Through writing reviews I found that having a strong opinion on something helps me write. So, even though many times I didn't feel as strongly as I appeared to in my review, I wrote that way because it helped me get my thoughts out. I don't know if I like this, because I feel phony on the page, but at the same time if I didn't at least feel part of what I put into the review then I wouldn't be able to write it.
I went through a lot of this fake writing with my final piece. Even though I really loved my idea about stereotypes in children's television, I found myself writing a really feminist paper, which is strange for me. Although I don't hate feminists, I generally feel like they take small examples and blow them up into bigger deals than they are. During workshops in class I told my group how I felt and they suggested giving both sides of the story: how stereotypes affect boys and girls, instead of just girls. This idea was probably what I gained most from the workshops, and I was really pleased when they could understand where I was coming from and offer me a solution.
The workshops were probably my favorite part of class because I was more able to talk with the small group than I am with the whole class. At the beginning of the quarter I wrote that one of my goals was to talk more in class, and I'd say I failed. I'm not really sure why I find it so hard to talk in class, it's not that I'm not paying attention or not interested, but I think that I take a longer time to form an opinion on anything so when I have something to say, we've already moved onto a different topic. Either that, or I don't feel like I have enough authority on anything or know enough about music or art or film to make a statement that I feel comfortable with.
Because I spent so much time reading the newspaper this quarter, I realized that I really want to read more. Not necessarily the arts section, or even the newspaper, but I just miss reading for pleasure. With all of the homework I constantly feel like I'm catching up on I never have a chance to just sit down with a book, and I plan to make a real effort to do that next quarter.
I also realized that I must have a strict deadline to get anything done. In my other classes the teachers offer a 3% grade drop for each day late, which just allows me to procrastinate longer and longer. I need to set real deadlines for myself if I'm ever going to get anything done.
While watching some of the films for this class, I found myself evaluating the meaning and different elements of cinematography or mise-en-scene to support various arguments made about a film. Instead of critiquing a film, I wanted to evaluate it. From high school I learned how to write AP Literature papers that only analyzed, not criticized. It's one thing to be able to write a mean analytical essay, and another to be able to write a mean any kind of paper. Diversifying my writing style and abilities was another difficult but rewarding aspect of this course.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Educational Television: Missing the Mark on Morals (Final Piece)
When young, children internalize much of the world around them as they learn to become a person in society. Television programs for 2 to 5 year olds emphasize this aspect of childhood by featuring various lessons in each program: what is right and wrong, the consequences of lying, and how to share, as well as other basic knowledge like numbers or the alphabet. However, some underlying messages conveyed by these shows are more detrimental than beneficial to a child's social skills.
Television is so much more important than other media like books or movies because of its accessibility and abuse. Studies show that preschoolers spend an average of nearly 30 hours a week watching television, and start watching television from even 18 months old, making it a primary influence on the development of children.
Teresa Thompson in "Television Cartoons" suggests that in older cartoons female characters "needed to be rescued, caused trouble, talked less, worked in the home, and tended to fall in love at first sight." Consider the overt sexism in shows like "The Loony Tunes," where almost all characters are male and Bugs Bunny often dressed as a woman to distract Elmer Fudd; or "Animaniacs" who shout "Hellooooo, nurse!"
to the woman in a white dress, cinched at the waist to show off her bodacious body; or worst of all Jessica Rabbit in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" clad in a backless red dress with a slit up the side revealing most of her legs and huge knockers: cartoons have come a long way in recognizing females as equals, but not long enough.
Sex roles differ in various ways in children's television: In the amount of appearances in either leading or supporting roles, in the way characters act, or in the traits of characters. Statistically, males are not only featured more in leading roles than females, but also in supporting roles throughout all of television, not only children's shows.
"The Wiggles," a music and dance based show, features four grown men, Greg, Jeff, Murray, and Anthony as they sing and dance in silly costumes expecting children at home to join in. The music videos often show young women, always clad in dresses and high heels, as background dancers for The Wiggles. The only female character with dialogue is the yellow and green dinosaur, Dorothy, who lives in a purple and pink house eating roses and dancing ballet. Although a wildly popular show, the lack of not only female equality but any female roles in "The Wiggles" leaves the impression of some concerning messages.
Another long-lasting and popular show, "Barney and Friends," also sends some troublesome messages, though not nearly as controversial as those of "The Wiggles." Although "Barney and Friends" features children of all races and sexes, the actions of respective genders are often stereotypical. Kimberly Powell exemplifies these instances in her essay, "Sex-Role Stereotypes in TV Programs": in one episode, women in a family keep a quilt that they pass down from generation to generation; in another, children name their favorite animal and boys say lions and bears while girls say teddy bears and kitties. Although not as obvious as the differences in sex-roles in "The Wiggles," these gender differences shown in everyday scenarios cause children to expect certain actions and responses from each sex.
A more modern show, "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" broadcast through Nick Jr. has gained popularity since its 2006 debut. Wubbzy, a yellow half-gerbil half-rectangle creature stars the show with his pals, Widget, Walden, and Daizy. Walden, the other male creature is a purple bear who, according to the catchy theme song, is "really, really smart!" He often finds solutions, sometimes even to problems created by other characters. In one episode, Widget, the female pink bunny who likes to fix things, fixed the engine of the train, but when the train went too fast and couldn't stop, Wubbzy pulls the pin to the trailing cars,
allowing the other passengers to slow to a safe stop, and Walden reads the manual of the train while Widget sits helpless. Daizy, as suggested by her name, is a turquoise girly-girl puppy. She likes dressing up, sewing, and decorating. Once, when Daizy tries to tell Wubbzy that she can sing in his band, Wubbzy belittles her unintentionally by asking her first to decorate the stage and then to make the band costumes. Even in modern cartoons, males focus on problem solving and intelligence while females focus on flowers and decoration.
Finally, "Bob the Builder" stars Bob and his assistant Wendy. Although the secretary, Wendy is often more of the problem solver than Bob and actually shows herself to be more of a leader than her builder friend. Wendy is not only Bob's equal, but in many ways superior to him suggesting an equality between males and females. However, although equal in merit of personality traits, Bob is still the main character, and Wendy just his assistant, suggesting true inequality and prejudice.
Not only do these sex stereotypes leave a lasting influence on girls and how they should act when they are older, but they also influence boys and the way that they think they should interact with girls. Society cannot expect men to treat women with equality when television treats boys as superior to girls. Although television no longer exploits women like Jessica Rabbit, tones of sexism are still present and will continue having a negative effect on children.
Images from skee4all.files.wordpress.com/ and granades.com/wordpress/
Television is so much more important than other media like books or movies because of its accessibility and abuse. Studies show that preschoolers spend an average of nearly 30 hours a week watching television, and start watching television from even 18 months old, making it a primary influence on the development of children.
Teresa Thompson in "Television Cartoons" suggests that in older cartoons female characters "needed to be rescued, caused trouble, talked less, worked in the home, and tended to fall in love at first sight." Consider the overt sexism in shows like "The Loony Tunes," where almost all characters are male and Bugs Bunny often dressed as a woman to distract Elmer Fudd; or "Animaniacs" who shout "Hellooooo, nurse!"
to the woman in a white dress, cinched at the waist to show off her bodacious body; or worst of all Jessica Rabbit in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" clad in a backless red dress with a slit up the side revealing most of her legs and huge knockers: cartoons have come a long way in recognizing females as equals, but not long enough.Sex roles differ in various ways in children's television: In the amount of appearances in either leading or supporting roles, in the way characters act, or in the traits of characters. Statistically, males are not only featured more in leading roles than females, but also in supporting roles throughout all of television, not only children's shows.
"The Wiggles," a music and dance based show, features four grown men, Greg, Jeff, Murray, and Anthony as they sing and dance in silly costumes expecting children at home to join in. The music videos often show young women, always clad in dresses and high heels, as background dancers for The Wiggles. The only female character with dialogue is the yellow and green dinosaur, Dorothy, who lives in a purple and pink house eating roses and dancing ballet. Although a wildly popular show, the lack of not only female equality but any female roles in "The Wiggles" leaves the impression of some concerning messages.
Another long-lasting and popular show, "Barney and Friends," also sends some troublesome messages, though not nearly as controversial as those of "The Wiggles." Although "Barney and Friends" features children of all races and sexes, the actions of respective genders are often stereotypical. Kimberly Powell exemplifies these instances in her essay, "Sex-Role Stereotypes in TV Programs": in one episode, women in a family keep a quilt that they pass down from generation to generation; in another, children name their favorite animal and boys say lions and bears while girls say teddy bears and kitties. Although not as obvious as the differences in sex-roles in "The Wiggles," these gender differences shown in everyday scenarios cause children to expect certain actions and responses from each sex.
