While viewing the film Orlando, it was clear that that several symbols were used in depicting the altering notions of gender and power status. However, I think that in many cases they were lost on a surface level, overtaken by a general confusion in the story line and perhaps a little too much usage of visual symbolism (the use of color, light, portrayal of beauty, ect.). The films point was lost on me by the end, because between the changing color of the clothing, setting, plot and a lack of any substantial dialogue to fill in gaps, the whole thing was left too ambiguous and unexplained. I think maybe had I read the book, the story would make more sense, but even after some research I still feel a little inadequate to properly and fully make proper judgment on the film.
The biggest confusion arose from the lack of emotion or difference the character showed when switching gender roles. For example, the notion that a man who all the sudden took on a female role in society would so passively accept the new inferiorities attributed with that gender, didn’t seem plausible. If the point of the submissiveness and lack of reaction was to show the opposing placements of males and females in society, I don’t the point was illustrated clearly enough. A general confusion resulted from questions such as: Even though he’s now female, is the personality still the same? Why not? How could the differences be so accepted? What about the characters reaction? Preference to being male or female?
Again, I think that in reading the full text these questions would be answered and the film would seem a little more clear, but for the moment, I’m still too stuck on understanding it to focus on particular on the several different symbols used to illustrate gender, power and time period.
Two things: first, a film text (even an adaptation) should stand on its own merits, and not as an addendum to its original source material. So any problems with the film text shouldn't necessarily be based on its value as an effective adaptation.
ReplyDeleteSecond: this is a complex film and it would be very difficult to parse out all ist meaning and symbolism after one viewing. I always recommend viewing films at least twice if not multiple times before assaying any in-depth analysis, especially for students who are not experienced with close film analysis.
Also, I'm not sure the design and the plot can be separated from one another here; the production design elements were clearly intended to help tell the story. So within those visual elements may lie some answers to any questions about plot confusion; again, one viewing may not be adequate to really allow full comprehension or appreciation for a film this lavish and complex.