Enter your keyword

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Movie Review: The Bye Bye Man (2017), Fear and The Concept of the Adaptation

By On 12:50 AM
Starring: Douglas Smith, Lucien Laviscount, Cressida Bonas, Doug Jones
Directed By: Stacey Title
Written By: Johnathan Penner
Release Date: January 13, 2017
Rating: F

My Thoughts:
If you're like me, when you walked out of The Bye Bye Man, you were
 probably thinking something along the lines of: 'What the hell did I just 
pay 12 dollars to see?' And this is just based off of the nonsensical 
plot of the film. However, one thing that caught my attention 
in the credits was the fact that this movie is an adaptation of a short 
story called, The Bridge to Body Island by Robert Damon Schneck. 

In the book, the story is about a some college students who decide
to play a Ouija board which brings them in contact with spirit of
 The Bye Bye Man, who was once deranged serial killer. The board 
also informs them that the more they think or talk about The Bye Bye Man,
the quicker he gets to you. The Bye Bye Man in the film looks just how he's 
described in the novel with the hood and the pale skin, but apparently 
The Bye Bye Man was an albino orphan that got sick of being teased and
 turned to murder. He ran away from his group home and began train hopping,
 murdering tons of people along the way. Trains are a huge motif in the film
and though their constant presence is never explained in the film, it's
important to note that trains typically symbolize adventure and new
beginnings, but 
here they given a completely different representation since The
Bye Bye Man is literally murdering people as they board the train, so they 
never even get to begin their journey. The same things goes for the film
 because hearing a train whistle symbolizes that The Bye Bye Man 
is near. And the closer he is, the closer you are to having your journey 
cut short.

The most interesting factor about the film is the idea that The Bye Bye
 Man can manifest himself and find you the more you think about him. It's 
also quite interesting that he can also manipulate the people who know about 
him into doing unspeakable things. If you don't know his name, he cannot 
affect you. The ideology behind that can be applied to myths and fear in general.
Fear is mental construct. We only begin to fear things in general because 
our brain makes up believe whatever we're thinking about will cause us
harm. If we've never seen or heard about this frightening concept, it's as 
if it doesn't exist. The Bye Bye Man doesn't exist if you don't know about
him, but as soon as you hear his name, regardless if you attempt to forget 
about him, his name is still embedded in your subconscious no matter how far 
back you attempt to push it. It can come back into the forefront of your
brain at any time. This is why The Bye Bye Man does these mind tricks on 
his victims while they attempt to not think about him. Even if you block it 
from the conscious part of your brain, the name is still there. The only way to 
protect yourself is to be completely ignorant of the fact it exists. You need to 
not even find out about the myth. If you never find out about The Bye Bye Ma, 
you're safe 

 A lot of information like The Bye Bye Man's background is
 cut from the film even though most of this information 
probably would've saved this movie from being the mess it was. If 
The Bye Bye Man had followed Schneck's story a bit closer, it may have
been a better film than it was, but a lot of people have problems with
adaptations. When it comes to adaptations, most people are upset that the
film and the novel aren't completely the same. However, you've got to think
 about the differences between a book and a film. A book is told through 
words, so what you'rereading is visualized in your head as if your thoughts
 were a film which is why people tend to get so upset when some movie 
adaptations change things because now the vision they've had for 
the book is now completely skewed. Books are inhibitors for expanding our
imaginations by reading into someone else's world and exploring the way they 
live in our heads. These imaginings are far more personal than the ones we see 
on a movie screen simply because they're coming from our perspective
as if it is us going through these situations ourselves. "Your mind makes it real,"
 (Matrix).

 On the opposite
side of the spectrum, when it comes to film, you've got to look at how a
 script/novel is read and adapted to the screen. When you
reading something, you're getting a direct link to the character's thoughts
and emotions. You're getting information pulled from the very brain of the
 character, which is something that is harder to do in film simply
because these things have to be told visually. A lot of people feel that 
because of this, film adaptations ruin the film form because when you're 
limited to creating only what's on a sheet of paper, you're stunting  a
 director's creative abilities. This is why director's tend to stray from 
their source material. They want to keep the author's vision alive, as well as
their own. In order to craft this vision, everything is conformed to visualization.
Themes, motifs and certain literary aspects are much harder to put 
to screen as visuals than just having them listed on a page. 

