Father/Son Relationship in Boyz n the Hood

For the movie Boyz n the Hood I analyzed the relationship between Tre and his father. When Tre goes to live with his father, at first their relationship doesn’t have much of a connection. Furious has to provoke Tre to greet him. However, their father-son relationship blooms in every scene later on. Furious understands he needs to be Tre’s father figure, the one to teach him “how to be a man”. A scene in the beginning of the movie I want to point out is when they’re by the bay with Tre skipping stones. Furious tries to get little Tre to understand the world: advising him to not join the military and what sex is. Though Furious is a single father and the neighborhood isn’t the greatest, he cares for his son. This scene demonstrates Furious setting Tre up to have high moral values.
In the middle of the movie, Furious takes Tre and Ricky out to a different neighborhood. Tre and Ricky are hesitant in following Furious up to the sign but they do trust him. He teaches them both about some facts of real life. When he’s teaching the boys, he is also teaching the neighborhood about whats really going on in life for black communities. Furious isn’t only a father figure to Tre but also to Ricky, and in this scene, to complete strangers. His advice and talk is valid to them, giving him credibility and securing his thoughts into the minds of others.
Towards the end of the movie, when Ricky is killed, Furious tries to stop Tre. He doesn’t want him to go down that path. He taught Tre to live a life outside of the ghetto murders. Though revenge is usually sweet, Furious steps in front of the door, challenging Tre to shoot him instead. This scene demonstrates the connection between Furious and Tre amazingly. In a way, Furious mocks Tre stating, “Oh  you bad now huh? You gonna shoot somebody. Well here I am. Shoot me”. He goes on to say that Tre is his responsibility, that its not right to do. As we see, Tre runs out to Doughboy’s car anyway. But Furious’s words got to Tre. He repeats to Doughboy to let him out of the car. This is where we see how Tre and Furious’s relationship really blossom. Though Tre wants to avenge Ricky’s death, he respects his father’s words and does the morally good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lle4ilOHrXg -early relationship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BadSZDpvq-s -Tre and Ricky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1fv8bPOwGk -Furious’s words on revenge

Basketball Diaries: Close Reading

The film, Basketball Diaries, serves both as a lesson to learn from and also one to empathize with for me. Going into the film I had little idea on what to expect from only knowing the tittle and lead actor. I was expecting the movie to be a sports tale with some sort of conflict that was to be overcome, but upon watching even the first few scenes I was already seeing the film going in a different direction, one that was much darker. The conflict that soon became evident in the film is the struggles a group of inner city kids have with drugs and the following downward spiral that their lives go through. It’s a rather dark theme but out of all films portraying youth drug addiction that I have seen thus far this one by far strikes home the most. One of the ways I feel the director accomplished this is the way he portrayed the boys while they are still excelling at basketball and not on drugs, he then shows the process of the downward spiral they go through. You see each wrong decision they make and your constantly hoping that they will get healthy and change their ways, but each time they do not, it makes it that much harder for the audience to view. You see the characters eventually progress all the way to “rock bottom” and I personally genuinely felt sorry for Jim. The scene where Jim is at home begging his mother for money and to let him home really stood out to me as perhaps Jim’s “rock bottom”. You are able to see how negative of an impact the drugs have had on him, he’s almost a completely different person and he definitely is to his mother who cannot even bear to let him in because of what he’s become. Even though he’s in the situation he’s in because of himself, the fact that he has little help in his struggle and his own mother can’t even bear him strikes the audience heavily emotionally and for me this scene really resonates the dark theme of the film within me.

Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsuEQP9i3iw

Just Another Girl on the IRT –Discussion of Word Choice

I would like to dedicate this post discussing the name of the movie, Just Another Girl on the IRT, because I find it to be a very odd choice. In the trailer for the movie, the narrator’s voice can be heard saying, “Chantel’s definitely not ‘Just Another Girl on the IRT.’” But the fact of the matter is, in my opinion, she is. She has all these lofty ideas about college and medical school and “escaping” her lot in life. She repeatedly tells the audience how smart she is and how much smarter she is than people think. But then she gets pregnant and things change for her, whether she is willing to understand that or not. She can pretend that she is not pregnant as much as she wants to but it does not change her situation. She is pregnant, fair and simple.

And with that, her lofty goals go out the window. Statistically speaking, even before she became pregnant, it would have been very tough for her to “escape” her lot and become a doctor- but she could have done it with the grades she keeps telling the audience that she has. But with a child to take care of, that slim statistic becomes exceedingly slimmer. And even though the movie ends with Chantel positively telling the audience that she has her life on track again, we know that she will never become a doctor and achieve that goal. We don’t believe her. Or at least, I don’t. So really, she is just another girl on the IRT who has to give up on life goals to support children and pay the bills. She hasn’t escaped her lot at all.

