Propp's Theory and In Bruges ( in progress)

1. Which characters in the film correspond to each archetype? Do any of the characters fulfill more than one role? Are any of the roles fulfilled by more than one character?

The archetypes are:
· The hero – Ray, he is the hero, as he is frequently trying to leave Bruges, and the Villain(s) are trying to stop him, or are an obstacle to him.
· The Villain
- Harry Walters, he opposes the hero by attempting to have in assassinated, which is part of the reason why Ray wants to leave Bruges. Later on he personally tries kill Ray, and it is unknown if he succeeded.

- Canadian Tourist, although he seems like a minor character, as someone Ray angers, he plays a crucial part in obstructing the Hero, by having the police arrest him on the train from Bruges, the Canadian Tourist accuses him, and has him brought back to Bruges, this gives Harry an opportunity to kill Ray.
· The Donor –
· The Helper
- Marie, helps Ray and Ken by providing a ‘shelter’, furthermore, she helps Ray by refusing to let Harry up the stairs in the hotel.
- Ken, he tries to help Ray escape his assassination and leave Bruges.

· The Princess – Chloe
· The Dispatcher - Harry Walters, he sends Ray and Ken on the assassination mission on the first place.
· The Father
2. Does the film subvert any of the archetypes? Which characters seem to fit into one category but twist it or surprise us?

· Ray as the Hero archetype, and Harry as the Villain. Although Ray is the Hero of the film, he can also be seen as a villain. This is because Propps’s definition of a Hero, is “ someone who seeks something”, and Harry could fit into this archetype as he is seeking the assassination of Ray, and Ray and Ken are the ones who are opposing him. Therefore, Ray could also be the Villain, and Harry could be the Hero.
3. Evaluate Propp's theory as a method to help us understand the film. How much does it apply? How much does consideration of the archetypes and characters and the extent to which they are similar or subverted help us to analyse the movie.

Propp’s theory helps us break down a film’s characters role. I think that this helps us understand the film better as we can analyze a character based on the role he/she takes. For example, through Propp’s theory, I have think that the Canadian Tourist is a villain, therefore we can examine the character as a villain specifically, and take notice to its villainous actions. However we do not know whether or not the director intended to portray the characters this way, as the Director may have made the Canadian Tourist do what he did, just to progress the story and not because it is something a villain would do.

Furthermore, by applying Propp’s theory, it can limit the analysis of characters, because the theory gives each character in the story, a designated role, which limits our analysis to these 7 types of characters, however, I believe that there can always be exceptions, and important characters may not be any of these 7 archetypes.

Independant study

Title: To what extent are heroes a reflection of stereotypes perception of heroes in the culture the film is from?
Genre: Action
Films that you'll be looking at
Hollywood-
· Rambo
· James Bond
· Rush Hour
· Mission Impossible
· Die Hard
· Ben Hur
· The Terminator
Hong Kong
· Jackie Chan films
· Once upon a time in China
· Hero
· A better tomorrow
· Adoptions of Louis cha’s Wuxia novels
· Crouching tiger, hidden dragon
· House of flying daggers
· Bruce Lee

Cultural comparisons and film theories that you'll be using
· American/ English and Chinese/ HK
· Asians in western films, how the characteristics of a hero is different
· What the conventions are in different cultures and how has this changed?
· Representation theory, of male characters and heroes
· Feminist, female heroes?
- Female love interest
- Damsel in distress
· Gaze Theory; is the film a portrayal of a males view or female or both? How are they different, and why?
Summary of the major arguments you'll be making
· Actors that have traditionally be associated as action heroes in Asia, have crossed over to Hollywood, how have the actor’s characters in Hollywood changed and deferred from Asian film characters?
· How does the portrayal of female characters in the film affect the male heroes? Does a damsel in distress often cause the events in action films to change? Are damsels in distress the key that moves the plot foreword?
· Will a female hero be any different from male heroes?
·

Independent study

List of genre, directors, films that im interested in

Genres:
Animation
Epics/historical
adventure
fantasy

Directors:
George Lucas
Miyazaki Hayao
Stanely Kubrick
Quetin Tarantino
Mike Nichols

Films:
Films by Miyazaki Hayao
Lost in Translation
The lord of thing rings trilogy
Star Wars
The graduate
Schindler's list
Elizabeth
Lost in translation
Shrek

Cultures:
American, Japanese, British

Psycho- Authority in parlour scene

Please Read in this order:

1) Production design and Actors Performance
2) Lighting and Sound
3) Framing and Editing and Conclusion

Psycho- Authority and Gender in parlour Scene - Lighting and Sound

Throughout the scene, the two characters are placed on two opposite ends, immediatly this suggest that there is going to be two sides. Futhermore, the lighting is also very different for the two characters. The light in the shots with Marion is mostly bright, even the objects that surround her are light in tone, and the lamp is also placed on ehr side, whilst the shots that show Norman are mostly dark, with some brighter areas, and a large black desk with the white book as the only light toned object.



