The Tragedy of the American Suburbia

She was working alone, and visibly weakening with every line. Before the end of the first act the audience could tell as well as the Players that she’d lost her grip, and soon they were all embarrassed for her. She had begun to alternate between false theatrical gestures and a white-knuckled immobility; she was carrying her shoulders high and square, and despite her heavy make-up you could see the warmth of humiliation rising in her face and neck – Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

Frank and April Wheeler have it all: young, bright, enthusiastic, the world is in their hands. They can do anything, be anything, dream anything – it’s all there, at their fingertips. Frank is brilliant; April is artistic. Together, they could conquer anything they wish to, for at their prime they are nothing short of free and unbounded. 

Two years pass. 

A lily white house, two charming children, Frank at a desk job, April as a domestic – circumstances are suffocating them, choking them from their once promising dream of a future. Perhaps they married too young, had kids too young, settled down too young: the real answer is never an easy one to guess. But what is true of Yates’ ironic morality play is that it is a brutal and unforgiving portrait of the classic American tragedy – that of suburbia. 

The story opens with Frank biting his knuckles hard as he watches April’s skilled performance in The Petrified Forest get dragged down by her amateur co-actors and director: it’s a catastrophe. Frank conjures up ideas to comfort April, thinking of the best words he can offer to deliver his mournful wife from the slump. But he fails – and hard. 

They fight: she tells him to stop, he insists further, she insists back, he yells that it’s not his goddamn fault she didn’t become an actress and that she has the nerve to blame it on him – Cut! Stop! Fin! The rabble ends as he stops the car and she drags herself out, unable to look at him as he badgers her with what he believes is true but otherwise isn’t. The match is set, the play is planned, and the tale begins of a man and a woman who lose themselves in the midst of multiple performances they can no longer maintain. 

What’s so engrossing about Richard Yates’ story is that it not only addresses the psychological detriment of the American suburban life but also looks deeply into the performances and parts that each person, each character sets out to play in lieu of their watchful neighbors. And it’s these roles that each neighbor who credits into the American dream must eventually accept; if not, they ultimately reject their own investment and lie prey to the philosophical conundrums and pain they must endure in order to reestablish themselves in life. 

Our lives are a performance: emotions and thoughts are diluted down into language, words and paper, and the eloquence of which we speak and act them out is left to the interpretation of others regardless of how we may actually feel. Only when the curtain falls, the death knoll tolls so that we are released from such a theatrical life, the life in which we use the shell of our bodies to mime and mimic actions that we hope to convey our truest selves. 

Oftentimes our environment dictates what we are able to perform, whether we like it or not. The American suburbia is no different: in fact, in some ways it’s even worse. It’s pure standardization, a white bread mentality that indulges in urban sprawl, manicured streets, consumerist shopping plazas, cookie cutter houses, Stepford wives and commuting-to-work husbands. Worse yet, it is completely devoid of true, vibrantly artistic culture, culture which cannot exist in a environment insists so heavily on sterilizing anything that passes through it. So it’s no surprise that this alluring American dream draws in the gullible, only to crush those who do not abide by its stringent, unforgivably strict set of character roles it expects to be dutifully fulfilled. These prepositional roles are what Frank and April try so very hard to act out notwithstanding their truest natures that so very clash against the suburban siren of Revolutionary Road. 

Let’s start with Frank. It’s 1950, he’s worked odd jobs in his youth, is a certified World War II veteran, works a stable desk job, and by all means that’s enough to declare his status as a true man in American society. But he’s a thinker too, a philosopher at best who wants to challenge the status quo; he hates these confinements, relishes in his own pride of individualism, and cherishes his wife’s compliment that he is the “most interesting man she’s ever met.” These two aspects already put Frank at odds with himself: to be accepted as man, he must subscribe to the very society that possesses qualities he finds so distasteful; to be a true thinker, he must completely reject the same society that would procure him the birthright of male superiority. The choice is difficult: for Frank, to think is to be a man, but his definition of manhood is also beginning to be shaped by American society, which discourages the progressive thoughts he tries to act upon. 

Then there’s April. She’s classy, intelligent, independent, romantic, and crushed by the role of a perfect suburban mother. For this artist-by-nature to be confined by whitewashed windows, by perfectly laden aprons, by chirpy well-to-do neighbors – it’s completely unnatural, and staggeringly so. But she’s an excellent actress, too, and wants very much, too, to perfectly fulfill the obligation of the stay-at-home wife who awaits her husband everyday from work, pristinely and unfalteringly supportive of his endeavors regardless of mood or whim. This actor quality that defines April, this very quality is what puts her at odds with herself: to be herself, she must not act the part of the housewife, and forsake the pretenses that a suburban woman must act out; but to be a true actress she must bite the bullet, swallow her pride and play whatever roles are required without losing a sense of her true self. Yet the latter fold is that to be a true to herself, the actress April, the free April, she must completely forsake the role of a perfect suburban woman. To say the least, April Wheeler must make a difficult choice as well.  

Such are the dilemmas that these two characters must deal for themselves, and together they resonate and clash so frequently that the dissonance and synchrony of their flaring passions and temperaments reveal one thing, and one thing only: they are not happy, and they are trying to save not only themselves but each other from drowning in the sea of suburbia. 

Frank loses it first: frustrated at April’s unwillingness to cooperate by his terms, he succumbs to temptation and has an affair with the office secretary, Maureen. Herein is Frank’s first crumbling fall from his own self, driven by no other force except his own pride – in his manhood and his thought. The irony, though, is that if he were a true progressive, he wouldn’t impose his self-righteousness upon April in the first place; that instead he would listen to the subtleties of her body language, instead of placating her with an overbearing pseudo-Freudian psychoanalysis that is far from true or grounded. No, instead Frank begins the freefall from progressivism in lieu of maintaining his masculine status within society, indulging in what is otherwise one of the biggest double-standards to this day: the unspoken acceptability of a husband straying from his wife, while the unspoken reverse is unacceptable. This is his masculine right. 

Is he proud of this? Initially, no; it is a great weakness on his part, but it is a deep drive to prove his own manhood that he starts breaking at the very foundation of his original, progressive philosophy. It’s the beginning of a slow, degenerating process that eventually erodes at the very foundation of who Frank Wheeler is. 

Back to April: she is suffocating, and through her lonely disillusion an idea springs up – France! Paris je’Taime! The European epicenter of culture! Freedom! This, she believes, is the last chance for her, for Frank, for them to get away from the asphyxiating grasp of suburban America that clearly they cannot conform to without financing their true selves. She’s seen how Frank is beginning to deteriorate – how insensitive he’d been, how he’d yelled at her, how he’d almost hit her! – and she knows that the true Frank, Frank the philosopher, the thinker, the brilliant, will never grow to his full potential if he remains any longer at the company Knox. She’ll do whatever she can to make it happen: secretary job, passports, airplane tickets, moving boxes, selling houses – April Wheeler will make this happen. 

But it’s already too late. Frank has already succumbed to the lust of masculine right, and the prospect of moving to Paris frightens him. April to be the income earner, while he finds time to figure out his life – is this possible? Of course, but more pressingly, is this acceptable? 

Sadly, the answer is no. While the original Frank would’ve likely embarked immediately on such a prospect, the current Frank – the changing, compromising Frank Wheeler – is in limbo, drawn by his own pride to the allure of celebrated manhood, and to suddenly take off to a society with different standards, different values and be supported by his wife so he can revert back to his default self – no, no this is not possible for Frank Wheeler. He enjoys the flattery of American society, the praise of his superiors at the dull company Knox, the flings with the secretary Maureen: he enjoys it all. No, this Frank Wheeler does not want to let go of his comfort. He cannot forsake it, not even for April. 

His saving grace is that April becomes pregnant with their third child, forcing them to call off all their initial moving plans. The days of whimsy in the office are gone, the glee of his temporary existence in the office Knox is now replaced by a big, sighing relief of comfort: he is still in charge, the man of the house, the income bringer, the sole dependent of the pristinely white Wheeler house. He’ll get a promotion, this is certain, but when he realizes April may attempt to perform a self-abortion he flies in a flurry of rage. How dare she! How dare she risk their – no, his comfort! How dare she try to assert such feminine independence when he is the still the man in charge! The nerve of it all – how can she not see what a selfish action it is! It is his child, his bloodline, and yet she still dared to even contemplate early termination! How could she, how could she?! No, Frank Wheeler will not have any of that in household. This is his dominion, and he will have his say. 

