(Insert Sesame/Wall St. Joke, I'm not feeling too clever)

Let me start off by saying I love what Oliver Stone does with Charlie Sheen in their movies together. I really enjoyed Platoon, and this movie I enjoyed the same way. I have to watch more Stone films because I honestly love how relatable he makes his protagonists. Also, at first he makes his antagonist a lovable person too. He’s weird, but it makes sense. I’ll explain.

In Platoon, Sheen’s character came from a middle class background, where he seemed to be well off, but still desired more. I’m pretty sure that at the time, most Americans were able to fit into this bracket. When he was shipped off to war, he was a nice all american boy, but by the time he was sent home, he was transformed into a hardened man from war. While at war, he met Sgt. Barnes, who at first seemed like a standard war sergeant, but as the movie progressed, he got more evil and more insane. Sheen’s character seemed to make his goal to stop him, no matter what happens. This is the same as in Wall St. Bud Fox starts off as just another cog in the machine, but he wants more. He sees a big time stock trader? (still not too sure what they were doing haha) Gordon Gecko, and he wants to be like him. After trying to work with him, he finds out what to do, but he also finds out that Gecko is an extremely corrupt person. Even though he himself is corrupt (Like being at war in Platoon) he had to find a way to take down Gecko (Barnes) In Platoon, he takes matters into his own hands, and after a huge bombing where Barnes was injured badly, he shot him in the chest, killing him, and ending the tension between the two. In Wall St. Gecko beats Bud to the chase and Bud gets arrested for all the bad things he has done. Bud turns the tables on him but wearing a wire and getting Gecko to admit all of his wrong doings, and that he taught Bud all of the bad things he did to end up on top.

They’re really the same movie, just set in 2 places. I joked with Seth that Wall St. is what happens after Chris comes home after the war. It could happen! I think this makes Stone some sort of an auteur like David Lynch. I have to see more Stone films, but the similar stories and ability to link stories is very similar to all of the David lynch films I have watched. The reading was a difficult one, but a good one, and it touched on topics that I was confused about when I first watched the movie. Gordon Gecko seemed like such a good person, but as the movie progressed, we learned that he wasn’t a good person at all. This has to do with our perception of Gecko, which he knew how to change and shift for the people that were around him. When he was around people he trusted, he allowed his sleaze to leak out, but when he was in professional company, he was a clean guy. He knew how to throw blinders over our eyes.

A good section of the reading that I enjoyed was the section where they talked about Gecko being a physical embodiment of the patriarchy. Since we have been talking about feminism for the entire class, I can see how Gecko is supposed to be an oppresive force to everyone around him. It also has to do a lot with his views of money. He sees money as not only something used to purchase items, but something he can use to control people. In the world we live in, money has control over all of us, and Gecko figured out how to control it. This movie, like Platoon, messed me up. I see how all of this works, and I know this happens nowadays.

We're Not Here To Start No Trouble, We're Just Here To Do The Hollywood Shuffle!! (Also never trust someone who still wears Jheri Curl)

This was a pretty funny film, but with most of the early "breaking out" films from African American writers and directors, there is a huge lesson meant to be learned, and being African-American myself, I saw a lot of the subtext that was aimed at me. A lot of the jokes, things said, and even situations I find myself familiar with. Maybe it’s supposed to be stereotypical so I can relate to it, or something like that. Anyway, the way that African-American actors and actresses were portrayed when in films was something that I was not really portrayed as anything positive. I’m not sure if I subconsciously shut this out, or if I was just clueless the entire time. But the thing with this movie is that the situation Robert Townsend is in is a stereotypical one.

He’s a 22-25 year old black male living with his mother, grandmother, and younger brother(with no father). He works a dead end job at a tiny hotdog stand where the people he works with give him no confidence of ever leaving. (Quick side note, that’s really how it is back home. If people aren’t for you, they’re against you. It’s sad, but it’s true. They’ll tell you to your face that you won’t amount to anything, and when you do, they’ll say that they’ve always believed in you. This movie’s subtext is amazing!) He has dreams of being an actor, but he is tired of having his skills eclipsed by the movie industry only wanting him to play silly and stereotypical roles. This reminds me a lot of the “rap, sell crack or play basketball” way that I have heard a lot about. I’m sure you the reader have heard of the only way a black man “making it” in life being to partake in one of these 3 things. It’s supposedly because the thoughts of our subconscious are skewed because this is the image of black men we see on TV. I see where this can be true, but not always. It’s not something that is forced on young black children, but it is definitely something that they see a lot, and can understand from a young age.

