coreymoquin

Primary Colors, which came out in 1998, is a political film unlike any other. It appears to be self aware of the political situation in modern United States politics. It both pokes fun at American politics and sheds light on real unnerving problems. It also poses a battle between political power and human morals. The film, like other films we've viewed this semester, places the viewer in a dilemma where they must decide what is more important.

The film came out in 1998. During this time Bill Clinton was president and the Monica Lewinski scandal is just starting to surface in the media. Up until this point Bill Clinton, having been recently re-elected, was for the most part a celebrated president. The United States was enjoying a time of peace. The only real problem the country was facing was a slight recession. However, the sex scandal in the white house shook the American citizens to the core. Suddenly a politician that appeared to be trustworthy was dishonest. The American citizens didn't know whom they could trust in politics. Clinton was impeached but was acquitted. Primary Colors' character Jack Stanton, played by John Travolta, is an obvious interpretation of Bill Clinton.

Primary Colors decides to show both sides of the political process during the primary races. It shows that campaigning is just about the people as it is about destroying your competitor. This is done by either hiding your own implicating material or uncovering material that may be implicating to the competitor. This film shows the political primary races as a ruthless and morally absent competition to eliminate contenders. Fairness does not seem to enter in to this competition because the politicians in this film seem to be more preoccupied by sabotaging their competitors campaign rather than create credible political strategies. Jack Stanton's character has quite a bit going against him during his race. He is faced with a false accusation of having an affair with a hairdresser. Also, implications arise in the media that he was a draft dodger and had arrests covered up. Even a protagonist is not 100% honest in this political world that the movie has created.

The film decides to make itself "real" by presenting real life political problems. Perhaps this was done to show the audience that the message the film is conveying is in fact a truthful one. The scene where Jack is addressing the factory workers is a good example of this. Stanton states that he cannot fix the factory workers situation because companies will always export jobs to cheaper countries. He takes an honest approach so he can focus on his primary political stance of education. This technique is rarely seen by politicians in real life as some would rather lie to get votes.

Primary Colors main battle is between political power and morals. Jack Stanton prides himself on being fair and honest, and this creates a good protagonist. The character conflict arises when he is pulled into a dirty political fight where his character's morality is tested. He decides to fight dirty by digging up implicating material. The moral representative in the film then shifts to the Libby Holden character. She believes, as Jack used to, that campaigning should just be about political stances rather than hurting competitors. Jack decides to use reason by saying if he doesn't use the implicating material then someone else will. This places the viewer in a dilemma where they must decide what is right to themselves. In a way the Henry character is an outlet that the audience can side with.

In the end Jack Stanton decides to take the middle route by alerting the competitor of the material and not going to the media. The film shows that politicians are not perfect people; in fact they are from it. Most of them have made mistakes; some are just more honest than others. Perhaps it is just better to focus on their political stances and agendas rather than focus on their past mistakes.

Oliver Stone's Wall Street is a perfect representation of how the rise of capitalism has completely shifted the culture and mindset of the United States and most of the modern world. The film poses two sides against each other and puts the audience in the same shoes as the protagonist. Charlie Sheen's character, Bud Fox, goes through multiple transformations throughout the film and it really makes the viewer question where they stand in today's economic climate.

The economy in the 1980s was overall very good, right before the recession of the 1990s. Also, the United States transformation to becoming a fully capitalistic society was pretty much complete. Most of the American public during this time was unaware of what was going one with the economy.

Oliver Stone films pretty much always have a deep meaning to them. Usually he alludes to how society functions in different eras. Stone's film Platoon is a good example of this. He showed a true representation of the Vietnam War, something that filmmakers rarely attempted. He showed how horrific and political the war was by showing how different races and people were treated. Wall Street also has these elements imbedded in the film.

