Luke Cage: Putting People In Boxes

Luke Cage has all the dressings of the rest of the Netflix Marvel shows. They have a pacing and tone to them that, if maybe a bit predictable, is enjoyable. The fight scenes are wonderfully choreographed, and the editing is tight. There is a devilishly likeable villain. Luke Cage is, in many ways, just another arm of the behemoth that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe. With an ever expanding list of shows and movies, it’s becoming a monster. What’s interesting is not the similarities that Luke Cage shares with its counterparts, but the difference. Luke Cage places an unprecedented focus on color. Now that’s a double entendre.

The show has vibrant and recurring hues that it creates its own meaning for through repetition. The foreboding red and heroic yellows are ever-present, and stylistically this sets it apart from the pack. However, this isn’t the focus I mean. Luke Cage is the first black superhero to grace the face of the MCU. That’s not a problem; a black hero is a wonderful change of pace from the rather monotoned lineup. It’s the manner in which race is portrayed in Luke Cage that seems out of touch to me.

From the beginning, I felt something was up. The opening starts with flashing images of Malcolm X boulevard and Harlem, set to a soulful groove. In the first scene we are shown a barber shop in which a group of black people are arguing about basketball. The rich villain has a giant painting of Biggie. Luke Cage is not a superhero who happens to be black, he is a black superhero. The extreme focus on race makes Luke Cage feel like a token character, rather than a well developed individual. In the dramatic scenes of Daredevil or Jessica Jones, the music is reflective of the context. With Luke Cage, it is invariably soul, funk, or rap. Things like this cheapen the show, making it and the characters somewhat one dimensional.

The inclusion of black culture is not a problem. However, they employ a set of stereotypes that I find very limiting. The line between showing black culture realistically and making race seem to define people is thin, and tricky to navigate. People are not just the color of their skin, but it is a part of what makes them who they are. To deny any racial focus would be just as unrealistic to the setting of Harlem. There is a middle ground that should be strived for, in between pretending culture doesn’t exist and making caricatures of people.

Nick and Marty, One and the Same

In Netflix's Ozark, I think there are a few key pieces that parallel your life, Nick, or the pieces that you shared for us.  For one, more broadly, the show is about a family that has to completely unroot their life to move elsewhere to start anew, which resembles your transition from living in Kirksville, to Texas, to Los Angeles.  Next, an overarching idea that was prevalent during your talk with the class was one concerning working without the expectation of money.  When Marty moves his family to the Ozarks, he has quite a bit of trouble with that concept, at least at first.  These two ideas which are expressed throughout episode two of Ozark each share some resemblance to you and your journey through life.

The idea of picking up everything and moving elsewhere is a cause of many of the problems that Marty and his family, especially his children, struggle with.  One key similarity between your transition from Kirksville to Texas, Nick, and the Byrde family's move is that both transitions were done to look for different opportunities that depend on the location of the where you were moving to.  For example, you mentioned that one of the reasons you moved to Texas was because of the vibrant artistic community that was present there.  Marty needed to move his family in order to look for a way to wash dirty money covertly.  Fortunately, your impetus to move was far less severe and less illegal than Marty's; however, the location that you moved to was largely influenced by the aspects of the new environment.

Next, the topic of working without the expectation of money is an idea that is explored throughout the second episode.  In your own life, you said that you would be happy to help any friend make any film they wanted, despite if you thought it was good not; you said that if you thought you could help, you would and would invest your own time and effort into making it something to be proud of.  On top of all that, you stated that you expected to not receive any payment for any of the work you did even while investing your own money out of pocket.  In Marty’s case, he needs to invest into the businesses around the Ozarks in order to get a return afterward; he is strictly in it for the money.  The episode shows his growing desperation by displaying him nearly begging store owners all around the area to give him a chance.  At one point he even ends up at a strip club asking the owner to give him a shot, at which point the owner comes right out and says that he knows Marty is just trying to wash some dirty, laundered money and that the owner wanted no part in it.  Where it gets interesting, though, is near the end of the episode.  Nick, I think Marty may have taken a page out of your book when he goes into this bar and hears a patron bullying the bartender.  Keeping in mind the man doing the bullying had to be in his thirties, while the bartender may have been a kid just over 21.  Right before Marty confronts the bully, he glances over his shoulder to look out a window and sees a client that he was recently trying to invest in, but she had previously turned him away, because she doubted his ethicality.  Marty then confronts the bully where he promptly gets knocked out cold; however, in his short spiel to the bully, Marty explains that the bully had absolutely no right to say such rude things to a stranger and that Marty always taught his kids manners.  In short, it appeared that the short spiel was enough to get Marty’s potential client to have some grain of sympathy for him.  Being able to work, without pay, but while building relationships is an extremely valuable trait to have that almost always pays dividends.  

