CAPT FAN + NO OLD MEN ESSAY

No Country for Old men does not fit neatly into Stuart Halls theory of spectatorship due to its post modern nature as a neo western that deconstructs genre, rather subverting this theory through eluding a clearly defined preferred reading; however the constructed chaos in the film does still lend itself to a variety of spectator responses through its elusive meaning, with characters full of contradictions and characters that cannot understand these contradictions. Captain Fantastic adheres to this theory far more, with clear oppositional, negotiated and preferred interpretations, especially surrounding the protagonist Ben and his role as a parent;  

The character of Chigurh in the police station scene lends himself to a preferred reading through his malign portrayal. Cinematography is used to create a sinister tone; a shallow depth of field lightly blurs Chigurh reducing him to a lurking silhouette which stands out against the tan colour palette of the scene. A slow track in mimics Chigurh as he methodically stalks in; the track in also cuts of Chigurh ensuring his character remains shrouded in mystery; thirdly it brings the spectator closer to Chigurh as he slowly moves in, all three building tension and arguably aligning us against Chigurh in inciting fear towards him. This fear is heightened when Chigurh attacks the policemen, a high angle shot rotates as Chigurh’s face reveals an intensely psychotic expres   sion; the smooth rotation couples with Chigurh’s unchanging expression, connotative of his composure in contrast to the frantic performance of the police man, the rotating camera can be seen to represent a spiral which is also connotative of madness. This helps align the viewer against Chigurh in his malign and mysterious presentation, the contradiction of chaos and order in his performance and the cinematography evokes xenophobic feelings from the spectator; contradiction surrounding Chigurh continues throughout the film, the spectator is never truly allowed to know or understand him, an intentional technique displayed in this scene and designed by the Cohen brothers to strike at arguably, the fundamental fear, fear of the unknown[1].

Captain Fantastic explores the theme of parenthood through the conflict between Ben and his father-in-law, Jack. Concerning alignment throughout the majority of the film, we are aligned to Ben but the confrontation scene between Jack and Ben when Rell asserts he’s staying with Jack makes us question this alignment and therefore also Jack’s perspective on parenthood. Initially, we are aligned to Ben through using MCUs on Rell and Jack and CUs on Ben, reflecting his growing distance from his son and established distance from his father-in-law, which may also represent the audiences growing distance from Ben as begin to realise his negligent parenting. However, dialogue and cinematography develops throughout this scene to make us question this alignment, beginning with Rell’s angry outburst blaming Jack for his mother’s death. He’s placed at a low angle to Ben which can be interpreted as Ben being condescending, replying to Rell’s reveal with half truths. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as Ben attempting to do what’s best for his son; this is however undermined by his dishonesty regarding which makes him hypocritical, further undermining his character and aligning the spectator against him through alignment with Rell. When Rell leaves the scene, Ross switches to shot/reverse shots and over-the-shoulders to put Ben and Jack on equal footing in this confrontation, occasionally breaking this format to bring attention to specific details. This includes a track down to a bow and arrow, encouraging the spectator to question the appropriateness of giving a young teenager such a weapon, a question furthered by Rell’s performance throughout the film and in the previous scene, which is often unstable and damaged. The shot/reverse shots switch to singles instead of over-the-shoulders when Jack begins implying that Ben is borderline committing child abuse, signifying a loss of understanding and connection between the two men. The use of CU singles also focuses the spectator’s attention on the actors’ performances, which is largely affected by who they feel aligned to; as aforementioned, the previous cinematography used creates a balanced platform to hear both men’s sides; the dialogue, however, offsets this with Ben forced to be on the defensive with serious concerns being raised by Jack. Passive spectatorship would, however, encourage alignment with Jack through the previous narrative. Active spectatorship would however throw into question Ben’s previous actions which are reframed through Jack’s perspective; so for a passive spectator the single Close up shots on Jack paint his expression as arrogant and prideful due to their alignment with Ben. Active spectatorship would however temper Jacks expression as authoritative, seeing him as a necessary figure for Ben to achieve self realisation and reach a compromise with the ‘real world’.  

