As a film year, 2018 feels more like a "meh" than the resounding whoops of box office receipts seem to signify. In fact, the state of film in theaters felt bleak to me as major blockbusters kept feeling more watered down than usual in an attempt to get the widest markets. I understand why and I cannot condemn studios from doing this considering the market as it is, but I worry that inventiveness and ingenuity is being put to the wayside. Then I started to make my list for the best films this year and considering that I had to step away from the theater more than usual these last twelve months due to personal and professional matters, I found that I easily had more than ten to make the list, and some of them weren't just great but astounding. While a few of my selections are award contenders this year, what I found that surprised me was how many of those contenders were just as bland as the blockbusters. The great films this year aren't getting the proper respect they deserve and I will not accept that. So here are twenty, count them TWENTY great films that you need to see from 2018.
20. Boy Erased: I LOVED Joel Edgerton's The Gift and was eager to see what he would do next as a director. Boy Erased, a film about a young man's journey through a gay conversion center is just as perilous as his attempts to communicate with his father. Actor Lucas Hedges gives a subtle yet deep performance that is matched by supports from Nicole Kidman and Russel Crowe as his parents. What keeps this film from being yet another gay acceptance indie is that the film centers around communication and trying to find common ground rather than the cliche parents-bad, gay kid-good that usually comes with this type. Add in some complicated feelings about religion and faith that actually respects the subject is a nice touch. Could be tough to sit through if you're not into indie dramas.
19. Ready Player One: Steven Spielberg took cultural geekdom and made a film that both celebrated it as well as invite the next generation of filmmakers to aim higher. Ready Player One is also a victory lap of sorts for the filmmaker who gets to call back on not just his own work, but those who he worked with and those who were inspired by him. Visually astounding, great score and sound, a fun and Easter egg-infused dreamscape with actors who are clearly enjoying themselves. This, Mr. Abrams, is what a Spielberg is supposed to feel like.
18. They Shall Not Grow Old: If Spielberg played to his strengths, director Peter Jackson stepped completely out of his. His documentary on trench warfare of World War I did something both visually amazing and yet cerebral. Taking 100-year-old footage and not just remastering it but stabilizing and colorizing it allows the film to be seen as a testament of the horrors of a war being more and more forgotten. Jackson states he has even more footage and I for one would love more of this.
17. Thoroughbreds: This is a film that is purely mean and isn't afraid to be perfectly blunt about it. This modern take on the dysfunction of youth as we see two affluent teenage girls plot a murder while establishing a connection through this destructive act is darkly humorous and rather dry. And while the latter would usually be a bad thing, it fits the two main characters' personalities, played to perfection by Anna Taylor Joy and Olivia Cooke. Also must mention this has the late Anton Yelchin in his final role before his untimely death.
16. The Other Side of the Wind: Orson Wells has been laid to rest over 30 years before his final incomplete film has been painstakingly pieced together to make possibly one of his most difficult and experimental films ever. Both a love letter and harsh rebuke towards Hollywood as well as a brutal dissection of his own character flaws, The Other Side of the Wind dances on the fine line of pretense only to be saved by the fact that it criticizes itself for doing just that. I must state that to get the full appreciation of the film, also watch the companion documentary They'll Love Me When I'm Dead, which is about the long-gestating path towards the film's completion.
15. Hold the Dark: Jeremy Salnier is one of those filmmakers whom I'll race to theaters to see his next film sight unseen. Thankfully, all I needed was Netflix to see his follow-up to Green Room, a quiet, contemplative and extremely violent tale about a naturalist who gets caught in the middle of a mystery that can only end badly. The film's stark cinematography, amazing use of locations and scenery and one of the greatest shootout scenes of all time. This is not something I can recommend to everyone considering the very bleak nature of the film and the ending that might not be satisfying to some.
14. Isle of Dogs: I'm rather surprised that this was not only NOT on my top ten, but also NOT the best animated film of the year. That said, Wes Anderson's stop-motion use is even better this time around than his Fantastic Mr. Fox, with a story that is much deeper and more satisfying. The unique blend of drama and comedy here is also more finely tuned. That said, the film is still a little shallow when compared to Grand Budapest Hotel and Moonrise Kingdom.
