"Supreme art is a traditional statement of certain heroic and religious truth, passed on from age to age, modified by individual genius, but never abandoned." William Butler Yeats
Steven Spielberg's JAWS, 1975; this particular shot is one of the most important moments in United States history because of the culmination it marks and the political stance it's taking; why?
Wow, The Skin I Live In is so incredible!
I finally saw it for the second time last night and was thoroughly amazed, even more so than the second time! This is not a film for everyone, so if it doesn't look/sound good to you, skip it, but if you are intrigued, give it a try! The film has generated a great deal of discussion in the comment area of my initial post on the film. Instead of making a second post with my secondary observations, I have decided to edit the initial posting to include my additional comments but because my second viewing was so fruitful, there is a bit of research I am wanting to do in fully exploring possibilities so I will let you know as soon as the final version of the post is done! In the meantime, I did find the official press kit of interviews and notations which you may find interesting!
Without doubt, Jaws is one of the greatest films that has ever been made, and many make the case that is surpasses all other films; this moment, pictured above, is one of the reasons why, and the great Quint Monologue will be examined in full.
I am finishing my post on Jaws, perhaps the greatest film ever made, in conclusion to the science fiction films of the 1950s series I have done, because Spielberg, having grown up with those films, had to answer their dialogue before he could move on and start a dialogue of his own with his own audiences, and what Spielberg says in this film is imperative for not only the history of cinema, but American political and social history as well. I hope by the time you get done reading my post, you will want to watch it again! I hope to get it up later this afternoon (but it may be this evening, sorry, it's a great film and deserves all our attention) but I am working on getting it done and, as always, will tweet that it's up and ready!
1975 advertisement encouraging the new venue of the summer blockbuster that would change the film industry (as we are still witnessing today with the release of films such as The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers). The bottom of the page encourages the audience to see the film from the beginning; Alfred Hitchcock fans all ready know that Psycho changed viewing habits as audience members would enter or leave a cinema at any point in the film, but Norman Bates changed that; for those still indulging in casual viewing practices, the film makers wanted to insure that everyone got the full-bang out of this low-budget thriller. Why? The initial opening scene establishes the political agenda that Spielberg carries throughout the film.
One last note: this is probably the MOST IMPORTANT and original contribution to academic film studies that I will ever make, as I hope it will change the way the entire era is understood and Spielberg's response to it. So, yea, I am spending a bit of lavish time on it. ALSO, please note that "Friends of the Fine Art Diner" has been added in the right-hand column; so many of you, my fabulous readers, have your own blogs and this is a way I can say thank you for taking time to read mine. Just sign up and your blog will appear so readers here can also visit your site! Thank you for your continued support!
The Skin I Live In finally arrived so I will be watching that tonight and getting answers to questions up tomorrow within the original post (and I will post a note letting you know when I am done with it!). Since Mirror, Mirror and Wrath of the Titanas are being released next week, Monday will be an examination of the original Brothers Grimm fairy tale (since they are given credit as the screenwriters) then we will be doing the 1937 version of Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs because that is the version most people are familiar with and will be mentally referencing during Mirror, Mirror (whether we realize it or not).
Have things changed as much as we think they have?
In 1997, Sigourney Weaver and Sam Neill did a version called Snow White: A Tale of Terror so that will be for Wednesday next week (it's on instant streaming at Netflix), and these studies will also aid us not just in Snow White and the Huntsman coming out, but with Jack and the Giant Killers as well as both versions of Hansel and Gretl being released. On Thursday, we'll do an examination of the myths of the Titans included in the film Wrath of the Titans, which I will be seeing at a midnight showing Thursday, posting on Friday!
We finally have some solid information on Ridley Scott's Prometheus being released June 8. The story line: A team of explorers and scientists travel through the universe on a spaceship called Prometheus to discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. Becoming stranded on an alien world, they must not only survive but fight a terrifying battle and the horrors they experience are not just a threat to themselves, but to all of mankind.
I am listing both trailers because, while there is a bit of redundancy, the first, UK version contains more dialogue, whereas the US version contains more action... I wonder why they decided to do it that way?:)
The United States, Hollywood trailer:
So, what do we have?
Again, like Battleship coming out this summer, there is the defending of the status quo (protecting the earth from alien invaders and the preservation of mankind) so that makes it possible it will be a pro-Democrat film because they are the status quo at the moment; with 2012 being an election year, the status quo is potentially threatened. However, just as in Battleship, harkening back to the science fiction films of the 1950s, it is possible that the aliens will be those who have become alien to us, i.e., our government officials, who are supposed to be working for our good and are instead working for their own good.
As many critics have noted, there are numerous elements reminding us of Scott's film Alien, which was a great film, but the intentional invocation suggests that, before we see Prometheus, we should examine the earlier work of Scott first, which I will be doing. I am guessing that Prometheus will be a liberal agenda film, and the part of the country who is considered "conservative" are the aliens who threatened the existence of all those who are liberal. BUT I COULD BE VERY WRONG ABOUT THIS. I am remembering, however, the TED 2023 trailer featuring Guy Pearce is definitely about the business world (like James Cameron's Avatar) and usually businesses are associated with the Republican party.
Again, we won't know until we get in there.
Madame Recamier by Jacques-Louis David, circa 1800, Louvre, Paris.
