The narrative of the Watermelon Woman is an interesting one because it doesn’t go along with the dominate heteronormative discourse of most movies. The filmmaker, Cheryl Dunye, is a black lesbian woman and how she shapes this film greatly reflects that identity. It seems as though most of the people in the film identify within the LGBTQ spectrum. This was an influence of the times and a great example of the “New Queer Cinema”movement born out of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Long after the queer subtext of American films in the ’20s and ’30s, and a couple decades after the Stonewall Riots, Cheryl Dunye joined the band of queer filmmakers exploring this frontier of untold stories and excluded perspectives. The Watermelon Woman explicitly explores issues of race in film (since the plot in this story is Dunye’s journey to uncover the real identity of a black actress from the ’20s and ’30s who was merely referred to as the “Watermelon Woman”), but it doesn’t talk as much to marginalized issues of sexuality. Dunye instead makes queer sexuality the dominant discourse and therefore not something that’s discussed, just accepted and normal—making a much more impactful statement.

This is not to say that she disregards the issue of sexuality. Instead of focusing critically on homophobia or the marginalization of the LGBTQ community, she focuses on the intersections of race, sexuality and class and the struggle between those. To illustrate my point, I will focus on the relationship between Cheryl and Diana. Their relationship is particularly interesting and makes up a significant part of the plot. Cheryl is, as I’ve stated, a black woman, who works at a movie store. Diana is a white woman who meets Cheryl as a customer at said movie store. This establishes the class dynamic of their relationship from the beginning—Cheryl as a worker (at a low-end job that she doesn’t particularly love) and Diana as a customer (someone with the privilege of having enough free time to rent movies and watch movies). The conflict that is played out between these two women has to do with their races, not that they become lovers. Tamara, Cheryl’s friend and coworker, disapproves of Cheryl and Diana’s relationship from the beginning because Diana is white. She accuses Cheryl of wanting to become white because she is making a documentary and dating a white woman. This causes strife between Tamara and Cheryl, to which it seems Diana is oblivious.

In one scene, the four women—Cheryl, Diana, Tamara, and her partner—are having dinner together. It appears as though Cheryl is anxious to have Diana, Tamara and her girlfriend (who are both black) get along. In conversation, Tamara’s girlfriend asks Diana what brought her to Philadelphia and gets a little bit of her back story in the process. Both Tamara and her girlfriend appear to be very put off by Diana explaining her parents’ line of work, how they traveled and lived all over the world, and how Diana says that a friend of hers was interested in talking to “us” (her and Cheryl) about Cheryl’s documentary. It seems like Tamara is protective of Cheryl, and sees Diana as a threat with her white privilege.

The last scene with Cheryl and Diana is when they are in bed together. Diana mentions that she learned a song from one of her old black boyfriends, and this surprises Cheryl. Diana goes on to say that she has had multiple black boyfriends in the past and her parents never said anything because they’re “liberal hippie-types.” This bothers Cheryl, and she calls Diana a “mess” and leaves the room. In a later scene, Cheryl then mentions that they’re not seeing each other anymore. We can conclude that it was something in this scene, something that Diana implied, that made their interracial relationship an incompatible one.

What makes Cheryl Dunye’s The Watermelon Woman so successful as a New Queer Cinema film is how she has chosen to portray these relationships and the struggles between race, sexuality and class. She didn’t just make a lesbian movie about women of color, or a women of color movie about lesbians; she didn’t just talk about lesbian women of color to prove that they exist in a world of cinema where their stories hadn’t been shared. She took all of that a huge step further. She illustrated the complicated dynamics of queer relationships; she illustrated those dynamics within the dynamic of race and class; she illustrated that dynamic within a larger conversation about race and sexuality. And she does so without telling us she’s doing so.

The 2000 film, the Replacements, is an underdog sports comedy. The film is about a fictional professional football team, the Washington Sentinels. The players decide to go on strike for financial reasons, four games before the playoffs. The Sentinels decide to hire their former coach, Jimmy Mcginty (played by Gene Hackman) to lead them out of this dilemma.  Micginty’s first move is to sign replacement players for the rest of the season. Players such as an Irish soccer player turned goal-kicker, a sumo wrestler turned into an offensive guard, a gulf war veteran turned linebacker, and other colorful characters.  The replacement player that is our main character is quarterback Shane Falco (played by Keanu Reeves), a former Ohio State quarterback with a legendarily bad performance at his last collegiate game. Shane and Jimmy must find a way to get this motley crew of replacement players to stop fighting and arguing each other long enough to work together and win 3 out of the 4 remaining games make the playoffs.

