Ear to the Ground, Eye to the Saturated Sky-Blue Velvet

Before watching David Lynch's 1986 film Blue Velvet, I had the assumption based on one of those shows where B-List celebrities get all nostalgic and say "remember when?", in this case for scary movies, that this movie was going to be primarily about Dennis Hopper terrorizing people. While he does do this in the film, my assumption was mistaken. I was also told that the film seems to be edgy yet masks an 80's 

conservative yearning for the 50's. Again, I watched the film with the assumption that this would be the case, and again, I found myself mistaken and relying too heavily on hearsay. Blue Velvet, seems to shift in its view consistently throughout the film, starting with a 1950's-like suburban setting called Lumberton, where the colors of everyday objects give one the sense that "everything is beautiful" yet something is off, because color on films of the 1950's era would not have lasted through their replay, they would have faded over time. This gives me the sense of David Lynch not trying to make a film that recaptures the 50's, but rather a film that reedits the 1950's into a stylized form digestible to a late 20th century audience, trimmed of its drabness into something as visually rich as blue velvet fabric. The film visually then, put into the context of the mid-1980's, seems to mirror President Reagan's nostalgic ideal of the 1950's as a Technicolor utopia, skimming over the gritty, "less pleasant" parts of the era. When we do get to the "gritty parts", in the form of main character Jeffery Beaumont's ascent into the dark crime underworld of Lumberton, these areas seem to be stylized into a form trying to recapture past film genres such as film noir and other entertainment, whether it be through the setting which is also richly colored but dark to the extent where one really doesn't know what's occurring, or the characters, which come in the forms of femme fatale (Dorothy), ultimate bad guy (Frank) and his sleazy minions. Jeffery also turns into one of these character forms; the good citizen-man, seduced into the underworld by the femme fatale. According to Po-Mo Puritan, several of these characters such as Jeffery and Frank, are products of early American Literature such as Melville and Hawthorne, a time in which, the worlds of good and evil were separate, and life was consistently a trial of trying to prevent one's soul from easily slipping into evil and becoming the next Frank Booth. I think this film is also reminiscent of the seedy crime pulp novels, where there is usually a seductive woman in trouble and violent, purely evil villain, intent on harming her. I also think however that these black and white character types are defied in the film. In several scenes both Jeffery and Frank promote specific name brands of beer, not only showing the prevalence of materialism of 80's culture, which designates this decade from others, as well as the similarities between Frank and him. He becomes a womanizer, lusting after two women who both seem to seduce him into the crime underworld, although with Dorothy this seems to be lust, while with teenage Sandy, this is romance. I feel that this shows how the longing for past times seems to be drawn both to the grit and romance of times past. By the end of the movie, and after Frank's demise, things return to normal as in Jeffery goes back to the world of Lumberton, pursuing his relationship with Sandy and both seem to act like nothing really happened. I believes this echoes the denial that is part of post-modernism and the nostalgic idealization by Reagan of what in reality has happened in the past and a longing to return to the idea of the 50's. I also think that because this ending was unnatural and unbelievable (at least to me) that Lynch's intent may have been to show viewers, that yes, 1950's mainstream/pop culture is "neat" but is it replicable? Not really. Did anyone view the ending similarly? Furthermore, since the end of the Cold War , we have been romanticizing the 50's through the 80's as times defined primarily by music and fashion, is this already happening for the 90's?  

Remind you of anything?

Dorothy in a stylized embrace with Jeffery

Rosemary's Baby: Pregnancy is Hell...literally.

    At surface value, Roman Polanski's 1968 film Rosemary's Baby tells the story of a young pregnant woman being controlled by a longstanding Satanic coven determined to bring the Devil to power. Like many horror movies Rosemary's Baby seems to take something regarded as safe and gentle, in this case pregnancy and child-rearing and turn it into the fuel for fear. At the same time however, this movie extends beyond this process, and uses social anxieties and expectations of the time and perhaps challenges them, although whether this was the intention or a product of interpretation is uncertain.
     What I'm referring to is the interpretation of this film as having a message close to feminism such as in Karyn Valerius' Rosemary's Baby, Gothic Pregnancy, and Fetal Subjects. She places the film in the sociopolitical context of the feminist movement during the mid-60's , specifically regarding the right to choose, and the dominance of patriarchal views in the medical field. Valerius states that the emotional and physical pain Rosemary goes through, the dismissal, exploitation, and manipulation she endures from her husband and the coven members, and the choice she makes to take care of her child despite his partly demonic origins support pro-choice feminism and a restructuring of social institutions and policy. I think that it is entirely possible for this movie to be used for this purpose but I hardly think Polanski or Levin's intentions were to argue for abortions. I do believe however that there was the suggestion in this film that the traditional views of female roles and functions as mothers staying within the home and submitting to the authority of others may not be particularly for the good of these women. Both Rosemary's husband and the coven members, isolate her, use her for personal gain and power, and dismiss her concerns, and as this occurs and the pregnancy progresses she grows more sickly and seemingly paranoid. Functioning within the traditional expectations of mother- and womanhood has done little if anything to benefit Rosemary.
  
