Scene Analysis

    Women have an interesting role in the movie Beasts of the Southern Wild. The title itself has its own subtle insinuations towards the masculine beasts that rule the Bathtub. In several different scenes, by several different people, we get an insight into how women are viewed in the ill-fated world of Hushpuppy. First off, besides children, the only women in this movie are either a teacher (a rather feminine occupation) who believes the end of the world is coming or are fully absorbed in the "beast" life and drink rowdily with the men. There are no maternal, overly loving women present in the movie, save for one scene towards the very end. Throughout the movie, we see an overwhelming need in Hushpuppy to prove to her father that she is the man. She continually shows him typical boy behavior, to prove that she has what it takes to survive in beast mode and rule the Bathtub with him and his affections. Assuming that the other children have mothers, or did at one point, these women didn't do a good job in providing for a child's need to feel nurtured. As the children swim away from the Bathtub in an effort to find Hushpuppy's mom, it's an attempt to feel useful and maybe even a little bit feminine by taking care of the family.
    All her life, Hushpuppy has heard stories of her mom as being so beautiful and full of love, that she has this idea in her head of what all women are like: kind, gentle, supportive. But when she meets this woman we are not assured is her mother, she breaks all the ideals Hushpuppy holds. She tells her how it is, and how life isn't always happy and easy, and that it's easiest just to take care of yourself. Even if this woman isn't her mother, it does cover one thing: that women feel a natural protection over children and want to make them feel loved. As Hushpuppy and this woman dance, it highlights the bond between women and children that encourage them to do well by others, in this case, help her father. The song playing in the background as they dance keeps repeating "if that's not love, it'll have to do." Which I interpret to mean even if you don't know someone, or don't know how to help them, you have to give it the best you can to make them feel loved.
     Now I'm still not convinced that the movie would have progressed any differently had Hushpuppy had a decent mother. The Bathtub is an environment where the weak don't survive, like in the scene with Aurochs where eat their own dead, and it would destroy anyone that felt an overwhelming need to protect someone else. It's a fend for yourself type of place, as Hushpuppy showed us in the scene where she is cooking cat food with a blowtorch, and a mothers love could be seen as a hindrance to the mother, and the child, if they ended up weak. Maybe it would have made Hushpuppy incapable of living in the Bathtub, and she would have left, but that could have happened without the mom. She could have seen that her mother could not have survived in a place so harsh and unrelenting. But the dedication she feels to her father and his dying wish compelled her to stay and be strong.
    

Beasts of the Southern Wild

      Beasts of the Southern Wild was one of those movies I had to let marinate for a little before I could decide if I was a fan or not. I had no idea if it was one of those movies that I was supposed to take literally, or if it was meant to be completely interpretive. The way I interpreted the film, Hushpuppy's swampy homeland in the Bathtub is a struggling microcosm of society that is in danger of being flushed off the map. Cut off from the rest of civilization by a levee built to keep the water at bay, the Bathtubbers work with the land and the animals to provide for themselves. They've learned the ways of nature in order to milk it for a means of survival, without mainstream grocers and restaurants. Refusing to leave their home for a more convenient life, the people of the Bathtub are ravaged by a storm that nearly takes their homes away completely. With their means of living being destroyed by the after affects of the storm, they take drastic measures against the mainland and more specifically, the levee. As the water recedes into the blown hole of the levee, it reveals what's left of the Bathtub, deemed an uninhabitable environment. Unable to live like animals anymore, they are forced to assimilate to mainland culture and receive food and medical treatment as charity. Wink, Hushpuppy's terminally ill, hotheaded father, refuses to die in these conditions and demands to be brought back to the Bathtub to die.
     Throughout the entire movie, we hear and see these strange glimpses of the Aurochs, giant boar-like creatures from the Stone Age that were once the ultimate predators. We see them unfreeze from inside the melting ice caps, plunder over land and water before the ultimately end up in the Bathtub. These spur my first question about the movie: are they supposed to be real? Or a figment of Hushpuppy's imagination to symbolize her fears of being swallowed by life? My second question comes from the opening scene we analyzed today in class, more specifically, the scene of the party: is the movie loosely based on the history of the Acadians of eastern Canada? These were the people that were forced from their homes in New Brunswick down to the Louisiana coast (and subsequently became the Cajuns..) and every five years they have this festival where they make as much noise as possible to show they are still there. This could maybe contribute to the overall theme of the movie of showing that the smallest person or group can have the most fight, and make the biggest impact if only they make enough noise. My last question comes from the scene with the woman we are made to believe is Hushpuppy's mother. Nothing in the movie suggests that this was actually her mom, but it isn't denied either. Is the fact that doesn't have a mother important to the movie? To me, the story line would not have progressed any differently had there been an additional female presence.
    Overall, I think I really did enjoy the movie. I thought the acting was great and the role of Hushpuppy was as cute as it was powerful. She is such a strong little girl, facing impossible odds, with very little resources. Either way you look at the message of the movie, its hard not to find the story inspiring. The allegiance these people feel to each other and to their home is nothing short of miraculous. It's hard not to feel right along with them as they suffer loss and struggle together. All for the sake of making their presence known to world.

