Sofia Coppola - Essay

Sofia in Translation:  Examining the Auteur Qualities Embedded in the Films of Sofia Coppola

(image source: honeymoonbabybriulotta.blogspot.com, by Blogspot user: mamma claud)

COMM 2342 Research in Contextual Studies Vanessa Quincey S3197785

Vanessa Quincey

Page 1 of 22

RESEARCH STATEMENT

WORKING TITLE:

Sofia in Translation: Examining the Auteur Qualities Embedded in the Films of Sofia Coppola

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

My project was undertaken with an aim to achieve the following goals:

- to contribute to contribute to literature on Sofia Coppola, by examining her work in the context of auteurship - to redefine and reevaluate the auteur theory - to contribute to literature on female auteurs and young auteurs, which is still underdeveloped when compared to existing material on male auteurs.

CONTACT DETAILS

Vanessa Quincey s3197785 0433 397 168 [email protected]

SUPERVISOR

Glen Donnar Cinema Studies Supervisor

WORD COUNT

Current word count: 6, 538

PROJECT ABSTRACT

Since it was first coined in the 1950's, the auteur theory has been debated and reinterpreted several times and subsequently presents itself as a somewhat muddied term. One of the fundamental consistencies, and indeed, weakness, within the auteur theory (that has been sustained throughout the decades), is that 'auteur' is a term used to glorify the work of predominantly male  male  directors. This isolation of auteurship Vanessa Quincey

Page 2 of 22

towards male directors is, of course, somewhat narrow-minded given that in recent times, female directors (eg: Kathryn Bigalow, Jane Campion, Sally Potter etc) have shown the same unique, personalized vision in their works to reflect their own auteurship. This project attempts to explore the films of one particular female director, Sofia Coppola, and determine whether or not she can be considered an auteur. The project will examine each of her three films and extract evidence to both support and challenge the idea of her being an auteur. It also attempts to revaluate and redefine the auteur theory, based on past debates and arguments about defining auteur theory, as well as bring to light the increasing prominence of female auteurs in today's film industry.

RESEARCH COMMUNITY

My nice community is, undoubtedly, the cinema studies community. However, whilst I do not by any means profess my work to be of the same academic or intellectual standard, synonymous with say, a cinema journal, I do on the contrary, believe that I have identified a legitimate gap in research concerning auteur theory. On a broad scale, the trend in recognizing female directors as auteurs is a fairly recent one and in addition, on a more specific note, given that Sofia Coppola's career is still developing, my research, on both counts, in relatively incomplete.

Therefore, my goal for my research community is to contribute to encouraging discussion on the progress and emergence of female directors and auteurs and perhaps see others take up this idea in the future. My essay does, however, largely focus on the work of Sofia Coppola, which would appeal to readers who are familiar and  partial to her films. With that being said, I also feel that my project may engage the interest of feminist film scholars who perhaps seek to help abolish the notion of Hollywood and cinema being a typically male-dominated industry.

REFLECTION ON THE RESEARCH PROCESS

Initially, one of the biggest challenges I faced was narrowing down my broader area of interest: women in the film industry, into a succinct research topic that dealt with a relevant gap in current research. However, whilst several journalists have labeled Sofia Coppola an “auteur”, none of them had actually investigated the evidence to support this title. This allowed me to build a research project based on the evidence of Vanessa Quincey

Page 3 of 22

the key auteur qualities embedded in the films of Sofia Coppola. In doing so, I was forced to also examine the auteur theory itself to determine what it is that warrants a director’s status as an auteur. One of the hardest parts of the research process for me was narrowing down my information. I essentially had to fight the urge not to write too much about auteur theory and to keep my project balanced in my focus on Coppola’s work in particular. I believe I have succeeded in this because I have only included the important information on auteur theory and discarded many of the finite details and opinions, which surround it, but do not necessarily develop, to my argument.

In addition, I also struggled with pertaining to the word limit set for this essay. There was so much information to include both on Coppola’s work and auteur theory that it was very hard for me to decide what to include and what to leave out. One of the ways I dealt with this was to focus only on Coppola’s feature-length films and did not mention her short film: Like the Star   (1998), her screenplay  Life Without Zoe (1989) nor did I explore the various music videos and commercials she has directed. I also strategically chose not to include reference to Coppola’s most recent film Somewhere (2010) given the fact that it has not been released in Australia, despite the plethora of material analyzing the film, which is currently available.

In researching my project, I sought to include the largest number of possible sources and I was successful in my methods of research as I obtained almost all of the material in the AFI Library. My research project is ultimately comprised of both a textual analysis and qualitative analysis. In order to define whether or not Sofia is an auteur, I had to first examine the auteur theory itself and the debates and approaches associated with the original definition. This formed the basis for my qualitative analysis, which I then combined with a close textual analysis of Sofia's films. In addition, I drew upon various resources to build up a coherent and well-supported case study on both Sofia's work and the concept of auteurism as a process, rather than a quantitative idea.

