Bobby, as a Lesson for the Future
11/27/06
What is it about the Kennedy family that intoxicates Americans? Almost 40 years after the assassination of the younger member of America’s royal family, the story still invokes tears and gasps from audiences. Emilio Estevez’s Bobby tells the story of the events that took place in the Ambassador hotel the day that Robert Kennedy won the California primary and was then shot in the kitchen of the hotel. The movie follows a number of people and how they go about their day the political potential was killed. All of those individuals end up in the ballroom listening to RFK accept the win, and a number of them are in the kitchen with him when he is shot.
One theme which is constant through the movie is that of violence – both domestic and abroad. The violence referred to is both between individuals and on a national level. The social turmoil in America at that time was tangible. Violence existed between race, class, and nationalities. The characters Estevez follows embody all of those social tensions as well. Elderly men lament about how society rejected them once they reached a certain age, young men talk about how they are afraid of being shipped off the Vietnam, women discuss their roles and how they are expected to put themselves out to protect the wellbeing of their husbands and they aren’t supposed to feel neglected. Finally, a young African American political worker is distressed over the lack of support towards encouraging poor black citizens to vote. These individuals are microcosms of the greater social strife, and one of the main strengths of the movie lies in its ability to personalize global problems and puts a face to the conflict.
Another interesting artistic choice is to interweave archival footage and voiceovers from speeches RFK made during the campaign trail. Estevez makes very conscience decisions about which of RFK’s speeches to highlight in the film. It is clear that he is making a direct parallel between the socio-political situation in the 1960s and that of today. The speeches all talk about how America cannot survive as a nation divided by race, economics and political opinions. At a time where there are a number of parallels being drawn between the two eras, this movie is no exception. There was so much hope among Americans when Bobby was running for president. People expected him to take over his brother’s legacy and bring America back to a place where people could be proud. The optimism was almost palatable. When the shots from Sirhan Sirhan’s gun ring out throughout the hotel, that promise fades along with him.
Interwoven throughout the movie are real pieces of archival footage from goings on in the 1960s and from Bobby Kennedy’s campaign trail. One of this movie’s greatest strength is using those images to further its agenda. The movie wants to the audience to identify with the characters and by using that footage it reminds viewers that this isn’t just a fictional account of what happened. The people and events depicted are real and the issues the country was facing at the time was real and pressing. So too, the danger of times we are currently in are just as imminent and Americans are yearning for a savior, like the one they saw in John F. Kennedy and then with his younger brother, Bobby.
Another theme throughout the movie is that of escapism. Characters work hard to find their own ways to escape from the harsh reality of the world in which they live. Lounge singer Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore) chooses to escape into “a bottle of very fine scotch.” Two young pollsters (Shia LeBouf and Brian Geraghty) wish to buy a joint from a hippie (Ashton Kutcher), but instead they get a chance to experience their very first acid hit. Others, like Diane and William (Lindsay Lohan and Elijah Wood) choose to get married to keep William away from the front lines in Vietnam. This young couple is escaping from their real lives to marry one another in order to not have to face the harsh reality of where young boys are being sent every day. Ultimately, the message is that there is no escape. Those who try the hardest to escape come face to face with the harsh realities of the world. There is no shelter from violence, no matter what measures are taken to protect oneself. However, the escape seemed to be possible, that is, until Kennedy was shot. At this point, people faced the real danger and the sadness as soon as their political leadership was literally unable to help them forge a new future.
Ultimately the message of the film is that violence at home cannot be underestimated. Bobby Kennedy ran on a platform which stated that until we can live together in peace domestically, we cannot expect peace from abroad. This is a message which is relevant today. The current war in Iraq is an issue which has this country divided, but the message cannot be forgotten that we should not abandon our ideal of peace to end a war abroad. Bobby Kennedy represented hopefulness for a better future. His life was cut short by an act of senseless violence. That is why his legacy remains powerful and relevant until today. It is the same reason his brother’s legacy is strong as well. The movie closes with home photographs of the Kennedy brothers together and smiling. People at that time thought, especially after Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. murder, that RFK was the country’s last chance for not only peace, but for social unification. The sentiment of this movie seems to be saying that we still haven’t found someone who can lead us like our potential leadership from 40 years ago. The film wishes for a return to a leadership whom the American people can look towards with an idealistic sense of hope.
Finally, Bobby is a who’s who of Hollywood. It seemed that anyone in Hollywood who considers him or herself a liberal wished to jump on this bandwagon. At times it was distracting – always knowing that the next character to appear is another big name actor you were not expecting to see. Sometime is would have been better to leave some of the roles to less known actors. For instance, I would have enjoyed the movie far greater had some other young ingénue play the role of Diane. I did not need to hear Lindsay Lohan raspily drone on about the perils of the war and the selflessness of her act to marry William when in real life, her shenanigans are anything but selfless or cautionary. Furthermore, while Laurence Fishburne is a fantastic actor, it was needless for him to play the wise chef. The role was too small for him and his monologue about how much of a king Jose (Freddy Rodriguez) is for giving him Dodgers tickets was too melodramatic to be believable. It was, however, fantastic to see Sharon Stone and Demi Moore play women their own ages who resist just that – being a middle aged women in a youth obsessed culture. They were cast perfectly in those roles.
As award season rolls along, politically charged films are anything but a novelty. However, what is particularly interesting about this film is its use of politics which are close to 40 years old to make a film which is so relevant today. Not only does the movie succeed at making this link, but it does so quite seamlessly at that. So the question individuals have to ask themselves is, will we as a country allow ourselves to watch history repeat itself? We have not fully regressed to the level of violence, domestically that is, that existed in the 1960s, but perhaps this film should be a warning to Americans and American leadership of what may happen if things continue to escalate.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
Babel - 11/19/06
Babbling Through the World
11/19/06
Mass communication. Global contact. Immediate gratification. These are the themes the world is living with in 2006. Someone in Alaska can send an email to a friend in Southeast Asia and in a matter of seconds the email is read. When an employee in New York needs assistance with a computer glitch, he calls a 1-800 phone number and the operator on the other end is sitting in a cubicle in Bombay. These communication advancements are things that we as a society are proud of, but what are the interpersonal costs? Are people really communicating with those who are right there in front of them? Are cultures able to understand each other better? Those are the themes that director, Alejandro González Iñárritu explores in his new movie, Babel.
Babel tells the stories of many characters, all of whom are connected to one another. It opens in a Moroccan home where a shepherd buys a rifle so he can shoot lurking jackals. His two sons take the rifle to practice their shots. They begin by aiming at nearby rocks, but in an effort to challenge themselves with items further away, a passing bus becomes a new target. Richard and Susan Jones (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) are on vacation in Morocco when a bullet tears through the window of their bus, hitting Susan in the shoulder. With no access to medical attention the tour bus rushes to a local village to await help. This incident sets off four related stories – the Moroccan and American lead searches for the person who committed the horrific act, the story of a young deaf-mute in Japan, and the housekeeper in California who has to take her two young charges to her son’s wedding in Mexico.
The film’s title refers to the biblical story of the people in the city of Babel who try to build a tower up to the heavens to make themselves on par with God. They want to know all that He knows and do all that He does. However, as a punishment for this arrogant project, God destroys the tower and disperses the people throughout the planet, giving them all different languages and cultures so that no one can understand another.
Perhaps we as a global society have become as arrogant as the people in Babel. Do we think that we deserve an understanding of all of God’s doings? For much of the film, even those speaking the same language do not understand one another. Furthermore, language is not the only separating factor. Culture and religion are as well. The young Jones children have been raised by Amelia and understand Spanish however, when in Mexico they are introduced to an entirely new way of life. As they enter the country they ask their nanny’s nephew, Santiago (Gael García Bernal), if Mexico is dangerous. He answers with his tongue firmly planted inside his cheek that it is so dangerous because so many Mexicans live there. While playing with the other children, they are horrified to see Santiago break the head off of a chicken while the “native” children scream with delight.
Each one of these narratives carries the same theme – communication and what it means. Everyone wants to be heard and, probably more importantly, understood. Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), the deaf mute high schooler in Japan wishes so much that she could be heard. When people can’t understand her, she translates the feeling of isolation to the inability to connect with people. As a remedy, she tries to be touched, physically by anyone with whom she can get close. The need for physical attention becomes important to those who don’t feel as though they are being heard. Physicality becomes a language all its own. Susan and Richard Jones fight over something that neither one can articulate; however when Susan reaches over to touch her husband’s hand we know that they have a mutual understanding. Back in California, Susan and Richard’s children are being put to bed by Amelia (Adriana Barraza), the au pair who has cared for the children since they were born. Debbie Jones (Elle Fanning) is scared of what happened to her baby brother when he went to sleep, and cannot understand something which happened to someone she loved. She will not go to sleep without Amelia sitting on her bed stroking her hair.
