sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alex Proyas, James Franco, Michael Haneke, Michelangelo Antonioni, Part 2 (Twin Peaks), Rich Lee

THE CINEMATIC WINK: REPRESENTATIONS OF WINKING IN SCREEN MEDIA

A thesis submitted to the faculty of As San Francisco State University £> 6 In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for aon- The Degree d lrtE

• Master of Arts In Cinema Studies

by

Spencer William Harkness

San Francisco, California

October 2017 Copyright by Spencer William Harkness 2017 CERTIFICATION OF APPROAVAL

I certify that I have read The Cinematic Wink: Representations of Winking in Screen Media by Spencer William Harkness and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfdlment of the requirements for the degree:

Master of Arts in Cinema Studies at San Francisco State University.

Aaron Kemer Professor of Cinema " 7

yi £ Bill Nichols Professor of Cinema THE CINEMATIC WINK: REPRESENTATIONS OF WINKING IN SCREEN MEDIA

Spencer William Harkness San Francisco, California 2017

The cinematic wink is an investigation of how a human or metaphorical wink can shape the content of screen media. A human wink is performed by contracting an eyelid; a metaphorical wink is constructed with formal cinematic elements. Through examining a survey of wink examples, this investigation seeks to understand how cinematic winking operates as a phenomenon of screen media communication. The cinematic wink is separated into three categories: wink between characters, direct wink at the viewer, and wink by the director. The three categories allow for differentiation between human and metaphorical winks. Evaluation of the selected examples in each category reveals a cluster of similarities among the winks while offering specific discoveries unique to each example.

This investigation suggests a framework for understanding how cinematic winks can operate as a phenomenon of screen media communication.

I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.

Date ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I want to thank Bill Nichols, Aaron Kemer, Jenny Lau, and Randy Rutsky for their assistance in the project. Also, this project would not have been possible without James,

Bonnie, Chase, Rochelle, Everett, Conrad, Jeniffer and Skip (Billy Sr.). TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 1

Wink Between Characters...... 7

Direct W ink at the V ie w e r...... 19

Wink by the Director...... 28

C on clu sion ...... 40

Bibliography...... 43 1

Introduction

The cinematic wink is an investigation of how a human or metaphorical wink can shape the content of screen media. A human wink is performed by contracting an eyelid; a metaphorical wink is constructed with formal cinematic elements. The representation of a wink in screen media, which for this investigation include , television, and , requires the locomotion of images to accomplish the physical act of both human and metaphorical winking. The cinematic wink, therefore, is dependent on the cinematic motion of images to produce the representational effect winking creates as an act of communication. The communicative messages found in a wink are determined by the recognition and understanding of what a wink is and how it can mean and not mean what it is nonverbally communicating.

The cause of communicating a wink is first determined by a signaler. To wink involves deciding to send a message, and the signaler’s decision to wink must be determined before the wink is performed. Upon the decision to perform a wink, the signaler must wink at a recipient. The effect of the wink is determinant on whether the recipient understands the message of the wink. The causation of a wink thus involves many steps in the signaler’s performance and in the recipient’s comprehension of a wink.

Comprehension of a wink requires an understanding of what the wink is doing. The

Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines a wink as to “close and open one eye quickly, typically to indicate that something is a joke or a secret or as a signal of affection or 2

greeting.”1 The definition underscores several facets and meanings of a wink: movement of the eyelid, indication, joking, secrecy, signaling, affection, and greeting. In addition, winks can embody other aspects such as irony, parody, conspiracy, malice, commentary, and homage. The cinematic wink encompasses all these performable actions. Therefore, several primary questions are central to this investigation: How are winks performed? Who are the wink signalers and recipients? What formal cinematic qualities do winks have?

How do winks function? What categorizations of winks can be formulated? What meaning can be derived from wink representations in screen media? Through examining a survey of wink examples, this investigation seeks to understand how cinematic winking operates as a phenomenon of screen media communication.

Research on cinematic winking is limited, but winks have been studied as part of psychologist Paul Ekman’s medical research on facial expressions and emotion. Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen have determined the face creates three types of signals: static, slow, and rapid.2 Rapid signals are created by moving facial muscles to temporarily change the facial appearance by shifting the location and shape of facial features.3 These changes can

1 Oxford English Dictionary online, s.v. “wink,” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wink [accessed June 6, 2017]. 2 Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen, Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues (Cambridge: Malor Books, 2003), 10. 3 Ibid., 11. 3

take place in less than a second,4 and examples of rapid signals include raising the eyebrows and winking.5 The muscle involved with a wink is the orbicularis oculi.6

Ekman and Friesen further distinguish rapid facial signals as having the ability to send emblems, which are specific signals that have a nonverbal equivalent to a word or phrase such as nodding the head for confirmation or winking for agreement.7 Ekman has determined the emblem to be a facial movement that is as deliberate as choosing to use or not use a word when speaking.8 The emblem, for Ekman, has a verbal translation to a word, multiple words, or a phrase, and the emblem becomes evident when it could be replaced by words without altering the message.9 Ekman’s research is useful in many regards for understanding cinematic winks between humans, but the emblem does not cover circumstances when a wink is metaphorical.

Research by Bill Nichols on winks in documentary film provides a pathway for understanding how winks can operate on a metaphorical basis within screen media. Nichols identifies irony as a key element of what documentary winks can communicate. An

4 Ibid., 11. 5 Ibid., 10. 6 Paul Ekman and Joseph C. Hager, “The Asymmetry of Facial Actions is Inconsistent with Models of Hemispheric Specialization,” in What the Face Reveals: Basic and Applied Studies o f Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), eds. Paul Ekman and Erika L. Rosenberg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 44. 7 Ekman and Friesen, 12. 8 Paul Ekman, “Should We Call it Expression or Communication?” in Innovations in Social Science Research, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1997. 339. 9 Paul Ekman, “Cross-Cultural Studies of Facial Expression,” in Darwin and Facial Expression: A Century of Research in Review, ed. Paul Ekman (Cambridge: Malor Books, 2006), 181. 4

example from Luis Bunuel’s Land Without Bread—the sequence in which a goat accidentally dies, yet a gun firing suggests otherwise—demonstrates how the formal construction of the sequence by Bunuel provides for what Nichols argues is a wink from

Bunuel that hints to the viewer the sequence is not a factual representation of the event.10

Moreover, Nichols finds Land Without Bread features other winks, ranging from the narration to soundtrack, which signal an ironic commentary on documentary form and convention by Bunuel.11

Nichols further evaluates the documentary wink in terms of irony by questioning the viewer’s role in the communication. Nichols argues, “Like a wink compared to a blink, or, even better for complex communication, a parody of a wink compared to a wink, irony arises when the viewer recognizes the play of frames that shift meaning to a different level.”12 The linchpin of accomplishing the communication is the viewer’s recognition of the differing levels of meaning produced by the irony. Nichols suggests an ironic wink message introduces doubt,13 because the viewer’s sense of balance is temporarily disturbed but restored if the viewer grasps the irony embedded in the wink.14 Although the critical

10 Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010), 49-50. 11 Bill Nichols, Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary (Oakland: University of California Press, 2016), 168. 12 Bill Nichols, “Irony, Cruelty, Evil (and a Wink) in The Act o f Killing,” in Film Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Winter 2013), 25. 1 ^ Nichols, Speaking Truths with Film, 171. 14 Ibid., 173. 5

examination by Nichols provides a map for understanding metaphorical winks, analysis of the human act of winking is also required to investigate the cinematic wink.

Philosopher Gilbert Ryle examines the human act of winking in his work The

Thinking o f Thoughts: What is ‘Le Penseur ’ Doing? Similarly, Ryle considers how winks operate with an understood code and examines the differences and similarities between a twitch and a wink. Ryle’s interest in winking is to demonstrate how doing something, such as winking, can have a thin description as a base explanation. Furthermore, analyzing multiple levels of something, such as a wink, can reveal a deeper and more complex explanation that results in what Ryle has called “thick description.” In the example of two boys contracting their eyelids, one twitching and the other winking, Ryle argues that at the thinnest level, both acts are alike.15 Yet, on a thicker level, there is an immense difference between a wink and a twitch. Ryle posits the one who winks will do so deliberately, to someone, to deliver a message, according to a code, without others noticing, all of which will be denied by the one performing the wink.16

Ryle continues his exploration by detailing thicker description levels of parodying a wink. Ryle further examines the multiple accomplish levels it takes to learn how to perform a wink. The winking analysis is a prologue to Ryle’s investigation of Auguste

Rodin’s The Thinker. The model of thin and thick description informs Ryle’s thoughts on

15 Gilbert Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts: What is 'Le Penseur' Doing? Reprinted from 'University Lectures', no. 18, 1968, The University of Saskatchewan. 16 Ibid. 6

what The Thinker is doing. Ryle’s careful inspection of human winks and the many layered descriptions behind what a wink is doing encapsulates the main force behind uncovering how the cinematic wink exists as a form of screen media communication.

