This post appears on Bitch Flicks. It is cross-posted with permission. 


By Zoë



When I saw the trailer for Pablo Larraín’s Jackie (2016), my first thought was, “Why do I feel so afraid?” I was unsurprised then, to discover that the woman behind the music was Mica Levi, who composed the score to Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin (2013). After seeing Jackie, it occurred to me the two films that Levi has composed music for have more in common than it initially appears. Under the Skin is a sci-fi angle on the femme fatale, where Scarlett Johansson plays an alien who seduces and kills men in Scotland. Jackie is the Oscar-ready biopic of Jackie Kennedy, centred on a masterfully emotive performance by Natalie Portman. Yet both films feature women who are lost, distanced from others and profoundly alone. Those around them cannot understand them, and so they are alienated. It is the haunted feeling of such alienation that Levi’s scores illuminate.

Johansson’s alien in Under the Skin is of course the more literal embodiment of alienation. She blankly visits human settings such as shopping centres and nightclubs, never sure of how to arrange her face to fit in with those around her. She lacks human empathy, illustrated starkly in a scene where she leaves a baby on a beach with a tide coming in. When she experiences sex with a human man, she is so overwhelmed that she flees. Levi’s score is fittingly otherworldly, pulsing with unidentifiable noises, the viola screeching like a wounded animal. It’s utterly unlike other film scores, giving the audience no easy emotional cues. The nails-on-chalkboard discomfort it conjures makes audible the colossal distance between the alien and humanity. One cannot relax when listening to the score, instead feeling a constant sense of dread at what this unknowable creature might do next.

Scarlett Johansson in Under the Skin


This constant dread, this grim unease, are present also in Levi’s score for Jackie. Jackie, in contrast to the alien, is utterly, familiarly human. Her grief and trauma over her husband’s death is the bedrock of the narrative. The audience knows how she feels, due to Portman’s highly expressive face. Jackie is also privileged, famous and powerful. But as the narrative demonstrates how quickly Jackie loses her power, Levi’s score highlights the instability of Jackie’s world in the aftermath of her husband’s death. The score is more lush and regal than the score for Under the Skin, in part because there’s an orchestra and in part to reflect the high-class American world that Jackie inhabits. But the discomfort that Levi brought to Under the Skin is present in Jackie, too. Many times when the score begins, it sounds light, almost cheerful, before being undercut by low, ominous strings that lurk obtrusively in the background. The result is a feeling of disturbance, that something familiar and romantic has been polluted by a grim terror.

Natalie Portman in Jackie

Just as Under the Skin showed how Scotland was a completely foreign world to the alien, Jackie displays how the First Lady losing her title and home throws her into a world that’s entirely unfamiliar. Visually, this is represented through particular, subtle moments: the look of shock on Jackie’s face when Lyndon B. Johnson is greeted as “Mr President” hours after JFK’s death; the camera lingering on Lady Bird Johnson picking out new White House curtains while Jackie watches, unseen. Jackie is constantly filmed on her own, without even the presence of bodyguards or servants to lessen the impression of her alienation. Her friendship with her assistant, Nancy, is shown to be of great value to her, but the film’s repeated shots of a solitary Jackie make clear that she feels cut off from everyone around her. In the film’s final minutes, a happy sequence of her playing on the beach with her children is concluded with a close-up of her grief-stricken face, and her children out of the frame. Then, she sits alone on the couch while the Life interviewer talks on the phone. Then, at the burial of JFK, she stands starkly apart from everyone else. The final shot is of her dancing at a party in JFK’s arms, placing her feelings of joy and belonging firmly in the past.

Angelica Jade Bastién writes that Jackie uses horror movie techniques to illustrate Jackie’s grief. Levi’s score is an integral part of this, the relentless, ominous strings suggesting that life has changed for Jackie in a most terrifying way. When she finally returns to the White House from Dallas, the score is fundamentally eerie, sadness undercut with grim foreboding. It’s a score suited to a dangerous expedition into unknown territory, rather than a return home. Levi’s score communicates what doesn’t need to be said through dialogue; the White House isn’t home anymore, and Jackie’s power has disappeared with her First Lady title. The terror of being cut off from a familiar world, and the subsequent alienation, are made salient in Levi’s grim, uncomfortable music.