What sets this underdog sports movie apart from any other sport’s movie is the reason for which the players are playing. They are not playing to win a championship, or make the roster. They are playing for those four games of glory where they are in the circle of elites, with full realization that their fame is temporary. It really adds a bittersweet, but nostalgic element to the film’s narrative. Most of the players have lives that they are not fond of, or spend their time wishing they were playing football like in their glory days. They all get a taste of the dream, with the clock ticking before they have to return to their normal lives. In the beginning, this hangs over the heads of the replacements; they get no respect from the fans or each other. However, once the replacements come to terms with their temporary fame, they began to use it as their incentive to prove to the world what they got.

I think what else makes film such a unique sports film is because I see elements of old western films in the Replacements. Let’s start with the conflict: a group of overly paid men who abandon their post because they are not getting the pay they desire, leaving their city in turmoil. Much like the mercenaries and hired guns of the old west that protect towns for abnormally large payments. The new coach in town, which is similar to the of a western movie mayor, finds replacements for those who abandoned them. Replacements can be thought of as wonderers or your standard cowboys (Not the Dallas kind). The leading cowboy is Keanu Reeves, somebody who has had a troubled past involving his football throwing arm, which could be thought of as a metaphor for his gun. When Falco first starts throwing again, his aim is very off and sloppy. After he gets used to throwing again, his aim is as good as it ever was. One that portray a western atmosphere are the bar scene, and the jail scene. The saloon (or bar) setting is a classic setting for the climax of a Western film. In the Replacements, the bar that the replacements hang out at gets a visit from the real players. The bar scene has ever cliché in a western bar fight; somebody gets slid across the bar table, corny lines in John Wayne fashion, a jukebox is involved, and of course, they all end up in jail for the night.

In terms of sports movies, the Replacements has to be one of my favorites. All of the characters are unique and likeable, the plot leaves you caring about what happens next, and the comedy is not overly corny. I would recommend it to somebody who is not really a fan of football, because the movie is more about the struggle to achieve your personal goals more than just the sport of football. Keanu Reeves gives one of the best performances of his career (granted, that’s not saying much) and Gene Hackman is excellent as always. The one part I was not too fond of was how stereotypically antagonistic the pro-quarterback was. He had no real empathy or character, and it was hard to believe some one would be like that.

4/5 stars.

In the Watermelon Woman Cheryl Dunye uses sound to create a world behind the lens of the camera. She does this by having diegetic dialog, and sound effects that take place where the camera woman, in most cases herself, would be standing in real space and time. This not only allows the world to become larger then what the viewer can see, but it makes the camera a tool of hers instead of just a window into her world where the audience watches detached. Cheryl Dunye uses diegetic sound to create a larger world for her story while making the camera an actual object used to represent the world and force the audience to see her world through a specific lens.

In the opening scene, we see the wedding that Cheryl and Tamara are filming, but instead of hearing what the camera is filming we hear conversations between Tamara and herself. Being the opening scene this helps with character development. We begin to form an idea of the two characters before we even see them. Although character development is important, opening the movie up with uncorrelated sound and picture introduces the idea that the movie we are about to see is Cheryl’s view. We see what she wants us to see, and the camera is not a window used to view her story, it is a tool used by her.

As the movie progresses this concept continues in different ways; sometimes having arguments with tamara while the camera is running. In these scenarios, cheryl is seen by the audience but Tamara is only heard. She is clearly the one holding the camera. This opens up their world to the audience and may even allow the audience to feel more as a participant then a viewer. This technique of having diegetic dialogue off camera allows the audience to be constantly reminded that Cheryl is in control of what we see, that the character Cheryl is telling the story.

Once we established that the main character Cheryl is whom is directing our sights and therefore thoughts, we can start to understand that a lens is completely controlled by her. When we discuss the “male gaze’ in this movie, we can see that it is challenged. A strong, main character is in fact a women and is not directed at love, although there is a romance. Her goals and ambitions are what drives the movie, and what the main story is about. We can also notice that the audience of this movie is directed at specific audiences; controlling whom would be interested in this movie. It also gives the feel of a home movie and takes away the expectations of a main stream cinema. It feels like a documentary almost and therefore her story comes across as truth.

Cheryl Dunye uses off camera diegetic dialogue to consistently remind the audiences that the camera is a tool, not just a window. And she illustrates what she can do with that tool. She can depict her audience, she can convince you of a false history and she can challenge social ideals. The world in which we see in The Watermelon Woman is much larger then what we actually see through the lens. It is not just a 180 degree version, but in fact a 360 degree rotation of a natural world. We dive into her world, and believe what she tells us, and are reminded of the power of the auteur.