13. Mom and Dad: Never in a million years would I have EVER thought a Brian Taylor film would beat out a Wes Anderson film. Yet Mom and Dad is a film with a brilliant premise with a great cast and understands the genuine horror of what is happening even while it entertains. Props to Nicholas Cage for coming to play and even more to Selma Blair who came to see if she could out-crazy Cage. That said, this movie intends to offend and if you're not prepared to go all the way with it, you're going to feel disgusted more times than not.
12. The Death of Stalin: Armando Innaucchi has been making brilliant satire for decades now with The Thick of It, In the Loop, and Veep. Now comes The Death of Stalin, a satirical look at the days after the death of Josef Stalin as the powers that be try to figure out not just their own place in things, but what the Soviet Union should be in the aftermath. Extremely funny, politically savvy and a lot of fun thanks to Steve Buscemi, Jeffrey Tambor and Jason Isaacs.
11. Upgrade: This was the movie Venom WANTED to be, a smart, visually-sharp, low-budget sci-fi/horror film about a paraplegic who gets the chance to not only walk again, but take vengeance for his lover's death when given an advanced neural microchip that does more than he expected. Logan Marshall-Green KILLS this role and shows that he's worthy of the same acclaim as his lookalike Tom Hardy gets. Seriously, this is the Venom film you were wanting!
10. The Guilty: This Danish film set entirely in a 911 dispatch is possibly one of the most stress-inducing, thought-provoking films I EVER seen. A film that will have you paying attention as much to what you hear as you do what you see and where some of the best performances come from over a telephone. Just when you think you know how this going to go, the film expertly beats you down for your arrogance. I. Love. This. Film.
9. The Favorite: Like Thoroughbreds, this film is simply mean and is unapologetic about it. This is the film I wanted for Yorgos Lathimos since seeing Dogtooth. It allows him to play to his strengths by placing the action in a setting where stilted acting and peculiar dialog makes perfect sense. The trifecta of Rachel Weitz, Emma Stone and Olivia Coleman makes award season so difficult as each performance requires the other to compliment it. The ending, as mean as it is, feels triumphant in a vicious way that left me contemplative. That's what the best films should do.
8. Eighth Grade: Bo Burnham's directorial debut is the film that Lady Bird SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Elsie Fischer's performance as an anxiety-driven preteen in an age of social media is perfect parts awkward and awful and easily one of my favorite performances of the year. She makes mistakes, poor decisions and yet you can't help but feel she's going to make it out just fine. And the film around her is observant yet compassionate. I cannot recommend this film enough to everyone.
7. Won't You Be My Neighbor?: Yet another film that EVERYONE should watch, but make sure you bring tissues. Fred Rogers is a true superhero who sought only to provide quality children's television to the masses, especially during the turbulent latter-half of the 20th century. This documentary is a loving tribute not only of the man, but of the mission Mr. Rogers championed. And if you don't feel a sense of something lost by the end of the film, please check your pulse.
6. Bad Times at the El Royale: Director Drew Goddard made a film so stylistic and labyrinthine that it cannot truly be appreciated until it is seen. Not just a simple crime drama or period piece, it's a deep character study of flawed people fighting inner-demons at a place designed to bring out the worst in themselves and others. This is the best Jeff Bridges since True Grit and Cynthia Erivo is nothing short of AMAZING in this film.
5. A Star is Born: Can a film be considered great simply off the chemistry of its lead actors? If you go by A Star is Born, then that answer is YES. Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga aren't just great, they're astronomically phenomenal a billion times over! Not just in their scenes together either, but during their scenes apart. The structure of the film is fine-tuned to create a roller-coaster relationship that we can both see as authentic and yet destructive. If you're not crying at the end, you're pretty damned close to it.
4. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse: This film was not supposed to be as good as it was. After the meh Infinity and the WAYYYY overrated Black Panther, I didn't expect to actually be moved by a Spider-Man film, much less an animated Spider-Man flick. Yet everything about this film is near-perfect; the action, the comedy, the characters, the visual look, the soundtrack, the voice cast, EVERYTHING. Like The Lego Movie before it, this changes the expectations of what animation is capable of and the kind of style animation can be used for.
3. Annihilation: This film came out last February and there hasn't been a month since that I have not thought about it. Alex Garland's follow-up to Ex Machina is just as cerebral, just as powerful as that film, though less likely to be a classic. And while Natalie Portman gives one of her best performances here, it's actually the supporting cast that is real shining stars of the film, specifically Gina Rodriguez who deeply impressed me. Visually stunning, otherworldly, and unnerving, the film's themes of self-destruction have yet to be mined thoroughly, yet I'm going to make an attempt pretty soon.
Okay, so before I go into my last two, I just need to say that these films are so good, I really cannot say which one is better than the other. Considering that they pretty much tackle the same issue, let's just call it a tie and leave it at that....
1. (Tie) Sorry to Bother You AND Blindspotting:
These films affected me in ways that I'm still trying to process, yet they do so in very different ways. Sorry to Bother You is a clear satire that is not just incredibly insightful for joyfully irreverent. This was the film I expected from Get Out. Lakeith Stanfield is a great protagonist who journeys his way into the heart of corporate America via telemarketing and along the way finds a disturbing secret to it all.
Blindspotting's premise of a former convict days away for getting off parole only to witness a cop shooting is part psychological drama and part Kevin Smith comedy. Daveed Diggs, as the main character, is EASILY the BEST PERFORMANCE of the year. Not only does he have several great Oscar-worthy scenes, but he manages to bounce back and forth from hard drama to screwball comedy is balancing act only a handful of actors are capable of doing.
Both are dealing with the black experience in America, yet do so in ways that are more proactive than reactive. These are not characters that have things done to them, but are doing things and making choices about their lives. While race plays significant parts in these films, they do not take up a majority of the film or become distracting from either of these films' goals. Both films transcend their respective genres and their directors Boots Riley and Carlos Lopez Estrada show clear promise of greatness to come.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Marvel's Wakanda Problem: Creating a Problematic Utopia
Marvel Studios has created an intricate universe of gods and monsters, faraway lands and made familiar landscapes anew. They've taken us to outer space, to realms of mythology, and most unrealistically a working United Nations. We've been given fantastic characters of supermen and women from everyday heroes given extraordinary powers to mere mortals with wits that can rival the most powerful foes.
The most recent entry into this pantheon is Black Panther (aka King T'Challa) from the land of Wakanda. His first stand-alone film gave us our first real glimpse of this hidden African nation settled near the heart of the forgotten continent, a place that has seen more than its share of struggle and strife, which is still going on to this day. While the film itself is in my humble opinion mediocre at best, my biggest problem with it comes with the creation of this idealized African nation, especially considering the heavily political nature of the film (which can easily be said to be the most political film in the MCU, bypassing Captain America: Civil War by several miles).
Let's start off by discussing the politics put forth by the film. The film actively calls out mistreatment of the descendants from Africa all across the world, first by the Transatlantic Slave Trade, then by racial prejudice that had seen countless murders and systemic terror. It makes the argument that Africa as a continent had not fully developed to its full potential due to European interference due to both slavery and colonization, which forced the various tribes into close proximity and rivalry through artificial lines being drawn marking conquered territories.
Now let's discuss the uniqueness of Wakanda in relation to the rest of Africa. Wakanda is a economic and military powerhouse that hides said power via holographic projectors and appearing to the world as a poor yet independent nation. Their key valuable resource is a mineral called Vibranium, whose properties are vastly stronger than other metals yet malleable enough to be used in the construction of buildings and manufactured goods. Their scientific knowledge surpasses even those of the outside world, save for possibly Tony Stark (aka Iron Man). The film makes it clear that these advancements come from the lack of outside influence, having successfully thwarted both slavery and colonization (much like Ethiopia) and it can be assumed that much of it was because of their harnessing of vibranium. Wakanda does export very little vibranium to the outside for other necessities, yet they foolishly tell the world their entire supply was stolen by a smuggler years before in order to keep their full supply from being found out. While the landscape is futuristic metropolitan, Wakanda is ruled by an absolute monarch whose rule is settled by an ancient rite of battle on a sacred waterfall. While we don't know a great deal about the reign of most of the Wakandan kings, we are lead to believe that the last two kings had been for the most part benign (more on that later).
