filmfun

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

When my two best girlfriends of 7 years and I left the theater we weren’t discussing and gushing about the film instead we were reminiscing and laughing about our memories together.

Just like any film adaptation of a book it is difficult to make the decisions of what to leave in and what to leave out and still present the essence of the story. With this adaptation in particular it seems even more difficult since there are four main characters, the filmmaker has the task of providing equal attention to four different characters and to use these four stories to make the movie satisfying as a whole. There were some gaps and some moments where audience members must take a moment to make a connection themselves. I have not read the books but usually fans who have read the books first tend to complain about the choices the filmmakers make to leave particular events out that seemed prominent in the books. Also I read that the first movie is based only on the first book whereas this sequel is based primarily on the fourth book but brings in moments from the second and third books as well which may throw off some of the book fans and even upset them.

I think this film had a satisfying story as a film it did its job of sending a message about the bond and friendship among a group of girls from high school and into college, one that others can relate to such as my friends and I. It did help that the four actresses of the four main characters are each very talented and have each uniquely provided something enchanting to these characters that you can’t help but be intrigued. But since I know these films are based on books I know there are things missing which will probably provide more depth and connection between the characters. Therefore these films entice my interest in reading the books. It’s almost as if these films are advertisements for the books. Now I just hope my curiosities will be satisfied with reading the series.

-Shavon Keller

When my friend and I watched the preview for Pineapple Express , I couldn’t hold in my excitement for the film, but his only response was a shrug of the shoulders and the comment, “I’m not a fan of stoner movies.” I stared at him questioningly. I explained to him that this was not going to be a typical stoner movie; it’s a Judd Apatow and crew film, it has to be about much more than that. I listed off Freaks and Geeks, Undeclared, Knocked Up and tried to make him understand how amazingly funny and clever Apatow’s style of writing is.

After seeing the film my predictions were proven correct, it definitely was not just another stoner movie. Yes the plot revolves around weed but it’s the relationship and growing friendship between Dale (Seth Rogen) and his drug dealer Saul (James Franco). This is what I appreciate about Apatow’s work - the way he builds relationships between characters; it’s also why I appreciate the Apatow crew of actors who pull off these unusual and comedic characters so well. Rogen and Franco are Apatow actors from way back in his 1999 television series Freaks and Geeks . Rogen’s character Ken in the start of the series just delivered great one-liners but as the show progressed we saw him with his first girlfriend which provided more depth to his character through this relationship. Franco’s character Daniel is developed by his trials of his love/hate relationship with his girlfriend throughout the series. It is this focus on relationships that provides depth to Apatow’s humor. He creates characters that we can relate to because they too care about and are affected by the similar progression and digressions of relationships as we are in our own lives.

In Pineapple Express, we are first introduced to Dale as he goes about his daily routine of ‘serving’ people their court orders and smoking pot during the drive. We see him meet his girlfriend in the halls of her high school, in which he looks very out of place as a slightly overweight, 25 year old man in a suit, compared to the teenage jocks she hangs out with. Next it’s time for him to stop by his drug dealer’s house to stock up on some more weed. Meet Saul - lonely drug dealer who’s trying to raise enough money to pay for a good retirement home for his grandmother, and dreams of one day becoming a famous architect, but for now remains stoned practically all the time.

While in his car smoking the rare Pineapple Express weed Saul sold him, Dale becomes the single witness to a murder performed by a crooked cop. Dale panics and throws his roach of Pineapple Express out the window leaving it at the scene. Pineapple Express is so rare it can be traced back to Saul and possibly Dale. These two make an odd pair, but they are forced to spend all their time together as they are on the run from the cops. The rest of film showcases what Apatow does best, the development of his characters in hilarious ways as they develop their friendship.

There are many memorable scenes throughout the film as both Rogen and Franco give hilarious performances (Rogen’s awkwardness and Franco’s dopey expressions are my personal favorites). But there was one scene in particular that made me laugh so hard I started to cry and was still giggling into the next scene. I absolutely love it when people fall and in this scene it was so well choreographed with running and falling I couldn’t control myself.

During another scene in the movie, I heard a very loud laugh from a man in the row in front of us. When I looked to see who the loud laugh came from I realized it was from a man with his wife and they had to be at least 65, they looked to be about the retired age. It made me extremely happy to see that this film can reach out to even an older generation. I’m not saying that all 65 year olds would love this film, they probably wouldn’t, these two could have just been the cool exception, but it was still awesome to witness.

So, if you are an Apatow and crew fan you should have seen this movie already and loved it. If you’re not a fan then you should see the movie, fall in love with it, watch more Apatow and crew creations to learn and then become a fan of this brilliant type of humor.

-Shavon Keller

I’ve been a fan of Dancing with the Stars (DWTS) for the past three seasons. I first became interested in the show in particular with season 4 because I was a huge NSYNC fan and wanted to see Joey Fatone perform again, but of course when watching the season I switched my interest to Apollo Anton Ohno (five time medalist speed skater) and was satisfied with his win. I fell in love with the show that season and have been a fan ever since.

My roommate took me to see So You Think You Can Dance (SYTYCD) on tour in 2007. I didn’t know what to expect because I had never watched the show but I couldn’t help but be in impressed by the incredible dance routines. This inspired me to watch every episode this season and the two part finale Wednesday and last night. Congratulations to Joshua! I was actually rooting for Katee all season so I was glad this season they decided to give a prize to the first place female in which Katee walked away with $50,000.

After watching the two dance shows I thought it would be interesting to do some comparing and contrasting.