Furthermore, although this movie seems to be telling four separate stories, all of the characters are connected to one another. In our media today, we are consumed by tales of interlocking stories – how people are connected fascinates us right now. Movies like the Oscar-winning Crash, and television shows like 6 Degrees and The Nine tell stories of people whose lives are inexplicably intertwined, and Babel is no exception. As the narrative continues the interweaving of the lives of all the characters becomes further apparent. In an age where no one seems to be personally connected to anyone, our art tries to remedy that. It gives back stories which tell audiences that no matter how disconnected one feels from another, there will common ground.
In the age of mass communication, instant gratification is also something that we expect. Digital cameras, high speed internet, on demand viewing are all examples of the need to get things when we want them and how we want them. This movie takes that desire for immediate satisfaction and distorts it. The time line of the movie is not straightforward, and the non-linearity of it is not apparent until the movie almost ends. The Mexican wedding clearly takes place over the course of a day. However, how long is it between the time that Susan gets shot and eventually gets saved? When does the shooting take place in relationship to Amelie bringing the children to Mexico? How long does it take for the shooters to be found? Iñárritu does not give the audience the same privileges to the audience that they might expect.
There is a lot more that separates people than just verbal language. Even if they are bordering societies, cultures can be worlds apart. That is something that should be taken into consideration as we head deeper into our global society. We have to remember that there still remains a lot to know about one another and we are not one large global society just because our information can cross oceans in a matter of seconds. Babel takes a conservative approach to the dawning of our global society and perhaps offers a cautionary warning that we should be careful, lest history repeat itself. As much as we think we have out fooled God because we think we can all understand each other, we should be a little less arrogant and realize that He probably knows something that we don’t.
11/19/06
Mass communication. Global contact. Immediate gratification. These are the themes the world is living with in 2006. Someone in Alaska can send an email to a friend in Southeast Asia and in a matter of seconds the email is read. When an employee in New York needs assistance with a computer glitch, he calls a 1-800 phone number and the operator on the other end is sitting in a cubicle in Bombay. These communication advancements are things that we as a society are proud of, but what are the interpersonal costs? Are people really communicating with those who are right there in front of them? Are cultures able to understand each other better? Those are the themes that director, Alejandro González Iñárritu explores in his new movie, Babel.
Babel tells the stories of many characters, all of whom are connected to one another. It opens in a Moroccan home where a shepherd buys a rifle so he can shoot lurking jackals. His two sons take the rifle to practice their shots. They begin by aiming at nearby rocks, but in an effort to challenge themselves with items further away, a passing bus becomes a new target. Richard and Susan Jones (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) are on vacation in Morocco when a bullet tears through the window of their bus, hitting Susan in the shoulder. With no access to medical attention the tour bus rushes to a local village to await help. This incident sets off four related stories – the Moroccan and American lead searches for the person who committed the horrific act, the story of a young deaf-mute in Japan, and the housekeeper in California who has to take her two young charges to her son’s wedding in Mexico.
The film’s title refers to the biblical story of the people in the city of Babel who try to build a tower up to the heavens to make themselves on par with God. They want to know all that He knows and do all that He does. However, as a punishment for this arrogant project, God destroys the tower and disperses the people throughout the planet, giving them all different languages and cultures so that no one can understand another.
Perhaps we as a global society have become as arrogant as the people in Babel. Do we think that we deserve an understanding of all of God’s doings? For much of the film, even those speaking the same language do not understand one another. Furthermore, language is not the only separating factor. Culture and religion are as well. The young Jones children have been raised by Amelia and understand Spanish however, when in Mexico they are introduced to an entirely new way of life. As they enter the country they ask their nanny’s nephew, Santiago (Gael García Bernal), if Mexico is dangerous. He answers with his tongue firmly planted inside his cheek that it is so dangerous because so many Mexicans live there. While playing with the other children, they are horrified to see Santiago break the head off of a chicken while the “native” children scream with delight.
Each one of these narratives carries the same theme – communication and what it means. Everyone wants to be heard and, probably more importantly, understood. Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), the deaf mute high schooler in Japan wishes so much that she could be heard. When people can’t understand her, she translates the feeling of isolation to the inability to connect with people. As a remedy, she tries to be touched, physically by anyone with whom she can get close. The need for physical attention becomes important to those who don’t feel as though they are being heard. Physicality becomes a language all its own. Susan and Richard Jones fight over something that neither one can articulate; however when Susan reaches over to touch her husband’s hand we know that they have a mutual understanding. Back in California, Susan and Richard’s children are being put to bed by Amelia (Adriana Barraza), the au pair who has cared for the children since they were born. Debbie Jones (Elle Fanning) is scared of what happened to her baby brother when he went to sleep, and cannot understand something which happened to someone she loved. She will not go to sleep without Amelia sitting on her bed stroking her hair.
Furthermore, although this movie seems to be telling four separate stories, all of the characters are connected to one another. In our media today, we are consumed by tales of interlocking stories – how people are connected fascinates us right now. Movies like the Oscar-winning Crash, and television shows like 6 Degrees and The Nine tell stories of people whose lives are inexplicably intertwined, and Babel is no exception. As the narrative continues the interweaving of the lives of all the characters becomes further apparent. In an age where no one seems to be personally connected to anyone, our art tries to remedy that. It gives back stories which tell audiences that no matter how disconnected one feels from another, there will common ground.
In the age of mass communication, instant gratification is also something that we expect. Digital cameras, high speed internet, on demand viewing are all examples of the need to get things when we want them and how we want them. This movie takes that desire for immediate satisfaction and distorts it. The time line of the movie is not straightforward, and the non-linearity of it is not apparent until the movie almost ends. The Mexican wedding clearly takes place over the course of a day. However, how long is it between the time that Susan gets shot and eventually gets saved? When does the shooting take place in relationship to Amelie bringing the children to Mexico? How long does it take for the shooters to be found? Iñárritu does not give the audience the same privileges to the audience that they might expect.
There is a lot more that separates people than just verbal language. Even if they are bordering societies, cultures can be worlds apart. That is something that should be taken into consideration as we head deeper into our global society. We have to remember that there still remains a lot to know about one another and we are not one large global society just because our information can cross oceans in a matter of seconds. Babel takes a conservative approach to the dawning of our global society and perhaps offers a cautionary warning that we should be careful, lest history repeat itself. As much as we think we have out fooled God because we think we can all understand each other, we should be a little less arrogant and realize that He probably knows something that we don’t.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Deja Vu - 11/12/06
Déjà Vu? No thank you.
11/12/06
Déjà vu? More like Déjà-don’t! In this quasi-thriller quasi time travel extravaganza Denzel Washington takes an unlikely trip back to the past to save the life of a woman with whom he has recently become obsessed, oh and then there are the 540 men, women, and children who were innocently killed too. The movie opens with the beginnings of a Mardi Gras celebration for navy officers and their families when a car bomb explodes the local ferry on which they were enjoying the day. Don’t worry, I'm not giving anything away. If you’ve ever seen an action movie, let alone a flick produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, you know this idyllic scene of innocent fun and joy cannot end well.
After the explosion, Doug Carlin (Washington), a federal agent from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Unit, comes to investigate the scene. The exploration brings him to the scorched body of a woman who was killed before the explosion ever occurred. His involvement eventually leads him to be asked to be a part of an elite team who, with special surveillance equipment are able to look back and retrace the days that led up to the explosion.
However, as the first act comes to a close, we learn that their equipment is much more than just simple satellite surveillance. When that realization was made, my suspension of disbelief couldn’t be suspended any longer. At first it took me a moment to accept the concept that our government’s newest satellites could penetrate walls and peer into our homes and watch our every move. Initially I was skeptical, but eventually I conceded because it’s beyond the government to watch and listen to our every move (cough, cough). Audiences accepted the cinematic surveillance that initially seemed unlikely with “Enemy of the State” a hit. So why not this too? However, when it was revealed that they were not in fact watching old satellite footage, rather a window into the past – a wrinkle in time if you will – I lost interest. That was just too much to accept. The script tries to hide the absurd concept with a lot of techno-jargon coming from the Ph.D. who invented the machine; however that just confused me more. From that point on, until the lights finally came on, it’s pretty clear how the movie is going to end. It became rather formulaic and predictable.
So obsessed with rescuing Claire (Paula Patton), the murdered woman, Carlin insists he travels back in time. Despite the warnings from the physicists and other detectives, he goes back four days to track down Carroll Oerstadt (Jim Caviezel), the man who committed the horrific crimes. The artist formerly known as Jesus now plays a gun toting, ideals spewing terrorist. For the greater good he was willing to take lives, including his own. He goes on tirades that denounce the state of American politics and patriotism. He berates Americans for not being as jingoistic as he thinks they should be. He is disappointed with the waning support of the war and the troops overseas.
