A week of pretending

This past summer, my boyfriend's family adopted me into their huge family vacation in Santa Cruz. The grandmother had rented a huge victorian near the water for a week. It was really great to feel like part of a large family. I am part of a large family on my dad's side, but mum's is pretty small. We don't spend time with dad's family too often, so what happens is, since my parents are divorced, and my pop travels a lot, it ends up with just me and mum. Pretty super small for holidays and year round. So, while in santa cruz, I felt overjoyed to spend time with youngsters that spanned from 2 to 6 or more years younger then me. The feeling in the house, even when it was brimming with people was that of love all around. I didn't expect to be so liked by the younger girls, but I was welcomed like family.

Just a scenario I loved and adored being adopted into a large family for a week. I hope things like that may happen in the future too, but we'll have to see.

It just made me appreciate that which many complain about profusely: family gatherings. The feeling of love all around overwhelmed me and filled my heart with joy, which is what those type of occasions are known for.

Despicable Me

Maria:
-humor
-artistry
-mix of villainy and childcare issues
-humanity and being a good person
-leaves you warm and fuzzy
-<3 between people
A+

Und

Wilhelm:
-great, awesome
-two thumbs way, way up
-animation-really good
-the character design fit the emotion well
-coulda been longer for older audience
-good, take your kids
-good for adults too
-buy it, own, love it
-not testing sands of time
-but still great for any collection

The Last Exorcism

Maria:

-projection of norm to fiction in an s curve
- graphics, s-fx-so-so but good for the script
-ending leaves something to be desired (drops off)
-<3 her red boots
-good sprinkles of medieval religious references
c+

Und
Wilhelm:
-good beginning, bad ending
-acting-superb
-motivation of character A+
-script hindered by documentary premise due to ending left unfulfilled
-although, using the documentary backdrop was good due to it not being done before
-the rapid change from documentary to fantasy was too much
-the subtle changes stemming from the beginning were beautifully done
-but the end needed more to finish it
B, B+

Nanny McPhee Returns

Ladies first, Maria's review

-great characters
-love the setting and war backdrop
-brought fourth good issues in children and parenting
-color usage beautiful
-sense of magic entact
A, B+

Und

Wilhelm's Review
-great acting
-script, story, plotline all good
-still fine as a stand alone film
-nice mary poppins hints
-cinematography-good
-costuming nice too
-playful, effective and proper for the setting
-engaging for all ages
A-

Shoot Em Up final paper for neo-noir argument: 6/3/09

Davis and Viewer Intrique

Bugs Bunny grabs attention in the film Shoot Em Up as a gag to keep you entranced in the story. Clive Owen as Mr. Smith eats carrots, has a good wit about him, and keeps the hunters running around in circles trying to capture the drifter-turned hero. Along the plot line, a baby falls into his lap of protection, and his friend who happens to be a hooker; Donna Quintano is a convenient wet nurse. Throughout this film, there is a theme of orange carrots indicating Mr.Smith as a Bugs Bunny-type character. His wit, knowledge of gun play and fighting, coupled with his oral obsession with carrots entices the audience with the hints of a Bugs Bunny character. By using this technique on the lead character, Mr. Smith keeps the viewers attention, but perhaps it is only with this gag that the film possesses any merit. By borrowing from Bugs Bunny and film noir, Michael Davis creates a film that is primarily comprised of MacGuffins distracting the viewer in order to keep interest. Reviews of Shoot Em Up run on the skeptical side due to all of the action preventing the viewer to see much else then action packed gun play. The New York Times said that this film is "garbage", "witless" and "tasteless" (Scott) but that comes only from looking at the surface. After delving deeper into the script and cinematography we find how Shoot Em Up is both a neo-noir film utilizing the iconic Bugs Bunny and a social commentary.

Bugs bunny tricks his victims by "playing along with the tormentor"(Savoy, 193) and Mr. Smith does this as well. Showing Mr. Smith through the bugs bunny lens gives the audience a way of seeing. This newfound vail is so hard to see due to how ingrained pop culture is in our society. Having such a figure as Bugs Bunny in mind, Davis can manipulate audiences attention well at this hinted. With a strong, culturally ingrained character such as Bugs Bunny who has been around since 1938 (Savoy, 189), the plot can float along on a very weak string without much weight or substance behind the constant action. Some tricks signifying the Bugs Bunny character in Mr. Smith are his obsession with carrots, his ability to keep his hunter on his toes and running in circles, and his keen knowledge of deception.

When Mr. Smith hides a recording of a baby crying in a rag doll to simulate the baby he is protecting from the head honcho leading the search; Paul Giamatti, we see how deceptive and tricky Mr. Smith can be. The viewer doesn't get to be in on the trick until Giamatti though, showing that not even the viewer is as smart as Mr. Smith, not unlike how Bugs Bunny is portrayed. Another such incident is that Another such incident is when Mr. Smith's hide out home is found, which is located in an abandoned building, but Giamatti's men go up these stairs that circle around a square foyer and when all of them get upstairs, Mr. Smith repels down through the whole past all the men. This trick is also significant of Mr. Smiths outwitting ability and similarity to Bugs Bunny. Hiding in a fortified whole is something Bugs Bunny would do in order to deceive an opponent, and Mr. Smith does that when hiding Donna and the Baby in a tank on display in a museum so he can keep Giamatti of the Baby's trail. All these tricks and conniving schemes ring true of Bugs and keeps the audience entranced by all the action schemes of this sort possess.

Without the wit and scheming ability of Bugs Bunny, Mr. Smith would be left with brut force and that kind of subtraction from this film would leave it bare and the viewers might leave without a second thought due to the boredom that would ensue if the movie was fight scene after fight scene. The film tries to depict Mr. Smith as having inherent knowledge of gun play as well as the wit to keep Giamatti's minions running in circles. But these qualities seem to come from adopting the Bugs Bunny guise for Mr. Smith.

Carrots play a big role in this film and are a huge indicator that Mr. Smith is Bugs incarnate. He grows carrots in a greenhouse and always has them on his person. The film opens with Mr. Smith taking a huge bite out of a carrot aggressively and then the plot progresses with the arrival of a woman in labor with a man after her with a gun. Mr. Smith runs after him and in the process of rescuing the baby, he kills a man by inserting a carrot in a man's mouth, slamming it in through the back of his neck therefore killing him. After he does this, Mr. Smith says to him "eat your vegetables" and continues on his heroic way.

Mr Smith gradually reveals himself as a master trickster. Savoy writes, " Bugs Bunny's role is not simply to elude the machinations of Daffy and Elmer in a serial fashion, but rather to redirect them to the mutual humiliation of his opponents" (189, Savoy). Paul Giamatti intends on humiliating Mr. Smith throughout the whole film, but time after time Mr. Smith turns it back over at Giamatti and embarrasses him by eluding his clutches.

At the tail end of the film Mr. Smith gets out of a jam in a truck stop where he finally meets back up with Donna and the baby by using a carrot to pull the trigger of a gun against some cash register thieves. His fingers are all broken, so the comedy of bandages and fire power show up here. Carrots a weapon of knowledge and wit against those dumb soldier types of our society. What does this teach to viewers? Knowledge is power, and if you have a carrot in hand, you can probably see more clearly the situation surrounding you, due to its eye-improving qualities.

Another interesting aspect about bugs bunny that Savoy points out is the gender bending that crops up in most of his cartoons. Within Shoot Em Up the gender roles are pretty stead fast and black and white. Although, while in the midst of a shoot out, Mr. Smith turns and swishes the tails of his coat like a skirt and gives the flourish of feminine mystique.

Catch phrases surround Bugs Bunny and this follows through with Mr. Smith as well. Instead of "What's up, Doc?" (Savoy, 194) Mr. Smith says "You know what I hate?" and then proceeds to describe and then destroy whatever it is he hates. One example of this is pony tails on old men, he says "it doesn't make you look hip, young, or cool" and proceeds to shoot it off one of Giamatti's men. The use of the catch phrase not only is indicative of Bugs Bunny but is also yet another distraction from the plot and refocuses the viewer on Mr. Smith and his character as a drifter bad ass.

The theme surrounding fighting the heroe's battle comes from film noir stereotypes. Mr. Smith inexplicably cares about this baby and fights for its life, all in the name of justice. Spicer writes about how lead male protagonists have a category made up of drifters or accidental victims and Mr. Smith becomes the victim toward the end of the film. He keeps Giamatti's men from the baby but he ends up getting caught and having all his fingers broken. Spicer also writes that lead noir characters are sometimes damaged men, psychopaths and serial killers. And this film has all of that rolled up in one. Mr. Smith comes from a place of mystery to this film's viewers and as the film progresses we find out a tiny bit of his damaged past which include training with lots of guns and gunplay. By utilizing all of these categories of noir, Michael Davis brings in the noir portion of this film in order to keep us occupied and dazzled.

Noir stereotypes include the visual style and cinematography used in those shadowy, dark, night for night shot films. In Shoot Em Up, we find that color has enhanced the shadows, created a darker theme throughout the film and helped excentuate the importance of color when color enters the frame. When speaking of film stock used in the sixties and seventies, Erikson writes, " modern high-speed color negative films provide filmmakers exceptional low-end latitude, and render true blacks. This means that the shadowy, high contrast images familiar to film noir can now be realized with color film" (314, Erikson). What Erikson says of the sixties and seventies film stock is also true of our even further modernized technologies with digital graphics and computer work. Shoot Em Up utilizes the new technologies like a pro, with the added contrast between dark and light, Shoot Em Up also grunges certain colors and brightens others. In the first scene when the woman comes running past Mr. Smith Pregant, her smock and purse are faded and not at all sharp. But each and every one of Mr. Smith carrots are brightly, and spunkily orange. The significance of this is that the carrots clear Mr. Smith's mind in order to sort out what is morally best to do. Since the pregnant woman was desperate not to die, her colors weren't bright and brilliantly sharp. Yet when the dead woman is placed in the car with Paul Giamatti later in the film after the baby is delivered to Mr. Smith, her skin, lips and smock become more sharp in the shot. Here we see that in death, she has clarity, yet her face is very pale and in a state of shock. Her lips are still brightly red with the pain of giving birth, signifying she had more to say; especially about the whole scheme to utilize her baby's marrow to keep a Senator alive.

Yet another noir stereotype exibited in this film is the femme fatale. She has morphed into something different in this film, but none the less, Donna plays the femme fatale figure. What creates the male gaze these days is that "the postmodern fatal woman is a creature of excess and spectacle, like the films she decorates" (167, Stables). Donna is a lactating prostitute in flashy, fancy clothing creating a spectacle of herself wherever she goes, her fatality comes in the form of allure. What is misplaced is the fact that is Mr. Smith is her gun, all Donna must do is point and Clive Owen's trigger is pulled. Interestingly enough, the scene where Mr. Smith goes gun crazy on an on slaught of men while having sex with Donna creates this duo's dynamic nicely and clearly for the viewers. The ballet that they perform during this scene indicates how well coupled they are. The best way to characterize this scene from the perspective of Donna is that
"The postmodern fatale utilises sex to deliver death" (172, Stables) and that is exactly what she does.

The action that monopolizes this film has roots in the video game community and the first person shooter. Our society encourages the idea that "watching violence is a popular form of entertainment. A crowd of onlookers enjoys a street fight just as much as the Romans enjoyed Gladiators" (Felson, 103). Felson goes on to theorize and site studies of how young males exhibit more violence if they've watched violent television or played video games. This film contains shots that could be described as first person shooter shots excentuating the perspective of Mr. Smith. The fighting that predominates this film could be described as formulating the behavior of those who have viewed it. But with all the publicized violence in the media, news and metropolises there is no need to censor because the public will be exposed to it anyway. This portion of the film is already integrated into the framework of our societies mindset. After acknowledging this we can absorb its violence and appreciate the beauty that is depicted in the cinematography of flying bullets, skidding dolly shots of Mr. Smith sliding under cars on oil, and celebrate the movement of the camera.

A raving review of this film says, "action fans will find plenty to amuse them with this film that makes Hard-Boiled look restrained" (Scheck). This action packed theme of Shoot Em Up lends itself to furthering that of hard-boiled fiction. The gangster film of the noir era has been succumbed by that of the gun-fire dominated chase genre. What really excentuates this film with the draw of violence is the same very thing that keeps the surface thin so as to let the underlying social commentary shine through. By keeping us distracted by action and violence we have a hard time seeing the politics behind the movie maker. After close analysis we come to realize how this film is relevant to the time it was made, and how much this film brings out its own context. In post 9/11 America there is a dark mood about the American people and we have a gloom about us that keeps convoluted governments in power. The plot of this film surrounds the fight for a baby's bone marrow in order to keep Senator Rutledge from dying. Giamatti and his men want to kill the baby in order to prevent the continuation of Senator Rutledge's term. This kind of secrecy and corruption in the institution that rules America is very significant and similar to the whole of G.W. Bush's eight years in office and his involvement in the Iraq war. Giamatti as a tool of this governing body is after Mr. Smith and the baby for one reason only, and that is for monetary compensation. The film indicates that Giamatti has a winey wife and how he has expensive cars, cool gadgets etc showing how in a world of fantasy, the reality behind the writer and his time shines through.

In keeping with the gloomy theme of the film, and its dark landscape, Davis incorporates noir themes. Silver writes about how ‘resurfacing themes and styles of noir” (331, Silver) keep coming up in contemporary films with the intention of captivating the audience with old tricks. Crime has become so fantasized that films peak on that sort of theme and continuously bombard the viewers with violence and more violence. The “pervasiveness of crime and the public’s fascination with sensual crime” (316, Erikson) has escalated our society’s absorption of crime. The teen population has gotten more and more entranced by sex and violence and the age of innocence is getting younger and younger. The “rogue cop” (150, Spicer) in a world of crime has become a staple in popular media culture. What makes our society so interested in this particular genre is clear; we identify with the rogue cop. In contemporary American society, the individual wants a hero to drive us out of a bad economy and away from wars only perpetrated by the governing body rather then the popular vote. Shoot Em Up significantly helps the viewer identify with an individual lost in a corrupted world, fighting for integrity and ritcheousness.

Instead of focusing in on pop culture references and government politics, Shoot Em Up works to hint at a greater picture. The mood in which the people of America are in during the period this film was being made was pretty dreary. Upon reflection of noir's first round, Silver writes "at the height of the movement individual noir films transcended personal and generic out look to reflect cultual preoccupations"(331, Silver). Here Silver writes about how the noir of the 1940s had a thread of the war torn people and their dispare, distrust, and depression. Shoot Em Up emulates that same thread but of the American people's distrust of their government, the poor economy falling to pieces and the concerns about global warming.

Within Shoot Em Up we see the references to the corrupt government easily with the main plot but the poor economy and the concerns for the global warming are harder to find. The poor economy comes out in the last scene where the men who rob the gas station are in such dire states of cleanliness we see how desperate and bedragled the men have let themselves get. Some other instances of the poor economy being hinted at are in the means of making money. Donna prostitutes herself as a lactating mother, and the scientists who scientifically engineer the babies for the Senator's bone marrow transplant seem to not care about the moral decisions they are making to create such a product.

The global warming concerns are easily found in the green bus routed to "Wherever" using biodiesel fuel and filled with hippies. This small hint might indicate how prioritized Davis sees this concern in the population of America. If this film were divided up into how much attention was put into the extra hints towards the populations concerns, Davis would be representing the economy and the corrupt government as a major concern but the deteriorating environment may only be a side note. But we must notice it is in there with all the rest.

After considering the guise of Bugs Bunny, the stereotypes of noir, and the underlying social commentary exhibited by this film, we can move on to what this film might render and inspire. In being a neo-noir, Shoot Em Up has the potential to inspire a new run of films based off of its style. Although, this film belongs to its own group already, the group may inspire a new dark comedy gangster chase drama genre...What it comes down to is that this film is iconic in its time, regardless of poor reviews. The lone drifter with an obsession for carrots and a great plethora of gun knowledge has always been one of those characters we know and love, but maybe we will see something innovative and new come from out of it.



Works Cited

Erikson, Todd. "Kill Me Again: Movement Becomes Genre." Film Noir Reader. Pomptom Plains, New Jersey: Limelight Editions, 2006. 307-331.

Felson, Richard. "Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior." Annual Review of Sociology 22 (1996): 103-128.

Scheck, Frank "Shoot 'Em Up Bottom Line: The title of this over-the-top action movie says it all.." The Hollywood Reporter 22 Aug. 2007. 29 May. 2009 .

Scott, A.O. "Never Mind Those Bullets, a Newborn Needs Rescuing." New York Times 7 Sep. 2007. 29 May. 2009 .

Shoot Em Up. Dir. Michael Davis. Perf. Clive Owen. DVD. New Line Cinema, 2007.

Silver, Alain. "Son of Noir: Neo-Film Noir and the Neo-B Picture." Film Noir Reader. Pompton Plains, New Jersey: Limelight Editions, 2006. 331-339.

Spicer,. "Neo-Noir 2: Postmodern Film Noir." Postmodern Film Noir. 149-174.

Stables, Kate. "The Postmodern Always Rings Twice: Constructing the Femme Fatale in 90s Cinema." Women in Film Noir. London: British Film Institute, 2003. 164-183.

Murder, My Sweet: Film Noir Midterm Paper 5/4/09

Murder, My Sweet and It's Elements of Film Noir

Phillip Marlowe describes why he was at the office so late one night: "I'm a homing pidgeon, I always come back to the stinking coop no mater how late it is" (Murder, My Sweet 2:50min into the film). What makes up this particular noir film is mostly due to Chandler's character Phillip Marlowe and his methods of detective work, but noir basics complement and fill in the rest. In the first sequence of the film, the mise-en-scene, cinematography, and Chandler's writing create the building blocks that support the film that follows, while the femme fatale is the underlying, driving force of the film.
The mise-en-scene of the first scene includes the lighting and how all the shots are set up. For one, the desk Marlowe is interrigated at is the main point of interest as the credits progress over the screen. Focusing on the desk sets up the idea to the audience that an interview will take place, it also gives off a noir feel due to the one light ont he desk and no other light existing anywhere else in the overhead shot. Within the first sequence the idea of the desk is central. After Marlowe begins his recount of events of late, we dive back in time to when Marlowe first meets Moose Malloy and during this scene the desk place a role as well. The role the desk plays is that of space and gives power, but it is unclear to whom. Malloy eyes Marlow's gun that rests on the desk and then proceeds to move it, sit upon the desk and orchestrate the usage of Marlowe's detective skills through bribary with some cash. Before Moose sits on Marlowe's desk, Marlowe has the power in the scene, but then Moose gets him to take the case, and takes over the control. The sparse decor in both the police office and Marlowe's office are indicitive of noir, but also accentuate what the characters say instead of the background. But the basic noir lighting is what keeps this opening sequence indicitive of film noir. Schrader writes, " ...in the late forties, hollywood decided to paint it black, there were no greater masters of chiaroscuro than the germans. the influence of expressionist lighting has always been just beneath the surface of hollywood films and it is not surprising, in film noir, to find ...a larger number of German and east Europeans working in film noir"(55, Schrader). The transition from police interrigation office to Marlowe's office brings in the next basic noir component: cinematography.
A montage is used in order to bring us back in time to when Marlowe meets Moose Malloy. And the shots used to compile this montage contain neon signs and canted angled shots or "dutch tilts' emphasizing the city and its large size. The neon signs set up our orientation and give us California as a location for the narrative to take place, most possibly LA. From there the camera tracks in on Marlowe in his office with one of the neon signs flashing on and off right outside his window casting shadow, then a bright key light, and then none again. Using this key light, that is constructed in the narrative as coming from a neon sign outside Marlowe's window, Dmytryk stealthily introduces Moose Malloy by having him reflected on the inside window pain of Marlowe's office. The trick is, Malloy is only reflected when the neon sign flashing its lights is not on, but then he disappears when the light flashes. This ominous introduction of Malloy gives off the idea that something sketchy is about to occur in the narrative structure; something that involves a guy like Malloy (a gangster character). Speaking of violence, Borde and Chaumeton write, "It is the presence of crime which gives film noir its most constant characteristic...blackmail, accusation, theft, or drug trafficking set the stage for a narrative where life and death are at stake" (19).
Another aspect of creating this ominous feeling is that of voice-over narrative, of which Marlowe is famous for. His voice-over begins as an interview in this sequence, but comes up again after having the scene with Malloy and they arrive outside Florian's where Malloy's gal used to work. The narrating structure gives it more of a story feel, but the quality of the voice has a large impact on what emotion or mood is evoked in the audience. Marlowe's particular style is that of a neurosing detective that is good at his job, but knows all the horrors that life can throw at a man. This quality helps to continue the noir flavor of the film, especially with just a prime character to lead the story along. Another way of looking at it is that the narrative imposes the feel of noir on the audience, not unlike another film with Marlowe in it called the Big Sleep, (46', Howard Hawks) where Marlowe utilizes the voice-over narrative also. Borde and Chaumeton write, "The big Sleep [among others] imposed the concept of film noir on moviegoers. A new "series" had emerged..."(17, Borde and Chaumeton).
Which brings us to the lady of the film, who is barely mentioned in this opening sequence, but all the more important for she drives this film as the femme fatale. Borde and Chaumeton write, " there is the ambiguity surrounding the woman: the femme fatale who is fatal to herself. Frustrated and deviant, half predator, half prey, detached yet ensnared, she falls victim to her own traps"(22, Borde and Chaumeton). What Borde and Chaumeton mean is that the femme fetale lies in limbo between two distinctions and her position is difficult. In Murder, My sweet Helen Grayle, formerly Velma, is a money grubbing, backstabbing, gold digger that lets the men take the rap after she commits crimes and gains all the wealth. Mrs. Grayle fits the part of the femme fatale but in true noir fashion we don't know it till close to the end. In the beginning sequence, we hear Marlowe talking about this girl and Malloy searching for his old gal from before he was in prison, and that is our introduction; our hint at the real underlying drive to this film.
The writing of film noir is absolute key to creating a well made noir film. In introducing the femme fatale in such a subtle way at the beginning of the film, we see how social hierarchies can incubate women like Mrs. Grayle, at least those societies within film noir. Harvey writes, "film noir offers us again and again examples of abnormal or monstrous behavior, which defy the patterns established for human social interaction and which hint aat a series of radical and irresolvable contradictions buried deep within the total system of economic and social interactions that constitute the known world." (Harvey, 35). What follows the slight mention of Velma (aka Mrs. Grayle) in the sequence is that of her monstrous behavior mentioned by Harvey as well as her being a "sexually expressive woman, which is its dominant image of women [in noir], extremely powerful" (48, Place). Mrs. Grayle also utilizes society's idea that "women are weak and incapable that they need men's protection' to survive" (49, Place). Malloy hints at this in the sequence that opens the film through his mannerisms and attitude toward his old gal Velma.
All in all, this sequence sets up Malloy's ploy to find his girl, and Marlowe's long, complicated involvement in Mrs. Grayle/Velma's schemes that unfold in the rest of the film. This beginning portion of the film sets all this up through its use of mise-en-scene, cinematography, and writing which all lead to creating a convincing film noir worthy of studying more thoroughly. The femme fatale is so cunnningly pointed out as the underlying, driving force of the film during this sequence due to how subtle the mentions of her are. This sequence is beautifully put together in a way that gives the viewer all the bare bones necessary to both understand the basic plot, and have a hint at what the punch line is. Course having the original material for this film come from a Chandler novel helped a great deal.