Wall Street presents two sides that face off against each other; capitalism and morality. Gordon Gekko represents capitalism. Gekko is a leech that feeds off of other people's success as a stockbroker. Gekko is greedy and has no morals; he will do anything just to gain more money. A good example of this is when he intentionally tries to destroy Martin Sheen's airline company. He could easily build the company up and make enough money, but he decides to diversify the shares so he can make an exorbitant amount of money. Then there is morality. Martin Sheen's character represents this side; the honest blue collar workers of middle class America. This side is the complete opposite of the capitalistic side. They aren't greedy and have values. There is a scene where Martin Sheen's character says he believes in creating something rather than leeching off other people's success. This bit of dialogue really encapsulates how his side believes how America should function. Wall Street is a film that was made in the 80's this belief still resonates strong over 20 years later.

The middle ground between the two sides is Charlie Sheen's character, Buddy Fox. Oliver Stone probably wanted the viewer to be in the shoes of this character so they could come to some sort of a realization. Fox is pitted between these two sides and it is up to him to decide which side to choose. He goes through multiple transformations throughout the film. In the beginning he is idealistic and just wants to be a rich; to achieve the "American Dream". Eventually under the tutelage of Gekko he becomes callous and greedy. After Gekko attempts to destroy the company Fox has a realization of how immoral capitalism can be. He then goes to his father's side. The Fox character has some strong allusions to the American economy. In a way the American economy has gone through the same transformation; starting from idealistic roots and slowly becoming greedy and capitalistic.

Perhaps Oliver Stone is providing hope with Buddy Fox's last transformation into a moral character. Stone might be conveying that if Fox can change his ways than maybe America can as well. Despite Stone having a good message it seems it has fallen on closed eyes because the country has become even more capitalistic.

The film Chungking Express which, came out in 1994, seems to be completely devoid of any resemblance to the system of narrative that classic Hollywood movies employ. In fact the similarities in narrative structure seem to be far and few between. Elements such as characters and plot are the main differences in the narrative structure of these two types of films. This is emphatically true with Chungking Express.

Pretty much every film, especially classic Hollywood films, have a clear protagonist and antagonist. In a classic Hollywood movie these two character elements are set up within the first ten minutes of the film. However, in Chungking Express these two elements are never absolute. Cop 223 is set up as a protagonist, but he doesn't seem to have a clear antagonist. Nevertheless, he does seem to struggle with depression. Perhaps his depression and sadness over losing his girlfriend is the antagonist to this character. So in a way he seems to be his own antagonist. Another possible antagonist is the girl he meets in the bar who appears to be a drug trafficker. The fact she seems to be distancing herself from him at first is a struggle between the two characters. The second protagonist in the film is Cop 663. He to is struggling with depression over the loss of his relationship with a stewardess, which could be his antagonist. However, he almost seems to enjoy his loneliness because he never makes any attempts to contact her. Again, he seems to be his own antagonist. Then, as was the case with Cop 223, he has a female antagonist/romantic interest. The girl who works at the deli seems to have a subtle interest in Cop 663. This was made clear when she sneaks into his house. Despite her interest in Cop 663 she seems to want to travel to other parts of the world, to California in particular. She can't seem to choose between Cop 663 and traveling until the end of the film and even then it is very vague. The girl in the deli seems to be another protagonist in the film. So the second story of the film seems to have two protagonists almost facing off against each other. However, the protagonists aren't clearly defined. This is a paradigm you basically never see in a classical Hollywood narrative.

Another element that is involved with characters is their goals. In a classic Hollywood film the goals of the characters is clearly set up through the plot or independent story lines. Chungking Express is extremely vague with character goals. Cop 223 obviously wants to his ex-girlfriend back, but if this is the case why doesn't he try to contact her? The film attempts to make this conflict into a struggle, but never explains why he doesn't make any effort to get her back. Chungking Express is even more vague with Cop 663's goals. His goals are never conveyed in a definite way. The range of the stories seems to be restricted to the protagonists

Another main factor of a film's narrative is plot and story. Hollywood films are usually very comprehendible, especially classic Hollywood narratives. Classic Hollywood plots are almost always linked together in a fluid and cohesive type of narrative. Chungking Express's plot would probably be considered a complete mess by classic Hollywood standards. Chungking Express is basically two different films with similar "stories". Cop 223's "saga" seems to end very abruptly when he is wished a happy birthday. Then Cop 663's story begins. Neither of these stories have any suspense because there is barely any conflict and no deadlines. The struggle and plight of the characters in the film are a result of subtle romances that never seem to fully flourish. Neither of the endings are clearly explained or resolved. This is different than a classic Hollywood film because their endings are always resolved in some way or another.

