May | 2014 | Asian and Entertained

Oscar Bait 3.0 (Dallas Buyers Club)

Posted on May 31, 2014 by babemoby

As far as the Academy is concerned, it’s pretty well known that certain roles and issues are shoe-ins for gaining attention from voters. Social causes pique their interests, especially if they involve some sort of controversy, but not too much, of course. Paired with a good marketing campaign (for the Academy, that is, not necessarily for the public), throw in a couple stars looking to get into the spotlight or be taken “seriously” as performers to add star power and help at the box office, and you might garner some attention, regardless of the accuracy of the story you’re presenting.

“Dallas Buyers Club” is (loosely) based on the life of Ron Woodroof, a Texas man who was a key figure during the AIDS epidemic in the mid-80s. According to the film, he was homophobic, straight-as-an-arrow and plenty feisty and represented by Matthew McConaughey. His doctor diagnoses him with AIDS and tells him he has 30 days to live. Since he’s straight and the AIDS is the “gay disease,” he initially scoffs at even the thought that he could have it. But then he realizes he is very unwell, and since he’s been with more women than he could count (by the time he’s diagnosed in the film, two of them … at the same time), perhaps his doctors could be right. So, he pairs up with a trans woman (Jared Leto) and fights the government over being allowed to use alternative medicines to treat his disease. Eventually, he decides that the gays aren’t so bad after all. He creates a buyers club for AIDS afflicted gay men to get the medicine they need to cope with their disease, because the FDA sure isn’t helping. By the end of the movie, they’re so grateful to him, they give him a standing ovation worthy of Oskar Schindler.

The more one learns about the AIDS epidemic and Woodroof’s life, the more one understands just how loosely the movie represents both.

For starters, Woodroof wasn’t at all homophobic. According to people who knew him, he was likely bisexual, or at least certainly had a sexual attraction toward men. The buyers clubs were a real thing, but they were mostly started by members of the gay community. These two facts make the film quite disappointing, especially for the LGBT community. It straightwashes a hero from an important era in history and strips the credit for the buyers clubs from that community to put it in the back pockets of straight people.

Another major point of the movie was Woodroof’s fight with the FDA over treatment for the disease. The film purports that AZT, the earliest drug used to help treat AIDS, was completely poisonous and actively led to patients’ deaths. The evil FDA dragged its feet in its treatment of AIDS patients, and prevented the regulation of other drugs that were more helpful in fighting the disease in the U.S., even though those drugs were readily available in other countries. According to people who were actually involved in this whole process say that this isn’t really an accurate depiction of the climate of the day. They say that the FDA was actively working with the gay community, which up until that point, that sort of involvement hadn’t been seen before from that government entity. The worry from common people about pharmaceutical companies and shady experimental processes and business practices is not an uncommon one, especially today. With the “anti-vaccination” movement in the U.S. and the rising return of long-dormant diseases, like the mumps and measles, especially in Ohio at the moment, this sort of rhetoric can only serve to rile these people up and stir up more “controversy” and conspiracy theories. Recommended is this panel discussion from Huffington Post, including thoughts from David France, director of the 2012 documentary, “How to Survive a Plague.” Despite the questionable accuracy of Huffington Post in general, the dialogue here is highly informative and well worth a watch if you have any interest in the AIDS epidemic and how the events depicted in “Buyers Club” played out in real life.

Then there’s the controversy surrounding Jared Leto’s portrayal of a fictional trans woman named Rayon, which is plenty problematic. Trans people aren’t often portrayed in a serious light in high-profile Hollywood movies, and in most cases are played for easy, uncreative laughs. It seems that if comedy directors run out of gags, they know they can make jokes about trans people. That sort of thing is lazy, and worse, it damages the trans community’s push for acceptance in society. Though Leto is actually playing a dramatic role here, he still goes so over the top in trying to look and act like a woman, that he just plays into those stereotypes Hollywood bombards audiences with repeatedly. Beyond that, all the characters in the film refer to Rayon as “he” or “him” because it’s the 80s, and people didn’t properly refer to trans people back then because there was no awareness for that community. It’s understandable that this might be done to adhere to the culture of the time, but the message this sends to audiences today is that those people are still to be identified by the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than by their personal identity, because the context of this character’s existence is rather sketchy. Then, at certain points in the film, the character’s assigned sex is heavily referenced. For instance, she dresses in a man’s suit to meet her father, who obviously disapproves of who she is, reminding the audience that, despite being symapthetic, she’s “really a man.” Elsewhere, she’s shown topless, displaying her lack of mammaries to again prod the audience, so as to say, “alright folks, enough games, this is a man, we all know that, you all know that, right?” To top it off, at one point, Woodroof jokes while they’re arguing that he’ll “give you that operation you’ve been wanting” while pointing a gun at her crotch. It’s not only a deplorable joke, but it’s also a reminder that society believes your privates determine your gender identity. If director Jean-Marc Vallée wanted to address trans issues, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but much more care should have been given in practice, especially when inserting a fictional trans person into a “true story.”

