University of Southern California

Got up at 11:30am, we literally had no other choice but to go to USC to kill the rest of the day. However, it turned out to be such a fun day in USC. I've been dreaming to visit this school for a long time, part of the reason is this is the school he wants to go to, of course, other than that, this is a school I personally like a lot, too. (Cross the finger, hopefully they will accept me...) 

The international students portion of USC is amazingly big, almost half of the students are from outside of the U.S. I saw that by myself--it was the commencement day of the 2010 class students. Coincidentally, we ran into all the graduates today. They had some light dinner, without any doubt, Fiona and I mooched some...It was so awkward since half of the students had Asian faces. Many from Taiwan, others from China or Korea. I thought there must be much pressure for students, like me, to study there, now that there were so many ABCs, no one would treat you with the tolerance for foreigners. 

I like the buildings in USC. They all have the same style and relevant colors. Even though LA has no style at all, USC as an old school has its own "schoolnality"--well, it's hard to conclude now, but it definitely does, at least from in terms of architectures. I love the quiet small gardens spattered here and there in the school. Good place for lovers. I can almost imagine the way they talk to each other. Who would get angry in such a place?

The building for communication school is the worst building in the whole school. But what can I say? This is me, always the unluckiest one. I may never had the chance to study in an old and beautiful hall. But the thing is if Gorge Lucas was graduated there, what does it matter the building is not good-looking?

The only thing is, several blocks away from USC, it's another world, which is packed with Mexicans and dirty gum on the ground. The world never loses its hierarchy.

Another LA

After six hours unconscious sleep on the plane, we finally arrived at LA, Mike's dream place, where all the beautiful romances happen. The weather was out of our expectation, for like one out of millions chance, it was cooler than Boston during the day. Fiona's friend picked us up and drove all the way to our hotel on Hollywood Boulevard. Frank Sinatra sings:" LA is my lady..." Now I"m wondering where he got that idea? LA is absolutely not a "lady", not even close. As a relatively new city, LA should be clean and modern in my mind, but on the contrary, LA is kinda dirty compared with Boston. The whole city is covered with thick gray mist. There are no green trees: almost all the trees are light colored. The buildings have no certain style, with the light colors that are similar to Miami, but the gray mist and the gray trees make LA dimmer than Miami. 

It is amazing that everyone says the same thing about LA: you can go nowhere without a car, downtown is the most dangerous place in LA, and there are a lot of Chinese people. We proved all of them in only one afternoon. It took us nearly one and a half hours to get to the hotel from LAX, and then another one and half hours to get to the restaurant from the hotel. I tried to find a Chinese restaurant on Hollywood Bl, failed. How can people order Chinese? Then I realized most people on the this avenue were visitors. But still, it's really inconvenient without even one Chinese restaurant nearby. The good part of this story is that, even though we had to drive more than a hour to get to the place, the restaurant was really good. It is ran by a Tianjin woman, and the food there was fantastic. For the first time in almost a year, I had roasted lamp and Baozi. There was even "Ge Da Soup". Oh I love this place for the good food. Checking out the menu, we thought it was nice that they didn't directly translate the meaning of the soup, or no one would want a bowl of "goose bump soup."

There are all kinds of people in downtown, making it dangerous. But we stayed in Hollywood district after dinner. It was really weird that there were so many sex toys stores on Hollywood Bl. With all the stars on the ground, this avenue should be the most fabulous place, but how come there are so many little sex toys shops, tattoo stores and palm reading rooms? I have no clue at all. The night came quickly, before I realized, we had to head back to the hotel.

Anyways, LA disappointed me a little bit today. It's like another LA from my mind. I hope it can get better tomorrow.

Kane’s plays always feature professionals (soldiers, journalists, doctors). How does work affect the people she writes about?

        Sarah Kane has always been regarded as an elusive writer, so have her works. Even though her plays are often unrealistically violent and brutal, the characters in the plays usually have rather normal identities, like soldiers, journalists, and doctors.  However, what astonishes readers the most is, it is just these ordinary professionals who commit the extremely unexpected behaviors in Kane’s plays. Journalist stays indoors, soldier leaves the war, and doctor complains about his life to a patient. Almost everyone reverses the stereotype of his career. Is it simply because these people are strange and crazy? Sarah Kane depicts a big picture in her plays, through which she explains that it’s not only these people, but all human beings tend to have counteractions when they reach an extreme point in life.

    
        The first professional we encounter is Ian in Blasted, a forty-five years old journalist living in Leeds much of his life. Ian first leaves us the impression that he is a homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic person and has a very passive life attitude. As he comments on families at one point in the play: “Who would have children. You have kids, they grow up, they hate you and you die” (Kane, 21). To him, life is full of disgusts. Even in the innocent kids he can only see the somewhat doomed future aspect.  He is such a solitary person that he hates most people in the world. The only people who he does not discriminate against are people like him, pure native white men. This is not a very suitable kind of character to be a journalist. Journalists are destined to go outside and get in touch with as many people as possible to get the latest information and the newest stories. The only news story we hear from him in the play is about “a serial killer slaughtered British tourist Samantha Scrace in a sick murder ritual” (Kane, 12). The horrible story seems to prove some of Ian’s discriminations are actually reasonable. Women are stupid because they go to the isolated foreign forest regardless of common sense and get killed. Foreigners are cruel and uncivilized so they kill people for a certain ceremony. Apparently, this is not true, because incidents like that are too rare to be counted as solid evidence to define a group of people. However, it is fair to assume that as a journalist, Ian probably hears or reports this kind of story a lot. Ian talks about his job in the play: “I do other stuff. Shootings and rapes and kids getting fiddled by queer priests and schoolteachers.” (Kane, 48). It’s like his opinions are being proved over and over again. Just as the psychiatric indication will make people believe fake truth, Ian is convinced that the world is the way he imagines.

        The more convinced he is, the less he wants to be anywhere near the people he hates, in other words, most people in the world, which goes against the feature of his profession as a journalist. He even refuses the story that comes to him, as he refuses the soldier’s request to tell his story, “This isn’t a story anyone wants to hear…It’s not my job…No joy in a story about blacks who gives a shit? Why bring you to light?” (Kane, 48). Instead of running for stories, Ian seems to be more interested in those who are innocent and ignorant. Ian is seducing Cate during the night: “You don’t know anything about it…Don’t know nothing. That’s why I love you, want to make love to you.” (Kane, 23). When Cate refuses to have sex with him, Ian rapes her.

At this point, Ian has already become this person who creates the story that a journalist like himself will do a piece of news about. He rapes the young girl like a “foreigner” in his own opinion, he keeps smoking even if he knows that is so dangerous that can take away his life, just like the woman without common sense, he becomes everything he hates.
 

       Similarly to Ian, the doctor in 4.48 Psychosis also goes to an opposite way when his job reaches a certain point where he finds it too much to bear. The doctor asks the patient in a therapy: “What do you offer your friends to make them so supportive? What do you offer your friends to make them so supportive?” (Kane, 236). Facing a patient who suffers from serious depression, the doctor asks this question without any context. It is confusing. If the first time he asks is gentle and guiding, the second time he asks the same question is more like a request. Why does a doctor want answers from a patient who he knows well that will not give him an answer? The only possible explanation is that the doctor does not expect for an answer: he just needs to speak it out. As the play goes on, the doctor becomes the one who pours out all the hidden angst, “Most of my clients want to kill me. When I walk out of here at the end of the day I need to go home to my lover and relax. I need to be with my friends and relax. I need my friends to be really together…I fucking hate this job and I need my friends to be sane…I’m sorry.” (Kane, 237). The job is somewhat driving the doctor crazy, and the only way out for him is to stay together with his sane friends. However, friends are not shadows. There are definitely some time when they cannot be there for the doctor. Under this circumstance, he has no one to turn to help, and he has to be the one who helps during the day. His life is in an extremely unbalanced state. Finally, when the misery of the doctor’s life accumulates to a certain point, it explodes like a volcano. The doctor behaves like a patient in front of the real depressed patient, complaining his life and talking to himself as if he is out of his mind.

       Going the opposite way seems to be a way out for people whose lives are extremely unbalanced and polarized. This is also the same situation that the soldier in Blasted is going through. In the early scenes where the soldier comes into the room just for food, he is still the soldier who’s taking absolute charge by the arms, as he tells Ian the reason why Ian should listen to him: “’Cause I’ve got a gun and you haven’t.” (Kane, 40). Soldiers are long-time considered to be as cruel and cold as the arms during the war, no exception for this one. However, as the conversation between the soldier and Ian goes on, the soldier makes some very weird remarks, like at one point they are talking about Cate, the soldier says: “Don’t [kill her], I’ll have to shoot you. Then I’d be lonely.” (Kane, 44). The soldier seems to have an unknown dependence on Ian, and this becomes even clearer when he fails to persuade Ian to write out his story, he almost pleads Ian, “…At home I’m clean. Like it never happened.” (Kane, 48). The soldier is literally trying to prove him to be an innocent person, or even a victim after telling Ian the horrible things he did to the girls. The feminine side of the soldier takes control of him at the moment. The loneliness and the desire for sexual action drive him to rape Ian, and after that he “smells Ian’s hair” and “is crying his heart out” just as what Cate does earlier in the play. The stereotypically cruel and cold-blooded soldier unexpectedly shows his feminine aspect.

         Kane doesn’t explain what happened to the soldier that makes him suddenly so sensitive, but the background information about his girlfriend helps us understand this character. The soldier shouts at Ian at one point in the play, “You don’t know fuck all about me. I went to school. I made love with Col. Bastards [soldiers] killed her, now I’m here. Now I’m here.” (Kane, 48). The soldier used to be a school person, but what happened to his girlfriend made him choose to be a soldier. He hates the soldiers for killing his girlfriend and eating her eyes, driving him to be soldier and do the exact same things. The horrible accidents changes him to a person who is totally different from he used to be. After sucking out Ian’s eyes, the soldier explains: “He [the soldier who rapes his girlfriend] ate her eyes. Poor bastard. Poor love. Poor fucking bastard.” (Kane, 50). The soldier is lamenting his girlfriend, as well as himself. He’s become the bastard he used to hate. He hates what other soldiers did to his girlfriend, and he also hates what he did to the poor girls. From one extreme to another, the soldier is tired of the brutality of military. He wants to be the clean person he used to be, so he cries and pleads, but there is no way back, he chooses to end his life.

        The endless terrifying stories make the journalist become one of the stories; the timeless listening changes the doctor to a talking patient; the long-time brutality esposes the soldier’s sensitive personality. Just as Lao Zi, the founder of Taoism, reveals, things will develop in the opposite direction when they become extreme. The world needs balance, so as long as these professionals reach a certain extremity in their professions, they turn to the opposite way. Kane’s plays are filled with the idea that the world is balanced. In Blasted, the three characters take absolute control one by one in the hotel room, while in 4.48 Psychosis the doctor and the patient both have problems and both don’t have solutions. It is not just the professionals, but all the people will have counteractions when they get to the point of extremity.

Work Cited:

Kane, Sarah. Sarah Kane Complete Plays. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd, 2001. Print.

Gritzner, Karoline. "(Post)Modern Subjectivity and the New Expressionism: Howard Barker, Sarah Kane, and Forced Entertainment." Contemporary Theatre Review 18(3.328 (2008). MLA International Biliography . Web. 23 Apr. 2010.

Iball, Helen. "Room Service: En Suite on the Blasted Frontline." Contemporary Theatre Review: An International Journal 15.3 (2005): 320-329. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2010

Solga, Kim. "Blasted's Hysteria: Rape, Realism, and the Thresholds of the Visible." Modern Drama 50.3 (2007): 346-374. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.

"Taoism." Religious Tolerance. N.p., 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. .
Urban, Ken. "An Ethics of Catastrophe: The Theatre of Sarah Kane." PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art 23.3 [69] (2001): 36-46. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2010.

May we always be like this

We've been school pals for like nine years, but not until we both went to college did we really become friends. All the memories about you were the guy that spoke really beautiful english, the guy that got a highest score on an english exam, the guy that was in the class next to ours. And now it's the guy who supports me always, the guy who hangs out with me, the guy who i miss and misses me. Who will you become? It's a terrifying question.

It's weird that whenever I'm blue, so are you. They "dumped" us. We got new BF/GF. We are alone again. Why does the world work this way? Sometimes I'd think that it as the God's sign, telling us to be together. But whenever I think it that way, the horrible scare from the uncertainty of relationship forces me to chicken out. Like now, I can't even text you back. We're friends. How wonderful is that.

And I know we can be friends forever, as long as we don't step forward. Couples separate. Friends stay. You are too precious to lose. It hurts, both you and me. I don't know how I can put it, but please, don't go away, you are my best friend.

Mise En Scene of Edward Scissorhands

        Edward Scissorhands is concidered to be one of the most classic romantic films. As an uncompleted creation, Edward only had several scissors as his hands. After living alone for years, he was invited by a local Avon lady, Peg, to her family and lived with them ever since. The day Peg went up the hill and found Edward was a big turning point in Edward’s life. And I am going to talk about how director Tim Burton creates the turning point image and do a mise en scene analysis of a shot from the movie.

       This scene is when Peg first saw Edward and realized those scissors were actually his “hands,” she couldn’t help going close to him and sympathysing him. At the first sight of this scene, audiences will focus on Peg’s hat, because that is the brightest thing in focus. She is one of the two largest objects in the scene, and she wears a bright color suit, making her even more outstanding in contrast to Edward’s black “armor.” To make her the dominant gives Peg more energy in the movie.

