#36. Sucker Punch - Analysis

Sucker Punch banner

*THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THIS ANALYSIS*

FIND MY ORIGINAL REVIEW OF SUCKER PUNCH HERE

Feminist film theory has had an interesting, if not often polarizing, maturation since Laura Mulvey published her groundbreaking essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema in 1975. In it Mulvey investigates the gender-based patriarchal structure of Hollywood films, how Freud’s theory of scopophila relates to the male spectators pleasure of looking at women on screen, and how women are often reduced to objects to be gazed upon, what she called the “passive spectacle.” To understand Mulvey it is important to also understand the idea of feminism as both a movement and a social discipline. In her 2004 essay Brain Sex, Cyberpunk Cinema, Feminism, and the Dis/Location of Heterosexuality, author Michelle Chilcoat defines feminism as “the effect of the social, cultural, or psychological inscription of a subject whose biological sex (male and female) is already given.” (Chilcoat, 168) In this paper I will attempt an examination of the male-gaze, feminism, and the patriarchal affects of Zach Snyder’s 2011 film Sucker Punch. First I will offer a necessary explanation of the films somewhat complicated narrative, move on to the gaze theory and its relationship to shame and spectatorship, investigate the idea of castration in film, and end with an exploration of how Mulvey’s patriarchal theory influenced Sucker Punch.

Sucker Punch posterSucker Punch follows Baby Doll (Emily Browning) a young woman who is sent to an insane asylum by her evil child molesting stepfather (Gerard Plunkett) following the death of her mother and accidentally shooting her younger sister. The asylum is controlled by the ruthlessly conniving Blue (Oscar Isaac), and his somewhat reluctant abettor and resident psychiatrist Madam Gorski (Carla Gugino). The Stepfather (he is never given a name) pays Blue to forge all of the paperwork needed to have the asylum’s doctor (Jon Hamm) perform a lobotomy on his poor stepdaughter. As the doctor’s hammer falls in slow motion towards the chisel that rests atop her eye socket, Baby Doll successfully escapes inside her imagination, apparently avoiding the inevitable vegetification that awaits her in reality, and presents a chance for her to somehow form a plan.

There are three individual, albeit somehow connected dimensions of Baby Doll’s reality in which she must exist in Sucker Punch. The first is the actual real world that takes place in the asylum, where Baby Doll is joined by fellow inmates Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung). The second world takes place inside Baby Doll’s head, where she transforms the insane asylum into a ritzy cathouse of sorts where the girls are forced to perform lurid strip teases for the club’s influential clientele. It is at this point the film’s somewhat forgivable, puerile set-up devolves into a vapid netherworld of shameless exploitation.

To escape the brothel Baby Doll eventually learns she must find certain objects throughout the club to aid in the dancers’ escape. A map, fire, a butcher’s knife; each item is controlled by a man at the brothel. To obtain each item Baby Doll must first lure them into a seductive trance with a striptease, hypnotizing them with her beauty and giving one of the other dancers an opportunity to steal the treasure. Her dancing must be pretty impressive, because her gyrations charm her mark every time. In a shallow attempt to eschew the male gaze Snyder refuses to allow the audience the pleasure of viewing one of these dances, purposefully cutting away as soon as Baby Doll begins to move her body, choosing instead to zoom in on Emily Browning’s vacant eyes.  Snyder’s perception of what is empowering and what is exploitive is immediate and apparent. In an interview promoting the film during its theatrical release Snyder defends this idea that by simply cutting away from what has obviously been setup as sexual exploitation, he avoids the trappings of the gaze, reaffirming his feminine liberating ideals. “You can say what you want about the movie, but I did not shoot the girls in an exploitative way. They might be dressed sexually, but I didn’t shoot the movie to exploit their sexuality. There’s no close-ups of cleavage, or stuff like that.” (ONTD,2011)