The alien in Under the Skin has no possessions apart from her classic predator’s white van, and the outfit she chooses to resemble the common woman. Although dressed in the finest of outfits, Jackie finds herself similarly dispossessed, telling the Life reporter that the White House and her current house never belonged to her. “Nothing’s mine, not for keeps anyway,” she tells him. Separated from the home planet or the White House, both women are anchorless, adrift. Even when surrounded by revellers in metropolitan Glasgow, or watched by thousands at her husband’s funeral, the alien and Jackie remain fundamentally alone. Haunted by their inability to connect with others, to slot in to this world, they stand lost and detached. Jackie’s deeply emotional outbursts may stand in stark contrast to the alien’s lack of empathy, but both women share a troubling alienation from the people around them. Levi’s scores make this alienation audible, the grim discomfort of her music allowing the audience to feel, even for 90 minutes, the terror of such a solitude. 
By Claire.



Small town Western Australia, 1965. The bright and inquisitive Charlie Bucktin is woken in the middle of the night by the town’s mixed-race outcast, Jasper Jones. Begging for help, Jasper lures Charlie to a clearing in the bush on the outskirts of town to find a sinister end for local girl Laura Wishart. Charlie is thus whisked into a whirlwind of mystery and secrecy, as he tries to find out who killed this girl. Three kids swept up into a complicated adult world, Jasper Jones is the ultimate young Australian gothic, and one of the best Australian films I have ever seen.

Prior to university, when I thought of Australian film I thought of the low calibre, ocker and subversive. This perception was founded on too many viewings of Round the Twist, and little actual knowledge of Australian film. Here’s the thing, though: Australia can make great films, of high calibre - they just occur few and far between.

(left to right) Angourie Rice as Eliza Wishart, Aaron L. McGrath as Jasper Jones and Levi Miller as Charlie Bucktin


Directed by Rachel Perkins, Jasper Jones is an example of the standard that Australian films can demonstrate. What Perkins achieves, and sets the film apart, is a deep understanding and respect not only for the text, but for Australian stories. This level of respect is something last year’s Joe Cinque’s Consolation fell short of achieving. Both stories of crime, both adapted from books, but both with vastly different outcomes. In an article for The Guardian, James Robert Douglas argues the issue with Joe Cinque’s Consolation was that the author of the book, Helen Garner, wasn’t involved in the adaption. Based on a true story, instead of a straight adaption of Garner’s investigation, director and writer Sotiris Dounoukos chose to dramatise the events of Joe Cinque’s murder, in a way which had myself and others in the cinema cringing, not gasping. Harsh words, but the film had a distinct aura of not taking itself seriously. This could be due to it being Dounoukos’ first feature, or a lack of understanding as deep as only Garner’s investigative reporting and writing can provide. 

On the other hand, there is Jasper Jones. Adapted from the Australian modern classic by Craig Silvey, Silvey was primary writer on the screenplay and actively on set every day, keeping a close eye on the adaption and providing support as a person who knew the story. In addition, as revealed at the Cinema Nova Q&A, what eventually led producers Vincent Sheehan and David Jowsey to choose Perkins for the role of director was her deep understanding of the book. What results is a story taken seriously and filled with intricate details, and a film that hits the mark, spot on.

Charlie and Jasper confronting Mad Jack Lionel in Jasper Jones

This successful inclusion of the author is also the case for The Dressmaker. Directed by Jocelyn Moorehouse and based on the book by Rosalie Ham, The Dressmaker opened at #1 in the Australian box office - no small feat in a culture which often overlooks Australian film for the latest US blockbuster. Unlike Silvey, Ham did not write the screenplay for the adaption of her book, but early interviews indicate she was active in the production.

