Since we’ve got two great guests coming in next week, I’m changing up the readings this week to reflect the genre of this upcoming conversation. For Tuesday’s class, please read the following article:
- “Making Movie Magic” by bell hooks in The Crisis of Criticism (your course book) – pg. 133-146.
Rather than post questions for you to answer, I’d like for you each to respond to the reading by discussing whatever takes your attention within the article. What is your response to hook’s article? How do your own experiences either support or refute points she makes within her essay? Be sure that your response is well thought out and that you provide examples and/or explanations to support your response.
Also — I’d be really interested in hearing what you guys thought of the “Xenogenesis Suite: A Multi-Arts Exploration”
On Tuesday, we’ll have guest film director Kortney Ryan Ziegler and producer, Awilda Rodriguez Lora, screen their new film “Still Black: A Portrait of Black Transmen.” Please check out the links provided and familiarize yourself with the artists and their work.
17 responses so far ↓
Toi Neeley // June 23, 2008 at 11:44 pm |
Overall, I felt that hooks statement about films leaving some type of impression in some way “They have power over us and we have no power over them”. I could relate to this personally because some films I purposely do not go see because I don’t want it to change my view of a certain issue or place a certain stereotype in thoughts subconsciously. Many people allow the media to educate them instead of researching things for themselves. For an example I despise “BET” because it displays African Americans in a really ghetto/urban way and if you aren’t diverse and haven’t experienced being around someone of color you would Ultimately assume that, that’s how African American act and carry themselves on a daily basis. As a TV major, I especially despise the production. The quality of how the network is aired seem so delayed and ghetto. All of the voice over and commercials all sound country. It’s a bad way represent people of color. Someone that is ignorant would be that, that’s how all blacks are because it’s on “Black Entertainment Television” so it must be the truth. When the media takes on the role as a teacher then ignorance is bliss. No matter how strong minded an individual think they are, your mind and thoughts form ideas and preconceived notions on various images, messages, and issues presented in movies and media. That’s way I believe it’s very vital to surround yourself and thoughts around positive people and maintain an open mind. The Xenogenesis piece that we viewed last week was a ball of confusion. I didn’t understand any of it until the open discussion after the show. This wasn’t something that I would go see, nor did it peek my interest to want to see something like this again but it was a great experience. It’s awesome to see what others think about and how they piece things together.
Jordan // June 24, 2008 at 2:07 am |
I liked what Bell Hooks had to say about cinema playing a “pedagogical role” in peoples lives. It is completely true. Even though I have never been to California, I have a certain perception of what it must be like, thanks to movies more than anything. Even though its not every movies intention, you still always get something out of it. Sometimes that can be good, sometimes not so good, when you get into race, stereotypes, etc. I didnt quite understand why she will not review movies she thought were “bad.” If your a critic isnt that your job?
The Xenogenesis performance was, well, interesting to say the least. Like Toi, I had no idea what was going on, and really just felt like the whole thing was all over the place. Like someone said in the audience at the discussion, it would have been nice to have a program at the beginning. After hearing the discussion, it all kinda made sense.