And so he does, but at a fatal cost: his final assertion in the name of manhood, his final fall from true progressivism destroys April – in heart and soul. She sees now that this is not the Frank she fell in love with, the man who first treated her as his equal; this Frank, this transformed Frank, is a different man, the kind of man that the society she suffocates in celebrates with the vigor of cigars, whiskey, blondes and brunettes. He no longer performs the original Frank, the man of thought and brilliance; he now acts out the acceptable Frank, the man who only believes he is one of thought and brilliance while in reality he is no better or different than his chauvinistic contemporaries. The original Frank is lost, and April is alone to decide for herself what role she will ultimately transcend into – April the wife or April the true. 

She chooses April the true, the real April Wheeler, the one who wants to feel something substantial and in passion, more so than the packaged emotions and expectations that the suburban housewife must agree to. And in her desperation she consummates with her neighbor Shep Campbell, a man that she is easily repulsed by but does so anyway because it is a testament to see whether or not she can truly act as freely as before – and yes, she still can. Which leads her to her last and final attempt to assert her female independence in the Wheeler household: she performs a self-inflicted abortion, and ultimately dies from blood loss. 

April’s theatrical moment has ceased, the curtains folded, and gone she is from the center stage of her life as we now know it. At the very end, she maintained her true self amidst the ocean of oppressive suburbia, the poise of her essence and existence despite what else others might quip about thereafter. This is her dying grace, her retained dignity. 

And what of Frank? Why he’s completely destroyed by April’s final performance: all in an instant he realizes the mistakes he made, the pride of manhood that blinded him from reality, the stupidity of succumbing into mental stagnation – for a moment the original Frank is back in full force, grasping to bring back April into his embrace, to repent for all his inanity and insanity and insufferable ignorance, to move to Paris with her for their hopeful future… but it’s too late. 

April, beautiful and romantic and dreamer April, is gone. And with this final realization the real Frank Wheeler dies as well, his performance now an empty shell on the stage of a lifeless theater – the perfect masculine role of American society, devoid of thought, philosophy, hope, or dreams. 

There’s an interesting character named John Givings, who befriends the Wheelers before their untimely and ultimate downfall. His mother, Mrs. Helen Givings, is the perfect model of a peppy suburban woman, playing the role with such enthusiasm and vigor and self-righteousness and it’s almost sickening to see how utterly theatrical her socializing is; his father, Mr. Howard Givings, is apathetic, empty of care or thought and only so much inclined to turn on or off his hearing aid when he feels like it, and even then he is only half-listening and half-engaged in what is happening immediately. So for John to clash so vehemently and jarringly against his parents’ model behaviors, that he spits in the face of normality and the expectations of suburban character roles – it’s all a very revealing portrait of someone who is considered mentally sick, unstable and insane by 1950s American standards. 

Maybe John really is mentally sick, we may never know. But what we do know is that he doesn’t give a damn about pretenses, social etiquette, or any of the frivolous and frilly nature of human interaction: he is honest, straightforward, unflinching and blunt, unwilling to compromise his behavior into another performance that is otherwise acceptable to most. No, John absolutely refuses this, and for this same reason he is drawn to Frank and April Wheeler, both whom possess John’s rebellious qualities deep down inside. He likes that Frank acknowledges that there is a hopeless emptiness to the American dream, and likes it even more that April is a true female – not a woman, but a female. A unbounded, independence female entity, the equal of a male entity and devoid of social restrictions or circumstance that chain down women into women. 

So when he later hears the Frank and April have relinquished their last chance of freedom, John is of course disgusted, and knows immediately that Frank is the weak point: April, as female as she may be, cannot overcome the overbearing male dominance that is accepted by American society, and John understands that very well, though he does not completely ignore her faults either; John shoots his venom in the right direction, right at the core and pride of the compromised Frank Wheeler, right where it hurts and sores the most. John Givings is sickened by Frank’s hypocrisy, letting him know it immediately; and for that he is diagnosed far too unstable by his own mother, thus condemned to a longer life filled with more infrequency of visitations. 

John Givings is the classic jester figure of King Lear, the unfaltering consciousness that we wished for Frank, April and everyone to suddenly wake up to and to see as clearly as day. Passionate and logical, John is us – the reader, the viewer, the audience. John is us. Yet ironically he is considered insane by the very setting he occupies, and by extension we are also mad by the suburban standards of Revolutionary Road. 

But what is madness? Is it definitive, or is it relative to the societies in which we reside in? Is it so mad to dream of something greater, something better in the scheme of time? Is it so mad to hope for change that one may benefit from? And is it so mad to believe that there is always the possibility of freedom, which one may escape from the chaining confines of the current circumstances? 

Herein lies the greatest irony of Revolutionary Road: for if Frank and April Wheeler had stayed true to themselves, they would’ve been deemed mad yet become true revolutionaries. But in mortgaging their hopes and dreams they invariably festered into the stagnant sea of suburbia, betraying not only their best selves but each other while attempting to compromise and choose between their own roles and performances in life; and ultimately, both the real Frank and the real April die all together in the bitter, bitter end.  

This is the tragedy of Frank and April Wheeler. This is the tragedy of the American suburban dream. This is Revolutionary Road

The Foreign Film (and how to approach it)

Pan's Labyrinth

Pan’s Labyrinth

Foreign films were once one of the most difficult to find, nearly on par with finding theaters that ran independent films. Now, with Netflix, YouTube and other digital technology, watching foreign films has become much easier to pursue in this day and age – yet still a large majority of the American public shirks away from them for various reasons, the most common being “I don’t want to watch and read subtitles.” And even if there is a dub, sometimes good old ethnocentrism is enough to deter a viewer from engaging in a non-American production. 

Shaolin Soccer

I believe foreign films are essential to one’s moviegoing experience. To disregard them because they are non-American, non-English or from a different culture is to have a fallow understanding of rich cinema; this is nothing short of depriving oneself from a variety of experiences that will invariably supplement and enrich one’s appreciation for the narrative power of film that is both specific and universal. Otherwise, claiming that one is a cinephile without willing to see foreign films is unfounded and untrue (I say willing because circumstances often dictate what one is able to watch). Additionally, American productions have consistently ranked highest in worldwide box office gross; this is indicative of Hollywood’s domineering presence in the world, and how American productions are often at the forefront of popularity, both domestically and internationally. This is not to say American productions are thus less auteuristic, creative or original – all it means is that American films frequently receive the most notice on a domestic and global scale. Thus, it is all the more important to expand one’s horizons beyond the average American fare if one is to truly become a self-proclaimed cinephile. 

The Lives of Others

When I speak of foreign films, I’m talking specifically about non-American and mostly non-English language films (I find this is appropriate since I grew up in the States, and am most familiar with American productions). The term “foreign film” is malleable, specifically defined by what one considers their home country and foreign countries to be. Speaking strictly from an American perspective, I believe foreign films have political, social, historical, cultural, and target audiences distinctly different than what the average American filmgoer expects. This definition also includes English films to an extent, but vaguely so since there are English films that may be accessible regardless of the cultural references they make. Here, I will attempt to discuss how one may consider and critique the foreign film holistically in order to appreciate it as much as possible. My analysis will somewhat segment into social, political, historical and cultural aspects of foreign films respectively, but it must be noted that these distinct aspects are not separate from one another, and oftentimes overlap. Here goes!

The Host

One of the first aspects is to consider the social-political differences that one may not pick up on while watching a foreign film. A recent South Korean film, The Host (괴물, Gwoemul – “Monster”), was one of the most financially and critically successful domestic films in South Korea to date: it’s hilarious, moving, and terrifying – all in one unique bundle. The tone shifted seamlessly from one to the next, a tragedy instantly transforming into a comedy, and vice versa in the next second. Underneath the drama and farce lies a deeply political charge that has historical and social significance to South Koreans: the premise is partly inspired a 2000 incident in which a U.S. military-hired Korean mortician dumped large amounts of formaldehyde down the drain; this added some antagonism against the United States, notwithstanding the environmental concerns raised. In the movie, this is the same reason for the genesis of the monster. The film also references the chemical Agent Orange, code name for the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military in its herbicidal warfare during the Vietnam War; the movie’s equivalent is Agent Yellow, the chemical used by the American military to combat the monster in the final scenes. Additionally, Bong Joon-ho’s film satirizes the South Korean government as bureaucratic, inefficient and callous. The tone shifts could throw off the average viewer who didn’t understand this political and social context, but those who understood such a sentiment could easily appreciate Joon-ho’s idiosyncratic take on a classic monster genre. 

Taare Zameen Par

Sometimes, to fully appreciate a foreign film, you need someone who can explain to you different details and the significance of such throughout the film. Such was the case a few months ago when I watched the 2007 Indian film, Taare Zameen Par (तारे ज़मीन पर, “Like Stars On Earth”) with a good Indian friend of mine. The story is about a young boy, Ishaan Awasthi, who is failing in school because unbeknownst to his family, classmates and schoolteachers, he struggles with dyslexia. His learning disability is unacknowledged by everyone, and only when he is sent to boarding school does a temporary art teacher, Ram Shankar Nikumbh (“Nikumbh Sir”), truly understand and empathize with Ishaan’s troubles and how much psychological and emotional pain the boy has endured. 