Like Jasper Jones, The Dressmaker is a mid-century Australian gothic set in a small town. In the hands of any other directors both films could have fallen into the all-too-familiar pit of the ocker and larrikin typical of many Australian male directors, as evident in the absurdly successful Crocodile Dundee in the 1980s and ever-present in Australian films ever since. The effect this has had on Australian films is the notion of cultural cringe, parodies of Australian life, as if the filmmakers are embarrassed of telling an Australian story. Perkins and Moorehouse avoid this, though, and tell Australian stories with heart. Perhaps this is due to them being women. The ocker and its ties to Crocodile Dundee is a masculine perspective, whereas women are not included in this identity. The ocker does not influence their style, and thus female directors offer a fresh perspective for Australian screens.


(left to right) Judy Davis, Sarah Snook and Kate Winslet in The Dressmaker

This is not to say Australian men can’t make beautiful films, such as Simon Stone’s The Daughter and Garth Davis’ Lion, but the perception of ockerness persists. The inclusion of female directors gives a fresh, more serious point of view to Australian cinema. Due to being outside of the traditional Australian identity, female directors know how to make a good film, as they aren’t bound to Australia’s history of the ocker and the subversive. Of course, this is improving, with Screen Australia’s Gender Matters initiative, and active conversations happening around the country and throughout the industry. Women need to be given more opportunities to tell stories, because time and time again these films have shown what should define the Australian film industry.


Jasper Jones is out in cinemas March 2nd.

--

Cause a Cine do not own any images used in this post.
By Kate





The Bechdel Test originates from Alison Bechdel's comic 'Dyke to Watch Out For'


Last year I saw the film Swiss Army Man (2016, written and directed by Daniel Scheinert and Daniel Kwan), featuring Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. It was funny, endearing, creative and it had more heart than any film I’d seen in a long time. Yet it was about the woes of two middleclass straight, white guys, hardly a ground breaking concept. We demand better representation of race, gender and sexuality etc. in our media so can I justify liking and supporting a film that does none of these things? Shouldn’t I put my money where my mouth is?

My moral crisis is not I cannot like a film like Swiss Army Man because of its poor representation, but that I should not. I should not support a film that does not hire diversely, on and behind the camera. Where you spend your money matters. It tells the people who are making the thing to please keep making the thing the way that you are making the thing. If you want the studios to stop making the remakes of everything ever, stop going to see them. If you want the studios to stop making these blindingly white, male centric films, stop giving them money to do so. The power of the consumer is where ethics and economy meet.

A film does not necessarily have to jump over these bars that we set it to be a good film. There is no question in my mind that Swiss Army Man (and many other films that do not pass the Bechdel Test) is a good film. It is incredibility creative, charming, funny and beautifully written, shot and acted. It is, in essence, a good film, an excellent film and simply meeting the requirements of diversity in representation that we demand does not necessarily a good film make.

So could Swiss Army Man have been made differently? Certainly if an actor of colour had replaced Dano or Radcliffe it wouldn’t have made a world of difference to the film. If an actress had replaced Dano or Radcliffe we would probably have a very different film on our hands. Whether Swiss Army Woman would have been a better or worse film we will never know. 


Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe in Swiss Army Man


Whether or not I can love a film that isn’t diverse is simple: I can. I do. The Daniels have told a story that touches me somewhere in my heart. Whether I should like a film that is not diverse is more complicated. It disappoints me that more women weren’t written into the story in some way but I can appreciate the story that is being told. It disappoints me that the casting wasn’t more diverse but I will still praise the performances of Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe. It doesn’t align with my values but does that mean that I should swear off this film like a vegetarian swears off meat? Is it enough to be aware of the problematic elements in a film that is otherwise an excellent and original piece of cinema?

The conclusion I have come to is that I will continue to support Swiss Army Man because it does things that I do value and that I want to see more in cinema. It is an original and well-told story with heart and a message that makes me think. I will continue to demand diversity in my media but I will recognise a good story where it is due.


Cause a Cine does not own any images used in this post.
By Claire.

