Explore how far the two films you have studied demonstrate the filmmakers’ attempt to control the spectator’s response.
Whilst it can be argued that Winter’s Bone has a clearer ideology than No Country for Old Men, the audience are arguably positioned in a more active role by the filmmakers in No Country for Old Men than in Winter’s Bone. However, the ability to portray an ideology as clearly as the feminist ideology in Winter’s Bone could demonstrate how the filmmaker has been more successful in controlling the spectator’s response than in No Country for Old Men.
In Winter’s Bone, the ideology of feminism can be seen through the character of Ree and through the fact that she is not sexualised. Furthermore, the relationships between characters also implement this ideology. However, it can be argued that due to the lack of change and direct challenging to the status quo in the patriarchal society the characters live in, the spectatorship is ultimately less active.
One way in which Winter’s Bone can be said position the audience in a less active role is the characterisation of Ree. Whilst she is shown throughout the film in a way that does not sexualise her, like in the opening sequence where Ree is dressed in baggy clothes that therefore don’t cling to her body, she also doesn’t actively challenge the status quo. This lack of challenge therefore does not force the audience to become actively involved in the film, and therefore the spectatorship aspect is much more passive.
Granik does control spectatorship through the lack of the male gaze and Ree’s embracement of male and female roles. This is Granik using a feminist ideology to shape a character and then uses that character to drive the plot forward, as well as keeping the family alive. This is shown when Ree is chopping wood in the opening sequence of the film, therefore showing that she has taken on a typically masculine role. However, Ree is also shown to cook for the family and put the laundry out which are two typically feminine roles. This embracement of both roles from the start of the film immediately positions the audience with Ree and portrays her as a leading role in her family’s life, showing how Granik as a filmmaker is able to control spectatorship. This balance of roles is shown further on in the film, showing hoe Granik further controls spectatorship by constantly showing Ree in this way. Ree is shown to be hunting for food which is typically masculine role, however the act of teaching is often associated with a feminine role.
However, Winter’s Bone can be said require an active spectatorship from the audience through the way that Ree is presented in her struggle with the patriarchal society. By portraying Ree as being shut out of the world through the use of tight frames in the form of windows in the school, the audience are active in their spectatorship as they see that Ree is trapped in this patriarchal world. This is further added to by showing her limited choices whether that is being a mother or joining the army. This does demonstrate how the audience’s spectatorship is being controlled by the filmmaker because we are being positioned alongside Ree and through the feeling of being trapped, the audience feel a greater connection to Ree and against the patriarchal society that she has to fight. Furthermore, Granik controls the audience through the seeming acceptance of the patriarchy within Ree’s family with Sonny benefitting from this. Whilst Ashlee, Ree’s sister, is shown to look up to Ree often gazing up at her like she does when Ree is cooking, Sonny is often shown in the background of the shot whilst Ree and Ashlee do the work. This lack of responsibility is brought to the forefront in the sequence when they have to shoot the squirrel where Sonny is incapable of remaining quiet and it is Ashlee that not only spots the squirrel, but helps her to pull the trigger. By characterising Sonny in this way, Granik embeds the problems that these characters face within a domestic setting and therefore by rooting the problem closer to home, this allows a greater control of audience spectatorship.
Ultimately, Granik is shown to be able to control audience spectatorship, although this is often done with a less active spectatorship. This is due to the lack of success of the characters to truly uproot or directly challenge the patriarchy and therefore the audience are forced to settle for a society in the film that is led by men in name, but run by women without questioning why.
Unlike Winter’s Bone, the Coen brothers do not try to outwardly control spectatorship in No Country for Old Men but due to this lack of control, the audience are forced to become more active in deciphering the meaning and ideology of the film.
One way in which it can argued that the Coen brothers do no control spectatorship is through the lack of identifying a hero. Although Llewelyn is arguably the hero in the film, introduced through low angle shots so that the audience look up to him, he is first introduced through a target that is superimposed onto the frame. This immediately established a connection between Llewelyn and death which is not a quality that is typically associated with a hero. Furthermore, Llewelyn steals the money from the failed drug deal in broad daylight. This moment can both demonstrate the lack of control but the active spectatorship that comes as a result of the lack of control. By not establishing clearly whether Llewelyn is a hero or not, his stealing of the money can be interpreted by the audience as a selfish act and part of the corruption of society. Lines are further blurred between whether Llewelyn is a hero or not through the use of day and night imagery. Although day imagery is usually associated with positive and good things with night imagery being associated with negative and criminal acts, Llewelyn subverts this by stealing in daylight before returning at night to help the people by bringing water.
If an active spectatorship is being undertook, a nihilist reading of the film would therefore lead to a discussion about Chigurh and his morals. Although it in inarguable that the Coen brothers present Chigurh in a negative way, through the heavy use of shadow at the start and the sudden bursts of violence, Chigurh is shown to spare the life of the man behind the counter in the drive by and helps the children at the end of the film. The nihilist argument however, complicates Chigurh’s ethics and therefore allows the audience to become more active. Although Chigurh does kill many people, he is shown to embrace nihilism and the ultimate pursuit of destruction that will happen anyway. Through this outlook, Chigurh is only acting in a way that he thinks is right, and therefore becomes a character where audience morals are questioned.
The most significant way that the Coen brothers do not control spectatorship is through the narrative of the film. Despite positioning Llewelyn as the main character, he is killed off-screen before the film finishes. This creates a sort of anti-climax in the film showing that the filmmakers do not control the audience as much. However, by not showing the end of the character, the audience are then positioned in a more active role.
Ultimately, the blurring of lines between good and bad within No Country for Old Men demonstrates how the Coen brothers do not set out to control spectatorship. This lack of control through the narrative features of the film and the characterisation of characters, is then what allows the audience the room to become more active in their spectatorship.
- Band 5
- Clear, convincing and tightly focussed. This is at its best when discussing Winter's Bone; I think your arguments about the spectator's relationship with NCFOM could benefit from some development.
- A good piece of writing nonetheless, but like you last essay it could be even better in a second version...