Jessica Engle

The Watermelon Woman like the other movies that we have watched this year, is about a film within a film. We are watching a movie about the life of Cheryl Dunye and her life and how she is making this documentary, as well as watching this documentary about “The Watermelon Woman.” There are pretty much two story lines happening simultaneously throughout the film and we as the audience have to keep them straight. The way in which Cheryl, the director chose to use cinematography and sound in the movie helped to keep the two story lines separate while still smoothly weaving them together into one movie.

As we are watching the film there are two obvious different camera views that we are seeing. One is a home video looking camera lens that isn’t as clear as the other camera view; the other view is more of a standard camera lens. When we as the audience are looking at the movie through this home video looking camera that’s when we are in Cheryl’s camera. We are looking directly at what she is filming. This is when we are watching the documentary that she is working on in the movie. We know when we see things through this lens that the focus is going to be on “The Watermelon Woman” and uncovering her secrets. On the other hand when it is the standard camera lens and it is sharper and clearer, we are following the actual life of Cheryl. We are focusing on her work life, her friends, and her love life. It is almost like we are now watching the behind the scenes aspect of the documentary that she is working on. By changing the camera lens like this it enhances the audiences perception of what the audience should be expecting and focusing on in this scene.

Not only did the cinematography change but also the sound changed in the difference scenes. When it was the home video lens focusing on “The Watermelon Woman” a lot of the times the dialogue came from outside of the view of the camera. Much of the dialogue happened off screen. We as an audience knew that it was diegetic sound and the characters on screen could hear them, but we as the audience cannot see them. However in the case of the normal camera lens where the focus is on Cheryl’s life outside of the documentary all of the dialogue takes place on screen. The audience can always see who is speaking and it is always taking place on the screen. In this way the sound also enhances the audiences realization of what this scene is focusing on. We know that when there is dialogue taking place that we can’t see then we know we are looking through Cheryl’s camera and we are watching the film she is taking through her camera for the documentary of “The Watermelon Woman.”

The director’s choice of making it obvious when the story plot is changing from focusing on Cheryl’s life to focusing on “The Watermelon Woman” makes it easier for the audience to adjust. Sometimes two stories within one film can get a little sloppy and a little confusing. However, in this film changing the camera and sound makes it obvious when the story line is changing its focus. I really like this technique because it made it easy to follow the two inter-weaving stories within one film.

Title: Relic

Key Characters:Ethan Parker is the 25 year old main character. He is a white male, about 6′ tall with a muscular build and light facial hair.

Detective Daniel Alexander – Detective assigned to Ethan’s case. Older white male in his 50’s. Athletic build and greying hair.

Setup: Ethan Parker is running down a dark sidewalk on the outskirts of Los Angeles when he hears a gunshot ring out over the street, turning the corner, he finds himself face-to-face with two masked gunman. When they see Ethan, the taller of the two raises the gun and fires. The screen cuts to black and the beginning credits role with a montage of the LA city streets, including police cars and other crimes being committed. In the next scene, Ethan wakes up in a hospital bed, only able to see out of one eye. Ethan has no family, and has been a loner his entire life. The only person in the room is detective Daniel Alexander who steps forward and explains that Ethan was found on the street with a gunshot wound that grazed his head, coming within inches of killing him. When the detective asks, Ethan realizes that he has no memory of anything before getting shot. The only thing he remembers is the opening scene. Throughout the film, Ethan uses a series of flashbacks to piece together his life, and more importantly piece together what actually happened that night.

Conflict: Through the series of flashbacks, we learn about Ethan’s troubled childhood and trouble with the law. His parents were murdered when Ethan was 10 and he looked to the local gangs for a sense of family. The Film cuts back and forth between these flashbacks that get longer and longer, the more recent the memory is, and Ethan’s struggle to find his assailants. He has taken it upon himself to piece together his own life, and soon realizes that he has a very bumpy road ahead of him. As he is re-tracing his steps prior to the shooting, Ethan uncovers details of his past that trouble him. From flashbacks of assault to robbery, Ethan soon realizes that he was not the man he thought he was.

Resolution: Ethan soon realizes that he was not so much an innocent bystander, but a key factor in planning a robbery of a local convenience store. The owner of which, being the man he saw dead on the street just before he got shot. He realizes that he had backed out of the plan at the last minute, and was on his way to stop the two men from committing the crime. What he didn’t know is that when he backed out of the robbery, he had been black-listed by his gang and had a hit put out on him. This is why he was shot. Ethan realizes that the only way to remove this bounty is to bring down the leader of this gang. With the help of Detective Alexander, Ethan plans an assault on the gang’s headquarters. The ending scene shows Ethan on a rooftop with a pistol in his hand and the leader of the gang hiding behind a corner with his own gun, pinned down by Ethan. As the gang member turns the corner and begins to raise his gun at Ethan, we see a close-up of Ethan pulling the trigger and the screen fades to black.

