Let me get this out of the way early. Hairspray bored me to tears.
Hairspray 1988 Trailer
HAIRSPRAY Official Trailer 2007
(*winces* And it looks like the newer one worse than the first)
Oh, I get that it was deliberately kitschy and pastel because it was satirical. I did like the fact that the lead character was fat and comfortable with it and that that her mother was played by a drag queen. (More of that PLEASE in today’s entertainment!) The dancing was ok and the pastel colors weren’t all that bad. But I like witty banter with great puns and the writing was nowhere near that ideal. In addition, the racial politics therein espoused has been done to death. The whole “white saviour” thing might have been fresher in 1988, but after years and YEARS of the popularity of that genre of movie (see The Blindside and the upcoming The Help), I’d just had enough of it. This stuff was metaphorical porridge, when I have been jonesing for baked chicken for years. In brief, I don’t think the political comedic potential was fulfilled, and having read the articles, my disappointment was even more profound.
Apparently this whole thing was based on a true story in which a group of kids organized to invade a real life segregated dance show called “Buddy Deane Show”. It’s a good story, and rather hilarious too. Its plot in Hollywood movies is also clichéd, milquetoast and overdone. It’s comfortable, doesn’t challenge enough. Its comfortable to think you might have been that brave girl from the privileged majority who went against tradition and led the liberation of those poor people. Its easier to erase the work that groups of marginalized people did, going through hell and back to make the majority listen and pay attention. “See! Not all the majority were bad! And I would have been the right one! “
The problem is that I have seen that dynamic before. All those Great! White! Teacher/Moms/Social Workers/Police Officers/ everything else that have located their consciences and worked on behalf of people of color! Their stories get told and retold time and again in the movies. Heck, Sandra Bullock just won an Oscar for another darn iteration of the theme. I? Am bored. Bored bored bored bored. I don’t CARE about that one privileged person seeing the light. I care about the stories of those people of color collectives and heroes that were doing the work long before the spotlight fell on the white hero, and kept on doing it while that spotlight continued to shine on him/her/zie and will continue to do it long after that person is off elsewhere. I’ve seen enough solitary, outsider heroes come to save us all.
I also want groups and their dynamics to be focused on. You want drama? THERE is drama. Drama between the people, different ideas for achieving stuff, egoes, intersectionality clashes (disability vs racism vs sexism etc and god help the people inhabiting multiple intersections of the road). I want to hear about the people who did the heavy lifting, because mark my words, liberation tends not to come courtesy of the outsider no matter WHAT the stories from Hollywood and agenda-driven commentators and politicians say. The people affected do the most work, because no one else tends to care. And then they open the eyes of some privileged person who jumps in and due to said privilege gets the attention and the write up and the movie biographies and the book deals. And in many cases the work is made easier, the radical edges filed off, the message diluted so it can resound to a wider audience. Again, I say, I am bored.
Mr. Waters himself does seem to be an intelligent and fascinating person from his interviews though. I like his civic mindedness (he votes!! Really? And has intelligent things to say about politics! WHUT!) and I appreciate the fact that he clearly puts some thought into his films and their messages. I am not interested in the eating of dog-shit, but I do appreciate that his films seem to champion the non-glamorous, the normal and sometimes weird people who are rarely celebrated on film, especially today. I think it is encouraging that he continues to get funding for said films, but I found it interesting that Broadway seems to be where he met with most of his monetary success. I wasn’t aware that a career on Broadway had the possibility to be that prosperous! And it is in the articles focusing on him that I found fruitful topics for possible conversation.
Useful Questions:
1. The theme of trangression and reinterpretation and rebellion in John Waters work, how does in show up in Hair Spray?
2. Does hearing that Hairspray is based on a true story affect the way you look at the film?
3. Do you think Hairspray is relevant to today’s racial political climate? (If you have watched the reboot, maybe do a compare and contrast between political climates then and now?)
4. What do you think of how fat characters are portrayed in Hairspray, as opposed to today’s portrayal of fat characters, especially women, in television and the movies?
Class Questions:
1. Explore the idea of “reinterpreting what events should have been like”, John Waters making a movie that tells history the way he wishes it should have been?
2. Subversive Entertainment: John Waters is obviously something of an social activist in his films. Talk about the balance between entertainment and getting in political points without coming across as preachy.
3. John Waters says be believes that personality is an important part of his movies. What personality in Hair Spray stands out to you and why?
4. Mean pretty girls vs fat but pleasant girls in movie cannon. Tired of the stereotypes? Can fat and thin girls live together in harmony in our media, or at least with no body policing and boyfriend stealing? Yes this is reality, but shouldn’t we also strive to portray a better way too? Afterall, the comedies would have us think that any schubbly guy can get a drop-dead gorgeous girlfriend, and this is not exactly prevalent in real life. Why not have more movies in which women are friends regardless of weight and boyfriends?
5. Humor as political weapon, change the world by confronting unsettling realities using humor? Is that ever inappropriate? Careful; in case we end up reinforcing hierarchies instead of deconstructing them using humor.
I’d like to talk for a bit on the capacity of humor to effect social change or reinforce the existing hierarchy. Currently, there is some cultural conversation about political correctness in humor. There is a view that films that promote humor based on denigration of the marginalized are “edgier” than films like Hair Spray, which focus their fire on the privileged. I would like to register why I think this line of argument is bunkum. Humour has been used as weapons by both the marginalized and the privileged alike in the everlasting war for and against social justice. I recently found out, for example, that nursery rhymes, which I had considered harmless bits of funny fluff, had actually started life as trenchant critiques of social injustices and societal mores and well as current news. They were rhymed and coded by their authors in order to protect themselves from backlash from the subjects of their critique. On the other hand, racist, sexist, ableist and homophobic humor is part of the arsenal that the privileged humorist uses to keep up the wider societies disapproval of those and other facets of identity. When you can laugh at a person for who they are, you help to dehumanize that person, and thus you contribute to that person’s oppression.
