Discussion
The academy winning movie, The Aviator, created and directed by award-winning director Martin Scorsese and starring an award-winning actor and Hollywood heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio, tells the real-life experiences of Howard Hughes, one of the country’s most controversially interesting billionaires and his rise to world wide fame. The film characteristically opens on a scene set in 1914, where a young, nine-year-old Hughes is being bathed by his mother who secretly insinuates that he has a strange illness telling him, “you are not safe” (The Aviator). Fast forward to 1927 as the now 22-year-old Hughes is directing the film Hell’s Angels, constantly calling on perfection from both himself and his cast and crew members. Two years after the movie is complete, Howard insists on re-shooting it, as he is convinced that the sound-mixing is not perfect enough, costing him an extraordinarily large amount of money and nearly driving him bankrupt. Luckily, the movie is a huge hit and intimately dictates the course of perfection that Howard would always take throughout his life. Throughout the film, he is romantically involved with then Hollywood actresses Katharine Hepburn (played by Cate Blanchett) as well as Ava Gardner (played by Kate Beckinsale) from whom he demands perfection as well as protection from the prying eyes of the outside world.
After some time, Hughes develops a liking for commercial aviation fueling his interest in buying stock of the Transcontinental & Western Air (TWA) Company. He is obsessed with becoming the “fastest man on earth” constantly crashing the company’s planes and almost ending his own life (The Aviator). As all stories, villains are always out to thwart the progress of any rising star and in this case, they are played by Pan-American board of director Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) and Senator Owen Brewster (Alan Alda). They are concerned over Hughes’s rising popularity and are afraid that he might just beat them in the production and design of passenger avionics. They decide to out Hughes’s obsessive compulsive disorders as a form “disquieting rumors” in a bid to dethrone him and make him unpopular with the press and the public (The Aviator). Howard is faced with numerous troubles all of which are caused from by the two villains need to destroy him. He reaches rock-bottom when he cannot come outside, constantly fearing that he might get infected from the numerous germs that he feels are just waiting to get him. To the astonishment of many, he triumphs over a senate hearing set by the two villains colluding to take TWA away from him and seems to come to terms with his disorder. However, as the film comes to a close, Howard is taken aback when he sees two suit clad hotel attendants coming towards him: “it’s the way of the future…the way of the future” he keeps repeating (The Aviator).
This historical drama re-tells the story of a character with great emphasis to the location and plot in regards to his struggles and denials of the presence of his disorder. Whatever is depicted in the film is not too farfetched as to make it impossible in the real world. The audience can relate with the main character’s fears of rejection as well as his need to make it in a cutthroat world. It revolves around the thematic changes that can take place with the occurrence of a psychological disorder and how most people, even without understanding what is going, victimize those who are affected, ostracizing them and making them feel less at ease with themselves and with others around them. With sad and somber tone, the film depicts the typical character of a person suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder as well as the misunderstanding that many have of the disorder and its personal implications. It is especially sad when Hughes, after having an accident and nearly loosing everything he has, takes off all his clothes and for months locks himself in his room, urinating on milk bottles that now litter the room. Like many other true-life, autobiographical dramas, it primarily presents the main character’s point of view, trying to make the audience understand his actions and any misconceptions that may have been held (Corrigan, 2009).
It is my view that Scorsese meant the film to be a general audience movie, but with special interest in shedding light on the plight of those with psychological disorders, especially in the hands of those who would wish them harm just because they do not understand what they are going through. It is a clear depiction of good triumphing against evil, giving courage and determination to the audience and encouraging them to fight against all odds (Corrigan, 2009). As the mood changes from happy and somewhat funny during Hughes’s youngster years to disturbing and melancholic during his hospitalization and disorder manifestation and eventually triumphant and jubilant when he wins the case against the Senate, so does the audience’s emotions as well as their mind set. In my opinion, Scorsese depiction of Howard’s most trying moments as being his triumphant is relative to the ever prevalent theory of not giving up, how ever hard the going gets.
I liked the movie because of its capability to clearly depict the characters, especially the primary character, together with their emotions, their choices and the consequences of these choices. I agree with the alleged main theme of the movie that people generally pass judgement over others for their personality disorders, without taking the time to understand the source and effects of these disorders. Theme identification here involves the clarification of the director’s vision towards the creation of the movie as well as a speculation of its intended audience (Boggs and Petrie, 2008, p. 32). A subjective analysis of the characters in the movie is essential for its analysis (Boggs and Petrie, 2008, p. 73). Leonardo does a good job of playing the eccentric billionaire, seemingly going into scrubbing sprees out of his accord without even being in character. With his uncanny likeness to the real Howard Hughes, he is a convincing actor whose skills come off as authentic and without pretence, giving the audience a chance “to respond sensitively to the simultaneous and continuous interplay of image, sound, and movement on the screen” (Boggs & Petrie, 2008, pg 5). However, it is my feeling that the depiction of Hughes as a larger-than-life individual trying to live like a god above everyone else somewhat alienates the audience such that it takes a longer time for them to emotionally and empathetically feel the effects of his fall from grace and his torment from the movie’s villains. It is my feeling that this change could help show that people with OCD are not all arrogant individuals and can co-exist with others, though with some degree of difficulty. It is one movie that I strongly feel my classmates would benefit from as, apart from being entertaining and funny, it is informative and mind racking: one that can easily be watched twice before an analysis is carried out (Boggs & Petrie, 2008, pg 6).
