Drug Use and STDs in the 90s

The film Kids by Larry Clark was released in 1995 and focused on drug use and the spread of HIV between teens and preteens. This film highlights the drug culture that began to diminish in the late 90s. At the time this film took place, drugs such as marijuana were less in demand than other drugs like, crystal meth, which were fairly new to teens. According to an article written by Jennifer Robinson she talks about how “the dangers of these drugs are new to these kids. Many kids thought Ecstasy, which wasn’t outlawed until 1985, was harmless. In the future, the challenge for drug educators will be to inform kids about the very real dangers of drugs that most adults have never heard of”. I think that Jennifer makes a great point when she talks about how children are misinformed about these drugs and that their parents don’t know much about them either. This was apparent in the film because no one was supervising the children to see what they were doing. Also throughout the movie you never really see any of the kids concerned about the consequences of their actions. This could be because they don’t really know what the consequences are. Another point that Robinson made was that in the 90s, most of these parents weren’t aware of what their children were getting into and a lot of them didn’t know about these drugs. Some of the popular drugs in the 90s were fairly new and were past the time of the parents.

Another aspect of the movie was how unaware these kids were about sexually transmitted diseases. The kids went on without a care in the world and seemed to be completely unaware of the consequences of STDs. After the AIDS epidemic began in the 80s, many people were aware of how the disease works and how to protect themselves by the 90s. In the movie it seemed like the kids didn’t know any of this. The lack of knowledge could also be from how much the parents aren’t informing their children. If the parents aren’t acknowledging the dangers of STDs the children may not know about them. In an article written by Susan Wesley she talked about how our medicine today is way more advanced than it was in the 90s. If a person contracted HIV in the 90s they would experience confusion, depression and extreme fatigue. Nowadays we are more prepared to help treat the symptoms and make the disease easier to deal with.

http://www.uic.edu/orgs/convening/hivaids.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6352/decades-drug-use-80s-90s.aspx

Cultural impact of Boyz n the Hood

When I watched this movie, I thought it was interesting that they included statistics as part of the opening scene. Obviously violence and homicide were major issues Los Angeles, otherwise this tactic wouldn’t have been effective in the movie. I looked up the significance of this movie, and found something surprising. When Boyz n the Hood first came out, it actually sparked an increase in gang violence at first. This made many of the theaters to pull the movie shortly after its release. I also found that this movie was released at the height of L.As gang wars, and only nine months before the police officers would be acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. This movie has a lot of historical significance in this time period, some of it unintentional.

This movie was a wake up call to the public, addressing an issue that had been going on for far too long. I believe that the release time of this film had some impact on the riots that followed the acquittal of the police officers. There was a great quote an article from the LA Times, stating “Instead of being represented, you have a case of people trying to represent themselves.”(Swanson).  This was spoken by Christine Acham, professor at UC Davis. This quote is especially true for this period in time, not only for the movie, but for the events that occurred after the movie. 

 

Swanson, Tim. “‘Hood,’ Revisited.” LA TImes [Los Angeles] 26 July 2011: n. pag. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/26/entertainment/la-et-boyz-anniv-20110726&gt;.

The 1950’s and Edward Scissorhands

With a movie that seems to contain nothing remotely historically accurate, I did my best to compare the film with American life in the 1950s. As I studied to film a little closer the similarities seemed so obvious. For one, the opening scene with the avon woman selling Edward avon products greatly relates to the suburban lifestyle of 1950s America. Speaking of suburban lifestyle, director Tim Burton grew up in the suburbs which he describes to be a place with “no sense of history” and “no sense of culture”.

America in the 1950s held many cliches that were similar to the cliches of the neighborhood in Edward Scissorhands. For example, the traditionalist family style held true in Edward Scissorhands. White picket fenced living and family was idealized though 50’s television shows like Leave It To Beaver. While the family in Leave it To Beaver and the ones in Edward Scissorhands seem flawless on the outside, every family has their own sets of issues. For example, the housewife neighbor, Joyce, attempts to seduce the local repairman.

Furthermore, the film focuses on a specific white America middle class society. During the 1950’s, the white middle class went through significant chances mostly due to post-war repercussions. This change and many changes in society are blatant proof that society can never stay the same. Edward himself can represent this inevitability that things will change. There is always something different outside of the society you live in, even if it is a mysterious man with scissors as hands.

Avon Calling for Mr. Scissorhands

Knowing a little bit about the history of Avon really adds to the richness of the running themes of beauty and isolation in Tim Burton’s Edward Scissorhands.