      

        Edward lives alone in the mysterious, which gives the reason why the director uses a low key lighting. Edward stays in the shadow, both before he meets Peg and after. The shadow creates a mysterious and depressed atmosphere, even Peg is in the shadow now. The strong loneliness is embodies in the shadow and Peg walks in it and decides to take Edward out of it. The low key lighting also indicates this film is a formalistic film.

   

        This is a scene from the process of Peg walking towards Edward. I chose the scene from the middle of the process. The camera in fact is following Peg, so the shots change from full shot to medium and then close-ups. This scene is from the medium shots part. Again these shots show how passionate Peg is, and how sympathetic she is towards Edward. She was afraid of him when she first saw him, but felt immediately sad after realizing how pathetic and lonely Edward was. So she walked to him. From this scene we can see that Edward shows a really innocent and ignorant. He doesn’t want Peg leave, but he is also afraid of coming near her. Peg walks near him, as if she walks into his life. Eye-level angle shot helps audience to feel close to the characters in the movie. It streees that Edward is the same with us all, even he has scissors rather than hands, and has so many scars on his face. He is equal with every one, so he should have what anyone else has. The scars is a symbol of bitterness in Edward’s life. Therefore the director uses long shots and slow stock to emphasize on the high quality of the image, in other words, Edward’s face, giving audiences intense impression.

  

        Color using in this shot is symbolic. On the whole the scene is in a basic tone of black, like Edward himself. Black suggests the loneliness Edward used to have and his monotonous life. Even though Peg is now in the shadow, too, but she is dressed in a light pink suit, a very clear contrast to Edward’s dominant color. This gives us the idea that Peg will bring some “color” to Edward’s life. And pink is such a warm color that it seems that it can melt all the sadness and loneliness of Edward’s.

   

        Edward, as the other character in focus in this scene, is the main and only subsidiary contrast. He stands in the darker shadow and wears black, so he is not so obvious as Peg. Yet he faces the camera, or audience, and his face stands out in the black background. Besides, in this shot he is the object that the dominant figure, Peg, is watching. Now he is the subsidiary contrast, but soon he will be the dominant. We can figure out this through the different positions of the two: Edward shows a full-front, but Peg is back to camera.

       In this shot, there is little objects in the background, so the image is not so dense. This draws audiences’ attention more on Edward because his “armor” is the most complicated obejects in the picture. However when we really focus on his “armor,” we find him weird and out of normal fashion. The less-packed image says more about how Edward is like.

   

        The sense of equality, the sympathy Peg has for Edward and Peg’s determination to help Edward is the basic meaning of this single shot. All elements prove that. For example, binary structures of the scene well shows parallelism and equality. Their standing also shows some vertical sense in this shot. And the sort of deep-focus shot allows both Peg and Edward in the focus at the same time, but also creates two planes simutaneouly. Peg stands near the camera as the first plane, and Edward stands in the second one. On top of that, both Peg and Edward are in the center of the frame. There is space between them, but the margins they to the edge are almost the same, so that the frame of this shot is moderately loose. All these show the equality between the two. They share the same importance in this shot. And the personal distance reveals the sympathy Peg has for Edward. She doesn’t treat him as a “strange creation”, but she regards him as an lonely orphan. The image of Peg’s is a little bigger than Edward’s, meantime she is facing him directly. This somehow implies Peg’s decision to help Edward. Because of Peg, Edward’s life will change to a happier direction, which might be the reason why director uses open form here. Restricts make people nervous, and open form opens people’s minds.

   

        On the whole, this scene foreshadows a lot about the later on story of the movie. Maybe there are thousands of scenes like this in a movie, but if we analyze any one of them in detail, we will realize every detail in a film has been paid much attention.

Here attached the scene I analyzed above:

Sometimes, you just have to be ignorant.

It's never been easy to be in a relationship.

Last night I overheard Fiona talking to her BF and got really upset. It seemed that Achun might not be able to go to HK to meet her there, because of the final paper or something. I'd be disappointed in that condition, too. It's like he offers you a pretty balloon, and then pierces it to explosion himself. Not a good feeling, and I'd had so much before. However, it's actually nobody's fault. As the saying goes, future is always uncertain. Plans, dreams, relationships. Nothing can beat the uncertainty. Still. It's disappointing.

BFF is so much better than BF. I miss you guys.

Chun just told me that she was gonna stay in Japan for 3 years. I'm gonna cry.

A little poem.

你和他讲道理，他和你耍流氓；
你和他耍流氓，他和你讲法制；
你和他讲法制，他和你讲政治；
你和他讲政治，他和你讲国情；
你和他讲国情，他和你讲接轨；
你和他讲接轨，他和你讲文化；
你和他讲文化，他和你讲孔子:
你和他讲孔子，他和你讲老子；
你和他讲老子，他给你装孙子！

 

Just saw this really precise analysis of the government. The interesting part was that all comments were like "we are waiting for this to be 'harmonized'..." Yeah, what can we say? Is this the reason why the economy has developed so fast but nothing happened in the culture development?

If we are not allowed to have the right of free speech, how can we have a wider horizon? How can we share different opinions? How can we develop?

I'm sure it's safe here, since people actually can't  use blogspot in China...hush...

Film Study: Clerks

What part of the chapter did you find most interesting and why?

I like how different films have different ideologies, and how they different ideologies have different degrees of obviousness. But the most interesting part I found in this chapter is probably the culture, religion and ethnicity part.  There is a new term I learned from this part: cultural generalization. As a Chinese person, I grew up in China and am taught with traditional Chinese ideas. So how can I relate to so many foreign movies? I never really thought about this. I always take it for granted that every film is linked with the common sense of all human beings. But it is not the case. The fact is most Hollywood movies are accepted by most of the world, but movies like Japanese movies, Chinese movies, Korean movies or sometimes even Indian movies are not widely accepted by Americans (as far as I interviewed). I once asked an American friend about Japanese films, he said most of the famous ones were all made by director Miyazaki Hayao. I was not sure if it was just him or it’s the general idea, but concepts from different cultural backgrounds sometimes can be a barrier. But why can I, and millions of other non-Americans relate to Hollywood movies so well? It’s the globalization. Movies have become such a good way to convey the typical ideology of a country. Sometimes I feel I’m so Americanized that some of my key values differ from my parents’ and my grandparents’. And one of the reasons has got to be the many movies I saw. On the other hand, culture generalization can also be a barrier to the filmmakers. It’s hard to break through a solid culture generalization. For example, I once saw a movie called The House Bunny. After finished watching the movie, I felt it was such a typical American notion: you can succeed from nobody, if you work hard. It’s like the old American Dream movies but with a contemporary setting. When a notion is so typical, filmmakers and screenplay writers need to work harder not to fall into the sea of cliché.  

 

2.     Pick a film we’ve watched for class this semester (first-come, first-served – no repeats in the group): Where does the film fall along the ideological explicitness spectrum? Explain your answer.

