Empirical testing 1 A STUDY OF JANE CAMPION FILMS Cleveland State Uni - PDF document

Empirical testing 1 A STUDY OF JANE CAMPION FILMS Cleveland State University Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree MASTERS OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION THEORY AND METHODOLOGY CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY December, 2006 Empirical testing 2 CHAPTER I The film of tomorrow appears to me as even more personal than an individual and autobiographical novel, like a confession, or a diary. The young filmmakers will express themselves in the first person and will relate what has happened to them. It may be the story of their first love or their most recent; of their political awakening; the story of a trip, a sickness, their military service, their marriage, their last vacation . . . and it will be enjoyable because it will be true, and new. . . The film of tomorrow will not be directed by civil servants of the camera, but by artists for whom shooting a film constitutes a wonderful and thrilling adventure. The film of tomorrow will resemble the person who made it, and the number of spectators will be proportional to the number of friends the director has. The film of tomorrow will be an act of love. — François Truffaut (Le Cain, 2001, p. 1). Film is a fascinating phenomenon. It is notcreation of a team. However, since the infancy of movies, individuals have been claiming authorship of a product. It star century, when German writers claimed authorship to the films created based on their scripts. Who can claim authorship? Is therauthor in film production? Diving into the literature dealing withs, there is such a thit is usually the director who stamps each of his or her films with a unique imprint or signature. But, how do you recognize the director’s signature? Can you rely on the subjectivity of film critics? Are you satisfied when a film critic tells you who is and who auteur (the author)? Empirical testing 3 To answer these questions, I am attempone director, Jane Campion, through the auteur theory lens. She has been granted auteur status by many critics and scholars (BlonsMellencamp, 1996; Nelmes, 1999; Polan, 2001; Schröder, 2004). Jane Campion, Polan (2001) stfew female directors divergences; the dispersions; thtween quirky humour, a making strange of the familiar, and an interest in the ambiguous, even that which is uncomfortable and which makes the viewer uncomfortable – that means that to study her is to study the cinema differently, to rethink the very terms of analysis of the film An elaborate coding scheme was createCampion and compare it to other non-Campion films, work of other directors. Will she be the subjective eyes of film critics? This is the core Today, the vast majority of people would agree that film is an art form. How we Empirical testing 4 think about films, however, is not how it was thought of five decades ago. The auteur theory changed how film was viewed in terms of authorship, and because of that, it is one of the most known and most criticized theories in film history. As mentioned earlier, as early as in the the 1940s it became a popular debate among the French film critics with Andre Bazin and Alexandre Astruc’s beliefs that(Bazin, 1967; Bazin, 1971; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003). As quoted in Thompson and The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: a writer writes with The Fifties and Romantic – Auteurism The most influential work on film authorship came out of the early fifties, The writers for the formed a polemic – la politique des auteurs, or the policy of looking at films in terms of authors, as Astruc suggested in his essay. The next step in the development of auteurism was written by one of own members Francois Truffaut. In his articlefor making “essentially scenarists’ films” directors of that time only added visual pictures to the script, with no attempt to their own talent. He also criticized the scriptwriters for not staying true to the novels they adopted, because they thought it had un-filmable scenes. Of course Empirical testing 5 an un-filmable scene. He then continued There are scarcely more than seven or eight scenarists working regularly for the French cinema. Each one of these scenariseach only aspires to the success of the “two greats” [scenarists], it is not exaggerating to say that the hundred-odd French films made each year tell the same story . . . (Truffaut, 1976, p. 232). He also attacked the script What’s keeping [the filmmakers and scriptwriters] from making, from one day to the next, intellectual films, from adapting masterpieces (there are still a few left) and, of course, adding funerals, here, there and everywhere? Well, on that day we will be in the “Tradition of Quality” up to the neck and French cinema, with rivalry among “psychological realism”, “violence”, “strictness”, “ambiguity”, will no longer be anything but one vast funeral that will be able to leave the studio in Billancourt and enter the cemetery directly – it seems to have been placed the next door expressly, in order to get more quickly from the producer to the grave- digger” (Truffaut, 1976, p. 235). The editorial criticsfollowed Truffaut’s critique of the current French the directors’ literary films. The magazine argued that even though film production was an industrproduct. They praised individuality, visual distinction, and consistent thematic focus (Buscombe, 1981; Caughie, 1981; Cook, 1986; Miller & Stam, 2000; Sarris, 1962; Sarris, 1968; Sarris, 2003; Stam, 2000; Stam & Miller, 2000; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003; Truffaut, 1976; Wexman, 2003).ugh filmmakers in the United States are working under strict were evident in films by directors, such asson Welles, John Ford, are true authors of the film, they are the Empirical testing 6 The Romantic auteurismwas introduced to the United 1968; Sarris, 1962; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003; Wexman, 2003; Wollen, 1969). Sarris is responsible for the loose translation of the French term is “primarily a critical device for recording the history of American cinema, the only cinema in the world worth exploring With the translations of the Sarris took Truffaut’s criticism of the French cinema and admiration of certain American directors a step further. He called the American cinema superior to any other cinema, and evidence. No comparisons to other cinemas ware made, or even attempted. Truffaut, Sarris, and the auteur theorists believed that over time, if there is a recognizable stylistic and thematic personality rd, 1998; Sarris, 1968; Sarris, 1976; Stam, 2000). Directors’ thematic personalities come alive through recurring themes - the “dominant idea[s] made concrete through ters, action, and imagery of the film” (Rabiger, 1997, p. 517). Sarris believed auteur theory had three principles. Firscompetence of a director as a criterion of rough his body of work; third, the inner meaning, “the ultimate Empirical testing 7 glory of the cinema as an art… the tensmaterial” (p. 7). It can be thought of as the diof auteurism as technical competence of the auteur; auteur's personality that brings in recurring themes, which become his or her signature; and the tension between the auteur and his material, which may not seem obvious but after analyzing the auteurs work it will come to the surface. In 1968, Andrew Sarris wrote: “ . . . the notfrom the context of quality. Comprehension becomes a function of comprehensiveness. As more movies are seen, more cross-references are assembled. Fractional responsibilities are more precisely defined; personal signatures are more clearly discerned” (p. 19). He then ranked the American directors with the most important essive Esoterica,” Fringe Benefits,” Less than Meets the Eye,” “Lightly Likable,” “Sand Newcomers,” “Subjects for Further Resetechnical problems with a personal vision of wks, Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith, Jean Renoir, Fritz Lang, and Orson Welles were some directors included the Far Side of Paradise categ. who fall short of the Pantheon either because of a fragmentation of their personal vision or because of the disruptive career problems” (p. 83) such as Frank Capr Empirical testing 8 Samuel Fuller. In the Less than Meets the John Ford, David Lean, Billy Wilder, and William Wellman. He wrote “These are tions. In retrospect, it always seems that the eved “. . . are talented butinflate rather than expand” rt Wise were listed in . . . the auteur critic does not look to the cinema of completely original artistic experiences. The cinema is both a window and a mirror. The window looks out on the real world both directly (documenta mirror reflects what the director (or other dominant artist) feels about the spectacle. Modern cinema tends to fog reflection. It would seem that a theory would endorse a cinema in which a di supreme (p. 31). The Late Sixties, Early Seventies and Structuralist - Auteurism In the sixties, a rethinking of auteur th(Cook, 1986; Stam, 2000; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003; Wexman, 2003). The British film journals introduced theoretically more evolved and scientific auteurism - structuralist-auteurism (Stam, 2000; Wexman, 2003). In France, the new, radical, more political and intellectual critics also moved away from romantic-auteurism by conceptualizing “authorship as an unconsciconscipresence could subvert the surface meanings of a given filmic text” (Wexman, 2003, p. Empirical testing 9 The idea of the author being the only and sole creator of meaning has been attacked. The Marxist movement took the emphasis of the individualism and put it to reorganized with structuralism, a method also and anthropology. Rather than simply granting film, structuralist-auteurist theory searched for familiar structures such as characters, or plot that occurred in more films through group and team effort (Corrigan & White, 2004). Structuralism came out of semiotics, mainly the theories of Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure, and an American scthe result of the works of FrBarthes, and French anthropologist Claude Lèvi-Strauss. The basis for structuralism is that all language can be ordered and understood, according to Saussure (Hayward, 1998; Stam, 2000; Stam, Burgoyne, & Flitterman-Lewis, 1992; Stam & Miller, 2000; Wollen, al structures or systems shared by a itself (parole) for example utterances made by speakers (Hayward, 1998; Stam, 2000; Stam, Burgoyne, & Flitterman-Lewis, 1992; Wollen, 1968). According to Saussure, language is made up of signs which have twers, and the signified being the concept or image that we create in our mind when we hear or read the signifier (Caughie, 1981; Hayward, 1998; Stam, 2000; Wollen, 1968). Stam, Burgoyne, and Flitterman-Lewis (1992) defined structuralism as a “ theobehavior, institutions, and texts are seen as analyzable in terms of an underlying network Empirical testing 10 int being that the elements which constitute the network gain their meaning from the relations that hold between the elements” (p. 18). Wollen argued that the work of an auteur is not only formal, but it has semantic dimensions and that two main schools of revealing a core of meanings, of thematic motifs, and those who stressed style and en-scène” (1969, p. 78). Auteur-structuralism is lconstruct rather than a human being. This new approach to auteurism was positively accepted by auteur advocates, as it was believed that structuralism and its empirical approach would bring “an objective basis for the concept and counter the romanticand it would uncover the basic structures, and reoccurring themes in the artist’s work. The editors applied at Ford’s films dealt with s dealt with hetic personality or his complex historical situations” (p. 501). Peter Wollen (1968) analyzed films of John Ford with the structuralist method as well. He identified maFord’s films such as wilderness, as Ford’s themes. These antinomoften reversed in his films, but always present. Wollen wrote, “if the concept of ‘language’ is to be used it must be used scienot simply as a loose, though Empirical testing 11 suggestive, metaphor” (p. 116). Peter Wollen’s structuralist – auteurism approach to film analyses was moving toward more systematic and scientific methods to film studies. However, with the rise of post-structuralism in the 1970s, the interests of thalist – auteurism to debates auteurism and took it a step further with empirical approach to auteurism. Table 1 illustrates the development of auteur theory as outlined here. Development of Auteur Theory 1950s Romantic-auteurism Author as an expressive Individual - producer of meaning Thematic and stylistic properties read from the films 1960s Auteur-Structuralism Author as constructed from the films Set of structures identifiable within a body of films 1970s Auteur-Post-Structuralism Author as constructed from the films & a subject position within the film Introduction of spectator - pleasure and ideology Auteur Theory Revisited In later articles, Sarris wrote that if he could go back and reformulate the auteur theory, he would put more stress on the author’s filmic style differences rather than the idealistic suffering of the artists. He believed auteurism is a tendency rather than a theory, Empirical testing 12 “more mystique than a methodology, more an Peter Wollen (1969) believed the survival of auteurism is esseNowell-Smith called a “structural approach” to film criticism. Critics will always seek the motifs and structures that will differentiate one body of work from another, one so believed that cinema studies, examinations, analyses, and The fact that there are many recent studies, examinations, and analyses concerned a film (such as Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Buse, 2000; Mosher, 2004; Maule, 2002; Nacashe, 2005; Nystrom, 2004;that Wollen’s thoughts on auteurism and film criticism seem to be accurate. Auteurism is The controversial views on authorship that started almost at the birth of the idea theorists, and critics argue that film is a complex art form created by a collaboration of director, cinematographer, editor, writer, and/or actor critique of auteurism advocated the idea of screenwriters being the authors of films, not just the directors. To criticize Sarris he sarcastically created a screenwriter’s Parthenon, Empirical testing 13 evaluated as a whole, and that his or her style and personality will surface, just as will the Even after all the disputes, scholarly ar the directors as main authors of their films, directors are still being studied and recognized as the key fia film because of the personal style each auteur/director possesses, the imprints they leave on their films, the Many critics, scholars, researchers, and thsifying films of, for example, Alfred Hitchcock as Hitchcockian films. It is due to the fof work of one director will uncover and identify the director’s style (Caughie, 1981; Hayward, 1989; Stam, 2000). To give an example, Schröder (2004) identified a few imprints that could be found in most, if not all, of Hitchcock’s films: First and foremost the suspense theme, then the mistaken identity of a character, female characters with that are cured even more mysteriously, the obsession with blond women, unforgettable point-of-view shots, inventive camera angles, signature cameos, the memorable use of props and many more. There is an unimaginable amount of different themes, d become signatures and idenillustrate the wide variety of possibilities several contemporary directors and their styles plain weirdness of main characters, technical experimentations with animation and visual complex personalities, the protagonists have almost always very pale skin, themes of exclusion and inclusion, Empirical testing 14 ned, the protagonist is mostly a male character with a bizarre name, themes of science, disease, death in literary metaphor, bodily and psychic mutations, hostility towards women, and womb envy; – multiple ctures, emotional intimacy and heterosexual Peter Weirof sexuality, no vivid sex scenes, however erotic desire is shown. The present study attempted to uncover thdirector Jane Campion and her films through identifying the reoccurring themes, rk. Campion was chosen for this initial empirical test of auteur theory because of her auteur status, the manageable amount of her body of work, as well as the researcher’s interest in her films. Jane Campion was born April 30, 1954, in Wellington, New Zealand. In the 1960s her father gave her her first camera, a Super 8mm; she started to make home movies. As an undergraduate, she studied Anthropology in her hometown. In 1977, after mpion decided to make films on her own. First, she made a short film ng in the Australian Film and Television School in 1981 (Redding & Brownworth, 1997), she became the master of astonishing Empirical testing 15 close up shots, meaningful extreme close up shots that speak to audiences even without In 1982 she won the Palme d’Or for best short film (Brownworth (1997) identified some of Campion’s early themes in claustrophobia, family road trips, and family issues; those themes are to be found simple but brilliant story is: a family takes a short car trip and argues the whole time. In 1983 she made – again a short film that dealt with family her and his mistress to dinner together. In this film, adolescent sexualit(1997) also identified Campion’s early themeslonging to belong, and oppression of children by their families” (p. 181). The same year, she made her third short film, of regular Australian life. In 1986 Campion made her first feature film (made for Australian television) a film about two teenage friends – one paths move away at certain points in their lives and in the story. Not many film analyses or film critiques are written about this film, due to the fact it was a TV based film. In many sources, this film is not listed as Campion’s first feature film. is considered Campion’s first feature film. It is, as Walsh disturbed girl and her family” ( Empirical testing 16 tween two sisters Kay and Dawn (nicknamed Sweetie), one of whom is madder than the other. This film was firs1990 Cannes Film Festival – Campion even gotthe whole film. Later however, it gained a lot of positive reviews and the Village Voice pronounced it one of the best films of 1990. Mellencamp (1996) compared the flashbacks in Sweetie Sigmund Freud and the Brothers Grimm, but with a female point of view. Schröder (2004) identified the experimental feel of Campion’s first feature film with the perfect, almost seamless but very original fading from reality to dream sequences and vice versa; There were many secrets, many ugly secrets present in this film. The father’s sexual abuse of the younger sister, mentally unsit was shown on the screen, but denied by the family members. McHugh (2001) pointed out some questions that a viewer might have: “Did Sweeties father seduce her as a child? How has she come to be ‘mental’? What really happened in this family?” (p. 199). The film, as Howe (1990) wrote, is about repairing broken relationships among family members, with the taboo theme of familial dysfunction. Mellencamp (1996) wrote “Campion is not interested in causes or in Hinson (1990) saw as a horror film with comedy traits, and extraordinary ” . . . “It’s about family life as Kafka might have viewed it” (). Howe admired the use of refreshing camera angles in this film. He identified five themes – abnormality, love, individuality, family and sisters. Empirical testing 17 lationship, imperfect pareof a romantic relationship. He also recognized Sweetie’s need for psychiatric help, which is not further explored among the family member. Wexman (1999) identified another Campion’s recurring theme of presence of