Pop the Cherry, Push the Plot

Dustin Watts
Professor Manuel A. Pérez-Tejada
ENGL 1101 D2
21 April 2009

Pop the Cherry, Push the Plot

Holocaust. Dinner parties set to Wagner. Genocide. Glorification of the quintessential German. Gestapo. The brilliance of blitzkrieg. The palate that paints Hitler’s Germany is dark and dissonant. In the World War II era, Germany believed that it was developing a perfect society through the Third Reich. Behind closed doors, however, even an ideal German could be found practicing the deepest of taboos. Such stories never saw the daylight under the Nazis who exterminated those caught in disagreeable behavior. Time and history have taken their toll, however, and brought closet stories such as Aimée & Jaguar to the forefront through film. Based on journalist Erica Fischer’s extensive research of a true story and the resulting book Aimée & Jaguar: A Love Story Berlin 1943, Max Färberböck’s film presents the story of lesbian lovers, one of which is a poster Aryan German and the other who is an underground Jew involved in the resistance movement (Halpern). As the reality of the practice of taboos in a society emerges, their acceptance in cinema induces the telling of stories such as Aimée & Jaguar with unusually realistic and compelling plots.
A taboo may be defined as a social or religious custom prohibiting or restricting a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing. Pinpointing just what such practices or associations are, however, is almost entirely subjective. The notions that constitute a taboo vary according to conceptualizations with multiple international contexts. For Aimée & Jaguar, the multifaceted taboo is exacerbated by the locale and timing, namely the Nazi Germany of World Warl II in which the story plays out.
Aimée & Jaguar is centered around the true story of lesbian lovers Lilly Wust and Felice Schragenheim, affectionately nicknamed Aimée and Jaguar respectively. Mrs. Wust and Ilse, her former servant that ended up being Jewish and Felice’s previous lover, reminisce uncomfortably on the trying times of World War II in their old age. Thus the audience sees the narrative as a flashback (Marti). Lilly was an “Aryan poster girl married to a German officer and the mother of four strapping blond boys (Kehr).” Felice, on the other hand, is an underground resistance Jew that works for a Nazi paper, writes erotic poems, and is also secretly a promiscuous lesbian(Färberböck). As the narrative progresses, Lilly expresses to Felice that “(her) life is wonderful. (She is) free (Färberböck).” Before long, the two fall deep into love. Lilly diverges further and further from the ideal German woman she once was as she divorces her husband and secretly exchanges rings with Felice. Their relationship, however, is beset with the ominous possibility of Felice being found and taken away. Though she knows she risks her life, Felice holds to “a love larger than death” promising that “until life is over, love will last” (Färberböck). After enjoying many experiences with Mrs. Wust as lovers, Felice is finally tracked and taken by the Gestapo to her eventual death.


“National Socialism is our people’s greatest and only hope,” says Lilly’s boss at the Nazi newspaper, “The world can mock us, but it will tremble when it realizes what tremendous feats this people is capable of.” (Färberböck) Such lofty words were often spoken, but the true duality of the Berlin of World War II is repeatedly represented in the film. “Luxury and profligacy butt up against starvation and murder daily” as those in the film walk out of an elegant party to piles of burning bodies and rubble (Färberböck). Ilse, the narrator, aptly states that "That was the real Berlin. Outside people were dying and inside they were playing the proper tune (Färberböck)." Common citizens practice ignorance, saying -“If Churchill thinks he’s done us in, he’s wrong. Not while we’re dancing! (Färberböck)” Questioning the correctness of the Third Reich was the ultimate taboo of the time. It became so that “the best way (for the characters) to forget (or at least tolerate) the dichotomy (was) to act as if it isn't there (Lowerison).”
While Germany is now “legally and socially tolerant… towards homosexuals” (AFP), the Nazi’s strict intolerance of this and many other vices goes almost without saying. Lesbianism was not technically illegal or categorized as a crime worthy of the concentration camp. Lesbians wore triangles that designated them as "asocial" or as "political" prisoners as opposed to the pink triangle gay men wore to their extermination. “Because Nazi ideology saw the 'Aryan' woman as predestined to motherhood and marriage as a matter of principle, Nazis regarded lesbians as women who were not fulfilling their biological destiny and as women in need of intercourse.” Generally, Nazis commodified women and “lesbians were victimized as a result of pernicious Nazi misogyny.” (Greim). The dramatic shift of German ideology in the past decades has allowed countless stories to be exposed to the world without fear of them being suppressed by the German government. Aimée & Jaguar has come to “(represent) lesbianism as a site of resistance to the National Socialist eugenicist agenda” (Greim), a victory in that ideological community. The film has also met with success in the Berlin International Film Festival, winning the Silver Bear for best acresses. It is because of the more recent liberalization that an 87-year-old Mrs. Wust has exposed her story that was chalk full of taboos to the world. This shift in ideology of women’s role in German society has opened the realms of cinema to present these enthralling stories with less controversy.