Sucker Punch Baby DollHowever, what implications arise when denying the audience this visual relief? Or more to the point, what exactly did Snyder feel he could avoid by showcasing five very beautiful, albeit very young looking women in revealing S & M and schoolgirl outfits, but then purposefully strive to not give into the male gaze? When defining scopophilia Freud said, “The force that which opposes scopophilia, but which may be overcome by it, is shame.” (Manlove, 88) Mulvey disagrees with Freud’s assertions, insisting that personal identification with the characters on screen is essential when influencing the spectator into feeling shame. The prostitution, stripteases, and risqué outfits would perhaps be more appropriate if it wasn’t for how young some of the girls are made to look. While actresses Abbie Cornish (28 years old) and Jena Malone (26 years old) look like adult women, Vanessa Hudgen’s (22 years old) Blondie, Jamie Chung’s (28 years old) Amber and especially Browning’s (22 years old) Baby Doll not only looks as if they were underage but that their childish appearance was deliberate. In a film about tough strippers some luridness is to be expected, but when you put a catholic schoolgirl outfit on a girl who looks about old enough to legitimately wear a catholic schoolgirl outfit then that is where lust can easily transition into shame.

Sucker Punch posterThis is where Mulvey is wrong. The shame awakened by Sucker Punch is inspired by the pleasure derived from the visual titillations, even without close-ups and T & A, and I would argue this guilty emotion is achieved without any personal identification with Baby Doll or her sisters-in-crime. Their plight is non-existent when you realize both the heightened fantasy worlds and the brothel do not actually exist. The majority of the film occurs within Baby Doll’s mind, complete figments intended as a metaphor for how women cope with sexual trauma. The only thing the audience literally knows about Baby Doll before the lobotomy and her ensuing trip into her dream-state is that she accidently shot her sister. By the time Baby Doll reaches the brothel the audience has more insight into Blue and the one-dimensional stepfather character than the film’s protagonist. Snyder has consciously manufactured a film in which the major events never actually take place, conversations and character development in reality never occurred. Any identification that a spectator may indeed associate with the characters on screen is quickly nullified as soon as Baby Doll escapes inside her own mind. And yet, shame is an understandable reaction when watching this film. As Baby Doll travels into her deeper dream worlds, the amount of clothing her and the other girls wear becomes less and less. Beginning with white patient outfits in the asylum, Snyder expects us to accept that Baby Doll would envision herself and the others wearing dominatrix style costumes in the brothel, and unbelievably even less clothing in the fantasy realm. Snyder may have been trying to portray a group of women fighting against sexual oppression, but by progressively removing their clothing and exploiting their bodies he only serves to subvert his initial goal. The danger is evident, the oppression is unfortunate, and the sexual mistreatment is disgusting, but this is made all the more worse when confronted with the thought that Baby Doll is manifesting it all. In her reality it can be assumed her and her sister are both sexually mistreated, in the brothel her and her friends are sexually mistreated, beaten, and often times killed. Should it be some sort of relief when in the fantasy world the girls are just attacked by zombie Germans and annihilated by bombs? The idea that the brothel serves as a visual metaphor for her reality is straightforward and clear, but what is incomprehensible is how any of the sexual abuse endured in the club or the physical harm of the fantasy world is in anyway a representation of that struggle. The entertainment and excitement felt by the viewer witnessing the mistreatment of the women in Sucker Punch can only lead to shame, even without the conscious decision by Snyder to capitulate the male gaze or allow the audience to identify with Baby Doll.