Vanessa Quincey

Page 4 of 22

Sofia in Translation:  Examining the Auteur Qualities Embedded in the Films of Sofia Coppola

Throughout history, despite several female directors having displayed characteristics of auteurship within their films, the term ‘auteur’ continues to remain synonymous with male  directors. In particular, Sofia Coppola’s burgeoning status as an auteur is one that is ripe for contention. Her three feature length films, The Virgin Suicides (1999), Lost in Translation (2003) and Marie Antoinette (2006), harbor a shared set of aesthetic, stylistic and narrative traits, which in turn have contributed to a greater sense of consistency and familiarity in her work. Critics have similarly picked up on Coppola’s “recognizable visual approach” and the “self-conscious beauty of her films” (Rogers, 2006: p.1). They have dubbed her an “artist” (Bunbury, 2000: p. 2), “the most powerful woman director in Hollywood” (O’Hagan, 2006: p. 4) and drawn attention to the specific “formula” for her work, which seems to be “repeated throughout Coppola’s filmography” (Saccarelli, 2006: p.3). Ostensibly, Coppola  possesses a distinct identity and personalized vision as a director, which she imprints unto each of her films. However, whether or not this personalized vision earns her the title of auteur remains unclear.

Marred by critical debate and several counter-interpretations, the auteur theory has transformed into somewhat of a muddied term. In this context, the ambiguous tie  between Coppola the director and Coppola the auteur can perhaps be best understood as a reflection upon the fallibly, multi-faceted definition of the auteur theory itself. Hence why, in determining whether or not Sofia Coppola can be considered an auteur, this essay will explore the evolution and changeability of the auteur theory throughout history, with particular consideration towards the defining qualities that validate directors as auteurs today. In doing so, this essay will also examine Sofia Coppola’s work as a director through a close textual analysis of her three in order to ultimately evaluate her legitimacy as an auteur.

The Evolution of Auteur Theory: Origins

There are no qualitative measures for auteurship, thereby making it less a coherent theory than a variable set of critical practices that over time have been appropriated, Vanessa Quincey

Page 5 of 22

attacked and reformulated in many different ways. Essentially, auteur theory is founded on the romantic belief, as advocated through Alexandre Astruc’s notion of the “caméra-stylo”, that the director is able to use the commercial apparatus of filmmaking much in the same way as an artist uses a paintbrush or a writer uses a pen (Hillier: 1985). This line of thinking thereby qualifies film as ‘art’ and the director as the ‘artist’, or in the case of cinema, auteur . Fraçois Truffault first coined the term auteur in his 1954 essay, Une certaine tendance du cinéma français, arguing that film is a great medium for which a director can express his own personalized, creative vision (Naremore: 1999). Hence, the director is ascribed as the ultimate creative force or impetus behind the film. Truffault, alongside his fellow Cahier du Cinéma  peers, thereby dismiss film as being a co-operative, industrial product, which was further insinuated in his provocative allegation that “there are no good and bad movies, only good and bad directors” (Hillier, 1985: p.127).

Evidence of auteurship is translated in films through a director’s distinctive visual style, originality and particular emphasis on mis-en-scene. The director’s personal vision is also articulated through the repetition of narrative themes and motifs as well as the self-consciousness of convention, whereby as Andre Bazin points out, once the auteur realizes his particular ‘signature’ convention, he will continue to employ it throughout his films (Dudley: 1978). Historically, auteur theory was very much designed as an attack on the big, commercial productions common in post-war France, which were considered to be less viable as an art form by Truffault and his  peers. Alas, auteur theory is seen as a celebration of a director’s triumph in achieving a distinctive, personalized vision throughout their films in the face of industrial constraints and other forms of studio interference. Nowadays however, these shackles of industrial and studio constrain have undoubtedly been lifted and directors are generally given more time, greater flexibility, increased control and a larger budget to work with.

To an extent, Sofia Coppola has similarly been encumbered by constrains within her own working environment in Hollywood. Unlike the political and industrial constraints depicted in the Cahier   writings, Coppola has had to cope with social constraints and the expectations inherent in being the daughter of an already canonized auteur, Francis Ford Coppola. As a testament to these constraints, Francis Vanessa Quincey

Page 6 of 22

Ford commented in an interview with  Premier   magazine, “she’s [had] pressure from every side” (Spines, 2000: p.92). Coppola herself similarly admitted in an interview with Empire magazine: “everybody has to go outside their family – you have to try to figure out your own identity on your own… I had to [make films] in my own style” (Collis, 2000: p.82). In establishing her own creative vision and identity through her work, pertained to the ‘triumph of auteurship against constrains’ as depicted in the Cahiers.

Furthermore, another defining quality of auteurship is the tendency for a director to work within a particular genre of films. As Graeme Turner noted, auteur studies meant, “genre films were now deemed interesting” (Turner, 1999: p. 133). Likewise, the films of Sofia Coppola similarly pertain to a specific film genre, belonging the “indie”/arthouse category. Coppola’s consistency in creating these types of films, demonstrates her creative control over her work. She has a clear vision for the types of films she wishes to direct and in doing so, her personality and creative presence  becomes an identifiable aspect of her work.

