So, why did I chose a film that's on more top ten list's than Britney Spear's shaved...head? Well because it's well know and simply because I feel it fits both blog requirements. "To Kill a Mockingbird," written by Harper Lee and directed by Robert Mulligan is an adapted film with social influences that reverberate even today. I myself credit it as a major inspiration since my friends will all tell you, all I write are legal, racial, dramas.
I'm not going to waste time going into a summary of one of the most famous novels and films in American history. To Kill a Mockingbird as a film, captured many of the themes displayed in the novel. Certainly it's hard to appease both audiences, which makes adaptations so hard to make. You have the Potter series and the die-hards who want every aspect of the novel in the film so we can sit there all day learning why hitting a ball while flying around on a broom is so damn important. (Run-on sentence, I know. Sorry) But with Mockingbird, the novel was so easily adapted because the social construct the novel courageously attempts to deconstruct is so visual. Social and racial injustice and it's place in the blanketed Christian south of the 50's. What also made it so easy to adapt such a novel was Harper's visual style of writing. The novel so vividly dipicts what Scout sees, hears, feels and even smells, you feel like you're back in the dirty, slow, depression-ridden south. It's almost like she did the set design for them in the book.
The script, penned by Horton Foote was written with the author in mind. In the DVD special features, the director talks about how he and the entire production felt not only a responsibility to Harper but to the audience in which this adaptation was meant for. The novel does a great job of telling the story through the eyes of a young girl while at the same time a young woman looking back on her past. The film follows young Scout and is narrated by older Scout -- an element that in most adapted films, would have been abandoned but here, it was left intact. Seeing social injustice through the eyes of a child and hearing it being reflected on by the woman adds to the storytelling of this particular film.
All of the adults in the film, to a certain extend where following social constructs they set up and follow blindly. Black stays with black and white stays with white. Never between shall the two ever meet. That's the racist balance set up in the film. And when an innocent Black man breaks this fine balance with nothing more than naive ness, it throws the entire world on it's axis. People's true colors start to come out and real courage is tested. One of the more powerfully stories the film carried over brilliantly from the novel is Atticus and Scout's relationship. Scout sees her father as a man who doesn't stand up for himself or have the fire that she has. Finch tells Scout not to come down to the courthouse when Tom Robinson's trial begins. She disobeys him and subsequently witnesses her father's truth strength. She watches him fight a losing battle not simply against a lying woman and not just against a town, but against an entire social ideology that the townspeople have followed for years. Telling the story through Scout's eyes and witnessing Atticus fight so courageously for Tom's freedom, gives it so much more impact than it being about a white man fighting injustice against a black man. It was about a daughter discovering her father is a hero, even if no one else thinks so.
So why is To Kill a Mockingbird on AFI's top...everything list? Well because race is and unfortunately will always be an issue. Watching the film for the second time, that's what I got from it. But more importantly, as long as race is always an issue, there always needs to be that hero who thinks it isn't an attempts to fight for equality no matter the cost. Gay, Arab whatever it is, there will always be a Tom Robinson. What the novel and the film try to bestow on the audience is, there always needs to be an Atticus Finch as well...and that maybe we all should be an Atticus Finch.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Film Ideology in Mystic River
Mystic River a powerful exploration into the psyche of a young boy who is kidnapped and molested and the effect that it has on his closest friends as they grow up and eventually apart. The three friends are eventually reunited over the murder of one of their daughters.
My reasoning to explore the ideology of this film is that it takes the time to explore not only a tough to swallow subject, but also pulls it out of its norm (watching the child kidnapped, molested, the search for him, etc..) and shows it from a new angle. I think that on a much deeper level this film also takes on the problems of repressed emotions. The three boys choose to almost forget about that harrowing day that their friend was taken from them and returned as a complete stranger. When they reunite, they are all a bit off. None of them ever speak of that day, rather they just act accordingly as if it never occurred. But when Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn) scopes out Dave Boyle (the boy who was mollested) as the number one suspect on his daughters murder the occurrence rushes back . Because Dave had been out the night before and beat a child predator near death , Jimmy believes it was him. It is a terribly twisted and emotinally wrenching climax where Jimmy stabs Dave for the murder of his daughter. Although this ending may seem morbid and unjust i feel like it is fitting for such a tough subject that most of society will never even touch on.
My reasoning to explore the ideology of this film is that it takes the time to explore not only a tough to swallow subject, but also pulls it out of its norm (watching the child kidnapped, molested, the search for him, etc..) and shows it from a new angle. I think that on a much deeper level this film also takes on the problems of repressed emotions. The three boys choose to almost forget about that harrowing day that their friend was taken from them and returned as a complete stranger. When they reunite, they are all a bit off. None of them ever speak of that day, rather they just act accordingly as if it never occurred. But when Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn) scopes out Dave Boyle (the boy who was mollested) as the number one suspect on his daughters murder the occurrence rushes back . Because Dave had been out the night before and beat a child predator near death , Jimmy believes it was him. It is a terribly twisted and emotinally wrenching climax where Jimmy stabs Dave for the murder of his daughter. Although this ending may seem morbid and unjust i feel like it is fitting for such a tough subject that most of society will never even touch on.
Theresa Corvino - Crash
Crash
Dir: Paul Haggis
2004
Synopsis: The film tells the story of several characters with their own stories that intertwine with each other. One of a racist cop and his partner who is trying to help his father with a medical condition. One is a husband and wife in a struggling marriage that is only made worse when they are stopped by the cop. Another is a locksmith who is trying to provide for his family and keep his daughter safe. Still another is a convenience store owner who does not understand the system and blames the locksmith when his store is robbed. And lastly, there is a social elite couple who is trying to survive when she sees villains in every corner after being robbed by two punk kids.
This film directly takes on the issue of racism in our modern world. It is clear that the ideology of this film is that racism is wrong, but the film recognizes that it is less simple than that. It does not paint all those that are racist as horrible people or those that are victims as completely innocent characters. It makes each of the story’s characters multi-dimensional to see many of the origins of their racism and the motivations for it. It makes no excuse for their opinions but offers a sympathetic eye into their situation. The film does not focus on the persecution of one group of people but three: African Americans, Hispanics, and Middle Easterners. This allows it the ability to paint with a larger brush and not stereotype one group or people. It also recognizes a larger problem of racism than is usually seen. Although this film can be gritty and hard to watch at time, it presents a clear reality with simplicity and meaning that truly focuses in on its message without distorting it or hiding behind a comfort level barrier.
Dir: Paul Haggis
2004
Synopsis: The film tells the story of several characters with their own stories that intertwine with each other. One of a racist cop and his partner who is trying to help his father with a medical condition. One is a husband and wife in a struggling marriage that is only made worse when they are stopped by the cop. Another is a locksmith who is trying to provide for his family and keep his daughter safe. Still another is a convenience store owner who does not understand the system and blames the locksmith when his store is robbed. And lastly, there is a social elite couple who is trying to survive when she sees villains in every corner after being robbed by two punk kids.
This film directly takes on the issue of racism in our modern world. It is clear that the ideology of this film is that racism is wrong, but the film recognizes that it is less simple than that. It does not paint all those that are racist as horrible people or those that are victims as completely innocent characters. It makes each of the story’s characters multi-dimensional to see many of the origins of their racism and the motivations for it. It makes no excuse for their opinions but offers a sympathetic eye into their situation. The film does not focus on the persecution of one group of people but three: African Americans, Hispanics, and Middle Easterners. This allows it the ability to paint with a larger brush and not stereotype one group or people. It also recognizes a larger problem of racism than is usually seen. Although this film can be gritty and hard to watch at time, it presents a clear reality with simplicity and meaning that truly focuses in on its message without distorting it or hiding behind a comfort level barrier.
Film Ideology - Elyse Stefanowicz
American Pie (1999)
Director - Paul Weitz
Starring - Jason Biggs
Chris Klein
Alyson Hannigan
Shannon Elizabeth
Film Ideology can touch on a number of subjects, but when talking about the subject of sexuality and the ideology it shows in films, American Pie is a modern film that explores everything the ideology covers. The book classifies sexual ideology as an "attempt to make sense of, and implicitly to regulate sexual choices and practices". This film is a perfect example of that statement.
