Following a series of lectures on art context we were set the task of choosing a piece of art and writing an essay on it's context. At first I struggled with the idea of this as I did not really understand the way the questions had been written. As I have said before, I do not really understand the language of art. I am much more of a practical person and speak in plain English (something which I have always had to do throughout my working life so as to ensure that everyone listening understands exactly what I am saying). I don't mind admitting that this does tend to hold me back a little when the artistic side of the course is being discussed. After raising these concerns with Steve I was assured that I was capable of completing the essay and we discussed a few ideas and Steve gave me a few examples (in plain English) as a starting point.
At first I wasn't overly confident about completing the essay in the way required but I had a stab at it anyway.
I chose to focus on a film, as this fits in with the media pathway and the film I chose was Che part one.
The final essay is below.
An essay on context.
The definition of the word context according to the
dictionary is:
noun
- the
circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and
in terms of which it can be fully understood eg. the proposals need to
be considered in the context of new European directives.
- the
parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a
word or passage and clarify its meaning eg. skilled readers use context
to construct meaning from words as they are read.
I suppose it is in a way a measure of how the
individual parts put together create the authenticity of the whole. For example
if you were to put a formula 1 Mercedes engine into a Victorian steam engine,
it would no longer be authentic and therefore out of context. However, if this
was the direct intention then it would be well within its context. Context is
therefore relative to the whole and depends entirely on the intention to
determine whether the parts are or are not within context
Exploring the context of film.
For the
purposes of this exercise I am focusing on part 1 of the 2008 biopic Che which, directed
by Steven Soderbergh, retraces the life of the iconic Cuban revolutionary. Part
1 begins on November 26, 1956,and focuses on the early rise of Ernesto "Che" Guevara (played by
Benicio Del Toro) from politically minded Argentine doctor sharing Fidel
Castro’s (played by Demian Bichir) vision of
overthrowing corrupt dictator Fulgencio Batista. In Havana 1964, Che Guevara is
interviewed by Lisa Howard (Played by Julia Ormond) who asks him if reform
throughout Latin America might not blunt the "message of the Cuban
Revolution". In 1955, at a gathering in Mexico City, Guevara first meets
Fidel Castro). He listens to Castro's plans and signs on as a member of the
July 26th Movement. There is a return to 1964 for Guevara's address before the
United Nations General Assembly, where he makes an impassioned speech against
American imperialism, and defends the executions his regime has committed,
declaring "this is a battle to the death." March 1957, Guevara deals
with debilitating bouts of asthma as his group of revolutionaries meet up with
Castro's group. Together, they attack an army barracks in the Sierra Maestra on
May 28, 1957. On October 15, 1958, the guerrillas approach the town of Las
Villas. The Battle of Santa Clara is depicted with Guevara demonstrating his
tactical skill as the guerrillas engage in street-to-street fighting and derail
a train carrying Cuban soldiers and armaments. Near the film's end, they are
victorious. With the Cuban Revolution now over, Guevara heads to Havana,
remarking “we won the war, the revolution starts now”.
The film aims to
tell the story of the man rather than the legend and in Soderbergh’s own words
‘ To break through the barrier of the legend. The aim is not to glorify him but
to tell the story of the REAL Che Guevara. The main focus (and at the same time
challenge) being to make it authentic.’
So how was this
achieved?
Research
An exhaustive
amount of research went into the making of the film from experts, director and
actors alike all spending years in Cuba talking to friends, families, surviving
guerrillas and even Fidel Castro himself. Countless hours were spent at the
home of Guevara’s widow reading his books and diaries just to get under the
skin of Guevara and to find out just what made him tick and more importantly to
get beyond the myth. Even still researchers felt that they had not got to the
reality of the man and to do so they had to go back to his roots to discover
Ernesto Guevara rather than ‘Che’ and so they took their research back to
Argentina in the search for authenticity and to separate the man from the myth.
Also staying within that research meant that the scenarios within the film
could not be disputed in any way.