Does anyone else think Polanski's film extends beyond messages about female objectification?

One thing I notice about Rosemary's Baby outside of this interpretation is the obvious use of Satanism and witchcraft as the villain in this film. While these were traditional ideas of evil, I think they're just another "other", another way to visually demonstrate the fears of society and show that anything or anyone can be corrupted. Dr. Saperstein who is supposed to represent the objective, ethical, and scientific medical doctor is a member of the cult and uses his power as an authority on obsterics to control Rosemary. Minne Castevets gives her an odd herbal drink. Normally the scientific and homeopathic, which was gaining popularity at this time would clash yet they come together to control Rosemary. This suggests that regardless of the approach to pregnancy, the new knowledge, or [lack of] technology used, medical/homeopathic professionals are just as vulnerable to their own bias as the next person, using their own profession's authority to carry out sociopolitcal agendas which threatened the very people that sought them for help.  This is interesting regarding that the 1960's were a time when in response to the AMA's fear-mongering regarding certain politicians as Communists and racism in the South, the view of doctors as ultimate authorities was fading.
 
  
 

Dawn Of The Dead Extended Version Part 17

Dawn Of The Dead Extended Version Part 16

The Wild One, Counterculture Invasion, and Clashes

    The image I see when the word biker comes to mind is of a long-haired heavyset man with a tattoo of helmeted bulldog riding his Harley on a lonely road, not Marlon Brando. Watching the 1954 biker film The Wild One however, I do begin to see where the material characteristics of the culture such as leather and mainstream views emerge. The Wild One set up the classic formula for the future biker films of the next two decades, it also was the introduction of another invader, not some monster, alien or Communist to mainstream family centered society: the nation's rising countercultures. I was surprised to find out that the early biker counterculture consisted of World War II veterans, yet not surprised to find that mainstream society viewed them as a menace. These were men that were expected to do a "patriotic duty" and I think this duty was extended to their personal lives and was defined as starting families and getting jobs, all together settling down. Bikers however wandered the open road, with no family commitments. They defied these values which during this time was regarded with fear. Another factor was that the national media used their influence over the national public to transform minor incidents involving bikers into the evidence of their danger to "innocent citizens", Hollywood included. According to Martin Rubin's biker counterculture even adopted the image. What's funny to me is that the 'menace' of the biker gang in The Wild One seemed only to playful if somewhat rowdy behavior, but then again this was a time where any 'strange behavior' was a threat. At first the movie seemed to predictably take on this perspective that this biker gang was harming poor helpless small town citizens, but this changed as some of the townspeople took action. I think this was just a way of enhancing the image of Brando's character Johnny as the lonely gang leader who's different from townspeople and gang alike. The townspeople later in the film predictably target Johnny as the cause of the gang's behavior and in the aftermath of the chaos, he is accused of killing an elderly bartender. Poor Misunderstood Johnny. What there is to understand though, I haven't a clue. Brando's character has this lack of emotion and ambiguity that makes him hard to understand and sympathize with. I think this mainly comes from him being in this grey alienated area of not acting like his fellow bikers nor following the social code of the citizens. Rubin states that this isolated gang leader was popular in the next two decades' biker films, although other leader characters also were used such as those that turned against their gang or were dangerously dedicated. In all of these cases, he makes it sound like that although there was this grey area between the sides of small town citizens, the gang was almost always the enemy. And why not? Other movies of past decades also have this habit; even if the leader/antihero can be somewhat good, what makes them "anti" is always the enemy.
     One of the responses to the film I've heard from others is "Johnny is emotionless-why is that"? I think one need look no further than both the statue he clings to and the female responses to him. In the beginning, Johnny steals a statue from a bike race. When he tries giving it to his female interest Cathy she rejects it because she learns its not something he won, its part of the "lie" she later identifies him as being. Other than being an amusing phallic symbol this statue represents Johnny's image as this biker gang leader, something he claims to be but in truth isn't. The same goes for Johnny's motorcycle. One female acquaintance tearfully recounts riding with Johnny; "Do you remember?" she asks. When Johnny "rescues" Cathy from his fellow riders they go on a ride, something she's never experienced. After getting off the bike Cathy almost looks tousled like she's been doing something other than just riding a motorcycle with Johnny. When he passionately kisses her, she is limp saying "I'm too tired" and when her own advances towards him are rebuffed she clings to his motorcycle. Both of these women seem to love the image of Johnny, they'd much rather ride and be with his motorcycle than him. Maybe that's what makes him so frustrated, everyone sees his image not him.  Is this  one of the messages the film and later the genre trying to sends; this biker counterculture is merely an image hiding one's own moral uncertainty? Or is it just a way of making the proantagonist look appealing to the audience?
    Bikers weren't the only counterculture for long, Beats and later hippies emerged as youth movements that similar to bikers, revolted against mainstream social expectations. The Wild One demonstrates this with Brando's jive talk, which just seems out of place. Rubin states that the biker and countercultures melded both in the biker films of the time and in reality, yet these unifications weren't always friendly. Rubin describes the meeting between Hell's Angels and Merry Pranksters as a peaceful drug-laden experience, and goes on to state that bikers began to frequent  Haight-Ashbury. There was a definite difference between these countercultures in viewpoints, behavior and attitudes which caused them to clash. Bikers unlike hippies possessed conservative views that were akin to those of mainstream social views. According to Rubin, movies reflected this with bikers engaging in hippie like behavior while continuing violent small town plunder. This trend suggests to me that the media somewhat lumped youth countercultures into one movement that threatened the calm and conformity of suburban/small town America, yet made bikers the face of the cinematic threat. In this sense then, Johnny's grey area identity foreshadows  of the biker culture. Like Johnny, the biker counterculture didn't belong in mainstream society, but neither did they fit with the dominant hippie counterculture.
    On a more amusing note, Rubin mentions the cult/camp references made to biker films after their popularity ended. One he didn't mention which stood out to me was Tom Savini's character in the original Dawn of the Dead. As you will see in the clip I'm posting, this is the wrong time for this character and his gang to threaten consumerism.

