Unfiltered Thoughts: Lost In Translation (Extra Blog 2)

When it comes to portraying foreign cultures in film and television they are very rarely shown in a flattering manner. Having to relying on stereotypes is an unfortunate side effect of attempting to create a product for an extremely wide audience who will likely not know as much about the culture as would be necessary so we instead choose to base our knowledge off of things that are considered common knowledge, even if those things are untrue if not outright offensive. Some pieces of media however are capable of using stereotypes for a different, more subversive purpose. Lost In Translation uses caricatures of Japanese people that are deeply rooted in stereotypes not as an insult to their culture, but rather as a reflection on the way that we ourselves view other cultures. It shows us the perspectives of Bob and Charlotte by presenting things as they would see it as they try to cope with living in a strange and very different environment.

Bob`s interactions with the people for example take on a very humorous and exaggerated tone. The man directing his commercial, to him at the very least, seems incredibly eccentric and over the top about what should likely be considered a fairly trivial thing. Bob sees much of the world around him like this however that`s not necessarily because it is actually the way it is. Bob is living through a mid-life crisis during the film and as such is moving through his life in a very slow, depressed state. It`s not the people around him who are overly energetic but rather him who is without energy. He sees the stereotype not because it is actually there, but rather because it helps him understand a world where he is at the center, rather than at one of the extremes. Charlotte also tries to use previously established stereotypes in order to cope. Early on in the film when she is feeling alone after her husband left for work she travels to a temple in the city in order to seek guidance or relief but instead finds just those who do their daily rituals and she is left to stand there confused before eventually leaving without any relief. It once again shows the way in which these characters try and take comfort in stereotypes as an audience might only to find that it is their own preconceptions that is the problem.

That`s not to say there aren`t scenes within this film which are not questionable. The scene in which a female assistant attempts to lure Bob into what seems to be some sort of strange sex game as a part of her job is discomforting to say the least but it is not necessarily reflective of their culture as the same, somewhat inappropriate, could be made anywhere in the world. More importantly however what the film accomplishes through its use of stereotypes is helping us to understand the feelings and motivations of its two main characters and in essence, translates their thoughts into visuals for us to see.

Unfiltered Thoughts: Smoke Signals (Extra Blog 1)

“Laughing through the tears” is a very common idea in our culture.  We laugh, not to belittle the tragedies and horrors that have passed, but rather as a means of coping with them, reminding ourselves that we must keep hopeful and press onwards. The film Smoke Signals is a prime example of this idea. It would be very hard to find a group more poorly treated in the last millennium than native Americans who had their land stolen, their culture systematically destroyed, and found themselves forced to live in separated “reservations” which are often extremely unsafe and in extremely poor condition. This is why the film Smoke Signals is such an important one. It shows a native perspective on native life but with a comedic twist. However, it doesn’t do this belittle the atrocities of the past nor does it do it to downplay the horrors of the present, rather it instead works to provide a bit of levity for a culture that has seen so much tragedy, a bit of laughter to work through the pain and help dispel stereotypes that surround native people.

Despite the film’s comedic nature it still works off of quite a depressing premise. Victor and Thomas hear news that Victor’s father Arnold has died and the two go on a journey to retrieve his ashes leading them on a road trip from their reservation in Idaho to Arnold’s resting place in Phoenix, Arizona. The story centers around these three characters, Victor, Thomas, and Arnold, and through them it shows the various representations of natives that are typically portrayed in media while at the same time changing them a bit to add more depth. Victor presents himself as the stereotypical ‘stoic Indian’, always remaining calm and never showing any sort of extreme emotion. Of course by the end of the film, once he has come to terms with his father’s death and his actions, that identity begins to break down, culminating in him running several miles in order to reach a town and seek help for someone who has been injured in a car accident (which he and Thomas are then blamed for before being released). It suggests that the stoic warrior archetype is ultimately an untrue one, instead replacing it with someone who is strong and yet still caring, a far more accurate depiction of native culture.

