Far From Heaven response/reaction

To get to the point, I really enjoyed watching Far From Heaven. Some of the themes expressed (the individuality and choices women can make, even in that time, staying true to yourself, going against social norms) reminded me a bit of the movie Pleasantville, mostly because at the beginning Cathy's world seemed normal and bright-until it quickly downturned into confusion.

Also, I thought the use of color in the film was stunning and very deliberate. After reading the "Color" article, I realized that the reason behind the heavy blue shading during all of the nighttime scenes (to be able to emphasize nighttime but still film in the day), and that was an interesting touch; strangely, had this been a black-and-white film, I would have been able to tell that it was nighttime, but seeing the blue shading in color confused me a for a few moments because I wasn't sure if the blue was supposed to symbolize something other than night. And speaking of color symbols, I noticed that within the structures of the buildings, the portions of the house or business that represented the "man's" domain often had blue walls or carpets. For example, Frank's office, the doctor's office, the living room, and even the car were all blue. Also, although this is a rather inconsistent note, when Cathy supported her husband's beliefs or was playing a submissive role, (such as when she accompanied Frank to the doctor's) she often wore blue.

Raymond, on the other hand, ALWAYS wore earth tones, and even his house was covered with the rich oranges, browns, greens, and a hint of yellow to emphasize his warm, inviting personality, highlighted by the fact that he worked with plants and nature all day. The earth tones grounded his personality even more, if you'll excuse the pun. Moreover, the African American maid employed by Cathy and Frank nearly always wore yellow, and her domain (the kitchen, kitchen table, and part of the dining room) had yellow walls and accessories as well. Even the phone that she answered was yellow, but unfortunately I do not know what the color yellow would symbolize. Neutrality? A distance from her employers?

There were too scenes that stood out to me. The first was when Frank was in the doctor's office hearing about the grueseome treatments to cure his homosexuality. Immediately my eye was drawn to a silhouette of Queen Nefertiti on the doctor's wall. I found it strange that the doctor would have an interest in a prominent Ancient Egyptian figure, who was more popular in ancient Egypt than her husband (and still remains to this day). Why would such a dominant male figure hold the portrait of a famous lady in his office? The other scene that caught my attention was when Cathy heard from her maid about the attack of Raymond's daughter. As she's pleading with her maid and putting on her coat, Cathy looks over to the wall of her living room, and spots the witch hazel Raymond had given to Cathy. While the rest of the room in that shot is muted out, only the bright red flowers in the dull blue room stood out, meaning (to me) that while everything else in her life was "dead," this one spark of passion was still alive.

Okay, I lied...the third and final scene that I am reminded of is that when Cathy fired and bid farewell to Raymond in public (out on the streets), I noticed that her black and white fur coat blended in perfectly with the marble/stone walls of the building. This signified that Cathy was very embarassed and wanted to blend in with her surroundings as she fired the one person who gave her happiness, and it also represented her conforming to societal standards because now she too was shunning contact with a black man.

Thoughts About Far From Heaven

I very much enjoyed watching Far From Heaven last class. I almost found myself in tears at the end because it really just moved me how sad everyone's situation turned out to be in the end. The film really touched me. As we discussed in class I think the dialogue was right on for being a movie made in this century with a setting far from this time.

A particular scene that sticks out to me from the film is when all the housewives got together and were chatting around a table. They were talking about how often their husbands want to have sex. This caught my eye for a few reasons. For one, it was all up to the husbands on how frequently they engage in sexual acts with their wives. It is as though the wives had no say, the men had all the control. Also, the women were acting as though it was a chore for them, something they had to do for their husbands. Most importantly to them, sex was something unenjoyable. It's strange how different time periods view sex. Today women are just as sexual as men and it is an act known to be enjoyable for both. Also this scene was one of the first hints that things weren't as cheery as everyone thought between Cathy and Frank. This was obvious through Cathy's facial reaction to the housewives' conversation about sex.

What I seemed to notice about color in the film while watching it is the frequent use of the colors red and purple. It seemed to me that whenever something negative or bad was about to happen Cathy would either be wearing red or there would be something obvious in the scene that was red. (Example: in many scenes there were red flowers) These negative things ranged from fights with Frank to something to cause gossip in the town. When there was a positive, calm scene or something that made Cathy happy she seemed to be wearing purple (especially around Raymond) and when having happy times with Frank she frequently wore blue. I think this choice by the director is because blue and light purple are calm, cool colors and I think the purpose was meant to portray that tone to the viewers.

I think the setting of this film also showed a lot about gender roles from different time periods. Cathy seemed as though she had no choice but to try to make her marriage work even if it was falling apart. She always seemed so cheery and happy around Frank despite all the problems he was causing her and the family. I also liked how both Cathy and Frank did things that were not approved by society at that time. Frank fell in love with another man and Cathy started to fall for an African American. This shows a lot about their character and how they are a little less judgemental than everyone else in the town. I wish Cathy and Raymond could have worked out. I thought it was sad how Frank got to persue being with the person he really loved but Cathy couldn't persue her feelings for Raymond and fall in love with him. Overall I enjoyed this movie very much!

Far From Heaven= My Heaven

I found the movie Far From Heave to be absolutely beautiful. As we discussed in class, the score was incredible and not often found in many movies today. Additionally, I thought they did a really good job keeping the characters and the scenery period specific, which really adds to the overall feel of the film.

I thought it was interesting that the movie was seen from the view of the woman. Since the director is gay and often focuses on that theme I would think that the film would be seen in his perspective- also his perspective is not one that is always seen. I feel I have seen movies about oppressed women in earlier times and the polite way they are supposed to carry themselves- as perfect wives and mothers. However, it is not very common to see the pressures of men- especially gay men during this era.

I also took note of relationship between Cathy and Raymond. For a black men during that time period he certainly was accepted in his community. He owned his own business, sent his daughter to private school and was able to attend community events (such as the gallery showing) with only minimal discrimination. In other parts of the country at that time, he could face more severe treatment and not be able to build his life in the same way. I also thought it was fascinating that the story honed in on the racial tension between Raymond and other members of the black community. The idea that they threw rocks at his window because he brought a white woman to a primarily black restaurant shows that many black peopled wanted the separation from white separation that white people enforced.