The section of the reading that particularly stuck out to me was the part that talked about self directed stereotypes, because that’s what I wanted to talk about in my response to this film. He mentions “I’m Gon’ Git You Sucka” too, which is another Keenan Ivory Wayans film that’s pretty hilarious, but there’s a lot going on with the subtext. “But what interests me most about these two films is their use of a similar rhetorical strategy: self-directed stereotypes. In a larger project, I ultimately want to consider the use of self-directed stereotypes by other groups, so I am now keen to learn what the different uses of this strategy mean when generated in two such similar films. In this instance, the differences in the deployment of the rhetorical strategy of self-directed stereotypes seem to have more to do with issues of class than of race, especially in terms of the audiences addressed by each film, and that must in turn affect the substance of a black film aesthetic.” I think that Townsend and Wayans understand that the African-American community needs to advance in terms of self respect, but these 2 do it by making us laugh at ourselves. They do it by showing us what the rest of the acting world expects of us. It works pretty well.

Platoon (Made me pretty sad)

This film was messed up. This film messed me up. Seriously. I was so mad watching it because I felt like I could have changed something, but there was nothing I could do. This is what the director intended, and I was blinded by it until we had a discussion. Charlie Sheen’s character is simply the viewing glass in which we are fixed too. We have no choice in the matter, and on top of that, we can barely do anything. Throughout the movie, Sheen goes from an all American middle class college dropout to a hardened war veteran who is really unsure if all of the events of the war was worth it. Those are the feeling I felt too. I wasn’t alive during this war, and I’m not too sure as to why it was started, but I just know that all of these people didn’t have to die for it. The viewer is the soldier that’s just there. You’re not really sure why you are there, and you discontinued a previous obligation for it, but it doesn’t matter, because you’re there with the gun in your hand.

During the movie, I felt myself getting angrier and angrier about everything that was going on, especially the village scene. After the village scene, I had that cold empty feeling you get after drinking a cold cup of water on a hot summer day. Where you can feel the cold moving slowly through your body. Maybe I wasn’t as mad anymore. Maybe I just had to accept what was happening. But this is what is was supposed to do. Too much in the movies that are produced about war do I find myself being sceptical about the actual situation. It just seems that they are made to be very farfetched. I haven’t seen Rambo II yet, but we’ve talked about it a lot in class. From what I heard, they pre package Rambo and throw him back into Vietnam? and have him go on a rampage and find his kidnapped friends. While these are things that actually happen, I’m sure it’s blown waaaaaaaay out of proportion.

The reading for this film was a very interesting one, and it had some comparisons to films that precede Platoon that deal with the same subject matter. It also reminded me that Oliver Stone, the director of this film, is a Vietnam War Veteran. He has been through all of this, and this is his exact vision of what happened in the war. Platoon was originally supposed to be Stone’s autobiography, but eventually got adapted into a screenplay which ended up on the big screen. I think that even though it’s not very direct, it’s still an autobiography. With slight dramatization, he showed the atrocities of war as they are meant to be shown. It was a really rough watch, but I enjoyed it. I learned a lot about the war.

Alienss: Newt's Revenge

Before I start, I have a question. Was Ripley really frozen for 50 something years? It was said in the dream, but I don’t know if she was dreaming of reality, or if her dream just wanted to tell her an abstract number to make her and the viewer more scared. I’m not even sure if someone can sleep for that long and look the same without suffering any sever muscle degradation. Also, her cat doesn’t appear to age either. Technology is incredible! I really have no clue. It’s the future.

Enough of this, let’s move on to my actual thoughts on the film, shall we?

This film was probably the film that ended with the most speculation out of all of the films we’ve watched this semester. I say this because the ending was such a weird one. It was what I guess you could call a double ending. The viewer thinks everything is all good, but something completely left happens, and it leaves the viewer in a state of shock, much like it did for me. All throughout the movie, the viewer expects to see a head on fight between a xenomorph, and Ripley. Her being the only survivor of the original trip, and waking up night after night with nightmares is only proof that she needs extreme closure to come to terms with the events of her previous trip. When it finally happens, she’s in a giant badass mech-suit and takes it on head to head. THAT is how you do it! There’s a lesson hidden here. If you wanna come to terms with something, you gotta fight it head on.

