De_Sam

The Nouvelle Vague originated from an ideology postulated in Cahiers du Cinéma in the '50s, specifically the idea that film could no longer be ruled by its narrative (which was often an adaptation of other media, particularly critically-acclaimed literary works) but should be completely dictated by the director or, as he was called when fulfilling this role, the 'auteur'. Thus the reactionary countermovement of the Nouvelle Vague proposed a sudden shift from narrative to formal and experimental factors as indicators of quality. Concerning this focus on the formal aspect was the preference of the Cahiers du Cinéma Critics for the mise-en-scène, namely the long take and deep-focus aesthetic (Cook, 2004; Gibbs, 2002).

Indeed, the auteur theory or politique des auteurs continues to dominate in the discourse surrounding film, especially in journalistic circles. However, auteur theory has evolved since the Nouvelle Vague, as Kate Ince has illustrated in her analysis of François Ozon; it is no longer the aesthetical techniques in a director's body of work but recurring themes that identify an 'auteur' (2008). The change in meaning of 'auteur' is a clear index of the extent to which the 'broken thread' as Olivier Assayas called it has been reattached.

In view of Ince's analysis, which uses the concepts of the Cahiers du Cinéma critics in a diametrical way, it seems that the abandonment of the 'nouvelle vague auteur' has fully disseminated in the academic discourse of film studies. The director is no longer seen as being able to dictate every aspect of the film production process, the only thing he has complete control over is the thematic content (Maule, 2008). As a consequence of the reinterpretation of the auteur theory, content analyses have become more commonplace leading to a declination in the number of formal analyses. For the purpose of complementing Ince's analysis of Ozon's work this essay will perform a close stylistic analysis of the film style in Jeune & Jolie (2013). In addition, it will provide empirical evidence to the claim that the post-nouvelle vague directors reintegrated and re-evaluated the narrative film tradition and style.

Consequently, Assayas asserted that directors such as André Téchiné, Maurice Pialat, Jean Eustace and other post-nouvelle vague directors "re-attached the broken thread". In other words they reconciled with the film tradition that was rejected by the Cahier du Cinéma critics. Thus, filmmakers were no longer limited to a long take, deep-focus or, alternatively, an experimental film style. By adapting the existing stylistic tactics, which were institutionalised during the first half of the 20th century, films could once again be a medium to convey narratives.

The methodology of the stylistic analysis is rooted in the cognitive film theory of David Bordwell, who proposed an empirical way of analysing the formal aspects of film in Figures Traced in Light. This essay will mainly utilise concepts from the first chapter, titled 'Staging and Style'.

Firstly, Jeune & Jolie is created utilising the continuity editing of classical Hollywood, what Bordwell has postulated as the system of editing that least obstructs the viewer in his construction of the narrative while watching the film (1985). Since Ozon opts for this mode of editing it seems evident that he puts more emphasis on the narrative than on the formal aspect of his film.

In the second place, Ozon utilises the traditional schemata of opening a scene with an establishing shot, followed by a recurring shot-reverse-shot scheme in which the major participants in the conversation appear alone in frame or is seen over the shoulder of another character (Bordwell, 2005). He uses the schemata for 18 scenes throughout Jeune & Jolie and therefore it constitutes the large part of all poly- and dialogues. Bordwell has noted that this schemata is one of the oldest, most institutionalised and accordingly the most understood method of showing a scene involving dialogue. Thus, once again Ozon elects to emphasize conveying the narrative instead of experimenting with the film form.

Thirdly, the characters in Ozon's film dominate the frame and direct the camera, owing to the absence of any open frames; either montage or camera movement reframes the main character when he/she is about to leave the frame. This is most pronounced with the protagonist Isabelle, played by Marine Vacth. The way she is framed differs from the mood of the scene, generally falling into three major categories: BCU or CU for the emotional intense scenes, VLS or LS to show her progressing alienation from her environment and personal relationships, and lastly medium shots for neutral scenes.

As a final point, Ozon incorporates not only the film style of the pre-nouvelle vague French Cinema, but also the whole of Western film tradition, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. This is logical given the way the solution to a specific staging problem is passed on from filmmaker to filmmaker on a global scale, as western films are distributed throughout the entire Western world.

Returning to the insistence of Ince that Ozon is an auteur on the basis of his content, this limited stylistic analysis has proven that he does not assert his personal mark on the aesthetic of the film. However, Ince has correctly concluded that Ozon dictates the themes in his film, leading him to be the "first mainstream queer filmmaker" (2008, p. 31). To conclude, in the contemporary French film industry an auteur is no longer determined by his style but by the recurring themes in his oeuvre. Film style has once again become a universal tool to help immerse the audience in the film and convey the narrative of the director.

Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film: London, Routledge 1985.

Bordwell, D. (2005). Staging and Style Figures traced in light : on cinematic staging (pp. 1-42). Berkeley; London: University of California Press.

Cook, D. A. (2004). A history of narrative film (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Gibbs, J. (2002). Mise-en-scène : film style and interpretation. London: Wallflower.

Ince, K. (2008). François Ozon's cinema of desire. In K. Ince (Ed.), Five directors : auteurism from Assayas to Ozon (pp. 157): Manchester University Press.

Maule, R. (2008). The Difficult Legacy of the Nouvelle Vague: Olivier Assayas and French Film Authors at the End of Auteurism Beyond Auteurism: New Directions in Authorial Film Practices in France, Italy and Spain since the 1980s (pp. 81-105). Bristol: Intellect.

'New Indian cinema' contains a broad spectrum of various genres, directors and other classifications of films. It is in essence the collection of all those who oppose the dominant film code of Bollywood in alternating ways (Verma, 2011). One of the most interesting films is Ritesh Batra's The Lunchbox (2013), as it feels more like a European art house film set in Mumbai than a traditional Indian film.