The film follows four boys who are in their senior year of high school and make a pact to all lose their virginity by the end of the year so they don't have to go to college as virgins. All the boys want to do is to gain experience in sexual activity so they don't have to go through embarrassment when they go off to college--because at college supposedly everyone isn't a virgin. The film follows these boys as they prepare and figure out their own ways to get laid. One boy goes soft and joins a choir, another tries to get his steady girlfriend to finally have sex with him, and yet another tries to pursue a foreign exchange student while getting tips from a band geek.
This film doesn't only portray fictional characters and their journey to "adulthood" but it also explores sexuality and the awkwardness that can come from it when you are that age. There is such pressure on teenagers to have sex during and before college and this film shows how far kids will go to get it. It not only shows the possibility of embarrassment in these situations, but helps release some of the stress kids are feeling because it shows them they are not alone. Some of the situations in the film not only are hilarious but quite elaborate... which could help kids feel that their situation wasn't that bad.
Director - Paul Weitz
Starring - Jason Biggs
Chris Klein
Alyson Hannigan
Shannon Elizabeth
Film Ideology can touch on a number of subjects, but when talking about the subject of sexuality and the ideology it shows in films, American Pie is a modern film that explores everything the ideology covers. The book classifies sexual ideology as an "attempt to make sense of, and implicitly to regulate sexual choices and practices". This film is a perfect example of that statement.
The film follows four boys who are in their senior year of high school and make a pact to all lose their virginity by the end of the year so they don't have to go to college as virgins. All the boys want to do is to gain experience in sexual activity so they don't have to go through embarrassment when they go off to college--because at college supposedly everyone isn't a virgin. The film follows these boys as they prepare and figure out their own ways to get laid. One boy goes soft and joins a choir, another tries to get his steady girlfriend to finally have sex with him, and yet another tries to pursue a foreign exchange student while getting tips from a band geek.
This film doesn't only portray fictional characters and their journey to "adulthood" but it also explores sexuality and the awkwardness that can come from it when you are that age. There is such pressure on teenagers to have sex during and before college and this film shows how far kids will go to get it. It not only shows the possibility of embarrassment in these situations, but helps release some of the stress kids are feeling because it shows them they are not alone. Some of the situations in the film not only are hilarious but quite elaborate... which could help kids feel that their situation wasn't that bad.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban- Ferraro
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban"
2004
Dir: Alfonso Cuarón
I chose to blog about the 3rd HarryPotter movie, since I felt that was the most different adaption from the book.
The adaptation is done very well here. The writers have been able to give us a story that was basically stemmed from the beginning. What they've done, however, is just take what was essential to the plot to make their 2-hour movie, and in the process, cut out important backstories and character arcs.
For example, Hermione's cat Crookshanks actually plays a vital role in the book. It is he who befriends Sirius and helps him into Hogwarts. He is also able to stop the Whomping Willow, and constantly goes after Scabbers because he knows he's really Peter Pettigrew. In the movie, however, he is just a random cat that suddenly appears in Hermione's care and seems to only go after Scabbers because he's a cat, plain and simple. Also, we don't understand why Professor Lupin is sick, just that he is, and we coincidentally are told about werewolves. He is suppose to have a grudging past with Lupin, yet it's never explained why and how. He just appears out of nowhere to save the children. Where's the tension between the two?
In this case, like almost every other adaptation, original is better.
2004
Dir: Alfonso Cuarón
I chose to blog about the 3rd HarryPotter movie, since I felt that was the most different adaption from the book.
The adaptation is done very well here. The writers have been able to give us a story that was basically stemmed from the beginning. What they've done, however, is just take what was essential to the plot to make their 2-hour movie, and in the process, cut out important backstories and character arcs.
For example, Hermione's cat Crookshanks actually plays a vital role in the book. It is he who befriends Sirius and helps him into Hogwarts. He is also able to stop the Whomping Willow, and constantly goes after Scabbers because he knows he's really Peter Pettigrew. In the movie, however, he is just a random cat that suddenly appears in Hermione's care and seems to only go after Scabbers because he's a cat, plain and simple. Also, we don't understand why Professor Lupin is sick, just that he is, and we coincidentally are told about werewolves. He is suppose to have a grudging past with Lupin, yet it's never explained why and how. He just appears out of nowhere to save the children. Where's the tension between the two?
In this case, like almost every other adaptation, original is better.
American Gangster (2007) - 11th Post
American Gangster (2007)
Screenwriter: Steven Zaillian
Director: Ridley Scott
American Gangster captures the essence of film ideology by detailing the story of an African American drug dealer in the 1970’s. Frank Lucas’ perception on the world is that he’s wealthy in a “white man’s world.” Based on a true story, Lucas’ life story begins from the death of his father figure/boss, Bumpy. From that point on Lucas has full control of his drug organization. In a different world, we meet DEA officer soon to be prosecutor, Detective Richie Roberts. As he tries to crack down on a major underground drug organization, not knowing Lucas is the head of the organization, does his best to locate where the cocaine is being transported. Lucas does everything in his power to sell quality drugs into the United States; most of it is deported from Vietnam. Lucas promises to sell pure drugs in order to profit and price his stuff as the best on the streets. He decides to name his priceless coke as, “Blue Magic.”
Lucas hires a professional junkie and science geek to prove that his Vietnam importation is the best drug on the street. Lucas’ entire ideology is to live a low profile life as a drug dealer without being too flashy. His goal was to distract any attention from himself, therefore Lucas made sure he paid people a lucrative amount for services they provided for him. Lucas wasn’t a Scarface because his life was actually a real story. The film expressed that in order to be a successful drug dealer for the time being, you must look like the average man but still invest in businesses to disguise the dirty money received behind closed doors.
As the film goes on, Lucas’s life progresses fairly well. He includes his brother and cousins into his businesses. Lucas buys his mother a beautiful, big house down in North Carolina. He even meets a beautiful, young Puerto Rican woman and marries her. Lucas is living the American dream through his own means and he’s maintained a life of not the average gangster. Lucas attends a Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier fight wearing a loud Chinchilla coat and hat. Roberts is present at the fight and takes a picture of him at the fight. Lucas attire made him a wanted man and since then Roberts was hot on Lucas’ trail. Month by month, Lucas’ organization falters and he’s finally caught. He faces life imprisonment but Lucas takes the high rode and gives up everyone he’s worked for including when he first started selling drugs. His world comes crashing down before him but Lucas decides not to late it take hold of his life. Lucas’ cooperation led him to getting a reduced sentence of fifteen years. At the end, Lucas finally leaves prison to a new world and new look on life. Compared to another prominent film on drug dealers such as Scarface, American Gangster gave a real glimpse into the way a drug dealer would compose himself without making a mockery of his true colors.
Screenwriter: Steven Zaillian
Director: Ridley Scott
American Gangster captures the essence of film ideology by detailing the story of an African American drug dealer in the 1970’s. Frank Lucas’ perception on the world is that he’s wealthy in a “white man’s world.” Based on a true story, Lucas’ life story begins from the death of his father figure/boss, Bumpy. From that point on Lucas has full control of his drug organization. In a different world, we meet DEA officer soon to be prosecutor, Detective Richie Roberts. As he tries to crack down on a major underground drug organization, not knowing Lucas is the head of the organization, does his best to locate where the cocaine is being transported. Lucas does everything in his power to sell quality drugs into the United States; most of it is deported from Vietnam. Lucas promises to sell pure drugs in order to profit and price his stuff as the best on the streets. He decides to name his priceless coke as, “Blue Magic.”
Lucas hires a professional junkie and science geek to prove that his Vietnam importation is the best drug on the street. Lucas’ entire ideology is to live a low profile life as a drug dealer without being too flashy. His goal was to distract any attention from himself, therefore Lucas made sure he paid people a lucrative amount for services they provided for him. Lucas wasn’t a Scarface because his life was actually a real story. The film expressed that in order to be a successful drug dealer for the time being, you must look like the average man but still invest in businesses to disguise the dirty money received behind closed doors.
As the film goes on, Lucas’s life progresses fairly well. He includes his brother and cousins into his businesses. Lucas buys his mother a beautiful, big house down in North Carolina. He even meets a beautiful, young Puerto Rican woman and marries her. Lucas is living the American dream through his own means and he’s maintained a life of not the average gangster. Lucas attends a Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier fight wearing a loud Chinchilla coat and hat. Roberts is present at the fight and takes a picture of him at the fight. Lucas attire made him a wanted man and since then Roberts was hot on Lucas’ trail. Month by month, Lucas’ organization falters and he’s finally caught. He faces life imprisonment but Lucas takes the high rode and gives up everyone he’s worked for including when he first started selling drugs. His world comes crashing down before him but Lucas decides not to late it take hold of his life. Lucas’ cooperation led him to getting a reduced sentence of fifteen years. At the end, Lucas finally leaves prison to a new world and new look on life. Compared to another prominent film on drug dealers such as Scarface, American Gangster gave a real glimpse into the way a drug dealer would compose himself without making a mockery of his true colors.