Sucker Punch German Steampunk ZombieMulvey believes films are socially constructed, engineered by a patriarchal system with a focal point on gender politics. She writes, “The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world.” (Mulvey, 715) Writer Clifford Manlove extrapolates further on this theory of woman’s struggle to compensate for their lack of a penis in his essay Visual “Drive” and Cinematic Narrative: Reading Gaze Theory in Lacan, Hitchcock, and Mulvey. “All (non-psychotic) subjects lack; lack and loss are functions of what Freud calls castration… the gaze, rather, and its effects, are not gender specific.” (Manlove, 90) Snyder’s film is an ideal illustration to both Freud’s theory of castration and Manlove’s interpretation. Within the reality of the film (the asylum) Baby Doll and the other girls have lost their freedom, their family, and the control over their bodies. Once in the fantasy world each girl is provided specific phallocentric weapons to battle the undead, dragons, and so on. Baby Doll wields a katana, while the other girls carry shotguns, machine guns, sniper rifles, and rocket launchers. By battling epic chimerical creatures while brandishing their brutal artillery, the girls effectively compensate for their castration, or lack of any agency to control their own existence within reality. It should be noted that within the fantasy world the girls kill automated-zombie Germans, nasty orcs, and even dragons, but never at any point do they kill a man, their physical oppressors. In fact, the only living species Baby Doll destroys is a female dragon and her baby. When the opportunity arises for one the girls to take back their loss of control in the brothel, using similarly phallocentric weapons like a knife, she never seizes the chance, instead deciding to purely threaten her male abuser or deliver a nonfatal wound. Even when given the chance to physically breakout of her despotic patriarchal existence, employing the male antagonist’s own phallic weapon against him, Snyder refuses to permit her escape. The director’s personal relationship with his protagonist, along with male audience expectation of the film, I believe, is analogous to Mulvey’s continuation of her theory when she wrote, “Women (then) stand in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic (and in this case visual) command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of the meaning.” (Mulvey, 716)

Sucker Punch artDirector Zach Snyder professes that he intended his film Sucker Punch to be a big budget spectacle to empower women, metaphorically showcasing the plight of sexually abused females all over the world. Sadly his film failed at this righteous goal, instead only succeeding at glorifying the exhibition of young women. Films like the Wachowski’s The Matrix (1999) prove that, “the action genre has given rise to female characters who challenge conventional femininity through their narrative and aesthetic roles.” (Geller, 8) Sucker Punch only serves to impede this evolution of the genre, believing instead superficial female characters fighting monsters in a make believe environment, wearing nothing but shortcut costumes will indeed challenge Hollywood conventions. While steampunk zombies, giant flying dragons, and runaway trains are captivating, Snyder’s inability to deny his own id is too distracting for the viewer to completely commit. This disassociation with the women on screen never-the-less provoke shame within the spectator, going against Mulvey’s belief that personal identification with the characters is essential to make the viewer feel anything like shame. Snyder’s presumption of what could be perceived as empowering for women is disturbing, only proving that the female voice is not only profoundly void in Hollywood at present time, but also completely misunderstood in today’s popular culture.

References

Chilcoat, Michelle. "Brain Sex, Cyberpunk Cinema, Feminism and the Dis/Location of Heterosexuality." NWSA Journal. 16. (2004): 156-176. Web. 16 Dec. 2011.

Geller, Theresa. "Queering Hollywood's Tough Chick." Frontiers. 25. (2004): 8-34. Web. 16 Dec. 2011.

Manlove, Clifford. "Visual 'Drive' and Cinematic Narrative: Reading Gaze Theory in Lacan, Hitchock, and Mulvey." Cinema Journal. 46. (2007): 83-108. Web. 16 Dec. 2011.

Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Critical Visions in Film Theory. Ed. Timothy Corrigan, Ed. Patricia White and Ed. Meta Mazaj. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 714-725. Print.

Snyder, Zach, dir. Sucker Punch. Warner Brothers, 2011. Film.

Trailer: Indie Game the Movie

#33. Portraits in Human Sexuality, #34. Let's Get Married, #35. The Gay Marriage Thing - Analysis

The Gay Marriage Thing bannerTo many, the notion of forbidding same-sex couples the right to marry is simply discriminatory and unconstitutional.  In a country that prides itself on the freedom granted to its citizens, to deny any American the right to join whomever they please in wedlock is an obvious step backwards after the progressions made during the feminist and civil rights movements. Citizens that oppose same-sex marriage cite the degradation of the “American family,” that by altering the definition of matrimony we only serve to welcomingly invite its disintegration. Some states have developed a compromise known as “civil unions.” These unions offer homosexual couples many of the rights and benefits granted to heterosexuals, without the dignity or equality afforded by a legally confirmed marriage. There are political scientists like Evan Gerstmann that look at the issue more fundamentally. He argues, “marriage is a constitutional right and that there are no legitimate grounds to restrict this right to opposite-sex couples.” (Miroff, 2009, p 121) In this paper I will explore the current state of marriage in our society and try and to discover the current condition of this institution so many are trying to protect, and then investigate several of the main arguments made against same-sex marriage as detailed in Gerstmann’s essay “Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right.”