Thomas, Victor’s travelling companion, is often seen as being annoying by those around him. He possesses a certain amount of naivety about not only the world outside, but his own culture. Much of his misunderstanding of the way in which his culture works comes from his fascination with films made about it from outside sources (namely Hollywood). He serves as a critique of these films while still being the arguable comedic center of the film, with many jokes delivered at his expense. The connection the Thomas and Victor share is Victor’s father Arnold. Arnold is used to represent the modern, honest state of native life within the reserves. While Thomas and Victor are stereotypes based on media, Arnold is shown to be a violent alcoholic which Victor detests him for. Over the course of the film however we learn the meaning behind his actions and what eventually led him to the state he was in that caused him to leave his family. The motivations that he is given help to reinforce that he too is portraying a certain stereotype, and that native people should be treated as individuals based on circumstance rather than stereotype. His scenes are also the ones treated with less comedic interference as his past is quite realistic and somber as opposed to the caricatures the two boys portray. As a whole however, the movie attempts to keep a certain humorous tone throughout. It serves as a constant reminder that even when you have experienced great tragedy and hardship in your life you must press ever onward in hopes of a better tomorrow. It also serves as a reminder that sometimes, when things are the worst they’ve ever been, you might just need to sit down with a friend and laugh about it.

Telling Everyone’s Story (Assignment 5)

When documenting the life of a person a completely factual retelling is almost impossible. Memories are unfortunately a very malleable thing and as such, even when someone is telling their own story, it’s not only likely but almost unavoidable that there will be inaccuracies. This is the conclusion that Sarah Polley seems to have come to as well during her time making her documentary Stories We Tell which tells the story of her mother Diane Polley, her history, her connections with her families and with others. While she attempts to present her mother’s story from multiple different viewpoints Sarah herself admits that, when remembering, “we must be unintentionally distorting things to varying degrees in order to feed our own version of what we need the past and history to be”. Her self-aware attitude about this works to her advantage, as she then proceeds to use these distortions to her advantage, presenting the story from many different perspectives and letting the contradictions in people’s recollections present the different sides of her mother that people saw in order to create a much more detailed picture.

Most of the grainy ‘family footage’ is actually recreated based on the descriptions of those who witnessed it

This can most clearly be seen through her relationship with her husband Michael Polley and through her extramarital affair with Harry Gulkin, a producer she met while working in Montreal. While much of the film discusses her career as an actress and her early life, much of what we hear about Diane’s personality and personal life comes from these two people. Her husband Michael actually takes on the role of narrator for the documentary, although his perspective in this role is further distorted by the fact that he is reading words given to him by his daughter, whose perspective he is truly delivering. When we do hear directly from him however, as well as from Harry, we start to see the different sides of Diane and the different faces she wore among different company. From Michael’s perspective (as well as that of her children) we see the way she lived in a docile family setting, while Harry’s recollections describe a more adventurous Diane (and not just limited to her affair). While one of these perspectives likely would have presented a more cohesive picture of Diane and her life, this method instead portrays a more accurate and realistic depiction of her life.

This image perfectly sums up the movie’s self aware nature as the director sits beside one of her main interviewees

And that is really what it comes down to, one person alone cannot accurately depict another because we show different sides of ourselves to different people. This can often lead us to force traits onto the memory of a person in order to make them more fit the mold which they seem to portray for us. However, even in her effort to portray her mother’s life from various different perspectives, Sarah is aware that what she has created still isn’t perfect. In an interview with the CBC, she points out the fact that “Because the film was so much about storytelling and how stories are constructed, it would have felt really false to me to leave out the fact that I was constructing this story” which she does through her constant cut-backs to her father in the narration booth and her clear presence behind the camera. At the end of the film she breaks the illusion of the recreated history throughout the fake family footage, showing the actors when they weren’t fliming, in order to put us into the position that she and her family have been in, that of simply looking at recreated memories which, as much as they may try, will never truly capture the images of the life they are trying to. And, if that is too depressing a way to think about the rememberance of someone, try considering things this way. When one is unable to observe something for study, one of the best ways to understand its effects is to look at what occurs around it and in this case, that means looking at the people they’ve touched, the experiences they’ve shared, and most importantly, the stories about them we tell.

