When life gives you lemmons...

...Rock on out, Janis Joplin would say. As my academic ambitions slowly crumble to pieces, going to see "Rock of ages" (2012) was not the disappointing experience I had originally anticipated. I am a lover of music (a classic-rock fan at heart, give me Led Zeppelin anytime) and a lover of musicals but I am not really into 80s Power Ballads by bands like Poison, Foreigner and Journey, and so was fully prepared to give a negative review of this jukebox musical screen adaptation. Yet, the film as a whole was surprisingly uplifting, even though the narrative suggests that if life is not going the way you've planned become a stripper (which to be fair it's better than going home).

The concept of the film is from the musical of the same name on West End and Broadway. Set in 1987, it tells the story of young Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) who travels from a small town to L.A to pursue her dreams. After her suitcase is stolen she meets Drew Boley (Diego Boneta), an aspiring rock star who is currently working at the notorious Bourbon club on Sunset strip owned by Denis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his partner Lonny (Russell Brand). Drew manages to get Sherrie a job but things turn sour when Sherrie meets rocker and sex symbol, Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) and her and Drew split. Drew starts to follow what he believes is a path to fame, led by money-hungry manager, Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti), and he is forced to turn to pop music whilst Sherrie quits Bourbon and is taken in by strip club manager, Justice Charlier (Mary J. Blige). All the while Denis Dupree is worried about the Bourbon club going out of business, Stacee Jaxx is having an identity crisis and the mayors wife, Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is trying to ban metal (with a personal vendetta against Stacee Jaxx). In the end everything works out, the Bourbon survives, Whitmore gets converted to Rock music, and Sherrie and Drew make their dreams come true. Critics cannot comment on the finale of the film as it is hardly surprising; the film is made up of standard musical ingredients, which don't bake an interesting, luxury, à la carte dessert, but nevertheless the public will continue to eat up musical films- like they are a classic victoria sponge.


Admittedly when the film opened with a mix of 'Sister Christian/ Just like paradise/ Nothin' but a good time', I did wince. Its beginning, however, lets you know what's in store and either you accept this or you spend the duration of the film trying (but probably failing) to hate it. In addition, being directed by Adam Shankman, who has previously directed "Hairspray" (2007) and two episodes of "Glee", one knows that the film is hardly going to be 'edgy.' The film has comic moments and undoubtedly Tom Cruise loved playing an arrogant rock god due to his somewhat egotistical nature and is probably currently basking in the critics referral to the film as 'Tom's movie'; but the films awful reviews in The New York Times and The Guardian are really undeserved. The film is not trying to move away from the Hollywood formula and be 'edgy'- as firstly where would Hollywood be without it's adaptations of stage productions and secondly Heavy Metal was pretty mainstream at the time anyway. The film as a whole reminds me of the heavy metal revivalists Steel Panther, who do not take themselves seriously at all, so critics please stop being so depressing. The only thing I'm praying for is that Journeys song "Don't stop believing" doesn't make it back into the charts for a second time in the last ten years.

Some critics have said that the film is an insult to rock music but in my opinion the glam metal, hair bands of the 1980s were nothing but flamboyant and cheesy. The film definitely embodies this, thus the genre cannot be offended. In retrospect the glam metal fans of the 80s are a reflection of the Indie posers of the noughties (both genres are played in the so called 'cheese' rooms in clubs everywhere). Someday a film about the Indie genre will probably be produced and will claim that the genre reflected a generation (even though shit Indie songs, which all sound the same, are my personal nightmare). Let's face it, by 1987 the days of the 'true' rock and roll lifestyle that came out of the 1960s were coming to an end, and the eighties and nineties were a time when people were realising the damaging effects of a drug and alcohol induced lifestyle alongside a rising concern of AIDS/ HIV that began to grab media attention. This film manages to brush past these problems, and does not pretend to be anything more than what it sets out to do: entertain. The costumes are great and everyone is overstyled, the majority of the audience will know the music (even if you try to pretend you don't) and they will tap their feet along with the riffs, and finally, the characters are indeed stereotypical, but in musicals the characters don't need to be complicated- after all the key to a musical is the music, not the narrative. Therefore, continuing in the cheesy fashion of the film, "Rock of Ages" indeed offers 'nothin' but a good time' whether you take the film seriously or with a pinch of salt.

 

Director: Adam Shankman

Writers: Chris D'Arienzo (musical book), Justin Theroux and Allan Loeb

Starring: Diego Boneto, Julianne Hough, Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Paul Giamatti, Mary J. Blige.

