filmfun

When I first heard there was going to be a Sex and the City movie I decided to borrow the series DVDs from a friend and watch the show in it’s entirety in preparation for the movie.  In doing so I found the first season or so to be a slightly unimpressive with several things to nitpick, but as the show progressed I believe it came into its own and started to become a strong show that fans have grown to love.  The four characters are intriguing and it’s nice to have four different strong women to admire.  Every woman can relate to at least one of the four main female characters or even a mixture of the four.

I was very excited about the film and saw it in theaters its opening weekend.  I wasn’t sure what to expect from the movie, I was glad to be getting more of Sex and the City, but I was a little skeptical because in the past plenty of movies based on television shows have been disappointing and there have been many that just flopped.  It’s hard to bring a television series to the movies because they are such different formats.  A television show gets so much more in-depth of it’s characters because it focuses on only a few days at a time in each episode and then lapses over years of this characters life.  Whereas a film can lapse over many years if need be but only shows the moments that are most key to this character’s life.

            After seeing the film I was very impressed with the outcome and I actually saw the movie two more times in the theater, not because it was that good, but because it was good enough and I was invited two more times by other friends.  The film was successful in its transition from television to the big screen.  I especially liked the tidy and entertaining way of recapping the series during the opening credits with actual clips of the show and a voice over narration by Carrie.  The focus of the movie being that Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker ) finally getting married was perfect for a Sex and the City film and we were also able to see the three other women Samantha (Kim Cattrall ), Charlotte (Kristin Davis ), and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon ) deal with difficult life obstacles and grow more into themselves.

Some people complained, or more so observantly commented on, the length of the film.  It is long for a movie now-a-days coming in at 148 minutes, but I didn’t find any section of the movie unneeded and therefore I believe it was at just the right length.  One negative critic I can make is the directing/editing of the scene in which Carrie throws her wedding bouquet at Big (Chris Noth ).  I believe the director was trying to add an artistically dramatic style to this pivotal moment of the film but for me it seemed a little too overdone and unfitting to the rest of the film.  But besides that one moment, which I can look past, the film is a must see especially for a girls bonding night or just a good flick for alone time on the couch.

The film was released on DVD a few days ago (September 23^rd).  If interested, there is a special 2 disc version of the film: Disc 1 contains an extended feature film version (12 additional minutes, 157 minutes total) with extended commentary with director Michael Patrick King. Disc 2 contains a digital copy of the movie plus extra content featuring “Conversation with Sarah Jessica Parker and Michael Patrick King”, “Fabulous Fashion of SATC”, Deleted Scenes and Fergie interview.

-Shavon Keller

Run Fatboy Run was released onto DVD today.  While in theaters the film grossed about £10.6 million in the UK and just under $6 million in the US.  Although it wasn’t hugely successful in the US it’s still worth a download, or rental, and if you’re a Simon Pegg fan then it’s worth a buy.

The plot of the film focuses on Dennis (Simon Pegg) a slightly overweight and childish middle-aged man who left his pregnant fiancée of five years at the alter. He regrets this action and wants her back but she is now happily with an American played by Hank Azaria. In order to prove himself and win his ex-fiancée back he’s decided to show that he can be dedicated by committing to a Nike River-run marathon in London. Now he must train with the help of his friend Gordon played by Pegg’s good friend Dylan Moran (Shaun of the Dead).

What I found most particularly interesting was the unusual collaboration of three great comedians coming together with all their wit and talents in order to produce this film. These three all seem to have their own variation on comedy and it was interesting to see what kind of humor could be produced from this unique mix.

First there is David Schwimmer, best known as Ross from the hit series Friends making his motion picture directing debut with this film. Schwimmer has had some directing experience in which he directed ten episodes of Friends and a few episodes of other TV series. As an actor Schwimmer’s comedic acting tended to focus on the romantic comedies in which he is a lovable nerd that needs a little help in order to be with the one he loves. Having the experience of playing these types of roles helped him in his directing decisions since the main character is of a similar character type.

