I'm just going to come right out and say it: I love "Cavemen" (2007-present). I think it is one of the smartest shows on TV right now, a funny and engaging satire.
The show follows three cavemen roommates: Joel, the practical one with a homo sapien girlfriend and a job at an IKEA-like store; Andy, Joel's younger, impressionable brother; and Nick, a sarcastic grad student who's a bit of a separatist. Admittedly, Nick can be annoying, but he's the critical and cynical one of the group. Though he's sometimes wrong about other people, without his insights, you'd think cavemen really were stupid. He is, after all, the one who has to remind the others everything's about race, and without him it'd look like they never think about how they are treated in the media and in person-to-person interactions.
Now, about that controversy: I understand that the critics, who universally panned the show, reviewed a pilot that was not the same one that the general public saw when it premiered on October 2. I understand the makers, in response to the poor reception of the pilot, eliminated the racist jokes that implied the cavemen have experienced a history very much akin to that of African Americans. It didn't help that the original pilot set the scene in Atlanta. Now they're in sunny, Conservative-ladden San Diego. It's a good move, I think, though it sometimes feels more like LA than SD.
The critics didn't like this new refashioned show, from what I can tell, and no one I know besides my sister watches it. And I think the main reason why we like it is because it sophisticatedly engages in race studies, something we've explored due to being American Studies majors at university.
The four most recent episodes demonstrate this point best:
In "The Cavewoman," Nick dates an aggressive cavewoman called Heather who works in a frozen yogurt shop that resembles LA's Pinkberry chain. (Ah, but that is neither here nor there.) This episode is about masculinity caveman-style. Besides the fact that Heather is an utter bitch to everyone and completely dominates Nick, forcing him to put off breaking up with her as long as possible he's so scared, Heather makes the remaining two thirds of the trio feel less like (cave)men. She grills Joel on dating a homo sapien (something Nick does all the time), and she humiliates Andy for not calling her girlfriend for a date. Heather is the first cavewoman to be glimpsed in the show, appearing only in the third installment, and she stands in as a funny contrast to the cavemen, though presumably not all cavewomen are like Heather!
"The Mascot" is far more topical, as it relates to Nick's stint as a substitute teacher at a high school whose mascot is, you guessed it, a caveman. When he goes to the school's administration to explain why this is wrong and politically incorrect, he's met with, "Oh, yes, I know exactly what you mean." But the principal doesn't even care. In the end, Nick fights the oversized mascot, and in the process perpetuates the inaccurate stereotype by beating the guy with a (plush) log. Such a premise for this episode is meant to show how images of a (minority) group of people, accepted by the larger society, are at once challenged and reinforced by the minority group in question. What a vicious circle.
My favorite episode so far has been "The Shaver," which recalls narratives of racial passing (see either version of Imitation of Life [1934, 1959] for more info). While Joel becomes more and more under the influence of a crackpot motivational speaker, Nick and Andy seek to expose the crackpot as a hypocritical caveman because he has a strange all-over body stubble and protruding brow. Of course it all explodes at the end. The guy denies it and is caught saying something racist. He's a self-hating caveman! Plus, the trio's love of John Tesh, apparently the most famous shaver, and their willingness to forgive him for trying to pass as a homo sapien is just hilarious! "You really think they could let a caveman on TV?" Nick rhetorically asks Andy.
This past week's "Rock Vote" was about the guys trying to find an ideal candidate, the politician who will best represent them in the state assembly. Turns out Joel's ideal candidate was just using them to get votes from other cavemen. And Nick's candidate--a caveman himself--was a total wacko. Ah, but it all gets resolved in the end when they all vote for Witherspoon, who until the end was never considered by any of them. For Joel and Nick it's about their crush on Reese, and for Andy, who for so long followed in Joel and Nick's footsteps to find someone to vote for, it's because he knows Witherspoon has the best ideas for all people in San Diego.
I've heard the criticism that they do not look enough like cavemen. They aren't hairy enough, apparently. I think this is easy to write off because they've been around for thousands of years. Surely if they existed today they'd have adapted like the rest of us. They don't need such thick fur nowadays. Others have complained that the show is hard to watch simply because they're ugly and difficult to even look at. I disagree, but I must admit, however, that I wish they'd wash their hair once and awhile.
I really haven't done the show justice. It's far more nuanced. And I think the reason why the critics detested this one (what with the Chicago Trib going so far as to call "Cavemen" one of the 25 worst TV shows ever and all), is because they are not trained cultural critics. But then again, watching a TV show and recognizing the racial discrimination many people in contemporary society have historically faced isn't hard. It's so easy a caveman does it all the time.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
which african tribe are you?