During the viewing, my friend would occasionally interject (and sometimes pause the film for full explanations) different bits of information that I found interesting and enlightening: even though the film is as Bollywood as it gets, he noted that the songs (mostly Hindi) were unusually well integrated into the overall narrative, and even translated a few key lyrics that the subtitles didn’t capture; then there’s the classic Indian family that he pointed out, with the strict father and the nurturing mother; there’s also a scene where Ishaan is continuously smacked by his classmates in the hallway, who call him “stupid” over and over again, thus highlighting a significant cultural emphasis on intelligence; and most interesting of all (that I didn’t know prior) was that it is rare for anyone to speak 100% Hindi without any English words thrown in – and such was demonstrated by one of Ishaan’s teachers at his boarding school in one scene. 

Even without my friend’s input I would’ve received Taare Zameen Par warmly; with this additional cultural knowledge throughout the film, I appreciated Aamir Khan’s film that much more, and am even more open to Indian Bollywood films thereon after (in fact, we’re both planning to watch the 2009 film 3 Idiots in the near future). 

Departures

Sometimes foreign films require extra research post-viewing to completely understand what has happened on screen. Such was the case with my initial viewing of Departures (おくりびと, Okuribito), the 2008 film by Yōjirō Takita. I fell in love with the story, cinematography and music during my first viewing, which was with my family as well (both my mother and older brother had seen it prior, and he provided some quiet commentary throughout). The film had such a uniquely sad and remorseful quality that was not overwrought but simply human, and strangely healing at the same time. Most significant of all was that it tackles the idea of life and death, how we define life, and why a dead loved one’s body is so sacred (Viet Le has been in the process of writing a very, very long article on this – I will notify readers and link the article immediately once it is published. We’ve been discussing it for over three months and I look forward to its completion). After finishing the drama, I looked up some additional information about the film’s production, and learned some amazing things: for one, the film took ten years to make (and understandably too, since the topic is on one of the most taboo social subjects of Japan); actor Masahiro Motoki, who played the torn Daigo Kobayashi, learned the art of 納棺 nōkan, “encoffinment,” first hand from a mortician, and learned how to play cello for certain scenes of the movie. I’m still awestruck by director Takita’s sensitivity and his profound approach to such a taboo topic, and how incredibly humane and emotionally gripping the final film came out to be. Unsurprisingly, it won Japan’s top prestigious award of the year and the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 2009 – and for good reason too. 

The Scent of Green Papaya

Understanding the historical context can be invaluable to one’s foreign film experience. As a Vietnamese American, I can fully empathize and understand the context of films such as The Scent of Green Papaya (1993), Three Seasons (1999), and Journey from the Fall (2006) since they all deal with my cultural heritage that I strongly identify with; in talking about these films to others, I do my best not only to explain the film itself but why certain aspects have a significance to Vietnamese history and the Vietnamese community (i.e. human trafficking, reeducation camps, Thai pirates that raided escape boats, foreigners visiting Vietnam, French-occupied Vietnam, changing social, cultural and infrastructural tides, etc). Taking the time to research and read further on the historical context is, perhaps, crucial if one wants to understand why a film is so beloved and successful in its country of origin. For instance, The Secret of Kells draws lovingly from Irish history, and its aesthetic draws heavily from Celtic mythology; Robert Tan compiled a list and wrote a great analysis on the Irish roots of Kells, which I highly recommend for anyone who has seen Kells already (or is planning to and greatly enjoys history and mythology of any kind). Another great film for worthy of historical research is the 2006 German film, The Lives of Others (Das Leben deer Anderen), a fascinating look into the agents of Stasi in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin wall and German reunification 1989 (I need to re-watch the film – it’s been awhile, and a lot of details have been lost from my memory). 

Lust, Caution

Cultural aspects are always a bit trickier to address when you don’t have someone explain and put things in perspective, and sometimes these aspects are lost in translation or simply can’t be translated at all. For instance, years ago I knew a girl who remarked she didn’t want to see Stephen Chow’s Shaolin Soccer (少林足球) because “it was too weird” despite my enthusiasm for its slapstick and over-the-top premise (in fact, she later added that she didn’t like the idea of “weird ass” kung fu being combined with soccer at all – the comedy and style was completely foreign to her). During my first viewing, I didn’t understand all of the jokes, as some were very distinctly Chinese (a good friend of mine told me later what the jokes were about, but even then I had trouble grasping the punchline). There was a similar problem with Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution (色,戒) in 2007 with American critics, most who concluded that it was a overdrawn espionage that was primarily about sex (some even said the acting was flat, which I completely disagree with). The same friend who enlightened me about Shaolin Soccer’s jokes described the film as “very Chinese,” and after my recent viewing of the film I can see why: the film feels very much like a novel, and relies heavily on the emotions that are not explicitly stated but subtly expressed with small gestures and glances – a style that is very much embedded in East Asian cultural normality, where we often do not say aloud but hint at and quietly understand the visceral nature of socializing. 

Tekkon Kinkreet

Things getting lost in translation are inevitable, and the most profound are often the terms themselves. When the name of the Japanese anthology of Studio 4ºC’s short animated films was released in 2007, Genius Party, there was some backlash from some of the online community who believed the name was arrogant and pretentious; however, it turns out that the term “genius” is actually one of respect for those who do exceptional work, and by no means entails any sense of arrogance or pretension in the Japanese language. A similar problem occurred with the 2006 film Tekkon Kinkreet (鉄コン筋クリート Tekkon Kinkurīto, a child’s mispronunciation of “Tekkin Konkurito” – steel reinforced concrete), a Japanese animated film that relied heavily on wordplay and homonyms. A lot of the clever dialogue was untranslatable, and understandably it didn’t receive a wide English release outside of Japan since only those exceptionally familiar with Japanese culture and language would be able to fully understand the film beyond its premise.

The Triplets of Belleville

On a subtopic of cultural differences, I feel it’s important to address how differently many Americans perceive animated films to be than the rest of the world (as snarkily stated by Mr. Fox at the 2009 Academy Awards and demonstrated by Anne Hathaway’s comments about animated films during the 2007 Academy Awards – the second clip that I cannot find, unfortunately, but remember very distinctly since she was bouncing off of Steve Carrell during the announcement). Foremost, animated films are not a genre, and they are not exclusive to children; in fact, some of the best animated films have incredibly adult thematics, as demonstrated by Isao Takahata’s Grave of the Fireflies (火垂るの墓 Hotaru no Haka) in 1988, Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud’s Persepolis in 2007 (I’ve read the book but have yet to see the film, which I heard is an amazing adaptation of an already amazing story) and Sylvain Chomet’s quirky 2003 film The Triplets of Belleville (Les Triplettes de Belleville). Most Americans commonly associate animated films to be pandering exclusively to children, much due to Disney’s tremendous legacy and domination of American animation for over 70 years; additionally, with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deeming the awards for animated features as “Best Animated Film,” it essentially reinforces the belief that animated films are completely separate from live-action films. This is a false assumption: live-action and animated films are not separate, and both are very capable of telling amazing and moving stories with their respective strengths and weaknesses. A further demonstration of such cultural differences would be to juxtapose Japan’s equivalent award ceremony to that of the American Oscars, which is the Japan Academy Prize (日本アカデミー賞 Nippon Akademī-shō), also known as the Japan/Japanese Academy Awards. For animated features, the Japan Academy Prize award is listed as “Best Animation of the Year,” which is a subtle but significant difference from the Oscar’s “Best Animated Picture” category; to say the least, the Japan Academy Prize treats animation as technical and artistic prize much in the same vein as “Best Cinematography,” and thus does not exclude animated features from a chance at the prestigious prize, “Picture of Year” (in fact, Hayao Miyazaki’s films Princess Mononoke (もののけ姫) and Spirited Away (千と千尋の神隠し)won this award in 1998 and 2002, respectively). 

Paprika

But back to cultural differences, which can also entail a target audience that may not transfer over easily to another country by virtue of who the artist or work is. For instance, fans of Satoshi Kon would expect nothing less than the inane psychological madness and dazzling, unbounded dream sequences of his work, as demonstrated in one of his English wide releases Paprika (パプリカ) back in 2006; yet many American critics faulted the movie for this very reason, most who were unfamiliar with Kon’s filmography and work up until this point. A similar reaction happened with Shinichirō Watanabe’s 2001 film debut Cowboy Bebop: Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door (劇場版 カウボーイビバップ 天国の扉), which was essentially an extended and exceptionally well-animated episode of the hit and legendary anime series Cowboy Bebop (1998); yet again many American reviewers did not know of its origin or cultural significance, and simply regarded the movie as a practice in jazzy bebop stylization, and nothing else. 

