"ET, the Extra Terrestrial" Analysis

The film, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, communicates particularly meaningful commentary on the concept of authority and social status throughout the film. Various characters, as well as some missing characters, as well as the treatment of ET bring to light reactions to social status and authority as well as how people tend to use or misuse their authority.

At the beginning of the film, the viewer can only hear ET, and it is through the sounds he makes that they understand his sense of panic, his distress as he tries to escape from potential danger. The sounds he makes though sound like a mix between a pig’s grunt and a dog’s bark. Then on meeting Elliott, ET is treated more like a pet than an equal. Elliott even makes the comment, “I found him, he belongs to me!”, asserting his ownership of his new friend. Throughout the film, ET is referred to as a goblin, a bald monkey, and and a pig. Another instance demonstrating ET’s status is when he is dressed up by Gertie. When Elliott’s older brother Michael finds him, he comments, “Let him have his dignity!” ET is repeatedly demeaned and belittled, even by the children who become his friends. Even the scenes showing the searchers looking for him are reminiscent of a slave-catcher searching for a slave, digging through the underbrush for tracks.

Another interesting absence of authority is that of Elliott’s father. This lack of authority figure has a dramatic impact on the plot of the story as well as the character development. One of the driving forces in Elliott’s ability to keep ET hidden is his mother’s relative neglect. She does enforce some rules and standards within her home, exerting some authority, but as a result of her husband leaving her and traveling to Hawaii, she seems overwhelmed by her responsibilities as a caregiver and breadwinner. It seems relatively easy for Elliott and Michael to get around and outsmart her. She, as well, as all the majority the adult figure in the film, seem oblivious to the drama unfolding, literally under her nose. Spielberg's use of this universal feeling of alienation from parental figures makes Elliott and his siblings very relatable characters.

The main authority figure present throughout the film is the shadowy government agents and scientists who are searching for ET. For most of the film, they are unsuccessful as Elliott and ET seem to continually outsmart them and his mother. Elliott also makes mockery of his teacher’s authority in the scene where he releases the frogs from death and mutilation by dissection.

If an authority figure, such as a father had been present in the family, the situation would have unfolded very differently and Elliott’s response to ET would have been different as well. Elliott is the quintessential child of divorce, dealing with his parent’s situation and feeling isolated, until ET appears and fills to emptiness that his father’s absence produced. This film is the story of an imaginary friend who has come to life to fill a void in a child’s life.

After ET is discovered and captured, a pseudo-father figure does appear, in the form of the “Keys” a government agent who bonds with Elliott in his weakened condition, by saying “Elliott, he came to me too. I've been wishing for this since I was 10 years old, I don't want him to die.” Keys is a strange character, as the viewer is not given any real background information on his intentions, but he is randomly inserted as a benevolent authority/father figure within the seemingly malevolent group of scientists and government agents. When he appears in the first half of the film, it is always in shadows, not even showing his face and making him appear to be a shady character who is after ET for some nefarious purpose. Even Elliott does not seem to trust him, hiding ET’s resurrection from him. In the end, he joins the family as ET returns to his “family”, seeming to support his escape, despite his intense tracking of the alien earlier in the film.

Questions- How would Elliott’s adventure with ET be different if his father had been present?

What is the role of the government agent “Keys”? Is he an antagonist? An ally?

What does the portrayal of suburbia in this film communicate? Is it positive and uplifting? Or dark and full of unhappy people?

"Close Encounters of a Third Kind" Analysis

One interesting aspect of the film “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is the use of music as both within the plot and in the construction of the film. Throughout the film, both the aliens and the humans use music as a communication method. There is one scene showing the a group of Indian people humming and singing the same five notes over and over again, as communicated to them by the extraterrestrials. There is another scene, in which an elderly man tells the researchers through an interpreter, “He says the sun came out last night. He says it sang to him”, meaning the aliens had communicated with him through music. The hand signals that Claude Lacombe and aliens both use is a method used by music teachers to teach the sofege scale in the Kodaly curriculum, which is very commonly used in modern education. The notes that the scientists use to attract the alien’s attention are G, A, F, F (an octave lower), and C. This use of music in this way influences the audience of the film to feel that the aliens are more human and less threatening. Even the choice of using a tuba as the voice of the mother-ship in the climactic scene, gives the aliens a much less threatening and frightening feeling than a more harsh instrument voicing, such as a mechanical electric guitar or shrieking string instrument.

