House at the End of the Street ideology

Horror films are something that many individuals are attracted to. Many people love feeling the adrenaline rush that comes upon them when watching that terrifying moment with the scary music surrounding it. In the recently released movie “House at the end of the Street” starring Jennifer Lawrence along with Max Thieriot, the film was not as fascinatingas people thought it would be.

            A brief summary of the plot contains a mother and daughter move in a new town trying to heal the relationship that they have with each other. They find out that the house next had a history of  a father and mother being killed by their own daughter. The daughter apparently had brain damage and now no one knew where she was. With that being said the man and women’s son Ryan was still living in it. Ryan and Elissa (Jennifer Lawrence) built a sort of romantic relationship, but Elissa doesn’t realize that this guy can potentially be a psycho.

            According to the movie review, “The whole thing is slackly staged, flatly acted, zero-suspense exposition.” They expected more from a horror film along with Lawrence as an actress.  She’s had such successful films,  for example The Hunger Games and Winter’s Bone. She is such a strong actress that they did not expect to see something poor come from her. The ideology comes in place when talking about how poorly this movie did. Critics compared this horror film to the ideology of how a horror film should be. According to the writer the movie is a “rare horror film so bad you almost wish it had turned into a good old connect-the-gory-dots slasher movie.” What it should have been was a suspenseful horror film filled with great excitement, with a strong actress making it incredible.

Along with the ideology about horror films the writer also connects it to a wider discourse about entertainment. Entertainment is something that has been developed over the years. It engages the audience and the individuals are attracted to  what they are doing/watching. Shakespear used his plays to amuse the audience  and gladiator fights were formed in history to be distracting along with entertaining. Nowdays mostly everything in the media is entertaining.This film also came down to entertainment.People thought this film would be enjoyable but the entertainment factor was low.  Since Lawrence’s previous films have been really successful the writer was taken back on “how Lawrence's agent ever let her sign on” this film. The discourse of entertainment and the ideology of horror films was lacked on this film. You can read the review of the movie in the link below.
 

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20632188,00.html

 

Planet of the apes (1968)

Ideas have been influenced by a review on the ideology of the interaction of mankind with its environment in Planet of the apes.

‘Planet of the Apes’ is a 1968 American science fiction film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, based on the 1963 French novel ‘La Planète des singes’ by Pierre Boulle. The film stars

Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowall. It was the first in a series of five films made between 1968 and 1973, all produced by Arthur P. Jacobs. The film tells the story of an astronaut crew headed by Taylor who crash-lands on a strange planet in the distant future. Although the planet appears desolate at first, the surviving crew members stumble upon a society in which apes have evolved into creatures with human-like intelligence and speech. The apes have assumed the role of the dominant species and humans are mute creatures wearing animal skins.

From the ideology in this review: http://appraisercentral.com/research/Planet%20of%20the%20Apes.htm, it is seen that the apes portray humans to send an indirect message about the nature of mankind. This review can be said to be  ideologically influenced because it indirectly shows a shared set of belief about the world. The author sees the world as being full of faults; a world that is entangled in lots of problems, one of which is religion. In the movie itself, from the beginning to the end, the viewer is shown a picture of a world ruled by a heavy handed government, and led by apes that represent the church and state alike. Planet of the Apes opposed one of the founding principles of the United States which is the stagnation in science, and close-mindedness in religion as exemplified by the Dr. Zaius, the main character as the “Chief Prosecutor and Defender of the Faith”. The author points out: "One of the founding principles of the United States of America is a division of church and state. To us, having one individual controlling both seems not only preposterous, but dangerous. The American mind immediately concludes that a system such as this will lead to stagnation in science, and close-mindedness in religion." and from this it is understood that the author agrees with it. He believes that the church and the states cannot go hand in hand.  There is another section where the author talks about the scientist Cornelius attacking the religious belief of mankind and the review later on states: “Charles Darwin challenged religions view on the origins of life in the 1800’s, and frighteningly similar things occurred to him.” The word 'frightening' here shows the ideology of the speech. Maybe what the author means here is that people are not allowed to voice out their opinions and they can be persecuted for free speech. Maybe in the western liberal ideology freedom of speech is permissible to a very high extent but in other countries, life can be at risk.


