Film Studies Essay

Introduction
In this essay I will be providing cinematic examples in order to best describe and explain some of the psychoanalytical work of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan. Common and unique criticisms of their work will also be presented and argued for and against. I will primarily be critically reviewing Psychoanalysis in my chosen films: The Big Lebowski, The Wolf of Wall Street & Fight Club.

Freud's structural model of the personality
There are three distinct parts of the human personality that allows us to function and carry out actions as theorised by Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud. These were the 'I', 'it' and 'above-I'. The 'I' (referred to by Freud also as the 'id') wants to be consistently satisfied. Present from birth, this is the uncoordinated, instinctual part of our personalities that often has repeating trends. According to Freud, the 'id' is essential from birth as this allows new-borns to have their needs such as food met by their parents/guardians.

A great cinematic example or symbol for this idea of the id is Leonardo DiCaprio's leading role as the real life stock-broker turned entrepreneur Jordon Belfort in Martin Scorsese's 2013 comedic biopic The Wolf Of Wall Street. This is because, as with the id, Belfort does not care for the needs or satisfaction of anyone else besides himself. As well as this, the reality of the situations that Belfort often finds himself within is also ignored and skewed in his perception in order to justify and continue carrying out his increasingly immoral actions. One internal justification Belfort gives early on in the film for his illegal practice of selling stock at an inflated price to investors who don't know otherwise is "I knew how to spend it better".

The Coen Brothers' 1998 neo-noir crime stoner comedy film, The Big Lebowski, centres around the unconformist, slacker-guru, stoner and avid bowler: The Dude (Jeff Bridges). The Dude functions without so much attention to the 'above-I' (the superego) of which is the theorised part of the personality concerned with class or wealth and societal expectations of rules and normal behaviour. Because of this, The Dude is primarily guided by his ego ('it') and id. The ego is driven by the reality principal and is concerned with satisfying both the demands of the id and superego.

Psychoanalysis has been a useful approach to film critique and analysis as it helps the audience to better understand the auteurs' intentions and the deeper, concealed meanings beyond the narrative. Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, when applied to the motivations of characters, allows us to clarify the actions of characters. In one instance, The Dude himself considers the potential motivation for Bunny to kidnap herself by analysing her psych; by assuming she married Mr Lebowski for money, he figures that she isn't being satisfied with the amount she's received thus far.

Walter displays his lack of conformity to society on many occasions. Rebellious against societies rules but also an enforcer of them as he demands his fellow bowler to play by the rules of bowling. He is both calm and explosive. As if for the most part he is holding back his discontent. He results to the threat of pre-emptive violence to end arguments.

Freudian Slip
During one bowling alley scene, Walter tells Donny to "Shut the fuck up Donny!" as Donny mistakenly mistook The Dude for mentioning John Lennon instead of V.I. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. To Freud, this would be considered a parapraxis: an instance in which Donny has misheard due to the interference of a dynamically repressed conflict, train of thought and wish of which is guided by the ego and the rules of correct behaviour. However, I think that in this case it is simply a lack of knowledge of Lenin on Donny's behalf. Many alternate causes of Freudian slips (as they're often referred to since his 1901 book The Psychopathology of Everyday Life) such as inattention have also been proposed by psychoanalytic theorists.
In one scene, The Dude fails to notice an oncoming truck in sufficient time while driving and thus subsequently crashes. This is a result of him being distracted by trying to remove his lit blunt that he dropped on his crotch. It's implied with the use of the editing technique, shot-reverse-shot, that The Dude thought he was being followed. Paranoia which could lead to this assumption is a common side-effect of marijuana usage on the conscious. This is a great example of inattentional blindness. I believe the Coen Brothers included this scene to give us a glimpse into the psychological lack of attention to the unexpected occurrences in plain sight in his life. This can help the audience to better understand The Dude's reactions such as earlier on in the film when he is surprised by his own reflection and seems to briefly not recognise himself.

Defence Mechanisms

After The Dude's rug is stolen as he is mistaken for another Mr Lebowski by Nihilists seeking debt from his wife, Bunny, he tries to receive some sort of compensation from the other Mr Lebowski by meeting at his residence. Mr Lebowski is unconsciously aware of his apparent prejudice we see displayed towards The Dude's lifestyle and behaviour. My hypothesis for the cause of this prejudice is that due to Mr Lebowski's immobility yet success, he has come to have discontent for other peoples perceived laziness and lack of success. This brings us to Freud's theory of rationalization: a defence mechanism in which someone justifies their controversial emotions and behaviour, of which I think can be observed in this conversation. Mr Lebowski rationalizes his refusal to pay for a new rug for The Dude (perhaps the least he could offer for the inconvenience) by aggressively stating: "Every bum's lot in life is his own responsibility, regardless of whom he chooses to blame ... I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs. But I went out and achieved anyway". Emphasis should be placed upon the latter part of the sentence: the attempted rationalisation that reveals the root cause of his prejudice.
Mr Lebowski represents the upper financial class of society. While The Dude exhibits respect for Mr Lebowski, he does not conform to him, as Mr Lebowski has come to expect from others, based on his wealthy social status. When outside his office, The Dude and Brandt discuss "The Little Lebowski's Urban Achievers" as shown in a photograph. The positioning of Mr Lebowski in this photo is significant as he is placed in the forefront; drawing the attention to himself, instead of the children the charity supposedly benefits - this gives the spectators a clue into the later revealed self-oriented nature of Mr Lebowski. This scene takes place in the lavish mansion of Mr Lebowski. The luxurious extravagance of the décor within the mise-en-scene reveals Lebowski's desire for validation. This is in stark contrast to The Dude's apartment seen later on.