angels in her films, either visual or mentioned. Polan (2001) identified a lot of the close up and extreme close up shots used in the camera violated the fictional on-screen world, which made the viewers uncomfortable in the privacy of their home, or theater seats. This is a film based on an autobiographical novel from Janet Frame, a New Zealand writer wmisdiagnosed with schizophreniamatization, deprivation, fear and isolation, physical pain, manipulation” (www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/10/angel.html), told in a three-part story which is made up of Mellencamp (1996) talked about this film as being Campxperience: The extraordinary images of New Zealand, the extreme close up shots of childre Henke (2000) stated that Janet Frame’s the filmic world. Polan (2001), however, believed is film was in the helped to avoid Campion’s earlier style of strange compositions, or “playful composition Empirical testing 18 her long scenes with loose structure might e is not enough information on her hospitalization, which would be much more descriptions of dull farming tasks. In her cinematic translation, Jane Campion, As Henke noted, Frame herself said thatmight not be true, she might have mixed them up, borrowed from other characters and This Campion film, as Henke (2000) stdomestic vignettes, lyrical and symbolic fragments, and tacit social or biographical lt with personal isolation and suffering, victimization, and for the sake of the viewer. Campion, however, ed true to Frame’s Redding and Brownworth (1997) as well as Mellencamp (1996) identified themes , and family dysfunctions as also seen in her short “Campion used many close shots to emphasize her [Janet’s] grubby daily existence, punctuating the scenes with breathtaking landscapes that suggest her lyrical The Piano In this film the protagonista marriage arranged by her father. Ada is a Empirical testing 19 daughter Flora and her piano. She has a hard time fitting in the society and living with / loving her husband. He makes it harder for her to love him by trading her piano for a piece of land to Baines, a European living among the natives. Baines, however, wasn’t listened to Ada play, and slowly sells the sing a clash between Ada and her daughter. As Redding and Brownworth (1997) indicated, this film was well received as a feminist piece, due to its message: Women shouldn’t be looked at as men’s accessories to act upon them, just as Ada did. Campion gave us a scene where Ada used her husband for sexual pleasures, she tuation reversed – Ada was the one in control, she was the woman of power (Sharp & Gillard, 2004). Female desire and female lust were explored in this film as Hopgood noted (2002). Sharcategorized her as the obedient sexual object in the patriarchal soimprisonment, but Ada gained her power and themes of isolation and imprisonment as well as themes of family dysfunction and Campion introduced the clash between sexual love and maternal love in this gothic fairytale (Bentley 2002; Mellencamp, 199“masculine/feminine; distance/nearness, Empirical testing 20 Dalton and Fatzinger (2003) quoted Colbert “ is not a simple women’s film about woman’s past, but rather a cryptication of how women’s Campion’s first feature films were funded with government grants that guaranteed , Jane Campion turned down the offers of American investcontrol, and turned to a French production firm that assured her full control over the Portrait of a Lady ory of young Isabel Archer, an American woman who tries to find her idennd dishonest Osmond, who used his ex-lover to trap Isabel, successfully. Isabel marries Osmond, and loses her independence and freedom. Osmond, the masculine and over sexed characthe same time, he forces her to lose her spirit, and freedom (Gordon, 2002). Hopgood (2002) wrote about the control Osmond exercised over the main female characters in Portrait of a Ladynsy, but also Isabel and Madame r the women and especially Isabel, Campion shot the distas the domestic violence scene which made us feel like peeping Toms, as we felt earlier in her “bedroom fantasy” scene. Empirical testing 21 Hopgood (2002) noted a similarity of the perverse father in Sweetie perversity of the scene where Pansy sits on her father’s lap in this film. The feeling one This film has a similar message to it warns women to protect their entities (Corrigan & White, 2004). Redding “ . . . it is a parable for modern women, telling them to as well, identified the theme of isolation and loss of freedom of the female protagonist. Polan (2001) wrote about the beautifully shot surrealism scene of the talking beans in this film being very original. Shmodern women are interacting with each other and the camera. As found in Polan, Shriver believed that this film, as well as other Campion films, is giving more importance to woman-to-woman relationships, rather than woman-to-man. He believed that the much y women talking about first kisses, and romantic relationships, indicated the significance of the complexity of female-to-female the film. Polan (2001) added that Campion’s recurring theme is the dysfunctional nature of woman-to-woman relationships. Shaw independence when Isabel married Osmond willingly and argued that Isabel from the novel is a different Isabel from the film. Holy Smoke! This film is a story of Ruhunt for the truth. Ruth, the female protagonist, as Isabel from Portrait of a Ladyfound the truth in an Indian guru named Baba. Her family finds out, and tricks her to Empirical testing 22 come back home just to deprogram her from her newly found religion. They hire an American professional “cult exiter” named PJ to help their daughter. PJ promises that in three days she will be back to normal. After Ruth’s and PJ’s deprogramming, Ruth returns to India. is filmed in the Australian outback, as However as Gillett reveals more of the mythic laHoly Smoke! as “witty, messy, perceptive, outrageous, erous, compassionate, viterminally unstable from one shot to the next” (www.members.tripod.com/filmlover On visual level, Fisher (1999) suggests that this year's richest work, a sublime conglomeration of vivid colours, which beautifully represent the divided cultures that Campion strikingly explores . . . At the same time, as visually hypnotic as the film is, that aspect of doesn't detract from her detailed sense of character and theme. The film is intrinsically a two-hander, and Campion's skillful casting of Kate Winslet and Harvey Keitel, ensures that her comment on sexual power is compelling. And it is. The characters are both fascinating to watch and listen, and what one sees is never what one gets, which makes a persuasive film to sit through. The film's exploration of sexuality and the role of men and women become both sexy and funny, erotic and intense, and always intriguing. These aspects of the film are in stark contrast to Campion's droll satire of Australian suburbia and the nature of family, themes she initiated with Sweetie.www.mem bers.tripod.com/filmlover2/id50.htm).Some of themes are “relationship between the sexes, and the problems faced by women who are considered – by themselves and/or by Campion – to be at odds with or standing apart from themes are to be found in Campion’s larger body of work as well. Empirical testing 23 In the Cutof dreams, hopes, and fantasies as did It is Campion’s latest feature film about Frannie, the female protagonistpendent woman, whose male character – detective Malloy. series of murders happening in Frannie’s neighborhood. What makes it so provoking is that the more clues point to Malloy being the murderer, the more our protagonist is fascinated by him. Felperin (2003) compared it to the rewith “a sensuous study of desire and masochism . . .” (p. 38). Hopgood (2004) identified other Campion trademarks present in In the Cutntion to female body; the camera attention to “. . . feather like touctoned footage similar to the black and white travelogue from vibrant storytelling from The surreal fantasy sequences where her father courts her mother on ice-skates are very similar to those in Portrait of a Lady Sweetieof her four times married father, when she tells her half-sister to her mother. Calhoun (2003) talked about the production techniques used in the film such as the opening scene with looser camera style and a lot of hand held camera, which was very similar to the opening scene in pointed out the extreme close up shot at the beginning of the film of a “woman’s head Empirical testing 24 bobbing over a man’s loins . . .” (p. 16), the extreme “pore-revealing” shot of Pauline’s (Frannie’s sister) face, and again unflattering extreme close up shots of Pauline’s face ubby make up, as well as close up and extreme A gender switch in In the Cut was similar to one in Frannie cuffed her detective and was sexually aggressive and whereas her lover actually admitted to feeling like a woman (Fuller, 2003a) in Ruth actually transformed PJ into a female, putting make up and dressing him in a red dress. In an interview, Jane Campion admits to relating to emotional masochism. She also admits to living in a male dominated society, where not very many sexual scenes in films are supposed to be pleasurable to women (Frencke, 2003); she works towards the As with the non-traditional bio-picture Campion made breaking film with is not the usual “slasher” film where the killer’s hatred for women stays undisclosellers, giving it a film noir feel (Fuller, 2003a). Wexman theme of the presence of an angel in her films. Across the seven Campion films produced to date, we may identify a number of consistent thematic and formal trademarks. Empirical testing 25 Sexual obsession and female lust. Gordon (2002) called Campion’s theme of sexuality as a “clinical exploration of sexuality” (p. 14); the presence of a masculine, strong, secretive male arouses for Frannie; the erotic impulses in century sexuality (Coombs & Gemmell, 1999). As found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg identified a recurring theme theme of perversity. Campion’s main themes. Nelmes (1999) identified the recurring theme of exploration of female sexuality as well. Male dominated society. Taubin (2003) ties in Campion’s theme of female sexuality with power struggle while choosing the wrong man. Gillett (2004) identified the patriarchal society and male dominance in the police force in . In male dominated society is portrayed thrby ordering Ada and identifying himself as the head of the family, as well as the liance in the film (HendershotGillard, 2004). Hopgood (2002) identified Jane Campion’s disempowerment of women and gender politics as her main theme. Hopgood wrote about the control Osmond exercised over the main female characters in Female protagonist. Polan (2001) pointed out that Campion’s lead characters are ey are younger women looking for their Campion’s lead characters are women rebelli Empirical testing 26 that her being a woman makes her automatically more interested in female protagonists, and how other women live their lives is very appealing to her (Wexman, 1999).Mellencamp (1996) identified Sweetie as being mentally unstable; Howeng medication for her state of mind, for her strangeness (Polan, 2001). Janet Frame in was misdiagnosed and the head” due to the fact she does not speak. Ruth’s family and friends in help her be normal (Hopgood, 2002). In the Cut, (our female protagonist’s sister) calls hersreak” (Gillett, 2004). Hopgood (2002) identified “madness” as one of Campion’s main themes. She believed that Campion protagonists were labeled as “crazy” or “mad” in the films because they refused to conform to their gender roles; they did not fulfill their feminine roles in azy was Isabel Archer; however, she was a nonconformist with her stubbornness, as well Female masochism. Examples of this theme include: In In the Cut, annie’s involvement with an unknown suspicious man abel’s masochistic tendencies in Women on the move, displaced heroinesCampion’s heroines are in some ways displaced women such as world travelers, or migrants. Ruth in Empirical testing 27 is a young American who lived and traveled in Europe; Ada in was “shipped” from Scotland to New Zealand almost as “a mail order bride”; gain some experience for her writing carrier; the trip the whole family is taking, she was tricked into staying home alone (Gillett, 2000a). Another character that seemed to be In the Cut. However, she was on a quest of finding the murderer of her sister and two other women. Heroines in quest of their identities. theme of woman’s identity and belonging (Gillett, 2000a; Gillett, 2004; Mellencamp, Entrapment, imprisonment. Sweetie was almost imprisoned by her family – not arranged marriage and imprisoned by her husband in the house prisoner in a marriage she chose herself, she became a viGordon, 2002; Polan, 2001); Ruth was imprisoned hut in the middle of nowhere (Gordon, 2002; Polan, 2001); Frannie was imprisoned in her own way, in her own head, she “holds her freely in space” (Fuller, 2003a, p. 17), and later in the film Frannie was imprisoned by the Issues with family and sibling.The Piano dealt with restructuring of a family een real and mythical family (Chumo II, Empirical testing 28 was a story of familial chaos, neurotic siblings, and confused parenting found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg pointed out the theme of somewhat dangerous domestic situations. Hopgood (2002) also identified the recurring theme of clash between the female protagonist and their families, ied parental abandonment in The fantasy, or dream images.tified Campion’s theme of fantasy and dream sequences in her films such as the black and white fantasy images in surrealism as beans on Isabel’s plate with flies buzzing above them . . . ” in and the sepia toned dream sequences aengagement in In the Cut . As found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg found her mise-ith unusual cuts and framiCampion’s production techniques:developed in her early filmmaking. Wexman (shots of images of vegetation and scenery shown in Campion films. Polan (2001) pointed out Campion’s frequent use of close up shots and extreme close up shots. well as the perfect wide shotAn Angel at my Table. “the bright green hills, the blue ocean, the always present wind makes it seem like Empirical testing 29 those are the shadows of Janet Frame” (p. 257). Thompson and Bordwell (2003) and Sharp and Gillard (2004) also admired the beauclose up shots of Janet’s face. Schröder (2004) admired the visual complexity in complexity: The constant humming of the ocean’s waves, we could even hear the fingers on the piano keys. McHugh (2001) pointed out the popularity of voiceovers among women filmmakers, as well as Campion’s distinct selection of diegetic and non-diegetic music and sounds. Corrigan and White (2004) pointed out the perfect use of angles in Campion’s films such as the high angles, extremThe Piano. They also wrote about the original use of voiceover that connected the viewer with the l. Nelmes (1999) identified thof Ada and her daughter Flora, and Fulleclose up shots of Pauline’s face in In the Cut. Never a true genre. Much contemporary genre mixing was identified in the literature such as: being a mix of drama and comedy (Hopgood, 2002; with traits of woman’s film, melodrama, romance, gothic thriller (Coombs & Gemmell, 1999; Sharp & Gillard, 2004), blend of horror and comedy (Hinson, 1990) and In the Cut, slasher film, film noir and detective/murder mystery traits (Hopgood, 2004). Empirical testing 30 As summarized above, there were many recurring themes, narrative constructions, Campion’s films. The literature also uncovered three phasthe present study was on the first two phases: the romantic-auteurism, and the structuralist-auteurism which helped to uncover the recurring ideas, creative personalind thematic fixations of the films’ director as well as the narrative construction with familiar ch RQ1: Do Jane Campion films differ from non-Campion films by themes and motifs? RQ2: Do Jane Campion films differ from non-Campion films by narrative construction with characters? RQ3: Do Jane Campion films differ from non-Campion films by production techniques? Empirical testing 31 CHAPTER II There have been many definitions for content analysis, such as “Content analysis is a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text” (Weber, 1990, p. 9); “Content analysis is a remaking replicable and valid inferences from data to their coNeuendorf (2002) provides a more recent and certainly more comprehensive definition. She states, “Content analysis is a summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages that not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured or the context in which the messages are created or presented” (Neu at least intersubjectivity, reliability was measured among coders to ensure the consistency and validity of the results, the proper documentation ensured replicability, and good sampling assured Empirical testing 32 This study conducted a content analysis of films to provide anmed to collect data from Campion and non-Campion films. Jane Campion is an author of seven feature films – all dramas. To be able to make concrete conclusions as to whether she falls into the category of an auteur, her films were compared to non-Campion films. The census of seven Jane Campion films was examined. However, Campion’s first feature made exclusively for television with a up shots (Wexman, 1999). This information stated by Campion in her interview helped to film from this analysis. The remaining six films made by Jane Campion (In the 2003) were compared to eighteen non-Campion films. Non-Campion films. The sampling frame for the non-Campion films is defined as a films made in 1989, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2003 (matching the years of release of Campion films) that are listed in the Internet ne source (www.imdb.com). There are thousands of films made every technological advances for each time period. To avoid the possible differences, only films made in the six years identified above were included in the sample. The sample was limited to English language feature films; reading subtitles while coding would be Empirical testing 33 ective. To make sure that genre theory is not interfering with the test of auteur theory, only drama films were selected, enabling for a stricter test. Systematic random sampling was conducted in the IMDb environment. Lists for each of the targeted further limited to English language, and the drama genre – a function of the IMDb web site. It must be noted that even though some films in the IMDb were categorized as dramas, several were eliminated due to action/drama or a horror/drama, such a film was not selected. There are too many production, plot, and theme differences among action, horror, and drama films. Three films for each year were selected. A total of 18 non-Campion films with availability on DVD or VHS weresome limited options. For example, it does not allow for a search of feature films only, and it offers information on films not recognizedhort film or a film VHS was randomly selected, the next eligible film was nguage drama films made in 1989 these three were randomly selected: English language drama films made in 1990, these three were randomly selected: language drama films made in 1993,Public Access. drama films made in 1996, these three were selected: City Hall; Kissed; language drama films made in 1999,Finally, out of the 3,463 English language drama films Empirical testing 34 made in 2003, these three were selected: Big Fish; It Runs in the Family; Even though these films were iden(1996) had to be replaced due to non-availability. Their replacements were (1996). A complete list of all movies ID Film Title Film Director Country Year Philippe Mora USA 1989 John