Cinemablography@gmail.com
Cinemablography
  • Home
  • About
  • Journal
    • Existentialism in Film >
      • The Existential Philosophy of Melancholia
      • The Philosophy of Camus in The Dead Don't Die
      • The Existentialist Subtext of Dear Evan Hansen
      • An Existentialist Reading of "The Turin Horse"
    • A Woman's Perspective: Gender, and Identity in the Romanian New Wave
    • Film Theory Issue 1
    • Film Theory Issue 2
    • Science Fiction
    • Science Fiction Issue 2
    • Pan's Labyrinth
    • Kathryn Bigelow >
      • Opening Scene
      • Supermarket Scene
      • Round Table Discussion
  • Blog
  • Articles by Category
  • Contributors
  • Videographic Essays
  • Our Work
    • Links

Avengers: Age of Ultron: Gods, Monsters, and Mad Scientists

4/30/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Bill Friedell

​With the upcoming release of Avengers: Infinity War (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2018), I thought I’d look back at the previous Avengers film, Avengers: Age of Ultron (Joss Whedon, 2015). While it isn’t regarded as a terrible or bad film by most, many brush it off as being more of the same and bogged down in setting up future movies, as well as other complaints. While I agree it isn’t among the very best MCU movies, I feel like it gets dismissed too easily. Age of Ultron brings us further into the dynamics of the team and allows us to truly understand who the Avengers are. If Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012) is about how "Earth’s mightiest heroes" can come together, Age of Ultron is an exploration of how the group operates afterwards. Avengers is the story of flawed “gods” from different creeds and backgrounds coming together for one shared cause. Age of Ultron is the story of monsters, as seen in the various members of the team, either creating monsters or being monsters themselves, as shown through these archetypes; the mad scientist and the monster continuing a cycle of violence that threatens everything.
Picture
Victor Frankenstein (Colin Clive) brings his monster (Boris Karloff) to life with lightning.
The mad scientist has been a major figure of the horror and science fiction genre both in film and comic books. Typically, a mad scientist is a genius who wants to achieve something god-like, but end up creating something terrible. They create monsters. This goes back to Mary Shelly's classic novel, ​Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus​. Victor Frankenstein, the protagonist is a genius who wishes to achieve something god-like, but ends up creating an abomination, or, a monster. The most popular version of the mad scientist in film, also Victor Frankenstein, was forever defined by Colin Clive in the 1931 adaptation, ​Frankenstein ​(James Whale, 1931), which defined the mad scientist as singularly driven to the point of raving madness, but realizes what he has created and tries to deal with the monster himself as best he can (Frankenstein). The influence of this movie has not only influenced movies, but comic books themselves. Originally, Lex Luthor, Superman's arch nemesis was introduced as a mad scientist (Siegel, Shuster). An even more direct translation is Dr. Bruce Banner, irradiating himself, whether intentionally or accidently, becomes both man and monster. Sympathetic and dangerous (Lee, Kirby).
Picture
Iron Monger (Jeff Bridges)
Picture
Whiplash (Mickey Rourke)
Picture
Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce)
But for Joss Whedon, most obvious “mad scientist” of Age of Ultron is Tony Stark, aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.). Tony Stark is a “genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist” who has far from a perfect record. As said in Iron Man 3 (Shane Black, 2013), “We create our own demons”. Tony used to create weapons, demons of his own design and the reverberations of that have been felt even after he shuts down the weapons program at his company. Most, if not all of Iron Man’s villains in the MCU are the result of technology he created, especially his final weapon, the Iron Man suit. Iron Monger in the original ​Iron Man​, (Jon Favreau, 2008) is made of the scraps of Tony’s original armor, and Whiplash in ​Iron Man 2 ​(Jon Favreau, 2010) creates the arc reactor technology he uses to make his whip weapons based on his father’s work as well as Tony’s. But not only did he create demons and monsters through technology; he also made monsters through his character. The primary example of this is Aldrich Killian, the villain of Iron Man 3. Tony brushing off Killian’s offer to join his think tank inspired his scheme to take over the war on terror behind the scenes. Tony has created countless problems and demons to face, which doesn’t end in Age of Ultron.​
But Stark isn’t the only mad scientist of the group. Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) is unique in that he is both mad scientist and monster. He made himself into the Hulk to recreate the super soldier serum of Captain America and also assists Iron Man in scientific endeavors, such as creating Ultron. He is Jekyll and Hyde, Frankenstein’s monster, and Victor Frankenstein rolled into one. Captain America (Chris Evans) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) can also be considered monsters. Captain America is the result of experimentation. Now, pulled out of the 1940s, Cap is a man out of time. He doesn’t know where he fits in. In being a man out of time, he has become an outsider, as seen in the running joke of Cap pointing out Tony’s “language”, merely out of force of habit because of the time he came up in. Black Widow was taken to the Red Room, trained since childhood to become an assassin. She has no place in the world, she admits to her teacher, and is solidified in a “graduation ceremony” where Black Widow is sterilized, unable to bear children. Her entire self was violated and manipulated into making her a killer, a guilt she carries with her to this day. It's the “red in her ledger” she refers to in the first Avengers. Even Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is grappling with the idea that he is going to be a monster to his own people, having a vision of Ragnarok; the death of Asgard, brought about by him.
​
This is all best summarized by Ultron, saying, “Everyone creates what they dread. Men of peace create engines of war, invaders create avengers, people create… children, designed to supplant them. To help...end them”. Ultron sees himself as the child of Stark and that it is his duty to supplant him. This is particularly shown in Ultron’s personality, mirroring Stark’s quippy, smug, personality. Ultron is representative of this cycle of “creating what we dread”. Iron Man makes way for Killians, Ironmongers, and Ultrons. Hydras create Shields, which rebirth Hydra (Captain America Winter Soldier, Anthony and Joe Russo). ​\
The movie, particularly, the character of Ultron, employs many Biblical allusions. Ultron refers to Captain America as “God’s righteous man. Pretending that you can live without a war." He first meets the twins in a church, which was built in the center of the town, so that everyone will be equally close to God, and says he will “build his church” on vibranium (his chosen rock). He equates his plan with God flooding the world, which points to the fact that Ultron believes that he is God and that it is his duty to destroy humanity so that it will evolve and create peace. His sitting in the center of the church is like God sitting on his throne.
Let's go back to that line referring to Cap as the righteous man. Here, Ultron is pointing out that Captain America is a soldier, and without a war, he has no place. The Avengers gave Cap an avenue to continue the fight, to retain his sense of purpose. In many ways, this is what the Avengers are here for: to stop threats to the world. If there are no threats, no more Avengers. If there are threats, the cycle continues. This was why Tony wanted to create Ultron: to be the suit of armor to protect the earth from cosmic threats like the Chittari from the first Avengers. But in doing that, Tony created another threat. Another demon to dread.

So, we know this cycle: man creates monster, monster creates more monsters. How do you break the cycle? In the text of the movie, the answer is found in the character called Vision (Paul Bettany). While created by Ultron to be his final form, Tony and the Avengers put Jarvis (Tony’s personal A.I) into the body. Banner rightly points out that this is what exactly got them into this situation, which Tony replies, “We’re mad scientists. We’re monsters, buddy. And you’ve gotta own it. Make a stand. It's not a loop. It's the end of the line”. Tony has finally become self-aware of his actions. His preventative measures and ego have put themselves there. He is who he is, just as Banner is condemned to who he is. So, with Jarvis inside and Thor zapping the metal body with lightning (much like Dr. Frankenstein giving his monster life), Vision represents a being entirely new, referencing Exodus 3:14, “And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14), saying “I’m not Ultron. I’m not Jarvis. I am… I am”. Vision doesn’t wish Ultron dead. But he knows he must be stopped to preserve life. A born Avenger. The cycle must be recognized and something new must form to stop the cycle of violence. 


The cycle clearly hasn’t stopped in these movies, seeing how the MCU continues to this day. But there is acknowledgement of the failings and troubles of these characters we all come to admire. While we know from their own movies and even the previous Avengers film that these are far from flawless people, Age of Ultron addresses the idea the demons they create are a cycle, much like others in the superhero genre. Some villains are self-made; others are born of the heroes, or even exist merely to challenge them. But what makes the Avengers special is that they acknowledge the nature of this cycle and must understand that they must own up to what they have wrought, which is perfectly encapsulated in Hawkeye’s (Jeremy Renner) words to Wanda Maximoff, “Its your fault, it's everyone's fault. Who cares? Are you up for this? Are you? I need to know, because the city is flying. The city is flying, there’s an army of robots… and I have a bow and arrow. None of this makes sense… It doesn’t matter what you did, or what you were, if you go out there, you fight… but if you step out that door, you are an Avenger”. It’s up to us to own our mistakes and we can choose what to do next. Ignore the problem or stand for change. We are all responsible. We create monsters. We transgress against each other all the time. As Banner says and Ultron realizes, the biggest threat to people are people. As Vision observes, “Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won’t be. But there is grace in their failings. I think you missed that”. Avengers: Age of Ultron is an exploration of what it means to be human, like most all art, by capturing the worst and best of humanity.  

