Dancing Bread Rolls

I’m having trouble even finding where to begin. I feel as if I have no right to talk about this film until I’ve seen it 10 more times. At least. Everything about this movie left me completely stunned: the themes, the message, the characters, the music, the gorgeous cinematography…

Ahhh! I’m far too dazzled to coherently discuss anything right now, though I feel I should. I may have to view it again in the film lab and take notes, then make a gigantic post with everything I can think of. For now, go look at Tyler’s blog. What he’s got so far is brilliant.

For now, I think I’m going to have to escape somewhere quiet and think.

Normally I’d leap headlong into a philosophical debate, but I’m with Leighton on this one. I feel the same way about our debate over “truth” as I do about “good vs. I like it”. I personally think truth is important, but I’m not going to demand that everyone attach the same value, or even view it the same way. I think one of the things that makes life so interesting is the vast array of varying opinions on nearly every topic imaginable.

I’d like to remind you that the point of a philosophical debate, whether stated or not, is to explore ideas rather than to reach a conclusion. If questions like this COULD be answered, then nobody would be interested anymore. So I’m perfectly content to just sit back and listen to everything. Perhaps someone will say something that will make me think in a slightly different way, or make a refreshingly unique point. But as for truth, why does it matter? So I’ll just be sitting here, waiting for someone to convince me to care about this a little more. But don’t worry–I’m still listening

As I’m still recovering from my Friday night of amazing Milton-ness, I can’t guarantee coherence. But then, when do I ever?

I’ve noticed that–while meaning is often extracted from screenshots–nobody ever bothers to analyze movie posters. This could be because movie posters aren’t all that important, but I choose to believe it’s because nobody really takes them serious. Which is a shame, because design of movie posters is such an intentional thing. Just think–a poster, like a preview, must summarize the film in a way that will attract potential viewers while staying true to its essence. That’s not an easy thing to do in a 2 x 4 foot image. Thus, they deserve attention. On to the Morris posters!

This poster of Morris’ first film has a very unique composition. Almost half of it is black. This emphasizes the slightly ambiguous phrase at the top, and the lower half is simply an image of two of the characters in the film. It imparts no information whatsoever about the movie and is very simplistic. We’re essentially being told to just go see it if we want any real information about the film. Morris obviously isn’t concerned about attracting the general public. This poster contains nothing to ‘hook’ viewers, except perhaps its complete ambiguity.

–

Aha! The whole canvas is used this time. Unlike the poster for Gates of Heaven, the image matches the title of the film, giving viewers a slightly bigger clue. Also, this poster has a very obvious hook: a recommendation from a prominent critic (Ebert) in a place where it will attract the most attention. Morris is still saying, through this poster, “Just go see it if you want to know”, but he’s ALSO saying “It will be worth it.” This is a change from the previous poster, which pretty much says “I don’t much care if you see this film or not. Either way.” (Not that Morris doesn’t care if people don’t see his film, but he is actively trying to attract audiences with this second poster.)

–

Wow! What a difference. First thing you see? “ONE OF THE YEAR’S TEN BEST FILMS.” And then? “Based on the best-selling book.” Implication: The book is great and this movie will be too! The following questions pull the viewer further in, until arriving at the final line of text: “An Errol Morris Film”. Ah. At this point Morris is counting on his own growing popularity to promote his film, and it works. The design of this poster is much more dynamic than the first two, which also grabs the viewer’s attention. Bright colors and memorable images. Ok, now Morris is telling us to drop everything and run and see his spectacular film. That’s a pretty big change.

–

The first thing apparent in this poster is the way the four men seem to be almost caricatures of themselves. This is obviously intentional. The colors are bright, but chosen primarily to accent the men. At this point, Morris is banking on the fact that audiences are familiar with his work, so he’s using an image that suggests that this film will be in a similar vein to his former ones. This time, the choices in text are reassuring, rather than insistent. Yes, it’s that guy Errol Morris again. Yes, Ebert liked it again. It’s a pretty safe bet.

“Even the way you lie tells the truth about who you are.”