The second episode of Ozark allows Marty’s character to develop further while exploring his desperate situation.  In his struggles, the similarities between your story, Nick, and his are apparent.  Learning how to handle a transition from one living space to another while also learning how to build relationships through good nature are both major overarching ideas that appear to have largely influenced your life as well as Marty’s.  

To The Bone

WARNING I will be reviewing “To The Bone”. This movie is graphically based off a girl’s struggle with anorexia. I will be including heavy subjects in my review. Please keep that in mind before reading on.

Dear Nick,

Today I watched a movie, “To the Bone”. I have never been more disappointed in a movie before.

I’m not too sure if this movie would fit into any genre you seem to fancy, that being horror, surrealism, or documentary. This movie is a drama, and well, it sure was dramatic. And maybe a little too dramatic at that. In fact, it’s so incredibly dramaticized, that I am angry with it. I’m extremely angry with this movie. In this movie, we follow Ellen, or Eli, who is struggling with anorexia to the point where she could die. However, like any other drama starring a female, all she needed was a pretty boy to save her life. I know you don’t usually focus much on the “moral” of the story, so this probably wouldn’t affect you much. However, as you take a step back to look at the story as a whole, one of the main influences that pushes Eli to fight her eating disorder and start working to better herself is the love of a boy. At the end of the day, whatever motivation someone may have in order to fight a mental illness is probably a bigger benefit to them than anything else. However, as someone who’s dealt with mental illness before, both personally and from close friends, this isn’t a topic I would romanticize the way the creators did.

While the overall moral of the story isn’t the best, and while they romanticize mental illness as something beautiful-when it’s actually quite the opposite-the movie wasn’t entirely awful. One of my favorite characters was Dr. Beckham, played by Keanu Reeves. He seemed to be one of the most realistic characters. He uses harsh truth on his patients, and isn’t fooled by a majority of their bullshit. The creators used this as a tool, in order to put the viewers into a better sense of how the patients feel. While they live in their own heads, Dr. Beckham does his best to bring them back down to Earth. In a movie plastered with fantasy, he serves as a break from the unrealistic setting of the movie.

Overall, this movie tried and failed. The creators aimed it towards audiences that could relate to the topics presented, and yet I feel they did it in the worst way possible. They set unrealistic standards for how one should go about dealing with their mental illness, and don’t give sources as to who people could contact if they were feeling the same way as some of the characters shown in the movie. As this is Netflix’s second attempt at addressing mental illness in media form, I hope that either third time's the charm, or the third time simply doesn’t happen. It’s a difficult topic to truly justify and present in an accurate way, and too often, it goes glamorized. I hope someday there’ll be an accurate portrayal that won’t leave people thinking they want that sort of lifestyle.

Heroin(e)

“I will help them if I think I can make it better.” This quote comes from Nick Toti, a graduate of Truman who came and spoke to our Writing as Critical Thinking class. He is a pursuing a career in film out in Los Angeles, and spoke to our class about his journey and the morals and visions that he has developed along the way. One of his ideas is “I will help them if I think I can make it better”. This is a vision that many people share, especially those who devote their life to healthcare and community service. A Netflix original documentary, Heroin(e), fully embodies Nick’s idea. It follows three women in Huntington, West Virginia, who are dealing with the heroin and drug crisis in their city. Each of them does their job to the fullest, while simultaneously going above and beyond the job description. One of these individuals who follows Nick’s philosophy exceptionally well is the deputy chief of the Fire Department, Jan Rader. She tirelessly works to moderate the heroin and opiate issue their city is facing.

