Film and You!

I'm sorry. I've done wrong. I've been writing for who knows how long presuming everybody has the same knowledge I do regarding film theory. However, recently, I realized this isn't true. So, in order make up some lost ground, here's a quick lesson:


A movie is never just a movie. 


If that isn't enough for you, here's a longer lesson. There are two things that control society: written laws and ideology in the form of cultural traditions and customs. Laws, because they are written into a physical form, can be reacted against. For instance, the speed limit of freeway 50 is 65 mph. To show the man what's what, many people go 80 mph. Likewise, it is against the law to spray paint the side of a building, but it's a great way to stick it to the establishment. Because of the transparency of laws, they aren't very effective. Sure, we usually obey them because we don't want to get in trouble. But that isn't as good as obeying something because we want to.

That's where ideology comes into play. These encompass social norms that most people don't think about. For example, why do baby boys get dressed in blue and baby girls in pink? Some might say, "It's always been that way," and that's 1.) intellectually lazy, and 2.) wrong. The habit began around the 1940s. Why did it happen? As far as I can tell, nobody knows. But it's tradition now, and with the exception of some liberals out there, it's still a popularly held belief. Similarly, the phrase "under God" wasn't placed into the Pledge of Allegiance until 1952. But, of course, most people would just say "It's always been that way" and think no more of it.

What would happen if a law was written to officially designate that all baby boys must wear blue, and pink for baby girls? People would fight it. But since nobody is making it visible, everybody just consumes and accepts it. And that's why movies are dangerous.

Movies, primarily classical Hollywood movies, thrive on this point. The cutting to continuity that makes progression through a film so smooth passes on hidden ideologies that audience members usually don't pick up. My go-to example for this is Disney princess movies. Those films time and time again feature passive, White women that wait for a man to rescue them. The film doesn't show flash cards saying "Women are helpless" because women would get pissed off. But when you have it written in the character, it isn't visible enough for the general audience member to notice. So, they consume it. 

Of course, some people would argue that just because they see something on a movie screen doesn't mean that they incorporate it into themselves. I would disagree, as would most psychoanalysts. See, there is this old French guy named Jacques Lacan who came up with the theory of the mirror stage. Babies as early as six-months old can recognize themselves in mirrors, however are still dreadfully uncoordinated. The conflict that arises because of the complete image the baby sees and the uncoordination he or she feels creates a rivalry between the two. Two squash this aggression, the baby identifies with the image, and the Ego is created. 

This relates to film in this way. The movie screen takes the place of the mirror, and instead of our own reflection on the screen we see actors and actresses. We feel the same conflict that a baby has with its reflection, and we end up viewing ourselves as the protagonist in the film. This process is augmented when the gender of the protagonist matches the viewer. This explains why it's usually girls that take after princesses in Disney films whereas boys try to be the courageous, active princes.

There are tons of other ways ideologies are passed onto audiences. For instance, as I stated in my "Iron Man" review years ago, that film perpetuates the idea of Middle Eastern people as terrorists. Since there is no substantial counter argument in the film, we are to believe that if you are Middle Eastern, then you are a terrorist. The movie could have easily been changed to have a militia group stateside abduct Tony Stark, but opted to feed us the fearful impression of the Other. Also, in "Rebel Without a Cause" the only character to die was the guy who was alluded to being gay. Hopefully I don't need to spell out what that one means.

My point is that movies aren't just movies. If you believe they are, that's when they get you. Of course, if you are fine with that, then that is your prerogative. Be comfortably numb. Give yourself over to Hollywood for hours at a time. Let them do whatever they'd like to your mind. I, on the other hand, don't want to be worked on. I want to be in control of what gets into my brain. 

Just do me one favor. Think about this for me. When Alex was tied down and forced to watch violent and pornographic images in "A Clockwork Orange," what do you think that was really about?  

With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

When "Twilight" came out last year, I let it come and go without comment (on this blog at least). Yes, it was terrible, and I could have had a lot of fun tearing it apart. However, I decided the best course of action was to ignore it. I figured if I didn't acknowledge it then it might disappear, and I'd never have to think about it again. Well, I was as wrong as the U.S. was when trying to ignore World War II. Now the sequel, "New Moon," is out and breaking box office records. Much like how Spider-man let the thief go who went on to kill Uncle Ben, I have seen that my passivity has yielded dreadful results. So, it's time to do my job.

"New Moon" begins with Bella having a nightmare that she'll grow old while Edward will remain eternally youthful. Of course she's worried about that. After all, we men only care about looks. And let's face it ladies, with all of the make-up and cosmetic surgery available, you have no reason not to look perfect. I mean, living a fulfilling and happy life with somebody you love only matters as long as you look good doing it, right?

So, the next day is Bella's birthday and her dream has her freaking out about her future. She talks to Edward about this and tries to get him to change her into a vampire. Edward, being a man, can't deal with her feelings and breaks up with her. He tells her it's for her own good, but clearly he's just a scoundrel who can't deal with the responsibility and commitment that a relationship takes. Of course, very few of us men can. Bella reasonably responds to the break-up by ending her life.

I don't mean she kills herself, but she apparently spends months doing nothing but staring out her window into the rain and trees. Killing herself comes later. See, she can't live without a man and figures out that every time she enters a dangerous situation she sees Edward. So, in order to feel complete she needs to be with Edward, and the only way to do that is to straddle death....That sounds fair. I mean, women can't have meaning without men, so it makes sense that her choices are to be with Edward or die. Just try to name one strong, independent woman.

But as the narrative progresses, Bella kind of begins a relationship with Jacob, the friendly neighborhood werewolf. Regular guys clearly have nothing to offer this woman. However, even though Jacob was there for her after Edward bailed on her, he isn't good enough for her. See, Jacob isn't white, so he's automatically inferior to the ubermensch known as Edward. So, Bella uses Jacob as a replacement until she can be with her pale man again.

This temporary relationship between Bella and Jacob is a little rocky, though. See, Jacob soon starts brushing Bella off and avoiding her. Again, here's Bella being tossed aside by a man. Clearly she's left with only one choice of action: grovel for an explanation. After confronting Jacob, she realizes that he's been hanging out with the other non-whites and that's why he hasn't been calling her. Hasn't she ever heard the phrase "Bros before hos?" I guess not because she goes up to his buddies and slaps one of them in the face. The accosted man, being less civilized than his lighter skinned counterparts, snaps and tries to eat her (turns out he's a werewolf, too). Jacob saves her for one reason or another and the movie goes on. Yay.

Since the incident, Bella and Jacob reignited their pseudo-relationship and were doing pretty well until Alice (Edward's..."sister") returned. In one of the clearest displays of racism I've seen in any film, Alice kicks Jacob out of the house so she and Bella can talk. Then things happen and the story goes to Italy and...it's not worth it. I'm skipping to the end.

Edward returns and vows never to leave Bella again. Knowing a good thing when she sees it, Bella takes Edward back and tosses Jacob aside. It was really the smart decision looking at the long term. I mean, Edward can get a better, higher paying job based on his skin color alone. And that's ignoring the fact that the Cullen family are obviously a part of the elite whereas Jacob and his family are blue-collar workers. And the film ends with something so trite and obnoxious that I won't repeat here for fear of tainting my blog. Just think of the most stereotypical ending you can, and you probably got it.

This movie was appalling. It was sexist. It was racist. And, really, it was just bad film making. The fact that girls across the country are looking up to Bella as some sort of role model scares me. She takes the passivity of Disney princesses and combines it with every whiny, emotional teen stereotype you could imagine. I mean, she may even be worse role model than Hannah Montana. But the country spoke last weekend and screamed for more. I can't wait to see what the next movie brings.

 

Me Versus Ebert

After the stream of celebrity deaths this year, I figured I had better get any grievances I have with the Hollywood elite off my chest while they are still alive. Of course, an article listing every problem I have with certain stars would take an excruciatingly long time. So, I'll just start with the top of the list for now and gradually make my way down. And at the top is Roger Ebert.

