"Never look for a worm in the apple of your eye"

With some trouble, I was able to watch a pirated version of Bug Crush online, and in the minutes after the film, I could feel nothing less then disturbed. The implied idea of being helplessly gang raped while on a narcotic substance is both terrifying and almost unimaginable. Worse still is that the narcotic is a massive worm from hell with LCD like properties. At first i thought the film might be about the fetish of Crushing Bugs for sexual arousal but boy I was wrong. 

Personally I feel that the bugs represented hard drug use, most likely intravenous narcotics like morphine or heroin. Grant’s character seems to represent the depraved addict, forced to bandage his arm to hide the bite (or injection) sites which drip with puss. Despite the fact that heroin or morphine are not hallucinogenic drugs, i feel that the bites draw more attention to them then to a drug like LSD. The particular drug might be ambiguous but the fact remains that the film is a commentary on hard drug use, rape and sexuality. Not quite Hostile, but this film was yet another happy film selection.

"But first on earth as vampires sent, Thy corps shall from its tomb be rent..."

As i stated in my pervious blog post, I hate horror films. Of all the types of living dead entities, I most hate zombies and vampires. Being torn to shreds by the jaws of a crazed lunatic never allowed my mind to rest at ease in the aftermath of seeing one of these films. As such, i was abit nervous about watching this film, but despite the occasional gory killing, I found this film more interesting then terrifying. I was wondering where our guest lecturer’s, lecture on human sexuality and its theorists was going to fit in, but once i began watching it was clear. Applying Freud’s “Stages of Development” to these characters is interesting due to their young age and development. Although Eli is supposed to be hundreds of years old, they would physically be in the “Latency Period”.  

Let The Right On In is more a film about sexuality, romance and gender then it is a film about blood lust. Oskar is constantly bullied, his painful and lonely life is only given hope by meeting Eli. In her he finds another tortured soul, and a friend he can finally relate. In the context that Eli is a vampire, sexuality is already present in our minds at the beginning of the film. Eli’s sexuality is explored by her need to feed, yet her gender is in question due to the scene where Oskar spies on her, seeing her mutilated genitalia. As such, she does not present herself as completely feminine, and despite her definition as a “her”, seems almost genderless. 

Oskar’s character is clearly the weaker of the two, and after the death of the bullies and Eli’s failing caretaker, it becomes apparent that he will fill his role. Despite their age, Oskar is clearly attracted to Eli and the bond they form seems to allow him to dedicate the remainder of his life to her care. The question we are left with is this development because of friendship or because of Eli’s requirement of a caretaker to help her feed.

"It rubs the lotion on the skin, or else it gets the hose again"

Since I was young, the images of horror films have haunted and disturbed me to the point that I refuse to value them as cinema. For the sake of this class, I gave "Hostile" the best shot i could, but left the film feeling just as disgusted at society as the acts depicted in the film itself. In the modern age of cinema, many film makers seem to use sensationalism which relays on gore to sell movies, and the market eats it up. Every year, film makers up the ante that much more with the use of blood and gore, and as the special effects industry seems only happy to oblige as technology improves, so do profits. The question i pose, are the film makers using these films as a source of political or social commentary on us as a society today or are these films designed purely as a money making scheme which aren't worth discussion?

In David Edelstein's article in New York Magazine, I was intrigued by the reference to Picaso's "Guernica" which in abstract, depicts an event so gory that special effects couldn't do justice. The artist and the painting are praised as a masterpiece of political commentary despite its abstract images of both man and animal being massacred by German bombs. When similar images are presented in a strait forward visual way in a horror film such as "Hostile", they are often cririzied and deemed inappropriate. Others still view these films as art, and praise the directors daringness to explore sensitive issues such as rape and torture. What reading should one take from these films? Are they art or are they nothing more then shocking and inappropriate? 

