Matthew Wisniewski's Top Ten Films of the Decade:


1. Mulholland Drive (2001) - Mulholland Drive is part knock of the Hollywood lifestyle, part knock of the American Dream, part Noir-thriller and all
David Lynch. Don't expect a coherent story or even to "get it" fully upon a first viewing, but trust me in that it demands a second viewing and
rewards with everyone thereafter. Rich with visuals and everything we have come to consider "Lynchian", this film is about hope and just how
crushing of a force it can be. It tells the story of an endlessly enthusiastic small-town girl who goes to Hollywood with the intention of hitting
it big, falling in love in the process. It's as devastating as it is intoxicating, with some remarkably effective scenes that I have trouble
articulating why exactly they work as well as they do. It is sexually charged, violent, and at times borderline incomprehensible.
Work through it... it's worth it.

2. Mister Lonely (2007) - Harmony Korine has a visual flair and a sense of humor all of his own. While I was turned off by many of his other films,
this one struck me as much easier to swallow and ultimately much better. It's refreshing to see a film with two alternate story-lines that don't
feel the need to connect in some "oh wow, the humanity of it all!" type finale. What do a group of nuns in a third-world country and celebrity
impersonators who live on a commune have in common? I'm not sure but I would love to discuss it with you. This is a film with moments of such
arresting beauty that it is difficult to knock the aspects of it that fall flat. Korine is a director that takes chances and a film like this is
the payoff for the ones that don't quite work. A bold and beautiful achievement.

3. Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) - Known largely for it's soundtrack, this barrel full of belly-laughs is one of the Coen Brother's finest efforts
and while it may not have the intensity of the more recent and more critically praised, 'No Country for Old Men', it makes up for it in sheer
entertainment value. The performances are pitch-perfect (though Clooney didn't do his own singing) and the writing is classic Coen Brothers. An
all around romp with colorful characters, a knee-slapping soundtrack and cameos by all of our favorites. Not exactly a "bonafide" representation of
the time period but it's a fun as film-making gets.

4. Grizzly Man (2005) - Werner Herzog's commonly explored theme of man and his place in the natural world pairs wonderfully with Timothy Treadwell's
real life footage of the Alaskan wilderness and the bears that were his inspiration as well as his downfall. A documentary that does a remarkable
story justice, Herzog neither glorifies Treadwell nor patronizes him, instead presenting the audience with the opinions of many, and letting the
viewer come to their own conclusion on his sanity. A bit heavy-handed at times but it needs to be. You could have given this footage to a baby and
it would have made a great film and in the hands of Herzog it turns into something special.

5. A Prairie Home Companion (2006) - Robert Altman's last film is an endlessly clever poke at radio show Prairie Home Companion and its undeniable
staying power. Altman and his all-star cast are having a blast with this one and it's obvious from the get-go. Garrison Keillor plays Garrison
Keillor and Meryl Streep reminds us once again that she might be the most natural actress in the business. Some might consider this film too
"light" for a list of this sort, but it's so damn enjoyable that it makes my cut. A more than worthy tribute to an American radio staple and the
music is excellent as well (Be-Bop-A-Re-Bop, Rhubarb Pie). For fans of the show and newcomers alike.


6. The Devil's Rejects (2005) - Long-haired rocker, Rob Zombie hit the nail on the head with this one (maybe a little too hard for some tastes.) The
film is a relentlessly violent horror-comedy-tribute to 70's films like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and it captures the spirt and perhaps most
impressively the aesthetic of those type of films with style and soundtrack to spare. Zombie displays a real knack for the repulsive and knowledge
of the classics here. Certainly not for all tastes, and the director's cut is even more difficult to stomach, but if you can get past the vile
nature of it and embrace that very thing in the same way that Zombie seems to, it will show as a skillfully made thriller and most importantly, a
hell of a ride.

