JD Salinger Remembered

By now the news of JD Salinger's death has already made its way across the nation's airwaves and its newspapers. If you look closely it's all stories of eccentricities and his misanthropic nature, the literary genius who his away from his adoring public. Sure, any print article on Salinger is bound to speak of the controversy that ensued after the publication of his most well-known novel, Catcher in the Rye. But so many of these pieces on him are caught up in his relationship to the public, the controversy he created, and not one person seems to talk about the people he inspired. Well, seeing as I can't speak for too many other people, I suppose this is focused on how he inspired me.

I don't want to say he inspired me to write. That title doesn't belong to just one person and in memorializing someone, I want to steer clear of cliches. He gave a voice to thoughts. Obviously not just my thoughts, but he gave a voice to a generation that was too afraid to speak out and to actually be heard. I hesitate to use the term "generation" because I feel that that particular insecurity belongs to an age group, not a specific time or place. Regardless, he showed us what it was like to be heard, even if people wanted to ignore it. However, this isn't just about what he did for America in his writing. If you're looking for that, check the Red Eye or the Tribune. Instead, this is about the intimate relationship Salinger allowed me to form with a character I'd never known before.

I won't lie to you, my first introduction to Salinger was through Catcher in the Rye. After all, it's his most popular for a reason. Until then, I'd never really understood the personal relationship that a reader can have with a character (or a writer) that they'd never known. JD Salinger introduced me to the possibilities of what this sacred relationship between reader and writer could be. To say that I want to be him or even write like him would be a disservice to his memory. No one ever will, so I've pretty much given up on that idea. However, through his writing, and not just Catcher in the Rye but Nine Stories and Franny and Zooey, he captivated me. It wasn't just his words or his characters, it was the authenticity of the world he created. I wanted to be a part of it, and in a sense, I was. At least, we all were. Although some people may not agree with the way he wrote it, we can all relate to feelings of alienation and the false promise of our futures. JD Salinger's work was the human condition and I only hope to one day be the writer he is. I know it may not happen today or tomorrow, but one day I want to be able to return the favor and have someone read my work and feel the connection between reader and writer, to feel as if it had been written especially for them. Until then, my inane ramblings that are far from Salinger-esque will just have to do, but hey, even Salinger had to start somewhere.

Doing Raymond Chandler Proud

While I have a certain bias, in that I'll watch just about anything with Robert Downey Jr. in it, while it wouldn't be the same without him, the 2005 Shane Black-helmed pulp comedy stands on its own two feet. At the center of the film is small-time crook, Harry Lockhart played by Downey Jr. who accidentally stumbles into the world of Hollywood where he meets P.I. "Gay Perry", played by Val Kilmer. Soon enough, Harry is over his head in a desperate attempt to impress his childhood sweetheart Harmony, played by Michelle Monaghan.

What's perhaps most charming about this film is its own self-awareness, or rather, its awareness of its heritage. Shane Black has experience in Hollywood as the screen writer who penned the Lethal Weapon anthology, but in his directorial debut, he brings his A game to the picture. One of the things that translates to the screen so well is the tone. It's appropriately atmospheric and dark in some places, but even more than that, it's clear that Black, Downey Jr., and Kilmer are having fun with what they're doing. It never seemed like they were taking themselves too seriously, which can be a very serious problem in the world of neo-noir. What's most refreshing is that, as a viewer, I got a sense that they so firmly believed this story was worth telling, and it completely is, but the pride in their storytelling is so rare in most movies these days.

Another enjoyable aspect of the film, that I'm sure Black is bringing over from his history as a screenwriter, is the background. As they always say, the devil's in the details. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang knows it's roots and gives plenty of credit to its predecessors. The movie is chock full of Raymond Chandler references, smoking guns, and mysterious women. For any fans of noir and pulp, this film is a must-see. However, rather than just directly take from these films, there is a sort of reverence for what they've done, and this is Shane Black's personal interpretation. He brings a mixture of darkness and humor to the film that might not have worked without the extremely capable cast.

While the cast is usually the most revered, and the others are all together forgotten, in the case of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, the cast deserves the attention. Robert Downey Jr.'s comedic timing in this film ranges from neurotic to dim-witted in an absurdly lovable way. Val Kilmer also deserves his fair share of attention. Gay Perry is a combination of far too many gay stereotypes, but he's leveled out by his skills in a jam. However, Michelle Monahan as Harmony is one of the most surprising. It's difficult to get a read on who she really is at first, but it's because she's written with layers and a complexity not usually afforded the women in neo-noir films. She's comfortable in the role of damsel in distress, but also, strong enough to take care of herself. While anyone could have played at as incredibly uneven character, Michelle Monahan plays her as a multi-layered character rather than an archetype.

A mix that's equal part script and part star talent is what makes Kiss Kiss Bang Bang a fun movie to watch. While it may not ring true for die-hard pulp fans, it's more of an homage to the genre. Shane Black successfully makes it his own, making it comical but not too over the top as to lose his audience. Overall though, it may be the incredible charisma of Robert Downey Jr. that the film is noted for. Whatever it may be, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang does it in a style that would have made Raymond Chandler proud.

An Ode to Gary Oldman

I know that it seems in poor taste that I praise someone else so soon after my diatribe against Nicolas Cage, but I have good reason... okay, maybe not good, but I have reason. See, soon after my Nic Cage post was, well, posted on Facebook one of my friends reminded me of a conversation we'd had in a particularly uneventful class one day. She had come to the rescue while I continued to bash Nic Cage (imagine that) but one thing we agreed on was Gary Oldman.

It seems an odd segue and I'm not even sure how we got to there, but hey, it still holds true. This was made even more perfect by my perusal of the IMDb Hit List where one of the links was listed as "The Seven Strangest Faces of Gary Oldman". After looking it over, I realized that Oldman has been a lot of different people over the time. I know that can be said for most actors, but none are quite so transformed. I mean, like I said earlier, while some people may have have loved Nicole Kidman in The Hours, all I say was Nicole Kidman in an ugly fake nose. She was still so noticeably her. Gary Oldman is more like the Gene Parmesan (Arrested Development anyone?) of movies. If I've heard that Gary Oldman is in the movie, I can't help but spend most of the movie trying to figure out who he is. He's always playing some different, be it disfigured or merely small in stature. I know it sounds dumb, but let's be real, that's just about the only was to watch the movie Hannibal.

Besides making movies bearable with his sheer awesomeness, Gary Oldman is the unsung hero of Nolan's Batman franchise. The man doesn't get near enough credit for the stuff he does for Batman. I mean, you think Batman could do it all on his own with his money and playboy status? Think again. Dude has to have an inside man. That's Gary Oldman/Commissioner Gordon for you. Always coming through when you're in a jam. So let's forget the times he's played a bloodsucker or a little person (not even Gary Oldman can save Tiptoes) because Gary would want it that way. Instead, let's remember the times he's kicked ass and taken names. This one's for you Gary.

Gender Relations to Film... I Like to Pretend I Know What I'm Talking About

Let me preface this with, this is what I've seemed to notice. I don't claim to be all knowing or anything so if anybody thinks I'm over-generalizing with this, be sure to sound off, I'd love to hear it. That being said, here it goes. From a young age, I've always heard the expression "men are from Mars, women are from Venus". I never really understood the expression as a kid. I mean, I got that it was about the fundamental differences, but I never understood the choices of planets until i had to take mythology. Mars being the God of war and Venus being the goddess of love, beauty, and fertility. Alas, I digress. The important part is that for the longest time, that was the only reference I had for the differences between men and women.

However, as I grew older, I began to notice the differences more and more. It became a sort of fascination for me. The notion of gender roles, which is still so heavily presented in our society, was something I could never quite wrap my mind around. I couldn't understand for the life of me why it was expected that a man go out and work, while the woman stayed at home and cleaned or cooked. These differences, while completely illogical, became a subject of fascination. I could see the differences everywhere. As sad as it may be, and while we may like to think we've evolved, many of these differences remain the same.

However, there is one difference that I've always been a little jealous of. It's the way that women tend to view movies. It's been my experience that women have this profound ability to relate to the characters on screen. Not in the sense that they see it and they just blindly follow it, but they are able to attach some fragment of self to the images on screen. It's always been a joke when people say "Oh, are you a Carrie?" referring to the Sex and the City character but, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are women out there who do believe that they are the Carries of the world. Not in some crazy, delusional way, but in their ability to find some sense of self or self-worth in the characters on screen. They see these characters' lives and they say "Oh, I am that" in some small way, providing a much more visceral experience.

Men on the other hand, and I can speak from personal experience, whether we like to admit it or not, we like being told what to do. Rather than relate to the character, we'd much rather watch the character. We're eager to be complicit in viewing, but still emotionally distant. More specifically, as men we are more inclined towards hero worship. We like to see men that we long to be. Granted, the men onscreen are given the advantage of special effects and other "movie magic" but that does not deter from the fact that as men, when we watch a movie, we watch for a male figure that we wish we could be. While women find a way to relate, or become, the figures they see in film, as men, we enjoy the safety of our gazer. We are confined to the world outside the movie looking in, wishing that we could be the action heroes we see in the movies.

Granted, of course there are more differences, but in watching movies, this is one of the most basic and one of the most important. Women, whose brains tend to respond with their whole body to emotional and visual stimuli, usually watch movies with more investment in the characters. Men tend to look for some sort of hero to worship or to emulate. It sounds odd, but is something worth checking out next time you go to the movies or watch movies with some friends.

Dear Nicolas Cage

Dear Nicolas Cage,
May I call you Nic? It's a bit of an informality, but I just wanted to be clear about one thing. I am not a fan. Now I know times have been rough, what with your multiple lawsuits and you having to sell off your castles (real tragedy, by the way) but that's beside the point. This is a simple request from one man to another. Stop. Just stop. I know it's hard for you to contemplate something like that as you bounce from million dollar paycheck to million dollar paycheck, but let's be realistic. You started doing crap long before the legal papers came. While the 90s held some promise (I can't stress enough only some) it's time to let the 90s go and move on. It's a hard thing to hear, I know. I mean, I know that I had a hard time saying goodbye to the 90s, but then again saying goodbye to your Blues Travelers and Del Amitri CDs is never an easy affair. Still, it's time to man up and move on.
Let's move on to the 2000s, shall we? 2000 started out rough for you, we get it. I mean, sure you had Gone in Sixty Seconds but Angelina Jolie with white-trash bleach blond hair and you by her side can only sustain your fame for so long. Me? Personally that was never my scene, but you showed promise in Adaptation. Arguably, one of your finest roles, but then again, that's not saying much. After all, that is why I'm here.
Most of the rest of your filmography is too bleak to mention. I mean, Ghost Rider? Really? Don't get me wrong, I get it as a paycheck movie (still doesn't mean I'm too happy about that sequel in production), but you claim to be a comic book fan. For God's sake, you stuck your poor kid with Superman's name on his home planet. Where's the integrity of the original Ghost Rider? As a comic book fan, the awful movie that you helped put out in the world should at least trouble your conscience a little... but as evidenced by the sequel in production, this is obviously not the case.
So in conclusion, I'll give ya 2010. Hell, it's already like the year of Nicolas Cage with some of the big budget stuff you've got goin' on. But maybe next year you could take it easy? Or really, just all together stop making movies. I dunno, just a suggestion, but think about it.
Sincerely,
Calhoun
PS Punching a chick even with the anonymity of a bear costume? Not cool Nic, not cool

An American Crime's Roots in Reality

In a world where it seems every other movie released is "based on true events", it's hard to separate fact from fiction. It seems that part of us doesn't even want to know the difference. See, it's all about immersion. Watching a movie is a leap of faith. You're trusting the director, the actors, and the rest of the crew to introduce you to their reality and make it a believable experience for you. However, every so often, there comes a movie that is legitimately based in the reality of America. Usually it details horrific events we'd like to think could never actually happen, but those 4 words jerk us back into the cold, harsh light of day that sometimes things are just too awful not to be true. Such is the case with Tommy O'Haver's An American Crime. It details the true life story of the murder of Sylvia Likens at the hands of Gertrude Baniszewski and her children. The movie, which was hardly publicized upon its debut on Showtime, was later released on DVD.

When the film did finally receive attention, it was largely based on the performances. While most people singled out Catherine Keener for her portrayal of Gertrude and Ellen Page as Sylvia, the entire cast deserves praise. Ari Graynor, who some may recognize as the drunk girl from Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, is systematically psychotic and lost as the eldest child, Paula. While it would be easy to simply hate her, she's just so pathetic that it's difficult to simply hate her. There are moments where she's just so sad that I wanted to sympathize with her, but then some turn of events would expose the malicious, calculating side of her that was merely laying dormant. Another notable portrayal is the role of Stephanie Baniszewski, played by Scout Taylor Compton of Rob Zombie's Halloween fame. Although she's not given nearly enough screen time, she stands out in the scenes she is in. She is the very definition of innocence lost as she watches in complicity, clearly disturbed by what is taking place, but rarely speaking out for fear for her own safety. These two actresses show such promise in their roles as the the Baniszewski children, which was eclipsed by the powerhouse performances of Catherine Keener and Ellen Page.

Nevertheless, although the entire ensemble is praise-worthy, it's understandable why Catherine Keener was singled out for her acting. Gertrude is played with such quiet intensity to her. However, unlike most depraved souls captured on celluloid, there is never a doubt to her reasoning. This is not to say that she's ever really portrayed as a sympathetic character, but Keener has such authenticity to her performance that the audience can't help but believe that she's convinced of every word that she's saying. In a world that is mired with movie villains with broken psyches, multiple personalities, and just about any other imaginable pop psychology term,, Gertrude is seen as disturbingly "normal". While it's true that her socio-economic status and her family life are considerably less than ideal, she's still, at heart, a shockingly recognizable, restrained and relatable figure. Once again, her actions are still mortifying and reprehensible, but she's not given that over-the-top madness that so many movie villains are.

Although Keener was nominated for a Golden Globe and an Emmy for her performance as Gertrude, Ellen Page as Sylvia Likens is just as worthy. What is most striking about the character of Sylvia is her innocence. Perhaps, as a product of Generation Y, this innocence could be mistaken as naivete, but to say Sylvia is naive wouldn't do the character justice. She is striving to do right in a world that no longer recognizes or rewards righteousness. I'll admit that several times during the film, I found myself wondering why she didn't protest more, the events that she is put through are so overwhelming that these thoughts soon left my head. The most palpable emotion, even from Sylvia's first introduction long before she is beaten, is pain. Her life is less than ideal and that type of dissatisfaction is portrayed just as heartbreakingly as her eventual demise. In all, Sylvia is a tragic character. However, what could have easily been a role that was simply screaming and crying, there is a dimensionality to the character. There is a bond formed with the character of Sylvia Likens that, while I admittedly cannot even begin to feel her pain, I found myself so invested in what happened to her. Once again, Ellen Page shows herself as a more than capable actress is the role of Sylvia Likens.

Maybe it's the truth that lies behind this movie that makes it so disturbing and memorable, but the performances help bring these events to life. I had admittedly not heard of the Likens murder since it took place long before I was born. However, I would be remiss in not bringing light to it now. That is, undoubtedly, what Tommy O'Haver's sought to do with this film. With the help of Catherine Keener, Ellen Page, and the rest of the cast, An American Crime is chilling in its roots in reality.

Jawbreaker AKA Heathers Redux

Every so often, a little fluff as nice. Granted, there are some great classics out there worth studying, but who doesn't enjoy not having to think for 90 minutes every so often? Jawbreaker is a perfect movie for just such an occasion. It literally warrants absolutely no thought past its 87 minutes, and in fact, worsens if looked at too closely. Nevertheless, at its heart is one of the same teen movies that it claims to be mocking, but I'm willing to forgive its flaws.

