We Laugh 'Cause We're Dicks

During the first semester of this year, we were looking at comedy and exactly why we laugh at things. Pretty interesting to look into because you soon realise that laughter is essentially a form of stress release. It's more evident in some people than others. Anyway, I think it's best to talk about comedy and farce before I go any further, so there's that out of the way.

 Essentially laughter is a reaction to, for example, the breakdown of normality. If it's not something that we're used to, we laugh at it as a form of corrective towards it. It's a social activity as well, so it's sheep laughing at the goat for being different and therefore weird and foreign to them, pretty much. It's incredibly cruel in that sense, but it also relieves stress for us. When you laugh, you generally feel pretty good, right? My old ICT teacher used to laugh all the time. Even when you were in trouble, she'd laugh at you. I heard her note herself that it was a nervous reaction to a situation. Basically, it's how she dealt with a slightly stressful situation. Not overly stressful, but somewhat. People deal with small amounts of stress in different ways; some obsessively rub their hands together, some hum, others - they laugh.

 I was tasked with writing a seminar paper entitled Is Comedy The Acceptable Face of Cruelty? back in November, and I think I ought to share it. It's solid enough and it talks about Henri Bergson, a French philosopher, who came up with a theory of laughter. Anything I missed in the seminar that I want to cover here, I'll try to go into detail after:

When inebriated, we are stripped of all rational and logical thinking and, depending on the extent, we are devolved back into a primitive state. If given the simplest of tasks, chances are, we will probably fail; we enter automatic mode, and mechanically attempt to complete said task, but we will be unable to adapt to the situation if any new obstacles are presented. Onlookers will cruelly laugh at the stupidity and inability to conform.

 An automatism is a 'being', so to speak, that is programmed to perform a certain task(s). However, it cannot adapt to its surroundings or the specific situation it winds up in; its evolution is stumped and therefore cursed in its default state. In other words, [it is] a stupid being, as anyone with a grain of intelligence could find they are abe to work around new obstacles that appear before them, whereas a programmed machine cannot. 

 Laughter is, in essence, the joy we receive from others' misfortune, particularly when we are devoid from consequence or guilt over the situation. For example, if someone falls and we don't see the aftermath say, we feel no sympathy for the person in question and can laugh completely guilt-free as it did not happen to us. Often in comedy, when what would be dangerous in real life feats are performed, the character walks away completely unscathed. The Plank is full of hazards where each and every character walks away as if nothing happened, and we can therefore laugh guilt-free. This complies to part of Bergson's theory of the emotional detachment we can endure.

 Laughing at the expense of others' misfortune is a cruel reaction to undertake. Laughter is, as Bergson states in [his Theory of Laughter], a social stigma; when these social norms are broken, we find it absurd, and so we laugh. It can come about when witnessing an unexpected situation as well; it breaks away from the social norm that we are so used to. We, as a society, have set up a structure for ourselves to work within; again, we laugh at situations wherein this structure has been broken. There can be a degree of dramatic irony surrounding the character who suffers when we view such happenings in comedy. We, as an audience, know fine well that the character in question is in for a bad time, which can simply add to the hilarity of the situation.

 When we laugh at the poor fool, it can be considered a type of punishment, or a corrective as such. As [A Drunk Demonstrates Henri Bergson's Theory of Laughter by Jonathan Lyons] states. 'if someone laughs at you, you tend to stop what you are doing', which is true in every which way; punishment via embarrassment. There is sheer intent of humiliation in laughter; [it is] never, ever innocent.

 To an extent, laughter is usually a reaction to the result of witnessing something that does not conform to the norm; usually a misfortune that occurs to another where we are devoid from feelings of sympathy towards the victim. Bergson communicates his theory of laughter very well, and I agree with every word he says about it. We will no doubt laugh at anything that isn't deemed normal or wise to us. It's a reaction to when something logical breaks down and has everything to do with logic and absurdity and, as he said, 'we laugh at people or the things they do' so long as we are able to maintain 'a detached or an emotional distance' from the situation.

 I will be quoting Bergson a lot from now on. In fact, I may already have done so, maybe even very, very recently. So what it all boils down to, is that laughter is a cruel corrective or 'punishment via embarrassment' to make the person stop what they're doing. However, remember I said earlier that laughing makes us feel good? Because it's a stress-relief? It's a protective barrier that we use to guard us from our own anxieties; laughter, helping us to diminish the traumatic or stressful event that is occurring to us, as according to Why We Laugh. It's also rather contagious, in that when one person laughs, another may start, and so on and so forth, which adds more anchorage to the fact that it is a social activity, generally speaking.

