Film reviews by a non-professional for the non-professional, curated by Lee L. I am mostly concerned with marine life, particularly orcas (killer whales) in captivity, but you'll find concentrated thinkpieces here as well. All opinions posted here are my own, for better or for worse, but I invite discussions in the ask box if you so desire.
Thoughts on Twilight (2008) after re-watching the first movie more than a decade later
read more under the cut!
Rosalie:
- arguably the most deeply flawed individual of the whole movie
- probably suffers from PTSD, much like Jasper also probably does
- she canât get away from hers like he can
- nobody can tell me that rose didn't try to kill herself in those early years, not in the dramatic volturi way obvs but in human ways like jumping from cliffs etc
- has been treated like a possession for her mortal and her eternal life pre-Emmett
- emmett is great but isn't really a prize for all the emotional and mental trauma i'm sure she still has lol so
Jasper:
- is constantly feeling the emotions of every single person within the same room as him, how do you keep those emotions separate from your own? i.e. if someone is feeling deep self-hatred and despair, how does he keep himself from feeling, and perhaps acting, on those same emotions?
Carlisle:
- the face and patriarch of the family is arguably the worst person of the whole movie
- is incredibly dehumanising in the pursuit of knowledge or whatever
- He made Rose an eternal being with her last memories being her brutal r*pe and murder by her fiance and his friends and she is doomed! To forever!! PERFECTLY remember that!!!!!Â
- and it wasnât even to save her life, or to provide her with the support and healing required for moving on from, or even living with something like that (you also canât make that decision for someone), it was just to give his firstborn a mate! HOW DARE YOU.Â
- SHE IS NOT A POSSESSION, SHE IS A PERSON. HOW DARE YOU BE MAD AT HER FOR NOT WANTING HIM.
- does not learn from this. He also does it with Bella. He is the only one who Edward will ever listen to and he never tells him to leave bella alone. whose bright idea was it to have him "test himself", a whole ass predator, with her scent? Carlisleâs. they shoulda just left from the get go.Â
Edward:
- his gift has messed him so much he's forgotten how abnormal it is. like how you gon' be mad that you can't read someone's thoughts or that people have learned tricks to keep you out of their head
- he doesn't even try to tune them out morewhile, he just passively listens in to everybody's thoughts. it's the most invasive gift of that clan, and it went to the most emotionally immature one. i'm mad about it
- he is physically 17 but emotionally, i would think heâs like 12 or somethingÂ
- was changed in 1918, and his ideas, morals and values reflect it, he doesn't and hasn't really tried to evolve them
- i attribute some of the blame for his stunted emotional growth to Carlisle leaving all of the decisions to him regarding the Cullen clan, due to his gift being useful for sensing danger and discovery by the humans
- is probably an insufferable being. Bella was literally the only person in the whole movie that could stand him. he has not one single goddamn friend, NOT ONE. his siblings don't count bc either a, they don't like him or b, they have to interact with him bc he lives there
- WHY WAS HE WATCHING HER WHILE SHE SLEPT
- bella and edward are not a good couple
- his attraction to her stems from the fact that she's a shield, he was unattracted to her before he realised that. Also her blood but yeah. Her attraction to him is bc he's attractive (vampire quality), mysterious (bc he's a vampire), and so very different from the dreary town of Forks and the boring, stale people that live there (which,, is because,,, he's a vampire).
mini thinkpiece essay here! -Â how all the main-ish women in the series are seen in relation to kids they do, do not or cannot have.
The Importance of Male Friendships in Rockers (1978)
Essay analysis under the cut!
Rockers, directed by Theodoros âTedâ Bafaloukas in 1978, could easily be classified as another movie that portrays Jamaicans as cannabis-using criminals as Horsemouth and his posse pull off a grand heist wherein they steal the possessions of two wealthy businesspersons, Mr Honeyball and Sunshineâs father, after the two wronged him. However, there is more than meets the eye in this film, as Rockers is so much more than that. In truth, Rockers is a Robin Hood-esque ârags to richesâ movie that is heavily underscored by the subversion of classic tropes expected of a movie with a mafia. These tropes include, but are not limited to, extreme violence, blood, gore, and most importantly, an oppressive masculinity that is arguably more damaging than the violence it perpetuates.