Personally, I’m not the most qualified one to write about trans issues, as I’m supportive of their movement, but I’m cisgender and I’m greatly lacking in education in that area. Here’s a piece by Parker Marie Malloy that articulates much better than I ever could how the trans community sees Leto’s role in “Dallas Buyers Club.”

In the movie’s defense, it is very technically proficient. McConaughy does a tremendous job portraying the Woodroof he’s told to. Leto himself is a tremendous actor and deserves to be commended for his previous work. Aside from the film changing his sexual orientation and adding in homophobia, Woodroof is purportedly portrayed pretty accurately in some of his hijinks in transporting illegal pharmaceuticals across the border.

But why deviate so far from the real story if is worth telling, as it seems to be? Did the producers believe audiences wouldn’t accept a bisexual protagonist? If they really wanted Oscar bait, they could have just stuck with the original story. If producers wanted to bring trans issues to the surface, there certainly could have been a better way to do so. At least cast a trans actress, as they do exist and could have used the exposure in a high-profile movie like this one. This could have been a breakout role for her. That role is the definition of Oscar bait, as the Academy is heavily drawn toward novelty. As horrible as it is to say, trans issues at this point are still seen as a novelty to Oscar, just as gay or mentally disabled people were 10 and 20 years ago. Those roles were a lock for burgeoning stars to make it to that next level in Hollywood. But Leto was christened as the big money star this time around. Producers must have been thinking that audiences wouldn’t care about an actual trans woman playing a fictional one. Hell, they can’t even accept that the main character is bisexual.

McConaughey is a shooting star in Hollywood at the moment, as he’s removed himself from the chick flicks and started doing quality work over the last few years, and it was time for him to be recognized for his work. An ailing AIDS patient is an effective path to an Academy Award. Leto’s career could probably use a push, and playing a trans woman is a lock for an Oscar. That casting decision screams Oscar bait.

As important as this film should be, considering the subject matter and the current climate of the U.S., and the fact that the movie’s been in development for more than 20 years, and attached to several directors and star actors, it’s an incredible letdown that so many alterations were made to the real story. If you want to make a film about accepting others who are different, then maybe just make it about them and let those who are sympathetic to the cause get their education on those issues from someone who can do a better job of it.

“But it’s a fun movie. They say jokes about the gays that aren’t PC anymore at a time when no one cared,” a counter argument might go.

“Dallas Buyers Club”: Come for the homophobia, leave when it comes to those facty things.

Open to “Riddick”cule (A Review)

Posted on May 22, 2014 by babemoby

Through two movies, Vin Diesel’s Riddick is a mystery wrapped in an enigma covered in muscle and shaved hairless. Especially in “The Chronicles of Riddick,” the second of the three films, as the character finds himself in an uber-futuristic sci-fi society with lots of stuffy people wearing giant metallic armor speaking some strange non-American accent, the iconic(?) image of the bald man in a black tank top and shades with arms the size of your head stands apart. Fish out of water doesn’t exactly describe his perplexing existence in this strange universe, as he appears to have been plucked out of the 24 Hour Fitness down the street and plopped into this giant pond and told to run amok as he pleases.

Fans of the first two films probably knew exactly what to expect coming into movie No. 3. The biggest question might have been how badass the inevitable fight between Diesel and WWE wrestler Dave Bautista would be. The answer to that question? Kinda disappointing, actually.