The beauty company, Avon, established in 1886 was the first company to offer stay-at-home women self-employment opportunities. It is recognized for its long history of empowering women through its direct selling method- having representatives go door to door to offering free samples, advice, and products to customers.  Avon was revolutionary because its founder, David H. McConnell, recruited female sales representatives to sell their cosmetics at a time when there were relatively few employment opportunities for women.  The company was known for its intent of developing personal relationships with its customers (Avon).

This method turned isolated housewives into budding entrepreneurs, as well as connecting women with one another.

In Edward Scissorhands, Avon is what connects Edward to the community.  Peg would most likely be another other stay-at-home, gossiping women in the neighborhood if it was not for being a direct seller of Avon.  She would be alone in her house much like Edward is in his.  Peg comes to Edward’s home determined to see results- make a connection with the owner and possibly make a sale.  What she finds is nothing less than a secluded and lonely Edward.

Avon did for many women throughout the late 19th and 20th century what Peg did for Edward, which was gave him/them the opportunity to go out into the world and develop relationships with others.

Avon recognized the potential and beauty in all women. Peg recognized the same in Edward.

 

Here is an example of a vintage Avon commercial:

 

Works Cited

Avon Products. (2014). Experience Avon’s history. Retrieved from http://www.avoncompany.com/aboutavon/history/index.html

Boyz in the Hood: Historical Context

While to some the 1990’s era may still seem like times that were recent, the reality is it has been nearly twenty four years since the films debut and despite what some may think times have certainly changed. Boyz in the Hood is set in central LA in an urban environment in the height of the gangster rap/hip-hop era. The environment and culture in which the films characters grew up had a vast affect on the various characters and the paths that they chose. Looking at the historical context of the film reveals much of the cultural impacts that impacted these characters. The rise in popularity of gangster rap, especially in the west coast low-income neighborhoods such as the one in the film had a huge role in influencing these children’s beliefs and actions. It was so popular because it was so relatable to them. Combined to this the rise in gang violence in these areas, along with its ties with hip-hop were a huge influence on these children. “Boyz n the Hood undercores the way in which the plague of urban violence and police brutality are inextricably bound together” (David). This film was one the first to provide an accurate insight into the daily lives of these children and to those outside of this world it came as much of a shock to them. Although gang violence in these areas is much reduced, hip-hop and urban violence continue to impact children throughout the country and this movie provided an accurate insight into the life of “boys in the hood”.

http://thegrio.com/2011/07/12/how-boyz-n-the-hood-remains-relevant-20-years-later/

David, Javier. “How ‘Boyz N the Hood’ Remains Relevant 20 Years Later.”TheGrio. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

 

The 70s Outlook for The Virgin Suicides

The Virgin Suicides takes place in Michigan in 1974 surburbia. Knowing the time period the story is set in, it is easier to understand the shock of five sisters committing suicide. Though it would still be a shock to our society today, it was even more so back then because there were no suicide prevention or awareness functions going on. The major suicide/death scandal to occur that set the nation into motion of preventing it were the deaths in Jonestown under leadership of Jim Jones, 1978. Before then, suicide occurred but it wasn’t in mass numbers. To have siblings commit suicide is horrifying, especially without understanding why.

For the protective parents aspect, the generation to have children and teens in the 70s had grown up in the 40s/50s. This was a time where parents were very protective and religious over their children due to the nation being at war. That upbringing caused parents of the 70s to either be rebellious or practice those ways with their children. As seen in the home, the mother was protective of her children even before the youngest daughter committed suicide. The party the girls have only happens with the mother’s approval.

In the 70s, people were not aware on why suicide happens or had any way of preventing it. Crisis hotlines in the US, mainly directed towards suicide, were set up in the mid70s. Suicide is a horrible action that still happens today. Sadly, we still have not reached an age where suicide does not occur, but we are definitely making progress.

Good Will Hunting History

Fifteen years after the release of the film Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and a variety of other cast and crew members sat down to discuss how the film came about.

Damon and Affleck were childhood friends who separated upon entering college. Damon attended Harvard while Affleck moved to Los Angeles to attend Occidental College. According to the interview, Damon was in his fifth year at Harvard and was required to write a play, which he decided to turn into a film. He started writing it, and when he got a role that required him to move to Los Angeles, he stayed on Affleck’s floor and presented him with the script. Some more brainstorming happened, and they came up with the idea for the genius among some townie friends. They eventually completed it in 1994 and brought it to their agent.

To their agent, this was a big favor for Affleck and Damon to ask. Not only did they obviously want the script to be picked up and produced, but they both wanted to star in it. Apparently, this was a big feat, as every actor in Hollywood had his or her own script that they wanted to star in. They sold it to Castle Rock for a big sum, and bought themselves nicer apartments and cars. However, Castle Rock did not think that the film was one movie, but in fact the script represented two completely different movies: one about the genius and his shrink and one about the townie kids and the government agency. Eventually, the script got to Kevin Smith (director) and he gave it to the famous Harvey Weinstein.

