Tuesday, February 8, 2011

PLEASE DON'T SING ALONG TO THIS SWAN'S SONG

An incomplete review of Black Swan


Directed by Darren Aronofsky

Written by Mark Heymanm, Andres Heinz, and John McLaughlin

Starring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, and Vincent Cassel

Score: X
Black Swan truly inspired both of us. Indeed, its banal characters, its perpetuation of certain profoundly disturbing stereotypes, and its predictable plot inspired us to begin this blog; we felt compelled to weigh in on the general hoo-ha over the film. Too few critics were calling attention to its self-indulgent misogyny—i.e., to its superficial, at times even snide, portrayal of its female characters, not to mention the evident pleasure it takes in the process of Nina’s demise.


But as we developed a scoring system with which to evaluate films, we became increasingly excited about reviewing other films and decided that we would rather not waste much breath in a diatribe against Black Swan.[1] Still, we do think the film deserves more consideration than we can bring ourselves to afford it. We’re therefore asking you, our esteemed readers, to share your two cents; please take a moment to vote in the poll to your right. How many stars would you give Black Swan?

[1] In summary, we think Black Swan deserves two stars and one imploding star: one star for cinematography, half a star for “originality,” half a star for illuminating the social dynamics of Western culture, and one imploding star for sexism.

“What is it with this shit and being a man?”


A review of Blue Valentine by S. Linwick


Written by Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne, and Joey Curtis

Starring Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling

Score: 

To read an explanation of our scoring methods, please follow the link below:
From my perspective, Blue Valentine’s most impressive feat is its searching examination of conventional gender roles. The film’s opening scenes left me filled with skepticism about its ability to stage a story I hadn’t seen one thousand plus times before: a bitter wife and mother grows increasingly distant from her doting husband and child until she decides that she must detach from them in order to “find herself.” Such stories inevitably portray wives and mothers in a negative light while depicting husbands and fathers as modern heroes. (Why do men always get to play the heroes?) To the extent that these stories seem to encourage men to embody the role of a caretaker, I do not object to them. Nevertheless, they simultaneously suggest that a child really only has one caretaker. I’d very much like to see a film in which two parents decide that they will share the duties of childcare equitably, and consequently, their relationships with each other and the rest of their family improve. While Blue Valentine does not tell such a story, it does evince a commitment to revising that same old story to which I object.

In a flashback halfway through Blue Valentine, Dean rehashes that hackneyed tale yet again as he reveals that his mother left him and his father to pursue a relationship with someone else. After Cindy’s mother, Glenda, asks him why he doesn’t know what his mother does for a living, he explains, “When I was, whatever, 10, my father and her just decided that it wasn’t gonna work out between them, and she met somebody, and I think…that was that.” At this moment in the flashback, Glenda finds herself at a loss for words. Perhaps her silence indicates that the thought of leaving her own terribly unhappy and abusive marriage never occurred to her. In another flashback earlier in the film, when her husband—Cindy’s father—throws a violent tantrum because he doesn’t like the meal that she has cooked, she can only cringe and reply, “I’m sorry. Do you want me to make you some eggs?” So Cindy’s mother, too, finds herself acting out a fairly clichéd part: the passive and abused wife.

Both Cindy and Dean are haunted by the specter of their parents’ marriages, and both are consumed with the struggle not to be like their parents from the very beginning of the film. Cindy, for instance, confides in her grandmother, “I don’t ever want to be like my parents. I know that they must have loved each other at one time, right? Did they just get it all out of the way before they had me?” Especially given her parents’ own quarrels over the table, Cindy’s agitation when Dean criticizes the instant-oatmeal breakfast she makes for their daughter, Frankie, is more than understandable; she does not want to passively or apologetically endure Dean’s disparagement and thereby replay the role she watched her mother play.

And Dean’s overwhelming fear that Cindy will disappear from his life like his mother disappeared from his and his father’s life is evident from his first exchanges with Cindy in the film. As Cindy pulls out of the driveway to take Frankie to school and then go to work, he yells after her, “Hey, Cin, put your seatbelt on! Hey Cin, put your seatbelt on!” A few moments later he angrily throws his cigarette at a speeding car, shouting, “Hey, fuck you! Why don’t you slow down, you fucking jackass? Motherfucker! You’re gonna kill somebody, asshole.” Towards the end of the film, Dean jealously charges the doctor for whom Cindy works as a nurse, “You’re fucking Dr. Feinberg?! You’ve been emailing my wife?!” Dean finds anything or anyone with the potential to challenge his marriage profoundly threatening; he does not want to wind up alone, like his father.