G. Avildsen USA 1989Atom Egoyan Canada 1989Jane Campion Australia 1989Paul Schrader Italy/USA 1990John Bailey USA 1990Martin Ritt USA 1990Jane Campion New Zealand 1990Alan Shapiro USA 1993Guilty as Sin Sidney Lumet USA 1993Public Access Bryan Singer USA 1993Jane Campion New Zealand - France 1993Harold Becker USA 1996 Empirical testing 35 John Greyson Canada 1996Emilio Estevez USA 1996Jane Campion GB 1996Lasse Hallstrom USA 1999Barry Levinson USA 1999B. W. Thompson USA 1999Jane Campion USA/Australia 1999Tim Burton USA 2003It Runs in The Family Fred Schepisi USA 2003Gary Fleder USA 2003Jane Campion Australia/USA/GB 2003 The present study measured variables representing three main concept sets: (A) Themes and motifs,(B) Characters in films, and (C) Themes and Motifs. Theme, as mentioned earlier, is defined as “a dominant idea made concrete through its representation by film” (Rabiger, 1997, p. 517). Motif, as mentined as “any formal element repeated from film history or from the film itself whose repetition draws ematic statement” (Rabiger, 1997, p. 513). Themes and motifs how many lead, major, and medium characters were present in the film, what kind of loss might be dealt with in the Empirical testing 36 film, the degree of nudity shown in the film, and the degree of sexual encounters shown in the film. Narrative Constructions of Characters. Characters that were in this study were the lead and major rolen throughout the film; ned as elements of the filmmaking, camera movement and placement, lighting, sound, and editing. Production five variables. We were measuring camera movement (such as tracking shots, hand held camera), camera positioning (such as transitions, slow motion, time lapse), lighting diegetic music, supeUnits of Data Collection Data were collected separately for each of the three concept types. Each films has been watched three times with separate data collections. For Section A, a full length feature film (sixty minutes or longer) was collected on lead and major characters that were identified in the film. For Section C, data was collected for five-minute intervals of the films, which is a norm for television and film data collection (Lombard, 1997; Neuendorf, 2003). A twenty-eight page codebook was developed to measure the variables. It may be found in Appendix A, followed by the coding forms in Appendix B. Many variables Empirical testing 37 Campion’s films. To be objective, non-Campion variables had to be included in the study. After consulting many internet Fifty Contemporary Filmmakers has been selected and numerous other variables having nothing to do with Jane Campion were taken from it. Every third auteur themes, motifs, narrative constroduction techniques from the k. All the identified, “snot all were selected and embedded in the codebook. The fifteen directors examined were: Gregg Araki, Luc Besson, Tim Burton, r, Jim Jarmusch, Abbas Kiarostami, Ang oderbergh, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, and Allison Anders. The traits and signatures of some auteurs integrated in the codebook include: The absence of parents in Luc Besson’s films, characters being outsiders in Tim Burton’s films, the theme of modernity versus tradition in Ang Lee’s films, wide angles in David Fincher films, and Peter Weir’s avoidance of sexuality. Section A. The unit of data collection for section A was a full-length feature film. Section A measured the general themes and motifs in each film as a whole to uncover general patterns in the film. Thirty-four general themes and motifs of each film and ultimately give answers to research question 1. This section identified the number of lead, major, and medium female characters as well as number of lead, major, and medium male characters present in the film. It also uncovered whether the father or mother of a lead, major, medium or other character was physically present or talked about. Clashes between tradition and modernism, as well as Empirical testing 38 clashes between cultures were recognized. A set of variables measLoss of a child, spouse, lover, and/or family member due to break up or death. Loss of freedom, job, money, or physical beauty were also measured. If a major loss that was not included in the codebook happened in the film, happened to: Lead/major or of frontal nudity (partial, top, bottom and full al, top, bottom and full nudity) of male and female characters. Coders also counted each shot of romantic kissing, French kissing, or masturbation. Coders were asked to document any taboos that were violated in the film, if the film had a primary point of view of a female, and if angels were present in the film. The unit of data collection for Section B was the major or lead character. Major character has this character was crucial to the plot line (meaning if the character was not there, the over 50% of the film, the character was coded as a major role anyways. Lead character has been defined as major plus the whole sther presence is essential to used to measure features of r the distinctiveness of the use of lead and major role General demographic and role characteristics were recorded for each character: Role (major or lead), whether the character appeared in the opening scene, social age of the character (child, adolescent, young adult, matureestimated age of the Empirical testing 39 character, gender (male, female), race (Caucasian, African, AsNative-American, Bi-racial, or Other), attractiveness (extremely attractive, attractive, average, unattractive, extremeldocumented if the character travel was happy throughout majority of the film. nning, middle and end of the film with six change, getting married, religion change, relocating, or by other factors. If other identity change was identified, coders were asked Abusive behavior was measured by idensexual abuse by the same or opposite gender charbusive to the same or opposite gender personalities were assessed by Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1985) definitions of introversion etimes, most of the time, or never), if seemed realistic. Cthe character tried to commit suicide, in the film. A set of variables measured family issuese, and other family members. Coders documented if such issues occurred and also were asked to record number of siblings the character had. Empirical testing 40 The unit of data collection for Section C was a five-minute interval. The reason for breaking the full-length movies into five-minute long intervals was to make it easier and more manageable to code. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to keep track of all the counts of the variablesoperationalize the production techniques and patterns of each film and examples for all variables were provided in recorded occurrence of a and white picture, sepia, or animation/occurrences of extreme close up shots of the motion of touching, close up and extreme close up shots of faces, feet/legs, hands/arms, other body parts, furniture, windows, mirrors, trees, flowers/plants, food, and animtracking shots,special visual effects/blurred image shots,distorted image shots, slow motion, time-lapse, and jump cut shots were alsounusual transition was recorded, and the use of simultaneous live-action and animation was identified by counting each scene/sequence. If a color and black and white picture appeared on the screen at the same time, codeoccurrence. Handheld camera technique was recorded by counts of each scene/sequence. Different camera angle shots were counteds of shots were recorded: The character ion, extremely long shot, and medium shot revealing a secondary body element arm/hand or leg/foot. Empirical testing 41 Coders became very intimate with the content, due to such an immense coding scheme. Very little room was left for vagueor “unable to determine” are minimally present in the coding scheme. Such a forced A total of three coders, including the principal researcher, participated in this study, two females and one male. Training took place over several meetings where several non-Campion movies were viewed, clarifications of definitions using various examples. Several revisions of the codebook were made. During the meetings, variable families (variables that belong to a similar group) were also identified. In section A, four families were identified: Counts of nudity (A12-A25) and sexual acts (A26- and family dysfunctions (B43-B49). In section C, seven variable families were identified: Music (C2, C3), picture (C4-C7), close up and extreme close up shots (C8-C19), motion (C21 & C24-C26), color filters (C27-C30), angles (C35-C39), and medium shots of arms, hands, legs, feet (C43-C44). Identification of the variable families became crucial after coding the full length of the reliability movie (Daly, Gibson, Liuzzi, Pillsbury, Sanford, & Streit, all of them to be present in the above mentioned reliability mmany variables as possible, at least one variable from the variable family had to be liability had to be reached, in order to Empirical testing 42 keep the whole variable family. For example, in to the family dysfunctions (Section B) were kept in the dataset even though all were not tested via the reliability check. Four out of seven family dysfunction variables were coded with high reliability. It was assumed thata high reliability as well To be able to calculate reliability fol movies had to be calculated from single data point). Due to code three eleven-minute segments of (Blomquist et al., 1999)(Cohen, Frauenfelder, Jinks, Schmidt, & Zanuck, 2003), movies already coded by To keep some key variables from Sectioteen variables (six from Section B, and eight from Section PRAM, a Windows-based computer program, was used to calculate inter-coder reliability coefficients among the three coders. The program calculates the following reliability coefficients: Percent Agreement, Scott’s Pi, Cohen’s Kappa, Krippendorff’s Alpha, Spearman Rho, Pearson Correlation, Lin’In the present study, Multiple-coder kappa has been used to assess nominal variables, Spearman Rho for ordinal variables, and Lin’s Concordance co is above .40, according to Empirical testing 43 Banerjee, Capozzoli, McSweeney, and SinhaEllis identified rules of thumb for correlation coefficients over .75 being of high reliability. It is also agreed among some d higher agreement is considered reliable. All acceptable inter-coder reliabilities for nominal variables are presented in Table 3.1 s for Sections A, B, & C Multiple-coder Agreement Coders: 1 -3 A11.5 Loss of a spouse due to death 1.00 100 A11.7 Loss of lover due to death 1.00 100 A11.9 Loss of family mem. due to death 1.00 100 A11.11 Loss of a friend due to death 0.46 67 A11.16 Loss of health 0.70 83 A11.17 Loss of material things 0.68 83 A11.18 Loss of freedom 0.70 100 B2 Role 0.70 87 Empirical testing 44 B5 Gender 1.00 100 B8 Occupation 0.58 100 B9 Travel 1.00 100 B10 Abroad 1.00 100 B12 Love at beginning 0.42 87 B13 Love in the middle 0.78 87 B14* Love in the end 0.40 60 B15 Sexual orientation 0.70 87 B35 Introvert vs. Extrovert 0.78 87 B39 Substance abuse 0.73 87 B42 Char. dies in the film? 1.00 87 B43 Issue w/ sibling 1.00 100 B44 Issue w/ parent 1.00 100 B45 Issue w/ child 1.00 100 B48 Issue w/ spouse 1.00 100 B50 Psych Disorder 1.00 100 * Variables that need to be analyzed with caution due to low reliability Table 3.2 shows adequate inter-coder reliwere two variables, appearance reliability coefficients and the percent agreement did not meet the acceptable level as well. Therefore results linked with these two variables must be examined with caution. Empirical testing 45 Table 3.2 s for Sections A, B, & C Spearman's Rho Agreement among B4 Age 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 B7* Appearance 0.79 0.53 0.81 60 B36* Appears lonely 0.75 0.75 0.50 60 * Variables that need to be analyzed with caution due to low reliability Table 3.3 presents acceptabilities for interval and ratio variables. There were two variables (lowles must be analyzed with caution. Empirical testing 46 ties for Sections A, B, & C Lin’s Agreement among A1 # of lead females 1 1 1 83 A2 # of major females 1 1 1 100A3 # of medium females 1 0.92 0.92 83A4 # of lead males 1 1 1 100A5 # of major males 1 0.67 0.67 70A6 # of medium males 0.96 0.87 0.86 50A7.1+A7.2+A7.3+A7.4+A7.50.5 1 0.5 83A7.1 Father - of lead char. 1 1 1 100A mother present A8.1+A8.2+A8.3+A8.4+A8.51 1 1 100A8.1 Mother - of lead char. 1 1 1 100A10 Clash between cultures 1 1 1 100A12 Partial nude front female 0.97 0.93 0.85 100A13 Top nude front female 0.75 0.96 0.61 75Bottom nude front female 1 1 1 100 Empirical testing 47 A15 Full nude frontal female 0.98 0.95 0.99 100A19 Full nude back female 1 1 1 100A20 Top nude frontal male 0.98 0.98 0.93 100A22 Full nude frontal male 1 1 1 100A23 Top nude back male 1 0.75 0.75 83A26+A27+A28 0.75 0.75 1 83A29 Oral sex 1 1 1 100A31 Sexual Intercourse 1 1 1 100VA28.1+29+A30+A31 0.75 0.75 1 83A32 Taboo 1 1 1 100A33 Primary POV of female 1 1 1 100A34 Presence of angels 1 1 1 100B3 Opening scene 1 1 1 100B4.1 Estimated age 0.99 0.98 1 100B18 Identity changemarriage 1 NC NC 100B23 Phys abused by same gender 1 0.55 0.55 75gender 1 NC NC 100B28 Sex abuse by opposite gender 1 NC NC 100B29 Phys abusive to same gender 0.55 0.55 1 75B30 Phys abusive to other gender 1 NC NC 100B32 Psych abusive to other gender 1 1 1 100B34 Sex abusive to other gender 1 1 1 100 Empirical testing 48 B37 An outsider 1 1 1 100B40 Tries to hurt self 1 NC NC 100B41 How many siblings? 1 1 1 100C1 Voiceover 0.5 1 0.5 93C2 Diegetic music 0.79 0.78 0.57 86C3 Non-diegetic music 0.64 1 0.64 96C8 XCU - Motion of touch 0.72 NC NC 100C9 Face: CU 0.98 0.85 0.92 100C9.1 Face: XCU 0.92 NC NC 93C11 Hands: CU 1 1 1 100C13.1 Furniture: XCU 1 NC NC 100C14 Window: CU 0.65 0.64 0.84 93C15 Mirror: CU 0.44 0.64 0.64 93C21 Long tracking shots 0.6 0.9 0.69 83C24 Slow motion 0.85 NC NC 96C27 Blue color filter 1 NC NC 100C34 Handheld camera 1 NC NC 100C35* Low angle 0.4 0.88 NC 63C36* High angle 0.62 0.89 0.5 63C37 Overview 1 1 1 100C38 Underview 0.84 0.78 0.84 100C39 Canted angle NC 1 NC 97 Empirical testing 49 C41 Superhearing 0.47 0.64 0.63 87C42 Scenery XL Shot 0.47 0.36 0.81 87C43 Medium shot arm/hand 0.46 1 0.46 93C44 Medium shot leg/foot 0.64 0.64 0.05 93C45 Focus pulls 1 NC NC 96(C10+C10.1+C44) 0.44 0.64 0.64 93(C11+C11.1+C43) 0.62 1 0.62 93(C35+C38) 0.4 0.87 0.42 63(C36+C37) 0.88 0.62 0.5 63Note: Variable starting with V (for example VC53) it is a computed variable * Variables that need to be analyzed with caution There were eight calculated variables. They were constructed from several originoccurrence and corresponding low reliability. “A father present” variable was calculated by adding father of lead (A7.1), major (A7.2), medium (A7.3), minor/other (A7.4) variable was calculated by adding mother of lead (A8.1), major (A8.2), medium (A8.3), minor/other (A8.4) characters, and mother that was not present but talked about (A8.5). A tructed by adding romantic adding kissing (VA28.1), oral sex (A29), ma Empirical testing 50 Even though additional coding was done, selong to any variable family. Table 4 List of Variables with Multiple Kappa Lin's Concordance Coders: 1 - 3 A11.14 Loss of faith in self NC A11.20 Loss of money NC A11.21 Loss of physical beauty NC A7.2 Father -of major char. * NC NC NC A7.4 Father -of minor/other char. * NC NC NC A8.3 Mother -of medium char. * NC NC NC A8.4 Mother -of minor/other char. * NC NC NC C22 Blurred image NC NC NC C31 Unusual transition NC NC NC C32 Live-action& animation NC NC NC C33 Color and B&W NC NC NC C40 Breaking the fourth wall NC NC NC Note: * Variables were used to calculate new variable Empirical testing 51 There were also several variables that did not meet thTable 5 List of Variables Dropped Due to Low Reliability Coefficient Multiple Kappa Lin's Concordance pair: pair: A11.14 Loss of faith in others 0.14 A11.19 Loss of a job -0.09 A11.20 Other loss (Identify): -0.09 A7.3 Father - of medium char. * 0 1 0 A8.2 Mother - of major char.* 0 0 1 A26 Romantic kissing* 0 NC 0 A27 French kissing* 0 0 NC A28 Kissing other body parts* 0 1 0 B38 Is very realistic 0 0 0.62 C23 Distorted image 0 NC 0 Note: * Variables were used to calculate new variable Empirical testing 52 A complete list of the original and calculated variables and inter-coder ndix D. Variables that were part of a variable family but could not be measured due to lack of Empirical testing 53 RESULTS Section A. As previously discussed, a total of 24 films were coded for this study, six Campion films (25%) and 18 non-Campion films (75%). Four films per year (1989, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2003) were coded. A list is presented in Table 2. The principal researcher coded sixteen movies (66.7% of the sample); coders 2 and 3 each Section B. A total of 101 lead or major characters were coded, nineteen Campion s (81.2%). One film had only one lead or major character, one film had only two lead or major characters, five films had three lead or major characters, nine films had four lead or major characters, three films had five lead or major characters, three films had six lead or major characters, and two films had seven lead or major characters. Out of the tolead (36.6%) and 64 (63.4%) as major characters. The estimated range of the characters’ ). There were 42 female characters (41.6%) outnumbered by 59 male characters (58.4%), wh Empirical testing 54 Section C. Each of the twenty-four films was divided into five-minute long 167 Campion intervals (31.5%) and 363 non-Campion intervals (68.5%) were coded. The length of the films ranged from 85 minutes (17 codeable intervals) to 155 minutes (31 codeable intervals). Table 6 illustrates the difference innumber of Campion versus non-Campion films and the five-minute intervals. It is clear that Jane Campion’s films run much longer than non-Campion films. Twenty-five percent of all the films analyzed were directed by Jane Campion, compared to 31.5% of all five-minute intervals directed by Jane Campion. Length of Films and Intervals, and Number of Characters Films Characters Intervals N % N % N % Campion 6 25 19 18.8 167 31.5 Non-Campion 18 75 82 81.2 363 68.5 Total 24 100 101 100 530 100 Research Question 1 asked if Jane Campion films differed from non-Jane Campion films by themes and motifs. To many one-way ANOVAs for interval or ratio variabler nominal and ordinal variables Empirical testing 55 rector (Campion or non-Camp Count of Characters. variable family was found significant for Campion versus non-Campion films: Number of lead males, (1, 22)indicating Campion rarely used a lead maleapproaching significance: Number of lead females, (1, 22) able family were found to be not significant: Number of major females, (1, 22) =.37, number of medium females, (1, 22) of major males, (1, 22) =0.11, and number of medium males, (1, 22) Table 7 ection A: Themes and Motifs Non- Campion Campion Total (n=6) (n=18) (n=24) Variable Meansd Mean sd Mean sd F(1, 22) Sig. A1: Number of lead females 1.000.000.560.620.670.56 3.04 0.10 A2: Number of major females 0.830.751.170.791.080.78 0.82 0.37A3: Number of medium females 3.834.171.832.042.332.76 2.52 0.13A4: Number of lead males 0.330.521.060.730.880.74 5.02* 0.04 Empirical testing 56 A5: Number of major males 1.000.631.781.061.581.02 2.84 0.11A6: Number of medium males 3.832.563.894.273.883.86 0.00 0.98present 0.830.410.670.490.710.46 0.57 0.46character present 1.000.000.830.380.880.34 1.10 0.31 modernism 0.170.410.330.490.290.46 0.57 0.46cultures 0.670.520.500.510.540.51 0.47 0.50 front female 9.178.082.003.633.795.83 9.23** 0.01female 6.837.700.501.292.084.69 12.21** front female 0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 1.00female 2.502.510.280.670.831.63 12.50** female 0.500.840.110.320.210.51 2.84 0.11female 1.502.740.721.930.922.12 0.59 0.45back female 0.501.220.110.320.210.66 1.61 0.22female 1.832.140.330.770.711.37 9.78* 0.02male 10.179.206.9414.107.7512.94 0.27 0.61front male 0.330.820.000.000.080.41 3.3 0.08male 1.171.170.331.030.541.10 2.77 0.11male 2.001.791.222.341.422.21 0.55 0.47 Empirical testing 57 back male 0.330.820.060.240.130.45 1.79 0.20male 1.501.760.500.790.751.15 3.81 0.06 VA28: Kissing 8.503.023.503.284.753.85 10.86** A29: Oral sex 0.830.980.110.320.290.62 7.81** 0.01A30: Masturbation 0.671.210.170.510.290.75 2.09 0.16A3: Sexual intercourse 0.830.980.390.980.500.98 0.93 0.35VA31: All sex 10.834.544.174.085.835.04 11.42** A32: Taboo 0.830.410.110.320.290.46 19.78** A33: POV female 1.000.000.060.240.290.46 93.50** A34: Presence of angels 0.670.520.000.000.170.38 33.00** a ** p Presence of father/mother. (1, 22) = 0.46, as was presence of mother, (1, 22)= 0.31. The clash between tradition and modernism variable was also found to be not Empirical testing 58 (1, 22) (1, 22) Four nudity variables were found to be significant for Campion versus non-Campion films: Partial nude frontal female, (1, 22)female, (1, 22) male, (1, 22)full nude back female,(1, 22) = 0.02. These results indicated that Campion films showed significantly more female frontal nudity than non-Campion films. Two nudity ficance: Bottom nude front male, (1, 22) and full nude back male, (1, 22) = 0.06, indicating Campion films showed more male nudity than non-Campion films. The restnot significant: Partial nude back female, (1, 22) (1, 22) = 0.45, bottom nude back female, (1, 22) male, (1, 22) = 0.61, full nude front male, (1, 22) male, (1, 22) = 0.47, and bottom nude back male, (1, 22) bottom nude frontal female variable could not Sexual acts.between Campion and non-Campion films: (1, 22) (1, 22) activity, (1, 22) mpion films showed more sexual activity than non-Campion film(1, 22) (1, 22) Empirical testing 59 Analyses of variance found three other vataboos in the films, (1, 22) male point-of-view, (1, 22) (1, 22) prevalent in Campion films. The ANOVA statistics for all variables demonstrating the difference between Campion and non-Campion films in regards to main themes and Loss.Chi-square tests were used to determine whether there were significant kind of losses in Campion and non-Campion films. Only one variable was found significant: Loss of a spouse due to break up. Only 16.7% of Campion films did not deal with a marital break up, compared to 94.4% of non-Campion films. This difference was statistically significant, is presented in Table 8. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. Campion Campion Total No count 1 17 18 row % 5.6% 94.4% 100% column % 16.7% 94.4% 75% Yes - lead/major character(s) Empirical testing 60 count 2 1 3 row % 66.7% 33.3% 100% column % 33.3% 5.6% 12.5% Yes - Other character (s) count 3 0 3 row % 100% 0% 100% column % 50% 0% 12.5% Total count 6 18 24 row % 25% 75% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 5 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 15.41 df = 2 Three additional variables reached near nd loss of freedom. The majority of Campion films, 66.7%, dealt with a lead/major character's break up with his/her lover, compared to only 22.2% of non-Campion films. This disignificance, 0.07, and shall be reviewed with caution. Table 9 shows the statistics. Empirical testing 61 Loss of a Lover due to Break up in Campion versus non-Campion Films Campion Campion Total No count 2 14 16 row % 12.5% 87.5% 100% column % 33.3% 77.8% 66.7% Yes - lead/major character(s) count 4 4 8 row % 50% 50% 100% column % 66.7% 22.2% 33.3% Total count 6 18 24 row % 25% 75% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 4.0 df =1 p = .07 Empirical testing 62 Statistical significance was found to be 0.07, between Campion and non-Campion films. Only 22.2% of non-Campion films included characters expessues, compared with an overwhelming 66.7% of Campion films. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. Table 10 shows the Empirical testing 63 Campion Campion Total No count 2 14 16 row % 12.5% 87.5% 100% column % 33.3% 77.8% 66.7% Yes - lead/major character(s) count 4 4 8 row % 50% 50% 100% column % 66.7% 22.2% 33.3% Total count 6 18 24 row % 25% 75% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 4.00 df = 1 Empirical testing 64 The third variable that was found to be eedom of lead/major character, of Campion films (50%) included character(s) that experienced loss of freedom compared to only 11.1% non-Campion films. This died with caution. Due to small numbers of cases in some test should be examined with caution. The statistics are Empirical testing 65 Campion Campion Total No count 3 16 19 row % 15.8% 84.2% 100% column % 50% 88.9% 79.2% Yes - lead/major character(s) count 3 2 5 row % 60% 40% 100% column % 50% 11.1% 20.8% Total count 6 18 24 row % 25% 75% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 4.13 df = 1 Empirical testing 66 The remaining variables from the loss variable family were found to be not significant. The frequencies for all nominaTable 12 % of films with Losses (n=24) Variable Never Lead/Major OtherBoth A11.1 Loss of a young child due to death 83.3 12.5 4.2 A11.2 Loss of a young child due to break up 95.8 4.2 A11.3 Loss of an old child due to death 87.5 8.3 4.2 A11.4 Loss of an old child due to break up 87.5 12.5 A11.5 Loss of a spouse due to death 70.8 25 4.2 A11.6** Loss of a spouse due to break up 79.2 16.7 4.2 A11.7 Loss of lover due to death 66.7 29.2 4.2 Loss of lover due to break up 66.7 33.3 A11.9 Loss of fam. member due to death 45.8 45.8 4.2 4.2 A11.10 Loss of fam. member due to break up 87.5 12.5 A11.11 Loss of a friend due to death 62.5 29.2 8.3 A11.12 Loss of a friend due to break up 91.7 8.3 A11.13 Loss of faith - religion 95.8 4.2 Loss of health 66.7 33.3 Empirical testing 67 A11.17 Loss of material things 91.7 8.3 Loss of freedom 79.2 20.8 a chi-square .05 * chi-square p ** chi-square p Research Question 2 asked if Jane Campion films differed from non-Campion films by narrative constructi the question, many one-way ANOVAs for interval or analyses for nominal and ordinal or non-Campion) as the The presence of a lead or major charsignificant for Campion versus non-Campion films, (1, 99) Campion films showed lead and major characters more often in the opening scenes than did non-Campion filmsCharacters’ happiness was also (1, 99) mpion characters were found to be happy throughout the majority of the films. Campion versus non-Campion films: Getting or wanting to get married, (1, 99) (1, 99) mpion characters were getting or wanting to get married as well as changing their religion more than non-Campion characters. Other identity change Empirical testing 68 (1, 99) (1, 99) (1, 99) Three variables from the abuse cantly different for Campion versus non-Campion films: Character physically abus(1, 99) (1, 99) (1, 99) concluding Campion characters were more likabused by same gender character, (1, 99) psychologically abused by same gender, (1, 99) (1, 99) = 0.11, physically abusive to same gender (1, 99) = 0.23, psychologically abusive to same gender character, (1, 99) (1, 99) Character being an outsider was found tonon-Campion films, (1, 99) (1, 99) (1, 99) = 0.11, and how many siblings a character (1, 99) = 0.53. Psychological disorder of the character was found to be (1, 99) pion characters were more likely er than were non-Campion characters. Empirical testing 69 The statistics for all interval/ratio variables demonstrating the comparisons between Campion and non-Campion films in regards to characters used in films can be Table 13 Analyses of Variance for Section B: Narrative Construction Campion Campion Total (n=19) (n=82) (n=101) Variable Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd F(1, 99) Sig. B3: Opening scene 0.320.480.120.330.16 0.37 4.45* 0.04 B4.1: Estimated age 31.5810.3837.8317.3536.65 16.41 2.27 0.14 B11: Happiness 0.000.000.340.480.28 0.45 9.66** gender 0.000.000.010.110.01 0.10 0.23 0.63job 0.110.320.130.340.13 0.34 0.12 0.74marriage 0.370.500.130.340.18 0.38 6.01* 0.02religion 0.110.320.000.000.02 0.14 9.46** move 0.260.450.160.370.18 0.38 1.14 0.29 Empirical testing 70 by same gender 0.050.230.100.300.09 0.29 0.38 0.54by same gender 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 1.00opposite gender 0.160.370.110.310.12 0.33 0.34 0.56by opposite gender 0.110.320.020.160.04 0.20 2.67 0.11abusive to same gender 0.050.230.160.370.14 0.35 1.44 0.23gender 0.320.480.070.260.12 0.33 9.30**abusive to same gender 0.050.230.120.330.11 0.31 0.75 0.39gender 0.160.370.060.240.08 0.27 1.98 0.16to same gender 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 1.00to opposite gender 0.160.370.010.110.04 0.20 9.23** B37: An outsider 0.370.500.260.440.28 0.45 0.96 0.33 B39: Substance abuse 0.000.000.150.500.12 0.45 1.62 0.21 B40: Suicidal 0.110.320.020.160.04 0.20 2.67 0.11 B41: # of siblings 52.7950.0660.5148.4159.06 48.56 0.39 0.53 Empirical testing 71 disorder 0.370.500.060.240.12 0.33 15.84** a ** p and non-Campion films. A statistically significant difference between Campion and non-Campion films was found for the 0.003. Only 36.8% of Campion characters did not travel at all compared to 73.2% of non-Campion characters, 21.1% of Campion the character’s origin compared to 15.9% of non-Campion characters, and 42.1% of Campion characters trof the character’s origin compared to 9.8% of non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with Empirical testing 72 CampionCampion Total No count 7 60 67 row % 10.4% 89.6% 100% column % 36.8% 73.2% 66.3% Yes - within country of origin count 4 13 17 row % 23.5% 76.5% 100% column % 21.1% 15.9% 16.8% Yes - outside country of origin count 8 8 16 row % 50% 50% 100% column % 42.1% 9.8% 15.8% Yes - within and outside country of origin count 0 1 1 row % 0% 100% 100% column % 0% 1.2% 81.2% Total count 19 82 101 Empirical testing 73 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 4 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square =13.74 df = 3 p = .003 The characters living abroad variable all compared to 92.7% of non-Campion characters, 21.1% of Campion characters lived abroad at least part of the film compared to 3.7% of non-Campion characters, and 21.1% Campion characters lived abroad the whole leof non-Campion characters have done so. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. The statistics are presented Empirical testing 74 in Campion versus Non-Campion Films CampionCampion Total No count 11 76 87 row % 12.6% 87.4% 100% column % 57.9% 92.7% 86.1% Yes - part of the film count 4 3 7 row % 57.1% 42.9% 100% column % 21.1% 3.7% 6.9% Yes - full length of film count 4 3 7 row % 57.1% 42.9% 100% column % 21.1% 3.7% 6.9% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 4 cells have expected count of less than 5 Empirical testing 75 Pearson Chi-Square = 15.64 df = 2 Characters’ love situation in the middle of film was found to differ statistically lf of Campion characters e middle of the film, but were not looking for new one, comparing to only 4.9% of non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. Empirical testing 76 the Film in Campion versus Non-Campion CampionCampion Total Not in relationship, not looking count 4 15 19 row % 21.1% 78.9% 100% column % 21.1% 18.3% 18.8% Not in relationship, looking count 1 11 12 row % 8.3% 91.7% 100% column % 5.3% 13.4% 11.9% In happy relationship count 2 26 28 row % 7.1% 25% 100% column % 10.5% 31.7% 27.7% In unhappy relationship, not looking count 9 4 13 row % 69.2% 30.8% 100% column % 47.4% 4.9% 12.9% In unhappy relationship, looking count 0 1 1 Empirical testing 77 row % 0% 100% 100% column % 0% 1.2% 1% Love situation not apparent count 3 25 28 row % 10.9% 89.3% 100% column % 15.8% 30.5% 27.7% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Pearson Chi-Square = 29.50 df = 5 A Chi-square test found statisticaCampion films and how lonely the lead/major characters appeared, The results indicated that Campion characters tended to be lonelier than non-Campion characters. Only 15.8 % of Campion charactersmparing to 47.6% of non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with cauti Empirical testing 78 CampionCampion Total No count 3 39 42 row % 7.1% 92.9% 100% column % 15.8% 47.6% 41.6% Sometimes count 12 33 45 row % 26.7% 73.3% 100% column % 63.2% 40.2% 44.6% Most of the time count 4 10 14 row % 28.6% 71.4% 100% column % 21.1% 12.2% 13.9% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 1 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 6.44 df = 2 Empirical testing 79 It was also found that there was a statistically significant difference between Campion and non-Campion characters .001. Over half of Campion characters (63.2%) difilms, however, 90.2% of non-Campion charactersOnly 21.1% of Campion lead or major charactissues with them compared with 9.8% ofCampion characters had to deal with issues among their siblings, compared to 15.8% Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. CampionCampion Total No Siblings present count 12 74 86 row % 14% 86% 100% column % 63.2% 90.2% 85.1% Has siblings, but no issues count 4 8 12 Empirical testing 80 row % 33.3% 66.7% 100% column % 21.1% 9.8% 11.9% Has siblings with issues count 3 0 3 row % 100% 0% 100% column % 15.8% 0% 3% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 3 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 15.93 df = 2 A chi-square test was also used to determine whether there was a significant difference between Campion and non-Campion characters with regard to issues with their Only 68.4% of Campion characters did not experience issues with a spouse, compared to 87.8% of non-Campion films. Also 9.8% of the non-Campion characters had a spouse present and had no issues compared to none of the Campion characters. Only 2.4% non-Campion characters dealt with issues with a spouse compared to 31.6% of Campion Empirical testing 81 characters. Due to small numbers of cases inshould be examined with caution. CampionCampion Total No spouse present count 13 72 85 row % 15.3% 84.7% 100% column % 68.4% 87.8% 84.2% Has spouse, but no issues count 0 8 8 row % 0% 100% 100% column % 0% 9.8% 11.9% Has spouse with issues count 6 2 8 row % 75% 25% 100% column % 31.6% 2.4% 7.9% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Empirical testing 82 Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5 df = 2 Three additional variables were approaching significance: The age of characters, d by the lead/major characters. The age of 0.07, shows that the majority (7were young adults, compared to 39% of non-Campion characters. Campion characters tended to be younger than non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examinedAge of the Characters in Campion versus Non-Campion Films CampionCampion Total Child count 1 3 4 row % 25% 75% 100% column % 5.3% 3.7% 4% Adolescent count 1 14 15 row % 6.7% 93.3% 100% Empirical testing 83 column % 5.3% 17.1% 14.9% Young Adult count 14 32 46 row % 30.4% 69.6% 100% column % 73.7% 39% 45.5% Mature Adult count 3 28 31 row % 9.7% 90.3% 100% column % 15.8% 34.1% 30.7% Elderly count 0 5 5 row % 0% 100% 100% column % 0% 6.1 5% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 5 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 8.47 df = 4 p = .07 Empirical testing 84 Gender of characters was also approaching significance, characters were females and only 37.8% of non-Campion characters were female. Results Table 21 and should be examined with caution due to small numbers of cases in some Empirical testing 85 CampionCampion Total Female count 11 31 42 row % 26.2% 73.8% 100% column % 57.9% 37.8% 41.6% Male count 8 51 59 row % 13.6% 86.4% 100% column % 42.1% 62.2% 58.9% Total count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 2.56 df =1 Empirical testing 86 Statistical significance was found to be a0.10. Only 6.1% of non-Campion characters were shown to be small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined CampionCampion Total No parents present count 12 67 79 row % 15.2% 84.8% 100% column % 63.2% 81.7% 78.2% Has parents, but no issues count 3 10 13 row % 23.1% 76.9% 100% column % 15.8% 12.2% 12.9% Has parents with issues count 4 5 9 row % 44.9% 55.6% 100% column % 21.1% 6.1% 8.9% Total Empirical testing 87 count 19 82 101 row % 18.8% 81.2% 100% column % 100% 100% 100% Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5 Pearson Chi-Square = 4.71 df = 2 There were a number of nominal variables that were found to be not significantly different between Campion and non-Campion characters. They are: Role, race, the beginning of film, love at the end of film, sexual child, issues with grandparent, issues with grandchild, and issues with other family member. Their frequencies are presented in Table 23, along with those for which Empirical testing 88 Variable % B2 Role Lead 63.4 Major 36.6 Age Child 4 Adolescent 14.9 Young Adult 45.5 Mature Adult 30.7 Elderly 5 Gender Female 41.6 Male 58.4 B6 Race Caucasian 86.1 African, African-American 7.9 Asian 3.9 Middle Eastern 1 Empirical testing 89 Native-American 2 Bi-racial 0 Other 0 B7 Appearance Extremely Attractive 8.9 Attractive 25.7 Average 60.4 Unattractive 5 Extremely Unattractive B8 Occupation (There were 28 categories) Student (most frequent) 8.9 B9** Travel No 66.3 Yes - within country of origin 16.8 Yes - outside country of origin 15.8 Yes- within and outside 1 B10** Live abroad No 86.1 Yes - part of the film 6.9 Yes - full length of the film 6.9 B12 Love at beginning of film Not in relationship - not looking 31.7 Empirical testing 90 Not in relationship - looking 11.9 In happy relationship 15.8 In unhappy rel. - not looking 5 In unhappy rel. - looking 34.7 Love situation not apparent 1 B13** Love at middle of film Not in relationship - not looking 18.8 Not in relationship - looking 11.9 In happy relationship 27.7 looking 12.9 In unhappy relationship - looking 1 Love situation not apparent 27.7 B14 Love at end of film 4 Not in relationship - not looking 21.8 Not in relationship - looking 28.7 In happy relationship 2 looking 1 In unhappy rel. - looking 30.7 Love situation not apparent 11.9 B15 Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 80.2 Empirical testing 91 Homosexual 4 Bisexual 3 Unable to determine 12.9 B35 Introvert vs. Extrovert Introvert 11.9 Extrovert 23.8 In the middle 64.4 B36* Appears lonely No 41.6 Sometimes 44.6 Most of the time 13.9 B39 Substance abuse No 92.1 Yes - alcohol 5 Yes - drugs 2 Yes - alcohol and drugs 1 B42 Character dies in film No 81.2 Natural death - old age 3 Natural death - health issues 3 Accident 2 Murder 8.9 Suicide 2 Empirical testing 92 Unable to determine 0 B43** Issue w/sibling None present 85.1 Present but no issues 11.9 Present with issues 3 Unknown 0 Issue w/ parent None present 78.2 Present but no issues 12.9 Present with issues 8.9 Unknown 0 B45 Issue w/ child None present 87.1 Present but no issues 6.9 Present with issues 5.9 Unknown 0 B46 Issue w/ grandparent None present 0 Present but no issues 0 Present with issues 0 Unknown 0 B47 Issue w/ grandchild None present 0 Empirical testing 93 Present but no issues 0 Present with issues 0 Unknown 0 B48** Issue w/ spouse None present 84.2 Present but no issues 7.9 Present with issues 7.9 Unknown 0 B49 Issue w/ other fam. Member None present 98 Present but no issues 1 Present with issues 1 Unknown 0 a * chi-square p ** chi-square p Research Question 3 asked if Jane Campion films differed from non-Campion films by production techniques. Many one-way ANOVAs for interval Music. Use of non-diegetic music wa(1, 528) 0.01, in such a way that Campion content played less non-diegetic music than did non- Empirical testing 94 Campion segments. Use of diegetic mu(1, 528) Campion Campion Total (n=167) (n=363) (n=530) Variable Mean sd Mean sd Mean sd F(1, 528) Sig. C1: Voiceover 0.17 0.380.150.360.160.36 0.54 0.47music 0.35 0.480.330.470.340.47 