Girlhood

Sex, crime, and consequences —Hollywood films center on the drama of such a life, so much that the amount of sex, drugs, and crime its cinematic merit. It could even encourage the movie to be up for an Oscar nomination. People have become so accustomed by such dramas in life that it is easy to forget that these problems not only make good television but are real. Girlhood reminds its viewers that crime and consequence goes beyond the television screen, and plague real human beings, especially America’s youth.

When one thinks of a watching documentary, a dreary voice reciting the disadvantageous elements of global warming tends to come to mind. --“Bueller, Bueller” -- Yet, This documentary by Liz Garbus is not as a person would expect. Her efforts in producing this film has definitely made her worthy of her awarded Academy Award. Girlhood is a documentary following the lives of two young girls, Megan and Shanae, while they try to find themselves in a world brimming with adversities. For three years the two girls are trailed with a camera crew as they speak of their past mistakes. Both begin in the Waxter Juvenile Facility and later on branch into their own separate lives outside of it.

I admit, Girlhood is no Michael Moore production, whether that is a good thing or not is not mine to answer. However, Girlhood takes on the problems of the world, especially the United States, and uses compassion and disbelief to strike viewers’ interest. There is no narrator and no script, only the true confessions of two girls who have not had an easy life. It is hard to believe this is not a scripted movie; the events in these young girls’ lives could easily make an impressive screenplay. So, although not a Moore documentary, it has definitely founds its own place in my personal list of accomplished documentaries.

Every documentary lives its life only hoping to be of some impact on people. However, this life is usually lived with only these hopes as it never materializes, sitting on a shelf and is only removed to show to a classroom. If whenever you are feeling depressed or disheartened about anything at all in your life, I would suggest reaching for this movie. The circumstances these two young girls have to deal with will make any other problems a person seems to have appear nothing less than trivial. Even hours after seeing this film you cannot help but forget your own problems and plunge into their own.

The study subjects are an interesting pick. It makes me wonder whether it was intentional or not. Of the two girls, Shanae definitely grows as a person throughout the three years. Her maturity is quickly evident as she finds remorse for her actions and wants nothing more than to change and return home. She is the hero in this short story, overcoming all her mistakes and returns to her life a completely changed person.

Megan, however, does not mature as smoothly as her costar. She even borders on striking the point of a viewer’s annoyance. It seems almost insensitive to admit so, because of the circumstances she has lived in, but it is nonetheless true and I will declare it without remorse. She has the potential to change but her behavior will not allow her to do so. So is forced to fight the demons of her past and find the drive to overcome them and become more than it. There is hope when she leaves the Waxter Facility, but over the next two years she falls right back into old habits: drugs, discourtesy, and bad English. Her redeeming quality is her bravery and strength in dealing with her drug addicted mother who bounces in and out of prison. By the end of the movie, when Megan ceases to deal with her mother’s habit and finally decides to confront her, the viewer is only cheering her on with silent words and held breaths.

I myself am an eager, yet naive, connoisseur of documentaries, appreciating those documentaries than can hold my interest while being very informative. So, although I would highly recommend this movie, it will likely not change anyone’s opinion that already has a strong conviction against documentaries.

Manufacturing Consent

I admit Manufacturing Consent was a better film than I expected. It was enjoyable after I got past the fact that it was filmed in the early 1990s. Being a student interested in such subject matters as media manipulation public control, this film was both entertaining and informative (for the most part).

Noam Chomsky proves to be a very convincing speaker and author. Throughout the entire documentary I could not help but be envious of his ability to articulate everything he had to say. Although I have good enough ideas to share, I tend to be a little clumsy with words. Chomsky, however, seems to have no problem with either the ability to think or the ability to express his thoughts and convince others to agree with him. Even when Chomsky was in a heated debate with one of his critics he still was able to stylishly dismiss his opponent and was even able to get his point across. No AP English student could watch him without having the slightest bit of jealousy.

Even with such a successful author as its topic matter, the film was far from perfect. It begins by discussing Noam’s brilliant ideas about the use of language and how beneficial its structure can be; but then about half way through Part One the viewer is bombarded with a sudden change in topic matter. The documentary suddenly changes its focus from the manipulation of language to the horrors of diplomacy in the United States. I can understand the link, but the transition was so quick it took a minute for me to catch on to the discussion change. After the change, and therefore for a good portion of the movie, the subjects it discussed drudged on and on. Good points would be made, but their further explanations would last longer than needed. This caused the movie to lose its impact for me.

