Topic: African-Americans and American film

Forward, Backward, or Standing Still?

          There have been many great African-American performers in the film industry since the 1900's, including Bill “Bojangkes” Robinson, Sidney Poitier, and more recently actors like Hallee Berry, Denzel Washington, Will Smith and Don Cheadle. These pioneers, have paved the way for many other black actors to enter an industry that is less than welcoming at times. Yet, there are many other black actors who uphold negative stereotypes of the past. Some examples of these performers are Tyler Perry and the Waynes brothers. These performers often play into old-fashioned and dated images of African-Americans that continue to hold them back.

           Black people have been exploited in film for many years. They have been misrepresented as dumb, lazy, and animalistic in film culture. This blatant racism, constructed by white film makers and studio executives throughout Hollywood history is utterly disappointing. In recent years, more and more black film performers have been emerging, yet the image of black people on screen is still only slowly changing. I believe part of the reason for this is the fact that many of these African-American performers are giving in to the cultural stereotypes that have oppressed them for so many years by choosing to portray them. So, I suppose the question is 'why?' Why would black performers continue to project images of African-Americans in the way they were originally represented by racist white filmmakers of early Hollywood?

            As we saw in the film “Hollywood Shuffle,” many black actors are only offered roles that portray them as dumb servants, drug-dealers, or gang members. As an actor, if you have to chose between eating or playing a dumb servant, you play the dumb servant. And I sympathize with and understand African-American's who don't always get to take the higher road like Bobby Taylor did in “Hollywood Shuffle.” But, after a certain point in someone's career, when you have more options, why would you chose to continue down the degrading path that you were forced to take to get there? Not only does it pigeonhole you, but your peers and entire community as well.

           Denzel Washington is the greatest African-American actor of our time and perhaps of all time. He is an Academy Award winner for best actor and has also directed two major studio films, “Antwone Fisher” and “The Great Debaters.” In my opinion, Washington has done as much for the advancement of African-American's in film as Sydney Poitier. I can't think of a single example of a role where Denzel played into any black stereotype. The earliest character I saw him portray was a quick witted and clever lawyer in 1980's educational movie about drunk driving. Hallee Berry's name is another that is associated with huge strides forward in film for black actors. In 2002, both Berry and Washington took the two top honors at the Academy Awards for best actor and actress. Berry was the first African-American actress to every receive the prestigious award and 2002 was the first year in which both a black actor and actress won both top honors. Like Washington, Berry has rarely, if ever, chosen to portray an negative black image, perhaps with the exception of “Monster's Ball”. So, with so many forward movements, why do some performers still seem to be running backwards?

          People like Tyler Perry and the Waynes brothers continuously reinforce negative stereotypes of black people, with characters like “Medea” played by Tyler Perry and Tyrone C. Love in “Requiem for a Dream,” played by Marlon Wanyes. I don't know the answer to the question I asked earlier, which is 'why?' Why would these talented actors chose these roles? Is it because audiences want to see black people portrayed as cartoons of the past? Do they think it's entertaining to see black people made to look like fools or devious criminals? I don't believe the answer is 'yes', but perhaps I'm giving everyone too much credit. Wouldn't it be easier and more dignified to say 'no,' just as Bobby Taylor did? Or maybe it isn't that simple, to be honest, I can't say.

Topic: Documentary Style

Documentaries: One of the Best Forms of Education

           One of my favorite types of film is the documentary. These films educate, inspire, and enlighten us to topics perhaps we never would have known about or have been as well-versed on. I have many favorite documentaries and I will tell you about a few of them in this blog. An interesting question is about the future of documentaries and what sort of topics will be covered. They have certainly changed over time, pertaining to the current issues facing society yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I have noticed that many of the early documentaries that I have seen consisted of human interest stories such as “Grey' Gardens” and “Harlan County USA.” These two documentaries both tell the story of the human condition and the struggles that go along with it. They also both touch on the subject of being trapped or stuck in certain conditions. If you watch “Grey Gardens” you can see how being trapped in that house with her mother would drive Little Edie insane. In “Harlan County USA,” you can understand the lack of options available to these people and how stuck they are in the line of work and socioeconomic situation they were born into. The more recent documentaries that I have seen, seem to consist of comments on political or world issues, these include, “An Inconvenient Truth,” “Shut Up and Sing,” “Capitalism: A Love Story,” and “Sicko,” just to name a few. 

