Royale With Cheese

As soon as this group mentioned “The Glass Key,” I thought “Yeah, Veronica Lake was kind of a “bad girl” while playing Janet Henry. She was the individual writing notes to people about the murder of her brother. She was attempting the find out who the killer was, by her own means. Sounds like detective work to me; but unfortunately, due to the era of the early 20th Century, women were not doing any sort of police work. Being a detective was a male occupation, the occupation of Ed Beaumont. As the group pointed out the films of the 1940’s focused on the moral quest of men. Even though Janet was attempting to solve the case on her own and helped Ed discover who was really behind the murder of Taylor Henry, she did not solve the case in the end. Ed was the MAN who figured everything out. On numerous times, as well, Ed tried to leave town; but in the end he stayed to help solve the case because he found his own set of morals along the way. So, this “bad girl” posing as a good one ended up being pushed under the carpet. I would like to see some of these other films where, in the end, the women rise to the role of “Superfemales.”

This is for class on 4-20-2007

I enjoyed the end of Freeland’s article, the area I presented on in class. (I was the last one to speak.) But she brought up a point that seemed a little far fetched. She pointed out that all of the dinosaurs in the film “Jurassic Park” were female. In addition to being female, they are also “huge and voracious; others (the raptors) are smaller, smarter, and vicious; and there were also large, gentle, cow-like beings vulnerable to indigestion or colds.”

Freeland feels that these “monsters” are not presented in an appealing light. They are all females which, in Freeland’s mind, means that this is making a comment on all women in general. Supposedly this film is commenting on how all women retain the description I have given above. Basically, the film presents women in an unappealing light.

I really don’t know how to take this. I feel like it is not all that relevant to the film; male dinosaurs were believed to be the same way, even though they’re not in the film. The reason all of the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park” are female is because there was one mosquito that had bitten a female dinosaur, retained its blood and became encapsulated in Dominican amber. The workers behind Jurassic park cloned the dinosaurs which is how they made the new eggs. DNA from the dinosaur’s blood was taken from the mosquito and joined with frog DNA; this is essentially why all of the dinosaurs are female. The problem was that certain frogs, and I guess the ones they were using, can actually change their gender and reproduce on their own. (I’m pretty sure that’s how it works, but don’t quote me) It’s really an interesting concept; the frog becomes a male so that it can inseminate itself.

Freeland blames the film for presenting females in a bad light through only having female dinosaurs who are all large/vicious/cow-like in some way. It’s no the movie’s fault! It’s those frogs!

The females end up breeding though. It’s because some of the dinosaurs are able to change their sex or something like that. They are doing the same thing frogs would do. So, if I use Freeland’s argument that what the female dinosaurs do reflect on all women in the world, then I come up with two ideas of my own.

First of all, let’s say the females are basically reproducing on their own. So that means human women do not truly need men to survive. This presents women in a good light, they are independent and strong individuals. That fact that they can be aggressive is irrelevant since they are only trying to protect themselves (fighting predators) and preserve their own life (obtaining food).

The second is simple and short. If I’m wrong about what I said above (“the females are basically reproducing on their own”), then that means there are male dinosaurs on the island; which blows Freeland’s argument out of the water, or should I say off the island.

The definition of reality was said to be ‘A complete and total representation of reality.’

I find this to be interesting, and I am not disagreeing with it, but what about fantasy and sci-fi films? Are those considered to be forms of cinema? They do not seem to represent reality at all, because these sorts of movies create exotically fictionalized worlds that do not exist, except within the mind. The FTC group on Wednesday stated that fantasy is not reality, in turn also making it not cinema. But then what is it? What are these kinds of mythical films considered? And more importantly, because this is a question that must always be asked when referring to definitions, who came up with meaning of the term cinema and were they qualified to make such distinctions between different types of films?

I do not have answers to follow up these questions, but I do have something that I want to throw out on the table in terms of cinema and reality. Fantasy films such as the “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy are certainly not recreations of the world we live in today. There are no dwarves running around with axes chopping down orcs; I haven’t seen them at least. But within these films there is some reality whether it seems like it or not. There is war, and people/creatures fighting for a greater cause. Kind of like what the U.S. has always and still is trying to do when stopping enemies. There are bonds between individuals, friendships are created; and sometimes between the most unlikely individuals. War creates bonds between people her in America. I have seen two war veterans who meet for the first time, not knowing a thing about each other, but they can talk for hours about anything because there is a connection there. There is love of all sorts sweeps across the screen as well. I think that one is pretty self-explanatory.

All I’m saying is that there are characteristics of reality within fantasy films; sci-fi films too. Most of the original Star Trek episodes always had some sort of moral they tried to convey to viewers about life. The morals of the reality that people follow today were relevant in sci-fi movies and television then. Is this enough to be considered cinema, or is there more to be done? Or are these ideas I have presented irrelevant? Who knows, other than ‘The Definer of Cinema.’

From the March 2 class presentations.

I had never really thought about how much movie goers react to what women do on the screen. In horror movies when a woman screams, it causes people in the theater to scream as well. The same thing happens with women crying in movies. It’s as if directors are playing with our heads. I don’t know about that, but it is kind of funny to think about.

