Archive for August, 2009



18
Aug
09

Jackie Brown, R&B classicist

I recently watched Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown for the first time. Overall, I really enjoyed it. I seem to remember folks being very underwhelmed by it, but as someone who’s always been what we could call “appreciative” of the guy’s work (re: I’m not in love), I think I was pretty receptive to it. 

I remember this movie was coolly received in the wake of the cultural maelstrom that was Pulp Fiction. I wonder if the “meh” feelings some folks seemed to have toward the movie may have to do with how jarring the decided lack of on-screen violence and spattered blood may be compared to the rest of Tarantino’s filmography, especially his first two films, which established his enfant terrible persona and preceded Jackie Brown.

My enjoyment of Jackie Brown is met with some reservations. My biggest problem is that — source material notwithstanding, as I haven’t read Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch and thus don’t know how he wrote Jackie Burke — I would have liked Pam Grier to kick more ass. At the beginning of the movie, flight attendant Brown is arrested for smuggling drugs for crooked gun runner Ordell Robbie (played by Samuel L. Jackson). After he bails her out, she catches wise to him setting her up and threatens him with a gun. But that’s really the extent of any physical displays of whup-assery.

It just seems weird to cast Grier as a means of hailing her stardom via 70s blaxploitation films and then not have her fuck some shit up. If John Travolta dances in Pulp Fiction, Grier can shoot a cop, rather than work with them to set up Robbie. She may use them and run off with Robbie’s money, but she got zoomed before she zooms the system.

That said, I love Grier as Jackie Brown. She’s tough yet vulnerable, a woman who has lived her life on the margins as an African American women and is trying hard to make it out of an unfair situation with her dignity.

Yet, at the same time, she’s proud and has a clear sense of who she is. One of those things, as Robert Miklitsch notes in his Screen article, is a record collector, whose predilection for the funk, soul, and R&B of her youth (i.e., primarily from the 1970s). I think her love of this music and devotion to vinyl potentially orients her as an author or source for the movie’s sound.

In a key scene I wish I could find for you readers, she defines herself for her bail bondsman and potential paramour, Max Cherry (played by Robert Forster) through song. The track is The Delfonics’ “Didn’t I Blow Your Mind This Time.” Miklitsch reads this as Brown’s stubbornness to break from the past. I, on the other hand, read it as a firm declaration of who she is.

While a radio is in the background, Jackie Brown uses her hi-fi to tell Max Cherry who she really is; image courtesy of thisdistractedglobe.com

While a radio is in the background, Jackie Brown uses her hi-fi to tell Max Cherry who she really is; image courtesy of thisdistractedglobe.com

Thinking about Brown’s love and fluency with records is important. For one, it breaks up the tacit assumption that record collectors (real or mediated) are male. Scholars like Pamela Robertson Wojcik and Robyn Stillwell have contended the traditional gendering of male record collectors by analyzing mediated representations of female record collectors, but their examples tend to be white women and girls. Thus, Brown complicates the idea of who a record collector is while also promoting artists of color through generic preferences. You’ll note that she only listens to vinyl and, by implication, primarily listens to work by African American artists.

Of course, Jackie Brown may be the music selector within the movie but director Quentin Tarantino probably had more of a hand in picking which songs he would work with (though, interestingly, he doesn’t do as much virtuosis framing and editing of sound with image here as with, say, Reservoir Dogs, where he indelibly altered how many viewers would remember Stealers Wheel’s “Stuck in the Middle With You”). In Jackie Brown, a lot of the songs simply exist in a scene, creating a mood or an atmosphere, or providing an orientation point, usually for the heroine.

At the same time, having a white dude center an entire soundtrack around vintage funk, soul, and R&B (and hail the blaxploitation) is not without its problems. The same can be said for Tarantino’s put-on “black” voice when announcing that “Pam Grier is Jac-kie Browwwn” in the trailer. Clearly Tarantino wishes he could be black, for however limited a time and in whatever essentialized capacity.

One may aver that Robert Forster’s character listening to The Delfonics is, like Tarantino, aligning himself with black culture, but I read his engagement — buying the tape and playing it repeatedly in the car — as a way to get closer to Brown, who seems to love her for who she is.

So, the music here really evokes a feeling, a sensibility and, in Jackie Brown’s case, character. And if the soundtrack celebrates a golden age in black music, it’s largely because Ms. Brown pledged allegiance to it. Brown is shaped by this era, specifically by plaintive yet funky classics like Bobby Womack’s “Across 110th Street” which bookends the movie, yet takes on different meanings wholly dependent on how Brown is feeling. Here it is at the beginning, as she starts her work day.