I just wrote an email to a family friend and mentioned that I needed to watch The Birth of a Nation (1915) for a class this week. Flanking my message in Gmail were adverts for online counseling to help you trace your genealogy back to African tribes such as the Zulu, Hutu, and Berber.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
the rum tastes really bad
As promised, here is the post about Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007). I was expecting it to be awful since the second was terrible, but I paid my £4 because I wanted to have the memory of seeing the last two in England. I spoil some things later on, so skip over the three paragraphs where the first of the three has "SPOILER" in its first sentence. I point this out because I do not want to ruin it for you if you are planning on seeing the film.
What can I say about the film that has not already been said? Yes, its special effects are among some of the best I have seen, but the film proves that special effects are not enough to sustain an entertaining movie experience. Yes, the thing is very confusing and hard to follow because they must have squeezed seven subplots in. And because the films in the franchise have already been established as moving very quickly through the action, they don't really give the audience enough time to catch up. Some parts I thought were in another language; I really had no idea what they were talking about. Others, I would have to wait ten minutes to figure out what someone ten minutes earlier had meant. On the whole, I understood the film, and they tied it up nice and tight so that we don't need a fourth installment (please no!). Just didn't understand everything as it happened.
It's a bit disheartening that the original scriptwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio also wrote this one. All of the originality, creativity, and spunk of the first has gradually been replaced by pitiful pastiches of the original. Everyone comes off as a caricature of the character he or she played in the first one. The second one was bad, but this one--clocking in at 168 minutes--is much worse. At least you can follow Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006). My worry is that Elliott and Rossio turned in a script that had so much going on because they were afraid one or two or maybe even three understandable plotlines would not be enough to warrant a film. Yes, but this thinking has an inverse effect: too much makes producing it and watching it pointless.
More specifically, I found different parts very problematic. The first is what has become of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). I'm not going to complain that she has turned into a full-fledged pirate. No. That's OK for the story, but what I take issue with is just how much of a sex object they have turned her into. The novelty of course is that she is the only woman, really. The pirates in Singapore even have a hard time treating her like an equal. To make a long story short, Elizabeth becomes the desired of at least five men. I know what you're thinking, there's no cap on how many men can desire one woman, but because she is attacked or gives into them, she directly figures into any physical relationship the men want her for.
First up, you have Will Turner (the disgusting Rambo lookalike Orlando Bloom), her beloved and eventually her husband. This makes a bit more sense than the others since you have watched them grow together since the first film, but that through most of this film Will is very distrustful of her and then asks her to marry him in the middle of a battle, is really quite ridiculous. The captain of the Black Pearl, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush, the only truly convincing pirate performance), marries them then and there like. (I have more to say about their relationship, but it comes as a spoiler later on.)
There's always been sexual tension between Elizabeth and Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow. They kissed in the second film, and in this one they make fun of it. Because just as Elizabeth is leaving to copulate with Will on the beach (how romantic: a line of pirates seeing you off to probably watch from the ship!), she goes in to kiss him, and he says something to the effect of "Once is enough." Ouch!
Then there's Admiral James Norrington (Jack Davenport, the sexiest one in the film) who basically gets no screen-time. Just enough to say that he is on Elizabeth's side. He helps her escape from the custody of the British Navy/East India Trading Company. And then he dies, but not before Elizabeth gives into his fantasy and kisses him.
The pirate lord of Singapore, Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), is also enamored with her. He's convinced she is the human embodiment of the goddess Calypso. He says he wants to make her his mistress, that he hopes she gives herself willingly but if she doesn't, he will take her by force. And this is all after he sort of proved himself to be a good guy. He forces himself on her. To her credit, Elizabeth actually pushes him off her. When he dies, he bequeaths the captainship (no pun intended) to her. Thus she's now a pirate lord.
The fifth man who wants Elizabeth is Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Only he's a little more vague. And nothing develops between them, thank god.
So, they have made a character that was once a bit empowering into one who is trapped by men not taking her seriously because they only want her sexually. I understand that this actually makes it more realistic, but when one of the main characters of the franchise is reduced to being a plaything for the men after having experienced some corset-free action is anti-feminist. They give Elizabeth some room to be herself and explore, but then they strap her down. With all those plotlines, one thing remains consistent: Elizabeth's sex appeal. (Nevermind the fact that Keira Knightley is rather boyish in that she has almost no breasts. She's also got one terrible underbite and eyebrows that are way darker than her haircolor. All those days in the sun, eh?)
