Do the Right Thing
Director: Spike Lee
Writer: Spike Lee
Cast: Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Spike Lee, Giancarlo Esposito, Danny Aiello, Bill Nunn, John Turturro, Paul Benjamin, Frankie Faison, Robin Harris, Joie Lee, Miguel Sandoval, Rick Aiello, Samuel L. Jackson, Rosie Perez
Overview
A slice in the life of a community picture, Do The Right Thing tells the story of racial tensions in a New York City community. Spike Lee raises many esoteric philosophical questions about the appropriateness of using violence to address systemic oppression, while also managing the difficult task of grounding them in our gritty reality.
Synopsis
It's the hottest day of the year when the film opens. Mookie (Spike Lee) is a delivery boy for Sal's Pizzeria and constantly finds himself at odds with Sal's oldest and most definitely racist son Pino (John Turturro). Da Mayor (Ossie Davies) is the town drunk and is attempting to make peace with Mother Sister (Ruby Dee) who scorns his shadow. Meanwhile, Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito) is organizing a boycott against Sal's Pizzeria following his discovery that there are no photos of black Italians on the Wall of Fame that Sal keeps at the Pizzaria. Overseeing all of this is Mister Señor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson) the local radio DJ and two police officers (Miguel Sandoval and Rick Aiello). As the day proceeds, tensions gradually bubble to the surface until exploding into a riot that lays bare the ugly belly of racism.
The Queering
It's generally accepted by now that the LGBTQ rights movement got it's start following the Stonewall Riots, a violent push back against police arrests and the lack of effort to curb direct anti-queer violence. Prior to that, similar riots also took place, notably, the now forgotten Compton Cafeteria Riots. In the seventies, the White Night Riots occurred following the acquittal of Dan White of the most serious charges he was charged with regards to the murder of Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone.
None of the riots that LGBTQ people have engaged in have ever been particularly well publicized or talked about in the mainstream media, probably because mainstream societies way of dealing with LGBTQ people is to pretend that we are weak and fay and all that or that we don't exist. The image of us rioting and breaking stuff does not help to perpetuate that narrative. Racially motivated riots on the other hand, generally receive more attention, not only because it is harder to pretend that people of color do not exist, but also to help perpetuate the narrative that people of color are SCARY!
However, the larger question remains, is violence an appropriate response to systemic oppression? It is easy to answer in the negative. It is even easier to point to the success of non-violent tactics used in various civil rights movements across history from Ghandi to Martin Luther King Jr. and Bayard Rustin. It is even easier to point to the failures of violent revolutions to effect positive systemic changes. The French Revolution gave rise to chaos, which lead to the rise of Napoleon and the eventual reinstatement of the French Monarch. The Russian Revolution went from Leninism to the even greater disaster of Stalinism. Large scale violence has a nasty habit of not only begating more violence but the sort of economic turmoil that also tends to breed even greater suffering than the conditions that existed pre-violent revolution.
But what of violence that takes place on a smaller scale? What of individuals and communities so oppressed that they have no other truly viable options? And what of violence that is not directly in response to circumstances where the perpetrator is not in any immediate danger? Let me make it clear, I do not condone violence on any level. But at the same time, I must admit that the historical record leaves little room for doubt that few actions other than a violent uprising, could have created the conditions that led to the birth of the LGBTQ rights movement.
Spike Lee contends that criticism of Mookie from white critics of his throwing the garbage can through Sal's Pizzaria's window, it is because white people consider white property to be of greater value than the lives of black people. However, it bears noting that Mookie's actions might have been more easily justified if he had thrown the garbage can through the window to draw the attention of those beating Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) while the assault was taking place. Throwing the trash can through the window when Mookie actually does, accomplishes nothing and the riot that followed only end up placing the lives of the other black characters in greater jeopardy than they would have been otherwise. The problem is, destroying Sal's property carried with it no possibility of bringing Radio Raheem back from the dead. As it is, it's a purely destructive form of protest.
Let me make myself clear, I am not condemning Mookie's actions either. The thoughtless death of a member of a community is certainly justification for extreme action, even if that extreme action is destructive and accomplishes little.
There are no easy answers to the problems and questions that Spike Lee raises and he rightfully makes little effort to provide definitive answers. The competing philosophies of both Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are cited throughout and direct quotes from both show up in the end credits.
From a technical perspective, Spike Lee brings all of his considerable talent to the table. Filmed on a shoestring budget, Spike Lee manages to accomplish a lot with few resources. Arguably, the low budget helps a bit with creating a sort of gritty realism that so many Hollywood films sprain themselves trying to capture. Ultimately though, it is Spike Lee's vision and hard work (along with a highly accomplished cast) that make the film work like it does. The cinematography through the use of "hot" colors, successfully manages to highlight the devastating heat wave and make visual the non-visual phenomenon that the characters are experiencing.
Do the Right Thing put Spike Lee on the map and while much of his later work would fail to accomplish what he achieved here, I still think of his more recent films (particularly Miracle at St. Anna and She Hate Me) are criminally underrated. While one may not always agree or like what Spike Lee says here, what he says is worth listening to. Do the Right Thing is a film that cannot not, nor should be, ignored.
Recommendation
The best way to Do the Right Thing is to see it.
The Rating
**** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label classic review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic review. Show all posts
November 12, 2013
November 10, 2013
Queer Review: Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
Director: George Lucas
Writers: George Lucas and Jonathan Hales
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Frank Oz, Ian McDiarmid, Pernilla August, Temuera Morrison
Overview
With The Phantom Menace out of the way, the Star Wars saga continues lumbering towards A New Hope with Attack of the Clones. Outside of a bloated middle section and an ill developed romance, Attack of the Clones still manages to offer up more than a few bits of Star Wars magic.
Synopsis
The story opens with the Galactic Republic in grave danger from political separatists. Following an attempt on her life, loyalist Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman) is assigned two Jedi Protectors, the famed Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his Padawan Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen). It isn't long before Obi-Wan has left to track down a clue as to who may have been behind the attempt on Amidala, while the Senator and Anakin go back to Naboo to recite bad dialog about falling in love and sand that gets everywhere. Obi-Wans' investigation leads him to discover a mysterious clone army. Meanwhile, Amidala's and Anakin's journey leads them to discover that Anakin's mother has been captured and tortured. When she dies in Anakin's arms, Anakin is drawn that much closer to the Dark Side and to a destiny of sounding like James Earl Jones while scuba diving.
The Queering
I can recall going to see Attack of the Clones at the midnight showing way back in high-school with a friend, probably one of the few times I can recall seeing a movie in the the theaters with a friend. I remember the audience cheering at the scene of the Jedi forces first engaging the droid army in battle, as well as the tingly thrill that came with seeing Yoda lighting up his lightsaber before going mano-to-mano with Count Dooku.
Attack of the Clones takes the characters and plot threads established in The Phantom Menace and maneuvers them to where they need to be for the future chapters. Chancellor Palpatine moves closer to becoming the Evil Emperor. Anakin Skywalker finds himself confronted within the darkness deep within, otherwise known to most of us as teenage angst. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin find themselves drawn closer to each other. As fans of the original movies know, this will lead to them becoming the parents of A New Hopes' whiny teenager/female royalty duo.
As a fan of the original movies, I found most of this fascinating, even if I have to admit that the middle section, where most of this setting up takes place, drags quite a bit. Also most of the romantic dialog is really, really bad. When Anakin describes sand as, "it's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere" he might as well have been talking about what the characters are saying to each other.
On a different note, it is interesting to note just how many parallels there are to the events of World War II. Not only does Palpatine first get elected Chancellor before going on (in the later movies) to become the evil Galactic Emperor, but the name Stormtroopers (who we discover in this episode are clones) comes directly from the NAZI Sturmtruppen. In a sense, The Clone Wars themselves almost seem a bit like World War I in the way they set up events for the later war between the Alliance and the Galactic Empire. While it's never really drawn all that sharply, there is enough political commentary going on here to add a degree of philosophical depth to the series.
Of course, Attack of the Clones also manages to emphacize the queer subtexts that I highlighted in my review of The Phantom Menace. Anakin and Padme have a discussion about the tenants of the Jedi code, where it is revealed that the Jedi's are forbidden from forming connections outside of the Jedi Order. Essentially this means that they are a chaste, monastic order and a common characteristic of chaste monastic orders is that members will often engage in sexual relationships with each other. Once again, the possibility is raised that the relationship between a Padawan and their Jedi Master is one of sexual pederasty.
Unfortunately, this idea is not really emphacized in the few scenes between Obi-Wan and Anakin. It is suggested through the dialog that the two have a deep and meaningful relationship but it's just not shown on screen. The two also spend most of the film at different ends of the galaxy once Obi-Wan is sent off to look for the assassins who are after Padme. As it is, we'll just have to wait until the next episode to have anything worth sinking our teeth into between the two.
As I mentioned above, Attack of the Clones has it's weak spots (to repeat: bad dialog and a weak middle section) but it' still enjoyable and more than just a soulless special effects extravaganza. Jar Jar Binks role has been reduced. The battle royale between the Jedi Knights and the Droid army alone is worth price of admission. Throw in some stunning visuals (and visual effects) along with finally getting to see Yoda kicking ass and you get a movie that is worthy of the name Star Wars.
Recommendation
Worth enduring any number of attacking clones to see.
The Rating
***1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: George Lucas
Writers: George Lucas and Jonathan Hales
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Frank Oz, Ian McDiarmid, Pernilla August, Temuera Morrison
Overview
With The Phantom Menace out of the way, the Star Wars saga continues lumbering towards A New Hope with Attack of the Clones. Outside of a bloated middle section and an ill developed romance, Attack of the Clones still manages to offer up more than a few bits of Star Wars magic.