Why on earth would a portrait of a Rococo era socialite from Paris possibly be important today, in America, in 2012? Because Jacques Louis David's Neo-classical portrait of France's "hostess with the most-est" is revolutionary, and not just for its style, but because it leads to a new direction in politics, which incorporates language highly relevant for today and which we may be seeing in the not-so-distant future during this election year.
David's self-portrait from jail.
When David started out as a young painter, Rococo was the rage: "worldliness" and excessive wealth is the best way to visualize it (unless you have been through the interior of the Palace of Versailles which exemplifies the outrageous style today. "If some was good, more was better"). Everything about Rococo was (art)ificial: it took leaves and made them stylized, sea shells and turned them into decor pieces with gold gilding and hyper-ornateness in every detail of every detail.
Marie Antoinette's bedchamber at Versailles. There is a hidden door through which she attempted her escape at the beginning of the French Revolution. Please compare this opulence with the sparseness of the Madame Recamier portrait.
It wasn't just interiors and architecture where the grandness of "playfulness and design" reigned supreme, but in the outlandish fashions of court where it truly excelled as each aristocrat would attempt to outdo the others in fantastically rich clothing and wig styles. (After the French Revolution, some artists would go back and revive aspects of Rococo, so it wasn't just that the French really hated interior design and waged a Terror to get rid of bad decorating, the Revolution aimed against the opulence associated with the style and those who could afford it and allowed the poor to starve so they could wear perfume).
A highly talented female painter (extremely rare for this time) Elizabeth Vigee-Lebrun painting her majesty, Queen Marie Antoinette, 1778. The crown of the queen of France rests off to the corner, on the right, and that seems to be Lebrun's commentary on the queen: she prefers to wear the hat of a fashionista, and keep her royal duties "on the side." The extremely wide panniers (underneath hoops) expand the dress into high court fashion of the day. David is not reacting just against this style of portraiture, but against the excessive wealth used to create the persona of this style, against the queen putting her royal duties "off to the side," instead of caring for her people. There is much more to be said of this painting, but just note the general feel and the queen's preferred way of people remembering her and how she wanted to be presented publicly and in her royal role.
When David was just starting out, he wanted to revolt against all of this. Having been injured in a dual at a fairly young age (he received a scar by his mouth) and having a terrible stuttering problem, he was a natural outsider in the city of wit and writers. Yet David learned to speak with his art, and what he painted said volumes. Most art historians focus on his really big, great works, like Oath of the Horatii (1784) or The Death of Socrates (1787) and The Death of Marat (1793). The French Revolution began 1789 and finally ended in 1799; Madame Recamier was done a year later, in 1800, and succinctly summarizes all that David had learned from the Revolution and what he hoped the Revolution would mean for everyone in the end: freedom.
Francois Boucher, the herald of the Rococo movement. A copy of this painting made its way to King Louis XV and Marie-Louise O'Murphy became an official mistress to the king for two years and that in and of itself says something about the times: what the king wanted, the king could have. The painting shows a favored style of portraiture during this time, and also why David would want to use it as a model (copies were floating around so he probably was) to create the exact opposite in his Madame Recamier. The jostled bedding suggests that she has been engaged in the art of love-making and the "fallen flower" (the end of virginity) lies on the floor. Her sprawling figure is meant to arouse and invite to sexual activity, not a lofty engagement of greater ideals and meaning, but just pure debauchery, and in Boucher's own way, that could be a commentary on how the aristocracy saw France: ripe for the taking, their taking.
I don't mean just political freedom or some freedom from working or want, but freedom from ignorance and artificiality and David cleverly manages to communicate this through his use of light and darkness in Madame Recamier by siting another famous portrait of a queen, The Ditchley Portrait of the English queen, Elizabeth I.
The separation of the foreground, filled with light, from the dark background.
In the Ditchley Portrait (below) there is an obvious separation between light and darkness which the reign of Queen Elizabeth made possible (the separation of the Anglican community and the light of reasonableness it brought to Christianity from the darkness of the Roman Catholic Church). It's far more apparent in the Ditchley portrait, but it was supposed to be for the sake of political propaganda. There is the exact same method employed by David in Madame Recamier: where is the foreground light coming from? It doesn't matter, because the darkness is kept at bay by her body, in the background, as if her recumbent figure is a time line of the before and after of the French Revolution, and everything before the Revolution lies in the darkness and everything after the Revolution is going to be bathed in light.
The Ditchley Portrait, Queen Elizabeth I.
Madame Recamier provides the viewer with an empty space, which must have been welcomed after the guillotine was beheading people day and night for years, blood running in the gutters and bodies everywhere. That background of the painting reminds us what an important political piece of propaganda Madame Recamier is: the Revolution was worth it, the Reign of Terror was worth it, the White Terror was worth it. Do you remember how badly you were treated under the King and Queen? Do you remember how poor you were? Do you remember that you couldn't get an education unless you were going to become a priest? Look at this comely woman, whose only light is the ancient lamp of wisdom (before Christianity) and her simplicity is both dignified and regal. But there is more.
To enlarge, simply click on any of the images.