This is why I was so interested about the fact that The Bye Bye Man was
based on a book. The concept of this as a story is interesting, but why they 
chose to leave out so much perplexes me. Adaptations sell. That's a simple fact 
and it's the reason why people keep making them, but no one would realize this
film was an adaptation if they hadn't caught that line in the credits like I did and
I'm glad I did because the story was way more information and chilling than
the movie. Like I stated before, while you already get more information 
from a book simply because it's a book and you can infer more from
words on a page rather than a moving pictures, but if you have something to
work off of, it should make things a bit easier, right? 

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Movie Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016), the Artist, their Work and Revenge

By On 12:05 PM


Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Starring: Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon
Written By: Tom Ford
Directed By: Tom Ford
Release Date: December 9, 2016
Rating: B

My Thoughts:
Nocturnal Animals is a meticulously beautiful film for many reasons. Tom 
Ford's attention to detail is not only apparent by the mere look of the film 
from its grand opening sequence to the small visual cues throughout the
 rest of the it, but it is also apparent in the way he sets up his story. The film is broken
 up into three
 different parts that simultaneously weave in and out one another. 
The first part is set in the present concerning a insomniac, art dealer 
named Susan (Amy Adams) whose rich and fabulous life is takes a turn 
when she receives a book titled, "Nocturnal Animals" dedicated to her by
 her ex-husband, Edward, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Susan previously cheated 
on Edward and she's currently married to the man she cheated on him with. 
However, she's unhappy and feels as if she's kind of wasted her life. This is a 
majority of the second part of the film. That portion of the film is dedicated
 to exploring Susan and Edward's relationship before everything went to
 shit. Both her and Edward were struggling artists when they were together.
 However, Susan leaned more on the art of other's by working in a gallery
 rather than making her own work, calling herself a "realist".
The spectacle of the women dancing in the art instillation towards the 
beginning is just a reminder of the thing she gave up onThese women 
can shake whatever insecurities they have about themselves to be art, 
but Susan can't shake her own to just make it. Edward, on the other hand,
 is completely himself in his work. He does nothing, but write and write because
 he has such a passion for what he does. It doesn't matter if he gets rejected
because he knows exactly what he wants, regardless of his own insecurities 
about his work. However, Susan, instead of supporting him, criticizes his 
work and they fight constantly. She's so harsh on Edward because he puts to much
 of himself in is work, but she only says this because this is something she
 can't do. She's too afraid of rejection to put herself into her work and this 
results in her being jealous of Edward, which is why Susan is typically dressed
 in green. And all of these events and more end with the two getting 
divorced and never speaking again until Susan receives the book.

The second part of the film is Susan's internalized vision of what's going on in the book. 
The book is about a man's journey to get revenge on the men who raped and 
murdered his wife and daughter. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the husband, Tony, in the 
novel along with an eerily similar looking, Ilsa Fisher. Why Susan does
 not play the wife in the tale is simply because we're viewing things from her 
perspective. Edward wrote the book himself and after witnessing the heated
 conversation between the two about how Edward puts too much of himself 
into his work, it's obvious why she would depict Edward as the husband. Now, 
she's not involved with Edward and this isn't quite the story someone 
would want to place themselves into, so she casts another woman in place of 
the wife instead. However, the book isn't just some fanatical story that
 Edward has made up and interestingly enough Susan is multiple characters 
in the novel which is why the book is called Nocturnal Animal(s) in the 
plural context.

This book is literally Edward's revenge. It juxtaposes Edward's revenge 
in reality, (i.e him begin successful and leaving her alone) and his revenge in fiction,
 which I will further go into. Not only does Susan stand in front of a piece of 
work that says 'REVENGE' in big bold lettering, but the book draws blood
 upon Susan opening it, but the book is basically a giant rub in the face.
 Susan never really believed in Edward because of her own insecurities as
 an artist and now, here she is reading his best-selling novel. 
She gave up, but he never did and now Edward is more successful than she is
 and probably happier as well. Susan lives behind her riches and is unhappy because 
of it and now she has to live with that mistake as Edward stands her up at 
dinner, leaving her sitting alone in that little green dress.

