Sunday, February 1, 2009

Sleeplessin Seattle

Sleepless in Seattle I found to be a very interesting example of narrative style in film. For anyone who has not seen the film it is about a man, Sam, who's wife has died, and a woman, Annie, who at the beginning of the movie is engaged to a man named, Walter. The man's son, Jonah, calls up a radio talk show and talks to the woman about his father being depressed from his lost wife. The woman, along with many others among the greater American continent, hears the talk show. She over time decides to get in contact with Sam, despite her relationship with Walter, and ends up writing him a letter. Jonah finds the letter and decides to go along with the letters plan and go meet Annie in new york. Sam tells Jonah that they cannot go. But Jonah will not take no for an answer and goes alone. Sam then has to new york to find his son and ends up meeting Annie with whom he falls in love with almost immediately.

The narrative structure of this film I found to be very interesting because of the fact that it is really two stories in one. Sam and Jonah have their own story and Annie has hers. In truth the two stories interact very few times in the movie. They only influence each other four times, when Annie first hears the talk show, when she writes her letter, when she goes to visit Seattle, and finally when they meet in New York. Other then that the stories function independently as does the plot development which for a good half the movie is only indirectly influenced by the others plot. However, despite all of this I would still argue that this narrative is a good example of the kind of narrative space talked about by Heath and supported by Cooper. It follows a very linear plot development culminating in a happy ending as only Hollywood can supply.

One thing that I found very interesting in this movie was the difference between the two main characters. Most movies follow the stereotype that the man is the one who chases the woman. In this movie Sam does literally nothing to get together with Annie. He reads her letter but is not impressed and has no intention of meeting her. He in fact would never have gone to new york were it not for his son. He actually spends a very large part of the movie dating another woman with no intention of meeting Annie at all. Annie on the other hand is with her fiance but spends a rather large part of her time looking for and trying to get with Sam. She is the one who does things like finding out where he lives and tracking him down in the middle of Seattle. Another interesting thing is the looseness of relationships in the movie. The audience spends the movie rooting for Annie to get together with Sam despite the fact that they are both in other relationships. Annie has very little trouble at the end of the movie leaving Walter, who it turns out is actually an amazingly nice guy. At the end Sam also finds it very easy to leave his girlfriend of the past few months for Annie. This is an especially interesting fact when we consider his loyalty of almost two years to his dead wife.
Sleepless in Seattle is an interesting movie, and a good example of Narrative, while still having an intriguing narrative structure. However, It does leave me questioning the plot as to why Walter was made to be such a nice guy and why Annie was able to leave him so easily.

6 comments:

  1. I think the answer to your question of why Annie (Meg Ryan) was able to leave nice guy Walter (Bill Pullman) so easily lies in the technical elements of the film. Mark Garrett Cooper says in his article "Love, Danger, and the Ideology of Hollywood Cinema" that "Hollywood ideology had everything to do with the composition and arrangement of images." And, as Wynn Hunter points out in his blog (http://1wynnhunter.blogspot.com), Annie and Walter's eyelines never match up-their images are never arranged properly to indicate in Hollywood "code" that they are in love and will be a successful couple.

    Just look at the picture in the top right corner of your blog post if you need any more evidence that matching eyelines are not crucial for romantic success. The two characters catch each others' gazes perfectly, just like they do throughout the movie even though they are not physically together. Through great cinematography (done in this movie by Sven Nykvist) and great editing (Robert Reitano), the physical distance is overcome and the characters are linked together in the perfect Hollywood romance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a comment similar to Laura's above. Jacob's post describes how Sam does not chase after Annie at all; his going to NY is only due to his son's misbehavior. But Sam does not need to chase Annie, since the technical elements of the film do the chasing for him. The camera and editing demonstrate his longing and pursuit of true romance - he does not have to take action himself. The film uses eye-line matching to connect Sam and Annie cross-country. Sam does not have to physically do anything to achieve a successful ending. The love at first sight ending is rather implausible, but the film has already lain the groundwork for it over the first hours of the film. The initial romantic connection between the two has already been established, by editing together two disparate stories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You bring up a good point, Jacob. For a story so deeply rooted in love and its many splendors (....), the "two lovers" have very separate and unrelated lives. What's more, Sam (Tom Hanks) does not even know his "lover" exists until halfway through the film. But, as Michael says in his comment, this is part of what makes the technical aspects of the film so sound. And in this way, the film goes against classical Hollywood cinema. Mark Garret Cooper says that Stephen Heath believes that the off-screen space must ultimately be the "'fulfillment of promise'....The shot/reverse-shot figure will become his central example, in which a character's look out of the frame cries out for a mate, another characer who appears to look back." While this is true for Annie and Sam, initially, this "fulfillment of promise" for Sam comes in the form of Victoria. While we know, at first laugh (Victoria's, that is), that they won't be the happy couple at the end of the film, it obvious that the technological aspects of the film are just that: technical, non-discriminatory, non-partisan aspects that accomplish whatever needs to be done. In this respect, it is, as Michael says, the editing and not the narrative that make the film. But, if we consider carefully Garret Cooper's words, we can see that for all it's convenience, shot/reverse-shot has its limitations and utlimately, for a relationship or love to be successful, the two characters must be united using the same looks in one frame. This union--phyiscal--is the actual fulfillment of promise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love the pictures you selected. The second one perfectly embodies "the look" that Cooper asserts fuels a story.

