Thelma and Louise is feminist, but it fails to properly portray feminism.
I do not pretend to fully understand feminism. There are warring factions within the group and tons of different opinions on it from groups outside. Blah blah blah.
I don't recall who said it, but someone in class mentioned that Thelma and Louise was only "second hand" feminism. While I can't know what this person truly meant, I interpret it the following way.
Thelma and Louise is trying to show feminism, it tries to show women taking a stand against a patriarchal culture, but it can never succeed in doing so. Not just because of its failings as a movie, but on a fundamental level, as it was partially produced and entirely directed by men. Men can be sympathetic to women and promote feminism all they want, but they can never understand what being a women is like, and could never perfectly explain the female experience. While any other attempt at portraying something people are invested in on screen could be forgiven for human mistakes, such an important issue that is so meaningful to HALF of the humans deserves at least a more accurate representation of their ideals. Especially if that representation is going to be one of if not the most popular ones in the next few decades.
So, I feel like Thelma and Louise fails at truly showing feminism. Thelma and Louise become careless and violent, making bad decision after bad decision as they supposedly become more and more independent. It is not a good sign that some people felt like it was trying to show what women are like without men, instead of what women could be like with overly patriarchal men.
However, while all that may make it a mediocre or poor example of feminism, it is still feminist. It is showing women being empowered not by their hatred of men, but by their refusal to accept oppression. And it doesn't become sexism (reverse sexism, feminazism, call it what you will), as it makes a point to show that they don't refuse to be oppressed just because they are women and they believe they are deserving or superior because of it.
No, Thelma and Louise are feminist icons because they take what they deserve as human beings. They go to far, yes, and one could argue in some Malcolm X-ian way that they had no choice, but the fact of the matter is that they were sick of being disregarded and they did something about it.
They tried and failed, just as this movie tried and failed to properly portray feminism. But it tried. And I doubt the few people who like women even less after seeing this outweigh the good this movie did by getting people taking. Second hand feminism is good enough for this male.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Friday, January 24, 2014
Ideology in Sin Nombre.
Rant ahead: Skip the first 3 paragraphs to get right to the insight!
I will be discussing the idealogies present in my LEAST favorite scene of Sin Nombre. The scene begins at the early 8:25 mark of the movie. Willy shows up in Martha's bedroom. She slaps him, he gives her flowers as a gift, and they have sex.
I remember when our fearless leader said he wasn't a big fan of Sin Nombre because it was too Hollywood. While I can't deny the cheesy pacing of some of the dialogue, the godawful ending, and other blatant tropes, I never truly got the impression that the movie's Hollywood-ness was interfering with it's ability to tell a story. Except for this moment. I hate this moment of the movie so much that I dreaded the rest of the movie and find it difficult to intelligently analyze... but I shall. The obvious question is, "Why discuss the ideology of a scene you don't like?" That's because this scene represents ideology. Not the ideologies of the immigrants, or of gangs, or of the nation's people, but of movie audiences and movie makers.
I own hundreds of movies and have seen hundreds more. I like having movies on in the background of my life while I do homework, read, play a game with friends, eat, etc. I see a lot of movies. As any rabid movie fan knows, there are certain cliches that bother people more than they seem to bother many others. You know what annoys me the most? The portrayal of women in romantic contexts. For example, women in movies like being stalked way more than women in real life. A famous recent example is Twilight, but I'm just referring to the bottom of the barrel. Les Miserables is guilty of this, too. What cinematic sin does Sin Nombre commit? Martha slaps Willy and then immediately has sex with him after he offers her flowers.
No one likes flowers that much. She had just woken up when the scene started, so what happened was drastic enough to make her angry enough to slap Willy's face upon sight after she had a night to calm down by sleeping. This anger implies some deeply personal and dramatic tension between them. But then she's having sex with him seconds later. I can ignore the cheesiness of their passion superseding the fact that Martha just woke up (am I right, ladies?), but no excuse is given as to how a gesture as simple as flowers reminds her of why she not only loves Willy, but is so sexually attracted to him that she can not even withhold sex to remind him that he wronged her and should try to make it up to her with more than flowers. I can only assume that she was mad at him for not bringing her flowers. Yes, I know that the gesture of bringing flowers and the refusal to leave or even protest upon being slapped implies that he understands his folly, is apologetic, and will not do it again, but that should even out her emotions to neutrality at best, not make her horny enough to have sex, rewarding him for the basic decency that the scene clearly demonstrates he should have been showing all along.