And here it is again, at the end of her story, as she embarks on a journey to Spain. It will be a solo flight, as Cherry refuses her invitation (note that he’s a little scared of her). As she leaves him behind, she may be rueful, lip-syncing the words to the plaintive song. But I have no doubt that her records will affirm her resilience.

17
Aug
09

Lady Gaga attempts to queer the hard sell

Lady Gaga sexing the dead for Out Magazine; image courtesy of out.com

Lady Gaga sexing the dead for Out Magazine; image courtesy of out.com

. . . So we meet again, Steffie. How are you?

So, I thought I’d briefly mention Lady Gaga’s recent cover story for Out Magazine, which further establishes her recent fascination with monsters and horror (though not, sadly, Muppets). More importantly, it aligns her with a queer audience and as one of the tribe (an extension of an argument my friend Alex Cho made in a column for Flow earlier this month).

Ellen Von Unwerth’s pictorial is interesting — I’ve been a fan since I first saw her cover of Hole’s Live Through This. I especially find the photographs of her wrapped in medical gauze interesting, as it revisits the fixations she has with death and frailty that she brought to light in her music video for “Paparazzi.”

Lady Gaga on the cover of Out seems like a pretty big deal, but one I’m sure is not met without some controversy. While I’m not livid at her being on the cover (the way I was when lipstick chic interloper Katy Perry made the publication’s year-end cover last winter), I hedge. I hedge for a few reasons, the least of which has to do with hailing a queer audience while doing so with a normatively sexy female body, as Lady Gaga did when she conjured up the bath house in Rolling Stone‘s recent Hot Issue.

Lady Gaga on the cover of the Rolling Stone Hot Issue; image courtesy of insider.com

Lady Gaga on the cover of the Rolling Stone Hot Issue; image courtesy of insider.com

Principally, I still wonder how queer — not how queerable – Lady Gaga really is. Her bisexuality, which has been well-reported, is not disclosed here, but referred to, perhaps as a given. I do find disconcerting the lack of qualification for an earlier comment that her attraction to women is purely physical (presumably in opposition to men, who she doesn’t make this distinction for). For me, this seems antithetical to how I’ve always defined the philosophy behind bisexuality — i.e., that sex categories and binaries eclipse a person’s romantic, sexual, physical, emotional, and/or cerebral attractions to another person.

And while I imagine the feature was written before Lady Gaga discussed in a recent interview about the double-standard between men and women and rock and pop before immediately dismissing any claim to being a feminist, I would like some acknowledgement of how problematic this moment was.

Also, I find the constant speculation about Lady Gaga being a man or a hermaphrodite interesting, if not a bit limiting. While she’s enjoyed and encouraged much of this rumor-mongering, I’d be more impressed if she incorporated a more subcultural mode of queer address — say, tagging — or went the route of Marilyn Manson and employed prosthetics as part of her costuming. Sure, the appendage would be blurred in UsWeekly, but how awesome would it be to see a female pop star step out of a limousine with a penis peaking out of her avant-garde party dress?

What I wonder about this cover — indeed, Lady Gaga’s success as a queer icon — is how she might be more specifically aligned with a gay male fan culture and how this may speak to the fundamental differences between identity politics within the LGBT community, as well as within factions inside the current iteration of feminism (or, ugh, post-feminism). Because while this feminist thinks that Lady Gaga’s performance and cultural positioning is interesting (and problematic), it also still has very clear limits.

16
Aug
09

Notes on Movie Music: The Film Reader

Cover of Movie Music: The Film Reader; image courtesy of routledge.com

Cover of Movie Music: The Film Reader; image courtesy of routledge.com

So, one thing I didn’t mention in my indictment of (500) Days of Summer is the soundtrack. While I may have mentioned my thoughts on how music culture is configured in the movie, I didn’t discuss the soundtrack itself: how it serves to bolster the narrative, enforce the movie’s indie-ness, or its commercial success as an ancillary product.

I didn’t discuss it because I don’t really have any opinion on it. I wasn’t particularly familiar with or blown away by the songs in the movie — I thought the music was pleasant. I’d imagine it’s doing a respectable job as its own product and as an extension of the movie’s marketing campaign, though say this while qualifying that running the numbers is now a completely different game than it was, say, in the 1990s, when soundtracks were big business that could easily be reflected by a quick glance at the Billboard charts. Now, we have iTunes, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook groups, online ad campaigns, innumerable blogs, and several other outlets fragmenting the marketplace. But I’d imagine the soundtrack is doing well.