Next, another American comedian Michael Ian Black , who wrote and starred in Stella wrote the screenplay of this film. Stella was an offbeat sketch-comedy with the tagline: “Dumb comedy dressed up in a suit.” It was aired on Comedy Central in 2005 with a short run until it was cancelled, but has since gained an underground following and fan club. Many of the jokes focused on the absurd parodying of relationships and situations in typical dramas. It makes sense that Black would write this serious story about a man trying to win back the one he loves with such an absurd idea of the man showing this commitment by running in a marathon.

Finally there is British comedian Simon Pegg , best known for writing and starring in the cult zombie spoof film Shaun of the Dead who co-wrote this screenplay and stars in the film. In Shaun of the Dead Pegg’s character is similar to his character in this film as Dennis: they both are romantics at heart but have strong commitment problems. Similar to Black, Pegg also likes to focus on the bizarre and parody. With zombie spoofs and cop spoofs (Hot Fuzz) already under his belt, this film focused on the underdog sport spoof. He also wrote and starred in his own British TV series Spaced which is similar to Stella with its absurd sketch-comedy qualities.

-Shavon Keller

Veronica Mars made its TV series debut September 2004 and lasted 3 seasons ending May 2007.  The show focuses on Veronica Mars (Kristen Bell ) the high school daughter of Keith Mars ex-county sheriff and new private detective.  The first season takes place a year after Veronica’s best friend Lilly was murdered and Keith claimed it was her billionaire father who did the murdering.  But another man had confessed to the murder and Keith was therefore kicked off the force.  This entire first season introduces us to the diverse and complicated characters of the small town of Neptune as Veronica takes on her own responsibilities as private eye along with her father and delve deeper into the mysterious case of Lilly Kane’s murder.

After Season One’s finale and the mystery solved, Season Two takes on a new overall arc.  On the way back from a school field trip a bus of Neptune High students mysteriously goes over a cliff.  Now with Veronica on the case this doesn’t seem to be just a simple accident and she is determined to find out the true cause.  While at the same time deals with relationships including a complicated romantic relationship with Logan, Lilly’s brother.

Season Three lacks a great deal compared to the first two suspenseful action-packed seasons.  The reason for this is the pressure put on Creator Rob Thomas by the new WB.  The WB decided that they didn’t want the show to follow its usual course of an overall arc for an entire season.  They thought by having shorter 5 show arcs it would be easier for newcomers to join in on the show and the audience numbers would climb.  Unfortunately this seemed to have the opposite affect proving that what was great was best left unchanged.  I personally preferred the original set up for the show and found it more interesting making it a show worth being dedicated to.  I think the WB underestimated its audience as unable to follow a complicated series.  Well the show LOST and its success would certainly prove those thoughts wrong now.  I don’t know what they were thinking in a day where a fan could easily watch missed episodes online therefore they didn’t need to do the 5 show arcs because people could catch up on what was going on by downloading missed episodes.  I believe Rob Thomas took back the show a little more at the end of the season because the episodes were better but it was just too late and he was forced to end the series because the show was being cancelled.  The finale is a powerful episode and it’s a very sad one at that, because of Veronica’s situation and also because of the show being forced to end.

Now there’s been a lot of talk about a Veronica Mars movie.  It would only be logical to have a film in order to give VMars fans what they deserve and the show what it deserves for being unfairly stunted.  Although the idea of a film seems to be just that an idea and lots of talk, I really do hope it will be made because then Veronica Mars will have the ending it was meant to have and VMars fans will finally be satisfied.

-Shavon Keller

In Noam Murro’s directing debut of Smart People, just released on DVD August 12^th, he proves that some times smart people can’t always make the smartest decisions.

This slower paced movie is focused more on character development rather than action, but none-the-less it is entertaining and real because of its unique characters.

After experiencing a trauma induced seizure, a self-involved professor, Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid), must re-evaluate his life and become more dependent on others. His doctor, who happens to be one of his forgotten students from years back, Janet (Sarah Jessica Parker), informs him he is suspended from driving for six months. To his unwanted rescue, his free-loading adopted brother, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church), comes to stay for a “win-win” situation in his eyes, in which he stays for free and becomes Lawrence’s chauffer. With his visit, Chuck, tries to encourage Lawrence’s over-achieving teenage daughter, Vanessa (Ellen Page) to lighten up and for Lawrence, a widower, to get back in the game and pursue Janet as a love interest.