Works Cited
Whedon, Joss, director. Avengers: Age of Ultron. Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 2015
Whedon, Joss, director. The Avengers. Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 2012. 
Black, Shane, director. Iron Man 3. Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 2013. 
Favreau, Jon, director. Iron Man. Paramount Pictures, 2008.
Favreau, Jon, director. Iron Man 2. Paramount Pictures, 2010.
Russo, Anthony and Joe Russo, directors. Captain America: Winter Soldier. Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 2014
Whale, James, director. Frankenstein. Universal Pictures, 1931.
King James Bible. Holman Bible Publishers, 1973.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Frankenstein.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 Apr. 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/Frankenstein.
​
Siegel, Jerry (w), Shuster, Joe (p, i). Action Comics #23 (1940). DC Comics.
​
Lee, Stan (w), Kirby, Jack (p), Reinman, Paul (i). "The Hulk" The Incredible Hulk 1 (May 1962)​​
0 Comments

"Wonder:" A Film that Lives Up to its Name

4/27/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Auggie (Jacob Tremblay) and his mother (Julia Roberts) meet with the principal at his Beecher Prep orientation (Wonder, Chbosky, 2017)​
Picture
by Megan Hess
​R.J. Palacio’s debut novel Wonder – the story of a boy with Treacher Collins syndrome, a genetically inherited craniofacial deformity, attending school for the first time – has become an instant classic in middle-grade fiction, transcending its original audience. I read the book a year or two ago – before the movie came out, at any rate – and my feelings on it echo the personal and critical praise it has received. Palacio has a strong command of character and plot, and I keep Googling her, looking for news of the next project (a currently fruitless endeavor, but I hold out hope…) I didn’t get to catch the movie during its theatrical run, but I ended up seeing it twice in one weekend later on. My few critiques aside (we’ll get to them later on), I really applaud the Wonder cast and crew for retaining the spirit of the book. Adaptation is a tricky business, and, when the source material is well-loved like Wonder, it multiplies the challenges.
In the film, Auggie’s sister Via (Izabela Vidovic) uses an astronomical metaphor for her family structure: Auggie is the sun, and she and her parents are planets. This metaphor could apply to the structure of the book and film as well; Auggie’s perspective is supplemented by sections narrated by other characters in the book. I was pleased that the film took this same approach; I think it’s essential to the story structure. Although they scaled back the overall diversity in the characters, the film still had elements of racial diversity – at least a realistic amount for upper-middle-class\upper-class Brooklyn. There’s even an interracial relationship between two major characters. 
Picture
​Justin (Nadji Jeter) flirts with Via (Izabela Vidovic) as they walk home from school.  
​Overall, Wonder has a really strong cast. Based on this movie and the first installment of the IT reboot (Muschetti, 2017), I would label 2017 as “The Year of Stellar Child Acting.” Even though Jacob Tremblay played the main character, I’m not as interested in talking about his performance as much; he’s already had a lot of mainstream recognition for previous films, as well as this one. Noah Jupe brought spirit and heart into his portrayal of Jack Will, Auggie’s best friend at Beecher Prep. (At the time of this writing, you can currently see him in A Quiet Place (Krasinski, 2018)) Bryce Gheisar had a tough role to play as Wonder’s antagonist, Julian, a smarmy, two-faced trust-fund kid who instigates most of the teasing targeting Auggie. His character is imbued with complexity, so that that by the end of the narrative, he’s not as bad off as he seems. Palacio wrote a side story called “The Julian Chapter” which talks about some of the events of Wonder from Julian’s POV. Gheisar’s performance makes me wish they had included it in the film, even though it’s not part of the original book. The best moment between their two characters is their extremely satisfying fight scene - full of tension, character development, and even humor. Izabela Vidovic, who plays Auggie’s sister Via, has primarily worked in TV before Wonder, but she’s too good to be relegated to small-screen bit parts.
            Besides their talent, one of the reasons I’m so impressed with the young cast is because of the adult co-stars with whom they have to share the spotlight. Julia Roberts and Owen Wilson play the Pullman parents, and have such excellent chemistry that it surprised me to read that they hadn’t worked together onscreen before Wonder. They have many enjoyable scenes together, but my favorite isolates their relationship, without the distractions of work and family life. Despite all the difficult circumstances they’ve endured together, they’re still able to keep the spark alive…. 
Picture
​The Pullmans attend Auggie’s fifth grade graduation (Wonder, Chbosky, 2017)
The adult presence in the film also includes two excellent educators: Mr. Tushman (Mandy Patinkin) and Mr. Browne (Daveed Diggs). While their characters are a bit cliché – Patinkin plays the wise old owl principal, while Diggs is the hip and with-it young teacher – they fit their personalities so perfectly that it’s a passable affront. If you’re a fan of the musical Hamilton, which introduced Diggs into mainstream American popular culture and beyond, it’s a bit jarring to see him in such a tame role after his firecracker Broadway performance. When the sass comes out, it’s more subtle, and a pleasant surprise. There’s also moments of touching tenderness – like Mr. Browne comforting Jack Will after his fight with Julian - which we never saw with Lafayette and Jefferson. Overall, it really makes the case for his nuanced talent, and I hope he has more of a screen presence in the future. I also loved Crystal Lowe as Julian’s mom. It’s a small part of the movie, but large in importance, and she nailed the nuances of the character.
Thus far, I’ve listed all the things I’ve enjoyed about Wonder. Now it’s (finally) time for the critiques. Other reviewers have commented on the fact that they would have rather seen Auggie played by an actor with actual facial differences, not someone who needed a prosthetic to look that way. I agree with this, and also think they downplayed his look. It’s possible that, over the course of the film, I just got used to Auggie’s face, and it didn’t shock me anymore…but it didn’t shock me that much in the first place. Perhaps the effect is different on younger audiences – and perhaps they had those younger audiences in mind when they sculpted his face, not wanting to frighten them too much – but I think that discomfort, and being able to transcend it, is an important part of the storyline, for actors and audience alike.
            Changes to source material almost always occur in the adaptation process, and Wonder is no different. I’m usually fairly picky about this – as much as I know it’s natural – but only one confused and irritated me to the point it’s worth discussing here. Towards the end of the book, the Beecher Prep fifth graders go on a field trip to a nature reserve, where Auggie gets attacked in the woods at night by a group of older students, who make off with one of his hearing aids after scaring him and pushing him around a bit. Film Wonder keeps this moment, but lessens the tension considerably by setting it during the day instead – and his hearing aid isn’t stolen because he doesn’t wear them in the first place. I’m thinking they did this to reduce the fear factor it might evoke in younger audience members, but it feels like a cop-out, evading a genuine empathetic moment. Being scared by a movie isn’t always fun, but sometimes it’s necessary.
            If you’re not ready to cry, this is not the movie for you. However, if you would like an emotional and thought-provoking experience, Wonder might be a good choice for movie night.
0 Comments

"Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice:" I, Tonya and theĀ  Gender Politics of American Figure Skating.

4/23/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
​Tonya Harding (Margot Robbie) looks to her public (I, Tonya, Gillespie, 2018)
Picture
by Megan Hess
​Craig Gillespie’s I, Tonya (2018) is the Maleficent (Stromberg, 2014) of biopics. What makes the analogy doubly appropriate is that, to many past and present figure skaters, along with fans of the sport, Tonya Harding is certainly “The Mistress of All Evil.” Although she was the first woman in the world to perform the triple axel in competition, most people only remember her alleged involvement in the brutal attack on fellow skater Nancy Kerrigan, not her athletic capacity. Vilified and lambasted by society, she never got the chance to tell her story. Patriarchy came for Tonya Harding, as it comes for all women – even those, like Nancy Kerrigan, who seem to conform to its demands. This analysis will examine how I, Tonya, shows Harding’s diversions from gender norms - specifically looking at cultural context, dress, and behavior – and how they impacted her success in the figure-skating community. 
Picture
​A tense dinner between Tonya (Margot Robbie) and her mother (Allison Janney) (I, Tonya, Gillespie, 2018)
​
​Harding’s rise to fame occurred in the 1980s’, an interesting time for American women…on and off the ice. The push for a return to “family values” in the 1980s’ tried to bury the consciousness raised during the women’s movement the past two decades before. On some level, they succeeded – pushing feminism into hibernation after the divisive “sex wars” of the antipornography movement and the failed attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment – but they couldn’t undo the female empowerment gains made during the past two decades of activism and scholarship. However, feminism had not touched the figure skating world. In fact, regarding gender roles and conduct, it was frozen in time. As Tonya says in the film “it’s a sport where the friggin' judges want you to be this old-timey version of what a woman is supposed to be.”
Like many popular women’s sports, appearance factors into an athlete’s success in skating. One of the judges even admits to Tonya that “we also judge on presentation.” Specifically, if a female skater is a) physically attractive by contemporary social norms and b) outfits herself in the manner the judges and audience are accustomed to, she finds she will do better than if she disregards these elements. The judges objectify the skater, yet an overtly sexual “look” will count against her score. Like ballerinas, skaters must have a feminine, graceful, look.
As a young girl, Tonya adheres to the ideal more because her coach has more influence on her. However, she still stands out. For example, Diane (Julianne Nicholson) encourages LaVona (Allison Janney) to buy Tonya a fur coat so that she blends in with the other young skaters. She knows Tonya’s lower-class background will impact her presentation, and, therefore, her scores. So she gets one…technically.  
Picture
​Young Tonya’s (McKenna Grace) “fur coat” - and her response to all those who ridicule the gift (I, Tonya, Gillespie, 2018)​
​As a young adult, she pushes back against the system. Typically, skaters had – and still do, to some extent - a more typically feminine look: long hair and soft color palettes. By comparison, the first time the viewer sees teenage Tonya, she has short hair and wears a bold blue and yellow skating costume – standing tall and proud on the ice. 
Picture
Tonya at a younger, more innocent, less controversial time in her life (I, Tonya, Gillespie, 2018)
​Her bright-colored costumes, which she wears throughout the film, reflect her confidence in her own skill as a skater - which the judges and more traditional members of the figure skating community see as such an affront. However, as she struggles to be accepted by this group, she tries to acquiesce. When Tonya leaves her mother, she cannot afford the expensive costumes she needs for performing. She sews a pink skating outfit that she thinks looks more like what the other skaters wear. (But it still gets that special Tonya touch – she sews a butt bow on it.) 
Picture
​Tonya – wearing her pink skating outfit –  is shocked by her low scores (I, Tonya, Gillespie, 2018)
However, even after all her hard work training and sewing, she does not get the scores she thinks she deserves. It’s even implied that her handmade costume loses her points. Those go to her contemporaries who toe the party line a bit better – for example, Nancy Kerrigan…