All this is to say that I wondered what the scholars who contributed to Movie Music: The Film Reader would make of the movie’s soundtrack. The anthology is a slim collection of essays edited by Kay Dickenson that was published in 2002 but primarily feature pieces from the 1990s, a decade that I’ve already defined (along with many others) as a peak time for soundtracks, which is reflected in some of the scholars’ inquiries. Perhaps it drove home for me just how temporal the objects of analysis in media studies can be, particularly music. A good reminder, if still a frustrating dillemma.

With that said, I thought I’d briefly highlight some essays that I found useful.

Jeff Smith’s “Structural interactions of the film and record industries” is a fascinating and concise industrial history of the relationship between record labels and film studios from the 1950s on. Starting out as a mutual-benefit relationship, film studios tried to form their own record labels with the intent to fashion albums and recording talent in-house, which was met with little success. As a result, record labels kept the upper-hand from the 1970s on, but left movie studios the opportunity to further develop cross-promotional and synergistic strategies without having to worry about A and R. 

This is interesting to read alongside romanticized notions that the 1970s was a renaissance period for maverick filmmaking that eschewed studio control (I specifically like to think of this story while working out the bureaucratic steps that may have been taken in order for Martin Scorsese to get the rights for The Ronnettes’ “Be My Baby” for Mean Streets).

And, as Smith’s piece was originally published in 1998, I also think of it as a harbinger of deregulation measures and conglomeration to that defined the culture industry at the end of the 20th century.  

Lawrence Grossberg’s “Cinema, Postmodernity, and Authenticity” gives a cursory glance at the importance of rock music in teen pics from the 1950s on, but pays particular attention to movies from the 1980s (specifically the ones aligned with the Brat Pack). He argues that while rock music is meant to indicate an intergenerational upheaval of value systems between establishment parents and rebel kids, movies from the 1980s actually saw teen protagonists questioning and grappling with identity politics while ultimately (or presumably) toeing the line, doing very little to break down gender norms, class divides, racist ideologies, and heterosexist agendas. At the same time, these movies incorporating more a post-modern political sensibility through irony, parody, and reference.

I wonder what Grossberg would say about how French electronic act M83 hails the 1980s, specifically in 2008′s Saturdays = Youth, an album heavily indebted to both the sound and style of the Brat Pack movies and soundtracks. I’m sure he’d get a chuckle out of learning that Anthony Gonzalez, the man behind M83, is in his mid-20s and too young to remember these movies “authentically.”

Kay Dickinson’s “Pop, Speed, Teenagers, and the ‘MTV Aesthetic’” is an interesting look into how teen movies and their soundtracks incorporate the look and sound of MTV, specifically looking at Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 adaptation of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes (a movie dear to my heart — I still have a copy of the soundtrack and nursed a brief crush on DiCaprio when he was at his most androgynous). Dickenson is particularly interested in three aspects:
1) The symbiotic relationship between the highly stylized movie, its soundtrack, and the music videos that accompany both.               
2) The deliberate uniformity of each text’s aesthetic and how they maximize youth-oriented marketing potential for what was widely regarded as a teen movie.
3) How the fast editing style of the movie and music videos popularized by MTV result in visual imperceptability (i.e., that the eye cannot keep up with the images); while a bit of a tangent, this phenomenon reminded me of John Cline’s Flow column about the increasing incomprehensibility of many segments in action films shot on digital camera.

I think there are limits to Dickenson’s argument — the Brat Pack movies or the Hughes-influenced teen pics from the late 1990s, which were not so reliant on fast editing as they were on soundtracks, trendy clothes, slang, and photogenic young actors, talking about their feelings still uphold the MTV aesthetic in my mind, perhaps suggesting that the network did not have a uniform visual style.  

Also, there’s minimal discussion of how Luhrmann’s kinetic style heightened the story’s romantic elements and how this might have played into its intense popularity among teenagers (seriously, I saw this movie dozens of times during my junior high and high school days; I also assume that DiCaprio’s vaunted teen idol status as a result of the movie led him to be cast in Titanic, a movie beloved by kids of my generation, including my friend Brandi, who saw the movie at least sixteen times in theaters and taped the ticket stubs to the wall by her bed). I’d be very curious how Dickenson reads Luhrmann’s visual style against Hughes’s (and Dawson’s Creek creator-wordsmith Kevin Williamson’s) use of dialogue, particularly regarding matters of the heart. 