In addition, American film critic Andrew Sarris helped popularize auteur theory for American critics and audiences. Intrinsic to Sarris’ work is his notion of ‘the great director’, which is still very much revered as an important aspect in film criticism today (Sarris: 1973). According to Sarris, an auteur’s body of work is characterized  by technical flair, recurring characteristics of style which serve as the filmmaker’s “signature” as well as the filmmaker’s “interior meaning” (vision of the world) (Sarris: 1973).

The Evolution of Auteur Theory: Critical Debate

Highly persuasive in nature, auteur theory is often intricately woven throughout  popular discourse on films and is habitually articulated through critical opinions and reviews. For the most part, scholarship debates about auteurship occupied a privileged  position in film studies during the 1950-80s, however auteur theory is nevertheless still relevant to cinema analysis and discussion today. From the 1960’s onwards, several film critics began to challenge the legitimacy of auteur theory and undoubtedly, one must take these criticisms into account in order to develop a Vanessa Quincey

Page 7 of 22

coherent understanding of auteur theory. The predominant fallibility critics have identified with auteur theory is that it “participates in the cult of personality and celebrity at the expense of examining the collaborative dimensions of filmmaking” (University of Queensland, 2010, p. 13). In particular, Pauline Kael deplored Sarris’ articulation of auteur theory on several counts. She denounced Sarris’ notion of auteurship as “a rigid formula” and further rejected Sarris’ supposed desire to view directors “in a pristine state”, stating, “it is an insult to an artist to praise his bad work along with his good” (Kael, 1965: p. 298). Of course, Sofia Coppola’s films have engendered both praise and criticism from film critics. In particular,  Lost in Translation was hailed as “intelligent, calm, filmmaking brilliance” (Dawson, 2003:  p. 1) meanwhile Marie Antoinette was considered by many to have “missed the point” (Scott, 2006: p. 13). Yet whether or not a film gains popularity amongst its audience is irrelevant to auteur theory, which is far more concerned with the presence of a director’s consistent personal vision innate in each film, no matter how it is received  by the public.

 Nevertheless, like several other critics, Kael’s primary concern with Sarris’ dealings with auteur theory is that it privileged the role of the director at the expense of other  poignant collaborators in the filmmaking process. Kael has been joined by notable screenwriters such as Ernest Lehman and William Goldman, among others, who similarly baulked the idea that directors are more authorial than screenwriters. David Kippen even went as far as to coin the phrase “Schreiber theory”, a term used to credit the screenwriter as the principal auteur of a film (Kippen: 2006). Meanwhile, film historian Aljean Harmetz championed the creative input and auteurship of producers and studio executives in Hollywood, arguing that auteur theory “collapses against the reality of the studio system” (Harmetz, 1992: p.29).

To examine the auteurship in one stand-alone film, then of course, credit is owed to the screenwriter and other collaborators on the film as well as the director. Whilst the screenwriter is responsible for writing the script and thereby determining the narrative of the film, it is the director who ultimately chooses to use the script. Therefore, auteur qualities in a director can be found through the patterns in the types of films he directs based on the individual scripts and screenplays he uses. Moreover, this  particular criticism on auteur theory falls short of Sofia Coppola, who plays the dual Vanessa Quincey

Page 8 of 22

role of director and  screenwriter in each of her three films. Indeed, whilst this doesn’t necessarily prove that Coppola is in fact an auteur per se, it does show that her  personalized creative vision is executed through both the subject matter (screenplay) and the overall aesthetic and stylistic realization of her films (directing). Adding further strings to her bow, Coppola also co-produced  Lost in Translation and  Marie  Antoinette.

In addition, Timothy Corrigan argues that film directors market themselves as ‘auteurs’ on purpose to create their own  star image. Corrigan asserts that rather than  being a category with any influence on the way his/her products ar e read, the auteur is simply seen as “a commercial strategy for organizing audience reception, as a critical concept bound to distribution and marketing aims that identity and address the  potential cult status of an auteur” (Corrigan, 2008: p.221). In some ways, Corrigan has a point. Certainly, after the success of The Virgin Suicides  and  Lost in Translation, Sofia Coppola’s subsequent films each specifically name her as the director for branding purposes. Although these commercial strategies are present within his theory, Corrigan does not, however, account for the complexities of the way in which films are read by the spectator; nor does it acknowledge the myriad of influences that must be taken into consideration through the production of meaning.