Antichrist

There are times, too, when cultural differences cause a major backlash when foreign films are released domestically. Take for instance the sweet and lovable Amélie (Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain) by Jean-Pierre Jeunet in 2001, which received an R rating from the MPAA due to a 15 second compilation of orgasms – I argue that this was an incredibly unfair rating (especially considering what other PG-13 films have gotten away with, i.e. Coyote Ugly) but alas, such is what the MPAA does when determining what “is” and what “isn’t” suitable for American audiences. Similarly, Lars von Trier’s 2009 film Antichrist was highly successful in Denmark, financially and critically so; yet at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival the film polarized critics, all acknowledging the artistic execution but ultimately divided on its substance and message. There was also the discussion about Miyazaki’s Ponyo not getting the nomination for “Best Animated Picture” despite its outstanding visuals and animation feat; I suppose it must have been a slight backlash from Disney being its sole marketer (a friend of mine commented she thought it was “a weird Disney attempt at doing anime,” which may be indicative of how the public felt) but there was also a distinct xenophobic aspect to the decision, especially considering that The Secret of Kells – which received no wide release prior to the Oscars – was nominated instead (please note I am not lambasting Kells; I believe it is a fine film that equally deserved that nomination as well as Ponyo). And then there was the heartwarming Taare Zameen Par that failed to get a Academy Award nomination in 2009 for “Best Foreign Film” despite being better received in India than Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire – a sentiment that I agree with full-heartedly – yet some stated it was too long and had too many songs to be worthy of consideration. In the end, sometimes you really don’t know how these things work out, and you just do the best you can to get over this kind of cultural backlash when you watch foreign films. 

Treeless Mountain

Technical aspects are always fair game. Cinematography, composition, editing, special effects – the technical workings of film have an almost universal standard, and I believe firmly that these aspects have no distinct cultural root otherwise (as I’ve said before, visual composition is not distinctly Western or Eastern – the aesthetic and depiction of subjects are, but not the cinematographic fundamentals). For instance, a few weeks ago I watched a South Korean drama film called Treeless Mountain (나무없는 산, Namueopneun San) by newcomer So Yong Kim, released in 2008: it was a very sweet and moving story, and would’ve been a great film had it not suffered from one great flaw – the overuse of close-ups. Nearly every shot of the film was a close-up shot, and very rarely was there any establishing shot that put the scene and characters into context; in fact, at various points I got so fed up with the gross amounts of claustrophobic close-ups that I almost stopped watching entirely (I didn’t, but there were a few close calls). Another Netflix instant stream that I watched was the 2006 French film Tell No One (Ne le dis à personne), which was once of the best thrillers I’ve seen in a long while. Contrived? You bet. But that’s beyond the point of thrillers – what it did well was the directing, acting and editing, keeping you on the edge of your seat with twists and turns and gunshots until finally, the last trick – and then you’re relieved, but shaken from the amazing ride. The same could be said about the Zhang Yimou’s 2002 Chinese film Hero (英雄), which used a beautiful palette of distinct and contrasting colors as a function of the multiple tales told by the nameless warrior portrayed by Jet Li. 

House of Flying Daggers

So how do we consider the story of a foreign film, knowing full well that there are cultural, social, historical and political forces behind the final product? Is it fair to judge the story on its own accord, based solely off your own experience? Are you self-aware of your own lack of understanding? If so, are you willing to acknowledge such and approach the film with a sense of cultural humility? Personally, I think that with a holistic understanding you gain a greater appreciation of a great story or one you may not quite comprehend upon first viewing (similar to reading the introduction of a book, which usually puts a lot of the content into perspective). There are times, though, where having a greater understanding may not salvage your foreign moviegoing experience: such is the instance I had with Yimou’s 2004 film House of Flying Daggers (十面埋伏), where despite the use of strong colors, graceful choreography and classic Asian theatrical drama I was ultimately turned off by the numerous plot twists that seemed far too contrived, more than what I’m willing to believe (this might be hypocritical on my part, considering it is a Wuxia film and invariably lends itself to fictitious representations by default, and theoretically I should appreciate it more for what it does well… but I digress). 

Let the Right One In

There are times, though, when foreign films are just outstanding on their own accord, and that understanding cultural, social, political and historical context only makes the film greater in itself. My top three favorites at moment are: Guillermo del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth (El laberinto del fauno, “The Faun’s Labyrinth”) in 2006; Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai (七人の侍) in 1954; and Tomas Alfredson’s Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in) in 2008. Personally, I believe that these films are essentially stand-alone from the respective countries they were produced in: everything from the story, directing, acting, cinematography, editing and so on is masterfully done that supplementary information thereafter only enhances your experience of the narrative. I watched Seven Samurai years ago and knew very little about film or Japanese history, and still loved the film; now, with more knowledge years later, I understand what  Kurosawa achieved in filmmaking, and it only reaffirms my respect for the man. The same goes for Pan’s Labyrinth, which I saw with a horrific and awestruck fascination when it was first released: I remember going in thinking that it would be a Tim Burton-esque fantasy story, only to watch and leave the theatre realizing experiencing a very, very classic fantasy story – the horror and gore elements all included. And now with my current reading of Grimm’s Fairy Tales I am able to appreciate del Toro’s vision even more so, and am still haunted by images of creatures like the Pale Man (still one of the most traumatizing scenes in my life thus far). And let’s not forget the strangely romantic Swedish film Let the Right One In, which raised some interesting questions as to one’s existence as a vampire (questions I further raised and addressed in a previous article); the film brought to light a lot of emotions that were odd when in conjunction with the horrific nature of vampires, but was nonetheless sweet, touching, and amazingly visceral.  

Taking into account our own lack of understanding for any culture different from that of our own is essential if one is to fully appreciate a foreign film. There is a universality to narratives, as detailed by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces, but there is also a ethnocentric tendency that we must tame in pursuing a holistic critique, one that does not involve the “that’s bizarre!” or “why on earth would you do that?” typical of those lacking any sense of cultural humility. 

Journey from the Fall

I have the benefit of understanding Asian culture, which is why I’m so familiar with East Asian cinema (if it isn’t already obvious from the list of foreign films I’ve mentioned). So whenever I talk about a Asian film I make the extra effort to communicate the knowledge I have, so as to do justice not only to the film but also to viewers who do not possess the same knowledge as I do. This does not detract away my appreciation of other foreign films not based in East Asian cinema – it only makes me account for my shortcomings even more, and to appreciate that there is a limit to my immediate understanding when I watch the reel play across the screen. I’m sure that in due time I’ll have added more foreign films to the list of “movies I’ve watched” thanks to the aid of Netflix, which has made foreign, independent, documentary and non-Hollywood films that much more accessible. Before, I didn’t have this luxury, and was dependent on what the local theatre was showing. Now that I am able to watch a greater diversity of films, I’ll be sure to keep my eyes open for anything that seems interesting and anything that has been heralded by “Great Movies” lists. So far, the list is thus (and in no particular order): 

Tell No One

• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (I’d like to read the book prior as well)

• The Funeral 

• Horus: Prince of the Sun (太陽の王子 ホルスの大冒険)

• 3 Idiots 

• Persepolis (I highly recommend reading the book)

• Waltz with Bashir

• Tokyo Sonata

• Akira Kurosawa’s entire filmography (I might as well marathon it – he’s that amazing)

• Tokyo!

• Big Man Japan

• Y tu mamá también

• The Class (I actually watched about a quarter of it so far – I’ll need to finish it when I get back from Vietnam. It also seems like the original autobiographical (?) book would be a great read as well)

• The Motorcycle Diaries

• Three… Extremes (I’m actually terrible when it comes to horror films, but I know I’ll eventually have to see extreme Asian horror – so why not this one?)

• Cache

• Belle de Jour (I actually watched this before, but would like to see this again in a different light)

• 8 ½

• 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days

• The 400 Blows

• Floating Weeds

• Tokyo Story

• Ugetsu

• Park Chan-wook’s Vengeance Trilogy (I’ve seen Oldboy, now I need see the other two)

• Thirst

• Antichrist (again, tackling one of my fears head-on and doing it with one of the most extreme examples… yikes)

• Nosferatu

• Metropolis

• Le Samouraï

• Life is Beautiful

• The White Ribbon

That’s all for now. Additionally, Allan Estrella has provided me with some very helpful links that provide some critique for some Asian films and dramas: 

The Secret of Kells

Critical reviews for Korean Dramas

Critical reviews for Korean Films

Mark Schilling, who reviews Japanese films and pop culture

If you have any suggestions for foreign films and/or criticism on foreign films, feel free to leave them in the comments or send me a email through the contact form. Cheers! 