Generation Influence and Facebook 3/12/09

What is the big deal with Facebook? Well, quite frankly, it’s fun. That’s one of the top reasons why people join the social networking site. Keeping in touch has never been easier. Facebook began as a site for college students in order to hang out and make connectivity that much easier. Mark Zuckerberg’s original plan was to have an interactive, more thorough Facebook, like the booklets colleges have of the students with headshot photos and tid-bits about them so as to remember their classmates. In this new format however, one can give all sorts of information about themselves, post pictures, and do all sorts of things. This online community, once the hip, college, online hang out, is now branching out to a new demographic: the baby boomers and an older crowd. This new, older crowd however, not only uses it to keep tabs on their kids, but also for their own networking purposes; both personal and business. The older generation is infultrating facebook, demonstrating how eventually new media gets old and Facebook is a prime example of that since its users denote the site’s own age.

Facebook started out as this interactive Facebook for Harvard university students in 2004, but by 2005 they had expanded to other colleges, and high school students with a valid email address. That jump alone is impressive. Since then however, in 2006 they got rid of all the “bouncers and began letting anyone into the club”(Rosenhall). From 2006 to 2007 Facebook went from 12 million users to 50 million. Today its almost worldwide and the number of Facebook users is up to 175 million. Also, from June 2008 to January of this year the number of age 35-54 year olds quadrupled, which brings us to the interesting fact that users age 35 and younger make up the bulk of Facebook, but because of the new generation infiltration 41 percent of the younger demographic has dropped, even though Facebook’s stigma is still that it's for college students documenting keggers etc. But in fact, the majority of the Facebook community are not college students, but those who have graduated, and moved on past college life. Publically, Facebook seems more of a college/teen-to-twenties atmosphere, but the numbers show different.

Facebook is aging, and so are we, but Facebook seems to be aging much quicker due to the swell in elder users signing up. If Facebook becomes this elder generation's thing, instead of ours, does that mean the college students will go elsewhere, or age with this medium. The attatchment to this technology seems to have grasped our lives with a very strong grip. The routine of checking your facebook daily, and in some cases more then thrice daily has become part of our daily routine so much so that without Facebook, you no longer are connected to the social circles and results in not knowing about events.

My friend Sean McCurdy doesn't have a Facebook. He's no relying on me to tell him about events including plays, shows, parties, and other fun activities that Facebook has integrated into this college Facebook culture. One of Sean's main praises about not having a Facebook is his seperation from technology. He doesn't like the idea of staring at a screen for too long, and Facebook would indulge that idea more then he want's to in his life(McCurdy). He's scared of getting sucked into a screen all day and not enjoying the life outside. It's interesting to think that becoming a cyborg has already happened in this sense of relying on technology so thoroughly. The same idea Sean has about addiction to a computer screen runs through the head of my other college friend Isaac Silverman. Isaac doesn't have a Facebook either and maintains the idea that life is better lived without knowing what comes next(Silverman).

The additional international aspect of Facebook has made it that much easier to penpal with friends on the other side of the globe. Personally, my friend from Stanford is in Italy doing a year abroad and we’ve kept in touch with lengthy letters about our weekends, the current boy drama in our lives, school, and all sorts of activities(Smith). This added convenience has made it so those long distances from loved ones can still feel close in a way, without snail mail making it take forever.

Over Facebook’s evolution and growth, its applications have also grown. Their original annoyance or perfect excuse for procrastination has begun to turn towards promotion and marketing. Even the standard photo application has become a useful tool to create albums with headshots for performers of all sorts. Not only is it fun to share photos with friends, it’s fun to see your kid’s photos, connect with your children in college, and promote yourself through this "little" network called Facebook. The multitude of information, use and excitement thrown around regarding this newly added demographic has appalled and, in contrast, also created enthusiasm among the stigmatized college students.

Students who have parents trying to friend them on Facebook are either scared of their parents seeing underage drinking and other embarrassing photos, or think its great that its easier to communicate in a world full of technology. The Modesto Bee has an account of a student getting their parents on Facebook and instead of leaving messages on their boy’s phone and never hearing from him, they talk and message everyday now using Facebook (Rosenhall). What this shift in usage means is that Facebook may become less popular among college students due to how many "old fogies' are infiltrating the system. The fear of having a parent see your embarrasing pictures of when you were drunk is beginning to excelerate among the younger college students leading to less use of Facebook by these 18-20 year olds.

Not only can a parent on Facebook utilize it to contact their children, networking business affairs is also that much easier using an interface that allows for so much. Several performers who have Facebook accounts, travel a lot, and have a very hard time keeping in touch with fellow performers, family and friends now have Facebook to make life that much simpler. Mary Evanoff, who works at pier 39 doing a juggling act, networks with her daughter, her friends, and other co-workers all the time(Evanoff). When it rains, it’s an easy way to let the next performer know she won’t be there, or spreading the word about a broken door to the backstage lock up. The beauty of Facebook’s international expansion is incorporated here also. Mary can message her friend Jewels Good in Germany and comment on her new promotional video piece showing a sword swallowing routine in an indoor venue in France(Good).

A lot of Facebook is about convenience. It's because of convenience that it has all of these people, groups and mixed portions of peoples personal lives. The convenience allows for a personal conversation about the kids or how the week has been truly an emotional one to change into one about how work is going and to chat about what needs to be done for the next project and what tools need to be bought, how much etc. College students revel in the convenience that Facebook allows them.

A lot of students are inherently lazy, and Facebook helps that procrastination skill flourish wonderfully. It’s very difficult to keep focused on a paper due in a couple of hours if Facebook is open on your browser. Everyone else in your class is doing the exact same thing, and if your friends with a bunch of those people whatever they do on Facebook shows up in your feed. Some picture with some guy kissing some chic comes up and suddenly the focus has changed from your paper to your friend’s weekly drama.

Is facebook a good thing? Or can its influence create even more problems? Does it have to do with a specific group? Facebook can be a very good thing, but one’s self control must be part of your skill set. Students tend not to have huge amounts of self-control when it comes to easy tools to distract from homework. Facebook fulfills this description very well. Working at the Science and Engineering Library on campus, one can easily surf the net, do homework or mess around on Facebook in between patrons asking for books etc. Applications that become fads among the student librarians are a regular occurrence. The latest is myfarm, where the ladies behind the desk have farms and plant and harvest etc. I can’t tell you how many times we’ve planned to have been doing homework, but instead have been messing around with our farms from this Facebook application. The giggling girls behind the desk have been shushed more then once with the cause being something to do with Facebook or a silly application (the previous was something like Scrabble). On the other hand this bonding experience has brought our work ethic to a happier place. The system is smooth and like a well-oiled machine. Because of this silly application the workers are happier, which means better service to those asking for books and other things the S&E library offers.

If you look at the older demographic though, they manage their Facebook time a little better and go in with a purpose rather then with the sole goal of entertainment and procrastination. With this added purpose driving their Facebook surfing experience, these other users find time to create promo vids and other excercises that produce a positive, business or personal, outcome. Examples of this include Jewels Good's video from a show I mentioned earlier, as well as Cliff Spenger's photos of him in costume at a few Renaissance Fairs(Good and Spenger).