Alas, through analyzing the definition of auteur theory and it’s evolution through critical debate, it is clear that Sofia Coppola’s role as a director, in many ways, mirrors the image of an auteur as painted by the original auteur theorists. She has triumphed against social constraints within the industry, maximized her creative input through her dual role as screenwriter and director and further demonstrated a consistency in the directing genre-specific films. However, with this being said, whilst these factors do not necessarily qualify Coppola as an auteur in the absolute sense of the word, they do, nevertheless, contribute to evidence supporting her  possession of auteur qualities. Ostensibly, Coppola inhabits an authorial persona, yet it is only with close textual analysis of her films that we can fully understand the strengths and limitations of her presupposed auteur status. Similarly, New Critics (from the ‘New Criticism’ school of literary criticism) contend that many critics have made an “intentional fallacy” by trying to interpret works of art by speculating what Vanessa Quincey

Page 9 of 22

the author meant based on his personality or life experiences (Wimsatt & Monroe, 1954: p.19). This is the approach I will be taking in analyzing Sofia Coppola’s status as an auteur, whereby I will be focusing on the stylistic, aesthetic, narrative, thematic aspects as well as her use of mis-en-scene in order to evaluate her authorial role. I will not, therefore, be taking into account the external information or speculation about her intention as this falls outside of the scope of my research.

The Female Auteur

Many feminist writers have argued that the auteur theory has no value or relevance to female filmmakers. Despite acknowledging the significance of auteur theory being “extremely important work” within the broader context of filmmaking, Angela Martin insists “the work of women filmmakers remains of marginal interest to [auteur theory and auteur theorists]” (Marks, 1984: p. 18). In saying this, Martin appears to uphold a similar view to several the feminist critics, which is that auteur approaches are not able to interrogate women’s work. According to Marks, this is due to the fact that films directed by women are either “outside the auteur cannon” or “indescribable within it” (Marks, 1984: p. 23). Similarly, this perceived masculinity of auteurism has  been frequently chastised by feminist critics such as Pauline Kael who expressed her view that “[auteurs] are so enthralled with their narcissistic male fantasies” staged within “the small range of experience of their boyhood and adolescence” (Kael, 1996:  p. 72).

However, Lisa French professes that “it may well be that the masculinity celebrated  by the Cahiers du cinema  was a recognition of a particular masculine perspective” (French, 2007: p. 105). Likewise, French’s notion of the “masculine perspective” can  be transcended into the study of female auteurship, through the recognition of the ‘female’ and a feminine point of view in women’s cinema. In many ways, this ‘feminine perspective’, echoes Sarris’ projection of ‘interior meaning’ as one of the fundamental building blocks to auteurship (French: 2007).

This projection of femininity and a female point of view, which French and Martin have linked to female auteurship, is very much apparent throughout Sofia Coppola’s films. However, on the contrary, this theory ignores the formal, stylistic attributes of Vanessa Quincey

Page 10 of 22

auteurship and it is altogether too literal in translating a film’s characters and narrative as a direct representation of the director. Thus, my focus for this essay is to evaluate the extent to which Sofia Coppola can be considered an auteur based on a close textual analysis of her films. Personally, I tend to disagree with critics such as Kaja Silverman, who contends, “it might not be possible to locate a female authorial voice using the same strategies as locating the male authorial voice” (Silverman, 1988: p. 67). I believe auteurship should be defined in cinema using the same rules and  practices no matter the gender of the director. Therefore, to apply different strategies for evaluating female versus male auteurs, is to invite further prejudice and inequality  between the sexes. Hence, my approach to appraising the auteur status of Sofia Coppola will fall inline with the original criteria for auteurship – which is largely  based on stylistic, narrative, aesthetic and thematic consistencies – as dictated by the Cahiers writers and supporting critics and film theorists.

Sofia Coppola and Auteurship

Sofia Coppola is a self-proclaimed “visual” and “creative” person (Spines, 2000: p. 92). Undoubtedly, her background in painting, photography, fashion and acting have all largely contributed to her aesthetic sensitivity and creative style. Coppola describes making a film as “a personal thing” and indeed, her personality and  personal style has underpinned each of her three feature length films (O’Hagan, 2006:  p. 1). As Sean O’Hagan asserts, “no other young female film director possesses her clout in Hollywood” (O’Hagan, 2006: p. 1). Incidentally, growing up Sofia Coppola cites muses in Jean-Luc Godard, Fraçois Truffault and the French New Wave, of which she affirms, “I’ve always been drawn to individuals really, people with their own distinctive but identifiable style that no one else has” (O’Hagan, 2006: p. 4). Surely, Coppola’s admiration of these auteurs’ sense of individuality can ultimately translate to an admiration, and perhaps, aspiration towards auteurship in general. Thus, the question of Coppola’s own auteurship subsequently emerges. In addressing this, I will examine Coppola’s use of characters, narrative and themes; style; and misen-scene throughout her three feature length films in order to evaluate her status as an auteur.

