Titus - An Analysis

Introduction
The film I have chosen to consider is Titus, directed by Julie Taymor. Made in 1999, it is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus: his most bloodthirsty play.

Dante Ferretti’s Production Design was awarded a Silver Ribbon by the Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists. In particular, the Costume Design by Milera Canonero was nominated for an Oscar.1 In her production notes, Taymor states “I wanted to blend and collide time, to create a singular period that juxtaposed elements of ancient barbaric ritual with familiar, contemporary attitude and style.”2 It is this deliberate mixture of assorted anachronisms which gives the city of Titus its unique environment.

Looking at elements within a five minute sequence, I am examining the visual references to fascism, and seeing how these meld seamlessly into the texture of the world Taymor and Feretti have created.

A Vision of Various Periods
Interviewed for www.talentdevelop.com, Canonero talks about the chronological setting for the film. "It's a reinvented vision of various periods. There are references to the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, but not historically or academically used… The film is a period in itself. Of course, I've been inspired by Roman and Etruscan historical references, but Julie wanted to create a world of its own, not one that ever existed."3

Here we have an example of the modern and ancient blend. The microphone is a Shure 55 model, popular in 1950’s America4, recalling the Presidential campaigns of Truman, Eisenhower and JFK. But it bears the sigil SPQR: Senatus Populusque Romanus. This was the logo of the Ancient Roman Empire, used along with the eagle as a document header, as a military standard and as a stamp on monuments of Imperial glory. It was revived again by Mussolini as a visual boost for his fascist regime which he termed the New Roman Empire.5 Underneath the SPQR logo, we have, in smaller letters, the word NEWS, with a clear allusion to the style of television news bulletins still prevalent today.

The costume worn by Marcus, the senator, is equally a blend of styles. He wears a single breasted suit, brilliantly white and very modern in its minimalist cut. However, over this is neatly thrown a white sash with a red band, clearly reminiscent of the bleached white toga candida worn only by the Senators of Ancient Rome, with its distinctive stripe of garnet running diagonally down from the shoulder.6

Saturninus

Saturninus’ faction has a clear parallel with fascism. The Mercedes in which Saturninus rides is identical to the transport favoured by Hitler when he was joining in marches. The parallels between the first picture above and the picture below are remarkable.

But Saturninus has added a bullet proof cage around himself and from this we can gain an insight into his character. Obviously hated enough to have survived a previous assassination attempt, Saturninus is cowardly and paranoid, hiding inside a glass box to protect himself from the people he seeks to rule. Looking for contemporary references, the clearest parallel seems to be with the Pope, who is famous for journeying in similarly modified transport7. Given that Titus is set in Rome, it is possible that Taymor is making a subtle dig at the Vatican paranoia.

The stance adopted by Saturninus when addressing the crowd is clearly modelled on Hitler addressing Germany at the Nuremberg Rallies.8 Saturninus himself wears a leather trench coat, black with huge lapels in a dynamic red colour. The trench coat was made popular after being issued to officers in World War One. Later, as Hollywood took it over, it projected the image of an intelligent hard-man. Especially in leather, the floor length trench coat gives an impression of elegant dominance.9 Saturninus’ sleek red and black coat has certainly not seen hard times and his use of it appears to be a deliberate statement of the image he would like to project.

Some of Saturninus’ followers are following his fashion - in the long shots we see a cohort of about ten men wearing black trench coats with the distinctive red lapels. We are reminded of a political uniform. Wearing a uniform while on a political march has been outlawed in the UK since 1936, because of its association with fascism.10

On the hood of the car, and on the front of each of the motorbikes, we have an ornamental wolf head. This motif of the wolf occurs again and again throughout the film, and is a reference to the twin founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus. Legend has it they were raised by wolves.

The Set
Choosing a location for filming is as much a part of art direction as providing costumes and props and this scene is set against the backdrop of the EUR, once Mussolini’s government centre.11 Taymor describes it in her production notes: “[It] is referred to as the "square coliseum" because of its myriad arches. Built by Mussolini to recreate the glory of the ancient Roman Empire, this surreal -- almost futuristic architecture -- was a setting which perfectly embodied the concept for the film.”12

Banners and flags are a simple way to transform a location into a set. Here, black banners are hurled from the top storey in mourning for the passing of Caesar. Saturninus’ followers wave dynamic red and yellow flags, while Bassianus’ cohort have more gentle pale blue and white flags. Incidentally, these are the colours of the two rival football teams in modern day Rome: A.S. Roma and S.S. Lazio respectively.13

Conclusion
Combining many different styles and time periods may come across as a bit of a hotch potch, but it is clear that the periods and places referenced are not at random. Each has a parallel with the key elements of the film. Ancient Rome provides the original setting; Fascist Italy and Germany chimes with the attitudes and behavior of Emperor Saturnine and the contemporary references remind us that human nature has not changed and we are still capable of such brutality as any of our ancestors ever were.

References

1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120866/awards (16-01-10)

2 http://www.foxsearchlight.com/titus/film.html (16-01-10)

3 http://talentdevelop.com/interviews/Page1047.html (16-01-10)

4 http://www.oaktreeent.com/microphones.htm (23-01-10)

5 http://www.spqrtravel.com/spqr_meaning.htm (16-01-10)

6 http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/clothmen.html (16-01-10)

7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popemobile (23-01-10)

8 http://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/archives/barchpic/search/_1265285115/ (30-01-10)

9 “Men’s Fashion in the Twentieth Century” Maria Costantino BT Batsford Ltd 1997 p71

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1936 (16-01-10)

11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esposizione_Universale_Roma (16-01-10)

12 http://www.foxsearchlight.com/titus/film.html (16-01-10)

13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_della_Capitale (16-01-10)

Hitchcock and Truffaut

I have just finished a book of conversations between Hitchcock and Frances Truffaut, mentioned by Andy in one of the classes. I found it really interesting to read.

Truffaut is obviously a huge admirer of Hitchcock's work, and as they look at all the films Hitchcock made up to "Torn Curtain", his enthusiasm certainly seems to melt Hitchcock's sometimes gruff exterior. The book is framed as a dialogue, with the words transcribed directly from conversations had between the two film-makers. This lends itself to some entertaining moments where Truffaut irritates Hitchcock, or Hitchcock insults Truffaut or some other aside which (for some reason) amuses me.

I found Hitchcock's view of the New Wave interesting. He denounces neo-realism (or "the Italians") as being unable to tell a story, uninterested in structure and poor at climactic moments and especially the endings of films. He is more ambiguous about the New Wave, possibly with Truffaut (one of their main proponents) being in the room with him. He says he does not understand their dismissal of story structure: his own films are carefully constructed to maximise the impact on the audience. The drifting, apparently aimless style of the New Wave seems to be at odds with Hitchcock's precision. He also has little time for Realism at all: if you want to portray real life, he says, make documentaries. Hitchcock prefers dreamlike settings, nightmarish archetypes and voyeuristic fantasies.

He also made some other interesting points.

It is not necessary for the film to make logical sense. As long as it seems to roughly make sense on a first viewing, all that matters is that the audience are swept up in the emotion and tension of each scene.

The stronger the villain, the stronger the film. A stupid villain produces a stupid film; a weak villain a weak film and a predictable villain provides a predictable film.

An audience prefer to have a star as a protagonist because they already feel they know him (or her) without the character having to be comprehensively set up. Where Hitchcock used Cary Grant and James Stewart, the same would apply today to most big names. Even if it's Johnny Depp playing a role different from any he's ever done before, we still are more likely to warm to him than if it was somebody we had never seen before.

The job of the director is to tell things visually. Don't use dialogue if the images can say it for you. Use dialogue as a mask for what is really going on in a scene. Very rarely have the character say what they mean, especially at moments of emotional stress.

There was a lot more, but time and space constrain me. Well worth a read though!

Week Beginning 1/2

Monday was a time for us all to give presentations on our analysis of various scenes. I've very much enjoyed doing this assignment, and delving into the art direction of Titus has been both eye-opening and inspirational.

Tuesday was a meeting amongst the class to look at extra-curricular projects which we might be looking at. Almost everyone had ideas, and most of these I thought were good ideas. I'm hoping that when the shortlist for the end-of-year scripts are announced later today, it will give us all (and especially those of us who don't have to continue in development) added impetus to work on these projects.

After this we had a meeting on our documentaries, where we were chided for our lack of progress. However, we did, finally, decide on who was in which group and we have started taking a couple of steps int he right direction.

Wednesday was, for me, a full day filming with the BBC. Sounds exalted, but in reality, it was either a case of watching someone else - and not a very experienced someone else at that - or else manning a camera on mastershot, which didn't require much (if any) fiddling!

Thursday was deadline day for both Ray's essay and Richard's script. It was also an afternoon with John Yorke, looking at online content. I think I have an obvious aversion to online content, as intuitively I think of grainy, pixellated images the size of a postage stamp. This of course is not the case, but when combined with the lack of any feasible business model is not inspiring. This (I suppose) is a key issue with the Internet in its totality. Why would you pay for something, when you can get it for free? We get our news for free on BBC News website and others. We get our music for free on Spotify and others. We get our video clips for free on youtube, our TV free on iPlayer, our books free on GoogleBooks, our information free on wikipedia, our phonecalls free on Skype. It just goes on. And meanwhile, we end up devaluing all these services and taking them for granted. Why would we pay for these things, when we can get them for free?

Friday was a class on Directing, very useful. We looked at the casting process from briefs to auditions. One of the key things is the use of improv in auditions, the importance of giving the actor the script first and ensuring they have read it, and the benefits of having more than one actor in at a time.

At the weekend I was at a Christian Arts conference, called Interface, meeting up with artists from all disciplines: sculpture to fashion, songwriting to mechanical design. We looked at questions like "What is Art?" "Why is it important?" "Does it need to be justified?" and "How can we use our Art to bring glory to God?". One of the speakers was Norman Stone, director of "Man Dancin'" and various other TV and film dramas. He was particularly interesting to hear, and I also met up with two other film makers from the East Coast. Given that film is far more collaborative than most art forms, it is particularly exciting for me to meet new film-makers, and I'm always looking for more people I can work with.