I want to talk about how well grounded Clean (2004) is. A refreshing mechanism that this film employs is captioning the location, setting, and how long time has passed. Compared to Petzold’s films, the viewer is grounded immediately in the opening scene—Hamilton, Canada. This grounding effect gives Emily a fluidity we have not observed yet in class. One is able to follow Emily temporally as well as physically. For instance, Emily’s time spent in jail and where is located, is acknowledged by the film’s use of captions. Since Emily travels internationally, the film takes on a global aspect, as well as defining the culture within those locations. Therefore, it is important for the viewer to know exactly where things are transpiring, what time/how long, and where these characters might end up.
With this grounding theme in mind, I want to narrow into Emily’s main struggle with fear, and how her perpetual motions of fear is interrupted by external forces to help her regain balance in life. A quote from Bauman can illustrate this as he expresses, “It looks as if our fears have become self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing: as if they have acquired a momentum of their own—and can go on growing by drawing exclusively on their own resources” (Bauman 9). Every struggle and screw up in Emily’s life is because of the things she fears in her life: drug addiction, losing her son, and being alone. These fears are manifested through the drugs, and the moment Emily escapes reality, her fears are fueled by this escape mechanism operating under inertia.
So, one can view Mr. Hauser (Lee’s father), Jay, and her friends as the external forces, which interrupts Emily’s inertia of fear and steers her in a different direction, one that helps her to integrate back into society. The film illustrates that when one operates with fear, one’s decisions (as Bauman also discusses) are saturated with the same habits that caused one’s problems in the first placed, as we see Emily struggling repeatedly with methadone.
Jay also has a curious operation with interrupting fear that is worth pointing out. Assayas expresses during an interview, “Younger audiences are accustomed to a completely different logic in terms of moving inside images and films, and I think they move using more poetic connections. And the disturbing factor is, I’m not sure if this is good or bad” (Jones 159). I feel that Assayas observations resonates with Jay’s role in the film. He is Emily’s anchor in life, and his role is to illuminate that poet in Emily. This is staged well as we see Emily in the recording studio and it seems that she has finally let go of everything holding her back, and the camera pans to a beautiful foggy San Francisco compared to where she was in the beginning of the film. Of course, all of this is because of the one thing she is working towards—Jay. He embodies a kind of force that uses blunt logic to help Emily as he shouts to her, “You killed my father” as if once Emily accepts that notion—she will be set free. A strange operation of atonement for one’s sins.
P.S. Since the film’s plot weaving is also about the music, I could not help, but think of a lyric by Oasis in “Don’t Look Back in Anger” that resonates with Emily’s roadie life:
Take me to the place where you go Where nobody knows if it's night or day But please don't put your life in the hands Of a Rock n’ Roll band Who'll throw it all away
Clean is a film all about change. The change of Emily’s life without drugs: without Lee, the transformation of Albrecht as he realizes that he is probably going to lose his wife soon, and even the way Jay deals with the presence of his mother invokes a ginormous change in his life as well. Yet, unlike demonlover, this film like you said is rooted in a reality that is straight forward, and easy to follow. I see this as Assayas presenting the film in a reluctant manner. ““People change,” Albrecht says, “If they need to, they change.”” Although this is a quote from the film I am also referring to page 157 in Jones’ book. Assayas was able to convey the failure/try again life of Emily in his film by presenting the audience with a film that focused more on the character development and cinematography than with any extreme camera angles. The scenes all faded in and faded out like a tradition film would, but the vibrant colors and the focus on Emily convey mood of the film. Assayas’s well-placed concert shots give the audience enough confusion, while not overpowering the senses so that we understand the confusion of the lifestyle accompanied by it. Maggie Cheung conveys the addict-gone-sober reality in a believable manner that shows the highs and (mostly) lows of losing the need for drugs. Cheung shows the change of Emily through the film every time Emily makes a mistake and almost gives up. When Emily hears that Jay doesn’t want to see her after all of the work she had put in to make him comfortable she runs away, only to return with Albrecht. Emily could’ve stayed the addict she was when Lee was alive, but she decided not to and no external force got her off track for too long. While the change in Emily is the most evident, it is also a reason why Albrecht gives Emily chances to prove herself. He has gone through the change of raising his grandson, losing his son (though the results of those two are not as noticeable), and now as he realizes that his wife will most likely be gone he has to undergo the change of life alone. He, like Emily, loses his anchor in life and as he starts to take on the responsibilities of his wife he understands his lack of ability to cope with everything. His change in the film, though minor in terms of overhauling his life like Emily has to do, is still a powerful one that is relatable to anyone that is going through the loss of a spouse. Finally, the other change in the film one that might be the quietest one of all is the change of Jay. He is not a major character in the film in terms of screen time, but he still has a major role in the changes of the other characters. He goes from a boy living with his grandparents, to one that understands that the reason he lives with his grandparents is because of his dad’s death and his mother’s drug addiction. His change is one from determining that his mother is the cause of his dad’s death, and the acceptance of her back in his life. Albrecht stated it perfectly when he said that children understand everything. It’s not that Jay understands all things perfectly, but he understands what the effects of a situation do to a person, and how he can view the person because of it. He changes his opinion on his mother when he meets her because he understands that what she tells him about his father is the truth.
If one quotes a dialogue line of a film one watched then there is no good reason to wuote it from a text. That is not meaningful use of the ongoing conversation about the film as presented in the assigned readings. Other than this, however, this is a nicely focused post on the notion of change. Some proofreading would have been nice, however....
Now that we have watched two of Assayas's film's, and even though these two films are tell very different types of stories, we can start to see what Marco described as the auteurist signature. In this brief blog post, i will try to describe exactly what i see that signature as being. The first and most easily noticeable characteristic of Assayas's film's is the fluid camera. Nearly every shot in these movies appears to be shot with a steadicam. The camera pans up, down, sideways, diagonally. It moves in circles, back and forth, it vibrates. The camera follows people as they walk. Now, i looked up who the cinematographer was for demonlover, Clean, and Carlos, and i was surprised to see that each film has a different cinematographer. This is all Assayas's doing. Besides how the camera moves, Assayas also frequently uses other cinematic techniques frequently. There are, i think, a more than average amount of close ups in the film, and often times these close ups are not even focused on faces, but often on other body parts or objects. I know this might seem like an exaggeration, but i'd say that in demonlover and Clean, at least a quarter of all the shots in the films, involve focusing on what a characters hands are doing. The camera will zoom away from a characters face and what they are saying and instead focus attention on a characters hands and what they are doing, often in the same fluid shot. Another thing Assayas does, ( and maybe this is just a general auteur thing) is that all of his films are shot on location. Now, seeing that his films go to London, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Beijing, Sudan, etc, this seems like quite a feat. From what i've seen of Petzhold's film, they are take place in Western Europe. Assayas, on the other hand, likes to go out into the world. Another aspect of Assayas's signature is his particular brand of editing. The word "elliptical" comes to my mind. For instance, in Clean when Emily is going through withdrawal in her friends bathroom, she seems to be fainting on the ground...then its the sometime in the future...it appears she wrote a letter to Nick Nolty...etc. There are lots of moments in his films in which the narratives fades away, or the scene ends abruptly, or begin abruptly, in the middle of things. My last observation about Assayas's signature is actually more like a question. While reading the chapter about Carlos from Jones's book, i found this quote by Assayas, regarding the production of the film. "We didnt rehearse for the camera, we didn't rehearse for the sound. What i was telling my cameraman was "I think he's going to do this, but he may also do that. If he does this do that, if he does this other thing, try this other thing." Now, I'm not sure if all of his films are shot in such an improvisational way, but that is definitely how it feels watching the movies. As if the camera is scared to miss something and is trying to keep with the events that are happening all around it.
I was actually hoping someone would bring up the camera's fluidity before I got home because you addressed a lot of the points I was going to cover. The use of the steadicam really differentiates Assaya's work so far and, though I don't enjoy steadicam nearly as much as a well composed "painting" of a shot the director uses it with such ease that I as a viewer always felt very present in the shots. I wanted to touch (pun intended) on the point you made about the character's hands. It was something I noticed in the last film and I think it is even more prominent in Clean. The camera will often pan around to something that may be almost insignificant to the story, such as papers on a desk that are being shuffled around, but end up adding layers to the character development. A major difference I noted between Assayas and Petzold is the perspective of the camera. I often felt the audience is placed in the position of curious bystander in Clean. Petzold often placed the camera behind characters or used POV shots that pulled the perspective into one of the characters, but Assayas often has the camera circling the action, prowling through the scene and observing those little details that flesh out the lives of the characters. One scene I wanted to point at in particular is the scene where Emily shoots up heroin and passes out near the lake towards the beginning of the film. The camera intimately shows her arm dropping the needle, then cuts to outside the car to show that gorgeously framed car with the backdrop of the industrial site. There is so much implied action and yet I never felt we needed to see her taking the drug. The whole film is about the effects of actions on others and the camera, like Emily, doesn't sit still and see the actions play out. Instead it remains constantly, almost erratically in motion. This film is intimately tied to the personal struggles and growth of its main character and the audience rarely knows more than she does. The camera mimicked my own curiosity about the other people that Emily interacts with while maintaining a distance from them, but it was always closely examining her reactions to events. The paranoia that Emily experiences as she tries to rebuild trusting relationships is displayed through the erratic nature of the camera and I noted that at the end of the film, when Emily seems to be moving toward a place of stability, the camera remains more stationary. I felt the impact of this directorial decision and it strengthened the films resonance. I really like the quote about the improvisational camera work. Knowing that a lot of the camera work becomes more clear. Often characters would move in a way that the cameraman didn't seem to account for and they would have to quickly re-center the shot. Some might call it ramshackle, but to me there was a question of "what are they going to do next?" that kept me engaged in the film.