Dreamwork

In order to gain insight into The Dude's subconscious, we are presented with two surreal dream sequences. As to whether or not the Coen brothers intentionally drew from Freud's psychoanalysis theories of dreams in these sequences is unknown. However, obvious intentional symbolic meaning can be interpreted regardless and I believe at least secondary influence is apparent. In his landmark 1900 book, The Interpretation Of Dreams, Freud proposed the idea that our dreams may be desired wish-fulfilment. This theory has largely been discredited by psychologists and scientists as there's still a lack of scientific evidence for the case and dreams can often be interpreted in various opposing ways.

The skittles are represented in the dream as women; with the women's outfits matching the colours of such and also featuring straight-up visual depictions of them. Bowling is strongly linked to sexuality in this dream. The dream indicates that these are The Dudes main instinctual drives and we are shown symbols that link them together. Due to his state of unconsciousness, The Dude's ego is not in control and hence his perception of reality within the dream is skewed and out of his control.

In the first dream sequence of the film, The Dude is blissfully flying over Los Angeles. Perhaps this is a visual metaphor for him being "high" on the marijuana he is often seen smoking. This could also be a psychoanalytic symbol of him being stuck on the oral stage of Psychosexuality. Everything psychological is biological, so this may be the Coen Brothers representation of the effects of recreational drug use on The Dude's mental state. Flying within dreams is a symbol of sexual excitement, according to Freud's work. From another psychoanalytical perspective, this is also an instance of wish-fulfilment, as later he does have sex with Maude Lebowski (daughter of Mr Lebowski), of whom is also seen flying on The Dude's recently stolen carpet. This is also backed up by him carrying out a breast-stroke movement as if he were in 'pursuit' of her.

Lighting

Low-Key: Employs very little fill light, creates strong contrast and often creates strong shadows that obscure parts of the principal subjects.

High-key: Fill light is raised to almost the same level as the key light: images are usually very bright and feature few shadows on the principal subjects.

When a movie is in shadows nearly the entire time, flashes of light become very noticeable and very important

For example: after we see Tyler fight in this scene, he stands above his opponent and a light shines behind him. This lighting expresses to the viewer how highly the narrator think of Tyler at this point in the film

Tyler is a god-like figure in this scene - the narrator puts him on a pedestal.

Fight club utilises predominately low-key lighting

Dark themes and twisted storyline in the film are enhanced

The narrators insomnia and mental illness are represented through these shadows - detachment from reality, "darkening" of outlook


Props/decor

Help circle scene:

The large size of the rooms show how small/insignificant the men feel because of their loss of masculinity through their traditionally feminine emotions, to the reality of their situation.

The american flag in the room represents the american dream, of which Tyler later refers to as ultimately unachievable.

Tylers pad:


There are various things in the narrators bachelor pad that help reinforce themes of consumerism

Seems that he is trying to achieve hipster perfection - his apartment has loads of furniture while his fridge remains nearly empty. - not looking after himself? not conforming to his biological needs? too busy to eat? too lazy?

This contrast is a reference to the fact he cares more about his own vanity satisfaction than his basic human instincts.

Conventionally, decorating/furnishing is not considered a masculine activity yet the narrator is at one point keenly focused on it, reflecting the films theme of loss of masculinity.


Costume

Costume plays a large part in the mise-en-scene - it can instantly tell us the character's personality, social status and job.

Tyler clothes resemble that from a thrift shop. Instead of a named brand clothing. - anti consumerist anti corporation.

Shirts are not completely button or tucked in. His jacket is the colour of blood

Narrators clothing are all expensive designer clothes - CK shirts, DKNY shoes and AX ties. His shirts are always tucked in and buttoned up. His wardrobe is very respectable. Embraces consumerism and is extremely materialistic. The narrators costume changes over the course of the film to plain clothing. No designer clothes anywhere. Stops trying to be perfect in the way he looks. Fight club sets him free from materialism.


Camera and Character placement

Birds-eye view - shot from above the subject. Usually used to make the people in the scene less significant to the viewer or to notice/concentrate on the surroundings.

High Angle - reduces the size of the subjects. To imply harmlessness or insignificance, but not as much as at the birds-eye view.


Eye-level shot - clearest view of an object, creates a less dramatic feel because it tends to be the norm.


Scene analysis - Jacks smirking revenge

The room is dull in colour - black grey and white

the lines are very straight non diagonal - conformist

His clothes are untucked - throne one - he no longer cares about the superego demands - completely following his id

Rule of thirds is followed - structure is present

The cinematography is ironic


the traditional low high angle power dynamic is reversed - tyler is the actual one with power in this scene.


Scene analysis - I want you to hit me

The scene is shot from a parallel angle - the left side of the screen mirrors the right shows how Jack and Tyler are the same


The first rule of fight club scene:

the 360 shot around Tyler/jack shows they are the centre of attention - the id is the centre of attention

The queer gaze takes place in this scene - specifically at Tylers body - does this indicate Jacks narcissistic tendencies


Jack sees Tyler as the ideal version of himself, the self he wants to be.


Scene analysis - 'Letting yourself become Tyler Durden':
The narrator learns that he and Tyler are the same person. A great combination of cinematography and editing is combined to intensify the revelation to the audience. For example, numerous flashbacks in which the narrator takes Tyler's place in the scenes are shown and intercut with Tyler and the narrators reactions to this flashback, of which they both seem to experience.