Lisa A. Lewis’s “A Madonna ‘Wanna-Be’ Story on Film” is a piece I was already familiar with because, as I’ve mentioned numerous times on here, Gender Politics and MTV: Voicing the Difference, from which the essay originally emerged, was a formative text for me as a media studies scholar. 

In this piece, Lewis does a formidable job mapping out a multitude of texts surrounding Madonna in the mid-1980s. There’s star text (Madonna). There’s film text (Susan Seidelman’s 1984 classic Desperately Seeking Susan, starring Rosanna Arquette, who plays a young suburban housewife who becomes obsessed with and later develops a liberating friendship with Susan, a mysterious club denizen, played by Madonna). There’s soundtrack analysis (Lewis particularly pays attention to the club scene where Susan dances to Madonna’s song “Into the Groove”). There’s fan discourse (teen girls and young women — maybe unmentioned young men as well – appropriating the Material Girl’s iconic look, while mutating and individuating it; this development is read alongside the movie, which shows Rosanna’s Roberta becoming Susan, as well as behind-the-scenes goings-on, as Rosanna and Madonna became friends off-camera). There’s even consideration made for how corporate culture feeds into all this, coming to a head when MTV and ABC document a Madonna lookalike fashion show at Macy’s to coincide with the film’s release. In short, a dizzying but lucidly plotted out argument about the power female artists (and their fans) can exert within and outside of an increasingly synergistic media culture. 

Hmmm. Also a reminder of how much I love Desperately Seeking Susan, which I would catch on Comedy Central from time to time when I had cable. I haven’t watched it in a while. May warrant a repeat viewing ASAP.

15
Aug
09

To the women who rocked the mic right at the Good Life

Poster for This Is the Life: How the West Was One; image courtesy of needledrop.net

Poster for "This Is the Life: How the West Was One"; image courtesy of needledrop.net

I recently saw the documentary This Is the Life: How the West Was One, which, as folks like Olu Alemoru have noted, did a huge service to music history by documenting the little-discussed but influencial Good Life scene. Emerging out of an open mic night at a veggie/vegan restaurant called the Good Life in South Central Los Angeles during the late 1980s, the scene came to fruition in the early 1990s, forming outreach programs like Project Blowed and getting lots of talented folks on the mic and behind the wheels of steel in the process.

Heavily influenced by jazz, artists at the Good Life could not swear and priviledged improvisation and complex, imagery-laden rhyme schemes over route memorized rhymes about money, guns, and bitches. Oh, and if you weren’t on point, you got booed. Especially if you were Fat Joe, who was forced to pass the mic.

At times, artists associated with the scene competed with commercial hip hop artists or got signed to major labels (most notably Jurassic 5). Emcees like Volume 10, Ganjah K, and Myka 9 of Freestyle Fellowship saw more successful acts like Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, and Bones Thugs-n-Harmony swipe their phrasing, content, and style. Sometimes the scene was alluded to in early 90s television shows like Fox’s South Central. For the most part, the scene, which was perhaps more politically in line with the Native Tongues movement, was eclipsed by gangsta rap and the tiresome and deadly East Coast-West Coast beef.

Fortunately, director Ava DuVernay put together an invaluable documentary so that the artists of this scene (many of whom, like Jurassic 5, Cut Chemist, Abstract Rude, Aceyalone, and Myka 9, among others, are still recording today) can tell their own story in their own words (for her story, I highly recommend this interview). Also included are contemporary artists who were influenced by the scene (most notably Busdriver, who is easily one of my favorite rappers recording today).

My only big complaint is that, while there are women in the scene who are interviewed for the documentary, they really only get fifteen minutes to talk about their work and then spend the rest of the time talking about how much they admired — and sometimes had crushes on — many of the male MCs.

But that said, there were women in the scene who made awesome music. I’d like to highlight a few of them now.

Figures of Speech – a duo comprised of Jyant and Eve (Ronda Ross and DuVernay). So breezy and jazzy and also strong, smart, and in command. So rhythmically intricate yet so in sync and so in tune with one another. And also, I’d argue, so clearly feminist. I only wish I knew about them earlier. You can listen to a live recording of “Alpha Omega” here.

Medusa – assuredly familiar to those who’ve seen Rachel Raimist’s Nobody Knows My Name, a wonderful documentary about women in hip hop that looks at emergent MCs, dancers, and producers. Ms. Moné Smith is a warrior — fierce, fearless, not one to mince words or suffer fools. An inspiration who is still recording today.

