ways

Rick and Ilsa's reunion w/Laszlo and Renault - artifice - set-up in terms of Classical Hollywood - three-point lighting; cinematography (camera movements); blocking and framing (shot reverse shot - editing); introduce context

Introduce to Kilgore - proxemics, staging, blocking, location shooting, Steadicam, mise-en-scene - build into Wagners seqyence episodic scene with no real point - what was Coppola's vision? Is it fairly limited?

Ending - mise-en-scene (costumes, set, no-location shooting) - deliberate camera movements - editing(cutaways e.g. Stauss) - tracking - last scene(crane and tilt up) - generic (western, film noir, detective - Curtiz as auteur)

Opening Scene: Performance

Looks constantly terrified, confused PTSD. Quickly wakes up - nightmare PTSD

Conversly, French New Wave aesthetics have influenced New Hollywood, evident through the introduction of the protagonist, Willard, in the opening of Apocalypse Now. The constraints of the studio system facilitated auteur style, . 

A studio produced film would impose much stricter control over actors' performances. Scripts would be fully developed and there would be little scope for improvisation. The notion of the auteur in Classical Hollywood is essentially nullified because it was a more regimented process. However, New Hollywood practices allowed for a director such as Coppola to implement elements of artistic filmmaking that he and his film school brat pack were eager to exert onto the world. This meant that Coppola gave Sheen the freedom to improvise an entire scene, allowed him to be intoxicated, and agreed to keep shooting after Sheen cut open his thumb. This freedom combined with Sheen's method acting, which meant a real conflict within him, is reflected in the scene. It feels wild and unpredictable, and its authenticity makes for a convincing story. Sheen said he 'found it real hard to reveal himself', suggesting the film was just as much about the journey in reality as the scripted film. The argument could be made that this madness that produces an organic product is as a result of Coppola's auteurial practices.

Willard Meets Kilgore: Editing

Classical hollywood elements - establishing shot of beachfront when he looks through binoculars, funnels into action.
Long takes - hard to choreograph on location, doesn't rely on quick cuts for chaos rather mise-en-scene
Stays on Kilgore even if action is cut out (when he pushes the soldier away) - he commands the scene (also moves on his movement)
Asynchronous sound - edited to hear sounds before we see them to make it confusing

Cinematography
Establishing shot - Classical Hollywood
Long tracking shot (steadicam) with deep depth of field to build up a composite view of the action
Lots of wide shots for big scope of action
Shots of Willard always seem quite isolated and closer (medium shots)

Performance
Willard is always neutral in expression, never shouts, is laconic. He is an empty vessel for the spectator to project their own character on so they are on his journey. He is scarred by war as shown by the opening scene, and so is desensitised by Charlies dying - the effect of war , contrasting a scene that is a sensory overload. If we react through Willard then the viewer can come out of it feeling quite cold.
Kilgore's performance is reflective of the propagandist view of America's involvement.
Coppola in the film is very self-absorbant - he is a propogandist within the film. He is putting himself in that position as a way to show that he acknolwedges the immorality of the war.

Mise-en-scene
Card scene compares the war to a cheap low stakes game
Orange hellish colour palette
Helicopters always in the background
Kilgore wears a cowboy hat (american) with two swords to separate himself. He wear a yellow cravat despite the tactical disadvantage as he will never die.
Large number of extras and prop elements (cow (associated with sacrifice))
Kilgore is blocked centrally
Priest wears army camo clothing - hyprocritical, preaching religion while chaos ensues.

Sound
Barely hear characters, constant helicopters, overlapping sounds
'We are here to help you' while sirens play in the background



Death of Kurtz
'The jungle wanted him dead' - the jungle as its own character
Cyclical music
Pathetic fallacy
Kurtz is sillhouetted
Willard is always in shadowa
Graphic matching kurtz with caribou
Slow motion and jump cuts
Expressive lighting - complete black background with smoke carrying the orange fires
BCU - the horror. Less definitive of spectator response to his death than Strauss' death
Weird ass music, dissolves into sacrifice with no diegetic sound, blurs out into Kurtz dutch angle
POV as he comes out, they all bow down, he has an opportunity to become Kurtz and angles his face into the shadows (no fill or back) with dramatic music.
Low angle WIllard
Strong spotlight between rocks as they leave creating shafts of light with mist
Repeated dissolve of totem
Final shot stays within the film, it fades to black and the sound of the rain stays. The viewer is left to contemplate what they'v just seen, we've left the tribe but Willard stays. Is his blank face because he's been traumatised from killing Kurtz, damaged by war, or is this just the same expressionless Willard we've seen throughout the film.

