Intro to Film 2025 • Professor Gregory Zinman • Emory University

Author: Yuen Lin

  • RRR in the West and in India

    After talking to my friend, who is Telegu and grew up watching Tollywood films, I was surprised to hear that he and his family was not a fan of the movie RRR. I wondered if it was because of historical inaccuracy or propoganda, but because he was born and raised in America, he claimed that he didn’t know much about Indian history or current events and didn’t feel strongly about the problematic sides of the movie. He simply thought that it was not the best and felt that there were many more Tollywood films that were worth watching and much shorter than the long 3 hour run time. I greatly enjoyed the film, and was under the impression that it was a hit in India as well. After doing some research, I found that his opinion is not alone.

    In a blog post titled “India Doesn’t Seem to Love ‘RRR’ as Much as the West,” negative opinions from regular Tollywood and Bollywood watchers were compiled. One critic explained that a foreigner watching RRR would feel extremely different from an Indian watching RRR, as a foreigner would be in awe over the effects, over the top action, music, and “masala” of the movie that is not normally seen in Hollywood movies, while a regular watcher would feel that it is another run-of-the-mill movie. I, as a foreigner, was hooked into the movie as it was nothing I had ever seen before, but I’m sure that my friend felt that he had seen many just like it or better.

    In another negative review I found, written by a critic from India, they also complained of the long run time of the movie and calls it “bloated and bombastic affair.” They say that this movie requires you to suspend your disbelief for far too long and “their invincibility is a given, and that’s a drag.” I had personally been invested into every minute of the film, with all its flashy effects and inhumane stunts and the actors’ charisma, but it is understandable that someone may find the action scenes dragging out for far too long, as it is nothing they haven’t seen already.

    Despite the less enthusastic reactions of watchers who are already extremely familiar with Indian films, most can agree that RRR has helped immensely with exposure and hope that the western audience will give other Tollywood films a try.

    https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/bollywood/film-review-rrr-is-high-on-action-long-on-time-1.86716477

    https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/ps9oqq7cyzzybjajilm8oj4a9rwedy

  • The Handmaiden and Sapphic Depictions

    I recently watched “The Handmaiden” directed by Park Chan-Wook and was struck by the differences and similarities to the other sapphic film we watched, “Portrait of a Lady on Fire.” Although very similar in its themes and plot points, “The Handmaiden” dives deeper into the effect of male centrism on queer relationships between women, which “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” keeps in the background instead of putting it front and center. Although I enjoyed both, I can recognize the differences between the two on its depictions on sapphic love.

    “The Handmaiden” focuses on a rich heiress who is set to marry a man, but instead falls in love with her handmaiden and tricks the abusive men around them to elope with her. This is similar to “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” but the woman that Heliose is set to marry is never shown and the two women do not defy the arranged marriage. This shows the difference between the two films, as “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” seems to depict the patriarchy as unmoving, while “The Handmaiden” depicts it as stifling, but escapable.

    In the first parts of “The Handmaiden,” the two women are depicted beautifully, with respect to their characters and their quiet, intimate moments. As the movie progresses, their love becomes more and more dangerous and deceptive, culminating in a long and explicit sex scene. However, I as well as many other find issue with these scenes, as it feels like a performance for the audience, like pornography, instead of an intimate and personal relationship between the two characters. In the last part of the movie, the characters are clearly shot from the male gaze, focusing on their body parts in a voyeuristic way. This feels ironic considering the entire movie is about the two women escaping objectification by men. This notion is completely rejected in “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” as the women’s nudity never feels objectifying or pornographic and their intimate scenes feel personal to them, instead of for the pleasure of the viewer.

    Despite this, I can agree with the widespread acclaim and acceptance of “The Handmaiden” as a classic in the LGBTQ+ genre. The characters are complex, the romance is passionate and unashamed, and the theme of two women finding solace in a deeply misogynistic society is extremely touching. And most satisfyingly, the women win in the end and escape the patriarchy.