After Harvey Weinstein and Miramax took over, they shopped around town for a director, the first of which being Mel Gibson. After a failed attempt at Gibson’s directing, Affleck and Damon moved on and landed with Gus Van Sant. After a period of waiting and attracting a high-powered producer, they signed Robin Williams on, which really got things going. Things got going after that, and Minnie Driver was cast, the film production was in motion. They decided that they needed to shoot partially in Boston to get some of the Boston “flavor” and ultimately, the film that essentially made Ben Affleck and Matt Damon famous was made.

Link to Interview: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2013/01/good-will-hunting-oral-history/4/

Lolita in Literature

The movie Lolita (1962 & 1997) is based off of the novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. Lolita was published in France in 1955 and because of the nature of the book it was not very well accepted. It was not published in the United States for ten years after it was written because of how controversial the material has proven to be. The book portrays a post WWII small American town and deals with a man having a sexual obsession with his teenage stepdaughter. Since its publication, Lolita has been received in different ways. Some critics praise the book while other critics remain stuck on its controversial content calling it “vile pornography”. However the reader wants to receive the book there is no doubt that the book has been a success. Within its first three weeks of being published in the United States it sold over 100,000 copies. Within the last few years the book has gained more attention. It is being taught in colleges and reviewed in academic dissertations. In 1998, a board put together by Random House’s Modern Library series selected the 100 best novels of the 20th century. Lolita made the list and was chosen for its number four spot.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/literature/lolita.html

Jim Carroll vs. The Sixties “cultural decade”

The Basketball Diaries (1995) took a look inside the world of teenage Jim Carroll, one of the most valuable players on his high school basketball team, as his life takes a downward spiral when he begins to be consumed in the world of hardcore drug abuse. ‘Because The Basketball Diaries’  was an autobiographical film, the era that was portrayed in the film took place in the 1960’s, though the film came out in the nineties. The historical context behind the film actually helped me understand and identify with Jim more than if I hadn’t know when the film took place. As soon as I heard that it was in the sixties, everything for me clicked, I began to think of the hippy movement, the peace signs, and the drug culture of the sixties.

The sixties was known as the “cultural decade” as it was famous for it’s radical outbreak of popular culture from clothes and music, to drugs. Drugs were a highly relevant aspect of the sixties, especially crack cocaine and heroin, as it seemed that everywhere you turned drugs were near. Being that Jim was in his teens at the time, an age group where you are confused and easily influenced by what everybody else is doing, it was that much easier for him to become addicted to drugs before even knowing what the high felt like. In “Handbook of Drug Control In the United States”, James A. Inciardi states that rebellion was a major trend during the sixties and teens often satisfied their rebellious urges with drugs, as did Jim Carroll in the film. I don’t believe that the era in which Jim grew up was completely to blame for his drug abuse as there were other contributing factors in his life such as living in a single parent home and growing up not so well off, but I do think that the sixties was a hard decade to be in as a teenager where drugs are popularized and you are being tantalized to try these things at an age where you are so easily influenced.

Taking ‘Lolita” into Historical Context

 (Photo taken from imdb.com)

Personally I was not a fan of the film Lolita. Not because it was a bad film, but because I thought the subject matter was kind of disturbing. But once I had time to reflect on it’s place in history, I had become appreciative of what the work stands for. The book was published in 1955, two years after the author Vladimir Nabokov finished it. It was rejected by six major American and British publishers, and thus he had it published in France. After one big review in a British paper, the book was banned in Britain and France. Although there was no response in America as drastic as those in Europe, the book becoming a film under the Motion Picture Production Code was difficult for filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. Therefore the film was turned into a more comedic film, with straight man James Mason against comedic personality Peter Sellers, who played four goofy roles in the film. The trailer proclaiming “How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?” was exactly true. In fact they hadn’t made a movie of Lolita, the book, but rather the had taken elements of the story and put a different spin on it. By the time the remake that we watched in class came along, I think people looked at it with modern sensibilities and saw the evil in its child sex abuse and incest story. Something we discussed was if the remade version, one which held much closer to Nabokov’s original story could have been made in the 1960s. I have to say no, for a few reasons. One being that this was still a time when the book was controversial, and a book presents itself subject to interpretation which a film does not. I mean this is a time when television’s Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke slept in separate beds in order to not offend the audience! So in short, the best way to get the most out of this film is by viewing it as a product of the 1950’s in order to view it not so much for its modernly-speaking disturbing plot, but for its controversial subject matter for the time in which it takes place.