More than a Buddy Film

The buddy film has typically been a male dominated genre of American film (predominantly Hollywood). Iconically this is represented by Walther Matthau and Jack Lemon in "The Odd Couple", other famous duos include Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, David Spade and Chris Farley in all their movies, even going all the way back to the days of Abbott and Costello, Laurel and Hardy. You hardly ever see female buddy movies in the same way (note SPOILER: "Thelma and Louise" is about to ass-kicking women, however unlike most male buddy films, they are not allowed their power and end the movie by driving off a cliff--not quite the happy ending often given to men in these movies).

In my last year of college, I took a sex and gender in the media class, and we all had group projects to do. One of the groups picked the buddy film and discussed this very aspect. However, their presentation, led by one student who always kind of annoyed me for some reason, turned into an advertisement for the new at the time film "Baby Mama". She talked about how we all should go support women in film making, and how these women are more involved at higher levels than most women are in Hollywood, and how this movie was a "buddy" movie, only women were at the forefront and emancipated from their absence in buddy films except as the object of desire.

Another point came up however, during the discussion, and that was that yes, technically this movie is about the bonding of two women, and yes, they are the main characters, so technically it is a buddy film. However it is centered around one of the most stereotyped images of a woman today, and that is that a woman--even a hard-working, successful type--will always want a baby, and go to extremes to get one. Granted I am not against women having children. Where would the human race be without them? But seriously? It's almost like having a movie where the women become buddies as the plaster themselves in makeup and go out because there only goal in life is to find a husband (oh wait...there are movies like that). I know I sound a lot more bitter than I am. I like a chick flick as much as any other girly girl, and I've heard that "Baby Mama" was pretty funny (I also like Tina Fey). I can't criticize too harshly because I haven't actually seen it yet. I just think it was a mistake to say that this is the movie that will revolutionize the female buddy film and suddenly raise women's status in American Film and society away from typical gender roles that not all women fall into. (Plus this girl was really annoying!). A lot of films fail to realize complexities about women's connections to each other, to their children, and to men.

The reason I bring this all up is because of a film that I screened on my second day of volunteering at Ebertfest (don't get used to daily posts--it's just that Ebertfest movies inspire me more than most). "Frozen River" was my favorite film of the day, and the reason I bring up the buddy film is because during the discussion afterwards, the head of Sony Pictures Classics described this movie in those terms. It is an unconventional buddy film to say the least. There are moments of comedy, but over all it is a drama about two women, both mothers but not defined by their motherhood. They are defined as so much more than that, as I think most women would like to be. Sure, much of their motivation derives from their situation as single parents trying to bring up their kids on more than popcorn and Tang. They are defined by their relationship to their kids, to each other, to the law, to the frozen river they cross often transporting immigrants from Canada. They are so much more real and have a greater sense of depth than many of the female characters you see in mainstream Hollywood cinema. This film is directed by a woman, also a mother a believe, unlike "Baby Mama" which is directed by a man despite being produced by Tina Fey. This may explain why it understands these women, and doesn't seem to condemn or praise them for what they do. They're just trying to make a life for themselves and their kids. Their actions are illegal (maybe not depending on if they're on tribal land), and they can shoot a gun with surprising ease. Never once do we feel sorry for the people who they are deceiving and threatening (mostly men now that I think about it, in positions of authority--deserved or not). We never meet Ray's husband (one of the main characters)--he's a gambling addict and by the beginning of the film has taken off with all of their money. Ray's children want her to go look for him, but what can she do? She is alone, holding down a part time job at the Yankee Dollar, trying to save up enough money for a house better than a trailer. She accepts the fact that he is gone and moves on, figuring out how to do things on her own.

Anyway, I'm sure I've rambled on enough by now. I just want to say, "Baby Mama" is all well and good I'm sure. Tina Fey is a great actress (and a magnificent writer, as 30 Rock proves), but if you really want to support women in film making (especially you, annoying girl from my sex and gender in the media class), go see "Frozen River"--an independent film directed by and starring women who are much more real and complicated than almost anything you can find in mainstream Hollywood film. And not only gender issues, this movie tackles a lot of different problems such as illegal immigration, the Indian Nation, abandonment, even credit card fraud is thrown in there.

Trouble the Water

"It's not about a hurricane. It's about a nation". I am fortunate enough to live in the town where Roger Ebert runs his annual film festival. May I just say that I liked all the films of the first full day, but there is one film that stood out as the best film of today, and that was the final film, "Trouble the Water". This is a film that is a combination of a filmmaker's work and the raw footage of an regular (but extraordinary) woman who shot her experiences being trapped during the hurricane, and being trapped in an entirely different manner in the aftermath of the disaster.