But note that there is a great deal of difference between laughing at a person with institutional power backing them up, and laughing at someone who doesn’t have that. Laughing a greedy rich white man’s bungles doesn’t leave him as vulnerable as laughing at a transgender woman for being a transgender woman. One person is already being pummeled with messages by society that they are fundamentally wrong and thus society is well within its rights to harass and hurt and sometimes kill them. They are extremely vulnerable and the humor used helps to keep them that way. The other person has institutional power, including the privileges of the relative good will of wider society, and the money and power to insulate himself from even well-deserved critique. And he is usually the one issuing threats to people’s lives (hello Congress and unethical corporations), not receiving them, but if he does receive them he can be sure of having his complaints addressed by the justice system; unlike the aforementioned transgender woman. She runs the risk of being laughed out of the police station, or being abused or killed by the police themselves.
Put another way, the Social Psycology Lab has a blogpost which talks about research into sexist humor. I am pretty sure that the results apply to any other –ist humor:
Social Consequences of Disparaging humour
In our research we’ve focused to this point on the social consequences of exposure to sexist humor. Our findings demonstrate that sexist humor is not simply benign amusement. For men who have sexist attitudes it can create a perceived social norm of tolerance of discrimination against women, and as a result, increase personal tolerance of discrimination against women and even increase willingness to engage in sexist behavior without fears of disapproval.
Humor that attacks the marginalized is not edgy, because the status quo is that the marginalized deserve to be abused for being born that way. What those humorists are doing is reifying and supporting this mainstream society view. Laugh at “niggers” and “trannies” and whoever else, and you have dehumanized them in your mind. When stuff starts happening to those people, your capacity for empathy has already been undermined. Films like Hair Spray, for all its faults, are edgy because they are challenging the status quo. Make jokes about the privileged nonsense, and not only is it an escape valve for the stress that minorities face as a result of the system, it helps to illuminate the issues with that system and brings minorities up instead of keeping them down.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Hotel Rwanda and Darwin's Nightmare: Africa Through Western Eyes
Hotel Rwanda and Darwin’s Nightmare: Africa through Western Eyes
Hotel Rwanda tells the story of the Rwandan genocide. Darwins’ Nightmare tells the story of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the introduction to Lake Victoria area of Tanzania of the Nile Perch. Hotel Rwanda is a narrative film, Darwin’s Nightmare is a documentary. Both are a part of the trend of “message” movies, those movies that are marketed with an eye to help bring about social justice. And Westerners made both.
The gists of the articles on Hotel Rwanda were: 1. Why would anyone want to watch genocide? And oh my goodness, the relentless downer movies about Africa are creating social justice fatigue among the audience! 2. The film is good but it’s missing a whole lot of context. Here, have a quick history lesson! 3. Some Rwandans do not see Paul Rusesabagina’s real life role in as good a light as the movie puts it.
Hotel Rwanda Trailer
The gists of the articles on Darwin’s Nightmare were: 1. Some Tanzanians were annoyed with the film due to perceived sensationalism and inaccuracies. 2. Can film make change? 3. This Sauper fellow has a real knack for getting close to his subjects, doesn’t he? 4. The intricately connected historical and current reasons why Tanzania is in its present fix.
Darwin's Nightmare Trailer
Useful questions:
1. Is Sauper justified in making accusations that he cannot back up re: the alleged gun smuggling?
2. What WOULD an audience expect to get out of a film about genocide? Triumph of the human spirit? A warning so as to prevent the next one?
3. Narrative film vs documentary film at story telling? One reviewer of Hotel Rwanda said that it was truer than a documentary could be, because it didn’t pretend to encompass the whole truth about the incident. In light of that comment, how do we assess Darwin’s Nightmare? Sauper seems to have an intimate relationship with his subjects. But many people objected to his portrayal. How do we assess “truth” in media that is meant to be non-fiction?
Class discussion:
1. Compare contrast both films with Moolade. Westerners from US and Netherlands vs Sengalese. Authenticity? What stories do Westerners choose to tell about the continent of Africa? What nuances of culture do we miss when we rely on our framing of the continent as only a place of problems and victims? Nevermidn the historical propoganda that we fed ourselves that we are only recently beginning to dig ourselves out of ? What images come to mind when we think of Africa?
2. With both films, there were complaints of inauthenticity. There is a long long LONG tradition of Westerners culturally imperialistic and totally idiotic in the manner in which we portray people from non Westerner countries. Ways and methods to avoid that?
3. And a lot of the problems therein are our fault historically and currently. So many of the docs and narratives seek to make us aware of that. But why is it that we the audience don’t seem to respond by demanding that our leaders fix our foreign policy? Consider Rwanda for instance? Though the Nile Perch was boycotted so that’s definitely affected foreign policy.
4. UN was built to see if we could stop wars after World War 2. Genocide in Rwanda was ignored by UN due to America not wanting to get involved. 10 dead Belgians led to pullout of most of UN troops in Rwanda. How much should world peacekeepers be willing to sacrifice to keep the peace while they are under attack? Compare contrast Libya and Kosovo, if class knows anything about it. Can we stop massacres and genocides in other countries? Under what circumstances? Who decides whose worthy of being helped and why? Whose lives are considered valuable enough to save?