The movie I’d like to talk about is Chinatown. I think this movie is definitely an implicit movie. In Chinatown we can easily see that the protagonist Gittes and the antagonist Noah represent conflicting value systems. But both characters don’t dwell on their values all the time. In fact, they sometimes even confuse audience with their values. Even though Gittes keeps trying to find out who is the hidden boss of the water issue, he doesn’t really stand for the people in the movie. He first begins looking for him for himself—there is someone using him as a tool to investigate Hollis. Later on he continues investigation because Evelyn asks him to. We can’t absolutely deny that he investigates for the truth, but whatever he does, there is a material reason given in the movie. On the other hand, Noah’s purpose is unclear until the ending part of the movie. And even if he is the evil one in Chinatown, he succeeds in the end. The director didn’t make the normal ending where good beats evil, but we can figure out that there is a slanted direction in the movie. Gittes is the defeated hero. The director judges him as good and Noah as evil. He tells us what is good and what is evil, but then he reveals that as a matter of fact, good can’t always win. But we have to do something. If there is no trying, there will be absolutely no hope. Explicitness in Chinatown is complex. Yet we can tell there is a direction in the movie. It’s not an educational movie, so it falls into implicit category. 

3.     Pick a different film we’ve watched for class this semester (again, no repeats): Based on the bipolar categories, do you think your film is a “left” or a “right” film?  Explain using at least three categories. 

The film I’m going to talk about is Some Like It Hot. I would say this film is a “left” film. People on the left believe that we ought to be flexible in our judgments, capable of adjusting to the specifics of each case. We can see this in the film when Joe and Jerry decide to dress like women to mingle in a girls’ band in order to escape from Spats. At first Joe is not agree with this idea, but when they have no other choice but to dress up like girls to hide themselves, they choose to be flexible in life. By doing this, they actually lie to Sweet Sue and the whole band, but audience couldn’t blame them because given the context in the movie, that’s the only way out. Relative versus Absolute. Some Like It Hot is obviously relative. When it comes to the category outsiders versus insiders, this film identify with Joe and Jerry, who are just two nobodies in Chicago. They work one day and get one day’s food. In the cold wind, they have to endure the weather because they don’t have work and lost all their money. Compared with Spats, they are just two random guys in the street. But what happened to them later proves that Some Like It Hot is a “left” movie. Joe finds his love, Jerry ends up with a rich person, but Spats is killed. The idea of ordinary people get their way is very left, and this film applies this idea. On top of these two categories, Some Like It Hot is also very “left” in sexual freedom versus marital monogamy category. The classic ending of this film reveals the director’s tolerance of homosexuality and the plot when “Josephine” kisses Sugar also indicates the freedom of sexuality. This theme is clear since they dress up as girls. No regulation for their appearance and no regulation for the sexual orientations. This makes Some Like It Hot a “left” movie.

4.     What is your reaction to Clerks? You should offer at least a paragraph analysis/reaction (which is not the same as a summary). What praise can you give the film? What negative criticism?

 It’s a brilliant film, but apparently not made for kids. The best thing I like about this film is it’s set in a little convenience store almost all the time, and it works for this film. Mise en scene is secondary to the dialogue in Clerks, and the plotting is good.  I think it’s not easy for the director to make fun of everything and in the meantime keep certain logic. Things happened to Dante can happen to everyone from time to time in different shapes. We may never seriously think about trivial things like this, but we don’t realize how much fun life can be even if we have to confront with so many unexpected difficulties. For me, Dante and Randal are two sides of me. Dante is the one when I have to face all kinds of problems and feel like a loser. I would be pessimistic and totally lost in the problems wondering why all these things happen to me. Randal on the other hand is the one when nothing happens to me and I feel like I’m the most optimistic person in the world. In these circumstances I’ll be the wise person suggesting others to relax. I think this is also the reason why Clerks can be so popular. It’s not about some heroic motifs and things happened to Dante may be just around the corner. People can identify with him. It is basically everyone’s story. The director exaggerates normal things and makes fun of them. Life should be more fun. And our daily life is the mix of Dante and Randal. Sometimes we obey, other times we need to cross the line and relax a little bit. Besides, I like the music in this movie. It makes the characters more alive and cynical. I searched why the movie was shot in 1994 but in black and white. It’s because of the funding or something. However I think black and white works perfectly in the movie. I feel light and shadow can express a person better than different colors. Sometimes colors can even distract audience. Another thing I found about this movie is this is not the original ending of Clerks. The original ending is Dante is killed by a late customer after Randal leaves. I like the cut version better. It can identify with audience better. The original ending dramatically changes the theme of this film. Life has got to go on. Dante will have another day, like most of us.

5.     What is the ideology of this film?  Is it at the center, left, or right? Explain.

I think this film leans towards left. Throughout the movie, we can find that Dante is comparatively a rightist, while Randal is relatively a leftist. But as right as Dante is, he is always persuaded by Randal and do whatever Randal suggests to do. For example, Dante is the person who works for something wholeheartedly, therefore he tries to be there on time, stay in the shop all day and avoid doing anything wrong. But when Randal says he always backs down, he comes up with the idea to close the store for a while and play hockey on the roof. This ironically echoes the conversation Dante and Randal have earlier about the fact that Randal doesn’t stay in the video shop but come and talk with Dante when Randal should work. Randal says: “It’s not like I’m miles away”. Now Dante is doing exactly the same thing as Randal does. People should be flexible in different circumstances. And the director indicates this kind of behavior is forgivable by letting a customer join the game. The film is liberal in this aspect. Another left inclination is about the sexual freedom. The discussion about how many girls Dante has slept with almost causes a fight, but as soon as the man, William, comes in, the topic disappears. Instead, they have a new round of discussion about Veronica’s past. This almost leads to their break-up, but in the end Veronica becomes the stronger figure and Dante compromises with her past. Sex life is a personal thing and others have no choice to interfere. In this sense, Clerks is very left, too. Finally when Randal says that Dante sees himself too important, he reveals the idea that everyone is equal. So we shouldn’t worry about petty things too much. The earth can go on orbiting without anyone. This idea is pretty democratic, which in other words implies the left-inclined direction in this movie. 

6.     Which two bipolar categories are most relevant to this film?  Why?

The first one I noticed is relative versus absolute. From the conversations of Dante and Randal, it’s fair to assume that Dante is a “model worker” in the convenience store. Even though he would sometimes be lazy like staying under the counter and chat with his girlfriend, he never does the things that really go against the rule, like keeping the store closed and go to other places to hang out with friends. But in the movie, Dante is actually deceived to work others’ shift and is about to miss the hockey game he should have on that day. Under this circumstance, he chooses to close the store and play hockey on the roof. This action is tolerated by the director and audience, given the fact that originally it should be the time for his hockey game. People ought to be flexible. I think this is the most relevant one to this film. Another one is sexual freedom versus marital monogamy. This is relatively apparent in the film. The sex discussion between Dante and Veronica causes the fight between “right” and “left”. While in the end, after silent Bob and Jay’s words as outsiders, Dante realizes that he actually loves Veronica, and her past is nothing compared to the feeling between them. The “rightist” gives up his “belief” and tries to win her back. Other examples are the thing happened to Caitlin and Randal’s comments. Sexual affair is a person’s own business and his own choice, even with a dead man. This kind of thing is hardly happened in other films but it is in Clerks. And Randal’s comments are pretty indifferent. He says things about how his mother having sex with a “dead” man for 30 years and he has to call him “dad”. His attitudes towards sex is very open. It’s others’ choice and it’s none of his business. In this sense, sexual freedom is very relevant to this film.