We as the audience are lead to believe that Wakanda is a fantasy utopia, a relatively peaceful and prosperous nation whose needs are fully met and could rival the world if they wanted to. We could make comparisons to Marvel's other utopian nation, Asgard from the Thor mythology as they are both ruled by a king through relatively peaceful spans while holding otherworldly magic-like powers. Both have warrior classes whose renown are legendary. Both also hold dark secrets in their past. But there's also differences between the two. First off, Asgard is fully diverse with different ethnicities inhabiting it whereas Wakanda is mono ethnic. Asgard sees itself as the defender of other realms besides their own (Earth being part of Midgard) and comes to their aid when needed. Wakanda is entirely nationalistic, putting their safety and security above others, including their African neighbors.
Keep in mind that Wakanda held a technological superiority for thousands of years as was told in the opening of the film, yet their neighbors not only had to worry about the colonies and slave trade, but the even longer history of tribal warfare. Those tribes often murdered and enslaved each other, selling them to other tribes in the process. Not to mention the brutal expansion of Islam from the Middle East. As mentioned before, we aren't given a full history of Wakanda and perhaps as Thor did in its most recent installment, this could be addressed in future sequels. Considering that at the end of this film, Wakanda reveals itself to the world, this basically FORCES any future Black Panther sequels to address this or show a blatant bias that could stain Marvel's credibility for world-building. And personally speaking, this would a great move towards fully realizing the complex world Marvel has built, showing the both the wonder as well as the problems of the real world through their fantasy heroes.
Yet the filmmakers and critics alike have all but completely seemed to ignore the problems of the Wakanda we have seen so far. The "sins of the past" story line given to us by the film sugarcoat the problem. Yes, the film calls out that T'Challa's father was involved in the murder of his brother and abandoned his nephew out of fear of revealing Wakanda's technological advances. It does create an X-Men-like conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger as the Xavier and Magneto (respectively) of this story, two completely understandable positions, yet Killmonger's is more fully realized while T'Challa really doesn't explain why his position is better. Granted, Killmonger seems to be using his position as an excuse to gain control and to be a tyrant in his own right (just like Magneto), and Michael B. Jordan's performance shows us that his self-perceived righteous rage and ego have made him a monster.
This leads me to the contradiction of the film's view on blame and reconciliation. We're supposed to believe that modern-day European descendants should be held accountable for the sins of their forefathers, either through violent revolution via Killmonger or through shame as the film not-so-subtly does throughout the film. Yet Wakanda is only responsible for not getting involved in the modern time.
Again, this could be addressed in future films, but that would mean adapting the victim narrative that has been prominent in popular culture and accepting nuance in history that many people either can't accept or will flat-out refuse. They might even try ret-conning this entire plot point, but in doing so would lead to even more questions than the filmmakers are ready to answer.
Note: This commentary could be seen by some as being insensitive or holding offensive views. While that is not my intention for this commentary, I will accept any criticism I get for my opinion while stating vehemently that I do not hold racist biases or a Euro centric view of history. History is violent, ugly and rarely looks good on anyone. This is one of the problems of mixing history and fantasy, especially when politics are also present. That also said, I'm open to being convinced if I'm wrong, but that will have to be proven and open to rebuttal. Either way, thank you for reading.
The most recent entry into this pantheon is Black Panther (aka King T'Challa) from the land of Wakanda. His first stand-alone film gave us our first real glimpse of this hidden African nation settled near the heart of the forgotten continent, a place that has seen more than its share of struggle and strife, which is still going on to this day. While the film itself is in my humble opinion mediocre at best, my biggest problem with it comes with the creation of this idealized African nation, especially considering the heavily political nature of the film (which can easily be said to be the most political film in the MCU, bypassing Captain America: Civil War by several miles).