Genre: Action/Drama

Style: Stylistically, this film is a lot like Memento directed by Christopher Nolan. The audience does not know of Ethan’s violent past until i is uncovered by his flashbacks. As the present story of Ethan’s search for answers moves forward, his flashbacks slowly reveal the real answers until the two meet in the final conflict.

I attended a presentation at the Knight library showcasing Matt Piedmont. Piedmont is an Emmy award winning writer, producer and director. At the beginning of the presentation, a small portion of his recent work from the last episode of his series, “The Spoils of Babylon,” was shown. The section we watched was very comical and professionally done. The aesthetics were pleasing and the sequence was produced cleverly. Multiple big time actors and actresses starred in the feature, making it almost familiar and more entertaining for the attendees of the presentation. After watching about twenty minutes of the mini series, an interview followed. A professor from the Cinema Studies department began asking questions before opening up questions to the audience.

I was appreciative of Matt’s willingness to visit us at the University of Oregon and sharing his unique experiences with us. The presentation was very casual and light. It also seemed somewhat unplanned. Overall, I was disappointed with the presentation and lack of preparedness of answers to the interview questions. Piedmont appeared unsure about how to answer multiple questions and did not fully offer insight into how he got to where he is today. He briefly walked through the jobs he had leading up to his current position as if he just got lucky. He was repetitive when asking questions often trailing off into unrelated ideas about motivation and taking chances.

Although he was not entirely perceptive, he was sincere and clearly cared about what he does. He made his dream a reality and his natural funny manner led him in the direction of working with SNL where he works now. I fully respected the path he took to attain his goal because he did it all on his own and did not have to take any absolutely crazy risks (that he mentioned) in order to do so.

While his presentation did not necessarily contain educational content, it was fascinating to be in the presence of someone who has come so far from how he explained himself at our age. He explained that during his undergraduate years, he was unsure about what he wanted to study and accomplish for quite a long time. He knew he was interested in movies and possibly making them, but did not go to school to accomplish this passion. Eventually, he decided to take chances and aim high. Hearing this gave me hope for my future because evidently, it is possible to find one’s passion after undergrad years. He brought light to the idea that there are so many opportunities available and it is important to take risks to achieve success. He worked some nine to five jobs and slowly but surely made his way up to doing work for SNL. At first, he was solely completing diverse busy work for the company and his talent was finally discovered. Since then he has directed many films, commercials and mini series, showing his true talent. He has won numerous awards and is extremely well regarded in the film industry.

While watching “The Watermelon Woman,” I was able to make some connections to the protagonist, Cheryl. I was unable to connect to her fascination with African American, lesbian actresses and people involved in filmmaking. However, I was about to associate with the general motives of her movie-making project. I am a journalism student and have had to go through similar processes to complete films and smaller video projects.

At the beginning of my journalism career, I learned about story telling and the importance behind it. As I have delved deeper into the journalism school and the field on my own, I have had to come up with my own story ideas and bring them to life through multiple media platforms. I too have experienced making low or no-budget films as Cheryl did. Toward the beginning on the film, Cheryl discusses that she is unsure about what she wishes to make a movie about and I instantly related to that feeling.  I was able to feel empathetic toward her because I have experienced the difficulty behind choosing an abundant topic for a film project. There is so much to take into account when making such a decision. It is important to plan ahead to know who the audience is and who can provide insight for the project. Cheryl had to go through a similar process of reaching out to the public to gather employable information. It is crucial to think about if there will be enough material to gather about a specific subject to produce a complete story through film. I have often had to veto ideas because there is either not enough variety in the possible shots to take, people are not available or willing to meet, the timeline is unrealistic and more.

I have spent ample time simply setting up meeting times to talk to and interview people about something they may not even be entirely educated about. Seeing Cheryl slightly struggle to find people who knew what she was talking about and passionate about reminded me of experiences I have undergone as well. I have recently had to pick a subject for whom I possessed a fascination with to make a multimedia project. I had to toy with at least four ideas before narrowing it down to one who held interest and insight with plenty of visual components to offer.