Justin Afifi - Do the Right Thing
Directed by: Spike Lee
Do the Right Thing is a film following several characters on the hottest day of the year in Bedstuy where tension is ripe to boil over.
I chose Do the Right Thing because it is one of the most revered films relating to race relations in the history of cinema. The film follows several citizens of the neighborhood from all different racial backgrounds. The racial tension is always at the forefront but it's in the finale, after a steady building of tension and unrest, that the film explodes into a riot. Normally a film in this genre and with a title like Do the Right Thing you would think that the characters would all come together and realize their mistakes, instead no one does the right thing and we're left with two very different ideas of peace, one from the nonviolence preaching Martin Luther King Jr. and the other from by any means necessary promoting Malcolm X.
Spike Lee has always been outspoken about race, but this film incorporates every one of his thoughts with a rapid fire dialogue delivery. No punches are pulled as every racial slur directed towards every ethnicity is explored and done so without batting an eyelash. This leaves no room for the audience to avoid the issue and the audience has to come to realize how idiotic some people can be when they don't do the right thing.
Do the Right Thing is a film following several characters on the hottest day of the year in Bedstuy where tension is ripe to boil over.
I chose Do the Right Thing because it is one of the most revered films relating to race relations in the history of cinema. The film follows several citizens of the neighborhood from all different racial backgrounds. The racial tension is always at the forefront but it's in the finale, after a steady building of tension and unrest, that the film explodes into a riot. Normally a film in this genre and with a title like Do the Right Thing you would think that the characters would all come together and realize their mistakes, instead no one does the right thing and we're left with two very different ideas of peace, one from the nonviolence preaching Martin Luther King Jr. and the other from by any means necessary promoting Malcolm X.
Spike Lee has always been outspoken about race, but this film incorporates every one of his thoughts with a rapid fire dialogue delivery. No punches are pulled as every racial slur directed towards every ethnicity is explored and done so without batting an eyelash. This leaves no room for the audience to avoid the issue and the audience has to come to realize how idiotic some people can be when they don't do the right thing.
Ideology in Film - McGuirk
Juno (2007)
Directed By: Jason Reitman
Juno is the story of a sixteen year old girl who finds herself pregnant after she has sex with her best friend.
I chose this film as an example of film ideology because it was such a small film that blew up into a cultural classic. It looked at a scenerio that has been done over and over again (young girl gets pregnant) and made the decision to show it through a different angle. Juno ends up committing to an adoptive couple, and even when that couple splits up, she still keeps her promises and gives the baby to his new mother. This is different from normal teen pregnancy films, which usually end with the girl realizing she wants to take responsibility and take care of the child.
In a society where teen pregnancy is a common occurence, teens often look to film to tell them how they should handle the situation. This film handles it in a very mature cult-classic type of way.
The dialogue from this film is very much what people took away from it. It consists of how adolescents talk by shortening words and phrases. Terms from the film have been showing up in everyday speech, which shows the medium's power in influencing the public, especially teens, to follow its example.
Directed By: Jason Reitman
Juno is the story of a sixteen year old girl who finds herself pregnant after she has sex with her best friend.
I chose this film as an example of film ideology because it was such a small film that blew up into a cultural classic. It looked at a scenerio that has been done over and over again (young girl gets pregnant) and made the decision to show it through a different angle. Juno ends up committing to an adoptive couple, and even when that couple splits up, she still keeps her promises and gives the baby to his new mother. This is different from normal teen pregnancy films, which usually end with the girl realizing she wants to take responsibility and take care of the child.
In a society where teen pregnancy is a common occurence, teens often look to film to tell them how they should handle the situation. This film handles it in a very mature cult-classic type of way.
The dialogue from this film is very much what people took away from it. It consists of how adolescents talk by shortening words and phrases. Terms from the film have been showing up in everyday speech, which shows the medium's power in influencing the public, especially teens, to follow its example.
Rated X
If you came into this blog looking for a review on pr0n, you came to the wrong place! Instead, you'll find a journey into Xavier's Institute for Gifted Youngsters, because I will be taking this ideology business and slapping it together with a small group that has a big budget film known as X-Men. For those of you that don't know who the X-Men are, they are a band of mutants that are trained to fight and protect humanity blah blah from evil mutant terrorists and other threats that usually take the form of giant purple robots. But that may be getting a little too specific.
I chose X-Men because it takes the whole "race" issue into account, though it gets rid of the skin colors and replaces them with genetics. From beginning of the film, we learn that mutants are quite different than humans, as they tend to possess wild and outlandish powers... or abilities that make them "better" than normal humans. Thus the coining of the phrase Homo Superior, which happens to be something that Magneto (That Helmet-Wearing Loser) feels very strongly about. We get a glimpse into his past, seeing that he was directly involved in concentration camp era, thus knowing full well about oppression and persecution at the hands of a society or culture that deems itself superior to others. This depiction comes across very well in the movie, as different characters have different reactions to the messages that are sent flying from one end of the spectrum to the other.
As an adult, Magneto believes he's fighting and doing the right thing, but wanting the mutants to rise above and beyond the humans to rule and control them with his "godlike" ability to control magnetism. On a deeper level, I think the film is trying to get across this idea that it takes monsters to create monsters. Rather than grow up weak and unable to deal with life, Erik Lensherr grew up to be Magneto and thus, in a way, the fear and racial tension that he was subjected to as a child created the man he is today. Scary food for thought, in a way.
I don't think X-Men had any specific message beyond the obvious. That people are different and nine times out of ten people are going to fear whatever it is they don't understand. They're going to always want to outdo or take over. There will always be this constant battle for superiority between groups of people, no matter what they are. It's human nature. It's mutant nature. It's fictional reality in a form that's so outlandish and fantastic that while you're watching and thinking it's just a really cool action flick... it's actually a mirror into what happens in Real Life every day.
Now. Let's all hold hands and sing We Are The World. I call Michael Jackon's part...
- Jason "Iceman" Newbern
I chose X-Men because it takes the whole "race" issue into account, though it gets rid of the skin colors and replaces them with genetics. From beginning of the film, we learn that mutants are quite different than humans, as they tend to possess wild and outlandish powers... or abilities that make them "better" than normal humans. Thus the coining of the phrase Homo Superior, which happens to be something that Magneto (That Helmet-Wearing Loser) feels very strongly about. We get a glimpse into his past, seeing that he was directly involved in concentration camp era, thus knowing full well about oppression and persecution at the hands of a society or culture that deems itself superior to others. This depiction comes across very well in the movie, as different characters have different reactions to the messages that are sent flying from one end of the spectrum to the other.
As an adult, Magneto believes he's fighting and doing the right thing, but wanting the mutants to rise above and beyond the humans to rule and control them with his "godlike" ability to control magnetism. On a deeper level, I think the film is trying to get across this idea that it takes monsters to create monsters. Rather than grow up weak and unable to deal with life, Erik Lensherr grew up to be Magneto and thus, in a way, the fear and racial tension that he was subjected to as a child created the man he is today. Scary food for thought, in a way.
I don't think X-Men had any specific message beyond the obvious. That people are different and nine times out of ten people are going to fear whatever it is they don't understand. They're going to always want to outdo or take over. There will always be this constant battle for superiority between groups of people, no matter what they are. It's human nature. It's mutant nature. It's fictional reality in a form that's so outlandish and fantastic that while you're watching and thinking it's just a really cool action flick... it's actually a mirror into what happens in Real Life every day.
Now. Let's all hold hands and sing We Are The World. I call Michael Jackon's part...
- Jason "Iceman" Newbern
Masked Menace Terrorizes Box Office
You know what? Since everyone else is scared to touch it... I'll touch it. That's right, I'm going to risk life and limb, as well as my sanity, to review one of the most horrible adaptations that has ever been created on the face of the planet...
Spider-Man 3.