A more modern show, "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" broadcast through Nick Jr. has gained popularity since its 2006 debut. Wubbzy, a yellow half-gerbil half-rectangle creature stars the show with his pals, Widget, Walden, and Daizy. Walden, the other male creature is a purple bear who, according to the catchy theme song, is "really, really smart!" He often finds solutions, sometimes even to problems created by other characters. In one episode, Widget, the female pink bunny who likes to fix things, fixed the engine of the train, but when the train went too fast and couldn't stop, Wubbzy pulls the pin to the trailing cars,
allowing the other passengers to slow to a safe stop, and Walden reads the manual of the train while Widget sits helpless. Daizy, as suggested by her name, is a turquoise girly-girl puppy. She likes dressing up, sewing, and decorating. Once, when Daizy tries to tell Wubbzy that she can sing in his band, Wubbzy belittles her unintentionally by asking her first to decorate the stage and then to make the band costumes. Even in modern cartoons, males focus on problem solving and intelligence while females focus on flowers and decoration.Finally, "Bob the Builder" stars Bob and his assistant Wendy. Although the secretary, Wendy is often more of the problem solver than Bob and actually shows herself to be more of a leader than her builder friend. Wendy is not only Bob's equal, but in many ways superior to him suggesting an equality between males and females. However, although equal in merit of personality traits, Bob is still the main character, and Wendy just his assistant, suggesting true inequality and prejudice.
Not only do these sex stereotypes leave a lasting influence on girls and how they should act when they are older, but they also influence boys and the way that they think they should interact with girls. Society cannot expect men to treat women with equality when television treats boys as superior to girls. Although television no longer exploits women like Jessica Rabbit, tones of sexism are still present and will continue having a negative effect on children.
Images from skee4all.files.wordpress.com/ and granades.com/wordpress/
Final Piece: 1st Draft
When young, children internalize much of the world around them as they learn to become a person in society. Television programs for 2 to 5 year olds emphasize this aspect of childhood by featuring various lessons in each program: what is right and wrong, the consequences of lying, and how to share, as well as other basic knowledge like numbers or the alphabet. However, some underlying messages conveyed by these shows are more detrimental to a child's social skills than beneficial.
Television is so much more important than other media like books or movies because of its accessibility and abuse. Studies show that preschoolers spend an average of nearly 30 hours a week watching television, and start watching television from even 18 months old, making it a primary influence on the development of children.
Teresa Thompson in "Television Cartoons" suggests that in older cartoons female characters "needed to be rescued, caused trouble, talked less, worked in the home, and tended to fall in love at first sight." Considering the overt sexism in shows like "The Loony Tunes," where almost all characters are male and Bugs Bunny often dressed as a woman to distract Elmer Fudd, cartoons have come a long way in recognizing females as equals, but not long enough.
Gender roles differ in various ways in children's television: In the amount of appearances in either leading or supporting roles, in the way characters act, or in the traits of characters. Statistically, males are not only featured more in leading roles than women, but also in supporting roles throughout all of television, not only children's shows.
"The Wiggles," a music and dance based show, features four grown men, Greg, Jeff, Murray, and Anthony as they sing and dance in silly costumes expecting children at home to join in. The music videos often show young women, always clad in dresses and high heels, as background dancers for The Wiggles. The only female character with dialogue is the yellow and green dinosaur, Dorothy, who lives in a purple and pink house eating roses and dancing ballet. Although a wildly popular show, the lack of not only female equality but downright females in "The Wiggles" leaves the impression of some concerning messages.
Another long-lasting and popular show, "Barney and Friends," also sends some troublesome messages, though not nearly as controversial as those of "The Wiggles." Although "Barney and Friends" features children of all races and sexes, the actions of respective genders are often stereotypical. Kimberly Powell exemplifies these instances in her essay, "Sex-Role Stereotypes in TV Programs": in one episode, women in a family keep a quilt that they pass down from generation to generation; in another, children name their favorite animal and boys say lions and bears while girls say teddy bears and kitties. Although not as obvious as the differences in sex-roles in "The Wiggles," these gender differences shown in everyday scenarios cause children to expect certain actions and responses from each sex.
A more modern show, "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" broadcast through Nick Jr. has gained popularity since its 2006 debut. Wubbzy, a yellow half-gerbil half-rectangle creature stars the show with his pals, Widget, Walden, and Daizy. Walden, the other male creature is a purple bear who, according to the catchy theme song, is "really, really smart!" He often finds solutions, sometimes even to problems created by other characters. In one episode, Widget, the female pink bunny who likes to fix things, fixed the engine of the train, but when the train went too fast and couldn't stop, Wubbzy pulls the pin to the trailing cars, allowing the other passengers to slow to a safe stop, and Walden reads the manual of the train while Widget sits helpless. Daizy, as suggested by her name, is a turquoise girly-girl puppy. She likes to dress up, sewing, and decorating. Once, when Daizy tries to tell Wubbzy that she can sing in his band, Wubbzy belittles her unintentionally by asking her first to decorate the stage and then to make the band costumes. Even in modern cartoons, males focus on problem solving and intelligence while females focus on flowers and decoration.
Finally, "Bob the Builder" stars Bob and his assistant Wendy. Although the secretary, Wendy is often more of the problem solver than Bob and actually shows herself to be more of a leader than her builder friend. Wendy is not only Bob's equal, but in many ways superior to him suggesting an equality between males and females. However, although equal in merit of personality traits, Bob is still the main character, and Wendy just his assistant, suggesting true inequality and prejudice.
Although children's television no longer exploits women like "The Animaniacs" or "Rodger Rabbit," tones of sexism are still present, and will continue to influence children in a negative light.
Television is so much more important than other media like books or movies because of its accessibility and abuse. Studies show that preschoolers spend an average of nearly 30 hours a week watching television, and start watching television from even 18 months old, making it a primary influence on the development of children.
Teresa Thompson in "Television Cartoons" suggests that in older cartoons female characters "needed to be rescued, caused trouble, talked less, worked in the home, and tended to fall in love at first sight." Considering the overt sexism in shows like "The Loony Tunes," where almost all characters are male and Bugs Bunny often dressed as a woman to distract Elmer Fudd, cartoons have come a long way in recognizing females as equals, but not long enough.
Gender roles differ in various ways in children's television: In the amount of appearances in either leading or supporting roles, in the way characters act, or in the traits of characters. Statistically, males are not only featured more in leading roles than women, but also in supporting roles throughout all of television, not only children's shows.
"The Wiggles," a music and dance based show, features four grown men, Greg, Jeff, Murray, and Anthony as they sing and dance in silly costumes expecting children at home to join in. The music videos often show young women, always clad in dresses and high heels, as background dancers for The Wiggles. The only female character with dialogue is the yellow and green dinosaur, Dorothy, who lives in a purple and pink house eating roses and dancing ballet. Although a wildly popular show, the lack of not only female equality but downright females in "The Wiggles" leaves the impression of some concerning messages.
Another long-lasting and popular show, "Barney and Friends," also sends some troublesome messages, though not nearly as controversial as those of "The Wiggles." Although "Barney and Friends" features children of all races and sexes, the actions of respective genders are often stereotypical. Kimberly Powell exemplifies these instances in her essay, "Sex-Role Stereotypes in TV Programs": in one episode, women in a family keep a quilt that they pass down from generation to generation; in another, children name their favorite animal and boys say lions and bears while girls say teddy bears and kitties. Although not as obvious as the differences in sex-roles in "The Wiggles," these gender differences shown in everyday scenarios cause children to expect certain actions and responses from each sex.
A more modern show, "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" broadcast through Nick Jr. has gained popularity since its 2006 debut. Wubbzy, a yellow half-gerbil half-rectangle creature stars the show with his pals, Widget, Walden, and Daizy. Walden, the other male creature is a purple bear who, according to the catchy theme song, is "really, really smart!" He often finds solutions, sometimes even to problems created by other characters. In one episode, Widget, the female pink bunny who likes to fix things, fixed the engine of the train, but when the train went too fast and couldn't stop, Wubbzy pulls the pin to the trailing cars, allowing the other passengers to slow to a safe stop, and Walden reads the manual of the train while Widget sits helpless. Daizy, as suggested by her name, is a turquoise girly-girl puppy. She likes to dress up, sewing, and decorating. Once, when Daizy tries to tell Wubbzy that she can sing in his band, Wubbzy belittles her unintentionally by asking her first to decorate the stage and then to make the band costumes. Even in modern cartoons, males focus on problem solving and intelligence while females focus on flowers and decoration.
Finally, "Bob the Builder" stars Bob and his assistant Wendy. Although the secretary, Wendy is often more of the problem solver than Bob and actually shows herself to be more of a leader than her builder friend. Wendy is not only Bob's equal, but in many ways superior to him suggesting an equality between males and females. However, although equal in merit of personality traits, Bob is still the main character, and Wendy just his assistant, suggesting true inequality and prejudice.
Although children's television no longer exploits women like "The Animaniacs" or "Rodger Rabbit," tones of sexism are still present, and will continue to influence children in a negative light.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Jeff Bridges: Bridging the Great and the Unoriginal
"Crazy Heart" tells the story of a washed out Bad Blake, played by Jeff Bridges, struggling with love, age, and alcoholism. Director Scott Cooper makes no attempts to glorify the alcoholic, showing Bridges as a sweaty, vomiting, shirtless mess.
This repulsive view of Blake, though true to the image of an alcoholic, makes the romantic relationship between Bad Blake and Jean Craddock, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, unbelievable. Gyllenhaal, although somewhat unattractive, is still presented in stark contrast to Blake as a young, successful reporter often clad in camisoles to reveal part of her bra. This polarity makes for awkward chemistry between the two that creates an overall uncomfortable feel.