You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention: The legend of Django

The trailer for "Django Unchained" was released recently. I had to watch the original Django film- Sergio Corbucci's, "Django" (1966)- as part of my degree course and was not expecting to hear the name 'Django' in any form Western again, believing it had been worn out over the years in the many other exploitation films that cashed in on Corbucci's success. Nevertheless, it seems the legend lives on. Here is Tarantino's trailer:

Any trailer for a Tarantino film is bound to be quite ambiguous and reading the criticism around 'Django Unchained' many are questioning whether Tarantino has stretched the boundaries to far in his new project. In my opinion the film is going to be keeping in line with many other of his films that also surpass delicate boundaries; such as the theme of the Holocaust in "Inglorious Bastards" (2009)- and with a star studded cast like Leonardo Di Caprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx, it's set to be a winner at the box office. Anyone who has seen the original 'Django' (1966), or any other Spaghetti westerns for that matter, would know that the genre was famous for competing to produce the most violent film: the amount of violence in the films is one of the aspects that drew audiences to watch westerns in the Spaghetti era- the main question was 'how far can that particular director/ actor/ producer stretch the boundaries?' Even if the viewer is unfamiliar with the Spaghetti western concept they have probably seen a previous Tarantino film and know that he is no stranger to violent scenes.  

What intrigues me most, is the films' title. The 'Django' name has been strongly associated with many westerns. Moreover, Tarantino has included Corbucci's original 'Django' actor, Franco Nero, in his film. Here is the 1966 'Django' trailer:

The creation of the Django character was inspired by two predominant sources. The first being Akira Kurosawa’s film "Yojimbo" (1961): a Japanese film that deals with a lone man who enters a town run by two opposing gangs and decides to rid the community of their corruption (this motif is the inspiration behind many other westerns: one man who has no affiliation to any other party but himself, as can be seen in films like Sergio Leone's "A fistful of dollars" (1964)). The second inspiration behind the name, is the jazz guitar player, Django Reinhardt, a Romany gypsy who is commended for incorporating the use of a guitar in jazz music and for proliferating jazz across Europe. When he was young, he was in an accident and was badly burnt, losing the use of several fingers on his left hand. He did not let this accident hinder his guitar playing, and thus he learnt all his guitar solo's using just two fingers. It is evident that Corbucci was inspired by the 'symbolism of hands' in 'Django', especially in the final scene were Django's hands are completely broken and bloody and yet he still manages to shoot his enemy.

"Every cowboy with a gun and a mission was called Django in those days." 

~ Spaghetti Western database

Corbucci's Django is  man with a mission- he's out to seek revenge on the man who killed Django's wife, the racist Confederate Major Jackson. The actor playing Django, Franco Nero, was only in his early twenties when he made the film and his voice was dubbed to make him sound more mature. As previously stated there have been many films all using the Django name, (or "Sotto-Djangos"- Under Djangos) but there was only one official sequel made where Nero returns to the Django character in "Django strikes again" (1987). Django is not like any other cowboy; he doesn't ride a horse and he drags his coffin around with him in which he carries a huge firing gun to help him defeat his enemies. He has no tie or affiliations to any particular parties and more importantly he can never love another woman ever again, as the lyrics to the theme song suggest:

"Django, have you never loved again?
Love will live on, oh oh oh...
Life must go on, oh oh oh...
For you cannot spend your life regretting."

~1966 theme song.

 

Critics have further debated whether the theme Tarantino has chosen, the 'union-soldiers-raped-and-killed-my-wife-now-I'm-out-for-revenge' motif,  is outdated. Also, if Tarantino is going to 'avoid the realms of bad taste' and whether he'll be able to handle the delicate issues he has laid out for the film- well it depends on what people find bad taste. The original Django is rife with explicit racism against Mexicans, prostitutes (the exploitation of women in general), civil war resentment, and the infamous violent ear slicing scene. Using the term 'blaxploitation' to categorise the film is slightly risky, just because Jamie Foxx is Django and the representation of the slave trade- but anyone who knows Tarantino's style will know that his films are not famous for their historical accuracy and for always twisting the outdated themes of revenge, love and honour. 

 

Exploitation films were never made to be taken seriously- they were made on cheap budgets, with unknown actors and really bad dubbing and special effects- yet they are a film niche in their own right taking on a variety of genres such as the Western, Horror and Comedy and they were made in their hundreds- thus the narratives of the films were not important at all and their scripts were weak. In this case, it is clear from the "Django Unchained" trailer that the only thing in common between this film and Corbucci's original classic is perhaps the quest for revenge on a man for killing/taking Django's wife. It is bound to be the strong reputation of the 'Django' persona and all he represents that drew Tarantino to make his own homage to the name but not necessarily the same story. The main questions that need to be asked  are not about whether the film will achieve success (no doubt it will gather an audience being promoted as the 'New Tarantino') but where to place this film on the endless Django films list? and more importantly will Jamie Foxx manage to pull off this iconic character? ...hmm to answer them I guess one just has to wait till Christmas.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest Snow White of them all?

