Option 2 Blog 6

Ariela Guerrero

English II

Historical Culture in a Movie

The recently released movie, 12 Years a Slave is a movie about a free Negro man from New York, who lived an ordinary and happy life with his wife and children. He was an extraordinary violinist and is tricked into joining a circus in which he would perform with his violin, but in reality he is sold as a slave. He enrolls in a journey of being a slave where he fights for his freedom, trying to send a letter to a friend so that he would be rescued. He was betrayed once when he confined in a white slave to deliver his letter, but didn’t give up and finally his letter is delivered and he is rescued. This film scores a C on the Representation Test, which is a cultural test that measures whether or not the film represents a diverse array of people and experiences. When I first heard this was a cultural test, I decided to write my blog on this movie because it is about slavery and history. However, this test is more of a measure of how well the movie represents the various cultures and different kinds of people in current daily life. 12 Years a Slave does not score high on this test because it concentrates on the African American race and their suffering during times of slavery.

             In the woman section of the test, this movie scored really low because in times of slavery woman did not have a lot of rights. Furthermore, enslaved women where seen as property, “objects for the male gaze”, and where not allowed to speak whenever they wanted. Because they where slaves and could not speak whenever they wanted, this movie does not depict a significant conversation between two woman. However, I think the movie could have had a better score if it depicted two or more enslaved women who where brave and had the courage to stand up against their mistreatment. I believe this movie is kind of sexist because only men are allowed to say what they think, men do most of the work and they dominate woman in any way they want. Men rape women and are not punished for that. Furthermore, none of the women in the film play a major or leading role.

            12 Years a Slave scored high in the “race, ethnicity & culture” section of the test because it is about the African American race. This movie teaches the audience how bad and brutal slavery was. Furthermore, this movie does not celebrate racism but the other way around; it points out how bad it was.

            The reason I believe this movie is not a good representation of culture in general is because it does not include the wide variety of people in our culture. For example, it does not portray older people, gays, fat people or people with disabilities. Most of the men and women in the movie have a good body.

            Louis Giannetti says in his book, Understanding Movies that “A performer must do something inventive and compelling with his role if he is to stand out” (Giannetti 274). In this movie Chiwetel Ejiofor, the actor who plays the leading role does a great job in making his emotions believable to the audience. When I watched his movie, his facial expressions led me to really imagine what he must have been feeling and place myself in his position. The fact that his acting is so believable makes him stand out from any other actor or character. Using the audience’s emotions to send a message is an argument of pathos.

            I believe that The Representation Test is accurate because it includes all aspects of culture. At first I thought that it was not accurate because a movie could be about a different point in history, such as 12 Years a Slave that is about a time in history that happened a long time ago. But in reality gay people, people with disabilities and racial and gender inequalities have always existed. This movie does a great job in depicting gender and racial inequalities but it forgets LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) and people with disabilities. Furthermore, it is a good cultural movie because Steve McQueen who is a man of color directs it. Another way in which this movie is a good representation of culture is because, besides portraying both Negro and white people, there is a scene in which Indians are depicted. Because the movie only fails to include LGBT and people with disabilities, but depicts a very important aspect of culture at a significant point in time, I give this movie a rating of 4 because I believe that the positive qualities exceed the negative.

            

Option 2 Blog 6

The movie, Bridesmaids is a 2011 comedy that tells the story of two best friends and their journey to the bride’s wedding day. The movie does not fail to satisfy comical cravings. In Hollywood there are a variety of film tests used to grade movies. One of which is the Representation.

The first category on the score sheet has to do with women. The first subcategory is whether or not the protagonist is a woman and in this film she is. The second point is if the protagonist is of color. In this film the protagonist is not of color; however her best friend (a major role) is. The third point asks if the film “Includes one or more women of color, in speaking roles who are not reduced to racial stereotypes”.  There is only one colored female speaking role, as stated previously and she is not reduced as such so the film checks out on this point. The fifth point asks,” Does the film represent women as more than “objects for the male gaze?” In the opening of the movie, the protagonist is shown having sex with her ex boyfriend who then proceeds to kick her out. She is presented as his “slam piece” so to speak: He has no respect for her whatsoever. As the movie unfolds, the protagonist falls in love with another man who treats her like a princess. Thus, while at the beginning the movie presents women as “objects for male gaze,” by the end that idea is cast out and degraded. The fifth point has to do with including, “ Women in speaking roles with diverse body types.” There is one scene in the movie in which the bridesmaids go to a bridal shop to try on bridesmaids’ dresses.

