By Nate Baum

From there on, the team gradually starts to respect each other and play for more than just themselves. They continue to face challenges throughout the entirety of the season, vulgar insults from opposing teams and coaches, biased refereeing, segregation’s existence in their schools’ halls, and so much more. The other teams in the area don’t understand how both black and whites playing together is possible, but coaches Boone and Yoast see it as being about more than just football, rather going through life together as blacks and whites, hand in hand.
 
The Titans go undefeated on the year, winning the Virginia state championship. In the movie, the Titans win 10-7 in the final seconds as backup quarterback Ronny “Sunshine” Bass provides blocks for injured starting quarterback Jerry “Rev” Harris, who runs the ball around 70 yards for the dramatic score. In real life, the Titans actually won the State Championship 27-0 over Andrew Lewis High School. The Titan’s defense was so spectacular in that game that Andrew Lewis finished the game totaling negative rushing yardage.
 In Remember the Titans, Denzel Washington truly captures the power of what happened on the T.C. Williams Titans sideline in 1971. He not only gives off the feeling that he’s actually a football coach, but also really sells the points he’s trying to carry out with the team. Denzel won a BET Award for Best Actor as well as numerous others in his masterful performance.

On a different topic, one parallel I found in Remember the Titans depiction of 1971 Alexandria and 2016’s America is the divide, controversy, and hatred founded on racial tension. We’re in the midst of a national divide on the issues of race and equality, and it’s a rarity to see anything covered on the news other than racial violence, police brutality, or politicians’ controversial opinions, most of which are filled with hate and vulgarity. Turn on any major television network (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC) and there will rarely be a time you don’t see them talking about the corruption in Baltimore, Ferguson, and Charlotte.

​Through watching news coverage today, and seeing the Titans interpretation of the riots in 1971 Alexandria, there doesn’t seem like much of a difference. America is in trouble once again, and in general we’re not looking for solutions, we’re continuing to feed the fire. We’re all singing “We Didn’t Start the Fire” by Billy Joel, yet we’ve got a lighter in our back pocket. So what is the solution? How do we fix the unimaginable dilemma we currently face?

We need to look back at how those who lived in the Civil Rights era turned things around. Pivotal figures such as Muhammed Ali and Martin Luther King Jr. got our nation to start talking about the issues at hand with our mouths rather than our fists (unless you count Ali’s boxing career). Now, we may not have a stage to stand on or a press conference to speak to. We may not live in Charlotte, Chicago, or Ferguson. But we can make a difference in our community, we can start healthy conversations about race and equality, and we can walk hand in hand with all races. We don’t have to necessarily agree all the time, but we need to respect one another as human beings. We can walk like Herman Boone.
​

by Megan Hess

 Author's Note: This is not the first time Donnie Darko has been covered on Cinemablography. I actually made my debut on the site when my final paper – an analysis essay on suburbia and choice in the film - was published in the 2nd Science Fiction issue (Interested parties can view that piece here). I believe we are never done discussing a truly good film, especially not one as complex as this one is. Coming back to Donnie Darko after two years away has given me new insight. While my previous article touched on Donnie’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) mental illness, this article covers that topic more extensively – in fact, it is the focus. I hope that the two articles work in tandem to provide readers with a more thorough understanding of Donnie Darko. - M.H. 

