Author Archives: Elizabeth Heon

RIP Gas Station Guy

Posted on by

I did not enjoy The Blues Brothers. I think I just must have an unusually low tolerance for car chases (of which this movie has so many I lost count) and the general sort of humor in the film, which I’m going to very broadly define as “foolish men with very good luck”. That said, the film does have a fairly strong conclusion. The filmmakers upped the absurdity enough that it started to work for me.

Even if you don’t like the comedy, I do think the film is worth watching for the excellent musical performances. I watched this film knowing absolutely nothing about Blues music (to the extent that I’m not sure if it’s technically correct to describe this as Blues, bear with me). My favorite would have to be Aretha Franklin singing “Think”, though all are excellent.

“The Blues Brothers” is also a film that becomes considerably more interesting upon reflection. During the film, the Blues Brothers are consistently pursued by the police. The intent of the film seems to be satirizing the militarization of the police and the use of excessive force to pursue and capture two people who, for all their causing of mayhem, are essentially harmless and goodhearted. I, however, felt the film undermined itself on this one. In one of the earlier scenes, the Blues Brothers lead the police on a car chase through a mall. The Blues Brothers also accidentally blow up a gas station, which had somebody working in it, who probably died. I think this is the reason this film did not work for me, because I am the sort of person who thinks about the probable offscreen deaths of gas station attendants with one line. All this being said, the film is making an interesting point and topical point.

The running time of this film is 132 minutes. Personally, I think it would have been better had it been shorter. The high points of this movie were the musical numbers and the more cutting satire. If anything, the plot and some of the scenes with the central protagonists got in the way of my enjoyment of Blues Brothers. That said, there is something very interesting about a film which explores themes of police militarization and Neo-Nazism by following two white men who just sort of float above it all. I did not enjoy Blues Brothers, but I think it is a film worth watching for the messages it conveys.

Duty and Happiness

Posted on by

In the opening scenes of Fire, Sita and her new husband, Jatin, are outside the Taj Mahal. A guide is explaining how the Taj Mahal was created as a symbol of love. Sita tries to make small talk to Jatin, but he seems dismissive. She asks him “don’t you like me?”

Sita and Jatin live with Jatin’s older brother, Ashok, Ashok’s wife, Radha, and Jatin and Ashok’s grandmother, who has suffered a stroke and lost the ability to speak. The family owns a combination take-out restaurant and video rental store, where Sita and Radha work.

Most of the scenes in Fire are filmed inside the family’s home and store. The film contrasts scenes of seeming domestic tranquility with indications of deep-rooted conflict and discontent. Jatin tells his brother that he married Sita only to stop his brother’s nagging. He is also still seeing his girlfriend, Julie, and makes no attempt to hide her identity from Sita when Sita finds a picture of Julie in Jatin’s wallet.

Radha and Ashok’s marriage is similarly strained. After learning that Radha was unable to have children, Ashok took a vow of chastity.

Fire is interesting in the way that it suggests that Sita and Rahda are both alone and not alone. Both are married, but neither feel loved. The two women live in a busy household, but many scenes feature Sita and Radha alone together. And yet, even when Sita and Radha have the house otherwise to themselves, Jatin and Ashok’s grandmother is there. She cannot speak, and thus cannot tell others what they do, but she is there to observe them nonetheless.

Charles Kane: An Interesting Character

Posted on by

Citizen Kane begins with the death of its subject. Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper tycoon based in part on William Randolph Hearst, dies at his opulent estate, Xanadu. His last word, as reported in the papers, is “Rosebud”. A newspaper reporter is tasked by his editor with discovering who or what “Rosebud” is. Through the reporter’s interviews with colleagues and an ex-wife, Kane’s life is revealed.

Charles Kane’s mother owns a boarding house in a mining town. A tenant, unable to pay, gives her what he believes to be a worthless deed as payment. Gold is then found, and the family is suddenly quite wealthy. Mrs. Kane makes the extraordinary decision to give her son over to the custody of a banker so that he can be educated.

At the end of the film, it is revealed that “Rosebud” is the name of the sled Charles Kane was playing with as a boy on that day that his mother told him she would be sending him away. It would seem, then, that Charles Kane’s unhappiness – and I believe the film reveals him to be a fundamentally unhappy person – stems from his mother’s abandonment. While she believed she was acting in his best interest, Charles’ mother denied him a normal childhood and parental love. In his adult life, he goes on to have a string of broken relationships: two failed marriages, and a falling out with his best friend which results in the end of the relationship.

