Cultural Values Enforced by Hollywood Films - Movie Review Example

Journal During off-hours, movies are my escape. It seems I have to have my daily ‘fix.’ Recently, I watched “The Matrix.” Produced in 1999, is far-distanced from Plato in the span of time, but it’s almost a perfect vision of the hypothetical events of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In “The Matrix,” Neo takes the place of the unnamed individual of Plato’s allegory. Like him, Neo discovers from others that the reality he’s familiar with is nothing more than a shadow world. Not by coincidence, the majority of human beings are kept chained in caverns underground, forced to see nothing but what the malevolent computer-intelligence wants them to see, just as the people in Plato’s cave are chained to their chairs, heads held in such as way as to prevent them from looking to either side. When Neo is awakened to the idea that the world he knows is not the real world, he struggles with the concept, at first completely rejecting the idea and gradually becoming used to the concept. Perhaps because of his previous understanding that he was a computer hacker, Neo begins to know more about the “true” reality of his world than even those who awakened him to it. With this knowledge, he is able to accomplish things in the shadow world that most people deem impossible and functions to shake some of them out of their perceived bliss. Because of this growing understanding of the reality of the world in which he finds himself, Neo is acclaimed by those who know of him and the things he can do as “the One,” the person who is destined to overthrow the computers and free humans to reality once again. However, Neo, as Plato said he would, feels uncomfortable with such accolades as he feels he has done nothing special to deserve them. He continuously tells others they just need to open their eyes to see what’s really happening in order to be able to do the same kinds of things. As Plato predicted, Neo begins to feel responsible for the people he left behind in the cave and joins the rebel revolution against the machines that are working to dominate all human life. Two earlier versions of the Cinderella story, the Grimm’s Brothers and the Disney version, seem to be somewhat combined in the more recent version of the story portrayed in the film Ever After with Drew Barrymore. For the first time, Cinderella is provided with a true name – Danielle. This story pays tribute to the Brothers Grimm and Disney before launching into the rest of the tale. Instead of constantly being the demure, pious Cinderella that is introduced by the Grimm Brothers, Cinderella here is portrayed as a tomboy in youth and a serious thinker as a young woman. Like Disney’s version, her father dies while she is still a child, making room for the step-mother to turn her into a servant. Like the Grimm’s version, both of her step-sisters are attractive, but only one of them is evil, the other step-sister is sympathetic to Cinderella’s condition and is rewarded in the end with a court courtier who is perfect for her. In this version, an entire romance is able to be carried out between the prince and Cinderella prior to the ball and instilling in girls the idea that it’s better to actually know her prince charming before deciding to marry him. Like the Disney version, the step-sister rips her dress to shreds, but this exposure happens at the ball and in public, rather than prior to the ball so the fairy godmother can rescue the situation. The part of the fairy godmother is actually played by the combined efforts of an artist friend of Cinderella and Leonardo da Vinci as an example of an individual who rose from the ranks of less-than-regal bloodline to consort with kings and queens. Rather than all her dreams coming true at the ball, it seems to be the end of Cinderella’s dreams as first she is exposed as a servant, then the prince rejects her in public and finally she is sold to a lascivious rich merchant to get her out of the way. However, she manages to free herself from her bondage before discovering the prince on his way to rescue her, allowing them to live happily ever after. A favorite movie of mine is Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK, loosely based on the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs, is ostensibly an attempt to explore the various theories regarding what happened the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas in November of 1963. Beginning with a video montage set to impressive military music and capitalizing on the use of television footage in its own aspect ratio, leaving ample empty space on the screen, the movie details the only criminal case in the country that charged anyone with conspiracy in the death of the president or called into question the results of the Warren Commission. At the same time, it takes a look into the personal life of Garrison as he dealt with both internal and external pressures in bringing this case to trial. With the depth of the movie’s explorations, it is possible to deduct some of the more important socio-political movements of the time period in which it is set. Stone’s personal background further plays a part in the way in which the film develops as it casts considerable weight upon the theory favored by the director. Because of the way in which he goes about detailing the development of various theories as to what happened that afternoon in Texas, Stone’s interpretation makes it clear in a very public way that at the least, the Warren Commission could not have been correct in its findings when it ruled a lone gunman achieved the death of a president. Up to the release of the movie, Americans were falling asleep regarding the details behind the assassination, but with its release, they once again asked the questions that had remained unanswered since the House Select Committee on Assassination Report was released in 1979. This public reaction eventually led to the release