Do The Right Thing and Double Indemnity Comparison Essay - performance

Compare how performance contributes to the different aesthetics of the two films you have studied between 1930-1960 and 1961-1990

- Double Indemnity and Do The Right Thing

Both Spike Lee's 1989 film 'Do The Right thing' (DTRT) and Billy Wilder's film noir 'Double Indemnity' use stylised performances to contribute to their stylised aesthetic. DTRT's hyperbolic performances match the hyperbolic aesthetics that contribute to the aesthetic tension as a study on race culture in 1980s New York. In contrast, Double Indemnity as a product of the Hays Code and film noir -  a style interested in a deceptive, criminal, and hopeless view of society as a development from the interest in madness through the distorted style of German expressionism, as well as from a post-war cynicism - is restricted in its performance possibilities in relation to violence, sex, and profanity - of which DTRT has much of to suit its provoking aesthetics - though Wilder uses this to its advantage in contributing to the film's noir aesthetic. 

"for an actress, let me tell you the way those sets were lit, the house, Walter's apartment, those dark shadows, those slices of harsh light at strange angles – all that helped my performance. The way Billy staged it and John Seitz lit it, it was all one sensational mood." - Stanwyck

Double Indemnity is stylistically naturalistic, Wilder perhaps emphasising through understated performances that appearance is not a true indicator of a character's motivations under the surface, a contributor to the aesthetic representations of deceit within film noir most poignantly shown through dark shadows within the mise-en-scene. An example of this is illustrated in protagonist Walter Neff and femme fatale Phyllis' first meeting. Working with the angelic framing of Phyliss, she performs gestures of maidenliness in obscuring her sexuality under a towel, reverting her eyes and body language from Neff as he explicitly asserts his male gaze (a Laura Mulvey theory) on her, making her an object of his sexual desires. A spectator in knowledge of her archetypal femme fatale role, her subtle pretences of innocence, in combination with soft lighting and focus, would understand this as manipulation, contributing to the deceitful mood of the noir film. The spectator is positioned to view Phyllis under the male gaze because this is from Neff's POV - the camera dissecting Phyllis' body as she buttons her blouse and puts lipstick on drawing attention to her sexual appeal - so his unconscious submission to her is made plausible. Thus Wilder constructs a subtext of sexuality to contribute to the film's aesthetic exploration of deceit and disreputable intensity. As a subtle flirtation is allowed between the two, the camera frames them close, restricting them in frame and therefore restricting their behaviour: perhaps as a metaphor for the Hays Code. Hard boiled dialogue is performed in a repetition of 'suppose' as they shoot a back and forth sexual metaphor and though the dialogue itself is stylised, the delivery is naturalistically understated in contribution to the same natured aesthetics. In combination with the aesthetics, Phyllis stands modestly while her shadow is 'given' to Neff as he exits through the door; her darkness transferred now she has him under her control. In Neff's voiceover narration, he reflects on the smell of 'honeysuckle', a metaphorical comparison to Phyllis. The characters often use performance to obscure real motivations, usually through hard-boiled metaphors, such as Neff representing honeysuckle as the scent of murder. Therefore performance is used to contribute to film noir's interest in bringing this corrupt side of society to the surface. Character relationship is also highlighted through performance in DTRT, though it is contrastingly explicit to reflect the open exploration of race tensions Lee intended. Canon with the film's intense aesthetic quality of a claustrophobic atmosphere, the fractured relationship of Italian-American brothers Vito and Pino adds to the film's melting pot of conflict and misunderstanding of race and culture as they tussle within a store cupboard, the sound full of their breathy tone, the older Pino attempting to assert his dominance. The camera in handheld motion restricts the extreme proximity of both characters, Vito struggling to be free of his brother's grasp and leering body language inciting a superiority. The extreme masculinity shown as Pino holds Vito in a headlock as an attempt to bridge their relationship by reminding him of his physical dominance contributes to the oppressive aesthetic of the film's contextual discourse; how the majority of male characters attempt to solve issues relating to socio-political race and culture through violence and assertion, illustrating the simmering tension and suffocating atmosphere in line with the sweltering heat (in saturated colours) of the mise-en-scene. Ironically, Pino uses his physicality in angry facial expression, gestures, and tone as an expression of protection for his brother to support his views that 'blacks' are not to be trusted. This is what pushes Vito away, his physical passiveness in reverting his gaze and not retaliating to Pino's flaring arm gestures by keeping his arms to his side asserting a quiet power over his brother; a newfound relationship dynamic. He leaves the room remained in his beliefs against Pino's racism, and contributing to the unhinged atmosphere of the film, nothing is resolved or effectively communicated. Thus, both films use their stylised performances to illustrate the director's intentions in line with the stylised aesthetics. 