Warning: vague spoilers 




Movies where the protagonist is forced to go back to their home town after a tragic event and confront life (do I dare borrow from The Big Chill and call these stories of ‘Lost Hope?’) are some of my favourites, bonus if it’s an ensemble cast. I think this comes from my own upbringing in a country town which I couldn’t wait to get out of. It was for this reason, the casting of Kyle Chandler and the imagery shown in the trailer which all accumulated in me paying money for a ticket to see Manchester by the Sea. I wish I didn’t.

For the past three years, my sister and I have done our Big Oscar Watch, where we endeavour to see as many, if not all, of the Academy Award Best Picture nominations before the awards broadcast. All but too aware of Casey Affleck’s sexual abuse allegations, I went into Manchester By the Sea with a guilty heart. I tried my best to keep an open mind, but as soon as the credits (finally) started to roll, I broke my rule of waiting for the house lights to come up and was out of my seat and out of the cinema.

Manchester by the Sea is a story about Lee Chandler (Affleck), a domestic janitor forced to go back to his small, seaside hometown of Manchester, after the sudden death of his brother Joe (Kyle Chandler). Lee is now left with the guardianship of his teenage nephew, and the memories of the tragic events which forced his leave from the town in the first place. Basically, this movie is sad. It was sadder than I anticipated, and while the emotion was felt, the whole production came off as being for show. Despite being equipped with beautiful imagery and camera work in picturesque seaside Massachusetts, I’m ready to call out this movie for what it truly is: nothing more than a star vehicle to establish Casey Affleck as a Serious Actor, by giving him the role of the tortured soul.

Casey Affleck's one facial expression, as Lee (Left) and Lucas Hedges as his nephew, Patrick (Right)

Let’s be real, who had even heard of Casey Affleck before this movie came around? A name which has in no small feat only been escalated in the media due to his sexual abuse allegations, and outrage over his recent Golden Globes and BAFTA win, as discussed in this post. What better way to bring him into the Hollywood spotlight than by giving him a role where he seldom talks unless he is organising other people’s lives without explaining himself, punching men in bars just for looking at him funny, and has the same stoic expression on his face. I will admit, not all the acting was bad, but there are enough tortured soul white male roles out there, we don’t need another one.

What I also found disturbing is the treatment of women. This movie is so obviously made by men, it’s laughable.

First, let’s address Lee’s sixteen-year-old nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges), and his two girlfriends. Not only is this knowledge made known in the trailer, but is brought up in the film without any repercussions. Like, are we supposed to be ok with this? Without going into the polygamy debate, the reason this irks me so is that neither girl knows about the other. While the brunette Sylvie (Kara Hayward) provides emotional support for Patrick while he grieves, the blonde Sandy (Anna Baryshnikov) only acts as an object for Patrick to have sex with, as goes the only plot point in their relationship. Why not get a girl who can do both? The secrecy of Patrick’s infidelity is a form manipulation and reinforces the idea that women exist for nothing more than consumption and pleasure, as so often told around the teen boy narrative such as teen sex comedies.

Secondly, I think Michelle Williams did an excellent job as Lee’s ex-wife Randi, given the circumstances her character are given. By this, I don’t only mean in her ability to grieve and move on, but how her character was written, especially in regards to Lee. In the scene where Lee and Randi bump into each other on the street and they both cry out their emotions, I understand the pain and need for closure. Yet, while Randi is sobbing out apologies for the harsh words she said all those years ago, Lee says nothing about his mistakes. She isn’t angry to see him back in Manchester, and if I were in her shoes, I would be.

Michelle Williams as Randi, confronting Lee (Affleck)

Dear Randi: your wicked words were and are still valid, this man’s negligence freaking killed your kids! I understand it was an accident, I understand you have found it in yourself to move on, but what I fail to understand is why you are standing there, in front of your ex-husband with your new born baby from a man who probably has his life together, sobbing apologies for a few harsh words and wailing “I still love you’s!”.  It is only in a man’s world in which a woman—a mother—would be so forgiving in such a situation, and still in love with their ex-husband who effectively murdered their children, without any, at the very least, on-screen confrontation.

