Do The Right Thing and Double Indemnity Comparison Essay - spectacle vs narrative

 'Film is just about spectacle; narrative resolution does not matter'. Compare how this quotation applies to the two films you have studied between 1930-1960 and 1961-1990

- Double Indemnity and Do The Right Thing

Billy Wilder's 1944 film noir 'Double Indemnity' and Spike Lee's 1989 film 'Do The Right Thing' (DTRT) exhibit elements of spectacle to the spectator which I will relate to each film's aesthetics, of which their stylised performances, sound, mise-en-scene and cinematography are crucial elements of thrill to the spectator that their narratives, or narrative discourse, are defined and/or enhanced by. I will argue how Double Indemnity's narrative resolution is an important aspect of the film's engagement in relation to its contexts rather than just the spectacle (in terms of film noir aesthetics), and how DTRT as void of traditional narrative structure -though linear in rising action, it is episodic -, is more concerned with its contextual representations enhanced by the film's spectacle (in terms of its thrilling and unique aesthetics). 

Double Indemnity's narrative, as is the instance for many film noirs, is told through the protagonist's Narration (Walter Neff), which is introduced to the spectator in the opening scene. In the establishing shot, a car races through empty night-time streets in rhythm to the non-diegetic chaotic string instrumentation, before the anonymous silhouetted figure - Neff - exits the car framed from a high angle, the camera tracking Neff's slow walking through the insurance company building he works for, his overcoat slumped over his shoulders, and an iconic film noir double shadow casted as he walks to his colleague's (Keyes) office, symbolically connoting his descent into darkness. Such criminal and dark aesthetics, the music functioning as an engaging spectacle, construct the typical film noir narrative before anything is revealed to the spectator via Neff's narration into a dictaphone, framed in a CU, the top-lighting highlighting his sweat and breathy tone, as he gives in to the inevitability of his failure within the plot through a confession to Keyes: 'I killed him for money - and a woman - and I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman.'. Thus Wilder exposits the narrative from the resolution, making the structure non-linear and unconventional in Todorovian terms. However, an equilibrium of Neff's failings of murder within the plot is established, and the spectator witnesses the plot unfold from Neff's point of view as a flashback, recognising the narrative disruption when he meets the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietritchson. Thus, the narrative resolution established as Neff's flashback/confession and perspective on the plot events made poignant in the film's opening is what makes the narrative impactful to a spectator rather than just the noirish spectacle of such opening scenes. Like Double Indemnity, the thrilling aesthetics of DTRT are established in the opening credit scene, though they are socio-politically charged. Tina, the protagonist Mookie's girlfriend, dances provocatively to the hip-hop song 'Fight the Power'; a genre synonymous with African-American culture, a song layered with racial tension. Against the urban Brooklyn streets, flashes of red and blue connoting police sirens are layered over Tina's performance, her costume interchanging between tight-fitting sportswear and boxing gear. Thus Lee establishes the various elements of spectacle in the aesthetics that connote an expressionistic view of violence, tension, and passion without any traditional narrative structure which ultimately suggests that Lee is more interested in showing the film's discourse around racial tension and violence as contextually sparked from the various racial attacks on black youths in New York during the 1980s, most prominently the 'Howard Beach' incident, symbolically expressed and enhanced by the film's unique aesthetics. In comparing the two films against the quotation, Wilder emphasises the importance of narrative exposition, making the film's resolution an integral part of its spectator engagement rather than just the noirish spectacle, whereas Lee stresses the aesthetic spectacle through the film's stylised mise-en-scene and sound in the film's opening to express the film's focused themes of racial tension, conflict, and a spirited passion against such issues. 

In arguing the importance of Double Indemnity's narrative resolution, it is important to note the discourse of misogyny around the film and film noir. Sexuality, explicitly restricted from the Hays code, is constructed in the first scene between Neff and femme fatale Phyllis. Once Neff has pushed his way against the Dietritchson's maid, the spectator, in Neff's low-angle POV shot, is introduced to Phyliss through her sexuality as she is obscured under a towel and behind a stair railing. The aesthetic composition of this POV shot places the railing as a literal barrier between Neff and Phyllis, and metaphorically in the same sense as Phyllis is aware of her sexuality and knows that Neff must work to have access to it. Neff smiles and removes his hat as a code of respect and that he is heating up as a code of attraction to her, a noticeable contrast of respect towards a woman he desires against the abrasively represented maid. Perhaps for a 1940s audience, seeing Phyliss barely clothed, top-lit, and functioning as an object under the male gaze (a Laura Mulvey theory) would be a subject of spectacle within the film, though this construction of Phyllis' character is a vital element within the narrative; her codes of sexuality, Neff's flirtation with her, and her demonstration of maidenliness as she repeatedly reverts her gaze from Neff and positions herself lower to his proximity, important in making Neff's devotion to her schemes of murder plausible to the spectator, though one in knowledge of the femme fatale would understand this as manipulation. The oppositions of the two prominent female characters in Double Indemnity show the traditional and mostly preferred role of the maternal woman versus the sexual and dark antithesis (which can be applied to Levi-Strauss' binary oppositions theory); Lola, the step-daughter of Phyliss, is rewarded with her outspoken 'hot-headed' boyfriend Zachetti's freedom from being framed for Neff's murder, whereas Phyllis is punished by being shot by the man she seduced, Neff, and her cycle of crime is ended. In the final scene, although Neff is also punished as a favourable Hollywood resolution for the 1940s society, he has still redeemed his actions by the end of the film by choosing to turn himself in and noting Keyes to 'take care of that guy Zachetti'. In the apotheosis of the narrative resolution, Neff is beside his faithful friend and narrative mentor/donor (Propp), Keyes, who grants him a final wish for a cigarette after a tragic rising legato chord, the crescendo synchronous to Neff falling in a doorway, closing the film ambiguously as sirens are heard in the distance which ultimately gives control back to Neff. Despite Neff's punishment shown, the final shots are tragically heroic for the spectator, and the villainous femme fatale is given no alternative or reasoning for her behaviour, and her control is mercilessly taken away. The harsh lighting and shadows in noirish Venetian blinds in this scene emphasise the tense climax of the narrative: a claustrophobic and expressionistic aesthetic foreshadows a fatal ending for the two characters in the build-up to the resolution. Phyllis is discarded, framed in the end as weaker than Neff in a CU OTS once he has detected her manipulation and shoots her, and she is made a subject to the male gaze in going against her archetype in ambiguously revealing a love towards Neff. Thus, this construction of misogyny towards Phyllis and Neff's redeemed character arc is an important discourse within the film's narrative resolution, making it far more impactful to the spectator than just the noirish spectacle of the aesthetics within Neff and Phyllis' final scene.