To accurately denote how The Lunchbox differs from the dominant Bollywood code a clear definition of the latter is needed. Ganti has postulated that the English-speaking world created the term 'Bollywood' in the '70s, when the biggest Indian productions generated international interest for the first time. The coagulation of 'Bombay' and 'Hollywood' was a reference to the influence of Bombay film productions on the Indian cinema culture as they are shown nationally and internationally. A more recent interpretation of the term refers to the Bombay cinema as the only non-Hollywood film industry that is globally dominant and present. However, the actual use of the term indicates a specific film style instead of a particular film industry; there are 'Bollywood' films that are not made in Bombay (2004). The primary aspect of the archetypical 'Bollywood' production is the melodrama, both in content -the masala mix of many genres, and aesthetically -in the staging, colour use and acting (Mishra, 2002; Mooij, 2006).

An important point in the comparison to North-American film history is the continued dominance of the 'Bollywood aesthetic'. Whereas Hollywood experienced a crisis in the '60s, which led to a change in film style due to the rise of new Hollywood and the end of the production code, major 'Bollywood' productions have largely remained unchanged in their aesthetic since the advent of widescreen in the '50s. Lutgendorf has noted that this cinematic aesthetic was already present in the foundation of 'Bollywood', namely the pre-modern Indian storytellers that "were already fond of flashbacks, lyrical interludes, surreal landscapes, and vast and crowded Cinemascopic tableaux; their language was visually intense, almost hallucinatory: screenplays awaiting the screen." (2006, p. 250)

The most important aspect of the 'Bollywood aesthetic' for this essay is the rejection of the realistic portrayal that is dominant in Western film culture. This preference for the constructed, the supernatural was, as mentioned above, present in oral tradition long before the advent of cinema. To break with this aesthetic is thusly moving away from not only the dominant film style but also Indian storytelling in general. This is why The Lunchbox appears to the spectator as a non-Indian film, because it conveys a story in a way that mirrors the Western narrative film tradition through its realism.

Firstly, Batra utilises no non-diegetic music or song and no voice-over. His film contains two songs in a repeated scene, he shows the lunchbox carriers singing on the train both times. This results in an accurate representation of Mumbai with diegetic music. The Lunchbox only hints at the 'Bollywood' dance scene when two characters are discussing an old hit song that originated from a 'Bollywood' film. In summary, the film acknowledges the dominant film style, but rejects the constructed nature of independent or integrated dance scenes in its goal for realism.

Furthermore, Batra employs a -in contrast to the vibrant style of 'Bollywood', dull colour pallet, giving Mumbai/Bombay a gritty and bleak outlook, akin to the character of a modernised urban environment. The Lunchbox has many dark scenes, in contrast to many 'Bollywood' productions that are always well lit. This darker aesthetic is also translated into the content, as the film deals with topics such as loneliness, infidelity, addiction and estrangement. Batra wants to portray the whole picture of Indian society, not just the good and beautiful parts as is done in most of the 'Bollywood' productions. Above all he wants to explore the social conditions through individual characters, in other words not a general realistic aesthetic but a specific form created by Michelangelo Antonioni, i.e. introspective realism. The adaptation of this style is further exemplified in the many shots where the protagonist is the only object in focus, symbolising their estrangement, a schemata Antonioni perfected in Il Deserto Rosso (1964) (Cook, 2004).

In addition, The Lunchbox displays many scenes in the style of the slow cinema where the film time and the real time are equal. The most striking examples are the scenes that present the protagonist consuming the daily lunchboxes, all in long takes. Cook notes in his book from 2004 that this stylistic technique also originated from the work of Michelangelo Antonioni, who introduced it in L'Avventura (1960).

Conversely, the only filmic aspect Batra retains from the 'Bollywood' aesthetic is the cinematic aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (the standardised CinemaScope format). This indicates that he still envisioned The Lunchbox to be shown in theatres and cinemas rather than on television. Batra does not eschew the economical aspect of the Indian film tradition; he does not aim for the same audiences as 'Bollywood', but still strives to reach niche crowds in smaller venues and multiplexes.

Overall, Batra has rejected the dominant 'Bollywood' tradition not out of a reactionary action. He wanted to realistically portray the social problems that arise in a modernised urban environment. The 'Bollywood' aesthetic, with its melodramatic staging, masala story structure, colourful pallet and energetic dance sequences, is not suited to convey stories about estrangement and isolation. The Lunchbox adapts from Michelangelo Antonioni, a filmmaker that also dealt with the topic of modernisation and how it impacted those who experienced it. Subsequently, given the motivation behind Batra's appropriation of Western film tradition, it is unfair to devalue his film as a languid way to appease international audiences, as was the case in Sarina Masukor's review of the film (2015). The Lunchbox handles its external film language for the purpose of reflecting on and criticising the Indian society and culture that has undergone modernisation, a fact that major 'Bollywood' productions often neglect in their narrative structure.

Cook, D. A. (2004). A history of narrative film (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Ganti, T. (2004). Introduction Bollywood: a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema (pp. 1-52). London: Routledge.

Lutgendorf, P. (2006). Is There an Indian Way of Filmmaking? International Journal of Hindu Studies, 10(3), 227-256.

Masukor, S. (2015). Old Recipe, New Flavour: Ritesh Batra's The Lunchbox. Metro(183), 70-73.

Mishra, V. (2002). Bollywood cinema: Temples of desire: Psychology Press.

Mooij, T. (2006). The new Bollywood: No heroines, no villains. Cineaste, 31(3), 30-35.

Verma, R. (2011). Beyond Bollywood: Indian cinema's new cutting edge. The Guardian, 23.