Power in “The Apartment” and “The Wolf of Wall Street”

One of the three sections I wrote for my paper on the similarity of “The Apartment” and “The Wolf of Wall Street” in their critiques of excess among the elite.

Power is central to both The Wolf of Wall Street and The Apartment; Scorsese continues this critique from The Apartment to The Wolf of Wall Street by paralleling the mise-en-scène of their workspaces. Both Consolidated Life Insurance Company and Stratton Oakmont Brokerage Firm convey the sense of security and professionalism to the common person. This façade is depicted in the beginnings of both films: The Apartment with its documentary-like footage of the Consolidated Life Insurance Company building and voiceover narration of statistics and The Wolf of Wall Street with the confident TV commercial of the Stratton Oakmont Brokerage Firm. Inside the buildings’ floor plans and offices are set up quite similarly. Wilder and Scorsese both set up their protagonists in the center of the frames with a repetitive, monotonous set up. However, in contrast to symmetric and orderly set up of The Apartment, The Wolf of Wall Street is much more chaotic with the various (male) employees flailing their arms. Like the floor plans, the offices for higher associates are much larger and roomy than the general office floor space. These offices are set apart from the common area and are made for one person: the higher the person, the bigger the room, or, the bigger the office, the bigger the jerk.

However these are only façades of the companies. The faux professionalism covers up the true and excessive behaviors of the employees. The main difference between The Apartment and The Wolf of Wall Street are their protagonists. In The Apartment Wilder wants the viewer to sympathize with C.C. Baxter because he is an ordinary person who lives within his means, whereas in The Wolf of Wall Street Scorsese wants the viewer to laugh at and be angry with Jordan Belfort because he is so excessive and selfish. However, Wilder does not drop critique of human excess. Throughout the entirety of The Apartment Dr. Dreyfuss tells C.C. Baxter to “slow down” and “grow up.” Baxter is a scapegoat for Wilder to drive this critique on the excess of higher associates, like Sheldrake and Kirkeby, to ridicule and bash them. Scorsese conversely uses his critique much more subtly because his main character is the excessive character of The Apartment. Both films essentially comment that those in power are too excessive.

Examples that sum up this idea of power are the parties that occur in the films. For The Wolf of Street, just about everyday is party and excess day, but it is clear that Scorsese had the office Christmas party from The Apartment in mind when he filmed his scenes. The office Christmas office party explicitly intermingles the common office space and the separate offices, both areas containing lots of drinking and philandering. At one point the phone operator Sylvia is seen doing a striptease for the employees on an office table. In comparing this party with the party scenes in The Wolf of Wall Street, the similarities are striking. In The Wolf of Wall Street the parties consist of people drinking, hooking up, and dancing on tables. The only real difference in The Wolf of Wall Street is the lack of romance in its scene plot line and the women as prostitutes than employees. Overall power in these films is not presented as professional, but rather faux and devious.

Advertisements

Max’s Patriarchal Control in Sunset Boulevard

Hey everyone! I know it’s been quite some time since I’ve posted on here (again, I’m going to try and update this more frequently) but I wrote this essay for one of my film classes. I thought it would be a good essay to post on here because I am very interested in what other’s think of this idea of gender control in Sunset Boulevard. Please feel free to give comments and constructive criticism! I’d love to have a good discussion! 

The question of gender control and power is complex in Sunset Boulevard. At a quick glance, it is seemingly a typical noir film of a femme fatale (of wealth rather than beauty) power over the male; however, in close study, it is truly patriarchal control over women. Of particular interest is the role of Max, Norma Desmond’s servant and previous husband. As seen through the dominating and central shots of Max, complimented with his dialogue, Max’s actions prove to be just as controlling and detrimental as Paramount and Joe’s are to Norma Desmond.

Central placement, balanced shots, and close-up shots of an individual typically communicate dominance and centrality. Wilder uses these aspects quite subtly to comment on Max’s role in the Desmond household. Max is introduced as Norma’s servant, thus the viewer subconsciously places him in the background in comparison to Joe and Norma. However, Wilder does the exact opposite of this subconscious thought. Max’s role is just as important to Norma and Joe, as his centrality is linked to his control over Norma’s perception of her life and his role as an “organ grinder” to Joe “the chimp.”

Norma Desmond’s current life is a fantasy supplied by Max’s exhaustive effort to bar the reality from her. As he supplies to the falsity of her life, Max continues to take orders from Norma. The dichotomy lies in this idea; when Norma orders Max to do something, he does so knowing that her “reality” is not real. In practice, servants are subordinate and have no control over their masters. However with Max it is the opposite. Norma is not in control of her own life because so much of it is filtered through Max. An example of this is Norma’s fan letters and photographs. The photographs are compositionally balanced with Norma, thus an important aspect of her life. The photographs could essentially be read as Max, as he later reveals to Joe that he sends Norma the fan letters to supply her fantasy of still being a star.