• The fact that Tyler also seems to have seen what the narrator saw, reaffirms the narrators belief; that Tyler is in fact an imaginary construct of the narrators desires.
• Tyler casts two shadows in this scene, symbolising his split personality.In one instance we are shown a shot whereby Tyler is no longer seen sitting on the chair, we are outside of the narrators imagination. A dutch angle is used to show the narrators reaction to Marla calling him Tyler Durden. 
• Thought this clip, the shots are edited together to ensure that the narrator and Tyler see eye to eye, meaning that for example if in one shot Tyler is on the left hand side of the frame looking towards the right, in the next shot the narrator is on the right hand side of the frame looking towards the left - seemingly looking at each other if you were to overlay the images. This framing continues up until Tyler confirms the narrators suspicion that they are in fact the same person. From this point onwards the narrator is positioned in the centre of the frame and is hence no longer seeing 'eye to eye' to with Tyler. Perhaps this change signifies their different perspectives on the situation. The narrator is seemingly shocked and troubled by this revolution whereas Tyler is grinning.

Cinematography
 The cinematography of Fight Club is distinctively two polar opposites. In some scenes such as those that take place at the narrators workplace, the cinematography is primarily of a higher key in lighting and is predominately grey in tone. The cinematography in these scenes are intended to signify how mundane the narrator sees his work. This is in complete contrast to for example the fight club scenes whereby the cinematography is very low key with neon colours intended to signify an excitement.
 
Bibliography

 

Last name, First Initial. (Year published). Title. City: Publisher, Page(s).

1. Russell, Julia & Jarvis, Matt. (2010) Key Ideas in Psychology. Hodder Education, Page 64 - 65
2. Heffner, Dr. Christopher L. (2013) Psychology 101. Allpsych.com http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego/, Chapter 3: Section 5: Freud’s Structural and Topographical Model.

Psychoanalysis (Notes)

Satisfaction with life in general
Drugs - lots of em "how the fuck else would you do this job?"
We don't really want what we think we desire - desires money to buy things that will deliver them

As with ever so many Wall Street brokers, Belfort's inherent flaw is his consistent chase for immediate satisfaction in place of authentic methods to achieve an increase to his stable level of happiness. Despite making more and more income, Belfort's stable level of happiness does not also increase. Instead he results to artificial means of momentary happiness; illicit drug usage. This is a classic case of the Hedonic treadmill. This is an observed tendency of Humans to resort back to a stable level of happiness after any major positive or negative events in life.

Fantasies have to be unrealistic, because the moment, the second you get what you seek, you don't, you cant want it anymore. In order to continue to exist, desire must have its objects perpetually absent.

Jordon is free from the chains of the Oedipus complex - why we feel for him. We kind of root for him because he is our reflection of our Id.

Jordan is the Id. He does precisely what he needs to do to get what he thinks he really wants.

In the scene with Mathew's character (the boss) and Jordan at the table, theres irony in the way Mathew talks about the clients. He says: "they're fucking addicted", the exact same could be said about these two characters and others on Wall Street. They enjoy the thrill of achieving their goal; making money.

"I was hooked in seconds" says Jordan over narration as he he's the sound of money: "You wanna know what money sounds like? Go to a trading floor on Wall Street"

At the end of the film Jordan doesn't learn from his mistakes. "Its all about revolutions". He claims to have cleaned up after he crashes his car, yet still chases money.


"The point of Lacan, and what makes Lacan's reading of desire, different from Brooks' and indeed what makes his reading of desire different from that of anyone who thinks of these structuralist issues in psychoanalytic terms, is that Lacan really doesn't believe that we can ever have what we desire. He has no doubt that we can have what we need. He makes the fundamental distinction, between having what we desire and having what we need. The distinction is often put between the distinction of the big "Other" (which one can never appropriate as an object of desire, it is perpetually and always elusive) and the little object of desire (which is not really an object at all, but is available to satisfy need).
Socio-biologically you can get what you need.
Psychoanalytically you can not get what you desire. (The big "Other")
To care is to be anxious - Jordan doesn't care throughout his schemes.

"be careful what you wish for you just might get it"

Notes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57RhO4ByhcA:
According to french philosopher Gilles Deleuze and militant Felix Guattari the desire for oppression comes from the belief that people should repress their desires. Through this technique of repression, the masses are primed to accept fascism. Fascism is the fascination with and love of power. People yearn to be ruled, humiliated and dominated. They're aroused by their unconscious desires to submit to strength.

Notes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IehFdgKPJB0:
"Sam Polk, a former Wall Street trader, decided to leave his job at the age of 30 because he realised he'd developed a severe addiction to money and he hated the culture that existed on Wall Street.
In a piece in The New York Times, he was extremely honest and candid about his experiences, he talked about how government officials were like buddy's and the members of wall street were treated like royalty" - Anna Kasparian

Polk stated:
 "One of the things I came to realize was I had been using money as this thing that would quell all my fears. So I had this belief that maybe some day I would get enough money that I would no longer be scared ... I would feel successful. And one of the things I learned on Wall Street was no matter how much money I made, the money was never going to do it."

There is no end to greed
you feel like a victim when the guy next to you has gotten a bigger bonus.
Happiness has been taken and twisted by American culture - happiness always has to do with money or career success. You should focus on the things that money cant buy like your health, your family your love, you cant directly get that from money. in this environment people don't get that.

appreciation can be tough when the grass is always green on the other side.

Cenk Uyger - "The paradox of the successful man is what drives him to be successful is that he's never satisfied, but that's precisely what makes his success irrelevant."

