China Town involves a high culture director (Roman Polanski) making a popular culture movie (crime-P.I. genre). The result is 'a disappearance of the great split' (Easthope) between established high and low culture preoccupations, issues and values.
Whether or not Roman Polanski is a high culture director does not necessarily determine the film Chinatown as high culture, and therefore as a disappearance of the great split. However, by observing the distinctions between the two discourses, and their origins in any of the three theories of the great split, as outlined by Easthope in his article "High Cutlure/Popular Culture: Heart of Darkness and Tarzan of the Apes", I hope to identify in the film elements to suggest such a unification. According to Easthope a great split between popular culture and high culture occurred some time over the course of the 19th and twentieth centuries. The development of capitalist societies, and the 'weakening of distinctions rooted in birth' which accompanied the fall of the feudal system and aristocracies, meant that ruling elite should dominate the lower classes through ideology. Although this suggests that primarily the split was engineered to suit some purpose of the elite members of society, the process appears to have been a multi-faceted one. By 1830, Easthope suggests, popular culture came to, rather than dominate the 'working class', actually reflect the very values of that class. In this sense both popular and high cutlures define themselves through a rejection of the other.(Easthope pg 77). It is important to consider that the very condition of the great split owes to the polarity of the two discourses, in other words a refusal of the opposite culture. Therefore, one possible signifier of a disappearance in the split would be nothing other than a observable willingness of a cultural product within one discourse to embrace or even strive for the realm of the other. China Town does this but I will explain how in a moment. Easthope suggests that the split occurred on both sides of the atlantic, in most developed nations, and was increasingly developed by emerging mass media from the 1900s onwards. Those forms such as TV, fim, radio and newspapers, 'whose condition of existence was modern technology, particularly in visual reproduction', became largely incorporated with popular culture. It is probably right to
attribute capitalism and its byproduct, consumerism, and the rise of mass media and its technologies, as the catalysts for the split to have developed. Capitalism encourages profit and drives manufacturers to
gain as large a market possible. Producers of culture are no exception and are motivated by the same forces to make products as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. So it is right to assume that popular culture includes that which is; liked by many people, and imposed on people by commercial interests. This means that most culture produced for these new mass media mediums is considered popular culture, and in truth much of it is, if not simply because it is well liked but because its production is motivated by profit and the consequence that it is well liked.Chinatown, if one were to take Easthope's word for it, is popular culture simply because of its condition as a film, and perhaps by the synonymous rise between both the medium and the great split. Regardless of this, it represents popular culture on a number of levels. The tradition of noir films and novels is a popular cultural one. Chinatown is a noir film despite its peculiarities, and so exists as popular culture. However, it is these peculiarities, this striving for the realm of high culture, through irony and the subversion of these noir trends, as well as the complex narrative structure and other textual devices, which suggest such a disappearance of the great split. Other films can also be observed as striving for the realms of high culture in similar ways. I will get to this in a moment. I think that it is important that, if we consider the split as lying at the feet of the advance of mass media technologies, particularly visual mediums such as film, it must be on this terrain that a bridge is established between high and popular cultural discourses. It is ideal for purposes of the discussion of the unification of popular and high culture that we have a film that similarly to Chinatown has elements of both. It is also ideal that in 'Apocalypse Now', I have a film which is based directly on 'Heart of Darkness', a novel which Easthope demonstrates to be of a distinctly high cultural nature through its contrast to Tarzan, a text of similar themes but of popular fiction. Therefore I will be referring to this film repeatedly to draw attention to the high cultural elements that are similarly used in Chinatown.