I enjoyed the commentary on the idea of an interracial relationship. That is an area in our racial world that is still not joined in complete equality. Those who engage in these relationships still face discrimination from friends, family and community members for "mixing" the races. It is interesting to compare that time to the time now.

The idea that Cathy did not see herself or act like she was oppressed was well portrayed and I think common for women of her generation. There was an element of her feeling "trapped" but it was not very intense. Had she not discovered her husband's extra marital affair she would have been perfectly happy with him working late in the office and not being available to her for a sexual relationship. It appeared as though she would have been happy tending to the children and the home and that being her largest and only role.

It was clear that if her husband had not left her she would not have pursued Raymond. However, I wonder how much of pursing Raymond was love or fear of being alone. Women built their lives around men at that time and to be presented with a life of divorce and then additionally to be alone may have been too much for her to bear.

Far From Heaven (updated)

Blackboard is NOW ACCESSIBLE! So you can now view the Powerpoint lecture on color and cinema.

This link should help you download the chapter on color from Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art. There are several mentions of Far From Heaven. Look over the chapter; you may find it very helpful in understanding Haynes' color structure for this film.

This interesting article by Rebecca Scherr discusses the film (as well as Transamerica) in terms of its representations of race and homosexuality. Read it and share your thoughts.

Also: Have a look at this well written and thoughtful review from Sight and Sound. And here is a great blog post featuring a series of wonderful images from the film.

Blackboard, and Web Bibliography and Resources

I am starting to build a list of resources for the course on this blog; just check the sidebars for a bibliography of web-based readings and websites that will prove to be useful resources.

Also: The Blackboard site for this course is now up and running! I have created a discussion forum for your use (mainly for discussions related to material viewed or discussed in class), as well as a number of readings. Some of these are optional based on your individual research needs and interests. Required readings will be indicated in the title. Please be patient as I continue to create the Blackboard site over the next few days and check often for updates.

The blog will continue to be used for discussion of web-based discussions, i.e., items of interest found on the web, or discussions related to current events or other material we may encounter outside of class assignments.

Orlando

I as well found the film Orlando to be very confusing. I didn't understand how or why the gender switch came about. Was Orlando secretly a female pretending to be a male? Or was Orlando once a male who turned into a female? If the first one is so, how didn't anyone ever notice this? and why wasn't it a big deal once the truth came out? If the second is the case, this is simply unrealistic (considering the time period). But then again, the whole movie doesn't seem to be realistic since Orlando lived for longer than anyone has ever lived before.

One scene that sticks out to me is when there is a war going on at which point in the film Orlando was still portrayed as a man. Orlando's reaction to watching a dying man was a more stereo typical female reaction, especially since it was the enemy that Orlando felt bad for watching die. Two other scenes that stick out to me dealing with gender are: the scene where Orlando fancied a woman in the beginning and they kiss, then the scene where Orlando is with a man in the end. It was interesting to watch the same person interact on a sexual/romantic level with different sexes (also being a different sex each time). Confusing, but interesting.

Even though I find some of the movie confusing, I also find it portraying an accurate message. It shows women how far we have come over the years in gaining rights. Once Orlando was a female, she could not own the house she/he one had when a male. It is sad to think of a time where women don't have the rights that I grew up knowing I had or will have. I loved the use of colors in the film as well, especially Orlando's red hair.

Women and Film

While reading the handout on Women and film, I found a few things worthy of discussion:

• Fetishism
• Voyeurism and exhibitionism
• "The Gaze"

Fetishism is when "men try to discover the penis in the woman in order to grant themselves erotic satisfaction [e.g. long hair, a shoe, or earrings stand in for the penis]"(p.14). After reading this, I have been trying to think of films where this is blatantly happening (or where it is not). I think this was happening in Orlando when Orlando was going after the foreign princess. Orlando was not in love with his current girlfriend and looked for the penis elsewhere, thus falling for the princess. Looking back at Coco and Igor, I find this not to be the case. Coco had incredibly short hair and was almost more masculine in appearance. Maybe that is why they had the affair? Because Coco already resembled a man and thus a penis?

Voyeurism is when someone gets erotically high while watching someone from afar and exhibitionism is when someone gets pleasure from showing a person their sexual parts. I feel as if voyeurism is demonstrated in many films. How often can you a recall a film where a man is watching a woman through her window undress for the shower or bathtub? Do viewers feel a sense of voyeurism as they watch a woman take her clothes off being soaking in a bubble bath?

"The gaze"...I understand from the reading that it is men objectifying women. However, don't women do that to? If I see a good looking man on screen, I will find it immensely hard to look away and will most likely have a crush on him and watch other movies he is in. I'm not really sure how this only applies to women and film.

On another note, I keep thinking about women and sexuality in film. For some reason the film OLD SCHOOL keeps coming to my mind when in the beginning of the film, the main character comes home to find his wife actively participating in an orgy. Yes, the audience finds it funny, but is it because she's an attractive blonde? Or is it because her husband is upset by the act instead of happy that he has a very sexual wife? I wonder how things would be different if a wife walked in on her husband participating in an orgy.

On the film Orlando...

Orlando is a very beautifully crafted film. I loved how in its entirety there was a faded look to the quality of the film. I'm not sure if this is because it's an older film or because it was calculated on purpose. Regardless, it felt to me as if I was viewing the film through clouded eyes.

Also, I love Orlando's monologue with us, the viewers. It felt as if Orlando was presenting the world to us through his inner self and cluing us into to how he or she felt.
I admire that the director thought of Orlando's flaming red hair. This MUST have been done on purpose to further show how different and unique Orlando was to the characters around at that time. I thought it was interesting that when Orlando does have brightly colored hair, it is when Orlando is in the north surrounded by coldness and that when Orlando travels East to the Holy Land (?), Orlando's hair is in the style of Colonial times - a white wig. Though it is probably close to 100 degrees, Orlando rarely takes off the wig. It seems to symbolize a squashing of Orlando's sexuality.