From commenter Helghastl33t: "It confirms my suspicions, they don't even know what they are doing. No massive conspiracy, no evil master plan. Pure base vices running wild in a system that not only allows it but encourages it. Active money management should become illegal, institutions trading money for moneys sake or speculating on goods purely for financial gain is a form of parasitism and no good can ever come from it."

Belfort seemed to have little patience when he had little and little gratitude and respect when he had everything.

If we're all greedy we can win together - this is the essence of Wall Street character Gordon Gekko
Greed only works at the expense of others in a connected capitalist society
Belfort unlike Gekko makes no moral argument on screen - he knows what he is doing is wrong yet he does it anyway.
Theres no tragedy haunting his steps like the downfall of Gordon Gekko or the extreme paranoia and eventual disappearance of Henry Hill from Goodfellas.
When Belfort eventually goes to prison in the film he narrates: "see for a brief fleeting moment, I'd forgotten I was rich, and I lived in a place where everything was for sale" he says this as we see him play tennis in jail.
Belforts crimes are met with minimal physical and psychological punishment. The real Jordon even introduces his character as: "the single badest motherfucker I have ever met" - its no surprise the film was deemed to have glorified, unapologetically and endorsing capitalist excess. The film doesn't offer the negative critique like Goodfellas, it doesn't even offer a satirical critique such as in American psycho.
The joke is never on Jordon, its on everyone else.
Like Spring Breakers, the film explores excess and is constructed of excess e.g the three hour runtime, the endless montages.
However refusing to critique doesn't mean by extension Scorsese is endorsing.
His extensive use of close-up reveals his vulgarity of this way of living. The montages exorst instead of glamourize. Pretty is less distracting than disorienting, less desirable than overwhelming.
The excesses of Jordon Belfort are OUR excesses; like him we're too enlightened to know the expensive of which our gazillion products are made, like him we don't make any attempt to moralise our way through the system, like him, we just don't care. The disgust we feel for Belfort is hypocritical. The indignation we inflict on him is less a righteous act than a self-righteous delusion.

The film is so unapologetically excessive that the audience might finally realise that the screen they thought they were watching was in fact a camera.

Freud suggested that there are psychological mechanisms by which we protect ourselves from painful, frightening or guilty feelings (Freud 1894). The mind has a number of such defences at its disposal: denial occurs when we refuse to admit an unpleasant fact, repression involves the inability to remember painful events, displacement involves redirecting a strong emotion such as anger from one person to another, reaction formation takes place when we adopt an attitude opposite to what we really feel. Other defences include sublimation, in which we channel a strong emotion into creative activity and regression, in which we use childlike behaviour to comfort ourselves. 

dream sequence in The Big Lebowski - 
Opens with an included title sequence - a film within a dream of the character in the film.
"Jackie Treehorn Presents"
"The Dude"
"Maude Lebowski"
"In"
"Gutterballs"
(Lots of sexualised visual innuendoes involving bowling pins and balls)

The dude enters into a large dark grey room of some sorts - entering his unconscious? 
His shadow is large
He's dance-walking to the sound of the music
He walks up to seemingly endless shelves of Bowling shoes - a dream come true, in a dream at least.
The imagery of the moon and clouds is surreal - as if it were painted

he's given a golden pair of shoes by none other than someone with the name tag of Saddam (implying its supposed to be Saddam Hussein, the fifth President of Iraq) this is an example of the things bothering The Dude in his unconscious. 
This dream sequence is unusual to most as it enters the realm of nonsense and has illogical qualities - like real dreams. 

critiscm of id ego super ego:
Not literally how the mind works first of all
its more of a figurative way of looking at whats going on in our brain.

While you may have societal conditioning at the back of your mind such as things youve picked up are taboo 
or immoral from society/culture and your parents, the super ego is not really present. 

This is because the conscious "Higher" self naturally tries to do good and live up to ideals. 
The higher self is where u ultimately want to be. It's not that u should be meddiating betwqeen your higher and lower self
as Freud's model would suggest. The difference is because this higher self is not the moralistic higher self that society and 
parents taught u about as Freud says. Its not what the church says that if you lie and cheat and steal that you'll go to Hell.
Instead, where Freud's model really starts to break down is that you were probably coming at it from the more religious and 
societal context that was telling you what to do e.i The overbearing father figure. In reality, the way we think it works now is
that when you're doing things for the lower level value just to get pleasure, just to get comfortable. Really what you're doing
is you're behaving in an unconscious way. This is really the evil of the world, this is what is ruining youre life. When you
live unconsciously so much (as I do) you''l end up in bad situations in the long run, you hurt your health your relationships.


When you start to move towards consciousness, you start to become more self-aware and develop more knowledge, then 
what happens is that you move towrads your higher self. Your higher self is not a mixture of good and bad elements like
the superego is. The super ego is both good and bad because on the one hand it has ideals, but its also negative in the sense
that its self-critical, like a critical parent. While the critical parent and self might have good intentions: for you to become 
greater, but in the end, the critiscms that are put out, the judgements, the constant nagging, thats not healthy. And thats actually
an unconscious behaviour.

If we were to re-formulate Freud's model, the new superego, refered to as our higher self, would have this critical aspect removed and this critical side would belong in
 our lower self with the id.
Beating yourself and being annoyed that you're not good enough in any way is not a healthy impulse. 