Another thing with this film was the discussion the class had about the Xenomorph mother and Ripley having an unseen discussion when Ripley and Newt stumble upon the hive. The class came to a general consensus that Ripley noticed that these were the children of something, and they just want to live their lives. it may mean that a few of her friends and family will get killed, but she can only retreat at this point because she does not want to harm them anymore. In the Xenomorph mother’s mind, she is thinking that she does not want any altercation to happen because it could put her offspring in danger. Her maternal instinct kicks in pretty heavy. She even calls back two grunts who were ready to take Ripley and Newt out at a seconds notice. I think this is exactly what happens. The eye contact (Do xenomorphs have eyes??) The body language. The 2 mother figures did not want to harm each other. They both had young to watch over. When Ripley snapped, I think that she believed she was living in her nightmare, and this was the only way to wake up. Her nightmares must have been her being in the xenomorph hive a lot.

As for the reading, I can agree with a lot of the point made. I believe that Ripley was akin to a female Rambo, but waaaaaaay better. Instead of fighting against idiot cops and hunters, she was fighting giant space aliens with whip like tails and acid for blood. The fact that she actively goes into the bowels of the plant on her own shows that she’s tough too. The fact that she is acting on maternal instinct enhances this too. Not only is she acting by instinct, she is doing it better than any guy in the movie could have. Except for the one guy that survived, the other men seemed really incompetent and just plain stupid. Especially the “game over” guy. Ripley shows that anyone can do what they were assigned, and even do it better than expected. I came across this quote in the passage, and I believe it really encompasses the way I feel about what happened. “For Mulvey, the sexual difference demarcated by the active/passive split marks the cinematic gaze as a

masculine look that objectifies women as spectacles to be looked at. This masculine gaze of the camera forces female viewers to adopt either a narcissistic over identification with women on the screen or a masochistic male point of view. But the modern action heroine is far from passive. She fights, she shoots, she kills, she solves the mysteries, and she rescues herself and others from dangerous situations.” Pretty much, Ripley takes all of the bs that happens against women, rips it apart, and sets new ground rules for the way women are meant to be portrayed.

I don't even like beer, Frank! (Blue Velvet)

Blue Velvet was such an interesting film, and I have to say I enjoyed it more than most films this semester. That’s not even a diss, I really liked all of these movies, but David Lynch is such a strange director. From the beginning of a David Lynch film, you can see him messing with you. The opening credits usually try to throw the viewer off and give them the wrong feel for the movie, so that when all the bad things start to happen, the viewer is forced to rethink that they previously thought about the film.

(I’m gonna ramble a bit about Lynch) The psycho-sexual cinematography and situations that he shows are always so weird, but I end up loving them. Well, not the situations in specific, but the way they are shown. When it comes to comfort, I think Lynch expects us to leave the film in a shaken manner. I mean, when Seth and I left, we jammed about how weird the movie was, but I couldn’t shake the fact that this is how David Lynch makes movies. He’s an auteur. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines auteur as, “an artist (as a musician or writer) whose style and practice are distinctive” and looking at Lynch’s work, he is most definitely a distinctive director.In one of my other classes, Film Theory and Criticism, we watched a David Lynch film by the name of  Mulholland Drive, and that movie is even worse when it comes to the psycho-sexual and mind numbing images. This is Lynch’s style though, and this is what makes him an excellent film maker to apply the auteur label to.

I don’t even really think about the main character when I think of this movie. I don’t even remember his name, but I do remember that he was a strange and oddly American man, and this is what the reading talks about, or at least, what I’m getting from the reading. Jeffrey (Looked it up) finding the ear ruined his drive to become a regular citizen in America, and took him away from his school path. Do they even mention school again in the movie? Was he supposed to be on a slight break? Not sure, please explain when you comment. Maybe this is a post modern approach to the classic american dream. Lynch might be saying that no one can really follow this dream, because something will get in the way. Maybe, Frank was living the post modern american dream. Who knows?