0.10 0.75music 0.58 0.490.710.460.670.47 8.05** C4: Color picture 1.00 0.001.000.051.000.04 0.46 0.50C5: B&W picture 0.04 0.190.020.140.020.15 1.32 0.25C6: Sepia picture 0.03 0.170.010.090.020.12 3.63 0.06C7: animation 0.02 0.130.000.050.010.09 3.54 0.06 touching 0.25 0.650.000.050.080.39 49.48** C9: Face cu 8.10 6.216.858.777.248.07 2.73 0.10C9.1: Face xcu 0.68 1.190.211.000.361.09 21.47** Empirical testing 95 C10: Feet cu 0.12 0.450.010.120.050.27 17.60** C10.1: Feet xcu 0.05 0.310.000.000.020.17 8.88** C11: Hand cu 0.59 0.970.140.490.280.71 49.24** C11.1: Hand xcu 0.22 0.610.000.050.070.36 46.78** C12: Other cu 0.01 0.080.010.070.010.08 0.00 0.95xcu 0.02 0.130.000.000.010.08 6.62** 0.01C14: Window cu 0.04 0.190.020.130.020.15 1.94 0.16C14.1: Window xcu 0.04 0.190.000.000.010.11 13.48** C15: Mirror cu 0.10 0.360.020.160.050.24 13.64** xcu 0.04 0.300.000.050.020.17 5.90* 0.02C16: Tree cu 0.02 0.190.020.150.020.16 0.24 0.62C16.1: Tree xcu 0.01 0.080.000.050.000.06 0.32 0.57Flowers/plants cu 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 1.00Flower/plants xcu 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 1.00C18: Food cu 0.03 0.390.020.140.020.24 0.22 0.64C18.1: Food xcu 0.00 0.000.000.050.000.04 0.46 0.50C19: Animal cu 0.03 0.170.040.330.040.29 0.10 0.75C19.1: Animal xcu 0.02 0.170.030.370.030.32 0.25 0.62 shot 0.08 0.320.100.390.100.37 0.37 0.54 Empirical testing 96 motion 0.16 0.680.050.290.080.45 6.74** 0.01C25: Time-lapse 0.04 0.220.020.270.020.26 0.48 0.49C26: Jump cut 0.01 0.080.020.330.020.28 0.38 0.54 C27: Blue filter 0.69 3.340.010.090.221.90 15.06** C28: Red filter 0.05 0.230.010.090.020.15 10.94** C29: Green filter 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 1.00C30: Other filter 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 1.00 camera 0.20 0.680.070.330.110.47 8.93** C35: Low angle 0.10 0.570.210.790.180.73 2.61 0.11C36: High angle 0.38 1.300.521.370.471.35 1.10 0.30C37: Overview 0.08 0.270.100.850.090.72 0.08 0.78C38: Underview 0.04 0.220.020.240.030.23 0.26 0.61angle 0.06 0.260.030.200.040.22 2.03 0.16 Superhearing 0.04 0.200.110.610.090.52 1.83 0.18 C42: Extremely long shot 0.17 0.420.150.520.160.49 0.29 0.59 Empirical testing 97 C43: Arm - medium shot 0.88 1.150.170.530.400.84 94.35** medium shot 0.67 1.150.060.290.250.74 91.61** C45: Focus pull 0.14 0.430.110.390.120.41 0.66 0.42 VC50: Legs 0.84 1.360.070.310.310.88104.58** VC51: Arms 1.69 1.740.320.700.751.30168.03** VC 52: Up 0.14 0.610.240.840.210.77 1.88 0.17VC53: Down 0.46 1.330.611.750.561.63 0.97 0.32For variables C1 through C6 the me a .05 ** p * p Picture format. (1, 528) = 0.06, and animated picture, (1, 528) Campion films include sepia sequences or animated sequences more than do non-Campion films. Color picture, (1, 528) (1, 528) white picture) should be examined with Empirical testing 98 was assumed, that coders would recognize color picture format from black and white, sepia and animation easily. family found to be significantly different between Campion and non-Campion segments: Extreme close up shots of motion of touching, (1, 528) e close up (1, 528) (1, 528) extreme close up shots of feet, (1, 528) (1, 528) = 0.00, extreme close up shots of hand, (1, 528) e close (1, 528) = 0.01, extreme close up shots of window, (1, 528) = 0.00, close up shots of mirror, (1, 528) e close up shots of mirror, (1, 528) = 0.02, indicating Campion segments include higher number of the close up and extreme close up shcomparing Campion to non-Campion segments: Close up shots of face,(1, 528) (1, 528) (1, 528) (1, 528) = 0.62, extreme close up shots of tree, (1, 9528) (1, 528) = 0.64, extreme close up shots of food, (1, 528) close up shots of animal, (1, 528) (1, 528) Motion shots. One variable found a significant difference between Campion and non-Campion films: Slow motion, (1, 528) included more slow motion effect than did non-Campion segments. The rest of the Empirical testing 99 motion shots variable family were fo(1, 528) = 0.54, time-lapse, (1, 528) = 0.49, and jump cut, (1, 528) Color filters. significant: Blue color filter, (1, 528) (1, 528) belonging to this variable famVariables in this family were found to be not significant: Low angle (1, 528) (1, 528) (1, 528) (1, 528) (1, 528) = 0.16. A computed variable, looking up, combined low angle and (1, 528) mbined high angle and overview shots and (1, 528) family were found to be significant: Medium shots of arm/hand, (1, 528) medium shots of leg/foot, (1, 528) (1, 528) /hands, (1, 528) Campion segments paid more attention and showed more shots of arms, hands, legs, and feet than did non-Campion. However, due to lo There were four more variables that did not belong to any variable family. One variable, hand held camera, was found to be significantly different, (1, 528) Empirical testing 100 0.01, indicating Campion segments showed more hand held camera shots than did non-Campion segments. The rest of the variabCampion and non-Campion segments: Superhearing, (1, 528) = 0.18, extremely (1, 528) (1, 528) Empirical testing 101 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to empiriwork of Jane Campion, a female director from New Zealand. The intention of this study was to objectify the subjective nature of auteur theory with evidence collected via an empirical study. Through the literature, we have learnt that a more scientific approach to auteurism the film critics and scholars movement with great anticipatitheir films with structuralist approach, but never took it to the next level of scientific testing of the cinema. On the other hand, mass communication scenormous numbers of empirical studies concerning video games, television programs, advertisements, billboards, music, and film, but failed to include filmto ignore film literature. It seems that these two fields of mass media and film studies Empirical testing 102 This study is attempting to bring the critical film theories and empirical mass communication traditions together by testing the auteur theory, a critical film theory, with a content analysis method. At the beginning of this study, I posedsubjectivity of film critics? Are you satisfied when a film scholar tells you who is and (the author)? We film scholars, they are after all human beingsanother might not. The objective way of studying film via auteur theory. Due to this research, auteur theory can studies, but as a tool for scientific studies as well. It illustrated that auteur theory is t also through an empirical and scieattempt to do so, therefore many studies need to be conducted to further confirm and extend these results. As mentioned earlier, many analyses have been written, for example, on John Ford by Peter Wollen, They identified many themes such as the love for the West, American history, military and army, the antinomies of garden versus wilderness, East versus Westtested empirically. This study reviewed literature and themes identified by film scholars and critics ientific method of Empirical testing 103 r Jane Campion films differed from non-Campion films by themes and motifs. Many recurring themes were identified in the fference between Campion and non-Campion themes, recognizing many imprints Campion leaves on her films. It was found that there were not as many lead male characters present in Campion films as in non-Campion films. It was also found that in Campion films there were always lead female characters present dings from the literature that Campion’s lead characters were always women and Sweetie in Janet Frame in Isabel Archer in In the Cut.significant, that all Campion’s films had a point-of-view of a female as predicted by the Hopgood, 2002; Hopgood, 2004; Mellencamp, 1996; Polan, 2001; Schröder, 2004; Sharp & Gillard, 2004). Campion films revealed more nudity of women and men than non-Campion films. In her films, female bodies were shown fully naked from both front and back, significantly more frequently than in non-Campion films as well as full nude frontal male. In the films of Jane Campion partial nude frontal female body was shown 4.5 times more than in non-Campion films, top nude frontal female was shown 13.5 times more than in non-Campion films, full nude frontal female 8 times more than in non-Campion films, full nude back female 2.5 times more than in non-Campion films, full nude frontal Empirical testing 104 male 3.5 times more than in non-Campion films, full nude back male 3 times more than non-Campion films than in non-Campion films, and bottom nude frontal male body was actually never shown in non-Campion films. Even though one film included in the random sample, homosexuality and suppression of gay lovers (this film showed a lot of male nudity), it was still found that Campion films revealed significantly more full frontal nudity of the male body than non-Campion films and almost male body than non-Campion films. Campion films showed signifioral sex, and sexual content than non-Campion films supporting the identified themes of exploration of female sexuality (Coomps & Gemmel, 1999; Gillett, 2004; Gordon, 2002; Hopgood, 2002; Hopgood, 2004; Nelmes, 1999; Polan, 2001; Sharp & Gillard, 2004), sexual obsession and perversity (Gordon, 2002; Mellencamp, 1996). Even though e large amount of nudity that Campion films portrayed, it may be closely connected with her obsession with sexuality, female desire, and a hint of perversity as mentioned earlier. In an interview, Campimany sexual scenes today are supposed to be shown as pleasurable to women (Frencke, 2003). Males were, and still are, dominating the film industry and the world for that matter, but Campion was daring enough to actuaenced Ruth and Frannie. Polan identified Campion’s obsession of showing disturbing images and taboos (2001) which Campion admitted to in an interview by stating she is being drawn to what is not spoken about, what is cruel (Wexman, aled that Campion Empirical testing 105 films dealt with taboos (Howe, 1990) significantly more than non-Campion films. Such instances were: the sexual harassment scene in SweetiePortrait of a where Osmond’s daughter sat on his lap, made us, the viewers, extremely uncomfortable thinking he was sexually abusing her (it , where Janet is menstruating and hiding the dirty cloths from her aunt; the almost rape scenes in The Piano;herself Ruth in In the Cut, to mention a few. As found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg described Campion’s theme as dealing with “everyday, domestic, and trivial scenes and situations with an edge of menace” (p. 174). Theme of presence of angels (Wexman, 1999) and found to be significant in Campion films. No angels were present or talked about in the non-Campion films. Campion films revealed a more realistic nature of human relationships by their relations. An overwhelming 88% of her films dealt with spousal break up and 66.7% dealt with break up of lovers compared to non-Campion films where only 5.6% dCampion films dealt with break up of lovers. of relationships of the non-Campion films are know it, and Campion knows it as well. In an interview, she said, “I am not committed to niceness, I am committed to seeing what’s there . . .” (Wexman, 1999, p. 9). Gordon Empirical testing 106 (2002), Polan (2001), Mellencamp (1996), and Lereal-life male and female relationships in her films. The true reflection of real life in Campion films was also shown with characters s dealt with health problems, compared to barely one fourth of non-Campion films. This finding however was not predicted by the literature. The critics and scholars seemed to either ignore this fact, or did not find it exciting as one of her recurring themes. Last but not least, her sithis study was the recurring theme of loss of freedom. Half of Campion films, as found in female characters experienced loss of freedom. Polan (2001) summed it as: Sweetie’s exclusion on a family trip leaving her trapped at home alhospitalization in a mental institution, Ada’s imprisonment in an arrange marriage, Isabel’s captivity in her marriage, Ruth’s physical imprisonment by her family in a secluded hut, and Frannie’s mental state imprisent that all of Campion’s films dealt with imprisonment; however the lack of a completestudy allowed for only half of the films phenomenon. The themes that differentiated films directed by Jane Campion from non-Campion films were: Stories told from a female point of view, with a female lead character, and minimal use of lead male character with an exposure to a vast amount of female and male Empirical testing 107 images and references to angels. The relatisimilar to real life, with many break ups, and health issues, as well as power struggles causing the female characters being or The second research question asked if films of Jane Campion differed from non-Campion films by narrative construction with characters. Many character traits were Interestingly, it was found that Campion’s lead or major characters were more an non-Campion characteof Campion’s characters was actually happy through majority of the film. It was interesting to find that an overwhelming three-quarters of Campion’s characters were young adults, compared to not even close to half of non-Campion characters, and that Campion’s female characters outnumbered non-Campion female characters with a ratio Campion’s lead characters were looking for their identities (Corrigan & White, searched for their identities by getting married, and two characters by changing religion. It was interesting to find that even thought a majority of Campion’s films dealt with break ups of romantic relationsgetting married. This can be compared to many real life experiences. It was also found that Campion characters experienced more physical abuse from opposite gender characters than non-Campion characters. It may be explained with the Empirical testing 108 were independent, strong women living in and dealing with male dominated& Gillard, 2004). Therefore the women’s independence had to be suppressed by exercising their male power It was also found that Campion’s characters were found to be sexually more non-Campion characters, and also a tendency tween Campion and non-Campion films) that Campion characters experienced more of be explained with the male dominance theme, assuming the sexual abuse done to females by males. From the films and literature, we know that Sweetie was most probably sexually molested by her father, Ada was almost twice raped by her husband, IsFrannie was attacked and sexually assau As the literature and findings of this study suggested, most of the female Campion viewed as mad, or crazy, identifying another recurring construction of the narrative with characters. As mentioned earlier, it may be explained with the unconformity of Campion’s female characters, their rebellion against the traditional gender roles, and disobedience of the patriarchal order (Hopgood, 2002), It was also found that Campion constructs ad. In the literature, Campidescribed as women on the move, or diillett, 2000b, Redding & elmingly 63% of Campion’s characters Empirical testing 109 non-Campion, and 42% of her character lived abroad for at least some time if not the full length of the film, compCampion characters. It may be connected withThe majority of Campion’s female protagonists did travel and live abroad: Janet and nd Frannie however, seemed to stay where they go on a family trip, and Frannie was on a virtual voyage of her mind– going back and forth in time. She was also on a poetic quest, finding new words, new meanings, as well as on a hunt for the murderer of her sister. As mentioned earlier, Campion films dealt characters dealt with ups and downs or romamiddle of Campion films almost half of her they were in, but were not looking for a new one, compared with almost a third of non-Campion characters being actually happy. This overwhelming majority of Campion’s characters were lonely, compared to only half of non-Campion characters. The theme of dysfunctional families (Hinson, 1990; Hopgood, 2002; Howe, 1990; Mellencamp, 1996; Redding & Brownworth, 1997; Sharp & Gillard, 2004) was measured acters experiences with issuese or other family members. It was found that Campion’s characters engaged in significantly more issues non-Campion characters dealt with such issues), parents, and spouse than non-Campion characters. One-third of Campion’s characters dealt with spousal issues, compared to the overwhelming majority of non-Campion never Empirical testing 110 prevalent in non-Campion films. A main trademark of Jane Campion’s narrby opposite gender characters, assuming that her female characters are receivers of such abuse by her main male characters. The real be considered another trademark of Jane Campion’s characters: The ups and downs of the romantic relationships, and the everyday family issues that they went through. Campion once said in an interview, that in a way family issues are funny and tragic at the same time, and that one can not escape his/her family, they carry family ties through their whole lives (Wexman, 1999). More trademarks were identifiene Campion films differed from non-Campion films by production techniques. In the literature, not very many specific It was found that Campion films did not include as much non-diegetic music as non-Campion films. In Campion films on the other hand, more segments included hand held camera movement, use of blue and red color filter as well as segments with slow One of Jane Campion’s production technique(Corrigan & White, 2004). This study found that Campion’s segments did not include Empirical testing 111 nearly as many low angle shots as non-Campion segments, thereforstatements. However, it may be assumed that the measurement of the low and high angle simply measured number of occurrences, identified the complexity of sound, the constant humming, wind, or keys, that was measured in the study (with to be her signature trademark as well. mpion’s use of wide shots of New Zealand scenery and vegetations (Schröder, 2004; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003; Wexman, 1999). This study measured the amount of extreme wide shots of scenery, but no real difference was found between Campion and non-Campion films. Again, the beauty or originality of such shots was not measured. It was found that Campion included more animation and sepia format shots in her films than non-Campion, probably because of her surrealistic images of talking beans, vivid story telling, animated travelogue, hallucinating images, or dream sequences Campion’s obsession with and interest in the human body is seen in one of her close up and extreme close up shots of people, be it their faces, arms, hands, legs, or feet. Polan (2001) pointed out Campion’s frequent use of close up or extreme close up shots, and Thomson and Bordwell (2003) identified the close up shots of faces. Campion’s segments contained significantly more close up and extreme close up shots of human bodies, as well as mirrors, and extreme close up shots of furniture and windows than non-Campion segments. Empirical testing 112 From pilot work, the researcher identified a possible Campion trademark of medium shots of arms and hands as well as medium shots of legs or feet as secondary elements included in the frame. It was observed that Campion liked to include body limbs ervation, with a finding that Campion’s films contained more medium shots of arms, hands, legs, and feet than non-Campion films. It can be concluded that a main trademark of Jane Campion’s production ages of human body in close up or extreme close up shots. The images of furniture, miwell as slow motion technique, hand held camera shots, and color filters. Campion’s animation, and other color formats such as sepia. Even though most of the production techniques were not a priori identified via reviewing analyses of Jane