Toxic masculinity is masculinity that âderives from a rejection of the perceived opposite, femininity, that is so pervasive as to become unhealthy for both men and those around themâ. Toxic masculinity stunts the cognitive, intellectual, and emotional growth of men and the resultant damage is part of its effect on women. By rejecting anything stereotypically feminine, which are traits like compassion, empathy, even politeness, that helps us as human beings to get along with and care for one another, a man or boy displaying these traits can invite ridicule. This all results in relationships that are void of emotional intelligence, which usually results in some level of violence.
Rockers subverts this manifestation of toxic masculinity by portraying friendships that are the direct opposite. In several instances of the film, Horsemouth and his friends can be seen supporting each other in various ways, whether it be by lending an ear to whatever woes ail them or even physically treating wounds inflicted by another. The most poignant portrayal of this type of supportive friendship is the scene where Burning Spear, comforts Horsemouth at night by a river, as he sings to Horsemouth as an expression of solidarity and comfort as the two smoke together. The scene suggests nothing of a queer or homoerotic nature, simply a man being allowed to express his negative emotions and a friend, beside him, giving him the space to do so.
Furthermore, these strong masculine friendships breed the fraternity that was visible in the movie as all the men gathered around Horsemouth in order to help him reclaim his bike and take non-violent revenge against the oppression of those in power. One could claim that the act of theft, especially on the grand-scale that was seen in the film, and the use of guns by Horesmouthâs friends in the robberies is an indication of toxic masculinity. While somewhat true, this does not distract from the fact that the men did not actually shoot anyone, and merely used the guns as a means of threatening the security guards at each location. Additionally, the men did not keep the spoils of their labour to themselves; they distributed all of the goods to members of the impoverished community in which they live, and even to outliers such as the elderly woman who received a rocking chair.
In an interview with Tassos Brekoulakis, Bafaloukas himself said of âghettoâ communities in Jamaica in the time of Rockers, âthere was nothing there to support you in any way because it was really tough. It was practically impossible for anything to come out of that situation apart from a tolerance for violence, a gang mentality⊠as everyone else struggled to eke out a living. But itâs important to realize that a great many people managed to live under these conditions peacefully and productively.â This ability to avoid the common gang mentality was possibly due to the friendships one created and maintained along the way, such as the ones Bafaloukas illuminated via Horsemouth and co.
Moreover, this perspective of the ghetto environment or community is in direct opposition to that which is shown in dominant cinema, and in some Jamaican films such as Third World Cop or The Harder They Come. Instead of the usual images of violence, aggression & hostility, Bafaloukas shows Horsemouth walking around his community at varying times of the day and night in various sequences to represent a more nurturing, connected, and loving environment.
In view of the foregoing, Rockers is more than a representation of the emerging reggae scene in Jamaica, and of the fight against discrimination against a particular group of people. Rockers is also a tale of how the absence of something as pervasive as hegemonic expressions of masculinity can instead result in a black, ghetto, community that will benefit those within it more in the long run than the violence and conflict that often exists.
The Church as Heaven and Hell in The Harder They Come (1972)
Essay analysis under the cut!
The Harder They Come, directed by Perry Henzell in 1972, depicts the narrative of a young man Ivan and his pursuit of fame and riches as he migrates from the Jamaican countryside to the heart of the island, Kingston. This journey is not easy for him in any sense of the word, as he is deceived and robbed within the first hour of his arrival as he attempts to find his motherâs home and his experiences only go downhill from there. The Harder They Come is a lesson, if not a warning, for those with similar ambitions as Ivan. The Harder They Come is a message to those aiming to enter the secular music industry as a means of social and financial mobility to turn away from that lifestyle, and instead to conform to a Christian lifestyle as oneâs salvation shall come through the Lord.