Fairy tales were not originally written for children, and although the Disney classics seem to dominate the fairy tale domain, it is only recently that directors and animators seem to be exploring the twisted side to them: think of the creepy bedtime story narrated by the Oscar nominated Granny O'Grimm. Like any other child, I loved watching Disney's heroic tales of restoring princesses to their rightful place, getting rid of evil step parents, being rescued by a dashing young prince charming and ending up living happily ever after in a beautiful castle. In today's world, where happy endings are for dreamers and castles are overpriced, it is interesting to go back to these stories as an adult and somewhat satisfying to learn that these 'princesses' were not as lucky as Disney has led us to believe. 

"The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high and filled with many things: all manner of beasts and birds are found there; shoreless seas and stars uncounted; beauty that is an enchantment, and an ever-present peril; both joy and sorrow as sharp as swords. In that realm a man may, perhaps, count himself fortunate to have wandered, but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveller who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should be shut and the keys be lost."

~J. R. R. Tolkien in 'On Fairy Stories'

'Snow White swallows the poisoned apple'
Paula Rego

There have been two new Snow White films released this year. Snow White is one of the darkest fairy tales: with murderous rivalry, adolescent sexual ripening, poisoned gifts, bloodshed, witchcraft, and ritual cannibalism. So Snow White has probably stopped dreaming that 'some day her prince will come' but has ended up rather like the distressing painting by Paula Rego (right). The author, Terri Windling, gives a very good overview of the various versions of the Snow White tale in her article: Snow, Glass, Apples: The story of Snow White. I have taken a look at different Snow White films over the years, and will compare the actresses who have taken on the roles of Snow White to see who rules fairest of them all.

"Snow White" (1916)

The 1916 version of the 'Snow White' tale was directed by J. Searle Dawley and based on a script written for the stage by Wintrop Ames. Below the two minute youtube clip gives the perfect impression of the actress who played Snow White, Marguerite Clark.

Clark was thirty-three years old when she did this film. Surprisingly, the majority of her films and on stage performances where done in her thirties, which is very unusual compared to the age 'limit' that Hollywood portrays today (Charlize Theron is thirty-six and  playing the evil old Queen in 'Snow White and the Huntsmen'). Although the cinematography is slightly lacking, and it's set up leans more towards a stage production, Clark gives the Snow White character a personality which is very vibrant and youthful.

The look of intrigue on her face when she is peering through the hole in the front door of the cottage is captivating and she has this innocence about her which is very endearing thus making her a beautiful Snow White-but consequently she is more of a damsel in distress than a fighting warrior. Walt Disney was a massive fan of this version and he used elements of it in his first full length animation "Snow White and the seven dwarfs" (1937) . One can easily see the similarities between the Disney Snow White caricature and Marguerite Clark.

Roland C. Crandall's "Snow White" (1933)

It would seem ludicrous not to mention a cartoon version of Snow White in this post. So here's Roland C. Crandall's short animation with Betty Boop as "Snow White" (1933) and music by Cab Calloway.

This cartoon took Crandall six months to complete by himself and is considered to be a masterpiece. The voice of Betty, Mae Questel, is very childlike with the mispronouncing of words and squeaky voice. The character of Betty Boop however is a far cry from the 'innocent' child. Her character was based on the flappers of the 1920s mainly with the voice of Helen Kane (especially in her song "I wanna be loved by you") and wide-eyed, carefree, "it" girl, Clara Bow.

In this film (made before the production code of 1934 was enforced) Betty is wearing her classic, very short, black dress and a suspender on her upper thigh (which slips off at some point). Visually, her character is overtly sexual, a far cry from the childish demeanour of Marguerite Clark. However her narrative says something different: "Always in the way, I can never play" she cries out like a damsel in distress, to which the guards reply "what a shame! Poor Betty!" and throw away the axe. Once again Betty Boop is not a fighter and ends up getting trapped in a ball of snow creating her own avalanche which leads to her being trapped in a glass coffin. In the end she is rescued by her Prince Charming (Koko the Clown).

The evil Queen stepmother resembles the character Olive Oyl (from "Popeye") and she transforms into several different objects throughout the animation: the best, in my opinion, is when her eyes turn into two fried eggs as she is observing Betty's beauty. Thus we have, yet again, a damsel in distress, a defeated evil Queen and order restored with a happily ever after.

