The Muppets Wizard of Oz, A review

The Muppets Wizard of Oz, A review

‘Lets watch the Muppets Wizard of Oz.’ Said my friend and flatmate Chutterbug Harris, he was determined to spend the night in. Playing guitar low in the mix of a theme tune for an obscure podcast did not pay well. ‘Never heard of it’ I said, confident that there was a Treasure Island, A Christmas Carol and an Apocalypse Now in the works but not an Oz. Chutterbug lent forward from his broken armchair ‘Psst,’ he whispered in that way that’s twice as loud as normal speech. ‘It’s kept on the DL so film students bragging how they know ev'ryting Tarantino did are wrong. That, or because a black girl is the lead.’ ’What about the Wiz?’ I exclaimed. ‘What about it?’ He snapped his head back and let out a hoarse laugh that made his guitar twang.

This was to be the first of many nights in. He swaggered back into the living room with the DVD in one hand and what was left of the Christmas brandy in the other. It wasn't much of a living room, four walls slowly filling up with old bottles, leftover food and Jazz records. ‘You've heard that Dark Side of the Moon syncs up with the original right? Well this syncs up perfectly with alcohol’ He casually explains while measuring shots, why he did this every time was beyond me as he then proceeded to pour a generous half of the drink into a noodle pot and shove it in my direction. I wiped the chickens blood off the television (we’d been practising magic the day before), popped the DVD in, got comfy on an old fruit crate and he hit play.

‘Optimus Prime and Eeyore use the same lungs.’ said Chutterbug as he pumped up the jams. I am always amazed at no matter how poor a musician gets they’ll always have speakers that can make your nosebleed. ‘This can’t be the right movie’ I said concerned. ‘You’ve mixed the DVD up with a 90’s music video again.’ ‘No I ent, look Queen Latifah’s in this mo fucker!’ Chutterbugs way with words always outstands me.

‘What the fraggle rock is going on here?’ The Muppets were just referred to as the most POWERFUL puppets in Hollywood, the first joke from them was a porn one followed by a sex one, was that a Napster reference? My confusion only escalates in the following scenes. Toto’s a prawn? Dorothy want to be famous? TV looking sets? I down some brandy and press on. The alcohol warms me up and provides a pleasant distraction from the ropey special effects. ‘Quit gagging you pussy, we’re in Oz’ Chutterbug gleams. And my how we are, sort of.

The original Wizard of Oz is such a major part of our collective unconscious that we recognise parody and/or pastiche a mile off.  It feels like a cover song whenever different hands visit it. Clap your hands you know the beat. This can function as a blessing or a crutch to limp a lazy screenplay on. ‘Ashanti is trying to upstage the Muppets! Ha! What a fool’ my friend chuckles between glugs. ‘Yeah fuck going home Ashanti seek fame and fortune. A scarecrow frog wants a brain, y’know why? To help people! You better learn a valuable lesson by the time this films through.’

Gonzo is a robot with a telly tubby belly and a dark origin story. He asked the witch for time off work to spend with his love and she cursed him, turning him into a robot slave with no heart. ‘We’re watching a film where Gonzo has the most depth and motivation. Mr Harris I am amazed.’ ‘Please,’ he says coolly ‘Mr Harris is my dad.’ Twenty minutes into the film and I wonder if the producers ever thought that giving Pepe the prawn this much screen time was a good idea. I ponder on the location of Waldorf and Statler when where an ad break would have been the screen goes black. I catch a glimpse of me and Harris hunched over, barking madness at the TV and get my answer.

‘I got the name Chutterbug from Dr. Teeth during WWII.’ my friend began ‘We were surrounded by radioactive waste when-Holy shit dog they are trippin’ on poppies in a kids movie!’ I never got to hear the end of that tale and I have the Poppyfields scene in this film to blame for it. The rest of which becomes somewhat hazy:

‘Oh cool, Oz is a dragon…Oh it’s cgi’

‘Frank Oz reference, boo ya!’

‘A horribly animated woman. You can probably buy her nude on Turbosquid for a dollar’

‘Tarantino thinks pigs ‘ave hooves not trotters!’

‘Boss Nass is in this movie!’

‘Fozzie Bear, looks more like Jeffry Tambor in this than he does.’

‘he isn’t the Muppets Frasier, that’s Rowlf the dog.’

‘I FUCKING LOVE THE MUPPETS!!’

‘…Oooh Ms Piggy in leathers.’

We warm up the leftover chicken and I start to sober up. An Apocalypse Now reference appears which is strange as I thought about it earlier, but then there was also a Napster reference and I hadn’t thought about that. Then, in the mist of the Wicked Witch of the West fight it cuts to Quentin Tarantino swinging a samurai sword, intensely pitching the scene to a terrified Kermit. I am not making this up:

I look dumbfounded at Chutterbug who simply nods that slow, knowing nod only jazz musicians can pull off.

So the Wizard of Oz’s room was all cgi, now when they return it’s just a wooden set and Kermit says ‘It’s not even green.’ A clever line for the movie fans or just because everything else in the emerald city is green? No one knows, perhaps the budget ran out. What was that line about it skipping two hours? Was this show broadcast over an evening inbetween something that takes up two hours? How long is a Superbowl? Chutterbug says I ask too many questions when I drink. Least I assume that’s what he was trying to say when he swung the empty brandy bottle into my mouth screaming ‘Do you think I have the answers?’ again and again. That’s just banter these days I suppose. While I'm picking glass from my face the film comes to a head, and everyone learned something. We learnt what we wanted is what we had all along, except for Dorothy who has changed her mind and wants to go home instead. Gonzo gets a chicken and Pepe continues taking up screen time, just as I'm doubting his presence he manages to make me chuckle. Perhaps the reason no one seems to be aware of this film has nothing to do with my friends opinions but because it simply isn't as good as the other Muppet films. But pfft, it still has the Muppets in it. An opinion I keep trying to ram into my brain as the film bookmarks itself with more 90’s r ’n’ b. We throw what’s left of our brandies into the fire.

The day after I pick a melted DVD from the bottom of it. As the fear sets in I wonder if we’d just been staring into the flames all night. Chutterbug met the rest of the Ragtime Dollarseekers with singed eyebrows. Skits McCoy tells me he just looked at them and said ‘When you're done laughing yo asses off I got a guitar to play.’