Vanessa Quincey

Page 11 of 22

Sofia Coppola’s Use of Characters, Narrative & Themes

Although her films are vastly different in time, setting and plot (The Virgin Suicides: Michigan, mid 1970s;  Lost in Translation: Tokyo, early 2000s;  Marie Antoinette: France, late 1700s), they each uphold similarities in characters and themes. The trajectory of Coppola’s films is often unpredictable and lacking in solid, narrative arcs. On this point, Coppola contends that she is more concerned for the stylistic realization of her films as opposed to the narrative or storyline (O’Hagan: 2006). Coppola admits to a personal interest in “a search for identity and trying to develop, and the choices you have” (Hauser, 2006: p. 65). These common narrative leads and themes have been woven throughout each of her three films. Interestingly, upon retrospect, Coppola has stated that she can see a definite “link” between each of the three films, “how each film starts where the other one leaves off in a way” (Hauser, 2006: p. 65). As film critic, Jen Johans puts it; Coppola’s films can be viewed as “an unlikely thematic trilogy of isolated young women coming of age in three very different time periods” (Johans, 2006: p. 1).

Coppola’s films demonstrate an interest in liminal situations, rites of passage and marginal groups of people (Rogers, 2008: p. 1). The protagonists in her films are unformed characters facing a moment of transition or life-crisis, they feel lost, alienated and overwhelmed or incapacitated by the situation, environment or world in which they have been thrust. The key message in The Virgin Suicides is “the violence of the adolescent rite of passage and finally, the refusal to progress into the adult world” (Rogers, 2008: p. 8). Similarly, as Coppola described, “In  Lost in Translation, [Scarlett Johansson’s character] is trying to understand that stage in her life and is on the verge of figuring it out. In  Marie Antoinette, it’s the full evolution of someone transforming from a girl to a woman and growing up in a really extreme setting. To me, it feels like the next chapter” (Hauser, 2006: p. 65). In saying this, Coppola’s films seem to possess a European sensibility about them, whereby her sense of “ennui” parallels that of many of Italian director, Michelangelo Antonioni’s, characters. This, in part, may be owing to Coppola’s self-proclaimed admiration for the cinema of the French New Wave and in particular, the work of Antonioni (Rogers: 2008).

Vanessa Quincey

Page 12 of 22

One of the ways in which Coppola deals with the seemingly melancholic nature of her subject matter, is through her characteristic observation of various forms of ritual within her films. Coppola focuses on different types of ritual in each film, yet these rituals are all depicted as social or cultural weaknesses, failures or sites of disaster and in doing so, serve to further alienate the protagonists from their environment. The Virgin Suicides  portrays rituals associated with established institutions (eg: The Church and medical profession) as well as various American high school and adolescent rituals (eg: homecoming dance, losing one’s virginity, first kiss, first house  party). Lost in Translation includes cultural rituals associated with Japanese customs such as the welcome ceremony Bob receives at the hotel, whilst  Marie Antoinette  presents an abundance of rituals associated with the routine of waking and dressing the queen as well as scenes of worship and commensality. From this, we can ascertain that Sofia Coppola’s consistent use of ritual conveys a greater, human concern in the search for identity and is not just exclusive to the female concerns of her film’s  protagonists.

Furthermore, Coppola also demonstrates a fondness for depicting the empty moments in human lives, which she conveys through her characters who constantly expose the void within themselves. This is exemplified in The Virgin Suicides by the young boys who are besotted with the mythical beauty of the Lisbon girls and in  Lost in Translation  as the protagonist Charlotte is constantly shown looking out her hotel window in awe of the landscape below her. In  Marie Antoinette, the void and loneliness within the young queen is expressed through her desire for excess and lust for all things aesthetically gratifying.

Intrinsic to Coppola’s narrative approach is perhaps her favored use of the indefinite or open-ended conclusion in her films. This technique allies her strongly with the tradition of European filmmakers who have favored the “inchoate reality of the world over the fabricated, tidy endings of Hollywood” (Rogers, 2008: p. 3). The Virgin Suicides is narrated from the present day yet the action is rooted firmly in the past as the boys’ characters try to understand the Lisbon girls and the incidents of their untimely deaths. The film concludes with the boys being unable to make sense of the mystery which the girls embody, which as Rogers notes, results in a profound inability to fully integrate with the present, modern-day world” and ultimately Vanessa Quincey

Page 13 of 22

contributes to a lack of resolution within the narrative (Rogers, 2008: p. 8). The final scene in  Lost in Translation  shows the character Bob whispering something to Charlotte, which is unclear to audiences. All we see is her reaction: she cries, then smiles and the two protagonists walk their separate ways. This ambiguous ending leaves the audience wondering what it was that Bob said to Charlotte and what will  become of the characters lives afterwards. Likewise, Marie Antoinette concludes with the King and Queen and their children trying to flee Antoinette’s home of Prussia. By not concluding the film with the anticipated (according to history) beheading of the King and Queen, Coppola seemingly ‘re-writes history’ and infiltrates the film with a sense of vague uncertainty.

