(500)
Days of Summer, Semiotics, and Narrative Codes
The
“what-could-have-been”…in a non-classic story of Boy Meets Girl and they fall
in love…or at least he does. We begin
with an establishing shot, a park bench overlooking a part of the city that we
find out later is of value to the protagonist.
A closer shot of two people on the bench and then the close-up of the
hands and a ring on her finger. We feel
as though we are about to participate in a classic Rom-Com. Using the codes for romantic comedy as shared
by viewers, the audience has expectations of what will take place for the next
two or so hours. As Bordwell put it: “spectators
participate in a complex process of actively elaborating what the film sets
forth.” (183) Following his guide, we
know exactly what the aforementioned scene means…young love. Our set of codes leads us to a particular
conclusion that the filmmakers then break into pieces. We know this is a love story, as spectators,
we are certain of that fact. That is, of
course, until a few moments into the piece where the narrator clearly informs
us that our expectations are wrong and that this isn’t a love story.
We
should have known that from the start.
Aside for the cuteness factors of it loveable stars, there are obvious signs. According to Metz, film is a signifying
system and in it, each shot is a statement.
Our task is to decipher those statements using all our faculties. The film begins with an almost cheesy wedding
video montage of both Deschanel/Summer and Levitt/Tom growing up. We have a number of perspective shots and
continuity shots. Specifically when
Summer’s childhood self blows a dandelion into the frame of Tom’s childhood
self, which then becomes bubbles. The
montage leads the audience in the belief that we are seeing the story of how
these two people came together. But, the
illusion is shattered and a new reality – if you can present a fiction piece of
film as such - emerges. We are greeted
with a disclaimer: “Any resemblance to people living or dead is purely
coincidental…Especially you Jenny Beckman…Bitch.” But we simply laugh it off as a funny
statement, and fall into the same trap as Tom, only viewing a part of the whole
until we are forced (through repetition of events, dual shots, and non-linear
narrative) to “look again.”
The
fragmented narrative is told from Tom’s point of view, and often from the
inside of his head. Its non-linear story
line jumps back and forward in time as Tom tries to figure out how and why
everything went awry. The spectator gets
to journey with Tom as the title cards (denoting which of the 500 days is being
explored, reflects the status of the relationship; with good days being
brighter and bad days filled with shadows and gray) guide out journey. It almost seems as if these placards allow for
Tom, through fragmented memory, or the narrator, through almost abstract
narrative, or perhaps even the audience to travel through time and space –
something film allows us to do beautifully, to erase, or redraw or recolor our
version of the past. A version with is
often tainted with the obsession of a view from rose-colored glasses or the
haze of anger and resentment. Metz spoke
of how film operates as a visual language or system with encoded meanings. While watching the film, the viewers decode
without realizing they are doing so. And
those meanings can be found visually, aurally or in a narrative.
This
film certainly has several examples that would lead one to tie it back to the classic
narrative film, as described by Kuhn; such as the use of cross-cutting and
linking certain shots together through editing so the storyline can be followed. The progression of shots within each scene
certainly aids in the retelling of the progression of the relationship; indeed
it seems as though each scene is actually a classic narrative of its own which
are then mixed together to create the whole product. One could also cite its use of close-ups when
Tom is reflecting on his view of Summer and qualities or flaws (depending on
his mood) of the parts of her body. Cut-in
shots, like the emphasis of the ring in a few sequences, or the look in Tom’s
eyes, or the framing of certain scenes which are than underscored with
contemporary music further the potential for characterization and create “the
look.” However, one cannot ignore its clear and
rather blunt disregard for classicism. While
classics value linear storylines that follow the pattern of cause and effect,
as well as clear plot resolution brought about through the journey of the hero
to establish equilibrium, can one really determine the degree of closure in a
film like this? We can be mostly certain
in the symbolic close-ups shown throughout the film that Summer’s resolution is
complete. These close-ups “serve to
reveal emotions, and to some extent, individual personality traits of the
characters.” (210) She regains
everything she loved and lost during her parents’ divorce that made her abandon
her faith in love. Specific moments
highlight how she only loved two things in her life; one was her long hair and
the other was how she could cut it off and not feel anything at all. Along this vein, at the conclusion of the
film, she is shown, once again with long hair, and once again, allowing herself
to feel. But the same closure is not
present in Tom’s story.
Perhaps
this film is more closely associated with the tenets of Alternative narrative
systems where the “narration of events in a story may not be organized
according to any linear logic of cause and effect”. Its conclusion leaves us somewhat
hanging. We know he moves on from Summer
and meets Autumn, but it is left open to our interpretation after that. Or the view that in classic filmmaking, there
is a necessity of a credible fictional world; which this film establishes in
its glimpse into the rather boring life of Tom, working as a greeting card
copy-writer, but then completely breaks this mold in its big musical Disney-esque
dance number, complete with shots of Tom seeing himself as Han Solo or dancing
down the street with a marching band and animated bird. Equally it follows a number of codes found
within the art system of Film. Parallels
are found in the “temporal continuity through repetition and stretching time,
by unpunctuated temporal ellipsis, flash backs or flash forwards.” (217) The story is told through memories, as Tom
digs back and encodes that mess of his relationship; but also the very thing
that allows for him to wake up and change and get back to his passion for architecture. In these perspective shots, we see Tom’s
state of mind. The other characters (sister/counselor,
co-worker, best friend) fill their social required role for the piece without
much background or explanation for their presence.
Most
significant of the shots, perhaps, is the split screen that highlights Tom’s
expectations versus the reality of his encounter with Summer after their
breakup. The ring, so prominent on his
friend from work at the beginning of the story, is now featured on Summer’s
hand. That whole moment, months before
in the characters world, but just a few minutes in ours through the magic of
cinema where time and space have no bounds, where the narrator simply states: “here
was Tom, in her world. And here was
Summer, wanting him there” has become a thing of the past. As Bordwell suggests, A shot by shot analysis
can aid us in doing our own bit of understanding and identification with the
piece. Being armed with the codes that
society has established as well as the accepted techniques used in filmmaking
and editing can help us go farther into the piece. A film, which I initially enjoyed while I sat
on my couch and typed emails, has become something that fascinates me and about
which I keep instructing my students…who knows if it’s appropriate…
No comments:
Post a Comment