Rafi Zaman

This movie could be a lot of different things, each viewer probably took away something different, after watching this movie. For me personally, this movie was about the journey of Adele. The movie follows her from highschool to adulthood, and shows the many difficulties of “growing up” in general.

Adele starts out as a regular highschool student, until she realizes that she is a lesbian. Thus, she goes through a journey to find love, and try to live life as a lesbian, which is hard at first for her.

One of the things that the director wanted to show in this movie, is the different levels of hierarchy in France, the different class systems that are evident in society there. The director presents Adele as the “middle to lower class” group, and Emma as the “upper-middle class” group. A perfect example is the dinner scenes, in Adele’s family dinner, everyone is eating spaghetti, which is a simple, easy to make, meal that lower class people usually eat. Whereas in Emma’s family dinner, everyone is eating shellfish, and oysters, both foods are known to be high-class foods that upper class people eat. Another example is the two jobs that Adele and Emma have. Adele is a simple preschool teacher, this is regarded as a middle to lower class job in France. Emma is an artist, one that actually makes money, this is regarded as a upper class career in France. On a side note, I realized that being an artist in France is actually very noble, whereas in North America, it is usually looked down upon, so this was an interesting take, on how different cultures, value different professions.

Another scene that exemplified this, was the graduation party of Emma’s. During the party it was very hard for Adele to fit into Emma’s “culture”, her group of friends, because the social levels were different, Adele had trouble connecting or finding something relate-able with the group, as a result, she felt like an outcast. During the entire party, Adele is the care-taker, she is cleaning the dishes, and serving people, because this is the class the director wanted to project Adele as being in, the lower class level. Even after the party Emma tells Adele to try and become a writer. Basically, Emma is indirectly telling Adele, that “what you are doing now, is a lower class job, I want you to move up to my class, and you can do that by becoming a writer, instead of a preschool teacher”.

On a side note, I was really amazed, at how different Adele was in the beginning of the movie, compared to the end. Physically you can tell that she was growing up, and even with her attitude, you could just see the progression in Adele. A prime example would be how before, in highschool, if she was sad, she would just cry and eat, but by the end of the movie, even when Emma tells Adele that she does not love her anymore, Adele is of course sad at first, but shows her maturity by accepting it. I was having trouble deciding why the ending of the movie, ended like that. Why the director just shows Adele walking off “into the sunset”. But reflecting back on it now, the director wanted to show how mature and far Adele has come, from the beginning of the movie. She accepts the fact that she screwed up with Emma, and that their relationship is over, so she does the mature thing, and just walks away, not being a “sore-loser” about it. That is what I feel, the director wanted to show, with the ending.

The Normal Heart, first off, I want to say, great acting from the entire cast in the movie, and a great soundtrack as well.

Now the title of the movie, The Normal Heart, to me is the most accurate title this film could have chose.  The story is ultimately about a gay couple, and how the aids epidemic has affected their relationship. The movie is all about the gay community, how they act, what they do, and how the “outside world”, or straight people, view them. In the beginning of the movie, the whole idea of showing the viewers, how gay people are, seemed like what the rest of the movie will be about. By the end of the movie, I think most viewers will find that, this movie is not actually even focusing on gay people, and their community, but rather, just on a couple that really loved each other, and how the aids disease affected so many people. The director wanted you to ignore the fact that the couple, and the community was gay, he convinced you that these were just ordinary people. Which is why the “Normal Heart” title is perfect for this film. The idea in society of how a gay person’s heart is not “normal”, since their sexuality is not of the norm, as depicted by society. The director ultimately, wanted to show us that, just like straight people, gay people, are actually very similar. You could have replaced the gay couple, with a straight male female couple, and the message and affect would have still been the same, that the couple is torn apart by this disease.

Every movie I have ever seen, in regards to portraying gay people on screen, has not been able to accomplish this, as if there was a gay person or couple or community in a movie, or TV show, that his character is defined by the fact that he is gay. This movie convinces viewers, through the movie, that these gay people are actually just the same as straight people. That both love, and get hurt, which is why I believe that this movie was truly great, it has accomplished something that view movies have, in this regard.

