SXSW 2007 day 7
My final day of film at the festival was one of the better ones. I had been looking forward to seeing both THE UNFORESEEN and FAY GRIM all week. I was not disappointed.
ITTY BITTY TITTY COMMITTEE
The festival's synopsis: "Dumped by her girlfriend, rejected from her college of choice and wearing an A cup in a C cup world, Anna soon joins a radical punk-feminist group that may end up with even more disenchantment." I'm not really sure how to judge this little movie. It's enjoyable, its characters are well drawn and their antics are entertaining. But for a film that deals with feminism in such a direct manner, it's not a very feminist film. Indeed, the characters berate women who allow themselves to be objectified, but the film has no qualms about indulging itself with multiple lesbian make-out scenes. Had the film been directed by a man, he would be accused of playing out his fantasies on screen (hello Kevin Smith), but is the same material liberating if directed by a lesbian? I found it odd that the object of desire (of both the lead character and most likely the entire audience) was stereotypically hot: petite, blond, and free spirited. The film lampoons women for wanting breast implants, but let's be honest. We don't live in a "C cup" world any more. The skinny blonde with captivating eyes, angular (yet smooth) features, and pouty lips is just as cliche. Anna Nicole Smith is dead, after all. Thus the problem with the CIA (Clits in Action, the punk feminist group) and with the film as a whole: they may reject the idea of themselves as targets of male oppression, but men still get off watching them do it. Perhaps this is why the film won an audience award. Their understanding of feminist principles is only skin-deep, and the characters fall into in-fighting and relationship troubles in pursuit of their higher goals. It's a film about adolescent angst as much as overcoming traditional gender roles. Whether the film transcends this angst or if it adopts the teens' misguided but heartfelt lashings-out as its own moral compass is a little vague.
THE UNFORESEEN
Perhaps the finest film I saw at SXSW this year, the documentary (executive produced by Terrence Malick and Robert Redford) was directed by Austinite Laura Dunn and follows the epic story behind land development in the Austin area and its effect on the local water sources, most notably the community favorite Barton Springs. Though environmentalism and land devolpment may not sound particularly riveting, the film's grand scope, its combination of breathtaking cinematography, motion graphics, candid interviews and archival footage, and its method of weaving them all together in an almost hypnotic fashion, leaves us with a film that is as much a meditation on humanity's relationship to nature as it is a call to particular action. Dunn succeeds at giving us a film that is perhaps as objective as one can be given the material. The interview with the now-bankrupt developer actually leads to one of the film's most revealing and heart-wrenching moments. Interspersed with poetry and moments of visual rapture (even closer to my heart being a fourth generation Austinite), the film's long incubation only helped it to tell the complete story. The director's humility and desire to treat each subject with dignity shine through. The film is a gift to the Austin community, to environmentalists, and to film goers everywhere.
FAY GRIM
The sequel to Hal Hartley's HENRY FOOL (my introduction to Hartley and still one of my favorites), the film takes place ten years after its predecessor's ambiguous ending. Rife with both Hartley's trademark moments of cinematic perfection and his typical problems, it was a great way for me to end the festival. I do, however, want to see the film again when I have not been watching other movies for the past 7 days straight. It may help the film to not feel quite as long, and I will most likely appreciate more of its subtleties. The film is a bit too talkie, which can sometimes happen in a Hartley film, but it's the small things he does best: a few notes of music here, an elegant cut to a title card here. It is these things I just can't get enough of with Hartley. He has an uncanny ability to juxtapose comedic timing and melodrama to create a genre that transcends comedy and tragedy by fusing them together into a single entity. We have to labor through a few too many quips about government conspiracies, but it's all worth it to get to that final moment of cinematic perfection: Fay looking across the ocean to Henry, floating helplessly and determinately away on a small ship before cutting to the film's title. Ah even now it brings tears to my eyes! Such a graceful moment of beauty that is so uniquely cinematic. In the end Hartley knows it's that love and longing that defines all of us, not the absurdity of espionage, art, or anything else for that matter.
I'll be interested to see where Hartley goes next. He leaves it open for another sequel, perhaps centered on Henry and Fay's son? The first entry dealt with art, the second with politics, what next? Religion? I dare not venture a guess, but I'll be the first in line.
Monday, March 26, 2007 at 5:49AM | Filed under: Austin scene, Film Reviews
Reader Comments (3)
What I find interesting about boobs is where their largeness is most prevalent, and where it isn't.
In high fashion, for instance, big boobs are almost non-existent.
In playboy, though, they're quite prevalent.
On television, you see big breasts, but they're usually in certain types of roles.
Gray, the central 'love-interest' in our primetime soap of the moment, does not have big breasts.
In film, the 'boobiness' of an actress often depends on her role.
In general, though, I would say that leading ladies are not bosomy.
Scarlette Johannson is notable because she's a bit of an exception - a young lead actress who plays the part of someone we're meant to fall in Love with, who has cleavage to spare.
Otherwise, though, the tendency is toward waifish, big-eyed, symmetrically-faced, small-breasted types. Think Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley, Cate Blanchett, 'sexiest-woman-ever' Audrey Hepburn.
So what does all of this add up to? It adds up to this:
In film and television, if we as an audience are supposed to Fall in Love with a character, it's likely to be played by an actress who's not altogether bosomy.
If, though, we are supposed to Want to have Sex with a character, the actress is much more likely to have some boobiness to 'er.
You can see this even in the single person of Tiffany Amber T. In Saved by the Bell, we were meant to fall madly in love with her and her sweetness, and, oh, how we did. Even for playing a teenager, she was relatively flat-chested.
Then she moved onto primetime soaps as the Vixen, and look at her now. I mean. Where'd those come from?
In either case, a pretty face is required, as is general symmetry and proportion.
So what's the message to women? If you want to be viewed as a sex-object, highlight your cleavage. If you want to be viewed as a love-interest, smile.