in 1994 of some documents associated with the Warren Commission’s report. Although primarily seen as a form of inexpensive entertainment and amusement, the films coming out of Hollywood can often provide a great deal of insight into the functions of the greater society. Films capture the sense of current modes of thought in terms of political, social and economic structure in a given part of society. There are a great number of theories regarding how the media works to reinforce or reject specific cultural attitudes regarding class, race and gender, most of which are based on the theory of ideology brought forth by Karl Marx in which ideas are given greater attention when they are seen to coincide with the ideas and interests of the economically powerful, even when the majority are not of this group. Thus, many of the films that come out of Hollywood tend to reflect the glamorous, comfortable aspect of life that can only be obtained by acquiring a high degree of material wealth, or the struggle to attain this status, reinforcing the idea that the only way to live is to have a great deal of wealth and that without it, life is not worth living. Even films that seem designed solely for entertainment purposes, such as Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd’s Trading Places, can work in subtle ways to maintain and promote the existing power relations within society. This film is a perfect example of how Hollywood portrays race, class and gender in such a way that both reinforces the prevailing ideology concerning these issues and works to ensure others that are not of the upper echelons of these groups equally buy into the ideology. The film indicates that while there may be people of worth in the lower classes, they are only able to achieve true worth if they are able to make a great deal of money and purchase the various commodities associated with affluence. Poor people are necessarily nothing more than criminals or, at the least, miserable in their surroundings. Only when they are sitting on a tropical beach or yacht have they achieved happiness. I was forced to watch Director Sidney Lumet’s 1957 film “12 Angry Men” in junior high school. I now own it and watch it often, such as just now. It did not do well at the box-office thanks to the full-color motion pictures that continued to draw many away, nor did it receive widespread awards and accolades within the film industry. In the years following, the film has not seen much additional success, but has maintained a firm grip on its position as social commentary as it did provide an intimate look into the American justice system, complete with its breakdowns, weaknesses and strengths, that has withstood the test of time, holding its own among the classic films of American cinema. Far from the highly colorized, flash and bang of modern cinema, “12 Angry Men” takes place in a single room and involves 12 ordinary men who are each stereotypical of prevalent societal attitudes at the time of the film’s making, but could as easily be transferred to more modern times, forcing the viewer to focus on the psychological action occurring rather than the latest high-dollar computer graphic imagery or fast-moving car chase scene. Each element of the film speaks to the question of doubt and surety as the men work their way through personal prejudice to decipher the facts from their own preconceived ideas, motives, inclinations and objectives. Removing the possibility of special effects, numerous on-location film sites or even a studio, the film capitalizes on the stark nature of the jury room environment to bring focus on the issues at hand rather than the ornate structure of the setting, bringing things down to the basic facts, as the jury members are expected to do in deliberating the case. With no flashbacks, narration or subtitles, and bare walls surrounding the men in the jury room, there is nothing left to distract the audience from the interplay of words occurring in the room or the effects these words have on the men who are so closely situated to each other. As a result of this concentration, the audience must admit they are drawn in to the psychological drama. It is Columbus day therefore, its movie time again. The film style used in the entertainment film Christopher Columbus, filmed in 1992 for the 500 year anniversary of Columbus’ historic voyage, could be distinguished as dramatic. Like a documentary film, it generally avoids placing the characters in unnecessary darkness whenever possible, eliminating the possibility of intrigue or deceit in the events taking place, but allows darkness where appropriate, letting the corners of a cabin sink into the background darkness, for example, while leaving the faces of the actors in plain sight. Music is used extensively throughout the film as a means of heightening mood, for example in the arrest scene when Columbus is taken from the home of his lover’s family to be questioned by the chief inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. The action is presented as a continuous life-story, following the actions and the words of the man in the title and those individuals around him more than a simple retelling of facts which makes it seem more like an entertainment movie rather than a documentary. The plot focuses almost completely upon the voyage of discovery and the events leading to it. Scenic design is purposely made to be as close to realistic as possible, with some film shot on the open ocean in specially built replicas of the three ships Columbus took with him to the new world and a reconstructed port town of Palos. In addition, portions of the movie were shot on location in Spain and in a castle in which Queen Isabella actually lived. The focus of the film is different from a documentary, too, in that it concentrates on the action that made Columbus famous rather than the man himself. However, the actors in the Hollywood movie strove to elicit a sympathetic response from the