Olivia Wilde is starring in this film as Justin Timberlake's extremely hot mom. In a world in which people can live forever, suspended at the age of 25,Olivia Wilde is the milf. Timberlake's sexual development must be all kinds of messed up. You could only imagine the size of his Oedipal complex with her walking around, but that is not the only Freudian part of this movie. When Justin Timberlake meets Cillian Murphy, he trots out his whole family, mentioning how hard it is to differentiate between his wife, daughter and granddaughters. Now that right there is definitely "keeping it in the family." http://loviabediako.coventry.domains/study-archive/psychoanalysis-in-the-movie-in-time/
Ghosts, ghouls, aliens, cryptids and those who capture
them, a concept that media in the last forty years has taken on by phenomena. Cheesy
special effects and acting aside the ghosts and their capturers or busters as
described by the film Ghostbusters have been a source of speculation and
curiosity for years. While many do not consider the realm of science in a film
where ginormous marshmallow men terrorize New York City, the scientific realm
of psychology was not excluded. Sigmund Freud defines three aspects of the
human psyche: the id, the ego, and the superego. While the work of Sigmund
Freud was not in mind when writing each of the primary three protagonists the
influence of Freud’s findings plays on the characters are quite evident.
The
id can be easily classified as the instinctual desires of the human psyche, or
more humorously described as the little devil that tells you to care for your
desires and self over others. The ego is the anchor to the reality of the
situation, it is the repression of the id while keeping in mind the concept of
self. The superego is the human psyche’s sense of morality, holding others over
one’s self, the superego holds authorities over both the ego and id. The trio
of friends that forms titular Ghostbusters in the film all fall into varying
depths of the Freudian concept. Dr. Peter Venkman, the quick-witted,
disinterred “T.V show host” of the group falls deeply into the concept of id.
Dr. Venkman is heavily fueled by his lustful desires and greed, this can be
seen during the initial inspection of Dana Barret’s home. During the inspection
there were no signs of paranormal activity like Ms. Barret described; however,
driven by romantic interest Dr. Venkman determines he will “solve” Ms. Barret’s
problem. Dr. Venkman’s desires and end goals differ heavily in the
representation of the ego.
The
character that most portrays the ego is that of Dr. Egon Spengler, the
scientific mastermind of the group. Dr. Spengler is routed in the concept of
reality, science and the understanding of the unknown, Dr. Spengler
rationalizes everything within reason. Dr. Spengler can be seen using his
rational mind when the initial tour of the iconic firehouse takes place, he
identifies and addresses the structural and electrical issues with the
property. Dr. Spengler is a rational man of science who understands the gravity
of the presence of ghosts in the mortal realm. While Dr. Spengler seems to be
very brash and dull, he does find interests and hobbies for his pleasure as
seen with his interaction with the Ghostbusters’ secretary who attempted to
flirt with Dr. Spengler. The ego and id have one aspect of the human psyche
that can overrule both and it is the superego.
The
superego of the trio comes in the form of Dr. Ray Stanz, the energetic
excitable financial funder of the trio. Dr. Ray Stanz stands for two things and
they are the capture and proof of the spectral entities that have been plaguing
the New York area. Dr. Stanz can be seen as the more idiotic of the trio;
however, as proven during the initial “ghost busting” Dr. Stanz can hold his
own both intellectually and mentally to the others in face of danger. The
superego holds the morality of the group and is seen by Dr. Stanz who focuses
not on the science, not on the fame, but the people they are helping. Dr. Stanz
is carefree, optimistic, and a bit hungry in the presence of Gozer. While Dr.
Stanz can share traits with both the ego and the id the superego finds home in
Dr. Stanz.
One of my favorite films of all time is Zodiac which is directed by David Fincher (who also worked on projects such as Fight Club and Seven). It has a star-studded cast that consists of Jake Gyllenhall, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr.
Zodiac depicts the hysteria and press coverage over the Zodiac Killer murders that took place in the 1960s and 70s across the state of California. The infamous killer slayed at least five people, while claiming to kill many more. Thus, the movie was born and it was a work of art. Zodiac is truly haunting without being grotesque or supernatural. I watched this clip before inserting it, and it made me look over my shoulder:
Gyllenhall is excellent in his role as an investigator into the case, Robert Graysmith, (who authored a book about the entire ordeal, which I highly recommend you read), to the point where he portrays the true obsession that develops. This is where the film becomes what you don't expect it to be. Instead of being a historical recounting of the Zodiac murders, (it is still very historically accurate, to the point of not even including the first two Zodiac murders because there were not any witnesses) it presents itself as a case study into obsession. And as we know, with obsession comes a lot of eccentric, oddball behavior. The greatest example of this obsession inside Gyllenhall's acting comes in this scene.