Blake's interactions with Jean's son, Buddy, however, are more genuine. Bad Blake plays cards with Buddy, teaches him how to play paper football, and even pushes him on the swing with a crutch after a recent accident.
However, cliché shows its head when Blake takes Buddy to a bar and loses him. Gyllenhaal's reaction, though not exactly calm and collected, comes across as much less panicked and angry than expected of a mother proving Gyllenhaal's inability to play anything other than a teary, timorous woman.
The film is riddled with various unrealistic and cliché scenes, including a car crash from falling asleep at the wheel and most of Blake's recovery from alcoholism. Just as blatantly as Blake's doctor tells him, "You're an alcoholic," Blake tells his friend Wayne, "I want to get sober." Not only does Blake get into recovery immediately, but afterward, he shows no sign of relapse, unlikely for a newly recovered alcoholic. Although Blake's alcoholism was showed realistically, his recovery is questionable.
The film redeems itself through the original music performed both by Bridges and Colin Farrell, playing Tommy Sweet. Winning an Oscar, the songs like "Falling and Flying" and "The Weary Kind" were some of the only original parts of the film.
Tommy Sweet, the country music star guided by Blake some time ago, now overshadows Blake in the country music world. The relationship between the two is, once again, unoriginal: Sweet asks Blake to open for his show, and Blake as the obviously more talented artist grudgingly accepts. In a restaurant, a man asks Tommy Sweet for his autograph and though he accepts, Sweet tells the man that Blake's signature is worth more.
Farrell's character, though meant to introduce more complexities into Bad Blake's life, only muddles it.
"Crazy Heart" as a whole is unoriginal and forgettable, but Jeff Bridge's acting, winning him an Oscar, saves the movie but cannot make it great.
Friday, March 12, 2010
A Glamorous Night Honoring Only the Big Shots
The Academy Awards is one of the most important nights in Hollywood, dedicated to recognizing the greatest accomplishments in film each year and honoring those who accomplished them.
This year, instead of giving time to acceptance speeches, winners were told to save it for the back stage thank-you-cam to allot for time for a laughable—but not funny—opening musical number by Neil Patrick Harris, a tribute to horror film (questionably including an Edward Scissorhands clip), and an explanation of the definition and importance of short films and Sound Editing. Oh, and plenty of bad jokes from hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin.
"The New Tenants" directors, winning the award for Live Action Short Film, were the first to get cut off. After Joachim Back finished his speech his partner, Tivi Magnusson moved to the microphone for his share of the speech only to be interrupted by the orchestra.
Later, Juan Jose Campanella winning for Best Foreign Language Film humorously thanked the Academy for "not considering Na'vi a foreign language" only to shout, "Oh no! Countdown!" a few seconds later as the clock was ticking on the final seconds of his short speech.
Much time was spent on the awards for Best Actor and Best Actress with speeches about the character and personality of each nominee by a colleague before the actual award was even given. The segment could have been more of a great honor and less of an ego stroking if only it had been shorter. Instead, its contrast with the limited speeches of the less famous winners made the act ostentatious.
Jeff Bridges' acceptance speech for his Best Actor win in "Crazy Heart" took the audience back to the days of his role in "The Big Lebowski" as the Dude when he thanked his parents for getting him into a "groovy profession" and said "man" a lot.
For her role in "The Blind Side" Sandra Bullock won Best Actress. Her acceptance speech was the best of the night. She starts by asking, "Did I really earn this, or did I just wear y'all down?" and continues by paying tribute to all of her competitors and moms everywhere.
Although she didn't win, actress Gabourey Sidibe was represented by Oprah Winfrey during the Best Actress speeches for her role in "Precious." Winfrey calls Sidibe an "American Cinderella" and concluded by saying "Precious is the first of many adjectives coming your way."
The biggest upset of the night was the announcement of "The Hurt Locker" as winner of Best Picture when predictions were highly in favor of "Avatar." Not only did "The Hurt Locker" win Best Picture but Kathryn Bigelow made Academy Award history as the first woman to win Best Director, rather than Bigelow's ex-husband James Cameron.
Full of bad jokes and plenty of tributes, this year's Oscars goes to show that the highest grossing film isn't always the best, high school actresses can be just as good as any star, and the greatest entertainers in America can be fairly unentertaining.
This year, instead of giving time to acceptance speeches, winners were told to save it for the back stage thank-you-cam to allot for time for a laughable—but not funny—opening musical number by Neil Patrick Harris, a tribute to horror film (questionably including an Edward Scissorhands clip), and an explanation of the definition and importance of short films and Sound Editing. Oh, and plenty of bad jokes from hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin.
"The New Tenants" directors, winning the award for Live Action Short Film, were the first to get cut off. After Joachim Back finished his speech his partner, Tivi Magnusson moved to the microphone for his share of the speech only to be interrupted by the orchestra.
Later, Juan Jose Campanella winning for Best Foreign Language Film humorously thanked the Academy for "not considering Na'vi a foreign language" only to shout, "Oh no! Countdown!" a few seconds later as the clock was ticking on the final seconds of his short speech.
Much time was spent on the awards for Best Actor and Best Actress with speeches about the character and personality of each nominee by a colleague before the actual award was even given. The segment could have been more of a great honor and less of an ego stroking if only it had been shorter. Instead, its contrast with the limited speeches of the less famous winners made the act ostentatious.
Jeff Bridges' acceptance speech for his Best Actor win in "Crazy Heart" took the audience back to the days of his role in "The Big Lebowski" as the Dude when he thanked his parents for getting him into a "groovy profession" and said "man" a lot.
For her role in "The Blind Side" Sandra Bullock won Best Actress. Her acceptance speech was the best of the night. She starts by asking, "Did I really earn this, or did I just wear y'all down?" and continues by paying tribute to all of her competitors and moms everywhere.
Although she didn't win, actress Gabourey Sidibe was represented by Oprah Winfrey during the Best Actress speeches for her role in "Precious." Winfrey calls Sidibe an "American Cinderella" and concluded by saying "Precious is the first of many adjectives coming your way."
The biggest upset of the night was the announcement of "The Hurt Locker" as winner of Best Picture when predictions were highly in favor of "Avatar." Not only did "The Hurt Locker" win Best Picture but Kathryn Bigelow made Academy Award history as the first woman to win Best Director, rather than Bigelow's ex-husband James Cameron.
Full of bad jokes and plenty of tributes, this year's Oscars goes to show that the highest grossing film isn't always the best, high school actresses can be just as good as any star, and the greatest entertainers in America can be fairly unentertaining.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Midwest RAD Fest: Not So Rad
Friday night was snowy and cold from the winter storm yet the small Wellspring Theater in the Epic Center was packed. The Midwest Regional Alternative Dance Festival—playfully dubbed the Midwest RAD Fest—started with a disappointing initial concert, featuring five separate routines. The bottom level of seating became the stage, allowing the audience a detailed view of all dancers, and this attention to detail is where the dancers fell short.
The group performances were out of sync, and the multiple thumps during landings made that obvious. The choreography, instead of allowing dancers to work together, only allowed each person to dance individually without hitting others in the group.
Corrine Imberski, in her solo performance, danced mechanically in a spot light on one side of the stage, broke away to dance more freely, then danced the same mechanical dance on the opposite side of the stage, as if dancing for only one half of the audience at once. With such a small stage and a small theater, the format didn't make much sense.
The duet, with Michael Miller and Francesca Pileci-Bates, was a dance of two halves: the first featuring slow acrobatic lifts and tumbles, the second featuring many of the same moves but faster with more upbeat music. Although the second half was enjoyable, the slow motion of the first half caused shaking, straining muscles since their actions had little momentum behind them. Many moves left them unbalanced and such faults were distracting, overwhelming the performance. Also distracting was the age difference between Pileci-Bates and Miller, she being much older than him.
If any of the dancers used their faces to convey a feeling, it was pain (and probably unintentional, too). Otherwise, the faces were blank or bored, and at the end of each performance no one looked pleased with his or her performance.
The final performance, "At This Very Moment Breaking," wasn't even supposed to be performed, but was the replacement for a dance by Barbara Mahler who couldn't come due to inclement weather. This piece, danced to sounds of water dripping made into music, was an incredible performance and by far the most enjoyable of the night—not only for the audience, but for the dancers, too.
Replacing strained and pained with excited, these dancers wore a smile throughout the performance that told the audience that they knew what they were doing, they enjoyed dancing this piece, and they were proud of how well they did it. Many of the dancers had been in one of the previous features of the night, yet were completely transformed this fun, upbeat presentation choreographed by Cori Terry.
The group performances were out of sync, and the multiple thumps during landings made that obvious. The choreography, instead of allowing dancers to work together, only allowed each person to dance individually without hitting others in the group.
Corrine Imberski, in her solo performance, danced mechanically in a spot light on one side of the stage, broke away to dance more freely, then danced the same mechanical dance on the opposite side of the stage, as if dancing for only one half of the audience at once. With such a small stage and a small theater, the format didn't make much sense.