Furthermore, the film shows just how differently straight people think about gay people, the perfect example is when Ned (main character), is in a meeting with the adviser of the president, and the adviser asked Ned if this disease can effect straight people, when Ned said “no”, the adviser completely had no care for the subject anymore, as it will not affect him or straight people, thus, Ned was sent out of his office, with the adviser saying that he would not recommend this issue to the president.

Another thing I noticed was how different the beginning of the movie was, with the beach house scene, everything is so colorful and joyful. Then you look at the later half of the movie, especially the hospital scene where Felix is just about to die, and all you see is dark shadows and black/grey colors. This was very similar to the movie I Am Love in this regard, where the director went from colorful to dark, to emphasize just how bad things are getting.

 

I Am Love, the Italian movie, the classical love story with a twist.

Your traditional love story, low income girl, gets married to super rich guy. Girl discovers that this is not the life she wanted, she wants more out of life, she made the mistake of selecting money over happiness. She finds a free spirited man, this guy loves life in general, and sweeps her off her feet, and the two fall in love, and escape away together. Living, presumably, happily ever after. This movie depicts that very same story, the only difference is that the woman in this story, is much older, (guessing that she is probably in her late 40’s, early 50’s), and the free spirited guy, is much younger. I believe the director did this on purpose, to present the classical love story, in another fashion, similar to how Quentin Tarantino depicted his take on western movies, with Django Unchained.

This movie actually has a lot of messages to digest. This movie is a melodrama, the director attacks the idea of having the perfect “nuclear” family, and how this will lead to true happiness. Emma (the wife) has 2 sons and 1 daughter, all in their mid to late 20’s. Thus, she has been married to her husband for a substantial amount of time. She describes her being happy in her early stages of being married, but as time went on, she literally has all passion sucked out of her. In the beginning of the movie, you can really tell that she lived for family, everything she did was for them. This is understandable as this is normal in Italy, the mother’s main purpose in life, is to be a mother. Even the movie style in the beginning of the movie, depicted this. The camera cuts were much longer, and the movie seemed very flat, the soundtrack was very calm, and regular. I believe the director made the first half of the movie dull on purpose, to let viewers experience how life-less Emma was during the beginning of the movie. As events started escalating, one after the other, camera cuts were much faster, soundtrack was faster, more edgy, the colors in the settings were all dark and black (compared to being really colorful in the first half). You could tell, something was about to happen. Just look at the first dinner scene, all colorful, whole family is happy, then compare that to the final dinner, all dark grey, everyone is depressed (even the family business was being sold off).

Her name was even given to her, by her husband, and a lot of times, she was even dressed by her maid (she barely did anything, everything was given to her). One could understand how boring life would be like, if everything was just given to you. She was supposed to be happy, she has beautiful, healthy children, and her family is very wealthy. Modernists would describe this situation as the “American Dream”. What more can you want? Yet, the director presented to viewers, that this nuclear family ideology, does not always lead to happiness.

She falls in love with a chef, very symbolic, in terms of Italian culture, since food is very important in that country, so Emma essentially fell in love with Antonio, at first, due to his cooking. Antonio lets Emma be herself, even telling her that her real name, is beautiful (whereas her husband gave her, her name). She falls in love with Antonio, because she is almost “set free” when she is with him. She has children, but I think, that she believes that she has sacrificed enough of her life for her children, and that they are old enough to take care of themselves now. Which is why she leaves her family, to run off with Antonio. You can tell that she still loves her children, firstly, by the fact that she was the one most devastated by her sons death (Edoardo). Secondly, when she is about to leave, she looks at her daughter, she does not say anything, but the viewers can understand the conversation between the two, just through their facial expressions. Emma was basically asking her daughters permission to leave with Antonio, asking for her “blessing” or approval in a sense. The daughter agreed with her mom’s decision, and allowed her to go. Emma truly looks up to her daughter because she came out about being a lesbian, she presented her true self,  and Emma looked up to her for doing so, as Emma wanted to express her true self as well. Thus, Emma and Antonio run off together.

