Posted on

Why Jackie Brown is Seriously Underrated

Jackie Brown movie poster (1997)

Most people have heard of Quentin Tarantino – the genius mind behind films like Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, and Kill Bill I and II. Tarantino’s style of directing is one that many people love – his glorification of violence, satirization of serious topics and non-linear narrative define his new genre of film combining concepts from great historical films to cheesy little known works. He’s often considered one of the greatest directorial minds of our time, as he is not afraid to push boundaries and always crafts something completely original and exciting. He’s a film buff’s dream and never ever falls short of perfection.

Now most of us have seen his amazing and popular films like Resevoir Dogs and Inglorious Basterds, but my all time favourite Tarantino film is one that came out in 1997 called, Jackie Brown. I seriously love this movie. I watch it at least once a week and every time I reel in it’s perfection.

Like all of Tarantino flicks, there are tons of amazing movie stars depicted in relatable and real world ways, but the main difference in this movie is that the main characters were actually washed up actors that nobody had taken notice to in in years. The title character, Jackie Brown, was played by the amazing Pam Grier. In the 70’s Grier, starred in many Blaxploitation movies, which were overtly sexual and would now be considered a Black stereotype. During that time, she was widely renowned as a sex symbol, but after the fall of the popularity of Blaxploitation movies and the end of disco, her career soon fell flat. Her male counterpart, was played by Robert Forester. He was in two acclaimed supporting roles that got him quite noticed in the late sixties, in Reflections in a Golden Eye and The Stalking Moon. After he took a few TV roles in the seventies, his career had dried up as well.

The premise of the film is essentially how Jackie Brown, a middle aged flight attendant, is caught for smuggling money and drugs into US for her arms dealing boss, Ordell Robbie (Jackson). In order to avoid jail time, she begins working with the police in order to bring in the rest of the money Robbie has stashed in Mexico. She brilliantly plays the police and Robbie against each other in order for her to get out, and get out fast – but not without the help of her trusty compadre Max Cherry (Forester), a bail bondsman. I know that may not sound too exciting but the film is such an amazing throwback. It is in the style of a Blaxploitation film but is so unique because it has elements of modern society in it as well. The music is amazing and each scene is brilliantly crafted, it is such a joy to watch. I find it captures reaching middle age in a way we usually don’t see in Hollywood cinema.

Tarantino prodded the two out of their early retirement and set them among an amazing cast of Samuel L Jackson, Robert de Niro, Michael Keaton and a young Chris Tucker. The movie didn’t set the box offices on fire, but it did alright, even with it’s star studded cast. This is also seriously one of my favorite de Niro performances, right up there with Cape Fear, Awakening and Goodfellas. He plays a bumbling, middle-aged, ex-con who is just getting back into the game. It’s an unusual role for de Niro, who is usually given roles of power, but in this film he’s just Robbie’s (Jackson) friend and hired help.

I’m not sure what gives this movie it’s magic and lasting ability to make you think – the lead actors are fantastic, Jackie Brown is able to convey her feelings with just one expression – it’s all in her eyes and her subtle expressions. Forester is a great counterpart whose depiction of an aging, humble man allows for a lot of connection. The film also has a lot of appropriate twists and was just so real and honest. I don’t want to give away too many spoilers, but usually in a heist movie there is one big main conflict during the heist – the characters get over it and blah blah blah the movie ends. But in Jackie Brown, there are so many little things that go wrong (some of them you may miss when you first watch) and Jackie handles them with such authenticity, it is a joy to see her tackle a load of obstacles. The theme of girl power is common with this film as well as many others.

This film revitalized Grier’s and Forester’s careers, as well as made Bridget Fonda a household name after her success in The Godfather Part III. Even Samuel L Jackson stated this movie as his favourite Tarantino movie. So far, it’s up there on my list too. I think the real reason it’s not as well known as his other films is because of the lack of star power in the lead roles – but their performances are anything but lacking. It’s subtle, creative and exciting – just an amazing honest depiction of a woman’s struggle to make it in this world. So go home, get on Netflix, and watch Jackie Brown – sucka.