The Mythology of Classic Disney

The boundary between reality and fantasy is porous and unstable; everything, including inanimate objects, is alive and responds magically to wishes and fears. There are mysteries and secrets everywhere, as in the lives of children, who are kept in the dark about fundamental realities – sex, death, money, and the whole complex mystery of their parents’ desires and disappointments – Elizabeth Dalton, from the Introduction to Grimm’s Fairy Tales, published 2003 by Barnes & Nobles Classics

Disney is a staple to American cinema. The name itself is a brand, hailing nearly fifty animated theatrical releases with its recent film, The Princess and the Frog, its 49th, and another unveiling this fall, Tangled, its golden 50th. 

But these recent films come nowhere near to the dare and darkness of some of the original Disney animated films, the fears evoked so deeply by fairy-, folk- and morality tales. Yes, they began the tradition of integrated musicals into animation that lasted for decades until arguably the turning of the 21st century, but these films – from Snow White to Sleeping Beauty – are in a class of their own, films that will likely stand the test of time because they tap into the subconscious of our childhood that we will never fully understand or ever let go of. 

My mother watched the classic Brothers Grimm inspired Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in Vietnam when she was a little girl, and relayed to me how scary the experience was – thrilling, but traumatizing. There was the sudden turn of the forest’s mood – from charming and inviting to mysterious and dangerous in an instant – and the evil Queen, the devilish witch who was something else: vain, proud, selfish, jealous, and most terrifying of all incredibly human. She was something tangible, something we could see happening in real life, and by all means she shook your sense of security that much more. Feasibly, the evil Queen embodied the rage of the maternal figure that as children, we all feared would unleash and unveil amidst her soothing comfort and maternal care – a motif often embodied by evil stepmothers in collected stories of the Brothers Grimm like in Cinderella (interesting enough, the Brothers Grimm edited a lot of the original stories in a second publishing of their collected stories; one of the changes they made was to charge the evil doings of maternal figures to that of stepmothers, for in most of the original stories it was actually the birth mothers that committed such atrocities. However, they felt these details were too shocking and unappealing in the original publishing, and amended such changes in later editions). 

We looked to Snow White as the character we wanted to succeed, to rise above the injustice bestowed upon her evil stepmother; her dark hair only made her skin even lighter, a literal embodiment of her own purity and namesake. The friendly dwarfs were, in a sense, an extension of us, the audience: various emotions personified, each dwarf was a supportive beam to dear Snow White as she struggled to make ends meet. These dwarfs set the stage for later DIsney films, in which there is the straight-laced protagonist followed by a group of bubbly side-characters who interject interludes of humor and relief, something the audience wanted during long periods of narratives that are otherwise intense and dramatic. And the Prince – the blessed, angelic Prince – was the savior at the end of the day, the one who could bestow upon the kiss that awaken Snow White from her slumbering nightmare. He was that God-like entity that we wished to sweep down kindly upon the righteous and pious Snow White, the happy ending we believed she so deserved after all such trials of her strength of character. With that kiss, Disney generated the origin of the classic Disney series of fables that we still identify easily today – the classic Princess lore. 

Following Snow White immediately was Pinnochio, based on the beloved fairy tale of Florentine writer Carlo Collodi. Arguably, Pinocchio is Disney’s most Christian morality tale to date: a young puppet, brought to life by the God power of the Blue Fairy, embarks on a coming-of-age adventure in which he must distinguish between good and bad before he become a full-fleshed, pure human boy; his only aids for understanding such distinctions are his consciousness, embodied and personified by a chirpy Jiminy Cricket, and his nose – if he lies it will grow longer and longer until he tells the truth, and only then will it stink back to normal size. Symbolically, Pinocchio’s growing nose represents the increasing pressure and weight of accumulated lies on one’s subconsciousness; if the nose becomes long, Pinocchio will lose his balance and fall over, unable to proceed forward in life towards becoming a human boy, symbolic of a barrier on one’s progression towards moral purity. 

There is a scene where upon strolling to school – a symbol of enlightenment – Pinocchio is stopped by a wily Fox and Cat, ironically named Honest John and Gideon, who convince him to become an actor (a entity of the theatre, a realm traditionally deemed as one of heathen debauchery) in Stromboli’s puppet show, where he is initially lauded but immediately imprisoned by the greedy puppeteer, an iconic representation of the greedy show producer and entrepreneur. And though Pinocchio escapes his predicament of a life chained to entertainment exploitation, he is tricked once again by Honest John and Gideon to saunter off to an even greater vice, Pleasure Island. 

There is one scene in Pleasure Island that is particularly jarring. After the crowd of boys have indulged in their various pleasures – sweets and fats, rides and games, shooting pool, beer drinking and tobacco smoking – the island becomes eerily quiet, foreshadowing to a horrific episode that is disturbing even by today’s standards: Lampwick, Pinocchio’s companion, slowly begins turning into a donkey, and his horror and panic he begins screaming for his mother as a last resort for salvation. But it is too late, and we see his human shadow transform into a donkey, a beast no longer acceptable by human standards and now doomed to work in the salt mines like all the other naughty, sinful boys who have also turned into inarticulate jackasses. Pinocchio escapes this predicament too, but barely and scarred: he is marked by his donkey tail and jutting ears, indicative of the peril one encounters if one gorges for too long on immoral pleasures. 

The climax is arguably the most Biblical, alluding greatly to the tale of Jonah and the Whale: it is when Pinocchio goes to rescue his beloved and all-good father, Geppetto, who has been swallowed by the wicked giant whale, Monstro. Monstro represents a turning point in Pinocchio’s character, where he casts aside all selfish desires to pursue a seemingly suicidal but ultimately altruistic quest out of love; and in being swallowed by the beast, he conceits an ingenious plan to escape an untimely death. The pinnacle moment, when Pinocchio saves Geppetto at the cost of his own life, is the ultimate Christian message: a self-sacrificing feat out of pure goodness, a complete disregard for one’s own life, is what draws the Blue Fairy back and grants Pinocchio the ultimate form of pious virtue – human flesh and blood, a sense of human mortality that is forever more. 

If Pinocchio is arguably the most Christian fable in the Disney legacy, then Bambi is the most emotionally devastating. Based on the book Bambi, a Life in the Woods by Austrian author Felix Salten, the film plays off one of the greatest fears children could possibly have – maternal loss. 

There is a cold objectivism that Death heralds. It abides by no favoritism, and silently collects those whose times have ended. In Bambi, Disney enraptured our hearts and twisted it into a great, big knot at the height of tragedy: Bambi, while feasting with his mother, is forced to flee at his mother’s warning, hearing only a gun shot in the far off distance; when he comes back to find his mother, she is nowhere. Death has kissed her brow and has left Bambi behind, orphaned and alone. 

There’s a reason why children cry often at this scene: Bambi is them, still adolescent and unknowing, and the cruel swiftness of Death from an external, uncontrollable factor has left him abandoned and unguided. It’s a terrifying feeling, to feel abandoned; as a child, I used to panic when I didn’t see my mother for long periods of time, feelings of abandonment and helplessness taking over like a icy cancer. Bambi’s famous scene highlights this childhood fear, a cinematic extension and narrative realization of a childhood insecurity that haunts us all in the subconscious. The rest of the film is one of healing and growing up, of finding a path by one’s own accord and establishing oneself in the vast, vast world.

Bambi is a terrific feat in the coming-of-age fable, where he is comforted only by his remaining paternal figure (whom he strives to become, and eventually does after trials of adolescence) and his bubbly friends. Sexual awakening, flirtation, aggression, territorial pride, and a last encounter with the same external, uncontrollable factor that took away his mother and traumatized him as a child, mankind – all of these elements of one’s development are present, and ingeniously narrated by lush colors, fluid animation and by tapping into one of the great fears of childhood. Bambi is a great demonstration of the sacred bond shared between mother and child, and by narrating a tragic loss it echoed how essential such a relationship is, and how psychologically traumatizing it is to the child when the relationship is cut prematurely. Once something is gone, only then do we realize how important that something was, and such is what Bambi narrated so famously. 