7. Waking Life (2001) - Visually, this film was groundbreaking at the time (though the technique has been frequently bogarted since) and the content is
nothing short of enthralling. Richard Linklater's film plays out more like you're sitting in on a series of philosophy lectures than an actual
movie at times, but the end result is something profound and undeniably unique. Not bad from the guy who made Dazed and Confused.

8. Straight Story (2000) - Walking the line between 1999 and 2000 is David Lynch's heartwarming collaboration with... Walt Disney?
That's right folks, the guy that made surrealist cult-classic Eraserhead collaborated with Disney for this G rated tale about 73-year-old
Alvin Straight who drives his lawn-mower some 300 miles to reunite with his brother. Lynch, known for knocking the wierd ball out of the park,
never goes for the kill with this one, but instead stays true to the story and lets it do the work for him. Like most things Lynch, Angelo
Badalamenti contributes a bizarre and beautiful score and perhaps the most remarkable thing about the film is that it manages to feel like a Lynch
without all the inexplicable plot twists and characters that claim to be in two places at one time. A humble masterpiece.

9. Cidade de Deus, City of God (2002) - This unforgiving depiction of the slums of Rio De Janeiro through the 60's, 70's and 80's makes 'Blow' look
like powered sugar and has a few scenes in it that you will take to the grave. Based on the true story of two friends, one who becomes a
photographer and one who becomes a drug dealer, this film gets everything right that the drug movies normally get wrong - it doesn't glorify the
culture as ultra-cool or anything like that but instead gives us the cold, ugly reality of the situation and it's a rather unpleasant one. Don't
expect to enjoy the rest of your day.

10. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) - The first of the trilogy and the best, Fellowship embraces story more than the following
two and seems to rely less on the slam-bang computer effects that (to me) always seem to fall short. While the Academy waited for the third to
honor the trilogy, I'll point to the first. Really the only one of the three that can stand on it's own, Fellowship boasts some great storytelling,
remarkable scenery, and action scenes that are smaller in scale and ultimately more impressive than the ones that followed. Some great
performances and nearly impossible not to get wrapped up in. The other two ain't bad either.



Honorable Mention:
(in no particular order)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Three Burials of Melquidas Estrada
Old Joy
Lost in Translation
Minority Report
Cast Away
Children Of Men
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
High Fidelity
Almost Famous
Mighty Wind
Unbreakable
Batman Begins
Memento
Finding Forrester
8 mile
Adaptation
American Spendor
Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2
Sideways
The New World
Gangs of New York
I'm Not There
Into the Wild
Superbad
Pineapple Express
No Country for old Men
The Man Who Wasn't There
Once Upon a Time In Mexico
She Hate Me
Royal Tenenbaums

What is Wrong With This Man?

David Lynch is an odd dude and to be honest, he kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies. Even his "G" rated Disney film is pretty damn strange (check it out, it's called Straight Story and is still totally "Lynchian" despite the rating). I love saying "Lynchian", makes me seem like I'm "in the know" or something. Check out that hair... what a wack-job.
Anyway, first time I watched Mulholland Drive I said it sucked and that it didn't make any sense. Then I watched it again and realized I was a fool - "everything links up perfectly, this is like the best movie ever!" Then I watched it again and thought about it waayyy too much and kind of got sick of it. Then watched it again in class and loved it again. That's a lot of a movie that upon first viewing seems to be complete nonsense. However, further examination reveals that it is anything but nonsense.

Mulholland Drive is not a light read. As far as I can see (and feel free to disagree) the parts of the film that actually happen are as follows in chronological order: Woman (Naomi Watts) wins a dance competition, goes to Hollywood to become and actress, meets another woman, falls in love with her, fails as an actress, gets her heart broken, has her ex-lover killed, then blows her own head off.

The first 2/3rds of the film are basically a glimpse of this womans hopes and dreams. We get that shot of someone sleeping after the opening dance scene. We also get some clues that what we're watching is in fact a dream in the restaurant scene with the two men. He says "in the dream you're always standing right there" then later the man stands up and goes to that exact spot.