5. Are documentaries obliged to give us a roadmap so that we can know how to help?
6. Nile Perch and other invasive species, a world wide problem. Thoughts?
7. Nile Perch, economic benefits vs cost. Export-oriented economies lead to workers in their own country not being able to benefit from their resources. Boycotts are not a simple solution to the problem, because then people don’t get work. How to solve complicated problem?
Analysis:
Hotel Rwanda and Darwin’s Nightmare share several similarities. Both movies deal with complicated problems caused in part by the effects of colonialism. Both of them were made in the interest of social justice, trying to inform and enlighten and thus encourage a fixing of problems and a warning about history. Both of them are not movies that I want to watch ever again. And both movies made by westerners, both criticized by subject populations for perceived inaccuracies.
Non- Africans make the majority of films about Africa that Westerners know about. Heck the general impression of Africa held by people outside of the continent are shaped by Westerners. And Westerners have used their power many times for evil in that respect. Which is why, while I was struck by the intimacy that seems to exist between Sauper and the people he interviewed, there is that niggling sense of discomfort, a certain lack of trust. Did he get the story right? What did he miss? How would a Tanzanian have told the tale of Darwin's Nightmare? How would several Tanzanians have told different versions of that tale?
Hotel Rwanda was marketed as a fiction film so I expected stuff to be changed. But still, when that film is the mainstream world wide representative of a deeply hurtful period of Rwandan life, I wonder how it makes Rwandans feel? What nuances did the movie miss or misinterpret? What was changed, what was switched what was chopped to make the story work? How would a Rwandan have made that film? What stories would different Rwandans tell?? What would they have considered important? Consider for example the Holocaust, and the many different stories that have been told about this atrocity. Many of the tellers were themselves Jews. Many different facets of the tragedy were explored. The people who suffered the tragedy got to tell the stories, their ways. Many people in the West therefore, have access to some sort of nuanced idea of the atrocity. But usually, the stories of Africans are not told by themselves. Their voices are edited into the singular Western narrative of war and starvation and tribes and corruption and dictatorship and trouble and these stories advance stereotypes and misunderstandings that were created deliberately by colonial forces. Nuanced understanding is in very short supply, because the issues are raised once or twice in documentary or film, and then never heard of again until the next atrocity prompts another bleeding heart. In short, Africans need way more control over their stories and images. Luckily, some steps toward that have been in the works like this : New Hot Docs fund to nuture African films
New Hot Docs Fund to administer fund geared towards African filmmaking
Hopefully, the fruits of their labour will be coming to my theatre, soon.
Hotel Rwanda tells the story of the Rwandan genocide. Darwins’ Nightmare tells the story of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the introduction to Lake Victoria area of Tanzania of the Nile Perch. Hotel Rwanda is a narrative film, Darwin’s Nightmare is a documentary. Both are a part of the trend of “message” movies, those movies that are marketed with an eye to help bring about social justice. And Westerners made both.
The gists of the articles on Hotel Rwanda were: 1. Why would anyone want to watch genocide? And oh my goodness, the relentless downer movies about Africa are creating social justice fatigue among the audience! 2. The film is good but it’s missing a whole lot of context. Here, have a quick history lesson! 3. Some Rwandans do not see Paul Rusesabagina’s real life role in as good a light as the movie puts it.
Hotel Rwanda Trailer
The gists of the articles on Darwin’s Nightmare were: 1. Some Tanzanians were annoyed with the film due to perceived sensationalism and inaccuracies. 2. Can film make change? 3. This Sauper fellow has a real knack for getting close to his subjects, doesn’t he? 4. The intricately connected historical and current reasons why Tanzania is in its present fix.
Darwin's Nightmare Trailer
Useful questions:
1. Is Sauper justified in making accusations that he cannot back up re: the alleged gun smuggling?
2. What WOULD an audience expect to get out of a film about genocide? Triumph of the human spirit? A warning so as to prevent the next one?
3. Narrative film vs documentary film at story telling? One reviewer of Hotel Rwanda said that it was truer than a documentary could be, because it didn’t pretend to encompass the whole truth about the incident. In light of that comment, how do we assess Darwin’s Nightmare? Sauper seems to have an intimate relationship with his subjects. But many people objected to his portrayal. How do we assess “truth” in media that is meant to be non-fiction?
Class discussion:
1. Compare contrast both films with Moolade. Westerners from US and Netherlands vs Sengalese. Authenticity? What stories do Westerners choose to tell about the continent of Africa? What nuances of culture do we miss when we rely on our framing of the continent as only a place of problems and victims? Nevermidn the historical propoganda that we fed ourselves that we are only recently beginning to dig ourselves out of ? What images come to mind when we think of Africa?
2. With both films, there were complaints of inauthenticity. There is a long long LONG tradition of Westerners culturally imperialistic and totally idiotic in the manner in which we portray people from non Westerner countries. Ways and methods to avoid that?
3. And a lot of the problems therein are our fault historically and currently. So many of the docs and narratives seek to make us aware of that. But why is it that we the audience don’t seem to respond by demanding that our leaders fix our foreign policy? Consider Rwanda for instance? Though the Nile Perch was boycotted so that’s definitely affected foreign policy.
4. UN was built to see if we could stop wars after World War 2. Genocide in Rwanda was ignored by UN due to America not wanting to get involved. 10 dead Belgians led to pullout of most of UN troops in Rwanda. How much should world peacekeepers be willing to sacrifice to keep the peace while they are under attack? Compare contrast Libya and Kosovo, if class knows anything about it. Can we stop massacres and genocides in other countries? Under what circumstances? Who decides whose worthy of being helped and why? Whose lives are considered valuable enough to save?