viewers, attempting to convey an understanding of the man’s character as well as a grasp of his obsessive quest and cruel nature without actually going deep into his history. The movie Chasing Amy is an interesting movie that explores the questions of homosexuality and how people in the modern age relate to this idea. A chick-flick for sure, I cannot admit to watching it alone. In this film, three individuals struggle to come to grips with their own sexual identities. It opens by revealing the close friendship that exists between Holden, the primary character, and Banky, his homophobic sidekick, two individuals who have collaborated for years on a popular comic book series. The two men meet Alyssa through a mutual friend, Hooper X, who is a gay black man writing a comic about a super militant black hero, thus hiding his own sexual identity. Alyssa also has her own comic book that features a strong female character. Holden and Alyssa establish an instant rapport and Holden expresses his interest in her to Hooper X, who later extends an invitation from Alyssa to Holden to attend a nightclub event. It is at this event that Holden learns Alyssa is a lesbian as the event is held in a lesbian bar and Alyssa greets a long-time female friend with an intensely intimate kiss, but he is still shocked by the revelation. However, she insists on meeting him the following day and encourages him to talk with her about it. This turns out to be the start of a complicated friendship turned romance that eventually interferes with the relationship Holden has previously had with Banky. Jealous that Holden is spending so much of his time with Alyssa, Banky works to dig up dirt about Alyssa after Holden confesses he has fallen in love with Alyssa and Alyssa surprisingly responds by returning his love. Banky succeeds in revealing that Alyssa was once involved in a threesome with two boys from her high school, a fact that profoundly disturbs Holden who had thought he was her only male experience, and causes Holden to take advice from other friends. This advice leads Holden to a profound misunderstanding of both of these relationships, unintentionally severing him completely from Alyssa. Cars fascinate me, it’s an American thing. It does not seem on the surface that the purchase of a car would make consumers react differently than they would to accumulating other recent technologies. It can be argued that computers, cell phones, or airplanes have had an equal or greater effect on society than the car. However, there is a distinction that separates the car from all other technologies. Unlike these other products, though, cars are often seen to have some kind of a soul, they speak to us with their own personalities and often inspire us to provide names or emotional attachments with them in ways that do not occur with items such as toaster ovens or microwaves. All of these mechanical devices were designed to make life more efficient. A car is more complex than a toaster but neither gives you respect, love or happiness itself. The magic of a car is that it provides an extension of oneself into a form of transportation. Just as the individual can control how fast they walk and whether they want to turn left or right when they are not in a car, the same rules apply when in their vehicle. As an extension of its driver, the car fills a role that a toaster could never hope to achieve. By the same token, driving a cherry-red Lamborghini convertible says something very different about its owner than say, driving a yellow Volkswagen. The unique relationship of cars with their owners seems to me to be that it fills the role of a companion. A car also plays the convincing part of a rational, intelligent being. It makes sounds and flashes lights that indicate when it is happy or sad, in good shape or breaking down. With onboard computers and pre-dialed radios, they are even often given a voice while their interiors are designed for our express comfort. Even looking at a car from the outside is often like looking on the face of a friend as car makers seem to deliberately give their designs face-like appearances. This is done with the placement of headlights and fenders resembling eyes and a smile. It was a typical Saturday and I had no particular plans other than relaxing in front of the television. Finding nothing much to watch on a summer Saturday afternoon, I settled on golf knowing that I would enjoy a well-deserved nap while watching. Soon after settling on the couch, a car commercial caught my attention. It wasn’t the typical commercial displaying a line of conventional autos lined on a parking lot while a smiling salesman pitched his pre-rehearsed lines. This was a slickly-produced Jaguar commercial. I dressed as if I were going to a nice dinner on a first date and even washed my car on the way to the dealership. My anticipation was high but it was more than matched by what I found when I arrived. Mercedes, Jaguars, Bentleys, BMWs and Volvos all shined like diamonds under the hot summer sun. I was in the Mecca of auto dealerships. My head was spinning and I could not decide which car I liked best as they all were glamorous. I wandered outside for a while then decided to go inside the building. As I approached the door to what appeared to be an old European structure but perfectly maintained, a man approached to ask if he could be of assistance. As I opened my mouth to answer, I saw it behind him - silver Jaguar XKE. I had to hide my amazement that I was actually going to drive this machine and coolly drove out of the lot. The first thing I noticed was that no outside noises permeated inside even though the stereo and air-conditioning were not on to help drown out traffic and engine sounds. The ride was more than smooth. My own car has a smooth ride but this felt like we were floating on a cushion of air. After this driving experience, I will never again look at other luxury cars in quite the same way. This is the ultimate and I will never