In February 2004, President George W. Bush, under pressure from conservative constituents after the state of Massachusetts began granting same-sex marriages, urged the Senate to push a constitutional amendment securing the right to marry remain with heterosexual couples only. The president said, “Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.” (“Bush Calls for Ban.” N.D.) Continually throughout his two terms President Bush would speak of the necessity to defend the sanctity of marriage. What is so holy, so obviously righteous about marriage that makes it such an essential aspect of society? Marriage, columnist Maggie Gallagher maintains, is an indispensible foundation for building and preserving stable families. Gallagher explains that human beings by their very nature are compelled to act upon their sexual urges that can and does produce life. “Marriage is our attempt to reconcile and harmonize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and their children.” (as cited by Schulman in Miroff, 2009, p 133)Frontline

It is to be understood that these contracts are to benefit the community, and provide security for its children. Or to put it another way, stable marriages will produce stable families, which in time will support strong communities. But are the marriages good, or are just good marriages good? If the 2010 census data is to be believed, America as a whole is evolving towards less traditional familial norms. According to Tavernise (2011) for the first time in American history, as of 2010, married couples have dropped below half of all American households. Currently married couples represent just 48 percent of households, far below the 78 percent found in the 1950s. Traditional families, that is a household consisting of a mother, a father, and children, have seen a sharp decline as well, with only a 5^th of households defined as such.

Far from the taboo of same-sex coupling or the liberation found in the feminist movement (although there is an obvious affect that can be traced in the decline of marriage rates since the 1950s), the main reason traditional marriage has been decaying is economic. In a beautiful manifestation of irony, President Bush himself is perhaps the most to blame for the crumbling of his beloved sanctimonious union. This national withdrawal from marriage I would argue puts American children in more harm than allowing same-sex couples’ equal rights. There is less security, less stability, and less structure for the children of these unmarried families. It seems obvious any positive examples that promote successful marriages, be it hetero or homosexual, would vastly benefit the institution of marriage than vigorously discriminating a willing segment of the population wanting to unite.  

After studying the census data W. Bradford Wilcox of the National Marriage Project told Hallet (2011), “It’s troubling because those kids are much more likely to be exposed to instability, complex family relations and poverty.” University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project published a report soon after the 2010 census data was released arguing that marriage is perhaps the most important factor of American economy, and that financial growth is reliant on permanent, strong families. For them, marriage as an institution, helps men to focus, be more responsible, and become more judicious with their reasoning because “…it (marriage) encourages men to think in terms not just of their own welfare but of the welfare of their families.” (Hallet, 2011) Interestingly enough, America’s 50 percent divorce rate has remained stable for the past decade or so. According to the website DivorceGuide.com (2011), financial difficulties are cited as the number one cause for divorce in America. With so much attention dedicated to not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, does it not seem more appropriate to put that energy towards healing the economy, and in turn mending the country’s marriage problem?

If no one is getting married, then what exactly are they doing? Many Americans have found alternative means to coexisting outside of traditional methods. Not exactly a new phenomenon, but more and more families (with and without children) cohabitate without entering the institution of marriage. Cohabitation offers couples a level of freedom and control over their relationships and personal lives not found in traditional wedlock. However, those at the National Marriage Project (2011) respond asserting that cohabitation does not encourage the same level of commitment or long-term intentions in respective partners that marriage does.

Gayle from "The Gay Marriage Thing"Another influence on the waning percentage of married citizens in the United States is the influx of immigrants. According to the New York Times the majority of immigrants coming to America tend to be single individuals in their 20s and 30s, many of whom live together in one household. These, alongside the fact that Americans are living longer and having fewer children all affect the marriage data.

In his essay “Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right” author Evan Gerstmann explicitly states that the Constitution guarantees every person the right to marry the person of his or her choice. Unfortunately for gay and lesbian couples that find themselves outside of the majority, this right is not limitless, and that all constitutional rights are balanced against social interests. These social interests, in regards to same-sex marriage, vary in responsibility and rationality. Next I would like to investigate a few of the major defenses against same-sex marriage and offer my rebuttals against them.