To effectively recognise a cultural product as unifying a divide between cutlural produce it is necessary to identify the reasons for such distinctions, and how such distinctions are applied today. There are three theories explored by Easthope on the nature of this great split. The first theory is the Liberal, and is argued by F.R. and Q.D. Leavis. The Liberal theory suggests that distinction between popular culture and high culture products lies with the individual consumer. According to this theory artists make art, which is determined as popular or not by the response of the consumers. As Easthope points out, this theory does not excuse the commerical pressures on the consumer but suggests that popular culture is in contrast to high culture because of the relationship that the product has with its consumers. Popular culture provides wish fulfilment and is pleasurable whereas high culture is apllicable to real life. This distinction is not then a matter of the motivation of the producer to inflict ideology or not. Instead it is a matter of whether or not the individual can resist self deception and apply a modernist reading to a text, or as Easthope calls it "adhere sternly to the reality principle", or not, and "flaccidly submit to the pleasure principle"(Easthope pg 78). The two other theories of the great split are both Marxist. Both suggest a dominant ideology which is imposed on the working class in the from of and through the production of popular culture. The first school of thought is called Frankfurt. In contrast to the liberal school, the Frankfurt suugests that it is the mode of production which determines cultural responses. That capitalism no doubt played a role in the split but that the very nature of capitalism encourages culture to become transformed increasingly into commodity. Because consumption is the dominant trend. High culture on the other hand is merely a "transcendent alternative to this commodification", and is largely devoid of imposed ideology. Althusserian is the same as Frankfurt but insists on the autonomy of domiant ideology.Easthope's analysis and contrast of the popular culture novel 'Tarzan', and the high cultural novel 'Heart of Darkness' is very useful for observing the distinctions established by the great split between the two discourses. Easthope also attempts to identify how these distinctions developed and are applied by relating them to the three theories of the great split. The results of this study would in theory provide grounds on which to suggest a disappearance of the great split and a reunification of the two discourses. The ideologies of Tarzan and Heart of Darkness different to some extent, but they are also similar. Both can be seen as influenced by H. Rider Haggard's African novels and so deal with issues relating to a narrative figure of a white European gone native. Identity as defined by culture, education, sexuality, ethnicity, and morality are dealt with by both texts. However, Easthope highlights imperialism as the most identifiable of common ideologies present in both texts, despite the difference in their presentation. Imperialism is attacked and redeemed in both texts, begging the question, are we not as colonisers no better nor worse than those we colonise. This concept is dealt with differently by the two texts, in terms of culture and morality in HOD, and by ethnicity and sexuality in Tarzan. In HOD imperialism is condemed but equally as much justified, suggesting "Western Civilization is at base as barbarous as African, a viewpoint which disturbs imperialist assumptions to the precise degree that it justifies and redeems them",(Easthope pg 83). Apocalypse Now, in the context of Vietnam, takes an even more cynical approach, portraying the US form of imperialism as not only being barbarous but also dishonest. Heart of Darkness, like Apocalypse Now, does however offer a plurality of meanings and interpretations. Some of those which are ascertainable include; the journey of Marlow (and Willard in Apocalypse now) up the river as reflecting the path into the subconscious; The path/river/boat as a Huckleberry Finn-like symbol of a safe haven of ignorance and innocence from the world and it's oppressive values; Kurtz as the castrating father; and other similar interpretations. Marxist arguement would suggest that theideological 'polymorphousness' ,or complexity of meaning, of the novel and the film is aimed at obscuring the basic theme of imperialism. However, as Easthope points out, it would be impossible to get as much meanings from Tarzan. Therefore the plethura of meanings available in HOD, and even in its film adaptation Apocalypse Now, defy consideration within the Marxist theories of the great split, which would attempt to account for a single dominant ideology, that cannot in these cases be found. Furthermore, The apparent perception suggested by Althusserianism, of the dominant ideology from which the construction of a text is born is also missing. Differences in textuality or method, however, might explain the the abundance of ideologies as existing layered beneath one another.