  • “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice” and Wicked

    In this week’s reading, David Bordwell’s essay “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice” analyzes the art cinema as a mode of film practice rather than a genre, meaning it’s defined by a set of formal and narrative techniques rather than thematic content. This greatly differs from traditional Hollywood films, in which characters have a clear-cut goal with a straightforward plot, while Art Cinema has looser plots with complex and ambiguous protagonists in a “realer” way.

    A recent movie I watched was “Wicked”, which although in fact is a Hollywood blockbuster, there are certain aspects that can resonate with Borwell’s Art Cinema. In Bordwell’s essay, he says that art cinema prioritizes psychological depth over straightforward plot, exploring the inner thoughts of its characters. InWicked, the story delves deep into Elphaba’s motivations and moral struggles, rather than just a linear good-versus-evil plot. Bordwell also highlights narrative ambiguity in art cinema, where events are open to interpretation and outcomes are not fully resolved. Although the actual movie is pretty straightforward, when combined with the context of the original story, many interpretations and nuances begin to show. We see the familiar world from Elphaba’s perspective and begin questioning what was actually real. Finally, Bordwell says that the protagonist in art cinema is often complex and morally ambivalent. Elphaba fits this model perfectly, as she subverts traditional heroic and villainous roles, making the audience question what it means to be “good” or “evil.”

    Although some connections can be drawn between the essay and “Wicked,” there are many points where the movie is different from Art Cinema and is instead a traditional Hollywood blockbuster. For example, although Elphaba is complex and morally ambiguous, she still has a strong goal and drives the plot forward. Additionally, although the movie has very human characters with human thoughts, the movie is still very fantastical and nothing like the “naturalistic setting” and realistic points in the essay. The plot is very structured and has a pretty distinct beginning, middle, and end, even if the context of the original story gives the movie a complex story structure. In conclusion, Wicked is more like a mainstream musical movie with some art cinema elements, rather than an actual example of art cinema.

  • NYC and the LGBT Community

    As I was watching “Paris is Burning,” I was reminded of another documentary I had watched called “Stonewall Uprising” which focused on the events of the Stonewall riots that occured in New York City and marked the turning point for LGBT visibility and rights in NYC. I was curious as to how these two events connected to each other and found that the riots occured almost exactly 21 years before the release of “Paris is Burning.”

    The Stonewall Riots was a spontaneous riot that that occured when NYC police raided the Stonewall Bar, a popular gay bar where drag queens, gay men, and transgender people often visited as refuge from NYC’s transphobic and homophobic policies. However, the members present fought back against the police, signifying the tipping point for the marginalized and oppressed members of the LGBT and their refusal to take any more abuse. The riot was led mostly by trans women of color, similar to “Paris is Burning.”

    “Paris is Burning,” set around 20 years later, shows how this spirit of resistance has carried through history and evolved into new self-expressions and continuing to defy societal norms. Although still oppressed and marginalized, many young LGBT runaways as well as shunned members of society could turn to the widespread drag ball culture to find a family and community. 20 years previously, Stonewall was the only gay bar where gay men were allowed to dance, and drag queens had fought tooth and nail to protect their community. With this background knowledge, I found it extremely touching that these drag queens could now dance freely and even be accepted in some magazines and runway shows. Voguing, performance, and “realness” in “Paris is Burning” can be seen as extensions of the fight that began with Stonewall.

    Stonewall and “Paris is Burning” show slices in history of the fight for equality in LGBT communities in New York City, as well as the progression of their rich and unique culture. After watching these two documentaries about the history of NYC’s LGBT culture, I am curious how they have continued to develop into the modern day. From what I am aware of, NYC has one of America’s largest LGBT communities with an extremely thriving culture currently, so I would say that these queens’ struggle proved fruitful for their future children.

    How has the fight for LGBT rights developed across the country in various cities other than NYC? And how has the fight progressed in the current political climate?

  • Citizen Kane’s Real Life Drama

    Citizen Kane was not just a drama shown on-screen, it was based on a real life newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst and thinly veiled by cinematic flourish. However, Hearst was a powerful man and Orson Welles, an arrogant yet brilliant rising star, had made himself a powerful enemy.

