Modern Blaxploitation

            In an attempt to appeal to African-American audiences in the 1970s, Hollywood began making films centered on urban African-American protagonists, and the blaxploitation film genre was born. In these films, the protagonist was typically “violent, flashy, and charismatic” (Benshoff and Griffin 88); a super-fly, sexualized black man, fighting the system and representing black power.

            The blaxploitation genre first became popular in the 1970s, with films like Shaft (1971) and Superfly (1972). Hollywood studios were satisfied by their appeal to both African-American and white audiences. But it wasn’t long before blaxploitation films began receiving criticism. Not only do these films extremely employ the use of negative stereotypes, they also often glorify illegal activity. As Benshoff and Griffin put it: “What kind of a role model for impressionable inner-city youth is a sexy, super-cool cocaine dealer?” (89). In response to this criticism, Hollywood held off from making more blaxploitation films, at least for a while.

I can hear the theme song now...

            The 1990s saw a resurgence of blaxploitation films. These “neo-blaxploitation” films were considered so because they were often violent gangster genre films. Similar to the 1970s, these films were popular, but received criticism for glorifying violence and crime; “the films promote a black macho criminal-capitalist ethic and are often violently sexist and homophobic” (Benshoff and Griffin 95).

            Despite this trend of blaxploitation films receiving criticism for their negative portrayals, we still see characteristics of the blaxploitation genre. The film Undercover Brother (2002) is a parody of the blaxploitation genre, and thus upholds many characteristics of the typical blaxploitation film. The protagonist is Undercover Brother (Eddie Griffin), who is recruited by the all-black agency, the B.R.O.T.H.E.R.H.O.O.D., to help stop the evil plot of “The Man” (literally). Griffin plays the typical blaxploitation protagonist: a super-fly, Cadillac driving, funky brother whose style is straight out of the 1970s. Undercover Brother is a perfect example of how Hollywood continues to employ characteristics blaxploitation. This film is a modern day rendition of the classic 1970s blaxploitation film.

            Another blaxploitation parody came out even more recently: Black Dynamite (2009). Similar to Undercover Brother, Black Dynamite is mocking blaxploitation films, and is thus very similar to them. I personally have not seen this one, but the storyline doesn’t surprise me: “Black Dynamite is the greatest African-American action star of the 1970s. When his only brother is killed by The Man it’s up to him to find justice” (Black Dynamite).

            Even when films aren’t directly spoofing on blaxploitation, they still often employ certain characteristics of blaxploitation. Films like Soul Plane (2004), Pulp Fiction (1994), How High (2001), Half Baked (1998), and Get Rich or Die Tryin’ (2005) are all examples of modern films that use characteristics of blaxploitation. In such films we still see drug dealing, womanizing, and stereotypes being associated with African-Americans.

            Despite the popularity of blaxploitation films, they are essentially portraying negative stereotypes of African-Americans. Currently, there may not be quintessential blaxploitation films being released, but we still see many spoofs on and characteristics of this genre in films. While African-Americans have made great progress in equality, Hollywood continues to portray the race stereotypically.

Works Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America On Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. 2^nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

“Black Dynamite (2009).” IMDb. IMDb.com, Inc. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.

Undercover Brother. Dir. Malcolm D. Lee. Perf. Eddie Griffin. Universal Pictures, 2002. Film.

Image: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067741/

Image: http://www.matttrailer.com/undercover_brother_2002

Women's Presence In Film... Or Lack There Of

            Women make up about 51% of the population in America, and yet are vastly underrepresented in Hollywood film (Benshoff and Griffin 214). The underlying sexism that is present in our culture manifests itself in Hollywood film. In fact, there are about “twice as many men on Hollywood screens as there are women” (214). Think about the classical Hollywood narrative form. Based on this storyline, the protagonist will be a male. It has become standard for Hollywood films to focus on men.

            We recently learned about the Bechdel test, which further supports the notion that women’s presence in film is lacking. According to the website Feminist Frequency, the Bechdel test is a method of testing the presence of women in film. To pass the test, a movie must meet three requirements: there must be two or more women characters with names, they must converse with each other, and finally, they must converse with each other about something other than a man. You’d think most movies would pass the test, right? Wrong. A large number of films do not pass this test. Some of my favorites that don’t pass the test include The Lord of the Rings 1, 2, and 3, Fight Club, Pulp Fiction, The Princess Bride, and The Big Lebowski.