It tells the story of a group of girlfriends who accidentally kill one of the members of their clique. The group splits after the incident with earnest Julie, who wants to tell the truth and ruthless Courtney and Foxy embracing the hand that fate has dealt them. Rebecca Gayheart plays Julie, the innocent girl in the group. Gayheart seems to phone it in, but as with most teen movies, there's little depth to her role, so its' somewhat understandable. Instead, this movie takes more delight in being wicked. Rose Mcgowan is delightfully devilish in the role of pack leader, Courtney Shane. While Rose Mcgowan tends to lack a little in the acting department, think about it, how much talent is really required to play a one-dimensional bitch? The answer is, it doesn't require a whole lot, but Mcgowan makes it enjoyable nonetheless. It almost seems unfair, because the audience is clearly supposed to side with the morally upstanding Julie than the queen bee Courtney, but when she's given the best lines and clearly holds all the power in the group, it seems an unfair fight. However, as with just about every other teen movie, this film relies on the conventions of the genre. Courtney is punished for her wrongdoing. Granted, the punishment seems a little tame for her crimes, but that's of no consequence. After all, this movie isn't striving for reality.

Its playful in its demeanor. At its heart, it's an attempt at the revival of the "politically conscious" teen movie. Just as Heathers dealt with feelings of alienation and isolation and Mean Girls dealt with similar fare, Jawbreaker attempts to dissect the cruel politics of high school popularity. It leaves something to be desired, by sticking to the archetypal types, but it has fun with it. For instance, there is no doubt in the viewer's mind that these actors and actresses are far past high school age, the director did this intentionally as a throwback to teen movies which regularly feature 20-somethings playing angst-ridden high schoolers. Although, there are several nods to generations of teen movies past, it's clearly all in good fun. However, when watching the movie, you can't help but view it as little more than that. While it had the potential and the ability to be something that criticized the way that things were in high school, instead it panders to them. At least, it attempts to. When Jawbreaker was released, to very little fanfare, it seemed that it failed in just about all its sensibilities. Nevertheless, it remains an enjoyable pop culture artifact that wallows in its trashiness and its camp.

Animated Archer Brings the Funny

Few shows demonstrate real promise with their pilots. Pilots are usually just enough to string their audience along, pique their interest to get folks tuned in for whatever they've got coming next. So when a pilot has actual and fully realized potential, it's certainly something to write home about. Archer may be that show for the 2010 season. FX has already shown its talent for comedy with It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but it's breaking new ground with Archer. Archer is an animated sitcom about an international spy agency and its star pupil, Sterling Archer.

Its hard to do the show justice with a synopsis. The humor lies in the situation of the show itself. After all, sitcom is short for situational comedy so that should come as no surprise. However, there's something unique about Archer that's indescribable. The concept of mocking the spy genre is nothing new but Archer finds a way to bring something else into the mix. I believe this is where the cast comes into play. H. Jon Benjamin, who some may recognize from his work on Adult Swim's Home Movies leads the cast as Archer, the bumbling, womanizing spy. However, and this may be my bias as an Arrested Development fan, Jessica Walter's role as Malory, Archer's mother and head of the agency, is the most enjoyable. She brings the same hard-ass sensibility and comic timing to this role as she did to Lucille. However, it's not all the same. The material is entirely different than some of the earlier work that most viewers have seen Jessica Walters in or even H. Jon Benjamin. The two are already fairly established in their own cult followings, but when combined, the two are unstoppable. They play off each other in their scenes with a beautifully planned sense of comic timing, not frequently seen in animated shows. Although Archer and Malory are some of the most recognizable talent, other comedy favorites such as Judy Greer and Chris Parnell round out the cast. All in all, it's clear that everyone is able to pull their own weight in this animated sitcom.

Finally, and perhaps unimportant to some readers, the animation itself is perfect for the material. As an animation fan, I've seen animation that doesn't do justice to the writing. Sometimes the animation is too heavy while the material is lighter or vice versa, either way it's a problem that plagues many animated shows. The animation is heavy, with the lines and angles very pronounced, in a sort of pop art Lichtenstein sort of way. Most importantly though is that it doesn't pull focus from the jokes. With all of the advancements in animated films these days, it's difficult to watch these things for what they are, a method of visual storytelling. Regardless, Archer has some very big shoes to fill going off of its pilot. With top notch voice acting and enjoyable animation, Archer is setting up to be FX's next breakaway cult comedy hit.

Picks of the Decade

I know it's been 2010 for awhile, but I've been going over and over in my mind again which films from this past decade stand on their own. While there are some fantastic ones out there and I struggled, I decided to stick with a formula. Each year only gets one film, representing the range of the aughts. In my mind, these are some of the most enjoyable films of the decade, they are also some of the more overlooked. The list is as follows;

2000- Wonder Boys
This coming-of-age tale showcases excellent performances from Michael Douglas and a still newcomer Tobey Maguire. The film feels like a good book; totally satisfying and yet you’re sad to see the characters go when it’s over.
2001- Sexy Beast
This heist film is more of a character piece on a retired criminal who’s dragged back into the game. Sir Ben Kingsley performance alone makes this film worth watching, but all performers in this film are phenomenal.
2002- Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
George Clooney’s directorial debut didn’t receive much fanfare at the time, but this darkly comedic “biopic” of game show host Chuck Barris hosts a star-studded cast and plenty of laughs and intrigue along the way.
2003- Love Me if You Dare
This French film, starring Oscar winner Marion Cotillard, tells the story of a boy and a girl and the games they play with each other’s hearts. This film may sound like a cliché but the surreal style bats it out of the park.
2004- House of Flying Daggers
This martial arts epic boasts exceptional visual style. The color and the camera work make it an unforgettable experience. Problem is, most people thought they’d seen it all after seeing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
2005- Brick
The 2000s were kind to the neo-noir. Brick is one of the more “art-house” examples of this, following the classic noir story arc of good cop discovering the seedy underbelly of his existence. Joseph Gordon-Levitt carries this movie with ease and with class.
2006- Lucky Number Slevin
Josh Hartnett headed the star-studded cast of yet another neo-noir revival of an average Joe being pulled in to a plot way over his head. This film’s twist and turns make it engrossing, but the quirky and charismatic Lucy Liu brings the charisma.
2007- The Orphanage
This Spanish psychological thriller is an impressive addition to the horror genre. Sure it has your run-of-the-mill ghost story, but more importantly, it’s got heart. It somehow manages to be terrifying and tear-jerking until the very end.
2008- Rachel Getting Married
While this film got attention for Anne Hathaway’s performance, the buzz almost deafened the rest of the cast. The entire cast shines but Oscar buzz got the best of this movie and most people seemed to write it off.
2009- Away We Go
Sam Mendes broke out of his Oscar-winning “dark side of suburbia” formula with this film on a 30-something couple expecting a child and looking for a home. While this film easily could’ve been schmaltzy or melodramatic, it infuses humor and drama beautifully. John Krasinski and Maya Rudoulph show they can bring a whole lot more to the screen than just the funny.

Although it seems hard to believe that the first 10 years of the 2000s have already come and gone, I believe that these are the cream of the crop. For one reason or another, these films may have been overlooked, but definitely worth a second glance or something more than a cursory glance.