    According to PBS, Orson Welles was an ambitious young man who set out to dethrone Hearst, but Hearst would not take this lying down. He banned any mention of this film in his newspapers and intimidated theatre managers into refusing to show the movie. As such, Citizen Kane was initially a box office flop, failing to recoup its production costs. Despite the boycott, Citizen Kane still managed to get nominated for nine categories at the 14th Academy Awards, but only winning for Best Original Screenplay. Hearst’s influence managed to reach into the Academy voters, with many claiming that Citizen Kane was snubbed due to personal dislike of Welles among voters and Hearst’s supporters. The film was reportedly booed by audience members every time it was named at the Oscars.

    Although Citizen Kane was a less than flattering depiction of Hearst, there is an interesting theory about why Hearst was so adamant to obscure the film. According to the writer Gore Vidal, “Rosebud,” the phrase that the film centers around, was a nickname given by Hearst to his mistress Marion Davies’s clitoris. Marion Davies was an actress who was well liked in Hollywood, and the controversy over Citizen Kane was said to be “a fight over her honor” as her depiction in the movie as Susan Alexander was as Welles claimed himself– “a dirty trick.”

    Out of the three sources I used, only the PBS article seems to be based in fact and backed up by other sources. Although Far Out Magazine titles their article as “Why Citizen Kane was Booed at the 1942 Oscars,” the article clarifies that the booing was only account of Citizen Kane being booed came from Welles himself, who wasn’t even in attendance. Additionally, the Guardian article reads more as celebrity gossip with speculation about Welles and his co-writer Mankiewicz and their hidden motives.

    https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-citizen-kane-was-booed-at-the-1942-oscars

    https://www.theguardian.com/unsolvedmysteries/story/0,,1155656,00

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/kane-william-randolph-hearst-campaign-suppress-citizen-kane

  • Cinema’s Essence- Conflict vs Realism in Everything Everywhere All at Once

    In Eisenstein’s essay, “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form,” he argues that cinema is “conflict,” as meaning comes through the “collision” of shots in the form of a montage. In “The Myth of Total Cinema” by Andre Bazin, he argues that cinema is myth, as humanity continuously tries to imitate life in a perfect form. In each of their theories, they strive to define what cinema is, in its true essence. In the movie Everything Everywhere All at Once directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, both of these theories are utilized to create both a conflicting yet emotionally grounding experience.

    Eisenstein and Bazin’s position come across as almost complete opposites. Eisenstein believed that when two shots collided, they produced a new idea for the viewer to generate. This is seen everywhere in Everything Everywhere All at Once, as the rapid multiverse jumping creates a montage where images smash together to create another meaning. Evelyn is shown as a laundromat worker, then an opera singer, then a hibachi chef, and these rapid succession of images creates new ideas in the viewer for Evelyn’s identity and possibility. The chaotic editing creates conflict in between each shot, and through these conflicting shots a meaning is constructed. Much of this movie is conveyed through overstimulating and even absurd montages, but this only enhances the experience for the viewer.

    Meanwhile, Bazin believed that the shots are received by the viewer as a window to reality. Interestingly, the quiet, intimate scenes in between the chaos feels the most real. The scenes between Joy and Evelyn in their home universe as they fight and reconcile over real, human things hits the hardest to the viewer, as they are an almost perfect recreation of reality. Much of this movie’s praise comes from its relatability as the audience could see their own reality reflected clearly through the screen.

    Additionally, Bazin’s ideas that cinema is driven by a myth– human’s desire to recreate reality in its entirety– also shines through in this movie. Everything Everywhere All at Once attempts to literally recreate all of reality, in its countless multiverses, lives, and emotions all in one film. This is done through the use of technology (in its sound, color, CGI), as with each tool cinema progresses towards the myth of realism. It embodies the myth that cinema can capture everything, even every possible version of it.

  • All That Heaven Allows: Through the Feminist Lens

    All That Heaven Allows is a melodrama and in Britannica’s definition: “a sentimental drama with an improbable plot that concerns the virtuous suffered by the villainous but ends happily triumphant.” Although All That Heaven Allows has certain melodramatic elements, the plot is far from improbable and instead concerns many women of the time and today in its critique of patriarchal and heteronormative society.