 As I mentioned in my recent post, Unlucky Number Seven, farce is a type of comedy, incorporating a more physical side of comedy (known as slapstick), and is often quite crude; aiming below the belt. Where I don't want to base my short film solely around piss and fart jokes, I find absolutely nothing wrong with the aul' bedroom farce; dick joke galore. Maybe I'm just a pervert, but let's just leave it at that.

Anyway, I wanted to get the theory of laughter out of the way before I went on to talk about the relationship between laughter and sin. In Unlucky Number Seven, I did talk about some of the rules of farce, regarding an exploitation of 'appetites and follies of the average human being' in particular which, again, is what sinning all boils down to, really. But I also noticed that our laughing punishment towards those who do not conform, in regards to sinners, is actually a vicious, sinful circle.

A Deconstruction of Wes Anderson's 'The Darjeeling Limited'

 Last week in class, Sharron stuck on Wes Anderson's The Darjeeling Limited for us to watch. I talked about it very briefly in my post about its accompanying short, Hotel Chevaleir, which was originally a stand alone film. To break from my usual big-worded analytical language for just a moment, it was fuckin' amazeballs.

 Again, it links directly back to our theme of dislocation. It surrounds the three Whitman brothers. Francis, Peter, and Jack, who are estranged from their mother who had become a nun, with their own strained relationship from each other that they must deal with as they go on the search for her. Throughout the film, we see elements of lack of trust between that family, from as big as deceiving one another to their own extent & reasons to simply just not wanting to talk about their problems with one another. Hilariously and articulately done, The Darjeeling Limited reels you in with laughs, tugs on your heart strings just a touch, and leaves you feeling a bit more hopeful towards the world through both story and Anderson's use of colour that really stands out. Stunningly beautiful.

 I love these types of films; stock full of meaningful symbolism to really break down. It doesn't completely treat the audience as a pack of numbnuts, but instead allows your mind to wander to an extent, so see the subconscious clues in the surroundings, be it to do with colour or the metaphorical train journey that the characters embark on, hinting that there is a lot more going on in the characters' minds.

 Firstly, I admire the use of vibrant, pop art like colour that Wes Anderson features in his films. It's not quite real life, but it intends to highlight real issues that goes on with us. Most prominent are the colours yellow and blue on the train to and from the brothers' destination respectively. Yellow, an Eastern colour of optimism, wealth, and reason (the film is set in India) is a tip of the hat to the well off passengers of The Darjeeling Limited, and a sign of hopefulness in regards to the journey of the brothers. However, in Western culture, yellow is often a signifier of envy and betrayal, highlighting the brothers' broken relationship with one another. This juxtaposition really gets your gears going, trying to figure out what's going on in the minds of the Whitman boys; Francis, the eldest of the three, indicating that their journey is to be one of self-discovery after his near death experience, which is later revealed to be a failed suicide attempt. He comes off as the in control brother - or, at least, wants to be seen as such - yet is so broken on the inside, he felt the need to end his life.

 Blue, on the other hand, is a universal colour of clear skies, harmony, and faithfulness, which is a primary part of the colour scheme of the train on the way back. There is no juxtaposition of two potential meanings; everything is as clear as the blue sky with faithfulness restored between the brothers. There is a new harmony within them.

 Again with the colour yellow, it is continuously presented in Anderson's films; evident in the short Hotel Chevaleir, the parent of the feature The Darjeeling Limited; also with many other themes and references revisited and repeated. For example, the story of the youngest Whitman brother, Jack, which stuck out to me the most. We learn that he is a victim of love, especially clear having watched the short prior to the feature. The delicacy and consideration that he treats Rita with, the train stewardess that he had a fling with, a repetition of the Peter Sarsdedt song Where Do You Go To (My Lovely) while he sits with her, waiting on her outside the WC and insisting on a first name basis with one another, despite Rita's reactions implying that she sees it as nothing more than a fling. His short story that he keeps reading out to his brothers, up until the end of the film where he insists that the characters are completely fictional, features elements from his life that have impacted on him greatly. The cold reactions that he gave his ex-girlfriend in particular, a small indication that he is beginning to move on.