I, Tonya subverts audience expectations by choosing not to pit Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding against each other. Instead of going for the cheap thrill of a catfight, it makes things more interesting. A “Man vs Society” conflict drives Gillespie’s film: Tonya vs the corrupt, classist, sexist, system of the late 20th-century US figure skating scene. Nancy and Tonya were both entangled in the machine, but Nancy could work the system better than Tonya because she typified its ideals. She does not have a strong presence in the film. Her most standout moment is, of course, the iconic scene post-knee-bashing. As she grips her leg and wails “Why?” she wears a white lace skating costume reminiscent of a young girl’s First Communion dress. The media – and the movie - used this image for juxtaposition. Now Nancy Kerrigan was the Cinderella of the skating world, and Tonya was just the ugly stepsister. She should have stood out for her ability, but she was cast out for not fitting the mold. 
Picture
Tonya, tasting success, with no idea that she'll have it all taken away very soon.... (I, Tonya, Gillespie, 2018)
It wasn’t just Tonya’s style that limited her success. Her behavior set her back as well. Frequently in I, Tonya, instead of just taking her scores and leaving, she confronts the judges over their biased treatment, even calling them out for the classism inherent in the sport. The way she does this – directly, on the ice, instead of speaking to them in private after her skate – and calling definitely contributes to the judges’ collective dislike. In one scene, Tonya confronts a skating official after a competition in a parking garage, accusing them of treating her poorly. In response, he tells her that their negative feelings towards her come out of not wanting to promote her because of how she diverges from their wholesome, all-American girl model.  This hurts her not only in later competitions, but also when the Kerrigan controversy breaks. It’s possible to argue that if Tonya was more well-liked, they wouldn’t have gone after her so aggressively. While Tonya does not have to serve jail time for her alleged involvement in the attack, she does not escape punishment. She gets put on probation for three years and sentenced to 500 hours community service on top of fines. This seems like punishment enough for her role, but the US Figure Skating Association takes it one step farther, banning Harding from skating professionally… for life. Instead of accepting her punishment and (in the words of Dylan Thomas) “going quietly into that good night,” Tonya tries to protest: “All I did was the hindering of prosecution. What, you're never gonna let me skate again? I mean, I'd rather do the jail time. Please, they only got eighteen months. They got eighteen months, I'll do that. Your honor, I don't have an education. All I know is skating. That's all I know. I am no one if I can't skate….I mean, I'm not some monster. I'm trying to do my best. It's like you're giving me a life sentence if you do that, you can't do that.” Instead of rewarding Tonya’s feminine vulnerability, the judges hold to their initial decision, and wash their hands of her forever.
Over 20 years have passed since Tonya’s last skate, and much has changed about the figure skating world that was so hostile towards her. While still primarily a domain of wealthy whites, minority skaters have made their mark – for example, Kristi Yamaguchi and Michelle Kwan. Black women still do not have a significant mainstream presence in American figure skating, but there have been some talented black American female skaters, like Debi Thomas and, most recently Starr Andrews. Catherine Machado is a two-time Olympic bronze medalist and was the first Latina woman to represent the US in the Olympic Games in 1956. On the men's side, we have openly gay figure skaters like Johnny Weir and Adam Rippon. At the same time as all this diversity has been introduced, much has not changed. Skating is still tied to the thin, ultrafeminine ideal and is more high-cost than other sports. It’s curious to see if these things will ever change, but these developments give us hope. It’s too late for Tonya Harding, but perhaps not for a similar girl in the future. 
1 Comment

The Red String of Fate: A Review of Your Name

4/19/2018

1 Comment

 
Picture
When it comes to Japanese-animated films, most people are usually familiar with Hayao Miyazaki’s work from Spirited Away (2001) to My Neighbor Totoro (1988) and others. However, 2016's Your Name (Shinkai) is one that shows that Japan’s creative vision can and will continue forward after Miyazaki is long gone.

