"The poetic act consists of suddenly seeing than an idea splits up into a number of equal motifs and of grouping them." - Stéphane Mallarmé
Coming off of writing a post that goes
into detail discussing the thematic and artistic impact of the visual
component of a film's adaptation, it makes sense to me that I go from
there to discuss the symbolism of things that appear often enough to
be considered motifs. That word, motif, "très-français" in its pronunciation happens to come from the 19th-century French for "a
decorative design or pattern". It really is just that: an artistic
(decorative) recurrence (pattern) used to imply inherent
symbolism. Just as they were used so frequently in the novel, Joe
Wright applies motifs to great effect in his motion picture
adaptation. In his cinematic adaptation, however, he chooses
to introduce his own unique symbols as well as replicating motifs found
commonly in McEwan's creation. This is important to identify
before moving into the analyzation because it shows that
Wright has the confidence to add his own creative flare to the
adaptation while still managing to stay true to the integrity of the
piece. I like to
think of it like Michael Bublé covering Frank Sinatra: his cover of "Come Fly With Me" sounds enough like the original to pay homage to
the "Chairman of the Board", but different enough to have my sister making comments like "he's way easier on the eyes compared to that older guy." In the same way, the Joe Wright plays the role of Canadian crooner to show that he can still
"sound" like the instant-classic
while using his own
variety of repeated "half-smiles" and "two-finger
beckons", capable of bringing any 30-something to their knees, to stay unique.
Not sure if Wright's motifs will land him a supermodel wife like it did for Bublé, but they
still make for an interesting "cover" nonetheless.
 |
Don't think he needs the supermodel anyway. I'd dropkick Luisana Lopilato to get to Ravi Shankar's daughter (his real wife) any day of the week.
|
Example 1:
The
first motif worth being discussed in detail has to be that of the
bee. It is when Briony is talking with the twins and Lola that you
begin to hear the buzzing. At first, you brush it off as part of the
aesthetic - just something for background noise - but as the conversation
nears an end it intensifies to the point of focus. The camera then
focuses entirely on the bee as a focal point which then makes sense of Briony's
heightened interest in the insect ultimately resulting in her stumbling
onto the fountain scene from her window. When the focus changes to Cecelia and Robbie's point of view, those same bees can be heard outside as well, showing that its significance isn't unique to the one scene.
This motif in particular happens to be one of those few which happen to be a creative addition to the adaptation that I alluded to in the beginning of this post. So then why add it, what's the point? Well, to be fair there is never really a need for this kind of motif
in an actual novel because transitions between scenes can be made
with the use of chapters - what happens in between the end of the
chapter and the beginning of the next is allowed to be ambiguous.
However, with the film, there must always be context, or some kind of
sense made for why, and how, you get between those scenes. The
bee serves the role of giving this context for how and why Briony
could have ever had the urge to look out the window. More than this though, it functions on a deeper level as well. In a way,
symbolically of course, Briony is the bee herself. By stumbling onto
the fountain scene and arriving at a multitude of preconceived
notions, she "stung" Robbie; that is, she inflicted her
damage on his life, and like the bee, is condemned to a helpless
demise after her sting is left behind. As a motif, the bee provides both context and symbolic significance for a unique approach to the
double-perception of the fountain scene.
Example 2:
With the "two-finger beckons" out of the way, I need to point out how some of the motifs from the novel were adapted to the big screen if I'm gonna have any chance at justifying my unorthodox Bublé analogy. So here goes:
Water, water, everywhere. It's true. Now, I'm not going to try and force some Coleridge reference on you here because it really won't make any sense. But I'm trying to push this whole poem motif in my blog, so bear with me. Again, it's true. Throughout the entire novel, the most obvious of all symbolic recurrences has to be water. You find it in the fountain, the bath, the swimming pool, the lake of attempted adolescent suicide; I could type you three full lines of this repeated concept but I this assignment has me playing Price is Right where the "actual retail word-count" is 250 words - I don't think I'm gonna meet Bob. Or is it Drew? Anyways... The motif seems to me like the Swiss Army Knife of symbolism with this novel in that you know there's a bunch of different ways you can use it but you have trouble settling on what the one seems the most fit for the job. What I mean by that is that "water" as a symbol doesn't seem to have one umbrella meaning in Atonement. In one scene it might symbolize how Briony's excessive hand washing is her way of trying to proverbially "wash away all of her sins" - Atone - and in another it suggests a representation of Robbie and Cecelia's love. Does that mean that when Briony tries to drown herself as a cry for attention she's essentially "drowning in their love"? No. But the essential repetition of this concept of water allows for the reader to assume that it must have some kind of meaning and forces them to search for whatever the particular instance of it might be. Joe Wright's decision to replicate this idea in his movie is a wonderful tip-of-the-hat to this unique application of the motif and his presentation of it is all the more uniquely beautiful. Shots of Cecelia sunbathing on a diving board and Robbie attempting to quell the ripples in the fountain are both exact recreations from the novel but are made more memorable through their cinematic twin.
To sum it up, Joe Wright is basically Briony Tallis. As if this post didn't have enough analogies already, what I mean to say is that he has a fantastic mind for the dramatic, creative and artistic. I especially enjoyed his use of repetitive symbolism throughout the entire movie as it payed tasteful respect to the creator. I don't know exactly how he comes up with these ideas for recreating this symbolism. You might say that this use of le motif adds a certain "je ne sais quoi".
No comments:
Post a Comment