Boobs and Blood: Bruno’s Recitation 3/28 2:00

In Bruno’s recitation last week, we covered a lot of ground: Reaganism, Hitchcock, and of course, everyone’s favorite word: tropes. At the beginning of class Carly asked a thought and discussion provoking question: Did anyone else find Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story funny? At first, we were hesitant to answer but ultimately many of us decided that Haynes’ use of melodrama, appropriation and horror were actually pretty hilarious. Others, though, were slightly offended that some viewers found Supestar comical. Later in the discussion, Morgan mentioned how “badly” Hayne’s script is. And yes, we concurred, it is bad, and clearly intentional.

Was Karen victimized or villainized in Haynes’ depiction of her? How does Haynes’ represent Hollywood and the media in relation to his characterization of Karen? She seems vulnerable, naive, and impressionable thus, giving the evil record company the role of the villain. He puts the lives of those wholesome Carpenter kids “in his hands”, which, we decided made Karen a victim rather than  a villain or a dumb teenager.

Now, onto Body Double….there were mixed reactions. One person stated, “Narrative cinema at its best is like pornography”. Another called Body Double “the worst movie ever”. Then the discussion moved onto the importance of intent in film analysis. Morgan called intent, “the bedrock of satire”, which I think is pretty spot on. Here, intent is essential in analyzing Superstar. Don’t we need to question intent in order to better distinguish satire? Is intent always necessary in film analysis? These questions were a continuation of last week’s discussion on the director’s intent.

De Palma’s allusions to Hitchcock were impossible to miss; Body Double is an homage to the original auteur filmmaker. Why is Hitchcock alluded to so often? Is it because of his innovative contributions to camerawork? Or his directorial style?

Though, Body Double was clever in its satirical elements and allusions to Rear Window and Vertigo, as well as its commentary on Hollywood culture, it’s still just about boobs and blood, an exploitative, voyeuristic roller coaster.



One response to “Boobs and Blood: Bruno’s Recitation 3/28 2:00

  1. nathandroberts

    Let me just clarify that my point: “narrative cinema at its best is like pornography” was what I felt DePalma was saying, particularly with his final shot of blood on breasts. I think he’s somewhat challenging how we conceptualize narrative cinema while “getting off” on all of it: the Hitchcockian style of filming, the sex, the violence. In some ways, he seems like a predecessor to Tarantino, although perhaps simpler in his methods (no one can adequately say that the dialogue in Body Double even remotely compares to the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds, for instance). So I didn’t consider Body Double the worst movie ever. In fact, I thought it was a lot of fun and satisfyingly meta. Like most narrative films, DePalma asks the audience to buy into a contrived experience; he just lets you know that its contrived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s