Wilder also develops Phyllis' femme fatale archetype through her sadistically subtle performance, Wilder taking advantage of the prohibition of displayed extreme violence as Neff is heard to murder Phyllis' husband offscreen inside a car, the camera in a close-up focusing on Phyllis' facial expression. After the intense action of beeping the car horn three times to signal Neff's murder, the spectator is given a long take of Phyllis' unbroken stare and largely expressionless face, a sadistically slight smirk appearing during the climax of the score as an indicator of her sense of achievement at successfully manipulating Neff to kill her husband to collect his insurance money.  This subtlety of performance enhances the aesthetic tone of saying a lot with little, the film's taciturn and low-key subtexts of profanity communicated to the spectator implicitly through the subtle use of performance, camerawork, music, and mise-en-scene. Thus Wilder constructs an analysis that what is not being said is arguably more important than what is exposed to spectator. Wilder also constructs a similar kind of taciturn through the construction of comedy via the performances within Norton's office, the mocked higher management of Neff and his co-worker Keyes. Norton has hyperbolic expressions; removing himself from the lower classes of Keyes and Neff by remaining behind his desk and assuming a high posture, and asserting his large arm gestures, loud volume, and theatrically varied tone to give an impression of cleverness and declare his higher social and economic status, though this comedic construction combined with his clownish costume and spectatorial positioned alignment with Keyes and Neff creates dramatic irony. Thus we view Norton's performance as a pretence to make up for his lack of knowledge on his own policies, such as the dramatic emphasis on 'In fact I know I know', clearly illustrating he has little idea of the intricacies of the Dietrichson case. Neff is contrastingly cautious in this scene, attempting to draw attention away from himself and appear composed though his expression rests on anxiety and calculation, with slight stutters and pauses in contribution to the uncertain deceit of noir. He exchanges a knowing look with Keyes, furthering their close relationship at being able to communicate through a quick glance which also aids the comedic effect of Norton's positioning to the spectator. This look also contributes to the notion within the film that what is not being said is more important than what is being shown, and the fact that Norton does not fall under this category from his exaggerated persona separates him from the noirish aesthetic of the film: he is made, through dramatic irony, a clueless boss, with Keyes allowing him to explain his ill-informed theory and communicating through hard boiled sarcastic metaphors like, 'You have the ball, let's see you run with it'. An illustration of subtle class divides is created in knowledge of Norton's interest in Keyes' case once a large sum of money is involved, declaring an assuredness of the case despite Keyes' careful examination. Thus wilder perhaps constructs through performance that the hard working and largely unappreciated nature of the lower and middle classes compared to the upper classes whom with their dramatic tones and expressions, are something to be laughed at.

Similar to Wilder's approach of encoding social commentary though contrasting in the way it is performatively told, Lee uses hyperbolic performances to not only contribute to the hyperbolic aesthetics, but to also comment on social issues prominent in 1980s New York. For example, the passionate African American Buggin' Out in DTRT is primarily concerned with causing a scene to draw attention to issues he cares about, such as when his Jordon shoes are scuffed by a passing white man, Clifton. Wearing Africa and 'black power' medallions around his neck combined with the culturally significant Nike Air Jordon's - a shoe synonymous with African American urban culture, then worn as an act of racial pride and rebellion - the camera is charged with an unhinged rhythm, a quick zoom on his scuffed shoe and a reaction shot of Buggin's shocked face, assuming a confident air in high posture running towards Clifton as he shouts 'yo'. With flaring and cartoonish arm gestures in contrast to Clifton's subtle and unbothered body language and tone, Buggin' uses possessive language in claiming his 'neighbourhood' and a white man's unwanted presence there and like the camerawork and sound, the characters are on the brink of chaos. Though the film's discourse is about the dangers of reactive behaviour based on race, ironically Lee exploits racial archetypes through performance and aesthetics, most commonly through racial iconography as represented in Buggin's explosive reaction in juxtaposition to Clifton, making this interaction typically comedic for the spectator; Lee embraces stereotypes in order to criticise them. Because this scene is filled with African American culture references and contextual issues, a spectator depending on their situated culture would have a negotiated reading (a Stuart Hall theory) of this issue as it the instance for the entire cultural, social and political nuances throughout. Quickly African American youths gather round in close proximity standing in racial unity against Clifton. Buggin' accuses Clifton of gentrification, a then rising issue in New York where largely white populations with proportionally greater wealth drove out communities living in typically poorer New York boroughs. Lee explained in a recent interview how he 'predicted' this issue, the neighbourhood today being vastly different culturally than in 1989. Thus both directors take advantage of their established performance styles canon to their aesthetic tone to additionally comment on contextual discourse, though DTRT is more explicit with Lee's political encoding, while Wilder in contribution with the film's muted stylistic tone, uses the exampled scene as comedic relief. 

In conclusion, both Wilder and Lee use stylised performance to contribute to their respective aesthetics and tone. Wilder through understated performances, hard-boiled language, and implied instances of prohibited behaviour, constructs the muted deceitful, cynical, and criminal intensity of film noir. Concurrently Lee uses hyperbolic performances to depict the intensity of racism in 1980s America which accentuate the chaotic saturation of the aesthetics.