The fact that Marion's side is much brighter creates the atmosphere that she is warm, a good person and the protagonist. Also since the environment is lit around her, it emphasis that she is a the protagonist, and although she stole the money, it implies that she wants to return it.



On the other hand, when Norman is in frame, he is mostly dimly lit, with occasional lighter areas. Also Norman himself mostly only has one side of his face shined. This symbolizes the two personalities struggling within him. The times where one side is in shadow, we can cannot tell there is a obvious dominance, but when they talk about the mother, the shot is from the side therefore only one side is shown. The side that is shown has minimal light, this suggest that the more sinister and darker personality is in control, where Norman himself is being completely dominanted by his mother's personality. Afterwards, when Norman explains that he wanted to move his mother to the 'madhouse', he moves away from the camera. This is one of the few moments in the scene where a mojority of his face is lit. I think that this is when Norman's personality is closes to be free from the mother.



The non diagetic music from this scene seems to acompany the mood of the scene. The theme is heard whenever Marion descovers something abnormal. The music is heard when we enter this scene, but is more audiable when she sees the bird, afterwards the music fades out until it is heard again when Norman talks about sending his mother to the institution. I believe that the music in this scene, is heard whenever Hitchcock wants to highligh the presence of something abnormal and his mother. As mentioned before, the bird represents woman, but more specifically his mother, the music is louder, and i think this effect is to remind the audience that the mother is a key character in this scene. Again, when they talk about sending the mother to the instution, the mother seems to dominate Norman, the music is then played faintly, to suggest that the mother is currently the dominant personality.

Psycho- authority and gender- Framing and Editing and Conclusion

In this scene we can use the camera angels to determine who has more authority between Norman and Marion, but also we can see a internal stuggle in the characters of Norman and his Mother.

When Norman is talking about his mother, the camera angle is tilting upwards towards him,this suggests that he is the currently the superior internal character. On the other hand, when norman becomes defensive about sending his mother to the "madhouse' The camera angle becomes neautral, this suggests that both characters have equal control, and that there is a equal stuggle between Norman and his mother. When Norman becomes more angered, the camera tilts slightly downwards, this symbolises that the mother has slightly more authority and perhaps is controlling him in order to reject Marion's opinion. This is true in real life, because traditionally, the mother has authority over their children, though motherhood, and suggests that authority in woman through motherhood is more or most powerful.

Thoughout the scene, the camera when filming Marion is at a neutral position, this suggests that she feeling peaceful, and not going through any internal stuggles such as whether she should return to Phoenix or not. Here the camera is very stable and she is calm when inside the parlour, maybe because she isn't thinking of escaping or she has reached a decision.

In the end the camera tilts upwards at Marion, just as she was up. This upwards view, shows that Marion is eventually significently in control of the situation.

The size of the characters on screen also seem to symbolize the level of authority they have. In the beginning both characters are equally the same size, and this shows that neigther character has dominance over the other. But this is changed, when they begin to talk about his mother. One of the shots move close up to Marion, while the angle is changed, the size of Norman's character becomes smaller compared to rest of the frame. Furthermore the bird which represents the mother ( explained previously) covers quite a large portion of the frame, compared to the smaller birds in the previous shots, this symbolizes a transition, where the mothers personality becomes more dominant. Near the end, when Norman becomes more agitated, he moves closer to a close up shot, his face covers a third of the frame, and this represents the authority of Norman, compared to the relatively smaller coverage of Marion. Interestly, the black bird is almost as big as Norman in this shot, perhaps the two personalities are equal and the opinions expressed are the same for both.



The editing in the scene is also very irregular because, normally we whenever a character talks, the cut will usually cut to a shot that feature him/her, but in this scene, the cuts occur at random points. Mostly whenever an important word or phrase is mentioned in relation to the other character. I think that this irregular and disordered cut can symbolised the overall struggle of the two characters for dominance. Finally the last cut features Marion walking out, this implies that Marion is the eventual 'winner' in the struggle for authority, further emphasising the point made earlier about Marion standing up and gaining firm control.