Sofia Coppola’s Technical and Visual Style:

Coppola’s cinematic style is characteristically visual and observational and throughout her three films, she demonstrates an amazing facility for capturing ephemera. In many of her films, Coppola’s camera remains focused on a shot while very little action unfolds. This, in a way, contributes to a sense of voyeurism or documentary-type feel to her films and the aesthetic and mis-en-scene in her films often takes precedence over dialogue and narrative. On this level, Coppola’s distinctive visual approach, which typically involves a wandering and restless cameraeye, liminal images and use of dead time, conjures a Deleuzean interpretation of the ‘time image’ (Deleuze, 2005: p.29). Essentially, Coppola’s use of ‘time image’ is reflected upon her preference to show rather than tell the crises and liminal moments that repeatedly surface in her narrative. A Gothic sensibility seems to underpin each of Coppola’s three films. This is revealed through her patently fraught subjectivities and visual – rather than scripted or narrative – expression, as well as the construction of a poignant ambiance that evokes a strong sense of alienation. For the most part, Coppola’s films are comparable to classic European art cinema, owing to her specific interest in stillness rather than action. In this sense, Coppola’s films, emulate a similar “impressionistic resonance” that was initially established by filmmakers like Carl Dreyer (Haslem, 2004: p. 1).

Sofia Coppola’s cinematography is characterized in her films through her use of minimalist, static shots coupled with her partiality to framed and handheld shots. This Vanessa Quincey

Page 14 of 22

 particular style of shooting helps underscore the themes of entrapment, isolation, alienation and suffocation in The Virgin Suicides. Meanwhile, the static camera is used to represent the rigidity of Bob’s character in  Lost in Translation, who is  portrayed as being unimpressed and unimpressionable during the bar scene in Tokyo. Coppola uses a handheld camera to shoot the dance scene in The Virgin Suicides in order to visually express the increased level of happiness and freedom of the scene. On the contrary, Coppola opts for handheld shots when following the Charlotte’s travels throughout Tokyo in  Lost in Translation, in order to infiltrate her character’s sense of alienation and seduction by the Japanese culture. Where as  Marie Antoinette is concerned, Coppola’s cinematography perpetuates a perfect balance of unconventionally framed and handheld shots, poised with static shots, which can be likened to Stanley Kubrick’s cinematography in  Barry Lyndon  (1975). In doing so, Coppola is able to articulate the formality associated with the French aristocracy, the tranquil beauty of the Versailles setting as well as the private emotional upheavals endured by Marie Antoinette’s character.

Another pertinent, stylistic trait her three films share in common is the use of pointof-view shots in order to portray whimsical, dreamlike state. Essentially, The Virgin Suicides is predominantly shot from the point of view of the boys and the narrative that unfolds in the film has been recreated through their memories. Thus, throughout the film, the girls are shown as merely fantastic images of the boys’ imaginations and when shot through the point of view of the boys, the film is given a phantasmagorical ambiance, assisted also by the soft use of mis-en-scene.

The shots taken from

Charlotte’s point of view in  Lost in Translation, show her wandering through Tokyo and are depicted through “drowsy eyes” and a “hazy perspective”; enabling a picture that is impressionistic, fluid and mobile (Haslem, 2004: p. 1). This, in turn, produces a nostalgic, dreamlike aesthetic, whereby the dizzy quality of Charlotte’s point of view amplifies her surreal experience of Tokyo and personal sense of estrangement.

Concurrently, the careful mixture of point-of-view shots and intimate close-ups in  Marie Antoinette  work to capture the protagonist’s sense of fragility, awe and trepidation. This is most pronounced in the scenes where Antoinette is addressing the crowd and looking out at the grimacing faces that stare back at her. On the contrary, Coppola’s use of point-of-view shots during Antoinette’s introduction to her rooms at Vanessa Quincey

Page 15 of 22

Versailles, create another meaning altogether. Alternatively, the point-of-view shots used in this scene provide a dreamlike, sensual approach, aided by the close ups of crystalline chandeliers, plethora of plush, pastel fabrics and accompanying music of Apex Twin.

Sofia Coppola’s Use of Mis-en-scene

Sofia Coppola’s films bear a sensual, self-conscious beauty about them and her common artistic traits and approaches to mis-en-scene have formed the recognizable  backbone of Coppola’s often romantic, feminine aesthetic and style. She demonstrates a considered approach to mis-en-scene that ritually starts with a collection of visual images and compilation soundtrack in order to create an evocative and emotive visual style. The use of colour and lighting in Coppola’s films help convey a sense of place and contextualise each of her films within their respective eras. The soft, buttery lighting and pastel colours used in The Virgin Suicides accentuates the femininity of the Lisborn girls and many of the scenes present like a postcard from the 70s. Both  Lost in Translation  and  Marie Antoinette  similarly maintain a pastel colour palette, which conveys Coppola’s heightened stylistic approach to landscape and ambiance.

