Austin Munson

Eng 110 | Blog Post 3 | Option 3

A group of aspiring advertising majors leave the University of Oregon on a weeklong school trip to New York’s Madison Avenue, The advertising capital of the world.  Upon their arrival they are instantly drawn in to the capitalistic nature of the city. Their educational trip soon takes a turn for the worst when a handful of the students are engulfed by greed and power as they make connections with some interesting characters one night out in the city.  The two main characters of the film will be played by Dave Franco and Jennifer Lawrence.  The genre of the film will be Crime-Fiction and Comedy-Drama.  The cinematography of the film will be modern day Avant Garde and will be shot and edited much like Harmony Korine’s “Spring Breakers”.  The film will have sections of the film that use Korine’s similar lighting techniques and his narrative style that work well together to underline specific details of the story and present them to the audience in a unique and interesting way.

The beginning of the film will take place in Eugene, Oregon.  The first 20-30 minutes of the plot will deal with the student’s preparation for the New York trip.  The main purpose of this section is to develop the characters in the minds of the audience.  The scenes describing this section in the film will show individual students stories along with the two main characters as they get ready to go on the trip.  These scenes will jump back and forth from the students working in class to partying on the weekend before the trip.  In the classroom scenes, there will be a very strong emphasis on the practices of advertising.  The classroom scenes will feature a teacher teaching the students about the societal norms, trends, and stereotypes that advertising can create in society.  These scenes will be extremely important, as they will highlight some of the harm that advertising can have on society.

The next part of the plot features the students in New York City.  The vibe in this part of the film is still pretty mellow as the students are taken on tours of individual agencies in Manhattan.  There will be comedy as well as more information on the advertising industry in this section of the film as it continues to slowly build towards the climax of the narrative.  On the second to last night out, the two main characters share a cab at three in the morning with a strange man on their way back to their hotel.  The man gives them his number and talks about a fun, non-touristy party the next night.  The two main characters attend the party with a group of their close friends on the trip.  As the party winds down the group of students are asked by their strange man they met the previous night for a favor.  The favor asked of them is to deliver a mysterious package to a neighboring apartment.  The majority of the students accept.  This is where the film turns towards a crime-drama.  The package they delivered was a late payment made to a drug dealer.  The students are given till sunrise to pay the remaining money to the drug dealer.  This leads to the last chaotic 45 minutes of the film as the students end up getting into gun fights with the drug dealers of Manhattan trying to get the money to save their lives.  All said and done, the students get the money, but the two main characters, played by Dave Franco and Jennifer Lawrence, decide to stay in the city and become obsessed with power and their newfound lifestyle.

The Watermelon Woman directed and staring Cheryl Dunye was particularly interesting because it uses a movie within a movie structure to tell the story. Cheryl is filming herself making a film, a documentary, about a character known as the “Watermelon Woman”. The movie depicts Cheryl’s life as an African American, lesbian film maker and her evolving relationships with both her best friend and her new lover. As the movie progresses so does Cheryl’s relationship with the Watermelon Woman, a deceased African American movie actress of the 30’s/40’s that is the subject of Cheryl’s documentary, which is the movie within the movie. This creates the feeling that the overall film is autobiographical, which is an entertaining platform on which the drama can unfold.

While the entire movie has a raw almost elementary style, which adds to the autobiographical impression the film tries to create, it is easy to ascertain which sequences of Cheryl’s film are for her video documentary because the quality of these sequences differs from the quality of the scenes involving Cheryl’s personal life. For example, in the sequence where Cheryl goes with her co-worker to the Center for Lesbian Info and Technology (C.L.I.T for short) the overall image and sound quality of sequence can be compared to that of a handheld camcorder. This sequence is part of Cheryl’s video documentary project. However, when you look at sequences involving Cheryl’s personal life such as Cheryl working at the video store and interacting with her co-workers, the picture and sound quality of these sequences is more formal.

