Andrea Arnold is a British director who is claimed by academics and critics as being influenced by many traditions of social realist films. Her pastiche of social realist elements and neo-realist elements together with her own distinct style allow for her to create a new aesthetic, a working class aesthetic. Through production and editing techniques such as casting, cinematography and framing, Arnold is able to represent the working class aesthetic where life is presented, but no judgement from the auteur-director is passed. In acknowledging this, it is crucial to recognise that Arnold does not create wholly objective films. In fact, these techniques act as subtle manipulations in creating a sense of intimacy with the audience, attempting to elicit a sympathetic understanding from the viewer. Such techniques can be found in Arnold’s films Milk (1998), Wasp (2003) and Fish Tank (2009).
Arnold creates a working class aesthetic through a number of production elements, such as natural lighting, non-professional actors, location shooting and an observational style that “continues earnestly to dictate a contemporary and brutally honest neo realist agenda” (Ahmed, 2010). While Fish Tank used actors with varying degrees of experience, for example, Kierston Wareing had previously performed with Ken Loach and Michael Fassbender has numerous film credits, Arnold cast unknown actor Kate Jarvis to represent the working class and play the protagonist Mia because of her very real emotions. “I always wanted someone real for Mia”, says Arnold. “I wanted someone who would give me trouble for real. I wanted a girl who would not have to act, could just be herself”. (Artificial Eye, 2009). In creating a sense of authenticity, Arnold decided to shoot the film in chronological order in order to help Jarvis stay on top of the narrative arc; “she withheld the full script not just from Jarvis but from all the actors, revealing the plot to them only a few days in advance to keep their reactions real.” (Mullen, 2009, p18).
Upholding a tone reminiscent of the social realist tradition, Arnold represents the working class by softly mocking modern attitudes towards bourgeois and celebrity aspirations, especially the ‘rags to riches’ tale because “people think they can have anything – and they can’t” (Mullen, 2009, p18). Plot-wise, Mia’s naivety about the nature of the dance club lends to her endearing qualities of innocence and vulnerability. Arnold “doesn’t judge her characters at all. She doesn’t put them into safe boxes, making obvious heroes and villains. Her characters are more ambiguous than that, and her stories leave you with something to think about.” (Drake, 2010). However, while this may be true, we are subtly manipulated to sympathise with the protagonist and her situation.
Mia’s naivety is not only captured by use of an unknown actor and a chronological script, but also through cinematography. We see Mia’s world through her eyes, creating a sense of intimacy. Arnold chose to “shoot in the unusual 1.33:1 aspect ratio, so the screen is almost square” (Calhoun, 2010), so Fish Tank feels more like a series of personal Polaroids than TV, while the glare of the sun often dances across the lens in the manner of home snapshots. Arnold’s choice of shooting through the summer of 2008 adds a bright, warmth that cuts through the bleak grey colour grading, creating an atmosphere that is less miserable than the traditional social realist films. In terms of proxemics, Arnold keeps Mia at a close distance through mid-shots and close-ups, keeping Mia centered in the frame so as to show us her world from her point of view. Crucially, we’re there, alone with Mia on her journey. “We know there’s more to Mia than antagonism and kneejerk violence and we’re curious about what’s going on in this girl’s head” (Calhoun, 2010). These small moments of insight into a very harsh character are what the audience needs to identify with the protagonist as an individual, and this sense of empathy attributes to a positive representation of the working class.
As well as notions of the individual, Arnold creates a sense of community in the council estate. We are invited to witness a story that may be representative of an every-man’s story in the working class scene. Arnold establishes this through the sound design, which is full of upbeat music from somewhere within the estate, and noise, foley that captures the life and interactions of the people in the background. The sound not only represents life in the estate, but it also drowns out life outside of the estate. The sound design of the film is a “celebration of the people living on that estate enjoying themselves. There’re all kinds of things in the film that counteract a bleak picture” (Fuller, 2010), adding a tone of optimism in the working class scene.
This exploration of the individual within the wider community experience places emphasis on the private space of the home as having links to the ideas of development of a private identity, or sense of interiority. The idea of home as a sanctuary and a locus for interiority has clearly been shown to be “contentious, not least for women, for whom the domestic sphere has often been a place of oppression, violence and confinement” (Cuming, 2013, p328). In this regard, the sense of belonging to a community, is tribal perhaps even primal. Interior shots in Wasp hold kitsch mise en scene, a stagnant lack of background sound and bleak faded tones in sharp focus, as illustrations that the young family may not have much, but they have each other.
In contrast to Wasp, Fish Tank is couched in a background sense of community, and the film often draws attention to the fact that this is one story from the many lives on the estate. By using panning shots and wide angles of the exterior, the interconnected apartments and the bustle of people therein, the audience is constantly reminded that this is not the tale of one person. Arnold has defended her choice of title, claiming that Fish Tank referred to the microcosm of resilience and life found in such council estates, recalling a “cheery survivalism.” (Mullen, 2009, p17). As Arnold claims, “they’re full of life, I mean, that’s just how most people live. It’s probably a better way to live than a lot of middle class lives which are more isolated and more lonely and have less community.” (Arnold in Mullen, 2009, p17). This sense of cheery survivalism is a common theme throughout Arnold’s films, especially Fish Tank and Wasp. Arnold’s use of kitsch mise en scene displays her attention to detail, with extreme close-ups of cat stickers, butterfly mobiles, pigeons and lights for example, beautifying such a bleak experience. The mise en scene in the background uses images of sunny palm trees as symbols of escapism reinforced by the soundtrack ‘California Dreaming’. Arnold repeatedly juxtaposes family life to the “escapist diversions of reality shows which hover in the background as a symbol of political and social inertia” (Ahmed, 2010). Arnold’s emphasis on micro details in Fish Tank, is quite minimalist in style. In doing so, Arnold merges the traditions of social realism with that of transcendental cinema to create an “urban story that stresses an immediacy in which the over used political rhetoric of broken Britain is undeniably current” (Ahmed, 2010).
