I think that movies about food are probably the best movies in the world. They combine eating (one of the basic functions and necessities of life)--one of my favorite things--with movies, my other favorite thing. I thought that I would take a moment, therefore, and reflect on several movies about food that I love. In this post, I'll be looking at 3 films: Chocolat, Eat Drink Man Woman, and Julie and Julia. I would love to write about Babette's Feast, unfortunately I have not scene it recently enough to remember it. It is going on the top of my list however.
I will begin by saying that of these three movies, I think that Eat Drink, Man Woman is my favorite. Now, I realize what you're all thinking. Chocolate is my favorite food ever, and "Chocolat" has the magnificent Johnny Depp in it (not to mention Alfred Molina and Juliette Binoche). Oh, I do love that movie, and perhaps it is only because I saw Eat Drink, Man Woman more recently. But the way in which the story is told, the absolute beauty of the cooking, and the complicated interrelations of the characters somehow made "EDMW" more real for me, and a good film experience. There is less fantasy about it than in Chocolat--this isn't good, or bad, it just is, and it has contributed to my own personal opinion about the movie.
EDMW is about an aging chef and his three daughters, and the difficulties they have relating to him, and each other. He is losing his sense of taste, and here is the problem. It's the very core of who he is, and cooking has shaped his relationships with each of his daughters--who themselves are for the most part each involved in different ways with food. The youngest works at a fast food restaurant, and the middle daughter dreamed of being a chef when she was younger, however her father would not allow it, because he thought she should make something of herself by going to business school. There are twists and turns, and ups and downs in the stories of the characters, with one major reveal at the end of the story. One of the main things that I love is the concentration on the actual food. The preparation of a sumptuous feast is the subject of the main credits, and when people are cooking, the concentration is not only on the person doing the cooking, but on the actual food.
Herein lies the difference between this movie (and Chocolat--which also concentrates on the actual chocolate) and Julie and Julia. I enjoyed J&J, but mostly because I thought Meryl Streep was outstanding. Amy Adams was good as an actor, but I did not much care for her actual character, and while there was a lot of cooking going on in that movie, and we were supposed to get the feel of how it was changing her, it was in no way as effective as the former 2 movies that I have mentioned. J&J did not focus on the actual preparation of the food--you were lucky to see her in the preparation stage, and suddenly she had a finished product. They were trying so hard to show that the process of cooking was changing Julie (and Julia), that they forgot to show the actual act of cooking, which is what was supposed to change them. There were a couple of scenes where they got close--but I've been trying to figure out what I felt was missing from the movie, and this is it.
In comparison, EDMW and Chocolat show you the ingredients, they show you the cooking being done, they show you the people as they are doing it, they show the glorious results of all the hard work. They showed the actual influence of food in these people's lives--how it shaped and influenced who they were as people. Food wasn't just a pastime, or a vehicle to tell something about the characters, and get to the end of the movie. Food IS the movie in EDMW and Chocolat, and I think this is why they are such wonderful films. The food and the characters are not mutually exclusive in these two films, whereas in J&J, I did not get the connection with the food as greatly. I'm not sure if it was the choice of concentration in the cooking scenes, but the camera did not ever focus on the actual food and cooking, and therein lies the fallacy.
Anyway, I have been a fan of Ang Lee since Sense and Sensibility, and somehow I never saw Eat Drink Man Woman. All I can say is that if you haven't seen it, you are missing one of the great films of modern cinema, and perhaps Ang Lee's best (granted, I have not made my way through all of his films yet--but so far, this is my favorite). I can't even explain how he did it. It's an amazing piece of the work, simultaneously centered around the characters and their relationships with each other (as all of his films are if you dig beneath the surface plot--e.g. Hulk) and their relationships to food. It's one of my favorite films that I have seen in this year, and I highly recommend it.
P.S. I recommend Chocolat also, as I do with any and every movie that Johnny Depp has ever been in--it is also wonderful, and about my favorite kind of food. The point is that I love movies about food and how it changes people's lives--perhaps because they are so elemental (since everyone eats--and hopefully everyone has had food good enough to change their world--and how they see it--at some point).