Coppola’s use of mis-en-scene in each of her films, act as subtle, visual reinforcements of the key themes and narrative elements advocated throughout the text. Though it is not always apparent to the viewer in an immediate sense, Coppola’s use of space and blocking within her films often carries a symbolic purpose or motive. For example, in  Lost in Translation, Bob’s character (who is tall in stature when compared to typical Japanese people) is unable to fit inside the Tokyo hotel shower cubical during one of the scenes. This use of space, on a physical level, represents Bob’s struggle to fit in (pardon the pun) with this foreign culture and environment, yet on a deeper level, it also promotes the key themes of alienation and transition exemplified in the film. Space is also used purposefully in The Virgin Suicides when the girls are descending from the stairs to greet their prom dates. This scene is shot from the boys’ perspective looking up at the girls and insinuates both their sense of awe as well as the girls’ mythical, angelic personae’s (they appear to be descending from heaven). Similarly, in Marie Antoinette, Antoinette’s character is often portrayed on camera as being dwarfed by the extreme magnitude and decadence of her Vanessa Quincey

Page 16 of 22

surroundings within the Palace of Versailles, thereby emphasizing her sense of overwhelmed isolation and loneliness. Coppola hereby uses visual clues, which she achieves through her strategic use of mis-en-scene, in order to insinuate her character’s emotions and experiences. Rather relying on dialogue and bold action, Coppola demonstrates her visual sensitivity and preference for showing rather than telling her stories.

Attention is drawn to specific props and artifacts featured in The Virgin Suicides, which in the narrative, act as ‘souvenirs’ of the Lisbon girls. Ostensibly, these keepsakes may seem mundane in everyday life – old bottles of nail polish, old family  photographs,

pastel-coloured

items

of

clothing,

photos

and

other

teenage

 paraphernalia – yet they are given greater meaning in the film through the way in which Coppola draws particular attention to them in order to drive the narrative forward. These objects occupy symbolic clout and act as a common medium through which the boys are able to explore their collective memory of the girls. Again, Coppola’s strategic use of props in  Lost in Translation, act as symbolic triggers to emphasize the key themes explored in the film. A poignant example of this is when attention is drawn to Bob’s character’s fax machine, which in one scene is shown to randomly start spitting out hand written notes in the early morning hours. The use of the fax machine in this sequence emphasizes the character’s distance from home and subsequently, Bob’s sense of alienation and isolation in Japan. However, Coppola’s use of mis-en-scene is perhaps most pronounced in Marie Antoinette, which is renown for its ostentatious array of props, costume, lighting and pop music soundtrack. Yet, the mis-en-scene here does not merely exist for the superficial viewing pleasure of the audience. Rather, it is used by Coppola to convey the ineffectual nature of tradition and excess. In particular, she chooses to focus on items of food as artifacts rather than nourishment and adorns several scenes with lavish costumes and a ceaseless stream of candies, pastries and shoes.

In addition, her inspired choice of music used in each of her films has further  promoted Coppola’s sense of individuality and creative vision. Both The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation feature a soundtrack comprised of soft, blurred, minimalist, instrumental tracks that perfectly encapsulate the dreamlike scenes, which unfold on the screen. The music also compliments the indie/arthouse nature of these Vanessa Quincey

Page 17 of 22

films and is mostly by alternative artists and bands, which in turn, reflect the Coppola’s sense of originality and creativity. Likewise, Marie Antoinette’s soundtrack, is similarly comprised mainly of atmospheric guitar-based rock and electronic music. However, in this instance, Coppola’s choice of modern music (in  particular, 1980s New Wave and post-punk artists) runs at sharp odds with the formal, historic context of the film which is set in 18 th Century, France.

Furthermore, Coppola maintains an authorial consistency in the aesthetic approach of her work when it comes to the physical appearance of her female protagonists. Although she has used actress, Kirsten Dunst in two of her films: The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette, Scarlett Johansson in Lost in Translation, similarly upholds the  pure, Arian, soft, feminine features which have become synonymous with the leading women in Coppola’s films. Coppola also casts American actors to play her leading roles, which is a most pertinent choice in  Marie Antoinette, given that Antoinette’s character is portrayed as being French, yet speaks with an American accent. This,  perhaps, demonstrates Coppola’s consciousness of her American audiences.

Sofia Coppola’s Status as An Auteur

The term ‘auteur’ is readily used to describe directors who occupy any sort of  prominence and notoriety within Hollywood. Sofia Coppola has similarly been labeled an “auteur” by journalists such as Graham Fuller (Fuller, 2000: p. 1) and Christine Spines (Spines, 2009: p. 92), who use the term loosely and without  providing any real evidence or justification to support her having earned this title (Spines: 2009). In this essay, I have explored the evolution of auteur theory from its origins in the Cahiers du Cinema, as well as the ensuing critical debate, which in turn has reshaped and redefined what it means to be an auteur. However, with that being said, there is still no finite, absolute definition of auteurship and perhaps one of the greatest fallibilities of the theory is the subjectivity through which it is received and employed by critics.