The church acts as both heaven and hell for those involved in it. Ivan attains security, emotional and financial support and hope from members of the church; this is his salvation â he no longer lives on the streets, trying to make a living from begging and scavenging. Yet he stifles underneath the regime and rules of the church such as reading your bible every day, three times a day, as mentioned by Preacher. Conversely, one of Ivanâs first antagonists was a member of the church, and Ivan suffered greatly as he pulled away from the teachings of the church and began branching off into a more secular side of life.
The sequence in question begins with an unnamed reverend preaching to a choir saying, âIt rescued the perishing! Cared for the dying! Snatched us from in pity [from sin]! Raised us from the grave!â These are the spoken lyrics of the song âRescue the Perishingâ by Frances J. Crosby. When paired with a later scene of Elsaâs betrayal, the strength of the churchâs power is clearly represented; Elsa cannot help but turn back to the church after living with Ivan for so long as she searches for redemption and salvation for herself and for the ill child she cares for. Thus, rescuing the perishing, caring for the dying, and snatching the impoverished in pity from sin. Ironically, the return to the church for Elsa, and by extension Rupert, the ill child, is a means of rescue whereas, for Ivan, it is death and damnation.
However, this was not always so. As previously mentioned, Ivan had turned away from the church in the pursuit of riches, fame and, eventually, infamy. In the first scenes of the film, upon locating his mother, she and Ivan have an exchange that becomes rather ironic as the film continues. She implores and orders him to go back home to the country, and when that fails in the face of his determination to remain in town, she rightfully predicts, to Ivanâs indignation, that the only job he can get in town is to become a criminal. She tries to derail this prediction, however, when she gives Ivan a scrap of paper with Preacherâs name on it and said that if he behaves himself, that Preacher would set him up with âa little somethingâ, meaning a job. Ivan takes the paper but never calls nor goes to see him, instead, the audience sees scene after scene, clip after clip, of Ivan sleeping on the streets, unsuccessfully begging money from others and trespassing in various places. This is the first indication of the church for Ivan as lawful, as salvation, a means of survival even.
The second depiction of the church as salvation is in the same vein as the first, and it is highlighted in a close up of Ivan, after weeks if not months of homelessness and hardships, turning to the church in search of comfort and solace. Though he does not feel as if he belongs there, as he chooses to stand outside and peer in through the louvres instead of going inside and participating. The lighting of this scene also lends to this idea, as Ivan standing outside the church, is cast in the shadows whereas the church is brightly illuminated. This is symbolic of Ivan being in sin, whereas the church is holy and righteous. The film then cuts to show Ivan, wearing different clothes and working in some sort of repair shop. We can assume that he is no longer homeless and that he is gainfully employed, rather than begging those he comes across. Furthermore, the shot shows Ivan and a man known as Preacher having a conversation, where the contents imply that Preacher was the one to set Ivan up with the job in the first place.
Contrasting these two shots implies that the church and the diegetic sound of the song âJust a Closer Walk with Theeâ that the congregation was singing is what saved Ivan from a life on the streets. The song lyrics plead for Jesus to keep them (whoever is singing the song) from âall wrongâ and state that being close to Jesus, i.e. practising a Christian lifestyle shall satisfy their needs. Preacher giving Ivan a job can be interpreted as the third time that the film projects the church as a means of redemption.