Biiiiiig spoilers here, so watch the film beforehand, and enjoy the commentary below on camera shots. Keep in mind, this exact scene is detailed in the book and happened in real life:
However, let's get to the actual psychoanalysis of Zodiac, where I believe there are characters that are specifically portrayed (even though they are actually real) that represent the shoulder angel and the shoulder devil, or the Freudian id and euper-ego. These are the characters of Paul Avery (a fellow journalist at the paper Graysmith works at) and Melanie (Graysmith's girlfriend and later wife).
Again, even though this character is real, I believe that Fincher intentionally writes the character of Paul Avery to be the daring, gun-slinging, rogue side of Robert Graysmith. Paul Avery is a loud, brash, arrogant, but determined journalist who wants to get to the bottom of the cause just like Robert does, but obviously has different means. Whether he realizes it or not, Avery's actions encourages Graysmith to go the extra mile and feed his obsession (even though Avery somewhat gives up toward the end of the film). Avery is the devil on Graysmith's shoulder. This would represent Graysmith's id, seeking to get to the bottom of the case no matter what.
Then comes the complete other side of Graysmith's psyche, which I believe to be Melanie, his girlfriend and soon after wife. Melanie is constantly bugging and poking Graysmith to keep Zodiac away from the kids, especially when his investigation gets deep enough to pose a potential harm to their family. Not only that, but she also often reminds him that he is becoming so obsessed with this investigation that he's neglecting her and his children. Melanie is the angel on Graysmith's shoulder, and would represent Graysmith's super-ego.
In the end, Graysmith emerges in the middle of the two. While he still remains dedicated to the investigation, he receives closure in knowing who the killer is based on the evidence he's compiled.
I highly recommend giving Zodiac a watch, especially if you're into thrillers. The historical accuracy is spot on, the acting is brilliant, and the production design is some of the best you'll get in a movie of this genre. But, the beauty lies in the psychoanalysis of Robert Graysmith, and how obsession can drive any of us to become someone that is truly not ourselves.
I remember when Tomboy came out in 2011. I saw the trailer on Youtube and even at 11 years old I thought the story was intriguing at the very least.
Trailer:
I wasn't aware of the cultural importance of a film like this at the time. In 2011 most of the country was vehemently opposed to gay rights let alone transgender concerns, so when I was first introduced to this film, its implications on the trans and non-binary communities was hardly entertained in my reaction to it. It was merely the underlying plot of a young girl who seems more "boy-like" attempts to pretend to be a boy so she can fit in with her friends, and then has to deal with the consequences of the lie. It wasn't until almost a full decade later that I actually watched the film and was totally blown away by how forward thinking it was. With the value of looking to older films with a perspective of the sociopolitical climate of the present, I realized that the consequences of the Laure's identification with boyhood wasn't a statement a masquerade towards her friends, but on the society that refuses to acknowledge who she identifies who she is. I also think that the film does a masterful job in not completely clarifying the exact identification, because Laure herself may have not have figured it out yet. So with that, and in the spirit of the film, I will refer to Laure/ Mikael with they/them pronouns.
One of my favorite aspects of this film is how beautiful the relationship is between Laure/ Mikael and their little sister, Jeanne. Jeanne represents an innocence that looks past Laure/ Mikael's unorthodox identification and out of pure love and acceptance, takes their identification with grace. She tells her friends about how amazing her big brother is and tells their parents how her favorite friend is Mikael. The parents are of course unaware of Laure's identification and when they find out, they act in a way that you expect most adults from ten years ago to act. Children have a way of letting love and innocence override cultural tradition and conformity. We always have much to learn from the youngest members of society.
With regards to gender theory, I would say that this, in principal passes the Bechdel test. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that Laure/ Mikael may or may not be female in identification because the film leans in different directions as the identity is sought after. Perhaps that shows a need for a slight definition change to include both women and transgender/ non binary people of whoever they identify. A cisgendered boy and a transgender boy, while both being male, obviously have different experiences and different sets of privilege that needs to be taken into account. The star of the film is white but is also quite young, which was another bold move to be made on account of filmmaker Celine Sciamma. More conservative members of society express a feeling of discomfort when children are exposed to sexuality outside of the binary, but seem to be perfectly content with films about childhood sexuality when it centers around an orthodox cisgendered and heterosexual universe. The boldness of Sciamma's choices as writer and director for this film in particular cannot be understated, especially for a film that came out in 2011. This is why this film is so important. It is not just a movie about homosexuality, but about transgender identity as well. It is not just about feminism centering around cisgendered girls, but transgender boys. It is not a film about adults and their sexual exploration, it is about children and their coming of age. For that reason, it is a landmark in film history and must not be overlooked. Thankfully Sciamma's latest directorial effort, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, is bringing more attention onto her filmography so this film is gaining a new found respect and adoration which is great to see.
