Also, there is nothing which logically determines how long the narrative will continue more and more delays could prolong the chain of cause-and-effect indefinitely. The choice of this initial cause is one source of the arbitrariness of narrative. Thus, a narrative is a chain of causes and effects, but, unlike the real world, the narrative world requires one initial cause. In other words, because the beginning of a narrative essentially springs out of nowhere, almost as if to pose the question, “what if,” the narrative that ensues is more or less an arbitrary answer to this very question. What decides when a story begins? What decides how long it will be or what will happen along the way? Furthermore, when does the denouement come about? Who can say the story does not continue after the film’s credits roll? The point of these questions is that no analysis can make such a claim toward a solid answer. However, the initial event that starts the chain of narrative cause-and-effect is where the arbitrariness of narrative analysis comes in. Narrative structure does have a beginning and an end (arbitrary as it may be). If that were the case there would not be the standard narrative structures that are an integral component of storytelling. The general argument is that narrative in its inherent nature has no coherent beginning or end. Why are these devices arbitrary? Is it not possible for interesting epiphanies to arise from narrative analysis? Thompson, as well as many other film scholars, would disagree. Simply put, her justification is that narrative devices are arbitrary when looking for the inherent meaning of a film. In making her argument, Thompson is calling for a kind of analysis in which formative structure takes precedent over narrative devices. In juxtaposing explanation and definition of these previous aspects alongside specific sequences from the film, the following analysis can successfully make its argument that All About Lily Chou-Chou is indeed an oppositional film, with a knowledge-effect that emerges from its formal structure. Furthermore, it is important to establish a strong definition of excess. However, before analysis can be achieved, it is important to explicate exactly why narrative analysis is arbitrary. Therefore, the following analysis will argue that through excess rising from its form (specifically the use of color), All About Lily Chou-Chou draws attention to the very fact that it is a film, that it is a structure of cause and effect that we as spectators either give ourselves up to willingly, or strive to attentively recognize its formative structure(s).
#MOVIES LIKE ALL ABOUT LILY CHOU CHOU FREE#
Thus, the following explication seeks to coincide with Thompson’s line of thought that “once the narrative is recognized as arbitrary rather than logical, the viewer is free to ask why individual events within its structures are the way they are.” In short, in order to analyze Lily Chou-Chou and discover why it is oppositional, the analysis of narrative devices must be placed behind formative elements.
#MOVIES LIKE ALL ABOUT LILY CHOU CHOU FULL#
Furthermore, in analyzing a film like Lily Chou-Chou, to avoid analysis of its formative structures (particularly its use of color) and focus full attention on its narrative devices is to miss the very aspect of why this film is oppositional. In analyzing a film like All About Lily Chou-Chou, a concept such as excess bears much weight in bringing to attention the formative elements that make a film such as this oppositional. As the title of her article implies, Thompson employs the work of two separate theorists (Stephen Heath and Roland Barthes, respectively) to form her argument around a concept known as excess. In her article, “The Concept of Cinematic Excess,” Kristin Thompson forms a compelling argument towards an analysis of film that looks beyond arbitrary narrative devices.
“Presumably, the only way excess can fail to affect meaning is if the viewer does not notice it.” “Excessive elements do not form relationships, beyond those of coexistence.”
0 kommentar(er)