Another example of these concepts occurs when Betty Shaffer calls the mansion to speak to Joe. When on the phone, Max is shot at a center close-up. This shot, along with his slow-paced, staccato-like dialogue and stern tone, communicates authority and seriousness. Yet, once he hangs up and tells Norma that it was the pound calling, the pace of his dialogue is much smoother and fluid, and his tone much lighter. Norma depends on her servant not only for everyday routines, but also for her world to spin as it normally does. For otherwise, Norma would fly into a jealous rage and possibly commit suicide.

While he is able to control much of the information that reaches Norma, Max also utilizes Joe to maintain Norma’s dream world. Joe’s voiceover narration in the sequence when he arrives reveals the organ grinder and monkey metaphor. As the organ grinder, Max’s job is to use another living being to entertain Norma. Joe is presumably the chimp as the previous, actual chimp is deceased. The dominance and hierarchy of their relationship is established in the shot of Max as Joe goes up the steps. Framed at a centered, in-focus close-up, Max’s prescience is overwhelming, overbearing, and almost menacing. Max’s dialogue to Joe that he is “not properly dressed for the occasion” means that he is not dressed for the role he is about to take on.

As Joe supplies the metaphor, Max carries out the actions that reaffirm it. Joe wakes up from Max playing the organ to see his personal belongings in his room. The camera cuts to an off-centered, close-up shot of Max’s hands at the organ. The shot following it puts Max in the center of the frame where Joe is off to the side. Max’s dialogue continues to indicate authority and dismissal of Joe’s outbursts. This spat between chimp and grinder continues until the camera cuts to Norma, sitting on the couch, listening to Max play. It is clear, then, that everything Max does it to entertain and make Norma happy, and does so by being the controlling organ grinder to the voiceless and chained chimp.

As previously mentioned, balanced shots and close-ups define centrality and authority. For Max, these close-up shots and frequent presence are clearly explained when Max tells Joe that he was once Norma’s husband. Taking this into account shifts Max’s role and motive in the house. As he was once her husband, he was once, in stereotypical terms, the head of the household. In response, he takes on the role of servant and gives Norma a fantasy to rely on, something she cannot live independently without. To further Max’s dominance in the house, Wilder shoots both Joe and Max at a full, low angle shot when they are in the room over the garage. The angle holds much more power than any shot of Norma’s. The fear of losing control of the home, and perhaps control of his wife, is further annunciated when Max reveals that he was Norma’s director in the silent days.

While Max was once Norma’s husband, he was also one of the three promising directors of the silent era. The shot of Max as he reveals this information is quite creepy; Max is tucked in the background of the frame, deep in the shadows with only a side light to light part of half of his face. It communicates an eerie and unsettling control over Joe as well as Norma, for the first thing Max says is, “you must be careful as you cross the pathway, Madame may see you.” Max is controlling and demanding of others in order to control what Norma does and does not see. This scene of dialogue demands a close comparison and contrast between him and the men at Paramount Studios.

Just as Max wants to continue to maintain control over his ex-wife’s life, he also reveals, at that same shot, “[he] discovered [Norma] when she was 16. [He] will not have her destroyed.” This quote and shot of Max calls into question Max’s motives and intentions. An important aspect to establish is that, unlike Paramount Studios, Max’s control is not evil and disheartening. What is important is to establish with Max’s role is that, as a man who was once her husband and director, he is still directing her life, one detrimental to her mental health. However, the connection of movies allows the comparison and contrast of him to the men at Paramount Studios.

What both Max and Paramount Studios (using Cecil B. DeMille a representative) have in common is their gentleness towards Norma. It is only when she is gone that their true selves of reality show. Both men are kind to her but the shots used to communicate it are different. Shots of DeMille are close-ups and close to Norma that correlate to his gentleness towards Norma. Shots of Max and Norma are full shots that usually have a great distance between them. What separates them is their true attitude and feelings once Norma is out of the picture. The intimate shots of DeMille prove to be bogus as he tells his assistant that he will buy five old cars if necessary, just so that he does not see Norma again.

While Joe and Paramount Studios are destructive to Norma, Max proves to be so as well because of his control over Norma’s reality. He is the organ grinder to entertain her fantasies of her stardom, the barrier of reality to her fantasy, the head of the household, and the man who directs her final close-up. Despite Max’s good intentions, his control over Norma’s life does more harm than good. Each of things crumbles in the final scene, when Norma shoots Joe and officially looses her sanity.