DTRT, in contrast, has no conventional narrative structure with no traditional Hollywood resolution, rather Lee presents the plot events in an episodic nature that represents the slow fragmentation and rising tension of a mixed-ethnic community in Bed-Stuy, New York in the late 1980s. The narrative occurs over one record-breaking hot day - the warm colours of the mise-en-scene and dutch angles express both the heat and tension within the community, which becomes pronounced in the climax of the film. The hyperbolic character Buggin' Out sides with Radio Raheem against the Italian-American Sal to advocate for African-American pictures upon Sal's 'wall of fame', which ultimately acts as the narrative thread for the film, this scene acting as the disruption to catalyse the climax. During the parallel high/low angle shots between Sal and Buggin’/Raheem, even the fan above not only functions as a signifier of the extreme heat but also as a contributor to the tumultuous atmosphere, its quick rotation adding to the unstable composition. The sound heard throughout the film is layered together in an intense volume as soon as Raheem and Buggin’ enter blasting ‘Fight the Power’. This remains the constant noise until Raheem's boombox is smashed by Sal; the first time true silence is distributed and felt in the whole film. Thus Lee makes this moment significant; at other forms of violence and conflict like the physical and verbal, this one is symbolic and heavily related to identity; it is almost like Sal has smashed Raheem himself, perhaps why, in retaliation from the community, his pizzeria– and by extension, his Italian portraits – was burned down. While this climax is an aesthetic spectacle - all the film's dutch angels, intense sound, tension, and hyperbolic performances culminated in this scene - it is incredibly pronounced in summarising the film's discourse on racial violence between opposing ethnic communities, which Lee represents poignantly in one aesthetic shot: Sal's baseball bat and Raheem's destroyed boombox laying amongst the rubble and flames of the pizzeria in a high angle. Symbolically, Lee shows the largest expression of Raheem's identity destroyed in accordance with his murder via police brutality, against Sal's bat which only represents his violence and ignorance. This relates back to the iconic sequence of 'love versus hate' shown as knuckle rings on Raheem, of which the opposing forces fight and remain stagnant; in the end, nothing has been solved by the violence around the pizzeria, and the only parting message Lee brings is through two quotes. At the first quote, we assume Lee’s takeaway moral is one of love and forgiveness in the sentiment of Martin Luther King Jr until we are shown one advocating for violence in ‘self-defense’ towards those in power from Malcolm X, leaving the film traditionally unsolved – reflecting its real life issues-  but summarising the entire ideology of the film: which quote is the ‘right’ one?; What was the ‘right’ thing to do in every example of hatred, violence, misunderstanding, and conflict during the film? There isn’t really a chain of events leading to the climax, it all just builds – in sound, image, and intensity - to culminate in the final act, and while this demonstrates no narrative resolution arguing in favour of the quote, every occurrence in the film opens the door to thought and dialogue, which is a far more constructive contribution than simply resolving a story, something that Lee expressed multiple times as intentional. 

Overall, both films rely on the spectator having cultural knowledge of the events and attitudes that motivate the film's themes. The pessimism shown in the aesthetics and hard-boiled dialogue within Double Indemnity comes from a 'noirish' world of crime, betrayal, and hopelessness, and like many film noirs, these themes are only directly shown to come from the femme fatale suggesting that this world has been shaped in this way by her which in parallel to the wartime context and newfound power of women, provides an allegory for. Wilder's suggested sexist depiction of its narrative resolution is perhaps voyeuristic for the spectator and therefore just as important as the film's aesthetic spectacle. Similarly, DTRT utilises its spectacular aesthetic quality to enhance the socio-political themes, though Lee, is perhaps more concerned with presenting such issues as an integrated part of the represented community rather than a resolved 'hero's journey' or Todorovian narrative: though the community ends with a 'new equilibrium' after the death of Radio Raheem, the radio voiceover reminds the spectator that the next day will be hotter, and ultimately nothing has systemically altered despite the neighbourhood's disruption. Though, it is important to consider each film's contrasting approaches credibly owing to Double Indemnity being an adaptation of a hard-boiled noir story under the restriction of the Hays Code against Lee's original screenplay.