Also, from: “Planet of the Apes deals with a great number of issues that come up in everyday society. If one looks closely at the story it is very easy to realize that Planet of the Apes is not at all about apes, but a story about the human condition, and the way humans interact with their natural environment, about the dangers of religion, and even more powerfully a warning about the dangers of a politically active church.” It is seen that Planet of the Apes is a political allegory and that is the way the world functions.  With slight evidence of tact, the movie still tackles issues like racism, class divisions, and the dangers of close-mindedness whereby the apes treat the humans as assets. Within ape society, there is flagrant social structure, based on species. The  chimpanzees are the scientists and thinkers, the orangutans are the politicians, and the gorillas are the warriors. Of the three, the chimpanzees are considered of being of the lowest class. Just like the societal hierarchy; working class, middle class and upper class. In this culture, free thinking is not allowed, and, when Zira and Cornelius try to encourage new ways of regarding human beings, Dr. Zaius intervenes and he proves Zira and Cornelius wrong in the Kangaroo court. Some of Planet of the Apes' social criticisms aimed at the racist mentality that still infiltrated a large section of the United States at that particular time.

Yet there are two ways of interpreting the lessons the film teaches. On one level, Planet of the Apes deliberately cautions individuals not to repeat the past. While on another level, the director could be giving views by screening that we did not acquire from our preceding and are therefore doomed to replicate it. These are interpretations that wholly depend on the individual seeing the film.

Serling who created “Twilight Zone” (still the best television series ever), wanted to write about social and political issues but knew that these were (and still are) hot topics. So he made a simple reversal in evolutionary roles to express his views, which also belittled with the ideas of the turbulent 1960s. Though targeted at youth, Planet of the Apes was made to make all people who had not endorsed into the sixties ideology think twice about the world they lived in, and turmoil all their ideologies and make them vision the world differently. The discussion between Taylor and Dr. Zaius is one meant to encourage individuals to question the government, and the information it gives them. It can also be seen that Planet of the Apes hopes to show people that religion is merely an apparatus meant to keep society in line so that people can be dominated by a power hungry government. Though written for the sixties, thirty years later Planet of the Apes still carries a message, and one that is still valid in today’s political climate.

References: http://appraisercentral.com/research/Planet%20of%20the%20Apes.htm

Ideology in "Innocence of Muslims"

Ideology in "Innocence of Muslims"

Everybody enjoys movies. All kinds—action, comedy, dramas, and yes, Romance movies. I also especially enjoy watching foreign films, in that the langue of all cultures when dubbed over becomes fascinating and allows the viewer to experience a discourse or ideology from another cultural perspective. A great example is the discourse surrounding Venezuela’s socialist government of Hugo Chavez; in the west the underlying ideology is described as essentially communist, anti-capitalist and “bad”, while from inside Venezuela, the poor instead view capitalism as inherently evil and instead praise the many benefits of socialism, such as free housing, health care and education.

Ideologies are prevalent in virtually all opinion pieces. One such example is Chris Selley’s piece entitled ”Media should show clips of the anti-Islam film behind the outrage if it offends people or not” in the National Post on September 15, 2012. The most obvious expression that Selley focuses on is the censorship surrounding material that may be offensive to Muslims, and he references the movie that has made headlines as of late, “Innocence of Muslims”. The movie, parts of which I have watched, is as Selley says, rather amusing. It doesn’t make any sense, it has no actual plot, and the acting is so terrible that the actors belong on a list lower than the Z-list. The movie has caused protests in Muslim countries around the world, resulting in deaths. Now, it’s hard to imagine how a movie such as this can cause such international outrage, especially resulting in the deaths of people. Selley points out a wide variety of news outlets have refused to air clips of the film, such as CBC and CTV, while the Global aired parts of it. According to Selley, countries such as Libya and Egypt are too radical. He then spins his op-ed into questioning the possible future intervention in Syria, seeing as Canada took out a secular Gaddafi and installed a religious regime that would allow protests such as this. I agree that the governments are more radical than the previous secular ones, but Selley does not elaborate on the ideology of free speech.