I am not quite sure if I understood the film or the character in the way that it it meant to be understood. I feel as if Orlando was always a woman and never was a man. Even though in the beginning of the movie they describe him as a man, I had a lot of difficulty seeing him in that light. His love of poetry and regards for love are very womanly, motherly characteristics and thus for the rest of this post will I refer to Orlando as a woman. I am still a bit confused about the time travel bit? Was it meant to show that Orlando did not fit into different time periods because she was so unique? Or was it showing that gender really is a social construction and we need people like Orlando to help break it down?

Women and Film--As I Saw It

I have mixed feelings about this article. To keep that as brief as possible, I had a really hard time trying to relate to the Freudian sections and wish in other sections that examples had been given, such as when the article discusses “the half-aware ‘forgetting’ that the spectator engages in allows the pleasurable mechanisms of voyeurism and fetishism to flow freely” (13). To make such a bold statement without first describing voyeurism and fetishism (which the article does---later) and then mention cinema’s ‘mechanisms’ without describing at least what some of them are made my extremely confused. I didn’t know if mechanisms should mean editing, character constructions, symbols, or anything else. Furthermore, unfamiliar names were often thrown around, like Althusser (12), Ferdinand de Saussure (15), and Lacan (19). Clearly we as readers were probably supposed to know who those people are…but a sentence or two describing why they are important would have been helpful.

“The Image section” caught my attention, particularly where the author notes that the problem with sociological criticism and “[the types of roles characters play] is that such analysis ignores the mediation of film as an art form (i.e. that these images are constructed)” (15). In other words, viewers and critics often forget that film is not representative of real life. Even “reality” shows are edited…who would watch a show that follows the adventures of a person 24/7? (Except in that one Jim Carrey movie). Film can never be truly 100% true to real life events, because fabrications will be made, authentic events will be altered, and it will all be for the taste of the viewers, allowing Hollywood directors to play right into stereotypes, or even worse, the creation of false ideas about the people the characters are trying to portray.

For instance, a movie about a prostitute who decides to abandon her way of life (for whatever reasons—this is just an example) and attend college might send a few different messages to girls. For instance, girls might be sent the message that although prostitution looks like it’s fun, there are better career options out there. However, depending on how the prostitution scenes are filmed and constructed, that lifestyle could be portrayed as glamorous, carefree, sexy and fun. Contrastingly, it could also be portrayed as demeaning and a constant job, like any other profession. It all depends on the point the director(s) want to get across, but while shown in theatres most viewers would forget that it’s all made up. Just because one fictional character decided to move on, does not mean that all prostitutes want to give up their lifestyle. Thus, in the end the film just creates and adds to the false hopes and phantom assumptions people create, by letting the viewer *think* they know all about prostitution—when in reality they really don’t.

Cinema's pleasures for men

I wasn't sure how to take this article, but I was able to learn a lot from it. Within the first part of the reading, it states "The public come to demand certain stars and desire certain genres. Producers try to satisfy their public and develop marketing strategies to this end" (p.11). I found this to be an interesting way to start off the reading because of the word "the public." With the reading being on women and film, and the concept of fetishism and semiology, I would have thought the sentence would have used "men" instead of "public."

One part of the reading I found interesting was in section 9: The Gaze. The idea of scopophilia really made me think about movies I have seen recently and how the audience reacted. In the section it notes, "the fact that the spectator is watching moving images rather than either static ones or live actors, all help to make the cinematic experience closer to the dream state" (p.14). The connection between the cinema, scopophilia, and being able to get closer to the dream state fascinates me, but doesn't surprise me in the least. These things could be connected to fetishism by allowing the individual to experience the dream state as well. When you see a female on the screen who is very attractive and is depicted in seductive clothing, many individuals (especially men) will start to enter the dream state and imagine what this woman could be doing.

Going along with what I just said, the idea of their being different levels of signs or connotations fits in perfectly to make the experience of the cinema preferable for men. A woman might be portrayed as her self, but she would be put onto the next level of connotation (myth) (p.18). "She is presented as what she represents for man, not in terms of what she actually signifies" (p.18). I understand in a lot of ways we still live in a partriarchal society, and this is most likely why this occurs, but besides trying to satisfy the public, I believe the producers are tryng to give individuals (well, really men) the opportunity to get away from reality, and dream the dreams they want to make reality be.

Like Females Don’t Have a Gaze of Their Own

The article which discusses women and their role in film is quite interesting. Coming from the eye of one who has never been exposed to the world of film that exists behind the movie or television screen, it’s particularly effective in explaining the several components to film and the industry as well as illustrating how they’re flawed. However, I do wish that some points were expanded upon a little more, as I felt a counter argument to many of the points would be easy to develop. Particularly, I think that although the connections made in the illustration of women for men’s sake in film were adequate and in most cases very true, I found myself writing on the side several times throughout the article, ‘women do this to men too.’ The article was a little to Freudian for me. Examples:

7. Fetishism:
I think the fetishism of women on screen can exist for reasons beside that of men attempting to “counteract the fear of sexual difference” and find a penis on her (14). If it’s essentially about sexual objectification, what about women who fetish over other women in objectifying them? What about women who fetish over men on screen? Are they trying to find their own female parts in the male?

9. The Gaze: The Three “Looks” in the Cinema
There is a fourth look, which if included in the text, would exist between the first and second (i) as (i.2). That look is the one where the females are looking at males, who in turn become objects of their gaze. The shirtless half werewolf half human (I hope many of you get the reference) is a clear example of this. In that moment, he exists for the female gaze, during which time he is being objectified by the female.

The problem I have with the classic Freudian analysis- the scope which this article adopts- is that while is does explain how women are viewed by and for men, it completely ignores how this notion is mimicked by females who have a gaze (and use it) as well.

Falling, falling, falling

I was familiar with the basic idea of Orlando prior to watching it--man lives for hundreds of years and at some point becomes a woman--and had been meaning to watch it, but I still found it awfully baffling.

