ellerydotcom

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #5

AF AMER 112A Blog Assignment #5

This week one of the films we watched for class was Blacula (1972) directed by William Crian, a (gothic) horror film in the Blaxploitation genre. The film centers the transformation of a Black vampire that blends horror, traditional vampire tropes, and Black cultural elements. In the film’s opening scene, our main character Prince Mamuwalde tried to appeal to Count Dracula to end the transatlantic slave trade. This ties the traditional vampire trope and subverts it by connecting it to historical racial violence relevant in America. I think that the film Blacula challenges the traditional white vampires we typically see in horror films. This is shown in how director Cain draws parallels between vampirism and the legacies of slavery. Cain uses the audience’s familiarity with the horror cult classic vampire icon Count Dracula, as an instrument for the film to comment on the ongoing legacy of slavery as well as the systemic oppression and collective trauma the Black community experiences. To no surprise, Count Dracula laughs at Prince Mamuwalde and his wife’s proposal to end the transatlantic slave trade and out of spite, turns him into a vampire by biting him. In turn, he takes away Mamuwalde’s agency, turning him into a vampire and locking him in the coffin. Dracula changes his name to Blacula, a variation of his own name. I think this action directly references how white slave owners would intentionally rename enslaved people as an attempt to strip them of their identity and history. Additionally, the forced transformation of Mamuwalde into Blacula by Count Dracula, serves as a metaphor for how slavery dehumanizes and perpetuates suffering as Count Dracula intends for Mamuwalde to feast off of other people’s sweet blood and infect others. What I find interesting is how Blacula is both a victim of oppression and someone who wields power over humans as a vampire. Another aspect of the film that is seemingly progressive is the inclusion of the interracial gay couple that initially opens the coffin that wakes Blacula up. Unfortunately, the problematic aspect of it was how the film played into the “bury your gays” trope by killing them off first (although it seems it was unintentional). But what I think is so powerful about this film is how Mamuwalde is portrayed as a vampire. One thing about Mamuwalde’s character that is compelling is how he is shown not as a villain but as a sympathetic anti-hero who just wanted to survive with his lover, who he believes is the reincarnation of his former wife. Blacula kills cops instead of him becoming a victim to police brutality, but ultimately after his lover Tina gets killed by cops in a confrontation between them and the police, he sadly kills himself by walking into the sun.

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #6

Final Blog Post #6

Abby (1974) directed by William Girdler is an American supernatural horror film from the blaxploitation era about a woman who is possessed by a sex spirit. I think this film is an interesting take on the traditional horror tropes with its use of the demonic possession by an African mythology instead of the typical Christian demons. Although a bit campy and unintentionally funny, overall I did enjoy watching this film. I was surprised to find out that the filmmakers of Abby were sued by the Warner Brothers company for its alleged similarities to the movie, The Exorcist. Anyways, this film centers around our main character Abby, who is the good wife of a pastor. As mentioned above, she gets possessed by an African spirit of sex Eshu who is unintentionally released by her father in law, causing Abby to be a sexually promiscuous woman. The film compares African and Western Christian spirituality but ultimately favors Christianity by having Abby saved from the possession by performing an exorcism, cross and all. The confrontation between the demon spirit and Dr. William made me laugh due to the demonic voice effect that came from Abby. Something that also made me holler while watching the film was when Abby threatened to drag the husband up the stairs and fuck his brains out to the couple she was have a marriage counselling session with. This film essentially equates Abby’s sexual freedom with moral and spiritual corruption, portraying it as something unnatural and evil. For example, in the shower scene, we see the spirit taking over her as she seemingly masturbates in the shower (a big no-no in christianity). I think Abby’s sexual transformation through the possession by Eshu could have had interesting commentary about the patriarchal fears of female autonomy, and how society expects women to be a certain way, but instead it demonized Abby’s independence. I think these beliefs exhibited in Abby show real world double standards of women’s sexual freedoms and agency. Especially in Christianity, women are taught to submit to their husbands and exploring sexuality is shamed as it is encouraged to “save yourself” for your husband. Even outside of religious settings, women are slut shamed or even in cases of sexual assault, they are blamed for what happens to them. Even though there is less stigma around women expressing themselves sexually, still the bodily autonomy of women is actively being undermined with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And I think ultimately, I think the way the film frames Abby’s hypersexuality as a result of demonic possession, implies the belief that a woman’s sexual autonomy is threatening and unnatural, which must be exorcised.