Here comes the SPOILER: In case you're not fully convinced by my argument, the bonus scene at the end of the VERY long credits cements this status of hers. But first, a little background info from the feature: Will Turner has become the new captain of the Flying Dutchman, the ship that Davy Jones (the Great Bill Nighy, who has been reduced to CGI) has controlled throughout the last two films. Will has become the captain because he killed Davy Jones. The Flying Dutchman is responsible for making sure all the souls that are lost at sea make it to the afterlife. Will, unless someone stabs his heart that is kept in the chest (hence the name of the second film where Davy's predicament was introduced), will carry this duty out for all eternity. And every ten years, he can come back up to the land (or sea) of the living so he can fuck Elizabeth. That is why the consummation of their marriage is a big deal. She won't be able to be with Will for ten more years.
Anyway, in the scene at the end of the credits, Elizabeth and a young boy are waiting on the same island where she and Will first had sex. He probably doesn't know that she's got a little son just dying to meet him. The scene only shows him pop up from the underworld; we don't see him get on the island and meet them. In any case, Elizabeth has merely become a way for Will and his legacy to stay alive. They have strapped her into becoming a mother. How does she continue to pirate? And do you see how there's no need for a fourth? It's wrapped up pretty nicely. Besides, if they were literally at the end of the world when they fought to keep piracy alive, what new challenge could really match that one? Aliens?
Elizabeth's becoming a mother also reminds me of something else equally misogynist. Elizabeth's treatment is very much like the treatment of Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) in Braveheart (1995). Because Murron (Catherine McCormack) died in the first half and could not provide hero William Wallace (Mel Gibson) with some sons, the Princess carries out this requirement for the narrative, and their coupling even goes so far as to suggest that Wallace's kin will one day take the English throne. Such a shame.
The second problem of this film concerns Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), who was introduced in the second film as a sort of voodoo guru. If you ask me, her representation is rather racist. She is black, speaks with a distinctly Caribbean accent that no one else does (is that Jamaican?), and is highly sexualized. She is a walking stereotype a la the TV psychic Miss Cleo. But she's also Calypso, Davy Jones's beloved who is trapped in the human form of "Tia Dalma." After the world's pirate lords meet and Barbossa sets Calypso free (their predecessors' council was also the one that put her under this spell in the past), she morphs into a 50-foot woman before escaping as millions of crabs. When the spell is first broken, Tia Dalma is wrapped up in rope as if she is nothing but an animal. And when she is the giant, her clothes are ripped, she screams at them down below but you can't understand her, and overall she looks very primitive but still sexy. I understand that in order for Tia Dalma to be mysterious and magical, she would have to be black. We don't really think of white people as being voodoo gurus, do we? But I just thought the filmmakers crushed her under so many stereotypes that she came off as no better than if she were a mammy.
My third problem is with the British military morphing into the East India Trading Company. This has gradually happened since the second film, when Lord Cutler Beckett was presented as evil because he took over the jurisdiction of Governor Swann (Jonathan Pryce, whose death scene is the only touching one in the third film). Nevermind the fact that they're actually in the West Indies. (Maybe I missed this; maybe they're called the East India Trading Company because they had previously been to the East and had made their fortune there, moving to the West Indies to make more. I really don't know. But they should rename themselves the West Indies Trading Company then.)
In any case, Beckett's more evil in this one because he wants to make pirates, who are bad for his business, extinct. This is the main plot, that all the pirates must learn to trust each other and fight off the EITC. But it really sinks under all the other plotlines so that when the last battle is fought, you almost forget what they are fighting for. It's rather anti-climatic to boot. Plus Beckett is a sort of Napoleonic character because--I love you Tom, but you know, you're, uh, short.
But my question is, what are the implications of turning the enemy that once was the British government into the enemy that is now the EITC? For such a huge blockbuster franchise, it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think, that at the center of the story is an anti-capitalistic message? More than this though, doesn't this imply how corporatized our world is becoming? Soon it's no longer going to be about governments or nations. Everything will be in the hands of the multinational/transnational corporations. Some might say it already is.
On the other hand, I wonder if pirates today use this film as a sort of manifesto. Johnny Depp and Keith Richards, who plays his dad in this one (and not very well, mind you), have hinted that rock stars are modern-day pirates. But I mean: do the film pirates in Asia and Canada, for instance, justify what they do with this wildly popular trilogy? In other words, does the film make it OK to pirate films, especially this one, since piracy is at the core of these sympathetic heroes who are fighting The Man?
There are so many problems with this film (franchise) that if I were to discuss them all, my arguments and explanations would become just as twisted as all the stupid plotlines.
This long blog post has been very unexpected. When Denise met Lisa and me for dinner (where I ate the aforementioned bangers 'n' mash), she asked us how the film was. I told her she definitely didn't miss anything. Later on, she asked again, and I said I need time to think about it, to process it. I didn't think I had much to say other than "it wasn't funny," "it was too long and boring," "it was just ridiculous." Turns out I was wrong.