One of the points I was most unclear on was also a motif: the falling. Several times during the film, Orlando is running and then falls, and then decades have passed. I couldn't decide if this was simply Sally Potter's way of moving time forward, or if Orlando him/herself was waking up to find that all that time had passed. Either way, the falling struck me as meaning SOMETHING, even if I wasn't quite sure what.

The other thing that I was struck by was Orlando's daughter. Because at first I thought it was her son. Nothing in that film was an accident, and I feel like the choice to not immediately make it obvious that she was a girl was interesting. When she took off her helmet and was "revealed" I immediately felt guilty and like a bad feminist for assuming that that was a boy. Was this what Potter wanted us to think, I wonder? Did she want us to go, "I can't believe that after watching THAT MOVIE I fell for such a stereotype!"? Did others think that it was a boy, as well? I also couldn't help but wonder if the child will grow old, if Orlando will now that she has one, if the child's sex will change, if Orlando's might change again, and what on earth is she going to say when the kid asks about daddy?

Accentuated Color and Lighting...Check. Symbolic Representaion...Check. Main Idea?

While viewing the film Orlando, it was clear that that several symbols were used in depicting the altering notions of gender and power status. However, I think that in many cases they were lost on a surface level, overtaken by a general confusion in the story line and perhaps a little too much usage of visual symbolism (the use of color, light, portrayal of beauty, ect.). The films point was lost on me by the end, because between the changing color of the clothing, setting, plot and a lack of any substantial dialogue to fill in gaps, the whole thing was left too ambiguous and unexplained. I think maybe had I read the book, the story would make more sense, but even after some research I still feel a little inadequate to properly and fully make proper judgment on the film.

The biggest confusion arose from the lack of emotion or difference the character showed when switching gender roles. For example, the notion that a man who all the sudden took on a female role in society would so passively accept the new inferiorities attributed with that gender, didn’t seem plausible. If the point of the submissiveness and lack of reaction was to show the opposing placements of males and females in society, I don’t the point was illustrated clearly enough. A general confusion resulted from questions such as: Even though he’s now female, is the personality still the same? Why not? How could the differences be so accepted? What about the characters reaction? Preference to being male or female?

Again, I think that in reading the full text these questions would be answered and the film would seem a little more clear, but for the moment, I’m still too stuck on understanding it to focus on particular on the several different symbols used to illustrate gender, power and time period.

Orlando, Ownership and Entitlement

I really enjoyed watching the film. I found the use of color very intriguing. The contrast of the characters bright red hair in comparison to the dull and dark colors of the Elizabethan era. The imagery in the film captured me, very artistic

The most intriguing part of the film for me was how Orlando used language. For example, the bold ways in which Orlando addresses the audience to make remarks, for example "Same person. No difference at all... just a different sex."

Even when Orlando addresses other characters, it is short, blunt, powerful and often emotional.
Example:
Orlando: I'm dead, sir.
Shelmerdine: Dead. That's serious. Can I help?
Orlando: Will you marry me?

Also, there was a theme about property and ownership that was presented several times. First, between Orlando's father and the Queen when they talk about the property. Next, between Orlando and Princess Sasha when he tries to convince Sasha to marry him. Lastly, between Archduke Harry and Orlando when Harry asks Orlando to marry him and move to England.

The theme of entitlement is not only present between romantic interests but also in the pure nature of Orlando's position. Why is he/she entitled to the property? Why is he/she entitled to the property as a man, but not as a woman?

I have not been able to process what it all means yet, I feel that reading the book might fill in some plot holes for me. Watching it a second time might also help me to engage more in the dialogue and help me catch what I surely missed.

Orlando: Hard to Wrap my Head Around

I do not think I am alone when I say that the film Orlando greatly confused me. I am no stranger to symbolism and symbolic representation, but for me the lack of explanation and narrative and understanding really left me wondering what the whole thing was about. As I understood it, Orlando was about the character’s promise to stay young for Queen Elizabeth, so he (being a male in that point of the movie) could keep the house and money for him and his heirs. So…somehow, in a three-four hundred year time span, that is achieved, but sometime around the 1750s, Orlando the male becomes Orlando the female, and then the issue of keeping the house comes into question because in that period women could not own property. Then Orlando the female’s issue becomes trying to have a male heir to keep the titles and properties. By the end of the movie, however, in the 1990s (it is assumed) Orlando the female does have a child (through who or how we don’t know) but it is a girl, and she seems perfectly content with that. On the issue of themes, I think this film was about the different social constructions of what males and females are, and how it changed.

For instance, in the beginning of the film, when Orlando fell in love with Sasha the Russian diplomat’s daughter, he claimed that she should stay with him because he adored her, and he wanted her. The scene was very “cold” among all the ice and very bleak with monochrome tones, as Sasha refused to submit to Orlando. This was representative of how it was Orlando’s world (or how he thought it was) and that it was natural for Sasha to come—there was no question. However, closer to the end of the movie, when the Archduke (Henry?) proposes to Orlando, it was a sunny summer day with vibrant greens and yellows and blues all around, as a smiling Orlando turned down the Archduke’s proposal instantaneously. Although in this period too, women did not have much choice in who they married, a woman in Orlando’s position could refuse a suitor, which she did, and there were no hard feelings this time. She knew she had to find a husband to produce a male heir, but she was content in taking her time to find the right man.

Finally, a symbolic SCENE OR THEME that stuck with me was that while Orlando was serving as ambassador to what I guessed was India (or some other Islam or Middle Eastern nation), he became very comfortable with dressing in the same manner as the natives right after he officially befriended the country’s leader in an embrace of “brotherly love.” He abandoned the cumbersome white wig that men of his rank usually wore on formal occasions, and got used to wearing the saris and headdresses of the very simplistic, body hugging, pure white cloths that the natives wore, until the Archduke and co. came to promote him. Then, Orlando returned to weary the heavy, ornate clothing and the ridiculous headpiece in order to reconnect to the English ways of life and the male-centered view. In short, whoever Orlando became in that segment of the movie, he was comfortable with it, comfortable with “being in his own skin,” because that’s almost what the Middle Eastern dress signified: simple robes, not to showcase the body, but to be able to move freely in it. But when England called again, Orlando was forced to return to the stiff and constrained clothing of his ancestry, and separate himself from his foreign “brothers”…then, after the battle occurred, Orlando separated himself again by becoming a woman, until she was comfortable with being that.

