Hairspray (2007)

Once again Tracy Turnblad lights up the screen with her bubbly personality except this time the film comes with a catchy soundtrack. The 2007 version of Hairspray has reflects similarities between the 1988 version while still having new elements. This film sticks to its somewhat cheesy roots while at the same time making a more substantial and interesting storyline.

For the most part, these two films are quite similar. The beginning of the movies are very similar but it is in the end where the differences show. One big difference is the conflict which addresses race and integration. In the 1988 version a fight breaks out at the carnival which was completely unplanned. In the 2007 version it was a planned protest that people organized. Along with that, in the original film Tracy goes to jail and in the 2007 version she is a runaway the police are searching for. There was no need to go to the government in the second movie but in order to get Tracy out of jail they had to. I think these differences put a different spin on how race is portrayed in the film. The first film reveals an unorganized type of riot to bring peoples attention to the matter but in the 2007 version they organize a walk through the streets. These are two different ways to handle a situation like this and I think it is an interesting difference to look at.

Since other aspects of this film are so similar, I would argue that this is a part of the camp genre. Maybe things are as "campy" as in the first one but there are still a lot of things that are exaggerated. One thing which makes everything seem exaggerated is the fact that this is a musical. People look at musicals as already being pretty cheesy and to add the camp attributes of the first film make it that much more unnatural. Also, the characters in the first film are pretty similar to the ones in the 2007 version which makes the campy traits carry over to the newest version. The male characters in the new version are still take a backseat to the female characters and are still pretty effeminate.

In Tom Charity's review, he sums up the movie pretty well when he says "Bright, campy and wonderfully light, "Hairspray" reminds us that fun comes in all shapes and sizes. It's also one of the few "event" movies this summer that doesn't outstay its welcome. That's worth singing about, no matter what your name is". Both Hairspray films are light-hearted and perhaps a little out there but if the viewer does not take them too seriously, they are pretty entertaining.

Hairspray (1988)

Hairspray is a light-hearted film which addresses ideas about different social issues while at the same time making its audience laugh. It focuses mainly on the issue of integration but other issues such as gender roles and personal appearance are also present throughout the film. The main character, Tracy Turnblad, is the center around which all of these different issues are formed.

This movie touches on race in a much lighter way than what we have seen in other movies this semester. At the beginning of the film it seems as though it is just a fun movie without much depth but as it nears the end the viewers can see how it makes more of a statement about race and more specifically integration. Of course it is not a deep story line about race like we may have seen in Do the Right Thing, but it does comment on race in a different way. This movie also touches on appearance. There are many times where the barbie doll Amber Van Tussle comments on the way Tracy looks and how she is too fat to be dancing. This theme may not be as strong as the idea about integration but it is definitely a main conflict throughout the film. Tracy Turnblad receives the brunt of all these issues and I would say she is the center of it all. What makes her a likeable character is that she can handle anything that people throw at her and she still remains the bubbly character throughout the entire film.

Engaging Cinema  talks about the social symbolic which is "a distinct realm comprised of symbolic acts of understanding and empathy that shine a light on cultural ideals, which otherwise often disappear within the darkness of prejudicial social practices(356)" In this case, the idea of the Corny Collins show is an example of the social symbolic. It is the place where, in the end, people of any color, shape, gender, or background can join in on the celebration. Like what the book talks about, this idea of music and dancing creates a common place for all types of people where there differences do not stand out or even matter.

In Robert Ebert's review, he describes the movie as "a bubble-headed series of teenage crises and crushes, alternating with historically accurate choreography of such forgotten dances as the Madison and the Roach". This may be what the movie comes off as to a lot of people. Maybe the purpose of it was just to simply entertain people or perhaps it was supposed to be a commentary on life in the 60's in a way that is both relatable and appealing.

Do the Right Thing

One thing which makes Spike Lee’s movie, Do the Right Thing, a great movie is not only the conflicts which arise throughout the film but specifically the depths of those conflicts. This movie passed the normal black/white conflict and reaches into conflicts between multiple characters in the film. This is much different from the blaxploitation films we watched in class which had a more concrete view on race.

