Wednesday 18 May 2011

Scene Analysis


The beginning of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior opens with a voiceover describing the end of civilization as we now know it, as it displays images of war, oil and flashbacks of Mad Max. The same framed shot of Max as the audience last saw him in the flashback offers up a direct assessment with Max to his past. He now looks disheveled, dirty, he now has a mangy dog as a companion and his uniform seems to be missing a sleeve. Max has just avenged his family’s death, and is now alone on the road, where the only thing that seems to matter is fuel. With his own fuel running low, Max must fend off pursuers in order to refuel his Interceptor. As he makeshift siphons gasoline from a dune buggy that was pursuing him, “vermin have inherited the Earth” can be seen written on the tarp of a van. Max’s pursuer, shot by an arrow in his arm, screams at Max and pulls the arrow out before departing without conflict with Max.
            The world seems to truly be in an even worse place than it was in the original film. Max’s legend has seemingly grown to the proportions that many seem to be afraid of him on the road, hence the nickname “Road Warrior”. As was the case in the first film, the overbearing theme is masculinity. The film “depicts” an Australian man, in a dystopic future, engaged in a “rugged occupation” (McFarlane, 59). The masculinity oozes out of this scene, with emphasis on the grittiness of Max, a continuing stress on the importance of cars and the addition of a dog to Max’s crew. Max’s masculinity is displayed through his frayed, ripped, all black attire, with a makeshift brace on his wounded knee. A very important part of the opening scene is when the pursuer leaves after screaming at Max, showing Max’s superior masculinity and the aura around him that precedes him. The importance of cars is just as evident in this film as in its predecessor, with the stress being on having the fastest car on the road, as well as petroleum being the only real form of currency.
            Max’s car has been gutted and redone on the interior, being refitted with the essential needs for post-apocalyptic living. The inclusion of a dog into the car is essential, as it represents a certain duality in Max, since we know nothing about the dog or how they became companions; the dog represents the vital signs of a wild creature. Befriending the dog shows that while Max now fully embraces the wild, he still misses his old life with his family. Max has now become a product of the environment, not just someone who has responded to it. This has become echoed by the choice of his to enter the wastelands to avenge his family’s death and thus never leaving. This is ironic because now the world is purely wastelands and he has no choice to leave, as the wastelands are an inescapable prison for Max. 

Comparative Analysis


In the genre of Western films, there are a few mainstays in terms of defining characteristics. Amongst these are the importance of family/gang, social law and order vs. anarchy and breathtaking, vast landscapes. While the plot differs in Westerns, the subplots and characteristics of the genre rarely stray from the norm. I chose to analyze The Proposition, an Australian film set in the 1880’s, and 3:10 to Yuma, an American western set around the same time period. Though they are set on opposite ends of the world, there are a number of similarities in the films. Both films have morality parables that try to make sense of the senselessness of life in the frontier.
            Landscape plays a tremendous role in The Proposition, as Arthur Brooks is completely enthralled by the nature around him; this is evidenced by Arthur taking in every sunset, even as he sits and awaits his death after being shot. Gibson says, “the country becomes something much more significant than the environmental settling for indigenous narratives” (Gibson, pg 209). The landscape plays an integral role in establishing the beauty of the surroundings, as well as the vapid area that is largely uninhabited. The repeated cinematographic medium and long shots show the expansive and vast landscape of the unsettled Australian Outback that Captain Stanley must tame.
            The landscape in The Proposition is the transcendent image that not so much allows the film to reveal itself, but rather serves to redeem it”, says Carol Hart. This quote serves to mean that despite all of the pain and suffering caused by the cruel Burns gang and surroundings, the landscape serves as an escape and is able to soothe the viewer from the brutalities they watch. Case in point: after the brutal beating and near rape of the Stanleys in the last scene of the film (later followed by Charlie murdering his brother in a final act of redemption), the film takes the viewer out to observe one last beautiful sunset and to settle the scene after so much carnage.
            In 3:10 to Yuma, the landscape plays a lesser role, thought not to take anything away from the beauty that the cinematographer displayed. The beauty is there for the viewer to see, but one major component that is missing in comparison with The Proposition is that the characters do not stop once to take in the majesty of what is around them. This is a major and important difference, one that Gibson describes perfectly: “For a landscape to be regarded as the material of artistic discourse, the people utilizing it need to identify it…” (Gibson, pg 211). The lack of appreciation the characters in the film have for the scenery around them takes away from the importance of the landscape in relation to the film.
            The importance of family is prevalent in both films, with both Christian Bale’s (Dan Evans) and Guy Pearce’s (Charlie Burns) characters making great sacrifices in order to protect those they love. Evans undertakes the responsibility of escorting Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), a dangerous criminal, out of town in order to make money to provide for his family. Charlie Burns must make the more ruthless and brutal choice of killing his elder brother in order to save his younger brother from being hung in the gallows.
An important point that both films make is that family does not necessarily just entail flesh and blood. When Arthur and his cohort, Samuel are riding their horses in the mountains, Arthur ruminates about the characteristics of misanthropes. When Samuel inquires whether they are misanthropes, Arthur says, “Nah, we’re a family.” The bonds of a family are not tied only to blood for Arthur, regardless that he is in “business” with his two younger brothers. In Yuma, a similar understanding is reached with Wade and his right hand man Prince. Prince treats Wade like a family member, doing everything in his power to help him escape from the clutches of “the law”. Despite their slight differences, these two excellent films embody the Western fully and put their own twist on the genre.
Bibliography
Hart, C. (2006), Senses of Cinema. Available from: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2006/38/proposition/ [Accessed: May 18, 2011].