            Wait, not one out of all three of The Lord of the Rings movies pass the Bechdel test? Those are some of my favorite films, and I’m honestly a little surprised. There are definitely multiple female characters with names, but this is as far as it gets. These characters never talk to each other in any of the films. Coming up in December, the first film of the new Hobbit series will be released, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (IMDb). Maybe it will pass the test. I’ve read the book though, and it’s highly unlikely.

I'm really doubting the possibility of this movie passing the Bechdel test.

            The equality between men and women is much more balanced than it was in the past. With the levels of inequality that women previously faced, it doesn’t surprise me that films from these generations would lack female presence. But despite the progress women have made, we still see many films being made that fail the Bechdel test (The Lord of the Rings films only came out about ten years ago). For example, in another video on the Feminist Frequency site, we learn about which films pass the test that were nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards in 2011. This gives us insight as to the current status of women in film (and highly regarded films for that matter). It turns out that out of the eleven films nominated for best picture in 2011, only two of them clearly pass the test.

            From the large number of films that do not pass the Bechdel Test, it’s easy to see how women go underrepresented in Hollywood film. We live in a society that favors the male sex. While women have made much progress in achieving equality, the presence of women in Hollywood film (or lack there of) is an example of how patriarchal ideologies remain in tact. 

Works Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America On Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. 2^nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

“The Bechdel Test for Women in Movies.” Feminist Frequency, 7 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2012.

“The Oscars and the Bechdel Test.” Feminist Frequency, 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 16 Nov. 2012.

“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012).” Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, Inc. Web. 16 Nov. 2012.

The Lord of the Rings Film Trilogy. Dir. Peter Jackson. New Line Cinema, 2001, 2002, 2003. Film

Charles Chaplin: So Much More Than Slapstick

            Before taking this course, I had only seen one Charlie Chaplin film: Modern Times. When we were required to watch it for the class, I hadn’t even remembered that I’d seen it before. It wasn’t until the scene involving Chaplin being the test subject for the “feeding machine” that I remembered watching it before.

            After watching Modern Times for a second time, I suddenly found myself extremely interested in Charlie Chaplin. I continued to watch some of his other films, including The Kid (1921), The Gold Rush (1925), The Immigrant (1917), and many other clips I found on YouTube. I’ve come to the conclusion that Charles Chaplin was so much more than simply a slapstick comedian. He was a man of many, many talents and a truly unique human being.

            We can see how Charlie Chaplin was so incredibly talented in his ability to make films. He was more than just an actor; in the majority of his films, Chaplin was not only the starring actor, he was also the writer, producer, and director. One thing I did not know before this taking this course was how he was also an accomplished composer, arranging the musical pieces for his films as well. Ever heard the song “Smile,” sung by Nat King Cole? It was originally composed by Chaplin and was used as the theme song for the film Modern Times (lyrics were later added).

            Working under film companies, such as Keystone Film Company, Chaplin was mainly restricted to the “knock-about slapstick his audience expected,” while he was actually wanting “to make subtler comedies” (Hollywood). After becoming an independent producer, Chaplin was given the freedom to make films how he wanted. In the 1921 film The Kid, we come to see Charlie’s serious side. Chaplin wrote The Kid in reflection of his own childhood; the story involves Chaplin raising an orphaned child he finds as a baby. Many aspects of this film show a more dramatic, serious Charlie Chaplin. For example, when Chaplin’s character and the boy are reunited after child welfare officials try and take him away. It was such an emotional scene; I was even tearing up a bit.

            Many of the films Chaplin wrote focused on social problems at the time. He was aware of the issues that people were facing, and as a person of celebrity, he addressed them. For this I applaud Chaplin, as many Hollywood producers, writers, and directors avoid tackling social problems.  Chaplin’s character that he developed for his films, The Little Tramp, in itself addresses the problems facing the lower class in a capitalistic society. His character is often on the road, looking for work. The Little Tramp “acknowledged the economic inequities that most Hollywood films either ignored or suggested could be easily overcome” (Benshoff and Griffin 177).

