Blue Velvet

Blue Velvet is actually one of Lynch's more "Hollywood" films that is accepted completely unalteristic like Eraserhead or Elephant Man. Accordingly, the article The Po-Mo Puritan goes as far as saying, "Lynch actually works within the most traditional canon of American literature. He follows an intrinsically American moralistic obsession with the ideas of innate depravity, a Zorostrain notion of goodness and evil, and the schizophrenic concept of innocence as both an ideal state and a treacherous, ultimately corrupting vice of the wickedly naive". In this movie I feel that Lynch is commenting on the loss of innocense even in the American dream town where there are white picket fences and on the surface nothing is happening and all seems well. Then you have this completely different underground world that you only experience if you dig a little deeper. Jeffrey and his female lead Sandy are both upstanding kids in school who have life ahead of them but have never really experienced anything. Then Jeffrey finds a severed ear which leads into a whole slew of events that lead to the ultimate destruction of both Jeffrey and Sandy's innocence. Which Lynch was depicting in his film. According to the article, "Good and evil had to be clearly defined, so the inclusion or exclusion of a person within this moral dyad categorically determined the nature of that individual's character". I think what this means for Lynch's film is that the lines were not separated in terms of good and evil. That it is crazy in a town that on the surface you see nothing going wrong and it is a perfect as that fireman riding by in the firetruck waving with a smile instead of the alternative rushing to a burning building. Then you have this hidden society of crooked cops, drug dealers, corruption and murder. So what is Lynch trying to say? Is he saying that there is no where that is safe? That no matter how far you go and how perfect life may seem bad things are all around even if lying right under our noses? In all there is a point in life that you just lose your innocence and can never get it back.

Stepford Wives

Stepford Wives was a film that was writtend, directed, and produced by men. Can you really call this a feminist film or can should you call it an attempt to delve into the men's psychy? I would definately agree that the men took very good care of the feminist message however, part of me still feels as though this film sought out to satisfy every man's fantasy. I mean, who wouldn't want the perfect wife? A Stepford Wife has the perfect body, breasts, face, and does everything that they are told. They take care of their main responsiblity there husband and children. They had no mind of there own and they could not even speak against there husbands. The most controversal thing in theirs lives is getting behind on housework because they could not get the floor clean enough. The reading claims to say, "The Stepford Wives was in fact rather more faithful to the popular feminist discourse of its day than its critics were willing to accept at the time. Even seemingly outlandish image of patriarchally brainwashed women as automatons finds echoes in Mary Daly's contemporaneous description of such nonfeminist women as "fembots" and "puppets of papa". I don't think that anyone would know the underlying message unless knowing a lot of about the time of the films filming and background information. Any unsuspecting viewer might see the film as just simply a man's fantasy. You see a little bit of feminist fight in the main character. She tries fighting what is happening to her and the other women in town. She is trying to fight the men by figuring out what they are doing to all the women. However, in the end the men win. So what is this film trying to say about the feminist fight? Is it trying to say that no matter how much women fight and no matter how hard headed and strong a woman may be like the main character in the film that in the end men are always going to come out on top? Cause event he strongest character in the film fighting for women's rights, in a small way but still fightin, was turned into one of these "puppets of papa" with perfect breasts and no brain like men like there women. I am trying to figure out what hidden agenda these male writers and directors were trying to say. One the surface you could think that this film was fighting for women's rights and pushing for women's suffrage and that women are more then just homemakers and wives but people. Women are people with brains and capable of intelligent thought. However, I feel much like the reading interprets that this is a masoganist film that is trying to say that no matter what women try to do men will always win. Women are the weaker sex and will remain in such a role because men are on top. Would you say this film supports feminist strife? Or, would you say this film is merely a masognist film hidden beneath the seams?

