300

300

                The movie 300 is very well remembered in American culture. We applaud it for its incredible visual power and it’s overarching messages. In fact, the basic plot of the movie is so cliché that it is almost sickening- the few (who are of course the good guys) stand up to the many (the bad guys), not because it is the smart move, but because it is the only choice. But when you look deeper there are several messages that may cause you to scratch your head a bit. In this post I will examine the main message of the movie, as well as some of the more troublesome messages that are present in the movie.

                Like I said before, the main message of the movie is very cliché and is incredibly simplistic. The bad people are very powerful and they want to conquer the good guys, who will more than likely be destroyed if they try to defy the will of the aggressors, but they fight anyway to defend their way of life. It is a message of bravery about common sense; of doing something that is more than likely futile but it is the only option so you do it anyway. We clearly see these words in action in the scene where the king decides that he is going to go into battle without his entire army; he knows that the chances of men emerging victorious are slim, but he leads them on anyway because it is his duty to the people that he is sworn to protect. This message is what audiences applauded with the movie. The movie critic for movie-reviews.com (who for some reason wasn’t named) perhaps put it best when he said “300 is not only a visual masterpiece, but also has a deeper message about how we as humans should live our lives and face adversity”.

                But sadly, this triumphant message of human greatness is often overshadowed by the many questionable messages of the movie. To start with, the entire movie is based off of an old perception that us Westerners have held on to for centuries- the East is a place of tyranny and lawlessness that will always try to overcome the peace and thoughtfulness of the West. We are taught to fear the people of the East, the Muslims and Arabs and the like, from a young age, and this movie does little to quell that feeling. The Persians are portrayed as evil beings who will kill men, women, and children without hesitation to achieve their aims. In all I find it a very troubling stereotype, but perhaps the most troubling part about the whole thing is that hardly anyone even recognized it; we are so engrained to assume that people from Eastern cultures are the “bad” guys.

                The other glaring problem messages that I see are more or less all tied to one scene: when the disabled man tries to join the Spartan cause but he is turned down because he is not of the proper physical form. To me this sends a message that only the best, most physically fit men are the ones who are fit to help society while the rest should just sit around and watch or, in the eyes of the movie, be killed shortly after birth. While that is very troubling to me, I was almost more disturbed with what happened next- the man turned his back on the Spartans and told the Persians some information that ultimately lead to the Spartan’s demise. What does that teach us? That when someone turns us away we are supposed to go and spread their most well kept secrets to the people who hate them the most? That is ridiculous. If real people lived like that there would be nothing but hate and discord in our world.

                I am still not entirely sure what I think of the movie 300. On the one hand we are given this incredible message of strength and bravery, while on the other we are given a message of stereotypes and intense betrayal. And for that reason I am only going to give it two stars. I just can’t condone some of the messages that are very predominant in this film.

Tangled

Movies always have a cliché message within the story.  What many people do not notice is the problematic messages that lie underneath! They use these hidden messages to instill an idea within the minds of the audience.  Animated movies in particular are used to help “guide” children into believing a certain thing.  One movie in particular, Tangled, had several cliché and problematic messages within its story.  It definitely uses underlying issues within the story to teach young children life lessons.

            Am incredibly common cliché message this movie includes is that every girl has the chance to live “happily ever after.” Every little girl wants a movie with a princess to end with her finding her prince.  That is exactly what Tangled did. However, they added a bit of a twist by her not knowing she was a princess. This movie has a common element with Cinderella of having an evil mother, or stepmother. She prevents Rapunzel from being able to leave the tower for her own selfish reasons.  This movie allows the viewer to leave the movie with the idea that dreams can come true.  Rapunzel had dreamed for years of being able to see the lights and find the true meaning behind them.  This dream of hers in the movie shows children that they should have dreams and do everything n their power to purse them. 

            Other than cliché messages, movies tend to have problematic and underlying messages. These help alter people’s opinions of certain things.  In Tangled, they use this method to introduce ideas such as beauty and youth is everything and happiness comes with wealth.  Many people believe that movies can negatively alter a child’s perspective.  Michael Smith states, “The misguided push for animal rights is all Walt Disney’s fault – he and his merry band of animators. “  While Walt Disney may have intended to give children positive lessons from watching his movies, some believe that they are negative.  They believe children look at it the other way or can see the animalistic characters as human beings. 