This plotline was so hard to accept because in most time travel movies there is an element of fantasy. This was rooted too deeply in reality. Our world is a little too scary these days to intertwine such detailed political upset with fantasy. Something just felt off about the convergence of the two themes. Escapism is something that people want, but after seeing this movie I realized that it has to be done in the right way.
Aside from that, the other aspects of the movie do not have the strength to hold the plot together. The weak script combined with the average acting did not help matters. Carlin never met the woman previous to the narrative, nor had she met him, yet almost instantly they fall for each other. The kiss they share after knowing each other for one hour was laughable – and the rest of the audience made it clear that they felt similarly when they burst into laughter at the moment of the kiss. The lack of character development is astounding. It’s as if the writers spent too much time working on learning all the technical terminology that they forgot to actually develop their characters…woops.
The concept of government surveillance is an interesting topic to tackle, especially in a day when it is actually happening at levels unseen before this administration. Furthermore, with Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, and a number of other good actors there was a lot of promise going in to the making of this movie. It is a shame that a movie with such good intentions carried it out so poorly.
11/12/06
Déjà vu? More like Déjà-don’t! In this quasi-thriller quasi time travel extravaganza Denzel Washington takes an unlikely trip back to the past to save the life of a woman with whom he has recently become obsessed, oh and then there are the 540 men, women, and children who were innocently killed too. The movie opens with the beginnings of a Mardi Gras celebration for navy officers and their families when a car bomb explodes the local ferry on which they were enjoying the day. Don’t worry, I'm not giving anything away. If you’ve ever seen an action movie, let alone a flick produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, you know this idyllic scene of innocent fun and joy cannot end well.
After the explosion, Doug Carlin (Washington), a federal agent from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Unit, comes to investigate the scene. The exploration brings him to the scorched body of a woman who was killed before the explosion ever occurred. His involvement eventually leads him to be asked to be a part of an elite team who, with special surveillance equipment are able to look back and retrace the days that led up to the explosion.
However, as the first act comes to a close, we learn that their equipment is much more than just simple satellite surveillance. When that realization was made, my suspension of disbelief couldn’t be suspended any longer. At first it took me a moment to accept the concept that our government’s newest satellites could penetrate walls and peer into our homes and watch our every move. Initially I was skeptical, but eventually I conceded because it’s beyond the government to watch and listen to our every move (cough, cough). Audiences accepted the cinematic surveillance that initially seemed unlikely with “Enemy of the State” a hit. So why not this too? However, when it was revealed that they were not in fact watching old satellite footage, rather a window into the past – a wrinkle in time if you will – I lost interest. That was just too much to accept. The script tries to hide the absurd concept with a lot of techno-jargon coming from the Ph.D. who invented the machine; however that just confused me more. From that point on, until the lights finally came on, it’s pretty clear how the movie is going to end. It became rather formulaic and predictable.
So obsessed with rescuing Claire (Paula Patton), the murdered woman, Carlin insists he travels back in time. Despite the warnings from the physicists and other detectives, he goes back four days to track down Carroll Oerstadt (Jim Caviezel), the man who committed the horrific crimes. The artist formerly known as Jesus now plays a gun toting, ideals spewing terrorist. For the greater good he was willing to take lives, including his own. He goes on tirades that denounce the state of American politics and patriotism. He berates Americans for not being as jingoistic as he thinks they should be. He is disappointed with the waning support of the war and the troops overseas.
This plotline was so hard to accept because in most time travel movies there is an element of fantasy. This was rooted too deeply in reality. Our world is a little too scary these days to intertwine such detailed political upset with fantasy. Something just felt off about the convergence of the two themes. Escapism is something that people want, but after seeing this movie I realized that it has to be done in the right way.
Aside from that, the other aspects of the movie do not have the strength to hold the plot together. The weak script combined with the average acting did not help matters. Carlin never met the woman previous to the narrative, nor had she met him, yet almost instantly they fall for each other. The kiss they share after knowing each other for one hour was laughable – and the rest of the audience made it clear that they felt similarly when they burst into laughter at the moment of the kiss. The lack of character development is astounding. It’s as if the writers spent too much time working on learning all the technical terminology that they forgot to actually develop their characters…woops.
The concept of government surveillance is an interesting topic to tackle, especially in a day when it is actually happening at levels unseen before this administration. Furthermore, with Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, and a number of other good actors there was a lot of promise going in to the making of this movie. It is a shame that a movie with such good intentions carried it out so poorly.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan - 11/9/06
Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
11/9/06
Why is America so enthralled by Borat? He has been a star of the small screen for years and now he has been selling out theaters across the country. The people in those audiences spend an hour and a half rolling in the aisles. It is safe to assert that he is becoming a national phenomenon.
The types of laughter explosions throughout the movie vary. You have your nervous laughter – is it ok to laugh at Borat’s footage of the “running of the Jew?” You have the shocked laughter when people he interviews openly admit to racism, misogynism, homophism, and anti-Semitism. Then you have the uneasy laughter as you ask yourself, “Why am I laughing as two men were wrestling naked throughout a hotel?”
British (Jewish) comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is responsible for invoking all these different types of laughter. He has come up with what seems like a new type of ironic humor. Posing as a Kazakhstanian journalist who travels to America to make a documentary about America for the ministry of Kazakhstan, Baron Cohen interacts with all sorts of Americans and reveals interesting side of our culture. He comes to America completely ignorant of American social norms. He doesn’t know that African-Americans don’t go by “chocolate face” or that kissing strangers on the subway is not an acceptable form of introductions. He begins his journey in New York before he convinces his producer, Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian) to travel to California to search out his secret obsession in Pamela Anderson.
In a series of hilarious events, Borat tries to acclimate to American society. What makes him so charming is his endearing innocence. We can forgive his social lacking after seeing him mistake the elevator for the hotel room or when he complains to the bell boy that the American television hasn’t changed programs in 3 hours (it is then revealed to us that he is watching the hotel’s service channel). Borat knows not what he does wrong. And with that conceit, we can travel with him throughout the country to see what he has to reveal about ourselves. The pair buy the cheapest vehicle they can find (an old ice cream truck) and set out for the American West. This trip proves that the old fronteir is still, in a lot of ways, the great unknown.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the movie is the ease in which people accept Borat’s ridiculous statements. While still in New York he has a driving lesson before buying a car. When a driving instructor tells him women can have sex with any one she wants, he exclaims “WHAAAAATTT?” While seemingly dismayed, the driver almost had a look of slight agreement on his face. As he travels south he stops at a bed and breakfast which turns out to be owned by an older Jewish couple. In fear that they have tried to poison him and want to kill him he escapes. The next day we see him at a local gun store. When asking a gun salesman which would be the best to use to protect himself against the Jew, without missing a beat the man hands him a .40 millimeter pistol. After leaving the store Borat explains that he could not buy a gun there because he is not from this country (but it wasn’t a problem that he wanted to use it to protect himself from the approaching Jew). By posing as a culturally and socially backwards ignoramus, the same is revealed about American society.
Then there is the matter of the audience rolling in the aisles. As I sat in the Times Square theater, I am almost certain the majority of the audience saw the irony in the situations. However, is that the case nationwide? It is almost a certainty that when this movie shows plays for an audience in some of the regions which Borat visits on his journey, the irony is lost on a lot of the theater. So many people he encounters readily agree with his backwards mentality and it would be interesting to see their reaction as they watch themselves on the big screen.
What Baron Cohen, a Brit who is an outsider himself, reveals is an interesting look at American culture. As a country, there is a lot of talk these days about blue versus red states, pro-war versus bring our troops home, and about religious right versus liberal ideals. We have not been a nation so divided in decades, and this movie brings that division to life with a touch of ironic humor. While in the South, he visits a group of socialites and the camera notes that they live on “Secession Dr.” In Dallas he explores an antique shop filled with Confederate memorabilia which the owner boasts as artifacts from the nation’s heritage. How much of our country still values Confederate ideals? Should that be a national concern? It is probably not limited to Dallas, not even to Texas.
Another point this film aims to make is that those in the “blue states” have a warped sense of the demographics in this country. Those in the blue probably don’t realize the extent to which those in the red states disagree with their ideologies. And it works both ways. Beyond the laughter and the shock, audiences see another part of our country which rarely gets noticed. We make fun of Borat whose cultural sophistication is so backwards, when we are the ones who need to be examined through a microscope. Are those who agree with him any different? From the sexist frat boys who don’t think there’s anything wrong with leading women on to the general manager of the rodeo who encourages Borat to stay away from “the gays,” there is a whole underbelly of backwards thinking we associate with Borat, when we should be looking to ourselves.