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #3

Blog Post #3

I accidentally watched the new Candyman first and then later the older Candyman for class out of order so when the twist about Anthony being the baby from Cabrini Green was uncovered, I genuinely was gagged. In my opinion, the 1992 version of Candyman’s take on racial dynamics in the US honestly did not shock me as its problematic and ignorant aspects reflected Hollywood at the time. I did enjoy both films and I liked how the 2021 version felt like an extension of the original film rather than a sequel or a retelling. Focusing more on the newer Candyman, I liked how they tried to touch on relevant social and economic issues in America such as gentrification, police violence, and generational trauma that the Black American community faces. Even in Anthony's original art piece in the exhibition his girlfriend helped curate, he referenced the “say their name” social movement that sought to raise awareness for Black victims of police brutality in the United States. And even in the case of gentrification, the film highlights how Cabrini Green and other project neighborhoods have been gentrified. Compared to the 1992 Candyman which hinted at issues of redlining that showed the stark differences between Cabrini Green and Helen’s neighborhood apartment; Anthony himself lives in an affluent gentrified neighborhood with his girlfriend Brianna. Even Anthony gets accused of contributing to gentrification by a white art critiquer/reviewer, because art galleries have historically contributed to the gentrification of neighborhoods of color. I think it’s an interesting point to bring up how people of color can contribute to gentrification. This especially resonates with me as where I’m from, many places in the Bay Area and specifically in San Francisco are actively being gentrified right now. For example people are trying to gentrify Chinatown and arguably, a large contribution to that is/was the museum of Chinese in America (MOCA). MOCA have been accused of displacing Chinatown workers and in 2021, they accepted a 35 million dollar concession from the city to build a jail in the neighborhood which would contribute to more mass incarceration within the city. Additionally, one of the board directors has greatly contributed to the gentrification of Chinatown as he took part in closing the two first and only unionized restaurants in Chinatown. Even in LA, places like the Arts District have contributed to the gentrification of LA. As an artist and being a design media arts major, I think it's interesting to be aware and conscious about artists' contribution to the gentrification of neighborhoods. Just something to think about.

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #2

Us, the upper vs lower class

For class we watched Us, directed by Jordan Peele for the first time. Compared to Get Out, Jordan Peele’s directorial debut, I found Us to have more traditional horror elements in the film. The plot and lore behind the Tethered confused me a bit and I caught onto the plot twist near the end of the film. It should have been evident to me when Red was the only one of the Tethered who could speak but I never questioned it for some reason. It wasn’t until we saw Adelaide kill another Tethered with their own scissors did I realize that perhaps Adelaide was a Tethered person. Thinking back, there were clues as to the Teathers breaking out and following Red’s plan as Jason saw the first victim of the Tethered being strolled off by an ambulance on the way to the Santa Cruz beach. Later, at the beach, I didn’t realize it at the time, but we probably saw one of the first Tethered taking the place of the homeless man that was holding that bible verse sign when Jason went to use the restroom. Unless you’ve watched the movie before, it's hard to spot but he is wearing the red jumpsuit underneath a stolen trench coat. At the end when it was finally revealed, even though I had guessed it, the scenes still gave me a chill through my spine as I watched how everything went down.

