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.
No comments:
Post a Comment