But Cindy and Dean’s marriage consistently proves unsustainable as the two discover how difficult it is not to become their parents. For most of the film, however, such a fate seems inevitable for at least one of them. If Cindy stays with Dean, she will ultimately resign herself to a life not unlike her mother’s; her marriage with Dean grows increasingly more hostile and violent. If Dean lets Cindy go, however, he will be left not unlike his father. The critical question, then, is how the two can avoid repeating at least one set of their parents’ mistakes.

Blue Valentine, I think, does provide a hypothetical answer, if not a definitive answer, to this question. It does so by deconstructing the category of “man,” a category that seems to loom large over the psyches of the film’s main characters. In one flashback Dean tells his colleague Marshall, “You’re a man amongst men. No homo!” This remark would justifiably raise the hackles of anyone! Dean’s subsequent interchange, or rather, shouting match with Cindy in Dr. Feinberg’s office, however, undercuts it. Exasperated with Dean for showing up drunk at her workplace and attempting to lure her away from it, Cindy forcefully vents her frustration by pushing Dean. What might be considered a (heated) philosophical dialogue ensues.
CINDY  Fuck you! Fuck you! I’m more man than you are, you fucking
cunt!
DEAN  Don’t say that shit about being a man.
CINDY  I am. I am. I can handle it.
DEAN  What is it with this shit and being a man? What is that? What
does it even mean?!
CINDY  Yeah, what is that?
DEAN  What does it mean?
CINDY  You’re scaring us. You’re scaring us.
DEAN  Don’t say that stuff. “Be a man!” What is that shit?
CINDY  Don’t bully people.
DEAN  I’ll be a man. You want me to be a man? Here, is this what
men do?
[DEAN violently shoves papers off of counters and proceeds to
trash the nurses’ office]
CINDY  Oh, just stop it.
DEAN I’m a big man. Look at me. I’m a big man. I’m being a big
man.
CINDY No, I’m the man!
Here Cindy’s synecdoche—i.e., her substitution of “cunt” for “woman”—effectively devaluates the category of “woman” in contrast to the category of “man.” (This moment raises an important question: why is the slang for “vagina” one of the most derogatory and offensive words in the English lexicon?) Why does Cindy assume that a man can “handle it,” but a “cunt”—a woman—cannot? In other words, why does her ability to “handle it” necessarily mean that she is “the man”?
Dean appears to regard “the man” as a more dubious figure. Indeed, after asking Cindy what being a man entails for her, he enacts a performance of what “men do,” aggressively devastating the space around him and punching Dr. Feinberg, who has been making untoward advances on Cindy. Both Dean and Cindy, then, seem to be confused about what exactly a man is and what significance such a figure should play in their lives. Is the man always the more capable figure? Do his supposedly superior capabilities stem from his will to establish his authority, his dominion? Should a man play “the man”?

Although the concluding scenes of the drama are particularly dismal, they also contain kernels of hope. Finally, Cindy articulates what she seems to have been seeking for the duration of the film. “You’ve got to give me some space,” she enjoins Dean. Fortunately, Dean hears and heeds her request. Walking away from Cindy and her parents’ house (where Cindy and Dean’s last exchange in the film unfolds), Dean turns around when Frankie comes running after him. “Go back to your mom, please,” he asks her and then challenges her to race back to Cindy before turning around and walking off into fireworks crackling in the distance. Unlike any of the other men in the film, Dean does not play “the man.” Instead, he acknowledges and affords Cindy the space she desires, thereby relinquishing the almost tyrannical control he has heretofore exercised over her. No longer must she resign herself to playing her mother by submitting to Dean’s whims or to playing his mother by leaving him; perhaps now both characters can begin to practice roles they find more satisfying

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Blue Valentine: More Scenes from Another Marriage