Last in the line of Disney’s classic and haunting fables is that of Sleeping Beauty, first published by Charles Perrault in Contes de ma Mère l'Oye (Tales of Mother Goose). The Disney adaptation borrowed heavily from Peter Tchaikovsky’s 1890 ballet – in fact, the entire soundtrack is Tchaikovsky’s composition, save the chorus and lyrical addendums in the songs “Skumps” (the Drinking Song) and “Once Upon a Dream” – and the story is more inspired by the German variant collected by the Brothers Grimm, titled Briar Rose

Disney’s Sleeping Beauty is striking in its explicit and implicit symbolism. On first glance, goodness is embodied by the three colorful fairies – the pink Flora, the green Fauna, and the blue Merryweather – and evil is embodied by the dark purple, black-draped and olive skinned Maleficent. Even their living quarters are drastically different: the fairies take refuge in a inviting and lush, maternal-like forest tree while Maleficent resides in a dark, phallic tower. These are the two competing forces of good and evil, two supernatural and majestical entities that compete for power and authority in the human realm. 

What is interesting is the subtle implications of the Brothers Grimm-inspired story, in which a infant Princess Aurora is cursed by the evil Maleficent, who is spiteful for receiving no invitation to Aurora’s christening. Aurora, named after the Roman goddess of dawn, is symbolic of the beginning daylight and its associated goodness and hope; yet instantly she is clashed by her polar opposite entity, Maleficent (translated “evil-doer”) who embodies the evils and gloom of a moonless, pitch black night. Already polar opposite entities clash with the birth of a new dawn, and the fairies come to the Princesses defense after the malevolent entity has placed her wicked curse. In an effort to deter Maleficent’s hex, the fairies take Aurora into refuge and rename her Briar Rose, and the King burns all the spinning wheels in the country. 

This is a particularly striking scene because it is allegorical of a paternal figure’s protection of their daughter’s virginity. The spindles of the spinning wheels are representative of temptation and lust, burned in a fiery precaution; additionally, the fairies sweep the Princess into a nunnery-like sanctuary, ironically naming her Briar Rose in lieu of her father’s symbolic actions. That is, the name Briar Rose is one of virginal temptation, a beautiful rose that is desirable but must be clipped (essentially deflowered) in order to be handled by anyone who desires such. It’s interesting that the fairies chose such a name in conjunction with her father’s protective measures, which together (the actions of the King and fairies) could be construed as representing a protective measure for ensuring virginal and sexual purity before his daughter is to be wed to the betrothed Prince Phillip. 

Alas, Briar Rose has her first sexual encounter with the charming Prince Phillip, and as they rendezvous in the forest we can see that she is, in a sense, no longer pure: that with her first encounter with a man her romantic fantasies have been realized, and that her sexual desires are not blossoming in full bloom. She is a nymph, now caught up in the worldly affairs of romance and chivalry, and is no longer the adolescent and innocent girl as before. The fairies, upon realizing this, are grateful that it is the day they must return her to her rightful throne to be wed – a symbolic move that again reaffirms their desire to keep the Princess pious and pure until her wedding day. Unfortunately, though, the fairies’ lapse in judgement (after using magic to create presents and a cake for Rose’s birthday) causes Maleficent to see their plan, and she is able to concoct a hypnotizing spell that causes the Princess to prick her finger on one single spinning wheel, upon which the Princess (and subsequently, the Kingdom) falls into a great slumber and not death (thanks to the protective powers of the good fairies). 

The spindle is a particular symbol of sexual awakening. In pricking her finger, Rose begins bleeding – the beginning of female menstruation. That she essentially dies from this encounter is equally striking in symbolism: in experiencing premature sexual awakening, Rose is no longer a virginal figure since she has given into the hypnotic temptation of the spinning wheel, influenced by none other than the evil and sinful Maleficent. The ensuing slumber induced by the fairies is a last resort attempt to preserve the Princess’s piousness, a way to ensure that she no longer pursues other (symbolically) sexually driven encounters before she is to be wed. 

In a strange way, we could easily construe Maleficent as a defender of feminine independence while the good fairies are defenders of the patriarchal norm. Yes, Maleficent is a wicked entity that wreaks destruction on the kingdom, but consider this: the monarchal system is patriarchal, and in disrupting its order Maleficent is essentially disrupting the patriarchal norm. On the latter fold, the fairies are trying to guide Aurora to wed her betrothed, essentially reestablishing the feminine subservience and adherence to purity before her first real sexual experience with her future husband. In cursing Princess Aurora to die by upon the spindle’s prick, Maleficent is allegorically discouraging the young royal from engaging in the fancies of men’s company; furthermore, she imprisons Prince Phillip, a effort symbolic in hindering any chivalric attempt to arouse the slumbering, virginal Princess. She ridicules the young Prince, essentially breaking norm in asserting her feminine independence above his masculine birthright, psychologically taunting him of his finite existence as a mortal male in the scheme of time. Lastly, there’s the climatic scene where Maleficent covers the kingdom in thorns and transforms herself into a monstrous dragon to defend her domain – it’s incredibly sexual and phallic in symbology. 

The thorns, like the spindle, are prickling and hindering in Phillip’s attempts to get to Aurora’s sleeping place, and are an ironic allusion to the virginal namesake of the Princess, Briar Rose: that is, in order to fully appreciate the beauty and sexual appeal of the young woman, Prince Phillip must essentially pluck her, and will only be able to do so when he destroys all the prickling thorns of the path (representative of a flower’s stem) before he encounters the sexual appeal of the blossom; he receives help from the three fairies, whose actions are very symbolic of the patriarchal ideals they conform to – that Aurora should be sexually awakened by none other than her betrothed, the chivalric Phillip. However, when he has nearly cleared away all the inhibiting thorns, Maleficent transforms into the dragon, a last ditch effort to prevent the advent Prince from asserting his patriarchal authority over the sleeping beauty.

This distinctly protective gesture is interesting: while most interpret it as a evil force deterring a noble and heroic effort to restore the natural balance, it must be noted that Maleficent transforms into a mythological creature that has distinctly reptilian qualities – the flickering tongue, the scaled skin, the segmented belly – and, in a sense, is almost androgynous in its physical quality. There is no explicit physical attribute that indicates gender in regards to dragons, and Maleficent’s dragon is just as indistinguishable save its booming, feminine voice. She viciously attacks the patriarchal embodiment of Prince Phillip, a effort that further demonstrates her scathing spite against patriarchal rule as she reaffirms her feminine authority. Only when she is pierced in the heart by the Prince’s sword does she die, a attack from the Prince that is arguably phallic and representative of patriarchal authority; that is, only when Maleficent is directly stricken by the phallic sword (essentially raped) does she die and relinquish her feminine control of the kingdom, and thus order and normalcy of the patriarchal monarch is restored, and everyone lives happily ever after. 

Scholars and philosophers have argued about what stories like these are actually representative of, and what values they endorse. Jack Zipe, in his Marxist analysis of the Brothers Grimm and their work, focused on the social and historical context, and the consciousness of the Brothers Grimm themselves; he believed that children were being indoctrinated by bourgeois ideals: 

The male hero learns to be active, competitive, handsome, industrious, cunning, acquisitive. His goal is money, power, and a woman (also associated with chattel). His jurisdiction is the open world. His happiness depends on the just use of power. The female hero learns to be passive, obedient, self-sacrificing, hard-working, patient, and straight-laced. Her goal is wealth, jewels, and a man to protect her property rights. Her jurisdiction is the home or castle. Her happiness depends on conformity to patriarchal rule.

– pg. 57 of Zipe’s Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion

Zipe’s pessimistic views of fairy- and folklore contrasts sharply with the more optimistic interpretation of Bruno Bettelheim. Bettelheim was not concerned with the historical or political context, instead focusing on the tales’ timeless and symbolic representations of childhood: 

By dealing with universal human problems, particularly those which occupy a child’s mind, these stories speak of his budding ego and encourage its development, while at the same time relieving preconscious and unconscious pressures.

– pg. 6 of Bettelheim’s The Uses of Enchantment

Whatever the Grimms actually intended for interpretation we will never know. But what is true of their collected and likewise authors is that these stories, these fables are striking and classic because of the various explicit and implicit nuances of symbols and implications they open up. The Disney Renaissance of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King drew from similar roots, but not quite as hauntingly as their predecessors achieved. These are the reasons why the four Disney movies I’ve mentioned – Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Bambi and Sleeping Beauty – are amazing feats of cinematic storytelling and have remained classic staples in the Disney legacy still to this day. 

The Essential Critic (and why we need them)

 

Some months ago I attended a student documentary film event. The students were all undergraduates (edit on 7/23/10 – the filmmakers were mostly graduate students and staff… see some additional info below) and had taken a year-long course on filmmaking from a Public Health perspective, a new advent that has recently been spearheaded in the fields of Public Health, Journalism, Mass Media and Communications. Since a Q&A session was included, I was piqued enough to attend and watch what the students had come up with in their filmmaking. 