Indeed, Sofia Coppola has exemplified many of the key attributes of auteurship in her films to date. Her films bear several recognizable patterns and characteristics with regards to her choice of narrative and themes, style, aesthetic and use of mis-en-scene. Vanessa Quincey

Page 18 of 22

However, intrinsic to a director’s status as an auteur is the consistency of his personal vision throughout “a large body of work” (Sarris, 1973: p.654). Given that Coppola has directed only three films to date, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not her authorial attributes are in fact absolute or incidental. At this stage, it remains unclear as to whether Coppola will continue to employ these particular, distinctive traits during the remainder of her directorial career; or whether she will change and start making completely different types of films. If this is the case, then the body of evidence I have collected in this in essay in support of Coppola’s sense of auteurship would indeed become irrelevant and superfluous. Thus, Coppola cannot truly be considered an auteur at this point or until she has directed a greater number of films for consideration.

Suffice to say, Coppola does inhabit many of the key traits of an auteur, yet only time will tell as to whether these traits located in her works to date, will continue and thereby confirm her authorial status. Undoubtedly, another prominent factor contributing to Coppola’s pending sense of auteurship – that similarly will only be revealed in time – is whether or not society is yet ready to accept the female auteur. However, given that Sofia Coppola joins the company of other successful directors such as Kathryn Bigalow and Jane Campion – who continue to flourish and grow in notoriety and status - I for one believe this will   be the era of rebalance for the underrepresented gender. And it’s about time.

References Filmography:

The Virgin Suicides, 1999.  Lost in Translation, 2003.  Marie Antoinette, 2006.

Works Cited:

Rogers, Anna, “Sofia Coppola”, Senses of Cinema, filed under Great Directors in issue no. 45, 2008

th

Bunbury, Stephanie. “Sofia’s Choices”, Sunday Age: Agenda, 30  July, 2000, pp. 1-2.

Vanessa Quincey

Page 19 of 22

O'Hagan, Sean, "Something About", Sunday Age, 2006, pp. 1-4.

Saccarelli, Emanuele, "Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette: Not even cake?", 2006, pp. 1-5.

Hillier, Jim, "Cahiers du Cinema: The 1950s: Neo-Realism, Hollywood New Wave", Harvard FIlm Studies, Volume 1, 1985, pp. 107-154.

 Naremore, James. "Authorship" in Toby Miller & Robert Stam (eds) A Companion to  Film Theory. Blackwell. Malden, Mass. 1999. p. 9-24. Dudley, Andrew, "André Bazin", New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pp. 1119. Spines, Christine, "Sofia's Choice", Premiere, v. 13, n. 7, 2009, pp. 92-93.

Collis, Clark, "In Person: Sofia Coppola", Empire, n. 132, 2000, pp. 82-83.

rd

Turner, Graeme. “Film as Social Practice”, Routledge, 3  Edition, 1999, pp. 133-136.

Sarris, Andrew. "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962", The Primal Screen, Simon & Schuster. N.Y. 1973, pp. 650-665.

The University of Queensland Cinema Studies Webpage: “Auteur Theory”, last viewed

October

2010,



Kael, Pauline. "Polemics – Circles and Squares: Joys and Sarris", I Lost It at the  Movies, Little, Brown and Company. Boston & Toronto. 1965. pp. 293-319

Dawson, Jonathan, “Lost in Translation”,  ABC Tasmania: Reviews, December 12, 2003, p. 1.

Vanessa Quincey

Page 20 of 22

Scott, A.O., “A Lonely Petit Four of a Queen”,  New York Times, October 13, 2006, p. 13.

Kipen, David. “The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History”. Melville House, 2006, pp. 14-29.

Harmetz, Aljean. “Round up the Usual Suspects”, Hyperion Pr; 1 st  Paperback Ed, 1993, p. 29.

Corrigan, Timothy. “The Film Experience: An introduction”, Bedford/St. Martin’s; Second Edition, 2008, pp. 198-222.

Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. "The Intentional Fallacy." Sewanee  Review, vol. 54 (1946): 468-488. Revised and republished in The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry, U of Kentucky P, 1954: 3-18.

Marks, E., & de Courtivron, I. (ed.), “New French Feminisms”, Schocken, New York, 1984, pp. 18-39.

French, Lisa. “Centering the female: the articulation of female experience in the films of Jane Campion”, RMIT, 2007, pp. 90-132.

Kael, Pauline. “Conversations with Pauline Kael”, University Press of Mississippi, 1996, pp. 54-78.

Silverman, Kaja. “The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema”, Indian University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1988, pp. 56-69.

Hauser, Brooke, "Women in Hollywood Icon 2006: Sofia Coppola",  Premiere, v. 20, n. 2, 2006, pp. 62-65.

Johans, Jen. “Sofia Coppola’s  Marie Antoinette”,  Film Intuition, 2006, pp. 1-2. < http://www.filmintuition.com/Marie_Antoinette.html>

Vanessa Quincey

Page 21 of 22

Gilles Deleuze, “Cinema 2: The Time-Image”,  New York, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005, pp. 24-32.

Haslem, Wendy. “Neon Gothic: Lost in Translation”, Senses of Cinema, 2004.

Fuller, Graham, “Sofia Coppola’s Second Chance”,  New York Times, April 16, 2000,  pp. 1-2.

Vanessa Quincey

Page 22 of 22