Mixing Genres into Something New (Assignment 4)

Ryhmes For Young Ghouls is an interestingly subversive film. One of the things that makes its subversion truly interesting is the fact that it is done not as much through character and plot (although that can be seen as well) but rather, through its blending of genres and cinematic styles. This film works as an almost Tarantino-esque revenge fantasy with the natives on the reserve getting their revenge on the oppressors who control the residential school on the border of the reserve. Comparing the cinematography to Tarantino’s isn’t exactly fair however, as the film does not take the same amount of visceral delight in its gore and violence, instead, feeling far more like a horror film meant to disturb and discomfort the audience as a means to break the preconceptions they might have about the history of the reserves and residential schooling.

The horror in this film primarily comes from the imagery it presents. I’m not referring to the violent imagery either, although the realism presented through that is quite unsettling. Rather, I’m referring to the unnerving, seemingly unnatural images which the movie often shows. The lead character for example is often seen hooded and wearing an old, worn down looking gas mask. It’s the sort of attire one would expect of a “slasher” villain rather than a young girl struggling to make a living. It’s in many ways reflective of the way in which the media portrays natives, as dangerous and as part of this mysterious “other”. There is a particular animated section which also works to this effect. While detailing a short story the film presents images of nature horribly mangled by technology, a wolf with gears and machines sticking out of its body, trees replaced by lampposts, etc. It all works to help us sympathize with the idea that these people’s homes and lands have been destroyed by technological advancement and are now left in a state of destruction and disarray. It presents imagery of a unique Native cinema that the documentary Reel Injun suggests is necessary, one which presents a unique Native perspective which isn’t reliant on historical stereotypes, instead giving a view of a more modern Native struggle.

In a gas mask and large hood you might not be able to initially tell that this is the protagonist of the film. What the film makes sure you know however is that it’s what behind the mask that matters.

Even though I may emphasize the film’s use of imagery over violence that does not mean that violence is not only prevalent but also very effectively used within the film. As blogger Sean Carleton points out, “Rhymes for Young Ghouls aims to shock audiences not just with the violence of the schools but with the ability for Indigenous peoples to violently resist and fight back”. The film tries to emphasize the idea that these are not a weak, passive group of people but are instead a group who can take care of themselves. It is important to note however, that the film never reaches the point where their actions could be seen as reinforcing the idea of the Native person as ‘savage’. Rather, it is a focus on justified retribution as opposed to full-out malice. Even during the confrontation with the main antagonist of the film it is only in self-defence that he is killed as opposed to some idea of cultural vengeance. Above all else though what the film strives for is realism. Not in the sense that everything is as realistic as can possibly be but rather in the sense of conveying a more accurate, realistic Native perspective than we have seen previously in other films. It’s an effort to break down boundaries and preconceptions within both culture and the film industry that presents images that will likely stick with anyone who sees it, images of young ghouls haunting those responsible for their suffering.

Little Miss Sunshine: Failure and Success (Assignment 3)

While many consider failure to be the essence of comedy it must be balanced out with a proportionate amount of success. Without any sort of success to counterpoint the failure the events will often become more tragic than comedic. The film “Little Miss Sunshine” however, manages to find a good balance between failure and success which keeps the failure of the family constantly in the forefront without letting the events reach tragic levels. They do this mainly by presenting an overarching pathway to a seemingly successful end that is constantly blockaded by the various failures the family encounters.

Of course one of the biggest failures seen within  film is on the part of the son, Dwayne. His plans to join the air force are ruined by a failure that is completely out of his control, his newly discovered colour blindness. This is probably the point in the movie in which the line of tragedy is almost crossed. However, along with this failure comes an unexpected positive turn as this failure leads to him taking back his ability of speech and returning to his family. We see him after this point gradually becoming closer with his family which eventually culminates when he joins his little sister up on stage in the beauty pageant in order to give his support.

This moment sums up this movie’s relationship with failure. They may fail but they never stop trying.