Why the hell is detention all day?? (The Breakfast Club)

Ok, not for the Breakfast Club

Hahaha

But really

Ok, starting this thing off, this is probably one of the best films I’ve ever seen. I’ve been putting off watching it for yeeeeears and finally being able to sit down and watch it as a film student was an amazing experience. Looking back at high school, I always hated that there was so much divide between group just because we had different friends. This movie demonstrates that we all have problems that we have to face, and being seperate doesn’t help it.

In terms of character development, I think that Claire had the least development. She was always the prissy popular rich girl, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but she remained the same. When it came down to it, she still asked Brian to do the assignment, and she just found it in her plans to give Allison a makeover. This part is where the post-feminism talk from the reading comes in. Instead of the only two girls in the movie bonding over something that was specifically meant to advance them as women, Claire had to doll her up, and make her look different to be accepted. Even then, it’s weird because this is when Andrew suddenly finds her attractive. From the beginning of the movie, it was evident that he cared about how she felt, but when she kept putting up walls, he gave up. I don’t agree that it was good that she put up walls, but when you’re helping someone out, don’t get mad when they’re putting those walls up.

Another thing about the movie that was pretty weird was the fact that no one smelled the weed. Those kids were openly smoking, and there was no mention of it again. Andrew even hotboxed himself in an office, and that would most definitely come through the vents of the building. As for the ending, I try not to read too deep into it. Yes they were split off into couples, and it was cliche, but I think it was only because things would go back to normal on Monday. They all knew that, so they just tried to have as much fun with each other before the world goes back to normal.

Nightmare on Academic Ave (The Michael Jackson Bad Re-Release on Blu-Ray™ dir. Michael Bay)

Ha... Before I start, it’s weird how they call him Fred. Freddy sounds more menacing...

Now, this is probably the best and worst movie I have ever seen. It's not a bad movie, but it's a baaaaad movie, you know? Like, I'll talk about it, enjoy it, and I might even watch it again, but I will tell you how bad it is. I guess you could just say it's Michael Jackson bad. The part in the movie that stuck out to me most was the special effects. Today, we're spoiled with so many computer effects, it's like the actor barely has to do anything but read their lines, and any action is a 3D model that some guy made on his iMac.

In this day and age, they relied mostly on slight of the eye style camera tricks. The 2 moments that were highly evident to out spoiled eyes all involved the mother too. When she is plagued by Freddy in the end, she gets sucked into the bed, and it’s so evident that it’s a dummy body. It’s not like when Johnny Depp’s character got sucked into the bed. He actually got sucked in. I really wonder if that TV that went right after hurt him. The other part that was weird was when Freddy reached through the door and grabbed her. It was another dummy. I mean, c’mon… 


When looking at the reading, Carol Clover looks beyond the effects and begins to break down what many do not see in the characters. She talks about hos certain characters are set up, and how their acts cause their deaths. Let’s look at Tina. She’s not the best person when it comes down to it, and 15 minutes into the movie, she’s already having pre-marital sex with Rod. A huuuuuge movie no-no. And what does it lead to? DEATH! Lots of blood, and lots of DEATH! *cough*

Is Video Game Culture Setting This Generation Up For GUI Based Warfare?

When watching WarGames the only the scene that stuck out the most to me was when David and that girl (ugggggh) were in the room playing "Thermonuclear Death Strike" or whatever. When David started to put in the commands, it's weird to me because he knew he was hacking into something that could be potentially dangerous, but he continued anyway. My thinking is that he is desensitized to the extreme warfare due to the age of video games. Not saying that games set up people to be violent, but maybe the fact that he spends a lot of time playing games like Galaga and other space shooters of the time, annihilating an entire planet (even if it wasn't his own) would not have been much of a stretch. They even though about which targets would be the best to hit. Las Vegas is a very good target for such a strike because there are many people, tourists, and it would definitely make the American defense systems pretty angry. It's safe to say that the scare culture also has something to do with David's actions in the Joshua system.

 Even though he was asked to play a game, this was much more than that. It can be said that these issues have been reduced to a game due to the many scare tactics in place. Since the world was dying down from the Cold War, there was more open talk about the ultimate death that could have happened if the nukes were launched. Like with us for example. When Osama Bin Laden was a threat to our country, there weren't many people openly talking about how we were threatened, but now that the threat is removed, sooooo many people talk (and even joke) about the threat that he caused. This can be applied to what Russia and America have gone through. It was so much of a game to David, that he even chose to play as the “enemy country”. I digress though

The coolest thing about this movie has to be the fact that no one wins when you engage in nuclear warfare. Right?

