WilliamsT
.pdfrole. In Chapter I, Part One of this thesis I examined the construction of cityspace through the use of the Schüfftan Process; this present case study, which deals with Schüfftan’s end of career films, will address the construction of the cityspace in terms of his lighting and camera movement. In the forty years separating these two periods there is a significant shift in terms of the representation of cityspace, and its relation to the films’ central protagonists, and as such this trilogy of films merits special investigation.
In relation to the cultural concept of the ‘city’, Shiel (2001: 1) has noted that, ‘the cinema has long had a striking and distinctive ability to capture and express the spatial complexity, diversity, and social dynamism of the city through mise-en-scène, location filming, lighting, cinematography, and editing’. This case study sets out to examine this cinematic representation of the cityspace through three films, which were all products of industrial circumstance for their cinematographer, following his admittance into the ASC. Schüfftan’s final acceptance into the local New York branch of the ASC allowed him to be part of this collection of films, which all have in common their filming location of New York City, a location described by Bruno as, ‘intrinsically filmic’, and, ‘Photogenic by way of nature and architecture.’ (1997: 46) Furthermore, the nature of shooting a film in New York, rather than the dominant filming locale of Los Angeles, would suggest that the film would make a virtue of its New York setting. As I shall argue, all three films do this, creating a realism effect which allows Schüfftan to bring out the full nature of the city as both welcoming and dystopian.
Before turning to this trilogy of films, however, it is worth recalling that a first return to the representation of the city, for Schüfftan, and a possible shift in representation, can be found in
La Tête contre les murs, Georges Franju’s film of 1958, filmed not long before Schüfftan’s return to American filmmaking with Something Wild. As we saw, François escapes the
281
confines of the asylum (addressed more fully in the preceding chapter), and flees to Paris, at night. However, Franju and Schüfftan create a dystopian representation of the City of Light, characterized through garish neon lighting, gambling houses hidden from polite society, and police lurking in the dark recesses of the city. I will identify similar dystopian tendencies in the films which form the focus of this chapter, however, as we shall see, they also display a more well-rounded, multi-faceted view of the city.
I mentioned, in the previous chapter, one of Schüfftan’s earlier films, The Bloody Brood
(Julian Roffman, 1959). This film also displays a return to representations of the city, and is a first reintroduction for Schüfftan back to North American filmmaking (it was made by the Canadian production company Meridian Film in Toronto). The action of the film takes place entirely within the confines of a city which throughout, is not defined. In opposition to
Schüfftan’s cinécities of the 1960s which make a virtue of their location, in The Bloody Brood we can only understand the space of the city through an understanding of where it is not – it is not Los Angeles, and it is not Brooklyn (Ellie is known as Brook, because she is from Brooklyn, suggesting that the setting of the film is elsewhere). The cityspace represented is equally deceptive, being constructed entirely on set, and almost entirely of interiors. Absent are any iconic structures of the city which shape our perception of the space (as is present in the 1960s films). Instead, Schüfftan and Roffman create a non-space of the city, preventing the spectator from creating a mental structure of the city, enforcing the dystopian nature of the spaces these characters occupy, and their exclusion from acceptable society. Nonetheless, this representation shares some traits with the key city trilogy of films of the 1960s; however, by making virtue of their New York location, those later films create a more complex construction of the cityspace.
282
Constructing Cityspace: Theories of Reading
Much of the analysis that follows will address the construction of the city in spatial terms.
The cinematographer’s task (particularly in black and white photography) is to create the impression of a three dimensional space, albeit displayed on a two-dimensional image. As with painters such as Rembrandt (Elsaesser, 2000: 433), who as we know influenced the lighting techniques of Schüfftan, an impression of space is created through a careful use of light. Inappropriate or improper light effects can result in a flatness of the image, whereas an understanding of light and lens focuses results in depth and roundness of image.
An instructive voice by which we may talk about the city in spatial terms is provided by Edward Soja in Thirdspace (1996). Soja defines the theoretical interpretations of the cityspace as a trialectics of space, three distinct spatial models which shall inform this analysis of the cityspace in Something Wild, The Hustler and Trois chambres à Manhattan
(Soja, 2000: 10). Soja explains the first of these approaches as follows:
From what I described as a Firstspace perspective […], cityspace can be studied as a set of materialized ‘spatial practices’ that work together to produce and reproduce the concrete forms and specific patternings of urbanism as a way of life. Here cityspace is physically and empirically perceived as form and process, as measurable and mappable configurations and practices of urban life. (Ibid.)