It is not a new idea that it takes a stranger to reveal things about ourselves that we didn’t see before. Borat takes a new spin on it by not just telling us, but showing us. The credo of a journalist is to show and not tell, and that is exactly what Baron Cohen does. He uses our own prejudices and intolerances and puts them up to a mirror and shows us exactly what it is we as a country should stand up against and of what we should take notice. We laugh at him, but we are also laughing at ourselves. We are disgusted by him, but we should also be disgusted with our own behavior. Is our laughter nervous because we are scared to admit our own shortcomings? Probably…but hey, it’s also funny to watch a grown man make a complete ass out of himself. It’s ok to laugh, just make sure you know why you are laughing.
11/9/06
Why is America so enthralled by Borat? He has been a star of the small screen for years and now he has been selling out theaters across the country. The people in those audiences spend an hour and a half rolling in the aisles. It is safe to assert that he is becoming a national phenomenon.
The types of laughter explosions throughout the movie vary. You have your nervous laughter – is it ok to laugh at Borat’s footage of the “running of the Jew?” You have the shocked laughter when people he interviews openly admit to racism, misogynism, homophism, and anti-Semitism. Then you have the uneasy laughter as you ask yourself, “Why am I laughing as two men were wrestling naked throughout a hotel?”
British (Jewish) comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is responsible for invoking all these different types of laughter. He has come up with what seems like a new type of ironic humor. Posing as a Kazakhstanian journalist who travels to America to make a documentary about America for the ministry of Kazakhstan, Baron Cohen interacts with all sorts of Americans and reveals interesting side of our culture. He comes to America completely ignorant of American social norms. He doesn’t know that African-Americans don’t go by “chocolate face” or that kissing strangers on the subway is not an acceptable form of introductions. He begins his journey in New York before he convinces his producer, Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian) to travel to California to search out his secret obsession in Pamela Anderson.
In a series of hilarious events, Borat tries to acclimate to American society. What makes him so charming is his endearing innocence. We can forgive his social lacking after seeing him mistake the elevator for the hotel room or when he complains to the bell boy that the American television hasn’t changed programs in 3 hours (it is then revealed to us that he is watching the hotel’s service channel). Borat knows not what he does wrong. And with that conceit, we can travel with him throughout the country to see what he has to reveal about ourselves. The pair buy the cheapest vehicle they can find (an old ice cream truck) and set out for the American West. This trip proves that the old fronteir is still, in a lot of ways, the great unknown.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the movie is the ease in which people accept Borat’s ridiculous statements. While still in New York he has a driving lesson before buying a car. When a driving instructor tells him women can have sex with any one she wants, he exclaims “WHAAAAATTT?” While seemingly dismayed, the driver almost had a look of slight agreement on his face. As he travels south he stops at a bed and breakfast which turns out to be owned by an older Jewish couple. In fear that they have tried to poison him and want to kill him he escapes. The next day we see him at a local gun store. When asking a gun salesman which would be the best to use to protect himself against the Jew, without missing a beat the man hands him a .40 millimeter pistol. After leaving the store Borat explains that he could not buy a gun there because he is not from this country (but it wasn’t a problem that he wanted to use it to protect himself from the approaching Jew). By posing as a culturally and socially backwards ignoramus, the same is revealed about American society.
Then there is the matter of the audience rolling in the aisles. As I sat in the Times Square theater, I am almost certain the majority of the audience saw the irony in the situations. However, is that the case nationwide? It is almost a certainty that when this movie shows plays for an audience in some of the regions which Borat visits on his journey, the irony is lost on a lot of the theater. So many people he encounters readily agree with his backwards mentality and it would be interesting to see their reaction as they watch themselves on the big screen.
What Baron Cohen, a Brit who is an outsider himself, reveals is an interesting look at American culture. As a country, there is a lot of talk these days about blue versus red states, pro-war versus bring our troops home, and about religious right versus liberal ideals. We have not been a nation so divided in decades, and this movie brings that division to life with a touch of ironic humor. While in the South, he visits a group of socialites and the camera notes that they live on “Secession Dr.” In Dallas he explores an antique shop filled with Confederate memorabilia which the owner boasts as artifacts from the nation’s heritage. How much of our country still values Confederate ideals? Should that be a national concern? It is probably not limited to Dallas, not even to Texas.
Another point this film aims to make is that those in the “blue states” have a warped sense of the demographics in this country. Those in the blue probably don’t realize the extent to which those in the red states disagree with their ideologies. And it works both ways. Beyond the laughter and the shock, audiences see another part of our country which rarely gets noticed. We make fun of Borat whose cultural sophistication is so backwards, when we are the ones who need to be examined through a microscope. Are those who agree with him any different? From the sexist frat boys who don’t think there’s anything wrong with leading women on to the general manager of the rodeo who encourages Borat to stay away from “the gays,” there is a whole underbelly of backwards thinking we associate with Borat, when we should be looking to ourselves.
It is not a new idea that it takes a stranger to reveal things about ourselves that we didn’t see before. Borat takes a new spin on it by not just telling us, but showing us. The credo of a journalist is to show and not tell, and that is exactly what Baron Cohen does. He uses our own prejudices and intolerances and puts them up to a mirror and shows us exactly what it is we as a country should stand up against and of what we should take notice. We laugh at him, but we are also laughing at ourselves. We are disgusted by him, but we should also be disgusted with our own behavior. Is our laughter nervous because we are scared to admit our own shortcomings? Probably…but hey, it’s also funny to watch a grown man make a complete ass out of himself. It’s ok to laugh, just make sure you know why you are laughing.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Television Matters and Studio 60 Tells us Why - 10/30/06
Television Matters
With one line during the second episode, Aaron Sorkin pleaded with audiences to watch Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The president of the fictitious network, NBS, Jordan McDeer, says that she “Does not believe that the people who watch TV shows are any dumber than the people who make television shows.” Television is a reflection of our culture and what goes up on that screen means a lot: it will effect politics and politics will effect it.
NBC’s new behind the scenes dramedy has been getting a lot of criticism by people who say that Sorkin doesn’t realize that TV isn’t all that important to the general public and that he’s elevating what happens behind the scenes of a sketch-comedy show is as important as what goes on in the White House, or more specifically in the West Wing. People disparage it because Saturday Night Live isn’t as important as Studio 60 wants it to be. I say those people are right about SNL, but they are wrong about Studio 60. When NBC said Studio 60 wasn’t about SNL, they meant it. Studio 60 is about making television matter and making those who watch it realize that it matters. In three words, television is important. OK, so the guys writing and acting in it aren’t necessarily the decision-makers who choose when and where to drop the bomb, but don’t think they don’t influence those decision makers. It’s no coincidence that people want to see John Stewart and George Clooney run for office.
Television and movies matter. Pop-culture does not exist in a vacuum. It’s about politics and how that impacts what we watch and what becomes our pop-culture. It’s about the interweaving of all parts of our lives and the affect each one has on another.
If you saw the October 23rd episode of Studio 60, you watched Tom Jeter (Nathan Cordry) walk through the studio reciting the history of Television to his parents and staring dumfoundedly at them when they had never heard of “Who’s on First.” He doesn’t understand how his parents can have no idea what he was talking about. You also felt his pain when, after describing all the history and the design of the studio, his father said, “So, you’re an interior designer?” Anyone watching the show (fan or not) realizes the ignorance of that comment and sympathizes with Tom. Furthermore, when Tom begs his father to realize the importance of his work, his father’s only response is that he cannot think this important when he has a son in Afghanistan. While fighting a war overseas and acting in a late night sketch comedy show are vastly different, there is still a disconnect between the relationship between politics and media.
In that episode you also watched Cal (Timothy Busfield) realize that the man wandering around the studio (in a superb guest appearance from Eli Wallach) isn’t just some senile old kook, but that he is a WWII hero who not only won the war, but helped shape television and the movies as we know it.
Mr. Wallach plays Eli Weinreb, a comedy writer from the 1940s at the “Philco Comedy Hour” who was blacklisted after writing his first sketch. He was also a member of the fleet that stormed the beaches of Normandy. He’s a national hero for winning the war, but also for standing up for what he believed in and putting it on the air. To Sorkin, winning WWII is equivalent to defying censors and standing up for your beliefs. Eli Weinreb talks about Clifford Odets being so adamant about protecting his friends and being a “radical” for a cause. But Odets went before the House on Un-American Activities Committee and he named names, an act which “killed him” emotionally.
Comedy, television, popular culture all come from somewhere in our history. It’s more important that people might think. Why do we, in 2006, feel that censorship is such a horrible thing? Maybe because in our collective consciousness we remember when Joseph McCarthy went on a rampage seeking out and destroying the lives of any and all possible communists. Why is comedy, in any form, so valued? Perhaps it lies in the fact that we as a nation are mired in a war that is killing thousands of our sons and daughters and we need an escape from it. All of these themes are imbedded within Sorkin’s writing.