Personally, I cannot accept these films as art. As a film maker, I can respect the technical challenges which an effects heavy film must pose, but I don't feel that horrific depictions deserve artistic merit when they are only used for the purpose of titilating What worries me is that as a society, teens and adults will spend millions on opening weekends to see people hacked to bits and torn limb from limb when the stories have no social merit. In the brutal D-Day landing scene in "Saving Private Ryan" the viewer is reminded of the sacrifice made to regain Europe from Hitler's tyranny, but can we say the same about a movie like "Saw"? What does that say about the west when debates about torture and involvement in foreign wars dominate press coverage and political rhetoric? Why must teens fetishize this type of indiscriminate violence yet march against involvement in say the violence in Iran? Horror films open more questions then answers for me as a student but there is one aspect as a blue blooded capitalist that I can respect... Horror films make huge money off stupid people, and if a film maker can play on societies need to see horrific things to make a good buck, hats off to them. 

"Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is tupping your white ewe"

Tim Blake Nelson's "O" is an interesting portrayal of William Shakespeare's "Othello" and follows in suit with other teen remakes of Shakespeare's famous plays. I feel that "10 Things I Hate About You" along with this film are the two best teen remakes as they explore the themes which Shakespeare set out to explore in in his plays. Jealousy, romance and gender roles dominate "Othello" and are transfered with reasonable success to this film. The film makers used reasonable vehicles to convert the seventeenth century Venison environment to a modern day environment marketable to teens.   

To start, "Othello" is one of my favorite Shakespearian works, and no hollywood style film, even Lawrence Fishburn's 1995 portrayal, could hit the mark with such a complex character. The choice of "B Rabbits'" hype man as "O" does little to explore the character but for a teen market Mekhi Phifer is perfect to bring attention to the character. With his fictionalized "Othello" the audience is exposed to the same ideas of racism, masculinity, jealousy and romance which Shakespeare included in his work. By using marketable stars such as Josh Hartnett (Iago) and Julia Stiles (Desdemona) the film makers were able to bring Shakespeare to a market which would likely look over such literary classics in favor of modern entertainment and mass media.

In an age where many adolescence avoid literature in favor of the instant gratification of modern mass media, using hollywood films as an outlet to bring these stories to their attention is a nobel cause. Yes, I am aware that this film was produced to gross huge profits but if it enabled even a few young viewers to return and read the play, the films value is much more then monetary. These legendary characters are forgotten by much of society, and anyway to breath life into them once more I feel is a worthy cause. Although I personally dislike this film and discard it as yet another unmemorable teen film, I feel that it's ability to "repopularise" Shakespeare and bring his stories to a mass youth audience is a worth cause. 

Film Techniques of Gus Van Sant's "Elephant"

Elephant, directed by Gus Van Sant, is an interesting film on the technical level due to the way the cinematographers use basic film making technology to explore the issue of teenage violence. The use of the long shot in conjunction with the characters point of view leaves the audience with the feeling of being a "fly on the wall" as the plot unfolds. The cinematographers begin the film with extensive use of long shots supported by steady cams to explore the school and educate viewers with the space in which the action will occur. 

The cameras Van Sant employs in the film are not the high definition or high exposure cameras as would be used in higher budget films. They produce darker and grainy images, lending themselves perfectly for the mood which the film is trying to convey. As the climax draws closer, the cinematographers relinquish the steady cam and the suspense is added by the steadily increased movement of the camera by its hand held operation. When Alex and Eric begin their assault of the school, the filming includes even more movement, as if to mimic the panic and anxiety the event would cause as students attempted escape. An interesting exception is when the camera is positioned behind the sites of a semi automatic rifle, in an attempt to mimic the video game shown earlier in the film. It is an interesting link to the Columbine massacre due to the media's insistence that "first person shooter" games such as "Doom" were played by the assailants before the massacre. 

The technical dimension of the film is brilliant when the budget and resources available for filming were limited due to the films difficult social nature. Van Sant's post production of the film should also be considered notable due to the use of a basic digital editing program. The text used for credits is stock and i feel well chosen to avoid drawing attention from the film. Most of the transitions used are natural and not digitally altered giving the film a raw and untouched feeling. As a low budget film, i feel that Van Sant's cinematography is understated and is a brilliant shift from traditional filming and editing techniques.   

First Blog - Star Trek Sucks.

