“Through the Olive Trees” is my favorite film we have watched so far.  I found that in order to completely comprehend the film it is necessary to understand the setting of the narrative.  We discussed it briefly in class; the story begins after an earthquake destroyed much of Iran. People were left homeless and in many cases with no surviving family members to lean on.  Iran’s history creates a foundation for the symbolism utilized in the film.   The idea of a house or lack of one was repeated throughout the story. A house seemed to symbolize what “used to be.,” or in other words pre-earthquake life. In contrast to the house another image or object repeated is the olive.  In many cultures an olive or olive branch represents compromise or a new beginning.  Together, these symbols reflect the current state of the country, Iran, in the film.  Before the earthquake, the people had established homes that were most likely past down through the generations. Nature so quickly took this from them. As a result forced them to make a decision; hold on to the rubble of the past or find a new future? Kirastami, the director of the film, uses symbolism to further emphasize the crossroads the people of Iran find themselves in post earthquake.

In general a house or home symbolize shelter or stability. It is a place where people seek comfort from the “outside” world. The idea of a home first appears in the film when the grandma is introduced to the audience. During that first shot of the house the camera is angled up giving the impression that the grandma should be respected.  This aids in determining that the Grandma does represent a generation from the past.  She is one of few who have not lost everything in the earthquake.  The fact that an elderly woman of an older generation still has her home lends to the notion that a house represents the past. The Grandma also vocalizes this when she refuses to give the young gentleman her blessing to wed her granddaughter.  When the boy asks what her reasons are she clearly states that not having a house is among her top concerns.  The boy quickly rebuts this with no one has a house, therefore making her argument not valid in his eyes.  This disagreement signifies that a house is an indicator of a past time. This idea is also represented in the film when the actor who plays a director asks a young mother what her permanent address is and she responds saying she no longer has one. This tells the audience that again, a home is a symbol of a different time.

Along with the symbol of the house the olive or the olive tree is a significant symbol as well. Historically, an olive branch symbolizes peace or contentment. The most memorable scene with an olive branch in the film is the final scene.  The last moments of the film depict Hossein running after the “love of his life, amidst blooming olive trees.  It is obvious to the audience that the olive trees are of importance because of the wide zoomed out shot. If Hossein running through the trees were the focal point of the scene then the camera would have followed him as he ran. The music accompanying the scene is happy, leading the audience to believe that Hossein’s marriage proposal was accepted.  Having the olive trees associated with the birth of a new relationship signal that the olive is a symbol of new or coming to peace with the old. The young couple went against what the generations before the earthquake believed and are accepting to move forward with life after the tragedy.

I do think that the symbol of the olive and the house individually provide a unique element to the film. That being said I think that together they create a bigger impact.  The two symbols represent the two options one faces after any tragedy and in this case specifically a natural disaster.  One can either hold on to the past and live life as it was or come to peace with the present, making way for a new future. The contrasting symbols represent the harsh reality of this choice.

Last week I attended the question and answer session with screenwriter, producer and director, Matt Piedmont.   I was disappointed in the quality of the interview. It was difficult to hear the questions and responses. The questions I could hear that Matt answered were vague. He discussed mostly his personal opinions on random issues; the interview was lacking cohesiveness or theme.  That being said I went into the session with little knowledge about Matt so I did leave the Q&A feeling like I had gained some insight into his career and better yet him as a person.

Matt was asked at one point where he found his inspiration. He responded with a funny story about being in Powell’s bookstore in Portland with a friend. While in the bookstore they had an inside joke that later turned into a short film series.  Although, this may seem like a sort of basic, nothing profound kind of response, I thought that it was genuine and authentic. Ideas are born from anywhere anything, which in a cheesy way was sort of inspiring. It had an “anyone can do it,” spin to it. That kind of story is encouraging, especially for someone like me who is right at the brink of starting a whole new chapter in their lives.  It’s comforting to know that the simplest of thoughts can lead somewhere.