The last scene, shows them making love in a cave, with dark shadows. This is interesting, as Plato (Greek Philosopher), describes this symbol, as something that is “false”, “fantasy”, not true. Thus, I believe that the director leaves viewers with the thought, that maybe this was not true love after all, maybe it was all just a fantasy. Maybe, Emma was just bored, and really needed some excitement, and Antonio was a fun and exciting guy. This is all up to the viewers interpretation. In my opinion, I believe that she truly was bored, and that she does not actually love Antonio, she just loves the idea of being “free” when she is with him. You can replace Antonio with any free-spirited guy, and she would fall for him. However, I do believe that the way she was living life, was not sustainable, soon or later she had to “come out”. Her life had no passion, so I support her reasoning to leave her family. Her children were old enough, and her relationship with her husband was almost non-existent during the entire movie.

Think you know what the movie is all about just from looking at this cover? Boy are you in for a treat.

I recommend everyone, (you have to be over 18 to see this movie, A LOT of nudity) to see this movie, and do not read anything about it before viewing it, and I guarantee that you will be absolutely shocked throughout the movie.

Now the movie is directed by Stanley Kubrick, the last movie he directed before he died, and referred to this movie as his greatest masterpiece. If you know Stanley, you will know that he ALWAYS has a lot of hidden messages and themes in his movies, that really stretch your brain. This movie is no different.

The movie looks at a modern couple, played by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman (both in the prime of their acting careers when this movie came out, so the overall acting was fantastic). The movie begins by showing them as your typical “normal” family, Tom as a doctor, Nicole as a house wife, and they have a 9 year old daughter. Then, throughout the movie, the director shows how broken the modernist view of what a family should be, truly is today. The movie’s overall theme is about lust, sexuality, and fantasies. This movie reminded me a lot of The American Beauty, in the sense that the character’s live in a “fantasy” world. Stanley shows how a perfect couple, with a lot of money, and a daughter, can still fall apart, due to the distractions of the modern world. The movie shows what happens to a couple typically, when they are married for quite some time, and things get “stale”, thus, each person in the relationship look for fantasies, to escape in. The movie fits very well into the postmodernism topic that we looked at in class, as it criticizes modernist views on relationships. I would recommend this movie to be added into the course THEA 3225 under the postmodernism topic, if the school can look past the movie’s very strong R rating that is.

If you love hidden messages, cinematography, and plot twists, give this movie a view.

I have seen A LOT of movies, and let me tell you, this could be the greatest movie I have ever seen, thus, I recommend this movie to anyone in the course. I promise you, that you will be thinking about the messages in this movie, weeks after you view it.

Modernism 

“The Perfect American Family”, that the media projects is the American Dream to chase for, and that, this is the norm, in terms of how a family should be. The film starts off by showing these traditional stereotypes, then gradually starts challenging them.

Postmodernism

The stereotypical family, Lester and Carolyn, typical mom and dad who both work and make a decent living, Jane, typical teenager with typical high school problems (physical appearance). One would assume that this “perfect” family would be fine, but that is not the case. That is because this modernism view on the “perfect family” was developed before the world wars. Afterwards society changed, however, “how your family should act” and “behave” is all “mediatized” (hyper reality), it is actually not true, it is merely how the media portrays the perfect family. The director of the movie shows saturated images, such as the floating rose petals that are on Angela whenever Lester fantasies about her, this I believe is done in an extreme sense to really portray the hyper reality aspect of the entire movie. The director wants to show just how extreme and absurd Lester’s fantasies about Angela are, and that even though they are so extreme and imaginary, that Lester still “believes” in the fantasy, and it is also a portrayal of how society today still believes in these very unrealistic fantasies.

This movie also criticizes dominant cultural tropes, a perfect example is the ending of the movie. Most movies and stories have happy endings, and most people believe that you need a “happy” ending in order for the ending to be “good” or “positive”. The director completely goes against this norm, and actually has the main character, Lester, killed at the end of the movie. The intriguing aspect of this ending is that, although Lester gets killed, the ending does not seem “sad” to me. Personally, I believe that the director wanted to show us that even though Lester dies, that he was actually very happy by the end of the movie, and his personal monologue defends this argument. Lester talks about how beautiful the world is, and that even though he is dead, that he enjoyed his life. For me, Lester thought it was better to live a short yet wonderful life, than a long and unhappy one. Thus, the fact that the ending has the main character killed, yet still is not a “sad” ending, truly goes against the cultural norm.

Zizek & Lacan talk about reality vs fantasy, in American Beauty, Lester has this fantasy of being able to have intercourse with Angela, however, the director of the movie shows us that, just like in real life, things we often chase, that we believe is possible and attainable, is actually just a fantasy. No one actually obtains the actual desire, they are actually just chasing the fantasy. The desire to continue the fantasy, not the obtaining of the object of desire, is what drives people. Lester originally thought that he wanted Angela, but when the opportunity arrives, he realizes that he does not actually want her, he just liked the fantasy of having her. In his fantasy, Angela was not a virgin, and slept around with a lot of people, adding to her overall “sexy image”, and this image was something Lester created in his head, he created an artificial Angela in his head, and that was what he was chasing. Upon realizing that the fantasy image he had created of Angela, is not true, the fantasy died, and this stopped Lester’s desire to want Angela anymore.

As Zizek described how movies tell you how to desire, in a sense you can actually see that in this movie. While the director was clearly attempting to show the holes and hyper reality of the traditional perfect family image, he was actually forcing viewers to some extent, to believe that his theory on the perfect family is true. For example, he shows us how Lester went from being the stereotypical father, to the “laissez-faire”, do not care anymore, father. He shows how Lester becomes a lot happier by doing so, thus by showing us that, the director wants us to desire to become like Lester in a sense, to adapt the “do not care” attitude. Even reflecting back now, after watching the movie, I myself, wanted to adapt this “do not care” lifestyle, because the movie convinced me, by showing how well it worked out for Lester.

Never heard of this film before watching it in class, now its in my top 10 “best movies of all time” list.

This film truly exposes the true American dream family theory that has been present since really after the second world war. The ideal family was, mom and dad both have jobs, work 40+ hours a week, and both make a decent living. Everyone eats dinner together at night, and following these rules ensures that your family life will be great. To me, this movie debunks that ideal family situation. This movie, through excellent story telling and acting, proves that following these traditional rules does not make your family happy, in fact, it might even hurt it.

Through the media and society, people came up with this “ideal/perfect family” image, but the fact is, that it can never be attained. Society has tried to portray this image, as the “norm”, the normal situation most families should be in, when in fact I believe it is the complete opposite. No family is perfect, this is due to the fact that no individual person is perfect, and due to the fact that society has changed a lot since the end of the second world war, and so the “ideal” family situation of that time period, is not an accurate representation of the time today.

The director of this movie showed us these holes in that “perfect image”, by transforming each character in the movie, gradually, starting from the time the character is in his/her traditional “mode”, finishing the transformation off in the end, by showing us who these characters really are.

With the father, the directer projects him as the typical traditional dad, that is in the “perfect family”. He has a job, and makes a decent living. The director then shows the ideology of “re-birth”, Lester becomes very bored with his life, and being constantly ignored and ordered around by his wife.  Lester shows us that being the typical father, does not make the father happy, that it actually takes any ounce of enjoyment out of life, and it becomes worse the older you get. Thus, Lester transforms, quits his job, yet still gets paid a full years salary, starts smoking marijuana, and lifting weights. This makes him happier in life, rather than being the “perfect dad”. (Spoilers) Even when Lester dies in the end of the movie, he seemed so happy, making me sense that he would rather live a short life, that is meaningful, rather than a long one with no enjoyment.

Carolyn starts off as the “ideal” mother in the beginning of the movie. She is very hard-working, makes a good living, takes care of the flowers on the lawn, while still making time to cook dinner for her family. What could go wrong? Wouldn’t she be happy? In the beginning it was hard to gauge the mother, I had trouble predicting if she was miserable deep down inside, or that she was actually just that perfect. As the movie progresses, we see the deterioration in the mother. She goes from the ideal mom, to actually being the worst character in the house, deep down inside. Basically the director is showing us that, those who seem the most “perfect”, are the ones that are actually suffering the most, and are the ones who are the furthest from “perfect”. You could say that on the outside the father looks like the bad parent between the two, but you find out that Carolyn is actually the one who cheats on her husband, making her the more “bad” parent between the two. This reminds me of  Harvey Dent in the Dark Knight Rises, how he goes from being the “most perfect guy” in Gotham, to the villain by the end of the movie.

For Jane, the transformation is more of a revelation, a realization of who she “truly” is. A lot of times, you act like someone else due to the group of friends you hang around with, or associate yourself with, this puts on a “mask” to hide your true identity. In the beginning of the film, Jane is just your average, typical teenage girl, with hormones going through the roof, and a lot of “highschool” issues. But, what the director shows us, even in the beginning of the movie, is that even though, when the father and mother were perfect parents in the beginning of the movie, that their daughter was still not happy, debunking the myth on how being the “perfect” mother and father does not always guarantee success, and that the perfect mother and father is actually quite different from the traditional “image” of a perfect mother and father. In society today, different kids have different personalities, characteristics, and situations that they are in. Problems that kids face today is not the same as the ones kids faced during the 1950’s. So, since the problems and kids themselves have changed, parents have to change too, and there is no “one size fits all” way of doing it, every kid will be different, so each parent has to parent differently, to be the “perfect” role models for their kids. This was my take on what the director wanted to show with Jane. The perfect example is the first dinner scene, you can tell that even though the parents are acting “as they should”, the daughter is still not happy. By the end of the movie, you see Jane transform, realizing that she is not like what her friend Angela is, and that she is “different” from the “usual” high-school student, and she accepts that by the end of the movie.

Angela starts off as the “super-model” high-school student, every guy wants her, and she knows it, and embraces it fully. She has slept with a lot of guys, and she is not ashamed of it. In society today, especially for young people, there is a certain expectation to have intercourse often, not having done so is not the norm, and so in order to “fit” into society’s expectations, Angela makes up lies, in order to project herself as “popular”, “sexy”, etc. By the end of the movie, we find out that everything she said about her sexuality is a lie, and that she is a virgin, (spoilers), this is discovered when the father is about to have intercourse with her, and she confesses her lies. I believe that a lot of young people do this today, lie about their sexuality, so that they fit into “society’s” image of being “cool” and “normal”. The director portrays this through Angela, and while she does not represent the broken family argument, she does represent the overall theme of the movie, which is that people hide their true identities in order to fit into society’s image of being perfect.

If you can take any message away from this movie, its to not judge a book by its cover. Overall, an excellent movie.

“Kill white people and get paid for it? What’s not to like?” – Django

I never really enjoyed Quentin Tarantino movies before, even his universally acclaimed movies such as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. So when I saw this movie in class, I was not expecting much. After the movie, I was completely blown away, I thought that it was a truly entertaining film, that never had a dull moment.

I will start off with the casting, this movie had some big names, and impressive performances. Jamie Foxx did a fantasic job, I thought he really had a nice balance of showing the horrific aspects of being a slave, yet at the same time was very comedic. Leonardo was also great, I had researched about the movie after I watched it, and found out that his dinner scene was mostly unscripted, (spoilers) he had cut his hand during the scene (that was his real blood you saw) and told Tarantino to continue filming, coming up with the idea of wiping the blood on Broomhilda’s face. Christoph Waltz was one of the most fresh and new “good guy” character portrayals that I have ever seen in film. He won an oscar for best supporting actor for this movie, so I do not have to say anything else. Everyone else was great, and the casting was overall really well done.

The film’s score is one of the most important aspects of the movie, it was a mix of both old-school and new-school soundtracks, which really helped with what the movie was attempting to do overall. Which is, to create a western, with it’s typical story line, characters, and ending, yet make it different enough so that you do not feel like you are watching a Western from the 60’s (pastiche/post-modernism). This is why I loved the film, the plot was very traditional, but it had a lot of different aspects that typical Westerns do not have, such as all that blood, gore, violence, rap music, comedy, etc.