Dr. Strangelove

So, about this movie... This is the second time I have seen it and in viewing it the second time you see much farther then just the initial bomb threat people were so terrified of and possible catastrophic doomsday scenario that Dr. Strangelove film presents. Like the reading points out, "Dr. Strangelove uses nightmare comedy to satirize four dimensions of the Cold War consensus: anit-communist paranoia; the culture's inability to realize the enormity of nuclear war; various nuclear strategies; and the blind faith modern man places in technological progress". At the time I would agree there was cause for there to be insecurity and fear of possible bomb threats and attacks on the American people. However, I don't believe that the fear is directed in the right place which I believe is the underlying message displayed in this comedic horror. The real fear lies within the mind. The mind of men who are at high authority with access to powerful weaponry and become unstable in the process of there career. In this lies where the fear lies, what happens when powerful men lose there marbels? Atomic bombing and death occurs. Much like we saw in the film the General saw fit to take things into his own hands and enact Option "R" which shut down the base and turned off all radio control with hopes in bombing all parts of Russia with multiple air strikes. Just goes to show you how dangerous one man with authority can truly be. Which in truth also calls upon the idea of a dictatorship or absolute monarchy and why it is bad. One man can not have control of everything only because it will end in disaster as the movie provides.
Now the reading talks of Dr. Strangelove not speaking till the movies near ending and his largest lines coming directly at the end. Why do you think the director did this? Especially since the movie is named Dr. Strangelove. A few lines allows him the title of the film? And, when he does speak he comes up with scenarios like having all the world powerful men be hidden in a mine shaft and only the world's most beautiful women and have a scenario of 10 women for every 1 man. His character is disturbing and difficult to understand even after a second viewing.

A little side note, I find the suggestive names that Dr. Strangelove has completely and utterly hilarious and made the movie impecable. Like the man responsible for all the problems Jack D. Ripper. Much like Jack the Ripper the terrifying and notorious murderer.

Atomic Cafe

I think that during the Cold War era and the Atomic bomb took women in the home to a whole new level. The "Lucille Ball" of housewives hit there peak during this time. Yes, women held the roles of wife, mother, and homemaker before, however, at the time of the atomic bomb women were sent home expected to step up there game. Women were a new class of soldier on the homefront. The reading hits upon how women could not have a dusty household because having a dusty home means that atomic debree could get in and hurt the family. The FCDA depicted the house work to be serious and professional jobs entrusted only to women because they "knew" the home and how it worked. The chief of the FCDA claimed, "failure to incorporate civil defense into the household would be like a "fifth column" action which undermines our national defense". Which is why women were required to make the fall out shelter a home not just a place to exist until the bomb threat was over. Women were in charge of keeping panic to a minimum and family under control while the men are out "saving" everyone and working.
Which leads me to my next point and how men are seen as this protector and "bring home the bacon" kind of morale. While leaving women completely understated. At one point the article brings up how a widow is basically done for because she has no man to build her and her family a fallout shelter or provide food and nourishment to the family.
Even more inferiorating is women did rise to have some power. Yes, "power" to which was limited by a mans every whim. Katherine Howard was the deputy administrator of the FCDA and the first woman in any federal agency to become second in command. This is a great accomplishment and took a lot of integrity, I agree. However, her role was to deliver speeches, appear on radio shows, hold press conferences and worked as a liaison to Congress. She sent messages that explained how strong woman were and took on the female perspective. All well and good except her speeches and many appearences were all written for her. If you think about it the military/government used her appearance to appease woman and children around the country. She was not used for her knowledge or capabilities but used as "mascot" as the reading points out. How did woman not see how they were being underhanded. The reading says that men are bestowed by God to take care of everything, "We, gentlemen, are one half of the human race. We were put into this world to brood and nurture, train and protect humanity. That is a function given us by nature and by God." Basically, women were being placed aside to look pretty and keep home. And Howard was just a woman who kept woman in their place. I don't whether she did it knowingly or not but her job was to make sure women know how important it is not to keep a dusty home and make sure that the fall out shelters are nice a pretty to live in. The whole film and reading depicts the separation of gender roles in an immense way. Men=work. Women= clean. I believe this where the woman as the homemaker and man as the provider really solidified itself.