I figure...

I don't even know if anyone bothers reading this, but I figure I might as well update it. I'm in a film class right now, as I mentioned before. So, I'm just going to post a small portion of my paper I wrote for class on here. It's discussing Pre-Code films.

Baby Face (1933) is intriguing in its treatment of both race and gender. While in many ways catering to the ideas of proscribed gender and race roles, the film simultaneously functions to undermine the legitimacy of those same roles. Take, for example, the character of Chico, Lily’s African American maid. One can easily see the standard race roles of the time in this arrangement (Chico is in a servile role, a servant much like the traditional slave role for African American women). However, from the moment the two women are shown together on-screen, it is clear to the audience that their relationship is distinct from the norm. This is clear when Lily’s father attempts to fire Chico, to which Lily responds vehemently, “If Chico goes, I go,” and “If I stay here, Chico stays too.” She does the same later in the film when one of her suitors suggests she gets rid of Chico.

In Pre-Code Hollywood Doherty says, “In more civilized quarters, the byplay between master and servant or mistress and maid often breached the boundaries of race and rank with an affectionate informality” (277). This breach of boundaries is quite clear throughout Baby Face in the way the two women interact and Lily’s profound loyalty to Chico throughout the film. Of this particular relationship Doherty states, “Likewise, the one redeeming quality of the ruthless Lily in Baby Face (1933) is her loyalty to her black companion Chico (Theresa Harris)” (277). It is true that the relationship between Chico and Lily is close, almost sisterly, and it is also true that this affection of sorts shows Lily to be more human than would otherwise be suggested by her behavior throughout the film. However, one must take issue with Doherty’s characterization of Lily as “ruthless” and as being without any other redeeming quality. Clearly, Doherty is projecting personal sentiments about the character of Lily into his otherwise objective discussion of race in pre-code era film. One must wonder, if an author in 1999 could maintain such negative views of such an intriguing and unique character as Lily, what would audiences have thought of her in the 1930s? Or even further, what would censors have said? Clearly this film was by its very concept a violation of the code, not to mention would have been a major problem for the Legion of Decency and other such agencies. The Legion of Decency Pledge from 1934 states, “I condemn absolutely those salacious motion pictures, which, with other degrading agencies, are corrupting public morals and promoting a sex mania in our land” (287). Because Lily goes through the film following the encouragement of a friend and Nietzsche to “use men” to get what she wants from life, which essentially means to use her body and sex to her advantage, this film from beginning to end would be a thorn in the side of the Legion of Decency.

It's been too long!

I've been busy with my crazy life (check out my other blog to hear about that one...you could easily make a dozen melodramas out of my recent past) and school to update this thing. But as I am taking a film class at the moment, I can't help but want to write at least a little something here. So here goes...

Anyone unfamiliar with Pre-Code films (1929-early 1934), should definitely check them out immediately. I know, I know...old movies just can't hold a candle to new ones, right? Not so at all. These movies came out before the censorship code was enforced. They were violent and funny, sexy and controversial. They are a peek at what the movie industry could have been if the censorship code had never taken over. A more free and interesting movie industry with complex and real characters, with interesting storylines and plots. I cannot even begin to describe how great they are. I've watched three so far for my class I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, The Public Enemy, and Heroes for Sale. They are all incredible (my personal favorite of the three being The Public Enemy...for anyone who loves the gangster films of Scorsese, or Scarface or the Godfather films MUST see The Public Enemy)! I am going to see three more this week in class, and cannot wait. Trust me. Watch these films! You will not be sorry...you will be in awe of the quality of these movies. I guarantee you!

"Brothers"

Well, I'm back. I watched another movie yesterday. This one was Brothers starring Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Natalie Portman. It's premise was interesting, Maguire plays Sam, a Marine Capatain who along with one of his soldiers is captured in Afghanistan and held prisoner, tortured and forced to commit horrible acts in order to survive. Meanwhile, Portman plays Grace, Sam's wife, who has been told that her husband was killed in the car accident that preceded his capture. Grace, in her mourning, is aided in caring for her home and two daughters by Gyllenhaal's Tommy, Sam's black sheep brother fresh out of prison.

The plot thickens as Grace and Tommy are inevitably drawn to one another, and when Sam is rescued and returns home the traumatized and volatile Marine makes for a situation filled with drama. As I said, the premise is interesting, if not a little played out. Stop-loss a film released a few years ago already functioned to display the effects of PTSD on soldiers returning from the Middle East. Grace is Gone starring John Cusack already displayed what the grief of losing a spouse in these wars can do to the family left behind, and of course the idea of two brothers and/or best friends falling for the same girl is a story as old as time...even Pearl Harbor had that story-line.