The potency of the film comes primarily from the ideas presented that, while still more universally accepted now, push the envelope enough to cause a more personal tension and identification with the film within the viewers. Multitudes of secrets and clashing ideologies kept in check by the great physical dominance of the Nazis induces loads of dramatic ironies that give the plot a motion, even in stillness and silence. The contrast of light and shadow is used extensively in differentiating the remaining gaiety of Berlin life and the insufferable situation on the streets. Felice’s and Lilly’s relationship is born in the shadows and develops into the natural daylight before it ends in darkness again with the arrival of the Gestapo. Lilly waits in the dark for Felice, and Felice flees with the Jews numerous times in dark situations. The camera “pans during happy, party scenes (to) help blur fact and fiction (from us and the characters), implying an out-of-control feeling” (Halpern). Low angle shots convey Felice’s compassion on a little Jewish girl, the dominance of a Nazi onlooker, and the idea of looking up to Mrs. Wust as the ideal German wonman. High angles are used in scenes where pressure is present, whether it be Nazis rounding up Jews, Mr. Wust slapping his wife, or the controversy of Felice entering into Lilly’s married life. The cinematography of Aimée & Jaguar supplements the plot to make use of taboos and the story more compelling and believable.
The juxtaposition of the aforementioned conflicts and taboos builds an ideal platform of tension to work with in a plot for a film. From the inciting moment where Felice finds and returns Lilly’s glasses at the symphony, we can already feel multiple tensions arousing between every character that has been introduced. As the action rises, the presence of the various taboos becomes all the more clear, and the fates that tie everything together become progressively stronger. Felice and Lilly fall deeper into love. They partake in highly erotic sexual encounters. Lilly becomes more frustrated with her married life. Felice continues to work hard for the resistance movement while trying to keep her identity as a Jew secret from her boss at the newspaper. The Gestapo are closing their iron grip over Berlin. The Allies are steadily coming to their victory. The conflict is exacerbated tremendously by the presence of taboos that make every moment uncertain. We do not know what they will do next, or what will happen as a result of what they have already done. Such uneasiness, though it may be built by other methods, is most effective when used in the context of taboos because their representation on screen is in and of itself out of the norm and excitingly unexpected. We know when we see certain things take place that a story is not just another watered down version of reality. It becomes unusually real in our minds, and we are compelled to know what end those who have defied the stigma of taboos will come to.

Aimée & Jaguar presents one of the most taboo situations history has ever concocted: two lesbians- one an underground resistance Jew and the other the quintessential Aryan German mother- in Berlin during World War II. The presence of such a combination of taboos incites a unique tension that drives the plot like few other narrative devices possibly could. The tension is high. The situation is unique.

Works Cited

AFP. “Germany Extends Gay Rights”. 21 April 2009. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1613010,00.html
Kehr, Dave. “Aimée & Jaguar (1999) FILM REVIEW; In Love in Wartime Berlin, and Defying Understanding”. 21 April 2009. http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A0DE4DB173FF932A2575BC0A9669C8B63
Lowerison, Jane. http://sandiegometro.com/reel/index.php?reelID=12:
Marti, Kris Scott. 21 April 2009. http://www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/Movies/72004/aimeeandjaguar.html
Halpern, Leslie. “The Artistry of Aimée & Jaguar”. 21 April 2009. http://foreignfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/artistic_elements_in_aimee_jagua
Greim, Katrin. “More to the Story: Discursive violence in Aimée & Jaguar”. 21 April 2009. http://www.genderforum.uni-koeln.de/imagendering2/greim.html
Färberböck, Max. Aimée & Jaguar : the film itself