Posted on

Short Story: The Year of Change

What was that sound? Maybe it’s it again, but Dr. Porter just said to ignore it. It’s probably nothing. It hasn’t spoken to me in a while, which is nice. Gives me a lot of room to think for myself, and I’ve had a lot of thinking to do since mom decided it was time to move. I’ve always liked it here in Parkdale, it’s quaint. I gaze outside the window and see the all the people in the street. People walking to work, people walking with friends, young and old. I wonder what they’re thinking and where they’re going. I wonder about their jobs and their personal lives and the moments that defined their characters.

“Hey, Roe, did you take your meds?”

I turn around and see my mother. She’s a frail woman, and she’s been looking even more gaunt since all this started. She looks tired today. Her long brown hair is tied in up a messy bun and she’s carrying a large box. “Come ‘ere. I wanna show you something.”, she croons.

I walk over to the box. It’s filled with photo albums and children’s books and baby toys. I pick up a pair of bronzed baby booties. “Can you believe you were ever that small?” she asks, smiling and patting my back. She picks up a framed picture. There are three people sitting in front of an emerald coloured background. There’s a young woman, wearing a green dress with short brown hair holding a baby. She looks so happy, so youthful and vibrant. Her smile is encapsulating; the happiness she is so effortlessly exuding is something that I’ve been searching for my entire life. The man in the picture looks just as happy as the mother does. He has brown scruffy hair and you can barely see his blue eyes because of his huge smile. He looks nice. I wish I could have met him.

“This was about a month after you were born.” she says to me. ”Your father was so excited.” She stares at the picture for a few more seconds. She smiles, but her eyes still look sad.

“I like that dress.” I tell her.

She laughs. “I still have that, you know. Roe, you need to take your meds.” She walks over to the kitchen and grabs the pillbox.

“Here.” She says softly as she hands me the tiny white circle and a glass of water. She rubs the back of my head as I swallow.

My father had the same problem I do, but he waited until it was too late to do anything about it. I used to think that I was going to end up like he did, but for the first time in a while, I feel hopeful.

“This is the year of change.” She says triumphantly, as she puts the glass in the sink. “New you, new me, new house, new job…” she pauses and trails off. “You’ll love it in Newmarket, I’m telling ya.” She stares outside the window at the people below.

“How’s, um, how’s everything?” she asks, still staring out the window.

“Good. I haven’t heard anything from it in a while.” I pause. “It’s, uh, it’s just me in here.” I smile and point to my head. She looks at me and smiles back.

“Great. That’s just what I like to hear. I think you’ll really like your new school too, they have a great arts program. You’ll love it.” She sounds like she’s trying to convince herself more than she’s trying to convince me.

“Look Rowan, I know this is a big step for us, but I think the move will help us. This place…this place carries a lot of negative energy. A lot of bad things happened to us here. But now that you’re healthy and we’re making some really great progress, I think that this is the best move we could possibly make.” She stops and starts biting her nails. She always bites her nails when she’s nervous. “We gotta stick together, you know. We’re all that we have.” She looks down. “Your father would be so proud of you if he could see how much you’ve grown in the past few months.” She covers her face.

I rush over and squeeze her tight. “I love you mom.” I step back and look her in the eyes. “Remember,” I say confidently, “this is the year of change.”

 

 

THE END

Posted on

Dear U of T, what are you trying to say? Sincerely, a cynical student.

As a commuter, I’ve never paid attention to student residences at U of T. Although I admit I feel like I’m missing out on an invaluable experience, I’m grateful that the hassle of the residence life at U of T was one less problem I had to deal with as a first year student. On the other hand, as an architecture student, I find the current construction of a new student residence greatly intriguing, especially since this new residence is different from the previous student housing projects in that it will not be built by the university itself, but, by a private, for-profit architecture firm known as the Diamond Schmitt Architecture Firm.

Thinking of the people who will be reading this article, I wonder, why would you care? This residence, to students, would seem like any other residence…except it’s not! Here’s the catch: this residence in particular has raised a lot of controversy: local city staff and residents are not too happy about it while others gladly embrace it.