Casting
In a film such as this, casting is an important source of authenticity
or context, after all it would be no good casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as the
sugar plum fairy (unless for comedy value). Casting Benicio Del Toro in the title role was the
first step to finding this authenticity, Puerto Rican Benicio is from the same
part of the world, speaks the lanquage with a similar accent and more to the
point had the discipline and ethics to immerse himself in the world of Guevara,
his life and his literature to become a personification of the man he was to
play. As he said himself ‘The biggest downside to playing Che is the fact that
everyone knows him, you are put under a magnifying glass’ in other words it HAS
to be believable. The same concept was used when casting all the people who
were to play REAL people from the story.
Locations
The location shoots
have to be believable and to that end locations in both Puerto Rico and Mexico
were used as both have similar landscapes,vegetation buildings etc. to rural
Cuba
Language
Soderbergh made the
decision to shoot the film in Spanish with English subtitles to add an extra
dimension of authenticity even the cutaway to the reconstructed interviews shot
during Castro’s visit to the US. were
done in Spanish with a US translation voice over Just as they would have been
at the time. In actual fact the US refused funding for the film because of
Soderbergh’s insistence on shooting the film in Spanish so as to preserve it’s
authenticity.
Authentic
footage/camera shots
The use of both
authentic and recreated newsreel footage along with recreations of Television
interviews and Castro’s appearance at the UN General assembly in 1964 (shot in
actual location just before it was renovated). Shooting these scenes in black
and white adds an element of authenticity.
The use of soft lighting and 60’s style camera shots when shooting the
family scenes early on in the film again adds that dimension of real time
authenticity.
Costume and
make-up
Due to the time
sensitivity of the film the use of authentic clothing both civilian and
military was used to depict the time in which the film was set. The actors were
also portraying REAL people an as such had to look as though they were those
people.
Set design/props
As with the
costume, the set and props had to be authentic to the time. The weaponry,
buildings, vehicles, furniture, all had to portray authenticity and be from the
time in which the film was set. Probably the luckiest break in this area was
being able to shoot in the UN building pre renovation as mentioned before.
Music
Music is often used
to add drama and feeling to a film. To provoke a reaction or emotion. The one
thing I found with this film was the LACK of music had the same effect. There
was music and that music was authentic and very Hispanic in its composition
(much as it’s composer Alberto Iglesias) which again added that dimension of
reality and authenticity. But rather than the usual Hollywood overkill the
music was used subtly and very tastefully and rather than its absence
detracting from the drama of the scene it allowed the script/screenplay to add
the drama in its place. In Iglesias’ own words ‘music is a weapon which can
change the significance and it was very difficult to ensure the music for Che
did not portray him as a hero, as the intention of the film was not to hail Che
as an indisputable hero but to show him as a human with all these
contradictions,’
By utilising all
the above elements and probably many that I have missed you see a film that is
not over dramatised as many Hollywood releases are but one that could easily be
mistaken for a documentary, in fact if you were to put it on BBC 2 with a
heavily English voice over it probably could be. It oozes authenticity which
was the exact intention of the director. Also by deliberately leaving out all
the extra bits such as the legend, Che’s private life, His early life etc. You
actually get more of a feel for the type of man he was through the depictions
of his interactions with the Cuban people, the people around him, his followers
and those who fought with him. The film does precisely what it set out to or
more to the point NOT to do.
The film was
Researched, written and filmed between 2004 and 2008. During which time most of
the world was in the ‘Great recession.’ The UK and US were at war in the middle
east, The social networking site ‘Facebook’ was launched. The Indian Ocean
earthquake and resulting Tsunami caused nearly a quarter of a million deaths,
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand were the hardest hit. Hurricane
Katrina devastated New Orleans killing almost 2000 people and flooding over 80%
of the city. Pluto was demoted from ‘planet’ to ‘Dwarf planet’ status. The West
African Black Rhino was declared extinct. And In a major scientific
breakthrough, a Japanese company developed a way of analysing electrical
signals sent from the visual cortex of the brain and converting them to digital
images on screen.
