Michael George
12/3/2010
Desperately Seeking Susan
Director: Susan Seidelman
Total Running Time: 01:44:00
Language: English
Awards: Multiple Awards for Different Actors
Desperately Seeking Susan was released in 1985 under the direction of Susan Seidelman. This film was different than all the other films we've viewed this semester as it is probably the closest film portraying a time period we can relate too, and it is a comedy.
...Seeking Susan is about a boring housewife, who is very much a creeper, who becomes obsessed with a stranger who is very slutacious and grimey. The viewer can almost feel the irony of the casting director because the dirty, gutter rat is played by none other than Madonna! The boring housewife wants to leave parts of her life behind so she starts trying to follow Madonna, I mean Susan. A man tries to jump her in the park, but she ends up bumping her head and losing her memory. Supported and befriended by someone who believes she really is Susan, she begins to live her life with him. Maybe the stoic housewife shouldn't have quit her day job because things don't always turn out great for her in this film.
I think the biggest film theory present in this movie is feminism. While Madonna is very strange looking, she kind of reaks of female empowerment, and probably beer and bud. She is confident, determined, capable, and strong - all characteristics that feminist theorists try to showcase because those are traits they believe all women have. The plot of the boring house wife, Roberta, trying to shed her current lifestyle for that of Susan's is an even bigger feminist movement. Roberta was pretty much trying to shed the roles of being a wife that men placed on women at the time. When she became the magician's assistant, left her husband, and just lived her life was when she said she finally felt free. Even casting Madonna as the lead role was a nod to feminism, because she is one of the top female recording artists of all time.
Desperately Seeking Susan contains two slight theories as well. It contains auterism as I feel this was a movie that Seidalman created with a particular vision in mind. Also, this film contains glimpses of the formalist film theory as the music and color was chosen for a specific reason.
The two articles I used for this blog entry can be found
here and
here. I chose the first article because it comes from the New York Times, which is one of the biggest scholarly sources ever. This article notes that the movie is a quarter century old, pokes fun at the funny clothing, and states that this is Madonna's first lead role in a movie. The latter part of the article is an interview with Seidelman, where she jokingly admits that vanity was not a part of the title of the film; it was already the title of the script when sent to her. She comments that the film is about finding who you are on the inside. She also points out that the bridge in the film is a metaphor - literally jumping the bridge from being a housewife to a rebelious life. Another important fact is that scenes in the film were chosen because she had been there in real life. The second article comes from Roger Ebert himself. He speaks about how the film is a series of double reversals, and that he enjoyed the chemistry the two main actresses created.
Seidelman commenting on the theme of the film kind of is a point against my opinions about the feministy themes here. It would seem as if the real theme of the film is finding your true self and individualism. However; there are many themes, viewes, theories, etc present in this movie. You can decide for yourself how much weight you put on each category. I chose to focus on the feminist theme for this movie over the individualist. Seidelman mentioning the bridge metaphor was interesting too because I did not pick that up during the film. It went right over my head so to speak. I do agree with Ebert in reguards to the two main characters. Roberta and Susan do have a great chemistry due to Arquette and Madonna being the perfect picks for the roles.
This film was definitely one of the more enjoyable films we watched this semester. It's probably because I tend to enjoy the more modern films over the early film eras.
Desperately Seeking Susan did have its funny moments. Some parts ranged from funny to just ridiculous though. When Roberta trips over nothing and falls "hard" into that light post I just kind of sat in my seat and said, "wooowww..." It was cheesy, but at least it got a reaction. My only criticism is that the plot of the film was kind of confusing at the beginning, to me at least. I didn't understand if Susan killed the mobster and that's why she was being hunted? I didn't really understand the part about the Egyptian earrings too. In Roger Ebert's review he clarified both points so now it is a little clearer. Susan was being stalked because she could have been a witness...right? In retrospect, this was a really good film. I would recommend it to other film theorists as well as students studying film in the 1980s.
Ps: I just really don't like Madonna.............
SOURCES:
"Once More Into The Grove: Desperately Seeking Susan Turns 25."
The New York Times. Itzkoff, Dave. 22 September 2010.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/once-more-into-the-groove-desperately-seeking-susan-turns-25/
"Desperately Seeking Susan." Ebert, Roger.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19850329/REVIEWS/503290301/1023