What can I say about the film that has not already been said? Yes, its special effects are among some of the best I have seen, but the film proves that special effects are not enough to sustain an entertaining movie experience. Yes, the thing is very confusing and hard to follow because they must have squeezed seven subplots in. And because the films in the franchise have already been established as moving very quickly through the action, they don't really give the audience enough time to catch up. Some parts I thought were in another language; I really had no idea what they were talking about. Others, I would have to wait ten minutes to figure out what someone ten minutes earlier had meant. On the whole, I understood the film, and they tied it up nice and tight so that we don't need a fourth installment (please no!). Just didn't understand everything as it happened.
It's a bit disheartening that the original scriptwriters Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio also wrote this one. All of the originality, creativity, and spunk of the first has gradually been replaced by pitiful pastiches of the original. Everyone comes off as a caricature of the character he or she played in the first one. The second one was bad, but this one--clocking in at 168 minutes--is much worse. At least you can follow Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006). My worry is that Elliott and Rossio turned in a script that had so much going on because they were afraid one or two or maybe even three understandable plotlines would not be enough to warrant a film. Yes, but this thinking has an inverse effect: too much makes producing it and watching it pointless.
More specifically, I found different parts very problematic. The first is what has become of Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley). I'm not going to complain that she has turned into a full-fledged pirate. No. That's OK for the story, but what I take issue with is just how much of a sex object they have turned her into. The novelty of course is that she is the only woman, really. The pirates in Singapore even have a hard time treating her like an equal. To make a long story short, Elizabeth becomes the desired of at least five men. I know what you're thinking, there's no cap on how many men can desire one woman, but because she is attacked or gives into them, she directly figures into any physical relationship the men want her for.
First up, you have Will Turner (the disgusting Rambo lookalike Orlando Bloom), her beloved and eventually her husband. This makes a bit more sense than the others since you have watched them grow together since the first film, but that through most of this film Will is very distrustful of her and then asks her to marry him in the middle of a battle, is really quite ridiculous. The captain of the Black Pearl, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush, the only truly convincing pirate performance), marries them then and there like. (I have more to say about their relationship, but it comes as a spoiler later on.)
There's always been sexual tension between Elizabeth and Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Sorry, Captain Jack Sparrow. They kissed in the second film, and in this one they make fun of it. Because just as Elizabeth is leaving to copulate with Will on the beach (how romantic: a line of pirates seeing you off to probably watch from the ship!), she goes in to kiss him, and he says something to the effect of "Once is enough." Ouch!
Then there's Admiral James Norrington (Jack Davenport, the sexiest one in the film) who basically gets no screen-time. Just enough to say that he is on Elizabeth's side. He helps her escape from the custody of the British Navy/East India Trading Company. And then he dies, but not before Elizabeth gives into his fantasy and kisses him.
The pirate lord of Singapore, Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), is also enamored with her. He's convinced she is the human embodiment of the goddess Calypso. He says he wants to make her his mistress, that he hopes she gives herself willingly but if she doesn't, he will take her by force. And this is all after he sort of proved himself to be a good guy. He forces himself on her. To her credit, Elizabeth actually pushes him off her. When he dies, he bequeaths the captainship (no pun intended) to her. Thus she's now a pirate lord.
The fifth man who wants Elizabeth is Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Only he's a little more vague. And nothing develops between them, thank god.
So, they have made a character that was once a bit empowering into one who is trapped by men not taking her seriously because they only want her sexually. I understand that this actually makes it more realistic, but when one of the main characters of the franchise is reduced to being a plaything for the men after having experienced some corset-free action is anti-feminist. They give Elizabeth some room to be herself and explore, but then they strap her down. With all those plotlines, one thing remains consistent: Elizabeth's sex appeal. (Nevermind the fact that Keira Knightley is rather boyish in that she has almost no breasts. She's also got one terrible underbite and eyebrows that are way darker than her haircolor. All those days in the sun, eh?)
Here comes the SPOILER: In case you're not fully convinced by my argument, the bonus scene at the end of the VERY long credits cements this status of hers. But first, a little background info from the feature: Will Turner has become the new captain of the Flying Dutchman, the ship that Davy Jones (the Great Bill Nighy, who has been reduced to CGI) has controlled throughout the last two films. Will has become the captain because he killed Davy Jones. The Flying Dutchman is responsible for making sure all the souls that are lost at sea make it to the afterlife. Will, unless someone stabs his heart that is kept in the chest (hence the name of the second film where Davy's predicament was introduced), will carry this duty out for all eternity. And every ten years, he can come back up to the land (or sea) of the living so he can fuck Elizabeth. That is why the consummation of their marriage is a big deal. She won't be able to be with Will for ten more years.