Adaptation?! How?! Well, I'm going to tell you how. You see, there is a book. A comic book. It is called, you guessed it! Spider-Man! And in this book there is a story arc that involves a symbiote creature from space that melds with Peter Parker (our unlucky hero), turns him into a Spider-Jerk and generally just makes him a totally rude dude. Through the course of this arc, things happen and eventually Peter Parker rids himself of the symbiote and it latches onto some musclebound meathead by the name of Eddie Brock. From there? VENOM is born.
Sounds pretty hot, right?
Well. THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN SPIDER-MAN 3.
Granted, I'll give you that it was the same basic arc of characterage, but the movie completely and utterly destroyed the sheer awesome of what was one of the most popular story arcs in Spider-Man history. Not only that, but it was one of the darkest times for Peter himself! This was serious business! But no, as usual, Hollywood had to go and create an abomination, throw in about 3 million dollars worth of moving sand particles and try to pull the wool over the eyes of the general Spider-Watching public. Well, this is one Spider-Fan that they failed to fool.
I should really get focused on the adapation, actually. The transference of the "Venom" arc to the big screen was horrible. First of all, the entirety of Sandman was nowhere near there, in the hefty source material. Nor was the emergence of Green Goblin II. Who, for some strange reason in Spider-Man 3 is referred to as New Gobln. Yes, Hollywood. It's okay for you to completely disregard years of comic history and create your own Marty McGoblin for a feature film that's going to suck in unfathomable levels. ANYWAY! The visuality of the character "Eddie Brock" was completely wrong. Now, I happen to like Topher Grace as much as the next guy. He's funny and all that. But he is, in no way, even remotely close to looking like the Eddie Brock that some of us know and love. Which is a major problem with the film, because if you can't see Eddie, you can't believe he's Eddie. In my humble (but right) opinion.
Another major problem with this film adaptation is the fact that the symbiote creature seemed to turn Peter into more of a pelvic thrusting emo-kid than anything else. Which is just NOT RIGHT. I think I'm a little passionate about this subject, but it's only because, well, Spider-Man is sacred. And they ruined it. By creating a movie that is so far from the source material that it's a DC Comic.
- Jason "My Spider-Sense Is Tingling." Newbern
Spider-Man 3.
Adaptation?! How?! Well, I'm going to tell you how. You see, there is a book. A comic book. It is called, you guessed it! Spider-Man! And in this book there is a story arc that involves a symbiote creature from space that melds with Peter Parker (our unlucky hero), turns him into a Spider-Jerk and generally just makes him a totally rude dude. Through the course of this arc, things happen and eventually Peter Parker rids himself of the symbiote and it latches onto some musclebound meathead by the name of Eddie Brock. From there? VENOM is born.
Sounds pretty hot, right?
Well. THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN SPIDER-MAN 3.
Granted, I'll give you that it was the same basic arc of characterage, but the movie completely and utterly destroyed the sheer awesome of what was one of the most popular story arcs in Spider-Man history. Not only that, but it was one of the darkest times for Peter himself! This was serious business! But no, as usual, Hollywood had to go and create an abomination, throw in about 3 million dollars worth of moving sand particles and try to pull the wool over the eyes of the general Spider-Watching public. Well, this is one Spider-Fan that they failed to fool.
I should really get focused on the adapation, actually. The transference of the "Venom" arc to the big screen was horrible. First of all, the entirety of Sandman was nowhere near there, in the hefty source material. Nor was the emergence of Green Goblin II. Who, for some strange reason in Spider-Man 3 is referred to as New Gobln. Yes, Hollywood. It's okay for you to completely disregard years of comic history and create your own Marty McGoblin for a feature film that's going to suck in unfathomable levels. ANYWAY! The visuality of the character "Eddie Brock" was completely wrong. Now, I happen to like Topher Grace as much as the next guy. He's funny and all that. But he is, in no way, even remotely close to looking like the Eddie Brock that some of us know and love. Which is a major problem with the film, because if you can't see Eddie, you can't believe he's Eddie. In my humble (but right) opinion.
Another major problem with this film adaptation is the fact that the symbiote creature seemed to turn Peter into more of a pelvic thrusting emo-kid than anything else. Which is just NOT RIGHT. I think I'm a little passionate about this subject, but it's only because, well, Spider-Man is sacred. And they ruined it. By creating a movie that is so far from the source material that it's a DC Comic.
- Jason "My Spider-Sense Is Tingling." Newbern
JOSH COHEN - REPO MAN
Repo Man
Dir. Alex Cox
Released in 1984
In this film, Otto Maddox is young punk rocker, alienated by his friends and family. The film is about his departure from the punk scene to the intense world of repossessing cars. Otto’s ideology is that since no one cares about him, why should he care about anyone else. The people around him shape his outlook of the world. First he catches his girlfriend having sex with his best friend, and then his parents give all his savings to a televangelist. He finally befriends Harry Dean Stanton, who works for the Helping Hands Acceptance Corporation. He tricks him into helping him repo a car, then along with his co-workers, offers him a job.
The movie progresses when Otto meets a girl named Leila who works for a secret agency that has something to do with aliens. While on the run from the government, she jumps into Otto’s car. Their relationship develops but in the end, when Otto is given the chance to ride –excuse me- fly away in the green glowing 1964 Chevy Malibu from New Mexico, Leila tries to stop him, asking him, “what about our relationship?” Otto responds by saying, “Fuck that!” This clearly shows that Otto’s ideology perseveres through out the film.
The punk rock lifestyle of Otto is examined closely when his friend gets shot. His last words to Otto are, “I know a life of crime has left to this sorry fate, but in the end, I blame society. Society made me who I am.” Otto then says to his grotesquely bleeding pal, “That’s bullshit, you’re a white suburban punk, just like me.” Then, right before death comes to his friends his finals words, “.. But it still hurts!” The exchange reflects the life styles of these kids, but also looks deeper into what they really think of the world. It’s debatable on who showed a broader understanding of the world they live, because they are both right, both affected differently by the world they live in.
Dir. Alex Cox
Released in 1984
In this film, Otto Maddox is young punk rocker, alienated by his friends and family. The film is about his departure from the punk scene to the intense world of repossessing cars. Otto’s ideology is that since no one cares about him, why should he care about anyone else. The people around him shape his outlook of the world. First he catches his girlfriend having sex with his best friend, and then his parents give all his savings to a televangelist. He finally befriends Harry Dean Stanton, who works for the Helping Hands Acceptance Corporation. He tricks him into helping him repo a car, then along with his co-workers, offers him a job.
The movie progresses when Otto meets a girl named Leila who works for a secret agency that has something to do with aliens. While on the run from the government, she jumps into Otto’s car. Their relationship develops but in the end, when Otto is given the chance to ride –excuse me- fly away in the green glowing 1964 Chevy Malibu from New Mexico, Leila tries to stop him, asking him, “what about our relationship?” Otto responds by saying, “Fuck that!” This clearly shows that Otto’s ideology perseveres through out the film.
The punk rock lifestyle of Otto is examined closely when his friend gets shot. His last words to Otto are, “I know a life of crime has left to this sorry fate, but in the end, I blame society. Society made me who I am.” Otto then says to his grotesquely bleeding pal, “That’s bullshit, you’re a white suburban punk, just like me.” Then, right before death comes to his friends his finals words, “.. But it still hurts!” The exchange reflects the life styles of these kids, but also looks deeper into what they really think of the world. It’s debatable on who showed a broader understanding of the world they live, because they are both right, both affected differently by the world they live in.
Rain Man - Isaac Richter
1988
Directed by Barry Levinson
While reading the chapter on Ideology, I was reading through the chapter on the disabled and their different stereotypes. It talked about the physically disabled, but I remembered when I was 13 years old and I was exposed to a lot of films about people who are neurologically disabled, with problems such as autism, schizophrenia, mental retardation and such. Films that range from Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, Shine, I am Sam and so on. The first film I saw on the subject, and it remains my favorite, is Rain Man, a film about Charlie Babbitt, a selfish car salesman played by Tom Cruise whose father just died and the only things he inherited from him are his prized roses and a '49 Buick. His father had $3 million dollars which were placed in trust into a mental institution in Walbrook, where Charlie finds out he has an autistic older brother named Raymond (Dustin Hoffman). Thinking he can scam the money out of Dr. Brooner, the man entrusted with his father's money, Charlie kidnaps Raymond and holds him hostage until he can get his half of the money, and thus begins a road trip cross-country (since Raymond won't get on an airplane, they have to drive) in which a kid who never had to care for anyone but himself for most of his life comes to care for someone who requires a lot of support.