In conjunction with the use of music within the plot, the scoring of this film is different than most. Most films are edited and then the score is produced to match that edited film. In this film’s case, the score was written first by John Williams and then the film was edited by Steven Spielberg to match the music. This makes the music much more of a driving force in the pacing of the film, and gives it a more lyrical feeling. Throughout the film, the tune of “When You Wish Upon a Star” is incorporated into John William’s score, being played by toys, and when Roy is about to board the mothership. This familiar tune once again, gives the aliens a very magical, and benevolent feeling, at least partially because of it’s association with the Disney Corporation and the many good feelings that many Americans associate with it’s films, parks and merchandise.

Throughout “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, music is important both within the plot and in the construction of the film, effecting the viewer’s comfort level with the aliens, as well as the pacing of the film.

"War of the Worlds" Analysis

This summer, I am taking a film critique class, focusing on Alien Invasion Films. (I am so unbelievable excited about this. It's the perfect class for me, watching movies and ranting about them- is my favorite!) So here is my first response post, for the film War of the Worlds, 1953.

The film “War of the Worlds” (1953) demonstrates the fears of the United States about the Cold War, threats from the Soviet Union and nuclear war as well as their moral belief that God would be on the side of America in any future conflict. In this depiction, Orson Wells' novel and radio show have been updated to an early 1950s southern California setting, complete with square dancing and Coca-Cola in a glass jar. Dr. Clayton Forrester, the main protagonist, is a scientist with the Manhattan Project, another reference to the Cold War with it’s focus and fears about the atomic bomb.

The film demonstrates the Cold War theme more than the novel or radio show adaptations, with its use of the Atomic Bomb against the Martians and the potential mass-destruction that such a global war would inflict on mankind. In the film, there is a scene where the military commander comments that they had tried to avoid using the atomic bomb, but they are simply out of other options to defeat the Martians.

Despite this comment, it is interesting to note the results of the dropping of the atom bomb in the film. The war machines, manned by the Martians are totally unaffected, because of their protective force fields, and there is no mention of any type of nuclear fallout on the human residents of southern California. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in 1945, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission was established in 1948 by President Truman to conduct investigations of the late effects of radiation among the survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So the makers of this film, in 1953, should have been more aware of the post-attack casualties and dangers that would occur to Americans if California was bombed. The audience doesn't see any of those effects in this film, perhaps purposefully not showing the potential injuries and deaths of Americans that would be caused, in order to again emphasis the underlying reassurance of the film in the face of the Cold War.

Another interesting theme or dimension of this film is the recurring mention of God and religion as the ultimate protection against this other-worldly attack. The character Sylvia’s uncle, Dr. Matthew Collins, is a minister, and in a dramatic moment, he approaches the alien machines, holding his Bible and reciting Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd….”, before being obliterated by the alien lasers. And again at the climactic moment, when all hope is lost, Forrester finds Sylvia in a church and they cling to each other as the alien machines destroy the city and building around them. But suddenly, the barrage ceases, and they come to realize that the aliens have been exterminated by Earth's viruses and bacteria that humanity has long since become immune to. The narrator ends with the solemn statement, “After all that men could do had failed, the Martians were destroyed and humanity was saved by the littlest things, which God, in His wisdom, had put upon this Earth.”

This substantiated reliance on God, is very indicative of the American mindset during the Cold War. Throughout history, from the American Revolution to World War II, Americans have maintained that they had the religious and moral high ground, that the God of the Earth supported their cause, over that of their enemy. In the terror and unknowable distress of the Cold War the assurance that even if human means were unsuccessful, that their God would save innocent humanity (or in this case, America) from being dominated by their enemies would be emotionally and mentally important to the American people. This film demonstrates that assurance, reminding Americans that “In God We Trust”, even in the event of an attack from Mars.

The disappointing journey

I recently decided to make it a personal goal to exercise every day. I'm not exactly sure what prompted this change, but I remember seeing a news story on a woman who exercised every day for a year. That, combined with the constant media pressures and expectations made me think that this would be an important change that would benefit me. I would feel better, I would look better, I would be more personable, people would like me better. 

I really got into the idea. I decided to count calories, record calories burned. I learned that burning 3500 calories was the equivalent to burning one pound. I made it a goal to loose 2 pounds a week. I did three-day diets. I worked out at the gym for an hour to 2 hours a day. Every single day. I was committed. I stopped eating out regularly. I stopped eating junk food. I stopped drinking soda. I invested in new workout clothes when my old ones started falling apart.

And I did get results. I was actually surprised at how the numbers on the scale came down. In 4 months I'd lost 45 pounds. My family, coworkers, and other people around me noticed. They would make comments about me being skinny, being on a diet, and generally draw attention to my body.