Host:

Tom Bergeron (DWTS) v. Cat Deeley (SYTYCD) the clear winner is Bergeron! Yes Deeley may be hot and she is clever at times but Bergeron is just amazing at what he does. It’s no wonder he’s up for an Emmy in the new category, Best Host for a Reality or Reality-Competition Program, which he is the most qualified for compared to his competitors (Ryan Seacrest – American Idol, Howie Mandel – Deal or No Deal, Heidi Klum – Project Runway, and Jeff Probst – Survivor). He’s been around longer with Hollywood Squares and Funniest Home Videos under his belt he’s just grown and has strengthen his host abilities. He is very talented in his improvability and you can’t help falling in love with him.

Judges:

DWTS Len Goodman, Carrie Ann Inaba, Bruno Tonioli. I really like all three of the judges and the way they interact and compliment each other, for the most part. When I first started watching I thought Len was another cranky harsh British judge (another Simon) but as I tuned in longer I realized he does usually give honest criticism and he is capable of plenty of positive comments as well. Carrie Ann always gives helpful tips for the dancers to improve and she seems to really care about their progress. Bruno at times can seem over exuberant but he has yet to get to the point of complete annoyance so I don’t mind his over exuberance, I find it more entertaining than anything. The only thing that does annoy me are the arguments between Len and Bruno, it becomes distracting and by not listening to one another they become childish.

SYTYCD Nigel Lythgoe, Mary Murphy, and a guest choreographer. I don’t have a problem with Nigel, I think he is a very good judge and he gives out truthful and helpful criticism. I think it is smart to provide a different guest choreographer as a judge each week because it provides a fresh perspective and also an in-depth view since they are the ones working closely with these dancers. But I can honestly say I find Mary Murphy very annoying. I’ll give her respect for her criticism on the ballroom dances, it’s her specialty so she knows what she is talking about, but besides that I believe the reason she is positioned as middle judge is because she doesn’t know how to comment on other dance styles and she bases her answers on the comments of the other judges. Don’t even get me started on her habit of screaming!

Format:

Judging

DWTS throughout the entire season the judge’s points count for half and the audience votes counts for the other half of the total. Therefore the judges and the audience are given equal control over who remains on the show and will become champion.

SYTYCD there are two different voting styles throughout the season. For the first half of the season the audience votes decide the bottom four and the judges votes are the final decision. Then in the second half of the season the judges’ opinions are merely used as guidance and influence on the audience and critique for the dancers, only the audience votes decide who will remain and become champion.

I understand that by providing the audience so much power in voting they’ll have more interest in watching every week to see if their vote had an effect. But I don’t like how the audience will pick favorites based on personality instead of dance abilities, it isn’t fair to the dancers. Especially in DWTS, the competitors are celebrities so of course the audience has favorites but they are supposed to vote based on the dances. So I feel the judges should always have more power than the audience.

Dance Styles

DWTS since it is based on ballroom competitions, the dances are those of ballroom and Latin competition styles including: Foxtrot, Cha-Cha-Cha, Quickstep, Jive, Tango, Paso Doble, Viennese Waltz, Mambo, Rumba, and Samba.

SYTYCD main focus is Contemporary and Hip Hop since most of the dancers are from these particular styles, but there is also a very large variety of other styles thrown in to the mix including Latin dances and ballroom dances along with other unique styles: Jazz, Broadway, Disco, Ballet, Two Step, Bollywood, and Russian.

At first I was thrown by such a large variety of dance on SYTYCD because I was used to the specific combination of dances on DWTS every week in which you see the progression the dancers make with each type of dance. But then I couldn’t help but be impressed by these dancers versatility with such a variety of dance that they’ve never experienced before and are able to conquer in the four hours they are given to learn the dance.

Results Shows

DWTS includes a group dance by the professional dancers, repeat of favorite couple’s dance from the night before, guest performance, along with series such as Macy’s Dance Showcase Performance and DWTS Kids. In the special 100^th Episode past dancers came back and the judges reminisced about their favorite moments of the series.

SYTYCD includes a group dance, guest dance performance and guest singer or musical group which can include back up dancers. Then for their season finale they brought back past dancers and the judges reminisced about their favorite moments of the season.

I believe DWTS has better guests, they seem to have a bigger budget though, and their dance series add a little something extra to the show. Also I enjoy how they have their favorite dance repeated. But I think SYTYCD does it right by having a group performance (although DWTS does have one per season). I think DWTS should take note of SYTYCD’s finale in which there is a greater recap of the series with past dancers, which is a special reward for long term fans.

Quality:

Fox v. ABC, ABC will always be the winner when it comes to quality.

Final Comments: Entertainment Value/Audience:

Each show is for any age but DWTS tends to attract older audiences and SYTYCD tends to attract more of the younger audiences although there is plenty of overlap and plenty of people who watch both, such as myself. This makes sense because DWTS usually has more celebrities known to older generations and very few of the younger generation celebrities and SYTYCD features young dancers in their teens and early twenties so the younger generation can relate.

I believe that after watching both shows and comparing them you can’t say that one is better than the other overall because their focus is very different, even though they are both dance shows. With just the differing fact that one’s competitors are non-professional dance celebrities and the other are aspiring dancers makes a large difference. Therefore I won’t say which is better, it depends on what you want to get out of a show. DWTS is pure entertainment it reminds me of the 70s celebrity shows, I mean seriously- the celebrities reward for all their hard work is a mirror ball trophy (and of course exposure which doesn’t hurt)! Whereas SYTYCD is about watching aspiring dancers go through almost a dance boot camp in order to prove themselves, to become better dancers, with the end goal of making their name known by gaining the title of “America’s Favorite Dancer”, $250,000, a tour contract, and in this season a role in a movie.

Both shows are worth checking out and you can decide which is your favorite but neither will leave you unimpressed.

-Shavon Keller