In the Parlour scene as a whole, the selection of shots used were all medium, medium close up and close up shots. I think that this was purposly done as this meant that in editing of the scene, the audience is given a very small idea of how the parlour looks like, i think that this highlights the uncertainty of Norman's character, and suggest that there is something that the audience doesn't know, in this case the presence of a second personality. This is very important because it makes Norman's character unpredictable, where the audience isnt aware that there can be times where he exerts control over Marion.



In conclusion, I think that this scene highlights the struggle for authority between Norman and Marian, with Marian eventually successful in controlling the situation. Also, this scene shows alot about the two personalities within Norman by using Mise en scene, and the relationship between the two. Where the mother exerts control of Norman's mind when ever the discussion talks about her mother. Furthermore, interaction between Marian and the mother's personality is shown in this scene, and from looking at the framing and editing, i can clearly see that the Mother is in control of the situation. Therefore i think that from this scene we can see that Woman has the most power through motherhood which is symbolised when the mother's personality is dominating, and is even more powerful than sexuality, which is what Marian represents. Although we do not see in this scene nor in the entire film interaction between a mother and a man with power through wealth and status. This is because Norman clearly has neither and can be seen almost powerless when he is the dominating personality, therefore is under control of both the mother and Marion.

Psycho- Authority and Gender in parlour Scene- Production design and Actors Performance

This is the scene where Norman and Marion eats in the parlour.

In the beginning, from the dialogue, we can tell that Norman is the dominant character because he the one offering to eat in the Parlour, where Marion is the one being questioned. This is repeated when Norman tells Marion to sit down. The dominance of Norman, suggest the natural authority of a 'host', and this disregards the traditional views of males holding authority through money and status becomes norman has neither of these.

The use of birds is very significent in this scene. Birds can symbolize many things. Such as freedom, woman, and passiveness. Furthmore, Marion's last name is "Crane", i think that this is purposly done by Hitchcock to emphasis Marion has a free character. Marion can be compared to birds because in the film, she is represented as a free character. This is against the traditional stereotypes in society, because woman are supposed to stay at home, and are therefore "trapped". Whilst men leave the home and are "free". These gender roles are reversed because Marion is refered to as a bird, furthermore unlike most woman at the time, she had a job and left the house, also she is free in the sense that she can do whatever she wants. On the other hand, Norman is not a free character because he is "trapped" in the house. We can see that his character is more feministic because he admits to doing household work for his mom, and he rarely goes out.



The idea of birds being passive, connects with another theme in this scene, Taxidermy. Norman says that birds are passive, this could suggests that woman in general are the passive members of the society. Also to prove the passiveness of birds and woman, Norman stuffs birds. We can see that the birds are being stuffed, and are under control of Norman.

One of the most scary looking birds is the one looking over Norman, hanging on the wall. We see the bird when the shot of Norman changes, when Norman begins to talk abt his mother. I believe that the bird can represent the mother in the sense that the mother is a woman too, and is as if 'over looking' her son. Furthermore, the opened wings seemed look like a gaurdian angle, similarily the mother is dead, and is protecting and guideing his son. This becomes true later on when Norman, with the mother being dominant kills Marion, the mother can be seen as protecting Norman because she is stopping Marion from reporting her and taking Norman away from her, and also Marion is a suspicisous character where the mother might feel threatened, and is guideing Norman away from her.



Marion attempts to regain control of the situation by initiating questions about Norman's mother. But Norman quickly reassures his position by correcting her. Norman is a character that follows tradition, by being submissive to his mother. Since he is a character that follows tradition, he also assures traditional authority over woman, even when the woman is trying to gain control. Although Norman may not be trying to do this delibritly, we can see that it may be a natural instinct for men to be in control.



Near the end, as Marion is standing up, she looks down at Norman, while Norman looks up to Marion. This symbolises that after the 'power struggle' Marion eventually wins and gains authority over Norman. Even when Norman suggests that she say longer, she rejects him and leaves. this suggests that men in general are in control on the short term, but woman end up in control on the long term. I think this is quite true because in real life because woman eventually reach motherhood, and supposably, authority through motherhood over children is more powerful.


In this scene Marion is eating, another colloquial way to say eating, is stuffing. The word stuffing can therefore have two meanings. Like above, Norman is in control of the birds, and he is the one stuffing them, similarily if Marion is eating Norman's food, then Norman can be said to be stuffing her, and is the authoritive character in this scene. However, we notice that Marion never actually takes a finishes the small piece of bread. This symbolizes that Marion is not getting "stuffed", but just eating a little and tehrefore she is repelling against Norman's control. This is quite true in Marion's character, as she tends to repel the authority of other men throughout the film, such as rejecting Sam's offer to be together longer, and frequently deny any problems to the officer.