Dissimilarly, the unnamed preacher also quotes the King James Version of the Bible, from Romans 6:23, as it says that âFor the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.â Henzell also appropriately depicts the church as a means of control, or the rejection thereof, as a source of damnation and downfall. The first instance of such occurs during, and after, the congregation sings âJesus Took My Burdenâ by Johnson Oatman. During the church service, Ivan cannot stop looking at Preacherâs ward Elsa, and she occasionally looks back at him. On one such occasion, Preacher catches them. He is clearly unsettled and upset at the sight and what it means. This is proven in the next scene, when Preacher confronts Ivan unnecessarily roughly about some harmless music and rocking while he fixes a bicycle, claiming that his âboogie-woogieâ was unseemly for a Christian and that he should be reading his bible instead of fixing a bicycle. It is clear that he is not actually upset about whatever it is that Ivan is doing, he is just taking his anger about Ivan and Elsa showing some level of interest in each other, and the significance of this in relation to his power and control over Elsa and Ivan. Henzell also depicts the church as a means of control further when the film shows a crosscutting of Ivan and Elsa enjoying an idyllic bicycle ride together from the sea back home, and Preacher rifling through and even destroying Ivanâs things.
Moreover, the penultimate instance of the church as hell is shown when Preacher evicts Ivan from the church premises for recording/playing âsecularâ music in the church â he strays from a proper Christian lifestyle. He is immediately punished by the Powers That Be as he stabs Longa after he refuses to give Ivan back the bicycle that Preacher wrongfully gave him. Furthermore, when they are scuffling in the yard and Longa stabs Ivan with the broken bottle he was using as a weapon, Ivan kicks it out of his hand and threatens him by asking if he wants to die because heâll kill him as he continues to stab and slice at Longa, almost torturing him. Justice is swiftly served as evidenced by the jumpcut to a judge walking into a courthouse and a voiceover of one reprimanding Ivan by saying that â[Ivan has] been taken into the church and given a chance to live a good Christian life and instead of that, youâve gone and filled your head with foolishness and violenceâ. This is proven as Ivan falls further into a life of debauchery with drug usage, drug running, guns and murder, which ultimately ends as he fatally shot by members of the police force after a botched attempt at fleeing the island.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the church is represented as a means of oppression and control via conformity to those who are impoverished or otherwise marginalised. In contrast, those who reject this Christian lifestyle, those who sin against the church, are shown to suffer greatly, that is damnation. This can be a result of mental or physical sins ranging from having sexual fantasies in the church, during service, to enjoying secular music and shirking Christian responsibilities such as bible-reading and/or are doomed to eventually die a painful death, as is the âwages of sinâ. Â
Know Your Roots: The Impact of Historical Knowledge in Sankofa (1993)
Essay analysis under the cut!
Depicted by a bird facing backwards with its feet facing forward, Sankofa is a word from the Twi language which originated in Ghana, and means âit is not taboo to fetch what is at risk of being left behindâ. The 1993 film directed by Haile Gerima is therefore aptly named as it stresses the importance of consulting oneâs past while still moving forward and progressing. Furthermore, it demonstrates the difference it makes in someoneâs life when they are aware of their roots and who they are like Shango, versus when they are ignorant or have believed the words of someone else as is the case of Joe. This shifting is presented in the lives of Mona-as-Shola as she moves from a Joe-like mentality to one similar to Shangoâs.