T. Love – also familiar to those who’ve seen Raimist’s documentary (indeed, her song “Nobody Knows My Name” provided the film’s title). Poised, poetic, and uncompromising. In addition to rapping, she has also does a considerable amount of freelance writing and has run her own label.

T-Love; image courtesy of kalamu.com

T-Love; image courtesy of kalamu.com

B. Hall – there’d be no Good Life without the proprietrix of the Good Life, a veteran activist and city organizer and an advocate for local youth. She’s also the enforcer of the no profanity policy, because wordsmiths shouldn’t have to swear to create art. Someday, I hope she gets a street named after her.

14
Aug
09

Music Video Auteuses: Floria Sigismondi

Through a glass darkly; Christina Aguilera, as captured by Floria Sigismondi in the music video for Hurt

Through a glass darkly; Christina Aguilera, as captured by Floria Sigismondi in the music video for "Hurt"

As readers of the blog may know, I’ve been keeping my eyes and ears on the Kristen Stewart/Dakota Fanning Runaways biopic. While you may know the leads, the director and screenwriter may not be as much of a household name. But hopefully that will change, as first-time feature director Floria Sigismondi has been making amazing music videos since the early 1990s. Some of her more famous titles include Marilyn Manson’s “The Beautiful People,” The White Stripes’ “Blue Orchid,” and Christina Aguilera’s “Fighter.” Also, Sigur Rós’s “Untitled #1″ knocks me breathless each time I see it. 

In keeping with the spirit of the blog, I thought I’d focus on the female musicians Sigismondi has worked with (click on the artists’ names). Also, having read a delightful post on music videos inspired by horror films from my friend Caitlin at Dark Room, I thought I’d continue in the spirit.

Christina Aguilera
“Hurt”
Back to Basics

Fiona Apple
“O Sailor”
Extraordinary Machine

Martina Topley-Bird
“Anything”
Quixotic (retitled Anything upon re-release)

Shivaree
“John 2/14″
Rough Dreams

Amel Larrieux
“Get Up”
Infinite Possibilities

Sheryl Crow
“Anything But Down”
The Globe Sessions

Fluffy
“Black Eye”
Black Eye

13
Aug
09

Music archives deep in the heart of Texas

The Society of American Archivists‘ annual conference is in full swing this week and I’ve been attending a few roundtables (and getting some cute swag — “Archivists make it last longer” lanyards, for example). I’m a bit drained as a result, but I thought I’d shine a light on a couple of archival resources we have in the music capitol, as well as some neat little treasures they have that you might wanna check out.

The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History - Did you know that they’ve got quite a music collection? A couple of gems include:

Recordings of Janis Joplin performing at Threadgill’s from the early 1960s.

An educational program Selena did on Tejano music made for children. She was killed shortly after taping and her family decided not to release the program, so this is a real find.

The Blues Family Tree Project – This group is dedicated to preserving the rich but largely uncharted history of Austin’s blues scene, particularly on the East side. Sandra Carter and Harold McMillan put together an invalueable documentary about the East Austin’s blues scene. Thanks to them, I know who Ernie Mae Miller is. You should too.

11
Aug
09

St. Vincent on Letterman

I’m swiping this from my friend Colleen’s Facebook profile. Maybe you all saw this back in June, but I thought I’d share (since I hadn’t). I especially thought I’d share if your name is Kristen and you’re coming back from vacation and you love this song.

Pretty awesome, in my estimation. And a pretty big deal for Ms. Annie Clark to be on Letterman.

Although, dammit David Letterman. You dirty old man. Do you have to ogle your female guests so obviously? It’s not as bad as when Mary-Kate Olsen was promoting The Wackness, but still.

10
Aug
09

“(500) (excruciating) Days of Summer”

Poster for (500) Days of Summer

Poster for (500) Days of Summer

Note: The following post about (500) Days of Summer and why I was not charmed by it contains spoilers. I will also adhere to a list-like format for the sake of brevity. However, if you wanna read it as some dig against the sleeper rom-com’s indexical use of number-play, texts are bendy.

It was hard to go into the screening for this movie objectively. I had some misgivings about this movie that I catalogued prior to attending a Saturday matinee screening. They are as follows:

1. The preview is really fucking twee.
2. The oft-mentioned post-coital musical number, complete with marching band, animated bird, and ironic use of Hall and Oates’s great but over-used “Dreams Come True.”