"Snow White and the Huntsmen" (2012)

Directed by Rupert Sanders. I had to take a break before I got down to writing about this version of the Snow White tale, simply because of my dislike of Kristen Stewart and her inability to portray expression in any film that she does. Nevertheless, it is clear she was chosen precisely because she is the last actress expected to play the beautiful and fair Snow White. Although parts of the script are poorly written (Stewarts' speech to her army is not inspiring whatsoever), the story dips in and out of old versions of the Snow White tale with new twists. The Huntsmen becomes her mentor and the Prince Charming is cast aside. Charlize Theron makes an excellent evil Queen- giving deeper psychological dimensions to the misunderstood character. The viewer sees a glimpse of the Queen's past and why she goes to extreme lengths to preserve her beauty- i suppose the magic holding Theron's character together is a reflection of the copious amount of plastic that makes up Hollywood today- but perhaps Theron goes about retrieving beauty in a more dramatic manner and with better effects. As a whole the film brings to light the darker side to the Snow White story- but with a bland Snow White who sometimes chips in to fight her battle, but with the Huntsmen always close behind.

"Mirror Mirror" (2012)

I was going to dismiss this film, but after watching it I feel it is worthy of comment. Directed by Tarsem Singh, the story is framed by a narrative told by the evil Queen (Julia Roberts). It has some comic lines and Lily Collins is a fun Snow White, defiantly with more spark than Stewart. Julia Roberts as the evil Queen is more sympathetic than Theron and it is clear that this version is a light hearted approach to the tale. Although, presumably, aimed primarily at children it could have taken more risks- even the Disney version is more terrifying. The end is as one expects, but I will not even go into detail about the bizarre Bollywood-esque song at the end of the film. It is witty in parts, for example when Julia Roberts comments on how the name Snow White was the most pretentious name that Snow's parents could have chosen, and the dwarfs are banished bandits who wear stilts to fool their victims into thinking they're giants. The dwarfs (there are seven of them but they have different names to the Disney version- it blows the mind) teach Snow White how to fight for herself but are always ready to defend her along with her prince Charming when things get tough.The use of make-up is what really transforms Collin's into Snow White (with eyelashes and red lipstick). 'It's time to change that fairy-tale ending' is essentially the tag line of the film but yet there is only one real difference between Singh's Snow White and the rest- the fact that Collins' does not take a bite of the poisonous red apple- apart from this all the other elements are present.

Writing this post I have realised that Snow White is not particularly the best princess to represent today's society. She will never be able to completely fight her own battle; she is just one of those girls- perceived to be too 'fair' to fight by men and so they either go into combat for her or wade close behind to lend a (massive) hand and finish her fight. Therefore who is the fairest Snow White out of the above? In my personal opinion each of them (apart from Stewart, apologies) is worthy of a Snow White title. Scott Meslow mentions many notable Snow White adaptations over the years in The Atlantic online paper of which, I heard that Micheal Cohn's "Snow White: A tale of terror" (1997) is one of the best. So, as Meslow states: "There is always another Snow White around the bend," and each of them is trying to be the fairest of them all.

Short but Sweet Review: Easy Virtue (2008)

Director: Stephan Elliot
Script: Stephan Elliot and  Sheridan Jobbins
Starring: Jessica Biel, Ben Barnes, Colin Firth

"There's something wild about you child that's so contagious, let's misbehave" is definitely the perfect tagline to describe Elliot's sassy adaptation of Noel Cowards' 1924 play of the same name. Easy Virtue is enjoyable: full of witty lines and easy to watch but it will not enhance your life. In the film, Larita (Biel) has entered into a shot-gun marriage with John Whittaker (Barnes) and is brought to his grand family home to meet his old fashioned family. John Whittaker's mother (played by Kristin Scott Thomas) is against the marriage from the start, accusing Larita of being a gold-digger and dragging her precious son away from his family duties.

It is clear that Larita is out of place amongst the stuffy, Victorian values of the Whittaker household; firstly she is American, but also she funds herself with her race car driving, she had been married once before, she smokes, she admires Cuban paintings, has bleach blonde hair, and finally, and possibly the worst flaw in the eyes of the Whittaker family, she wears trousers (god-forbid!) Her disparity from the family is also highlighted with her pollen allergy; safe to say, Larita is not an English rose. There is a lot of criticism surrounding Biel's performance in the film, described as being rather bland and lacking the 'zest' needed to embody the films' interwar, 1920s flapper spirit. Although the sense of detachment she feels toward her new husband's family can be seen. The other characters are very definable, with John's cold mother-who is fighting to defend family values- along with his two poignant sisters, and his free-spirited father (Firth), whose experience in the war helps him empathise with Larita about feeling trapped in the oppressive Whittaker manor. The film takes a lighthearted approach to subjects that otherwise would be quite serious, such as Larita's scandal surrounding her other marriage, the debt of the Whittaker family, and the film devalues the institution of marriage.