Referenced earlier, many same-sex marriage opponents assert their views are in the interest of America’s youth. Many believe marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation and child development within the sheltered protection of traditional family standards.  By granting homosexual couples the same rights as straight couples, than presumably their inclusion into the holy institution will somehow poison the well. Their outlandish perversions will have unnamed and unknown negative influences on our innocent children; presumably more of an influence than the country’s 50 percent divorce rate or the 23 percent of children that are born to single mothers. (Childstats.gov, 2011) Having children is an important and discernable reason for many couples to decide to tie the knot, but that is far from the theory that procreation should be the only, or even main reason, to marry. If this argument were to be taken literally, than only those heterosexual couples willing and capable of having children should have the right to wed.

While having children and raising a traditional American family are important to many couples planning to marry, it is currently not a requirement to do so. In fact, the Constitution defends the rights of heterosexual couples to marry if they cannot or decide not to have children. Additionally, and perhaps more to the point, the Constitution protects the rights of those citizens who, in all likelihood, should not be permitted to marry or have children. For every single mother struggling to care for her child is an absentee father, the so-called deadbeat dad. This is a country that allows child molesters, drug addicts, welfare recipients, and convicted felons to attain a marriage license and produce child after child, but actively campaigns against loving same-sex couples to share the same privilege.

Although it may seem ridiculous to some that I should have to make this next point clear, same-sex couples are capable of having and raising children to become positive members of society. Using data from the 2000 census, there were estimates that stated, “33 percent of lesbian couples and 22 percent of gay male couples lived with their own children who were under the age of 18.” (Kurdek, 2004, p 881) There are hundreds of examples of children who have been brought up by adoring same-sex parents and matured into thoughtful American citizens.

Bush Marriage ComicAnother position against same-sex marriage comes down to their actual inability to naturally create life. If having children is at the core of traditional marriage, than it is simply nonsensical to grant homosexuals the right to marry. While I am sure having and raising a child is a rich and fulfilling part of not only marriage but also life itself, there are other equally important reasons to get married. Companionship, financial advantages, sex, and health benefits are a few of the more definable rewards of marriage. If the constitution restricted the right to marry to only couples ready and able to have children, than many citizens other than homosexuals would be excluded. Sterile couples, women who have hit menopause and can no longer reproduce, or even loving couples who simply decide to use contraceptives would all be denied the privilege taken for granted by so many.

The Supreme Court has never held that the basic right to marry is dependent upon the prospect of childbirth. As far back as 1898 the laws has been clear that infertile women are eligible to marry. (Miroff, 2009, p 125) It would stand to reason then that if having children is such an important part of marriage, than should the inability to procreate be grounds for divorce?

Gerstmann mentions another rationale used against same-sex marriage is that marriage is by definition “dual-gendered.” “Numerous courts and commentators have relied upon traditional and dictionary definitions of marriage to show that same-sex couples cannot be married.” (Miroff, 2009, p 126) The author goes on to explain how there are several major problems with their rationalization. Courts have a history of ignoring the dictionary when defining Constitutional rights. Consider how dictionaries from the 1960s would have defined marriage in regard to race. No doubt those that opposed interracial matrimony could have found support with a published definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Even so, the California Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right for interracial partners to marry nearly a decade before the United States Supreme Court finally concurred with the historic Loving V. Virginia. (Karlan, 2010, p 162)

“Courts have consistently ignored the dictionary in defining constitutional rights. Constitutional law would be very different if the courts used dictionary definitions to shape the contours of our rights.” (Miroff, 2009, p 126) The Constitution’s First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech is a perfect example to support Gerstmann’s attitude. The author cites Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as defining the word “speech” as: “the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words.” He continues on, with the definitions becoming more and more nuanced, but his point is made clear; speech is something that always spoken aloud, auditory. However, our country’s First Amendment protects us from much more than just spoken words. America’s Constitutional defense of freedom of speech ensures anyone can wear the clothing and paraphernalia of their choice; protest, demonstrate, or strike, public and civil events; publish opinion in print or on the Internet, and so. Imagine the condition of American civil liberties if free speech was simply designated for aural communication.