When you stop criticisng yourself you become even more motivated, not lazy. So is the big Lebowski Lazy? or just contempt with life?
When faced with a challenge, a task, he's not lazy - he does his best??? (not sure).
When you're at peace its not like you dont have any motivbvation now, its not like you jjst sit on   the couch, its quite th eopposite.
When at peace and you're okay, you have a better healthier foundations to act upon, to achieve your dreams. You're not
attatched to things; outcomes. When you are however, its not healthy, its neurotic as shown in The Wolf Of Wall Street.
In the case of Jordon, it would seem that he is not quite sure what his higher and lower self truly is. It would seem that
Jordon has not done much introspection. As you think about what makes your higher and lower self. It becomes easier for you to become
disaplined. Self-actulisation is easy flowing disapline. A self-actualised person has made this distinction very clear for himself.
and he is naturally, effortlesly gravitating and guiding himself towards what is good. 

Jordon is what he repeatedly does. The things that we see are his day-to-day habits - he even says his day to day routine.
You're really only as good as your day-to-day routine. The quality of this routine, is what determines how good you feel
at the end of the day and how much you accomplish. You feel awesome when you've achieved what u set out to do at the
end of the day, when youve reached your full potential. this is the natural mechanism of your body. People that are not 
living up to who they know they could be to their full potential, in the end this is a need that they're not meeting.
Besides the basic need of food, shelter, security and friendship, a strong routine is needed to live fully.

Part of what The Dude may not understand/realise is that in the end if you just sit around on the couch and do nothing, 
that problems will creep up for you. You can do this for a short period of time, but you can't do that forever like The Dude.
Eventually theres gonna be repocussions. - What are the repocussions of The Dude's way of life?
- He's unemployed. What challenges does this bring to The Dude?
The irony of the anxiety inthe back of your mind caused by knowingly slacking off and coming up with excusses and procrastinating, is that it affects your ability to enjoy slacking off. When you being really comfortable like this, you become afraid that someone or something - perhaps a wife such as in the case of The Wolf Of Wall Street or a mother asking you to carry out chores, will take this away from you - you'll become anxious and act in defensive ways - be reluctant to do so.

The Dude makes stupid decsions as we see of driving under the influence of alchol and drugs as he goes down this sprial of guilt and shame and try and creep his way back out and falling back down. The Dude feels week and disempowered when his phalus is threatened - when his comfort is threatened.

Wolf Of Wall Street Trailer Analysis

Promotional Videos - Analysis of Codes and Conventions from Lalita Ajit on Vimeo.
Codes and Conventions of The Wolf Of Wall Street trailer

Purpose of the video
Promotional Video; Trailer.

The purpose of this video is to entice the audience into going to watch the movie at a cinema.

Target audience of the video
General public - adults 18 - 49, consumers of cinema.
Fans of Leonardo DiCaprio, Martin Scorsese and other involved stars etc.
People into excess.

Graphics
Titles included:

• Yellow and Black colour scheme: evocative of the iconic taxi cabs of New York City - this gives a sense of a setting. Black is associated with power, formality, elegance, evil, mystery and death. - All of these are common themes throughout the film. The dingy yellow used is rather repellent and caution, sickness, and jealousy.  It suggests a certain distastefulness and is reflective of the main characters attitude towards his circumstances: joyous, 
• Very bold colours and capital lettering - fits the bold choice of accompanying music.
• Stars names are listed in large font to attract fans of such. - Academy award nominations mentioned - suggest merit of their performances in the film - quality assured, value for money.
• "More, more, more, is never enough" tagline - excess implied; a plot involving the fulfilment of "the Lack" (in Laconian terms).

Narrative

Excess implied; a plot involving the fulfilment of "the Lack" (in Laconian terms).

Fight Club Analysis

Lighting

• Low-Key: Employs very little fill light, creates strong contrast and often creates strong shadows that obscure parts of the principal subjects.
• High-key: Fill light is raised to almost the same level as the key light: images are usually very bright and feature few shadows on the principal subjects.
• When a movie is in shadows nearly the entire time, flashes of light become very noticeable and very important
• For example: after we see Tyler fight in this scene, he stands above his opponent and a light shines behind him. This lighting expresses to the viewer how highly the narrator think of Tyler at this point in the film
• Tyler is a god-like figure in this scene - the narrator puts him on a pedestal.
• Fight club utilises predominately low-key lighting
• Dark themes and twisted storyline in the film are enhanced
• The narrators insomnia and mental illness are represented through these shadows - detachment from reality, "darkening" of outlook

Props/Décor

Help circle scene:

• The large size of the rooms show how small/insignificant the men feel because of their loss of masculinity through their traditionally feminine emotions, to the reality of their situation.
• The American flag in the room represents the American dream, of which Tyler later refers to as ultimately unachievable.

Tyler's pad:

• There are various things in the narrators bachelor pad that help reinforce themes of consumerism
• Seems that he is trying to achieve hipster perfection - his apartment has loads of furniture while his fridge remains nearly empty. - not looking after himself? not conforming to his biological needs? too busy to eat? too lazy? This contrast is a reference to the fact he cares more about his own vanity satisfaction than his basic human instincts.
• Conventionally, decorating/furnishing is not considered a masculine activity yet the narrator is at one point keenly focused on it, reflecting the films theme of loss of masculinity.