It was extremely interesting to see how Cheryl went about finding the people to talk to and how she used her own style in executing the film work. It made me think about my own style in comparison and I concluded that I have a more formal demeanor when interviewing people and keeping the camera in place. A similarity I noticed was Cheryl’s format of storytelling. I have been taught to tell stories in the order of present, past, future. Cheryl utilized this form by showing the audience what she was considering in the present, then delving into the past by communicating with people from the Watermelon Woman’s life, and finally making a movie to educate people about the Watermelon Woman and to gain experience in order to execute more films in the future.

I liked watching “Through the Olive Trees” because it is one of the first films that we have watched that gave women a sort of empowering role. Tahereh was not interested in a boy, Hossein, who was pursuing her throughout the film. She made her lack of interest very apparent and had all of the control in the relationship. Which I found refreshing after watching films like Peeping Tom where women are obviously objectified, Singin’ in the Rain where women characters are under appreciated and given little choice in their own outcomes, and even Sherlock Jr. where the only woman is a prize to be won by either one of two men. But in this film, Tahereh takes control of her own destiny.

Tahereh does not speak to Hossein through the entire film and rejects all of his advances. She will not even look at him. It is implied that this is in part due to the fact that Tahereh is more highly educated than her male pursuer, another form of female empowerment portrayed. But it is also arguable that she is simply uninterested, an emotion that women are rarely given the power to feel in media and film. There is also Ms. Shiva, another strong female character. She was obviously a no-nonsense kind of women who was the real driving force behind the production of the film being made. Without her it seems that very little would have been accomplished and that she was actually basically controlling just about everything even though she was not the director.

I found it interesting that the female characters were so strong in this film, and particularly in contrast with the male characters. It seems that the male and female roles were reversed. Hossein was the character chasing after love and throwing himself at his love interest, a role that is usually portrayed by the ‘obsessive woman’.In contrast to Tahereh who held all the power in the relationship and scorned his advances. Also, the director seemed to be the more nurturing character shoe was helping Hossein try to get his girl. The director was very supportive and seemed to be a motherly/fatherly figure to Hossein. Again, a role that is usually portrayed by a women. This is in contrast to Ms. Shiva, the real power house behind the film and authority figure on and off set.

The fact that this role reversal exists in a film depicting Iranian culture makes it especially empowering and interesting. Iran is a county well known for its cultural oppression of women. That a film would dare to portray the female characters as the more powerful over the men in this culture is controversial. It speaks to the immense progress and change being felt though out society in terms of Universal Women’s rights.

I’ve taken a good amount of film classes throughout my college career and not one has show Pulp Fiction. Which I’m very shocked that none of my professors have shown or gone in depth of this amazing movie. Not to mention that NONE of Quinton Tarantino’s movies have been discussed in depth or shown in class.  Some would argue he’s one of the greatest directors of our time, and quite frankly I agree with them. Pulp Fiction has been dubbed one of the greatest crime movies of all time. The amount of depth Tarantino has in his stories is enormous. But add four stories and twelve central characters to a movie and you have a monster story on your hands. Too add to the complex four different story lines, these separate stories are not linear. This movie was made for people who think, this isn’t a blockbuster hit where you can passively watch and be entertained, but one where you actively participate in.  Pulp Fiction is one of those movies that you have to watch twice, not only because it’s so amazing you crave the use of language in the film. His writing skills and use of language is poetic and creates a utopia of words to wallow in.

There is a ton going on in the film and a good amount to focus on but somehow the extremely talented Tarantino doesn’t overwhelm the audience in one particular story. As one story transitions to another you don’t feel lost in the transition or like it was jarring, it flowed very nicely keeping the movie flowing without any bumps or awkwardness. Tarantino balances the movies action, thriller, comedy and suspense, through his use of clever dialogue, with easy to stamp Tarantino’s signature feel to it. Tarantino is known for his witty dialogue in his movies, from his great one-liners to his complex exchange of poetic banter. There should be a college course just on his screenplays let alone his movies. With this poetic dialogue Quinton Tarantino has made his own genre by the sheer style of writing and acting of the film.

Pulp Fiction has created a cult following along with his other movies that captures audiences. Tarantino’s writing brings to life his dynamic characters with his use of method writing. You can tell when watching Pulp Fiction that Tarantino focuses on the literature aspect of the film on each individual line rather than writing it as a whole, which I think makes this movie so special. That’s why this film should be shown in this film class. You could create an entire class course just looking at his screenplays and not watch a single movie and still have more to talk about. It has so much going on that can be viewed and broken down for content is many different aspects.

Pulp Fiction IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I meant to show the first few minutes of this interview with Kiarostami in class today, but we had some technical difficulties. My favorite line: “I prefer films that put their audience to sleep in the theater.”