What struck me about what I read in the chapter is how disabled people are portrayed as a burden to the protagonist. They're characters who are pitied and hold the protagonist back. In this film, that's true in many cases. Raymond becomes a burden to Charlie in the sense that he can't get to where he needs to go because he can't get rid of Raymond (unless he wants to kiss his half of the inheritance goodbye, not to mention start a lawsuit). He can't fly to L.A. because Raymond has memorized every plane crash for every airline ever, he can't drive on the highway because Raymond freaks out on the driveway, they lose a day of traveling in a motel because it rains all day and Raymond won't go out when it rains, and Raymond has a schedule that can't be disrupted, or else he freaks out. He has to have pizza on Monday, pancakes Tuesday morning, has to be in front of the T.V. in time for the People's Court and Jeopardy, and in bed by 11:00 on a bed by the window. Charlie keeps getting held back, because if he doesn't cater to Raymond's every need, he goes ballistic and can't get him to shut up, so Raymond becomes a burden to Charlie. One that he brought upon himself, but it's there. However, there's another stereotype of mentally disabled people that is present in this movie, and many other movies after this, and it may have been in an attempt to shine a brighter light on disabled people. That's the fact that they are brilliant, or at least understand things that people around them can't begin to grasp.
Raymond has a lot of special abilities apart from his autism. He has an insane memory. He memorizes full books, including phone books, and can recall every fact about cities, plane crashes and songs, just by looking at them. He's also amazing with Math. When a box of toothpicks falls on the floor, he counts the toothpicks just by looking at them. He's quick with equations, square roots, counting cards, he can do any kind of equation you want him to do in seconds (except when it comes to money, because he doesn't understand the concept of money). I've seen many films with disabled people where they do stuff that the rest of the world can't understand, so they're considered brilliant. A Beautiful Mind is about a man who was considered a mathematical genius and won the Nobel Prize for his equilibrium theorem. Forrest Gump could naturally run fast and play ping pong, and was considered a war hero just because he did what made sense to him over there. Chance, the Peter Sellers character in Being There, is a gardener who is considered a genius by T.V. personalities and politicians because of his very simple inspirational messages, and David Helfgot from Shine was a master pianists. A way for movies to reconcile the burden that disabled people are on people who aren't, they've also been given special abilities to rise them above people who are what we call "normal", which is something I was fascinated by when I first saw many of these movies (though I think now I can see the trick employed).
The thing I like about what this "stereotype"of gifted disabled people does is that it gives people with these disabilities hope of becoming something beyond the limits of their disabilities. In Rain Man, Raymond becomes a character that society looks down upon, yet when the audience meets him up close, he's looked up on because of his grasp of the world, even if he can't understand emotions or anything beyond the functions of a computer, this burden becomes a character that we wish could do our Math homework or our taxes (or that we could do it as well). I don't know if Raymond could have been played by an actor who was actually autistic, or as autistic as Raymond is supposed to be, because he probably wouldn't understand what he's doing. He could memorize the lines and probably deliver them right, but it would probably be a pain to live by an actual autistic-savant's schedule while trying to complete a film, which is why they wanted an able-minded actor to portray this part. I'm referring to the end of the chapter that talks about the criticism of how giving these parts to able-bodied actors diminishes the chances for those who are disabled, and provides the disability as a defining trait. I'll be honest, I haven't seen a lot of actors who are autistic, and I don't know if there are any who understand what acting is. I've seen some actors with Down Syndrome and other minor mental disabilities, and maybe a few with Asperger Syndrome (a more high-functioning mode), but it's really hard to give parts to people who may not understand what acting is, or may not even want to act, which is why a lot of these parts go to the likes of Dustin Hoffman, and Tom Hanks, and Sean Penn and so on who get acclaim for playing a disabled person and studying disabled people. Actors love to play mental disabilities, because it's a challenge, and seeing a known actor in a disabled role is a way to get people interested in learning about this disability.
Before Rain Man, autism wasn't very widely known, so an actor as known as Dustin Hoffman was needed to portray that kind of disability and have the audience identify with it, because they can identify with Dustin Hoffman, and with Tom Cruise, so they know how people can be affected by it. If Rain Man were done today, they may look for an autistic actor to play the part, or at least someone with Asperger Syndrome who just has to go a little further to be autistic, or maybe this isn't so much a concern as it is with people in wheelchairs or who are deaf. It's a tough question to ask. Political correctness is a tough thing to pinpoint because it changes all the time, and the ideologies change with it, whether it's correct to make full-bodied actors play disabled people and leave those who are actually disabled without roles, or typecast those that are disabled with roles that are defined by the disability, it's a tough thing to think about in my opinion, because it can also deprive actors of challenging performances, or disabled people can feel abused by studios. There's always an angle that people will complain about, which is why in retrospect, I wasn't too fond of this chapter on ideologies, because it touches on something that reminds me that people will always have something to complain about, toward Hollywood, toward humanity, toward what roles are available and what is portrayed. It's interesting to look at though, and it reminded me of Rain Man and that string of movies I saw of people with mental disabilities that made me aware of the different mental disabilities that exist, which is why those films work for me (Rain Man particularly).
Directed by Barry Levinson
While reading the chapter on Ideology, I was reading through the chapter on the disabled and their different stereotypes. It talked about the physically disabled, but I remembered when I was 13 years old and I was exposed to a lot of films about people who are neurologically disabled, with problems such as autism, schizophrenia, mental retardation and such. Films that range from Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind, Shine, I am Sam and so on. The first film I saw on the subject, and it remains my favorite, is Rain Man, a film about Charlie Babbitt, a selfish car salesman played by Tom Cruise whose father just died and the only things he inherited from him are his prized roses and a '49 Buick. His father had $3 million dollars which were placed in trust into a mental institution in Walbrook, where Charlie finds out he has an autistic older brother named Raymond (Dustin Hoffman). Thinking he can scam the money out of Dr. Brooner, the man entrusted with his father's money, Charlie kidnaps Raymond and holds him hostage until he can get his half of the money, and thus begins a road trip cross-country (since Raymond won't get on an airplane, they have to drive) in which a kid who never had to care for anyone but himself for most of his life comes to care for someone who requires a lot of support.
What struck me about what I read in the chapter is how disabled people are portrayed as a burden to the protagonist. They're characters who are pitied and hold the protagonist back. In this film, that's true in many cases. Raymond becomes a burden to Charlie in the sense that he can't get to where he needs to go because he can't get rid of Raymond (unless he wants to kiss his half of the inheritance goodbye, not to mention start a lawsuit). He can't fly to L.A. because Raymond has memorized every plane crash for every airline ever, he can't drive on the highway because Raymond freaks out on the driveway, they lose a day of traveling in a motel because it rains all day and Raymond won't go out when it rains, and Raymond has a schedule that can't be disrupted, or else he freaks out. He has to have pizza on Monday, pancakes Tuesday morning, has to be in front of the T.V. in time for the People's Court and Jeopardy, and in bed by 11:00 on a bed by the window. Charlie keeps getting held back, because if he doesn't cater to Raymond's every need, he goes ballistic and can't get him to shut up, so Raymond becomes a burden to Charlie. One that he brought upon himself, but it's there. However, there's another stereotype of mentally disabled people that is present in this movie, and many other movies after this, and it may have been in an attempt to shine a brighter light on disabled people. That's the fact that they are brilliant, or at least understand things that people around them can't begin to grasp.
Raymond has a lot of special abilities apart from his autism. He has an insane memory. He memorizes full books, including phone books, and can recall every fact about cities, plane crashes and songs, just by looking at them. He's also amazing with Math. When a box of toothpicks falls on the floor, he counts the toothpicks just by looking at them. He's quick with equations, square roots, counting cards, he can do any kind of equation you want him to do in seconds (except when it comes to money, because he doesn't understand the concept of money). I've seen many films with disabled people where they do stuff that the rest of the world can't understand, so they're considered brilliant. A Beautiful Mind is about a man who was considered a mathematical genius and won the Nobel Prize for his equilibrium theorem. Forrest Gump could naturally run fast and play ping pong, and was considered a war hero just because he did what made sense to him over there. Chance, the Peter Sellers character in Being There, is a gardener who is considered a genius by T.V. personalities and politicians because of his very simple inspirational messages, and David Helfgot from Shine was a master pianists. A way for movies to reconcile the burden that disabled people are on people who aren't, they've also been given special abilities to rise them above people who are what we call "normal", which is something I was fascinated by when I first saw many of these movies (though I think now I can see the trick employed).