Another interesting thing that has gone on with this older demographic is that the performers have begun to have promo wars and have tried to create the best promo vid in comparison to their friends.The purpose being to get the most work out of it as well as shear ego boosting. The urge to be the best among peers runs strong and true in the realm of street performing and entertainment professionals. It's a way to be a rowdy bunch of children having fun, which is what their jobs generally entail, as well as a way to create a bonding, competitive environment that brings out the best product to work with in the professional sphere. This kind of competition translates over to the preference to use Facebook rather then MySpace or Friendster etc. Facebook allows for better quality videos then YouTube, so that's a strong pull there for those who like to post promo vids, Facebook also offers a wider, more organized range of applications and modes of exchanging information.

In the personal spheres, the older generation has the exceptional use factor. They can get into contact with friends long lost, that kid that called you that name you don’t want to mention, but he’s still cool because time has passed so that it doesn’t matter(Grossman). The ten reasons mentioned in the Time article by Grossman indicates why “Facebook is for old fogies”, not necessarily ideal for college students. What is most interesting is that they aren’t “cool” so where do the cool kids go if Facebook is no longer “cool”? The fast growing demographic on Facebook is the 30 and up group so it's actually way cooler to not be on Facebook at this point (Grossman).The exceptional use factor also plays into this growing additon of older users because they tell their friends, and they have a lot of friends, that haven't known about Facebook for the short period of time its been in existence. If this system of friends adding friends continues spreading, and it will, it will enforce the growth of the elder generation’s use of this site to a extreme level. There is also no way to combat this growth due to the fact we don't want say babies to have Facebook profiles; meaning that the younger generation can only go so far in that direction where the elder generation (30 and up) goes much further. Some of my friend's have grandparents getting Facebook accounts which both very much scares them as well as intrigues there interest a lot(Barnes). With this addition of yet another generation on top of the other that's above the original demographic, Facebook is most definitely heading towards having a group of users that has shifted 20 years older and up very soon. Having this new media become an example of old media brings forward the question of how does media age? It has to do with time, and how people over time, loose interest, or share so much that it becomes too congested with other people that it's no longer fun. But let us take a look at some aspects of Facebook's initial impact on this new demographic that is now taking over.

Emily Neusbaum talks about the shock value of teens these days and how the older demographic seems to be appalled. The thing is, we’ve moved from being appalled to having them join in as well. This transition has made a new frontier of possibilities open up for generation gap crossing and mixing. But the shock value still exists and the main question on those who are shocked tends to be “why would you do that?” The main reason for teens to put pictures up of themselves doing embarrassing things or expose their life to the whole of the internet is for an audience, to document their adolescence, and because the theatrics are fun. Now, the elder generation is doing something of the same, but of their old fullhearty selves back in their college days. One example might be of Mary Evanoff getting tagged in a picture taken in 1986 at a Renaissance Fair walking on a slack rope(Evanoff). The sharing and mixing that has occured is great, but there are more of this older generation so how will Facebook adapt to that? My prediction is that Facebook is headed towards either letting the college students drop out of the Facebook fan group and have Facebook be primarily a 30 and up site, soley based on who is attracted to it. Or, Facebook may become something like a social catalogue of almost everyone on the planet and basically take over.

Fun, promotion, and documentation are the main goals of those displaying their life to the world. Personally, I find that both this generation and the older one, plan on preserving their current life on Facebook. It’s nice to create photo albums of the past, long gone past, and the recent. The sharing part is what gets really grand due to all the comments users can make, and comment on comments. This awesome power of comments on photos from 20 years ago is so great because the users are all around the globe and yet saying you think some kid was cute when he was eight is still possible and can be communicated in this high speed so as to spread that remark almost immediately. It brings a smile to your face. And that’s what Facebook is all about. Spreading the community, both personal, business, family and bridging generation gaps(while sometimes distancing the gaps rather then bridging them). What the future holds is both scary and exciting, Facebook seems to be gaining interest in all sorts of groups including parents and grandparents. But what if this elder generation takes over? Will Facebook cease to exist as it is now? Will the original demographic loose interest and no longer use the site? Or will all users integrate into a super network where you can find anyone you choose by typing in their name and trying to be their friend? I see it going either way; and either dropping off the popular band wagan or becoming a global Facebook where literally everyone lives.



















Works Cited



Barnes, Cassie. Personal Interview. 3. Jan. 2009.

Evanoff, Mary. Telephone Interview. 20 Feb. 2009.

Good, Jewels. Telephone Interview. 15 Feb. 2009.

Grossman, Lev "Why Facebook Is for Old Fogies." New York Times 12 Feb. 2009. 16 Feb. 2009 .

McCurdy, Sean. Personal Interview. 27 Feb. 2009.

Malkin, Bonnie (2007-09-26). "Facebook is UK's biggest networking site". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/25/nface125.xml. Retrieved on 2008-04-30.

Nussbaum, Emily "Say Everything." New York Magazine 2007. 16 Feb. 32 .

Rosenhall, Laurel "Facebook Members are Aging Rapidly." The Modesto Bee 26 Feb. 2009. 1 Mar. 2009 .

Silverman, Isaac. Personal Interview. 1 Mar. 2009

Techno Memoir 1/22/09

Through gazing at my first tv, a 19" Zenith television set, I grew fond of sound and moving images in a way that would change how I see the world from then on. Ways in which my family's zenith changed how I see film today was through watching Disney movies, bonding with my Dad watching cable, and the general atmosphere a TV lends to a living room.

When I was small, living in my parents' El Sobrante duplex, when my parents still lived together, I would watch our Zenith TV a fair amount. A typical day began with me sitting on my Papa's lap in his big leather chair and share an apple with him while watching news or some inappropriate(for a small child) violent film. My mornings were especially important to me because it was the time of day I would watch cable with my father and bond as any father and daughter should. Come evening the same thing would happen, but instead of eating an apple it was generally potato chips or dinner meaning TV had the scent of those things associated with it. Whenever I smell doritos now I think of lounging around watching TV.

Its funny how memory works. I remember recording shows we wanted to watch at a later date and thinking it was pretty awesome. The coolest thing though, was being able to simultaneously tape one show and watch another so you don't miss anything! I felt like I could bend time or be a time traveller like in back to the future or something. Then there were TV parties when my parents had their friends come over with their kids and the whole bunch of us would watch TV or some football game and then switch to a romantic comedy.

The atmosphere of my livingroom reaked of love, fun and family and having a TV blare in the backround of any encounter still gives me a pleasant feeling of induced relaxation that never fails. Whenever I'm home alone for a long period of time and I start to feel lonely, I turn on the TV while I do other activities. This action, understandably, makes me feel less alone and more at peace/frantic/depressed.

Another past time I used to have was to watch disney movies when my parents were busy making dinner or other household things. My favorite was the little mermaid, mostly for the songs. I loved to sing along with everything. And I mean Everything. But I'll get to that in a moment. With the little mermaid, I got obsessed. I watched it on my Zenith everyday, maybe more. Ariel was my life; the world I escaped to whenever I got bored. I adored that VHS. And through my Zenith TV I could imagen I was Ariel. I was born with red hair, despite the fact it fell out and I grew in blonde and it gradually turned brown. But once upon a time I had red hair, just like Ariel. When I was five, that knowledge alone made me feel so special and courageous. That VHS made a huge imact on who I am now. And the only way I could have seen it was through my Zenith TV set. So, that is how my Zenith really changed my world. Of course the other prior mentioned uses did also contribute to how my TV imacted me.

Over time, my Zenith died, but its specific importance wasn't that significant. Just the TV in general was important. My Zenith was the first TV I had. But the concept of the TV is what stayed with me. I loved staring at a screen and immersing yourself in another world. Its almost like reading novels, but this way you see all of it in bright colors and get the sense of texture. Watching shows on nicolodeon as I grew up, and the disney channel at times (regretably) but most of all it was nickolodeon, nick at nite, and abc shows and movies on amc. I can't tell you how much I adore nick at nite the way it used to be. The idea of transforming myself from the here and now into the 50's as in lavern and shirley, happy days and I dream of genie. I miss those shows so much. Now CSI, House, Scrubs and other shows have replaced those. So the love of chapter installments each week in episode form has stayed with me from my childhood. It was and is the TV age. Although, now the internet may take over.

To gather all this to a close, I began with bonding over apples watching early morning TV with my father, moved on to talk about the atmosphere my TV created, and proceeded to talk about how my experience with the concept of the TV has impacted me over time. The age of the TV has impacted my life in a big way and the idea of diving into a different world for a half hour, an hour or two had changed the way I see the world. My imagination was ignited from my experience with my Zenith TV and I'm so glad it was.