This film’s strongest element is its make-up of individually complex main four characters played by exceptional actors. It is hard to pick out just one of the four lead actors as showing the most talent, because they equally make their own characters believable, comical, and at times heartwarming. All four characters are on different levels of intelligence but equally connected in their lacking abilities to connect with and create fulfilling relationships with others.

Through these characters’ problems, the film plays with conventional relationship titles. In Lawrence’s relationships as professor, his colleagues don’t understand him and he has a great problem with remembering past students. With his own adopted-brother, he treats him more like his chauffer than his brother and refers to him as “adopted” with every opportunity he gets. And finally Lawrence’s initial treatment of Janet is as a student to lecture rather than a love interest.

Vanessa, with her genius intelligence, she acts too old for her age in which she is more like house wife than daughter to her father, performing all household duties, becoming jealous of the threat of a girlfriend, and she accepts the lack of acknowledgment from her father for her exceptional educational accomplishments. Also because of Chuck’s willingness to show Vanessa how to have a good time as a teenager, in a drunken stupor, she tries to make a move on her adopted uncle as a love interest rather than uncle because “he’s adopted anyway, it doesn’t count.” These confused definitions and blurred boundaries of relationships emphasize each character’s inadequacies with relating to others properly.

Although each of the four main characters’ are interesting and well developed, the film seems to overlook the development needed of its supporting characters. Such as the idea of having a lesser talented college brother, James (Ashton Holmes), for Vanessa to look down on and to be unappreciated by his father. This would make a positive addition to the family dynamic, but it wasn’t developed enough throughout the film and seemed as though in the final edit many of his scenes may have been cut causing a lack of interest in his character for us the audience.

Also, the character who seemed to be Janet’s best friend and fellow doctor, was only used in two important but quick scenes. One in which we find out Janet had a crush on Lawrence when he was her professor in college. The other we find out Janet has a habit of self-sabotaging her relationships. Although he is not a very important character, since he was included in these two scenes he should be present in a few more to make his character believable as Janet’s best friend and to provide him with more purpose in the film. Again, possibly an editor’s mistake?

Even with its few flaws, this film’s strong base of interesting characters and their struggles to connect with others is what drives this film. It proves that no matter what your intellectual abilities or limitations may be you can never have all the answers when it comes to relationships.

-Shavon Keller

I was a speaker in a Gender Colloquium at Rider University and I decided to include a shortened version of my speech here about Adam’s Rib, Legally Blonde, and the patriarchal unconscious connection in law and film. Enjoy.

The law is seen as an ideal system that mediates all and shouldn’t be altered; but there is the presence of the patriarchal unconscious which creates flaws in this system. The patriarchal unconscious is that unknowingly, just as males are the fathers and head of the households, males are in control of the law system and how it functions. George Cukor’s 1949 film, Adam’s Rib, is a screwball comedy about a married couple, who are also both lawyers that take on the same case defending opposite sides. Adam Bonner tries to prosecute Doris Attinger who is accused of attempting to murder her uncaring husband; while Amanda Bonner defends this woman on the basis of “equal rights under the law,” which Amanda insists if the person on trial were a man he would be vindicated for trying to kill the lover of his unfaithful wife in order to protect his home. Adam’s Rib seems to be a film fighting for women’s rights and against the biased patriarchal unconscious, but on closer analysis one can see that the message seems to lose its hold in the end when Adam wins over his wife, Amanda, and the argument is dropped.

The scene in which we see Amanda start to become passionate about fighting for women’s rights is the next scene as they drive to work. Amanda is driving which seems like the film’s way of showing that Amanda is equal and has power, but then this is undermined by portraying her as a stereotypical bad woman driver with all the other male driver’s beeping and yelling. The shot composition throughout this scene distinguishes the divide between Amanda and Adam’s views as they are framed by the windshield with a divide down the middle. We first hear Amanda’s view when she says, “There’s lots of things a man can do and in society’s eyes it’s all hunky dory. A woman does the same thing, the same mind you, and she’s an outcast.” When she makes this strong statement she is looking forward, facing the camera because she is driving, so her view is clearly and strongly conveyed. When Adam states his point that anybody who commits a crime, whether it’s a man or woman, should be punished; rather than fully understanding Adam’s view we are distracted by Amanda trying to get a parking spot. This lack of acknowledgment of his view could be because in society we are too aware of this view as an excuse of the patriarchal unconscious to suppress women, or it could be because this is leading up to Amanda winning the one case in court, but finally losing in the long run with the ending of the film.

