Recent Posts
Despite my disdain for the gun-ho, 'we save the world' attitude many American films convey, I do, so much, look forward to the release of the next big American action blockbuster. Add to that my love of Will Smith and you can see why I was so enthused about 'Hancock'.
Perhaps having a baby and neglecting my first love - the cinema - has put me off my game, but I didn't see the twist coming. SPOILER ALERT I will be talking about the plot of the film, ahead. Just giving you a heads-up.
I picked up the anvil-subtle hints that Charlize Theron's Mary was clued-in to Hancock's past, but when she was revealed as also being super-human (for lack of a better description) the film leapt from the Superhero genre into something else entirely... or so I think.
It is my interpretation that the socio-religious climate at the moment leaves the audience more open to the idea of 'Angels' or 'Gods' as Mary describes them. Prior to the revelation about her character, Hancock was just a superhero, but the addition of another character like him creates the need for a redefinition of what he is/ they are.
It is rare in a superhero film that the hero will have an ally who is like-gifted. The fact that the protagonist is, at their core, alone is one of the defining characteristics of a superhero. (Excluding, obviously, groups of superhero - The Fantastic 4 leap to mind.) Introducing Hancock to someone like him redefines him, he's not a lone hero, he is one of a group of Gods.
Clearly, I have leapt to this theory, but if you've followed me so far please keep hopscotching along with me just this little bit further.
Is it possible this kind of plot swing in a hero film is more acceptable now that the world is less religious in general? Without getting into a religious debate about that validity of Scientology and other contemporary religions, the decline of the more ancient religions - where views about Gods in black pleather who walk among us are categorically dismissed - has made this sort of story more acceptable to a cinema audience. I'm thinking this will possibly be the first of many hero movies to make the leap from identifying the heroes as unexplainably gifted to defining them as Gods.
Sure, to some extent, heroes have always been painted as Gods, but I feel like this film has done it differently... Am I wrong?
{NB. I loved this movie! If you have not yet seen it, do so soon.}
Shared on
There's a film theory - and it's been a few years since I studied it, so I may need some correction here and there - that says that the gaze from which the audience sees anything on screen is from an inherently male perspective.
This theory states that even when the narrative of a film is told from a female point of view, the images and sounds that emanate from the screen are created as if from a man watching it unfold. I always agreed with this theory. There were often students that would argue that plenty of stories were told from a female point of view. "What about chick flicks?" etc. But even the most female of movies are created as if being viewed by a man. Even in a Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan movie, the camera will leer at the line of a female pair of legs, or linger on the chest of an actress for a split second too long. The feminist movement seems to have left the gaze of film behind. The content of course has been affected, but the lingering stare of the camera has been left firmly in the hands of a man.
I'm curious, however, is television capable of changing the rules?
I pose this as a question because I'm seriously requiring an answer from you. You see I've seen quite a bit of girly tv lately, and in hindsight I'm starting to think that maybe these shows are being made from a female gaze...
I recently had a baby and while feeding every four hours, rather than subject myself to daytime television, I've watched the entire span of 'Sex and the City' on DVD. Has six years of those four women got me desensitised or are they desexualised a little? I could be wrong, because this only appears as an afterthought, but I get the feeling that the camera does not spy on these women the way I've seen women watched in other shows. The main characters are shown to be sassy and strong, always fabulous, but I don't feel like they're being objectified by the typically male gaze.
Another show I caught a lot of recently was 'Cashmere Mafia'. Merits of the show itself aside, I feel like that show was genuinely viewed by a female lens. The women are gorgeous, and there's no denying that, but the camera appears to have watched them as a good friend, not objectified and sexualised them like a predator waiting to take advantage. I don't know if it's the dust settling on my film schooling or just mummy-brain, but I can't classify the exact features of the style I would refer to as being male. I'm trying to use examples to illuminate the difference.
(Ah, ignorance, my well-worn friend) I haven't seen a lot of 'Women's Murder Club', but it appears that this is a decent example of the male gaze in action. The main characters are female, you'd assume a large portion of the audience is also. But the women are filmed in a way that would appeal to a man, in a way that a man would look upon them. The characters in this show are written to be strong and self-sufficient, yet shown to be objects of viewing pleasure. Each of the characters constitutes a different male fantasy (it can be argued that the women in 'S&tC' are too, but they are not put on display in the same way these women are) and are framed, lit, dressed and made up as art pieces for the viewing. There's a 2-second grab from the first episode that was used in all the ads for the show here in Oz, and it consists of Laura Harris (the character name of whom I have no idea) raising her eyes and tilting her head up past the camera. That's right! No dialogue or preview of possible storyline, just a cherubic actress looking demurely at a taller, dominant male character.
That's probably enough disjointed rambling on the topic that I hope to revisit one day when my thoughts can be arranged in a more linear fashion. But here's hoping 'women's shows' can eventually shake loose that male gaze.
Does anyone agree? Can anyone make enough sense of this to form an opinion one way or the other? 
Shared on
And he certainly makes it look easy.
Although I’m tempted to discuss mainly how much of a joke Sly is prepared to make of himself (and I imagine I’ll slip into it here and there, unconsciously), of more note, I feel, is how bloody this new addition to the First Blood franchise appears to be.
I’m fairly desensitised to blood and gore in films, so its apparent presence in the new Stallone movie does not bother me too much, but will it work? I have only seen the previews, but what comes to mind is the death toll counter in ‘Hot Shots: Part Deux’. Charlie Sheen lays waste to a continent’s worth of hostiles with videogame-like precision. This scene awards itself the title of bloodiest film ever. Safe to say, though, Stallone has claimed the title back from Charlie Sheen. Does it look serious to anyone?
Is it possible that style of film is currently out of vogue? I feel like this movie may need more than just the impartial, bloody slaying of every non-anglo character to rack up the grosses. (I could be wrong.) In the 80’s that sort of thing could fly with movie audiences because it was a bit of a rarity, but today the norm is gore-flicks that show the detailed and uncensored dissection of the human body. I’m certain this film will be an impressive failure or make impressive amounts of money… either way, Stallone reprising his role as John Rambo will have impressive results. So I suppose whether people are left in awe or in stitches by the indulgent violence is of no consequence.
Apart from the over-the-top carnage that may or may not work (but was nonetheless necessary to constitute the title ‘Rambo’), I wonder if the film will feature any political message. I don’t really know enough about the movie (or the topics, for that matter) to comment on the absence of one at this point, I’m just curious. The preview features dialogue that I’m pretty sure is supposed to be received as being poignant or at least meaningful, but I kinda just giggle when watching them in context.
In good news, Stallone seems to keep his shirt on, from what I can gather (I don’t care how many of his mum’s HGHs he’s taking, old man boobs just become inevitable at some point. See: Rocky Balboa.), but poor Julie Benz (of ‘Angel’ and ‘Dexter’) may have to act the love interest, which will really show how much talent she has. In the best interest of the cinemagoers, the dialogue seems to be kept at a minimum, something for which I’m sure we’ll all be grateful.
Ok, that’s enough Sly-bashing. The man has more or less defined a genre, and snaps to him for re-visiting it so many years later. I must respect the fact that he has made some classic movies, and despite my scepticism, I WILL be going to see the new Rambo. Will you? Probably.
Question: Are we going to watch this because it can only be a car crash or is it possible John J. Rambo still has some butt-kicking left in him yet?
[Watch this space for my entry on the new Indiana movie, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”.]
Shared on
I foresee that this will be a(nother) subject to polarise readers and I apologise in advance to anyone offended by the ranting that follows. (Remember, like many film critics/theorists I only comment on the work of others because I have never been able to find success or funding as a film maker myself. So watching and discussing the work of others is a form of compliment.)
Firstly, I must ask: Why would you hire – and pay dearly – for some of the highest-calibre talent Hollywood has to offer and then cartoonise them
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
As I idly trawled the cinema times website, I came across a film I hadn’t heard of (which in the last few months is not a rarity, sadly) and chased up some info. The film is called ‘Gabriel’. It’s an Australian film made for peanuts, which is strange considering the genre.
It’s a … um, I guess the genre that most describes it would be…. Hm. I suppose it would be a sci-fi/ mythological/ fantasy/ religion/ action/ drama. I’d class it in the same realm as films like 'Constantine' and 'Underworld'. I watched it in its’ entirety – which not everyone did, about half the two-dozen-strong audience walked out in the first thirty minutes – and the most lasting affect the film has had on me is to make me wonder why / how film makers with little funding would try to tackle a film in a style synonymous with huge budgets
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Remember the good old days, when movie stars were known by their characters? This would happen to the extent that fans would call their favourite celebrities by the names of their characters. Rita Hayworth said she never really escaped “Gilda”.
More recently, though, I fear we’ve become a society of Hollywood-addicts. We crave so much info and media stimulation that we can not be satisfied with the fictional realm alone. We also need to know about their personal lives, diet habits, relationships with their ex, pets names and religious beliefs. Being smothered by so much media coverage, it is reasonable that we associate more with the ‘people’ than their characters. [It is important to accept that the ‘people’ we think we are learning about are just as fictional as the characters they portray. One is a media composite, refined by a thousand ET reports and even more articles in trash magazines. These are no more indicative of the actors we love than the protagonists in the latest blockbuster.] How, after all, can one or two 90-minute releases a year compete with the constant onslaught of the more active media that surrounds us?
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
It’s possible that what follows officially identifies me as a member of my age-group. I am no longer a teenager and I acknowledge that that may affect my understanding of movies. Horror is typically a teenage genre: the stars are almost always teen stars and the characters that get stalked and slashed are usually high school kids.
Film-makers have said that what strikes fear into the audience of horror is the idea of untimely death, and because teenagers live in a state of self-believed invincibility, this scares them the most. Adults are people who have accepted their vulnerability and don’t see death in the same way as younger people
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Have you heard the saying “I could care less”? Does that seem strange to you? A friend of mine – a linguist – tells me that language (especially English) is very fluid. It changes through time as is necessary for its use. So the saying “I could not care less” has become shorter (lazier) and although literally says the opposite, means the same thing.
Film language is developing too. I use to struggle with people throwing around the term “montage”, but I’m slowly coming to accept that the theory may have developed over time. Eisenstein developed his theory of film montage early last century, directly concerned with editing of juxtaposing images to create new meanings. In contrast, today the term ‘montage’ is used to describe almost any quickly-edited sequence
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
For almost two decades, millions of fans of the show have been begging for a movie. Now that the moment is upon us, I’ve found myself wondering if all those fans will be disappointed to find a 90-minute episode on the big screen.
Since, it seems, most people who are interested will see the movie as soon as it opens – almost every opening screening at cinemas in Sydney have been sold out for weeks – I don’t think I’ll have to wait long for a response. I may have to wait a while to see the movie myself however, seeing as I didn’t book tickets weeks in advance like most fans.
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (3)
Read More
Comment by LauraH
on Shock! - Paris Hiltons New Movie is Terrible!
Film Theories
Okay, I was probably ten when I last saw the movie (and all I remember is the hair, bad rapping, worse acting and something about motorbikes) but I still feel it can't possibly belong in a bad film list.
P.S. Paris can't act and the less her films make the less we'll have to be reminded about that.