It seems then, that Charles Kane’s choice of last words – “Rosebud” – is expressing a desire for things to have gone differently. If only his mother had not sent him away, his life could have been very different. Yet, it was Charles Kane who was responsible for the misery in his life, and for misery in others’ lives.

Charles’ second wife, Susan Alexander, expresses to him most explicitly that he doesn’t really love her, or anyone. He gives to others to make himself feel better, or more in control, or to manipulate their opinions of him. He wants to be loved without loving in return. Charles Kane is selfish. He does not, and seemingly cannot, consider the needs of others, and place them before his own.

The crux of the film is thus a simple question: Could Charles Kane have been any different than he was? If his mother had not sent him away, would he have grown up to be a happier man? Or, could he have learned to respect the needs and desires of those around him, and held onto his friends and family? Was what happened to Charles Kane inevitable? Or could it have gone another way. The consideration of these questions makes “Citizen Kane” an interesting film, and an excellent one.

North by Northwest: In Which Everyone is Bad at Stuff

Posted on by

The Wikipedia page for North by Northwest describes the film as a “thriller”. I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion. The film is about an advertising executive, Roger Thornhill, who is mistaken for a spy, George Kaplan, and kidnapped by a criminal, Vandamm, who thinks Kaplan is pursuing him. Thornhill then goes on a mission to find Kaplan, and along the way meets Eve Kendall, who is Vandamm’s girlfriend, and a government informant trying to take him down.  The film is full of decidedly non-thrilling scenarios: visiting an empty hotel room with your disapproving mother, walking around in public and having no one recognize you, even though you are a fugitive with your picture in all the newspapers, shaving your face with a tiny razor (even though, as above, you are a fugitive, and should probably be trying to look less like the picture in those papers…) For the most part, the moments of peril in the film are so ridiculous as to be comical. After the initial kidnapping, Vandamm tries to kill Thornhill by forcing him to drink an entire bottle of liquor and then putting him in a car and sending him rolling towards the edge of a cliff. Thornhill, of course, regains enough awareness to turn the wheel and avoid the cliff. The tense chase scene that should follow is instead a patently ridiculous sequence of a very drunk man driving (though he does cause real peril to others on the road).

In the second major action scene of the movie, Roger Thornhill is told by Eve Kendall, who he does not realize is working for Vandamm, to meet George Kaplan at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. After waiting for several minutes, a crop duster plane flies after him, makes several attempts to run him over (fly him over?) and shoots at him. The plane then crashes into an oil tanker on the road and explodes. Again, not thrilling. Why a plane, of all things? If Vandamm is such a sophisticated criminal, why are all his murder plots so nonsensical and logistically complex?

I thought North by Northwest was intended to be a comedy about three people who are all incompetent. The main criminal, Vandamm, spends the entire film trying to kill George Kaplan (or Thornhill, really) but as above, he chooses the worst possible plans. He also fails to realize that his girlfriend is the real spy until an associate literally shoots him with a gun loaded with blanks. How does a man who seems very bad at vetting his associates and eliminating his enemies manage to acquire and sell government secrets?

As for Eve Kendall, she remains with Vandamm as a government informant, to try to find out how he smuggles his information out of the country. We don’t know how long she’s been with Vandamm, but it seems like it’s been a while, and she hasn’t figured it out yet. Thornhill, of course, learns that Vandamm is using art he buys at auctions to smuggle microfilm after just a couple of days of being involved in the whole affair. Kind of embarrassing for Ms. Kendall.

And finally, Thornhill himself. Having been kidnapped because you’ve been mistaken by some criminals for a George Kaplan, why do you go to George Kaplan’s hotel room, and otherwise do things that would convince the casual observer that you are George Kaplan? Thornhill bumbles from one situation to the next, but he’s so lucky you never worry about his safety.

North by Northwest really doesn’t work for me as a thriller. But it’s an enjoyable enough movie if you think about it as a comedy about some incompetent, lucky people.

Dead Poets Society: Don’t rip out the intro!

Posted on by

I abhorred Dead Poet’s Society. There are many things to hate about the film: the disgusting mishandling of one of the film’s only female characters, the maudlin tone and the romanticizing of violence, and the complete lack of diversity in a film which intends to celebrate resistance to conformity, and presumably the diversity of viewpoints which would accompany it.

However, I’d like to speak about what I found most infuriating about the film: it’s celebration of Mr. Keating’s “unconventional” teaching methods. The film presents Mr. Keating as a uniquely inspirational teacher, beloved by his students. I imagine I am not alone, however, in feeling that I would have hated having Mr. Keating as a teacher. Watching the film gave me flashbacks to every high school humanities class I hated with every fiber of my being, every class which made me want to become an engineer. When Keating has the students rip out the introduction of their poetry books, he seems to be suggesting that real literary criticism isn’t important. The class is not going to analyze poetry for its meter, rhyme scheme, and symbolism– they’re going to figure out what poems make them feel. What comes out here is a weirdly anti-intellectual theme for a film which seems to think it is celebrating literature.

One of my high school English teachers, in introducing our unit of poetry, told us that there are wrong answers. There is a correct way to interpret poetry, and there is an incorrect way. That seems like exactly the kind of sentiment Mr. Keating would hate. His general message seems to be that you should find what poetry means to you personally. While that thought seems seductive at first, upon closer inspection, it seems preclude any possibility of real dialogue about what poetry means, or real criticism of an author’s technique or intent. Mr. Keating has essentially taught his students how to feel, at the expense of teaching them how to think. He is exactly the sort of teacher I would have loathed. I attend school to learn how to think, not to be taught how to feel. I can manage the latter on my own.

I should also mention that, given our current political climate, it’s not super fun to watch a high school teacher essentially tell his students that the truth is whatever you feel is true. Also that you should  “carpe diem”, which the boys in Dead Poets Society seem to interpret as “Do whatever you want, irrespective of the rights of others.”

Simplicity is a Strength

Posted on by

I appreciated Pather Panchali for its simple style and for its tone. The film depicts the day to day life of Apu, his older sister Durga, and his parents. While the film contains tragic elements, including the death of Durga from an illness, it also depicts day to day life and simple pleasures. The characterization in the film is impressive, as is the realism achieved.

I particularly appreciated the film’s depiction of family life, and especially the way conflicts and family disagreements were handled. In one scene, Durga is accused by a neighbor of stealing a bead necklace. Durga denies this; however, she has a reputation for stealing fruit from a neighbor’s orchard. The neighbor accuses Durga’s mother, Sarbajaya, of encouraging her tendency to steal. Embarrassed by the neighbor’s accusation, Sarbajaya throws Durga out of the house. The next scene shows Sarbajaya telling Apu to find Durga and tell her that her dinner is ready. There is no depiction of Durga and Sarbajaya making amends. I felt this was an accurate depiction of the way family members, though they may become angry with each other, and may harbor significant disagreements or feelings of disapproval towards each other, put aside negative feelings. While there may never be an explicit reconciliation, over time hostilities fade, and life goes on. Your family is your family, even when they anger or disappoint you. I liked that the film’s treatment of the event was not overly emotional. The film’s treatment of family relationships, and of the strain that exists in these relationships, is impressive.

I also enjoyed the depiction of the relationship between Durga and Apu. The film captured the affection and irritation that exists between siblings well.

Pather Panchali was filmed by an amateur cameraman, and features mostly amateur actors. However, the film does not seem “amateurish” or poorly made. The style of the film is simple, but the simplicity of the film only enhances its realism. I was quite impressed by what the cast, crew, and director could accomplish. Had I not been told beforehand that the film had been made by an inexperienced crew, I would not have assumed so.

Pather Panchali is an excellent film, with strong characterization. I would highly recommend watching it.

Apples and Fall

Posted on by

I think I read once that if you ask people to name a fruit, the one they are most likely to come up with is “Apple.” It seems fair to say that apples are the archetypical fruit.  But, upon closer inspection, our relationship to apples is unique.

At least in New England, apples are not just a food, they are part of a cultural experience. Because apples are grown locally, there’s a seasonality to them: you can buy apples all year round, but Apple Season is the Fall. I remember going apple picking with my family as a child; in my mind, the experience is linked with hayrides and pumpkin picking and Halloween.

What I’m getting at is, apples are concrete for me in a way that other fruits are not. Bananas and oranges are just foods. You pick them up at the supermarket, you bring them home, and you eat them. But apples are a part of life.

Before we went to Apple Fest, Prof. Blalock played us a podcast about “Club” apple varieties. Club apples are trademarked, and only a select club of growers are allowed to grow and sell them under the trademarked name. Prof. Blalock then took us through the names for two apple varieties, RubyFrost and SnapDragon. Why Ruby Frost? Ruby for the dark red skin, and frost both for the white interior and in reference to the late harvest. Frankly, I found the exercise kind of ridiculous. Putting that much thought into the name of an apple seems to me like wasted effort. I also learned that an apple variety which I thought was called “Sweet Tango” is spelled “SweeTango”, which is just an unnecessary affront to the English language.

However, talking about names did get me thinking: apples are really the only fruit we sell with a cultivar name attached. When you go to the store, you can pick up Gala apples, or Cortland, or HoneyCrisp. If you want to buy an orange, however, it’s usually just advertised as a Navel Orange – there’s no such thing as an “Orange Delicious” orange. For all that I might think of them as boring, we as consumers have a lot of variety available to us when we shop for apples. Is that simply because we have made more varieties of apples, or because we demand variety from apples that we do not from other fruits?

Attending Apple Fest has given me a new appreciation for apples, and for the unique place that they have in New England life. I highly recommend going, to try various varieties of apples and apple recipes.

Bad Science, Good Film

Posted on by

Perhaps the best thing about The Martian is its pro-science tone. The entire premise of the film is the use of math and science to solve problems. Watching the film, it’s hard not to be inspired by its message that human ingenuity can overcome just about anything. There is also some good science in The Martian. However, the presence of good science only draws attention to some of the films more glaring errors and irritating choices.

The film is set in the year 2035. Mark Watney is a botanist on a manned mission to Mars. A severe sandstorm forces the crew to abort their mission, as the force of the storm is forceful enough to tip their ascent vehicle, potentially trapping them on Mars. During the trip for the habitat pod to the ascent vehicle, Watney is struck by flying debris, and left behind by the rest of the crew, who presume he has been killed. The rest of the film follows Mark Watney’s efforts to remain alive until he can be rescued.

Later in the film, Watney accidently blows up part of the habitat pod, leaving an open hole. He patches this hole with a what looks like a plastic sheet held in place by duct tape. Given that it has been established that Mars get incredibly violent sandstorms, I don’t know that I would be comfortable with only a flimsy plastic tarp between myself and horrible death. Why doesn’t it break? And, given that Watney was able to make water out of rocket fuel and farm on mars, is that really the best he can do? Also, where did he get more oxygen to depressurize the HAB after it blew open? It’s theoretically possible that Watney’s Mars mission has a device to make oxygen from materials on Mars, but I feel the film doesn’t explain this well enough.

Further, the film’s upbeat tone completely glosses over the long-term health consequences of extended time in space. Watney is eventually rescued by his crew, who decide to turn their ship around using a gravity assist and travel back to Mars to pick him up. Because of this, they significantly add to their time spent in space. Watney also spends a lot of time on Mars with no radiation shielding. Of course, in 2035 we could well have invented solutions like radiation proofing for space suits and the habitat pod Watney lives in, and the space ship his crew travels in. But mentioning the potential consequences of long term space travel might feel more honest in a movie that seems a little too upbeat at times.

I would recommend watching The Martian. It’s entertaining and has a nice pro-science message. But, be ready to suspend your disbelief.

Editing Memory

Posted on by

I watched the first episode of “Black Mirror” in my dorm, to decide if I wanted attend the Flora’s Film event. Having seen it, I decided that while I liked the series, it was not something I wanted to watch with a group of people. But then, I wasn’t able to make it to the farmer’s market on Saturday.

In “The Entire History of You”, most people have a device which records everything they see and do. These memories can then be played back, either privately by their “owners” or on screens for other people to see. The main character of the episode, Liam, discovers that his wife was unfaithful to him with the aid of “inorganic” memories. At the end of the episode, he chooses to remove his memory device.

I was not wrong about the film being awkward to watch with a group. But the group setting was also appropriate, given that “The Entire History of You” is about a world in which our intimate experiences – memories – are shared with others.

Personally, I would consider living in a world in which my memories were potentially accessible to others a nightmare. My concern would not be only for my memories, which I would control, but for other people’s memories of me, which they would be able to share freely and without my knowledge. If such a device existed as exists in “The Entire History of You”, then it would be impossible to have ownership over yourself, your image, and how you are perceived.

An interesting point was made in the discussion after the film. Photography, video, and social media sharing function very much like the memory sharing in the Black Mirror episode. That we engage in these activities willingly suggests that we are not bothered by the loss of privacy they entail, and possibly would not be bothered by the much greater loss of privacy from shareable memory. But I think there are important distinctions between the world presented in Black Mirror and our current world. For one, our social media presences generally represents a conscious effort to present ourselves in the best possible light – we chose who we want to be online. In contrast, shareable memory might be more “truthful” and unfiltered. Yet, there is also a scene in “The Entire History of You” in which Liam’s wife edits her own memory. Thus it is possible that, even in a world where we were able to show people our “truthful” memories, we would still be able to manage our identities.

“The Entire History of You” while awkward, was ultimately entertaining. I liked the premise of “Black Mirror,” revealing the dark sides of technology we generally view as beneficial. I will likely watch the remainder of the series. But not with other people.