Random Film, Television and Literature Criticisms

I've Been Gone For A While ... Only To Reappear With A Little Self-Indulgence

2011-12-03T17:35:00.000-08:00

http://www.cbc.ca/books/canadawrites/2011/11/writer-to-watch-zalika-reid-benta.html

Midnight In Paris: The Pitcher of Medicority (Spoiler Alert)

2011-07-10T20:07:00.000-07:00

Truthfully, it is a little difficult for me to write this post, as I have no real strong feelings about Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris; I did not hate the film and I certainly did not love it. What I can say is that I expected more, considering the acclamatory nature of the film’s reviews. Like always, to begin my take on the movie, I have to explain its plot or its story.

The main experience of the film is Owen Wilson’s. Wilson plays Gil, a struggling and hopelessly nostalgic writer who is in love with Paris (specifically Paris in the 1920s). One night, he strolls the city alone and when the clock strikes midnight, he is suddenly transported back into 1920s Paris where he meets his artistic mentors: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, and Picasso (there are other artists, writers and musicians that flit in and out of this alternate fantasy world). During these visits, he and his mentors discuss the significance and purpose of art, and with each visit, he meets artists who hate their present era and wish to have lived in a different time (e.g. a love interest who lives in the ’20s wishes she had lived in the Belle Époque and one night when a horse-drawn carriage takes her and Gill to the Belle Époque era, the artists there wish they had lived during the Renaissance). This forces Gil to realize that everyone is meant to be dissatisfied with their present because life itself is dissatisfying; thus, he eventually concludes that constantly wishing to be in a previous era is a waste of time.

That is the film in a nutshell. Of course, because we’re dealing with Woody Allen, there is another storyline that has to do with beautiful women, which include Rachel McAdams and Marion Cotillard, but that storyline is essentially a side note.

Upon rereading my synopsis, I have to say that, to me, the film seems interesting; I would want to go see this movie. So why don’t I share the same views as the critics who praised this movie as “beautiful” and “witty” and as a good examination on art and life? Frankly, I thought it was poorly executed. I thought there were a few beautiful quotes regarding the significance of literary art and I thought there were fewer scenes that were funny. I thought that Allen didn’t nuance the transportation into the ’20s well enough, and I thought the dialogue was forced – and not in an ironic way. To be fair, I went to see the movie with my mother who couldn’t help but, every few seconds, whisper, “this is so elementary yet so pretentious” and maybe sitting next to her has made me view the film with a harsher eye. But who knows?

The only reason why I have not panned Midnight in Paris is because I have decided to look at it as similar to a short story in the way that it captures an experience; in the way that the plot is secondary to the epiphany Gil comes to near the end and, for me, that’s what saves it. The film is literary in that sense. Of course, according to Germaine Dulac, one of the great French film critics of the 1920s, cinema should not mimic literature.

Invisible Women in Invisible City: The Issue That Isn't Acknowledged In Hubert Davis' Documentary

2011-05-21T23:16:00.001-07:00

After hearing all of the hype surrounding Hubert Davis’ Invisible City, yesterday I decided to go and watch it for myself. While I found it a little slow-paced, I enjoyed the cinematography and thought the film did an excellent job in illustrating instances of systemic racism. A specific instance is when Mikey visits his guidance counselor and asks to be transferred from applied math to academic. Despite his B average in math, the guidance counselor questions whether or not he would be able to handle the workload in an academic class and keeps him in applied. Invisible City also provides an excellent example of stereotyping when interviewing Kendell’s basketball coach. The coach essentially said that he likes to bring boys from Regent Park onto the team for their inherent toughness and aggression. His comment reminded me of an article I had to read in my Grade 12 English Class that basically stated that while Black players have an inbuilt talent and “flow” for basketball white players are more strategic and tactical in their game. I remember being the only student offended by the notion and shut down by my teacher when I raised my contentions. But anyway, even with these necessary and illuminating scenes, Invisible City is fundamentally problematic for two interrelated reasons:

(Lack of) women and the portrayal of motherhood.

Granted, Invisible City follows the lives of two Black teenage boys: Kendell and Mikey. But there is hardly any representation or acknowledgement of Black teenage girls or Black women in the entire documentary. From what I remember, there are two instances in which the camera focuses on Black girls. One instance is when Kendell is playing basketball and a girl, presumably his girlfriend, is watching him play; the other is when Mikey’s sisters are studying and Mikey’s VO states that his mother doesn’t understand that his sisters don’t have to deal with what he deals with: racially prejudiced teachers, racist cops, and the temptation to follow his friends into trouble.

Both instances are loaded with issues. Mikey’s VO is his opinion but the documentary implicitly takes on the view that Black girls simply don’t face as many problems as Black boys. While it is true that Black girls aren’t confronted with all of the same problems as Black boys, there are plenty of racially-inspired hurdles that both genders face. For instance, Black women face just as many stereotypes as Black men. To name a few, we are stereotyped as being promiscuous, as being “baby-mamas”, as being loud-mouthed, and as being difficult and aggressive. Speaking from experience, teachers and authority figures do in fact label Black girls just as much as Black boys, their stigmatization predicated on the aforementioned stereotypes. Furthermore, Black women must deal with Western standards of beauty and must contend with the fact that we are represented as ugly in comparison to white women. A shocking example of this is the online article Psychology Today posted then deleted, arguing that, scientifically, Black women are less attractive because we have more masculine features compared to women of other races. Growing up with these notions of beauty and ugliness most definitely makes teenagehood for Black girls difficult and cruel and it is plainly wrong to suggest or imply that Black girls have it easy compared to Black boys. Our issues are merely different.

The shot of the girl watching Kendall play basketball bothered me because I found it to be a manifestation of a running theme in the documentary: that Black women are passive and bystanders to men’s lives. The portrayal of the mothers reiterates that theme, for the documentary doesn’t portray them as having active roles in their sons’ lives. Indeed, Davis illustrates that they love their boys and that they work extremely hard to provide for them but when it comes to their sons’ constant run-ins with the law and their inattention at school, the mothers’ vocabulary are filled with phrases such as “I wish”, “I hope” and “I pray.”

Furthermore, the mothers are put in stark contrast with Ainsworth Morgan, former pro-athlete and a local role model, who does actively participate in Mikey and Kendell’s lives, who talks to them “on the real” about how they’re screwing up their lives. He is essentially the father-figure to both boys and to other boys in the community – and he is the one who can put the boys in line. Now, I do think it is extremely important and absolutely necessary for Black men to take up their responsibility and parent their children – sons and daughters – but to suggest, like Invisible City (in my view) does, that Black boys absolutely need their fathers to teach them right from wrong, to keep them in line, to “be a man” essentially, is not only misogynistic, but a Western way of thinking.

But Davis isn’t the only director who takes this approach. John Singleton and Spike Lee treat Black women in very much the same way. While Boyz N The Hood and Do The Right Thing are fictional films, they still make commentary on the social conditions of Black boys and the Black community. In Boyz, Tre moves in with his father because his mother admits she can’t teach him to be a man. When talking about his other, fatherless friends, Tre’s father states that they have no one to teach them responsibility. The women in the film are either drug addicts, neglectful and cruel mothers, or they easily navigate the education system and experience no hardships or issues in their advancement. In Do The Right Thing, the women have a muted presence and are generally portrayed as passive.

Films like Boyz N The Hood, Do The Right Thing and The Invisible City are a good commentary on the social conditions of the Black community in North America, and they are good snapshots of what Black boys have to experience on the day-to-day. But they are incomplete in their commentary on the social conditions because they hardly acknowledge how Black girls deal with the conditions. All in all, there needs to be more films and more books (fictional and nonfictional) that deal with the experiences of Black teenage girls and the struggles and issues we must contend with growing up.

