Empirical testing 1
EMPIRICAL TESTING OF AUTEUR THEORY VIA CONTENT ANALYSIS:
A STUDY OF JANE CAMPION FILMS
Patricie Janstova
Bachelor of Arts and Sciences in Communication
Cleveland State University
May, 2003
Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree
MASTERS OF APPLIED COMMUNICATION THEORY AND METHODOLOGY
at the
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY
December, 2006
Empirical testing 2
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
The film of tomorrow appears to me as even more personal than an individual and
autobiographical novel, like a confession, or a diary. The young filmmakers will
express themselves in the first person and will relate what has happened to them.
It may be the story of their first love or their most recent; of their political
awakening; the story of a trip, a sickness, their military service, their marriage,
their last vacation . . . and it will be enjoyable because it will be true, and new. . .
The film of tomorrow will not be directed by civil servants of the camera, but by
artists for whom shooting a film constitutes a wonderful and thrilling adventure.
The film of tomorrow will resemble the person who made it, and the number of
spectators will be proportional to the number of friends the director has. The film
of tomorrow will be an act of love. — François Truffaut (Le Cain, 2001, p. 1).
Introduction
Film is a fascinating phenomenon. It is not a creation of a single person, rather a
creation of a team. However, since the infancy of movies, individuals have been
claiming authorship of a product. It started as early as the beginning of the 20th century,
when German writers claimed authorship to the films created based on their scripts. Who
can claim authorship? Is there such a thing as individual author in film production?
Diving into the literature dealing with and answering such questions, however,
leaves one unsatisfied with further questions. Yes, there is such a thing as authorship and
it is usually the director who stamps each of his or her films with a unique imprint or
signature. But, how do you recognize the director’s signature? Can you rely on the
subjectivity of film critics? Are you satisfied when a film critic tells you who is and who
is not considered an auteur (the author)?
Empirical testing 3
To answer these questions, I am attempting to content analyze a body of work of
one director, Jane Campion, through the auteur theory lens. She has been granted auteur
status by many critics and scholars (Blonski, Creed, & Frieberg, 1987; Delaney, Dupin,
Gee, Gordon, Harrow, Khan, et al. 2002; Mellencamp, 1996; Nelmes, 1999; Polan, 2001;
Schröder, 2004). Jane Campion, Polan (2001) states, is one of the few female directors
who can be considered an auteur. “. . . it is the disturbances in her work – the
divergences; the dispersions; the tensions, for instance, between quirky humour, a making
strange of the familiar, and an interest in the ambiguous, even that which is
uncomfortable and which makes the viewer uncomfortable – that means that to study her
is to study the cinema differently, to rethink the very terms of analysis of the film
director” (2001, p. 167).
An elaborate coding scheme was created to objectively test work of Jane
Campion and compare it to other non-Campion films, work of other directors. Will she be
recognized as an auteur without the subjective eyes of film critics? This is the core
question of this study.
Auteur Theory
The Beginning of Auteur Theory
Today, the vast majority of people would agree that film is an art form. How we
Empirical testing 4
think about films, however, is not how it was thought of five decades ago. The auteur
theory changed how film was viewed in terms of authorship, and because of that, it is one
of the most known and most criticized theories in film history.
As mentioned earlier, as early as in the 1920s, the question of authorship arose. In
the 1940s it became a popular debate among the French film critics with Andre Bazin and
Alexandre Astruc’s beliefs that director should be considered the true author of a film
(Bazin, 1967; Bazin, 1971; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003). As quoted in Thompson and
Bordwell (2003), Alexandre Astruc wrote in his essay The Birth of a New Avant-Garde:
La Camera-Stylo: “The filmmaker-author writes with his camera as a writer writes with
his pen” (p. 415).
The Fifties and Romantic – Auteurism
The most influential work on film authorship came out of the early fifties,
particularly the newly founded French journal Cahiers du Cinema. The writers for the
Cahiers formed a polemic – la politique des auteurs, or the policy of looking at films in
terms of authors, as Astruc suggested in his essay. The next step in the development of
auteurism was A Certain Tendency in the French Cinema, written by one of Cahiers’
own members Francois Truffaut. In his article, he attacked the current French industry,
which he called “The Tradition of Quality,” for making “essentially scenarists’ films”
(1976, p. 225). Truffaut wrote that the French directors of that time only added visual
pictures to the script, with no attempt to add their own creativity, their own talent. He
also criticized the scriptwriters for not staying true to the novels they adopted, because
they thought it had un-filmable scenes. Of course, he believed there was no such thing as
Empirical testing 5
an un-filmable scene. He then continued to critique the scriptwriters of having no
originality:
There are scarcely more than seven or eight scenarists working regularly for the
French cinema. Each one of these scenarists has but one story to tell, and since
each only aspires to the success of the “two greats” [scenarists], it is not
exaggerating to say that the hundred-odd French films made each year tell the
same story . . . (Truffaut, 1976, p. 232).
He also attacked the scriptwriters with a question:
What’s keeping [the filmmakers and scriptwriters] from making, from one day to
the next, intellectual films, from adapting masterpieces (there are still a few left)
and, of course, adding funerals, here, there and everywhere? Well, on that day we
will be in the “Tradition of Quality” up to the neck and French cinema, with
rivalry among “psychological realism”, “violence”, “strictness”, “ambiguity”,
will no longer be anything but one vast funeral that will be able to leave the studio
in Billancourt and enter the cemetery directly – it seems to have been placed the
next door expressly, in order to get more quickly from the producer to the gravedigger” (Truffaut, 1976, p. 235).
The Cahiers editorial critics followed Truffaut’s critique of the current French
filmmakers and argued against the directors’ literary films. The magazine argued that
even though film production was an industrial creation, it shouldn’t have stopped the
director from introducing his own creativity and adding his personality into the final
product. They praised individuality, visual distinction, and consistent thematic focus
(Buscombe, 1981; Caughie, 1981; Cook, 1986; Miller & Stam, 2000; Sarris, 1962; Sarris,
1968; Sarris, 2003; Stam, 2000; Stam & Miller, 2000; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003;
Truffaut, 1976; Wexman, 2003). They argued that even though filmmakers in the United
States are working under strict rules of the studios, individual styles and personalities
were evident in films by directors, such as Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, John Ford,
and Howard Hawks. They argued those directors are true authors of the film, they are the
auteurs (Cook, 1986; Truffaut, 1976).
Empirical testing 6
The Romantic auteurism of la politique des auteurs was introduced to the United
States by film critic Andrew Sarris in his 1962 work (Croft, 1982; Dick, 2005; Sarris,
1968; Sarris, 1962; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003; Wexman, 2003; Wollen, 1969). Sarris
is responsible for the loose translation of the French term la politique des auteurs as
auteur theory. In his article, he said that authorship is “primarily a critical device for
recording the history of American cinema, the only cinema in the world worth exploring
in depth beneath the frosting of a few great directors at the top” (Sarris, 1962, p. 6).
With the translations of the la politique des auteurs he attached his own ideas.
Sarris took Truffaut’s criticism of the French cinema and admiration of certain American
directors a step further. He called the American cinema superior to any other cinema, and
believed it was the only one worth studying due to the fact that even though working
under strict rules of the Hollywood studios, a director’s style can still be acknowledged
(Sarris, 1962; Sarris, 1976). Sarris, however, failed to support his statements with
evidence. No comparisons to other cinemas ware made, or even attempted.
Truffaut, Sarris, and the auteur theorists believed that over time, if there is a
recognizable stylistic and thematic personality in a works of a certain director, he or she
is to be considered an auteur (Hayward, 1998; Sarris, 1968; Sarris, 1976; Stam, 2000).
Directors’ thematic personalities come alive through recurring themes - the “dominant
idea[s] made concrete through its representation by the characters, action, and imagery of
the film” (Rabiger, 1997, p. 517).
Sarris believed auteur theory had three principles. First, “the technical
competence of a director as a criterion of a value” (1962, p. 7); second, the identifiable
personality of a director through his body of work; third, the inner meaning, “the ultimate
Empirical testing 7
glory of the cinema as an art… the tension between a director’s personality and his
material” (p. 7). It can be thought of as the director’s vision of the world, and his attitude
toward life. Dick (2005) summed Sarris’ three principles of auteurism as technical
competence of the auteur; auteur's personality that brings in recurring themes, which
become his or her signature; and the tension between the auteur and his material, which
may not seem obvious but after analyzing the auteurs work it will come to the surface.
In 1968, Andrew Sarris wrote: “ . . . the notion of quality is difficult to grasp apart
from the context of quality. Comprehension becomes a function of comprehensiveness.
As more movies are seen, more cross-references are assembled. Fractional
responsibilities are more precisely defined; personal signatures are more clearly
discerned” (p. 19). He then ranked the American directors with the most important
(auteurs) in the first category called the “Pantheon Directors” through ten other
categories: “The Far Side of Paradise,” “Expressive Esoterica,” Fringe Benefits,” Less
than Meets the Eye,” “Lightly Likable,” “Strained Seriousness,” “Oddities, One-Shots,
and Newcomers,” “Subjects for Further Research,” “Make Way for the Clowns,” and
“Miscellany.” In the Pantheon he included “ . . . the directors who have transcended their
technical problems with a personal vision of the world . . . They were also fortunate
enough to find the proper conditions and collaborators for the full expression of their
talent” (p. 39). Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith, Jean
Renoir, Fritz Lang, and Orson Welles were some directors included in the Pantheon. In
the Far Side of Paradise category were those directors “. . . who fall short of the Pantheon
either because of a fragmentation of their personal vision or because of the disruptive
career problems” (p. 83) such as Frank Capra, George Cukor, Cecil B. DeMille, and
Empirical testing 8
Samuel Fuller. In the Less than Meets the Eye category he included directors such as
John Ford, David Lean, Billy Wilder, and William Wellman. He wrote “These are
directors with reputations in excess of inspirations. In retrospect, it always seems that the
personal signatures to their films were written with invisible ink” (p. 155). In the Strained
Seriousness category, Sarris believed “. . . are talented but uneven directors with the
mortal sin of pretentiousness. Their ambitious projects tend to inflate rather than expand”
(p. 189). Richard Brooks, Stanley Kubrick, John Sturges, and Robert Wise were listed in
that category. Sarris believed that:
. . . the auteur critic does not look to the cinema of completely original artistic
experiences. The cinema is both a window and a mirror. The window looks out on
the real world both directly (documentation) and vicariously (adaptation). The
mirror reflects what the director (or other dominant artist) feels about the
spectacle. Modern cinema tends to fog up the window in order to brighten the
reflection. It would seem that a theory that honored the personality of a director
would endorse a cinema in which a director’s personality was unquestionable
supreme (p. 31).
The Late Sixties, Early Seventies and Structuralist - Auteurism
In the sixties, a rethinking of auteur theory was needed due to the historical and
political changes in France, with the student uprising, and spreading of Marxistic ideas
(Cook, 1986; Stam, 2000; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003; Wexman, 2003). The British
film journals introduced theoretically more evolved and scientific auteurism structuralist-auteurism (Stam, 2000; Wexman, 2003). In France, the new, radical, more
political and intellectual Cahiers critics also moved away from romantic-auteurism by
conceptualizing “authorship as an unconscious process . . . [in which an auteur’s]
presence could subvert the surface meanings of a given filmic text” (Wexman, 2003, p.
6).
Empirical testing 9
The idea of the author being the only and sole creator of meaning has been
attacked. The Marxist movement took the emphasis of the individualism and put it to
collectivism. Instead of destroying the theory, it has been remodeled (Cook, 1986) and
reorganized with structuralism, a method also used by other disciplines such as linguistics
and anthropology. Rather than simply granting the auteur his or her authorship of the
film, structuralist-auteurist theory searched for familiar structures such as characters, or
plot that occurred in more films through group and team effort (Corrigan & White, 2004).
Structuralism came out of semiotics, mainly the theories of Swiss scholar
Ferdinand de Saussure, and an American scholar Charles Sanders Peirce. The growing
popularity of structuralism was the result of the works of French literary critic Roland
Barthes, and French anthropologist Claude Lèvi-Strauss. The basis for structuralism is
that all language can be ordered and understood, according to Saussure (Hayward, 1998;
Stam, 2000; Stam, Burgoyne, & Flitterman-Lewis, 1992; Stam & Miller, 2000; Wollen,
1969). He looked at language and its universal structures or systems shared by a
community of speakers (langue), rather than the use of language or individual speech
itself (parole) for example utterances made by speakers (Hayward, 1998; Stam, 2000;
Stam, Burgoyne, & Flitterman-Lewis, 1992; Wollen, 1968). According to Saussure,
language is made up of signs which have two components: signifier and signified. The
signifier being the actual shape of the word, the sequence of the letters, and the signified
being the concept or image that we create in our mind when we hear or read the signifier
(Caughie, 1981; Hayward, 1998; Stam, 2000; Wollen, 1968). Stam, Burgoyne, and
Flitterman-Lewis (1992) defined structuralism as a “ theoretical grid through which
behavior, institutions, and texts are seen as analyzable in terms of an underlying network
Empirical testing 10
of relationships, the crucial point being that the elements which constitute the network
gain their meaning from the relations that hold between the elements” (p. 18).
Wollen argued that the work of an auteur is not only formal, but it has semantic
dimensions and that two main schools of auteurs were known: “those who insisted on
revealing a core of meanings, of thematic motifs, and those who stressed style and miseen-scène” (1969, p. 78). Auteur-structuralism is looking at the auteur as a critical
construct rather than a human being.
This new approach to auteurism was positively accepted by auteur advocates, as it
was believed that structuralism and its empirical approach would bring “an objective
basis for the concept and counter the romantic subjectivity of auteur theory” (Hayward,
1998, p. 24). Allan Lovell (1977) talked about the possibility of an analytic apparatus that
would force critics to be more objective, and it would uncover the basic structures, and
reoccurring themes in the artist’s work. The Cahiers du Cinema editors applied
structuralism to the work of John Ford and his fixation with President Lincoln in their
article “John Ford’s Young Mr. Lincoln” (1976). They wrote that Ford’s films dealt with
“particular aspect[s] either of Lincoln’s synthetic personality or his complex historical
role; he thus appears to be a sort of universal referent which can be activated in all
situations” (p. 501). Peter Wollen (1968) analyzed films of John Ford with the
structuralist method as well. He identified many pairs of opposites in Ford’s films such as
East versus West, civilized versus savage, book versus gun, and garden versus
wilderness, as Ford’s themes. These antinomies and their relationships, he noted, were
often reversed in his films, but always present. Wollen wrote, “if the concept of
‘language’ is to be used it must be used scientifically and not simply as a loose, though
Empirical testing 11
suggestive, metaphor” (p. 116).
Peter Wollen’s structuralist – auteurism approach to film analyses was moving
toward more systematic and scientific methods to film studies. However, with the rise of
post-structuralism in the 1970s, the interests of the critical theories shifted away from this
fascinating work of structuralist – auteurism to debates about ideology, gender and the
psychological orientations of the spectator. This study returned to structuralist –
auteurism and took it a step further with empirical approach to auteurism. Table 1
illustrates the development of auteur theory as outlined here.
Table 1
Development of Auteur Theory
1950s
Romantic-auteurism
Author as an expressive Individual - producer of meaning
Thematic and stylistic properties read from the films
1960s
Auteur-Structuralism
Author as constructed from the films
Set of structures identifiable within a body of films
1970s
Auteur-Post-Structuralism
Author as constructed from the films & a subject position within the film
Introduction of spectator - pleasure and ideology
Auteur Theory Revisited
In later articles, Sarris wrote that if he could go back and reformulate the auteur
theory, he would put more stress on the author’s filmic style differences rather than the
idealistic suffering of the artists. He believed auteurism is a tendency rather than a theory,
Empirical testing 12
“more mystique than a methodology, more an editorial policy than an aesthetic
procedure” (Sarris, 2003, p. 29).
Peter Wollen (1969) believed the survival of auteurism is essential, due to what
Nowell-Smith called a “structural approach” to film criticism. Critics will always seek
the motifs and structures that will differentiate one body of work from another, one
director from another. He also believed that cinema studies, examinations, analyses, and
evaluations have hardly begun. He found it hard to believe that there were only three
books on Alfred Hitchcock and only one book on Howard Hawks in 1969. To date, there
are at least hundred books on Hitchcock, and dozens of books on Hawks.
The fact that there are many recent studies, examinations, and analyses concerned
with auteur theory, or the authorship of a film (such as Allen & Lincoln, 2004; Buse,
Nuria & Andrew, 2004; Goss, 2004; Gurney, 2006; Hart, 2003; Kathi, 1994; McDonald,
2000; Mosher, 2004; Maule, 2002; Nacashe, 2005; Nystrom, 2004; Petrova, 2006; Polan,
2001; Poynor, 2001; Raphael, 1997; Ray, 1991; Rossenbaum, 1991) leads us to believe
that Wollen’s thoughts on auteurism and film criticism seem to be accurate. Auteurism is
not dead, it is indeed well and alive.
The controversial views on authorship that started almost at the birth of the idea
are continued today. Many scholars, theorists, and critics argue that film is a complex art
form created by a collaboration of director, cinematographer, editor, writer, and/or actor
(Caughie, 1981; Cook, 1986; Dick, 2005; Stam, 2000). Richard Corliss (1974) in his
critique of auteurism advocated the idea of screenwriters being the authors of films, not
just the directors. To criticize Sarris he sarcastically created a screenwriter’s Parthenon,
to oppose Sarris’ Pantheon. He also believed that a screenwriter’s work should be
Empirical testing 13
evaluated as a whole, and that his or her style and personality will surface, just as will the
style and personality of the director.
Even after all the disputes, scholarly articles, popular culture articles, and books
that are still being written about the directors as main authors of their films, directors are
still being studied and recognized as the key figures to a success of a film because of the
personal style each auteur/director possesses, the imprints they leave on their films, the
personalities that influence their work.
Many critics, scholars, researchers, and theorists are still classifying films of, for
example, Alfred Hitchcock as Hitchcockian films. It is due to the fact that, indeed, a body
of work of one director will uncover and identify the director’s style (Caughie, 1981;
Hayward, 1989; Stam, 2000). To give an example, Schröder (2004) identified a few
imprints that could be found in most, if not all, of Hitchcock’s films: First and foremost
the suspense theme, then the mistaken identity of a character, female characters with
mysterious psychological issues that are cured even more mysteriously, the obsession
with blond women, unforgettable point-of-view shots, inventive camera angles, signature
cameos, the memorable use of props and many more.
There is an unimaginable amount of different themes, narrative constructions, and
production techniques that could become signatures and identifiers of a director. To
illustrate the wide variety of possibilities several contemporary directors and their styles
and obsessions were reviewed in Tasker (2002): Tim Burton - love for horror and fantasy,
plain weirdness of main characters, technical experimentations with animation and visual
effects, the protagonists are villains, outsiders with complex personalities, the
protagonists have almost always very pale skin, themes of exclusion and inclusion,
Empirical testing 14
working with an actor (i.e., Johnny Depp); David Cronenberg – the physical and the
psychological is usually intertwined, the protagonist is mostly a male character with a
bizarre name, themes of science, disease, death in literary metaphor, bodily and psychic
mutations, hostility towards women, and womb envy; Allison Anders – multiple
protagonists, teen anxiety, gangsters, bio-pictures, emotional intimacy and heterosexual
love; and Peter Weir – very nationalistic (Australian) rather than international, avoidance
of sexuality, no vivid sex scenes, however erotic desire is shown.
The present study attempted to uncover the personal style and distinctiveness of
director Jane Campion and her films through identifying the reoccurring themes,
obsessions, personal visions, narrative constructions with characters, and production
techniques used throughout her body of work. Campion was chosen for this initial
empirical test of auteur theory because of her auteur status, the manageable amount of her
body of work, as well as the researcher’s interest in her films.
Jane Campion
Jane Campion was born April 30th, 1954, in Wellington, New Zealand. In the
1960s her father gave her her first camera, a Super 8mm; she started to make home
movies. As an undergraduate, she studied Anthropology in her hometown. In 1977, after
attending the Sydney film festival, Jane Campion decided to make films on her own.
First, she made a short film Tissues with no close up shots (due to the lack of knowledge
about filmmaking). However, after enrolling in the Australian Film and Television
School in 1981 (Redding & Brownworth, 1997), she became the master of astonishing
Empirical testing 15
close up shots, meaningful extreme close up shots that speak to audiences even without
dialogue.
In 1982 she won the Palme d’Or for best short film (Peel) at Cannes. Redding and
Brownworth (1997) identified some of Campion’s early themes in Peel as study of
claustrophobia, family road trips, and family issues; those themes are to be found
throughout her body of work. Peel’s simple but brilliant story is: a family takes a short
car trip and argues the whole time.
In 1983 she made A Girl’s Own Story – again a short film that dealt with family
dysfunctions. It is a story of a girl whose father takes her and his mistress to dinner
together. In this film, adolescent sexuality is also depicted. Redding and Brownworth
(1997) also identified Campion’s early themes of “seeing the truth versus stating it,
longing to belong, and oppression of children by their families” (p. 181). The same year,
she made her third short film, Passionless Moments, a black and white series of vignettes
of regular Australian life.
In 1986 Campion made her first feature film (made for Australian television) Two
Friends, a film about two teenage friends – one conservative and one punk rocker, whose
paths move away at certain points in their lives and in the story. Not many film analyses
or film critiques are written about this film, due to the fact it was a TV based film. In
many sources, this film is not listed as Campion’s first feature film.
Jane’s Feature Films
Sweetie (1989). Sweetie is considered Campion’s first feature film. It is, as Walsh
(1994) defined it, “a portrait of a disturbed girl and her family” (http://www.wsws.org.),
Empirical testing 16
as well as a story of sibling rivalry between two sisters Kay and Dawn (nicknamed
Sweetie), one of whom is madder than the other. This film was first unsuccessful at the
1990 Cannes Film Festival – Campion even got booed by the audience who stayed to see
the whole film. Later however, it gained a lot of positive reviews and the Village Voice
pronounced it one of the best films of 1990.
Mellencamp (1996) compared the flashbacks in Sweetie to a world according to
Sigmund Freud and the Brothers Grimm, but with a female point of view. Schröder
(2004) identified the experimental feel of Campion’s first feature film with the perfect,
almost seamless but very original fading from reality to dream sequences and vice versa;
he called it “a virtuoso sequencing” (p. 256).
There were many secrets, many ugly secrets present in this film. The father’s
sexual abuse of the younger sister, mentally unstable Sweetie, was not deeply exploited;
it was shown on the screen, but denied by the family members. McHugh (2001) pointed
out some questions that a viewer might have: “Did Sweeties father seduce her as a child?
How has she come to be ‘mental’? What really happened in this family?” (p. 199). The
film, as Howe (1990) wrote, is about repairing broken relationships among family
members, with the taboo theme of familial dysfunction. Mellencamp (1996) wrote
“Campion is not interested in causes or in explanations” (p. 173), she just raises the
questions, or points to issues without further analysis.
Hinson (1990) saw Sweetie as a horror film with comedy traits, and extraordinary
use of “never-before-seen angles” . . . “It’s about family life as Kafka might have viewed
it” (www.washingtonpost.com). Howe admired the use of refreshing camera angles in
this film. He identified five themes – abnormality, love, individuality, family and sisters.
Empirical testing 17
He wrote it is a story of irrational sibling relationship, imperfect parenting, and repairing
of a romantic relationship. He also recognized Sweetie’s need for psychiatric help, which
is not further explored among the family member. Wexman (1999) identified another
Campion’s recurring theme of presence of angels in her films, either visual or mentioned.
Polan (2001) identified a lot of the close up and extreme close up shots used in
Sweetie as a tool to show the isolation of the characters. Dawn’s constantly looking into
the camera violated the fictional on-screen world, which made the viewers uncomfortable
in the privacy of their home, or theater seats.
An Angel at my Table (1990). This is a film based on an autobiographical novel
from Janet Frame, a New Zealand writer whose oddness and shyness put her to a hospital
misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and hospitalized for eight years. Gillett (2000a) talked
about this film as Janet’s story of suffering: “from her childhood onwards she
experiences grief, poverty and social stigmatization, deprivation, fear and isolation,
physical pain, manipulation” (www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/10/angel.html), told
in a three-part story which is made up of series of anecdotes, Polan (2001) writes.
Mellencamp (1996) talked about this film as being Campion’s fairytale. Her style
of storytelling is very close to such experience: The extraordinary images of New
Zealand, the extreme close up shots of children’s eyes and faces, the “loonies”, all the
children sleeping in one bed, the children who died.
Henke (2000) stated that Janet Frame’s autobiography was not easily adaptable to
the filmic world. Polan (2001), however, believed that the strength of this film was in the
visual and stylistic aspect. The frequent use of close up shots and extreme close up shots
helped to avoid Campion’s earlier style of strange compositions, or “playful composition
Empirical testing 18
patterns” p. 118). Henke (2000) believed that her long scenes with loose structure might
lose readers’ patience easily. She also wrote that there is not enough information on her
hospitalization, which would be much more interesting to the reader than the long
descriptions of dull farming tasks. In her cinematic translation, Jane Campion,
fortunately, chose to put more weight on Janet’s hospitalization.
As Henke noted, Frame herself said that all of the experiences she wrote about
might not be true, she might have mixed them up, borrowed from other characters and
therefore we don’t know what a real life story is and what a tale is.
This Campion film, as Henke (2000) stated, was created with “visual tableaux,
domestic vignettes, lyrical and symbolic fragments, and tacit social or biographical
allusions” (p. 653). It dealt with personal isolation and suffering, victimization, and
loneliness. Henke believed other filmmakers probably would have simplified her story
for the sake of the viewer. Campion, however, chose not to and stayed true to Frame’s
autobiography and did not settle for a classic form of bio-picture. She also chose to show,
in great detail, the shocking truth about institutional abuse in New Zealand.
Redding and Brownworth (1997) as well as Mellencamp (1996) identified themes
of isolation, need to fit in, and family dysfunctions as also seen in her short A Girl’s Own
Story.
“Campion used many close shots to emphasize her [Janet’s] grubby daily
existence, punctuating the scenes with breathtaking landscapes that suggest her lyrical
vision” (Thompson & Bordwell, 2003, p. 666).
The Piano (1993). In this film the protagonist Ada leaves Scotland to go to New
Zealand with her daughter Flora to fulfill a marriage arranged by her father. Ada is a
Empirical testing 19
mute but we never really understand why, she communicates with the world through her
daughter Flora and her piano. She has a hard time fitting in the society and living with /
loving her husband. He makes it harder for her to love him by trading her piano for a
piece of land to Baines, a European living among the natives. Baines, however, wasn’t
after the piano, he was after Ada. Through the trade, he got piano lessons where he only
listened to Ada play, and slowly sells the piano back to Ada for fetishistic favors.
Eventually, Ada and Baines fall in love, causing a clash between Ada and her daughter.
As Redding and Brownworth (1997) indicated, this film was well received as a
feminist piece, due to its message: Women shouldn’t be looked at as men’s accessories
and possessions; they are not attached to their husbands, women have their own needs,
feelings, and desires and should be able to act upon them, just as Ada did.
Campion gave us a scene where Ada used her husband for sexual pleasures, she
didn’t let him touch her, the situation reversed – Ada was the one in control, she was the
woman of power (Sharp & Gillard, 2004). Female desire and female lust were explored
in this film as Hopgood noted (2002). Sharp and Gillard wrote that Ada’s muteness
categorized her as the obedient sexual object in the patriarchal society, causing her selfimprisonment, but Ada gained her power and respect . Kelly (1996) also identified the
themes of isolation and imprisonment as well as themes of family dysfunction and
sexuality, power, and passion.
Campion introduced the clash between sexual love and maternal love in this
gothic fairytale (Bentley 2002; Mellencamp, 1996). Bruzzi (1999) posed the question of
sexuality and gender roles by describing the “masculine/feminine; distance/nearness,
looking/touching” (p. 98) roles of Ada and her daughter, and her husband and Baines.
Empirical testing 20
Dalton and Fatzinger (2003) quoted Colbert “The Piano is not a simple women’s
film about woman’s past, but rather a cryptic and evocative exploration of how women’s
sexuality, clothes, and lives interconnect” (p. 34).
Campion’s first feature films were funded with government grants that guaranteed
her full creative control in pre-production, production, and post-production phases of
filmmaking. Rather than giving up full creative control with The Piano, Jane Campion
turned down the offers of American investors who wanted Hollywood to have the final
control, and turned to a French production firm that assured her full control over the
production (Redding & Brownworth, 1997).
Portrait of a Lady (1996). It is a historical story, a story of young Isabel Archer,
an American woman who tries to find her identity in Europe. However she finds herself
falling in love with shady and dishonest Osmond, who used his ex-lover to trap Isabel,
successfully. Isabel marries Osmond, and loses her independence and freedom.
Osmond, the masculine and over sexed character awakens Isabel’s sexuality but at
the same time, he forces her to lose her spirit, and freedom (Gordon, 2002). Hopgood
(2002) wrote about the control Osmond exercised over the main female characters in
Portrait of a Lady, controlling not only his daughter Pansy, but also Isabel and Madame
Merle. Gordon (2002) wrote that to illustrate his power over the women and especially
Isabel, Campion shot the disturbing scenes with overhead shots and canted angles, such
as the domestic violence scene which made us feel like peeping Toms, as we felt earlier
in her “bedroom fantasy” scene.
Empirical testing 21
Hopgood (2002) noted a similarity of the perverse father in Sweetie with the
perversity of the scene where Pansy sits on her father’s lap in this film. The feeling one
gets watching both scenes is very similar.
This film has a similar message to The Piano; it warns women to protect their
independence, and illustrates their quest for identities (Corrigan & White, 2004). Redding
and Brownworth (1997) wrote: “ . . . it is a parable for modern women, telling them to
guard the independence that was so hard won and so easily lost” (p. 184). Keough (1999),
as well, identified the theme of isolation and loss of freedom of the female protagonist.
Polan (2001) wrote about the beautifully shot surrealism scene of the talking
beans in this film being very original. She also talked about the opening scene where
modern women are interacting with each other and the camera. As found in Polan,
Shriver believed that this film, as well as other Campion films, is giving more importance
to woman-to-woman relationships, rather than woman-to-man. He believed that the much
talked about opening scene of contemporary women talking about first kisses, and
romantic relationships, indicated the significance of the complexity of female-to-female
relationships, which would be presented in the film. Polan (2001) added that Campion’s
recurring theme is the dysfunctional nature of woman-to-woman relationships. Shaw
(2002) identified the loss of power and independence when Isabel married Osmond
willingly and argued that Isabel from the novel is a different Isabel from the film.
Holy Smoke! (1999). This film is a story of Ruth a young Australian who is on the
hunt for the truth. Ruth, the female protagonist, as Isabel from Portrait of a Lady, is
seeking her purpose abroad (Gillett, 2000b). She travels to India where she thinks she has
found the truth in an Indian guru named Baba. Her family finds out, and tricks her to
Empirical testing 22
come back home just to deprogram her from her newly found religion. They hire an
American professional “cult exiter” named PJ to help their daughter. PJ promises that in
three days she will be back to normal. After Ruth’s and PJ’s deprogramming, Ruth
returns to India.
Holy Smoke! is filmed in the Australian outback, as Sweetie. However as Gillett
(2000b) noted, Holy Smoke! reveals more of the mythic land and pays attention to the
beauty of the land. The landscape, nonetheless, is still secondary to the characters. Sarris
(1999) in his review describes Holy Smoke! as “witty, messy, perceptive, outrageous,
incoherent, satirical, bombastic, cruel, lecherous, compassionate, violent, reflective and
terminally unstable from one shot to the next” (www.members.tripod.com/filmlover
2/id50.htm).
On visual level, Fisher (1999) suggests that Holy Smoke! is:
this year's richest work, a sublime conglomeration of vivid colours, which
beautifully represent the divided cultures that Campion strikingly
explores . . . At the same time, as visually hypnotic as the film is, that
aspect of Holy Smoke doesn't detract from her detailed sense of character
and theme. The film is intrinsically a two-hander, and Campion's skillful casting
of Kate Winslet and Harvey Keitel, ensures that her comment on sexual power is
compelling. And it is. The characters are both fascinating to watch and listen, and
what one sees is never what one gets, which makes Holy Smoke a persuasive film
to sit through. The film's exploration of sexuality and the role of men and women
become both sexy and funny, erotic and intense, and always intriguing. These
aspects of the film are in stark contrast to Campion's droll satire of Australian
suburbia and the nature of family, themes she initiated with Sweetie. (www.mem
bers.tripod.com/filmlover2/id50.htm).
Some of Holy Smoke!’s themes are “relationship between the sexes, and the
problems faced by women who are considered – by themselves and/or by Campion – to
be at odds with or standing apart from society” (Nichols & Walsh, 2000, p. 1). Those
themes are to be found in Campion’s larger body of work as well.
Empirical testing 23
In the Cut (2003). According to Fuller (2003), In the Cut feels like a fairytale full
of dreams, hopes, and fantasies as did A Portrait of a Lady. It is Campion’s latest feature
film about Frannie, the female protagonist, who is a strong independent woman, whose
sexual desires are fulfilled by a strong male character – detective Malloy. In the Cut is a
sexually provocative New York noir with a series of murders happening in Frannie’s
neighborhood. What makes it so provoking is that the more clues point to Malloy being
the murderer, the more our protagonist is fascinated by him.
Felperin (2003) compared it to the relationship that Ada and Baines had in The
Piano with “a sensuous study of desire and masochism . . .” (p. 38).
Hopgood (2004) identified other Campion trademarks present in In the Cut:
Sibling relationships, whether functional or dysfunctional; the attention to female body;
the camera attention to “. . . feather like touch of fingers” (p. 30); the insertion of sepiatoned footage similar to the black and white travelogue from Portrait of a Lady; and the
vibrant storytelling from The Piano.
The surreal fantasy sequences where her father courts her mother on ice-skates are
very similar to those in Portrait of a Lady and the black-and-white sequences in Sweetie
(Calhoun, 2003; Felperin, 2003). We learn later about the courtship of her four times
married father, when she tells her half-sister about the “fairy-tale” proposal of her father
to her mother.
Calhoun (2003) talked about the production techniques used in the film such as
the opening scene with looser camera style and a lot of hand held camera, which was
very similar to the opening scene in Holy Smoke! in India’s New Delhi. Fuller (2003a)
pointed out the extreme close up shot at the beginning of the film of a “woman’s head
Empirical testing 24
bobbing over a man’s loins . . .” (p. 16), the extreme “pore-revealing” shot of Pauline’s
(Frannie’s sister) face, and again unflattering extreme close up shots of Pauline’s face
where we could see the detail of her grubby make up, as well as close up and extreme
close up shots of her sweaty body.
A gender switch in In the Cut was similar to one in Holy Smoke!. Frannie cuffed
her detective and was sexually aggressive and whereas her lover actually admitted to
feeling like a woman (Fuller, 2003a) in Holy Smoke!. Ruth actually transformed PJ into a
female, putting make up and dressing him in a red dress.
In an interview, Jane Campion admits to relating to emotional masochism. She
also admits to living in a male dominated society, where not very many sexual scenes in
films are supposed to be pleasurable to women (Frencke, 2003); she works towards the
opposite.
As with the non-traditional bio-picture An Angel at My Table, Campion made
another genre rule breaking film with In the Cut. It is not the usual “slasher” film where
the killer’s hatred for women stays undisclosed to the audience. It is a hybrid of
Hollywood love stories and thrillers, giving it a film noir feel (Fuller, 2003a). Wexman
(1999) identified recurring theme of the presence of an angel in her films.
Jane Campion’s Trademarks
Across the seven Campion films produced to date, we may identify a number of
consistent thematic and formal trademarks.
Empirical testing 25
Sexual obsession and female lust. Gordon (2002) called Campion’s theme of
sexuality as a “clinical exploration of sexuality” (p. 14); the presence of a masculine,
strong, secretive male arouses Isabel’s sexuality, as well as the young American for Janet,
Baynes for Ada, PJ for Ruth, and Malloy for Frannie; the erotic impulses in The Piano
(Sharp & Gillard, 2004) and the exploration of 19th century sexuality (Coombs &
Gemmell, 1999). As found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg identified a recurring theme
of sexual obsession and perversity. Gordon (2002) also identified the theme of perversity.
Hopgood (2002) identified “desire” as one of Campion’s main themes. Nelmes (1999)
identified the recurring theme of exploration of female sexuality as well.
Male dominated society. Taubin (2003) ties in Campion’s theme of female
sexuality with power struggle while choosing the wrong man. Gillett (2004) identified the
patriarchal society and male dominance in the police force in In the Cut. In The Piano the
male dominated society is portrayed through Ada’s husband’s decision to sell the piano,
by ordering Ada and identifying himself as the head of the family, as well as the
exploitation of patriarchal alliance in the film (Hendershot, 1998; Kelly, 1996; Sharp &
Gillard, 2004). Hopgood (2002) identified Jane Campion’s disempowerment of women
and gender politics as her main theme. Hopgood wrote about the control Osmond
exercised over the main female characters in Portrait of a Lady.
Female protagonist. Polan (2001) pointed out that Campion’s lead characters are
always women, Schröder (2004) added they are younger women looking for their
identities, and fighting against the stereotypical gender roles. Hopgood (2002) wrote that
Campion’s lead characters are women rebellious toward gender roles. Campion stated
Empirical testing 26
that her being a woman makes her automatically more interested in female protagonists,
and how other women live their lives is very appealing to her (Wexman, 1999).
“Madness” of a female character. In Sweetie, Mellencamp (1996) identified
Sweetie as being mentally unstable; Howe (1990) also pointed out that even though
Sweetie did not, she should have been taking medication for her state of mind, for her
strangeness (Polan, 2001). Janet Frame in An Angel at my Table was misdiagnosed and
kept in a psychiatric hospital for eight-years (Henke, 2000; Hopgood, 2002). In The
Piano, Ada’s husband thought she might be “soft in the head” due to the fact she does not
speak. Ruth’s family and friends in Holy Smoke! thought she was crazy or brainwashed,
and hired a professional to help her be normal (Hopgood, 2002). In In the Cut, Pauline
(our female protagonist’s sister) calls herself a “lunatic” and a “freak” (Gillett, 2004).
Hopgood (2002) identified “madness” as one of Campion’s main themes. She believed
that Campion protagonists were labeled as “crazy” or “mad” in the films because they
refused to conform to their gender roles; they did not fulfill their feminine roles in
society. The only character not labeled as crazy was Isabel Archer; however, she was a
nonconformist with her stubbornness, as well as leading her life as she pleased.
Female masochism. Examples of this theme include: In In the Cut, Pauline’s
unhealthy love affair, and Frannie’s involvement with an unknown suspicious man
(Fuller, 2003a; Hopgood, 2004; Taubin, 2003); Isabel’s masochistic tendencies in
Portrait of a Lady (Gordon, 2002).
Women on the move, displaced heroines. Gillett (2000b) pointed out that most of
Campion’s heroines are in some ways displaced women such as world travelers, or
migrants. Ruth in Holy Smoke! traveled twice to India looking for the truth; Isabelle in
Empirical testing 27
The Portrait of a Lady is a young American who lived and traveled in Europe; Ada in
The Piano, was “shipped” from Scotland to New Zealand almost as “a mail order bride”;
Janet in An Angel at My Table was traveling to Europe (England, France and Spain) to
gain some experience for her writing carrier; Sweetie was one heroine who is not really
traveling; and was actually forbidden to take the trip the whole family is taking, she was
tricked into staying home alone (Gillett, 2000a). Another character that seemed to be
stationary is Frannie in In the Cut. However, she was on a quest of finding the murderer
of her sister and two other women.
Heroines in quest of their identities. Many scholars and critics identified the
theme of woman’s identity and belonging (Gillett, 2000a; Gillett, 2004; Mellencamp,
1996; Polan, 2001; Schröder, 2004).
Entrapment, imprisonment. Sweetie was almost imprisoned by her family – not
wanting to include her in a trip, leaving her behind in the house (Polan, 2001). Janet was
hospitalized for eight years, wrongfully; Ada was a prisoner in an arranged marriage and
imprisoned by her husband in the house (Gordon, 2002; Polan 2001); Isabel was a
prisoner in a marriage she chose herself, she became a virtual prisoner (Gillett, 2000b;
Gordon, 2002; Polan, 2001); Ruth was imprisoned by her family – locked in the secluded
hut in the middle of nowhere (Gordon, 2002; Polan, 2001); Frannie was imprisoned in
her own way, in her own head, she “holds her prison bars in front of her while floating
freely in space” (Fuller, 2003a, p. 17), and later in the film Frannie was imprisoned by the
killer in the lighthouse.
Issues with family and sibling. The Piano dealt with restructuring of a family
(Sharp & Gillard, 2004) and the difference between real and mythical family (Chumo II,
Empirical testing 28
1997). Sweetie was a story of familial chaos, neurotic siblings, and confused parenting
(Hinson, 1990; Howe, 1990; McHugh, 2001). As found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg
pointed out the theme of somewhat dangerous domestic situations. Hopgood (2002) also
identified the recurring theme of clash between the female protagonist and their families,
significant others, or other characters. Fuller (2003b) identified parental abandonment in
In the Cut.
The fantasy, or dream images. Critics and scholars identified Campion’s theme of
fantasy and dream sequences in her films such as the black and white fantasy images in
Sweetie (Polan, 2001), Flora’s vivid story telling in The Piano (Hopgood, 2004), black
and white surreal travelogue (Hopgood, 2004; Polan, 2001) and the “Buñuelian
surrealism as beans on Isabel’s plate with flies buzzing above them . . . ” in Portrait of a
Lady (Polan, 2001, p. 127), Ruth’s and PJ’s colorful hallucinations in Holy Smoke!
(Polan, 2001), and the sepia toned dream sequences and stories about Frannie’s parents’
engagement in In the Cut (Hopgood, 2004).
Production techniques. As found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg found her miseen-scène to be surreal, with unusual cuts and framing. Keough (1999) pointed out
Campion’s production techniques: The unpredictable angles and elliptical cuts, which she
developed in her early filmmaking. Wexman (1999) wrote about the use of beautiful wide
shots of images of vegetation and scenery shown in Campion films. Polan (2001)
pointed out Campion’s frequent use of close up shots and extreme close up shots.
Schröder (2004) identified the perfect reality-to-dream-to-reality sequences in Sweetie, as
well as the perfect wide shots of New Zealand scenery in An Angel at my Table. He
writes “the bright green hills, the blue ocean, the always present wind makes it seem like
Empirical testing 29
those are the shadows of Janet Frame” (p. 257). Thompson and Bordwell (2003) and
Sharp and Gillard (2004) also admired the beautiful shots of New Zealand, as well as the
close up shots of Janet’s face.
Schröder (2004) admired the visual complexity in The Piano as well as the sound
complexity: The constant humming of the wind, floor creaking, the whispering of the
ocean’s waves, we could even hear the fingers on the piano keys. McHugh (2001)
pointed out the popularity of voiceovers among women filmmakers, as well as
Campion’s distinct selection of diegetic and non-diegetic music and sounds.
Corrigan and White (2004) pointed out the perfect use of angles in Campion’s
films such as the high angles, extreme low angles, and overhead shots in The Piano.
They also wrote about the original use of voiceover that connected the viewer with the
protagonist on a subjective level. Nelmes (1999) identified the use of tight close up shots
of Ada and her daughter Flora, and Fuller (2003a; 2003b) pointed out the unflattering
close up shots of Pauline’s face in In the Cut.
Never a true genre. Much contemporary genre mixing was identified in the
literature such as: Holy Smoke! being a mix of drama and comedy (Hopgood, 2002;
McKew, 1999; Polan, 2001), The Piano with traits of woman’s film, melodrama,
romance, gothic thriller (Coombs & Gemmell, 1999; Sharp & Gillard, 2004), Sweetie a
blend of horror and comedy (Hinson, 1990) and In the Cut, slasher film, film noir and
detective/murder mystery traits (Hopgood, 2004).
Research Questions
Empirical testing 30
As summarized above, there were many recurring themes, narrative constructions,
and production techniques identified by scholars, critics, and researchers in Jane
Campion’s films.
The literature also uncovered three phases of auteur theory evolution, but no
history of empirical testing. The focus of the present study was on the first two phases:
the romantic-auteurism, and the structuralist-auteurism which helped to uncover the
recurring ideas, creative personalities, visual distinctions and thematic fixations of the
films’ director as well as the narrative construction with familiar characters. Based on the
literature, three questions have been posed:
RQ1: Do Jane Campion films differ from non-Campion films by themes and
motifs?
RQ2: Do Jane Campion films differ from non-Campion films by narrative
construction with characters?
RQ3: Do Jane Campion films differ from non-Campion films by production
techniques?
Empirical testing 31
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Content Analysis
There have been many definitions for content analysis, such as “Content analysis
is a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text”
(Weber, 1990, p. 9); “Content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and
valid inferences from data to their context” (Krippendorff, 1980, p. 21); however
Neuendorf (2002) provides a more recent and certainly more comprehensive definition.
She states, “Content analysis is a summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages that
relies on the scientific method (including attention to objectivity-intersubjectivity, a priori
design, reliability, validity, generalizability, replicability, and hypothesis testing) and is
not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured or the context in which the
messages are created or presented” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 10). The present study was
conducted according to the definition stated by Neuendorf by applying the proper
scientific techniques. The a priori design ensured objectivity or at least intersubjectivity,
reliability was measured among coders to ensure the consistency and validity of the
results, the proper documentation ensured replicability, and good sampling assured
generalizability.
Empirical testing 32
This study conducted a content analysis of films to provide answers to the three
research questions. Human coding was performed to collect data from Campion and nonCampion films. Jane Campion is an author of seven feature films – all dramas. To be able
to make concrete conclusions as to whether she falls into the category of an auteur, her
films were compared to non-Campion films.
Sampling Frames
Campion films. The census of seven Jane Campion films was examined. However,
Campion’s first feature Two Friends (1986) was made exclusively for television with a
TV crew. Certain production rules were agreed upon before the shoot, such as no close
up shots (Wexman, 1999). This information stated by Campion in her interview helped to
decide on exclusion of the film from this analysis.
The remaining six films made by Jane Campion (Sweetie, 1989; An Angel at My
Table, 1990; The Piano, 1993; Portrait of a Lady, 1996; Holy Smoke!, 1999; and In the
Cut, 2003) were compared to eighteen non-Campion films.
Non-Campion films. The sampling frame for the non-Campion films is defined as
English language feature length drama films made in 1989, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and
2003 (matching the years of release of Campion films) that are listed in the Internet
Movie Database (IMDb), an on-line source (www.imdb.com).
There are thousands of films made every year, with different styles and different
technological advances for each time period. To avoid the possible differences, only films
made in the six years identified above were included in the sample. The sample was
limited to English language feature films; reading subtitles while coding would be
Empirical testing 33
excessively distracting and ineffective. To make sure that genre theory is not interfering
with the test of auteur theory, only drama films were selected, enabling for a stricter test.
Random Sampling. Systematic random sampling was conducted in the IMDb
environment. Lists for each of the targeted six years were generated. Each list was then
further limited to English language, and the drama genre – a function of the IMDb web
site. It must be noted that even though some films in the IMDb were categorized as
dramas, several were eliminated due to cross listing. If a film was listed as an
action/drama or a horror/drama, such a film was not selected. There are too many
production, plot, and theme differences among action, horror, and drama films.
Three films for each year were selected. A total of 18 non-Campion films with
availability on DVD or VHS were selected. IMDb is a very extensive database, with
some limited options. For example, it does not allow for a search of feature films only,
and it offers information on films not recognized by the public. If a short film or a film
that is not available on DVD or VHS was randomly selected, the next eligible film was
selected instead. Out of the 1,335 English language drama films made in 1989 these three
were randomly selected: Communion; Lean on Me; and Speaking Parts. Out of the 1,336
English language drama films made in 1990, these three were randomly selected: The
Comfort of Strangers; The Juniper Tree; and Stanley & Iris. Out of the 1,369 English
language drama films made in 1993, these three were selected: The Crush; Guilty as Sin;
and Public Access. Out of the 1,688 English language drama films made in 1996, these
three were selected: City Hall; Kissed; and The War at Home. Out of the 2,120 English
language drama films made in 1999, these three were selected: The Cider House Rules;
Liberty Heights; and Stonebrook. Finally, out of the 3,463 English language drama films
Empirical testing 34
made in 2003, these three were selected: Big Fish; It Runs in the Family; and Runaway
Jury.
Even though these films were identified as available on DVD or VHS, Juniper
Tree (1990) and Kissed (1996) had to be replaced due to non-availability. Their
replacements were China Moon (1990) and Lilies (1996). A complete list of all movies
content analyzed can be found in Table 2.
Table 2
List of Analyzed Films
ID
Film Title
Film Director
Country
Year
1
Communion
Philippe Mora
USA
1989
2
Lean On Me
John G. Avildsen
USA
1989
3
Speaking Parts
Atom Egoyan
Canada
1989
4
Sweetie
Jane Campion
Australia
1989
5
The Comfort of Strangers Paul Schrader
Italy/USA
1990
6
China Moon
John Bailey
USA
1990
7
Stanley and Iris
Martin Ritt
USA
1990
8
An Angel at My Table
Jane Campion
New Zealand
1990
9
The Crush
Alan Shapiro
USA
1993
10
Guilty as Sin
Sidney Lumet
USA
1993
11
Public Access
Bryan Singer
USA
1993
12
The Piano
Jane Campion
New Zealand - France
1993
13
City Hall
Harold Becker
USA
1996
Empirical testing 35
14
Lilies
John Greyson
Canada
1996
15
The War at Home
Emilio Estevez
USA
1996
16
The Portrait of a Lady
Jane Campion
GB
1996
17
The Cider House Rules
Lasse Hallstrom
USA
1999
18
Liberty Hights
Barry Levinson
USA
1999
19
Stonebrook
B. W. Thompson
USA
1999
20
Holy Smoke!
Jane Campion
USA/Australia
1999
21
Big Fish
Tim Burton
USA
2003
22
It Runs in The Family
Fred Schepisi
USA
2003
23
Runaway Jury
Gary Fleder
USA
2003
24
In The Cut
Jane Campion
Australia/USA/GB
2003
Concept Sets
The present study measured variables representing three main concept sets: (A)
Themes and motifs, (B) Characters in films, and (C) Production techniques. More detail
can be found in Appendix A.
Themes and Motifs. Theme, as mentioned earlier, is defined as “a dominant idea
made concrete through its representation by the characters, action, and imagery of the
film” (Rabiger, 1997, p. 517). Motif, as mentioned earlier, is defined as “any formal
element repeated from film history or from the film itself whose repetition draws
attention to an unfolding thematic statement” (Rabiger, 1997, p. 513). Themes and motifs
were operationalized with thirty-four variables such as how many lead, major, and
medium characters were present in the film, what kind of loss might be dealt with in the
Empirical testing 36
film, the degree of nudity shown in the film, and the degree of sexual encounters shown
in the film.
Narrative Constructions of Characters. Characters that were going to be analyzed
in this study were the lead and major role characters. Characters were operationalized
with forty-nine variables such as demographics; love situation throughout the film;
identity change; physical, psychological or sexual abuse; family issues.
Production Techniques. Production techniques are defined as elements of the
filmmaking, camera movement and placement, lighting, sound, and editing. Production
techniques were operationalized with forty-five variables. We were measuring camera
movement (such as tracking shots, hand held camera), camera positioning (such as
angles, close up shots, depth of field, lens focus), editing techniques (such as use of
transitions, slow motion, time lapse), lighting techniques (such as use of color filters),
and sound (such as use of diegetic or non-diegetic music, superhearing sensation).
Units of Data Collection
Data were collected separately for each of the three concept types. Each films has
been watched three times with separate data collections. For Section A, a full length
feature film (sixty minutes or longer) was coded as a whole. For Section B, data was
collected on lead and major characters that were identified in the film. For Section C,
data was collected for five-minute intervals of the films, which is a norm for television
and film data collection (Lombard, 1997; Neuendorf, 2003).
Codebook and Coding Forms
A twenty-eight page codebook was developed to measure the variables. It may be
found in Appendix A, followed by the coding forms in Appendix B. Many variables
Empirical testing 37
were identified by reviewing literature on Jane Campion’s films. To be objective, nonCampion variables had to be included in the study. After consulting many internet
sources and publications, a book by Y. Tasker, Fifty Contemporary Filmmakers (2002),
has been selected and numerous other variables having nothing to do with Jane Campion
were taken from it. Every third auteur included in the book was reviewed. Selected
themes, motifs, narrative constructions of characters, and production techniques from the
selected auteurs were embedded in the codebook. All the identified, “signatures” by those
auteurs can be found in Appendix C. However, not all were selected and embedded in the
codebook. The fifteen directors examined were: Gregg Araki, Luc Besson, Tim Burton,
Jackie Chan, David Cronenberg, David Fincher, Jim Jarmusch, Abbas Kiarostami, Ang
Lee, Michael Man, John Sayles, Steven Soderbergh, Oliver Stone, Peter Weir, and
Allison Anders. The traits and signatures of some auteurs integrated in the codebook
include: The absence of parents in Luc Besson’s films, characters being outsiders in Tim
Burton’s films, the theme of modernity versus tradition in Ang Lee’s films, wide angles
in David Fincher films, and Peter Weir’s avoidance of sexuality.
Section A. The unit of data collection for section A was a full-length feature film.
Section A measured the general themes and motifs in each film as a whole to uncover
general patterns in the film. Thirty-four variables were developed to operationalize
general themes and motifs of each film and ultimately give answers to research question
1. This section identified the number of lead, major, and medium female characters as
well as number of lead, major, and medium male characters present in the film. It also
uncovered whether the father or mother of a lead, major, medium or other character was
physically present or talked about. Clashes between tradition and modernism, as well as
Empirical testing 38
clashes between cultures were recognized. A set of variables measured unwanted losses:
Loss of a child, spouse, lover, and/or family member due to break up or death. Loss of
freedom, job, money, or physical beauty were also measured. If a major loss that was not
included in the codebook happened in the film, the coder was to identify it as an “other”
loss variable. Coders were asked to identify who the losses happened to: Lead/major or
other characters. Coders counted each shot of frontal nudity (partial, top, bottom and full
nudity) as well as back side nudity (partial, top, bottom and full nudity) of male and
female characters. Coders also counted each shot of romantic kissing, French kissing,
oral sex, sexual intercourse, or masturbation. Coders were asked to document any taboos
that were violated in the film, if the film had a primary point of view of a female, and if
angels were present in the film.
Section B. The unit of data collection for Section B was the major or lead
character. Major character has been defined as one that appears in over 50% of the film
but does not appear to be lead character. If this character was crucial to the plot line
(meaning if the character was not there, the story would change) but did not appear in
over 50% of the film, the character was coded as a major role anyways. Lead character
has been defined as major plus the whole story revolves around that character, and his or
her presence is essential to the story. Fifty variables were used to measure features of
each character to help discover the distinctiveness of the use of lead and major role
characters by Jane Campion. This section has helped to answer research question 2.
General demographic and role characteristics were recorded for each character: Role
(major or lead), whether the character appeared in the opening scene, social age of the
character (child, adolescent, young adult, mature adult, or elderly), estimated age of the
Empirical testing 39
character, gender (male, female), race (Caucasian, African, Asian, Middle Eastern,
Native-American, Bi-racial, or Other), attractiveness (extremely attractive, attractive,
average, unattractive, extremely unattractive), and occupation (27 types). The coders also
documented if the character traveled (outside of the country or within the country), and if
the character lived abroad, if the character was happy throughout majority of the film.
The character’s love situation at the beginning, middle and end of the film with six
different choices was identified, as was if the character was looking to change his or her
identity by gender change, job/career change, getting married, religion change,
relocating, or by other factors. If other identity change was identified, coders were asked
to explain it.
Abusive behavior was measured by identification of physical, psychological, or
sexual abuse by the same or opposite gender characters, as well as if the character was
physically, psychologically, or sexually abusive to the same or opposite gender
characters. It was documented only if it happened or not (Yes or No). Characters’
personalities were assessed by Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1985) definitions of introversion
and extroversion, loneliness of the character (sometimes, most of the time, or never), if
the character was an outsider, and if he/she seemed realistic. Coders were asked to
recognize if the character engaged in substance abuse (alcohol, drugs, both or none), if
the character tried to commit suicide, and if he/she died in the film.
A set of variables measured family issues and dysfunctions with siblings, parents,
children, grandparents, grandchildren, spouse, and other family members. Coders
documented if such issues occurred and also were asked to record number of siblings the
character had.
Empirical testing 40
Section C. The unit of data collection for Section C was a five-minute interval.
The reason for breaking the full-length movies into five-minute long intervals was to
make it easier and more manageable to code. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to
keep track of all the counts of the variables. Forty-five variables were developed to
operationalize the production techniques and patterns of each film and to provide data to
answer research questions 3. Definitions and examples for all variables were provided in
the codebook (Appendix A). For each interval, coders recorded occurrence of a
voiceover, presence of diegetic or non-diegetic/background music, color picture, black
and white picture, sepia, or animation/cartooning. Coders were then asked to count
occurrences of extreme close up shots of the motion of touching, close up and extreme
close up shots of faces, feet/legs, hands/arms, other body parts, furniture, windows,
mirrors, trees, flowers/plants, food, and animals. Counts of point-of-view shots, long
tracking shots, special visual effects/blurred image shots, distorted image shots, slow
motion, time-lapse, and jump cut shots were also recorded. Use of color filters (blue, red,
green, other color) was recorded as a count of each scene/sequence. A count of each
unusual transition was recorded, and the use of simultaneous live-action and animation
was identified by counting each scene/sequence. If a color and black and white picture
appeared on the screen at the same time, coders were asked to record counts of each
occurrence. Handheld camera technique was recorded by counts of each scene/sequence.
Different camera angle shots were counted and recorded (low angle, high angle,
overview, underview and canted). More counts of shots were recorded: The character
breaking the fourth wall, super hearing sensation, extremely long shot, and medium shot
revealing a secondary body element arm/hand or leg/foot.
Empirical testing 41
Coders became very intimate with the content, due to such an immense coding
scheme. Very little room was left for vague or general coding. Choices such as “other”
or “unable to determine” are minimally present in the coding scheme. Such a forced
coding technique is appropriate for this study.
Training of Coders and Inter-Coder Reliabilities
A total of three coders, including the principal researcher, participated in this
study, two females and one male. Training took place over several meetings where
several non-Campion movies were viewed, followed by interactive discussions and
clarifications of definitions using various examples. Several revisions of the codebook
were made. During the meetings, variable families (variables that belong to a similar
group) were also identified. In section A, four families were identified: Counts of
characters (A1-A6), losses (A11.1-A11.22), nudity (A12-A25) and sexual acts (A26A31). In section B, four variable families were recognized: Love situation (B12-B14),
identity change (B16-B22), abuse (B23-B34) and family dysfunctions (B43-B49). In
section C, seven variable families were identified: Music (C2, C3), picture (C4-C7), close
up and extreme close up shots (C8-C19), motion (C21 & C24-C26), color filters (C27C30), angles (C35-C39), and medium shots of arms, hands, legs, feet (C43-C44).
Identification of the variable families became crucial after coding the full length
of the reliability movie River’s Edge (Daly, Gibson, Liuzzi, Pillsbury, Sanford, & Streit,
1986). Due to a large number of variables in the codebook, it was nearly impossible for
all of them to be present in the above mentioned reliability movie. Therefore, to keep as
many variables as possible, at least one variable from the variable family had to be
present and coded, and an acceptable level of reliability had to be reached, in order to
Empirical testing 42
keep the whole variable family. For example, in River’s Edge, all the variables belonging
to the family dysfunctions (Section B) were kept in the dataset even though all were not
tested via the reliability check. Four out of seven family dysfunction variables were
coded with high reliability. It was assumed that if the rest of the variables had occurred,
they would be coded with a high reliability as well.
To be able to calculate reliability for Section A, additional movies had to be
coded (i.e., reliability coefficients ay not be calculated from single data point). Due to
coder unavailability, it was decided to code three eleven-minute segments of Sweetie
(MacKinnion & Maynard, 1989), Cider House Rules (Blomquist et al., 1999), and Big
Fish (Cohen, Frauenfelder, Jinks, Schmidt, & Zanuck, 2003), movies already coded by
the unavailable coder.
To keep some key variables from Sections B and C, another additional coding had
to be conducted. Due to two coders’ unavailability; this coding has been done by the
principal coder only for content already coded by the unavailable coder(s). As a result of
this supplementary coding, fourteen variables (six from Section B, and eight from Section
C) were recovered.
PRAM, a Windows-based computer program, was used to calculate inter-coder
reliability coefficients among the three coders. The program calculates the following
reliability coefficients: Percent Agreement, Scott’s Pi, Cohen’s Kappa, Krippendorff’s
Alpha, Spearman Rho, Pearson Correlation, Lin’s Concordance, and Holsti’s Reliability.
In the present study, Multiple-coder kappa has been used to assess nominal variables,
Spearman Rho for ordinal variables, and Lin’s Concordance coefficient for interval and
ratio variables. The recommended criterion for Cohen’s kappa is above .40, according to
Empirical testing 43
Banerjee, Capozzoli, McSweeney, and Sinha (1999). As found in Neuendorf (2002),
Ellis identified rules of thumb for correlation coefficients over .75 being of high
reliability. It is also agreed among some scholars, that 70% and higher agreement is
considered reliable.
All acceptable inter-coder reliabilities for nominal variables are presented in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Acceptable Inter-Coder Reliabilities for Sections A, B, & C
Multiple-coder Kappa
Multiple-coder
%
Kappa
Agreement
Avg.
between
Coders: 1 - 3
coders
A11.5
Loss of a spouse due to death
1.00
100
A11.7
Loss of lover due to death
1.00
100
A11.9
Loss of family mem. due to death
1.00
100
A11.11
Loss of a friend due to death
0.46
67
A11.16
Loss of health
0.70
83
A11.17
Loss of material things
0.68
83
A11.18
Loss of freedom
0.70
100
B2
Role
0.70
87
Empirical testing 44
B5
Gender
1.00
100
B8
Occupation
0.58
100
B9
Travel
1.00
100
B10
Abroad
1.00
100
B12
Love at beginning
0.42
87
B13
Love in the middle
0.78
87
B14*
Love in the end
0.40
60
B15
Sexual orientation
0.70
87
B35
Introvert vs. Extrovert
0.78
87
B39
Substance abuse
0.73
87
B42
Char. dies in the film?
1.00
87
B43
Issue w/ sibling
1.00
100
B44
Issue w/ parent
1.00
100
B45
Issue w/ child
1.00
100
B48
Issue w/ spouse
1.00
100
B50
Psych Disorder
1.00
100
* Variables that need to be analyzed with caution due to low reliability
Table 3.2 shows adequate inter-coder reliabilities for ordinal variables. There
were two variables, appearance and loneliness, that had low reliability coefficients and
the percent agreement did not meet the acceptable level as well. Therefore results linked
with these two variables must be examined with caution.
Empirical testing 45
Table 3.2
Acceptable Inter-Coder Reliabilities for Sections A, B, & C
Spearman's Rho
%
Spearman's Rho
Agreement
Avg.
Coder
Coder
Coder
among
pair: 1, 2
pair: 1, 4
pair: 2, 4
coders
B4
Age
1.00
1.00
1.00
100
B7*
Appearance
0.79
0.53
0.81
60
B36*
Appears lonely
0.75
0.75
0.50
60
* Variables that need to be analyzed with caution due to low reliability
Table 3.3 presents acceptable inter-coder reliabilities for interval and ratio
variables. There were two variables (low angle shot, and high angle shot) and two
calculated variables (overview shot and underview shot) that have low reliability scores
and results linked with those variables must be analyzed with caution.
Empirical testing 46
Table 3.3
Acceptable Inter-Coder Reliabilities for Sections A, B, & C
Lin’s Concordance
%
Lin’s
Agreement
Coder
Coder
Coder
Avg.
pair: 1,
pair: 1,
pair: 2,
among
2
3
3
coders
A1
# of lead females
1
1
1
83
A2
# of major females
1
1
1
100
A3
# of medium females
1
0.92
0.92
83
A4
# of lead males
1
1
1
100
A5
# of major males
1
0.67
0.67
70
A6
# of medium males
A father present
A7.1+A7.2+A7.3+A7.4+A7.5
0.96
0.87
0.86
50
0.5
1
0.5
83
1
1
1
100
VA8
Father - of lead char.
A mother present
A8.1+A8.2+A8.3+A8.4+A8.5
1
1
1
100
A8.1
Mother - of lead char.
1
1
1
100
A10
Clash between cultures
1
1
1
100
A12
Partial nude front female
0.97
0.93
0.85
100
A13
Top nude front female
0.75
0.96
0.61
75
A14
Bottom nude front female
1
1
1
100
VA7
A7.1
Empirical testing 47
A15
Full nude frontal female
0.98
0.95
0.99
100
A19
Full nude back female
1
1
1
100
A20
Top nude frontal male
0.98
0.98
0.93
100
A22
Full nude frontal male
1
1
1
100
A23
1
0.75
0.75
83
VA28.1
Top nude back male
Kissing
A26+A27+A28
0.75
0.75
1
83
A29
Oral sex
1
1
1
100
A31
1
1
1
100
VA31
Sexual Intercourse
All Sex
VA28.1+29+A30+A31
0.75
0.75
1
83
A32
Taboo
1
1
1
100
A33
Primary POV of female
1
1
1
100
A34
Presence of angels
1
1
1
100
B3
Opening scene
1
1
1
100
B4.1
Estimated age
0.99
0.98
1
100
B18
Identity change: marriage
1
NC
NC
100
B23
1
0.55
0.55
75
B26
Phys abused by same gender
Psych abused by opposite
gender
1
NC
NC
100
B28
Sex abuse by opposite gender
1
NC
NC
100
B29
Phys abusive to same gender
0.55
0.55
1
75
B30
Phys abusive to other gender
1
NC
NC
100
B32
Psych abusive to other gender
1
1
1
100
B34
Sex abusive to other gender
1
1
1
100
Empirical testing 48
B37
An outsider
1
1
1
100
B40
Tries to hurt self
1
NC
NC
100
B41
How many siblings?
1
1
1
100
C1
Voiceover
0.5
1
0.5
93
C2
Diegetic music
0.79
0.78
0.57
86
C3
Non-diegetic music
0.64
1
0.64
96
C8
XCU - Motion of touch
0.72
NC
NC
100
C9
Face: CU
0.98
0.85
0.92
100
C9.1
Face: XCU
0.92
NC
NC
93
C11
Hands: CU
1
1
1
100
C13.1
Furniture: XCU
1
NC
NC
100
C14
Window: CU
0.65
0.64
0.84
93
C15
Mirror: CU
0.44
0.64
0.64
93
C21
Long tracking shots
0.6
0.9
0.69
83
C24
Slow motion
0.85
NC
NC
96
C27
Blue color filter
1
NC
NC
100
C34
Handheld camera
1
NC
NC
100
C35*
Low angle
0.4
0.88
NC
63
C36*
High angle
0.62
0.89
0.5
63
C37
Overview
1
1
1
100
C38
Underview
0.84
0.78
0.84
100
C39
Canted angle
NC
1
NC
97
Empirical testing 49
C41
Superhearing
0.47
0.64
0.63
87
C42
Scenery XL Shot
0.47
0.36
0.81
87
C43
Medium shot arm/hand
0.46
1
0.46
93
C44
Medium shot leg/foot
0.64
0.64
0.05
93
C45
Focus pulls
1
NC
NC
Shots of legs/feet
VC50
(C10+C10.1+C44)
0.44
0.64
0.64
Shots of arms/hands
VC51
(C11+C11.1+C43)
0.62
1
0.62
Shots of looking up
VC52*
(C35+C38)
0.4
0.87
0.42
Shots of looking down
VC53*
(C36+C37)
0.88
0.62
0.5
Note: Variable starting with V (for example VC53) it is a computed variable
96
93
93
63
63
* Variables that need to be analyzed with caution
Calculated variables. There were eight calculated variables. They were
constructed from several original variables that could not be kept due to infrequent
occurrence and corresponding low reliability. “A father present” variable was calculated
by adding father of lead (A7.1), major (A7.2), medium (A7.3), minor/other (A7.4)
characters, and father that was not present but talked about (A7.5). “A mother present”
variable was calculated by adding mother of lead (A8.1), major (A8.2), medium (A8.3),
minor/other (A8.4) characters, and mother that was not present but talked about (A8.5). A
“kissing” variable was constructed by adding romantic kissing (A26), French kissing
(A27) and kissing other body parts (A28). An “all sex” variable was constructed by
adding kissing (VA28.1), oral sex (A29), masturbation (A30) and sexual intercourse
(A31).
Empirical testing 50
Even though additional coding was done, several variables that did not occur in
the reliability coding did not belong to any variable family. Unfortunately, those variables
had to be discarded. They are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
List of Variables with Un-Measurable Reliability
Multiple
Kappa
Coders: 1 - 3
A11.14 Loss of faith in self
NC
A11.20 Loss of money
NC
A11.21 Loss of physical beauty
NC
Lin's Concordance
Coder
Coder
Coder
pair: 1, 2
pair: 1, 3 pair: 2, 3
A7.2
Father -of major char. *
NC
NC
NC
A7.4
Father -of minor/other char. *
NC
NC
NC
A8.3
Mother -of medium char. *
NC
NC
NC
A8.4
Mother -of minor/other char. *
NC
NC
NC
C22
Blurred image
NC
NC
NC
C31
Unusual transition
NC
NC
NC
C32
Live-action& animation
NC
NC
NC
C33
Color and B&W
NC
NC
NC
C40
Breaking the fourth wall
NC
NC
NC
Note: * Variables were used to calculate new variable
Empirical testing 51
There were also several variables that did not meet the suggested reliability level;
therefore those had to be discarded. Those variables are presented in Table 5.
Table 5
List of Variables Dropped Due to Low Reliability Coefficient
Multiple
Kappa
Coders:
1-3
Lin's Concordance
Coder
Coder
Coder pair:
pair:
pair:
1, 2
1, 3
2, 3
A11.14
Loss of faith in others
0.14
A11.19
Loss of a job
-0.09
A11.20
Other loss (Identify):
-0.09
A7.3
Father - of medium char. *
0
1
0
A8.2
Mother - of major char.*
0
0
1
A26
Romantic kissing*
0
NC
0
A27
French kissing*
0
0
NC
A28
Kissing other body parts*
0
1
0
B38
Is very realistic
0
0
0.62
C23
Distorted image
0
NC
0
Note: * Variables were used to calculate new variable
Empirical testing 52
A complete list of the original and calculated variables and inter-coder
reliabilities can be found in Appendix D. Variables that were part of a variable family but
could not be measured due to lack of occurrence are included in Appendix D.
Empirical testing 53
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Descriptives
Section A. As previously discussed, a total of 24 films were coded for this study,
six Campion films (25%) and 18 non-Campion films (75%). Four films per year (1989,
1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and 2003) were coded. A list is presented in Table 2. The
principal researcher coded sixteen movies (66.7% of the sample); coders 2 and 3 each
coded four movies (16.7%).
Section B. A total of 101 lead or major characters were coded, nineteen Campion
characters (18.8%) and 82 non-Campion characters (81.2%). One film had only one lead
or major character, one film had only two lead or major characters, five films had three
lead or major characters, nine films had four lead or major characters, three films had five
lead or major characters, three films had six lead or major characters, and two films had
seven lead or major characters. Out of the total of 101 coded characters, 37 were coded as
lead (36.6%) and 64 (63.4%) as major characters. The estimated range of the characters’
ages was 6-89 years old (M=36.65, SD=16.41). There were 42 female characters (41.6%)
outnumbered by 59 male characters (58.4%), which is consistent with past studies
(Powers et al., 1993; Smith, 1999).
Empirical testing 54
Section C. Each of the twenty-four films was divided into five-minute long
intervals. There were 530 intervals; 167 Campion intervals (31.5%) and 363 nonCampion intervals (68.5%) were coded.
The length of the films ranged from 85 minutes (17 codeable intervals) to 155
minutes (31 codeable intervals). Table 6 illustrates the difference in proportions for the
number of Campion versus non-Campion films and the five-minute intervals. It is clear
that Jane Campion’s films run much longer than non-Campion films. Twenty-five percent
of all the films analyzed were directed by Jane Campion, compared to 31.5% of all fiveminute intervals directed by Jane Campion.
Table 6
Length of Films and Intervals, and Number of Characters
Films
Characters
Intervals
N
%
N
%
N
%
Campion
6
25
19
18.8
167
31.5
Non-Campion
18
75
82
81.2
363
68.5
Total
24
100
101
100
530
100
Research Questions.
Research Question 1 asked if Jane Campion films differed from non-Jane
Campion films by themes and motifs. To answer the question, many one-way ANOVAs
for interval or ratio variables, and chi square analyses for nominal and ordinal variables
Empirical testing 55
were conducted using the director (Campion or non-Campion) as the independent
variable.
Count of Characters. One variable in this variable family was found significant
for Campion versus non-Campion films: Number of lead males, F(1, 22) = 5.02, p =.04,
indicating Campion rarely used a lead male character. One variable was found to be
approaching significance: Number of lead females, F(1, 22) = 3.04, p =.10. The rest of the
variables in this variable family were found to be not significant: Number of major
females, F(1, 22) = 0.82, p =.37, number of medium females, F(1, 22) = 2.52, p =.13, number
of major males, F(1, 22) = 2.84, p =0.11, and number of medium males, F(1, 22) = 0.00, p
=.98. See Table 7.
Table 7
Analyses of Variance for Section A: Themes and Motifs
Non-
Variable
A1: Number of lead
females
A2: Number of major
females
A3: Number of
medium females
A4: Number of lead
males
Campion
Campion
Total
(n=6)
(n=18)
(n=24)
Mean
sd
Mean
sd
Mean
sd
F(1, 22)
Sig.
1.00 0.00
0.56
0.62
0.67
0.56
3.04a
0.10
0.83 0.75
1.17
0.79
1.08
0.78
0.82
0.37
3.83 4.17
1.83
2.04
2.33
2.76
2.52
0.13
0.33 0.52
1.06
0.73
0.88
0.74
5.02*
0.04
Empirical testing 56
A5: Number of major
males
A6: Number of
medium males
VA7: Father character
present
VA8: Mother
character present
A9: Tradition versus
modernism
A10: Clash between
cultures
1.00 0.63
1.78
1.06
1.58
1.02
2.84
0.11
3.83 2.56
3.89
4.27
3.88
3.86
0.00
0.98
0.83 0.41
0.67
0.49
0.71
0.46
0.57
0.46
1.00 0.00
0.83
0.38
0.88
0.34
1.10
0.31
0.17 0.41
0.33
0.49
0.29
0.46
0.57
0.46
0.67 0.52
0.50
0.51
0.54
0.51
0.47
0.50
2.00
3.63
3.79
5.83
9.23**
0.01
0.50
1.29
2.08
4.69
12.21**
<0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.67
0.83
1.63
12.50**
<0.01
0.11
0.32
0.21
0.51
2.84
0.11
0.72
1.93
0.92
2.12
0.59
0.45
0.11
0.32
0.21
0.66
1.61
0.22
0.33
0.77
0.71
1.37
9.78*
0.02
A12: Partial nude
front female
9.17 8.08
A13: Top nude front
female
6.83 7.70
A14: Bottom nude
front female
0.00 0.00
A15: Full nude front
female
2.50 2.51
A16: Partial nude back
female
0.50 0.84
A17: Top nude back
female
1.50 2.74
A18: Bottom nude
back female
0.50 1.22
A19: Full nude back
female
1.83 2.14
A20: Top nude front
male
10.17 9.20
A21: Bottom nude
front male
0.33 0.82
A22: Full nude front
male
1.17 1.17
A23: Top nude back
male
2.00 1.79
1.00
6.94 14.10
7.75 12.94
0.27
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.41
3.3a
0.08
0.33
1.03
0.54
1.10
2.77
0.11
1.22
2.34
1.42
2.21
0.55
0.47
Empirical testing 57
A24: Bottom nude
back male
A25: Full nude back
male
0.33 0.82
0.06
0.24
0.13
0.45
1.79
0.20
1.50 1.76
0.50
0.79
0.75
1.15
3.81a
0.06
VA28: Kissing
8.50 3.02
3.50
3.28
4.75
3.85
10.86**
<0.01
A29: Oral sex
0.83 0.98
0.11
0.32
0.29
0.62
7.81**
0.01
A30: Masturbation
0.67 1.21
0.17
0.51
0.29
0.75
2.09
0.16
A3: Sexual intercourse
0.83 0.98
0.39
0.98
0.50
0.98
0.93
0.35
10.83 4.54
4.17
4.08
5.83
5.04
11.42**
<0.01
A32: Taboo
0.83 0.41
0.11
0.32
0.29
0.46
19.78**
<0.01
A33: POV female
1.00 0.00
0.06
0.24
0.29
0.46
93.50**
<0.01
A34: Presence of
angels
0.67 0.52
0.00 0.00
0.17 0.38
33.00**
Note: Variables starting with V (e.g., VA31: All sex) are constructed variables
<0.01
VA31: All sex
a
.05< p < .10
* p < .05
** p <.01
Presence of father/mother. The constructed variable presence of father was found
to be not significant, F(1, 22) = 0.57, p = 0.46, as was presence of mother, F(1, 22) = 1.10, p
= 0.31. The clash between tradition and modernism variable was also found to be not
Empirical testing 58
significant, F(1, 22) = 0.57, p = 0.46, as well as clash between cultures, F(1, 22) = 0.47, p
=0.50.
Nudity. Four nudity variables were found to be significant for Campion versus
non-Campion films: Partial nude frontal female, F(1, 22) = 9.23, p = 0.01, top nude frontal
female, F(1, 22) = 12.21, p < 0.01, full nude frontal female, F(1, 22) = 12.50, p < 0.01, and
full nude back female, F(1, 22) = 9.78, p = 0.02. These results indicated that Campion films
showed significantly more female frontal nudity than non-Campion films. Two nudity
variables were approaching significance: Bottom nude front male, F(1, 22) = 3.30, p = 0.08,
and full nude back male, F(1, 22) = 3.81, p = 0.06, indicating Campion films showed more
male nudity than non-Campion films. The rest of the nudity variables were found to be
not significant: Partial nude back female, F(1, 22) = 2.84, p = 0.11, top nude back female,
F(1, 22) = 0.59, p = 0.45, bottom nude back female, F(1, 22) = 1.61, p = 0.22, top nude front
male, F(1, 22) = 0.27, p = 0.61, full nude front male, F(1, 22) = 2.77, p = 0.11, top nude back
male, F(1, 22) = 0.55, p = 0.47, and bottom nude back male, F(1, 22) = 1.79, p = 0.20. The
bottom nude frontal female variable could not be tested due to lack of occurrence.
Sexual acts. Three sexual variables were found to be significantly different
between Campion and non-Campion films: The constructed variable of kissing, F(1, 22) =
10.86, p < 0.01, oral sex F(1, 22) = 7.81, p = 0.01, and the constructed variable all sexual
activity, F(1, 22) = 11.42, p < 0.01, demonstrating Campion films showed more sexual
activity than non-Campion films. Only two sexual variables were found to be not
significant: Masturbation, F(1, 22) = 2.09, p = 0.16, and sexual intercourse, F(1, 22) = 0.93, p
= 0.35.
Empirical testing 59
Analyses of variance found three other variables to be significant: Portrayal of
taboos in the films, F(1, 22) = 19.78, p < 0.01, female point-of-view, F(1, 22) = 93.50, p <
0.01, and presence of angels, F(1, 22) = 33.00, p < 0.01. All three were found to be more
prevalent in Campion films. The ANOVA statistics for all variables demonstrating the
difference between Campion and non-Campion films in regards to main themes and
motifs can be found in Table 7.
Loss. Chi-square tests were used to determine whether there were significant
differences between occurrences of different kind of losses in Campion and non-Campion
films. Only one variable was found significant: Loss of a spouse due to break up. Only
16.7% of Campion films did not deal with a marital break up, compared to 94.4% of nonCampion films. This difference was statistically significant, χ2(2) = 15.41, p < 0.01, and
is presented in Table 8. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chisquare test should be examined with caution.
Table 8.
Loss of a Spouse Due to Break up in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion
Campion
Total
No
count
1
17
row %
5.6%
94.4%
100%
16.7%
94.4%
75%
column %
Yes - lead/major character(s)
18
Empirical testing 60
count
2
1
row %
66.7%
33.3%
column %
33.3%
5.6%
3
100%
12.5%
Yes - Other character (s)
count
3
0
3
row %
100%
0%
column %
50%
0%
count
6
18
row %
25%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
12.5%
Total
column %
24
Note: 5 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 15.41
df = 2
p < 0.01
Three additional variables reached near significance: Character’s break up with
his/her lover, character’s loss of health, and loss of freedom. The majority of Campion
films, 66.7%, dealt with a lead/major character's break up with his/her lover, compared to
only 22.2% of non-Campion films. This difference was approaching statistical
significance, χ2(1) = 4.00, p = 0.07, and shall be reviewed with caution. Table 9 shows
the statistics.
Empirical testing 61
Table 9.
Loss of a Lover due to Break up in Campion versus non-Campion Films
NonCampion
Campion
Total
No
count
2
14
row %
12.5%
87.5%
column %
33.3%
77.8%
16
100%
66.7%
Yes - lead/major character(s)
count
4
4
8
row %
50%
50%
100%
column %
66.7%
22.2%
33.3%
count
6
18
24
row %
25%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
column %
Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 4.0
df =1
p = .07
Empirical testing 62
Statistical significance was found to be approaching for loss the of health
variable, χ2(1) = 4.00, p = 0.07, between Campion and non-Campion films. Only 22.2%
of non-Campion films included characters experiencing any health issues, compared with
an overwhelming 66.7% of Campion films. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells,
results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. Table 10 shows the
statistics.
Empirical testing 63
Table 10
Loss of Health of Lead/Major Characters in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion
Campion
Total
No
count
2
14
row %
12.5%
87.5%
column %
33.3%
77.8%
16
100%
66.7%
Yes - lead/major character(s)
count
4
4
8
row %
50%
50%
100%
column %
66.7%
22.2%
33.3%
count
6
18
24
row %
25%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
column %
Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 4.00
df = 1
p = .069
Empirical testing 64
The third variable that was found to be approaching a significant difference in the
chi-square test was loss of freedom of lead/major character, χ2(1) = 4.13, p = 0.08. Half
of Campion films (50%) included character(s) that experienced loss of freedom compared
to only 11.1% non-Campion films. This difference was approaching statistical
significance and shall be reviewed with caution. Due to small numbers of cases in some
cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. The statistics are
presented in Table 11.
Empirical testing 65
Table 11
Loss of Freedom of Lead/Major Characters in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion
Campion
Total
No
count
3
16
row %
15.8%
84.2%
column %
50%
88.9%
19
100%
79.2%
Yes - lead/major character(s)
count
3
2
5
row %
60%
40%
100%
column %
50%
11.1%
20.8%
count
6
18
24
row %
25%
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Total
column %
Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 4.13
df = 1
p = .078
Empirical testing 66
The remaining variables from the loss variable family were found to be not
significant. The frequencies for all nominal and ordinal variables for Section A are
presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Frequencies for Nominal Variables - Section A
% of films with Losses
(n=24)
Variable
Never
Lead/Major
Other Both
A11.1
Loss of a young child due to death
83.3
12.5
4.2
A11.2
Loss of a young child due to break up
95.8
A11.3
Loss of an old child due to death
87.5
8.3
A11.4
Loss of an old child due to break up
87.5
12.5
A11.5
Loss of a spouse due to death
70.8
25
4.2
A11.6**
Loss of a spouse due to break up
79.2
16.7
4.2
A11.7
Loss of lover due to death
66.7
29.2
4.2
A11.8a
Loss of lover due to break up
66.7
33.3
A11.9
Loss of fam. member due to death
45.8
45.8
A11.10
Loss of fam. member due to break up
87.5
12.5
A11.11
Loss of a friend due to death
62.5
29.2
A11.12
Loss of a friend due to break up
91.7
8.3
A11.13
Loss of faith - religion
95.8
4.2
A11.16a
Loss of health
66.7
33.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
8.3
4.2
Empirical testing 67
A11.17
Loss of material things
91.7
8.3
A11.18a
Loss of freedom
79.2
20.8
a
chi-square .05 < p < .10
* chi-square p < .05
** chi-square p < .01
Research Question 2 asked if Jane Campion films differed from non-Campion
films by narrative construction of characters. To answer the question, many one-way
ANOVAs for interval or ratio variables, and chi square analyses for nominal and ordinal
variables were conducted using the director (Campion or non-Campion) as the
independent variable.
The presence of a lead or major character in the opening scene was found to be
significant for Campion versus non-Campion films, F(1, 99) = 19.78, p = 0.04, in a way that
Campion films showed lead and major characters more often in the opening scenes than
did non-Campion films. Characters’ happiness was also found to be significant, F(1, 99) =
9.66, p < 0.01, where none of the Campion characters were found to be happy
throughout the majority of the films.
Identity Change. In this variable family, two variables were found significant for
Campion versus non-Campion films: Getting or wanting to get married, F(1, 99) = 6.01, p =
0.02, and change of religion, F(1, 99) = 9.46, p < 0.01, indicating Campion characters were
getting or wanting to get married as well as changing their religion more than nonCampion characters. Other identity change variables were found to be not significant:
Empirical testing 68
Change of gender, F(1, 99) = 0.23, p = 0.63, change of a job, F(1, 99) = 0.12, p = 0.74, and
moving to a different city, state or country, F(1, 99) = 1.14, p = 0.29.
Physical, Psychological and Sexual Abuse. Three variables from the abuse
variable family were found to be significantly different for Campion versus non-Campion
films: Character physically abused by opposite gender character, F(1, 99) = 13.98, p < 0.01,
character physically abusive to opposite gender character, F(1, 99) = 9.30, p = 0.04, and
character sexually abusive to opposite gender character, F(1, 99) = 9.23, p < 0.01,
concluding Campion characters were more likely to be physically abused, they were
more likely to be physically abusive, and also sexually abusive to opposite gender
characters, than non-Campion characters. The rest of the abuse variables were found to
be not significant: Physically abused by same gender character, F(1, 99) = 0.38, p = 0.54,
psychologically abused by same gender, F(1, 99) = 0.34, p = 0.56, sexually abused by
opposite gender character, F(1, 99) = 2.67, p = 0.11, physically abusive to same gender
character, F(1, 99) = 1.44, p = 0.23, psychologically abusive to same gender character, F(1,
99) =
0.75, p = 0.39, and psychologically abusive to opposite gender character, F(1, 99) =
1.98, p = 0.16.
Character being an outsider was found to be not significant between Campion and
non-Campion films, F(1, 99) = 0.96, p = 0.33, as well as substance abuse, F(1, 99) = 1.62, p =
0.21, character being suicidal, F(1, 99) = 2.67, p = 0.11, and how many siblings a character
had, F(1, 99) = 0.39, p = 0.53. Psychological disorder of the character was found to be
significant, F(1, 99) = 15.84, p < 0.01, indicating that Campion characters were more likely
to suffer with a psychological disorder than were non-Campion characters.
Empirical testing 69
The statistics for all interval/ratio variables demonstrating the comparisons
between Campion and non-Campion films in regards to characters used in films can be
found in Table 13.
Table 13
Analyses of Variance for Section B: Narrative Construction
Non-
Variable
B3: Opening scene
B4.1: Estimated age
B11: Happiness
B16: Identity change gender
B17: Identity change job
B18: Identity change marriage
B19: Identity change religion
B20: Identity change move
Campion
Campion
Total
(n=19)
(n=82)
(n=101)
Mean
0.32
sd
0.48
31.58 10.38
Mean
0.12
sd
0.33
37.83 17.35
Mean
0.16
sd
0.37
36.65 16.41
F(1, 99)
Sig.
4.45*
0.04
2.27
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.48
0.28
0.45
9.66**
<0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.23
0.63
0.11
0.32
0.13
0.34
0.13
0.34
0.12
0.74
0.37
0.50
0.13
0.34
0.18
0.38
6.01*
0.02
0.11
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
9.46**
0.26
0.45
0.16
0.37
0.18
0.38
1.14
<0.01
0.29
Empirical testing 70
B23: Physically abused
by same gender
B27: Sexually abused
by same gender
B26: Psych. abused by
opposite gender
B28: Sexually abused
by opposite gender
B29: Physically
abusive to same gender
B30: Physically
abusive to opposite
gender
B31: Psychologically
abusive to same gender
B32: Psychologically
abusive to opposite
gender
B33: Sexually abusive
to same gender
B34: Sexually abusive
to opposite gender
0.05
0.23
0.10
0.30
0.09
0.29
0.38
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.16
0.37
0.11
0.31
0.12
0.33
0.34
0.56
0.11
0.32
0.02
0.16
0.04
0.20
2.67
0.11
0.05
0.23
0.16
0.37
0.14
0.35
1.44
0.23
0.32
0.48
0.07
0.26
0.12
0.33
9.30**
0.05
0.23
0.12
0.33
0.11
0.31
0.75
0.39
0.16
0.37
0.06
0.24
0.08
0.27
1.98
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.16
0.37
0.01
0.11
0.04
0.20
9.23**
B37: An outsider
0.37
0.50
0.26
0.44
0.28
0.45
0.96
0.33
B39: Substance abuse
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.50
0.12
0.45
1.62
0.21
B40: Suicidal
0.11
0.32
0.02
0.16
0.04
0.20
2.67
0.11
59.06 48.56
0.39
0.53
B41: # of siblings
52.79 50.06
60.51 48.41
<0.01
<0.01
Empirical testing 71
B50: Psychological
disorder
a
0.37
0.50
0.06
0.24
0.12
0.33
15.84**
.05< p < .10
* p < .05.
** p <.01
Chi-square tests were used to determine whether there were other significant
differences between characters in Campion and non-Campion films. A statistically
significant difference between Campion and non-Campion films was found for the
traveling variable, χ2(3) = 13.74, p = 0.003. Only 36.8% of Campion characters did not
travel at all compared to 73.2% of non-Campion characters, 21.1% of Campion
characters traveled within the country of the character’s origin compared to 15.9% of
non-Campion characters, and 42.1% of Campion characters traveled outside the country
of the character’s origin compared to 9.8% of non-Campion characters. Due to small
numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with
caution. Table 14 presents the Chi-square test.
<0.01
Empirical testing 72
Table 14
Traveling by Characters in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
No
count
7
60
67
row %
10.4%
89.6%
100%
column %
36.8%
73.2%
66.3%
13
17
Yes - within country of origin
count
4
row %
23.5%
76.5%
column %
21.1%
15.9%
100%
16.8%
Yes - outside country of origin
count
8
8
16
row %
50%
50%
100%
column %
42.1%
9.8%
15.8%
1
1
100%
100%
Yes - within and outside country of origin
count
0
row %
0%
column %
0%
1.2%
81.2%
Total
count
19
82
101
Empirical testing 73
row %
column %
18.8%
100%
81.2%
100%
100%
100%
Note: 4 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square =13.74
df = 3
p = .003
The characters living abroad variable was found to be statistically significant,
χ2(2) = 15.64, p < 0.01, where only 57.9% of Campion characters did not live abroad at
all compared to 92.7% of non-Campion characters, 21.1% of Campion characters lived
abroad at least part of the film compared to 3.7% of non-Campion characters, and 21.1%
Campion characters lived abroad the whole length of the feature film, whereas only 3.7%
of non-Campion characters have done so. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells,
results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. The statistics are presented
in Table 15.
Empirical testing 74
Table 15
Characters Living Abroad in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
No
count
11
76
row %
12.6%
87.4%
column %
57.9%
92.7%
87
100%
86.1%
Yes - part of the film
count
4
3
7
row %
57.1%
42.9%
100%
column %
21.1%
3.7%
6.9%
3
7
Yes - full length of film
count
4
row %
57.1%
42.9%
100%
column %
21.1%
3.7%
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
6.9%
Total
column %
Note: 4 cells have expected count of less than 5
100%
100%
100%
Empirical testing 75
Pearson Chi-Square = 15.64
df = 2
p < 0.01
Characters’ love situation in the middle of film was found to differ statistically
significantly, χ2(5) = 26.50, p < 0.01, indicating that nearly half of Campion characters
(47.4%) were in an unhappy relationship in the middle of the film, but were not looking
for new one, comparing to only 4.9% of non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers
of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution.
Table 16 presents the statistics.
Empirical testing 76
Table 16
Characters Love Situation in the Middle of the Film in Campion versus Non-Campion
Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
Not in relationship, not looking
count
4
15
19
row %
21.1%
78.9%
column %
21.1%
18.3%
18.8%
11
12
100%
100%
Not in relationship, looking
count
1
row %
8.3%
91.7%
column %
5.3%
13.4%
11.9%
count
2
26
28
row %
7.1%
25%
In happy relationship
column %
10.5%
31.7%
100%
27.7%
In unhappy relationship, not looking
count
9
4
row %
69.2%
30.8%
column %
47.4%
4.9%
13
100%
12.9%
In unhappy relationship, looking
count
0
1
1
Empirical testing 77
row %
0%
100%
100%
column %
0%
1.2%
1%
Love situation not apparent
count
3
25
28
row %
10.9%
89.3%
100%
column %
15.8%
30.5%
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
27.7%
Total
column %
100%
100%
100%
Note: 5 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 29.50
df = 5
p < 0.01
A Chi-square test found statistical significance between Campion and nonCampion films and how lonely the lead/major characters appeared, χ2(2) = 6.44, p = .04.
The results indicated that Campion characters tended to be lonelier than non-Campion
characters. Only 15.8 % of Campion characters were not lonely, comparing to 47.6% of
non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chisquare test should be examined with caution. The statistics are presented in Table 17.
Empirical testing 78
Table 17
Characters Appear to be Lonely in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
No
count
3
39
42
row %
7.1%
92.9%
column %
15.8%
47.6%
41.6%
count
12
33
45
row %
26.7%
73.3%
column %
63.2%
40.2%
44.6%
4
10
14
100%
Sometimes
100%
Most of the time
count
row %
28.6%
71.4%
100%
column %
21.1%
12.2%
13.9%
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
Total
column %
Note: 1 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 6.44
df = 2
100%
100%
100%
Empirical testing 79
p = .04
It was also found that there was a statistically significant difference between
Campion and non-Campion characters having issues with siblings, χ2(2) = 15.93, p <
.001. Over half of Campion characters (63.2%) did not have their siblings present in the
films, however, 90.2% of non-Campion characters did not have siblings present as well.
Only 21.1% of Campion lead or major characters had siblings present and did not have
issues with them compared with 9.8% of non-Campion characters. None of the nonCampion characters had to deal with issues among their siblings, compared to 15.8%
Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chisquare test should be examined with caution. The chi-square statistics are presented in
Table 18.
Table 18
Characters with Issues with Siblings in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
No Siblings present
count
12
74
row %
14%
86%
column %
63.2%
90.2%
86
100%
85.1%
Has siblings, but no issues
count
4
8
12
Empirical testing 80
row %
33.3%
66.7%
column %
21.1%
9.8%
100%
11.9%
Has siblings with issues
count
3
row %
100%
0
3
0%
100%
0%
3%
column %
15.8%
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
Total
column %
100%
100%
100%
Note: 3 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 15.93
df = 2
p < 0.01
A chi-square test was also used to determine whether there was a significant
difference between Campion and non-Campion characters with regard to issues with their
spouse. The difference was found to be statistically significant, χ2(2) = 19.08, p < 0.01.
Only 68.4% of Campion characters did not experience issues with a spouse, compared to
87.8% of non-Campion films. Also 9.8% of the non-Campion characters had a spouse
present and had no issues compared to none of the Campion characters. Only 2.4% nonCampion characters dealt with issues with a spouse compared to 31.6% of Campion
Empirical testing 81
characters. Due to small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test
should be examined with caution. Table 19 shows the statistics.
Table 19
Characters with Issues with a Spouse in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
No spouse present
count
13
72
row %
15.3%
84.7%
column %
68.4%
87.8%
85
100%
84.2%
Has spouse, but no issues
count
0
8
8
row %
0%
100%
100%
column %
0%
9.8%
count
6
2
8
row %
75%
25%
100%
column %
31.6%
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
11.9%
Has spouse with issues
2.4%
7.9%
Total
column %
100%
100%
100%
Empirical testing 82
Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5
df = 2
p < 0.01
Three additional variables were approaching significance: The age of characters,
gender, and issues with parents experienced by the lead/major characters. The age of
characters, χ2(2) = 8.47, p = 0.07, shows that the majority (73.7%) of Campion characters
were young adults, compared to 39% of non-Campion characters. Campion characters
tended to be younger than non-Campion characters. Due to small numbers of cases in
some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined with caution. The results are
presented in Table 20.
Table 20
Age of the Characters in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
Child
count
1
3
4
row %
25%
75%
100%
column %
5.3%
3.7%
4%
Adolescent
count
1
14
row %
6.7%
93.3%
15
100%
Empirical testing 83
column %
5.3%
17.1%
14.9%
46
Young Adult
count
14
32
row %
30.4%
69.6%
column %
73.7%
39%
45.5%
31
100%
Mature Adult
count
3
28
row %
9.7%
90.3%
15.8%
34.1%
column %
100%
30.7%
Elderly
count
0
5
5
row %
0%
100%
100%
column %
0%
6.1
5%
Total
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
column %
Note: 5 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 8.47
df = 4
p = .07
100%
100%
100%
Empirical testing 84
Gender of characters was also approaching significance, χ2(1) = 2.56, p = 0.09.
The results indicate that 57.9% of Campion characters were females and only 37.8% of
non-Campion characters were female. Results of the chi-square test are presented in
Table 21 and should be examined with caution due to small numbers of cases in some
cells.
Empirical testing 85
Table 21
Gender of the Characters in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
Female
count
11
31
row %
26.2%
73.8%
column %
57.9%
37.8%
42
100%
41.6%
Male
count
8
51
59
row %
13.6%
86.4%
100%
column %
42.1%
62.2%
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
58.9%
Total
column %
Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 2.56
df =1
p = 0.09
100%
100%
100%
Empirical testing 86
Statistical significance was found to be approaching for the issues with parent
variable, χ2(2) = 4.71, p = 0.10. Only 6.1% of non-Campion characters were shown to be
having issues with their parents, compared with 21.1% of Campion characters. Due to
small numbers of cases in some cells, results of the chi-square test should be examined
with caution. Table 22 shows the statistics.
Table 22
Characters with Issues with Parents in Campion versus Non-Campion Films
NonCampion Campion
Total
No parents present
count
12
67
79
row %
15.2%
84.8%
column %
63.2%
81.7%
78.2%
10
13
100%
Has parents, but no issues
count
3
row %
23.1%
76.9%
column %
15.8%
12.2%
100%
12.9%
Has parents with issues
count
Total
4
5
row %
44.9%
55.6%
column %
21.1%
6.1%
9
100%
8.9%
Empirical testing 87
count
19
82
101
row %
18.8%
81.2%
100%
column %
100%
100%
100%
Note: 2 cells have expected count of less than 5
Pearson Chi-Square = 4.71
df = 2
p = 0.10
There were a number of nominal variables that were found to be not significantly
different between Campion and non-Campion characters. They are: Role, race,
appearance, occupation, love at the beginning of film, love at the end of film, sexual
orientation, introvert versus extrovert, substance abuse, death of a character, issues with
child, issues with grandparent, issues with grandchild, and issues with other family
member. Their frequencies are presented in Table 23, along with those for which
statistical significance was found.
Empirical testing 88
Table 23
Frequencies for Nominal Variables - Section B (Characters)
(n = 101)
Variable
B2
B4a
B5a
B6
%
Role
Lead
63.4
Major
36.6
Age
Child
4
Adolescent
14.9
Young Adult
45.5
Mature Adult
30.7
Elderly
5
Gender
Female
41.6
Male
58.4
Race
Caucasian
86.1
African, African-American
7.9
Asian
3.9
Middle Eastern
1
Empirical testing 89
B7
Native-American
2
Bi-racial
0
Other
0
Appearance
Extremely Attractive
8.9
Attractive
25.7
Average
60.4
Unattractive
5
Extremely Unattractive
B8
Occupation
(There were 28 categories)
Student (most frequent)
B9**
Travel
No
66.3
Yes - within country of origin
16.8
Yes - outside country of origin
15.8
Yes- within and outside
B10**
1
Live abroad
No
B12
8.9
86.1
Yes - part of the film
6.9
Yes - full length of the film
6.9
Love at beginning of film
Not in relationship - not looking
31.7
Empirical testing 90
Not in relationship - looking
11.9
In happy relationship
15.8
In unhappy rel. - not looking
In unhappy rel. - looking
Love situation not apparent
B13**
5
34.7
1
Love at middle of film
Not in relationship - not looking
18.8
Not in relationship - looking
11.9
In happy relationship
27.7
In unhappy relationship - not
looking
In unhappy relationship - looking
Love situation not apparent
B14
Love at end of film
12.9
1
27.7
4
Not in relationship - not looking
21.8
Not in relationship - looking
28.7
In happy relationship
2
In unhappy relationship - not
looking
B15
1
In unhappy rel. - looking
30.7
Love situation not apparent
11.9
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual
80.2
Empirical testing 91
Homosexual
4
Bisexual
3
Unable to determine
B35
B36*
B39
Introvert vs. Extrovert
Introvert
11.9
Extrovert
23.8
In the middle
64.4
Appears lonely
No
41.6
Sometimes
44.6
Most of the time
13.9
Substance abuse
No
B42
12.9
92.1
Yes - alcohol
5
Yes - drugs
2
Yes - alcohol and drugs
1
Character dies in film
No
81.2
Natural death - old age
3
Natural death - health issues
3
Accident
2
Murder
8.9
Suicide
2
Empirical testing 92
Unable to determine
B43**
B44a
B45
Issue w/sibling
None present
85.1
Present but no issues
11.9
Present with issues
3
Unknown
0
Issue w/ parent
None present
78.2
Present but no issues
12.9
Present with issues
8.9
Unknown
0
Issue w/ child
None present
B46
B47
0
87.1
Present but no issues
6.9
Present with issues
5.9
Unknown
0
Issue w/ grandparent
None present
0
Present but no issues
0
Present with issues
0
Unknown
0
Issue w/ grandchild
None present
0
Empirical testing 93
B48**
Present but no issues
0
Present with issues
0
Unknown
0
Issue w/ spouse
None present
B49
Present but no issues
7.9
Present with issues
7.9
Unknown
0
Issue w/ other fam. Member
None present
a
84.2
98
Present but no issues
1
Present with issues
1
Unknown
0
chi-square .05 < p < .10
* chi-square p < .05
** chi-square p< .01
Research Question 3 asked if Jane Campion films differed from non-Campion
films by production techniques. Many one-way ANOVAs for interval or ratio variables
were conducted using the director as the independent variable.
Music. Use of non-diegetic music was found to be significant, F(1, 528) = 8.05, p <
0.01, in such a way that Campion content played less non-diegetic music than did non-
Empirical testing 94
Campion segments. Use of diegetic music was found to be not significant, F(1, 528) = 0.10,
p = 0.75. See Table 24.
Table 24
Analysis of Variance for Section C: Production Techniques in Five-Minute Segments
Non-
Variable
Campion
Campion
Total
(n=167)
(n=363)
(n=530)
Mean
sd
Mean
sd
Mean
sd
F(1, 528)
Sig.
C1: Voiceover
C2: Diagetic
music
C3: Non-diegetic
music
0.17 0.38
0.15 0.36
0.16 0.36
0.54
0.47
0.35 0.48
0.33 0.47
0.34 0.47
0.10
0.75
0.58 0.49
0.71 0.46
0.67 0.47
8.05** <0.01
C4: Color picture
1.00 0.00
1.00 0.05
1.00 0.04
0.46
0.50
C5: B&W picture
0.04 0.19
0.02 0.14
0.02 0.15
1.32
0.25
C6: Sepia picture
0.03 0.17
0.01 0.09
0.02 0.12
3.63a
0.06
C7: animation
0.02 0.13
0.00 0.05
0.01 0.09
3.54a
0.06
C8: Xcu of
motion of
touching
0.25 0.65
0.00 0.05
0.08 0.39
C9: Face cu
8.10 6.21
6.85 8.77
7.24 8.07
C9.1: Face xcu
0.68 1.19
0.21 1.00
0.36 1.09
49.48** <0.01
2.73a
0.10
21.47** <0.01
Empirical testing 95
C10: Feet cu
0.12 0.45
0.01 0.12
0.05 0.27
17.60** <0.01
C10.1: Feet xcu
0.05 0.31
0.00 0.00
0.02 0.17
8.88** <0.01
C11: Hand cu
0.59 0.97
0.14 0.49
0.28 0.71
49.24** <0.01
C11.1: Hand xcu
0.22 0.61
0.00 0.05
0.07 0.36
46.78** <0.01
C12: Other cu
C13.1: Furniture
xcu
0.01 0.08
0.01 0.07
0.01 0.08
0.00
0.95
0.02 0.13
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.08
6.62**
0.01
0.04 0.19
0.02 0.13
0.02 0.15
1.94
0.16
0.04 0.19
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.11
13.48** <0.01
13.64** <0.01
C14: Window cu
C14.1: Window
xcu
C15: Mirror cu
C15.1: Mirror
xcu
0.10 0.36
0.02 0.16
0.05 0.24
0.04 0.30
0.00 0.05
0.02 0.17
5.90*
0.02
C16: Tree cu
0.02 0.19
0.02 0.15
0.02 0.16
0.24
0.62
C16.1: Tree xcu
C17:
Flowers/plants cu
C17.1:
Flower/plants xcu
0.01 0.08
0.00 0.05
0.00 0.06
0.32
0.57
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
1.00
C18: Food cu
0.03 0.39
0.02 0.14
0.02 0.24
0.22
0.64
C18.1: Food xcu
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05
0.00 0.04
0.46
0.50
C19: Animal cu
C19.1: Animal
xcu
0.03 0.17
0.04 0.33
0.04 0.29
0.10
0.75
0.02 0.17
0.03 0.37
0.03 0.32
0.25
0.62
C21: Tracking
shot
0.08 0.32
0.10 0.39
0.10 0.37
0.37
0.54
Empirical testing 96
C24: Slow
motion
0.16 0.68
0.05 0.29
0.08 0.45
6.74**
0.01
C25: Time-lapse
0.04 0.22
0.02 0.27
0.02 0.26
0.48
0.49
C26: Jump cut
0.01 0.08
0.02 0.33
0.02 0.28
0.38
0.54
C27: Blue filter
0.69 3.34
0.01 0.09
0.22 1.90
15.06** <0.01
C28: Red filter
0.05 0.23
0.01 0.09
0.02 0.15
10.94** <0.01
C29: Green filter
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
1.00
C30: Other filter
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
1.00
C34: Hand held
camera
0.20 0.68
0.07 0.33
0.11 0.47
8.93** <0.01
C35: Low angle
0.10 0.57
0.21 0.79
0.18 0.73
2.61
0.11
C36: High angle
0.38 1.30
0.52 1.37
0.47 1.35
1.10
0.30
C37: Overview
0.08 0.27
0.10 0.85
0.09 0.72
0.08
0.78
C38: Underview
C39: Canted
angle
0.04 0.22
0.02 0.24
0.03 0.23
0.26
0.61
0.06 0.26
0.03 0.20
0.04 0.22
2.03
0.16
C41:
Superhearing
0.04 0.20
0.11 0.61
0.09 0.52
1.83
0.18
C42: Extremely
long shot
0.17 0.42
0.15 0.52
0.16 0.49
0.29
0.59
Empirical testing 97
C43: Arm medium shot
C44: Leg medium shot
0.88 1.15
0.17 0.53
0.40 0.84
94.35** <0.01
0.67 1.15
0.06 0.29
0.25 0.74
91.61** <0.01
C45: Focus pull
0.14 0.43
0.11 0.39
0.12 0.41
VC50: Legs
0.84 1.36
0.07 0.31
0.31 0.88
104.58** <0.01
VC51: Arms
1.69 1.74
0.32 0.70
0.75 1.30
168.03** <0.01
VC 52: Up
0.14 0.61
0.24 0.84
0.21 0.77
0.66
0.42
1.88
0.17
VC53: Down
0.46 1.33
0.61 1.75
0.56 1.63
0.97
Note: Variables starting with V (e.g., VcC0: legs) are new/constructed
0.32
For variables C1 through C6 the mean score is also a proportion
a
.05< p < .10
** p <.01
* p < .05.
Picture format. Two variables were found to be near significance: Sepia picture
F(1, 528) = 3.63, p = 0.06, and animated picture, F(1, 528) = 3.54, p = 0.06, indicating that
Campion films include sepia sequences or animated sequences more than do nonCampion films. Color picture, F(1, 528) = 0.46, p = 0.50, and black and white picture, F(1,
528) =
1.32, p = 0.25, were found to be not significant. Any results connected with these
two variables (color picture, and black and white picture) should be examined with
Empirical testing 98
caution due to non-calculable reliabilities. The researcher decided to keep these variables
due to the easy nature of the variables. It was assumed, that coders would recognize color
picture format from black and white, sepia and animation easily.
Close up and extreme close up shots. There were ten variables in this variable
family found to be significantly different between Campion and non-Campion segments:
Extreme close up shots of motion of touching, F(1, 528) = 49.48, p < 0.01, extreme close up
shots of face, F(1, 528) = 21.47, p < 0.01, close up shots of feet, F(1, 528) = 49.48, p < 0.01,
extreme close up shots of feet, F(1, 528) = 8.88, p < 0.01, close up shots of hand, F(1, 528) =
49.24, p = 0.00, extreme close up shots of hand, F(1, 528) = 46.78, p < 0.01, extreme close
up shots of furniture, F(1, 528) = 6.62, p = 0.01, extreme close up shots of window, F(1, 528) =
13.48, p = 0.00, close up shots of mirror, F(1, 528) = 13.64, p < 0.01, and extreme close up
shots of mirror, F(1, 528) = 5.90, p = 0.02, indicating Campion segments include higher
number of the close up and extreme close up shots listed above. The rest of the variables
were fount not to be significant when comparing Campion to non-Campion segments:
Close up shots of face, F(1, 528) = 2.73, p = 0.10, close up shots of furniture, F(1, 528) = 1.37,
p = 0.24, close up shots of window, F(1, 528) = 1.94, p = 0.16, close up shots of tree, F(1, 528)
= 0.24, p = 0.62, extreme close up shots of tree, F(1, 9528) = 0.32, p = 0.57, close up shots
of food, F(1, 528) = 0.22, p = 0.64, extreme close up shots of food, F(1, 528) = 0.46, p = 0.50,
close up shots of animal, F(1, 528) = 0.10, p = 0.75, and extreme close up shots of animal,
F(1, 528) = 0.25, p = 0.62.
Motion shots. One variable found a significant difference between Campion and
non-Campion films: Slow motion, F(1, 528) = 6.74, p = 0.01, indicating Campion segments
included more slow motion effect than did non-Campion segments. The rest of the
Empirical testing 99
motion shots variable family were found to be not significant: Tracking shot, F(1, 528) =
0.37, p = 0.54, time-lapse, F(1, 528) = 0.48, p = 0.49, and jump cut, F(1, 528) = 0.38, p = 0.54.
Color filters. Two variables were found to be significant: Blue color filter, F(1, 528)
= 15.06, p < 0.01, and red color filter, F(1, 528) = 10.94, p < 0.01. The other two variables
belonging to this variable family (green color filter, and other color filter) could not be
tested due to lack of variance (i.e., lack of occurrence).
Angle shots. Variables in this family were found to be not significant: Low angle
shots, F(1, 528) = 2.61, p = 0.11, high angle shots, F(1, 528) = 1.10, p = 0.30, overview shots,
F(1, 528) = 0.08, p = 0.78, underview shots, F(1, 528) = 0.26, p = 0.61, and canted angle shots,
F(1, 528) = 2.03, p = 0.16. A computed variable, looking up, combined low angle and
underview shots but was found to be not significant as well, F(1, 528) = 1.88, p = 0.17.
Another combined variable down angles, combined high angle and overview shots and
was found to be not significant as well, F(1, 528) = 0.97, p = 0.32. Any results in this
variable family should be looked at with caution due to low reliabilities.
Medium shots of arms, hands, legs and feet. All four variables in this variable
family were found to be significant: Medium shots of arm/hand, F(1, 528) = 94.35, p < .01,
medium shots of leg/foot, F(1, 528) = 91.61, p < .01, all shots of leg/foot, F(1, 528) = 104.58, p
<.01, and all shots of arm/hands, F(1, 528) = 168.03, p < .01. These results indicate that
Campion segments paid more attention and showed more shots of arms, hands, legs, and
feet than did non-Campion. However, due to low reliabilities, these results ought to be
analyzed with caution.
There were four more variables that did not belong to any variable family. One
variable, hand held camera, was found to be significantly different, F(1, 528) = 8.93, p <
Empirical testing 100
0.01, indicating Campion segments showed more hand held camera shots than did nonCampion segments. The rest of the variables found no significant differences between
Campion and non-Campion segments: Superhearing, F(1, 528) = 1.83, p = 0.18, extremely
long shots, F(1, 528) = 0.29, p = 0.59, and focus pull, F(1, 528) = 0.66, p = 0.42.
Empirical testing 101
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to empirically test auteur theory on the body of
work of Jane Campion, a female director from New Zealand. The intention of this study
was to objectify the subjective nature of auteur theory with evidence collected via an
empirical study.
Through the literature, we have learnt that a more scientific approach to auteurism
was proposed with the introduction of structuralism. Many of the film critics and scholars
such as the Cahier’s editors, Peter Wollen and Allan Lovell, were awaiting such
movement with great anticipation. They wrote their critiques of directors and analyses of
their films with structuralist approach, but never took it to the next level of scientific
testing of the cinema.
On the other hand, mass communication scholars were, and still are, conducting
enormous numbers of empirical studies concerning video games, television programs,
advertisements, billboards, music, and film, but failed to include film theories and chose
to ignore film literature. It seems that these two fields of mass media and film studies
were not related, or purposely never joined together.
Empirical testing 102
This study is attempting to bring the critical film theories and empirical mass
communication traditions together by testing the auteur theory, a critical film theory, with
a content analysis method.
At the beginning of this study, I posed a few questions. Can you rely on the
subjectivity of film critics? Are you satisfied when a film scholar tells you who is and
who is not considered an auteur (the author)? We shouldn’t have to rely on the bias of
film scholars, they are after all human beings with different tastes, different views, and
different ideas and who one thinks should be considered an auteur another might not. The
present study introduced an objective way of studying film via auteur theory.
Due to this research, auteur theory can be used not only as a tool for critical
studies, but as a tool for scientific studies as well. It illustrated that auteur theory is
indeed quantifiable, and that directors can be identified not only through the subjective
eye of a film critic, but also through an empirical and scientific study. It is however a first
attempt to do so, therefore many studies need to be conducted to further confirm and
extend these results.
As mentioned earlier, many analyses have been written, for example, on John
Ford by Peter Wollen, Cahiers editors, and Andrew Sarris. They identified many themes
such as the love for the West, American history, military and army, the antinomies of
garden versus wilderness, East versus West, and civilized versus savage (Wollen, 1968).
Those themes and his signatures have been identified by the critics, but have never been
tested empirically.
This study reviewed literature and themes identified by film scholars and critics
on Jane Campion, and took it a step forward by testing via the scientific method of
Empirical testing 103
content analysis. Detailed discussion of the findings are reported in the next sections.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked whether Jane Campion films differed from nonCampion films by themes and motifs. Many recurring themes were identified in the
literature, pointing to a significant difference between Campion and non-Campion
themes, recognizing many imprints Campion leaves on her films.
It was found that there were not as many lead male characters present in Campion
films as in non-Campion films. It was also found that in Campion films there were
always lead female characters present difference, this fact however, was only
approaching significance, but supported the findings from the literature that Campion’s
lead characters were always women (Hopgood, 2002; Polan, 2001; Schröder, 2004): Kay
and Sweetie in Sweetie, Janet Frame in An Angel at my Table, Isabel Archer in Portrait of
a Lady, Ada in The Piano, Ruth in Holy Smoke!, and Frannie in In the Cut. It was found
significant, that all Campion’s films had a point-of-view of a female as predicted by the
literature (Gillett, 2004; Gordon, 2002; Hopgood, 2002; Hopgood, 2004; Mellencamp,
1996; Polan, 2001; Schröder, 2004; Sharp & Gillard, 2004).
Campion films revealed more nudity of women and men than non-Campion films.
In her films, female bodies were shown fully naked from both front and back,
significantly more frequently than in non-Campion films as well as full nude frontal
male. In the films of Jane Campion partial nude frontal female body was shown 4.5 times
more than in non-Campion films, top nude frontal female was shown 13.5 times more
than in non-Campion films, full nude frontal female 8 times more than in non-Campion
films, full nude back female 2.5 times more than in non-Campion films, full nude frontal
Empirical testing 104
male 3.5 times more than in non-Campion films, full nude back male 3 times more than
non-Campion films than in non-Campion films, and bottom nude frontal male body was
actually never shown in non-Campion films.
Even though one film included in the random sample, Lilies, was dealing with
homosexuality and suppression of gay lovers (this film showed a lot of male nudity), it
was still found that Campion films revealed significantly more full frontal nudity of the
male body than non-Campion films and almost significantly more full nudity of the back
male body than non-Campion films. Campion films showed significantly more kissing,
oral sex, and sexual content than non-Campion films supporting the identified themes of
exploration of female sexuality (Coomps & Gemmel, 1999; Gillett, 2004; Gordon, 2002;
Hopgood, 2002; Hopgood, 2004; Nelmes, 1999; Polan, 2001; Sharp & Gillard, 2004),
sexual obsession and perversity (Gordon, 2002; Mellencamp, 1996). Even though
literature did not uncover the fact about the large amount of nudity that Campion films
portrayed, it may be closely connected with her obsession with sexuality, female desire,
and a hint of perversity as mentioned earlier. In an interview, Campion said that not very
many sexual scenes today are supposed to be shown as pleasurable to women (Frencke,
2003). Males were, and still are, dominating the film industry and the world for that
matter, but Campion was daring enough to actually show on screen that sexuality is and
should be enjoyable for both sexes starting with sexual explorations of Ada and Isabel,
and sexually aware and experienced Ruth and Frannie.
Polan identified Campion’s obsession of showing disturbing images and taboos
(2001) which Campion admitted to in an interview by stating she is being drawn to what
is not spoken about, what is cruel (Wexman, 1999). This study revealed that Campion
Empirical testing 105
films dealt with taboos (Howe, 1990) significantly more than non-Campion films. Such
instances were: the sexual harassment scene in Sweetie, where Sweetie was helping her
dad take a bath dropping the soap and “fishing” for it under the water, or in Portrait of a
Lady, where Osmond’s daughter sat on his lap, him caressing her oh so gently, which
made us, the viewers, extremely uncomfortable thinking he was sexually abusing her (it
is however, only an assumption). Other scenes that can be viewed as shocking, or
perverse are: In An Angel at my Table, where Janet is menstruating and hiding the dirty
cloths from her aunt; the almost rape scenes in The Piano; the naked and urinating on
herself Ruth in Holy Smoke!; or the oral sex scene in In the Cut, to mention a few. As
found in Mellencamp (1996), Freiberg described Campion’s theme as dealing with
“everyday, domestic, and trivial scenes and situations with an edge of menace” (p. 174).
Theme of presence of angels (physical or verbal) was identified in the literature
(Wexman, 1999) and found to be significant in Campion films. No angels were present or
talked about in the non-Campion films.
Campion films revealed a more realistic nature of human relationships by
engaging her characters in ups and downs of their relations. An overwhelming 88% of
her films dealt with spousal break up and 66.7% dealt with break up of lovers compared
to non-Campion films where only 5.6% dealt with spousal break up, and 22.2% nonCampion films dealt with break up of lovers. The “and they lived happily ever after” kind
of relationships of the non-Campion films are not the nature of real relationships as we
know it, and Campion knows it as well. In an interview, she said, “I am not committed to
niceness, I am committed to seeing what’s there . . .” (Wexman, 1999, p. 9). Gordon
Empirical testing 106
(2002), Polan (2001), Mellencamp (1996), and Lewis (200o) identified her interest in
real-life male and female relationships in her films.
The true reflection of real life in Campion films was also shown with characters
having or dealing with health issues. Over half of her films dealt with health problems,
compared to barely one fourth of non-Campion films. This finding however was not
predicted by the literature. The critics and scholars seemed to either ignore this fact, or
did not find it exciting as one of her recurring themes.
Last but not least, her signature identified in literature and partially supported by
this study was the recurring theme of loss of freedom. Half of Campion films, as found in
this study, dealt with loss of freedom. However, in the literature all of Campion’s lead
female characters experienced loss of freedom. Polan (2001) summed it as: Sweetie’s
exclusion on a family trip leaving her trapped at home alone, Janet’s physical
hospitalization in a mental institution, Ada’s imprisonment in an arrange marriage,
Isabel’s captivity in her marriage, Ruth’s physical imprisonment by her family in a
secluded hut, and Frannie’s mental state imprisoning herself as well as being locked up in
the light house (Fuller, 2003a). It is evident that all of Campion’s films dealt with
imprisonment; however the lack of a complete definition in the code book used in this
study allowed for only half of the films being identified as dealing with such
phenomenon.
The themes that differentiated films directed by Jane Campion from non-Campion
films were: Stories told from a female point of view, with a female lead character, and
minimal use of lead male character with an exposure to a vast amount of female and male
nudity as well as sexual activity. Campion was also not afraid of showing disturbing
Empirical testing 107
images and references to angels. The relationships that her characters engage in are
similar to real life, with many break ups, and health issues, as well as power struggles
causing the female characters being or feeling imprisoned or entrapped.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked if films of Jane Campion differed from nonCampion films by narrative construction with characters. Many character traits were
found in the literature and supported with the present study.
Interestingly, it was found that Campion’s lead or major characters were more
likely to be present in the opening scene than non-Campion characters, and that not one
of Campion’s characters was actually happy through majority of the film. It was
interesting to find that an overwhelming three-quarters of Campion’s characters were
young adults, compared to not even close to half of non-Campion characters, and that
Campion’s female characters outnumbered non-Campion female characters with a ratio
of 6:4.
Campion’s lead characters were looking for their identities (Corrigan & White,
2004; Gillett, 2000b; Gillett, 2004; Polan, 2001). In this study, the quest for the
character’s identity was broken down into several categories, with a finding that over a
third of Campion’s characters searched for their identities by getting married, and two
characters by changing religion. It was interesting to find that even thought a majority of
Campion’s films dealt with break ups of romantic relationships, characters were still
getting married. This can be compared to many real life experiences.
It was also found that Campion characters experienced more physical abuse from
opposite gender characters than non-Campion characters. It may be explained with the
Empirical testing 108
fact that a majority of Campion characters were independent, strong women living in and
dealing with male dominated societies (Gillett, 2004; Hopgood, 2002; Kelly, 1996; Sharp
& Gillard, 2004). Therefore the women’s independence had to be suppressed by
exercising their male power with physical abuse.
It was also found that Campion’s characters were found to be sexually more
abusive to opposite gender characters than non-Campion characters, and also a tendency
(even though not significantly different between Campion and non-Campion films) that
Campion characters experienced more of a sexual abuse by opposite gender characters
than non-Campion characters. This again can be explained with the male dominance
theme, assuming the sexual abuse done to females by males. From the films and
literature, we know that Sweetie was most probably sexually molested by her father, Ada
was almost twice raped by her husband, Isabel was physically abused by her husband,
Frannie was attacked and sexually assaulted, and Pauline was raped and killed.
As the literature and findings of this study suggested, most of the female Campion
protagonists were labeled or viewed as mad, or crazy, identifying another recurring
construction of the narrative with characters. As mentioned earlier, it may be explained
with the unconformity of Campion’s female characters, their rebellion against the
traditional gender roles, and disobedience of the patriarchal order (Hopgood, 2002),
hence viewed and labeled as crazy.
It was also found that Campion constructs her narrative with characters that are on
the go, traveling or living abroad. In the literature, Campion’s lead characters were
described as women on the move, or displaced heroines (Gillett, 2000b, Redding &
Brownworth, 1997; Schröder, 2004). Overwhelmingly 63% of Campion’s characters
Empirical testing 109
engaged in traveling, compared to 26% of non-Campion, and 42% of her character lived
abroad for at least some time if not the full length of the film, compared with 7% of nonCampion characters. It may be connected with the quest for identity, looking for oneself.
The majority of Campion’s female protagonists did travel and live abroad: Janet and
Isabel to Europe, Ruth to India. Sweetie and Frannie however, seemed to stay where they
were, even thought Sweetie was forbidden to go on a family trip, and Frannie was on a
virtual voyage of her mind– going back and forth in time. She was also on a poetic quest,
finding new words, new meanings, as well as on a hunt for the murderer of her sister.
As mentioned earlier, Campion films dealt with real life relationships, where the
characters dealt with ups and downs or romantic relationships. It was found that in the
middle of Campion films almost half of her characters were not happy in the relationship
they were in, but were not looking for a new one, compared with almost a third of nonCampion characters being actually happy. This fact can be tied in the fact that the
overwhelming majority of Campion’s characters were lonely, compared to only half of
non-Campion characters.
The theme of dysfunctional families (Hinson, 1990; Hopgood, 2002; Howe, 1990;
Mellencamp, 1996; Redding & Brownworth, 1997; Sharp & Gillard, 2004) was measured
by narrative construction of characters experiences with issues with siblings, parents,
children, grandparents, grandchildren, a spouse or other family members. It was found
that Campion’s characters engaged in significantly more issues with siblings (none of the
non-Campion characters dealt with such issues), parents, and spouse than non-Campion
characters. One-third of Campion’s characters dealt with spousal issues, compared to the
overwhelming majority of non-Campion never dealing with such a problem. Again this
Empirical testing 110
can be indicating the fabrication of on-screen relationships with the fairytale “and the
lived happily ever after” notion prevalent in non-Campion films.
A main trademark of Jane Campion’s narrative construction is the hint of sadness
and loneliness of her characters, due to the experience of some physical and sexual abuse
by opposite gender characters, assuming that her female characters are receivers of such
abuse by her main male characters. The real nature of her constructed relationships can
be considered another trademark of Jane Campion’s characters: The ups and downs of the
romantic relationships, and the everyday family issues that they went through. Campion
once said in an interview, that in a way family issues are funny and tragic at the same
time, and that one can not escape his/her family, they carry family ties through their
whole lives (Wexman, 1999). More trademarks were identified as quests for identities by
finding life partners, by traveling and living abroad.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked if Jane Campion films differed from nonCampion films by production techniques. In the literature, not very many specific
techniques were identified.
It was found that Campion films did not include as much non-diegetic music as
non-Campion films. In Campion films on the other hand, more segments included hand
held camera movement, use of blue and red color filter as well as segments with slow
motion shots.
One of Jane Campion’s production techniques identified by the literature was use
of unpredictable angles (Keough, 1999), brilliant use of high, as well as low angles
(Corrigan & White, 2004). This study found that Campion’s segments did not include
Empirical testing 111
nearly as many low angle shots as non-Campion segments, therefore not supporting those
statements. However, it may be assumed that the measurement of the low and high angle
variables did not correspond with what Keough (1999) called unpredictable, this study
simply measured number of occurrences, not the uniqueness. Schröder (2004) also
identified the complexity of sound, the constant humming, wind, or squeaking of piano
keys, that was measured in the study (with a superhearing variable) but it was not found
to be her signature trademark as well.
Many critics and scholars pointed out Campion’s use of wide shots of New
Zealand scenery and vegetations (Schröder, 2004; Thompson & Bordwell, 2003;
Wexman, 1999). This study measured the amount of extreme wide shots of scenery, but
no real difference was found between Campion and non-Campion films. Again, the
beauty or originality of such shots was not measured.
It was found that Campion included more animation and sepia format shots in her
films than non-Campion, probably because of her surrealistic images of talking beans,
vivid story telling, animated travelogue, hallucinating images, or dream sequences
(Hopgood, 2004; Polan, 2001).
Campion’s obsession with and interest in the human body is seen in one of her
production technique signatures- the use of close up and extreme close up shots of
people, be it their faces, arms, hands, legs, or feet. Polan (2001) pointed out Campion’s
frequent use of close up or extreme close up shots, and Thomson and Bordwell (2003)
identified the close up shots of faces. Campion’s segments contained significantly more
close up and extreme close up shots of human bodies, as well as mirrors, and extreme
close up shots of furniture and windows than non-Campion segments.
Empirical testing 112
From pilot work, the researcher identified a possible Campion trademark of
medium shots of arms and hands as well as medium shots of legs or feet as secondary
elements included in the frame. It was observed that Campion liked to include body limbs
in the picture. This study supported this observation, with a finding that Campion’s films
contained more medium shots of arms, hands, legs, and feet than non-Campion films.
It can be concluded that a main trademark of Jane Campion’s production
technique is her obsession of showing images of human body in close up or extreme
close up shots. The images of furniture, mirrors, and windows are also close to her as
well as slow motion technique, hand held camera shots, and color filters. Campion’s
signature is also the use of animation, and other color formats such as sepia.
Even though most of the production techniques were not a priori identified via
reviewing analyses of Jane Campion’s films, we can still identify those as her unique
imprints and trademarks. When watching her films, one can not forget the extreme close
up shots of little Janet’s face, the unflattering but yet gorgeous shots of Pauline’s face,
Baines’ erotic but romantic touches of Ada’s body, the poetic slow motion shots, or her
fascination with human hands and feet. Campion is not afraid to challenge or shock the
viewers by exposing them to some day-to-day routines, such as menstruation and
urinating, that women experience but when shown on screen are embarrassing, and/or
shocking. So is the exploration of female lust and sexuality or exposure of fully naked
bodies on screen. We are not used to seeing fully naked bodies on screen, we are not used
to seeing much sex scenes in regular films, but in real life it is a different story. Campion
is interested in real life; her films mirror real life situations, relationships, abuse,
loneliness, and family issues.
Empirical testing 113
This study was based on the already recognized signatures and trademarks of Jane
Campion’s films, as well as selected signatures of other directors/auteurs with three
research questions in mind. All the trademarks are presented in the Appendix E
(Campion’s signatures collected from the literature, Campion’s signatures identified by
the researcher from pilot work, the production techniques collected from the literature,
and non-Campion trademarks collected from literature).
The three research questions and their answers combined give an overall answer
to a broader spectrum question: Will the results of this scientific study indicate that Jane
Campion is an auteur without the subjective eyes of film critics? This study generally
supported the subjective views of films critics and film scholars that Jane Campion is an
auteur by uncovering many recurring themes, narrative constructions, and production
techniques that empirically clarifies her precise trademarks and signatures through the
scientific method. Most of the predicted themes and trademarks were confirmed, but
some were not, and others were newly discovered. The full list of the trademarks can be
found in Appendix E.
It must be noted that few elements might be carving the personality of Campion
films that are not being taken into an account in this study. The fact that Jane Campion is
a female director from New Zealand living away from her home land, but sometimes
returning to shoot a film there, might be a great distinction among the non-New Zealand
male directors randomly selected in the sample. Because there were no variables testing
for such differences, we can only speculate. This however brings ideas for future studies.
Empirical testing 114
Limitations and Future Investigation
As mentioned earlier, this is a first attempt at scientific testing of the auteur theory
via content analysis. One issue in this study was with some variables such as mix of
genres. The present study limited the random sample to the drama genre to avoid genre
theory issues, therefore not including a variable that would identify the genre of each
film. The literature however identified the multi-genre trend of Campion films that could
not be supported empirically due to the missing genre variable.
If the nudity variables were coded in Section B by lead and major character such
results would have given us more information. Even though it was found that the
majority of the nudity variables were occurring significantly more in Campion films than
non-Campion, in a study of a different director, it might not have been the case.
One of the major criticisms of auteur theory lies in the heart of the collaboration
tendency. The auteur theory resistance argues that there is not one author of a film, there
are many people who work on the film such as the director, director of photography,
editor, writer, etc. For the next study, I am proposing that the IMDb random sample be
eliminated; instead the population for the sample should be the films that the main artists
such as the director, cinematographer, editor and writer worked on. To use Jane
Campion films as an example, she worked with three cinematographers: Dion Beebe,
Stewart Dryburgh, and Sally Bongers. Films that those three worked on as
cinematographers could constitute the non-Campion films, ensuring a tighter, more
precise auteur analysis.
My future goal, with the help of many auteur content analysis studies to come, is
to build a master codebook, which would serve the purpose of an objective auteur
Empirical testing 115
analysis. With this comprehensive codebook a researcher would be able to choose a
director, and with a little training and coding, auteur status would or would not be
uncovered.
One more limitation is noteworthy: What about the post-structuralist-auteurism?
The introduction of psychoanalysis to auteurism in the 1970s brought a larger issue with
objective analysis – an interpretation of messages. Different people can interpret and
understand the same situation or the same image in many different ways. Is there a way
to empirically test such content? Obviously, the empirical extension of this theoretic
approach would involve a series of audience studies, tapping interpretations and reactions
to an auteur’s content.
Conclusion
This study presented an empirical analysis of Jane Campion films through the
auteur theory lens, which until now, no study has done. The findings of the content
analysis have recognized Jane Campion to be an auteur as did many film critics and
scholars with their opinions. This study also recognized many trademarks, themes,
narrative constructions, and production techniques that distinguish Jane Campion’s style.
It has also demonstrated the potential for empirical assessment of auteurism by revisiting
the three stages: romantic – auteurism, structuralist – auteurism, and post – structuralist
auteurism. This thesis, uncovered a potential for a fourth stage, an empirical – auteurism.
The proposed fourth stage opened the door to future content analyses of film via
the auteur theory lens. Will it be optimistically recognized and welcomed among film
Empirical testing 116
scholars, or will it be booed as Jane Campion’s Sweetie at Cannes? That is a question
awaiting an answer.
Empirical testing 117
REFERENCES
Allen, M. P., & Lincoln, A. E. (2004). Critical discourse and the cultural consecration
of American films. Social Forces, 82, 871-893.
Angelic, R., Brown, E., Ivernel, F., Kidman, N., Parker, L. (Producers), & Campion,
J. (Director). (2003). In the cut. [Motion Picture]. USA: Pathe Productions.
Allingham, D., Barber, G., Mora, P., Redshaw, P., Simons, E., Strieber, R., Strieber,
W. (Producers), & Mora, P. (Director). (1989). Communion. [Motion Picture].
Great Britain: Allied Vision Ltd.
Avildsen, J., Schiffer, M., Seelig, D., Twain, N. (Producers), & Avildsen, J.
(Director). (1989). Lean on me. [Motion Picture]. USA: Warner Bros.
Pictures.
Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: A
review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 323.
Barber, G., Liroff, M., MacDonald, M., Robinson, J., Segal, J. (Producers), &
Shapiro, A. (Director). (1993). The crush. [Motion Picture]. USA: Morgan
Creek Productions.
Baywater, T., & Sobchack, T. (1989). An introduction to film criticism: Major critical
approaches to narrative film. New York, NY: Longman.
Bazin, A. (1967). What is cinema? Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bazin, A. (1971). What is cinema? Vol. 2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Becker, H., Carroll, E., Lipper, K., Mack, T., Mulvehill, C., Pressman, E. (Producers),
& Becker, H. (Director). (1996). City hall. [Motion Picture]. USA: Columbia
Pictures Corporation.
Empirical testing 118
Bentley, G. (2002). Mothers, daughters, and (absent) fathers in Jane Campion’s The
Piano. Literature Film Quarterly, 30, 46-59.
Betz, M. (2001). The name above the (sub) title: Internationalism, coproduction, and
polyglot European art cinema. Camera Obscura, 16, 1-46.
Bishop, C., Chapman, J., Goldstein, J., Turnbull, M., Weinstein, B., Weinstein, H.
(Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1999). Holy smoke!. [Motion
Picture].USA: Miramax.
Blomquist, A., Cohen, B., Gladstein, R., Holleran, L., Platt, M., Poster, M., Weistein,
B., Weistein, H., Yacoub, L. (Producers), & Hallström, L. (Director). ( 1999).
The cider house rules. [Motion Picture]. USA: Miramax.
Blonski, A., Creed, B., & Frieberg, F. (1987). Don’t shoot darling!: Women’s
independent filmmaking in Australia. Richmond, Australia: Greenhouse.
Brandstein, J., Duff, J., Estevez, E., Graham-Rice, T., Ivers, J., Krevoy, B.,
McDermontt, M., Oman, C., Richards, P., Stabler, S. (Producers), & Estevez,
E. (Director). (1996). The war at home. [Motion Picture]. USA: Touchstone
Pictures.
Brown, S., Downer, J., Fleder, G., Mankiewicz, C., Milchan, A. (Producers), & Fleder,
G. (Director). (2003). Runaway jury. [Motion Picture]. USA: New Regency
Pictures.
Bruzzi, S. (1999). Tempestuous petticoats. In F. Coombs & S. Gemmell (Eds.), Piano
lessons: Approaches to The Piano (pp. 97-107). Sydney, Australia: John Libbey
& Company.
Buscombe, E. (1981). Ideas of authorship. In J. Caughie (Ed.), Theories of authorship
(pp. 22-34). London: Routledge.
Buse, P., Nuria, T., & Andrew, W. (2004). The Spanish “popular auteur” Alex de la
Iglesia as polemical tool. New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film, 2, 139148.
Cahiers du Cinema editors. (1976). John Ford’s young Mr. Lincoln. In W. Nichols (Ed.),
Movies and methods: An anthology (pp. 493-529). Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Calhoun, J. (2003). Interior landscapes. American Cinematographer, 11, 76-85.
Campion, J., Chapman, J. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1986). Two friends.
[Motion Picture]. USA: Milestone.
Empirical testing 119
Carlson, R., Kim, C., Osborne, B., (Producers), & Bailey, J. (Director). (1990). China
moon. [Motion Picture]. USA: Tig Productions.
Carmody, D., Jacobs, L., Moroney, J., Ransohoff, M., Robinson, B. (Producers), &
Lumet, S. (Director). (1993). Guilty as sin. [Motion Picture]. USA:
Hollywood Pictures.
Cass, R., Gelbart, A., Stratton, A. (Producers), & Greyson, J. (Director). (1996). Lilies.
[Motion Picture]. Canada: Triptych Media Inc.
Caughie, J. (1981). Theories of authorship: A reader. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul Ltd.
Chapman, J., Depardieu, A., Turnbull, M. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1993).
The piano. [Motion Picture]. USA: Miramax Films.
Chumo, P., II (1997). Keys to the imagination: Jane Campion’s The Piano. Literature
Film Quarterly, 23(3), 173-177.
Cohen, B., Frauenfelder, K., Jinks, D., Schmidt, A., Zanuck, R. (Producers), &
Burton, T. (Director). Big fish. [Motion Picture]. USA: Columbia Pictures
Corporation.
Combs, R. (1990). Cinema’s vision thing. Listener, 124, 36-37.
Cook, P. (1986). The cinema book. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Coombs, F., & Gemmell, S. (Eds.). (1999). Piano lessons: Approaches to The Piano.
Sydney: John Libbey.
Corrigan, T. (1991). A cinema without walls: Movies and culture after Vietnam. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Corrigan, T., & White, P. (2004). The film experience: An introduction. Boston, MA:
Bedford/ St. Martin’s.
Corliss, R. (1974). The Hollywood screenwriter. In G. Mast & M. Cohen (Eds.), Film
theory and criticism: Introductory readings (pp. 541-550). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Cotone, M., Reisman, L., Rizzoli Jr., A., Thompson, J. (Producers), & Schrader, P.
(Director). (1990). The comfort of strangers. [Motion Picture]. Great Britain:
Sovereign Pictures.
Croft, S. (1982). Authorship and Hollywood. Wide Angle, 5(3), 16-22.
Empirical testing 120
Dalton, M., Fatzinger, K. (2003). Choosing silence: Defiance and resistance without
voice in Jane Campion’s The Piano. Women and Language, 26, 34-39.
Daly, J., Gibson, D., Guest, D., Lewitt, E. (Producers), & Folley, J. (Director). (1986).
At close range. [Motion Picture]. USA: Hemdale Film Corporation.
Daly, J., Gibson, D., Liuzzi, G., Pillsbury, S., Sanford, M., Streit, D. (Producers),
& Hunter, T. (Director). (1986). River’s edge. [Motion Picture]. USA:
Hemdale Film Corporation.
Delaney S., Dupin, C., Gee, S., Gordon, S., Harrow, A., Khan, A., et al. (2002). 16+
source guides: Auteur theory/ Auteurs. Retrieved November 1, 2005 from
www.bfi.org.uk
Dick, B. (2005). Anatomy of film. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.Martin.
Douglas, J., Douglas, M., Drogin, M., Orent, K., Schepisi, F., Wigutow, J.,
(Producers), & Schepisi, F. (Director). (2003). It runs in the family. [Motion
Picture]. USA: Buena Vista Pictures.
Egoyan, A., Frieberg, C., Ranvaud, D. (Producers), & Egoyan, A. (Director). (1989).
Speaking parts. [Motion Picture]. Canada: Ego Film Arts.
Eysenck, H., & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural
science approach. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing.
Felperin, L. (2003). In the Cut. Sight and Sound, 12, 37-38.
Fisher, P. (1999). Reviews/commentary: Holy Smoke. Retrieved November 11, 2005
from http://members.tripod.com/filmlover2/id50.htm
Frencke, L. (2003). Jane Campion: Dangerous liaisons. Sight and Sound, 11, 19.
Fuller, G. (2003a). Sex and self-danger. Sight and Sound, 11, 16-19.
Fuller, G. (2003b). Shots in the dark. Interview, 33(10), 70.
Garcia, M., Thompson, B., Thompson, W. (Producers), & Thompson, B. (Director).
(1999). Stonebrook. [Motion Picture]. USA: First Ignite.
Gillett, S. (2000a). Angel from the mirror city: Jane Campion’s Jane Frame. Senses
of cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.sensesofcinema.
com/contents/00/10/angel.html
Empirical testing 121
Gillett, S. (2000b). Never a native: Deconstructing home and heart in Holy Smoke. Senses
of cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http:// www.sensesofcinema.com/
contents/00/5/holy.html
Gillett, S. (2001). A pleasure to watch: Jane Campion’s narrative cinema. Screening
the past. Retrieved from http://www.screeningthepast.media.latrobe.edu/
archives
Gillett, S. (2004). Engaging Medusa: Competing myths and fairytales in In the Cut.
Senses of cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.sensesof
cinema.com/contents/04/31/in_the_cut.html
Golin, S., Leonardt, U., Montgomery, M., Turnbull, M., Wingate, A. (Producers), &
Campion, J. (Director). (1996). Portrait of a lady. [Motion Picture]. USA:
Polygram Filmed Entertainment.
Gordon, R. (2002). Portraits perversely framed. Film Quarterly, 56(2), 14-25.
Goss, B. M. (2004). Steven Soderbergh’s The Limey: Implications for the auteur theory
and industry structure. Popular Communication, 2, 231-255.
Grant, C. (2000). www.auteur.com?. Screen, 41, 101-108.
Gurney, D. (2006). Film and authorship [Review].Velvet Light Trap, 57, 101-104.
Haley, M., Levinson, B., McCormick, P., Solan, A., Weinstein, P. (Producers), &
Levinson, B. (Director). (1999). Liberty Heights. [Motion Picture]. USA:
Baltimore Pictures.
Hart, K. (2003). Auteur/brioleur/provocateur: Gregg Araki and postpunk style in The
Doom Generation. Journal of Film & Video, 55(1), 30-38.
Hayward, S. (1998). Cinema studies: The key concepts. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hendershot, C. (1998). (Re) visioning the gothic: Jane Campion’s The Piano.
Literature Film Quarterly, 26(2), 97-109.
Henke, S. (2000). Jane Campion frames Janet Frame: A portrait of the artist as a young
New Zealand poet. Biography, 23, 651-669.
Hinson, H. (1990, March 2). Sweetie. Washington Post. Retrieved November 11, 2005,
from http:www.washingtonpost.com
Hopgood, F. (2002). Jane Campion. Senses of Cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005
from http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/campion.html
Empirical testing 122
Hopgood, F. (2004). Inspiring passion and hatred. Metro, 139, 28-32.
Howe, D. (1990, March 2). Sweetie: Critical Review. Washington Post. Retrieved
November 11, 2005, from http:www.washingtonpost.com
Ikin, B., Major, G., Maynard, J. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1990). An
Angel at my table. [Motion Picture]. Australia: ABC.
Kathi, M. (1994). Sick puppy auteur. Fantasy & Science Fiction, 86, 121-127.
Kelly, D. (1996). The lady in the frame: Two portraits by Henry James and Jane
Campion. Senses of Cinema. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.
sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/18/lady_frame.html
Keough, P. (1999). Piano lessons. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.
bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/99/01/28/JANE_CAMPION_A_COMPLETE
RE.html
Kokin, K., Ripp, A., Singer, B. (Producers), & Singer, B. (Director). (1993). Public
access. [Motion Picture]. USA: Cinemabeam.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Le Cain, M. (2001). Voyeurism of the soul: The films of Philippe Garrel. Senses of
Cinema. Retrieved November 17, 2006 from http://www.sensesofcinema.com/
contents /01/12/garrel.html
Lewis, J. (2000). Wholly Jane: Jane Campion on her new movie and other mysteries.
LA Weekly. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.laweekly.com
Lombard, M. (1997). Structural features content analysis project. Retrieved April,
2006 from http://astro.temple.edu/~lombard/research/sf_man2p1.html
Lovell, A. (1977). Don Siegel: American cinema. London, England: C. F. Hodgson &
Son.
MacKinnion, W., Maynard, J. (Producers), & Campion, J. (Director). (1989). Sweetie.
[Motion Picture]. Australia: Arenafilm.
Maule, R. (2002). The importance of being a film author: Germain Dulac and female
authorship. Senses of Cinema. Retrieved October 12, 2005 from
http://www.sensesof cinema.com
McDonald, N. (2000). Writers, directors, and photographers. Quadrant, 44, 66-71.
Empirical testing 123
McHugh, K. (2001). “Sounds that creep inside you”: Female narration and voiceover in
the films of Jane Campion. Style, 35, 193-218.
McKew, M. (1999). Jane Campion and Holy Smoke. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from
www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s73088.htm.
Mellencamp, P. (1996). A fine romance: Five ages of film feminism. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Miller, T., & Stam, R. (2000). A companion to film theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Mosher, M. (2004). The visual turn: Classical film theory and art history. Leonardo, 37,
164.
Nacache, J. (2005). Group portrait with a star: Jeanne Balibar and French “jeune”
cinema. Studies in French Cinema, 5, 49-60.
Nelmes, J. (1999). Women and film. In J. Nelmes (Ed.), An introduction to film studies
(pp. 268-305). London: Routledge.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nichols, J., & Walsh, D. (2000). The filmmakers can’t help themselves. Retrieved
November 11, 2005 from http://www.wsws.org.
Nystrom, D. (2004). Hard hats and movie brats: Auteurism and the class politics of
the New Hollywood. Cinema Journal, 43 (3), 18-41.
Palmer, P., Sellers, A., Van Wyck, J., Winitksy, A. (Producers), & Ritt, M.
(Director). (1990). Stanley & Iris. [Motion Picture]. USA: Metro-GoldwynMayer.
Paul, M. (1999). Her side of the story: Reading of Mander, Mansfield & Hyde.
Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Ontago Press.
Petrova, V. (2006). Auteur discourse and the cultural consecration of American films.
Poetics, 34, 180-203.
Polan, D. (2001). Jane Campion. London: BFI Publishing.
Powers, S., Rothman, D., & Rothman, S. (1993). Transformation of gender roles in
Hollywood movies: 1946-1990. Political Communication, 10, 259-283.
Poynor, R. (2001). Auteur theory. Print, 55(1), 38-41.
Empirical testing 124
Pryor, R., Wilson, J. (Producers), & Pryor, R. (Director). (1986). Jo Jo Dancer, your
life is calling. [Motion Picture]. USA: Columbia Pictures Corporation.
Pullinger, K. (1999). Soul survivor – Women directors’ special. Sight and Sound.
Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.sightandsound.com.
Rabiger, M. (1997). Directing, film techniques and aesthetics. Newton, MA: Focal
Press.
Raphael, F. (1997). The auteurs behind the auteurs. The Times Literary Supplement, 1, 47.
Ray, N. (1991). Ray’s world: According to Ray. Film Comment, 27 (5), 47-49.
Redding, J. M., & Brownworth, V. A. (1997). Film fatales: Independent women
directors. Seattle, WA: Seal Press.
Rossenbaum, J. (1991). Guilty by omission. Film Comment, 27 (5), 42-46, 50-57.
Sarris, A. (1962). Andrew Sarris: Notes on the auteur theory in 1962. Film Culture,
27, 1-8.
Sarris, A. (1968). American cinema: Directors and directions 1929 – 1968. New York,
NY: Dutton.
Sarris, A. (1976). Towards a theory of film history. In W. Nichols (Ed.), Movies and
methods: An anthology (pp. 237-251). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Sarris, A. (1990). Auteurism is alive and well. Film Comment, 26 (4), 19-22.
Sarris, A. (1999). Winslet joins Keitel in Campion sequel. Retrieved November 11, 2005
from http://members.tripod.com/filmlover2/id50.htm
Sarris, A. (2003). The auteur theory revisited. In V. W. Wexman (Ed.), Film and
authorship (pp. 21-29). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Schröder, N. (2004). Slavni filmovy reziseri: 50 nejvyznamejsich reziseru, od Chaplina
az po Almodovara [Famous film directors: 50 most important directors, from
Chaplin to Almodovar]. Czech Republic: Slovart.
Sharp, H., & Gillard, G. (2004). A path of great courage: The Piano. Australian Screen
Education, 35, 109-112.
Shaw, D. (2002). Isabel Archer: Tragic protagonist or pitiable victim. Literature/Film
Quarterly,2, 249-255.
Empirical testing 125
Smith, A. (1999). Girls on film: Analysis of women’s images in contemporary American
and “Golden Age” Hollywood films. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cleveland
State University, Cleveland, OH.
Smith, G. (2004). Tough love. Film Comment, 40(4), 60-62.
Stam, R. (2000). Film theory: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Stam, R., Burgoyne, R., & Fliterman-Lewis, S. (1992). New vocabularies in film
semiotics: Structuralism, post-structuralism, and beyond. London: Routledge.
Stam, R., & Miller, T. (2000). Film and theory: An anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Tasker, Y. (2002). Fifty contemporary filmmakers. London: Routledge.
Taubin, A. (2003). The wrong man. Film Comment, 39(6), 51-52.
Thompson, K., & Bordwell, D. (2003). Film history: An introduction (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Truffaut, F. (1976). A certain tendency of the French cinema. In W. Nichols (Ed.),
Movies and methods: An anthology (pp. 224-237). Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Walsh, D. (1994). Jane Campion’s The Piano: A sensitive touch to a fairly selfish theme.
Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://www.wsws.org
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weiss, M. W. (1998). “a film by…”. The Independent Film and Video, 21 (2), 30-31,
60-62.
Wexman, V. W. (1999). Jane Campion interviews. Jackson, MS: University Press of
Mississippi.
Wexman, V. W. (2003). Film and authorship. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Wollen, P. (1969). Signs and meaning in the cinema. London: BFI.
Empirical testing 126
APPENDICES
Empirical testing 127
APPENDIX A
CODEBOOK
SECTION A., B., & C.
Coding Instructions:
ƒ First code section C – it will help with coding Section A. & B.
ƒ If you want, it is possible to code Section A. & B. at once
ƒ If you are asked to GIVE COUNTS, it will make it easier to record if you make a
check mark for every occurrence, then report the total
ƒ Code from the beginning of credits except when credits are shown over abstract
images, graphics, or plain background
ƒ Code each film with closed captioning (if available)
ƒ All coding needs to be done with the information provided in the movie, and only
in the movie, assume no prior knowledge.
Please fill in all the information required before coding each film:
1. Coder ID: Indicate the individual who coded the film, according to the coder ID
list:
Coder ID
Coder Name
1 Patrika Janstova
2 Kim Neuendorf
3 Benjamin Simon
2. Film ID: Identify each film with a number (1 through 28), according to the list
below.
3. Director ID: Identify film’s director (1= Jane Campion, 2 = non-Jane Campion)
according to the list below.
4. Year ID: Identify the year film was made according to the list below.
Film
ID
1
2
3
4
Film Title
Communion
Lean On Me
Speaking Parts
Sweetie
Film Director
Philippe Mora
John G. Avildsen
Atom Egoyan
Jane Campion
Director
ID
Year
2
1989
2
1989
2
1989
1
1989
Year
ID
2
2
2
2
Empirical testing 128
Film
ID
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Film Title
The Comfort of Strangers
China Moon
Stanley and Iris
An Angel at My Table
The Crush
Guilty as Sin
Public Access
The Piano
City Hall
Lilies
The War at Home
The Portrait of a Lady
The Cider House Rules
Liberty Hights
Stonebrook
Holy Smoke!
Big Fish
It Runs in the family
Runaway Jury
In the Cut
Film Director
Paul Schrader
John Bailey
Martin Ritt
Jane Campion
Alan Shapiro
Sidney Lumet
Bryan Singer
Jane Campion
Harold Becker
John Greyson
Emilio Estevez
Jane Campion
Lasse Hallstrom
Barry Levinson
Byron W. Thompson
Jane Campion
Tim Burton
Fred Schepisi
Gary Fleder
Jane Campion
Director
ID
Year
2
1990
2
1990
2
1990
1
1990
2
1993
2
1993
2
1993
1
1993
2
1996
2
1996
2
1996
1
1996
2
1999
2
1999
2
1999
1
1999
2
2003
2
2003
2
2003
1
2003
Year
ID
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
Fill in the date that the coding was completed (mm/dd/yyyy)
6. Closed captioning: Identify if you were able to watch the movie with or without it.
0. OFF
1. ON
SECTION A.
Unit of data collection: Full length feature film – 60 minutes or longer film
Unit of analysis: Full length feature film
________________________________________________________________________
Empirical testing 129
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
LEAD ROLE CHARACTER = the whole story revolves around this character, and his or
her presence is essential to the story.
(Ex. It is possible that the film will have only a male lead character, not a female lead.)
MAJOR ROLE CHARACTER = is one that appears in over 50% of the film but does not
appear to be lead character. If this his character is crucial to the plot line ( meaning if the
character was not there, the story would change) but did not appear in over 50% of the
film, code the character as a major role character.
MEDIUM ROLE CHARACTER = is a character that speaks more than 5 sentences, but
does not appear to be a major character. This character appears in less than 50% the
film’s speaking scenes and is not crucial to the plot line.
Note: To help with the count of the characters, please use the IMDB worksheet attached
to each movie.
A1. Number of lead female role characters: __ (count)
A2. Number of major female role characters: __ (count)
A3. Number of medium female role characters: __(count)
A4. Number of lead male role characters: __(count)
A5. Number of major male role characters: __(count)
A6. Number of medium male role characters: __ (count)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
FATHER/MOTHER = a person known to be a father or a mother of any minor, medium,
major or lead character visible in the film
PHYSICALLY PRESENT= character’s existence is visible or audible to the viewer or to
their child (a character) in the film.
(ex. A phone conversation between a character and his mother, even though the mother is
not visible on the screen.
A7.1. A father figure of one or more lead characters was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A7.2. A father figure of one or more major characters was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
Empirical testing 130
A7.3. A father figure of one or more medium characters was physically present in the
film.
0. No
1. Yes
A7.4. A father figure of minor/other character was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A7.5. A father figure that was not physically present in the film was talked about in the
film.
0. No
1. Yes
A8.1. A mother figure of the lead character/s was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A8.2. A mother figure of major characters was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A8.3. A mother figure of medium character/s was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A8.4. A mother figure of minor/other character/s was physically present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A8.5. A mother figure that was not physically present in the film, was talked about.
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
TRADITION = a custom or practice that is passed down from generation to generation –
be it cultural customs, religious practices, etc…
(Ex. An Easter tradition I have learned from my mother, who learned it from her mother,
etc…)
MODERNISM = rebellion towards the traditions of the family, culture, religion, etc…
(Ex. Westernization of the kids in traditional Asian family)
CLASH = a shown, talked, or argued about contrast, or a conflict
CULTURE = national, ethnic, religious….
Empirical testing 131
A9. A clash between tradition and modernism was present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
A10. A clash between different cultures was present in the film.
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
LOSS = unwanted loss, being deprived
OCCURRED = an event that took place on the screen or was talked about
“BREAK UP” = when two people go separate ways. Be it literal break up among the
characters, or a loss of a relationship, they become estranged, alienated.
YOUNG CHILD = the character behaves and speaks as one who is 12 years old or
younger.
OLDER CHILD: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 13 years old or oler –
this includes adult children.
LOVER = a person who has a romantic relationship with other person, to whom he/she is
or is not married to.
A11.1. Loss of a young child due to death (or miscarriage or abortion) occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.2. Loss of a young child due to ‘break up’ (or miscarriage or abortion) occurred
to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.3. Loss of an older child due to death occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.4. Loss of an older child due to ‘break up’ occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
Empirical testing 132
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.5. Loss of a spouse due to death occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.6. Loss of a spouse due to ‘break up’ occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.7. Loss of a lover due to death occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.8. Loss of a lover due to ‘break up’ occurred to:
0. No
1. Yes –Lead/Major Character
2. Yes – Other character
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.9 Loss of a family member due to death occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.10. Loss of a family member due to ‘break up’ occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.11 Loss of a friend due to death occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.12. Loss of a friend due to ‘break up’ occurred to:
0. No-one
Empirical testing 133
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.13. Loss of faith (religion) occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.14. Loss of faith (trust) in character’s own abilities occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.15. Loss of faith (trust) in other character’s abilities occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.16. Loss of health (permanent and life changing) occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.17. Loss of material thing(s) occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.18. Loss of freedom – imprisonment in a facility against ones will.
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.19. Loss of a job occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
Empirical testing 134
A11.20. Loss of money occurred to:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.21. Loss of physical beauty:
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
A11.22. Other major loss occurred to (Write in):
0. No-one
1. Yes –Lead/Major character(s)
2. Yes – Other character(s)
3. Yes – Both Lead/Major character and other characters
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
PARTIAL NUDE (FEMALE) = when a female character is shown unclothed, except for
the area that would typically be covered by bikini area – top and bottom; or she is in bed
assumed to be naked BUT her bikini areas are covered under the sheet; or if the camera
chooses to show only the “safe”/ “appropriate” parts of the naked body. (Ex. Female is
standing – naked, but a bouquet is covering her bikini area - female’s breast and sex
organ are covered).
TOP NUDE (FEMALE) = topless = when a female character is shown unclothed, except
the bikini bottom area is covered; or if a character is fully naked but the camera chooses
to show only the “safe”/ “appropriate” parts of the body; or if a character is assumed to
be naked, but his boxer area is covered under the sheets. (Ex. Female without a bra, but
wearing panties or pants female’s chest is visible to the viewer).
TOP NUDE (MALE) = when a male character is shown unclothed, except the boxers /
pants area is covered; or if a character is assumed to be naked, but his boxer area is
covered under the sheets or if a character is fully naked but the camera chooses to show
only the “safe”/ “appropriate” parts of the body. (Ex. Male in briefs/boxer shorts/pant
male’s chest is visible to the viewer).
BOTTOM NUDE (FEMALE AND MALE) = bottomless = when a male or female
character is shown unclothed, except the bikini top /T-shirt. Or if a character is
assumed to be naked, but his boxer area is covered under the sheets. (Ex. Male in T-shirt,
but nothing on the bottom, the character’s sex organ is visible to the viewer).
FULL NUDE (FEMALE AND MALE) = topless and bottomless = you can clearly see
that the character is fully naked, and 80% or more of the body is visible on the screen.
Empirical testing 135
Note: Count each shot and each different ADULT character.
Also, if a character is in swimming suite – and uses it for the purpose of swimming or suntaning – do not
count it as partial nudity. However – if it is NOT used for such activities – code it appropriately. (Ex. A girl
at a bar in bikini top and jeans = partial nude female – frontal or back side).
Female:
A12. Partial nude frontal female body was exposed: __(count)
A13. Top nude frontal female body was exposed: __(count)
A14. Bottom nude frontal female body was exposed: __(count)
A15. Full nude frontal female body was exposed: __(count)
A16. Partial nude back side of a female body was exposed: __(count)
A17. Top nude back side of a female body was exposed: __(count)
A18. Bottom nude back side of a female body was exposed: __(count)
A19. Full nude back side of a female body was exposed: __(count)
Male:
A20. Top nude frontal male body was exposed: __(count)
A21. Bottom nude frontal male body was exposed: __(count)
A22. Full nude frontal male body was exposed: __(count)
A23.Top nude back side of a male body was exposed: __(count)
A24. Bottom nude back side male body was exposed: __(count)
A25. Full nude back side of a male body was exposed: __(count)
Empirical testing 136
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
ROMANTIC KISSING = A romantic kissing activity which does not lead to sexual
intercourse. (Ex. Kissing ones lips but no tongue is involved)
FRENCH KISSING = A romantic or sexual kissing involving tongues.
KISSING OF OTHER PART OF A BODY = A romantic kissing elsewhere (excluding
lips, and sex organs)
ORAL SEX = A sexual activity that involves use of mouth and tongue to stimulate
genitalia.
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE = A sexual activity that involves genital-to-genital/anal
contact.
MASTURBATION = a stimulation of ones sexual organs
Note: Count each scene (not shot) and each pair characters.
(Ex. A man is kissing a woman, she walks away and another woman walks in and kisses
the same man. You should code 2 instances in the same scene).
A26. Romantic kissing was shown in the film: __(count)
A27. French kissing was shown in the film: __(count)
A28. Kissing of other parts of a body was shown in the film: __(count)
A29. Oral sex was shown in the film: __(count)
A30. Masturbation was shown in the film: __ (count)
A31. Sexual intercourse was shown in the film: __(count)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
TABOO = the “forbidden” or unthinkable by American standards is shown or dealt with
in the film. (Ex. One of Jane Campion short film’s shows a woman urinating by the
highway.)
A32. Film deals and exposes the audience to societal Taboo’s, shocking the audience
with such acts:
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
FEMALE POINT OF VIEW = film deals with female issues, female roles in the world,
female thinking. The plot revolves around a female.
Empirical testing 137
A33. A film has a primary point of view of a female:
0. No
1. Yes
A34. Presence of an angel(s) in the film:
0. No
1. Yes –mentioned, read about, talked about
2. Yes – visible (Ex. Seeing of an angel, angel costume, angel paintings)
SECTION B.
Unit of data collection: Major and Lead characters.
MAJOR ROLE CHARACTER = is one that appears in over 50% of the film but does not
appear to be lead character. If this his character is crucial to the plot line ( meaning if the
character was not there, the story would change) but did not appear in over 50% of the
film, code the character as a major role character.
LEAD ROLE CHARACTER = the whole story revolves around this character, and his or
her presence is essential to the story.
Unit of analysis: Full length feature film
_______________________________________________________________________
B0. Character ID: Give each codeable character a unique number (First character
that becomes codeable, the ID should be 2; Second character should have ID# 2, etc…)
B1. Name or description of the character:
B2. Role:
1. Major
2. Lead
B3. Character appears in the opening scene:
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
CHILD: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 12 years old or younger.
ADOLESCENT: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 13 to 19 years old.
YOUNG ADULT: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 20 to 39 years old.
MATURE ADULT: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 40 to 64 years old.
ELDERLY: The character behaves and speaks as one who is 65 or older.
Empirical testing 138
B4. Social Age of the character:
1. Child
2. Adolescent
3. Young adult
4. Mature adult
5. Elderly
B4.1. Estimated age of the character (not actor): __
B5. Gender of the character:
1. Female
2. Male
B6. Race of the character:
1. Caucasian
2. African, African-American
3. Asian
4. Middle Eastern
5. Native-American (including Eskimo and those of Native South American, Native
Central American, and Native Mexican extraction)
6. Bi-racial
7. Other (Identify):
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE = professional model status
ATTRACTIVE = very pleasant looking, above average
AVERAGE = Average in looks, but still attractive (Ex. Someone who is not model like,
but clean and good looking)
UNATTRACTIVE = Unpleasant to one’s eye.
EXTREMELY UNATTRACTIVE = extremely non-pleasant looking, or considered ugly.
B7. The character is:
1. Extremely Attractive
2. Attractive
3. Average
4. Unattractive
5. Extremely Unattractive
B8. Occupation of the character at the beginning of the film:
1. Artist
2. Athlete
3. Attorney
4. Businessperson
5. Criminal/Convict
Empirical testing 139
6. Educator
7. Entertainment Industry
8. Factory Worker
9. Farmer
10. Homemaker
11. Hotel/Hospitality Management
12. Independently Wealthy (no need to work)
13. Law Enforcement
14. Military
15. Physician/Medical
16. Prostitute
17. Religious professional – Minister, Nun, Priest
18. Restaurant Business
19. Sales
20. Secretarial/Clerical
21. Service Oriented (such as hairdresser, flight attendant. Please fill in the
occupation.):
22. Spy/Government Agent
23. Student
24. Unemployed
25. Writer
26. Retired
27. None identified
28. Other (Please identify):
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
TRAVELING = the character is spending at least one night away from home
B9. The character is traveling:
0. No
1. Yes – within his/her country of origin, outside his/h town
2. Yes – outside his/her country of origin
3. Yes – within AND outside his/her country of origin
B10. The character lives abroad (in a foreign country to the character):
0. No
1. Yes – part of the film
2. Yes – Full lengths of the film
B11. The character is happy throughout 70+% of the character’s screen time:
0. No
1. Yes
B12. The character’s love situation at the beginning of the film (first 20min of the
film):
Empirical testing 140
1. The character is not in a romantic relationship and is not apparently looking for one.
2. The character is not in a romantic relationship and is looking for one.
3. The character is in a happy romantic relationship.
4. The character is in an unhappy romantic relationship, not looking.
5. The character is in an unhappy romantic relationship and is looking for new one.
6. Character’s love situation was not apparent.
B13. The character’s love situation in the middle of the film
1. The character is not in a romantic relationship and is not apparently looking for one.
2. The character is not in a romantic relationship and is looking for one.
3. The character is in a happy romantic relationship.
4. The character is in an unhappy romantic relationship, not looking.
5. The character is in an unhappy romantic relationship and is looking for new one.
6. Character’s love situation was not apparent.
B14. The character’s love situation at the end of the film:
1. The character is not in a romantic relationship and is not apparently looking for one.
2. The character is not in a romantic relationship and is looking for one.
3. The character is in a happy romantic relationship.
4. The character is in an unhappy romantic relationship, not looking.
5. The character is in an unhappy romantic relationship and is looking for new one.
6. Character’s love situation was not apparent.
B15. Sexual orientation of the character:
1. Heterosexual
2. Homosexual
3. Bisexual
4. Unable to determine
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
SEARCH FOR IDENTITY = the character is not comfortable in his or her role in the
world and is trying to change by different actions, the character does not understand selfconcept and is trying to understand his/her role by making long term and major life
changes.
(Ex. A female character is struggling with her role as a housewife by searching for a job
outside her home)
B16. The character is looking for his / her identity by changing or trying to change
his or her gender:
0. No
1. Yes
B17. The character is looking for his / her identity by changing or trying to change a
job/career:
Empirical testing 141
0. No
1. Yes
B18. The character is looking for his / her identity by getting married, or wanting to
get married:
0. No
1. Yes
B19. The character is looking for his / her identity by changing religion:
0. No
1. Yes
B20. The character is looking for his / her identity by moving to another city, state,
or country:
0. No
1. Yes
B21. The character is looking for his / her identity by OTHER factors:
0. No
1. Yes - Please explain:
B22. The character is looking for his / her identity by OTHER factors:
0. No
1. Yes - Please explain:
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
ABUSE = “a general term for the use or treatment of something (person, thing, idea, etc.)
that causes some kind of harm (to the abused person or thing, to the abusers themselves,
or to someone else) or is unlawful or wrongful” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse).
PHYSICAL ABUSE = is abuse involving contact intended to cause pain, injury, or other
physical suffering or harm” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse). (Ex. Striking,
punching, pushing, pinching, kicking, strangling, drowning, exposure to cold, exposure to
heat, cutting, infecting with a disease.)
PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE = emotional and/or verbal abuse, “refers to the humiliation
or intimidation of another person, but is also used to refer to the long-term effects of
emotional shock. Psychological abuse can take the form of physical intimidation,
controlling through scare tactics and oppression. It is often associated with situations of
power imbalance, such perhaps as the situations of abusive relationships and child abuse
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse).
SEXUAL ABUSE = “the improper use of another person for sexual purposes, generally
without their consent or under physical or psychological pressure”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse).
Empirical testing 142
Note: If a character harms someone in self-defense, it is not to be coded as physical
abuse.
B23. The character was physically abused by same gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B24. The character was physically abused by opposite gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B25. The character was psychologically abused by same gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B26. The character was psychologically abused by opposite gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B27. The character was sexually abused by same gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B28. The character was sexually abused by opposite gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B29. The character is being physically abusive to others of same gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
B30. The character is being physically abusive to others of opposite gender
character:
0. No
1. Yes
B31. The character is being psychologically abusive to others of same gender
character:
0. No
1. Yes
B32. The character is being psychologically abusive to others of opposite gender
character:
0. No
1. Yes
Empirical testing 143
B33. The character is being sexually abusive to others of same gender character :
0. No
1. Yes
B34. The character is being sexually abusive to others of opposite gender character:
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
INTROVERT = “The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective,
fond of books, rather than people, he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends. He
tends to plan ahead, looks before he leaps, and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He
does not like excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes
a well-ordered mode of life. He keeps his feelings under close control; seldom behaves in
an aggressive manner, and does not lose his temper easily. He is reliable, somewhat
pessimistic, and places great value on ethical standards” (Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1968,
p.6).
EXTROVERT = “The typical extrovert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs
to have people to talk to, an does not like reading or studying by himself. He craves
excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment and is
generally an impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready
answer, and generally likes change. He is care-free, easygoing, optimistic, and likes to
laugh and be merry. He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends to be aggressive
and to lose his temper quickly. His feelings are not kept under tight control, and he is not
always a reliable person” (Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1968, p.6).
B35. The character appears to be an:
1. Introvert
2. Extrovert
3. In the middle
B36. Character appears to be lonely.
0. No
1. Yes – sometimes in the film
2. Yes – most/all of the film
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
OUTSIDER = Being alienated, not fitting to their family, religious group, community,
town, country, society.
Note: Code if the major theme of the film is the character being an outsider.
Empirical testing 144
B37. Character appears to be an outsider:
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
REALISTIC CHARACTER = one that can easily be found in a real world. The character
appears as if he/she could be a classmate, a co-worker, a neighbor. He/ she is an ordinary
person, not eccentric, cartoonish, non-human character.
B38. Character seems to be very realistic.
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SUBSTANCE = alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs if used for other than medical
treatment.
B39. Character engages in substance abuse:
0. No
1. Yes – alcohol
2. Yes – drugs
3. Yes – alcohol and drugs
B40. Character tries to or does commit suicide:
0. No
1. Yes
B41. How many siblings does the character have? __
B42. Character dies in the film:
0. No
1. Yes – natural death – old age
2. Yes – natural death - health related issues
3. Yes – Accident
4. Yes – Murder
5. Yes – Suicide
6. Yes – Unable to determine
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
A DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY = “is a family in which conflict, misbehaviour and even
abuse on the part of individual members of the family occur continually, leading other
Empirical testing 145
members to accommodate such actions…”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_dysfunction).
(Ex. One or more members of the family have problems with other members. It appears
one or more members of the family can not communicate with others. Family members
are not able to agree or solve problems together. Frustration is taking over the
environment.)
B43. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with sibling/s.
0. No siblings present
1. Has sibling/s, but no issues
2. Has sibling/s with issues
99. Unknown
B44. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with parent/s.
0. No parents present
1. Has parent/s, but no issues
2. Has parent/s with issues
99. Unknown
B45. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with child/children.
0. No children
1. Has child/children, but no issues
2. Has child/children with issues
99. Unknown
B46. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with grandparent/s.
0. No grandparents
1. Has grandparent/s, but no issues
2. Has grandparent/s with issues
99. Unknown
B47. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with
grandchild/grandchildren.
0. No grandchildren
1. Has grandchild/grandchildren, but no issues
2. Has grandchild/grandchildren with issues
99. Unknown
B48. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with spouse.
0. No spouse
1. Has spouse, but no issues
2. Has spouse with issues
99. Unknown
B49. Character deals with family issues and dysfunctions with other family member.
0. No other family member
Empirical testing 146
1. Has other family member, but no issues
2. Has other family member with issues
99. Unknown
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER = Mental illness = a broad generic label for a
category of illnesses that may include affective or emotional instability, behavioral
dysregulation, and/or cognitive dysfunction or impairment, such as major depression,
generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_disorder).
Such condition has been made evident in the film by: a) other characters spoke about it,
b) the character has been seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist; c) the character has been
already diagnosed with such condition, d) the character self declares to such condition, e)
other characters reactions – non verbal.
B50. Character suffers with a psychological disorder.
0. No
1. Yes
SECTION C.
Unit of analysis: 5 minute intervals. (Meaning, imagine chopping the whole movie into
5 minute sections, and coding each section as a separate film. For example, if a
movie is 93 minutes long, you will have 18 entries, with the last one 8 minutes
long instead of 5.)
Coding Instructions: Start the first interval at the actual beginning of the film, not when
“feature presentation” or other information is running on the screen. (Ex. Given
this, you might start coding with 43 seconds on the running time. The first interval
will then end at 5mins.43secs.)
Interval ID: Each 5 minute interval will have a number (1st 5 min. of the film = 1, 2nd 5
min. interval = 2, etc…)
________________________________________________________________________
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
VOICEOVER = a voice that doesn’t match the picture.
C1. The 5 min. interval included voiceover:
0. No voice over
Empirical testing 147
1. Lead Character’s voice
2. Other character’s voice that appears in the movie
3. A narrator – a voice belonging to someone who is not introduced in the film
4. More than one character
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
MUSIC = vocal or instrumental sounds that have rhythm, melody, OR harmony. A single
instrumental tone also is considered music. INCLUDE music that is part of program
content (Ex: A radio being played in the scene on a fictional program, a live band
performing).
DIAGETIC MUSIC = music that is a part of the film, meaning characters can hear it and
interact with it. (Ex. Characters listening to a record player)
NON-DIAGETIC (BACKGROUND) MUSIC- music that is not part of the film (e.g., a
radio being played in the scene on a fictional program or a live band performing is part of
the program content and is NOT background music; most music is background music that
accentuates the emotions or actions in the program without having a specific identifiable
source, that is, the viewer can’t tell who is playing the music). The fact that the source of
the music is not visible in the image is not enough on its own to code the music as
background music – there must be no indication that the music being heard is part of the
scene or program content.
*C2. The 5 min. interval included diagetic music present?
0. No
1. Yes
*C3. The 5 min. interval included non-diagetic background music present?
0. No
1. Yes
C4. The 5 min. interval included picture in color format:
0. No
1. Yes
C5. The 5 min. interval included picture in black and white format:
0. No
1. Yes
C6. The 5 min. interval included picture in sepia format:
0. No
1. Yes
C7. The 5 min. interval included picture in animation/cartooning format:
Empirical testing 148
0. No
1. Yes
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
DOMINANT ELEMENT = the object(s)/entity(ies)/subjects that is/are the primary focus
of attention on the screen; it appears to be most important, central, emphasized.
CLOSE-UP SHOT (CUs) = a dominant element fills up majority of the screen; there are
no other dominant elements in the frame. (Ex. Hands playing the piano. Or piano
keyboard.)
CUs FACE = head and shoulders. When deciding on a close up, use this as a guideline. If
an arm pit/ arm crease is visible in the shot, it is not to be coded as a CUs. Only head and
top part of shoulder counts as a CUs of face.
EXTREME CLOSE-UP SHOT (XCUs) = a dominant element fills up majority of the
screen, the shot reveals extreme detail of the element – it does not fit on the screen
causing it spilling off the screen.
MOTION OF TOUCHING = (Ex. A woman is stroking her lover’s hair; the camera
focuses on that action - a shot of her hand doing so is shown in a CU or XCU. Therefore
you should code appropriately to the image – CU of hand (C7.), CU of Motion (A32.)
C8. Motion of touching is shown:
__XCU (count)
C9. Face (Including ears, nose, lips, eyes, cheeks…) shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C10. Feet (Including toes, heal, shoes…) shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C11. Hands are shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C12. Other body parts (PLEASE IDENTIFY) shown in:____________
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C13. Furniture shown in:
__ CU (count)
Empirical testing 149
__XCU (count)
C14. Window shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C15. Mirror shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C16. Trees shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C17. Flowers/Plants shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C18. Food (Ex: Bread, Fruit, Meat) shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
C19. Animals shown in:
__ CU (count)
__XCU (count)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
POINT-OF-VIEW SHOT (POVs) = shows the character’s point of view. Camera takes us
inside the character, we - the audience become the eyes of the character.
C20. Point-of-view shots: ___(count)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
LONG TRACKING SHOT = moving camera shot in which the camera dolly often runs
on tracks like a miniature railroad for more than 20 seconds following a moving element
or revealing information (Ex. Truffaut's famous shot of the back up car traffic due to
accident. Ex. Camera travels through the woods to find a dead body).
C21. Long tracking shots: ___(count of each shot)
Empirical testing 150
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS = A production technique other than text or graphics that
adds or modifies any part of the image that would be seen in a simple recording of the
film. It is likely to DECREASE viewers' suspension of disbelief or illusion of nonmediation by reminding them of the artificial/mediated nature of the viewing experience.
BLURRED IMAGE - an image that contains vague, indistinct, or fuzzy representations
of object(s)/entity(ies). An example is the subjective view of a person about to pass out.
*C22. In the 5 min interval, blurred image was identified: ___(count of each shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
DISTORTED IMAGE - an image that contains representations of object(s)/entity(ies)
that are twisted out of shape, scrambled, mangled or otherwise changed. An example is a
"scrambled" section of the screen when the producers are keeping a person's identity
anonymous (as on Cops).
*C23. In the 5 min interval, distorted image was identified: ___(count of each shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SLOW MOTION - a representation of an action that is made to appear slower than it
actually occurred.
*C24. In the 5 min interval, slow motion was identified: ___(count of each
scene=sequence)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
TIME-LAPSE - a representation of an action made to appear speeded up. The effect is
created by having the camera take a picture at regular intervals such as every X minutes.
The action may appear fluid or "jumpy". Examples include a sequence that shows a
flower blooming and the commercial in which brownies quickly are stacked up on a
plate.
*C25. In the 5 min interval, time-lapse was identified: ___(count each
scene/sequence)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
JUMP CUT(s) - in this type of cut the position of object(s)/entity(ies) on the screen in
one frame is suddenly shifted in the next. The result is that the object(s)/entity(ies) seem
Empirical testing 151
to jump from one screen location to another for no apparent reason. A sequence of jump
cuts that mimics the faster-than-normal passage of time is a time-lapse effect.
*C26. In the 5 min interval, jump cut was identified: ___(count each scene/equence)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
COLOR FILTER - one or more colors are added to the image, which causes at least part
of the scene to appear distinctly tinted.
*C27. In the 5 min interval, use of blue color filter was identified: ___(count each
scene/sequence)
C28. In the 5 min interval, use of red color filter was identified: ___(count each
scene/sequence)
C29. In the 5 min interval, use of green color filter was identified: ___(count each
scene/sequence)
C30. In the 5 min interval, use of other color filter was identified: ___(count each
scene/sequence)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
UNUSUAL TRANSITIONS - any transition between shots that is not a simple cut,
dissolve, or fade. Examples are a wipe in which the new image slides into the screen and
a transition in which the image evolves from a geometric shape (these and others are
often used in Home Improvement).
*C31. In the 5 min interval, use of unusual transitions was identified: ___(count each
transition)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SIMULTANOUS LIVE-ACTION AND ANIMATION - both animation and live action
appear on the screen at the same time. (Ex. In a film FRIDA, Frida travels to America –
the trip is built from photographs and animation, but you can see the actress on the screen
also.)
*C32. In the 5 min interval, use of simultaneous live-action and animation was
identified: ___(count each scene/sequence)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
Empirical testing 152
SIMULTANOUS COLOR AND BLACK&WHITE - both color and black & white
appear on the screen at the same time.
*C33. In the 5 min interval simultaneous color and black and white picture was
identified: ___(count)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SHAKY CAMERA TECHNIQUE = HANDHELD =A series of at least 2 camera
movements in which the frame of the image moves quickly and unpredictably in any
direction; this technique makes it seem that the camera does not have a steady form of
support such as a tripod (i.e. it seems to be handheld); the movement or movements must
continue for at least 30 frames (1 second). Examples include home movies, COPS,
NYPD Blue, and Homicide: Life on the Street.
*C34. Noticeable use of handheld camera (shaky camera technique): ___(count each
scene/sequence)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
CAMERA ANGLE - the position from which the camera views the subject in an image.
SUBJECT - the object(s)/entity(ies) that is/are the primary focus of attention in an image;
the part of the image that appears to be most important, central, emphasized.
LOW (looking upward)- a view from below, looking up at the subject/action at least 45
degrees up.
HIGH (looking down) - a view from above, looking down on the subject/action at least
45 degrees down.
OVERVIEW (looking straight down)- a view from directly above looking straight down.
UNDERVIEW (looking straight up) - a view from directly below looking straight up.
CANTED – camera is tilted to the right or to the left on the horizontal axis.
*C35. Low angle: __ (count each shot)
*C36. High angle: __ (count each shot)
*C37. Overview: __ (count each shot)
Empirical testing 153
*C38. Under view: __ (count each shot)
C39. Canted angle: __ (count each shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
BREAKING FOURTH WALL - the "fourth wall" is the implied wall through which the
viewer is able to see objects/entities on television (i.e. the wall is the camera lens or glass
viewing screen). When a character suddenly or unexpectedly looks at the camera and
makes some statement (verbal or otherwise) to the viewers, this is considered "breaking
the fourth wall." This must occur in either a fictional program (sitcom, drama, etc. -- in
this genre the viewer's presence is never acknowledged except with this technique) or in a
commercial; if it occurs in a commercial watch the entire segment and make sure that the
viewer's presence is not initially acknowledged.
*C40. In the 5 min. interval, a character broke the fourth wall: __ (count shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SUPERHEARING SENSATION = Viewer can hear sounds that s-he wouldn’t be able to
hear within 6 feet. (Ex. You can hear a shaving razor sliding on the face, clicking finger
nails on the piano keys, or inhaling and exhaling when talking…)
C41. In the 5 min. interval, a superhearing sensation was experienced: __ (count
each shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
EXTREMELY LONG SHOT = an outdoor shot that reveals scenery/surroundings with
no foreground dominant element. If a person was shown in this shot, it would occupy no
more than 10% of the screen.
C42. XLS reveals the scenery/surroundings: __ (count each shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
SECONDARY BODY ELEMENT = legs, feet, or hands that are shown on the screen
without the characters full body.
MEDIUM SHOT (MS) = a secondary element does not fill up majority of the screen;
there are other elements in the frame.
(Ex. Shot of a person’s legs walking. Ex. Shot of a hand pointing at something.)
Empirical testing 154
C43. Medium shot reveals arm/hand : __ (count each shot)
C44. Medium shot reveals leg/foot: __ (count each shot)
DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES:
FOCUS PULL = The focus pull is a creative camera technique in which you change
focus during a shot. Usually this means adjusting the focus from one subject to another.
C45. In the 5 min. interval, focus pulls were used to change focus: __ (count each
shot).
____________________________________________________________________
Note: * Definitions for these questions are taken from Lombard’s Structural Features
Content Analysis Project, 1997.
Empirical testing 155
APPENDIX B
CODING FORM – SECTION A
*Note: If variable in bold - give count
1
2
3
4
5
CODER ID
FILM ID
DIRECTOR ID
YEAR ID
CLOSED CAPTION
A1
# of lead females
A2
# of major females
A3
# of medium females
A4
# of lead males
A5
# of major males
A6
# of medium males
A7.1
Father - of lead char. physically present
A7.2
Father - of major char. physically present
A7.3
Father - of medium char. physically present
A7.4
Father - of minor/other char. physically present
A7.5
Father figure that was NOT present was talked about
A8.1
Mother - of lead char. physically present
A8.2
Mother - of major char. physically present
A8.3
Mother - of medium char. physically present
A8.4
Mother - of minor/other char. physically present
A8.5
Mother figure that was NOT present was talked about
A9
Clash between tradition and modernism
A10
Clash between cultures
A11.1
Loss of a young child due to death
A11.2
Loss of a young child due to 'break up'
A11.3
Loss of an older child due to death
A11.4
Loss of an older child due to 'break up'
A11.5
Loss of a spouse due to death
A11.6
Loss of a spouse due to 'break up'
A11.7
Loss of lover due to death
A11.8
Loss of lover due to break up
A11.9
Loss of family member due to death
A11.10
Loss of family member due to break up
A11.11
Loss of a friend due to death
A11.12
Loss of a friend due to break up
A11.13
Loss of faith - religion
A page 1
Empirical testing 156
1
2
3
4
5
A11.14
CODER ID
FILM ID
DIRECTOR ID
YEAR ID
CLOSED CAPTION
Loss of faith in self
A11.15
Loss of faith in others
A11.16
Loss of health
A11.17
Loss of material things
A11.18
Loss of freedom
A11.19
Loss of a job
A11.20
Loss of money
A11.21
Loss of physical beauty
A11.22
Other loss (Identify):
A12
Partial nude frontal female: each shot
A13
Top nude frontal female: each shot
A14
Bottom nude frontal female: each shot
A15
Full nude frontal female: each shot
A16
Partial nude back female: each shot
A17
Top nude back female: each shot
A18
Bottom nude back female: each shot
A19
Full nude back female: each shot
A20
Top nude frontal male: each shot
A21
Bottom nude frontal male: each shot
A22
Full nude frontal male: each shot
A23
Top nude back male: each shot
A24
Bottom nude back male: each shot
A25
Full nude back male: each shot
A26
Romantic kissing
A27
French kissing
A28
Kissing other body parts
A29
Oral sex
A30
Masturbation
A31
Sexual Intercourse
A32
TABOO
A33
Primary POV of female
A34
Presence of angels
A page 2
Empirical testing 157
CODING FORM – SECTION B
1
CODER ID
2
FILM ID
3
DIRECTOR ID
4
YEAR ID
5
CLOSED CAPTION
6
CHARACTER'S ID
B1
B2
B3
B4
B4.1
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
Character's name
Role
Opening scene
Age
Estimated age
Gender
Race
Appearance
Occupation
Travel
Abroad
Happy
Love at beginning
Love in the middle
Love in the end
Sexual orientation
Identity change: gender
Identity change: career
Identity change: marriage
Identity change: religion
Identity change: move
Identity - other: (identify)
Identity - other: (identify)
Phys abused by same
Phys abused by opposite
Psych abused by same
Psych abused by opposite
Sex abuse by same
Sex abuse by opposite
Phys abusive to same
Phys abusive to other
Psych abusive to same
Psych abusive to other
Sex abusive to same
Sex abusive to other
Introvert vs. Extrovert
Appears lonely
Appears to be an outsider
Is very realistic
B page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 (etc…)
Empirical testing 158
1
CODER ID
2
FILM ID
3
DIRECTOR ID
4
YEAR ID
5
CLOSED CAPTION
6
CHARACTER'S ID
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
B50
Substance abuse
Tries to hurt self
How many siblings?
Char. dies in the film?
Issue w/ sibling
Issue w/ parent
Issue w/ child
Issue w/ grandparent
Issue w/grandchildren
Issue w/ spouse
Issue w/other fam.member
Psych Disorder
B page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 (etc…)
Empirical testing 159
CODING FORM – SECTION C
*Note: If variable in bold - give count
1
CODER ID
2
FILM ID
3
DIRECTOR ID
4
YEAR ID
5
CLOSED CAPTION
6
Interval ID
C1
Voiceover
C2
Diagetic music
C3
Non-diagetic music
C4
Color picture
C5
Black&White picture
C6
Sepia picture
C7
Animation/cartooning
C8
Motion of touching - XCU
C9
Face: CU
C9.1
Face: XCU
C10
Feet: CU
C10.1 Feet: XCU
C11
Hands: CU
C11.1 Hands: XCU
C12
Other body parts (identify):CU
C12.1 Other body parts (identify):XCU
C13
Furniture: CU
C13.1 Furniture:XCU
C14
Window: CU
C14.1 Window: XCU
C15
Mirror:CU
C15.1 Mirror:XCU
C16
Trees: CU
C16.1 Trees: XCU
C17
Flowers/Plants: CU
C17.1 Flowers/Plants: XCU
C18
Food: CU
C18.1 Food XCU
C19
Animal: CU
C19.1 Animal: XCU
C20
POV shots
C21
Long tracking shots
C22
Blurred image
C23
Distorted image
C24
Slow motion
C25
Time lapse (fast motion)
0-5min
5-10min
1
2
10-15min
3
C page 1
15-20min
4 (etc…)
Empirical testing 160
1
2
3
4
5
6
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
C42
C43
C44
C45
CODER ID
FILM ID
DIRECTOR ID
YEAR ID
CLOSED CAPTION
Interval ID
Jump cut
Blue color filter
Red color filter
Green color filter
Other color filter
Unusual transition
Simult. live-action&animation
Simult. color and B&W
Handheld camera
Low angle
High angle
Overview
Underview
Canted angle
Breaking the fourth wall
Superhearing
XLS/wide shot of scenery
Medium shot arm/hand
Medium shot leg/foot
Focus pulls
0-5min
5-10min
1
2
10-15min
3
C page 2
15-20min
4 (etc…)
Empirical testing 161
APPENDIX C
THEMES AND MOTIFS OF NON-CAMPION AUTEUR - DIRECTORS
Gregg Araki
1
Intensifies lighting and color of the city (LA)
2
Love, sex and lust
3
Queer characters
4
Tries to show being gay doesn’t make a difference among people
5
Characters are obsessed with video cameras
6
Adolescents and homosexuality
Luc Besson
1
Lack of dialog – comic strip influences?
2
Stories of young people who have difficulties adapting to a society
3
Society lets the family down - the young people become emotionally deprived
4
Youth in crisis
5
Dysfunctional families
6
Parents are absent
7
If mother figure appears – as evil force
8
Protagonists are lonely and suffering
9
Self-erasure of the protagonists
10 Literal portrayals of underworlds – metro, sea, lower regions of cities
11 Characters are “larger than life”
12
Bricolage of genres – more genres in one
Tim Burton
1
Love for horror and fantasy
2
Plain weirdness of main characters
3
Technical experimentation with possibilities of animation and visual effects
4
Main characters are outsiders villains with extremely complex personalities
5
Main characters have very pale skin
6
Themes of exclusion and inclusion
7
Johnny Depp
Jackie Chan
1
Kung-Fu stunts
2
Master-pupil theme (comical)
3
Silent cinema feel to some of his scenes (i.e., chasing scenes, bar fights)
4
Female roles are always over the top girlish
Empirical testing 162
David Cronenberg
1
The physical and the psychological are usually intertwined
2
Main character is often male scientist – with a bizarre name
3
Themes: science, disease, aging, invasion, death in literary metaphors
4
Bodily and psychic mutations
5
Hostility towards women – men fear and are jealous of females
6
Womb envy
David Fincher
1
Critiques of today’s society
2
A man alone in the universe
3 Visual translation of feelings of isolation of the characters
4
Wide angles, shallow focus = isolation
5 Muted light and color
6
Psychological and emotional state of American males of 20th century
7
Decay of American family
8 Females are barely present
Jim Jarmusch
1
Alienation of characters
2
Use of jump cuts
3
Characters have no real direction in life
4
Not interested in What? and Why? but How did one character get where he is
now...
5 Main characters are outsiders
Abbas Kiarostami
1 Challenges the audience
2 Poetic and philosophical style
3 Self-referentiality
4 Social realist traits/themes
5 Bleakness and loss - main themes
6 Often hopeful and enthusiasm accompanies the results
7 Likes to involve the audience as much as possible
Ang Lee
1 Modernity vs. tradition
2 Deep secrets and internal torment come to surface
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Lee)
3 Conflict between freedom and societal traditions
Empirical testing 163
Michael Mann
1
Interested in real events
2
Fading centrality of a male
3 Visual: soft blues, and sterile and harsh whites
John Sayles
1 Social concerns
2 Political awareness
3 Complex characters
4 No central protagonist, usually group of characters
5 Stretches the boundaries of genres
6 Witty dialog
7 Realistic characters
Steven Soderbergh
1 Character based films
2 Ironic humor
3
Sense of isolation and loneliness
4
Characters are harshly detached, emotionally frozen
5
Characters are unable to fit with the world around them – lonely
6
Ultimately, his films are character studies of populated with strangers in a
strange land
Oliver Stone
1 Lonely and isolated male protagonist in quasi-spiritual journey
2 Character goes through innocence, suffering and experiences liberation or
destruction
3 Testosterone-driven and often didactic dialog
4 Marginalization of women
5 The lure of homo-social is evident
Peter Weir
1 Very national – Australian – rather than international
2 Avoidance of sexuality
3 No vivid sex scenes
4 However he shows erotic desire
Allison Anders
1 Multiple protagonists
2 Teen angst (anxiety, fear, worry)
3 Gangsters
4 Biopic
5 Emotional intimacy and heterosexual love atavistic
Empirical testing 164
APPENDIX D
INTER-CODER RELIABILITIES
SECTION A
Variable
code
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
Variable name
# of lead females
# of major females
# of medium females
# of lead males
# of major males
# of medium males
Multiple Kappa
Lin's
Concord.
Coder
Coders: pair:
1-3
1, 2
1
1
1
1
1
0.96
Coder
pair:
1, 3
1
1
0.92
1
0.67
0.87
Coder
pair:
2, 3
1
1
0.92
1
0.67
0.86
0.5
1
NC
0
NC
1
1
1
NC
1
NC
1
0.5
1
NC
0
NC
1
Va8*
A8.1
A8.2**
A8.3**
A8.4**
A8.5**
A father present
(A7.1+A7.2+A7.3+A7.4+A7.5)
Father - of lead char.
Father - of major char.
Father - of medium char.
Father - of minor/other char.
Father figure that was NOT present
A mother present
(A8.1+A8.2+A8.3+A8.4+A8.5)
Mother - of lead char.
Mother - of major char.
Mother - of medium char.
Mother - of minor/other char.
Mother figure that was NOT present
1
1
0
NC
NC
1
1
1
0
NC
NC
1
1
1
1
NC
NC
1
A9
A10
Clash between tradition & modernism
Clash between cultures
NC
1
NC
1
NC
1
A11.1
A11.2
A11.3
A11.4
A11.5
A11.6
A11.7
A11.8
Loss of a young child due to death
Loss of a young child due to 'break up'
Loss of an older child due to death
Loss of an older child due to 'break up'
Loss of a spouse due to death
Loss of a spouse due to 'break up'
Loss of lover due to death
Loss of lover due to break up
Va7*
A7.1**
A7.2**
A7.3**
A7.4**
A7.5**
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
1
NC
Empirical testing 165
Multiple Kappa
Lin's
Concord.
Coder Coder Coder
Coders: pair:
pair:
pair:
1-3
1, 2
1, 3
2, 3
1
NC
0.46
NC
NC
NC
0.14
0.7
0.68
0.7
-0.09
NC
NC
-0.09
Variable
code
A11.9
A11.10
A11.11
A11.12
A11.13
A11.14**
A11.15**
A11.16
A11.17
A11.18
A11.19**
A11.20**
A11.21**
A11.22**
Variable name
Loss of family member due to death
Loss of family member due to break up
Loss of a friend due to death
Loss of a friend due to break up
Loss of faith - religion
Loss of faith in self
Loss of faith in others
Loss of health
Loss of material things
Loss of freedom
Loss of a job
Loss of money
Loss of physical beauty
Other loss (Identify):
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
Partial nude frontal female: each shot
Top nude frontal female: each shot
Bottom nude frontal female: each shot
Full nude frontal female: each shot
Partial nude back female: each shot
Top nude back female: each shot
Bottom nude back female: each shot
Full nude back female: each shot
Top nude frontal male: each shot
Bottom nude frontal male: each shot
Full nude frontal male: each shot
Top nude back male: each shot
Bottom nude back male: each shot
Full nude back male: each shot
0.97
0.75
1
0.98
NC
NC
NC
1
0.98
NC
1
1
NC
NC
0.93
0.96
1
0.95
NC
NC
NC
1
0.98
NC
1
0.75
NC
NC
0.85
0.61
1
0.97
NC
NC
NC
1
0.93
NC
1
0.75
NC
NC
A26**
A27**
A28**
Va28.1*
Romantic kissing
French kissing
Kissing other body parts
Kissing (A26+A27+A28)
0
0
0
0.75
NC
0
1
0.75
0
NC
0
1
Empirical testing 166
Variable
code
A29
A30
A31
Va31*
A32
A33
A34
Variable name
Oral sex
Masturbation
Sexual Intercourse
All Sex (VA28.1+29+A30+A31)
Taboo
Primary POV of female
Presence of angels
Multiple Kappa
Lin's
Concord.
Coder
Coders: pair:
1-3
1, 2
1
NC
1
0.75
1
1
1
Coder
pair:
1, 3
1
NC
1
0.75
1
1
1
NC= Not Calculable due to lack of variance
*New / computed variables
**These variables have been dropped due to low reliability and/or lack of occurrence
Coder
pair:
2, 3
1
NC
1
1
1
1
1
Empirical testing 167
INTER-CODER RELIABILITIES
SECTION B
Multiple
Kappa
Spearman's Rho
Variable
code
B1
B2
B3
B4
B4.1
B5
B6
B7
B8
Variable name
Character's name
Role
Opening scene
Age
Estimated age
Gender
Race
Appearance
Occupation
B9
B10
Travel
Abroad
B11
Happy
B12
B13
B14
Love at beginning
Love in the middle
Love in the end
0.42
0.78
0.4
B15
Sexual orientation
0.7
B16
B17
Identity change: gender
Identity change: career
Identity change:
marriage
Identity change: religion
Identity change: move
Identity - other:
(identify)
Identity - other:
(identify)
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
Coders:
1-3
Lin's Concordance
Coder Coder Coder Coder Coder Coder
pair:
pair:
pair:
pair:
pair:
pair:
1, 2
1, 3
2, 3
1, 2
1, 3
2, 3
0.7
1
1
1
1
1
0.99
0.98
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
0.5
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
1
NC
0.79
0.53
0.81
0.58
1
1
Empirical testing 168
Multiple
Kappa
Spearman's Rho
Variable
code
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38**
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
Coders:
Variable name
1-3
Phys abused by same
Phys abused by opposite
Psych abused by same
Psych abused by
opposite
Sex abuse by same
Sex abuse by opposite
Phys abusive to same
Phys abusive to other
Psych abusive to same
Psych abusive to other
Sex abusive to same
Sex abusive to other
Introvert vs. Extrovert
Appears lonely
Appears to be an
outsider
Is very realistic
Substance abuse
Tries to hurt self
How many siblings?
Char. dies in the film?
0.78
Issue w/ sibling
Issue w/ parent
Issue w/ child
Issue w/ grandparent
Issue w/grandchildren
Issue w/ spouse
Issue w/other
fam.member
1
1
1
NC
NC
1
Lin's Concordance
Coder Coder Coder Coder Coder
pair:
pair:
pair:
pair:
pair:
1, 2
1, 3
2, 3
1, 2
1, 3
1
0.55
0.7
NC
NC
NC
0.75
0.75
Coder
pair:
2, 3
0.55
NC
NC
1
NC
1
0.55
1
NC
1
NC
1
NC
NC
NC
0.55
NC
NC
1
NC
1
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
NC
1
NC
1
1
0
1
0
1
0.62
1
1
NC
1
NC
1
0.5
0.73
1
NC
B50
Psych Disorder
1
NC= Not Calculable due to lack of variance
**These variables have been dropped due to low reliability and/or lack of occurrence
Empirical testing 169
INTER-CODER RELIABILITIES
SECTION C
Spearman's Rho
Variable
code
Variable name
C1
Voiceover
Coder pair: Coder
Coder
1, 2
pair: 1, 3 pair: 2, 3
0.5
1
0.5
C2
C3
Diegetic music
Non-diegetic music
0.79
0.64
0.78
1
0.57
0.64
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C9.1
C10
C10.1
C11
C11.1
C12
C12.1
C13
C13.1
C14
C14.1
C15
C15.1
C16
C16.1
C17
C17.1
C18
C18.1
C19
C19.1
Color picture
Black & White picture
Sepia picture
Animation/cartooning
Motion of touching - XCU
Face: CU
Face: XCU
Feet: CU
Feet: XCU
Hands: CU
Hands: XCU
Other body parts (identify):CU
Other body parts (identify):XCU
Furniture: CU
Furniture:XCU
Window: CU
Window: XCU
Mirror:CU
Mirror:XCU
Trees: CU
Trees: XCU
Flowers/Plants: CU
Flowers/Plants: XCU
Food: CU
Food XCU
Animal: CU
Animal: XCU
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.72
0.98
0.92
NC
NC
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
0.65
NC
0.44
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.85
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.64
NC
0.64
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.92
NC
NC
NC
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.84
NC
0.64
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C20**
POV shots
-0.03
1
-0.03
Empirical testing 170
Spearman's Rho
Variable
code
Variable name
C21
Long tracking shots
Coder pair: Coder
Coder
1, 2
pair: 1, 3 pair: 2, 3
0.7
0.9
0.69
C22**
C23**
Blurred image
Distorted image
NC
0
NC
0
NC
0
C24
C25
C26
Slow motion
Time lapse (fast motion)
Jump cut
0.85
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C27
C28
C29
C30
Blue color filter
Red color filter
Green color filter
Other color filter
1
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C31**
Unusual transition
NC
NC
NC
C32**
C33**
Simult. live-action & animation
Simult. color and B&W
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C34
Handheld camera
1
NC
NC
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
VC52*
VC53*
Low angle
High angle
Overview
Underview
Canted angle
Shots of looking up (C35+C38)
Shots of looking down (C36+C37)
0.3
0.62
1
0.84
1
0.38
0.88
0.88
0.89
1
0.78
NC
0.87
0.62
0.26
0.5
1
0.84
NC
0.42
0.5
C40**
Breaking the fourth wall
NC
NC
NC
C41
Superhearing
0.47
0.64
0.63
C42
XLS/wide shot of scenery
0.81
0.36
0.57
C43
C44
VC50*
Medium shot arm/hand
Medium shot leg/foot
Shots of legs/feet (C10+C10.1+C44)
1
0.84
0.84
1
0.64
0.64
0.56
0.55
0.74
Empirical testing 171
Variable
code
Variable name
Shots of arms/hands
VC51* (C11+C11.1+C43)
C45
Focus pulls
NC= Not Calculable due to lack of variance
Spearman's Rho
Coder pair: Coder
Coder
1, 2
pair: 1, 3 pair: 2, 3
0.62
1
0.62
1
NC
NC
*New / computed variables
**These variables have been dropped due to low reliability and/or lack of occurrence
Empirical testing 172
APPENDIX E
AUTEUR TRADEMARKS
JANE CAMPION – AUTEUR TRADEMARKS (FROM LITERATURE)
SIGNIFICANT
# of lead females
# of lead males
Loss of freedom
Loss of a spouse due to 'break up'
Loss of lover due to break up
Loss of family member due to break up
Kissing (A26+A27+A28)
Oral sex
All Sex (VA28.1+29+A30+A31)
Taboo
Primary POV of female
Presence of angels
Age of the character
Gender
Travel
Abroad
Happy
Love in the middle
Identity change: marriage
Phys abused by opposite
Sex abusive to other
Appears lonely
Issue w/ sibling
Issue w/ parent
Issue w/ spouse
Issue w/ child
Issue w/ grandparent
Issue w/grandchildren
Issue w/other fam.member
Psych Disorder
Sepia picture
Animation/cartooning
Motion of touching - XCU
NON SIGNIFICANT
Masturbation
Love at beginning
Love in the end
Identity change: gender
Identity change: career
Identity change: religion
Identity change: move
Phys abused by same
Psych abused by same
Psych abused by opposite
Sex abuse by same
Sex abuse by opposite
Phys abusive to same
Phys abusive to other
Psych abusive to same
Psych abusive to other
Sex abusive to same
Black &White picture
High angle
Overview
Underview
Canted angle
Superhearing
XLS/wide shot of scenery
Empirical testing 173
SIGNIFICANT
Face: CU
Face: XCU
Feet: CU
Feet: XCU
Hands: CU
Hands: XCU
Low angle
Shots of looking up (C35+C38)
Shots of looking down (C36+C37)
NON-SIGNIFICANT
Empirical testing 174
JANE CAMPION – AUTEUR TRADEMARKS (FROM PILOT WORK)
SIGNIFICANT
Partial nude frontal female
Top nude frontal female
Full nude frontal female
Partial nude back female
Full nude back female
Bottom nude frontal male
Full nude frontal male
Full nude back male
(Character appears) in Opening scene
Medium shot arm/hand
Medium shot leg/foot
Shots of legs/feet (C10+C10.1+C44)
Shots of arms/hands (C11+C11.1+C43)
NON-SIGNIFICANT
Top nude back female
Bottom nude back female
Top nude frontal male
Top nude back male
Bottom nude back male
Empirical testing 175
PRODUCTION TECHNIQUES (FROM LITERATURE)
SIGNIF
Non-diegetic music
Furniture: XCU
Window: XCU
Mirror: CU
Mirror: XCU
Slow motion
Blue color filter
Red color filter
Handheld camera
Focus pulls
NON-SIGNIFICANT
Voiceover
Diegetic music
Color picture
Furniture: CU
Window: CU
Trees: CU
Trees: XCU
Flowers/Plants: CU
Flowers/Plants: XCU
Food: CU
Food XCU
Animal: CU
Animal: XCU
Long tracking shots
Time lapse (fast motion)
Jump cut
Green color filter
Other color filter
Empirical testing 176
NON-CAMPION AUTEUR TRADEMARKS (FROM LITERATURE)
SIGNIFICANT
Loss of health
NON-SIGNIFICANT
# of major females
# of medium females
# of major males
# of medium males
Clash between tradition & modernism
Clash between cultures
A father present
Father - of lead char.
Father - of major char.
Father - of medium char.
Father - of minor/other char.
Father figure that was NOT present
A mother present
Mother - of lead char.
Mother - of major char.
Mother - of medium char.
Mother - of minor/other char.
Mother figure that was NOT present
Loss of a young child due to death
Loss of a young child due to 'break up'
Loss of an older child due to death
Loss of an older child due to 'break up'
Loss of a spouse due to death
Loss of a spouse due to 'break up'
Loss of lover due to death
Loss of lover due to break up
Loss of family member due to death
Loss of family member due to break up
Loss of a friend due to death
Loss of a friend due to break up
Loss of faith - religion
Loss of faith in self
Empirical testing 177
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
Loss of faith in others
Loss of material things
Loss of a job
Loss of money
Loss of physical beauty
Other loss (Identify):
Introvert vs. Extrovert
Appears to be an outsider
Is very realistic
Substance abuse
Tries to hurt self
Char. dies in the film?