Easthope correctly points out that as verbal reenactments, both Tarzan and Heat of Darkness show only "an arbitrary relation between the signifier and the signified", and are therefore mostly symbolic in their representation as opposed to iconic. However the simple narrative of Tarzan is constructed around a series of action and events. Tarzan's concentration on physical action, and visual melodrama as opposed to Heart of Darkness's on the verbal, means the signifiers are more closely related. Visual representation then withdraws from criticism and allides contradictions, allowing audiences an escape from the plot's parallels to reality and a space for intellectual contemplation. The result of this is that meaning is closed and becomes immediately attainable in Tarzan.(Easthope pg 92-93) The pleasure principle is fulfilled. Heart of Darkness on the other hand is slightly more complex. Representation is symbolic meaning there is only a distant resemblance between signifiers of meaning and the the signified meaning or ideology itself. The result of this is that Gratification is deferred by the narrative, allowing for an abundance of interpretations so that certainty is not reached easily "but only by testing alternatives through irony so that the certainty must be earned",(Easthope pg 91). One such form of textual difference is that of narrative, and specifically the psychology and motivation of the central characters who drive the narrative. The narrative of Heart of Darkness is psychologically complex, mysterious, and problematic. One reason for this is the questions that arise in regards to Kurtz's motivations for example, and what action will Marlow take when confronted with such a figure. There are also a number of parallels that emerge between Kurtz's alleged insanity, and the inner journey of the central character Marlowe which forms the narrative. Jeremy Hawthorn agrees, "Think of the subtle ways in which parallels are drawn between Kurtz and Marlow in the novel, so that doubts cast on Kurtz's veracity fall too on Marlow's narrative"(Easthope pg 86).In contrast, the narrative of Tarzan, as pointed out by Easthope, is simple and linear, and lacks psychological complexity, being driven by the sole enigma of when and how will the central character discover his true hereditary identity.The impression given by Easthope's final analysis is that the Marxist theories of the great split, being the Frankfurt and Althusserian, do not provide an adequate understanding of the great split or a framework for a reunification. Though they do account for the role of capitalism and consumerism in the mode of production of popular cultural products, they lack any explanation for the distinctions which have come to define both popular and high cultural discourses. He goes on to point out some fundamental flaws in these Marxist/dominant ideology theories. The first is that even if there was a dominant ideology, it would be impossible to identify what it actually is. Furthermore "empirical evidence does not confirm that people are dominated by it"(Easthope pg 79). Secondly, it seems much more likely that, as Easthope suggests, "it is the dull compulsion of economic necessity rather than ideology" from which classes are stabilized and people controlled,(Easthope pg 79). Easthope argues quite convincingly that there is little difference between the ideological content of high culture and popular culture, and that it isn't so much ideology as textuality that differentiates, for example, Heart of Darkness and Tarzan. So in consideration of the Liberal theory of the great split, a disappearance of the split would offer both wish fullfilment, but at the same time be applicable to real life. It would exist as a popular cultural medium, or be of a popular cultural genre, but
would strive for the realm of the high. It would promise pleasure but demand that its ultimate gratification of meaning and conclusion, if any, be earned by its audience by process of intellectual contemplation. It would not matter so much what the ideology or ideologies available to the audience are but how they are communicated. For example, are textualities such as narrative used in a way that is more like those of popular culture, or more like those of high culture.
Chinatown is popular culture as I have previously mentioned. This is the case not only by its condition as a film but because it falls into the vast category of crime fiction.. Crime fiction is a popular genre and encompasses all subgenres of thriller, mystery, detective fiction, and the styles or traditions of hard-boiled and film noir. these styles or sub genres are all connected by a crime, or '"the appearance of a crime"(Breen, Sally, Pop Fiction & Mass Culture, 3/3/2009). Chinatown contains numerous elements that are conducive to noir. As I have mentioned it contains these traditions but at the same time subverts them.Detection and the four different methods by which it is conducted are features of noir and crime fiction in general. The four methods are police, Private eye, amateur, and a lack of detection. Chinatown contains all these in various guises. Gittes the central protagonist is a private eye and he acts accordingly, treading the fine line between interfering and assisting in the course of justice. But he is also an amateur, and this becomes more apparent to the audience as he undermines himself at every opportunity. The police are present at all times and come in and out of Jake Gittes's investigation, sometimes to apparently assist in his investigation, but largely they are an obstacle to it. At the film's conclusion the audience finds that the police are in fact entirely corrupt and that the course of justice we are led to believe is occurring is nothing but an illusion. This leads us to the final method, which is, in reality, a complete lack of investigation or justice.Crime fiction and noir are genres" with an origin in the development of urban society". Chinatown not only adopts the city as the geographic setting but also features the development of that city as the corrupting influence and motivation of the criminals. The use of offices as setting for a number of scenes is also reminiscent of noir film. For example, Chinatown opens with a scene in which Gittes interrogates potential and existing clients which is very similar to the opening scene of 'The Maltese Falcon' in which Sam Spade becomes familiar with that film's Femme Fatale. The Femme Fatale is a concept particular to the noir film tradition. Like in The Maltese Falcon and other noir ppredecessors, this refers to a female character who is both seductive and destructive to our central protagonist. The femme fatale in Chinatown is Evelyn Mullray, a character who, like others before her, appears mysterious, untrustworthy, manipulative, sensual, desperate and damaged. Our perception of her is transformed by the revelations of her assault, and her motherhood, and by the film's conclusion, and she becomes loving, dutiful, honest, and victimised.