Nick’s quote “I will help them if I think I can make it better” is references the way he aims to play a supporting role to be able to help those he works closely with. His thought is aimed at helping others succeed, so they ultimately can finish their project, and if necessary in the future, assist Nick when he is in need of help. The women give to others without expecting anything in return, the idea is still applicable to the attitude the three women have in their community.

The documentary is shot up close and personal, like an interview. It shows the raw emotions of these strong women, and the way their are influencing their community and every life they touch. Most of the camera shots are bouncy, not always smooth and sway to different people, mimicking the turning of a head so it feels like you are there in the room with them. Additionally, the perspectives are mainly shot from the passenger seat of the car with them while they are talking, giving it a deeply personal feel and allowing the women to talk about more of the emotional aspects without making direct eye contact. Throughout the entire documentary no eye contact is made with the camera at all, potentially showing that while the people are doing well at working with people, however are still affected emotionally by this issue. When the fire department responds to an overdose at a gas station, the camera is back behind a row of candy, similar to your perspective if you were there in person. This assists in making the overdoses and emergency situations dynamic and serious. Additionally, some identities of users are concealed with the camera. They either stand out of shot, or the shot is dark, only capturing their silhouette. This added dose of security makes it seem like a bigger production than a documentary, while also piquing your interest about their identity and what their end situation is. I would have liked to see more of a finale to the documentary. The deputy chief was promoted at the end, but other than that it left you hanging about the people you met throughout. However, this probably was the best choice, as with life, there is not really an ending to a story, and may also relate to the opportunity of people being able to change their life.

The Other One: The Long, Strange Trip Of Bob Weir

Well, Mr. Toti, it seems I am writing this blog post to you (though I don't know if you'll receive it). So, I decided to do a documentary since you seem to be very much interested in that genre judging from your presentation on Thursday. I also saw your film at Baldwin Hall, The Complete History of Seattle, so I decided that I should also make it a musical documentary. So, it was either a choice between a documentary about Nina Simone or Bob Weir, and given the band you did your documentary on was a punk band, I decided to go the more "alternative" route.
For those that do not know, Bob Weir was the vocalist and primary songwriter of one of the most influential bands in music history: The Grateful Dead. This documentary follows the musician in his old age and what he's doing now, as well as provides the history of the man and his time in the band. It starts from his youth, where he was adopted shortly after he was born, growing up a troubled kid and getting kicked out of numerous schools. He'd later eventually end up meeting and hanging out with future bandmate, the late Jerry Garcia. That's where they start out as The Warlocks and eventually end up as The Grateful Dead. The documentary goes into the details of the events the band goes through during their fame: drugs, sex, fans, the stuff, before culminating in the death of Jeffrey Garcia and the dissolving of the band. I'm being scant on details because that's what makes the documentary, and I dare not spoil a lot of it because it's worth the watch.
As the cinematography and the way it's shot goes, it's nothing really home to write about. It's filmed just like your standard, day-to-day documentary. It follows Bob around modern day to places of interest from his past (the house he grew up in, the place he first met Jerry, where the band lived at the time, etc.). It shows archived footage of the band performing, their fans, interviews, and news relating to the band, while also showing vintage photos of the band members (particularly Bob), standard stuff. However, it does keep cutting back to an interview between ex-talk show host Tom Snyder and Bob and Jerry, which I though was an interesting note.
So, in the end, I recommend this as not only a great documentary for real Grateful Dead fans (obviously), but also people who are big fans of psychedelic rock or alternative genres of rock in general. Hell, I'd even recommend it to people who are big into documentaries in general. And with punk basically being THE alternative genre of alternative rock, I figured you might interested in this, Nick, especially since your documentary focused on the rise and fall of a punk band, as does this documentary, although more-so for tragedy rather than any religious reason.