10.26.09 Rethinking the Classic Western

Oh My Gender

My Darling Clementine exemplifies the ideals and misconceptions of the classic western. The saturated stereotypes are present, as well as the aesthetics, but we also see the historical similarities to its time period. My Darling Clementine came out in 1946, just after World War II. Americans were feeling triumphant, but also angry, hurt and impressioned by such violence, threat and fear. Having all of that culminated in a culture creates a genre representative of what the audience might be feeling. That means archetype characters, and stereotypes for some, but for others it means that the films are true to their current state of mind. My argument is that Tag Gallegher has it right; that critics of this genre tend to over simplify and gloss over the subtleties and complexities of the classic western. But my amendment is that those critics have a point, however difficult it is to tease out. The "Classic Western", in this case My Darling Clementine, complicates the ideals of purity by incorporating violence, stereotypes, and sexuality in ways that appear either subtle or blatant, depending.
Lets begin by defining the "Western" and giving My Darling Clementine some historical background. Rick Altman prefers to borrow Jean Mitry's definition, "The western, Mitry proposes, is a "film whose action, situated in the American West, is consistent with the atmosphere, the values, and the conditions of existence in the Far West between 1840 and 1900"" (Altman, 31). This definition easily keeps My Darling Clementine within the western realm.
Now, to situate the film in a larger generic context I would like to specify that this film came out in the aftermath of a time of anguish and struggle. Which means that the plot, characters, and motives are more "everyone for himself" rather then incorporating the morals of cooperative living and working together as a community. The fact that its based off of real events but have changed the historical dates and isn't all that correct is another thing to think about. But as it is, its depicting something that happened in 1881, despite the fact characters in this film were either dead or did not die in the way this film depicts it. An interesting fact is that Doc Holliday was actually a dentist, not a surgeon. This fact makes his heroics dampened in a way, and the whole surgeon-nurse relationship with Clementine gets a different dynamic knowing the truth.
Gallagher writes about how critics ignore historical evidence in reference to westerns, are unsympathetic to the subtleties of "old" movies, and that they focus on the narrative of the film rather then the art, aesthetic and experience that one receives. In describing how critics approach westerns, Gallagher manages to tease out what makes a western, shall we say "worth it". What I mean is, westerns have a place in history, and a place in our culture as American people, hell, westerns even have a place in the greater scheme of cinema worldwide. Because the genre began so early, even "before the Lumieres caranked their first camera" (Galllagher, 265), the western exemplifies a saturated version of humanity, due to its own saturation as a genre through time. Gallagher's point is to say that previous critics couldn't see past the sexist, racist, predjudiced genre limitations to see what these films meant to say. The Classic Western is meant to point out the trials and tribulations of day-to-day life, but in an extreme environment in comparison to the movie-goers that sit and watch these films in the theatre. What I mean to say, is that Gallagher is writing to all those critics, and is trying to tell them that there is more then the narrative, and there's more then the saturated aesthetic. Its about the people, the characters, the experience the characters are going through.
Gallagher writes, "Genre criticism seems almost endemically antiphenomenological" (273). He writes about how genre criticism is becoming more based in fighting the surface of the genre, rather then looking at it as a culture, and getting into it's grime and dirt to really know what lies within it. The critics are rejecting the western in order to move on to other films....well what about the western? Isn't it worth a look see? Gallagher thinks so. Gallagher continues to write, "Literary critics exalt the "idea, but they regard its actualization as a mere illustration. They concern themselves with narrative because they comprehend cinema chiefly in therms of what happens, as a becoming, as "action". Cinema critics, on the other hand, tend to comprehend cinema more as being, as a world and soul experienced in an immediate now" (Gallagher, 273-274). Obviously, Gallagher sees it as a literary narrative versus an experience of an object, i.e. cinema. The interesting distinction between literary critics and cinema critics is astounding. It seems as though most of what Gallagher had read were that of literary critics according to this article. But in contrast with Gallagher, I see how the critics in both camps differ, but what they should have in common is the movie-going experience and spirit. Why not just go see a film and then think about its plot, characters, syntax, meaning etc after? We do not need to approach a film with a critical eye the first time we see it. We do have the ability to re-visit what we saw, without having to watch it a second time....although it helps. The initial experience is the most important part of a film.
Another point that Gallagher brings up in his article is that violence plays a big role in westerns, but also in history. Especially when My Darling Clementine came out. Gallagher focuses on how critics received the film. Crowther, a film reviewer from the New York Times, reviewed the film and wrote, " Too obvious a definition of heroes and villains is observed..." (Crowther) and continues to say things along the lines of a western saturated and over the top. But he goes on to write, "However, the gentlemen are perfect. Their humors are earthy. Their activities are taut. The mortality rate is simply terrific. And the picture goes off with several bangs" (Crowther). Here we see a true critic of the time see a film, review it, and finally at the end of his review, praise all that he originally criticized....but without knowing it. If you focus on his last notion there, the "mortality rate", "gentlemen are prefect...humors ..earthy" etc. we can see how this film got to this reviewer in a pleasing, satisfying way. Perhaps his critique said it like it was, but if you like westerns...you know you would like this one from what Crowther had to say about it.
One of the things that My Darling Clementine does really well, is create conflict around Wyatt Earp's motives among critics. Gallagher cites Nachbar, " [he, Nachbar, states] that Wyatt Earp's motives are "very clear" in My Darling Clementine: he has "both the right and duty to kill the Clantons. It is no surprise, then, that after the famous battle, Earp is recognized as the hero of the community and will soon be rewarded..."(Gallagher, 269). But then, Gallagher goes on to say that Nachbar misread Earp's character and the film's plot, as well as that Earp's "charm hides a self-righteous prig and a marshal's badge and noble sentiments hide a "near psychotic lust for violent revenge""(Gallagher citing John Sturges, 269). After which Gallagher brings in yet another perspective from Schatz saying:
"Wyatt clearly relishes lording it over people without using his gun, and Ford is far too much of a moralist to accept Earp simply as a "redeemer" (Schatz) who has an unequivocal "right and duty to kill" (Nachbar). Wyatt, in any case, morally abdicates his "right to kill" when, and just before the battle, he declines the assistance of the town mayor and parson, calling his feud with the Clantons "strictly a family affair"; however as a myopic, negative quality, is an obsessive theme throughout Ford's oeuvre, while the major theme of [the film] is wrapped around musing over whether one can ever have the right or duty to kill..." (Gallagher, 269).
Gallagher has a good point with Schats and Nachbar as supporting arguments, but what Earp stands for, and his motives, doesn't quite bring in what this film is trying to say. Earp might be the driving character of the film, the one we follow, whom we might call the protagonist. But with so many plot lines running parallel, chris-crossing and weaving within one another, its hard to pick out the supporting roles that show a new perspective to the public. Perhaps one about gender roles and how genre can tease out subtleties that show the audience in a subconcious way, how things might change in the future. The supporting characters and parralel plot lines I speak of are Clementine Carter's, Doctor "doc" Holliday, and Chihuahua. What might the perspective of a self-proclaimed cast-away and the representation of women have to do with our culture, society and day-to-day lifestyles? Well, many things for those in 1946.
What I'm talking about here is how woman were struggling to work jobs against those returning husbands who wanted them back in the kitchen, barefoot, baring children. The new-found glory of making your own wage, supporting yourself and your children while the husband was at war was being stripped away from these women who now had a new role model called Rosie the Rivetter. And some ways these women acted out was in being overly sexual, but others were proper and silently went back to the home. Some women love going back to that place of security and familiarity in the household. But the experience of being independent and the head of the house was still there in the woman's mind.
In My Darling Clementine we see two representations of women that create a dichotomy within the film. Chihuahua loves the doc, but is the town harlett as well, she also struggles with the racial implications that come with being a southern american girl in the new world of the west. She brings sensuality to the film, and lust, and envy. She exemplifies the distraught woman waiting, just waiting for her prince charming to take her up and save her. The equivelant of the damsel in distress. But it can be argued that Clementine can fit that role as well. Chihuahua comes from the low budget bracket....while Clementine comes from Boston, and is the pristine picture of posterity, propriety and poise. In other words, Clementine is the damsel in distress but only fits that role because she is somewhat of a foreigner to these parts, and doesn't have the know-how to negotiate the west quite properly with the demur of a saintly, schooled lady of the East Coast. Now, to bring these two representations forward to the front of the film is to say that the film asks the woman in the audience to choose, and then to be one or the other. The poor, helpless Chihuahua who pines and then slips up with another man to loose her beloved anyway, or the fancy Clementine who quietly knows what's best, and stays in her societal place with the demur of propriety. What comes to mind now is the boys these girls were after: Wyatt and Doctor John Holliday.
Chihuahua was after the good Doc who knew both the west and the east, and was sore about something, but something he wouldn't talk about. That drew in this poor woman and gave her something to love, hold and caress into a soothing western laze. But when Clementine shows up Chihuahua's world capsizes and Clementine ends up having two suitors. Doc's emotional turmoil leads him to not want anyone, and Clementine naturally doesn't press the matter, and slowly flirts with Wyatt and ends the film dancing with him. But Chihuahua is down and out for the count with no Doc, having been killed in the fight, and herself lost in the thows of the cutthroat west. So what does all this mean to the 1946 woman? That its better to just go back to the propriety of an educated life, no cutting up allowed. This limits a woman from going after her dreams, her creative outlets, unless its embroidery, or any of the acceptable hobbies. Luckily, the fifties and sixties slowly turned this around with the women's movements.
But the two men, Doc Holiday and Wyatt represent those men in the audience who had been at war, who had been fighting hard. They aren't all the men represented....there are many options for the men in the audience to choose a character to identify with, but out of the main bunch you get these two as the good guys....we have the clanton's as the villains. But who in a 1946 audience wants to be a villain? What srikes me is that the title points to Clementine as a choice for the women in the audience...so does that mean that the men should choose to be Wyatt?
Douglas Pye writes, "Northrop Frye constructs...five modes, defined in erms of range and power of action of the protagonist:...myth...romance...high mimetic mode...low mimetic mode...[and the] ironic mode..." (Pye, 204). What My Darling Clementine shows is a combination of many types of modes, and contains parralel plot lines. This may confusing for some, wishing for one plot line, but Wyatt's revenge is the main plot line to pull the rest along. Instead of a mash up of too many plot lines, it creates a myriad of choices for the viewer. It makes the film likable for almost everyone in the audience. In trying to fit this film into one of Frye's modes, we find it difficult to just pick one. We could go with myth, and say that Wyatt Earp is godly, but he's human as well, so that doesn't quite fit. We could try romance, but its got violence in it and a revenge plot, so that doesn't quite fly either. It is arguable that high mimetic mode fits this film where Wyatt is superior in degree to other men but not the environment, although low mimentic mode fits too where Wyatt is no better then anyone else, just another man of the west making his way through and happens to get caught by cattle stealers. The only one that doesn't fit is the ironic mode where the audience is superior to the protagonist, and our intelligence surpasses the protagonist. So, to bring Gallagher back, I believe one of his points to the critics that just don't see as much as Gallagher does, is that a western can be many things, especially this film. The western can work as a vehicle of sins so the audience can live in the cinematic world for 90 some minute to return to the way of life they like. It teaches what shouldn't be done, having that saturation give the viewer something to balk at, something to contrast, something to fight against being. The subtleties are still there for the women, and for the men....although those have to do with feeling inadequate (doc holiday), but the blatency of this harsh world in the west were the Clantons steal your cattle, makes it clear where the "right duty" lies. Gallagher also points out that Wyatt's struggle with doing the right thing is something to be looked at. Men and women of 1946 might look at this film and feel justified after, not because of the film, but because of the War that just finished. That is a good feeling, so this film may be a moral booster that brings in all the vain, humane vulgarities we face all the time in order to tell us that it is ok to get jealous, and feel revengeful, but only in small doses perhaps.
What Gallagher and Pye offer together is that fitting things into boxes isn't always the best way to approach life. Gallagher writes at the tail end of his article that "...sensuousness and logic create art..." (Gallagher, 274). We must appreciate the experience of art in order to perhaps, as Gallagher puts it, see that "art becomes an academic exercise, pornography or propaganda, raped of its capability, it aesthetic capability, to give us knowledge of ourselves and the world" (Gallagher, 274). The film we see before us is a tool to escape, but the place we escape to is right back where we were. And we learned nothing new, but what we already knew was true and the lesson learned was grand.

