Brigitte Bardot in And God Created Woman

In her article “Brigitte Bardot and the Lolita Syndrome,” Simone de Beauvoir examines the potential reasons for and causes of Brigitte Bardot’s popularity, as well as the scorn and contempt she has garnered. Beauvoir claims that it is Bardot’s seemingly contradictory nature that lends itself to both her appeal and criticism. Beauvoir describes some of her contradictions, stating: “Seen from behind, her slender, muscular, dancer’s body is almost androgynous. Femininity triumphs in her delightful bosom. The long voluptuous tresses of Melisande flow down to her shoulders, but her hair-do is that of a negligent waif. The line of her lips forms a childish pout, and at the same time those lips are very kissable” (14). 

Bardot is highly erotic and sexual, yet also possesses a youthful, childlike innocence. Unlike the figure of the vamp or the femme fatale, she has no bad intentions and does not attempt to destroy man. She is naive, carefree, natural, and ignorant. She does as she pleases and does not care what others think or the consequences that may arise from her behavior. However, she is fully aware of her sexuality and the allure she holds over men, and uses it to her advantage. Bardot is essentially a “child-woman,” and it is this quality that both attracts and repels. She interacts with men yet is ultimately unattainable to them, as “the child-woman moves in a universe which he cannot enter” (14). She sees herself as man’s equal, as demonstrated by her wearing of trousers and other men’s clothing, and thus challenges traditional masculinity. This both erotically pleases and excites men as well as making them fearful of being emasculated and losing their position as the dominant gender. 

Beauvoir’s beliefs on Bardot can clearly be seen in Roger Vadim’s And God Created Woman (1956). Bardot’s character, Juliette, is the complete personification of the “child-woman.” From the very beginning, the film establishes her as a highly sexual being by showing her suntanning nude in public, followed by her caregiver’s intense scorn, even calling her a “little slut.” This harsh criticism mirrors that of the male audience, who although they enjoyed viewing Bardot’s naked body, believe it to be unacceptable to behave in such a manner. The film goes on to detail her numerous sexual exploits with different men and how she has complete free will, doing whatever she wants, whenever she wants. When Antoine wants her to spend the night with him, she instead stands him up and goes to Carradine, then meets with Antoine and rides off on her bicycle amidst his pleas for her to stay. Although many men in the film, particularly Antoine, believe she has bad intentions and is “designed to destroy man,” the audience sees the other side to Juliette - that she simply wants to love and be loved, and does not intend to hurt anyone. However, the film ultimately reconciles male fears in its final scene by Michel’s “taming” of Juliette and assertion of his power and dominant status over her. He slaps her for her out of control, provocative dancing and takes her home to be a domesticated woman. Thus, Vadim asserts that the child-woman cannot be allowed to thrive, for she is too much of a force to be reckoned with, too much of a threat, and must be put in her proper place as homemaker, wife, and mother.

Babel Film Review

Review of Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film Babel (2006), written by Amy Lauren Zoons as a sophomore in high school and published in Florida Today newspaper. 

The Portrayal of Blacks in Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song

With his breakout film Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song (1971), which he wrote, produced, edited, composed, directed, and starred in, Melvin Van Peebles helped to create a new kind of American independent cinema - one that identified with the African American community and portrayed them as multidimensional characters containing more depth than in the usual flat stock roles Hollywood assigned to them. The film was essentially a direct attack on Hollywood and thus, also white America and “the man.” This is evident from the very beginning, as even the opening credits state that the film stars “the black community,” closely followed by the text: “Sire, these lines are not a homage to brutality that the artist has invented, but a hymn from the mouth of reality,” before changing to: “This film is dedicated to all the brothers and sisters who had enough of the man.” This sets the tone for the entire film and forewarns the audience of what they are about to encounter - a film that will unabashedly and unapologetically defy conventional filmic standards and force the audience into unfamiliar cinematic territory. 

