Not with a fizzle, but with a BANG...

'Easy A'
Release Date (UK): 22nd October 2010
Certificate: 15
Director: Will Gluck
Writer: Bert V. Royal


'Easy A' has been dubbed as 2010's answer to 'Mean Girls'. Starring Golden Globe nominee, Emma Stone* and Oscar nominated Stanley Tucci,** as Stone's quirky father, it really is a 'teen movie' with a difference. How often do you hear reviews say that? Well, this time, this film really is worth the hype.

Olive (Stone), our protagonist, talks us through how one small lie, a favour to a friend, and the high-school rumour mill led to her flawless reputation being demolished.

The film opens with Olive talking to the audience through a webcast, the action skips back in time to when it all began and continues to cut between the past and Olive in her webcast explaining what happened.

Olive lies about her plans for the weekend to avoid spending time with her friend. She tells Rhiannon she has a date with the imaginary George. Back at school on Monday her friend assumes Olive lost her virginity to George. They proceed to have a conversation about the alleged events in the privacy of the girls' toilets. They are overheard by Marianne or 'Sister Christian' as Rhiannon calls her. Marianne proceeds to spread rumours about Olive around the school. Before long the whole school knows and Olive finds herself with a new reputation.

Olive agrees to help friend, Brandon, by pretending to sleep with him to make everyone think he's straight, to stop him being bullied. Brandon tells a few people of their arrangement. Before she knows it Olive finds herself 'open for business' helping the poor downtrodden males of her school who are unlucky in love.

Naturally the whole thing gets out of control. Olive decides enough is enough, however no-one will help her tell the truth. So, Olive puts on a show at school to entice everyone to watch her webcast. She gets her 80s style musical number...for no apparent reason. She also gets her 80s film ending...

Of course, as with every film of this nature there is a moral aspect to it. In this case it's the usual, well-worn: don't believe everything you hear, you don't have to change who you are for anyone or anything. However, for once, it did not feel like it was being stuffed down the throats of the audience at every opportunity. Olive did what she did out of her need to help others. The story is kept light and in keeping with the whole feel of the film.

There is very nice symbolism throughout the film. The English class are reading 'The Scarlett Letter'; a tale in which the main character is forced to wear a red A on her clothes, 'A' for adulterer. Olive proceeds to wear a red 'A' on her new provocative clothes. The story of 'The Scarlett Letter' is reflected in Olive's own journey throughout the film as she realises her mistakes. The A in this case having several meanings, one of which is reflected in the title of the film, 'Easy A', referring to Olive's supposed sexual exploits. Of course, the film could be open to feminism criticism as being degrading to women. However to go into this in detail would require an entire blog to itself.

The parents steal the show, no doubt about it. Tucci and Patricia Clarkson play their parts with comic timing, and act with such ease the film, at times, feels unscripted. Overly scripted scenes and wooden performances are, quite often, the main downfall of many teen films. It was also a very welcome change to see a good, healthy relationship between parents and their teenager. So many films involve major arguments and angst on both sides of the relationship. However, 'Easy A' showcases fun, if slightly unorthodox, parents really connecting with their children and having a genuine-feeling family life.

As always Emma Stone is fresh and funny, her acting style bounces of that of the parents and results in several brilliantly comedic moments. Stone really is a talent to watch out for in the future. Hopefully she will not find herself type cast in comedy roles as most of her roles thus far have portrayed funny characters. 

On the whole the majority of performances in this film are very good. The weak link has to be, and I'm sorry to say, ex-Friends star Lisa Kudrow. She may have been excellent as the flaky Phoebe in Friends but her performance in 'Easy A' was somewhat lacking the spark and natural feel that the rest of the characters had. This one forced performance does not impact on the film as a whole as she is not an integral character to the plot.


Overall 'Easy A' really is a must-see, and don't be fooled into thinking it is only for teenagers or females. It really can speak to almost everyone. If the storyline doesn't catch your attention then the catchy soundtrack certainly will. Oh, and watch out for all the oranges...

*Emma Stone, Golden Globe Nominated in 2010. Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Musical or comedy for Easy A.

** Stanley Tucci, Oscar Nominated in 2010. Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role for Lovely Bones.

Ideology in Films

“In film studies, ideology means the influential underlying social and political beliefs of a society or social group.” (Phillips, 2005, p.632)

Three categories of ideology can be identified in films. The first, neutral, includes films which serve a purely entertainment goal; a form of escapist viewing. A neutral ideology is extremely rare, as there is usually an underlying message in every film. The most likely example of neutral ideology films would be children's films. However, this is not to say that all children's films are neutral. Many, in actual fact, contain strong ideological themes. The second category, implicit, is the most common form of ideology in film. The two main characters, the hero and the villain, represent contrasting ideological views. This category is quite subtle and implies a lot of the meaning. It feeds off the viewers understanding of cultural ideologies to further enforce the impact of the message. The explicit category includes films which have been constructed purely to teach or persuade and is very obvious in achieving this, for example patriotic films. (www.wsu.edu)

Still from in the Heat of the Night (1967)

'In the Heat of the Night' (1967) is a film which implicitly showcases ideology. Set in the deep-south of America in the 1960s, the local police officers must work with an African-American man, who is their superior. The film is set during the very influential and world-changing political time of the Civil Rights Movement. There is no doubt that this movie was a highly political one, with a very important message to the American people, along with the rest of the world. The film represents the change in society that was talking place at the time. The old ideology of white supremacy in the US is evident at the beginning of the film when the main character is arrested for a murder purely because of his race. The modern American ideology that everyone is equal and everyone can be a part of the American Dream is developed through the film as they work together. By the end of the film the main characters have learned to know and respect one another. They go their separate ways, both having benefited from knowing the other.