​Your Name is the story of two teenagers who discover they are connected to each other beyond time and space. Mitsuha Miyamizu (Stephanie Sheh), a girl in a small rural town, and Taki Tachibana (Michael Sinterniklaas), a boy working in the middle of Tokyo, discover that they switch bodies in their sleep. Through writing notes down on their hands and in their phones, they work together to improve each other’s lives. When Taki wants to visit Mitsuha in her town, he finds everything is not how it seems, and that Mitsuha’s future is in danger. Taki and Mitsuha must work together to survive and push past all obstacles so they can finally meet in-person.
Picture
Taki waking up in Mistuha's body for the first time.
​A part of Japanese culture that plays a major role throughout Your Name is the “red string of fate.” The legends behind it say that people connected by it are irrevocably tied to each other through a vein that starts at someone’s heart, passes through the pinky, and to another person’s heart (American culture represents this myth through the “pinky promise”). Though the string can lengthen or tangle, it can never break (Monasterio, 2015). In the film, Mitsuha wears a red string as a hair tie. A flashback/dream sequence depicts Mitsuha reaching out to Taki using the string, trying to connect with him. Taki is also shown wearing a red string, using it as a bracelet. Mitsuha’s grandmother Hitoha (Glynis Ellis) reiterates the ideas behind the red string of fate when talking about “Musubi” or the flow of time and how all things in the universe are connected. The cords of the universe, as she says, “converge and take shape. They twist, tangle, sometimes unravel, break, and hone connect again.”
The film uses the red string to not only fuel the relationship between the two leads but also to inspire hope that they’ll finally meet. As Mitsuha and Taki learn more about each other, the forces of nature sever their connection through the comet Tiamat. It is revealed that Mitsuha lived three years in the past apart from Taki, and that she died when a piece of the comet struck her town. Taki decides he is going to change the past so he can prevent Mistuha’s death so that they can meet. Despite the absurdly impossible conditions that Mitsuha and Taki’s relationship exists in, they always find a way to keep their bond strong.
Picture
The symbolic red string tied in Mitsuha's hair.
Your Name is not only a great story about how two people can overcome obstacles that get in the way of their relationship, it is also a great story about how close friendships are made and maintained. When Mitsuha and Taki discover that they are switching bodies with each other, they each come up with a list of do’s and don’ts for whenever they are switched. They are honest with each other, telling each other what helps and hurts them to do. This is a good example for what healthy relationships should look like, whether they are platonic or romantic. Meanwhile, having each other literally in their lives shakes up their routine. While Taki acts more assertive and confident in Mitsuha’s body, making her more popular with her peers, Mitsuha acts more kind and caring in Taki’s body, making him more appealing to his crush Miki Okudera (Laura Post).
Picture
Mitsuha and Taki discovering the notes that they wrote for each other.
Your Name is a heart-warming, hopeful story about friendship that literally transcends time and space, and a recommended watch for fans of Japanese animation and movies in general.

Source Cited:


Monasterio, Lucia Ortiz, "The Legend of the Red String in Japan" Faena, 6 Nov 2015, http://www.faena.com/aleph/articles/the-legend-of-the-red-string-of-japan/
1 Comment

From the Mayoral Household to Trash Island: Wes Anderson's Isle of Dogs

4/16/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
The pack, headed by Chief (Bryan Cranston), observe an oncoming rival pack.
Picture
By Nathan Simms

​It’s 20 years into the future in the Japanese Archipelago. All dogs have been exiled to Trash Island following an outbreak of “dog flu.” This is the setting of Isle of Dogs (Anderson, 2018), Wes Anderson’s latest film and his sophomore stop-motion feature. It’s now been a little over nine years since Fantastic Mr. Fox (Anderson, 2009), Anderson’s first animated feature which is based on the Roald Dahl book of the same name. Fox follows a group of anthropomorphized animals who rob three local farmers and have to relocate in the ensuing battle. To contrast, Isle of Dogs depicts a young boy’s battle rescue his dog Spots from government enforced exile (Liev Schreiber). In the time since the release of Fantastic Mr. Fox, Anderson and his team have clearly had time to improve on their craft. Isle of Dogs feels very much like any other Anderson film in terms of structure, but the film tackles societal issues in a new and refreshing way that clearly departs from Anderson’s past filmography.

Isle of Dogs opens with a notice, written in both Japanese and English, which advises the audience that all human characters speak in their native tongues. It then specifies that Japanese will be translated by an intermediary while all barks are rendered in English. This is a great example of the thorough, ordered nature of Isle of Dogs. The film is also characterized by a few devices that pervade Anderson’s body of work. For example, the film is divided into six acts which are both labelled by titles and announced by the narrator, a device that is present in almost all of Anderson’s films. Additionally, every shot in Isle, from wide City shots to close-ups of faces, is compositionally symmetrical. The focus on symmetry in his films has been commented on before; it is impressive to create completely symmetrical shots in live action. However, in a completely controlled environment like that of a stop motion set, the symmetry in each frame is only more precise. These factors all make Isle of Dogs feel just like any other Anderson film, but recent technological advancements have allowed for nuances that would have been impossible for Fox.