5. Are documentaries obliged to give us a roadmap so that we can know how to help?
6. Nile Perch and other invasive species, a world wide problem. Thoughts?
7. Nile Perch, economic benefits vs cost. Export-oriented economies lead to workers in their own country not being able to benefit from their resources. Boycotts are not a simple solution to the problem, because then people don’t get work. How to solve complicated problem?
Analysis:
Hotel Rwanda and Darwin’s Nightmare share several similarities. Both movies deal with complicated problems caused in part by the effects of colonialism. Both of them were made in the interest of social justice, trying to inform and enlighten and thus encourage a fixing of problems and a warning about history. Both of them are not movies that I want to watch ever again. And both movies made by westerners, both criticized by subject populations for perceived inaccuracies.
Non- Africans make the majority of films about Africa that Westerners know about. Heck the general impression of Africa held by people outside of the continent are shaped by Westerners. And Westerners have used their power many times for evil in that respect. Which is why, while I was struck by the intimacy that seems to exist between Sauper and the people he interviewed, there is that niggling sense of discomfort, a certain lack of trust. Did he get the story right? What did he miss? How would a Tanzanian have told the tale of Darwin's Nightmare? How would several Tanzanians have told different versions of that tale?
Hotel Rwanda was marketed as a fiction film so I expected stuff to be changed. But still, when that film is the mainstream world wide representative of a deeply hurtful period of Rwandan life, I wonder how it makes Rwandans feel? What nuances did the movie miss or misinterpret? What was changed, what was switched what was chopped to make the story work? How would a Rwandan have made that film? What stories would different Rwandans tell?? What would they have considered important? Consider for example the Holocaust, and the many different stories that have been told about this atrocity. Many of the tellers were themselves Jews. Many different facets of the tragedy were explored. The people who suffered the tragedy got to tell the stories, their ways. Many people in the West therefore, have access to some sort of nuanced idea of the atrocity. But usually, the stories of Africans are not told by themselves. Their voices are edited into the singular Western narrative of war and starvation and tribes and corruption and dictatorship and trouble and these stories advance stereotypes and misunderstandings that were created deliberately by colonial forces. Nuanced understanding is in very short supply, because the issues are raised once or twice in documentary or film, and then never heard of again until the next atrocity prompts another bleeding heart. In short, Africans need way more control over their stories and images. Luckily, some steps toward that have been in the works like this : New Hot Docs fund to nuture African films
On The Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival and newly-established Canadian prodco Blue Ice Film are teaming up for a CDN$1 million production fund that will provide financial support to independent documentary filmmakers based in developing African countries.
The Hot Docs-Blue Ice Film Documentary Fund aims to increase the quality and quantity of social, cultural and political documentaries produced in the region and to that end, will issue six to 10 grants per year over the next five years in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $40,000.
The initiative will also provide valuable resources and industry contacts for recipients, including a mentorship program that will allow selected African producers to work with international production partners in order to projects to international markets, festivals and broadcasters.MORE
New Hot Docs Fund to administer fund geared towards African filmmaking
Organizers of Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival will administer a $1-million documentary production fund geared toward nurturing emerging African filmmakers.
Hot Docs executive director Chris McDonald announced the new fund, backed by Toronto-based Blue Ice Film, on Wednesday.
“We’re seeing so many films that are set in Africa, but we’re not seeing many that are made by Africans,” he told CBC News. “We’re trying to address that.”
A volunteer selection committee of five, including African members, will decide who gets the six to 10 grants a year from the fund. One criterion will be that the money go to filmmakers based in developing countries in Africa.
‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decide who contains the six to 10 grants 12 months from the fund. One criterion will probably be that the money head to filmmakers based in developing countries in developing countries in Africa.
‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decide who contains the six to 10 grants 12 months from the fund. One criterion will probably be that the money head to filmmakers based in developing countries in Africa. ‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decideMORE
Hopefully, the fruits of their labour will be coming to my theatre, soon.
How To Solve the Problem of the MPAA, or an activists reaction to "This film is not yet Rated"
In November last year, a movie called The Kings Speech was rated R by the MPAA. The reason?
The Kings Speech - f**** speech
Yes, swear words.
The Kings Speech won the Academy Award for best movie, R-rating and all, but in order to capitalize on this, the distributor (The Weinstein Company) decided to reedit the film to remove that scene so that kids could watch it. Tom Hopper flatly refused to cut the scene, and sothe MPAA decided that if 3 of the 5 instances of the word "fuck" were muted, they could get a PG 13 rating. In addition, a waiver was granted that allowed the R verion of the film to be withdrawn and replaced by the PG13 version almost immediately, instead of the usual 90 days.
Blue Valentine was hit with an NC-17 rating for one sex scene.
Blue Valentine Trailer
This sex scene was between a married couple who were trying to repair their relationship. In contrast Passion of the Christ and the SAW film franchise had a boatload of torture in them, but managed to snag an R rating, This film was also distributed by the Weinstein Company and so they hired a set of lawyers to combat the rating. Eventually, they too managed to get an R rating. For a sex scene between a married couple.
The 2006 documentary This film is not yet Rated focuses on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) work in deciding how to rate movies so that movie goers can decide what to take their children to see.
This Film is Not Yet Rated Trailer
These ratings are important because they dictate whether your movie can be played in certain cinema chains or advertise on network television or in certain newspapers. Of course, the ratings also restrict the audience of the movie as well. Unsurprisingly, as Director Kirby Dick and his stable of interviewed directors point out, there are some serious problems with the decisions that CARA makes. Violence is allowed more latitude than sex. Sex is graded on a heirarchy which sees heterosexual missionary position penis in vagina intercourse and male masturbation being given a less harsh rating than LGBT sex of any kind, non missionary position sex or female masturbation. (And they don't like people of color having sex either.) In addition to the talking head directors, Mr. Dick spends a lot of time filmimg the work of his private investigators to
The articles given were a mix of conservative reaction which could be boiled down to "oh shut up liberals!!" and progressive reactions which could be boiled down to " right on" plus a surprisingly thoughtful interview with Mr. Dick in which he expounds on the themes of the film.
