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?