Carl

Sergio Leone (Presentation Script)

Transnational Cinema and Sergio Leone

The question I decided to pursue and as a subsequent result of that, the question I shall answer is question three or as its also known ‘Discuss the concept of the ‘Transnational’ in contemporary film, with specific reference to TWO film texts with a European director’. So without wondering why that sentence doesn’t end in a question mark, I chose Sergio Leone. I will be looking at ‘Per Un Pugno Di Dollari’ and ‘Per Qualche Dollaro In Piu’ also known as ‘A Fistful of Dollars’ and ‘For a Few Dollars More’ for those whose Italian is as good as mine. I will occasionally be referencing other material. Leone commenced existence in Rome, 1929 born to a Silent film actress and a director. At 18 he began working in the industry, writing screenplays and occasionally acting as assistant director. In 1964 he released his first western film ‘A Fistful of Dollars‘. At the time there was no TV in southern Italy resulting in cinema attending being commonplace. In comparison to here where the average person attends the cinema 3 or 4 times a year, then and there it was 2 or 3 times a week. Going to the cinema was a very different experience; people would talk, express boredom and the films would have frequent intervals. When the rotoscoped ‘Bond’esque titles appeared with Ennio Morricone’s score audiences were silenced. Sergio wanted to create a new west, he felt the Hollywood western had become dull, unrealistic and was too clean in terms of the look and morality.

I’m going to start by looking at the story itself, it is a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s ‘Yojimbo’ which was released three years earlier. The tale of a lone Ronin playing two rival criminal organisations against each other was itself influenced in part by American westerns. Samurai stories translate well into the western setting, normally a singular hero upholding justice while advocating violence with great skill requires little adjustments in the new setting. As no one bothered to ask Akira if they could remake is film he demanded payments. In his defence Leone citied the Italian playwrights Carlo Goldoni’s ‘Servant of Two Masters’ as a strong influence on Yojimbo.

When it came to casting Sergio wanted a number of American actors for the lead notably Charles Bronson or Henry Fonda. He simply couldn’t afford them or they turned it down. He was informed of the show Rawhide and after watching an episode requested the star, a young actor named Clint Eastwood. Due to his television contract Clint was prohibited from making films in America but could in Europe. He arrived in Rome bringing his own jeans, boots, guns and even belt. The film was shot in Spain, which at the time was 25% percent cheaper than filming in Italy. Southern Spain gave A Fistful of Dollars locations that have become as iconic as the Poncho. Desolate towns, rough terrain, even the glare of the sun forced Eastwood’s trademark squint.

One of the major collaborators to these films and a prime example of an effective filmmaker/composer relationship is Ennio Morricone. He supplied his former primary school friend with a score like no other. They wanted to create a new sound for the west so utilised whip cracks, natural sounds, choir vocals, odd instrumentation, mariachi trumpets and the fender stratocastor: A guitar regularly associated with surf rock, a clear influence here. The budget hindered Morricone from using a full orchestra should he have wanted to. Sergio has stated that sound is 40% of the film experience, resulting in him paying close attention to sound post production. Gunshots sound like explosions, natural sounds are exploited and exaggerated for effect. On set it was a very different story, on major Italian pictures its common to overdub the sound after. Everyone was speaking their own languages, meaning on some days English, Italian, Spanish and German could be heard while people told jokes and played Frisbee off set, this came as a culture shock to Eastwood. He spoke little Italian and Leone’s English was limited, this led to a lot of ‘Singe qui voit, singe qui fait’ or monkey see monkey do style of directing with Sergio’s few phrases being ‘Watch me Clint’ before acting out what he wanted the actor to do. This means that the American actor start to behave in a very roman way. When the film moved to post-production each actor waxed lyrical in their own tongue relating to the appropriate dub, the rest of the cast being voiced over accordingly. This is why a number of the Mexican gang members cackle after sentences purely as a way of maintaining a level lip sync. This was a low budget film, with money coming from West Germany, Spain and of course Italy. The budget constraints led to them using Techniscope which allows you to use two frames for the price of one. A benefit of this that became apparent was that it kept extreme close-ups in sharp focus, birthing one of Leones signature traits.

A Fistful of Dollars is a multi-national funded, re-invention of the west, with a multi-cultural cast, distinct score, unofficially based on a Japanese film which in turn, might be based on an American novel and an Italian play. To limit this simply as an Italian film would be absurd. However, there’s  two elements I feel illustrates this: The first being the way faces are shot and lit. Where in classic Hollywood cinema a close-up would be used to show expressions and reactions to push the narrative, here they serve a different purpose. A face in these films are used to add to the overall visual style, another element to the screen. How light is treated on these faces is familiar to Renaissance Art. They are shot like portraits. This art movement was big in Europe, especially Italy in the 1400’s and its influence can still be seen in the architecture. The Second being its use of strong catholic imagery. Leone himself isn’t particularly religious. In order to use a crane on set he borrowed one from a nearby film set who had halted filming due to a catholic holiday. Yet still his films retain a level of Catholic influence, The Man with No Name saves an archetype of the Virgin Mary, Joseph and the little baby Jesus. Ramon has a last supper, even the violence is seen as a form of liturgy, Ramon could have easily shot ‘Joe’ in the head but constantly aims for the heart out of ritual. It has been argued that this is done simply to give the original intended southern Italian audience something familiar but I feel its much deeper. While many westerns feature strong symbols of death; the Hangman’s Noose for example, here it is exaggerated beyond standard conventions. You are given this entire town of death adorned with crosses, graves, massacre and widows. San Miguel is a town that fully illustrates the balance between life and death, Eastwood even hides in a coffin and his ‘resurrected’ in a sense for the finale.

This film displays all the stylistic elements that would later become more prominent in his subsequent films. Which moves us onto ‘For A Few Dollars More‘. Regarding the ‘Transnational’ it is worth noting at this point that in the opening credits everyone is using their real names where prior a number of them had adopted pseudonyms. Bob Robertson for Leone, Dan Savio for Morricone and Johnny Wels for Volonte. As the first one was literally the first of its kind American style names were used. No need for that no more as the first one was such a success.