7.     How can you “get into” this film?  In other words, do you identify with any characters?  Why?

I identify with both Dante and Randal. I’m a total procrastinator. Whenever I have time, I don’t want to do my work. And usually this is the time “Dante” and “Randal” fight inside my head: to work, or to do things more fun. In this film Dante has a slanted direction towards “right”, and Randal is “left”. Most people, including myself are always liberal about some things and conservative about others. And most importantly, we have to compromise with things. This is the reason I can identify with both of them. Everyone complains from time to time that I shouldn’t be here, I could definitely avoid because this is not my choice of doing something, like Dante when he desperately say that “I shouldn’t have been here!” But if we calm down and think it over. Things happened today may have happened yesterday, and it can also happen tomorrow. We can be there today, and we may have been there yesterday, we can also be there tomorrow. We don’t have the choice to choose what should happen and what shouldn’t. So we might as well relax. Dante insists in doing the right thing and tries to avoid any possible mistake. This is me when I control myself and do things I should do to make sure life can go on correctly. Randal chills out all the time and accept anything that happens. This is me when I feel easy in life and free myself from the eternal work. I’m the mix of Dante and Randal.

8.     How would you describe this film’s point of view? What is its ideology?

I would say this film’s point of view is the objective point of view. Even though Dante and Randal are the two main protagonists, we are seldom revealed with their inner world. The camera reports all the different events that happened to them, and shows audience the different reactions from different people. The movie shows the events faithfully and allows audience to interpret for ourselves. Therefore I think the point of view in this film is objective.

The ideology behind this point of view, I believe, is center/neutral. It’s not like the film that has a very clear ideology direction. The film itself is very left inclined, but the point of view is trying to take care of both extremes. For example, when Dante and Randal go to the funeral, Randal claims indifferently that no one will come to the store on a Saturday afternoon. But at the same time the scene is changed to the door of the store where many people are trying to get in and buy things. Before they go to the funeral, it shows in detail why they have to go. But when they really go, the camera tells us there is problem when they leave. Another example would be the contrast between Dante and Randal’s sex discussion and the frightened look on Caitlyn’s face when she finds out the truth. The point of view seems to be objective with everything. It indicates that you can do different things, but different things will leads to different consequences.

9.     Is this film a pro-feminism film?  Is it a pro-homosexual film?  Why/why not?

I don’t think this film is a pro-homosexual film. There is no clue in the film about homosexuality. Besides, there are several lines that actually mock at homosexuality. This happens when Jay and Silent Bob are selling drugs outside the door. And Jay talks about how cute Silent Bob is and he can’t help going down on him. But immediately he denies himself and describes Bob as a faggot. He says he hates guys and loves women. This is somewhat impropriate. So I don’t think this film as a pro-homosexual film.

On the other hand, I agree that Clerks is a pro-feminism film. The two main women characters in this film are Veronica and Caitlyn. Unlike the general roles of women in traditional film where women are treated as sex object—valued primarily for their good looks and sex appeal, women in this film try to lead a fulfilling life of their own. They are stronger than the men. They have their own values and they pursue their own happiness. Caitlyn’s escape from the school and the rumored marriage proves this. And they decide their own life and treat sex as part of their life. Their main function is no longer just to support their men. Women in this film are equal to men and sometimes even stronger than men, like when Dante says “I love you” to Veronica, she replies with the curse only man uses in the old movies. Therefore I believe this film is a pro-feminism film.

And I just realized another interesting scene in the movies that indicates this is a pro-feminism movie. It's when the gum seller tries to persuade people to stop buying cigarettes and use gums instead. Dante fails stopping him. And it is Veronica who saves the situation like a superwoman with the fire extinguisher. The hero at that time is definitely Veronica. And then she tries to persuade Dante to go back to school like a mum. All these show a strong woman figure. 

10. How would you describe the tone of the film?

I think the tone is mocking and straightforward in this movie. I was surprised to find out that this movie is a product in 1994. I wondered why the director wanted to make it a black-and-white film. Apart from the economic reason, I think black and white can well speak out the tone of the film. It’s more related to the life Dante and Randal have. They both hate their jobs, but they don’t really know what they should do. In the convenience store and the video store, their lives are black and white. And unlike most of other big production movies, dialogues in Clerks are straightforward and more conversational. We don’t really need to think of the conversations, they put them in a way that is understood immediately. The mocking tone can be found throughout the whole film, even from the beginning. The lock is stuck by a gum, so Dante has to put on a big sign saying “I assure you we are open”, which makes him smelly all day. Whenever Dante encounters things like this, all he does is to say “let’s say there are several savages in this town”. He doesn’t do any practical things and he doesn’t even want to make a change. So the whole day he has to smell like the oil. Mocking tone goes on as Veronica saves the situation when the gum seller is trying to persuade people to buy gums instead of cigarettes. The music also reveals the tone of the movie. Throughout the entire movie, the music has always been rock ‘n’ roll. This strengthens the mocking and indifferent tone of the movie. 

Attach the notes from this chapter here:

Chapter 10 – Ideology

According to the book, ideology is “a body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.”  In general terms, when we’re talking about a film’s ideology, what we’re talking about is the “politics” of a film, keeping in mind that “politics” can be both public and personal. 

Ideology is implicit in any human enterprise – all of us operate from our own worldview, from our own ideology – and films are no different, even if their ideology is not always readily apparent.  And ideology is not always apparent because it is usually “naturalized,” that is, made to seem like common sense or “the way things should be,” or as critic Daniel Dayan says, “Classical cinema is the ventriloquist of ideology.”  

But no form of entertainment or media is natural – they’re all constructed: every film has a perspective that privileges certain characters, institutions, behaviors, ways of knowing and motives as attractive, and downgrades others as faulty or even repellent.  This can be done in a number of ways, through mise en scene, character development, etc.

When we begin to look for a film’s ideological center, we are not necessarily trying to get to what the director “really” means to tell us, rather, we are trying to figure out what meanings the film values and privileges.  If we look at one film in isolation, we can begin to see how a certain film works ideologically.  If we look at a group of films – from a director, from a time period, from a country - or a very popular film, we can begin to understand what a certain person, time or country values.

There are three broad categories of ideological explicitness, the degree to which films are obvious in their ideology:

1.     Neutral – In these films, the emphasis is on action, pleasure and entertainment for their own sake – right and wrong treated superficially.