Synopsis
The story opens with the Galactic Republic in grave danger from political separatists. Following an attempt on her life, loyalist Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman) is assigned two Jedi Protectors, the famed Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his Padawan Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen). It isn't long before Obi-Wan has left to track down a clue as to who may have been behind the attempt on Amidala, while the Senator and Anakin go back to Naboo to recite bad dialog about falling in love and sand that gets everywhere. Obi-Wans' investigation leads him to discover a mysterious clone army. Meanwhile, Amidala's and Anakin's journey leads them to discover that Anakin's mother has been captured and tortured. When she dies in Anakin's arms, Anakin is drawn that much closer to the Dark Side and to a destiny of sounding like James Earl Jones while scuba diving.
The Queering
I can recall going to see Attack of the Clones at the midnight showing way back in high-school with a friend, probably one of the few times I can recall seeing a movie in the the theaters with a friend. I remember the audience cheering at the scene of the Jedi forces first engaging the droid army in battle, as well as the tingly thrill that came with seeing Yoda lighting up his lightsaber before going mano-to-mano with Count Dooku.
Attack of the Clones takes the characters and plot threads established in The Phantom Menace and maneuvers them to where they need to be for the future chapters. Chancellor Palpatine moves closer to becoming the Evil Emperor. Anakin Skywalker finds himself confronted within the darkness deep within, otherwise known to most of us as teenage angst. Meanwhile, Padme and Anakin find themselves drawn closer to each other. As fans of the original movies know, this will lead to them becoming the parents of A New Hopes' whiny teenager/female royalty duo.
As a fan of the original movies, I found most of this fascinating, even if I have to admit that the middle section, where most of this setting up takes place, drags quite a bit. Also most of the romantic dialog is really, really bad. When Anakin describes sand as, "it's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere" he might as well have been talking about what the characters are saying to each other.
On a different note, it is interesting to note just how many parallels there are to the events of World War II. Not only does Palpatine first get elected Chancellor before going on (in the later movies) to become the evil Galactic Emperor, but the name Stormtroopers (who we discover in this episode are clones) comes directly from the NAZI Sturmtruppen. In a sense, The Clone Wars themselves almost seem a bit like World War I in the way they set up events for the later war between the Alliance and the Galactic Empire. While it's never really drawn all that sharply, there is enough political commentary going on here to add a degree of philosophical depth to the series.
Of course, Attack of the Clones also manages to emphacize the queer subtexts that I highlighted in my review of The Phantom Menace. Anakin and Padme have a discussion about the tenants of the Jedi code, where it is revealed that the Jedi's are forbidden from forming connections outside of the Jedi Order. Essentially this means that they are a chaste, monastic order and a common characteristic of chaste monastic orders is that members will often engage in sexual relationships with each other. Once again, the possibility is raised that the relationship between a Padawan and their Jedi Master is one of sexual pederasty.
Unfortunately, this idea is not really emphacized in the few scenes between Obi-Wan and Anakin. It is suggested through the dialog that the two have a deep and meaningful relationship but it's just not shown on screen. The two also spend most of the film at different ends of the galaxy once Obi-Wan is sent off to look for the assassins who are after Padme. As it is, we'll just have to wait until the next episode to have anything worth sinking our teeth into between the two.
As I mentioned above, Attack of the Clones has it's weak spots (to repeat: bad dialog and a weak middle section) but it' still enjoyable and more than just a soulless special effects extravaganza. Jar Jar Binks role has been reduced. The battle royale between the Jedi Knights and the Droid army alone is worth price of admission. Throw in some stunning visuals (and visual effects) along with finally getting to see Yoda kicking ass and you get a movie that is worthy of the name Star Wars.
Recommendation
Worth enduring any number of attacking clones to see.
The Rating
***1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
October 31, 2013
Classic Review: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Rosemary's Baby
Director: Roman Polanski
Writers: Roman Polanski. Based upon the novel by Ira Levin.
Cast: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans, Ralph Bellamy, Charles Grodin, Victoria Vetri
Overview
Rosemary's Baby is widely regarded as a classic horror film. It certainly has some clever twists and creepy elements, but it ultimately left me underwhelmed. Furthermore, while Rosemary's Baby can be seen as having pro-feminist leanings, there are elements of the film that are highly problematic when it comes to it's depiction of sexual assault.
Synopsis
Rosemary (Mia Farrrow) and her new husband Guy (John Cassavetes) move into a new apartment and soon after, start trying to conceive a baby. One night, after they were planning on having sex, Rosemary falls into a deep sleep, in which she has a sequence of disturbing dreams. When she wakes up, she finds scratches along her body, which her husband claims he did to her while he had intercourse with her while she slept. Later, Rosemary discovers she is pregnant and she starts seeing Dr. Dr. Sapirstein when Guy insists, rather than see their old family physician. When Rosemary develops a sharp pain in her abdomen that won't stop, Dr. Sapirstein dismisses her concerns. As time progresses, Rosemary becomes suspicious that she is trapped in a plot involving witchcraft and becomes increasingly desperate to escape, only to find all of her efforts thwarted.
The Queering
As I understand it, Rosemary's Baby has strongly resonated with woman over the decades due to the way it captures the typical fears and anxieties that can emanate from anyone expecting a child. Furthermore, the way Rosemary is carefully controlled by both her husband and those around her certainly mimics the way society both overtly and subtly takes control of women's bodies when they are pregnant. Rosemary finds everything, her appearance, her weight, and her diet, constantly commented on and criticized by others. Meanwhile, her pains and fears are dismissed as both crazy and further reason for her to be placed under increasing systems of control, until finally she is locked up and sedated right before she is to give birth. Therefore, once the final "twist" is revealed, that this was all the work of a group of Satanists (who had recruited her husband early on in the film), can be seen as the film taking the evil that is typically done to women (particularly pregnant woman) and making it literally real.
For a variety of reasons, I do not wish to dismiss this interpretation out of hand. However, while watching Rosemary's Baby I found myself looking at the film from a rather different lens, one that I should point out at the outset involves me having a very biased opinion of Roman Polanski, due to his conviction of sexually assaulting a thirteen year old minor and the subsequent rape apologism that spewed forth from Polanski's supporters.
What I'm getting at, is that there are elements in Rosemary's Baby that can be seen as forms of rape apologism.
I'll start with the night in which Guy drugs Rosemary so that she can be impregnated by Satan. When she wakes up the next morning, she finds scratches on her body, which Guy admits that he did to her while he was having sex with her while she was asleep. In other words, he just admitted that he raped her, which the film never really strongly condemns as being rape, at least for my tastes. Instead, we later find out that Guy drugged her so that she could be instead raped by Satan, but the film doesn't really treat this as shocking until this is revealed. As it stands, it seems almost as if the film is agreeing with the legal standards of the time that a woman cannot be raped by her husband, thanks to the spousal exemption standards that existed.
To put it another way, in either scenario, Rosemary is raped, gets pregnant, and chooses to have the child in spite of having been raped. The only element that really has changed by the end, in terms of what we the audience and the character know, is who the actual rapist was. Guy simply goes from being the sexual assailant to being an accessory to rape. The fact that the crime itself occurred does not change, but the film doesn't treat it as a crime until the end.
Furthermore, another problematic element here, with regards to Rosemary being sexually assaulted, is the "Devil Made Me Do It" element that the final plot twist evokes, which helps soften the culpability for Guy. Rather than "The Devil Made Me Do It", it's "The Devil Actually Did It". Following this line of reasoning to the end, and one must conclude that the film is evoking the idea of "Stranger Danger" by blaming the crime on the devil, while minimizing the danger that frequently comes from more domestic sources.
The other really problematic element comes from the end, where Rosemary runs around, making an increasingly number of irrational mistakes and puts herself in unnecessary danger as a result. It takes her waaaaaaay too long to realize that Dr. Sapirstein may be a part of the conspiracy against her. Given the fact he was the one prescribing the strange drink for her, he should have been suspect number one. Then there is the way she blabs her entire tale to her new doctor, including the fact that she suspects Dr. Sapirstein and others of practicing witchcraft. Honestly, there was no reason to have included that detail, all she should have said in that scene was "help me, my husband is an abusive fuck and my old doctor, Dr. Sapirstein was an enabler. I don't want them to know where I am." In all fairness, this part could be included to comment on how society conditions people to not believe woman when they are claiming to have been abused. But it undermines the point due to the fact that a doctor has every reason to believe that a person may in fact be mentally ill, especially when they claim to be the victim of a conspiracy of actual witches.
Maybe this is the result of having watched too much Buffy: The Vampire Slayer but honestly, watching a female protagonist act this foolishly is difficult and makes me think that it is set up to enable victim blaming. There were points where Rosemary showed signs of autonomy and intelligence, which makes her ultimate inability to escape from the clutches the bad guys appear to be all the more her fault.
In short, while Rosemary's Baby may in fact capture the uncertainty and difficulties of being pregnant, by minimizing the culpability of Guy in the rape of his wife and evoking the idea of victim blaming, I find myself questioning the films message and intentions.
Recommendation
Rosemary's Baby is only for those interested in films solely for their historical value. This is one troubled pregnancy not worth trying to save.
The Rating
** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Roman Polanski
Writers: Roman Polanski. Based upon the novel by Ira Levin.