Mona, an American model is taking photos in Ghana at the Cape Coast Castle when she is accosted by Sankofa, the âself-appointedâ protector of the land there, and eventually entranced and surrounded by African men within the dungeons of the slave castle. She attempts to escape, is caught by the guards despite her cries, is branded with a hot iron and is mystically transported into the mind and body of a slave woman Shola. It is assumed that Sankofa initialises the trance as the divine drummer who is in charge of directing the African spirits back home, as he is deeply disturbed that Mona is not aware of her roots. Â
In continuation, Sankofa appeared disgusted by her performance for the white manâs gaze, which is symbolised by the cameras which he holds. The misleading sexual responses and sounds that the photographer makes could be seen as the 21st-century version of the rape that Mona-as-Shola experiences. Monaâs lack of connection with her African roots is further highlighted when she hides and covers herself behind the cameraman, which shows how eclipsed she has become by white American society. Also, her dressing up in African print is essentially the same as putting on a costume for her; her only connection to Africa is superficial, temporary, and ultimately easily discarded. Upon her capture by the white guards at the slave castle, she appeals to them to let her go because she âis an American, not an Africanâ. This type of disregard and denouncing is the reason that Sankofa continuously yells to her to go âback to [her] pastâ, and âreturn to [her] sourceâ.Â
In a similar manner, Joe also does not recognise his African roots. A product of rape who has become a head slave, Joeâs deep attachment to the teachings of Father Raphael had caused him to shun and mistreat his mother Nunu, as well as his fellow slaves. Father Raphael teaches that the Africans on the plantation, including his own mother are worshippers of the devil and that he must not associate with them. This is the reasoning that led to Joe eventually killing Nunu in the river as she tried to comfort him. Interestingly, when Joe carries his motherâs body into the sanctuary, the Christian paintings of white women holding their babies seem to be watching them and again when Joe kills the priest for disrespecting his mother. They bear witness to him learning and accepting who he and his mother are, and what he loses in the process of this understanding.
Furthermore, this racist and eurocentric religious privileging is also the root of Sholaâs whipping by the slavemaster which Joe witnesses, as they think sheâs become possessed as well after she tries to run away from the plantation. Arguably, this is where Sholaâs rebelliousness begins to shine as a result of the Sankofa bird necklace that Shango gave her after said whipping. This can be seen as the effect of understanding oneâs past in order to further understand oneâs self, as the message behind the Sankofa dictates.
This is in alignment with the ideals of Sholaâs eventual lover, Shango, the West Indian (Jamaican) slave who was always seen as a trouble-maker. He has always demonstrated knowledge of who he is, and what is important to him and this knowledge has given him the means to firmly follow his ideals as he is always talking about escaping with his fellow slaves, and he tries to help whatever slaves he sees in trouble as the audience sees with Kutu and Shola. Two different attitudes to slavery are presented in early-Shola and in Shango; Shango has more of an aggressive and militant approach which, in his mind, culminates in him gaining his freedom whereas Shola is a pacifist who implored him to âjust act rightâ.Â
However, Shango helped her to change this mindset as she began to realise that the things that she believed were not going to help her, her situation, and that of those around her. One such example is her faith. Where the other slaves like Nunu, Noble Ali and Shango have some connection to their African gods, the house slaves Joe, Lucy and Shola all prefer Catholicism. Shola in particular, experienced some doubt about her situation when the Father told her to keep praying but she realised that âthe more [she] prayed, the meaner Massa gotâ and she eventually stopped praying altogether. This is not to say that Shola embraced the African gods either, however, she viewed it with less prejudice and disdain. The other clear example of Shola changing from who she was, is her progression from not wanting to poison the headmaster, into killing him. While running away from his dead body, she described being taken âup, up and upâ by a buzzard, and the scenery suggests that she is being taken to Africa as there are pyramids present. This is representative of Mona-as-Shola embracing the understanding she now has of history, and âreturningâ to Africa.
This is further expressed in Mona returning to Cape Coast Castle as herself and being told âmy child, welcome backâ by a woman as a Sankofa bird is shown again. It is also seen when Mona makes the decision to walk past the white photographer, and towards Sankofaâs drumming which captivates her now that she is more closely linked with her roots.
In view of the foregoing, Sankofa reminds its audience that knowledge of the past is key in moving forward, and progressing from stagnancy and ignorance. While the audience does not know if Mona has become a better person due to her experience, it is clear that she has more respect for the land of Cape Coast Castle and the lives that were lost there. She makes the choice to leave the carefree side of American society behind and instead looks forward.