During the scene, Lee, thick with tears, contends “No, there’s nothing there” in reaction to Randi’s declarations of love. This distances himself from her, and is a responsible reaction, as he recognises he is no good for her. Yet, due to the scripting and characterisation of Williams’ character, the resulting dynamic between the two though leaves Randi as the wailing woman, crazy and hopelessly in love with Affleck’s brooding, tortured soul. Like Patrick’s girlfriend’s, Randi is a device to redeem Lee as a character. What we are left with is the feeling that, if his ex-wife can still love him, he mustn’t be that bad of a man.


There are enough movies about the tortured white male, who can be an asshole without judgement because life has dealt him some bad blows. Furthermore, there are enough movies which feature 2-dimensional women, who only exist to make the tortured males look good. In today’s political and cultural climate, we don’t have the time for such movies, especially during award season. It is a record-year for African American stories and filmmakers at the Academy Awards, it’s no wonder Manchester by the Sea is receiving little to no recognition. I have already said my piece on the injustice of the continuous celebration of men in the film industry who are known sexual abusers in regards to Affleck’s Golden Globe earlier this year, but it’s no wonder it is getting overshadowed by Moonlight and Hidden Figures. We don’t need movies like this anymore, and quite frankly, I’m more than happy to see them go. 


Cause a Cine do not own any of the images used in this post.
By Rachel


*CONTAINS SPOILERS*


What do Louise Banks of Arrival and Ellen Ripley of Alien have in common? Extraterrestrial buddies, a troubled relationship with the military, and a tendency to defy authority.

What they don’t have in common, though, is infinitely more interesting.

After recently experiencing the grand, sweeping frames of Denis Villeneuve ‘s Arrival within a week of watching one of my all-time favourite science fiction works, Ridley Scott’s Alien, it sprung to mind that female leads of this genre used to come by once in a blue moon. Over the past few decades, though, female protagonists of science fiction have significantly increased in number.

Sarah Connor of the Terminator series, Eleanor Arroway of Contact, Evey Hammond of V for Vendetta, Katniss Everdeen of The Hunger Games, Furiosa of Mad Max: Fury Road, and Rey of Star Wars: The Force Awakens are arguably all iconic characters of the science fiction genre. Katniss in particular has played a large role in popularising female protagonists in a franchise that appeals to both teenage girls and boys.

In many ways, though, Scott’s film was revolutionary. It was still the 1970s, and here was a woman, out-surviving the men on a spaceship where at any turn H.R. Giger’s alien could tear her apart. Sigourney Weaver’s character is the first to see through the corrupt behaviour of the traitor Ash and the last left to initiate the self-destruction of the Nostromo. She is a badass kinda woman.  

 Sigourney Weaver as Ellen Ripley in the Alien franchise [source]

It should be said, though, that I’m a little biased. Ripley is one of my favourite characters in film, primarily because she doesn't take any prisoners when it comes to leadership and doing what needs to be done. As much as she’s smart and rational, she doesn’t hide her emotions and isn’t afraid of showing her true colours. She is courageous and intelligent, while still retaining her sense of independence as the only female character capable of making cut-throat decisions on a mission where men blindly follow orders. She represents neither the archetype of the masculine woman out to prove herself in a man's world, nor the studious career woman hell bent on professional success with no interest in a family. She is something else altogether. As we discover in Aliens, Ripley had a family, back on Earth, and she shows great compassion to Newt, the young girl found orphaned after aliens take over her human colony. At the same time, though, Ripley decries the stereotypical feminine aesthetic of 'the only woman on the spaceship', as many would remember from the somewhat dated episodes of Star Trek and Lost in Space. She is muscular and agile, but this does not make her manly – she is simply a strong human being.

Of course, Scott’s work is not without its problems. Ripley is at times sexualised throughout the franchise – who can forget the nail-biting final scene of Alien where she single-handedly fights off the stowaway alien in her singlet and underwear? However, as much as science fiction has vastly changed over the years – and Arrival is indeed a positive example of these changes - Ripley will always represent an early step forward to more diverse characterisations in the genre.

