Discussion 7: On Cradle Will Rock and Art & Power

Wikimedia Commons, January 2015

I think the film Cradle Will Rock is a really great piece of cultural and historical expression. While it’s a bit dense and confusing, it’s a really wonderful portrait of an influential and transcendent moment in time, as well as a compelling celebration of humanity’s goodness.

I think one of the greatest things about the film is how its technical production was so effective in communicating feelings to viewers. The whole thing is fast-paced and chaotic, just like the time in which it is set. The turnover time between lines is very short, so the conversations almost seem sped up. Throughout the movie, the camera moves with the action, and this motion is the main driver of the plot. Because of this, scenes bleed together, and each individual storyline seems connected. At some points, it quite literally zooms out of one scene so that we can see another larger scene. In this way, the movie gives the feeling that viewers are watching a play. Since the movie is essentially about a play, this is quite effective in making the audience feel connected to the theme.

There are definitely also a few aspects of the movie that hinder its message. First, the fast pace of the scenes is really hard to keep track of. I’ve watched this movie several times now, and I think it took a few times for me to really understand some things, simply because I missed certain details because they happened so fast. Another byproduct of this has to do with the quick turnaround of the spoken lines. When the characters talked, I felt as if I could hear the script through them. And I don’t think this necessarily had to do with the actors’ capabilities, but more to do with the way the script was written. It felt staged, which I don’t doubt was intentional, but which also just felt a bit hollow. For this reason, and because the movie didn’t delve into any one character’s life especially deeply, I didn’t feel very empathetic at any moment. I never really felt very attached or very involved. Many of the characters felt like stereotypes, which made the film feel a bit more like a history lesson than a drama.

Nonetheless, the movie was really great at illustrating a specific moment in time very clearly. I also think, just like Tim Robbins’ essay mentions, that the final production of the play does make a spectacular ending to the film. It wraps everything up nicely – all the things I hadn’t been able to keep track of before – and it is finally an emotional moment. The courage it took those actors to stand up like that, as well as the irony and humor in the play, is really compelling. The whole film does seem like it’s never stopping, rushing forward, leading up to this moment. Which is in its own way effective. I only wish that I had more emotional moments with deeper characters, so that I may have felt more involved as a viewer.

Discussion 6: On Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera

Flickr, April 2015

I think Taymor’s portrayal of the life of Frida Kahlo is beautiful. It strengths lie in its execution; its marvelously well-made and all the cinematography choices add to the themes of the plot. It’s a wonderfully romantic version of the life of a well-known artist, and it manages to capture a Frida spirit without pinning her down. I loved the film for a long time, but reading the film review after watching it for class changed my opinion of it a great deal. I simply don’t think it gives her the credit she deserves as an artist. It treats her as a woman, and defines her as Rivera’s wife more often than as herself. Throughout the film, she is shown in pain, and much of this pain stems from her relationship with Rivera. Every time he cheats on her or they fight, she is shown lapsing into a melancholy state of disenchantment accompanied by some traditional Mexican musical number. This may have been very real in her life, but I think it was a little pointless to focus on in a film about Frida herself.

Similarly, Frida’s artwork and persona all seemed to stem from her deep sense of herself and her inward gaze. Her paintings were literally “brought to life” – stylistically gorgeous, but leaving viewers with the express idea that her artwork was just about herself. True, her paintings were personal, especially compared to Rivera’s über-political artwork. But she was an artist, and art is rarely purely personal. She had her own ideas and her own take on life and the world in a broader sense, which she incorporated into her work. Those should have been given just as much attention as her personal emotions in the film.

However, the movie did a great job at capturing certain things. The music, the costume design, the cinematography and the design choices all spoke to a Mexican-ness that is important to the portrayal. Overall, I think the best part of the film was Selma Hayek’s performance as Frida. She did a wonderful job portraying her playfulness, her strength, her ability to be simultaneously masculine and feminine, and her depth as a person.

Discussion 5: Revolutionary Mexican Artists

Wikimedia Commons, August 2010

I think that in terms of pure output, Orozco was the most “revolutionary” of los tres grandes. Meaning that he created work that was the most effective in bringing about revolutionary thought and eventually action. While Rivera’s work was more openly political and firm in ideology, he lacked a clear revolutionary energy. Siqueiros, on the other hand, was plenty innovative and aggressive with his ideas, but he lacked coherence and dedication to any one idea. Orozco, however, managed to conquer both of these issues by refusing to pick a political dogma and instead taking the side of the constant individual revolutionary, criticizing every side. By virtue of not promoting any one idea, his work was far less easy to criticize, and much easier to listen to.

The murals Orozco painted often depicted several sides in tension, like in The Rebellion of Man and Hidalgo. In both of these murals, each side is depicted in chaos in his via negativa. His approach to the concepts of oppressor vs oppressed and tyranny vs revolution paralleled his treatment of the contrasting “ideal” and “reality”. His ideology stemmed from an version of libertarianism that drew from anarchy and valued the freedoms of the individual over the cause of any party. Because of this, he painted the time he lived in – a time of many parties dueling and fighting over different dogmas  –  as it was (chaos). His style works for this purpose; it’s a highly emotional aesthetic packed with energy, tension, motion, and bright colors that never fails to impact a viewer. Through a fiery and powerful aesthetic including heavy symbolism, he creates a disgust for the masses which ultimately inspires the only true revolution, which comes from individual independence of thought.