Seniman Bujang Lapok (P.Ramlee, 1961)

            Seniman Bujang Lapok (P.Ramlee, 1961) is about the journey of three jobless bachelors, Ramli, Aziz and Sudin of becoming film stars without any special skills and knowledge of the film industry. It also illustrates how they deal with their lively and intriguing neighbours in a funny way while highlighting some of the social issues during the 60s in Singapore.

            In this film review, I would like to discuss about the social issues such as ethics and manners, post-war effects, education, unemployment and poverty that was depicted in the film.

            During the 60s, despite Indian directors had produced numerous of excellent films for the Malay community, many of them believed that some of the basic cultural norms had been overlooked and did not realistically portrayed the Malays’ manner towards certain situations. (Chou & Houben, 2006, p. 167) In the midst of that era, one sole director, P.Ramlee had successfully meet the needs in vividly depicting the common Malay and the dignity of people who work for a living, as well as valuing peace and harmony with friends, family and Allah over wealth in the film industry. (White, 1997, p. 5-6) For instance, the guard of Malay Film Productions had given sharp criticisms to Sudin for his lack in Malay’s ethics and manners when Sudin greeted him with “Oi!” as if he was not human. P.Ramlee was trying to preserve Malay values through this scene when his character, Ramli gave a comment “a man’s manners show his descent” to Sudin. (Aljunied, 2005, p. 12)

            One of the post-war effects such as phobia of bomb attacks was shown in Sudin when he took cover under a table of a coffee shop, right after he heard the sound of a tyre burst and mistook it for a bomb attack during the Japanese colonization in Malaya. Besides of that, Japanese colonization had also greatly influenced the filmmaking of P.Ramlee. According to Timothy White, P.Ramlee’s film style strongly resembles to post-war Japanese films by Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi and especially Akira Kurosawa. (Heide, 2002, p. 131-132) Take for example: Akira Kurosawa’s films have always stresses on social problems and human nature, which is also what P.Ramlee has portrayed in his films. (Nowell-Smith, 1996, p. 716)

            Concerning the education during the 60s in Singapore, a lot of Malays had to overcome the ever-increasing challenges in the post-war era due to the fact that many of them were lowly educated, and they had no choices but to engage in fishing, poultry rearing and crop industries. This situation can be seen in the interview session. When the manager of Malay Film Productions, Kemat Hassan asked the three bachelors about their educational background, Ramli mentioned he had attended Malay school up to Standard Five and English school up to Standard Four and half. As he had dropped out after Japanese attacked Malaya. In addition, Aziz and Sudin also had low educational achievements. (Aljunied, 2005, p. 7-11)

The unemployment issue during the 60s has led to severe poverty in Malaya. One of the jobless bachelors, Ramli had tried to sell his “prized possession”, a tattered undergarment to gain some loose change but was failed to do so. He was also shown to place two bricks on a pillow to iron his pants because he was unable to afford an iron. (Aljunied, 2005, p. 15)

            In conclusion, social issues depicted in the film have reflected the challenges the Malays had to face during the 60s. The film itself can serve as an important source when investigating the social history. It is highly recommended to comedy fans and is a must-watch film for those who want to know further about the social history of Malays in Singapore during the 60s.

References

Chou, C., & Houben, V. (2006). Southeast Asian Studies: Debates and New Directions. Pasir Panjang, Singapore & Leiden, Netherlands: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

White, T. R. (1997, June 1). Pontianaks, P.Ramlee and Islam: The Cinema of Malaysia. . Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4570309/_Pontianaks_P_Ramlee_and_Islam_The_Cinema_of_Malaysia_

Aljunied, S. M. Films as Social History — P. Ramlee’s “Seniman Bujang Lapok” and Malays in Singapore (1950s–60s). The Heritage Journal, 2nd, 7-16. Retrieved , from http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/mlsasmk/films%20as%20social%20history.pdf

Der Heide W.V. (2002). Malaysian Cinema, Asian Film. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Nowell-Smith, G. (1996). Early Cinema. The Oxford History Of World Cinema. Great Britain: Butler & Tanner Ltd.

Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011)

            Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011) was set in 1930s Paris. It unfolds the story of an orphan who goes by the name of Hugo Cabret. The boy lives in a train station and kept the station clocks running during his uncle’s absence. Believing that the automaton left by his late father contains a message for him, he tried to fix it by all means, including stealing mechanical parts from a toy shop, which leads to his encounter with the owner, Georges Méliès. Together with Méliès’s goddaughter, Isabelle, they have an adventure that centres on Méliès and his mysterious past.

In this film, I would like to discuss about the aspects of mise-en-scene and cinematography. Also, focusing on the settings, props, shot scale and editing and how these reflects the history of film during the 30s.

            When touch upon the mise-en-scene of Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011), one has to stress on its attentively constructed set which aimed for an authentic re-creation of the past (Hayward, 2000, p. 7). In this case, a sequence from one of the famous historic films, Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (The Lumière Brothers, 1895) had been reproduced into the train crash dream sequence to pay tribute. There was also a pastiche of Why Men Work (Leo McCarey, 1924) recreated as the hero clock shot of Hugo when he was hiding from the Station Inspector.

Besides of all the footages shown in the film, props like automaton can also refers to Méliès’s life, as he used to own one. This revealed that he also possessed the knowledge regarding automaton besides magic tricks. In the film, Méliès was portrayed as a creative and innovative filmmaker who had worked as director, producer, writer, set and costume designer and also inventing lots of magical tricks.

            According to Carroll, film techniques such as shot scale and other cinematography aspects can direct our attention on specific objects on screen, thus allowing the film to communicate information which is essential for us to understand the film (Livingstone & Plantinga, 2009, p. 339). From the footages of Méliès’s creations shown throughout the film, we get to know his filming style, which is also known as the tableau shot. During the shot, the camera was kept stationary, particularly in exterior shots, with only occasional reframings to follow the action (Nowell-Smith, 1996, p. 17). To convey the essence and how Méliès did his works, The Mermaid (Georges Méliès, 1904) and others were remake using the same technique and shots.

Méliès was one of the first to begin incorporating special effects through his use of editing based on his stage illusions (Sklar, 2002, p. 31). He may also have been the first filmmaker to use the first dissolve as well as time-lapse photography (Mast and Kawin, 2000, p. 31-33). This can be seen in the film whereby Méliès is shown directing and editing his works, such as cutting and pasting the filmstrips. These techniques greatly enhanced the narrative of films and have passed down to the next generations. Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011) had made full use of all the techniques introduced by Méliès and further improvised it. For instance, the fire shown during the flashback of the death of Hugo’s father was hand-tinted.

            In conclusion, Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011) had greatly reflected the history of film as well as the life of Georges Méliès through the usage of mise-en-scene and cinematography. I would recommend the film especially to those who seek to know further about the historic films.

References

Hayward, S. (2000). KEY CONCEPTS. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. New Fetter Lane, London & New York & Canada: Routledge.

Nowell-Smith, G. (1996). Early Cinema. The Oxford History Of World Cinema. Great Britain: Butler & Tanner Ltd.

Livingstone, P., & Plantinga, C. (2009). 31 NOËL CARROLL. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film. Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom & Madison Ave, New York & Canada: Routledge. (Original work published 2008)

Sklar, R. (2002). A World History of Film. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.. (Original work published 2001)

Mast, G., & Kawin, B. F. (1999). A Short History of the Movies. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Longman Publishing Group.