 

Source for the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNPuHRPFyUk

Welcome to the Dollhouse: Director Todd Solondz’ Insight

Todd Solondz, director of Welcome to the Dollhouse, is known for being one of the film industry’s “most off-beat directors.” Interestingly, Solondz, during a phone interview with Chris Neumer, expressly stated his disdain for his line of work.  In the course of the interview, Solondz discussed his work on the movies he has directed including Welcome to the Dollhouse, Happiness, and Storytelling. While this interview was not mainly on his Welcome to the Dollhouse, I chose to discuss this particular interview regardless of this fact because it casts a light on his thought processes and his intentions for his movies.

Solondz explains to Neumer that his characters in his films are flawed, inherently so. As a result, Solondz believes that it often times prevents his audience from readily wishing to identify with the characters. Solandz develops this thought further by explaining that on one hand, his characters are “somewhat sympathetic” but that they do not always behave in ways that garner sympathy.  After this comment, Neumer expressed his thought that Solondz’ audience would be limited due to this fact but Solondz countered by saying that he does not much care what his audience size is as long as he himself is pleased with the outcome of his movies. According to Solondz, there are no heroes and villains in his movies. He doesn’t “tell his audience” how to think or feel. Rather, he leaves that up to us.

The interview can be found here: http://www.stumpedmagazine.com/interviews/todd-solondz/

Dazed and Confused: In a Timeless Historical Context

The aspect of historical context is certainly significant in Dazed and Confused because its themes and storyline are contingent on the time period in which the story is depicted.  By setting the story in the 1970s, the filmmakers and directors were better able to take artistic license; in essence, they were able to explore different ideologies without the confines of the mentalities of their present day.  So, by knowing the historical context in which the movie is set, one can better perceive what the filmmakers were trying to achieve by setting it in that time period.

The 1970s will always be remembered as a time when teenagers wore their hair long and their clothing baggy. Drug use was rampant and discos were the rage. And while Dazed and Confused certainly exaggerates some of the stereotypes from the 1970s, it still gives its audience a sense of the time period. Interestingly, this movie highlights the fact that even though the 70s, at that point in time, had been two decades earlier, teenagers were still undergoing the same thought processes. The movie showed the time period does not truly matter because teenagers will always be searching.  They will always be struggling with coming of age and finding their own purposes in life.

Speculation of “Basketball Diaries” influence on school shootings

The 1995 film, Basketball Diaries, directed by Scott Kalvert depicts the memoir of the main character, Jim Caroll’s, struggle through adolescence in his teenage years. Jim, played by a young Leonardo DiCaprio, is a talented basketball player growing up in New York City. However alongside his group of friends, he develops a drug problem and eventually gets kicked out of school. Throughout his youth Jim writes in his journal poems about his friends, thoughts, and of course, basketball. One of the most interesting and disturbing scenes in the movie shows Jim shooting up his classmates in a dream, with a shotgun, while his three friends in class cheer him on.

According to an article in the New York Times titled, Media Companies Are Sued in Kentucky Shooting, there was a lawsuit placed against the director by former lawyer, Jack Thompson. He claimed that the scene in the movie was the motivation in the Heath High School shootings, however the lawsuit was eventually dropped. And this was not an isolated incident, director of the film Basketball Diaries, has been called into question on this subject multiple times, causing him to have to attend interviews to explain his side of the story. 

The video shown, shows Jim Carroll’s interview with NBC’s Today Show in 1999. In it, Jim Carroll explains that the movie may not be an accurate version of the book he wrote, and that he has only received positive responses from individuals who watched the movie, as it was designed to invoke a positive message. In addition, he believes that the scene, on its own, is taken out of context with the rest of the film.

In conclusion, it is interesting to see how Media is wrongly used as an “excuse” by society when something bad happens. Also, it is interesting to see how something can be wrongly interpreted or taken out of context in order to serve a purpose. 

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape: Leonardo DiCaprio and His Role as Arnie

We all know Leonardo DiCaprio today from his roles in movies such as Inception and The Great Gatsby. However, DiCaprio’s career has been an almost lifelong journey, where he has showcased his skills in a variety of roles. DiCaprio was born in Los Angeles, California on November 11th, 1974. Since his acting career started at the age of 5, DiCaprio has been in 35 films and television shows, as well as commercials at a younger age. He has covered a variety of subject matter, playing heartthrobs, thugs, and varied other characters. However, one of his most interesting roles was earlier in his career in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.

DiCaprio played Arnie, the mentally handicapped little brother of the protagonist, Gilbert Grape. An interesting point that I considered before watching the film was the actual choice to cast DiCaprio as Arnie. I wondered why they didn’t cast someone who was less experienced or younger, simply because it may have made the Arnie character seem more juvenile. Because Leo had already had a lot of acting experience, I thought before viewing the film that the character may seem staged, or not be genuine because DiCaprio knew how to play a role, and may be more mature than the character of Arnie is. But, as he explains in the attached interview, DiCaprio was free to do pretty much whatever he wanted to while he played Arnie, because Arnie was such a spontaneous character. I think this is a big change for him, because he acted very immaturely even though he was very mature by the time he got this role (as you can tell in the interview), due to his prior experience and his ambition to further his career at such a young age.