I'd definitely agree with you two as well, the camera work in Clean was very good, I'd almost call it explorative in nature, which works with what Kyle mentioned about the scenes shot in location. Chances are the audience wouldn't be familiar with all of the locations, so it may have been Assayas' decision to shoot the film in a way that allows the audience to explore each of the sets. The locations, particularly the homes, have a great "lived in" feel to them (which is no doubt because they have been lived in) which really add to the world of the characters and make them more engaging. I feel like this was also present to an extent in Demonlover, although not to the same level as Clean. An example in Demonlover would be the scenes taking place in the Japanese animation studio, it's cramped and dank atmosphere really lend itself to feel unsettling, and perhaps a bit sinister.
As for the editing, I don't feel like it was intentionally made confusing, but the editing occurs at intervals so that no one shot lingers too long or too short. I have a hard time explaining this, but the editing is tight enough to mimic someone's attention span. I guess it's the goal of each editor to do such, but it really feels like an achievement in Clean,
In addition to the work Assayas does with camera movement, I would like to also point out how he makes transitions between time and space from scene to scene. Dr. Abel discussed in class how, in literature, we are able to use phrases such as “at the same time as (insert character name) was doing (insert activity), (insert other character name) was doing (insert another activity” to denote when things are happening possibly at the same time, but in different places. What I noticed in Clean is that we are following stories from two main characters, Emily and Albrecht. When Emily is doing some activity, and then transitions to doing another activity in a different location, we have a fast cut from one scene to the next, and the same goes for when Albrecht is doing one activity, then another. However, when we transition from watching what Emily is doing to what Albrecht is doing, the screen fades to black, and then into the new scene. I’m not necessarily proposing that Emily’s and Albrecht’s activities are occurring simultaneously, but I would conjecture that the activities they are doing happen in overlapping timeframes. One specific occurrence I noticed where a transition from Emily to Albrecht was a quick cut, rather than the fade to black, was when Albrecht is meeting Emily at the train station. We have this quick cut transition from their differing locations because their two locations and times are actually converging to one place.
I would like to discuss a different type of transition as well, and one that is not so literal. This transition occurs when Emily attempts to choose a new path in life, to “clean” herself of her addictions. Nick Pinkerton in “Better to Fade Away” in the Kent Jones book writes, “[Clean is] a morning after movie, a movie about what happens when everyone’s gone and you have to start picking up, alone” (Jones 154). There are two particular times where I noticed Assayas made it evident that Emily had to “start picking up, alone.” The first is after she talks to Albrecht shortly after Lee’s death, and Albrecht delivers the news that he would prefer her to stay away from her son, Jay. After this conversation, we see Emily walking down the street, with a light, airy extra-diegetic song playing. At this time, she realizes she must transition from her life of drugs to a better life. Additionally, after she gets fired from her job at the Chinese restaurant, we see her on a train throwing her prescriptions and medications out the window. Again, Assayas adds in the same light, airy song to signify she is, once again, deciding to make a transition to a “cleaner life,” this time more successfully than the first.
Mssr. Assayas presents this flim Clean in a very direct light. Unlike this previous film DemonLover this film is an honest portrayal of a mother attempting to balance her own dreams and the addictions that come with them. What I found interesting with this film is also a similarity with his film we watched on Monday is the use of multiple cultures and languages in his film. “This straight ahead character study seems traditional when compared to its immediate predecessor….Demonlover, but these two continent-hopping films have more in common than a quick glance might suggest.” (Jones p. 158) I think it is fascinating that Mssr. Assayas uses multiple cultures in his films because at least in my opinion it gives a sense of continuity between all these countries. The story of addiction and growth isn’t just a French story, it is an American one, a Canadian one, an English one, hell, it is a global one. This use of a global stage for his films produces a product that is easier to be accepted on the global stage. By connecting all of us within his films the message and voice of these characters has a stronger reach. While I could focus on cinematic tropes Assayas uses in his films; the fire burning in the distance as Emily gets high in the car or the similar characterization of Jay and his mother, I want to continue to focus on the use of all these different languages in the film. This film tackles 4 countries and 5 cultures and maybe this is because he had a marriage with Maggie Cheung for 3 years and admires the work of several Asian directors. I admire this use of cross-culture in his films because I feel like I am absorbing more. It is interesting that he also has used in his past two movies highly noted and high profile actors and actresses from America in the past two films. Nick Nolte, Gina Gershon, Chole Sevigny, etc. I don’t quite know why he picked these actors for the films, I have been doing some outside research about his since class and been reviewing the Assayas text but I can only assume it might be a smart play on his or the production companies part to get this film seen to a higher volume of people. What has spoke to me the most about these films is that you can tell Mssr. Assayas has these stories he wants to tell and he wants the voice of the films to be heard, I think his technique is working.
In the beginning of the film Clean, the camera view overlooking the city, as Emily passes out in her car, was a good connection to how Emily’s life was heading toward, as the fire burns in the city. In the end of the film, when Emily visits San Francisco and the camera view is of the whole entire city, was a different and positive feeling then how I felt comparing the two scenes. So far, what I like about Assayas’ films is how they do not remain in one city and the audience gets a feel for different cities, which is important in my opinion. Everyone should have the chance to travel outside of the United States, if possible. Though completely different from Demonlover (genre wise), both films bring in interaction from other people internationally.
What I also liked about Clean was how relatable this film was to real life events. Emily is not a perfect person and she knows that. Trying to change Emily moves to Paris by which she begins by asking for a job and ends up with a free room. She is going through grief but throughout the film you get a sense of her past. This is why the scene of San Francisco is significant because Emily knows that it will be a chance for a new change, a new life, and peace. Though we don’t know much about Emily’s past because the film starts with the death of her husband you get a sense of what her life was like before the death of her husband, Albrecht. Emily struggles to keep a job and has trouble functioning without the use of drugs. Clean gives a good perspective of the struggle Emily is going through. The audience understands how she used to be, and what they see now.
As stated in the reading, the ending of the film where Emily steps out and looks over the San Francisco Bay, is a beginning step toward change. “It’s an expansive moment in a movie that’s kept so consistently and intimately on top of its subject, a deep breath of clean air that is Assayas’ final defiance of rock cliché, of burning out and fading way, an image in defiance of death itself.” (Pinkerton, 160) In my opinion, the film shows how hard it is to overcome the death of someone. Emily’s reconnection with her son and moving to San Francisco is her way of moving on from her past.
I would like to talk about the interaction between jay and Emily at the zoo. Not when Jay runs away, but when Emily opens up to him about the death of his dad. This was kind of odd for me. The only person she could be honest with was her kid she hadn't seen in years. She lied to the cops, family and friends. She felt she needed Jay to trust her so she could get him to live with her. This shows a lot about her character. Mostly that she desperately wanted Jay with her.
I’d like to focus my response on some of the concepts used with music in Clean. One of the opening scenes, (and later with the musician Tricky) I noticed how Assayas put a fair amount of attention on the performances and the music. The sequences were loud, and the shots had a longer duration than one might expect compared to how the narrative quickly unfolds itself. He also used multiple angles, hand held pans, and tilts framing in the musicians. As the viewer, these types of shots immerse us in this sub-culture of rock/punk/call-it-what-you-want, in which these characters live their lives around. Instead of using stable shots with multiple cuts, we see what an audience member might watch at the show.
As Jones writes, a major influence for Assayas growing up was the punk movement. It was music, several other artists and writers who had a major influence on Assayas’s work. “All of us trying to reconstitute some connection with the world, to find a path on which we wouldn’t betray ourselves.” (page 18). We can see how this is reflected in the character of Emily. For Emily, it was music that allowed her to express herself. Music was her form of art, which was her way to reconnect herself to the world. We knew she was not a huge star selling platinum records, yet after all of her struggles, it was music she went back to. We end cleaner than the beginning, with a scene of serene sound and motion; the ending moments showing her recording her new track called Down in the Light, at this point, now off of heroin.
I found this story to be the most straight-forward we've seen so far in this class so I would like to focus on the similarities I noticed in Assayas' technical work between Clean and Demonlover. Even though the films were very different in content and plot there were noticeable similarities in the camera work, most obvious being the fluidity which has been mentioned in many of the posts above.
This style is a stark contrast from Petzold's films where his tendency was to allow the camera to linger on a shot. Assayas' camera is always moving whether with a character or to focus on a close-up shot. Assayas also implements many jump cuts throughout scenes. His style makes his films much more personal than an average film. He really captures the vulnerability of the characters when he uses a shaky camera and close-ups of the characters when they are in intimate situations such as when Emily was in jail and struggling with her addiction back in Paris.
In my mind this is Assayas' signature. He invites the audience into the story and encourages them to forget they are simply viewing but instead participating in the film as it unfolds. Although the story was simple and the characters fit an archetype that have been seen before I still felt for the characters because the film was shot in such a personal style.
The shaky camera also acts an illusion for the viewers. It is as tough the viewers were there in their space. For example, when Emily was walking out from the restaurant to take a smoke, she camera follows her from behind as if the viewers were actually there following her. The camera moves like how a person walks.