Two Colors at Tea Time

Of any scene in the movie the one that remained with me the most was the two colored tea time. In this scene, for starters, Orlando is a woman, also, the room is filled with people dressed in blue and yellow. More specifically, all the men are dressed in blue and the woman in yellow. The only exceptions to this being Orlando and her newly won suitor. Here Orlando is shown is a massive pale blue dress decked with flowers and her suitor is shown in bright yellow garments, each in the exact same shade of the opposite genders in the room.

As to the meaning of the color switch, I’m not entirely sure, but the way I saw it, was that Orlando was taking the more “expected” masculine role while her suitor acted similar to the way woman were considered to respond. Orlando is unlike the expectation of women then, she is not sitting there waiting to attract a suitors eye, rather, she aims to actively contribute to the conversation and debate that which the men were discussing. So this is what I was able to grasp from the scene, but honestly, I found most of the movie pretty confusing. I was only able to grasp a bit of the underlying meaning. I understood that, overall, it was suggesting that men and women have been treated differently throughout the years. A person, for example Orlando, could be the same sort of person whether they were a man or woman, personality wise, but, based on their sex there are different things they are permitted to do and certain ways they are expected to act.

Anyways, the tea time scene was definitely the scene that stuck out the most for me. Now, I’m not saying it was my favorite scene, because it was not, there were other scenes that I found much more impressive, either visually or through the dialogue. However, when I think back on the movie this is the first scene that comes to mind and I take that as being pretty important.

Orlando

I hope you all enjoyed the film. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, particularly the visual symbolism present. There are many visual elements that symbolize and comment upon gender in the film: ice, water, fire, trees and shrubs, weather, light and darkness, architecture, costuming, etc. Discuss a scene or theme that stayed with you.

A Lifechanging Switch

I saw "The Switch" in theaters. There was a small audience of about 10-15 people. It almost felt as though I was watching the movie by myself except for a few funny parts where I'd hear a chuckle from the audience as well as my own. I don't think seeing this movie in theaters changed any points of view I would have had if I sat in a room by myself and watched it. This film is mainly a love story between two best friends but touched upon some controversial topics.

The plot of the movie is pretty simplistic and the ending predictable, however I still enjoyed it. The main characters are Wally Mars (Jason Bateman) and Kassie Larson (Jennifer Aniston). Kassie is a single woman who wants to get pregnant and have a baby. She turns to science and looks for an untraditional way to have a baby. This is becoming a very common procedure known as in vitro fertilization, results sometimes called "Turkey Baster Babies." When Kassie first tells Wally about her hopes for a baby, he isn't too thrilled with the whole idea and is a bit unsettled by the fact that she wants him to help her choose the perfect donor. They eventually get in a fight over it and don't speak for a while. Wally then recieves an invitiation in the mail for a party celebrating her to-come pregnancy. He decides to go, but feels the need to have a few too many drinks to get through the night. Wally meets the sperm donor and right before they kick out the party to begin the fertilization process, Wally goes to the bathroom. In his drunken state he sees the sperm about to be used to impregnate Kassie. He messes around with it jokingly at first but when a knock arrives on the door he drops it into the sink, washing away all the sperm. At first he panics, then he decides to replace the sperm with his own. Kassie soon moves away from the city so her and Wally don't speak much or see eachother for about eight years.

This movie shows in the beginning how a male and female can have a strong, healthy friendship. Many people don't think such a strong relationship between two people only being friends is possible. Kassie and Wally prove to have a close relationship without being sexual. Another topic this movie touches upon is the controversial topic of in vitro fertilization. Many people don't think this is right to do because it is not natural and is changing the course of nature. Kassie however, is an example of a woman who is going to get what she wants becasue she is determined to be a mother. She just doesn't want to do it the conventional way. Many of her friends applaud her and think high things of her for going through with this. In a way it empowers women because many believe women don't always need a male in their life to have a baby. They want to feel independent. However, raising a kid is hard to do on your own. The movie doesn't show the first eight years of Kassie's child's life and her attempts at raising him alone. Once Sebastian, her son gets older however, she begins to think one day he should have a father figure in his life.

Once Kassie and Sebastian move back to the city Wally becomes apart of their lives. He realizes after people point out resemblences between him and Sebastian about what he did that night of Kassie's party. Conflicted he doesn't know what to do about this secret. Meanwhile, Kassie begins to date Roland (played by Patrick Wilson) who she thinks is Sebastian's father. Wally finally gains the courage to tell her at the worst possible time, right before Roland is about to propose to her. Eventually, over some time she realizes Sebastian misses Wally and so does she. She turned Roland down simply because he was not Wally. They end up together in the end, as a happy family. It makes me wonder what the title really means or if it has a double meaning; the switching of the sperm or the switching of the man.

Although this film doesn't show the way men treat women or have any gender roles discussed it does touch upon important topics. It gives the viewer a new mindset on this new trend of pregnancy. A few decades back this sort of thing wasn't even an option and would most likely be looked down upon. This film also shows the struggle over man's role of father. I found it interesting that Kassie seemed to fall for whoever she thought the father of her child was at the time. This made me think that maybe she secretly did long to have a "normal" family. They sometimes say you'll never be truely happy unless you marry you're best friend, and this film is an example of true friendship turning into true love.

CoCo and Igor – a 1920s love affair

This weekend, I went to the Spectrum Theater to see Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky. I read excellent reviews about the movie and love the music of Stravinsky so I HAD to see it. Before seeing the movie, I did not know a lot about Coco Chanel other than that she was a famous designer.

The film opens up in Paris, France in 1913. Stravinsky and the Russian Ballet are in town and performing Stravinsky’s newest piece The Rite of Spring. Chanel is in the audience wearing a beautiful white dress enjoying the performance as her fellow Parisians begin a riot and jeer at the ballet with “Go back to Russia”.