I’ve given this statement a lot of thought, and I think I can only partially agree with it. It depends entirely upon the who the person doing the lying is and who the observer is. Not everyone is equally transparent, just as not everyone is equally discerning. For the people in the movie, this statement works fine, but it doesn’t hold up universally. If you’re trying to convince yourself that a lie is true, then of course it’s fairly easy for an outside observer to see the real situation, but what if you believe that lie completely?  Then it starts to depend on the lie itself. Is it something outrageous and easily detectable, or is it something so subtle that it might as well be true? We constantly lie to others and ourselves, even if we don’t realize we’re doing it. Lies consist of not only spoken assertions, but behavior patterns, elaborate mental states, and ways that we interact with each other. What if you’re in a work situation and you don’t particularly care for your boss? You still behave as if you’re ok with this person, or even pretend to like them. This is a lie. Or how about convincing yourself that you no longer care for someone?

I guess my point is that there are many kinds of lies and not all of them necessarily reveal truth. One of the things that we’re best–and worst–at is lying.

I wonder what the distinction is between a “documentary” and a “non-fiction feature film”. I think Leighton was on to something in her post (that is Leighton’s blog, isn’t it?), but rather than trying to classify a film by what occurs in it and its style, perhaps we should examine purpose. How does Gates of Heaven differ from, for example, a documentary about whales? I could make the argument that the primary purpose of the documentary about whales is to educate its audience, but isn’t that also what Gates of Heaven is doing, in a way? But what about other traditional films? Some of them also educate viewers in the same way that Gates of Heaven does, but they’re not non-fictional.

Then I suppose you could get into the question of whether any ‘non-fiction’ film is truly non-fictional. Truth, in this case, is only what is presented to the audience and what is there is only what the directer wanted included. This doesn’t change between genres.

But back to the “non-fiction feature film” in question. I think I’m going to say that what makes it different from a documentary is both intent and subject matter. You could never make a traditional documentary about all of the themes that Gates of Heaven explores. (It would be a disorganized, incomprehensible mess.) But you can make a non-fictional film and accomplish this. If it doesn’t claim to be a documentary, audiences don’t compare it with their preconceived ideas of what a film of this type should be about, and therefore are more open to secondary messages within the film.

After all this extensive discussion on the “is it good” question, I feel as if one question needs to be asked: Is it really that important? Don’t get me wrong–this distinction is a very important one for me, but it seems that this is not a universal feeling. What if you don’t care whether a film you’re watching is ‘good’ or not, as long as you like it? And what if you’d rather not even make that distinction–you’re happier just accepting each film in terms of the enjoyment it brings you? While I disagree with this perspective personally, I think I’d feel very snobbish if I told someone not to think that way. As Stephanie points out, “a movie’s worth is in the eye of the beholder”. No arguments there. People will always disagree–not only about films but about books, scientific theories, philosophy…pretty much everything, actually. Everyone has their individual reasons for liking films, and it’s unfair to say that one person’s reason is less valid than another’s. If people went to movies with exactly the same purposes and expectations, it would be different. But we aren’t all looking for the exact same thing in movies. In fact, it even varies by individual film.

If you feel as if it’s important to make the distinction and be able to identify the difference, do that! (As I’ve said, that’s where I fall, personally.) But if it’s not all that important to you, don’t let other people’s opinions lessen your own film experience.

I was trying to keep nice and quiet down in the front row today while the massive debate over ‘masculine’ films raged all around. Both sides had valid points (yes, that does sound like a cop-out, doesn’t it), but I was having a pretty hard time with them. While it is true that a film may appeal mainly to a certain gender, I completely disagree with the idea that this is due to the unwillingness of women to expose themselves to violence, gore, sex, etc.

This question is a tricky one because any side of the debate is forced to generalize about a huge number of people. However, taking into account that there will be numerous individual exceptions, I think that it is unfair to suggest that women avoid films like 300 (I haven’t seen it yet, so I’m completely objective–probably) primarily because of elements which are traditionally unappealing to women, or at least society’s concept of what women should take interest in. I agree that there are certain films that just hold more attraction for men, but I think that the real answer to this is so simple that we missed it entirely.