I also noticed that there was plenty of shots taken from the other side of the glass looking in. For example, in the prison's visitor room, when Emily first saw Lee dead and in Paris. Assayas also used this technique in Demonlover but not as much as in Clean.
I would like to focus on a question that Jones brings to light on page 157. He states "Would Emily's sense of maternal responsibility have been awakened without the spur of tragedy? Is she a 'good person deep down,' or just obeying necessity? Such value judgements are left to the viewer".
I agree with this statement and I think it is one of the things that makes this film so powerful. Assayas shows us Emily, he shows us her actions and what she lies about, but he never seems to sway us in one direction or another when it comes to this question. We don't know how Emily would have found her way back to Jay if Lee hadn't died so suddenly, or if she even would at all. In the fist few scenes we learn about Jay and his whereabouts but it seemed to me, the way all of their friends (?) were almost struggling to remember his name, as if knowing very little about him. This leads me to believe that he is a topic Lee and Emily never really discuss or talk about very much at all. Before Lee died, Emily's main concern was Lee's career and scoring more drugs. Although we don't get to watch Emily and Lee interact very much at all, it seems that they dumped Jay off at his parents and didn't really think about him.
However, this changes when Emily finds herself released from prison, alone and broke. Jumping to her time in Paris she seems so lost. She only seems to find a purpose, and a motivation to do something good for herself when she thinks about getting Jay back. I guess my question, which is partially answered in the movie, is she attempting to regain her motherhood because it is something to do and a reason to no longer be alone, or is it because she genuinely wants to be Jay's mother. In my opinion she really wanted to be Jay's mother until she heard back from Gloria and the recording plan. This seemed to alter her motivation but she seemed to stick with being Jay's mother because she thinks its the right thing to do. My evidence of this is how quickly she was ready to bring Jay with her to San Francisco to record after only really being in his life for a day.
On a personal level, I am not fond of Emily. Every time she reached some stability or potential of stability, she tosses it away, insisting that she's going to change...that she needs to be more stable. One example of this is when Emily loses her job at the Chinese restaurant, a job freely given to her by her uncle. The only condition of her employment was to have no drugs on the restaurant property. Though Emily receives countless warnings from coworkers, she persists in using drugs in the store until she is fired. Of course, right around the time she is fired, she tells multiple friends that she is changing. She's going to be drug-free and she's going to have a decent job in order to support herself and Jay. It's around these times that Emily brings up Jay the most- she needs to get him back.
This relates directly to our overarching theme of capitalism vs. desire. Steady employment in this case, is representative of capitalism. When Emily has been at a job long enough, the scales begin to tip in favor of her desire. Desire, here, could be for drugs or for Jay. Perhaps her longing for Jay and depression for not having him is what leads her back to drugs. Instead, Emily sees this not in terms of balancing work and desire, but in needing to jump ship and look for a new situation where the scales can begin as balanced once again.
At one point in the film, Emily tells a friend that she's not sure whether her "changed" life, or a life with Jay by her side, is any better than a druggie life. I would not bet on Emily to stay clean for long.
I won't get into my personal opinion of Emily, but I do think you are on to something when you speak of her constantly changing employment situation and how it relates to the class theme. First, it is important to note that the entire reason Emily is trying to turn her life around, hold a steady job, etc. is so that she can support Jay and be a mother to him. "Clean" delves into the question of whether one can love without money just as all the other films have done, but deals specifically with familial love rather than erotic love.
Second, as you point out, she is constantly moving from job to job, the whole time pursing one desire and running from another. While she is working at her uncle's Chinese restaurant, she is attempting "to launch her new career" (Jones, 158) in the music business, arguably, because it is her true desire. Then, her uncle fires her for using drugs, a desire which she is attempting to free herself from, on the premises.
Not long after finding employment again, she gives it up to go to San Francisco and record. This opportunity has the potential to benefit her economically to a degree that restaurant and clothing store work never could. The problem is, of course, that very few people "make it" and giving up any job for such an opportunity would be costly most of the time. Fortunately for Emily though, she appears to succeed, both at overcoming her unwanted desire (drugs) and realizing her vocational desire (the music business).
"Clean" depicts the "transactions" (Jones, 159) that people must make in a capitalist system in order to achieve their desires. Emily must first kick her drug habit in order to have Jay in her life. In addition, she must have some measure of economic stability in order to have him. Finally, near the end of the film, she is faced with the possible transaction of giving up her clothing sales job in exchange for a recording session. The problem with all these "exchanges" is that there is always a less beneficial choice, a harmful choice even. The result is that capitalist societies can end up fitting the description of this film by Nick Pinkerton: "an ongoing scrabble of back-slides and humiliations" (Jones, 157).
In his essay, Nick Pinkerton observes that “This straight-character study seems traditional when compared to its immediate predecessor in Assayas’ filmography, the cold, corporate-park nightmare of demonlover, but these two continent-hopping films have more in common than a quick glance might suggest both being concerned with the entertainment production and distribution mechanisms: Manga porn in demonlover, rock music in Clean.” At first glance, the connection does establish itself in this way, but furthermore, Assayas’ work has a tendency to want to dismantle pre-established appearances. It is a search for what is beneath the surface-level of a constructed “reality.” That is to say, that both demonlover (2002) and Clean (2004) (even Clouds of Sils Maria [2014]) work at taking a structure/person/system and breaking it down from the outside inwards. It is a carefully crafted dissection that despite being methodological, results in the splendor of exploration of its subject and the resulting mess of the procedure. Assayas dissects the capitalistic entertainment industry (whether it is porn, anime, music, or theater) and its puppets.
Clean, observes Emily in a way that demonlover doesn’t observe Diane. They are both women within the infrastructure of the entertainment industry (as is Maria). Granted, they are all very different types of industries, but what makes the association the more fascinating is that the cinematic eye is searching for the same things within different places and different times. At the center, the camera’s eye seeks for a vanished reality. It attempts to dismantle what hints at being a reality, bit it’s not. Today’s discussion focused on historicizing and contextualizing the mediums that play a role upon our subjectivity—videogames, paintings, cinema, etc. As observed by Professor Abel, these could be an “invention of compensatory solutions” to an otherwise uncontrollable environment. That uncontrollable environment was at play, majorly, in demonlover, but capitalism’s business and corporative environment displayed in Clean (and Yella for that matter) is also a construction, an act, a reality that is, ironically, fake and superficial. The introduction of escapism (through porn, video games, music, etc.) as a break from “reality” is problematic if that reality is not even real, but it’s instead, a construction of the permeating system of capitalism to give the feeling of control, of free choice, and of power. Consequently, when there is an attempt at dismantling its inner workings, the film is caught in an inescapable cycle and incomprehensible superficiality. In demonlover, for example, a highly powerful sequence that combines the wide shot of a beautiful French mansion (the superficial) with the knowledge of the torture and violence it hides (the reality). What Professor Abel called “reboots,” works to promote the inescapability and recircling of the situation, and the constant adaptation of the characters to a “reality” that needs constant motion and change to continue its façade.
Even when there is relative ease of mobility across borders and continents in both (all three if one counts Clouds of Sils Maria) of Assayas’ films, there is still a suffocating sense of inescapable doom—one that highly resonates with Bauman’s take on “population surplus” and human “waste” that can’t be solved via mobility, or escaped. The characters, have been used by the system, and rendered unreliable/useless; they grow apprehensive that “assignment to ‘waste’ [which] becomes everybody’s potential prospect—one of the two poles between which everybody’s present and future social standing oscillates,” (32) will become their fate. The system objectifies and mechanizes the human body for its benefit, and there is a sense of redemptive quality in how the camera—especially Assayas’ camera—gives a chance to reclaim that humanity.
By dismantling the procedures of its dehumanization, whether through violence, abuse, sexual objectification, desensitization, addictions, etc., it gives an opportunity to question if a human being can or should become “waste,” but rather than giving an opinion, Assayas’ dissection, gives his view in a “more pragmatic than moralist way” (157). Through this tone, it allows the viewer to make its own opinions about whether the characters reclaim, or try to reclaim, their utility (if that is possible at all), and consequently, their humanity.
Jessica, really nice analysis. It is scary imagining these characters getting trapped in the same cycle of social constructions, as some how their story can transcend and resonate with our lives. I suggest, if you have time, to watch "The Idiot's Guide to Ideology". It's on Netflix (if you have it, or I think the whole documentary is on youtube as well) and it is a documentary by Slavoj Žižek on ideology that resonates with what you are discussing.
During the middle of the film, Jay delivered one of the film's most powerful lines.
"You bought the drugs that killed my dad," he said (apologies if that isn't verbatim correct).
I don't want to make a universal statement, but I feel like a good deal of viewers would agree that Emily is at least partially responsible for Lee's death. She's not entirely responsible for his death, as they're both adults responsible for their own actions. But Jay was able to see through the smoke, so to speak, and call her out on her actions.
A central theme of "Clean" youth. In a way, it's a fleeting resource for all of the characters of the film. Albrecht is intimidated by kids because he understands that they're smart. Jay certainly demonstrated his intelligence when he called out his mom's guilt to Albrecht while they were on their way to Paris.
Youth is something that Albrecht and Rosemary clearly have very little of. The viewer practically watches her die through the course of the movie (which is an interesting discussion in its own right), and what to do with Jay when neither of them can take care of him is constantly at the forefront of Albrecht's mind. While Jay benefits from his situation, his grandparents are losing from theirs.