The simple, white and unadorned gown she wears requires no artificial supports (girdles) or architecture (panniers) to be elegant and that clearly references the artificial structures of society: the differences between the poor and upper classes (and the clergy would be included in there as well) and the means to keep people within their class. Her bare feet, long a religious device, provides the key to letting us know she is an allegorical figure (at the same time she was a real woman). Take off your shoes for the ground you stand upon is holy to the Lord your God, the Lord told Moses from the Burning Bush. Her bare feet are not meant to invoke the Christian God (far from it) but to enthrone a new goddess, France, as the queen of people's hearts, who would be good and true to her children (especially the poor ones), and two elements of the painting provide this detail.
Not only does the lamp stand suggest the "ancient lamp of wisdom," but that it is superior to all other knowledge because David endows it with height above all else in the panting, even the woman herself.
First, note the way the gown is not bulky at all (compared to the court gown of Marie Antoinette) but there is additional fabric hanging down over the side and reaching the floor. Today, we would call this "trickle down economics" from the Reagan administration, but her gown, reaching from the lounge to the floor, is meant as the good which would come down to them from on high and the second device, the little floor table by the fabric, provides the symbolic means for climbing up the social ladder to a higher realm. It's not an abolition of the upper classes (that's why she reclines [a sign of leisure] on a chaise lounge, a piece of furniture for the wealthy and aristocrats, they will be retained) but now anyone would be able to obtain to that station, not just by birthright, but by genius, industry and usefulness--which of course comes from the writings of Rousseau and the American Revolution.
Please note how the scrolls of the ancient lamp stand are mirrored upon the legs of the lounge. Beauty and decoration is important, David tells us, but it must be austere and to be that, it must reflect the ancients. Why are the pillows there? Again, that would be a sign of the upper classes--how many poor people would have cushions such as those? And even if they did, how much of their labor-intensive day could they afford to waste in reclining upon them? There is also the historical element that such cushions were utilized by the aristocracy in ancient Rome, where David did his studies.
And that brings us to her hair.
If you will, please contrast it with the wig of Marie Antoinette; Madame Recamier's is natural, no powder, no wigging, and her natural locks showing naturally symbolizes the dominance of "natural thought" in French political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his theory of the Natural Human (but David doesn't go quite as primitive as Rousseau). The state of nature for which Rousseau advocated influenced--not dominated--the French Revolution and one of the limits for David as we can see is that Madame Recamier is in a civil environment, not a natural one (such as by a spring or amongst trees). Yet the last detail, her head-band, is imperative to understanding David's political thinking: the thoughts must be disciplined and even restrained (because that's what a head band does, contains wild wisps of hair, symbolizing wild thoughts).
The demeanor of Madame Recamier is utterly different from the sprawling figure of Marie Louise O'Murphy above; the half-twist is the inherent mystery of nature and knowledge, that which is hidden, but could not be grasped by our limited intellect regardless. The subdued tones of the painting are meant to emphasize the interior life rather than the luxury of the bodoir of Marie-Louise.
In conclusion, Jacques-Louis David was a master of painting because he could incorporate political undercurrents into his works, regardless of his subject or what he wanted to say. While dethroning Marie Antoinette as Queen of France, David enthroned the Age of Enlightenment as Queen and goddess in the person of Madame Recamier. Again, it's wise of us to remember how political revolutions have been encoded in the past, as we will have a chance to refer to these elements in upcoming posts on films which are probably politically revolutionary themselves.
In this poster, please note that, in spite of their tuxedos, they were street shoes. The black and white coloring is important because, just prior to the prom, they have gotten fired from the force for getting expelled and, as we know, the feet symbolize the will, so shoes can indicate important traits about the character's will and direction. Please note Jenko's (Channning Tatum): the white soles and black on top means he is walking in faith (symbolized by the white) that he's doing the right thing for the police force in tracking down the drug dealer and the top black part means he is spiritually dead to any other gain apart from that; contrasted with Schmidt's shoes (Jonah Hill) there are white laces on top, symbolic of the "tying up of loose ends" Schmidt would like to take advantage of in this chance to return to high school which was a curse to him. This three layers to his shoes (white soles, black tops and white laces) mirrors the "threesome" nudity scene in the party at Schmidt's house (Schmidt opens the door to his parents' bedroom and there is a naked guy in-between two girls). Schmidt, wanting to do good work for the force (one of the girls) is also trying to accomplish what he didn't accomplish in high school (the girl behind him) and when Molly asks, "What was that girl behind him doing?" it refers to her not understanding why Schmidt is really there.
Phil Lord's and Chris Miller's 21 Jump Street is quite funny, but funny isn't enough: stars Jonah Hill (Schmidt) and Channing Tatum (Jenko) also produced the film and Mr. Hill helped to pen the screenplay, which contains self-awareness about the buddy cop genre that expands its purpose while making timely observations about the new environmental movements gripping this generation's teenagers.
The two future cops briefly in their own high school years, graduating class 2005. In high school, Jenko (Tatum) is the great athlete but flunks out so he can't be prom king; Schmidt (Hill) is a nerd so even though he can go to prom, he can't get a date. This is just one of the great "covalent structures" the film uses to draw out the stereotypes in high school and cop films. What's important about this particular scene, though, is the hair each of them wears. Because Jenko thinks extremely well of himself, he has lots of hair (hair symbolizes our thoughts). Schmidt, being a nerd, intentionally tries to "blend in," which his poorly chosen bleached hair accentuates, that wanting to be a "part of the in-crowd," he willingly abandons his own identity and that over-exertion to blend in makes him stick out.
When Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) shows Schmidt and Jenko a Youtube video of one student who recorded himself taking the drug, that student (a drama student who was scheduled to play Peter Pan in the upcoming school play) wears a green "NOEL" T-shit with a Christmas tree on it. Because the drug resembles a communion wafer, the set-up suggests an alternative religious experience being sought out by high school students today, instead of the more traditional path (which, who are we kidding? Hasn't this always been the case, even in Christian schools?). The kid they watch reacting to the drug dies a few days later from an overdose, but as the principal confesses, no one does anything about it.
"Embrace your stereotype!" Ice Cube tells the undercover cops, so they can blend in with the students better. Schmidt is so busy being scared about going back, he tries to blend in too hard. First, note the blue shirt Schmidt wears: we know he's depressed and it shows in the blue (melancholy) he wears; Jenko wearing red is for his appetites because he excelled (in many ways) in high school so (while he's not sweating going back to school the way Schmidt is) Jenko is "hungry" (red means the appetites) to stand out on the force for getting this assignment done right, regardless of how he did on assignments in school.
Covalent bonding is a chemistry term, used as the film's primary metaphor for the lessons both Schmidt and Jenko need to learn to make it through the film alive and achieve the necessary conversions within themselves to be classified heroes at the end. While I wouldn't classify 21 Jump Street as a conservative film, it does take pains to illustrate and undermine certain liberal agendas, such as extreme environmentalism.
Schmidt under cover with Molly from his acting class and Eric's casual girlfriend. Molly is an important character because her father abandoned her when she was little and the emotional damage that caused her reveals itself in her casual sexuality and letting herself be abused. Just as Molly mis-uses her phone for texting, rather than calling people (which is what they were invented for) Molly also mis-uses her body for casual sex than than intimate (marital) sex. Because her father leaving her when she was young holds her hostage to the point it threatens her ability to live, Coach Walters holds her hostage and threatens her life. Just as Molly's dad didn't live up to the requirements and responsibilities of his manhood in taking care of his daughter, so Coach Walters doesn't live up to his responsibilities in taking care of Molly (using her for his protection instead of using his masculinity to protect her) and loses his manhood (which is nicely done by the film makers: losing your child is the same as losing your penis, which permitted you to create the child, and throwing away that child, not caring and providing for them, means a man is throwing away his spiritual, emotional and psychological manhood the same way Coach Walters' physical manhood, his penis, is shot off). Molly's casual sexuality is mirrored by the the girl in the limo: girls see their bodies as vehicles for pleasure rather than the house of the soul. Schmidt and Jenko are in a car chase and a girl is in the back of the limo wanting to perform oral sex on Jenko like a prostitute (she has never met Jenko, and there are prostitutes in the film, and they behave more lady-like than the ladies). The girl in the limo (a projection of Molly herself) thinks by sexual experimentation (like the drug use in the film) she will really be living and having a good time, but also because girls like Molly who have been damaged emotionally, psychologically and spiritually, behave abnormally by trying to find healing for their low self-esteem through sex, so normal girls who are not damaged see the Mollys of the world and think her abnormal behavior is normal behavior, so the damaged girls lead healthy girls into becoming "sick" like them (we see this exact same situation in the sexually abused Sarah Murphy [Elizabeth Olson] of Silent House). But this doesn't happen with just girls, Jenko--who is only known because of his good looks and great body--is just as dehumanized as the girl in the limo. Jenko has been used as a vehicle for pleasure by women (the chemistry teacher telling him she wants to "check out his chest" puts his body over his mind) so Jenko in turn dehumanizes others. When Schmidt and Jenko are on the highway stalled in traffic, Jenko pulls a woman out of a pink VW Bug and tells her how hot she is even as he's stealing her car, because to him, she is nothing but a vehicle for him to catch the druggies, because Jenko has been nothing during his life but a vehicle for women's pleasure; it is a vicious cycle of sexual, self-abuse for all involved.
The window of time between Schmidt's and Jenko's graduation, and their re-entering high school under the cover of finding the drug dealers, is only a seven year period; what's the biggest part of the last seven years taken up by? The current political administration. So when Jenko and Schmidt walk into school, they try to identify everyone by their clothes, hairstyles and cars, and make a huge mistake.
It is interesting because we don't see them graduating high school, but we do see them graduating from police training. Why is this important? The film sets up the differences between high school students less than a decade ago, and students today, how dangerous their world has become and not particularly legal. The emphasis on Schmidt and Jenko graduating from police training creates the dichotomy of the older generation still wanting to be of service to society, whereas this younger generation is more about themselves, even under the guise of the environment (more on this important topic below).
Jenko had made it through high school being popular by making fun of others who tried. Going into their "new school," Jenko tells Schmidt, "Never try at anything and always make fun of those who do." Having driven a Ford Mustang into the parking lot, Eric (Dave Franco) encounters Jenko and seriously jokes with him, "How many miles to the gallon does that get? Like 10?" to which Jenko replies, "Like 7. . . . Do I smell egg rolls?" Jenko and Schmidt discover that Eric's car runs on recycled frying oil from a local restaurant. It turns out that Eric is also the dealer for the HFS drug.