Costume/Appearance

• Costume plays a large part in the mise-en-scene - it can instantly tell us the character's personality, social status and job.
• Tyler clothes resemble that from a thrift shop. Instead of a named brand clothing. - anti consumerist anti corporation.
• Shirts are not completely button or tucked in. His jacket is the colour of blood
• Narrators clothing are all expensive designer clothes - CK shirts, DKNY shoes and AX ties. His shirts are always tucked in and buttoned up. His wardrobe is very respectable. Embraces consumerism and is extremely materialistic.
• The narrators costume changes over the course of the film to plain clothing. No designer clothes anywhere. Stops trying to be perfect in the way he looks. Fight club sets him free from materialism.
• Tyler's appearance has noticeably evolved dramatically throughout the film. He has shaved his head and started to wear clothes similar to that of a pimp. It is as though his evolving style is a result of how the narrators has started to view Tyler as less of an inspiration of how he desires to be and more of a troublesome character with more malicious intentions. 

Camera and Character placement

• Birds-eye view - shot from above the subject. Usually used to make the people in the scene less significant to the viewer or to notice/concentrate on the surroundings.
• High Angle - reduces the size of the subjects. To imply harmlessness or insignificance, but not as much as at the birds-eye view.
• Eye-level shot - clearest view of an object, creates a less dramatic feel because it tends to be the norm.

 Scene Analysis - 'Jacks smirking revenge':

• The room is dull in colour - black grey and white.
• The lines are very straight non diagonal - conformist.
• His clothes are un-tucked - throne one - he no longer cares about the superego demands - completely following his id.
• Rule of thirds is followed - structure or order is present.
• The cinematography is ironic: the traditional low high angle power dynamic is reversed - tyler is the actual one with power in this scene.

Scene analysis - 'I want you to hit me':

• The scene is shot from a parallel angle - the left side of the screen mirrors the right shows how Jack and Tyler are the same.

Scene analysis - 'The first rule of fight club':

• The 360 shot around Tyler/jack shows they are the centre of attention - the id is the centre of attention.
• The queer gaze takes place in this scene - specifically at Tyler's body - does this indicate Jacks narcissistic tendencies?
• Jack sees Tyler as the ideal version of himself, the self he wants to be.

Scene analysis - 'Letting yourself become Tyler Durden':

• The narrator learns that he and Tyler are the same person. A great combination of cinematography and editing is combined to intensify the revelation to the audience. For example, numerous flashbacks in which the narrator takes Tyler's place in the scenes are shown and intercut with Tyler and the narrators reactions to this flashback, of which they both seem to experience.
• The fact that Tyler also seems to have seen what the narrator saw, reaffirms the narrators belief; that Tyler is in fact an imaginary construct of the narrators desires.
• Tyler casts two shadows in this scene, symbolising his split personality.In one instance we are shown a shot whereby Tyler is no longer seen sitting on the chair, we are outside of the narrators imagination. A dutch angle is used to show the narrators reaction to Marla calling him Tyler Durden. 
• Thought this clip, the shots are edited together to ensure that the narrator and Tyler see eye to eye, meaning that for example if in one shot Tyler is on the left hand side of the frame looking towards the right, in the next shot the narrator is on the right hand side of the frame looking towards the left - seemingly looking at each other if you were to overlay the images. This framing continues up until Tyler confirms the narrators suspicion that they are in fact the same person. From this point onwards the narrator is positioned in the centre of the frame and is hence no longer seeing 'eye to eye' to with Tyler. Perhaps this change signifies their different perspectives on the situation. The narrator is seemingly shocked and troubled by this revolution whereas Tyler is grinning.

Cinematography
 The cinematography of Fight Club is distinctively two polar opposites. In some scenes such as those that take place at the narrators workplace, the cinematography is primarily of a higher key in lighting and is predominately grey in tone. The cinematography in these scenes are intended to signify how mundane the narrator sees his work. This is in complete contrast to for example the fight club scenes whereby the cinematography is very low key with neon colours intended to signify an excitement.

Lacan - The Lack, Mirror Stage

Jacques Lacan was a French psychoanalyst. He was recognised for being the most controversial psycho-analyst since Sigmund Freud himself.

The Lack
He often gave seminars in Paris across his long career, most notably Le transfert (1960–61), of which focused upon his theory of Le Manques (The Lack) as the cause for which our desires occur.

Lacan theorised that we are born into this condition of lack.

He believed that there are few stages to the theory of lack, the first being a lack of being itself. This is a reinterpretation by Jacques Lacan of Sigmund Freud's theory of the structure of the human personality. Referred to this as "The Mirror Stage", Lacan theorised that this is the moment or period in time in which a child between the age of 6 to 18 months first starts to form a sense of a unified self. Lacan argued that this was either a literal result of the child having first perceived himself in a mirror or other apperception forms and hence through this unified sensory perception, a unified self separate from others is derived. Initiating from the mirror stage, the child's formation and determination of their personality is dependent upon the images and ideals of others, despite also subconsciously trying to distinguish itself from others. Relating back to Freud's model of the personality, Lacan hypothesised that as a result of the mirror stage, the Ego is first developed. However, because our sense of self, our Ego, is derived from the recognition of others separate to ourselves, Lacan states that it is thus an imaginary construct; an inherent lie. 

The second stage of development being 'fort-da' game was first developed by Freud. Lacan believed that this was the stage in which the child comes to term with not being the mothers only priority. 

As the child grows older, it starts to learn a language that allows it to communicate with others on a more profound level. Through the use of language to engage in social interaction, Lacan states that the child enters this medium "the symbolic order" to achieve further development of identity of which such things as morality can first be established.

Lacan argues that our desire is the desire for recognition as well as the desire for what we believe the other desires. The other here referring to other people. Lacan means to say that once we find out something is desirable to another person, in turn it is possible for ourselves to perceive this as desirable too and that this is also fairly common. An example of this theory being fashion. Unlike need which is driven by a will to survive and biological function, desire is driven by demand.