What I love about this film is all the symbolism; I think I’d have to watch the film a second time in order to understand and unpack more details Peele left behind. On the surface, it seems that the main message of what Us is trying to critique is how privilege and wealth allow the upper class to turn blind to the suffering and dehumanization of the lower class. The film follows themes of class disparity in America—comparing the lives of the Tethered and the Wilsons as well as their rich white family friends the Tylers. The Tethered, who are a group of doppelgangers living in underground tunnels after a failed experiment from the organization “Hands Across America”, unseen and forgotten by society. They mirror the main characters who are oblivious to the lives of the Tethered due to their privilege. While this film could be highlighting issues of upper class versus lower class, I think this is commentary of how the upper class, the rich elite creates class divide amongst the working class by putting the middle class and lower class against each other. The fact the Red and Adelaide switched places during childhood shows that there is no difference between them except their circumstances. The Tethered are not human as they are dehumanized by the people above, but they are not innately evil or monsters but instead are victims trying to escape the unjust system that was put upon them. The true villains are the scientists (elites) who created this system in the first place as a plot to control society who later abandoned it . I think it's worth noting how the middle class were the ones who faced the consequences of the wrong actions of the Hands Across America experiment while they were virtually untouched and unaffected. I think this especially reflects how the upper class is so far removed from the events of the regular working class, that they are unaffected by the struggles of the Tethered and never held accountable for the violence that occurs in Us; even though they were the ones who designed this system.

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #4 Pt. 3

Part 3

When I was looking up theories, I read that someone thought Cicely had an inappropriate obsession with her father and that after she thought he didn’t see her as the perfect daughter anymore, she became withdrawn and angry towards him, but to me that just makes no sense. In the letter Louis wrote to Mozelle, Louis said that he knew Cisely looked at him in “that way” and he was guilty of knowing this but not doing anything about it. This reeks of victim blaming but also how does Mozelle know anything about what happened between Cicley and her dad? The only explanation is when Mozelle took Eve’s hands and seemed shaken up by what she saw which leads me to believe she might’ve seen what Louis did to Cicely. So anyways, you could argue that it was Cicley’s “fault” because she saw it as a way of making her father stay with the family, but at the end of the day it's Louis that was the adult in this situation who can place clear boundaries between their relationship. The power dynamic is clearly imbalanced which leads me to believe he's the weird one who inappropriately kissed his 14 year old daughter. I just don’t see how Cicely would have any reason to lie to her younger sister Eve. Even though she’s 14, she clearly told Eve that he hurt her. Additionally, when Eve touched her hands, in the scene again we see Cicely mouth the word “no” to her father. The thing that irked me was after Louis died, he never really faced the consequences of his actions (besides getting himself killed). His family has to deal with the aftermath of his negative effects on their family dynamics while also grieving his death. Off topic but I just think it's so weird how when a bad person dies, everyone dismisses the bad things they’ve done and pretend like they are a good person. Anyways, overall Eve Bayou was an interesting watch that definitely left me wondering about the actual events of what happened throughout the story.

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #4 Pt. 2

Part 2

(Click here for Part 3)

One scene in the movie that my discussion group talked about was what we thought happened between Cicely and her father. I’ve seen some theories about the kissing situation chalking it up to Cicely’s character as a moody teen going through puberty who was a daddy’s girl. Some people saw her rebelling against her mom and showing resentment against the mom as Cicely’s way of blaming her mom’s “overbearing” ways as an explanation to Louis’ infidelity. Like when she snuck out of the house to visit her father and got her hair cut and makeup done to try and look older. But about the kissing situation, from Louis’ perspective, Cicely overstepped her boundaries by kissing her intoxicated father and because she was hurt she got slapped by her father who clearly favored her, she got embarrassed and that was why she told the story differently. But in Cicely’s perspective she was trying to comfort her father when he's clearly stressed and in distress. But instead, he inappropriately kisses her, assaulting her and forcing himself onto her while she struggles to push him away. And because she tried to resist, he slaps her to the floor, something so out of character for him to do to Cicely who we know is his favorite. The director leaves the situation ambiguous so it's up to the audience to interpret this situation but in my personal opinion, I’d be way more inclined to believe Cicely’s side of the story versus an adulterer (sorry I have personal beef with that man). The audacity of that man– he's egotistical, that's why he thinks he can get away with obviously cheating on his wife. The whole town sees him and the mistress prancing around together practically everyday and he's on some power ego trip getting with his clients. It's like he thinks his actions don’t have consequences?? I guess he sees Cicely as the only one in his family as someone who is “on his side” as he said in his letter that he expected her to go down and comfort him. And it's his own fault he died with his massive ego as he taunts the husband of the woman he was having sex with. Cicely was clearly eager to look older as she went out of her way to go to a beauty salon but then she suddenly got depressed and acted differently when she got her period not wanting to even look at her father.

