The Creation of Vamps in Hollywood Melodramas

 Hollywood’s system of producing motion pictures using created starring luminaries is not an inadvertent and desultory process. Every idol in the last 80 years went through a well though-out plan, deeming where the actress came from, what her real personality was like, in what way could she be recreated. Though this phenomenon is only an intriguing addition to the bibliographies of the divas, in an extended observation it shows how the inclination of melodrama changed over the past century. We will monitor the classic, modern, and postmodern eras of Hollywood melodramas through Greta Garbo, Audrey Hepburn and Nicole Kidman.

Greta Garbo

In melodramas, in contrast to comedy, the body of the character is passive. This resignation is typical of Garbo, predominantly in her sound film epoch. The producers and directors visualized the Swiss actress as frigid, mysterious woman (coming from the fact that she is a foreigner), who hides her emotions behind a mask. While the paradox in Buster Keaton’s case was that his face was a piece of wood, and his body was supple, the perplexity of Garbo confines to her face: a mask made of flesh. Garbo was often referred to as the Face. When people went to the cinema back in the 30s, they said they are going to see 'the Face'. 

Audrey Hepburn

In Audrey Hepburn’s time, the Italian neorealism had an effect on Hollywood: the actuality of melodrama amplified. They shot the movies on the streets, contingency and fortuitous replaced fate. Directors built the scenes on Hepburn’s unexpected reactions on the set. She was open, active and transitional. Hepburn’s face was "constituted by an infinite complexity of morphological functions. Whereas the face of Garbo is an Idea, Hepburn’s is an Event." (Roland Barthes) 

Nicole Kidman
(dressed up in Jean Paul Gaultier)

In the postmodern melodrama, the actress is not composed. Garbo’s image was created by William Daniels cinematographer, who lighted her face in a characteristic, conventional way. At the present time, cosmetic surgery makes it possible to generate the appearance of a diva. Nicole Kidman looks exactly the same way on screen as she does in real life. They brought the body of an actress closer to the ideal look.

While Garbo’s was a created, irradiated face, Hepburn’s was light itself. The camera wanted to entangle her look, because she was not artificial. Kidman is between the former actresses. Though she is bogus, she is natural at the same time, on the grounds that they do not put make up on her to make Kidman look a certain way, as they did in Garbo’s position. 

Good Night, and Good Luck.

George Clooney. One of those guys who always make it. Whatever they do, we love it. He needs no introduction. But little know that he directed three movies, and is making his fourth one at this very moment.

Two of the three already released movies are not bad at all. He proved as a director in 2002 with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, starring Sam Rockwell, Drew Barrymore, Julia Roberts, and Clooney himself. It has been a long time since I have seen it, but I can clearly recall that I loved this film.

In 2005 he directed Good Night, and Good Luck. Clooney chose a genre for his film that is not in fashion anymore, as a matter of fact it never really was: docudrama. Though he shot the movie in color, during the post production he changed it to black and white. He also uses film noir elements, which helps to create the atmosphere of the period: America in the 50s. What I found terrific is that every scene was shot inside, all in the CBS broadcasting studio. (There are two exceptions though, but my point is that every place is closed: the studio, the bar, Joe & Shirley Wershba's bedroom.) Pictures of faces, shades, and cigarette smoke. Robert Elswitt (cinematographer) made an excellent job.

Clooney focuses on the issue and the facts. He even utilizes original archive footage. One might claim that there are no characters, no background information about the reporters, but that is the virtue of the movie. Though it is a drama, the viewer still has the feeling that they are watching a documentary film. The line can hardly be noticed.

George Clooney and Dianne Reeves

The film features Dianne Reeves, an exceptional jazz singer. She sings a standard every 23rd minute: that was the usual length of a TV show in the 50s. The soundtrack of Good Night, and Good Luck not only serves the movie perfectly, but also stands alone as a fascinating jazz experience.

The movie is George Clooney's critique of the present media through a historical event. It will always be valid and actual... What do we call something that never goes out of style? Classic.