Like Fantastic Mr. Fox, Isle of Dogs was created using stop-motion animation. Thousands of still frames are combined to give the illusion of motion to puppets which are positioned by hand. In Fox, every principal animal character has fur on its face and hands. An unfortunate artifact of this fur was a inconsistent shift of hair in every frame due to the animator’s hands. Combined with other frames, the movement of each character would include this random shift of hair which was mostly distracting. Taking this into consideration, Wes Anderson directed his animation team to incorporate this movement to simulate wind. Now, the fur movement is consistent and motivated. In scenes where there is a lot of movement within the fur, wind noise accompanies. This serves to eliminate what was one of the most distracting elements of Anderson’s previous animated film. However, this change is a relatively minor consideration compared to the dramatic shift in political commentary that is absent from films like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (Anderson, 2004) and The Grand Budapest Hotel (Anderson, 2014).

Picture
In this futuristic Japan, cat-loving Mayor Kobayashi fears for the citizens of Megasaki city after “dog flu” runs rampant through the canine population. In a late night decree, he banishes all dogs to trash island, including the personal bodyguard dog of his nephew, Atari. In the following months, every single dog in Megasaki is placed into the city’s trash collection system which consists of hundreds of horizontal ski-lifts with modified trash carriers. The dogs are then carried off the mainland and dumped onto the isle of dogs. Atari, missing his dog, endeavors to retrieve him from the island and goes so far as to steal a plane and fly there.
Picture
Atari Kobayashi (Koyu Rankin) offers a photo of his missing dog, Spots.
The complex
politics of this situation are hinted at during Kobayashi’s late night decree when the Mayor allows for political dissent. Dr. Watanabe, of the science party, makes a brief statement in which he bluntly states that the dog flu is not a danger to humans and abandoning man’s best friend is a mistake. Kobayashi’s supporters just ignore him. Doctor Watanabe continues to fight for dogs during the film, even going so far as to find a vaccine to dog flu. This accomplishment results in him receiving some poisoned sushi. His dissent is ultimately silenced. Sensing malicious intent of the government, a group of pro-dog students resists Mayor Kobayashi’s anti-dog rhetoric. According to dramatist Kenneth Burke’s theory of representative anecdote, films reflect societal fears and concerns. The drama of a movie is often representative of the current political climate of the society in which the film is created. In today’s political climate, a film which depicts the politically motivated and government sanctioned oppression of dogs (man’s best friend), is most certainly relevant. The only real difference between the government of our nation and that of Megasaki, is that in the end, the corruption of Kobayashi is admitted by the man himself and order is restored. The real world never seems to dispose of its trash quite as easily.
Beneath the political drama that forces dogs onto trash island and pervasive governmental corruption, lies a simple story of a boy, his dog, and the space between them. This relationship really is the crux of the story and the most heart-wrenching element. The audience needs to see the reunification of this boy and his dog. Isle of Dogs is a love letter not only to the unique relationships that we form with our pets, but also to Japanese film and culture. The deep reds, purples, and greens that shine in the futuristic city of Megasaki remind us of the Tokyo of today, while the symmetrical compositions and ordered set design are reminiscent of Japanese auteurs like Kurosawa. Anderson has often been criticized for his insistence in form over function, but in a society which focuses on balance and symmetry, his style feels right at home. If you are looking for a bit of escapism, I cannot think of a better film
0 Comments

Coco and Book of Life: How Two Stories of Dia de los Muertos Can Work Together

4/1/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Picture
PictureBefore Lalo Alcaraz became a cultural consultant on Coco, he criticized Disney's trademarking actions through this cartoon.
By Emmanuel Gundran
​
Since its very early production and onward, Coco (Unkrich 2017) has been a controversial film for Disney to make. Disney started production on Coco as early as 2013, when they tried to copyright ‘Dia de los Muertos’ for a list of goods and services. However, many criticized the decision, including Mexican political cartoonist, Lalo Alcaraz. He led the backlash against Disney’s corporate actions, even drawing a cartoon titled ‘Muerto Mouse’ which depicted Mickey Mouse as a giant, skeletal monster and had the subtitle “It’s coming to trademark your cultura!”. Eventually, Pixar hired Alcaraz onto Coco as a creative/cultural consultant to repair relationships with the Latino community.