Cast: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans, Ralph Bellamy, Charles Grodin, Victoria Vetri
Overview
Rosemary's Baby is widely regarded as a classic horror film. It certainly has some clever twists and creepy elements, but it ultimately left me underwhelmed. Furthermore, while Rosemary's Baby can be seen as having pro-feminist leanings, there are elements of the film that are highly problematic when it comes to it's depiction of sexual assault.
Synopsis
Rosemary (Mia Farrrow) and her new husband Guy (John Cassavetes) move into a new apartment and soon after, start trying to conceive a baby. One night, after they were planning on having sex, Rosemary falls into a deep sleep, in which she has a sequence of disturbing dreams. When she wakes up, she finds scratches along her body, which her husband claims he did to her while he had intercourse with her while she slept. Later, Rosemary discovers she is pregnant and she starts seeing Dr. Dr. Sapirstein when Guy insists, rather than see their old family physician. When Rosemary develops a sharp pain in her abdomen that won't stop, Dr. Sapirstein dismisses her concerns. As time progresses, Rosemary becomes suspicious that she is trapped in a plot involving witchcraft and becomes increasingly desperate to escape, only to find all of her efforts thwarted.
The Queering
As I understand it, Rosemary's Baby has strongly resonated with woman over the decades due to the way it captures the typical fears and anxieties that can emanate from anyone expecting a child. Furthermore, the way Rosemary is carefully controlled by both her husband and those around her certainly mimics the way society both overtly and subtly takes control of women's bodies when they are pregnant. Rosemary finds everything, her appearance, her weight, and her diet, constantly commented on and criticized by others. Meanwhile, her pains and fears are dismissed as both crazy and further reason for her to be placed under increasing systems of control, until finally she is locked up and sedated right before she is to give birth. Therefore, once the final "twist" is revealed, that this was all the work of a group of Satanists (who had recruited her husband early on in the film), can be seen as the film taking the evil that is typically done to women (particularly pregnant woman) and making it literally real.
For a variety of reasons, I do not wish to dismiss this interpretation out of hand. However, while watching Rosemary's Baby I found myself looking at the film from a rather different lens, one that I should point out at the outset involves me having a very biased opinion of Roman Polanski, due to his conviction of sexually assaulting a thirteen year old minor and the subsequent rape apologism that spewed forth from Polanski's supporters.
What I'm getting at, is that there are elements in Rosemary's Baby that can be seen as forms of rape apologism.
I'll start with the night in which Guy drugs Rosemary so that she can be impregnated by Satan. When she wakes up the next morning, she finds scratches on her body, which Guy admits that he did to her while he was having sex with her while she was asleep. In other words, he just admitted that he raped her, which the film never really strongly condemns as being rape, at least for my tastes. Instead, we later find out that Guy drugged her so that she could be instead raped by Satan, but the film doesn't really treat this as shocking until this is revealed. As it stands, it seems almost as if the film is agreeing with the legal standards of the time that a woman cannot be raped by her husband, thanks to the spousal exemption standards that existed.
To put it another way, in either scenario, Rosemary is raped, gets pregnant, and chooses to have the child in spite of having been raped. The only element that really has changed by the end, in terms of what we the audience and the character know, is who the actual rapist was. Guy simply goes from being the sexual assailant to being an accessory to rape. The fact that the crime itself occurred does not change, but the film doesn't treat it as a crime until the end.
Furthermore, another problematic element here, with regards to Rosemary being sexually assaulted, is the "Devil Made Me Do It" element that the final plot twist evokes, which helps soften the culpability for Guy. Rather than "The Devil Made Me Do It", it's "The Devil Actually Did It". Following this line of reasoning to the end, and one must conclude that the film is evoking the idea of "Stranger Danger" by blaming the crime on the devil, while minimizing the danger that frequently comes from more domestic sources.
The other really problematic element comes from the end, where Rosemary runs around, making an increasingly number of irrational mistakes and puts herself in unnecessary danger as a result. It takes her waaaaaaay too long to realize that Dr. Sapirstein may be a part of the conspiracy against her. Given the fact he was the one prescribing the strange drink for her, he should have been suspect number one. Then there is the way she blabs her entire tale to her new doctor, including the fact that she suspects Dr. Sapirstein and others of practicing witchcraft. Honestly, there was no reason to have included that detail, all she should have said in that scene was "help me, my husband is an abusive fuck and my old doctor, Dr. Sapirstein was an enabler. I don't want them to know where I am." In all fairness, this part could be included to comment on how society conditions people to not believe woman when they are claiming to have been abused. But it undermines the point due to the fact that a doctor has every reason to believe that a person may in fact be mentally ill, especially when they claim to be the victim of a conspiracy of actual witches.
Maybe this is the result of having watched too much Buffy: The Vampire Slayer but honestly, watching a female protagonist act this foolishly is difficult and makes me think that it is set up to enable victim blaming. There were points where Rosemary showed signs of autonomy and intelligence, which makes her ultimate inability to escape from the clutches the bad guys appear to be all the more her fault.
In short, while Rosemary's Baby may in fact capture the uncertainty and difficulties of being pregnant, by minimizing the culpability of Guy in the rape of his wife and evoking the idea of victim blaming, I find myself questioning the films message and intentions.
Recommendation
Rosemary's Baby is only for those interested in films solely for their historical value. This is one troubled pregnancy not worth trying to save.
The Rating
** out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
October 30, 2012
Classic Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Director: Wes Craven
Writer: Wes Craven
Cast: Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, Robert Englund, John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Charles Fleischer
Overview
An effective examination of the lines separating reality from dreams and dreams from nightmares, A Nightmare on Elm Street remains one of the best of the 1980's era slasher flicks. Overall this is well made flick with plenty of memorable and gruesome imagery designed to cause nightmares whether or not one is awake or asleep.
Synopsis
When teenager Tina (Amanda Wyss) is brutally murdered, the police finger her boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) as the main suspect. But Tina's friend, Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) suspects that Rod is innocent for both she and Tina had been sharing similar dreams of a man with knives for fingers who has been haunting their sleep. When Nancy investigates, she begins to realize that this man is Freddy Kruger, a child murderer who suffered a horrific fate after he was acquitted of his crimes in a court of law.
The Queering
The 1980's was the era of the slasher films (started in 1978 by Halloween) and like it's sibling series, A Nightmare on Elm Street started out on a high note before quickly descending into dreck. Well, actually, I have not seen that many of the sequels of either series, but between what I have heard from others and having viewed A Nightmare on Elm Stree 2: Freddy's Revenge, I am not going to be running out to view the subsequent films of either series. Ultimately, both series would be dragged out unnecessarily, thereby undermining the reputation of the originals.
As for A Nightmare on Elm Street itself, Wes Craven effectively toes the line between harsh reality and waking nightmare. The murders are presented in such a way, that the refrain of "don't fall asleep" will not be difficult for many of the more sensitive members of the audience. The first kill is particularly brutal with the victim being dragged up a wall and across the ceiling by invisible forces. Later, another character meets an equally gruesome fate that a responding paramedic talks about "needing a mop, not a body bag". Obviously, this is not a film for the faint of heart or the overly sensitive.
One of the cardinal rules of slasher films is that those who have sex are the first to die. A Nightmare on Elm Street follows this rule, but not strictly. Virginity it turns out is no guarantee of survival here, the characters who have sex simply get offed sooner rather than later.
However, the theme of burgeoning teenage sexuality begetting monsters that this pattern eludes to, is hammered home in a shot of Freddy's hand coming up from between Nancy's legs when she is taking a bath. In a way almost, while aimed at teenagers, slasher flicks appear to be mostly a reflection of parental anxieties about the dangers of adolescence. One wonders how much of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's helped propel the popularity of the slasher films or it was mere coincidence that this genre simply ended up paralleling the reality of sex that could literally kill people by coincidence. Granted, the idea of killing the sexually promiscuous started in 1978 by Halloween well before AIDS was pushed to the forefront of the national consciousness. What I want to know, is if there had been no AIDS crises, would the cheesiness of the genre have caused slasher films to die out earlier?
Recommendation
A Nightmare on Elm Street is worth seeking out for anyone, whether they live on Elm Street or not.
The Rating
***1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Wes Craven
Writer: Wes Craven
Cast: Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, Robert Englund, John Saxon, Ronee Blakley, Amanda Wyss, Jsu Garcia, Charles Fleischer
Overview
An effective examination of the lines separating reality from dreams and dreams from nightmares, A Nightmare on Elm Street remains one of the best of the 1980's era slasher flicks. Overall this is well made flick with plenty of memorable and gruesome imagery designed to cause nightmares whether or not one is awake or asleep.
Synopsis
When teenager Tina (Amanda Wyss) is brutally murdered, the police finger her boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) as the main suspect. But Tina's friend, Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) suspects that Rod is innocent for both she and Tina had been sharing similar dreams of a man with knives for fingers who has been haunting their sleep. When Nancy investigates, she begins to realize that this man is Freddy Kruger, a child murderer who suffered a horrific fate after he was acquitted of his crimes in a court of law.
The Queering
The 1980's was the era of the slasher films (started in 1978 by Halloween) and like it's sibling series, A Nightmare on Elm Street started out on a high note before quickly descending into dreck. Well, actually, I have not seen that many of the sequels of either series, but between what I have heard from others and having viewed A Nightmare on Elm Stree 2: Freddy's Revenge, I am not going to be running out to view the subsequent films of either series. Ultimately, both series would be dragged out unnecessarily, thereby undermining the reputation of the originals.