This interior is a Christian church, Aroma of Christ Church, specifically for Korean Christians (because of a grotto with the Virgin Mary outside the church, invoking Lourdes specifically, it is possibly even a Catholic Church, emphasized by the sign they see inside the church "God Is Love," the title of Pope Benedict's first encyclical). Each of the people you see sitting in the pews are from the police force and are going to be going undercover. Here on the immediate right is a slice of Ice Cube portraying Captain Dickson, the one in charge of the covert operations. Why is there a "Korean Jesus" being crucified? After Schmidt and Jenko realize what they are going to be doing, Schmidt kneels at a communion railing and tries to pray, telling Jesus how "freaked out about going back to high school" he is; why does this happen? The "Korean Jesus" symbolizes how "foreign" Jesus has become to people today, and the 21 Jump Street operation being housed inside a church is possible because no one is going to church anymore for it to be used as a church, which means, the police force now has to do the work churches once did, teaching kids to turn to God instead of drugs. Interesting, Schmidt's parents smoke pot.
Eric's radical environmentalism (he's also a vegan and worries about going to prison because they won't serve vegans) is all ago for mother earth, yet he cares little or nothing about fellow humans. What his car consumes is more important to him than what his peers consume, which brings up a word used a couple of times in the film: unnatural. Just because someone adheres to "nature" doesn't mean their actions are in accordance with what nature intended for us to do (for example, the casual sexual relations Eric and Molly have between them which obviously hurts and damages her emotionally and also invokes how unnatural it was for her father to have run out on her when she was growing up and how that damage is what "holds Molly hostage" when Walters--also a bad male role model--holds Molly hostage).
Which brings us to the supplier: Mr. Walters (Rob Riggle).
It's only the first hour of the first day of school and all ready, Schmidt has been able to find the dealer, Eric, pictured above, and make a purchase for two hits at $20 a pop. While Eric works on the school yearbook, he insists Jenko and Schmidt do the drug there so he knows they aren't narcs. "Only narcs say narcs," he tells them, which is what he originally called them. Eric, however, successfully manages to deconstruct himself a number of times, including when he realizes Schmidt is an undercover cop and Eric can't believe Schmidt betrayed him: "You bought us Taco Bell," he says, even though he's vegan.
It's interesting the way Mr. Walters is introduced to us, because immediately after taking the drug and Schmidt and Jenko are unable to vomit it up, they encounter Mr. Walters in the hallway who notices their passes are expired so he "makes a deal" with them to keep them out of the principal's office. He also immediately recognizes that they have done drugs, so this should alert the observant viewer that the one willing to make a deal is (literally) the dealer.
Mr. Walters the high school coach who is also the supplier for the HFS drug. He works with Eric after having caught Eric smoking weed and "made a deal with him," to sell more stuff. Why? Mr. Walters' teacher salary barely paid his alimony. This provides us with the look at teachers who destroying kids instead of building them up and being role models to them (which most teachers do with very little thanks or reward). Mr. Walters complains of not having anyone who can run on the track, but look at him: because he hasn't "run the race" of Christ, he is not "fit" to teach anyone. The chips he eats informs us about what he "takes in" (not to mention the empty bottles there on the table from the mini-bar). Mr. Walters is a man of his appetites (which is probably why he got divorced, resulting in the alimony he had to pay) and that's the reason why Schmidt shoots his penis off towards the end of the film (accidentally, but explained below). In this picture, the pinatas are filled with drugs and drug money and, curled up with them on the couch as if they were his wife and kids, we see how he uses people as if they were no more to him than the papier-mache of the pinatas destined to be destroyed, just like himself.
Why are the drugs and the money transported via pinata?
It invokes the Oscar winning Steven Soderbergh film of 2000, Traffic, when cocaine is transported in the shape of a doll (and other child's toys). Pinatas celebrate birth (they are popular at birthday parties) but they carry the instruments of death; just as the Youtube student who died from the drug wasn't celebrating the birth of Christ--the Noel for us all--which led to his death, so the taking of what the pinatas hold is also a celebration of death, not life. It also reminds us of the problem we had in 2000, and how that problem hasn't gone away, it's gotten worse.
Arriving at prom, the three other guys with them are the nerds Jenko has befriended who are going to run the wire taps to record evidence they gather; Jenko also hooked them up with three prostitutes so they would have dates for the night... At this point in the story, Jenko and Schmidt are off the force, so they are doing this on their own. When they were kicked off for getting expelled (because Jenko was upset that Schmidt was getting too involved with being popular) there is a brief camera shot of the Korean Jesus crucified in the Church; whereas, when Schmidt made his original prayer, Jesus was extending his right hand with a dove in it (symbolic of the Holy Spirit), now that they have been fired, the dove is gone. In the shot above, as they were getting out of the limo, Jenko (you can see him still holding the box) released several white doves into the air for their "arrival effect." The Holy Spirit is with them not only as the dove, but also in the limo (vehicles symbolize the Holy Spirit as well) and we especially know the Holy Spirit is with them when Johnny Depp shows up because that saves them.
Towards the end of the film, Jenko takes a bullet for Schmidt--showing how much he has matured throughout this ordeal, and can care about someone else other than himself--and Schmidt fires his gun at Mr. Walters, accidentally hitting him in the penis. Is this more crassness? Actually, no. The penis is the symbol of a male's manhood, and because Mr. Walters has failed in being a role-model for children entrusted to his care, he has lost his manhood has a result for not living up to the standard; when Walters (handcuffed) tries to pick up his severed penis from the ground with his mouth, it demonstrates how he will try to resuscitate his masculinity via his appetites (the mouth) again at a later date, even though it obviously won't work.