Sample Paragraphs

 [Sample Intro]   In both Scorsese's Hugo and Von Trier's Dancer in the Dark, imagination is put face to face with technology. Scorsese's not so subtle message of the ill-fated progression of technology can be directly compared to- and contrasted with- Von Trier's more underlying comments on our need to see this progress as positive. The question was asked if machines could be employed for imaginative and playful purposes, and I think the answer is that they can be because it takes imagination to realize the full potential of what machines can do for us, but too much can be harmful. Both directors exemplify this in different ways, but the end message is all the same.

[Body 1] Two scenes that are easily comparable are ones that occur in the same places in both movies. The very opening scenes, before we even get to the films, we get scenes that symbolically sums up both movies. In Hugo, we see the dissolve of the inner workings of a clock to a Paris night scene. In Dancer, we see the dissolve of several different and vibrant paintings that eventually fade completely to white. Both scenes give us the views of the world as the protagonist sees it, and both involve dissolves which show symbolism. Hugo sees the world as this big machine, that all works together to do one big job; Selma sees the world as one big, beautiful painting that is slowly going blank. Both views take imagination to see, but the main characters eventually become so wrapped up in their ways that they don't see the harm they can do. Hugo becomes so wrapped up in his mission to find a role in the world, that he doesn't see that he could harm himself, or Isabelle, or Papa George. Selma is so set in her ways to stop her son from suffering the same fate as her that she has no regards for her self or the person she killed.

Dancer in the Dark

     My overall impression of Von Triger's Dancer in the Dark is a confusing mix of emotions. There were aspects of the movie that I liked like Bjork as Selma and the emotional and gripping finale. But the things I didn't like made it hard for the good things to shine through. The struggles of an immigrant were very accurately portrayed in the role of sweet and lovable Selma. She really was a beautiful soul that could see the best in dark situations. Her love of musicals was shown very clearly by a wise choice of songs throughout the movie, albeit with some very weird songs that were hard to understand in the Czech accent. At first, I had no idea where the movie could possibly be going. The first hour and a half seemingly had no point. But as the movie took more of a focus on Selma's relationship with her son Gene through her struggle with the justice system, it began to really grab my emotions and I felt along with the characters. The end scene was probably one of the most moving things I've ever seen in a movie and I highly recommend to anyone to not watch it alone.
     Even though there were all these intense and creatively portrayed aspects, I find it hard to say that I liked the movie. The first thing that bothered me right off the bat were the camera angles and views. Why did it look like a stalker filmed the entire movie? I can't say why it bothered me so much but the whole Indie/Documentary feel just isn't something I enjoyed. A second question I have is why did every one look so creepy, almost like they were scared? I get that Jeff was a decent guy, but it did not come off that was when he was following Selma around and offering her rides everywhere. Even Bill came off a little petrified-looking. The only other question I had is was it really necessary to include the songs in the movie? They were very weird, and I don't think they fit very well with what the director was trying to get across. I could understand Selma's love of sound and music just by the rhythms she hears wherever she goes, and how devastated she was when she had to resign from The Sound of Music, so I don't see the point of making a musical out of a docudrama.