Of course that beauty pageant is also likely the greatest failure in the movie. In many ways it is the culmination of all of their efforts throughout the film and it ends up becoming a complete disaster. However, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, a great success comes from this failure. The failure at the beauty pageant leads to this fractured, broken family to truly reunite. If this is the failure that the film had been building up to then the family reuniting becomes the success. It is also this element of success which turns what would be a sad situation into a humorous, positive one. While one would likely feel guilty about laughing at Olive embarrassing herself up on stage, when they then see her family join in, it leads to the realization that the family is now simply doing this for fun and that earlier guilt the audience may have felt is alleviated. It is the prime example of the way in which this film balances its failures and successes to allow for even greater comedy.

Their greatest moment of failure is also their greatest moment of success.

Of course while failure is still the one of the main sources of this film’s comedic value it is not the only comedic element. The film’s black comedy in particular is one of its greatest sources of laughs. Most of this dark humour is centered around the recently deceased grandfather and the events which occur around him. The source of the humour in this situation of course comes from how nonchalantly the family handles their predicament. Their single minded goal of reaching the beauty pageant despite their various circumstances is in essence the source of the majority of the comedy within the movie. This single-mindedness also contributes to the deadpan humour of the film. Much of the delivery is intentionally flat to contrast with the ridiculous situation that this family finds themselves in.  This contrast is also seen when the characters do show some emotion as their emotional reactions tend to be very over the top, leading to more humour. This deadpan combined with the dark comedy that the film uses combine to create the film’s unique comedic style. It just goes to show how, like in the family itself, the best creations come from multiple elements working together to make something great.

The Normal Heart, Normal Love, and Abnormal Stereotypes (Assignment 2)

I am not going to deny that The Normal Heart is an excellent film. Almost everything about it will likely hit home with just about anyone who watches it regardless of sexual orientation or the gender which they identify with. However, the movie is not without its flaws and in this case that is its use of stereotypes. Now before I develop that point further I would like to emphasize that this movie has some of the most well written characters I have seen in a long time. The love story between Ned and Felix is both excellently written and beautifully performed throughout the course of the entire movie. It feels like a movie which is not about gay people but rather about people who are gay. These characters are almost always presented as people first and their entire character is not simply through stereotypes. Unfortunately that statement does come with an almost.

Before I get into it further however I would like to point out that while a stereotype can have its place within a film, in a movie like The Normal Heart though these stereotypes clash with the its dedication to realism. It was noticeable in several characters who were outside the core cast who were either meant to be used as comic relief, or served as a human antagonist. The character of Bella Boggs for example speaks and acts in the sort of campy, over the top manner which is reflective of the sort of stereotypical gay man which was extremely prevalent in media (sometimes to an offensive extent) up until only recently. It just serves to clash with the other gay characters in the film who act far more subdued and seemingly far more realistically in their situation.

Jim Parson’s character is an excellent example of how a character can be somewhat campy and humorous while still being realistic

 

The antagonistic characters also suffer from this issue. They are almost comically dismissive of Ned and his group in such a way that it actually hurts the movie’s message rather than enforces it. The politician Ned meets in Washington is one such example of this. He brings Ned in, quickly dismisses the issue, and then asks him if there have been any cases of a prostitute getting the disease before immediately dismissing him, leaving, and presumably going to hire one of those said prostitutes. The way the movie almost humorously portrays this character only serves to hurt its message as the antagonist’s unrealistic actions makes the situation seem less real and serious than it is. Of course that`s not to say that this sort of person does not exist in real life, they most likely do, but even so it seemed to not match the rest of the movie and felt detrimental to the rest of it.

However, that being said the film’s core aspect, the love story between Ned and Felix, is truly effective both in its emotional conveyance and in its political message.  The relationship between these two is not a “gay relationship” but rather it’s about two people in love who are tragically torn apart by a disease no one knows how to treat. Two gay men who lived in a time where, as the playwright of the Normal heart Larry Kramer put it, their “continued existence as gay men upon the face of this earth is at stake”(1112 and Counting).

I feel like this quote sums up their relationship perfectly.