    I would have to agree with you that Sleepless in Seattle exemplifies the typical Hollywood ending movie following convention on plot, but with a twist (that is, the unusual storyline). It is a bit odd that Hanks and Ryan never interact until the end, with Ryan acting as the aggressive female. However, while Ryan might be doing the pursuing, she is still being held within that submissive female role. Her actions (as well as Jonah's) got her to her encounter with Hanks at the end, it is only through her physical appearance that she is finally able to capture Hanks, as we see with the long gaze they share to the elevator. When Ryan tries to win him over with her personality by sending the letter (and you could even argue that because she wasn't actually the one that sent the letter, her role as "aggressor" was given to her rather than she chose to be so), Hanks completely ignores it. Meanwhile, Ryan's infatuation is more about Hanks' mental state of mind. They way he describes his love for his wife is what draws him to her. She falls in love more with what he says than really what he looks like. So what seems to be a spin on conventional roles is really, in essence, reinforcing them, I think.

    In the end, it seems like both of them are jerks for abandoning their respective significant others. Like you said, Bill Pullman's character seems like a nice, caring guy and yet Ryan ends up going for a guy who is still in love with his deceased wife and who is willing to leave his girlfriend for a woman he just met (we assume this happens). And yet, most people end up rooting for this. Oh, love stories.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Greetings Jacob,
    This is Alexis. I'll be the person grading the blog component of the course. You do a good job outlining the plot of the film. However, your classmates are right to point you to the technical aspects of the film. Unfortunately the plot of the film by itself may not be interesting enough to make a full argument about...especially in the context of this week's readings.
    I look forward to your continued investigations of the stories that the filmic techniques at work here have to tell!
    Best,
    Alexis

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, Jacob.

    Sorry for the lateness, but for some reason I couldn't access your blog with the link that Annie sent me. I figured it out now (after having spoken to you in class), but I wanted to comment on your blog anyways.

    I like how you mentioned that Sam and Annie are essentially living in two different worlds. Cinematographically, as well as narratively, you are actually more correct than you might realize.

    The two principle characters (Sam and Annie) do in fact lead completely seperate lives, hold different jobs, in different sides of the country, and are actually ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED WITH two very different people. However, even aside from this, cinematically speaking the two actors (Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan), actually seem to share two different shooting schedules. The two actors share a grand-total of two minutes of screen time (in quite literally the final scene of the movie), and from a production standpoint may never have needed to be on set at the same time, since with modern production techniques and continuity editing they could have shot every other scene independently, and at different times.

    Even so, this glaring absence of shared screen time does not phase the viewer at all, and would never be readily apparent to someone not actively looking for such a trivial fact. The reason for this is that the effect of shot-reverse-shot editing and eye-line matches creates an almost dialogical (yes it is a word, now) linkage between the two, and creates the impression that they are somehow related or together. There is never any doubt, therefore, that Annie and Sam are somehow related or linked together; even though they have no dialogue (except at the end), no shared screen time (except at the end), and do not even meet formally (except at the end), it doesn't matter. They ARE together, in the audience's mind, because they appear sequentially and, as the human mind fills in the gaps between frames of film, our minds can infer and fill in the rest.

    ReplyDelete