Works Cited

Altman, Rick. "A Semantic?Syntactic Approach to Film Genre." Film Reader III. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2007. 27-41.


Crowther, Bosley "THE SCREEN; 'Darling Clementine,' With Henry Fonda as Marshal of Tombstone, a Stirring Film of West." New York Times 4 Dec. 1946.

.

Gallagher, Tag. "Shoot-Out at the Genre Corral: Problems in the "Evolution" of the Western."

Film Genre Reader III. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2007. 262-276.

My Darling Clementine. Dir. John Ford. Perf. Henry Fonda. DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 1946.

Pye, Douglas. "The Western (Genre and Movies)." Film Genre Reader III. Austin, Texas:

University of Texas Press, 2007. 203-218.

1/28/09 Love of Cinema: Cinephilia?

I'm not sure if I am a cinephile, but I am a film student and I adore film in three capacities. I love the aesthetic, the theory and meaning viewers search for, and the social atmosphere that cinema creates.

To begin, lets talk of my childhood to college, and of how I became so enthralled with cinema. Unfortunately it began with Disney. When I was small I used to watch Disney films all the time and then proceeded to watch, rather inaptly, the AMC movies and shows that my parents would watch on the Tele. I loved the idea of being sucked into another world and shown someone else's story from a personal point of view. I especially enjoyed westerns with my mother. She always had a crush on the lead character and it would drive my father batty. But over the years the Tele scenario continued after my parents split up and I lived with my mother until college. My mother and I would watch TV shows and movies in the evenings, gradually more so in the high school years. She still loved her cowboys. And we both loved the idea of watching a book unfold through chapters in the form of TV episodes each week. One we especially loved was “Gilmore Girls” because it modeled our relationship somewhat.

In High School I began to go to movies with friends more frequently and loved the big screen, the beauty of the colors, the emotional "cadenced movement" (Epstein, 243) that made me adore the cinema so dearly. The primary appreciation though, was that of camaraderie and friendship that commenced post viewing. After films my friends and I would adjourn to either get dinner or someone's house and hang out, but inevitably we would talk about the film we just saw. In cases where it was too late and it was time to go home, we would end up talking about it during class that next day and/or week.

As College began, ventures to the theatre were few, only due to the fact that I didn’t have as many close friends and I was also just getting used to College life in general. But as that first year progressed, movies became to start up again. Some of my friends in Porter and I drudged up our VHS Disney movies and had Disney Days in the lounges with the VHS players that were already there. Sophomore year I lived in the University Inn near downtown, so I ended up going to see movies a lot, plus I would visit my boyfriend back home and go see movies there too. The films then were more about the experience and just the social scene then about what they mean etc. But by the end of Sophomore year, I started going with some of my fellow film majors and the conversations got lively and I realized I really did like film a great deal. So now, I try and go as much as possible, but funds are tight and so are my friends pockets. Although, when we do get it together and go see a film, the experience rocks my world.

It isn’t just the social adventure anymore, its more about the whole package that comes with it: the people, the film, and what we think/talk about afterwords. The cinema is about all three things for me, not just the films themselves, but what goes on before, during and after the film. Also, its about what happens to me personally, emotionally and mentally due to the film.
To illuminate what I mean about the aesthetic of film let me elaborate here. One more recent film I saw was "the Curious Case of Benjamin Button" which some of my friends weren't as jazzed about it as I was. Its just that the color scheme, filmography, acting and special effects were so beautiful to me. From her dancing in Broadway shows to his scenes as a teen looking like an old man on a tugboat in a huge storm, or dealing with war submarines. The cinematography and story combined to make me a very pleased viewer.

I have to disagree strongly with Henri Langlois in respect to cinema versus silent cinema, I mean I understand how sound can ruin the splendor of the original, but sound and color are just so amazing to me I couldn't let them go for anything in the world. It probably has something to do with the fact that I began with color and sound ingrained into the films I saw, and his first experience with cinema was the silent film. But the splendor and interaction that is a film made with sound and color is just so grand. Going back to when I watched Disney films, the part I loved most was learning the songs and singing along. The audience participation bit that I created in my living room with my Tele gave me so much pleasure that I would dance as well. How is that not an amazing cinematic moment? This means that not all phenomenal cinematic moments actually occur in a theatre.

But returning to the point, and moving on, lets talk about the theory and meaning of cinema and what it means to me. What I love about film courses at the university is that the films we watch always have some background meaning or message to them. Not all Hollywood blockbusters have that. So when I watch a Hollywood film, I look for the meaning or message, and value the movie based on how important I deem that message to be. Generally the messages depicted in recent Hollywood films aren't that deep or important. But, instead, they entertain. In some cases this is a tragedy, but in others it makes for a very pleasing exciting story line. Or at least, it shows how great the cinematographer's skill set was. How can you go wrong with the "Bourne Identity" type film with that exciting of editing?

Meaning in film effects me emotionally a lot of the time, especially if in any way at all, I have some sort of similar experience under my belt. Studying the theory behind that meaning is just so fascinating though. The emotion is still there, but its simmered down a bit. And the maze of meaning begins. Thinking and theorizing about why a shot was made like this, or how the director tried to communicate what that shot needs to imply is just so interesting that the maze continues. And then, to make matters even more interesting, to theorize about theorists in film course knocks my socks off. Trying to figure out what made Langlois so obsessed with film, or how he came up with the theories he did, even if I don't agree with him, can take up a whole afternoon!

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the social after effect of the cinematic experience continues to be what I'm most passionate for, and lust after. Its gotten to the point where I want to see a movie with friends, but they say that they've no money anymore after all the other films we've seen. The camaraderie and joyous adventure that is the process of going on a cinematic outing with friends still excites me to no end. As Delluc put it, its the "social art form" that I adore so deeply. And the creative types that make up my friends add so much more fun and beauty to the experience that the general idea of the cinematic outing is transformed into something unique and organic. Something always changing and forming into different scenarios.

Regardless of how hard that is to understand, the unique organic art form of going to the theatre is different and evident for everyone in our society. We all go see movies. Its just the people, and the film equation that is always constant. The giggling, joking atmosphere that our society has conformed to committing is something that I hope continues in the future. Maybe the films and people will change, but the basic structure will remain.
I guess to conclude, I am a cinephile, but one that enjoys the social cinema outing the most, not the theorizing or the fact and data amassing techniques. I love the cinema because the cinema loves me. The cinema loves me because it gives me theatre, in which combining films and friends can meet to form my adored unique, organic equation.





Works Cited

Jean Epstein, “the Senses 1(b)” and “On Certain Characteristics of Photogenie”
Louis Delluc, “Beauty in the Cinema” and “The Crowd.”

11/13/08 Epstein's Rythmic Rhetoric

Jean Epstein theories follow along with the assumption that film and cinema extend reality within this new format by creating a magnification of sorts of the real, or truth of life. Epstein theorizes that film magnifies reality through what he calls as "cadenced movement"(243). He also describes film as a primitive language and proceeds to describe the art of cinema and how cinema gives "mobile aspects of life"(315) a voice. By giving these objects a voice, we can further inspect them more closely; thus cinema extends reality.
Rhythm is innately in language, but structuring sentences in particularly rhythmic ways can still further the jargon's rhythmic quality. By adding specific punctuation, essays become punctual, in a temporal atmosphere. Epstein's use of rhythm in his essays prove to further his points and keep his reader's engaged. Short, concise, to the point statements draw in the reader and emphasize Epstein's points.
One instance of this is how he describes his own experience with American close-ups. Epstein describes essentially, what a close-up is and how it affects him, through short concise, precise descriptions of aspects he notices. A few include: " I am hypnotized. Now the tragedy s anatomical"(235).,"Shadows shift, tremble, hesitate. Something is being decided. A face vacillates"(235).,"Crescendo, A muscle bridles.""Crack, The mouth gives way...."(235). All of these describe just one interaction, just his silent dialogue with the film's close-up; that intense experience has laid this firm a mark on him. His use of staccato-type language helps to cause what Kracauer would call "nascient motion", or that play/pause effect. This ingenious method causes tension and apprehension in the viewer/reader in effect creating a wonderful situation. A situation where the reader is engaged, excited, and aptly waiting for the next thing. This technique provides Epstein with the attention he wants.
Another rhythmic, but combined with textual, technique is that of a specific instance on page 242 where Epstein prints "NO FILMS" in all caps. This informs us that no films end unhappily....but the use of the capitalization gives it more emphasis, not only in the sentence, but on the page as a whole as well. Obviously, by making these specific two words stand out so specifically on the page, let alone the whole essay (no other words are capitalized mid-sentence), makes this message more meaningful. By saying "no films" in particular, Epstein works to emphasize his point that all films end with happy endings and this is important we expect it, and film delivers.
Epstein's concise sentences poses the question: "why aren't all essays formatted this way?" This is due to the fact that not everyone chooses to invoke their cause in the format they communicate in; where Epstein does. By emphasizing the way he communicates, and by bringing attention to his rhythmic sentences, Epstein makes magnification in general more important. Magnification rises to the surface, and also brings out the truth; which Epstein explains is cinema's main role.
Without directly stating it, Epstein explains the importance of rhythm in cinema by importing it into his essays. Rhythm helps us understand cinema, but cinema needs language in order to communicate those specific concepts that can't be specified through images and visual cues.
Epstein's unique candor helps his reader have find what he means him/her to understand. By utilizing this skill, he creates a most productive silent dialogue while the reader reads his work. Communicating through temporally sensitive means helps Epstein create a format that also uses the instinctive unconscious understanding that staccato brings importance. His theory of film is brought out through the form he chooses to take in writing, furthering our understanding of what he means. Epstein's message is thorough in this way, proving most effective.

11/24/08 Johnston's Sign

Johnston argues that the image of woman is a representation of woman, and that representation is a product to be consumed. Johnston describes how a woman dressed as a man (like Dietrich), can be a sign for the "repression of women"(211). By enveloping the women in man's clothing the woman becomes the lack of man through the absence of him in this masquerade. The sign is woman, but she does not represent herself. She represents by a "process of displacement, the male phallus"(211). By becoming a metaphoric male phallus, the woman is now a product geared towards the male, and not a product benefiting her own sex. In cinema, woman is represented for the male. What Johnston now calls for is a change in form. A change that would promote films created by women for the female audience in order to balance out the male dominated industry.