This film is the kind of film that opens our eyes to all that we do not know, but think we do. The atrocities committed were reported on to some extent, but it is impossible to realize the true tragedy with media that is only giving certain sides of the story. While there was information about the complete and utter failure of the government in every aspect of this crisis, this movie brings out these failures in a way that is much more real than hearing about it over the five o'clock news.

We were fortunate enough at the festival to have the the black family who survived Katrina in attendance (and they made my day when they spoke to me in passing). This film brought up the issue of race that is to a large extent still ignored in the media, and several facts about Louisiana that are quite disturbing--such as increased cuts for education, and the fact that Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the U.S. (and the U.S. has the highest rate in the world). "Trouble the Water" is the kind of film that needs to be shown in hopes of understanding class and racial issues that face this country today, especially as we go through the worst economic crisis we have seen in a long time. "Trouble the Water" depicts strong, loving, REAL people, who are not the looters and criminals that the media was so keen to depict in the aftermath of Katrina. During the discussion, someone brought up the point that at one news broadcasting, the pictures of white and black people who were holding food were shown together, and the white people "found" the bread, while the blacks were labeled as looters.

In a society where so many of the images that we see are racist and biased against the poorest citizens of our nation, how can we hope to grow as a society towards greater community with ALL of the citizens of this country. I think that this powerful film, with such admirable people--who stayed strong and optimistic and just kept pushing--is the kind of message we should be getting. I felt blessed to be in the presence of these wonderful human beings, and I think that "Trouble the Water" is an important film for anyone to see who calls themselves a part of this country.

http://www.troublethewaterfilm.com

Look at the 'fro!!

Godspell vs. Jesus Christ Superstar

Well, I figured since Easter is upon us, what better time to compare two musicals about the final days of Jesus Christ. Now if you’re not religious, this post might not be for you, but if you are interested in my take on these two films, by all means keep reading.

Both of these films are based on stage musicals and were made into films in the seventies, as is quite apparent from the mis-en-scene and costuming of the films (e.g. Jesus has an afro in “Godspell”, and see Judas’s awesome fringe in “Jesus Christ Superstar”. Note also, the colors used in both). I’m not sure if these films are the subject of intense debate as to which one is better, but don’t worry, you’ll get my opinion.

Let me start off by saying that I like both of these films. Who can say that the electric guitar and range requirements for the music of “Jesus Christ Superstar” is not impressive, and quite typical of an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical? The music of “Godspell” is somewhat simpler in scope, and not quite as dramatic in a lot of ways. However, when I was living in Scotland, and was part of a Catholic Society of a local church, we did a production of “Godspell” with the youth group. We talked a bit about why we chose “Godspell” over “Jesus Christ Superstar”, and the leader of the group, Catrina, said that she liked “Godspell” better because it was closer to the Gospels than “Jesus Christ Superstar”. Some of the stories are taken directly from those four books, and it is true that “Jesus Christ Superstar” takes some liberties with the interpretation of the story. Personally I don’t mind this, because they have some interesting takes on the story, and there are some ideas that they posit that I kind of like.

However, I like the inclusion of actual parables and lessons that were part of Jesus’ teachings as they are set forward in the Gospels—it really helps give a connection to the actual religion that I like quite a bit. Also, another aspect of “Godspell” that I like quite a bit is that it somehow builds a relationship between Jesus and his disciples that focuses on his humanity and divinity at the same time, whereas I feel that “Jesus Christ Superstar” really focuses on his divinity, and his leadership. In “Godspell”, he has a much more personal relationship with the other characters around him through their interaction in the songs, with each of the characters getting their own song in which they interact with him. (Plus, in one of my own little quips with everything, there equal parts for women in “Godspell”, whereas in “Jesus Christ Superstar” there is only Mary Magdalene). The characters in “Godspell” are not set characters of the Bible—the characters are named after the original people who played them in the musical. This allows for a greater connection of the audience with the characters, and thus the story.

