We Are Cringe (Until Proven Otherwise)

So. Perks of Being a Wallflower turned out to be a prime example of the old adage, “don’t judge a book by it’s cover”…or by its first act… or by most of its second act. The construction of this film sits comfortably in the goldilocks zone of good narrative storytelling. If you are unlike me, you possibly would have enjoyed the overacting, cringe, boohoo nature of this film from the start, but you’re not me. I began this movie worrying if my eyes would ever return from the back of my sockets after countless contentious eye rolls. However, I am not too big of a man to admit when I am wrong, and oh boy was I.

The first act of this film really pushed me away. The try-hard nostalgic nature of the coming of age genre is always presented with an over the top exaggeration of character traits. Charlie is introduced in a way that is meant to make him relatable to a wide base of viewers, with his main concern being his first day of high school. He is also presented as severely anxious, which becomes one of the key plot points and something that will shift deeper into meaning later in the film. The basic tropes of the first act provides little interest: why is this kid so anxious? Is it for a good reason? will he fit in? will he find friends?

The second act of the film dives somewhat deeper into the character of Charlie. There is an outgoing guy (Patrick) who Charlie very awkwardly befriends, he goes to a party where he loosens up and gets deep into a cringe worthy weed fueled monologed with everyone at the party, and he reveals to Sam that his best friend killed himself and his aunt died in a car accident. There, now we have a reason for his anxiety. So he grows closer to this new friend group and everything becomes easy for him. Unfortunately, the second act also sees to it that Charlie looses all of his friends. This is done because the narrative demands that Charlie does something to hurt his friends so that he can blame himself as he did with the death of his aunt. This event, the wicked breakup between Charlie and Mary Elizabeth after Charlie kisses Sam, causes Charlie to regress to his depressed and anxious ways.

As the second act of the film comes to a close we see Charlie reunited with his friends after his scrawny, sad, self presumably hulks out to save Patrick from a homophobic ass-kickin’. The friends reunite and all is well. The final act however, really throws a curve ball and it perhaps the only thing that saves this film for me. The predictable closure to Charlies love for Same had a very cliché vibe to it, but the revolution that comes as a result it was enough to give me whiplash. Learning of Charlies true history with his aunt was enough to justify the entire overly depressive narrative that was presented at the start of the film. In a way the film tricks you into believing that when Charlie talks about his Aunt and best friend’s death we have learned everything we need to know about the depth of the character. In the moments following our realization of what happened to Charlie everything made complete sense. I was wrong about this film in the beginning, but I am happy I was able to see it through that critical lens because it made it all the better.

I began this semester frustrated over online class, covid, and my suborn attitude towards taking a class to fulfill my art credit. I am a history major getting my teaching degree and the idea of taking any more classes that didn’t have to do with education or history was annoying to me. The truth is, I picked this class because I thought it would be easiest. Also, because I any other art class would be fatal to my GPA as I have about as much artistic ability as a wet rock.

Certainly this class wasn’t easy for the reasons I would have though, it was easy because I loved it. Having conversations about movies is one of my favorite pastimes, and talking to people that actually have a deeper understanding of film is like a breath of fresh air. I am beyond grateful that I chose to take this class because as much as I thought it was going to be an unneeded stressor, it actually became one of the biggest stress relievers.

Thanks everyone,

Dylan B.

Pulp Fiction

Faced with the anticipation of a new millennium, the 1990s was a time of reimagining and transformation, and audiences across the country were about to bear witness to the best example of this in film. Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994) would test every boundary of film culture in his reimagining and revival of the crime genre. What would soon become a mainstay in all of his movies, Pulp Fiction would set up a neo-noir crime genre containing an amalgamation of gangster, dark comedy, realism, and action sub genres. Tarantino uses every tool at his disposal to overhaul the crime genre throughout its structure, visuals, narrative, and theme.

The structure of this genre, as depicted in Pulp Fiction, breaks and preconceived notion the audience may have of traditional crime films. Through a brilliantly executed non-linear chapter structure Tarantino is able to introduce the audience the neo-noir take on crime genre without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By opening the film with the diner robbery we are given the illusion of a typical heist driven narrative only then to be cut to the opening credits (which play out much more like closing credits with a runtime just over 2 minutes). This is suggestive of a deeper message: forget everything you thought you knew about crime films and get ready for something new. This leaves us posing a question of what could come next. All subsequent chapters in the film follow a non-linear timeline with 3 each dealing with the genre of crime, but all on their own, and in their own time.