Ace In the Hole (1951)

In my opinion, you can never go wrong with a Billy Wilder film. So many of my favorites films are his films: Some Like it Hot, Double Indemnity, The Apartment, Sunset Blvd, and Sabrina. I came across Ace in the Hole a few times while I was browsing the Criterion Collection section at Barnes and Nobles but it wasn’t until that my friend told me that it was one of his films and extremely underrated. I quickly added it to my Netflix DVD queue and promised myself that I would watch it sometime this summer. Well, last night I finally watched it. { If you haven’t seen the film, here is a brief summary: x }

This movie did a fabulous job of irritating me while making me love it at the same time. Chuck Tatum, played by Kirk Douglas, is extremely self-centered, rude, manipulating, violent, determined, and cynical. I hated him; I hated him so much, at least until the end when he becomes aware of the error of his ways. Throughout the film he didn’t even seem to be human, as if this hunger and urge for power of the newspaper world has taken him over. He’s been fired for slander, adultery, heavy drinking, and other things, perhaps the seven sins. This would make sense as Leo is worried about was the seven spirits of the cave that must have cursed him. If we take this seven as a symbolic number and put it in terms of the seven deadly sins, then Chuck would fit as this opposing force.  As the movie progresses, we see that Chuck can be quite violent on a dime, lazy when nothing is happening, greedy as he is determined that it’ll be his story, envious of the other newspaper men in the big cities and, perhaps the most upsetting, proud of the circus that he has made out of Leo’s fall. If I were to watch the movie again and take more detailed notes, I’m sure that I would be better able to label his vices and place them with their respected category but at the time being, these are the ones that were most apparent and memorable to me.

Some people might criticize this film for being excessive and dramatic, however I completely disagree. In fact, I’ve come to realize that, whatever Billy presents in a film he does so for a specific reason. In this case, he uses Chuck as the perfect and outrageous ringleader of a newspaper sensation circus. He comes across the way he does because the audience needs, for the lack of a better phrase, a slap in the face. To those who believe this whole movie is blown out of proportions and such a thing would never happen in real life, then they missed Chuck’s comment in the beginning of the film. In science class this year I learned about the fall and trapping of W. Floyd Collins and sure enough Chuck mentions him. There was another event as well, the fall of Kathy Fiscus, that is more closely related to the film. But yes, you’re right, it is a film so there might be pieces are larger than they might be in real life. But that’s what movies are for, if anything this film makes you aware of the downright disgusting and disgraceful behavior we’ve adopted when it comes to the media. For instance the rides, food stands, funds for Leo, and even the people. I suppose an American family could be characterized as the one that first comes to the site. We don’t see them again until about halfway through the film when they want to clarify to the public that THEY were the first ones who arrived, not this other family. Nothing about Leo; it’s all about who was there first and who can get their voice on the radio.

The news publishes the throng of people as Leo’s mourners, however we’re quite aware that’s the last thing they’re doing. But we do get a moment to morn for Leo in the film. There is a time when Chuck and the boy Herbie are talking in the parents bedroom when the mother, who we never see talk in the movie (only pray), walks right in with two candles, symbolizing herself and her husband, and puts them in front of the Madonna. This is the true morning: quiet, sorrowful, honest, and pleading.

There is a relationship between Leo, the embroidered “TELL THE TRUTH,” and the former miner. Leo is a good-hearted person. He loves his wife with all his heart and does whatever he can for her. An example is when he asks Chuck to give Lorraine the anniversary gift he got her. He says nothing about how much it cost or anything of that sort, only that she’ll look lovely in it and that he did his best to hide it from her. It’s heartbreaking when she carelessly throws it on the ground. The camera even pauses for a moment, as if in shock that this thoughtless woman just threw human decency and love on the ground. The embroidered “TELL THE TRUTH” is presented as old-fashioned and outdated, a value that has somehow managed to stick around all these years. But there’s a reason why it has. Had Chuck told the truth before, he wouldn’t even be in Albuquerque. Instead he waits. He waits until Leo is dead and has to scream to the crowd of people that Leo is dead, that there is no point in “mourning” anymore. It’s amazing how fast everyone clears out and how deserted and empty it becomes. Finally the former miner. He tells the truth, plain and simple: they could have done what they originally planned four days ago and saved Leo. These three things represent human decency, pureness, honesty, and the select few.

Of course this is a Wilder film so there is great, snappy, quick dialogue that I found myself laughing to; probably my favorite thing about Wilder’s films. I just felt the need to dedicate a line to his dialogue :D

This film presents the commercialization of a disaster and a person’s life and its detrimental effects. It happened in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, even now and will continue to happen. This is a film that will never become out of date. In fact, this film reminded me a lot of Network (1976), a news station with poor ratings that soon realizes they can capitalize on disastrous by entertaining their viewers with it. This movie was a flop for Wilder but perhaps it was because the audience back then wasn’t ready for the truth. In my opinion, Ace in the Hole is Wilder’s greatest and most underrated film and I highly recommend it to anyone.

———————————————

Rating: ♚♚♚♚♚