Useful Questions
1. Was the film successful in portraying its message?
2. Was the use of humor including the cartoon images of the head of the MPAA a fine attempt at humor or ill-advised?
3. Did the private investigator subplot add to the documentary or was it a distraction?
4. Why a rating system anyway? Who should decide what your child is capable of watching, an individual parent or some faceless and not very qualified or representative board members with a couple of random religious leaders on the "side"?
Class Questions
1. How would we go about pressuring the MPAA to make the classification board more diverse and transparent?
2. If we were to make a new classification system, how would it work?
3. What is about the American culture that makes us so much less comfortable with sexuality than violence? Is it that violence can be impersonal, and sex can be very personal? Is it our religious roots?
Analysis.
I think that film and tv entertainment plays the dual role of being a shaper of reality, as well as being shaped by it. I think that censoring entertainment because of our discomfort with what it portrays in terms of different sexualities while allowing much more violence to be portrayed is bigoted and speaks to the privilege hierarchy in our society. Privileged white men’s ways of viewing the world are fed to consumers and they help to shape what we think and feel and how we act. It narrows our collective ideas of what could be, because the people who have those ideas did not have access to the megaphone that Hollywood does. Hollywood is in the business of making money. And thus their actions when faced with the possibility of government and citizen-led censorship were predictable and sensible, according to their goals of making sure that they had an environment that they could sell films in.
Activism against bigotry doesn’t pay the bills, after all, so I don’t really expect Hollywood to be the vanguard of change. But I do believe that we the people of these United States are less reactionary than Hollywood thinks, and so I have come up with a list of ideas that activists can do to challenge the MPAA:
1. Find out if movie theatres don’t carry NC 17 film, and ask why not. Make it clear the demand exists. Of course, make sure you support the films when they come through.
2. Work on getting television stations and newspapers to play NC 17 and higher films after 9pm as a compromise between those who are worried about kids and those who are mature.
3. Join groups that are working on the equalization of GLBT and other minorities, and that are seeking to change the way societal sees currently uncomfortable topics like women’s sexuality. Societal change is one of the strongest ways we will have to undermine the rationales of the MPAA.
4. Work on getting a diverse set of people to review films, including knowledgeable scientists, psychologists, lgbt, a range of religious leaders from conservative to liberal and as large of range of class, race and other signifiers in order to make sure that the vast diversity in America is represented.
5. Work on a much more transparent system. Less appearance of studio collusion because they fund the organization. Much less ridiculous secret meetings and intimidation. Chairlady of the board does to get to intimidate her staff.
6. Work to change the rating system, maybe to just drop ratings and say that what is in it: sex, violence and language .
7. Pressure stores to carry NC-17
8. Make your own films and boycott the MPAA in protest. It’s worked before!
The Kings Speech - f**** speech
Yes, swear words.
British director Tom Hooper has lashed out at the MPAA ratings board after the board slapped his critically acclaimed movie The King’s Speech with an R rating for a scene in which a speech therapist encourages the future King George VI to let loose with a torrent of four-letter words as part of the therapy to cure his stuttering. Noting that the ratings board routinely gives films depicting horrendous violence PG-13 ratings, Hooper told Los Angeles Times columnist Patrick Goldstein, “What really upsets me is that the boundaries for violence have been pushed farther and farther back while any kind of bad language remains taboo. … I can’t think of a single film I’ve ever seen where the swear words had haunted me forever, the way a scene of violence or torture has, yet the ratings board only worries about the bad language.” MOREThe Kings Speech is a movie about friendship through speech therapy. There are no sex scenes and no violence. The words in question are things that kids hear and use every day, from at least primary school, and they weren't gratuitously used. And yet the movie was placed in the same category as American Psycho and Kill Bill Vol. 1.
The Kings Speech won the Academy Award for best movie, R-rating and all, but in order to capitalize on this, the distributor (The Weinstein Company) decided to reedit the film to remove that scene so that kids could watch it. Tom Hopper flatly refused to cut the scene, and sothe MPAA decided that if 3 of the 5 instances of the word "fuck" were muted, they could get a PG 13 rating. In addition, a waiver was granted that allowed the R verion of the film to be withdrawn and replaced by the PG13 version almost immediately, instead of the usual 90 days.
Blue Valentine was hit with an NC-17 rating for one sex scene.
Blue Valentine Trailer
This sex scene was between a married couple who were trying to repair their relationship. In contrast Passion of the Christ and the SAW film franchise had a boatload of torture in them, but managed to snag an R rating, This film was also distributed by the Weinstein Company and so they hired a set of lawyers to combat the rating. Eventually, they too managed to get an R rating. For a sex scene between a married couple.
The 2006 documentary This film is not yet Rated focuses on the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) work in deciding how to rate movies so that movie goers can decide what to take their children to see.
Jack Valenti, who created the MPAA system, says it wasn't designed for producers, major studios, directors or critics. It was designed for parents, he says.
This Film is Not Yet Rated Trailer
These ratings are important because they dictate whether your movie can be played in certain cinema chains or advertise on network television or in certain newspapers. Of course, the ratings also restrict the audience of the movie as well. Unsurprisingly, as Director Kirby Dick and his stable of interviewed directors point out, there are some serious problems with the decisions that CARA makes. Violence is allowed more latitude than sex. Sex is graded on a heirarchy which sees heterosexual missionary position penis in vagina intercourse and male masturbation being given a less harsh rating than LGBT sex of any kind, non missionary position sex or female masturbation. (And they don't like people of color having sex either.) In addition to the talking head directors, Mr. Dick spends a lot of time filmimg the work of his private investigators to
The articles given were a mix of conservative reaction which could be boiled down to "oh shut up liberals!!" and progressive reactions which could be boiled down to " right on" plus a surprisingly thoughtful interview with Mr. Dick in which he expounds on the themes of the film.