The duet, with Michael Miller and Francesca Pileci-Bates, was a dance of two halves: the first featuring slow acrobatic lifts and tumbles, the second featuring many of the same moves but faster with more upbeat music. Although the second half was enjoyable, the slow motion of the first half caused shaking, straining muscles since their actions had little momentum behind them. Many moves left them unbalanced and such faults were distracting, overwhelming the performance. Also distracting was the age difference between Pileci-Bates and Miller, she being much older than him.
If any of the dancers used their faces to convey a feeling, it was pain (and probably unintentional, too). Otherwise, the faces were blank or bored, and at the end of each performance no one looked pleased with his or her performance.
The final performance, "At This Very Moment Breaking," wasn't even supposed to be performed, but was the replacement for a dance by Barbara Mahler who couldn't come due to inclement weather. This piece, danced to sounds of water dripping made into music, was an incredible performance and by far the most enjoyable of the night—not only for the audience, but for the dancers, too.
Replacing strained and pained with excited, these dancers wore a smile throughout the performance that told the audience that they knew what they were doing, they enjoyed dancing this piece, and they were proud of how well they did it. Many of the dancers had been in one of the previous features of the night, yet were completely transformed this fun, upbeat presentation choreographed by Cori Terry.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Final Piece Pitch
I intend to write my final piece on gender roles in children's television shows. As a babysitter and older sister I find myself watching a lot of television intended for children of ages from 2 to 13, and although I'm not intricately knowledgeable of any of them, I know most of the major plot points. I'm not sure if I should aim more toward 2-6 age shows or 6-13 age shows, because although the older shows involve more typical gender profiling—girly girls and tough, rowdy boys—younger television shows have a greater impact on the child, and may be a more important topic.
For young children's television shows I could use programs like "Higglytown Heroes," "Maya and Miguel," and "Max and Ruby." For older children's television shows I could use examples from "6teen," "The Suite Life of Zack and Cody," and "iCarly."
The way girls and boys are portrayed in children's television shows has a great impact on how children expect each gender to act and interact with one another. Expectations and presumptions formulated early in childhood carry on throughout life and determine the way these future adults will treat each other. Kids are most susceptible to things they see on TV and therefore the ideas conveyed through television shows are an important part of children's development: it is important that those ideas be constructive and equal rather than sexist.
Pauline Kael Revision
A Criticism of Kael's Criticism
Pauline Kael, one of the most famous and influential film critics, abandoned her intentions of law school to pursue her passion for writing. Her writing is as enthusiastic as her love for movies, and her knowledge of movies, actors, and directors was vast. Her taste was for lowbrow art, her writing is anything but academic, and her opinions often differed drastically from much of the critical world. For all of these reasons I should—and want to—love Pauline Kael and her independent spirit, but I do not.
Kael's vulgar, repetitive vocabulary does not bother me: the "whore" and the "trash" and the "horny" do not phase my teenage mind in the current era of violence and profanities. Her individualistic opinions do not tarnish my image of her. Even her belligerent attitude toward popular films, given her tendency to pan films, "She hardly praises a movie any more," Renata Adler writes in "House Critic," does not bother me.
Pauline Kael's snobbish and conceited attitude toward her audience is repulsive. Thinking herself a lover of movies more than anyone else Kael quoted in Afterglow, a book of interviews prepared by jazz critic Francis Davis, "I always assumed that movies had meant as much to them as they did to me. But they hadn't." And although no one can contest Kael's love for film, she uses this admiration as a justification to speak as the most knowledgeable person in regards to movies. She writes, "But, oh, God, why isn't it better? Why isn't there the daring and the exaltation that our senses fairly cry out for?" speaking on behalf of all audience members and their senses, as if her opinion is that of a constant truth.
In addition to criticizing films in her reviews, specifically "Hiroshima Mon Amour," Kael criticizes both educated people and other film critics. In the opening paragraph, Kael admonishes educated audiences who enjoy foreign or experimental films, accusing them of using film for the wrong purpose. According to Kael, movies are intended for an escape "from the tensions of their complex lives and work," rather than for an appreciation of "movies as an art." This rule is extremely frustrating, begging the question of what right Pauline Kael has to decide what functions films should or shouldn't have, or how the public should perceive them. Later, Kael criticizes the opinions of various critics. Her grounds for disapproval seem to simply be her own opinion which contradicts them.
Although unarguably influential, Pauline Kael was unnecessarily belligerent and pretentious in both the reviews she wrote during her career and in the ways that she looked back on her life during her interview in "Afterglow: A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael."
Pauline Kael, one of the most famous and influential film critics, abandoned her intentions of law school to pursue her passion for writing. Her writing is as enthusiastic as her love for movies, and her knowledge of movies, actors, and directors was vast. Her taste was for lowbrow art, her writing is anything but academic, and her opinions often differed drastically from much of the critical world. For all of these reasons I should—and want to—love Pauline Kael and her independent spirit, but I do not.
Kael's vulgar, repetitive vocabulary does not bother me: the "whore" and the "trash" and the "horny" do not phase my teenage mind in the current era of violence and profanities. Her individualistic opinions do not tarnish my image of her. Even her belligerent attitude toward popular films, given her tendency to pan films, "She hardly praises a movie any more," Renata Adler writes in "House Critic," does not bother me.
Pauline Kael's snobbish and conceited attitude toward her audience is repulsive. Thinking herself a lover of movies more than anyone else Kael quoted in Afterglow, a book of interviews prepared by jazz critic Francis Davis, "I always assumed that movies had meant as much to them as they did to me. But they hadn't." And although no one can contest Kael's love for film, she uses this admiration as a justification to speak as the most knowledgeable person in regards to movies. She writes, "But, oh, God, why isn't it better? Why isn't there the daring and the exaltation that our senses fairly cry out for?" speaking on behalf of all audience members and their senses, as if her opinion is that of a constant truth.
In addition to criticizing films in her reviews, specifically "Hiroshima Mon Amour," Kael criticizes both educated people and other film critics. In the opening paragraph, Kael admonishes educated audiences who enjoy foreign or experimental films, accusing them of using film for the wrong purpose. According to Kael, movies are intended for an escape "from the tensions of their complex lives and work," rather than for an appreciation of "movies as an art." This rule is extremely frustrating, begging the question of what right Pauline Kael has to decide what functions films should or shouldn't have, or how the public should perceive them. Later, Kael criticizes the opinions of various critics. Her grounds for disapproval seem to simply be her own opinion which contradicts them.
Although unarguably influential, Pauline Kael was unnecessarily belligerent and pretentious in both the reviews she wrote during her career and in the ways that she looked back on her life during her interview in "Afterglow: A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael."
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Criticism of Kael's Criticism
Pauline Kael abandoned her intentions of law school to pursue her passion for writing. Her writing is as enthusiastic as her love for movies, and her knowledge of movies, actors, and directors was vast. Her taste was for lowbrow art, her writing is anything but academic, and her opinions often differed drastically from much of the critical world. For all of these reasons I should—and want to—love Pauline Kael and her independent spirit, but I do not.
Kael's vulgar, repetitive vocabulary does not bother me: the "whore" and the "trash" and the "horny" do not phase my teenage mind. Her individualistic opinions do not tarnish my image of her—though I wonder how many of those opinions are how she really feels or simply for the sake of being independent. Even her belligerent attitude toward popular films, given her tendency to pan films, "She hardly praises a movie any more," Renata Adler writes, does not bother me.
Pauline Kael's snobbish and conceited attitude toward her audience is repulsive. Thinking herself a lover of movies more than anyone else Kael says, "I always assumed that movies had meant as much to them as they did to me. But they hadn't." And although no one can contest Kael's love for film, she uses this admiration as a justification to speak as the most knowledgeable person in regards to movies. She writes, "But, oh, God, why isn't it better? Why isn't there the daring and the exaltation that our senses fairly cry out for?" speaking on behalf of all audience members and their senses, as if her opinion is that of a constant truth.
In addition to criticizing films in her reviews, specifically "Hiroshima Mon Amour," Kael criticizes both educated people and other film critics. In the opening paragraph, Kael admonishes educated audiences who enjoy foreign or experimental films, accusing them of using film for the wrong purpose. According to Kael, movies are intended for an escape "from the tensions of their complex lives and work," rather than for an appreciation of "movies as an art." This rule is extremely frustrating, begging the question of what right Pauline Kael has to decide what functions films should or shouldn't have, or how the public should perceive them. Later, Kael criticizes the opinions of various critics. Her grounds for disapproval seem to simply be her own opinion which contradicts them.
Although unarguably influential, Pauline Kael was unnecessarily belligerent and pretentious in both the reviews she wrote during her career and in the ways that she looked back on her life during her interview in "Afterglow."
Kael's vulgar, repetitive vocabulary does not bother me: the "whore" and the "trash" and the "horny" do not phase my teenage mind. Her individualistic opinions do not tarnish my image of her—though I wonder how many of those opinions are how she really feels or simply for the sake of being independent. Even her belligerent attitude toward popular films, given her tendency to pan films, "She hardly praises a movie any more," Renata Adler writes, does not bother me.
Pauline Kael's snobbish and conceited attitude toward her audience is repulsive. Thinking herself a lover of movies more than anyone else Kael says, "I always assumed that movies had meant as much to them as they did to me. But they hadn't." And although no one can contest Kael's love for film, she uses this admiration as a justification to speak as the most knowledgeable person in regards to movies. She writes, "But, oh, God, why isn't it better? Why isn't there the daring and the exaltation that our senses fairly cry out for?" speaking on behalf of all audience members and their senses, as if her opinion is that of a constant truth.