Shattering the Taboo

Marketers across the world fantasize that one day they may pitch their product successfully enough for it to be assimilated into a culture. For a filmmaker, it is the purpose and goal of perhaps their whole career to at least broaden the views of the audience, and at the most, an entire culture’s opinion on a topic. Whether or not it is the intention, films will still influence the minds that watch them. To the untrained mind, a movie is just an alternate reality and whatever takes place as the reel spins is easily applicable to real life. If it is direct enough, the message of a film can cause people to consciously and deliberately rethink their opinions. Films are directed, discussed, marketed, edited, reshot, amended, and prescreened before release, which tentatively allows a director to perfect the message they wish to convey. As a result, films can be used as ideological weapons; they can be fashioned to harbor the exact message desired, aimed towards the precise audience intended, and reengineered as seen fit just so that the millions of viewers to watch a film will deliberate what the filmmakers choose to show. From the right hands, films can create impressive waves of free thought and reconsideration. In the case of exposing topics normally suffocated by lack of attention, filmmakers commonly use taboos as central themes within their movies in order to familiarize the viewers to that which they normally avoid. This paper will explore one aspect of culture – namely, taboos – and how films utilize them in order to catalyze a change in what a culture deems acceptable. To illustrate the point, this paper will focus on the David Gordon Green film Pineapple Express (2008).

Taboos are any topics unacceptable to discuss or behaviors unfit for performance that would result in shame, judicial action or otherwise embarrassment. They range from unforgiveable taboos such as pedophilia or incest, to lesser evils such as picking one’s nose or kissing a member of the same sex on the lips in public. The basic principle behind the use of taboos in film is that to understand something is to render it harmless. People normally respond to that which they do not understand with fear or assumptions, eventually coming to believe quite fervently what they themselves have falsely imagined. This causes much strife between the true nature of the topic and the mistaken mind. By truly taking time and understanding something, there is no need to complete the inaccurate concept with whatever one’s mind may choose to patch it with, be it fear, anger, repulsion, or discomfort. Filmmakers can center their films on taboos, and by developing an entire story upon them it is possible to enlighten the viewers through example and personal connection. The taboo is effectively denatured, the biases can be reexamined, and the story can be appreciated that much more. Such is the case in Brokeback Mountain (2005) with homosexuality, The Yacoubian Building (2006) with police violence and homosexuality, and Pineapple Express with marijuana use. Viewers focus less on the stigma of the taboo and more on the humanity of the situation; many times the reason for such misunderstanding is simply because one side has forgotten that the other side is human as well.

Despite zero recorded deaths throughout recorded history traceable solely to marijuana use, a lack of evidence that marijuana causes any cancer and plenty of studies that would suggest that it may even fight cancerous growth, the fact that industrial hemp is a better fiber in nearly every way compared to cotton, and the countless opportunities for personal discovery and spiritual growth the high offers, society still refuses to consider the possibility the plant is harmless. Films that focus on the use of marijuana are not new at all, but Pineapple Express was created to look professional and mature in an attempt to familiarize society with the idea of a functional and dynamic stoner. Ironically, people are apprehensive to watch a movie about smoking pot or with much nudity, but American audiences flock to see movies depicting grotesque violence and gore. While talking about another of his movies, Seth Rogan says, “To me it's a mystery that you can show these horrific things [referring to the movie Hostel], but not some sexual stuff which everyone does (Murray 3)." It was not this way twenty years ago, so plainly it is all a matter of getting used to what was previously taboo. When people watch Pineapple Express, because of the believability and quality of the film they can connect to the movie and appreciate it. In this way, people can become more comfortable and open to the idea of marijuana as an indulgence as opposed to a felonious dependence. It is the same reason people grow more comfortable and open to watching disgusting gore scenes such as those found in any of the Saw series. Saw has an intriguing storyline that effectively mirrors the hypocrisy and transparency of society, so it is exciting to watch despite the graphic portrayals. If the movie were unbelievable, written poorly, or unentertaining, it would not be nearly as effective in lightening people up enough to have them reconsider their tolerances. By writing Pineapple Express as a comedy, the message is not impaired at all and perhaps because the classical image of a pot smoker is a goofy and amusing one, a comedic movie is more effective in delivering a positive message to the audience.