As a whole the film is composed of delightful scenes and filled with wonderful costumes and make-up.The film uses a mixture of music from the period and jazzes up more recent songs such as 'Sexbomb.' Cole Porters famous tunes such as, 'Let's misbehave', 'You do something to me' and 'You're the top!'  also contribute to the setting of the film and lyrics are even intertwined in the dialogue- highlighting how influential the music of the decade was in shaping the era's Bright Young Things. The film is not a serious historical representation and overall is just a bit of fun, so let's misbehave!

Verdict: Well worth a watch.

Smoking on screen: old habits die hard

"These days, when someone smokes in the movies, they're either a psychopath...or European."

~Nick Naylor in 'Thank you for smoking'

After spending the past three weeks writing, editing and handing in over 15,000 words for my dissertation and other essays, I can finally put all my efforts into watching the films I would like to watch. So, I've recently become addicted to the TV series Mad Men. Even though its blatant misogyny is somewhat dispiriting from a woman's point-of-view, I still wish that every morning I had enough time to look as good as its characters:

 The show is steeped in nostalgia from an era of beautiful dresses, with a sophisticated script and composed cinematography. Men appear at the top and woman were 'dazed and confused' individuals only capable of being secretaries or housewives (yet, the woman are not as brainless as they appear.) What shocked me most, and it really shouldn't have considering the decade, was the amount of cigarettes smoked in an episode. The characters smoke in the office, in meetings, in bars, in restaurants, on planes, on trains, at home and while pregnant- 'its mandatory' says Peggy (Elisabeth Olsen) when lighting up in season one. They are not real cigarettes, but as one critic has said; "if anyone can make a cancer stick sexy, it's Jon Hamm, aka Don Draper." Mad Men mainly stays out of the firing line as it is categorised as a period drama but is it as acceptable to smoke as much in dramas set in modern times, like Gossip Girl etc? The issue of cigarettes in film and television is a subplot that arises in Jason Reitman's Thank you for smoking (2005). Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is a lobbyist for a Tobacco company, promoting and arguing for cigarettes. The film adopts a humorous and witty take on the delicate issue of the use of cigarettes on screen and the effect seeing smoking has on the general public.

Nick Naylor has the job of keeping people 'alive and smoking' as he travels around the country representing cigarettes. The film is made up of a series of events that happen rather than a circular (beginning-middle-tie up all loose ends) plot; and the ending is hazy, but a positive one. At one point in the film Naylor is sent to Hollywood to try and persuade Hollywood executives to use more cigarettes in their films and in turn "put the sex back into cigarettes." Any viewer going in to see the film may ask why on earth would anyone choose to be a lobbyist for a Tobacco company? is it for money? Interestingly Naylor used to smoke himself but he backs up his career choice by simply stating that he is good at arguing and debating (a skill he tries to teach his 12 yr old son played by Cameron Bright).

One of the best scenes in the film is when Naylor is in hospital after being kidnapped and attacked with Nicotine patches. The doctor tells him :"no non-smoker could of survived the amount of nicotine in your bloodstream... cigarettes saved your life." This brought me back to the doctor in the Camel adverts that stated "more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." Genius. A more sinister scene in the film is Naylor's mission to pay-off the original Marlboro man who is dying of lung cancer- the use of the Marlboro man in Philip Morris's campaign was the most effective advertising tool. At first glance the film appears to be about cigarettes, especially as the opening credits resemble cigarette packaging with Tex Williams famous tune 'smoke! smoke! smoke that cigarette,' but as this film develops the viewer discovers the film is not really about the issue of smoking at all- but the power of argument and how the public get fooled by all kinds of advertising (cigarettes included). But why do people get so offended by seeing smoking on the silver screen? and what do cigarettes add to a character?

Bette Davis with her signature cigarette and a bottle of whisky

Bette Davis' popular film 'Now, Voyager' (1942) can be seen as a cigarette film (see the final scene 'Don't let's ask for the moon'). Critics state that the film uses cigarettes instead of sex. Sex along with inducing sophistication and pleasure are what cigarettes add to the screen. The cigarette elongates the hand and makes doing absolutely nothing look compelling. In addition others claim that a cigarette titillates the lips- also increasing their sex appeal. Most importantly however; "movies create the expectation that smoking will turn out okay"- as figures such as Audrey Hepburn with her cigarette in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' (1961)  become eternalized, the health issues connected to smoking become eradicated and the film is described as 'Classy'. The cigarette (especially in the films of the 1940s) represents a 'Torch of Freedom', for women and men alike. They represented reality. In today's society people do not smoke as much and so it is considered unnecessary to add a cigarette as a prop on screen. In early cinema women did not smoke- if they lit a cigarette on screen the viewer automatically associated her with being a prostitute or another degrading character. Similarly, in modern cinema the women (and to some extent, the men) who smoke are usually corrupt, unattractive individuals. Or when one character lights up, another character feels the need to list all the health issues connected to the smoking stick and question why the other feels the need to smoke.

Suddenly the issue of lighting up in a film becomes increasingly difficult. The sex appeal of smoking is being slowly removed from modern films- someone said they were put off Keira Knightly as she smokes in several of her films (eg. 'Domino' (2005) and  'Last Night' (2010)). Period dramas, as already seen with 'Mad men' seem to get away with smoking as the industry cannot 'airbrush' historical reality.  The biggest issue today is whether or not seeing celebrities smoke on screen will influence the younger generation to start smoking.  In 2007, this issue caused the Motion Picture Association of America to take into consideration the amount of smoking in a particular film and give them a higher rating. However smoking can be seen everywhere, not just in the cinema, but on modern TV shows such as 'Jersey Shore' and 'Skins' and also in many video games. In which case, should the UK go as far as the Thai government and pixelate cigarettes on screens? I think the waving around of a pixelated cigarette is even more distracting than seeing the actual cigarette and thus it would bring more attention to the action (plus it costs a lot of money): so I think not. On top of this, there has been a lot of smoking in cartoons throughout the years- especially loved Disney classics, thus should all the cigarettes be deleted from these films as well? In my opinion, leave them be. The more fuss made, the more attention drawn to this 'problem'- just as long as no more adverts like one below are made, then cigarettes should take a back seat in children's minds:

 
Today, 'smokers in rich countries rely on films to portray their habit as somewhat more normal and prevalent than it actually is in the real world' (The Economist, 2011). In some ways seeing other people smoking does increase the normality of the cigarette in a world that marginalises smokers and throws them out of pubs, restaurants and offices and into the streets- but if we go on this mirror system of 'monkey see, monkey do' then wouldn't more members of the public drink excessively, drive fast cars, and overdose on drugs every time they watched a particular film, turned on the television, flicked through a magazine, or played a video game? What would James Bond do without his fast cars? And if his character continues to drive recklessly then should higher ratings be introduced on the Bond series due to his complete disregard for the speed limit? The more pressure people put on the removal of cigarettes the more they become seen as inaccessible and 'lawless' and in the end, wouldn't that make cigarettes all the more tempting to the younger generation that protesters are so anxious to protect?

I married a witch and other screw-ups

Moving back in time now from the sci-fi of the 1950's to the pre-war magical innocence of the 'screwball comedy' and an analysis of the brilliantly whimsical film, "I married a witch" (1942) with Veronica Lake, and Fredric March. Directed by René Clair.

The screwball comedy

The screwball comedy has been described as
"the sex comedy without sex", but it proves that the
ripping off of the protagonists clothes is not a necessary ingredient to create entertaining films. The genre came as the rigid, censorial production code of the 1930s put an end to topics such as adultery, homosexuality, and drugs being openly addressed on the silver screen.  The term 'screwball' was invented by the pitcher Carl Hubbell in the 1930's. "It's a pitch with a particular spin that flutters and drops, goes in different directions, and behaves in very unexpected ways" and the 'screwball' films work in exactly the same way: they are unbalanced, erratic, irrational and unconventional.

The films are built upon a sarcastic and witty script with humour driven at the ritualistic humiliation of the male. It is predominantly a female genre, containing an eccentric heroine who saves an anti heroic man from a rigid lifestyle; satirical targets are usually men who work in the law or journalism so their intelligence can be criticised. The great depression and the transition from silent to sound film fuelled the popularity of the 'screwball' genre with an increased fascination of the upper class way of life. The new 'talkies' allowed witty verbal interaction between the protagonists; all which contributes to the farcical battle of the sexes. On the screwball comedy James Arge states:

"It's nuts, it's illogical, it's impossible, and it's hilarious. It's also abundant with endless comic variations, opened to unexpected situations, and primarily grounded in danger."

~http://www.moderntimes.com/screwball/index.html

"I married a witch" (1942) 

This film is a perfect example of a 'screwball' comedy but with an added twist: using witchcraft as another way to humiliate the male. Jennifer (Veronica Lake) and her father Daniel (Cecil Kellaway) are burned at the stake by the puritan Johnathn Wooley (Fredric March) who buries their ashes under an oak tree to imprison their evil spirits. Jennifer puts a curse on the Wooley men and their successors so that any marriage that a Wooley man enters into will be doomed. Time fasts forward to 1942, when lightening strikes the oak tree and the ghost spirits of Jennifer and Daniel are released ready to get revenge on Wallace Wooley (also played by March) and ruin his arranged marriage with his fiancé Estelle Masterson (Susan Hayward).

The film was produced by Paramount pictures but released on the 30th October 1942 by United Artists. Although there is on screen chemistry between Lake and March in reality they didn't get along. Pre-production, March said Lake was "a brainless sex-pot, void of any acting capability" to which Lake replied that March was a "pompous poser": and so, the games begin.

In the opening credits one can hear the wedding theme in the musical score by Roy Webb, hinting on what is to come. The film begins with the burning of Jen and her father at the stake but the scene is made comical by announcing an intermission within the film making reference to the fact that it is a film 'show' and not reality. Then comes the montage, which provides a perfect overview to the Wooley family problems over the succeeding generations. This montage shapes the romantic story or anti-romantic story as it shows the curse in action when the Wooley man would prefer to go to fight in the civil war of 1861 than stay with his wife.

Ironically as Wooley is making a speech about "a new...beginning", lightening strikes the oak tree. Although all the audience can see are two clouds of smoke, the essence of the screwball wit is still present as Jennifer states she wishes she had: "lips to whisper lies, lips to kiss a man and make him suffer." Dark: but then a man did burn her at the stake. Jennifer is not seen in body form until her father sets fire to the purposely named Pilgrim Hotel and Wooley has a strange inclination to go inside to 'save' her. This scene switches from being feminist to slightly chauvinist. Although Jennifer does lure in Wooley with her voice, she waits for him to save her and carry her out showing her as a typical damsel in distress. She seems satisfied with her new body but questions Wooley "would you have preferred me brunette?"

Lake is highly sexualised throughout the film by showing her wearing just a coat sitting with her legs on full show or wearing Wooley's pyjamas. She asks countless times whether Wooley finds her attractive, highlighting that she still wants to please her man. She comes out with witty line after witty line, sliding up and down banisters emphasising a sexual innuendo and comically speeds up time when Wooley is giving a long, dull speech on the meaning of true love. However as the film progresses Jennifer seems to lose her authority over Wooley, especially after she drinks the love potion and actually falls in love with him.

In the final scenes there is screwball irrationality and mayhem: Wooley is trying to get married but keeps getting interrupted by Jennifers' father Daniel who is trying to get his long awaited revenge on the Wooley family; Jennifer is begging her father not to frame Wooley for murder; Estelle (Hayworth) is trying to get married to Wooley and having to walk down the aisle several times before eventually giving up; Daniel gets arrested for drunken behaviour; and to top it all off theres a wedding singer screeching the beginning of "I love you truly" repeatedly. Awkward, to say the least, and the audience is left wondering whether anybody will get married. Yet, true to screwball fashion, Jennifer does marry Wooley in the end and uses her witchcraft to help further Wooley's career. They have two children, a boy who resembles Wooley and a little girl resembling Lake.

"So my wife's a witch, every man has to make some adjustments."

"I married a witch" (1942) may have been Sol Saks' inspiration for "Bewitched" (1964-72) TV series, but this fact still remains unclear. However this series was one of my favourite growing up: they used to play re-runs on channel 4 on Friday mornings and I could watch the episodes again and again.

Not only does the witch, Samantha (Elizabeth Montgomery), have the flowing blonde hair and the deep blue eyes of Veronica Lake but she also doesn't tell her husband, Darrin (played by Dick York 1964-68 and then Dick Sargent 1969-72) that she is a witch until after the marriage ceremony following which the hilarious battle of the sexes begins again, for 8 full seasons. "Bewitched" is a televised representation of the screwball comedy. By the 1960s feminist ideals were becoming more popular but most television shows still had idealised family values and so underwent harsh censorship. Saying this, "Bewitched" is the perfect example for showing these new male fears about women's changing sexuality and evolution of domestic institutions in a subtle way. Samantha is the doting housewife with the 'adjustable' husband who tries to lead a life without witchcraft but with a witty edge:

Darrin: "First your my wife, then you're a witch, and a wives' place is with her husband." 

Samantha: "Oh good. I guess that means you want me to play golf with you this afternoon."

The series started out as success, but after a long run ratings dropped as production started to use cheaper looking sets and recycled scripts. In addition many actors were changed and replaced:

"with two Darrins', two Louises', two Gladyses', and ten Tabithas, fans of Bewitched prove to be a tolerant lot. only time will tell if they will ever be able to accept another Samantha..."  

 ~ http://harpiesbizarre.com/tabstory.htm

And alas, they definitely didn't with Nicole Kidman in "Bewitched" (2005). But a strong message that both "I married a witch" (1942) and the "Bewitched" TV series portray is that:

"Love is [definitely] stronger than witchcraft"

~ http://beyondfiction.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/i-married-a-witch-review/

So natural (earthly) order is restored, for a while. Coincidentally, as I was researching for this blog entry I found that someone on youtube has combined pictures taken from "I married a witch" and "Bewitched" and put them over the song Witchcraft performed by Frank Sinatra. Brilliant:

It came from Outer space

Writing about the re-release of the "Titanic" in 3D in my previous post got me thinking about the history of 3D cinema and where it came from (better late than never, I suppose). After the hype of James Cameron's "Avatar" (2009), which has now beat his "Titanic" as the biggest grossing film, 3D cinema has been brought back to the forefront of people's minds, and since 2009 many more films have been released with a choice of 2D or 3D. There is no doubt that in the new millennium  3D has really made progress with the development of 3D television (3DTV) and even 'glassesless 3D' but is it all just a fad (again)? 

3D Cinema audience by Anne Breathwick

It is a well known fact that 3D cinema only stays around for a couple of years at a time. It definitely does not come from 'outer space', but from the simple idea to presenting two offsetting images (one to the left eye and another to the right eye) merging to provide an illusion of depth. Stereoscopy (or 3D imaging) was popular in Victorian times. But the first 3D feature film? "The power of love" (1922). The film was directed by Nat G. Deverich and produced by Harry K. Fairall. It is the earliest known film in which anaglyph glasses were used but unfortunately the film footage has been lost. Due to the great depression at the end of the 1920s and 30s 3D was not seen as a necessity. The next big 'boom' for interest for 3D was in the 1950s, also known as the 'Golden era' of 3D.


How 3D works. In simple terms. 

The two most popular types:

Anagylph: (shown left) two images are superimposed in a light setting through two filters (one red and one cyan). The audience then also wears glasses with coloured filters in each eye which cancel the filter colour out. "But as it is, it is a terrible strain on the eyes, resulting in prolonged physical discomfort almost to the point of nausea."

Polaroid: (right) Edwin H. Land founded the Polaroid Corporation in 1936. Two prints (each carrying either the right or left eye) are synchronised using an external system motor on a silver screen (or a screen made of other reflective material). The images are separated by polarised glasses worn by the audience. Polarisation reduces the glare that anagylph gives off. Most of the films released in the 50's were released in Polaroid 3D.

For a more detailed explanation oh how 3D works, see here. 

"It came from outer space" (1953)

This film is a well known 3D film. Directed by Jack Arnold, starring Richard Carlson and Barbara Rush. It was the first 3D film that Universal Studio's released. The film is one of the many popular sci-fi films made in the 1950s, at the height of the cold war, as it shows unknown creatures from foreign lands attacking the homeland (USA). The film is set in in a town called Sandrock in Arizona. It is a typical small American town in the south where nothing ever happens and, as the narrator quotes, people are "sure of the future." There is the omnipresent narrator framing the story and right from the beginning the 'alien' synth external diegetic sound which is repeated throughout, reminds the audience of the invasion of foreign bodies. The main characters are the 'man of science,' John Putnam (Carlson) and his girlfriend, school teacher (who never attends school because she is to distracted by Carlson), Ellen Fields (Rush).

Together they represent classic American star-crossed lovers who have to try and convince the police and the community that something alien has landed. The film builds suspense by using a fish-eye lens so the audience can see from the aliens perspective and tracking shots are also used to show vast areas of isolated desert adding to the suspense. Additionally, for the aliens to blend into society they live inside the body of the human, also stealing their clothes, thus completely stealing their identities. The American government was highly preoccupied with the notion of communist spies infiltrating the US government (see McCarthyism).

Unlike some of the other cold-war era sci-fi's produced, It came from outer space shows the main character reasoning with the aliens, trying to compromise: but in the end, to save his world, John is forced to blow up the mine where the alien ship had landed and in doing so fulfilling the audience's expectations of annihilating the foreign invaders. Richard Carlson then went on to star in "The maze" (1953), another 3D blockbuster in the Golden age of Sci-fi (and also 3D).

Here is the trailer for "It came from outer space":

So can 3D ever overtake 2D? I believe the answer is NO, and why should it? Even if the technology becomes more advanced I believe that nothing can come close to the feeling of actually visiting the place itself (which is what 3D hopes to achieve). A screen has size dimensions (height and width) and the spectator can never fully immerse into the screen, so why try and force this merger? I admit, 3D was fascinating for a while, and it does work a lot better on animation films: but, once again, a few years down the line and the popularity of 3D cinema seems to be fading.