Ideologies regarding romantic relationships in Wes

Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums

English Studies Roskilde University Fall Semester 2016

Vaitza Papakonstantinou student no. 51668 Andreea -Constanta Rata student no. 52267 Anna Maria Oikonomou student no. 52401

Supervisor: Kimberly Chopin Character count: 83 885 Written in English

ABSTRACT The following paper is concerned with the ideological views and representations in connection with romantic relationships in the Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums, two films directed by Wes Anderson. The project discloses the ways in which conformity and deviance from normalised behaviours shape and/or determine the presentation of these relationships. The theories of ideology and representation presented by Stuart Hall allows for a cultural discussion regarding the protagonists’ behaviours in relation to their romantic relationships. In connection to this, the methodological tools presented by James Paul Gee help take into consideration details in regards to the speaker’s speech, body language and context. The analysis of the chosen scenes is concerned with love, family, gender as well as with the concepts of the ‘Other’ and that of normality.

ABSTRAKT Denne opgave fokusere på de ideologiske opfattelser og repræsentationer i forbindelse med romantiske forholde i filmene Moonrise Kingdom og The Royal Tenenbaums, som var instrueret af Wes Anderson. Opgaven fremhæver måder, hvor overensstemmelser og afvigelse fra normal adfærd, bestemmer fremstillingen af disse forholde. Stuart Hall’s teorier angående ideologi og repræsentation starter et kulturel diskussion, i forhold til hovedpersonernes adfærd i deres romantisk forhold. De metodologiske redskaber som er præsenteret af James Paul Gee assistere analysen angående talerens sprog, kropssprog og kontext. Analysen af de valgte scener sætter fokus på kærlighed, familie og køn og samtidig koncepterne som det ‘Andet’ og normalitet.

Key words

ideology, representation, romantic relationships, Wes Anderson, Moonrise Kingdom, The Royal Tenenbaums, norms, love, childhood, family

1

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 3 Plot and reception of Moonrise Kingdom (2012) ...... 5 Plot and reception of The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) ...... 6 THEORY ...... 7 IDEOLOGY ...... 8 Definition of Ideology ...... 8 Ideology as a Theory ...... 9 REPRESENTATION ...... 11 METHODOLOGY ...... 14 ANALYSIS ...... 17 Ideology regarding age and behaviour ...... 17 Ideology regarding love ...... 21 Ideology regarding gender ...... 28 The ‘Other’ in Moonrise Kingdom ...... 32 ‘Normality’ in The Royal Tenenbaums ...... 36 Limitations and further research ...... 39 Discussion...... 39 Conclusion ...... 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 43

2

INTRODUCTION

The present paper investigates how ideologies of love, age, and gender in connection to romantic relationships are portrayed in two of Wes Anderson’s films: Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums, and how representations of ‘normality’ and ‘Otherness’ appear to be predominant elements in each film respectively.

Wesley Wales Anderson, also known as Wes Anderson, is an acclaimed film director, screenwriter, and producer who is famous for his distinctive filmmaking style since he chooses to present visual and narrative realities in unique ways (Los Angeles Times, 2016). Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums have been chosen mainly due to Anderson’s role as both the director and screenwriter in the two projects since this can give us a better overview of how he has envisioned the story and images come into life. The scripts of the films were co-written by Roman Coppola and Owen Wilson correspondingly.

We were initially interested in the films due to the ways in which the characters involved in romantic relationships are portrayed, seemingly expressionless and taciturn, and how ideological struggles influence and guide their lives. Moonrise Kingdom is concerned with the romantic involvement of Sam and Suzy, two children in their early teenage years, while The Royal Tenenbaums deals with the secret love between Richie and Margot, two children brought up in the same family. The two films reflect the nature of Anderson’s works, which can be characterised dramatic and comic with witty dialogues, coloured by melancholy. The choice of setting, dialogue and music are considered important aspects since the analysis has revealed that they can be used to establish the overall atmosphere of a scene, as well as to contribute to meanings conveyed through verbal and nonverbal communication.

Since the films are a realm of dialogue, body movements, music, and all have the same level of relevance in the final composition, discourse analysis appears to represent the most appropriate method for this project’s analysis. We have chosen James Paul Gee’s methodological approach, as his division of twenty-seven tools appears to cover all the important aspects in what is considered to be a ‘Discourse’. These tools of inquiry help to

3

unravel the ways in which speech and setting connect to the depiction of the characters and the relationships developed between them.

The process of analysis began by applying these tools in order to investigate the possible patterns and themes of the films. By performing a preliminary analysis, we initially looked into how the choice of the methodology can help reveal interesting aspects of the protagonists’ relationships. We came to uncover the ways in which children adopt and reproduce behaviours that can be characterised as normalised or non-normalised for their age group. As it will be further explained in the analysis, Sam and Suzy, the couple presented in Moonrise Kingdom, appear to possess characteristics and to behave in ways that imitate the ones of adults. In The Royal Tenenbaums, Margot and Richie experience a type of love that is not considered to be ‘normal’, which they keep in secrecy, possibly in order not to come into conflict with society’s ideologies.

The preliminary analysis is also what directed us towards the theoretical framework of this project work. Stuart Hall’s theories of ideology and representation contribute to the understanding of the ways in which romantic relationships connect to ideological views and stereotypes. Through the process of creating boxes and categories, the concept of the ‘Other’ is born and the idea of ‘normality’ emerges. Within the films, the characters do not comply with the rules and are at the same time constrained by them, which presents an image that combines a sense of social conformity and the characters’ actions of deformation. All the aforementioned elements contribute to how the romantic relationships are portrayed, which is the focus of this project and has led to the following problem formulation:

How are ideologies of love, age, and gender in connection to the romantic relationships reflected in Wes Anderson’s films Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums?

In order to establish a coherent image of the films and their analysis, we have decided to present a short summary of the stories and a brief reception for each of them.

4

Plot and reception of Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

The film tells the story of Suzy and Sam, a young couple of twelve-year-olds, who fall in love and run away to pursue an adventure of their own. Throughout their attempt, however, the members of Sam’s scout camp and Suzy’s parents have initiated a search to find them.

The story takes place in New England in 1965 and portrays a charming side of young love as the characters unfold their interests, dreams and hopes as well as the issues they face as the ‘unpopular’ and ‘different’ children within their community. Wes Anderson also chooses to portray the crisis and unhappiness in the adults’ lives and marriage, by presenting Suzy’s parents to be in an unhappy marriage, striving to deal with her temperament, seeing her as ‘troubled child’ (which is also one of the reasons why she chooses to run away). On the other hand, Sam is a child within a foster family that eventually, after learning of his escape, deny to take him back. Captain Sharp, the sheriff of the case, embodies Sam’s father figure. He eventually takes him in after an attempt made by Social Services to place him in an orphanage and possibly perform electroshock therapy to treat his ‘emotionally unstable behaviour’.

Suzy and Sam camp in a cove that they name ‘Moonrise Kingdom’, where also the first scenes of their romantic bond are shown. The Scouts, Sharp, and Suzy’s parents find them the next day and force them to return home. As the children of the scout camp decide to help them, Suzy and Sam are reunited with a new plan for their escape. They travel together to a big summer camp to seek help from an older relative of one of the Scouts. Before sending them off to the island in a boat, cousin Ben decides to perform a wedding ceremony for them, which he states is not considered a ‘legal bond’. After a hurricane hits the island, Captain Sharp persuades Suzy and Sam to return home but keep in contact. The film ends with Sam painting a landscape of Moonrise Kingdom in Suzy’s house.

The film was positively received by the public and critics. Anderson’s writing and directing style has been praised for presenting this young love story in such innocent and humorous way. For instance, The Times Picayune writes that the film portrays:

5

‘‘A vividly colored, pre-adolescent love story, it channels both the innocence and imagination of its star-crossed, 12-year-old protagonists as its spins its surrealist storybook romance. It does it in the most good-humored and embraceable way, too [..]’’ (The Times Picayune, 2012).

In terms of Anderson’s style, it is mentioned that:

‘‘He draws you into his fantastical worlds with beauty and humor, and while their artifice can keep you at somewhat of a distance, this only deepens the story’s emotional power, especially when he lowers the boom, as he always does.’’(The New York Times, 2012).

Overall, Moonrise Kingdom portrays a story of young love that is presented with an “elegance and formal brilliance” (The Guardian, 2012).

Plot and reception of The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

The film focuses on the life of the Tenenbaums, constituted by the mother, Etheline, the father, Royal and their three children, Margot, Richie and Chas. Their life escapes the confines of the norm starting from the dynamics that exist between the family members and ending with their lack of interest towards the expected behaviour.

The film embarks with young Margot, Richie and Chas, after they are informed that their parents are separating. Their exceptional life is exemplified by the fact that all three children are very promising individuals in their domain of interest. Despite their privileged life and opportunities, their family life is rendered dysfunctional due to their parents’ separation and Royal’s egocentric behaviour. He continuously refers to Margot as his adopted daughter while stealing money from Chas. The only child who receives his attention and acceptance is Richie, the tennis playing prodigy.

