Chemical Pink

[MacGuffin]

MacGuffin ~

Hmmm... tricky. But thinking about female characters who I think somehow move beyond: as I've already mentioned lots, Vanessa Lutz in Freeway, White Girl in Freeway II and Justine in The Good Girl come most readily to mind. And Enid I s'pose.

I agree it is tricky, so I don't understand how Vanessa transends the sterotypical catagories of promiscous/lolita/victim/damsel in distress? Sure, she fights back, but is it because it's at that moment that she is "strong" instead of, say, Thana in Ms. 45, who fights back for revenge days after her rape? (Haven't seen Freeway in a while, so forgive me if it's a bit inaccurate and I haven't seen Part II, so sorry can't comment). And Justine, a bored wife who becomes a double adulterer/attempted murderer, how do these traits work for positive approval? I guess I want to know what the fine line is for all these characters and any others you might think of. And Enid, well, she is the perfect woman, so I understand completely.

[budgie]

I agree it is tricky, so I don't understand how Vanessa transends the sterotypical catagories of promiscous/lolita/victim/damsel in distress? Sure, she fights back, but is it because it's at that moment that she is "strong" instead of, say, Thana in Ms. 45, who fights back for revenge days after her rape? (Haven't seen Freeway in a while, so forgive me if it's a bit inaccurate and I haven't seen Part II, so sorry can't comment). And Justine, a bored wife who becomes a double adulterer/attempted murderer, how do these traits work for positive approval? I guess I want to know what the fine line is for all these characters and any others you might think of. And Enid, well, she is the perfect woman, so I understand completely.

I am talking about the point of view of the movie as much as representaton, and this is the crucial area where 'strong' female characters are still subject to being perceived as passive. Freeway is excellent because it shows how Vanessa is positioned as a victim/Lolita/damsel in distress, but how she continually takes responsibility for her own actions and doesn't end up as any of those things. She isn't a victim at the end, neither has she had to change (become masculinised) to fit into the obviously male-dominated world she's moving in. She just refuses to obey somebody else's rules because they don't make sense to her or she spots how they only benefit the people trying to manipulate her. Her laughter at the end places her outside of the law, and for once you get a female lead who isn't defined only in her relationship to men. The policemen laugh following her lead. There's so much more to it than fighting: Vanessa reaches a place where fighting is irrelevant. That's why the police join her, cause they realise it too.

Thana, on the other hand, is punished by death and also angelicised (?) in Ms. 45.

As for Justine, she slips between the stereotypes, and again the film surrounds her with the roles allotted by society, all of which she slips in and out of so that she's never really any of them - there's this other 'Justine' that you understand is the person she really is, or at leasts would be if she had the means to evade her given roles (the way Vanessa does by becoming an outlaw I guess). For instance, when she's in her car at the crossroads, thinking about whether to choose good mother/wife or whore, what you want to shout is 'Go straight ahead!'. But of course, she can't. That's what is so real and heartbreaking about the movie and her character. The other line it crosses is in not punishing or judging her (she isn't a murderer, come on) for her social 'transgressions' - ie, in not treating her as or expecting her to be an angel who does no harm. She's completely human, instead of mythical.

I'm interested in why Enid is the 'perfect woman'. I don't think her characterisation is so complex as the above, but obviously she avoids the stereotypes. I s'pose there's always a sense in which you can just see anybody in an abstracted and simplistic way, though, so maybe she's just a hot babe.  

[Gold Trumpet]

I don't think the snobbery of people who really are into films and who are just for general spectatorship and entertainment is that they won't get the films percieved to be more thought provoking or deeper, is that usually, they just refuse to watch them. With a subtitle film, they think it will be too weird and the subtitles too distracting. With indepedent films, they think it will be too weird or something that would permit them in just not enjoying it. For my experience, this has been the case more than anything else because all around me, most people are just into the things they know and won't see new things. I don't discuss any movies with anyone I know because I know it will be a waste of time because no one really cares about those movies. One person I know, when talking about movies and asking me if I liked it or not, will seriously get mad if I said it was a bad movie and start saying how I know absolutely jack shit about movies. I think its funny, but I'm not into Bruce Lee or all the Steven Seagal movies. I think the snobbery comes more for what people are willing to see than what they will "get".

For the punk version, I honestly see basically the same story being told with only minor changes to suit the punk atmosphere and most changes just being location, dress and attitudes of characters. They would have to get very talented in reminagining the movie to be something new and work within the context of now and in a punk scene. And looking at the first remake, I don't think that will happen at all.

~rougerum

[budgie]

For the punk version, I honestly see basically the same story being told with only minor changes to suit the punk atmosphere and most changes just being location, dress and attitudes of characters. They would have to get very talented in reminagining the movie to be something new and work within the context of now and in a punk scene. And looking at the first remake, I don't think that will happen at all.

But the point is to emphasise the part the viewer plays in creating the meaning and affect of the movie, and the first remake and this one both throw up the importance of contexts outside the basic narrative - eg change the cast and period and you get a whole different reading, and change the visual style and class/culture (punk being a subculture whereas the original movie shows safe middle class straightness threatened by 'perversity'). At a time when there are a lot of people moaning about the loss of story to spectacle, Van Sant might be trying to argue that you can't separate narrative from visuals or historical and cultural context. It isn't about the movie 'working', but about how movies work. Critical judgments around the usual markers of quality become irrelevant (so critics become redundant!). I think that's pretty radical and I'm in favour.

[Gold Trumpet]

But with that kind of film, wouldn't the viewer of it just need to read what you have said on its meaning to get what is important about it instead of just watching it for themselves? Your arguments seem to be speaking for film in general than the worthiness of a piece of work holding up as a film itself. The first remake, and this one, feel like they can be attained in understanding by just some words of what they are in importance.  

~rougerum

[budgie]

But with that kind of film, wouldn't the viewer of it just need to read what you have said on its meaning to get what is important about it instead of just watching it for themselves? Your arguments seem to be speaking for film in general than the worthiness of a piece of work holding up as a film itself. The first remake, and this one, feel like they can be attained in understanding by just some words of what they are in importance.  

Possibly, but not everyone is going to read about a movie, and you could say Van Sant is just exploring what I might do in an academic context in a different (ie a visual) medium, perhaps for a different audience. I don't think you can separate what his films do from other movies - there are other examples of filmmakers making specific addresses to audiences (Kubrick?) or making movies about movies and how they impact on us, but really I would suggest that you can watch any movie that way: if you think consciously about a movie's affect or meaning whilst you are watching it (like JB mentioning being aware of being emotionally manipulated by The Pianist (I think)) then that movie is about spectatorship, and no film exists as "a film itself". Van Sant, by making remakes that turn the story into a template, just foregrounds these ideas to make us aware of the issues involved (including the purpose of film criticism as it stands) in watching films. In that sense, isn't he making a piece of art cinema like, say, Godard?

[budgie]

I don't think the snobbery of people who really are into films and who are just for general spectatorship and entertainment is that they won't get the films percieved to be more thought provoking or deeper, is that usually, they just refuse to watch them. With a subtitle film, they think it will be too weird and the subtitles too distracting. With indepedent films, they think it will be too weird or something that would permit them in just not enjoying it. For my experience, this has been the case more than anything else because all around me, most people are just into the things they know and won't see new things. I don't discuss any movies with anyone I know because I know it will be a waste of time because no one really cares about those movies. One person I know, when talking about movies and asking me if I liked it or not, will seriously get mad if I said it was a bad movie and start saying how I know absolutely jack shit about movies. I think its funny, but I'm not into Bruce Lee or all the Steven Seagal movies. I think the snobbery comes more for what people are willing to see than what they will "get".

Sorry, but I have to add something here. I agree that partly critical snobbery is about feeling superior to others whose range of knowledge about a subject is narrower, but my objection to that is that it assumes that knowledge is superior to feeling and pleasure taken in knowledge and the demonstration of that knowledge is somehow more legitimate than pleasure taken in experience and the sharing of that experience. Ebert isn't alone in this, it's part of a system of cultural value that is reinforced every time someone writes a review that supports the view that the intellect is more important than feeling, and that makes a distinction between 'art' and 'entertainment'. What I was trying to say before was that laying the blame on people for not being open to pleasures that challenge them (and that works both ways, often) ignores the influence of the system of cultural value that Ebert might be reinforcing, and that is reproduced by education and so forth. It takes an exceptional person to break through the boundaries that are drawn around them by society, and a kid who is never encouraged to break those boundaries is liable to grow up afraid to cross them. I'm guessing that Ebert was brought up in an environment that encouraged him to think of art as available to him. Now he's lucky enough to be able to spend all his time thinking about films and going to see whatever he likes, and also he's just into it. Why, because he has time, money and the right upbringing that supported his interest, is his love or appreciation of film to be counted as more valuable than someone who has seen three movies in their life, loves them to death and isn't educated or confident enough to be able to write a critical review. It's just two different ways of finding pleasure in movies, and neither is better. The inverse snobbery of your friends is simply their attempt to defend the type and quality of their experience against such as Ebert's. I just think it's appalling that attitudes get so entrenched that neither you nor your friend who likes stuff you don't can't get outside you own needs and question what people tell you is good to define your likes against each other's. But I can understand it, cause I used to think my family was shit for not liking stuff too.

[Pubrick]

i want attention.