The Lovely Bones: Garishly Sentimental and Blatantly Stereotypical

2010-11-06T11:51:00.000-07:00

With the exception of Inception, the Pirates of the Caribbean series, and the Harry Potter series, I like to think I don’t watch movies because of the hype that surrounds them. Or I at least don’t watch them when the hype is still fresh. So I felt safe watching The Lovely Bones the other day considering that it has been about a year since the movie has been released. While I certainly did not like the movie, I can’t say I absolutely hated it. It is more appropriate to say that the film frustrated me.

Before I begin my rant I suppose it’s necessary to provide a brief synopsis of the film. Essentially, Susie Salmon, a fourteen-year-old girl, is murdered by her neighbour George Harvey. Instead of “moving on” to heaven, Susie stays in the “In-Between” world and watches as her family and murderer deals with and tries to move on from her death. When her murderer is brought to justice, when her family is no longer fragmented and when she fulfils her dream of kissing her crush (which she does in a very Ghost-like moment wherein she inhabits the body of another girl) Susie is able to leave the In- Between and go to heaven. The end.

Now, I haven’t read the novel and there is a good chance that I won’t enjoy it if I do decide to read it, but even so, I can still tell that the film is a bastardization of the book. The characters are one-dimensional, failing to portray the complexity of grief and of losing a child/sibling (VERY disappointed in Mark Wahlberg who I generally enjoy watching onscreen), the motives of the murder are nonexistent, making George Harvey a crude villain (although I do admit that Stanley Tucci does a great job considering the limitations of his character), the in-between world itself is garish and cartoonish, and the overtly sentimental tone of the overall film (exacerbated by the unnecessary narration and maudlin script) either forced me to change the channel for a few seconds or yell “PUH-LEASE” or “COME ON” at the TV. However, none of these aspects irritated me as much as the stereotypical character Denise Le Ang a.ka. Holly Golightly, a girl Susie meets in the In-Between.

I was upset by the fact that Denise Le Ang, an East Asian girl, is a type of “Magical Minority” character in that she just appears to Susie with knowledge of the In-Between and subsequently serves as Susie’s guide through this ethereal world, which is characteristic of Magical Minority characters, such as Bagger Vance (Will Smith) in The Legend of Bagger Vance and Cash (Don Cheadle) in The Family Man. In relation, I was irked by the fact that Denise was allotted the minority best-friend role. Although it is revealed by the end of the film that she was also a victim of George Harvey’s, throughout the narrative, she is given no back story, no desires, no wishes – her only goal is to help Susie move on from the In-Between and into Heaven. She has absolutely no personality or character. Even when the film reveals that Denise died at the hands of George Harvey, Susie finds out for herself and through her narration, tells the audience. Denise isn’t even given enough agency to tell her own story – a robbery that reminded me of Edward Said’s Orientalism in which he summarizes the maxim of imperialism as being “they cannot represent themselves, they must be represented.” I do not think such a reading of Denise’s character is too much of a stretch or too heavy-handed, for film does perpetuate these types of sentiments, perhaps unconsciously, but they’re still present and prevalent and they still come through.

It is true that overall The Lovely Bones is a one-dimensional and, despite the heavy subject matter, almost frivolous film that contains a variety of stock characters from the father, Jack Salmon, to the murderer, George Harvey, to Susie herself. However, none of these characters are stereotypical and therefore none of these characters are complicit in perpetuating typecasts and imperial limitations in relation to racial minorities. I cannot say the same for Denise "Holly" Le Ang.

Glee: Refreshingly Witty but Not as Inclusive as it Prides Itself on Being

2010-08-28T13:31:00.000-07:00

I am a Glee convert. While I didn’t give in to watching the show when its first season was still running, a few days ago I caught a rerun on TV and fell in love with it. So, I had a very intense Glee marathon the next day and now I’m up to speed and anticipating the second season premiere. But, I don’t watch Glee for the same reason others do – I could care less about the dancing and especially the singing. In fact, I find myself changing the channel whenever a song comes on. I watch the show because while I find myself rooting for certain characters, I find that none of them are actually likeable. More to the point, I think that Glee is incredibly successful in delivering satirical lines or creating satirical situations in regards to bigotry. Like The Office (at least the U.S. version) and The Simpsons, Glee’s humour shows how unpleasant and obnoxious human beings can be and some of the jokes are purposely offensive (but not insulting because the show utilizes satire well).

However, that being said, I do have my issues with Glee. While I find the satire amusing and well-done, I think that some of the moral lessons that the show chooses to teach or illustrate are extremely problematic. I’m talking about two episodes in particular. The first one that caught my attention was an episode in which the cheerleading coach, Sue, decides to disband the Glee club by creating some friction between the members who are minorities and the members who belong to more dominant groups. She does this by splitting the club in two, taking all of the minority students, which at first include: Mercedes who is Black; Kurt who is gay; Santana who is Latina; Tina who is East Asian; Artie who is paralyzed; and a few more students. I enjoyed the satirical element of this episode immensely and I found the jokes that came out of it hilarious, but then it came to the end of the episode when the moral lesson was emerging. Essentially, the minority students become fed up with the way in which Sue constantly emphasizes the fact that they are minorities and I was bothered by a line Mercedes says. She says something along the lines of: “Enough with this minority business. I may be a strong Black woman but I’m so much more than that.” Now, the wording of that line irks me. It implies that, first of all, being a Black woman is a fixed identity, one that is constructed by society rather than by the Black woman herself, and, second of all, the words “I’m so much more than that” suggests – in my view – that being a Black woman is something not to be completely proud of. Why couldn’t the line be something like “Enough with this minority business. You don’t get to define me as a Black woman”? And why was Mercedes the one who had to say that line? Why couldn’t Kurt say “I’m more than a gay man”? Or Artie: “I’m not defined by my wheelchair”? Why is it that Mercedes has to be the one who is “more” than the aspect of her identity that is minoritized? And there has to be a reason – the writers couldn’t have chosen her to say that line at random because then they’d be missing the point of their own episode.

This brings me to the other episode that bothered me. Due to feeling upstaged by their competition, the Glee club is in a “deep funk” so Mr. Shuester (the staff supervisor) explains what funk (the genre) is all about: soul, passion, anger, emotion etc. and assigns each student a funk song to present. At hearing this, Mercedes tells the other students not to bother finding a song, that she has the assignment covered, but another member, Quinn, is offended by the presumption that she (Mercedes) is the only person well-suited for the assignment. Quinn is pregnant and the father of the child is promiscuous and somewhat of a delinquent and she must deal with judgemental stares on a daily basis, therefore, she argues that she has as much pain and anger as Mercedes does. This causes Mercedes and Quinn to have an argument about race (Quinn is white) and pain, but, in the end, Quinn sings her funk song, “moves” everyone in the room and she and Mercedes become “sistas” because as Mercedes tells Quinn, “You may not be a minority but you sure know how it is sometimes.” That is completely false! Quinn’s pain is personal and despite how she may be treated as a teenage mother, she is a white teenage mother which means she is still privileged. She wouldn’t face the same stigma Black teenage mothers would face or have to deal with the fact that she is a Black woman in a racist society. The pain Mercedes would feel (since the show does imply that as a Black woman she has some) would be trauma, would be the constant struggle of defying stereotypes, of having to work twice as hard to “make it” in any industry due to racism and that type of pain is a result of colonial legacy, it goes back centuries, and it arises out of systemic racial prejudice. To compare that type of trauma to Quinn’s pain is undercutting and ignorant because it is not nearly the same.