 The characters went on a journey of recovering their trust for one another; allowing their relationship to grow and heal. It was a bumpy journey no doubt, but they made it in the end, becoming stronger, able to gradually and comfortably open up with one another. We see it visually as well, the dislocated fraternal relationship having calmed on their way home. Beautifully symbolic, it's a touching film that reels you in with laughs, ensuring your comfort before it lays upon you a very real communication issue for you to think about for yourself.

 Loved every minute of it.

Unucky Number Seven

Several posts back, I started talking about flaws. I had to stop there so I could post about the roles I was wanting to adopt for the project (that I'm subsequently getting marked on, so they had to be done), as well as about a screening. I was nearly going to post about The Darjeeling Limited before this post, but I thought I'd just do it after so we can recap a bit first.

 Anyway, after having received the theme of 'dislocation', as I mentioned before, it made me think of chaos, you know, not being in control of the situation around you, for example. I used the video game The Path to talk about one of the master plots I found in Ronald B. Tobias' book 20 Master Plots, which was the maturation plot. Growing up, essentially; a form of the transformation plot. I had ended that post talking about flaws, and what they are exactly, to lead onto this one.

 So what are flaws? They are human follies that are certainly not to be admired, but are quite often the topic of discussion. Whether we are talking about our own weaknesses that must be improved upon or abolished altogether, or gossiping about the faults of others as a means to distract ourselves from our own which, ipso facto, is a fault stemming from pride.

 One of our big projects this year is to adapt a Michael Frayn monologue into a cinematic piece. If you recognise the name at all, you'll straight away realise that he is a farce writer. So why am I talking about farce? One of the codes and conventions of farcical comedy is that, according to James Simmons in his article About The Playwright: Georges Feydeau, it "concentrates on the apetites and follies of the average human being caught in a net devised by his or her own foolishness". In other words, farce exploits the uncontrolled human desires and faults in the name of comedy. When we were looking at this in class, I was instantly reminded of the seven deadly sins, a Christian ethic to educate its followers in steering clear of sin. At its core, the seven deadly sins had merely stemmed from the most basic of human traits, feelings, appetites and follies. Essentially, it is presented clearly in people who allow their desires to become their faults, taking a hold of them.

 I wanted to further research into the seven deadly sins. Although it comes from mediecal Christian theology, they are, no doubt, generally pretty good rules to at the very least take into consideration. Who actually wants their wrath to control their lives, ruining every relationship they have, ultimately being alone? Who actually wants to be that one arrogant bastard who takes pride in belittling others around them so they, in their minds, look the best? Those people aren't going to stick around for very long to keep that pride going for the sinner, so to speak.

 I looked into the Christian detox book by Graham Tomlin, The Seven Deadly Sins: How To Overcome Life's Most Toxic Habits. At first, I was unsure whether or not to bother as I wanted a neutral book that looked into the topic, but I caved and got it. Boy, was I pleasantly surprised! Of course, there is God-talk because, at the end of the day, it is a book to aid Christians in their lifestyles. But it's also very down to earth - kinda literally - in that it tries to level with the reader, and understands these sins may appear to be "naughty but nice" to a lot of people.

 Tomlin goes on to explain that "each sin always has at its heart something good" and that therefore "sin is always a subtle corruption of something essentially good". The point that Tomlin is making is that sin, being evil, takes something that is good and innocent, and twists and distorts it into something bad; something evil and sinful. He explains that it "simply twists, caricatures and destroys", being unable to actually create anything original.

 Whether you are Christian or not, have a religion, identify as either Atheist or Agnostic like myself, there is no point in denying that they are quite a good set of rules to live by. Sure, sex is great but allowing lust to take over is not. Sure, it's great to relax and all that jazz, but it most certainly isn't very beneficial to you at all to lie in bed every minute of the day, every day, is it? Not at all. We must be in control of our desires lest they become faults that control us, leading to our own demise.

 The Seven Deadly Sins has been around since medieval times and has been driven into our psyche as law. Because of how culture gradually builds, it can be extremely difficult, near enough impossible, to shake. Even today they hold strong. But eventually everything becomes twisted over time. Laws eventually lead to rebellion because the world soon becomes black and white. As I said, when cultural and societal conformities are created, they become difficult to shake as it is what we are used to. How many times have privileges been removed due to ill-treatment of the gift? That's why rebellion happens; just because a small few abuse a good thing, it soon gets taken away from everyone to better control the masses.

