This week’s blog focuses on the British film “Pride and Prejudice” (2005) and demonstrates how it meshes with the theoretical framework of structuralism film theory. Gordon Gray’s article on “Cinema: A visual Anthropology” illustrates how the theory plays a vital role in establishing a fundamental unit of filmic meaning. “Pride and Prejudice” assumes the more simplistic perspective of the theory where “the basic preposition of structuralism is that humans engage with, make sense of, and function in the world though sets of binary oppositions.” (Gray, p. 53) Structuralism film theory erects systems of binary oppositions such as good/bad, left/right, for example while “Pride and Prejudice” is concerned with binary oppositions of female/male, marginal/not marginal and wealthy/not wealthy, which are lucidly demonstrated throughout the movie.
The novel-based movie focuses on the main character of Elizabeth Bennet who deals with issues of manners, upbringing, morality, education and marriage in the society of the landed gentry of early 19th-century England. Addressing major themes such as social standing through being wealthy versus not possessing wealth, plays a major role in demonstrating the disadvantages and advantages people confronted during this era. Wealth, however, is not necessarily an advantage in Elizabeth’s world. The failure of this is shown when Mr. and Mrs. Bennet become blamed for their lack of judgment. When Elizabeth walks to Netherfiled and arrives with a muddy skirt, to the shock of the reputation-conscious Miss Bingley and others, this reflects on the Bennet family’s rank of class and wealth. Since this incidentth e ill-mannered behavior of Elizabeth Bennet bestows her a bad reputation which creates conflict between ties of her social relationship with the Bingleys and Darcys. This identifies how lines are strictly drawn concerning social status and wealth. Through the thematic oppositions of wealthy versus non-wealthy, the reader is able to perceive how education and upbringing support binary oppositions.
In contrast, Mr. Darcy proves to be quite the opposite, as through his wealth he shows a distinct understanding of the mannerisms and education that proves to demonstrate a certain aspect of morality, unlike Elizabeth Bennet and her parents. Mr. Darcy demonstrates oppositional qualities through his higher education in being principled and scrupulously honorable as well as being proud and overbearing. The female and male position in the narrative contributes to understanding the meaning of the themes and therefore contributes to how the author has employed the distinctions through wealthy/non-wealthy and marginal/non-marginal oppositions. Through the different themes that contribute in addressing the binary oppositions in this film, it is clear how “people, places, and things may change from one set to another, or may take on elements of the other ...structuralists suggest that what happens is that certain things, stages of life, times, etc. are mediations or transitions between those two sets.” (Gray, p. 54) These transitional zones are where the fictional narrative transpires.
Vladimir Propp concludes in Gray’s article that there are thirty-one basic narrative units and eight character types, with the roles being distributed among different characters in the film. Elizabeth Bennet represents the princess, the donor and the dispatcher through her character. (Propp) Through identifying the structuralism theory elements in this film, those who view the film are able to understand ‘themselves’ in addition to the role they play in society. “The very processes of successful cinema, eliciting empathy in viewers and the suspension of disbelief, were seen as aiding in constituting the viewers as subjects of the ruling orthodoxy.” (Gray, p. 55) The use of oppositional features in the film and a reliance on structuralism theory “allows the theorist to build a persuasive case for the coherence of a director’s body of work and for a more theorized approach to film study.” (Gray, p. 55) which clearly demonstrates similarity with semiotic theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment