imanidavis - Tumblr blog

[imanidavis]

Check out this series I guest programmed with the American Cinematheque! You can find the webpage here.

Queer Throughout the Years: Love Onscreen

2/6/2022 – 2/23/2022

Beginning with one of the earliest onscreen examples of a lesbian relationship. MÄDCHEN IN UNIFORM (1931) is a German feature film centered around an affair between a student and teacher at an all girls boarding school. The film was almost banned in the U.S. due to this portrayal. During the 60s, towards the end of the Hays Code, Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine starred in THE CHILDREN’S HOUR (1961), another suggestive film taking place at an all girl’s boarding school.

In the 70s, filmmakers and artists began to experience more freedom in giving same sex relationships the spotlight without having to worry about censorship from various governments. General public opinion was still a hurdle to get over. Audiences slowly became more receptive to seeing these love stories in the arthouse film scene and at acclaimed film festivals. THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT (1972) features the protagonist caught in a love triangle, experimenting with portrayals of sadism and masochism. This film is regarded as one of Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s best films in his emotional, bordering on camp approach. The gay plot line of Egyptian director Youssef Chahine’s ALEXANDRIA… WHY? (1979) is subtle but substantial in its position of being an early depiction of gay love in the Arab world.

Another aspect to queer representation onscreen as it progresses throughout time is the evolution of the relationships we see. Beginning as mere suggestions and seemingly unhealthy one time affairs between characters before and during the Hays Code, then transforming into longer, tenser, and sometimes abusive engagements in the 70s, the 80s and 90s bring about representation that humanizes the queer experience, placing it adjacent to heteronormative stories in the mainstream. Films such as MAURICE (1987) and HAPPY TOGETHER (1997) find us following gay couples from beginning to end, without intensely melodramatic endings or outlandish violent behavior.

In a more modern portrayal of a lesbian relationship, SAVING FACE (2004) has been praised as a positive representation, “being one of the few lesbian movies with a happy ending” said an actor in a reunion panel. Please enjoy this selection of films as it moves through time, showing the evolution of queer love onscreen.

Series compiled by guest programmer Imani Davis.

This program was made possible by a generous grant from the Hollywood Foreign Press Association

[imanidavis]

Bringing Chicago Together Through the Power of Film

Originally posted on the Chicago Made Shorts blog here. Read more about this cool project I’ve been working on :)

“Chicago is one of the nation’s most segregated cities. This is not news. We’re in a truly unprecedented (yes, I hate that word too) global pandemic that has shook our community to its core. This is also not news. We’re missing the lively in-person networking culture that brought filmmakers and creators of all kinds together. What can be done in order to mildly remedy the blow to a growing film community?

Introducing: Chicago Made Shorts, a local digital hub hosted on IGTV for the city’s great filmmakers.

Though we are small and new, we have so many goals and can’t wait to build and bring the community together in new exciting ways. Let’s dive in.

The idea:

As a new film producer in Chicago, I found myself wanting to learn from those around me. I’m a huge visual learner and do the best with things when they are in front of my face. I wanted to take the same approach with learning how to make a great short film in Chicago. Though the short film screenings, filmmaker nights, and other wonderful events were a great way to meet people, I still wasn’t getting access to the huge breadth of independent film that I knew was out there, somewhere. Where was the Chicago “film library” that I could scour and examine? Where was the database of films by local filmmakers? After months of searching, I concluded that it didn’t exist. As a curator/archivist with an entrepreneurial mindset, I said “let’s build it”.

The beginning:

Fast forward to 2020, the year of change we never saw coming. I had spent the earlier part of the year frequenting the in-person film networking events that popped up week to week. Once March hit, this favorite activity of mine was a thing of the past. I had luckily gotten to know people and join organizations in the city before everything closed down. Though I missed meeting new people, seeing friends, and watching new works, I was grateful to still have some sort of community in the digital space. But what about those who had just moved to Chicago and wanted to get involved in the film scene? What about new graduates? And what of Chicago’s film industry presence as a whole? Everything paused. Gatherings paused. Networking paused. Community paused, as we all struggled with the question of “what do we do now?”. The digital library idea I had before seemed even more pressing to execute.

Launching:

I talked up the idea with some friends and colleagues and people were excited. The need was legitimate, and the next step was strategy and execution. What was the mission of this platform going to be? What was our vision? What were our priorities? How did we want to build community? The most successful organizations and initiatives I’ve seen are the ones that stay true to their values, through and through. I figured if we laid down a solid foundation and made it our North Star, we would be able to create real strides and growth within the community we were trying to serve. I’d love to share our mission, vision, and values with you:

Mission: Through our digital platform, we bring the Chicago film community together. We strive to provide an accessible space for local filmmakers to have their work seen by a large audience and increase the connections between artists. Through our curation, partnerships, and initiatives, we encourage short-form filmmakers to:

Take risks and make bold leaps in exploring the craft of filmmaking, while keeping meaningful storytelling and cinematic quality front of mind

Post their work for all to see and appreciate

Create significant, meaningful, direct engagement between artists, crew, and members of the film community

Vision: We envision an open and accessible film community in Chicago that lifts each other up, shares resources, and connects frequently. We can only achieve our vision with participation from a multitude of different individual perspectives and communities.

Values:

-Diversity, Inclusion, Equity, and Justice: We are passionate for a more just and equitable city, which requires that we are inclusive, transparent and fair in all that we do. We must act in solidarity and with appreciation for the work of all Chicago filmmakers, in all parts of our historically segregated city.

-Cinematic Quality: We are committed to bringing Chicago’s best content to the forefront. We challenge each other to strive for excellence and to continually learn. We focus on artistry and quality over quantity.

-Local Connection: We are a digital hub for Chicago and value all opportunities for local partnerships with outside organizations

-Innovation: We embrace continuous improvement, bold creativity and change in the Chicago film community; we love new ideas and visions for the digital landscape

-Artists and Films First: At the end of the day, we are an accessible tool for local artists and creators.

We’re not trying to re-invent the wheel. We’re trying to round it out even more, support, and innovate it. Through this, we believe we can bring Chicagoans together in ways that haven’t been done before. We believe we can empower the film community here and bring it to new heights. We believe we can keep the artistic spark of emerging filmmakers alive with an accessible platform for their work.”

[imanidavis]

My First Chicago Film: Briana Clearly

Originally posted here on Sixty Inches From Center. Click to listen to the interview!

“Chicago has long been a place for indie creators to get together and make something beautiful. The filmmaking community in the city is one filled with ideas galore and the determination to make it happen. Throughout the years, we’ve seen many writers, directors, and producers start and grow their careers here, always recognizing Chicago in the process, even if they move to the coasts to pursue entertainment. 

Chicago Made Shorts, a new platform hosted on Instagram TV, provides a hub for said filmmakers, simply looking for a place for their work to get seen. Imani Davis, Founder and Creative Director of Chicago Made Shorts, is deeply curious about how people make their way through the film scene in Chicago and get that first short film made. What was the impact of that first project made here? Who was involved? Why Chicago? In this series, Imani dives deep into these questions as well as the stories and beginnings of five different Chicago-based filmmakers. Through these interviews, she’ll make her way through topics such as making your way into the Chicago film scene, artistic practice, community in the city, and much more. 

For the first interview in this series, Imani talks to Bri Clearly, a director, screenwriter, and self published author based in Chicago. She was recently nominated as one of Chicago Reader’s Best of 2020 in the filmmaking category and is currently an MFA student in Directing at DePaul University. During this conversation, Imani and Bri discuss the importance of knowing yourself as a creator, the welcoming spirit of Chicago, and finding your tribe in creative spaces.“

[imanidavis]

The 2021 Director’s Challenge: Expanding Our Personal Canons

In the spirit of new creative endeavors and expanding my knowledge of directors in an increasingly talented film industry, I have created a new list. For 2021, I am looking to explore at least 12 new film directors, one for each month that I’ve never seen before. Think of these as “personal retrospective screenings” if you will. As I’ve crafted this challenge and list, I’ve kept inclusion front of mind, taking into account country or origin, sex, race, themes, and more. Feel free to mix and match things if there are directors you’ve already studied.

January: Joan Micklin Silver

Crossing Delancey (1988)

Between The Lines (1977)

Chilly Scenes of Winter (1979)

February: Satoshi Kon

Paprika (2006)

The Perfect Blue (1997)

Millennium Actress (2001)

March: Dee Rees

Mudbound (2017)

Bessie (2015)

Pariah (2011)

April: Chantal Akerman

Meetings with Anna (1987)

The Eighties (1983)

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

May: Nobuhiko Obayashi

House (1977)

His Motorbike, Her Island (1986)

Hanagatami (2017)

June: Alice Rohrwacher

Heavenly Body (2011)

The Wonders (2014)

Happy as Lazzaro (2018)

July: Mike Mills

20th Century Women (2016)

Beginners (2010)

Selected Short Films

August: Haile Gerima

Bush Mama (1976)

Sankofa (1993)

Ashes and Embers (1982)

September: Kelly Rechairdt

First Cow (2019)

Certain Women (2016)

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

October: Claude Chabrol

Story of Women (1988)

Le Boucher (1970)

La Ceremonie (1996)

November: Edward Yang

Yi Yi (2000)

A Brighter Summer Day (1991)

Taipei Story (1985)

December: Maya Deren

Meshes of the Afternoon (1943)

At Land (1944)

The Private Life of a Cat (1947)

Ritual in Transfigured Time (1946)

I am excited to get through all of these film! Follow me on here, letterboxd, clubhouse, and instagram to keep up with my thoughts on the film and conversate with me. Happy watching!

[imanidavis]

Children's Book Influences in Moonrise Kingdom

Originally published on Video Librarian at this link. 

When one thinks of Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom, they may think of their childhood, an illustration, a bedtime story. Anderson is known as one of the biggest auteur directors of our time, employing a sense of control and detail within his films that is truly emblematic. His films transport us into other hyper-stylized worlds.

Moonrise Kingdom particularly captures his whimsical nature, a coming of age dramedy about two young lovers: a boy escaping from scouting camp and a passionate, isolated girl. Anderson’s stylistic directing is splashed all over this nostalgia-for-the-60’s film. Most of his signature elements, including extremely detailed scenery, distinct color palettes, and rule of thirds cinematography, are incorporated.

The mise-en-scene and cinematography in Moonrise Kingdom work together to create a storybook-like aesthetic that supports a greater meaning in the film as a whole, particularly in two distinct scenes.

In the film’s intro scene between the times 0:48 and 2:24, the audience has its first glimpse at the hyper-stylized setting. Anderson’s films have a unique look to them due to his personal and consistent choices of film technique. At first, we are shown a literal framed illustration of the house that the scene takes place in, one of the film's many detailed and significant props.

The painting of the house is an important symbol and the first image we see, setting up the whole film as a living illustration. Everything within the set design is intentionally placed, just like how every brush stroke in a painting has a reason behind it.

There are other elements in the film with a storybook aesthetic. As mentioned before, Anderson is extremely detailed about his...well, details. Every film department comes together with a focused vision to give a sense that the audience isn’t just watching a film, but seeing a story unfold like a picture book.

The deep-focus cinematography that is used throughout the opening scene allows the audience to have something to look at besides the focal point of the children. In a picture book, there are also many things to look at besides the focal point. There’s the detail of highly illustrated trees in the forest, the abundance of sea life drawn in the ocean, the messiness of the protagonist's room. Though there are indeed main characters and a larger story at hand, the primary intent is never to have that be the only thing to observe.

After being introduced to the children in the film, we move to another room with a tracking shot, a directorial element used consistently in this scene and throughout the film. The lively effect of this camera movement is similar to that of a page-turning. These tracking shots are typically followed by a still image and pause to take an extended look at the scene we are brought to.

Such movements create an experience identical to that of when we are looking at a picture book: we turn the page, we look at the picture, and then we turn the page again. It is also important to note the paintings of trees on the wall of the next shot. They have the same kind of immersive effect as the painting of the house in the first shot, bringing us even more deeply into the illustrated nature of this world.

As we turn the page to the next shot, we can see that the home has a consistent color palette. This scene, and Moonrise Kingdom as a whole, can be described as a warm film in terms of its colors. It incorporates mostly light shades of yellow and all different kinds of pastels such as blues and greens.

Not only do the prop and set designs follow these colors, but also the costumes and lighting. Picture books are similarly consistent in their colors, employing specific palettes that serve the story.

As Suzy sits down by the window, we notice another cinematography element present in the scene. Anderson has a tendency to incorporate middle-thirds in all of his shots to enhance the storybook effect. It is rare to find an angled shot in a Wes Anderson film.

The framing gives the impression that we are looking at something two-dimensional instead of three-dimensional, like a book. When Suzy looks out of the window and the camera zooms out onto an exterior shot of the house, it starts to look more like the painting from the beginning of the intro.

Why does Wes Anderson employ this aesthetic throughout the film? Namely, to explore the polarities between children and adults. Moonrise Kingdom is made for an adult audience but emphasizes the childhood relationship between Suzy and Sam. Anderson highlights the maturity of their relationship within a child-like setting in order to emphasize the immaturity of everyone else, adults included.

At some points, it seems like Suzy and Sam are the only voices of reason in the film. They appear to have a better relationship than Suzy’s parents who are married and miserable. Even though the characters believe they are mature, they inhabit a child’s world divorced from reality that is filled with whimsical components found in children's books such as treehouses, boy scouting, and camping.

Because the intended audience is adults, the impression that Moonrise Kingdom's aesthetic gives off is different than if the intended audience was children. If an adult were to look at a child’s storybook, they would find it juvenile and silly—not for them. The storybook aesthetic highlights the immaturity of the characters as if the audience is viewing a child’s world and judging it from the outside.

Moonrise Kingdom is light and entertaining and has the silliness and simplistic problems of a children's book with the subversive element of children trying to act like adults and adults acting like children.

When writing the screenplay for the film with Roman Coppola, he and Wes Anderson focused on their own childhood experiences and fantasies and placed them in an unrealistic world. This was very meaningful to Anderson, even in his adult life, as he explained to The Guardian, “Any romantic feelings for a 12-year-old are like entering into a fantasy world.” Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom brings that fantasy world to life for adults.

[imanidavis]

diversify your critics today: BIPOC critics to follow

There is currently a big call to consume content made by black people. I have seen many movie, director, producer, studio, and writer lists made and shared. This is excellent, and it gives me joy in seeing the work of black creators elevated during this time. This all helps in ramping up representation and correcting the historically racist pattern of Hollywood, but do you know something that will REALLY get to the heart of systemic change in the entertainment industry? Diversifying your film critics. Let me talk about why critics are so important for long-term change in the arts. Critics contribute to forming the Western Canon, defined as “the body of high culture literature, music, philosophy, and works of art that is highly valued in the West: works that have achieved the status of classics.” Want to know why a vast majority of the canon and the books you read in high school are by white male creators? Ding ding ding!!!! Yes. Because the vast majority of cultural critics and those forming the canon have been white male critics. Because of white supremacy, racism, and the historical exclusion of these groups in the arts and criticism, more BIPOC critics need a larger platform to be heard now. Yes, absolutely, we need more BIPOC in front of and behind the camera. But we also need a TON more urgency placed on who is evaluating art, talking about it, and considering it “of merit” and “noteworthy”. We need more BIPOC folx making decisions and offering their input on what work is considered “good” by our society and what will be remembered moving forward, especially women of color. USC Annenberg Inclusion Iniative reported that there is a “59.8 decline between white males and females of color writing film reviews”. If you don’t follow any film critics or critics in general? Start today! Help rework the canon! Help get the work of emerging POC creators noticed and remembered! The “classics” have been molded mainly by a white male perspective. This is an issue. Help start solving it today by following these BIPOC critics (or beginning to write your own criticism!!!):

Instagram:

April Reign @ReignofApril (Creator of #OscarsSoWhite!!!)

Pistachio’s Film Reviews @pistchiosfilmreviews

Black Girl Nerds @blackgirlnerds​

Tambay Obenson @tambayobenson

Joelle Monqiue @joelle_monique

Twitter:

Angelica Jade @angelicabastien

Alanna Bennett @alannabennett 

Rebecca Theodore-Vachon @FilmFatale_NYC

Valerie Complex @valeriecomplex

Sharonda Williams @payorwait

Carolyn Hinds @CarrieCnh12

Kathia Woods @kathia_woods

LaNeysha Campbell @La_Ney_sha

Corrina Antrobus @corrinacorrina 

Carrie McCain @DivineBlkPearl

Podcasts:

Black on Black Cinema

Double Toasted

Still Processing from The New York Times

The Micheaux Mission 

Black Men Can’t Jump [in Hollywood]

Articles to Check Out

Nylon - "Why the Rise of Black Women Critics is So Important” 

New York Times - “The Dominance of the White Male Critic”

USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative: Critic’s Choice? Gender and Race/Ethnicity of Film Reviewers

Black Girl Nerds - “It’s About Time Film Criticism & Entertainment Embrace Women of Color Writers” *** Major credits for a lot of these twitter handles!

[imanidavis]

Revitalizing Subtle Desires: Autumn De Wilde’s “Emma”

The newest Jane Austen adaptation film, “Emma”, was a true delight. I am always impressed by the way a film can make itself sexy with.. well, no sex. This is something that films of this time period attempt to do.. but usually miss the mark. In middle school (yes, middle school!), I was a big fan of period films, especially anything having to do with the tudors. As my tastes evolved and I look back on the many films I saw, I realize they are very formulaic and sometimes boring because of the same themes they try to tackle in the same exact ways. Near perfect production design and pretty hair & makeup can only get a film so far before audiences start to pick up on the fact that they saw the same thing 6 months ago. Are the films an interesting glance into the past? Usually. Visually stunning? Very much so. Bringing anything new to the table? Nope!

Autumn De Wilde’s “Emma” is an exception to the overdone literary adaptations and biopics of old dead white people that we see time and time again. David Ehrlich of IndieWire calls the film a “confection of period comedy”, comparing its dynamics to those of desserts; I couldn’t agree more. Though sweet and lovely, it is anything but innocent. Though things never get risqué on screen, we are fully tuned into exactly what these characters want. Can we TALK about that dance scene? A lot of dancing scenes in period films fall flat and I usually want to fast forward through them. I get it, the ball is very lavish and our main love interests are staring at each other. Great. “Emma” does something different. It is directed in a way where it’s not just a chance to show off the production design and costumes. We’re focused on these characters, and the plot is moving, and everyone is so full of longing, and there’s a twist, and a turn, and oh my goodness, it’s over already?

It is a new and compelling look at courting culture: what’s a small act to us in this day and age was the village scandal back then, and we walk away from this film understanding that difference more than we did before.

As the period film has progressed throughout the history of cinema, few have managed to shake things up in exciting, new ways. Amongst the recents are “Little Women”, “The Favorite”, and let’s even give a shoutout to some older favorites, “The King’s Speech” and “Marie Antoinette”. It would be remiss of me to say that Emma is not amongst the crème de la crème as well.

Though it is a shame this fun and pretty female-made piece didn’t get its time to shine in theaters, I hope that many will support its on-demand release on Apple TV and rent it during one of these quarantine days.

[imanidavis]

An Evening with Jessie Maple: Lessons Learned

Jessie Maple, the celebrated and renowned filmmaker, is a pioneer in every sense of the word.

 I had the privilege to meet this outstanding leader, activist, and trailblazer at Northwestern University’s very own Block Museum of Art. Block Cinema is an outstanding resource on campus, providing free film screenings of usually rare and/or never-before-seen cinema. They frequently invite some of history’s most innovative filmmakers to come and engage with Northwestern’s population, hosting talkbacks, discussions, and more. Friday, January 31st was a special evening dedicated to the one and only Jessie Maple.

 Jessie Maple is widely known as the first Black woman to join New York’s camera operator’s union, as well as the first black woman to write and produce a full-length film independently. Jessie Maple’s career in film is far from a straight path, taking endless leaps and bounds with each courageous decision to do something new and innovative. I had the privilege of going to dinner with Ms. Maple, viewing her film Twice as Nice on the big screen, and hearing the Q&A session afterwards.

 She is transparent and straightforward in her answers, yet still so full of warmth and light. “If you don’t get up and do something, it’s not going to happen '', she states during the talkback session with a slight chuckle. She touched on the subjects of her films and how she goes about choosing them. Twice as Nice tells the story of twins Caren and Camilla Parker, “two young college basketball stars at Columbia University, as they navigate talent, competition, and relationships while vying for the first female MBA pick.” When asked about where the inspiration to make this film came from, the rationale is simple: “I like basketball”. She moves on to discuss her heavier films that surround serious social issues such as Methadone: Wonder Drug or Evil Spirit (1976) and her film in progress that focuses on homelessness. Jessie states that she makes films about issues that make her angry. With Methadone, she spent time in the methadone clinics talking to patients and realized the exploitation taking place. The resulting documentary film “examines the political and ethical implications of the methadone treatment as a way of controlling the lower classes and perpetuating addiction.”

Jessie’s journey to creating dynamic and important documentaries and narrative films was all but easy. She got her start as a camera woman for the news station and covered a lot of well known news stories. She was trained as an editor, a cinematographer, and then had her eyes on the role of lead cameraperson. She noticed the hold that the union had on the profession, the lack of access black people had, and was unhappy that professionals had to spend years as assistants before advancing any higher. After many legal battles, In 1973, Jessie Maple became the first African-American woman admitted to the New York camera operators union. With this power, Jessie had the authority to ensure that her stories on black people weren’t being cut or edited to portray them negatively. Through all of the struggle, Jessie Maple fought and won in situations where the odds were stacked against her, made a successful career transition to filmmaking, and opened doors in the industry for the many to follow. Her resilience, persistence, and work ethic can be wrapped up in one of her phrases of the night:

 “If you put in the good work, things will follow.”

 Northwestern University and Block Cinema in particular continuously strive to bring the best to campus and impart wisdom to students, showing a firm commitment to being a hub for creatives to learn and blossom. As someone deeply interested in not only education through cinema, but producing independent film, I am grateful for the resources available to me right on campus. If there’s one thing I am taking away from my time with Ms. Maple (and trust me, there’s a lot I’m taking away), it is to proceed as boldly as possible. Throughout the trials and tribulations of her career, she believed in herself, confidently stepped into new territory, and fiercely advocated for others as well.  As a person aspiring to work in the film industry, an industry known for its systemic issues, and for the many women of color also trying to break in, Jessie Maple is the poster child for the attitude we all must bring to the table as we make a spot for ourselves.

[imanidavis]

Carmen Jones Screening Introduction

Guest Curator for Carmen Jones screened at Northwestern University’s Block Museum of Art - January 17, 2020

“My main film interests lie within thinking about the way that African-Americans were represented in the classical Hollywood era, which is why I was especially drawn to the film Carmen Jones. The 1940s and 1950s was a turbulent time for growth in the representation of African Americans on-screen. After the migration of large numbers of African Americans from the rural South to urban areas across the U.S. between the 1910s and 1940s, mainstream Hollywood began to reflect the shifting racial landscape in its films. Likewise, WWII brought about a flood of films pertaining to the war, such as Samuel Fuller’s Steel Helmet and Home of the Brave, that further incorporated African-Americans in their casting. The film we are about to see, Carmen Jones, could be considered a tipping point in terms of the changes we see for black talent in film. A new burst of “all-black musical casts” at the time was lucrative, with films such as Stormy Weather, Porgy and Bess, and others becoming the new normal for how audiences saw black people onscreen. Carmen Jones is one of the films that was on the cutting edge. 

 Released in 1954, Carmen Jones came to the screen over ten years after the Broadway debut of the musical on which it was based. The stage musical, produced by Billy Rose, was an all-black adaptation of Bizet’s opera Carmen, with lyrics and book by Oscar Hammerstein II. The film version, produced and directed by Otto Preminger, introduced a wide range of audiences to legendary entertainers such as Harry Belafonte, Pearl Bailey, Diahann Carroll, and of course Dorothy Dandridge. 

 An early supporter of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s, Harry Belafonte had only appeared in one film before Carmen Jones, but had found some success as a singer and on Broadway. Ironically, his voice, along with those of Carroll and Dandridge, was dubbed in Carmen Jones. Later, Belafonte would offered the role of Porgy in Preminger's 1959 production of Porgy and Bess, where he would have once again starred opposite Dandridge, but he refused the role because he objected to its racial stereotyping. His frustration with these and other stereotypical roles led him to turn away from film and back to music in the 1960s.