Consider three films: 300, Fight Club, and Casino Royale. From personal observation, the people who are really passionate about these films are nearly all male. Perhaps there is something about these that appeals to men and their ideas of masculinity. But it’s certainly not the violence and gore. (The news hasn’t been labeled ‘masculine’, despite its profuse amounts of both of the aforementioned elements, has it?) I wish I could confidently and conclusively state exactly what makes these movies so appealing to men, but there are so many factors that could be a part of it that it’s difficult to prove causation. However, in all three movies the main male characters are strong, confident, and brutal. (Not to mention simply dripping with testosterone.) Perhaps this appeals to men who are growing increasingly dismayed with the portrayal of men in recent films. Think about the feminization of Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. Traditionally (and historically–mostly), pirates have been a pretty securely masculine symbol. Lots of ‘aargh’ing, hoisting sails with bulging biceps, and brutally slaughtering all who resist. Then in waltzes Johnny Depp (who I have absolutely nothing against, by the way) with massive amounts of eye makeup and a wholly unmanly swagger. Thus, pirates are ruined forever for male viewers as symbols of their masculinity. Super-heroes are out now too, because assumptions are made about men in spandex. (They’ve become either un-masculine or painfully unfashionable. Or both.) Pierce Brosnan’s suave James Bond was hugely popular with women, but not as much with male audiences. It has been conjectured that the return to raw masculinity and brutality is what attracts so many men and so few women to the new Bond movie. To [loosely] quote my best friend’s mother (who makes the most amazing tuna casserole, by the way), “The new Bond represents the male idea of what women want, rather than what actually appeals to women.” I’m going to take this even further and suggest that the new James Bond (and characters in the other movies mentioned above) may also represent what men WANT women to want. In a time when women are more empowered than they’ve ever been and new ideas of masculinity are emerging, maybe it’s nice to have something more traditional to cling to. Not because they necessarily believe that it’s what masculinity is truly about, but because they miss the old concept a little.

I realize that’s a pretty bold statement to make, especially since I know nothing about being a man. But it seems fairly likely that it could be a factor, at least. Am I onto something, or am I just guessing poorly? Guys, please let me know what you think of this idea. I’m very curious.

And finally, I want to dispute the statement that female critics didn’t like 300 because it objectifies women. Pause for a moment to consider the history of the film industry. Movies have been objectifying women for years. Not all movies, just certain types of movies in which feminism isn’t intended to play an important role. This hasn’t changed. A film should not be rejected on ideological or political grounds. It should be examined for things like quality of screenplay, acting, cinematography, cohesiveness, and impact, to name a few. And any respectable film critic will do just that, calling only upon opinions that are relevant to film analysis. In fact, it goes back to what Dr. Campbell was saying about being able to distinguish between “I like it” and “it’s good”. Because that’s incredibly important.

In case anyone is still confused about how exactly to comment on other people’s blogs without it being completely screwed up, here is a [rather roundabout] way that works. As far as I can tell, this is the only way that works.

1. SIGN OUT of your own blog

2. Go back to blogs.elsweb.org and locate the blog you wanted to comment on

3. Leave your comment (you have to provide your name and e-mail address, I believe)

And that’s it

(Basically, you can’t be signed in to leave comments on other blogs. Yes, it’s silly, but until it is fixed, this is the only way to leave a comment on someone else’s blog.)

As promised, I will now explain the oh so cryptic Charlie Chaplin cookie comment in my previous post: “Charlie Chaplin is the chocolate chip cookie of movie stars.” However, I will do this in list form. Ponder this for a moment. If your favorite actor/actress were a desert, what would he/she be? I think this question is deeply relevant to our lives and deserves serious, intense thought.

Charlie Chaplin: chocolate chip cookie (Simple– a universal favorite. Satisfying and enjoyable but not overwhelming. Joy-inspiring. Easily accessible. Addictive. Cute.)

–

And this can be continued. For example,

Marilyn Monroe: meringue

Johnny Depp: hot fudge sundae

Christian Bale: devil’s food cake

Hugh Grant: coffee cake (something you would serve when your Grandmother comes to visit)

Pierce Brosnan: Black Forest cherry cake

Fred Astaire: sugar cookie

Sean Connery: candied haggis (sorry. couldn’t resist.)