The depiction of black sexuality and in particular, of black female characters, is a major theme of the film and is one area in which Peebles radically departs from Hollywood. In most classical Hollywood films, black characters are hardly present, if it all, and when they are, they are reduced to simplistic side roles that exemplify the “white man’s” perception of them. Males were generally shown as being unintelligent and only suitable for manual labor work servicing whites, such as gardening or being a butler. Females were also often represented in this manner, along with the archetype of the “Mammy” - a larger, older black woman who tends to be ill-mannered and spends her days taking care of white homes and families. These characters do not possess any real agency or desire to escape from their situations, or really to do anything different with their lives at all, and little to nothing is revealed about their backgrounds, motivations, and personalities. The topics of African-American love, relationships, and sexuality go unaddressed and seem to not even exist in the worlds of these films. The audience is generally never allowed inside their heads or given any insight to their thoughts and emotions, virtually dehumanizing them and making it seem that the only beneficial qualities they possess is their willingness to submit to and serve whites.  

Peebles completely destroys this notion in Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. Here, the African-American characters are the protagonists and events are seen from their perspective, presenting a scathing condemnation of what they viewed as a racist and corrupt white America, particularly among the ranks of law enforcement. Sweetback does not sit idly by and let himself be controlled and manipulated by whites, but rather defiantly rebels against them and attempts to reclaim and create his own fate. His fight against oppression starts with his killing of two white police officers, and from then on his all of his actions work to confront America’s racial problems. His character is highly romanticized and is essentially a hero and redeemer for the black community, showing them that resistance against white subordination is possible and even directly helping other blacks, such as Mu-Mu, to escape the clutches of “the man.” 

Sweetback is also shown as being a desirable and sexually talented man, as first evidenced in the film’s opening sequence where he is seen being fawned over and fed by several African-American women, and then convinced by one woman to have sex with her. Throughout the film, women ask him for sex and comment on his amazing sexual prowess and large penis, reversing traditional Hollywood’s portrayal of black men as rapists and sexual degenerates. The black female characters in Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song are heavily sexualized as well, dressed in revealing attire, if anything at all, and engaging in sexual activities as they wish. This presents the concept of a strong black sexual identity being necessary for the black community to survive and flourish, and depicts some of the types of relationships and sexual interactions blacks experienced with each other. 

Poseidon Movie Review

Movie review on Wolfgang Peterson's Poseidon (2006), written by Amy Lauren Zoons as a sophomore in high school and published in Florida Today newspaper. 

The Holocaust in Hollywood: Schindler's List and Inglorious Basterds

The depiction of the Holocaust on film, and especially the portrayal of both Nazi and Jewish characters, is a particularly tricky and problematic situation. It is a highly sensitive and emotional issue that must be handled with extreme care and caution. Films of this nature run the risk of offending or polarizing their audience with any one wrong move, and thus potentially failing artistically, critically, and commercially. Despite this, it still remains a topic that many filmmakers have strived to deliver to the masses through bringing it on to the big screen. Two of the most ambitious efforts in modern cinema to achieve this are the grandiose epics of Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List (1993) and Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds (2009). While both films deal with World War II and the Holocaust, they handle the subject in extremely different and varied ways - the first being a realistic and somber true account and the latter a splashy and whimsical over-the-top fantasy. However, they do possess a few similarities in the execution of their stories, and are both considered by a number of film critics and scholars to be cinematically groundbreaking and forging new creative and technical achievements in film. They are not without a strong opposition though, and face some harsh criticisms and allegations along with their praises. 

The representation of Nazis and the Nazi regime is one of the most controversial and divisive aspects of these films, as it is also one of the biggest and toughest challenges faced by the filmmakers. Both films feature strong and charismatic Nazi leads who definitively overshadow all other Nazi characters, as well as many non-Nazis. In Inglorious Basterds, this role is filled by the seemingly merciless yet constantly witty Colonel Hans Landa. On one hand, Landa epitomizes the picture of the cruel Nazi; nicknamed “The Jew-Hunter,” he is known for discovering and exterminating hard to find Jews. The film begins with his inquisition of a dairy farmer in Nazi-occupied France concerning the whereabouts of a Jewish family in the area that has “disappeared.” While the two play a drawn-out game of cat and mouse, there are subtle hints throughout that Landa already knows that the farmer’s family is really the missing one and that they are hiding somewhere in the home. When his suspicions are confirmed, he orders his men to shoot the women taking refuge underneath the floorboards, and they fire an array of bullets into the ground. This opening scene establishes Landa’s cruelty and lack of morality or sensitivity, traits commonly identified with the Nazis and exhibited in most depictions of them. 