And I should have been very proud of myself. But the attention and comments, even when they were meant as compliments made me very uncomfortable. In some ways I did feel a little different. My clothes were too big. I noticed I could sit with my legs crossed without feeling uncomfortable. I noticed that I seemed to sleep a little more deeply. 

But I don't feel like I've changed physically- muscles, ability, speed. I still can't run very long, my endurance is awful. I can't lift more weight, my arm strength is a joke. And it's very possible that I didn't realize how over-weight I was, but I don't feel any different. Strangers don't seem to respond to me any differently. When my clothes became too big, it was more of an annoyance and frustration that a triumph.

I used to not think about my body. I used to be content with my appearance. And after all of this I feel more insecure and more depressed than ever about my body. According to the national stats, I am currently classified as obese for my height. The focus and attention on my body has made me more aware of it's many flaws, from my stomach to my thighs, to my arms and my chin. Losing weight has made me more unhappy about my body than I'd even been.

I have discovered that I do like pushing my body, sweating, letting my mind melt away as I focus on pedaling harder, elipticaling faster, pushing my heart rate up. I like the feeling of working hard. But if I was doing this just to look better, I feel like this would have been a failure. Granted, I don't look at myself all the time, so others around me probably notice those physical changes more than I do. But I have not recognized any of the supposed benefits in appearance that are supposed to accompany weight loss.

My long rambling is hard to follow, but my point is this- We American woman are taught that weight loss is the answer to all of our problems. We will be more healthy, we will look better, our clothes will fit better, more men will want to date us, people like skinnier people, etc. And of course there are situations where weight loss is an important part of response to a medical issue. But it is not the simple solution to all of life's problems. And when we reduce the process of weight loss to a pill or a surgery or a weight loss shake and expect our entire lives to change, as if we are experiencing a movie montage, we will be disappointed. Life is more complicated and focusing on appearance will not change the many other problems and issues in life.

The reality for me is that I am closer to "normal" than I've been since high school. And I certainly plan on continuing to workout consistently, and trying new forms of working out from boxing to cross-fit. But I've had to dramatically reshape my expectations and goals associated with working out. I'm not going to focus on a dress size, I'm going to train for a triathlon. I'm going to measure my heart rate, not my waist. 

I'm not going to expect that looking a certain way will change the way that people treat me. I want my body to be a tool, the paintbrush, not the painting. And I believe that this focus will ultimately enable me to be successful and even, someday, happy.

Emotional Slut

"I revealed too much  too soon.... I was emotionally slutty."

I read this and smiled at the irony. Then I read it again. Then I thought about it some more. The humor in this situation is a result of the juxtaposition of cultural norms of a girl being sexually "easy" and promiscuous, and the need to hide emotional baggage in any inter-personal relationship. Can this same idea be applied to other situations? Can we be overly revealing of ourselves in other aspects of our lives? Can we be food whores? Career prostitutes? Sex-slaves to fashion?

On a social structure level, conservative individuals and groups tend to preach control of appetite, avoidance of any form of gluttony,  self control, and moderation. This can be seen in political stances, implementation of social programs, religion, education and inter-personal relationships. But in some aspect, the gluttony inherent in the human condition seems to appear, squeezed out of a person, no matter how tightly controlled a person tries to appear.


For example:
Obesity is a huge health concern in America. "Good", "god-fearing", productive members of a society can appear to be in complete control, but their obsession with food, the cultural dynamics they are socialized into that revolve around food and of which they are a prisoner, leak out to cause massive health problems. Heart disease, diabetes, These are all problems that are affecting generation upon generation of people.

I've seen so many examples of extremely pious, gracious, giving and kind people who cannot seem to control their food intake. I don't believe there is anything morally superior about any specific body type or form. But couldn't it be the case that such tight control on other appetites causes a chain reaction that leads to over-indulgence in an appetite that is meant to simply provide fuel for a body? (There are so many emotional, cultural, geopolitical and financial aspects to food that I can't address here, but all contribute to the issues of obesity.)

We all need a mental and physical break, an outlet from controlling our everything action to be accepted by our social peers.

This type of appetite could involve food, clothing, work, sex, video games, drugs, alcohol, gambling, adrenaline, etc.....

It's interesting that the most celebrated stories always seem to contain a character with a deadly flaw- a vice that ruins their personality. If they overcome this appetite, they become the hero of the story.