This time round everything is more defined. The Man With No Name was a name that was used on the original posters for A Fistful Of Dollars, there is no mention of it in any of the films. Here Eastwood’s character is going by the name of Manco, a bounty hunter. Where in the first film he wears the poncho at the start and the final scene, he sports it more here. You also see more of the characters sharp wit come into play. Clint was asked to star in the sequel before he had even seen the first but after being sent a rush Italian version he agreed. It is here, from listening to the Italian voice over artist of his character he adopts the signature tone to the role.

For A Few Dollars More would cast another American for a lead role, Lee Van Cleef. He had asked similar actors to before but they turned it down (A Fistful Of Dollars hadn’t been released in America yet). The story goes that he recognised Lee
across a bar in a long black coat and ushered him over and signed him Two day later he was shooting the scene where he’s spies out the window with the telescope.

Once again you get Morricone onboard. Here he has become far more confident. The main theme is much more dramatic, stronger. He utilises the simple melody of the watch, using it to express paranoia, reflect the past, build tension and uses it as a tool of pure expression and drama conclusion and duel in the track ‘La Resa Dei Conti’. With the budget to use a larger orchestra he uses strings but compliments them with the Mariachi horns creating an epic, somehow hopeful march of the death.
These were some of the first westerns to show someone actually getting shot rather than cuts. Opera is also a more prominent influence. Leone as a director wanted these films to have the same magic in them he felt when he watched cinema as a child. The music becomes much more experimental with characters having stronger themes that develop and evolve, though not quite as grand as Once upon a time in the west.

It’s this film that Leone really comes into his own. Like Ennio his style has grown in confidence, longer shots, the close-ups are now far closer to the face and we have the first real circular duel that would become iconic in ‘The Good, The Bad and the Ugly’. You also start to see the way he displays male relationships. Occasionally analysed with homosexual undertones, Sergio disagrees with this, as an only child he felt the absence of siblings and these relationships reflect that yearning for a brother. His sense of humour is also integrated into the film. There’s more jokes in this picture, often at the expense of the official figures which is very common in Italian comedy. Black comedy is also here, notably the last few lines of dialogue. Catholic symbols are for more apparent, Van Cleef is reading a Bible, El Indio massacres A Joseph, Jesus and Virgin Mary even a church organ appears on the score. In a key scene Volonte stands in a church as if administering a sermon only to convince his gang to rob a bank, the secret to which comes from a carpenter. This could all be interpreted as a way of saying religion cannot save you in this west, salvation is not there, morals aren’t easily defined that black and white. However, he possesses strong morals for family which results in the films adhering to the classic Hollywood ideology of ‘No women, no Kids’. When Manco rides into El Paso he interacts with the youth albeit not in a overtly healthy way but in contrast to El Indio’s gang’s arrival where they are treated as pests it’s a bit more positive.

Leone would later dismiss the classification of his films as ‘spaghetti westerns’ as this was being attributed to any western coming out of Italy, including many films of poorer quality. There is a subtext to this, by not wanting his films classified in a title that defines it by its nationality you are being asked to look at it as a piece of cinema rather than a national product. As a result I would argue that Sergio Leones films are a perfect example of why ’Transnational Cinema’ is a more apt way to classify certain films culturally, as even with the civil war setting to ‘The Good, The Bad and The Ugly’ and the end of an era elements displayed in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ Leone’s westerns have always been a world of their own. Think that’s about ten minutes, the end.

Carl

Leon and The Fifth Element (Luc Besson)

Offer an analysis of the style and work of ONE European director, with reference to AT LEAST THREE FILMS.

In this essay I am going to discuss the style and work of Luc Besson focusing on Nikita (1990), Leon aka The Professional (1994) and The Fifth Element (1997). Firstly I shall be looking at the director before moving through an analysis of each film and finally concluding with a summary of elements and themes prominent in his work.

In Paris, 1959 Luc Besson was born. The son of Club Med scuba diving instructors, the young Besson travelled the world with them. The sea was a major influence on his life and he wanted to be a marine biologist. However, this was not to be. An unfortunate accident meant he was unable to dive. This led him to consider other possible career choices. “I took a piece of paper and on the left I put everything I could do, or had skills for, and all the things I couldn't do. The first line was shorter and I could see that I loved writing, I loved images, I was taking a lot of pictures. So I thought maybe movies,” (Besson, The Guardian, 200). The joy of creating stories was evident from an early age and it is to be believed that early drafts of The Big Blue (1988) and The Fifth Element came into existence while he was uninterested in school. After his parents split Besson was 18 living in Paris. Through a friend of a friend he started getting odd jobs in the film industry. As a young filmmaker he directed commercials and music videos. His first feature length film was Le Demier Combat (1983) and even here you start to see some elements emerge, morally ambiguous protagonists reflected against societies with equal moral questions. In the eighties he was to become associated with the ‘Cinema du Look’ movement. The young director disagreed with this categorisation.

During the Eighties film critic Raphael Bassan used this phrase to describe the movies being made by a number of new French directors. ‘Cinema du Look’ was attributed to films that he felt contained style over substance. He stated that these directors due to most of their involvement and/or influence from shooting adverts and music videos lacked art and humanity favouring flashy camera techniques and violence. Other key directors that fell into this criticism were Jean-Jacques Beineix and Leos Carax. Looking at this from a post-era perspective I’m disinclined to agree with Raphael. When MTV arrived in 1981 music videos were little more than a new promotional product. Overtime the medium developed and now you have a number of works that serve more as short films, such as: Rabbit In Your Headlights by UNKLE (Jonathan Glazer,1998).  When looking at any creative medium I think it‘s a good idea to approach it using “Sturgeon’s Law” standpoint that 90% is rubbish. While most is probably made for money and lacks any real depth or creativity, sift through and something really well accomplished can be found. Therefore I would argue this: By labelling these films with seemingly negative themes it distracts from observing the positive elements they may contain. Personally I feel Raphael’s analysis Is more appropriate to my problem with a number of modern films. My trouble is this: I find myself at the end of the film unable to recollect much about the characters themselves, even when the visual effects and spectacle are well achieved. In comparison; These French films while clearly having strong stylistic approaches, slick cameras and a heavy dose of ‘cool’ they can still contain interesting characters and plots. While I am aware there is a number of exceptions to my thesis Besson (overall) is not one of them.

