Out Of Sight Analysis

NINETIES CINEMA THROUGH “OUT OF SIGHT”

By Nathan Meads

Nate Meads

Film 301

Out Of Sight

The nineties were certainly a historical era for film. They explored all aspects of the medium and paved way for ‘new’ material for the generations to come. One particular film worth looking at is Out of Sight. Taking a closer look, Out of Sight actually contains a lot of what nineties film is all about: self-consciousness, intertextuality, self-reflexivity and eclecticism. The film can definitely be considered an ‘anti-classical’ narrative like Jill Nelmes describes. All of these tactics that are used in the film help to foreground the three thematic concerns of time, reality and the act of seeing/recounting. This analysis will discuss not only how these elements are used in the film, but also why they were used in the film.

In Uncle Josh at the Moving Picture Show, we see Uncle Josh fully involved in the films he is watching. He ducks behind his balcony when the train comes and he gets jealous and angered when the man and woman are dancing. This is a perfect example of Stam saying, “The impression of reality is stronger in films than in the theatre precisely because the phantom-like figures of the screen are too weak to resist our temptation to invest them with our own fantasies and projections.” (Stam 34) When most people go to the movies, we simply go to enjoy them. We invest ourselves in them much like Uncle Josh did. We really don’t think about it too hard until after the film is over. Like Jill Nelmes describes, “Our role in film is not a passive one. We work actively at making sense of the individual scenes, and particularly at predicting the story.” (Nelmes 55) Out of Sight does not deal with the concept of time lightly. We jump back and forth between Jack two years ago and Jack currently. This makes the film evoke a bigger sense of self-consciousness. These time jumps also have an effect on the other thematic element of the act of seeing. The viewers know that they can’t jump through time, and therefore lose their sense of “voyeurism”. They have to think to themselves, “This can’t really happen” This may not destroy the viewer’s sense of “voyeurism”, but it definitely damages it. This has a profound impact on the film’s self-consciousness because the viewers must re-adjust to know what’s going on. Another self-conscious maneuver comes from the editing of Out of Sight. Not only from the way the film is structured non-linearly,
but also the parallel cutting between scenes give away the fact that the film is a construct (relating to self-consciousness) and makes the viewer question his or her own sense of voyeurism. One of the most important scenes is where Jack and Karen are having a drink (“Gary and Celeste”) and is cross-cut between them sleeping together. This scene has both temporal (time) and spatial (space) discontinuity. They are in a different place at a different time. This differs from standard or classical parallel cutting where there is usually one element of continuity. This brings about the question of why the film was told like this. Why did the editor choose this style instead of classical linear editing? This implies that the film is a construct. It destroys what would be the “invisibility” of narration and focuses more on the construction of the film. It draws attention to the editing of the film. There are other stylistic editing techniques that make the film more self-conscious, the biggest being the freeze frame. There are numerous freeze-frames that occur throughout the film, most of them having to do with Jack or Karen (or both). These freeze-frames are essentially used to strengthen the key plot points and characters. What they also do is bring out more of the self-conscious tactic of the film. It begins with the opening credits, and then freezes on Jack when he is being arrested. This is letting us, as the audiences know that “this is our main character”. Another
big freeze frame is the frame when Jack and Karen are sleeping together. There are two freeze-frames before and after they kiss, letting us know that the plot is thickening. Lastly, the freeze-frames are a key stylistic element in character development. Looking at Karen Sisco, a strong female lead who wants to be taken seriously. Other female roles like Karen’s would most famously be Sigourney Weaver (“Aliens”) and Jamie Lee Curtis (“Halloween”). The freeze-frame after Karen hits Kenneth with the nightstick shows her as a strong female. We see her holding the weapon and acting tough. Although it can help with the plot, the freeze-frames do a detrimental thing to the film; they freeze. By freezing the film, it’s basically freezing time. Freezing time is what takes us out of the film and brings us back to reality. We are no longer “Taking a time out from reality” as Jack puts it.