            Charlie Chaplin is known as one of the greatest silent film comedians, but his humor continued into sound films as well. In Modern Times, Chaplin’s voice is heard for the first time in the “non-sense” song sung towards the end of the film. I found this scene as an excellent way for his character to incorporate a voice for the first time. It was also absolutely hilarious. Chaplin also incorporated this sort of non-sense language into his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), only this time it’s German-like. The film, written before the full extent of the horrors of Nazi rule was known, is a parody of, and aimed as an assault on, Hitler. In my opinion, this film shows Chaplin’s comedic ability in sound. It’s well known he was a great silent comedian, but in this film he proved himself as a great comedian all around.

            Making The Great Dictator was a daringly bold move in a time when communist paranoia was running rapid. “The Great Dictator had enraged German and British diplomats posted in the United States and brought Chaplin to the forefront of celebrities harassed by the House of Un-American Activities” (Charlie). In 1952, Chaplin was denied re-entry into the U.S. He spent the rest of his life living in Switzerland.

            Charlie Chaplin was, in my opinion, remarkably talented. Given the freedom to make his own films, Chaplin showed audiences he was more than simply a slapstick comedian. Along with being an amazingly funny comic, he could also create wonderful films. 

Works Cited:

Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America On Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. 2^nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

Charlie Chaplin: Official Website. Roy Export Company. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

“Hollywood: A Celebration of the American Silent Film – 08 Comedy – A Serious Business.” YouTube, 13 May 2011. Web. 19 Oct. 2012.

Image: Harness, Jill. “Charlie Chaplin: Celebrating the Classic Comic.” Neatorama, 20 April 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Image: "The Gold Rush." Filmlinc.com. The Film Society of Lincoln Center. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Video: TheChaplinFilms. “Chaplin Masterpiece Trailer.” YouTube, 13 April 2011. Web. 1 Nov. 2012.

Last Night I Dreamt I Went to Manderley Again: Social Class in Hollywood Film

            It is not uncommon for Hollywood film to delve on the subject of class. Since the early days of cinema, films have both centered on the issues of social class and, more often than not, hinted at social class discreetly.

            The United States was founded, in part, in hopes of eliminating the firm class system seen in England at the time. “One of the many reasons the 13 colonies broke away from England in the first place was a revolt over the strictness of the British class system” (Benshoff and Griffin 167). Despite this goal, to have a nation without such a strongly defined class system, America does indeed see obvious social and economic stratification. This stratification, in turn, gets imbedded into Hollywood films.

            The book Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier (published in 1938) is my all time favorite. In 1940 it was made into a film (also one of my favorites) with the same title, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. In Rebecca, social class is a topic referred to throughout and plays a key part in the story. The main character, a young woman known only as Mrs. de Winter (Joan Fontaine), is continuously reminded of her low social status before marrying the owner of Manderley estate, Maxim de Winter (Sir Laurence Olivier). It is a fact that haunts her throughout the film. Much of the storyline revolves around her believed inability to manage an estate of that size because she has not lived a wealthy life in the upper class.

            Other characters also do not believe Mrs. de Winter capable of living such a life among the upper class. Mrs. Van Hopper (Florence Bates) is the woman who employed her as a “paid companion” before her marriage to Maxim. When Mrs. Van Hopper learned they were to be married she said, “You certainly have your work cut out as mistress of Manderley. To be perfectly frank with you my dear, I can’t see you doing it, you haven’t the experience, you haven’t the faintest idea what it means to be a great lady” (Rebecca). The head maid, the villainous Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), is in complete doubt of Mrs. de Winter’s ability to run the estate as well, and continuously compares her to the former Mrs. de Winter, Rebecca, who was a lady of wealth and social standing.

            There are more subtle hints to class as well. For example, we see how one is treated differently based on their social standing in the scene in the restaurant in Monte Carlo. When the (soon to be) Mrs. de Winter is sitting alone in the restaurant, the waiters are very standoffish, as she is simply a lower class citizen. After the wealthy estate owner, Maxim, brings her over to his table though, they are extremely attentive and gracious towards her.