As Weinreb tells the executive producers, Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) and Danny Tripp (Bradley Whitford) about the writers he worked with, he mentions Eugene Bookman, a writer “who always liked political humor, of course the network wasn’t comfortable with that in those days.” Matt and Danny share a glance at each other. Of course they know that the same thing holds true 50 years later. The first episode of Studio 60 is all about the network censor squashing a sketch called “Crazy Christians.” The government is trying to censor television content now just as they did back there. How did things turn out for the mavericks of the industry back then? Well, they were forced to turn on their friends and colleagues, the government controlled what people saw, thought and consumed, and the general mood of the country disintegrated into overwhelming fear. Elementary school students were told that if they crouch under their desks and hold their binders over their heads then the A-bomb wouldn’t hurt them. Take one look at the popular culture from the 1950s and that fear becomes glaringly apparent.
In the years from 1940s t0 the 1960s the images Americans consumed changed. Gone was the innocence of Uncle Miltie and Abbott and Costello. No more were movies about there being “no place like home,” they were about longshoremen being forced to rat on their friends. In the 1950s James Dean emerged on the silver screen yelling to his parents, “You’re tearing me apart!” On TV, welcomed were the melodramas of US Steel hour and Marty. The world became a lot scarier and a lot less funny.
So, is there a causal relationship between television and politics? Of course. Does television matter? Absolutely. Should the American public be aware of and interested in the points that Studio 60 is making? Well, that’s up to you to decide.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but watching Studio 60 last night inspired me. To me it wasn’t one show trying to be a mere “behind the scenes” look at another. It was about showing the nation that what we watch and what we consume has an impact. And if I may say so, I think Mr. Sorkin was warning us that we better start paying attention to which values we hold dear, what we watch and what we want to see on our cultural landscape because if we don’t, we might in for a bought of history repeating itself.
With one line during the second episode, Aaron Sorkin pleaded with audiences to watch Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The president of the fictitious network, NBS, Jordan McDeer, says that she “Does not believe that the people who watch TV shows are any dumber than the people who make television shows.” Television is a reflection of our culture and what goes up on that screen means a lot: it will effect politics and politics will effect it.
NBC’s new behind the scenes dramedy has been getting a lot of criticism by people who say that Sorkin doesn’t realize that TV isn’t all that important to the general public and that he’s elevating what happens behind the scenes of a sketch-comedy show is as important as what goes on in the White House, or more specifically in the West Wing. People disparage it because Saturday Night Live isn’t as important as Studio 60 wants it to be. I say those people are right about SNL, but they are wrong about Studio 60. When NBC said Studio 60 wasn’t about SNL, they meant it. Studio 60 is about making television matter and making those who watch it realize that it matters. In three words, television is important. OK, so the guys writing and acting in it aren’t necessarily the decision-makers who choose when and where to drop the bomb, but don’t think they don’t influence those decision makers. It’s no coincidence that people want to see John Stewart and George Clooney run for office.
Television and movies matter. Pop-culture does not exist in a vacuum. It’s about politics and how that impacts what we watch and what becomes our pop-culture. It’s about the interweaving of all parts of our lives and the affect each one has on another.
If you saw the October 23rd episode of Studio 60, you watched Tom Jeter (Nathan Cordry) walk through the studio reciting the history of Television to his parents and staring dumfoundedly at them when they had never heard of “Who’s on First.” He doesn’t understand how his parents can have no idea what he was talking about. You also felt his pain when, after describing all the history and the design of the studio, his father said, “So, you’re an interior designer?” Anyone watching the show (fan or not) realizes the ignorance of that comment and sympathizes with Tom. Furthermore, when Tom begs his father to realize the importance of his work, his father’s only response is that he cannot think this important when he has a son in Afghanistan. While fighting a war overseas and acting in a late night sketch comedy show are vastly different, there is still a disconnect between the relationship between politics and media.
In that episode you also watched Cal (Timothy Busfield) realize that the man wandering around the studio (in a superb guest appearance from Eli Wallach) isn’t just some senile old kook, but that he is a WWII hero who not only won the war, but helped shape television and the movies as we know it.
Mr. Wallach plays Eli Weinreb, a comedy writer from the 1940s at the “Philco Comedy Hour” who was blacklisted after writing his first sketch. He was also a member of the fleet that stormed the beaches of Normandy. He’s a national hero for winning the war, but also for standing up for what he believed in and putting it on the air. To Sorkin, winning WWII is equivalent to defying censors and standing up for your beliefs. Eli Weinreb talks about Clifford Odets being so adamant about protecting his friends and being a “radical” for a cause. But Odets went before the House on Un-American Activities Committee and he named names, an act which “killed him” emotionally.
Comedy, television, popular culture all come from somewhere in our history. It’s more important that people might think. Why do we, in 2006, feel that censorship is such a horrible thing? Maybe because in our collective consciousness we remember when Joseph McCarthy went on a rampage seeking out and destroying the lives of any and all possible communists. Why is comedy, in any form, so valued? Perhaps it lies in the fact that we as a nation are mired in a war that is killing thousands of our sons and daughters and we need an escape from it. All of these themes are imbedded within Sorkin’s writing.
As Weinreb tells the executive producers, Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) and Danny Tripp (Bradley Whitford) about the writers he worked with, he mentions Eugene Bookman, a writer “who always liked political humor, of course the network wasn’t comfortable with that in those days.” Matt and Danny share a glance at each other. Of course they know that the same thing holds true 50 years later. The first episode of Studio 60 is all about the network censor squashing a sketch called “Crazy Christians.” The government is trying to censor television content now just as they did back there. How did things turn out for the mavericks of the industry back then? Well, they were forced to turn on their friends and colleagues, the government controlled what people saw, thought and consumed, and the general mood of the country disintegrated into overwhelming fear. Elementary school students were told that if they crouch under their desks and hold their binders over their heads then the A-bomb wouldn’t hurt them. Take one look at the popular culture from the 1950s and that fear becomes glaringly apparent.
In the years from 1940s t0 the 1960s the images Americans consumed changed. Gone was the innocence of Uncle Miltie and Abbott and Costello. No more were movies about there being “no place like home,” they were about longshoremen being forced to rat on their friends. In the 1950s James Dean emerged on the silver screen yelling to his parents, “You’re tearing me apart!” On TV, welcomed were the melodramas of US Steel hour and Marty. The world became a lot scarier and a lot less funny.
So, is there a causal relationship between television and politics? Of course. Does television matter? Absolutely. Should the American public be aware of and interested in the points that Studio 60 is making? Well, that’s up to you to decide.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but watching Studio 60 last night inspired me. To me it wasn’t one show trying to be a mere “behind the scenes” look at another. It was about showing the nation that what we watch and what we consume has an impact. And if I may say so, I think Mr. Sorkin was warning us that we better start paying attention to which values we hold dear, what we watch and what we want to see on our cultural landscape because if we don’t, we might in for a bought of history repeating itself.
Network Drama - 5/20/06
Network Drama
5/20/06
It’s an age-old debate: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? When NBC announced its fall lineup this May it added more fuel to the debate. With only two new comedies on the schedule, it is clear that the network sees dramas as the place to boost ratings. How does that artistic decision relate to life today? Why does NBC think dramas are more appropriate for bringing in ratings? More significantly, what is it about the specific topics that the shows explore which make them socially relevant?
There are two new comedies in the lineup. The first is Tina Fey's 30 Rock, a behind the scenes look at what goes into producing a comedy sketch show. The other is 20 Good Years where John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor are two old buddies who realize that they are at a point in their lives where they have only 20 good years left to live so they decide to live them to the fullest. Along with the 4 new dramas, that brings the fall lineup to a staggering 10 dramas, 4 comedies, 1 reality show, 1 news magazine, and 1 game show (Deal or No Deal will be on twice a week next fall).
What is it about our current cultural climate that insists on a dramatic overload? In a time where the country is in a “blue state” of mind, people are not interested in purely escapism entertainment. Americans have brought President Bush’s approval rating to an all time low, the support of the war in Iraq is plummeting and it seems that there is an overall feeling of national uncertainty as to where our country is currently heading. It took a while for that morale to seep into the media, but now that it is here, it has come full on. This past Oscar season was overwhelmingly morose and reflected a certain sense of political discomfort. It was only a matter of time for television to follow that trend.
During the upfronts, NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly remarked that NBC needs to “bulk up” in the drama department. The network executives recognize that dramas are where the ratings are. But again, the question is, why? To truly understand the cultural relevance of the dramatic inclination, it is necessary to delve into each one and see what they are about. The supernatural drama, Heroes heads up the fall lineup on Monday night. This show is about ordinary people who wake up one morning to find they have acquired extraordinary powers. This show is a twist on the American dream, which states that anyone can do anything or be anyone they want if they try hard enough. In an uncertain time, this show seems to be sending a hopeful yet paradoxically futile message. These people start out as regular, everyday folk, but because of no effort of their own, they have become powerful. On the one hand, Heroes is saying that things will get better and that hope is on the way. However, at the same time it is relaying the idea that the only way for our situation to improve is with special, out of the ordinary heroes. Furthermore, no matter how hard people work their lives are predestined to a certain extent; there is no need to work hard at something because one’s destiny is not dependant on his or her effort. Similarly, the national ethos is one that says that unless something extraordinary happens then there is no way to change the political situation.