The movie is certainly what anyone who saw either of the first two movies would have expected. Thankfully, it’s more “Pitch Black” than “Chronicles.” “Pitch Black,” for those who haven’t seen it, was an above-average action movie in an at the time foundering scifi genre back in 200o. It wasn’t anything more than you’d expect. It did its job as a gritty adventure, and wasn’t too insulting to viewers’ intelligence, as it even added some surprising social commentary, featuring stereotypical characters from different social classes stranded on a desert planet together. It wasn’t exactly “Do the Right Thing,” in space, but it added some flavor to your run-of-the-mill pulp genre flick. The sequel ended up being overdone and too special effects heavy with boring baddies, a few plot threads that just didn’t go anywhere, and just nothing particularly interesting for its titular character to do. But it’s not quite as bad as critics made it out to be, if only because the enigmatic Riddick character makes for some silly fun. If nothing else, it manages to fit Judi Dench into a Riddick-ulous space opera, the last place you’d expect to see her, even though her character basically has nothing to do.

Anyway, now it’s ten years later, and Riddick, having killed the Necromonger king (could there be a stupider name for an evil alien race?) and taken over the throne himself, finds that being king isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Being a drifter and a criminal, it bores the hell out of him. All he does is have sex with slave girls, apparently, and his underlings get restless. What Necromongers actually do or why they need a king to rule them, as they’re already undead anyway, is anybody’s guess. But they force him out and dump him on a desert planet, similar to the one in “Pitch Black.” They try to murder him for some reason, as if stranding him there isn’t good enough, but he manages to escape death. Of course, that means bounty hunters will soon be on their way to finish the job, and thus our adventure begins anew.

As most of the movie is basically Riddick versus the mercs, it’s essentially the same as “Pitch Black,” but without any intrigue. At least in the first movie, the social standing of the ship’s passengers helped create some interesting conflict between the characters and showed how that would play out in a survival situation. With the bounty hunters, the only question is which ones will Riddick kill, and which ones will the creatures that roam the land in the darkness get to instead? Frankly, it doesn’t matter much, as they’re all pretty devoid of any personality, except the lone female merc, Dahl, played by Katee Sackhoff. It’s good to see the former Starbuck, of BattleStar Galactica fame, get work, but honestly, she’s not the greatest actress. Then again, she’s also really good in this year’s surprisingly fun horror flick, “Oculus.” Thankfully, “Riddick” doesn’t require any of its cast to do too much heavy lifting.

Before the bounty hunters arrive, Riddick has to find a way to survive this cruel planet, which features lots of deadly animals coming in the form of some dog/wolf type things and some venomous scorpion-lizard looking thingies. This is actually where the movie is at its strongest, as this is where Riddick appears his most vulnerable. When it comes to humans, there’s not much question about who’s coming out on top, no matter what the situation. Even when the mercs have him locked up in chains, you know he’s still the one in total control. But when it comes to dangerous indigenous species, he has to get creative.

Riddick has to find a way to get past the giant scorpion thing, so naturally he tames one of the wild dog things and finds a way to counter the scorpion’s venom by shooting himself up with it to build up an immunity over the course of what appears to be a few days. Look, if you want accurate science, you already know you won’t find it here anyway, so you might as well take that noise somewhere else. This is interspersed with shots of him eating raw meat from whatever it is he caught, so as to remind the audience that Riddick IS at the top of the food chain. Evolution hasn’t yet found a solution for him. When it comes to survival of the fittest, Vin Diesel is, without a doubt, THE fittest. And then he also makes this giant bone switchblade, which is ingenious for those times when you need to slice somebody, but under the guise that you just happen to be carrying around a giant bone.

Then the audience is treated to Riddick playing with the doggie thing he’s tamed and made his buddy, which kinda reminiscent of Calvin and Hobbes if they were playing Dungeons and Dragons in space, with lots of muscles and none of the witty philosophical commentary. He banters with it and has to worry about it taking his food. It probably gives you an idea of how Diesel treats his own dogs, if he has any. But it’s fun watching this guy try to survive on a harsh planet and find things to work with.

Riddick is back, and this time, he’s brought a puppy with him.

