Blue Velvet presents a hyperreal “good” and sinister “evil,” showing Lynch’s mockery of 1950s ideals. Yet, it seems as though he brings a more conservative view to the film that shows the need for morals. I don’t necessarily follow the opinions on Lynch’s belief in the innocent. His characters both in the “good” and “bad” worlds both show dynamic characteristics on both sides of the spectrum, showing a how characters and people can easily switch to the other side of the spectrum when a moral system is lost.
This film to me seemed to present an internal struggle to maintain moral ground. I approached this film with a more psychoanalytical approach after seeing a focus on human psyche. The entire emergence of the darker world unseen in the 1950s nostalgic world comes to existence because of Jeffery’s internal desires, causing him to view a scene that could represent a primal or subconscious desire of the character. Frank shows a clear Oedipal complex. As he reverts back to an Id like state, primal and instinctual, Jeffery witnesses an abusive relationship, which begins the sharp focus on morality (Super-Ego) in the film. Had Jeffery properly suppressed his desires, which are not to solve crime but are sexual, the evil would have been avoidable. Jeffery, like many of Lynch’s characters as explained by the reading “The Po-Puritan”, surrenders himself “to the inexplicable forces beyond their conscious control.” Even more terrifying is that these forces exist within him, suppressed into his subconscious and emerge into his Ego when he makes a “bad” decision, lurching him into a world without morals where his pleasure principle comes to the forefront. Sexual perversions would have been an acute interest during the 80s when the film was made, as the AIDs epidemic and resurgence of an intense Christian moral majority altered the more open sexual exploration of the 60s that carried into the 70s. Sandy was justified in her remark to Jeffery about whether he is a detective or a pervert.
Music in the film played an interesting role. It seemed to be a portal allowing good and evil to merge as a relatively safe exploration and portrayal of subconscious desire. When Dorothy sings, Frank is mesmerized and so is Jeffery and for those fleeting moments, they cohesively live on the same plane where “dreams [subconscious] and reality conjoin.” I took Frank’s drugs use represents, another portal to an ulterior perception and existence. His constant use can be seen as Lynch again showing the importance of maintaining a moral code and not letting oneself slip too far into perverse desire. An example of an artist delving too deeply into this state, the Van Gogh reference is even more support of this, offering a physical and visual example of perversion. With his filmmaking, Lynch could himself be exploring his own perversions in a morally “right” way.
I agree with the reading in quoting about Protestantism in relation to Lynch and its “reform of the individual.” Through the use of archetypal characters and the an idealized nostalgic setting, the 1950s back when America was still in its mind relatively a good place where nothing is expected to go wrong, Lynch’s shows how the moral weakness of his characters results in evil. Unlike other 1980s films like Repo Man the critique is not on industry or Reagan era politics but on the individuals struggle, “scoring his individualist’s mark of survival like a scar across the prairie.” References to brands and labels seen in postmodernism appear in this film as well but are consumed at the giving in of the character. Ultimately Blue Velvet on the surface is a narrative about a character seeking truth “in the dark crevices between the material world” and the world of subconscious desire tamed by the moral self. Truth is never found, there is no singular reality, and Lynch ends again with idealized images and subconscious is repressed but not resolved.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Stepford Wives
The 1960s saw the understood national belief that our nation was generally good and progressing towards a higher state of being stall out. Institutions set during the era when this belief was most prevalent, the 1950s, began to be examined through a different lens as “the end of history” approached in the sense of this dead end in progress. The nuclear family, and the gender roles inflicted by this institution went under great scrutiny in The Stepford Wives. As the reading points out, second wave feminism brought a shift of focus away from the existence of womanhood as infinite housework to issues such as rape, domestic violence, and pornography. No the less, the image of the housewife still persisted in 1970s ideology and became an embedded feature of our culture.