What further cements the importance of structure in the film can be found in its narrative. In correlation to a non-linear story, the narrative and dialogue which drives it also serves to create a freshness to the genre. The idea is also presented in Ron Wilson’s essay on crime films during the 1990s stating:

“Dialogue is important in revealing the fatuous nature of crime and the absurdity of the criminal existence. This often turns on references of such mundane topics as McDonald’s, foot massages, milk shakes, and pork products. Tarantino’s dialogue thus deconstructs the typical Hollywood concern with keeping the narrative focused on a single, linear subject, while moving forward in a clear discernible manner.” (Wilson 150)

The reference here of the mundane being placed into the dialogue is a key aspect of what makes this film stand out. This adds a sense of realism to the film that was not often seen in crime films prior. This is not to say that the dialogue simply makes the narrative relatable to the audience; instead, it makes in real  in a way that takes you just far enough out of the movie while simultaneously working on character development. As Tarantino himself was once quoted in an interview, “let real life intrude on genre.”

Throughout the film Tarantino uses visual aspects to amplify the narrative and drive home the distinctions of the genre. For example, when we are first introduced to Jules and Vincent they dress in the attire we would expect from Tarantino’s first film, Reservoir Dogs, which dealt more closely with the tropes of a heist film. However, given this new context and dialogue we are able to view them in a more personal/realist light. This is further realized in the second half of their storyline, after blowing Marvin’s brains out in the car, we see them dressed in a friends old tee shirts and shorts. This allows for a bit of visual comic relief while still having that dark reasoning behind it. Yet another area we see the visual aspects payed out is in Tarantino’s many visual gags, this is a point that is made in Caroline Jewers Book, Heroes and Heroin: From True Romance to Pulp Fiction, highlighting Vincent’s copy of the cheap thriller Modesty Blaise he carries with him each time he uses the bathroom. Jewers explains this as “a playful reminder of the nature, substance, depth, and throw- away value of mass-market adventure stories: pulp fiction is the subject and the object of filmic reflection.” (Jewers 40) Through these visuals we are able to see his film through a more realist lens needed to achieve a true neo-noir genre.

Finally, what ultimately fits Pulp Fiction so perfectly to the neo-noir genre is its theme. Unlike traditional themes often found in the crime genre, which mainly focus on action and consequence, Tarantino allows for the underlining theme of redemption. This is present primarily through the character Jules, a professional gangster that lives his life by the code of crime. To Jules killing is just a job, and he does it in style citing the bible verse Ezekiel 25:17, “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children.” When we first hear Jules utter this truly bad ass line of dialogue it means very little to him, just thinking it was some cold blooded shit to say before he capped someone’s ass. However, after witnessing 5 bullets seemingly pass straight through him early on in the film, he spends the rest of is storyline in contemplation. This finally comes full circle back at the diner where we witnessed the robbery in the begging of the film after Jules hands over his wallet to the robber Ringo. In the final moments of the film Jules comes to his conclusion. After explaining to Ringo the bible passage he states, “See, now I’m thinking, maybe it means you’re the evil man, and I’m the righteous man, and Mr. 9 Millimeter here? He’s the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and selfish. Now I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is…you’re the weak, and I am the tyranny of evil men. But I’m trying, Ringo. I’m trying real hard to be the shepherd.”

 The final moment of the film encapsulates the entire message of the neo-noir crime genre as it shows a deeper more nuanced understanding of crime and it’s lifestyle. Tarantino set out to transform and revitalize the crime genre, and he did it in a way that would become synonymous with all of this work. Pulp Fiction very respectfully deconstructs the old tropes of the genre through its structure, narrative, and visuals. It took the genre as a soft, moist, shapeless, mass of matter, and crafted it into something for a new generation of film lovers.

Sources:

Film Genre 2000: New Critical Essays. United Kingdom, State University of New York Press, 2000.https://www.google.com/books/edition/Film_Genre_2000/u92yAqdWcawC?hl=en&gbpv=0

Jewers, C. (2000). Heroes and heroin: From true romance to pulp fiction. Journal of Popular Culture, 33(4), 39-61. Retrieved from https://www.ezproxy.alfred.edu/login??url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.alfred.edu/docview/195363594?accountid=8263

The Ideological Truths in Get Out

Jordan’s Peele’s Get Out is THE ideological film master piece of my time, showing the cultural division and virtue signaling that lies just under the surface of our society. The universe in which the film is based is nearly culturally identical to our own (right up until the third act when all hell breaks loose). Through this the film sets out to very accurately display an ideology the brings marginalized people to the inner circle on the condition that they leave their cultural identity at the door.