 Rebellion, although the cause may be of good intention, can be just as unhealthy a movement. Instead of rationally thinking as to why and how to fix something, we go in the complete opposite direction to get as far away from the conformity as possible. A gradual change must happen for this to take effect, otherwise it's a bit taboo. Nobody can deal with it then; not very many people would really want to, often out of fear.

 That's the impression I get. The black and white world where it's either right or wrong, no question asked, leads even the slightest impression of sin to become taboo, even if it's totally under control and has been well thought out beforehand; completely innocently and rationally. In which case, it isn't even a sin; it's the original good trait that has become a victim of taboo. Our views have been tainted of those who partake in such desires at all, because we have been trained to believe that they are bad, no matter what form of control has been, or quantity it has been taken in.

 It isn't good to allow our natural human traits and behaviours to get out of control, but it most certainly isn't healthy to completely deny ourselves of them/ This is the approach that a lot of people will take. They take one extreme to the other; atheists, for example (although not all), take it the extreme in order to rebel against the Christian virtues to steer as far away from those conformities as humanly possible, whereas the Christians (again, not all) will completely deny these feelings altogether, seeing them as impure; being over-controlling, which can lead to an unhealthy degree of bottling up.


 Anyway, the point I'm making is that sin, no matter what one, is a human folly; an uncontrolled desire that leads us to mishaps and misfortune. These are our faults that lead to our eventual demise. It's something that I want to explore in my end of year film, particularly that of pride and lust, because they are so prominent in today's society, causing a lot of problems for us when we can't keep them under wraps (or duvet covers). And with that, I want to intertwine it with farcical comedy to an extent, because that's exactly what comedy does; it exploits the faults of an average to below average person for our own amusement.

 Perhaps taking it into satire to show what we're doing to ourselves as we so desperately try to conform, while simultaneously trying not to. We understand there's no big deal so long as we can be the ones in control, but what happens to us when we all social conformities take a hold of us? We end up running back and forth, back and forth. Sinning can be such a farce, can't it?

What's Your Role In All This? (Part III: The Woes of The Director)

Writing is the foundation of any piece of work. It communicates an idea verbally, in the form of text, describing significant, intricate details of the art form it may be coupled with. However, once the writing is done and out of the road, here comes the role of the director.

 Often, the two will communicate with each other over where the story will go, and how it will be portrayed ultimately. The director makes creative, usually visual, decisions in production, the stage that follows pre-production. Putting aside the role of the producer, the director is the electricity that gives life to the final written piece, the monster. The monster that is production, or the delicate role that the director holds.

 It can be tricky, especially among students. Not because of the inability of bringing an idea to life, but more to do with the fact that you need to communicate this idea to others effectively. Sure, you might be able to do it well -- very well, even -- but you also have to be on level with the others in your team, ensuring that everyone involved realises that's what you're doing; communicating and discussing an idea, and not just being a dick by getting a kick out of telling people what to do.

 Granted, some people who go for the director role are in it for that, but not everyone. I honestly don't think it's a role best suited for those without a creative bone in their body, so it's poor choice. Communication is also key, and you need to know how to talk to people and how to appropriately treat them. Bearing in mind that everybody is different, so everyone will react differently to certain methods that you may apply to get them involved, intrigued, and in focus on the project.

 For me, I have serious trouble with confidence and self-esteem, so it's difficult for me to to believe in myself when in this role. I get excited about ideas, and bringing them together, and I'm fine with some people. Others, though, I'm a lot more submissive with. That's not good. Never be submissive with a crew if you're supposed to be in an authority role, such as the incredibly important director. That's a major problem in the student film making process, mind. There's a sub-conscious distrust towards many in certain roles on the one hand, and on the other hand, it's just very easy to take over someone else's role, even though your role dictates something else.

 I've heard people talking about these roles a lot, or even complaining. This... does not help my confidence in the slightest. I know I need to learn to actually not give a toss about what others think, provided I'm doing a good job, because, really, all it does is show a lack of interest, motivation in a project, and a serious lack of maturity to take something seriously. Not necessarily the subject matter, just the creative process in general. You'll have 'they're just not interested because of ABC' with 'they're so pretentious because of XYZ' in the same utterance by the same mouth, which makes you wonder about the kind of balance you need to take. Thinking about that too much isn't helpful to your mindset either, leaving you unwilling to take charge at all in case this is what people think of you.