Anyway, in the scene at the end of the credits, Elizabeth and a young boy are waiting on the same island where she and Will first had sex. He probably doesn't know that she's got a little son just dying to meet him. The scene only shows him pop up from the underworld; we don't see him get on the island and meet them. In any case, Elizabeth has merely become a way for Will and his legacy to stay alive. They have strapped her into becoming a mother. How does she continue to pirate? And do you see how there's no need for a fourth? It's wrapped up pretty nicely. Besides, if they were literally at the end of the world when they fought to keep piracy alive, what new challenge could really match that one? Aliens?
Elizabeth's becoming a mother also reminds me of something else equally misogynist. Elizabeth's treatment is very much like the treatment of Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau) in Braveheart (1995). Because Murron (Catherine McCormack) died in the first half and could not provide hero William Wallace (Mel Gibson) with some sons, the Princess carries out this requirement for the narrative, and their coupling even goes so far as to suggest that Wallace's kin will one day take the English throne. Such a shame.
The second problem of this film concerns Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), who was introduced in the second film as a sort of voodoo guru. If you ask me, her representation is rather racist. She is black, speaks with a distinctly Caribbean accent that no one else does (is that Jamaican?), and is highly sexualized. She is a walking stereotype a la the TV psychic Miss Cleo. But she's also Calypso, Davy Jones's beloved who is trapped in the human form of "Tia Dalma." After the world's pirate lords meet and Barbossa sets Calypso free (their predecessors' council was also the one that put her under this spell in the past), she morphs into a 50-foot woman before escaping as millions of crabs. When the spell is first broken, Tia Dalma is wrapped up in rope as if she is nothing but an animal. And when she is the giant, her clothes are ripped, she screams at them down below but you can't understand her, and overall she looks very primitive but still sexy. I understand that in order for Tia Dalma to be mysterious and magical, she would have to be black. We don't really think of white people as being voodoo gurus, do we? But I just thought the filmmakers crushed her under so many stereotypes that she came off as no better than if she were a mammy.
My third problem is with the British military morphing into the East India Trading Company. This has gradually happened since the second film, when Lord Cutler Beckett was presented as evil because he took over the jurisdiction of Governor Swann (Jonathan Pryce, whose death scene is the only touching one in the third film). Nevermind the fact that they're actually in the West Indies. (Maybe I missed this; maybe they're called the East India Trading Company because they had previously been to the East and had made their fortune there, moving to the West Indies to make more. I really don't know. But they should rename themselves the West Indies Trading Company then.)
In any case, Beckett's more evil in this one because he wants to make pirates, who are bad for his business, extinct. This is the main plot, that all the pirates must learn to trust each other and fight off the EITC. But it really sinks under all the other plotlines so that when the last battle is fought, you almost forget what they are fighting for. It's rather anti-climatic to boot. Plus Beckett is a sort of Napoleonic character because--I love you Tom, but you know, you're, uh, short.
But my question is, what are the implications of turning the enemy that once was the British government into the enemy that is now the EITC? For such a huge blockbuster franchise, it's a bit hypocritical, don't you think, that at the center of the story is an anti-capitalistic message? More than this though, doesn't this imply how corporatized our world is becoming? Soon it's no longer going to be about governments or nations. Everything will be in the hands of the multinational/transnational corporations. Some might say it already is.
On the other hand, I wonder if pirates today use this film as a sort of manifesto. Johnny Depp and Keith Richards, who plays his dad in this one (and not very well, mind you), have hinted that rock stars are modern-day pirates. But I mean: do the film pirates in Asia and Canada, for instance, justify what they do with this wildly popular trilogy? In other words, does the film make it OK to pirate films, especially this one, since piracy is at the core of these sympathetic heroes who are fighting The Man?
There are so many problems with this film (franchise) that if I were to discuss them all, my arguments and explanations would become just as twisted as all the stupid plotlines.
This long blog post has been very unexpected. When Denise met Lisa and me for dinner (where I ate the aforementioned bangers 'n' mash), she asked us how the film was. I told her she definitely didn't miss anything. Later on, she asked again, and I said I need time to think about it, to process it. I didn't think I had much to say other than "it wasn't funny," "it was too long and boring," "it was just ridiculous." Turns out I was wrong.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
diamonds are not a girl's best friend
On Sunday night, I saw Blood Diamond (2006) at the second-run movie theatre on campus. I'm sure it's already on DVD in the States. Hey, maybe it is here, too. So I am a little behind. Forgive me. By the way, this post contains a lot of SPOILERS so if you are interested in seeing this movie (and you should be, especially since you can never depend on someone else to tell you about how things are), then stop after you've read my summary of the film.