This dissection of youth is most interesting with the middle group of characters, Emily and Lee. Before he died, Lee complained of being 42 and having very little work to this name. This is especially important in the music world where Assayas decided to set his movie. It's difficult to become a successful musician, but it's even harder to do it at that age, especially in the underground scene. Lee's keenly aware of how the clock is ticking.
Emily is just as aware of this fact. Not only is she aware that she could only has the chance to become a successful musician for a bit longer, but she also struggles with the fact that the amount of time she has to build a relationship with her son is finite. The less youth she has, the harder both of these will become.
As a tangentially related side note to close, I liked how Pinkerton mentioned how Assayas' description of the mechanisms of the music industry in the film already seem outdated. This was published three years ago, so this only seems to be more so the case watching it today. In any case, their focus on physical media (CDs, etc) only seem to amplify some of the ideas I've previously mentioned. The kids aren't into that sort of stuff anymore. Rosemary didn't understand that album art doesn't necessarily have to be 100% realistic.
In any case, I thought this was the most accessible film we've watched so far. There are easy ideas to talk about, like I think I probably just did, and even more complicated themes that people have been discussing and will continue to discuss through the night.
The word “change” pops up throughout the film much like it does in this blog (Jones 157). It is obvious that the movie is about change. Much different than anything we have scene so far, this movie had an easy to follow plot, an understandable situation and gave the audience a character to grab on to. Assayas’s film Demonlover was complete opposite in plot and fluidity as far as audience driven. To state my opinion a little bit, I thought both films had a desired purpose but I definitely preferred Clean to Demonlover. End of opinion. Back to change. I wanted to speak on behalf of the acting and the character arc that Maggie Cheung portrays in Emily Wang. We as a class talk a lot about the ideas, camera shots, and messages that the director gives the audience but I feel as though the character of Emily Wang really gave the film its extra edge. A character arc is illustrates an inner journey that is described over the course of the story. In order to change one must have to sacrifice something. Wang sacrifices her husband, son, job, etc., to receive a high. There are several moments where a little part of her changes. Assayas is known for his camera movements yes, but “he always pauses to count his character’s change” (Jones 159). Her change didn’t happen when she threw the pills out the window. It didn’t happen when she wanted to see her kid. The change came from the little moments throughout the journey, like the moment where she touched another man’s dead body because of an overdose. Or when Wang made a connection to her father-in-law because they both were dealing with the grief of losing a spouse. Today we talked about acting and creating a character and I have a hard time believing that Cheung was given a lot of direction in this film. Her acting made the film and the way she portrayed the scenes develops that character arc and that ultimate completion of change at the very end. Assayas also stays true to him in not creating a happily ever after. He shows the true struggle of being “clean” and the hardships being of an addict. Jones brings up a quote from John Waters that says, “’before I started doing drugs, I had so many problems. Now I only have one. Drugs’” (156). The movie basis’s itself around this idea that no matter Wang’s problems, no money, no job, her main focus or actual problem that she needs to face head on is drugs. Once she gets a taste of what it is to be a mother, what it is to be doing something she loves, what it is to be clean, her emotions are uncontrollable. Wang can actually feel the change that she has made and then only then is she able to look out at the Golden Gate Bridge and take a deep breath and realign the focus to her, which is what she needed all along.
I’m not quite sure what to say about Clean other than that I really, really loved it. It’s by far my favorite film that we have watched in this class. The caliber of the performances really blew me away - Maggie Cheung might just be my new favorite actress. She had me deeply invested in her character within just a few minutes of the film, and as she went along her journey to improve her life, I felt even more and more compassion and empathy for her. By the end of the film, I felt an actual emotional and mental connection to Emily - that is the mark of excellent acting and direction.I think that the story was told beautifully and effectively through smart pacing, good balance of dialogue VS action, and interesting yet non-distracting cinematography.
A lot of the camera work had a similar zoomed-in, shaky quality to it like Demonlover did, but where the too-quick cuts in the latter made my head spin, the lengthier, smoother shots of Clean really worked for me. I also think the hectic soundscapes worked much better in this film than in his previous work that we saw. Perhaps it is the nature of the sounds or that the volume levels of the tracks within the mix were more balanced, but I think Clean felt much less like an assault upon the ears.
One of the themes I took away from this film kind of relates back to my very first post about emotional currency. Everyone can only fix themselves. You can get some help from others, but not everyone can give it to you, and at the end of the day you’re going to have to do most of the work to improve your condition. We only have so much that we can give to others before we deplete our own stock. I think part of Emily’s struggle to get herself on the right track stemmed from the fact that she was in a community of starving artists - everyone was focused on their own careers and success, so not everyone could or was willing to give her their time, effort, and assistance.
I also think that perhaps instead of being unable to love without money, we are more incapable of loving without stability. Money certainly plays a huge role in stability, but I think that our ability to find a comfortable place in which to love another comes mainly from the feeling of security we have in our lives financially, emotionally, and so on. You can’t help someone else stay above the water if you’re already drowning.
I noticed that the movie shows the bitter truth of the world. It firstly portrayed clearly how the music industry of today works. Lee was a successful musician in the early days when he was younger and so was Emily. However, he began to struggle when he got older and even started taking drugs. He kept thinking that he wasn’t good enough and even said that because of his age, in order to make a comeback, it has to be an extraordinary one. This clearly shows the bitter reality of that industry - the young and new sells more. For example, at the club, the band that was playing was much younger than they are but the song that they were singing had no meaning, as least to me. It was just a bunch of sentences followed “la la la’s” unlike the mixtape that Emily made in prison with Gloria. Their song had more soul and meaning. Nonetheless, people still seem to enjoy it the song by the band in the club. On the down side, some stars that couldn’t take the stress usually gets involved with drugs because it acts an escape (Emily and Lee). Drugs also acts as an illusionistic solution to their problems that seems impossible to resolve. Then, when the star passes away, their album suddenly gets a boost in sales. This was the ugly truth of the music industry.
Secondly, it also showed the negative effects of the media. When we read or listen to news and gossip, we usually only get one side of the story. The media usually manipulates the other side to make it more exciting and scandalous. The worst type of gossip that is mainly one sided would be celebrity gossip. This usually hurts the celebrity’s reputation. Their careers could be on the line because of it as well. Emily was a good example to showcase the effects of the media. Her family started abandoning her and looking down on her because of what people said about her. Even her own son thought she was a murderer. People started doubting her abilities that eventually caused her doubt herself. This was probably why she always seem to screw things up. The media also claimed that she was the one that provided the drugs that killed Lee which was not true.
“Clean is not a party movie it is a morning after movie, a movie where everyone’s gone and you have to start picking up, Alone.” (Jones, 153) I found the movie Clean surprisingly calm considering how DemonLover was paced. I think Assayas does a great job of conveying loneliness in a film that is filled with people partying and doing drugs together. Emily is a character that NEEDS people in order to feel validated in her life. When she is released from jail after six months she realizes that she has no one who stuck by her side. I thought it was interesting that we didn’t see much of Emily’s time behind bars, I’m not sure why Assayas chose to do this, considering she also recorded demos with her inmate friend that wound up getting her a music deal. Jail time obviously changed Emily and she realized that she needed to get clean for two reason. The first being her son Jay and the second her career. Assayas does a surprisingly good job at making the audience wonder which of those two things mean more to her. Another quote I found interesting from Jones’s take on Emily was “she finds her husband, her meal ticket, the cornerstone of her identity, and our potential tortured-artist hero, OD’d and dead. (Jones, 156) Emily didn’t seem to have much of her own personal identity in the film before the death of her husband. I think this is one of the reasons why her relationship with others wasn’t very strong. It surprised me in the film how much compassion Nick Nolte’s character shows Emily even after the death of Lee. Assayas really wanted to focus on the notion of “people can change” as a main theme. Emily undergoes drastic changes from hopeless drug abuser, to loving mom but she is not the only character to undergo change. Emily’s son Jay also was able to change his view of his mother. He at first did not want anything to do with Emily, and toward the end of the film was willing to go to her to San Francisco. This element of “change” is prominent all throughout Clean. To add to the topic of change I found it interesting in the film how open and honest Emily was with Jay about the death of her son when she lied about it to others. “When Emily admits to her son what she’s denied to everyone else – that she bought the drugs that killed her husband – the moment is given no build-up, is so casual you could almost miss it.” (Jones, 156). I think this scene shows Emily trying to better herself and just come “Clean” (pun intended) about things rather than dig herself in deeper with her already loose support system. She also knows that she can’t lie to Jay and that he would see right through her if she tried. Jay is a brutally honest kid and Assayas has an interesting line about children said by Jay’s grandpa “Kids intimidate me, they understand everything. They know what you are going to say before you even say it.” Jay didn’t even seem unsettled by the casual talk of drug use he had with his mother I think he just appreciated her honesty. As someone in a blog post above me pointed out this film is much more grounded then DemonLover and they are very different from each other but both films deal with entertainment production. I believe Assayas pays very close attention to details of the entertainment industry and gets a lot of the behind-the-scenes aspects right in his films. I am interested to see if this theme entertainment industry production will carry forward throughout the week.