The Real World Ain't What She Used To Be

As I sit here on my futon in my studio apartment, disenchanted with life and pounding on the keys, I wonder just what in the hell did I do to deserve this? I mean, I know the decisions I made along the way that led me to this point, but did I piss someone off along the way? There's gotta be something more than that. See, I ended up taking this road because we're all promised the same final destination; the real world. So I couldn't help but figure "eh, sure, why the hell not?" when I decided to apply to art school. Mind you, the scribblings of pre-schoolers are more artistic than anything my hand could produce, so I use the term "art school" very loosely. I'm a writer, and as a writer, I can't help but feel that I have no place at an art school, but hell, I ended up here anyway. I suffered my 4 years (technically 3 1/2, but who's counting?) and I came out on the other end unscathed.
The problem is this... where the hell is this "real world"? It's got to be something tangible, right? I mean, we spend all our lives working towards this one common goal, but who actually gets it? I kinda feel like I drew the short straw in all this (not in a self-pitying kinda way) because as I sit here, typing away and hoping that someone is actually reading, I can't help but ask myself the question that nobody seems to want us to ask. "When's the real world gonna kick in?" Hell, it's the only thing I can think.
The way I see it, the joke's on us. There's this whole thing teachers and parents never seem to like to tell us about and that's a little somethin' called natural talent. Sure, school benefits you in honing your craft, but what are you going to improve if you don't have it in the first place? I don't want this to be taken as an endorsement of not going to school or anything. I gained a helluva lot from the experience and I'd like to think that I'm a better person for it. I'm just saying to do it for the promise of the "real world" and a "real life" and a "real job" is pointless. Worst of all, it's a straight up lie that somebody told us to make us feel better. The only problem is when the truth comes out, you don't feel better. You feel like shit. Most folks my age have been working at least 16 years towards the promise of something real at the end of it all only to be told that an undergraduate degree just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.
I know I seem awfully jaded for having only been out of school for about 5 weeks, but I guess I just felt like something would be different after all of it. I mean, finally reaching the goal that I've been working towards for so long and finding nothing at the end is rough for anyone. People say that I need to give it time and that it's a work in progress. Others say I need to get my head in the game and actively pursue more writing jobs. I don't know who's right. All I know is when you're not getting a call back about a job at Gap with a college degree, I think I'm allowed a little disappointment.

The "Other" in American Film

Villains are nothing new to the world of cinema. We've all seen them growing up ranging from Disney movies to action epics. However, one troubling thing has remained over the years and that is the villains themselves. It's true that they're a necessary evil (no pun intended) of any storytelling, movies have the burden of being the most explicitly visual medium. As such, filmmakers are required to address the "looks" of villains. The only issue is that, even after all these years, the villains are beginning to look the same. True, they don't possess all of the same characteristics, but unfortunately they share enough to make the villain notably different than the hero or heroine of the piece. This difference can take many different forms, but all of these forms can be boiled down to one term; "other".

The "other" is an important idea because it allows us, whether consciously or subconsciously, to identify the threat to American film audiences. The people that we are supposed to react to are rarely the heroes. In fact, the idea of the "hero" is something that most Americans accept without questioning. Mainly because most of us are able to tell who the hero will be early on in the film. This is primarily because most American films tend to focus on the hero's journey and the hero him or herself. However, even more recognizable than the hero is typically the villain. Heroes can come in all shapes and sizes. There are even movies with themes that say exactly this. However, the villain is not afforded the same privilege. The villain seems to be a direct reaction to the hero. This is achieved through their words, but their is also a reliance on the notion of the "other" to establish the villain physically. Although this can be achieved in a variety of ways, there are typically 2 categories that the villain falls into.

The first category is probably the more physical of the two, and that is physical deformity itself. This category is more typical of horror movies than any other genre. One example is Jason Voorhees from the Friday the 13th films. It's true that most of the films he hides behind his hockey mask, but he does show his face. When he does, he is clearly deformed. For most American audiences, this simply adds to the horror. However, the category of physical deformity isn't exclusively reserved for horror films. It has also been used in children's movies, such as The Lion King. The villain of the film, Scar, is physically identifiable based on his scar. Even more adult, such as 2006's Casino Royale, rely on this technique to physically identify the villain. Le Chiffre's eye is the most recognizable part of the character, even though it clearly does not make up all of who he is. Evil isn't something that's always physically noticeable, but most film-going audiences rely on these physical cues to know who to hate and who to fear. Of course, utilizing physical deformity also allows the audience to disassociate with these characters and to either be afraid or disgusted by them. This idea of disassociation is crucial to the audience, but also the establishment of the villain, which leads me to my next category.

Although some people may view this term as too abstract, the second category is the idea of "otherness" as a whole. It's simple differentiation and allows the audience to associate one side with the good and the opposite side as evil. This is achieved through the physical relationship between the hero and the villain, leaving the audience entirely out of the picture. Since this is such a rudimentary idea, it is normally most noticeable in children's movies. One of the most prominent examples is Disney's Aladdin. Although the title character is supposed to be Middle Eastern and the good guy, he is more white than anything else. of course, this is necessary so that children can associate the evil Jafaar with "otherness" with his darker skin. However, this method of associating the hero with predominantly white characteristics and having the villain with darker skin or darker hair color, or even (as ridiculous as it may sound) facial hair while the hero is clean shaven, is old news. It allows audiences to project their fears onto others. What is perhaps most shocking though is its prominence today. Some of the memorable villains on the show 24 where most recognizably evil based on their physicality just as much as their plans.

While there is much complexity that should be afforded the villains of many modern movies and TV shows, the fact remains that more villains than not can be physically identified. This can be achieved through making them physically as well as morally repugnant as in the case of the first category. However, there are many other ways to define a villain through his or her physicality that I did not discuss. Finally, in the more abstract category, is the notion of "otherness" which is crucial to all of our understandings of what villains are.

The Invention of Lying Tells the Painful Truth

In the realm of forgotten movies of 2009, The Invention of Lying reigns supreme. While this sounds like a callous thing, I mean it the best kind of way. It has this surprisingly amusing quality about it, but I'm not sure if that's because of the movie itself or the fact that it was rendered completely forgettable after the few weeks it spent in the theaters. However, what was surprising was that it had more to offer than simply laughs. Maybe this was because this whole concept of "religious satire" isn't exactly a selling point and most people seem to get crazy up in arms about their religious beliefs, but leave it to Ricky to go where no Hollywood executives feel entirely comfortable going.

At the surface of the film, is the story of a man, Mark, who's down on his luck in a world where everyone tells the truth. However, everything starts to go his way when he realizes that he has the ability to lie. It's not entirely clear how he got this ability or if he was born with this ability, but this of little concern. While the film definitely benefits from its all-star cast and a plethora of cameos, it suffers from its inability to recognize the weight of its own message. This isn't a true deficiency in the movie itself, but rather in its presentation, specifically the way the movie was marketed, and I'm almost sure that directly affected its reception. They tried to make it into something they could package to teens, but it's difficult to think of many teens who would enjoy actually having to think about some of the heavier themes of the film. Actually, not even specifically teens but most mainstream audiences don't want to be burdened with moral and ethic quandaries in their comedic fare.

Although the movie is light hearted and enjoyable for the first half, it takes on a certain weight towards the end of the film when Mark, the only man with the ability to lie, inadvertently invents religion. While I personally found it funny, and an admitted opponent of most organized religions, Mark's specific creation is the idea of heaven because of his inability to cope with the idea of "infinite nothingness". It straight up mocks people's reliance on the notions of good and evil as a way to give meaning to their life. I mean, it's a pretty heavy concept. However, taking that on and making jokes at its expense is something few people have been able to do effectively. Ricky Gervais needs to commit to it more wholeheartedly in order to make it truly effective.

Regardless, the film itself is fun. Its transition from lighthearted and carefree to a heavier and more ethical piece is somewhat jarring, but I personally found it enjoyable. Then again, when approaching the topic of lying, it's almost impossible to discuss it without figuring ethics into it. Nevertheless, it was an unexpected surprise and a delight to see that Ricky Gervais was taking jabs at the institution of religion, transforming The Invention of Lying from a somewhat frivolous movie into a surprisingly thought-provoking religious satire.