Still from the dance sequence; image courtesy of paisleypetunia.com

Still from the dance sequence; image courtesy of paisleypetunia.com

3. A friend mentioned that Gordon-Levitt’s character moves on from Summer with a girl named Autumn. Seriously.
4. Same friend made quite the indictment on race and whiteness.
5. The “vintage” clothes — while Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt are in adorable outfits, they seem less vintage than Anthropologie‘s upper-middle-class version of vintage. Everything is so tidy and worn once and unlived in. It just made me miss my friend Kit, who almost exclusively wears amazing thrift-store dresses (many of which I know she’s worn multiple times). Her look is much more comfort-based and much less polished. I think I would’ve responded to the outfits if there were at least one loose thread or frayed cuff, especially since Summer is probably not cashing fat checks as a personal assistant to the head of a greeting card company. Sigh. I know; it’s a movie.

But my big problem going in was the self-conscious music geekery. Examples:

1. Gordon-Levitt wears the “Love Will Tear Us Apart” Joy Division t-shirt in one scene. GET IT? Ugh. Such an obvious visual joke. I think if there’s gonna be a music geek dramatic irony t-shirt joke, maybe having him wear a My Bloody Valentine t-shirt would have been better. But is there really a need?

Still of Gordon-Levitt wearing an in-joke

Still of Gordon-Levitt wearing an in-joke

2. A friend said that Summer quotes a Belle and Sebastian song in her high school yearbook. Blech.
3. When they break up, Summer casts her and Tom as Sid and Nancy, respectively. Ain’t nothin’ skid row about these two.

In addition, I tend to have misgivings about movies and TV shows that make music geekery — and its quirky application — so central to informing characterization and narrative (see also Juno, Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, and Flight of the Conchords). It might be contrarian, but I feel instantly resistant to these kinds of texts because I feel like I’m supposed to like them because of the music geekery. But I need more than that. While I enjoy movies like Adventureland and High Fidelity (among others like Velvet Goldmine, Times Square, Dazed and Confused, and recently Hedwig and the Angry Inch), the music geekery is actually most interesting in the peripheral.

As an aside: it seems the people of my acquaintance who have the most vitriol toward this movie are also the most personally invested in music culture. They’re also pretty cool, but wouldn’t describe themselves as such. This perhaps gestures toward how pejorative and subjective the word “hipster” has become within my generation.

To stay positive, three things about the movie made me hopeful anyway:

1. The leads are appealing.
2. Summer doesn’t want to be in a relationship.
3. Apparently director Marc Webb made iPod playlists for the leads for each scene to help get them into character. This is interesting to me, especially read alongside playlist auteurs like Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Wes Anderson, who use music to create scenes and develop characters.

With that said, I hated this movie. So much so that I was relieved that I saw it for free. 

I was pretty turned off from the start. Principally because the trailer and the opening sequence stress that this is not a love story. But that’s a lie. It’s completely a love story. It’s just not between Gordon-Levitt’s Tom and Deschanel’s Summer. It’s between first-time feature director Webb and first-time screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber and how goddamn clever they can be. Just how goddamn clever?

1. There is a marching band and a girl named Autumn.
2. There is a black and white French film that plays in the middle of the movie that turns into Tom’s life story as he sees it. I think they’re going for Godard here, but in my limited knowledge of Godard, this seems too cheap for him. He seems like the type who’d have celebrity culture gatecrash into real life, not have real life imitate a French film.
3. Summer and Tom like to have dates in Ikea, playing house in the showrooms. I will overread this as a Pavement reference.

And then there’s icky touches of whimsy that feel forced and disingenuous. Being cute and fanciful is tricky business, mainly because being charming on camera has to seem effortless. The exemplar for me is Jack Lemmon straining pasta with a tennis racket in The Apartment. Here are a few examples that miss the mark:

1. This movie has a narrator (who, as my friend Karin astutely pointed out, is far from omniscient or objective — he’s basically there to align the audience to Tom). In general, I hate movie narration. It reminds me of what I learned from “Charlie Kaufman” in Adaptation. With some exceptions, narration is profoundly lazy storytelling and filmmaking.
2. Tom has a blackboard covering an entire wall of his bedroom. So he can be close to his true passion. Drawing buildings.
3. Summer is so much a fan of artist René Magritte that she’s actually arranged a bowler hat and an apple on her coffee table.

Magrittes The Son of Man

Magritte's "The Son of Man"

4. Tom wants to be an architect, but is somehow saddled with a job at a greeting card company. To convince Tom of his true passion, Summer has him draw a landscape on her arm.
5. After Summer breaks up with Tom, he quits his job at the greeting card company after a rousing boardroom speech about how the industry feeds lies about romance to mankind. When he storms out, his wiseacre friend does the slow clap. (Aside: I actually predicted this by starting my own clap about five seconds before actor Geoffrey Arend did it on screen – gold star for me!)