Once the other humans arrive, it’s your typical Riddick outsmarting them, outmuscling them, and just generally beating their asses, all the while reminding them that when nightfall comes, they’ll wish they’d never come here because all the nasty things come out at night. It’s all pretty watchable, as Riddick confounds all of them time and time again. The mercs shout at each other, and Diesel just goes on in his bassy monotone voice, as they all pass threats back and forth. Sackhoff and Baustista are basically walking one-liner machines, so that makes for some silly banter between them and Diesel, who is always snarky anyway. It’s a different dynamic from previous Riddick films, as he usually had a Keith David or a Karl Urban, as more versatile actors to play off of. Here, it’s just conversations full of one-liners. If Arnold Schwarzenegger could have cloned himself to play three characters in one movie, you know he would have done it, and this is not as good as that would have been, but it’s not too far off.

There’s also inexplicably a stereotypical religious character among the mercs, who as Dahl says, “might be in the wrong line of work.” Of course, he’s present for the sole purpose of being the butt of a Riddick-ulous throwaway one-liner like “Leave God out of this. He wants no part of what happens next.”

If you are thinking about watching this just for the Diesel-Batista showdown, don’t because it doesn’t last that long, and it’s nothing special while it does.

Even Batista was bored with his own fight with Riddick. But his hair? Never bored.

Even Batista was bored with his own fight with Riddick. But that beard? Never bored.

As far as pointless summer blockbusters go, this one takes a pretty poor attitude toward women. Sackhoff does play a strong character, which is generally her territory, but she’s also the token badass chick, as she’s basically the only woman in the entire cast. Even though she holds her own with the guys in fights, she’s still the sexual object all the other guys desire, including Riddick, whom you know she’ll go for because that’s how these movies go. And for God’s sake, her name is Dahl (pronounced like “Doll”). And by the way, Riddick is apparently a “Furyan.” I realize the campiness is probably not accidental, but whoever comes up with this stuff should probably hire a creative assistant or something because it’s just too silly.

Katee Sackhoff: Sometimes, someone other than Vin Diesel has to also kick ass.

Then, of course, there’s the shower scene where Riddick is all creeping on Dahl, as his hand hovers over her through a window while she isn’t looking before he steal something out of her bag. Of course, he’s not supposed to be a white knight type of hero, as he’s a criminal, and more of an anti-hero, but this isn’t exactly a nuanced character study or anything. As fans of this series and Diesel practically worship his characters, its a rather disgusting short scene, and it isn’t even necessary.

I know, a lot of people will say “what else do you expect in a movie like this?” But it’s 2014, and it’s time to expect more out of movies, even dumb action blockbuster movies. Other recent big action movies from last year featured stronger women without objectifying them. It would be something to see just a regular woman, rather than a sexy badass character, in a similar role. But it’s not likely we’ll see anything like that anytime soon, as “Riddick” itself made nearly $100 million last year. So, I’m certainly in no position to tell people what they want to see.

Aside from that, “Riddick” is a decent, watchable action flick. It’s not gonna change your life, nor will there be a void in your soul if you miss it. But although you could probably find something better to watch to scratch that itch (the recent “Captain America” flick comes to mind), if you’ve already exhausted all other options, you could also do much worse, like the last “Die Hard” movie.

And hey, Vin Diesel basically paid for this movie out of his own pocket. In the DVD extras, he talks about having to refinance his house so this movie would get done. If he really needs to make another movie where the only point is that Vin Diesel is awesome and he kicks all the ass, then more power to him. It’s his AD&D fantasy come to life, let the man play a little.

This was what “Riddick” would have been if the money had run out before they finished it.

Raising the Ire(land) (Philomena review)

Posted on May 17, 2014 by babemoby

When I see movies that are starring/written by or starring/directing, or any similar combination, it sometimes makes me leery. Some people have earned my respect, so that I’ll trust what they’re doing, like Clint Eastwood, generally, and Simon Pegg, as they usually produce work of high quality. But when it’s someone who has generally established themselves as a mid-level player, perhaps trying to break out, it’s kind of a curious case, as it could truly be a break out moment for them, or it could feel like they want to break out, but end up just more fully establishing themselves among the mediocre.