This scene accentuates the diverse body types, as there are bodacious and thin characters all trying on dresses that flatter their body type. The movie does not meet the seventh criteria for the protagonist being a woman of an age of 45; however she is pretty close. The eighth component to this first category is passing the Bechdel Test. The Bechdel test has three parts: there must be at least two female characters, the females must talk to each other, and they must talk to each other about something other than guys. Bridesmaids does an outstanding job in passing the Bechdel Test as the cast is predominately made up of women and the conversations between them consist of a variety of topics, not just men. In the category of women, the movie receives five out of seven points.

The second category covers male characters in the movie. The first point is achieved by the movie as it avoids glorifying violent men. In fact, the movie degrades the ex boyfriend. The movie also fits the second point, as it does not perpetuate an extreme and unhealthy body ideal for men. The man that the protagonist’s best friend marries is not a hefty fellow who is by no means ripped Unfortunately the film does not meet the next criteria that calls for inclusion of one or more men of color. And finally in this category, “Does the film include men in non-stereotypical roles?” Yes. The man that falls in love with the protagonist is a loving, gentle spirited guy that strives to please her throughout the movie. In the male category, the movie receives three out of four points as the movies does not contain and male characters of color with speaking roles.

The third category is race, ethnicity and culture. The first point under this category is avoiding celebration of offensive racial and cultural stereotypes. To an extent the film does avoid this; however there is a brother sister couple that the protagonist lives with at the beginning of the movie who are British. The movie stereotypes them as being incestual and fifthly, so in this aspect the movie does not meet this criterion.  The fourth category is LGBT people. The film does not fit either of the criteria in this category as the protagonist is not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender no is anyone else in the movie. The film also does not fit the fifth category: People with disabilities, as there is no one in the film with a disability. Thus the film receives zero points in the race, LGBT, and disabilities categories.

Bonus points include being written or directed by: a woman, a person of color, a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or a person with disabilities. Thus, because two women wrote the screenplay, the film receives one bonus point. All together the film receives eight points. In the scoring scale and A is eleven plus points, a B is seven to ten points, a C is four to six points, a D is one to three points and an F is zero points. Based off of the scale in correlation with the points tallied, the movie received a B, and in turn three slurpees.

Cole Gilbert

English 20803

In Time

The critically acclaimed film, In Time, depicts a plot based on the dystopian theme of the rich prospering from the misfortunes of the poor. This theme is the central idea behind the film depicting social class separation based on the amount of time one is fortunate enough to inherit. Rhetoric of space is significantly utilized during the film to incorporate the films message that life is always better in the utopian based time zones, however; this depiction also incorporates the dystopian objection to further touch on the appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos.

            The film focuses on two main time zones or class levels, the rich in New Greenwich and the poor in Dayton. Wealth is measured by the amount of time one has left after turning the age of 25. In Dayton the residents are impoverished and work for every last minute to live a life always worried about the future. As for New Greenwich it is quite the opposite. These wealthy people live a life of luxury where time is not of the essence; rather it is a means to obtain the materialistic desires of the rich. Throughout the film it is evident that the plot depicts that life is better in the more advantageous wealthy zones and that these people prosper from the misfortunes of those in the most impoverished zones.

            The first apparent appeal of pathos in the film is with the death of main character Will Salas’s mother, Rachel. His mother had run out of time because she couldn’t afford enough minutes to get home to meet Will and get more time. This appeals to the audience’s sense of emotion because it persuades the audience to feel sorrowful for the impoverished leading role played by Justin Timberlake. The film uses this scene to establish the dystopian theme central to the films hidden message. The next emotionally appealing scene in the film is depicted in the scene with the suicide of the wealth Henry Hamilton. His suicide and generosity appeal to the audience because it persuades them to believe that being rich and materialistic does not guarantee happiness. The death of Hamilton provides rising action to the plot because it allows main character Will Salas to enter into the world of the rich in New Greenwich because of the fortune he inherited from Hamilton. These two scenes are pivotal to the movie because they establish emotional appeal encouraging the audience’s attention to turn to the apparent disadvantages of a utopian world.

            Another important appeal established in the setting of the film is with the logical depictions of the separated class zones. In the lower class time zone of Dayton people are working in factories and seem to be living in low-income housing. Death is rampant due to the poverty of the people living within the zone. In the rich time zone of New Greenwich is the most desired time zone. It is populated by the richest people with luxurious cars and houses that Will Salas has never seen before.  The settings of these two spaces are very important because it allows the audience to logically determine the class differences apparent in a dystopian society. By incorporating a character that has the ability to experience these two polar opposites provides a logical description of proposed dystopian theme.

