Current Forum: Session 12: Independent Films & Overall View	Read 11 times 	
Date: 04-Apr-2001 17:35:28	
Author: HAMILTON, MARK A. <mah7088@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>	
Subject: Pi and Classical Hollywood Cinema 	
 [Remove]	
		
       Pi will be the second (supposedly) radical independent film I've seen, in as many tries, which seems to be more a classical film in a radical independent package. As David has written, there "are no subversive films, only subversive moments" (248). Is it possible that the aspects of classical Hollywood cinema are not simply a movement that grew and then faded, like Neoclassism or Romanticism or Realism, but are the aspects necessary for telling a good story?
       Of course, there are plenty of styles out there which don't tell good stories. But, generally, when they do so, they are trying to reflect a meaningless life (art, these people say, should 
reflect life). Somebody said that once, and, personally, I think that's all we need. Any audience grows tired quickly of somebody whose story's meaning can't really be determined. Especially independent films, which are struggling to be financially viable, have found they must have meaning. This is probably why the independent films I've seen are very classically clear about their meaning. Otherwise, the audience would not pay to see their story. Meaningless art, perhaps, can survive with a dictatorship to back it up, but in a world, like America, where money is necessary for success people must be able to tell a clear story.
       Pi, at least to me, has all the aspects of a classical Hollywood cinema. The story is balanced. It begins with a man, Max Cohen, obsessed with mathematics as a way to understand everything (he says "Mathematics is the language of nature" and "Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers"). The movie ends when he realizes living life is more important than understanding everything in life. This strikes me as a very balanced plot.
       Further, the narrative is full of causes and effects. We are shown the source and reason for everything (even Max's migraine headaches, which are attributed to some scar on his scalp). Not only this, but it strikes me that there are many symbols in Pi (i.e. Max's scalp scar represents his gifted mathematic ability and at the same time the horrible torment and burden it 
causes him), and symbols make a work easier for an audience to understand. 
       "The film ends with a definite conclusion" (247): Sol is dead; Max is no longer obsessed. Repetition is very common in Pi, and disturbingly so in the case of Max's headaches. "Planting 
and foreshadowing are used to encourage causality" (248). We are given many instances of foreshadowing, especially of Max's brain (the man standing in the subway with blood dripping from his hand).
       While, for most films to be successful, there must at least be an understandable storyline, the camerawork can be more radical, because such things can be different from the classical style without changing the ease of understanding the story. Pi, like other independent films, is a little more radical in the camerawork--with the jiggling camera and the black and white film--than in the story, as long as the camerawork doesn't make the story more difficult to understand. Even in Pi, though, there is the 180 degree rule, some brief establishing shots, and the sound privileges "the most important noises or voices" (248). Even in the technical aspects--and as always in the narrative--Pi really doesn't strike me as independent at all.