 Pearl Bailey, who also appeared in both Carmen Jones and Porgy, was also a successful singer and Broadway performer–notably, hers is one of the few vocal performances in the film that wasn’t dubbed. Diahann Carroll, recently passed in late 2019, made her film debut in Carmen Jones, and went on to become a black household name. Her role in the 1968 show Julia, the first series on American television to star a Black woman in a non-stereotypical role, was a milestone both in her career and TV as a whole.

 Dorothy Dandridge, however, was a force unlike any other during this time. After a string of uncredited roles in Hollywood films early in her career, Dandridge found herself frustrated by the limited number of non-stereotypical roles available to Black actresses. It was not on the screen, but as a nightclub entertainer that she first created a sensation. After a 1951 performance at the Cafe Gala in Los Angeles led to a front-page cover story in the Los Angeles Mirror, Dandridge became an in-demand act, with rave reviews and sold-out engagements in New York and London.

 In 1953, there was a search for the star of Otto Preminger’s Carmen Jones–other contenders included Eartha Kitt and Diahann Carroll herself–and initially, Dandridge was actually passed over out of fear that her past roles in films like Bright Road made her more fit for “quieter” parts. One day, she walked into Otto Preminger’s office and proceeded boldly: a rising actress and cabaret singer confronted this powerful film mogul. Following this meeting and some more test screens, Otto gave her the part–one of the most substantial to ever be offered to an African-American woman at this time. Carmen Jones earned Dandridge a Best Actress nomination and catapulted her into international stardom and a shiny three-picture contract with Fox. Dorothy Dandrige nonetheless continued to reject roles that she did not see as a fit for her: after Carmen Jones, she appeared in only five more feature films before her death in 1965.

 Carmen Jones, though very progressive for its time and helping to break down numerous barriers for african-american talent, still carries the weight of years of stereotypes and misrepresentation. James Baldwin, for one, was critical of the film. In an essay titled Carmen Jones: The Dark is Light Enough from Notes of a Native Son, he observed the distance between the film’s pandering depictions of African American life and reality, saying it “could easily have been dreamed up by someone determined to prove that Negroes are as ‘clean’ and as ‘modern’ as white people and, I suppose, in one way or another, that is exactly how they were dreamed up.” He was also not a fan of Dorothy Dandrige’s character, noting that the film’s “sterile and distressing eroticism” are why “Negroes are associated in the public mind with sex.”

 James Baldwin was not alone in calling out the oversexualized use of black women’s bodies in media. In Yanick St. Jean and Joe R. Feagin’s Double Burden: Black Women and Everyday, the authors work through the ways in which black women are often misrepresented, mischaracterized, and misrecognized. “The negative depiction of black women as domineering matriarchs or exotic sexual objects was created, and still is perpetuated by white (usually white male) social scientists, and even by a few black male social scientists trained by the ... images of hyper-sexuality and overbearingness often merge to symbolize the black woman”. The authors’ words take on more weight when we consider that, from Billy Rose and Oscar Hammerstein to Otto Preminger, the authors of Carmen Jones were white men who constructed a very sexualized black woman lead.

 As we view Carmen Jones today, think of it as a representation of the push and pull of the times. This period in time, as I noted before, was especially turbulent. It is certainly worth noting that 1954 was the year of the landmark Supreme Court case, Brown vs. Board of Education. Overall, though there are issues with representation through today’s lens, in 1954, this was a huge historic moment and kicking off point for a lot of black Hollywood icons’ careers. Representation of African-Americans in film is an issue that is still being worked out today. It is vital as we progress to look back on history, question, and learn from it. I hope you all enjoy the film”

[imanidavis]

Horror-esque Representations of PTSD in “Recovery”

Originally published on thatsmye.com on June 10, 2019

As our society grows more comfortable with conversations about mental health and the demons that many carry throughout life, it is becoming a well-known fact that the demons our soldiers and veterans saddle on their back during and after combat can be the most deadly of all.

The new suspense-filled indie Recovery does more than offer cheap thrills, it also sheds light on a dark issue: the lack of support for those put through the perils of war when they return. “According to a study conducted by the RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research, less than half of returning veterans needing mental health services receive any treatment at all.” This is an issue that has long gone unsolved and has inevitably led to another issue of self-medication in a variety of methods, causing matters to spiral even further.

Recovery intertwines the two social epidemics of untreated mental illness and drug addiction, painting a picture of our fraught reality, while also foreshadowing a potential future when the pot eventually boils over (mild spoiler: our main character never reallyreceives help that she needs).

The film takes place at a secluded all-female heroin treatment center in the middle of a fierce snowstorm. Stephanie Pearson gives a riveting performance as Ronnie, a young recently admitted addict who has already gone through three tours of Afghanistan in her life and struggles deeply with PTSD, along with self-denial of her illness. Her symptoms include hallucinations and blackouts that often result in violence and a lack of recollection. She is rebellious, impulsive, and quick to pick an argument with anyone in her way.