Campion’s films, we can still identify those as her unique imprints and trademarks. When watching her films, one can not forget the extreme close up shots of little Janeng but yet gorgeous shots of Pauline’s face, Baines’ erotic but romantic touches of Ada’s body, the poetic slow motion shots, or her fascination with human hands and feet. Campioviewers by exposing them to some day-to-day routines, such as menstruation and urinating, that women experience but when shown on screen are embarrassing, and/or shocking. So is the exploration of female lubodies on screen. We are not used to seeing futo seeing much sex scenes in regular films, but in real life it is a different story. Campion is interested in real life; her films mirroloneliness, and family issues. Empirical testing 113 This study was based on the already recademarks of Jane Campion’s films, as well as selected signas/auteurs with three research questions in mind. All the trademarks are presented in the Appendix E (Campion’s signatures collected from the literature, Campion’s signatures identified by the researcher from pilot work, the productifrom the literature, and non-Campion trademarks collected from literature). answers combined give an overall answer to a broader spectrum question: Will the results of this scientific study indicate that Jane Campion is an auteur without the subjective eyes of film critics? This study generally supported the subjective views of films critics and film scholars that Jane Campion is an auteur by uncovering many recurring themestechniques that empirically clarifies her precise trademare predicted themes and trademarks were confirmed, but some were not, and others were newly discovered. The full list of the trademarks can be It must be noted that few elements might be carving the personality of Campion films that are not being taken into an account in this study. The fact that Jane Campion is a female director from New Zealand living away from her home land, but sometimes returning to shoot a film there, might be a great distinction among the non-New Zealand male directors randomly selected in the sample. Because there were no variables testing Empirical testing 114 As mentioned earlier, this is a first attempt at scientific testing of the auteur theory was with some variables such as mix of genres. The present study limited the random sample to the drama genre to avoid genre theory issues, therefore not including a variable that would identify the genre of each film. The literature however identified the multi-genre trend of Campion films that could not be supported empirically due to the missing genre variable. If the nudity variables were and major character such results would have given us more information. Even though it was found that the majority of the nudity variables were occurring significantly more in Campion films than non-Campion, in a study of a different director, it might not have been the case. One of the major criticisms of auteur theory lies in the heart of the collaboration tendency. The auteur theory resistance argues that there is not one author of a film, there are many people who work on the film such next study, I am proposing that the IMDb random sample be eliminated; instead the population for the sample should be the films that the main artists such as the director, cinematographer, edCampion films as an example, she worked with three cinematographers: Dion Beebe, ilms that those three worked on as cinematographers could constitute the non-Campion films, ensuring a tighter, more My future goal, with the help of many auteur content analysis studies to come, is Empirical testing 115 analysis. With this comprehensive codebook One more limitation is noteworthy: Whaturalist-auteurism? ism in the 1970s brought objective analysis – an interpretation of meunderstand the same situation or the same image in many different ways. Is there a way to empirically test such content? Obviouslapproach would involve a series of audience This study presented an empirical analysis of Jane Campion films through the auteur theory lens, which until now, no study has done. The findings of the content analysis have recognized Jane Campion to be an auteur as did many film critics and also recognized many trademarks, themes, sh Jane Campion’s style. It has also demonstrated the potential for empirical assessment of auteurism by revisiting the three stages: romantic – auteurism, structuralist – auteurism, and post – structuralist auteurism. This thesis, uncovered a potential for a fourth stage, an empirical – auteurism. The proposed fourth stage opened the door to future content analyses of film via the auteur theory lens. Will it be optimistically recognized and welcomed among film Empirical testing 116 scholars, or will it be booed as Jane Campion’s at Cannes? That is a question awaiting an answer. Empirical testing 117 of American films. Angelic, R., Brown, E., Ivernel, F., Kidman, N., Parker, L. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (2003). In the cut. In the cut. Allingham, D., Barber, G., Mora, P., Redshaw, P., Simons, E., Strieber, R., Strieber, W. (Producers), & Mora, P. (Director). (1989). Communion.mmunion. Great Britain: Allied Vision Ltd. (Director). (1989). (1989). USA: Warner Bros. Pictures. review of interrater agreement measures. 23. Shapiro, A. (Director). (1993). Shapiro, A. (Director). (1993). Creek Productions. Baywater, T., & Sobchack, T. (1989). criticism: Major critical approaches to narrative film. New York, NY: Longman. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ., Mulvehill, C., Pressman, E. (Producers), & Becker, H. (Director). (1996). (Director). (1996). Pictures Corporation. Empirical testing 118 Piano.Literature Film Quarterly, 30, Betz, M. (2001). The name above the (sub)lism, coproduction, and polyglot European art cinema. Camera Obscura, 16Bishop, C., Chapman, J., Goldstein, J., Turnbull, M., Weinstein, B., Weinstein, H. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1999). Holy smoke!ly smoke! Picture].USA: Miramax. Blomquist, A., Cohen, B., Gladstein, R., Holleran, L., Platt, M., Poster, M., Weistein, B., Weistein, H., Yacoub, L. (Producers), & Hallström, [Motion Picture]. USA: Miramax. Don’t shoot darling!: Women’s independent filmmaking in Australia. Richmond, Australia: Greenhouse. Graham-Rice, T., Ivers, J., Krevoy, B., McDermontt, M., Oman, C., Richards, P E. (Director). (1996). E. (Director). (1996). Pictures. G. (Director). (2003). G. (Director). (2003). USA: New Regency Pictures. Bruzzi, S. (1999). Tempestuous petticoats. In F. Coombs & S. Gemmell (Eds.), lessons: Approaches to The Piano & Company. Buscombe, E. (1981). Ideas of au (pp. 22-34). London: Routledge. Buse, P., Nuria, T., & Andrew, W. (2004). Th Iglesia as polemical tool. 148. Cahiers du Cinema editors. (1976). John Ford W. Nichols (Ed.), California Press. Campion, J., Chapman, J. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1986). [Motion Picture]. USA: Milestone. Empirical testing 119 Carlson, R., Kim, C., Osborne, B., (Pr moon. moon. Carmody, D., Jacobs, L., Moroney, J., Rans Lumet, S. (Director). (1993). t, S. (Director). (1993). Hollywood Pictures. [Motion Picture]. Canada: Triptych Media Inc. Theories of authorship: A reader. Paul Ltd. Chapman, J., Depardieu, A., Turnbull, M. (P (Director). (1993). [Motion Picture]. USA: Miramax Films. Chumo, P., II (1997). Keys to the imagination: Jane Campion’sLiterature Film Quarterly, 23Schmidt, A., Zanuck, R. (Producers), & Burton, T. (Director). Burton, T. (Director). Columbia Pictures Corporation. Combs, R. (1990). Cinema’s vision thing. Listener,Coombs, F., & Gemmell, S. (Eds.). (1999). Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Corrigan, T., & White, P. (2004). Boston, MA: Bedford/ St. Martin’s. theory and criticism: Introductory readings Oxford University Press. Cotone, M., Reisman, L., Rizzoli Jr., A., Thompson, J. (Producers), & Schrader, P. (Director). (1990). [Motion Picture]. Great Britain: Sovereign Pictures. Empirical testing 120 voice in Jane Campion’s At close range.e.mdale Film Corporation. & Hunter, T. (Director). (1986). (Director). (1986). Hemdale Film Corporation. source guides: Auteur theory/ Auteurs. Retrieved November 1, 2005 from www.bfi.org.uk ent, K., Schepisi, F., Wigutow, J., (Producers), & SchepisiIt runs in the familyIt runs in the family Picture]. USA: Buena Vista Pictures. [Motion Picture]. Canada: Ego Film Arts. science approach. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing. Fisher, P. (1999). Reviews/commentary: Holy Smoke. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://members.tripod.com/filmlover2/id50.htmmpion: Dangerous liaisons. Interview, 33Garcia, M., Thompson, B., Thompson, W. (Producers), & Thompson, B. (Director). (1999). . [Motion Picture]. USGillett, S. (2000a). Angel from the mirror city: Jane Campion’s Jane Frame. of cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.sensesofcinemacom/contents/00/10/angel.html Empirical testing 121 Gillett, S. (2000b). Never a native: Deconstructing home and heart in of cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/5/holy.html Gillett, S. (2001). A pleasure to watch: Jane Campion’s narrative cinema. the past. Retrieved from http://www.screeningthepast.media.latrobe.edu/ archives Gillett, S. (2004). Engaging Medusa: Competing myths and fairytales in In the Cut.. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from cinema.com/contents/04/31/in_the_cut.html Golin, S., Leonardt, U., Montgomery, M., Turnbull, M., Wingate, A. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1996). ion, J. (Director). (1996). Polygram Filmed Entertainment. Gordon, R. (2002). Portraits perversely framed: Implications for the auteur theory and industry structure. Popular Communication, 2,www.auteur.com?. Gurney, D. (2006). Film and authorship [Review].Haley, M., Levinson, B., McCormick, P., Solan, A., Weinstein, P. (Producers), & Levinson, B. (Director). (1999). Liberty Heights.s. Baltimore Pictures. Doom Generation. Journal of Film & Video, 55Cinema studies: The key concepts.ing the gothic: Jane Campion’s Literature Film Quarterly, 26Henke, S. (2000). Jane Campion frames Janet Frame: A portrait of the artist as a young New Zealand poet. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http:www.washingtonpost.com Hopgood, F. (2002). Jane Campion. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/campion.html Empirical testing 122 Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http:www.washingtonpost.com s), & Campion, J. (Director). (1990). An . [Motion Picture]. Australia: ABC. Fantasy & Science Fiction,Kelly, D. (1996). The lady in the frame: Two portraits by Henry James and Jane Campion. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from ma.com/contents/01/18/lady_frame.html Keough, P. (1999). Piano lessons. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/99/01/28/JANE_CAMPION_A_COMPLETE RE.html Public access. [Motion Picture]. USA: Cinemabeam. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Le Cain, M. (2001). Voyeurism of the soul: The films of Philippe Garrel. Cinema. Retrieved November 17, 2006 from http://www.sensesofcinema.com/ contents /01/12/garrel.htmlLewis, J. (2000). Wholly Jane: Jane Campion on her new movie and other mysteries. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from Lombard, M. (1997). Structural 2006 from ombard/research/sf_man2p1.html Son. MacKinnion, W., Maynard, J. (Producers) [Motion Picture]. Australia: Arenafilm. a film author: Germain Dulac and female authorship. Retrieved October 12, 2005 from http://www.sensesof cinema.com McDonald, N. (2000). Writers, di Empirical testing 123 you”: Female narra the films of Jane Campion. McKew, M. (1999). Jane Campion and Retrieved November 11, 2005 from www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s73088.htmMellencamp, P. (1996). . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Miller, T., & Stam, R. (2000). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 164. Nacache, J. (2005). Group portrait with a star: Jeanne Balibar and French “jeune” cinema. Nelmes, J. (1999). Women and film. In J. Nelmes (Ed.), Nichols, J., & Walsh, D. (2000). The filmmakers can’t help themselves. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from Nystrom, D. (2004). Hard hats and movie brats: Auteurism and the class politics of the New Hollywood. Cinema Palmer, P., Sellers, A., Van Wyck, J., Winitksy, A. (Producers), & Ritt, M. (Director). (1990). (1990). Mayer. Dunedin, New Zealand: Univof American films. Powers, S., Rothman, D., & Rothman, S. (1993). Transformation of gender roles in Hollywood movies: 1946-1990. Print, 55 Empirical testing 124 & Pryor, R. (Director). (1986). life is calling. [Motion Picture]. USA: Columbia Pictures Corporation. or – Women dir Retrieved November 11, 2005 from Directing, film techniques and aesthetics. Press. 7. directors. Seattle, WA: Seal Press. Rossenbaum, J. (1991). Guilty by omission. . New York, NY: Dutton. film history. In W. Nichols (Ed.), methods: An anthology Press. Sarris, A. (1990). Auteurism is alive and well. Sarris, A. (1999). Winslet joins Keitel in Campion sequel. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://members.tripod.com/filmlover2/id50.htmrevisited. In V. W. Wexman (Ed.), authorship az po Almodovara [Famous film directors: 50 most important directors, from Chaplin to Almodovar]. Czech Republic: Slovart. Education, 35Shaw, D. (2002). Isabel Archer: Tragic protagonist or pitiable victim. Literature/Film Quarterly,2, Empirical testing 125 Smith, A. (1999). Girls on film: Analysis of women’s images in contemporary American and “Golden Age” Hollywood films. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH. Smith, G. (2004). Tough love. Stam, R. (2000). Stam, R., Burgoyne, R., & Fliterman-Lewis, S. (1992). semiotics: Structuralism, Stam, R., & Miller, T. (2000). Film and theory: An anthology. Publishing. Fifty contemporary filmmakers.Taubin, A. (2003). The wrong man. Thompson, K., & Bordwell, D. (2003). n tendency of the French cinema. In W. Nichols (Ed.), California Press. Walsh, D. (1994). Jane Campion’s : A sensitive touch to a fairly selfish theme. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from Basic content analysis (2Weiss, M. W. (1998). “a film by…”. 60-62. Wexman, V. W. (1999). Jane Campion interviews. Mississippi. Wexman, V. W. (2003). Press. Empirical testing 126 Empirical testing 127 CODEBOOK First code section C – it will help with coding Section A. & B. GIVE COUNTS, it will make it easier to record if you make a check mark for every occurrence, then report the total Code from the beginning of credits excepimages, graphics, or plain background Code each film with closed captioning (if available) formation provided in the movie, and only in the movie, assume no prior knowledge. Please fill in all the information required before coding each film: who coded the film, according to the coder ID list: Coder ID Coder Name 1 Patrika Janstova 2 Kim Neuendorf 3 Benjamin Simon : Identify each film with a number (1 through 28), according to the list below3. Director ID: Identify film’s director (1= Jane Campion, 2 = non-Jane Campion) according to the list below. : Identify the year film was made according to the list below. Film Title Film Director Director 1 Communion Philippe Mora 2 19892 2 Lean On Me John G. Avildsen 2 19892 3 Speaking Parts Atom Egoyan 2 19892 4 Sweetie Jane Campion 1 19892 Empirical testing 128 Film Film Title Film Director Director 5 The Comfort of Strangers Paul Schrader 2 19903 6 China Moon John Bailey 2 19903 7 Stanley and Iris Martin Ritt 2 19903 8 An Angel at My Table Jane Campion 1 19903 9 The Crush Alan Shapiro 2 19934 10 Guilty as Sin Sidney Lumet 2 19934 11 Public Access Bryan Singer 2 19934 12 The Piano Jane Campion 1 19934 13 City Hall Harold Becker 2 19965 14 Lilies John Greyson 2 19965 15 The War at Home Emilio Estevez 2 19965 16 The Portrait of a Lady Jane Campion 1 19965 17 The Cider House Rules Lasse Hallstrom 2 19996 18 Liberty Hights Barry Levinson 2 19996 19 Stonebrook Byron W. Thompson 2 19996 20 Holy Smoke! Jane Campion 1 19996 21 Big Fish Tim Burton 2 20037 22 It Runs in the family Fred Schepisi 2 20037 23 Runaway Jury Gary Fleder 2 20037 24 In the Cut Jane Campion 1 20037 oding was completed (mm/dd/yyyy) Unit of data collectionure film – 60 minutes or longer film Full length feature film Empirical testing 129 DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: (Ex. It is possible that the film will have only a male lead character, not a female lead.) appear to be lead character. If this his character is crucial to the plot line ( meaning if the film, code the character as a major role character. MEDIUM ROLE CHARACTER = is a character that speaks more than 5 sentences, but does not appear to be a major character. This character appears in less than 50% the film’s speaking scenes and is not crucial to the plot line. A1. Number of lead female roleA2. Number of major femaleA3. Number of medium femaleA4. Number of lead male characters:A5. Number of major male A6. Number of medium male DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: ther or a mother of any minor, medium, major or lead character visible in the film udible to the viewer or to their child (a character) in the film. nd his mother, even though the mother is more lead characters was physi the film. A7.2. A father figure of one or more major char Empirical testing 130 A7.3. A father figure of one or more medium characters was physically present in the film. A7.4. A father figure of minorlly present in the film. present in the film was talked about in the film. A8.1. A mother figure of the lead character/s was physically present in the film. A8.2. A mother figure of major charactersA8.3. A mother figure of medium characteesent in the film. A8.4. A mother figure of minor/other characesent in the film. A8.5. A mother figure that was not physically present in the film, was talked about. DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: TRADITION = a custom or practice that is be it cultural customs, re my mother, who learned it from her mother, ons of the family, cu(Ex. Westernization of the kids in traditional Asian family) CULTURE = national, Empirical testing 131 A9. A clash between tradition and modernism was present in the film. A10. A clash between different cultures was present in the film. DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: OCCURRED = an event that took place on the screen or was talked about ways. Be it literal break up among the characters, or a loss of a relationship, they become estranged, alienated. YOUNG CHILD = the character behaves and OLDER CHILD: The character behaves and speathis includes adult children. LOVER = a person who has a romantic relationship with other person, to whom he/she is or is not married to. A11.1. Loss of a young child due to death (oortion) occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.3. Loss of an older child due to death occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters to ‘break up’ occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) Empirical testing 132 acter and other characters 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.6. Loss of a spouse due to ‘break up’ occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.7. Loss of a lover due to death occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.8. Loss of a lover due to ‘break up’ occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major Character acter and other characters A11.9 Loss of a family member due to death occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.10. Loss of a family member due to ‘break up’ occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.11 Loss of a friend due to death occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.12. Loss of a friend due to ‘break up’ occurred to: Empirical testing 133 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.13. Loss of faith (religion) occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters aracter’s own abilities occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.15. Loss of faith (trust) in other character’s abilities occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.16. Loss of health (permanent and life changing) occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.17. Loss of material thing(s) occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.18. Loss of freedom – imprisonment in a facility against ones will. 