2.     Implicit – In these films, conflicting value systems are apparent, but the materials slant in a specific direction, but without obvious manipulation.  We need to infer what the value is through the character’s actions and through mise en scene. This is most Hollywood films or what we tend to think of as “just entertainment.” 

What’s important in this category is that the constant repetition of the same values forms and reinforces the core ideology of American society. Most American films are in the implicit category, with the protagonists (heroes) the vessel of values, especially idealism, courage, generosity, fair play, kindness, and loyalty, and the antagonists the vessels of selfishness, mean-spiritedness, greed, disloyalty, etc.  Usually a protagonist will have some of the negative characteristics, and then learn about the really important things in life and change.

3.     Explicit – These films “wear their hearts on their sleeves,” trying to teach or persuade as much as entertain.

One of the most instructive ways to understand a film’s ideology is to begin to think in terms of a battery of ideological categories that run the spectrum from left/liberal to center to right/conservative.

The bipolar ideological categories listed below are heuristic – that is, they’re not absolute terms, merely broad devices to better understanding of film and culture.  Usually a film tends to favor one side of the spectrum over the other, and the complement of left values (on the left of the “vs.”) or right values.

• Democratic vs. hierarchical
• Environment vs. heredity
• Relative vs. absolute
• Secular vs. religious
• Future vs. past
• Cooperation vs. competition
• Outsiders vs. insiders
• International vs. nationalist
• Sexual freedom vs. marital monogamy

Aside from investigating the political spectrum associated with American and Western values, there are two other big areas for ideological research: race and gender. We’ll note gender here.

We’ve already spoken about the role of gender and feminism in the films we’ve watched so far.  In general, according to film historian Annette Kuhn, women have tended to be marginalized in Hollywood both on screen and off screen.  The basic story: Women didn’t get to tell their own stories because men controlled the images (writing, directing, producing, etc.).  Because of this, women were treated as sex objects – valued for good looks and sex appeal.  Their main function was to support men, and their main goals were marriage and family were main goals.  Further, traits that our society values, such as intellect, ambition, independence, and professionalism, were associated with men.

A more difficult ideological subject to discuss is tone.  Tone is the manner of expression or presentation of a film, the general atmosphere.  Different tones include mocking, heroic, parodic, elegiac (look it up), straightforward, etc.  Through tone, a director can support, undercut, or question the presentation of the actual material.

Some ideological questions to ask when viewing any film:

1. Is this film ideologically implicit or explicit?
2. What values are privileged?  What values are downgraded?
3. Do the stars embody ideological values?
4. Are the technical aspects ideologically weighed?
5. Is the protagonist primarily left, center or right?
6. Does the film adhere or work against traditional genre conventions?
7. What is the tone?

Drag show + Martha's Vineyard Island

Adam, you rock!

It was so awkward though. I think I'm touching his breast at this time. He must be the smileiest zombie in the world. The drag show was really good. I was surprised when it really came out, given the total failure of the previous rehearsal. I'm so gonna miss all of this.

Rachel, I'm so proud of you! lol. You are my best tutee! (even though I only have one...)

And of course this is the only time I see you with makeup, apart from the Halloween dressing up. I can't stand letting you escape from the camera this time!

El. I'm gonna miss you, too. We never really had a "conversation partner style" conversation. lol.

Early that day in Boston Commons. Met a cute dog.

The tower in Cape Cod/ Cape Cod chips. It reminds me of Faye's song: 他来我对自己说 我不害怕 我很爱他。 I'm not afraid, for I love him. However, as for me, where is him?

I'm so lucky for knowing you. I'd always thought you girls from Shanghai were like Janice, but I was wrong. I like you, or to some degree, I love you. Hey, stay in touch. OK?

Alice's wonderland. In Martha's Vineyard Island. I love Mr. Rabbit in the front table.

Untitle

I guess it's always hard for me to do what I want, because I'm too lazy. 

I don't want to sound like that, but that's the truth. 

New York State of Mind

New York.


In New York, there's nothing you can't do. New York City used to be the sweet home in Friends, the romantic concrete jungle in Woody Allen's jokes, the fashion city, the dream place, and when I really went to NYC, it became this place I'd never experience enough. I love New York City, even though I'm not a New Yorker, not even an American citizen. I don't know why. I just feel this connection to the city. It's weird but beautiful.






Day one:


The first day in NYC was not pleasant at all. Three hours' bus trip made me dizzy and exhausted, but I was fairly excited to see the not-so-heavy snow in NYC-- I stayed in Boston, where there should be snowy in October based on its latitude, but I hadn't seen any snow until I went to NYC in December.That was disappointed. The first thing I saw after getting off the Chinatown bus was the big gate in Chinatown. I didn't go near it though, giving that I'd better find my friend's house first. Taking out the map and studying it, I realized I was still the old me, no sense of direction at all. When I was stuck into the map at the big crossing in Chinatown, a Chinese guy came to me and asked me what I was looking for. Thank God I'm a Chinese person, and thank God there are Chinese people everywhere. However sometimes I feel this might be part of the reason why it's so hard for Chinese people, especially students, to really mingle with American community. We have so many people all over the world that we don't really need to try to get involved in others' networks, but this is definitely not a good thing. The most direct consequence I've seen is that when Haiti had the big earthquake, everyone even those students in our small town college students at once reacted to it, donating and going there to rebuild schools or something. Whereas when I asked them about the earthquake in Wenchuan in 2008, almost no one had ever heard about it. The truth is we had a even severer earthquake and more devastate damage was caused, but because we could handle it ourselves, no one else cared about it. I don't mean that others have the responsibility to care about us, but the thing is we, as normal citizens and tax payers, should enjoy much better conditions than rescuing the poor children in the earthquake. It's like the Chinese government it hiding the fact from the outside world, and we have to eat the consequences quietly. Most of us don't even realize this. We pay tax, therefore the government should do things. That's their responsibility. That's what they should do before the earthquake. We can feel moved by them, but we can 't let this delude ourselves.

Anyways, I found my way finally, with the help of the Chinese guy. That night turned out to be the first day of the biggest snow storm in NYC that year, and I was lucky to find Xu's house before the real storm came. The timing was really bad. When I looked out through the window later that night, it was snowing brutally, reminding me of the film I saw a few weeks earlier, new Christmas Carol.

I feel like this article is really hard to define. It's not simply a journal, since I said so much about my view on some issues. Just in case, I'm writing this now, supposing no one will take a look at it.





















'

Film Study: Chinatown

1. What section of the chapter did you find most interesting and why?

I found the whole chapter interesting! Even though pictures are usually prior to dialogue or narration in a movie, screenplay is definitely one of the most important aspects of a film. This chapter discusses about how directors benefit from the sound-film technique. This made think about the recent movie I saw—Alice in Wonderland, Tim Burton version. In my whole-life-long memory, Alice in Wonderland has always been a mysterious, somewhat creepy but extremely interesting and attractive children fairy tale. But in the new 3D movie, I think Tim Burton adds some serious adult relationship into the story, and makes both adults and children identify with the main characters in it. I couldn’t help but wonder, if there were no dialogue in the movie, only the original soundtrack existed, we could probably get the story perfectly. Of course different people will have different interpretations, but for me, love would be the last theme that comes to my mind. Screenplay can totally change a movie. And I like the example of Andrew Sarris’ on how different shots change the meaning of the same picture. It reminds me many scenes I never really analyzed before. Besides, I totally agree with “some commentators” with the idea that if a work of art has reached its fullest artistic expression in one form, an adaptation will inevitably be inferior. I never saw a movie adapt a successful novel successfully.