Forwarding twenty-two years, Margot lives in a loveless marriage while being in love with her ‘brother’ Richie, Chas has difficulties dealing with the passing of his wife, resulting in him being constantly agitated and overprotective of his sons in fear of losing them. Richie

6

deals with his failure as a tennis player after an embarrassing game. Each of them experiences a crisis, which leads them back to the familiarity of their childhood home after many years.

Royal is found in a difficult situation when he is evicted from his hotel room with no money. In an attempt to escape this situation, he pursues his family in hopes of being welcomed back to his previous home. When his attempt fails, he admits fatal illness under false pretences, which renders his plan successful. None of the family members, except Richie, truly forgive and by extension accept the emergence of Royal in their lives. When Royal’s lies are revealed, it creates a bigger chasm between him and his family.

However, after spending time with him and being proven that he has changed and truly wishes to be accepted by them, without an ulterior motive, he is welcomed back into the family. He manages to restore his relationship with Chas, and Margot while accepting the fact that Etheline moved on with another man.

The Royal Tenenbaums received mixed reviews, but critics praised his unique style of tragicomedy. For instance, Westbrook writes in the Empire: “[..] Wes' world is riddled with offbeat eccentricities, damaged, dysfunctional characters and the kind of weird, wonderful comedy that comes along all too rarely.” (Empire, 2000) In the New York Times, it is amongst other remarks mentioned that:

“He [Anderson] likes to shoot them alone in the middle of his wide, meticulously composed frames as if they were sitting for formal portraits. But his obsessive regard for their individuality, the care he takes to make sure we see their uniqueness, isolates them from each other.” (The New York Times, 2001).

THEORY

The theoretical framework of this project draws from a cultural perspective and deals with concepts such as language, discourse, ideology, and representation. We see these terms to be closely connected and well-fitted when concerned with the ways family and romantic relationships are presented within Wes Anderson’s movies. Having as a starting point James Paul Gee’s theory on the ‘saying-doing-being’ in language and communication, we wish to

7

move deeper into how practices within discourse (with a ‘d’) connect to Discourse (with a capital ‘D’). Thus, we have chosen to connect the ‘saying-doing-being’ enacted within the movies with the understanding of social practices and processes reflected in them. For this reason, we have chosen to also work with the theory of ideology and the theory of representation, both put forth by Stuart Hall.

The methodological framework, drawing from Gee’s work on discourse analysis in combination with the aforementioned theoretical framework will help us analyse and discuss ideologies and representations that are culturally embedded and operate as structures of language within social practices. The movies we have chosen to work with might be staged pieces of communication, however, they do not cease to represent small discourses through which Discourse is reflected, sometimes also deliberately done in a humorous way.

IDEOLOGY

The theory of ideology has for long been discussed within the sociological, cultural studies and other domains, with a great influence deriving from Marxist theory, with classical formulations about ideology. In his essay The problem of Ideology, Stuart Hall points out the weaknesses and limitations of Marxist theory and calls for the rethinking of the problem of ideology and the problem of theory. This extensive critique and the historical process of ideology as a term have been taken into consideration from our part. We have chosen however to focus on the definitions of ideology as given by Hall in his paper and as presented by Anne Makus in her essay Stuart Hall’s Theory of Ideology.

Definition of Ideology

Hall proceeds to talk about the problem of ideology and supports the argument that the rise of this problem can be detected in not only the development of Marxist thought in the West, but also the increased number of cultural industries and the questions of the mass’ consent (Hall, 1986:25). This problem of ideology is concerned with how ideas ‘‘grip the minds of masses’’ and in this way maintain a powerful position in the lives of individuals (ibid: 26). Taking this perspective into consideration, the theory of ideology helps in the

8

understanding of how certain ideas can have a commanding influence on social thinking (ibid).

Hall points out that a wider perspective is needed when talking about the theory of ideology, where thinking and knowledge are connected to the understanding of society as a whole (1986: 26). He describes ideology as:

“.. the mental frameworks- the languages, the concepts, categories, imagery of thought, and the systems of representation- which different classes and social groups deploy in order to make sense of, define, figure out and render intelligible the way society works.’’ (ibid: 25-26).

In this sense, ideology is concerned with abstract ideas or languages that keep forms of power and dominance stable and firmly established within the social world, as well as with processes that ensure the emergence of other newer forms of thinking and consciousness (1986: 26). As Makus states, Hall’s definition combines discourse with social formations, where social meanings are formed through language, through the “instrumentality of thinking” (in Makus, 1990:499).

Since ideology is to be considered a set of ideas relating to cultural and social matters, the analysis of this paper reveals the ideologies produced within the films that mimic the existing dominant ideas about family, romantic relationships, love, age, gender etc. The analysis also reveals the ways the characters are categorised within the social norms or outside of them and what kind of implications that might have in their personal and social lives. For instance, by presenting a family formed within the traditional framework (in the case of Suzy’s family) while also presenting its imperfections and unbalanced situations, Wes Anderson manages to portray his characters in ways that do not fall within the illusionary and perfectly painted image of a traditional family.

Ideology as a Theory

Hall also argues that meanings can be seen as ideological “logics” that are embedded within the culture, just like ideology, and are part of the social reality, as he states:

9

"codes refer signs to the 'maps of meaning' into which culture is classified; and those 'maps of social reality' have the whole range of social meanings, practices and usages, power and interest 'written into them"(in Makus, 1990:499).

Hall recognises that ideology presents social relations as stable and unchangeable truths, ignoring their connection to historical development (Makus, 1990:498). Ideological constructions, thus, operate as ‘‘taken-for-granted ‘‘grammars of culture’’ into which knowledge of the given case is ideologically inventoried’’ as Hall argues, and remain explicit to a large degree (ibid). In a social interaction, the speaker is considered subject to the ideological construction, the subject of certain category or position. Thus, ideologies are said to produce the social realities of the subjects, remaining unalterable and in this way making alternative prospects seem as opposed to the ordinary or the common views within a culture (ibid: 500).

Hall states that ideology is now used to refer to ‘‘all organised forms of social thinking’’ (Hall, 1986:26), meaning that it involves a practical thinking and not a well- established system of thought that is internalised. This practical thinking enables individuals to think about and understand society, within which categories and discourses exist and within which we ‘experience’ our positions in social reality (ibid).

Ideology as a term and theory was discussed in the initial stages of this project work due to the nature of the chosen films. The two films as well as most of Wes Anderson’s works consist of elements that derive from what can be characterised as ‘ordinary’ views in culture and the social. However, Anderson at times chooses to present a ‘distorted’ image of this ordinary reality by featuring themes of adultery, young love, psychological issues etc., with a good combination of drama and comedy. Therefore, we have discussed how the forms of social thinking and ideas have come to be presented in the movies and in which ways. With our analysis, we wish to discuss the how and why of the revealed ideologies. In combination with the chosen method presented by Gee, we hope to unveil the ways in which ideologies are presented through language and meanings found within discourse.

As Giannetti describes: ‘‘Virtually every movie presents us with role models, ideal ways of behaving, negative traits, and an implied morality based on the filmmaker's sense of right and wrong.” (2002: 412). In the film, therefore, certain ideological views have adopted

10

that privilege or oppose behaviours, institutions, motives etc. (ibid). We believe that this also applies to the current films, where the ideas presented can be said to reflect the social, in relation to sets of values mainly concerning family and romantic relationships.

Furthermore, in most cases, the characters themselves reflect and/or embody ideological values, especially when films are character-driven -as Wes Anderson’s films can be argued to be. As Giannetti argues, identifying and analysing the characters’ ideological views is not an easy task, which in most cases are not those of the director/filmmaker (2002: 416).

As aforementioned by Hall, ideologies are part of language embedded in it through codes. Giannetti also supports the argument that ideology in the film represents a language system, that is actually in disguise and is constituted by codes (2002: 417). Editing styles and the choice of place can also be considered as presenting ideological perspectives. Everything in this sense can ultimately be granted as being ideological, as Giannetti argues: ‘‘Our attitudes toward sex, work, power sharing, authority, the family, religion—all of these involve ideological assumptions, whether we are conscious of the fact or not.’’ (ibid).

As we will present further, the children who develop a romantic relationship in Moonrise Kingdom adopt behaviours and talk in ways that would be mostly fitted for adults. Such ideologies regarding age and behaviour are a predominant feature in the films and something we wish to discuss further.

REPRESENTATION

For the purpose of this paper, Stuart Hall’s theory of stereotyping will also be applied and as an aid, topics such as language, meaning and representation will be explained. Language can be seen as a written text, a visual or an object which constructs meanings. It ensures that there is communication between participants and therefore have the same understanding of their surroundings. It can be understood as a representational system since language with everything it embodies, is able to represent people but also ideas and emotions (Hall, 1997:1).