Cheryl’s video documentary project creates tensions and consequences in her personal life, which form the dramatic arc of the overall film. During the process of making her documentary, Cheryl begins to steadily form an obsession with the Watermelon Woman, which intensifies as the movie progresses and puts Cheryl’s personal life in jeopardy. Throughout the movie we witness the changing relationships between Cheryl and her best friend and between Cheryl and her lover. By the end of the movie Cheryl is no longer on speaking terms with her best friend, nor is she still in a relationship with her lover. The disintegration of both of these relationships is directly related to Cheryl’s obsession with the Watermelon Woman. Though destructive for the purposes of drama in the film, I can relate to the reasons behind Cheryl’s obsession.

During her journey of discovery Cheryl learns that she herself shares many similarities with the Watermelon Woman. Not only are both Cheryl and the Watermelon Woman African American and both have an interest in movies, but they are both homosexuals who are and have dated white woman. While I cannot completely relate to this aspect of the film because I am a heterosexual white male, I relate to Cheryl’s longing to find someone similar to herself with whom she can truly connect – someone who has gone through or is going through what Cheryl is experiencing in the moment. It is human nature that people do not want to be by themselves and yearn to be with others like themselves. It is the universality of Cheryl’s emotional arc that makes The Watermelon Woman as effective film. The deliberate use of an autobiographical, almost “home-movie” style adds to the power and effectiveness of the film. The problem for Cheryl’s is that she was too focused on learning more about someone in the past than focusing on herself in the present.

You have to love movies where the title doesn’t give away the narrative. That is not meant to be a sarcastic comment, honestly. It is better when the title makes sense once the movie has concluded. No film does that better than George Tillman Jr. and Michael Starburry’s, The Inevitable Defeat of Mister and Pete. This film tells the story of two young boys, Mister and Pete, who are fighting to survive poverty in the Brooklyn projects. Although the story line only elapses over a three-month period, these two boys grow immensely, and you as the audience grow too. They cannot be older than ten or twelve but over the course of the whole movie we see these two fend for themselves and make decision no pre-teen should ever have to.

Mister is the leader of the pair, as his name implies, and he is willing to do anything to keep the two out of the hands of child services. He is determined to help his drugged addicted mother and has a strong moral compass to guide him. Pete is younger and clearly looks up to Mister. Although the two start as neighbors in an apartment building, they quickly develop a brotherly relationship. You will immediately be pulled into their connection and will be cheering for them with every struggle they encounter.

What makes this film truly unique is that regardless of your age, you can connect with Mister and Pete. You feel their struggle. The movie is filmed in a way to make you relate to each and every situation through their own eyes. The film uses low camera angles to portray the world as if you were four feet tall. The narrative is positioned in a way that makes you feel as if you are young again, and your innocence is being corrupted just as Mister and Pete’s. Simple things like making breakfast or getting clean are not as simple as you believe them to be.

The setting of the narrative further emphasizes the child perspective of the film. Mister and Pete don’t know anything about the world beyond their neighborhood. Strangers stand out. Police aren’t heros. With such limited resources it is easy to feel as if the world does not expand beyond the poverty stricken neighborhood. This only amplifies their struggle. Social mobility is near impossible. Mister and Pete and stuck in the projects and are constantly encounter new battles to survive.

Don’t let this review give off a false portrayal. This film is not sensationalized. It is not a simple Hollywood drama. What you feel for these characters is not a sense of pity but rather a shock that events such as these occur. It seems almost too real, and that’s because it is. Starburry, the writer, pulls from his childhood experiences to create every situation as real as it once was. This film is rugged and unrefined.  It is sure pull at your heartstrings and pinch a few nerves. It exposes new realities of poverty by putting a child’s perspective to the issue that will surely change the way you see social disparities and poverty within the US.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2113075/

The film Philadelphia (1993) is one of the first Hollywood films to really look at homosexuality.  This film comes at a time shortly after the aids epidemic in the United States.  This film stars Tom Hanks who plays Andrew Beckett a lawyer at a high profile law firm in Philadelphia who is fired shortly after because he has aids.   Beckett tries hire a small time lawyer Joe Miller played by Denzel Washington, who homophobic, in order to sue his former employer for unlawful termination.   Miller refuses to work with Beckett because he is scared of Beckett and his disease, how when Miller sees Beckett being discriminated against because of his appearance.  In the film you see Miller and Beckett become closer, and you see Miller come over his homophobia by realizing that there is no difference between himself and Beckett.  Not only does this film look at a homosexual mans struggle with aids but it also looks at how discrimination affects people in America.