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.19. Loss of a job occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters Empirical testing 134 A11.20. Loss of money occurred to: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters A11.21. Loss of physical beauty: 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters 1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s) acter and other characters DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: PARTIAL NUDE (FEMALE) = when a female chni area – top and bottom; or she is in bed assumed to be naked BUT her bikini areas are covered under the sheet; or if the camera te” parts of the naked body. (Ex. Female is TOP NUDE (FEMALE) = topless = when a femathe bikini bottom area is covered; or if a character is fully naked but the camera chooses the body; or if a character is assumed to e sheets. (Ex. Female female’s chest is visible to the viewer).TOP NUDE (MALE) = when a male charactepants area is covered; or if a character is assumed to be naked, but his boxer area is the camera chooses to show male’s chest is visible to the viewer). BOTTOM NUDE (FEMALE AND MALE) = bottomless = when a male or female character is shown unclothed, except assumed to be naked, but his boxer area is covethe character’s sex organ is visible to the viewer).FULL NUDE (FEMALE AND MALE) = topless and bottomless = you can clearly see ked, and 80% or more of the body is visible on the screen. Empirical testing 135 Note: Count each shot and each different ADULT character. Also, if a character is in swimming suite – and uses it for the purpose of swimming or suntaning – do not count it as partial nudity. However – if it is NOT used appropriately. (Ex. A girl at a bar in bikini top and jeans = partial nude female – frontal or back side). Female: A12. Partial nude frontal female body was exposed: A13. Top nude frontal female body was exposed: A14. Bottom nude frontal female body was exposed: A15. Full nude frontal female body was exposed: A16. Partial nude back side of a female body was exposed: A17. Top nude back side of a female body was exposed: A18. Bottom nude back side of a female body was exposed: A19. Full nude back side of a female body was exposed: A20. Top nude frontal male body was exposed: A21. Bottom nude frontal male body was exposed: A22. Full nude frontal male body was exposed: A23.Top nude back side of a male body was exposed: male body was exposed: A25. Full nude back side of a male body was exposed: Empirical testing 136 DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: ROMANTIC KISSING = A romantic kissing actFRENCH KISSING = A romantic or KISSING OF OTHER PART OF A BODY = A romantic kissing elsewhere (excluding that involves use of mouth and tongue to stimulate SEXUAL INTERCOURSE = A sexual activity MASTURBATION = a stimulation of ones sexual organs Note: Count each scene (not shot) and each pair characters. (Ex. A man is kissing a woman, she walks away and another woman walks in and kisses the same man. You should code 2 instances in the same scene). A26. Romantic kissing was shown in the film: A28. Kissing of other parts of a body was showA29. Oral sex was shown in the film: A30. Masturbation was shown in the film:was shown in the film: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: in the film. (Ex. One of Jane Campion short film’s shows a woman urinating by the with such acts: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: FEMALE POINT OF VIEW = film deals with female issues, female roles in the world, female thinking. The plot revolves around a female. Empirical testing 137 A33. A film has a primary point of view of a female: 1. Yes –mentioned, read about, talked about 2. Yes – visible (Ex. Seeing of an angel, angel costume, angel paintings) Unit of data collection: Major and Lead characters. appear to be lead character. If this his character is crucial to the plot line ( meaning if the film, code the character as a major role character. Full length feature film B0. Character ID: Give each codeable character a unique number (First character that becomes codeable, the ID should be 2;B3. Character appears in the opening scene: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES ADOLESCENT: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 13 to 19 years old. YOUNG ADULT: The character behaves and spMATURE ADULT: The character behaves and Empirical testing 138 4. Mature adult 1. Female 2. African, African-American 4. Middle Eastern 5. Native-American (including Eskimo and those of Native South American, Native Central American, and Native Mexican extraction) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE = professional model status ATTRACTIVE = very pleasanactive (Ex. Someone who is not model like, UNATTRACTIVE = Unpleasant to one’s eye. EXTREMELY UNATTRACTIVE = extremely non-plExtremely Attractive Attractive Unattractive Extremely Unattractive at the beginning of the film: 5. Criminal/Convict Empirical testing 139 7. Entertainment Industry 9. Farmer 10. Homemaker 11. Hotel/Hospitality Management 12. Independently Wealthy (no need to work) 13. Law Enforcement 21. Service Oriented (such as hairdresser, flight attendant. Please fill in the 22. Spy/Government Agent 24. Unemployed 25. Writer 28. Other (Please identify): DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES TRAVELING = the character is spending at least one night away from home 3. Yes – within AND outside his/her country of origin B10. The character lives abroad (in a foreign country to the character): 1. Yes – part of the film 2. Yes – Full lengths of the film B11. The character is happy throughout 70+% of the character’s screen time: B12. The character’s love situation at the be Empirical testing 140 1. The character is not in a romantic relati2. The character is not in a romantic3. The character is in a happy romantic relationship. romantic relationship, not looking. 5. The character is in an unhappy romanticn in the middle of the film 1. The character is not in a romantic relati2. The character is not in a romantic3. The character is in a happy romantic relationship. romantic relationship, not looking. 5. The character is in an unhappy romanticion at the end of the film: 1. The character is not in a romantic relati2. The character is not in a romantic3. The character is in a happy romantic relationship. romantic relationship, not looking. 5. The character is in an unhappy romanticB15. Sexual orientation of the character: 2. Homosexual 4. Unable to determine DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES SEARCH FOR IDENTITY = the character is not comfortable in his or her role in the role by making long term and major life (Ex. A female character is struggling with heoutside her home) his or her gender: job/career: Empirical testing 141 tting married, or wanting to get married: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES ABUSE = “a general term for the use or treatment of something (perthat causes some kind of harm (to the abused person or thing, to the abusers themselves, or to someone else) or is unlawful or edia.org/wiki/Abuse). physical suffering or harm” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse). (Ex. Striking, heat, cutting, infecting with a disease.) PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE = emotional and/or verbal abuse, “refers to the humiliation or intimidation of another person, but is also used to refer to the long-term effects of emotional shock. Psychological abuse can take the form of physical intimidation, power imbalance, such perhaps as the situatio(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse). SEXUAL ABUSE = “the improper use of anot(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse). Empirical testing 142 rms someone in self-dB23. The character was physically aB24. The character was physically abused by opposite gender character: B25. The character was psychologically abused by same gender character: B26. The character was psychologically aB27. The character was sexually abusB28. The character was sexually abused by opposite gender character: B29. The character is being physically abusive to others of same gender character: B30. The character is being physically aB31. The character is being psychologically abusive to others of same gender B32. The character is being psychologically abusive to others of opposite gender Empirical testing 143 B33. The character is being sexually abusivB34. The character is being sexually abusive to others of opposite gender character: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: ed and distant except to intimate friends. He and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement, takes matters of eva well-ordered mode of life. He keeps his feelings under close control; seldom behaves in an aggressive manner, and does not lose his temper easily. He is reliable, somewhat pessimistic, and places great value on ethirties, has many friends, needs studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment and is generally an impulsive individual. He is fcare-free, easygoing, optimistic, and likes to laugh and be merry. He prefers to keep moviand to lose his temper quickly. His feelings are not kept under tight control, and he is not B35. The character appears to be an: 3. In the middle 1. Yes – sometimes in the film 2. Yes – most/all of the film DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: their family, religious group, community, Note: Code if the major theme of the film is the character being an outsider. Empirical testing 144 DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: appears as if he/she could be a classmate, a person, not eccentric, cartoonish, non-human character. DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: SUBSTANCE = alcohol, illegal drused for other than medical treatment. B41. How many siblings does the character have? __ 6. Yes – Unable to determine DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: familyconflict, misbehaviour and even on the part of individual members of the family occur continually, leading other Empirical testing 145 members to accommodate such actions…” /wiki/Family_dysfunction(Ex. One or more members of the family have problems with other members. It appears one or more members of the family can not communicate with others. Family members are not able to agree or solve problemsenvironment.) es and dysfunctions with sibling/s. 2. Has sibling/s with issues Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with parent/s. 2. Has parent/s with issues and dysfunctions with child/children. and dysfunctions with grandparent/s. 2. Has grandparent/s with issues issues and dysfunctions with sues and dysfunctions with spouse. nd dysfunctions with other family member. 0. No other family member Empirical testing 146 1. Has other family member, but no issues 2. Has other family member with issues DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERcategory of illnesses that may include affective or emotional instability, behavioral dysregulation, and/or cognitive dysfunction or impairment, such as major depressionattention deficit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_disorder). Such condition has been made evident in the film by: a) other characters spoke about it, B50. Character suffers with a psychological disorder. 5 minute intervals. (Meaning, imagine chopping the whole movie into 5 minute sections, and coding each section as a separate film. For example, if a movie is 93 minutes long, you will have 18 entries, with the last one 8 minutes long instead of 5.) Start the first interval at the actual beginning of the film, not when “feature presentation” or other informa this, you might start coding with 43 seconds on the running time. The first interval will then end at 5mins.43secs.) Interval ID: Each 5 minute interval will have a number (1 5 min. of the film = 1, 2 min. interval = 2, etc…) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: sn’t match the picture. Empirical testing 147 2. Other character’s voice that appears in the movie3. A narrator – a voice belonging to someone who is not introduced in the film DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: MUSIC = vocal or instrumental sounds that have rhythm, melody, OR harmony. A single instrumental tone also is considered music. INCLUDE music that is part of program e scene on a fictional program, a live band performing). a part of the film, meaning characters can hear it and interact with it. (Ex. Characters listening to a record player) ) MUSIC- music that is not part of the film (e.g., a e on a fictional program or a live band performing is part of the program content and is NOT background music; most music is background music that accentuates the emotions or actions in the program without having a specific identifiable source, that is, the viewer can’t tell who is playing the music). The fact that the source of the music is not visible in the image is background music – there must be no indication that the music scene or program content. cluded diagetic music present?n-diagetic background music present?cture in black and white format: ure in animation/cartooning format: Empirical testing 148 DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: the primary focus be most important, central, emphasized. CLOSE-UP SHOT (CUs) = a dominant element fills up majority of the screen; there are no other dominant elements in the frame. an arm pit/ arm crease is visible in the shot, it is not to be coded as a CUs. Only head and top part of shoulder counts as a CUs of face. CUs) = a dominant element fills up majority of the screen, the shot reveals extreme detail of the element – it does not fit on the screen MOTION OF TOUCHING = (Ex. A woman is stroking her lover’s hair; the camera ng so is shown in a CU or XCU. Therefore you should code appropriately to the image C8. Motion of touching is shown: lips, eyes, cheeks…) shown in: C11. Hands are shown in: C13. Furniture shown in: Empirical testing 149 C14. Window shown in: C15. Mirror shown in: C17. Flowers/Plants shown in: C18. Food (Ex: Bread, Fruit, Meat) shown in: C19. Animals shown in: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: POINT-OF-VIEW SHOT (POVs) = shows the character’s point of view. Camera takes us inside the character, we - the audience become the eyes of the character. C20. Point-of-view shots: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: LONG TRACKING SHOT = moving camera shot in which the camera dolly often runs on tracks like a miniature railroad for more than 20 seconds following a moving element or revealing information (Ex. Truffaut's famous shot of the back up car traffic due to accident. Ex. Camera travels through the woods to find a dead body). C21. Long tracking shots: ___(count of each shot) Empirical testing 150 DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS = A production technique other than text or graphics adds or modifies any part of the image that would be seen in a simple recording of the film. It is likely to DECREASE viewers' mediation by reminding them of the artificial/mBLURRED IMAGE - an image that contains vaof object(s)/entity(ies). An example is the subjective view of a person about to pass out.urred image was identified: ___(count of each shot) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: DISTORTED IMAGE - an image that contains representations of object(s)/entity(ies) that are twisted out of shape, scrambled, mangled or otherwise changed. An example is a "scrambled" section of the screen when the producers are keeping a person's identity anonymous (as on Cops).*C23. In the 5 min interval, distorted image was identified: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: that is made to appear slower than it *C24. In the 5 min interval, slow motion was identified: scene=sequence) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: TIME-LAPSE - a representation of an action macreated by having the camera take a picture at regular intervals such as every X minutes. The action may appear fluid or "jumpy". Examples include a sequence that shows a flower blooming and the commercial in whtime-lapse was identified:scene/sequence) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: JUMP CUT(s) - in this type of cut the position of object(s)/entity(ies) on the screen in one frame is suddenly shifted in the next. The result is that the object(s)/entity(ies) seem Empirical testing 151 to jump from one screen location to anothecuts that mimics the faster-than-normal passage of time is a time-lapse effect. jump cut was identified: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: COLOR FILTER - one or more colors are added to the image, which causes at least part blue color filter was identified:scene/sequence) C28. In the 5 min interval, use of red color filter was identified: scene/sequence) green color filter was identified:scene/sequence) other color filter was identified:scene/sequence) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: een shots that is not a simple cut, dissolve, or fade. Examples are a wipe in which the new image slides into the screen and a transition in which the image evolves from a geometric shape (these and others are often used in Home Improvement). unusual transitions was identified: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: AND ANIMATION - both animation and live action appear on the screen at the same time. (Ex. In a film , Frida travels to America – the trip is built from photographs and animation, but you can see the actress on the screen ltaneous live-action and animation was DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: Empirical testing 152 SIMULTANOUS COLOR AND BLACK&WHITE appear on the screen at the same time color and black and white picture was DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: SHAKY CAMERA TECHNIQUE = HANDHELD =A series of at least 2 camera movements in which the frame of the image moves quickly and unpredictably in any direction; this technique makes it seem that the camera does not have a steady form of support such as a tripod (i.e. it seems to be handheld); the movement or movements must continue for at least 30 frames (1 second). Examples include home movies, COPS, NYPD Blue, and Homicide: scene/sequence) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: CAMERA ANGLE - the position from which the camera views the subject in an image. SUBJECT - the object(s)/entity(ies) that is/are the primary focus of attention in an image; the part of the image that appears to be most important, central, emphasized. LOW (looking upward)- a view from below, lookHIGH (looking down) - a view from above, lOVERVIEW (looking straight down)- a view fromUNDERVIEW (looking straight up) CANTED – camera is tilted to the right *C35. Low angle: __ (count each shot)__ (count each shot) *C37. Overview: __ (count each shot) Empirical testing 153 *C38. Under view: __ (count each shot) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: BREAKING FOURTH WALL - the "fourth wall"viewer is able to see objects/entities on