Examples:

• Anna Karina and The Scarlet Letter- Lust
• Hansel and Gretal- Gluttony
• Dicken's Christmas Carol- Greed
• Cinderella- Sloth
• Any Old Testament Story Where-G-d-Gets-Mad -Wrath 
• Queen Esther- Envy
• Aladdin- Pride

The stories of these character's victory or failure pinnacle with them attempting to overcome this vice and inching ever closer to moral perfection. These are the myths and stories used to teach people the socially accepted agenda.

So.... is all that intense suppression of our inherent tendencies healthy? Why must we live under an enforced system that squashes all violations of an arbitrary norm? Why can't I be up front on a date about my emotional baggage and be emotionally slutty? Who decided that was a bad thing? As a potential partner, I would rather be told up front about issues, not led on until I'm emotionally invested in another person. I would rather see the good, bad and ugly of a person, not encourage them to hide who they are and maintain a false front.

You may not agree (and I support your right to disagree!), but that is where I stand.

Seeking Business Partner

I'm not looking to fall in love. I see marriage as a mutually beneficial business arrangement and I'm looking for someone to help me build an empire.
I hope you'll be moderately presentable in appearance, have ambition and goals. An interest in traveling would be beneficial too.
I don't want someone who is emotionally needy. I don't want to worry about offending you with my bluntness. I don't want to be punished for being successful or ambitious.
I'd like to have interesting discussions about world events, politics, religion and science fiction.
I don't need someone to take care of or discipline. I want to respect you and be able to count on you to be dependable and independent.

I'm looking for a business partner ... Are you ready for a merger?

The Over-Personalization Problem

One of my guilty pleasures is watching housing hunting television shows. You know the ones where people pick apart potential future homes, over-reacting about the things they don't like about a house, gushing about gas ranges and wanting homes with "character". One big selling point is always if a house has potential, the future ability to personalize it how they specifically want it. 

A recent commercial, for a specialized television service shows various people, from different age groups, genders, ethnic back grounds. The whole point of this service is that you can specialize it exactly how you want it, a cute blond little girl exclaims promising "TV for me!"

Everything these days is personalized, specialized for the individual consumer. There are milieu of options in purchase choices, each producer or retailer trying to find the exact product that will fill your "need". Your bank offers personalized checking programs, your gym offers levels of commitment and cost, your diet plan will deliver all your food to your home "personalized just for your needs!", .....

These are only a few examples of the increasing emphasis on the individual. You don't like those baseboards in that house? But the room has potential and you can totally redo it! You don't like to go to the bank to make a deposit? You can scan your check with your smart phone! You don't like that song on the radio? You can listen to Pandora and personalize your own radio station!

Now, obviously there are extremes in needs. If a house doesn't fit your basic needs, or a bank is going to charge you exorbitant fees, you should have another option. But when there are so many options that allows people to be so demanding and specific ("These light fixtures are too modern!") we Americans are totally loosing the big picture. Our needs are so overly met that we have all become spoiled. 

And this is the environment that America's children are growing up in. Is it any wonder that they are painted as the "entitled generation"? They have grown up having every basic need met, and every desire couched as a "need" by advertisement and media. A iphone is a basic need, a new car is a need, a college education is seen as the minimum requirement in education, a monster sized flat screen TV is every room, and food on demand with no effort is expected. 

These conditions do not produce independent, consciousness, productive adults. These conditions produce hibernating slugs. But is it any wonder when they have grown up in a world with no understanding or expectation of actual hard work.

I recently moved across town. The most frustrating part of this process for me was that every place I went to look at started with, "So what are you looking for?" And I didn't have an answer. I didn't have a must have list of appliances, flooring, open-concept, or color. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with knowing what you like. But I tend to lean in the opposite direction. I find what is available and I make it work for me. I eventually found a small place and I love it. But my search with so difficult for me, because the mindset of the people I was working with was, "let's examine your every desire and fulfill them," as opposed to here's something that will meet your basic needs, which is all I needed.

I'm not a Luddite, and I'm not sentimental, but it used to be that people were much more realistic in evaluation of their needs. It is only post-WWII that the expectation became that everyone needed their own suburban paradise, complete with every cleaning tool known to man. Then every family needed their own lawn equipment to care for their lawn. Every wife needed a vacuum to clean her new carpet. Then a washing machine to ease the load of clothes cleaning. Then more clothes became necessary, often made of sub-par materials. Households became more expensive, families became more estranged. 

We have put so much emphasis on the importance of individuals, catering to their every need. A step-back and analysis of our actual basic needs is long overdue. Don't let the competition with the neighbors, advertisements or the latest gadget pull you into the lie of personalized necessity.