11

Language is an abstract entity that can be viewed as a ‘system of representation’. It is not necessary to perceive language in the traditional way, ergo a language spoken or written in a specific geographical topothesia. As long as language is treated as representation, it can be found in body gestures, music or any other format where a meaning is being expressed (Hall, 1997:4,5). In that way, meaning is assigned to different symbols. Choice of clothing is not arbitrary but is chosen to convey something and the same is applied to music or body language, accent, and word selection. Through culture and language, meaning is created.

An interesting notion discussed by Hall is difference. Difference can be identified in various platforms and although Hall discusses racial and ethnic difference, the same can be applied in other situations as well (Hall, 1997:225).

The existence of difference is tightly connected to the existence of classificatory systems in our culture. Certain differences will determine the class, or metaphorically a box, that someone belongs to. This system can be problematic when someone fails to fit in one or another box (Hall 1997: 236). As Hall states, this method of differentiating people can be reductionist. In few words, culture can be an identity of a wider audience, a common identity of many people. Following the guidelines of the respective culture is a norm, while opposing it and being distinguished by it can be defined as abnormal (ibid: 237).

When discussing these topics, it is impossible to ignore the practice of stereotyping. Stereotyping is a representational practice which “reduces people to a few, simple, essential characteristics, which are represented as fixed by Nature” (Hall, 1997: 257). Stereotyping could be confused with typing. It is essential to apply typing in everyday life and assign objects to categories in order to make sense of the world. People can also be assigned into wider categories according to the roles they perform. However, the practice of stereotyping can have a negative connotation (ibid).

Through stereotyping, people of a society are being divided into categories. The targets of stereotyping are usually people who are the ‘outsiders’ of society, those who are not conformed to the ideals of it. Hall claims that stereotyping is interconnected to racial differences and how they are represented. Although racial difference is not the focus of this section, it is still very relevant to include stereotyping as a practice that encourages the explicit differentiation individuals in society and the consequences it has (Hall, 1997).

12

As Hall states, the ‘outsiders’ are the ‘Other’, defined as being abnormal or different (Hall, 1997: 258). The issue is that the ‘Other’, which is the subordinate group, has power exerted against it by the group classified in accordance with the norm. This form of power is not necessarily economic or political but can be viewed as a power of representing someone in any way preferred (ibid: 259). For that reason:

“Representation is a complex business and, especially when dealing with ‘difference’, it engages feelings, attitudes and emotions and it mobilizes fears and anxieties in the viewer, at deeper levels than we can explain in a simple, common-sense way.” (Hall, 1997:226).

Stereotyping fixes difference and divides people in two essential groups. Somehow two frontiers are created. One frontier includes people that represent the ‘normal’ and what is accepted by the majority of people or society, whereas the other frontier is defined by the opposites of the ‘normal’ frontier. By having these two frontiers it becomes impossible to unite people, since they are split, therefore inequalities of power become an issue. The issue lies in the fact that those who are identified as the non-normal or deviant group, are those who feel powerless and become the target of the other group (Hall, 1997:258).

It is applicable for the analysis of the films to incorporate Hall’s ideas regarding difference and representation, for the reason that they depict characters who embrace abnormal qualities and differentiate themselves from expected behaviour according to society’s standards. The concept of difference enables one to understand human behaviour and the dynamics of individuals within society.

The depiction of difference in the characters is achieved through the way of speech, statements they make, or the decisions they make. By portraying the characters in a certain manner, Anderson achieves to represent a particular group of people and create an understanding of their behaviour. For example, the children in The Royal Tenenbaums are anything but ‘normal’, being raised as prodigies, while the children in Moonrise Kingdom reproduce a behaviour that is generally attributed to adults as they try to escape from their homes and live by themselves. Due to the fact that the characters are so distinguishable, it is imperative to comprehend why they are depicted in that way, and what this representation is proposing?

13

METHODOLOGY

In order to discuss the ideological views and representations hidden and presented in the two films, we have chosen to work with the methodological framework put forth by James Paul Gee, which can give us a better understanding of the ways a film is built and presented to the audience. By looking at some particular scenes of the films, we have come to acknowledge that everything within the scenes, the close-ups, the music, the colours, the language used, contributes to the image of how the relationships between the characters are perceived by those on the outside and how this affects those involved. In order to take into account all, the dimensions, we have decided to use discourse analysis as our methodological approach, as presented by Gee.

The tools of discourse analysis for Gee are the questions asked of the given data, which is also one of the reasons why his approach is considered to be adjusted to different types of research. The questions (or tools) presented by Gee help the readers develop a sense of careful acknowledgment for the details of the speakers’ speech (2011: x). These details in the structure of language (grammar) are importantly linked to meanings that are tied to social, cultural and political issues or themes (ibid: ix). Therefore, Gee points out the importance of the ‘context’ when talking of discourse analysis:

“Context includes the physical setting in which the communication takes place and everything in it; the bodies, eye gaze, gestures and movements of those present; what has previously said and done by those involved in the communication; any shared knowledge those involved have, including shared cultural knowledge” (Gee 2011: 6)

Gee describes the method as ‘tools of inquiry’ and strategies for applying them. He talks about two types of discourses, discourse and Discourse. The methodology used by this project takes into consideration and uses both ‘discourse’ and ‘Discourse’ as they are connected. The main focus is on language in use and non-language elements, which in this case are the body movements, music, camera perspective. Gee defines ‘discourse’ as “language in use of stretches of written or oral language” (Gee, 2011:177), and ‘Discourse’ as

14

non-language stuff that enacts activities and identities. This is explained by him as ways of acting, interacting, feeling, believing, valuing, together with other people, and with various sorts of characteristic objects symbols, tools, and technologies, - to recognize yourself and others as meaning and meaningful in certain ways (ibid).

According to Gee “[...] you produce, reproduce and sustain, and transform a given “form of life” or Discourse.” (Gee 2005:7). Starting from this premise, in analysing various scenes of the films, some of the questions that were raised are: what does this act symbolise? Why do the children consider it necessary? Which position are they trying to reproduce? What does it represent? What is the ideology behind it? The analysis shows how age, gender, and norms affect and generate behaviour and action. Gee sees life in its all complexity, and everything, from nature and natural phenomena to innate objects are part of life, part of Discourse: “All life for all of us is just a patchwork of thoughts, words, objects, events, actions and interactions in Discourses.” (Gee 2005:7).

Gee presents us with twenty-seven tools that can be used in the analysis of discourse. Only some of them will be used in the present project, keeping in mind the ‘saying-doing- being’ model aforementioned. For instance, words used by the speakers and the subject- predicate structure have been taken into account. The words that can be determined by the context, called the deictics, concerning person (I/ me, you etc.), place (there, here etc.) and time (now, yesterday etc.), have been considered, as ‘The Deixis Tool’ suggests (Gee, 2011:10). In Moonrise Kingdom, in the conversations between Suzy and Sam, for example, we see how the relation evolves according to the subject they use: there is a progression from ‘you’ and ‘I’ to ‘we’.

In the same sense, ‘The Subject Tool’ can be an important aspect of communication, since it can reveal why a specific topic of discussion has been chosen by the speaker (Gee, 2011:19). For instance, in The Royal Tenenbaums, Margot and Richie often tend to make casual conversation instead of talking about their feelings for each other, something that reveals their hesitation to admit their love, due to the nature of their relationship.

Another tool used is ‘The Fill in Tool’, which focuses on what it is not said, or how Gee puts it, “what needs to be filled in here to achieve clarity” (2011:12). This is a very powerful and useful tool, especially when analysing the scenes where Margot and Richie

15

appear in The Royal Tenenbaums, there is a lot more non-verbal communication going on than verbal.

When analysing language, an important aspect of it, besides the words themselves and the positioning through grammar, is intonation. Intonation hides attitudes and reveals the real position towards what is being said, and can relate to what the speaker chooses to present as important information (Gee, 2011:28). In the analysis, it is also made apparent that emphasis can be placed through background music, in connection to the genre, the lyrics etc. and how this helps to give information about the scene and the characters involved.

Moreover, ‘The Context is Reflexive Tool’ is presented as the tool that can combine all the elements required to talk of the context. Gee suggests to ask questions such as: what contexts are being reproduced by speakers? How does what they say help in replicating contexts? (2011:85). As will be made apparent by the analysis, in Moonrise Kingdom, children are seen reproducing behaviours that may not be expected for their ages. Similarly, to re-enacting behaviours, speakers may replicate specific identities. ‘The Identities Building Tool’ suggests that language can reveal people’s identities, since speakers may attribute them to themselves and others (Gee, 2011: 110).

‘The Connections Building Tool’ and ‘The Cohesion Tool’ are also particularly relevant for our analysis. Gee mentions that by looking into previous and following utterances, we can connect pieces of information and understand meanings better (Gee 2011:201). For example, in The Royal Tenenbaums, the real nature of the relationship between Margot and Richie is not revealed in its entirety, until towards the end of the film. It is only then that scenes found in the beginning of the film start to make sense.