Useful Questions
1. Was the film successful in portraying its message?
2. Was the use of humor including the cartoon images of the head of the MPAA a fine attempt at humor or ill-advised?
3. Did the private investigator subplot add to the documentary or was it a distraction?
4. Why a rating system anyway? Who should decide what your child is capable of watching, an individual parent or some faceless and not very qualified or representative board members with a couple of random religious leaders on the "side"?
Class Questions
1. How would we go about pressuring the MPAA to make the classification board more diverse and transparent?
2. If we were to make a new classification system, how would it work?
3. What is about the American culture that makes us so much less comfortable with sexuality than violence? Is it that violence can be impersonal, and sex can be very personal? Is it our religious roots?
Analysis.
I think that film and tv entertainment plays the dual role of being a shaper of reality, as well as being shaped by it. I think that censoring entertainment because of our discomfort with what it portrays in terms of different sexualities while allowing much more violence to be portrayed is bigoted and speaks to the privilege hierarchy in our society. Privileged white men’s ways of viewing the world are fed to consumers and they help to shape what we think and feel and how we act. It narrows our collective ideas of what could be, because the people who have those ideas did not have access to the megaphone that Hollywood does. Hollywood is in the business of making money. And thus their actions when faced with the possibility of government and citizen-led censorship were predictable and sensible, according to their goals of making sure that they had an environment that they could sell films in.
Activism against bigotry doesn’t pay the bills, after all, so I don’t really expect Hollywood to be the vanguard of change. But I do believe that we the people of these United States are less reactionary than Hollywood thinks, and so I have come up with a list of ideas that activists can do to challenge the MPAA:
1. Find out if movie theatres don’t carry NC 17 film, and ask why not. Make it clear the demand exists. Of course, make sure you support the films when they come through.
2. Work on getting television stations and newspapers to play NC 17 and higher films after 9pm as a compromise between those who are worried about kids and those who are mature.
3. Join groups that are working on the equalization of GLBT and other minorities, and that are seeking to change the way societal sees currently uncomfortable topics like women’s sexuality. Societal change is one of the strongest ways we will have to undermine the rationales of the MPAA.
4. Work on getting a diverse set of people to review films, including knowledgeable scientists, psychologists, lgbt, a range of religious leaders from conservative to liberal and as large of range of class, race and other signifiers in order to make sure that the vast diversity in America is represented.
5. Work on a much more transparent system. Less appearance of studio collusion because they fund the organization. Much less ridiculous secret meetings and intimidation. Chairlady of the board does to get to intimidate her staff.
6. Work to change the rating system, maybe to just drop ratings and say that what is in it: sex, violence and language .
7. Pressure stores to carry NC-17
8. Make your own films and boycott the MPAA in protest. It’s worked before!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Casey Martin Self Evaluation
Self- Evaluation
Wynde and I worked on creating a short Kick Starter for a long term project that Wynde has been working on. This project is for the third graders of Robert Lee Elementary School. To brief you on what has already been done prior to this kick starter, Wynde did a fund raiser at blue fugue, which raised enough money to buy all of the third graders each a camera and film. Then she collaborated with their art teacher and began teaching them photography. The kids all shoot pictures and write stories to go along with them.
At this point, the kickstarter which we are doing is to raise enough money (close to 800 dollars), to create a book for the kids photography. The purpose of this project is to show the children what an effect art can have on people, and to broaden their learning experiences of art.
We filmed the majority of footage at Robert Lee Elementary and then used animation to fill in the blanks. I also spoke with the owner of Beale Street, who is considering making a donation to the project after one of the graduation parties Friday night. We are proposing that a drink special be made, and that a portion of those earnings go to the project.
Along with a few television and radio stations in town as well as online media and social networking, we hope that this kick starter will be enough to raise the money needed to make this project work.
I think that it is a fantastic project and I am glad to be a part of something that is going to make such a difference. Wynde and I worked really well together, and I was proud that she let me be involved in such an honorable cause.
Self-Evaluation
For my final project, I worked with Lydia and Kelsey on the short film Normal, which gives a brief look into the lives of two young girls coming to terms with sexual abuses that occurred in their pasts. The film was originally a scene from a longer script that Lydia had written a few years ago, and she adapted it to work as a stand-alone short piece. We knew from the beginning that Lydia wanted to run the camera, that Kelsey would operate the boom and do sound design, and that I would edit. Lydia asked me to direct, and I agreed, but I asked her to co-direct because she was already close to the project and because there were logistical reasons for both of us to direct: She could decide if the shot was good while looking at the camera, and I could give notes to the actresses, so neither one of us would have to worry about a lot of things all at one time. The idea was sort of to give both of us a break by working collaboratively. We wanted to make it dogme-style because a) Lydia wanted to make another dogme film before she graduated and b) because the subject matter called for a gritty, raw style to make it more real.
Lydia was the one to suggest Melissa Boatright as one of our actresses, and I had no arguments about it. I had just worked with Melissa on Paper Girl, and she let us put her in a paper dress and spray her with a hose in 30-degree weather, so I knew she was up for anything. She was also wonderful to work with; she was always positive, never complained, and respected the decisions I made as director. We were originally going to use Mariah Lee as well, since Lydia (and by default, Kelsey and I) had worked with her on all three senior projects and knew her well, but she had some scheduling conflicts, so we used Monica Wood in her place. This was an excellent decision because Monica and Melissa were wonderful.