be able to be completely satisfied with less. I, as all of us, strive for the best in life and this is certainly the best of vehicles. I can’t stop thinking or talking about that Saturday in driving heaven. That Sunday, the ‘Jag’ still spinning in my head, I happened upon an old movie my dad had watched at least a hundred times while flipping through the channels so I decided to see if it was worth that many views. The film Patton chronicles the story of General George S. Patton, a World War II tank commander, from his arrival in North Africa to the allied invasion of Europe and the eventual defeat of Germany. This film was inspirational to say the least. The theme music alone is enough to make a person, if not consider enlisting themselves, at least sympathetic and provokes a sense of awe for those that do. It won much acclaim following its release and although somewhat dated by today’s cinematic standards, it is easy to understand why. The film was essentially accurate in its depiction of historical events but a couple of aspects stood out as inaccurate such as Patton’s speech to his troops in which he apologized for the slapping incident. While he was indeed ordered to do so by Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower and did gather those under his command for the apology, in reality, his troops cheered for long and so loud at his arrival, he was never able to deliver this speech as the film depicted. Those words on the balcony were never spoken. Another inaccuracy involved his nickname and perception as ‘old blood and guts.’ This moniker was attached by the media, not his troops. The movie showed his blatant disregard for American casualties in favor of victory at any cost which is fictional as his casualty rates were among the lowest in the European theater. One can learn a brief overview of the war and the integral part that Patton’s armies played in the liberation of Europe and defeat of Germany as it was based on, for the most part, historical events. Besides the media’s sensationalistic reporting concerning Patton’s rather sensational antics and the support Patton received from parents of his troops after such reports, life in the United States was not mentioned. Monday again but this would be no typical day. I saw an incident that involved two female students which caused me to reflect upon my stance on a sensitive subject. Two girls, coming in from a lunch break, were seen to be holding hands. Other students in the vicinity, witnessing this, began making rude remarks regarding the sexuality of the students. They both were in my next class. The class teacher, who had witnessed the entire incident immediately admonished the girls for causing a stir and then separated the girls from their usual neighboring desks by placing several other students between them. The teasing experienced from the other students did not stop with the separation, but instead took on greater intensity and frequency, as the girls had not been teased previously to this incident but were teased incessantly. There are better ways in which the teacher could have handled this situation. If, as she claims, the two students involved are typically disruptive of the classroom, it would have been better to have separated them on a different day from the day in question, or even at the end of the class period rather than immediately after they had been seen holding hands to avoid sending the unspoken message from an authority figure that indications of homosexuality were enough to warrant punishment. Had she taken the time to talk with the girls regarding this action, Ms. Strathmore would have not only discovered a much deeper and more distressing reason why the girls were holding hands, and possibly been instrumental in finding the proper counseling and guidance they needed to help deal with their individual issues, but would have instead sent a message of attempting to understand an issue before jumping to conclusions and punishment without knowing the story. Understanding that the teacher might not have realized the exact cause of the commotion prior to separating the girls, a direct confrontation with the tormentors regarding their own actions immediately upon hearing the teasing taking place might have helped to foster better and more productive communication among all students. Open discussion of the issues involved, or at least into the rights of individual citizens to make their own choices, might have helped to increase tolerance levels among students or at least caused them to keep their opinions to themselves. Seeing an authority figure neither condoning nor rejecting a particular behavior would have provided more students the opportunity to form their own judgments as fewer students would be free to make the thinly veiled vilified statements that have been circulating in the classroom since the incident. During the week, a very politically liberal friend of mine suggested we kill some time by watching a favorite movie of his which I said I had not seen. Well, it wasn’t really a movie but a documentary. I wish I had been warned before committing my evening to it. Fahrenheit 9/11, was written and directed by Michael Moore, exposes many truths regarding the Iraq war, the stolen election of 2000, the link between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabian leadership along with its connections to the attacks on September 11 and George W. Bush’s ineptness leading up to and following the attacks. It also chronicled a soldier’s mother’s story and showed Moore speaking to various U.S. Representatives in Congress, asking them if they would send their own children to Iraq as proof of their support for the war. Fahrenheit 9/11 was released two months prior to the 2004 presidential election for the purpose of alerting the public to voting discrepancies in the previous election. It was also intended to show the President as an incompetent, unintelligent, uncaring war monger whose allegiances are