Free Write

      I think for the first essay, I am going to choose to do prompt B. Instead of comparing the role of machines in Hugo and in Modern Times, I think the concept of machines in Dancer in the Dark is a much more interesting and provocative idea. Each movie has its own unique problems with machines and what they cause, although we see it a little more subtly in Dancer than in the machine-filled Hugo. Both movies give us the same message: machines can bright light to the world if in the hands of the good, who can use their imagination to bring out what machines can do. One of the main differences that I see, having just watched Dancer is this: Hugo shows us the dangers of losing imagination in times when its needed most, but Dancer shows the beauty of fantasy and the sadness that comes from too much.
     In Dancer, Selma is this beautiful, bright soul that doesn't let the depression of encroaching blindness ruin her life. She chooses to see the magic in the world, and makes some very good friends a long her journey. Her love for her son is what drives her to desperate measures to regain the money for his vision surgery (a new technology, or machine). In Hugo, its the other way around. It's a son feeling the need to connect with his late  father through the technology they shared together. Both need to use imagination so they don't feel so small, or helpless, in their situations. Hugo chooses to see the bigger picture, that he is a cog in a machine with a job to do, while Selma brightens her life with the thing she enjoys most: musicals. Both messages are brought out clearly in the style the directors chose, but there is most likely more room to explore the connections between the two films.
     

Herding the Cattle

     Much like with Hugo, we can take the opening scene of Chaplin's Modern Times and use it as a loose outline of what the movie may be about. We start off with a clock in the background (again, tying us back to Hugo and an insinuation that time plays a role) with a quote across it's face: ""Modern Times." A story of industry, of individual enterprise - humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness." We are then shown a herd of sheep, seemingly fleeing from something unseen, which slowly transitions to a seen of people crowding out of the subway in a hurry. Much like in Hugo, the images are meant to show symbolism, because one is faded onto another, meaning that the first usually equates to the second. Using this mindset, Chaplin's meaning can be interpreted as a few different things. But coupling the images with the quote, one interpretation stands out to me.
     During the late 1930's, people were searching in all directions for types of technology to make life easier. Just using the content of the first scene, we can infer that Chaplin is comparing humans to animals. Animals like the ones shown are raised for one reason, and that is to be brought to the slaughter house. By overlaying the image of men rushing off the subway, the comparison is hard to miss. Man is "crusading" in the name of progress, but only for progress's sake and their one reason for working like animals is that they think they are working towards happiness. Instead of actual immaterial happiness, man in plundering towards an easy life where machines do all the work where there is no room for human error. Like the sheep, man thinks it is working towards one thing, while the 'shepherds' know the truth and know the disaster that awaits them at the end of the line.

Train vs. Automaton

     In the dream sequence of Hugo, we are introduced to the idea of people falling onto the train tracks. In his dreams, though, we witness Hugo's nightmare of himself stranded on the train tracks after finding his fathers key. I've come to believe that this was Scorsese's way of showing us that Hugo had to unknowingly sacrifice his father in order to slow down a world (the train) that was moving too fast, leaving some of it's greatest treasures behind. Towards the end of the movie, we again see another body on the train tracks, but this time it is the automaton, thrown there on accident by Hugo and the Station Inspector. After Hugo throws himself after the automaton onto the tracks, we see the desperation this one little boy has to find a reason behind the terrible events in his life, and to save something that shouldn't be up to him to save.
      One of the questions I still have after watching and analyzing this movie extensively, is: why throw the automaton on the train tracks? To Hugo, the automaton symbolizes his father, and the last project they shared together before the museum fire. To Papa Georges, the automaton is everything he once cherished in life. It's the last 'living' piece of his past that he thought was gone forever. By throwing the automaton in front of a train, the two worlds collide. Hugo realizes in this moment, that the automaton is so much more than just a connection to his father. It's Papa Georges world, Hugo's fathers world, that needs to be saved in order to save his own world. Hugo knows that if this automaton is lost, so are his hopes of fixing Papa Georges, and saving the world that he missed out on being a part of. When the automaton is lying on the tracks, it symbolizes the balance Hugo's world hangs in, between plowing over the past and destroying it completely, or slowing down and remembering everything that was once good in a world without war.