I didn't like it, so let me begin with what I did enjoy: it's beautifully made, and by that I mean they knew how to film the gorgeous topographic landscapes of the African continent. They don't really reinvent how Africa is filmed. The landscape has been romanticized just like this a hundred times before, and I suspect it will continue until someone has had enough. Or until we start to really watch and discuss African films (meaning films made by Africans) which show Africa from a different perspective. I suppose films that take place in Africa film the beauty of the openness of the mountains and plains to contrast with the film's serious message (in this case: the exploitation on many levels that diamond mining entails) and the general chaos of the city and shantytowns where the movies undoubtedly always take place. Exceptions to this urban rule but romanticize the landscape nevertheless: I Dreamed Of Africa (2000) and The Air Up There (1994). The Lion King (1994) has played a large part, too. Can you name any others? I haven't seen The Last King of Scotland (2006), yet.
I think I should give a quick summary before I go on to talk about the performances. Djimon Hounsou is Solomon Vandy (could they be more obvious?), a fisherman who lives in a peaceful village in rural Sierra Leone. The year is 1999, and a civil war has thrown the country into chaotic violence. This is mainly perpetrated by "revolutionaries" who are against the government and run throughout the country killing people and taking young boys to join their army. They take hostages to mine for diamonds so they can fund their violence, so they can buy guns. When Solomon's village is destroyed, his family is taken away and he is forced to mine. He finds and hides a giant pink diamond just as the military comes to the mine to stop the efforts of the "revolutionaries," but with equal violence. To make a long story short, he meets diamond smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) in jail where Danny overhears Solomon's "mine boss" demand that Solomon tell him where he hid the diamond. Danny's in debt to other shady people, so he wants to know too, and he gets Solomon out of jail. Eventually, they team up with Jennifer Connelly's Maddy Bowen, a supposedly conscientious journalist, who Danny's using to get transportation around the country to track down Solomon's diamond. Maddy's using Danny to write an expose. And she thinks she's falling in love with him. I'll say more about that later.
Anyway, the film had its cinematography going for it. And it had much less else. The performances were--for lack of a better word--off. I'm not one of those people that think an accent = acting, but they are a part of the performance. In pretending to be someone or something, you should at least be consistent, right? Well, DiCaprio's inconsistent accent was distracting, and this detracted from his performance. I never really bought it. Sometimes he sounded Zimbabwean as he is supposed to, but alternatively he sounded like himself (American), South African, or even New Zealander. The one scene where he speaks what I have referred to as "African jive" was a bit disgusting and racist. I suppose it is meant to show that he can communicate with these black African rebel groups in their own English language, but it just felt wrong. He's an imperialist. He still refers to Zimbabwe as Rhodesia. Need I say more?
I called Jennifer Connelly's journalist "supposedly conscientious" because, while most of her lines point out the First World's downright deplorable exploitation and profiteering of a situation that only makes Africans' lives worse, she exploits them, too. Whenever she took out her camera to snap shots of people in refugee camps, in the streets, etc. I just felt that she doesn't understand that she's not really helping the situation. Not to mention, she is fully aware of Danny's intentions to take Solomon's diamond for himself. And she is allowing him to because she wants a story from Danny, a man on the inside of all this big business.
Djimon Hounsou gives the best performance, but in scenes where he is shouting like a madman, they're just... off. I don't know how else to describe it. Number one: you can't understand what he is saying and number two: it is so maniacal that it seems over-the-top.
Speaking of performances, Michael Sheen as an English executive for a diamond company and Jimi Mistry as a smuggler-buddy of Danny's are totally underused. They should have gotten other actors to play with the background, not these two who are spot on in (almost) everything they do. (Michael, I still don't understand why you did the Underworld movies. Did Kate talk you into it?)
More than this, I thought the message was very heavy-handed. And we have Connelly's character to thank for this. I understand it is made for audiences that know nothing about this problem or Sierra Leone's recent history, but they were pounding my head so much that I got a headache. They didn't even film Blood Diamond in Sierra Leone. No wonder the landscapes looked familiar: it was mainly South Africa, the most heavily represented African country on screen.
For this reason, I have compared it to The Constant Gardener (2005), which is a fucking masterpiece next to this one. I understand it is a different country (Kenya) and a different kind of way in which Western and Northern countries are taking advantage of Africa (pharmaceutical companies experimenting new drugs), but as a suspense with a message, it just worked a lot better. Hell, for a non-African film, it shot the landscape in a much grittier way. That's commendable. Plus they actually filmed it in Kenya rather than the studio's request that they work in South Africa (where it'd have been easier and/or cheaper to insure the actors and crew). And then they set up a fund to help build in the area they filmed. That was giving a little something back. What can Blood Diamond hope to aspire to? People stop buying diamonds? Don't think so. Is it enough that a movie with a political message as big as this one only instigates discussion and motivates bloggers like myself to write about it? I've just ripped it to shreds.