As for A Nightmare on Elm Street itself, Wes Craven effectively toes the line between harsh reality and waking nightmare. The murders are presented in such a way, that the refrain of "don't fall asleep" will not be difficult for many of the more sensitive members of the audience. The first kill is particularly brutal with the victim being dragged up a wall and across the ceiling by invisible forces. Later, another character meets an equally gruesome fate that a responding paramedic talks about "needing a mop, not a body bag". Obviously, this is not a film for the faint of heart or the overly sensitive.
One of the cardinal rules of slasher films is that those who have sex are the first to die. A Nightmare on Elm Street follows this rule, but not strictly. Virginity it turns out is no guarantee of survival here, the characters who have sex simply get offed sooner rather than later.
However, the theme of burgeoning teenage sexuality begetting monsters that this pattern eludes to, is hammered home in a shot of Freddy's hand coming up from between Nancy's legs when she is taking a bath. In a way almost, while aimed at teenagers, slasher flicks appear to be mostly a reflection of parental anxieties about the dangers of adolescence. One wonders how much of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's helped propel the popularity of the slasher films or it was mere coincidence that this genre simply ended up paralleling the reality of sex that could literally kill people by coincidence. Granted, the idea of killing the sexually promiscuous started in 1978 by Halloween well before AIDS was pushed to the forefront of the national consciousness. What I want to know, is if there had been no AIDS crises, would the cheesiness of the genre have caused slasher films to die out earlier?
Recommendation
A Nightmare on Elm Street is worth seeking out for anyone, whether they live on Elm Street or not.
The Rating
***1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
March 28, 2012
Classic Review: Psycho (1960)
Psycho
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: Joseph Stefano. Based upon the novel by Robert Bloch.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Martin Balsam, John McIntire
Overview
The granddaddy of all slasher films, Psycho tells the story of a man driven to madness by an overbearing mother, or so it seems so at the beginning.
Synopsis
When Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer, she flees, only to find herself at the creepy and derelict Bates Motel, run by the pleasant but oddly sinster Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Soon afterwards, a private Detective (Martin Balsam), Marions' boyfriend, Sam Loomis, (John Gavin) along with her sister, Lila (Vera Miles) come to Bates Motel looking for Marion. All of them make startling discoveries about the true nature of the Bates Motel and its' caretaker.
The Queering
Watching Psycho for the first time recently, the old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt" kept running through my head. Unfortunately for Hitchcocks' classic slasher flick, I knew too much of the plot going in and the infamous shower scene failed to do much of anything for me. At the time of the release, Hitchcock took extreme measures to avoid the plot from becoming widely known so as to avoid spoiling the shocking twists. He was quite wise to do this. I spent most of the first part of the film, forcing myself to pay attention and not give into boredom. After the shower scene and my knowledge of the plot dropped off, I became a lot more engaged with the film and Hitchcock's mastery of the cinematic medium became more apparent.
However, given the nature of the villian, I was a little worried that the film was going to engage in some rather overt transphobia. Ultimately, I am not sure that this was he case. Yes, the bad guy does crossdress, (technically speaking) but the behavior in this case is more reflective of multiple personality disorder, than anything to do with the experiences of transgender/transsexual individuals. There's even a line from a psychologist at the end, explicitly stating that the character is not a transvestite. I might otherwise make a point about the problematic terminology used here, but given that Psycho was made in 1960 I don't really feel like it. Furthermore, other than a single instance of limp wristedness, I did not notice any attempt to overly feminize the villian, nor did I discern a queer subtext. Ultimately, the film is much worse when it comes to stigmitizing mental illness and one need look no further than the title for proof of that.
For me, there are also some interesting issues related to the attempts of certain parties to censor Psycho or more precisely, what some censors wanted to censor. Objections were raised over the use of the term "transvestite". The shower scene had one shot of female buttocks removed and some censors were worried that a shot of Curtis's nipples had made it into the final cut. Psycho is also famous for quiet likely containing the first scene where a toilet is being flushed and Hitchcock had to fight hard to make sure that this moment was not cut. Oddly enough, the fact that two people are brutally murdered on screen does not seem to have raised quiet the number of objections as the above items, although some film critics apparantly did protest the graphic violence after the film was relased.
From a technical perspective, Psycho is very well constructed, using complex camerawork and bold editing during key sequences. The image of the Bates Motel and shower scene have become etched into our cultural memory for a reason. Anthony Perkins gives the most chilling performance as Norman Bates - the audience does not need any line about the highway being undertraveled to know that there is a reason why no one stays at the Bates Motel. No one else really is given enough to do to leave much of an impression. I may have been underwhelmed by the lack of suspense to the plot (having forknowledge of what would happen before even seeing this) but I cannot deny Hitchock's genius in constructing this classic.
Recommendation
Anyone with an interest in classic films, horror and slasher flicks, or evenjust generally the history of cinema should drive themselves Psycho in order to see this.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: Joseph Stefano. Based upon the novel by Robert Bloch.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Martin Balsam, John McIntire
Overview
The granddaddy of all slasher films, Psycho tells the story of a man driven to madness by an overbearing mother, or so it seems so at the beginning.
Synopsis
When Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer, she flees, only to find herself at the creepy and derelict Bates Motel, run by the pleasant but oddly sinster Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Soon afterwards, a private Detective (Martin Balsam), Marions' boyfriend, Sam Loomis, (John Gavin) along with her sister, Lila (Vera Miles) come to Bates Motel looking for Marion. All of them make startling discoveries about the true nature of the Bates Motel and its' caretaker.
The Queering
Watching Psycho for the first time recently, the old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt" kept running through my head. Unfortunately for Hitchcocks' classic slasher flick, I knew too much of the plot going in and the infamous shower scene failed to do much of anything for me. At the time of the release, Hitchcock took extreme measures to avoid the plot from becoming widely known so as to avoid spoiling the shocking twists. He was quite wise to do this. I spent most of the first part of the film, forcing myself to pay attention and not give into boredom. After the shower scene and my knowledge of the plot dropped off, I became a lot more engaged with the film and Hitchcock's mastery of the cinematic medium became more apparent.
However, given the nature of the villian, I was a little worried that the film was going to engage in some rather overt transphobia. Ultimately, I am not sure that this was he case. Yes, the bad guy does crossdress, (technically speaking) but the behavior in this case is more reflective of multiple personality disorder, than anything to do with the experiences of transgender/transsexual individuals. There's even a line from a psychologist at the end, explicitly stating that the character is not a transvestite. I might otherwise make a point about the problematic terminology used here, but given that Psycho was made in 1960 I don't really feel like it. Furthermore, other than a single instance of limp wristedness, I did not notice any attempt to overly feminize the villian, nor did I discern a queer subtext. Ultimately, the film is much worse when it comes to stigmitizing mental illness and one need look no further than the title for proof of that.
For me, there are also some interesting issues related to the attempts of certain parties to censor Psycho or more precisely, what some censors wanted to censor. Objections were raised over the use of the term "transvestite". The shower scene had one shot of female buttocks removed and some censors were worried that a shot of Curtis's nipples had made it into the final cut. Psycho is also famous for quiet likely containing the first scene where a toilet is being flushed and Hitchcock had to fight hard to make sure that this moment was not cut. Oddly enough, the fact that two people are brutally murdered on screen does not seem to have raised quiet the number of objections as the above items, although some film critics apparantly did protest the graphic violence after the film was relased.
From a technical perspective, Psycho is very well constructed, using complex camerawork and bold editing during key sequences. The image of the Bates Motel and shower scene have become etched into our cultural memory for a reason. Anthony Perkins gives the most chilling performance as Norman Bates - the audience does not need any line about the highway being undertraveled to know that there is a reason why no one stays at the Bates Motel. No one else really is given enough to do to leave much of an impression. I may have been underwhelmed by the lack of suspense to the plot (having forknowledge of what would happen before even seeing this) but I cannot deny Hitchock's genius in constructing this classic.
Recommendation
Anyone with an interest in classic films, horror and slasher flicks, or evenjust generally the history of cinema should drive themselves Psycho in order to see this.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
January 12, 2012
Queer Review: The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Maltese Falcon
Director: John Huston
Writer: John Huston. Based upon the novel by Dashiell Hammett.
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Barton MacLane, Lee Patrick, Ward Bond, Elisha Cook Jr., Jerome Cowan
Overview
Credited as being the prototype for film noir, The Maltese Falcon also features an early and particularly intrigueing queer subtext. Because of this, The Maltese Falcon contains one of the earliest and most obviously queer characters in cinema.
Synopsis
When private detectives Samuel Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) are approached by the femme fatale Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor) they are suspicious of her story but since she's willing to pay, they agree to shadow the man she asks them to, Floyd Thursby. Soon, however, both Thursby and Archer are dead and Spade finds himself embroiled in a complicated affair involving the Maltese Falcon, a priceless artifact whose history involves the Knights Templar and was lost centuries ago. Several other parties, each with their own story of how and why they are after the Maltese Falcon, come forward. The effiminate Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre) who cliams that he was double crossed by O'Shaughnessy, tries to hold up Spade. Then there is Kasper Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet) who claims to have been looking for the statue for 17 years and whose quiet politeness is merely a façade for an underlying dangerous nature.
The Queering
The Maltese Falcon is a hard movie for me to review. I can see, intellectually speaking, all of the elements that make it understandable why The Maltese Falcon is considered by so many critics to be a classic. The protagonist is a morally ambiguous private detective and the ending dark. Then there is the convoluted plot which forces the audience pay attention and figure things out for ourselves. On top of thatis the fact that The Maltese Falcon lay the groundwork for one of cinema's most popular and enduring genre's, the film noir.