A Firstspace perspective is therefore an attempt to define the ‘reality’ of the city, to accurately map its layout and the concrete formations of its structure. For the purpose of my analysis I interpret Firstspace as an attempt to represent the ‘reality’ of the city through location shooting, and the role this space plays as a concrete presence and backdrop to characters’ lives. Firstspace is present on each of the three films through the use of extensive location shooting, and through attempts by Schüfftan’s camera to display the objective nature
283
of this space. A straightforward example of Firstspace would be an establishing shot, such as that which occurs in Trois chambres à Manhattan, which reveals that our protagonist François has left his native Paris and is now located in New York. The Manhattan skyline is revealed to the spectator, and such concrete structures are interpreted as a location of the character’s actions (see Figure 69).
Figure 69: We’re not in Paris anymore: An establishing shot of the New York skyline (an example of Firstspace).
In terms of Soja’s concept of Secondspace, the city becomes a site which bears the projected
fears and anxieties of the protagonists:
From a Secondspace perspective, cityspace becomes more of a mental or ideational field, conceptualized in imagery, reflexive thought, and symbolic representation, a conceived space of the imagination, or what I […] describe as the urban imaginary. (2000: 11)
284
In each of the three films Secondspace, the urban imaginary, is characterized as a perception of the city as dangerous, as a realization of the characters’ fears of their displacement from society.56 In this sense the city becomes a dystopian space, embodying anxieties of identity and individualism, and forcing characters into dangerous situations in the dark underbelly of the city, hidden from civilized society. For example, in Something Wild, the dramatic rape of Mary Ann which occurs at the beginning of the film is conducted by a faceless man, within the confines of a city park. Despite being an act of human sexual violence, enacted in a location displaced from the city proper (the park), our protagonist’s perceptions of the city alter dramatically after the event. The city becomes Mary Ann’s urban imaginary, and she feels threatened by it wherever she turns. The image of the city is characterized by darkness and rain, a reflection of Mary Ann’s trauma. It is as if this act were committed by the city itself, not the man who truly enacted the crime (see Figure 70).
56Secondspace, the urban imaginary, is not always necessarily dystopian. In other texts it can be understood, for example, in terms of memory: of London and fog, or of Paris as the city of love.
285
Figure 70: A dystopian view of the city in Something Wild (an example of Secondspace).
Thirdspace is Soja’s final spatial perspective:
Everything comes together in Thirdspace: subjectivity and objectivity, the abstract and the concrete, the real and the imagined, the knowable and the unimaginable, the repetitive and the differential, structure and agency, mind and body, consciousness and the unconscious, the disciplined and the transdisciplinary, everyday life and unending history. (1996: 57)
Thirdspace is therefore the combination of both First and Secondspace, embracing their dialectic oppositions for the production of a greater understanding of the cityspace. In terms of this analysis, it is understood as the outcome of the use of both First and Secondspaces, in terms of the tensions which arise between the reality of the concrete city and the dystopian impressions of the city. This can be understood in terms of the outcome of each film. In the
286
conclusion of each film the characters have come to gain new understanding of their roles within society and in the city. This, as we shall see in the conclusion to this case study, can be seen as the outcome of the mediation between the First and Second-spatial perspectives throughout the three narratives.
In what follows, I shall seek to demonstrate how these three spatial perspectives operate in
Schüfftan’s three New York films. The case study has been divided into three sections. The first of these sections introduces each of the films addressed, noting how Schüfftan came to work upon each film because of the unique traits he offered the directors, and thanks to his newly found ability to work in the United States. This section then addresses the role of New York City in location filmmaking during the 1960s. This is followed in the second section by a discussion of the stylistic approaches adopted by each director, for each director has discussed their approaches to filmmaking in terms of very similar language – notably objectivity/subjectivity, reality/poeticism – which inform the First and Secondspace analyses of each of the three films. The final section takes a closer look at the films, demonstrating how each constructs the cityspace in terms of both First and Secondspace perspectives. The conclusion seeks to demonstrate, by addressing the conclusion to each film, how a Thirdspace has been realized. This analysis is structured by addressing the major spaces which are present, urban interiors, urban exteriors, and non-places, demonstrating how the three films vary and comply in their representations of these shared spaces.
The Films
Something Wild (Jack Garfein, 1961)
287
Having tried and failed to build a successful career in Hollywood during the 1940s, thanks to the protectionism of the ASC (despite Schüfftan’s American citizenship, granted in 1947),
Schüfftan had returned to work in Europe during the 1950s, and was achieving a certain degree of success from projects with Julien Duvivier, Alexandre Astruc and Georges Franju.
However, Schüfftan was ‘saved’ for the American film industry by the director Jack Garfein, who approached Schüfftan to photograph Something Wild (1961), a film which tells the story of the complex relationship between a young woman who has been raped, and her ‘rescuer’.