Seven years later: Coco’s lover has died and she begins to only wear black as if in constant mourning of him. She is a wealthy woman that owns her own boutique. Coco meets Igor Stravinsky at a party where they begin their relationship. Later on, they meet at a museum at which Coco offers Stravinsky and his family a place to live; her villa in the country. She knows that Stravinsky is a “starving” artist and cannot go back to his homeland where the Russian Revolution has begun. At this point, the viewer can begin to see chemistry between Coco and Igor. Igor seems to be very interested in Coco by the way he looks at her when she speaks, but Coco is standoffish? Perhaps she is still in mourning of her lover.

Igor and his family move in with Coco. At first, everything seems pretty normal. The family is adjusting well to living in the country although it is hard for Igor’s wife, Katherine, to get use to Coco’s taste in décor. Katherine is dying of tuberculosis and it is hoped that the fresh air will help her heal. Igor begins to compose at the piano with his wife as his right handed (wo)“man”; she corrects his music and tells him what does or does not sound good. The longer the Stravinsky’s stay at Coco’s, the more decayed Katherine becomes as well as her and Igor’s relationship. One late night when Igor is composing, Coco sneaks in his study and has sex with him. This is the beginning of the affair that later causes Katherine to leave with her children.

What did I notice in this film? Igor and Coco were both very talented and selfish people. During their affair, Igor wrote a brilliant new piece and Coco designed her perfume Chanel Number 5. Coco also began to wear color and design in color. When their affair ends, Coco does not seem very hurt, or upset by it. It almost seems that she used the affair to push them to their limits, to become a better designer and Igor a composer. Coco Chanel was a woman who got whatever she wanted whenever she wanted it. Her affair with Igor did not make her any less of an independent woman, but allowed her to get over her past love.

It did make upset that Coco used a man, and took advantage of his body and feelings in order to become more independent and famous. She also did not respect Igor’s wife, Katherine, who knew the affair was taking place. I can’t imagine how one woman knows that a man is married, and still continues to have an affair with him. I know Igor is to blame as well, but Coco knew that Katherine was dying and that Igor had children to care for. Nonetheless, she continued the affair with him until she got everything she needed and dumped him.

Strong? Yes. Powerful? Yes. Independent? Yes. Bitch? Yes.

Your reviews

Thanks for posting your reviews, those who have done so. I will be able to read and comment on them a bit better when I return from this conference trip. Keep them coming!

Going the Distance

I saw Going the Distance this weekend. As instructed, I saw it in a theater. Unfortunately, it was a Canadian theater, which meant strangely few people laughed at anything. Seriously, my girlfriend and I were the only ones sometimes. So I really don't know what to say about how other people reacted.

Personally...I liked it. Much more than expected, in fact. The basic plot is this: guy meets girl (on the night he's just been dumped by a woman I'll talk about in a minute), girl is in NYC on a summer internship and moving back to California in six weeks to finish school. Guy and girl sleep together, decide to hang out with no strings attached, and of course fall for each other. Bad economy: how can either get a job where the other is? Plane tickets are expensive. What about all the other oh-so-tempting and local people; life without sex is hard!

I don't want to spoil it, but it all ends up okay. Oops.

Gender-wise, I don't believe it passed the Bechdel test, but maybe not on his end, either. That is, it's a romantic comedy. All the talking, between men and men and women and women and men and women is about romance. Although, having just typed that, the guy, Garrett (Justin Long, the Mac from the I'm-a-Mac-you're-a-PC commercials), does talk to his boss exclusively about work. So does the girl, Erin (Drew Barrymore, you may have heard of her)--but both of their bosses are men. Still, Erin is portrayed as a full human being whose wants, needs, and career are just as important as Garrett's. In fact, he says that she can't move across the country to wait tables when she's being offered a job at The San Francisco Chronicle. Of course, he also says something to the effect that he wouldn't be able to live with himself, which does make it seem like it's all about him still. And even though he hates his job, he never says, okay, I'll come wait tables while you work at an amazing newspaper.

The other female characters did not come off well. Garrett's girlfriend, the one he breaks up with in the opening scene, dumps him for not realizing that when she said she didn't want a birthday present what she meant was she wanted one but was calculating to not seem needy. Erin's sister Corinne (Christina Applegate) is obsessed with cleanliness and pretty bossy toward her husband--a "shrew" we might say. But, Garrett has a coworker, Brianna (Kelli Garner, who I recognized and it turned out was in a truly creepy Law & Order: SVU episode), who is very, very pretty, and dresses very, very nicely, and seems like the type who, though she has a long-distance boyfriend herself, might sleep with Garrett. But she doesn't. She doesn't even throw herself at him. I was really impressed by that.

In the end, Garrett does move to the West Coast--but on his own terms, doing something that he loves. Which is great, but I've seen enough films where women sacrifice. I kind of wanted the guy to this time.

Also worth noting: this movie is SEXUAL. And it's great. There is no insinuation that Erin is a slut for sleeping with Garrett right after meeting him. Their sexual needs are BOTH acknowledged, openly and freely and non-judgmentally. It was very refreshing. And, despite having been in a relationship, Barrymore and Long have great chemistry onscreen.

B+

The New Trend?

At its surface, the film titled The Switch, doesn’t say much about gender roles in its main message. The film stars Jason Bateman as the male main character Wally, and Jennifer Aniston as the female main character, Kassie. The plot of the film is relatively simple; Wally and Kassie are good friends, though it’s quite obvious from the beginning that he has strong feelings for her which stretch beyond friendship. Kassie tells him that after speaking with her doctor about her age, that she has decided she wants to get pregnant without a male figure in her life, and is currently in the market for sperm donors. Wally does not take the news very well and actually almost tries to ignore it when Kassie first brings up the topic. He’s seriously offended that she wouldn’t consider him as a donor, though she claims that because they’re just friends, the situation would be too weird. However, at her “I’m Getting Pregnant” party, Wally gets extremely drunk and switches the sperm of the proper donor with that of his own, without remembering he did so the next day. Seven years later, he meets the young boy and the pieces fall together.