Her first interactions at the establishment are with Dr. Jessica Barnes (played by Hope Quattrocki), who is stern, yet has a soft spot for Ronnie, most likely due to the fact that her own brother also served and dealt with the after-effects. Ronnie has a series of blackouts resulting in violence during her first days at the center and the head of the facility, Dr. Taylor (Mike Starr) ultimately decides to discharge her but must wait until the police come in the snowstorm. The atmosphere is already tense until mysterious murders start occurring. All fingers are immediately pointed to Ronnie, but things just aren’t adding up in that narrative. Now, let’s get into the meat of it, shall we?

The pros:

The editing had to be my favorite part of the film. There are these infrequent flashes of ominous looking men, most likely from Ronnie’s past military experience, haunting her before she has a violent blackout. If you choose to give the film a watch, the scene where she gets her uniform out truly gave me chills. The directing and editing choices give an authentic moment of blurring trauma-induced imaginings with reality. This happens more than once, with Ronnie’s hallucinations signaling to her that she is in danger, only to have her mind betraying her as she becomes violent with someone innocent.

As said before, Ronnie’s characterization was really well fleshed out and the performance was in tune with her lines. We know her and we understand her. Everyone else’s characters lagged a bit as a result, but I found myself desperately wishing Katherine (Aily Kei) had some lines! She was a phenomenal supporting role as a young woman struggling with addiction all her life and having communication problems so severe that she is almost somewhat mute. Clearly, her lack of lines is necessary given her character, but it was so convincing that I found myself yearning for Aily Kei’s other performances.

Now for the cons:

I really struggled with some of the details of the story. First off, this is not a horror. Yes, there’s blood and gore, but as the horror genre reaches new heights with new thoughts on fear and the psychology of the viewer, this film falls much more in the thriller genre. And though it aims to touch on PTSD and mental health, as well as how these ailments intersect with drug addiction, there is an abundance of unsatisfactory tropes of rehabilitation patients being portrayed as hopeless cases.

The dialogue is lackluster, failing to explain the important background on some of these characters which just leads the way for stereotypes to manifest. In this day and age, we must get deeper with these issues. There is no true depth to anyone but Ronnie.

In conclusion..

Even though the story bored me at points, lines fell flat, and the music was just not the best, the subject matter of Recovery is important and represents a growing disdain for the lack of resources for veterans. Just take a look at the Army tweet that, well, didn’t go so well. If you’re looking for a decent thriller with some dynamic cinematic choices that also connects to relevant social issues, I would give it a watch. Though there is a clear villain in the end, the monster of unchecked PTSD is also a killer here, as well as in reality.

New horror thriller RECOVERY released on June 4th, 2019 in the U.S. and Canada in-stores, digitally, and on demand.

[imanidavis]

The Ethics of Problematic Protagonists: Netflix’s You

Originally published at www.thatsmye.com on January 23, 2019.

For as long as stories have been told, we have had the protagonist. In many situations and in the most fabled of tales, the protagonist is known to us, the audience, as “the good guy” — but this is by no means a requirement.

In the most technical of terms, all this person needs to be is “the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text”. That’s it. They have no literary obligations to be kind, moral, just, or “the good guy”. And, in my own personal opinion, it is the stories that revolve around the ones who aren’t quite as morally sound as the ones in fairytales, that happen to be the most interesting.

The rise of streaming services has done a lot to disrupt the formerly strict setup of the entertainment industry and studio system. Gone are the days of being obsessed with ticket sales on opening weekends, massive P&A budgets dedicated to a single film, and the reliance on the typical formulaic blockbuster setup that has been the trend for.. well, forever. The goal now is to keep your eyes on their prize.

That is not to say that things have somehow gotten easier. The stakes are higher than ever for HBO, Hulu, Netflix, and others to experiment, push the limits on traditional storytelling, and keep you far away from the cancellation button in your account settings.

The latest in Netflix’s planned journey of ambitious programming is their show called You, which is already creating quite the buzz with thought pieces and explanations coming from every direction. It is very well done, with a star-studded cast, an 8/10 on IMDB, and a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes (and this somehow all started as a Lifetime show..). Now, I’ll start with the most basic of facts: this show is creepy. But a different kind of creepy from the normal modern day Hitchcockian-thriller that we are seeing more and more of these days. The twist is: the creep is the protagonist of the show. It’s like if Psycho was told completely from the perspective of Norman Bates and we heard almost every messed up thought of his through voice-over; and the plot isn’t too far off either considering Joe Goldberg, You’s star played by Gossip Girl’s Penn Badgley, is also a socially awkward and murderous stalker.

The writing in this show is good — a little too good. Like I said, we hear the inner thoughts of Joe throughout the entire show and even have — and it pains me to say this — sympathy for the guy in the beginning. He is very normal at first, kicking off the plot by noticing another main character, Guinevere Beck (played by Elizabeth Lail), in a book store where he is the manager, and falling in love at first sight. Cute, right? No! Not cute! Soon, we begin spiraling along with our protagonist into a deep, dark hole of stalking, breaking & entering, and murder. The whole time, I found myself rooting for Joe to just stop being creepy and be a normal boyfriend and live happily ever after.. like a normal person!