When I began the film I was unaware of how long it was. So, after almost 2 hours when only the time for intermission came I sat amazed. The film easily had my attention for the first hour and a half or so, but the length of it forced my interest to fade. Believe me, I am interested in politics more than most teenagers my age, but the amount of history and repetition in Chomsky’s arguments began to irritate even me.

I still must admit that the film made me think more deeply about language. I have just recently grown an appreciation for people who have the ability to write or speak very well, and this film only confirmed it. Noam Chomsky is a very smart man; whether a person agrees with his ideas or not, he/she cannot help but admit at least that he is intelligent. This is the main reason why I continued on with the movie after I began to feel a bit of irritation.

Not only is Chomsky an appreciator of language, but he was an advocate for many causes. The film does a decent job informing its viewers of the bad actions of governments (especially America’s government) and the large influence the media has in these situations. In the documentary Chomsky unveils the biases that plague the media. He warns people to be aware of what they are watching on television or reading in the newspaper so that they could protect themselves from the conglomerate’s manufacture of public consent.

The messages Chomsky was trying to get out were very good ones despite everything. He talked about language and politics with such logic and knowledge that watching the film was worth while.

A different type of traffic... but just as irritating

After watching Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic I have to declare that it will go nowhere near the top of my list of favorites. The movie explores the intricacies of the illegal drug trade from the perspectives of a user, an enforcer, a politician and a trafficker. For me, it was doomed from the beiggining. I was immediately turned off by the fact that its entire subject matter was the drug traffic, but then again I am biased. I do not particularly like movies that revolve around drugs, conflict, and other illegal activities. So, I most likely began the movie with a dislike for it. This feeling only strengthened as the film went on.

The film was constantly depressing with no uplifting moment where the viewer could relax. Even Catherine Zeta Jones’s character, a pregnant mother, participated in the illegal activity, if she was not already the worst of them all. She plotted murder, cocaine distribution, conspiracy, etc. This is likely the result of being a usual drug movie, and it probably added to the impact the producers hoped to make on the film industry.

Another attempt at making the movie dramatic was the constant swearing every chance a character got. I understand such harsh language allows the movie to appear more intense and it is probably convinces most viewers that of the reality of the drug trade, but sometimes dropping the f-bomb that many consecutive times is just not necessary. I assume the director believed if the characters swore enough times the movie would appear more dramatic than it actually was; and perhaps critics would believe it to be more of a profound work of art that deserves various award nominations. I have a particular cynicism for films that believe if it is overly intense, dramatic, or complex then an Academy Award is sure to follow. Obviously something worked, because the movie won over five Academy Awards.

Despite the subject matter, I have to give Soderbergh credit for his outstanding cast of stars. I admit this was the main aspect of the movie that kept my attention. It seemed that in every other scene a new actor/actress would emerge whom I recognized. The movie from then on changed into more of a game, where the viewer needed to guess which famous or recognizable actor/actress would be showed in the scenes coming up. Penelope Cruz even made a surprise debut, with her three-minute (rather random) appearance on screen. I applaud the director for his talent in at least this.

Being a devoted Spanish student, I have to take this time to criticize the translations in this movie. The fact that Spanish was spoken was enjoyable, as it did add authenticity to the film. However, I cannot completely agree that the written translations across the screen were always accurate with what was actually being said. I recognized a couple of times when some of the translations were incorrect. Of course the general ideas of the Spanish were expressed correctly; and I admit even the meaning of the movie was not changed by the faults in the translations either. Nonetheless, it was sad to watch that a Hollywood film, with a budget of a couple million dollars, had trouble with simple Spanish-to- English translations that a 4th year Spanish student could catch.

Traffic was a movie that has multiple storylines intertwine with one subject matter: drugs. I believe Crash did a better job of it, but any director who puts enough thought into a movie’s screenplay to make it intertwine like this deserves props for that. It could not be an easy task, and it did make the movie a little more interesting to watch. I cannot be completely negative toward this movie because it does bring up many truthful facts about the drug industry, and its plotline is suitable for its genre. Although I did not like the drama and intensity of the film, these components did assist in Soderbergh’s purpose of revealing the scandal and violence involved in the drug trade. So, to a person interested in this genre of movies I would recommend this film; however, to any other person I would suggest to leave it gathering dust on the video shelf and go to a different Soderbergh classic.

... Hello... =]

So, I'm bored and I decided what better task to fill my time than create a blog for Mr. Hughes' class. Mr Hughes has my AP English class watching movies for the class, or so he claims. The list has grown from one documentary to a considerably large list now. Obviously Mr.Hughes enjoyed these movies enough to recommend them to the class, but I don't always agree. Well, here's what I think... : ]