Let's start off by discussing the politics put forth by the film. The film actively calls out mistreatment of the descendants from Africa all across the world, first by the Transatlantic Slave Trade, then by racial prejudice that had seen countless murders and systemic terror. It makes the argument that Africa as a continent had not fully developed to its full potential due to European interference due to both slavery and colonization, which forced the various tribes into close proximity and rivalry through artificial lines being drawn marking conquered territories.
Now let's discuss the uniqueness of Wakanda in relation to the rest of Africa. Wakanda is a economic and military powerhouse that hides said power via holographic projectors and appearing to the world as a poor yet independent nation. Their key valuable resource is a mineral called Vibranium, whose properties are vastly stronger than other metals yet malleable enough to be used in the construction of buildings and manufactured goods. Their scientific knowledge surpasses even those of the outside world, save for possibly Tony Stark (aka Iron Man). The film makes it clear that these advancements come from the lack of outside influence, having successfully thwarted both slavery and colonization (much like Ethiopia) and it can be assumed that much of it was because of their harnessing of vibranium. Wakanda does export very little vibranium to the outside for other necessities, yet they foolishly tell the world their entire supply was stolen by a smuggler years before in order to keep their full supply from being found out. While the landscape is futuristic metropolitan, Wakanda is ruled by an absolute monarch whose rule is settled by an ancient rite of battle on a sacred waterfall. While we don't know a great deal about the reign of most of the Wakandan kings, we are lead to believe that the last two kings had been for the most part benign (more on that later).
We as the audience are lead to believe that Wakanda is a fantasy utopia, a relatively peaceful and prosperous nation whose needs are fully met and could rival the world if they wanted to. We could make comparisons to Marvel's other utopian nation, Asgard from the Thor mythology as they are both ruled by a king through relatively peaceful spans while holding otherworldly magic-like powers. Both have warrior classes whose renown are legendary. Both also hold dark secrets in their past. But there's also differences between the two. First off, Asgard is fully diverse with different ethnicities inhabiting it whereas Wakanda is mono ethnic. Asgard sees itself as the defender of other realms besides their own (Earth being part of Midgard) and comes to their aid when needed. Wakanda is entirely nationalistic, putting their safety and security above others, including their African neighbors.
Keep in mind that Wakanda held a technological superiority for thousands of years as was told in the opening of the film, yet their neighbors not only had to worry about the colonies and slave trade, but the even longer history of tribal warfare. Those tribes often murdered and enslaved each other, selling them to other tribes in the process. Not to mention the brutal expansion of Islam from the Middle East. As mentioned before, we aren't given a full history of Wakanda and perhaps as Thor did in its most recent installment, this could be addressed in future sequels. Considering that at the end of this film, Wakanda reveals itself to the world, this basically FORCES any future Black Panther sequels to address this or show a blatant bias that could stain Marvel's credibility for world-building. And personally speaking, this would a great move towards fully realizing the complex world Marvel has built, showing the both the wonder as well as the problems of the real world through their fantasy heroes.
Yet the filmmakers and critics alike have all but completely seemed to ignore the problems of the Wakanda we have seen so far. The "sins of the past" story line given to us by the film sugarcoat the problem. Yes, the film calls out that T'Challa's father was involved in the murder of his brother and abandoned his nephew out of fear of revealing Wakanda's technological advances. It does create an X-Men-like conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger as the Xavier and Magneto (respectively) of this story, two completely understandable positions, yet Killmonger's is more fully realized while T'Challa really doesn't explain why his position is better. Granted, Killmonger seems to be using his position as an excuse to gain control and to be a tyrant in his own right (just like Magneto), and Michael B. Jordan's performance shows us that his self-perceived righteous rage and ego have made him a monster.
This leads me to the contradiction of the film's view on blame and reconciliation. We're supposed to believe that modern-day European descendants should be held accountable for the sins of their forefathers, either through violent revolution via Killmonger or through shame as the film not-so-subtly does throughout the film. Yet Wakanda is only responsible for not getting involved in the modern time.