I want to talk about how well grounded Clean (2004) is. A refreshing mechanism that this film employs is captioning the location, setting, and how long time has passed. Compared to Petzold’s films, the viewer is grounded immediately in the opening scene—Hamilton, Canada. This grounding effect gives Emily a fluidity we have not observed yet in class. One is able to follow Emily temporally as well as physically. For instance, Emily’s time spent in jail and where is located, is acknowledged by the film’s use of captions. Since Emily travels internationally, the film takes on a global aspect, as well as defining the culture within those locations. Therefore, it is important for the viewer to know exactly where things are transpiring, what time/how long, and where these characters might end up.
ReplyDeleteWith this grounding theme in mind, I want to narrow into Emily’s main struggle with fear, and how her perpetual motions of fear is interrupted by external forces to help her regain balance in life. A quote from Bauman can illustrate this as he expresses, “It looks as if our fears have become self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing: as if they have acquired a momentum of their own—and can go on growing by drawing exclusively on their own resources” (Bauman 9). Every struggle and screw up in Emily’s life is because of the things she fears in her life: drug addiction, losing her son, and being alone. These fears are manifested through the drugs, and the moment Emily escapes reality, her fears are fueled by this escape mechanism operating under inertia.
So, one can view Mr. Hauser (Lee’s father), Jay, and her friends as the external forces, which interrupts Emily’s inertia of fear and steers her in a different direction, one that helps her to integrate back into society. The film illustrates that when one operates with fear, one’s decisions (as Bauman also discusses) are saturated with the same habits that caused one’s problems in the first placed, as we see Emily struggling repeatedly with methadone.
Jay also has a curious operation with interrupting fear that is worth pointing out. Assayas expresses during an interview, “Younger audiences are accustomed to a completely different logic in terms of moving inside images and films, and I think they move using more poetic connections. And the disturbing factor is, I’m not sure if this is good or bad” (Jones 159). I feel that Assayas observations resonates with Jay’s role in the film. He is Emily’s anchor in life, and his role is to illuminate that poet in Emily. This is staged well as we see Emily in the recording studio and it seems that she has finally let go of everything holding her back, and the camera pans to a beautiful foggy San Francisco compared to where she was in the beginning of the film. Of course, all of this is because of the one thing she is working towards—Jay. He embodies a kind of force that uses blunt logic to help Emily as he shouts to her, “You killed my father” as if once Emily accepts that notion—she will be set free. A strange operation of atonement for one’s sins.
P.S. Since the film’s plot weaving is also about the music, I could not help, but think of a lyric by Oasis in “Don’t Look Back in Anger” that resonates with Emily’s roadie life:
Take me to the place where you go
Where nobody knows if it's night or day
But please don't put your life in the hands
Of a Rock n’ Roll band
Who'll throw it all away
Clean is a film all about change. The change of Emily’s life without drugs: without Lee, the transformation of Albrecht as he realizes that he is probably going to lose his wife soon, and even the way Jay deals with the presence of his mother invokes a ginormous change in his life as well. Yet, unlike demonlover, this film like you said is rooted in a reality that is straight forward, and easy to follow. I see this as Assayas presenting the film in a reluctant manner.
Delete““People change,” Albrecht says, “If they need to, they change.”” Although this is a quote from the film I am also referring to page 157 in Jones’ book. Assayas was able to convey the failure/try again life of Emily in his film by presenting the audience with a film that focused more on the character development and cinematography than with any extreme camera angles. The scenes all faded in and faded out like a tradition film would, but the vibrant colors and the focus on Emily convey mood of the film. Assayas’s well-placed concert shots give the audience enough confusion, while not overpowering the senses so that we understand the confusion of the lifestyle accompanied by it.
Maggie Cheung conveys the addict-gone-sober reality in a believable manner that shows the highs and (mostly) lows of losing the need for drugs. Cheung shows the change of Emily through the film every time Emily makes a mistake and almost gives up. When Emily hears that Jay doesn’t want to see her after all of the work she had put in to make him comfortable she runs away, only to return with Albrecht. Emily could’ve stayed the addict she was when Lee was alive, but she decided not to and no external force got her off track for too long.
While the change in Emily is the most evident, it is also a reason why Albrecht gives Emily chances to prove herself. He has gone through the change of raising his grandson, losing his son (though the results of those two are not as noticeable), and now as he realizes that his wife will most likely be gone he has to undergo the change of life alone. He, like Emily, loses his anchor in life and as he starts to take on the responsibilities of his wife he understands his lack of ability to cope with everything. His change in the film, though minor in terms of overhauling his life like Emily has to do, is still a powerful one that is relatable to anyone that is going through the loss of a spouse.
Finally, the other change in the film one that might be the quietest one of all is the change of Jay. He is not a major character in the film in terms of screen time, but he still has a major role in the changes of the other characters. He goes from a boy living with his grandparents, to one that understands that the reason he lives with his grandparents is because of his dad’s death and his mother’s drug addiction. His change is one from determining that his mother is the cause of his dad’s death, and the acceptance of her back in his life. Albrecht stated it perfectly when he said that children understand everything. It’s not that Jay understands all things perfectly, but he understands what the effects of a situation do to a person, and how he can view the person because of it. He changes his opinion on his mother when he meets her because he understands that what she tells him about his father is the truth.
If one quotes a dialogue line of a film one watched then there is no good reason to wuote it from a text. That is not meaningful use of the ongoing conversation about the film as presented in the assigned readings. Other than this, however, this is a nicely focused post on the notion of change. Some proofreading would have been nice, however....
DeleteNow that we have watched two of Assayas's film's, and even though these two films are tell very different types of stories, we can start to see what Marco described as the auteurist signature. In this brief blog post, i will try to describe exactly what i see that signature as being.
ReplyDeleteThe first and most easily noticeable characteristic of Assayas's film's is the fluid camera. Nearly every shot in these movies appears to be shot with a steadicam. The camera pans up, down, sideways, diagonally. It moves in circles, back and forth, it vibrates. The camera follows people as they walk. Now, i looked up who the cinematographer was for demonlover, Clean, and Carlos, and i was surprised to see that each film has a different cinematographer. This is all Assayas's doing.
Besides how the camera moves, Assayas also frequently uses other cinematic techniques frequently. There are, i think, a more than average amount of close ups in the film, and often times these close ups are not even focused on faces, but often on other body parts or objects. I know this might seem like an exaggeration, but i'd say that in demonlover and Clean, at least a quarter of all the shots in the films, involve focusing on what a characters hands are doing. The camera will zoom away from a characters face and what they are saying and instead focus attention on a characters hands and what they are doing, often in the same fluid shot.
Another thing Assayas does, ( and maybe this is just a general auteur thing) is that all of his films are shot on location. Now, seeing that his films go to London, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Beijing, Sudan, etc, this seems like quite a feat. From what i've seen of Petzhold's film, they are take place in Western Europe. Assayas, on the other hand, likes to go out into the world.
Another aspect of Assayas's signature is his particular brand of editing. The word "elliptical" comes to my mind. For instance, in Clean when Emily is going through withdrawal in her friends bathroom, she seems to be fainting on the ground...then its the sometime in the future...it appears she wrote a letter to Nick Nolty...etc. There are lots of moments in his films in which the narratives fades away, or the scene ends abruptly, or begin abruptly, in the middle of things.
My last observation about Assayas's signature is actually more like a question. While reading the chapter about Carlos from Jones's book, i found this quote by Assayas, regarding the production of the film. "We didnt rehearse for the camera, we didn't rehearse for the sound. What i was telling my cameraman was "I think he's going to do this, but he may also do that. If he does this do that, if he does this other thing, try this other thing." Now, I'm not sure if all of his films are shot in such an improvisational way, but that is definitely how it feels watching the movies. As if the camera is scared to miss something and is trying to keep with the events that are happening all around it.
I was actually hoping someone would bring up the camera's fluidity before I got home because you addressed a lot of the points I was going to cover. The use of the steadicam really differentiates Assaya's work so far and, though I don't enjoy steadicam nearly as much as a well composed "painting" of a shot the director uses it with such ease that I as a viewer always felt very present in the shots. I wanted to touch (pun intended) on the point you made about the character's hands. It was something I noticed in the last film and I think it is even more prominent in Clean. The camera will often pan around to something that may be almost insignificant to the story, such as papers on a desk that are being shuffled around, but end up adding layers to the character development. A major difference I noted between Assayas and Petzold is the perspective of the camera. I often felt the audience is placed in the position of curious bystander in Clean. Petzold often placed the camera behind characters or used POV shots that pulled the perspective into one of the characters, but Assayas often has the camera circling the action, prowling through the scene and observing those little details that flesh out the lives of the characters. One scene I wanted to point at in particular is the scene where Emily shoots up heroin and passes out near the lake towards the beginning of the film. The camera intimately shows her arm dropping the needle, then cuts to outside the car to show that gorgeously framed car with the backdrop of the industrial site. There is so much implied action and yet I never felt we needed to see her taking the drug. The whole film is about the effects of actions on others and the camera, like Emily, doesn't sit still and see the actions play out. Instead it remains constantly, almost erratically in motion.
DeleteThis film is intimately tied to the personal struggles and growth of its main character and the audience rarely knows more than she does. The camera mimicked my own curiosity about the other people that Emily interacts with while maintaining a distance from them, but it was always closely examining her reactions to events. The paranoia that Emily experiences as she tries to rebuild trusting relationships is displayed through the erratic nature of the camera and I noted that at the end of the film, when Emily seems to be moving toward a place of stability, the camera remains more stationary. I felt the impact of this directorial decision and it strengthened the films resonance. I really like the quote about the improvisational camera work. Knowing that a lot of the camera work becomes more clear. Often characters would move in a way that the cameraman didn't seem to account for and they would have to quickly re-center the shot. Some might call it ramshackle, but to me there was a question of "what are they going to do next?" that kept me engaged in the film.