These undercurrents of political rhetoric add to Arnold’s working class aesthetic. By focusing on select images, such as sharp focus on detail in the mise en scene, to tell the story, Arnold subscribes to the ‘show, don’t tell’ structure of storytelling, leaving the judgement up to the audience. Imagery, particularly social imagery, tends to be symbolic, rather than expressive. “You can suggest a subjective experience in a film, for example, by using point-of-view shots and close-ups. But these are not what you think of as ‘political images’” (Williamson, p101-2, 2001). Milk is an excellent example of this, as we are able to see the protagonist’s mental state after a shocking event, then we are able to follow her emotional journey as it is told through close-ups on facial expressions, gesture and jump cuts to a ‘narrating’ partner, sometimes with off-screen dialogue. Arnold uses jumps cuts effectively here as a storytelling device, propelling the plot forward by providing a perspective that is distinct from the point-of-view we are supposed to be empathising with. This use of jump cut is also effective in Wasp, when used to juxtapose the scenes between the protagonist inside the pub and her daughters outside the pub. In an objective contrast, we see the action and decide for ourselves where the plot may go, which in turn heightens tension and draws the audience in to connect with characters and situations that are quite difficult to identify with.
Although Arnold embraces a fly-on-the-wall documentary film-making style in which “real people have real feelings at a real moment in time” (Raphael, 2009) Fish Tank is in a sense melodramatic, especially since it follows the traditional structure of a coming-of-age story. “The bildungsroman and autobiography in particular have traditionally emphasised the relation between homescapes and the formation of identity” (Cuming, 2013, p328). Arnold’s use of fast-paced hand-held camera increases the intimacy of the scenes, placing us immediately in the action. Arnold connects us to the protagonist, by letting us see everything through Mia’s eyes, as Arnold “never steps outside to explain things from any other point of view” (Ebert, 2010). This was because one of Arnold’s chief concerns was to “foster viewer empathy for her troubled protagonist” (Thomson, 2010, p18). Arnold coined the technique ‘slooge’ during scenes of heightened emotion, where the scene is in slow-motion, using 48 fps for intimate and sensual moments (Thomason, 2010, p22). The film also communicates sexual attraction in more sensual terms using these “slow-motion close-ups of Mia enjoying the physical closeness of a piggy-back ride or breathing in Connor’s freshly-spritzed aftershave when he bends over her” (Williams, 2012). This creates a feeling of euphoria and connects with the audience, creating a strong point-of-view to identify with. As well as this, Arnold’s heavy reliance on hand-held camera not only places the audience in the thick of the action, but it also increases tension and gives the film a more authentic, documentary-style feel; a pastiche distinctly part of the working class aesthetic.
Arnold’s direction is not straightforward. Fish Tank is a moment of adolescent longing and in the sensual scenes with Conner (Fassbender), Arnold she gives the camera restricted view, bathing the room in red light, slowing the pace through slooge. The sound drops away to leave nothing but anxious breaths. “Watching it, you are made to feel like an intruder. This scene simultaneously tempts and repels the viewer and is in a sense… voyeurism” (McKay, 2009). These camera techniques aid Arnold’s creation of a working class aesthetic by distancing the audience by creating an air of authenticity and legitimacy in social reality, then pulling the audience back in emotionally, connecting through intimate moments with the characters. This sense of voyeurism is a conscious act on Arnold’s part because despite her careful control of the shooting process, there’s a part of her that resists the role of film-maker as omniscient puppeteer; “instead, her work constantly returns to the dangerously conflicted connection between watcher and watched, and the transfer of power within that exchange” (Mullen, 2009, p19). In this respect, surveillance is a metaphor for emotional distance, particularly in the disturbing, increasingly intimate gaze of Connor. In an interview concerning her realist style, Arnold said; “I was constantly trying to find a way to feel what she’s thinking, and experimented with those moments to try and find that place… if I’d been thinking, ‘I’m going to make a social realist film,’ then perhaps I wouldn’t have done things like that and something would have been lost.” (Fuller, 2010).
In finality, there is one question to ask. Is there a danger that Arnold’s representation of the working class reinforce working class stereotypes? Or will people understand what Arnold is trying to create? Arnold’s representation of the working class is “marked by simple, unsettling images and intricate editing, their surface harshness is shot through with complexity and compassion” (Screen Online, 2014). These endearing elements, a compassionate camera and her attention to beauty will hopefully connect with an understanding audience. Her storytelling elicits empathy and emotional engagement and thus her conscious departure of neo-realism through emphasis on intimacy and humanity help establish her working class aesthetic, resonating throughout her films.
Filmography
Milk (1998) dir. Andrea Arnold, 10mins
Wasp (2003) dir. Andrea Arnold, 26mins
Fish Tank (2009) dir. Andrea Arnold, 123mins
To Flaneur 