Naomi's dream life is much like a murder/mystery, which makes perfect sense because she is so infatuated with Hollywood and being an actress. Her dream is a life unlike her reality; a reality filled with failure as an actress and woman that doesn't love her. Instead her dream begins with her (star-struck) arriving to Hollywood in obnoxiously cheesy fashion (she's on an escalator, I don't remember the lines exactly but they are hilarious).

She comes to Hollywood and immediately she is thrown into this fantastic noir-esque mystery where the woman she loves is completely dependent on her. They embark on a mission to find her identity and Naomi is even having success as an actress.

The most interesting aspect of the film to me is not the comment on Hollywood but the statement the film makes on the way the human mind works... the power of a fantasy compared to reality and the devastating effects that can come when what you fantasize doesn't coincide with reality.

I liked a girl once or twice or thr- whatever, that's beside the point. What I'm getting at is, we all know what it is like to want something so bad that it almost exists for real... even if it is in your mind. Most of us also know what it feels like when fantasy and reality diverge and what you want comes crumbling apart.

That first 2/3rds of the film seems like Naomi Watt's character's last plea for what she wanted so badly... an acting career and Rita. It's her last pathetic, delusional hope for the way things could have been, and it only exists in her head.

But the point is (and I'm just speaking for myself) sometimes what goes on in our heads can be as real as anything. Sometimes there is almost no separating a persons thought process from reality...which is exactly the kind of shit that this film digs into; blurring the lines between reality and fantasy. And on another level that's kind of what the film industry does too.

It's a scary thing to think about how a persons mind can become so infatuated with an idea or a person and having that same idea/person not pan out the way they intended can leave a person broken.

Have you ever dreamed something that you wanted to happen then woke up and been devastated when it wasn't reality? Then had to cope with that reality all over again? I have but thankfully I dealt with it better than Naomi.

The film is tough to keep track of (whodathunkit?) but it DOES make sense. Characters and objects from her real life seamlessly slip into her dreams but don't necessarily play the same role they would in reality (ie. Cowboy dude, Coco, the key).

This is one of my favorite aspects of the film and it is this implementation of characters from reality into fantasy that makes this one of the most accurate representations of a dream on film. However, it is this very thing that puts many viewers off. It is frustrating at first but it is very impressive to witness and grasp upon subsequent viewings.

The key (not the blue one) to understanding the film is to not get caught up in trying to make everything fit perfectly. Have you ever had a dream where you were like, "why did that happen? Why did that guy I saw at Wal-Mart show up as a talk show host in my dream last night?" That's the kind of stuff about dreams that Lynch embraces with this film. Dreams don't always match up, and while it may seem kind of like a cop-out, neither does this film.


I've seen a bunch of Lynch films and this one works the best for me. It makes the most sense and packs an emotional punch that I can totally relate to. It's a brilliant film that is instantly recognizable as Lynch to anyone familiar with his work. It is also a very bleak vision of Hollywood and a cautionary tale of the potential of the human mind. I think.

In conclusion, I think it takes quite a dude to make a film like this and I mean that as a compliment. The man is unquestionably brilliant (in my mind anyway, which might as well make- eh, never mind). I'm not sure if I want to know what is bouncing around in that noggin of his, but I will say that he makes a damn interesting movie. Someone told me Eraserhead is his most personal film and is his closest to being autobiographical. Watch that movie, keep that in mind and someone please tell me what the hell is wrong with this man?

Outside Reading:
Straight Story
Eraserhead (why am I recommending this movie?)

Murder is Messy (but so are chicken wings and I love those)

Thank you for tuning in to this weeks broadcast of Overly Indepth Discussion of Film and its Effects on our Nation. This weeks topic: Murder! God, I love a good murder, it's just so sexy. Manson was totally bad-ass.