2. What is your reaction to Chinatown? You should offer at least a paragraph analysis/reaction (which is not the same as a summary). What praise can you give the film? What negative criticism?

Chinatown is not a typical 70s film to me. The music use is just right. I remember there are lots of effects are created by the music in Hitchcock’s films. More often than not, the music scares audience rather than the pictures do. However, as a crime film, Chinatown doesn’t have the typical strong soundtrack in the movie, which impressed me. And later on when I re-watched it, I found myself enjoy the music in the movie a lot. I think the plotting is fantastic. Having the most direct cause, Hollis Mulwray, die in the very early part of the movie creates a mysterious atmosphere. And finding the murderer becomes the main task in the movie. However, different from ordinary crime/investigation movies, Chinatown has more than one single task. Who arranges the prostitute to pretend as Mrs. Mulwray? The second mystery occurs. Why would Noah Cross care so much about Hollis’ “lover”? Under the big task, there are so many mysterious questions. And when some of them are solved, like when Jack knows who asks the prostitute to pretend as Mrs. Mulwray, new problems appear. Why would Noah investigate Hollis in the name of “cheating on her wife”? I think the plotting is the best part of this movie. You never really understand until the last minute.


3. For many people, Chinatown is the best screenplay ever written. Based on what you’ve learned about screenwriting in this chapter, explain why critics have arrived at this conclusion.

Unlike most practical screenplay, Chinatown creates many mysteries at different time. Once a problem is solved, another appears. And this cycle goes on and on until the end.
The storytelling is great. The plotting makes audience deny themselves now and then. For example, the movie makes us believe that Mrs. Mulwray must have something to do with the death of her husband, but later we know there’s nothing. Then we believe that Mrs. Mulwray is a evil person for locking up her husband’s “lover”, and again we are misled. This is the most interesting part of the screenplay I think. Besides, there are a lot of implications in the process of the storytelling. For example, when Evelyn and Jack are in bed, she asks him about his work in Chinatown, and he mentions a woman. But when Evelyn asks: “did she die?” The phone rings preventing Jack from answering the question. This indicates Evelyn’s death in the end. And the most dramatic scene is when Jack asks who the mysterious girl is. Evelyn says “my sister”. A slap. “My daughter”. A slap. “My sister”. A slap. “My daughter”… The perfect combination of words and action, creates the most dynamic and dramatic scene. I couldn’t say the metaphor use of Chinatown is a great one, but it’s very effective. And I think the point of view in this film is objective point of view. There is no judgment on anyone. But the screenplay neglects a lot of unnecessary plot like how Jack investigates some of the background information. We are just directly told when he reveals those to people in the film. This is great, I think, because a lot of other movies are made too slow by giving all the unimportant details. And above all, I think this screenplay is very realistic, which is very important.


4. Is Jack Gittes a hero? Why/why not?

It’s hard to say. Gittes is not like the usual hero in other movies. He is the moral guide in Chinatown, but his moral standards seem to crash in the end when he sees Evelyn dead in the car. The movie left us another mystery here. Will Jake really forget about his moral disciplines and accept the “Chinatown rules”? Or will he go on sticking to his moral beliefs? And this is why it’s hard to say he’s the hero or not. In this sense, I see no heroes in this movie. Some of the characters are somewhere in between, like Jake, Walsh, and others are absolute evil, like Noah. The only person who seems to be a complete hero is Hollis Mulwray, who keeps his own belief completely. But he died in the begging. He can’t really be the hero for the movie. Throughout the early part of the movie, Gittes has always been the moral guide of the movie. Given this, I think he can be the hero. And in then end when his beliefs are smashed by the reality, he can no longer be the moral guide. But I think that’s more realistic in our true life. There are not many people sticking to their beliefs, and that’s why there are not many heroes. In general, I think Gittes falls somewhere in between, but if there must be a hero, that would be him in this movie.

5. How does Chinatown establish its generic conventions? What are those conventions? Does it confirm or frustrate expectations?

Chinatown has a very realistic theme, but the story tends to belong to formalistic category. But on the whole I believe Chinatown falls into realistic films. The movie begins in Jack Gittes’ office, where there are natural lights, natural sound and no distorted space. This movie emphasizes on the corruption of life rather than the world of imagination or beauty, which shows its realistic features. What makes Chinatown different is other realistic movies often have a certain cyclical structure, but in this film, the structure is rearranged based on the story. It’s like there are several small circles in this movie, we get off on and get into another, whereas other movies only have one. Another convention of realistic movies is that the narrator avoids making judgments. We can see in this movie that judgments are not the most important thing. There are no judgments on anyone in this movie. Other conventions like a fondness for expose, with “shocking” or “low” subject matter that is often criticized for its grittiness and “bad taste”, an avoidance of melodrama and exaggeration in favor of understatement and dedramatization and a scientific view of motivation, with a corresponding rejection of such romantic concepts as Destiny and Fate. Chinatown confirms all above expectation, except for its unusual structure use.

6. What figurative techniques occur in Chinatown? What is their significance?

The most obvious and important one is metaphor. Director uses Chinatown to show a symbolic meaning of Chinatown: no justice. Because of the different culture background, it must be hard to judge the accident or something. You never know exactly what is right and what is wrong. This indicates the corrupted society at that time. The future is controlled by the few people, like Noah. Police can’t do anything to change the situation in Chinatown, and it’s the same way with LA. And Jake thinks as long as he leaves Chinatown he can live his way, but the thing is Chinatown is just part of LA—he can’t do things his way in LA, either. This metaphor exists throughout the whole film. Another metaphor detail I found in the movie is their names. Noah as a name with some kind of authority and he is almost unbeatable like a superhuman, whereas Jack as a normal man’s name represents the ordinariness of Jack. He tries to defeat the superhuman with his human power. It’s destined to fail.
I agree with Kyle about the bandage on Gittes’ nose as a symbol. It shows the differences between Gittes and other people in the film. The comments he receives about his bandage imply the evil people in the film, and that how much they want to get rid of Gittes.
I also found the Owens Valley rape is an allusion used in the film. And there is an obvious homage to Chandler and Hammett. Other things like Manson kills Tate can also be found in this film. Director Polanski creates an extremely violent and bloody death of Evelyn, giving audience so much to think about.