However, all of that aside, I have to confess that The Maltese Falcon failed to move me on an emotional level. I understand that I am not espousing the most popular opinion here, but for all of it's strengths, The Maltese Falcon is not a perfect motion picture. There are more than a few scenes of overblown melodrama and poor acting and while I applaud the ending for being true to the characters and the story, I have to say it still left me feeling a bit empty.
Flaws aside though, there are some other strengths - besides the plot that was darker and more complex than other movies of the time. A scene where Gutman drugs Spade, in order to put him to sleep, is superbly shot and edited. I also enjoyed Lee Patrick's performance as Effie Perine, Archer and Spade's secretary, even though she only had a few scenes. Peter Lorre was more memorable playing a killer of children in M, but is otherwise effective as the obviously gay Joel Cairo.
While Joel Cairo was openly gay in the novel (from what I understand) but thanks the awful Hays Code, no mention of this is made. However, Cairo is not the only character in the film who can be queered. Spade calls Gutman's assistant Wilmer a "gunzel", which is a slang term for a submissive bottom to an older gay man. Combine this with Gutman himself being noticeably limp wristed and fey and so it becomes clear that the three antagonists are all apparently a bit queer. In other films, having three gay antagonists might be a problem, but since neither of our protagonists, Spade or his almost girlfriend O'Shaughnessy, is not set up as morally virtuous either, it's not a problem from my perspective.
Recommendation
It's not worth spending your life fortune and 17 years, as Kasper Gutman did, to track down this Maltese Falcon, but certainly worth seeking out, particularly for those with an interest in the history of queer characters in cinema.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: John Huston
Writer: John Huston. Based upon the novel by Dashiell Hammett.
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Barton MacLane, Lee Patrick, Ward Bond, Elisha Cook Jr., Jerome Cowan
Overview
Credited as being the prototype for film noir, The Maltese Falcon also features an early and particularly intrigueing queer subtext. Because of this, The Maltese Falcon contains one of the earliest and most obviously queer characters in cinema.
Synopsis
When private detectives Samuel Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) are approached by the femme fatale Brigid O'Shaughnessy (Mary Astor) they are suspicious of her story but since she's willing to pay, they agree to shadow the man she asks them to, Floyd Thursby. Soon, however, both Thursby and Archer are dead and Spade finds himself embroiled in a complicated affair involving the Maltese Falcon, a priceless artifact whose history involves the Knights Templar and was lost centuries ago. Several other parties, each with their own story of how and why they are after the Maltese Falcon, come forward. The effiminate Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre) who cliams that he was double crossed by O'Shaughnessy, tries to hold up Spade. Then there is Kasper Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet) who claims to have been looking for the statue for 17 years and whose quiet politeness is merely a façade for an underlying dangerous nature.
The Queering
The Maltese Falcon is a hard movie for me to review. I can see, intellectually speaking, all of the elements that make it understandable why The Maltese Falcon is considered by so many critics to be a classic. The protagonist is a morally ambiguous private detective and the ending dark. Then there is the convoluted plot which forces the audience pay attention and figure things out for ourselves. On top of thatis the fact that The Maltese Falcon lay the groundwork for one of cinema's most popular and enduring genre's, the film noir.
However, all of that aside, I have to confess that The Maltese Falcon failed to move me on an emotional level. I understand that I am not espousing the most popular opinion here, but for all of it's strengths, The Maltese Falcon is not a perfect motion picture. There are more than a few scenes of overblown melodrama and poor acting and while I applaud the ending for being true to the characters and the story, I have to say it still left me feeling a bit empty.
Flaws aside though, there are some other strengths - besides the plot that was darker and more complex than other movies of the time. A scene where Gutman drugs Spade, in order to put him to sleep, is superbly shot and edited. I also enjoyed Lee Patrick's performance as Effie Perine, Archer and Spade's secretary, even though she only had a few scenes. Peter Lorre was more memorable playing a killer of children in M, but is otherwise effective as the obviously gay Joel Cairo.
While Joel Cairo was openly gay in the novel (from what I understand) but thanks the awful Hays Code, no mention of this is made. However, Cairo is not the only character in the film who can be queered. Spade calls Gutman's assistant Wilmer a "gunzel", which is a slang term for a submissive bottom to an older gay man. Combine this with Gutman himself being noticeably limp wristed and fey and so it becomes clear that the three antagonists are all apparently a bit queer. In other films, having three gay antagonists might be a problem, but since neither of our protagonists, Spade or his almost girlfriend O'Shaughnessy, is not set up as morally virtuous either, it's not a problem from my perspective.
Recommendation
It's not worth spending your life fortune and 17 years, as Kasper Gutman did, to track down this Maltese Falcon, but certainly worth seeking out, particularly for those with an interest in the history of queer characters in cinema.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
September 11, 2011
Classic Review: The Book of Eli (2010)
The Book of Eli
Director: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes
Writer: Gary Whitta
Cast: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, Jennifer Beals
Overview
A post-apocalpytic tale about the power of faith and the evil of perverting that which is holy, The Book of Eli delivers an allegorical, yet extremely powerful message. In other words, this Hughes Brothers film is not all that much unlike the book that the lead character is protecting.
Synopsis
Years after the civilization has been destroyed by in a mysterious Armageddon, survivors scratch out a living on a planet where there is little hope in the future. However, Eli (Denzel Washington) has come into possission of The Bible, a book that has provided inspiration and hope to billions of people throughout history. However, Eli must protect the holy book from men such as Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who would use it for nefarious purposes.
The Queering
When I sat down to watch The Book of Eli I was expecting to enjoy a regular popcorn post-apocalyptic action flick, I was not expecting anything with a profound message. However, the parable the Hughes Brothers are telling here, filled as it is with cutting social commentary, happened to resonate deeply with me.
The reason for this is that I happened to have been raised Christian, and while my personal beliefs today are more agnostic, I still get pissed whenever I see people using The Bible for purposes that I will only describe as perverted, such as warmongering, personal profit, political gain, and the promotion of bigotry. In recent years, I have noticed that this sinful practice has reached astronomical levels. Therefore, a story about a man who must protect The Bible from evil doers who would use it for such purposes, would have to Armaggeddon inducing awful not to have been able to move me. As it is, The Book of Eli is an intense, albeit occasionally over-stylized, film. The acting is strong, with stand out performances by Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.
Overall, the cinematography is excellent and the fight sequences are often well choreographed and shot. Of particular note, is an extended fight that is shot in silhouette using only a single take. I want to applaud the Hughes Brothers here for having the brains to realise that rapid editing does not make for a better action sequence. However, there were plenty of times when it felt that The Book of Eli was too highly stylized and there are more than a few shots where it was obvious that a blue screen was used. In the end, I have to argue that a grittier tone would have benefited this story.
I enjoy movies the most when they at least try to include some level of social commentary or provocative thematic material. Fortunately, The Book of Eli has that and also manages to tell a compelling story set in a world that has been washed clean of modern civilization. It is a real shame that the Hughes Brothers do not direct more films.
Recommendation
Strongly Recommended. Since The Book of Eli cannot be read, people are just going to have to enjoy the movie.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes
Writer: Gary Whitta
Cast: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, Jennifer Beals
Overview
A post-apocalpytic tale about the power of faith and the evil of perverting that which is holy, The Book of Eli delivers an allegorical, yet extremely powerful message. In other words, this Hughes Brothers film is not all that much unlike the book that the lead character is protecting.
Synopsis
Years after the civilization has been destroyed by in a mysterious Armageddon, survivors scratch out a living on a planet where there is little hope in the future. However, Eli (Denzel Washington) has come into possission of The Bible, a book that has provided inspiration and hope to billions of people throughout history. However, Eli must protect the holy book from men such as Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who would use it for nefarious purposes.
The Queering
When I sat down to watch The Book of Eli I was expecting to enjoy a regular popcorn post-apocalyptic action flick, I was not expecting anything with a profound message. However, the parable the Hughes Brothers are telling here, filled as it is with cutting social commentary, happened to resonate deeply with me.
The reason for this is that I happened to have been raised Christian, and while my personal beliefs today are more agnostic, I still get pissed whenever I see people using The Bible for purposes that I will only describe as perverted, such as warmongering, personal profit, political gain, and the promotion of bigotry. In recent years, I have noticed that this sinful practice has reached astronomical levels. Therefore, a story about a man who must protect The Bible from evil doers who would use it for such purposes, would have to Armaggeddon inducing awful not to have been able to move me. As it is, The Book of Eli is an intense, albeit occasionally over-stylized, film. The acting is strong, with stand out performances by Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.
Overall, the cinematography is excellent and the fight sequences are often well choreographed and shot. Of particular note, is an extended fight that is shot in silhouette using only a single take. I want to applaud the Hughes Brothers here for having the brains to realise that rapid editing does not make for a better action sequence. However, there were plenty of times when it felt that The Book of Eli was too highly stylized and there are more than a few shots where it was obvious that a blue screen was used. In the end, I have to argue that a grittier tone would have benefited this story.
I enjoy movies the most when they at least try to include some level of social commentary or provocative thematic material. Fortunately, The Book of Eli has that and also manages to tell a compelling story set in a world that has been washed clean of modern civilization. It is a real shame that the Hughes Brothers do not direct more films.
Recommendation
Strongly Recommended. Since The Book of Eli cannot be read, people are just going to have to enjoy the movie.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
August 29, 2011
Classic Review: King Kong (1933)
King Kong
Directors: Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack
Writers: James Ashmore Creelman, Ruth Rose, Merian C. Cooper, Edgar Wallace, Merian C. Cooper, Leon Gordon, Edgar Wallace
Cast: Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, Frank Reicher, Noble Johnson, Sam Hardy
Overview
King Kong towers amongst the greatest movies of all time, a parable of the consequences of hubris run amok. According to my dad, King Kong was also my grandfather's favourite movies. Obviously, grandpa had good taste in film.