Although Nelmes believes that we create distance from the film when watching, Cynthia Baron explains, “To say that these strategies create distance is not to suggest that the film generates modernist estrangement or unpleasure.” For all of its self-conscious tactics, Out of Sight really does reflect upon itself in a unique way. Nineties films reflect upon themselves using self-related subjects. Let us look at the title of the film. This is one of the biggest self-reflexive examples in the film. The theme of sight is important for the characters of the film. For instance, there is a shot of Jack looking at a photo of Karen in the newspaper. The photo is a wide shot (much like that of a movie screen). She is the object of desire for Jack but he cannot reach her because she is not really there. Also, like Karen, Jack is Karen’s object of desire. There are multiple scenes where Karen has a chance to catch Jack, but she can’t because she desires him. The scene where Jack is in the elevator and sees Karen, there is a moment of shock where both characters aren’t aware of what to do. This sense of desire is also filtered to the audience. Our avidity for the characters overwhelms us and we can’t look away, much like Jack looking at Karen’s photo. Another example of the theme of sight is shown through the character of Glenn. In the first half of the film, we see him wearing his glasses all the time. It is as though he is hiding himself. He is also seen as the “fool” of the film. He isn’t smart and is easily manipulated (by Karen in the car). Later, we finally see him without his sunglasses before he goes to kill the family with Maurice. After this, things become much more serious for Glenn who knows that he is in way over his head and we never see him with the sunglasses again. Glenn is now seeing through his own eyes instead of through his glasses.

Our objects of desire are not really there. They are “out of sight”. Jack as a character also takes advantage of what people see. In the beginning of the film, he uses a man sitting at a desk with an open briefcase as a decoy so he can rob a store; toying with the notion of things that are not really there or are not what they seem. This scene also toys with the concept of Capitalism, the system of privately owned wealth. Jack completely takes advantage of privately owned wealth such as Ripley in the film. He takes, but not necessarily by force or in a forceful way.

When Karen is in the trunk with Jack, they’re talking about “Three Days of the Condor” Karen says, “ I never thought it made sense. Them getting together so quick.” This is reflexive of Karen and Jack falling for each other quickly in the film. The episodic narration of the film as a whole can also be self-reflexive. An episodic narration is a story that relates to a single event, which can in turn relate to a series of events that may or may not be connected. These stories are related in a condensed format so that the extended events can be viewed as a whole in moderately short time. The scene that best exemplifies this is the prison break scene. There are multiple escapees that break off to create a storyline of their own which all come back to Jack. The episodic narration can also tell of an important goal that one needs to reach but goes unresolved. In this case, it is Jack’s heist on Ripley’s house.

In the opening scene of Tombstone (1993), there is a moment when the narrator is talking about the terrorizing gunmen. The Narrator says, “They called themselves the Cowboys”. Immediately following, there is a famous clip from The Great Train Robbery where the bandit fires his gun at the audience. This is not only a self-reflexive moment, but an intertextual moment as well, referring to an earlier work of art. Intertextuality comes from the shaping of texts by other texts. It can be a borrowed text or work of art and referenced in another. Intertextuality can have many meanings in films. It can pay homage to an earlier [inspirational] film or it can help tell the story more or both. Does it make it easier to understand the film? In some instances, yes. Many films use intertextuality so subtly that most don’t even know it is there. Take, for instance, Jim Collins’ example of Back to the Future III, in one scene we see Marty and ‘Doc’ Brown riding on top of the DeLorien time machine being pulled by horses through the desert. The arrangement of the horses, drivers, desert setting and camera angles make it an intertextual homage to the film Stagecoach. This scene engages the hybridization of popular culture with that of H.G Wells and John Ford. Other times, intertextuality helps with another strategy of the film. In this case, intertextuality helps with the self-reflexive aspect of Out of Sight. When Karen is talking about Bonnie and Clyde and Three Days of the Condor, it’s both self-reflexive and intertextual. It refers to separate works of art, and reflects upon itself. In “Three Days of the Condor”, everyone is trying to kill Turner (Redford) so he seeks help from Faye Dunaway. This is similar to the plot of Out of Sight. People are trying to either find or kill Jack, including Karen. But Jack finds himself comfortable with Karen. Bonnie and Clyde is about bank robbers on the run from the police. What begins as a fun and enticing time ends horribly for them. Another good example is when Jack calls Karen at her home from his hotel. In the background, “Luck be a lady tonight” is playing. This refers to Jack being lucky he found Karen. When dealing with eclectic materials, the intertextuality seems a little more hidden. “ The eclecticism of popular cinema today involves levels of hybridity and intertextuality that work at ‘cross purposes’ with the traditional notion of genre as an integrated set of narrative and stylistic conventions.” (Nelmes 161) Here, Nelmes is saying that films today are mostly composed of materials from popular culture that are reassembled in ways that contradict generic understanding.