Feminist theory includes this idea of the female as the object, and the male as spectator. By creating this object of the male gaze, the female becomes the sign and the signifier, and in turn, a product. Claire Johnston says "the sign is always a product" (214). By demonstrating the simplicity and bluntness of this idea in such a succinct sentence, Johnston tells the reader how important this idea is to understand. This phrase is indicative of her entire essay on woman's counter-cinema, but beyond that, it gives us some things to think about. Some things to consider are how a female figure can be a sign, a product, and what to do about it as well as how what we capture on film is a product.


To capture nature is to represent it and distribute it to the public like any other product the general public consumes. To capture women on film is slightly different when referencing Johnston's ideals. Film grasps women, and distributes a particular idea about them to the public. Johnston describes the “fetishisation of the star [to] indicate phallocentrism” (211). Fetishizing actors establishes the male as in control, superior. This public castration of actresses demonstrates how the film industry continues to favor the male. What Johnston proposes is that women’s cinema revolutionize this in film and better the female position. The way Johnston describes how women are repressed on screen also shows how she’s extremely passionate about it through her eloquent language.


Johnston describes concepts that make the female a product and how phallocentrism is present in film. The denotative aspects of these concepts are just their plain definition. The connotative on the other hand, is that in general, our society is very male oriented and we must recognize its existence of it before trying to change it.


The set of ideals that already exist in the male dominated society of the seventies inhibited the growth of women's cinema. This barrier that must be breeched is difficult to punch through because of how long it has been intact. Feminist movements have tried and largely failed in this respect. Although, in contemporary cinema, both men and women have created film, the industry is still largely dominated. Johnston's call to arms is still relevant today if the issue is regarded in this way. The cinema is still in line for a change in form.


Works Cited

Johnston, Claire. "Women's Cinema as Counter-Cinema." Feminist Criticism. 208-217.

11/6/08 Reality and Film

Both Andre Bazin and Siegfried Kracauer theorize that film captures reality and presents it in a new manner, although both these film theorists approach this hypothesis through different methods of thought. Bazin’s main argument revolves around time and how film has a tendency to help create a reality through resemblance of nature. Kracauer reveals he believes reality is extended through film and movement is the core ingredient in effective films. Through combining these two theories, we approach a happy medium where film helps us see time without chronological order as well as appreciate how reality is magnified through film by resembling nature.

Bazin writes “ the breaking up of the scenes into shots and their assemblage is the equivalent of an expressionism in time, a reconstruction of the event according to an artificial and abstract duration”(174) in order to better acquaint ourselves with his theory of time in film. By describing how film can re-organize time into a new reality from a captured version of reality, Bazin explains how film alters reality to form a new reality. By being able to re-organize time in film, we can recreate memories, set thoughts in motion that aren't necessarily chronological and eventually create a format similar to our minds process of thinking.
Bazin describes "realism of cinema follows directly from its photographic nature."(426). By using images that reflect reality in film, we are able to confirm that the film is "real". While in the cinema, the film is the universe, a kind of nature on its own. By utilizing the reality we see daily in film, Bazin creates a new reality in film, one that can we can escape to.

Not only does photography help create reality, it also gives us a sense of imagination. Bazin describes film as a form of creating new thought in viewers, and by presenting new images or ideas to veiwers, we are inspired to think. Re-organized thoughts are a lot like many photographs strung together without a chronological order. "Photography", as Bazin explains, "is clearly the most important event in history of plastic arts" (170). He describes it this way because photography was first there in order to capture history, but in film it can also create fictional stories. Our imagination creates a new reality within this form and reality is now shifted. Also, by disorienting the viewer in time, the film is now a kind of book, torn apart and then put back together in a new order. This new form of the book is art, an art that if it really were a book it wouldn't, in fact, make sense. But since it is a film, and in film format, we can jump all over the page and still have it be coherent. Our thaughts jump around daily, from what we need to get at the grocery store, to how much we hate working mornings. This thaught disorganization is represented on film, creating an even closer relationship with the viewer; a kind of intamacy. Creating this new close reality between film and viewer, makes for a even more convincing new reality within the film.

Through the use of re-assembling shots, the reality in film created through the use nature, and using photography to create the imaginary, Bazin describes film's relation to reality and perhaps; its purpose. Film is there to help us escape our reality and enter another. Kracauer, on the other hand, says that we enter another reality through creating a new reality using movement across the screen. Kracauer discusses a few key techniques that cinema must use in order to create a physical existence within cinema, and in turn; create a reality in the film. These techniques include the chase, dancing and nascient motion; which all work toward creating film that resembles reality through movement.
Kracauer defines the chase as “ motion at its extreme…suspenseful physical motion”(304). This is due to the suspense created by say, a car chase and how fast the cars pass over the screen in front of us. An example of the chase in a well-known film may be the Bourne Identity, where Jason Bourne is omniscient, and so are we for that matter, and can out-smart the FBI by moving and pausing in just the right places in order not to get caught or seen. While watching a scene like this, the viewer gets anxious for Bourne and the journalist wrapped up in this plot; that anxiousness that the viewer feels is what Kracauer wants to occur with this particular mechanism of film theory. Invoking feeling and emotion in viewers is the exact point of success Kracauer wishes to find.
Another form of movement that Kracauer describes in film is “Dancing”, which "seems to occur on the spur of the moment; it is the vicissitudes of life from which…ballets issue”(305). Dancing is how movement, of any one object, passes in a kind of pattern across the screen. There is also the literal kind of dancing on screen, where Kracauer references Fred Astair. And Astair's view of things is that dancing should break out spontaneously in life the way it does on screen. By using Astair for an example Kracauer points out how dancing envigorates the audience and inspires us to get up and dance post film even.
The third form of movement that Kracauer describes is nascient motion. where “movment as contrasted with motionlessness” (305) describes the stecatto movement creating suspense, excitement and inspiration in viewers. The play/pause effect of nascient motion gives the illusion of those times in life where it just slows down, and then speeds up. But when using this mimicry of life in film, the whole experience is condensed into a smaller space, making the extended feelings of suspense etc more intense. In suspense films and thrillers, the dead silence before a scary attack is key to create that tensed-up excitement in the viewer. Feeling with the characters on screen in this way creates a relationship that deepens the reality the viewer falls into. By making this new close connection, the film becomes that much closer to real reality in the viewers eyes. By believing in the danger of nacient motion in horror films, we get sucked into an alternative reality.
Through invigorating inspiration and feelings of suspense in viewers, Kracauer instills movement in viewers, and through this movement, reality has an extension towards the viewer. This installment translates into that movement needed to create life on screen, and by doing so, create reality on screen. Also, the transference of this new movement or life in the viewer, inspires the viewer to go out and dance as well, or inact a scary scene. This inspiration brings film into a new real of addiction perhaps. Film becomes something we lust for, we need that alternate reality in order to feel those emotions, and to enjoy that particular pleasure escape.

These two authors discuss both time, nature captured creating reality in film, and movement in order to ultimately create a new realism (which can be fictional or imaginary); the realism in film. What I propose is this; film is our escape from reality, from the realism of life, and inso being film serves us as a pleasurable alternate universe. This universe is where movement, time and space are recreated to meet our fantasies. Through this new imaginary, fictional truth within this new world, we find comfort. Bazin discusses how "neorealism is more an otological position than an aesthetic one"(175); meaning neorealist films are created first just to be, and then to act, creating a more fictional film ultimately, at least a film more removed from reality then others.













Works Cited
Bazin, Andre. "The Ontology of the Photographic Image." Film Theory and Critisism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 166-170.
Bazin, Andre. "The Myth of Total Cinema." Film Theory and Critisism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 170-174.
Bazin, Andre. "De Sica: Metteur-en-scene." Film Theory and Critisism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 174-183.
Bazin, Andre. "Theatre and Cinema." Film Theory and Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 418-429.

Kracauer, Siegfried. "The Establishment of Physical Existence." Film Theory and Criticism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 303-314.

Maria's idea of epstein's theories of film

Written 10/8/08

Epstein’s idea about cinema is that movement must be involved in order for cimema to be photogenic and have the correct aspects of photogenie. This concept of photogenie is abstract but is alluded to by Epstein many times. In loose terms, photogenie is the art of cinema, the essence of that special something that cimena leaves in your gut after seeing a film. He also emphasized “ cadenced movement” (243). What he means by this is that time and the tembre of cinema is needed to convey this art form.

Epstein argues that film magnifies life and feeling, gives “mobile aspects of the world”(315) a spectacle, a voice, and a closer look-see. He thinks of cinema as an emphasis on what cinema depicts. Epstein feels that giving mobile objects a more direct, specific frame creates a more magnified effect of the objects. The objects are given a stage to communicate to the audience a specific message, whereas before in theatre, the message was muted by lack of direct attention. This magnification helps to show the vivacity of life intensified by the focus of cinema, giving it movement. The intensity of a close-up creates a direct dialogue between the film and the audience. A new language is born, the language of cinema.

Epstein describes cinema as a language, a kind of “primitive”(316) language. Which in turn gives us little perplexity when considering the notion that it gives us such intensity through depicting life within this language. The language of cinema to the viewer emphasizes the movement and life framed by cinema.

“Cinema is true; a story is false…narratives...always assume a chronology, sequential events…”(242). Here Epstein references his theory that cinema captures truth, the way life really is, and the stage is specific perspective, but cinema can show all angles. Each angle can be its own truth as well, its own direction, its own line of progression, and the sequence does not have to be beginning, middle and end. Cinema can breach space and time as Munsterberg describes, but we’re not here to talk about him. By having the liberty to enact life as it is, without sequence, cinema is able to create a new kind of movement; through time and space.

Epsteins particular style of writing, where he uses short concise, to the point sentences to emphasize a point, creates a rhythm and movement of his own that emulates his theory of film. One specific instance is his last sentence of the article “the senses” (246).

Rhythm and movement of cinema and editing create a specific art form, an art form that is called photogenie.








Works Cited

Epstein, Jean. "French Film Theory and Criticism." Princeton University Press 1 235-318.

Salt

Well, we will be discussing Salt today...
And...in MUCH less detail.
So,


SALT-with Angelina Jolie as Salt and Liev Schreiber as Ted Winter
dir. Phillip Noyce 2010


The trailers weren't very inspiring to a college graduate and probably her age group in general. They were cheesy and auspicious and made you feel like they were trying to do something cool and fun, but failed miserably. One such trailer acted as if it was a real news release and Salt was trying to get a message to the public for help. In reality, well the reality of the film anyway, she isn't that sappy and doesn't ever directly address the public.