Lacan believes that for something to be considered a desire by someone, it must be unachievable. He believed this was because, despite perhaps one does in fact achieve their desire, a new desire for something greater or beyond their initial desire emerges and hence they are stuck in a cycle of a lack of satisfaction and a sense of constant un-fulfilment.

In the end, Lacan wants us to recognise that we must better control our desire by carefully knowing what and how to desire, for desire can not be fulfilled because as soon as it is, a new desire arises.

The Big Lebowski Analysis

The characters are idiosyncratic.
There's a general lack of lack: The Dude seems to be rather content with his life. Balanced. He is the ego. John Goodman's character, Walter could be seen as a representation of the superego. The father figure that strives to enforce his morals onto others.  The Dude seems rather easily impressionable, e.g. when he is seen to be doing something resembling tai chi he is essentially just copying an interpretative dance which he saw earlier, he doesn't really practice tai chi. The dude also says the same line he heard the president say on the television to the other Lebowski.
The Dude is a  pacifist, as is even recognised by Walter in the film. this sensibility indicates his role as the Ego trying to find a peaceful resolution.

As according to Roger Ebert: "The film is about an attitude not a story. The focus should be upon how the characters react to their circumstances and what we can learn from such."

The film is arguably a film about literal and figurative castration:

1. When one says figurative castration it means the idea of a man feeling as if he is losing the qualities that he believes makes him a man. Walter see's himself as manly: toting firearms and talking about war-service in Vietnam. But he is still a servant to his ex wife: he takes care of her dog, he keeps to her religion (despite the fact that he was raised catholic and only converted to appease her family). 
2. The Big Lebowski (Jeffery, the millionaire, not The Dude), likes to present himself as powerful despite being impotent from the waist down, he has a trophy wife who is beyond his control and his daughter is really the one who runs the show.
3. Jackie Treehorn, the pornography boss says that the most erotic part of the human anatomy is actually the mind: presenting himself as some kind of enlightened smut mogul. But seconds later, The Dude learns that Treehorn likes to draw pictures of men with big penises, in fact, penises and ridiculous acts of bravado are everywhere in this movie; Woo even urinates on The Dude's rug: marking his territory - every male is a little insecure in The Big Lebowski (similar to Fight Club).
4. Conversely Maude is depicted as a powerful mythological figure in The Dude's dream, whereas he is a run of the mill man with no real sway of what happens to him. 
5. As for literal castration, it is mentioned frequently and threatened multiple times. When he comes in conflict with the nihilists, in order to get what they want, they say that they will otherwise cut off his penis, this is repeated with an echo effect and is laughed about by the nihilists as they walk away. Later The Dude, Walter and Donny discuss this matter at the bowling alley. Walter is terribly upset by this, Donny seems confused and The Dude is naturally concerned about his own penis.
6. In another scene, The Dude has a dream about the nihilists chasing him down with giant scissors. Suggesting they're about to make good on their threat. Theirs even a scene earlier with a giant pair of scissors in Maude's studio. The dude even appropriates this threat for himself when he needs to convince a young boy to give him back his money.
7. For further evidence, the word "man" comes up over and over in the movie. By way of repetition, this is intended to put the words into our mind.

Vertigo Psychoanalysis

Vertigo is a 1958 film directed by legendary director Alfred Hitchcock. The psychological thriller stars James Stewart and Kim Novak as the "protagonists". James Stewarts character John "Scottie" Ferguson plays a former police detective of whom we see suffer from Vertigo, a fear of heights, while on the job early on in the film. John quickly forms an obsession as a result of desire for Madeline (played by Kim Novak) after he is hired by her husband, Gavin Elster to spy on her. However, John and the audience at this point are unaware that Madeline is actually a false creation of Judy (also played by Kim Novak) in order to cover up the murder of the real Madeline (Gavin presumably killed her and wanted John to testify that Madeline committed suicide).

As with the use of nicknames and false identities would suggest, the film deals with the psychoanalytic theme of a lack of a unified self and balance between the id, ego and superego of the characters' personalities. for instance, Johns character would seem to have a hard to control id as he consistently seeks the pleasure of Madeline's attention. When exposed to the real "Madeline", Judy, despite being technically the same person, John refuses to except her as her true self: insisting that she must become more like Madeline (unaware that she was in fact his vision of Madeline all along). He starts to fetishize the image of Madeline onto Judy. This film is a classic case of misidentified love. The film shows how one should not chase after their desires, as Lacan advises, because after all what you think you desire is in fact never quite what it seems in reality. Despite the fact that as a detective he is supposed to be objective, like the superego, John instead follows the demands of his id. The word Vertigo comes from the Latin 'to turn', I think this could symbolise or foreshadow Judy's transformation into Madeline which is later revealed. He is even offered the unconditional love and support of his long term friend Midge, but refuses to offer her romantic love despite how well suited they seem. This is most likely a fear of repeated rejection after Midge previously called off their engagement while in college. Midge has also become a sort of motherly figure to John and this has also likely turned him off of having a romantic relationship with her. Before being told that Judy was in fact the Madeline John knew, he starts to take on the role of the ego in trying to achieve the truth.

The film makes lots of references that would indicate John is suffering from castration anxiety.  At the beginning of the film he is unable to 'perform' his job, I believe this is symbolisation for his lack of a romantic relationship. The bell tower in Vertigo is an obvious phallic symbol as it is thin tall and erect.