This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no training’: Newt and Ripley in Aliens. [source]

Based on a short story by Ted Chiang, ‘Story of your Life’, Arrival reflects similar themes of female empowerment and independence, but in rather different ways. Naturally, they are different films with very different characters. But in terms of feminist themes, there are some interesting discrepancies in comparison to Alien.

Amy Adams takes the role of Louise Banks – a solitary academic in the world of linguistics who is chosen to aid the American military in their communications with an alien species. Banks is an intellectual, but her abrupt mannerisms and perceivably lonely existence portray her as fundamentally unhappy. We are led to believe that her unhappiness is due to her daughter’s recent death from cancer – although the viewer learns otherwise in later scenes of the film. Banks is admirable because she values intellectualism – especially its role in bringing humans together to form more powerful, peaceful communities. Her rational, intelligent decisions are in stark contrast to the meatheaded-ness of the military (a stereotype that grew slightly tiresome in this film). Banks proves to herself and the people around her that through knowledge, hard work and patience comes successful communication and, eventually, a sense of meaning. 

However, as refreshing as it is to still see such a strong female lead in science fiction, the characterisation of Banks is somewhat problematic. From the first scene to the moving final moments, Banks’ value as a human being seems to originate from her role as a mother.

Despite her knowledge as a linguist and her no-holds-barred approach to her work, the writers make sure that we don’t forget what has really given her life meaning – a child. As viewers will discover, the back-story of Banks’ family life is an essential plot device, so it could hardly be removed. But it still begs the question of why a successful, smart woman needs a child to make her life worth living.

Amy Adams as Louise Banks in Arrival. [source]

As much as I enjoyed the film, I couldn’t help but think that the story would be a little different with a male lead. That is not to take away from Banks’ story – she is a successful, driven and intelligent woman, and, incidentally, a mother. But imagine a man in the same position as Banks. It is much more difficult (although perhaps not impossible) to imagine a male linguist on a path to rescue humanity, pining for the happy memories of time spent with his now-dead daughter. Was he a good father? Did he make the right decisions? How does this affect his work on a high-profile, once-in-a-lifetime case to help ‘save the world’? It is not an impossibility, but perhaps an unlikelihood. As we see in Interstellar, Joseph Cooper is kept going by the love for his daughter back on Earth. The difference in Arrival is that all of Banks’ narration centres around the life of her daughter, despite her own vital role in aiding humankind. Alternatively, Cooper’s mission is informed by the love for his daughter, but his character is not defined by it (especially when he leaves his aging daughter behind to, again, ‘save humanity’).  

Following the revelation that her non-existent child is not yet dead (but will live and die in the future), the only tangible reason we’re given for Banks’ sad, lonely sequences at the beginning of the film is the fact that she’s single – albeit residing in a fabulous lakeside house with a high-paying university professorship to boot. But still, single.

Additionally, Banks’ decision to bring a daughter into the world with the full knowledge of what will happen to her is depicted as heroic and admirable. The audience is meant to respect her decision to continue on the path to motherhood despite the knowledge that her daughter will die young from a horrible disease. But what if Banks had decided otherwise? What if she had instead avoided pregnancy to save a child from horrific pain and suffering? Would she still be an admirable woman, or is this something only a pragmatic male would do? I would not blame her for either decision, but the alternative does make me wonder.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved the majesty of Arrival; how it challenged my perception of language and the human idea of time and reality. Aliens, a female lead, and an excellent plot twist – what’s a sci-fi fangal not to love? It was a good film, and the recent Oscar nominations it’s been granted are well-deserved. I cannot wait to watch it again.


And I’m also not in the market for films in which all female characters are decidedly admirable, or representative of my own idea of feminism – I want them to be conflicted, mean, tough and foolhardy, without being perceived as ‘insane bitches’ – and in many ways, the increasing amount of women in science fiction will hopefully allow for a more diverse range of characterisations to take hold. It’s just a shame that Banks – an intelligent, strong and ethical woman –  was primarily defined by her motherhood, and not instead by her Ripley-esque rationale and independence.