The discourse that this particular movie, the Innocence of Muslims, evokes is that of free speech and cultural sensitivity. In particular, free speech is a very important concept in Western countries. People can criticize individuals without fear, insult politicians, and even swear in public. Some centuries ago, such actions would have resulted in arrest and imprisonment, and today in some countries it still does, such as in Thailand, where insulting the King is a criminal offense—even jokingly! Thai’s take their monarch very seriously. In this particular discourse there are two sides—one advocates free speech over censorship, while the other portrays the discourse in another light. Muslims claim that it is a religious insult, and while they support freedom of speech, their freedom of speech excludes religious attacks and insults. Muslim religious doesn’t only refer to insults to the prophet, but the mere depiction of the prophet is considered an insult. The pastor who threatened to publicly burn the Koran was condemned by virtually all religions. But drawing a cartoon, or making a satirical movie about the prophet, is blasphemy, worthy of death? In my opinion that is taking free speech a bit too far. While Selley’s main argument is against the removal of secular regimes in the Middle East, the discourse evoked makes for an interesting analysis.

 

References

Selley, C. (2012). Media should show clips of the anti-Islam film behind the outrage if it offends people or not. National Post. Retrieved from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/15/ chris-selley-media-should-show-clips-of-the-anti-islam-film-behind-the-outrage-if-it-offends-people-or-not/

Ideology in "Spring Breakers"

              Young adults and teen ideology in "Spring Breakers"

      

    

 

     Harmony Korines new move "Spring Breakers" is yet to be released in Spring 2013, the plot line is basically about a trio of college/university students that rob a diner so that they could raise enough money to go on vacation during Spring Break. This film has a wide range of violence, drugs, profanity, and sex. The main cast members are James Franco, Ashley Benson, Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, and Rachel Korine. In other words, Disney darling, Selena Gomez has a huge impact on her fans which are collectively around her age and much younger than her. Selena advises her younger fans not to watch this film and stick to watching her hit sitcom on Disney Channel "Wizards Of Waverly Place".  Spring Breakers is rated R therefore it is not meant for the little ones to watch. Following this further, People in the media are making a big deal about Selena's role in this film because she was a former Disney actress. Moreover,  the media continues to ramble about Selena's character in 'Spring Breakers" because they stress that her character could be a bad influence on her younger fans, but that is not the case, Harmony has made this film to show people what a teenagers (University freshman) life is basically about in today's generation.

        

      The ideology in this movie is strictly focusing on the teenagers of today's generation and how they live their lives, their basic beliefs, and values in life, such as they way they socialize, act, and behave. Harmony continues to amaze the world with his astonishing plot line which is relate able to society, Harmoney doesn't just make movies, he makes the BEST movies. The film "Spring Breakers" is yet to be released but it is evidently predictable about what the media has to say about Gomez's role in the film when Spring 2013 rolls around. At the end of the day acting is acting, and Disney darling Gomez is just being professional about her role and doing her job as an phenomenal actress. Thus, the media needs to stop making a big issue and controversy out of Selena’s role in this film and realize the fact that actress’s and actors are always taking an extra step in their careers whenever they feel most comfortable to try acting out in new roles.

  

    The film“Spring Breakers" is based on an ideology which was formed by the people of today's generation, and by people I mean teenagers and young adults. The ideology’s beliefs and values are identical to the majority of the teens and young adults of today’s generation. The article “Spring Breakers Clip: Good girls Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens go bad” by Meriah Doty,  indicates that Gomez “Seems to have outgrown her former squeaky-clean Disney persona” meaning that she is ready to be identified as being taken seriously as an actress and experience a whole new role in acting which she has never experienced in the past. Harmony Korine's film "Spring Breakers is encouraged for people in society that are over the age of eighteen to watch in order to understand the reality of the teens and young adults of today's generation.

 

 

 Doty, Meriah. (2012)“Spring Breakers Clip: Good girls Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens go bad”. Movies.yahoo.com. http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/spring-breakers-clip-good-girls-selena-gomez-vanessa-172206841.html