This film falls under the category of being a genre film, a screwball comedy, which causes the film to follow the patriarchal unconscious by not allowing the audience to take the lessons of women’s rights seriously. One particularly humorous scene is when Amanda asks the people of the court to imagine Mrs. Attinger, Mr. Attinger, and Mr. Attinger’s mistress as the opposite gender than what they are, in order to prove a point. In this scene when the females are transformed, their facial expressions and posture remain the same and we see the people around them acknowledge the change by sitting up or murmuring to each other. When Mr. Attinger transforms into a woman we hear Amanda say “try, try hard,” as if to imagine a male as a female is a very hard task. Then when he is dressed in the women’s clothing he changes his face into softer expressions, he stops slouching and sits straight, turns his hand up, and raises an eyebrow. His transformation seems more elaborate as he tries to be more feminine and we hear people gasp with much more surprise. This humor undermines Amanda’s strength as a lawyer. This sex change is supposed to support Amanda’s statement when she says, “an unwritten law stands in back of a man who defends his home. Apply this same law to this maltreated wife and neglected woman.” Her statement is strong and accurate but people miss it because of the distraction of the patriarchal unconscious which causes us to find a male in women’s clothing humorous since it seems such a contradiction from the dominant and anti-feminine role the male is given and the strong focus of heterosexuality in our society.

The ending of this film emphasizes the fact that Amanda, a female lawyer, has failed in altering the legal system. Again because this is a screwball comedy, there must be rules that are followed as a genre film which also affects the ending of this film. While Amanda may have won the case, this win caused a riff in their marriage which is typical in screwball comedies in order for the ending to be a happy moment where the couple forgive and embrace. In this last scene, Adam shows Amanda that men can use the trick of tears just as women and Amanda uses this as further evidence toward her point: that men and women are the same and should be treated this way. But Adam uses the “little difference” between men and women to finally win his argument once and for all and drop the subject forever. The patriarchal unconscious exists because of this “little difference” in which men feel that they should be in more power than women; and at the end of this film Amanda shows that she agrees with this ideology because there is a happy ending embrace to this screwball comedy.

At the start of this film Amanda seems to have a strong stance of pro-women’s rights and equality, but as the movie progresses Adam’s argument becomes stronger and Amanda becomes weaker by the falling out of their relationship as husband and wife. Therefore the film simply shows the injustices of the law and the prejudice of women but it does not truly fight for women’s rights because in the end the “little difference” is rewarded and the woman is merely wife to the man.

You might be wondering why the title of this blog is: The Patriarchal Unconscious: From Adam’s Rib to Harvard. That’s because in my original paper I compared Adam’s Rib to the 2001 film Legally Blonde because like Adam’s Rib it also seems to question the injustices of the law system, especially sexism. It was interesting to compare a film from the 1940s to that of one from the postfeminist era. But again with a close analysis of Robert Luketic’s Legally Blonde, one can see that it seems to start out unknowingly fighting against the patriarchal unconscious, and in the end Elle appears to be accepted for doing things her own way, but the major fight to change the system and the patriarchal influence is lost. Elle’s original fight in the film is actually for her ex-boyfriend to propose, but through this she came to realize her real fight should be for women’s rights. Just as in Adam’s Rib, Elle won the small fight by winning her case in court, by her terms; but she loses in the end because instead of standing up for women’s rights and trying to alter the law system she merely supports the law and actually claims that it is just, by giving credit to the patriarchal system for accepting her even though she was different in her hyper-feminine ways. Although these films are 52 years apart, and there’s the period of the feminist movement between them, they both seem to question the flaws of the law system, but unfortunately they each end with happy comedy endings allowing female inequalities in law to be masked by Hollywood genre conventions.

*work cited is available upon request

-Shavon Keller