            My favorite documentary of all time is “Grey Gardens.” This film by the Maysles brothers, tells the story of Edith Bouvier Beale and Edith “Little Edie” Bouvier Beale who were relatives of Jackie Kennedy-Onasis, and their existence in their sprawling dilapidated estate in East Hampton. The other inhabitants of their home include, raccoons, squires, rats, and a plethora of cats all of which they feed, while barely being able to feed themselves. You watch the film with pity for Little Edie having been trapped by her selfish mother for so many years, giving her whole life to care for her. It's sad to see all the promise and beauty that both the house and Little Edie both used to hold. In many ways, the house is an extension or representation of what has happened to Little Edie both inside and out. There are many moments where she is clearly having psychotic episodes, but is unaware of her bizarre behavior, giving into it even more, attempting to vie for the cameras every attention. The documentary has a mood of sadness and disparity while letting you into a home and it's inhabitants world, where no one had been in so many years. 

              “The September Issue” is another classic example of a film that gives us a look into an environment most of us will never experience. In it, we meet Anna Wintour, editor in chief of Vogue Magazine. The recent narrative film, “The Devil Wears Prada” was based on this cold (pun-intended) high-powered women who essentially runs the world of fashion. Wintour funded and produced the documentary in an attempt to disparage the insinuations made about her in “Devil.” We also get a look into the world of fashion and the daily life at Vogue, which is quite fascinating and surprisingly complex. Wintour is of course humanized and sympathized with by the films audience, by conveying her as a lonely and misunderstood hero of publishing.

             Most of the documentaries that I watch today have a political or social intent. One of my favorites has been “Sicko,” about America's health care system. After watching the film, you ask yourself how we let it get this way, how did we let health care become a 'for-profit' industry when it is one of the most basic human needs? Director Michael Moore, takes us around the U.S. and the world on a mission to educate us on how wrong and devious this system has become. The definition of a documentary according to Dictionary.com is as follows, “a factual film or television programme about an event, person, etc, presenting the facts with little or no fiction.” Michael Moore doesn't include fiction in his work, but he does present a slanted view point, often that I agree with, but that isn't consistent with the strictest definition of an unbiased documentary presenting all sides of an argument and letting you decide what you believe. Other documentaries I have seen recently that contain political or social messages are "Shut Up and Sing," about the controversy surrounding The Dixie Chicks after the comments they made about George W. Bush and " An Inconvenient Truth," about the global warming crisis. 

              What is the future of documentaries? Will they continue to go in a political, social, and educational direction as the trend recently has been? Or will we have more “Grey Gardens” type films, that give us a glimpse into a world most of us would never know? I think the answer is both. Documentaries will always be around and will continue to cover a large variety of topics that peek the human interest. Let's hope more and more keep being made so we can all vicariously experience and learn about as many topics as possible.

Topic: Modern Women Directors

The New Coppola

            As we have learned there have been great women directors throughout history, but more specifically in recent years. They range from, Penny Marshall, to Jodie Foster, to Barbra Streisand, to one of my favorites Sophia Coppola. Coppola has directed four major studio movies, including “The Virgin Suicides,” “Lost in Translation,” “Marie Antoinette,” and her latest film “Somewhere.” Her young career has been one of hit and miss. She hit critical acclaim with her first two films “Virgin” and “Lost,” the latter being in my top five all time favorite films. Sophia Coppola speaks to a younger, hipper, and perhaps slightly lost generation. Her films reflect a playful femininity and yet a quiet sadness that I feel speaks to my generation, especially to women. She includes current trends into classic stories that make young audiences eager to watch her work.

            Sophia began her career as an actress, or rather the daughter of a major director (Francis Ford Coppola). At the age of 11, she took the stage name “Domino” and appeared in a few unknown films, along with her infamously panned performance in her father’s film “The Godfather III.” She transitioned into the role of director in 1996 with her first short “Bed, Bath and Beyond,” which focuses on a “British bombshell” who is desperate for her husband to cast her in his film as a pop star. Her next short “Lick the Star” came in 1998 and centers on a group of young school girls who devise a secret plan. Her studio feature debut came in the form of “The Virgin Suicides,” based on the book by Jeffery Eugenides. Her father played a key role in landing her the job at Paramount Classics (Paramount’s mini-major studio division) by coming on board as an executive producer. The choice proved successful for Coppola earning her major critical acclaim. Her next film, “Lost in Translation” (2004) was a huge success and earned her an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. With “Translation,” she also became the youngest and first American women ever to be nominated for Best Director. (IMDB.com).

(Tagline: "Everyone wants to be found.")

            It seemed as though Coppola was on top of the world and could do no wrong in the eyes of critics and the public, until the release of “Marie Antoinette,” which received very mixed reviews. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festive, where several members of the audience booed during parts of the film, yet it still received a standing ovation. Sophia’s work seemed to center solely on women and their struggle to find themselves, until her latest film, “Somewhere.” The 2010 film, centers on a rebellious jaded actor who becomes reunited with his young daughter. A similar theme exists in “Translation” with actor Bill Murray playing a burnt-out aging actor lost in his own life and the city of Tokyo. It will be interesting to see how Coppola let’s us peak into the life of another male or will we see mostly through the eyes of the female lead (Elle Fanning)?