Throughout the analysis, we investigate how the characters enact and re-enact behaviours in connection to their romantic relationships and the focus is on how communication is linked to these activities and how language devices are used to emphasise, give importance and generate relevance.

Based on the methodology and through the theoretical perspectives that have been largely discussed and explained in the previous chapter, we intend to grasp Wes Anderson’s films world in relation to how romantic relationships reflect social realities.

16

ANALYSIS

The following section introduces the analysis, where various scenes of the respective films will be analysed by being categorised in different recurring themes. The scenes are not always analysed meticulously, down to the last detail, but rather elements regarding the ideologies and representations are sought with the help of the methodological tools by Gee, and put into perspective. By understanding the ideologies that are found in the films, it is possible to identify patterns that are being reproduced.

Ideology regarding age and behaviour

Anderson seems to challenge ideas regarding age and the corresponding accepted behaviours, since when concerning the two chosen films, the age of the characters and their actions are disharmonised, creating confusion. The children within the Tenenbaums family seem to not change their ways as they grow older. The characters are presented to be rather immature for their age with an urge to stay within their childhood years. All the siblings display a need to return to their family home, under the motherly protection of Etheline, and throughout the film, the adult characters are similarly dressed to when they were children. Margot, in particular, prefers to avoid her problems and the issues that come with adulthood and marriage, by mostly staying in her bathroom or bedroom. She leaves her husband, avoiding adult-like responsibilities by going ‘home’ where she can be with her mother and brothers.

Therefore, in The Royal Tenenbaums, it can be said that the ideology of age and behaviour can be identified and discussed if general observations are made. For instance, the clothes and ways of behaving chosen for the characters of the film are the stable elements that recur in various scene. However, in Moonrise Kingdom ideologies regarding age are more highlighted, mainly through the conversations between the two children involved in the romantic relationship.

17

The young characters in the film pursue a romantic relationship that for them seems to be natural and quite normal for their age. This is however, not perceived the same way from their social circle and families (mostly Suzy’s family), since they are considered too young to be involved in a romantic relationship. After their escape to the cove, Suzy’s family and Captain Sharp find them and call them back to their homes. The fact that they are called back to the ‘appropriate’ behaviour as children also signals how the young characters have deviated from the accepted standards. A somewhat contrasting view is displayed by Cousin Ben and by the Scouts, who agree with the children’s decision and wish to help them.

Ideologies regarding age and the expected behaviour can also be exemplified by the scene where Sam and Suzy discuss on a rock by the cove, about the future and their families (Anderson, 2012: 00:42:42-00:44:34).

(Anderson 2012:00:43:09)

The communication between protagonists unfolds through their conversation and their facial expressions. Their speech here is quite formal, however, the topic of discussion switches from more naive matters to general ideas about life.

1 Sam: What do you want to be? When you grow up. 2 Suzy: I don’t know. I want to go on adventures, I think. Not get stuck in one place. 3 How about you? 4 Sam: Go on adventures, too. Not get stuck, too. I guess that sounds almost like I’m

18

5 just repeating what you just said, but I couldn’t think of anything as good as it. 6 On the other hand, maybe we’ll get blown up by an atom bomb. 7 You can’t predict the exact future. 8 Suzy: That’s true. 9 Sam: It’s possible I may wet the bed, by the way. Later, I mean. 10 Suzy: (surprised) Okay. 11 Sam: (reluctantly) I wish I didn’t have to mention it, but just in case. 12 I don’t want to make you be offended. 13 Suzy: (softly) Of course, I won’t. 14 Sam: Some people frown on these problems (Suzy nods). [..] (Anderson, 2012: 00:42:42-00:43:45)

‘The Subject Tool’ can help us unwrap an important aspect of this utterance, in accordance to the question of why do speakers in this piece of communication choose this specific subject? (Gee, 2011:19). The conversation of the two here, can be said to represent the contrasting nature of the ways in which they act and talk. On the one hand, their approach to situations and life, in general, is quite mature for their age, while on the other hand, the topics they choose to talk about are quite childlike. Bedwetting and the ‘when you grow up question’ here represent a kind of childish talk, something that adults would not be concerned with. The fact that Suzy does not think of any future occupation she wishes to take on, as the question requires, but she rather thinks of adventures, points out the childish imagination and lack of responsibility that children often possess.

Intonation is placed by the characters’ facial expressions and their ways of highlighting important aspects of their speech. When Sam confesses that he might wet the bed in line 9, Suzy is surprised to hear it and assures him that she understands. She places emphasis on “of course” in line 14, to further show that for her this situation is not one to condemn. Her reaction to Sam’s problem and her understanding of his worries indicate her mature approach and the ability to react in an appropriate manner, rather than for example tease him, a possible reaction for children.

19

Furthermore, as ‘The Fill In Tool’ suggests, pieces of information can be filled in to make a communication more understandable (Gee, 2011:12). Generally speaking, the inferences we make as an audience here connect to Sam and Suzy’s story as we have seen it unfolding throughout the film. Thus, we know that the two children at times can be perceived as precocious due to their formal ways of speaking and mature ways of acting, while at times can be seen as teenagers, behaving in irresponsible ways.

Another representative scene where age is demonstrated is the one where the two characters dance at the beach which leads to them exploring innocently enough their sexuality with each other (Anderson: 00:44:36-00:47:27). Through the application of ‘The Context is Reflexive Tool’ it is imperative to go beyond the actual action of the scene and consider the context that the two protagonists reproduce (Gee, 2011:85). In fact, they imitate adult-like behaviour, where having a relationship implies or requires the involvement of some activity of sexual nature. Although, it can be argued that this behaviour between Sam and Suzy is only natural for their age, since it is common for individuals at this age to become curious about sexuality and the opposite gender. This scene can be viewed as the only scene where the two protagonists’ age is visible and expected.

(Anderson 2012: 00:45:18)

20

Ideology regarding love

A different set of ideas concerning love is also displayed throughout both of the films. The youngsters in Moonrise Kingdom seem to adopt the conduct of adults regarding their behaviour within a romantic relationship and the ‘appropriate’ course of this. For instance, a relationship that would fall within the standards they have envisioned would proceed to marriage. They run away together, they, however, state that they are not married yet. This ideology of love and marriage falls within social or religious discourses, where marriage would be perceived as the ‘normal’ way of pursuing a relationship of that kind. This type of ideology represents the practical thinking, as Hall argues, that guides Sam and Suzy’s social actions and generates a certain understanding of their position within their social reality. This idea is further emphasised by the scene that follows, where cousin Ben stages their marriage within a chapel, with the Christian element being highlighted (Anderson, 2012: 1:08:06- 1:09:30).

In this scene, Ben points out their young age and claims that their binding cannot be done under legal terms, he is, however, ready to perform the ceremony. He does not question their decision to be together and run away, except from when he asks them to think it through before giving quick answers.

Generally, romantic relationships between children of twelve years are frowned upon, in the sense that even legally (as well as socially) they are prevented from being involved in romantic adult-like relationships. However, the depiction of their relationship in the film in relation to this marriage scene portrays a sense of pureness bound with characteristics generally perceived as part of an adult-like love union between people. In the scene, cousin Ben stands in a chapel tent with a cross behind him, performing the ritual:

1 Cousin Ben: With the eye of God and within the boundaries of this local jurisdiction which 2 we hereby consecrate on this day, the fifth of September, 1965. 3 That’s the end of the short form. 4 Do any of the witnesses have objections or remarks? Usually, they don’t. 5 [Skotak raises his hand. Cousin Ben reluctantly calls on him] 6 Cousin Ben: Skotak. 7 Skotak: Can we loan them the nickels? I’m worried about their future.

21

8 Cousin Ben: That’s my fee. [..] (Anderson, 2012: 1:08:06- 1:08:24)

Within this utterance, the religious element is a dominant one with references to God in line 1, and Christianity, with the crosses stitched on the stole Ben is wearing, the large cross behind him and the Bible on which Sam and Suzy have placed their hands. This setting highlights and creates the relevant context, as Gee calls it (2011:85). Taking into consideration ‘The Context is Reflexive Tool’, we can say that Ben as a speaker is the one who replicates the marriage ritual, adapting it to the situation at hand. (Anderson 2012: 01:08:38)

He does not proceed to the step-by-step wedding service, however, his speech adds to the creation of the context and the ideological views wished to be presented with this scene.

The remark made by Skotak in line 7 signals how this ritual is perceived by the children since his tone is rather serious. Using ‘The Intonation Tool’ presented by Gee (2011: 28), we can see how this contributes to the meaning of this utterance, making it be seen as a humorous remark by the audience, since it is made by a child. It can be perceived as a tool used by Anderson to create humour and provoke laughter.

The question to ask is then what is the purpose of this scene and what does it serve as, in connection with the characters’ speech? It was possibly done in order to portray the innocence through which children view relationships (leading to marriage as a legal binding), and how Ben has reacted to this situation. He does not disregard their feelings despite their age or the reasons why they have run away from home. The involvement of the other children also suggests the childlike and naive approach to this kind of romantic relationship, being well-fitted with the genre of the film, since it aims to present the reality of young love.