In addition to criticizing films in her reviews, specifically "Hiroshima Mon Amour," Kael criticizes both educated people and other film critics. In the opening paragraph, Kael admonishes educated audiences who enjoy foreign or experimental films, accusing them of using film for the wrong purpose. According to Kael, movies are intended for an escape "from the tensions of their complex lives and work," rather than for an appreciation of "movies as an art." This rule is extremely frustrating, begging the question of what right Pauline Kael has to decide what functions films should or shouldn't have, or how the public should perceive them. Later, Kael criticizes the opinions of various critics. Her grounds for disapproval seem to simply be her own opinion which contradicts them.
Although unarguably influential, Pauline Kael was unnecessarily belligerent and pretentious in both the reviews she wrote during her career and in the ways that she looked back on her life during her interview in "Afterglow."
Alastair Macaulay: A Humble Authority
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/dance/12opus.html
Alastair Macaulay is a busy man. As the chief theater critic of The Financial Times and the chief dance critic of both The Times Literary Supplement and The New York Times, he is expected to write well-informed pieces demonstrating the highest of authority concerning dance and theater, and he does so in "Wheeldon's 'Ghosts,' Haunted by Dead Choreographers Society" in Friday's Arts section.
The striking photo and clever title drew me in, and Macaulay gives his opinion of the dance in the very first sentence: "Very few ballet makers today create movement that is as completely dancy as Christopher Wheeldon does…that for nine years have placed this still young choreographer in high national and international demand." Throughout the piece Macaulay describes the movements, set, and costume with such grace that shows his enthusiasm for the work, and though in the end Macaulay criticizes the lack of meaning conveyed, writing, "'Ghosts' is strong on atmosphere but mighty thin on meaning," his overall appreciation of the film shines through.
As the title suggests, "Ghosts" draws from many previous choreographers, and Macaulay touches on many of these similarities. Although he addresses an audience familiar with dance, "If you've seen a few Wheeldon ballets…" his description of each allows any audience to follow along easily. Here he derives his authority, with his vast knowledge of dance conducted without being pretentious.
Alastair Macaulay is a busy man. As the chief theater critic of The Financial Times and the chief dance critic of both The Times Literary Supplement and The New York Times, he is expected to write well-informed pieces demonstrating the highest of authority concerning dance and theater, and he does so in "Wheeldon's 'Ghosts,' Haunted by Dead Choreographers Society" in Friday's Arts section.
The striking photo and clever title drew me in, and Macaulay gives his opinion of the dance in the very first sentence: "Very few ballet makers today create movement that is as completely dancy as Christopher Wheeldon does…that for nine years have placed this still young choreographer in high national and international demand." Throughout the piece Macaulay describes the movements, set, and costume with such grace that shows his enthusiasm for the work, and though in the end Macaulay criticizes the lack of meaning conveyed, writing, "'Ghosts' is strong on atmosphere but mighty thin on meaning," his overall appreciation of the film shines through.
As the title suggests, "Ghosts" draws from many previous choreographers, and Macaulay touches on many of these similarities. Although he addresses an audience familiar with dance, "If you've seen a few Wheeldon ballets…" his description of each allows any audience to follow along easily. Here he derives his authority, with his vast knowledge of dance conducted without being pretentious.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Tables Have Turned: English Professors Present Readings to Students
Each letter grade and comment on a student's paper is received with the assumption that the professor behind that red pen is a great writer. Every year the English department faculty has a chance to prove that assumption by reading a piece or two of their own work at the English Faculty Reading. On Wednesday students crowded into the Olmsted room to listen, judge, and enjoy the presentations that their own professors put together. The professors found themselves in a familiar position—at the head of the room—though not to teach but to share.
The first to share after a welcome by Gail Griffin was Andy Mozina with "My Non-Sexual Affair." He read not with energy and vigor but with discomfort and awkwardness as if telling a boyhood friend about a wrong he had just committed—unsure if he should be excited or guilty. His witty humor cause the crowd to burst into laughter while other readers chose a more somber tone.
Gail Griffin revisited the horror that was the murder-suicide of Maggie Wardle and Neenef Odah ten years ago on campus. Her personal account of the story, well known to most Kalamazoo College students, was moving, leaving the audience silent in respect both for Maggie and Dr. Griffin.
Another moving performance was that of Marin Heinritz as she told the story of her mother with the love and understanding that only a daughter could. Dr. Heinritz seemed to be on the verge of tears by the end of her reading, making her segment all the more captivating and powerful.
On the opposite end of the scale was Babli Sinha's piece on the "New Woman" of India. Reading like a research paper, the performance was arid and left many listeners uninterested. Although well researched and well informed, Dr. Sinha's informative lecture was pitted against the lively storytelling of many of the other readers and left as an outcast that night.
Di Seuss shared her piece titled "It wasn't a dream, I knew William Burroughs" a provocative poem about her encounter with the Naked Lunch author. She read, "He would have peed on my poetry but loved my porn." Outlandish and unapologetic, her piece received a variety of claps and whoops from the audience.
Both Beth Marzoni and Amy Rodgers shared pieces about academic exploration, appropriate for an audience of college students. Dr. Marzoni recreated the thoughts and feelings she experienced while visiting Rothko's Room in London, a room filled with the art of Mark Rothko. Dr. Rodgers told her secret of the times she snuck away from her studying to do a little detective work in the library on the son of Robert Frost, Carol. Her excitement of the subject alone kept the story alive and interesting, whether or not anyone in the audience had heard of Carol Frost.
The night ended with a reading by Bruce Mills about his son's autism. This touching tale told of the misunderstandings and confusion so common between parent and child. Dr. Mills gave the audience a different perspective on a lifestyle concerning a condition that is becoming more and more common in today's world.
The night was over. All of the professors had proved their writing skills great, and along the way honored the audience by sharing themselves and providing a few life lessons.
Audience: The Index
The first to share after a welcome by Gail Griffin was Andy Mozina with "My Non-Sexual Affair." He read not with energy and vigor but with discomfort and awkwardness as if telling a boyhood friend about a wrong he had just committed—unsure if he should be excited or guilty. His witty humor cause the crowd to burst into laughter while other readers chose a more somber tone.
Gail Griffin revisited the horror that was the murder-suicide of Maggie Wardle and Neenef Odah ten years ago on campus. Her personal account of the story, well known to most Kalamazoo College students, was moving, leaving the audience silent in respect both for Maggie and Dr. Griffin.
Another moving performance was that of Marin Heinritz as she told the story of her mother with the love and understanding that only a daughter could. Dr. Heinritz seemed to be on the verge of tears by the end of her reading, making her segment all the more captivating and powerful.
On the opposite end of the scale was Babli Sinha's piece on the "New Woman" of India. Reading like a research paper, the performance was arid and left many listeners uninterested. Although well researched and well informed, Dr. Sinha's informative lecture was pitted against the lively storytelling of many of the other readers and left as an outcast that night.
Di Seuss shared her piece titled "It wasn't a dream, I knew William Burroughs" a provocative poem about her encounter with the Naked Lunch author. She read, "He would have peed on my poetry but loved my porn." Outlandish and unapologetic, her piece received a variety of claps and whoops from the audience.
Both Beth Marzoni and Amy Rodgers shared pieces about academic exploration, appropriate for an audience of college students. Dr. Marzoni recreated the thoughts and feelings she experienced while visiting Rothko's Room in London, a room filled with the art of Mark Rothko. Dr. Rodgers told her secret of the times she snuck away from her studying to do a little detective work in the library on the son of Robert Frost, Carol. Her excitement of the subject alone kept the story alive and interesting, whether or not anyone in the audience had heard of Carol Frost.
The night ended with a reading by Bruce Mills about his son's autism. This touching tale told of the misunderstandings and confusion so common between parent and child. Dr. Mills gave the audience a different perspective on a lifestyle concerning a condition that is becoming more and more common in today's world.
The night was over. All of the professors had proved their writing skills great, and along the way honored the audience by sharing themselves and providing a few life lessons.
Audience: The Index
Monday, January 25, 2010
A Goldmine of Velvet (And Sparkles, Heels, and Boas)
Audience: NY Times Readers
A young reporter writes a story about the life of a man whose fame and fortune resulted in abandonment and alienation. This reporter's journey sends him to various people connected with the story, each of whom shares their portion of the tale. Through the countless flashbacks, the people closest to this man reveal the side of him not seen by the public.
No, this is not "Citizen Kane." Snow globes and childhood sleds are replaced by bright blue hair and silver stilettos in Todd Haynes' "Velvet Goldmine."
Director Todd Haynes, known for his controversial films "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story," "Poison," and "Safe," seems to pride himself in the shock factor of most of his movies, often featuring explicit sexuality and homosexual relationships.
"Velvet Goldmine" is no exception. However, beyond the nudes, homosexuals, and orgies lies an actual story line. The movie stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers as bisexual glam-rock superstar Brian Slade, an artist only interested in hitting it big and having a blast along the way. In the process, mostly due to his quirky and queer personality, Slade creates a fad that becomes a phenomenon that becomes a revolution.