First up: A true American Cowboy Hero, a man who can boast extreme drug use, a knack for violence, and many sexual partners (most of whom were willing).... Oliver Stone.

Here's a guy that always warrants a reaction and while his films are largely hit or miss for me, this one is a home run that soars high over the fence, smashes an unassuming geezer on the head causing him to bleed to death all while some lucky reporter catches the whole thing on his camera and gets it played over and over and over on Sports Center for the entire next day. Did that make sense?

When Natural Born Killers was released it got a reaction, which at the least seems to be the intention. Some proclaimed "genius!" some cried "rubbish!", and some literally went out and killed people.

The reading talks about the meanings of the words sacred, power, and medicine. It defines something that is sacred as anything "that is filled with the intangible but very real power or force, for good or bad" and then draws parallels to our media.

It also seems to be saying that our interaction with the media is a very active one. Like a ceremony, our interaction with the media is something that we take part in and even help shape and evolve... we "feed" it . I like to picture the media as Jabba the Hutt, sitting on his throne, laughing away, eating big slices of New York Style Pizza with globs of hot cheese pulling off and slapping him in the chin (I hate when that happens). Anywayyy...

Then the reading talks about this dude named Hogan who compares film to medicine because it has the power to heal and hurt. The way he describes medicine doesn't really go with how we think of medicine now-a-days. He says it's more like something that can be good for some but bad for others. Medicine is a powerful tool that can be liberating or destructive. And so in that sense, he says film is like medicine. And I agree!

He says many films get us ass-deep into the madness, but never take us back. Thus, leaving us stranded in a swamp full of West-Nile Virus mosquitoes without the antidote. Does Natural Born Killers leave us stranded in the muck, surrounded by deadly mosquitoes without the antidote? I feel an itch comin' on! We'll be right back with the answer after this short commercial break...

(Indistinct Static)

"Yes, John, but we have to be conscious at all times of the potential for destruction that this great invention has. Let us not forget the destructive powers of a scientific triumph like the atomic-"

(Indistinct Static)

"Gone savage for teenagers with automatic weapons and boundless love. Gone savage for teenagers who are aesthetically pleasing in other words fly. Los Angeles beckons the teenagers to come to her on buses; Los Angeles loves love. It is 5am and you are listening to Los Ang-"

(Indistinct Static)

"This broadcast of the film Natural Born Killers has been edited to fit your TV screen, as well as for content that some viewers may find objecta-"

(Indistinct Static)

"This has been a message from Smokey the Bear, watch out for forest fires kids... and quit burning up all the Northern Lights, I gotta have some fun too."

(Indistinct Static)

And we're back! When we left, I posed the question, Does Natural Born Killers provide us with the antidote, or simply show us the sickness?

And the answer is... I don't know.

On one level the film is clearly knocking the obsession our culture and media has with violence, but what is the active role that this film plays? The reading says that the film, "makes evil attractive", and I whole heartedly agree. Much like our culture, Natural Born Killers, worships the violence it critiques, which is precisely what makes it so brilliant, I think. It's a mirror that shouldn't be so god damn fun to look into. However, if understood correctly, it should make us take a good long look at ourselves and what we idolize.

Outside Reading:
Badlands - by Terrence Malick

Clint?

I really like Cowboys. They have all my favorite qualities. They are just, fair, strong, manly. They also excessorize excellently in the hat department. And I just frickin' love Clint Eastwood. So as you can imagine I was a little bit surprised when the guy up and raped a girl in the first scene of the movie. That's not very just, or fair, or anything other than downright awful. And that's what High Plains Drifter is about.

In class we called it a "Revisionist Western" but I just call it the other side of the pancake, the burnt side. The Anti-hero.

This film takes ideas about the conventional Hollywood Western and flips it on it's head. Clint is not everything we come to expect from our Cowboy Hero, in fact he is the exact opposite. How heroic is Clint exactly? A rapist and murderer.