Moreover, Ryle’s treatise on winking serves as the methodological fulcrum behind the investigation of the cinematic wink. The Rylean idea of thick description informed

Clifford Geertz’s anthropological work “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” Geertz’s approach has proven useful for projects outside anthropology, as

Philip M. Ferguson puts it, “I am emulating Geertz’s use of the mundane behavior of winking to open up a much broader and more abstract consideration of disability and culture.”17 The cinematic wink investigation attempts to return to the origin of Ryle’s thick description and, as Viktor Kaploun argues, “take into account the most interesting aspects of what was suggested by Ryle as a conceptual tool for analyzing the phenomenon of human action.”18 The cinematic wink is separated into three categories: wink between characters, direct wink at the viewer, and wink by the director. The three categories allow for differentiation between human and metaphorical winks. Evaluation of the selected examples in each category reveals a cluster of similarities among the winks while offering specific discoveries unique to each example. At first glance, the wink may appear

17 Philip M. Ferguson, “Winks, Blinks, Squints and Twitches: Looking for Disability and Culture Through My Son’s Left Eye,” in Rethinking Disability: The Emergence o f New Definitions, Concepts and Communities, eds. Patrick Devlieger, Frank Rusch, and David Pfeiffer (Antwerp: Garant Publishers, 2003), 133. 18 Viktor Kaploun, From Geertz to Ryle: The Thick Description Concept and Institutional Analysis o f Cultures (Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2013), 7. 7

mundane; however, upon deeper reflection the momentary movement unveils a rich perception of nonverbal communication possibilities.

Wink Between Characters

The first categorization of the cinematic wink investigates how winks between characters are represented in film and television examples. The wink between characters is distinguished by the physical act of winking between two humans as a form of communication. The winks being analyzed represent a number of performable actions such as malice, indication, irony, joking, and secrecy. A cluster most of these winks between characters share is how they function as turning points in the narrative. Linda Seger describes turning points as moments that propel action in a new direction, provide a different focus of action, declare a decision by a main character, raise the story’s central question, prompt wonder around the question, raise the stakes, and push the story into the following act.19 Robert McKee adds, “The effects of turning points are fourfold: surprise, increased curiosity, insight, and new direction.”20 The following examples illustrate how winks between characters are indicators of purchase that alter how to understand and make meaning of a work through nonverbal communication.

19 Linda Seger, AdvancedScreenwriting: Raising Your Script to the Academy Award (Beverly Hills: Silman- James Press, 2003), 82. 20 Robert McKee, Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles o f Screenwriting (New York: Harpers Collins Publishers, 1997), 234. 8

The 2015 film True Story, directed by Rupert Goold and based on an actual crime, contains two scenes with winks. In the film, journalist Finkle () begins meeting with (James Franco), who was arrested for killing his wife and three daughters. Longo agrees to give his story to Finkle in exchange for being taught how to write. While meeting in prison, a guard says, “Wrap it up short stop.” Longo explains this is a prison nickname, a play on words with his last name, “long-go” has been transposed to “short-stop.” Finkle suggests a book dedication, “For Shortstop, like a wink.”

Finkle then winks at Longo, who asks, “What’s a wink?” Finkle responds, “A wink is when a writer puts in a secret message, for someone special, like a private joke.” The wink is shot in close-up with shot reverse shot to demonstrate the characters are looking at one another. The wink is communication between the two characters, Finkle the signaler and

Longo the recipient. The communication is both verbal, with Finkle explaining the reasoning behind the wink, and nonverbal, with the performance of the wink. In addition, this marks Longo’s learning of the code behind the wink. A further level of understanding is the secret message in the book dedication. In the director’s commentary on the DVD,

Goold describes the first wink by saying, “There are little ways of communicating to a private audience, and that there are winks to an audience, of course this idea of a wink was something that was going to be very important come later.”21 Goold’s comment supports the wink as a turning point by alluding to the later importance it has on the narrative. The

21 Rupert Goold, “Commentary,” True Story, DVD, directed by Rupert Goold (Century City, CA: 20th Century Fox, 2005). 9

wink further adds a nuance of sophistication to the deepening relationship between Longo and Finkle.

Longo is on trial for murdering his family, and during his court testimony he references a double negative, something Finkle taught him earlier. Finkle is shot in close- up as a percussion on the soundtrack beats simultaneously as his eyelids rise in surprise.

The shot moves in on Finkle’s eyes as he double blinks four times. Ekman writes, “Blinking can be done voluntarily, but it is also an involuntary response, which increases when people are emotionally aroused.”22 The rapid blinking suggests Finkle is alarmingly aroused by realizing something is amiss because Longo is using their previous conversations as his defense. The film cuts to Longo staring outward without any contraction of his eyelids as his attorney says, “The defense rests.” Roger Lamb notes, “Another circumstance in which people try to control blinking is when they are lying. Flere it is fear that excessive blinking will give them away, that makes them blink less than usual.”23 The film cuts back to Finkle, who blinks incessantly as the court is adjourned. While blinking is not winking, the similarity of both these human actions situates the blinking as a visual set-up that is signaling to what will be the final wink.

The jury finds Longo guilty, and while being handcuffed, he shrugs his shoulders and winks at Finkle. The final wink is the climax of Story, and it confirms Longo’s

99 Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit, in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009), 142. 9 ^ Roger Lamb, “Reading Facial Expressions,” in Eye to Eye: How People Interact, ed. Peter Marsh (Topsfield: Salem House Publishers, 1988), 87. 10

manipulation of the code he previously learned. The wink affirms Longo was telling a private joke in which Finkle is the punchline. From the establishment of the code in the first wink, Longo crafted his defense story with Finkle’s teaching. Longo failed to convince the jury, but he was successful in taking Finkle for the proverbial ride. Finkle unknowingly provided the lessons for Longo to construct a fabricated story. Longo’s wink is a visual representation of the maliciousness of his actions toward Finkle. Ryle notes, “Some lessons are intrinsically traders on prior lessons. Such trading can pyramid indefinitely. There is no top step on the stairway of accomplishment levels.”24 On the thinnest level, Longo contracted his eyelid to Finkle. On a much thicker level, Longo’s contracting eyelid represents his deceptive nature and elaborate plan of deceit that was accomplished by trading on lessons from Finkle.

Another example of winks between characters is the 2004 film Robot, which contains three wink sequences. Set in 2035 Chicago, Del Spooner (Will Smith) is a detective in a world where robots have become part of everyday life. Spooner is sent to investigate of Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), a researcher who developed the robots. Dr. Susan Calvin (), a psychologist who worked with Lanning and the robots, escorts Spooner to Lanning’s laboratory where a robot, Sonny

(Alan Tudyk), escapes and after a chase is apprehended.

24 Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts. 11

Sonny is being held in an interview room at the police precinct. Spooner pleads with Lieutenant John Bergin (Chi McBride) to interrogate Sonny. Spooner winks at Bergin as he takes the case file from him. As Spooner is winking in a medium close-up, the shot transitions to a point-of-view from Sonny’s perspective by zooming in on Spooner’s eye.

The clicking sound of a camera shutter along with digitally enhanced optical circles confirm Sonny’s robotic visualization of the wink. Sonny winks at Spooner and asks,

“What does this action signify? As you entered, when you looked at the other human... what does it mean?” Following Sonny’s questions, he winks again. Spooner says, “It’s a sign of trust. It’s a human thing. You wouldn’t understand.” Sonny responds, “My father tried to teach me human emotions. They are... difficult.” The initial wink by Spooner to

Bergin was unsuccessful. Ryle notes, “The wink is a failure... if anyone else spots it.”25

Sonny not only sees the wink as an unintended recipient but also does not understand the meaning. Spooner distrusts robots, and in reaction to Sonny’s interception of the wink dismisses Sonny of being capable of understanding due to not being human.