Chungking Express's narrative is very unique. The viewer is basically placed in this world of the film and is given no pre tense and very little information. Then they are expected to almost "live" the life of the protagonists in the film. It isn't very often that a film has this sort of power of making the viewer a part of the narrative. The film seems to be intentionally avoiding any sense of a "normal" structure that Hollywood has set up. The audience can make up their own minds on whether or not this "experiment" is successful, but the risk the filmmakers took is commendable nonetheless.

Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine is a political film in every sense, namely because it is a film directly involved with political situations in the United States. Since this is a documentary Michael Moore can simply state the message he is trying to get across without the use of artistic metaphors or allusions. Despite being a documentary however he does use some clever techniques to get his message across to the viewer. Moore has received some criticism for some of his techniques but his point gets communicated to the audience nonetheless.

Bowling For Columbine came out in 2002 nearly a year after the attacks of 9/11. The United State's atmosphere was extremely tense and citizens were afraid. This is the basis of Michael Moore's theory of why the United States is "gun crazy". He believes the gun homicide rate is so high in the country because people are afraid and on edge constantly. He proves this point because the sale of firearms and ammunition went up drastically after the terrorist attacks. He points out the irony that a country that claims it's peaceful, mostly uses violence to solve its problems.

The Columbine Massacre is the main argument for Moore because it asks the question of how a couple of teenage kids had such easy access to numerous deadly weapons. The massacre shows the tragic results of what can occur in conjunction with a country having such loose gun laws, as the United States does. Moore starts off his Columbine segment with the actual 911 calls made during the massacre. The plays the footage of the attack while the audio is playing, the result is a very disturbing and sobering sequence. It really hits home with the viewer and makes them sympathize and listen to the point that Moore is trying to convey. Another clever technique Moore uses to get his point across is made apparent in another scene. The scene where Moore rattles off stats of United States military involvement in other countries and the deaths resulted from the attacks is already a very sobering scene. He goes even further to show graphic footage of dead bodies and explosions. All the while he is juxtaposing all this disturbing information and video with Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World". The juxtaposition of these two mediums creates a very impactful scene that strongly resonates with the audience. This same technique was also used in the film "Good Morning Vietnam" starring Robin Williams, and it has the same effect.

Michael Moore raises some very interesting questions in Bowling For Columbine. The main one being, "Why is the United States so unique from other gun loving countries?" He shows how the United States has more gun related deaths than other countries such as Canada. One of the answers that he comes up with is that the media is creating fear in the country by only showing violent and disturbing news.

Despite having some clever and impactful techniques, Michael Moore does have some controversial ones. There are times where he seems to go too far with some of the people is he interviewing. Moore becomes condescending at times and sometimes even blatantly insults whom he is interviewing. Sometimes it can be deserved when he is interviewing an expert or someone who should be held accountable for something like in the interview he had with Charlton Heston. However there are times where he becomes rude to people who aren't in fact experts and Moore makes them look foolish for no reason. This may take away some of Moore's credibility at times. Sometimes a point can be clearly made without taking the low road and making the "opponent" look dumb.

Even with a few techniques that can be deemed controversial Moore does drive his message across quite clearly and he does seem to back up his argument with facts. Bowling For Columbine raises some important questions that people should take notice of, especially United Sates citizens.