One particular element of the narrative of Chinatown which is immitative of noir crime fiction, but is also subverted, is the central character of Jake Gittes in the role of the hard-boiled detective. The hard-boiled role, as defined by Chandler, is quick-witted, frankly honest, a combination of everyman and loner, is enigmatic, masculine, and appears to always be a few steps ahead of the reader. Gittes fullfills all of these qualities, or at least appears to. Those that he does possess actually work to undermine him, and lead to his ultimate failure. For example, Gittes is quick-witted and demonstrates this on numerous occasions, especially when dealing with police. However it is on these occassions that we can see Gittes' emotions getting the better of him, and therefore in which he loses his objectivity. Gittes also often appears to be one step ahead of the viewer, and he does achieve some surprisingly positive results in his investigation. However, in reality he is always a step behind the collective forces which are acting against him. Gittes is enigmatic, but it is this vanity, and want to make appearances while not losing face, that keep him in the dark and unable to see. His masculinity and pessimistic judement are also hard-boiled type traits which conspire against him. His lack of trust and his pessimism keep him from every truly
trusting in Evelyn, even when she is obviously on the verge of confiding in him. Because Gittes is hesitant to trust, and cynical, we too judge the characters in the same way because we trust his judgement. His masculinity is a something to that Gittes attempts to salvage at every oppportunity. This is because his masculinity is compromised on several occasions. The most significant occasion is when he has his nose cut, and the viewer is reminded by this constantly because Gittes is forced to wear its mark. We can see that Gittes character traits are largely satirical of noir, and rather than give him strength, actually undermine his investigation, and our own. Therefore in this subversion of the genre the lead character is a distraction to the clues which are always present.Stylisation is a features which sets the narrative style of noir apart from other fiction. There is a lack of internal reflection or dialogue, which is replaced instead by the use of visual motifs, a focus on character dialogue and body language, the entry and exits of characters, to give an impression of character's nature. There is a focus on detail but there is no access granted to the thoughts and feeling of characters below the surface. There is also an engagement with the senses. These are all iconic modes of representation, which are identified by Easthope as typically belonging to the realm of popular culture. It is the narrative elements of psychology and motivation within Chinatown however, and irony which is easily observable in the subversion of the noir tradition, that reflect the textuality of Heart of Darkness and high culture discourse. Ross Macleay suggests that the visual motifs in Chinatown relate to four recurring image systems. These image systems act to manipulate the narrative to allow for multiple interpretations of meaning in the absence of refection. According to Macleay these are seeing and not seeing, systemic
corruption, water and drought, and sexual love vs cruelty. Though there are hints at each of these there are also others. Mirrors and reflections are one of these. What this particular one does is create a sense of observing things not directly but through a secondary source, an unreliable copy or enactment of actual events. This reflects the mental state of Gittes as he is observing things that we know he has seen before. Everything is reminiscent of events we know to have occurred in Chinatown. However Gittes repeatsd the same mistakes, and because we know this we know that everything he tries to save is doomed. Ross Macleay agres with this. "As Jake investigates and observes, each image of the present conceals or reveals events of the past", (Macleay, Double Chinatown, Rouge, 2007). The conclusion, which gives licence to numerous interpretation is undeniably tragic and cynical. Jake;s repeating of the line "as little as possible", not only reflects on the fatalistic interpretation the film that good intentions, and any action, against unconquerable evil is futile. The same line suggests a genuine reflection of Gittes on his failings, and hints at the possiblity of a new sense of deterination. He might not necessarily give up all attempts at achieving justice, he may in fact recognise that he is still doing as little as possible, and keep making the same mistakes until he gets it right.
When applied to a modernist reading, Chinatown can be seen as providing all the necessary signals of its ultimate conclusion within the narrative. The failure of justice and the triumph of evil is inevitable. It is only the narrative provided by Gittes stylised in the tradition of noir, that allows us to decieve ourselves to this fact. Chinatown gives the viewer the necessary tools to resist self-deception but at the same time delays their revelation and the ultimate revelation of meaning. Therefore Chinatown can be seen as possessing elements of high culture and popular culture and can be considered, at least in terms of the liberal theory of the great spit, as representing a disappearance of the split.
Bibliography
Articles
- High Culture/Populr Culture: Heart of Darkness and Tarzan of the Apes, Antony Easthope, Literary Inot Cultural Studies, 1991
- High Culture and/versus Popular Culture, University of Salzburg, 22-24 November, 2007, 18th British Cultural Studies
Internet
- Double Chinatown, Rouge, Ross Macleay, 2007
http://www.rouge.com.au/11/chinatown.html
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)