I'd definitely agree with you two as well, the camera work in Clean was very good, I'd almost call it explorative in nature, which works with what Kyle mentioned about the scenes shot in location. Chances are the audience wouldn't be familiar with all of the locations, so it may have been Assayas' decision to shoot the film in a way that allows the audience to explore each of the sets. The locations, particularly the homes, have a great "lived in" feel to them (which is no doubt because they have been lived in) which really add to the world of the characters and make them more engaging. I feel like this was also present to an extent in Demonlover, although not to the same level as Clean. An example in Demonlover would be the scenes taking place in the Japanese animation studio, it's cramped and dank atmosphere really lend itself to feel unsettling, and perhaps a bit sinister.
DeleteAs for the editing, I don't feel like it was intentionally made confusing, but the editing occurs at intervals so that no one shot lingers too long or too short. I have a hard time explaining this, but the editing is tight enough to mimic someone's attention span. I guess it's the goal of each editor to do such, but it really feels like an achievement in Clean,
In addition to the work Assayas does with camera movement, I would like to also point out how he makes transitions between time and space from scene to scene. Dr. Abel discussed in class how, in literature, we are able to use phrases such as “at the same time as (insert character name) was doing (insert activity), (insert other character name) was doing (insert another activity” to denote when things are happening possibly at the same time, but in different places. What I noticed in Clean is that we are following stories from two main characters, Emily and Albrecht. When Emily is doing some activity, and then transitions to doing another activity in a different location, we have a fast cut from one scene to the next, and the same goes for when Albrecht is doing one activity, then another. However, when we transition from watching what Emily is doing to what Albrecht is doing, the screen fades to black, and then into the new scene. I’m not necessarily proposing that Emily’s and Albrecht’s activities are occurring simultaneously, but I would conjecture that the activities they are doing happen in overlapping timeframes. One specific occurrence I noticed where a transition from Emily to Albrecht was a quick cut, rather than the fade to black, was when Albrecht is meeting Emily at the train station. We have this quick cut transition from their differing locations because their two locations and times are actually converging to one place.
DeleteI would like to discuss a different type of transition as well, and one that is not so literal. This transition occurs when Emily attempts to choose a new path in life, to “clean” herself of her addictions. Nick Pinkerton in “Better to Fade Away” in the Kent Jones book writes, “[Clean is] a morning after movie, a movie about what happens when everyone’s gone and you have to start picking up, alone” (Jones 154). There are two particular times where I noticed Assayas made it evident that Emily had to “start picking up, alone.” The first is after she talks to Albrecht shortly after Lee’s death, and Albrecht delivers the news that he would prefer her to stay away from her son, Jay. After this conversation, we see Emily walking down the street, with a light, airy extra-diegetic song playing. At this time, she realizes she must transition from her life of drugs to a better life. Additionally, after she gets fired from her job at the Chinese restaurant, we see her on a train throwing her prescriptions and medications out the window. Again, Assayas adds in the same light, airy song to signify she is, once again, deciding to make a transition to a “cleaner life,” this time more successfully than the first.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMssr. Assayas presents this flim Clean in a very direct light. Unlike this previous film DemonLover this film is an honest portrayal of a mother attempting to balance her own dreams and the addictions that come with them. What I found interesting with this film is also a similarity with his film we watched on Monday is the use of multiple cultures and languages in his film. “This straight ahead character study seems traditional when compared to its immediate predecessor….Demonlover, but these two continent-hopping films have more in common than a quick glance might suggest.” (Jones p. 158) I think it is fascinating that Mssr. Assayas uses multiple cultures in his films because at least in my opinion it gives a sense of continuity between all these countries. The story of addiction and growth isn’t just a French story, it is an American one, a Canadian one, an English one, hell, it is a global one. This use of a global stage for his films produces a product that is easier to be accepted on the global stage. By connecting all of us within his films the message and voice of these characters has a stronger reach.
ReplyDeleteWhile I could focus on cinematic tropes Assayas uses in his films; the fire burning in the distance as Emily gets high in the car or the similar characterization of Jay and his mother, I want to continue to focus on the use of all these different languages in the film. This film tackles 4 countries and 5 cultures and maybe this is because he had a marriage with Maggie Cheung for 3 years and admires the work of several Asian directors. I admire this use of cross-culture in his films because I feel like I am absorbing more. It is interesting that he also has used in his past two movies highly noted and high profile actors and actresses from America in the past two films. Nick Nolte, Gina Gershon, Chole Sevigny, etc. I don’t quite know why he picked these actors for the films, I have been doing some outside research about his since class and been reviewing the Assayas text but I can only assume it might be a smart play on his or the production companies part to get this film seen to a higher volume of people. What has spoke to me the most about these films is that you can tell Mssr. Assayas has these stories he wants to tell and he wants the voice of the films to be heard, I think his technique is working.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn the beginning of the film Clean, the camera view overlooking the city, as Emily passes out in her car, was a good connection to how Emily’s life was heading toward, as the fire burns in the city. In the end of the film, when Emily visits San Francisco and the camera view is of the whole entire city, was a different and positive feeling then how I felt comparing the two scenes. So far, what I like about Assayas’ films is how they do not remain in one city and the audience gets a feel for different cities, which is important in my opinion. Everyone should have the chance to travel outside of the United States, if possible. Though completely different from Demonlover (genre wise), both films bring in interaction from other people internationally.
ReplyDeleteWhat I also liked about Clean was how relatable this film was to real life events. Emily is not a perfect person and she knows that. Trying to change Emily moves to Paris by which she begins by asking for a job and ends up with a free room. She is going through grief but throughout the film you get a sense of her past. This is why the scene of San Francisco is significant because Emily knows that it will be a chance for a new change, a new life, and peace. Though we don’t know much about Emily’s past because the film starts with the death of her husband you get a sense of what her life was like before the death of her husband, Albrecht. Emily struggles to keep a job and has trouble functioning without the use of drugs. Clean gives a good perspective of the struggle Emily is going through. The audience understands how she used to be, and what they see now.
As stated in the reading, the ending of the film where Emily steps out and looks over the San Francisco Bay, is a beginning step toward change. “It’s an expansive moment in a movie that’s kept so consistently and intimately on top of its subject, a deep breath of clean air that is Assayas’ final defiance of rock cliché, of burning out and fading way, an image in defiance of death itself.” (Pinkerton, 160) In my opinion, the film shows how hard it is to overcome the death of someone. Emily’s reconnection with her son and moving to San Francisco is her way of moving on from her past.
I would like to talk about the interaction between jay and Emily at the zoo. Not when Jay runs away, but when Emily opens up to him about the death of his dad.
ReplyDeleteThis was kind of odd for me. The only person she could be honest with was her kid she hadn't seen in years. She lied to the cops, family and friends. She felt she needed Jay to trust her so she could get him to live with her. This shows a lot about her character. Mostly that she desperately wanted Jay with her.
I’d like to focus my response on some of the concepts used with music in Clean. One of the opening scenes, (and later with the musician Tricky) I noticed how Assayas put a fair amount of attention on the performances and the music. The sequences were loud, and the shots had a longer duration than one might expect compared to how the narrative quickly unfolds itself. He also used multiple angles, hand held pans, and tilts framing in the musicians. As the viewer, these types of shots immerse us in this sub-culture of rock/punk/call-it-what-you-want, in which these characters live their lives around. Instead of using stable shots with multiple cuts, we see what an audience member might watch at the show.
ReplyDeleteAs Jones writes, a major influence for Assayas growing up was the punk movement. It was music, several other artists and writers who had a major influence on Assayas’s work. “All of us trying to reconstitute some connection with the world, to find a path on which we wouldn’t betray ourselves.” (page 18). We can see how this is reflected in the character of Emily. For Emily, it was music that allowed her to express herself. Music was her form of art, which was her way to reconnect herself to the world. We knew she was not a huge star selling platinum records, yet after all of her struggles, it was music she went back to. We end cleaner than the beginning, with a scene of serene sound and motion; the ending moments showing her recording her new track called Down in the Light, at this point, now off of heroin.
I found this story to be the most straight-forward we've seen so far in this class so I would like to focus on the similarities I noticed in Assayas' technical work between Clean and Demonlover. Even though the films were very different in content and plot there were noticeable similarities in the camera work, most obvious being the fluidity which has been mentioned in many of the posts above.
ReplyDeleteThis style is a stark contrast from Petzold's films where his tendency was to allow the camera to linger on a shot. Assayas' camera is always moving whether with a character or to focus on a close-up shot. Assayas also implements many jump cuts throughout scenes. His style makes his films much more personal than an average film. He really captures the vulnerability of the characters when he uses a shaky camera and close-ups of the characters when they are in intimate situations such as when Emily was in jail and struggling with her addiction back in Paris.
In my mind this is Assayas' signature. He invites the audience into the story and encourages them to forget they are simply viewing but instead participating in the film as it unfolds. Although the story was simple and the characters fit an archetype that have been seen before I still felt for the characters because the film was shot in such a personal style.
The shaky camera also acts an illusion for the viewers. It is as tough the viewers were there in their space. For example, when Emily was walking out from the restaurant to take a smoke, she camera follows her from behind as if the viewers were actually there following her. The camera moves like how a person walks.