This film is one of the first to really tackle the idea of aids and its impact.  However the reason I find this film so interesting is because it looks at how discrimination evolves.  Miller who is an African American man living in Philadelphia who probably faced a lot of discrimination in his life than places similar discrimination onto Tom Hanks character Andrew Beckett.  One of the most interesting scenes is when Miller is discussing Beckett’s case with his wife and says his does want to touch him or breath the same air as him, because at this time many people still didn’t know how aids was transmitted.  This was one of the most interesting scenes to me because this something I’m sure many white Americans have said when discussing African Americans.   Casting an African American actor to play this role of homophobic lawyer Joe Miller really captures the juxtaposition of racial and sexual discrimination.   In a scene when both Miller and Beckett are in a library, Miller over hears a conversation between Beckett and a librarian, where the librarian ask if Beckett would be more comfortable in a private room with Beckett replying would you be more comfortable with me in a private room.   This scene is when Millers homophobic attitude changes because he realizes has felt the discrimination that Beckett is experiencing.

This film also attempts to break down the stereotype of homosexual men in popular culture.  The character of Andrew Beckett doesn’t exhibit any of the common stereotypes associated with being a gay man.  He isn’t fashionable in anyway, he doesn’t talk a differently and he does display any feminine characteristic that are common in many portrayals of gay men.  Andrew Beckett is just a regular man, which is an important aspect in this film because it shows that whether you are gay or not you deserve to be treated equally.

This is one of the most amazing movies of this era because touches on so many emotions while still shining a light on discrimination in todays society.   This film was also incredibly well cast with Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington playing two characters that are both very relatable to the audience.  Washington’s portrayal of homophobic lawyer is a character many people at the time can relate to but his transition from homophobe to compassionate friend is also believable.  Tom Hanks who one an Oscar for portrayal of Andrew Beckett gives a fantastic performance as a dying man fighting for his right to be treaded equally.   This is a very honest film which allows any viewer to understand the struggle gay men and anyone who is HIV positive have experienced

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107818/

Adaptation

I know that many of you mentioned in class that you hate Nicholas Cage. For your own sake, I hope you can overcome whatever distaste you have in order to see Adaptation. With that said, let us start.

Adaptation is one of the movies you’ll watch once, get to the end and then wonder what it was that you watched. Similar to Singing in the Rain, this film discusses the film industry in a somewhat critical way throughout the story. Adaptation however, focuses more specifically on the difficulty of screenwriting. It seems to be a satire about screenwriters themselves, discussing the search for a muse, the incredible depression that overcomes an author without vision, and the personal revolution and elation that happens when the big idea occurs.

When this film concludes, you’ll ask “What was the message there, was there one?” because is a remarkably confusing story line that seems to contain satires within satires. Overall it seems to say that screenwriters are narcissistic, sad, and uninspired. There are so many emotional levels to this movie, and each emotion is featured in a light that is far different than other films. With this film, love is dark, awkward, sometimes dirty, and yet romantic. Happiness is passionate, lost, confused, and yet lonely. This film is a strange partnership of fiction and non-fiction, and it teeters between a humorous tonality and a morose one.

The camera is never a prop or theme in this film as it is in other films that we’ve seen, but there is certainly a level of self-reflection that implies a sort of metafiction, or implies a movie within a movie within a movie. Adaptation never breaks down the fourth wall, although it seems like it might, and it constantly lends itself to a level and self-analysis. There are so many references to the movie industry itself, and to the process of screenwriting, and it seems that throughout the film the main character is writing the story of Adaptation, but you don’t realize that until the end or perhaps not until the third time you’ve seen it.