Engaging Cinema states that this film “explores what it feels like to experience, with visceral force, a complex web of tensions and contradictions from multiple perspectives”. This idea of the different multiple perspectives is what gives this movie so much depth and I think is what makes the viewer so intrigued with the storyline in the film. It is not just a conflict between white and black people but instead a conflict between Asian people and black people, Italian people and black people, and even black people against black people. With the combination of all these different concepts, the viewer gets a different perspective in each different situation that takes place in the film.

Roger Ebert brings up a good point in his review about how the ending is left completely open. He says, “Since Lee does not tell you what to think about it, and deliberately provides surprising twists for some of the characters, this movie is more open-ended than most. It requires you to decide what you think about it”.  I think this is an interesting topic to look at because the movie truly lets the audience decide for themselves what to think. It makes people aware of the different conflicts taking place but never once says which ones are justified and which ones are not justified.

The entire film comes together at the end when the two quotes by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X scroll across the screen. There is an interesting duality represented in the quotes because MLK Jr. is talking about the importance of non-violence while Malcolm X says that violence is acceptable when used as self-defense. It again offers an open-endedness to the viewer by having both quotes. If Lee used only one quote at the end it would have put one idea or the other in the mind of the viewers instead of letting them decide on their own.

Shaft (2000)

The "black private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks" is back in this sequel directed by John Singleton. It follows John Shaft's nephew who seems to have much of the same characteristics as his uncle while at the same time not quite measuring up to what the original Shaft was like. These two films have both similarities and differences which are both important to understanding what the director was trying to portray when it comes to topics such as racism.

John Shaft in the 2000 version of the film had some of the same characteristics of his uncle while at the same time not being as great. He did things his way, never missed a shot and got the girls but this time the audience didn't really get the "I want to be him" kind of attitude. What differed in this respect is that he starts out in the film as a detective whereas in the 1971 version Shaft is not connected to any type of law enforcement. As for his ability to get women, there was a scene which deliberately showed he could not match up to his uncle. The scene at his surprise party showed John Shaft leaving with two women and not just one. Also, the cheesy lines he used on women made us laugh at him rather than envy his charm. The original Shaft would never say "It's my duty to please that booty". Also, as Roger Ebert talks about in his review, the sexual aspect is not as prevalent in this film as it was in the original. The opening credits start out with this idea but it is not really carried out much in the film. Ebert says "One thing modern about the movie is its low sexual quotient. Blaxploitation came along at a time when American movies were sexy, with lots of nudity and bedroom time. Modern action pictures seem prudish by comparison; like "Gone in 60 Seconds" and "M:I2," this one prefers action to sex". I agree that this movie focused more on the action scenes than the sex scenes and this may be a reflection on the times it was filmed. It was more acceptable in the 1970's than in 2000.

One thing which I think is important to think about when talking about the issue of racism in these two films is the context in which they were made. The original Shaft was made at a time when race was a bigger issue and it was important for this film to make a deeper statement about it. The Shaft that was made in 2000 did not need to work as hard at making a statement because the times had changed immenselely from when the first one was filmed. It seemed to me as though the purpose of the original Shaft was to comment on certain ideologies of the time whereas this Shaft was for more entertainment purposes.

I don't think you can really compare the two when deciding which film is better. It seems to me that they were made at different times and for different reasons which chages the ideas of the viewer. I think the 1971 version was good for the time it was in and the 2000 version was typical for the time period it was made in.

Shaft

Blaxploitation films entered into the film industry in the 1970's and Shaft was one of those films to change the role of black people in movies. It was one of the first films to have a black man be the main character and also the hero of the film. This film in some way breaks through the stereotypical role of black people while also perpetuating some of them

John Shaft is the perfect example of what Engaging Cinema  calls the Buck. He is a ruthless character who is portrayed as very masculine and powerful. He somewhat breaks the typical barriers because he has both black and white allies. It is as if race does not matter to Shaft but it is a bigger deal that he himself is a strong and influential black man. I saw somewhat of a duality when it comes to Shaft's character. He is the main hero in the film which changes what the typical "hero" was at the time this film was made. While this is happening changing the views, other things about the film are perpetuating some of the stereotypes that already exist. A lot of the men Shaft encounters are black men which stills puts them in the role of the "bad guys". Also, Shaft is a womanizer which puts him in a bad light and aims at the stereotype that black men do not treat their wives right. I was a little confused as to why this movie tried to break barriers when it comes to black stereotypes but at the same time was going along with other ones.