Stuart Hall’s theory of spectatorship can help explain multiple readings of the character of Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. The preferred reading in the gas station scene would be to fear Chigurh, he is anomalous to the western genre, especially in his twisted sense of morality which is hard to understand and grasp. The tension of the scene helps establish this reading through micro features; sound is utilised through a subtle naturalistic soundtrack, blowing wind that underscores the soft spoken dialogue to heighten the tension of the scene. The slow track in also works to create tension, equally subtle and less perceptible which helps immerse the spectator into the diegesis of the film to heighten this tension. This tension builds fear towards Chigurh which is built further through subverting genre expectations with Chigurh’s elusive moral code. The mise en scene establishes western conventions with the shop keeper wearing a plaid shirt and overalls, cowboy hats sit in the background as does an empty desert landscape. Chigurh’s dark clothing and hairstyle juxtapose this, as does his contradictory morality; he tells the shopkeeper to not let the coin become like an other then contradicts this by telling him its just another coin. This represents his chaotic moral code, partly governed by fate as he decides the shop keepers fate by tossing said coin.  This builds on Chigurh’s elusive identity; previous scenes such as the aforementioned police station scene establish Chigurh as a chaotic, unknowable man but as the film progresses his character is developed such as in this scene where its implied he may follow some kind of moral code, even if it is chaotic and beyond our understanding – despite this development, his mystery remains. 

An oppositional reading of Captain Fantastic can be found in the University letters scene, where Ben can be perceived as cruel and arrogant as a father to his son Bowdafin. Blocking is used with a medium shot at a side profile, placing a bench between the two to imply a growing distance which is further represented by the medium shot, which distances the spectator from the protagonist Ben. The spectator is then more closely aligned with Bow in this scene in his growing distance from his father. To heighten the feeling of this growing distance for the two and the spectator, performance and cinematography is used. Over the shoulder shot reverse shots are initially used following the medium shot, implying some connection between the two which is reinforced by both characters performance, as they mirror each other in laughing. The expectation of a reconciliation created here is then subverted as Ben accuses Bow of ‘deceiving him’; increasingly unstable hand held shots then reflect the growing intensity and anger between the two as they argue, frustrated at the lack of understanding with each other. This lack of understanding and frustration is heightened by this subversion and presents Ben as arrogant, furthered by Bowdafin’s dialogue ‘unless it comes out of a book I don’t know anything about anything’. The scene ends with a long and a medium shot; a long shot positions Bow walking with his back to his father, walking into the darkness outside of the small circle of light surrounding Ben, as well as the frame. This can alternatively be interpreted through Ben’s point of view, as his son leaves the ‘light’ of his direct paternity in their growing distance, and enters a world of darkness outside of Ben’s view and area of protection – a genuine, near universal fear for Parents. A negotiated reading would combine this interpretation with Bow’s perspective; the small circle of light surrounding his father represents the isolation Ben has condemned him to, turning his back and walking into the darkness mirrors the ending of the film where he does the same at the airport though in the light of day. Its an adventure into the unknown, which is daunting for both of them but in the final scene the gap between them is bridged, shown through a close up on them hugging, as their embrace fills the frame. In this way we can understand how differing oppositional readings can come to create a negotiated reading. 

An oppositional reading of the film may suggest that these contradictions and the mystery that comes with them, doesn’t wholly alienate the spectator from Chigurh, but rather draws them in, despite the film often pushing the spectator away from this alignment. For example after a shoot out scene at a motel between Chigurh and Llewelyn, a series of close up shots in another motel rooms reveals Chigurh’s wounds in extreme detail; this arguably encourages the spectator to align with him in revealing his vulnerability, which contrasts his previous presentation as invincible. The stark contrast of this may even heighten sympathy towards his character in the subversion of expectation. Alternatively however this contradiction can be argued to further align the spectator with Llewelyn, as we are shown the extent of the damage he has inflicted on the antagonist in close detail; it proves Chirgurh’s mortality and in that further aligns us to Llewelyn in creating hope that he can now overcome the antagonist. Again however this is contrasted In later scenes (scenes depicting alternative presentations). The spectator is left alienated from both the protagonist and antagonist in this chaos, in this lack of meaning; only through active spectatorship will a spectator recognise this feeling of alienation and align it to that of Sherriff Bell’s own feelings of alienation to this changing world, of which Chigurh is the ultimate product of – Only then does the diegesis of the film extend to our own context; a world without clearly defined values, without a great or foreign evil; in the absence of a Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, the post modern world is left clutching at straws for greater meaning in places like Iraq and China but such clear unmuddied meaning is irretrievably lost in a world we’ve come to understand we can’t understand. So maybe like Chigurh, we should learn to embrace the chaos. 

Conclusively both films utilise the theory of spectatorship in very different ways; No Country for Old Men eludes any simple interpretations, whether oppositional, preferred or negotiated due to its post modern nature that deconstructs genre. Captain Fantastic is far easier to apply to the theory of spectatorship, with its closer alignment of the spectator to its characters, allowing for interpretations based closer on the spectator’s empathy surrounding these characters as opposed to the apathy, aversion and ambivalence evoked in spectators regarding the characters of No Country for Old Men. 

---

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618516300469