[ellerydotcom]

AF AMER 112A Blog Post #4 Pt. 1

Part 1, Since I went above the word count for tumblr, I had to break this blog post up into 3 parts.

(Click here for Part 2)

Last week for class we watched the movie Eve’s Bayou. This movie followed the dynamics and relationships of a well off bourgeois family from Louisiana in the early 1960s mostly through the lens of the main character, 10 year old Eve Batiste. This movie portrayed horror in a more subtle and mundane way or I guess it more revealed the facade of the seemingly perfect family and their neighborhood. It was definitely interesting how we saw the movie through a child’s viewpoint but because the audience isn’t a little kid, we can pick up and piece together the stuff maybe a 10 year old Eve could not. For example she knew her father was cheating on her mother but both her dad, sister Cicely, and even aunt lowkey gaslit her. And of course she's 10 so why would she want to believe her dad, someone she's looked up to her whole life and idolizes, is a bad person? When you’re ten years old you know it's wrong and you pick up that things in your family aren’t going well but you can’t exactly vocalize it or put your feelings into words. I mean, when I was younger, I looked up to my parents and thought they knew everything and had my best interest in mind. When Eve told her aunt that her dad was messing with another married woman it rubbed me the wrong way that nobody in that family wanted to confront him. I guess since Eve’s aunt is her dad’s sister I assumed she just wanted to protect the family peace? 

[ellerydotcom]

Blog Post #1

Blog Assignment #1: My Thoughts On Get Out

Watching Get Out in class was the second time I’ve seen this film. The rewatch value is amazing as I was able to peel back different layers of the messaging. Even though I had watched the film before this time around, throughout watching Get Out, I was still tense with a feeling of inevitable doom. Even though I had previously seen it when the film initially came out, watching it this time around I was able to catch more details and foreshadowing that I had not initially noticed. What I think is so clever about this movie is the little subtleties director Jordan Peele leaves for audiences to pick up that can easily be missed.

For example, throughout the movie Chris, the main character, experienced many microaggressions. Microaggressive comments that maybe some white people may not necessarily notice but certainly something many people of color can oftentimes relate to. When Chris first meets Rose’s parents, her dad immediately starts trying to use what he thinks is “slang” language (most likely what he thinks are ebonics) that he relates to Black people. Referring to Chris as “my man” or “thang” when he asks about how long Rose and Chris have been in a relationship. Another example of a loud microaggression or I would even call it a macro-aggression would be how Rose’s relatives talked to Chris when they all came over to the family gathering. Everytime an old white person made a comment to Chris I physically cringed at how real and relatable the whole situation was. From comments mentioning Tiger Woods, a famous black golf player when asking Chris if he played golf, to groping Chris’ arm commenting “not bad” making more inappropriate comments asking Rose “is it true, it's better in bed?”. At a glance these comments may seem weird but harmless enough. Not until later on we realize that these people who were making inappropriate microaggressive comments towards Chris, were actually trying to assess him for the auction and therefore only saw him as an object or prize to win. Something that made me really uncomfortable was when Rose’s brother commented “with your grame and genetic makeup if you really pushed your body, really trained, you’d be a fucking beast”. Another interesting experience I thought Peele captured in Get Out was that feeling of being in a room full of all white people and feeling like you don’t belong or like you’re subtly being ostracized. Maybe it's a feeling where if you voiced it, people would look at you like you’re crazy or you would be dismissed. One scene I thought emphasized this was when Chris and Roses family were all gathered outside and Georgina was pouring them all lemonade but no one seemed to acknowledge her being there except for Chris. I think another instance of this is just the way these old relatives interacted with Chris where when he saw another Black person he initially felt a sense of relief before he interacted with him.