Matt also discussed how as an undergrad at the University of Washington, he witnessed his peers in suit and ties attending career fairs. During this time Matt was still trying to figure out his major (which I still didn’t quite catch).  A common theme amongst undergrad students is not wanting to attend career fairs, or even more so not sure what direction to go when attending one.  I feel as a twenty “something” it is always comforting knowing others at your age were just as lost as you feel now. During the interview Matt also touched on the idea that just getting your “foot in the door” is key. This is a common saying amongst all adults to the younger generations, hearing it from a successful screenwriter made it seem more legitimate  (a relief to my parents, that their favorite saying does hold true).

After the interview I felt that I got to know Matt better as a person, a real person versus a name in the credits. Although the interview was lacking in a lot of areas it was refreshing to hear someone who has attained “success” say it’s normal to struggle and be lost at 22.

Arguably one of the most defining characteristics of Third Cinema is the inspiration for audiences to take action on behalf of one cause. Frequently, the “cause” is usually some derivative of anti neo-colonialism.  In order to promote some sort of action, Third Cinema films often depict the struggles and poverty of third world countries while portraying larger more developed countries as evil dollar sign driven nations.  The latter often are depicted as taking advantage of the citizens of the lesser-developed nation. In general, stronger nations, such as the US are shown as brutal oppressive forces.  After viewing the film, “Perfumed Nightmare,” directed by Kidlat Tahimilk, I’m unconvinced that the film can be classified as Third Cinema. Through the use of humor, editing, and cinematography Tahimik uses “Perfumed Nightmare” as a film to educate the masses versus creating a bias resulting in action against social injustices.

So what exactly is Tahimik trying to “teach” his audiences? There are many instances in the film where a clear biased towards the Filipino people could be created. However in most of these situations humor was used to distract from the issue at hand, a nation being “bullied” by a bigger stronger nation.  For example when Kidlat discovers that the Supermarket has taken over the Four Seasons Market he begins to throw stones at the giant building.  Here is this tiny man throwing small stones at this giant entity. The cinematography emphasizes the comedic image. The camera is angled up making the Supermarket building seem larger than life and angled down at Kidlat making him seem puny. Kidlat appears as a small child who doesn’t get what he wants and in frustration throws rocks at an indestructible object. The whole scene is rather ridiculous, emphasizing the humor in the situation. This scene could have easily been used to show how the Supermarket or “progress” ruined the street marketers way of life and the struggle that followed for them. Instead the scene focuses on the humor of the situation, yes the Supermarket does appear as a bully but the fact that throwing rocks is Kidlat’s solution makes him seen just as discreditable.  Audiences are left feeling unsure whose side to take in the situation: the big Supermarket or the naïve little man? Instead what the viewer has gained is knowledge about the state of the world. The idea that “progress” or capitalism disrupts many peoples’ way of life.

Prior to the scene with the Supermarket battle the film shows many shots of people living content in the small town Kidlat grew up in. There are not if any scenes depicting oppression or a resistance to larger powers of any kind, common with Third Cinema films. Two scenes where one might claim that the US is portrayed as the villain or some sort of “big brother character” is when the scout masters all meet and the story of Kidlat’s father is told to him. Addressing the scenes in order, when the scoutmasters meet to discuss an issue the American scoutmaster claims that the US will be in complete control of the situation. If Kidlat were trying to highlight the US as a bullying nation the reaction of the other scoutmasters would be fear or submissiveness. This was not the case at all; in fact they laughed at the US scoutmaster for even suggesting such a thing and ran him out of the meeting. Again humor was inserted here as well, deflecting from the seriousness of the situation, the US trying to take control, what the audience just sees is this awkward lanky man trying to get through a muddy swamp like terrain. An awkward, lanky man being ran out of a meeting of men dressed in boy scout uniforms is not one that shouts “ evil oppressive bully.”