I am glad that Glee chooses to go in depth and confront the stigmatization of certain groups or illustrate how certain groups are stereotyped – the writers use satire to depict the stereotypes Jewish people endure; there is an episode dedicated to how the club (and by extension society) undervalues Artie and how unsympathetic members are to the way in which he is limited; there is another episode about homophobia – however, I feel that Glee treats the issues and problems Black people face as irrelevant, almost like a cliché. I find a certain “been there, done that” attitude towards such a relevant, damaging, and destructive issue and, needless to say, I do not appreciate it. The only thing I can say that Glee does right when it comes to that is its refusal to victimize the Mercedes character but even so, I find it insulting and a little contradictory that the show chooses to disregard or undercut some very real issues.

Inception: Not the new Matrix. Better.

2010-08-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

While I try my best to avoid generalizations or blanket statements, I feel it is safe to say that in the '90s, mainstream audiences considered The Matrix to be the quintessential conceptually-driven or conceptually-intelligent film. So, 11 years later, Nolan's Inception isn't exactly novel. But that isn't to say that it isn't unique. One of the fundamental differences between Inception and The Matrix (trilogy) is the lack of pretentiousness in Nolan's work; the film is most definitely intelligent and complex and expects its audience to follow along but it is also accessible and subtle in its conceptual beauty, whereas The Matrix, I feel, is a film dedicated to merely illustrating a complex concept in a maddeningly inaccessible manner as a way of showcasing the intelligent complexity. Of course, The Matrix and Inception are two very different films.

What I find brilliant about Inception is the way in which Nolan uses various cinematic techniques to enhance the fundamental concept of the film. I realize this sounds like a simple and somewhat idiotic statement, as every film uses cinematic techniques to illustrate its central idea. However, that isn't to say that every film uses these techniques well or, in fact, uses them to their full potential. This isn't the case for Inception. The script - which is undramatic, understated but intelligent and stimulating - propels the film forward with its various explications, illuminations and definitions, and every actor is able to execute the dialogue wonderfully. However, Nolan balances the informative dialogue with mise-en-scene and powerful but subtle CGI effects as a way of illustration. Furthermore, the way in which Nolan plays with sound as well as the score itself (provided by Hans Zimmer) contributes to the ethereal nature of the film while, at times, the score also emphasizes the sleek, elegant and almost film noir impression of the mise-en-scene.

Then, of course, there's the film itself. The actual concept of Inception. The way in which Nolan conflates the real world within the film and the dream world/world of the subconscious is seamless. But what makes this film any different from other movies that deal with the same sort of idea? I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it is the film's ability to generate various interpretations on its true meaning. After I saw it, I spent a good chunk of time debating various meanings and significances with an old friend since we both had two very different ideas about what the core significance is. While I thought that the contrast between the real world and the dream world was an imperative aspect of the film since I thought that that is how Nolan plays with the audiences' heads, he didn't think that mattered at all; he thought the ending was irrelevant and looked at Inception from the perspective that the entire film was Cobb's (Leonardo DiCaprio) dream and that none of it was "real" and that was how Nolan played around with the audience. This just goes to show how well-done, subtly complex, and multi-layered this film is.

However, I will not say the film is flawless - there is no such thing as a flawless film. I think that Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a statically written character and that her relationship or connection with Cobb is underdeveloped; I still can't quite understand why he is able to trust her with the depths of his subconscious almost instantly. And while I suppose the ending is necessary to generate discussions such as the one I had with my friend, I found it to be a little bit of a typical cliffhanger, and so, I will just leave it as: I have a love/hate relationship with the ending.

In the end, I found Inception to be the best film I've seen in months. It is a testament to Nolan's skill as a director, for it could've gone horribly wrong in so many different ways and in so many different points. It is a film that immerses you in its world and enables you to think as well as keep you entertained. Not a bad way to spend a Friday night.

Sex and the City 2: Superficial, Racist, and just overall Bad

2010-07-18T11:12:00.000-07:00

So this post was a long time coming. I meant to write it right after I saw the movie but I was sidetracked with school, work, exams etc. Anyway, here it is now. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find certain things about this sequel humorous, but, I felt a strong sense of guilt and dirtiness whenever I laughed at a joke because, at least for the last half of the movie, a joke was made at the expense of another culture.

Before I get into this post, I suppose it’s important to quickly summarize what the movie is about or at least the part I will be focusing on.

The sequel takes place two years after the prequel. Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte are all leading lives that are (supposedly) more stressful than before: Samantha, now 52, tries to keep her libido alive by using hormones and at the same time she must deal with menopause; Miranda chooses to quit her job because her chauvinist boss constantly shuts her down; Charlotte’s two daughters are a handful – the eldest is needy and the youngest constantly cries – and she’s worried Harry may have an affair with the stay-at-home nanny; and Carrie’s marriage to Mr. Big is in a rut as she wants to go out but he merely wants to stay at home, watch TV, and eat takeout.

Maybe half-an-hour into the film, Samantha is approached by an Arab sheikh to devise a PR campaign for his business, and he offers to fly her and her friends on an all-expenses-paid luxury vacation to Abu Dhabi where they are given attractive man-servants amongst many other ridiculously excessive “perks.” While in Abu Dhabi, many things take place: Carrie runs into her ex-fiancé Aidan; and Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda run up against a culture clash in the Middle East, as their style and attitudes contrast with Muslim society but none more than Samantha.

My issue is with the way the culture clash was depicted because, really, Sex and the City portrays Western views as progressive and liberating while the Islamic society is illustrated as primitive and oppressive. When the four friends discuss Western men and Western society, they all agree that while men in the States like to think they’re progressive, they really want “us [women] to wear burqas around our face.” Thus the film is stating that Western men are not progressive thinkers because they secretly harbour a desire to conform to Middle Eastern customs.

How ignorant, arrogant and completely vile is that sentiment?

Near the end of the film, when the four friends rush to make their flight, Samantha’s purse drops and a bunch of condoms fall onto the ground in the middle of a marketplace. At seeing the condoms on the ground, a group of local men begin to aggressively berate her to which Samantha yells “YES. I LIKE SEX.” A group of local women, dressed in burqas, help the four friends escape the angry mob by pulling them all into a room in which they commend Samantha for her outburst. After which, they take off their burqas and reveal they are wearing Western designer clothes beneath their traditional dress. This was supposed to be an emotional, touching and empowering moment for women but really, it was incredibly offensive. The Arabic women are only considered empowered because they’re wearing Western fashion and conform – to what the movie portrays – as Western beliefs, because we all know it’s impossible for Middle Eastern women or men to be progressive in their own cultural context.

Furthermore, the film illustrates the Islamic culture as something that is meant to be gawked at and ripped a part. When Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte first arrive at their hotel in Abu Dhabi, they go to the pool and make commentary on the burquinis (a burquini is a head-to-toe swimsuit that enables women to adhere to the Islamic dress code). If the commentary was merely informative then there wouldn’t be a problem but the commentary was meant to illustrate the swimsuit as ridiculous and oppressive and the audience was meant to laugh at the sheer ludicrousness of it. I honestly don’t understand how there has been no outcry over this movie!

And moving away from the blatant stereotyping, I don’t even understand how this movie is supposed to be empowering to women in general. Is it because the four protagonists are women? Is it because these women are sexual? Is that all it takes for a movie to be considered empowering to a female audience? None of these women have real problems to overcome! Charlotte has two daughters that cry a lot. What child doesn’t? She has a husband, a stay-at-home nanny, and she’s wealthy, and her problem is that she doesn’t have any time to herself? Puh-lease. As a child of a single mother, I was extremely insulted.