Salt is more of a silent, brooding character that you can't quite figure out till the very end....and even then you don't know what she was thinking and when. Her demeanor however, the swashbuckling badassedness that comes with movies like Tomb Raider and Mr. and Mrs. Smith in association with Jolie was terribly prevalent. But instead of the over the top way we were expecting due to the trailers, it was appropriate and the expected amount of gun fire and kick-butt girl attitude.


In order to disguise herself more, Salt changes her hair somewhere in the middle of the film, thus signifying her transformation. But really I think it's the mourning of her husband's death she knows will happen. I feel her blonde innocence has left and the mourning harsh view of life sets in with the black hair as a foreshadowing of what will come.


Liev plays a complex double agent as well, but in the end Jolie plays a triple agent where she really is playing for the US, but in order to do so, she must be considered a Russian spy. Liev (Winter), we find out later, is a Russian spy, and were going to blame Salt for all the trouble and war he tries to cause. However, in the nick of time...of course....Salt stops him from nuclear explosions in all the important countries to kill 2 million people, and still blames Salt for all the damage. He gets his comeuppance though, by none other then Salt. She escapes with the aid of the character most trepeditious about her identity, in order to get the rest of the Russian spies infiltrating all of the US government.


In the end, I'm left with a few questions. Are we really that mad at Russia still? Is her being a triple agent excuse Russians being the villains? What does this triple agent crossover business say about American and Russian, and therefore any race mutt or anyone in reference to identity?


Alright...there's my Salt review. Have at it, and please comment. Thanks.


M.K.

Review of Grindhouse in relation to Sex and Violence

Grindhouse: Planet Terror and Death Proof

            Grindhouse fought for its “R” rating, for originally it was categorized as a for sure NC-17 film. The film itself was cut in places, but it still falls on the edge of these two ratings. Despite it’s rating, the sex, violence, etc. Grindhouse not only works to form a new genre, but it utilizes sex and violence to embellish the vulgarity of the male gaze, venture through the vague arena of gender roles as well as capitalize on the fetishization of destruction on screen.
            The new genre is in fact the re-claiming of the exploitative grindhouse B film. In recreating this genre that is no longer active in mainstream cinema, Grindhouse brings forth the exploitative horror and the exploitive thrill drama. Early cinema, as Tom Gunning writes, was planned to “exaggerate the impact of the spectator” (70, Gunning). Some examples include literally gluing the spectators to their seats, and others such as setting firecrackers off beneath them. In this way the excitement on screen gives you the experience of another place and time. In transporting the viewer, the film takes position in a way that the spectator is vulnerable to whatever the film throws at us. Because of this delicate relationship of film and viewer, we are more susceptible to the gore, sex and fetishizations that come from the screen.
            Planet Terror contains scenes of Cherry Darling’s job as a go-go dancer in a club that capitalizes on her sexuality. Throughout the film her sexuality seems to be the glue that crops up every once in a while to tantalize our loins and compliments the violent struggle that propels the film forward. McGowan also plays Pam (Death Proof), whose struggle to get out of the car when Stunman Mike is attempting to kill her with his stunt car creates sympathy in us as viewers. It is interesting how she brings us through to the second feature of Planet Terror with that sympathy still intact although she is now playing a totally different character. Rose McGowan’s involvement in both Rodriguez’s film and Tarantino’s helps this film set grab our affections, like Gunning noted about early cinema, and keep us transfixed on the screen before us. Stuntman Mike is the epitome of the male gaze in a dark light, the kind of light that foreshadows death. Anderson writes, “there is also some sort of risk to mike and it may therefore be a genuine sadomasochistic scene” (19, Anderson). His obsession of car chases with women in fear is not unlike the fetish of sex in car crashes like in Crash (dir. David Cronenberg, 1996). In this way these two films have a common thread of a fetish that involves violence, cars, and of course sexuality.
            The sexuality in Planet Terror proves altered in compared to Death proof however. Instead of the strong male guided violence, the tables have turned and Rose McGowen wields a gun with her leg forming a new fetish combining both violence and sex.  Barton writes, “Through a filmic foregrounding of femininity in terms of body parts, costume, makeup, masquerade, seduction and makeover plots, women far more often then men have been explicitly aligned with the performative” (189, Barton). What Barton means to say is that the majority of the roles that women take in films end up creating a performative role for them. An example in Planet Terror is simply the placing of a rifle on Rose McGowan’s character in order to create the deadly combination of violence and sexuality. McGowan continues to be a source of performativity in fight scenes with the zombies as well as her other role in Death Proof as a go-go dancer. McGowan takes “a more central and more active investigating role to the woman in jeopardy…” (187, Barton).  As Barton writes about woman psychothrillers we begin to see how McGowan’s character is not the idle, weak female protagonist that most psychothrillers have. She goes out fighting with her guns blazing, even the one strapped to her thigh and functions as a leg.
            Another element of this double feature is the time in which it came out. This backdrop gives it cultural significance, especially for Planet Terror. Bishop writes, “Genre protocols include not only the zombies….but also a postapocalyptic backdrop, the collapse of societal infrastructures, and the indulging of survivalist fantasies, and the fear of other surviving human beings” (21, Bishop). What Bishop is emphasizing on the 9/11 backdrop of 2007 and the anxiety of the U.S. prior his production. However, this film is still relevant to those concerns. The fear of fellow human beings and collapse of societal infrastructures both play toward the contemporary viewer of 2007. We are still recuperating from the 9/11 incident and all sorts of other issues in our government. But the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsing plays to our hearts still. So in viewing this film even today, in 2010, we still feel the underlying violent anxiety that zombies bring up from events hinting towards our own experiences.
            In combining weapon and woman on Cherry Darling in Planet Terror, Rodriguez violence and sexuality, creating sexual desire for violence. In this fetish way, Darling is what exemplifies the fetishization of destruction in this film. The way the massacre scenes are shot and the color of the film overall glorifies violence in a loving kind of way. Having death and destruction all around the protagonists gives us a feeling of loss and awe at the sheer emptiness when it all falls to silence.
            Another aspect of intrigue when it comes to the gun attached to McGowan is that it combines technology and the body. Benson-Allot claims that Planet Terror spurs from a subgenre of exploitation, “the splatter film, a derivative of Italian art horror…[the] film wants to look at what the flesh can do…the various fluid it can ooze, ways it can break and decays it can manage” (23, Benson-Allott). The subgenre that Benson-Allott recognizes is similar to body horror, in the ways that manipulating the flesh in as many ways as one can think of brings out revulsion, but also intrigue in one’s audience. The over-the-top attitude that both these films in Grindhouse exhibit is made with the intention of getting a rise out of the viewer.
            This double feature is all about crossing limits and excess. The social commentary here might actually go into how America is a country of excess, the country has overstock in everything and so do these films. The hysteria and brute force involved in the play between Stunman Mike and Pam propels the desperate antics to survive and the terrible end of Pam’s life. The revenge tale makes the film fall back into the Hollywood format of happy endings. Through creating this feminine comeback, the film continues to be primarily about excess and intense feeling. These girls fully expel their frustration with the male gender and all that is evil in the world by chasing this, albeit, bad man off the road and literally bitch-slap him. The beat-down that occurs in the end only helps to conclude the film in excess. The message we are left with as an audience is that no one should mess with these chicks; they will come and get you later.
            Similarly, Planet Terror rides on the excess of blood spatter, the gore and vulgarity of consuming flesh, and the raw anger of savagery. When McGowan spins around like a top and shoots circularly with her now rifle appendage, we might sit back and think as an audience “wow that’s awesome” but we also thing “wow, that would NEVER happen in a million years in real life. The hyperreality that this film employs continues through to the soundtrack and the intensity that is thrown at us as an audience. Anderson writes about how the hyperreality and the simulation of stuntman Mike creates a saturated film in Death Proof, but this also applies to Planet Terror. But instead of human emotion that propels the hyperreality forward in the film, it is the graphics, overactive fight scenes and chaotic discord that we witness on screen that creates the hyperreality. In a way the hyperreality no longer is reality in these films. The exaggeration has created a fantasy, one that is over embellished and so, in effect, unreal. The images that unfold on screen before us now show the story that we see as so unrealistic we could never expect it to happen to us in our own lives outside of this story.
            Despite the genre distinction, cultural backdrop, fetishization of violence, especially car crashes, and the hyperreality transformation to unreality, this double feature comes out on top as one of the best almost NC-17 films ever. Ironically, all the hype and marketing put into Grindhouse came up without much to show for it self in box office sales. Stuntman Mike is the perfect example of male brutality overcome by feminist payback, and through this character we can see how femininity is first exploited and then reclaimed.  Rose McGowan plays both the desperate damsel in distress and the weaponized raging badass figure of feminine power in these two films. Through her shift, our affections are first sympathy and then awe. The involvement of which the viewer is required to partake with these films creates an experience of some sort of thrill ride which might be the aim of the directors. All in all, these films both represent violence, sexuality and its involvement with violence, and the fetishization of destruction which creates the spectacle we receive.

Works Cited

Anderson, Aaron. "Stuntman Mike Simulation and Sadism in Death Proof."  Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy: How to Philosophize with a Pair of Pliers and a Blowtorch. Chicago: Carus Publishing Compony, 2007. 13-20. 

Barton, Sabrina. "Your Self Storage: Femaile Investigation and Male Performativity in the Woman's Psychothriller." The New American Cinema. London: Duke University Press, 1998. 187-216.

Benson-Allott,  Caetlin. Grindhouse: an   Experiment in the  Death of  Cinema. Film Quarterly v. 62 no. 1 (Fall   2008) p. 20-4

Bishop, Kyle. "Dead Man Still Walking." Journal of Popular Film &  Television 37 (2009): 17-25.

Gunning, Tom.“The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde.” Wide Angle vol. 8 no. 3/4 (Fall 1986). Rpt. in Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative. Ed. Thomas Elsaesser. London: BFI Publishing, 1990.

Osmond, Andrew. Planet Terror. Sight & Sound  v.  ns17 no. 12 (December 2007) p. 84-5

Rayns, Tony. Death Proof. Sight  & Sound v.  ns17 no. 10 (October 2007) p. 52-3