On the DVD commentary, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman states “we introduce the wink here, not just as a setup that we thought would work out pretty well at the end as a payoff, but also because this is a representation of Sonny’s inability to understand those things that are not explicit.”26 Goldsman’s comment on the setup suggests how the wink

25 Ibid. 26 Akiva Goldsman, “Commentary,” DVD, I, Robot, directed by Alex Proyas (Century City, CA: 20th Century Fox, 2008). 12

functions as a turning point, because leading up to the wink, Spooner distrusts robots and thinks they are incapable of emotion. The first wink sequence begins to change Spooner’s view about robots. Following the first wink, Spooner and Sonny work together for the remaining narrative, which opens the relationship for emotional connection.

The connection comes to fruition toward the end of the film when Sonny holds a gun to Calvin’s head to appear in league with a supercomputer that has taken control of the robots. This creates a standoff with Spooner. Sonny, in a close-up, winks at Spooner. The film cuts to Spooner, who nods his head in response to the wink performed by Sonny. The indication of the wink prompts a battle in which Sonny and Spooner fight the robots. Sonny has learned not only how to establish trust with Spooner but also the proper performance of a wink, because, as Ekman suggests, “Emblems are of special use when people cannot rely on words.”27 When surrounded by other robots, Sonny uses the wink as a tactical maneuver because using speech would give away his intention to fight with Spooner.

Ultimately, the robot threat is stopped, and Spooner winks at Sonny. The third and final wink is accompanied with a handshake from Spooner. Similar to Story, the wink punctuates of I, Robot, but it additionally serves as a bridge between human and robot emotion and the capacity for Sonny to relate more intimately with humans. Likewise, the shaking of the hand confirms how the relationship between Spooner and Sonny has come full circle. In other words, the wink graduates through the narrative, from the initial

11 Paul Ekman, “Emotional and Conversational Nonverbal Signals,” in Gesture, Speech, and Sign, eds. Lynn S. Messing and Ruth Campbell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 46. 13

dismissal of a robot being unable to understand a wink, to a robot using the wink to gain an advantage, and finally to a wink symbolizing the newfound respect between human and robot.

In the 1993 film Tombstone, directed by George P. Cosmatos, a wink takes place before the hallmark scene of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. In the film, Wyatt Earp (Kurt

Russell), Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer), and Wyatt’s two brothers Virgil (Sam Elliott) and

Morgan (Bill Paxton) go to the O.K. Corral to disarm the Cowboys. The film uses close- ups and shot reverse shots between Holliday and Billy Clanton (Thomas Hayden Church), a Cowboy, to increase the of the standoff. With tension rising, Holliday winks his right eye at Clanton, prompting Clanton to cock the hammer of his gun. Following the clicking of Clanton’s gun, Wyatt says, “Oh my God,” and the gunfight begins.

The wink precipitates the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, which is a turning point for the remainder of the film, as it leads to revenge by the Cowboys and Wyatt’s vengeful response. On the director’s commentary, Cosmatos says, “We had to find a reason how it starts. And it started because one of them heard the click of a gun. You know the click, that is how it started. But to accentuate more, we thought that maybe Val could wink at him.”28

Cosmatos acknowledges the dramatic appeal of the wink and how it adds gravity to the moment. The wink between the characters, however, is not so much a joke or secret, but an ironic twist on the standoff.

28 George P. Cosmatos, “Commentary,” director’s cut ed. DVD, , directed by George P. Cosmatos (1993; Burbank, CA: Buena Vista Pictures, 2002). 14

The OED definition of irony is “a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.”29 In Tombstone, the wink is ironic because it is a peculiar action that is in contrast to the standoff with violence in the air. Nichols writes, “Irony betrays the promise that language, visual or written, will speak cogently and unambiguously. It abandons us on unstable ground. But recognized for what it is, irony incorporates the recipient into its fold as a fellow participant in a play with form.”30 What Nichols suggests about irony can be mapped onto the Tombstone wink. On the thinnest level, the wink is a contraction of Holliday’s eyelid. On another level, the wink destabilizes the consequences of the standoff by making light of the event. On yet another level, the viewer of Tombstone is invited into the fold of the sequence as the wink plays ironically with the cinematic form of one of the more famous Western gunfights. The wink in this representational account is visually ambiguous because the wink is performed contrary to the seriousness of the event.

In season seven of , the fourth episode, “The Wink,” revolves around twitches and winks. Jerry (), Elaine (Julia Louis Dreyfus), and George (Jason

Alexander) are in a restaurant when Jerry’s grapefruit squirts into George’s left eye, which stings and irritates him. Cut to Yankee Stadium where George works: Wilhelm (Richard

Herd), George’s manager, asks if something is wrong with Morgan (Tom Wright), who has

29 Oxford English Dictionary online, s.v. “irony,” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/irony [accessed June 6, 2017]. Nichols, Speaking Truths with Film, 167. 15

been coming in late to work. George says, “No, not that I know of,’’ while his left eye twitches. Wilhelm sees the twitch and thinks it is a wink, understanding this to be nonverbal confirmation from George indicating something is wrong with Morgan. Wilhelm says, “If there’s a problem with Morgan you can tell me.” George responds, “Morgan? No. He’s doing a great job,” twitching again. Wilhelm says, “I understand.” Ryle notes, “A mere twitch, on the other hand, is neither a failure nor a success; it has no intended recipient; it is not meant to be unwitnessed by anybody; it carries no message.”31 Wilhelm misunderstands the involuntary twitch as a wink. Wilhelm was the recipient of a message from George the unaware signaler.

Later, in Jerry’s apartment, George begins twitching, and Elaine asks, “What is your problem?” George responds, “No problem here,” twitching again. Elaine says, “You keep winking at me. That’s really obnoxious.” George says, “I had no idea,” twitching again. Elaine points at George saying, “Right there. Right there. You just did it again.”

George realizes the twitching is from the grapefruit and Wilhelm must have misunderstood the twitch to be a wink. Elaine chuckles and asks, “What did he think, you were flirting with him?” Elaine’s comment on flirtation is, for Ekman and Friesen, one of the emblematic messages the eye-wink can signal.32 The subject of flirtation is immediately tamped down when George responds, “No, he thought I was hiding something from him

31 Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts. IT Ekman and Friesen, 12. 16

about Morgan.” Yet mentioning the wink signaling flirtation does present a thicker description of how winking can be interpreted as an act of intimacy.

Kramer (Michael Richards) enters Jerry’s apartment and notices an envelope

George brought that contains a card with famous Yankee baseball players’ signatures.

Kramer asks if he can show it to his friend who pays for autographs. George says, “Yeah, like I’m going to risk my job with the New York Yankees to make a few extra bucks,” twitching again. Kramer says, “No, of course not,” turning to Elaine and Jerry and winking at them. The same idea of the twitch being misunderstood for a wink is echoed; however, this time Kramer has taken the miscommunication and performed his own joking wink at

Elaine and Jerry.

Later, George goes to Kramer for the card. Kramer gives George the envelope and says, “You’ll be pleased to see what’s inside.” George pulls out money and says, “Who told you to sell the card?” Kramer says, “You did.” George replies, “No, I didn’t.” Kramer says, “No, not in so many words but I believe we had an understanding,” and he winks at

George. Getting frustrated, George responds, “I was not winking you idiot. That was the grapefruit. It’s like acid. I need that card back.” Ryle notes, “The winker can tell what he was trying to do; the twitcher will deny that he was trying to do anything.”33 After Kramer confirms the card has been sold, George says, “Well get it back. It’s very important,” twitching again. Kramer says, “Look, do you want me to get it back or not?” George uses

33 Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts. 17

his hands to hold both of his eyes open and screams, “Get it back.” George holding his eyes open is a precaution against miscommunicating with a twitch or a wink and a comedic interjection on the consequences of misunderstanding a facial emblematic message.

Later George tells Jerry he will be recommended for a promotion because Morgan was late again. Jerry says, “It sounds like all the winking got you a promotion.” Jerry refers to all the twitching as winking. Ryle notes, “There might be no telling which contraction, if either, was a wink, or which if either were a mere twitch.”34 Ryle’s suggestion is essentially the main thrust behind the entire episode, a comedy of nonverbal errors. Ryle continues, “Yet there remains the immense but unphotographable difference between a twitch and a wink.”35 “The Wink” uncovers many comedic differences of the pitfalls of miscommunication and nonverbal messages.