This is one of the moments when Schmidt chokes. He choked in the beginning of the film asking a girl to prom, then he choked when a drug user was evading arrest and he didn't do enough to stop him, and instead of firing his gun like Jenko is doing, he throws his gun at the back of an escaping criminal. When Schmidt fires at Walters, Schmidt is "coming into" his manhood that has eluded him the whole film because he overcomes his fears and realizes what manhood really is by seeing what it is not.
When Tom Hanson (Johnny Depp) shows up, why does he get shot in the neck?
He gets shot in the neck twice, because the neck symbolizes what guides us (like a yoke or a collar) and twice in his life, he has allowed false, superficial things to control him and only when he is dying does he realize it. Why? Obviously, when we are losing our life, everything is being taken from us and we see what is really important, but more importantly, it's so the audience will hear the lessons about what guided his life so we can repent of making the same mistakes before it's too late. (Schmidt mysteriously gets stabbed in the back at his party; why? It foreshadows how Jenko will stab him in the back by sabotaging the school play, even though Jenko feels Schmidt is stabbing him in the back).
Of all the things to notice in this shot, his shoe laces are untied. Why? By this point in the shoot-out, he's shot several people, and getting a little crazy, possibly because he and Schmidt aren't on the best of terms still, and he's still hoping to bring in the dealer to get their jobs back, so those things guiding his will previously are starting to "lose their hold on him" during the heat of the battle with bullets flying around.
One last little note about drugs.
Schmidt and Jenko have that huge party at Schmidt's house and Schmidt's parents return during it, and as Mrs. Schmidt is blowing up, she mentions that she knew Robert Downey Jr. when he was still on drugs and was still fun. Now, the little logo picture on the HFS drug wrapper is a tornado; given how well Mr. Downey's life is going now, do you think he would want to go back to that "stormy" lifestyle he worked so hard to overcome and that nearly ruined him? This hysterical monologue Mrs. Schmidt makes demonstrates the problem between reality and perceived living it up and having a good time, and how no one thinks about "paying the piper."
So why make another buddy cop film?
Because we all have talents, whether we are more like Schmidt or Jenko, none of us can do it alone, and films such as 21 Jump Street go a long way in reminding us of all talents and our needs, and how we shouldn't hesitate to let another shine so we can do our own shining later.
Everyone, I am DEEPLY sorry: the internet has been down for three days, Adobe keeps crashing and everything is taking five times longer than normal. I am just stopping for the day and off to see 21 Jump Street and will be posting my immediate reactions via Twitter (on the phone, not computer); hopefully all will be well tomorrow. God bless you this Lenten Friday!
Dark Shadows, set for a May 11 release, gives us the year 1972; what happened in 1972? The Watergate Scandal had started and would result in Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974. Fear about the economy in the United Kingdom growing as unemployment exceeded 1 million for the first time since World War II; equal rights amendment passed; The Godfather released, the death penalty is declared unconstitutional (interesting considering that "stoning" as a means of state execution is mentioned in the trailer and two vampires who do not die), "The Troubles" begin in Northern Ireland, there is the Munich Massacre of Israeli athletes, growing knowledge about DNA signals the birth of molecular biology, The Joy of Sex is first published (which may have something to do with this film). 1972 was, like 2012, an election year for incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon who won despite low voter turnout.
Besides a "scorned woman" (which we have seen in The Woman in Black, The Innkeepers and now Dark Shadows) there is also importance placed on the family business being "restored." This is obviously a reference to the down economy currently in the country, but what will happen, and exactly why Barnabas is a vampire (a political vampire like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, or a romantic one like Twilight) will color, to say the least, which side of the political spectrum Barnabas is going to "wake up" on. There is, to say the least, quite a bit of historical baggage the film invites by taking place in 1972, and we will have to see how it unpacks those bags.
This weekend I will be seeing 21 Jump Street, which gave Johnny Depp his kick start in the industry. The same problems which haunted the two lead characters in high school will come back now in their grown up days; there will be excessive foul language in the film, as well as drugs and some sexuality. What I am looking for is not so much the problems the film will present, rather, the cause of the problems and how, if at all, they will be resolved.
James Watkins' thriller The Woman In Black displays all the advantages of great scripting, stage crafting and technique: while a simple narrative, rich details included by the director and art department make the film a treasure chest of reading possibilities (as I posited in my initial post, Queen Victoria, Monkeys & the Catholic Church: The Woman In Black). Upon my second viewing of the film, I would like to add a new element of interpretative possibilities and a further dimension to one all ready discussed; we will do the new element of interpretation first.
Eel Marsh House, the residence of Alice Drablow and the place where everything takes place in the film, becomes a museum of Great Britain: like the great country itself, Eel Marsh House is an island cut off by water (just as Britain is cut off by water); inside the house, all the portraits, the furniture, the diverse rooms and statues, could all be understood as elements of the past of English history, with the struggle between two sisters the ultimate historical drama the story wants to explore, like Arthur creeping through the house.
Inside Eel Marsh House: when Arthur arrives, Alice Drablow has been deceased for only a month, yet the house looks as if it has been abandoned for years; it's not a mistake between the script and art department, rather, we are to understand the dilapidated state in a more symbolic manner rather than just the dust, grime and filth of naturally occurring decay. Something has caused this decay to take place, something has caused the grounds of the house to fall to ruin and something has caused the dust to settle in thick heaps; all these details invite us, like the woman in black herself beckoning Arthur to the cemetery, to peer in and see a greater mystery.