Still from The Patriot (2000)

Contrastingly, 'The Patriot' (2000) portrays ideology in an explicit way. Set during the American Revolution, the film depicts a war hero, turned pacifist, who is forced to take up arms again when one son is murdered by an English solider and his eldest son joins the fight. The film, as so 

many like it, portrays the enemy as brutal and heartless. Most war films contain this ideology and represent the 'enemy' as inhuman and soulless. In this case, the English are so evil they would even burn a church to the ground, a symbol of sacred belief, an ideology which in itself is still very prominent in American Culture. Seen from the American point of view, anything different or un-American must be evil. Of course, the same can be said about any war film, no matter which countries are represented. 'The Patriot' is a very patriotic film as the title would suggest and reinforces the American belief in independence and freedom. The American people will band together to fight off any evil, no matter what form it takes. This ideological view had to be put into practice, for real, the year after this film was released, following the 9/11 attacks.

Almost every film has some form of ideological message, whether it be about civil rights or promoting national identity. Next time you watch a film don't take it at face value, try and determine what it is really trying to tell you.

Sources

• Film. An Introduction. Third Edition by William H. Philips. 2005, Palgrave Macmillian. 

• Washington State University Website

• Internet Movie Database

Going Against the Grain...

In order to understand and identify films which subvert Hollywood/mainstream film standards and techniques, it is important to define what dominant cinema standards are and how counter-cinema counteracts them.

Five 'key' areas are identifiable in 'mainstream' film, which counter-cinema avoids;           1. Genres 2. Stars. 3. Producers/Studios. 4. Directors. 5. Mass Audiences (filmtheoryandcriticism)

Peter Wollen in, “Godard and Counter-cinema: Vent d'Est.” outlines seven 'deadly sins' of dominant cinema against seven cardinal virtues of its counterpart.

1. Narrative straightforwardness v Narrative intransitivity
2. Identification v Estrangement/ailenation
3. Transparency v Foregrounding of meaning production
4. A Homogeneous world v Multiple diegesis
5. Closure v Aperture
6. Pleasure v Displeasure
7. Fiction v Reality and the breakdown of representation                                                                    

                                                        (filmtheoryandcriticism)

It should be noted that not all these 'sins' need to be present or absent to make or subvert a mainstream film. Similarly, with the five points outlined above, not all have to be absent in a counter-cinema film.

 

Two films which subvert these dominant film standards are Sliding Doors (1998) and the American remake version of the 1997 Austrian film, Funny Games (2007).

Sliding Doors is not, at first, an obvious example of counter-cinema. It does not follow the typical Hollywood techniques. The narrative is anything but 'straightforward'. The opening sequence of the film sees the main character split into two realities, which creates a 'what-if' scenario throughout the film. 

The audience, therefore, is not guided through the story and is unaware which 'reality' is in fact better for the characters. The audience has to engage and remember which story is being told and where the last thread of the storyline left off. “Sliding Doors, alongside Groundhog Day, Pulp Fiction and The Usual Suspects, have challenged contemporary audiences in the way they have used various devices in 'film form' to subvert the mainstream model of 'story-telling', and most specifically, the way that classical narrative represents 'time' and 'space'.” (Nelmes, 2002, p.87.)

Funny Games is similar to Sliding Doors with its Hollywood cast and its subversion of the recognised mainstream cinema techniques. The first is the 'rewind scene'. The mother of the hostage family manages to shoot one captor. Instantly his accomplice seeks the remote control and proceeds to rewind the scene to before the shooting, changing the events. The hope felt by the audience is gone in a second. Techniques like this happen throughout the film. Hope is given and then it is dashed.

 

Another technique is when a captor directly addresses the audience. In the middle of 'making a bet' with the family he turns directly to the camera and says, “What do you think? Do you think they stand a chance? You're on their side, aren't you? Who you betting on, hmm?” By talking to the audience he breaks the narrative and allows and expects the audience to think about what is happening and why; a rare occurrence in a Hollywood Film.

The ending, unlike mainstream films, provides no closure at all. The captors arrive at a neighbours house as they did at the start of the film, asking to borrow eggs. Once successfully in the house the young man (who could quite easily be anyone you know) looks directly at the camera with a knowing look, almost a smirk. The games have begun again...

Sources

• An Introduction to Film Studies by Jill Nelmes. Third Edition. 2003, Routledge.

• Film Theory and Criticism