Synopsis
Huckster film director, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) has managed to obtain a map which shows the location of the mysterious Skull Island, a land shrouded by myth. When he is unable to find a female lead to star in the movie he wants to make on the islond, he turns in desperation to Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), a poor woman he finds while she's in the process of trying to steal an apple. While Ann is initially reluctant, Denham convinces her to come with him on the voyage to the island. When the Denham and the film crew arrive on the Skull Island, they find the natives preparing a sacrifice for their god, Kong, a giant ape who lives on the island. Later, after the film crew has returned to the boat, the natives kidnap Ann to use her as the sacrifice instead. What follows is a thrilling adventure through Skull Island as the crew try to rescue Ann from the giant ape, while he battles many of the fantastic creatures native to the island. Denham eventually manages to capture Kong and transport him to New York City, where Kong will make cinematic history.
The Queering
King Kong is an obvious allegory about humanity's destruction of the natural world. On Skull Island, Kong is a feared god. Once within the realm of the civilized world, he is reduced to a pathetic curiosity and even when he attempts to ascend the Empire State building, he is still easily put down by man's technological prowess. The Empire State building here serves as a symbol of man's dominance that no beast can challenge.
Surprisingly enough, the special effects work holds up well today, outside of a few close ups of Kong's face, that I found jarringly comical. The effects work in King Kong represent many painstaking hours of stop motion manipulation of miniature figures. From the scenes where Kong first appears to his battles with the mythic beasts on Skull Island and final stand on the tallest building in the world, there is a magic that no CGI can even attempt to replicate.
The acting however, is just bad, which causes the early scenes building up to the arrival on Skull Island to drag a bit. It's also hard not to notice the underlying racism inherent in several scenes, particular concerning the presentation of the human natives of Skull Island. During one scene, a character even refers to the "n***** races". Even Peter Jackson's remake struggled with this aspect of the story and not entirely successfully either I might add.
Criticism aside, once the crew lands on the island, the film gains a momentum as unstoppable as it's rampaging star. The battles Kong engages in with various dinosaurs, while Denham and company attempt capture him are the stuff legends and myths are made of.
Of course, a few words must be spared for the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. It is clear that once Kong meets Ann, he is a changed beast. Or if the opening Arabian Proverb that Merian C. Cooper wrote, is correct, Kong is "as one dead". There are many different ways to interpret the Ann/Kong dynamic. One can see them as a gentle woman and her uncivilized lover. On the other hand, with Kong's massive size, Ann is almost like a pet who he must protect and she must obey, thereby switching around the usual human/animal relationship dynamic.
At the end of the day, King Kong is not just another antiquated monster flick. It is the grandaddy of all monster movies that came after it, it's shadow stretching longer then the Empire State building over all those that followed in it's immense wake.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended. Kong is King for a reason.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Directors: Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack
Writers: James Ashmore Creelman, Ruth Rose, Merian C. Cooper, Edgar Wallace, Merian C. Cooper, Leon Gordon, Edgar Wallace
Cast: Fay Wray, Robert Armstrong, Bruce Cabot, Frank Reicher, Noble Johnson, Sam Hardy
Overview
King Kong towers amongst the greatest movies of all time, a parable of the consequences of hubris run amok. According to my dad, King Kong was also my grandfather's favourite movies. Obviously, grandpa had good taste in film.
Synopsis
Huckster film director, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) has managed to obtain a map which shows the location of the mysterious Skull Island, a land shrouded by myth. When he is unable to find a female lead to star in the movie he wants to make on the islond, he turns in desperation to Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), a poor woman he finds while she's in the process of trying to steal an apple. While Ann is initially reluctant, Denham convinces her to come with him on the voyage to the island. When the Denham and the film crew arrive on the Skull Island, they find the natives preparing a sacrifice for their god, Kong, a giant ape who lives on the island. Later, after the film crew has returned to the boat, the natives kidnap Ann to use her as the sacrifice instead. What follows is a thrilling adventure through Skull Island as the crew try to rescue Ann from the giant ape, while he battles many of the fantastic creatures native to the island. Denham eventually manages to capture Kong and transport him to New York City, where Kong will make cinematic history.
The Queering
King Kong is an obvious allegory about humanity's destruction of the natural world. On Skull Island, Kong is a feared god. Once within the realm of the civilized world, he is reduced to a pathetic curiosity and even when he attempts to ascend the Empire State building, he is still easily put down by man's technological prowess. The Empire State building here serves as a symbol of man's dominance that no beast can challenge.
Surprisingly enough, the special effects work holds up well today, outside of a few close ups of Kong's face, that I found jarringly comical. The effects work in King Kong represent many painstaking hours of stop motion manipulation of miniature figures. From the scenes where Kong first appears to his battles with the mythic beasts on Skull Island and final stand on the tallest building in the world, there is a magic that no CGI can even attempt to replicate.
The acting however, is just bad, which causes the early scenes building up to the arrival on Skull Island to drag a bit. It's also hard not to notice the underlying racism inherent in several scenes, particular concerning the presentation of the human natives of Skull Island. During one scene, a character even refers to the "n***** races". Even Peter Jackson's remake struggled with this aspect of the story and not entirely successfully either I might add.
Criticism aside, once the crew lands on the island, the film gains a momentum as unstoppable as it's rampaging star. The battles Kong engages in with various dinosaurs, while Denham and company attempt capture him are the stuff legends and myths are made of.
Of course, a few words must be spared for the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. It is clear that once Kong meets Ann, he is a changed beast. Or if the opening Arabian Proverb that Merian C. Cooper wrote, is correct, Kong is "as one dead". There are many different ways to interpret the Ann/Kong dynamic. One can see them as a gentle woman and her uncivilized lover. On the other hand, with Kong's massive size, Ann is almost like a pet who he must protect and she must obey, thereby switching around the usual human/animal relationship dynamic.
At the end of the day, King Kong is not just another antiquated monster flick. It is the grandaddy of all monster movies that came after it, it's shadow stretching longer then the Empire State building over all those that followed in it's immense wake.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended. Kong is King for a reason.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
August 7, 2011
Classic Review: A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Steven Spielberg and Ian Watson. Based upon the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.
Cast: Haley Joel Osment, Frances O'Connor, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas, Jude Law, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson
Overview
A collaboration between cinematic masters Stephen Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a sublime story about a robot's journey towards becoming a "real" human. Outside of a problematic ending, this is a near perfect motion picture with powerful acting, writing, and direction.
Synopsis
Following global flooding caused by global warming, humans are forced to rely increasingly more on robots, known as mecha, that are controlled by highly sophisticated artificial intelligence programs. When software expert Prof. Hobby creates David (Haley Joel Osment), he gives him to human parents Henry and Monica Swinton (Sam Robards and Frances O'Connor). Henry and Monica are both wary of their new charge, but Monica soon finds that David can fill an emotional hole caused by the coma her biological son Martin (Jake Thomas) is in. When Martin wakes up though, David is soon ostricacized and then abandoned by his human family. The problem is that David had been programmed to love and he believes the only way to have that love returned is to become a "real" boy. Thus begins David's quest to find the blue fairy, a character from The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi that David believes has the power to make him real.
The Queering
A.I. attempts to tackle a whole host of provocative philosophical questions. At point can it be said that a machine is sentient? Would conscience thought mean that the machine would therefore be capable of human emotion such as love? If we made a machine capable of loving us, would we owe that machine anything in return? And most importantly, what does it mean to be human?
Naturally, this philosophical inquiry means that A.I. is a highly ambitious film. Although I should point out that sometimes the film's reach exceeds it's grasp, as not all the answers provided are necessarily all that substantial. But I would much prefer an ambitious film that fails in all that it attempts over mediocre crap that aspires to little.
One area where A.I. does not disappoint is with the technical elements. There is some truly awesome cinematography and set design here. The glimpses of a flooded New York City - complete with still standing twin towers as A.I. was released only a few months before 9/11 - are hauntingly beautiful and eerie at the same time. In fact, all of the technical components, from the score to the editing to the special effects, are superbly executed.
The acting by Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as synthetic humanoid machines is also superb. Haley Joel Osment is particularly interesting as David, who suggests that there is something different about David through slightly exaggerated mannerisms and by rarely blinking. No one else really is around long enough to leave much of an impression.
Then of course there is the ending, which is the film's weakest element by far. There are several natural endings that occur earlier that the filmmakers could have chosen but for whatever reason, did not. The cathartic nature of the ending led many to speculate that Spielberg, rather then Kubrick was the creative force behind the ending. Spielberg however later refuted that notion, claiming that the ending was in the original treatment by Kubrick. Regardless of who's idea the ending was, it still is extremely creepy and provides an unnecessary closure to the main storyline.
Of course, while the ending does not work as far as the characters or plot are concerned, it does work on a thematic level by providing an interesting Biblical parallel. In Genesis, after God had given life to human clay, he walked amongst Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. As time goes on though, God becomes increasingly more distant from humans and by the time of the New Testament, he has to send a human son in order to deliver a message to the human race. This mimics the role humans play in the development of Artificial Intelligence here. At the beginning we humans are still playing a significant role in our creation, but the ending leaps forward several millennia, to where we have become extinct, leaving our mecha creations to evolve without us.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended. Issues with the ending aside, there is nothing artificial or unintelligent about this movie.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: Steven Spielberg and Ian Watson. Based upon the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss.
Cast: Haley Joel Osment, Frances O'Connor, Sam Robards, Jake Thomas, Jude Law, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson
Overview
A collaboration between cinematic masters Stephen Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a sublime story about a robot's journey towards becoming a "real" human. Outside of a problematic ending, this is a near perfect motion picture with powerful acting, writing, and direction.
Synopsis
Following global flooding caused by global warming, humans are forced to rely increasingly more on robots, known as mecha, that are controlled by highly sophisticated artificial intelligence programs. When software expert Prof. Hobby creates David (Haley Joel Osment), he gives him to human parents Henry and Monica Swinton (Sam Robards and Frances O'Connor). Henry and Monica are both wary of their new charge, but Monica soon finds that David can fill an emotional hole caused by the coma her biological son Martin (Jake Thomas) is in. When Martin wakes up though, David is soon ostricacized and then abandoned by his human family. The problem is that David had been programmed to love and he believes the only way to have that love returned is to become a "real" boy. Thus begins David's quest to find the blue fairy, a character from The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi that David believes has the power to make him real.
The Queering
A.I. attempts to tackle a whole host of provocative philosophical questions. At point can it be said that a machine is sentient? Would conscience thought mean that the machine would therefore be capable of human emotion such as love? If we made a machine capable of loving us, would we owe that machine anything in return? And most importantly, what does it mean to be human?
Naturally, this philosophical inquiry means that A.I. is a highly ambitious film. Although I should point out that sometimes the film's reach exceeds it's grasp, as not all the answers provided are necessarily all that substantial. But I would much prefer an ambitious film that fails in all that it attempts over mediocre crap that aspires to little.
One area where A.I. does not disappoint is with the technical elements. There is some truly awesome cinematography and set design here. The glimpses of a flooded New York City - complete with still standing twin towers as A.I. was released only a few months before 9/11 - are hauntingly beautiful and eerie at the same time. In fact, all of the technical components, from the score to the editing to the special effects, are superbly executed.
The acting by Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law as synthetic humanoid machines is also superb. Haley Joel Osment is particularly interesting as David, who suggests that there is something different about David through slightly exaggerated mannerisms and by rarely blinking. No one else really is around long enough to leave much of an impression.
Then of course there is the ending, which is the film's weakest element by far. There are several natural endings that occur earlier that the filmmakers could have chosen but for whatever reason, did not. The cathartic nature of the ending led many to speculate that Spielberg, rather then Kubrick was the creative force behind the ending. Spielberg however later refuted that notion, claiming that the ending was in the original treatment by Kubrick. Regardless of who's idea the ending was, it still is extremely creepy and provides an unnecessary closure to the main storyline.
Of course, while the ending does not work as far as the characters or plot are concerned, it does work on a thematic level by providing an interesting Biblical parallel. In Genesis, after God had given life to human clay, he walked amongst Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. As time goes on though, God becomes increasingly more distant from humans and by the time of the New Testament, he has to send a human son in order to deliver a message to the human race. This mimics the role humans play in the development of Artificial Intelligence here. At the beginning we humans are still playing a significant role in our creation, but the ending leaps forward several millennia, to where we have become extinct, leaving our mecha creations to evolve without us.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended. Issues with the ending aside, there is nothing artificial or unintelligent about this movie.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
June 19, 2011
Queer Review, Classic Review?: Thelma and Louise (1991)
Thelma and Louise
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Callie Khouri
Cast: Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Christopher McDonald, Brad Pitt
Overview
A story of two woman who go on a crime spree, Thelma and Louise contains one of the most iconic endings in movie history. At it's core, this is the story of a relationship between two repressed woman who find out what they are capable of while fleeing from their old lives.
Synopsis
Thelma (Geena Davis) and Louise (Susan Sarandon) are two woman whose vacation plans go horribly awry . While stopping at a bar on their way out of town, they meet a handsome stranger, who Thelma spends most of the evening flirting and dancing with. When the two go outside however, he attempts to rape her, and she ends up being rescued by Louise, who ends up shooting and killing the attempted rapist. This results in Thelma and Louise running from the law, as they try to figure out how to survive in a world that is not friendly towards woman.
The Queering
I am of two minds about this movie in regards to there being a queer subtext, which I had heard about before viewing. On one hand there is clearly a strong bond between Louise and Thelma that transcends mere friendship and they even share a kiss in the closing moments of the movie. On the other hand, there is little evidence that this bond goes beyond the platonic. In other words, this is going to get both a classic review tag and queer review tag.
Thelma and Louise probably appeals most strongly to women, than it does for anyone else. That is not to say that other people could not enjoy this female empowrment romp, but that woman are more likely to appreciate what it offers. Most of the male characters are presented as jerks. Thelma's husband is a control freak who appears at any moment ready to lash out in an uncontrolled rage. In addition to the attempted rapist, there is also a truck driver who makes lewd offers to the two and a handsome young man, who seduces Thelma, only to steal all of the pair's money. In contrast, there are only two men with any decency. The Detective Hal (Harvey Keitel) who is investigating the murder and Jimmy (Michael Madsen) who is in love with Louise.
Overall, this is a well made movie and as I watch more and more of movies made more than two decades ago, I more and more find myself lamenting for a time when movies like this were able to get made. For example, it is difficult imagining the ending being used in today's filmmaking environment. The acting by Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis is superb and Ridley Scott, not known for directing character driven pieces, somehow succeeds exceptionally well here.
Granted, there are plenty of formulas at work in Thelma and Louise, but they are well enough executed and with enough interesting variations, to keep it from feeling formulaic. The writing is both a curse and a weakness. While Callie Khouri successfully manages to develop two interesting and complex female leads, there are numerous small, yet noticeable, plot holes throughout. For example, how did Hal get the licence plate number for the car? And was I the only one who thought that the small army chasing down Louise and Thelma at the end was a tad over the top?
In any event, the strengths cancel out any weaknesses and I can only say that this is one damn fine motion picture.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Callie Khouri
Cast: Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Christopher McDonald, Brad Pitt
Overview
A story of two woman who go on a crime spree, Thelma and Louise contains one of the most iconic endings in movie history. At it's core, this is the story of a relationship between two repressed woman who find out what they are capable of while fleeing from their old lives.
Synopsis
Thelma (Geena Davis) and Louise (Susan Sarandon) are two woman whose vacation plans go horribly awry . While stopping at a bar on their way out of town, they meet a handsome stranger, who Thelma spends most of the evening flirting and dancing with. When the two go outside however, he attempts to rape her, and she ends up being rescued by Louise, who ends up shooting and killing the attempted rapist. This results in Thelma and Louise running from the law, as they try to figure out how to survive in a world that is not friendly towards woman.
The Queering
I am of two minds about this movie in regards to there being a queer subtext, which I had heard about before viewing. On one hand there is clearly a strong bond between Louise and Thelma that transcends mere friendship and they even share a kiss in the closing moments of the movie. On the other hand, there is little evidence that this bond goes beyond the platonic. In other words, this is going to get both a classic review tag and queer review tag.
Thelma and Louise probably appeals most strongly to women, than it does for anyone else. That is not to say that other people could not enjoy this female empowrment romp, but that woman are more likely to appreciate what it offers. Most of the male characters are presented as jerks. Thelma's husband is a control freak who appears at any moment ready to lash out in an uncontrolled rage. In addition to the attempted rapist, there is also a truck driver who makes lewd offers to the two and a handsome young man, who seduces Thelma, only to steal all of the pair's money. In contrast, there are only two men with any decency. The Detective Hal (Harvey Keitel) who is investigating the murder and Jimmy (Michael Madsen) who is in love with Louise.
Overall, this is a well made movie and as I watch more and more of movies made more than two decades ago, I more and more find myself lamenting for a time when movies like this were able to get made. For example, it is difficult imagining the ending being used in today's filmmaking environment. The acting by Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis is superb and Ridley Scott, not known for directing character driven pieces, somehow succeeds exceptionally well here.
Granted, there are plenty of formulas at work in Thelma and Louise, but they are well enough executed and with enough interesting variations, to keep it from feeling formulaic. The writing is both a curse and a weakness. While Callie Khouri successfully manages to develop two interesting and complex female leads, there are numerous small, yet noticeable, plot holes throughout. For example, how did Hal get the licence plate number for the car? And was I the only one who thought that the small army chasing down Louise and Thelma at the end was a tad over the top?
In any event, the strengths cancel out any weaknesses and I can only say that this is one damn fine motion picture.
Recommendation
Strongly recommended.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
February 17, 2011
Classic Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Note, before anyone else points it out, I do realize that 2001: A Space Odyssey is not a queer film per se. Although admittedly it is also possible to discern some themes of interest to feminists and academics studying gender theory, there is not really enought to classify the movie as a queer movie. Irregardless, I felt that it wouldn't hurt if I were to stretch my wings a little and write the occasional formal review of a few classic movies.
Also, I am planning on talking about the ending a bit, so those who have not seen the film and wish to have an unspoiled experience should not read this review.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. Based upon the book by Arthur C. Clark.
Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain
2001: A Space Odyssey is the first film I was able to see in glorious HD blue ray. This of course means that I must make the almost obligatory comment that pretty much every previous critic has made before and say that those were some pretty amazing visuals that Kubrick cooked up for the screen. While not so well received when it was first released, 2001 has since grown in stature to the point where it has the reputation as being one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.
The plot of 2001 starts with the dawn of man when a group of apes recently evicted from their water hole by a rival group, discover a strange, black monolith. Like Adam and Eve cast from the garden of Eden, these apes are forced to develop technology to survive and as in the Genesis story where Cain kills Abel, this development soon leads to the first act of aggression and murder.
The plot then leaps forward and now mankind's rapidly advancing technology has given us to the ability to explore space with increased ease. When another monolith is found by colonists on the moon, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) is sent to investigate. The moon monolith, which was buried for 4 million years, is clearly not of natural design. When Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, a shriek is emitted, stunning his crew as the monolith beams a message in the direction of Jupiter.
Later, an astronaut team lead by Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) is sent to Jupiter to investigate what could be there to have received the signal. Along the way most of the crew is killed by the amoral computer Hal 9000 (Douglas Rain), forcing Dr. Bowman to deactivate it. When Dr. Bowman finally reaches Jupiter, he discovers a third monolith that when as he's approaching, launches him on a final odyssey. At the end of this journey Bowman finds himself rapidly aging before being reborn as the star child, the next stage in human evolution.
Now, while that description makes that movie sound completely chaste, I have to point out that I left out any mention at all of the rather overt sexual imagery Kubrick included. Seriously, 2001: A Space Orgy would work just as well for a title.
To start out, the stewardess that Dr. Floyd interacts with at the beginning of the film are all wearing headgear that makes them look like walking dildos. One shot features a stewardess maneuvering in such a way so that she can enter a doorway headfirst. Another shot is of Dr. Floyd's ship on a tall platform being lowered into the moon, which appears to have been framed to better resemble a giant phallus penetrating the lunar surface.
In this analogy, when Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, he's not just making contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence, he's hitting it's g-spot. The resulting screech is just the sort of orgasmic scream I would expect from a woman who has gone unstimulated for a few million years. The intermission is even conveniently placed at such a point so people can go outside to have a post-coital smoke.
Then the Jupiter mission's spaceship is shaped almost precisely like a giant sperm cell. By this analogy, when Dr. Bowman makes contact with the Jupiter monolith, he's also metaphorically impregnating it. Fortunately for the monolith, pregnancy does not include morning sickness, hungering for strange food, or painful swelling. Instead, it resembles an acid trip, with the bright color patterns and surreal imagery all leading up to Dr. Bowman achieving a higher state of being.
Also, the early sequence where the apes discover the monolith can be seen in the context of a first date. That is, the apes must kill or run off the other apes, not just to get the water hole back, but to eliminate potential rivals for the monoliths affection. Apparently, the monolith is also the completely monogamous type.
To sum up for those who might be confused:
This 2001 plot point resembles ->
The Dawn of Man -> First Date
Dr. Floyd's moon trip -> The penetrating, humping, and grinding part
Touching the monolith -> The G-spot Baby!
Monolith Screech -> Orgasm!
Intermission -> The Post-Coital Smoke
Jupiter Mission -> Sperm traveling towards the egg
Dr. Bowman entering the Jupiter Monolith -> Impregnation
Dr. Bowman's acid trip -> Pregnancy
Dr. Bowman reborn -> (re)Birth
In this analysis, space and the dark, mysterious monoliths are metaphors for the feminine mystique. For the most part, female characters themselves are almost entirely absent. The few that do show up early in the movie are either presented as giant penises or are otherwise irrelevant to the plot. The feminine elements in the movie are outer space and the monoliths, both of which are presented as these great mysteries that men must solve in order to achieve enlightenment. Or great sex, I will admit to now being a bit confused on that bit myself.
Easy Rider (1969) is often credited by film historians as being the first movie about the counter-culture movement that was popular in the 1960's. I am no expert, but I have to point out how much A Space Odyssey (which was released the year before Easy Rider) is not only mired in, but also a direct result of the 1960's counter-culture ideology. All the aforementioned sexual imagery can be seen as a homage to the rallying cry of "free love" and the final climactic journey appears designed by and for LSD users. A tag-line for one poster even describes the movie as "The Ultimate Trip".
If reviewers at the time 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 were harsh on the film, they can be forgiven. After all many of them were probably expecting a more conventional space opera. What they got instead was an avant garde porno set in outer space. I don't think any one of them can be blamed for ending up a bit confused.
So to wrap this up, considering the philosophical elements and themes that form the foundation of 2001: A Space Odyssey I would argue that it is unquestionably one of the greatest movies of all time. For those who still complain that 2001 is a complete bore, just remember that that this is a movie about sex, drugs, and men doing kinky things in space with tall, dark monoliths. Not so boring now is it?
Also, I am planning on talking about the ending a bit, so those who have not seen the film and wish to have an unspoiled experience should not read this review.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writers: Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark. Based upon the book by Arthur C. Clark.
Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain
2001: A Space Odyssey is the first film I was able to see in glorious HD blue ray. This of course means that I must make the almost obligatory comment that pretty much every previous critic has made before and say that those were some pretty amazing visuals that Kubrick cooked up for the screen. While not so well received when it was first released, 2001 has since grown in stature to the point where it has the reputation as being one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.
The plot of 2001 starts with the dawn of man when a group of apes recently evicted from their water hole by a rival group, discover a strange, black monolith. Like Adam and Eve cast from the garden of Eden, these apes are forced to develop technology to survive and as in the Genesis story where Cain kills Abel, this development soon leads to the first act of aggression and murder.
The plot then leaps forward and now mankind's rapidly advancing technology has given us to the ability to explore space with increased ease. When another monolith is found by colonists on the moon, Dr. Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) is sent to investigate. The moon monolith, which was buried for 4 million years, is clearly not of natural design. When Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, a shriek is emitted, stunning his crew as the monolith beams a message in the direction of Jupiter.
Later, an astronaut team lead by Dr. Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Dr. Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) is sent to Jupiter to investigate what could be there to have received the signal. Along the way most of the crew is killed by the amoral computer Hal 9000 (Douglas Rain), forcing Dr. Bowman to deactivate it. When Dr. Bowman finally reaches Jupiter, he discovers a third monolith that when as he's approaching, launches him on a final odyssey. At the end of this journey Bowman finds himself rapidly aging before being reborn as the star child, the next stage in human evolution.
Now, while that description makes that movie sound completely chaste, I have to point out that I left out any mention at all of the rather overt sexual imagery Kubrick included. Seriously, 2001: A Space Orgy would work just as well for a title.
To start out, the stewardess that Dr. Floyd interacts with at the beginning of the film are all wearing headgear that makes them look like walking dildos. One shot features a stewardess maneuvering in such a way so that she can enter a doorway headfirst. Another shot is of Dr. Floyd's ship on a tall platform being lowered into the moon, which appears to have been framed to better resemble a giant phallus penetrating the lunar surface.
In this analogy, when Dr. Floyd touches the monolith, he's not just making contact with an extra-terrestrial intelligence, he's hitting it's g-spot. The resulting screech is just the sort of orgasmic scream I would expect from a woman who has gone unstimulated for a few million years. The intermission is even conveniently placed at such a point so people can go outside to have a post-coital smoke.
Then the Jupiter mission's spaceship is shaped almost precisely like a giant sperm cell. By this analogy, when Dr. Bowman makes contact with the Jupiter monolith, he's also metaphorically impregnating it. Fortunately for the monolith, pregnancy does not include morning sickness, hungering for strange food, or painful swelling. Instead, it resembles an acid trip, with the bright color patterns and surreal imagery all leading up to Dr. Bowman achieving a higher state of being.
Also, the early sequence where the apes discover the monolith can be seen in the context of a first date. That is, the apes must kill or run off the other apes, not just to get the water hole back, but to eliminate potential rivals for the monoliths affection. Apparently, the monolith is also the completely monogamous type.
To sum up for those who might be confused:
This 2001 plot point resembles ->
The Dawn of Man -> First Date
Dr. Floyd's moon trip -> The penetrating, humping, and grinding part
Touching the monolith -> The G-spot Baby!
Monolith Screech -> Orgasm!
Intermission -> The Post-Coital Smoke
Jupiter Mission -> Sperm traveling towards the egg
Dr. Bowman entering the Jupiter Monolith -> Impregnation
Dr. Bowman's acid trip -> Pregnancy
Dr. Bowman reborn -> (re)Birth
In this analysis, space and the dark, mysterious monoliths are metaphors for the feminine mystique. For the most part, female characters themselves are almost entirely absent. The few that do show up early in the movie are either presented as giant penises or are otherwise irrelevant to the plot. The feminine elements in the movie are outer space and the monoliths, both of which are presented as these great mysteries that men must solve in order to achieve enlightenment. Or great sex, I will admit to now being a bit confused on that bit myself.
Easy Rider (1969) is often credited by film historians as being the first movie about the counter-culture movement that was popular in the 1960's. I am no expert, but I have to point out how much A Space Odyssey (which was released the year before Easy Rider) is not only mired in, but also a direct result of the 1960's counter-culture ideology. All the aforementioned sexual imagery can be seen as a homage to the rallying cry of "free love" and the final climactic journey appears designed by and for LSD users. A tag-line for one poster even describes the movie as "The Ultimate Trip".
If reviewers at the time 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968 were harsh on the film, they can be forgiven. After all many of them were probably expecting a more conventional space opera. What they got instead was an avant garde porno set in outer space. I don't think any one of them can be blamed for ending up a bit confused.
So to wrap this up, considering the philosophical elements and themes that form the foundation of 2001: A Space Odyssey I would argue that it is unquestionably one of the greatest movies of all time. For those who still complain that 2001 is a complete bore, just remember that that this is a movie about sex, drugs, and men doing kinky things in space with tall, dark monoliths. Not so boring now is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)