The Legend of Will Smith

by Rick Devine

Will Smith has had an illustrious movie career with an array of different roles. He was himself in a television show, a cowboy, a gay man, fought aliens three times, solved a rubix cube, and played God. That’s right Will Smith has played God or more specifically a god. A lot of people overlook the film The Legend of Bagger Vance (00). I myself didn’t understand it the first time I saw it when I was younger. I myself took him to be a guardian angel of sorts, but it goes a bit deeper than that. Will Smith represents the god Krishna and Matt Damon is supposed to be Arjuna from The Bhagavad-Gita.
The Bhagavad-Gita is somewhat of the Hindu bible. Although it is a story, in it the people of the Hindu religion are taught their lessons and how to live a good life based on the speech and advice given throughout the book. Arjuna is a prince who is being driven to the battlefield to fight in a war. Along the way he discovers that the enemies he is fighting are in fact his own relatives. He wants to back out and not fight, deciding it is not right to slay one’s own family members. At this time the driver reveals himself to be his god Krishna. Krishna starts to deliver advice and ideas that are meant to guide Arjuna in this difficult time. Krishna tells him that it is ok to slay his family because they are in fact evildoers and punishment should be delivered regardless of who you are in this world. He goes on to say that just because he kills them on earth does not mean he is ending their “life” because or bodies are just our vessels that hold us in this world. So hen he kills them he delivers their souls to the afterlife and only punishing them for what they have done here on earth. Arjuna eventually goes on to fight in the battle.
As for the film The Legend of Bagger Vance the story is similar, but not close in all respects. The film opens with a man named Rannulph Junah (R. Junah = Arjuna) who is a local golfing legend and when the first World War hits he is drafted. Junah leads the men of the town overseas, which is the first parallel, these men all look up to him and consider him a hero. They are not family by any means but they mean a lot to Junah.
They all die but him in the war and he feels that he is responsible, he like Arjuna feels as if he killed his family. Junah then goes into hiding, until brought out to play a golf match to save Savannah during the Great Depression. He is convinced to play by Bagger Vance (Bhagavan aka Krishna = BAGar VANce) who tells Junah that the future is all that matters. After a series of similar speeches delivered in the Bhagavad-Gita, Junah goes on to tie the other two golf pros, get over the fact that he “killed” those men, and lives a happy life.
There are many similarities as much as there are differences, but the similarities are there. The names as previously pointed out are a dead give away that these characters in this film are meant to be an alternate interpretation of the Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita. The rest of the similarities are not present until almost half way through the movie. Although Bagger is already present and all knowing there is nothing there that ties him to the god Krishna, which is understandable because they don’t want to make it too preachy because they need to keep all different kinds of audiences to see the film. The idea of Yoga which is presented in the Bhagavad-Gita is similar to what Bagger teaches the young boy and Junah about focusing. He tells them to focus on the task at hand, focus on yourself, and focus on the earth. Also when they are in the locker room Bagger says, “The Junah you was, you ain’t never gonna be again,” which can be compared to the idea that Krishna gives that our bodies on Earth do not follow us into the afterlife. He says, “When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception.” But I would say the biggest similarity is when Baggar and Junah are in the woods. The idea in the movie is that Junah’s men were killed in a location that looked similar and that idea has hindered him ever since. Baggar helps him get out of the woods, come to terms with nothing he did was wrong and change his life for the better. Krishna delivers similar hope to Arjuna, both dealing with war, by telling him that he must slay the enemey, its not wrong and its his duty and afterward he will live a happy life. Neither figure stays in the end to help them win their final “battle.”
The differences betweens the two are much greater. Obvioulsy the Bhagavad-gita is not about golf. Also, Baggar doesn’t, at least to myself, come across as Krishna. Krishna is more of a war pusher and has a somewhat stronger and more blunt way of saying things. Where Bagger seems gentle and kind. That is not to say that Krishna is bad, Baggar just seems more like a Christian figure. Which could be the case because the filmmakers were more than likely of Christian and Jewish backgrounds.