Of course, there were things that we could—and should—have done differently. We should have thought more about the lighting we had available and blocked our actresses according to that. Most of the scene is very dark, and when I attempted to color correct it to make it lighter, it ended up looking washed-out. I returned it to its original state with only a few minor adjustments, and I don’t think the dark quality takes away from the power of the story at all, so we ended up lucky in that department. However, there were instances when watching the footage in the lab when I thought, “We should have moved them closer to that light,” or, “We should have turned them further or cheated them towards us a little.” There were also things I wish I had paid more attention to during filming, such as continuity. I was not focused on where they were setting the bottle down, so there were a couple of shots where the continuity was off with that; I managed to work around it pretty well, so I don’t think it was very noticeable, but I had some trouble deciding where to place some shots: specifically the shot from behind the actresses, looking over the pool. They had the bottle in between them, so I had to place it around shots in which we couldn’t see the bottle at all, so we could pretend that it had always been in between them. We also should have positioned the actresses or the camera a little better so that we could see entire faces; in some shots, specifically more close-up shots of Melissa, Monica’s face and hair obscure part of Melissa’s face.
Overall, we received positive feedback from the class. There were some comments about lighting and color, which I expected (especially about the color), but no one really had anything entirely negative to say about the project. This is encouraging to me, especially because I had just come from directing Paper Girl, which is 110% different than Normal in almost every possible way; it’s reassuring to know that I can get positive feedback from two projects that are almost complete opposites. I enjoyed working with Lydia and Kelsey. The atmosphere on set was very lighthearted, especially considering the subject of the film, and we had a good time making the project. I loved working with Melissa as well; she has amazing range and is willing to do almost anything she is asked to do. Monica also did a fantastic job, especially considering she jumped in on such short notice when Mariah’s schedule turned out to be an issue. The subject matter of the film is difficult, but we tried very hard to not make it a preachy, in-your-face kind of film, but rather just a portrait of two young girls dealing with similar traumatic experiences. I hope that this film can make a difference for someone, and I am happy to have been a part of bringing it to life.
Lydia was the one to suggest Melissa Boatright as one of our actresses, and I had no arguments about it. I had just worked with Melissa on Paper Girl, and she let us put her in a paper dress and spray her with a hose in 30-degree weather, so I knew she was up for anything. She was also wonderful to work with; she was always positive, never complained, and respected the decisions I made as director. We were originally going to use Mariah Lee as well, since Lydia (and by default, Kelsey and I) had worked with her on all three senior projects and knew her well, but she had some scheduling conflicts, so we used Monica Wood in her place. This was an excellent decision because Monica and Melissa were wonderful.
Of course, there were things that we could—and should—have done differently. We should have thought more about the lighting we had available and blocked our actresses according to that. Most of the scene is very dark, and when I attempted to color correct it to make it lighter, it ended up looking washed-out. I returned it to its original state with only a few minor adjustments, and I don’t think the dark quality takes away from the power of the story at all, so we ended up lucky in that department. However, there were instances when watching the footage in the lab when I thought, “We should have moved them closer to that light,” or, “We should have turned them further or cheated them towards us a little.” There were also things I wish I had paid more attention to during filming, such as continuity. I was not focused on where they were setting the bottle down, so there were a couple of shots where the continuity was off with that; I managed to work around it pretty well, so I don’t think it was very noticeable, but I had some trouble deciding where to place some shots: specifically the shot from behind the actresses, looking over the pool. They had the bottle in between them, so I had to place it around shots in which we couldn’t see the bottle at all, so we could pretend that it had always been in between them. We also should have positioned the actresses or the camera a little better so that we could see entire faces; in some shots, specifically more close-up shots of Melissa, Monica’s face and hair obscure part of Melissa’s face.
Overall, we received positive feedback from the class. There were some comments about lighting and color, which I expected (especially about the color), but no one really had anything entirely negative to say about the project. This is encouraging to me, especially because I had just come from directing Paper Girl, which is 110% different than Normal in almost every possible way; it’s reassuring to know that I can get positive feedback from two projects that are almost complete opposites. I enjoyed working with Lydia and Kelsey. The atmosphere on set was very lighthearted, especially considering the subject of the film, and we had a good time making the project. I loved working with Melissa as well; she has amazing range and is willing to do almost anything she is asked to do. Monica also did a fantastic job, especially considering she jumped in on such short notice when Mariah’s schedule turned out to be an issue. The subject matter of the film is difficult, but we tried very hard to not make it a preachy, in-your-face kind of film, but rather just a portrait of two young girls dealing with similar traumatic experiences. I hope that this film can make a difference for someone, and I am happy to have been a part of bringing it to life.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Final Project Self-Evaluation
For our final project, "Normal", I knew from the beginning that I wanted to run the camera. I wanted to take a step back from directing and have someone else call the shots. It had also been a while since I had done a dogme '95 project, and since that seems to be where I do my best work, I wanted to get some more practice.
Since I knew that Sydney Haven wants to be a director, I asked her to be part of my group. I knew that I could trust her to carry out her responsibilities as a director, and I knew that she would respect the story and do it justice. This piece could have easily been overdone, and since the script is something that I have been working on for about three years now, I wanted to make sure that the director didn't make novice mistakes that would cause it to be melodramatic. Sydney was the right choice.
Kelsey Eick is a great person to work with because she is so versatile and easy going. She is also a great sound person, both as a boom operator and sound editor, so we inviting her to join our crew was an obvious decision.