Picks of 2009

Last night was one of those nights of the year that, as a film student, is supposed to mean so much to me. However, what happened last night was proof of how little awards season means to me. I understand that some people may have been fans of the ceremony last night. I was for most of the television awards, but when it came to the movie awards, I honestly found myself a little shocked. To be fair, when the nominations came out in the first place I was pretty disappointed that most of these films had been nominated, so I was already setting myself up to lose, which might have a lot to do with it. However, as I looked back on the year in film in 2009, I began to consider my own options. What would I have picked? Well, I can certainly tell you what I wouldn't have picked, but I think that list might actually be longer. Others may find this to be a bit of a dramatic statement, but I honestly feel safe in saying that 2009 was the worst year for movies in a long time, possibly even my lifetime.
This isn't to say that there were no good movies, but let's be real, they were in rather limited supply. Even as I watch folks on facebook putting up their top 10 of 2009, I can't even think of 10 movies that I liked this past year, but to be fair I haven't seen all of them. In fact, these movies are disqualified on the basis of my not having seen them; The Hurt Locker, Up, and Inglorious Basterds. While I'm sure these are crucial films to see in order to evaluate the best of the best of 2009, I'll get around to the first 2 movies. Don't even bother asking about Inglorious Basterds. Regardless, in an attempt to follow suit, what follows is my list of my 10 favorite films of the year. Mind you, I'm going with favorite because I know some of these are imperfect movies, but they still remain the memorable ones, or at least sentimental favorites, in a largely forgettable year. Also, the list is in alphabetical order and no indication of their rank.

1. (500) days of Summer- While it might be a stretch to call this atypical romantic "comedy" award worthy, it's an interesting approach to "boy meets girl", turning at least some conventions on their heads.
2. All the Boys Love Mandy Lane- While the movie was actually made years ago, this horror gem only recently found minor distribution. It confronts the gender roles and sexual attitudes that are characteristic of horror films in a profoundly disturbing way.
3. Away We Go- One of those bittersweet films that knows just what to say and when to say it and even more beautifully, when to say nothing at all. Excellent dramatic performances from an otherwise comedic cast. Alexi Murdoch's soundtrack alone makes the film worth watching.
4. The Brothers Bloom- Rian Johnson's sophomore film effort is a playful con film with an amazing cast. Although it fluctuates in tone, I couldn't help but be enthralled throughout it all.
5. Coraline- Beautiful animation combined with appropriately dark storytelling make this film enjoyable on both levels. Also, the voice acting from an all-star cast sets just the right tone for the film.
6. Drag Me to Hell- Even if it wasn't a great year for movies, it was a good year for horror. Raimi returns to his campy origins, this time with a feisty female protagonist. Although Lohman is no Bruce Campbell, she's fun and strangely endearing in the role.
7. Sin Nombre- My first and only foreign language film on the list, this subtle film about border-crossing is breathtaking in its gritty visuals, but also in its simplicity. One of the most beautiful things about it is its relevance, a trait that few films have these days.
8. A Single Man- A devastatingly beautiful story of loss and coming to terms with it, Tom Ford's directorial debut is an utter triumph. Colin Firth's performance is easily Oscar-worthy and the supporting cast is phenomenal.
9. Sunshine Cleaning- A sentimental favorite, Sunshine Cleaning finds a way to be simultaneously tragic and hopeful. Amy Adams and Emily Blunt have a wonderful established rapport as two sisters, both of whose lives have not turned out how they thought they would.
10. Zombieland- Like I said, it was a good year for the horror crossover. Zombieland provides ample laughs and gore for just about any zombie fan. While it may not be award-worthy, it certainly was memorable.

Although it may seem like a somewhat disoriented list, it's a combination of movies that stood out in an otherwise bleak year. Sure, some of these movies don't even deserve awards, and the ones that do, still probably won't get them. Then again, that's the politics of Hollywood. That's why I feel a little more comfortable sticking with words like "favorite" as opposed to "best" because after all, who am I to say what's best?

Wonder Boys' Journey Into Manhood

Wonder Boys is one of those films that all the critics talked about, but nobody seemed to see. Well, not nobody, but very few unless forced to watch this for a film class. Based off of Michael Chabon's novel of the same name, director Curtis Hanson had a lot to work with in this movie. Thankfully, although much of the story line from the novel is dropped, the integrity is completely intact. Wonder Boys is a movie about writers, or specifically one writer, as he deals with writer's block and his own midlife crisis. It's true, a novel about writers makes a little more sense, but one of the most powerful aspects of the novel is the authoritative voice of its protagonist, Professor Grady Tripp.
I will admit to not normally being a Michael Douglas fan, but he is able to channel something in this character. While that's normally praise deserved of the author, and Chabon does deserve his credit, Douglas does deserve some of the praise. Much of the comedy in the film is dry and Douglas's delivery is what seals the deal for me. His disinterest in the affairs of even his own life, no matter how wild the get, is simultaneously endearing and distressing. As Tripp tries to figure out his own life, and brings the audience along for the ride, he exudes an unquestionable calm and maintains his sense of humor throughout. However, while the very fact that Michael Douglas is in a movie that I enjoyed is praise worthy alone, the supporting cast does deserve its credit as well.
Wonder Boys features an outstanding supporting cast, namely Frances McDormand as Grady's pregnant, middle-aged mistress, Sara, while his editor, who goes by Crabtree for most of the film, is played by Robert Downey Jr. and Grady's wayward and sexually ambiguous student James Leer is played by a pre-Spiderman Tobey Maguire. Frances McDormand is charming and restrained in the role of Sara. She brings that quiet desperation of her marriage to the character to create a fully-dimensional character that is endearing to both Grady and the audience. Crabtree is a much more complicated matter. Although it seems that as Grady's editor he is there in a professional capacity, as the film progresses we are shown a much more personal dynamic between the two. Crabtree transforms from the life of the party to a man, who is just as lost and confused as everyone else. By the end of the film, none of these characters are who they were at the beginning, but that's particularly true of the relationship between Grady and Crabtree, but also Crabtree and James. Maguire plays the role of the tortured artist to a tee. There are times when he makes you laugh and other times when your heart is breaking for him.
Although Michael Douglas is the protagonist and performs as I personally have never seen him before, he's obviously not the only one of note. The supporting cast of the film is crucial in the relationships that they establish with Grady. Although none of the relationships in the film are perfect, they're human. As such, the characters of Wonder Boys showcase life in all its complexities and the laughter and the fear that come along with it.

Response to an Anonymous Comment

Thank God for the anonymity of the internet. I mean, really, it's a life saver for some of us out there. Well, not me at least, but I'm sure there are others. Me? I personally was never big on anonymity. For instance, my name is John Calhoun Kersten. I was born and raised in Wyoming, Ohio (a suburb of Cincinnati for those of you who don't know it), but now I live in Chicago. For those of you who are interested in sending anonymous diatribes via snail mail, just let me know and I'll give you the address if you want to send the hate mail there.
Anyway, I'm not sure if any of my 5 readers/viewers (to be clear, I only have 3 followers but thanks for the plus 2) read enough of my post on Serious Moonlight to get to the comments section. In it, someone anonymously posted some rather strong feelings about my approach to the movie. Mind you, strongly enough to post something, but not strongly enough to sign their name. Regardless, I respect their right to feel as they do about me (after all, they say when you receive your first piece of hate "mail" you've truly arrived as a writer) but the cowardice of the internet is another issue entirely. While it's true that the internet is useful for a variety of things, and I admit my own hypocrisy in using it to write and self-promote, I at least have the decency to sign my name to it. I stand by my opinion and sign my name to it, which is certainly more than I can say of some people. Then again, the internet makes cowards of us all.
However, I'd also like to take the time to directly respond to some of the claims made in this poster's comment. The comment is as follows...
"you wouldn't know a good film if it smacked ya in the head. Give us a shout when you're reviewing for a legit publication or outlet that has more than 5 readers/viewers. Then we might take you seriously. And by the way. Youve already been put out of your misery, or at least ours, by being limited to writing in the journalism equivalent of Siberia."
First and foremost, the term "good" is what us writers like to call an opinion. You can HAVE an opinion, but to be fair, you can't ever really KNOW an opinion. I guess that's just semantics, but worth addressing. Also, you might want to stick to a clear voice in your writing. For instance, it's typically frowned upon to go from slang, such as "ya" to proper grammar, such as "you're". While on the topic of grammar, this legit publication you speak of, would it happen to be an institution that can properly spell "You've"? I mean, I only ask because I'm curious. You certainly can't spell it, (there's that whole tricky apostrophe thing that you forgot) but don't worry, I'm sure no one noticed. Furthermore, as previously stated, I only have 3 followers, but I appreciate the gesture of good faith. I like to think I'm ambitious, maybe I'll shoot for 5 readers/viewers one of these days. One of my last points, while "And by the way." may be a strong jumping off point for you, it's not what most of us call a complete sentence. Last, and perhaps most importantly, when you say being put of my misery by being limited to writing in the journalism equivalent of Siberia (definitely appreciate the capitalization there) I guess I'm just a little confused. You obviously felt strongly enough to post a response, so your last point seems a little counteractive. I'm obviously effective at something considering I got you that riled up. Maybe you could get back to me on these points and more in another anonymous post? Until then, have a good one.