22

In The Royal Tenenbaums, the ideology of love is associated with the idea of family and familial bonds. The romantic relationship between Richie and Margot does not seem to be perceived as ‘normal’, since as siblings who have been brought up in the same household by the same parents, they are not supposed to be in love with each other. The following two scenes point out this ideology about love and the relationship between the two. The first one introduces the audience to the nature of their relationship when Richie returns home and Margot is there to greet him. The second one, what we have called the tent scene, is when they eventually confront each other about this romantic attraction. Margot points out that their relationship can only exist in secrecy, possibly in order to not disturb the already established dynamics of the family.

It is interesting that in the first introduced scene, where Margot and Richie meet after a long time (Anderson, 2001: 0:25:15-0:26:35), communication is unfolded mainly through body language. The focus is placed on the characters rather than the surroundings in which the communication takes place. As listeners and viewers we know that Margot and Richie are siblings who have been brought up together, even though previously, Richie has confessed his love for her to his good friend. This can be connected to what Gee refers to as the ‘Fill In Tool’, where previous information can help interpret the chosen data (2011: 12). In this case, the question to ask is: what kind of knowledge or inferences do we need to bring in in order to understand this communication between Margot and Richie?

The director seems to place the focus on emphasising the romantic, but rather pure at this stage, relationship between the two. The communication is kept minimal but the expression of feelings through the eyes and the already known feelings of Richie create what the director tries to convey a romantic atmosphere.

Anderson has chosen to depict the characters phenomenally expressionless, concentrating all emotions in the eyes, with the camera zooming into their faces. After Margot leaves the bus there is a prolonged shot of her face while she is walking towards him.

23

The lack of expression slowly turns into an emotion of happiness when seeing Richie. The element that is prominently emphasised in this scene is the song heard in the background: “I don’t do too much talking these days”, which seems to be the most fitting as the communication that follows between them is of few words:

(Anderson 2001: 00:25:20; 00:25:30)

1 Margot: stand up straight, let me take a look at you. 2 What’s so funny? [Richie raises his shoulders] 3 Well it’s nice to see you too (Anderson, 2001: 0:26:12- 0:26:26)

Margot’s remark in line 2 comes to contrast the facial expression of Richie since he is not seen smiling or laughing. From the context and the relationship, they have as children brought up as brother and sister, we can infer that Margot knows Richie well. She can therefore tell how he feels and how he generally is with ease. The dialogue in this scene is kept simple, with Richie not saying a word, but letting his body language powerfully depict what he wishes to say. Although his face is less expressive than Margot’s, there is no doubt that he is fascinated and very aware of the intense moment they both experience. The deictics ‘I’ and ‘you’ are used here to highlight that Margot focuses her attention on him and the interaction they are having after a long time.

After the last sentence, Margot is seen slightly smiling at Richie, being pleased to see him, while they intensely stare at each other. By taking into consideration the ‘Connections Building Tool’, it can be said that a connection is made between this scene and the rest of the scenes where Margot appears. In order to point out the contrast between her character in general and now, a different side of Margot is shown, a warmer and expressive when she is usually shown to be melancholic and expressionless. Also, the fact that we already know as

24

viewers about Richie’s feelings for Margot helps to connect pieces of information and interpret this scene in the aforementioned way.

The second scene that relates to the ideology of love in The Royal Tenenbaums is the tent scene (Anderson, 2001: 1:17:26-1:21:33). Within this encounter of Margot and Richie, the romantic relationship between them is validated, and it is the first time they are seen being intimate with each other. Their discussion seems impersonal, as they do not want to rush into the subject, therefore the dialogue and movements of the characters are kept minimal:

1 Richie: What are you doing in my tent? 2 Margot: Just listening to some records 3 Aren’t you supposed to be at the hospital 4 Richie: Checked myself out [..] (Anderson, 2001: 1:17:45- 1:17:55)

In this utterance, Margot’s answer in line 2 gives the audience another impression. Since we know that Margot is not expressive and does not confess her feelings to anyone, her answer is probably put forward as an excuse, so that she does not admit the real reason she is there. Throughout the film, only Richie has shown signs of the romantic feelings he has for her, but this is not explicit from her side. With this scene, however, pieces of information regarding their love are there to fill in the gaps, therefore the assumptions we have as an audience, that the romantic feelings are mutual, are confirmed.

The aforementioned utterance is the glue between previous events and the scene that follows, where Richie confesses his love to Margot. He shows her the stitches he got after his suicide attempt, the sight of which hurts her. Then he switches the subject towards what is hurtful to him, her first husband:

[..] 1 Richie: I heard about your ex husband 2 Margot: Desmond? 3 Richie: I guess so. I didn’t get his name.

25

4 Margot: Yeah. I met him in the ocean. I was swimming and he came out to me in a canoe. 5 We were only married for nine days. 6 Richie: I heard about Eli. 7 Margot: I know. Poor Eli. Anyway, we mostly just talked about you. 8 Richie: You did? 9 Margot: Yeah. 10 I guess that was the attraction, if you know what I mean. 11 Richie: I have to tell you something. 12 Margot: What's that? 13 Richie I love you. 14 I love you, too. [..] (Anderson, 2001: 1:18:40-1:19:41)

The topic of discussion switches between a third party, from Margot’s first husband and their common friend Eli, to the two of them. The choice of topic can be considered an important aspect of a conversation as Gee presents in ‘The Subject Tool’ (2011:19). Here the subject matter is meant to create a way towards what is important for them to discuss, which is their love. As in Moonrise Kingdom, the pronouns evolve from ‘I’ (I love you) and ‘I’(I love you too), towards a ‘we’ when Margot leaves the tent, declaring the secrecy of their relationship: “I think we’re just going to have to be secretly in love with each other and leave it at that, Richie” (Anderson, 2001: 1:21:25). The conversation in this scene is kept clear and straightforward.

The lack of intonation and fluctuation in the tone of their voices can be interpreted in different ways, but giving the recent suicide attempt of Richie and the fact that the scene leads to their love confession, it can be said that there is nothing to be lost for both sides. Their tone is linear with no tension or further discussion. Moreover, the song that plays in the background, Ruby Tuesday by The Rolling Stones, is meant to emphasise Margot’s need for freedom; or possibly her inability of attachment, which is also why she leaves the tent when in distress.

26

(Anderson 2001: 01:19:39; 01:21:00)

Furthermore, Richie’s hospital clothes also signal an important aspect of his character and his relation to Margot. At the point where the heart lies, the sign on his clothes reads ‘Recovered area’, the area in which he has hospitalised after attempting suicide. In this scene, however, this points out the recovery he is in, due to his love for Margot and him learning about her past. This can be connected with the scene in which he attempts suicide, where he is seen retrieving memories of Margot and having flashbacks about their relationship ( Anderson, 2001: 1:11:18). If the two scenes are taken into consideration, as ‘The Coherent Tool’ by Gee suggests (2011:131), it is further emphasised that the ‘Recovered Area’ here is actually his broken heart.

The fact that they accept the social reality of their lives and choose to hide their romantic involvement emphasises how their relationship might be perceived by society, as deviating from the standards, prohibiting first-degree relatives to be involved in romantic relationships, demeaning them as incestuous. The social meanings attached to the perception of their relation eventually entraps and restricts them from proceeding in this type of relationship.

The tent scene is probably the saddest scene in the entire film since it proceeds after Richie’s attempted suicide. For the first time, Richie and Margot talk openly about their feelings for each other. What they represent socially together, the message their relationship

27

puts out there is more than they can face. By trying to be normal, they should be secretly in love forever.

Ideology regarding gender

Ideologies regarding gender roles within the relationships are interesting elements in the films. For instance, in Moonrise Kingdom, Suzy’s character is presented to be an endearing girl who takes care of her appearance and is well-read. Sam, on the other hand, takes over the role of the protector as the ‘‘male of the family’’, who takes care of their food and accommodation. The display of the characters possessing these characteristics is made with a reference to normalised ideas regarding gender. These normalised representations of the two genders, with the woman having the role of the protected and the man the one of the protector, can be said to be aligned with the established ideologies regarding gender. This connects to what Hall refers to as the systems of representation since gender categories can also be thought to be “organised forms of thinking” (1986:26). There seems to be no deviation concerning the characters’ behaviours as subjects of the male and female categories, something that is characteristically reflected in the following two scenes, where the focus is on Sam and Suzy’s relationship.

