I Am Love

I volunteered at SIFF last week passing out sample coffee packets and tearing tickets. After my duties were complete, the staff there told me that I could go into the theater and watch the film they were showing. The movie was called Lo Sono L'amore, or in English, I Am Love.

The film takes place in modern day Italy, where our main character, Emma Recchi, lives quite luxuriously with her family. Her husband, Tancredi, an Italian man, inherits a small fortune when his father decides to leave the family business to him and his son Edoardo. Early on in the movie, Emma seems content with her life, yet she seems to be bored with the wealth and Italian style of living.

Though the movie touched on a lot of social issues, one that stuck out to me most was an issue of assimilation. Emma Recchi, (played by Tilda Swinton), is a Russian immigrant who has married into this very wealthy Italian family. The film goes into no details as to why this marriage has taken place. One can assume it is most likely for the wealth involved. As the film progresses we are told of things Emma has lost due to the very process of assimilating into Italian culture.

Tancredi, Emma's husband, had forbade her to speak any Russian at all, and even goes so far as to change her name. We learn later on that Emma has forgotten her true, Russian name and in losing that, a piece of her identity is also lost.

Things begin to get a little bit more interesting when Antonio, a friend of Emma's son Edoardo, comes into the picture. Antonio is an artsy man. He is interested not in making money but in doing what he loves, which is cooking. He meets Emma through Edoardo and the two of them click right from the start. Emma also has a passion for cooking, but because of her wealth has never actually cooked a proper meal. Instead the housemaids do all the work, who I might add, were all people of color, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Emma and Antonio begin to develop a deep relationship, one of passion, something that has been lacking in Emma's marriage for years. Antonio also loves her for who she is, and never tries to make her be someone she doesn't want to be. In the end Emma breaks free from the confides of a lush and rather bland lifestyle and becomes who she feels she is.

Sources- Image from newdirectors.org

Skateland

I recently had the pleasure of attending SIFF (Seattle International Film Festival) and watched the film, Skateland. I was quite surprised that this film was actually entertaining and kept my interest.

The Film takes place in small town Texas, in 1983. Our protagonist, Ritchie Wheeler, played by Shiloh Fernandez, is one of the managers at the local skating rink. Throughout the film he is pressured by his family and some of his friends to go on to bigger and better things.

Although it is not mentioned, it seems his family, namely his sister, wants Ritchie to go to college so he might make a name for himself and also make much more money then he does doing what he loves. But despite what anybody says, Ritchie happens to love what he does and throughout the film is reluctant to do anything to take him away from what he knew and loved as his home. This idea of doing something "more" with his life, becomes problematic when his best friend Michelle, (who goes on to become his boyfriend) literally takes on the assumed role for him and sends in an essay, that Ritchie had written, to a well known college. Though the film doesn't completely play out the ending we are left with a few details. He gets the woman of his dreams, and is headed to college where, after completing plenty of school, will be setup with a well paying job.

It seems that the film was trying to tell the audience that this is what you should do. This is the way it is. If you continue to do a low paying job that you happen to love, you won't get a wife/partner, nor will you have the means to "succeed" in life. So, "love"turns out to be an issue of class, which should never be the case.

The one thing that bothered me most about this film, was the way the women in it were portrayed. Now before I go on, this film was a time piece and I am not sure as to how women were treated or viewed in the 80's and so can not judge on that level. I will be basing my observations off of what I saw as demeaning to women.

Within the first 10 minutes, we are exposed to a full frame of a woman's butt in skin tight jeans. Interestingly enough we are never exposed to a man's butt in skin tight jeans and if we were it certainly wouldn't have filled the entire frame! Director Anthony Burns is of course calling out and appealing to male audiences here like most Hollywood movies. The objectification of women doesn't stop there, one of the characters in the film refers to his girlfriend literally as, "his shit". One of the most demeaning lines I've ever heard. It not only is implying that this women is just an object, but he also calls her "shit". Not something anyone would ever want to be referred to as.

Along with the issue of objectification, there are also some issues that seem to deal with the patriarchal society of America. Ritchie's mom, played by Melinda McGraw, ends up leaving the husband early on in the film due to many factors. One of them seems to be the fact that she seems to never be home cooking dinner for her family due to yoga classes. Her husband can't seem to stand the fact and thinks that due to her absence, the family is falling apart. The children, Ritchie and his sister, even end up blaming the mother for the divorce and she becomes not the victim but the perpetrator for the events.