One hundred years ago, most people never spoke of mental illness. If they had it in their families, they often chose a Jane Eyre approach to the problem, isolating the affected relative from society. Institutions were not suitable for meeting sufferers’ needs, utilizing lobotomies and straitjackets instead of more helpful methods. As we have learned more about mental illnesses, it has become more socially acceptable to discuss them. This happens frequently through art.
Many compelling films about mental illness have been made. Like the majority of movies produced today, most have male protagonists. Sometimes this is intentional. Although “overall rates of psychiatric disorder are almost identical for men and women,” according to data from the World Health Organization, some disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, are more commonly seen in men than women (WHO 1). Other times, it could be because a disorder is viewed as more typically “male” by the public – whether or not this is actually true. Schizophrenia – the illness featured in Donnie Darko (Kelly, 2001) – is one of these disorders.
Research from the World Health Organization states “there are no marked gender differences in the rates of severe mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder that affect less than 2% of the population” (WHO 1). However, because of the societal expectations and stereotypes of and about mentally ill individuals – schizophrenic ones in particular - Kelly’s film is almost contingent on its protagonist’s gender.
Donnie Darko is not a film that is easy to interpret. While a “real” explanation does exist, many alternate fan theories persist. One of these theories states that the film has nothing at all to do with time travel (the actual explanation) and that none of its happenings were real, but just part of a schizophrenic episode that Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal) had (Smith 1). People who believe this theory justify it by stating (correctly) that visual and auditory hallucinations are characteristic of schizophrenia (Smith 1). While this theory appears solid, it has a flaw: the fact that Dr. Thurman (Katherine Ross), Donnie’s psychiatrist admitted to giving him placebos (Smith 1). While the time-travel explanation is the most correct, I believe that the mental-illness view can coexist with the time-travel view, and that blending them makes an already beautifully complex film even richer. 

Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal), Gretchen (Jena Malone), and Frank (James Duval) enjoy a film before Frank orders Donnie to burn down Jim Cunningham's (Patrick Swayze) home (Donnie Darko, Kelly, 2001)

​From a practical perspective, it makes sense for Donnie to be schizophrenic. First, he is around the right age, since “men tend to develop schizophrenia between the ages of 15 – 24” (A.D.A.M, p.1) He also has the characteristic flat affect, especially in his facial expressions. The primary reason I believe that Donnie has schizophrenia, as well as being affected by the forces of time travel, is the way that Frank’s influence manifests: through violence.
Recent research has continued to confirm the correlation between schizophrenia and violence (Fleishmann, Werbeloff, Yoffe, Davidson, & Weiser 1). Unfortunately, this has led publics to believe that all schizophrenics are violent, and, therefore, that all schizophrenics are dangerous. To say this would be to make a false assertion; the person most in danger of victimization is the schizophrenic, since approximately 10 percent of people diagnosed with schizophrenia commit suicide (Health Research Funding). Compared with the stereotypes, Donnie’s violence stands out – property damage instead of assault or homicide. Even though he never actually gets caught for his crimes, people still believe that he committed them, based on his illness and past criminal history (he accidentally burned down an abandoned house and was sent to juvenile detention (Kelly 28)). When he does kill at the end of the movie, it has nothing to do with his illness. Instead, it is a crime of passion, triggered by the death of his girlfriend, Gretchen (Jena Malone). Gretchen’s death is the driving force for Donnie to go back in time. She saved him by loving him; now he must take the savior role for her.

Donnie and Gretchen have their last significant conversation hours before she will be killed (Donnie Darko, Kelly, 2001)

​With some films, changing the gender of the main character would not make too much of a difference. However, in Donnie Darko, it would change the film extraordinarily. When using the schizophrenia narrative, the film relies on audience perceptions of how that particular illness manifests itself – something which happens in a very male way. Their schema has been set by A Beautiful Mind (Howard, 2001) and other male-dominated schizophrenia narratives. Donnie Darko plays out the cultural narrative of women as saviors for damaged men, as well as a world where men perpetrate violence and women are victims. Since women are seen as less capable of committing violent acts, parts of Donnie Darko could seem less believable (at least to an early-2000s’ audience) when viewed through the mental-illness framework. However, other parts would not need adjustment. I believe that Donnie Darko could still be a successful film with a female lead, but it would certainly be a different one. 