A distinguishable scene in Moonrise Kingdom is the second meeting of Sam and Suzy which takes place in a meadow after they both fled from their homes (Anderson, 2012: 0:20:23-0:21:15). They meet in an open field which can be perceived as a symbol of freedom that Sam and Suzy crave. Even though they are both portrayed as expressionless and stoic, with the flashback of their letter exchange, it is clear that the two children have formed a relationship of a romantic kind. This is displayed in a non-fashionable manner with simple gestures, such as when Sam offers Suzy beef jerky and greets her with flowers: (Anderson 2012: 00:21:00)

28

1 Sam: Where you followed? 2 Suzy: I doubt it. 3 Sam: Good. Is that a cat in there? 4 Suzy: [nods yes] 5 Sam: Can you read a map? 6 Suzy: Uh-huh 7 Sam: I do cartography. I feel we should go half way today and half way tomorrow 8 since you are a less experienced hiker and you’re wearing Sunday school shoes. 9 Suzy: They’re not really Sunday school [sho] huh 10 Sam: [Here] 11 Suzy: Thank you [..] (Anderson, 2012: 0:20:30- 0:21:00)

By looking at the communication, it is possible to understand Sam and Suzy as individuals and to decipher the ideologies they attempt to act upon. They perform the roles found within the patriarchal system, where the man is perceived to be the provider and the woman is viewed as needing protection and care. In the scene, they follow certain social standards, as for example when he offers her flowers and not the other way around.

As ‘The Identities Building Tool’ suggests, the identities of speakers can be deciphered through their speech, as for the protagonists in this scene. Sam seems to be the dominant speaker since he is the one posing the questions and appearing as the experienced one. He has taken charge of their flight, by organising their plans for the trip and sharing his skills for cartography. As a Scouts member, it is understandable that he has acquired certain skills that can be used in their adventure, his remarks on Suzy’s appearance and abilities, however, signal certain gender related ideologies.

For example, Suzy is wearing a dress and is not entirely prepared for their adventure, while Sam is dressed in his Scouts uniform and fully equipped for survival in the forest. He is knowledgeable in practical matters and in terms of surviving in nature. From this point of view, Suzy is illustrated as inferior in the relationship, being delicate with her beautiful pink dress and her impressive collection of stolen books. She brings her kitten alongside, which can be a symbol of sensitivity that shows her maternal side.

29

This view on gender and the role of the characters in the relationship, can be said to represent the social context of the time. The film is placed in 1965 where the discourse of gender and the ideologies regarding it pointed towards the traditionally perceived gender roles. The reason why Anderson might have chosen to depict the roles in this way, could be to demonstrate and highlight that these ideologies remain unchangeable even nowadays, in the 21st century. Another reason could be to make his audience question these norms and rethink gender positions.

On the contrary, in The Royal Tenenbaums, the characters of Richie and Margot do not display traditionally perceived gender characteristics. Margot is depicted to be a rebellious and carefree person who does not easily conform to the social rules. She is quite egocentric and seems to drive her relations, such as the ones with her husband, Raleigh and former lover, Eli. This characteristics of Margot reflect the way Royal is also displayed, somewhat sensitive towards his family but highly selfish as well. Margot’s character is highlighted in the scene where she leaves her house and husband (Anderson, 2001: 0:20:25- 0:21:12).

In this scene it is possible to get a glimpse into Margot and Raleigh’s relationship as well as both their personalities. Margot is very laconic as an individual as well as towards her husband. She is expressionless and is not showing any affection or emotion to Raleigh, which forces the audience to question the depth of her marriage. Raleigh is portrayed more to the verge of being viewed depressed and dependent on Margot.

1 Raleigh: Why is this necessary? 2 Margot: ‘Cause I’m in a rut and I need a change. 3 Hang on [hands him her things] [..] 4 Raleigh: You don’t love me anymore, do you? 5 Margot: I do, kind of 6 I can’t explain it right now (Anderson, 2001: 0:20:25-0:20:54)

30

Within this conversation, attention is placed on Margot where the deictics interchange between ‘I’, which refers to her, and ‘you’ also referring to her. In this way, the focus is on Margot’s needs and wishes at this moment, disregarding any attempt made by Raleigh. In the scene, at some point Margot gives Raleigh her belongings to hold while she enters a phone booth. The shot is momentarily changed by showing Etheline ordering a taxi and by the time the shot returns to Margot, she exits the booth. This shot further establishes the secrecy of her character where the audience may wonder who was she calling in this moment and why would it be so important?

As ‘The Doing and Not Just Saying Tool’ suggests, it can be observed that even though Raleigh does not say a lot, he looks crushed as he follows Margot with a defeated body posture and attempting to understand her departure. Keeping in mind his low-profile character, it can be argued that Margot holds the reigns of the relationship while Raleigh follows her lead and accepts what bread crumbs she is willing to offer. His state of mind is exemplified when he stands in front of the Margot’s taxi, as a desperate attempt to prevent her abandonment.

Margot has the dominant role as she is the one who stirs the course of their marriage. In various contexts, emotion can be associated with powerlessness and vulnerability. Margot has lived a life where she has been the ‘Other’ from the very beginning. Being an orphan differentiated her from her siblings and the fact that she was always referred to as the adopted daughter resulted in her never feeling accepted for who she is. This can be the reason behind her secretive and enigmatic personality where she does not let anyone know that she has been a smoker since her teen years. By concealing who she is, she avoids having people reject her.

Richie on the other hand, is an emotional and sensitive character who listens to music and draws, mostly Margot’s portraits. This character is not portrayed having a dominant male role, on the contrary the conversation is mostly driven my Margot’s initiatives. Thus, the depiction of gender in this film is quite different, since the characters possess both traditionally perceived male and female characteristics. In this sense, the movie promotes ideologies that disturb the normalised behaviours and this way opposes established ideas and categories, which is what Hall mentions to be the ‘abnormal’, something that it opposes the norm.

31

As mentioned in the introduction of our theoretical framework, Hall discusses stereotyping as different meanings culturally created, attributed to certain object, images, positions, etc. (Hall, 1997: 257). Thus, positioning someone independently of its subjective experience, makes that person become a representation of the meaning that is attributed to the given position. We have identified two of such positions or criteria. They will be treated as themes, along with the previous ideologies on love, gender, age, and behaviour.

The ‘Other’ in Moonrise Kingdom

As stated by Hall, people of a society are being divided into categories through the process of stereotyping. This process creates a division based on boxes between people who fit the so-called ‘normal’ and the ‘Other’ (1997: 237,257). In Moonrise Kingdom, this theme seems to be one of the main recurring topics, as both of the main characters, Sam and Suzy, embody the ‘Other.’

Sam is a boy scout, as most boys on the island where he lives. He possesses all the skills, but somehow he does not seem to fit in. He is an orphan, so he is in the social care system, something that renders him as different. According to Hall, this is a reductionist way of perceiving people. In Sam’s case, he is not perceived as just a ‘boy’, but rather as an ‘orphan’, this being now his main identity. Although he is not responsible for his current situation, the fact that he is different, results in him being rejected and marginalised by the others. He becomes the target of those within what is considered to be the norm. In the scene, where the boy scouts, sent to find Sam, encounter him and Suzy in the forest (Anderson, 2012: 00:35:35-00:37:23), the interplay of power is quite obvious. In the following dialogue it is possible to recognise the inequality of power and how Sam is viewed as an inferior individual because of his social status and by extension is positioned as the ‘Other’.

1 Deluca: You shouldn’t be friends with him. 2 Suzy: [looks offended]: Why not? 3 Deluca: Because he’s crazy. 4 Suzy [coldly]: Maybe you just don’t know him.

32

5 Redford: We know him a lot better than you. 6 He’s emotionally disturbed because his family died [..] (Anderson, 2012: 00:36:15 - 00:36:22)

(Anderson 2012: 00:36:17)

DeLuca tries to make Sam vulnerable by telling Suzy that Sam is “crazy” (line 3) and “emotionally disturbed” (line 5) because his family has passed away.

This shows a misconception based on what is considered to be natural and unnatural. Everything and everyone who is different is rendered as being crazy, very troubled. Having a sharp knife in his hand, ready to injure, does not mean that DeLuca is emotionally disturbed. The delimitation between Suzy and Sam, who are standing on a hill, and the boys scouts, refers to the situation when someone who falls outside the norms is perceived as being negative and has to be eliminated or punished in some way.

In terms of tone and intonation, Redford and Deluca appear to be mean and authoritative, with a focus on Sam. Redford positions Sam as a ‘fugitive’ and feels in power, since as he says they “have been deputized” (Anderson, 2012: 0:35:57). By taking into consideration ‘The Context is Reflexive Tool’, we can see here that Redford is reproducing ideas regarding his position as a scout, who is on a mission. He replicates a specific

33

behaviour and justifies his ‘authority’ to ‘capture’ Sam because of the fact that Sam is still wearing a uniform, which renders him to still be a scout. Redford is a bully, along with all the other boys, but through the language he uses, what he does is an abuse of power, power in the hands of the wrong man, led by the wrong reasons, meaning negative and damaging towards others.

In accordance to ‘The Identities Tool’, Redford is seen to be an authoritative figure, attributing this identity to himself and asking Sam to recognise it. The abuse of power is highlighted best when Sam asks Redford to reason and to let him go, as there is an open adversity between them, but he says that he cannot allow it.