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Hurt Locker
I went to see The Hurt Locker at the Art a week ago because I had heard via Roger Ebert that it was not a film to be missed. Normally, I am not a fan of war films--mostly they kind of bore me. However, The Hurt Locker was a drastically different experience for me. It did seem long, but it seems more like the actual tension of the film, and the depth of the characters was what created the length, rather than a plot that doesn't move, or a simply boring film.
The Hurt Locker was gritty and real, shot with hand-held cameras in the tracking sequences, and quite claustrophobic at points, especially when the main character, a bomb expert, dons his large, black, space-age suit. It is exhilarating and terrifying to watch him do his job--especially after seeing the guy he replaced go down in the first five minutes of the movie.
The performances are excellent, especially Jeremy Renner (who remembers him as awesome from S.W.A.T.!). His character seems so simple, yet is so copmlicated, that you spend the whole movie intricately involved in his character. He loves what he does--he cannot exist without it. The opening of the film tells us that war is a drug, and it is incredibly interesting to watch this film about someone who is quite literally addicted to the danger, the excitement, and the adrenaline rush from his work.
I highly recommend the film also, because, for me--who is not a fan of war films--it truly gives a sense of what it might be like to be over there. It unveiled a deep gratitude for our soldiers over their that I did not realize existed, and it made me feel more deeply connected to my own family members who have gone over there and faced all that chaos and danger. Thank you.
My favorite moments of the film:
1. An extreme close up of half the character's face as he comes in contact with a body bomb
2. The moment where the audience realizes that, like most people, he has a hard time distinguishing individuals of a different ethnic group than most Americans.
3. Anytime he is diffusing a bomb: you want tension, just put a guy trying to disarm a bomb with no cinematic clues as to what is going to happen next.
4. The moment when he is in a line trying to pick a cereal from all the meaningless brand names around him.
5. The moment when a woman's name flashes in the director's name spot. Generally, it is not a genre I associate with women, and I am glad to see a woman in a role of importance in such a good film.
The Hurt Locker was gritty and real, shot with hand-held cameras in the tracking sequences, and quite claustrophobic at points, especially when the main character, a bomb expert, dons his large, black, space-age suit. It is exhilarating and terrifying to watch him do his job--especially after seeing the guy he replaced go down in the first five minutes of the movie.
The performances are excellent, especially Jeremy Renner (who remembers him as awesome from S.W.A.T.!). His character seems so simple, yet is so copmlicated, that you spend the whole movie intricately involved in his character. He loves what he does--he cannot exist without it. The opening of the film tells us that war is a drug, and it is incredibly interesting to watch this film about someone who is quite literally addicted to the danger, the excitement, and the adrenaline rush from his work.
I highly recommend the film also, because, for me--who is not a fan of war films--it truly gives a sense of what it might be like to be over there. It unveiled a deep gratitude for our soldiers over their that I did not realize existed, and it made me feel more deeply connected to my own family members who have gone over there and faced all that chaos and danger. Thank you.
My favorite moments of the film:
1. An extreme close up of half the character's face as he comes in contact with a body bomb
2. The moment where the audience realizes that, like most people, he has a hard time distinguishing individuals of a different ethnic group than most Americans.
3. Anytime he is diffusing a bomb: you want tension, just put a guy trying to disarm a bomb with no cinematic clues as to what is going to happen next.
4. The moment when he is in a line trying to pick a cereal from all the meaningless brand names around him.
5. The moment when a woman's name flashes in the director's name spot. Generally, it is not a genre I associate with women, and I am glad to see a woman in a role of importance in such a good film.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Not all Indian Cinema is Bollywood.
There seems to be a common misconception among a lot of the people that I discuss Indian cinema with. It commonly all gets lumped into the category of 'Bollywood'. Some people find offense at this, some don't. I think I might have mentioned this in an earlier blog, but I thought I would reiterate it here since I will be discussing a film that does not fall into the lumped up category of Bollywood.
Bollywood is categorized by epic narratives, melodramatic story lines, romance, song and dance routines, and oftentimes happy endings (however, I've found that there are more sad endings than people actually think that there are).
A recent film that I saw has few of the characteristics that many people associate with Indian film, and it is by far one of the best pieces of cinema that I have seen in a while. Now, even I have to twist my arm to get myself to watch films that are critically high rated, but may not sound like the most interesting films. Alll I can say to this is that you will be happy with the results.
"Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" takes place en route from a southern Indian town to Kolkuta. Mrs. Iyer is traveling by bus to see her in-laws with her young son. A young man named Raja is enlisted to help her on the trip if she needs anything because their families and friends are acquainted somehow. Once on the bus however, they encounter a region where tensions between Muslims and Hindus have escalated to extreme violence. Mrs. Iyer (a strict Hindu) lies in order to protect Raja (a Muslim) from the mob that boards the bus. This scene is perhaps one of the most claustrophobic I have seen in a long time, and is extremely well done. From this point, the tension of the film increases, and it is quite possible to feel the fear and panic, and the sheer danger that could occur in situations like this. It is quite hard for someone like me, who has never had to encounter terrors such as the people in this film do, to understand how scary something like this truly is. "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" however, puts even the most privileged and clueless people in the positions that I imagine are still not uncommon in countries where religious and political strife still runs high. While this films was made a decade after the Bombay (Mumbai) Riots, and religious tensions are said to have subsided, they are not impossible. "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is a very interesting and eye-opening look at how ordinary people must deal with and live through events like this.
There are many films about terrorists, and perhaps this is the wrong label for what this film is about. But usually (and since Bollywood is my example, I'll stick with it), violence stemming from national issues, religious issues, or what have you is glamorized with fast cutting, loud MTV-style music, and James Bond-like figures who try to control the situation. The film "Fanaa", which I greatly emjoy, uses a background of the political tension surrounding the disputed region of Kashmir to set an epic romance. I admit that I love the movie (as I do with anything Aamir Khan is in), however, in comparison with a film like "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer", it is clear to see with is the better film--both in cinematic terms and narratively. The latter film also foregrounds romance, however it is a more subdued and realistic star-crossed romance, where people behave as they actually might in real life. The shots are long and ponderous, allowing the viewer to soak in the whole image, and letting the actors act, and creating their relationship through their interaction, versus through editing. The music in the film does not consist of lip-synching and dancing, but is non-diegetic and adds to the atmosphere and the reflection of the film. There are even shots that reminded me of Yasujiro Ozu's work, such as a shot of an old Muslim couple, where the woman looks at her hands after her husband mentions it's the only thing he saw of her the first time he saw her. These types of shots are not necessary to advance the plot, but instead are present to add a sense of time, an understanding of their relationship, and a sense of evanescence (hence, the connection to Ozu).
The framing of the film is also something that I found quite stunning, with careful selection going into the composition, allowing at times for beautiful symmetry and also helping construct the relationship between the two people who the film is about. Which leads me back to my final point about how the characters interact. Often in films, the meeting of two people who fall in love is fast, and suddenly they're in a montage, or are in love after 2 days, or any of that nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I think this is fine (especially if, in the course of the movie, they only spend a total of 2 weeks in each other's presence, a la Fanaa). However, it is not very realistic (call me a cynic, but I have yet to witness something such as love at first sight, which I don't think I necessarily believe in). The relationship of the main characters in "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer" is carefully navigated as they try to understand one another. In a country as religiously, linguistically and culturally diverse as India, she is Tamil (I'm not sure if this is the correct term for someone from Tamil Nadu) and he is Bengali. The only common language that they share is English--a feature of the film that I also found was very interesting and that someone who does not come from a country with as many languages as India would not think about. They are from different religions, with different practices (for example, she is vegetarian, and he is not), leading to several confrontations about how they interact that are very interesting. It seems to me that in more mainstream popular cinema, this is also something that, while it is mentioned a lot (eg. "you can't get married, she's Muslim and you're Hindu!), it is not fully explored, and I think that Mr. and Mrs. Iyer did a good job of this as well.
Anyway, after a long post, and an even longer abscence, I will wrap up this post by saying that I think this is one of the best Indian films that I have seen, and I hope that I will see many more like it. I would definitely recommend it if you aren't a fan of the "Bollywood" genre, but are interested in Indian film and culture.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Still Waters Run Deep
I have known and admired Sarah Polley, a young Canadian actress, ever since her days on the popular television series "The Road to Avonlea" (laugh if you want, that show is amazing!). When I saw a suggestion on Netflix for a movie that I might enjoy called "The Secret Life of Words", starring Sarah Polley and Tim Robbins, I decided to add it to my list, even though I had heard nothing about it.
