by Megan Hess

​If you watch enough films, you will quickly learn one thing about the medium: often, titles deceive. For example, none of the scenes in Woody Allen’s Café Society (Allen, 2016) actually take place in a café – so discard any images of starlets sipping coffee in a cozy little spot. In fact, the less expectations you have for Café Society, the better. As with many other movies, going into Café Society without preconceived notions will help you to enjoy the film more.
One of the most important things to know – Café Society is not another iteration of Midnight in Paris (Allen, 2011). Because the events of the two films take place only a decade apart, it is easy to assume they would be similar, but the differences and distance between them show. Out of the most recent batch of Woody Allen films, Midnight in Paris is one of the best – innovative, witty, and charming, with the kind of cast less-established directors dream of getting for their films. Café Society shares almost nothing with Midnight in Paris, and, as a result, isn’t anything close to the same experience. Instead of dreamy, fluid, time and characters who draw viewers in, it marches along on a strict track, and the narrator keeps the audience at a distance. It has the ability to be many things all at once: Allen’s take on the trope of modern-day filmmakers covering “Old Hollywood,” a rags-to-riches narrative, a Philip Roth novel that Philip Roth never wrote. If that sounds cluttered, know that Café Society is anything but. In contrast, it is a simplistic coming-of-age, self-discovery narrative. In fact, Café Society is almost too simple, like Allen exerted only the minimal effort to make it. Overall, it’s predictable, but pleasant. 

Bobby Dorfmann (Jesse Eisenberg) talks to his uncle's friends at a Hollywood party (Café Society, Allen, 2016)

​Despite its perceived narrative shortcomings, Café Society succeeds in other areas. It has a strong visual appeal that echoes the theme of minimalist restraint in the production: intriguing, but balanced – never a spectacle, even the large crowd scenes at parties. I found the costumes particularly noteworthy, especially in the party and nightclub scenes, where they embrace luxury and decadence without going overboard. Although Café Society is primarily a serious film, it does have some humorous moments, which are some of its highlights. Two worth mention: a Catcher in the Rye-esque sequence early on when protagonist Bobby Dorfmann (Jesse Eisenberg) hires a prostitute, and a running gag with Bobby’s gangster brother Ben (Corey Stoll) murdering his enemies and encasing their corpses in concrete. These moments are both necessary and appreciated in a deceptively light film like Café Society. 
​For all its supposed glamour, Café Society is really a reflection on lost love. Bobby does not expect to find anything more than a job with his uncle, Phil Stern, a successful movie producer (Steve Carell) when he leaves the Bronx for California, but he ends up meeting Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), a woman who captivates him from first meeting. Bobby is unable to cast aside his desire for her, even after she leaves him to marry another man (a predictable twist, but engaging regardless of its familiarity), and he returns to New York, but fate keeps stirring up the ashes of their romance. Allen steps away from convention at the end of the film, refusing to bring the lovers apart – a decision I respect. It makes for an ambiguous and depressing ending, but letting them end up together would just be pandering to convention.

Bobby and his wife Veronica (Blake Lively) celebrate New Year's Eve at the nightclub he owns (Café Society, Allen, 2016)

In short, Café Society is a good unconventional love story. For those who want to see Jesse Eisenberg in a role he’s better suited to than Lex Luthor in Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (Snyder, 2016) but have already watched The Social Network (Fincher, 2010) and The End of the Tour (Ponsoldt, 2015) I would recommend Café Society. Neither mindless fluff nor all-consuming thinkpiece, it makes an ideal movie night choice because of how inoffensive it is. Café Society is not hiding any deep questions; on the contrary, like Bobby and the nightclub he ends up running, it just wants to entertain. 

by Megan Hess

​At first, Ira Levin’s novel The Stepford Wives seems made for the screen. His other most recognized works – The Boys from Brazil and Rosemary’s Baby – both became successful films featuring big-name stars of the day: Gregory Peck, for The Boys from Brazil (Schaffner, 1978) and Mia Farrow, in Rosemary’s Baby (Polanski, 1968). The Stepford Wives has become a movie two times now, but, like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby – another slim, power-packed volume with two cinematic retellings (Clayton, 1974 and Lurhmann, 2013, respectively) – filmmakers just cannot seem to get it right. This failure is not only because of Stepford Wives’ exquisitely subtle satire. In his afterword to the perennial edition, novelist Peter Straub states that the book is frequently misread because of its physical brevity, meaning many readers miss out on Levin’s “Olympian humor” (Straub). The first Stepford Wives film (Forbes, 1975) is too serious, while the 21st-century remake (Oz, 2004) sidesteps the seriousness entirely, hitting viewers over the head with humor.