After the film there was a Q and A with the director and some of the crew members. Anthony Burns said that one of the reasons he wanted to set the movie in 83 was because of the strong Woman's Movement. He said he had made the roles of the women really strong for this reason. Personally I found the woman's roles to be very weak. The mother was portrayed as a whore, "feminist" and was definitely one of the characters you were not supposed to like. She threatened the "masculinity" of the father.

When the woman was in such a strong role such as, Michelle, they had to be promoting and upholding the ideas of a man. Not surprisingly the women in this film also had to be side characters and when their strength was shown it would indefinitely benefit the man.

Sources: Image taken from- twilight-buzz.com

-Teddy Bears and Sith Lords-

The Star Wars films are by far some of my favorite movies and am in no way condemning them. That being said, I will be exploring and critiquing some of the characters in the saga and how they relate to differently-abled stereotypes in film.

In "America On Film" on page 366, it mentions that Classical Hollywood often used "little" people as actors. In the Star Wars films this is no exception. Though there are plenty of dominant images and characters played by "little" people in the saga, the one that sticks out to me most is that of the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi.

For those who don't know, Ewoks are cuddly, little teddy bear like creatures living peacefully on the moon of Endor. These costumed characters are portrayed by a large number of "little" people, and seem to be in the movie only to help the main "able" characters. They have no depth of personality and only two of the characters are given names. It is also keen to notice that throughout all of the Star Wars Saga not one "little" person is given a role in which they play a "normal" non costumed role. Plenty of other characters and species are portrayed by "little" people in the movies including R2-D2 and the Jawas but as stated before, these characters are in the films only to help the main "able" characters or to carry out a devious plan, in the case of the Jawas.

The Star Wars films revolve around one central character. Anakin Skywalker Aka, Darth Vader. Although he starts as the protagonist and hero of the first 2 films, by the end of Revenge of the Sith he has become a dark and villainous Sith Lord. I would say his role as Darth Vader fits very well into the Obsessive Avenger stereotype as mentioned in "America On Film" on page 365.

Anakin's journey to the Dark Side seems to begin in Attack of the Clones, towards the climax of the film, wherein he loses his hand in a lightsaber duel. Though his hand is easily replaced with robotic one, Anakin's revenge seems to stem from this very injury. In the first 15 minutes of the next movie, Revenge of the Sith, he enacts his revenge and beheads the man who took his hand from him. So begins Anakin's journey to becoming the Obsessive Avenger.


At the climax of Revenge of the Sith, Anakin loses nearly all of his limbs in a near fatal duel. He is even burned and his face changes drastically, it becomes disfigured and filled with scars. After being fitted up with robotic body parts and a menacing helmet to cover his scarred face, Anakin completely fulfills his role as the Obsessive Avenger. It seems throughout the classic trilogy, Darth Vader's hatred and want to take over the universe stems from his disfigurement. Vader, even within his own group, uses his violence on the "able" bodied and brutally chokes several officers for no logistical reason.

It's also interesting to note that as soon as Anakin becomes "disabled", he becomes the villain and the story focuses once again on an "able" bodied hero.

Sources:

• America on Film Representing Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality At the Movies by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin
• Pictures taken from- thetoyzone.com
• Ewok Picture- http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/ewok.jpg
• Anakin Picture- http://www.galacticbinder.com/images/DarkestMoments/anakin-burning.jpg
  

Murderball- Disablility and Masculinity

This week in class we watched Murderball. This film documents a group of quadriplegic men who play a totally different game of rugby. We talked a little bit about the issues of masculinity and disability and how these two intersect in the film, but I thought I might share and try to expand these ideas a bit more.

One of the things that stuck out to me was that throughout the movie there seemed to be this sense of hyper-masculinity. The game itself was very physical, violent and exerted a large amount of aggression. Also, due to there accidents, nearly all of the men seemed to play on the team to demonstrate to themselves that they had not lost any part of their masculinity.

As the film progresses we are introduced to many different men. Each individual but yet each exuding one certain trait. This idea that athleticism demonstrates masculinity is very dominant in the film. Joe, the Canadian coach, said he would have preferred his son play a sport rather then music. American sports are dominated by males, like most of the other aspects of our culture and present competition to be rewarded and yearned for no matter the cost. When asked about the competition between Canada and the US, one of the players states that it's all out war, this alone is an example of how serious their competitiveness is.

Another interesting thing I noticed was how few of women their were in the film. Not one player on the team is female. Nor do they interview any quadriplegic females and let them speak their mind or their points of view, which I'm sure might have differed quite a bit. Why did they choose not to interview any females anyway? Maybe there are no girls interested in quad rugby. Maybe the presence of the female would take away from the "macho-male factor, not sure but it's definitely something to think about.

I personally enjoyed this movie greatly, and thought that it had an inspiring feel to it. Something that all of us, as humans, can relate to no matter our sex.

Sources: Image taken from: http://www.woodstockfilmfestival.com/images/documentaries/murderballl.jpg

The "White" Messiah. Literally!

In class this week and last, we talked briefly about the "white" messiah in films such as James Cameron's Avatar and The Blind Side. These stories depict white protagonists coming along to help or literally save the indigenous or colored peoples. This particular complex has been around, not only in American cinema, but even longer in our country's main religious practice. Christianity.

For those of you who don't know, most mainstream Christianity focuses on one historical individual. Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a small town six miles south of Jerusalem. Throughout his lifetime he performed many miracles and also claimed to be the Son of God. After His brutal crucifixion on the cross, (and sacrifice for humanity), people began gathering and worshiping in His name. Thanks to many different apostles, this teaching grew and soon became Europe and indeed Western Civilization's staple religion.

It seems to me that once Jesus was in the hands of the west, they shaped and molded Him into who they wanted Him to be. One of the many things the west did was to literally change the "race" of Jesus. According to Wikipedia, "The race of Jesus has been a subject of debate since at least the nineteenth century."

Though we cannot be certain as to what Jesus looked like, we can discern what he most likely did due to the place of his birth and of course his heritage. According to Wikipedia, "The current dominant opinion among historians and scientists is that he was most likely a Galilean Jew and thus would have features which resemble modern-day persons of Middle Eastern or Semitic

descent."

So why is Jesus depicted in almost every picture or painting as a pale white skinned guy with blue eyes? Racism perhaps? Just maybe the Western Culture couldn't imagine worshiping a man of color? This dominant image of The Christ in the media still lives on today and can even be seen in more recent films such as Jesus of Nazareth and The Passion of the Christ.

In Jesus of Nazareth, Robert Powell portrays the Savior as having blue eyes, pale skin and a hint of a British accent. Not exactly what we would think of as Middle Eastern.

Jim Caviezel's portrayal in The Passion of the Christ, is quite a bit better and more genuine then that of Powell's. Caviezel actually speaks in Aramaic, (the language Jesus most likely spoke), has a much darker skin tone and his eyes are not brilliantly blue. Still, Jim has no Israeli or Arabic heritage making him yet another "white" messiah.

Both these films and many other forms of media depicting my Savior as a very white man, reinforce the dominant message that white people are here to "save the day". In these cases the white hero is literally here to save all of humanity.

Sources:

• Race of Jesus
• Top Image from godlesspaladin.wordpress.com
• Bottom Image taken from bbc.co.uk
  

"No Country For Old Men"

The past couple of weeks I have been watching all of the past, Best Picture Oscar winners I had never gotten the chance to see. This week I watched No Country for Old Men. Set in Texas, this dark and violent film focuses on three men, interweaving their stories intricately together.

Javier Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, a psychopathic Mexican killer in pursuit of Llewelyn Moss, played by Josh Brolin. Though Anton's upper lip is void of a mustache, I would argue that his character is more or less a watered down version of the classic Latino stereotype, the greaser. Throughout the movie Anton murders no less then five people in a brutal inhumane way. This in itself, is reinforcing the myth that Hispanics and Latinos are violent in nature. Unfortunately the directors gave no back story as to why he had become this way which would have been helpful in piecing together his violent character. The film did little to individualize Anton's character and instead grouped him into the classic stereotype many of us thought to be gone.

Llewlyn Moss, portrayed by Josh Brolin, is a hunter who just happens to stumble upon a stash of two million dollars. Though Josh is not of Hispanic descent, the makeup used and his character's accent imply that he has a Mexican heritage. Llewlyn is a much less violent character then the average greaser stereotype shown in films but I would say his role still reinforces violence and greed as being common among Latinos and Hispanics. Unlike Anton, Llewlyn is much more individualized and is given a little bit of back story. Perhaps this is because a white man, (Josh Brolin), is portraying a Hispanic, much like the early filmmakers did using the technique called "blackface", to portray African Americans. One thing to note though, is that Llewlyn is actually the one who ends up dying in the film, while Anton roams free. An interesting twist that doesn't line up to the classical way a movie should end where the, "other" character, dies.

The last of the three men involved is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones. Sheriff Ed is the "white" man of the group. His role in the movie seems very insignificant and his screen time is very low, compared to the other two protagonists yet his story seems to be the most important of the three. We as the audience are told why he became a sheriff, and are given a significant account of his life story to identify with the "good" guy. It seems Hollywood still hasn't realized that movie audiences are of mixed race and ethnicity.