A different television show that plays with wink messages is “Nudge Nudge,” the final sketch in the third episode, “How to Recognize Different Types of Trees from Quite a Long Way Away,” from the first season of Flying Circus. The sketch begins with Norman (Eric Idle) sitting close to a man (Terry Jones) in a pub. Norman is asking about the man’s wife, and the questions take the form of innuendo to disguise

Norman’s nervousness about the subject of sex. Shaun Tray describes innuendo as “a hint or sly, usually derogatory, remark or an insinuation.”36 Norman hints and insinuates about

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Shaun Tray, “What Are You Suggesting? Interpreting Innuendo Between ASL and English” in Attitudes, Innuendo, and Regulators: Challenges o f Interpretation, eds., Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood 18

the subject of sex until the man states, “I’m sorry, I don’t quite follow you.” Norman responds, “Follow me. Follow me. I like that. That’s good. A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?” As Norman is speaking he leans forward and winks at the man in secret several times. Ekman notes that “when used with speech [emblems] can either add a second layer to , or emphasize and make the spoken words more interesting.”37

Here, innuendo takes Ekman’s note a step further. Norman’s speech is the first layer; the speech, being innuendo, adds a secondary layer; and a wink being performed adds a third layer. The wink, however, undercuts the speech by hinting that the speech is a hint.

Tray writes about the consequences of tampering with innuendo:

Following innuendo with the tag “if you know what I mean,” undermines the intent of the form. It is a linguistic rim shot. The speaker avoids being taken literally, but as a conversation style, the technique leaves him looking like the stereotype of a bad stand-up act, “Hey, these are the jokes, folks.” One need only look to the Monty Python sketch in which the character follows up each utterance with a vocalized stream of markers—“wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, very good then”—to see the backlash of revealing the implication.38

Therefore, the backlash, as Trey suggests, arrives at the end of the sketch when the man bluntly asks, “Are you insinuating something?” This drives Norman to reveal his implications by asking, “Have you ever slept with a lady?” When the man responds in the affirmative, Norman finally gets to his ultimate intention by asking, “What’s it like?”

(Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2005), 96. Ekman, “Emotional and Conversational Nonverbal Signals,” 46. 38 Tray, “What Are You Suggesting,” 107-108. 19

Norman’s last question concludes the sketch and functions as the punchline because the innuendo is finally removed after the man questions the underlying insinuations.

“Nudge Nudge” features a character not understanding a wink or speech masked in sexual innuendo. This complicates the visual experience of the wink, because not only is the code of the wink not recognized, the speech code is also misunderstood. Further complication arises when the signaler is communicating with one intention and the perceived or recognized behavior is lost on the recipient. Ryle writes, “The wink is a failure if its intended recipient does not see it; or sees it but does not know or forgets the code; or misconstrues it.”39 Only after suspicions about the nature of the questions leads to a direct question and recognition of the confusion does the innuendo lift and the characters simply address the sex question. The failure of the verbal and nonverbal code results in the viewer’s pleasure at the interplay between the two characters locating what the wink was pointing to from the beginning.

Direct Wink at the Viewer

The second categorization of the cinematic wink investigates direct winks at the viewer. These winks are distinguished by a signaler, a character in screen media, performing a wink at a camera, thereby presenting the wink to the recipient, which is the viewer. A cluster this style of winks share is that they operate in the fifth segment of off­

39 Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts. 20

screen space proposed by Noel Burch.40 David Forgacs describes the fifth segment as “the space in front of the frame, in other words the space behind the camera in filming and occupied by the spectator during screening.”41 The direct wink at the viewer essentially breaks the fourth wall through direct address, thereby generating interaction with the viewer. The winks in the scenes being analyzed represent several performable actions such as conspiracy, parody, affection, and commentary. Likewise, similar to the first category, some winks function as turning points, yet the direct winks are performed differently because the viewer is directly involved through the address of the wink.

The 1997 film Funny Games, directed by , is about two young men,

Paul (Amo Frisch) and Peter (Frank Giering) who terrorize the Schober family. The terror takes the form of gameplay when Anna Schober () begins searching for what Paul hit earlier with a golf club. Paul is assisting in the game with Anna by indicating hot or cold relative to her closeness to finding what was hit. A shot of Anna in the background near an automobile rack focuses to Paul in the foreground when he enters

40 “Screen space can be defined very simply as including everything perceived on the screen by the eye. Off­ screen space is more complex, however. It is divided into six “segments”: The immediate confines of the first four of these areas are determined by the four borders of the frame, and correspond to the four faces of an imaginary truncated pyramid projected into the surrounding space, a description that obviously is something of a simplification. A fifth segment cannot be defined with the same seeming geometric precision, yet no one will deny that there is an off-screen space “behind the camera” that is quite distinct from the four segments of space bordering the frame line, although the characters in the film generally reach this space by passing just to the right or left of the camera. There is a sixth segment, finally, encompassing the space existing behind the set or some object in it.” Noel Burch, Theory o f Practice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 17. 41 David Forgacs, “Antonioni: Space, Place, Sexuality,” in Spaces in European Cinema, ed. Myrto Konstantarakos (Exeter: Intellect Books, 2000), 106. 21

screen right. Paul, in a close-up, looks directly into the camera and winks at the viewer.

The shot rack focuses back to Anna opening the automobile door to reveal the family dog falling out lifelessly.

Haneke states in an interview, “The killer communicates with the viewer. That means he makes him an accomplice. I’m making the viewer an accomplice of the killer.”42

Tarja Laine draws a similar conclusion when she writes that “the audience functions as an accomplice to the torture of the Schobers... we are ‘playing the game’ on the wrong side, together with the killers.”43 Similarly, Tom Brown suggests the wink “seeks to make us complicit in the first of the villain’s ‘funny games.’”44 Alex Gerbaz considers “the most disturbing moment in Funny Games, however, is not an act of violence but rather the conspiratorial wink that Paul directs at the audience.”45 The conspiracy embedded in the wink negates traditional narrative structure by inviting the viewer into the cinematic game.

The invitation therefore implicates the viewer because the decision to wink through direct address opens up the communicative possibility.

Haneke’s 2007 fdm Funny Games, an English-language of the Austrian original, offers a variation on the wink sequence. The narrative of the remake is similar, as

42 Michael Haneke, “Interview,” DVD, Funny Games, directed by Michael Haneke (New York City, NY: Kino Lorber, 2008). 43 Tarja Laine, “Haneke’s “Funny” Games with the Audience (Revisited),” in On Michael Haneke, eds. Brian Price and John David Rhodes, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010), 57. 44 Tom Brown, Breaking the Fourth Wall: Direct Address in the Cinema (Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press, 2013), 25. 45 Alex Gerbaz, “The Ethical Screen: Funny Games and the Spectacle of Pain, “in The Cinema of Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia, eds. Ben McCann and David Sorfa, (London: Wallflower Press, 2011), 163. 22

is the sequence of the search game for what was hit with a golf club. In a shot reminiscent of the original, Ann () is near an automobile in the background. Paul (Michael

Pitt) enters screen right and the shot rack focuses to a close-up of him in the foreground.

Paul looks into the camera and smirks at the viewer. The shot rack focuses back to Ann discovering the dead dog in the automobile. While not a wink, the remake uses a similar emblem, a direct smirk at the viewer.

There are many levels of thickness to unpack in both Haneke’s versions of Funny

Games. On one level, the smirk is a signal performed by Paul, breaking the fourth wall by directly acknowledging the viewer. On another level is Paul’s knowledge about the dead dog, which manifests as a preemptive smirk at the viewer in anticipation for what he already knows will be found. On yet another level, the smirk signals to a knowing viewer familiar with the original fdm, for both Paul and the viewer know how the game will end.

A further level is Haneke smirking through Paul at the previous version of the same film.

In other words, Haneke is playing with parody and irony through both his . Linda

Hutchinson writes, “Both irony and parody operate on two levels—a primary, surface, or foreground; and a secondary, implied, or backgrounded one. But the latter, in both cases, derives meaning from the context in which it is found.”46

The context for the parody in the remake is Haneke’s previous version made ten years earlier. The shots using the rack focus are similar in construction, which opens a

46 Linda Hutcheon, A Theory o f Parody: The Teachings o f Twentieth-Century Art Forms (New York: Methuen, 1985), 34, 23

dialogue between the two versions. The original is not only winking at the viewer: Haneke, as it turns out, is winking at his remake. In turn, the remake is smirking not only at the viewer but Haneke is also smirking back at his original film. Thus, Haneke’s parody derives meaning from an awareness of the primary film, which must be understood to understand the context of the remake. The irony of the wink and smirk is located in the black humor involved with the deliberately contrary behavior of winking and smirking about the predetermined dead dog being the prize of a successful game. So, this, as Ryle might suggest, is a “many layered sandwich”47 that directly involves the viewer.