Peele focuses on the parts of society that believe they live in a “post-racial” world, trying to overcompensate for any cultural difference and ultimately making marginalized people feel more isolated. This can be seen in the great examples found at the dinner party scene where Chris is introduced to all of the Armitage’s friends who, unknown to Chris, would be placing bids on him later on. Each member of the party simply cannot help but to awkwardly introduce race into their conversations with him. The intention of this is not to isolate or insult, but in reality leaves Chris feeling more isolated than if someone had been outwardly and bluntly racist towards him. It is a similar behavior to that found in the “I’m not racist, I have tons of black friends!” argument. Event Rose’s father gets his swing in while realizing the elephant in the room (their black workers/ creepy Frankenstein grandparents) while assuring Chris he’s not a racist by stating, ” by the way, I would have voted for Obama a third time if I could have, best president of my lifetime”. This is perhaps the most abhorrent forms of racism as this ideology serves to form a protective barrier around the issue of race for whatever hidden personal gain or ego is to be had, and oh boy if Chris only knew for what personal gain that was!

The film displays an obvious and horrific extreme to the ideology it presents, but it does serve as a powerful warning and serious questions to our society. This issues of further marginalizing people is seen in the actions of those around Chris and in the mental representation we are given in the sunk in place. Further, the notion of this ideology being presented in this way is highly important because of how it unmasks the fake niceties and jovial behavior of many who claim to be part of the cause, giving a platform to watch for and recognize it’s behavior. The layers of Peele’s meaning in this film all present truths about our society in a way that holds those who attempt to go unrecognized to account.

The Thin Blue Line That Redefined Docs.

Today many people see murder documentaries as an informative way to spend a boring Saturday night, or at least I do. The ways in which they feed out bits of information to portray a real and controversial event is like a magnet for a generation that prefers Netflix over a good book. However, I believe that any long last interest in documentaries would have been snuffed out long ago without the innovations that Errol Morris employs in his 1988 film The Thin Blue Line.

This film covers the events of the 1976 murder of a Dallas police officer, the trail, evidence (or lack there of), and all those involved. The suspects, Randall Adams (who was convicted during the time of filming), and David Harris, freely give their testimonies on the events alongside others involved in the case. This sets up Morris’ first innovative technique which has to do with narrative. There isn’t a narrator to be found throughout the film and it is this lack of narration that allows the audience to view the events with a fresh perspective. This is effective in its ability to maintain our interest as we are not listening for directions on what to think, but instead we are looking for evidence to draw our own conclusions. This technique, however simple it may seem, is key to holding the interest of an audience, and I believe you would be hard pressed to find a murder or crime documentary today that doesn’t use it.

Although the lack of narration in the film leaves the direct bias of Morris somewhat ambiguous, the conclusion that can be drawn of the reasonable doubt of Adams convicted is present in the editing and re-enactments of the film. The technique of incorporating re-enactments within and overlapping the interviews serves to subtly invoke a sense of confusion and contradiction to what we are being told. A great example of this can be found as the re-enactments change to fit the story of each interviewee. The inclusion of eyewitnesses for example were added only as they were interviewed, and based on the testimony they gave the scene would slightly change. This shows the true inconsistency of the case and the danger of human error that could have been a contributing factor to Adams conviction.

Throughout the various examples given in the interviews and re-enactments the audience is still left lacking because even with all the evidence we still cannot see the full story. This was used purposefully by Morris as a clever way to convey the very depressing truth that these kinds of things hinge on the testimony of those involved, and being unsure about the facts is frightening and frustrating. However, I believe the purpose of Morris bringing the audience to this point is found in the final moments as we are given one the final line by Harris all but admitting to his guilt and Adams innocents.

This moment brings powerful closure to the emotional rollercoaster that saw the wrong man locked away for 12 years of his life. What is especially important to note on Morris’s choice to present this key moment in this way was how different the film would have been if we had been given this information up front. Morris didn’t just want us to see that Adams was innocent, he wanted us to know beyond any reasonable doubt the truth. This technique didn’t just provide closure, it slammed the door shut on this case, and I believe that this provided the heaviest impact that redefined the way documentaries could be made.