Gerald's Game

To Nick Toti:

This week I watched the Movie Gerald’s Game which was just released today and is based off of a 1993 Stephen King novel. Jessie and Gerald are a married couple with a downhill marriage hoping to spice things up with a kinky weekend away in the countryside. Gerald has a fantasy that includes him handcuffing Jessie up to the bed. Things turn bad when Jessie feels uncomfortable and Gerald has a heart attack. Still tied up to the bed Jessie has to get away before she ends up just like him.

I think that you would enjoy this film for its thrilling qualities. You tend to produce films that have some horror it may be clowns or ghosts but this movie did not have that. What it did have was a lot of realism. This movie was depicted in a lot of planned out and thoughtful detail so much to the point you could imagine being there. The portion of the movie leading up to Gerald’s death was very quick, just letting you know what you needed to.  Shortly after his death the small details come into play. For example, while on their way to the house in the woods they see a stray dog that’s hungry and she tries to feed. Then there’s the door that they accidentally forget to close on their way into the house. These two details lead up to the hungry dog coming in to snack on Gerald putting Jessie in a lot of shock and horror as the dog tears pieces of him off to eat. But these details are only one reason the movie was so enjoyable

Throughout the movie Jessie begins to see things which include her and Gerald talking to her and telling her what she can and cannot do. This really goes in deeper and gives you an insight of what is going on mentally. Through this the story gets so much deeper even going back to her childhood and why she felt so uncomfortable with Gerald’s requests. Also shown through this was her thought process leading up to her escape. It runs through everything she did to escape and her thought process leading up to that idea that pulled you in deeper and deeper. It’s one thing to see a movie on just the outside but to see the people and see the thought and contemplation really allows you to put yourself in that person’s shoes. All of this made me love this movie so much more, I felt like I was right there with her tied to that bed, scared and afraid of what could happen next.

I think that with your experience and what you like in your own movies you would really enjoy this movie. It’s a great movie that you can really get into and enjoy and I would suggest it to anyone that likes suspenseful, thrilling movies.

Heroin(e)

This week, I viewed a program on Netflix titled Heroin(e). This program in particular was a documentary detailing the major heroine issue of a town in West Virginia. The documentary didn’t exactly differ from any other average documentary; it was educational and attempted to pull at your heartstrings so that you care about the subject matter. While the subject of drug-related deaths and heroine addiction are sad and concerning matters, this documentary in particular wasn’t exactly the most emotional or skillfully directed one that I’ve ever seen.

This week, I also had the opportunity to view the documentary titled The Complete History of Seattle by Truman graduate and underground film director, Nick Toti. Toti's documentary in particular employed many abstract filming and editing tactics that could be characterized as a cross between surrealism and dadaism (it's a bit of a stretch, I know). The documentary about a punk band composed of "alternative" Christians is definitely not one for the [extremely] faint of heart, but also is not one to regret viewing.

Heroin(e) didn’t employ any abstract camera uses or anything experimental or genre-deviating. Though after viewing The Complete History of Seattle, I can’t help but imagine what the lovechild between these two works of art would look like. I’m sure experimental cinematic masterpieces detailing hard drug abuse have been done, but the thought of the combining the documental style of Heroin(e) with the experimental surrealistic style of Complete History is an interesting one.

The way that this documentary is filmed is dry and straight to the point. This isn’t a bad thing whatsoever, considering that the subject matter is enough to catch and hold the attention of the viewers. Many camera shots in this 40 minute installment are taken from inside of cars. I once read somewhere (and no, I cannot remember the source) that conversations inside of cars hold high importance. I also know from experience that I’ve conducted many important conversations while in either the driver or front passenger seat of a car. Since the camera holder in these car scenes is usually in the passenger seat, the angle of the shot comes from below the person speaking in the driver seat. This contributes to a unique sense of intimacy and urgency required for a documentary like this.