Steve Coogan’s been well-established in the U.K. for quite a while, but he hasn’t broken through in the U.S. yet. So, it struck me as sort of odd that he wrote and starred in “Philomena,” for a few reasons. For one, Coogan’s work is mostly comedic, and he’s mostly a comedic actor, but the true-life story this movie is based on isn’t the sort of material one would normally try to build a comedy around. A single Irish woman who was sent to a convent by her parents because she got pregnant, and subsequently had her baby taken away from her by the Catholic Church, who sold it to Americans for adoption might not be the type of situation you’d look to mine for laughs. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean the movie is doomed to fail, but it would be understandable if a viewer was a bit skeptical going in.

In a way, it does succeed. The subject is obviously a very important one, as this situation was and is a common one in the Irish Catholic Church. It’s important to recognize that this is a horrible thing in a long line of horrible things that’s happened in a religious institution within the last century and that there are a lot of people in the same situation Philomena Lee was in for this story. Although the filmmakers took great liberties with the fictionalized versions of real people to make the story work as a movie, it does make it easier to watch, whereas a straight telling of the story could have been a turnoff to most audiences, as it would have been quite depressing.

The film is based on a book about this very subject, written by former BBC journalist Martin Sixsmith, who is played by screenplay writer Steve Coogan, in a strange twist. It’s often a bit awkward when a character in a movie serves as a sort of lens for the actual subject that the audience is supposed to care about. In this case, as the book was written by a journalist, so that’s the way the narrative should work. But instead of serving solely as a lens, Coogan’s Sixsmith also serves as a primary character. As a result, there are conversational threads running throughout the movie that likely weren’t there in real life, or at least certainly weren’t as dramatic. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as often dramatized versions of true events can be used to make a point. For instance, “The Conjuring,” a 2013 horror movie was also based on a true story, is a case where historical accuracy isn’t really necessary, as it’s just taking an odd series of events and blowing them up to make a frightening ghost story. But in a movie advertised as being “based on a true story,” dramatic license needs to be done with great care.

As Philomena, portrayed here as a delightfully flighty woman by Dame Judi Dench, served as a nun, it might naturally make sense to include an examination of her faith in light of the terrible things perpetrated in her life by the Church. So, of course, the film goes there. It’s a marvel that through the twists and turns and frustrations of the now older Philomena trying to discover what happened to her son, she manages to keep her faith, and that’s something worth documenting. But Coogan provides a sort of a doubting foil to her unwavering faith, pushing his own atheism as not only a natural reaction to the horrors perpetrated by the church, but as a supposedly intellectually superior argument in the matter. Philomena recognizes this false fury Coogan spews, and rightly tells him off as he’s being “a feckin’ idiot.” It’s a good thing the conversation turned that way, as often it seems like some people opportunistically use tragic events to belittle another’s faith or lack of it, and that sort of behavior needs to be addressed. It’s a good thing for people of different belief or unbelief systems to discuss their views civilly, but there’s really no need for people to slam someone when they’re hurting for using their own beliefs to cope. The movie isn’t preachy about it, and it doesn’t present either view as superior, but it does promote tact, so that’s a good thing.

Considering that these conversations are part of a screenplay, rather than based on actual dialogue, it kind of seems like the filmmakers tried to force meaning into the movie. Journalists after all are present to record events, not to inject themselves into them. Sixsmith himself, being a journalist, was probably rather neutral through the whole process. So it feels kind of self-righteous for Coogan, as a screenplay writer, to inject his own ideas or views into a dramatized account of a true story, especially as he takes on the role of the journalist in the fictional version. The ideas are good, but they might have been better served elsewhere. A journalist’s job is to let the story stand on its own, rather than injecting their own views, and the story here was more than good enough on its own that viewers should have been able to discern their own message or meaning without having a projected message being pushed at them.

Although the Catholic Church rightfully takes a lot of heat in this film for its past practices, as one writer (whose article I forgot to bookmark, and so I don’t remember who wrote it, but if you ever happen to read this and it’s yours, please claim it) pointed out, it was not the Church that forced young single mothers to become nuns. It was the young woman’s parents who sent her to the convent, and her baby was taken from her as a result. That’s not reflected in the movie at all. The filmmakers could have used this as an opportunity to shed light on such a harmful culture, which was probably mostly propagated by the Church. It wouldn’t have been difficult to do so either, as the film is only 97 minutes long, on the short side for a drama. As enjoyable as Coogan’s dry, witty comedy is, instead of trying to project a crisis of faith or the early scenes of him clowning off, he could have helped tell a fuller story without even having to cut anything. So, it’s disappointing that the opportunity to tell a deeper story was wasted.