Needless to say, I only found two out of the approximate fifteen or so short films exceptional; the rest were lacking in narrative, framing, ideas, expositions, and daresay originality. A great many footage was recycled – some of the footage was repeated in at least half of the documentaries – and the subjects were repetitive, boiling down to two ideas: 1) health care reform and 2) arts and health. 

I don’t blame the students for their lacking, especially given how they were taking an introductory course in documentary filmmaking and had less than a year to compile footage from limited resources; my main critique, however, was the unoriginality of the driving ideas and argument behind their presented subjects, and by extension their frequent recycling of primary and secondary footage. Regardless, I held back in these critiques, and instead asked a couple of questions during two sessions of Q&A: 

  1. (in respect to short films about the health care reform) Do you think it would have made your short film stronger if you had interviewed non-extremists (i.e. people not associated with the Tea Party) who were against health care reform instead of only interviewing those who were for such? 
  2. (in respect to short films about arts and health) In a lot of the short films I saw that you only interviewed cultural leaders of African and Latino descent. I was just wondering if these were the only cultural leaders in the area, or if you had trouble getting interviewees from other cultural centers around, such as people of Asian or Middle Eastern descent? 

In both instances, my questions were followed by crickets chirping in a room filled with approximately 50+ people. In due time (let’s say about 20 seconds of uncomfortable silence), both questions were answered, but not in particularly professional or adequate manners: 

  1. (a student stands up and responds) Well, as a filmmaker, it’s my film, and since film is subjective I get to make it the way I want. 
  2. (class adviser stands up and responds) Well, the students only had limited resources, so we had to make due with the footage we were able to film. 

Needless to say, I’ve brought up this annotated anecdote because it highlights a growing concern of mine that good, legitimate criticism is becoming less and less appreciated in this growing day and age. 

When I think of criticism I’m not looking for validation – I’m looking for something that makes me think differently. To see something in a new light, to look at a topic from the perspective of a different subject area, to emphasize a metaphor or analogy or symbolism or anything – anything to get me to see in the new. Whether or not I agree with the critique is irrelevant; what matters most is that I can take something away from it, that perhaps I can even learn something from it. 

When the student responded to my first question (I’ll dub him student A), he was telling me something I already knew, arguably something everyone knew: film is subjective, he is the filmmaker, he’ll film and frame it the way he wants. This is nothing new, this is conventional knowledge. What I had asked was whether or not approaching the topic of health care reform from a different angle would have strengthened their overall argument, that would perhaps recede away from a “all pro-reform” stance to a much more holistic presentation; this was something that was not approached by any of the students, and I felt that it was a legitimate critique because it was not a attack or appraisal of their work – it was an idea through a different lens. 

More troubling was that student A was rather indignant at my question, his answer almost resonating a “well who are you to say what’s right or wrong? Who are you to say why my film wasn’t good?” sentiment. I’d hurt his ego, his parade of “good jobs!” and “what a moving short film!” and “wow, you’re a great filmmaker!” comments; I’d been the thundering storm cloud on his sunshine, and I’d ruin his big event. And after the equally awkward hush following my second question, I began wondering if Q&A session actually meant “tell all the students what an awesome job they did so they feel great about themselves!” and not “ask them some questions that could stem discussion, debate and some reflection on their work.” I was an unwelcome guest, the unwanted critic who ruined everyone’s good fun. 

The sad part was that I actually held back – big time. I could have asked the specific logistics of health care reform, where they fell on the whole money distribution, on the efficiency of current social programs, and so on; how they felt arts actually played into community health and if there were actual statistics that proved otherwise; I could have hammered them badly, but I didn’t because I knew it wasn’t fair. It wasn’t fair because the event was about filmmaking, and in turn I only inferred about basic principles of documentary filmmaking that I believed they should have learned during their course, yet as seen in their final presentations these principles were lacking. This, I believed, was fair game. Unfortunately it seemed the students were unprepared for this sort of query, that in their spotlight they didn’t expect anyone to ask questions that were the least bit dissenting or thought-provoking – in short, constructive criticism. 

Obviously the student filmmakers didn’t agree with my assessment – their answers reflected that clearly – but what was more distressing is that they clearly didn’t appreciate a different perspective on their work, a perspective that didn’t necessarily eulogize what they’d worked hard at for little less than a year. For the most part, they mostly seemed unreceptive to anything short of praise, even irked by potential variance from their own vision (I say this because besides the two people who answered my questions, no one seemed willing to stand up and establish their viewpoint in a much more holistic light). Clearly they wanted to be validated, and criticism did not meet their needs. 

I will only validate something when I believe it has done something right, and even then there’s a likelihood that I believe could be improved upon or approached differently (in execution or discussion). Common attitude is that critics are like vultures, ready to pounce upon and tear up the hard work of any aspiring artist. I believe otherwise: to criticize is to think, and it is an art that is becoming less and less appreciated in a world that emphasizes an immediate “feel-good” mentality over anything intellectual substantial. The prolific Todd McCarthy, a film critic of amazing knowledge in cinema and its history, was recently let go by the once prestigious Variety, a decision that clearly reflect society’s turning tides – film critics are less and less valuable than the Tomatometer, Metacritic, Yahoo polls or quips and blurps about “how awesome this movie was!” or “how crappy this movie was!” Everyone wants feel-good validation for their opinion – and real critics don’t offer that. 

Critics defend their arguments and their decisions for such. Oftentimes a critic will bring attention to a newcomer whose work they feel praiseworthy and deserving of notice. Roger Ebert saw the potential of Martin Scorsese very early in the filmmaker’s career, and has continued to this day in consistently commending Scorsese’s work with film’s like GoodFellas and more recently with The Departed; Ebert has also consistently lauded Werner Herzog for his auteur vision in films like Encounters at the End of the World, Roger Altman for his naturalism in films like A Prairie Home Companion, and Hayao Miyazaki for his attention to creative detail in films like Spirited Away. This is not necessarily what a critic is required to do, but it is the sort of appraisement that oftentimes critics feel is deserving of artists they greatly admire. Equally so is the driving force to lambast works they find distasteful and dismaying, in which they feel the audience may deserve better (or at least, that they did and felt unfortunate enough to endure the ordeal). No opinion is outwardly right or wrong – what matters more is the thought that goes behind such an opinion, and why a critic chooses so to support or decry such a body of work. As summarized best by Anton Ego in Brad Bird’s 2007 Pixar film “Ratatouille” : 

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau’s famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau’s, who is, in this critic’s opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau’s soon, hungry for more. 

Real critics are not like Ben Lyons, who infamously said that that I Am Legend (2007) was one of the “greatest movies ever made” and gave Charlie Kaufman’s Synechdoche, New York (2008) a thumbs down because it was “difficult to understand.” Lyons works for E! Entertainment Network, a network that is not particularly notorious for in-depth analysis of anything meaningful (presumably its own name is a dead giveaway); usually, I do my best to ignore associations-by-institutions and to look at the work itself, but Lyons did nothing of the sort to redeem himself in this light. He is not a film critic, he is a quote generator for television ads. He’s one of those few strangling comments you see attached to universally-panned films that say “this movie is GREAT!” without any substance to back it up. He’s the type who’ll do anything to get a picture with a celebrity, to get some sort of acknowledgement that he is, indeed, on the telly and getting air-time with a in-the-spotlight actor. This is not a film critic – this is a publicity turbine devoid of anything worthwhile. 

What real critics offer is an area of mental dissonance, of thoughtful discussion. David Edelstein was in the negative when he detracted against The Dark Knight in 2008, and angry fans (many who hadn’t seen the movie at the time of his article’s publishing) lambasted him as “a pretentious prick” and someone trying to get “hits for his site.” Very rarely did anyone discuss what he actually said in his review, which was thoughtful and well laid-out. I don’t agree with Edelstein on all his points and issues, but there is a validity to his opinion and he is entitled to it; obviously Nolan’s take on the Batman lore is not his cup of tea, and I’ll respect him for that. For one, he notes that the tone is significantly darker, sadistic even, and was probably disturbed by such; frankly, this same reason is why I extolled Nolan’s work so vicariously with my first and subsequent viewings, so arguably this is a difference in taste (and perhaps a generation difference).

I have yet to see Nolan’s recent work, Inception, which has been in the critical debate for quite a bit since its release, lauded by equally rabid fans and pummeled by equally rabid detractors. Even some my favorite critics have been in the mix: A.O. Scott, a man who’s style, prose and analysis I admire greatly, was not particularly moved by Nolan’s dreamscape vision, citing Nolan’s unwillingness to dive into the subversiveness and inanity of a Freudian symbols and insanity was his greatest downfall; in contrast, an early review by Anne Thompson of Indiewire praised Nolan of delivering a Kubrickian phantasm with an enduring emotive pull. Editor of Roger Ebert’s site and famed film blogger Jim Emerson commented afterwards about similarities between Nolan’s and Shyamalan’s filmmaking, and even quoted Matt Zoller Seitz: “A filmmaker as prosaic and left-brained and non-visual as Nolan should not be making a film about dreams and dreaming." 