This role was an essential part of DiCaprio’s career, awarding him an Academy Award nomination. His performance as Arnie was phenomenal, and just the first of many amazing characters he played, and will continue to play, throughout his career.

Sources:

http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/leonardo-dicaprio.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000138/

 

Handling of the baby in “Just Another Girl on the IRT”

The movie “Just Another Girl on the IRT” begins with the main character, Chantel Mitchell played by Ariyan A. Johnson, focusing on school and trying to graduate high school early. The only problem was that she was a product of the projects and didn’t possess the manner that a college would be interested in investing in. However, Chantel’s life takes a turn for the worst as she hooks up with Tyrone, played by Kevin Thigpen and became pregnant. While there are two decision when you become pregnant you can either keep the baby or get an abortion. However, in Chantel’s situation she could not decide what she wanted to do, she had plenty of time to make either decision Tyrone even offered to pay for the abortion, which apparently rubbed Chantel the wrong way where she spent all the money on shopping. This took the choice of abortion out of the question yet there are still choices when having the baby: you could keep the child and raise it as your own, or you could put it up for adoption. Also you can go with the option that Chantel choose right after giving birth: throw it with the trash. While there are argument  whether abortion should be legal or not but there no debate about if it is legal or not about throwing a baby in the dumpster it is completely immoral. There were much better ways of handling the issue on hand she was given plenty of time to decide that would be moral correct for the baby and for herself. Even though Chantel kept the baby in the end, in large part thanks to the ethics of Tyrone, her decision making was done so awfully that I question how Chantel or Tyrone will be able to look their baby in the eye as she gets older, fully knowing that they willingly put the baby with the trash as soon as it was born

Scene of birth and decision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJH_yWSInWA

 

Is Lolita Morally, Legally and Ethically Right?

The film, Lolita directed by Adrian Lyne in 1997, sparked many concerns pertaining to the morals that this movie projected, and if it was considered ethically and legally right. The plot of the movie consists of an older adult, Professor Humbert, who involves himself with a 12 year old girl, Lolita. Since Lolita is under the age of consent the relationship between the two would be considered statutory rape. As a society we view this type of relationship as legally and ethically wrong; although, is it considered morally wrong? The idea of a 12 year old and a middle aged man involved with each other doesn’t sit well, because we know that it is illegal and considered creepy. After watching this movie, it is easier to sympathize with the two of them and understand the context of the relationship on a different level.
The film projects Professor Humbert as a grown man who hasn’t felt content in life or known love since his girlfriend passed away when they were just teenagers. As the movie continues you see his longing for that kind of relationship and his reaction when he first sees Lolita. This young 12 year old, Lolita, is portrayed as innocent yet complex, because she has an understanding as to what she is about to involve herself in. Lolita seems naive and free spirited and likes the attention that Humbert gives her. Although the situation is illegal and ethically wrong because it would not be deemed appropriate in the public eye, the audience is still able to somewhat understand how this relationship is brought to life. I personally don’t see it as that morally wrong after watching the movie and seeing Humbert’s background. I still believe that it is ethically and legally wrong although, it is easier to understand the character’s feelings within the film.
After reading the article “Lo, Lola, Lolita Remake, Adaptation and Defining Success”, I was able to view this film differently than how I originally saw it. Throughout the film there are readings from the book, and the article states that “these voiceovers serve as reminders that we are viewing a work of art” (Nesbitt). While watching this film the audience forgets that this story is a classic and a piece of art. The meaning of this story was not to be viewed as statuary rape or ethically wrong, but it was created to give the audience a view into someone else’s morals and their view on life.

Nesbitt, Geraldine. “Lo, Lola, Lolita Remake, Adaptation and Defining Success.” Scholar.google.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

Romeo & Juliet ; Ethical Question

Being the film that I did my in class presentation on, even I had various views on it. However, like I mentioned during my presentation I felt like the film presented the answer to how much a person can actually handle or can’t when it comes to love. More importantly, I think it answered that question in the way that it revolved around what younger people do, and how others affect choices.

With the movie, two families hatred held the most impact on the choices, yet both Romeo and Juliet went against what was expected. Today, you see younger and younger people being so “in love”, and saying the they’d do absolutely anything for the one they love and this movie showed that specifically. However, today, I don’t believe things could be taken to that much of an extreme in a sense of taking your life. The movie did well in portraying that love had a hold on a person, has a power of a person that even can’t be broken by family; the film brought a deeper meaning to the words “’till death do us part”. Ethically speaking, I think it’s important just because, even while it was more dramatic than what would probably occur today, it does show how strong a love can be, regardless of age or family matters.

This video is the final death scene, it which showing when both lives were taken.