A direct wink at the viewer is also represented in ’s music video for the song “Love,” directed by Rich Lee. In the music video, an extreme close-up of Del

Rey’s closed eyelid is in black and white. While zooming in, Del Rey’s eyelid opens and her pupil, iris, and sclera transition to color, with a Milky Way constellation mapped within the structure of her eye. The music video shifts into science fiction, with automobiles and young adults floating through outer space. Moments later, Del Rey is framed in a close-up, the tips of her shoulders shrug, and she winks her left eye directly at the viewer. Del Rey follows the wink with a wide smile. The music video then cuts to Del Rey performing on the surface of the moon.

Del Rey’s wink is a playful turning point that ushers in the fantasy of the science fiction theme by inviting the viewer to take pleasure in the dreamlike shift. The wink

47 Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts. 24

introduces an affectionate connection to the viewer. Christian Huck, Jens Kiefer, and

Carsten Schinko argue “no form of mass mediated art has ever spoken to its recipients more directly than the music video—through the figure of address.”48 Support for this argument is evident in the more than 87 million views of Del Rey’s music video on YouTube 49

Moreover, screens such as televisions, computers, phones, and tablets illustrate the variety of ways viewers interact with the direct address in music video content.

Huck et al. suggest the music video “gives the personal, intimate address of the public song a visible, appealing face: other than in the cinema situation, the audience can not merely observe such intimacies, but is addressed intimately and becomes part of an intimate configuration.”50 Del Rey’s wink takes the intimate address a step further with her use of emblems. Ekman states,

Emblems most often involve the hands, but some are performed using the shoulders, changes in head positioning, or facial movements. Emblems are typically performed in a “presentation position”: directly in front of the performer, between the waist and the head. They usually have a staccato or punctuated appearance, with a sudden beginning and ending. The performer is as aware of using an emblem as he or she is of the words being spoken.51

48 Christian Huck, Jens Kiefer, and Carsten Schinko, “A ‘Bizarre Love Triangle:’ Pop Clips, Figures of Address and the Listening Spectator,” in Characters in Fictional Worlds: Understanding Imaginary Beings in Literature, Film, and Other Media, eds. Jens Eder, Fotis Jannidis, and Ralf Schneider (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 298. 49 Lana Del Rey, “Love,” YouTube video, 4:54, posted by “LanaDelReyVEVO,” February 20, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-NTv0CdFCk&list=RDMM3-NTv0CdFCk&index=l. 50 Huck et al., 294. 51 Ekman, “Emotional and Conversational Nonverbal Signals,” 46. 25

Del Rey’s sings, “Don’t worry, baby,” moments before the emblematic shrug, wink, and smile. Del Rey is signaling both with the emblems and lyric to the viewer not to be worried about the shifting of the music video. On another level, the emblems are signaling an awareness of the changes and through direct address invites the viewer to come along for the ride and take pleasure in the whimsical nature of the music video and the intimacy of

Del Rey’s affection.

The 2012 film Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie, directed by Tim Heidecker and

Eric Wareheim, features five wink sequences, the majority of which are direct winks at the viewer. The film opens with a title card stating, “The following is a paid advertisement for

Schlaaang Incorporated.” Chef Goldblum (Jeff Goldblum) walks onto a set and begins talking about the Schlaaang Super Seat, a special movie-watching chair. The end of the sequence has Goldblum in a medium close-up as he winks at the viewer. A ringing sound effect is heard as his eyelid closes, and the shot becomes a freeze frame once the eyelid is down. The ringing accentuation and the freezing of the image both showcase the importance and purposeful inclusion of the direct wink at the viewer. The wink itself is the first clue about what will be many more instances of direct interaction with the viewer.

Following the infomercial, a voice-over announcer states, “Audience: please stare directly at the center of the screen for Super Seat calibration.” The film is playing as if the viewer is in a Super Seat. The face of a man ( Ross) appears in the center of the screen.

The announcer continues, “Close your left eye. Now rapidly open and close your left eye.” 26

The man follows the command as his left eyelid opens and closes in rapid succession. The same process is repeated with the right eye. This is the second wink sequence, and similar to the first, a clicking sound effect accompanies each wink. Beyond the directness, the winks are an instruction performed to engage the viewer to participate in the winking. On one level, the direct wink introduces interaction with the viewer, while on another level, the constructed wink is playing with the visual process inherent to cinema viewership.

The narrative begins by detailing how Tim (Tim Heidecker) and Eric (Eric

Wareheim) were given a billion dollars by Schlaaang to make a movie. Tim and Eric were only able to make a three-minute movie; therefore, Schlaaang is suing them for the billion dollars. While relieving stress at a bar, Tim and Eric watch a commercial on a small television screen. In the commercial, Damien Weebs (Will Ferrell), the owner of S’wallow

Valley Mall, is looking for one or possibly two men to run his mall and make a billion dollars. Weebs, explaining how easy it is to make a billion dollars, lowers a pair of sunglasses and winks his right eye. The third wink is performed through a screen between characters. The commercial, however, occupies the entire screen, with the viewer in the position of Tim and Eric. Therefore, the wink further functions as a direct wink at the viewer. The third wink sequence also has a sound effect accompaniment, which, along with the sunglasses being lowered, reveals the wink as a contradiction of the potential billion- dollar earnings. Moreover, the directness of the wink signals to the viewer an acknowledgement of the absurdity at play, a theme that continues throughout the narrative. 27

Tim and Eric leave the bar and discuss the possibility of running the mall. While brainstorming how this can be accomplished, they look upward, and their business ideas become visualized graphics in the sky. At one point a man appears in these visuals and winks at Tim and Eric. This fourth wink also has a sound effect that is perhaps an additional hint Tim and Eric are engaging in a visual pie-in-the-sky business strategy. The wink has become a running gag that is directly communicating with the viewer about the absurdist structure of this cinematic project.

The fifth and final wink sequence takes place when Tim and Eric arrive at the mall and meet with Weebs for an interview. Tim mentions the billion dollars and Weebs responds, “Oh, ’s coming,” winking his right eye. A clicking sound effect accompanies the wink. Wareheim notes on the DVD commentary, “We worked on this wink sound effect a lot. We went through maybe five or six different sound effect options.”52 Wareheim confirms the directorial decision making regarding the sound effect, which confirms the importance placed on the winks in the film. Eric asks, “Did you wink there?” Weebs suggests there is nothing to worry about, they are going to make a billion running the mall, winking again. Tim acknowledges the wink, and Weebs finds it hard to believe he winked again. Ryle notes, “The winker could not know that he was winking.”53 Tim indicates both he and Eric saw the wink, suggesting, “I don’t know if it is

52 Eric Wareheim, “Commentary,” Tim & E r i c ’sBillion Dollar Movie, DVD, directed by Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim (Los Angeles, CA: Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2012). 53 Ryle, The Thinking o f Thoughts. 28

some kind of reflexive thing.” Tim asks Weebs if he can hold both his eyes open with his hands. Weebs pulls the skin of his cheeks down, and while confirming they will make a billion dollars, he winks again. Tim says, “You’re winking through it.” Tim and Eric consult with each other and decide to run the mall despite the winking.

The final wink sequence is a turning point because Tim and Eric’s decision to ignore the wink sets up the remaining narrative of failing in their business venture of managing the mall. On one level, the final winks are between characters. On another level, the winks are adjacent to direct winks at the viewer because of the deconstruction of the wink through dialogue. During the final wink sequence, Eric says to Weebs, “No wink, just say the line and keep the eyes wide open.” To be sure, the line can refer to the line

Weebs has been saying in the narrative, but it also can point to the actor reading the line without winking. The discussion of the wink while winks are being performed upends the foundation of the secretive purpose of a wink. In so doing, Heidecker and Wareheim are not only making fun of their characters’ absurdity in the narrative but also the absurdity they are crafting as directors of the film. Therefore, the final and preceding wink sequences can be thickly described as explicit winks at the viewer about not only the film’s absurdist narrative but also as a commentary on the film as an absurd cinematic project.

