tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24504071482924878332023-11-15T19:01:56.565+02:00Film as my ReligionWelcome to my blog! This is where I review and analyze various films. I am interested in how films affect us, as individuals and as a society, and what we can learn, or are expected to learn, from various films.
Comments and requests for reviews are always appreciated.
I promise to work on the layout.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-90932575981675956992017-06-30T13:46:00.002+03:002017-06-30T13:46:34.963+03:00Bodom (2016) and the evolution of the Slasher genre<b>DISCLAIMER: This review contains spoilers for the film and relies on the reader being somewhat familiar with the horror genre.</b><i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Bodom</i> (Taneli Mustonen, 2016) is a Finnish horror film inspired by the 1960 murders at the Bodom lake in southern Finland. The first thing to note is that the film is not a fictionalized account of the murders, but instead a story that takes place 50 years later with connections to the murders. Today, I would like to review the film and discuss how the plot mirrors the evolution of the slasher sub-genre.<br />
<br />
For those unfamiliar with the murders, here's a quick recap. On June 4 1960, four teenagers, two boys and two girls, went camping at Lake Bodom. In the early hours of June 5, three of them were brutally murdered and the survivor, Nils Willhelm Gustavsson, injured.While there were several suspects, including Gustavsson who was charged with and aquitted of the murders in 2004 and 2005, the case remains unsolved.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI2ODU2NzMxMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTEzNzY0NzE@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,714,1000_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="571" height="320" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI2ODU2NzMxMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTEzNzY0NzE@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,714,1000_AL_.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The film is about four teenagers: the nerdy Atte (Santeri Helinheimo Mäntylä), the jocky Elias (Mikael Gabriel), the tomboyish Nora (Mimosa Willamo), and the timid Ida-Maria (Nelly Hirst-Gee). Atte has a theory about the 1960 murders, that they were committed by a murderous stranger, and has convinced Elias to help him test it. Under the guise of going to a party at a summer cottage, they trick the girls into joining them. Atte believes that if they recreate the scenario in which the murders happened, they may be able to get the killer to show himself. And, predictably, people start disappearing and dying.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZKBKYe_Yka4/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZKBKYe_Yka4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
Since my analysis requires discussion of the entire plot, from now on, there will be spoilers. It turns out that Nora and Ida-Maria were well aware that Atte and Elias weren't taking them to a party. They decided to take the opportunity to kill them as revenge for Atte and Elias allegedly taking and spreading nude pictures of Ida-Maria at a party. Before he dies, Atte reveals to Ida-Maria that it was actually Nora who took and spread the pictures. On their drive back, after disposing of the bodies, Ida-Maria confronts Nora who confesses that she is in love with Ida-Maria and did it to bring them closer together. As they argue, they crash their car and are towed by a mysterious man, the supposed original killer. In the end, Nora is killed and Ida-Maria survives, traumatized and catatonic.<br />
<br />
As the original murders were already a typical slasher story, it is no surprise that the filmmakers decided to go that route with the film. However, in my opinion, the film is not simply a slasher film; it represents thirty years of genre evolution. Let me break this down:<br />
<br />
The film starts out as a typical 1980s slasher film. A group of teenagers goes to a secluded location to party. There is drinking, weed-smoking, skinny-dipping, and, of course, sex. There is also a legend about a killer. Suddenly, people start disappearing and the unseen killer gets to work. Together with the lakeside location and the past murders, it is hard not to draw paralells to <i>Friday the 13th</i> (Sean Cunningham, 1980), one of the most influential slasher films ever made.<br />
<br />
With the first twist, that Nora and Ida-Maria are the murderers, the genre moves towards the post-<i>Scream</i> (Wes Craven, 1996) slasher genre - where meta is the law, tropes are analysed, and the emphasis is on black comedy rather than horror. While Bodom is dark throughout, we get some temporary refuge as Nora and Ida-Maria bicker and experience difficulties trying to dispose of the bodies.<br />
<br />
After the car crash, the film turns to the 21st century equivalent of the slasher genre: torture porn. While there are contemporary slasher films, I think the torture porn genre, where the horror comes from the suffering of the victims, has taken the place of the slasher genre in contemporary horror cinema. Let me explain. There are plenty of similarities between the two genres. Firstly, like slashers, torture porn films often feature attractive young people without much character development, except for the protagonist, whose development tends to follow the path of the "final girl" character, who is strongly associated with the slasher genre. The largely disposable characters are also killed off one by one, often without anyone discovering the bodies until just before they are killed themselves. Secondly, the main appeal of torture porn films to genre fans is the graphic and elaborate ways the filmmakers kill their characters. Thirdly, torture porn films are often set in secluded locations, where the characters have nowhere to run. Fourthly, like in the '80s, when slaher films were the horror standard, torture porn was the standard for most of the 21st century. Finally, torture porn films often get an unnecessary number of sequels, for example: seven <i>Saw</i> films (2004-2010), with a new film to be released later this year; three <i>Hostel</i> films (2005-2011); and six <i>Wrong Turn</i> films (2003-2014), with a new film scheduled for next year.<br />
<br />
At the end of Bodom, the killer is revealed to be a dark, hillbilly-looking figure who kills the injured Nora slowly, making Ida-Maria watch. While this torturous murder happens off-screen, everything else about the ending is filmed like a torture porn film. The angles, the colors, the close-ups, all more reminiscent of torture porn films than slasher films.<br />
<br />
I don't know whether this progression through the history of the slasher genre was intentional, but the film definitely feels quite derivative (like most slasher films). Any horror fan will recognize how Mustonen attempts to recreate the iconic camera movement from Sam Raimi's classic horror film <i>The Evil Dead</i> (1981).<br />
<br />
Overall, I feel a bit torn regarding the film. The soundtrack is good and the forest looks dark and threatening most of the time. There are, however, some scenes where the artificial lighting is really obvious, for example, when the "moonlight" is too bright and focused. The film is set in 2010, but it doesn't look like it. An early dinner scene with Ida-Maria's upper-class family looks like it could take place in the '60s, while most other non-forest sets, props, and locations give off a certain '90s vibe. I'm not sure whether this is an intentional choice by the filmmakers, to give the film a weird anachronistic feel, or if they simply didn't care enough to keep the film consistent. The first plot twist is unexpected, but does not make too much sense, and the second one is obvious. The acting is decent on average, ranging from terrible to almost great. It is not a great film by any standard, but it is possible to enjoy it if you are a slasher fan.<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-46235244598098291732016-02-17T00:45:00.000+02:002016-02-17T00:45:12.966+02:00TV-Month: The Sitcom<div style="text-align: justify;">
What kind of TV-shows did you watch growing up? Apart from children's programming, I, and many others, would have to answer that question with "sitcoms". Most commercial TV channels I had access to filled their afternoon schedule with reruns of American sitcoms and it became something of a weekday ritual to sit down and watch <i>That '70s Show</i> (1998-2006) and the like before dinner. I still enjoy the genre, even though I haven't added any new ones to my watch list in quite a while, and I today would like to discuss specific traits and tropes related to the sitcom format.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What is a sitcom?</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Generally speaking, what distinguishes the sitcom, or "situation comedy", genre from other types of comedy is that the comedy is derived from character interactions in a specific setting, be it a home, a school or a workplace. However, for the purposes of this discussion I will use the term in a more narrow, television-specific sense, which I will call the<i> theatre sitcom</i>. I use this term because I think the typical sitcom format is very similar to theatre: few sets, limited camera movement (similar to how a stage play is viewed) and a studio audience. Don't misunderstand me. I actually prefer comedy shows that deviate from this format, such as the one-camera medical comedy<i> Scrubs</i> (2001-2010) or the mockumentary-style political comedy <i>Parks and Recreation</i> (2009-2015). I chose to narrow my focus to the theatre sitcom for a number of reasons: I couldn't possibly discuss all of television comedy in one post, this format has the most nostalgic value for me and, most importantly, this is what most people associate with the term "sitcom".</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is a good reason why this format has been and remains popular. It is perfect for television, as per the budgetary restrictions discussed in <a href="http://filmasmyreligion.blogspot.fi/2016/02/tv-month-television-vs-film-production.html" target="_blank">last week's post</a>. Most or all scenes are shot in a studio, using a small number of sets. It uses a small ensemble cast and rarely introduces new characters for more than a few episodes. The episodes are short and scenes can be shot rapidly because of the small number of sets and locations.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sitcoms are commonly thought of as family entertainment. This is partly because content restrictions favour family-friendly content, but also because of availability. The best way to ensure a steady viewership, which is what all TV-shows aim for, is to make the show appeal to as many demographics as possible. Many sitcoms feature a family, providing characters that both parents and children can identify with and allowing plots that all family members can relate to. Watching the latest episode of a particular sitcom can even be a family event!</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Tropes</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As with any genre, there are particular tropes associated with sitcoms. Below, I will focus on a few that I think are interesting from an analytical point-of-view.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Firstly, sitcoms, like most forms of comedy, uses plenty of stock characters. Stock characters are character stereotypes, e.g. the strict father, the clueless mother, the weird neighbour or the nerdy friend. Stock characters are used for a number of reasons. The audience can immediately recognise the stereotype and therefore already knows a lot about the character, without the need to spend precious airtime on character development. It is also possible to surprise the audience, who expects a certain character to act a certain way, by having a character occasionally act contrary to their stereotype. Finally, stock characters interact with each other in specific comedic ways, making the writing process easier and faster, which might be necessary to accommodate the production schedule. So, yes, you could call it lazy writing.