Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni once wrote that "cinema should be linked to truth rather than logic" and this statement is a useful heuristic when considering an in-depth analysis of evocative directing styles. by Stanley Kubrick and Lynne Ramsay. In this essay, key sequences from Full Metal Jacket (Kubrick, USA, 1987) and Ratcatcher (Ramsay, UK, 1999) will be compared and contrasted and it will be argued that although they appear to be Seemingly unlikely bedfellows, these films are somewhat analogous in their treatment of male development and the subtle suggestion of government as distant through innovative twists on cinematic conventions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get the original essay At the time of its release, Full Metal Jacket was considered "part of the Vietnam War cycle that emerged at the sequel to Platoon”, but at the same time considered unique due to its creative twist on the standards of cinematic storytelling. Similarly, at the time of its release in 1999, Ratcatcher, Lynne Ramsay's Glaswegian Bildungsroman, was seen as a development of the British neo-realist aesthetic extending from Tony Richardson's 1960 drama Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, to works by Ken Loach and Mike Leigh. , respectively (French et al., 2017). While Ramsay has honed his talent with several films since, Ratcatcher has evolved into a treatment of themes altogether more sensitive and ethereal than any of his antecedents. There are of course huge differences between these films. While Kubrick's film keenly observes how the desire for recognition in young men can lead to unceremonious institutionalization, Ramsay's vision quietly offers family and community as an antidote to marginalization that can protect and inoculate young boys against devouring by the government apparatus. Despite these differences, upon closer inspection, we see that both films break the conventions of the POV shot, both use social and graphic blocking which accentuates the relationship between the characters and their environment and both set aside sequences in which key concessions to cinematic romanticism are made in order to evoke somewhat common thematic subtexts. In the evolving language of cinema, it is understood that POV is used to add to the audience's understanding of the subjective experience of a specific character. Usually the character in question is a key character, protagonist or antagonist and one whom the audience already knows a lot about (Chapman, 1986). Additionally, it is widely accepted within the conventions of the POV shot that when used it should be accompanied by a reverse shot informing the audience which POV we have just experienced. In a key scene that ends Ratcatcher's opening sequence, Ramsay provocatively confounds expectations by denying the audience this reverse shot and leaving the POV owner anonymous. As Wilson (2003) notes, “it is never made clear” who is watching and the impact is shocking. Charlotte O Sullivan (2012) agrees: “we are already temporarily stunned, assuming that our hero, our narrative center, is dead.” Wilson (2003) acknowledges the influence of Krzysztof Kieślowski's ambiguous imagery on Ramsay, suggesting that Ramsay's anonymous POV in early footage of Ratcatcher may be inspired by Kieślowski's observer character in his television drama series Polish “Dekalog”. Performed by Artur Barciś, Kieślowski's observerappears in eight of ten episodes, always depicted silently observing key narrative moments of Dekalog's protagonists without uttering a word or acting on what he sees. Although this figure remains mysterious, some believe that his presence is Kieślowski's representation of a non-interventionist God. With his own development of this idea, Ramsay places the camera where an observer might be, but resists giving the audience the reverse shot that usually accompanies a POV to reveal who the observer is and this inspired abuse of POV conventions serves effectively warning the public that anything can happen, even something as simple as death, without spiritual, parental or administrative supervision, to the boy that society has forgotten. In a similar departure from the standard use of POV, Kubrick films the key exchanges in the sniper scene in Full Metal Jacket with the camera embodying the point of view of the snipers, a character for which we do not we have no idea and for whom, this shot brings us a little more. This shot has indeed been widely criticized in the literature on the film because it "does not invite spectators to share the thoughts and feelings of the sniper" but considering the theory according to which Kubrick's camera would personify the sniper all-seeing eye of the American government throughout the duration of the In the film, this POV without reference to the character's subjectivity takes on a very different meaning, consistent with the subtextual theme of a distant and unassailable government. Consider the first images from Full Metal Jacket. We open with shots of several soldiers having shaved heads, but these are characters for whom we are given no backstory and the jumps between one soldier and the next and the temporal space between their episodic haircuts add to their character unceremonious, telling tells us that they are interchangeable (Kempley, 1987). In other words, in the eye of Kubrick's camera. With this sequence, one could argue that Kubrick invites the curious viewer to ask who would consider these soldiers anonymous and interchangeable and one could answer: the government. As such, Kubrick teaches viewers that the camera's point of view will mimic an institutional eye throughout the remainder of the film. It doesn't matter who they are or where they come from, whether they volunteered or were drafted. In the eyes of the institution, they are also worthless. Returning to our discussion of POV, in this context Kubrick's unconventional use of anonymous POV in the sniper scene is consistent with the lack of consideration given to the enemy in war. Another interesting way to see how Ramsay and Kubrick handle a common subject. subtext can be observed in their use of social and graphic blocking to pronounce the relationship between the characters and their respective environments. Full Metal Jacket is shot in 4:3 aspect ratio, a format so commonly used in 1987 that it was known as "the universal video format of the 20th century." Kubrick described the film as his attempt to show war, its flaws and all, and as such, the choice to shoot in this televisual relationship can be made for the sense of realism it would bring to the action , especially considering the Vietnam War. had entered the American consciousness through television coverage in the seventies. The most overt reference to television in the film, of course, are the Hue city interviews in which soldiers are interviewed in the field by a television crew. In this sequence, it could be argued that there are further clues that Kubrick's camera adopts theof a government