In Out of Sight, the famous scene where Jack and Karen are having their drink is both an intertextual moment and an eclectic moment. Intertextually, this scene pays subtle homage to the 1995 film Heat where, during the famous bar scene, the criminal Neil (DeNiro) and Lt. Hanna (Pacino) are sitting down talking to each other. Eclectically, this plays with the notion of the classical “good guy-bad guy” genre. In both films, there is a binary opposition: Two theoretical opposites where one eventually dominates over the other. This principle is based around Claude Levi-Strauss’s notion of “structuring antinomies”. The most concrete example of a binary opposition is the male female dichotomy: that the world is organized to male and female ideas or constructs.

Eclecticism, in its simplest form, is the concept of mixing many different genres of films into one singular work of art. The eclecticism in Out of Sight amalgamates many different types of genres, the biggest three being action, drama and comedy. Eclecticism also pertains to the theme of reality in this film. To start, Out of Sight is an action film with a major twist of accidental humor/awkward moments and a touch of drama. Most of the fight scenes, for example, have a certain level of ineptitude and can’t be met with much seriousness. The action of the film is brought through much of the camera work and editing where the comedy and drama is brought through the camera work again, the acting and the costumes. The camera work of Out of Sight gives the film more of a sense of action with its quick jerks and fast pans. When we see Jack coming out of Ripley’s building the first time, there are quick pans across the street to give it more of an action feel as he walks in and robs the bank. The humor comes from the way that the characters are act. For instance, when Buddy asks Jack if Chino knows where Adele lives, there is an awkward pause where Jack hesitates to answer because he knows that he does because Jack told him. There is another awkward moment in the next scene where Chino goes to Adele’s house and Karen is there waiting for him. As she is arresting Chino, he asks Adele how she does the ‘saw-in-half’ trick. The humor (comedy) aspect of the film relates to the theme of reality. If this were really happening, would it be funny? An example of this is the scene where Maurice’s brother tries to assault Karen. Here, this confrontation is met with actual reality. There is no humor what so ever. It is taken very seriously.
On the other hand, there are numerous instances in the film where serious matters are held with a certain drollery. For instance, almost the entire final fight scene contains a large part of comedy. We see White Boy Bob slip and fall numerous times at the end. We don’t think much of it until finally kills himself running up the stairs and shooting himself in the head. There is also Jack fighting Maurice and both of them looking foolish in their outfits and hats. The aspect of a federal marshal falling for a convicted prison escapee seems a little far-fetched or “Out of sight”. The reason for the mixing of these genres is not just to draw the viewer further from reality, but also to draw the viewers into the world of the characters. We know that a marshal wouldn’t fall for an escaped convict, but we also know that it adds to the storyline. It makes it more interesting to watch and we want to watch it unfold. Lastly, the drama aspect is carried out through the editing and the acting of characters. The scene in the bar with ‘Gary and Celeste’ is the sort of climax of the movie.

All of the stylistic elements come into play; the camera work, the editing, the lighting, acting etc. We see the characters finally get together before the fall. The shot is set up perfectly, editorially speaking. Almost the entire room is dark and with the single light on the table reflecting off the character’s faces, like they’re the only two people in the room. Acting-wise, the two have a very powerful connection. You believe that these two were made for each other. Eventually Jack asks, “How far do you want to go with this?” Which is really the question that starts everything: What are they doing? How far are they willing to go? How far are we willing to go? The scene is then intercut between them sleeping together and them still talking. There are certain times where the scene will freeze, letting us know that this is a powerful shot and a key point, when Jack strokes his hand down Karen’s face (which is in perfect synch with the music) and when Karen and Jack kiss while in bed.