One thing which Glenn Erickson brings up in his review that is interesting is that the writer of this film was actually a white man. Ernest Tidyman wrote the screenplay for this movie and in 1971 this would not have been publicized. During the time the movie came out, people might not have gone to the movie if they found it was written by a white man. The fact that the movie focused on the life of a black man was the draw for a lot of people and so they did not really play up the fact that it was written by Ernest. Something interesting also is that Ernest Tidyman won a NAACP Image Award for this movie and was one of the few white men to do so.

Another idea from the review which is interesting is how this movie was different in the sense that it was a "tell it like it is" kind of film. It really did not hold anything back when it comes to language and the development of the characters. It also did not hide the fact that it was aimed at the African American population. That is risky for a film company because it limits its audience but despite that fact Shaft was a successful movie.

Faat Kine

Faat Kine is a film that touches on many deep themes which reflect and also challenge our perceptions of African life for people in Senegal. Themes such as mixed marriages, opportunities for women, and socio-economic status are all present in this film and create the main struggles for the characters. In most cases these struggles go along with the ideology of the past but in some cases the ideology is challenged.

Engaging Cinema defines dominant ideology as "The view of the world that tends to prevail ina given time an dplace, upholding the existing relations of power and hierarchy". This definition is important to Faat Kine because, well atleast for me personally, this movie broke many of the ideologies I had about life for people in Africa. This can be seen greatly when looking at the character Faat Kine. She is a very strong woman who supports herself and her family without the help of a man in her life. She has a job outside of raising her children which was more progressive than I would have thought for a family living in Africa. I guess I do not know how true this story is in comparison to how people actually live in Senegal but if it is a reflection on their life then I had a completely different view in mind.

On the other hand, something which went along with ideology is the idea of having children out of wedlock. I don't want to sound too critical but it seems as though that happens more often in countries that are not so well off. Along with that is the fact that the father of those children is usually not in the children's life. Now, where Faat Kine is different is that she has a success story with how she overcame the obstacles and supported her family without help from their father's.

The New York Times review written by Elvis Mitchell states, "Because he (the director) is uninterested in melodrama simply for its own sake, he uses Kine's relationship to family and work to investigate the social and political intrigues that are always a part of his purview." This is important to recognize because it is through the interactions of Kine and her family and also to her coworkers that the themes are portrayed. These interactions reveal the deeper ideologies which may still be present or in some cases it reveals the ideas that are challenged by this film.

The Searchers

The Searchers is a western film which came out in 1956 and made an impact on the entire western genre. It is a pretty classic representation of a western when someone thinks about what goes into making one. The cowboys, Native Americans, chase scenes on horseback and of course the multiple firing of gun shots. The Searchers did not stray from these western genre traits at all and that is possibly what makes this film a classic western film.

In the Engagine Cinema book, it explains a slight difference between realism and hollywood realism and I think The Searchers is an example of hollywood realism. The book defines it as something that "revolves around situations and events that are plausible within the terms and conventions of a given kind of world" (182). The events that take place in this film are plausible in relation to the storyline and the context of the film but at the same time would not really take place in real life events. This somewhat connects to what The Western movie (that we watched on Monday) talked about. It explained how the whole idea of "The West" is made up and does not actually exist. So this movie is as real as possible even though the actual place and time of the film is made up.

In Laurie Boeder's review on The Searchers, she talks a lot about the racial aspects of this movie. It is evident through Ethan and Martin's interactions that Ethan holds it against him that he is part Native American. Also, toward the end when they find Debbie with the Native Americans, Ethan wants to kill her because he feels she has somehow been tainted just by being around them. This theme is not difficult to point out and according to the review "Most film critics see this as director John Ford’s tentative exploration of racism and miscegenation in the American West set against the real-world battle for civil rights for African Americans in 1956". During the time this film came out this might have been a very relevant subject but when we watch it now it just seems like a lot of racial issues.