This film has a remarkably scattered story line, but there are two main characters that are involved throughout the film. The main character is a self-loathing screenplay writer who has a twin brother that may or may not be fictional, it’s always feels like his twin could be figment of his imagination. Another main character is a journalist who seeks happiness but cannot find it, she seeks love through a story that she covers for her job and throughout her reporting process the story becomes her life.

The movie ends with the journalist referencing her life prior to meeting the subject of her story and wishing for that life to come back to her. The other character is finally able to finish his book but he remains remarkably depressed. The final scene ends with the main character telling a woman that he loves her and then narrating what he believes will be the perfect end to his book, which is describing what happens in that instant of love. That narration is also a reflection on the movie where his mentor told him to never do a voice-over.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268126/

The Watermelon Woman is a film by Cheryl Dunye that chronicles her quest to film a documentary about a black actress from the 1930s named Fae Richards. The film was funded independently with a budget of $300,000 and was the first feature film directed by a black lesbian (IMDb.com). Although The Watermelon Woman is very low budget and features some unusual subject matter, I thought Dunye was courageous in her attempt to shed light on the history of lesbian culture and the struggles they have faced while living in America.

In our lecture on Wednesday, Daniel put up a slide that listed the claims of The Watermelon Woman. The first claim is that “cinema is a way of creating and validating personal identity” (Platt). One of the most important aspects of the film is how Dunye’s life parallels the life of her subject, Fae. Both Dunye and Fae are in a relationship with a white woman and struggle with discrimination against interracial relationships. I believe Dunye made up Fae’s character as a way to find validation of her own actions and beliefs. She idolizes Fae for being a resilient and strong lesbian especially because of the time period of which she lived. Dunye’s relationship takes places decades later, but is still under the same scrutiny as Fae’s. I think that Dunye wanted to show how discrimination against lesbians and interracial couples has not changed since Fae’s time.

The second claim is that “American Film History does not represent the history and lived experiences of African Americans or LGBT people” (Platt). The fact that it was not until 1996 that a black lesbian directed a feature film speaks volumes to this claim. African Americans and LGBT people have always been discriminated and misrepresented, especially in the media, and Dunye making the Watermelon Woman helps to represent and perpetuate some of those lived experiences. I also believe Dunye used The Watermelon Woman as a way to show how even other lesbians are discriminatory towards each other. Her best friend Tamara, who is also lesbian, continuously berates Cheryl about her interracial relationship and how she is “trying to be white.” Dunye wanted to shed light on the fact that criticism is still abundant even within the LGBT community.

The third claim is that “when your history seems to be absent, you either have to dig it up or create a totally new history” (Platt). By the end of the film, Dunye realizes that her quest to tell Fae’s story was actually a pursuit to tell the story and history of black lesbians in Hollywood and American culture. Dunye initially focused on the story of Fae, but soon realized that Fae’s story is extremely similar to the stories of thousands of black females today. After meeting with June Walker, she tells Dunye that she needs to shift the documentary from focusing on Fae to telling the history of the lesbian community.

I really enjoyed The Watermelon Woman because it help shed light on a community that I did not know much about previously. I think Dunye did a great job of balancing herself as the protagonist and relating her life to the struggles and obstacles of Fae’s.

Martin Scorsese’s most recent work, The Wolf of Wall Street, has engendered a significant amount of attention, for both its content and quality. The most vocal critics of the film have focused on the depictions of the lavish lifestyle Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his compatriots lived, arguing that the film endorses those behaviors. Though I believe this view is misguided, I think the attitude that many filmgoers may find repulsive is best on display in a single scene from Oakmont Stratton’s trading floor. This scene, where Jordan Belfort beseeches his employees to “deal with your problems by becoming rich,” reminds me of a scene from another famous Hollywood movie, Glengarry Glen Ross. These two scenes, which can be celebrated as “motivational” and “inspiring” actually display the base, animalistic behavior of greedy businessmen, but leave it to the audience to find that interpretation.