B) Compare how far your chosen films reflect the different production contexts

'Studios had faces then. They had their own style' Billy Wilder states how, in Casablanca, we can see the Warner Brothers signature. Notably, the big screen realism of a melodramatic love triangle, the elements of crime, and a charismatic male protagonist. The studio had control, therefore, the director had little creative control. The inner meaning, the key to auteurship as Andrew Sarris proposes, is created by the producers (executive producer Jack Warner who could be considered an auteur in his own right). The Hollywood Era was at its peak when Casablanca was released, and so the Hollywood film form was solidified - continuity editing, cause and effect narratives are reflected in Casablanca. In contrast to this, the 70’s saw a new generation of film school graduates emerge into the filmmaking world, having absorbed influences of French New Wave directors. The combination of films being regarded more as artifacts that can be analysed and weaved with subtext, and the freedom of new technological advancements such as the steadicam, enabled Coppola to operate with a heavier auterial objective in Apocalypse Now. However, he also had to simultaneously please financial and commercial demands, what with a considerable amount of money being thrown at him after his success with The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2.

The Classical Hollywood film form reveals itself in the introduction of Rick and his bar. The trope of an engineered high crane shot (enabled by the studio system), establishing a location with its exterior, tilts down and tracks into the bar. As we move into the bar, a series of tracking shots drifts from one sphere of action to the next; cinematographically, this is meticulously choreographed, with deliberately fluid camera movements introducing disparate groups of characters. The chaos (albeit choreographed chaos) of multiple spheres of action funnels the spectator’s gaze to a single character – Rick. This is another feature of classical Hollywood cinema. Our first view of Rick is via a static close up from the chest down. Whilst this creates an enigma code around him, built up via references to him from the diegetic audience, it also serves to focus the attention on the props on the table in front of him – a cheque book, chessboard and a wine glass. These props respectively connote money and power; strategy and intelligence; and an inner turmoil. The fact that he is playing chess against himself could also imply a suppressed internal conflict that manifests itself when Ilsa comes back into his life. In terms of proxemics, Rick is isolated, surrounded by chaos. This represents the isolationist policy of the US during WW2. One could take the bar itself as a metaphor for the global conflict, with Rick being the embodiment of the US. He repeatedly declines offers to drink with customers, which parallels the Allied Forces’ desperate pleas to join their cause. To further contextualise this, the purposeful close up on the chequebook reveals it is dated 2nd December 1942, five days before Pearl Harbour. Therefore the events in the narrative directly correlate with the US’ entry into WW2. The chequebook itself can be said to represent the huge financial investment in WW2 by the US. In this way Classical Hollywood film form is employed as a propagandist tool, thereby reasserting American ideological values. Finally, Classical three point lighting is used on Rick, though this is notably different to the lighting employed for Ilsa. For Rick, a strong key light is used with a weaker fill and back light. This creates chiaroscuro with heavy shading across his face, which highlights his wrinkles. This makes the character seem more worn and world weary, suggesting that his enigmatic past is somewhat troubled and eventful. In the studio, lights could be rigged above the sets – most of which did not have ceilings – so that heavily stylised effects could be created.

Conversely, French New Wave aesthetics exerted huge influence on new Hollywood film form, as evidenced by the opening of Apocalypse Now in which the protagonist, Willard, is introduced through much less lucid methods than those in Casablanca. The diegesis is more abstract and subjective than the clear cut worlds in Classical Hollywood films. Sounds of helicopters are slowed down to a point beyond recognition. The opening long take is not concretely attached to the rest of the film, it serves more as its own (albeit agreeing with the rest of the film’s stance) commentary on war, creating a style in line with New Hollywood. The dissolves of Willard’s lost mind as the camera

freely floats around the room makes the viewer much more aware of the editing, known as disconinuity editing, which serves an artistic purpose, unlike the seamlessness of Classical Hollywood editing. The soundtrack also gives a sense of freedom from structure, anchoring the aforementioned abstract atmosphere. Moving on to Willard in his hotel room, differences in the hollywood eras are evident. A studio-produced film would impose strict control over actors' performances. On the other hand, the experimental elements of artistic filmmaking that defined New Hollywood meant Coppola gave Sheen the freedom to improvise an entire scene, allowed him to be intoxicated, and agreed to keep shooting after Sheen cut open his thumb. This freedom combined with Sheen's method acting, which meant a real conflict within him (he described it as being in a ‘chaotic spiritual state’), is reflected in the scene. It feels wild and unpredictable, and its authenticity makes for a convincing story. The argument could be made that this madness that produces an organic product is as a result of Coppola's auteurial practices. Another way in which Apocalypse Now differs from Casablanca is in its stance on American globalism. Where Casablanca glorifies American globalism in the protagonists' rejection of isolationism, Apocalypse Now demonises it through the protagonists' isolation and broken mental state. This tracks America's national identity from a clear cut, definite exceptionalism during WW2 and after, to a fractured and broken national image as a result of America's involvement in the losing Vietnam War. Willard's relationship with the hotel room also reflects this. The room can be metaphorically read as the prison of his mind. Through physically bringing his crew and actors to the Philippines, Coppola replicated the madness of war. He stated “this wasn’t a film about Vietnam. It was Vietnam”. In a sense, all cast and crew were to some extent partaking in method. The creative autonomy enabled possibilities for auteurism, although the new collaborative process leaves the credibility of the auteur up to subjective interpretation. Co-writer, Milius, was responsible for the helicopter attack sequence, as well as notorious lines such as ‘Charlie don’t surf’ and ‘I love the smell of napalm’; Coppola heavily overlooked Milius’ input and he was in turn practically unknown to the public.