 In the book, Tony and his family are on the road and 
when a car full of rednecks causes them to fly off the road. They then take 
his wife, who is the version of Susan he believed he knew, and his daughter
 as he sits there watching because there literally nothing he can do just like 
when he lost the woman he loved and child in his own life. The main redneck,
 played by Aaron-Taylor Johnson, who is possibly the most dangerous of 
them, is also representative of the real Susan, who ends up killing the 
version of Susan (i.e. Isla Fisher) that he thought he knew as well as their child, 
whom Susan kills by getting an abortion. This is also confirmed when
 Aaron-Taylor Johnson calls him weak just like Susan did, but in the end,
 Tony ends up killing the redneck, which represents Susan being dead to
 him. The most interesting part of the novel, however, is the end in 
which Tony accidentally blinds and shoots himself, representing his own
 blindness in seeing the real Susan as well as the ending of life of the man 
he once was. However, another important aspect of the film is about not only
artists and how they create, but the power play that goes behind it. A lot of
 people think that artist's are too into their work and for the most part, like Susan.

 The book's catalyst was Susan and her getting the abortion and leaving him.
 Had she not done those things, he may not have written the book. So, was Susan 
the key into his untapped potential, thus being the one in power? Though 
Edward struggled, it is the artist that comes on top in the end because in 
the end he's successful and he's the one who ends up leaving with the last laugh.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Movie Review: Jackie (2016) and Identity

By On 3:29 AM
Starring: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig
Written By: Noah Oppenheim 
Directed By: Pablo Larrain
Release Date: December 2, 2016
Rating: A-

My Thoughts:
 I could probably count the amount of films I’ve seen about any of our former 
first ladies on my right hand alone. While this is a sad fact, this is also
 what gives Jackie its sparkle. We all know the story of the assassination 
of John F. Kennedy, but we don't really know the story of the woman who 
held it all together as America fell apart over the death of one of its most 
beloved Presidents.

The film is essentially an episodic re-telling of the week of 
John F. Kennedy's assassination, exploring the depths of Jackie Kennedy's 
psyche on top of the events of the shooting and its aftermath.
 Natalie Portman doesn't just place herself in the role of prim and 
poised former-First Lady Jackie Kennedy, simply focusing on her accent 
and her perfectly calculated mannerisms; she places herself in the
 role of a broken woman overcome with grief. What’s important is not the events
 of the shooting itself, but of how it affects Ms. Kennedy while she's telling this
 story years after the fact. Many famous photos and interviews of
 Jackie Kennedy are portray her as this perfect woman all dolled up with
 makeup and fancy dresses, smiling and waving to strangers, so it’s hard to
 relate to someone who seemingly has everything they could ever want.
 We still love this version of Jackie Kennedy and it’s the one that’s 
been celebrated throughout history, but the best parts of the film 
are when she sheds that persona for a more human one.

When her husband dies, she’s not only lost him, she's lost herself as well.
 After she’s wiped as much blood off of her as possible, she wipes the mirror
 and then suddenly, her reflection is gone. Who is she now that she isn’t the first
 lady? Even though her husband is gone, she’s still trying to hold together that 
seemingly perfect persona that she’s put on for so long. She runs to the bathroom
 of the hospital where they’ve taken him and she wipes the blood off of her 
face and dress. Moments later, she walks back out composed, demanding to
 see her husband’s body. As she continues to go over the events of that day, the
 camera is completely level between her and the interviewer. Even though she 
goes from smoking a cigarette in front of him to hysterically crying the next,
 this is how she is seemingly keeping it all together so that she doesn’t have a full-on breakdown. This is her story and through all the tears, she’ll have it told how 
she sees fit as she comes out of a crying spell to tell him to cut out the bit of 
her smoking. Instead of her actions coming off as robotic and calculated as 
they were when he was alive, they now come off as heartbreaking.

In order to keep her to keep her husband’s name alive, she skips the grieving
 process and throws herself into planning a funeral no one would forget. 
She does not indulge in her own sadness in order to preserve the feelings of
 those around her including her children and the people of America. Her
 resilient attitude was what the world needed, but here we get to see the
 emotion behind all of her calculated smiles. It’s exactly the kind of film we 
need in order to fully understand the iconic woman behind the pink Chanel suit.
 While she was out there fighting for her husband’s name to be remembered, 
she unknowingly made one for herself. Jackie probably isn’t 
the film anyone was really looking for, but it was one 
that was needed.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Movie Review: Ouija: Origin of Evil and A Bit on Mike Flannagan

By On 12:00 AM
Starring: Elizabeth Reaser, Lulu Wilson, Annalise Basso
Written By: Mike Flanagan
Directed By: Mike Flanagan
Release Date: October 21, 2016
Rating: B+

My Thoughts:
Who would you be without your family? What do you do when things start to go 
bump in the night, threatening the ones you closest to you? While any sane person 
would rise up to the occasion and save their family if they had the chance to, in both Ouija: Origin of Evil and Oculus, director Mike Flanagan shows us that your own 
flesh and blood just might get you killed.