Nikita (1990), stars Anne Parillaud as a criminal junkie turned assassin. The film tells her story first focusing on her transition then on her struggle to juggle her job and her more normal life with her partner. The psychology of Nikita in the first few scenes is very animalistic she acts very primal in her fight for survival e.g. the scene where she stabs the inspector with a pencil. Has her character develops she becomes more mature, she grows up in a sense. This contrast is displayed in its fullest when Jean Reno’s character Victor: The Cleaner appears. He is cold, ruthless and kills without mercy in a very casual manner, even to the point when he his shot himself. Nikita seems to feel and care about most of her kills, with a mix of sadness and regret. So despite being this gun-toting femme fatale assassin type she displays elements commonly associated with the female. Authority figures on the whole lack humanity in this film, they are shown primarily as goal orientated and have questionable morals. In the opening sequence I thought it was worth noting that a number of them are wearing masks. This dehumanizes them making them appear as one oppressive force. The use of blue here I found interesting, normally associated with the tranquil and the calm it is juxtaposed here with the violence and pace of the scene. Relevant to the sea perhaps where it can at one point be still the other wild and dangerous. Considering the directors upbringing the changeable aspects to tides and the ocean would be something he’d have seen first hand. As a diver the experience of looking into another world between lenses can also be related to film, throughout there are frequent shots of guns lenses and door peepholes. I can understand how this film became attached to the Cinema du Look movement. There is a strong use of style here that could be argued to hide a flawed plot: Why does the French Government feel that young, junkie, multiple felon, brat-punk girls as the most trustworthy, reliable and ideal candidates to be trained up to be sent back into the world as their top assassins?

In this paragraph I am going to compare aspects of Nikita with Leon and then relate it back to my defence of Besson regarding Raphael’s argument. These two films have a number of parallels: Both feature lost female characters, morally questionable governments, violence, amoral characters, transformation and themes of love. So how is Leon the better picture? In defence for Nikita you can argue that Leon has the unfair advantage of having much more money enabling better sets, access to a larger variety of actors and bigger action/effects.  I feel the truth is this: Besson has matured as a director, improved at storytelling and has become more confident as a writer. Nikita is a women who starts off as a criminal drug user who instead of death becomes a trained assassin. Mathilda is a much younger more vulnerable girl, and after her families massacre has more motivation and nothing to lose. Victor is ruthless and cold, no more no less. Leon starts off like this but is revealed to be controlled by mobsters and underneath his killer image is more of a lost child who matures by developing paternal instincts, right up to the point of self sacrifice. The score has gotten more confident, Eric Serra (who has provided the score to all but one of Bessons films) experiments more using more elements. In Nikita it’s primarily drum machines and percussion with the exception of strings and a guitar when Victor enters. In Leon this is all there but it’s evolved it brings in more influences and contains more melody. These two films are comparable to A Fistful of Dollars (Sergio Leone, 1964) and For A Few Dollars More (Sergio Leone, 1965). The same thing happens with Leone, the first film contains all the trademark elements and ideas that are identifiable as his style but in the second film the confidence in his style allows bolder steps to be made giving you a picture that by being aware of it’s own conventions and ideologies is able to explore its themes further. While in no way a sequel Leon is For A Few Dollars More and Nikita is A Fistful of Dollars. Take Magneto from the X-men: The original idea is an evil man who can control metal with his mind. His motivation is what makes him interesting: a victim of Nazi concentration camps he feels mankind will treat mutants the same and therefore fights against being taken, numbered etc. With more development a character gets fleshed out and becomes a lot more believable. This is where I would argue Raphael in his classification of Bessons films. While style over substance is evident in Nikita, the exercise in style is necessary for an artist to develop. By looking at Leon you can see how Besson has matured on his own themes. Therefore Nikita isn’t the junk food the Cinema du look tag would have you believe it’s more of a starter to a bigger course.

Leon (1994), tells the story of Leon (Jean Reno) as a French assassin working for Italian gangsters in New York. He finds himself in the care of Mathilda (Natalie Portman) after her family are slaughtered by a corrupt police officer. The 12 year old finds out his occupation as a ‘cleaner’ and demands to be trained in the trade so she can get revenge. This film contains a number of themes that are frequent in Bessons work. As an example I’m going to look at the scene where Stansfield (Gary Oldman) character kills Mathildas family.

The scene opens with a long tracking shot of a corridor you see a nice gang free from racial stereotyping appear (armed, corrupt, drug-dealing, child-murdering officers and henchmen we may be but hey, least we’re not discriminating). They reveal they are armed. Gary Oldman appears and consumes a capsule of some kind. Already you can sense he is unstable. His next line proves this and that he is a fan of classical music (which I shall explore further). Here you see Leon observe, now we know from the third act he his more than capable of stopping the next series of events should he wish. Instead he just watches through the hole in the door. This could be analysed as voyeuristic but I feel it’s more like a diver will watch nature in the ocean. Why should he do something about it? He is curious but is yet to display any real motif to help, he doesn’t know what’s going on and considering his job occupation he’s aware it’s probably none of his business. Stansfield then wades into the house trashes the place and murders two fifths of the family (The mother and half sister, Mathilda is out buying milk, Blood shoots the boy shortly and the Dad gets killed near the end of this scene). He is clearly relishing this, waving his hands about like a conductor. Classical music has been used as a juxtaposition against violence for a long time. A notable example here is Alex from Anthony burgess’ A Clockwork Orange (Anthony Burgess, 1962). He is a youth who amuses himself by hanging out with his friends, collecting vinyl, being polite to old people, keeping up to date with fashion and indulging in an orgy of violence, rape and drug use. Alex is also a classical fan, in the book he mentions an article he read about someone claiming that in order to solve the youth problems they must be educated in the arts. Alex amuses himself at the absurdity of this statement. By having a character who has a knowledge of something that is often symbolised with the higher classes and intelligence you get the feeling that they are smart enough to be fully aware of their actions. This makes it more menacing as they know the difference between right and wrong and just choose to do the one they derive the most enjoyment out of. While this is going on the score switches to a menacing tone. The same melody is used right before when Leon is in his apartment, this could be used to forewarn the coming events but I feel it also shows a similarity between Leon and Stansfield. It makes Jean Reno’s character seem that much human when he lets Mathilda in. The score utilises the harmonic minor scale. This is where the 7th note of the minor scale is moved half a step up and gives the scale an Egyptian/Eastern feel. This serves to give Stansfield an alien feel in the house, he doesn’t belong there. The same way For A Few Dollars More gave us Morricones signature mariachi horns over surf-rock style guitar to add an extra sense of drama, Serra’s score here doing a similar thing here. This alien force invading a personal space is accented even further when Gary Oldman enters through the beads. On a side note, there is a Christian cross on the wall and when Stansfield passes through the beads it is left behind in the other half of the room. Religion is behind him, those ideologies don’t work here, you can’t hide behind them, in this world living by them won’t save you. Using foreign, exotic culture to help establish a form decadence is something that has existed in western literature for a long time, as far back as the Victorians. It also adds fear from a ‘fear of the unknown’ standpoint you now don’t know what he will do next or what he’s capable of. I find this interesting considering Frances’ multi-cultural society you’d be inclined to think some of these techniques would be rendered ineffective. However, I don’t believe it to be a racist thing more just an ideology that works because it’s always been there, much the same way that pure, well-rounded virgin girls survival rate in a horror film are quite high. The scene then has an extreme mix of drama and humour. This is a theme that runs throughout the film and many of Bessons others. To summarize this has a lot of depth to it, the use of dialogue, shots, performance and mise en scene all compliment to tell the story. It is very effective and demonstrates the directors capabilities.