Saraphina // June 24, 2008 at 7:23 am |
I never expect my life to change when I watch a film. I do however take away the creative engineering behind a film, the contents, process and learn. I have seen countless films about war, genocide and oppression. Of course I’m not heartless. It saddens me and I may be depressed and further curious about the issue and want to know the underlying connection of the film, but I have not become a better person or a born again virgin. Movies are in my opinion to educate not re-educate the viewer. I have respect for political engaging talents in film, however I believe it is up to the viewer to walk away with a higher contentment from the story line itself. Hooks mentions, the Larry Clark movie, “Kids”. I agree it pissed me off. It was disgusting, not tastefully done at all, in fact when I think about it, I want to cry. Did it stop me from having sex. No. Did it make me think lesser of my generation, No. But still I have horrible nightmares about this movie, therefore did it affect me. Yes. When in discussion about good and bad movies, was “kids” bad because I didn’t like it and it haunts me still, or was it good because it so deeply penetrated me to hatred. Both. I think a bad movie that can reach to the core of someone, not change them mind you but, creatively smash the senses is just as powerful as a great movie. To dive bluntly into the more critical part of the article, I find it intriguing how in a developed culture everything is still black/white, gay/straight, female vs man. I feel in the world of film especially deriving political, and substantial properties are necessary as I am constantly trying to form a personal connection with films. This is why I believe that films are so straight forward in the delivery of who there audience is and what they want from the audience that is consequently not them. For example, and I may be as we discussed in class about to place my foot gently in my mouth, however in all response’s I will defend myself. If I see a film about slavery, with white people on horses beating down black people, I am assuming that the film maker wants to demonstrate the cruelty of slavery. But to who? To the black child, who’s parents perhaps constantly remind them of how they were taken from Africa to become slaves, and serve the “white man” or to me, the brown hair blue eyed girl that has never experienced racism, wait. Rewind. What constitutes as racist anymore? That I as a white girl have never experienced racism, and that in order for me to experience it watching a film about slavery will then entice me to further understand it. As yes, I have experienced racism, being a white girl, because of that exactly. Because I am the white girl that has oppressed the black race, and for some reason, living in chicago, I am never allowed to forget it. As the black community is never allowed to forget it either. When, we went to Xenogenisis, it was interpreted by the performers and now the audience that Octavia Butler an African American author, was depicting getting captured by aliens to be coincided with people being taken away for slavery. Understandable, but is there no other black history to reflect on? I was appreciative to the Bell Hooks article as she emphasized the progress of black film to push to something other then race. That feminism, that affects all women, tangled within Spike Lee’s film is pushed. I was contented to find, on page 141, when she said “Blackness is not really good enough for me,” that black identity has been finally challenged to think outside of oppression, but to political ideals instead. Not for only black film makers, but white film makers as well. Also that unless the film is political or in-fact somewhat racial, the black film maker can not be taken seriously. However is this not the devise of film making? To enrage the public with visionary actions, to raise issues to discuss black vs white. I do not want my response to seem out of line. However I see an underlying issue in black film making today that it is always about race. That unless the film is about oppression and the politically scornful world of the white man, it will go unnoticed. The only films I can honestly reprise in my head that do not directly touch on this are possible Tyler Perry movies. Not very innovative. I believe in progress and films for me are the stepping stone to progress. I believe that films do in fact educate on a higher scheme in part because of the visual interpretations that can be mastered into memory. I understand it is necessary to have culturally diverse out reaches in films, to depict history and to create an ambiance for how things were, but why does it always have to be black and white? Because it still unfortunately is today.
Laura // June 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm |
I found Hook’s essay to be an interesting hodgepodge of contradiction, relatable ideology, condescension, egoism and critical thinking. She begins the article discussing what I felt to be some form of mimetics, stating that films “give the re-imagined, re-invented version of the real.” and how films have the capacity to take us out of our reality and coax us into another, which I agree with in a sense. I view the reality shift as a more subtle and subversive one, where the film inserts you (only if the audience is willing and participatory, which often they are not) into somewhat of a parallel reality, one that reflects our own, but in another time and space (being setting)-and not necessarily one opposing our reality. While some films do indeed create an alternate universe with different laws of existence, say, the Labyrinth or something of the like, most are not so much plopping us into a complete other world. Does that make any sense? I’m trying to say that I feel like I may have a different but complimenting view on this cross-realm experience. While Hooks seems to feel the difference to be more stark, like a rocket ship ride to another universe, I find this experience to be more of one where the circumstances have shifted, the reality that we know is what we are existing in right this second, and the next second is our next reality while the first is a past one.
I find the first contradiction here. Hooks seems to be adamant in viewing these films as a reflection of the constructs in our reality, and not actually a completely different realm. While I appreciated her theories on border-crossing, I don’t really believe that crossing the borders of sex, class and race transmits us to another reality, so much as it transports us to a location in our reality that is not readily accessible from the viewer’s respective location.
I really enjoyed the part of this article discussing film’s capacity for connectivity. “Movies not only provide a narrative for specific discourses of race, sex, and class, they provide a shared experience, a common starting point from which diverse audiences can dialogue about these charged issues.” (Hooks; pp. 134) I feel this to be an integral process in the conveyance of ideology through the arts. It is this starting point, where the context and constructs of the reality we are experiencing are laid out and defined, that truly puts us at a level playing field, where those who are of the critically thinking persuasion can then feel free to discover and analyze what the character’s actions, under the set-up context of this new reality, mean and represent to the collective consciousness along with the unknowing characters.
I could have done without Hook’s thorough self-masturbatory “awe” inspired by the popularity of her reviews.
Finally, I definitely agreed with her views on the nature of black culture representation in films. “The moment the signifier ’black’ is torn from its historical, cultural, and political embedding and lodged in a biologically constituted racial category, we valorize, by inversion, the very ground of the racism we are trying to deconstruct.” (Hooks; pp. 143) I find this conundrum to be present in many aspects of our society, be it certain forms of feminism, gay pride, afro centricity, etc. The question being, what is the difference between pride for a culture (which in itself is a little ridiculous, isn’t’ it? What’s to be proud about? Pride seems to have been a more destructive than unifying force in our history…) and intentional segregation? There is, indeed, a difference between races, genders and classes-but it is our decision whether or not these are constituting and sometimes biological differences, or the results of a history under old context living up to this day. I find some of these cultural delineations and celebrations thereof to occasionally be counterproductive in nature. This was one of my only conflicts with wholly enjoying Xenogenesis, being the emphasis on afro futurism. I completely understand afro culture as it exists today, as a culture finding it’s place in a society that forced it’s integration. But, in the future, I feel that segregation will become even less of a prevalent issue than it is today, and wonder if African culture will transcend that of universal culture. Will Africans exist in a vacuum in the future? If not, then defining something as afro-futurist brings up the conflict of other races existing among them, where, whether desired or not, these other races will of course interact and influence one another, as they are doing today.
Rachael Harter // June 24, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
This piece was hard for me to have any kind of critical analysis, which is hard to believe since typically I know how I feel even if it is indifferent or confused. I realized again that I am an analytical person by nature…maybe not verbally but I analyze my thoughts and actions subconsciously almost continuously as well as other people’s actions and words. I guess I like to figure things out and where people are coming from, to see where I can connect or not connect. I typically take the ‘other side’ in every conversation whether I agree with it or not…not on purpose or consciously though. Maybe it’s to bring roundedness?? Or maybe it is so the other voice to be heard. My parents always said I just loved to be argumentive. I always say myself as learning from verbally hashing things out. Maybe I have deceived the less. Non-the less to walk away with out much of an opinion one-way or another confused me at first. In the beginning of her piece I was prepared to start to argue that there are some genre’s of movies, even foreign movies, that’s purpose does lay more into expressing reality…but then as she wrote I found no argument in how she unfolded her initial opinion. So I am left blank. Maybe it is that her voice so mirrored my own thoughts on some issues that it just blended into my own thoughts that I could find no opinion one way or the other. Maybe it is for reasons unknown to me…who knows? But in some ways I guess it speaks to her ability to support her opinion? As for the show we went to on Thursday…that I can speak to. I was actually fascinated in the sense of what the art was. It was only a day previous that I was first introduced to Sun Ra, Octavia Butler and, as it has been coined, Afro futurism. To see it unfold in front of my eyes was somewhat eerie in a sense. For what the piece was it was beautiful, well thought out and reaching another realm as all media somehow melted together into one solid voice. Would I see it over and over again…honestly, probably not? But then again that was part of the beauty to be found in it was the experience of not knowing what was to happen next. To wear the piece out may take away from it. So in the context of what the piece represented I was very intrigued. In the context of purely entertainment I was not so much. But ‘purely entertainment’ was neither the purpose nor the goal.
Samantha H. // June 24, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
I am a big fan of bell hooks. I usually find myself agreeing with most of what see puts forward. I found this article interesting; however, mostly it made me really want to read her reviews—particularly of Spike Lee. Usually is incredibly insightful and is a critic that can definitely change your mind about what you are seeing. Her analysis of Kids, a film that I was once attracted to—after all, Larry Clark’s combination of taboo subject matter and rough aesthetics make his films seem really raw. His films seem “real.” But hooks makes a really good point that film is not real, it is actually another universe. Someone is writing and filming it, and thus, there will always be subjective interpretations and ideologies running throughout film. This is reminds me of a couple readings back, I believe it was, that said art and politics shouldn’t mix. But as hooks points out, that really is impossible. Though art may not be overtly political, generally it is commenting on either the society in which we live, a dream society, or personal emotions—all ideas of which are derived from subjective perspectives largely shaped by the society that they are in. I find the uncovering of ideology within art the most intriguing and important role that criticism can play. In fact, art perhaps is incomplete without it. There is subjective interpretation—as hooks points out, people can derive particular meaning from films that actually lack that meaning, but there are also inherent representations in film that cannot be ignored. This, to me is what must be uncovered, through much debate amongst critics perhaps.
April // June 24, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
Hook’s article made a lot of good points, but when I read the opening paragraphs to the article, I thought she was going to take it in a very different direction. Instead she focused on how movies depict class, race, and sex. But mostly she focused on race.
My boyfriend is a film major, and he has introduced me to more movies in the past two years than I have seen in my whole lifetime before college. I have to admit that it is a lot easier for me to hate a movie than to like it. I don’t know why that is, but I do know that while he’s focusing on how “well done” the movie was done, I’m focusing on how the movie makes me feel, and if I see a movie that is overly sexist towards females…. or overly vulgar, or just plain annoying, I don’t think about it as a movie, I think about it as more than that.
I don’t know why it is, but I’ve always considered movies very real. This goes against everything Hook says in her article but to me, that’s how I’ve always been. I guess I react a lot stronger with my emotions than the people sitting around me watching a movie. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the one yelling at the screen “No, Don’t Go In There!”, but I might cry or get uncomfortable easier than other people in the audience. So I understand what she’s saying when she says “movies aren’t real”but to me, they are. I guess that’s what makes me more critical of the content of the movie, where critics are more critical of how well it was done, and the views it got across.
As for the performance we saw on Thursday. I guess I share the same sentiments as my other class mates when I say that I was confused. And personally, I know what point they were trying to make when they said “music doesn’t have to be pretty”, but I like music to be pretty, or at least sound good.
Danny A // June 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm |
It’s a weird quirk of mine, but I enjoy reading things that force me to learn new words. I have on several occasions read books with a pencil and paper just so I could write down the words I didn’t know so I could look them up later. When reading Hook’s article, I came across the word pedagogical; a word I’ve never seen or heard of before, but immediately loved just for how it looks written out. Pedagogy is the art or science of being a teacher, and in the article, Hook uses the term pedagogical in reference to how movies can be used as a tool in teaching people.
She exclaims, “Movies not only provide a narrative for specific discourses of race, sex, and class, they provide a shared experience, a common starting point from which diverse audiences can dialog about these charged issues.”
I find this insight to be very truthful. Many films tackle issues, like the ones she stated, head on and thus force the audience to engage these issues when they invariably discuss the film with their friends and colleagues. Movies that do this grant the average person opportunities to engage in discussion about social issues that they may not normally do otherwise.
I’ve always thought it important that we, as members of our society, choose to freely engage in the politics that affect our lives. Change has never been accomplished by inaction, and it takes debates and discourse to spark progress for solutions.
Ashley // June 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm |
I found this article to be very interesting. Last semester I was in an African American cinema class in which the whole focus of the class was to critique black cinema. Most of the class made up of African Americans, the professor as well was black. Our first assignment was to write a paper on black stereotypes. When all the papers were done and graded the professor announced that many of the films that we had watched did not have any stereotypes in them but the situations and actions of many of the characters were actual facts of the African American community and while there were defiantly negative images of blacks they were true. Violence, abuse and drugs are major problems in the black community yet when placed in a film they suddenly become black stereotypes. A lot of this is because African American’s as a community are unable to reach the emotional maturity to accept their flaws, so when black films come out that represent some form of black life and if it happens to be a negative part of it people are quick to call it a stereotype. Blacks have a hard time looking at themselves, no other minority is so quick to attack their own. Then again no other minorities problems are so publicly displayed like the African American race.
Now I have never read any of Bell Hooks reviews on Spike Lee or other black filmmakers, but according to this essay she seems to have a large problem with how blacks are portrayed on film. That a lot of these films are just stereotypes and are not the black experience. I understand where she is coming from, what is the black experience anyway? I myself am an African American but I grew up in an upper class white neighborhood, in a mixed family. So when I would see these black experience films where all the blacks were poor and spoke improper English, I myself was disgusted and felt as though I was misrepresented. Which is how I feel that Bell Hooks might feel as well, just by reading this essay I have a feeling she did not grow up in the same black experience that the films she reviews focus on. But she cannot help but see herself in the film so she becomes defensive and sees more stereotypes not truth. This has been an ongoing argument since the blaxsploitation films, which still today some see them as nothing but evil black stereotypes of drug dealers and pimps, but at the time this was the life of many African Americans, these films didn’t glorify the lifestyle but presented them as fact and why should the blacks feel ashamed as Priest says in Super Fly “this is the only hand we’ve been dealt.” I at first hated blaxsploitation films I thought they were full of awful black stereotypes. But I soon learned what makes a character a stereotype is when the character is stripped of any humanity, when there actions have no emotion, no motive, and no human characteristics. For example the stereotype of an angry black male, one might say that Denzel Washington’s role in Training Day was a black stereotype, in fact the black community was in an uproar over that film, but they were wrong to be that way, Denzel’s character was true and human and people like him black and white do exist. But then look at almost any Tyler Perry film now he has the angry black male stereotype down to an art for example the husband in Diary of a Mad Black Woman, is nothing but cruel, he has no emotion, no motive for his violent ways much like the black rapist in D.W. Griffith’s extremely racist film Birth of a Nation. Yet there is no black uproar to these violent empty male characters cause his characters have money and live a more “white” lifestyle. It is not the situations or actions that make the character a stereotype it is the lack of humanity, because this lack of humanity takes away the truth of the character which then creates false representation.
I don’t know if Bell Hooks views this the same way if she has the capacity to accept the truth of her race because not many people can, I know I find it hard to watch a film that portrays the black community in a truthful manner because there are some problems that I would rather ignore, but I have learned to accept this and appreciate the artist taking the risk to go there.
So I feel that many black critics are harder on black filmmakers who create black films then they are on people outside of their own race like Italian filmmakers who create gangster films. There is this need to see a less harsh reality and when it is not presented to them they criticize it. I myself would like to see a film where blacks live the lifestyle I grew up in but I appreciate the artist who shows what is going on in the black community who doesn’t allow me who lives outside the norm to ignore it completely.
Ashley // June 24, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
As far as the performance last Thursday. I at first hated it, I did not see where the performers were coming from and had a hard time sitting threw what I heard as pointless “noise”. After hearing more about what they were creating during the Q&A and learning about the book which the performance was based off of I got a better understanding of the performance and became more accepting of it. Unfortunately first impressions stick so I still did not enjoy it however I feel as though I had learned that information earlier I may have enjoyed the performance.
Nate // June 24, 2008 at 5:05 pm |
I agree with what Hooks said about cinema, “assuming a pedagogical role in the lives of many people,” one-hundred percent. While I cannot say that all films should be viewed as teaching tools (like for example the Meet the Spartans parody-flick) many have subtle theories on life that can educate and inform. I will site for example some dialogue from the movie, The Matrix, Agent Smith (the antagonist) is talking to one of the protagonists archetypical characters, Morpheous (the wise-old-man) discussing his opinion on the human race, stating that they (we) are not mammals, but a virus, ever expanding and consuming the natural resources in one area before moving on again. While science tells us that in the animal kingdom we (us humans) are in fact mammals, this character’s theory (I believe) is not all entirely untrue. Much of the world’s human population strives on Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” motif, or the will to climb the corporate ladder, just so they can buy a bigger house, a faster car, and a more high-definition television. I know I said that I agree with Agent Smith’s theory, but that’s not to say that I’m going to the doctors to get an anti-human shot to prevent infection, that was just an example I came up with.
As for the Xenogenesis: Suite, it was…
Interesting.
I expected the performance to be something on the edge, but nothing to this caliber. Let me explain, the musicians were incredible, though they did express their musicianship through extremely interpretive means. The accompanying dancer was again, interesting, jumping and kicking around on stage yet some how rhythmic in pattern. The movies that were occasionally projected above the band were something of a mystery as I viewed the show; I have never read anything buy Octavia Butler, nor do I know who she is (besides an author, now) so I had no idea how to connect the book Dawn to this nine part suite. I did not like it, but I did not think that it was bad.
Isabel // June 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
I found the first half of Making Movie Magic in particular to be very exciting because Hooks herself believes so adamantly in the potential films have to achieve progressive sociopolitical change. Likewise I was pleased that while she seems most interested in art with underlying political messages, she doesn’t seem to denigrate art that departs from reality or films whose main aim is to entertain or transport us. In fact she seems to be saying that these types of movies are actually more effective in changing people’s perceptions than overtly political pieces. The statement that impressed me the most was actually a Jeanette Winterson quote about literature that Hooks applies to film: “Strong texts work along the borders of our minds and alter what already exists. They could not do this if they merely reflected what already exists”. I appreciated the example of Stan Brakhage whose more introspective work involving issues of gender is criticized for being politically irrelevant. I want to believe what he and Hooks are saying—that art can successfully affect people’s worldviews by more subtle means.
I enjoyed Xenogenesis. I didn’t know what was going on, but I didn’t really feel pressured to grasp their storyline or overall message. I was kind of making up my own stories for it, although I was interested enough in the narrative to want to read whatever book it was based on. I think what was really captivating about it was how much fun they were having and how very alive it seemed—which I guess is partly the nature of improvisation but I felt also had a lot to do with this being just the third performance.
rachel galicia // June 24, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
I liked Bell Hooks arguments in “Making Movie Magic”. When she stated that movies do not give the audience what is real. She made me think of film in a different way. Before I read her reading I also thought that a lot of movies, such as the everyday dramas and all that, actually did show the audience the way things are, but when she explained it I felt tht movies do leave impressions on us and they do make us think about certain issues and they even educate us. …”if the truth be told, lots of us, myself included, go to the movies to learn stuff.” I have never thought about film in that way before. Even slapstick films have a teaching ability, which is sad to say. But I found it rather interesting that she does point out cinemas ability to change the way we think and inform us on things we didn’t know before. This is probably why I like watching movies so much, because it is a different world than I know. And of coarse it’s exciting and fun or even sad. We are all manipulated from the messages that film presents to us and we don’t even know it, how crazy is that. Talk about brain washing, lol.
The Xenogenisis piece was, honestly crazy. I didn’t know what to think at first and I really didn’t like it. I tried to keep an open mind but I had to force myself to stay in the room and listen to the music. I was explaining to a couple of my classmates that it sounded almost like a band practice before class when everyone is doing their own thing and not going in sync at all with the others. But I have to say after the discussion I realized what it was all about and things made more sense to me. I finally understood why it sounded all funky, sorry to say. But it was only afterwards that I was able to appreciate it for what it was. It doesn’t mean I liked it but I then considered it good art.
Nancy // June 24, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
Was it just me, or did this woman really think a lot of herself? I didn’t agree with her about people going to movies in order to learn. I think in some cases, learning does occur, and I think the example she gave was a good one, but for the most part, I think the majority of movie-going public DOES go to movies to be entertained. I know that’s why I go to the movies…
I do agree with her, though about the whole “willing suspension of disbelief.” I admit, I’m guilty of this as well, but I hate it when my boyfriend cries out, “that is so fake” or “that would never happen.” You’re right, but it’s a MOVIE…. I am willingly giving myself over for two hours to be somewhere other than where I’m at. I love it, and hate it, when at the end of a movie, or book, I’m left frustrated because I don’t know the rest of the story. That’s what keeps me coming back, I think. I’m a sucker for a series…
I love movies and up to the point of having to sit through “Mr. Bean’s Holiday,” I would have said I even liked bad movies. For me, it’s the whole going-to-a-theater experience. Seeing “Last of the Mohicans” on TV could never equal the experience of seeing it in a theater. I appreciate hooks’ “critical” analyses and what she does, but that’s just not for me. I’m OK with being one of those people that goes to see a movie for a good time…
Nancy // June 24, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
sorry, forgot to comment about the performance last week… (i’m literally typing this while driving in rush hour traffic… don’t worry it’s really slow…)
um, yeah, didn’t they know that they were going to be performing on that particular day? WHY couldn’t they have gotten programs printed/copied?? they seemed pretty prepared. i would have enjoyed it a whole lot more with a little background… one thing I did get out of it, i DO believe i’ll check out octavia butler and read her book “Dawn.” See above about me being a sucker for a series…
Michael // June 24, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
Hook’s article touches on some fairly interesting notions. She definitely has hit on something when she talks about the magic and the power movies have in their culture. However, as she delves into the idea that movies are always creating a new reality and that this reality created must be inherently social or political to have value, well, I disagree.
See, the fact is, that film like any art form is just a medium. How the artists (or filmmaker) in this sense chooses to use that medium is the point. Filmmakers can approach writing and directing film from a total variety of ways. One could be setting out to create a complete fantasy of imagination and one could literally set out to document reality in a journalistic sense. And while both of these two types of film exist on opposite ends of the spectrum, neither is completely true. The fantasy is never completely devoid of reality and the reality document is never devoid of some false truths.
However, the problem to me is that Hook is trying to draw an entire point that because films create a new reality, they can and should be used with a purpose or a social agenda. With this I disagree. I don’t think great works that lack an agenda are worth any less.
Consider the arguments that we have seen several times in this class so far. We have talked about post-modern art and the way in which the artists have moved further towards abstraction to avoid literal interpretation because not all work is meant to be interpreted or making a social point. The same holds true in film. Sometimes, to the filmmaker, the canvas is celluloid and the painting isn’t meant to help reform the world.
No, Hook’s article here is talking about what moves her. She is moved by Social, Political, Ethnic, and Gender conversations. Therefore, the films that choose to examine these issue and (sometimes) flip them on their head to challenge the audience, those are the films that turn her on. To me, there is nothing wrong with that. However, making the argument that this is the highest and best use of filmmaking is absurd.
They may be her opinion of what should be aspired to, but many a documentarian or avante-garde filmmaker is using their work to shed light on something or to simply effect a person emotions. View David Lynch’s “Mullholland Drive” and tell me what the social or political force behind that film is. Heck what is the narrative? Well, I have no idea if their is one. But that film can bring me to tears. Is it any less important as a piece of filmmaking? Not at all.
Torreyanna // July 3, 2008 at 7:24 pm |
I think the most important point in Bell Hook’s article is that people think movies are real. Ever since I was a child, beginning with intense sheltering from any movie that might contain violence, “adult” language or sex , I have believed that movies must be real and that there was something that my parents were hiding from me about life. The problem with this thought is that it carried over to the movies I WAS watching which were made by Disney mostly and based on a princess complex of doing nothing but waiting for prince charming to come and save me. I think I was damaged greatly from watching these movies repeatedly as a child. If I had watched something like “Dirty Dancing” or any horror film perhaps I’d have a better understanding that movies aren’t real but who’s to say. My friend was brought up on horror films and is quite afraid of cemeteries. I like to hang out in cemeteries and take naps.
Back to Bell Hooks…and people thinking movies are “how things are”. She repeatedly mentions also that movies are teaching us something. I agree with her. Why shouldn’t they be? All of us are teachers and students at the same time, whether we like it or not and are informed by our experiences, intentionally or not. I have always found it tragic that with such an immense audience the media and cinema would not use their power for positive global change, but after all, these institutions ARE run by humans. We are entertained much more by pain, suffering, violence, hatred, fantasy and fiction than by the more “positive” ideals of truth, love, brotherhood…blah blah blah, see? You’re already bored.
As a thoughtful individual I have always found it important to not cloud my brain and my sub-conscious with images of hatred and violence. I have avoided fear-provoking movies and activities. I think this is a good idea, although un-popular, and consider myself more awake to the world as it actually is than quite a few of the zombies I encounter daily.