While standing behind a building after the first fight scene at Red’s house, Dale starts to argue with Saul about smoking so much weed. He says that every time something goes wrong, it is because they had been smoking pot. He claims that weed has caused all of their problems, but both the audience and Saul know that it is not entirely true. Weed has certainly allowed many of the conflicts to develop, but not because it is itself a negative substance. In the beginning of the plotline, Dale threw a half finished joint out of the window when he witnessed Ted Jones murdering a Chinese dealer. Jones picked up on Dale’s trail when he puffed on it to find that it was his own rare marijuana, sold only to one other person in the city. Dale and Saul were then traced and followed through the dealer that sold that unique strain of marijuana to them. Marijuana itself had nothing to do with the initial conflict; if an I.D. had been thrown instead, the story would have progressed just as smoothly. The marijuana is just a plot device for the story, but the film employs it for its own purpose of reintroducing it to society as acceptable. From there, the audience sees the eventual breakdown and repair of the friendship once Dale understands it is indeed his problem and his alone. He apologizes to his girlfriend while in a park crying on a payphone, and then to Saul for being an awful friend when they are eventually captured. When characters break down and weep, it becomes easier to empathize with them on a personal level. It is easy to place oneself in Dale’s shoes. Audiences see that it was his actions and inability to come to terms with the fact that he is good friends with a dealer rather than the marijuana itself that caused the schism. Dale does take responsibility for his actions, and he is not shown smoking again until the end of the movie, after the conflict is resolved.


The act of watching a movie is also a highly interactive one. Viewers do not just observe the story with detachment; they are actively considering the situation, comparing it with their own values, contemplating what they would be doing in the same situation, and connecting to the characters. A good movie allows us to put a piece of ourselves in it and believe that we too could be the characters. Our minds subconsciously take in the colors of a scene or the feel of the musical score in order to produce the feelings we experience. It is an accepted concept in psychology that colors can affect our moods and perceptions (Van Wagner). Because of this, mise-en-scène is vital to the presentation of a message. Pineapple Express also uses all of the modern cuts and editing techniques to conserve continuity so that it always contributes to the value of a scene. In this way, Pineapple Express is a good film. Because it is so aesthetically pleasant and continuous, it is easy to become part of the story and lose oneself in it.

The lighting in both Saul’s and Red’s apartment is warm and active. There are always colorful pictures, cool orange lighting, darker carpets and soft lighting flowing from the shuttered windows. The houses are also clean and well kept; this is to show that the two stoners still manage their personal lives well. In these warmly lit environments there is pot smoking, entertaining dialogue and story progression. The outside shots incorporate graffiti to add colors, greenery to cool the scenes and full moon lighting to provide a calm atmosphere. In the scene where Dale and Saul sell to a group of high school kids and smoke with them behind a garage, everyone is laughing, joking, and dancing. There is a graffiti mural behind them, Reggae music playing, and close-ups of laughing faces overlaid atop the scene to give it an upbeat and relaxed feel. In contrast, the lighting grows intense and stark while inside the prim and upscale house of Angie Robinson, Dale’s girlfriend. This is the scene where Dale enters late to a dinner and Angie’s parents become enraged when they find that Dale is high. To quote Mrs. Robinson, “You are high as a [expletive] kite!”(Whadu). By this time in the movie, the reaction is highly comedic because the audience has already become accustomed to the fact that Dale is perpetually high. It is one of the first times viewers are reminded that indeed, Dale has been quite high for the whole movie. Before this point, the audience had never really considered that all of Dale’s actions and decisions were guided while under the influence. The scenes shot underground in the pot farm are all lit by sharp fluorescent growing lights, providing a similar feel as to that felt in the Robinson’s house. By designing the scenes where marijuana is smoked as calm and inviting and designing those where confrontation and action predominates as intense and contrasting, the audience subconsciously associates smoking marijuana with relaxation and comfort and expect the more intense scenes to contain fighting or disapproval of the behavior. In this way, mise-en-scène really advances the acceptance of marijuana throughout the movie. The audience is most relaxed whenever there is marijuana use.

In summary, this film does not portray marijuana as a bad substance. It does give marijuana a primary role as the catalyst to the plotline, but it portrays it enjoyably and positively while doing so. It is the connections that the characters have and Saul’s careless actions that truly place them in their life-threatening situations, and critical viewers come to understand that. By producing a comedy, the audience is already prepared to enjoy themselves and watch with open minds. By developing the plot around the subject of whether or not marijuana use is problematic, viewers come to understand the question on a deeper level as Dale breaks down and evaluates his decisions and what is really important to him. By using complex and strong characters, marijuana is depicted in the hands of functional and interesting people. By associating marijuana use with the brighter and cheerful scenes of the movie, the film effectively helps to recreate the audience’s perception on marijuana use. With all of these combined, the movie serves as a tool for changing the minds of those watching. When the movie is over, the audience is cheerful and prepared to make more mature opinions on the plant because they are more familiar with it. The film is in effect a lesson, however ridiculous it may be. The moral is not lost, and the message has been conveyed. With time, films such as these can change the way society sees taboos and in the end, people come to understand what they refused to understand previously. Sometimes it takes an incentive to get people to reevaluate their beliefs, and watching Pineapple Express is as good of an incentive as any.

Works Cited

Billington, Alex. "Interview: Pineapple Express Director David Gordon Green." First Showing 03 Aug 2008 1. Web.19

Apr 2009.

gordon-green/>.

Murray, Rebecca. "Behind the Scenes of 'Pineapple Express'." About.com: Hollywood Movies 1-3. Web.18 Apr

2009. .

Nasson,, Tim. "Pineapple Express - BEHIND THE SCENES." Wild About Movies 03 Jul 2008 1. Web.19 Apr 2009.

.

Van Wagner, Kendra. "Color Psychology." About.com: Psychology 1 -10. Web.19 Apr 2009.

.

Whadu, "Memorable Quotes For Pineapple Express (2008)." Broken Controllers 08 Aug 2008 1. Web.20 Apr 2009.

>.

Have Your ID's Ready, Now Crossing the Border into Different Taboos

Joshua Tuttle

Professor Manuel A. Pérez Tejada

Engl 1102 D2

April 21, 2009

Have Your ID's Ready, Now Crossing the Border into Different Taboos

Think about the last thing you would want to talk about in public. Regardless of what you thought of it is likely that it is a taboo subject. What makes something taboo? Well there are taboos that are unique to every culture, as well as universal taboos. Sex, drugs, violence, death, and combinations of the prior constitute the majority of taboos in this world. The taboos a movie breaks and challenges in one place can become irrelevant in different cultures, regions, and countries.

In less advanced civilizations taboos can seem very extreme. One example is the Wakelbura tribe of Queensland, they forbid women who are menstruating to come near the camp. The tribe fears that if a man were to see her he would die in which case the woman would be killed. In the Yolngu tribe of North Australia when a person dies their name and words that are similar must not be spoken for a certain period. While these taboos are interesting they are not the ones that are usually addressed in film.

Modern taboos are usually due to religious and moral beliefs in an area. An example of a religious taboo is in the Christian religion; to talk of premarital sex and other immoral activity is severely frowned upon. In the Jewish faith it is taboo to eat pork. In the Hindu religion it is forbidden to eat beef or to mistreat a cow. Morally in highly conservative countries and regions something as simple as a kiss can make a huge difference upon how a person is viewed. Not even five decades ago in the United States, if one was to go into a rural region it would not be uncommon to find family members that would disown a teenage child, because of a kiss or two. This is due to the assumption that if a couple were kissing they must also be participating in sexual activity. The film industry often addresses religious and moral issues because both make up a large portion of a person’s life.

In Indonesia, the film industry has just begun to pick back up since the 90's. There have only been three women who have worked as directors since the country's first film in 1926 and the end of the oppressive Suharto dictatorship in 1998. In recent years there have been more women directors, and there are more in the film schools of Indonesia. These women directors have been pushing the limits of taboo subjects within the film industry of Indonesia. Nia Dinata is one of these directors, her first film A Courtesan was the first film in more than 30 years with an ethnic Chinese main character. She also directed The Gathering and Love for Share, the first discussing the taboo of homosexuality and the second discussed the issues of polygamy in Indonesia. In 2007, four female directors including Dinata made Chant of Lotus, which discusses taboos ranging from abortion and prostitution to premarital sex and HIV/AIDS. Chant of Lotus received much censoring from the government. These movies addressing the so called “harder' taboos would have had no chance of being made had the lesser taboos not be broken in earlier Indonesian films.

In my studies one of the more popular films in Indonesia was What's Up With Love?. It is the story of a young girl, named Cinta (which means love in Indonesian). She goes to high school with her four best friends and loves to read and write poetry. Through a series of events she learns about l ove and true friendship. The movie addresses the taboos subjects of child and spousal abuse and suicide. Both of these events center on Cinta's friend Alyia. The movie begins with her showing he r friends the bruise she had received the day before from one of her father's rampages. Although physical abuse is never shown within the film the results are shown as well as the mental abuse. The mental abuse contributes largely to this taboo, because the fact it causes victims and friends of victims not to talk about it because of the stress it places on the victim. Because of the continued abuse from her father and the lack of somewhere to go, Alyia decides to attempt suicide in her shower. The scene doesn't show the act itself but shows Alyia in the corner of the shower using a high angle shot, which shows her helplessness. There is then a cut to a close up of the drain with blood draining down it. Many people don’t talk about suicide because of the spiritual ramifications of suicide that is in most religion's teachings.

The taboos broken by What's Up With Love? are not only social and moral taboos but it also breaks taboos within the film industry. At the end of the film Cinta and her love Rangaa share a passionate kiss. This is the first on screen kiss in decades from an Indonesian film. The reason this hadn't happened in the past is because of the predominantly Islamic demographic in Indonesia, whose morals are conservative. The reign of Suharto, president of Indonesia from 1968 to 1998, supported the censoring of many films also contributing to a lack of taboos being shown in film. This film was also produced by a woman which is also very rare, and almost a taboo in itself. This film set up the possibility for more risqué taboo breaking within Indonesia.

In France and Europe taboos are often used and discussed in film. This discussion has caused filmmakers to push the limits of what is taboo tremendously. In order to get the same response from today’s audience, more controversial taboos are required. This has helped spur on the New French Extremity movement in French film. James Quandt says:

The critic truffle-snuffing for trends might call it the New French Extremity, this recent tendency to the willfully transgressive by directors like Francois Ozon, Gaspar Noe, Catherine Breillat, Philippe Grandrieux--and now, alas, Dumont. Bava as much as Bataille, Salo no less than Sade seem the determinants of a cinema suddenly determined to break every taboo, to wade in rivers of viscera and spumes of sperm, to fill each frame with flesh, nubile or gnarled, and subject it to all manner of penetration, mutilation, and defilement.

Within this movement is a film that uses amateur actors and is the definition of raw, its title is Baise-moi. Not only was it banned, but it also caused the 18 and older restriction to be put in place specifically for this film in France.

Baise-moi is the story of Nadine, a prostitute, and Manu, a pornography actress, that go on a crime spree throughout France. The two separately kill a person in each of their lives; Manu her brother, and Nadine, her roommate. They meet as they are trying to leave the city by train, but the last train has left so they take Manu’s car. They continue murdering until their eventual climactic death and arrest. During their tour of violence the director,Virginie Despentes , chose to include several graphic sex scenes with apparent strangers. Not only are the main characters taking an extremely promiscuous approach to their actions but they are also clearly the ones in control of the sexual situations. Traditionally the man is seen as the dominate partner during a sexual act. This is actually a taboo that is being broken but also has a deeper m eaning. It is included due to Manu being raped at the beginning of the film and this sense of control she uses allows her vicarious revenge. This film also uses an excess of violence. Death is taboo to talk about, especially lightly, in most cultures. One exchange between the main characters exemplifies how lightly they take the murders they are committing:

Manu: We don´t have the right answers at the right time.

Nadine: But we do have the right actions, that´s a start, and we aren´t doing it that bad.

Manu: No. But those people are going to die. The dialogs need to have some level. Crucial to death.

What they are saying with this exchange is that they need to have witty remarks when they kill. This makes the deaths of innocent victims into punch lines of a joke. A taboo breaking movie on this scale would not be complete without heavy drug usage. Both actresses are visually intoxicated in one form or another in every scene. In the majority of scenes the drug of choice is just alcohol but there is also usage of cocaine and marijuana. Because of the legality of both drugs that is a major taboo breaker.

Although What’s Up With Love? and Baise-Moi seem different they do touch on similar issues in different ways. Most noticeable are the subjects of suicide and abuse. It can be seen from both film profiles that taboo relies heavily upon the origin and audience of a film. If What’s Up With Love? was played in France it would never be seen as breaking taboos, let alone be known for breaking them. While on the other hand Baise-Moi would never see any film screen in Indonesia. This trend is not contained only to these two countries; it is universal that taboos are variable. So although a film may break a taboo in on country it may be perfectly acceptable in another and vice-versa.

Works Cited

"Baise Moi Script - transcript from the screenplay and/or Virginie Despentes and Coralie movie." Drew's Script-O-Rama: free movie scripts and screenplays, baby! 21 Apr. 2009 .

"Flesh & blood: sex and violence in recent French cinema | ArtForum | Find Articles at BNET." Find Articles at BNET | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. 21 Apr. 2009 .

Kwok, Yenni. "Motion picture directors & producers, Gays & lesbians." Ms. Arlington Summer 2008: 26-27.

Webster, Hutton. Taboo: a Sociological Study. New York: Octagon Books, 19731942.

Warning: These citations may not always be 100% accurate.