Soon, all of the youth of Britain is clad in feather boas, silver eye shadow, and fur jackets. Heterosexuality has given way to bisexuality and homosexuality as British teens lose grasp of the difference between girls and boys.
But as easily as fame came to Brian Slade, it is lost. When Slade fakes his own death at a concert, revealed later by the media to be a hoax, his fan base deteriorates, glam rock slowly dies, and Brian Slade disappears not only from the public eye, but from everyone who had been so close to him during his glory days like his wife, played by Toni Collette, and his homosexual partner, played by Ewan McGregor.
Haynes makes more references to real life glam rock than he shows a naked ass. In fact, the title "Velvet Goldmine" refers to a song written by David Bowie of the same title. Many of the small parts in the movie are played by real-life rock stars, and most of the characters in the movie are based upon the life of a real star.
Therefore, this film immediately draws a fan base from fans or participants of the glam-rock era so many years ago looking for a nostalgic flash back.
"Velvet Goldmine" is wildly entertaining, even for those not involved (or not alive) in the era. And no one can argue the uniqueness of the film. However, the sheer strangeness throughout the movie gave the impression that Haynes tried too hard to be provocative, outlandish, and controversial.
Detached from reality, the plot line played out more like a music video than a video about music. And although actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers had the blank stare of a drugged-out superstar down pat, he failed to convey the deeper aspects of the character without looking silly.
A young reporter writes a story about the life of a man whose fame and fortune resulted in abandonment and alienation. This reporter's journey sends him to various people connected with the story, each of whom shares their portion of the tale. Through the countless flashbacks, the people closest to this man reveal the side of him not seen by the public.
No, this is not "Citizen Kane." Snow globes and childhood sleds are replaced by bright blue hair and silver stilettos in Todd Haynes' "Velvet Goldmine."
Director Todd Haynes, known for his controversial films "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story," "Poison," and "Safe," seems to pride himself in the shock factor of most of his movies, often featuring explicit sexuality and homosexual relationships.
"Velvet Goldmine" is no exception. However, beyond the nudes, homosexuals, and orgies lies an actual story line. The movie stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers as bisexual glam-rock superstar Brian Slade, an artist only interested in hitting it big and having a blast along the way. In the process, mostly due to his quirky and queer personality, Slade creates a fad that becomes a phenomenon that becomes a revolution.
Soon, all of the youth of Britain is clad in feather boas, silver eye shadow, and fur jackets. Heterosexuality has given way to bisexuality and homosexuality as British teens lose grasp of the difference between girls and boys.
But as easily as fame came to Brian Slade, it is lost. When Slade fakes his own death at a concert, revealed later by the media to be a hoax, his fan base deteriorates, glam rock slowly dies, and Brian Slade disappears not only from the public eye, but from everyone who had been so close to him during his glory days like his wife, played by Toni Collette, and his homosexual partner, played by Ewan McGregor.
Haynes makes more references to real life glam rock than he shows a naked ass. In fact, the title "Velvet Goldmine" refers to a song written by David Bowie of the same title. Many of the small parts in the movie are played by real-life rock stars, and most of the characters in the movie are based upon the life of a real star.
Therefore, this film immediately draws a fan base from fans or participants of the glam-rock era so many years ago looking for a nostalgic flash back.
"Velvet Goldmine" is wildly entertaining, even for those not involved (or not alive) in the era. And no one can argue the uniqueness of the film. However, the sheer strangeness throughout the movie gave the impression that Haynes tried too hard to be provocative, outlandish, and controversial.
Detached from reality, the plot line played out more like a music video than a video about music. And although actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers had the blank stare of a drugged-out superstar down pat, he failed to convey the deeper aspects of the character without looking silly.
Monday, January 18, 2010
21st Century Holmes: An Improvement on Original?
Full of explosions and fight scenes, this "Sherlock Holmes" starring Robert Downey Jr. is not consistent with the general image of classic Sherlock Holmes. Although arguably more true to the original Holmes of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books with his erratic behavior and drug abuse than the ultra-intelligent, stiff detectives of popular portrayals of Holmes, many fans are still up in arms. True to character or not, Robert Downey Jr. plays a Sherlock Holmes with a dynamic personality that is more entertaining than any Holmes before him.
The movie begins where most movies end: Sherlock Holmes and his partner John Watson arrive on the scene of a ritual murder just in time to save the girl and catch the killer. However, after being hanged, Lord Blackwood returns from the dead to take on more important matters than killing girls—taking over the world. Through black magic Lord Blackwood weaves a web of seemingly impossible scenarios while Holmes unravels the case through evaluation and logic.
Director Guy Ritchie, known for his action-packed films "Snatch," "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels," and "RocknRolla" turned this 21st century Sherlock Holmes into a crime-fighting expert, with an emphasis on the fighting. Throughout the movie, Holmes and Watson encounter various henchmen of Lord Blackwood who they fight with almost superhero skills. In one scene, Holmes even fights in a dank basement boxing ring. He feeds the appetites of a special-effects-hungry audience by narrating his moves in slow motion before the scene plays in real time.
Although Robert Downey Jr. only narrates two scenes, the entire movie is shot with Holmes' perspective in mind: clues are shown for a second or two to suggest that Holmes has noticed them, voices are distorted when Holmes is dazed, and the music—often featuring a banjo—does not fit the setting but helps convey the silliness of Holmes.
Aside from the music, all of the elements of the film hold true to an 1890s London. The grimy citizens of England fit into the colorless scenery seamlessly. Even the main characters, though better dressed, do not stick out on the crowded streets. Irene Adler, played by Rachael Adams, makes a grand appearance and a lasting impression in her brightly colored dresses. The stark contrast between her and the rest of the scene uses Holmes' point of view to imply his love for her, as the rest of the world is drowned out by her beauty.
The movie ends where most movies begin: a man murdered and an important item stolen. A villain introduced earlier in the movie, Professor Moriarty, is apparently at the root of this crime, yet his intentions unknown. A case is opened as a Sherlock Holmes II is set up.
The movie begins where most movies end: Sherlock Holmes and his partner John Watson arrive on the scene of a ritual murder just in time to save the girl and catch the killer. However, after being hanged, Lord Blackwood returns from the dead to take on more important matters than killing girls—taking over the world. Through black magic Lord Blackwood weaves a web of seemingly impossible scenarios while Holmes unravels the case through evaluation and logic.
Director Guy Ritchie, known for his action-packed films "Snatch," "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels," and "RocknRolla" turned this 21st century Sherlock Holmes into a crime-fighting expert, with an emphasis on the fighting. Throughout the movie, Holmes and Watson encounter various henchmen of Lord Blackwood who they fight with almost superhero skills. In one scene, Holmes even fights in a dank basement boxing ring. He feeds the appetites of a special-effects-hungry audience by narrating his moves in slow motion before the scene plays in real time.
Although Robert Downey Jr. only narrates two scenes, the entire movie is shot with Holmes' perspective in mind: clues are shown for a second or two to suggest that Holmes has noticed them, voices are distorted when Holmes is dazed, and the music—often featuring a banjo—does not fit the setting but helps convey the silliness of Holmes.
Aside from the music, all of the elements of the film hold true to an 1890s London. The grimy citizens of England fit into the colorless scenery seamlessly. Even the main characters, though better dressed, do not stick out on the crowded streets. Irene Adler, played by Rachael Adams, makes a grand appearance and a lasting impression in her brightly colored dresses. The stark contrast between her and the rest of the scene uses Holmes' point of view to imply his love for her, as the rest of the world is drowned out by her beauty.
The movie ends where most movies begin: a man murdered and an important item stolen. A villain introduced earlier in the movie, Professor Moriarty, is apparently at the root of this crime, yet his intentions unknown. A case is opened as a Sherlock Holmes II is set up.
Other Reviews on Holmes
Although this review is from a website named "Movie Mom," I found it to touch on a lot of aspects of the film that we discussed in class and use visual words.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/2009/12/sherlock-holmes.html
Sherlock Holmes
Perhaps even the great detective himself could not solve the mystery of why Sherlock Holmes holds the Guinness Book of World Records title for having been portrayed on screen than any other fictional character, with more than 75 actors in more than 200 movies. And it would be hard to find any movie and television detective who does not draw something from Holmes' mastery of the power of observation ("Lie to Me," "The Mentalist"). There is something endlessly fascinating about the idea that someone could look at us and see what others are hiding from us, and even about the idea that he could see what we are hiding, too.
So here we are again with another Sherlock Holmes, this one from Robert Downey, Jr. and director Guy Ritchie. And that means an edgier, grubbier, somewhat younger Holmes. While stage and screen versions of the stories have generally focused on Holmes as a sort of hyper-controlled super-brain with little emotion or physicality, this version expands on a reference in the original Arthur Conan Doyle texts to Holmes' being adept at "baritsu," a form of martial arts and has a two-fisted Holmes who fights bad guys and even mixes it up just for fun. It also focuses on the books' notion that Holmes was good at detection because he was bad at everything else and that unless he was completely involved in a case he considered worth his attention he does not have any other way to interact with the world.