And then there are things that make no sense:

1. Summer and Tom first get to know each other at a karaoke bar. Summer does “Sugartime,” a delightful little tune from the late 1950s. Apparently she wanted to do “Born to Run,” but they didn’t have it. Then Tom does a rendition of “Here Comes Your Man” by The Pixies. What karaoke bar has The Pixies but doesn’t have any Bruce on hand? The Boss is who drunk people turn to when they don’t wanna sing Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believing” again.
2. It takes Tom twenty days or so to work toward his dream of becoming an architect. Primarily because he starts drawing and making lists on his blackboard and reading books at coffee shops.
3. Tom rags on Summer for liking Ringo best. Who doesn’t like Ringo?
4. This movie takes place in Los Angeles? Really? Locals and natives, help me out. I’ve been to your fine, sunny city several times. I’ve even been in the vicinity of where some scenes were shot. It never looked like New York to me.

And finally, there were four things that I found interesting, but did not think were well-executed. As they were related to issues of gender and age, these missed opportunities made me the saddest.

1. Summer really doesn’t want a relationship with Tom and stresses that from the very beginning. There’s mention of her parents divorcing when she was young, but I think she just wants to be alone and be independent and figure out what she wants in life (both maybe explain why she cries at the end of The Graduate before breaking up with Tom). I thought this was awesome. . . . At least I thought this until she gets married to some guy at the end for some reason.
2. The movie seems invested in making a commentary on how men objectify women, how movies abet that process, and how it results in men not really knowing the women they claim to love (I think Michel Gondry’s Science of Sleep was trying to make a similar statement, and failed in my estimation for similar reasons). Tom’s “expectations vs. reality” split-screen sequence is made all the more poignant after the scenes where Tom (along with the camera and the editor) have cut Summer into fragments (her smile, her hair, her laugh, her eyes, her knees, etc.). Because, for all his obsession, Tom never really knows Summer. He may think he sees her everywhere, but he never really sees her. Instead, he sees creepy images like this one.

Summer through Toms eyes; image courtesy of 500days.com

Summer through Tom's eyes; image courtesy of 500days.com

3. Tom has a wise-beyond-her-years kid sister. Too bad she’s not really a person. A good precocious girl is my kryptonite (I love you, Linda Manz).
4. Summer isn’t really a person either. That’s too bad because I think Deschanel could have easily made her one and does fine with what she’s given (as does Gordon-Levitt). I also think this movie would have been more interesting if this sort of character was the protagonist.

Again, I think Summer’s lack of embodiment is part of the point — Tom wants Summer to be a manic pixie dream girl that can save him from his mediocre, humdrum existence, but she never performs as he thinks she should. Thus, Tom becomes obsessed with a woman he never actually knows.

But we, the audience, never really get to know her either, in part because the production personnel seem similarly vexed by her (as I think Tom is really just a stand-in for one of the screenwriters), but mainly because they are so bewitched by their words and camera tricks to give their characters any genuine motive or meaning.

09
Aug
09

Music Videos: Shakira’s hips don’t lie

Still from Shakiras She Wolf video; image courtesy of accesshollywood.com

Still from Shakira's She Wolf video; image courtesy of accesshollywood.com

So, I just finished Adrienne McLean’s wonderful book Being Rita Hayworth. In it, McLean does a considerable job recouperating Hayworth’s power and subjectivity as a star, in essence correcting, through post-structuralist and discursive readings of her image, her films, the industrial practices of the Hollywood system and gossip columns that helped cultivate her image and evaluated her work, the woman behind that image, and the multiple identities that woman occupied, that she was hardly as passive and unsubstantial as represented by many biographers and film scholars, feminist or otherwise. A great effort! Now I’ll have to watch Gilda and Affair in Trinidad.

One aspect of Hayworth’s persona that McLean claims provides both the actress and her characters considerable power is dance, which I have championed as both culturally important and personally pleasurable. Stressing the training, work, physicality, and grace that goes into dance, McLean offers it as a site of subjectivity and authorship.

Thinking about this, I can’t help but reflect on Shakira, whose known for her dancing expertise.