The thing I like about what this "stereotype"of gifted disabled people does is that it gives people with these disabilities hope of becoming something beyond the limits of their disabilities. In Rain Man, Raymond becomes a character that society looks down upon, yet when the audience meets him up close, he's looked up on because of his grasp of the world, even if he can't understand emotions or anything beyond the functions of a computer, this burden becomes a character that we wish could do our Math homework or our taxes (or that we could do it as well). I don't know if Raymond could have been played by an actor who was actually autistic, or as autistic as Raymond is supposed to be, because he probably wouldn't understand what he's doing. He could memorize the lines and probably deliver them right, but it would probably be a pain to live by an actual autistic-savant's schedule while trying to complete a film, which is why they wanted an able-minded actor to portray this part. I'm referring to the end of the chapter that talks about the criticism of how giving these parts to able-bodied actors diminishes the chances for those who are disabled, and provides the disability as a defining trait. I'll be honest, I haven't seen a lot of actors who are autistic, and I don't know if there are any who understand what acting is. I've seen some actors with Down Syndrome and other minor mental disabilities, and maybe a few with Asperger Syndrome (a more high-functioning mode), but it's really hard to give parts to people who may not understand what acting is, or may not even want to act, which is why a lot of these parts go to the likes of Dustin Hoffman, and Tom Hanks, and Sean Penn and so on who get acclaim for playing a disabled person and studying disabled people. Actors love to play mental disabilities, because it's a challenge, and seeing a known actor in a disabled role is a way to get people interested in learning about this disability.
Before Rain Man, autism wasn't very widely known, so an actor as known as Dustin Hoffman was needed to portray that kind of disability and have the audience identify with it, because they can identify with Dustin Hoffman, and with Tom Cruise, so they know how people can be affected by it. If Rain Man were done today, they may look for an autistic actor to play the part, or at least someone with Asperger Syndrome who just has to go a little further to be autistic, or maybe this isn't so much a concern as it is with people in wheelchairs or who are deaf. It's a tough question to ask. Political correctness is a tough thing to pinpoint because it changes all the time, and the ideologies change with it, whether it's correct to make full-bodied actors play disabled people and leave those who are actually disabled without roles, or typecast those that are disabled with roles that are defined by the disability, it's a tough thing to think about in my opinion, because it can also deprive actors of challenging performances, or disabled people can feel abused by studios. There's always an angle that people will complain about, which is why in retrospect, I wasn't too fond of this chapter on ideologies, because it touches on something that reminds me that people will always have something to complain about, toward Hollywood, toward humanity, toward what roles are available and what is portrayed. It's interesting to look at though, and it reminded me of Rain Man and that string of movies I saw of people with mental disabilities that made me aware of the different mental disabilities that exist, which is why those films work for me (Rain Man particularly).
Film Ideology: Julie Angelicola
Shrek (2001)
Directors: Andrew Adamson & Vicky Jenson
I chose to write about the film Shreck because it operates with a very specific ideology. Lord Farquaad is the leader of Duloc. He is a complete and utter tyrant and rules his kingdom in an unfair and unjust manner. He places his own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which he governs and controls. There is a specifically set up class system in the film and you can see throughout the movie that there are those that are seen as outcasts, specifically Shreck the Ogre, as well as other lower class citizens such as the people lined up at the beginning of the film trying to make some money off of their unique belongings. These people present themselves and their findings to the royal court in the middle of the forest and either receive a few shillings or nothing at all, and are banned from then on. In this kingdom also exists magical creatures, fairytale creatures to be exact, that co-exist with the humans in the society. These characters are all looked at as being different.
Duloc is the prestigious city surrounded by the forest and swamp and now inhabited by the fairytale creatures much to Shrek’s dislik, because of Farquaad’s orders. You can see the division of labor in the film because we see most of the characters at work, whether they work for Lord Farquaad or have some kind of job around the city to keep the society running. Some of the men from the lower class are sent to rescue Princess Fiona so that Lord Farquaad doesn’t have to do the dirty work, and instead gets all the reward, a new bride all for himself and the new title of King of Duloc. Shrek is ultimately hired by Farquaad to rescue Fiona and in return he will get his beloved swamp back. Farquaad is also an opportunist because he sees that he no longer needs to bother using men, who can easily die, to carry out his tasks when Shrek can clearly beat them all out and survive things such as dragons. Shreck deals a lot with majority vs. minority. Shreck is the minority because he is the incredibly feared Ogre, but everything he thinks is true is shattered at the end when he finds out Princess Fiona is also an Ogre. His story and scenerio sets up the idea of alienation in the film. He lives by himself is feared by all, has no friends or family, and is completely cut off physically and emotionally from the people and world around him.
Other ideologies presented throughout the film are things such as valuing the rich over the poor. Men are killed one by one without the blink of an eye when men fight for the right to rescue Fiona. Toward the end of the film the things we are presented with initially that seem alien and scary, such as the dragon, become a soul part of why our protagonist wins and we end up rooting for her to win. The Dragon has formed an unlikely relationship with Donkey and ends up eating Lord Farquaad before he can marry Princess Fiona, just in time for her to transform from her curse and for Shrek and her to profess their love for one another. The film observes a tyrannical society by presenting the viewer with a story of love, loyalty, and the bravery to be yourself, as well as doing the right thing no matter what is accepted by the majority.
Thelonious Monk: Straight, No Chaser: Reviewed by Davis Rivera
In her 1988 film “Thelonious Monk: Straight, No Chaser,” director Charlotte Zwerin reflects America’s true diversity by creating a deeply personal portrait of an aging artist that was disabled and an African American. She portrays Monk’s disabilities accurately and not at all in an exploitative way by letting the documentary be subjective and allowing the people that knew and loved Monk to make enough references to his illness that the viewer is allowed to understand the extent that this effects not only them, but Monk as well. From them we learn that Monk remained an enigma even to those closest to him. Difficult and reticent, with occasional flashes of extremely dry humor, he was obviously conscious of his aura and played off of it. But he was also intensely sensitive and temperamental and perhaps a manic-depressive. We learn through talking-head style confessions that Monk’s illness eventually made it impossible for him to perform, and he gave his last public performance in 1976, six years before his death. At the time ''Straight, No Chaser'' began to be compiled, he was too ill to be interviewed for the film, though even without Monk’s input, the film very effectively avoids becoming a self-reflexive film but still manages to interpellate members of society by defining what it means to be a true individual.
With a name like Thelonious Sphere Monk, there was never any true need for him to stand out anymore than he already did. There was a need, however (as there should be a need in every self-respecting person), to stand out as an individual, not solely relying on his name to get him where he wanted to be. This is where Monk’s life as an artist truly begins and also where Zwerin begins her film. The majority of Zwerin’s film is lifted from fourteen hours of black-and-white film shot in the late 1960’s by Michael and Christian Blackwood for a cinéma vérité television special about Monk. Broadcast only once in West Germany, the program was never shown again. The film resurfaced in 1981 when Blackwood and Bruce Ricker, the co-producers of “Straight, No Chaser,” teamed up with Zwerin. Soon after, Clint Eastwood, a life-long jazz aficionado, would lend his name to the film and also help produce it. But Eastwood’s name, even though seen seconds before the actual film begins, immediately leaves one’s mind as Monk is eventually shown in all his genius.
One of the recurring images in “Straight, No Chaser,” and also the image that opens the film, is Monk slowly spinning around and tilting his head to the sky in what appear to be deliberate attempts to disorient himself. Although the film offers no explanation for this proclivity, the depiction of Monk whirling like a little kid playing games with himself is an appropriate metaphor for his revolutionary piano style. As the rich musical soundtrack illustrates, his spare, thorny pianism, with its restless stop-start rhythms and percussive insistence, maintained a perspective on life and art that was boldly off-center, compulsively exploratory, and deeply personal. After Monk finishes his seemingly never-ending game, the camera cuts to a long shot as Monk immediately runs to his piano and begins playing a lesser known cut, “Example,” as his legs flail about wildly and he keeps his mouth open for the entire duration of the song, almost in awe of his impressive spinning from earlier, and not focusing on his technique at all. Even though Monk was already well past the beginning stages of his illness, Zwerin never once deceitfully edits this unorthodox show, bordering on freakish, into something resembling an outtake from Tod Browning’s “Freaks.” Instead, she leaves the cinéma vérité style of the original footage alone and lets the viewer make up his or her own mind on where Monk’s mind was.