1950's Civil Defense Film - Survival Under Atomic Attack

The Patterns of Cold War Propaganda-Atomic Cafe

     My initial reaction to Atomic Cafe, the 1982 documentary by Jayne Loader and Kevin Rafferty that compiled clips of interviews with government officials, civil defense educational films, and military training   films, was mild amusement. As I continued watching however, I started to pick up on the messages emphasized in the propaganda, whether this was "Be calm" or "Always be prepared for the worst". I also noticed how these messages would clash with the reality of the "atomic age", specifically what would be discussed in interviews with scientists as well as the images of Japanese bomb victims. One of the first clips presented in this film was an interview with the pilot of the Enola Gay, which dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. He describes the experience much like a high school student would describe throwing a stink bomb into the boys' bathroom. He describes his reaction, and that of the other military personnel present as a mixture of awe and "Hey we should get out of here before we get caught", an example of the underestimation of the damage which had actually been done. This naivete continued with footage of the celebrations of the American people after the bombs were dropped, mixed with images of death and destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This reaction was also evidence of what Kristina Zarlengo in her article "Civilian Threat, The Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women" calls the rationale for dropping the bombs; Although Japanese civilians will be killed in the process, American soldiers won't.
    My own reaction to the footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: disgust. I doubt that there would not have been members of the public that viewed this in the same way, this disgust changing to fear when a certain old friend turned into our greatest enemy. The clips in Atomic Cafe seem to show this triumphant hero feeling in the U.S. turn to that of a paranoid bully; "Because we did this [bomb Japan] someone could do it to us." A reasoning which seems to have set off the dueling messages of Be prepared to be attacked/Remain calm. The "do your part" campaign, also seems to have returned from its short vacation post-WWII, along with a companion; 50's suburban American values.
     I had always assumed that these values originated from the return of the WWII soldiers to raise families as well as the desire to return to peace and normality after the chaos of war. It had not occurred to me that these were values encouraged and stemming from the possibility of nuclear attack, although this did make sense after thinking about the possible connections. While the public preoccupation with "being prepared" made for a strong foundation behind values such as suburban living, conformity, and domesticity, I knew that there were other factors such as racial tension and widespread use of cars which also played roles. Zarlengo explains that during this atomic age, the message sent to the public was that cities were targets for bombing (After all we were bombed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-why couldn't the same happen to us?). Essential to survival was moving to the less sparsely populated neighborhoods made of similar-looking homes. These areas however were only welcome to the white middle-class family. Those of other races and a lower socioeconomic status, were in Zarlengo's words "excluded" and considered the expected [and expendable] casualties of these attacks. Messages sent to and about suburban families portrayed them as an example of how the nation worked according to Zarlengo and as evidenced by this 1957, In the Suburbs, were doing their duty as an American citizen just by practicing these suburban values: http://www.silverscreenclassics.com/video_streaming.php?id=02421001. The Civil Defense film House in the Middle also demonstrates this enforcement of values such as cleanliness and purity, showing that in a test done on three miniature house models, the "clean" house remains relatively unharmed while the two other houses to its left and right, labeled as "neglected" and dirty, are destroyed. It is no surprise that so many educational films appeared in the 1950's discussing topics such as "good table manners" and "party etiquette". Learning these skills were viewed to be not only essential for social acceptance but for survival in the case of a nuclear attack. It is also not surprising that private businesses seized on the opportunity to present their goods and services as ways of thwarting the communist/nuclear threat: http://dengedenge.com/2009/11/cold-war-vintage-ads/ .  The messages given to the public during this decade not only consisted of these mundane topics. In the middle of Atomic Cafe, I noticed that these messages either consisted of; dehumanizing the enemy, what to expect in case of a nuclear attack, or doing one's part to deter the enemy both from inside and outside the nation (see below and in blog post following).