It also helps to push the idea that the movie presents through Ned and his brother, that these two are the same and that they are equally deserving of a happy life. Ned’s cries to his brother to acknowledge that they are the same is also him yelling to the audience and the movie then uses love to show you that there really are no differences between them. Showing rather than telling is one of the most basic rules of both writing and film making but the relationship between Ned and Felix takes this simple concept to another level. Even if the film did not have its more overt political moments (such as the aforementioned one with the politician) it would likely still be just as effective as it is now thanks to that relationship. In some ways what their relationship is truly reflective of is the how love can be an even more effective tool for fighting than all the politics and yelling in the world.

How American Beauty Falls Just Short of Being Subversive (Assignment 1)

American Beauty is an interesting example of post-modernist film making. It manages to challenge the dominant cultural tropes of its time by challenging what was considered to be an “ideal” suburban society. It uses the post-modernist elements of meta-theatricality and self-referencing (in the form of Lester’s narration and its cinematic style) as a means to distance itself from the viewer and force its audience to truly think about what it is they’re seeing. On the surface it seems to be trying to tear down stereotypes and normative ideologies and initially it seems to be successful in doing so. However, in its process of tearing down archetypes it ended up replacing those with others to take their place.

For example, Ricky’s father Col. Fitts is a violently homophobic man who viciously attacks his son and proceeds to throw him out of the house when he suspects him to be gay. This intolerance of homosexuality, while beginning to die down by the time of the film’s release, was still very prevalent and as such, when we find out very shortly thereafter that Col. Fitts has been hiding his own homosexual tendencies, it breaks down that homophobic aspect of his character and the part of society it represents. However, while this may have been a new concept at the time (it’s difficult to confirm whether this idea was done before), the homophobic-person-turns-out-to just-be-doing-it-to-hide-their-homosexual-feelings archetype (working on finding a better name for that) is one that has been done many, many times in film and television and as such has become extremely predictable and easy to spot which unfortunately undermines the message it is trying to present.

Admittedly it was done far better here than in other works which have tried to do a similar concept

That is of course not to say that this never occurs in real life, but the same could be said for the supposedly ideal family structure which the movie is attempting to deconstruct and does a good job of deconstructing…for the most part. While the movie does do a good job of deconstructing the family ideal of the time the only character that seemed completely original was the main character of Lester. His wife Carolyn while initially seeming to be breaking the societal constraints which restrict women to the home, still tries to live up to the societal ideals of the time and play the role of homemaker as seen with her obsessive gardening and constant concerns about the family keeping up appearances.

An example of Jane’s “appearance oriented” parenting style

Mind you, to the film’s credit, the progression of this character seems to suggest that trying to live up to those societal ideals is problematic as we see through her eventual infidelity and descent into murderous madness. Jane however, does not have this possibility to fall back on. While she does go against societal norms with her attitude and ‘refusal to conform’ she does it in such a way that just paints her as the stereotypical rebellious teenager. The movie does seem to recognize this with Lester referring to her in his narration as a ”typical teenager: angry, insecure, and confused”, however, unlike her mother, this does not seem to cause any problems for Jane as she gets to leave with Ricky at the end without any onscreen consequences. In fact, her version of non-conformity is supported by Ricky, one of the more out-there characters of the film, despite the fact that it is a film archetype we have seen many times before.

Keep in mind I am not saying in the slightest that this movie does not succeed at subverting cultural archetypes. The characters of Lester and Ricky both turn in truly original performance for fairly interesting, subversive characters and the plot itself feels very unique and effective. However, the film unfortunately often accomplishes it’s goals by simply substituting one stereotype for another which in the end weakens the impact of its message. In the end I simply feel the film would have been significantly improved if there was more depth to some of the characters. Despite this however the film still proves to be an interesting piece of post-modern cinema which is still enjoyable today and is still a surprisingly relevant piece for study.

Welcome To My Page!

Good morning/afternoon/evening to all those seeing this greeting! Welcome to my page for Screenacting 3225.

Here you’ll find my personal musings on various films watched over the course of, well, the course. and I encourage you to leave comments and let me know what you think.

Here’s to happy watching and reading!

-Eric