This film seems to parallel Vietnam with the idea of the big, powerful stranger who comes clinkin' into town on his cool kid horse with semi-automatics strapped to it.

The most interesting part of the film to me was the terrible portrayal of women. Was there as single redeeming thing that you ladies can grasp onto about the female characters in this film?

The women in this film all basically get tossed around by the men, but at several points they also openly submit themselves to men. The worst is the woman at the end that just gets instantly swooned by Eastwood's silly cowboy charm.

The rape scene where she begins to enjoy it by the end made me feel uncomfortable and that is a true achievement. And even that girl... she even loved Clint by the end. This film is not nice to the ladies.

However, I enjoyed the production and the acting and I even liked the story too. It was just surprising how the woman in the film were basically portrayed like shit.

Outside Reading:
El Topo (they're both unconventional westerns and that's about the only connection)

"Red Stripes in the American Flag"

I saw the new Manchurian Candidate, the one with the guy from Sphere, that under-water sci-fi flick from the 90's. I love that guy for some reason, and I'm not ashamed to admit it, though I am kind of ashamed to admit I liked Sphere. Don't remember a thing about the modern Manchurian but I can tell you the 1962 version is at least interesting with a beautifully set up and executed finale. Frankenheimer's a hell of a shot.

So the film deals with the Cold War and everyone being totally paranoid about nukes (duck and cover, kids), brainwashing, and the possibility of Communist infiltration to our very own United States soil (stuff is crawling with Beatles). I think Dylan was poking at the same paranoia when he wrote this...right around the same time this film came out actually:

Well, I was sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,

Figured they was in my T.V. set.

Peeked behind the picture frame,

Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.

Them Reds caused it!

The film also deals with moms and the potential they have to be a little bit wacky and ideas about how far that wackiness could go.

This thing bombed in the box office, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest bit. Not that it's bad, because it is most certainly is not - in fact, I feel the opposite.

It is however a strange film. It combines several different styles and the result is odd and I wouldn't be surprised to see certain viewers turned off by it. It can be most easily categorized as a thriller, however there are several other pieces to the pie... comedy, sci-fi, satire. This makes for a interesting end product (one that to me seems a little uneven).

The visual style is arresting and the images stuck to me for some reason. I'm not sure if the "movie people" say this, but that first shot with the queen of hearts costume is classic in my mind.

The direction in the film is fantastic. The last scene is put together fabulously and it really is surprising that this guy didn't have a more impressive career. The other scene that his direction really stuck out was when two men were yelling back and forth in a courtroom (I think it was a courtroom). The two men were never actually in the same shot (I don't think) instead Frankenheimer positioned TV sets that showed the opposite man in the direct line of shot of the other man. I thought that scene was expertly done and the tension that is build up in the final scene is also something I would attribute almost entirely to Frankenheimer's direction.

To answer the question posed in class, I think this film is most certainly a satire of everyone being so damn paranoid at the time. It is very well done, however I wonder, without knowledge of the historical context, if the film could be enjoyed to the same extent.

OutsideReading:

-Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
-Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues - Bob Dylan
-Sphere

Oh, Liev Schreiber's that guys name.

Wasted on the Wayside

Ladies and Gentlemen...the man, the myth, the legend: Orson Welles!

I'm sort of ashamed to admit that Touch of Evil is my first encounter with this genius. I know it shouldn't have taken me this long, but better late than never I suppose.

Roger Ebert has this 1958 quasi-classic on his Great Movies list, so I knew off the bat I had to fake liking it even if I despised it. Thankfully, it never came it that. Then again you guys wouldn't know the difference even if it did.

The film opens with that stinking (fine, striking) shot that no one seems to be able to stop talking about. It acts as the slam-bang-wow how many tries did that take-attention grabbing opening and I have to say it is damn impressive. Still, I'm gonna go ahead a skip it...we've heard it all. Shot's spectacular, enough said.