Watching Monk play in this way makes one question whether Monk’s playing may have been mostly based on the right hemisphere of the brain. This explains why Monk, enormously influence though he is, has not had the sort of influence as a Jelly Roll Morton or a Bud Powell. Monk’s troubled inner musical character is almost impossible for musicians to imitate. In this opening scene alone, one can see Monk stress the use of his left hand, deliberately characterize his phrases by wrong notes, and play harmonically off by a full tone so that the tension is amplified and then left unresolved. Later in the film, as Monk is beginning to play “Rhythm-a-ling,” he begins to play two adjacent keys on the piano concurrently, maximizing dissonance in a song that was too conflicting in its original form. In a striking moment of elation he begins to shake the piano with his powerful elbows and strikes the piano keys with his flat fingers (instead of bowing them). Sure an alert viewer and someone with a mild history in jazz will be able to spot these idiosyncrasies, but as for attempting them in imitation? Not bloody likely.
John Coltrane, always reliable when it comes to asserting a fellow man of geniuses’ intellectual depth and musical freedom, without letting their shortcomings matter (in Monk’s case, his mental illness), had this to say about Monk: “You never know what may happen, in the rhythm for instance, Monk manages to create such a tension to compel his musicians to “think” rather than follow the usual clichés. He can start a phrase from a sequence you do not expect and you have to know exactly what to do. And harmonically he follows different routes from what you have in mind. But one thing I have learnt from Monk, not to fear what you really feel.” This is the essence of Monk’s power as a musician in a nutshell. I’m quoting this in full because Zwerin decided not to add this into her film. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, Zwerin obviously knew what she was doing and, by adding this in, I feel she would have diminished in some way the vaguely disturbing feeling the viewer gets while watching the film.
It is immediately apparent that there is something wrong with Monk, as I mentioned earlier in the scenes of Monk spinning in circles and playing like a madman, and unless we know the life history of Monk we don’t know what it is. If Zwerin were to add in Coltrane’s quote through narration or text on the screen here, it would have been a mistake and the viewer would have been forced to view Monk as a sort of idiot savant, maintaining her eerie atmosphere but also adding unintentional comic relief. With this left out, the viewer can see that the music is extraordinary, free-spirited and healing, but in the person of Monk there is a shadow of some kind, an elusiveness, a reluctance to connect. The movie never does put a name to Monk’s condition, but by the end of the film enough people who loved him have made so many references to it that we know what we need to know: he went steadily and quite stoically insane. Zwerin does not use this madness to her benefit by manipulating the footage to depict Monk as one of the classical stereotypes of the disabled man such as the character focused on his sociopathic inability to fit in or the defeatist who wallows in self-pity, making himself his own worst enemy. Perhaps the closest to a stereotype that Monk becomes is the disabled woman filled with childlike innocence from Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights.”
Unlike the woman from “City Lights,” Monk was not at all a completely passive person, even in his later, darker years. The last years of his life, we learn through narration and from people interviewed for the film, were spent sitting quietly in the room of a close friend. He no longer played jazz, but when friends would come over to play, they knew he could still listen, because he would leave the door of his room open. The mental illness undoubtedly must have begun many years earlier. Later in the film, Zwerin brings back the tragic recurring image that began the film. This time, Monk appears to be in an airport somewhere, as he begins turning around and around in the same place, absorbed in this repetition as if it were some kind of meditation. This is especially sad, because in the aforementioned scene, the viewer could believe that this was merely a pre-show ritual that Monk performed to relieve his own nervousness, but due to the fact that airports very seldom have pianos around, we know that Monk’s mind is drifting further and further into the abyss. Other instances of this kind of revelation are frequent throughout the film, such as pretty much anytime Monk talks, or attempts to talk in a muffled growl (similar to Tom Waits’ spoken word pieces recorded while he had laryngitis) that seems to be in a kind of code, and when he looks at the camera, he doesn’t exactly look at the camera. This last bit, to me, wasn’t quite as bad after seeing the footage of Nietzsche in his final days of madness, shivering and thin as a rail with the eyes of a serpent that has been tranquilized.
Though it is still sad that this was Monk’s end. As he got older, he coasted into himself. Apparently his reveries must have become seductively relaxing to him (but really, can you blame him?) At a certain point he withdrew completely and was no longer there for his friends and family. He was locked away inside his own mind. The film doesn’t go into detail about this steady process, and for that I am very thankful, because Monk’s music puts us in our own disposition for reverie, not diagnosis. There have been films since “Straight, No Chaser” that attempt to give an accurate depiction of mental illness in both narrative form (“Sylvia”) and documentary form (“Grizzly Man”), but few have been as successful in both its exceptional treatment of the disabled as a main character and showing its effects on the lives of those around them.
With a name like Thelonious Sphere Monk, there was never any true need for him to stand out anymore than he already did. There was a need, however (as there should be a need in every self-respecting person), to stand out as an individual, not solely relying on his name to get him where he wanted to be. This is where Monk’s life as an artist truly begins and also where Zwerin begins her film. The majority of Zwerin’s film is lifted from fourteen hours of black-and-white film shot in the late 1960’s by Michael and Christian Blackwood for a cinéma vérité television special about Monk. Broadcast only once in West Germany, the program was never shown again. The film resurfaced in 1981 when Blackwood and Bruce Ricker, the co-producers of “Straight, No Chaser,” teamed up with Zwerin. Soon after, Clint Eastwood, a life-long jazz aficionado, would lend his name to the film and also help produce it. But Eastwood’s name, even though seen seconds before the actual film begins, immediately leaves one’s mind as Monk is eventually shown in all his genius.
One of the recurring images in “Straight, No Chaser,” and also the image that opens the film, is Monk slowly spinning around and tilting his head to the sky in what appear to be deliberate attempts to disorient himself. Although the film offers no explanation for this proclivity, the depiction of Monk whirling like a little kid playing games with himself is an appropriate metaphor for his revolutionary piano style. As the rich musical soundtrack illustrates, his spare, thorny pianism, with its restless stop-start rhythms and percussive insistence, maintained a perspective on life and art that was boldly off-center, compulsively exploratory, and deeply personal. After Monk finishes his seemingly never-ending game, the camera cuts to a long shot as Monk immediately runs to his piano and begins playing a lesser known cut, “Example,” as his legs flail about wildly and he keeps his mouth open for the entire duration of the song, almost in awe of his impressive spinning from earlier, and not focusing on his technique at all. Even though Monk was already well past the beginning stages of his illness, Zwerin never once deceitfully edits this unorthodox show, bordering on freakish, into something resembling an outtake from Tod Browning’s “Freaks.” Instead, she leaves the cinéma vérité style of the original footage alone and lets the viewer make up his or her own mind on where Monk’s mind was.
Watching Monk play in this way makes one question whether Monk’s playing may have been mostly based on the right hemisphere of the brain. This explains why Monk, enormously influence though he is, has not had the sort of influence as a Jelly Roll Morton or a Bud Powell. Monk’s troubled inner musical character is almost impossible for musicians to imitate. In this opening scene alone, one can see Monk stress the use of his left hand, deliberately characterize his phrases by wrong notes, and play harmonically off by a full tone so that the tension is amplified and then left unresolved. Later in the film, as Monk is beginning to play “Rhythm-a-ling,” he begins to play two adjacent keys on the piano concurrently, maximizing dissonance in a song that was too conflicting in its original form. In a striking moment of elation he begins to shake the piano with his powerful elbows and strikes the piano keys with his flat fingers (instead of bowing them). Sure an alert viewer and someone with a mild history in jazz will be able to spot these idiosyncrasies, but as for attempting them in imitation? Not bloody likely.