​Works Cited
 A.D.A.M “Schizophrenia: Risk Factors” New York Times Heath Guide. 12 Oct. 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/schizophrenia/risk-factors.html Accessed 12 Oct 2016.
 Anat Fleischman, Nomi Werbeloff, Rinat Yoffe, Michael Davidson, Mark Weiser. “Schizophrenia and Violent Crime: A Population-Based Study.” Psychological Medicine, vol. 44, issue 14, 2014. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/schizophrenia-and-violent-crime-a-population-based-study/FD65445E8C75A3BE9747F217456E551B
 “21 Significant Paranoid Schizophrenia Statistics.” Health Research Funding, http://healthresearchfunding.org/21-significant-paranoid-schizophrenia-statistics/ Accessed 10 October 2016.
Kelly, Richard. The Donnie Darko Book. Faber and Faber, 2003.
Smith, Dan. “Alternative Explanations” Donnie Darko: The Tangent Universe. http://www.donniedarko.org.uk/alternative-explantions/. Accessed 10 October 2016.
“Gender and Women’s Mental Health” World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/genderwomen/en/ Accessed 11 October 2016. 

by Mark Young

​Recent controversies have highlighted a number of films that have been ignored by the Academy of Motion Picture Sciences.  Many of the films that have been deliberately ignored have primarily black leads, or female directors.  Amid the controversy critics have made cases for Straight Outta Compton (Gray, 2015) and Selma (DuVernay, 2014) to be movies that should have been more recognized at the Oscars.  Among these, Dope (Famuyiwa, 2015) is another movie that deserves more attention than it has received.

Dope is a comedy crime-drama about a self-described music geek, Malcolm, trying to survive in a tough neighborhood in Inglewood, CA.  After a chance encounter he finds himself in possession of a large quantity of drugs and guns.  Malcolm, a straightedge boy, is suddenly thrust head first into an underground culture he has spent his life avoiding.

While this coming of age picture takes a look at the unique struggles of African American youth, Dope uses its comedic style to help all cultures relate to the protagonists.  Malcolm and his friends are outsiders in their own culture.  They are a minority of a minority, they are nerds where the only acceptable expression of self is to embrace drugs and gangs. Malcolm desperately hopes to improve his life through being a good student and all around good person. He quickly learns that life is not that simple.

Malcolm has lived a safe life. He has steered clear of bad influences and the first time he steps out and takes a risk he ends up in an adventure that will shake him to the core.  Through a series of mishaps and unlikely events he grows from a boy who only wants to attend Harvard, into a man who wants to challenge the way he is perceived.

The comedic tone of the film will at first take you off guard. Yet, it also makes the content of the story more palatable.  If this were a serious film, it perhaps would have gained more notice and yet lost what makes Dope unique.  We expect comedy to be simple, we're not looking to be challenged by a funny film.  However, if the struggles of black youth are only represented in overdramatic tones we become part of a bigger problem.  If we only want black culture to cause us to think in certain ways we are limiting an entire people group who have very important stories to tell. 

The charm of Dope is its light handling of tough subject matter. These kids are in serious danger. People get hurt, and some nearly die. It is funny to watch kids come up with creative new ways to sell drugs and get one over on their mentors. Yet the reality of the situation is not lost in the laughs. As soon as you start to relax Dope brings you back to reality.

This film is one of the most enjoyable movies I have seen in a long time .  I greatly enjoyed the humor, while also being challenged by the deeper messages the film presents. Malcolm’s struggle with bullies, college, gangs, girls, and disillusionment are universal and still unique. Overall, Dope is a film to which we can all relate, I highly recommend this film currently streaming on Netflix.

By Emmanuel Gundran

Works Cited:​

“The Pixar Timeline 1979 to Present.” Pixar,  2016, http://www.pixar.com/about/Our-Story. Accessed 4 Oct 2016. 