It really disheartens and angers me that the movies studios are making for female audiences consist of movies like Sex and the City 2 and the Twilight “saga”, for they are fundamentally problematic in more ways than one. That studios are also making racially prejudicial and offensive movies like Sex and the City 2 and Avatar merely prove the lack of progress we, as a society, have made in regards to race and other cultures, for film, like literature, is a mirror of the issues, prejudices, and concerns of the time and society in which it is made.

Good Hair (film) Waste of Money and Lack of Sociopolitical Bearing: Forgets to Explore the Question Why

2010-04-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

When I first heard about Chris Rock's documentary, I was extremely excited. Finally, a (somewhat) big budget film dedicated to intelligently exploring the dysfunctional relationship between Black women and the concept of "good hair." Unfortunately, I was immensely, nay, profoundly disappointed. I thought the title "Good Hair" would be ironic because Chris Rock would explicate why Black women resent their natural (and beautiful) hair and strive to achieve and maintain straight "silky" white hair. Instead, the title is ironic because Chris Rock (in my view) belittles, condescends, and criticizes Black women for spending large sums of money on achieving and maintaining "good hair." Chris Rock fails to realize or he merely disregards the fact that the colonial legacy in North America plays a fundamental role in the way Black women view beautiful hair and beauty itself. Frantz Fanon attributes this phenomenon to two processes - the lactification of consciousness and the epidermalization of inferiority - both of which are the interiorization of an inferiority complex due to socioeconomic depravities, and the desire to "whiten the race as if to become like milk" (pg. 47).

Chris Rock touches upon this only a little in that he interviews various Black celebrities and hairstylists who state that Black women want "Fara Fawcett" hair or "Bond girl" hair etc. The problem with this is that Chris Rock does not follow up on this by illustrating that natural Black hair is indeed beautiful and valuable. He does not show that some powerful and beautiful/sexy Black heroines in film do indeed have natural hair, such as Pam Grier's character Foxy Brown. Furthermore, what really disappointed me was that when he facilitated a dialogue in which a group of women told one group member who was sporting an afro that she does not look "put together" or "professional" enough to be a lawyer (for instance), he does nothing to contradict them. He doesn't even give the woman with the afro any screen time to respond to these criticisms. He doesn't even try to find the root cause as to why these women feel this way or try to find out how Black women have come to the idea that to look professional one needs to have straight hair.

In addition, I found "Good Hair" highly misogynistic in that Chris Rock treated the men in the film as rational, as the voices of reason while the women were foolish hair-buying fanatics. The film completely disregards the reality that Black men are just as particular about Black women having "good hair" as Black women are. Many of the Black men in the film did not seem to respect or sympathize with Black women especially since Chris Rock characterizes the men as the breadwinners or as the funding behind the trips to the hairdresser. And when he showed Black women getting their hair done (according to the film, the cost of weaves range from $1000 to $3,500) he felt the need to ask these women what they did for a living, which I found demeaning. I did not find the film to be an insightful text and I truly feel that the film provides white audiences with even more stereotypes regarding Black women. Since the film does not seem to have a point, I think it is a very dangerous possibility that whatever white audience the film acquired will leave thinking Black women are foolish and indulgent, while Black women will leave feeling belittled.

In the end, I found "Good Hair" superficial, insulting, and incredibly disappointing as Chris Rock fails to provide any insight regarding the reasons why Black women are so hateful and insecure about their natural hair. As the film does not problematize the term "good hair" and only the women who try to acquire it, I don't think it does the Black (female) community any favours.

Black Children's [Canadian} Literature: Findings by Zetta Elliott

2010-04-10T16:51:00.000-07:00

After Zetta Elliott, a Brooklyn-based African-Canadian author and educator, realized her books were not getting much attention in Canada, she decided to do some research and compile a list of children's books with Black protagonists. What she found was that the few Canadian children's books with Black protagonists available in bookstores or schools were written by white authors and the stories themselves did not take place in contemporary African-American communities. To take a look at her research follow the links below:

http://zettaelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/numbers-dont-lie-do-they/
http://zettaelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/stats/
http://zettaelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/aint-they-black/

Harlem Duet and the prospect of "Going Beyond Race"

2010-02-27T13:48:00.000-08:00

I had to read Harlem Duet for class the other day and when we discussed the play in our lectures, there was a recurring element in the reflections of my predominately female, predominately non-black classmates and that was, they thought the play “went beyond race”. Most people in my class said something along the lines of, “Even though I’m not a black woman, I can relate to the feeling of a husband/boyfriend leaving me for another woman…” While I appreciate that level of empathy or understand how non-black women and men could enjoy or relate to the play, it irked me to hear the statement “went beyond race.” Why? Because it trivializes that aspect of the play – an aspect that is so integral, so fundamental to Djanet Sears’ literary work – and it trivializes the politics and struggles and injustices that come with race as well.

The mere fact that Othello gives Billie that impassioned, insulting, and hurtful speech about how white women are easier than black women because they do not emasculate and pigeonhole men or come home complaining about injustice in the workplace clearly demonstrates that this play is all about race. Othello’s speech indicates that he cannot stand to be with a black woman any longer because it reminds him that he is a black man; the injustices a black woman faces in the workplace reflect the injustices he pretends not to experience at his workplace. Therefore, his rejection of the black woman is a rejection of being black.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that upon reaching a certain level of professionalism, Othello leaves Billie for Mona. Certain people in my class found the “woman does everything for the man and then he leaves her for someone else” cliché albeit sad. And perhaps they are right. What they fail to realize though is that Othello leaves Billie for a white woman because he feels as if having a white woman by his side means that he has made it – he is successful, he is worthy.

Of course, Othello’s desire to be seen as a man, to live his own life without the burden of history, without feeling a certain obligation is understandable. But still, it is essentially impossible to sympathize with him and that is because to him, being “seen as a man” and “living his own life” means rejecting his heritage, rejecting his culture and assimilating into a dominant and racist society he deems worthier than his roots. He blames the black community for putting the burden of history on his shoulders; he does not blame the white society for forcing the black community to bear this burden. He criticizes the oppressed for being consumed with a history that has hindered them from advancing and does not even think about who gave the oppressed this history.

And I’m not saying Billie doesn’t have faults. She certainly does. She is so consumed with race that it drives her mad and she ends up in a mental institution. She is too preoccupied with the past to live life in the present. She cannot be consciously aware of her African-American history while trying to live her own life, she wallows in the history. So yes, she most definitely has flaws. But throughout the play, I found myself agreeing with her and most of her viewpoints. Othello is merely an extremely selfish, self-hating black man who has deluded himself into thinking that history has no or should not have any meaning.

In the end, my point is, Harlem Duet is not a play that “goes beyond race” because race and all of the politics that surround it is the central, essential aspect.

The Ambiguity Central to Do The Right Thing

2010-02-26T14:26:00.000-08:00

I'm currently taking American Popular Cinema since the 1970s and it's a wonderful course. Many of the films that are on the syllabus are ones that I have seen, ones that I love, and ones that I am so incredibly happy to write essays about and to deconstruct in lecture. And while I have enjoyed studying films such as The Godfather, Breakfast Club, Thelma and Lousie, and Halloween in an intensely academic way, I knew that I would feel differently (not negatively) about Do The Right Thing.