However, going off in that direction...the cinematography in this film in general is excellent. Welles does very cool things with lighting and seems to be constantly coming up with new and creative ways to prevent the camera from being stationary (that first shot being the perfect example...damn, now here I go talking about it.)

One interesting, less discussed shot is (and bare with me while I try to remember it) toward the end of the film - maybe already at the bridge. The camera sways back and forth (up and down, don't quote me) following some long wooden looking object as it makes rhythmic, see-saw type movements. Not sure why, maybe it was motion sickness or something, but I found it to be incredibly effective in creating a discomforting atmosphere in the last scene.

The lighting is tip-top, film noir fun. Swimming in shadows and drenched in darkness...just the way I like it.

Another thing that is frequently discussed with this film is what Welles does with race and stereotypes. This one I won't skip because I feel there's a good amount to discuss with what he does.

First of all, we have ammo enthusiast Charlton Heston in brown face - not even taking a stab at the Mexican dialect (he sticks to his guns I guess). That's good for a laugh no matter what the occasion. I know it seems kind of silly at first but it's actually brilliant when you start to analyze it.

All the other Mexicans in the film seem to perfectly embody what white people were afraid of about Mexicans in that era. Except of course Heston's character...Vargas. He is almost the opposite, far removed from of all of the stereotypes. He is the Mexican that does not fit the expectation.

But that Mexican doesn't actually exist...like literally. It's not a Mexican at all, it's Charlton Heston! So what is Welles saying, damnit?! I'm not sure exactly so I guess that means it's art or something like that. Just kidding I don't buy into all that snob mumbo-jumbo. But really, what he does with Heston alone is totally thought provoking and (whatever I'll say it) it's art.

Anyway, Welles the film maker has some game apparently, but what about Welles the writer or Welles the actor? Kind of sounds like a stuffed up Brando or something.

I thought he was incredibly natural at saying the dialogue (might of had something to do with the fact that he wrote the script) and it even sounded improvised at certain times it was so convincing. A powerhouse performance to be sure. But it was more than a powerhouse somehow, I felt like. It was almost like he was Police Captain Hank...like he wasn't even playing a part. Hmm...

I noticed that joke about how Hank got fat (told by his bartender- mistress-fortune-teller-lady) and looking at earlier photos of this guy, it seems like he might have been taking a shot at himself. I know it's to the character, but he's playing that character and Welles really did get frickin' fat.

I can't help but to think that maybe Welles was actually delving into his weaknesses as a human with his character (and a little less specifically) his script. Maybe he's not simply playing a part, but a part of himself. Maybe that's why he was so god damn good at it. When Hank hit a wall, he started drinking...that's basically what Welles did post-Evil.

I mentioned Ebert at the beginning (love the guy) and he talks about how there is a strange familiarity between Welles's character in the film and Welles in actuality. Ebert points to a different line of dialogue than I did, however it is still a line that is spoken by the bartender-mistress-fortune-teller-lady.

Hank asks her what his future will be like, to which she responds, "you haven't got any." Guess what Orson did after Touch of Evil? Nothing, got drunk and sat on some half written scripts and unedited footage. How much of himself did Welles put into this script? Could he have known how similarly things in his near future would be to the character he created? Man, that's weird.

I just saw the movie that one time so those are the only two quotes I got and one was Roger's, but I believe there is a lot of the real Welles in this film...whether or not it was intentional.
Think about it...the booze, the weight, the lines by the bartender-mistress-fortune-teller-lady. Ebert for god's sake, Roger Ebert, that should be enough.

Whatever, it's just interesting to think about. How much of an artists real self goes into their work...especially when the artist has such complete control of all aspects like Welles did in Evil. We looked at a painting by Adolf Hitler the other day in a different class...there were no people in it.