(Side notes)
I could end the blog here but this topic of non binary representation in film and in history has been on my mind recently. Another great pioneer of this topic that I could have easily written the whole post on, was a 1953 Ed Wood flop called Glen or Glenda.
I saw this film for the first time many years ago when I started getting into movies more seriously. It was the subject of ridicule when it came out, but it really is a weird gem from history.
It was directed by the original Tommy Wiseau, Ed Wood, who has long been considered the "worst director" of all time. While I think that designation is really unfortunate and untrue, Wood definitely had some missteps in his career. He rushed his films and never attempted to tweak anything so his films always have a sloppy and half-assed quality to them. He is also known for the beautiful 50s romp Plan 9 From Outer Space and the 1965 pornographic horror film Orgy of the Dead.
Another crazy aspect of Glen or Glenda is that it was one of Bela Lugosi's last speaking roles and the film itself was about Christine Jorgensen, the first transgender woman to receive sex reassignment surgery. It is an odd art film with a nonsensical plot, but Wood should be lauded as making a brave move at the time. I feel he is unjustly forgotten in this conversation, even if the film itself is poorly made.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
The Representation Test
I selected the movie, “The Color Purple” to do a representation test over.
Women:
The movie will get 2 points for the protagonist being a woman. (2 pts)
The protagonist will get 1 point for the protagonist being a woman of color. (1 pt)
The film will not get any points for one or more women of color having a speaking role who is not reduced to racial stereotypes. (no points)
The film doesn’t represent women as “objects for the male gaze” but it also doesn’t represent the women in a respectful way so the film would not get a point for this. (no points)
The film does include women in speaking roles with diverse body types. (1 pt)
The protagonist is a woman over the age of 45. (1 pt)
Yes the film passed the Bechdel test. (1 pt)
Men:
The film doesn’t necessarily glorify violent men, but violent men are present throughout the movie. (no pts)
The film does avoid perpetuating an extreme and unhealthy body ideal for men. (1 pt)
The film includes one or more men of color in speaking roles but racial stereotypes are present. (no pts)
Yes the film includes men in non-stereotypical roles. (1 pt)
Race, Ethnicity & Culture:
The film does not avoid celebrating offensive racial, ethnic, and cultural stereotypes. (no pts)
LGBT People:
The protagonist is not lesbian, gay, or a transgender. (no pts)
The film does not include one or more LGBT characters (no pts)
People with Disabilities:
The protagonist is not a person with disabilities. (no pts)
The film does not include one or more characters with disabilities who’s storylines are not limited to their disability. (no pts)
Bonus Points:
The film is not written or directected by a woman. (no pts)
The film is not written or directed by a person of color, but there was a person of color who helped contribute, Quincy Jones. (½ pt)
The film was not written or directed by a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person. (no pts)
The film is not written or directed by a person with disabilities. (no pts)
Disney has an accurate reputation for "white-washing" their films and stories for decades, and in recent years has finally begun to operate with slim shots of inclusivity. I appreciate their effort, however minimal, and I desperately hope that the coming years produce more inclusive films that represent not only different races, but also genders, sexual identities, disabilities, and more. Now that we have entered 2020, we truly have no valid excuses for our inability to include and represent the full plane of different parts of humanity. This is why the 2009 animated movie The Princess and the Frog was such an immense hit amongst audiences all over.
The film follows the story of a waitress named Tiana who adventures around the world with her frog friend Prince Naveen. Tiana is not your typical princess. She is hardworking and present to her own reality as well as others'. She concerns herself with matters of her community, not just matters of herself or, more specifically, her love life. In the song, "Almost There," she presents herself as a hardworking, disciplined lover of life, and she proves herself to be just that throughout the entirety of the film. While the movie is revolutionary for exploring the life of a frog Princess, it also passes the representation test with a low A--scoring eleven points in total. Surprisingly enough, many Disney, specifically princess, movies do not pass the representation test so well. They often even have a difficult time passing the Bechdel test (which is absurd)! Luckily, this movie does pass the test as it presents many conversations between a young Tiana and her mother as they dream of a different and better life together. Then again as young Tiana encounters her friend Charlotte La Bouff and they speak of their longings for adolescence.