And the would-be romance between Danny and Maddy was just sickening. Why use it to soften him up? Their last scene "together," when they are on the phone, is unbearable. Spending a few days dodging bullets and running through the jungle with a guy who's in the business of doing what you hate really shouldn't make you fall in love with him no matter how good-looking he is. Ugh. I wasn't going to spoil it for you but that "unbearable" scene is the one in which Danny dies, alone, looking over a ravine, sitting on a cliff, having a change of heart.
If he knew he could survive, I'm not so sure he would have let Solomon keep the diamond all to himself. And he had originally told Maddy that the only way she could publish the story was if he died. In his last breaths, he decides that Maddy should help Solomon get to London and sell it. Documenting the sale with photos to accompany Maddy's expose, Solomon and Maddy instigate a scandal for the diamond-selling companies that leads to provisions in international affairs to cut down the number of "conflict diamonds" on the market. What I have a problem with is this: they never show that Solomon DIDN'T take the £2 million the diamond company represented by Michael Sheen offered him. They don't show him refusing the money because it's tainted. I have every reason to believe--because of the film--that Solomon took it. Did he donate it to help stop the war in his country or to rebuild his country? Doesn't say.
The film had good intentions, but ultimately it wasn't very engaging. The scenes of massacres didn't even move me. It was no Hotel Rwanda (2004). Just another white man's guilt movie (which I have no problem with), but it could have been done a lot better.
I just had a thought: I think "white man's guilt" movies should actually use this rhetoric. These political message movies about Africa should explicitly address those who don't think Africa is a white man's problem. Are you kidding? Imperialism is more to blame than anything else. And, no, I don't think this contradicts my earlier criticism about the film lacking subtlety. I think Blood Diamond and all the rest have tried to say this is the white man's fault, but they have gone about it in ridiculous ways. (See Blood Diamond for more on this or read this post again.)
On a much lighter note, I just heard a radio commercial for a jeweler you can only find in malls. One of their diamonds is called a Leo. Ain't that funny? Maybe it's inspired by one of his earlier performances, as that poor lovelorn guy who dies after a ship sinks. Wasn't there a diamond in that one, too?
I didn't like it, so let me begin with what I did enjoy: it's beautifully made, and by that I mean they knew how to film the gorgeous topographic landscapes of the African continent. They don't really reinvent how Africa is filmed. The landscape has been romanticized just like this a hundred times before, and I suspect it will continue until someone has had enough. Or until we start to really watch and discuss African films (meaning films made by Africans) which show Africa from a different perspective. I suppose films that take place in Africa film the beauty of the openness of the mountains and plains to contrast with the film's serious message (in this case: the exploitation on many levels that diamond mining entails) and the general chaos of the city and shantytowns where the movies undoubtedly always take place. Exceptions to this urban rule but romanticize the landscape nevertheless: I Dreamed Of Africa (2000) and The Air Up There (1994). The Lion King (1994) has played a large part, too. Can you name any others? I haven't seen The Last King of Scotland (2006), yet.
I think I should give a quick summary before I go on to talk about the performances. Djimon Hounsou is Solomon Vandy (could they be more obvious?), a fisherman who lives in a peaceful village in rural Sierra Leone. The year is 1999, and a civil war has thrown the country into chaotic violence. This is mainly perpetrated by "revolutionaries" who are against the government and run throughout the country killing people and taking young boys to join their army. They take hostages to mine for diamonds so they can fund their violence, so they can buy guns. When Solomon's village is destroyed, his family is taken away and he is forced to mine. He finds and hides a giant pink diamond just as the military comes to the mine to stop the efforts of the "revolutionaries," but with equal violence. To make a long story short, he meets diamond smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) in jail where Danny overhears Solomon's "mine boss" demand that Solomon tell him where he hid the diamond. Danny's in debt to other shady people, so he wants to know too, and he gets Solomon out of jail. Eventually, they team up with Jennifer Connelly's Maddy Bowen, a supposedly conscientious journalist, who Danny's using to get transportation around the country to track down Solomon's diamond. Maddy's using Danny to write an expose. And she thinks she's falling in love with him. I'll say more about that later.
Anyway, the film had its cinematography going for it. And it had much less else. The performances were--for lack of a better word--off. I'm not one of those people that think an accent = acting, but they are a part of the performance. In pretending to be someone or something, you should at least be consistent, right? Well, DiCaprio's inconsistent accent was distracting, and this detracted from his performance. I never really bought it. Sometimes he sounded Zimbabwean as he is supposed to, but alternatively he sounded like himself (American), South African, or even New Zealander. The one scene where he speaks what I have referred to as "African jive" was a bit disgusting and racist. I suppose it is meant to show that he can communicate with these black African rebel groups in their own English language, but it just felt wrong. He's an imperialist. He still refers to Zimbabwe as Rhodesia. Need I say more?