The second scene mentioned above is the one where kidlat finally learns the truth about his father he was shot by an American Soldier trying to cross a bridge.  That being said there is a magical element to the story, the dad apparently blew winds stronger than those of nature resulting in the American shooting him. The fact that there was a mythical element in this story makes it not only a little comical but viewers are uncertain whether or not to take the tale to heart. The mythology detracts from the seriousness of the situation, that his dad was murdered.  The editing of this scene also creates some ambiguity as to whether this is something to take lightly. As the story is being told the scene starts with the father crossing the bridge and realizing he can’t cross freely then cuts to a quick shot of someone smiling in the gap of a do not enter sign.  This goofy grin the audiences quickly see make this whole scene seem like a big joke.

Kidlat inserts this bit of humor to not alienate one side or the other. This makes me believe that he doesn’t want some sort of anti-colonialism uprising but more just educating his audiences on the circumstance at hand. Here is this young man living in a small Asian village who experiences the “world” for the first time. It is up to audiences what side they want to take or if any side, there is no push for one side or the other. This characteristic of the film forces me to believe that it is not a Third Cinema film.

There are many different lenses to examine the musical, “Singin’ in the Rain,” through. However one I find most fascinating is looking at the film as a social commentary of sorts or in other words viewing the film as a social history. The musical was produced in the early 1950s yet the narrative takes place in the late 1920s. The film sheds some light on how people in the fifties viewed life in the late twenties.  Yes, it is a typical Hollywood Golden Age film, with a good guy bad guy conflict and happy ending resolution where the protagonist wins. That being said I think beneath the elaborate dance scenes and lighthearted love story is a comment about society in 1927 in the eyes of the people living in 1952.

The film begins with a crowd screaming and cheering for a celebrity couple they have no legitimate relationship with. The fact that the crowd has no personal connection with the couple is further displayed when one of the protagonists takes on the role as narrator.  The story he reveals to his adoring fans is not the story we viewers are seeing on screen or what can be inferred as the truth.  Don Lockwood paints an ideal image of a young couple falling in love in the midst of gaining stardom. Yet what the viewer sees is a rude starlet, the antagonist, Lina Lamont, who could careless about humble up and coming star Mr. Lockwood.   The adoring fans are so overwhelmed by this charming love story, one even faints. Although moments before when honest Cosmo steps out of the car the fans are disappointed and uninterested in what he has to say. What this scene highlights is the idea that people in the late twenties responded better to a false glamorous reality than a less than picture perfect truth.

Later the conflict arises when lead actress Lina’s voice doesn’t sound pleasant in movies; Kathy steps in and does the voice over for Lina’s character.  Again, a false reality, audiences didn’t respond well to what the actual film would have been, with Lina’s horrific voice. They mockingly laughed when the original film with her voice was premiered. The filmgoers didn’t appreciate a star they adore sounding slightly less than charming.  This reflects the theme that filmgoers in the twenties love an “image” of a reality in contrast to actual reality.  Throughout the whole film the goal of the studio is to manipulate the truth. Audiences want more “talkies”, or sound films, and it’s up to the film studio to create a “talkie” out of a silent film they have already created, thus the need to use Kathy’s voice.

The narrative of the film creates layers of false realities. The first being that the twenties were a time of fast paced fun. People were uninterested in the truth, what they admired was a reality filled with sparkle and luxurious furs. They gave a standing ovation for the “Dancing Cavalier” when Kathy’s voice was used and drooled over the romantic love story Don Lockwood gushed in the beginning of the film.  The next layer is a critique on the film industry overall. “Singin’ in the Rain” is a musical about making a musical. The viewer witnesses how easy it is for films to alter the actuality of the situation.  The Studio had no issue just simply using Kathy’s voice over for the movie if it meant the musical would be a success.  Film plays many roles in society and in the late 1920’s ,“Singin’ in the Rain,” implies that film’s main purpose was to make money.  Studios created what they thought audiences wanted to see.  In this case audiences weren’t looking for authenticity but instead were searching for an enchanting tale of love and success.