Even though Spike Lee's film was made in 1989, it is just as relevant and just as contentious today as it was then and my lecture proved that. Most of my class sympathized with Sal and therefore viewed the film as one that incites and encourages violence. Conversely, I sympathized with the African-American characters and therefore I felt the opposite. I say 'therefore' because who you sympathize with in the film determines how and what you think of the ending and the film as a whole.

In my opinion, Do The Right Thing does not incite or encourage violence and those who think it does are taking the film in an extremely literal sense. When the Black community destroys Sal's Pizzeria after Radio Raheem's death, they are destroying an oppressive idea. Sal's Famous Pizzeria is representative of the exploitation of African-American neighbourhoods and I think while this is subtle, it is something that unravels throughout the course of the film.

For instance, the fact that Sal does not comply or even consider Buggin Out's demand to put African-American leaders/celebrities on the Wall of Fame demonstrates my aforementioned point. Buggin Out makes a very valid point in saying that since the Black community funds the pizzeria, there should be some sort of representation of clientele. Sal's absolute refusal illustrates his inability to acknowledge anything productive or great from the people he takes money from on a daily basis.

That Sal never once leaves his pizzeria signifies his lack of interaction with the community. He only puts up with Mookie's horrible work habits because as a delivery boy, he takes away that necessity. Sal's only interactions with the community are business-oriented and somewhat condescending. He does not want to get to know the people of the community, he does not want to help in advancing the state of Bedford-Stuyvesant - he only uses the Black community to his economic advantage. In other words, Sal is capitalizing off of a poor Black neighbourhood.

Consequently, I can completely understand the community's frustration and anger at the end of the film. Police brutality is what killed Radio Raheem, yes. But it was Sal's inability to represent his clientele, his disgust of hip-hop (an aspect of African-American culture) and his inherent racism that caused the events that caused the police to arrive. Meaning, that it was the exploitation and capitalization of the Black community that catalyzed the police brutality. So the community makes an attempt to destroy the exploitation and capitalism.

They [the community] have seen and been through enough that pacifism and passivity seem to be synonymous concepts and they feel as if it is time to take action. It is time to do things a different way, a more militant way, a more reactive way. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So I indeed will end with a Malcolm X quote:

"I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are Black people."

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao: The Great American Novel of the 21st Century

2010-01-02T20:26:00.000-08:00

It took me a while to write this blog post because after I finished reading The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, the only thing I had to say was that Junot Diaz's novel is absolutely, 100% amazing. But now I think I'm ready to explain why I think this book is one of the best books I have ever read.

Firstly, there is the narrative voice. From time to time there are shifts in the narrative voice but the story is written mostly from Yunior's perspective. I fell in love with Yunior's glib, devil-may-care tone when I read a short story, Fiesta 1980, from Diaz's debut, Drown (an anthology of short stories) and I appreciated it a lot more in Oscar Wao. Not only does this humourous narration make the book a highly entertaining read, it also allows for the reader to relate to the characters because, due to Yunior's slick and informal tone, they seem a lot more colourful and realistic even though the events these characters experience are quite extraordinary.

Furthermore, Diaz illustrates and opens up a world that is either familiar or unknown depending on who the reader is and what culture he/she comes from. I am not Dominican so I can't say anything for sure, but I feel as if Diaz is successful in explaining certain aspects of Dominican or Dominican-American culture without being "textbook" about it - and I'm not talking about the footnotes that are on certain pages - I am talking about Yunior's sly inputs during the course of the story.

I also found Diaz's continuous references to Lord of the Rings highly entertaining and surprisingly highly relevant. In fact I watched The Two Towers immediately after finishing the book. I also enjoyed the postmodern aspect of Oscar Wao and finally, throughout the book I found various passages and quotes that will add to my list of "favourite quotes" on facebook (I just HAD to bring facebook into one of my posts, I know).

In the end, I am absolutely in love with the Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, I find Junot Diaz to be an author of extremely high calibre and I look forward to reading whatever novel he writes next.

Avatar: A futuristic movie filled with old-fashioned ideas

2009-12-26T14:46:00.000-08:00

I’m not really one for science fiction but after all of the hype surrounding James Cameron’s Avatar, I had to see it for myself. I have to admit the movie was visually appealing (even if the 3D glasses I was forced to wear blurred my vision rather than enhanced it) but I found the story itself unoriginal and more importantly, I found the way in which the Na’vi race was portrayed problematic.

Yeah, the Na’vi are blue but their faces are a melting pot of ethnic features and their long hair is dreadlocked. Plus, the main Na’vi characters are voiced by four black actors (Zoe Saldana being the prominent Na’vi character and love interest to the movie’s white protagonist Jake Sully). Consequently, it is not enough that the Na’vi are meant to be an extraterrestrial race – no, Cameron must further emphasize the “other” aspect of these fictional people by giving them recognizably ethnic features and by having black actors portray them.

Now, I know that Avatar is meant to be symbolic; that it is supposed to be a reflection of the imperialistic and colonial exploits of our world (Cameron admitted this himself in an NBC interview stating that the plot is centered on how greed and imperialism “tends to destroy the environment” and so on and so forth). And I think that if Cameron had done it right, I would have appreciated it. But Cameron did not do it right. He merely perpetuated tropes and themes that have negatively or condescendingly portrayed other races. For instance, before the (white and for the most part middle-aged) humans officially declare war on the Na’vi, Sully inhabits his Avatar and desperately attempts to make a diplomatic agreement between the two races. But of course, the Na’vi ignorantly ignore his advice and believe that their bow and arrows will take down the humans’ advanced machinery. And when that doesn’t work, Sully becomes one of the Na’vi people and leads them into battle because for some reason, the actual leader of the Na’vi can’t seem to do it himself. Therefore, Cameron adds to the vast amount of literature and movies that portray the need for the white man to rescue an ethnic race because they are not intelligent or strong enough to overcome extraordinary obstacles themselves.

Of course, that isn’t the only contentious detail. The way in which the Na’vi are portrayed as the “primitive other” is also problematic, for while the film tends to praise the Na’vi people for being in touch with nature, the fact remains that these fictional and yet recognizably ethnic people are inherently bestial and are meant to be the antithesis of refinement and civilization. Cameron doesn’t depict civilization as being a particularly good or moral place but he still depicts civilization as something that is Western.

It is in my opinion that Cameron’s heart was in the right place when he made this movie but it is also my opinion that the story was hackneyed, that it lacked insight, and that it was filled with Western arrogance.

What is so precious about Precious?

2009-12-21T13:58:00.000-08:00

I was in the eighth grade when I read PUSH by Sapphire. Although it was an easy read (which was of course done on purpose since the writing is meant to be reflective of the protagonist's writing abilities) it was probably the first disturbingly thought-provoking novel I have ever read. So when I got tickets for Precious yesterday, scenes and details from PUSH entered my mind and I knew that I'd spend that entire movie teary-eyed. And I hate crying.

As it so happened, my prediction was right; the emotionally-charged performances of Gabourey Sidbe and Mo'Nique brought tears to my eyes. Both actresses were absolutely phenomenonal as they were both able to exude intense emotions (from sadistic hatred to agonizing despair to genuine happiness) with such raw power that the audience was truly able to empathize and sympathize with the title character (in fact, my audience made gasps and squeals of horror during certain scenes). And it is not as if Mo'Nique and Sidbie are the only ones who give extraordinarily powerful performances - all of the supporting actors and actresses are able to captivate the audience in the little screen time they have and they are what create the overall pathos of the story.

