Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Bitch and the Brave One and All the Gray In Between

What's the difference between a bitch and a strong woman? No, this isn't some sort of off-colored joke, it's a legitimate question. I mean, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference. Now, by now you're probably already offended but let me take a minute to backtrack. I'm not saying that all women are bitches, I'm just saying that the women that have the courage to speak their minds on policy and the way things are, usually are remembered as being bitches. That doesn't make it right and it's certainly not fair, so it seemed like a fair question.

See, I arrived at this decision after a couple beers and the IMDb page of Katharine Hepburn. I'd heard horror stories of studio politics and even directors that, essentially, refused to work with her. Now, this may not sound like an average night to most, but it's pretty par for the course as I scrolled through her bio and trivia and personal quotes.

Up until this point, I'd always enjoyed Katharine Hepburn in the work she'd done. She's absolutely charming alongside Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby and The Philadelphia Story or alongside Spencer Tracy in Adam's Rib or The Desk Set. What appreciation I had for the woman going into this grew as I read more and more about her. Her tenacity, her wit, even her politics were incredibly ahead of their time.

Why is it then that, to put it lightly, Katharine Hepburn is considered to be a bitch? I mean, after all, she only did what most of her male co-stars were certainly doing at the time. Then again, time, as a contextual piece, has a funny way of playing tricks on you. Even sorting through all of the stuff I find out about her, not even I can make up my mind. I think she was most likely particular, or stubborn in a word, but she's certainly got a damning reputation just for being stubborn.

Besides, she had to have been doing something right. I mean, the woman received 4 Best Actress Oscars (better than Meryl Streep) yet Hollywood history has relegated her to the sidelines as yet another cautionary tale of difficult actresses. It's hard to say if she'd be considered by today's standards. I mean, she's no "bathe me every day in only Evian water", but she would have spoken her mind about the state of women in Hollywood.

In the end, it's difficult to say why so many famous and/or successful women get dismissed as power hungry or selfish bitches. The title is most certainly undeserved. Especially when it comes to the likes of Katharine Hepburn who straddles that fine line between being a bitch and being honest. The two are so difficult to tell apart these days, but it seems time that we start working on differentiating the two.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

A Dick and a Dream

It's hard to say what it is about Hung that keeps me engrossed. Is it the well-written characters? Is it the topical nature of the show itself? Lord knows it isn't the whole male prostitute thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not prude, but I just always have a rough time with the way that Hollywood seems to glamorize the profession when, in actuality, I'm pretty certain most of the men and women forced to work in the industry would rather be doing something else.

Well, that's actually just the thing. There isn't much glorifying so to speak. I mean, sure, some of the women that Ray finds himself with are crazy hot and you know he gets the best of both worlds, but they show that the whole thing is hard work and a little degrading too. I mean, I'm sure there are all sorts of things wrong with that last sentence, but it works for the same reason Weeds works (or should I say worked? After this past season, it's difficult to say if it's worth watching anymore). At the end of the episode, you may not respect their decision or their work or their "lifestyle", whatever you want to call it, but it's the characters that keeps you coming back for more.

Another dynamic that I know that I personally enjoy is the exploitation of the character Ray. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I want to see him fail or punished even, but think about it. We live in a society that exploits countless women, selling them things they don't need, and making them think there's no dignity in aging because some man will just dump you for a younger piece of tail anyway. No, really, it's kind of messed up how our society tries to keep women down. But that's not the real point, because even in Hung there are some clearly shallow women. No, it's the fact that the men are being exploited just as well. Just like so many women before him, Ray is understood as a pure physicality. Hell, even the show's title illustrates just what ray is. Sure, the show works to flesh him out, but in his interaction with women? Just about every one of them says the same thing and let's be real, it's all about his penis. Finally, Hollywood is working on creating a man forged out of humility like so many of the women that Hollywood tells women they should strive to be.

There are plenty things to like about Hung and its universe. The characters are compelling and ultimately flawed enough to feel real. The very nature of the show is surprisingly relevant. But in the end, why do so many of us come back? Well, besides in the hope of another nude scene by Thomas Jane? Because, as Ray says in the season 1 finale, all he's get is a dick and a dream and if that isn't the American way, what is?