[Gold Trumpet]

For your thoughts on critical snobbery mixed with viewing pleasure, I do agree with you that people who do think they know more do assume a sorta superioty in thinking about other people. I'm trying my best to accept someone's else views on movies even if they are different than mine or something and try to not get combative or mad or anything, but just say, "hey, that's fine" and nothing more. The reason I prolly have not got over that hump completely yet is due to how young I am and very competitive in learning about all the movies know else has seen and finding better ones or whatever. I don't think Ebert is as far gone as being just about intelligence and completely removed from people who just want to see movies as entertainment. I use to go to Joblo.com and people just screamed about he was way too artsy in his choices and then i went to a forum for criterion collection and people just screamed about how he was way too mainstream and entertainment as a critic. I think he is somewhere in the middle when looking at both extremes, but its a good one considering the ego someone can have in his position for being such an influential critic.

"Intelligence can sometimes confuse us, but our feelings never lie."
-Roger Ebert

On Van Sant, I do realize he is operating within the realm of art cinema, and on a level farther away from most american ones and definitely closer to things Godard was doing later on in his career. I think that even though most people won't read about what his intentions mean, the fact is that they can. Van Sant is creating a movie under a cinematic idea that can be measured in what someone says of it. Maybe I'm not even arguing the credibility of the idea itself so much as I am arguing the final result in his first remake of Pyscho. I think that even though he was adding music (forget if anything else, since its been a while since i had seen the movie) but I remember that I couldn't get past how the film was an exact duplicate shot wise of the original and how it seemed more of something staged in an artificial way than something more naturally. I knew of how the movie was an exact duplicate, and only thought of how it was that while watching it and I think that was too distracting in seeing the movie for what it was trying to achieve. I think i am wishing that the movie found a way to reimagine itself into something new so it didn't seem so much related to the first to where it became distracting. If the next was to take a punk look, isn't it likely that the story would be different than the first? Do you think this would be good or bad? And if good, how much different should it be story wise?

~rougerum

[budgie]

Van Sant is creating a movie under a cinematic idea that can be measured in what someone says of it. Maybe I'm not even arguing the credibility of the idea itself so much as I am arguing the final result in his first remake of Pyscho.

But all ideas and criticisms are measured in what we say afterwards (to ourselves and others), aren't they? That's how judgments and interpretations are formed, and why they are subject to change and discussion. And yeah, it's obvious we are watching the movie for different reasons and in different ways. I'm not sure it stands up to regular textual analysis or assessment, but then as I said before, that's part of the meaning for me and what makes it interesting, cause when I'm watching it, thinking about how it relates to the original and what that does to the way I make sense of the film in front of me (and then the way I go back to Hitchcock's version too), I'm put in a different position to usual and that's stimulating. So...

I knew of how the movie was an exact duplicate, and only thought of how it was that while watching it and I think that was too distracting in seeing the movie for what it was trying to achieve.

I think this is what is meant to happen. It just questions the expectations we have and makes us aware of what we are doing when we watch and talk about movies. For instance, a shot-for-shot remake can pose a question about who is the author of the film, which can then make you question whether your outrage has more to do with ideas of Hitchcock's canonisation as anything else. And then the fact that it isn't a duplicate brings up all those issues of shifts and difference in interpretation, which also challenges Hitchcock's authority and the authority of mainstream (ie: white, heterosexual, male) cultural value.

I think i am wishing that the movie found a way to reimagine itself into something new so it didn't seem so much related to the first to where it became distracting. If the next was to take a punk look, isn't it likely that the story would be different than the first? Do you think this would be good or bad? And if good, how much different should it be story wise?

I don't know whether it will affect the plot and dialogue. I hope not, because I don't think there is much point, or not so much point, in doing it if that is the case. I would prefer it to question the meaning and impact of surface style, with just the costumes, design and performance changed.

As for Ebert... I don't have a problem with him in the greater scheme of things. He gets people talking about movies, and that is all good to me. I just don't agree with privilege that's all, and it's depressing when people let ideas of good and bad restrict the enjoyment they could take if they let go of the idea of good and bad pleasure. I find that crazy.

Thanks for the discussion, by the way. I'm glad you haven't let anyone beat it out of you yet.  

[Duck Sauce]

I just finished Chemical Pink, I enjoyed it and think it is a very Fincheresque story, I just think the casting would be very difficult. Im too tired to discuss the book right now, maybe later.

[genex]

Actually I've been around the scene that Chemical Pink is about, and while some of it might seem far fetched, it's actually pretty accurate.  There's a ton of stuff that most people don't know, especially on the women's side, and some of the characters I can almost see as caricatures of people that I've seen in the sport or surrounding it.

I am not sure, but is the film for sure going to be made?

Thanks,
gene

[bonanzataz]

catching up on those old budgie/gt posts made my eyes bleed.

[budgie]

I just picked up the book that's come out on Fincher called Dark Eye: the Films of David Fincher, by James Swallow. The end chapter is about future projects, and states that Fincher would produce Chemical Pink, with Jonas Ackerlund directing. And apparently Kevin Spacey would be the ideal Charles.

The book looks useful, if anyone is interested, and like you could read it in a day. Exclusive interviews with Fincher used.

[picolas]

The book looks useful, if anyone is interested, and like you could read it in a day. Exclusive interviews with Fincher used.

could i borrow it?