That being said, I do not think that Precious is a masterpiece, and truthfully, I don't think I'll be running out to buy a DVD copy when that time comes. The cast give brilliantly evocative performances but the movie itself is in my opinion mediocore. Precious is Lee Daniels' second directorial project and it is clear that he still has a lot to learn about directing. However, I do indeed commend him for portraying harsh realities prevalent in inner city homes with such bluntness and candour.

I must say that to fully comprehend Precious, it is extremely important to note and understand that the colonial legacy of the United States is a fundamental reason for why the situations presented in the film do indeed take place in some African-American households. Furthermore, the poor education system, faulty social welfare system, and substandard [mental] healthcare system are major contributors to the perpetuation of these horrific situations. And finally, I cannot stress this enough, Precious only becomes dangerous when one views it as a representation of Black American life in general. While the film (and book) chooses to explore the issues of physical and sexual child abuse, illiteracy, and to an extent mental health (the mother is clearly sick) through a Black family, these issues are not unique to African Americans but are found in any racial/cultural group living in poverty and marginalization.

The Problem with the Harry Potter (movie) Series

2009-12-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I bought Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and after watching it for a second time, I decided to jot down my views on the filmic adaptations of the literary phenomenon. Now before I begin, I must admit that I am an absolute stickler when it comes to filmic renditions of books. But it’s not as if I don’t like any film adaptations – I found the Lord of the Rings series extremely well done and I think Fight Club (which happens to be one of my favourite movies of all time) is an improvement of the book. However, I find that I have a love/hate relationship with the Harry Potter series.

Like many people my age, I grew up with the Harry Potter series; they are books that are most definitely part of my childhood and as such, I hold them very near and dear to my heart. Therefore, I tend to be a lot more unforgiving with certain things in the Harry Potter films than with other adaptations. That being said, I found the first three Harry Potter movies acceptable. Of course, they all had to skip over a few things or alter a few details, but otherwise, there was a great likeness between them and the books, and they have therefore gained my approval (whatever that’s worth). The only aspect that truly irritates me and my friends about these films (which carries on until the sixth movie) is that they tend to portray a subtle romance between Hermione and Harry rather than her and Ron, and being Ron Weasley/Rupert Grint fans, that little detail causes us much frustration.

Anyway, when The Goblet of Fire came out, I left the theatre feeling something I didn’t expect to feel after seeing a Harry Potter movie; I felt disappointed. Sure, the film portrayed the Triwizard tournament with great accuracy but that’s all it really portrayed. Furthermore, the Dumbledore in this movie (and the ones to come) bothers me so much in that while Rowling writes him as being intimidating, powerful and respected, she also stresses how interconnected those characteristics are with his calm and serene personality. In the movie, he is both aggressive and hostile and does not seem at all wise and insightful. In the book, when the goblet produces Harry’s name from the flames, Dumbledore’s aggressive questioning of him is written as both frightening and completely uncharacteristic. However, in the films, this behaviour seems quite typical.

But in terms of the movie’s focus on the action rather than on the explanations in the book, I have to admit that the decision makes sense, for things like target audiences and short attention spans need to be considered. Nevertheless, the fact that The Goblet of Fire does not flesh out any of the … “intellectual” aspects (the maltreatment of house elves and Hermione’s obsession with SPEW) presented in the book made me realize that The Order of Phoenix would not be made right, for it is the beginning of the more mature and therefore more thought-provoking novels in the series, and it is filled with explanations and details that carry great significance.

Harry Potter and The Order of Phoenix is my favourite book in the series and I have to say that the movie was a complete and utter travesty. The sixth and seventh books do not make much sense without the explanations provided in The Order of Phoenix and the film certainly does nothing to illustrate them. Rather than emphasizing the sheer importance of the Harry Potter and Voldermort prophecy, and rather than explaining WHY Harry is the “chosen one” the movie decides to focus on Harry’s anger and sense of loneliness as if hoping to portray some teenage angst. And yet, Daniel Radcliffe (who is a good Harry Potter) is not at all convincing as a teenager filled with angst. But perhaps this is due to the fact that the movie refrains from showing the scenes in which Harry is the most tormented, such as St. Mungo’s Hospital when he thinks he is being possessed by Voldermort, or Dumbledore’s office after Sirius dies when he yells and breaks objects. No, instead of showing the latter scene, the movie renders Harry stable enough to accept his godfather’s death because he realizes that he has friends who care about him (Puh-lease).

But this brings me to another point. At the end of the book, Dumbledore’s discussion with Harry illustrates just how wise and insightful the headmaster is. However, in the movie, Dumbledore doesn’t say half of the things he does in the book and what is included is hardly ever said by him but by Luna Lovegood or Harry himself, which once again detracts from Dumbledore’s character. I forgive the movie for altering Harry’s relationship with Cho, as that was not a very important detail in the book(s) anyway, and I don’t quite mind the way they chose to depict Dolores Umbridge. However, skipping over Kreacher the house elf is something I consider to be a great mistake. The way in which Sirius mistreats Kreacher is not only important because it is what causes Kreacher to betray and indirectly kill him, but also because it bears significance for the last novel – it is supposed to echo a very grave mistake Voldermort made in the past thereby representing how “wizard arrogance” is also a “wizard weakness.”

Now, finally, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. The sixth movie is most definitely a better adaptation than The Order of Phoenix but that should not and does not suggest that it is a good adaptation. I will admit I enjoyed watching the movie. I thought it was very funny, which is clearly what David Yates was going for. But the movie does not seem well put together at all. And what I mean by that is, the main events of the book do take place in the movie but the movie doesn’t take the time to flesh out these events. It is as if the movie is merely going through the motions, showing snippets of things that matter without having them flow into each other and so, certain things seem completely random (such as when Hagrid buries Aragog or Ron’s sudden interest in joining the Quidditch team or Romilda Vane’s love potion).

Furthermore, because the last five movies present Harry and Hermione’s friendship with a romantic undertone, the sixth movie must do some damage control and show that Ron and Hermione are actually the ones with the chemistry. Therefore, the film emphasizes Hermione’s romantic feelings for Ron to such a degree that it just seems ridiculous and out of the blue. The movie refrains from explaining that Ron dates Lavender because he is jealous of Viktor Krum and it illustrates him as being completely indifferent to Hermione’s feelings. In fact, if it hadn’t been for the “Hermione has nice skin” scene, it would almost seem as if (in the movie) her feelings are unrequited. But in any case, the whole romance in the Ron/Hermione relationship is SUPPOSED to be subtle and not overtly stated until the last book. But on the subject of relationships in the Half-Blood Prince, I absolutely hate the way the movie presents Harry’s relationship with Ginny, and not because he is supposed to wrestle with his feelings and keep them secret.

Ginny Weasley is supposed to be a strong, confident and sociable young woman who is not afraid to argue with Harry or point out when he’s being a jerk. In the sixth movie, however, she is portrayed as foolish (running after Harry when he chases Bellatrix Lestrange – but that scene was made for the movie), somewhat subservient (WHY did she have to tie his shoelaces? I STILL don’t get that) and quiet and awkward. The fact that he doesn’t break up with her at the end of the movie during Dumbledore’s funeral bothers me, as does the fact that the movie does not show Dumbledore’s funeral. The movie’s ending itself was COMPLETELY anticlimactic. I had been expecting an epic war between Death Eaters and students, an intensely hostile duel between Snape and Harry, a bittersweet moment between Ron, Hermione, and Harry.

I expected too much.

All there was was the quiet revelation of the half-blood prince’s true identity and Harry, Ron and Hermione staring after Fawkes the phoenix flying away. Like COME ON!