Sam ignores Redford’s play by answering back with words such as ‘creeps’, ‘idiots’, ‘stupid’. Despite the authoritative position Redford and Deluca make use of, the aforementioned words, obviously, have no effect on Sam. This is further established through his choice of words which are a sign of challenging authority.

Wes Anderson directs the scene in a way that makes the reality of it blunt: the boy with a deadly weapon in his hand is not the crazy one, but Sam’s behaviour is considered to be, due to his parents’ death. The abuse of power renders the facts in a very obvious way: DeLuca and Redford are driven by power and lose their sense of reality, as they feel entitled and rewarded for being part of the norm, which they themselves help to reproduce.

Why is Suzy considered to be the ‘Other’? She appears to be a girl with an acquired taste. She listens to French music, she reads fantasy stories, she dresses differently, being the only character in the film that wears pastel colours. In all the scenes, her dress stands out through the colour pink, which no other girl wears in the movie, although it is known to be the representative gender colour. Her characteristics are what render her as different. By being unique, by simply liking something else than the others, being attracted by books and music that are not the main stream on the island, she is perceived as ‘a very troubled child’. The adjective ‘very’, as in the of case of the power exercised over Sam, is meant to emphasise how different Suzy is perceived to be. It is not enough that she is positioned as a ‘troubled child’, she is considered a very troubled one, which makes the adjective ‘troubled’ stand out as her main characteristic.

34

Sam and Suzy are viewed as a team as they go against their families and surroundings by fleeting. They wish to escape a life where they feel as outsiders. This can be explained with Hall’s theory of the ‘Other’. Sam and Suzy fail to fit into the norms of society. Suzy is well articulated, blunt and with a fiery temperament, while she has no qualms confronting her parents. This behaviour goes against the norm, where children are expected to be obedient, respectful and stay out of grown up matters. Since Suzy lacks these traits, she is categorised as deviant and abnormal. The fact is further proved when Suzy shows Sam the book “Coping with the Very Troubled Child” (Anderson, 2012: 00:27:30) which she has found among her parents’ belongings. Her parents view her as troubling for not being normal and acting as expected.

Sam, on the contrary, is an orphan within a foster family, who end up rejecting him for being different. He is also perceived as a troubled child by his fellow scouts and rumours imply that he was very aggressive in previous homes. He is judged by the stereotypes that follow orphan children. Due to his status, he is expected to have certain attributes without given the chance to be himself. He as well is portrayed as the ‘Other’ for not conforming to the norms.

Suzy and Sam are two children who happened to have different lives than the rest or like different things. Still, they feel forced to run away, which is paradoxical, as they live on an island. How to run away when there is nowhere to run? They cannot escape the ideologies that guide the community, just the way they cannot escape the island. The fact that both of them are considered different and troubled is made with a reference to their families and their unstable environment. It is Suzy’s family that has caused her escape due to their characterisation as ‘troubled’, and it is Sam’s loss of family that has caused his rejection by others. Considering the fact that they are positioned as ‘different’, what is then portrayed as ‘normal’ in the film?

What can be read as ‘normal’ is the heterosexual family (traditional family) with children? Nevertheless, the norm works always as a model to be followed, attributing certain characteristics to the concept of family. The ideology at play which people try to maintain and to continue to reproduce is the one of the perfect, happy family. However, the image is shallow as at the connotative level everyone is abnormal and everyone is someone less than they try to represent. In the case of Suzy’s family, the parents never interact, the three small

35

boys are always left alone and the mother is seen to flirt with the police officer various times. In the case of Sam, he finds a family in Sharp, the chief of the police.

‘Normality’ in The Royal Tenenbaums

In The Royal Tenenbaums, the interesting theme to discuss is the one of normality, as this is what the characters wish to escape at any price. Normal, being ordinary, is something they are not. The parents struggle to raise their children to be everything else but normal. In terms of the ‘Other’, the Tenenbaums, Etheline and Royal embody it by choice, regardless of if they are aware of it or not. Etheline is a single, working mother who raises her children alone after separating from her husband due to his unpleasant and non-paternal behaviour. She is a strong independent woman who has standards and makes them known. Thus, she does not stay with Royal because that is what is expected from a woman in her position. She is not the stereotypical housewife. Royal portrays a non-pedagogical behaviour as a father. He is unreliable and immature and is everything a father is expected not to be. They both simply disregard the norms. ‘Normal’ in this film can be defined as everything that is not ‘extraordinary’.

The dynamics of the relationship between Etheline and Royal show how confusing and unstable the environment the children have grown up in must have been. The scene between Etheline and Royal, at the beginning of the film, when they meet on the street, exemplifies the lack of normality in their relationship (Anderson, 2001: 00:21:47 - 00:23:57). Two people talking, one changes his mind and statement every other second while the other is forced by what is being said, unwillingly, still in a natural way, to change psychological states. There is no constant in their relation besides change, a change that occurs at speed light.

Royal approaches Etheline as she leaves the house. She keeps walking while he follows her and talks to her. She only stops and turns towards Royal when he tells that he is dying. She is genuinely sorry for her behaviour, she apologises and starts to cry. She gets very emotional, so emotional that Royal changes his mind and tells her he is not dying. As a result, Etheline becomes the previously angry walking woman and she even hits Royal:

36

1 Royal: Got a minute? 2 Etheline: Huh! What are you doing here? 3 Royal: I need a favour. I want to spend some time with you and the children. 4 Etheline: Are you crazy? 5 Royal: W--w-wait a minute damn it! 6 Etheline: Stop following me. 7 Royal: I want my family back. 8 Etheline: Well, you can’t have it. I’m sorry for you but it’s too late. 9 Royal: Listen baby I’m dying. Yeah, I’m sick as a dog. 10 I’m dead in six weeks. I’m dying. 11 Etheline: What are you talking about? Oh I’m sorry! I didn’t know! 12 What they say? What is the prognosis? 13 Royal: Take it easy Ethel don’t hold on baby hold on hold on ok ok. 14 [Etheline begins to hyperventilate and cry very hard.] 15 Etheline: Where is the doctor? 16 Royal: hold on wait a second now wait a second. Ok listen, I’m not dying. 17 But I need some time. A month or so, ok? I want us to to 18 Etheline: What’s wrong with you? 19 Royal: Ethel 20 Etheline: Are you crazy? 21 Royal: Ethel, baby, I am dying 22 Etheline: Are you or aren’t you? 23 Royal: What? dying? yeah (Anderson, 2001: 00:21:47 - 00:23:57)

The entire scene is a sort of mouse and cat game. Etheline switches from a state of anger in line 8 to a state of hysterical crying in lines 11 to 20 to a state of calm in line 22, all in two minutes. This shows emotional instability or just lack of self-control in the presence of her husband.

From a different perspective, Royal can be perceived as manipulative, capable of saying whatever is needed to get what he wants. It is clear that he is a selfish person who tries to be considerate, but it still appears to be in his nature to put himself first every time. As he cannot cope with the crying, he changes his mind and tells Etheline he is not dying. In front

37

of anger, he changes his story again. It is only understandable that under the presence of such unstable character, any sensitive person would appear as losing her mind. By using ‘The Context is Reflexive Tool’, we can see how this scene is a reproduction of the dynamics between Etheline and Royal, possibly what she wanted to escape when they separated. Although there have been many years since their separation, Royal has the same eclectic and disturbing behaviour, he even addresses Etheline with ‘baby’ (line 9,21) like nothing has changed.

‘The Subject Tool’ can be used here, in order to discuss the choice of subject matter (Gee, 2011: 19). The topic of discussion is Royal himself and the situation he is found in, which further sustains the argument that he portrays a sense of selfishness. The deictics are used to emphasise this as well. The personal pronouns change between ‘I’ and ‘you’, according to the speaker show that Royal talks of himself, Etheline talks about Royal.

With reference to ‘The Fill In Tool’, as an audience, we can make inferences about their relationship and what this encounter stands for the characters and their marriage. Royal was and still is the insensitive one. He uses tricks to get what he wants and his bluntness has no boundaries. Falling for someone’s manipulative schemes may seem tiresome. Etheline, a successful career woman, emphasises performance, her children are to be geniuses at any cost, even if they are not. She is submitting herself and them to an ideology that transforms children in trophies for the parents. They are to be on the covers of magazines, to be always the best, to be superior. They are also reminded at all times how ‘not normal’ they are, as in Margot’s case, who is reminded every time that she is adopted. She is not ‘the daughter’, she is ‘the adopted daughter’. This attitude has a strong repercussion in her adult life.

The pressure exercised on the children during childhood, the bluntness and selfishness on the behalf of their father, transforms them into unhappy adults. Being everything but normal, makes Richie and Margot try to fit the ‘normality’ as much as they can. They develop a romantic relationship, which, although there is no blood relation between them, can still be perceived as incestuous, or immoral from a social perspective. Being outside the norm, outside the ideological implicit assumptions concerning family, makes them sad, depressed, and unable to function. Margot stays in the bathroom all day watching TV and doing her nails and Richie attempts suicide.

