I'd never questioned the MPAA. I always thought ratings were there because they had to be, and when a film had no rating, it was because it was so suitable for everyone, it didn't even need a rating. Boy, was I wrong.
This Film is Not Yet Rated opened my eyes to the evil world of the ratings board. The only word I can think to describe it is unfair. The MPAA holds a tyranny over movies, and they cater to the needs of big studios and executives. What I don't understand is how they refuse to alter their policies, even when faced with the overwhelming evidence in this film that bias exists in their ratings.
What made me especially angry is their claim that their board is a good representation of parents in America, despite the fact that the seem to be of primarily one political party, of just a handful of races, and overall, of a similar, conservative mind.
I feel like this is censorship, even if they aren't a government organization. I mean, if they give an independent film an NC-17 rating, the film probably won't accept it. So, they restrict that crowd that will get access to this film by restricting its distribution outlets, its advertising, and its overall audience. So, their preventing a large portion of the audience from seeing the film. Essentially, its censorship.
Also, if the ratings are optional, why are people subjected to them? What I mean is, if the rating is not required by law, why do we as moviegoers have to adhere to them? Why are we being forced to follow laws that stem from a private organization and that benefit only the studios and those directly involved with the MPAA?
Watching this makes me glad there are things like commonsensemedia.org and the internet in general, where organizations like the MPAA can't sink their controlling claws. At least not yet, and hopefully not ever.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Dancer in the Dark
Everybody remembers Bjork, and the awful, awful swan dress. She was a red carpet bomb, though definitely memorable, which I guess you could argue is more important. However, I had never, ever heard of this movie, and did not know that was why she was at the Oscars. In fact, since I knew Bjork was a foreign artist, I assumed that this was a foreign language film when I first heard of it.
The actual film was... interesting, to say the least. For me, there were three main aspects that stood out: the cinematography, the story, and the music.
First, the cinematography. Since Von Trier was part of the Dogma 95 movement, I could see where the more naturalistic style of filming would come in (even though this film is not quite a Dogma 95 film). Part of me was really intrigued by the style. It made the film more personal; it made me sympathize more with Selma, feel more for her plight. The way it was filmed, I felt as though I was watching one long home movie about the Selma's life. Even when Von Trier would move the camera to follow the action, it was done in such a way that it felt as though I was standing there, and my head was turning to follow the action. However, by the end of the film, I was a little bit irritated by the style. It may sound a little "Hollywood" of me, but why watch something for entertainment if its quality is so low? I mean, I can respect that its very avant-garde, and that it does contribute to the viewing of the film, but by the end I was a little bit tired of it.
Another thing about the cinematography is that it changes from "real" life to "musical" life. I like this aspect of it; it gives a strong distinction between Selma's actual reality and the "reality" she lives in her head. This contributes greatly to one of the overall themes in the film. The real world, where Selma exists with her poor eyesight, is blurry and low quality. But the world in Selma's head, where her eyesight doesn't matter and her vision is crystal clear, is sharp and bright in contrast.
Then, there was the actual plot of the film. I could not think of a more depressing plot if I tried. I was crying by the end of the film, as I assume everyone who is human also did. What was really sad was that Selma was relatively upbeat, despite all the ordeals life threw at her. This seems so unrealistically wonderful to me, because if Selma can be this way, why can't everyone be? Despite how naive and irritating Selma could be at times, I could never have wished death upon her, and it was heartbreaking that she got something she absolutely did not deserve.
Finally, there was the music. All I can say is, I don't know what inspired Bjork to sing the way and what she did, but it was strange and not at all appealing to me personally. I cannot understand how the soundtrack got an Oscar nod.
All in all, Dancer in the Dark is an alright film. I wouldn't recommend it for entertainment purposes, but I cannot deny, despite all my problems with it, that it has artistic relevance.
The actual film was... interesting, to say the least. For me, there were three main aspects that stood out: the cinematography, the story, and the music.
First, the cinematography. Since Von Trier was part of the Dogma 95 movement, I could see where the more naturalistic style of filming would come in (even though this film is not quite a Dogma 95 film). Part of me was really intrigued by the style. It made the film more personal; it made me sympathize more with Selma, feel more for her plight. The way it was filmed, I felt as though I was watching one long home movie about the Selma's life. Even when Von Trier would move the camera to follow the action, it was done in such a way that it felt as though I was standing there, and my head was turning to follow the action. However, by the end of the film, I was a little bit irritated by the style. It may sound a little "Hollywood" of me, but why watch something for entertainment if its quality is so low? I mean, I can respect that its very avant-garde, and that it does contribute to the viewing of the film, but by the end I was a little bit tired of it.
Another thing about the cinematography is that it changes from "real" life to "musical" life. I like this aspect of it; it gives a strong distinction between Selma's actual reality and the "reality" she lives in her head. This contributes greatly to one of the overall themes in the film. The real world, where Selma exists with her poor eyesight, is blurry and low quality. But the world in Selma's head, where her eyesight doesn't matter and her vision is crystal clear, is sharp and bright in contrast.
Then, there was the actual plot of the film. I could not think of a more depressing plot if I tried. I was crying by the end of the film, as I assume everyone who is human also did. What was really sad was that Selma was relatively upbeat, despite all the ordeals life threw at her. This seems so unrealistically wonderful to me, because if Selma can be this way, why can't everyone be? Despite how naive and irritating Selma could be at times, I could never have wished death upon her, and it was heartbreaking that she got something she absolutely did not deserve.