Ouija: Origin of Evil is set in the 60s; something Flanagan doesn’t let us forget as 
the film begins with the old Universal logo along with the occasional cigarette 
burn cue mark. In the film, we’re introduced to Alice, played by Elizabeth Reaser, 
who is not only a recent widow, but the mother of two young girls named Doris and Paulina. Alice and her daughters run a business that involves tricking people into 
believing they’re speaking to the spirits of their loved ones. All is fine and dandy 
until Alice brings back a Ouija board home to an actual spirit that ends up possessing young Doris. Though there are obvious signs that something is wrong,
 Alice blatantly ignores them and by the time she eventually sees the spirit for 
what it is, it’s too late. In the end, Paulina ends up killing both her mother and 
Doris during her efforts to exorcise the evil spirit.

Oculus concerns an evil entity residing in a mirror. Our main character 
Kaylie (Karen Gillian) is trying to document the mirror’s evil powers before 
destroying it in order to exonerate her brother for the murder of their
 parents. However, as the mirror possessed their father into killing himself
 and their mother, it possesses Kaylie into accidentally killing her fiance along 
with her brother into accidentally killing her.

Typically, family represents strength, love and vitality. However, in both of these 
films, the typical representation of what family stands for is completed rejected
 and it's because of this that both films end in tragedy. The only people left 
alive are subjected to living the rest of their days in mental institutions 
 because of their families. However, if we can't trust our loved ones, who 
can we trust to help us stay alive?

In Hush, a film Flanagan released earlier this year on Netflix, our main character, 
Maddie, is alone and it's the main reason she ends up alive. The only interaction 
we see between Maddie and her family is when she speaks with her sister
 briefly over FaceTime. Interestingly enough, it’s her sister who notices something
 is amiss and Maddie who shrugs off the danger. Both Paulina and Kaylie are 
fighting for their families. Kaylie is trying to exonerate her brother and Paulina
 is trying to exorcise the demon in her sister. Though the fight for their families
 was long and hard it was all in vain as Paulina ends up institutionalized and 
Kaylie winds up dead. Maddie, on the other hand, lives because she had no one
 to fight for, but herself.

So, should you run and hide when danger is lurking or do you stand and fight 
for the ones you love? Does self-preservation come first before family commitment?  Maddie didn’t have to worry about anyone else so she put all of her efforts
 into keeping herself alive and it proved fruitful as she lives at the end of the film.
 And after seeing how Paulina and Kaylie wind up after they put their families 
first, it goes to show a little selfishness can go a long way.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

My Dream Crate

By On 8:05 AM

Subscription boxes are all the rage now-a-days. There are boxes for pretty
 much everything from makeup to hair products to just about anything that
 could be purchased on the world wide web. Whether you love makeup, anime, 
video games or books, your typical subscription box contains a bunch of those 
products pertaining to a certain theme and they're sent to you every month
 for a fixed fee.

However, imagine if you had the opportunity to design your own subscription 
box. What kinds of things would you put into it? What would be your theme? 
Would you keep it sweet and simple or would you pack with everything except 
the kitchen sink? Well, Loot Crate is subscription box service dedicated to 
all things geeky that's challenging fans to create their very own Dream Crate
 that can include just about anything and everything you can come up with. 

I chose to include things revolving around horror-themed video games like 
just because that's what I like and I thought it was interesting concept as
 Loot Crate already makes a specific video game themed crate and if I were
 to purchase one, that's the one I'd choose. If you decide to take part in the 
project, feel free to choose whatever theme and items you'd like. 