Approaches to Film
On seeing a film for the first time, every member of the audience makes a value judgement analysis of the film, even though in most cases it is based on the emotional response that the piece elicits. A humanistic approach to film analysis seeks to find out what the film can tell about the human conditions under certain situations of religion, politics socio-economy or history. It involves looking at the various symbols used in the film as well the ideas they are used to convey. Additionally, it involves asking such questions as: who is the artist responsible for the ideas of the film and how does it compare with others in the same genre? The humanist thus tries to understand the age-old question “Who are we as human beings and what is life all about?” (Bywater, 1999). in this light, the humanist works under the assumptions that the film “deserves a backward glance, some extra thought, some writing about, in order for us to understand the experience of film-going more thoroughly” (Bywater, 1999). Thus, just like in any other kind of art, the humanist believes that films have the potential for stimulating the human mind in a manner that will give inspiration to the audience while still passing on the message the author wishes to pass (Boggs & Petrie, 2008). It thus “attempts to make sense of an individual’s emotional and intellectual experiences…drawing conclusions about the value of that experience, and then communicating that value to others” (Bywater, 1999).
American Film Institute’s number one film of all time, Citizen Kane, has the same likeness in theme and style as Scorsese’s Aviator. Directed by Orson Welles, the film tells the story and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, a character borne out of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (played by Orson himself) and his idealistic social service as well as his quest for perfection and power. The film opens with the enormously wealthy media proprietor being abandoned by his loved ones and living in seclusion at his vast palatial residence, having put up a “No Trespassing” sign on his gate. Upon his death, news reporter Jerry Thompson (played by William Alland) tries to uncover the truth about Hearst’s private life, interviewing his past acquaintances and lovers who intermittently, take him up on flashbacks and reveries. In one of these flashbacks, Kane is presented as a poor child, with his luck changing when the “world’s third largest goldmine” is discovered on his parent’s property. Kane zealously takes control of his mother’s property and goes ahead to buy the New York Inquirer, hiring the best reporters and journalists from other rival newspaper agencies. He seeks to manipulate public opinion by marrying the President’s niece and publishing falsified information about himself on the newspaper.
Kane is presented as someone who, though tries to be happy and honest, is unsatisfied with his life and always seeks perfection and more power. He manages to push everyone he loves away from him saying “You never gave me anything in your whole life!” (Citizen Kane). In the end, as his belongings are catalogued, there is nothing of real worth that is left of the great man. Only his dying words “Rosebud” which the acclaimed journalist cannot crack. He theorizes that it must have been something the billionaire wanted and could get or something he once had but lost. In the end, it revealed to be the name of a sled that the young Kane had during his times of transition from poverty to riches- an allusion to the only time that he had really been happy. Ironically, the sled is mistakenly destroyed by his departing staff, as they see it as junk, and the film closes as it begun, with a shot of the “No Trespassing” sign posted on the magnate’s gate.
As a humanistic film analyst, one is forced to look at the actions of Kane from the most basic aspects of human life- love, death, aggression, fear, sorrow and happiness. Understanding of these aspects of human life leads to a greater understanding of why the character behaves the way he does and the variety of human emotions displayed throughout the film. As is with Scorsese’s Aviator, Citizen Kane, calls on the audience to evaluate how they treat others and the conditions that might make people behave in a particular manner. They help to answer the most basic of humankind questions- Who am i? What will give the most meaning to my life? Why do I behave the way I do and why am I different from others?
References
Boggs, J., & Petrie, D. (2008). The Art of Watching Films (Ashford Custom 7th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Bywater, Sobchack (1999). “The Humanist Approach: Traditional Aesthetic Responses to the Movies.” Introduction to Film Criticism. New York: Longman.
Citizen Kane. Directed and Produced by Orson Welles, Perf. Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, Dorothy Comingore and Everett Sloane. Mercury Theatre. 1941.
Corrigan, T (2009). A Short Guide to Writing about Film. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
The Aviator. Prod. Michael Mann, Dir. Martin Scorsese, Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett, Alan Alda, Alec Baldwin and Kate Beckinsale. DVD. Warner Bros. Pictures. 2004.