In Tangled, the evil mother of Rapunzel spends her whole life trying to be young and beautiful.  She gives off the idea that beauty is everything and in order to be happy you must be young.  By making the evil mother have this attribute, it allows children to realize that it is not a good belief to have.  However, there is the possibility that they could take it the wrong way and leave the movie believing that in order to be happy you must be pretty. At least that is what the people Michael Smith talks about would say.

A final problematic message within the story or Rapunzel is Ryder’s idea that wealth will bring him happiness.  In the movie when he is stealing the crown he states how he wants to have a castle and then he could be happy.  When passing through the “Snuggling Duckling” Ryder states that his dream is to sleep by a giant pile of money.   This is a problematic message because as the story goes on he begins to realize this is not what he needs to be happy.  Lunsford explains, “Appeals to values and emotions might be just as appropriate as appeals to logic and facts, and all such claims will be stronger If a writer presents a convincing ethos.” It is important to have evidence that can affect the viewer’s ethos in order to get the point across.  By the end of the movie, Ryder has learned money is not everything and he truly finds his happiness when he falls in love with Rapunzel. This brings us back to our original cliché message that you can live happily ever after with your “prince”.

There are many messages within movies.  Some are clearly stated while others are not.  Sometimes, you leave a movie learning something you did not even realize you were being taught.  Movies are incredibly important for passing messages along.  Animated movies especially help form the minds of children and future generations so that they hold the values and morals we believe are most important.  

Beastly

            The 2011 movie Beastly is a romantic drama based off of a book by Alex Flinn. It is a modern twist to the Beauty and the Beast story. It sends both a cliché message and a problematic message to the viewers through the use of different rhetorical devices, such as pathos and logos.  

            A cliché message that stands out throughout this movie is that people should not judge others by their outward appearances. It is what is on the inside that counts. According to Louis Giannetti in Understanding Movies, this film depicts “a characteristic way of looking at life, a set of values typical of a given culture” (419). In the film, the main actor, Alex Pettyfer, is very arrogant in the beginning. He believes that money and looks are the most important thing in life. He thinks they can get him anything. He makes fun of people based on their appearances. Then a witch ends up turning him into a beast, so that she can teach him a lesson, after he plays a prank on her. He becomes bald and gets scars, as well as tattoos. She tells him he has a year to find somebody to love him for how he is, otherwise he will remain a beast forever. He ends up falling for Vanessa Hudgen’s character. He starts to change his views on life when his interactions with her begin to increase. He realizes that she is not scared of him; she actually thinks he is beautiful. Also, Hudgen’s character knew how Pettyfer’s character was before he changed, but she did not know that the beast was him. After she tells him she loves him, he changes back to his original form. When Hudgen’s character finds out who the beast was, she is shocked to learn how much he has changed. He no longer held the belief that “beautiful people had it better.” After undergoing the transformation and being the person on the other side, who he used to look at with distaste, he realized how it felt like for the people he made fun of. He was able to learn from his mistake.  He found someone who did not judge him for what he looked like. Through this, the movie emphasis “substance over style” (Beastly film). The director is able to convey this message through the use of emotions. Special effects are used to portray the beast and he actually looks kind of scary, but the audience might feel sympathy for him because he is all alone after he becomes a beast. According to Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters in Everything’s an Argument, “emotional appeals” help to make the “logical claims stronger or more memorable” (46).  Even his own father abandons him, since looks are very important to him.

            Even though this movie had a strong, positive message, a problematic message also exists in it. The film is trying to convey that looks should not matter, but there is contradiction with this message, especially when the movie depicts numerous billboards of skinny and muscular men and women. That is not how people actually appear in society, and I think it is sending the wrong message to the audience subliminally. Also, the film left an unresolved conflict. It is evident throughout the film that the father values appearances. He also tells his son that “people like it when you look good.” The fact that the father acted so unsupportively after he discovered his son turned into a hideous looking person, really stood out to me. Seeing as how this film is targeted to teenagers, their parents are the most important people in their life. In this movie, the father gets his son an apartment, where he can live privately, so that people will not get into his business or stare at him. He tells him he will live there too and he just needs to bring his stuff there, but when he leaves, he never comes to visit his son throughout the whole movie. His son is always waiting for him. This gives a negative message to kids because the movie shows that the father does not love his son unconditionally. His father was also quick to suggest surgery, at any cost, to get his son normal again. This also seemed wrong to me, because instead of appreciating that his son is still healthy and alive, he only cared about his appearance.