John Coltrane, always reliable when it comes to asserting a fellow man of geniuses’ intellectual depth and musical freedom, without letting their shortcomings matter (in Monk’s case, his mental illness), had this to say about Monk: “You never know what may happen, in the rhythm for instance, Monk manages to create such a tension to compel his musicians to “think” rather than follow the usual clichés. He can start a phrase from a sequence you do not expect and you have to know exactly what to do. And harmonically he follows different routes from what you have in mind. But one thing I have learnt from Monk, not to fear what you really feel.” This is the essence of Monk’s power as a musician in a nutshell. I’m quoting this in full because Zwerin decided not to add this into her film. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, Zwerin obviously knew what she was doing and, by adding this in, I feel she would have diminished in some way the vaguely disturbing feeling the viewer gets while watching the film.
It is immediately apparent that there is something wrong with Monk, as I mentioned earlier in the scenes of Monk spinning in circles and playing like a madman, and unless we know the life history of Monk we don’t know what it is. If Zwerin were to add in Coltrane’s quote through narration or text on the screen here, it would have been a mistake and the viewer would have been forced to view Monk as a sort of idiot savant, maintaining her eerie atmosphere but also adding unintentional comic relief. With this left out, the viewer can see that the music is extraordinary, free-spirited and healing, but in the person of Monk there is a shadow of some kind, an elusiveness, a reluctance to connect. The movie never does put a name to Monk’s condition, but by the end of the film enough people who loved him have made so many references to it that we know what we need to know: he went steadily and quite stoically insane. Zwerin does not use this madness to her benefit by manipulating the footage to depict Monk as one of the classical stereotypes of the disabled man such as the character focused on his sociopathic inability to fit in or the defeatist who wallows in self-pity, making himself his own worst enemy. Perhaps the closest to a stereotype that Monk becomes is the disabled woman filled with childlike innocence from Charlie Chaplin’s “City Lights.”
Unlike the woman from “City Lights,” Monk was not at all a completely passive person, even in his later, darker years. The last years of his life, we learn through narration and from people interviewed for the film, were spent sitting quietly in the room of a close friend. He no longer played jazz, but when friends would come over to play, they knew he could still listen, because he would leave the door of his room open. The mental illness undoubtedly must have begun many years earlier. Later in the film, Zwerin brings back the tragic recurring image that began the film. This time, Monk appears to be in an airport somewhere, as he begins turning around and around in the same place, absorbed in this repetition as if it were some kind of meditation. This is especially sad, because in the aforementioned scene, the viewer could believe that this was merely a pre-show ritual that Monk performed to relieve his own nervousness, but due to the fact that airports very seldom have pianos around, we know that Monk’s mind is drifting further and further into the abyss. Other instances of this kind of revelation are frequent throughout the film, such as pretty much anytime Monk talks, or attempts to talk in a muffled growl (similar to Tom Waits’ spoken word pieces recorded while he had laryngitis) that seems to be in a kind of code, and when he looks at the camera, he doesn’t exactly look at the camera. This last bit, to me, wasn’t quite as bad after seeing the footage of Nietzsche in his final days of madness, shivering and thin as a rail with the eyes of a serpent that has been tranquilized.
Though it is still sad that this was Monk’s end. As he got older, he coasted into himself. Apparently his reveries must have become seductively relaxing to him (but really, can you blame him?) At a certain point he withdrew completely and was no longer there for his friends and family. He was locked away inside his own mind. The film doesn’t go into detail about this steady process, and for that I am very thankful, because Monk’s music puts us in our own disposition for reverie, not diagnosis. There have been films since “Straight, No Chaser” that attempt to give an accurate depiction of mental illness in both narrative form (“Sylvia”) and documentary form (“Grizzly Man”), but few have been as successful in both its exceptional treatment of the disabled as a main character and showing its effects on the lives of those around them.
Jose Saca – Gremlins 2: The New Batch (Eleventh Post)
ANNOUNCER
Because of the end of civilization, the Clamp Cable Network now leaves the air. We hope you've enjoyed our programming, but more importantly, we hope you've enjoyed... life.
- From Gremlins 2: The New Batch
The above quote is a line spoken by a TV voice-over in an announcement made by the Clamp Cable Network, a channel run by media mogul Daniel Clamp in NYC’s Clamp Building. The quote is included because, I hope, it gives the reader a sense of the satirical nightmare persuasive in the ideology of Gremlins 2: The New Batch.
Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a film directed by Joe Dante and released in 1990. It marks the return of Billy Peltzer (known as William at work), Kate Beringer and everyone’s favorite little Mogwai, Gizmo. The main characters in the first film, played by Zach Gaffigan and Phoebe Cates, have moved away from their small town of Kingston Falls to New York City, both getting jobs at a large building owned by the city’s richest media mogul, Daniel Clamp (a not-too-subtle satirical hit at Donald Trump).
The post in question will analyze the anti-capitalist and anti-totalitarian ideology found in Gremlins 2: The New Batch.
Though essentially a comedy, the film has, either directly or indirectly, criticizes the soullessness of capitalism and the repression of totalitarianism by chronicling and using the insides of a New York skyscraper as the primary setting. In the beginning scenes, the audience is privy to world where men and women in casual work clothes are in positions of power, as in the scene where associates pay a visit to the elderly Chinese apothecary found in the last film. The power shifts in this scene are clearly in favor of the men in the suits, who solidify their strength and newfound glory when the central associate, unnamed here, tells its co-workers to hold off on the deal since the old Chinese man is “an antique” who is bound to die at any minute. An important thematic motif is established, that of society and the media’s disrespect for the past and urgency for constant innovation.
The urgency for constant innovation is explored soon after, with a funny physical comedy bit involving a motorized revolving door that goes haywire and sling-shots a young woman onto the entrance floor. Another recurring motif that relates to the prior point is the PA announcer in the building. The voice, warm and disgustingly optimistic, spouts out gems of satirical comedy that include a plug for a new colorized version of Casablanca, now with a happy ending, and a plea to the driver of an old, dusty car who parked in the building parking facility to move his car outside, he’s detracting from the other parked cars.
Relating to the prior point, the malfunction of machinery in a machine-ran society is also prevalent in this film. The entire insides of the building go haywire once the gremlins take over the controls of the energy systems in the building. The computers malfunction constantly soon after, with a key scene involving the near-death of the Phoebe Cates character after the elevator she’s on drastically falls over 40 floors and destroys the machine and the gremlins on top of the elevator in the process. The unreliability of having an entire enterprise, perhaps symbolizing the world in general, and run on computers is eerily hinted at in scenes like the latter.
The horrors of a mass consumer market are explored throughout as well in both nightmarish and satirical length. In one particular scene, visitors to the Clamp Building gorge on “fat free” frozen yogurt while the gremlins play inside the gooey substance, all while the filmmakers juxtapose cuts between the gremlins and the consumers gorging equally on yogurt.
The film serves as a warning against the horrors of a capitalist, opportunistic society that runs under business rather than reason or intellect. In short, it tells the viewer to look past the superficiality of consumer America. It shows the soullessness of said belief system, especially in the earliest scenes where the male lead goes through a monotonous day in his job at the Clamp Building art department, and laments the loss of the past. No more is this apparent than in the key exchange between the character of Granpa Joe, who hosts a late-night show that profiles classic horror films, and Billy, where Joe laments on the disrespect of the past by key figures in the media, primarily Daniel Clamp. In this exchange, the filmmakers manage to satirize colorizing and the narrow-headed by mainstream corporations that black and white pictures’ color are weak because of their color. The mentioning of a colorized version of Casablanca shows just how disrespectful media moguls and their associated are regarding the past and classic art.
The film shows the possible implications of leading a rigid, repressive life brought on by capitalist and totalitarian dogmas, directly or indirectly, in the gremlins themselves, who wreak havoc inside the Clamp Building by destroying most of the inside machinery, taking over channels that are run from inside the building itself, running amok in toy stores and food shops that are inside the mall area of the building, and, in one surreal and postmodernist scene, interrupting the film itself as it’s being run in the theater. A cameo from Hulk Hogan and Paul Bartel (of Eating Raoul fame) top off this zany, over the top scene, as the anarchy that may be the end result of such repressiveness is suggested in a scene like this one, shows the viewer that, despite the repressiveness of these systems, they are just that, systems, a series of rules and established beliefs that can be broken if repressed persons wish to do so; quite a dangerous message coming from a mainstream film.
By analyzing the corrupt means by which capitalist and totalitarian dogmas have established repressiveness over society, and how this same repressiveness correlates with the total anarchism established by the gremlins themselves as they run amok inside the building, Gremlins 2: The New Batch presents the viewer with a complex and profoundly cynical view of contemporary American life.
* Quote credited to imdb.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)