So what ideology does this represent? Emotional simplicity is something many audiences value in their entertainment, especially something that can be as passive as watching a movie. It's why classic fairy tale movies remain iconic in spite of their valid criticisms for having the princesses marry men they barely know. Seeing love is emotionally satisfying. Seeing sex is emotionally satisfying. Seeing even the basest form of conflict resolution is inherently satisfying as it offers audiences closure. Were the filmmakers trying to demostrate that? Certainly not. They were establishing the relationship between the two characters utlizing ideologies that the writer shares with the audiences and all audiences.
...
The rest of the movie was pretty good, though.
I will be discussing the idealogies present in my LEAST favorite scene of Sin Nombre. The scene begins at the early 8:25 mark of the movie. Willy shows up in Martha's bedroom. She slaps him, he gives her flowers as a gift, and they have sex.
I remember when our fearless leader said he wasn't a big fan of Sin Nombre because it was too Hollywood. While I can't deny the cheesy pacing of some of the dialogue, the godawful ending, and other blatant tropes, I never truly got the impression that the movie's Hollywood-ness was interfering with it's ability to tell a story. Except for this moment. I hate this moment of the movie so much that I dreaded the rest of the movie and find it difficult to intelligently analyze... but I shall. The obvious question is, "Why discuss the ideology of a scene you don't like?" That's because this scene represents ideology. Not the ideologies of the immigrants, or of gangs, or of the nation's people, but of movie audiences and movie makers.
I own hundreds of movies and have seen hundreds more. I like having movies on in the background of my life while I do homework, read, play a game with friends, eat, etc. I see a lot of movies. As any rabid movie fan knows, there are certain cliches that bother people more than they seem to bother many others. You know what annoys me the most? The portrayal of women in romantic contexts. For example, women in movies like being stalked way more than women in real life. A famous recent example is Twilight, but I'm just referring to the bottom of the barrel. Les Miserables is guilty of this, too. What cinematic sin does Sin Nombre commit? Martha slaps Willy and then immediately has sex with him after he offers her flowers.
No one likes flowers that much. She had just woken up when the scene started, so what happened was drastic enough to make her angry enough to slap Willy's face upon sight after she had a night to calm down by sleeping. This anger implies some deeply personal and dramatic tension between them. But then she's having sex with him seconds later. I can ignore the cheesiness of their passion superseding the fact that Martha just woke up (am I right, ladies?), but no excuse is given as to how a gesture as simple as flowers reminds her of why she not only loves Willy, but is so sexually attracted to him that she can not even withhold sex to remind him that he wronged her and should try to make it up to her with more than flowers. I can only assume that she was mad at him for not bringing her flowers. Yes, I know that the gesture of bringing flowers and the refusal to leave or even protest upon being slapped implies that he understands his folly, is apologetic, and will not do it again, but that should even out her emotions to neutrality at best, not make her horny enough to have sex, rewarding him for the basic decency that the scene clearly demonstrates he should have been showing all along.
So what ideology does this represent? Emotional simplicity is something many audiences value in their entertainment, especially something that can be as passive as watching a movie. It's why classic fairy tale movies remain iconic in spite of their valid criticisms for having the princesses marry men they barely know. Seeing love is emotionally satisfying. Seeing sex is emotionally satisfying. Seeing even the basest form of conflict resolution is inherently satisfying as it offers audiences closure. Were the filmmakers trying to demostrate that? Certainly not. They were establishing the relationship between the two characters utlizing ideologies that the writer shares with the audiences and all audiences.
...
The rest of the movie was pretty good, though.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Sin Nombre: Smiley's initiation.
An early scene in Sin Nombre depicts the initiation of the boy, Smiley, into the Mara Salvatrucha gang. This is my favorite scene in the movie (though my favorite moment is still the satisfying machete-to-the-neck scene that Casper inflicts on Mago about 40 minutes in), and while I do admit that many of the reasons it is a good scene are obvious, I do feel like certain elements of it that appealed to me may have gone unnoticed by other viewers.
First, the points everyone knows about. The scene where he kills the gangster is representative of Smiley's loss of innocence. The scene where Smiley is being beaten up by the gang members in an attempt to prove his toughness is clearly showing the desperation of children of the area to join the gangs to distance themselves to the gang's violence on civilians, surround themselves with people who will protect them from the other gangs in the area, and to seem cool. Smiley's proud grin after he endures his beating and the scene later in the movie where he shows off his gun to younger boys prove that kids there think gangs are cool, likely because they get away with doing whatever they want thanks to their brutality and intimidation.
Smiley's initiation doesn't end with his merciless punching, though. Soon after, Mago brings him out to a captured rival gang member. I'm, like, 60% sure he was in the Chavala gang before he quit, as he professes he did. There may have been some consonants rearranged. Maybe an r I'm leaving out. I digress. With a makeshift pipe gun (easily one of the most interesting improvised weapons I've seen outside of the action genre), Willy/Casper guides Smiley's hands and they murder the captured gang member on the assertion by Mago that someone who was once a Chavala will always be a Chavala. Smiley's reluctance indicates that he wishes he didn't have to do it, because he feels like he has to, both out of fear of what Mago will do to him and desperation to join the gang. Even Casper doesn't seem happy about it, and this comes into play later when he gives Mago his resignation from the Mara Salvatrucha gang in the form of a machete to the neck. Sorry, But I like that scene a lot.