One last thing to note is the fact that Javier Bardem won Best Supporting Actor in the 2007 Oscars for his role as Anton. He is the first Spanish actor to ever win an Oscar, which is a huge accomplishment. But I wonder if he would have won had he played, say, the sheriff character? If he had not portrayed a stereotypical role would the judges of the Oscars look at him differently? Just something to think about.

Sources: Picture taken from Google Images

Directing. A Mans Job?

In the article Patriarchy, Allan G. Johnson wrote this. "When we routinely refer to human beings as "man" or to doctors as "he", we construct a symbolic world in which men are in the foreground and women in the background, marginalized as outsiders and exceptions to the rule."

It's interesting for me to think about how we perceive certain words and assume that their gender is male. When I told some of my co-workers that I had gotten to meet the director of "Humpday", every single one of them responded with, "Wow! Who is HE?". Or, "What was HE like?". Even some of my female friends asked this, assuming that only men make movies. Of course the word, director, has been genderized in such a way that, when used we, as Americans, automatically think of a man.


According to history, women have had a large role in film making. In our textbook, America on Film, by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin, it reads, "film historians credit Alice Guy- Blache as the first to tell a fictional narrative on film." (pg. 224) Funny how the first person to set the standard for most modern Hollywood films would be a women.


During the early 1900's there were many other women involved not only in directing film but also in other parts of the business. Lois Weber, Anita Loos and Frances Marion are just a few of the women behind the scenes in classical Hollywood. America on Film states, "many researchers now estimate about half of all the films made in the United States during the 1910s and 1920s were written by women." Quite an impressive number seeing as women were treated quite differently then.

This year, 2010, we have seen yet another huge step toward women becoming famous behind the camera and not just in front of it. Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director Oscar this year for her film, "The Hurt Locker." She is indeed the first women to win Best Director, and only the fourth women to be nominated. It's a really small number seeing as the Oscars have been going on for 82 years! When asked in an interview with The Wrap, whether she was ready for this historical moment, Bigelow replied, "First of all, I hope I’m the first of many."

So why has this career as a director taken on a male persona? The answer to that is easy, patriarchy. But will we ever be able to break away from these ideologies so ingrained in our minds? What would this mean for us?

Sources: America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies by Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin
Patriarchy by Allan G. Johnson
Picture of Alice Guy- Blache from BBC.co.uk

Clash of the Titans, A Masculine Disaster

I recently had the unfortunate pleasure of watching Clash of the Titans, Warner Bros. latest box office hit. For those of you who didn't know, this is indeed a remake of the classic 1981 film with the same title. This male dominated movie is nothing more then a bunch of guys killing things and shouting corny one liners to each other.

-WARNING SPOILERS-

Sam Worthington, of James Cameron's "Avatar", plays Perseus a demigod, (half man, half god), trying to discover who he is. Early on in the film the audience learns that Perseus is indeed the bastard son of Zeus, the king of the gods.

Zeus, portrayed by Liam Neeson, is a "god", whose persona is very much what we view in our society today as manly or masculine. Within the first fifteen minutes of the film, he plans to "punish" the humans for their lack of worship towards them. With little council to any of the few female gods, or any of the other gods for that matter, Zeus decides to destroy the human's most precious city, Argos. Though the human race is not necessarily a female person, per say, Zeus does this to establish his dominance and gain the love of the humans once more. This idea of gaining love by violent means is a dangerous and usually unsuccessful way to do so, yet it is an idea that is still instilled in a lot of the media that we consume. Martin Luther King Jr. put it bluntly, "Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

Perseus, our protagonist, is much like the strong action hero that began to get famous in the 80's. He's ripped, sexy, and can beat the crap out of anything. Though he wears a skirt through most of the film, his traditional masculinity is not questioned. He shows no emotion accept anger and hate towards the gods who killed his human family. Even when his love interest, Lo, (a demigod like himself) is killed brutally onscreen, the only emotion shown is that of anger which in turn leads to revenge. Can "real" men not cry, or show any type of sympathy? Apparently not in the mythological, patriarchal realm where this story unfolds. It seems in order for one to be considered masculine he must possess strength, be bent on revenge and care only for himself.

Although this movie did have its moments, it suffered greatly due to what I would like to call, the "dude factor" aka the hyper-masculinity. The few female characters involved in the plot are either love interests or villains who end up being killed, once again establishing male dominance and supporting the idea that women are to be seen and not heard.