Blackboard Jungle

So this is where inspirational education films came from. Awesome.

I found Beth McCoy's article hard to take in. More than once I rolled my eyes while reading it; she definately stretched a thing or two. Her entire discussion about Dadier protecting all of white reproduction and governance was lost on me, I didn't really buy it.

I didn't find Dadier as self motivated as her reading would imply, I don't think he was out to protect anything but the kids. He puts himself very directly in the line of fire whereas he could have as easily went to teach at a more civilized school. He has no ties to the city, no reason to stay and defend this domain where the white way is apparently being challenged.

I also find it hard to believe that he was on some sort of colonialist crusade to take over the students in the name of whiteness. If he was then I don't think he would've used as subtle teaching methods as he used, he wouldn't have tried to befriend Miller to gain his unique persuasion over the class nor would he have shown cartoons to peak their interest. In the cartoon scene he utters that he wants the students to "just think for yourselves", he isn't trying to change them in his image, but rather give them the tools to realize their own posibilities and change themselves.

Classic inspirational education movie theme. I guess I could see what the article is approaching if I try really really really, really really hard to, but it seems too far out and doesn't have enough filmic evidence to actually persuade me from my initial viewing.

As an off topic note, if you find these education movies as silly and overdone as I do (this particular film is of course immune as it was the first) check out Hamlet 2 it does some pretty interesting things with the formula while still following it. Plus it's fuckin' hilarious.

Double Indemnity

So I brought up in class how I didn't buy that Phyllis was a victim; I still don't buy it. But to elaborate I'll tell you what I was really thinking about in class, and then what I figured out tonight while thinking about it after class.

Phyllis is a "black widow" character, if there is such a thing in iconology (I know it's been used at least once to explain this archetype). She preys upon unsuspecting men, marrying them and then killing them and collecting will money (or in this case accident insurance). Think Adams Family Values if you're not following.

But what I realized is that the entire archetype of the "black widow" is more than likely an evolution of the vengeful housewife. While Phyllis in Double Indemnity isn't exactly a victim, she still very much personifies the victimization of women in marriages and revenge fantasies.

White Zombie

First off I am absolutely obsessed with zombies. A quick bibliography would suffice in substitution of an explanation:

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead
The Zombie Survival Guide
World War Z
28 Days Later
28 Weeks Later
Resident Evil Series (games)

And to add the slew of Fan Fiction level short stories and crap horror flicks regarding zombies wouldn't add much to the argument that I fuckin' love zombies. You should get the point by now.

And I know what you're thinking I'm going to say: I hated White Zombie because it wasn't a zombie movie.

No. I definately liked the idea of this movie. The acting, specific plot, the characters, quality, blah blah blah, was not on par for reasons I'm sure anyone has seen the film already understands. It's simply outdated on a technical level.

Now I know I should at least mention this, so I will: White Zombie: Haitian horror
by Tony Williams. I really don't know what to add to the article that might be of any real substance, it's pretty straight forward history that ties in with the movie on the level the article says it does. What interested me most about it was the fact that the movie really doesn't have a hero, as the article states and I agree with entirely. It's a good thing they had Lugosi to bring in the crowds since there's not really anyone to cheer for. I didn't for a second care for even Madeline's character. I'm not really into the completely helpless heroine motif.

I could say more on the matter but it disinterests me. What I'd really like to talk about is why I, a Zombie movie fanatic, really enjoyed such a non-zombie zombie flick.

It delves in the pyschology of what it really means to be a zombie a bit more than most films or books or games. Legendre sort of teases Beaumont in the scene where he's widdling his wax figure, saying something along the lines of "I wish you could speak right now. I've never been with a person as they went through the process. I'd like to know what the symptoms are like." (That was probably a horrible paraphrase, but you get the jist)

This little statement gave me the willies. Most zombie flicks depend on tons of guts and flesh eating shots but the aspect of being one of the mindless beings has always been another powerful fright in the genre. I remember in Dawn of the Dead one of the characters saying he was going to try not to come back, that he was going to fight it. In other films there's characters who have, after being bit, simply ended themselves right there and then. The Haitian's burying the corpse in the middle of the road is a powerful image; they fear not what the corpse will become, but the fact that the corpse could become something more than just a corpse.

I'm breaching a topic I don't quite understand because there's too many facets to it. Fear of mind control, fear of losing ones soul, fear of the desecration of bodies, it's hard to pin point the primal fear involved in it. Another scene in Dawn of the Dead has a character questioning why the tenants of a apartment building locked their living-dead loved ones in the basement. Another answers that maybe it's because some people still have a respect for the dead.

Alright, that's enough, I'm fried. But as a last note, the next time you hear "there are worse things than death", this is exactly the kind of thing they're talking about.

My Man Godfrey

This film is somehow greater than the sum of it's parts. What I mean is while watching it, from beginning to end, I felt mostly bored, annoyed, and impatient. The wild incessant chattering of the rich and the crazy got to me after only the first scene, which I assume was the point of it. But afterwards, sitting in my car only a few minutes later, waiting for it to warm up, my mind was completely enwrapped in the movie. I thought about it for much of last night and much of today. The annoying characters would have been much more appropriate to a depression era audience, I bet they would have really ate it up. But what I found I could appreciate just as much as that audience is the character of Godfrey. He's a hero along the lines of Robin Hood or Dr. Van Helsing. He's mysterious, skillful, knowledgeable, and above all else incredibly resourceful. Not only does he raise himself up but he raises all those around him up also. But he's even more as those that he might have found an enemy in he found friends and helped them too.

That aside, wtf did he let that whiny, irritatingly idiotic child-woman take his hand in marriage? I feel like if the film had shown us just five more seconds into the plot that Godfrey would've made a run for it. When I said he was heroic I didn't mean he was self sacrificial.

And I always mean to imply that while her sister changes for the better, Godfrey's stalker and obsessed annoyance not only maintains her stature as the most irritating character but grows and grows as this creature you just wish Godfrey would strangle.

And wtf is the maid on about? I know there's a joke about Godfrey's allure as a man of mystery and skill and so on, but it feels tacked on and useless.


Ok, so besides some annoying characters and plotless points poking out this was a pretty great film to look at in the depression era context, I think we can assume a lot of the general opinion and mood in America from it.

Stagecoach

I haven't seen many Westerns, El Topo and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly are the only two that come to mind (and they aren't exactly your classic Western). I was surprised to find myself so interested in the plot and characters. I'd assumed it would be all spitting, shooting, and hacking up Natives (which it unfortunately ultimately turned into) but it came strong with genuine characters. The plot was so incredibly simple but did more than work as the characters brought so much tension and interest to the story. These aren't a bunch of characters riding a stagecoach, they're people with ambitions and hopes and pasts and futures. That being said I understand this is a basic component of any good story--I'm just stating how shocking it was to find it in an old Western. And THAT being said, looking at it plainly, the movie was enjoyable but will otherwise most likely be unmemorable (save for the absolutely non-subtle ways that the Natives were made villain).

At first I was pretty into the film and was starting to seriously think about reorganizing my netflix list to accomodate some Westerns. But now I think I'll just rewatch El Topo or The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly if I want to see six-shooters and sand.

Or hell, who wants to have a Mad Max Marathon?