Do I agree with Emerson’s assessment? Not entirely, but I think there’s a truth to his observations. Nolan approaches his work from a strictly rationalist’s precision, and that to expect otherwise from him is to expect Alfred Hitchcock to make a Cinderella movie without a dead Cinderella. And while I have yet to see Inception there’s an inkling that in admiring all of Nolan’s previous works (the exception being Following and Insomnia, both which I’ve yet to see) I may very well enjoy is latest cinematic installment, though this time around I may be more inclined to consider the film from both the left- and right-brained spectrums, and even perhaps the intermediate if manageable. After all, criticism is also about tastes: what floats my boat may just as well sink yours, and vice versa. Regardless, I’d rather read a articulate disapproval than a blurb-fest appraisal of any work despite where my sentiments lie. 

Then you have the special brew of Armond White. Clearly he’s a very intelligent man: a Master’s of Fine Arts degree from Columbia University’s School of the Arts; a member of the New York Film Critics Circle, the National Society of Film Critics, and the New York Film Critics Online; and currently a film and music critic for the New York Press. Yet he is dubbed as the infamous spoil sport on RottenTomatoes, the ”contrarian for the sake of being contrary.“ There’s even an online petition trying to get him banned from RottenTomatoes, citing that he is a bane to film criticism and simply trying to get hits on his site. Even more annoying is his lack of respect for films and subjects he doesn’t agree with, as dissected beautifully by Paul Brunick on White’s critique of the beloved "Toy Story 3.” Ultimately, my greatest problem is that he essentially lacks any logical consistency in his reviews, and openly sneers at the very audience he writes to: 

  • The Dark Knight, 2008The generation of consumers who swallow this pessimistic sentiment can’t see past the product to its debased morality. Instead, their excitement about The Dark Knight’s dread (that teenage thrall with subversion) inspires their fealty to product.
  • Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, 2009Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof [Bay] has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement.

Let’s break this down: White disliked “The Dark Knight” for its debased morality, yet failed to see the same issues with “Transformers 2” and its flaunting of gratuitous explosions, overlooked death count and blatant sexism? On the latter fold, he admired “Transformers 2” for its visceral amazement, yet failed to see what Nolan and his team achieved in the revamped and film noir-esque Gotham city of the Batman universe? The man makes no sense. 

A flowchart of Armond White’s likes and dislikes in recent films, first brought to my attention by Wes Lawson of the RottenTomatoes community. 

If I had the patience I would actually take the time and read other articles; after all, he’s an intelligent individual, and amidst his angry waves of bullying misdirection and rhetorical lapses he offers up interesting ideas that are easily overlooked in regards to the films he reviews. However, I am not a patient person when it comes to such individuals, and find that my time is often better spent reading those who have the dignity to stay consistent to what they themselves had said, or are at least wiling to admit their own hypocrisy. What Armond White is, in Roger Ebert’s words, “a troll; a smart and knowing one, but a troll.” And I, for one, am not the type to indulge in trolls. 

Criticism is essential: without it, we are destined to perpetuate in an endless cycle of softhearted sentimentalism, doomed to be infantile without hope or chance of maturing into critical and honest thought. Argument is not about right or wrong, winning or losing – it’s about ideas, presentation, and prose. It is never absolute, and it never will be; instead, it is bound to be continuously repeated and revised, bounced back and forth until the end of human consciousness. We need it for our own sake, and we need it more than ever in this increasingly feel-good mentality that society seems more and more inclined to retract into these days. And for God’s sake, let me keep my hopes up and assume producers are more intelligent than to cast nincompoops like Ben Lyons as “film critics” – how about Kim Morgan or Grace Wang, to name a few. 

Additional reading: Roger’s Little Rule Book by Roger Ebert. And yes, he clarifies that the subject of his commentary is, indeed, Ben Lyons. 

Edit: To clarify in lieu of a comment – Yes, I have read some of White’s reviews (The Dark Knight, District 9, Transformers 2, and some of Toy Story 3) and have generally found them, as I said, to be logically inconsistent in thought, and overtly condescending to his readers. Perhaps that is style; I respect that. But not enough to garner up enough patience to plow through more of his reviews for such tone and inconsistency. I’ll stick to my cup of tea of Roger Ebert, A. O. Scott, Michael Phillips, Todd McCarthy, James Berardinelli, and whomever strikes my interest in the future. 

Edit on 7/23/10: I was alerted by a friend of mine who took the course in filmmaking; he informed me that the class mostly consisted of graduate students and staff (only two undergraduate students total), and that this was the first time the course was offered. I have already sent him my suggestions for improving the course for future students, and my apologies for not remembering this information correctly (as I’d also lost the flier). 

Edit on 7/26/10: Seems there’s a glitch in Disqus where the original comments aren’t showing up for some reason (though I suspect it has something to do with tumblr performing maintenance not too long ago). This is just to clarify that I have not deleted original comments – they are still sitting in my moderator inbox, and theoretically should be showing up (but such is the fate of faulty programming, I suppose). Apologies to the disgruntled, for you have not been omitted. 

A Broth of Both

It’s my third time back in Vietnam and things have changed in the four year gap since I last visited. By the looks of it, helmets for scooters are now mandatory; old school J-walking gets you a ticket; there are more cars than ever as failing corporations try to salvage their remaining investments in developing countries, resulting in increased congestion in a country heavily designed with French infrastructure; Xe xích lô’s are now considered antiquities instead of classic transportation; buildings are being being torn down and rebuilt into sleek, modern buildings catering to Western tourists; foreign letterings and shops are becoming more prevalent, from 日本語 to Français to 한국어/조선말 and unsurprisingly, English. 

At the same time, things haven’t changed so much. Street vendors flood the streets with offerings from nước mía to cơm tấm; the streets are as amazingly chaotic as they ever were; the monsoon season is as brutally rapid and transient as before; people are still going about their lives per usual. In lieu of everything that has happened, everyone is living about their business regardless. 

Of all the things possible, this third trip reestablishes why I’ll never be fully accepted in either Eastern or Western culture by default of my own heritage and environment that I grew up in. 

My Vietnamese is rubbish – comparatively so. Listening and reading skills have improved and writing abilities are slowly inching upwards, but otherwise I tend to grunt tacit responses to questions, and by all means I know it’s bejeweled with a terrible accent. And it’s not my Vietnamese that makes me stand out – it’s my physical appearance too. I’m taller, stronger built, and my clothes are distinctly different than what the locals wear. 

But I’m Vietnamese too, a foreigner from abroad that shares the same ethnic roots with everyone here. This sets me completely aside from all other visitors and tourists who are distinctly non-Vietnamese (Americans, Englishmen, Germans, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, the lot). I’m something else, a mixture of person fortunate enough to travel and someone who stems from the same bloodline of everyone here; I’m a amalgam of Eastern and Western hemispheres, a product of the Fall of Saigon in 1975, a somebody who’ll continuously bounce back and forth between two distinctly different cultures for the rest of my life. 

Is it a curse or a blessing? I’m more inclined to believe the latter, but realistically it’s a broth of both. Simultaneously I’ll be blessed to understand both schools of thought and cursed to never fully fit into either. It’s not a bad or good thing – it’s just reality. And who am I to blame my birthright for this condition? 

I live up to it – hell I embrace it. This is my life, and I’m grateful for it. 

It means that I’m lucky enough to be born into a life filled with endless support and love from family and friends; that I can empathize and sympathize with people from both culture hemispheres; that I have the sensitivity for culture humility and respecting differences; that I’m able to appreciate and learn from both Eastern and Western realms of thought, and perhaps have a distinct outlook unique to conventional ideas. 

It also means I’m unlucky to constantly experience misunderstandings, prejudices and self-mediated racism between both hemispheres; that regardless of my capabilities I’ll still be shunned in some form or a way either for my mispronunciation, my skin color, my background, my name or so on; that I’ll have a harder time finding a sense of community that doesn’t relinquish my own idiosyncrasies and feelings regarding my own heritage and upbringing. 

This is reality. It’s neither hot nor cold, good nor bad, happy nor sad – it’s pretty boringly lukewarm, in fact. But probably the best part of it all? 

I get to appreciate both the deliciousness of a breakfast croissant and a lunchtime bowl of steaming phở. So time to get on with life and love it for all its lukewarm brothiness – and I plan to live up to it well.