On to the aspects of Smiley's initiation that I felt some may have overlooked. The symbolism I noticed has nothing to do with Smiley's actions, Casper's, or Mago's. The ex-Chavala they executed is what stuck with me the most. He begged them not to kill him on the grounds that he was no longer a Chavala. But, as Mago said, "Once a Chavala, always a Chavala." And so he had to die. One gangster who regretted his decision to join a gang died so that another gangster could be born. In the figurative sense that he just became a gangster of course. But it isn't just the meaningful eye contact Smiley makes with the ex-gangster before the kill. This concept entered my mind. If the gangster wasn't an ex-Chavala, but an ex-Mara Salvatrucha member, the scene would be a moment from Looper. For those who don't get that reference, what I mean is that the ex-Chavala represents what Smiley would become if he stayed in the gang. Smiley can never completely escape his fate at the end of a gun if he submits to the will of the violent overlords of the area. He isn't just crying because an apparently innocent man is going to die; he's also crying because he is going to die just like that man, even after he tries to put that life behind him. It is a permanent, irreversible decision that means the difference between dying any day of his life or dying after he tries to settle down with a family.
...Or at least it WOULD have meant all that if the ending wasn't so dang positive... bittersweet at worst.
Speaking purely from the standpoint of an audience member, I feel like they should have put the ex-gangster's execution in the frame. Seeing the gore would have grossed out anyone less desensitized than me and driven home the point that these gangs are a horrible blister on the planet.
First, the points everyone knows about. The scene where he kills the gangster is representative of Smiley's loss of innocence. The scene where Smiley is being beaten up by the gang members in an attempt to prove his toughness is clearly showing the desperation of children of the area to join the gangs to distance themselves to the gang's violence on civilians, surround themselves with people who will protect them from the other gangs in the area, and to seem cool. Smiley's proud grin after he endures his beating and the scene later in the movie where he shows off his gun to younger boys prove that kids there think gangs are cool, likely because they get away with doing whatever they want thanks to their brutality and intimidation.
Smiley's initiation doesn't end with his merciless punching, though. Soon after, Mago brings him out to a captured rival gang member. I'm, like, 60% sure he was in the Chavala gang before he quit, as he professes he did. There may have been some consonants rearranged. Maybe an r I'm leaving out. I digress. With a makeshift pipe gun (easily one of the most interesting improvised weapons I've seen outside of the action genre), Willy/Casper guides Smiley's hands and they murder the captured gang member on the assertion by Mago that someone who was once a Chavala will always be a Chavala. Smiley's reluctance indicates that he wishes he didn't have to do it, because he feels like he has to, both out of fear of what Mago will do to him and desperation to join the gang. Even Casper doesn't seem happy about it, and this comes into play later when he gives Mago his resignation from the Mara Salvatrucha gang in the form of a machete to the neck. Sorry, But I like that scene a lot.
On to the aspects of Smiley's initiation that I felt some may have overlooked. The symbolism I noticed has nothing to do with Smiley's actions, Casper's, or Mago's. The ex-Chavala they executed is what stuck with me the most. He begged them not to kill him on the grounds that he was no longer a Chavala. But, as Mago said, "Once a Chavala, always a Chavala." And so he had to die. One gangster who regretted his decision to join a gang died so that another gangster could be born. In the figurative sense that he just became a gangster of course. But it isn't just the meaningful eye contact Smiley makes with the ex-gangster before the kill. This concept entered my mind. If the gangster wasn't an ex-Chavala, but an ex-Mara Salvatrucha member, the scene would be a moment from Looper. For those who don't get that reference, what I mean is that the ex-Chavala represents what Smiley would become if he stayed in the gang. Smiley can never completely escape his fate at the end of a gun if he submits to the will of the violent overlords of the area. He isn't just crying because an apparently innocent man is going to die; he's also crying because he is going to die just like that man, even after he tries to put that life behind him. It is a permanent, irreversible decision that means the difference between dying any day of his life or dying after he tries to settle down with a family.
...Or at least it WOULD have meant all that if the ending wasn't so dang positive... bittersweet at worst.
Speaking purely from the standpoint of an audience member, I feel like they should have put the ex-gangster's execution in the frame. Seeing the gore would have grossed out anyone less desensitized than me and driven home the point that these gangs are a horrible blister on the planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)