 There's nothing more demotivating than having your enthusiasm trampled on or disregarded. After all, for a selected some anyway, we're on this course for a reason, and that reason is our love and admiration to create visual-audio stories, to learn more about it, and to, hopefully, meet others just like that to help us on the way. You do need a team after all. An enthusiastic one at that where people aren't afraid to go the extra mile to do the best that they possibly can. I'd like to think I got away from people in high school who see a project as nothing more than a chore that they only need to tick the most basic of criteria for. That's boring, and I don't want people like that on my team, or any team that I become a part of.

 If I know exactly what I need to communicate, I have no issue at all in doing so, especially if I've conducted sufficient research for it and have planned the pitch out well and thoroughly. Otherwise I trip over my words, and cringe the entire attempt. It suggests a lack of interest in that case but, prepared, it shows you're incredibly excited about the project and truly believe in it and, more importantly, yourself. Don't let others disbelief in the medium pull you down.

What's Your Role In All This? (Part II: The Woes of The Writer)

In the previous post, I left off at a point where I essentially admitted to annotating and highlighting my books for research and as a pastime. That's not the worst thing that I do for fun. It's not like I casually collect dolls or anything hahahahhaa!

 Ahem. Anyway, research plays a huge part in writing. Sure, it's an imaginative activity but you should never allow it to be purely imaginative. There needs to be that nice balance between imagination and real life. Why would anybody want to experience anything you create if they can't make even a tidbit of sense out of it? There needs to be a degree of relatability, so you incorporate your own life experiences along with the detailed and thorough research that you have conducted for your end piece.

 That's about the initial writing stages, anyway. That part is, in theory, straightforward enough. It's just getting yourself to sit down and do it. There is absolutely no such thing as 'writer's block', a wise high school teacher, Keith McManus, once informed me, 'only laziness'. He explained that staring at a blank screen isn't productive, and that you should just write; even if what you're writing is crap. But guess what? Upon writing this crap, you have overcome the initial and most difficult part of the writing process; writing from nothing. From here, you can now read over your work and edit it appropriately. That's why we constantly re-draft our work, making it better and better each time, refining every minute detail to the best of our abilities.
 Admittedly, I still do this; staring at a blank screen. I don't have the gall to call it writer's block, I swallow my pride and make myself aware that I haven't written anything because I fear my lack of ability in this area. I fear that I'm going to cringe long and hard at what I've written and so will other people if I allow them to see it.
 Procrastination is an easy escape route to avoid this, but it isn't good. Writer's block does not exist. There is a fear of yourself that needs to be overthrown, and only you can do that. The best advice for anxiety is to just do it, and it applies here as well. Yes, it's a little counterproductive to tell an anxious person to 'just get over it' because, let's face, they're sick of telling themselves that, and they know fair and well that their fear is irrational. I tell myself this all the time.

However.

 I have used the 'just do it' method and, by God, does it work and you get such a sense of achievement from it. You need to get over the initial lack of confidence in yourself because, after all, it's incredibly rare for the first draft that you crank out to be an utter masterpiece. You need to work on it and that is a natural part of the process of writing. You take only a small degree of decision making abilities of an inebriated person and just go for it. Note the key phrase 'a small degree'; you don't want to be too rash!

 This view point is supported by the cause that NaNoWriMo, National Novel Writing Month, which takes place in the month of November, exists for. It challenges people, no matter what they do in life, to write a 50,000 word novella. There was also, until recent years, a script writing version known as Script Frenzy April, but now it has been since smooshed in with NaNo. They encourage people to just write and write and keep on writing; there will be room for editing later.

 You need to give yourself time for your research, what your subject is, your theme and your sub-theme, and how you're going to go about it. This is an absolutely fascinating progression to me, and I want to go forth with it in particular. You draw information from what people tell you, your own life experiences to add your own touch of reality and how view it, and thorough research. This is when it starts getting really damn fun.

What's Your Role In All This? (Part I: In The Beginning)

I've always adored story telling. There are so many vast ways of expressing a story that you want to tell, from writing to visual arts. In both of these categories, there are, again, various forms of which to adopt; you can even combine the two. That's what really got me into wanting to create my own films.