Spike Lee's film "Do The Right Thing" evokes many emotions from the audience viewing it. However, audiences who have different backgrounds may perceive the movie in a different fashion. Spike Lee accomplishes this by using different film techniques to get across a message. This message, however, will be received differently depending on the audience because of racial and cultural footholds that have been nailed into American society. The two primary races this movie was geared for was African Americans and Caucasians. These two races may see the movie differently due to the way Spike Lee produced the movie. White's may see the movie differently because most of them come from alternate backgrounds than the one depicted in the film. The characters behavior may seem odd to Caucasians. This is because Spike Lee is good at creating characters. They are created in a way that makes them almost over the top. The black characters especially are depicted in this way. Radio Raheem, the Martin Lawrence character, and Buggin Out are all examples of these bigger than life characters. The characters become very recognizable throughout the film. "Do the Right Thing" had almost 20 characters with large roles and the audience was able to recognize all of them within a 2-hour runtime. Creating the characters in this way makes the interactions between them very interesting because of this clash of different personalities. The final scene right before the radio is smashed in the pizza shop is a great example of this battle of personalities. Because of the way the characters are constructed the white audience may root for the white characters in the film. Perhaps they can recognize better with the white characters, which seemed to be less toned than the black characters. The white characters were written in a way that almost makes them sympathetic. The younger brother, who is always getting bossed around, definitely reinforces this belief. The pizza owner sees the black characters as his children in a metaphorical sense because he watched them grow up. He is a likable character, even though he has some racial issues of his own which are revealed in his encounter with Radio Raheem. Even the older brother is sympathetic despite the fact that he is probably the most racist character in the movie. Although, the audience does get a sense that he is just confused. This becomes apparent in the scene with him and Mookie when they are discussing his favorite people, who are all African American.

This isn't to say that all the sympathetic characters are white. Da Mayor may be a drunken bum but he is depicted in a way that shows he is good at heart and throughout the film he becomes the most sympathetic character. The interaction he has with the punks, when they are making fun of him makes you identify with him. He risks his life twice saving a young boy and during the violent climax he pushes the pizza shop workers to the side so they won't get attacked.

The other side of the coin is the way the black audience perceives the film. They may see the movie differently from the white audience because they can identify and affiliate themselves with the lifestyle of the characters in the film. The film raises racial issues that African American audience will easily recognize. Issues such as police brutality, which was depicted in the violent climax where the police murdered Radio Raheem. Another racial issue that the movie touched upon is the failure of white people to recognize the change in the culture. The Sal character refusing to put pictures of famous black people on his store wall and the condescending white male in his car are both good examples of this issue.

Spike Lee seemed to employ different creative techniques to make sure different audiences saw a different film. He requires the audience to think for themselves and decide what to take from the movie. Lee doesn't take any sides. The characters juxtapose each other very well. None of them seem to be 100 percent in the right. He raises tension with his characters over the top personalities and other techniques. He colors the film with a certain yellowish hue. Obviously one of the reasons for this was to make the day seem hot, as it is one of the hottest days of the year. However, the coloring doesn't change at all throughout the day to show that time is progressing. Perhaps this is alluding to the constant state of racial tension between the races until night finally falls on the neighborhood and violence breaks out. During this scene the Mookie character, who seems neither over the top or sympathetic seems to take a side and breaks the pizza shops window. It is unclear why he does this. Was he upset over the death of his friend, Radio Raheem? Perhaps he was trying to save Sal and his family by averting the mob to destroy the store instead of the family. Perhaps the two audiences see different endings, which was probably Spike Lee's intention when creating the film.