On the other hand, Tarantino differentiates Landa’s character from that of the typical Nazi by giving him sharp, witty, and at times humorous dialogue, such as his attempts at using the American phrases “Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now!” and “Bingo!” (originally incorrectly exclaiming “That’s a bingo!”) in conversation, and showing him as being sophisticated and intelligent. In his analysis of Landa, Roger Ebert claims: “He creates a character unlike any Nazi - indeed, anyone at all - I’ve seen in a movie: evil, sardonic, ironic, mannered, absurd.” Eric Kligerman presents a similar view in his essay, “Reels of Justice: Inglorious Basterds, The Sorrow and the Pity and Jewish Revenge Fantasies,” stating: “But while Landa recognizes the banality of his task of rounding up and exterminating Jews, he is far from the banality of evil...the cultured Landa, who converses in four languages and eventually participates in the carrying out of the Third Reich’s destruction, revels in his ability to think like a Jew.” New York Times reviewer Manohla Dargis pushes the issue of Landa’s charm even further, claiming Inglorious Basterds is “simply another testament to his [Tarantino’s] movie love” but that: “The problem is that by making the star attraction of his latest film a most delightful Nazi, one whose smooth talk is as lovingly presented as his murderous violence, Mr. Tarantino has polluted that love.”  

While Landa is not a stereotypical or one-dimensional character and may have some positive qualities, I would argue that he is essentially the villain and is indeed portrayed as “evil” and inhumane. Murdering Jews and others who cross his path, such as Bridget von Hammersmark, whom he violently strangles, does not seem to bother him in the least, and the depiction of these acts further distances the viewer from him. Kligerman remarks: “Yet this skill [thinking like a Jew] is not used to form a moral judgment regarding his actions but instead is effectively employed to track down Jews. His eventual decision to cut a deal with the allies and make Operation Kino a success is motivated through self-interest, not any moral imperative to halt the war.” Landa apparently lacks a conscience or any capacity for real human compassion. 

Thus, even though the viewer may laugh at Landa’s jokes or find him entertaining, they ultimately do not identify or sympathize with him or the Nazi cause. The Jews are the “good guys” and admirable heroes of the film. This is is a sentiment Tarantino draws on for the film’s gratifying concluding scene, in which Lieutenant Aldo Raine and Private First Class Smithson Utivich are graphically shown carving a swastika into Landa’s forehead, amongst his moans and cries of pain. The final shot is a low-angle shot, given from Landa’s point of view lying on the ground, looking up at Raine and Utivich as they crouch overhead following the completion of their task. This asserts the Jews’ newfound dominance and power over the Nazis, at the same time reinforcing the ideology that the Nazis are degenerate, low-class people that need to be punished and the Jews deserve to achieve happiness and success. The film closes out with one last witty line of dialogue - Raine proclaiming, “You know something Utivich? I think this just might be my masterpiece,” followed by a quick grin and nod from Utivich before cutting to the credits. This makes light of Landa’s pain and the severity of the knife carving, deeming it to be a necessary act that Lando deserves, and bringing to mind a line uttered by Landa regarding his murder of von Hammersmark - “She got what she deserved.” That previous interrogation scene is somewhat mirrored here in the end and makes the conclusion even more satisfying, since Raine and Utivich were the ones previously handcuffed and at the mercy of Landa, their lives in his hands, and now the tables have turned and they are in control of him. Their marking of his forehead serves to emasculate him and drain him of all his power and manhood, ensuring that he will be mocked, ridiculed, and remembered as a Nazi for the rest of his life - a torment possibly worth than death.

In contrast to the character of Landa, the central Nazi figure in Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, Oskar Schindler, is painted in an almost entirely different light. The two do share a few similarities in that Schindler is also successful, sophisticated, intelligent, cultured, and charming, but that is about where the line is drawn. As opposed to the way in which the lead Nazi in Inglorious Basterds is a secondary or supporting character and the film’s narrative follows and is structured around the actions of the Jews, the lead Nazi in Schindler’s List is the main character and the one whom which the narrative revolves around. The film follows Schindler, a member of the Nazi party, as he acquires a factory and hires Jewish factory workers, and illustrates how his feelings towards and relationships with Jews grows throughout the film, while his opinion of the Nazis declines lower and lower. 