Again, this could be addressed in future films, but that would mean adapting the victim narrative that has been prominent in popular culture and accepting nuance in history that many people either can't accept or will flat-out refuse. They might even try ret-conning this entire plot point, but in doing so would lead to even more questions than the filmmakers are ready to answer.
Note: This commentary could be seen by some as being insensitive or holding offensive views. While that is not my intention for this commentary, I will accept any criticism I get for my opinion while stating vehemently that I do not hold racist biases or a Euro centric view of history. History is violent, ugly and rarely looks good on anyone. This is one of the problems of mixing history and fantasy, especially when politics are also present. That also said, I'm open to being convinced if I'm wrong, but that will have to be proven and open to rebuttal. Either way, thank you for reading.
Friday, June 16, 2017
Elizabeth Banks' BFG (Big F#@king Gaffe)
Let me start off by saying something I think I've said for nearly a decade now; I am a fan of Elizabeth Banks. I think she's an incredibly gifted actress and comedian, a cunning producer and is growing to be a confident director. I'm eager to hear more about her envisioned Charlie's Angels reboot and any other passion projects that she has envisioned.
Earlier this week, she received an award for being a prominent female figure in Hollywood and rightfully so in my opinion. In her acceptance speech, she made an impassioned plea to support more women directors and female-centered films. Then she decided to throw one of the most celebrated directors under the bus to make her point by proclaiming that Steven Spielberg had never made a film with prominent female leads. And almost as soon as the words left her mouth, the backlash came quick and hard (and in my honest opinion, rightfully so, but we'll get into that in just a moment). The problem with her argument was Spielberg has made several films with strong female leads, the one most noted by her critics being The Color Purple, which was nominated for many Academy Awards in 1985, including one (and rightfully so) for Whoopi Goldberg for her lead character. I won't get into the fact the other prominent supporting character was none other than Oprah Winfrey in what is my favorite character in the film who deserved to win all the awards. But even most of Banks' critics didn't bring up The Sugarland Express, which had a strong co-lead performance by Goldie Hahn, or even last year's The BFG, whose main protagonist is a little girl, which counters Banks' retraction when she addressed the criticism by saying he hasn't made any recently. And I would argue that both of his Jurassic Park films had strong co-leads in impressive ensemble casts.
Yet Banks' comment does leave me to think about a filmmaker's role in their choice of projects. Now it should be said that in the case of most film directors, they really don't have much choice in their projects, if they intend to stay employed at least. Those filmmakers who do have such leeway usually do because their work has garnered enough of a fanbase that they can reliably get people to come see their films. Spielberg as a director (not even touching upon his VAST producer credits) has the distinction of being a filmmaker who has been able to rally possibly one of the most diverse fanbases of all time given that he has done practically every genre of film ever created (including animation). The reason for this fanbase is because he chooses projects that he's passionate about and that passion is clear for all to see on the screen. Now let's for the sake of argument say that Spielberg is forced to make more films that are female-centered, feminist-approved, what happens if those films don't show the same amount of passion or that the fans don't come out to support and it flops (as was the case for The BFG)? Should Spielberg be punished for not doing enough? Where does this end? And bear in mind that VERY FEW directors have the level of autonomy that he does so this isn't something that can be replicated to other filmmakers.
Should there be more diverse voices and faces in Hollywood? I firmly agree there should as long as there is an audience that wants and is willing to pay money for such things. As a filmgoer with 2 of my 10 most anticipated films of the summer being directed by women (for those who want to know, Sophia Coppola's version of The Beguiled and Kathryn Bigelow's Detroit), I understand Banks' overall message and agree to an extent. No one has a right to a fanbase but they do have a right to create that fanbase and to make a career cultivating that fanbase. And if a specific woman has a unique vision and can assure that this vision can turn a profit, give her the opportunity to show what she's got. Banks seemed to forget the Spielberg didn't start off with this position he currently holds, and that he too had to struggle to eventually get to the place he has now. And I'm going off the assumption she forgot because otherwise she'd have to be dishonest and I want to think more highly of her.