Finally, there was the music. All I can say is, I don't know what inspired Bjork to sing the way and what she did, but it was strange and not at all appealing to me personally. I cannot understand how the soundtrack got an Oscar nod.
All in all, Dancer in the Dark is an alright film. I wouldn't recommend it for entertainment purposes, but I cannot deny, despite all my problems with it, that it has artistic relevance.
Singin' in the Rain
Everybody knows it. We've all had the song stuck in our head, and we've all been to the Universal attraction that tells us about the director's choice to use milk instead of water for the rain. I'm certainly not an exception to this. But I had never actually seen the movie until this class.
Let me just preface this by saying that I love musicals, so I may be biased in my liking of this film. However, someone who doesn't like musicals would certainly still be able to appreciate the satire of musicals in the film. And honestly, even if you don't like the songs, there's no way you can't appreciate Gene Kelly's dancing.
Singin' in the Rain is a meta-musical- it explores the transition of a movie studio from silent film to sound, all set to a musical script. It was enjoyable to watch, particularly because it was comedic in nature. The dialogue was very witty, especially amongst Don, Kathy, and Cosmo. This is important because even if the musical numbers had been removed from the film, it still would've have made for an enjoyable, albeit slightly less entertaining, film. The movie, while filling most of the stereotypes of musicals- humorous and light, with tons of dancing- has the ability to stand on its own as a normal film. This cannot be said of most musical films (I guess it can be said, depending on who's arguing it, but I digress).
The one thing that seemed the most problematic about this film however, and the thing we discussed the most in class, was the musical number Don proposes for the film (within the film)- the Broadway Melody Ballet. It is an especially long sequence that has nothing to do with the film. It does not further the plot in any way, it does not contribute to character development, and it does not even make much sense in terms of the film Don is proposing it for. All in all, the sequence feels out of place, and for those who do not like musicals, it makes the film less enjoyable.
That being said, I really, really liked it. This film is already pretty meta, and including this number just takes it to the next level of "meta". I mean, we're watching a film, about the making of a film, and then we go inside Don's head to see the making of a part of the making of a film. In this way, however loosely this can be argued, it furthers the sense of "metaness" in Singin' in the Rain.
Additionally, I really liked the music and dancing in the sequence. Not only did it go through a wide range of musical styles, it also went through a wide range of tempos and dances. I found myself getting lost in it; I forgot I was watching a movie because I was so enraptured with the musical number itself. In fact, my favorite part was when the main character and the lead female do a semi-ballet type thing. Its so well-choreographed and so beautifully shot that I don't really care that it has nothing to do with the movie itself. I'm just glad I got to see it.
Bottom line is, Singin' in the Rain is a great movie, and it knows how to poke fun at itself. Despite that however, it probably isn't good for those who don't enjoy the musical genre. This segregating aspect of it, however, has certainly not hurt its reputation over the years.
Let me just preface this by saying that I love musicals, so I may be biased in my liking of this film. However, someone who doesn't like musicals would certainly still be able to appreciate the satire of musicals in the film. And honestly, even if you don't like the songs, there's no way you can't appreciate Gene Kelly's dancing.
Singin' in the Rain is a meta-musical- it explores the transition of a movie studio from silent film to sound, all set to a musical script. It was enjoyable to watch, particularly because it was comedic in nature. The dialogue was very witty, especially amongst Don, Kathy, and Cosmo. This is important because even if the musical numbers had been removed from the film, it still would've have made for an enjoyable, albeit slightly less entertaining, film. The movie, while filling most of the stereotypes of musicals- humorous and light, with tons of dancing- has the ability to stand on its own as a normal film. This cannot be said of most musical films (I guess it can be said, depending on who's arguing it, but I digress).
The one thing that seemed the most problematic about this film however, and the thing we discussed the most in class, was the musical number Don proposes for the film (within the film)- the Broadway Melody Ballet. It is an especially long sequence that has nothing to do with the film. It does not further the plot in any way, it does not contribute to character development, and it does not even make much sense in terms of the film Don is proposing it for. All in all, the sequence feels out of place, and for those who do not like musicals, it makes the film less enjoyable.
That being said, I really, really liked it. This film is already pretty meta, and including this number just takes it to the next level of "meta". I mean, we're watching a film, about the making of a film, and then we go inside Don's head to see the making of a part of the making of a film. In this way, however loosely this can be argued, it furthers the sense of "metaness" in Singin' in the Rain.
Additionally, I really liked the music and dancing in the sequence. Not only did it go through a wide range of musical styles, it also went through a wide range of tempos and dances. I found myself getting lost in it; I forgot I was watching a movie because I was so enraptured with the musical number itself. In fact, my favorite part was when the main character and the lead female do a semi-ballet type thing. Its so well-choreographed and so beautifully shot that I don't really care that it has nothing to do with the movie itself. I'm just glad I got to see it.
Bottom line is, Singin' in the Rain is a great movie, and it knows how to poke fun at itself. Despite that however, it probably isn't good for those who don't enjoy the musical genre. This segregating aspect of it, however, has certainly not hurt its reputation over the years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)