The plot itself, as I said, does not speak much about gender roles. It does however, subtly touch on several current gender issues, one of which could be categorized as a new trend. The first important issue is that Kassie felt that she didn’t need a solid male figure in her life to have a baby. Though Wally does protest to the idea at first, Kassie insists that she shouldn’t have to wait around for a steady man in her life when that may never actually happen. She claims that she wants a child and that most importantly she’s ready to have one now. Kassie states that she does not need a man to have a baby. In this situation, a strong independent woman is choosing to have a baby because she wants one, regardless of the fact that she doesn’t have a male figure in her life and the child won’t have a father.

The second issue which I found interesting is the way in which the pregnancy process happened. Several of Kassie’s friends threw her an “I’m Getting Pregnant Party” with the appropriate theme of female fertility symbols. After the party had ended, she would perform the act and hopefully become pregnant, if you will (how this actually happened is a little shaky, though there is a doctor present at the party). Though the party itself appeared to be of a slightly strange nature, I wondered if this kind of a thing is happening more frequently today and should be considered a rising trend. Amongst many of her friends, Kassie’s best friend shouted at the end of a toast to Kassie, “We’re doing it for ourselves!” Are more and more women starting to make this choice for themselves?

The third issue I found worthy of discussion came in the second part of the film, when Kassie reunited with Wally seven years later. Though it wasn’t discussed in any kind of extensive detail, Kassie mentioned to Wally that kids in her son’s class had made fun of him because they suspected her to be a lesbian. The topic didn’t lead to much conversation other than the fact that this upset him and her, but that she can understand how it appears that way to people. The film also didn’t address any real hardships Kassie was having in raising him as a single mother. Raising a child without any male figure appears to be relatively effortless for Kassie, which I found to be pretty unrealistic.

Though the film was obviously made more as a romantic comedy than a culture critique, the story centered around the notion that Kassie had a baby for herself and by herself, regardless of the presence of a steady male figure in her life. I think this gender issue is important because it’s relatively new, but I also think it’s pretty accurate in alluding to the fact that this kind of an act could be rising in popularity.

"The Kids Are All Right", the family is all right- without a man.

I saw the film "The Kids Are All Right" based on a recommendation from my parents. The film follows a lesbian couple Nic and Jules who each gave birth to a child (Joni and Laser) using the same sperm donor. When Joni turns 18 her younger brother Laser insists that they contact their biological father. I enjoyed the films humor and portrayl of a modern gay couple. Many questions arose for me throughout the film that I will comment on here. I just can't remove myself from a critical lens!

Things I loved about the movie:
1. The non traditional family structure.
2. Watching the couples roles and the growth in their relationship.
3. The way that Nic supported Jules in her long drawn out journey into the work force.
4. The way the film normalized families with gay parents.
5. The prospect of fluid sexuality and the normalization of "non traditional" sex lives and what makes people aroused.

Things I questioned:
1. The audience discovers that Nic and Jules enjoy watching pornography between two men. I was curious why this was. I felt it may have reinforced a stereotype that all women are aroused by men.
2. Jules has an affair with her children's sperm donor, Paul. She appears to enjoy having sex with a man and it is unresolved if she enjoys sex with a woman or if that matters. It again, brings up a question for me, is this propagating a stereotype that all women enjoy male sex?
3. Nic's alcoholic tendencies are unresolved. There is obvious conflict about it but its never discussed.
4. Laser's friend Clay is a troublemaker and his presence in the film is to me, irrelevant. I don't understand what his role is trying to convey.

Overall, the gender study was fascinating. Nic plays a put-together, high-achieving, hard working role. She appears to take the role as a disciplinarian with the kids and as the breadwinner. It can be argued that her role is often the role of the father in a straight family. Jules- a free spirited, indecisive, casual individual offers her children, Nic and eventually Paul a lot of motherly and nurturing support. She can be characterized as taking the "motherly role". However- these "rules" are not hard because Jules is not very organized and it doesn't appear that she holds a housekeeping stereotype.

It is interesting that Laser's sexuality becomes of question when he becomes close with Clay and that his mother's don't see his lack of male influence to be troubling. Nic and Jules are almost offended when Laser seeks out his biological father- and Nic is very unsupportive of either child maintaining any sort of relationship with Paul. Therefore, this film shoes that families can have complete harmony with little to no male or alpha male influence in household. The family became so used to this routine that having Paul in the family, a new male figure- even for a brief time, disrupted the homeostasis. The last scene shows the family driving home from dropping Joni off at college and it appears that the family will be able to recover from the trauma of Paul entering their life. It can be suggested that this family not only functions without a man but functions much better.

Very interesting.

Blue Ball in a Pink World - The Kids Are All Right

Going into the movie theater to see The Kids Are All Right, I had some idea of what to except in regards for who the audience would be. I figured the audience would be mostly women, and the men that were there would be with a women. I was right. Out of fourteen people in the audience, including myself, there was only one man who was either with his wife or his girlfriend. Then there was one woman who brought her two daughters who were most likely in high school. The rest were women who were by themselves. I personally found this interesting, due to what the movie was about. I was expecting more women to be there with their partners, husbands, or boyfriends, but instead the majority was women by themselves. Maybe it had to do with the time that I went and saw the movie (1 p.m. on a Friday), but the question I would like to bring up is, do women need to see this movie in the middle of the afternoon while their husbands are at work simply because they had nothing better to do, or was it because they were afraid to be seen showing their curiosity for, and/or acceptance of, the subject?

As Americans become more tolerable with lesbian and gay couples, this movie decides to portray a lesbian couple, Nic and Jules who each have a child by the same sperm donor. First of all I would like to applaud the creators of this movie. This movie crosses a line that not many people are even willing to face yet head on. One mom, Nic, is depicted as more “butch” than the other mom, Jules, who is more laid back and outgoing. Nic has short hair, is a doctor, and is the breadwinner of the family. Jules on the other hand, is a woman you wouldn’t really be able to tell is a lesbian, owns her own business, and is a down to earth person. In a sense, she adheres to societal norms of what a typical woman should look like. When they are shown together as a couple, it seems genuine, even during the scene when they are watching gay porn (which you would think gay men would only want to watch). The movie depicts what any couple would go though, arguments, disagreements, love, and as the movie goes on the joys of being parents.