In the past marriage was a profoundly sexist, one-sided arrangement where the woman was quite literally the property of her husband. Daughters given away as offerings to wealthy landowners or businessmen, wives were dominated and exploited. “Of course marriage was defined as dual-gendered; without a woman, who would occupy the legally subordinate role?” (Miroff, 2009, p 126) The same females today that defend the dictionary definition of marriage as dual-gendered may not be so quick to reference Webster when considering the book’s past misogynistic mistakes.

Same-Sex Marriage pollFinally I want to explore the opposition’s “slippery slope” argument. In this ludicrous example of base theory extrapolation, the more extreme same-sex oppressors insist that by granting homosexuals the right to marry, we as a nation are inviting even greater perverse threats to our country’s holy union, namely polygamy and incest. What Gerstmann calls “marital anarchy,” many fear the proverbial flood gates will come down, bringing with it a tidal wave of perverse abnormality. By granting the right to homosexuals, there will be no defense against those wishing to marry their own brother or take on their third or fourth wife. While it is admittedly hard for me to see the connection between homosexual marriage and either incest or polygamy, at least the latter is an actually accepted lifestyle in some parts of the country and the world. However polygamy has and will be defined by American courts in the future has, in my opinion, little to no relationship with the fight for equal rights for same-sex couples. Fundamentally the two are after disparate goals, one focusing on quality, and the other on quantity. Polygamists bring with them different problems and concerns on both a state and social level. “First and foremost, legalizing polygamy, unlike legalizing same-sex marriage, would profoundly alter the legal structure of every couple’s marriage.” (Miroff, 2009, p 128) By allowing polygamist relationships, every husband and wife would legally be afforded the right and ability to marry again and again, presumably without the consent of their spouse. Same-sex marriage on the other hand bears no consequence on traditional male/female relationships. As far as Gerstmann’s consideration that same-sex marriage could in some way affect how straight couples feel about marriage, I for one cannot see how that is or should be of any concern to homosexuals forced into cohabitation or civil unions. Were interracial couples concerned with how their wedding would alter the feelings their white oppressors had towards marriage before Loving V. Virginia? I would hope not.

There is no denying marriage as an institution is devolving at an alarming rate. Fewer men and women dare to walk down the aisle than ever before, and those that do face a statistical barrage promising failure. If we can agree that marriage strengthens society as a whole, be it economically or socially, than how does our nation in decline turn away same-sex marriages in good conscience? By granting them the privilege of matrimony America increases the rates of successful marriages in the country, continuing to push the importance of traditional family values; even if the definition of “traditional family” may be evolving. Evan Gerstmann’s essay “Same-Sex Marriage as a Constitutional Right” illuminated the arguments against same-sex marriage, offering insightful elucidations and counterarguments that capably fractured the opposition. While the issue’s proponents know equal rights for homosexual couples is no longer a question of if, but when, it does not lessen the frustration or pain felt by the human beings discriminated against and denied Constitutional civil liberties in America today. Like the fight against slavery, the feminist movement, and the battle for civil rights, same-sex marriage is just another in a long line of social movements that have helped to define America as a country since its inception. 

Trailers: The Raid & The Grey & Tim and Eric

The Raid PosterHere is the newly dropped updated Indonesian trailer for Gareth Evans' The Raid. I have quite literally watched this trailer at least a dozen times since yesterday morning. By the time it is done my body feels something similar to having just ran five miles and having an orgasm in public. This just became my newest obsession. Enjoy...

The Grey PosterI pretty much enjoyed Joe Carnahan's A-Team adaptation. The director and Liam Neeson seem to have a solid working relationship going on and I think this trailer looks right up their alley. Consider me excited. Enjoy...

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie PosterSo, here is the recently released teaser for Tim & Eric's Billion Dollar Movie and I must agree that it does deserve some sort of preemptive Oscar for Best Picture, its only right! Cannot wait to find out what the hell "Shrim" means. Enjoy if this is your kind of thing...