Following Heroes on Monday night is Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. This is a behind the scenes look at a failing late night sketch comedy show. This show is similar to the comedy, 30 Rock. It will be interesting to see in which venue the storyline thrives – comedy or drama. The cultural relevance is interesting here because with Sunset 60, they’ve taken a possibly comedic situation and made it serious. This is saying that there is drama in all situations no matter how potentially comedic they might be.
Tuesday night’s new drama is Friday Night Lights. This is a show about the culture of football in Texas, where the sport is much more than just a game. The show centers on in the head coach and his attempts to “mold these boys into champions and encourage them to be better men,” according to the NBC website. What does it mean to be a “better man”? Is it to embody the ruggedness of the stereotypical male character? Is it to exemplify that American need to be the best of the best? This is a topic the media has been debating for decades and recently reached new heights with this year’s Oscar season, especially with Brokeback Mountain (a film put out by Focus Features, a division of NBC Universal). Moreover, this show is attempting to strengthen the American morale by tapping into the success of so many successful sports movies, and more specifically football movies. “Sports” is something that binds Americans together; it is something in which everyone can participate and enjoy. In a time where there is such a division in America, here is one thing upon which where everyone can agree. In addition to the cultural significance, this show is perhaps a way to promote Sunday night football, which is coming to NBC in the fall.
Finally, the last new drama on the fall lineup is Kidnapped, on Wednesday nights. This show revolves around the Cain family whose fifteen-year-old son is kidnapped. The NBC website explains that, “desperate to reclaim their son, they enlist the help of an expert named Knapp who is known for his dangerous, yet effective, high-profile rescues.” This family does not trust the police to rescue their son; rather they hire a private investigator with less than conventional and possibly questionable tactics. The police cannot be trusted; the government is the enemy. Does that sound familiar? This seems to be a sharp criticism on our political leadership. Especially coming off of the recent NSA wiretapping scandal, the American people have such a great distrust of authority and now misgivings are being transferred onto the small screen.
Overall, the fall lineup seems promising with a slew of new television shows that are very much culturally relevant. People deal with real life problems all day long; when we turn the TV on, we want some sense of escapism, but one that is rooted in reality. Scripted shows, unlike reality TV, allow the possibility of everything working out in the end and therefore there is a sense of optimism wrapped into the drama. This, in some sense, can allow people to retain hopefulness for the future political and social situation. Network executives believe that the best way to achieve that is with dramatic shows, which reflect many aspects of the current American social climate. It seems that David Sarnoff’s prediction about television continues to be applicable until today: “It is a torch which shines like a torch of hope in a troubled world.” As long as political and social unrest continues to exist, television will reflect that tension and possibly imbue a sense of hope for the future.
5/20/06
It’s an age-old debate: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? When NBC announced its fall lineup this May it added more fuel to the debate. With only two new comedies on the schedule, it is clear that the network sees dramas as the place to boost ratings. How does that artistic decision relate to life today? Why does NBC think dramas are more appropriate for bringing in ratings? More significantly, what is it about the specific topics that the shows explore which make them socially relevant?
There are two new comedies in the lineup. The first is Tina Fey's 30 Rock, a behind the scenes look at what goes into producing a comedy sketch show. The other is 20 Good Years where John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor are two old buddies who realize that they are at a point in their lives where they have only 20 good years left to live so they decide to live them to the fullest. Along with the 4 new dramas, that brings the fall lineup to a staggering 10 dramas, 4 comedies, 1 reality show, 1 news magazine, and 1 game show (Deal or No Deal will be on twice a week next fall).
What is it about our current cultural climate that insists on a dramatic overload? In a time where the country is in a “blue state” of mind, people are not interested in purely escapism entertainment. Americans have brought President Bush’s approval rating to an all time low, the support of the war in Iraq is plummeting and it seems that there is an overall feeling of national uncertainty as to where our country is currently heading. It took a while for that morale to seep into the media, but now that it is here, it has come full on. This past Oscar season was overwhelmingly morose and reflected a certain sense of political discomfort. It was only a matter of time for television to follow that trend.
During the upfronts, NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly remarked that NBC needs to “bulk up” in the drama department. The network executives recognize that dramas are where the ratings are. But again, the question is, why? To truly understand the cultural relevance of the dramatic inclination, it is necessary to delve into each one and see what they are about. The supernatural drama, Heroes heads up the fall lineup on Monday night. This show is about ordinary people who wake up one morning to find they have acquired extraordinary powers. This show is a twist on the American dream, which states that anyone can do anything or be anyone they want if they try hard enough. In an uncertain time, this show seems to be sending a hopeful yet paradoxically futile message. These people start out as regular, everyday folk, but because of no effort of their own, they have become powerful. On the one hand, Heroes is saying that things will get better and that hope is on the way. However, at the same time it is relaying the idea that the only way for our situation to improve is with special, out of the ordinary heroes. Furthermore, no matter how hard people work their lives are predestined to a certain extent; there is no need to work hard at something because one’s destiny is not dependant on his or her effort. Similarly, the national ethos is one that says that unless something extraordinary happens then there is no way to change the political situation.
Following Heroes on Monday night is Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. This is a behind the scenes look at a failing late night sketch comedy show. This show is similar to the comedy, 30 Rock. It will be interesting to see in which venue the storyline thrives – comedy or drama. The cultural relevance is interesting here because with Sunset 60, they’ve taken a possibly comedic situation and made it serious. This is saying that there is drama in all situations no matter how potentially comedic they might be.
Tuesday night’s new drama is Friday Night Lights. This is a show about the culture of football in Texas, where the sport is much more than just a game. The show centers on in the head coach and his attempts to “mold these boys into champions and encourage them to be better men,” according to the NBC website. What does it mean to be a “better man”? Is it to embody the ruggedness of the stereotypical male character? Is it to exemplify that American need to be the best of the best? This is a topic the media has been debating for decades and recently reached new heights with this year’s Oscar season, especially with Brokeback Mountain (a film put out by Focus Features, a division of NBC Universal). Moreover, this show is attempting to strengthen the American morale by tapping into the success of so many successful sports movies, and more specifically football movies. “Sports” is something that binds Americans together; it is something in which everyone can participate and enjoy. In a time where there is such a division in America, here is one thing upon which where everyone can agree. In addition to the cultural significance, this show is perhaps a way to promote Sunday night football, which is coming to NBC in the fall.
Finally, the last new drama on the fall lineup is Kidnapped, on Wednesday nights. This show revolves around the Cain family whose fifteen-year-old son is kidnapped. The NBC website explains that, “desperate to reclaim their son, they enlist the help of an expert named Knapp who is known for his dangerous, yet effective, high-profile rescues.” This family does not trust the police to rescue their son; rather they hire a private investigator with less than conventional and possibly questionable tactics. The police cannot be trusted; the government is the enemy. Does that sound familiar? This seems to be a sharp criticism on our political leadership. Especially coming off of the recent NSA wiretapping scandal, the American people have such a great distrust of authority and now misgivings are being transferred onto the small screen.
Overall, the fall lineup seems promising with a slew of new television shows that are very much culturally relevant. People deal with real life problems all day long; when we turn the TV on, we want some sense of escapism, but one that is rooted in reality. Scripted shows, unlike reality TV, allow the possibility of everything working out in the end and therefore there is a sense of optimism wrapped into the drama. This, in some sense, can allow people to retain hopefulness for the future political and social situation. Network executives believe that the best way to achieve that is with dramatic shows, which reflect many aspects of the current American social climate. It seems that David Sarnoff’s prediction about television continues to be applicable until today: “It is a torch which shines like a torch of hope in a troubled world.” As long as political and social unrest continues to exist, television will reflect that tension and possibly imbue a sense of hope for the future.
Brokeback Mountain
If it aint “Broke” don’t fix it
9/5/05
Brokeback Mountain is not one of those movies where you walk out and say, “Wow! That was great!” or “I can’t wait to see that movie again!” However, it is a movie that will stay with you for a long time. Under the direction of Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain is a movie that changes our perception of one of the most romanticized images in our culture: The Cowboy. It uses the iconic images that we know so well to do just that. While most people might see this movie as nothing more than a “gay cowboy” flick, in reality it is much more than that. It is about love, loss, and the inability to share those feelings with anyone.