Monday, June 28, 2010

The Days of the Drive-In & Counter Cultural Cinema

As we live in the day and age of the multiplex, it’s difficult, if not entirely impossible, to recall the days of the drive-in. Film has become so much more of a visual experience than it has remained a social one. The atmosphere of the drive-in aside, film used to be about something. It used to be filled with the kind of urgency and purpose that is all too absent in most the films of today. Those movies that do have something to actually say, often stumble over themselves trying to articulate it or riddle it with heavy-handed symbolism as to remain safe. However, to say that all films have lost this urgency would be criminally negligent. It seems that some filmmakers still pride themselves on their sense of purpose. Few filmmakers embody this spirit more than the aggressively dysfunctional John Waters and the ultra-violent Quentin Tarantino. While many other commercial Hollywood filmmakers outnumber these auteurs, they use their cult following to their advantage. With some of their more recent films, namely Waters’ Cecil B. Demented and Tarantino’s Death Proof, these directors have glorified the dying culture of the drive-in, when movies had purpose whether it was topical or strictly social.
With Cecil B. Demented, Waters seems to be mourning the loss of anger in filmmaking. By the time of this film’s release in 2000, Waters had not lost his edge, but rather, he had underestimated the tolerance of the general public. His 1994 film, Serial Mom, featured Kathleen Turner as a sadistic serial killer in a direct assault on the values of suburbia. Whether audiences understood that he was making fun of their values or not can only be speculated, but Waters certainly suffered from the general acceptance of this movie. Cecil B. Demented seems to be a return to his roots. He revels in the chaos that he creates upon Honey’s kidnapping and delights in detailing her descent into, arguably, madness. However, the real victim in this picture is Hollywood itself. With this film, Waters criticizes the accessibility of film and, more over, the ability of film to shock. While in the first part of the film, Honey is kidnapped, creating mass hysteria in the film community, it’s not long before we see the film community disown her. Waters doesn’t take this time to demonize the film industry, he quickly re-directs Honey’s purpose in making this film. She works outside of the system and only then is she able to make something truly remarkable, something revolutionary, something with a driving sense of purpose. Although Waters captures the necessity of film to communicate with urgency in a rather unorthodox manner, the climax of the film is one of the few instances in modern cinema of shock value with a sense of purpose. Furthermore, the setting of the drive-in is crucial to the film’s recollection of drive-in cinema. One of the issues that most drive-in films discussed was the concept of authority. Waters may be heavy-handed in having the final showdown between the law and the underground at a drive-in theater, but once again, this drives the film’s point home, the necessity for a return to drive-in cinema to truly stimulate the audience. Needless to say, Waters engages his audience throughout the film, but the climax, as with most Waters films, is unforgettable.
The other instance of modern cinema throwing back to its roots is Tarantino’s Death Proof. Once again, as with Cecil B Demented, the references to the drive-in aren’t as visual, except for the clear case of Stuntman Mike’s car driving through the drive-in marquee, but are often more thematic. This infatuation Tarantino has with the counter-cultural issues of drive-in cinema come across painfully transparent. While some students enjoy the work of Tarantino, more often than not he takes large chunks of other movies and calls them his own. Death proof is no exception. The first scene of the film is filled with drug references, which is an important aspect of the counter-culture in the days of the drive-in. Even his choice of leads recall the days of exploitation, although it’s difficult to establish the “leads” of the film as they are introduced almost halfway through the movie. Regardless, the use of women in the film is directly out of the 1970s, calling upon such classics as Coffy and Foxy Brown. The dialogue of the film communicates the personalities of these women who, at this point in the film industry, are no better than caricatures. Of course, the women are bold and beautiful, but more importantly, they’re independent. Although it takes all 3 of them to do so, they’re able to take down Stuntman Mike. One of the things about the film’s conclusion that indicates Tarantino’s willingness to have fun with the formula, is his handling of the male figures. More than anything else, they’re established as sexual predators, preying on the supposed vulnerability of these women. The most interesting change to the male characters isn’t out of keeping with the time of exploitation film making, by stripping him of his masculinity and having Stuntman Mike break down and cry, but the emasculation of the male is heightened to a comical extent. All in all, Tarantino fondly reminisces about the days of exploitation filmmaking and the drive-in, but in creating his own exploitation film, he falls short. It seems too reminiscent to faster Pussycat Kill Kill to be credited as a Tarantino film, nevertheless, he does leave his indelible mark.
Although the days of the drive-in are behind us, the days of counter-culture are not. While the drive-in attacked issues of “outsiders” through its films, the drive-in theater and the atmosphere it created has since been rendered archaic. Nowadays, films revel in their ability to manipulate their audience, to remove them from reality and to amaze them with special effects, but there are still filmmaker who remember. Filmmakers like Waters and Tarantino have passed down their interpretations of drive-in cinema to modern movie audiences today. Whether this was a last failed effort or it will have a lasting impact on the generation of filmmakers, none of us can claim to know. However, one can hope that the memories of drive-ins and what drive-in culture stood for will never fade from America’s identity completely.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Come So Far (Got So Far To Go)