From the beginning of the film, he is established as a charismatic and likable person, despite being a Nazi. He is seen dancing, drinking, and having a good time with friends and women, picking out impeccable stylish clothes, and generally being a happy person. Unlike Landa, Schindler is never shown being violent or physically harming anyone, nor does he wish to. His biggest “crime” is being complacent with the Nazis and their regime, simply standing by and doing nothing while they commit atrocities. While this may seem like completely deplorable, unacceptable, and immoral behavior today, one must take into consideration how Europe functioned at the time and the intensely influential and controlling force the Nazis maintained. Those who objected to them or resisted in any manner were often killed or otherwise harmed, or their families were, so many stayed quiet out of fear for their lives and those of their family. The non-Jewish society’s overall mindset and mentality was also extremely different, as Nazi politics and propaganda perpetuated lies that the public believed to be true, since the Nazi party ruled the government and people wanted to trust and believe their government. 

As the film progresses, Schindler begins to see the truth and starts to realize the scope and severity of the Nazi’s hatred of the Jews. This leads him to want to help more and more Jews, and he continuously keeps making arrangements to keep as many safe as possible under the guise of working at his factory. This eventually leads to him having to bribe Nazi officials and pay a generous sum to keep each Jewish worker, a price he is more than willing to face in order to keep them alive and away from the concentration camps. Even though Schindler was far from perfect in his actions and could have done much more to help the Jews, he was severely limited, as were many who disagreed with the Nazis during World War II. At the end of the film, it is clear Schindler feels guilty and wishes he could’ve saved more lives, stating that he knows he could have and should have done more. In her review of the film, Kathryn Bernheimer provides a startling proposition: “The true story of this unlikely savior leads to a damning question: If such an impudent rogue was so revolted by the Final Solution that he risked his life and spent every penny of his vast fortune to save ‘his’ Jews, what does that say about the ‘good people’ who did nothing?”

Schindler is the complete embodiment of Landa’s opposite, whose equivalent in this film would be the sadistic Nazi Amon Goeth. Goeth, not Schindler, is the one who executes and carries out orders, shoots Jews for fun off his balcony, keeps a Jewish maid and mistress, and is seen numerous times killing or giving orders to kill Jews. In her description of Goeth, Bernheimer proclaims: “If dire circumstances have brought out the best in Schindler, they have brought out the worst in camp commandant Amon Goeth, who, were he not put in a position of absolute power, might have remained a harmless crackpot and petty crook. As it is, his tendency toward cruelty is encouraged, unleashing the sadist in him.” He is the cruel, evil Nazi in Spielberg’s version of events; yet also like Landa, he does possess some positive traits, although these are few and far between and are greatly overshadowed by his malevolence. He “gets what he deserves” in the end as well - it is decided he should be executed for war crimes and he is hung. 

Considering all of this, I believe that Schindler’s List does portray Schindler in a positive manner, but not any of the other Nazis, which helps to establish its realism and more accurately depicts the Nazi regime. Not all Nazis were heartless killing machines, and many did not really believe in the cause or the actions they were committing but were simply following orders from their country’s leaders and at times were essentially forced to do certain things. Others were initially attracted to the party and its promises, but once they got involved and saw what it really was about, their minds began to change. This is what happened to Schindler, and I do not believe he should be demonized just because he started out as a Nazi, for he ultimately saved thousands of Jewish lives at an immense cost to himself, while also risking his own life in the process. His ability to save Jews is what the film mainly praises and celebrates about him, not any other superficial quality, thus stressing the importance of Jews and their survival. The sharp contrast that is presented between him and the other Nazis, especially Goeth, illustrates how his character was a rare exception, an oddity, amongst the Nazis, and not the norm. The film contains a number of graphic and disturbing scenes of violence against the Jews, three of the most memorable being: the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, where Nazis storm into Jewish homes and shoot countless of them point-blank, including children; the removal and burning of hundreds of shriveled up, emaciated Jewish bodies by Jewish concentration camp workers; and the “health screening” by the Nazis of a new shipment of Jews in which they are forced to run around naked. This film grittily depicts atrocious Nazi actions and I do not see how anyone could leave the film thinking it sympathized with or had a positive view of the Nazis. 

One of the main reasons for these films contrary character representations is that the overall tone, style, goal, and purpose of each film is remarkably different, and thus while both contain some similar, innovative filmmaking practices, they are executed in a distinct manner. Inglorious Basterds is intended to be an exhilarating, fun, and over-the-top adventure through Tarantino’s vivid imagination. It is a combination of many varied film genres, clichés, and historical film references, and is not meant to be taken too seriously or at face value, even mocking itself and its medium a number of times. 

Tarantino uses text in both an informative and farcical way, as he divides the film into five chapters and has chapter titles related to the action about to occur on screen to announce each one; he inserts scribbled names above people with arrows pointing down to them so the audience knows who is who; and he parodies American dramas that have long, drawn-out scenes all in subtitles, by making his characters speak German, French, and Italian throughout the film and providing English subtitles. He mixes music and scenarios from Spaghetti Westerns, such as the Mexican Stand-Off, along with more modern elements, and draws comparisons between the Holocaust and the extermination of Native Americans through this as well as by Raine’s nickname, “Aldo the Apache,” and the Basterds’ practice of scalping their Nazi victims. He uses excessive blood and gore to mock war and horror films, showing that the violence in them and his own film is artificial and unrealistic. This underscores the tension and terror felt in these scenes and makes them almost humorous at times.  All of this, along with the exaggerated traits and personalities of his characters, as well as the film’s overall plot, with its absurd and highly improbable plans and situations, all demonstrate that the film is just an over-the-top, and at times ridiculous, phantasm that never could have occurred. Ebert claims: “Of course nothing in the movie is possible, except that it’s so bloody entertaining.” Even if one had no knowledge of World War II and the Holocaust, I do not see how they could interpret this as a serious historical representation. Tarantino is not trying to be historically accurate or even attempting to “re-write” the history books, but rather is simply offering a visually pleasing, escapist anti-Nazi film, that also touches on some serious issues and metaphysical questions. I do not view his portrayal of Jews to be derogatory or negative in any manner, but rather, quite the opposite. I think that by showing Jews as being strong and taking charge against their oppressors, Tarantino empowers them and demonstrates that Jews are capable of being in control and are not always doormats to be used and walked all over. Even though the story is completely fictional, there were numerous real-life Jewish resistance movements during World War II, and I think Tarantino honors them through this film and helps shed light on their contributions, which are hardly discussed in most discourses on the war. I do not find the transfer of Nazi tactics to the Jews as offensive either, but rather view it as the Jews simply reciprocating the treatment they endured. However, it does raise the eternal question of should violence be fought with violence, and does resorting to the same tactics as your enemies to accomplish what you believe is “right” make you any better than them? I do not believe the film answers these questions but only brings them up for deeper thought and consideration by the audience. 

Spielberg’s overall goal and intention with Schindler’s List is nearly the complete opposite of Tarantino’s, and thus the filmmaking techniques he employs are also of a totally different caliber. Spielberg wanted Schindler’s List to be an emotional, heart-wrenching, depiction of the story behind the Schindler Jews and the role Schindler played in saving them. Spielberg was not trying to provide an entire account of the Holocaust but rather was focused on a specific story within it. The film is clearly very sympathetic with the Jews and wants the audience to identify with them and feel the pain and suffering they endured. While the film has been criticized for representing Jews as weak and passive, I do not see it as such. They were violently forced into the ghettos and concentration camps and really faced no other choice but to comply, or otherwise be killed. Spielberg was simply showing them as they were, and I believe most people would understand that the situation did not provide them with any real opportunities for rebellion. Spielberg attempts to make his film an accurate and realistic portrayal, following the real-life historical details of Schindler’s story as closely as possible. Even though it is obviously not possible to be completely, one-hundred percent, historically accurate, Spielberg attempts to incorporate all the details he believes are necessary for fully understanding the story, including background information on the war and Nazi activities. Like Tarantino, he often uses on-screen text to convey this information, but in a serious manner instead. 