But then I asked myself, “everyone else that’s watching this also thinks it’s messed up, right?”. Are there people who think that his behavior is justified? Because we can hear Joe’s own rationale for his actions and it technically makes sense in the most technical of ways, would someone think that it is okay? You can hope for people to have morals but at the end of the day, some don’t. You can hope that people know the difference between right and wrong, but some don’t. Does the entertainment industry have an obligation to portray the good guy as always winning? Does the “bad guy” always need to be punished? Because in You so far, the bad guy wins, and he wins a lot.

This brings me back to the days of the Hollywood Production Code, which was a set of rules in play from the 1930s to the 1960s dictating what could and could not be in films. Something that was hounded on in these rules was making sure that the audience is sure that evil is wrong and good is right. As a result, “the bad guys” could not win in a film, ever. With so much new content coming out and so many innovative storytelling tactics riling up the masses, maybe they had a point? Didn’t a bunch of people commit murders similar to the ones that were portrayed in the show Dexter?

Sit on the question of what kind of responsibility Hollywood holds in emboldening those that wish to make their art into reality.. All in all, this show is really great and does a fantastic job at playing with irony in its purest form. There is one scene where Beck’s best friend, Peach (who is also pretty obsessed with her), is secretly looking at Beck in the bathtub, while Joe is secretly watching Peach, and we are (secretly?) watching Joe, which was a great and subtle point of humor in such a dark storyline. The events are predictable, but predictable in a way that highlights the realistic traits of these characters, especially Joe. He’s just a dumb, creepy guy who makes some really bad and unnecessary choices, but man, he sure is charming.

[imanidavis]

Why You’re So Conflicted About Bird Box

Originally posted on medium.com - January 8, 2019

I’m a big movie buff. I try to see something every week at the theater if there’s something that peaks my interest, and I’ve been getting better at watching something new every 2 or 3 days on digital outlets and streaming services.

Of course I have Netflix. Of course I’ve seen Bird Box. Of course I have conflicted views about it, just like a lot of people. But where is all of this confusion coming from? I’ll try and sum it up in one word: in-congruency.

I studied film in college with a screenwriting focus. With that came a whole slew of cinema theory classes (yes, they are actually very interesting) and story development courses as well. I feel pretty well equipped to tear a film to shreds and cite sources in the process. I’m happy to put my major to use.

Now that I’ve established my credibility a bit, let’s talk a bit about in-congruency (my own coined term which, honestly, I just coined) and how it can get us viewers on all sides of the battlefield for a film. This is not to be confused with just preferences. We’re talking about people who enjoy a genre, have always enjoyed a genre, and are feeling really conflicted on what they just saw. What we’re not talking about is Betty from down the street, who hasn’t seen a neo-western crime drama in her life, feeling “conflicted” on if Breaking Bad encourages immoral behavior. No one cares about Betty’s opinion.

In-congruency is just what it sound likes: not agreeing, not accordant, not congruent in terms of its filmic elements. Which filmic elements, you ask? Any! Some examples: great set design, bad costumes; great editing, bad cinematography; great actors, bad script; great something, bad something else.

Let’s unpack that with relevant context. Bird Box is based on a 2014 novel of the same name and follows the typical Hollywood pattern of optioning a book that is sure to be a hit before its release, aka purchasing the film rights before anyone else can get their grubby hands on it. I’m simplifying it, but it’s a large game of finders-keepers. The author of the novel, Josh Malerman, is the lead singer of the rock band the High Strung. He’s been writing fiction for his whole life and this was the first work that he published. All of these factors scream “highly anticipated book”, and it was! The masses loved it and so did the critics, even going so far as to compare him to Stephen King. I have not read the book but I did not see that kind of praise-worthy, award-winning content in the film, did you?

No! So what happened?

Too many cooks in the kitchen, or in this case, too many birds in the box.

Sandra Bullock absolutely carried this film. She was a great choice and any other lead would have made this “The Happening” remake even worse. But can someone explain why Machine Gun Kelly was in this? Was this his acting debut? Why..?

The contrast of the screenwriter and the director is stark. Take a look at their IMDb pages and just compare.

The summary of the book is pretty spot on with how the film played out, except for some tweaks which actually made a world of difference. The beautiful actor that Sandra Bullock’s character, Malorie, gets involved with? Doesn’t exist in the book. The happy ending with all of the children running about, with eyes? Yeah, no. A lot of parents in the book intentionally blinded themselves and their children in order to survive (Malorie didn’t, thank God). Good job Netflix! Great adaptation tweaks! But the script as whole.. that is going to be a no. Why aren’t the birds explained? What IS this monster? Where did Machine Gun Kelly go?!?!?

It is so frustrating to see a good idea go sour due to inconsistencies. If the film was 100% awful, that would be one thing and we could all move on with our lives. But there are some great moments that make it somewhat worth it, and that, my friends, is the power of in-congruency.

Bird Box is the perfect example of complex film in-congruency, that manifests itself in a number of ways. As I’ve said before, Netflix did a great job with an already interesting premise, but the hodge-podge execution is leaving the world with one question: was Bird Box actually good..?

We may never know.