institution. That is to say, the soldiers who hold the party line on the mission of their war and the glorious role they played in it speak to a camera that is itself visible in Kubrick's frame, as these soldiers express their discontent, concern and disgust at the situation in which they find themselves. looking down the barrel of Kubrick's camera, breaking the fourth wall and looking straight into the eyes of the institution of government. The tension between conformity and defiance is subtly pronounced by the social blocking of these scenes and this tension is reflected in the graphic blocking of the film as well. In the first half of Full Metal Jacket, symmetrical geometric shapes are created through the effective use of graphic blocks and framing. Kubrick effectively locks the soldiers into both proportion and their particular relationship to the setting, heightening the pressure of conformity detailed in both narrative and framing, but it is notable that these lines collapse when the soldiers arrive in Vietnam and enter into gunfights in the city of Hue. This disintegration of order in the lockdown reflects the breakdown of core order and respect for the chain of command and reflects the tension between individuality and conformity that characterizes the film's subtext. Ramsay's use of framing also "states a particular set of paradoxical tensions." These tensions are particularly evident in the scene where the film's protagonist, James, explores a construction site where his family hopes to build a new house and the summit is seen in the corners, obscured by the frame and hidden from view . This is a key example of Ramsay's use of the setting and the character's particular relationship to it to create "working tension" as the images appear as glimpses that simultaneously serve as illustration of a developing boy, difficult to capture as he moves in a fixed space. , suggesting "the ambiguity of childhood and its resistance to fixity" but consistent with Ramsay's unconventional use of POV shooting, also suggests a boy out of sight and out of mind of all sense of government, parental or societal. This is particularly interesting to note because many British films that preceded Ramsay were known for their psychological realism. However, contrary to the tenets of psychological realism, Paul Schrader defines what he calls "the transcendental style" as a more ethereal, expressive approach achieved through ascetic and demanding framing and staging, a relaxed and candid central performance and editing that seeks to ask questions rather than provide answers (Schrader, 2018). It is this style that characterizes Ratcatcher and much of Ramsay's later work. For example, in this same scene from Ratcatcher where the young boy, James explores the construction site, he goes to the upper floor and through a window observes a field which, in the context of both the setting of the film and from the boy's own worldview, represents a romantic impressionistic image of health, escape, space and promise. This imagery marks a notable departure from the dull and oppressive mise-en-scène established in the rest of the film and this momentary concession to artistic romanticism represents the hope that still remains in every boy who is alive, awake, moving, gaining agency and young. enough to grow further beyond the limits of its environment. As such, we can view the half-built housing estate that James explores as a proxy for his own sketched future, an indeterminate future, and the window onto the wheat field asa visual representation of his own potential which may well be realized if his family manages to move into this house before James's is crushed by life on the council estate and the lack of protective supervision hinted at in earlier, less idyllic sequences. There is an uncanny similarity between this sequence and a much shorter but no less important progression of images in Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. In the film's first act, a series of marching sequences chart the progress of individual soldiers as they are brought together into a single, cohesive unit. In the first of these sequences, the camera moves in anticipation of the troops, giving the scene a feeling of being in the moment and the viewer a feeling of being with the troops as they march and sing. Kubrick is famous for his carefully staged frames, considered to be derived from his love of classical painting (Eberwein, 2010). His favorite lens was a 16mm lens which gives us that famous Kubrick wide shot, almost a fish eye lens disguised as widescreen and although much has been made of the staging and framing of his iconic frames, Full Metal Jacket was not photographed with this widescreen lens. and Kubrick himself officially believes that it is the editing and not the framing that is specific to cinema. Quoting Pudovkin when speaking to Rolling Stone in 1987, Kubrick said: "Writing, of course, is writing, acting comes from theater and cinematography comes from photography, but editing is unique to cinema. You can see something from different points of view almost simultaneously, and it creates a new experience. Given this, later in the first act the soldiers march again but Kubrick's camera, still on a dolly, now moves against the action of the soldiers as they march. This gives the scene a more ballet feel and suggests that, far from the disparate group we saw marching by earlier, this is now a group that has progressed to one that moves through space as one . Where in the previous scene the omniscient eye of Kubrick's camera led them into this process, the gaze of the government he represents now watches over them, cold and approving, as they begin to comply. That said, there is also a crucial tension here that Kubrick does not ignore. That is, despite the fact that the soldiers inevitably fall from grace as individuals and become brainwashed core members, this ballet march scene is the first time throughout history. The film's narrative indicates that the unit feels like a single entity that, at this point in the story, is actually satisfying for them, the driller Sargent, and, Kubrick appreciates, to some extent, for the viewer. For a moment the romantic idea of ​​being a marine is realized and to mark this moment Kubrick cuts to an idyllic scene of soldiers climbing obstacles at sunset while we hear the sound of their marching feet and their chanting continues as an audio insert. It's the relationship between these two shots, the way our minds associate the images, encouraged by the overlapping audio, that gives this sequence its momentary romantic power. As such, similar to the appearance of the wheat field in Ratcatcher, this sequence can be understood as a fleeting indulgence in cinematic impressionism in an otherwise cold and incarcerating space. Werner Herzog is said to have said that "facts do not convey truth, it is error, facts create standards, but truth creates illumination" and this distinction between fact and truth is a useful heuristic when considering the way in which.