Essentially every component of Schindler’s List is utilized to make the film appear more realistic and be more emotionally compelling. It is shot in black and white and often using handheld cameras, giving it the grittier look and feel of an older documentary instead of a dramatized account. Joel Samberg writes in “Reel Jewish”: “Director Steven Spielberg and [cinematographer] Kaminski wanted to capture the feeling of actually being there, without benefit of lights, dollies, or tripods. They accomplished that by filming much of the movie with a handheld camera, working very fast, and shooting most of it in black and white.” The violence is at times gruesome and disturbing, but is done in a very realistic manner and is never too excessive or over-the-top as in Inglorious Basterds. Bernheimner states: “Schindler’s List is packed with wrenching scenes, such as the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, yet rarely goes overboard.” The main characters are all also very believable and do not appear as flat stereotypes but rather as multi-dimensional human beings, just as in reality. 

Overall, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds and Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List are two important modern interpretations and discourses on World War II and the Holocaust. They both evoke a number of interesting and complex issues and raise some critical questions. While they do contain flaws, I ultimately find them both to be extremely well executed narratively as well as technically, and believe they can produce positive effects. 

Is popular 'Gossip Girl' series really appropriate for teens?

Article written by Amy Lauren Zoons for Florida Today newspaper while she was a sophomore in high school. Link to original article publication in Florida Today: http://newscontest.flatoday.net/EXPLOSION041107/src/flatoday.com/article966.htm


Is popular 'Gossip Girl' series really appropriate for teens?

Teen gossip novels tainted
BY LAUREN ZOONS
SOPHOMORE,

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a Comment Be the first to comment on this story

Enlarge this image "Gossip Girl #11: Don't You Forget About Me: A Gossip Girl Novel" by Cecily von Ziegesar, Megan Tingley, 304 pages, $10.99

"Welcome to New York City's Upper East Side, where my friends and I live, and go to school, and play, and sleep -- sometimes with each other."

Look in almost any teenage girl's bookshelf, and you'll probably find the book with the above tagline printed on the back cover. Created by Cecily von Ziegesar, "The Gossip Girl" series follows the lives of a group of gorgeous, filthy-rich, teenagers as they party, binge-drink and chain-smoke, max out their parents' credit cards, sleep with each others' boyfriends, experiment with illegal drugs, and occasionally, attend private school. While this series is probably the most popular and best-selling of the young adult genre, there are many others that could pass as carbon copies -- "The A-List" series and "The Clique" series are among those.

These books portray teenagers indulging gratuitously with almost no consequences. Pregnancy, STDs, overdoses and legal troubles are never mentioned. They also stress the importance of having money -- that it would be impossible to live without a family yacht, Chanel purses and unlimited shopping sprees.
"All of the characters that are 'popular and cool' are extremely rich, and the characters portrayed as 'lame' have to fight their way up through the ranks to become cool," said Sarah Kelley, a freshman at Cocoa Beach Jr./Sr. High, of "The Gossip Girl" series.

With the ever-growing popularity of these types of books with teenagers, the announcement that a "Gossip Girl" TV series is under production, the recent release of the eighth "A-List" novel, and the April release of the 11th "Gossip Girl" novel, many people have been questioning whether these books are really appropriate for teens.

The controversy surrounding this issue has lead to teachers banning the books from their classrooms, and school libraries removing them from their shelves. The entire "Gossip Girl" series is the one of the most challenged novels to be banned in 2006, according to the American Library Association (ALA). It is included in this challenge for "homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, offensive language and being unsuited to the age group." Furious parents have also formed groups protesting the books, claiming they are corrupting our youth.

With so many things vying for teens' attention these days -- schoolwork, sports, video games, the Internet, television, etc. -- it is rare that a teen actually has the desire and time to sit down and read on their own. Yet these books have done just that for countless teens.

"I enjoy them because they keep me interested, but as I'm reading them I can't help but notice that the characters are terrible role models for younger girls that haven't made decisions about their choices in life yet," said Sarah.

On the other hand, Pam Spencer Holly, president of the ALA, presents an opposite view.

"Unless you read good stuff that's perhaps not the most literary, you'll never understand what good works are," she said.