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To exemplify the use of stock characters in sitcoms, I will refer you to <i>That '70s Show</i>. The show uses plenty of stereotypical characters, some related to the era in which it is set. Eric Forman (Topher Grace), arguably the main protagonist, is a nerdy Star Wars fan, his best friend Steven Hyde (Danny Masterson) is a counter-culture conspiracy criminal, and his love interest Donna Pinciotti (Laura Prepon) is a tomboy and, more prominently later in the series, second-wave feminist. Other teenaged main characters include the handsome but stupid Michael Kelso (Ashton Kutcher), the mean, shallow, upper-class brat Jackie Burkheart (Mila Kunis), and the foreign pervert Fez (Wilmer Valderama). Eric's parents, Red (Kurtwood Smith) and Kitty (Debra Jo Rupp), exemplify the strict father and the cheerful housewife mother respectively. In discussing stock characters, one must remember that the actual characters are show-specific variants of stereotypes and, as a show progresses, characters usually become more three-dimensional. However, stock characters are still useful as analytical tools, as they allow us to compare characters from different shows or films.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly, as sitcoms are made to be accessible to anyone familiar with the premise of the particular show, they are often characterised by the <i>status quo</i>. While sitcoms may have season-long story arcs, they are often downplayed throughout most of the season and most episodes are quite formulaic and self-contained. A conflict is established, unfolds and is resolved by the end of the episode. Individual episodes rarely have a lasting effect on a show or its characters. Change, in the form of new characters and locations or changes in relationships between characters, is slow and carefully done to avoid upsetting the audience. If a change is perceived negatively, it can be undone using retroactive continuity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In some sitcoms, however, change is inevitable. Child actors grow up and this can be used to explore other possibilities for the characters. Time is also a factor. In order for a show to be set in the current year, and deal with contemporary topics, some character evolution and aging is often necessary, unless the show employs a floating timeline - when the characters don't age and the show is always assumed to be set in the current year. This is more common in animated sitcoms, a distinct genre, such as <i>The Simpsons</i> (1989-) and <i>Family Guy</i> (1999-). <i>That '70s Show</i> uses a variation on this, as the eight seasons of the show takes place between 1976 and New Year's Eve 1979, with every season, for example, having its own Christmas episode.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The Big Bang Theory</i> (2007-) is a good example of how change often works in sitcoms. The show is about Caltech scientists Leonard (Johnny Galecki), Sheldon (Jim Parsons), Howard (Simon Hellberg) and Raj (Kunal Nayyar) and how their lives change when they meet Leonard and Sheldon's new neighbour Penny (Kaley Cuoco). The early seasons deal mostly with Leonard's crush on Penny and their subsequent attempts at a relationship, before they finally get together and eventually marry. Along the way, new female main characters are introduced in Howard's girlfriend and later wife Bernadette (Melissa Rauch) and Sheldon's girlfriend Amy (Mayim Bialik). Over the course of the series, the five original main characters each change noticeably: the shy Leonard becomes more confident; the irresponsible Penny becomes more responsible and abandons her struggling acting career for a more secure profession; the social oblivious and anal retentive Sheldon grows up and becomes more considerate and socially open; the childish and perverted Howard matures; and Raj, who in the early seasons was unable to speak to women when sober, gets over most of his insecurities. However, the characters are still recognisable as their counterparts from the first few seasons.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, another common trope in sitcoms, as well as television in general, is the "will-they-won't-they" couple. There are usually two main characters who throughout the series pursue each other romantically without ever establishing a stable relationship for more than a season at a time. They do however often end up together at the end of the series. One reason this trope has become so conventional is because it allows for a number of plots and conflicts: pursuing one another, getting together, breaking up and dealing with the consequences.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>How I Met Your Mother</i> (2005-2014) is a sitcom that, in a way, attempts to subvert the trope. The show is framed as "Future Ted" (Bob Saget) telling his children in 2030 how he met their mother. In the first episode, we are told that main character Ted's (Josh Radnor) new love interest Robin (Cobie Smulders) is not the titular mother. Over the course of the show, we see Ted pursuing Robin, the two of them dating and breaking up, and both characters meeting other people - in Robin's case, other main character Barney (Neil Patrick Harris). In a controversial twist ending, Ted and Robin get together at the end of the series finale, set in 2030. Even if we ignore the ending, the show still fails to subvert the trope. Ted and Robin's relationship is the focus of the series and a problem in many of their romantic relationships with other people.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Values and ideology</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I would like to finish this discussion with a reflection on what sitcoms, consciously or not, teach us about life. There are values and ideologies to be uncovered in any genre or work of fiction and I will now attempt an ideological analysis on the sitcom as a genre.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most sitcoms emphasize what I like to call "extended family values". Sitcoms deal with conflict between family and friends and these conflicts are often resolved by the characters realising that family/friendship is more important than whatever the conflict may be about. The main characters learn to see beyond each other's differences and bad sides and focus on what really matters. They have to put up with each other, because defection is never ethically acceptable.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another common theme is "true love and destiny". Related to the "will-they-won't-they" trope, love usually conquers all. The unstable couple cannot give up on each other because they are soul mates. They are expected to keep trying until it works, regardless of how hopeless it seems. Because all's fair in love and war, attempts to hinder the other person from pursuing other romantic relationships are not only morally defensible, but also imperative. When s/he finally realises that the two of you are meant to be, all will be forgiven. In the real world, this kind of romantic behaviour is usually referred to as harassment or stalking. Another important aspect of sitcom love is that it is almost always heterosexual. Homosexual characters may occasionally be featured, but are rarely written as main characters. They may be used as comic relief (e.g. as silly, sassy or for the purpose of a "gay panic" joke), as a way for the show to comment on LGBT issues or for the sake of diversity. Nowadays, gay characters are more common than before, but I cannot recall a single gay character ever being featured on <i>The Big Bang Theory</i>, arguably the most popular sitcom right now.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many sitcoms try to be socially progressive, but often find it to difficult because of the status quo. Let me explain what I mean. <i>All In The Family</i> (1971-1979) is famous for its dealing with social and political issues, through the conservative main character Archie (Carroll O'Connor) and his liberal daughter Gloria (Sally Struthers) and son-in-law Michael (Rob Reiner). The show dealt with controversial issues like racism, feminism, homophobia and the Vietnam War, and episodes usually ended with Archie being proven wrong. While the show was progressive in that it did not shy away from taking a stand on social issues, the problem is that Archie never learns or changes and most issues are only episode-specific. Because of the sitcom format, it is not even possible. If episodes dealing with important issues can't have any impact on the show as a whole, how much can the show be said to care about those issues? In the defense of the show, it was actually quite ground-breaking for a sitcom in the 1970s to actually adress controversial topics.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For some reason, I, and many others, are still drawn to the sitcom genre, even though it is predictable, formulaic and ideologically suspect. The process of writing this analysis has been strange - why would you overthink something so thoughtless? Well, to be honest, because critical thinking is important and, often, self-reflecting. I realise now why I, and so many others, love sitcoms. They are unchallenging. They are safe. And that is why it is important to analyse them. What makes us feel safe says just as much about us as what feels threatening, maybe even more.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And some of them are quite entertaining.</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-8256461097017441502016-02-13T00:35:00.001+02:002016-02-13T00:35:41.776+02:00Hot Off The Presses: Deadpool (2016) ReviewSo, I just got back from the theatre. While I prefer to do more in-depth reviews and reflect on a film for some time before reviewing it, I thought it would be fun to share my initial thoughts on this particular film. Why? Well, this is a film that demands to be talked about. Not because it's ground-breaking, which it isn't, but because it is, in my opinion, extremely well-made. And fun. It's really fun. Because I sincerely think you should see it, this review will be spoiler-free.<br />
<br />
<i>Deadpool</i> (Tim Miller, 2016) is a black comedy-superhero-action film about Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), a former special ops operative, now a thug for hire, who is subjected to horrible experiments, giving him superpowers but deforming him in the process. He becomes the masked vigilante Deadpool and embarks on a quest for revenge and to get his girl back.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/oCvLUxICxEI/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oCvLUxICxEI?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As you can see from the trailer, there is more to this film than the basic story. The film is based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name and is set in the same universe as the <i>X-Men</i> film series. While I haven't read any <i>Deadpool</i> comics myself, I do have an idea of who the character is. Known as the "Merc with a mouth", he is an insane, witty antihero mercenary with a tendency to break the fourth wall. In other words, he is aware that he is a comic book character.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
