Screws fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place.

Dear Mr. Vernon, we accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong. But we think you're crazy to make us write an essay telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us - in the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out is that each one of us is a brain...and an athlete ...and a basket case... a princess...and a criminal...

Does that answer your question? Sincerely yours, the Breakfast Club.

This voiceover, read in the beginning and the end of The Breakfast Club completely sums up the point of the film for me. It wasn't about whether these characters talked to each other after that Saturday or were even nice to each other. It was the fact that these characters had this experience as individuals. The tagline of the film also sums it up perfectly "they only met once. but it changed their lives forever." They all got to hear the perspectives of other kids in the school that they would probably never talk to if they weren't forced together in one room, but also they got some deep stuff out. The scene where they're all sitting on the floor, talking to each other is filmed as close-up shots when they get into the serious conversations. There isn't a wide shot until there's a lighter conversation. I think this is because internally some of the things they say need to come out for them as characters. It's a character driven film rather than a friendship driven film like I feel a lot of people expect it to be. 

However, since watching it multiple times since the first time watching the film while I was still in high school (and especially watching it recently) I do think the ending is especially problematic. Bender constantly picks on Claire the whole time but yet she ends up sneaking into the closet to kiss him. Brian writes the paper because Claire asks him to. Allison gets a makeover from Claire to get the guy. This is the biggest problem I have with the film since Allison is my favorite character. Labeled as "crazy" throughout the film when I thought she was just a strange outsider who wanted attention because her parents are extremely neglectful (shown in the opening scene). And then she is basically turned into an upper-class princess like Claire just with a makeover. In "Postfeminist Cliques? Class, Postfeminism, and the Molly Ringwald-John Hughes Films", Bleach writes "But Allison’s individualism is coded as “crazy” in the world of the film; her acquisitiveness, run rampant, is kleptomania. And, as her makeover demonstrates, in the Reagan era, her differences are erased (and conveniently forgotten) by the workings of the upper class." I think it was obvious why there was so much ambivalence towards Claire from the others. She represented this upper-class Reagan era type girl talked about in the article. No matter how much they picked on her, in the end she still has the power. She still gets the nerd to write the paper, she transforms the middle-class girl into an upper-class girl like her to get the guy, and she kisses the criminal to make her parents mad. I think in the 80's there probably was this ambivalence towards the upper-class from the working class (and there still is somewhat) and the film also shows how much advantage the upper-class have over the lower classes.

On a lighter note,  I feel like this film has some of the best moments and most quotable scenes ever. Another reason that makes it so iconic. When the principle does the devil horns or the "eat my shorts" scene.... and the dancing and teenage angst...ah it's so great. I don't know how the article can question why it's still popular after all these years.

Desperately Seeking Madonna?

Desperately Seeking Susan was not my cup of tea. I thought it was tiresome and not funny, with the exception of Gary who was idiotic and one dimensional (aka stereotypical) which was the reason he was so funny. All the men were not too smart actually (which wasn't a downer for the film just something I noticed). Jim was just a sucker for Susan and Dez (which all I could really focus on when he was on the screen was his really amazing blue eyes) was a sucker for Roberta in many ways and didn't even realize when she was telling the truth because he was in such a daze of being with her. "I never know what you're gonna say next..." (I kind of feel like they tried to reverse the typical roles of male and females in relationships here) The main character, Roberta  annoyed me throughout the whole film. Why are you stalking Madonna aka Susan? That's just creepy to begin with. I did enjoy the fact that through the whole experience Roberta becomes her own person and gets away from Gary, and also how Susan and Roberta team up in the end. The ending sort of paid off for the annoying story line.

Something else that helped out the film was Madonna. My expectations on the film were also confused like some others in the class. I thought that she would be the starring role but she wasn't. I feel like if the film had focused on developing her character more it would have been better, but I realize that really wasn't the point of it. Madonna already was a huge superstar before the film was made so it wouldn't do anything to boost her career like Purple Rain did for Prince.

However, something similar between the two artists is that they definitely knew how to sell themselves. Prince, Madonna, Michael Jackson, and others from the 80's knew how to create an image and get people talking about them. The created archetypes for themselves. Prince and Michael Jackson complicated the way people see gender roles. Madonna complicated the way people think of women. She complicated the stereotypical aspects of women that can be seen in films... the whore, the virgin, the dumb blonde, etc. She confused and excited people with her image and made money from it. In the article by Jane Miller, she states how Madonna tapped into America's obsession with Christian mythology as well. Madonna used and wore crosses as a fashion accessory, something that had never really been done before her. Or, how about the "Like A Prayer" music video? Not only is it deliberately filled with burning crosses and other religious imagery but it deals with racial issues. A black man getting arrested for a white man's crime and an African-American Jesus? I'm sure the Moral Majority was up in arms due to this one. But the mass of people were loving it. "Like A Prayer" was number one on the Billboard 200 list for over a month. Madonna was obviously cashing out on the way she used these images and images of herself to make people uncomfortable and to make them talk about her. I'd say that she was probably the queen of post-modernism, taking so many other images, people, and things and creating her own image (which is uncomfortable to watch in some ways) while selling it.

This leads to the question of  was Madonna (and other starts from the past and today) doing any good or are/were we just buying into this brand she was trying to sell to us? In my opinion, I think that it's both. Madonna was bringing up issues of religion, race, feminism back in the days when people weren't talking about these types of things. This is a lot like Lady Gaga now. She's selling you this image of herself but she's also bringing up issues dealing with gay equality. They both bring these subject matters up into the mainstream so even if we are buying into these ideas and images of what they are, they're still bringing up important issues that should be talked about. It's a double edged sword. 

Purple Rain

Purple Rain is a very interesting film to me. It's not good  in the traditional sense. There is nearly any real storyline to it, the characters are underdeveloped, and the acting is... eh, okay. But no one can deny that it was successful in what it was trying to do, and that was to promote Prince as an artist. When the song "When Doves Cry" started playing during the film I just remember thinking "what a classic!" I don't think there are too many people that I know of who haven't heard that song at least once or haven't at least heard of Prince and his image (another element they were trying to push in the film). Prince also won an Oscar for the score of the film. In the article, it also mentions how the film grossed over $100 million. Not too shabby for a film that was only made for $7.5 million.

I think that the fact that this film and others like it in the 80's (Dirty Dancing, Flashdance, Top Gun, etc) were so successful in pushing the music through a film is because people were looking for a visual component intertwined into the music they listened to, synergy as the article calls it. I mean, although there were "music clips" before this time, the 80s were when the trend of the music video really took off. In 1981, the television network MTV first broadcast and played "Video Killed the Radio Star" by The Buggles. Music fans in the 80s obviously wanted something new, something visual, not even something that necessarily made sense to them but just excited them. So, in that aspect Purple Rain is brilliant. It's one long music video showcasing Prince's talents, image, etc. with there being a sort of story tied into it to keep the audience watching.

This idea of a visual component juxtaposed with the musical element in the 80s is also extremely present in another artist from around this time and that's Michael Jackson. His 14 minute long video for "Thriller", amazing! Basically all early 80's MJ songs/videos are incredible and I think relating them to Purple Rain is interesting. The video that we watched in class "Billie Jean" and the film were pretty similar to me in a few ways. They both had this gritty/raw quality to them. The article refers to Purple Rain as a home movie and I kind of get that same feel from some of Michael Jackson's music videos (a good example is "Beat It"). I think that they also both show how including some sort of story element can keep an audience interested in their music, which is really what the music videos/film is trying to promote.

Moving on to a completely different note the similarities between the two of these artists also fuse into their image. Prince and Michael Jackson were both a little bit androgynous. There were both feminine and masculine elements to them. This is pretty interesting to also look back at some of the other characters in 80s films we've seen. For example, in Nightmare on Elm Street, Freddy Krueger really isn't androgynous but he doesn't have these incredibly masculine qualities that can be seen in some of the well known villains and action heroes today. Even in Rambo: First Blood the main character breaks down and shows a different side to himself. One that wouldn't be considered "masculine" in today's stereotypical society. This rise of interweaving both feminine and masculine qualities in characters in movies and the images of certain musical stars in the 80s is another compelling thing to me but I'm not sure where it's stemming from. There's this fear of AIDS, considered for awhile to be seen as the "gay disease" and the rise of the moral majority during this decade. Is it maybe a rebellion against that?