With that, I thought I’d highlight a couple of her music videos (admittedly, they’re for her English-language hits; I have a cursory knowledge of her that doesn’t stretch past the American pop charts, so feel free to add some videos I didn’t include). I don’t intend for her dancing to eclipse her singing or guitar-playing. I also don’t intend to suggest that dancing is inherently natural to women of Spanish or Latin descent (Hayworth, born Margarita Carmen Cansino, had a Spanish father; Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll is Colombian and Lebanese). But I think that thinking about dance is important, especially in terms of female subjectivity and prowess. In the clips that follow, click on the song titles and pay particular attention to Shakira’s athleticism, control, and muscle definition.

Whenever, Wherever“  
Laundry Service

Beautiful Liar” featuring Beyoncé
(released on Beyoncé’s B’Day)

Hips Don’t Lie” featuring Wyclef Jean
Oral Fixation Vol. 2

She Wolf
She Wolf

Admittedly, this last music video can’t be mentioned without acknowledging that it treads on some rather unsettling raced and gendered stereotypes about the rabid, lusty Latina, the configuration made all the more unsettling when we take into account that she is caged. But I feel it’s important to bring into the discussion as a way to contextualize how dance factors into Shakira’s on-screen persona. Thoughts?

08
Aug
09

Remembering John Hughes Through Girls: Watts

Watts from Some Kind of Wonderful

Watts from Some Kind of Wonderful

Yesterday, I talked about John Hughes in relation to Iona, Andi’s mentor/boss in Pretty in Pink. But Hughes built his empire not on adults. He primarily wrote for and about teenagers. Some of those teenagers were female characters. Much of that audience was (and continues to be) teenage girls. But much of the focus goes toward teen queens like Claire Standish in The Breakfast Club and Sloane Peterson in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Weird girls like Allison Reynolds in The Breakfast Club get some recognition, as do Molly Ringwald’s girls next door: Andi Walsh in Pretty in Pink and Samantha Baker in Sixteen Candles, but both helped cultivate the actress’s status as 1980s’ Teen Queen.

In short, not a love is given to Watts, the female lead of 1987′s Some Kind of Wonderful. And that’s too bad, because I think she’s one of the most interesting female characters Hughes ever wrote. Named for drummer Charlie Watts, my favorite member of The Rolling Stones, Watts is herself a drummer and working-class misfit. She is also played with charm, grit, and tomboyish swagger by Mary Stuart Masterson. She’s also hopefully in love with her best friend, Keith Nelson (played by Eric Stoltz), who is himself crushing hard on popular rich-girl Amanda Jones. In short, it’s a gender-reverse Pretty in Pink, only with a happy ending for the folks who hoped Andi would get together with Ducky. 

Amanda, Keith, and Watts; image taken from lazydork.com

Amanda, Keith, and Watts; image taken from lazydork.com

It’s also fairly gender-queer, with Stoltz playing Ringwald and Masterson playing Jon Cryer, but then taking Ducky’s effeminacy and butching it up. In addition, Watts’s look, demeanor, name, and passion for drumming all align with horror scholar Carol J. Clover’s model for the final girl. As she discusses at length in Men, Women, and Chain Saws: Gender in the Modern Horror Film, the final girl is the lone survivor in many slasher movies and other titles associated with the subgenre. Like Laurie Strode in the Halloween series, Sally Hardesty in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Ellen Ripley in the Alien series, and Sidney Prescott in the Scream trilogy, there is a queerness to Watts that is somewhat androgynous and not conventionally feminine.

So, that might make it easy to bristle at Watts and Keith pairing up at the end of the movie (especially since Watts gets the guy while looking more conventionally feminine – fail). And I do think there’s a valid argument to make for how heterosexuality may contain and stabilize Watts and thus render her as less of a threat, one that was indeed rendered on Masterson’s turn as Idgie Threadgoode in the heteronormative film version of Fanny Flagg’s Fried Green Tomatoes.

Yet, I think this reading may limit female masculinity in Some Kind of Wonderful, as well as potentially play in some sort of homonormativity. Because while there needs to be room to in our culture for the butch lesbian gender warriors Judith Halberstam discusses in her seminal book, Female Masculinity, there also needs to be room for heterosexual female masculinity and masculine girlhood in all its orientations.

Also, I appreciate that Lea Thompson’s Amanda, who could easily be spoiled and mean, is kind and relateable. And despite Watts’s jealousy, we don’t see much bickering between them. In fact, Amanda, who learns that she is too reliant on male affection to inform her self-worth, does Watts a solid by cutting Keith loose to be with her. Thus, boys don’t have to turn girls into enemies.

So, while Watts doesn’t provide the perfect text, she gets us closer to who that girl might be both on screen and in the audience. We couldn’t get closer to it without Mary. Or John. He will be missed.





 

August 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers