“I don’t like being kept in the dark,” Mabel (Gilda Gray) petulantly remarks to her desired lover and boss, Valentine (Jameson Thomas) - a wilful misuse of this quotation will illuminate (mind the pun) various key elements of Dupont’s silent film “Piccadilly” (1929).
Literally, this quotation symbolises the concept of spectacle. Mabel strongly desires to be watched, she objectifies herself through the use of decadent 1920’s stylised costume and a performative nature in both her work as a dancer in the Piccadilly club and her melodramatic behaviour within private spheres. Mabel’s dance in the early part of the film intersected with long panning shots of the audience observing her creates a hyper-awareness of her desire to be, and pleasure in being, watched. This validating audience is usurped from her by Shosho (Anna May Wong), her declining status is coupled with a perception of her theatrical costumes as increasingly ridiculous.
Shosho’s fluidity and mystifying combination of innocence and manipulative countenance ensures that she steals the spotlight from Mabel, within both the plot and cultural realm of the film; as Cynthia Liu truly remarks “Anna May Wong casts a shadow that extends to the present day” (“When Dragon Ladies Die, Do They Come Back as Butterflies? Re-imagining Anna May Wong”), a shadow that blocks out Gilda Gray.
“Piccadilly” features a recurring shot, a high-angled view of the dance floor, audience, stairs and band which appeared to me as a gaping mouth (similar to, but more symmetrical than the image to the right). This frame reminded me quite strongly of a striking triptych depicting hell as a chasm in the earth - watched, revered and feared by numerous spectators that ring the edges, however I cannot recall the name nor artist, thus cannot demonstrate properly this allusion. However, it was with this image in mind that the rest of the film was framed, rather melodramatically. The conception of the Piccadilly club as a flashing neon locus of spectacle takes on a sinister tone, as we watch expecting the inevitable demise of one or more characters.
This tone of underlying malevolence is supported by Dupont’s training in German expressionist film, the stylistic use of shadow, unusual angles and lingering shots never allows the audience to relax into the lethargically-paced film. A minor side note on the destabilising nature of the film, the titles feature swirls of shade, reminiscent of Dupont’s kaleidoscopic use of light.
Another manifestation of being ‘kept in the dark’ is the precarious balance between hiding and displaying inter-racial couplings. Emblematic of jarring framing, an interior shot of the Limehouse club is presented to us through the spinning blades of a fan. This jazz-club scene features the ejection of a white woman for dancing with a black man, when coupled with the unsubtle allusions to the relationship between Shosho and Valentine, "Piccadilly" features a remarkably candid portrayal of both inter-racial relationships as extant and as the cause of societal tension. Unsurprisingly, however, censors removed an onscreen kiss between Shosho and Valentine and Shosho’s violent downfall resulting from the crossing of these acceptable boundaries was to be expected, altogether an unexceptional plot.
Film is often conceived as an inclusive medium, opening the door to allow new experience and understanding of events far removed from the audience’s scope, however “Piccadilly” keeps the audience in the proverbial dark. The structural exclusion of silent film is enhanced through long periods without dialogue, forcing the individual to guess and assume from the magnificent over-acting. The broken temporality, deriving from observing soundless speech before removal from the scene to read dialogue, reinforces our position as the observer. One cannot help but imagine the actors, frozen in a dark room while the audience reads dialogue removed totally from their acting process, waiting for the return of the audience, the validating spotlight.
You write at the end about how silent film excludes the audience through its structural demands, and how film is thought of as being all-inclusive. From this, i get a sense that what you are referring in part to is the way we get sucked in to the viewing experience, and into the reality of the story on-screen. But i think that this is they way we watch films now, as opposed to during the silent era. From what i gather, up until the late 50's (with method acting, realism etc.) films were about being unreal, over the top and forming an exclusive world. Silent films are exclusive by their structural constraints, but also by the way in which the actors play their roles, by the otherworldly make up and set design etc. I think nowadays we feel as though we are supposed to relate to the characters on screen, to feel as though they are just regular people (has anyone else noticed how all superhero movies are doing this right now?), but at the time Piccadilly was made, audiences weren't supposed to see the characters, maybe even the actors, as being real, but as being something more, something else.
ReplyDeleteFinally, someone who does not focus on the implicit sexuality in Piccadilly!
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of spectatorship was unique and interesting.
The notion that we are ‘kept in the dark’ through such a highly illuminated film is certainly, as Rachel says, unique and truly fascinating!
ReplyDeleteSophie, fantastic pick up of Mabel's "I don’t like being kept in the dark". Loved the way you teased out its resonances across the surfaces of the film.
ReplyDeletexxalix