The representation test is much more than a look at feminist theory in film. It also speaks of the representation of color, masculine stereotypes, disabilities, and sexual identities. An important part of the representation test is its call for equal representation for men who are not toxically so. A wonderful exemplar of this model is Tiana's father, James. James is celebrated for being kind and gentle, the kind of dad who reads his daughter bedtime stories and cries when he hears her talk about the future... who encourages his daughter to never stop chasing after her dreams even though he knows that making them a reality will be one of the hardest things she will ever have to face. He is the kind of husband who cooks dinner for the family and supports and advocates for his wife no matter what. His character throws away the harsh and normalized expectations of a masculine authority figure.
The creators also take liberty with the young girls. While racial stereotypes are portrayed in the film, they are not praised for being stereotypes. The two are dear friends despite their differences in race, class... personality. La Bouff is painted to be the worst kind of young girl, and Tiana is portrayed as her helper. It is celebrated that these two love each other despite their differences. Tiana understands the plight of her dear friend, and Charlotte, while hardly successful, tries to understand her friend as well.
The film portrays the working woman positively without trashing the name of romance and femininity. It praises humanity. It praises existence above one specific trait of the main character. The film is immensely important to the Disney repertoire because of its inclinations toward positive representation. I would absolutely recommend it, as well as looking at other films through the lens of this representation test. When we all decide upon the kind of story that we want to be told, the stories we tell will surely become much more inclusive. And that's all we can really hope for--equal representation across the board.
Representation
in modern media is a hot topic for many insightful activists. With the ever-evolving
understanding of humanity as an everchanging concept rather than set in stone norms,
media must also evolve with humanity and representation alongside it. The film Scott
Pilgrim vs. The World, based upon the graphic novel by Bryan Lee O’Malley,
is a relic to modernized representational media. While Scott Pilgrim vs. The
World represents many different forms of people, such as those in the
LGBTQIA+ community, it does hold onto many harmful or stereotypical concepts
for the represented groups. On top of the outdated LGBTQIA+ stereotypes, the
film also tends to dip into many offensive stereotypes for the characters of
varying nationalities and cultures. Overall the film gets a base grade of C on
the “Representation Test” created by The Representation Project. The “Representation
Test” is used to further understand and place a grading upon many Hollywood
films to give a better understanding of either poor or outdated representation
of varying genders, lifestyles, races, ethnicities, or cultures.
Taking
straight from the “Representation Test” the first section deal with women in
the film and their importance to the plot of the film. Scott Pilgrim vs. The
World scores very poorly with only three points of the eight can be given
to the film. While one of the main protagonists is a woman, being Ramona Flower,
she is neither a woman of color nor is she over the age of 45; however, the
inclusion of Ramona Flower as a protagonist does score the film two of the
three points it earned in this section. The other point was given to the factor
that the film represents women as more than “objects for the male gaze” as by
the end of the film where the concept of self-worth is pressed onto the female
characters. The second section of the “Representation Test” focuses on men and pushing
back against the harmful stereotypes that face men in the film industry. The
only point Scott Pilgrim vs. The World scores in this section deal with
the avoidance of glorifying violent men. With many characters through the film
are found either criticizing or blatantly insulting men who are violent or fall
into the negative stereotype of being a sexual deviant or taking advantage of a
woman’s trust.
The final antagonist of the film dubbed “Nega Scott” was
defeated with not violence but friendship and understanding. The minute section
dealing with race, ethnicity & culture scores no points due to the two non-Caucasian
characters falling into racial stereotypes, as seen by the Indian music playing
during Matthew Patel’s fight and Knives Chau falling into the generic Asian girl
with dyed hair wielding knives into a fight. The second to last section deals
with LGBT people, in which the film scores all three possible points, but just
by a technicality and wording of the requirements. With Ramona Flower being
dubbed as bisexual in both the film and graphic novels, and her and her “evil-ex”
Roxy Richter both are not reduced to stereotypes of LGBT people; however, the
same can not be said for Wallace Scott’s “gay roommate” who ticks off all base stereotypes
of a gay man, being extremely flamboyant, excessively lustful, and promiscuous.
The final section of the “Representation Test” deals with people who have disabilities,
and in the film, there are none.
The final grade of
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World comes to six overall points, scoring them a high
C on the grading scale, but a C none the less. The overall score is also with
the technicality and poor wording in terms of certain sections of the test. The
test can also be flawed in the fact that many sections that could score
negative points do not in which case instances like Matthew Patel and Knives
Chau would be seen as overly harmful to certain viewers but do not impact the
score negatively. While Scott Pilgrim vs. The World does not pass with
flying colors for a comedy film released in 2010 it is surprising, to say the
least for how well it did score.