I suppose that as a person who views more feature films than documentaries, I was expecting some type of structure: introduction, story, and resolve. However, I was disappointed when the program stopped seemingly abruptly. We, as an audience of cinema, have become so attuned to the notion that every narrative of every type needs an ending, preferably a happy one, but if not, any ending. This documentary didn’t just end, and that isn’t as problematic as it may sound. The drug problem in this town in West Virginia hasn’t been “resolved.” It hasn’t “ended” and this is where that hanging feeling comes from at the conclusion of this documentary in particular.

Secondhand Danger

Dear my friend who shall not be named,

This week I watched Travelers. That thing was freaky. It had the longest intro I think I have ever experienced of a pilot and I felt anxious and confused throughout it. It had a very thriller-esc mood or vibe to it. They kinda just throw the audience in the middle of it. We jump from one unpleasant situation centered around one character to an entirely different unpleasant situation with another character. This show uses a wide array of tools to influence the audience's experience. In the first scene, we see there is a blonde girl that seems the be the character of focus. She seems to be a grown woman. She is in a dim lit building. We subconsciously infer that it is closing time based on the conversation she has with another woman and the window that depicts a dark night and the ground wet from recent rain. We get a little short scene of her trying to read, telling us that she has some sort of mental handicap. Before a group of at four men start physically harassing her female co-worker as she watches and yells in horror. She starts banging on the glass yelling at them, but then seems a little disoriented when they turn their attention to her as her friend escapes. Like somehow she didn't realize that if she did that, it would call her to attention. She runs away from the big glass window after they throw a bottle of alcohol at it. Now, this is all just a play by play of the first sequence we see and I haven't even finished it. The sounds, the lighting, and camera angles make the audience feel as if we are there. We hear muffled screaming as her friend is attacked until it catches the main character’s attention, then the audience is suddenly outside of the building watching and hearing the assault first hand and then back inside as the main character responds. Which is pretty explanatory of my own personal discomfort watching the intro because the audience experiences four different scenarios with four different characters that are equally dangerous, but two of them are particularly frightening. The first is the one I began describing above which we will just summarize in short as Woman almost getting gang-raped and the second, we will just put in short as BabyDaddy under the influence smashes Young Mother’s head into the wall. Now the other two scenarios were just as dangerous but didn't have as much power to them. Now some might say that the reason the other two aren't as significant is because the main characters are guys and I disagree. The reason why the other two aren't as powerful is because the two characters are in danger by choice or at least more so than the other two. In the two scenarios where the main characters are guys, the first is a guy that looks to be getting his ass handed to him in an underground fighting ring and he chooses to ignore his friend urging him to stop and the other is a guy in a house or something with a friend sitting in chairs and injecting themselves with what I assume is heroin. Now I stopped watching not long after that, but I thought it was very interesting and frustrating how they put the audience in and make us feel scared, helpless, anxious, and confused. At least that was how I was feeling watching all these horrible situations play out and not being able to intervene. Whelp, that's all I've got for this one. I could probably talk a ton more about this show, but considering how it's not my favorite I think I'll end it here.

Till next time,

happylittlepenguin

Black Mirror and iBoy: If Only Tom Were There

Tom, I'm not sure if you've ever heard of the Netflix show Black Mirror, but I bet you'd be itching to jump through the screen and help. I watched the first episode because I thought it looked "techy" and relatable to you. I really didn't know what I was getting myself into, but while I was watching I tried to pay attention to one thing that I knew would be comparable to your film, iBoy, which was elements of technology and how they are portrayed compared to the iBoy universe from which you dwell. What I found out was quite interesting: technology is portrayed as a MEGA disadvantage and various elements help to heighten that disadvantage throughout the episode.

"Well, if there are hacks sniffing' around, shut them down. Bright red D NOTICE. Super-fucking Godzilla injunction with ten-inch Whitehall fangs" is what the Prime Minister is quoted in reply to one of his team members when he learns that the kidnapping video of Princess Suzana has gone virtually viral. Boom. Right away there's a sense of, in a very British accent, utter annoyance with the technology brutes. Furthermore, in the background of nearly every shot there are phones ringing and cell phone buttons being pressed to blanket the subconscious into thinking that the source of the anxiety is coming from the phones, i.e. technology. Additionally, the premise of the episode is set around media coverage, so naturally there are many shots of televisions all over the UK as well. The Prime Minister does NOT want the press or public to learn of the video, however, it is totally out of his hands and, thus, something that exasperates the hell out of him and his whole team.