The idea for "Normal" actually came from a feature length film that I wrote as a sophomore at Stephens, and since I have always been interested in films that impact people, I had written this one specifically for that purpose. Once the group decided to go forward with the idea, I rewrote one of the more pivotal scenes and sent it to Sydney for revision. This was easy to do because I trust her opinion and know that any changes she makes is in the best interest of the script.
Casting the film was fairly easy, because we already knew that we wanted to use Melissa Boatright. Sydney had just worked with her on "Paper Girl", where she was delightful on set, and I had wanted to work with her since her freshman year, so we decided to ask her to join the project. After she was onboard, we wanted to have her perform opposite Mariah Lee, but when schedule conflicts made that impossible, we chose to use Monica Wood. I had worked with her in several projects, so I knew she could pull off the part, and she turned out to be an excellent decision.
During pre-production of "Normal", Sydney and I decided that we would co-direct the film. She could tell that I was really close to the project, and she was feeling a little burnt out after "Paper Girl". This was a decision we made together, and it was not because I thought she couldn't do the job. We collaborated on everything to make things easier on ourselves, and to try and get the best product. With this in mind, we decided that I would make the original shot list (which makes since considering that I was the one running the camera), and Sydney would change whatever she thought needed to be changed, and if there was something we disagreed on, we discussed it until we could find a solution. On set, Sydney did most of the working with the actors, leaving me to watch the camera and decide if a take was good or not, and to give the actors notes when there was something that visually stuck out on camera.
The scene that we chose for "Normal" was originally set in an abandoned train car. Since there isn't one of these in Columbia, we went back to the drawing board and brainstormed. As a team we agreed that the environment should not be a warm, comfortable one, because the conversation was not one you would have in your bedroom or living room where your parents could overhear. We wanted to environment to reflect the way these girls felt, and that was cold and abandoned. With that in mind, we decided to use the pool, and although there wasn't a lot of light in the space, it worked perfectly for the scene.
During the shoot, most of my focus was on running the camera. Everything was handheld, so I had to try and keep the camera steady, but also give it just enough shake to make it seem like a documentary. If I had let the camera rest on the ledge or something like that, it would have seemed like it was on a tripod, and then it would not match the other hand held shots, so the entire things was shot with me holding the camera. Another call that I had to make was when to use zooms. I didn't want to zoom during a character's lines, because if it didn't work we would have lost the line, but the scene called for a visual shift towards intimacy as the conversation grew more intense. Zooms would also add to the more documentary feel of the piece, since they are often used when the camera cannot be moved in due to time restraints and practicality. Luckily I knew when the tone of the scene was going to shift, so I could anticipate and plan when to zoom in. Ultimately I think the point at which I zoomed worked nicely, because even though you don't actually see the zoom in the film, the shots do get closer to the actors throughout the conversation.
One thing that I wish I had thought of while we were filming was cheating the actors more towards the light sources we had. The reason we put them in the pool was that it looked brighter, during test shots, than having them sit on the ledge of the pool. Once we discovered that we could turn on the lights inside the pool, I wish that we had thought to move them and turn them more towards those lights. We did cheat the actress a little towards the light source, but it just wasn't enough.
Overall I think our group did a great job. We worked together nicely, and we all pulled our own weight. There weren't very clearly defined roles for most of us because the crew was so small and everyone cared about the project enough to want to help improve it. We didn't have issues on set because we respected each other's opinions and we also put together a group that had nice chemistry. The finished product received good feedback, and in my opinion did justice to the real people dealing with the same issues.
Self Evaluation- Final Project
As you all know by now, Katie and I chose to do a five minute preview or trailer for what would be a documentary focusing on the representation of sex in the media, sex education in schools, and safe sex options. Naturally, Katie was the first one to come up with the idea of what to work on.
Originally, we thought we were going to make a modern-day sex education video that could be used in schools and for organizations promoting safe sex rather than abstinence only. That idea evolved into what we actually made, which was less educational and more informative. There is a difference. We wanted to focus on personal experiences, video examples, and voice overs. We touched upon several topics relating to sex and the media, just to show an example of what subjects would be in the longer finished product. The subjects we touched upon include sexual violence, sexual education for children, the glorification and stigmatization of sex in the media, and the use of sexuality in all forms.
Kate and I started by finding videos we wanted to use, spanning from music videos to commercials to movie clips to television shows. We spent about three to four hours just doing this "research" to prepare for the project. Although it was a lot of fun and it hardly felt like research because of that. From there, we decided who to interview. Katie and I interviewed Brenda and Brendan together, and she interviewed Sophia and Tiffany by herself. I also interviewed my mom and sister, but the tape was corrupt so the video quality wasn't good enough to use. This was fine, though, as we felt we had plenty of material to put together a short video. I had my dad record the VO for the beginning.
Once we had all the materials together, we got together to put it all in order in the editing lab. This was done over a few days, sometimes with just Katie and sometimes just me. But mostly we tried to edit when we could both be there since it was a collaborative project. We made decisions together and worked very well as a team. I guess we had already figured this out since we enjoyed working together for the TransCinema event.
We were very happy with the finished product, though didn't anticipate the audience reaction. Everyone seemed to be confused by Brendan's background. We chose this green screen background because Brendan uses this and other similar backgrounds for his show, Scientific Station, on CAT-TV. I guess we didn't realize that people may not know this if they don't watch his show, so we learned a lesson there. We also made some stylistic choices that were criticized, so another lesson learned. I personally still like the editing style and chose it because we wanted to have a fun, light-hearted, quirky video... Though still with a serious message. We will have to be more precise in the future and careful about how to execute this style on future projects.
Overall, I really enjoyed the project and loved working with Kate again. It feels good to have this project done and to feel proud of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)