For having never really watched a western film before I have to say this is pretty much what I expected them to be like. It was interesting to see the differences and similarities between different movie genres between the 1940's and 1950's. It is interesting to see what different genres and techniques could be accomplished in film during a time when it was just getting started.

The review I read said John Wayne's line, "That'll be the day" inspired this song by Buddy Holly. The lyrics dont really relate other than this line but I thought it was interesting. It shows the impact of the film at the time.

The Panama Deception

The Panama Deception is a documentary film which focuses on the relationship between Panama and the United States in the year 1989. Through a collage of many different shots, the documentary tells the story of the involvement of the US and Panama governments as well as diving into what the people of Panama were feeling during the time this took place.

While watching this documentary, it was easy to pick up on the parts where the filmmaker was trying to persuade the viewers one way or another. The different topics they addressed, like how the people of Panama reacted to the situation, were specifically geared to have the viewer feel sorry for them and to get angry at the United States government.  Engaging Cinema says "Documentaries seek to engage the viewer persuasively by emotional or persuasive means"(99). The Panama Deception is a prime example of this definition of what documentaries are supposed to do. By showing vidoe clips of mass graves and bombs going off in Panama, the film definitely toys with people's emotions. The video clips of some of the politicians and what they have to say about the ordeal adds to how persuasive the movie is. The specific clips the director chooses to put in the documentary will effect what the viewer takes away from the film.

Along with persuasiveness, the book always talks about the "Three C's" of documentaries and I think this film for the most part exhibits them quite nicely. The first one is to establish credibility of the filmmaker. This documentary fullfils this requirement because of the footage they included in the film. There were many shots of live footage which makes for a credible video because the filmmakers were actually on the scene. Also, the use of news footage and political speeches gives credibility because it is raw information. If the narrator repeated what the President of the US said, it would not be as credible as actually showing the President making his speech. The second "c" is convincing. The same thing which makes this film credible also makes it convincing. It appears as though the viewers of this documentary are getting the true story through all of the raw footage. Whether it is true or not can be debated somewhat but for the most part the documenatary was very convincing when it comes to telling the story of the invasion in Panama. The last one is compelling. This may be the most important because whether or not the documentary is compelling could depend on how many people watch it and take into consideration the ideas brought up in the film. A compelling film, which I beileve this one to be, could be the breaking point of whether people believe the story to be true or not.

The article in the Washington Post explains whether or not what was said in this film is actually true or not. It explains how we may never really know which things are true and which our false but the directors of this documentary definitely make a strong defense for their thoughts and ideas on the matter. The Post states, "there's the possibility that both sides are engaging in a propaganda war. But "The Panama Deception" does a superb job of documenting its case". I thought this statement was important because when looking at the content of the documentary it may be debateable about what was going on but when you analyze the way the film was made there is no doubt that the filmmakers were very persuasive in their attempts at unveiling this situation.

Citizen Kane

     Citizen Kane is a film directed by Orson Welles and exhibits very strong technical skills. After watching the film I feel like the technical aspects are most important. Through different shots, lighting techniques and sounds, Welles creates different moods depending on the certain scenes.     

   
     Throughout the entire film, it seemed like sound was a big part to this film. Whether the mood was mysterious or light hearted, there was constantly music. In the opening scene the music is very eerie and fits perfectly to what is being shown in the scene. It shows a close-up on a fence before moving to a scene showing a dark house. If it werent for this type of extra-diegetic sound the feeling of the opening scene would not have been the same. The same goes for the other scenes when the mood is more exciting and it is the sound which gives the viewer that kind of feel. During the first part of the movie there is a narrator talking while the camera shot is of newspapers and other scenes that are taking place. This is a good example of diegetic sound. Diegetic sound is sound that actually applies to the story and often narrations are included in this category. There is also an example in this film of voice-off sound. It is only a small part but when Kane is on the street all dirty you can hear a woman laughing even though she is not in the shot. I thought that this film utilized the techniques of sound more than in some other films.