The Stepford Wives uses a staple of the 1950s, a presumably better time when the narrative of progress was still prevalent, as a feminist critique on the present roles of women in 1975 when this film was made. The Stepford wives represent a 1950s ideal, women as homemakers and mothers, subservient and beautiful. Joanna’s character, after moving to the Stepford community feels out of place as she does not embody or embrace the characteristics of these women. As the community and her husband continue to enforce the importance of having these housewife ideals, it is clear that in order to fill the role of an idealized housewife Joanna cannot have any self-identity as her own. In the case of the film, the gender roles enforced on Joanna are literally a trap, as she is turned into a Stepford wife robot, than the men benefit from. This in a much more tangible sense illustrates a feminist view on how patriarchal institutions trap womanhood in time, dehumanizing females into a gender reduced to housework.
I think this film is successful in introducing a mainstream middle class audience to the feminist arguments of the time. It was mentioned in class that a student felt as though they could not relate to the characters and therefore the film. I think a successful aspect to the film is that the characters lack a certain self-identity, representing a type rather than a person. This shows how insertion of women into gender roles benefiting a male dominated society as an universality, even if not to the extreme of become an enslaved house wife. Even so, the patriarchal power structure shown in the film is existent today and I think is very relatable from no matter what gender perspective, if any at all, you want to analyze this film with.
Even though the Step Wives does a good job at presenting feminist concerns I think it fails to enforce some key concepts as well. For instance Joanna before her robotic makeover, is meant to represent a “liberated” women; she has a self identity and interests outside of her marriage and motherhood. Yet her within her main passion, photography, she never reaches beyond the institutions feminists called argument against. The two subjects we see her capture are her children and a man carrying naked female mannequin. Both are arguably images of patriarchal entrapment of identity. So in a sense, even though Joanna seems to have a work outside the home, her art never goes beyond but merely captures her roles as a wife and mother. Also the film clearly demonizes housework, never allowing for the possibility for a woman to choice and feel self fulfilled as a housewife.
The Stepford Wives uses a staple of the 1950s, a presumably better time when the narrative of progress was still prevalent, as a feminist critique on the present roles of women in 1975 when this film was made. The Stepford wives represent a 1950s ideal, women as homemakers and mothers, subservient and beautiful. Joanna’s character, after moving to the Stepford community feels out of place as she does not embody or embrace the characteristics of these women. As the community and her husband continue to enforce the importance of having these housewife ideals, it is clear that in order to fill the role of an idealized housewife Joanna cannot have any self-identity as her own. In the case of the film, the gender roles enforced on Joanna are literally a trap, as she is turned into a Stepford wife robot, than the men benefit from. This in a much more tangible sense illustrates a feminist view on how patriarchal institutions trap womanhood in time, dehumanizing females into a gender reduced to housework.
I think this film is successful in introducing a mainstream middle class audience to the feminist arguments of the time. It was mentioned in class that a student felt as though they could not relate to the characters and therefore the film. I think a successful aspect to the film is that the characters lack a certain self-identity, representing a type rather than a person. This shows how insertion of women into gender roles benefiting a male dominated society as an universality, even if not to the extreme of become an enslaved house wife. Even so, the patriarchal power structure shown in the film is existent today and I think is very relatable from no matter what gender perspective, if any at all, you want to analyze this film with.
Even though the Step Wives does a good job at presenting feminist concerns I think it fails to enforce some key concepts as well. For instance Joanna before her robotic makeover, is meant to represent a “liberated” women; she has a self identity and interests outside of her marriage and motherhood. Yet her within her main passion, photography, she never reaches beyond the institutions feminists called argument against. The two subjects we see her capture are her children and a man carrying naked female mannequin. Both are arguably images of patriarchal entrapment of identity. So in a sense, even though Joanna seems to have a work outside the home, her art never goes beyond but merely captures her roles as a wife and mother. Also the film clearly demonizes housework, never allowing for the possibility for a woman to choice and feel self fulfilled as a housewife.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Manchurian Candidate
In a shift towards complete paranoia, binary narrative prevalent in previously viewed class films is dropped as the nuclear family turns on itself. This film marks a transition into the 60s where social movements began to questions to the demonology seen in 1950s film. Manchurian Candidate has fear without a side to trust. Brainwashing, political assassination, and conspiracy are at the forefront of this film, all at the hands of an over bearing mother.
