“Their once avant-garde invention has, in Victor Shklovsky’s expression, ‘completed its journey from poetry to prose’. The decomposition of narrative films, once subversive, is now normal.”
- Victor Burgin, The Remembered Film, London: Reaktion, 2004, p. 8
- Victor Burgin, The Remembered Film, London: Reaktion, 2004, p. 8
This post considers Rose Hobart in the context of fan-vids, as well as a Harry Potter slash fiction fan-vid. The quotes throughout are from either Victor Burgin’s article “The Remembered Film” or Henry Jenkins’ article “How to Watch a Fan-Vid”.
Rather than spending my time on my computer downloading fan-vids, I thought that I would instead write a blog entry on this particular phenomenon. I first viewed Rose Hobart online, and as I watched it, I attempted to piece together some sort of narrative (a response, I assume, shared by others?) With no success, I didn’t find the film particularly enjoyable, and I decided to reconsider the perspective from which I was viewing, and watch the film again. At the time, I was simultaneously downloading fan-vids and trailers about a favourite movie, and this prompted me to question, would I prefer Rose Hobart if I was either an avid fan of the actress or an admirer of East of Borneo. Presumably, I would have enjoyed it much more! So, I instead approached Rose Hobart as I would a fan-vid, and found it fascinating. I confess though that before the seminar, I had no idea that fan-vids were the subject of any sort of theoretical criticism. I assumed that the multitude of videos on YouTube were simply a sub-culture of a vast fandom of films, television shows etc, and I never considered their ‘artistic merit’ in terms of the way in which they question the very narrative make up of films. Essentially, rather than seeing the filmic text as a single object, the fan-vid reinterprets the text as a melange of images that can be fragmented and manipulated for alternate purposes.
For this post, I would like to discuss what I learnt from reading Rose Hobart as a fan-vid, as well as look at some of the conventions in another fan-vid from Harry Potter, inserted below. If that doesn’t work, the URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnSIy-0d10E
This video is part of “Snarry” (Snape/Harry) slash shipping (‘to ship’ in Harry Potter is to support a particular relationship – I’m not sure if it’s an exclusive term to HP fandom, or whether this exists in other texts as well.) I chose this particular video for a few reasons - first of all, the relationship that it supports is one that is entirely outside of the narrative of Harry Potter as created by JK Rowling. Both Harry and Snape are heterosexual characters, and for all intents and purposes, Snape absolutely hates Harry. However, as a character, Snape has a huge fan base, and often his hatred towards Harry is assumed by “Snarry” shippers to be misled love! It is an example of the Slash fiction that we talked about in class, a genre that is particularly prevalent in Harry Potter fandom because the male characters are generally more interesting than their female counterparts. Further to this, it utilises some interesting conventions of fanvids (colouration, slower movement, etc.), and the song chosen to accompany the images is both incongruous to the context, but appropriate to the manipulated action. Finally, it is a funny video to watch! Also, just a note on it: all the scenes are from the films, 1-4, and there are some inset stills that obviously aren’t Harry Potter – they’re the promo shots from a play that Daniel Radcliffe did in Westend called Equus, and I’d say they’ve been edited a little!
“Such works certainly interpret the original series but not in a sense that would be recognized by most Literature teachers. They are not simply trying to recover what the original producers meant. They are trying to entertain hypotheticals, address what if questions, and propose alternative realities. Part of the pleasure of fan made media is seeing the same situations through multiple points of view, reading the same characters in radically different ways. The same artist might offer multiple constructions of the characters and their relationships across different works -- simply to keep alive this play with different readings.” (Henry Jenkins)
What I particularly like about this quote is that it pinpoints the way in which the original image is manipulated for the creator’s own ends, whether it be a tribute piece, an exploration of an alternate relationship or something else. What the videos appear to do is to recode the semiotic systems of filmic communication. These systems may be clichéd, but they are so ingrained in our collective film consciousness that they are easily manipulated. This is especially true for ambiguous or generally non-specific shots, such as a longing look or a slow turn to gaze at something, as they can be reinterpreted for the means of the fan-vid rather than under the original narrative.
In particular, I like the way in which they play with the typical shot/reverse-shot. In the Snarry video, we see a close up of Harry as he slowly turns around to gaze up the staircase. In the original film, Goblet of Fire, Harry turns to look at Hermione, shocked at how beautiful she is when she is all dressed up for the Yule Ball. The video reconstructs this gaze to be directed at Snape, as his eye line is matched with an alternate image of Snape. This is reinforced by the use of a low angle mid shot of Snape, so that the continuity is emphasised – Harry could indeed be looking up at Snape. Similarly in Rose Hobart, the shot/reverse-shot is thwarted in an entirely different sense – it interrupts the purpose of it, as she will gaze at something that we never get to see. To me, this use in Rose Hobart demonstrates the way in which the film is dream-like, rather than typical narrative cinema. It doesn’t intend to give us continuity or sense, but moments in time that, as Burgin so beautifully states, are the “superimposition of oneiric temporal schemes upon the linear time of classical narrative cinema” (p. 13). The shots in Rose Hobart are not in chronological order, as though the film is going out of its way to distance itself from East of Borneo. As in the Burgin article, “The order of narrative could now be routinely countermanded… repetition of a favourite sequence, or fixation upon an obsessional image.” (P. 8)
Finally, I would love to know other people’s opinions about the choice of music in Rose Hobart. In the Snarry vid, there is some congruity between the words and the onscreen action – in some ways entirely non-sensical (for instance, Snape has a female voice!), but it does still ‘fit’ the action in some sense of the word. Contrastingly, in Rose Hobart, the music did not seem to fit at all, and seemed entirely incongruous – does anyone have any theories as to why this is?
I’m off to watch some more fan-vids, I hope everyone has a nice weekend!
~ Tracy