by Megan Hess
​

Although 2016 still has a few months left in it, I think it is fair to say the new Ghostbusters reboot is the most polarizing movie of the year. Die-hard (mostly male) fans of the original mourned this “bastardization” of their beloved classic and swore it would be nothing less than a horrendous mess. Female entertainment writers and feminists cheered the idea of a woman-centered remake, predicting a fantastic success. In the end, both sides managed to get their way…somewhat. Ghostbusters (Feig, 2016) performed poorly at the box office, dashing fans’ hopes for a sequel and making the people who predicted its failure cackle with glee. At the same time, the film received mixed critical reviews – not all good, but not all bad, either. The reviewers who praised the film spoke highly of its strengths. 
In my opinion, Ghostbusters 2016 was one of the summer’s best comedies that did not get the praise (or revenue) it deserved. The Internet put an unfair amount of pressure on the cast and crew. Ghostbusters 2016 got put in a double bind: if it deviated too much from the original, fans would complain it was not staying true to the spirit of Ghostbusters, but if it imitated its predecessor too much, then it is just trying to be a gender-swapped copy. While certainly not perfect by any means, labeling Ghostbusters as the worst film ever made – or even the worst reboot ever made – is unfair. While the basic storyline isn’t anything earth-shattering in itself (instead of “boy meets girl,” think “girl meets ghost” times four), the cast – a perfect blend of old and new – elevates it. 

The team captures their first ghost at a heavy-metal concert (Ghostbusters, Feig 2016)

​After years of studying, writing, and networking, Erin Gilbert (Kristin Wiig) is finally up for tenure at Columbia University. However, fate intervenes, and she is forced to give up the job she thought she loved for her true dream. Instead of teaching physics to a lecture hall full of coeds, she ends up trekking all over New York City chasing down ghosts. If that sounds like a tough job for someone insulated from the world in the ivory tower of academia, fortunately, she has an unforgettable crew of ladies to back her up: her former best friend (and fellow co-author of Ghosts from Our Past (Both Literally and Figuratively): The Study of the Paranormal) Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy), former MTA employee \ ghost neophyte Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones), and Abby’s new research partner, zany engineer Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). As they battle ghosts, the team’s friendship is a bastion against the world’s disbelief – even as they have to save it from a power-crazed loner (Neil Casey) intent on bringing ghosts from the spirit realm into the human world to wreak havoc.

Erin (Kristin Wiig, right) isn't sure what to think of Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon, left) on first meeting her (Ghostbusters, Feig 2016)

​Ghostbusters is fun viewing for several reasons (like the team’s cool ghost-busting gadgets and goofy dance moves) – all that never would have come to pass with a different cast and crew.  While I would have loved to see a woman direct Ghostbusters - in an ideal world, Nora Ephron, but she unfortunately passed away in 2012 – Paul Feig was a good choice to lead the project, considering he specializes in female-centric comedies. He and Katie Dippold reunited for Ghostbusters, the first film they’ve worked on together since The Heat (Feig, 2013). Despite its lack of Sandra Bullock, Ghostbusters is stronger and better than this female buddy comedy. At times, it almost feels like a more refined version of what The Heat tried to accomplish – people overcoming their differences to work towards a common goal, and becoming close friends in the process – but with less of Feig’s signature raunchy humor. Releasing the film as PG-13 was probably a good choice from a financial\ marketing perspective, but seeing Feig’s crass and cheeky humor at its best in Bridesmaids (Feig, 2011) and Spy (Feig, 2015) made me wish for an R-rated cut of Ghostbusters. 

Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon) plays a practical joke on her teammmate Erin while they search the basement of a theater for ghosts (Ghostbusters, Feig 2016)

​However, Ghostbusters does not need adult jokes to make its audience laugh. The cast has enviable chemistry in the way their personalities play off each other. (It helps that they have all been on Saturday Night Live as either guest stars or cast members.) They are all hilarious, and all in completely different ways. Kristin Wiig can do ‘serious’ characters well, which makes her a good fit for the type-A Erin Gilbert. Conversely, Kate McKinnon’s off-the-cuff one-liners and giftedness in physical comedy, as well as her overall irreverent demeanor means that only she could play Jillian Holtzmann. Leslie Jones brings her signature enthusiastic energy to playing Patty Tolan, while Melissa McCarthy’s Abby Yates has the same sweet core as all of her most well-known characters.  Instead of boxing their cast into prescribed character archetypes, Feig and Dippold let the leads be themselves, which I believe is the essence of what makes Ghostbusters so relatable and endearing. One exception, of course, is Chris Hemsworth, who does a delightful take on the “dumb blonde secretary” trope. He so rarely gets to play comedic roles (aside from a few one-liners in the Avengers films) that it seems a little jarring at first, but then becomes a perfect fit. Hopefully Ghostbusters’ bad press did not sink Hemsworth’s comedy career…..