Wink by the Director

The third and final categorization of the cinematic wink is wink by the director. 29

These winks are similar to the direct wink because the wink is aimed at the viewer.

However, in this instance, they are distinguished by the director being the signaler. To be sure, a product of screen media is an endeavor that involves many people. Moreover, the wink is metaphorical because it is constructed through formal cinematic practices that involve cinematography, editing, sound editing, and stage blocking. However, the examples in this section consider the director the central figure behind the overall function and construction of the metaphorical wink. The winks by the director involve several performable actions such as signaling, commentary, homage, and greeting. The winks in this cluster are similar because they hint at how the convention of cinema can envelop the viewer into the fold by intellectually winking through form.

Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1975 film The Passenger is about journalist David

Locke () who takes on the identity of David Robertson (Charles Mulvehill), a traveler who died in a hotel where Locke is staying. Locke keeps Robertson’s appointments, and while waiting in Barcelona, he has a conversation with an older man who says, “One day, very far from here.” The film jump cuts to documentary footage of an execution. After the execution, it becomes clear the footage is being screened in an editing suite on a moviola by Locke’s producer Martin Knight () and wife Rachel Locke

(). In the narrative, Locke is thought to be dead, and Knight is editing material in Locke’s portfolio for a remembrance video. The sequence of the execution footage and the following scene in the editing suite contain Antonioni’s metaphorical winks 30

at the viewer.

The jump cut from Barcelona to the execution footage is Antonioni’s first wink.

The jump cut not only changes the temporal space from one location to another, it also changes the visual aesthetic. The execution footage is grainy and exhibits unstable camera work, in stark contrast to the polished and composed style before the cut. The execution footage depicts three riflemen aiming and firing into an African man in a long shot. As they fire the rounds, the man being executed is on the left side of the frame, while the riflemen occupy the foreground. After the gunfire, the camera zooms to a medium shot of the victim as his head drops to his chest. The camera is jostling around as another round of gunfire makes the victim convulse. The shot concentrates on the dying victim as the sound of film running out of a reel becomes audible. The sound effect of film running out is Antonioni’s second wink. A final round is fired and the shot abruptly cuts from widescreen to a full screen image on a moviola in Knight’s editing suite. The cut from widescreen to full screen is Antonioni’s third wink.

Antonioni’s first wink, the jump cut from the narrative involving Locke to the execution footage, involves a transition from fiction to nonfiction. Libby Saxton describes the execution as “documentary footage of undisclosed provenance.”54 Saxton, along with other scholars, considers the footage Antonioni uses to be authentic documentary footage.55

54 Libby Saxton, “Ethics, Spectatorship and the Spectacle of Suffering,” in Ethics: Foreclosed Encounters, Lisa Downing and Libby Saxton (New York: Routledge, 2010), 72. 55 References of the footage being authentic, see: Seymour Chatman, Antonioni: Or The Surface o f the World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 192., Ned Rifkin, Antonioni's Visual Language (Ann 31

The jump from fiction to nonfictional documentary is the only cut that functions this way in the narrative. The cut is challenging because the footage is an actual execution inserted into a fiction film. Steve F. Anderson argues, “Viewing a found footage film invites us to engage in a doubled reading that juggles the disparate temporal registers suggested by the footage, as well as the varied authorial functions.”56 The wink from Antonioni is complex because there is no temporal context for the cut. Antonioni’s authorial decision to use the found footage, invites, as Anderson suggests, a double reading of what the footage is and how it has been appropriated.

Antonioni’s second wink of the sound of the film running out and third wink of the cut from widescreen to full screen both signal to the editing process of cinema. The second wink is an audible cue that disrupts the footage being viewed, because as the footage is representing a victim coming to his end, the sound of the film running out signals that the film is also ending. The synchronicity of these two moments are complicated further by the third wink because the cut happens as the final gunshot is fired. As the victim is dealt a final death shot, the startling sound of gunfire is accompanied by a simultaneous visually startling cut that minimizes the footage to the moviola screen. The third wink jostles the viewer by thrusting the temporal location of the footage into the narrative space of the

Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1982), 189., Peter Brunette, The Films (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 140-141., William Arrowsmith, Antonioni: The Poet of Images (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 164., Murray Pomerance, Michelangelo Red Antonioni Blue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 219. 56 Steve F. Anderson, Technologies o f History: Visual Media and the Eccentricity o f the Past (Hanover: Dartmouth College Press, 2011), 69. 32

editing suite.

Following the third wink, the execution footage is now playing on the moviola in the editing suite. The moviola is centrally located in the middle ground, with Knight and

Rachel in the foreground viewing the execution footage. After the final gunshot, Rachel stands up abruptly. Physically disturbed by the footage, she walks into the background behind the moviola. Knight says, “I am sorry, I didn’t mean to upset you.” Knight’s line of dialogue is Antonioni’s fourth wink. Thomas Allen Nelson describes the editing suite as a space that “provides Antonioni an opportunity for ironic comment on the similarities between factual and fictional filmmaking.”57 The irony is that Antonioni is not actually sorry—the footage is used in the film on purpose. The thinnest level of the wink is Knight’s apology to Rachel for not warning her about the execution within the narrative. On another level, Knight is commenting on the upsetting nature of the factual footage. On yet another level, Knight’s apology is ironically directed toward the viewer because the execution is unsettling, and the conscious decision to use it all signals that Antonioni is of sorry.

The fifth wink is Knight using the editing machine to freeze the image of the dying victim on the moviola immediately after his apology. Antonioni’s freeze wink remains visible in the frame of the shot through the conclusion of the film-editing scene. Even as the camera pans back and forth, the execution footage is always in the middle ground as a

57 Thomas Allen Nelson, “ The Passenger: Antonioni’s Cinema of Escape,” in Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, Vol. 31. No. 4 (Autumn, 1977), 208. 33

constant reminder of what transpired. Antonioni’s decision to freeze the activity of the dying man points to what he suggests is a “spine chilling”58 reaction. Ultimately, all of

Antonioni’s screen winks signal to the viewer with a strategy that is intellectually grounded in playing with cinematic form and filmmaking practices.

Another film that offers winks from the director at the viewer is Benny’s Video, directed by Michael Haneke and released in 1992. The film is about Benny (Amo Frisch), a teenager who occupies much of his time with watching and making videos. Benny’s Video opens with a homemade video of a pig being walked through a doorway into an outdoor space. A captive bolt pistol is positioned on the forehead of the pig and fired. The pig drops to the ground. The hand-held camera follows the final moments of the pig convulsing on the ground as the video stops in a freeze frame. The freeze frame is Haneke’s first wink.

The video is rewound with audible sounds of the video being reversed to the point before the pig is shot. The rewinding and sound effect of the video being rewound is Haneke’s second wink. After the video is rewound, another freeze frame of the pig occupies the screen. The second frozen image is Haneke’s third wink. The video begins again, but this time the sequence is in slow motion. The slow-motion effect is Haneke’s fourth wink.

Again, the captive bolt pistol is applied to the pig’s forehead. The second running of the sequence features the distorted sound of the audio in slow motion. The distorted sound heightens the dramatic event as the viewer now waits with close attention for the shot to

58 Michelangelo Antonioni, The Architecture o f Vision: Writing and Interviews on Cinema, (New York: Marsilio Publishers, 1996), 178. 34

be fired. The distorted sound is Haneke’s fifth wink. The video cuts to white noise, and the title “Benny’s Video” appears on screen.

Later in the narrative, Benny meets Evi (Stephanie Brehme) outside a video store and invites her to his apartment. In Benny’s bedroom, on a monitor screen, the pig video from the opening of the film is playing. The shot of the monitor screen is taken from the perspective of where Benny and Evi are situated in the bedroom. The video is playing as the captive bolt pistol strikes the pig. The film cuts to Evi in a medium shot, establishing she is watching the video. The film cuts to Benny, also in a medium shot. The next shot is

Benny’s hand holding a remote control. Benny presses the rewind button. The film cuts back to the monitor screen as the video is being rewound. The sound effect of a video being rewound up to the moment before the pig is shot is audible. The video stops in a momentary freeze frame as the video is now playing in slow motion. The pig is shot, and the image on the monitor goes to static snow. While this sequence is taking place, Benny explains he filmed the sequence.