Earlier this week, she received an award for being a prominent female figure in Hollywood and rightfully so in my opinion. In her acceptance speech, she made an impassioned plea to support more women directors and female-centered films. Then she decided to throw one of the most celebrated directors under the bus to make her point by proclaiming that Steven Spielberg had never made a film with prominent female leads. And almost as soon as the words left her mouth, the backlash came quick and hard (and in my honest opinion, rightfully so, but we'll get into that in just a moment). The problem with her argument was Spielberg has made several films with strong female leads, the one most noted by her critics being The Color Purple, which was nominated for many Academy Awards in 1985, including one (and rightfully so) for Whoopi Goldberg for her lead character. I won't get into the fact the other prominent supporting character was none other than Oprah Winfrey in what is my favorite character in the film who deserved to win all the awards. But even most of Banks' critics didn't bring up The Sugarland Express, which had a strong co-lead performance by Goldie Hahn, or even last year's The BFG, whose main protagonist is a little girl, which counters Banks' retraction when she addressed the criticism by saying he hasn't made any recently. And I would argue that both of his Jurassic Park films had strong co-leads in impressive ensemble casts.
Yet Banks' comment does leave me to think about a filmmaker's role in their choice of projects. Now it should be said that in the case of most film directors, they really don't have much choice in their projects, if they intend to stay employed at least. Those filmmakers who do have such leeway usually do because their work has garnered enough of a fanbase that they can reliably get people to come see their films. Spielberg as a director (not even touching upon his VAST producer credits) has the distinction of being a filmmaker who has been able to rally possibly one of the most diverse fanbases of all time given that he has done practically every genre of film ever created (including animation). The reason for this fanbase is because he chooses projects that he's passionate about and that passion is clear for all to see on the screen. Now let's for the sake of argument say that Spielberg is forced to make more films that are female-centered, feminist-approved, what happens if those films don't show the same amount of passion or that the fans don't come out to support and it flops (as was the case for The BFG)? Should Spielberg be punished for not doing enough? Where does this end? And bear in mind that VERY FEW directors have the level of autonomy that he does so this isn't something that can be replicated to other filmmakers.
Should there be more diverse voices and faces in Hollywood? I firmly agree there should as long as there is an audience that wants and is willing to pay money for such things. As a filmgoer with 2 of my 10 most anticipated films of the summer being directed by women (for those who want to know, Sophia Coppola's version of The Beguiled and Kathryn Bigelow's Detroit), I understand Banks' overall message and agree to an extent. No one has a right to a fanbase but they do have a right to create that fanbase and to make a career cultivating that fanbase. And if a specific woman has a unique vision and can assure that this vision can turn a profit, give her the opportunity to show what she's got. Banks seemed to forget the Spielberg didn't start off with this position he currently holds, and that he too had to struggle to eventually get to the place he has now. And I'm going off the assumption she forgot because otherwise she'd have to be dishonest and I want to think more highly of her.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Contemplating The Red Pill
Two years ago, I found myself looking into GamerGate, a cultural conflict revolving around video games. Before looking into this, I would have considered myself if not a complete feminist, then a supporter of feminism for the purposes of creating gender equality. But during my conversations with both sides of the conflict (as feminists came down en masse against the movement), I found that feminism wasn't as clear-cut as I had been taught it was. Perhaps that is why I found myself rather interested when I heard about The Red Pill from an Arthouse Legends listener who requested that we do the film (as the critical response has not been passing for the film, it doesn't meet the criteria so don't be expecting that episode any time soon). But my interest was piqued and so when it became available, I made sure to give it a watch.
I want to discuss this film in two mind frames; the first being as a film enthusiast that is impartial to the film's message, the other as a politically-interested individual who has looked at both sides of the issue and how this film stacks up from what I've read and seen on the issue (which is quite extensive):
I want to discuss this film in two mind frames; the first being as a film enthusiast that is impartial to the film's message, the other as a politically-interested individual who has looked at both sides of the issue and how this film stacks up from what I've read and seen on the issue (which is quite extensive):
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)