The Salt of the Earth, which came out in 1954 paints an almost too real picture of how migrant workers were treated before the civil rights movement. It is easy to see why the United States government, which was going through "The Red Scare" during this time, blacklisted this film. The film touches on and provokes many issues that were very sensitive during this era. Issues such as racism, equality, and feminism are the key themes in the movie. Racism was still very apparent in the United States during the 1950's, namely because the civil rights movement had not happened yet. The film pits the whites or "Anglos" against the Mexican workers. However, not all the whites in the film are depicted as evil. There are a few Caucasian workers who side themselves with the Mexicans. This gives the film a much more "real" atmosphere to it because it doesn't allude to one race being good and the other evil. Instead of simply having the whites be the antagonist, the film sets the leader of the mining company up to be the antagonist. Despite having a few whites on the side of the Mexican workers the film clearly sympathizes with the Mexicans. The film controls the in a way so the audience will undoubtedly root with the workers. The Mexican workers have poor safety requirements, which constantly lead to accidents on the site. This is all so the company can save money. When the Mexicans complain of this they are threatened with being replaced with an American worker by the foreman. The film does a good job of painting the leaders of the mining company as evil. There is a scene in the beginning where the foreman tells the workers to get back to work right after one of the workers is nearly killed in an explosion. This shows that the leaders have no compassion for the workers and that they are only in the business for the money with no care of the well being of the Mexicans. Also, the scene where they capture Ramon Quintero and beat him is very powerful and really makes you sympathize with that character. Another issue the film tries to push is feminism. The film starts off early with the Mexican workers acting very sexist toward their wives. Ramon is very controlling of his wife, Esperanza. There is an early scene where Ramon tells Esperanza to stop crying and wasting her time listening to the radio. This scene alone sets up the fact that sexism is an issue in this town. Another scene that depicts this fact is when all the women are trying to convince Esperanza to take part in a picket line. One of the wives complains that she works very hard and is still treated as though she is useless by her husband. However, once the men are not allowed to take part in the picket line the women become very involved. The men begin to understand that the wives can help with the strike. The film came out in 1954. The United States was in a false sense of calm during this time. The economy was booming. This lead to the growth of materialism and the country was becoming vastly capitalist. With the exception of the cold war and the communist scare the country was going through a very calm time. Salt of the Earth acts as a sort of a wake up call. It pushes all of these unseen issues to the light so people can become aware that there are still injustices going on inside the country. The main point of the film is equality. The film's conflict is a struggle for the races and sexes to become equal in the eyes of the government. Salt of the Earth was clearly ahead of it's time.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb came out in 1964 during the height of the cold war. Kubrick's film has many recurring political themes such as improper leadership and nuclear war. It also has a deep theme of how pointless the tensions between the two factions were. Despite the film's subject matter the film is a comedy. Although, one could call it a dark comedy because it's almost impossible to take such serious themes and make them comedic. Kubrick was able to balance the line of seriousness and comedy to create a very intuitive film. 1964 and the sixties in general were a very tense time for the eastern and western world. Both sides were contending with a nuclear arms race, which terrified the public of both nations. This was most notably apparent in the Cuban missile crisis, which had just occurred a couple years before the film's release. This tension led to racism between the two worlds. In democratic countries this racism was connected to the "red scare". Both sides were very subjective of each other just because the country's governments were having issues with each other. The public was very frightened during this time. Kubrick took this opportunity to create a very controversial sort of film. He took a large risk when he decided to portray such a serious situation in a humorous light. The unique thing about this film is that mostly every thing is realistic and believable. The plot itself seems like something that could of actually happened during these times. A general who is so brainwashed into hating the communists so much that he becomes paranoid and finds a loophole to start a nuclear war. These circumstances seem true to life. Even the protocol the characters assume seems realistic. From meting at the war room, to contacting the leaders of Russia and hiring experts (Turgidson and Dr. Strangelove). However, despite having such a realistic and believable setting and plot the characters in the film create a large juxtaposition. This is where the film turns into a comedy. The characters are very tongue and cheek. General Turgidson, played by the late George C. Scott, is a perfect example of an unrealistic and "goofy" character. Turgidson constantly finds humor in dark situations, his girlfriend calls him during important meetings, and he is extremely racist. Then there is Dr. Strangelove who is supposed to be a genius scientist. He is an oddball character whose ideas and theories are only weirder than his need to call the president "mien fuehrer". All of these comedic characters add levity to the realistic situation that the film's plot has formed. One can say that Kubrick's characters are his "weapons". He uses his characters to poke fun at the cold war conflict. It's possible that the point of the film was to show how pointless the whole conflict was. The scene where General Turgidson is urging the president to create a mine so they don't have a "mine gap" is obviously alluding to the nuclear arms race and is showing the futility of such a thing. Perhaps Kubricks intentions were to ease the public's fear by showing the situation in a comedic light. It all depends on what the viewer takes away from the film. Dr. Strangelove was most certainly an intuitive film for weaving together serious issues and politics, and making it comedic, while still having a deep message to communicate.