David Strathairn as Edward R. Murrow

Scream 4

Scream 4 is not the typical fourth installment. Wes Craven did something phenomenal here. Though he is really good at what he does (thriller, horror), Mr. Craven is-unfortunately-an underrated director due to the fact that the genre of horror is an underrated category. 

It should not be and I say this despite the fact that I cannot stand horrors. (There is one exception though: Sleepy Hollow, directed by Tim Burton.) Most horror movies for me are purely functional. By functional movies I mean films that are enjoyable once, I get what I want then move on, forget it. But for that 2 hours, they do what they have to: entertain.  

Every once in a while I buy a ticket for a horror movie. As Craven once said, "Horror films don't create fear. They release it." After the horror I see on screen, I forget about my unsolved problems in real life. The bills, love affairs, and allergy are nothing compared to those people staggering in blood, groaning in agony. We live, at least.

Wes Craven was responsible for The Last House on the Left (1972), The Hills Have Eyes (1977), Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), Scream (1996). Classic horror movies, now all part of popular culture. He once tried to escape the ties of his genre by directing a drama, Music of the Heart, back in 1999, starring Meryl Streep. 

In 2005 he made an extremely exciting thriller: Red Eye, starring Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, and Brian Cox. He could create thrilling atmosphere by making two actors sit next to each other for 60 minutes on an airplane (closed, claustrophobic place). Simple as that. This is something Hitchcock could do, not many others. What I found interesting is that despite the fact that it is a rather short film (less that one and a half hour), it could jolt me. While Hitchcock would have probably built up the story in three hours, Craven cut the film in real time. He thought people cannot sit in the screening room for such long time, so he scrammed excitement in a relatively short time. And it works perfectly.

Now, you might start to question the validity of my writing's title. I wanted to point out that Craven is a self-conscious director. He always minds the context: his previous films, the trend, present history and culture. Craven knew exactly that people are not going to accept a new scary movie. This film is not scary because of the murders. What proves this is that it does not even try to scare anyone. There is no slow moving of the camera through the dark hall, the orchestra does not play suspenseful melodies anymore. These kinds of one-minute inserts where you are supposed to get ready to be scared are missing. Craven is realistic. Murders happen the way they do, he does not want to trick you. He does not want to play with you heart-rate. This time he plays with your mind. 

Scream 4's key word is self-reflection. The movie is more like an essay on the the new trends in horror movies, the clichés and the new forms of clichés, and the series itself. I laughed more than screamed. I mean it in a positive way. It is rather a satire of horror. Almost every scene of the movie is about itself. 

The opening scene is creditably clever. It goes further than movie within a movie. Craven creates practically three opening scenes withing a fourth. He recalls the clichés that occurred in the previous Scream movies, and parodies them. Cervantes, at the beginning of the 17th century when chivalric romance was not in fashion anymore, wrote Don Quixote in which he satirized the tired genre. Craven did the same, but went even further. Raymond Chandler, after writing six of Philip Marlowe's detective stories, in 'The Long Goodbye' develops the genre of hard-boiled fiction by including social criticism. Craven in the finale of Scream 4 broadens the conflict of film and puts it on a higher level: the new American society. He brings in people's relation with the modern era of internet: video hosting services, the social network, publicity. Two horror fanatics in Scream 4 summarize: "Well, if you wanna be the new, new version, the killer should be filming the murders. It's like the natural next step in the psycho-slasher innovation. I mean you film them all real-time and before you get caught, you upload them into cyberspace. Making your art as immortal as you."

As I mentioned before, every scene includes elements of self-reflection. Therefore it would be painfully long to highlight all of them, and scrutinize the smart script written by Kevin Williamson, the original writer of the now classic Scream. Wes Craven not only points out the limits of horror, but offers new ways for the seemingly tired genre. It cannot be stated that Scream 4 reformed horror but it certainly is an improvement. 

Mr Craven, congratulations! 

Wes Craven