Dr. Watson, portrayed as a bit stuffy and more of a biographer than a partner for Holmes, in this version is played by the not-at-all-stuffy Jude Law as someone who struggles with his own demons (a gambling problem) and loves the adrenaline rush as well as the sense of justice and the fun of fighting along side his talented friend. But things are changing. He has met a woman he wants to marry and that means moving out of the flat on Baker Street he shares with Holmes and less time for crime-fighting.
Downey is always at his considerable best with a character who has some boundary issues and his Holmes is as taut as the violin strings he plucks between cases. His eyes are the most expressive on screen since Al Pacino, large, liquid, knowing. Downey conveys the almost compulsive, almost Aspergers aspects of the Holmes character. In one scene, he waits for Watson at a restaurant, unable to stop noticing the dark, the sad, the painful at the tables around him. He seems to drink it all in through his eyes, ears, and pores on his skin. And his need to understand and conquer the worst of humanity outside him seems connected to a struggle within himself -- and between him and Irene Adler, for Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle wrote, "the woman." Here she is deliciously played by Rachel McAdams, suiting his description of Irene as having "the face of the most beautiful of women, and the mind of the most resolute of men," and fetching in bustle and boy-clothes.
Production designer Sarah Greenwood has done a magnificent job of creating Victorian London and part of the fun is seeing some of the now-iconic structures still under construction -- always a handy place for a fight scene, too. Ritchie's kinetic camerawork lends a muscular energy that keeps the story from feeling antique. And getting used to a young, energetic Holmes who can throw a punch is not as difficult as you might think.
But other parts of the movie do not work as well. Ritchie, whose best films celebrate the gritty underworld of big and small-time crooks, seems to be more comfortable for some of the mid-level thieves, arsonists, and hoodlums Holmes and Watson run into, and every time they leave the scene a little bit of the life of the film goes with them. Mark Strong is not given nearly enough to do as the villain (titled, of course) and the mystery is not clever enough to make the resolution satisfying. You don't have to be a super-sleuth to see the holes in the plot. Downey is better detecting than he is trading odd couple banter with Law, but so would anyone. Who could have imagined that in a Sherlock Holmes movie the fight scenes replacing the deductions would ring truer than the dialogue replacing "Elementary, my dear Watson?"
Also, this review from the NY Times is detailed and well-written.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/movies/25sherlock.html
The Brawling Supersleuth of 221B Baker Street Socks It to ’Em
Early in “Sherlock Holmes” — and also again, later on — the famous sleuth demonstrates his ratiocinative powers in a way undreamed of by his creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. Observing a thug standing guard over a horrible crime in a dimly lighted church, Holmes calculates just how to surprise the man, disarm him and beat him senseless. The audience follows his thought process through slow-motion pre-enactment, observing how the laws of anatomy and physics will be used to snap bones, gouge organs and turn flesh into pulp. Then, having seen it diagramed once on screen, we see it all again, with more noise, in real time. Elementary!
Doyle’s Holmes, who arrived in Victorian pop culture in 1887 (with the publication of “A Study in Scarlet”), has adapted since then to changes in taste and entertainment technology. He was a proto-superhero, amenable to all kinds of elaboration and variation, and even a measure of mockery, as long as the basics of the brand were respected. For most of his existence he has lived at 221B Baker Street, smoking a pipe, playing the violin and sticking faithfully to bachelorhood and his belief in the functional elegance of the deerstalker hat.
But Holmes has never been much for physical violence, and the chief innovation of this new, franchise-ready incarnation, directed by Guy Ritchie and played by Robert Downey Jr., is that he is, in addition to everything else, a brawling, head-butting, fist-in-the-gut, knee-in-the-groin action hero.
A smart one, for sure, and as played by Mr. Downey, with his characteristic twitchy wit and haggard insouciance, he has more intelligence than the movie knows what to do with. (His Holmes has also lost the deerstalker, favoring battered porkpie- or bowlerlike headwear, perhaps in homage to Charlie Chaplin, another character Mr. Downey has played.)
Of course intelligence has never ranked high among either Mr. Ritchie’s interests or his attributes as a filmmaker. His primary desire, most successfully realized early in his directing career, in “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch,” has always been to be cool: to make cool movies about cool guys with cool stuff. Yes, “Sherlock Holmes” is kind of cool. But that’s not really a compliment.
Still, it’s Christmas, and the teenage boys in the house have fructose in their bloodstreams and time on their hands, so let’s call it half a compliment. There are worse things than loutish, laddish cool, and as a series of poses and stunts, “Sherlock Holmes” is intermittently diverting.
The visual style — a smoky, greasy, steam-punk rendering of Victorian London, full of soot and guts and bad teeth and period clothes — shows some undeniable flair. And so do the kinetic chases and scrapes that lead us through the city, as Holmes and his pal Watson (Jude Law) scramble to unravel a conspiracy so diabolical that it fails to be interesting. Best of all is the banter between Mr. Downey and Mr. Law, who is looser and more mischievous than he’s allowed himself to be in quite some time. The mustache suits him.
Speaking of which: the beard is Rachel McAdams. She is inserted into the picture in a pretty, flouncy red dress to add a splash of color and dispel a few hints of homoerotic subtext. Holmes and Watson are longtime roommates, with an Oscar-and-Felix routine of quarrelsome affection. Watson’s engagement to a page of half-written dialogue named Mary (Kelly Reilly) sends Holmes into a snit of jealousy, which loses some of its interesting implications when Ms. McAdams shows up as a luscious thief named Irene Adler. I wonder: is she an ancestor of Jake and Jane Adler, the main characters of “It’s Complicated,” which also opens on Friday? Or does a movie opening on Christmas need to have a character named Adler in it for some reason?
Ms. McAdams, in any case, is a perfectly charming actress and performs gamely as the third wheel of this action-bromance tricycle. But Irene, though she figures in a few of Conan Doyle’s stories, feels in this movie more like a somewhat cynical commercial contrivance. She offers a little something for the ladies — who, according to airtight Hollywood corporate logic, are more likely to see a movie like this one if there’s a feisty woman in it — and also something for the lads, who, much as they may dig fights and explosions and guns and chases, also like girls.
Just like Holmes and Watson! They really do, in spite of the barely sublimated physical passion they manifest for each other in nearly every scene. I’m sure Warner Brothers would like me to change the subject and tell you about the amazing diabolical conspiracy that tests Holmes’s ingenuity, along with his faith in the supremacy of reason.
It seems that an evil aristocrat (Mark Strong), executed for a series of murders, returns from the dead to mobilize an ancient secret society that he may have time-traveled into a Dan Brown novel to learn about. Doesn’t that sound fascinating? I thought not. But there will be a sequel, for which this frantic, harmless movie serves as an extended teaser, and it looks as if it might feature Holmes’s literary archnemesis, Professor Moriarty. No doubt Holmes will break a chair over Moriarty’s head, kidney-punch him and kick him in the face. Wittily, though, like the great detective he is.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/2009/12/sherlock-holmes.html
Sherlock Holmes
Perhaps even the great detective himself could not solve the mystery of why Sherlock Holmes holds the Guinness Book of World Records title for having been portrayed on screen than any other fictional character, with more than 75 actors in more than 200 movies. And it would be hard to find any movie and television detective who does not draw something from Holmes' mastery of the power of observation ("Lie to Me," "The Mentalist"). There is something endlessly fascinating about the idea that someone could look at us and see what others are hiding from us, and even about the idea that he could see what we are hiding, too.
So here we are again with another Sherlock Holmes, this one from Robert Downey, Jr. and director Guy Ritchie. And that means an edgier, grubbier, somewhat younger Holmes. While stage and screen versions of the stories have generally focused on Holmes as a sort of hyper-controlled super-brain with little emotion or physicality, this version expands on a reference in the original Arthur Conan Doyle texts to Holmes' being adept at "baritsu," a form of martial arts and has a two-fisted Holmes who fights bad guys and even mixes it up just for fun. It also focuses on the books' notion that Holmes was good at detection because he was bad at everything else and that unless he was completely involved in a case he considered worth his attention he does not have any other way to interact with the world.
Dr. Watson, portrayed as a bit stuffy and more of a biographer than a partner for Holmes, in this version is played by the not-at-all-stuffy Jude Law as someone who struggles with his own demons (a gambling problem) and loves the adrenaline rush as well as the sense of justice and the fun of fighting along side his talented friend. But things are changing. He has met a woman he wants to marry and that means moving out of the flat on Baker Street he shares with Holmes and less time for crime-fighting.
Downey is always at his considerable best with a character who has some boundary issues and his Holmes is as taut as the violin strings he plucks between cases. His eyes are the most expressive on screen since Al Pacino, large, liquid, knowing. Downey conveys the almost compulsive, almost Aspergers aspects of the Holmes character. In one scene, he waits for Watson at a restaurant, unable to stop noticing the dark, the sad, the painful at the tables around him. He seems to drink it all in through his eyes, ears, and pores on his skin. And his need to understand and conquer the worst of humanity outside him seems connected to a struggle within himself -- and between him and Irene Adler, for Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle wrote, "the woman." Here she is deliciously played by Rachel McAdams, suiting his description of Irene as having "the face of the most beautiful of women, and the mind of the most resolute of men," and fetching in bustle and boy-clothes.