Nicole Kidman: Turkish delight

Tom Cruise: Nestle Wonderball (you’re not quite sure what’s inside)

Robin Williams: Phish Food ice cream

Katherine Hepburn: pop rocks (noisy)

Cary Grant: nutella

Colin Firth: cheesecake (you can never have enough)

Reese Witherspoon: strawberry shortcake

Hugh Jackman: chocolate pudding

–

Very deep, involved thinking, as you can see. As it’s 3:40am and my brain has finally decided to cease its already skewed functioning, that’s it for now. However, I am officially issuing an open invitation for additions to this list. You should rise to the challenge! While not as philosophically demanding as many other questions posed in this class, I think this is by far the most important, don’t you? So go on. Be brave.

What dessert is YOUR favorite film star?

I’ve spent a while reflecting on the discussion of Valentino’s appeal–both in class and in Craig’s blog–and decided to make a list of the ten most iconic actors and actresses, in my opinion. I intentionally chose iconic rather than greatest, because I think there is a significant difference between the two. ‘Iconic’ is more about recognizability and enduring influence on popular culture rather than skill or importance to the evolution of the film industry in general. (For example, Veronica Lake was iconic, while Bette Davis was great.) So here they are, in no particular order. I think. (Or it could be in a mysteriously devious order that will take you months of intense thought to work out. Ha. You may never know.)

1. Marilyn Monroe: Curves, fluttering dresses, and clueless attitude. Somehow managed innocence and sensuality at the same time. Do I really need to explain this one any more?

2. Charlie Chaplin: The chocolate chip cookie of movie stars. Yes, I will explain that statement at a later time. I promise.

3. Audrey Hepburn: Even people who have never seen Breakfast at Tiffany’s can picture her exactly as she appeared in this film. I think that says a lot.

4. Humphrey Bogart: Starting his acting career fairly late in life, he became our image of the hard-boiled detective. Or hard-boiled cafe owner. Perhaps both.

5. Julie Andrews: I have confidence (haha) that Julie Andrews is one of my favorite things. Okay, that was bad. Whether flying a kite, singing in front of appropriately dramatic and picturesque landscapes, or inventing words that are unnecessarily long, Julie Andrews is pretty fantastic. Did anyone else feel the inexplicable need to go out and feed random pigeons after seeing Mary Poppins for the first time? Hm. Maybe that was just me.

6. John Wayne: Because he is the epitome of Western.

7. Groucho Marx: The mustache, the eyebrows, and of course his lovely singing voice. The only actor whose nose, glasses, and mustache are sold in costume and party stores.

8. Judi Dench: Perhaps not as widely revered as some of the above, but fully deserving of her place on this list. Easily recognizable and consistently magnificent.

9. Jimmy Stewart: One of those actors you can identify simply by the sound of his voice. And he sees giant invisible rabbits. Can’t beat that.

10. Johnny Depp: No, this is not me simply fangirling. I promise. But he’s already managed to establish himself successfully in various genres and roles. Every time we think of him as a certain type of character, he goes and plays a different sort. Not many of today’s movie stars can manage that. See? Beautiful and versatile.

–

As for ‘greatest’, my list changes significantly:*

1. Ingrid Bergman

2. Bette Davis

3. Charlie Chaplin

4. Cary Grant

5. Jimmy Stewart

6. Audrey Hepburn

7. Katharine Hepburn

8. Fred Astaire

9. Gene Kelly

10. Humphrey Bogart

*Feel perfectly free to disagree with me on any of these. Who would you rather see on these lists, and why?

–

Incidentally, AFI’s top 10 stars (thoughtfully and politically correctly divided by gender) are:

MEN: 1. Humphrey Bogart; 2. Cary Grant; 3. Jimmy Stewart; 4. Marlon Brando; 5. Fred Astaire; 6. Henry Fonda; 7. Clark Gable; 8. James Cagney; 9. Spencer Tracy; 10. Charlie Chaplin

WOMEN: 1. Katharine Hepburn; 2. Bette Davis; 3. Audrey Hepburn; 4. Ingrid Bergman; 5. Greta Garbo; 6. Marilyn Monroe; 7. Elizabeth Taylor; 8. Judy Garland; 9. Marlene Deitrich; 10. Joan Crawford