Tom, I feel like you can sort of relate to this premature annoyance, as you did not ask to be shot in the head and have permanent phone fragments take over your life, however your take is quite different than that of Black Mirror. Any time the phone beeps, buzzes, or rings creates a certain unspoken tension. For example, at one point in the show the Prime Minister receives a phone call from the Queen. His immediate response is to have someone stall her while he frantically figures out his plan. Later, his wife calls as he is in route to... Meet the kidnapper's demands (I'm choosing not to state what the demands are; you'll have to watch and find out!) and after a brief handful of seconds he decides to send her to voicemail, most likely because he is ashamed of what he's about to do. Again, that evokes a sense of disappointment on both ends of the phone line.

This is the case for this show, but in iBoy you take advantage of your situation and make it an advantage rather than the opposite. By turning it into a sort of superpower, you use your tech-brain to help people and solve problems that seem impossible. They sure could've used you in Black Mirror, Tom.

Sherlock can you uncover the Naked truth?

Sherlock can you find the Naked truth?

The moral of the story is never take any one second for granted and do not rush through life.

The general person would effortlessly say to you that “only a sociopath would manipulate someone like Rob Anderson (the well mannered groom),” but Vicky (the jealous best friend/ ex hook-up) steps out of that “average person” relm of people and does that exact thing.  

I feel as if this is your kind of movie Mr. Holmes. A movie with a beginning and end and a whole lot of jam in between. The genre of Naked has been like no other movie I have ever laid eyes on before. I am not sure on what to label this one. Either a chick flick, thriller, mystery, or a romantic comedy would all be perfect genera labels. If one were to label this movie a chick flick I would not be calling you, Mr. Holmes, into an investigation. Urban dictionary’s definition of a chick flick is:

“A film that has the following formula:

Two people fall in love

They get along fine

There is some kind of misunderstanding

They break up

They get back together

The end.”

Although Naked does not follow this exact flow of things there are still key points that the director hits in order to receive this fine label. The first scene is a great example of this because Rob Anderson walks into the airport running late to his wedding, about to miss his plane flight, when he says he will do anything for a ticket to his destination wedding. This is a key point in the story, that while watching it, I did not realise it meant anything, but now looking back, “time” itself played a huge role since the very first scene. As said earlier Rob was running late to his flight and therefore almost missed leaving for his destination wedding. Rob struggled throughout the whole movie with growing a relationship with Megan’s (soon to be wife) father. He never knew the right timing to say things, or how to bring anything up because the father was so judgmental of Rob. But in the end things simmered down and everything ended up happening for a reason.

I am sure as the ultimate logical reasoner that you are, you could have seen a mischievous act coming from a mile away. There is something about you and your methods of reasoning that is intriguing and would do the viewers very well in throughout the movie. Rob Anderson would have also benefited from your deduction skills. If Rob used the same methods that you use, he would have found the culprit a whole lot sooner than he actually did. Hey, you even said yourself, “A related word to deduction is induction, which means inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances.” Mr. Holmes sir, Rob Anderson needed you. He could have easily inferred “the general” from “the specific” as often as he inferred “the specific from the general”. Although that goes in one ear and out the other ears of most people, someone with an investigating/ detective mind would understand that statement exactly.

Lastly, that brings up to solving the mystery of why Vicky would have called a prostitute to try and get Rob in trouble. Many could easily conclude that it was because of jealousy or because she did not want a man taking Megan away from her, but the world may never know. Also another thing that we are left to evaluate on our own is why was Rob living the same day over and over again? In fact this nervous man was forced to relive the same nerve- wrenching HOURS over again. The only thing that broke the “spell” was him getting the wedding day right. I will leave you with one question Mr. Holmes, and that is, why were these specific hours repeated over and over again? Why didn’t Rob just get stuck in the elevator once and then had to get out and make the day right? What caused the spell keep occurring or even start in the first place?