It only seemed appropriate to name this after a show tune... As people take to the streets after week-long fasts and all0night drinking binges, it's hard to exactly remember what pride is all about. Don't get me wrong, in theory, I understand, but somewhere in between its supposed political importance and its celebration of decadence, something's lost on me.

See, I'm not going to be one of those people who says that bigotry is well and gone. I don't buy it when people say they aren't racist because they voted for Obama (because, let's be real, who really wanted to put Palin in a position of power?) or when they say they aren't homophobic because the TIVO Ellen. No, we live in a new age of bigotry, where indifference is disguised as acceptance. As we celebrate with decadence, so many people forget that there's so much left that's worth fighting for.

This isn't supposed to be a reminder to people or even supposed to shame people into listening to a political agenda or acting; this is simply my viewpoint. Pride hasn't lost its importance. in fact, if anything, it's easy to see it's still tangled in there amongst the floats of drag queens and shirtless men glistening with baby oil. The need for political activism is even recognized in the parade itself. Granted, it's usually at the very beginning or the very end (I honestly can't remember) but it doesn't receive the publicity or the praise that the age old adage "sex sells" does. But still, there are plenty of things worth fighting for.

While people use the opportunity of publicity to enjoy themselves, it's easy to see why they would do that. Granted, the self-imposed dieting and work outs seem to embody some of the more superficial qualities of gay men, I can't complain. People will celebrate as they see fit and while I may not agree with many of the methods, that's what pride is all about. Enjoy and be safe everybody!

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Saawariya's Exploration of Women in Bollywood