Update on Sunday, December 4, 2011 at 11:21AM by Brandon Roberts

Ok, so the damn day that I post the Tim & Eric teaser trailer they drop the fulllength red-band! So here it is, and now I am just holding my breath in anticipation until January. Enjoy...

#30. The King's Speech, #31. Elizabeth, #32. Robin Hood (2010) - Analysis

The King's Speech PosterWhen considering the sheer amount of films in existence detailing the British monarchy it is safe to assume that the English adore their own history. With hundreds of films, mini-series, docudramas, documentaries, and made-for-television movies having been produced, the subject of British kings and queens has evolved into a substantial subgenre in and of iself, and understandably so. Even the oldest of monarchs make exciting cinematic subject matter. 6^th century ruler King Arthur has appeared in several different settings, some action, others fantasy. Peter O’Toole’s rendition of Henry II in Becket (1964) and The Lion in Winter (1968) are still considered the definitive interpretation of the king to this day. What is this attraction to not just royalty, but British royalty specifically, and does it only affect native Englishmen?

The simplest answer to this question is also its most apparent. From Richard I in countless Robin Hood adaptations to this past year’s Oscar winning portrayal of King George VI in The King’s Speech, England’s monarchal system of government provides an endless source of inspiration for storytellers and filmmakers alike. While some screenwriters take advantage of a certain monarch’s legend, others will use a king or queen as a base, creating inventive story threads amongst history’s more peripheral characters. Somewhere between a local celebrity and a demigod, English rulers’ popularity fluctuates throughout history. With each monarch landing somewhere unique on karma’s ever-judging reticulum, actions can most definitely (but now always) speak louder than words. Of course, it is when actions hit the screen, and dialogue professed in actuality rings false that cinema, a medium forever shackled down by the limitless possibilities yielded by fiction, as a tool and a curse, shall fail as a device employed for truth. For films like Tom Hooper’s The King’s Speech, Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth, and even Ridley Scott’s disastrous Robin Hood adaptation, these historical reconstructions all begin with good intentions, and must find the line where accuracy meets entertainment.

Robin Hood 2010

The King’s Speech and Robin Hood can be found on opposite ends of this spectrum. Although riddled with inaccuracies, The King’s Speechnot only won over the public, but enchanted critics as well. In an article defrauding the film’s more apathetic intentions, journalist David Freeman wrote that The King’s Speech “. . . is being sold as a feel-good tale of how a friendship between a royal and a commoner affected the course of history. But… the film covers up Winston Churchill’s support for Edward VIII… and that the movie fails to acknowledge that the once tongue-tied George VI supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.” (Freeman) How does a film that bears false witness to a moment in time also generate positive buzz and audience affections? I believe it goes back to my original answer, and that is drama trumps reality. The common moviegoer is more interested in Freeman’s “feel-good” film than the alternate version where the hero George VI is instead a Nazi sympathizer. Robin Hood on the other hand failed on both accounts. Scott overly produced a nonsensical take on a highly divisive legend and was unable to successfully tell a historically accurate or engaging story.

Elizabeth PosterWhile the obvious dramatic baggage that comes along with hijacking history provides ample fodder ripe for cinematic theatrics, I do believe there is a deeper motivation that guides this regal obsession. It is more interesting peeking behind the royal curtain to witness a king’s hardships than an equal; a mere mortal if you will. There is a voyeuristic quality no doubt, and this notion of behind-the-scenes access coupled with elitism and class barriers perhaps tickles some evolutionary suppressed instinct built into our human nature. That is, we all envy those that tower above us, especially those presumably chosen by God, so there is a very natural feeling of enjoyment when we find out these royal men and woman have the same insecurities (The King’s Speech) and idiosyncrasies (The Madness of King George) that plague all mankind; thus substantiating the middle class fraternity that is populism. By defining great and powerful leaders, these films, in some way, help us to define ourselves.