What Did the Deer Symbolize?

Another aspect of Get Out that stood out to me was the use of symbolism and metaphor Peele created with the deer. In the beginning of the movie on the drive over to the Armitage’s mansion, Rose hits and kills a crossing deer. I thought this could be a reference to what happens to Chris later on in the film, but also alludes to how his mother died. Them killing the deer gives Chris an uneasy feeling bringing back feelings of guilt from his mothers death. Additionally, since the blood of the dead deer was only smeared on Chris’ side of the car on the headlights, I also thought this could be a warning for him. Additionally, another example is when Rose’s father goes on a rant about how much he hates deers and how he wishes they would all die because they’re taking over and ruining the neighborhood. At first glance, it may seem like just an unhinged hate for deers but really this is a metaphor for his views on minorities moving into more affluent white neighborhoods. Even though deers are the natural inhabitants of the environment where the Armitages live, they view the deers as a nuisance to get rid of and feel entitled to the land. One scene in the movie that I thought was interesting was how Chris escaped. His anxious habit since a child of gripping/scratching at the armrest of couches was what helped him escape. Additionally, I thought the shot where Chris was strapped down to the chair with the deer head hanging over him was very chilling. Like the deer that was hunted down and displayed like a prize, Chris and other Black Americans were objectified and hunted down like prizes to own and proudly display. The part I thought was ironic was how Chris uses the antlers of the deer hung up to kill Rose’s father—the very deer he despises and hunts.

Allyship (Or Lack Thereof)

Something that stood out to me as an Asian American was the Japanese man that appeared in Get Out at the family gathering and auction. To me it seemed Peele intentionally included an Asian person to comment about non Black people of color, especially Asian American relations to white supremacy and African Americans. White supremacy creates the model minority myth of Asian Americans while simultaneously labels Asians as the perpetual foreigner. Because white supremacy operates through multiple intersecting logics (ideologies, structures, and practices), it often subjects those who are oppressed to be simultaneously complicit in the oppression of others. While Asian Americans are perceived as inevitably foreign, white supremacy feeds Asian Americans with the delusions and temptation that we can be allied with white people. Ultimately, this phenomenon known as racial triangulation explains how white America and white supremacy operate and maintain its power. I think Peele was commenting on how white supremacy pits Asians and Black Americans against each other and how oftentimes, Asian Americans will choose to align themselves with whiteness. Another character that caught my eye was how Rose was initially presented as an ally to Chris but was later revealed to be just as racist as her family. Rose at first seems to empathize with Chris, trying to stand up for him. When they report the dead deer they ran over, the police officer asks to see Chris’ ID even though he wasn’t driving. Rose immediately confronts the officer which leads us to initially believe that she had good intentions as Rose had positioned herself as an ally. Later, at the end of the first day, Rose apologizes for putting him in this awkward position with her family. Exasperated, she poses the question, “I mean how are they different from that cop?” That did make me wonder, what is the difference between an ignorant seemingly liberal white ignorant like Rose’s character and an outright bigoted racist like her relatives? I feel as though Rose’s character shows the sometimes performative nature of white allies (maybe I’m projecting) and how insidious liberal white supremacy can be because it’s more covert. What Rose’s character also reminds me of is how people often confuse being attracted to a race or in close proximity to people of color as allyship. Like when people say “Oh I couldn’t possibly be racist, my partner is Black”. But ultimately in Rose’s case, she just objectified Black men and women. Overall, I think Rose’s character critiques the superficiality of liberal attitudes towards race while exposing the more predatory aspects of systemic racism that can exist even in seemingly progressive environments. Lastly, I wanted to talk about Rose’s uncle, the blind man who used to be a photographer and is now an art gallery owner. When just the two of them are talking, he says something along the lines of how he doesn’t see race and how he couldn’t care less about “what color you are”. This is a statement a lot of people who don’t see themselves as racist say. But I think the people who say that don’t realize how “color blindness” in terms of race can be counterproductive. It's easy for someone like him to say they don’t see race because he benefits from the system that upholds it.