When asked to explain what makes a film an American film or, in this case, an Indian film, answers will tend to vary depending on whom you ask. However, up until recently, my answer would have been something along the lines of a product of the nation itself. What this could consist of is a great many things, but most specifically, I feel that movies should be understood as indicative of the nation’s culture and its attitudes, which can be surmised based on characters, dialogue, and themes among many other things. One of the themes that has been a critical part of class discussion has the dynamic of gender roles, particularly pertaining to women. The film that I chose to watch outside of class was the 2007 Bollywood film Saawariya, a story about a musician named Raj and the prostitute who loves him, Gulabji, and the woman he loves, Sakina, who has promised herself to another man. Although the film is primarily known for its lavish use of color and magical realism, one of the most interesting aspects of the film to me was the handling of the female characters. Up until this film, the extent of my knowledge of Bollywood cinema and even India itself has been somewhat limited. However, with this film, what I thought I knew about Bollywood and specifically the roles of women as typically seen in these films and themes that we’ve seen in other films, primarily the idea of sacrifice, was absolutely turned on its head.
Although there are plenty of instances in this film that defy the typical roles of women in Bollywood, one of the first instances is the usage of a prostitute as the storyteller. While we have seen indications of prostitutes before, these women tend to be courtesans, or at least higher class prostitutes who are more renowned for their singing and dancing skills than their talents in the bedroom. However, in no uncertain terms, Gulabji is a lowly prostitute. While she proclaims herself “princess of the streets” she also says later in the film that her body is essentially her only asset. There is no sense of disillusionment about what she does. Furthermore, Raj, who is a very likeable protagonist, has no qualms with this. His landlady and Sakina both scold him for consorting with a known prostitute on one occasion each, but that does little to question his devotion to her as a friend. As we have discussed in class, women are particularly forced to sacrifice some part of themselves, and Gulabji is no exception. Although she is clearly in love with Raj and even bestows the title Saawariya, which means “beloved” on him, it’s quite clear early on that she will never be with him. After Sakina has scorned Raj for what seems like the last time, he goes to Gulabji, even offering to pay her for her services. However, she refuses him, knowing that his heart is not true and he’s only coming to her out of the pain of Sakina’s rejection. Her sacrifice, unlike most of the other ones we’ve seen in these films, isn’t forced upon her. She willingly does it out of respect for not only Raj, but for herself. This kind of respect for women is something we haven’t seen in most of these films.
Also having to do with the idea of sacrifice is the love story between Raj and Sakina and the man she has promised herself to, Imaan. Even the most casual observer, it’s very clear that Sakina has held off with any other man, because she is waiting for Imaan to return to her. However, Raj struggles with this, even to the point of burning a love letter that Sakina asks him to give to Imaan. In the end, Imaan does return, despite Raj trying to prevent the inevitable. Sakina returns to Imaan shortly before the film’s end, but as a result, Raj is left with no one. While in most of the great Bollywood love stories we’ve watched, there’s rarely a happy ending and there seems to be almost always a great sacrifice made on behalf of the greater good, it’s usually the woman who suffers. In this film, Sakina is reunited with the man she loves, even at the expense of Raj. It is Raj who performs the sacrifice saying, “Even if you loved me for a few moments, it’s enough to give me joy for a lifetime.” This is not to say that Sakina doesn’t perform a sacrifice of her own. For instance, she’s been waiting at a bridge at midnight every night for a year, which is time she’ll never get back. She even holds back from loving Raj too much, for fear that Imaan will return. She certainly does sacrifice, but in the end, it is her sacrifice that pays off. Raj is left with the memories of the 4 nights they spent together, but even these memories seem to be tainted by his agonizing over what their future could have been. Ultimately, Raj sacrifices more than Sakina was ever willing to, but the film’s treatment of the idea of his sacrifice is more bittersweet than we see in most of these films. Once again, his decision to let her go is based upon his desire to see her happy. It is not something forced or resentful, but rather, it is the purest expression of love.
The roles of women and the sacrifices they make are staples of Bollywood cinema and even in the more pragmatic world outside of the movie theaters; they seem to exist as a statement of the role of women in Indian culture. However, with Saawariya, the women seem to exist in a world entirely their own, in a world outside of the realities of India. The role of Gulabji is a testament to this. While she is doomed to a life of prostitution, she is neither victimized, nor is she scorned for her profession. She is given texture and dimensionality, which seems uncommon for most of these roles. Even though some of her actions are questionable, they are performed with love and respect for Raj’s well being, adding a complicated element to an already complicated love triangle. Even by the end, it seems almost impossible for audiences to fully dislike her. In regards to the role of Sakina and Raj’s sacrifice, while it seems that the traditional gender roles of Bollywood are switched. Furthermore, the idea of sacrifice, as explored in this film and in this paper, exists in an entirely different state than seen in most earlier Bollywood films. While it saddens the characters and the audience that has grown to love them, sacrifice is not seen as a hardship, but as the ultimate expression of love.