How does this character then translate into film? I'm going to break this review down into three parts, each focusing on how the film works as comedy, superhero and action film separately, before finishing with some concluding thoughts.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Comedy</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You will laugh. The film is constantly throwing jokes, of varying quality, at you and you will laugh throughout most of it. Some jokes are vulgar, some are childish, some will be completely lost on you if you aren't up to date on pop culture trivia. Some are clever and set up and executed extremely well. These, along with how much fun Ryan Reynolds seems to have portraying the character, will help you cope with jokes of lesser quality. If you see the film with subtitles, you'll also laugh at the feeble attempts of the translators to interpret Deadpool's inventive insults to a non-english speaking audience. However, one thing that bothered me a bit is that the film is riddled with pop culture references. Some, especially those related to other superhero films, are brilliant, but a lot of them just makes you think of <i>Family Guy</i> (1999-).</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Anyone familiar with Ryan Reynolds body of work knows that he is a great comedic actor, which is incredibly important in this film. Deadpool is not only the film's protagonist and narrator, he is the focus of nearly every scene. And Reynolds definitely does a good job. He is, however, not the only funny actor in the film. Morena Baccarin, of <i>Firefly</i> (2002) fame, who plays the love interest Vanessa and T. J. Miller, who plays Deadpool's best friend Weasel, both get funny lines and scenes. However, they do come up short compared to Reynolds.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Superhero film</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Is <i>Deadpool</i> even a superhero film? Deadpool is an antihero, who in the film explicitly rejects the superhero label. He also doesn't save the world, as is typically the case in superhero films. He does however have a villain to defeat and an underdeveloped love interest to save. He also seems to be aware that he is in a superhero film. This type of fourth wall-breaking self-awareness is, as far as I understand, very typical of his comic book counterpart and, as mentioned above, it does open up a lot of comedic possibilities. In one scene, he visits Charles Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters and comments on that it is almost empty because the producers couldn't afford to have more than two X-Men in the film. He also makes fun of other superhero films, particularly <i>X-Men Origins: Wolverine</i> (Gavin Hood, 2009), where Reynolds portrayed a much-hated version of Deadpool.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Is <i>Deadpool</i> then a subversion or a parody of the superhero film genre? I wouldn't go that far. To call it a subversion would be to ignore how much it borrows from other superhero films in terms of plot structure and scenes. There is, for example, a scene where a deformed pre-Deadpool Wade Wilson walks down the street with a hoodie, trying to hide his deformed face, reminiscent of a scene with Ben Grimm/The Thing (Michael Chiklis) from <i>Fantastic Four</i> (Tim Story, 2005). To call it a parody would be insulting. The best comparison I can make is to Edgar Wright's "Cornetto trilogy" - <i>Shaun of the Dead</i> (2004), <i>Hot Fuzz</i> (2007) and <i>The World's End</i> (2013) - which are not really parodies of zombie, action and science fiction films, but are comedies set in those kinds of genre film universes. This is probably the best way to view <i>Deadpool</i>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Action</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Why do we watch action films? To get excited, get our blood pumping and just say "whoa" at how magnificent fights, car chases, and destruction of property can be. And <i>Deadpool</i> delivers. Its action scenes are well-made, albeit not particularly innovative, and the fight choreography is brilliant. Deadpool fight with guns, swords and martial arts and does some very impressive jumps and flips.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There is, however, another important part of any action film that is arguably missing in <i>Deadpool</i>: the sense of danger. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, Deadpool's skills and superpowers make him almost indestructible and we never really fear for his life. Contrary to this, one could argue that the film still has high stakes. Deadpool has to save his love interest and defeat the villain, who is a very threatening character. Ed Skrein gives a quite scary performance when his character is the one in control of the situation.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Secondly, the film is sometimes a bit too self-aware and breaks the cinematic illusion, which reminds us that we are indeed watching a film. Some action scenes even stop for a second for Deadpool to deliver a one-liner. This was something that I was worried about early in the film - how can we empathise with a character that doesn't appear to take anything seriously? While this was a bit of problem throughout the film, there are scenes that show us that there is a real person behind the red mask and the jokes.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>Concluding thoughts</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i>Deadpool</i> is, despite the problems mentioned above, a really good film. It somehow manages to be both dark and light-hearted at the same time - don't ask me how. If you're a fan of superhero films, you should go see it now.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-16332154962140092162016-02-05T15:38:00.001+02:002016-02-05T18:06:17.906+02:00TV-Month: Television vs Film - Production and AdaptationWhile there are numerous of highly anticipated films coming out this year, like <i>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</i> (Zack Snyder, 2016) and <i>Captain America: Civil War</i> (Anthony Russo & Joe Russo), 2016), it seems a lot of people are more excited about the next seasons of TV-shows like <i>Daredevil</i> (2015-) and<i> Game of Thrones</i> (2011-). When did television become big enough to compete with movies for audience attention?<br />
<br />
This month, I will focus on television rather than film. I will discuss television as a whole, particular genres and review a few TV shows. The focus will be on American television, as American TV-shows are watched all over the world and are often seen as the standard for television production. Today I will discuss the differences between television and film and how these differences are becoming increasingly less clear.<br />
<br />
At first glance, movies and TV-shows seem very similar and analytically comparable. However, this is only partially true. While we are in both cases dealing with moving pictures, there are significant production differences that must be taken into account. The most important ones to keep in mind are budget and content.<br />
<br />
<b>Budget</b><br />
This is probably the most significant difference between TV and film. Since films are usually released in theatres, every audience member pays a certain sum of money every time they watch it. Films are budgeted according to how many people they think will pay to see it. In times when a lot of people go to the movies, films are produced with higher budgets. Television, on the other hand, is paid for by either advertisement or, in the case of publicly funded television, by tax-payer money. This results in lower budgets, which in turn results in differences between the two media to keep in mind.<br />
<br />
Firstly, television is traditionally produced very quickly. Producers can't afford long production times and one season of a TV-show, up to 14 hours of episodes, can be produced in a single year, while a two hour movie often takes a few years to finish. This hectic schedule affects the quality of the final product - TV-shows rarely do re-shoots.<br />
<br />
Secondly, TV-shows are limited in terms of sets and locations. Because they can't afford to shoot in locations all over the world, and provide housing for cast and crew, production is usually limited to one city and a few sets and locations. This limits the plot of the series or forces the crew to build sets for foreign locations which may end up looking artificial, breaking the illusion. However, some television genres are build around these limitations, for example the "sitcom", which I will discuss next week.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, a limited budget also means limited special effects. In a drama series with supernatural elements, the script has to keep in mind that some effects are more expensive than others. For example, it is quite expensive to have a character that can fly, at least if you want the effects to look realistic.<br />
<br />
<b>Content</b><br />
Television content is heavily restricted by law and network standards, as shows are usually expected to be suitable for anyone. While films are also subject to similar restrictions, if a director wants to include cursing, violence and sexuality in their film, they can do so and the film will receive a higher rating. Moreover, films are generally stand-alone products, while TV-episodes are not and therefore the content of each episode is subject to the same standards as the series as a whole; you can't just have one R-rated episode in a PG-13 series.<br />
<br />
The big exception to this rule is Cable television and other subscription-based services. HBO, Showtime and Netflix are not subject to the same standards as their programming is not publicly available.<br />
<br />
<b>The times they are a-changin'</b><br />
While these limitations still affect the television medium, we are seeing shows with larger budgets and more explicit content than ever before. This change has everything to do with the subscription-based services mentioned above. As people are paying for their programming, they can afford bigger budgets and make higher-quality shows. HBO took a big chance with <i>Game of Thrones</i>. It is one of the most expensive TV-shows ever produced, with episode budgets ranging from five to ten million dollars. It paid off extraordinarily well. Nowadays we are seeing more shows with higher budgets, more diverse locations, larger casts and better special effects. These improvements are not limited to subscription-based services; even networks are spending more money in this golden age of television.<br />
<br />
<b>Is television a better medium for adaptations than film?</b><br />
George R. R. Martin, author of the <i>A Song of Ice and Fire</i> series of novels, famously refused to sell the rights for a film adaptation of the series. In hindsight, he definitely did the right thing. His books are long and full of complex relationships and world-building, and it would be impossible to fit most of it in a two-hour movie. While <i>Game of Thrones</i> has excluded some of it, as you have to do with any kind of adaptation, it uses its ten-hour seasons to do Martin's world and characters justice. With this in mind, should we prioritize television adaptation before film adaptations?<br />
<br />
It makes sense, doesn't it? Novels, like television, generally employ episodic storytelling, while films use a three-act structure, which isn't as visible in novels. Also, we don't generally read books in one sitting, we read them a few chapters at a time, which is comparable to watching one episode every week. As any fan of a book series that has been adapted to film can attest, they always leave out important things. In <i>Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire</i> (Mike Newell, 2005) they excluded a subplot from the book about Hermione's activism to liberate the house elves of Hogwarts, which angered a lot of book fans since it was important to her character. A season-long TV-adaptation wouldn't have had to cut it, since they would've had more time. Also, wouldn't the very episodic <i>The Hobbit</i> have been better as a miniseries than a overly long trilogy with tons of added material that no one thought was necessary?<br />
<br />
The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes the most faithful adaptation is also the best film or TV-show possible. Changes in adaptation are unavoidable, because novels, comic books et cetera are written and published differently from films and TV-shows. There are different standards; you can usually get away with more in terms of content in short stories and novels than in any visual medium. What makes a great book is not the same thing that makes a great film or TV-show.<br />
<br />
Every adaptation is an interpretation, not a representation, of the source material. Which medium is best suited for the adaptation is dependent on what kind of story you want to tell. If you want a faithful adaptation of a long story, television might be better suited than film, but some stories are better presented in a shorter format. Comic books, the single largest provider of source material for Hollywood today, is an interesting example. Most famous comic book characters today have decades-long histories and countless different versions have emerged over the years. Sometimes, the best thing to do is not to adapt any one storyline, but to write a new story based on the characters, which is what most comic book adaptations have done. In these cases, the important part is to be faithful to an interpretation of the characters; the adaptation does not have to represent the entire history of the comic series. Take Batman, for example. There have been countless film, television and video game adaptations of the Caped Crusader: their Batmans are not the same, but they are all Batman, in different media, genres and creative hands.<br />