Noir Becomes Aware of Its Self

by Douglas Williams

It is often said that one of film’s most distinctive and ambiguous genres, Noir, was once only considered B-movies in their own time. Directors did not have a certain genre they were trying to blend in with; it was only afterwards when the label of noir was applied. In the book The Dark Page: Books That Inspired American Film Noir Kevin Johnson describes a conscious “cut-off” as 1965. According to Johnson all films after 1965 were cognizant their genre and therefore neo-noir, I will therefore use the same year although it is debatable. I have chose three films to use in discussing the use of this cut-off—several films that are unaware of themselves and then conversely the films that were aware of where their allegiance lies, within conscious genre of noir.
The film Out of the Past (47) can clearly be seen as a very important part of the noir catalogue. Although it exemplifies most everything noir has to offer, it is not only a basic mystery, the plot structure is revolutionary and has been imitated by countless films. Its photography is beautiful and the femme fatale is present but as is her foil in the honest and loving Ann Miller. This film seems to represent what American noir was in the 1940’s.
Robert Mitchum, as well, represents the noir hero, a strong yet flawed leading man seeking answers and redemption. A young Kirk Douglas shows his talents playing the menacing and calculating villain. Although the villains in noir can often be physically threatening it is characters like Douglas whose intellectual traits create the tension that give this film its grit. Some of the smaller quarks to the film such as the dumb boy who unexpectedly becomes a hero to our leading man round out the film. So often Mitchum plays the antagonist, especially in his most well known roles, it is great to see him play the hero of a great noir.
Moving ahead a few years the forgotten Night, When the Devil Came (57) represents Euro-noir. Also where Out of the Past is a staple of noir, Night, When the Devil Came has its noir assets underlying. At face value it seems to be a thriller about the hunt for a serial killer. The plot structure itself is again one of the enduring points of the film. A man is on the hunt for the culprit of several murders in wartime Germany and then we also see a large dimwitted man wander through life, this man is our killer.
Some of the scenes depicted are very frightening and effective because of the way the director simply leaves it out there for all to see. The tension is not manipulated or even emphasized yet scenes involving Bruno, our killer, can shake the audience. The realism in scenes such as when Bruno delivers potatoes to a young woman who is hiding out in her apartment is astounding and terrifying. She goes into the kitchen as Bruno gets up and locks the door, planning to later kill her. There is no music, there are no cuts, the audience watches from afar as Bruno gets up out of his chair, walks over to the door, locks it and then seats himself again. Death and murder are not romanticized as they are often in other noirs.
Yet director Robert Siodmak knows when to increase the control over the audience and the frame. In a scene when Bruno is describing to the police how he killed one of his victims the cuts become frantic and violent. This editing is not necessarily commonplace in noir, it even stands out as anti-noir. This perpendicular aspect to the normalcy of noir is a testament to the fact that it is unaware the label and genre it would one day be associated with.
Moving past the “cut-off date” by almost 10 years, the classic Chinatown (74) seems to be one of the most often discussed representations of neo-noir. Directed by Roman Polanski, all the aspects of the now dubbed noir genre seem to be condensed into one film and put on display for the viewer. This to me is what makes Chinatown so great, it depicts with great prowess some of the many elements of noir.
J. J. Gittes is the perfect noir hero, vices, dishonesty and all. A detective in historic Los Angeles trying to solve a mystery that is decidedly not noir. His wonderful wordplay and gritty attitude create a character that is coarser than Marlow but nevertheless one the audience loves to watch.
Here seems to be one of the better examples of a film that is quite obviously trying to fit itself into the noir genre rather than being labeled so later. I do not mean that a “genuine” noir film, unaware of itself and the future of the genre, is superior to the neo-noir films, only that in watching them one should be aware of the difference.
One of the most appealing aspects concerning the cutoff concept, I believe, is that the neo-noir genre has allowed for expansion. Noir no longer has to be segregated by words like shadows or by heroes that are private eyes or even strictly men for that matter. The original noir films are not segregated to these either but what noir is today in our culture has been broadened a great deal. Now the term noir can be applied to films that may not have been labeled so earlier. Films like Chinatown are obviously trying to play to the traditional idea of what noir is but newer films such as Memories of Murder (03) are helping to expand what we consider noir.
A film to be labeled noir is also the goal of many filmmakers, certain choices in making a film can’t be made assuming that the term noir will apply. The term almost seems to always mean something positive, at least I believe so, unless the attempt to be noir is over the top. Noir is something to strive for, where many filmmakers are concerned. To have one’s film dubbed noir is different from having it dubbed a comedy. A comedy is self-evident often times, noir is harder to point to or to recreate, this is probably because the definition is just as difficult to dictate.

The Sexual Evolution of Ms. Portman

by Douglas Williams

…Or her characters rather. Although separated by thirteen years, Natalie Portman’s Mathilda in Leon (94) and her anonymous character in Wes Anderson’s short film Hotel Chevlier (04) have very separate sexual experiences and desires yet it is sex and love (or its absence) that seem to surround the two roles.
Mathilda’s allure is in her innocence and her longing for companionship. Her love for the film’s hero, Leon, stems directly for her longing for love in any form and transforms into her falling in love and eminent sexual yearning despite their gap in years. Leon’s own sexual and emotional immaturity adds to their loving relationship, and the viewers own love for both. Although he is a hit man their relationship is completely void of any danger, romantically speaking. Neither party is taking advantage of the other; their feelings are mutual to a degree.
The film exists in another world where a girl shooting a gun out an apartment window elicits no concern from the viewer, only amusement. Bresson creates an environment where it is believable that a hit man would take a ten-year-old girl under his wing and teach her the ways of “cleaning”. It is only in this world where a viewer can understand and accept the sexual tension between a young woman, only on the verge of puberty, and a mentally slow man about to reach his middle age.
It is in this world where a subject of forbidden love of this magnitude can exist, the most forbidden in fact, that of a child and a man. Yet the audience looks past this, the love between both characters is so potent and powerful. Both character’s need for that love and connection, for another human to care for them surpasses any immoral preconceptions the audience may be harboring. They are both genuine people, meant to find each other. It is here that the most innocent and enduring love occurs. The love between Leon and Mathilda is in one word: pure.
In Hotel Cheviler Portman has aged thirteen years yet her character’s own sexual experience is light years away from that of the innocent and dear Mathilda. The relationship in Hotel Cheviler is a throw away relationship, driven by sex, not by love. It is a complete 180 from Leon. This swap of values is apparent in the way Anderson chooses to shoot the film. In Leon Mathilda’s innocence is upheld and persevered at all times, she is a young virgin in the throws of her first love. In Hotel Cheviler Portman’s character uses sex as a tool, brought forth by the filmmaker by the intelligent and well timed use of nudity.
Jason Schwartzman undresses Portman in front of the camera’s unwavering presence. The most intimate part of sex is displayed in a very intimate setting, yet even the viewer can feel the uncomfortable tension between the two characters and the absence of love.
It is also apparent that Portman has been with other men during the character’s time apart from each other. She lies and deceives. This woman believes she is in search
of love yet she is, in the end, not as mature as the young Mathilda.
Mathilda understands the weight of love and the magnitude of adding sexual relations into that relationship. The character in Hotel Cheviler can been seen as even more sympathetic in some instances because she has no grasp of what love is, only sex and what is one without the other? Just empty and temporary pleasure.
Although sex is a facet of Leon the core of the film is love, which is abundantly clear at the conclusion when Leon and Mathilda exchange “I love yous” during the last moment they are together. This is love that can’t be defined by marriage or family or friendship, it is the love that all strive for. Hotel Cheviler revolves around the use of love, or what the characters believe love is, for selfish reasons. “If we fuck I’m going to feel like shit in the morning,” yet this doesn’t seem to deter either party.
The sex that these two characters share is completely void of love. Even the use of the word “fuck” demonstrates how Portman’s character feels about the act. She uses one of the most derogatory terms to label what they are perhaps about to do.
Mathilda on the other hand uses terms such as “first time” or “being with a man”, compassionate phrases stated by a woman who has never experienced the act, conversely Portman’s character in Hotel Cheviler has perhaps grown tired and even bored of the experience although it is sadly the only outlet she is aware of to express what she feels is love.
The two characters, both performed with profound confidence by Ms. Portman, represent the maturity of love as sex. She composes both performances completely believably; that a 10-year-old girl can be fully aware sexually and of her feelings of love and that a woman almost fifteen years older, who is much more experienced in one sense, can still be searching in vain for what love means beyond simply the sexual connection.