Quizzes From The-N

Clueless (1995)

It is always great to see this movie on a print and with a group. It is just so genius. I'm going to limit my comments to how this film relates to 677 in terms of the readings and other screenings, just to narrow the focus of this post.

After seeing Stella Dallas last week at thinking of fashion in terms of class signifiers, this movie really does use fashion as a class locater, specifically, LA/Beverly Hills elitism. More to come later...

After Stonewall (1986)

This documentary was a nice review of GLBT history in terms of politics and movements unrelated to film history. I, naively, don't know much about The Stonewall events or the history of the GLBT political movement. It seems that my generation has never had to really live in secret shame if we chose not to (and of course moved to a tolerant location) and so we have become more apathetic about the politics. Yes, gay marriage is a huge issue, but I don't see any giant marches or parades or protests like this film illustrated. I'm going to refrain from making any more comments on this film and instead post a link to a reveiw that sums it up nicely.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1391

Stella Dallas (1937)

For me this film was a rare character study of a woman that encompassed over 20 years of her life. Barbara Stanwyck gave a really great performance as Stella Dallas, a lower class girl that marries up bit then refuses to leave her small town and winds up devoting everything of herself to her daughter. It is obviously a look at what a self-sacrificing mother should be, but there is something tragic about Stella and her relation to fashion and acquiring material objects (like furs) as status symbols. Over the course of the film, which is meant to be about 20 years of her life, we see Stella's relationship to these objects and her dress slowly spiral out of control as her lower class complex roots itself ever more deeply into her psyche. By the end of the film she is an over-exaggerated embarrassment and the flits of her self-awareness of her over-display are the most dramatic, charming and well acted parts of the film. She is struggling with knowing that she has lost control of her fashion and staying resilient as they strong woman she always has been.

At the beginning her motivations really suck and make no sense to me, watching this movie today. She married the man of her dreams and had a child. Why didn't she want to go to New York with him and live the good life? Instead she stayed in her small town, to stay in the small town upper-class circles and hang out with the drunk. Her decision to stay seems so unmotivated and out of character, but then colors her downward spiral and misery for the rest of the film. I was left asking the whole time "Why doesn't she just move to New York already?"

In class we talked about Stella's push and pull of recognition and resistance in relation to class and how different classes use money/fashion to show status. This returns in the 80s and 90s with Working Girl and Pretty Woman. Pretty Woman is a parable about capitalism. Gere finds a soul in a hooker with a heart of gold. In relation to Bartky Julia Roberts is a woman learning to survey herself through the eyes of patriarchy. Of course there is no way to understand black maid in Stella Dallas or the guy carrying the luggage in Pretty Woman in relation to the readings for today and 2nd wave feminism.

The Celluloid Closet (1996)

Based on Vito Russo's book, The Celluloid Closet looks back on gay and lesbian representation in cinema, primarily during the Production Code era (which began, according to the film, with Hays Code and a boycott byt the Catholic Church in 1934) when all GLBT content was banned from the screen. I enjoy seeing how intelligent and subversive the filmmakers had to be in order to include gay content and messages despite the code. Although I hate the idea of the production code and censorship, I do think that some films today would be much better if they were more subtle. Some of the best romantic tension is that which isn't said, and hides just below the surface and that is precisely what the code forced these movies to do.

It is always shocking to see all the violence and horrible stereotypes edited together in rapid succession. It makes it obvious that Hollywood movies do create a self-referencing, collective conscious of how gays should feel about themselves and how others should feel about them. These sentiments were echoed by the celebrity interviews: "Cary Grant taught me how to behave with a woman" and "people have the desire to see themselves, a mirror of our own existence to not be alone." Yet whole groups weren't represented in Hollywood. (Now we have YouTube to create our own images, but what was its Production Code Era predecessor? I'm sure there were underground magazines or something.)

Call Her Savage (1932) had the first gay bar onscreen, Morocco (1930) Marlena Dietrich in a tuxedo, kisses a woman, and was meant to turn on both the women and the men in the room, sexually delicious. Hithcock's Rope (1948) was based on real life Leopold and Lobe. Lesbians allowed if they were behind bars (or clearly villains).

Nobody really sees the same movie, because everyone sees what they want to see (minorities in particular). Characters, movies and people in real life were in the closet, so everyone had to be subtle. Everything was hidden and coded all the time, even in real life. In Gentlemen Prefer Blondes this happens in the body builders scene where lots of really hot men dance around and are completely uninterested in the gorgeous Jane Russell. Even Bill finds pleasure in the different parts of The Celluloid Closet than I do. Which means we are all watching things with our own agenda. Where does our agenda come from?