DeleteI also noticed that there was plenty of shots taken from the other side of the glass looking in. For example, in the prison's visitor room, when Emily first saw Lee dead and in Paris. Assayas also used this technique in Demonlover but not as much as in Clean.
I would like to focus on a question that Jones brings to light on page 157. He states "Would Emily's sense of maternal responsibility have been awakened without the spur of tragedy? Is she a 'good person deep down,' or just obeying necessity? Such value judgements are left to the viewer".
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement and I think it is one of the things that makes this film so powerful. Assayas shows us Emily, he shows us her actions and what she lies about, but he never seems to sway us in one direction or another when it comes to this question. We don't know how Emily would have found her way back to Jay if Lee hadn't died so suddenly, or if she even would at all. In the fist few scenes we learn about Jay and his whereabouts but it seemed to me, the way all of their friends (?) were almost struggling to remember his name, as if knowing very little about him. This leads me to believe that he is a topic Lee and Emily never really discuss or talk about very much at all. Before Lee died, Emily's main concern was Lee's career and scoring more drugs. Although we don't get to watch Emily and Lee interact very much at all, it seems that they dumped Jay off at his parents and didn't really think about him.
However, this changes when Emily finds herself released from prison, alone and broke. Jumping to her time in Paris she seems so lost. She only seems to find a purpose, and a motivation to do something good for herself when she thinks about getting Jay back. I guess my question, which is partially answered in the movie, is she attempting to regain her motherhood because it is something to do and a reason to no longer be alone, or is it because she genuinely wants to be Jay's mother. In my opinion she really wanted to be Jay's mother until she heard back from Gloria and the recording plan. This seemed to alter her motivation but she seemed to stick with being Jay's mother because she thinks its the right thing to do. My evidence of this is how quickly she was ready to bring Jay with her to San Francisco to record after only really being in his life for a day.
On a personal level, I am not fond of Emily. Every time she reached some stability or potential of stability, she tosses it away, insisting that she's going to change...that she needs to be more stable. One example of this is when Emily loses her job at the Chinese restaurant, a job freely given to her by her uncle. The only condition of her employment was to have no drugs on the restaurant property. Though Emily receives countless warnings from coworkers, she persists in using drugs in the store until she is fired. Of course, right around the time she is fired, she tells multiple friends that she is changing. She's going to be drug-free and she's going to have a decent job in order to support herself and Jay. It's around these times that Emily brings up Jay the most- she needs to get him back.
ReplyDeleteThis relates directly to our overarching theme of capitalism vs. desire. Steady employment in this case, is representative of capitalism. When Emily has been at a job long enough, the scales begin to tip in favor of her desire. Desire, here, could be for drugs or for Jay. Perhaps her longing for Jay and depression for not having him is what leads her back to drugs. Instead, Emily sees this not in terms of balancing work and desire, but in needing to jump ship and look for a new situation where the scales can begin as balanced once again.
At one point in the film, Emily tells a friend that she's not sure whether her "changed" life, or a life with Jay by her side, is any better than a druggie life. I would not bet on Emily to stay clean for long.
I won't get into my personal opinion of Emily, but I do think you are on to something when you speak of her constantly changing employment situation and how it relates to the class theme. First, it is important to note that the entire reason Emily is trying to turn her life around, hold a steady job, etc. is so that she can support Jay and be a mother to him. "Clean" delves into the question of whether one can love without money just as all the other films have done, but deals specifically with familial love rather than erotic love.
DeleteSecond, as you point out, she is constantly moving from job to job, the whole time pursing one desire and running from another. While she is working at her uncle's Chinese restaurant, she is attempting "to launch her new career" (Jones, 158) in the music business, arguably, because it is her true desire. Then, her uncle fires her for using drugs, a desire which she is attempting to free herself from, on the premises.
Not long after finding employment again, she gives it up to go to San Francisco and record. This opportunity has the potential to benefit her economically to a degree that restaurant and clothing store work never could. The problem is, of course, that very few people "make it" and giving up any job for such an opportunity would be costly most of the time. Fortunately for Emily though, she appears to succeed, both at overcoming her unwanted desire (drugs) and realizing her vocational desire (the music business).
"Clean" depicts the "transactions" (Jones, 159) that people must make in a capitalist system in order to achieve their desires. Emily must first kick her drug habit in order to have Jay in her life. In addition, she must have some measure of economic stability in order to have him. Finally, near the end of the film, she is faced with the possible transaction of giving up her clothing sales job in exchange for a recording session. The problem with all these "exchanges" is that there is always a less beneficial choice, a harmful choice even. The result is that capitalist societies can end up fitting the description of this film by Nick Pinkerton: "an ongoing scrabble of back-slides and humiliations" (Jones, 157).
In his essay, Nick Pinkerton observes that “This straight-character study seems traditional when compared to its immediate predecessor in Assayas’ filmography, the cold, corporate-park nightmare of demonlover, but these two continent-hopping films have more in common than a quick glance might suggest both being concerned with the entertainment production and distribution mechanisms: Manga porn in demonlover, rock music in Clean.” At first glance, the connection does establish itself in this way, but furthermore, Assayas’ work has a tendency to want to dismantle pre-established appearances. It is a search for what is beneath the surface-level of a constructed “reality.” That is to say, that both demonlover (2002) and Clean (2004) (even Clouds of Sils Maria [2014]) work at taking a structure/person/system and breaking it down from the outside inwards. It is a carefully crafted dissection that despite being methodological, results in the splendor of exploration of its subject and the resulting mess of the procedure. Assayas dissects the capitalistic entertainment industry (whether it is porn, anime, music, or theater) and its puppets.
ReplyDeleteClean, observes Emily in a way that demonlover doesn’t observe Diane. They are both women within the infrastructure of the entertainment industry (as is Maria). Granted, they are all very different types of industries, but what makes the association the more fascinating is that the cinematic eye is searching for the same things within different places and different times. At the center, the camera’s eye seeks for a vanished reality. It attempts to dismantle what hints at being a reality, bit it’s not. Today’s discussion focused on historicizing and contextualizing the mediums that play a role upon our subjectivity—videogames, paintings, cinema, etc. As observed by Professor Abel, these could be an “invention of compensatory solutions” to an otherwise uncontrollable environment. That uncontrollable environment was at play, majorly, in demonlover, but capitalism’s business and corporative environment displayed in Clean (and Yella for that matter) is also a construction, an act, a reality that is, ironically, fake and superficial.
The introduction of escapism (through porn, video games, music, etc.) as a break from “reality” is problematic if that reality is not even real, but it’s instead, a construction of the permeating system of capitalism to give the feeling of control, of free choice, and of power. Consequently, when there is an attempt at dismantling its inner workings, the film is caught in an inescapable cycle and incomprehensible superficiality. In demonlover, for example, a highly powerful sequence that combines the wide shot of a beautiful French mansion (the superficial) with the knowledge of the torture and violence it hides (the reality). What Professor Abel called “reboots,” works to promote the inescapability and recircling of the situation, and the constant adaptation of the characters to a “reality” that needs constant motion and change to continue its façade.
Even when there is relative ease of mobility across borders and continents in both (all three if one counts Clouds of Sils Maria) of Assayas’ films, there is still a suffocating sense of inescapable doom—one that highly resonates with Bauman’s take on “population surplus” and human “waste” that can’t be solved via mobility, or escaped. The characters, have been used by the system, and rendered unreliable/useless; they grow apprehensive that “assignment to ‘waste’ [which] becomes everybody’s potential prospect—one of the two poles between which everybody’s present and future social standing oscillates,” (32) will become their fate. The system objectifies and mechanizes the human body for its benefit, and there is a sense of redemptive quality in how the camera—especially Assayas’ camera—gives a chance to reclaim that humanity.
DeleteBy dismantling the procedures of its dehumanization, whether through violence, abuse, sexual objectification, desensitization, addictions, etc., it gives an opportunity to question if a human being can or should become “waste,” but rather than giving an opinion, Assayas’ dissection, gives his view in a “more pragmatic than moralist way” (157). Through this tone, it allows the viewer to make its own opinions about whether the characters reclaim, or try to reclaim, their utility (if that is possible at all), and consequently, their humanity.
Jessica, really nice analysis. It is scary imagining these characters getting trapped in the same cycle of social constructions, as some how their story can transcend and resonate with our lives. I suggest, if you have time, to watch "The Idiot's Guide to Ideology". It's on Netflix (if you have it, or I think the whole documentary is on youtube as well) and it is a documentary by Slavoj Žižek on ideology that resonates with what you are discussing.
DeleteThanks, Khoi! Will do!
DeleteDuring the middle of the film, Jay delivered one of the film's most powerful lines.
ReplyDelete"You bought the drugs that killed my dad," he said (apologies if that isn't verbatim correct).
I don't want to make a universal statement, but I feel like a good deal of viewers would agree that Emily is at least partially responsible for Lee's death. She's not entirely responsible for his death, as they're both adults responsible for their own actions. But Jay was able to see through the smoke, so to speak, and call her out on her actions.
A central theme of "Clean" youth. In a way, it's a fleeting resource for all of the characters of the film. Albrecht is intimidated by kids because he understands that they're smart. Jay certainly demonstrated his intelligence when he called out his mom's guilt to Albrecht while they were on their way to Paris.