            The film establishes credibility because it follows a similar dystopian structure many films before it did. One of the most important aspects in the film is with the presence of the “time keepers”. These are the police officers of time control and make sure that society maintains the status quo. In order to do this they must make sure that the impoverished stay poor and that they never interfere with the lives of the rich. These characters establish the films credibility because without them the film would lack the authority present in a dystopian structure.

            Throughout the film it is evident that the film attempts to imply a message about the setting of the film. The setting of this film is similar to many of the other dystopian themed films such as 1984 and The Hunger Games. In these films alike we see an abundance of impoverished people complimented by an elite, materialistic, and wealthy society. The underlying agenda in the film In Time attempts to imply a message about our society today; that the rich continue to prosper from the poverty of the lower classes.

            Rhetoric of space proves to be a significant factor throughout the film In Time. The plot is directly complimented by the depiction of the time zones utilized in the film and the strategic use of these settings provide the film with an implied message that the rich thrive on the misfortunes of the poor. The dystopian society throughout the film is a rich depiction of the shortcomings of a society based on a rich, all-powerful social class maintaining the order of a nation. In our modern day society the message implied in this film is commonly accepted by the impoverished in our country today.  It serves as a good representation of the outlook of the misfortunate and the ignorance of those who throw theses viewpoints aside. 

The Hunt for Red October (option #2)

            The Representation Test grades movies based upon how well they represent a diverse culture of people, claiming to help Hollywood change its limiting culture and challenge the status quo. Giving points for representing people without using stereotypes, the test hopes to create cultural change. However, it fails to see past issues of race, feminism, and acceptance of other views. It limits the way a film can affect a culture and present a message by forcing films to water down a product by including others. The Hunt for Red October is a powerful film that was well received by critics, receiving a 96% rating from critics on rottentomatoes.com. It provides a strong message about the goodness of humanity and not judging people just by their nationality or stereotypes. By putting The Hunt for Red October through the Representation Test, I will prove that the test is not effective at showing the cultural impact of a film because it fails to see past race, feminism, and acceptance of other views.

            The first category of the Representation Test is women. When viewing the cast of The Hunt for Red October on Wikipedia.com, there is only one woman on the list. She is not over the age of forty five, not a woman of color, and has a trim fit body. In fact, she is barely in the movie at all, playing the wife of CIA analyst Jack Ryan. The name Cathy Ryan does not even come up in the plot description featured by the movies website. As essentially the only woman in the film, she does not pass the Bechdel. The only point women receive in the movie is for not being represented as “objects for the male gaze.” However, as I watch the movie, I don’t even notice that there is a lack of women, because quite frankly, they would detract from the film. Where would they be in this film? They could not operate as part of the submarine crew or as one of the high ranking government officials in the cold war time period. My opposition to women in this film is not sexist but practical. I don’t want to see a film’s product watered down by going out of the way to include strong women. It would not make sense to include this in an accurate portrayal of the cold war.

            The second category of The Hunt for the Red October is men. This is the only other category that the film scores points. Red October receives points for not glorifying violent men and for not perpetuating an unhealthy body ideal for men. It also receives points for having men of color in non-stereotypical roles. I gave the film a little slack for the not glorifying violent men category. The main character of the movie, Marko Ramius, murders his first mate because he knows of the true mission of the submarine. However, Ramius defects from the soviet side to avoid further violence so I gave the film a point for not glorifying violence in men. However, the film portrays a very stereotypical view of Russians by showing them in big fur coats and hats in the cold. Even the way they conduct their military is stereotypical. While this view is stereotypical, it is accurate for cold war era Russia. I don’t think a film should be attacked for showing a stereotype, especially if it is accurate. This adds to the authenticity of the film, and there is no reason to water down a historically accurate portrayal so that people don’t have their feelings hurt. This detracts from the potency of the film.

            The third and fourth categories of the Representation Test are LGBT people and people with disabilities. The Hunt for Red October did not receive a single point in either of these two categories. In the cold war, there would not have been any openly LGBT in a high ranking government office, and there definitely would not have been any in a submarine crew. It is unlikely that a person with disabilities would have been in either of these positions. Although I admit that it would have been possible for them to have been in the government office, but there is no way that they could have served in the military as they would not have passed the physical test. Again my question is this: why should a movie go out of its way to include people if it might detract from the story line?

            In the test, a film can receive bonus points if it is written or directed by a woman, person of color, LGBT person, or a person with disabilities. However, I don’t understand what is wrong with a film written or directed by a straight, white male. It seems like the test is discriminating against straight, white males, and punishing films for using their material. The Hunt for Red October did not receive any bonus points.

            I support the equality of all people. Growing up, several of my best friends have been people of color, and I have several family members that are gay, but it doesn’t make sense that a movie should water down its product just to include people so others are not upset. This movement of inclusion has gone so far as to say that a film directed or written by a white male is not as good those done by women, people of color, or LGBT people. The Hunt for Red October received a “C” on the Representation test with only 4 points. I give the film five slurpees for giving the message of doing what is right even when others are against you. However, I give the Representation Test only one slurpee. It forces films to water down their product to include others even when it doesn’t make sense. Let’s focus on the quality of a movie and the message it gives, not punish it for its failure to unnecessarily include people.

           

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C2tE7vjdHk

          

Field of Dreams Rhetoric of Space

In the 1989 film, Field of Dreams, a baseball field built within the cornfields by farmer Ray Kinsella (played by Kevin Costner) is used to create a space that represents the dreams of the common man and the simplicity needed in life by using various rhetorical devices. Ray has a very strong emotional tie to the game of baseball beginning with his father's love of the game. One day Ray hears a voice saying “If you build it, he will come,” and he sees a baseball field within his growing cornfields. Ray feels an absolute need to build the baseball field, but nothing happens for months. Faced with heavy financial burdens, Ray has to make an important decision, and ultimately decides to keep the baseball diamond instead of replant the corn. The baseball field finally sees some action one afternoon when Ray's daughter notices some men taking batting practice. Those men turn out to be the ghosts “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and the rest of the 1919 Black Sox team of the past. Ray realizes that he made the right choice in keeping the field. This brings up my first point in how the field represents the dreams of the common man. Ray is depicted as the average american man, faced with the problems that are relatable to most. The baseball field creates a place of comfort and peace for him to confide in. It creates a link to his past that most people can relate to, or pathos. “Shoeless” Joe Jackson is a direct link to Ray's father because that was the player he idolized. Another aspect of this movie that relates to the common people is the sport of baseball. There is a reason that baseball is considered “America's Pastime”. Baseball is about as american as apple pie, and that mass appeal creates a great audience for the film. The sport creates a common ground, as does the baseball field. I know personally growing up I dreamed of one day playing in the big leagues, as did plenty of other kids. All baseball fans idolize certain players and this concept just brings back the point that the field represents the dreams of the common man.

Another thing that the field creates in the movie is a bond between people. It brings together the characters of the film whether it be Ray's family or complete strangers like Terence Mann (played by James Earle Jones). Ray's family is going through a rough time and this baseball field creates a sense of unity and purpose in the household that helps them to overcome the financial and emotional struggles. The point I draw from this is that sometimes even the simplest things, like a couple of lines drawn in the dirt, can bring people closer. Also, I think that the director is using the field to critique society as a whole. Most would agree that people these days is very distant and something like baseball creates a common ground that brings all types of people together in today's busy society. It allows people to take a small bit out of their day to sit back really appreciate the small things. Not only does the field represent the simplicity in life, but it also represents the solidarity and peace of the sport. There is something special and nostalgic about a father and son playing catch. This is perfectly represented in the closing scenes of the film. When Ray realizes that the catcher on the field is actually his father, it creates a very emotional scene. He finally understands that in the line, “If you build it, he will come” the “he” refers to his father. Ray left his father on bad terms, and now he is given the chance to resolve the problems. All he has to do is play some catch. The emotions of the scene really pulls on the heartstrings of the viewer. 

Although all of the supernatural events that occur in the movie are never explained, the movie makes perfect sense. At one point Ray finds himself in the year 1972, but the viewer does get hung up on these details because there is such a bigger picture being presented in the film. The journey as a whole is what matters, not the specific details. This concept brings back the idea of the simplicity involved in the field. There is no fancy walls or grandstands at the field, just a mound, three bases, and home plate. Ray has created a space of simplicity and solace in the “field of dreams” in a world that tries so hard to suppress those things we consider special and sacred. I give the film five out of five slurpees because of its ability to create such a powerful message with such simple ideas.