Film

With the recent wave of Bollywood actors being integrated in Hollywood productions within the last few years, I’m wondering if this poses any risks or if this is a sign of progress in what people say is an overtly white-male establishment. With big actors like Amitabh Bachchan making an appearing in Baz Luhrmann’s remake of The Great Gatsby and Priyanka Chopra making headlines with not only landing a leading role in the American TV show Quantico but also winning the People’s Choice Award for said role as well as appearing in the upcoming movie Bay Watch and Deepika Padukone who is said to appear alongside Vin Diesel in xXx: The Return of Xander Cage. Does this intertwining of two different movie industries pose any sort of threat? or is this the beginning of inclusivity of POCs within the mostly white film industry?

On the surface it appears that Avatar (the one with the blue people, not the Last Airbender) is a critique on imperialist violence, one long overdue in our culture. But the movie falls short not just once but several times, changing from a thoughtful social commentary to just another feel-good, white-savior blockbuster. I’m not here to critique the writing, though god knows it needs it.

I’m here to talk about how Jake, the wounded soldier, still endorses violence as the only option to take down the Colonel. "I was hoping you’d say that?" And then the film’s narrative dances around having Jake kill the Bad Guy, because oh my god can’t have your hero kill someone on screen. Though apparently Jake’s killed lots of people before.

On the surface, the final battle is won (with Eywa’s help) to preserve the balance of the land. This is undermined by the blatant glorying in death the film takes – the battle is framed as heart-stopping, glorious, something to revel in when you are winning and to dread when you are not.

In the end, the day is won with more violence, endorsed by a deity. There is no even stopping to think on the harm done after the battle – the casualties are swept under the film’s rug, because they died for a good cause right? Oh, and some of the ‘good’ humans get to stay. Even though there’ll be no funding for their equipment to be maintained and it’s likely they’ll NEVER get back to Earth. Oh well, they can live on a planet with floating rocks and air that’s poisonous to them, right?

In any form of art, whether it be film, poetry, or literature, some of it is very abstract. So abstract, that some people assert that perhaps it is lacking in actual meaning. Many students in an Intro. to Creative Media class I am taking has postulated that David Lynch’s films are void of meaning because they are so abstract and ambiguous. Is this something that should be thought? That simply because we cannot conceive of the artists’ intention that perhaps there is none?

It would be a great idea to analyze a bit more on what made film producers want to create a film after a book. This analyzation can introduce the readers to a few reasons that may have attracted the producer to want to see a story from an author come to life. The topic can focus on the romance genre as there have been many movies adapted from books of romance. For example, 50 Shades of Grey which has been a big deal in today’s generation. The book trilogy got not just one movie, but three. What were the attractions that the film producer got from the book that he/she wanted to see on the screen?

This past weekend, Jeffrey Tambor won the Emmy for outstanding lead actor in a comedy series for playing a transgender woman in Amazon’s show Transparent. Also, Eddie Redmayne will be playing a transgender woman in The Danish Girl in an upcoming film that looks like it’s an Oscar vehicle. And think of how well Dallas Buyers Club did for Jared Leto. It seems that these roles are often portrayed in interviews and articles as "complex challenges" for cisgender actors to take on. Is this problematic? Should we be arguing for more trans* actors to play their own roles, or is it okay to continue casting cisgender actors?