As “Philomena” is spectacularly acted, and it’s about a real issue of horrifying implications, the film is definitely worth checking out. But it’s important to keep these issues in mind. It’s such an extraordinary story that it would have been nice if the writers would have let it stand for itself, rather than for entertainment value or some forced moral message or someone else’s glory. But then again, maybe the film doesn’t get made without Coogan’s participation, as it seems to be a tougher sell to pitch a movie without a strong male lead. So, maybe to some extent, there’s to be some thanks extended to him that the film saw the light of day at all.

Before I let you go, I’ll leave you with a clip from a key scene from another inspirational Steve Coogan film, “Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story”. Enjoy!

100 Movies … 100 Posts: #82. “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans” (1927)

Posted on May 8, 2014 by babemoby

This is post #19 in my series, 100 Movies … 100 Posts. In this ongoing series, I’m watching and writing about each film on the American Film Institute’s list of 100 greatest movies from #100 to #1. I’m not just writing a review of each movie. I am going to write a piece about whatever I find most pressing, as a critique of the film, an address of the issues it brings up, or my own experiences with the film. It will serve as an examination of the list itself and of political issues in Hollywood and the film industry.

Without further ado, #82 “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans”

——————————————-

The interesting thing about watching really old movies is seeing the world at a time when directors and actors actually had limitations because of the lack of technology available. Sure, “The Artist” in 2011 allowed those (all?) of us whose grandparents wouldn’t even remember the time before talkies existed to experience a silent film in a big theatre rather than on a small screen at some obscure art house only the most ardent of film buffs would seek out. But in that case, the limitations were self-imposed, and the characters even broke through to the talkie era at the end of the film, which admittedly was a pretty cool moment.

But in 1927, making a silent film wasn’t an artistic choice, it was the only option. So, “Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans,” being the oldest movie I’ve ever seen naturally offers viewers such as myself a window into another world. Of course, I’ve written about a few other pre-WWII movies in this series already, and I’ve seen scads of “Three Stooges” shorts, but this was a step even farther back for me.

Though the museum-like quality of such a treasure might be fascinating to anyone who hasn’t seen much of its kind, the problem is it still reveals the attitudes and social structures of the time that we’ve ~~gladly grown out of~~ sadly continued to repeat in the 87 years hence.

The movie must be commended for its performances and innovative cinematography that still surpass that of most of the assembly-line pictures Hollywood pumps out today. Go to Redbox, and you’ll discover a dearth of actors who can’t handle the simplest of concepts in the cheapest made straight-to-DVD movies, even though they have full access to the help of digital production and retakes. But in this film, the actors deftly convey moods and complex emotions without even having the luxury of speech, and the only words are title cards. Look at today’s action movies with millions of dollars’ worth of CGI effects, and you won’t find any nearly as authentic or organic as some of the gorgeous camera tricks as director F.W. Murnau used in “Sunrise.” So, it’s easy to see why this movie might be so well-beloved to film geeks.

The Woman from the City haunts The Man with thoughts of evil intentions.

On the other hand, however, the ideas Murnau is trying to get across don’t really hold up to modern sensibilities.

“Sunrise” is a simple story. The characters don’t even have names, but are referred to as The Man (George O’Brien), The Wife (Janet Gaynor), and The Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston). The Man has an ongoing relationship with The Woman from the City, and not only is The Wife aware of it, but so is everyone else in town, apparently. In one of the early scenes, the Man sneaks out at dinner time for a rendezvous with the Woman, and as soon as the Wife discovers he has left, it’s obvious by the look on her face that she knows where he’s gone. The Woman from the City wants the Man to sell off the family farm and run away with her back to the city. As for what to do with his wife, she hatches a plan for him to take her out on a boat and toss her into the water. The title card for this suggestion is wildly creative, as it bleeds down the screen, to show the weight those words carry. The man is at first violently opposed to the idea, and he attacks the woman, but she calms him with kisses, and he agrees. In fact, she says, he should turn the whole boat over to make it look like an accident, and float back to shore on a bundle of reeds for good effect (where she expects him to hide them in the tiny rowboat so as not to look suspicious, it isn’t clear). It sure sounds like a shoddy plan. “Oh honey, I’m so glad we’re going on a boat ride today, but what is that bundle of plants you have with you, and why does it looks suspiciously like a floatation device? And why did you bring only one?”