I do understand that some people did not like the movie, as it turned a serious event (slavery), into a comedic/entertainment piece. I do agree that we should be aware that serious events such as slavery should be serious. However, in my opinion, every movie ever created has one goal, which is to entertain people, let them escape for one to two hours, into the fantasy world created by the movie. Even serious films, such as Twelve Years a Slave, is a much more accurate description of the slavery issue, however, the main intention of the film is to present that tragic period in an entertaining way. If you want accurate information, and less entertainment, documentaries are much more suited for you. I never took this movie seriously, I fully understand that the slavery time period was a very serious issue, so while watching this movie, I knew that it was purely an entertainment movie, that is exactly what Tarantino intended to present with the movie, it was not meant to be an accurate recollection of that time period.

Another thing I remember is a student being angry about how Dr.Schultz was the one who “gave” Django his freedom, and so he is being depicted as the “hero”, the white person over the black person issue. I disagree with that, because you have to look at the time period the movie is set in, imagine how difficult it would be for a slave to become free all on his own, with no help (specifically from a very intelligent white person). So I see it as, that it was Django’s only option to become free.

Overall, I thought that the movie was really great, all due to the fact that the movie’s concept was very fresh and different, if it followed the same traditional Western movie, then the movie would not be as successful as it was.

I understand that some might disagree with my thoughts, so feel free to comment on anything you disagree with, as I would also like to hear your point of view since I might have missed some things.

This documentary was very interesting, due to the fact that Slavoj Žižek is a very awkward person. However, he points out some interesting points, both good and bad. Here are my thoughts on the documentary.

The Good

• I actually liked his Titanic interpretation, where he talks about how Leonardo has to die in the end of the movie, otherwise the “fantasy” or sadness of “what could have been” of their love for one another would have fizzled out. Had Leonardo lived, they would have gone back to New York, made love for two weeks, and realize that it could never work between the two of them. That is the reality of the situation, however, killing off Leonardo keeps the fantasy alive in the minds of people, which I absolutely agree with. I believe that people do this all the time, that we cover up our “messed” up desires through fantasies, and this is exactly what James Cameron did to cover up the real desires of the two main characters (or the reality of the situation), by killing off Leonardo.
• The Starbucks example he provided was another point that I absolutely agreed with. People hide their “consumerism” thirst by trying to attach something “good” to the product that they are buying (they were going to buy it anyway), to not feel so guilty about purchasing something. The higher price paid for Starbucks coffee, people in their minds attach the “good”, which is “every cent of a dollar will save the “rain forests”, etc, to the coffee, to justify the higher price paid. Even though deep down inside, I believe that people know that they are paying a premium for no reason (coffee bean quality, materials, etc, are the same as other coffee products), but they hide this reality by attaching a reason to the product, for purchasing it at a higher price. Thinking back, I realized that even I do this all the time, for example, at the time I had an iPhone 4, the iPhone 5 just came out, and I really wanted it. Deep down inside, I knew that both phones were almost identical in terms of the functionalities that that I used, and that I wanted it just because it was “shinny”, “new” and “cool”. However, I masked all these desires, by convincing myself that I bought this new phone, because it had a better environmental rating compared to my phone.

The Bad

• The ideologies he pointed out in Jaws made no sense to me. To him, the shark in the movie, represent all the fears of society, such as communism (a big one for when the movie released), another world war, the economy, etc. To me, the shark does not represent the fears of society, this was Slavoj’s point of view, which is fine with me, it is how he interpreted the movie. However, he goes on to say that this was Steven Spielberg’s (director) interpretation of the shark as well. I researched online and no where did I find Spielberg saying that the shark in the movie represented society’s fears. It is one thing to voice your own opinion and interpretation of the movie, but it is another to say what the director was “thinking” in his own head.
• For me personally, I wish that he had chosen more current movies to dissect, the parts in the documentary that I had a lot of trouble following was when he talked about the older films (anything older than 1970). Or he could have chosen more popular older films, so that more people could understand the ideologies he was pointing out in older films.

But overall, an interesting documentary, one that will definitely make me look for the “deeper” meaning in movies that I view in the future.