Interestingly enough, and somewhat off topic, it must be asked why, not just Americans, but filmgoers in general, do not crave films focused on past presidents? The attraction to films chronicling English monarchs does not just affect the Brits, but Americans (and every other country to be sure) as well. It is a curious attitude indeed, especially considering the dramatic properties so obvious when considering the lives and careers of our many great leaders. Although one could dedicate an entire thesis in an attempt to answer this question, I do feel it must have something to do with the fact that all presidents begin as common men. Unlike English kings or queens, who are believed to have been appointed by God, presidents are men. They play on and manipulate the very insecurities defined by populism to gain favor among the common, and it may be that throughout the election process they lose that mystique.

Kings and queens will forever be a fascinating topic, if for no other reason than they are in fact the “them.” The unknown, a lifestyle shrouded in secrecy and defined mostly by presumption. It is with this clouded culture, filled with as much pomp-and-circumstance as cloak-and-dagger, that will both excite and endear storytellers and moviegoers for as long as the medium exists.

#29. Hugo - Review

Hugo Poster 2011Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is a love letter to film, and the cinefiles that adore the history of the medium. So enchanting is the story of the titular orphan and his indomitable will that the small world the film takes place, almost entirely within the walls of a Paris train station, is majestically simple and yet staggeringly absorbing. Those seeking uncomplicated children’s fare may feel somewhat overwhelmed by Hugo’s weighty aspirations. It strives for more than the undemanding emotional highs that endear Pixar films to so many, and expects far more from its audience than the common family film.

Hugo 2011The son of a clock-maker, 12-year old Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is forced to live with his loutish alcoholic uncle Claude (Ray Winstone) when his father is killed in an unfortunate, and somewhat mysterious, museum fire. Hugo becomes Claude’s apprentice as the caretaker of all the clocks at a busy Paris train station. For their services the duo receives free room and board at the depot, living and sleeping amidst the thunderous reverberations of the giant, ever-turning gears. Claude quickly abandons Hugo at the station, leaving the mechanical prodigy to tend to all of the depot’s timekeeping. Realizing it is either the station or the orphanage, Hugo successfully orchestrates a shadowy existence within the walls and crevices of the train station. He survives by stealing croissants from the local bakery, rummages crumbs from preoccupied passengers, all the while avoiding the attention of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo’s only friend is also the only thing he has to remember his father by, a broken metallic automaton that the pair was in the middle of repairing before the fire.

Hugo Automaton 2011This peculiar little robot is where my synopsis must end, for explaining any more of Hugo’s many spinning gears would be a terrible disservice, especially for those with any affection for cinema’s silent beginnings. Scorsese constructs his film not unlike the evolution of his medium. The first 20-minutes or so are heavily reminiscent of early silent movies, relying on the expressive faces of Butterfield and Cohen to reveal the setting. It is probably not a mistake that in many scenes Butterfield’s large blue eyes reminded me of Buster Keaton’s haunting gaze. As the film progresses so to does its cinematic style, evoking stalwart reminders of cinema’s evolutionary timeline.

Of course this is Scorsese’s film, and yet unlike any feature film he has ever created. Reminiscent of the obvious passion he has for the subjects in his documentaries, I was pleasantly impressed by the director’s flair for family friendly fun. His 1930s Paris is stunningly gorgeous, and yet not overtly relied upon to dazzle the audience. Instead the majority of the film takes place inside the bustling train station, with cafés and flower shops assembled in such away as to echo familiar images of lively Paris corners seen in countless films from the past.

Hugo is a unique experience in an era of dumb downed cinematic exploits. Scorsese demands a level of patience and awareness from his audience, refusing to treat any patrons like infants. Hugo is built upon the foundation of Scorsese’s love of cinema and storytelling, and those willing to invest in his valiant Hugo Cabret will be rewarded with a prize rarely experienced in not only film, but in all media: genuineness. 

Sacha Baron Cohen in Hugo 2011This film deserves more consideration and admiration than I can provide presently, but I can all but guarantee Hugo will inspire both dedicated study and unabashed hyperbolic praise for years to come. Please let me know what you thought of Scorsese’s latest in the comment’s section below, and tell me if I am correct in my love for this film, or have just been duped by a crafty and manipulative filmmaker. Also, please help out the site by clicking the “Share” button below and linking this review to your favorite social networks! 

The Magic of Green Screen