I called Jennifer Connelly's journalist "supposedly conscientious" because, while most of her lines point out the First World's downright deplorable exploitation and profiteering of a situation that only makes Africans' lives worse, she exploits them, too. Whenever she took out her camera to snap shots of people in refugee camps, in the streets, etc. I just felt that she doesn't understand that she's not really helping the situation. Not to mention, she is fully aware of Danny's intentions to take Solomon's diamond for himself. And she is allowing him to because she wants a story from Danny, a man on the inside of all this big business.
Djimon Hounsou gives the best performance, but in scenes where he is shouting like a madman, they're just... off. I don't know how else to describe it. Number one: you can't understand what he is saying and number two: it is so maniacal that it seems over-the-top.
Speaking of performances, Michael Sheen as an English executive for a diamond company and Jimi Mistry as a smuggler-buddy of Danny's are totally underused. They should have gotten other actors to play with the background, not these two who are spot on in (almost) everything they do. (Michael, I still don't understand why you did the Underworld movies. Did Kate talk you into it?)
More than this, I thought the message was very heavy-handed. And we have Connelly's character to thank for this. I understand it is made for audiences that know nothing about this problem or Sierra Leone's recent history, but they were pounding my head so much that I got a headache. They didn't even film Blood Diamond in Sierra Leone. No wonder the landscapes looked familiar: it was mainly South Africa, the most heavily represented African country on screen.
For this reason, I have compared it to The Constant Gardener (2005), which is a fucking masterpiece next to this one. I understand it is a different country (Kenya) and a different kind of way in which Western and Northern countries are taking advantage of Africa (pharmaceutical companies experimenting new drugs), but as a suspense with a message, it just worked a lot better. Hell, for a non-African film, it shot the landscape in a much grittier way. That's commendable. Plus they actually filmed it in Kenya rather than the studio's request that they work in South Africa (where it'd have been easier and/or cheaper to insure the actors and crew). And then they set up a fund to help build in the area they filmed. That was giving a little something back. What can Blood Diamond hope to aspire to? People stop buying diamonds? Don't think so. Is it enough that a movie with a political message as big as this one only instigates discussion and motivates bloggers like myself to write about it? I've just ripped it to shreds.
And the would-be romance between Danny and Maddy was just sickening. Why use it to soften him up? Their last scene "together," when they are on the phone, is unbearable. Spending a few days dodging bullets and running through the jungle with a guy who's in the business of doing what you hate really shouldn't make you fall in love with him no matter how good-looking he is. Ugh. I wasn't going to spoil it for you but that "unbearable" scene is the one in which Danny dies, alone, looking over a ravine, sitting on a cliff, having a change of heart.
If he knew he could survive, I'm not so sure he would have let Solomon keep the diamond all to himself. And he had originally told Maddy that the only way she could publish the story was if he died. In his last breaths, he decides that Maddy should help Solomon get to London and sell it. Documenting the sale with photos to accompany Maddy's expose, Solomon and Maddy instigate a scandal for the diamond-selling companies that leads to provisions in international affairs to cut down the number of "conflict diamonds" on the market. What I have a problem with is this: they never show that Solomon DIDN'T take the £2 million the diamond company represented by Michael Sheen offered him. They don't show him refusing the money because it's tainted. I have every reason to believe--because of the film--that Solomon took it. Did he donate it to help stop the war in his country or to rebuild his country? Doesn't say.
The film had good intentions, but ultimately it wasn't very engaging. The scenes of massacres didn't even move me. It was no Hotel Rwanda (2004). Just another white man's guilt movie (which I have no problem with), but it could have been done a lot better.
I just had a thought: I think "white man's guilt" movies should actually use this rhetoric. These political message movies about Africa should explicitly address those who don't think Africa is a white man's problem. Are you kidding? Imperialism is more to blame than anything else. And, no, I don't think this contradicts my earlier criticism about the film lacking subtlety. I think Blood Diamond and all the rest have tried to say this is the white man's fault, but they have gone about it in ridiculous ways. (See Blood Diamond for more on this or read this post again.)
On a much lighter note, I just heard a radio commercial for a jeweler you can only find in malls. One of their diamonds is called a Leo. Ain't that funny? Maybe it's inspired by one of his earlier performances, as that poor lovelorn guy who dies after a ship sinks. Wasn't there a diamond in that one, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