38

The norm they escape can be compared to the one in Moonrise Kingdom, where there is no normality, except the ideology regarding family and children that fail in practice, yet functions as a floating signifier. By exhibiting such a behaviour, Etheline and Royal are not hypocrites, and even if Royal is self-centred, he always says and does what he wishes and thinks, regardless of the social expectations.

Limitations and further research

Various concepts like norms and subject positions could have been explained more in depth or presented from a theoretical perspective. There are various philosophical, sociological and feminist approaches on norms (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Midgley & Hughes, 1983). Sociocultural and discursive psychology have an interesting approach on subject positions (Luk Van Langenhove, Rom Harré 1999). Nonetheless, in order to stay in the area of cultural studies and maintain the focus and coherence of the project, norms and subject position remain relevant and are used only within the borders of the theories. The findings of the analysis instilled our interest and made us think of further research where real life romantic relationship could be investigated through theories of norms and ideologies (Althusser, Foucault, Eagleton).

Discussion

Within our analysis, we have pointed out the ideologies and the representation of normality portrayed in the two films. The stories of the films seem to point out to different ideologies when concerning social categories, such as age, gender etc., and the definitions of concepts such as the one of normality.

For instance, in most of the reviews for The Royal Tenenbaums, the adjective that is predominant for describing the family is ‘dysfunctional’ (Film Critic 2001; The New Yorker, 2001). Comparably, Suzy’s parents in Moonrise Kingdom are perceived to be in a “[..] dysfunctional marriage that they can scarcely find a reason to invest themselves in anything, including their children.” (We Got This Covered, 2012). The word ‘dysfunctional’ suggests

39

that the family or marriage does not function normally, possibly due to the ways in which Wes Anderson has chosen to present his story, in which the family escapes from the established norm. However, the issue with the concept of normality is its unsettled nature, since it can be defined but not applied, just as the definition of a functional family.

The point in this discussion it is not, however, to show the lack of consistency on the matter, but to point out that established ideologies, normality and the concept of a ‘functional family’ operate as rather floating signifiers that can be modified according to one’s own subjective experience.

Wes Anderson presents a reality that is at the same time aligned and not aligned with the expected standards. The characters of the story navigate through life being restricted by the established ideologies and expectations, while also being boundless regarding their behaviours and realities. It is the time when Richie realises that his love for Margot has no limits and no constraints that he confesses his feelings and openly discusses his emotions. In the same moment, however, Margot realises that these feelings are to be kept between them in order to not disturb the social reality they already live in, the reality they have been presented with.

Therefore, the lives of the characters are portrayed in their purest and most honest form, where deviation and conformity are parts of their stories. It is to show that social reality might be an imagined puzzle perfectly assembled, the subjects of this reality that constitute the pieces of the puzzle, however, cannot come together all at once and achieve perfection. The characters of the films might fit in social categories such as the one of ‘girl’, ‘boy’, ‘adult’ or ‘child’, but they cannot perfectly fit within them, since their behaviours and actions might fall within all.

On the contrary, however, by the end of Moonrise Kingdom, the children end their rebellion and are called back to their expected behaviour. Together with this, the order within their lives is restored. As Tyree suggests:

“Moonrise Kingdom illuminates its director’s conflicted attraction toward (and arch scepticism about) the classical “comedy of love” that, according to scholar G. Beiner, encompasses

40

“courtship, marriage, friendship, family reunion, and [..] a return to a reconstituted civilized order” (as mentioned in Film Quarterly, 2013).

The characters find themselves being tangled within a state of disorder, to an eventually reconstructed order where the children return home to their families, doing things people of their age would be expected to do.

We see then that concepts of adulthood, childhood or normality are presented to be floating points. They are combined, however, with ideas of social conformities, and this is where the characters find themselves waver. Burger, writing for the Indie Wire, states that the frankness presented mainly through the simple dialogue in Moonrise Kingdom, allows the audience to decide the emotions of the characters. As he claims, “This kind of frankness “mimics the earnestness of childhood,” while at the same time imitating “the emotional barriers we construct in adulthood,” leaving the protagonists to navigate between both extremes” (Indie Wire, 2016). Similarly, in The Royal Tenenbaums, the protagonists find themselves growing into adulthood and taking over responsibilities that come with this, they nevertheless, portray feelings and fears that have followed them from their childhood to adulthood. Margot’s character, in particular, has characteristics that are highlighted to be remains from her experiences as a child. All characters move back to their family home, avoiding their adult lives.

What the films can tell us about ideologies and categories, from the manner Wes Anderson has combined a sense of conformity and deviance from the norms, is that they are illusions, imagined focal points that define our reality, or as Hall argues they are the system of thought and this is why they remain unchangeable (1986: 26). However, in reality, they can never fully be adopted and acted upon, simply because individuals’ life experiences and emotions fall far away from the abstract, already established social ideas. The subjectivity of experience can always challenge the ideologies at play.

41

Conclusion

Finally, the findings of the project revealed that the chosen films demonstrate certain ideologies regarding love, age, and behaviour. These ideologies can be viewed as patterns that society implicitly advertises for, and urges people to follow, although it is not a simple task. In actuality, acting precisely according to a specific ideology is too restrictive.

In the films, it was realised that the characters came from different backgrounds, while still being ‘problematic’ by society’s standards. Suzy was brought up with her brothers in a heterosexual family while Sam was an orphan who lacked a family and lived an unstable life in regards to homes. Although Suzy’s life was more according to the norm, she still ends up feeling depressed with the urge to fleet, while Sam who has the exact opposite life of Suzy, also tries to fleet his life because he is not accepted by anyone in his circle.

In the Royal Tenenbaums, Margot, Richie, and Chas lived a privileged life, with the best education and a lovely house and most importantly a loving mother. Yet, they all grew up, as mentioned in the analysis, to be ‘dysfunctional’ individual who avoided the responsibilities of adulthood.

Drawing from these facts, we realised that normality is a notion that is not fixed. Although there is an idea of what norm is and which kind of behaviour is to be avoided in a society, it is a much-complicated discussion which cannot be established easily.

To sum up, we concluded that leading a life according to a norm, and an expected behaviour is unreasonable, for the reason that relationships and identities are complex and cannot fit in a box, therefore will in most cases deviate from the preferred norm. Although our findings were drawn from the analysis of two films, it must be admitted that films represent and imitate reality, sometimes in a rather extremist manner. For that reason, our findings could be applied in real life relationships.

42

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Caroline Westbrook. 2016. The Royal Tenenbaums Review | Movie - Empire. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.empireonline.com/movies/royal-tenenbaums/review/. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

James Paul Gee, 2010. How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. 0 Edition. Routledge.

Louis Giannetti, 2001. Understanding Movies, 9th Edition. 9th Edition. Prentice Hall

Los Angeles Times. 2016. The unique filmmaking style of Wes Anderson - LA Times. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-ca-0701-wes-anderson- photogallery.html. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

Makus, Anne 1990, Stuart Hall’s Theory of Ideology: A Frame for Rethorical Criticism, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 495-514

Manohla Dargis. 2016. Wes Andersons Moonrise Kingdom With Bruce Willis - The New York Times. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/movies/wes-andersons-moonrise- kingdom-with-bruce-willis.html. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

Mark Burger. 2016. ‘Moonrise Kingdom’ Video Reveals Connection Between Story and Style | IndieWire. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.indiewire.com/2016/10/moonrise-kingdom-video- essay-wes-anderson-1201733350/. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

Movie Review - - FILM FESTIVAL REVIEW; Brought Up to Be Prodigies, Three Siblings Share a Melancholy Oddness - NYTimes.com. 2016. Movie Review - - FILM FESTIVAL REVIEW; Brought Up to Be Prodigies, Three Siblings Share a Melancholy Oddness - NYTimes.com. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9504E5DD163CF936A35753C1A9679C8B63. [Accessed 14 December 2016]. nola.com. 2014. Moonrise Kingdom review. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nola.com/…/06/moonrise_kingdom_review_wes_an.html. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

Stuart Hall.1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices (Culture, Media and Identities series). 2 Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Stuart Hall. 1986 The Problem of Ideology. Marxism without guarantees, Journal of Communication Inquiry, SAGE Publications, 24-45

The Guardian. 2016. Moonrise Kingdom – review | Film | The Guardian. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/may/24/moonrise-kingdom-review. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

43

Unsafe Houses: Moonrise Kingdom and Wes Anderson’s Conflicted Comedies of Escape « Film Quarterly. 2016. Unsafe Houses: Moonrise Kingdom and Wes Anderson’s Conflicted Comedies of Escape « Film Quarterly. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.filmquarterly.org/2014/01/unsafe- houses-moonrise-kingdom-and-wes-andersons-conflicted-comedies-of-escape/. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

We Got This Covered. 2016. Moonrise Kingdom Analysis: The New High-Point In Wes Anderson's Career. [ONLINE] Available at: http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/moonrise-kingdom-analysis- highpoint-wes-andersons-career/. [Accessed 14 December 2016].

44