But what really irks me the most about the sixth movie is how blasé it treated the entire concept of horcruxes. I really don’t think the movie did it justice. Like most events in the film, horcruxes were merely mentioned and then the movie moved on to something else. The movie did indeed explain that they were objects that contain Voldermort’s soul but it was almost as if the explanation was in passing; neither the concept nor the importance of horcruxes were illustrated enough and so there almost seems to be no point to the movie. In fact, when I saw it with my mother the day it came out, she left the theatre confused about the plot and I had to explain it to her.

All in all, I think that the movies do not represent how well-planned the books are and so, the plots seem flimsy if nonexistent (as the movies do not stress the importance of the prophecy or of horcruxes) and the movies lack details that may be small but are significant. For instance, house elves. The maltreatment of house elves is a recurring and noteworthy theme in the Harry Potter series for multiple reasons, one being that after three years of upholding “wizard arrogance,” in the Deathly Hallows, Ron shows compassion for house elves, prompting Hermione, an advocate of elfish welfare, to FINALLY show him how she truly feels. It saddens me that this detail is being denied Harry Potter fans. Of course, the maltreatment of house elves is a theme with a more significant bearing but as this blog post is already three pages long, I will not stress the point.

Anyway, as I said, when reading the Harry Potter series, it is clear that J.K. Rowling planned everything with extreme meticulousness and care, from the prophecy to the horcruxes, to Hermione and Ron and Harry and Ginny. But the movies (with the exception of the first three) do not represent this, making the stories seem pointless and the plots seem broken. And I will most definitely be interested to see how badly they will screw up the last book of my beloved series.

Beloved by Toni Morrison: A brilliant book about Trauma

2009-12-10T11:51:00.000-08:00

Today I was engaged in a debate that I've been having for two years now. It is a debate I always welcome with anyone and it concerns a topic I'm very passionate about. While Toni Morrison's Beloved won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize, many of my friends and fellow students believe the novel is undeserving of the award, that it is far too pretentious, and that it is a vanity piece in that it merely displays how clever Morrison is.

I respectfully disagree.

Toni Morrison is my favourite author and Beloved is my favourite book of all time (Drown by Junot Diaz is a strong contender). While I can hardly call the writing simplistic, I refuse to acknowledge it as pretentious. I believe the writing is intelligent and that if the author were a white man rather than a Black woman and if the book's subject had nothing to do with enslavement, it would be considered as such. Of course, I have heard theories that Morrison only won the Pulitzer because of the fact that Beloved is about enslavement; these theories usually come from my white friends who find the book an uncomfortable/frustrating read because they feel as if the book is merely "another" story detailing how white people have marginalized and "screwed over" (as they say) African Americans. My response to them is twofold.

One: enslavement is a very big part of American history and it is not an event you can merely wish away just to make yourself feel more comfortable; it is not an event we should or can forget especially since the traumas of enslavement are ongoing considering that even today, African Americans are very much a marginalized group. Second: the purpose of Beloved really isn't to point fingers. It is a book about trauma. I cannot stress this enough. The novel is about how a Black family, how a Black community, tries to find happiness, independence and identity but the effects, the traumas, and the mere memories of enslavement constantly hinder their attempts to advance. Beloved concentrates on Black characters and details the ways they try to cope with a horrific experience that psychologically and emotionally broke them; the depravity of the white "slave" masters is not the focus.

But even if the inequitable and barbaric power dynamic between the white masters and Black enslaved peoples was the focus, that should not and would not render the novel bad. For those who think it would, perhaps they should analyze why they are unable to read about a book portraying true historical facts.

Supernatural: The Best Show on Television (And yet...)

2009-12-08T20:42:00.000-08:00

In my generation there have been a lot of good or groundbreaking shows on television: Dawson's Creek (the quality of the show is perhaps debatable but frankly, the fact that it introduced eloquent-speaking teenagers who had candid and intellgient conversations about sex was revolutionary and allowed for contemporary shows such as The O.C. and Gossip Girl to become pop culture phenomenons). House, Charmed, The Black Donnellys (it was a very short-lived series but well-written and unique nonetheless), Gilmore Girls, Friday Night Lights (it is perhaps the most well-written teenage drama of the millenium), That '70s Show, Grey's Anatomy (seasons 1 and 2, possibly 3), True Blood, Entourage (Ari Gold is most definitely one of the best characters on television in addition to House), Friends, Seinfield, etc. And while I have enjoyed watching all of the aforementioned shows - some more than others - none of them inspired the same level of excitement and enjoyment in me as the currently-running series Supernatural.

Supernatural is an extremely well-done show for a number of reasons. While a show dealing with mythical creatures isn't exactly new to television, the way in which Supernatural is written is most definitely refreshing. The writers/creators are able to take legends, myths, and beliefs from different cultures and faiths and then spin them in such a way to make them somewhat unique to the show. The brotherly relationship between the two protagonists is both endearing and amicably hostile, which makes for some genuinely sentimental moments and some very entertaining verbal sparring. And in fact the brothers themselves Dean Winchester (Jensen Ackles) and Sam Winchester (Jared Padalecki) are immensely entertaining to watch as they are both funny, complex and believable characters portrayed by talented (and yes, very attractive) actors (I am a Dean Winchester fan myself - I find his charm, rugged good looks, humour, and strength quite appealing). And while the show is philosophical at its core in the way it interrogates the nature of good and evil, the combination of dark humour and one-liners that permeate the series allows for the audience to relax with the characters and indicates that things do not have to be taken so seriously 100% of the time. While not a classic rock fanatic myself, I do find the score pleasantly different from the mainstream pop and pretentious indie rock found in most television shows, and I most definitely find it suitable for the characters.

Another thing I really admire about Supernatural is that Eric Kripke (and the writers) successfully created a subculture of "hunters" and that these "hunters" are fundamentally good people in that they save civilians and kill demons/paranormal creatures but that they are also very much insubordinate, lawless, and smarter/more knowledgeable than government officials. However, I do have to say the most impressive aspect of the Supernatural series is how it is planned. I have never watched a more well-planned show. The fifth (and I believe the last) season is currently on air and for us loyal fans who have watched the show from the beginning realize that all of the details, all of the tropes, all of the themes, and all of the warnings made in the previous seasons still carry significance and were all created for this last season. Every single thing comes together and a lot of "aha" or "oooooooooooooh" or "huh" moments are made and I just fully respect, appreciate, and admire the creator/writers' ability to make every season seamlessly flow into one another.

But (there is always a but) I do have one criticism regarding Supernatural and that is I believe the show is somewhat misogynistic. I understand that it is a show about two brothers and their relationship and their love for one another (they don't say things like "I love you" or hug very often but they do constantly sacrifice their lives for one another) and it is pretty much a TV version of a buddy film, and I respect that. In fact, I enjoy it. For some reason I love watching male camaraderie onscreen (That 70s Show, The Black Donnellys, Entourage...) But all of the female characters on the show are either demons, spirits, women Dean has slept with, helpless civilians, and mothers. If they are hunters, they most likely die. And I find that very problematic.

I will admit, that part of me really just wants to see Dean in a romantic relationship that lasts more than one episode since all of the women he cares about, he either leaves because his job requires him to (Cassie, Layla, Lisa), or they die (Jo, Anna) but I also know that if he were to be in a relationship, then it would complicate his priorities and detract from the central plot of the show. So I can live with Dean (or Sam) refraining from meaningful relationships (doesn't mean I don't want them to explore it just a little though). However, I do wish they will portray a tough, confident, cool and kickass female protagonist for more than a couple of episodes. Yes, they did create the characters Jo and Ellen but rather than fleshing out their characters more in the fifth season, the mother and daughter duo kill themselves to give Sam and Dean a fighting chance. Now while it can be argued that this sacrifice is meant to prove that women are able to make choices that may be perceived as masculine, I still say the decision to kill off the only two developed female characters on the show was a subconsciously - maybe even consciously - misogynistic move (also that Joanne's character was masculinized by the shortening of her name to Jo bugged me a little).