            This movie was targeted to high school kids. Kids at this age undergo problems dealing with bullying by how they look. This film relates to their real life. It is a sensitive topic with the youth. The argument was somewhat effective, due to the transformation of the main character. His views change and he no longer holds the same beliefs he used to. This is done through targeting the audience’s emotions, since “strong emotion[s]” can add “energy to” the film (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Walters 46). However, the movie also sends subliminal negative messages because of the contradictions that can be found in the film, which takes away from the overall point of the movie.

Rating:

The Hangover tainted "Y.O.L.O."

In the recent Hollywood film blockbusters, audiences witness clichés accompanied by problematic messages. The movie industry targets various audiences, trying to teach a lesson or get people thinking, although the message is not always valuable. One such example of a movie with a distorted, inappropriate sentiment is The Hangover, a film about a wild bachelor party in Vegas. This comedy teaches my generation, the young leaders of tomorrow, that vulgarity, promiscuity, impulsivity, and destructive behavior is all fun and games.

As previously mentioned, the plot of The Hangover is about a bachelor party in Vegas and the film focuses on drinking, drugs, and gambling. When watching the film, the recently popular cliché, “Y.O.L.O.,” popped into my head. “Y.O.L.O.” is an acronym for the cliché “you only live once.” In general, I believe this is a very great, inspiring message, as the words motivate people to live out each day to the best of one’s abilities and to have fun. I believe my attachment and belief in this message stems from my upbringing in a rightest, conservative family. Louis Giannetti, author of Understanding Movies, argues that in a rightest family, right and wrong are clear-cut and violations of moral principles and rules result in punishment (412). I completely agree with this assessment, as I recall the times I misbehaved and was punished to learn a lesson, as well as set an example for my younger sister. For the Barber household, family is a sacred foundation and institution, filled with people encouraging others to do and be the best that they can be.

My family shaped me to feel this way about the message, “Y.O.L.O.,” but The Hangover tainted the meaning of the wonderful sentiment, placing the message into a negative light. The audience views the bachelor party taking “Y.O.L.O.” to a whole new level, as seen when the men wake up the morning after the bachelor party without any recollection of the night before. One man has a missing tooth, the thousand-dollar hotel room is trashed, Mike Tyson’s tiger is in the bathroom, and an unknown baby cries in the closet. Giannetti would characterize this film as a neutral movie, in which “issues of right and wrong are treated superficially with little or no analysis” (403). However, when there is no analysis of the message, kids learn to mimic these decisions and chaos ensues. Although the movie is hilarious and ridiculous, there needs to be a line drawn. In Everything’s an Argument by Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, the authors state that humor in an argument puts the audience at ease, “thereby making them more open to a proposal” (48). Since the movie makes fun of the men for their crazy antics, the audience is more willing to listen and watch the movie without judgment. Then, when the movie is over, the audience will delve in the idea that what the men did was funny and plausible, and then they will go engage in various shenanigans, possibly resulting in lasting consequences.

In addition to the morning after the bachelor party scene, the audience witnesses an encounter between the men and some cops after the men stole the cop’s police car the night before. The men have no remorse for their actions and they are not punished for their recklessness and endangerment of other’s lives. Giannetti states that the audience sides with the men in situations like these, as “people who are funny, charming, and/or intelligent” win us over to their side (406). The characters in the film attract the loyalty of the audience, as the loyalty stems from the character’s comedic situations and stories, as well as their dashing appearances and sex appeal.  

The studio uses pathos to bring the emotions out of the audience and make the people more open to the movie. The Hangover does this by using humor to target my generation, the college kids and young adults in America, who are looking for a good laugh. The sentiment, “Y.O.L.O.” is beneficial in the sense that it is okay to have fun and let of steam and not keep everything bottle up. However, the film sends off a message that people can drink, gamble, be promiscuous, do drugs, and life will be fantastic. This message is effective because Americans see the film become reality. It is no wonder that foreign countries denounce American actions and way of life. However, people do not always get away with this lifestyle and the consequences can be devastating. These consequences include fines, warrants, jail, and possibly death.

Although this film is intended for a mature audience with the “R” rating, the people who watch the movie are not always mature. Kids sneak into these movies and then engage in such activities, not thinking before they act. Adolescents thrive to gain peer approval and be “cool,” so they engage in risky behaviors. As long as people watch the film with a rational mindset, the movie is a great comedy that America loves. However, I fear for my generation, as many mimic these shenanigans and find themselves in sticky situations, harmful to themselves and to society.

For the ruining of a beneficial slogan and the message the film sends to the population:

(2 out of 5)

Valentine's Day

“Better late than never.” “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” “Fits like a glove.” “Not the brightest bulb in the box.” Clichés are a vital part of our language and our culture and they often play a key role in movies. Many films base their story lines off of typical clichés because people can relate to them. Garry Marshall’s 2010 star-studded film Valentine’s Day played to the cliché “true love will always prevail” but also subliminally communicated a problematic message of “being single is bad.”

The cliché that love always wins and true love will always find its way is communicated overtly in the overall plot of the film. This movie is unique in that it follows six or more different story lines as it documents all the characters’ issues on Valentine’s Day. One character deals with finding out her boyfriend is actually married, another struggles with his sexuality, while yet another deals with being a senior in college and knowing she will be far away from her boyfriend in a few months as they leave for college. Each character has their own unique struggles with relationships, but in the end they all find love. The first woman gets revenge on her married boyfriend and realizes she’s in love with her best friend, the second meets a cute man, and the third just learns to celebrate her happiness with her boyfriend and live for today. This cheesy and unmistakable message that “love will triumph” is very effective in this film as it relies on emotional arguments. As Andrea Lunsford describes in Everything’s An Argument, the scenes of each character finding their happiness and discovering love use pathos to “hit precisely the right note” in the heart of the viewer (Lunsford 40). This use of pathos truly makes the movie-goer feel the thesis of love and happiness. 

While the movie is a heart-lifting story of true love, it also sends mixed messages of love being the only place to find satisfaction and of singleness being embarassing.

This is communicated when Bradley Cooper explains that he doesn’t like heart shaped candy because “it reminds [him] that this is Valentine’s Day and [he] is newly single” (Valentine’s Day film). His tone of embarrassment and disdain over being recently single communicates the idea that it is something to be ashamed of. Also a particular subplot that plays well into this problematic theme is the one of Jessica Biel’s character. She is an extremely hardworking career woman that is so consumed by her work that she answers phone calls while running on the treadmill in her office. She is a single woman and she does not hide her anguish over the fact that she is single on Valentine’s Day. She even despairs, “I just want to know if in fact I am the only person on the whole freaking planet who is completely and 100% alone on Valentine’s Day” (Valentine’s Day film). She is completely miserable the whole movie and the only time we see her happy is in the end in which she ends up with a man. This subplot reflects nicely what Giannetti describes in his Understanding Movies as a “women’s picture – emphasizing a female star and focusing on typical female concerns such as getting (or holding on to) a man” (Giannetti 430). Just as the cliche message played on pathos, this problematic message relies on the argument of ethos. Unfortunately, Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel's characters both seem to define themselves based on their relationship status. Biel is a powerful career woman that clearly has made a great living for herself, but she feel worthless because she doesn't have a man in her life. This idea of identity shows that the ethos of these characters is defined by their love lives, which is frankly horrendous! 

I believe the intended audience for this film was sixteen to thirty year-old women. Although men can definitely watch the film and not be completely miserable (take their girls on an actual Valentine’s Day date?), the messages were more intended for their female counterparts. Unfortunately, this means that the targeted viewers are not just enjoying a happy love story; they are subliminally receiving the message that they cannot be happy without a man in their lives and that being single is something to be ashamed of.

For it’s subliminal message of women needing men (and my belief that women can just be as powerful without a man), I give this film a mere two bags of buttery popcorn.