American film has always leaned toward repetition: Repetition of styles and genres. Nineties cinema is no exception. Jim Collins states, “If the genre texts of the 1960’s are distinguished by their increasing self-reflexivity about the antecedents in the Golden Age of Hollywood, the genre texts of the late 1980’s early 1990’s demonstrate an even more sophisticated hyperconsciousness concerning not just narrative formulae but the conditions of their own circulation and reception of the present.” (Collins 248) Nearly all films in the nineties dealt with most of these cinematic elements one way or another, the biggest one being self-reflexive. More than just being a reflection of itself as a film, Out of Sight is a reflection on nineties cinema in general. There are so many different thematic styles and techniques that this film uses that are a major part of nineties film. When dealing with spectatorship the film takes away our sense of ‘voyeurism’ with its non-linear narration and its regarding of itself as a construct, but at the same time draws us into its world with its “phantom-like creatures” who can’t resist the viewers’ temptation to invest in them. This is the case for Out of Sight. As the audience, we gaze at these creatures from afar knowing that we will never get closer to them than we are now. The objects that aren’t moving are the objects of desire much like the example of Jack looking at the [still] photo of Karen in the newspaper. Other still photos are the freeze frames themselves. The freeze frames compose the characters as the objects of desire for us (the audience). A critical scene in the film shows Jack and Karen in bed. Immediately after they kiss there is a freeze frame of them looking into each other’s eyes, creating a bigger sense of need and passion from the audience.

Whatever elements the film brings, the spectators are frequently reminded that they’re watching a film. It breaks the invisible narration of the ‘classical cinema’. The film’s non-linear facet also intertwines with its self-consciousness. The film’s continuous spatial jumps create confusion for the spectator, the editorial freeze-frames, although help with character and plot thickening, take the audience out of their voyeuristic trance. It removes us from our “time out from reality,” as Jack puts it.

The eclecticism of Out of Sight brings together a lot of different styles that were unique to nineties cinema. Nearly all films of the nineties carried with them a certain hybridity of action, drama and comedy (among others). Out of Sight carries these three with full force. The film is mostly an action movie mixed with accidental humor and awkward moments, such as the elevator scene where the characters accidentally meet. There are other scenes that construct a mixture of both action and comedy followed by drama such as the final fight scene where Jack fights Maurice. This scene is over-run by whimsical events like Big Boy Bob shooting off his own head because of his own clumsiness or Maurice and Jack fighting over the gun in their [inane] outfits. The amalgamation of these genres in this film seeks to create a more postmodernist film and disturb the mainstream conventions of narrative structure. The camerawork and editing beget small but significant changes in the conventions of cinema. Thus, they obliterate the audiences ‘suspension of disbelief’ and gives us a new view of it.

The intertextuality of Out of Sight shows its self-reflexivity yet again. Both of the film’s references to older films are a reflection of the film itself. Films such as “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Three Days of the Condor” are not only two films with Faye Dunaway, but are about people on the run. These intertextual references to classical Hollywood films are collaborated with the plot of Out of Sight to create the postmodern film that it is.

Nineties cinema, although a repetition of classical styles, shows the evolution of cinema from its early years. According to Jon Lewis, cinema in the nineties is, “A transitional period from one new American cinema to another.” Even though nineties cinema likes to be repetitive, it has certainly evolved from its predecessors of the 1960’s. Who knows where cinema will be in another thirty years. Perhaps this is a transitional period from one American cinema to the next.

Bibliography

1. Baron, Cynthia. “The Player’s Parody of Hollywood” Postmodernism in the Cinema Berghahn Books, 1998 pgs. 21-39

2. Collins, Jim. “Genericity in the Nineties: Eclectic Irony and the New Sincerity.” Film Theory Goes to the Movies

3. Gaggi, Silvio. “Hyperrealities and Hypertexts” From Text to Hypertext University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998 pgs. 98-121

4. Lewis, Jon. “The End of Cinema as We Know It and I Feel . . .” The End of Cinema As We Know It Pluto Press, 2002 pgs. 1-10

5. Nelmes, Jill. “Understanding ‘Cinema’ and ‘Storytelling’” An Introduction to Film Routledge, 2003 pgs. 55-58

6. Phillips, William P. Film: An Introduction Palgrave Macmillan, 2005

7. Stam, Robert. “Allegories of Spectatorship” Reflexivity in Film and Literature Columbia University Press 1992. pgs. 31-55

8. Villarejo, Amy. Film Studies: The Basics Routledge, 2006

Seven & Saw Analysis

“Long is the Way and Hard that, From Out of Hell Leads Up to Light”

Saw and Seven:

A Look into Psychological Horror

Nate Meads

Saw and Se7en:

A Look into Psychological Horror

As we take a look back into 1960’s film, we notice certain changes in the style of the horror genre. In the 1930’s, the horror was much more foreign or un-America. In the 1940’s, we see a more diffused (or defamiliarized) horror, while the 1950’s dealt much more with sci-fi mutation horror. The 1960’s horror genre, however, was much more “coming of age”. The “monster” is no longer a supernatural demon or an alien from out space. The monster lives “next door”. The reason I chose the films Se7en and Saw is because they are very good examples of films today that reflect upon these 1960’s horror themes. For instance, there is the very real and close evil of John Doe from Se7en and the so sense of resolution presented in Saw. Both villains in the films are seen as the ‘anti-heroes’, both films convey a subtext of how we, as human beings, are the real evil in this world and how we do not appreciate our lives. These films present a similar underlying subtext but the films themselves present them in very different ways.

Judith Halberstam, in Steven Schneider’s article, makes the claim that “The body that scares changes over time, as do the individual characteristics that adds up to the monstrosity, as do the preferred interpretations of monstrosity.” This is a perfect summary of the evolution of the horror genre itself. As we have discussed, the 1960’s brought a whole new theme to horror. The monster (or evil) is very real and is very close. Also, the evil is never totally resolved, it is continued on for years. We also see the killers as anti-social ‘anti-heroes’ with violent motivations toward their fellow human beings. In the case of the film Se7en, John Doe has no friends, no family, no job and keeps to himself. This also reflects the 1960’s theme of the instability of socio-cultural structures and the family not working. John Doe himself is only seen once until the end of the film (although we don’t know it is him). Doe has a certain distaste for human beings and compares the city as a present day Sodom or Gomorrah saying, “Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.” John Doe is a classic example of a monster from 60’s horror film. He possesses many of the same qualities such as being an anti-hero. Doe, himself, believes that he is doing good in the world and doing the world a favor by sending a message to sinners. He exclaims, “Wanting people to listen, you can’t just tap them on the shoulder, you have hit them with a sledgehammer. Then you’ll know you have their full attention.” Doe also has a profession as a news photographer so he has access to all of the [police] crime scenes of the murders he committed. This is another trait of the “monster”, by looking at their victims by some sort of hole (a peephole or camera).

There is also an omni-presence of death in the film. One way it is expressed is through the city itself. The name of the city is never given, but the shots of the city give off a very large sense of darkness and malice. There are multiple scenes of people fighting on the street or crime scenes. It is also raining a lot in the film. Another way of showing certain evil in the film is through the character of David Mills (Brad Pitt). Mills is the new detective working with detective Sommerset (Morgan Freeman) who is on the verge of retirement. Mills embodies the city’s wrath, naïve-ness and disregard for humanity. He is quick to judge and reacts quite often on emotion instead of logic (which is a one of the biggest characteristics of a human being). One particular scene is where Mills and Sommerset are talking about whether or not they have ever killed someone on the job. Mills describes his one instance where he killed a man but could not remember his name. This shows the lack of remorse on the part of Mills and how he is quick to take a man’s life without any thought.

A pivotal scene of Mills’ apathy is in the final scene
where he learns that John Doe killed his (Mills’) wife. Now, Doe has completed six murders with one left: wrath. Sommerset tells Mills, “David, if you kill him, he will win.” This is a momentous quote because we, as the audience, don’t want the evil to win. But, knowing Mills’ nature, instead of being a good cop does in fact kill Doe. This goes back to the theme of ambivalent realism.

One of the most horrifying aspects of Se7en is the way that death is presented. One way that Se7en presents its horror is that non of the actual murders are shown, they are only implied, which may or may not make them more horrifying because they are left up to the viewers imagination. One particular scene that is especially “horrifying” is when detectives Sommerset and Mills are questioning the ‘lust’ victim. The victim is describing how he was forced to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute while wearing a leather suit with a knife strapped to it. The act itself is never shown, but it is implied when the audience is shown a picture of the leather suit. We can only imagine what the scene looked like.

Much like Se7en, Saw is also a film that has many qualities of 1960’s (and post-1960’s) horror although the themes are sometimes presented differently. However, in order to compare these two films, one must first look at the “monster”. Like Se7en’s John Doe, Saw’s Jigsaw killer (John Kramer) is also considered the anti-social anti-hero. He claims to be helping people. One major difference between Doe and Jigsaw, however, is that Jigsaw actually gives his victims a chance for redemption instead of plainly killing them. So, in this sense, he is more of a “hero” than Doe. Also, like Doe, Jigsaw is very close. He is technically seen throughout the film (although the audience is unaware of his presence until the end of the film). Jigsaw thinks of humanity (or humans) as being ungrateful to be alive so he tries to “teach” people the true value of life. This comes into another theme of no sense of resolution. Jigsaw’s teachings never die (though he eventually does). His ‘legacy’ lives on. Jigsaw also (like Doe) watches his victims through means of a peephole, creating a whole new sense of voyeurism. Like the audience, he watches with great intent and does not look away no matter how horrifying it is.

One new theme that Saw brings is the notion of “torture porn”. In fact, this film was one of the first to bring the “torture porn” theme to where it is today. This differs a lot from Se7en because the death scenes are not only shown in the film, but are much more brutal and violent. In one particular scene, the audience sees a man naked and covered in a flammable substance try to unlock the combination to a safe that has an antidote for the poison in his body. He must use a candle to see the numbers. In the end, he sets himself on fire. We see him catching on fire and see the charred remains. Another scene shows a man cut himself to death on razor wire. There is also the famous scene of Dr. Gordon sawing off his own leg. One major difference between Jigsaw and John Doe is that Jigsaw technically never kills anyone. He finds ways for his victims to kill themselves whereas John Doe actually kills them. This torture-type of horror becomes especially scary because, as the viewers, we are helpless to do anything. We, like Jigsaw are watching through a peephole a person being tortured. This is also a post-1960’s theme.

While both Saw and Se7en contain numerous classic 1960’s horror themes, they also encompass numerous post-1960’s themes. As before, both John Doe and Jigsaw are close-to-home ‘anti-heroes’. While they are deeply associated with violence, they both believe (in their minds) that they are doing good in the world. As Jigsaw says, “Most people are so ungrateful to be alive. But not you. Not anymore.” And as John Doe says, “What I’ve done is going to be puzzled over, studied, and followed . . . forever.” John Doe also has a very big theme of obsession. Although he is friendless, he writes everything down on paper. There is the famous scene where Detectives Mills and Sommerset find Doe’s apartment and it is riddled with all of Doe’s thoughts (towards humanity) and every event in his life. Sommerset describes it as, “His mind poured out on paper.” There are also pictures of Doe’s victims all over the walls and “mementos” of his each of his victims such as a hand, tomato sauce and pictures. In the case of Jigsaw, his warehouse is full of tools and drawings of his victim’s “tombs” where he puts them. Jigsaw also frequently discusses how he is tired of people, “who don’t appreciate their blessings.” Both films also express bodily torture and mutilation as a theme, although they express it in different ways. Se7en is more imagined horror where Saw becomes more visual. Both of these expressions make audiences response have a fear for others; another major theme of post-1960’s horror. As the audience watches the film, they are either terrified at what they’re seeing (in the case of Saw) or what they’re imagining happened (in the case of Se7en). This leads to the last post-60’s theme of the killer being everywhere and nowhere. As the film is happening, we don’t know where the killer is, who the killer is or where he will kill again, and he is never caught. This is more terrifying because we, as the audience, may fit the victim profile. We don’t know where, when or who he is going to strike next.

Both of these films do a great job not only referring back to classical horror genres, but also (in the case of Saw) help create new ones. These films really dig into the human psyche and show what a person is capable of if pushed far enough. One major theme discussed in both films was how human beings are the real evil of the world and how we don’t appreciate the things we have. What could be one of the most horrifying things is that there may be some truth to that. After watching these films, one can begin to wonder who the real villains of the film are; the killer or humanity in general. As Detective Sommerset says, “Ernest Hemingway once wrote, ‘the world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.’ I agreed with the second part.”