At several points in Atomic Cafe, clips are shown of men building fallout shelters, families and students practicing bomb and "duck-and-cover" drills, and a child riding a bike in a suit one today would think could never actually protect someone. I realized then that perhaps this not so much an example of anxiety as a demonstration of America's new obsession; being prepared for the atomic bomb. Propaganda and public information turned into pop culture. This was not a one-sided relationship. The classic gender roles which put men outside the house and women inside the domestic sphere were being further strengthened by Cold War propaganda. A clip in Atomic Cafe shows a family in a bomb shelter; What is the woman doing-making sure her children are fed. Two female students give a presentation about what kinds of foods are the best for storing in a shelter. Zarlengo states that these roles were enforced in the same way other messages to the public were; women were told that by being the model of domesticity, they were performing a duty to their country as "deterrence soldiers". Further emphasizing the importance and need for this role were the propaganda responses to what Zarlengo calls "the antiwar mother and bombshell". A clip from an army training film shows three soldiers heckling a woman who was calling for a stop to bloodshed and peace with Russia. This clip may try to portray this female as a Communist, yet based on Zarlengo's description of the "antiwar mother" could also play that role. While not shown to  the public, this clip shows the message that if someone, especially a female, does not agree with the mainstream sentiment that this war is necessary and questions the government, they are not to be trusted and furthermore harassed. A more ambivalent view is given to the "bombshell" the attractive and seductive female. The general figure was labeled by propaganda as dangerous and according to Zarlengo  the specific danger of these women were their promiscuity and sexual strength, which would thus lead to the spread of VD and moral destruction, much like how an atomic bomb would lead to physical destruction. I found this amusing both because of dual adoration and scorn held for these female figures and the propaganda was trying to keep women in the home while at the same time, elevating the bombshell female to that of a national threat.

Consumerism!

The Atomic Threat.

A lot of choking and fire

   The question I hear the most from other people who have seen Atomic Cafe is Did people really buy into the messages [lies] the government was sending to them?" The answer is yes and no. Remember that only a few decades before, Orson Welles War of the Worlds broadcast had caused a national panic, and the decade before had consisted of a war in which the U.S. was victorious. The public trusted the government to guide and help them, and in turn there was no question of the means the U.S. used to get to an end. It wasn't until the aftermath of the witch hunts that marked McCarthyism, and when the civil rights movement started to come to the attention of the mainstream that public skepticism grew towards the U.S. government. I also think that the public information fed to the people and shown in Atomic Cafe was not purely absorbed by all. While some may have wholeheartedly believed and feared these messages, others may have accepted it as a normal part of life at home, school, and work. The sentiment that the U.S. public and government is going back to this type of anxiety and propaganda-bombardment, is one I disagree with. While post-9/11 did introduce certain fear-inducing products as the color-coded terror threat scale, the tendencies which the public now has to mistrust the government and critically think about the information being given has weakened the influence of propaganda.

Death by gossip