Serious Moonlight Suffers Some Serious Problems

Serious Moonlight is the film directorial debut of veteran comedienne Cheryl Hines. At the center of this dark comedy is Louise, played by Meg Ryan, who upon discovering her husband Ian's, a role commanded by Timothy Hutton, infidelity with a younger woman, Sara played by Kristen Bell, duct tapes him to the toilet in an effort to prevent him from leaving her. To make matters worse, Louise's plan is further complicated when a burglar, played by Justin Long, breaks into their home. For all intents and purposes, it seems like the premise would be the stuff that black comedy is made of. However, in the process, something goes horribly awry.
It's impossible to tell what really went wrong in this film's transformation from script to screen, but something certainly did. One of the most trying parts of the film is the story itself. It seems that the idea would work better as a short rather than a feature. The comedic aspects of the film drag on too long in scenes that frequently feature little action. At times, it begins to feel as if one is watching a play. Truth be told, this film as a play would probably function a lot better. Instead, the "comedy" gets wrapped up in the filmic aspects, for example the use of close ups to help the audience identify with rather flat characters. A lot of the movie could benefit from the use of spacial relationships to flesh out the characters and their relationships to one another, but this is a possibility that is largely unexplored. Furthermore, in an act that is frequently used in plays, the movie seems to bounce along from one monologue to another. It puts too much strain on the actors, when a lot of the comedy feels as if it should come from the actor and actresses playing off one another.
Perhaps one of my biggest problems with the movie was the casting of Meg Ryan. So much of comedy is based in intonation and inflection and it seems that the only skill set she possesses in this movie is whining. By the end of the first act, I was begging for someone to put me out of my misery. I understand Meg Ryan's attempt to shed her "America's Sweetheart" rom-com image, but honestly, that's what she's best at. I'm not even a fan of those films, but I can at least tell that's where she excels. In the role of jilted lover, meg Ryan appears unsympathetic and obnoxious. Part of her role is her workaholic persona, but it doesn't seem that there's much else to her. When she is rendered unconscious, I honestly found myself thanking whatever higher power there is up there. Generally, that's a bad sign in a female lead. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not a good sign for the audience to feel that way about any of the leads. Regardless, perhaps Meg Ryan isn't entirely to blame, but she is at least part of the problem.
In the end, Serious Moonlight suffers from some serious troubles. The premise itself is promising, if not a little strained when clocking in at only 84 minutes. The matter is not helped by the unexplored potential of the film. In some key scenes, Louise, Ian, and Sara play off of each other in an enjoyable way. However, there's not nearly near enough of this to sustain the whole film. The highlights of the film are few and far between, but enough to make it worth your while. While it certainly won't be winning any awards this season, Cheryl Hines' film debut shows promise, but still left me wanting more. Well, maybe not more Meg Ryan... in fact, I could do with a little less of her, but you catch my drift.

An Education? Feels More Like a Learning Process

An Education tells the story of a bright young woman, Jenny played by Carey Mulligan, who is led astray by an older gentleman in 1960s London. The film focuses on Jenny as she goes from a young hopeful as she strives for Oxford to a distraught young woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The events in the film as they unfold onscreen are mesmerizing. Everything is filmed so tastefully and with a touch of elegance that is difficult to find in movie making anymore. Perhaps it's the setting of the movie that lends itself to this style of film making. Regardless, the camera seems so in tune with the script that it communicates with a clearly defined voice, in a way that many cinematographers are struggling to do. However, what the camera captures is just as engaging. While I had difficulty with some of the characters, more on that later, the acting in this film is absolutely phenomenal. Carey Mulligan captures Jenny's fall from innocence with heartbreaking honesty and confusion, as I imagine any girl in her situation would feel. Her transformation from the naive schoolgirl to the talented young woman she becomes is an incredible story, largely due to what she brings to the role. There's a reason she's favored in so many Golden Globes pools for her performance. A surprising performance from Rosamund Pike in a supporting role was also amazing, particularly the dynamic between Rosamund Pike's Helen and the character of Jenny. The two women are completely different in their approaches to life, but their ability to play off one another serves to create another interesting relationship in the film.
However, An Education is not without its faults. The acting is spectacular, but in some cases, acting just isn't enough. There wasn't enough of a believable character in Alfred Molina's overprotective father role, Jack. In his defense, Molina does what he can with the character but the character is so unpredictably written. When the film starts we see Jack as a man obsessed with providing the best for his daughter, ensuring that he does whatever he can and whatever it takes to get his daughter into Oxford. Along the course of the film, he falls by the wayside. He's just easily beguiled by David's antics, Peter Saarsgard in the slimy role of his lifetime, as his 16 year old daughter is. It completely flips the overprotective father role into a man who is more than willing to give his daughter away to a middle-aged man. Perhaps it's the times that we live in and all of the "To Catch a Predator" I've been watching, but as I watched the movie, I found myself asking "Okay, this guy is middle-aged, single, and hitting on a teenager. What the hell is wrong with him?" Jack, who is immediately suspicious of the age-appropriate suitor that Jenny first brings him, does not seem to be troubled by David. This kind of drastic character change could be talked about or at least something, but instead just comes off as bad storytelling. Sadly, Jack is not the only extremist male character. My main concern with most of the male characters was that the women were written beautifully and complex, but the men, even though Nick Hornby who penned the screenplay is male himself, were not afforded the same dignity. Although this is disappointing as a whole, it is refreshing to see women in film afforded a little more complexity.
At the heart of An Education, the intentions are good. Even the presentation of the film is worth applauding. The cinematography is tasteful and breathtaking at the same time, so completely heartfelt and in tune with the feelings of the characters. Also, Carey Mulligan's performance is praise-worthy indeed and Rosamund Pike shines as I've never seen her before. The only downfall of the film is, surprisingly enough, the men in the film. They play as such extreme caricatures in an otherwise serious movie that it is sometimes distracting. Still, every movie has its faults and to criticize An Education for that would be unfair and a discredit to Carey Mulligan's beautiful performance. Overall, An Education feels a little bit like a learning process.