not aligned to the nation but to the monetary interests of his personal and business associates. The reasoning for the timing of the film’s debut is self-evident. Moore, simply put, wanted the audience to not vote for Bush. The film proved most of its case through credible documentation and the testimony of high level officials close to the events as they unfolded. The film was very persuasive to those that did not care for Bush’s performance as President before they entered the theater and was dismissed as left-wing propaganda by those that do support the President. That being said, both sides of the political fence could probably not help but to learn something from the film as it covered a various number of subjects. For example, whatever significance a person may put on the sudden and secret departure of the Bin Laden family immediately following the attacks, this was information that was true and not widely known before the release of the film. I took away much information from the film, either in the form of new facts or the connecting of dots that I had not previously considered, possibly because of my naïve and trusting nature. I found I was not alone in this assessment after discussing the movie with others. I would highly recommend this film to others as it, if nothing else, stimulates thought and discussion by reaching beyond what has been publicized in the media. The movie is also very entertaining in that it evokes many emotions. I laughed, was moved to tears and found myself cheering and booing, at least internally, throughout the film. Any movie that makes a person think and can entertain so well at the same time is worth a watch whatever ideology one subscribes to. I didn’t think I liked political documentaries but I was wrong. Have you seen those commercials on TV that show a series of people participating in simple random acts of kindness given to strangers? Walking into the mall, I passed by a group of cars that were parallel parked along a curbside parking area. The blue car in the center was trying to get out, but it was a very tight squeeze. I was walking by on the sidewalk just as the lady in this car was beginning to back up and I noticed that she was about to hit the green Volkswagon behind her. Without even thinking, I signaled to her to stop and walked to the back of her car. Then I helped direct her by walking back and forth from the back to the front of her car and signaled when she could back up more or pull forward again. It took several times, but she finally managed to wiggle out of the spot and left, with a friendly wave out the back window for thanks. Not thinking anything about it, I waved back and continued on into the mall. The first time I noticed anything was different was when two guys at the doors opened both of them for me to pass through. I’m really only wide enough to need one door, but they were being nice I guess. As I walked into the first store, I saw a woman who had passed by me outside helping another lady with an unwieldy package. From the bit of conversation I overheard, I gathered that these two women hadn’t known each other before that hour. I wasn’t interested in anything in that department, though, so I followed after a guy who was leaving the store through the mall entrance. Just at that moment, a girl at the entrance with samples of something dropped her basket and that samples fell all over the floor. Even though the guy seemed to be in a pretty big hurry, he immediately bent down and started picking up the samples with her. Just outside the store was a small concession booth selling drinks. A kid at the counter was counting out change for the Slushie he’d just ordered and evidently turned up short, because the guy behind him in line pulled out a dollar and placed it on the counter for him. I thought maybe it was father and son or some other relation, but the kid just turned around and smiled at the guy and then walked away with his drink, while the guy proceeded to place his own order. Everywhere I went things like this kept happening. Now, I know it can be argued that a lot of these actions are just natural human reactions and not caused by the random act I performed at the curb, and actually, I prefer to believe that myself. Maybe it isn’t the single random act of kindness that leads other people to do the same, but instead the act of kindness opens the individual’s eyes to the acts of kindness that are happening all around him or her every day and in numerous ways. Last night the movie Blood Diamonds played on HBO. It wasn’t what I expected. Blood Diamond attempts to alert the masses to the atrocities occurring in Africa. Until then, this situation was largely ignored by Western governments and news media. Rebel militias deal in the illegal diamond trade for many reasons. The most obvious is that diamond’s value-to-weight ratio is very high which allows for great amounts of capital to be easily transported. Diamonds are mined with low-profile, rudimentary tools and in various regions, many of which are remote making it all but impossible to adequately patrol. The value of illegal diamonds mined and traded by rebel armies reaches into the billions of dollars which have purchased the large caches of weapons used to murder many millions of innocent people during the past two decades. It is known that rebel groups use what amounts to little better than slave labour, forcing many hundreds of people to work the diamond mines in three Ivory Coast towns which, alone, produces 300,000 carats of diamonds every year at a value of more than $14million. The miners are initially enticed by the dream of discovering a large stone which would make them wealthy but the vast majority does not find such a stone and continue mining because there are few other jobs available in these regions. Most miners are severely impoverished therefore are easily recruited by rebel groups to become a member and fight for their cause. I will never buy diamonds. Read More