I personally dislike Woody Allen and I find most of his works to be tasteless and bizarre but I have to admit Bananas was not bad and the jokes were quite clever. The way this movie was filmed and made seemed like it was a “bad movie” as what we discussed in the previously class but the characteristics and the way the film was made sort of broke the boundaries of what a “bad” film is. Although lacking in a coherent storyline, good cinematography and exceptional acting, the film shined on with its jokes and the clever parodies that made it so entertaining.
The whole film is a satirical view of American foreign policies, general public ignorance, and corruption of Latin American coup d’etats during the 70s. The beginning of the film which the coup of the fictional country San Marcos is broadcasted as if it was a sports event with Howard Cosell commentating the situation gives the bizarre and abstract comedic taste of what the movie is about. The journey of Fielding Mellish and his quest to San Marcos in hopes of winning the love of Nancy ends up with Fielding in all sorts of hilarious and unrealistic situations. I think the character of Fielding Mellish is a personification and a reflection of the stereotypical American loser who is a failure in life and is blinded by sexual lust and soul-searching. In a way I can see the purpose of the film could have been to target towards young audiences who were in a similar situation as the character and somewhat gave them hope and laughter.
In regards to the theme of American involvement in Latin America and the coups, I wasn’t sure if the film was trying to raise the issue and criticize something or just making a satirical parody out it. In the scene where the rebels manage to take back San Marcos and overthrow the military dictatorship it shows the rebel leader himself goes insane and corrupt like the previous leader which shows that the power and corruption in San Marcos (or other Latin American nations) is a cycle that cannot be broken. The scene where Fielding is also on trial for crimes and the testimony of various people could also be a satire of the American society as a whole. I admit I am not completely sure what message was, whether it was a satire on the ignorance of society or if the whole thing was just made-up comedy based on current world events at that time.
I enjoyed the film, mindless and senseless as it was, it gave me a good laugh and surprised me on how talented Woody Allen is.
I feel that you have done a very good job of summarizing the film in a few paragraphs. I also found it quite difficult to infer what the intention behind the portrayal of San Marcos was. In my mind, I saw it less as a reflection of Latin America as being consistently corrupt and more about how in every stage of the movie, the characters and the societies seem to be going in circles but keep expecting things to change. For example, Nancy ends up somewhat in the same place she was at the beginning of the movie – questionably interested in Fielding, confused about how she got into her predicament, and yet somewhat stuck. There were quite a few other cyclical examples but I think in the same way that there is cyclical corruption in American politics, there is in other countries too, it can just take on different appearances. This is not to dismiss that the leadership/government of San Marcos did seem more violent, but that everyone in the film seemed to be quite challenged, just in different ways.
I like your perspective on Mellish’s character being the young, unaccomplished American loser. I would have never thought of that personally but it does make a lot of sense after reading your blog and I’m sure that his character did pertain to many viewer’s of the film.
I also agree with the previous comments and Katie brought up a great remark on the cyclical nature of the film and of American global relations. Your first point about this films relation to ‘bad’ movies is very similar to the point I made on my blog.