Production designer Sarah Greenwood has done a magnificent job of creating Victorian London and part of the fun is seeing some of the now-iconic structures still under construction -- always a handy place for a fight scene, too. Ritchie's kinetic camerawork lends a muscular energy that keeps the story from feeling antique. And getting used to a young, energetic Holmes who can throw a punch is not as difficult as you might think.
But other parts of the movie do not work as well. Ritchie, whose best films celebrate the gritty underworld of big and small-time crooks, seems to be more comfortable for some of the mid-level thieves, arsonists, and hoodlums Holmes and Watson run into, and every time they leave the scene a little bit of the life of the film goes with them. Mark Strong is not given nearly enough to do as the villain (titled, of course) and the mystery is not clever enough to make the resolution satisfying. You don't have to be a super-sleuth to see the holes in the plot. Downey is better detecting than he is trading odd couple banter with Law, but so would anyone. Who could have imagined that in a Sherlock Holmes movie the fight scenes replacing the deductions would ring truer than the dialogue replacing "Elementary, my dear Watson?"
Also, this review from the NY Times is detailed and well-written.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/movies/25sherlock.html
The Brawling Supersleuth of 221B Baker Street Socks It to ’Em
Early in “Sherlock Holmes” — and also again, later on — the famous sleuth demonstrates his ratiocinative powers in a way undreamed of by his creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. Observing a thug standing guard over a horrible crime in a dimly lighted church, Holmes calculates just how to surprise the man, disarm him and beat him senseless. The audience follows his thought process through slow-motion pre-enactment, observing how the laws of anatomy and physics will be used to snap bones, gouge organs and turn flesh into pulp. Then, having seen it diagramed once on screen, we see it all again, with more noise, in real time. Elementary!
Doyle’s Holmes, who arrived in Victorian pop culture in 1887 (with the publication of “A Study in Scarlet”), has adapted since then to changes in taste and entertainment technology. He was a proto-superhero, amenable to all kinds of elaboration and variation, and even a measure of mockery, as long as the basics of the brand were respected. For most of his existence he has lived at 221B Baker Street, smoking a pipe, playing the violin and sticking faithfully to bachelorhood and his belief in the functional elegance of the deerstalker hat.
But Holmes has never been much for physical violence, and the chief innovation of this new, franchise-ready incarnation, directed by Guy Ritchie and played by Robert Downey Jr., is that he is, in addition to everything else, a brawling, head-butting, fist-in-the-gut, knee-in-the-groin action hero.
A smart one, for sure, and as played by Mr. Downey, with his characteristic twitchy wit and haggard insouciance, he has more intelligence than the movie knows what to do with. (His Holmes has also lost the deerstalker, favoring battered porkpie- or bowlerlike headwear, perhaps in homage to Charlie Chaplin, another character Mr. Downey has played.)
Of course intelligence has never ranked high among either Mr. Ritchie’s interests or his attributes as a filmmaker. His primary desire, most successfully realized early in his directing career, in “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch,” has always been to be cool: to make cool movies about cool guys with cool stuff. Yes, “Sherlock Holmes” is kind of cool. But that’s not really a compliment.
Still, it’s Christmas, and the teenage boys in the house have fructose in their bloodstreams and time on their hands, so let’s call it half a compliment. There are worse things than loutish, laddish cool, and as a series of poses and stunts, “Sherlock Holmes” is intermittently diverting.
The visual style — a smoky, greasy, steam-punk rendering of Victorian London, full of soot and guts and bad teeth and period clothes — shows some undeniable flair. And so do the kinetic chases and scrapes that lead us through the city, as Holmes and his pal Watson (Jude Law) scramble to unravel a conspiracy so diabolical that it fails to be interesting. Best of all is the banter between Mr. Downey and Mr. Law, who is looser and more mischievous than he’s allowed himself to be in quite some time. The mustache suits him.
Speaking of which: the beard is Rachel McAdams. She is inserted into the picture in a pretty, flouncy red dress to add a splash of color and dispel a few hints of homoerotic subtext. Holmes and Watson are longtime roommates, with an Oscar-and-Felix routine of quarrelsome affection. Watson’s engagement to a page of half-written dialogue named Mary (Kelly Reilly) sends Holmes into a snit of jealousy, which loses some of its interesting implications when Ms. McAdams shows up as a luscious thief named Irene Adler. I wonder: is she an ancestor of Jake and Jane Adler, the main characters of “It’s Complicated,” which also opens on Friday? Or does a movie opening on Christmas need to have a character named Adler in it for some reason?
Ms. McAdams, in any case, is a perfectly charming actress and performs gamely as the third wheel of this action-bromance tricycle. But Irene, though she figures in a few of Conan Doyle’s stories, feels in this movie more like a somewhat cynical commercial contrivance. She offers a little something for the ladies — who, according to airtight Hollywood corporate logic, are more likely to see a movie like this one if there’s a feisty woman in it — and also something for the lads, who, much as they may dig fights and explosions and guns and chases, also like girls.
Just like Holmes and Watson! They really do, in spite of the barely sublimated physical passion they manifest for each other in nearly every scene. I’m sure Warner Brothers would like me to change the subject and tell you about the amazing diabolical conspiracy that tests Holmes’s ingenuity, along with his faith in the supremacy of reason.
It seems that an evil aristocrat (Mark Strong), executed for a series of murders, returns from the dead to mobilize an ancient secret society that he may have time-traveled into a Dan Brown novel to learn about. Doesn’t that sound fascinating? I thought not. But there will be a sequel, for which this frantic, harmless movie serves as an extended teaser, and it looks as if it might feature Holmes’s literary archnemesis, Professor Moriarty. No doubt Holmes will break a chair over Moriarty’s head, kidney-punch him and kick him in the face. Wittily, though, like the great detective he is.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes
Beware: Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is not the Holmes of your grandfather. Indeed, Robert Downey Jr. plays a rebellious, witty, introverted, punch-throwing detective in a world where fist fights and explosions are often a part of solving a crime; a world created to satisfy the appetite of a movie-going public that expects pricey special effects to be a part of every film. Yet, even though this Sherlock Holmes of the 21st century is not exactly true to that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books, he is just as entertaining.
The movie begins where most movies end: Sherlock Holmes and his partner John Watson (Jude Law) arrive on the scene of a ritual murder just in time to save the girl and catch the killer. However, the case does not end there as Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), returns from the dead to take on more serious matters than killing women—taking over the world. Blackwood weaves a web of seemingly impossibly scenarios through his magic work while Holmes tries to unravel the story through evaluation and logic.
Wound together with comedy and romance, the film features both one-liners and the ongoing humorous relationship between Holmes and Watson, resembling that of a married couple. Romance, also, was apparent in the film not only through Watson and his wife-to-be—although the chemistry between the couple seemed weak—but also between Holmes and his criminal love interest, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams).
Although the film is only directly narrated by Holmes in two scenes, almost every scene features Holmes, and throughout the movie the audience is forced to see through Holmes' eyes through camera and audio work. Viewers are introduced to the main character at a very dynamic time: His partner and best friend is getting married, leaving his home with Holmes, and ending his detective work. The audience feels an immediate connection with Sherlock Holmes because he is the entrance way into his world; just as he is obsessed with delving into the minds of others, the viewer is not only given permission, but required to see into the mind of Sherlock Holmes.
Overall, many of the fight scenes were overdone and unnecessary, but the entertaining cast of characters, realistic scenery, and perfect balance between comedy, romance, action, and mystery made this film very enjoyable. The clues to the mystery were easy to miss, but with explanation from Holmes were easy to follow, making this 134 minute movie fly by. Also, with obvious room for a sequel left at the end, I will be looking forward to the release of Sherlock Holmes 2.
The movie begins where most movies end: Sherlock Holmes and his partner John Watson (Jude Law) arrive on the scene of a ritual murder just in time to save the girl and catch the killer. However, the case does not end there as Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), returns from the dead to take on more serious matters than killing women—taking over the world. Blackwood weaves a web of seemingly impossibly scenarios through his magic work while Holmes tries to unravel the story through evaluation and logic.
Wound together with comedy and romance, the film features both one-liners and the ongoing humorous relationship between Holmes and Watson, resembling that of a married couple. Romance, also, was apparent in the film not only through Watson and his wife-to-be—although the chemistry between the couple seemed weak—but also between Holmes and his criminal love interest, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams).
Although the film is only directly narrated by Holmes in two scenes, almost every scene features Holmes, and throughout the movie the audience is forced to see through Holmes' eyes through camera and audio work. Viewers are introduced to the main character at a very dynamic time: His partner and best friend is getting married, leaving his home with Holmes, and ending his detective work. The audience feels an immediate connection with Sherlock Holmes because he is the entrance way into his world; just as he is obsessed with delving into the minds of others, the viewer is not only given permission, but required to see into the mind of Sherlock Holmes.
Overall, many of the fight scenes were overdone and unnecessary, but the entertaining cast of characters, realistic scenery, and perfect balance between comedy, romance, action, and mystery made this film very enjoyable. The clues to the mystery were easy to miss, but with explanation from Holmes were easy to follow, making this 134 minute movie fly by. Also, with obvious room for a sequel left at the end, I will be looking forward to the release of Sherlock Holmes 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