Seeing as we don't have to begin discussing films we've seen in class just yet, I decided to include this review of the new "Star Trek" film which counter to what everyone believes was terrible. The film is a perfect example of the narrow minded effects-driven films which plague the industry today.

Enjoy

Review by Tara Ogaick - Carleton University



Feeling incredibly sick, I decided not to let the whole Friday evening go to waste, and caught a late showing of Star Trek (the new one, by J.J. Abrams). Truthfully, I had researched the movie long before its previews, and was mindfully excited about its arrival. But then the previews did start...

What is this genocidal need for every movie to gorge itself on EXTREEEEEME action?

All right, I thought, put the preview aside. Previews are always hyped in order to bring audiences in.

I have never been so disappointed with film. I am cautious of my own encroaching nostalgia -- Indiana Jones, another flop (though it COULD have been good) -- and thought to myself that I should read about what J.J. Abrams wanted to achieve by recreating this film. In his words, this was not a nostalgia trip. This new movie would not be about the old characters or about satisfying the Star Trek fans -- those die-hard trekkies who valiently costumed themselves and strode into convention after convention, but it would be about the new generation. Sadly, this insinuates that the new generation of Trekkies are intellectually unmotivated, childish filmgoers, readers, watchers, people who are amused solely by big flashy graphics, tacky jokes, and a nauseatingly empty plotline.

So then, Mr. Abrams, if that was your desire, WHY would you use the original Roddenberry characters? Why not embark on your own quest to indulge in this new movie thrill that you desired? And THEN, if you were so desirous to indulge in these "nostalgic" characters, why would you slavishly drop references to the original show at every prospective turn? And then, not just drop them all over the film like the shatterings of a bottle of merlot mercilessly slammed against the original Enterprise (Military History reference), but like a sloppy drunk, regurgitate the old lines from the series aimlessly into the pitiful script and mistakenly and uncreatively redirect these trivia?

But, let me remind you that J.J. Abrams tried to undo these taboos by instating that "the film is sort of like an alterior dimension." But, if this were the case, then poor Leonard Nimoy should have been restrained when trying to alter this dimension into the one that the original Star Trek belonged to. Oops, sorry Abrams, guess you should have thought that through a little more.

Ah yes, the dimension where the painstaking intellectual side of Star Trek must be abolished in order to make a penny at the box office. The dimension where Uhura must be seen in her bra and panties for a laugh and a quick hard-on, where the ideas of equality of race and gender become seamlessly lost in the ever deteriorating film world.

But, for those of you who are so inclined to defend the film, let us attack it from the cinematographic perspective (yes, I have taken many a film course as well). The inorganic, obtrusive cuts and set design were enough to tragically end any movie. Abrams inability to make use of long shots is appallingly similar to having multiple seizures. Perhaps Abrams missed the lectures on film making where an action film need not indulge in every single possibility for error. I am referring to the fact that every scene was its own mini-cliffhanger (pun on Kirk's seeming inability to stay grounded anywhere). No matter what situation, no matter what cut of film, *something* had to happen. Kirk couldn't just have gotten ejected from the Enterprise and landed onto a planet, but he must also battle a frigid climate whilst meeting an alien monster with many teeth which THEN gets devoured by an EVEN BIGGER monster, and THEN Kirk must falls down a precipice which the monster tumbles down also, which Kirk narrowly dodges, which magically brings him to a cave, which magically delivers Nimoy, which magically leads them to the nearby Federation Station.

I had hopes for this film, and this is why I choose it for my criticisms. The fact that I had hopes for this film meant that Ihad hope for film in general in this age. Dominated by a need for superheroes and comic book characters (who I do love and read), this age is necessitated by a bleak sense of morality: good vs. evil, old vs. new, binary vs. binary, all directed (pun) at instilling a mentality needed for a world exoterically manipualted by fear politics. The original Star Trek was made during a similar time, and was executed in such a way that many of these issues might be challenged. I am not saying that Roddenberry was wholly successful in his own ideas, but that things had the possibility for progression and improvement in this new "time" where a making of a new Star Trek film was taking place. My mistake.

Copyright, Tara Ogaick, May 15, 2009.