IN the final scene of Casablanca, many tropes of classical Hollywood film form are in evidence. Aesthetically, the look of the film is determined by its production context: shot on a studio lot, the scene had to be covered in swathes of fog in order to mask the studio backdrop; the aeroplane was a miniature model; and its midget mechanics. This helps to create verisimilitude through the illusion of perspective in the initial location establishing shot, which is also a trope of classical Hollywood. These final moments in the film are an amalgamation of built up narrative and emotion from when Rick and Ilsa reunited. Naturally so, the scene is heavy in its melodrama, and this is displayed mostly in the editing and cinematography (excessively theatrical performance aside). The camera pushes in, multiple times, on Rick and Ilsa exactly on cue with dialogue e.g. when Rick says he’s not getting on the plane. The camera acts as a vessel for emotion, which requires a precision unachievable with chaotic location shooting. The studio system also creates a controlled environment than allows for such long takes evident in the scene, without the pain of restarting should something happen. These long takes are between Rick and Ilsa, which, paired with a close up, creates an intensity so that the viewer can empathise with their relationship. This intensity is only broken when the film cuts to Renault, a reminder that there are forces at play larger than their relationship which will influence that direction of the story. Similar to when the four main characters are seated at a table, this scene uses deliberate shot reverse shot to present the two parts to the narrative: shot reverse shot of Rick and Laslow as the story of getting them visas is concluding; shot reverse shot of Rick and Ilsa as their love story is concluding. The importance of characters’ spatial relation to one another is a key convention of Classical Hollywood storytelling. Conveying story through multiple mediums is also part of Classical Hollywood film form, where the story is told to the viewer with absolute clarity that makes it easier for audiences to consume. This reflects why people during the WW2 era would go to the cinema - for escapism and entertainment, not to provoke deep thought. Narratives at the time for all Classical Hollywood films were thus all made to be conveyed in a way so as to guarantee the

message is clearly conveyed. The final shot is fitting for the traditional male protagonist in Warner Brothers films. It would make sense for the charismatic, sentimentality lacking, cynic to walk off into the mist, having let go his love. He is the typical male ‘tough guy’. The crane up combined with fade to black gives a sense of resolution, at least to this chapter of Rick’s story. One could draw similarities to the ending of Casablanca and western films, where the lone gunman walks off into the sunset, perhaps showing how contextual influences of the western era were still present in the first half of the 20th century. The ‘west’ is something to be won, dominated by the man, and so he walks off and leaves the woman to do so.

Willard is introduced to Kilgore during the aftermath of a beachfront battle. A notable similarity between Classical and New Hollywood displayed in this scene is how they both use an establishing shot (in this scene, through the POV of Willard surveying the beach through his binoculars) to set the scene. Coppola takes this battleground as an opportunity to make a political statement on war. Here, and throughout the entire film, Coppola states through the senselessness and ridiculousness of the diegesis how immoral and chaotic war is. In this scene, the viewer is hit with a barrage of sounds that result in it being hard to hear anything happening - everyone has to shout, the response is one of confusion. This could also be said to replicate the natural sound of a battle, which is part of New Hollywood film form, rather than employ sound design with the intention of making it possible to hear the scene with clarity. Sounds are also sometimes hard to place a source for, as the scene is edited to introduce the sound before the visual e.g. the preacher, sirens. This makes everything seem all the more perplexing, thereby suturing the spectator into the madness of war. Coppola has faced some criticism that the film does not go deeper than to simply say war is immoral and bad, which would contradict the concept of a complex inner meaning that makes Coppola an auteur. The criticism is furthered in seeing his appearance within the film as a form of self-absorbance in the unimpressive fact that he is aware how iniquitous war is. Throughout this scene, Willard remains rather expressionless and laconic. He is the only character not to shout over the helicopters. This aspect of his performance remains true for the majority of the film, as he is a vessel through which the spectator projects their own character. If we react to the war through Willard one can come out of the film feeling rather cold emotionally as he is desensitised, with the implication in the opening scene of some traumatic mission in Vietnam before the events of the film. The spectator response has been deliberately manipulated to illicit a shared apathy from the viewer, which in turn creates a better understanding of the psychological damage the war did to soldiers. Apocalypse Now revels in its grandiosity, criticising American ideals of excessiveness, yet the irony of the situation was the production of the film also being extravagant, as a result of money being thrown at Coppola after the success of The Godfather. This is in contrast to typical French New Wave low budget films. Perhaps it was this straddling between commercial Hollywood and European Art Cinema that caused much of the chaos around the shooting of Apocalypse Now. Some would say that it was this mayhem which led to the success of the film.