Youth is something that Albrecht and Rosemary clearly have very little of. The viewer practically watches her die through the course of the movie (which is an interesting discussion in its own right), and what to do with Jay when neither of them can take care of him is constantly at the forefront of Albrecht's mind. While Jay benefits from his situation, his grandparents are losing from theirs.
This dissection of youth is most interesting with the middle group of characters, Emily and Lee. Before he died, Lee complained of being 42 and having very little work to this name. This is especially important in the music world where Assayas decided to set his movie. It's difficult to become a successful musician, but it's even harder to do it at that age, especially in the underground scene. Lee's keenly aware of how the clock is ticking.
Emily is just as aware of this fact. Not only is she aware that she could only has the chance to become a successful musician for a bit longer, but she also struggles with the fact that the amount of time she has to build a relationship with her son is finite. The less youth she has, the harder both of these will become.
As a tangentially related side note to close, I liked how Pinkerton mentioned how Assayas' description of the mechanisms of the music industry in the film already seem outdated. This was published three years ago, so this only seems to be more so the case watching it today. In any case, their focus on physical media (CDs, etc) only seem to amplify some of the ideas I've previously mentioned. The kids aren't into that sort of stuff anymore. Rosemary didn't understand that album art doesn't necessarily have to be 100% realistic.
In any case, I thought this was the most accessible film we've watched so far. There are easy ideas to talk about, like I think I probably just did, and even more complicated themes that people have been discussing and will continue to discuss through the night.
The word “change” pops up throughout the film much like it does in this blog (Jones 157). It is obvious that the movie is about change. Much different than anything we have scene so far, this movie had an easy to follow plot, an understandable situation and gave the audience a character to grab on to. Assayas’s film Demonlover was complete opposite in plot and fluidity as far as audience driven. To state my opinion a little bit, I thought both films had a desired purpose but I definitely preferred Clean to Demonlover. End of opinion.
ReplyDeleteBack to change. I wanted to speak on behalf of the acting and the character arc that Maggie Cheung portrays in Emily Wang. We as a class talk a lot about the ideas, camera shots, and messages that the director gives the audience but I feel as though the character of Emily Wang really gave the film its extra edge. A character arc is illustrates an inner journey that is described over the course of the story. In order to change one must have to sacrifice something. Wang sacrifices her husband, son, job, etc., to receive a high. There are several moments where a little part of her changes. Assayas is known for his camera movements yes, but “he always pauses to count his character’s change” (Jones 159). Her change didn’t happen when she threw the pills out the window. It didn’t happen when she wanted to see her kid. The change came from the little moments throughout the journey, like the moment where she touched another man’s dead body because of an overdose. Or when Wang made a connection to her father-in-law because they both were dealing with the grief of losing a spouse. Today we talked about acting and creating a character and I have a hard time believing that Cheung was given a lot of direction in this film. Her acting made the film and the way she portrayed the scenes develops that character arc and that ultimate completion of change at the very end.
Assayas also stays true to him in not creating a happily ever after. He shows the true struggle of being “clean” and the hardships being of an addict. Jones brings up a quote from John Waters that says, “’before I started doing drugs, I had so many problems. Now I only have one. Drugs’” (156). The movie basis’s itself around this idea that no matter Wang’s problems, no money, no job, her main focus or actual problem that she needs to face head on is drugs. Once she gets a taste of what it is to be a mother, what it is to be doing something she loves, what it is to be clean, her emotions are uncontrollable. Wang can actually feel the change that she has made and then only then is she able to look out at the Golden Gate Bridge and take a deep breath and realign the focus to her, which is what she needed all along.
I’m not quite sure what to say about Clean other than that I really, really loved it. It’s by far my favorite film that we have watched in this class. The caliber of the performances really blew me away - Maggie Cheung might just be my new favorite actress. She had me deeply invested in her character within just a few minutes of the film, and as she went along her journey to improve her life, I felt even more and more compassion and empathy for her. By the end of the film, I felt an actual emotional and mental connection to Emily - that is the mark of excellent acting and direction.I think that the story was told beautifully and effectively through smart pacing, good balance of dialogue VS action, and interesting yet non-distracting cinematography.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the camera work had a similar zoomed-in, shaky quality to it like Demonlover did, but where the too-quick cuts in the latter made my head spin, the lengthier, smoother shots of Clean really worked for me. I also think the hectic soundscapes worked much better in this film than in his previous work that we saw. Perhaps it is the nature of the sounds or that the volume levels of the tracks within the mix were more balanced, but I think Clean felt much less like an assault upon the ears.
One of the themes I took away from this film kind of relates back to my very first post about emotional currency. Everyone can only fix themselves. You can get some help from others, but not everyone can give it to you, and at the end of the day you’re going to have to do most of the work to improve your condition. We only have so much that we can give to others before we deplete our own stock. I think part of Emily’s struggle to get herself on the right track stemmed from the fact that she was in a community of starving artists - everyone was focused on their own careers and success, so not everyone could or was willing to give her their time, effort, and assistance.
I also think that perhaps instead of being unable to love without money, we are more incapable of loving without stability. Money certainly plays a huge role in stability, but I think that our ability to find a comfortable place in which to love another comes mainly from the feeling of security we have in our lives financially, emotionally, and so on. You can’t help someone else stay above the water if you’re already drowning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that the movie shows the bitter truth of the world. It firstly portrayed clearly how the music industry of today works. Lee was a successful musician in the early days when he was younger and so was Emily. However, he began to struggle when he got older and even started taking drugs. He kept thinking that he wasn’t good enough and even said that because of his age, in order to make a comeback, it has to be an extraordinary one. This clearly shows the bitter reality of that industry - the young and new sells more. For example, at the club, the band that was playing was much younger than they are but the song that they were singing had no meaning, as least to me. It was just a bunch of sentences followed “la la la’s” unlike the mixtape that Emily made in prison with Gloria. Their song had more soul and meaning. Nonetheless, people still seem to enjoy it the song by the band in the club. On the down side, some stars that couldn’t take the stress usually gets involved with drugs because it acts an escape (Emily and Lee). Drugs also acts as an illusionistic solution to their problems that seems impossible to resolve. Then, when the star passes away, their album suddenly gets a boost in sales. This was the ugly truth of the music industry.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it also showed the negative effects of the media. When we read or listen to news and gossip, we usually only get one side of the story. The media usually manipulates the other side to make it more exciting and scandalous. The worst type of gossip that is mainly one sided would be celebrity gossip. This usually hurts the celebrity’s reputation. Their careers could be on the line because of it as well. Emily was a good example to showcase the effects of the media. Her family started abandoning her and looking down on her because of what people said about her. Even her own son thought she was a murderer. People started doubting her abilities that eventually caused her doubt herself. This was probably why she always seem to screw things up. The media also claimed that she was the one that provided the drugs that killed Lee which was not true.
“Clean is not a party movie it is a morning after movie, a movie where everyone’s gone and you have to start picking up, Alone.” (Jones, 153)
ReplyDeleteI found the movie Clean surprisingly calm considering how DemonLover was paced. I think Assayas does a great job of conveying loneliness in a film that is filled with people partying and doing drugs together. Emily is a character that NEEDS people in order to feel validated in her life. When she is released from jail after six months she realizes that she has no one who stuck by her side. I thought it was interesting that we didn’t see much of Emily’s time behind bars, I’m not sure why Assayas chose to do this, considering she also recorded demos with her inmate friend that wound up getting her a music deal. Jail time obviously changed Emily and she realized that she needed to get clean for two reason. The first being her son Jay and the second her career. Assayas does a surprisingly good job at making the audience wonder which of those two things mean more to her.
Another quote I found interesting from Jones’s take on Emily was “she finds her husband, her meal ticket, the cornerstone of her identity, and our potential tortured-artist hero, OD’d and dead. (Jones, 156)
Emily didn’t seem to have much of her own personal identity in the film before the death of her husband. I think this is one of the reasons why her relationship with others wasn’t very strong. It surprised me in the film how much compassion Nick Nolte’s character shows Emily even after the death of Lee. Assayas really wanted to focus on the notion of “people can change” as a main theme. Emily undergoes drastic changes from hopeless drug abuser, to loving mom but she is not the only character to undergo change. Emily’s son Jay also was able to change his view of his mother. He at first did not want anything to do with Emily, and toward the end of the film was willing to go to her to San Francisco. This element of “change” is prominent all throughout Clean.
To add to the topic of change I found it interesting in the film how open and honest Emily was with Jay about the death of her son when she lied about it to others. “When Emily admits to her son what she’s denied to everyone else – that she bought the drugs that killed her husband – the moment is given no build-up, is so casual you could almost miss it.” (Jones, 156). I think this scene shows Emily trying to better herself and just come “Clean” (pun intended) about things rather than dig herself in deeper with her already loose support system. She also knows that she can’t lie to Jay and that he would see right through her if she tried. Jay is a brutally honest kid and Assayas has an interesting line about children said by Jay’s grandpa “Kids intimidate me, they understand everything. They know what you are going to say before you even say it.” Jay didn’t even seem unsettled by the casual talk of drug use he had with his mother I think he just appreciated her honesty.
As someone in a blog post above me pointed out this film is much more grounded then DemonLover and they are very different from each other but both films deal with entertainment production. I believe Assayas pays very close attention to details of the entertainment industry and gets a lot of the behind-the-scenes aspects right in his films. I am interested to see if this theme entertainment industry production will carry forward throughout the week.