Mean Streets, Annie Hall, and Do The Right Thing - Identity in the City

 Daniel Lavigne


Professor Saphire


COM126


3 December 2020


Identity in the City


It is so often that New York City is used as a backdrop in films. The city is home to many different walks of life, and for that reason, conflict arises, identities are shaped, and human nature is fully displayed even in the mundane. Three films in particular, Annie Hall, Mean Streets, and Do The Right Thing are all great examples of how New York City is a perfect setting for stories about identity. Each of these films uses editing techniques to depict revealing information about characters, as well as fuel the tensions of human to human conflict. These three films show how New York City and editing can reveal deep truths regarding human nature. 

These three films showcase New York City with the help of editing in different ways. Mean Streets has many handheld shots that show the crowded traveling between locations. This gives New York a claustrophobic setting, and confined spatial & temporal relationships. In addition, this is a sparse use of cutting when dialogue occurs, and usually both characters (generally Italian-Americans) are seen in frame very close. You would think this would produce the effect of intimacy; but in reality many of these close-knit dialogue scenes are in regards to money, crime, and anything but community. It shows that regardless of ethnicity, humans tend to crave power and respect. Next, Annie Hall shows a much more romanticized New York City. The city is often displayed with a sort of gleam to it, and characters seem to be of the upper-middle class. In contrast to the “white” setting, the main character Alvy, is very confused, pessimistic, and witty. There are various points in the film where Alvy will talk directly to the audience, and provide some lens into his thinking. He struggles with connection to people, he feels alienated, and this is only boosted by the various shots depicting the crowded streets of New York. Lastly, Do The Right Thing decides to show a heat wave in a single day. Similarly to the previous films, race fueled tensions are present (like Mean Streets), and characters like “Da Mayor” feel disrespected and alienated (like Annie Hall). The New York City in this film feels dreary, the characters seem aggressive, and this all works so well with bright, saturated colors of the hot day. 

What these three films do so well is illuminate how setting can affect identity. In the case of Do The Right Thing, a poorer, predominantly black neighborhood is the central focus of the story. In Mean Streets, you get an Italian American community. In Annie Hall, you get a Jewish community in the Upper East Side. With each of these, there’s a sense of community with every character being aware of other characters. This “piling up on one another” reality of New York certainly makes things strained. This is completely different from older films, and plays into New American Cinema wave. Each of these directors were dissident in their approach. They tried new things, and wanted to gravitate away from the normalities of a New York deadset on opportunity. Even with Annie Hall being sort of “romantic” in its depiction of NYC, all three films take liberty in providing the viewer with anti-romanticism, especially with the systems of NYC. Content curves are also used as an editing technique to shape psychological impacts of scenes. For example, the ending scene to Do The Right Thing chooses not to cut right after the murder. It instead takes time to crane up, and show the crowded and horrific scene that took place. Mean Streets also does this quite well, with various violent scenes taking place with cheerful music in the background. This dichotomy creates a dreadful display. 

Overall, the power of these films is set in the fact that it shows some of the darker sides of human nature in an iconic setting. It shows the identity is influenced by ethnicity, race, and religion; but is is the other things present, love, money, and connection that ultimately determine the fate for the characters. It just goes to show that the circumstances of where are born absolutely influence your identity. But in reality, your destiny is shaped by what you do with life. The capacity for humans to do positive things with their human nature is immeasurable. These three films simply show the other side of that. The capacity for humans to do negative things with human nature, especially with a setting like NYC, is also immeasurable.


Comments

  1. I wonder if you would consider “the capacity for humans to do negative things” to be synonymous with anti-romanticism, and therefore the capacity for positivity to be romantic. It’s an interesting analytical lens, because these three films seem to portray anything but black-and-white clarity; rather moralism is nebulous. I mention this because it seems that it is your lens for the conceptual and social approaches to these films, and such extremes might miss the systemic critique that is at play in all three films—the individual as beholden to many various forces and influences, whether it be class, religion, or ethnicity. You seem to get there by noting that “setting can affect identity,” but more analysis of the societal forces depicted in the films might help the argument. Your technical analysis, on the other hand, is incredibly thorough and impressive. This was a difficult topic to tie to editing choices, and it seems you’ve taken a hard look at the technical choices made in the films. The bridge you create between these analyses and the nature of the films is enlightening.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment