Monday, March 20, 2017

Redefining "woman" in the Alien series.



***SPOILER ALERT for Alien 1-3 and Bladerunner****
****Trigger warning***


Alien (1979), Ridley Scott (2004, Director’s Cut)

In Alien (1979) there are a number of sexual and gender concepts developed in the text that not only counter traditional gender roles, but also play off notions of sexual orientation, rape etc.

The Lambert ‘rape’ scene is particularly interesting as it is not shown and left mainly up to audience interpretation. This being said the little that is shown is therefore highly significant. The creeping claw of the tail onto Lambert’s leg is particularly reminiscent of phallic symbols and the many shots of Lambert standing paralysed with fear, mark her as a traditional helpless female character. Interestingly the Lambert rape sequence is experienced through Ripley’s perspective, through hearing Lambert’s cries, Parker’s continuous screams for her to ‘Get out of the road’ and ‘Run’. Finally we see Parker’s body on the ground and a shot of Lambert’s bare feet, presumably as she hangs from the ceiling.

The interesting thing about the Lambert rape scene is it’s absence, I think it makes it much more interesting that we don’t see the alien ‘rape’ Lambert, if in fact that is what happened (open to interpretation) particularly after only a few scenes previous we see the ‘Ash/ Ripley Rape Scene’ where Ash pursues and attacks Ripley, chasing her as she crawls on all fours, rips out her hair and then as she appears somewhat peaceful as she is knocked unconscious he callously takes what appears to be a porn magazine and  tries to suffocate her. In this ‘rape’ scene Ash is the clinical machine, revealed later to be a ‘robot’ that appears to be punishing Ripley for her human emotions, but also her apparent lack of them. This is how, I will establish that Ripley as a mainly androgynous character, and a strong female character that appears very logical and asexual (androgynous) is ‘punished’ for her lack of sexuality and failure to conform to gender roles. Ash represents technology and it’s rape of women? Identity? The magazine is a phallic symbol substituting for penetration, depicting Ash as an asexual machine, who is impotent and must substitute his manhood, with a pornographic magazine.


Another interesting note on gender roles is the fact that the ship’s computer is named ‘mother’. In a sense Ash and ‘mother’ the computer both represent technology in an androgynous manner, while still representing the creators, such as adam and eve. Both Ash and Mother are cold and clinical in decisions. In particular near the end of the film Ripley asks Mother to turn the cooling back on, but when no response comes Ripley yells in frustration “You Bitch”.  In Alien (1979), technology is the ‘bitch’ the cold, calculating ‘enemy’ which unfortunately gets somewhat undone by James Cameron in Aliens (1986) where Ripley says “Get away from her you bitch!” and so substituting the ‘bitch’ onto the alien itself, the alien queen.



Ripley’s character in Alien (1979) is a round character the develops throughout the film. Initially she seems cold and a ‘bitch’, not that well liked, particularly doesn’t get along very well with Parker and Lambert. Ripley’s rational decision to not allow Kane, Lambert and Captain not back on board seems cold and harsh particularly in contrast with Lambert’s hysterical emotional response in the Director’s cut where she violently slaps Ripley screaming ‘You were going to leave us’ and crying. Whereas the theatrical seems a little empty and cold, with no reference to Ripley’s decision. In this sequence Ash is the betrayer, disobeying orders in order (it seems) to save Kane, Lambert and Captain, and in this early part of the film this seems to indicate he is more human than Ripley. As it is later revealed that Ash is in fact a robot and his true motives are revealed, his actions seem less or more human, either representing humanities greed and dark side, or the cold calculating of a humanless, emotionless machine seen especially in Ash’s admiration for the alien, in it’s ‘purity’ ‘perfection’.


 
The rape of women who do not conform to traditional gender roles and stereotypes is prevalent in Ridley Scott’s films. Blade Runner (1982) is one particularly prevalent example. A much more obvious ‘rape’ scene occurs between Decker and Rachael. Some have interpreted this as Decker showing his ‘love’ and ‘desire’ for Rachael and wooing her into intimacy, but in the face of it, it plays out like a rape scene, with little or no dialogue, Rachel coldly takes Decker’s kiss on the neck before pulling away, Decker’s face is stern and intense. Rachael tries to leave, but Decker blocks the door, not only blocking her escape but actually pushing her against the wall. Her forces her embrace and it appears to stir Rachael’s desire and consent. Some have tried to argue that Decker has successfully humanised Rachel by demonstrating his desire for her. Instead it dehumanises her to a sex object that is forced into sex, by the dominant man, and her cold demeanour only reinforces stereotypes of the frigid virgin that must be coerced, but ‘really wants it’. Whether Ridley Scott has some repressed hatred for women is not relevant, but his films indicate that female characters are punished for failure to conform to these stereotypes. Painting a dark picture of the traditional narrative, Rachel and Decker end up in a romantic ending ‘happily ever after’ that seems despondent.



Ripley in Alien survives her ordeal, not only overcoming her rape by technology, being used by technology (reference to the porn industry?), but also overcoming the alien, in it’s androgynous, yet phallic appearance. In particular in the end sequence in the shuttle, shots of the alien’s long fingers and long fingernails are particularly prominent. One view could be that Ripley manages to reconcile both aspects male and female into a composite whole, whereas Ash/ Mother and the alien are distorted malformed androgynous concepts and therefore demonised. It is interesting that Ripley is allowed to live (although predictable as now the "final girl" trope in horror genre). Perhaps due to her masculine demeanour. But not without the reveal of her feminine physique in the end sequence, showing her ‘vulnerable’ in a skimpy underwear and shirt revealing her female form. Ripley’s feminine vulnerability is most evident in this section of the film and is reconciled by her donning the androgynous bulky space suit in order to kill the alien by blowing it out of the air lock. This transformation demonstrates Ripley’s integration of the feminine and masculine.



As the film progresses Ripley’s cold demeanour crumbles revealing a vulnerable yet more strong character. Thankfully, the film resists the stereotypes of romance, although there is somewhat a hint of romance between Ripley and the Captain.

Lambert represents the old female archetype in horror cinema. Lambert is the classic female, the hysteric, crying, often fearful and very emotional. Lambert meets a predictable death as do most hysterical crying females who flee monsters in horror films. But despite this her demise pushes the boundaries of these genre stereotypes in her failure to flee the alien and the sounds of her panting and final scream, the audience is denied the gruesome image of her death and makes it much more disturbing as it plays on the unseen as more terrifying than the seen. 



Ripley’s emotions show through more as the film goes on, culminating in the scene with Mother and then Ash, both Mother has betrayed her and the crew as she discovers that the crew are expendable and the subsequent attack and ‘rape’ by Ash. Ripley at this point in the film, crying and desperate, fleeing on all fours represents the old paradigm of woman as victim. Recovering from this scene her interrogation of Ash and then subsequent sequence show Ripley’s growth in strength, but also fear. No longer vulnerable Ripley dons the masculine heavy flame thrower allowing her to adopt a phallic symbol for herself.



We cannot forget the themes of the alien penetrating in particular Brett via the ‘facehugger’ and then the ‘birth’ scene or ‘chest burster’ scene. The contradiction of gender roles in this film is amazing. Brett, a male dies after giving ‘birth’ to the alien. The film could be deemed to be homophobic in nature or at least fearful of sodomy, with multiple depictions of sodomy in the text.

--

Next I will discuss changes to characters in Aliens (1986) and their effects on the notions of gender in the series. Namely the depiction of Ripley as female and mother, and the focus on the alien queen.


--

Alien3 (1992)

In some ways the third film in the Alien series, has more in common stylistically and as a remake with Alien (1979) than with Aliens (1986).

The film deals with rape and sex in more detail, furthering these concepts from the first film. Similar to Alien (1979) sex or rape is alluded to and not shown. Also, Alien3 furthers the themes of rape through a number of scenes. First it is alluded to that Clemens and Ripley have sex, although it is not shown in the film. This is the first instance of sex in the film. The second instance is the attempted gang rape of Ripley in the yard where she is saved by the prophet/ priest like Dillon. In terms of gender, Ripley is further androgenized with her shaved head, her military/ prison-like clothes etc. But conversely she is feminised (made feminine) or objectified as she is the only female in both the story in the prison and in the film itself. Her very presence is dangerous as the prison is comprised of murderers and rapistsz whose religious code has caused them to swear off women, in a vow of celibacy. Ripley’s presence as a female upsets the balance of the prison, demonising her as Other and monster aligning her with the alien/ xenomorph. She is further aligned with the alien as she has become impregnated with the alien queen, becoming both alien and ‘mother’. By the end of the film she has both become ‘mother’, ‘christ’ as sacrifice and monster as she has become the alien. Ripley’s character in this film merges these aspects of female.

In the ‘rape’ sequence Ripley is not altogether feminised as her androgynous or masculine appearance is heightened also prominent is the fact that she appears to be raped from behind, further distancing her, with shots of the men cutting the back of her pants. In these shots the knife is prominent in close to mid shots, substituting/ acting as a phallic image. Also in the scene one of the men says “Shut up bitch” which feminises her, and continues the usage of “bitch” seen in the first two films.

The third instance of sexual reference is when Ripley figures out that she has an alien inside her. She was impregnated on the ship and refers to being “violated”. The main difference in this film is the focus on human penetration and violation of Ripley whereas the first film focused on Ash (technology) as penetrator/ rapist and the alien (androgyny) as penetrator/ rapist. Also this film encompasses consensual sex which is a new introduction to the series albeit with the short lived relationship between Clemens and Ripley. It appears that Ripley used sex to distract Clemens from inquiring too closely in Ripley’s motivations for having the bodies cremated. It also appears that she has no real emotional ties to their sexual relationship, except for pleasure where she states “You’re spoiling the mood”. It is significant that the sex scene is not shown, either for rating reasons, pacing or whatever. It is important in the context that the Alien series and other horror films consistently substitute sex and sexual references with violence (a symptom of the rating systems culture). With the alien itself as a prime example of sexual desire subverted into violence.




Interestingly this film focuses on elements of mythology and religion, referring to the alien as “Dragon” and the elements of religious methodology evident in the character of Dillon and also in the imagery itself, particularly in the end sequence with Ripley leaping arms outstretched into fire, the image of Christ.

In terms of abortion symbolism, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection are particularly prevalent. Especially in the final sequence of Alien 3 where the ‘real’ human Bishop arrives, and Ripley says “Stay back, I just felt it move”. With Bishop the cold doctor, hoping to take the ‘baby’ alien and his promise of trust to destroy it. This is heightened by the costume design of Bishop’s men in their white plastic suits.

Interesting 85 calls human Bishop “Fucking android” which further emphasises the series theme that humans are calculating and inhuman in their greed and desire. Similar to Bourke’s character in Aliens.

In the final scene Ripley hugs the chest bursting alien queen close to her chest, the sacrificial Christ figure combined with mother figure embracing her child. Her suicide/ abortion/ death in childbirth.
The film ends with the voice of Ripley from Alien (1979) signing off.


Monday, March 13, 2017

Moonlight (2016) Analysis

5/5


*****Spoilers****

I was worried about all the hype about this film. From all the review tag lines all I got across was "Gay, black, coming of age story" that was the inferred message. I don't like to see trailers before I see films so I was going in not knowing much and I'm so glad that was the case.

I find it very hard to find anything wrong with this film. This film is stunning and it absolutely deserves all the awards and accolades it has gotten.

What stands out to me in this film is the amazing mesmerising performances from all ages and the writing is so restrained and pulled back and feels very raw and real. But what I love most is the cinematography. The colours, the framing, and the soundtrack. There is a lot of use of repetition which is subtle yet beautiful.

I love love love that it is an all black cast, I'm sick of the token "asian" or "black" or "hispanic" person. But this film wasn't about that. This film was about this one guy. About him understanding his identity. It doesn't feel like a "gay movie". It's not political it's personal.

I was surprised that some of the characters which might usually be stereotyped as homophobic were actually accepting. Which I think is much more true to life. None of us are just one thing.

One of my favourite lines is "You could be gay, but never let no body call you no faggot".

This film is elegant in it's simplicity while covering such complex characters and lives.

I am so glad the film did not show him fucking women as some sort of internalised homophobia, but because they chose not to show it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It carefully scripts him saying "You're the only man I ever let touch me" he doesn't say the only "one" or "person".



(The characters are facing away from camera, symbolising the characters rejection and shame. Shot in darkness)



(This shot is warmer coloured in tone and characters are facing camera symbolising acceptance.)

I think the ending is beautiful and a mirror reversal of them together on the beach with his head on his shoulder. Maybe after they've had sex, or maybe it's just comfortable friendship, but it's up to your interpretation. Are you a realist? An optimist? Or a pessimist? We don't even see them kiss at the end, the framing of the shot is great, they are standing wide apart at the edges of the shot and neither moves toward the other.






Saturday, March 11, 2017

What's wrong with "Westworld"? (2016) analysis




I didn't hear about this show until recently and proceeded to binge watch it. I was a bit skeptical at first because of all the hype, but I was pleasantly surprised (although I shouldn't be considering the high production costs, value and casting). But unfortunately I became more and more concerned and disappointed.

First things first lets talk gratuity. Gratuitous violence and gratuitous nudity. But we also have to add gratuitous sexual violence to the list, something that is very rampant in the Game of Thrones HBO era of television. Ok, so I don't have an issue with sex and violence on screen for a message or purpose. My concern becomes when we become pure voyeurs. Also there's nothing wrong with a little gratuity, but it becomes problematic as a systemic symptom of misogyny.

Ok, ok here's where I get concerned. To me, this show (based on a film, based on a novel) is all about voyeurism and makes a comment on our lust for violence and taking things from others violently and enjoying it. But what do we learn from this show? Does the mainstream audience get this distinction? Do we understand that as the audience we are the westworld customers? I hope mainstream audiences get that. Because we are, they are just substitutes. Instead of enjoying this show for all it's glossiness we should be disturbed that we enjoy a show with so much sexual violence. It should make us uncomfortable and conflicted about watching. But that doesn't mean it's a bad show or that we shouldn't watch it.

However, do we really need so much nudity? Ok, lets break it down. For the sake of continuity the answer is yes because all the (I like to call them) "replicants" are naked when they are being programmed and re-set. But we predominantly see female nudity. Can anyone say "free the penis"?And of course we only see female nudity of the more "minor" characters  or those that HBO could afford to pay more for being naked or those women who could afford to have in their contracts that we don't see them naked because they're more famous. Ok, so lets not go into arguments about being a "real" actor and playing naked to be "serious". If women can afford and are not required to be naked thats their choice. But we shouldn't be ashamed of female nudity. But we shouldn't exploit it. Ok, maybe HBO should get a pass for this considering one of the main female leads is a replicant and is on screen so much that it requires her to be naked? But I don't think so, if they can show her from behind or use shot framing (which they often do) so that we don't always have to see her then that's great. Ask yourself does the nudity in the scene serve a purpose? Or maybe we should just be used to it as we are all human? Maybe it's to show that these "people" are dehumanised by their lack of respect by showing them naked all the time?

I don't have an issue with the sex scenes in this show, I take issue with the blatant display of misogyny in the show and the fact that as viewers we "enjoy" watching this. Characters are raped over and over and over and it's just a plot line to us as audiences. But I see this show as a story about violation and autonomy. Are these "replicants" real persons? For me as an audience member, I think about grand theft auto, what if this analogy applies to that game? What if "killing the hooker" was actually killing a "person" who had feelings? This is the aspect of the show that interests me most.

So Westworld is the Matrix, I'm not surprised. I am really disappointed (but not surprised) that we don't get to see outside of West world at the end of series 1. And I don't think we will until perhaps the last season. I did enjoy seeing the Samurai world near the end. The "park" aka West world is huge, but of course there are more "worlds". Trusting reality is an interesting theme, that I don't think it gets explored well enough, it's more of a device.

Also, it got really tedious seeing the "park" loops play out over and over, this "Groundhog day" effect got old very fast. We get it! It repeats. So much time was wasted and drawn out, it got very boring. I got the point by episode 2.

I anticipate more West world in the next season. But this show becomes more about slavery and revolution rather than humanity and reality.

I, Daniel Blake Review (2016)


4.5/5

*****Spoilers*****

This film is everything I hoped it would be and more. It is a simple, and sadly a common story, but it is beautiful. It is a character story. It doesn't pull punches, it doesn't gloss over or glamorise or exploit characters for political points. It is a story about simple human kindness and love in the face of a system that dehumanises the everyday person. 

I was worried that the story would turn into a love story between Katie and Daniel, but the film has much more complexity and integrity. It doesn't deal with any one issue although the central theme surrounds the benefits system for unemployment. It doesn't judge the characters. Daniel doesn't condemn Katie for becoming an escort, he just wants to help her not in a patriarchal way but just that it breaks his heart to see what she has to do to support her kids. He doesn't judge her or take some moral high ground, instead he is a beaten down man, beaten down by the system. 

The film touches on themes of mental illness, when Daniel talks about his wife who passed away. He doesn't go on about it or say she killed herself. He just uses this beautiful metaphor that they used to talk about about the ocean. In a lesser film this would have been made explicit for tear jerking effects. This restraint is heartbreaking and very realistic. 

What I love about this film is that all the characters have needs, but no one is explicitly using each other. Daniel fixes things around the house for Katie and she goes without dinner in thanks because she needs some dignity. In turn Daniel has no agenda other than to see Katie and her kids happy and doing ok. Maybe he needs to continue the role of "carer" or maybe it's nice to feel needed when he can't work because of his heart. 

Ultimately this film is a story about how the system doesn't only neglect the most vulnerable it beats them and wears them down. 

I was afraid the film would end with Daniel winning his case and tying everything up neatly. I feel the ending is apt and unfortunately true in many cases if not so literally. People are dying, becoming hopeless, starving and prostituting themselves because of the system.

However this film still makes me hopeful that we can have a voice. 

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Comparison Analysis




***SPOILERS***

***Trigger warning***

I've recently re-watched both these film versions. Surprisingly I like both of them for different reasons, both have flaws, but both are strong adaptations of the books. Both films make plot changes but I'm less interested in those than the subtle differences in portrayal of characters in these two versions. I feel that the Swedish version (part one of the three part miniseries) is more gritty and true to the books and characters. I would like to explore how the "Hollywoodification" affects this story in particular the representation of sex and sexuality for women in film. Indicating a wider trend in Western film adaptation. 

Both films show graphic scenes of Lisbeth's rape although arguably in my opinion the Swedish version is more gruesome in some ways while the US version is graphic in other ways. For instance in the US version we seen Rooney Mara in the shower after the rape blood dripping down her legs from the anal rape. This is just one example. I would argue there is equal amount of nudity in both films, with perhaps the exception being that Rooney Mara is fully naked from side on in one scene and doesn't appear to be a body double (although they can do a lot digitally). This is surprising because in US cinema showing the vagina is most taboo. 

In terms of sexuality and character Lisbeth is fascinating and somewhat unique in film. From the books she is petite and almost adolescent and boyish in her appearance. The book talks a lot about her concern for her small breasts which she wants to enlarge. Something I have a problem with character wise. I feel that women should be able to control their bodies however they choose, but what is wrong with small breasts? The book describes some sort of "disorder" where they were under-developed, but I feel it is unfair to label women's bodies this way. 

Lisbeth is functionally bisexual in the story (across all versions), although it is therefore most disappointing when she is reverted to heteronormativity in the US version pining over Mikael. Ok, so maybe that's arguable, but in the US version they have sex more times than in the Swedish version. Having a more prolonged relationship in whatever form, which is by rights from the book. But the Swedish version delves more into Lisbeth's psychology Noomi Rapace beautifully depicts Lisbeth's power and her vulnerability (something that disgusts me that has become a male fantasy trope the strong woman still in need of saving). Also her almost ambivalence or nonchalance about sex, as pure need or desire. We see Rapace mount Mikael (Michael Nyqvist) in the middle of the night and bring herself to orgasm despite Mikael saying it's probably a good idea. When Lisbeth has climaxed she gets up and leaves and says "goodnight" which is both funny and telling as a small insight into her affection for him. I love this depiction because it plays the male role that we oft see in cinema, the man takes a woman and climaxes and end of scene, no show of pleasure from the woman and certainly no climax, (thanks MPAA!). This scene plays out in the US version but with distinct differences Rooney Mara tells Mikael (Craig) to stop talking when he says it's not a good idea. And it's much more slow movements both by actors and the camera work. This is just how stylised sex scenes are depicted in most Hollywood films. Whereas the Swedish film is less slick and even uses a long wide shot to show the sex scene climax. However a later sex scene in the US version plays out very similar where Blomkist (Craig) is talking while Lisbeth tells him to be quiet while she climaxes on top of him. He seems to have no interest in sex at that time. Also in the first sex scene in the US version Lisbeth starts on top a position of dominance but by the end of the scene Craig has pulled her into the missionary position thereby pacifying her and dominating her (regardless of tenderness). 

In the books Lisbeth is very flexible and accepting of "unconventional" sexuality. She has a history of female sex partners and relationships. She also doesn't have a problem with Blomkist's "affair" or relationship with his work colleague. Something that is depicted as an affair in the US version. Lisbeth just says "It ended his marriage, but not hers". Granted a film doesn't have the time to delve into the intricacies of everything. 

Ok, lets talk about fetishising violence against women. Both films depict graphic scenes of rape of Lisbeth. Both focus almost exclusively on Lisbeth's pain and distress. Arguably one could say why did we need to see this graphic content at all, isn't it feeding into the problem? Or is it? It's important to talk about these issues because it happens to women all the time. I believe it would have been less effective to have neglected to show these scenes. Interestingly the US version shows intermittent shots of the closed door, which in my mind represents the whole attitude of what happens behind closed doors isn't anyone else's business. Or more simply it reflects her lack of means of escape and no one can hear her. Or maybe it's our reluctance to view this that is represented by blocking it out through a closed door. 

Both films depict Lisbeth's scheme to retaliate and defend herself from her "guardian" rapist. The Swedish version shows a more calculated and "cold" approach. But also she sits outside the room smoking while he is forced to watch the tape of the rape. To me this indicates her inability to re-watch it and be in the same room as him. Something the US version changes and she sits smoking in the room with him while she shows the tape. The US version also shows a more prolonged "torture" of her rapist in terms of her showing up in the elevator and telling him to stop looking up tattoo removal etc. This I believe is accurate to the book. But what is the purpose of writing/ depicting this type of revenge? I'm not saying women should forgive or be "above" retaliation I'm merely pointing out that this seems like literary wish fulfillment for Lisbeth's character . Truthfully she has little choice, the police are unlikely to believe her and she would end up in a mental hospital as he threatened to her.