First of all, the design for the students’ residence is unique. This residence, like the Royal Ontario Museum on Bloor Street, will stand out in contrast to the more medieval-like buildings that will surround it. I personally admire the complexity and technology involved in the construction of this building. In a fast-growing metropolis like downtown Toronto, I feel like the College Street residence is just the start of many more complex, abstract designs to come. A lot of people, though, would disagree with me, as I am speaking from the perspective of a commuter who goes to school for only a few hours a day and then returns home, and so I’m more concerned with the aesthetic quality of U of T, in terms of flexibility as a result of technological advancement, rather than the preservation of open, natural space.

Local city staff and residents, however, are worried that the College residence will change the appearance of downtown Toronto (making it gloomy) by obstructing views for citizens and casting shadows.
The original proposal for the residence called for a 45-storey block but through the course of negotiations, the height was reduced to 25 storeys— about 80 metres. The current density restriction for this area is 2.5 times the square footage of the lot however the residence is 12.1 times the square footage, significantly more than the recommended limit. The city council considers this an over-development of the site; however, despite the city council expressing disapproval, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has approved the proposed design—residents and students (myself included) find it frustrating that the OMB can override the city council’s decision considering that the OMB is not democratically elected by people who live in the city.

The university defended vertical development by claiming that “there will be many mid- and high-rise residences around our St. George campus in the years ahead – notwithstanding the rhetoric of some, the only issue here is whether one site on College Street should move forward sooner rather than later for vertical development to accommodate a few hundred fine young people seeking higher education”, and to be honest, I agree with the first half of the statement. Vertical development can be avoided for only so long; through the simultaneous explosion of modern technologies and human population on limited territories, urban developers are forced to find solutions to support this unprecedented growth—vertical development.
The University has rising international and out-of-province enrolment, and a shortfall of students’ residence. International students bring significant academic benefits to U of T, and so the university is delighted to welcome them. Though I agree with the university’s justification of vertical development, it seems to me as though the second half of the statement is guilt tripping local residents and students by questioning their gesture of choosing aesthetics over the accommodation of young people seeking higher education in downtown Toronto (basically they’re asking, would you rather have a pretty place or would you rather educate young, eager students?!).

Another relevant perspective was offered by the U of T Students’ Union where they claimed that the main concern was not the location of the residence, but the fact that it is led by a private, for-profit company, that has little to no institutional oversight. This, they said, would result in students not having access to the same amenities and institutional support as they would at any other U of T residence. “As we have seen with some services at U of T, such as the food services, this may come at the expense of quality”. Students are also concerned that this might be the beginning of a harmful trend where the university (a public institution) cedes its responsibility to private companies (and rightfully so). Such conflicts, however, are anticipated in a site like Toronto, considering ‘a contemporary city is simultaneously a site of joyful encounters and a site of exploitation and conflict’; a simultaneous utopia and dystopia. The reason why the university has chosen to yield the responsibility of student housing to a private company rather than to build it themselves like the other residences is beyond my knowledge. Perhaps the university, as a public institution, is attempting to make a political statement by doing so. Perhaps it is in the pursuit of self-interest to increase the university’s output. Yet even so, they create a more privileged space of languages, knowledge, affects, codes, habits and practices with innumerable perspectives- “a space of the common” that we, as students, are privileged to experience. ‘We are nothing without diversity and multiculturalism, whether it is linguistic, cultural, artistic, or architectural; if we don’t understand, treasure and share our own roots and identities, we will never be able to respect others’’.

To conclude, I think the university really does need more students’ housing to support the increased enrolment of both local and international students. Vertical development is reasonable, if not necessary in our contemporary world; however, I would like to consider the purported necessity for yielding the responsibility to a private company… Personally, I’m sure that U of T has enough money to fund a student housing project, so why isn’t it doing so? What is U of T trying to say/do?!

I would be delighted to hear the opinions and comments of my fellow students!

Notes:
 Martin, Reinhold. “Public and Common(s).” Places Journal. 2013.

(Thank You, Professor Zeynep Celik and Professor Paolo Frascà)