​While this was one hurdle that Disney managed to overcome, there was also the problem of Coco being too similar in concept and story to Book of Life (Gutierrez 2014), another film that’s centered around Dia de los Muertos. Journalists and movie-goers alike noticed and took to the web to voice their criticisms. One writer for the website Cartoon Brew expresses his distaste for a “white Jewish gentleman” like Lee Unkrich directing a film “rooted in a centuries-old Mexican tradition.” He further accuses Unkrich of wanting to “appropriate Mexican culture for the purpose of boosting an American corporation’s bottomline.” However, after Coco was released in November 2017, it received rave reviews from fans and critics alike and reached $744.9 million in the box office. The film’s release calmed many of those who feared it would blow up in disaster. Despite the controversies surrounding it, Coco proves that it can not only coexist with Book of Life as a film about Dia de los Muertos, but also that both films supplement each other with Mexican culture.

Coco is a film about a boy named Miguel who wants to honor the memory of his ancestor Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt), a famous singer and guitarist. When his family bans music from the household, Miguel travels to the Land of the Dead to find de la Cruz and prove that he is his worthy successor. Along his journey, he meets Héctor (Gael Garcia Bernal), a bumbling trickster whose family is slowly forgetting him. Once his family forgets him, his soul would fade away. The only memory left of who he was is kept in a photo of himself in life. Thus, not only must Miguel find his ancestor, he needs to make sure Miguel does not fade away and left to be forgotten.
Picture
Miguel's shrine dedicated to Ernesto de la Cruz, who he believes is his ancestor.
One aspect of Coco that sets it apart from Book of Life is the specific parts of Mexican culture that are portrayed and reinterpreted. Both films deal with the idea of being remembered and forgotten, but it is treated different between them. In Coco, when a person dies and is sent to the Land of the Dead, their soul is kept their as a skeleton until they are no longer remembered. Dia de los Muertos honors the dead because their souls never truly die, as long as people continue to remember those who are gone. Book of Life also shows this important aspect of the culture, but in a different way. In that film, two gods rule over the Land of the Remembered and the Land of the Forgotten: La Muerte (Kate de Castillo) and Xibalba (Ron Perlman) respectively. These gods play with people’s lives, even making bets with each other that involve mortal souls. They also pull souls into and out of their respective realms at will. The process of a person’s soul living on in the after-life works similarly in Coco, but Book of Life emphasizes the supernatural, as the god’s conflict with each other is one of the central points of the film.
Picture
Though memories keep souls alive in the after-life, Xibalba and La Muerte can interfere whenever they please.
While Coco and Book of Life deal with a young protagonist fighting against his family’s expectations, they deal with different struggles along the way that gives each of them a distinct journey. Manolo (Diego Luna), the protagonist of Book of Life, wants to break away from his family’s bullfighting tradition to be a musician. Miguel (Anthony Gonzales), from Coco, also wants to be a musician and break from his family’s shoe-shining tradition. Their conflicts, however, are different. Manolo loses the love of his life Maria (Zoe Saldana) to his childhood friend Joaquin (Channing Tatum), who is a successful bullfighter. Joaquin has achieved what Manolo feels his family expects of him. Miguel, however, has tension with his family because music has been banned from their house. After de la Cruz left the family to play music, Miguel’s great-great-grandmother Imelda (Alanna Ubach) was left without a husband, and her daughter Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía) was left without a father. For Miguel’s family, becoming a musician meant pursuing personal fame and abandoning everything and everyone else. The film deals a lot with the conflict that Miguel’s ancestor created and how it would be resolved through his journey. By the end of both films, Miguel and Manolo learn different lessons about family and expectations. While Manolo learns to follow his heart and be the person who he wants to be, Miguel learns that true family can never be forgotten.
Picture
Both Miguel and Manolo share a passion for music, but their passions each take them on wildly different journeys.
These films have strong similarities and subtle differences between each other, but they are able to coexist with how they create a more complete picture of what Mexican culture is like. Both show how life never ends after the body dies, but include different details on how. Coco shows that the souls of those dead live on as long as they are remembered and the tragic death of a soul after all their friends and family have forgotten them. It also shows the traditions practiced by Mexicans, such as bringing food and setting up shrines, called ofrendas, honoring family members who have passed. Book of Life adds to the spiritual aspect by having the two gods who watch over the realms of the remembered and forgotten. It shows that higher powers have control over the souls of the dead. In Mexican culture, Santa Muerte, who the goddess La Muerte was likely based on, is a female deity who takes the form of a skeleton in robes and oversees the souls of the living and dead. Those who pray and offer gifts to her can have their requests granted, such as asking for the soul of a loved one to return or praying “for a holy death.” (Ramirez, 2007)
While Coco struggled early on in its production, it was able to provide a more complete picture of Mexican culture along with Book of Life and craft a unique, heart-felt story about family and forgiveness.
Sources Cited:

Amidi, Amid. "Pixar Announces Day of the Dead Film 'Coco'" Cartoon Brew.  https://www.cartoonbrew.com/pixar/pixar-announces-day-of-the-dead-film-coco-117684.html

Ramirez, Margaret. "'Saint Death' Comes to Chicago" Chicago Tribune. ​http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/death-chicago-08-story.html
0 Comments

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.