television (i.e. the wall is the camera lens or glass viewing screen). When a charexpectedly looks at the camera and makes some statement (verbal or otherwise) to the viewers, this is considered "breaking the fourth wall." This must occur in either a fictional program (sitcom, drama, etc. -- in this genre the viewer's presencommercial; if it occurs in a commercial watch the entire segment and make sure that the viewer's presence is no*C40. In the 5 min. interval, a character broke the fourth wall: __ DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: er can hear sounds that s-he wouldn’t be able to hear within 6 feet. (EC41. In the 5 min. interval, a superhearing sensation was experienced: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: EXTREMELY LONG SHOT = no foreground dominant element. If a person was shown in this shot, it would occupy no C42. XLS reveals the scenery/surroundings: DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: MEDIUM SHOT (MS) = a secondary element does not fill up majority of the screen; there are other elements in the frame. Shot of a hand pointing at something.) Empirical testing 154 (count each shot) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES: focus during a shot. Usually this means adjustC45. In the 5 min. interval, focus pulls were used to change focus: taken from Lombard’s Structural Features Empirical testing 155 CODING FORM – SECTION A If variable in bold - give count1 CODER ID 2 FILM ID 3 DIRECTOR ID 4 YEAR ID 5 CLOSED CAPTION A page 1 A1 # of lead females A2 # of major females A3 # of medium females A4 # of lead males A5 # of major males A6 # of medium males A7.1 Father - of lead char. physically present A7.2 Father - of major char. physically present A7.3 Father - of medium char. physically present A7.4 Father - of minor/other char. physically present A7.5 Father figure that was NOT present was talked A8.1 Mother - of lead char. physically present A8.2 Mother - of major char. physically present A8.3 Mother - of medium char. physically present A8.4 Mother - of minor/other char. physically present A8.5 Mother figure that was NOT present was talked A9 Clash between tradition and modernism A10 Clash between cultures A11.1 Loss of a young child due to death A11.2 Loss of a young child due to 'break up' A11.3 Loss of an older child due to death A11.4 Loss of an older child due to 'break up' A11.5 Loss of a spouse due to death A11.6 Loss of a spouse due to 'break up' A11.7 Loss of lover due to death A11.8 Loss of lover due to break up A11.9 Loss of family member due to death A11.10 Loss of family member due to break up A11.11 Loss of a friend due to death A11.12 Loss of a friend due to break up A11.13 Loss of faith - religion Empirical testing 156 1 CODER ID 2 FILM ID 3 DIRECTOR ID 4 YEAR ID 5 CLOSED CAPTION A page 2 A11.14 Loss of faith in self A11.15 Loss of faith in others A11.16 Loss of health A11.17 Loss of material things A11.18 Loss of freedom A11.19 Loss of a job A11.20 Loss of money A11.21 Loss of physical beauty A11.22 Other loss (Identify): Partial nude frontal female:each shot Top nude frontal female: each shot Bottom nude frontal female: each shot Full nude frontal female: each shot Partial nude back female: Top nude back female: each shot Bottom nude back female: each shot Full nude back female: each shot Top nude frontal male: each shot Bottom nude frontal male: each shot Full nude frontal male: each shot Top nude back male: each shot Bottom nude back male: Full nude back male: each shot A26 Romantic kissing A27 French kissing A28 Kissing other body parts A29 Oral sex A30 Masturbation A31 Sexual Intercourse A32 TABOO Primary POV of female Presence of angels Empirical testing 157 CODING FORM – SECTION B 1 CODER ID 2 FILM ID 3 DIRECTOR ID 4 YEAR ID 5 CLOSED CAPTION B page 1 6 CHARACTER'S ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (etc…) B1 Character's name B2 Role B3 Opening scene B4 Age B4.1 Estimated age B5 Gender B6 Race B7 Appearance B8 Occupation B9 Travel B10 Abroad B11 Happy B12 Love at beginning B13 Love in the middle B14 Love in the end B15 Sexual orientation B16 Identity change: gender B17 Identity change: career B18 Identity change: marriage B19 Identity change: religion B20 Identity change: move B21 Identity - other: (identify) B22 Identity - other: (identify) B23 Phys abused by same B24 Phys abused by opposite B25 Psych abused by same B26 Psych abused by opposite B27 Sex abuse by same B28 Sex abuse by opposite B29 Phys abusive to same B30 Phys abusive to other B31 Psych abusive to same B32 Psych abusive to other B33 Sex abusive to same B34 Sex abusive to other B35 Introvert vs. Extrovert B36 Appears lonely B37 Appears to be an outsider B38 Is very realistic Empirical testing 158 1 CODER ID 2 FILM ID 3 DIRECTOR ID 4 YEAR ID 5 CLOSED CAPTION B page 2 6 CHARACTER'S ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (etc…) B39 Substance abuse B40 Tries to hurt self B41 How many siblings? B42 Char. dies in the film? B43 Issue w/ sibling B44 Issue w/ parent B45 Issue w/ child B46 Issue w/ grandparent B47 Issue w/grandchildren B48 Issue w/ spouse B49 Issue w/other fam.member B50 Psych Disorder Empirical testing 159 CODING FORM – SECTION C *Note: If variable in bold - give count 1 CODER ID 2 FILM ID 3 DIRECTOR ID 4 YEAR ID C page 1 5 CLOSED CAPTION 0-5min 5-10min 10-15min 15-20min 6 Interval ID 123 4 (etc…) C1 Voiceover C2 Diagetic music C3 Non-diagetic music C4 Color picture C5 Black&White picture C6 Sepia picture C7 Animation/cartooning C8 Motion of touching - XCU C9 Face: CU C9.1 Face: XCU C10 Feet: CU C10.1 Feet: XCU C11 Hands: CU C11.1 Hands: XCU C12 Other body parts (identify):CU C12.1 Other body parts (identify):XCU C13 Furniture: CU C13.1 Furniture:XCU C14 Window: CU C14.1 Window: XCU C15 Mirror:CU C15.1 Mirror:XCU C16 Trees: CU C16.1 Trees: XCU C17 Flowers/Plants: CU C17.1 Flowers/Plants: XCU C18 Food: CU C18.1 Food XCU C19 Animal: CU C19.1 Animal: XCU C20 POV shots C21 Long tracking shots C22 Blurred image C23 Distorted image C24 Slow motion C25 Time lapse (fast motion) Empirical testing 160 1 CODER ID 2 FILM ID 3 DIRECTOR ID 4 YEAR ID C page 2 5 CLOSED CAPTION 0-5min 5-10min 10-15min 15-20min 6 Interval ID 123 4 (etc…) C26 Jump cut C27 Blue color filter C28 Red color filter C29 Green color filter C30 Other color filter C31 Unusual transition C32 Simult. live-action&animation C33 Simult. color and B&W C34 Handheld camera C35 Low angle C36 High angle C37 Overview C38 Underview C39 Canted angle C40 Breaking the fourth wall C41 Superhearing C42 XLS/wide shot of scenery C43 Medium shot arm/hand C44 Medium shot leg/foot C45 Focus pulls Empirical testing 161 CAMPION AUTEUR - DIRECTORS 1 Intensifies lighting and color of the city (LA) 2 Love, sex and lust 3 Queer characters 4 Tries to show being gay doesn’t make a difference among people 5 Characters are obsessed with video cameras 6 Adolescents and homosexuality 1 Lack of dialog – comic strip influences? 2 Stories of young people who 3 Society lets the family down - the young people become emotionally deprived 4 Youth in crisis 5 Dysfunctional families 6 Parents are absent 7 If mother figure appears – as evil force 8 Protagonists are lonely and suffering 9 Self-erasure of the protagonists 10 Literal portrayals of underworlds – metro, sea, lower regions of cities 11 Characters are “larger than life” 12 Bricolage of genres – more genres in one Tim Burton 1 Love for horror and fantasy 2 Plain weirdness of main characters 3 Technical experi animation and visual effects 4 Main characters are outsiders villains with extremely complex personalities 5 Main characters have very pale skin 6 Themes of exclusion and inclusion 7 Johnny Depp Jackie Chan 1 Kung-Fu stunts 2 Master-pupil theme (comical) 3 Silent cinema feel to some 4 Female roles Empirical testing 162 1 The physical and the 2 Main character is often male scientist – with a bizarre name 3 Themes: science, disease, aging, invasion, death in literary metaphors 4 Bodily and psychic mutations 5 Hostility towards women – men fear and are jealous of females 6 Womb envy 1 Critiques of today’s society 2 A man alone in the universe 3 Visual translation of fee 4 Wide angles, shallow focus = isolation 5 Muted light and color 6 Psychological and emotional state of American ma 7 Decay of American family 8 Females are barely present Jim Jarmusch 1 Alienation of characters 2 Use of jump cuts 3 Characters have4 Not interested in What? and Why? 5 Main characters are outsiders Abbas Kiarostami 1 Challenges the audience 2 Poetic and philosophical style 3 Self-referentiality 4 Social realist traits/themes 5 Bleakness and loss - main themes 6 Often hopeful and enthusiasm accompanies the results 7 Likes to involve the audience as much as possible 1 Modernity vs. tradition 2 Deep secrets and internal torment come to surface 3 Conflict between freedom and societal traditions Empirical testing 163 1 Interested in real events 2 Fading centrality of a male 3 Visual: soft blues, and sterile and harsh whites 1 Social concerns 2 Political awareness 3 Complex characters 4 No central protagonist, usually group of characters 5 Stretches the boundaries of genres 6 Witty dialog 7 Realistic characters 1 Character based films 2 Ironic humor 3 Sense of isolation and loneliness 4 Characters are harshly detached, emotionally frozen 5 Characters are unable to fit with the world around them – lonely 6 Ultimately, his films are character studies of populated with strangers in a Oliver Stone 1 Lonely and isolated male 3 Testosterone-drive 4 Marginalization of women 5 The lure of homo-social is evident Peter Weir 1 Very national – Australian – rather than international 2 Avoidance of sexuality 3 No vivid sex scenes 4 However he shows erotic desire Allison Anders 1 Multiple protagonists 2 Teen angst (anxiety, fear, worry) 3 Gangsters 4 Biopic 5 Emotional intimacy and heterosexual love atavistic Empirical testing 164 Multiple Kappa code Variable name pair: pair: pair: A1 # of lead females 1 1 1 A2 # of major females 1 1 1 A3 # of medium females 1 0.92 0.92 A4 # of lead males 1 1 1 A5 # of major males 1 0.67 0.67 A6 # of medium males 0.96 0.87 0.86 (A7.1+A7.2+A7.3+A7.4+A7.5) 0.5 1 0.5 A7.1** Father - of lead char. 1 1 1 A7.2** Father - of major char. NC NC NC A7.3** Father - of medium char. 0 1 0 A7.4** Father - of minor/other char. NC NC NC A7.5** Father figure that was NOT present 1 1 1 A mother present (A8.1+A8.2+A8.3+A8.4+A8.5) 1 1 1 A8.1 Mother - of lead char. 1 1 1 A8.2** Mother - of major char. 0 0 1 A8.3** Mother - of medium char. NC NC NC A8.4** Mother - of minor/other char. NC NC NC A8.5** Mother figure that was NOT present 1 1 1 A9 Clash between tradition & modernism NC NC NC A10 Clash between cultures 1 1 1 A11.1 Loss of a young child due to death NC A11.2 Loss of a young child due to 'break up' NC A11.3 Loss of an older child due to death NC A11.4 Loss of an older child due to 'break up' NC A11.5 Loss of a spouse due to death 1 A11.6 Loss of a spouse due to 'break up' NC A11.7 Loss of lover due to death 1 A11.8 Loss of lover due to break up NC Empirical testing 165 Multiple Kappa code Variable name pair: pair: pair: A11.9 Loss of family member due to death 1 A11.10 Loss of family member due to break up NC A11.11 Loss of a friend due to death 0.46 A11.12 Loss of a friend due to break up NC A11.13 Loss of faith - religion NC A11.14** Loss of faith in self NC A11.15** Loss of faith in others 0.14 A11.16 Loss of health 0.7 A11.17 Loss of material things 0.68 A11.18 Loss of freedom 0.7 A11.19** Loss of a job -0.09 A11.20** Loss of money NC A11.21** Loss of physical beauty NC A11.22** Other loss (Identify): -0.09 A12 Partial nude frontal female: each shot 0.97 0.93 0.85 A13 Top nude frontal female: each shot 0.75 0.96 0.61 A14 Bottom nude frontal female: each shot 1 1 1 A15 Full nude frontal female: each shot 0.98 0.95 0.97 A16 Partial nude back female: each shot NC NC NC A17 Top nude back female: each shot NC NC NC A18 Bottom nude back female: each shot NC NC NC A19 Full nude back female: each shot 1 1 1 A20 Top nude frontal male: each shot 0.98 0.98 0.93 A21 Bottom nude frontal male: each shot NC NC NC A22 Full nude frontal male: each shot 1 1 1 A23 Top nude back male: each shot 1 0.75 0.75 A24 Bottom nude back male: each shot NC NC NC A25 Full nude back male: each shot NC NC NC A26** Romantic kissing 0 NC 0 A27** French kissing 0 0 NC A28** Kissing other body parts 0 1 0 Va28.1* Kissing (A26+A27+A28) 0.75 0.75 1 Empirical testing 166 Multiple Kappa code Variable name pair: pair: pair: A29 Oral sex 1 1 1 A30 Masturbation NC NC NC A31 Sexual Intercourse 1 1 1 Va31* All Sex (VA28.1+29+A30+A31) 0.75 0.75 1 A32 Taboo 1 1 1 A33 Primary POV of female 1 1 1 A34 Presence of angels 1 1 1 NC= Not Calculable due to lack of variance **These variables have been dropped due to low reliability and/or lack of occurrence Empirical testing 167 Multiple Kappa Spearman's Rho Lin's Concordance code Variable name pair: pair: pair: pair: pair: pair: B1 Character's name B2 Role 0.7 B3 Opening scene 1 1 1 B4 Age 1 1 1 B4.1 Estimated age 0.99 0.98 1 B5 Gender 1 B6 Race NC B7 Appearance 0.79 0.53 0.81 B8 Occupation 0.58 B9 Travel 1 B10 Abroad 1 B11 Happy NC NC NC B12 Love at beginning 0.42 B13 Love in the middle 0.78 B14 Love in the end 0.4 B15 Sexual orientation 0.7 B16 Identity change: gender NC NC NC B17 Identity change: career NC NC NC Identity change: marriage 1 NC NC B19 Identity change: religion NC NC NC B20 Identity change: move 0.5 NC NC Identity - other: (identify) NC NC NC Identity - other: (identify) NC NC NC Empirical testing 168 Multiple Kappa Spearman's Rho Lin's Concordance code Variable name pair: pair: pair: pair: pair: pair: B23 Phys abused by same 1 0.55 0.55 B24 Phys abused by opposite 0.7 NC NC B25 Psych abused by same NC NC NC opposite 1 NC NC B27 Sex abuse by same NC NC NC B28 Sex abuse by opposite 1 NC NC B29 Phys abusive to same 0.55 0.55 1 B30 Phys abusive to other 1 NC NC B31 Psych abusive to same NC NC NC B32 Psych abusive to other 1 1 1 B33 Sex abusive to same NC NC NC B34 Sex abusive to other 1 1 1 B35 Introvert vs. Extrovert 0.78 B36 Appears lonely 0.75 0.75 0.5 Appears to be an outsider 1 1 1 B38** Is very realistic 0 0 0.62 B39 Substance abuse 0.73 B40 Tries to hurt self 1 NC NC B41 How many siblings? 1 1 1 B42 Char. dies in the film? 1 B43 Issue w/ sibling 1 B44 Issue w/ parent 1 B45 Issue w/ child 1 B46 Issue w/ grandparent NC B47 Issue w/grandchildren NC B48 Issue w/ spouse 1 Issue w/other fam.member NC B50 Psych Disorder 1 NC= Not Calculable due to lack of variance **These variables have been dropped due to low reliability and/or Empirical testing 169 Spearman's Rho code Variable name C1 Voiceover 0.5 1 0.5 C2 Diegetic music 0.79 0.78 0.57 C3 Non-diegetic music 0.64 1 0.64 C4 Color picture NC NC NC C5 Black & White picture NC NC NC C6 Sepia picture NC NC NC C7 Animation/cartooning NC NC NC C8 Motion of touching - XCU 0.72 NC NC C9 Face: CU 0.98 0.85 0.92 C9.1 Face: XCU 0.92 NC NC C10 Feet: CU NC NC NC C10.1 Feet: XCU NC NC NC C11 Hands: CU 1 1 1 C11.1 Hands: XCU NC NC NC C12 Other body parts (identify):CU NC NC NC C12.1 Other body parts (identify):XCU NC NC NC C13 Furniture: CU NC NC NC C13.1 Furniture:XCU 1 NC NC C14 Window: CU 0.65 0.64 0.84 C14.1 Window: XCU NC NC NC C15 Mirror:CU 0.44 0.64 0.64 C15.1 Mirror:XCU NC NC NC C16 Trees: CU NC NC NC C16.1 Trees: XCU NC NC NC C17 Flowers/Plants: CU NC NC NC C17.1 Flowers/Plants: XCU NC NC NC C18 Food: CU NC NC NC C18.1 Food XCU NC NC NC C19 Animal: CU NC NC NC C19.1 Animal: XCU NC NC NC C20** POV shots -0.03 1 -0.03 Empirical testing 170 Spearman's Rho code Variable name C21 Long tracking shots 0.7 0.9 0.69 C22** Blurred image NC NC NC C23** Distorted image 0 0 0 C24 Slow motion 0.85 NC NC C25 Time lapse (fast motion) NC NC NC C26 Jump cut NC NC NC C27 Blue color filter 1 NC NC C28 Red color filter NC NC NC C29 Green color filter NC NC NC C30 Other color filter NC NC NC C31** Unusual transition NC NC NC C32** Simult. live-action & animation NC NC NC C33** Simult. color and B&W NC NC NC C34 Handheld camera 1 NC NC C35 Low angle 0.3 0.88 0.26 C36 High angle 0.62 0.89 0.5 C37 Overview 1 1 1 C38 Underview 0.84 0.78 0.84 C39 Canted angle 1 NC NC VC52* Shots of looking up (C35+C38) 0.38 0.87 0.42 VC53* Shots of looking down (C36+C37) 0.88 0.62 0.5 C40** Breaking the fourth wall NC NC NC C41 Superhearing 0.47 0.64 0.63 C42 XLS/wide shot of scenery 0.81 0.36 0.57 C43 Medium shot arm/hand 1 1 0.56 C44 Medium shot leg/foot 0.84 0.64 0.55 VC50* Shots of legs/feet (C10+C10.1+C44) 0.84 0.64 0.74 Empirical testing 171 Spearman's Rho code Variable name (C11+C11.1+C43) 0.62 1 0.62 C45 Focus pulls 1 NC NC NC= Not Calculable due to lack of variance **These variables have been dropped due to low reliability and/or lack of occurrence Empirical testing 172 AUTEUR TRADEMARKS JANE CAMPION – AUTEUR TRADEMARKS (FROM LITERATURE) SIGNIFICANT NON SIGNIFICANT # of lead females Masturbation # of lead males Loss of freedom Loss of a spouse due to 'break up' Loss of lover due to break up Loss of family member due to break up Identity change: religion Kissing (A26+A27+A28) Identity change: move Oral sex Phys abused by same All Sex (VA28.1+29+A30+A31) Psych abused by same Taboo Psych abused by opposite Primary POV of female Sex abuse by same Presence of angels Sex abuse by opposite Age of the character Phys abusive to same Gender Phys abusive to other Travel Psych abusive to same Abroad Psych abusive to other Happy Sex abusive to same Love in the middle Black &White picture Identity change: marriage High angle Phys abused by opposite Overview Sex abusive to other Underview Appears lonely Canted angle Issue w/ sibling Superhearing Issue w/ parent XLS/wide shot of scenery Issue w/ spouse Issue w/ child Issue w/ grandparent Issue w/grandchildren Issue w/other fam.member Psych Disorder Sepia picture Animation/cartooning Motion of touching - XCU Empirical testing 173 SIGNIFICANT NON-SIGNIFICANT Face: CU Face: XCU Feet: CU Feet: XCU Hands: CU Hands: XCU Low angle Shots of looking up (C35+C38) Shots of looking down (C36+C37) Empirical testing 174 JANE CAMPION – AUTEUR TRADEMARKS (FROM PILOT WORK) SIGNIFICANT NON-SIGNIFICANT Partial nude frontal female Top nude back female Top nude frontal female Bottom nude back female Full nude frontal female Top nude frontal male Partial nude back female Top nude back male Full nude back female Bottom nude back male Bottom nude frontal male Full nude frontal male Full nude back male (Character appears) in Opening scene Medium shot arm/hand Medium shot leg/foot Shots of legs/feet (C10+C10.1+C44) Shots of arms/hands (C11+C11.1+C43) Empirical testing 175 PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES (FROM LITERATURE) Non-diegetic music Furniture: XCU Diegetic music Window: XCU Mirror: CU Furniture: CU Mirror: XCU Window: CU Slow motion Trees: CU Blue color filter Trees: XCU Red color filter Flowers/Plants: CU Handheld camera Flowers/Plants: XCU Focus pulls Food: CU Food XCU Animal: CU Animal: XCU Long tracking shots Time lapse (fast motion) Jump cut Green color filter Other color filter Empirical testing 176 NON-CAMPION AUTEUR TRADEMARKS (FROM LITERATURE) SIGNIFICANT NON-SIGNIFICANT # of major females # of medium females # of major males # of medium males Clash between tradition & modernism Father - of major char. Father - of medium char. Father - of minor/other char. Father figure that was NOT present A mother present Mother - of lead char. Mother - of major char. Mother - of medium char. Mother - of minor/other char. Loss of a young child due to 'break up' Loss of an older child due to 'break up' Loss of a spouse due to 'break up' Loss of family member due to death Loss of family member due to break up Loss of faith in self Empirical testing 177 Loss of material things Loss of money Is very realistic Tries to hurt self Char. dies in the film?