Haneke’s winks from the opening are echoed in the second viewing of the pig video. Mattias Frey writes, “It is ultimately Haneke who enjoys the position of Benny.”59

If, as Frey suggests, Benny is a surrogate for Haneke, the inclusion of the remote control in the second viewing points toward how the cinematic form is controlled by the director.

59 Mattias Frey, “Supermodemity, Sick Eros and the Video Narcissus: Benny’s Video in the Course o f Theory and Time,” in The Cinema o f Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia, eds. Ben McCann and David Sorfa, (London: Wallflower Press, 2011), 158-159. 35

Catherine Wheatley has described how in Haneke’s work “the spectator becomes aware of the film as a construct—the product of a director.”60 In Benny’s Video, Haneke is demonstrating how the film is a construct through his metaphorical winks at the viewer.

On another level, the winks all revolve around the construction of the pig video. Michael

Lawrence noted, “The inclusion of documentary footage showing real animal death ruptures the coherence of the fictional narrative representation.”61 Haneke’s usage of the pig video, similar to Antonioni’s usage of the execution footage, demonstrates an additional level of rupturing the narrative coherence of the fictional world. The winks function as an intellectual commentary on how cinema is crafted by winking formally to the construction of the pig video, which makes the viewer aware of the construct.

Another wink by a director is in the 2007 film The Bourne Ultimatum, directed by

Paul Greengrass. The film is about Jason Bourne (), an assassin searching for his identity while suffering from amnesia. In a pivotal scene, Bourne is chasing the assassin

Paz (Edgar Ramirez), who descends into the London subway. Bourne follows and is left on the platform while Paz escapes in a subway car. This sequence is similar to William

Friedkin’s 1971 film The French Connection, in which Detective Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle

() follows heroin smuggler Alain Chamier (Fernando Rey) into the New

60 Catherine Wheatley, “Domestic Invasion: Michael Haneke and Home Audiences,” in The Cinema o f Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia, eds. Ben McCann and David Sorfa, (London: Wallflower Press, 2011), 10- 11. 61 Michael Lawrence, “Haneke’s Stable: The Death of an Animal and the Figuration of the Human,” in On Michael Haneke, eds. Brian Price and John David Rhodes (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010), 72. 36

York City subway. Doyle is left on the platform as Chamier escapes, waving goodbye through a window as car leaves.

On the DVD director’s commentary, Greengrass states,

This sequence of course, it’s got more than a wink at, probably the greatest action and adventure film of all time, French Connection, one of my favorite films. The wink gets a bit heavy at this point. But its good, because its Bourne face to face with his nemesis, and the stage is set then of course for the rest of the film.62

What Greengrass calls a wink is an homage. The viewer, to recognize the wink, must be familiar with Friedkin’s film to notice the similarities. Greengrass is paying homage by metaphorically winking at Friedkin’s film. If the viewer is unaware of the earlier film, the wink will not be recognized as a hidden message. Writing about Argentine

Maria Luisa Bemberg, Claire Taylor analyzes how the opening of Luis Bunuel’s Belle de

Jour shares similarities with Bemberg’s film Camila. Taylor argues the citation of Bunuel’s film sets up what Bemberg calls “winks at the audience.”63 Like Greengrass, Bemberg is purposefully using elements from other films by calling them winks. Both Greengrass and

Bemberg naming a wink as their rationale proves useful because it points to the decision making necessary to accomplish the formal construction of their directorial intent, whether citation or homage.

62 , “Commentary,” DVD, The Bourne , directed by Paul Greengrass (Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures, 2007). 63 Claire Taylor, “Maria Luisa Bemberg Winks at the Audience: Performativity and Citation in Camila and Yo la Peor de To das," in Latin American Cinema: Essays on , Gender and National Identity, eds. Lisa Shaw and Stephanie Dennison (Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2005), 117. 37

The last example of a wink by a director is from the television shows Peaks and : The Return. The finale of Twin , season two, “Beyond Life and

Death,” was directed by . In the episode, Special Agent (Kyle

Mac Lachlan), who has been trying to solve the murder of () from the beginning of the series, enters an alternative dimension called the Black Lodge. Palmer appears and says, “Hello, Agent Cooper.” Palmer’s speech is distorted; according to John

Richardson, “actors spoke their lines and acted backwards when recording their parts.

These clips are then played back in reverse making them just about comprehensible to the attentive listener; with the use of subtitles they are made fully comprehensible.”64 Palmer winks in a medium shot after her greeting. A cut to Cooper in a medium-shot and a cut back to Palmer establishes an eye-line match. The wink is a greeting performed by signaler

Palmer, with Cooper the recipient. Following the wink, Palmer looks toward Cooper and says, “I’ll see you again in twenty-five years.” The season two finale aired June 10, 1991, and Twin Peaks: The Return premiered on May 21, 2017, twenty-five years and eleven months later.

At of the original airing, Palmer’s wink was ominous and strange, but with the return of the series, the wink resonates differently. All eighteen episodes of Twin Peaks:

The Return are directed by Lynch. The first episode, titled “,” begins by replaying

64 John Richardson, “ Laura and Twin Peaks: Postmodern Parody and the Musical Reconstruction of the Absent Femme Fatale,” in The Cinema o f David Lynch: American Dreams, Nightmare Visions, eds. Erica Sheen and Annette Davison (London: Wallflower Press, 2004), 88. 38

the wink sequence between Palmer and Cooper described above. On one level, the wink sequence serves as a reminder of what happened in the previous season’s finale. On other levels, Lynch’s decision to open the new season with the wink sequence signals the importance of the wink for not only the characters in the narrative but also the viewer. The wink recalls attention to the performance of the wink by Palmer. The wink, due to its placement at the beginning of Twin Peaks: The Return, becomes a form of communication that reemerges in the third season.

In “Part 2,” the second episode of Twin Peaks: The Return, Cooper is in the Black

Lodge in the same room from twenty-five years ago. Palmer arrives in and sits across from Cooper. The staging is similar, and because the time frame is both temporally and literally twenty-five years later, the characters have both aged accordingly. After

Palmer sits, she double winks both her eyelids in a medium shot. It cuts to Cooper in a medium shot and then cuts back to Palmer. She says, “Hello, Agent Cooper,” double winking again in the middle of the greeting. Palmer’s speech is distorted, and subtitles are used in the same manner as the previous winking sequence from season two.

The wink sequences in seasons two and three operate across all three categorizations of the cinematic wink. The winking is assuredly between the two characters of Palmer and Cooper, as demonstrated by the cinematic shot reverse shots and stage blocking. The winking sequences also function as direct winks at the viewer due in part to the accuracy of Palmer’s statement: “I’ll see you again in twenty-five years.” To be sure, 39

the statement refers to Palmer seeing Cooper again. However, the statement follows

Palmer’s wink, so in this sense the wink can possibly also function as a visual message that the statement is hinting directly to the viewer. Therefore, the “you” in the statement can additionally be read as the viewer. This alternative description gains traction from the placement of the first wink sequence at the start of the third season and the double winking in “Part 2.” The double wink can be thought of as an acknowledgement of the first single wink from twenty-five years earlier. The interval between the single and double wink contains the assertion of seeing the viewer again, thereby opening the possibility of the statement and wink communicating directly to the viewer.

Lastly, the winking sequences function as winks by the director. Lynch’s wink sequences call attention to the process of creating a cinematic scene by purposefully distorting the speech and inserting subtitles as a visual guide for the viewer. These winks are signaling how the show is constructed formally with editing, sound editing, and acting.

While Palmer is seated in “Part 2,” she double winks a total of twelve times. Each instance of the double wink is noticeable because the movement of both eyelids contracting is visually altered by the footage being played in reverse. The effect of this decision by Lynch results in an unnatural looking human action. By editing the footage in reverse, the winking calls even more attention to itself because the reversal of the contraction of the eyelids visually looks strange and manipulated. This manipulation is underscored by the dialogue being played in reverse and the subtitles inserted at the bottom of the screen frame. The 40

repeating of the double wink twelve times continually calls attention to Lynch’s decision to construct the winking sequences in such a way that signals to viewers they are viewing a construction. The winks function not just as forms of nonverbal communication but also as metaphorical winks that hint at the process of manipulating the content of cinematic form. In many ways, Lynch’s decisions are similar to Haneke’s Funny Games wink and smirk. Lynch is controlling his own footage and creating a dialogue between his two shows and the viewer through the unnatural contortion of a reverse wink.