     Another technique Welles uses is that of different lighting set ups. Durring the scene where the men are talking after watching something on a projector, there is an example of backlighting. It shows a man talking with the projector light behind him which then makes the man a silhoette. You cannot see anything besides his outline which draws the attention then to what he is saying. Another example of a lighting technique used in this film is the rim or kick light. During the scene in a big room with a table right in the middle, the woman at the table is almost completely shadowed. Only a little part of her is not. This type of lighting gives a dramatic effect to the scene.

     Citizen Kane also exhibits a lot of different types of shots throughout the entire film. One shot which occured in many different scenes is the two shot. This shot is when only two people are in the scene and i'm sure this happens in a lot of different films without anyone really knowing it is a certain type of shot. During the scene where Kane is dancing with a bunch of girls, the shot switches to two men talking and Kane and the girls are completely in view in the background. This is an example of an open frame because the view is not closed off. The room behind the two men talking elongates the shot. One other type of shot which is prevalent in this film is the deep focus shot. One specific example of this is the scene where Kane is by the window while another man in the foreground is reading something. Kane in the background is somewhat out of focus until he walks into the foreground. There are many other shots but these three examples are ones that I thought made the film more interesting.

     In the New York Times article which was published in May 1941 says, " 'Citizen Kane' is far and away the most surprising and cinematically exciting motion picture to be seen here in many a moon. As a matter of fact, it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood". I thought this was interesting to see how the people felt about it during the time this movie debuted. To us it just seems like some old black and white film but to the people of that time it was one of the best films ever made. It would be interesting to see what these people think about movies we have today.

North by Northwest

North by Northwest is a film made in 1959 and is directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This film includes genres such as action, romance, and comedy all rolled into one which makes it appealing to many types of people. It was a very interesting movie to watch because even though it was made in the late 50’s, it was still comparable to movies that are made today. The storyline was similar to suspense movies that are made today which is interesting because it reveals that it has not changed very much since then. Of course the graphics and equipment has come a long way since this movie was made but for the most part it reflects a similarity to recent films.

            Three main techniques that I noticed were used a lot during the film were establishing shot, over-the-shoulder and point of view. Establishing shots are important for the viewer to understand when and where things are taking place. A director will use this type of shot to establish the scene and put things into context. The first establishing shot is at the beginning of the film when it shows many people walking out of the building and down the street. This signifies a very busy time of the day in a big city. Another establishing shot is toward the end of the film when it shows a view of Mt. Rushmore.  This particular shot reveals that the scene has drastically changed since the first shot of a busy city. It is now in a more remote place which led me to believe something bad was going to happen in this area since no one was around. This shot established this feeling which was appropriate since the conclusion of the film occurred in this place. The second shot which was evident throughout the film was over-the-shoulder shots. One scene which constantly flips from over-the-shoulder shot to another over-the-shoulder shot is the scene where Thornhill and Kendall are talking in the restaurant on the train. The person shown on screen depends on who is talking at the moment. When Thornhill is talking it shows the back of Kendall and vice versa. This technique puts all of the focus on the person who is talking at that particular moment. The third technique I noticed was point of view. According to Engaging Cinema, point of view shots “show us what a character sees from her vantage point. The camera’s perspective matches the characters’” (Nichols, 42). This type of shot puts the viewer in the position of the character which then engages the viewer deeper into the film. One notable point of view shot came toward the end of the film when Thornhill is on the balcony in the house and the camera view is down and the two men and Kendall on the lower level.

            The film review I read was called North by Northwest and the headline read “Metro's "North by Northwest" is the Alfred Hitchcock mixture as before--suspense, intrigue, comedy, humor. Seldom has the concoction been served up so delectably. It should be top b.o.” which was written by the staff at Variety. I thought it was a very thorough review and what I thought was interesting was the first paragraph when it talks about the loose ends present in the movie. When I was done watching the movie there were some things I was unsure about and this review explains how some things did not fully get resolved. Even though some things were unclear I agreed with the review in the fact that the movie was still entertaining even if some things were missing. The mixture of suspense and comedy made it an enjoyable film. 

            I enjoyed watching this film because I have never really looked at films that were made in that time period and the movies that I have seen from years past I never really liked watching. This was definitely a new experience watching this movie and it makes me more apt to watch older films and also to watch more of Hitchcock’s movies.