Little Nathaniel, the son of Jennet Humphrey (the woman in black), who was taken by his aunt Alice and her husband Charles, died in 1889 by drowning in mud. What complicates this issue, is a brief moment of the film suggests that Nathaniel was also conceived in mud. Taken theologically, which we will do in greater detail below, it would suggest that Nathaniel was both born in and died in a state of sin (sin as a filth to the soul symbolized by the mud because no mention is ever made of Nathaniel's father because he was, legally speaking, a bastard); but what about the soul of the country?
The round object in the immediate center is the head of the child, Nathaniel, coming up out of the bed through an area with a "supernatural" mud stain occurring upon the linens. Why? Since his mother Jennet was not married, Nathaniel was conceived in sin, hence the mud "which gives rise to him" and Arthur witnesses, unlike his own son, Joseph, whose mother gave her life's blood for him (the birthing stains upon her bed linens contrasted with Jennet's).
In 1882, the Married Women's Property Act was passed which greatly altered the ability of women entering the state of matrimony to control their own property and money; heretofore, when a woman married, everything became the property of her husband. The law didn't take effect until 1883, however, which--according to the film--Nathaniel was all ready born to a woman not in a state of marriage (thereby in control of her own property). It can be argued then, that Jennet was anxious to stay unwed, regardless of being pregnant, for the sake of money and that is the "mud" and filth into which Nathaniel was born: greed.
Nathaniel covered in the mud in which he drowned. Not having a biological father, it suggests that, given the plethora of monkeys filling his room (and that his adopted father's name was Charles) the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, is the "father" of those children born in the same circumstances as Nathaniel.
Just as Nathaniel was conceived in mud, so did he die.
What happened in Britain in 1889 when Nathaniel drowned? The "Children's Charter," or Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act was passed. The law "enabled the state to intervene, for the first time, in relations between parents and children. Police could arrest anyone found ill-treating a child, and enter a home if a child was thought to be in danger. The act included guidelines on the employment of children and outlawed begging." This little fact illuminates the bitter struggle for us between sisters and the role the state took in their dispute.
Arthur first entering Eel Marsh House and the grand staircase. As always, in great horror films, going up the stairs means one enters into a higher plane of consciousness, or thought (which is why scenes taking place on the "upper floors" are confusing to audiences because they are highly symbolic). There is also the element that, as Arthur enters the house, he enters into himself. This is an entirely different approach to the one we are currently discussing, yet, "opening the door" means Arthur opens the door into himself as well. Most of what Arthur does is read in the house, and it is through his reading of documents (pictured below) that he learns of the legal and intimate battle over guardianship of Nathaniel.
We would automatically think such an act would be desirous, that children should be protected from such awful treatment, but The Woman In Black provides a glimpse of what happens the moment the state is allowed to interfere in the relationship between the parents and children: they are separated, just as Nathaniel was separated from Jennet. Jennet being separated from Nathaniel means he is put in the guardianship of the state, symbolized by Charles and Alice who, as I have mentioned in my previous post, could be invocations of writer Charles Dickens or scientist Charles Darwin (who died in 182, the year Nathaniel was born, so that makes it more probable) and Alice of Alice's Adventures In Wonderland (because Lewis Carroll's real name was Charles).
One of the dolls of the three Fisher girls, note the mud splattered on the face.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland aren't about Wonderland at all, rather, about the craziness and nonsense of society, created by the state who, creating the law in 1889, could take children into their custody and be taught according to the writings of Charles Darwin about how they "rose" from micro-organisms in the earth and water and, since there is no after-life in Darwinism, we return to earth and water when we die. Not being taught any religion by the state then, little Nathaniel would have been condemned to hell for not "being saved." The writing on the wall in Nathaniel's bedroom, "You could have saved him," meant that he could have at least been baptized, but instead of being saved in the sacrament of "life-giving water," he was lost in the mud. This adds a rather new layer of understanding to Jennet's own suicide, self-murder, to condemn herself to hell so be with her son.
Nathaniel's room with the wallpaper that has the alphabet and the monkey, to the left, which starts playing the music in just a moment. Please note how, just by Arthur's right arm, is a curtain, pulled back for no apparent reason. In art, stemming from the medieval era, a curtain pulled back implied that something was "being revealed," and in this room, the "writing is on the wall."
An important clue to understanding why the woman in black takes the children of other couples is that the parents are never there when the children kill themselves. The presence of the "demon woman" inserting itself in place of the parents is a perverse illustration of the way Alice arranged for Nathaniel to be taken from Jennet and the state inserted itself in the place of the parents. (Now, of course, it can be argued how hypocritical is Jennet being, she had an illicit relationship with a man to conceive Nathaniel, so how religious could she be? But it is important that among the undelivered birthday cards for Nathaniel was also the rosary which Arthur places upon Nathaniel's body in his bedroom).
Nathaniel's room, towards the end when Arthur attempts to re-unite mother and son. The rocking chair plays an enormous role in the characterization of Jennet and what happened to her. Typically, a rocking chair is used by mothers to rock their children to sleep. Not having a child to rock to sleep, Jennet uses it to rock herself to "eternal" sleep, death.
