Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Even Dragon Ladies Get the Blues: The Figure of Anne May Wong in Early Hollywood Cinema

In her article ‘When Dragon Ladies Die, Do They Come Back as Butterflies?’ Cynthia W. Liu argues that Anna May Wong, as a Chinese-American actress working in the hierarchal studio system of ‘20s – ‘40s Hollywood, drew the short straw when it came to not only the roles that were offered but also the resultant cinematic legacy or memory of her and her racial heritage. Wong became a symbol of ‘Asianness’, and her vulgar, one-dimensional characters were one of only a few representations of Asian people in the media. But is it really Wong’s fault for always playing ‘dragon ladies’ and ‘butterflies’? From a viewing of Dupont’s Piccadilly (1929), I would even come to suggest that by 1929 Wong had already begun to subvert the image-making machines of a white Hollywood through her mesmerising performances, which injected so much agency into her characters. Just as Matthew Sweet writes: “Hollywood used Anna May Wong to embody every Oriental stereotype in the book. But her talent shone through.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/feb/06/china.world)
I feel that it is a moot point in debating the negative representations of Chinese people in Piccadilly. Everyone knows that early Hollywood (and to a lesser extent contemporary Hollywood) did not come up with the most realistic or nuanced representations of minorities. It ultimately becomes the actor’s or actress’s duty to bestow what ever agency that is left into his/her character. There is something very charming and inviting, yet enigmatic, about Wong’s presence in Piccadilly. She undoubtedly elevates the film, and Dr. Hardie even amusingly compared her vivaciousness to that of Angelina Jolie (back in the day when she was a man-eating Goth). Even though we, as 21st Century viewers, disapprove of Wong’s characters in an ideological sense, we cannot help but be seduced by her performance.

In acting, (I personally believe that) it is all about intuitively understanding your character’s personal and psychological properties, as well as the social, historical and cultural milieus from which they arise from – yet also paradoxically to be seemingly unaware of this. Another consideration is the acting
conventions required for your certain medium (film or theatre), school (theatrical, method) and genre. For Wong, she also had to take into account the negative stereotypes that informed her characters. It is indeed very tragic to learn that Wong was refused the lead role of O-Lan in Sidney Franklin’s The Good Earth (1937) – a film which, because of America’s growing sympathy for China in its struggles with Japanese Imperialism, had finally begun to feature positive representations of Chinese people. The lead roles, however though, were given to white American actors who wore ‘yellowface’, and to add insult to injury, the German-American actress who played O-Lan, Luise Rainer, had received her second Oscar for the performance.

I also thought that the
actress playing Mabel, Gilda Gray, was pretty good. In the scene where she is dancing and the man is complaining about his dirty plate, Gilda Gray, with her hands partially covering her face, somehow reminded me of Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard (1950) – especially in the promotion pictures. I haven’t watched Sunset Blvd. yet, but am well acquainted with the image of Swanson posing at the bottom of the staircase. This bizarre mental connection between the two actresses emphasises how certain moving-images of a film can exist autonomously as still-images; that film as commodity extends all the way through to the visuals on the DVD cover, and by recognising one still-image as belonging to a certain film, it also becomes part of one’s cinematic experience of that film. Maybe, my positive connotations of Swanson, unwarrantedly translated into a positive consideration of Gray.

Monday, March 9, 2009

The 'who-what-when-where-why' of viewing a Film and the Discovery of a 'Cinematic Canon'

It is often noted that ordinary people, fans watch ‘movies’, whilst academics and cinephiles view ‘films’ or ‘cinema’.

From the first seminar of Cinematic Modernism, our lecturer Dr. Melissa Hardie got us thinking about the different modes of viewing a piece of cinema, and the accompanying implications that each encompasses.

What are my aesthetic expectations for a Friday night screening of He’s Just Not That Into You (2008) at Greater Unions with a friend after work? What if we were watching Gus van Sant’s Milk (2008) instead? (We honestly planned to see Milk but there was only one session that day at 4pm.) Do I value the ‘social cinema’ experience more than that of, say, watching a DVD of Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers (1972) on my laptop, alone in my bedroom? What about illegally downloading and watching a screener copy of The Reader (2008), just so you could see if Kate Winslet really has a chance of winning the Oscar this time around. [See video bar]. How do I feel about accidentally catching a broadcast of Woody Allen’s The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001) (considered to be the worst in his whole repertoire) on television with intervening commercials and all? Is my excitement, attention span and aesthetic experience the same for all? Do some films need to be seen in certain contexts? Do I hierarchise certain cinematic experiences over others?

The answer to most of these questions is: “different/same/yes/no.” When I am about to view a ‘serious’, critically esteemed film my open-minded thinking cap is consciously turned on – something that a good cinephile should always have on; meanwhile, if I am watching a run-of-the-mill action or romantic comedy feature then I just fall asleep. The ‘who-what-when-where-why’ part of the viewing experience does matter in getting me in the mood, but inevitably the content of the film delineates the value of that particular cinematic experience. The question now is what distinguishes the serious from the run-of-the-mill, and where can I get more of the good stuff?

Does there exist a ‘Cinematic Canon’ like there is a Western Literary Canon? And how are people accessing the films in this canon? I personally access this imaginary canon every time I log onto www.oscar.com or http://www.festival-cannes.com. I appreciate award ceremonies (Academy Awards, SAGs), international competitive film festivals (Cannes, Venice, Berlin) and critics’ lists (1001 Movies, Time Magazine) for being near-objective entry points into the canon. These invaluable sources advise on which auteurs, directors, screenwriters, actors and actresses to follow and which to retrospectively study and celebrate. And now that most of the edifying cinephile theatres have closed, these sources do seem to be the best alternative places to acquire both a(n) (abbreviate) history of cinema and viewing tastes.

It is indeed from those places where I first encountered the films which I now liberally consider my top 10 favourite films:

A Streetcar Named Desire, Elia Kazan, 1951.
Long Day’s Journey Into Night
, Sidney Lumet, 1962.
Cabaret
, Bob Fosse, 1972.
Annie Hall
, Woody Allen, 1977.
The Piano
, Jane Campion, 1993.
Dancer in the Dark
, Lars von Trier, 2000.
The Piano Teacher
, Michael Haneke, 2001.
Lost in Translation
, Sofia Coppola, 2003.
Brokeback Mountain
, Ang Lee, 2005.
Volver, Pedro Almodovar, 2006.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Welcome to Matthew's "Cinematic Modernism" Blog

Hi there,

"Film Eats the Soul" is a blog that was previously called "Modern Times: Modern Films: Modern Readings". It features my personal musings on cinema/movies/films and their contingent elements.

"Modern Times: Modern Films: Modern Readings" was a student blog for ENGL3604 Cinematic Modernism, an Advanced Unit of Study taken by students in the Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney. The author of this blog is Matthew Cai. For any enquiries please email maverick.matthew@gmail.com.