Anyway, to wrap up, I love both, and while “Jesus Christ Superstar” might be more challenging vocally and musically, “Godspell” takes home the prize for my favorite. I also have a special place for it in my heart because I was a part of a small production in Scotland, like I said, which was one of my favorite experiences from being over there. Opening night (the only time we performed for money), the 15 year old boy playing Jesus had a serious case of stage fright and forgot half of his lines, which ended up cutting off about half an hour of the production. We had a prompter behind the curtains of the elementary school cafeteria stage, but since every line started with “Now I tell you this”, he wasn’t that much help. Anyway, I digress. Perhaps the best way to describe it would be to say that I think “Godspell” can be watched about any time, but “Jesus Christ Superstar” really seems like a Good Friday movie to me. I like the simplicity of the music in “Godspell”, I think it fits with the story well. I like the generic nature of the setting and the characters, allowing for greater attachment to the story. I just have to say while I like both of them, if you’re planning on only watching one this Easter season, I would choose Godspell (which also features a very young Victor Garber as Jesus Christ).

Ignorance is Bliss

I had been hearing good things about the new film "Knowing" starring Nicholas Cage that just came out in theaters, plus one of my friends really wanted to see this film, so last week we went to a late showing of it. I thought maybe it would be kind of a silly film (you have to admit, the trailer makes it look kind of that way), and I was pretty excited because I like Nicholas Cage, in silly films (National Treasure!) or good films (Raising Arizona, Moonstruck, he actually has quite a few good ones). About half an hour into the film, you realize that this movie is anything but light-hearted and silly entertainment (National Treasure it is not). Suffice it to say, the movie freaked me out, but the more I reflect on it, the more I am convinced that this is one of the better movies in theaters right now, and certainly it is pretty good science fiction. If you are going to stop reading know b/c of spoilers, let me say that I agree with Roger Ebert that this film deserves four stars, and Nicholas Cage is wonderful in it (he had me in tears in the end during a scene with his son).

SPOILERS! Lots of plot information follows--you have been warned (and seriously, you probably should be warned about this film, because it is pretty scary in my opinion--but then I get scared easily)

Anyway, maybe it is because I was born after the fear of nuclear war was pretty much over, but I have never seen a movie that ends in the almost complete annihilation of the human race. Usually almost everybody makes it off the planet to start a new civilization (exception, Battlestar Galactica, although they still manage to save a hefty number of people). Just to give away the ending of "Knowing" at the beginning of the post, they don't manage to save nearly this many (I'm guessing they end up saving about twenty children to restart on another planet).

The film starts off with a creepy girl staring at the sun, and the whole prologue is eerie. Then the movie progresses to the present day, the kid finds the paper with the numbers on it, Nicholas Cage figures out what they mean, etc. Then freaky parts just keep coming. There are strange men dressed all in black with gaunt faces and bleached blond hair who just keep popping up in rooms and outside windows with little black stones to hand out. My friend did not find this creepy, but one of the main conventions for horror films, and in general that are scary to the human mind is the appearance of something in an empty space where nothing had been before (think that overused trope where someone is looking in a mirror, bends down, and when they stand up there is someone behind them).

Next come the actual scenes of destruction. Let me tell you, these are not for the squeamish. Reality doesn't really come into play (after a plane crashes and blows up, how would there still be people running from it). That's not the point. The point is that it is horrible to watch, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I have never seen a plane crash done like this, and with all the planes that seem to have been going down recently, it was almost too close to home for me (not to mention the explosions that engulfed people running and screaming from the wreckage).

I'll try not to go into too much more detail because I do think this movie is worth seeing, even though it is one of the more disturbing films I've seen in awhile. Children are haunted by "whisper people" who seem menacing throughout the film, but have secrets of their own. Probably one of the most frightening aspects of the film is that, unlike many disaster/sci-fi movies, there is nothing that Nicholas Cage can do to halt the events of the film. The ending is inevitable. Human beings like to feel like they are in control of their own destiny, and can change things if they try hard enough. This film has a debate going about pre-determinism versus chance, and what's in control of the fate of the world (if anything). I've heard that this is based on the book of Ezekiel, and that might be, but then again they might be aliens (or aliens are what the book is based on...it gets confusing and you basically have to make up your own mind).

All this being said, (BIGGEST SPOILER) the film ends with the death of virtually all humans, except those lucky few who are taken by the aliens to another planet. It was simply shocking--usually they find a way to save most of humanity. I am assuming that there were more films like this around the time of the Cold War, when the threat of complete destruction was at the forefront of many peoples minds, and it seems to me that the current war, tension and political atmosphere is again making a stand in film (although science fiction is always the best place to find this, and is why that is one of the best genres of film that you can watch).

This film is definitely worth the time, despite what some critics are saying, and the special effects are amazing, and deserve to be seen on the big screen, which always does movies like this the most justice.