Saved

Nostalgia can either help or harm a film. It tends to be one or the other. Most of us have those kinds of movies that we saw when we were little and hold a special place in our heart and those tend to fall in to one of two categories. Category A is the type of movie that has that nostalgia, but you don't usually watch again for fear of shattering the allusion. I group movies like Far Away Home and Air Bud into this category. They had their time in the sun, but in order to remember them fondly, I spare myself re-watching. The second category is the movie that relies on nostalgia to carry it. I reserve this category for movies such as Harriet the Spy, which I saw with friends for my 10th birthday party (yes, I was that cool and yes, it was that long ago). The point being that most films that have a special place in our hearts are a hindrance. We can't see them for what they are, but rather, we see them for what they mean to us.
That being said, Saved is one of those movies, I've never been able to figure out which category it fell into. It definitely had a special place in my heart when the film first came out. It was relatable. I mean, not in the most common sense of the word (seeing as I have little to no experience being a knocked-up teenage girl) but through the array of characters I was able to see myself. Not a fully formed self, but a sense of identity that as a young boy in suburban Ohio I couldn't find in my surroundings. As I write this, I feel that I can't properly communicate this as it just sounds like "poor, rich white boy syndrome". I didn't have it bad, but I didn't have it all. I was stifled. Anyway, this isn't a matter of self-pity, it's a matter of the power of film.
However, when re-watching the movie the other day with some buddies, I realized something more about this movie, something that had changed since the last time I saw it way back in Ohio. This was the movie that I had wanted Juno to be. Saved definitely has its funny parts, but it also has its heartfelt parts. Most importantly, Saved has consequences. Things don't just happen randomly in the universe all for the purpose of giving the main character an easy out. Saved tackled some heavy issues and dealt with the whole issue of teen pregnancy with an actual sense of purpose. Juno got too lost in being "quirky" and "indie" for me to actually take anything from it. By the time of that film's end, I just found myself exhausted. By the end of Saved, I felt a better understanding of the characters and more importantly, the experience of the protagonist. True, she didn't face "unbearable hardships" but the events that take place in the movie were obviously profound enough to have changed the character in a noticeable way.
This isn't to say that Saved is a perfect movie, because it certainly has its faults. For instance, her mother coming around to the idea of her pregnancy is a little quick for my taste, but it's understandable. Regardless, my nostalgia for the film definitely colors my attitudes towards it and I'll be the first to admit it. However, Saved is one of those rare examples of a movie that I admittedly have a personal relationship with, but doesn't truly suffer for it. I may enjoy it more than some, but I'm also able to see that it's not the perfect movie. It's enjoyable for what it is and what it means to me and I'm fine with that.

Veronika Decides to Die

Every so often, a movie will be described as having a "career making performance" from its star. Unfortunately for Sarah Michelle Gellar, of Buffy fame, it's just been reported that her career making performance will be making its debut in a straight-to-DVD release of the movie Veronika Decides to Die. The movie, which is based on a Paulo Coelho novel of the same, will be released April 27. AT the core of this movie, the story focuses on a beautiful young woman who tries to kill herself, but is unsuccessful. When she awakens, she is in a mental hospital being told that she only has days to live. It is there that she finds the will to live. While it may sound melodramatic, and I'm admittedly not doing the story justice, the thing that I think it has going for it is that it refuses to be a passive film. So much movie watching has been reduced to a spectator sport, but this movies questions and engages its audience on matters of life and death or of sanity and insanity.
The director, Emily Young, does a beautiful job of bringing the novel to life. While there is more introspection in the novel, Young handles the matter delicately. She uses the camera to do her dirty work for her, not relying on relentless voiceover, but instead using the camera as a character itself. The camerawork does an excellent job of evoking emotion and giving the viewer insight into the emotional state of the characters.
However, the success of the movie is owed just as much to its star, Sarah Michelle Gellar. While this may be mainly due to what I've seen her in before, although I enjoyed Buffy and The Grudge, it's refreshing to see her break away from the PG-13 horror crowd. Don't get me wrong, she's good at it and it's a steady paycheck, but when you get a chance to see so much more to her acting, it's incredibly gratifying. This role was a definite risk for her, sadly one which doesn't seem to have paid off, but although the film may not get a theatrical run in the US this role should not be ignored. At the heart of Veronika, is a young girl scared to be alone and even more afraid of honestly connecting with someone. Few actors and actresses could convincingly portray that, but Sarah Michelle Gellar does so effectively. Throughout the movie we watch her act with a mix of fear and empowerment. We watch the fear of loneliness and disconnect as it overwhelms her and we see her derive strength as she finds the will to live. Although the two emotions don't seemingly go together, the relationship between the two feels so natural and the character, the actress, and the film itself make me believe her struggle.
Veronika Decides to Die may be making its US debut on DVD, but that should not deter people. Most movies that are straight to DVD releases are thought of as junkers, and realistically a good deal of them are, but Veronika Decides to Die is one of the more daring DVD releases I expect you'll find. It may not have enough commercial appeal to guarantee it a nationwide theatrical release, but it's got one thing most movies don't these days, and that's a soul. Unapologetic and unafraid, Veronika decides to Die showcases an unforgettable performance from Sarah Michelle Gellar.

Politics of the Academy Awards

As Oscar season approaches, I thought I'd give my readers a little insight into the politics of the Academy. It should come as no surprise that the award season has always been political, but never fear struggling actors, I have three simple ideas that tend to at least guarantee a nod if not the award itself. Now we all know the Academy shells out for Holocaust flicks, thank you very much Mr. Ricky Gervais, so I'm gonna skip the movie categories and dive right into the acting accolades. First and foremost...
1) Play ugly. It sounds simple enough, but in a world of superficiality and a world where Jessica Alba is still getting work, we all know that looks matter. That's why when people use advanced make-up crews and prosthetics to look like the rest of us average folks or, dare I say even ugly, the Academy pays attention. Prime examples; Nicole Kidman in The Hours and Charlize Theron in Monster. These performances both had merits of their own, but let's be real, to see Charlize Theron anything less than hot was pretty much mind-blowing. Sure, there was character development but there was also about an extra 30 pounds there we'd never seen before.
2) Play mentally retarded. The Academy goes nuts for that kinda stuff. Ben Stiller joked about the topic in his film Tropic Thunder which sent some overly-PC groups, that hadn't even seen the movie, into a frenzy. This is one of those things that people don't really like to admit to themselves, but still holds true. When watching a movie about the trials and hardships of being mentally handicapped, and let's face it, they rarely end well, don't most of us feel a little better that we don't face those challenges? Prime examples; Leonardo DiCaprio in What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. DiCaprio received his first nomination, while Hoffman was in it to win it. What's ironic is that Rain Man scolds Charlie for taking advantage of his brother's disability, but at heart, this film essentially does the same thing.
3) Play gay. This is one of the more recent trends in Oscar history that homosexuality has fallen into favor and that's primarily due to the visibility of issues of gay rights in the media and politics. For a long time it would have been considered career suicide to accept the role, but over the years, attitudes have softened. There still remains an element of stigma to these roles though. Homosexuality is popular with the Academy when it is a recognizable character trait, but essentially reduces them to a caricature. When complexity is introduced, such as issues of gender identity, you can almost be sure that it'll go to someone else. Prime examples; Felicity Huffman in Transamerica and Sean Penn in Milk. Say what you will about the movie itself, Felicity Huffman's performance in Transamerica was powerful and complex, but evidently the whole prosthetic penis thing spooked the Academy into handing the Oscar over to Reese Witherspoon that year. Sean Penn's Harvey Milk was impressive acting, but it felt more like watching hero worship than a fully formed character. Color me biased, but I'd rather hear about the man with all his successes and all his failures.
These are some of the tried and true methods of winning an Oscar or at least receiving a nomination. Doesn't make it right and nobody said it was fair, but that's the way it is. Stick to at least one of these three rules and you should be golden. After all, Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron stuck to rules 1 and 3 and they're both Oscar winners. Coincidence? I think not. Just remember to thank me in your acceptance speech.