The man does take the woman out on the boat, and it’s a tragic scene as she gleefully tells the nanny that they are going out for the day. But once they get out onto the water, it becomes obvious to the woman that something is not right, judging by her husband’s all-business-with-the-paddlin’ attitude. Side note, if someone has bad intentions for you, the last place you want to be with them is in a two-person rowboat. That can’t end well. He gets up (in the sturdiest little rowboat you’ve ever seen) to perform the horrific act, but she pleads with him not to, and he remembers that she’s his wife and that he still has some feelings for her and relents. He rows to shore, but, not surprisingly, she flees. Eventually, he’s able to catch up to her and convince her that he still loves her, and they go and have a nice day in the city.

A few more things happen to get to that point, but that’s the gist of it, and anyone with a brain and a conscience today would say there’s no way she should take him back after he nearly purposely killed her. And then they have a nice day in the city? That sort of thing would seem to be the most awkward date ever. How could she trust him at that point, and how could she be willing to suddenly throw all cares to the wind after all that?

The man gains his “redemption,” by the film’s standards anyway, when he and his wife spot a wedding in progress. They go into the church together, and the preacher is going through the groom’s vows. He gets to a part where he says, “Keep her and protect her from all harm,” which admittedly, would be a rather sexist line to include in vows today, if it was only spoken by the man. This causes him to remember their own wedding, and realize how he’s failed at such a basic level to do these things for his wife, but also at such an extreme level that he’s the one who was prepared to harm her moments earlier. Then, he apologizes profusely to her, and she finally is able to forgive him and see him as the man she married. There’s a moment of rebirth, as they walk out of the church together, from a long shot. It’s very much a visual, symbolic rebirth, like coming out of the womb, not only individually, but as a couple. Then they wander out into the street and kiss so passionately that the cars around them stop and honk. Only, they don’t stop and honk because the people in them are so enthralled at witnessing their passion, but because they are in the middle of the FUCKING STREET!

"Sunrise" features a cameo from J.K. Simmons, whom none of us ever realized he is actually that old. Just kidding, of course that's not him. Is it?

“Sunrise” features a cameo from J.K. Simmons, whom none of us ever realized is actually that old. Just kidding, of course that’s not him. Is it?

Then, the movie suddenly breaks out of a tragic drama into a slapstick romantic comedy, where a pig gets drunk and other assorted nonsense.

Anyway, today, the man’s redemption would appear so appalling and fake that the audience might be audibly yelling at the screen telling her not to take him back because, ya know, he did just try to kill you a few minutes ago. But you do need to remember that this is the ’20s. Divorce wasn’t exactly as acceptable as it is today, even if your husband tried to kill you. Domestic violence shelters don’t exist. Women aren’t typically found in the workplace because they’re home taking care of the house and the children, so she wouldn’t be able to support herself. She has a child she would have to look after on her own if she left. Hell, she can’t even get back to her house to pack her things and pick up the kid because they took their personal boat all the way to the city. And society would look on her as if she was the one at fault, regardless of the circumstances, because women weren’t really reputable apart from their husbands. So, thank God for feminism and the civil rights movement that if something similar were to happen today, there would at least be options for the woman to consider because those improvements exist only because those movements worked for them to exist. It’s a good thing that times have changed, and we can see this movie for what it is: a relic of the past.

But have times really changed all that much? There certainly is a segment of the population who would say the woman should stay with her husband because “that’s what marriage is about.” They wouldn’t believe the woman if she did tell them her husband tried to kill her. And they still think women shouldn’t even be in the workplace, but instead at home in the kitchen. Sure, only a segment of the population is still “cool” with these ideas. Except for those who espouse those views “ironically,” then they are “legitimately cool,” but not really, but yes really. Discuss further with certain people, and you might find that holding these views is also “funny.”