I know, he isn't a star, but he is certainly related to the world of cinema. Plus, the bone I have to pick with him is a particularly large one. See, ever since I was a kid I've known of Roger Ebert. I didn't have much of a context as to who he was or what he did, but I always knew the name. Then, with thanks to the Animaniacs and "The Critic," I discovered he reviewed movies. Being a movie fanatic for as long as I could remember, I placed Ebert on a pedestal because he was the first film critic I've ever heard of. He was like a demigod to me. But it wasn't until the last year or so that I started reading his reviews. And while he and I agree on many things, I think he's written a good portion of his reviews while out of his mind.

Exhibit A: "Fighting." Ebert gave this film three stars out of four. The general synopsis is that Shawn (Channing Tatum) is a struggling street vendor approached by Harvey (Terrance Howard) to join the leagues of underground fighting. Ebert's reasoning for his score is that he likes how the actors are the film's focus as opposed to the worn out narrative. Ebert says that the director met the requirements of making a genre film and then put the rest of his efforts in making the characters interesting. 

I will concede that the characters, specifically Harvey, were more fleshed out than in other action films, but that isn't enough for me. The narrative itself is dead. As I said when it was first being released, its story is a rehashing of "Lionheart" with minimal chages here and there. So, if you are going to make an action film with a recycled plot, you might as well make sure the action is good, right? Not in this film. Shawn doesn't even win his first fight; the other guy defeats himself. And every subsequent fight gets a little bit better, but, really, watching Adam Sandler and Eric Bana fight in "Funny People" was more entertaining. What I'm trying to say is that if you are going to make an action film that focuses on the characters as opposed to the action, then you had better be sure the characters are damned compelling, which, for me, they weren't. I'd give the movie two stars out of four.

Exhibit B: "Blue Velvet." Ebert gave this film one star out of four. His argument for scoring one of Lynch's most-hailed films a measly one star is that he believes that the film is two-sided. On one hand it shows powerful emotional depth and disturbing sexual imagery that can make almost any audience member cringe. And on the other hand it is a parody of a "Leave it to Beaver"-type small town and is full of satirical in-jokes. The combination of the two takes away from both of their strengths and results in a convoluted, insincere experience.

Again, I disagree. I think the comparison of the seedy underworld with all of its demented attributes and the too-perfect town of Lumberton feed off of each other rather than hurt each other. There are some things you can only define in comparison to their opposites. "Good" would not exist without "bad;" they are dependent on each other for existence. To me, that's what this kind of film does. In order to define how terrible Dennis Hopper and his gang are, we are given the reference point of well-tended lawns and white picket fences. And the fact that the small-town coziness never disappears also works for me because it shows that despite the realization that heinous activities are occurring, the citizens of the town remain oblivious or they just don't care. They are living in a sort of consensus reality where nothing bad happens...even though it does. I'd give the film a minimum of three stars.

Exhibit C: "Knowing." Ebert gave the film four out of four stars. After reading his review, I want to say that Ebert likes this film in theory more than he actually likes it in practice. He commends the film on bringing an ancient debate to the surface (Is the universe deterministic or random?) and making an argument for one of the sides. That is where the greater part of his praise lands. He does mention things like special effects, the musical score and editing, but those received a line of note whereas the general premise of the film and related debates took up paragraphs. Still, whatever his reasoning, he did award it a perfect score.

Now, when scoring something 100 percent, I take things very seriously. After all, a perfect score means nothing could be done to make the film better. I've maybe seen one or two movies I'd give that accolade to, and neither of them is "Knowing." Sure, I like the premise, too, but the film falls flat in other respects. Really, I'd say the film reaches a level of incoherence by the end thanks to its vague randomness. Also, I feel as though Nicolas Cage is only half-trying to act, but maybe that's because I don't like how the character is written. Either way, it's a bad thing. One part of the film Ebert and I agree on is the effects. During certain scenes I was darned impressed with what computers could conjure up. But beyond that, the movie was ok at best. I'd give it a max of three stars, maybe just two and a half.

Now, I am just a lowly film student and Ebert has been studying and reviewing films since before I was born, but I am convinced Ebert is losing it in his old age. Sure, different people have different opinions, but this is too much. "Knowing" getting a perfect score is unnatural. I actually thought somebody hacked his website and wrote a fake review when I first read it. But nope. That's just Ebert. 

Oh well, at least he hated "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."