There kids, Joni and Laser are not your stereotypical teenagers, which gave me a reason to like this movie even more. Joni is known as being smart, nerd like, but is seen as shy and a person who just likes to do her own thing. The clothing that she wears is not of a stereotypical girl, and it allows you to see Joni as a normal teenager getting ready for college. Laser on the other hand, is known as being athletic, not very book smart, and is friends with Jai, who is a punk. They are not your stereotypical teenagers, but they appear to be your everyday normal teenagers which allow the audience to connect to them.

Paul (the sperm donor), the man with testosterone, comes into the picture when Laser wants to meet him and Joni sets everything up since she is of age to do so. From this point on a downward spiral begins. At first it doesn’t seem that bad. Laser and Joni are interested in knowing their “father” and vice versa. Nic is concerned with it from the beginning but eventually opens up to Paul and drowns her pain in wine (which is quite common for someone to do). As the downward spiral continues, Paul and Jules become intimately involved and Paul wants to become a part of the family. Once Nic finds out that Jules hooked-up with Paul, all hell breaks loose, but it’s what the family needed to become the family they were once again. This was actually an amazing part of the movie because it showed how strong a family can be, even if it’s not a traditional family, and not even a man (even if he is a good looking sperm donor) can get between a lesbian couple and their two kids.

So if a guy ignores you...he just has conflicted feelings

The movie I chose watch was the Twilight parody Vampires Suck. I will state here I have not read nor watched the Twilight series, but I know the basic story and abhor the rapid pre-pubescent fan base. Going into the theater, I knew it would parody the types of "pefect" relationships the fans think exist in real life, as well as the "perfect" men (Edward or Jacob, depending on one's preference). However, I didn't anticipate the parodying foil of American girls; supposedly, we are either awkward, "boring and bland" yet horny, like the main character Becca, or materialistic, selfish and obsessed with drinking like Becca's preppy high school friend Jessica. At one point in the movie Jessica proclaimed that "Prom is the most important day of my life; I've been waiting for it ever since I was one of my dad's sperm!!"

To begin, Edward and Becca's relationship is a strange and unrealistic one at best Becca admits that she is a normal, insecure looking girl "without a sense of humor" that "guys are automatically attracted to." In constrast, Edward Sullen is an equally insecure, afraid-of-committment vampire that runs away from his problems (namely Becca). Edward doesn't want to pursue a relationship (or have sex) with Becca because he is scared of hurting her, plus he sports a purity ring. Regardless, Becca constantly tries to have sex with him because to her Edward is the "forbidden fruit" she so desperately wants to taste. It doesn't matter if the fruit is rotten, so long as she gets what she wants in the end.

On the other end of the spectrum is Jacob, Becca's sweet, sensitive childhoood friend/werewolf who rescues Becca from every mess she gets herself into--but Becca rejects him because he is the "safe friend" choice. When Edward thinks Becca is dead and goes into a half year hiding, pitying himself with gorges of ice cream, Jacob stays by Becca's side and showers her with the typical flowers/candy gifts. By the end of the movie, Edward and Becca reunite and Edward is forced to turn Becca into a vampire to save her from being killed. Afterward, she exclaims that being bitten was the hottest and most romantic thing any boy had ever done for her...right.

If this movie parody emphasized anything, it was that many girls across America (as a result of reading/watching Twilight) will want unattainable relationships based on perceptions and dangers. In other words, girls will go for mysterious boys simply because they must be misunderstood somehow, and if those boys ignore them (as most would), it just means they are trying to cope with their conflicted feelings. However, the guy who was there all along and makes his true feelings perfectly clear is most likely to be a "gay little brother" figure to keep exploiting. Stoic, emotionless men are just so much sexier than guys comfortable sharing their feelings and willing to stand up with you.

Again, these sentiments aren't necessarily mine--they are what the film producers kept harping back to, with the occassional fangirl bashing/violence sprinkled in.

Pleasantly Surprised by Scott Pilgrim v.s The World

After seeing, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, I have to say that it was not the movie I had expected to see and it far exceeded the low expectations that I had. As a movie that is based off a comic and presented in a videogame style, it appeared that the movie would be extremely anti-feminist, with a few weak female characters, who remained the same throughout. Though this was true for most of the movie, by the end some of the female roles had growth.

Honestly, I don’t know if anyone else in the theater was surprised by the relative growth of the character, Knives, compared with the main female role, Ramona. Knives is introduced to the story as the main character, Scott Pilgrim’s new asian, catholic “high school” girlfriend. All his friends consider her to be no more than temporary, serving only as a rebound for Scott, who is still devastated by his last breakup. As Knives and Scott date, she begins to become obsessed with him and his band, becoming the slightly creepy groupie. Anyways, Scott continues to go out with Knives and as he is on a date with her he proceeds to become interested in the new girl Ramona Flowers. Basically, Knives gets dumped for Ramona and she does not take it well. Her behavior after the breakup is not more necessarily more obsessive than before, but redirected to a hatred of Ramona.

So, I think its pretty safe to say that Knives is a ongoing joke throughout the movie; serving as no more than the obsessive ex-girlfriend, who stalks Scott as he goes on fighting off Ramona's exes. Though Scott definitely has the most obvious character development in the story, it wasn't the person I found to have the most interesting development. Come the end of the movie it’s not Ramona who becomes her the heroine of her own story as I expected, but Knives. Through an extremely obvious, but very entertaining, proclaiming of the story’s moral, Knives proves to be the female role that develops some self-respect and shows, more maturity than anyone watching the movie from the start could have expected her to possess.

Overall, the movie was really well done and even though some people walked out (a older couple and a young family) it is a great movie for those who enjoy video games and comics.