The aptly-titled Blackfish is a documentary that focuses on a killer whale, Tilikum, who has killed multiple people while in captivity at SeaWorld. In doing so, it also discusses and details the suffering of killer whales in captivity at establishments like SeaWorld, Loro Parque and Sealand of the Pacific. Furthermore, it also revealed the inhumane methods used to capture the aforementioned killer whales and separate them from their pods. The title âBlackfishâ is useful in both capturing the audienceâs attention as well as hinting towards the content of the documentary, as the film later states that the term was created by the indigenous First Nations people and fishermen of America. It also posits a more positive term to use as the âkillerâ in killer whale has connotations that promote dangerous opinions of the animals.
The film was produced by Gabriela Cowperthwaite and Manuel V. Oteyza and written by Cowperthwaite, Eli Despres and Tim Zimmermann. Cowperthwaite was the sole director. Executive producers Judy Bart and Erica Kahn funded the film and Magnolia Pictures were in charge of publishing the film for wider release in 2013. It can be speculated that this wider release was aimed towards activists, both budding and veteran, as well as people who have been or were considering visiting SeaWorld. It could also be geared towards people who have a general interest in marine life. Truthfully, anyone can watch this documentary as it conveys the information in a clear manner, and without the use of scientific jargon.Â
Additionally, as the documentary mainly used unscripted testimonials from useful sources such as, but not limited to, scientists, experts on whale research, former trainers from SeaWorld, and family members to the late victims to deliver the information, it could be argued that it is mostly unbiased. SeaWorld as a corporation and people who currently work there had refused to comment for the film, which makes sense when one considers that it would have damaged their brand. Unfortunately, this resulted in some viewing the documentary as a witch-hunt. It must be said, however, that there is an instance wherein clips from SeaWorld from what appears to be casual conversations and public tours are used, and the information garnered there was disproven by testimonials. This further cements the idea that SeaWorldâs absence is a calculated choice. Â
Being published in 2013, the information is not as current as it could be in 2020, but relevance is more important than being up-to-date. The material presented is based off archived case records detailing injuries to the trainers, and studies that were done on orcas for years beforehand that were proven, therefore it is all relevant to the present-day, as it has not changed. I had watched this documentary on a recommendation due to my general interest in orcas and found the information in it to be enlightening and useful, especially the methods used for trapping and capturing them as that was not something that had occurred to me previously.
The visuals of some of the attacks that were captured on footage were a bit graphic and there were no warnings presented beforehand but was also incredibly effective in revealing how dangerous it is for humans to be in contact with captive orcas. Otherwise, most of the visual content were interviews, post-courtroom footage and clips from news broadcasts, which were not entirely interesting to watch, and wildlife footage of orcas. There are few instances of soft background music that does not distract from the footage but provides ambient noise to accompany the person speaking. Overall, the documentary was enjoyable to watch and edifying, and provided information that the general public might not have thought to access, or would have been unable to view themselves.
The presentation was a bit depressing but this was important for the content as it is a serious issue in animal activism, and in my opinion, there is no way to present data like this in a positive manner as the data itself is depressing. Yet, despite its depressive nature, the documentary is able to hold the viewerâs attention throughout as one is filled with questions such as why people would participate in these activities, why trainers remained at SeaWorld despite incidents that were happening and lives that were being lost, why SeaWorld is still in operation, etc. As such, the film places itself in the viewerâs memory and urges the viewer to do their own research on these questions. The conclusion is a bit disappointing as it ends with a few lines of information and footage of some of the ex-SeaWorld trainers going whale-watching. Though it is possible that the clips of free orcas are used to incite positive feelings in viewers.
In conclusion, this documentary is an easy recommendation for anyone who has an interest in marine activism, and I have personally purchased the DVD. Improvements that could be made are adding warnings before graphic footage, or even at the beginning of the film, for people who are sensitive towards that sort of content, and a more informative and less abrupt ending would have wrapped things up nicely. Input from active members of SeaWorld would have been useful but that is beyond the control of the producers as SeaWorld had repeatedly declined to comment.
tangentwithtanner
yousharknotpass
dededos
prguitarman
kaledo-art
gummygunk
izzy806
discoholicmusic