<br />
These considerations are important, but I have neglected to mention another important aspect of adaptations: they are not simply made by creative artists, but by studios and production companies. Hollywood blockbusters are not primarily meant to be great films, but to be profitable. There is of course a financial incentive in television as well, but TV-shows have to be consistently good to keep a large audience, especially with a smaller marketing budget. Therefore, the decisions made during the adaptation process may be made for different reasons in different media.<br />
<br />
With everything above in mind, we cannot simply dismiss film as a worse medium for adaptation, but there are differences we need to take into account. Some stories and interpretations are better for television and others more suitable for film.<br />
<br />
This will have to serve as an introduction to "TV-Month". Come back next week when I discuss the possibilities and limitations of the traditional American sitcom.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-70122619322749813662015-05-27T16:56:00.002+03:002015-05-27T16:56:51.425+03:00Shaft (1971) and Shaft (2000): A Comparison<div style="text-align: justify;">
While I usually deal with horror films, today I will discuss something more terrifying: racism. Or, at least, two films with African American leads that deal with race. Admittedly, there are plenty of classic films about racism, such as <i>To Kill A Mockingbird</i> (Robert Mulligan, 1962), I could have chosen, but the two films I will discuss today are, to be honest, more entertaining and tie in to an interesting subgenre of exploitation: <i>blaxploitation</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Blaxploitation refers to a subgenre that emerged in the 1970s , catering to a black urban audience and featuring mostly black actors, often in stereotypical roles, soul music and themes relevant to African Americans. I must admit that I am not particularly well-versed in the subgenre; other than today's films, I have only seen <i>Jackie Brown</i> (Quentin Tarantino, 1997), which is a spoof/tribute to blaxploitation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://assets.fontsinuse.com/static/use-media-items/11/10751/full-2982x4476/55039bf4/1971%2520Shaft%2520%2528ing%2529%252001.jpeg?resolution=0" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://assets.fontsinuse.com/static/use-media-items/11/10751/full-2982x4476/55039bf4/1971%2520Shaft%2520%2528ing%2529%252001.jpeg?resolution=0" height="320" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Shaft</i> (Gordon Parks, 1971) is a film about private detective John Shaft (Richard Roundtree), who is hired by black gangster Bumpy Jonas (Moses Gunn) to locate his kidnapped daughter. He later learns that the kidnapping is part of a larger conflict between black gangsters and the Italian mafia. Central to the story is Shaft's reluctance to work with the police who are aware that something is going on, as he and other blacks do not trust law enforcement.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://static.filmin.es//resources/poster_films/original/shaft-the-return.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://static.filmin.es//resources/poster_films/original/shaft-the-return.jpg" width="223" /></a></div>
<br />
<i></i><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Shaft</i> (John Singleton, 2000) is not a remake of the 1971 film, but a sequel (there were two other sequels in 1972 and 1973 that I have not yet watched). John Shaft II (Samuel L. Jackson) is the original Shaft's nephew and a detective with the NYPD. He is working on a hate crime case, where rich playboy Walter Wade Jr (Christian Bale) is accused of killing Trey Howard (Mekhi Phifer), a young black man who embarrassed him at a nightclub after making racist jokes. The New York City black community is outraged after Wade, because of his father's connections, manages to get bail and escape the country before trial. Shaft arrests him two years later when he returns, but he is once again released on bail. This causes Shaft to angrily quit his job and he attempts to find a missing witness. Wade also wants to find the witness and hires Dominican gangster Peoples Hernandez (Jeffrey Wright) to locate and kill her. Richard Roundtree returns as John Shaft I and tries to persuade his nephew to work with him.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you are interested, here are the trailers:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NiCB2isZcRM/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NiCB2isZcRM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qsMTksRxy1M/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qsMTksRxy1M?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are some things that one needs to take into account when comparing the two films. The 1971 film is blaxploitation, while the 2000 film is not. The latter does not feature the classic subgenre stereotypes (other than the black stereotype that Jackson somehow always seems to be playing). It is also worth noting that the 2000 film features significantly fewer black actors than the 1971 film. Finally, the difference in budget alone ($ 500,000 and $ 46 million) could force one to conclude that they cannot be fairly compared to one another, at least with reference to quality. Therefore, I will focus on story, characters and themes - aspects of a film that should not be too dependent on budget.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are some other genre differences between the films. The 1971 film is a thriller, while the 2000 film is more action-oriented. Roundtree's Shaft is a lot less serious and more joking than Jackson's and his character is also heavily played up as a ladies' man. Jackson's humor comes more from what he does than what he says, even though he gets some funny lines. In one scene, in order to get Hernandez' attention, he throws a basketball at him through an open window. I guess you could say that Jackson is playing a typical Samuel L. Jackson character. That being said, I think it's a good thing that the two Shafts are very distinct characters and not just the same character at different ages.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the 1971 film, issues of race are mostly visible in the idea that blacks cannot trust whites and a large emphasis on the black community. Bumpy Jonas knows that the police would be more interested in his illegal activities than his missing daughter and therefore has to approach Shaft, a man he respects but does not like very much. One reason Shaft, and other blacks, are willing to help him is because his daughter is black. Racial tensions are also shown through language and attitudes between Shaft and white characters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the 2000 film, race is mainly a factor in Wade's hate crime. Wade is a rich, white, young man who reacts so strongly to a black man in his favorite night club that he taunts Howard and later lethally assaults him after Howard non-violently, and comically (he cuts two holes in a white napkin and places it on Wade's head as to look like a KKK hood), stands up for himself. During every scene at the courthouse, a large group of blacks are seen angered by the crime and how Wade seems to be able to buy his way out of responsibility.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In my book, one of the most important things about an action or thriller film is the antagonist. The hero, or antihero, needs a worthy villain to really show the audience what he/she can do. This is unfortunately an area where the 1971 film is lacking. The Italian mafia is represented only by a few mobsters, none of whom we get to know that much about. The entire film is shown through Shaft's perspective and he does not actually learn too much about the mafia. On the other hand, the 2000 film gives us two well-defined antagonists. Wade is given a lot of screen time without Shaft and the antagonism between Hernandez and Shaft is set up really well. We also, for example, learn that Hernandez wishes to be like Wade: rich, famous and able to go to whichever club he wants. The villains, along with the hate crime narrative, is why I personally prefer the 2000 film before the 1971 film. Needless to say, they are both good films that you should check out if you haven't already.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Concluding this review, I would like to end with the awesome theme song from the 1971 film, less awesomely titled "Theme from <i>Shaft</i>", written and recorded by Isaac Hayes. It won numerous awards, including the Academy Award for Best Original Song. The lyrics might be a bit cheesy, but it fits the film perfectly.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFvRvSxsW-I/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nFvRvSxsW-I?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-22958880731446448842015-04-14T17:45:00.002+03:002015-04-14T17:46:41.596+03:00American Psycho 2 (2002) and Why It Isn't So Bad<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://filmasmyreligion.blogspot.fi/2014/11/robins-favorites-american-psycho-2000.html" target="_blank">As I have mentioned before</a>, <i>American Psycho</i> (Mary Harron, 2000) is one of my favorite films. It is smart, complex, beautiful and very much open to analysis and interpretation. Today's film is not.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.jeded.com/i/american-psycho-ii-all-american-girl.10553.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.jeded.com/i/american-psycho-ii-all-american-girl.10553.jpg" height="320" width="213" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>American Psycho 2: All American Girl</i> (Morgan J. Freeman, 2002) is a pseudo-sequel to the 2000 psychological thriller and has almost nothing to do with it. It is almost universally hated and has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 11%. Today, I will try to figure out why it is so hated and explain why I actually enjoy the film and has seen it three times.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8uODp59M_QY/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8uODp59M_QY?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film is about Rachel Newman (Mila Kunis), who anonymously killed Patrick Bateman (unfortunately not portrayed by Christian Bale) when she was twelve years old. Now a freshman criminology student, she is dead set on getting to be the next T.A. for professor Robert Starkman (William Shatner), as most of his previous T.A:s have become FBI agents. She is obsessed with Starkman and kills her competitors for the position. Meanwhile, her psychiatrist Dr. Eric Daniels (Geraint Wyn Davies) becomes suspicious of her as he recognizes sociopathic and delusional traits in her.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A big part of the criticism aimed at the film is how little relation it has to <i>American Psycho</i>. Bateman's part in the story is very minor and they could have easily traded him in for any other serial killer without changing the plot. In fact, the original script for the film did not include Bateman as a character or plot point. Lions Gate Films, the production company, simply wanted to cash in on the critical and commercial success of the 2000 film. Therefore, I think the film would have been received more positively if they had stuck to the original script.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Before moving on to reviewing the film as a stand-alone product, I would like to discuss the ways in which <i>American Psycho 2</i> suffers when compared to <i>American Psycho</i>. The 2000 film is very tightly linked to the 1980s and works as a critique of the very superficial aspects of the decade and a sequel could be expected to e.g. critique the nihilism of the 1990s in a similar way. <i>American Psycho 2</i> could unfortunately be set in any time period after cars became commonplace. <i>American Psycho</i> is also very beautiful to look at. It is polished and very memorable because of the aesthetics alone. <i>American Psycho 2</i>, on the other hand, looks like any typical low-budget college slasher film and the set design adds nothing to the atmosphere of the film.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have found it difficult to satisfyingly place the film in any particular genre. It is not scary enough to be a horror film and not suspenseful enough to be a thriller. It doesn't have enough gore to be a proper slasher and the jokes are not emphasized enough for a black comedy. It works as a strange blend of multiple genres and there is a noticeable shift after the first act. The first act sets up the film as a murder mystery, with one of Rachel's competitors as a suspect, but the red herring is revealed when she kills him early on. The rest of the film works like a female stalker film, but from the stalker's perspective. Normally in such a film the protagonist is the victim and not the stalker. This could be viewed as similar to <i>American Psycho</i>, where the reprehensible murderer is the protagonist. The audience is confused as to who they should root for and <i>American Psycho 2</i> offers a sympathetic foil for Rachel in Dr. Daniels.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The weakest part of the film is undoubtedly the first act. Rachel's fellow college students are all cliched characters, portrayed by bad actors, and even Kunis doesn't give a particularly good performance. Luckily, it is fairly short and after a few murders the film focuses more on what works really well: the trinity of Rachel, Starkman and Dr. Daniels. Kunis shines as the manipulative and delusional Rachel in scenes with Shatner and Davies, surprisingly without channeling her Jackie-character from <i>That '70s Show</i> (1998-2006). The dark humor also becomes better when the audience no longer has to be lead to think that Rachel is innocent.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is why I thoroughly enjoy the film. If you can look past the very misleading title and the weak first act, you'll probably like it as well.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-77963760868169073152015-01-14T18:00:00.000+02:002015-01-14T18:00:03.209+02:00American Mary (2012): Rape and more Body Horror<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was not originally planning to discuss body horror further, at least not this soon after <a href="http://filmasmyreligion.blogspot.fi/2015/01/contracted-2013-and-body-horror.html" target="_blank">my review of <i>Contracted</i> (Eric England, 2013)</a>. Netflix had other plans. While looking for suggestions, I found another body horror film, also dealing with rape and the destructive and corrupting consequences of rape, but in a different way. For this review, I will discuss the plot in greater detail, so you may want to watch the film before reading any further.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.impawards.com/2013/posters/american_mary_ver2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.impawards.com/2013/posters/american_mary_ver2.jpg" height="320" width="224" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>American Mary</i> (Jane Soska & Sylvia Soska, 2012) is about Mary (Katharine Isabelle), a medical student whose financial troubles and excellent surgical skills result in her doing extreme body modification procedures. One notable client is Ruby (Paula Lindberg), a woman who wants to become a doll and asks Mary to remove her nipples and external genitalia. After she is drugged and raped by one of her teachers (David Lovgren), Mary drops out of medical school and starts doing body modifications full time. She also kidnaps her rapist and uses him "for practice", horribly disfiguring him. Her luxurious new life is threatened when an agent starts investigating his disappearance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/dvUF47rnYNo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While <i>Contracted</i> attemps to show how rape affects the everyday life of the victim, <i>American Mary</i> focuses on how the victim deals with the consequences. When Mary is raped, she loses control over her body and she attempts to regain control by punishing her rapist and stripping him of control by stripping him of various body parts. She also helps others keep control over their bodies by modifying them according to their requests. When Mary asks Ruby (a pre-rape client) why she would want the requested procedure, she explains that dolls cannot be sexually objectified because they lack nipples and genitalia. Ruby wants to make her body her own, and not someone else's object. This feminist line of thought is continued later in the film when Ruby's husband beats her and wants revenge on Mary for taking away his sexual object.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The rape also changes Mary's moral outlook. She enjoys the sadistic punishment she continually inflicts on her rapist, which makes her increasingly less sympathetic to the audience. Even though we know that he is a serial rapist and has witnessed his brutal rape of Mary, the punishment cannot be justified because it is not redemtive for him, rather corruptive for her. Mary becomes a rapist by taking away his control over his body. Let's compare her revenge rape to that of Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace) from The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Niels Arden Oplev, 2009). Lisbeth punishes her legal guardian Bjurman (Peter Andersson) for raping her by tattooing "I am a sadist pig and a rapist" on his chest and anally raping him with a dildo. She also blackmails him with a recording of her rape and demands that he leaves her alone. Lisbeth punishes by raping him back, branding him as a rapist to protect other women and releasing herself from his power, enabling her to move on with her life. Mary, on the other hand, does not move on and keeps her rapist as a pet for her to occasionally torture. Lisbeth allows Bjurman to live, with restrictions suitable for a violent sex offender, and checks up on him to make sure he behaves. He is basically on parole. Lisbeth's revenge is justified in motive and in method, while Mary's simply makes her worse. This is why Lisbeth's character is far more sympathetic than Mary's. One could of course argue that Mary's revenge is more satisfying as a fantasy. It is an expression of all her hate towards him and therefore does not have to be constructive, like Lisbeth's.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have to mention that American Mary has a lot of unnecessary "male gaze" for a film about rape. As you can see from the trailer, Mary herself is often sexualized by the camera. There is, however, often a male character objectifying her in such scenes, allowing the audience to distance themselves from the shot. The rape scene is also decently done. It keeps focus on Mary's and her rapist's faces, alternating between her agony and his hateful lust.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The directors, known as the "Soska Sisters", are big fans of modern horror films and it definitely shows. Therefore I can only recommend this film to horror hound who aren't afraid of uncomfortable gore. Luckily, I am one of those and I really enjoyed it. Watch at your own risk!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-78151432491908020542015-01-08T16:32:00.001+02:002015-01-08T16:32:23.449+02:00Contracted (2013) and Body Horror<div align="justify">
Body horror is a sub-genre of horror fiction which uses our fear of our bodies changing or otherwise becoming alienated from us. Elements of body horror are often used in other types of horror films; in <i>Alien</i> (Ridley Scott, 1979) the titular monster lays its eggs inside its victims and the contemporary "torture porn" sub-genre, with films like <i>Saw</i> (James Wan, 2004) and <i>Hostel</i> (Eli Roth, 2005) and their sequels, wants the audience to fear what someone might do to their bodies. The films mentioned all have an element of someone or something external attacking the body, but today's review will focus on a film where the attack is coming from within. <i>The Fly</i> (David Cronenberg, 1986) and <i>Cabin Fever</i> (Eli Roth, 2002) are other films that use the same approach.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/contracted-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/contracted-poster.jpg" height="320" width="216" /></a></div>
</div>
<div align="justify">
<i>Contracted</i> (Eric England, 2013) is about Samantha (Najarra Townsend), a young lesbian, who gets raped at a party and contracts a strange STD, which causes her body to, for lack of a better word, decompose. The transformation is slow and Samantha tries her best to hide the symptoms from her mother, friends, co-workers and her ex-girlfriend, with whom she tries to get back together.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/YmhwkKzin4g?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br /></div>
<div align="justify">
Rape is a common theme in body horror, probably because it represents both violation and loss of control. In <i>Alien</i>, victims are inseminated through an act which could be described as a literal face rape. Samantha's rape in the beginning of <i>Contracted</i> is handled in an interesting way. While the audience sees how the rapist slips Rohypnol into her drink and how she begs him to stop during the act, Samantha seems unsure herself. She is also afraid to tell people, especially her ex-girlfriend who may view it as a drunken one night stand with a man, undermining her sexual identity. You could say that the film gives a realistic depiction of rape, showing both the act and the subsequent shame and fear of not being believed.</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
Samantha's character is the only remotely likable one in the film. Every other character either judges her harshly, wants to sleep with her or both. This is partially justified as the film focuses on Samantha's point-of-view and her being a rape survivor, this mirrors both her loss of faith in other people and other people's reactions towards her. However, her friends aren't particularly likable characters even before her rape. Additionally, as a result of her disease, Samantha becomes increasingly unlikable as the film progresses. She is still sympathetic, we truly feel sorry for her, but her actions become harder for us to understand and rationalize.<br />
<br />
The film has been criticized as "punishing a lesbian for being raped", which I guess is arguably true. I would however rather interpret <i>Contracted</i> as telling the story of the tragic aftermath of a rape. Being raped and contracting a disease not only destroys Samatha's body, but also her relationships.<br />
<br />
The film deserves praise for the way it handles a complex and sensitive subject and for Samantha's character development. It also did a great job with the practical special effects, showing Samantha's gruesome physical transformation. Other than that, <i>Contracted</i> is just okay. The ending is a bit predictable and doesn't really mix well with the rest of the film. Still, I think the film is definitely worth watching. It is far from perfect, but unlike most horror films featuring a literal rape it isn't a revenge story, which is kind of refreshing.<br />
<br />
As a last note, I would like to comment on how stupid the title is. Why does almost every horror film nowadays have to have these vague one-word titles? <i>Contracted</i> might as well be the story of a contract killer!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-50924251111544700982014-12-24T14:25:00.001+02:002014-12-24T14:25:46.677+02:00The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) and Cultural Studies<div style="text-align: justify;">
It has been a long time since my last review, but I haven't had the time. However, I thought I should at least do one Christmas-themed review in December and which film would be better to review than my all-time favorite Christmas movie?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.impawards.com/1993/posters/nightmare_before_christmas_ver1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.impawards.com/1993/posters/nightmare_before_christmas_ver1.jpg" height="320" width="217" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The Nightmare Before Christmas</i> (Henry Selick, 1993) is a stop-motion animated musical. Based on an idea by Tim Burton, whose name appeared so often in the marketing people still think he directed it, the film combines elements from both Halloween and Christmas, resulting in a child-friendly and slightly morbid look at the holiday season. In this review, I will argue that the film highlights one of the main problems of cultural studies: whether or not it is possible to describe or replicate another culture within the language of one's own.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/8qrB9I3DM80?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film is set in a world where every holiday has its own world and we begin in Halloween Town, where Jack Skellington (voiced by Chris Sarandon, singing voice by composer Danny Elfman), "The Pumpkin King", has grown tired of doing the same thing every year. He leaves town during the celebrations and accidentally ends up in Christmas Town. He is fascinated by this strange new holiday and returns to Halloween Town, trying to explain Christmas to the other residents. While they are unable to grasp the concept, Jack still wants to celebrate Christmas this year and so the entire town gets to work. And, of course, there is a love interest and a villain and Santa Claus (in Halloween Town called "Sandy Claws") gets kidnapped.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will not discuss the plot further, but I will briefly discuss the love interest Sally (voiced by Catherine O'Hara). Sally is a Frankenstein's monster-like doll, who frequently drugs her creator because she is restless and curious and wants to see the world outside the lab. She is the one who pursues Jack, who barely notices her because of his obsession with Christmas, but not in an aggressive or comedic way. It is clear that she is concerned about him and she seems to be the only sane and clever person in Halloween Town. She is an interesting character, but her and Jack's romance does seem a bit forced. They could have made her his sister without having to change too much.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Back to the original topic: what does the film say about cultural studies? Firstly, when Jack attempts to explain Christmas to the other residents of Halloween Town, they simply do not get the point. They are stuck within their own language and culture, which results in them asking confused questions like whether there still is a foot inside a Christmas stocking. When they try to make their own Christmas presents, to be given to people who celebrate Christmas, they make gifts like a murderous doll or a severed head, things they would consider proper gifts. Their actual language is also different from the language of Christmas Town and the real world. They describe a very successful Halloween celebration as "our most horrible yet" and, because of this usage, they do not understand that their version of Christmas has failed when it is referred to as "horrible".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly, while Jack is obviously more knowledgeable about Christmas, he still does not understand. He attempts to understand the wonderful new holiday he encountered by reading books, for example <i>A Christmas Carol</i>, and by performing scientific experiments on toys and Christmas decorations (he even dissects on a teddy bear). Finally, he decides to stop trying to figure out Christmas and simply make his own.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are two ways of viewing this "horrible" version of Christmas. One could say that it should not be called Christmas, because of their cultural ignorance and how the people who normally celebrate Christmas react to it. It could even be compared with the Satanic "Black Mass", a perversion of the Catholic Mass. However, one could also argue that they are simply doing their own thing and are actually enjoying it themselves. They are not trying to ruin Christmas; they just wants to be apart of it. Their fault is not malice, but ambition and thoughtlessness. In a way, the film does not give a definitive answer to the question about culture and language, but it does not have to. In the humanities, we rarely want those anyway. It is more meaningful to present different possibilities to highlight a question, rather than to provide a simple answer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I love this film. The story is interesting, the characters are great, the animation is amazing and the music is spectacular. All songs are written by Danny Elfman, mostly known for his work on Tim Burton films like <i>Batman</i> (1989) and for the theme song from <i>The Simpsons</i> (1989-). On the whole, the film is very memorable and has some great re-watch value. Personally, I watch it every Christmas!</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/ZPblZa10_Pk/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ZPblZa10_Pk&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/ZPblZa10_Pk&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-59319249507646197322014-11-14T10:49:00.003+02:002015-12-31T16:20:35.392+02:00Robin's Favorites: Girl, Interrupted (1999) as a Feminist Film<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is a "feminist film"? One interpretation of the concept could be that a film made with conscious feminist effort or ideology in mind is a feminist film. You could also say that any film that is empowering to women or exposes and criticizes cultural misogyny, regardless of the filmmakers' intentions, is feminist. The problem is, of course, that concepts such as "female empowerment" and "cultural criticism" are not easily defined, and as ideology, feminism often allows critics to highlight problematic aspects of otherwise praised characters and narratives. While, for example, Ellen Ripley (played by Sigourney Weaver) in <i>Alien</i> (Ridley Scott, 1979) and <i>Aliens</i> (James Cameron, 1986) is often held up as one of the strongest female protagonists in science fiction, you could argue that because she isn't very feminine (the character was originally created as male), the films do not actually challenge the idea that femininity is a negative character trait in a hero. Additionally, the films do not feature many other female characters.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this analytical review, I will discuss why Girl, Interrupted (James Mangold, 1999) is one of my favorite films and attempt to show why I consider it to be a great example of a feminist film. I will try to avoid spoiling the film for those who have not yet seen it.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Girl%2C_Interrupted_Poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Girl%2C_Interrupted_Poster.jpg" height="320" width="214" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film is a drama based on Susanna Kaysen's eponymous memoir, chronicling her stay at a mental institution, and stars Winona Ryder as Susanna. Supporting actors include Angelina Jolie (who received an Academy Award for her performance), Brittany Murphy, Whoopi Goldberg and Jared Leto. The film is set in the late 1960s.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/5BHHUBZf7y4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After an alleged suicide attempt, 18-year old Susanna is urged by her parents to commit herself to Claymoore Psychiatric Hospital. She is greeted by Nurse Valerie (Goldberg) and introduced to other patients, like her pathological liar roommate Georgina (Clea DuVall), the burnt and childlike Polly (Elizabeth Moss), the bulimic Daisy suffering from OCD (Murphy) and, later, the rebellious sociopath Lisa (Jolie). Susanna is very intelligent and wants to be a writer, but suffers from depression and experiences flashbacks to earlier events in her life. The films uses these flashbacks to convey Susanna's back story and it is revealed that she was the only one in her graduating class not going off to college, has an ex-boyfriend (Leto) who is afraid to get drafted, and had a one night stand with an older, married family friend. During her stay, Susanna uses a notebook to write down her thoughts and feelings about the institution, other patients and herself.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The main theme of the film is the nature of mental illness. As she befriends Lisa, Susanna begins to consider that the medical staff at Claymoore is in fact clueless about mental illness and that therapy is a waste of time as she does not consider herself crazy. As it turns out, viewing psychiatry only as an oppressive system that is more concerned with conformity than actual sanity is not a productive approach to her situation. As further discussion would require a more detailed synopsis of the film, I will now leave this issue and focus on the film as a feminist work.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While I think it is more meaningful to discuss the film as a whole, there are a few scenes with very explicit feminist commentary. In a flashback, Susanna is explaining why she isn't planning on attending college, expressing her worries about becoming a housewife like her mother, to her guidance counselor. The counselor assures her that "women today have more options", to which Susanna responds "No they don't". She is suggesting that while women have the opportunity to get an advanced education, they are still expected to marry and start a family. In another scene, she qustions being labeled "promiscuious" and asks how much casual sex a man is allowed to have before receiving the same label. This double standard, that promiscuious men and women are referred to as "studs" and "sluts" respectively, is a much discussed feminist topic.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Despite these statements, Susanna is not portrayed as a "straw feminist". She explicitly tells her guidance counselor that she is not planning on "burning [her] bra, or march on Washington"; she just wants to write, which she can do without going to college. In other words, she wants to lead her life the way she wants, as opposed to the way society dictates, whether it is being a homemaker or going to college.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, the main reason that I consider <i>Girl, Interrupted</i> a great feminist film is not because of the basic feminism of Susanna's character, but rather because the film does something that is rarely seen in Hollywood; it shows female characters being characters in themselves instead of in relation to male characters. While some supporting characters are mainly characterized by their illness or profession, the leading females are definitely characters in their own right. In fact, the male characters are often defined by their relationships to our leading ladies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I don't consider turning-the-tables progressive in itself, but this film does it so well. It does not hit us over the head with its female-heavy story; in fact, I'm fairly certain the filmmakers weren't trying to make a feminist film. They wanted to tell the story of Susanna Kaysen, but as a Hollywood drama, with the associated conventions of the medium and genre. They did however omit the cliche of the Hollywood love interest, because it didn't make sense. There are two men in the film with romantic feelings for Susanna, but she does not feel the same way; she is simply not interested. While you could argue that she doesn't want a man because she is afraid of becoming domesticated, I think the stronger feminist message is that she doesn't need one. At the hospital, her focus is on getting better and therefore her love is reserved for some staff members and other inmates, her surrogate family. It would have been easy to create drama by giving her a "secret love" or another kind of romantic interest, which would come between her and her friends. But it would have been unnecessary. They did the right thing by simply showing the drama of being institutionalized; good characters don't need love interests. As a male, I cannot definitely say that the film is empowering for women, only that it very well could be.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is hard to discuss feminism and film without mentioning the <i><a href="http://bechdeltest.com/" target="_blank">Bechdel test</a></i>. Created by Alison Bechdel, the test checks for the inclusion of female characters based on three criteria: to pass the test, a film has to have at least (I) two named female characters, that (II) have a conversation about (III) something other than a man. While it seems very simple to pass, many Hollywood films do not, and this seems very strange. It does not say anything about whether a film is feminist or not, as a film could pass the test with a single scene in which two women introduce themselves to one another and talk about shoes; it simply checks if female characters are given any screen time without men. Needless to say, <i>Girl, Interruped</i> passes with flying colors.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I simply love this film; from its take on mental illness to the strong leading ladies and their relationships to one another. It also serves up a wide array of emotions; it has dark, tragic and disturbing scenes that contrast well with funny and heart-warming ones. After watching it, I always think: "maybe ending up in a mental institution wouldn't be too bad?" Also, "Downtown" by Petula Clark will be permanently stuck in your head after watching.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/sku-1hqA5xw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-85512246863419951382014-11-06T18:49:00.002+02:002014-11-07T11:03:02.293+02:00Robin's Favorites: American Psycho (2000)<div style="text-align: justify;">
This review will be more analytical than my review of <i><a href="http://filmasmyreligion.blogspot.fi/2014/11/robins-favorites-ed-wood-1994.html" target="_blank">Ed Wood</a> </i>(Tim Burton, 1994). Therefore, I will have to discuss the plot in greater detail. Naturally, this means that if you haven't yet seen the film, I suggest you watch it before reading any further. Much of what I am about to discuss have already been discussed by others, but I hope I have something new to contribute.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.moviepostershop.com/american-psycho-movie-poster-2000-1010475010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://images.moviepostershop.com/american-psycho-movie-poster-2000-1010475010.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>American Psycho</i> (Mary Harron, 2000) is a thriller with a large chunk of black comedy. The film is set in the 80s and is narrated by protagonist Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a Wall Street VP who moonlights as a serial killer. It is based on the eponymous novel by Bret Easton Ellis. Unfortunately I haven't yet read the novel, but I think the film can be meaningfully analyzed independently.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/2GIsExb5jJU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film follows Bateman's life before, during and after he murders Paul Allen (Jared Leto), another Wall Street guy. He is engaged to Evelyn (Reese Witherspoon), a socialite who mostly cares about being socially correct and wants to marry Bateman for that reason. Bateman doesn't care about Evelyn and is having an affair with the drug-addicted Courtney (Samantha Mathis), who is engaged to his closeted homosexual colleague Luis (Matt Ross). Bateman is jealous of Allen's job and social status and kills him. As he tries to cover up the murder, Detective Donald Kimball (Willem Dafoe) starts investigating Allen's alleged disappearance. He has a nice assistant, Jean (Cloe Sevigny), who suspects that there is something strange about him. Throughout the film, Bateman murders numerous women and hires a prostitute (Cara Seymour), who he names "Christie".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All of the actors and actresses give splendid performances, but no one comes close to Bale. If they had chosen a lesser actor to portray Bateman, the film would have been a disaster. Bateman is the narrator and the focus of every single scene. Therefore, I think it would be impossible for me not to select his character as the focus of my analysis.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film almost explicitly states that Bateman lacks identity. In one of the opening scenes, he says that while "there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman", he is "simply not there". This view is further supported by the fact that he does not mind being mistaken for someone else and that he often makes up names for the prostitutes he hires. He does not consider it important. When Bale portrays Bateman in social situations, he makes it clear that Bateman is acting and that every word he utters is insincere. He is simply trying to fit in by pretending to be like everyone else. His obsessive talk about popular music before acts of violence, could also be interpreted as trying to fit in.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While I accept this interpretation, I would also argue that there is a real Patrick Bateman, beyond the feelings of jealosy and greed that he admits experiencing. In the trailer above, Bateman attempts to partake in the very misogynistic conversation they are having about women. He tells an anecdote about a serial killer's views on women and finds it hilarious. He is, however, the only one. This is the real him. He is fascinated by murder and mayhem and this idea will be more intelligible later, in my discussion of the ending. Bale's performance clearly informs the audience when Bateman is acting and when he is sincere, and if there was no Bateman, this distinction should not be so easily identified.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of Bateman's main character traits is his focus on appearances. In the beginning of the film, we are treated to most of his morning routine and a detailed narration of every single step. We also see him working out and tanning, all to keep himself fit and handsome. He is an expert on fashion and even uses a Jean Paul Gaultier bag when disposing of a body. He is also very much bothered by other people's fashion faux pas and is not above correcting them. This shallowness goes even further, for example in this famous scene where Bateman and his colleagues compare business cards:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/aZVkW9p-cCU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is important to note that all of their cards are very similar, white with black text, and that it seems unneccessary to put too much emphasis on their trivial differences. Bateman is distraught that Paul Allen has a nicer business card than he and along with the fact that Allen can get a reservation at Dorsia, this results in him killing Allen. Paul Allen can be viewed as Bateman's perfect self; he has a better job, better connections and, as is revealed after the murder, a nicer and more expensive apartment. He is arrogant and shallow, but more successful than Bateman. After murdering Allen, Bateman even pretends to be him when hiring prostitutes. Admiration turns to jealosy, turns to anger and finally violence. As Bateman axes Allen in the head, he screams "Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now you fucking stupid bastard!" Dorsia is the most popular restaurant in Manhattan and only the most well-connected people can get a reservation. Bateman cannot. Dorsia represents what Bateman lacks and he often tries, unsuccessfully, to get a reservation. He twice fakes getting a reservation; he first tricks a drugged Courtney that they are at Dorsia and later tells Jean that they are going to Dorsia for dinner, when he in fact plans to murder her at his apartment.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman's sexuality is also debatable. While he has sex with multiple women in the film, he seems to take more pleasure from hurting them rather than from the sex. In one scene, when he has a threeway with two prostitutes, he even checks himself out in the mirror, flexing his muscles. Afterwards, he hurts them with a coat-hanger. Bateman could be viewed as a latent homosexual, which would explain his promiscuity as overcompensating, and his fear of his sexuality would explain his hatred of Luis, who even comes on to him. For more on this, see <a href="http://chezapocalypse.com/episodes/bret-easton-ellis-needs-more-gay/" target="_blank">Rantasmo's review</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While Bateman mostly prefers to be alone, he does have one person that almost could be considered a friend: Timothy Bryce (Justin Theroux). Bryce is very similar to Bateman, but he is not considered a threat. Early in film, Bateman describes Bryce as "the most interesting person [he] know[s]" and the two of them are shown doing cocaine together in club bathroom, where Bryce confides in Bateman about the side-effects of his steroid use. In the business card scene, Bateman is bothered by the fact that Bryce prefers Allen's business card to his. This implies that he cares about Bryce's opinion and the fact that he never considers murdering Bryce, even though he knows that he is having an affair with Evelyn, shows that their relationship is different from his relationships to other colleagues.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bateman also has a special relationship with his assistant Jean. Bateman invites her to his apartment planning to kill her, but after a message from Evelyn on his answering machine, revealing to Jean that he is still engaged, he changes his mind and tells her to leave or else she might get hurt. Jean thinks he is referring to emotional pain and leaves. My interpretation as to why he spared her revolves around their conversation before Evelyn's message. She is genuinely nice to him, which no other character seems to be, and tells him about her plans and dreams, which he insincerely asked about. Bateman sees his other victims as shallow, horrible people, much like he views himself, and when he notices that Jean is different, he no longer wants to kill her. Instead, he sends her away because he is afraid that his urges might force him to. She is also the first person he calls when he suffers a breakdown.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SPOILER ALERT: The following four paragraphs discuss the ending of the film.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a twist ending, it is revealed that Paul Allen is alive and well. Bateman is given this information by his lawyer, who refers to him as Davis. Before this, Bateman went to dispose of Allen's corpse, but found that Allen's remains are nowhere to be found. He is confused and frustrated that his lawyer doesn't believe his confession, and concludes that while he has escaped righteous punishment for his crimes, he does not feel better and will continue to inflict his pain on others.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While Bateman still believes that he did all of the horrible things the film has shown us, we, on the other hand, are forced to conclude that Bateman is insane. This, while a bit unexpected, is not too hard to accept, since we have have seen him taking medication in moments of stress. Insanity would also explain some of the film's more unrealistic scenes, such as him blowing up a police car by shooting it (which even surprised himself) and killing Christy in a stairwell by dropping a chainsaw on her from several floors up. In the end, Jean also finds disturbing drawings in his calendar, revealing his morbid fantasies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fact that he never killed Paul Allen has huge consequences for the rest of the film. Every scene in Allen's apartment or referencing his disappearance must be figments of his imagination. Whether or not he actually committed other murders is uncertain. This also implies that Detective Kimball never existed, since there was in fact nothing for him to investigate. This makes sense, considering that Kimball in one scene shows Bateman a Huey Lewis and the News CD, which Bateman had played during the murder. Kimball could be interpreted as Bateman's fear of being discovered for what he is (whatever that may be).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Through this, we may interpret Bateman's obsessive need to fit in and be normal not as a way of covering for his murders or latent homosexuality, but for his mental illness. He must focus his attention on his appearance, since he cannot deal with what lies beneath. Maybe he created his psychopath persona as an excuse for him to pretend that there is nothing inside him worth thinking about, that he simply isn't there.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are many reasons why this is one of my favorites. For one thing, it is extremely memorable. There are three scenes where Bateman plays and talks about music and these will stick with you like Alex (Malcolm McDowell) singing "Singing in the Rain" before raping a woman in <i>A Clockwork Orange</i> (Stanley Kubrick, 1971). Whenever I hear "Hip to be Square", "Sussudio" or "The Greatest Love of All", I think of Paul Allen's murder, Bateman in a threeway and lesbian foreplay respectively.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The film has remained controversial for a number of reasons. One of the more profound accusations have been misogyny. I will not deny that there is a lot of violence against women in the film and that nearly every female character is weak or timid. This film was definitely not made with a female audience in mind (excluding Bale's handsomeness and many nude or partially nude scenes). In its defense, the misogynist Bateman is not meant to be sympathized with. No one is supposed to view him as any kind of role model. That being said, I would not go so far as to suggest that the film uses misogyny as a way to critique misogynistic societal norms or conventions. Personally, I think some scenes go too far, but I can forgive them in the context of the rest of the film.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My main reason for loving this film can be seen on this page. There is just so much to think and talk about (and I haven't even mentioned the most common interpretation: as a critique of the shallowness of the 1980s) and as you should have realized by now, that is what I love to do.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-31308999663393182952014-11-01T13:12:00.001+02:002014-11-01T16:16:39.533+02:00Robin's Favorites: Ed Wood (1994)<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the obvious way to discuss my favorite films would be in the form of a Top 10 or something similar, leading up to my all-time favorite, I decided to start with my number one. This is the only one I will rank. It would be impossible for me to assign ranks to my other favorites and be satisfied with the list, but there is no doubt that this one would be at the top. I have seen this film countless times and I will never grow tired of it. If you have met me at least twice, I have probably recommended it to you.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Ed_Wood_film_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Ed_Wood_film_poster.jpg" height="320" width="216" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Ed Wood</i> (Tim Burton, 1994) is semi-biographical film about infamous B-movie director Edward D. Wood Jr. (played by Johnny Depp), exploring his life and relationships during the time he made his three most-known films: <i>Glen or Glenda</i> (1953), <i>Bride of the Monster</i> (1955) and <i>Plan 9 from Outer Space</i> (1959). I won't go into too much detail plot-wise, as I would rather discuss why this film means so much to me. Some kind of summary is however necessary to help you understand the points I bring up. For more context, you may want to check out the trailer:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/CawVaHxWvnA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ed Wood is passionate director-writer-producer with a complete lack of self-awareness. As he attempts to get a job directing a sex change-flick, he runs into one of his idols: horror movie icon Bela Lugosi (played brilliantly by Martin Landau). Lugosi is down on his luck, but Ed uses his fame to get the job, promising the producer that a star like Lugosi will bring in a lot of money at the box office. The resulting film, <i>Glen or Glenda</i>, is terrible, but Ed, along with Lugosi and his other friends, keep trying to make more movies.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Johnny Depp is brilliant as the over-enthusiastic Ed. One minute you're laughing at him, the next you feel deep sympathy for all his problems. This is, in my opinion, Depp's best performance. Ed is as quirky as Jack Sparrow or the Mad Hatter, but he feels real. Depp also looks good in drag. Oh, that's right, I forgot to mention that Ed Wood was a transvestite. The film deals with his cross-dressing humorously, as well as seriously. The viewer gets to experience the drama of him coming out to his girlfriend Dolores (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) and hear him explain how this is who he is. He never pretends to be a woman, he just likes to wear bras, panties and angora sweaters. I do however find it a bit annoying how often he explains that cross-dressing does not make him gay or less of a man, but, to be fair, this is always in response to other people's asking about it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While Depp delivers a great performance, Martin Landau steal the show as Bela Lugosi. His portrayal of Bela incorporates a wide range of emotions: from optimistic to cynical, depressed and angry. He actually won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (and makeup artist Rick Baker won for Best Makeup). While the film exaggerates certain aspects of Lugosi's personality (e.g. his cursing), Landau definitely looks the part:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://alfredeaker.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ed-wood-martin-landau-as-bela-lugosi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://alfredeaker.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ed-wood-martin-landau-as-bela-lugosi.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a fan of<i> Dracula</i> (Tod Browning, 1931) and Lugosi in general, I find nothing objectionable about Landau's performance. While it isn't perfect, it doesn't have to be. In the end, it is respectful and as long as you don't mind minor historical inaccuracies, you'll probably love it. In fact, sometimes I wonder if Landau's acting as Lugosi as an actor is better than Lugosi's real performances in the films in question.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Other memorable supporting characters include Bill Murray as Bunny, Ed's transgender best friend; Jeffrey Jones as the TV psychic Criswell; and Lisa Marie as TV horror host Vampira.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let's get more personal: why do I love this film so much? Well, I, like any person who think of themselves as creative, can identify with Ed. I have always loved to make up stories and write short stories, scripts, poems and song lyrics, and the film has a dual message for people like me. Firstly, while you might think of your work as brilliant, others may disagree. And they may have a point. We see Ed constantly fail as a writer, director and producer and we understand why. He is not very good at writing, directing or producing. When looking at our own work, we must be humble and self-critical, or we may never make something good.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second message might seem contradictory to the first, but it is equally important; never give up on your dreams. We have to use our creative passion. In light of the first message, this means that while we may experience problems and criticism, we have to pull through if our projects really matter to us. The real story of Ed Wood ends with pulp novels, nudie films and alcoholism, but <i>Ed Wood</i> ends on a high note. Ed wanted to be a world-famous filmmaker; now he is.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A lot of these points have been brought up by e.g. <a href="http://cinemassacre.com/2010/03/28/top-30-favorite-films-part-3/" target="_blank">James Rolfe</a> and <a href="http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/11654-top2001" target="_blank">Doug Walker</a>, both of whom also list Ed Wood as one of their favorite films. It is understandable that they, as independent filmmakers, love this film, as they probably can relate to a lot of the difficulties that arise when producing a film on a low budget.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For me, watching this film always puts me in a good mood. It isn't just because it is incredibly funny; it also leaves you with a sense of optimism. You feel as though everything is going to work out. It also helps you appreciate other films, especially Ed Wood's actual work, a lot more. While it may not paint an accurate picture of 21st century Hollywood, you can still apply its lessons to any film. Ed's arguing with producers and struggling for funding, probably goes on behind the scenes of a lot of films today.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I also love the film for what it represents. It was produced by Disney, but released under their Touchstone banner, for $18 million. Anyone with half a brain would've known that it would never make that money back. While Tim Burton and Johnny Depp certainly were popular at the time, they couldn't convince people to see a black-and-white (Burton had to fight hard for that) film about a cult filmmaker that most people had never heard of. Was the studio willing to pay that much to get a chance at a few Oscars? Maybe, but I prefer to think that they also fell for Ed and wanted to pay tribute to Hollywood's B-side.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2450407148292487833.post-58620042896258055952014-10-31T11:07:00.000+02:002015-12-31T16:25:45.695+02:00Film as my Religion: Introduction<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I was sixteen years old, I read <i>Sophie's World</i> by Jostein Gaarder. It introduced me to philosophy and lead me onto a new path. Examining my thoughts on subjects such as reason, ethics and faith, I no longer found Christianity meaningful. Over the next two years, I went from some kind of general theism to militant atheism. Nowadays I'm just an atheist. I am still critical of religion, but I no longer consider it the root of all evil. In fact, I appreciate numerous aspects of various religions and delight in reading and writing about them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What does this have to with movies then? Well, at the same time I started watching a lot of movies. I began by binging on 80s slashers and horror comedies and carefully moved towards other genres. I watch almost anything, but I still have a fascination for the macabre. Unfortunately, modern horror films mostly feature haunted houses and demonic possession - themes I have a hard time fully appreciating. Unlike many other horror hounds, I don't consider the constant stream of remakes/reboots blasphemous. That being said, a lot of them failed to bring anything new to the franchise or missed the point of the original entirely. One prime example of a bad remake/reboot is <i>Black Christmas</i> (Glen Morgan, 2006), but I will probably discuss that one in more detail when I review the original (Bob Clarke, 1974), at some point in the future.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Back to the point; I think movies play a large role in how we view the world. A fictional narrative focusing on a real ethical issue will probably affect how viewer think about that particular issue. We also look to movies when we are in need of comfort and various film fan communities even function as congregation-like entities. Also, if you've ever participated in a passionate discussion on Star Wars, you know it is pretty similar to a theological discussion. In short, we can meaningfully say that film can be religion. There is even an academic field of study dedicated to this subject. If you wish to learn more about that, check out <a href="http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/">Journal of Religion and Film.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With this blog, my aim is to review and analyze various films. While I am a big horror fan, I will try to review films from various genres. As long as there is something about a film worth discussing, it is eligible for a review.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will try to review at least one film every week. Every month will have a specific theme. Unfortunately, since this is the last day of October, the big "Month of Horror" will have to wait until next year. As a way to introduce myself and my taste in film more thoroughly, November's theme will be "Robin's favorites". My first full-length review will be up in a few days.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I appreciate comments and requests for reviews or themes.<br />
<br />
EDIT: I felt like I should explain my choice of language. While I do have some non-Swedish-speaking friends who might enjoy my reviews, I mainly chose to write in English because it is the language of film. Most films I watch are English-language. Most reviews I read och watch are in English. Most articles on film I read are in English. In short, my personal movie universe is in English. Therefore, it would seem strange to me to write about films in another language. Also, while I certainly do not expect it, writing in English at least opens up the possibility of an international audience.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15719780873612026175noreply@blogger.com0