The 2005 independent film is about a young nurse (Polley) who is a refugee from the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 in which approx. 100,000 people were killed, and over a million were left homeless and refugees. Working in a factory where she has never missed a day, she is forced to take a vacation by her boss, and when she hears of a chance to fly to an oil rig off the coast of Northern Ireland to take care of a burn-victim (Robbins), she takes it.
The film is slow and quiet, and the atmosphere perfectly suits the characters that inhabit it. We do not know anything about the nurse, Hanna, at the beginning of the film. She doesn't say much, and it is through her slightest actions, daily routines and small expressions that we must decipher what there is to know about her. When we meet Josef (Robbins), he is blind and bed-ridden, and tries his best to get any information out of her. As we have seen her introverted, paranoid character go through the motions of living, when she starts to unwind just a little bit, you can sense the bond that is forming between Hanna and Josef. The supporting cast also adds charm to the film, especially Javier Cámara, who plays a chef, bored to tears with the isolation of the oil rig, in contrast to Hanna's ease and comfort away from people.
This character-based film plays itself out beautifully, dealing with the aftermath of one of the more brutal wars in recent history. During the Bosnian War, the atrocities included genocide, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and psychological rape. While the film doesn't dwell on the actuality of these events, in one of the more tragic moments I have seen on screen lately, details of these events are gone into, and it is heart-breaking to think about what people can do to each other. One of the reasons that I love this film is that it was a film that truly made me think. I suppose it kicked off with thinking about the events and information of the film, but it then turned into a thinking about humanity in general, and I was surprised that a film could still do that.
One of the sad realities that this film mentions is that events like the Bosnian War are not part of a collective conscious (at least in America). I remember learning briefly about it in middle school, and I have to give credit to my teacher for bringing it up, because it certainly is not part of public knowledge in the way that the Vietnam War, WWII, and even WWI are. If nothing else, this film is important because it remembers (or tries very hard to) that there were victims and survivors of that horrible conflict, and in its own small way, it is trying to make sure that they are not forgotten, as best as it can.
The 2005 independent film is about a young nurse (Polley) who is a refugee from the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 in which approx. 100,000 people were killed, and over a million were left homeless and refugees. Working in a factory where she has never missed a day, she is forced to take a vacation by her boss, and when she hears of a chance to fly to an oil rig off the coast of Northern Ireland to take care of a burn-victim (Robbins), she takes it.
The film is slow and quiet, and the atmosphere perfectly suits the characters that inhabit it. We do not know anything about the nurse, Hanna, at the beginning of the film. She doesn't say much, and it is through her slightest actions, daily routines and small expressions that we must decipher what there is to know about her. When we meet Josef (Robbins), he is blind and bed-ridden, and tries his best to get any information out of her. As we have seen her introverted, paranoid character go through the motions of living, when she starts to unwind just a little bit, you can sense the bond that is forming between Hanna and Josef. The supporting cast also adds charm to the film, especially Javier Cámara, who plays a chef, bored to tears with the isolation of the oil rig, in contrast to Hanna's ease and comfort away from people.
This character-based film plays itself out beautifully, dealing with the aftermath of one of the more brutal wars in recent history. During the Bosnian War, the atrocities included genocide, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and psychological rape. While the film doesn't dwell on the actuality of these events, in one of the more tragic moments I have seen on screen lately, details of these events are gone into, and it is heart-breaking to think about what people can do to each other. One of the reasons that I love this film is that it was a film that truly made me think. I suppose it kicked off with thinking about the events and information of the film, but it then turned into a thinking about humanity in general, and I was surprised that a film could still do that.
One of the sad realities that this film mentions is that events like the Bosnian War are not part of a collective conscious (at least in America). I remember learning briefly about it in middle school, and I have to give credit to my teacher for bringing it up, because it certainly is not part of public knowledge in the way that the Vietnam War, WWII, and even WWI are. If nothing else, this film is important because it remembers (or tries very hard to) that there were victims and survivors of that horrible conflict, and in its own small way, it is trying to make sure that they are not forgotten, as best as it can.
Friday, April 24, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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
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
Friday, April 10, 2009
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)