Can The Naked Eye Tell the Difference Between Replicants and Humans

Blade Runner is a very strange movie. At least top 10 strange movies out of all the movies I have ever seen. (I've seen Pulse... that movie is awful...) Back to the point though. While watching this movie, it was very weird that there wasn't a huge way to declare a human from a replicant. I think that the replicants have become so advanced in design not even the creators could tell the difference. This may be where the empathy tests come in. These empathy test seem like the best way to figure out whether or not a being is an actual human, or the man made replicant. Let's take a look at the Blade Runner Wiki's definition of a replicant. “A replicant is a synthetic human with paraphysical capabilities. It is a genetically engineered creature composed entirely of organic substance. … Humanoid replicants were created for military purposes and for the exploration and colonization of space. The Tyrell Corporation recently introduced the Nexus 6, the supreme replicant — much stronger and faster than, and virtually indistinguishable from, real human beings. Earth law forbids replicants on the planet, except in the huge industrial complex where they are created. The law does not consider replicants human and therefore accords them no rights nor protection.” 

I believe that with the latest advances in replicant technology, the replicants can't even truly tell if they're human or not. Since they look just like humans, and have organic components, it can be argued that they are a living being. That's besides the point I want to make. My main point is that these replicants are so advanced, they believe that they are human. When Pris is shot and is dying, I don't think she is having a malfunction. I think that she believed she was truly a human the entire time she was alive, and upon being shot, she truly realized that she could be lying to herself. The entire freakout scene was pretty surreal. That wasn't a malfunction happening. I believe that was pure anger that was developed by the replicant's CPU. How do you feel about this?

E.T. is Jesus?

Through the talk in class, there has been a large speculation that E.T. and the entire story, and movie were supposed to be based off of the story of Jesus. I find this an extreme stretch, and in my honest opinion, it's really not hard to compare any situation to the story of Jesus. The two stories do have a lot of similarities, but not enough to truly be an imitation story. I agree that it can be a large inspiration from the story of Jesus, but an imitation is not likely.

Like we talked about in class, every story has some type of inspiration from a very popular story of the time. Examples of this can be films using scenes inspired by The Wizard of Oz, and even The Matrix. Even looking at The Matrix the story of Neo can be compared to the story Jesus. Neo was the savior that the world needed, and overcame much adversity from people who opposed him. Not too close to the original Jesus story, mind you, but there can be similarities in a story if you make them. Even when looking at The Wizard of Oz, the group who all has their individual problems could be going to the Wizard (Jesus...) to get these wished fulfilled, only to find out that the power was inside them, or something like that. Good v evil. (It's been a while since I've seen the movie)

In the reading by Frank Tomasulo, he makes a bout about finding E.T. and comparing that to the Jesus manger birth. "A prenatural being comes down to earth from the heavens and is found in a small shack or 'manger' behind the main house... He spreads good will and love during his brief time on Earth and acquires disciples in the process... He is hunted down and dies at the hands of the ruling authorities... He is resurrected from the dead, and rises again to his heavenly home"(275) These comparisons come even closer to the the Jesus comparison, but the one that sticks out to me is the death of E.T. Being at the hands of an evil organization. The scientists did not listen to those who knew E.T. The best, and that led to him dying a very early death, only through the return of Elliot (his disciple) to his side. Very weird stuff here

But to remain on the point of E.T., I did some research on the topic, and found a very interesting article on someone hearing about the E.T., and had some very interesting things to sat about it. They say, “Thenthere's the clear parallel of E.T.'s life to that of Jesus Christ.Surely this was done on purpose. I mean come on! Really! Do you thinkthat Steven Spielberg just made up all this stuff? Think about it: Acreature from "another world" who is far more wise andloving than anyone on earth. No one understands him and finally thegovernment closes in on him seeking to seize him, but he dies. Thencalling to his "captain" in the sky he is picked up andreturned to "space." Like I was saying, the inspiration from the Jesus story is obvious, but another thing that I also said this is more of an inspiration than an imitation.