 I would describe my hobbies as seasonal, because I'll go through phases of a) music, b) role-play, c) design, and d) writing. I'll phase in and out of each period, enjoying every moment of it, gaining inspiration and motivation from each of them. a) I listen and play, the atmosphere of sound creating new visual stories in my mind; b) involving video games, seemingly being the least constructive of the four, yet, depending on the genre of the game, I can explore that virtual world, picking up inspiration as I go along. It's especially helped when user customisation features have been incorporated, such as creating the look of your avatar. The Fable series is great for this, going on various quests, and ultimately deciding your moral alignment, for example; c) drawing and painting characters that spring up that have minute meaning in all aspects of their visual aesthetic, and; d) actually putting pen to paper. From all those hobbies, I get the thrill to create my very own piece with the help of the inspiration that I've gained from them.

 That's why film making is so great. You can pull all of these hobbies together, creating an explosion akin to The Big Bang, forming a new world of your own. While writing is the foundation of this, there are many more aspects that help to bring the concept to life. Capturing it, lighting it, casting it and acting it, re-telling it through the method of video editing. Of course, it's never good to settle yourself as a jack of all trades, master of none. Some may argue that this is better than a master of one, but then your finished work isn't going to be all that outstanding then, is it? That said, it is highly beneficial for you to have a good grasp on as much as possible, then you can properly communicate with the other masters about what you want but, again, you really ought to specialise somewhere, lest you be deemed a worthless attribute to a project.

 Depending on the context used, it can be highly insulting, or an alright compliment. Now, it's different whenever are left with everything to do, so you can understand how insulted I was when I was informed of a certain blog post made a certain ex-team mate. So take a spot of advice from me: if you ever find yourself stuck with someone who drops all their duties on you, yet will happily hoard credit, milking the small things that they did, get the hell out. It drains both energy and motivation for something that you would normally love to do, and that is something that I would not wish on anybody. It leaves you feeling angry and worthless. It's good to be competent in as many aspects possible, but what you really want to do is to strive to better yourself in particular roles, thriving in them, and thus becoming something that others will seek out. Well. Hopefully.


 The main purpose of our final year film is to exploit ourselves in the particular roles that we want to go forth with. I enjoy most aspects of the process of film making and, I think, especially in a student film, it's easy to allow yourself to become incredibly nervous over letting other people take over certain roles. There are only a certain amount of masters who will, no doubt, be in high demand. In the bigger picture of things, it'll be no problem because you're seeking these people out for your own freelance work.

 I'm looking into the roles of writer and director because I create the idea with the former, then bring people together and communicate with them to make it happen. Normally, especially in independent productions, the producer will be the same person. They're more to do with organisation and financing considering they're the ones who actually fund the thing in the first place, so there's a lot of discussion with the director over what's actually possibly to achieve. So what I'm trying to say is that it's actually kind of pointless to have someone who is purely the producer. That's just my two pence anyway; it's an independent film, and a student one at that, so there actually isn't going to be a budget anyway. You're paying for anything specific to the work out of pocket. That said, sometimes it's good to have a co-person by your side in case the project becomes too precious to you. If you can keep yourself grounded and have developed a thicker shell, then that's just dandy.


 I want to really elongate my writing skills. But with that, I'm going to need to do a lot of research. I've already posted some research prior to this particular post and I'm still reading into it. It's just a matter of taking these annotations from my now graffitied books to this blog. It's a fascinating process that leaves you wanting to find out more, further gearing your motivation to work.

Deconstructing Wes Anderson's 'Hotel Chevaleir'

When we received the introduction to our new unit, Sharron screened a Wes Anderson short Hotel Chevaleir. Funded purely by Anderson and originally intended to be a stand alone piece of work, and what soon forced Natalie Portman to swear off nudes, he later coupled it with The Darjeeling Limited, 2007 as its prologue.

 For a moment, let's just pretend that it is stand alone. Especially considering Fox Searchlight hadn't the foggiest between the connection until after The Darjeeling Limited was made. Apparently they shared no interest in the short financially either, it being legally available for free online. Anyway, in which case, both characters remain unnamed and their issues unclear, as separate individuals to their feature cameo counterparts.