One particularly unsubtle moment in the 2004 Stepford Wives (Oz). 

​As unsuccessfully as these films communicate the essence of Levin’s manuscript, they are not bad films, per se. As many find, adapting an excellent novel for the screen is a challenging task. In my mind, no big-screen experience can compare to reading Levin’s crystalline prose and experiencing the giftedness for plot that causes Stephen King to call him “the Swiss watchmaker of the suspense novel” instead of having it filtered through a screenwriter. However, one experience that can only be found in the cinematic adaptations is their portrayals of second and third wave feminist values and culture. The majority of gender studies scholars classify the modern feminist movement into three waves, each with their own distinctive flavors and concerns. In this piece, I will focus on second and third wave feminism, which took place during the 1960s’-70s’, and the 1990s-present, respectively.
Both The Stepford Wives novel and the first movie came about during the second wave, so it stands to reason that elements of second-wave feminism would appear in the film – and they do. For example, protagonist Joanna Eberhardt (Katherine Ross) and her friends Bobbie Markowe (Paula Prentiss) and Charmaine Wimperis (Tina Louise) attempt to hold a “consciousness-raising” session. This was a popular activity for late-20th century feminists, where women met in groups and discussed personal, political, and social issues.  However well-intentioned Joanna, Bobbie, and Charmaine’s efforts, the other Stepford wives foil the meeting by monopolizing the discussion with cleaning tips. While Levin never explicitly states what leads the men of Stepford to begin killing their wives and replacing them with animatronic copies, it could be interpreted as a dramatic fear reaction to the second-wave feminist movement. Many women were no longer content to hold the same sociocultural roles they always had – roles which benefitted men. Their efforts to gain equality in educational and professional spaces threatened men’s status as the dominant group. Levin’s novel and the first film adaptation predate televangelist Pat Robertson’s infamous quote -  "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” (Bentz, 1) – but his statement accurately describes how many men and women were feeling as the second wave rose up and continued to flourish. The 1975 Stepford Wives also retains the whitewashed quality of second-wave feminism. Late in Levin’s novel, after most of her other friends have been turned into robots, Joanna befriends Ruthanne Henry, a new resident and the first African-American woman in Stepford. The Stepford Wives movie removes her from the plot entirely. While the 2004 version of The Stepford Wives ​has minor characters of color, it is, for the most part, equally white-centric, one of the only qualities it shares with its predecessor. 

The women of Stepford, all dressed up for their morning aerobics class (Oz, 2004). 

Instead of successfully bringing the chilling cautionary tale of Stepford into the new millennium, the 2004 Stepford Wives received a poor critical reception because it was “heavily re-edited and re-written following test screenings, with new scenes shot and others deleted. The attempts to cater to audience tastes backfired as the new edits and scenes created continuity errors and major story problems” (IMDB). The most significant rewrite – besides the reveal that town matriarch Claire Wellington (Glenn Close) is behind the swap -  is a new ending, where Joanna escapes being turned into a robot, and things end happily for most everyone involved. The 2004 Stepford Wives is unquestionably inaccurate when compared to the original manuscript, but spot-on in the way it captures tenets and traditions of third-wave feminism. Instead of a housewife, 21st-century Joanna Eberhardt (Nicole Kidman) is a high-performing TV executive. Part of the reason she finds the Stepford women so odd and backward is because they do not jive with her vision of “women can do anything.” However, the high value third-wave feminism puts upon freedom of choice also explains why she does not begin to seriously question the Stepford status quo until much later. 2004 Stepford Wives is much more sexualized than the first Stepford Wives film, which speaks to the sex-positivity of third-wave feminism, and even has two Stepford husbands - one half of the town’s (and the movie’s) only gay couple[1], as well as Claire’s husband, Mike (Christopher Walken). Joanna keeps her maiden name because that is more commonly seen today than it was in the 1970s,’ although still less common than women taking their spouses’ name.
As I have displayed here, film adaptations of The Stepford Wives take on qualities of the dominant feminist culture. I believe that this is inescapable, due to the nature of the source material, which was so heavily steeped in a time period where the movement flourished. Even if another filmmaker were to attempt to remake the film and be as accurate to the source as possible during the creative process, I believe that modern values and attitudes would still be present.
Works Cited
Bentz, Leslie. “The Top 10: Facebook “Vomit” Button for Gays and Other Pat Robertson Quotes.” CNN.com. Cable News Network \ Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. 9 July 2013. Web. 11\19\16.
N.a. The Stepford Wives (2004) – Trivia. IMDB. N.d. Web. 11\18\16
Straub, Peter. Afterword. The Stepford Wives. By Ira Levin. New York. HarperCollins. 2002. Print.