Another thing that happens with women and movies is said to be that the woman will kill the monster in a horror movie. This made me think of a scene from an old sci-fi flick called “This Island Earth;” “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie” made fun of it too. First of all, the show and their version of the movie was hilarious in my opinion. So then scene has this large brainy creature attacking the leading lady, her manly lover was (I think) unconscious and the white haired alien being who is helping the heroes was injured. She was the only thing standing in the creatures way, and she took it down…without even touching it. Oh, it was so funny. The woman had evaded the monster a few times and then she tripped an fell. The creature walks toward her and then trips as well, but that trip was the last one it would ever take. It just fell over and either unconscious itself or it died for no apparent reason (it has been a while since I last saw it). But I figure the woman was the reason he tripped (it was chasing her) so in a way she killed it. The womanly winning streak lives on!

I’ve been behind on my posts unfortunately because of all the work I have to do. For some reason I always get stuck with having a ton of work due in different classes all in the same week. It happens all the time. Maybe the world is conspiring against me. Anyway, the next few posts are from past dates; I have to get back in the game.

On February 28 there was a presentation of the Andrews and Chatman chapters, they spoke about adaptations and what it means to have them. Now fidelity was mentioned in the beginning of the presentation, the screenwriters staying faithful to the text. An example of doing this was where there was a beautiful woman in the novel, they tried to put one in the film as well. But not everyone might think this woman is gorgeous, so there are men watching her and basically drooling over her beauty.

I wonder if this method of adapting/portraying beauty in film is very successful. I read through my notes after our “What is good and What we like” discussion in class. This may be a good way to adapt the beauty of a character in a novel to the beauty of a actor/actress in a film. But even after someone states that a woman in the film is beautiful, not all of the viewers are going to think so.

Everyone judges someone else in their lifetime, people do it without even realizing it. Quite frankly, that is just the way things are. So, I believe that Scarlett Johansson is an incredibly beautiful woman. But a friend of mine stated that there is nothing about her that is attractive. People will judge will always judge beauty, whether its on the big screen or in a restaurant. So even with some men or women in a film saying how good someone looks as a way of backing up the fact that the character is supposed to be beautiful, it will always be disregarded by some. What it all comes down to is: who decides if the actor or actress is beautiful enough or not to portray the fictional character of a novel? Who has that power?

We noted in class that “Yojimbo” is a Classic Film, or in other words an Art Film. I can see how critics can make that distinction now that we have picked out all of the little details that made the movie what it is. One example that I believe portrays this is the scene where Sanjuro is making his escape from the gang that almost beat him to death. Once he was outside and crawling toward the tavern keepers place, he is actually creeping along the border of a shadow that extends across the road. It signifies Sanjuro’s health; he’s teetering between life and death. Art films make you think and watching these movies and picking out those interesting points are what make it so great.

On the other hand there are Genre Films, which would be something such as “Not Another Teen Movie.” There are not any moments in that film that cause the viewer to say, “Wow, what a great shot. You can see how when that girl’s bra hits the football player in the face, it actually means…well…that she was aiming for his face and got it right in there!” Genre films are created based off what the viewers want to see; their inner desires coming out on the screen. If Hollywood makes a Tom Cruise movie where he’s blowing everything up and everybody loves it, then they are going to make more of them. They will keep making them until people get tired of it and want something else. This style of film, as I have said, works off of the people’s emotions, so it seems like it will always be here. A perfect example of all of this, even though it’s television, is American Idol. The first season was a hit and they just keep making them. Now there are a ton of shows that are sort of the same thing, where people come in and try to do something and someone wins at the end. Here’s the catch, every one of these shows has an English guy as one of the judges. People loved what Simon Cowell, so they keep making more shows with guys just like him in them.

I do not believe that you can have just one style of film: Only classic or only genre. There has to be both, because no matter how many art films a person might see, in the end they will still have a desire to see a genre action film where things are getting blown up, or a love story where the guy gets the girl. Everyone is pleased in having both, and should not be ashamed of liking both either.

Kurosawa seems to be an interestingly amazing director and writer. I picked up on some of the similarities between “The Glass Key” and “Yojimbo,” but not all of the instances we talked about today. But I can see the parallels drawn between the two more clearly now. I am also a huge Star Wars fan and it is so cool that Lucas implanted an identical scene to where Sanjuro gets into his first fight, into “A New Hope.” Immediately after the comment was made, I could see it playing through my head. Oh, you gotta love movies.

One of the most indistinguishable ideas playing through each of the films is that Sanjuro and Ed/Ned are both wanderers. They really do not have any sort of place they can call home, so they begin to drift; which causes trouble in some instances. In the film “The Glass Key,” Ed does not really come off as much of a wanderer as he does in the book. Of course Ed is a man without a home, but in the movie he seems closer to Paul than he does in the novel. Paul Madvig himself, is essentially a home for Ed Beaumont. I can also see to a certain degree that Sanjuro has a temporary home within the town, that being with Gonji, the tavern keeper. This is the guy who took Sanjuro in after he had been brutally beaten, and also allowed his new found friend to constantly hang out in his establishment. This movie reminded me a lot of the movie “Last Man Standing,” which is more of an American version of “Yojimbo.”

One thing that I can say about my new knowledge of the world of Kurosawa, is that I can’t wait to see “Seven Samurai.”