So, although the public sphere might supposedly consider these attitudes about women “outdated,” if you press people on them, you might find that these views are still very much alive today, and more widely held than you might expect. The situation in the film with the man and his mistress and threatening to hurt his wife isn’t something that has disappeared from society. Everyone knows someone who has gone through a situation like this. It might not be so drastic. The man may not have tried to kill the woman, but he might be physically or emotionally abusive. So, as the opening title cards say, this is a story for “everywhere and all times,” and there are still similar situations for people today, only they don’t suddenly turn into to a happy day in the city.

The two women in this story are hardly strong representations of women either. You have the conniving, gold-digging seductress with a murderous streak (the bad one), and the submissive house wife (the good one). Murnau himself was gay, and it’s pretty obvious from this film that he did not have a high opinion of women.

A common theme in the media today is ragging on Millennials because this generation is too lazy or too spoiled or too entitled or too uncommitted to relationships. The people who write these pieces harken back to the “good ol’ days,” before the ’60s, when people got married, and it was one man and one woman. They complain about entertainment promoting partying and open sexuality. But before that time, there was this. This is a story about a man contemplating murdering his wife so he could run off with his mistress, since divorce was not an option and highly frowned-upon. Murder would be “better” for the people involved (except the wife) because the murder would look accidental. How is this a better attitude toward relationships? I’m not trying to say the current young adult generation is better than generations of the past or that the generation of the ’20s or of any other time was worse. I am trying to say that most generations are similarly flawed. Maybe in some ways they’re getting progressively better or worse, but all of them have had problems, and all of them mostly fail to prepare the way for future generations. Millennials will likely be no different from Generation X before them, or the Boomers before them, or the Golden Generation before them. Hopefully Millennials will remember this in the future and not treat generations that follow them like crap. But knowing the past, they’ll probably make the same mistakes.

Anyway, the couple goes to a carnival, and the man plays one of those games where you try to hit a target with a ball, so you can win a stuffed animal. Only, in this case, instead of winning a stuffed animal, when the man hits the target, a small piglet will come out of a cage and go down a slide before heading back up into his cage again. That’s the prize. Then, a piglet escapes and laps wine off the floor from a bottle that someone dropped, so the piggy gets drunk and dizzy and falls over. That is the definitive reason why this is one of the greatest films of all-time.

If there was ever an image that conveyed the depravity that has always existed, it's a drunk-ass pig.

If there was ever an image that conveyed the depravity that has always existed, it’s a pig drunk off its ass.

The film ends rather poetically, considering the story. The couple heads back home on the boat after a day in the city, but there’s a nasty storm that comes and shakes their little boat. The man smartly employs the floatation devices he brought along for the journey. Only, it turns out, he actually brought two bundles of reeds. Is this a sign he never really intended to go through with murdering his wife in the first place, or was he just trying to keep his options open or did he just want a backup bundle in case the first failed to employ properly? The man survives, but as he reaches the shore, he’s alone. A group of fishermen see he’s made it back through the storm, and they all go out in search of the wife. The man returns home to find the Woman from the City waiting for him, and he attacks her, trying to strangle her for putting the evil thoughts in his head. But the fishermen bring his wife back safe before he can finish the job on the city woman. So, the man and wife live happily ever after while the woman heads back to the city sneering an angry sneer.

But, although the movie ends happily, it still begs certain thoughts. The man had been seeing the woman from the city for an extended period of time, and all it took for him to get back in the good graces of his wife was one day? Well, what’s going to happen tomorrow for this couple? They’ve renewed their relationship, but how long before another Woman from the City enters the man’s life if he’s so fickle? It’s not really certain whether the director had intended for the audience to ask these questions at the end of the film, but they’re pretty important questions. And they don’t get an invitation to tune in next week, same Bat Time, same Bat Channel to find out the answers.

Holy shhhh, Batman! It’s a silent movie without clear resolution!

So, the film is certainly worth viewing for any cinephile, as it holds up as a technical marvel, even today. “It will make you laugh, it will make you cry,” still. But it still raises many problems that as a society we’ve either forgotten about or chosen to ignore since the ’20s. One can see it as a relic of a bygone era, but as audiences reflect on where we’ve turned the corner in some ways over the last 87 years, in many ways, we still have a long way to go to fixing those problems, which are often too easy to dismiss as “antiquated.” Again, thank God for feminism, which has spurred on any progress.

——————————————-

Next up, #81. “Spartacus”