            It doesn’t take a close look to see the theme of daughter and father in most of her work. It was rumored that “Translation” was a true story about her and the films star Bill Murray. The two differ in age by more than 30 years, Electra Complex anyone?  Growing up as the daughter of one of Hollywood’s “film school brats” can’t be easy and the thread of privileged women searching for themselves exits in all of her films. Her cinematography is one of her trademark assets, with diffused light and handheld shots that make you feel present in every one of her picturesque moments. Coppola is a director that makes us feel visually, allowing us as the audience to feel present in every frame of her work.

            Her much anticipated film, “Somewhere” will be release later this year and only time will tell if her follow-up to the disappointing “Antoinette” will sit well with audiences and critics. But at the end of the day Sophia is a director that makes studio movies that feel like independent films. They lift us up while making us wonder what we would do if we were in the shoes of one of her characters. Rather than telling us how to feel, she let’s us decide for ourselves, leaving a bit of mystery at the end of each movie. Such as in “Translation,” where Murray whispers something into Scarlett Johansson’s ear, which we the audience are not allowed privy to. It’s moments like this that keep us guessing what Coppola is trying to say, even in those quite moments when she isn't saying anything at all.

Topic: Psychological Horror vs. Visual Horror

Cheap Scares

            Horror films are everywhere these days. It seems as though every time we turn on the TV or drive down a highway we see an advertisement for the next “Saw” film or “Exorcism” remake. Studios continue to crank out cheap sequels, prequels, and sagas of the same concepts that have paid studio executive salaries for years, so why do we keep going to see them? These executives need to keep thinking of new ways to sell the same product to the same consumer, which isn’t always an easy thing to do, unless the consumers are American film audiences. Some of the ways studios have gained audience attendance include upping the ante by making films gorier, jumpier, and (yes) even cheaper than ever before. They will stop at nothing to get seats filled, just as they did during the sexploitation days. Is the new era of film ‘horrorploitation’?

            Horror movies are certainly not what they used to be. Films like “The Shining” and “The Exorcist,” are perfect examples of the two categories of classic horror films, gore and suspense. “The Shining” is one of my all time favorite movies and is a prime example of how a psychological horror movie should be made. It’s well acted, shot, and consists of a unique concept. Watching “Danny” ride his tricycle down those hotel halls and waiting for him to turn that one corner is terrifically terrifying every time. “The Exorcist” contains similar elements, but also with a bit of gore added in. Regan’s face, body, and vomit all delightfully make you cringe. But when did the change from these great films to what we have now occur?

            One of the newest and most profitable franchises of horror is the “Saw” movies. These films essentially tap into the human fear psyche by creating the most disgusting, revolting, and graphic ways for characters to die. When a film proves that it can make a large return, the studio usually does two things immediately, order another one and increase the budget. They have done both of these with the “Saw” films, yet somehow they don’t seem to get any better, just more and more repulsive. I don’t need to see someone reach into a bin of dirty needles or cut open another person’s stomach to feel scared, in fact in my opinion, it isn’t scary at all, it’s cheap. But that’s the buzz word for this blog, “cheap.”

            Studios know that audiences like to be scared at whatever cost, pun intended. Executives have found newer, less expensive, and faster ways of making crappy horror movies that turn the same (or more) profit than traditional good horror movies. Perhaps the best example of this new formula is the 2007 release of “Paranormal Activity”, with a staggering budget of $15,000 dollars. Over the course of its release in theatres and DVD, it has made a world wide gross of nearly $197,000,000 (thenumbers.com), making it the most profitable movie of all time (filmjunk.com). Audiences meet the new “Saw.” In 2010, Paramount released (you guessed it) a sequel, which also did quite well. I guess we should be somewhat thankful for these bargain basement thrillers, if you can call them that, because they help fund better movies that wouldn’t otherwise get made. But the real underlying question is, are we stupid to keep falling for these mediocre tricks?

            As I said earlier, a studio will do anything to obtain a profit and trick us into giving them our money in exchange for almost nothing, if we let them…and we do. We keep allowing ourselves to fall for the same ploys and “jump at the screen” tricks year after year. Once something has been done, we should know by now, that it isn’t ever going to be done as well ever again, case in point, “Paranormal Activity.” “The Blair Witch Project” uses the exact same elements of first person digital video shooting, coupled with little to no budget, and unknown actors to accomplish a “documentary” feeling. In my opinion, “Blair” is a much better movie than “Paranormal” and it had something going for it… it was innovative.

            In conclusion, studios will try any cheap tactic to get someone to sit their ass down in a movie theatre seat, whether it’s spilling someone’s guts all over the floor or tricking the audience into thinking something is real because its shot on high definition film and looks like a student film. I’m not sure when the transition from classic horror to contemporary cheap gore happened, but it most certainly did and right under all of our noses. But you have to give them credit because they make us fall for it, again and again.