While the movie was decent, and Gyllenhaal gave a superb performance as the lovable misunderstood saavy ex-con, it lacked drive and was oftentimes boring. The most questionable aspect of the film was by far the choice of Tobey Maguire in the role of Sam. Peter Parker is no Marine. Maguire is suited toward the role of lovable geeky guy, and occasional geeky superhero, but a seasoned Marine accustomed to combat? Trained to kill? Less believable. Maguire did a good job of displaying the internal conflict of a trauma victim after his return and his acting was not the issue at all, but the role just did not seem to fully cater to what he does best, and his casting was distracting to the point of pulling the film apart at the seams.

What the film and script did especially well was capturing the akwardness that can be had at any large family meal, but particularly one in which one member of the family is noticably aggrivated and the situation is delicate to say the least. One scene of this sort in the film was so real and the tension and discomfort around the table so palpable that I found myself and my movie-viewing companion squirming on the couch in discomfort along with the characters.

Overall I wouldn't say the movie is particularly good or memorable, nor is it a total waste or something to be completely avoided. Just another Iraq/Afghanistan war-related movie, and another love triangle, but with a talented cast and a few key scenes that make the film worth the time.

The Carter Documentary Revisited

It's taken me a while to watch more of The Carter, mainly because I need frequent breaks from the incoherency and ridiculousness on-screen. From the moment Lil Wayne's anti-writing, anti-intellectual statements relatively early in the film floored me, I became skeptical about the man and his work.

Now, further into the film (though still not finished), I can honestly say my opinion is no better. When asked what he would do if he was president, Wayne had a long laundry list of ideas. The legalization of marijuana, of course was his main priority. But beyond that, he also would revoke all child support laws (i.e. men don't have to take any responsibility for the children they father), and he would get rid of prenups because they would be unnecessary because "the bitch don't get nothin." His words, paraphrased of course amount to, just because a bitch lies with you for years doesn't mean she gets anything because he's been lying with another bitch and she don't get shit. Seriously?? As a woman and a feminist, I am revolted. What a message to send out into the world!

Basically, any respect I may have had for the man was lost with that one rant, and I believe his publisist was fully cognizant of this possibility as she interrupted him during his explanation of no prenups and simply said, "Next question." As a woman who sees Lil Wayne as a voice that has been embraced by an entire generation, I have to wonder...couldn't he use his influence and his very public platform to actually promote good? To talk about things that really matter and not try to make life even more difficult for women? Just a thought.

Burn After Reading

So, I know I'm kind of late in finally seeing Burn After Reading, but my God what a movie! Hysterical and fun with twists and turns and you can always count on the Coen brothers to hit you with the unexpected! Brad Pitt, George Clooney, John Malkovich, etc...the list of cast members is extraordinary and they all play their roles so well! I normally prefer to analyze movies from a literary-based standpoint (i.e. I tend to be an academic nerd), but I just wanted to post this little rave about Burn After Reading. If you haven't seen it, go out and rent it ASAP. You won't be sorry.

As a funny sidenote, the reason I saw this movie today was that my grandparents couldn't believe that a movie fanatic like me had not seen it, and insisted that I sit down with them and watch it. Thanks grandma and grandpa! Your taste in movies is awesome!! :)

"The Carter"

So, I'm watching the documentary made about Lil Wayne called "The Carter." I'm not really sure what to think of the man to tell everyone the truth. I fully admit to being a big fan of his music. He's got a strange sounding voice and comes up with lyrics (rhymes...whatever you want to call them) that nobody else would come up with. But at the same time I don't know how to feel about a man who's constantly seen with a blunt to his lips or a cup of "syrup" in his hand...basically indicating to the world that he is high in some shape or form all day, everyday.

Even more difficult for me to relate to is his notion of not writing a thing down. He refuses...says he doesn't want to leave any evidence, doesn't want to end up like Kurt (Cobain) with his journals and notebooks getting sold. But for me, leaving evidence is the whole point of writing, is the whole point of being an artist. Wayne seems to think that his music will last, that he doesn't need a written hard copy of what he's done. This troubles me for some reason and I can't get past it. Perhaps it's the writer in me that fights this idea. Or the reader. Or the aspiring professor, but something about this anti-writing notion troubles me.

One could easily mistake Wayne's anti-writing stance as an anti-intellectual stance. I doubt this is what it is, considering the documentarians make a repeatedly big point that Lil Wayne was an honor roll student in school, but just got in trouble for bringing weapons and selling drugs at school. This is an interesting paradoxical combination. It established Lil Wayne as a sort of "intellectual" but at the same time establishes the necessary "street cred" to be a rap star. It seems like the documentarians are trying to show Lil Wayne almost as a modern day Renaissance man, a jack of all trades, when this in fact is not the case. Talented? Yes. Driven? Yes. Intriguing? Yes. But I do not seem him as the scholar or intellectual they would have us believe he is.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being to harsh or reading too much into small moments of the film. Anyone else who is a Lil Wayne fan (or not), or has seen this film...what do you think?