Heath Ledger plays Ennis Del Mar, a quiet young rancher who was raised by his brother and sister after his homophobic parents were killed in a car crash. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist is the more outgoing of the pair as a wannabe rodeo star. The two meet during the summer of 1963 when they both sign on to be shepherds on Wyoming’s Brokeback Mountain. Despite Ennis’ quiet façade the pair becomes friends. One night, an overnight frost forces Ennis into Jack’s tent. That night, the friendship becomes something more, much more. Neither knows how to react to these new feelings. Their first love scene is more violent than tender. It is almost as if the characters use violence to prove they are still men. In a society which forbids men to be affectionate with one another, they must be aggressive to overcompensate for the love they feel for one another. Many of the scenes that should be loving instead turn out to be violent. They roll around on the ground in a manner that resembles fighting more than affection. When it comes to actually talking about what is going between them and dealing with their feelings, Jack seems more comfortable with the recent twist their relationship has taken while Ennis insists he “Aint no queer.”
Jack and Ennis do all they can to prove to the world they are “real men” – their clothing, their jobs and their speech all strengthen the stereotypical images of what men are supposed to be. Their dress is the most striking of these attempts at proving their masculinity. “The Marlboro Man,” to this day, is the ultimate symbol of masculinity. They use clothing to try to prove to the world that they comply with and perpetuate this myth. As long as they dress the part of the heterosexual man, they think they can fool the world into believing they actually are. The American West is traditionally the final frontier; it is the only place where men can be men. This film makes the bold claim that it is also the only place where men can be with men. Jack and Ennis are only comfortable being with one another in the privacy of the wilderness. In this place they experience passion that is never again duplicated, in any aspect of their lives. They never find that excitement with either their work or eventual spouses. They know cannot expect the world to accept their way of life.
Their looks also invoke images of classical Hollywood and the hetero-normative myth that it perpetuated. Ennis physically resembles James Dean from his role in Giant. With his cowboy hat pushed down his face, his body slumped over, and his labored speech, the two are almost identical. The two leading male stars in Giant were Dean and Rock Hudson. Both of these men lived in the proverbial closet. Dean’s bisexuality never reached the widespread knowledge that Hudson’s did; perhaps it is because his life was cut short when he was 25. Nevertheless, Dean and Hudson were both symbols of masculinity in the 1950s. In 1955 when Giant came out, the cowboy was still the masculine heterosexual figure popular culture knew and loved. However, by 2005 the world can learn better and can no longer deny the fact that no matter the façade, some things cannot be kept in the closet.
After their summer together Ennis and Jack go on their separate ways not to see each other for another four years. During the hiatus, Ennis marries his high school sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), has two children, and attempts as much of a “normal” life as possible. Jack meets Lurleen (Anne Hathaway), a rodeo queen and the daughter of a wealthy farm equipment salesman. They too lead the seemingly hetero-normative lifestyle. Nonetheless, neither man is ever fully satisfied. Jack yearns to see Ennis again and returns to Brokeback Mountain in the summer of 1964 in hopes of finding him there. Ennis too, despite his insistence on being a heterosexual cannot escape his true nature. In one poignant love scene between Ennis and Alma, he violently flips her onto her stomach in a manner that parallels his first sexual encounter with Jack. Ennis has so much passion for Jack bottled up inside of his that he doesn’t know what to do with it. When Ennis and Jack are finally reunited after four years that unbridled passion reignites; again they embrace in violent kisses. From that point on they begin their annual rendezvous up to Brokeback Mountain, masked as fishing trips. Jack is idyllic and tries to convince Ennis that they could have a good life together living on a ranch together far away from society. Ennis, still scarred from when his father brought him to see the corpse of an old rancher who was murdered for living with another man, refuses. They continue this sporadic relationship as long as they can, hoping that their families do not catch on.
What makes this film so great is its truly universal themes. It proves that a theme can transcend a specific situation. It is about forbidden love and the tragedies it brings. The subject matter is as classic as Romeo and Juliet, only this affair is between two men. The other part of this tragedy is the irony of the time period in which it takes place. The film takes place from 1963-1983, one of the most sexually liberated time periods in American history. Yet, this story is so isolated from it and so far removed from the reality that so much of America was experiencing. The one reference that is made to “the 60s” is made by Jack. As he is leaving Brokeback Mountain, he tells Ennis that does not want to return to life as he knew it because of the possibility of getting drafted and set off the Vietnam. That is all they know of, not that the youth of the country are banding together to change the repressive society the older generation has created.
Another aspect of this tragedy is the ultimate legacy of the youth rebellion. How much of our country was truly affected? Matthew Shepherd was killed in Wyoming in 1998 for being a homosexual. Hate crimes are committed against people each day just because others don’t agree with whom they love. Furthermore, by the mere fact that people refuse to see the movie because they think it is nothing more than a “gay cowboy” film is a further example of people’s inability to accept that something they once held dear, the image of the lone man on his horse as the ultimate symbol of masculinity and freedom, is something other than their initial impression.
Take this film as you will, but keep in mind its universal themes. The splendid acting and direction will take your breath away and leave you wanting more. Over the course of the 2 and a half hours the characters become real, and an ultimate goal of this film is to prove that love has no boundaries be it age, race, and especially, gender. Maybe if one thinks about the message of the movie, the more one will realize that this is truly is a great film (even if declaring it out loud isn’t an initial reaction).
 |
| Image Source |
Brokeback Mountain is not one of those movies where you walk out and say, “Wow! That was great!” or “I can’t wait to see that movie again!” However, it is a movie that will stay with you for a long time. Under the direction of Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain is a movie that changes our perception of one of the most romanticized images in our culture: The Cowboy. It uses the iconic images that we know so well to do just that. While most people might see this movie as nothing more than a “gay cowboy” flick, in reality it is much more than that. It is about love, loss, and the inability to share those feelings with anyone.
Heath Ledger plays Ennis Del Mar, a quiet young rancher who was raised by his brother and sister after his homophobic parents were killed in a car crash. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist is the more outgoing of the pair as a wannabe rodeo star. The two meet during the summer of 1963 when they both sign on to be shepherds on Wyoming’s Brokeback Mountain. Despite Ennis’ quiet façade the pair becomes friends. One night, an overnight frost forces Ennis into Jack’s tent. That night, the friendship becomes something more, much more. Neither knows how to react to these new feelings. Their first love scene is more violent than tender. It is almost as if the characters use violence to prove they are still men. In a society which forbids men to be affectionate with one another, they must be aggressive to overcompensate for the love they feel for one another. Many of the scenes that should be loving instead turn out to be violent. They roll around on the ground in a manner that resembles fighting more than affection. When it comes to actually talking about what is going between them and dealing with their feelings, Jack seems more comfortable with the recent twist their relationship has taken while Ennis insists he “Aint no queer.”
Jack and Ennis do all they can to prove to the world they are “real men” – their clothing, their jobs and their speech all strengthen the stereotypical images of what men are supposed to be. Their dress is the most striking of these attempts at proving their masculinity. “The Marlboro Man,” to this day, is the ultimate symbol of masculinity. They use clothing to try to prove to the world that they comply with and perpetuate this myth. As long as they dress the part of the heterosexual man, they think they can fool the world into believing they actually are. The American West is traditionally the final frontier; it is the only place where men can be men. This film makes the bold claim that it is also the only place where men can be with men. Jack and Ennis are only comfortable being with one another in the privacy of the wilderness. In this place they experience passion that is never again duplicated, in any aspect of their lives. They never find that excitement with either their work or eventual spouses. They know cannot expect the world to accept their way of life.
Their looks also invoke images of classical Hollywood and the hetero-normative myth that it perpetuated. Ennis physically resembles James Dean from his role in Giant. With his cowboy hat pushed down his face, his body slumped over, and his labored speech, the two are almost identical. The two leading male stars in Giant were Dean and Rock Hudson. Both of these men lived in the proverbial closet. Dean’s bisexuality never reached the widespread knowledge that Hudson’s did; perhaps it is because his life was cut short when he was 25. Nevertheless, Dean and Hudson were both symbols of masculinity in the 1950s. In 1955 when Giant came out, the cowboy was still the masculine heterosexual figure popular culture knew and loved. However, by 2005 the world can learn better and can no longer deny the fact that no matter the façade, some things cannot be kept in the closet.
After their summer together Ennis and Jack go on their separate ways not to see each other for another four years. During the hiatus, Ennis marries his high school sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), has two children, and attempts as much of a “normal” life as possible. Jack meets Lurleen (Anne Hathaway), a rodeo queen and the daughter of a wealthy farm equipment salesman. They too lead the seemingly hetero-normative lifestyle. Nonetheless, neither man is ever fully satisfied. Jack yearns to see Ennis again and returns to Brokeback Mountain in the summer of 1964 in hopes of finding him there. Ennis too, despite his insistence on being a heterosexual cannot escape his true nature. In one poignant love scene between Ennis and Alma, he violently flips her onto her stomach in a manner that parallels his first sexual encounter with Jack. Ennis has so much passion for Jack bottled up inside of his that he doesn’t know what to do with it. When Ennis and Jack are finally reunited after four years that unbridled passion reignites; again they embrace in violent kisses. From that point on they begin their annual rendezvous up to Brokeback Mountain, masked as fishing trips. Jack is idyllic and tries to convince Ennis that they could have a good life together living on a ranch together far away from society. Ennis, still scarred from when his father brought him to see the corpse of an old rancher who was murdered for living with another man, refuses. They continue this sporadic relationship as long as they can, hoping that their families do not catch on.