Now onto the issue of love, the relationship between Mathilda and Leon is something that has often been criticised. Many are quick to label it with ‘Lolita’ and ‘paedophilia’ because of the awkwardness to some of the scenes. I would argue otherwise. For my example I’m going to look at another unlikely on screen relationship: Baloo and Mowgli in Walt Disney’s The Jungle Book (Wolfgang Reitherman, 1967). Mowgli is an orphan, he is confident in his own abilities and sees himself as strong,  plotlines and characteristics him and Mathilda share (and have similar hair). Baloo is strong, clever and is like a child that hasn’t really accepted adulthood, but over the course of his time with Mowgli he grows to care for him and even displays an act of pure self sacrifice against a psychopath everyone in the jungle fears. Leon and Baloo both train their new adopted child to be the next generation versions of themselves, both take on numbers against their odds and adopt disguises to aid their plights. While I’m sure this statement has made you smile I am being quite serious in the fact that both, when you way the relationships up are maternal from Leon and Baloos perspectives. It is the children that give us something different. Mowgli isn’t after a father figure, his relationship his platonic they are good friends, when Baloo tries to talk to him about serious matters he runs away. It parallels a males transitions into puberty second he meets a girl he leaves Baloo behind (personally I think this ending feels a little tacked on, akin to a wizard of Oz. As kids why cant we stay in the jungle with jazz and our animal friends or with the Munchkins and our ragtag walking companions. Nope its off to bed early for you, we’ve got a nice long day of establishing your all-American nuclear families and morals for you tomorrow. Put your red slippers and loincloth away young man). I digress, the point I am making is this, it is Mathilda who is confused about her feelings. It is apparent from the opening scene with her family that love isn’t in abundance, therefore the only way she can express it or understand it is not going to be from a paternal view. This is one of the reasons why I feel the decision to kill Leon was a necessary one, it enables Mathilda to re-establish herself as a child who’s going to settle down and grow up, get educated and become a positive contributor in a new part of society we get shown (the teacher, kids her age, greenery etc).

Finally, The Fifth Element (1997). We have certain Besson Films in place, score by Eric Serra, Use of previous cast (Gary Oldman), An oppressive force and strong female leads. The confidence has grown again allowing more of these themes to be played with, arguably too much. Where Jean Reno’s Victor and Leon are very similar characters with one being far more developed than the other. Gary Oldman is far from a more developed Stansfield, he is almost unrecognisable. The Score to this film moves through genres pace and style like tuning through a radio station. The main villains in this are quite literally monsters. The Female leads role means her transformation saves nothing short of THE ENTIRE WORLD. Contextually though this films is supposed to be fun and we are to belief this was conceived in the mind of an adolescent Besson. It is self aware of how ridiculous parts of it is, take its nods to the sci-fi films that have came before it. This film expects you too have seen others like Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977), Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927) and Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985). In Back to The Future Part II (Robert Zemeckis 1989), ‘The Two Bobs’ Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis respectively, decided very early on that they would never get a vision of the future right so they opted not take it seriously and cram as many jokes as they could into the scenes (Sourced from DVD Bonus Material). Every generations vision of the future changes based on what’s happening at the time. After WWII American visions were these grand shiny utopias, when the cold war threats appeared so did mind controlling aliens, death rays and abductions, most visions of the future from contemporary times show dystopias with people poverty stricken and failed governments (recession?). So there’s a level of self irony that Bessons vision of the future should be this hyperactive, slick, exaggerated world of adverts and MTV-style pop culture a warped world where style is most definitely favoured over substance. It’s probably as close to a caricature of what the Cinema du look movement was criticised for and associated with you can find in a film. This sense of parody and mockery of the critics is certainly not the driving force behind this film but I can’t help but feel it’s an element (no pun intended). Even though Bruce Willis is the main character you see the world through Leeloos eyes. This is not uncommon in this genre of film. The Skywalker Scenario: By having a character who knows little or nothing about what’s going on and has to rely on the other characters to tell them also lets the audience know. However, using a female for this has been common in all of these films.

From these Besson films we have a number of common themes. The main characters tend to be loners and outcasts to conventional society. Authority figures or people in power are shown to be corrupt and unlawful themselves. These elements could be unconscious links back to his childhood. Travelling around meant it would have been difficult to maintain friendships, love of diving and influence on certain ‘watching’ style shots. His parents split and remarried, this could be why a common character transition in his films is to have them rather childlike in aspects before being thrust into a situation against their will where they a forced to mature to survive. The role of the female is always more than a love interest, they are strong-willed and are guided by their own set of principals not anyone else’s. Morals are not clearly defined, sides Mathilda’s brother no one is ’innocent’ in that film, Mathilda herself grabs a gun and fires rounds into a street and she says swear words. This moral ambiguity can be taken as a film noir influence, his films do show similarities: In terms of character psychology, uses of light, criminal underworlds and tones of violence. Hollywood influences such as this is something the critics disliked when discussing The Cinema du Look movement. Considering that the same critics were praising the work of François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard and other directors of the French new wave there was a level of hypocrisy to this. The directors of the French new wave were drawing influences from the Hollywood films of their era. As my conclusion I would say that Luc Besson is a director whose style was criticised for the wrong reasons without being given a chance to develop first. Much like a character in his films he had to mature on a level in order to survive and produce the films that are seen as his accomplishments in this medium. Like when Phil Harris said ‘When you a pawpaw or a prickly pear and you pick a raw paw well next time beware. Don’t pick the prickly pear by the paw when you pick a pear try to use the claw, but you don’t need to use the claw when you pick a pear of the big pawpaw.’ (The Bear Necessities, 1967)

By Carl


Bibliography

Books


Silver, A & Ursini, J. Film Noir Reader. Limelight Editions 1996
Vincendeau, G & Graham P. The French New Wave: Critical Landmarks UK: British Film Institute 2009
Ferman, J. W. Venture Science Fiction March 1958
Burgess, A. A Clockwork Orange. UK: Penguin 2000
Wilde, O. Complete Short Fiction. London: Penguin, 2003

Films
Besson, L. Le Demier Combat 1983,  The Big Blue 1988, Nikita 1990, Leon 1994, The Fifth Element 1997.
Glazer, J. Rabbit In Your Headlights by UNKLE 1998
Reitherman, W. Walt Disney’s The Jungle Book 1967
Fleming, V. The Wizard of Oz 1939
Leone, S. A Fistful of Dollars 1964, A Few Dollars More 1965
Scott, R. Blade Runner 1982,
Lucas. G,  Star Wars 1977
Lang, F. Metropolis 1927
Gilliam, T. Brazil 1985
Zemeckis. R. Back to The Future Part II 1989

Websites

http://www.stuartfernie.com/besson.html Notes on characters and themes in Luc Besson Films. visited 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/mar/23/guardianinterviewsatbfisouthbank1
 Luc Besson interview, visited 2010
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000108/bio Biography for Luc Besson visited 2010

Y Tu Mamá También (2001) and Amores perros (2000)

Y tu mama tambien “succeeds in painting a complex portrait of modern Mexican life” (Nuala Finnegan). Analyse the depiction of Mexican society offered in TWO film texts.

In response Nuala Finnegan’s statement I shall be looking at how Mexican society is depicted in Y Tu Mamá También (2001) and Amores perros (2000). I’ll discuss the films individually before concluding how both have illustrated Mexico.

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón Y Tu Mamá También tells the story of a road trip undertaken by two Mexican teenage boys and a Spanish woman in her late twenties. Beneath its coming of age, road movie exterior the film looks at different elements of contemporary Mexico.

The film opens with one of the adolescent males, Tenoch (played by Diego Luna) engaging in coitus with his girlfriend Ana (played by Ana López Mercado). She is about to go away on a trip to Italy with Cecilia, Julio’s girlfriend. The shot has a documentary/voyeuristic feel, it starts from behind a door and follows them in one handheld shot. Tenoch makes her promise that she’s ‘not going to fuck any Italians’. Before listing other races in a similar manner, he uses the word Gringo which is often associated with a negative connotation to Americans. He also lists a ‘Dirty Mexican selling bracelets on the street’ implying a class issue and divide. The room they are in is filled with books, which could symbolise education and wealth. In the background is the Spanish poster of Harold and Maude (1971), a film about a boy obsessed with death and his relationship with an older woman. Themes that come into play in this picture. Outside you can hear the sound of a siren, the problems lie outside of this room. From their perspective they go on unnoticed and impersonal. The camera leaves the room back behind the door and the sound cuts abruptly. A voiceover begins. voiced by an uncredited Daniel Giménez Cacho. The narration gives us a further insight into events, we learn that Ana’s mother does not object to her daughters relationship a contrast to Julio’s girlfriends parents (especially the father). These styles and techniques along with that level of subtext run throughout the entire movie.
We are now introduced to Julio, performed by Gael García Bernal a Mexican actor who got this role as a result of his performance in Amores perros. He is sitting awkwardly with his girlfriends father. The house is neat and clean. Cecilia (played by María Aura) calls Julio up to her room under the false pretence that she has lost her passport. Her room is adorned in pictures of animals, there is a stack of National Geographic magazines, photos and camera equipment. This establishes her interests, leaning towards more natural down to earth things a contrast to the room we saw the scene previous (possibly Ana’s). A level of innocence also comes across. They quickly engage in the same activity Tenoch and Ana were seen undertaking, quickly and half dressed. Both scenes feature the boys engaging in similar acts with elements of comedy but the subtext of both scenes illustrate where they stand in society and as a result how they are treated, with no pun intended for the audience seeds have been sown.

At the airport both the boys express that they ‘hate this goodbye bullshit’ while Ana and Cecilia are out of earshot. Unbeknownst to Tenoch and Julio, the girls also voice their desire to be on the plane. Then, when they say goodbye both parties express and display the exact opposite. This hypocrisy within the characters evolves as the film progresses.

We first meet Luisa at the wedding scene. The event takes place at a bull ring. The opening shot is of a security guard with two people in traditional (arguably cliché) Mexican dress. We get more shots of Security while Tenoch and Julio mock how many guards there are. The security are clearly under employment signalling that the attendants of this party are wealthy and fear danger possibly from outside this circle of the upper class. Older music is playing, up until now we have only heard contemporary Mexican music, notably from the radio in the car. The wedding is clean and saturated with these old stereotypes, a stark contrast to the Mexico we have seen the boys living in. Julio moves from Tenoch to the bar. As he orders his drink he comments to the barman ‘What a bunch of assholes, right?’ It is easier for him to establish rapport with someone younger and of a similar class to him rather than, the older wealthier attendants of the wedding, he can relate to him.

It is here Luisa enters. Performed by Maribel Verdú an actor who started off as a model. To quote Guillermo del Toro on the Pan’s Labyrinth commentary ‘known for sex bomb roles.’ She walks into frame wearing white allowing her to stand out amongst the palette of blacks and greys worn by other members of the wedding party. Julio notices her as she walks past alone and looking a little uncomfortable, we learn later from the narration that she finds herself unable to fit in at these sorts of parties. Unbeknownst to the audience we cut to her husband Jano, conversing with Tenoch, it is revealed he is his cousin and an author. He is patronizing and condescending to Tenoch, mocking him about a time when he lost a Ninja Turtle. Tenoch corrects him, explaining that it was a Thundercat. While this is minor it is interesting to note. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were ordinary Turtles until as a result of the Ooze they were transformed (On the assumption that we are referring to the 80’s television incarnations, and going by Tenoch’s age this seems likely). The Turtles seem to be teen-aged for the rest of the series and relish it. The main protagonist of the Thundercats, Lion-O has different origins. Escaping from his home planet as a child he slept in a suspended animation type chamber (to accommodate him in long distance space travel of course). When he landed on third earth he found his body had become that of a young man, even though he still had the mind of a boy. This characters main arc focuses on him becoming a man. The responsibilities of an adult thrown upon him, perhaps quicker than he would have liked. Tenoch’s story in this film involves one of growing up, more in keeping with the leader of the Thundercats rather than a Ninja Turtle, forever a teenager and viewed as immature (coincidently his cousins opinion of him). Julio and Tenoch track Luisa down and flirt with her cumbersomely. They are impressed to learn that she is Spanish. The narration informs us about Luisa’s life and how much death has been in it. We learn that her parents died in a car accident, her great-aunt who raised her also died. Later on we learn that her first boyfriend died in a motorbike accident, it is clear from her dialogue that she still possesses fond affections for him. The Mariachis arrive and we cut to a waiter. We see a family leaving with two young girls, while all the other guests look into the centre oblivious to the outside. This could be interpreted as society being too focused on a false image of its past (the film is set at the end of 71 years of presidents from the Institutional Revolutionary Party) and for the countries working class inhabitants an unnecessary one for the modern day.

The names of each of the main characters are very important. Tenoch’s surname is Iturbide, after Agustín Cosme Damián de Iturbide y Aramburu a Mexican general who fought against the Spanish colonists in the Mexican War of Independence. After the victory he then set to establish himself as emperor, this title lasted nearly a year. Julio’s surname is Zapata, after Emiliano Zapata a revolutionary who led the Ejército Libertador del Sur (Liberation Army of the South) against President Diaz. Luisa’s last name is Cortés after Hernán Cortés the Spanish Conquistador that led the first wave of colonizers against the Aztecs, she lives at 52 Machu Picchu street. Machu Picchu being arguably the most famous Inca city, in 1952 Che Guevara visited the site, documented in his diaries and the film adaptation The Motorcycle Diaries (2004, Dir Walter Salles). With these associations the characters can now be seen as Tenoch a representative of the Upper classes, Julio the lower and Luisa as a foreign conqueror, her presence is the catalyst of conflict between the boys allowing issues and prejudices to surface.

During the wedding Tenoch and Julio invite Luisa to come with them on a road trip to ‘Heaven’s Mouth’ a (from their perspective) fictional beach away from the tourists. She doesn’t seem terribly impressed. However following her visit to the hospital, we learn later that she is terminally ill and a phone call from Jano, letting her know he’s been unfaithful she decides to join them. In French the word orgasm (La petite mort) literally translates as ‘the little death’. On the journey our trios subject matter frequently revolves around sex, while death seems to surround them. It is a prominent part of Mexican culture (The Day of the Dead is a national holiday). Luisa’s aforementioned past and numerous sections where the narration interrupts the story often revolves around the subject.

During the trip they stay at a hotel. Tenoch Immediately grabs the biggest bed, leaving Julio with the smaller one. This could be seen as a metaphor for the land. Tenoch then uses the toilet, lifting the lid with his feet, referencing the narration earlier, though Julio is his best friend he does the same in his house. This small action can be taken as offensive as it shows that from Tenoch‘s perspective he sees Julio as dirtier and below him. A part of the narration brings up the fact that Tenoch does not know where his maid is from, despite her raising him as her son. He is out of touch with Mexico’s past and his own history.

Julio and Tenoch tell Luisa about their ‘Charolastra’ manifesto, all of the rules are fairly juvenile, with the exception of rule 5: You shall not screw another Charolastra’s girl. Despite the childish nature the rules are democratic, the homophobic derogative for Americans aside. As the film progresses though we learn that both males have betrayed rule 5, supposed to be loyal friends both of them have been hypocrites. If you take them as metaphors for society it shows that the laws established are being broken and the people are divided. When Luisa demands that they follow her manifesto her rules are akin to a totalitarian dictatorship. Though exaggerated and more of a rant than definite rules, politically she is akin to President Diaz. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (who are coming to the end of their 71 year run of Mexican presidents had been described by Mario Vargas Llosa as a ‘perfect dictatorship.’

As we follow the characters along the road we get shown many angles of Mexico, we see the rural and we get a sense of the damage tourism can do to indigenous skills and trades (notably the fishing family that take them to Heaven’s mouth). From the film we get the sense that the country is a little lost, struggling with its identity.

During one of the final scenes Julio and Tenoch are drinking with Luisa, they reflect on the things they have done and get along again. After drinking and dancing, our three main characters engage in intercourse. For a brief moment we have the upper class, the lower and the Spanish influence together. In the morning this has attitude/idea has completely dissipated. Luisa is outside enjoying breakfast with some of the fishing family, discussing places it is revealed they do not know the meanings of the their names. Another example of culture being lost. Julio and Tenoch awake in a bed naked and embarrassed. They both leave that day while Luisa stays behind, she has excepted that she is dying and is happy to leave them. The last scene features the boys going for a coffee, we learn that they broke up with their girlfriends. The narration tells us that Tenoch started dating his neighbour while Julio started dating a girl in his class and that they ceased spending time with each other this hints that they are now engrossed into worlds based on their social class. It is also the first time in 71 years the ruling party lost its vote in the presidential election. Tenoch tells Julio that Luisa has passed away. You learn Tenoch is taking Economics at a University rather than his earlier want to be a writer, a sign that he his conforming to his parents wants. Julio is starting a college, a more affordable place to study, they have been divided. The last shot shows Tenoch walk away, separated by the café window he his standing higher than Julio in the frame, leaving his former friend with the cheque. It is somewhat subtle but Julio, the films representative of the middle and lower classes is left to deal with the actions of Tenoch, representative of the upper classes while the Spanish influence has now left.

Y Tu Mamá También was marketed as a teenage road movie. Meaning that a lot of the younger generation would have seen it. As a result of the younger generation making up the highest population in Mexico this tends to be its cinemas target audience. By using these characters to represent angles of Mexican society it allows the viewers to observe the problems its country faces and where it might be going, under a safe guise.

Amores Perros (2000) is the first feature length film by Alejandro González Iñárritu. The film is occasionally translated as ‘Love’s a Bitch’, while the literal interpretation is closer to ‘Dog Love’. The story focuses on three lives within Mexico city. Each story is connected by a car accident and involves at least one dog. The film gives a fairly grim portrayal of Mexican life, with violence prevalent. With its non linear narrative, strong violence and depictions of crime that this film is often compared to Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. However this film carries a darker tone.

Much like Y Tu Mamá También this film shows a separation between classes. The first time we see Valeria (played by Goya Toledo) is after the car crash. She is wounded and bleeding but trapped behind glass, cut off from everyone else. Next she is on a large billboard elevated above the city, projecting a very western idea of beauty. Daniel (Álvaro Guerrero) observes her from his car, she is higher up, clean and polished. In the car is his family, his wife appears stressed and the children are bickering. Valeria looks like a fantasy, unreal.

Later she appears on Octavio‘s television. She is on a chat show introducing her partner, a well groomed male actor. Later, we learn this is a front. We get introduced to Richie her little dog, it is jokingly referred to as her child. This is not too far from the truth. In reality she treats her pet somewhere between a baby and a handbag, a pampered, spoilt accessory. Valeria seems distanced from the real world entirely. Her new apartment is self focused. Her billboard can be seen from the window and there are prints of her photos on the walls. The film appears to punish her for this. When she greets Daniel her foot falls through the floorboards, literally putting her foot in it. This foreshadows her leg injury. There are cracks underneath the surface, this success is fragile. Underneath the floorboards are rats running around, they could be metaphor for the lower classes far below Valeria. We cut from her embracing Daniel to El Chivo playing with a Yoyo. If the city is a hand and the people a Yoyo it can have people either up or down quickly, two extremes. Personally I like to think that by showing El Chivo playing with one it is illustrating him starting to take back some control of his life as future events reveal, but I digress.

Valeria volunteers to get the wine to toast her new apartment and leaves in her car. Again we see her detachment to the city, her music is loud and reminiscent of the sixties, she nominates the traffic lights the ideal opportunity to apply makeup. The whole scene looks somewhat similar to a kitsch, bohemian car advert. She is in the centre of her saturated fantasy world. We see the crash this time from the perspective of onlookers, the camera and therefore the audience sees the event this time with the city, not with Valeria. The accident leaves her maimed with a damaged leg and we begin to see her world collapse. When she arrives back at the flat one of the first things Daniel does is throw her on the bed and attempts to initiate intercourse. He sees her as an image rather than a person and soon becomes frustrated with this new situation. Later the phone rings and when Valeria answers no voice is heard. Like in an earlier scene when Daniels family answers the phone, this hints that Daniel is being unfaithful. Richie then runs into the hole in floor, trapped with the rats. This mirrors Valeria’s own position she is trapped, her apartment originally a symbol of her success gradually becomes her prison. The Venetian blinds in the last shot help accent this. A balloon with I love you written on it soon deflates. As time passes her legs gains gangrene and has to be amputated, judging from the images of her modelling it was a prime selling point. She returns back to the apartment wearing black (a colour of mourning) and a blue blanket covering her lower half. He hair is tied back. Her image is reminiscent of the works of Frida Kahlo notably Le Due Frida (1939). A number of her self portraits would feature her sitting, depicting graphic injuries. Kahlo was a Mexican painter who was born and died in Mexico city, her life was surrounded by tragedy, at a young age she got polio causing one of her legs to grow smaller than the other. She was involved in a traffic accident that left her with serious injuries. As a result of her injuries she was often bed ridden for lengthy periods of time during her life. Her relationship with Diego Rivera was rife with affairs and tempers. While Frida’s work and life however receives recognition today, Valeria seems to be left behind. Her apartment is cold and the floor is now wrecked. The billboard is no longer a symbol of her career but an image of better times her perfume advertisement has being taken down, not even replaced but left empty, ready for hire.

Both these films explore how different classes effect one another, but while Y Tu Mamá También occasionally shows glimpses of change, a chance of coexisting Amores Perros Portrays a grim image of Mexican society, nearly every character ends up in a worse position at the end than the start. Both films generate conflict from examples of classes crossing paths, quite literally with Valeria. As a result she suffers a tragic fall from grace, becoming a victim of the city. Tenoch and Julio, begin as best friends but by the end struggle to communicate with each other. Even as El Chivo leaves the city with a chance of redemption he walks along a cracked path.

Carl


Bibliography

ART

Khalo, F. Le Due Frida (1939).

Books
Noble, A. Mexican National Cinema (2005)
Powell, J. (1998) Postmodernism For Beginners.
Wood, J. Talking movies : contemporary world filmmakers in interview (2006)
Wood, J. The Faber Book of Mexican Cinema (2006)

Films

Ashby, H. Harold and Maude (1971)
Cuarón, A. Y Tu Mamá También  (2001)
Del Toro, G. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
González Iñárritu, A. Amores Perros (2000)
Salles, W. The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)
Tarantino, Q. Pulp Fiction (1994)

Welcome!

So we've decided to start posting film reviews. Each of us will be posting a mix of analysis and straight forward reviews on a variety of movies. The first few are Uni essays which is why they may seem a little strange but if your a lazy media student they might be useful.

Tuck in,
Carl