Rockin' Around the Clock with Beth McCoy

The first paragraph of the Beth McCoy reading talks a bunch about how Blackboard Jungle set the format for buddy cop flicks. So, going into the second paragraph, I was all like, "Okay, this reading is going to be pretty basic, you know, talk about Chris Tucker for a little bit, address some racial issues...get in, get out."




Then I read the second paragraph.

Then the third.

And all of a sudden, Beth starts getting into some pretty serious stuff and I start wishing I was into something a little bit lighter. Maybe watching "The Last Boyscout" or something.

Now, when I first walked out of our classroom after Blackboard Jungle, I was feeling pretty good. White guy becomes friends with the black guy, wife doesn't get all that pissed about the letters, the really naughty kids get the boot, and everyone learns a pretty valuable lesson. It's a feel good flick...makes ya feel good.

Then I start reading Beth's thoughts on Blackboard Jungle and all that shit goes right out the window. I mean, before I even start the second page she's convincing me that the only way that Miller and Dadier can develop "masculine sameness" is in the absence of Anne. So, I was all pumped that the black guy and the white guy got along, but I failed to notice that it was in the absence of the female character. So we can only have racial equality amongst males in the absence of women? Is that what she's saying? Or is that what she's saying the film is saying? Either way, I liked being ignorant to all this stuff better.

So, the film doesn't exactly have the best portrayal of women, but at least I can still say that it portrayed a multi-ethnic, troubled, youth in a somewhat positive light - achieving, and eventually behaving and all that good stuff. That's at least something to feel good about, right?

Beth says no again, and immediately in my head, I say to myself, "this lady is one tough cookie". Then I realize that thinking she's a "tough cookie" might in fact make me kind of sexist, because of the whole "women in the kitchen"thing. Then I start to feel kind of like a chauvinist or something, which is weird because I usually think the opposite. However, I eventually disregard the whole chauvinist thing when I realize I'll gladly do the cooking and kid-raising and laundry washing when I tie it up. Did Anne really apologize for getting pregnant? God, that made me mad. With my brains and her looks we could be onto something.

Anyway, I thought that the film at least showed this youth culture in a positive light by the end, despite all the nonsense throughout. Miller takes command and the majority of these kids choose to be good (to put that in the most overly simplified terms possible). But, I guess I was wrong about that too.

Beth says that those early scenes with the multi-ethnic, scary looking teens (were they behind bars of some sort?) portray them oddly, with focus on their "otherness" (notwhiteness). The cameras focus a lot on their skin, and later she states that the film seems to be saying something like "otherness" will become delinquency and destroy the common culture, unless it can be guided properly. She then states, "Otherness, Blackboard Jungle suggests, can be managed away from delinquency." Guess I can't feel good about that either...thanks Beth.

Well, at the very least, naughty multi-ethnic delinquents out of the picture, and women out of the picture, I can still say that the black dude and the white dude got along at the end and walked off in the sunset and all that good stuff and Beth won't have an issue with it.

Aghhh....

First, she says the the black guy in this film (and historically) becomes feminized, almost replacing the wife figure. That's no good. Then she talks about how everything in the film, everything about seeing colorblind and all the obvious racial shit going on in the film, is actually completely depended on the recognition of the different skin colors. This is a very sad thing to think about and it makes the racial fences in this country seem all the more difficult to climb.

Then, she drops the bomb about the "rock around the clock" ending, which (she was right) seems totally happy and lovey dovey to our generation. She said that it could be potentially interpreted as representative as the instability of the white/black relation in this country. I'm not sure if I entirely got that point, but whatever.

Overall, I liked this film, found it very entertaining (if that counts for anything anymore) and would highly recommend it. The reading (Beth's analysis) was, well, pretty in depth and eye-opening, if difficult to get through at times. I felt that some of her points were better supported than others, but overall I was impressed with her analysis of the film. She is one tough cookie.


















Hey, look...there's all white people on the cover. We're doing a little better, I think?