In thinking about what new dimensions and what new elements of understanding the film of Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 gave to me, I think that I may have an obvious answer but at the same time the most powerful. When reading a book, each reader is able to develop his or her own interpretation and images in his or her mind based on the facts and dialogue presented in the text. However, watching the film of Anna Deavere Smith’s play allowed me to witness characters acting out each scene that I had previously envisioned in my imagination. Therefore, I was able to grasp a better understanding of the tone and context of each character, and consequently the message that he or she was trying to deliver to the audience.
A great example of a scene in the film that changed my understanding of the textual play is the soliloquy by Stanley Sheinbaum, former president of the LA police commission. In this scene, Sheinbaum is speaking about Daryl Gates and Gates’ decision to attend a fundraiser during the time of the riots. In the writing, I, as the reader, did not really materialize the shock and sarcasm in Sheinbaum’s voice. However, upon watching Deavere Smith’s acting performance of Sheinbaum, it is very clear that he was blatantly criticizing Gates for his actions as Police Chief. This was instrumental to reinforcing my understanding that many people in the police force and government did not support Gates for his actions. The film is responsible for helping me come to this conclusion much more than Deavere Smith’s text.
Simply seeing the faces of the four police officers on trial, Wind, Briseno, Koon, and Powell, helped to humanize in my mind. After hearing and reading so much about these men, I had a vision of them as absolute animals, incapable of human emotion. However, upon watching Timothy Wind’s interview in Deavere Smith’s film, I came to the realization that he is extraordinarily moved by the entire ordeal. He explained how he couldn’t sleep anymore, he couldn’t bring himself to leave the house, and he even needed surgery because he was ignoring his body’s basic needs. Essentially, seeing that these officers are actual men, with feelings and families, forced me to empathize with them more. It allowed me to consider the possibility that maybe these are just four men who made a grave mistake one night out of fear, as opposed to my previous deduction that the officers were looking to make an example of an African American man out of racism. I do not necessarily believe either one of these opinions, but the film did spark the question in my mind
Finally, Anna Deavere Smith’s greatest tool, characteristic to her film even more than her book, is her use of pathos. Pathos is an appeal or attempt to persuade by stirring up the emotions of an audience or reader. It is not necessarily concerned as much with the veracity of the argument as it is with the appeal of it. Deavere Smith was able to input images and short videos of the riots to effectively demonstrate to the viewer how terrible the event that her characters are discussing actually was, and evoke emotional responses about the tragedy that the 1992 demonstrations were. About halfway through the movie, around the “climax” during the riots, she even uses the setting of her characters’ speeches to her advantage. For example, she places a couple of her individuals in rooms with the windows flickering, as if a terrible fire was raging right outside them. She imposes the voices of the protesters on top of those of her characters to help show the chaos, uncertainty, and danger that these people were living in at the time. Her compelling use of pathos certainly appealed to me and made me think about the utter terror of Los Angeles in 1992, and I feel that this was much better accomplished in the film than it was in her writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment