Atomic Cafe

Doused in frantic paranoia, United States citizens during 1940s and 50s Cold War era were inherently concerned of their conduct and appearance. As observed in the 1982 film Atomic Café, and supplemental videos “The House in the Middle,” and “Operation Cue,” Cold War attitudes were as much about fear of nuclear attack as they were about fitting into the identity of an American citizen living in a nuclear age. What was striking while watching the tactically edited military training and educational videos, which comprise Atomic Café, is how cleanliness and wholesome image became synonymous with ones safety and survival during nuclear attack. The government produced atomic procedural films were key in promoting ideals of the era that were influential in defining the roles of citizens.

There is (as what is meant to be viewed as inadvertent) advertisement throughout the “educational” films. In one news like film clip, the reporter takes a moment to mention “two outstanding shopping centers” after reporting on town that staged a mock communist takeover (0:19:41). This declared the importance of shopping in newly founded shopping malls away from the home. Appearing several times throughout Atomic Café, are film clips of a congressmen discussing nuclear warfare in front of a large sign advertising the watch company Longines (0:24:50). Again this reinforces the idea of consumerism and identity, advertising what Americans should be buying. Something that really stuck out oddly to me was a print of Van Gogh’s “Vase with Twelve Sunflowers” hanging on the wall above the family eating at the kitchen table (0:42:00). To me, this image seemed to imply that the depicted family was worldly and educated. If they watch television after dinner to find out what’s going on in the news then I should too. Embedded in these films meant to educate citizens on the protocol during a nuclear attack, are product placements for American etiquette and consumerism.

Reading “Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women,” illustrated further the American identity emerging from Cold War fear. Living in suburban dwellings became the norm for the white middle class, instilling a sense of safety to those who had the means to live in a repetitious ranch on a cul-de-sac. But just living in the right house wasn’t enough, conforming to the new template of the nuclear family was the only way to ensure safety and patriotism; this constructing the idealized family out of the desire to appear wholesome and normal. The video of “The House in the Middle” particularly harked back to this ideal in stating that the whitest, cleanest, and well-kept homes would be the safest during nuclear attack.

Some viewed the intensity of the fear in film to be contrived or exaggerated. It’s clearly evident that people during this era were constantly terrified of nuclear attack. Being so prevalent and intense, atomic fear directly altered societal values. The solution to this anxiety was to become a model family and citizen. To be entirely conservative became a defining value and by doing so, allowed you to calm act calm in knowing you are fulfilling your civic duty. Atomic fear was incredibly influential in constructing American identity in the 1940s and 50s and I believe a lot of these core ideals remain major aspects of the idealized American identity today. Do you agree?

Kung Fu Hustle

For my first kung fu movie, Kung Fu Hustle had a lot going on visually that was exciting to watch as well as many elements that seemed familiar. There were lots of very clever moments in the film such as when Sing is running from Landlady and uses the knives stuck in his arms as rear view mirrors. I also thought all the extra lurking it the back of scenes with their pants half way down their butts’ was so funny.

I looked up Wuxia to see how this would apply to the film. An interesting thing that I read is that in this genre concerning the adventures of martial arts, is that the heroes are often of a lower class. Sing seems to be somewhat of a loser and it is unexpected that he is “the one.” Wuxia stresses Buddhist ideals of forgiveness and compassion. This can be reflected in the final fight with Sing and The Beast in which Sign doesn’t kill but offers to teach The Beast. Set in ancient China, Wuxia works promote ideals of honor, upholding justice, and helping the poor are promoted.

Kung Fu Hustle seems to exist in this genre but as purely a mode of entertainment and not so much a means of promoting ancient Chinese culture and ideals. It seems to imitate this genre more so than fully follow the recipe for a Wuxia film. Kung Fu Hustle points out how the ideals of chivalry and honor no longer exist. The scene when the kids pee on the young beaten up Sing made me cringe; who would do that to a young kid! (or really anyone I guess) In the beginning when Brother Sum shots the women was also really surprising because it broke that male chivalry of gun slinging westerns that spared the pretty little ladies.

By incorporating elements from other genres of film, and other films themselves, Kung Fu Hustle was insanely amusing to watch with so many badass scenes. References to movies other than Kung Fu movies allow it to leak out of the Kung Fu universe for the sake of entertainment. A moment of this that stands out for me is the Hulk like freak out inside the streetlight, pounding on the metal leaving huge handprints. But the references, is postmodern tradition, do not add up to a greater understanding of ancient Chinese culture or even a deeper meaning. The parody leaves behind tradition by referencing American films, and containing imagery I’m sure older kung fu movies would never include (young men walking around with their asses exposed) to create a stylistically interesting film.

Mulholland Drive

Mulholland Drive criticizes the “dream factory,” while at the same time providing insight into the creativity abundant in the masses. Interplaying between the real and surreal, the film is presented in a non-linear form, loosely (if at all) defining what is supposed to represent reality. In his commentary on Hollywood, Lynch manipulates time, space, and characters in a way unseen in traditional Hollywood cinematography, yet the film incorporates stereotypical movie elements; mobsters, hit men, a femme fatal, beautiful women. Watching this film, there are many elements to identify with, as you feel as though you have seen them before, yet there is a large sense of the irrational which may be uncomfortable for viewers. Hollywood taught us to identify with a protagonist and to follow their reality. In this case, Betty, and her attempt to make in Hollywood, would be expected to be the main character. We know this by her perky blonde behavior, her cheesy bubblyness that is apparent in so many movie mainstream movie characters. She comes from a small town, full of innocence and charm, as the characters always do. But if we try to watch the film latched onto her, it would appear to make very little sense. If instead, we consider Hollywood as the protagonist, the driving force manipulating the character’s actions, a greater analysis may be drawn.

For me, the main message I gathered from Mulholland Drive was how Hollywood can kill, and is killing, creativity through forced convention. The director embodies this idea most readily. He is forced by mobsters and “The Cowboy,” an iconic image in American movie yet holds no meaning in the film specifically as a cowboy, to feature a main actress who he does not want, stifling his vision of the film. Just the fact that Lynch uses so many aspects from other films illustrates that most Hollywood films are just remakes of each other. Through commercialization there is a homogenization of what a movie should be and the elements in should have. Mullholand Drive has a lot of those elements but is certainly not a Hollywood film. One example that really stuck out for me was the splattered pink paint in the argument between the director and his wife. As they fight over the jewelry, paint splotches them both like blood in a fight. Pink paint came to represent blood, which is an element of gore in many movies. When the director is going to see the Cowboy, his suit covered in paint, the image recalls so many other movies when disheveled men in proper clothes look tough covered in battle’s blood. In this sense, Lynch shows that all is not stifled by Hollywood, free thinking and the unexpected still exist.

Trying to make sense of every image and plot point in this film would be incredibly difficult. There are far too many surreal aspects that I don’t think are supposed to be explained. Some elements and turns in plot seem forced in the unexpected, such as Betty and Rita’s attraction. Secretly, I think audiences want to see a lesbian relationship in film when there are two women living together such as they were, alone trying to piece together Rita’s life in an expensive L.A. apartment. Although unexpected, the movie gives us that, which was a surprise to me as Betty seemed rather asexual. These characters seemed to be manipulated by a higher force and not by their own will, like Hollywood is forcing this to happen. I felt that especially when Betty repeats “I love you” to Rita, it seemed very flat, said because that is what is supposed to be said during a sexual encounter.

Ultimately, I think Lynch is pointing out the creative potential in American filmmaking when the filmmaker is open to create at will. Lynch confined himself to traditional Hollywood elements yet by altering the narrative structure, created a completely different film.

Heathers

“Heathers” is very effective in presenting the problems plaguing American high schools, yet lacks the neat final summary John Hughes movies conclude with. This being the case, I don’t think “Heathers” had a message or moral it was trying to portray. Things happened in this movie with irrelevant action, questioning expectations in Hollywood movie plot and characters. J.D. is not an antihero, just doing things for fun and not acting on a higher power of improving society.
I’m not sure if I agree with Nick Burns’s statement that “Heathers” “robs youth, all youth” by taking away value and meaning of things in youth culture. Ultimately, the vapid emptiness in the film resulting from countless cultural references with no meaning points out the shallowness in society and adults rather than the youth. There is no sane adult intervention in this film. We can see how the society in which these kids live could lead to suicide (even though there is only one actual suicide in the film). It’s like the adults expect the kids to be suicidal, not questioning the murders believing them instantaneously to be suicides. If anything, I think this movie robs adults of their power, exploiting to the youth the lack of power they in the social hierarchy of the American high school. It is as if this Ohio high school is its own society, seething with power struggles and intimidation.


Here are some links to things I thought of while watching this film:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/16/video-game-shoppers.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg

Vanishing Point

As far as the visuals go, I really loved the out of focus close ups of Kowalski through the driver window. I don’t know if there is a term for this but I love how it really breaks away from the more traditional camera work. It also helps to distance viewers a bit more from Kowalski; instead of getting glorified dreamy close-ups there are a couple instances of these blurred zooming ins. Also visually, the title is really appropriate for this movie. In perspective drawing a vanishing point is where parallel lines converge on the horizon line. Long shots of the road in front of Kowalski, surrounded by desert, show the asphalt melting into nothing in the horizon. I saw the image of the light beam between the bulldozers at the end of the film as the actual “vanishing point,” into which Kowalski, well, vanishes.

About halfway through watching the film, finding myself wanting Kowalski to dodge yet another cop car, I asked myself, “why am I rooting for this guy?” As someone who used to travel at any chance I got, driving hours on end to go to a concert that was really just the excuse for driving, I understand Kowalski’s desire to live life on the road. Although there is nothing heroic about his frantic driving habits. Paradoxically there is nothing about Kowalski that should allow him to be condemned. He is a deadpan driver, the anti-hero who the movie is about yet he has practically like what, ten lines? Without Super Soul, an external force pumping up Kowalski’s ego into stardom, Kowalski has little importance.

Even in the background information viewers obtain through Kowalski’s own flashbacks, he is neither a hero nor villain but rather a regular guy who tends to get screwed over in life. When looking back at being a cop, he flashes to a scene in which he stands up to a superior but ultimately gets fired. In another flashback he is with a foxy girl but she dies, surfing. In a sense it seems like he has convinced himself that he could never be the hero and doesn’t try to be, he just wants to deliver a car in three days. He wants to be “fitter, happier, more productive,” feed by the popular logic of being an efficient fast worker, a contributing member to society.

In this since, Kowalski can never experience absolute freedom on the road as it brings up memories of him being unsuccessful at what he sets out to do. (All of the flashbacks involve a motor vehicle of some sort; a police car, a jeep, a motorcycle.) Actually cars are really the ultimate vessel for containment in the system. Cars run directly on capitalism, gas, on roads preset by the government and for the government, expanded for Cold War purposes. Vanishing Point dispels the romanticism of a counter culture fighting “the Man”, escaping the confines of traditional society, and shows that road narratives are really a contradiction. Instead we have a man who is driving really fast to deliver a car for his boss, dependant on speed stay to up for three days, and is getting chased by the cops. Kowalski hasn’t escaped anything.

Dr. Strangelove

Dr. Strangelove is intriguing when studied as a “moral protest of revulsion against the dominant cultural paradigm in America.” While the Hays Code constructed industry standards of appropriateness, Dr. Strangelove not only presented many sexual references, a subject of censorship, but also was satirically critical of the government. This film questioned the understanding of the United States as a relatively good place, rattling the “Ideology of Liberal Consensus” by referencing World War II movies as well as confronting hypocrisy in the American political system.

In the “age of conformity,” Kubrick points out the stupidity in American. World War II movies aggressively promoted a binary narrative, portraying the Americans as heroes against a corrupt enemy. This helped in legitimizing the Cold War and nuclear proliferation. Media plays a huge role in public perception of government action and society in general. Some sources at the time made argument for nuclear war as an option. News and World Report carried a side story “about how well survivors of the Japanese bombings were doing.” Dr. Strangelove shows the desire of military men to be Wolrd War II heros, but in the context of the “Dooms Day Machine,” could never be because it would kill them all and everyone else on the planet. With this Kubrick points out the absurdity in nuclear warfare against a formulated enemy. Communism became such a focus of paranoia because our society constructed it as a driving force attempting to crush our suburbia. Kubrick was obviously commenting on the paradigm set up and carried into the 1950s and 60s of America being a good place with the sole threat of communism by showing the American soldiers and government officials as rather blundering idiots, too concerned with the lipstick in their survival packs to realize their actions will kill them all.

On the surface, like in all war movies, the commander Slim Pickens would appear to be a symbol of patriotism and masculinity with his cowboy hat, and willingness to straddle a nuclear weapon. The rather obvious irony being that these men, supposedly fighting to save America against a brutal enemy, are really going to end the entire human race when they drop of a nuclear weapon. The way Kubrick makes viewers question the legitimacy of the soldiers’ roles is great. Often people view war movies as a proud triumph, accepting the United States as a sound just and brave nation. Dr Strangelove puts this into perspective, presenting us with a president too much of a wuss to take any really action and American soldiers who attack their own base. By doing this, he questions the reasons behind war and our judgment of ourselves as the “good” country. With the way Kubrick presents the film’s characters, it is really revolutionary at the time of what film could say about the status quo.

The only contemporary example I could think of as a satire of the Iraq War was Borat. It definitely points out Americans’ perceptions of minorities in a shocking way. The scene that really comes to mind is when Borat is in the arena getting the audience riled up by saying things such as, “I hope President Bush drinks the blood of every man, woman, and child in Iraq!,” only to be met by whooping applause.

Window Water Baby Moving

Stan Brakhage’s quote, “Somewhere, we have an eye (I’ll speak for myself) capable of any imagining (the only reality),” for me really defines the purpose of Deren and Brakhage’s films. What he is implying, is that that is no singular reality as we each construct our own, rooting itself in imagination. Therefore he is not trying to create films that appear true to life but rather expressive of the reality of imagination. He does this by abstracting recognizable forms, as he does in “Window Water Baby Moving,” and “Mothlight.” Through abstraction, we are able to see with our eyes instead of our minds, which like to place associations and narrative on familiar subjects. By taking the signified from the signifier we allow experience through sight, overcoming previous boundaries.

This week’s viewing was definitely my favorite so far. Although I appreciate Maya Deren’s work, I really gravitated toward Stan Brakhage’s work. There is simplicity of subject matter in each shot that looks extremely thought out and determined, allowing for a focus on textures, shapes, and hues. Especially in “Window Water Baby Moving,” every shot was lit beautifully and composed with, what appeared to be, careful consideration that they could have stood on their own as photographs. These film shorts celebrated film making itself as art and was very enjoyable to view.

Initial class reactions to the short film were somewhat shocking. It seems like perhaps it was difficult for viewers to stop thinking and start seeing. Instead it seemed like some jumped to create a narrative about the woman, making her into an existing figure (rather than an abstraction) who is being violated by having this “private” footage taken. I think some viewers, as well as Deren who saw the film as a violation of women believing birth to be observable exclusively by women, got too caught up in what they thought was going on in the film instead of just watching it. As said by Brakhage, “To search for human visual realities, man must…transcend the original physical restrictions and inherits worlds of the eyes.” Aesthically the film is beautiful. The shots are put together with intent, which is obvious just in composition but as well as all the instances when the film jumps from an image of giving birth to the window or bathtub, showing that Brakhage had an intention in editing the film. The graceful lighting and tender bathtub images create a softness and calm. Shadows are deliberately aligned, a windowpane on a pregnant belly.

I don’t believe it was Brakhage’s intent to make a film of his wife giving birth, but rather to make us see through capturing the physicality of the event. The film cannot be a violation of the woman in the film, Brakhage’s wife, as it exsists as an artistic expression, abstracting an actual event by changing time and space and choosing which shots to show and the order they go in. She is as much as an abstraction as the moth pieces pulled apart shimmering on the screen.

It is understandable to see where the argument arising of birth being a “private” moment, but if the film short is viewed as in a “world before the ‘beginning was the word’” it would be a totally different experience. The film doesn’t take the experience of giving birth away from women, or his wife, but presents birth lovingly while giving power back to women. “Window Water Baby Moving” is not presenting an absolute, “This is birth”, but instead a possibility through physicality. I very much appreciate how Brakhage has presented a woman actively involved in giving birth instead of a traditional depiction in which the men, doctors and partners, are the hero’s, which I find more offensive than Brakhage’s flattering film.