The representations of women in this film were striking. For obvious reasons, Angela Lansbury’s character, Mrs. Iselin, is a striking reflection of early 60s ideology. As the reading discusses there is an interesting dynamic between men and woman, husband and wife at the time this film was made. Men felt dependant on women for their freedom as women attended to men domestically and sexually. In return, women gave up their identity as they assumed the role of housewife and were given “substantial indirect power” in the home. As female reform movements gained attention, opponents pushed for women to return back to the home, fearing the transition of mother to emasculating force. Angela Lansbury’s character illustrated this fear on a grand scale, going as far as portraying a conspiracy that the far right is controlled by the Russians.
Mom is clearly the demon in this film, plotting assassinations and mind control. But I found Leslie Parrish’s character, Jocelyn Jordan, equally as perplexing. She is really the only major female character in this film yet her role is more or less obsolete and certainly passive. Most of her presence in the film is through memory, giving her much less importance than Angela Lansbury’s character for instance who is affecting the action in the present narrative. The memory of her helping Raymond Shaw when he gets bite by a snake could have been a very romantic tender moment; instead she can’t stop rambling about her father. She sits on the arm of her father’s chair in her bathing suit as they speak with Raymond, showing the ideal of a women’s sexually controlled by her father then by her husband. She could have been a progressive character, with her knowledge of cleaning snake bits and pants apparel but she is still held back by 50s womanhood ideals. I thought this was visually obvious in the scene when Jocelyn and Raymond are watching Raymond’s father convict Joceyln’s father of high treason on television and her face is completely blocked out by his shadow, concealing any reaction from her face. She is present yet passive, and therefore attractive and desirable. I found it particularly interesting how in a strange turn of events, Raymond kills Jocelyn, preventing her from ever becoming the emasculating force his mother was.
What do these parallel representations of womanhood represent? How do you see these representations and the shift in the demonizing of the “other” changing as we move from the 50s and into the 60s?
(6 minutes 40 seconds into this section of the film you can see the scene I mentioned)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaT91QZ2DCk&feature=related
The representations of women in this film were striking. For obvious reasons, Angela Lansbury’s character, Mrs. Iselin, is a striking reflection of early 60s ideology. As the reading discusses there is an interesting dynamic between men and woman, husband and wife at the time this film was made. Men felt dependant on women for their freedom as women attended to men domestically and sexually. In return, women gave up their identity as they assumed the role of housewife and were given “substantial indirect power” in the home. As female reform movements gained attention, opponents pushed for women to return back to the home, fearing the transition of mother to emasculating force. Angela Lansbury’s character illustrated this fear on a grand scale, going as far as portraying a conspiracy that the far right is controlled by the Russians.
Mom is clearly the demon in this film, plotting assassinations and mind control. But I found Leslie Parrish’s character, Jocelyn Jordan, equally as perplexing. She is really the only major female character in this film yet her role is more or less obsolete and certainly passive. Most of her presence in the film is through memory, giving her much less importance than Angela Lansbury’s character for instance who is affecting the action in the present narrative. The memory of her helping Raymond Shaw when he gets bite by a snake could have been a very romantic tender moment; instead she can’t stop rambling about her father. She sits on the arm of her father’s chair in her bathing suit as they speak with Raymond, showing the ideal of a women’s sexually controlled by her father then by her husband. She could have been a progressive character, with her knowledge of cleaning snake bits and pants apparel but she is still held back by 50s womanhood ideals. I thought this was visually obvious in the scene when Jocelyn and Raymond are watching Raymond’s father convict Joceyln’s father of high treason on television and her face is completely blocked out by his shadow, concealing any reaction from her face. She is present yet passive, and therefore attractive and desirable. I found it particularly interesting how in a strange turn of events, Raymond kills Jocelyn, preventing her from ever becoming the emasculating force his mother was.
What do these parallel representations of womanhood represent? How do you see these representations and the shift in the demonizing of the “other” changing as we move from the 50s and into the 60s?
(6 minutes 40 seconds into this section of the film you can see the scene I mentioned)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaT91QZ2DCk&feature=related
Friday, August 27, 2010
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?
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?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 30, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)