[1]Whether this is a gesture of inclusivity or tokenism is up to individual interpretation.

​     In 2001, Dreamworks released Shrek (Jenson and Adamson) which was a massive box office hit and critical success, that started their first franchise and would help define the company’s style from then on. The film follows an ogre named Shrek (Mike Myers) whose home is invaded by magical creatures, whose homes were taken by the evil Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow). It’s up to Shrek to rescue the princess who Farquaad wants to marry to reclaim his and the creatures’ land. Unlike Disney and Pixar’s films that are more focused on overall moral messages and family values, Dreamworks’ Shrek is more farcical and irreverent while still maintaining a PG rating. The gross out humor and adult references do not make the film very subtle or nuanced. Overall though, the film, like the films made by Disney and Pixar, has a lot of heart at the end and is a delight to watch. It was received so well that it was made into a franchise with three more films and another one reportedly on the way.

By Megan Hess

​It would not be an exaggeration to say that without Cloverfield (Reeves, 2008), J.J. Abrams would never have Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Abrams, 2015) on his resume. Before Cloverfield, Abrams had a successful TV career (he’s most known for helping to create and write the show Lost) but, once he produced Cloverfield, people began to respect him as a filmmaker.
With 10 Cloverfield Lane (Trachtenberg, 2016), Abrams returns, in a way, to the film that made him famous. Despite its name, 10 Cloverfield Lane does not share many characteristics with the original – partly because it was initially an original script that got co-opted under the Cloverfield name. Whiplash (Chazelle, 2014) wunderkind Damien Chazelle rewrote much of Josh Campbell and Matthew Stuecken’s work and 10 Cloverfield Lane is the better for it. Chazelle first won over the crowds at Sundance with Whiplash, which won three out of its five Oscar nominations; his most recent project, La La Land (Chazelle, 2016) has not come out in theaters yet, but is already the subject of much talk in the film community, and could lead to a first Best Actress nomination for Emma Stone, its leading lady.
Unfortunately for Chazelle, I do not think that 10 Cloverfield Lane will be up for any Academy Awards this year. However, this does not mean that 10 Cloverfield Lane is an unsatisfactory part of Damien Chazelle’s filmography. (In fact, this is good; it means that people who might not choose to watch his more indie efforts can be exposed to Chazelle’s talent).  It stands apart from other recent releases in its genre, not only because of the quality of Chazelle’s writing, but because of the strong performances from its cast. 

Emmett (John Gallagher Jr., far left) and Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, center) watch as Howard (John Goodman, right) makes an important decision (10 Cloverfield Lane, Trachtenberg, 2016)

​10 Cloverfield Lane only has three major characters: Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, playing a soul sister to her Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (Wright, 2010) character Ramona Flowers), Howard (John Goodman, making it impossible to ever watch Monsters Inc. (Docter, Unkrich, & Silverman, 2001) the same way again), and Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr., in a role oddly similar to his Short Term 12 (Crettin, 2013) character, Mason) The plot is equally sparse (at least at first) - Michelle gets into a car wreck and finds herself chained to a water pipe in an underground bunker, kept by a man who insists that the three people living there are all that’s left of the world above. The film’s minimalism is part of its appeal; it allows both the production team and the audience members to dive deep into the characters and keeps the mystery at the forefront. 10 Cloverfield Lane utilizes a slow buildup to an extremely emotional, memorable climax, using unanswered questions and unverified suspicions to scare the audience instead of jump scares. It does have some genuinely frightening moments (including a Breaking Bad-esque killing which is both one of the best and worst parts of the film), but, unlike other horror-suspense films, does not go overkill with them…at least, until the end.
While you do not have to have watched the original Cloverfield to see 10 Cloverfield Lane, it does help the ending make more sense. I predicted what was coming, but I still found it jarring and overly long. It feels like they should have picked a project with those elements already incorporated into it, instead of forcing them so it can fit the Cloverfield label. Other than the ending, however, 10 Cloverfield Lane is highly enjoyable. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a well-written, well-acted blend of psychological and physical horror\suspense.