A few notes on Biblical Adaptations.

Exodus: Gods and Kings was one of the movies I was anticipating most in 2014, it just so happened to be a bit of a let down; but thats okay because it was thought provoking. This obviously is a biblical adaption, the book of Exodus is quite an epic in and of itself, I don’t necessarily consider myself religious, mostly spiritual. What I find interesting about the book of Exodus along with all of the old testament is the sheer barbarity of it all, compared to the new testament which contains some barbarity, but fewer wars. Fewer wars would insinuate progress as civilization takes form.

However, war seems to be apart of everyday life for every citizen of earth today, read a newspaper, read an online news source, turn on your television, it’s all war. It’s a pretty accurate to say that as American’s we haven’t seen a day of peace since WWII, especially my generation, who in just 2 decades of living have witnessed: The OKC Bombing (probably too young to remember), 9/11, and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan both lasting a decade, as well as conflicts with North Korea, the Boston Bombing, the Ferguson riots, terror groups such as the Taliban and ISIL. It's been a wild 20 years.

Has mankind reverted back to this same barbarity witnessed in the old testament? This question brings me to Aronofsky’s “Noah”, which is a transmutation, more of a fantasy depiction of what one would read in the bible. Mankind is portrayed as a destructive force, that has blemished any creation by a higher power. Which, in a way, is true, maybe the only day that earth will know peace is the day mankind ceases exist.

The most impactful element found in Exodus is perhaps its ability to translate to all of the issues of the last hundred years, as well as the last billion. Exodus could easily be modernized, take out the horses, throw in some tanks, take away the spears, throw in some AR-15s, it’s all relative. History does repeat itself.

Mockingjay Part 1: Enter Chaos.

Mockingjay: Enter Chaos

If I were able to get past the first sentence in this blog without making mention of Philip Seymour Hoffman, I would be incredibly disappointed with myself, one of the hardest parts of this year was saying farewell to him. With that being said, I will get down to business. It’s not a surprise that Mockingjay: Part One garnered so much success on it’s opening weekend; as a movie theater employee, the release of the latest Hunger Games movie is normally accompanied by both feelings of excitement and dread. After opening weekend of “Catching Fire” I submitted a request off a year in advance for Mockingjay: Part 1, the chaos and stress a movie theater employee feels on such a night for eight straight hours is pretty comparable to the context of the movie, insanity. However, I did survive, even though my request off was denied.

"Do they shoot the people that whistle because it is a sign of rebellion? Or because the tune is just genuinely annoying?" #foodforthought

Let me make this clear: I am not a fan of teen fiction narratives, Harry Potter would be the only exception. Teen Fiction takes the world and makes it one big High School. The Hunger Games does this to such a point, that it makes me want to puke, a lot. Peta loves Katniss, Gale loves Katniss, Katniss loves both of them, what do they do? This movie would have been so much better had they just ate the damn berries. Now that I’ve got that out of the way it is imperative that I address the main audience of this cheesy, violent, love story. Teens, duh. As I mentioned in my earlier blog the main character: Katniss is not a typical feminine character. Despite being the protagonist, Katniss is the aggressor, Katniss leads the charge against the oppressive capital, and dawns the title of the Mockingjay.

With the character of Katniss, Suzanne Collins ushered in a new era and proved that film audiences could unite within a female hero. The qualities of Katniss Everdeen are as follows: Brave, defiant, gutsy, and sharp as a tack. Katniss possesses a lot of masculine skills such as hunting, trapping, and the art of survival. It is clear from the start that she is superior to a lot of men in the story. Especially Peeta, the Baker’s son; baking, and the art of camouflage are the two skills Peeta possesses. The art of camouflage is, in simpler terms, the art of passively blending in to the world around you. Basically the idea of traditional feminine character according to Laura Mulvey, Peeta is a passive object, a vulnerable, castrated character.

So it is safe to say between these two characters there is an element of role reversal, otherwise known as displacement. The idea of displacement is basically movement, moving masculine qualities to women, and feminine qualities to men. This idea has been in effect since the days of German Expressionism, and was instituted by the legendary director, F.W Murnau, in such films as “Sunrise”. The idea of displacement blurs the line of gender and audience’s associations with such characters as Katniss and Peeta.

Outwardly, women have an attraction to Peeta, or Gale, they identify with them, their vulnerability, their passivity, their longing for Katniss. Subconsciously, girls have an attraction to Katniss, for her physical strength, her survival skill, and her power over everyone. The same can be said about men being attracted subconsciously to Gale, and Peta, and outwardly to Katniss. This Freudian dual perspective is seen in the majority of movies today and is not difficult to point out.

Confronting it, and accepting it might be the hard part.
In my next blog I'll discuss the idea of spectatorship from a masculine and feminine perspective and hopefully shed more light on the subject.

R.I.P

The Mission at Hand: A short note on the direction of Hollywood.

The Mission at Hand

I feel the need to give a brief introduction of myself before I get started; I’m currently a student at UCO, studying Mass Communications and Film. My ultimate goal is to be a director, and to quote the father of narrative cinema, D.W. Griffith: “To make you see.” D.W Griffith with that when asked about the task he was trying to achieve. What Griffith said sums up the logic behind every auteur director, and every aspiring auteur director alive today. I’d like to acknowledge the friends that encouraged me to start this blog, I appreciate all of you, and all that take the time to read what I have to say. Furthermore, I hope this challenges your idea of cinema as a spectator, and challenges you to not view films at face value, there’s a lot more beneath the surface.

The inspiration
The inspiration to write this blog came from, “The Women That Knew Too Much”  a book written by Tania Modelski that I cited multiple times in my term paper. The Women That Knew Too Much tackles the ideas of feminist film theory, and directly applies it to the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock has been criticized for decades for the portrayal of violence directed at women in his films. Laura Mulvey, the woman that set the foundation for feminist film theory, argued that women in Hollywood Narrative Cinema are treated as passive sexual objects that exist only to fulfill the voyeuristic desires of the men in the audience, along with their sadistic impulses, and that women can only view these films by subconsciously becoming masochists.(Visual Pleasure, and Narative Cinema) While this essay set the feminist film theory in motion, it has been debated by other feminist film scholars such as Modleski that the representation of women in film is far more complex in nature.

A question I have asked my peers as well as myself is, how do women view movies today? Granted, not everyone is a film scholar, not everyone knows whether or not they are a feminist; they do not analyze a film, or the characters in it. This is a reality that every female should realize sooner or later, Hollywood does not value the romantic comedy. It’s clear to see the obvious majority of movies that cater to the masculine spectator. However, in these movies that cater to the masculine, how are women portrayed? Are they passive, are they objects, are they victims? In most of these films....Absolutely not. This year featured a very deflated line up of Hollywood films; a few of the highlights were Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Mockingjay: Part 1. If we look at the female leads of these movies, it’s apparent that women are no longer “passive” or victims. From Gomorra to Katniss, females are the aggressors, females kick ass. Women are given masculine qualities, and the playing field is in some respects leveled. So if women can identify with a female lead, that has both masculine, and feminine qualities, is the same thing true for men and masculine male leads? The success of these films is directly related to the audience (masculine and feminine) and their ability to identify with at least one character, subconsciously.