Conclusion

This investigation suggests a framework for understanding how cinematic winks can operate as a phenomenon of screen media communication. Common to the functionality of all the cinematic winks is that they are seen by the viewer. If a wink is between two characters, the viewer must see it to share in the hidden nature of the act.

Similarly, when a character directly winks at the viewer, the wink must be seen to be acknowledged. The wink by the director likewise involves seeing the metaphorical wink.

All the winks fail if they are not seen. Another way of thinking about communication via winking is if the wink is at least seen, some understanding can result. Before the message is even attempted to be described or deciphered, the physicality of the wink must be performed, and it must be seen for there to be even an attempt at understanding. The act of seeing the wink is the most important condition before venturing to understand what the 41

wink can mean or not mean. Every performable action that can possibly arise to explain the meaning of or intention behind a wink is lost if there is failure to see the wink.

If the wink is indeed seen, the process of decoding the meaning of the wink can begin. Nichols writes, “When a film or message winks to undercut the very thing it’s saying, or the implied frame for what it’s saying, excess arises.”65 Excess is in effect what a wink creates. The aim to thickly describe some of the excess from the examples of cinematic winks assisted in locating some of the possible levels of meaning. No doubt other meanings can be crafted and argued from the same examples. Perhaps a drawback of thickly describing something is that it seems to be an endless process. Yet, the process of recognizing a contracting eyelid has elements that can be parsed out by logically accumulating evidence and support for a rational description. The excess can become quite thick, but locating the undercurrents that can result from deconstructing the various wink descriptions allows for the many ways winks can inform the content of screen media.

A final notion on the wink comes from Ryle’s concluding remark in the introduction to his Collected Essays 1929-1968: Collected Papers Volume 2 from 1971.

Ryle details his decision not to include an index because it expedites studying. Instead, thinking about students, Ryle writes, “For them the chore of rummaging for themselves will be more rewarding than would be their inheritance of the proceeds of other people’s

65 Nichols, Speaking Truths with Film, 170. 42

rummagings.”66 Ryle’s decision to exclude an index for his collected work seems to contain a wink. The purposeful choice to not include an index signals the seemingly infinite number of intellectual fissures that can be generated through the thinking involved with reading

Ryle’s works. The metaphorical wink from Ryle takes the form of a rummaging chore that can lead to unknown rewards. Ryle’s decision to not include an index stood for 38 years, until the 2009 edition included an index. However, Ryle’s wink lives on if a reader, like a wink viewer, sees the wink in the introduction.

66 Gilbert Ryle, Collected Essays 1929 - 1968: Collected Papers Volume 2 (New York: Routledge, 2009). xxii. 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Steve F. Technologies o f History: Visual Media and the Eccentricity o f the Past. Hanover: Dartmouth College Press, 2011.

Antonioni, Michelangelo. The Architecture o f Vision: Writing and Interviews on Cinema. New York: Marsilio Publishers, 1996.

Brown, Tom. Breaking the Fourth Wall: Direct Address in the Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press, 2013.

Ekman, Paul. “Cross-Cultural Studies of Facial Expression.” In Darwin and Facial Expression: A Century o f Research in Review, edited by Paul Ekman, 169-222, Cambridge: Malor Books, 2006.

Ekman, Paul. “Emotional and Conversational Nonverbal Signals.” In Gesture, Speech, and Sign, edited by Lynn S. Messing and Ruth Campbell, 45-57, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Ekman, Paul. “Should We Call it Expression or Communication?” Innovations in Social Science Research, Vol. 10, No. 4 (1997): 333-343.

Ekman, Paul. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit, in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.

Ekman, Paul and Joseph C. Hager. “The Asymmetry of Facial Actions is Inconsistent with Models of Hemispheric Specialization.” In What the Face Reveals: Basic and Applied Studies o f Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), edited by Paul Ekman and Erika L. Rosenberg, 307-318, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Ekman, Paul and Wallace V. Friesen. Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues. Cambridge: Malor Books, 2003.

Ferguson, Philip M. “Winks, Blinks, Squints and Twitches: Looking for Disability and Culture Through My Son’s Left Eye.” In Rethinking Disability: The Emergence o f New Definitions, Concepts and Communities, edited by Patrick Devlieger, Frank Rusch, and David Pfeiffer, 131-148, Antwerp: Garant Publishers, 2003. 44

Forgacs, David. “Antonioni: Space, Place, Sexuality.” In Spaces in European Cinema, edited by Myrto Konstantarakos, 101-111, Exeter: Intellect Books, 2000.

Frey, Mattias. “Supermodernity, Sick Eros and the Video Narcissus: Benny’s Video in the Course of Theory and Time.” In The Cinema o f Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia, edited by Ben McCann and David Sorfa, 151-162, London: Wallflower, 2011.

Gerbaz, Alex. “The Ethical Screen: Funny Games and the Spectacle of Pain.” In The Cinema o f Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia, edited by Ben McCann and David Sorfa, 163-171, London: Wallflower Press, 2011.

Huck, Christian, Jens Kiefer, and Carsten Schinko. “A ‘Bizarre Love Triangle:’ Pop Clips, Figures of Address and the Listening Spectator.” In Characters in Fictional Worlds: Understanding Imaginary Beings in Literature, Film, and Other Media, edited by Jens Eder, Fotis Jannidis, and Ralf Schneider, 290-317, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory o f Parody: The Teachings o f Twentieth-Century Art Forms. New York: Methuen, 1985.

Kaploun, Viktor. From Geertz to Ryle: The Thick Description Concept and Institutional Analysis o f Cultures. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2013.

Lamb, Roger. “Reading Facial Expressions,” In Eye to Eye: How People Interact, edited by Peter Marsh, 78-87. Topsfield: Salem House Publishers, 1988.

Laine, Tarja. “Haneke’s “Funny” Games with the Audience (Revisited).” In On Michael Haneke, edited by Brian Price and John David Rhodes, 51-62, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010.

Lawrence, Michael. “Haneke’s Stable: The Death of an Animal and the Figuration of the Human.” In On Michael Haneke, edited by Brian Price and John David Rhodes, 63-86, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010.

McKee, Robert. Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles o f Screenwriting. New York: Harpers Collins Publishers, 1997.

Nelson, Thomas Allen. “ The Passenger: Antonioni’s Cinema of Escape,” in Rocky Mountain Review o f Language and Literature, Vol. 31. No. 4 (Autumn, 1977): 198-213. 45

Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana Uni. Press, 2010.

Nichols, Bill. “Irony, Cruelty, Evil (and a Wink) in The Act o f Killing,” in Film Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Winter 2013): 25-29.

Nichols, Bill. Speaking Truths with Film: Evidence, Ethics, Politics in Documentary Oakland: University of California Press, 2016.

Richardson, John. “ Laura and Twin Peaks: Postmodern Parody and the Musical Reconstruction of the Absent Femme Fatale.” In The Cinema o f David Lynch: American Dreams, Nightmare Visions, edited by Erica Sheen and Annette Davison, 77-92, London: Wallflower Press, 2004.

Ryle, Gilbert. The Thinking o f Thoughts: What is 'Le Reprinted from 'University Lectures', no. 18, 1968, The University of Saskatchewan.

Ryle, Gilbert. Collected Essays 1929 -1968: Collected Papers Volume 2. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Saxton, Libby. “Ethics, Spectatorship and the Spectacle of Suffering.” in Film and Ethics: Foreclosed Encounters, edited by Lisa Downing and Libby Saxton, 62-75, New York: Routledge, 2010.

Seger, Linda. Advanced Screenwriting: Raising Your Script to the Academy Award. Beverly Hills: Silman-James Press, 2003.

Taylor, Claire. “Maria Luisa Bemberg Winks at the Audience: Performativity and Citation in Camila and Yo la Peor de Todas.” In Latin American Cinema: Essays on Modernity, Gender and National Identity, edited by Lisa Shaw and Stephanie Dennison, 110-124, Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2005.

Tray, Shaun. “What Are You Suggesting? Interpreting Innuendo Between ASL and English.” In Attitudes,Innuendo, and Regulators: Challenges o f Interpretation, edited by Melanie Metzger and Earl Fleetwood, 95-135, Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2005.

Wheatley, Catherine. “Domestic Invasion: Michael Haneke and Home Audiences.” In The Cinema o f Michael Haneke: Europe Utopia, edited by Ben McCann and David Sorfa, 10-23, London: Wallflower Press, 2011.