Jennifer's Body's Got the Look... But Little Else

It's a rare thing in Hollywood that the screenwriter receives more attention than the director, but such is the case with runaway hit screenwriter Diablo Cody. Though not exactly the same fare as her 2007 hit Juno, Jennifer's Body features the same obnoxiously indie quips that made Juno so popular. The main thing to note here is that the character of Juno was written as such. She is a bit of an outsider, but when Jennifer, one of the most popular girls at school, starts spouting lines like "You're lime green jello", the audience (or at least this audience member) won't fall for it. Of course Juno had similar lines (after all they were written in the same year) it was more characteristic of the people that inhabited that specific universe. Furthermore, Juno has an advantage that Jennifer's Body does not and that is the level of acting. Don't get me wrong, Megan Fox is phenomenal in this role, arguably her best role to date. Then again, there are few other contenders unless someone really wants to try and make a case for Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, but even then. However, the real problem with Jennifer's Body is there's little that can be done with this script.
More importantly, although the Christian Right will have you believe that America has too much sex and violence, horror movies suffer when there isn't enough. Well, not all horror movies, but for campy fare like Jennifer's Body it certainly helps. It's a very specific type of horror movie that needs the sex and the blood to move it forth, but for a movie so suggestively titled Jennifer's Body, there's little to write home about. I mean, we're supposed to believe that this girl is using her body to seduce guys and kill them, but very little of either of these activities is seen. There's always that strategic cut right before you get to the good stuff, but even with these cuts, Jennifer's victim count is surprisingly low.
All in all, Jennifer's Body mainly suffers from the script. The actors try to do all that they can with it, and I have to give credit for that. The movie is fun to watch, but ultimately a letdown. There's either not enough laughs or not enough guts for my personal taste.

Facebook Ads Keep Taunting Me!

Dear Facebook,
I understand the basic principles of economics, don't get me wrong. I get where you have to sell things on the margins of Facebook in order to stay afloat, but can we just take a minute to look at some of the stuff that's being peddled? In a world that has young clear-skinned starlets selling a thousand and one solutions to all your blemish problems, it's sort of hard to feel good about one's self. Now, just for a moment, imagine you're on your Facebook writing to a friend that you haven't seen a while and out of the corner of your eye, you see an ad. Not just any old ad, but an ad entitled "Free Chicago Area STD Testing". Sure, the young man in the ad is handsome and smiling, but let's be real, no one's smiling back at syphilis guy. That's just the facts. That man will forever be known as "STD guy". Now, I understand no harm was meant by the ad, but we all know that these ads are tailored to specific areas of interests... so what did I do or say to indicate I was interested in STDs or STD testing? I'm not being accusatory, it's just, is that what people think of when they look at me? Man, I hope not. I mean, committed relationship comin' up on 8 months now and I'm still getting skank junk mail? Something has got to change. Can't we go back to the days when my ads were more along the lines of "Ran a marathon? Share you story!" Those were the days, I was at the top of my game, but now, evidently, I'm slummin' it down here in the internet equivalent of an AIDS clinic. Oh well... at least I tried.
Sincerely,
Calhoun

Ford's Character Study of A Single Man

At the heart of A Single Man, fashion designer Tom Ford's directorial debut, is a celebration. It is a celebration of life and unabashed sexuality. While most reviews of this film categorize the film as "a day in the life of a man after his partner dies", they neglect to tell viewers that the story takes place roughly 8 months after his "partner's" death. While there is a fair amount of heavy material presented in the film, it does not lose sight of its celebration of the life that these two men had together as George, played by a devastatingly beautiful Colin Firth, tries to find a reason to continue living.
Another issue that I took with people's descriptions of the film is the use of the word "partner". I know, I know, it makes Middle America uncomfortable when you start talking about the homos, but it does such a disservice to the story to refer to Jim, George's lover, as his partner. It's true that they are also partners having been in a monogamous relationship for 16 years, but the movie focuses just as much on their relationship as it does their love. Unfortunately, there's little I can do about that as that's an American neurosis projected on to the film, but let me do what any responsible writer would do and clear it up for readers. George and Jim are lovers first and foremost. Tom Ford does an incredible job of showing his audience that without any hardcore, in-your-face content. All the audience needs is right there in tender displays of affection, like the gentle kiss on the forehead.
However, Tom Ford has the advantage that most Hollywood directors do not in this situation and that is, his relationship with Hollywood. He will always be a fashion designer first and foremost and so when watching A Single Man, you can't help but feel that Tom Ford is unapologetic. He isn't caught up in the fear that he'll never work in Hollywood again for doing his take on a celebration of life, love, and the male form. As a fan of A Single Man, I can safely say that I hope he does work in Hollywood again, but who knows as to that? When thinking of this one can't help but think of 2005's Brokeback Mountain which, thanks to its stars, got people noticing homosexuality in the movies. However, what never took with Brokeback Mountain is the fear of admitting these characters were gay. they spent the whole movie fighting it. A Single Man never has a moment's doubt. It presents its audience with a lover's kiss between two men in the first shot. This is the celebration of sexuality so many gay men had hoped Brokeback Mountain would be. Although it arrived about 4 years later, it is a welcome change of pace.
In closing, it is Ford's frank displays combined with brilliant performances from most of the cast that make this film so notable as a celebration of life rather than the bleak portrayal of loss it is frequently seen as. While it does deal with themes of loss and regret, ultimately, it celebrates the life that these two men shared together.

Why I'm Still Up in the Air about Up in the Air

Jason Reitman, director of 2007's "indie" hit Juno, is at it again. Up in the Air follows an executive, Ryan Bingham played by George Clooney, whose job it is to fly around the country and fire people. The perverse, but supposedly "quirky" part is that Ryan seems to get off on it. The whole film follows him as he performs mass firings around the country. Thst is, until, his way of life is threatened. A young career woman Natalie Keener, beautifully portrayed by Anna Kendrick, threatens his way of life "grounding" him and forcing him to live in one place. Throughout the entire movie Clooney's character is the perfect example of the Peter Pan complex, never wanting to grow old, but he has little more depth than that. Then, of course in the third act, he magically changes. He wants to finally settle down, but of course, nothing goes as planned there. Truth be told, I couldn't help but sort of be glad he didn't get all that he wanted. He'd spent about 90 minutes of my life being an unlikeable and unapologetic character so I would've been furious for him to receive his happy ending. It was a perfect illustration of "too little, too late". However, Clooney's character is surprisingly the one that I have less of a problem with. Natalie Keener and Alex Goran, played by Vera Farmiga, are the two female leads in the movie. Although Natalie has her annoying traits, she is overwhelmingly charming. She has some bad ideas about success and about relationships, but the audience forgives her. She's young and she's new to this, hell, she's practically still a kid. Alex is a different story. She is essentially the female version of George Clooney's Ryan Bingham. For this reason, Ryan and Alex function well together as they schedule sex dates and nothing more.
SPOILER ALERT.
So when Natalie quits because she realizes she doesn't have the stomach for the job, I was slightly relieved. Then they add one line of dialogue that completely destroyed it for me. "Text message." It's supposed to be a throwback to when her boyfriend dumped her via text message, but it doesn't come off as quirky or endearing. Instead, that simple line strips her of her dignity. It shows her as weak for not being able to do the job and quitting via text message, rather than being human. Alex even undergoes a similar transformation from strong female to less than. Of course, after Ryan's undergone his magical transformation where he realizes he has to grow up, he hops a flight to Alex's house where he discovers that she has a family and a life. Of course, she can't be a strong, independent woman who has casual sex with strangers like Ryan does. It feels like she's being punished for having an actual sexual appetite. So, yes, it's true that Ryan doesn't get all that he wanted, but it's at the expense of these women. With Natlaie quitting, he gets to keep his way of life. With Alex, reducing him to a sex object, he is free of his fear of commitment. All in all, the movie has interesting parts to it and some endearing characters (at least for most of the movie), but in the end it's almost a masturbatory worship of the middle-aged man-child. END OF SPOILER.

New Year's Resolution

As every new year begins (and we love to pretend it’s actually gonna be different) we all make promises to ourselves. We tell each other the things we hate about ourselves and the things we wish to change, but let’s keep it real, alright? Maybe this new year’s resolution could be to be a little more realistic? Nah, that’s a stupid one anyway. It’s been mine to be more consistent with writing. As a freshly graduated film kid (aka professionally unemployable) I owe it to myself to write more than I have been when school was in full swing. That being said, let’s hope I actually stick with this resolution this time…