A review of Blue Valentine by C. Cleary

Directed by Derek Cianfrance

Written by Derek Cianfrance, Cami Delavigne, and Joey Curtis

Starring Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling

Score:  ★★★★


This doesn't make much sense, but if I had to sum up my thoughts about Blue Valentine, I'd say it's a movie I won't remember about a character I will. I've been impressed with Ryan Gosling since Half Nelson--Michelle Williams, not so much (isn't this the same character she played in Mammoth...? and sort of the character she played in Dawson's Creek, even?).  It's hard for me to think, off the top of my head, of many characters more psychologically complex than Blue Valentine's Dean.  What's more appealing than an intuitive, ditzy, ignorant, stubborn, eloquent, tender, suffocating asshole? I'm not going to say that Gosling's acting carried the weight of the film, because Cianfrance wrote his character well (particularly regarding everything Linwick has already said about indifference towards/refusal of "man"), and in fact the whole movie is well written and nicely shot. But whether we attribute it to Gosling, Cianfrance, or a combination of the two, Dean kept me interested.

And it is pretty hard to make a movie about the turmoil of marriage interesting to me. Know why? Because once, over the span of a few fateful, thundering summer days last year, I watched Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage, and even, I think, some episodes of his TV series of the same name, and I therefore know too much already. I don't care to know anything more! Movies about marriage remind me of flipping through one of those stick-figure animation flipbooks, you know? Look, they're sleeping...oh, they woke up....they're jumping up and down...they're flailing their arms up and down....aaaand they're sleeping again....aaaaand they're flailing their arms again. Perhaps these married people should build lives for themselves apart from their apparently doomed/imprisoning relationship with their spouse, eh?


Anyway, on to Cindy: at least for me, being invested in Cindy would have required not only a more psychologically nuanced character, but also more scenes of Cindy working, hanging out with her kid, and speaking/philosophizing with her co-workers in the same way that we see these things with Dean. That, unfortunately, doesn't happen.


1. Do we ever see Cindy and Frankie (Cindy's daughter) hanging out without Dean?
2. Well, but maybe Cindy doesn't have funny things to say to her daughter? Perhaps Cindy doesn't philosophize, either? Of course she doesn't. She's the mother: she's practical, and also, importantly, humorless.


The amount of time spent humanizing Dean as he interacts with his daughter, clients, and co-workers is probably roughly equivalent to the time the camera spends focusing in on parts of Michelle Williams' body.

The movie cuts back and forth between the past and the present, and there is a little more time and thought put into portraying past-Cindy, but I'm afraid this is to build up a nostalgic longing for her in the audience to aid our identification with Dean.

One final note: Bored as I sort of am by the "inevitably doomed marriage" theme, interesting for Cianfrance to turn a divorce into a happy ending. Like, the kind in which the closing credits are shown amid stylized fireworks and colorful billboards of Dean and Cindy in love. Interesting to make a film that serves as a sentimental testament to a failed marriage.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

"...and with these very hands": male redemption in The Virgin Spring

 We have thirteen "followers"; we have no reviews. No, you're not surprised, and neither are we. Nevertheless, someone's gotta start reviewing something, I say, and since I'm still not able, on this third snow day, to make my way anywhere near a theatre to see Blue Valentine (our first scheduled film to review), I'm just gonna go ahead and review the Bergman film I watched last night.


(If you haven't seen it, and you don't like surprises, here's a synopsis.)



A review of The Virgin Spring by C. Cleary
Directed by Ingmar Bergman
Written by Ulla Isaksson 
Starring Max von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg, and Gunnel Lindblom
Score:  ★★★



I'm not entirely sure to which genre TVS belong--a tragedy of minimalism verging on horror? It's consistently extraordinarily "intense," as my roommate puts it, without coming close to melodrama (my most hated genre/convention): one storyline, a handful of stoic characters plus one dumb virgin and her wild, evil-looking foster sister (sigh, more on this later), no dramatic music. Violence is sudden, inexplicable, and harrowing; redemption--for the virgin's
father, let me emphasize--the same.



According to ol' Aristotle, tragedy is characterized by a reversal of fortune (preferably from good to bad) and the working through this that brings us catharsis.  In TVS, the focus shifts halfway through the film from Karin's (the virgin's) relationship with her mother, to her father's relationship with himself and God. He is the avenger; he is the one upon whom redemption and grace are bestowed. He is the one who offers up his hands in service (promising to build a church "with these very hands," the same hands he has used to murder his daughter's rapists/murderers). He is the one who talks to God. Well, I'm not convinced that I should care. Not enough time has been spent developing the father's character for catharsis to take effect as a result of his ultimate peace. Like the virgin's mother (I am left to assume), I find myself unhealed. Because receiving redemption second-hand through the prayers and promises of your husband hardly counts. And I have no reason to suspect that the film intends to leave us unsatisfied.I'm still giving it half of a 2NK star, though, for its horror-laced appropriation of tragic convention into a serious contemplation of theology's "problem of evil."



And now for some elaboration on what we mean by the star we've called "Illumination or Subversion of the social dynamics of Western culture," since several people claim they "have no idea what you guys are talking about." Well, when we started talking about starting this blog, it was because we wanted a space to review films like Black Swan: popular, well-received films that, despite their merits, alienate certain viewers and perpetuate outmoded and oppressive race, class, and gender-based ideologies. In her essay on Ibsen, Adrienne Rich explains writing (which can be expanded to include all forms of art, though perhaps most especially writing) as "re-naming" and as "re-vision":



"Re-vision--the act of looking back, of seeing with fresh eyes, of entering an old text from a new critical direction--is for us more than a chapter in cultural history: it is an act of survival. Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves. And this drive to self-knowledge, for woman, is more than a search for identity: it is part of her refusal of the self-destructiveness of male-dominated society. A radical critique of literature, feminist in its impulse, would take the work first of all as a clue to how we live, how we have been living, how we have been led to imagine ourselves, how our language has trapped as well as liberated us; and how we can begin to see-and therefore live-afresh" (read the full essay here).

Little appeals to me more than this "re-naming" potential of art (and of blog writing). Actually, we should probably rename this star the Renaming Star... but in any case, we believe the extent to which a film lends itself to "renaming" or to envisioning alternative--and particularly less oppressive--realities by revealing and calling into question the status quo constitutes at least one-fifth of its merit and power. Yeah, it's quantifiable--by stars.

In the case of TVS, we must consider the pretty graphically disturbing rape scene, a rape scene I find unjustified. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to consider this a virgin sacrifice for the sake of intellectual and philosophic pondering on the nature of violence, evil, and grace. Had the virgin suddenly popped up from the forest floor, alive again, her parents' moral directive probably would have been "Be careful," or "Watch out," or "Don't ride alone into the forest in beautiful, potentially seductive clothes." But the truth is that this kind of violence isn't inexplicable or inevitable--it's indicative of a wider culture of male domination and violence perpetrated against women that this movie ultimately does not ask us to question, though it both calls into question and glorifies avenging violence with violence.

On to character: the naive, doomed virgin; the jealous foster child who serves as her foil; the pious, doting mother; the honorable, avenging father; the creepy, evil, forest-lurking rapists--obviously these generic conventions from the original ballad aren't exactly psychologically compelling characters. The mother, however, is sort of a psychologically compelling generic convention, only in that even when she's hysterical she's somehow stoic and able to act incisively. Really, as far as generic conventions go, I suppose they're all pretty compelling, due in large part to some great acting and close-ups of the evil foster child's snarling face (I really like her snarling face).


One further note: when considering this fourth star, I'm planning on taking into account the Bechdel test, created by Alison Bechdel. A film passes the Bechdel test if 1) It has two women in it, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something other than a man.




There are three main female characters in TVS--the 15-year-old Karin, her mother, and her black-haired devil of a foster sister--but though they talk to each other, they don't do so substantively (topics include clothes, men in bushes, and men not in bushes), and things only happen to them, with the exception of the mother closing the shed door to lock Karin's rapists/murderers in for her husband to then kill.

In closing, in considering TVS' artistic merit/"originality," I'm reminded again of that essay of Rich's: at some point she claims that "we need to know the writing of the past, and know it differently than we have ever known it; not to pass on a tradition but to break its hold over us." I'm not convinced that the rewriting or the retelling of this ballad was anything more than a passing on of some very problematic traditions. 

I give Bergman credit, though (he's so happy to have it), for his snow falling softly and other scenes of cinematographic beauty, for use of silence, for some interesting dialogue, and perhaps for his brutally honest and stunningly graphic filmic representation of a subject rarely breached even in writing (though like I said, ultimately I find it unjustified).

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, ONE HALF OF THE DEFINITIVE REVIEW OF THE VIRGIN SPRING!

Boom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------