As the Ghostbusters' lovably dim-witted secretary Kevin, Hemsworth may look like Clark Kent, but he has none of the character's intellect (Ghostbusters, Feig 2016)

For all its successes, Ghostbusters, like every film, has its flaws. While the cast could not be better, some of the actual scripted jokes do not have their same charm. Most of the cameos and moments winking at the original feel forced and flat – except for Sigourney Weaver’s post-credit appearance as Holtzmann’s former mentor. This might cause some to debate if Ghostbusters really did its job – to which I would counter, what was its job? If the intent with Ghostbusters was to make a pleasurable cinematic experience under the umbrella of the brand name, I would say it succeeded. Unfortunately, with its box-office records, the Ghostbusters team will not have a chance to fix its mistakes from the first movie through a sequel – so enjoy every minute of Kate McKinnon as Jillian Holtzmann, because it probably will never happen again.
Will the millennial Ghostbusters make an impact equal to its 80s’ forefather? Unlikely. However, that does not make it unwatchable. On the contrary – not watching Ghostbusters means missing out on a fun, frenetic, comedy about female friendship…plus ghosts. 

By Brandon Gordon

​          One of the greatest transitions in film has occurred within the last twenty years, and it happened with very few people noticing. Almost all multiplex movie theaters use some form of digital projection system and have for several years now. Gone are the years of celluloid film being screen for a wide audience. At the turn of the century many film productions began the transition to digital cameras over film. This meant hard drives and memory cards instead of film canisters needing development. About twenty years ago filmmakers realized the usefulness of filming using digital cameras. There was no longer a need to buy and carry film that would only see one use. Instead, a card that could be cleared and used over and over again took its place. This was the birth of the digital age in film.
            There are always bumps in the beginning, for anything. This was certainly the case for film. There was much trial and error before filmmakers became comfortable using the new digital technology to their advantage. It wasn’t until the string of success with low budget features hitting it big at the box office when many production companies realized they could cut costs while retaining the same quality from film. There were, however, some who disagreed. Filmmakers like Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino and Terrance Malick pushed back against switching to digital. Shooting on film can offer something for directors and cinematographers that digital do not. Either it’s a cleaner image or crisper colors, but many argue that there is a discipline that comes with film, one they prefer to have over working with digital cameras. That discipline is the care and caution that comes from using film. Making sure the exposure on the film is perfect because you only get one chance is a fantastic motivator to give each shot your best effort.  That does not mean film has an advantage over digital. Many cinematographers still prefer to shoot digitally due to the security and sensibility of doing so. As long as you have a battery and a memory card you can film on a digital camera. Then it is simple to transfer your files charge your batteries and be ready for another day on set. Digital can be an effective choice and in the early 2000’s many young filmmakers made it theirs. It started with indie and horror films. The Blair Witch Project (Myrick, Sanchez, 1999) was the first digital film to break box office records when it grossed over $140 million on a budget of less than $65,000. After this, almost every horror film began to shoot on digital cameras, and many more quickly followed. 

​            This is not to say that there is a clear winner or loser in the Film vs. Digital debate. Both mediums still have their weaknesses and their strengths. In the end what it really comes down to - and has since the beginning - is preference. The preference of the filmmakers as well as the budget they are working with ultimately dictates how they film. It is hard to deny the greatness of digital cameras when also looking at the accessibility to young up and coming filmmakers. Many now get their start shooting films digitally. A whole generation of great filmmakers is being born from the digital revolution.
            There is no winner or looser, one is not better than the other. At the end of the day, though, when you go to the theater to see a movie, more often than not it will be shown on a digital projector. We live in a digital age and the future holds great progress that is still to be made.