It is easy to come under the thrall of Belfort’s exploits, at least initially. It’s thrilling to watch this guy take over the world, do exactly what he wanted to, and be an asshole in the process- you get caught up in the pace and the excitement of the moment. Take, for example, this scene:

DiCaprio does a truly amazing job here, as Belfort imploring his employees to solve their problems by getting rich. It’s pure animalistic insanity. He screams at them, they scream back, you can almost smell the drugs and testosterone through the screen. Let’s compare this to Alec Baldwin’s scene from Glengarry Glen Ross:

The tone, lighting, mood of these scenes are completely opposite. Wolf shows DiCaprio in a well-lit room, hyped up on drugs, surrounded by hundreds of traders. In Ross Baldwin speaks to a handful of salesmen in a dark, solemn, grimy room. Belfort’s audience eats up his every word, while Baldwin’s incredulously stares back. But when it comes to content, Baldwin and DiCaprio are like mirror images. Both of these are all about making the sale, and doing everything you possibly can to close it. Each callously shoves morality to the side, and then reminds the audience that he will still be living the high life long after they’re gone. Material goods, watches and cars, are symbols of power and wealth.

These men represent the ideal of a testosterone-riddled ultra-rich American. They don’t just have to be wealthy; they have to do so in the most ostentations manner possible. It is completely acceptable for them to achieve that goal by any means necessary. When people take issue with Wolf of Wall Street, like the daughter of a Belfort compatriot who denounced the film, they think that these scenes serve as entertainment, and promote the same individualistic values. Some people, like a few Wall Street bankers, certainly did see Wolf as an endorsement of a lavish lifestyle. But the fact that a character like Jordan Belfort or Alec Baldwin’s unnamed character is portrayed does not mean it is an endorsement- the audience should be clearly able to recognize that what they are saying is insane, because money cant solve all problems.

Single handedly the greatest movie ever created, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Yes, I know it is not within the date range of 1990 and before but most of the items that we have talked about in class relate to this movie. For those that haven’t seen Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, it is the journey of one kid skipping class to enjoy a day with his friends. Even though the film was made before all of us were born, it is still relatable to our lives because we all want to just take a day off of class, take our friend’s dad’s 1961 Ferrari GT California out for a spin in downtown Chicago. Yes, some shenanigans might occur like the valet taking the car for a cruise, attending a Cubs game, pretending to be the Sausage King of Chicago, and racing to beat your parents and your sister home. Be honest, everyone has skipped a class at least once, whether your parents knew it or not, and we may not have done the things in the movie but maybe we did similar things. Faked a sickness to stay home and play video games, left class and walked around for an hour, or even left for school but never arrived. It happens to the best of us. One thing about the movie that is different than most other movies is the fact that the fourth wall is constantly being broken by Matthew Broderick as we routinely interacts and speaks directly to the camera. This is super unique for a movie made in the 1980s when filming techniques were still “traditional” and it was uncommon to see the fourth wall broken often in a movie. There are three instances when Ferris speaks or stares directly into the camera during the film. They. of course, remain humorous and add comedic value to the movie as we don’t expect him to directly look at the camera and speak to the audience that isn’t supposed to be there.

This movie is a timeless classic that can be viewed by many different generations and it will still be relevant. The humor of the movie is exquisite and keeps you rolling throughout the entire movie. An instant cult classic that can be played over and over again and won’t get boring, old, or stale. Every line is finely crafted to be humorous and keep you waiting to find out what is going to happen next in the feel good hooky story of the 1900s. The way the characters handle themselves and perfectly pull off a day of skipping school is something that has not been able to be replicated in the last 20 years and I do not believe that there will be another movie that will have this kind of impact on the world as Ferris Bueller’s Day Off had. The quotes that come from this movie are instant classics and understood by most anyone that you would find on the street or in a classroom. Ferris Bueller is the man that I strive to be in life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091042/