7. Only one scene takes place in Chinatown – why is it the title of the film?

I think in this movie, Chinatown means “the less you know, the better”. Even though there is only one scene taking place in Chinatown, the implying meaning of Chinatown is haunted all over the movie. In the middle part we know that Jack used to work in Chinatown as a policeman, and he left for some unknown reason. However, ironically the movie ends in Chinatown, and Jack lost the game. The movie gives me the feeling that Chinatown is the place where there is no law, no justice, no future. Through the symbolic meaning of Chinatown and the Jack’s failed investigation, director Polanski reveals the problems of LA at that time. When we see the contrast between Jack’s frightened and desperate look and the blank and numb faces of the surrounded people in Chinatown, the theme reveals itself. There is no justice in the world. The past Jack had in Chinatown, and the lesson he should have learned there dominate the whole film. Also I think this is the reason why Polanski let the bad guy win. Another scene shows why Chinatown dominates the movie is when Noah Cross and Jack are have a conversation like this: “You may think you know what you’re dealing with, but, believe me, you don’t.” “That’s what the District Attorney used to tell me in Chinatown.” The grin Jack then has and the look he has in the end again construct a strong contrast, indicating the hidden rules of the situation. Another reason occurred to me at one point, but this may get too far. As a Chinese girl, I understand a lot of Chinese people are superstitious and believe in fate. What happened to Evelyn, Noah and Catherine somehow reminds me of Oedipus the King and some other ancient Greek mythologies. So Chinatown gives me the feeling of the irresistible power of fate. And that just something the movie reveals. The society is like a wild jungle—the rich kill the poor, the strong beat the weak.


8. Why would Roman Polanski create a film in which the bad guy wins?

I believe the reasons for this are various. For one thing, Roman Polanski is a person with very tragic background. He once said that the death of Sarah Tate totally changed his personality from a "boundless, untroubled sea of expectations and optimism" to one of "ingrained pessimism ... eternal dissatisfaction with life". This might be the reason why, as people said, Polanski had a fight with the writer about the ending. Another reason I think is based on the realistic background, a single person, like Jack, has no possibility to change the big picture. Only an organized group like the police can do something to stop the “monopoly” of people like Noah. However, the police are controlled by people like Noah. They serve for Noah, not against him. In real life, there are not many heroes. That’s why heroes are called heroes. The bad-guy-wins ending reveals how the world works. It’s more realistic. Maybe this is not quite right, but I suddenly have the feeling that this ending resembles some of the famous ancient drama/mythologies, where heroes died after experiencing a full circle of rise and fall. Noah is like the unquestionable god. He always wins, no matter what.

9. What mythic connections does this film have?

The very obvious one is the connection between Oedipus the King and this film. Apart from the fact that Evelyn is a woman and her father raped her, other key elements are very similar. There is an interesting detail that Jack say there is a green flaw in Evelyn’s eye iris. And in the end, Evelyn’s eye is shot. I guess it’s probably the same spot mentioned by Jack earlier. Interestingly, when Oedipus finds out the truth of his birth and that his daughters are actually also his sisters, he poked his eyes blind. I remember the description is really terrifying. There are literally two bloody holes on his face. And when the police straighten Evelyn’s body, her face frightened me, too. The importance of blindness in both plays I think is the metaphor meaning. In Chinatown, Evelyn is the only one who knows the truth after Hollis’ death. Only she can see things clearly, but her eye is totally ruined in the end. It strengthens the meaning that all people are metaphorically blind now. No one will stand up and fight against the evil now. And it more or less implies that even Jack knows the truth, because everyone else is blind, no one would believe him or support him.
Another connection I can think of is the fall of Jack. He is the moral guide and hero in the movie before the end, but he falls at last. This reminds me of some of the heroes in ancient epics, like Homeric epic and some others, where the heroes go through a full circle of rise and fall, but in the end almost all of them are doomed to death. It’s the fate. In Chinatown, it’s the reality.
Finally the connection of the name Noah with the Noah who saves lives on a ship ringed a bell with me. This is ironic. Both Noah have something to do with water. However, one fights against the flood and save people, while the other controls water in order to control the future and do whatever brutal things to please his own.


10. What are the themes of Chinatown? To which films that we’ve seen are these themes the most similar? The most different?

The main theme we see in Chinatown is that justice does not always work in our real life. Sometimes those who control the most important industry or who have the most power in economy or politics rule the society base on their own interest. Those who defeat them and “sue them to shit” successfully become heroes, but most of the time, there are no heroes. Women in this movie have really low status. They are totally controlled by the Mr. Big.
I think Apocalypse Now has the most similar themes to this one. No matter how reluctant people don’t want the war, as long as the authority is with the war, people have to fight. Kurtz’s mind is crashed by the war, so does Jack’s, the only difference is Jack is smashed by the reality. And most of the soldiers in the war don’t know why they have to fight, and their minds are all refreshed by the authority. Therefore they would do things like shoot people first and then send them to hospital. Similarly, in Chinatown people’s minds are numb. “As less as possible”. People are threatened by the hidden power, like the “monopoly” of certain industry and certain force.
On the contrary, Some Like It Hot has the opposite theme. Jerry and Joe successfully escape from the Spats group in the end. And women’s role is very high in this film. Run Lola Run is another film I feel the theme is really different. In Chinatown, no matter how hard Jack tries to change the situation, he failed, for the reality is too strong to defeat. However Lola can really change the situation based on her will. Reality is not that powerful in this film—you can even have the second and the third chance to change things to what you like.

11. Who is telling the story of Chinatown? How do we know? Is this narrator reliable?


I think Jack is telling the story of Chinatown. We see things from his perspective and make the same assumptions as he does. We analyze people through his assumptions, too. Like when Hollis is investigating the water, we watch him as how Jack watches. And some background information we don’t know are told through Jack when he is questioning others. For example, it is the co-worker of Hollis’ that directly hires the prostitute to go to Jack. We know these things from him.
The narrator is not very reliable throughout the movie, because he is the one who knows almost as much as we do in the begging. We gradually know more as he knows more, but much of those are some assumptions based on the proof we all have. As Noah says: “you may think you know what you’re investigating, but you don’t”, we don’t really know the truth. And the identity of a personal detective lowers his credibility, too. He is not the direct-related person in the whole thing. So he is not that reliable.


12. Do we understand this film differently in light of Polanski’s recent stretch in the news?

After checking the recent news about Polanski, I feel that he does not take police really seriously. He went to another country right before his sentence day. And in the movie we see that the real policemen are somewhat weak and they are just like decorations. Given that Polanski’s wife Sarah Tate and some others were murdered by Charles Manson, he is probably very disappointed with the police. It is said that they didn’t find out who was the real murderer until Charles Manson admitted it himself. I used to think about this movie based on the power of Noah, but ignored the real power of the police. If there is some people who can change the situation, it would be the police and the force whose power is entitled by the law. Why all of them are so weak even outside Chinatown? Justice is enacted by men. There is no justice, because there is no people want to take on the responsibility. One person is not enough. I see the disappointment Polanski has towards the police and his mockery on them.