            Though our country has seen great progress in equality since it’s formation (and since Rebecca was written and filmed), there is still a firm class system and wide division of wealth today. This is seen in Hollywood films, both from the past and present. Whether or not movies focus on the class system is up to the writers and directors. But even if it’s not meant to be highlighted, you will see notions of class in Hollywood films, as it is so largely a part of our society.

Works Cited

Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America On Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. 2^nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

Rebecca. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Joan Fontaine, Laurence Olivier, Florence Bates, and Judith Anderson. Selznick International Pictures. United Artists, 1940. Film.

Image: Vallows-Dancy, Alan. “Rebecca (1940, Alfred Hitchcock).” 2 or 3 Things I Know About Film. Google Blogger. Google. Web.

Ferris Bueller and the Classical Hollywood Narrative Form

            Going to the movies is one of America’s favorite pastimes. In the U.S., more people go to the movies than to professional sporting events and theme parks combined. Since films were first introduced over a century ago, they have continued to work their way into our hearts. Last year alone U.S. and Canada brought in $10.2 billion at the box office (Theatrical 2). The American film industry (particularly Hollywood) is such a large part of our culture. Theaters continue to attract patrons, but are we essentially seeing the same story over and over again?

            Hollywood films are made with a very specific form and style in mind. The classical Hollywood narrative form is the way storylines are usually structured in Hollywood films. The foremost characteristic of the classical Hollywood narrative form is that storylines are extremely linear and chronological. There is always a beginning, middle, and end, which occur in order. By examining movies from the past and present we can clearly see how “this way of cinematically telling stories is basically the same today as it was in the 1930s” (Benshoff and Griffin 23).

            Take for example, a great movie that many of us have seen, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Here we have a perfect case of the classical Hollywood narrative form. To start, we have Ferris, the charming, charismatic protagonist. A protagonist, or main character, is key to the classical Hollywood narrative form (and in most cases is a white heterosexual male). In the typical classical Hollywood narrative form, the protagonist will have some sort of goal. In the case of Ferris Bueller, his goal is to skip school, essentially taking a day off, and not get caught. To aid in reaching the goal, the protagonist often times has characters helping out. Cameron in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is a perfect example of the typical best friend character. Cameron, reluctantly, helps Ferris achieve his goal.

            Of course we cannot forget another very important aspect to classical Hollywood narrative form: the love interest. The love interest character is one seen in almost all typical Hollywood films. This character “either accompanies the main character in reaching the goal, or functions as the protagonist’s goal” (Benshoff and Griffin 25). In Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, the love interest is Ferris’ girlfriend, Sloane. And like any good love interest, Sloane is the perfect embodiment of patriarchal ideals. 

            Even more central to the storyline of most Hollywood films is the antagonist. The antagonist is the “villainous force or person” who makes it harder for the protagonist to reach his or her goal (Benshoff and Griffin 24). The antagonist to the protagonist is like Voldemort to Harry Potter or Darth Vader to Luke Skywalker. In Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, I would have to consider the relentless school dean Rooney as the antagonist.

            The next characteristic of the classical Hollywood narrative form is the climax, or “the most intense point of conflict” (Benshoff and Griffin 25). Who can forget the scene in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, when he’s racing home to get there before his parents? Even if you’ve never seen the movie, it’s easy to predict how it might go from here. Ferris proves successful and manages to get back home just in time for him to avoid being caught. You can imagine why Hollywood almost always incorporates such closure and a happy ending. They want viewers to leave the theater happy and content, not sad and confused. They also look to reinforce the underlying ideologies of white patriarchal capitalism, which closure often does.

            Hollywood’s method of filmmaking has proven to be a success, in the sense that people continue to go to the movies. The classical Hollywood narrative form keeps people coming back to the movies, but it also makes them easily predictable. Ferris Bueller's Day Off is a great example. The next time you see a movie, apply the classical Hollywood narrative form. You’ll probably find yourself already knowing how it will end.

Works Cited:

“2011 Theatrical Market Statistics Report.” Motion Picture Association of America: Industry Reports. Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., 22 Mar. 2012. Web. 3 Oct. 2012.

Benshoff, Harry M. and Sean Griffin. America On Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies. 2^nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print.

Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Dir. John Hughes. Paramount Pictures, 1986. Film.

Image: “When Schoolkids Go Rogue.” Empire Magazine Online. Bauer Consumer Media. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.