And now for something completely different.
The hallmark of a great story is that it can be understood upon so many different levels, that there is always something else, always something new to discover within it. In my previous post, I discussed how the "woman in black" could be understood by the English Anglicans to be the Roman Catholic Church, which has recently made concessions to Anglicans wanting to leave that rite to leave the English Church and become Catholic (please see Queen Victoria, Monkeys and the Catholic Church: The Woman In Black for details).
Arthur reading the papers providing him with the information to understand what happened between Alice and Jennet. The pages and pages of writings and documents aren't just Alice's papers, they are the very archives of England, the great stories and literature of the age and just as we read them, so Arthur reads it and forms his own ideas and interpretations of what happened between Jennet and Alice as if reading Alice In Wonderland.
Like the woman in black always looking over Arthur's shoulder (I myself am a convert to the Roman Church), the Anglican Church might feel the Catholic Church to be waiting for every chance to "steal her Anglican children" from her. When Arthur goes through the papers, and finds the letters written in Jennet's crazy scrawling handwriting, Jennet calls her sister Alice a "harlot" and tells her to "rot in hell." Importantly, these provocations are written upon religious images so it invites a religious/theological interpretation.
Jennet hangs ominously in the background watching Arthur.
The original reason for the split between the Catholic and Anglican churches were the accusations of sinfulness (the filth of sin) in the Roman Church and the Roman Church accused the Anglican king Henry VIII of being promiscuous because he broke off relations with the church to have relations with Anne Boleyn. The name calling in the writings of Jennet to her sister could be likened to the papal bulls condemning Queen Elizabeth I to hell for heresy.
In order to get the locked bedroom of Nathaniel open, Arthur has to go down and get a hatchet, suggesting that there is a hatchet that has to be buried.
Yet this is where great film making happens.
In Nathaniel's room, the room of a small boy, when Arthur enters for the first time, as he pulls out a trunk from underneath the bed, to Arthur's left, on the wall, small but definite, is the paining of a nude woman lying upon a bed. We are not to take this as Nathaniel being exposed to pornography, rather, that his mother, in conceiving him out of wedlock, was the harlot, not Alice (as Jennet called her). While it's a small detail, it's an important detail, playing into Biblical imagery of the Roman Church being the "harlot of Babylon" because of the sins of its members.
The woman in black inciting Lucy to burn herself to death. Taken in conjunction with little Victoria who drank lye, a cleaning agent, and fire is a purgative symbol, we could understand the woman in black as inciting children to "penance" in cleansing their souls violently because Nathaniel died in the filth of sin.
In conclusion, for now anyway, there is a myriad of readings possible for this fabulous film, and little details can mean a great deal. Whether the laws of the time or the religious dialogues today, films can draw our attention to dramas that would have escaped our notice were it not for the accomplished artistry of the film makers themselves.
I was in the theater watching some film and the trailer for Battleship (May 18) came on and the woman sitting in the row in front of me turned to her husband and said, "Well, that looks stupid." Trust me, dear reader, I nearly busted a lecture on her about the role of aliens in film since the 1950s, but, fortunately for her and her husband, I didn't. Here, instead, is the third trailer released for the film and it's looking good!
While I absolutely hate seeing the John Paul Jones sunk like that, this is going to be a serious political thriller (the John Paul Jones invokes the American Revolutionary War) however, the "end of the world" scenario and the extinction of humans is a matter of protecting the status quo which may--or may not--literally be protecting the political status quo.
This is what a lot of us have been waiting for: new behind-the-scene looks at costumes, sets and concepts for the highly anticipated Snow White and the Huntsman. Here are three separate videos with great footage:
I'm glad I saw those bones on that wedding dress, that is something I totally could have missed. Knowing, also, that the kingdom has fallen into decay, and that Snow White has to rescue it, is really hopeful that it is not supporting the status quo the way I feared it might. These tidbits just make it harder to wait.
One last little note, even though Dark Shadows is due in theaters in only two months, there is still no trailer! You can count on me to get it posted as soon as it comes out, but everyone is wondering, when will it come out?
On the other hand, the closer to the end of the month we get--and the release of Wrath of the Titans--the more trailers they are putting out. Here are several new ones, along with a more detailed synopsis: A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus—the demigod son of Zeus—is attempting to live a quieter life as a village fisherman and the sole parent to his 10-year old son, Helius. Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and the Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades and Poseidon. The triumvirate had overthrown their powerful father long ago, leaving him to rot in the gloomy abyss of Tartarus, a dungeon that lies deep within the cavernous underworld. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades, along with Zeus' godly son, Ares (Edgar RamÃrez), switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titans' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned, and hell is unleashed on earth. Enlisting the help of the warrior Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), Poseidon's demigod son, Argenor (Toby Kebbell), and fallen god Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), Perseus bravely embarks on a treacherous quest into the underworld to rescue Zeus, overthrow the Titans and save mankind
The reason film makers spend so much money on advertising is because... it works. If, after having seen these awesome trailers, this movie turns into a bad blind date, I will be heart-broken. There are so many interesting elements at work here, I'm going to wait a few days to pull out some of the issues (it comes out at the end of the month with Mirror, Mirror). Okay, what Republican doesn't want to see George Washington in the imprisoned Zeus, and the escaped Titans pictured above as Obama, Clinton, Peolsi and Reid?