 Hotel Chevalier surrounds a couple going through a rough patch. Jason Schwartzman's character having attempted to escape the relationship for a while, hiding himself away in a hotel room. Natalie Portman's character, having shown up at his room with flowers of forgiveness, as I'll call them, in hand, suggesting that there is a want for a reconciliation between the two to perhaps salvage their alleged romantic relationship.

 We never actually discover what went wrong, or even how long the issues had been going on for. From the mysterious bruises on Portman's arm, to the extremity of Schwartzman's character feeling it necessary to become reclusive in a hotel for ages. In fact, from what we're shown at least, neither of these two seem to know what is going on in their relationship themselves. Portman's character straight out asking "What the fuck is going on?", notably the only usage of profanity as emphasis, suggesting this. In regards to the expletive, it expresses the beginnings of anger, however, apart from this one, isolated instance, that emotion is never explored further. In fact, the film in general is rather emotionless, where the both characters speak in monotones, being very awkward around each other. Neither of them seem to know what they want to do or how to proceed. Or, rather, neither of them know what they should do; they certainly know what they want to do, but are reluctant as it is possible that it isn't really a good idea.

 They do still care about each other, this is highly evident to me. However, it is also highly evident that the two lovers are hesitant to show it. Schwartzman's character's hotel room is so fake yet so casual and lived-in, he is evidently lonely. When his (ex-)girlfriend calls, he doesn't emote very much, but we can tell that he is unsure of what he feels he should do; there is only a mere implication that he doesn't want her to visit, but he does not put up a fight at all. He tells her his room number straight away, and pretends to think about his response. He most certainly does want her, but will he admit that to himself? He wants to appear stronger than that, perhaps. Regardless of what is going on in their relationship, or what sort of relationship it is, it's unhealthy behaviour for everybody involved.

Yellow is obviously prominent. It smacks you square in the jaw without a notion of an apology. On its own, yellow can uphold the symbolism of wealth, happiness, and associated with the sun which provides life and light. It also, however, promotes negative feelings in turn, such as envy and jealousy, and a lack of courage. In Hotel Chevalier, it means every one of those. The more positive traits that the colour yellow has to offer appears more as a contrast than anything to these characters, but cowardice and jealousy is certainly ripe here.

 Despite getting two viewings out of this in class on Thursday, I could not, for the life of me, actually hear most of the dialogue. Poor speaker equipment, people talking around me, or a combination of the two, but I'm actually glad because it meant that I experienced a slightly different interpretation of the short. Putting aside dialogue that hints what this is, we are never certain about the situation in the film at all, ever. As well as that, my initial interpretation helps me to make sense of how emotionless the characters were towards each other. I had assumed that the relationship was more to that of a casual one, wherein the two frequently engage in sexual fun, as opposed to more loving kind. Maybe I'm just bitter and that's why I interpreted it that way, but it does make a lot of sense to me by adopting it in this way.

 It's still something that many people view as taboo and out of the ordinary when it isn't really. Both characters know what they want and what they desire from each other, but nothing more than that. Portman's portrayal in this instance shows a character who, when she wants something, she'll take it without hesitance. Schwartzman's, on the other hand, knows what he wants, but is indecisive over whether or not he should indulge. There is a Seductive Muse air about Portman's character from this perspective as a result; an openly sexual woman. Her lover puts on the facade that he is on this level; an attempt at expressing rational thought to her when his facial expressions never correspond with what he says, unlike Portman who gives off the occasional cheeky smirk. She's confident in this, he is not. His responses to her (or lack thereof) would suggest a lack of care towards his lover, which she is not afraid to show, because neither of them actually know where they stand with one another; this is deemed an odd relationship because it isn't a real relationship in the traditional sense, and they both know this.

 The relationship that isn't real is presented to us in a that has an almost 'dream doll house' like vibe about it. It is not to be forgotten, however, that is not his, despite looking very lived in, the key word in that phrase is synonymous with the word 'fantasy'. It's not real; none of it is. It happens behind unofficial closed doors, but there is a touch of guilt among the characters involves; this isn't a conformity but they still don't know what's going on or, at least, can't quite seem to get on the same page as one another for very long.

 I actually found it fascinating in that sense, and could really see how it links in with our theme of dislocation. It's full of chaos, and everything is everywhere, so nothing can ever be pieced together effectively enough for it all to make sense to the characters. It may be obvious to the people watching it - the audience - but it's never quite as simple with those who are dealing with their dislocated issue.