Delayed fuck, DF, can’t sleep together until marriage. Rock Hudson was gay man impersonating a straight man, impersonating a gay man. Shirley MacLaine, Audrey Hepburn movie, The Children's Hour (1961) was about a tragic, unrequited lesbian love. Shirley says they did it wrong, they didn’t talk about it, but that is what society felt. Society didn't talk about it. So why did they make this movie?

Movies to see: Personal Best (1982), The Color Purple (1995?), The Hunger (1983) with Susan Sarandon, touch is the most intimate moment. Insists on not being drunk, don’t take away choice to bed Catherine Deneuve. Susan Sarandon, kiss not about sexuality but a declaration of love.

Fried Green Tomatoes (1991) – The woman they interviewed about this movie was angry that she wasn’t being told explicitly that they were lesbians and in love, but I loved the subtly of that. Iggy was so in love with her and clearly coded as lesbian. To me that movie said it as explicitly as you could in the time period/location that the movie takes place. In real life, being in love with a straight woman in the 30s/40s in the south plays out that subtly. I felt it was true, because they couldn’t just stand up and say it back then.

Tomorrow Never Dies

Watched this gem on cable tonight. I wasn't expecting to watch more than first 10 minutes, but it just drew me in. I had forgotten how good, and classic Bond, it is. With brilliant yet cheesy one-liners peppered throughout, like "They'll print anything these days" referring to a dead guy smearing blood on the newspaper press and "Let's take the highway" when Bond drives the motorcycle up on some trucks. It taps into satellite and media mogul anxiety in typical Bond critique of technology, but perhaps the most interesting was Michelle Yeoh in the most un-Bond Girl like role yet. She kicks major ass in the latter part of the film. Proving to be just as competent with guns weaponry, and technology as Bond and, in addition, boosts her famous martial arts skills. She is beautiful, but not in the same way other Bond girls are and I would say that her body was not shamelessly exploited for sex appeal like all the others either. There were no gratuitous naked or swimsuit shots of her. Teri Hatcher fulfills the femme fatale role, sex-bomb role leaving Yeoh free to kick ass, be intelligent, equal Bond and even get him in the end. It seems like the Halle Berry Bond trash stole all the makings of a good Bond flick but ultimately fell flat. What was the difference? Halle Berry was kick ass, but definitely exploited for her looks, and her performance, if I remember, was just lackluster. The fear of technology was linked to genetics, appropriate for the time, but everything about it was so ludicrous. Changing faces, ice castles and I can only assume that amidst all this over-the-top schlock, the charming yet cheesy one-liners became dry and cliche. That is a dichotomy of the Bond films though, always using the neatest gadgets to destroy an enemy that is fixing to use science's next invention to take over the world.

What is interesting to note when looking at the re-envisioned Bond films, Casino Royale being the first, is that they are not Bond-stylized with the expected charm in Tomorrow Never Dies. It also focuses on "going back to realism." Like Batman Begins did for Batman. The Dark Knight's success will definitely fuel this re-envisioning of old series to tap back into reality, trying to keep plots and gadgets firmly with what is feasible today. I have been talking about making action films more real for a while in my blog, but real on the level of human emotion. Casino Royal and Dark Knight definitely start down that path, but still have the hero be impenetrable in the face adversity and fear. They are more realistic in terms of style and technology, but they are ultimately still action movies with hard as ice heroes, that are unequivocally good. And where are the women? They have been sidekicks and motives for males' revenge all summer long. Are we going back in time?

Hellboy

I'm just going to do a quick write up of my thoughts on Hellboy. It was nice to get the story of Hellboy's origins. Given the world it creates, with a fantasy world existing under the surface of our own, it was pretty believable. The creature that spawns 2 more of itself every time it dies was a neat twist. Liz's character was perplexing. She was weak and scared of her power and in a mental hospital, but then unleashed by the man orchestrating the evil. She was really a non-factor in this movie too, except for the kick-ass scene at the end when she tells the guy to hit her so she can get mad and fry all the demons. Otherwise she was the love interest. This was cool in the one scene when Hellboy is stalking her from the roof with the kid and eating cookies. Despite his demon persona, he felt very real in this scene and became very endearing form this point on.

The creatures weren't as fantastical as Pan's Labyrinth or the second film, but that seemed to make sense. Del Toro's imagination was there, however muted by other powers that be. If they make a fourth film, I'll be excited to see it because it could have possibility for Liz to emerge as a strong counterpoint to Hellboy at last. He will probably fall and it will take her being strong to save him, I hope.

I want to read the comics now too. The art looks different and interesting, after seeing so much of it at comic-con, I'm very intrigued.