Products: Shirt - Amazon, Hat - Playstation, Figurine - Amazon,
 Patch - Hot Topic, Mousepad - Zazzle

If you like the project, all you have to do is just pick a theme, add some 
items and maybe a little blurb about what your theme is and the items you 
chose. It's a simple, fun project that anyone can become apart of. Leave a
 comment with a link to your box down below.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Movie Review: Collateral Beauty (2016) and the Philiosphies of Existence

By On 7:44 AM

Starring: Will Smith, Edward Norton, Kate Winslet, Micheal Pena
Directed By: David Frankel
Written By: Allen Loeb
Release Date: December 16, 2016
Rating: D+

My Thoughts:
Collateral Beauty is a film that could lead to your next existential crisis. 
It’s a film that is quite perceptive when it comes to delving deep into many cosmic abstractions. However, its characters are far from that, resulting in a transparent
 film that strays away from the thought provoking themes it’s characters are 
supposed to be shedding light on.

Will Smith stars as Howard, a successful corporate executive who loses 
his daughter to cancer. Unable to fully accept her death and move on, he 
isolates himself from his friends, family and co-executives, resulting in the decline
 of his business because he also refuses to talk to any of their clients. This man
 is going through severe pain and because of the feel-good nature of the 
trailers, you would think the purpose of the film is about his friends helping him 
get his life back? Well, boy, are you in for a surprise because when he and his
 fellow co-executive friends, played by Kate Winslet, Michael Pena and Edward 
Norton, are offered a great deal of money for their company, they come up with 
a scheme to prove his mental incompetence to the board, so that they will
 have the authority to take they deal without him. They hire three actors to the
 play the roles of three abstractions that Howard has been writing letters to. 
They follow him and engage him in philosophical conversations about
 these abstractions while his co-executive film the entire thing, so they can 
edit the actor out and it’ll look like Howard is talking to himself. However, like
 the 2001 animated film, Waking Life, this film also explores some of the
 concepts that make up our existence on Earth and like Howard, the main 
character in Waking Life goes around having these existential conversations 
with strangers about things like love, dreaming, power and even time.

 “Time” explains that we place too much importance on him and in doing 
so we’re merely wasting it. It feels like there’s not enough time for anything,
 but in actuality we actually have all the time in world. “Death” says that 
everyone is dying. We see it every time we look in the mirror, but ignore it
 until it catches up with us and then we blame it for all our problems. And
 lastly, “Love” states she’s within what makes us happy, but also in how we hurt.
 But how do we deal with love and pain if they’re just two different sides of 
the same coin? What are we supposed to do with all this time we’re supposedly
 wasting? And how do we go on living our lives when we know we’re all to die
 and more importantly, why should we?

There’s no explanation of what we are supposed to do with these things 
which feels like it should be the most important thing because Howard’s
 whole dilemma is that he doesn’t know what to do. We live, find love, 
have a family, watch our children grow up and then we die and the movie uses
 this this as one possible answers to the meaning of life, but none of the 
characters in this film can follow the supposed path for a perfect life. 
Howard’s love has died with his daughter whom he’ll never get to see grow
 up. Michael Pena has cancer and he will ultimately lose the opportunity to
 watch his children grow up, too. Edward Norton is a recent divorcee with a 
daughter who doesn’t want to see him. Kate Winslet has never married, leaving 
her also loveless and without children. All four of them have lost very 
important things, but they refuse to see Howard’s pain even though he’s lost the 
most. These enlightening conversations are supposed to help him find another
 meaning to live, but he doesn’t mainly because the conversations were 
set up for malicious reasons. In the end, Howard accepts his daughter’s 
death, but the film never explores how that actually happened.

 We get the what, when, where, and how, but never the why. The film never 
attempts to actually explain the meaning of life simply because it can’t.
 Collateral Beauty does the same thing as Waking Life, except it actually 
does provide us with one of the possible meanings of life. However, when this 
proves to be untrue for everyone, the film is supposed to give Howard 
another reason to live, but it doesn’t, which just defeats the movie’s purpose.
 While time is one of the film’s most important themes, the film just
 seems like a waste of ours.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Movie Review: Moonlight (2016) and Color, Character Development, Identity and Boyhood

By On 4:54 AM

Starring: Trevante Rhodes, André Holland, Janelle Monáe, Ashton Sanders
Directed By: Barry Jenkins
Written By: Barry Jenkins
Release Date: October 21, 2016
Rating: A+

My Thoughts:
In Moonlight, director Barry Jenkins uses everything other than our main 
character to tell his story. Chiron, our main protagonist, is brilliantly 
played by three different actors (Trevante Rhodes, Ashton Sanders and Alex R. Hibbert)
 to physically show his development from childhood to adolescence to 
adulthood. However, even though we physically see Chiron age, it’s the film’s 
vibrant color palette that tells us all we really need to know about who Chiron 
is, even though he really doesn’t seem to know himself. Chiron is our central
 protagonist and he rarely ever leaves the center of the frame because of it, 
but it’s because of his quiet nature that we don’t explicitly get the sense of 
who Chiron is and we’re seemingly left in the dark about his identity just as 
much as he is.

The first chuck of the film is titled Little, after a nickname the neighborhood
 kids have given Chiron. In just the first few scenes, we're shown what is 
essentially the essence of childhood. The camera is shaky and it quickly pans 
from child to child as they run around chasing each other and tossing 
footballs around, but Jenkins shows us that there's more to childhood 
than just this playful aspect. This chunk of the film is also about how
 the aspect of identity is introduced to children and how they go about 
creating this image for themselves. Chiron is asked who he wants to be on
 more than one occasion, to which he simply shrugs because at this point
 in his life, he doesn't have to define himself because he's a child and that's 
how it should be. However, while he doesn't feel the need to, society does 
and because he knows no other way to be and no one is telling him that he
 can just be himself, he is whatever everyone else tells him to be and that is 
"Little". The neighborhood bullies not only bully him for being small, but they
 throw homophobic slurs at him as well. As a child not really knowing what
 sexuality is, in one of the film's most heartbreaking scenes, Chiron goes to see
 Duan the drug dealer and his girlfriend, Teresa, who have taken him is a their
 surrogate son, and he asks them what a "faggot" means. While he may not 
agree with their words after he's told what it means, he just takes it because 
he doesn't really know what to do. All he's ever known is other people's opinions
 of him, so he takes the abuse. This is finalized when the boys are looking at
 their genitals in the school bathroom and Chiron walks in. With the camera
 positioned higher, he appears little both to us and the bullies and as the 
scene ends, Chiron walks towards them with his head down in defeat. 

Speaking of identity, Richard Linklater's 2014 film, Boyhood, is also a film
about identity and it's also told from the prospective of a young boy over
different chucks of his life. We see Mason grow like we do with Chiron, however,
Mason's actor stays the same. Like Chiron, Mason is also constantly asked by others
 who he wants to be and like Chiron, he doesn't really have an answer. However,
 unlike Chiron, Mason gets a chance to explore different aspects of himself and
 become the person he wants to be. While the adults ask Mason who he wants to
be in the context of his role in society, he does also grow as a person. Constantly,
 adults ask him who he wants to be in the way adults ask children what they want
 to be when they grow up. Mason wants to take pictures and he has the ability to
 not only do that, but he also have the opportunity to explore other career
options as well, interacting with the people in his life in a somewhat positive
matter. It's not like that for Chiron. When Duan the drug dealer asks him who he
 wants to be, he's asking not in a societal context, but in a more literal one. Does
 he want to be like the bullies at school? Does he want to be tough? Or does he
 want to go on taking these other kid's nonsense for the sake of being nice and
 preserving any sort of innocence he has left. Also nothing really happens in
 Boyhood. There is conflict and there is a point to the film, but the film is not a
 character study as Moonlight is. Mason is not this singular character, he is all of us.
He's a seemingly bland, unspectacular young man, but that so he can easily be
whomever is watching the film. The whole point of the film Boyhood is not to
see the world through Mason's eyes and understand him as a person because his
character is seemingly irrelevant. We see him grow and change, but again,
it's supposed to represent us watching ourselves grow and change.
These seemingly bland situations are relatable to pretty much anyone
 who watches the film, so instead of watching everything unfold from this
young man's perspective, we're watching it from our own as if
we're children again ourselves and that we're the ones growing up on
 the screen. It's meant to be universal to everyone, so that when they
look up at the screen and watch Mason go through life, it's as if they've
 got a second chance at childhood. Chiron's experience is singular in the aspect
that we're watching his life unfold and this is merely his experience.
It's specificity is key in understanding how as humans build our identities
 from childhood, however, just from another perspective and an interesting
 one at that because Chiron's story is one we don't hear about often.

As we move forward to examine Chiron's teenage years, we see that nothing
 much has really changed. The bullies still pick on him and they say the same
 kinds of things they were saying to Chiron when they were kids. However, now
 Chiron has more of an opportunity to become his own person and more of an
 opportunity to stand up for himself. However, because he was denied the
opportunity to try and understand himself at a young age, he now struggles
 with attempting to try and become who he believes he should be now that
he's older. The title of this chapter in Chiron's life is Chiron in accordance to
his struggle to find himself. When he was younger, he was whatever people
told him to be. Now, he longs to get the opportunity he was denied when he
 was a child to become his own person because Little is no longer little. He
wants to be himself. He wants to be Chiron, but instead he becomes someone
completely different.

In the last little section, titled Black after name a nickname Kevin, the boy he
had his first sexual encounter with, gave him. While he thinks he is set in
 his uber masculine identity as a hardened drug dealer, he still isn't happy,
which can be understood via the film's very unique color palette. Color in film
is typically associated with the tone of a scene or the emotions of a character
 in that scene. Take the movie, Inside Out, for example, each of the characters
are literally human emotions and they’re designed after the colors typically
associated with that emotion. Blue is typically related to feelings of sadness
and isolation and not only is blue the color of the character Sadness in Inside Out,
 but it is also the color that paints Chiron’s world, especially during his adult
 years because he now regrets who he's become. 

His mother, a constant negative factor in life, is a drug addict who is never
 seen without a touch of blue to her wardrobe, which ironically consists of
 a nurse’s uniform even though she’s far from caring. Though she appears put
together at times especially even when Chiron meets her after she’s put herself
 in rehab, the blue color in her clothing reminds us of all the bad things she’s put
 her son through and how it could easily come all back if she relapses. During the
 few times where Chiron is at ease, such as the scene where he’s sitting in his
 bathroom, there’s not a stretch of blue to be seen. The bathroom walls are bright
white with pops of yellow tiles as a sign of hope that things will eventually get better,
 but the blues always seem to return. Kevin is one of the few positive people in
 his life. Like Chiron’s bathroom walls, Kevin typically appears in white and puts
 Chiron’s worries at ease when they’re together. However, Kevin is pressured
 by the bullies of the school to beat poor Chiron up and it’s not coincidental
that he wears a blue shirt that same day. It’s after that he’s provoked enough
to turn into the bully that was keeping him down, however, it’s because of
that yellow shirt he’s wearing during the scence that we can at least hope
for a better future for Chiron, but we're merely disappointed when we
see who he's become.

And in his adulthood, the amount of blue we see is intensified. While the
 blues were lighter in tone towards Chiron's younger years, in his adult years,
 the blues are mysterious and dark. They're almost so blue, that they're black
like the name he's given himself. He never got the opportunity to try and be
 himself when he was a kid, so now he's stuck in a life that's not his own as a
drug dealer. When he meets Kevin again, the two chat and catch up. He's
also taken notice of Chiron's new identity and he, too, knows this isn't who
 Chiron was supposed to become.

The last time we met Kevin, he was wearing his bright blue shirt and kicking
the snot out of Chiron. Now he runs a restaurant and he's wearing bright
white, chef's attire like some sort of angel destined to save Chiron and
that's what we assume. However, once they make it back to Kevin's home, they
 chat some more and Kevin suddenly changes into a blue shirt and blue has
already been designated the color of sadness and a sign that something bad is
 going to happen. Afterwards, they have sex and we see the two of them
 together and the film shortly ends afterwards. This could spell out two different
 endings to Chiron's story. He could change and he and Kevin could end up
 living happily ever after because that's what we want for Chiron. However,
 not every story has a happy ending. Kevin and Chiron sleep together, but
that doesn't necessarily mean that all will be well. These two men have
lived very different lives and there are something you just can't take back.
Chiron probably can't just up and leave the drug business behind for Kevin.
They haven't even begun to get to know each other. Realistically, Chiron may
end up leaving Kevin's house and make his way back to the new life he's
created for himself, even though it's not the life he wants to be leading. 

So who is Chiron, really? Is he really a hardened drug fiend or is still the
 sweet young man we previously met? On the outside during his adulthood,
 he seems quite cold, but he is also somewhat successful in his craft like
Duan, his drug dealing father figure. This is especially true as they wear
similar gangster styled clothing and gold teeth, but we’ll never know
how he turns out. We can only hope for something better, but it’s not as
if we really knew who Chiron was in the first place.

Popular

Follow by Email