Wolf Of Wall Street Psychoanalysis

The lack
Satisfaction with life in general
Drugs - lots of em "how the fuck else would you do this job?"
We don't really want what we think we desire - desires money to buy things that will deliver them immediate desire instead of long-term happiness.
Fantasies have to be unrealistic, because the moment, the second you get what you seek, you don't, you cant want it anymore. In order to continue to exist, desire must have its objects perpetually absent.

Jordon is free from the chains of the Oedipus complex - why we feel for him. We kind of root for him because he is our reflection of our Id.

Jordan is the Id. He does precisely what he needs to do to get what he thinks he really wants.

In the scene with Mathew's character (the boss) and Jordan at the table, theres irony in the way Mathew talks about the clients. He says: "they're fucking addicted", the exact same could be said about these two characters and others on Wall Street. They enjoy the thrill of achieving their goal; making money.

"I was hooked in seconds" says Jordan over narration as he he's the sound of money: "You wanna know what money sounds like? Go to a trading floor on Wall Street"

At the end of the film Jordan doesn't learn from his mistakes. "Its all about revolutions". He claims to have cleaned up after he crashes his car, yet still chases money.


"The point of Lacan, and what makes Lacan's reading of desire, different from Brooks' and indeed what makes his reading of desire different from that of anyone who thinks of these structuralist issues in psychoanalytic terms, is that Lacan really doesn't believe that we can ever have what we desire. He has no doubt that we can have what we need. He makes the fundamental distinction, between having what we desire and having what we need. The distinction is often put between the distinction of the big "Other" (which one can never appropriate as an object of desire, it is perpetually and always elusive) and the little object of desire (which is not really an object at all, but is available to satisfy need).
Socio-biologically you can get what you need.
Psychoanalytically you can not get what you desire. (The big "Other")
To care is to be anxious - Jordan doesn't care throughout his schemes.

"be careful what you wish for you just might get it"

Notes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57RhO4ByhcA:
According to french philosopher Gilles Deleuze and militant Felix Guattari the desire for oppression comes from the belief that people should repress their desires. Through this technique of repression, the masses are primed to accept fascism. Fascism is the fascination with and love of power. People yearn to be ruled, humiliated and dominated. They're aroused by their unconscious desires to submit to strength.

Notes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IehFdgKPJB0:
"Sam Polk, a former Wall Street trader, decided to leave his job at the age of 30 because he realised he'd developed a severe addiction to money and he hated the culture that existed on Wall Street.
In a piece in The New York Times, he was extremely honest and candid about his experiences, he talked about how government officials were like buddy's and the members of wall street were treated like royalty" - Anna Kasparian

Polk stated:
 "One of the things I came to realize was I had been using money as this thing that would quell all my fears. So I had this belief that maybe some day I would get enough money that I would no longer be scared ... I would feel successful. And one of the things I learned on Wall Street was no matter how much money I made, the money was never going to do it."

There is no end to greed
you feel like a victim when the guy next to you has gotten a bigger bonus.
Happiness has been taken and twisted by American culture - happiness always has to do with money or career success. You should focus on the things that money cant buy like your health, your family your love, you cant directly get that from money. in this environment people don't get that.

appreciation can be tough when the grass is always green on the other side.
Jordan Belfort seemed to have a desire to become happier. When it went bad he just indulged in more.

Cenk Uyger - "The paradox of the successful man is what drives him to be successful is that he's never satisfied, but that's precisely what makes his success irrelevant."

From commenter Helghastl33t: "It confirms my suspicions, they don't even know what they are doing. No massive conspiracy, no evil master plan. Pure base vices running wild in a system that not only allows it but encourages it. Active money management should become illegal, institutions trading money for moneys sake or speculating on goods purely for financial gain is a form of parasitism and no good can ever come from it."

Belfort seemed to have little patience when he had little and little gratitude and respect when he had everything.

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fzFUs-hYM:

If we're all greedy we can win together - this is the essence of Wall Street character Gordon Gekko
Greed only works at the expense of others in a connected capitalist society
Belfort unlike Gekko makes no moral argument on screen - he knows what he is doing is wrong yet he does it anyway.
Theres no tragedy haunting his steps like the downfall of Gordon Gekko or the extreme paranoia and eventual disappearance of Henry Hill from Goodfellas.
When Belfort eventually goes to prison in the film he narrates: "see for a brief fleeting moment, I'd forgotten I was rich, and I lived in a place where everything was for sale" he says this as we see him play tennis in jail.
Belforts crimes are met with minimal physical and psychological punishment. The real Jordon even introduces his character as: "the single badest motherfucker I have ever met" - its no surprise the film was deemed to have glorified, unapologetically and endorsing capitalist excess. The film doesn't offer the negative critique like Goodfellas, it doesn't even offer a satirical critique such as in American psycho.
The joke is never on Jordon, its on everyone else.
Like Spring Breakers, the film explores excess and is constructed of excess e.g the three hour runtime, the endless montages.
However refusing to critique doesn't mean by extension Scorsese is endorsing.
His extensive use of close-up reveals his vulgarity of this way of living. The montages exorst instead of glamourize. Pretty is less distracting than disorienting, less desirable than overwhelming.
The excesses of Jordon Belfort are OUR excesses; like him we're too enlightened to know the expensive of which our gazillion products are made, like him we don't make any attempt to moralise our way through the system, like him, we just don't care. The disgust we feel for Belfort is hypocritical. The indignation we inflict on him is less a righteous act than a self-righteous delusion.

The film is so unapologetically excessive that the audience might finally realise that the screen they thought they were watching was in fact a camera.