    Cary’s love for Ron is not only a romantic love, but can also be interpreted as the desire for autonomy in the surburban expectations that defines her worth through marriage and motherhood. Most of the discussion involving Cary from other characters has to do with her marriage or asking how her kids are, with the former even becoming the talk of the town after she defies expectations to marry within her class or age. This desire is condemned, with her kids accusing her of selfishness and shallowness, as they suspect her to see Ron as a “set of muscles.”

    The toxicity of the male-centered high society is most exemplified in Howard’s multiple assaults of Cary, as he forcefully kisses her twice while being married. Cary’s first assault was brushed under the rug as she “pretends it never happened” to avoid causing a stir- and likely because most would not be on her side. This is proved in Cary’s second assault, as most people were concerned with the way Ron protected Cary rather than Howard, the actual assailant. Cary is expected to deal with a terrifying and humiliating situation in a demure fashion.

    Although I found many of the romantic parts pretty corny, I can appreciate the deeper themes of female isolation and societal expectations just below the glossy Hollywood romance surface. However, one critique that I do have for the feminist interpretation of this movie is that although it delves into the struggles of womanhood in surburban America, the solution to Cary’s problems is still a man.

    This movie almost completely fails the Bechdel test, as almost all the substantial conversations in the movie either involve a man, or are two women talking about men or theories about men. (Though surprisingly, Mona’s conversation topics with Cary don’t involve men) Even though there are many interesting female characters in this movie, somehow the interactions between them almost always evolve into talking and contemplating about men. In the picture above, the daughter Kay delivers an interesting monologue about misogynistic Egyptian customs, but begins it with an even longer monologue completely focused on Harvey. Although this reflects the male-centered society that was the mid 1900’s, I wish that the female characters were able to do some introspection that didn’t have to use romance or men as a crutch.

  • An Interview with Wes Anderson by RogerEbert

    In this interview on RogerEbert.com, the reporter Hank Sartin sits down with Wes Anderson to chat about his direction in “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” While reading the transcript of this interview, I found Wes Anderson’s insight into his inspiration as well as the collaboration of everyone on set extremely interesting. As many already know, Wes Anderson was heavily inspired by the author Stefan Zweig for the idea of a story-within-a-story. Although Anderson acknowledges that many other storytellers have done the same idea, he was especially inspired by Zweig’s use of this in “very psychological, more intimate stories.” They then chat about the actors, especially Ralph Fiennes’s performance as Mr. Gustave. 

    I found this particular interview more insightful than other interviews I watched and read, as the conversation between Sartin and Anderson felt more like a friendly chat, rather than an official interview. Sartin seemed very knowledgeable about many of the references that Anderson brought up. For example, I was not familiar with Zweig’s work, but Sartin was able to direct the conversation in a natural way that both gave insight into Zweig’s previous work as well as how Anderson related it to his own work. From this interview, I learned that Zweig was a famous author in the 20’s and 30’s, but mostly faded in popularity. Although “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is a comedy-drama with many lighthearted moments, Zweig’s stories had a more serious tone.

    Another topic they discussed in depth about was the choice of Ralph Fiennes as Gustave. I was not familiar with Fiennes’s previous works, but Sartin directed the conversation in a way that Anderson was able to add his insight into why Fiennes was chosen, though his previous roles were mostly non-comedic. Anderson commented that he saw Fiennes in a play in France and he was very funny, and his demeanor in real life was also very polite, matching the character Gustave very well. 

    Overall, I found this interview with Anderson very revealing into some of the behind the scenes of “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” I appreciated that the interviewer didn’t ask many cliched questions, as well as added his own input into some of the movie’s aspects. This made the interview much more interesting to read with its casual tone, like two friends sitting down for coffee and discussing a movie rather than an interrogation for Anderson. It is obvious that the interviewer did his research before talking to Anderson, as he added in his past knowledge about details Anderson had shared in other interviews to avoid repetition and enable him to dive deeper into those details. 

    https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/wes-anderson-grand-budapest-hotel-ralph-fiennes-tilda-swinton-jeff-goldblum