Anyway, even with that criticism I still find Supernatural unique, entertaining, hilarious, and thought-provoking and I have very long and very passionate conversations with my other obsessed friends about the nature of the show. And while I will be sad to see Supernatural come to an end (so sad in fact that I don't think any series finale will satisfy me since the show will be over) I hope Eric Kirpke sticks to his five-year-plan and ends the show on a high note instead of allowing it to continue and dwindle in value (*cough* Grey's Anatomy *cough*) as a result.

The Problem With The Tale of Despereaux

2009-12-08T13:18:00.001-08:00

I just finished watching The Tale of Despereaux and while I find the movie visually engaging and the "mice are cowardly" theme cute (even if it does become hackneyed over the course of the film), I just cannot get over the way "Ratworld" was introduced. As in many books and films, rats in The Tale of Despereaux are depraved and vicious creatures. As if to heighten these characteristics, when the film first displays the squalid Ratworld, it does so over a score of African drum beats and Arabic melodies. The blatant racism behind the fact that this music is meant to invoke a sense of barbarism and savagery is atrocious and detestable. Exactly what message is this movie sending to its child audience? And for those who believe that deconstructing the music of an animated film is ridiculous and that I am merely going "PC crazy," I have two things to say. Firstly, I HATE the term and the entire concept of "politcal correctness" because it does not eradicate or solve anything - it merely asks a racist/misogynist/bigot to cloak their views. For instance, if a racist wants to refer to a Black person as a "nigg--" but says "African-American" to uphold "political correctness," said racist is still calling the Black person a "nigg--" in his/her mind and still has the same views. Secondly, nothing in film is an accident and so the responsible thing to do when presented with a situation such as the one in the Ratworld scene is to question why did the composer/director choose to use African and Arabic musical tones to introduce a world that is meant to represent debasement, primitivism and vulgarity? What implications does this choice have? And why, in this day and age, is the concept of the primitive other one that is still very much alive?

That '70s Show.

2009-12-07T23:09:00.001-08:00

I love That '70s Show. That's it. I know this really isn't a post but I felt like I needed to express my whole-hearted love for the show (pre-blonde Donna of course).

The [Possible] End of An Era

2009-12-06T23:58:00.000-08:00

HBO’s Entourage is one of the best shows on television right now with its witty dialogue, hilarious insults, amazing characters like Ari Gold, and wonderful relationships, such as Ari and Lloyd/Eric/Davies/Terrence etc. And of course, the entourage itself – Vince, E, Turtle, and Drama – is extremely entertaining to watch especially when they’re amicably verbally abusing each other. However, I felt slightly saddened when watching the season 6 finale because while I always liked Sloan’s character and was pleasantly surprised when she accepted E’s engagement, I knew that (providing E sees this engagement through) Entourage will no longer be the same. It isn’t that the engagement doesn’t make sense. Of course it does. It is time that these (loveable) man-children grow up, settle down, and commit but growing up also means that the swagger, promiscuity, and sheer boyishness essential to the entourage foursome will begin to fade. It is natural and necessary but it is also the [possible] end of something. And what’s more, E is not the only one growing up on the show. Ari Gold, already married and successful, was childish (but also AWESOME) because of his outrageous anger issues. Indeed, he ends season 6 by walking down Terrence’s old office, terminator-style, firing people by shooting them with paintballs (what a beautiful scene) but he has ultimately calmed down. He has learned to apologize, to take responsibility for his cruel and at times sadistic actions. Again, this is not a bad thing. This is a mature thing. And yet, that is what detracts from his character. Ari Gold knows no pain but his own and his clients and that’s what makes him a fantastic character to watch. However, despite these possible and subtle changes, I will, with other Entourage fans, tune in to the seventh season with the expectation that the show itself will be well-done and well-made but with the inkling that Entourage as we knew it is over.

The Danger of Twilight

2009-12-06T14:25:00.000-08:00

Two nights ago, I went out with my friends to celebrate my 19th birthday. But instead of going to a club (as was our original plan) we ended up losing ourselves in conversation about certain television shows, movies, and books (you know you're an English major when ...) And a bulk of our conversation consisted of the danger and flimsiness of Stephanie Meyers' Twilight "Saga". Admittedly, we had all read the books and had gone to see the films (in fact the conversation started with us admiring the built of Taylor Lautner and the Jacob Black persona). However, I believe that the fact we have read the books and have seen the movies allows us to criticize the books more thoroughly and more productively than the people who merely state they hate the franchise. What I realized is that when I read New Moon, I did find some things problematic but when putting the book on screen, all of those probelmatic aspects become heightened and emphasized. The mere concept of a teenage girl going on suicidal endeavours just to "see" her estranged boyfriend or "hear" his voice is not only ridiculous but socially regressive. That Bella's character is not able to take care of herself and relies on another man (Jacob Black) when her boyfriend (Edward) leaves is also extremely problematic - why is it that the only strong female characters in the novel are vampires? Furthermore, the relationship she has with Edward is completely unhealthy as he is possessive rather than protective and that they are willing to die for one another since life without one is meaningless is for, lack of a better word, completely insane. And while Bella's relationship with Jacob Black is normal, human and "natural" he still manipulates her into kissing him by threatening to commit suicide (seems to be a theme prevalent in the series). However, what I find most disturbing about everything mentioned is that while my friends and I are able to deconstruct the series and pick out what is problematic (due to being young women) the little girls who read these books find them romantic and want to grow up to be Bella and attract men like Edward (who is literally the "unattainable male character"). I am not saying that Twilight should not be read but I am saying that despite being a superficial book, it is one that should be taken with a grain of salt.

The Princess and The Frog Controversy

2009-12-05T17:13:00.001-08:00

I have to start by saying that I grew up on Disney films. Lion King, Aladdin, and Hercules were my favourites. After re-watching these films in high school, I realized how probelmatic the representations of ethnic characters were. Arabian Nights in Aladdin is extremely offensive "Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face, it's barbaric but hey! it's home." Pocahontas is completely historically inaccurate. In Lion King, the villain is a dark brown while the heroic protagonists are golden (it could be argued that this colour scheme was meant for the children to visually see who is evil and who is good, but then another question arises: why is black the representative of evil?) Anyway, The Princess and the Frog is Disney's first Black princess and yet there is controversy surrounding this. And rightly so. I have only seen the trailers for this movie as it has not come out yet, and I already saw an array of stereotypes. The "shuck and jive" slave dance, the hypersexualized Latin prince, the voodoo magic is quite pointed, and I have to say even the way Princess Tiana speaks is also very pointed. And quite frankly, I am extremely sick and tired of people claiming that it is harmless because it is an animated film. Animated or not it perpetuates a particular image of Black people that has been reverbrating throughout cinematic history since Uncle Tom's Cabin. I am also sick and tired of people claiming that the controversy is stupid and that people are reading far too into this. People must understand the history surrounding African Americans/African Canadians and that racism does exist in contemporary society (Obama is the president of the United States and that is most definitely progress, but it is not a progessive milestone that eradicates all racism towards Black people in North American society) and that the way in which Black people are portrayed in film and television contributes to our social situation.