The film is a brutal tale in which Mary Ann, a young college student played by Garfein’s wife Carroll Baker, is raped one evening on her walk home through New York. Following the attack, Mary Ann attempts to continue her life as normal. However, she has become distant and uncomfortable around people, struggling to communicate with her family. She runs away from her home and her college life, instead renting a boarding-house room and finding a job in a cheap convenience store. This change of scene does not improve Mary
Ann’s life, as she is bullied at work for being distant towards her colleagues, and she struggles at home with the flirtatious lifestyle of her fellow boarder, Shirley (Jean Stapleton).
Consumed by despair with her life, Mary Ann heads to the Manhattan Bridge where she attempts to take her own life. However, before she can jump she is pulled back and saved by Mike (Ralph Meeker). Mike takes Mary Ann back to his flat near the bridge and, consoled by the comfort of strangers, she agrees to stay with him until she has recovered. However, relations between the two do not remain so congenial. Mike returns home drunk one night and tries to embrace the vulnerable Mary Ann. Still disturbed by her horrific experience Mary Ann fights off Mike, kicking him in the face, causing him to pass out. Mary Ann tries to escape but finds herself locked in the apartment. When Mike comes to consciousness the next morning he finds he has lost the sight of one eye, which he believes was the result of his
288
drunken evening in the bar, rather than his tussle with Mary Ann. Mary Ann is desperate to leave Mike, be he won’t free her from his apartment, keeping her locked inside throughout the days when he goes to work. He has become dependent upon her, and needs her to be dependent on him.
Throughout Mary Ann’s imposed tenure in Mike’s apartment he continues to try and seduce her. This leads to an argument in which Mary Ann finally reveals to Mike that it was she who caused the damage to his eye. Mike storms out of the apartment, leaving the door open and thus giving Mary Ann the opportunity she needs to escape. Having freed herself of
Mike’s claustrophobic love, Mary Ann finally begins to find contentment with herself as she roams the city, rediscovering the wonder of life. It is this realization of her own sense of self which leads her back to Mike’s apartment, where they finally fulfil their complex love. The conclusion of the film is set a few months after these events, when Mary Ann’s mother receives a letter from her absent daughter, explaining where she now lives. The mother rushes to the apartment where she finds Mary Ann and Mike, who are now married and expecting a baby. In the final lines of the film the distraught mother asks, ‘What’s happened?’ Mary Ann replies, ‘What’s happened has happened, Mother,’ before mother and daughter finally reach acceptance and embrace each other.
Schüfftan was recommended for the project by the stills photographer Sam Shaw who, like Schüfftan, also specialised in black and white photography. Shaw was best known for his work with film stars, particularly in the form of studio publicity (a task which he also undertook for Something Wild). In particular, he will forever be remembered as the man who photographed Marilyn Monroe stood over a subway grate, her skirt blown up above her waist. Schüfftan, despite his age (73), responded enthusiastically to the script and to what he described as a ‘modern’ story, and agreed to participate on the film (Johnson, 1963: 41). In
289
essence, this contract brought about the end of Schüfftan’s blacklisting from working as a cinematographer in the American film industry, as he was permitted membership by the Local 644 East Coast branch of the union, allowing him to act as cinematographer in the New York area, where Something Wild was due to shoot. Schüfftan’s presence in the city for filming in fact made The New York Times. The writer (Archer, 1960a) describes Schüfftan as
‘one of Europe’s top “mood” camera men’, and notes that, ‘This will be the first accredited
American photographic assignment for Mr. Shuftan, whose list of credits constitutes a miniature history of European film trends, embracing German expressionism, early precursors of Italian neo-realism, pre-war French symbolic dramas and, most recently, “new wave” experiments.’ In his emphasis upon Schüfftan’s successful European career, the author fails to note Schüfftan’s long and frustrating years of work in America, which have been well documented in this thesis. Nevertheless, Schüfftan’s return, or arrival, was marked by this newspaper.
The Hustler (Robert Rossen, 1961)
Despite being poorly received by American critics, Something Wild did reintroduce Schüfftan to the industry that had rejected him during the 1940s, marking the first in a series of films for Schüfftan which were all set and filmed in New York, the area where he was permitted to work. For the next of these films Schüfftan was afforded an introduction by Garfein to the director Robert Rossen, who was searching for an accomplished black and white cinematographer to shoot his next picture. A talented cinematographer was necessary to compensate for Rossen, who had little eye or care for the image, concerning himself instead with narrative, a result of his long experience as a scriptwriter (Cohen, 1965: 5). Garfein recommended Schüfftan to Rossen, for what would become the cinematographer’s most
290