What makes this film so great is its truly universal themes. It proves that a theme can transcend a specific situation. It is about forbidden love and the tragedies it brings. The subject matter is as classic as Romeo and Juliet, only this affair is between two men. The other part of this tragedy is the irony of the time period in which it takes place. The film takes place from 1963-1983, one of the most sexually liberated time periods in American history. Yet, this story is so isolated from it and so far removed from the reality that so much of America was experiencing. The one reference that is made to “the 60s” is made by Jack. As he is leaving Brokeback Mountain, he tells Ennis that does not want to return to life as he knew it because of the possibility of getting drafted and set off the Vietnam. That is all they know of, not that the youth of the country are banding together to change the repressive society the older generation has created.
Another aspect of this tragedy is the ultimate legacy of the youth rebellion. How much of our country was truly affected? Matthew Shepherd was killed in Wyoming in 1998 for being a homosexual. Hate crimes are committed against people each day just because others don’t agree with whom they love. Furthermore, by the mere fact that people refuse to see the movie because they think it is nothing more than a “gay cowboy” film is a further example of people’s inability to accept that something they once held dear, the image of the lone man on his horse as the ultimate symbol of masculinity and freedom, is something other than their initial impression.
Take this film as you will, but keep in mind its universal themes. The splendid acting and direction will take your breath away and leave you wanting more. Over the course of the 2 and a half hours the characters become real, and an ultimate goal of this film is to prove that love has no boundaries be it age, race, and especially, gender. Maybe if one thinks about the message of the movie, the more one will realize that this is truly is a great film (even if declaring it out loud isn’t an initial reaction).
Hollywoodland - 9/10/06
Hollywood’s not so “Super” past
9/10/06
Hollywoodland is the latest movie from indie powerhouse Focus Features. It explores the mystery surrounding the death of TV’s Superman, George Reeves (Ben Affleck). In 1959 Reeves died in his bedroom from a bullet to the brain. While his death was ruled a suicide, mystery still surrounds that night’s events. The movie follows Louis Simo (Adrian Brody), a fictitious investigator, as he covertly scrutinizes the case. The cops have officially ruled the case a suicide, but Simo isn’t convinced. The film cleverly intercuts between 1959, the year Reeves died, and the years leading up to his death. We learn about his rise to fame and the people he encounters on the way.
Ben Affleck portrays the tormented superhero actor who is struggling to rid himself of the “two-bit” status. When he meets Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), the wife of MGM general manager Edgar Mannix (Bob Hoskins), he thinks his fortunes are going to change and that she will be able help him get the parts he longs for. When she doesn’t deliver on her promises his optimism turns into resentment and he leaves her for Leonore (Robin Tunney), a girl he meets in New York. Through this tangled web of love affairs the audience is shown a number of people who might want to see him dead.
Hollywoodland gives us a glimpse into the Golden Age of the industry (literally referring to the Hollywood sign before the “land” fell off) and is shot as a classic film noir furthering that parallel. As a film noir its, close shots and dark scenes give us the uncomfortable feeling of entrapment and disorientation that both Reeves and Simo felt as they struggled with finding their respective places in the town. Like Reeves, Simo is second rate in his profession and doesn’t realize what is truly important. Simo’s 7 year old son was deeply affected by Reeves’ death and it was only at the end of the film does Simo realize that there was more to it than the loss of a popular TV figure. For Simo the exploration into Reeves life ultimately becomes a journey through his own life. Through Reeve’s death Simo learns what is truly important.
Ultimately the movie does not make a statement about what might have happened. The film plays it safe about what happened to George Reeves the night he died. Simo is the conduit through which the audience learns the information needed to make a decision as to what they think happened. As we watch him put the pieces together we wait desperately to come to a conclusion. Through cinematographic techniques and other filmic devices, the movie seems to make the decision that Reeves did in fact kill himself even though there is not so much explanation as to why he would want to do that. However, throughout the movie there is much more evidence to the contrary. While there is no conclusive evidence to any foul play, Hollywoodland hints to different possible murders, ultimately making no final decision.
The title of the film was also an interesting choice. The obvious title would have made reference to Superman or Reeves himself. However, by naming the film Hollywoodland, it seems to be making a comment on all of Hollywood. With this title, it would make sense that the ultimate conclusion is that the studio killed Reeves and thus revealing a seedy underbelly to an otherwise glamorous world. It would be making the claim that the image which Hollywood projects is nothing like the reality and that Reeves’ story is just one example of the power the studios wielded over their stars and other lackeys.
This movie’s biggest strength is it’s capture of old Hollywood. Shot in sepia, the aesthetic look of the film immediately takes the audience back to an older era. The nostalgia for the era is palatable, even though at the same time it hints to a dark undercurrent. However, with “cameos” of old Hollywood starlets and the glamour (Lane’s wardrobe alone!), this movie is a movie lover’s film. The story and its themes come second to the visuals provided on the screen. If you are a big fan of old Hollywood and you can look past as weak story, then you will enjoy this movie. However, if you want a movie that will make a statement about what it believes happened the night George Reeves died, you might have to keep on looking for one.
9/10/06
Hollywoodland is the latest movie from indie powerhouse Focus Features. It explores the mystery surrounding the death of TV’s Superman, George Reeves (Ben Affleck). In 1959 Reeves died in his bedroom from a bullet to the brain. While his death was ruled a suicide, mystery still surrounds that night’s events. The movie follows Louis Simo (Adrian Brody), a fictitious investigator, as he covertly scrutinizes the case. The cops have officially ruled the case a suicide, but Simo isn’t convinced. The film cleverly intercuts between 1959, the year Reeves died, and the years leading up to his death. We learn about his rise to fame and the people he encounters on the way.
Ben Affleck portrays the tormented superhero actor who is struggling to rid himself of the “two-bit” status. When he meets Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), the wife of MGM general manager Edgar Mannix (Bob Hoskins), he thinks his fortunes are going to change and that she will be able help him get the parts he longs for. When she doesn’t deliver on her promises his optimism turns into resentment and he leaves her for Leonore (Robin Tunney), a girl he meets in New York. Through this tangled web of love affairs the audience is shown a number of people who might want to see him dead.
Hollywoodland gives us a glimpse into the Golden Age of the industry (literally referring to the Hollywood sign before the “land” fell off) and is shot as a classic film noir furthering that parallel. As a film noir its, close shots and dark scenes give us the uncomfortable feeling of entrapment and disorientation that both Reeves and Simo felt as they struggled with finding their respective places in the town. Like Reeves, Simo is second rate in his profession and doesn’t realize what is truly important. Simo’s 7 year old son was deeply affected by Reeves’ death and it was only at the end of the film does Simo realize that there was more to it than the loss of a popular TV figure. For Simo the exploration into Reeves life ultimately becomes a journey through his own life. Through Reeve’s death Simo learns what is truly important.
Ultimately the movie does not make a statement about what might have happened. The film plays it safe about what happened to George Reeves the night he died. Simo is the conduit through which the audience learns the information needed to make a decision as to what they think happened. As we watch him put the pieces together we wait desperately to come to a conclusion. Through cinematographic techniques and other filmic devices, the movie seems to make the decision that Reeves did in fact kill himself even though there is not so much explanation as to why he would want to do that. However, throughout the movie there is much more evidence to the contrary. While there is no conclusive evidence to any foul play, Hollywoodland hints to different possible murders, ultimately making no final decision.
The title of the film was also an interesting choice. The obvious title would have made reference to Superman or Reeves himself. However, by naming the film Hollywoodland, it seems to be making a comment on all of Hollywood. With this title, it would make sense that the ultimate conclusion is that the studio killed Reeves and thus revealing a seedy underbelly to an otherwise glamorous world. It would be making the claim that the image which Hollywood projects is nothing like the reality and that Reeves’ story is just one example of the power the studios wielded over their stars and other lackeys.
This movie’s biggest strength is it’s capture of old Hollywood. Shot in sepia, the aesthetic look of the film immediately takes the audience back to an older era. The nostalgia for the era is palatable, even though at the same time it hints to a dark undercurrent. However, with “cameos” of old Hollywood starlets and the glamour (Lane’s wardrobe alone!), this movie is a movie lover’s film. The story and its themes come second to the visuals provided on the screen. If you are a big fan of old Hollywood and you can look past as weak story, then you will enjoy this movie. However, if you want a movie that will make a statement about what it believes happened the night George Reeves died, you might have to keep on looking for one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)