Friday, June 25, 2010

The Woman We See Through Hitchcock's Rear Window

Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 masterpiece, Rear Window, tells the story of a man so desperately bored with his own life that he begins to watch his neighbors to pass the time. While the films’ undeniable focus is on a man named Thorwald who may or may not have murdered his wife, the film’s interest run far deeper than the issue of Jeffries’ sanity. Most of the focus on this film was Hitchcock’s mastery of suspense as well as its technical innovations. However, it also addresses some deeper themes, rather than just entertaining the audience. One obvious theme of the film is voyeurism. It’s seen in almost every shot, which are virtually all seen from the perspective of Jeff’s apartment. However, far more serious than the theme of voyeurism are the issues of gender dynamics which are prominent throughout this film. Hitchcock manages to entertain his viewers while addressing issues such as voyeurism, the male gaze, and masculinity paired with the emasculation of the male lead, while making a commentary on domesticity.
Voyeurism is an idea that is far from foreign to modern viewers as television runs rampant with reality programs. However, Hitchcock addresses voyeurism in a time when it was frequently referred to as “sick” or “perverse”. The fact of the matter is he managed to capitalize on the importance of the voyeur ahead of its time. In the film, Stella and Lisa frequently scold Jeff for his interest in his neighbors’ private lives, but Jeff’s voyeuristic tendencies lead to the apprehension of a murderer. This suggests a complexity that is not often afforded the voyeur, who is repeatedly called a “peeping tom”. Hitchcock doesn’t seem to be rewarding Jeff for his tendencies, but rather suggests that voyeurism is more than a fetish. He suggests that an interest in others is important. Jeff’s interest in others not only leads to the apprehension of Mr. Thorwald, but because of his voyeuristic tendencies, he also indirectly saves the life of Miss Lonelyhearts. Whether it is called voyeurism or something else, Hitchcock seems to express that the activity isn’t as detrimental as society says. In Jeff’s case, it is due to his limitation. The circumstances create the voyeur and as audience members, Hitchcock doesn’t shame Jeff, but illustrates that we are guilty of the same crimes.
However, Jeff spies on more people than the Thorwalds and Miss Lonelyhearts. The character of Miss Torso illustrates his more recreational voyeuristic tendencies. Due to the fact that most of the film is seen from Jeff’s apartment or through Jeff’s eyes, the audience is given incite to the male gaze. We see most of the women throughout the film as either objects of pity, such as the woman below Miss Torso who is seen as nagging and matronly or in the case of Miss Torso herself as sexual beings. Not only does Jeff watch her, but also the recently married man across the way watches her as an escape from his own wife’s nagging. The only complexity that is afforded her comes from another female character, Lisa, who suggests that she’s a victim. However, Jeff quickly dismisses the idea and continues to watch her. Throughout the rest of the film, there is little complexity to Miss Torso. Although we finally see her happy at the end of the film with the arrival of what is assumed to be her boyfriend, it is only in the films closing that the audience even begins to see her as anything but a sexual object.
Another important theme of this film is the importance of masculinity and the emasculation of Jeff. Part of the importance of masculinity is derived from the treatment of most women as sexual objects. However, we also see the importance of “being a man” in several other scenes. Jeff’s inability to do his job may as well render him impotent because he has lost that crucial element of his manhood. Hitchcock illustrates this through dialogue and props, such as Jeff’s smashed camera, but more importantly through the people surrounding Jeff. One example is in Jeff’s own apartment where he is doted on by Stella as well as Lisa. While Stella’s relationship is almost entirely professional, the audience recognizes Lisa as the Jeff’s love interest. However, Lisa deviates from the standard love interest of most of these films by acknowledging issues of class and lifestyle that mirror reality outside of the film. Her overall nature, which Jeff characterizes as frivolous, suggests she is of a higher class and in relationships of the 50s as well as today, money is a factor. Rear Window is no different. Throughout the film, we see both these women dote on Jeff as a child; the key difference being that he is clearly a grown man. This lack of masculinity is a driving force in the movie. There is an implicit understanding that Jeff feels he has something to prove throughout the film. In apprehending Thorwald and piecing together the murder of Mrs. Thorwald, he can re-affirm his masculinity. Even when Lisa suggests that she can sneak into Thorwald’s, Jeff is anxious about the idea. In the film’s finale, the showdown between Thorwald and Jeff, the audience sees the struggle between two men who face similar problems of emasculation. In using his wits and struggling with Thorwald in a physically weakened state, but still managing to bring him to justice even at the expense of his own life, Jeff’s masculinity is unquestionable.
Finally, and perhaps most important to the film is the understanding of domesticity and the married life as undesirable. Jeff’s hesitance to marry even a beautiful well-off woman, once again threatening his masculinity, is illustrated in what he as well as the audience sees in the windows of his neighbors. One example is the couple that moves in at the film’s beginning. The audience is shown the thrill of the new marriage, but over the course of the film, moviegoers are forced to watch as the relationship disintegrates. Eventually, the wife stops being shown all together and all that can be seen is the husband’s unhappiness as his wife nags at him offscreen. The more visceral example is Thorwald’s relationship with his own wife. As a bedridden woman, her husband is forced to care for her, once again stripping him off his role as masculine working man. The audience sees Thorwald’s descent as the institution of marriage itself along with his wife, leads him to murder her. With such examples as these as Jeff’s role models for marriage, it’s easy to understand why he would avoid marrying Lisa.
The film Rear Window has been the subject of study since its original release. While the obvious theme of voyeurism is a crucial element in the film, the issues of gender dynamics, the male gaze, masculinity and the lack thereof, as well as marriage as misery, are also important to the success of the film. While some of these themes are clearly stated in the dialogue of the film, others are left up to the viewer’s eye. Through visual clues, the importance of gender in the film Rear Window is elevated. The audience sees what Jeff sees, a world for men slowly being overtaken by women. By the film’s end, the gender roles of the time period are re-instated and Hitchcock would have audiences believe that everything was back to normal.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

... Didn't I Just Watch This?

I'm a big TV person. Well, it's not like it controls my life or anything, but I like to watch something as I fall asleep or even just on in the background as I do my work. Oddly enough, this morning is the exception as I opted to listen to the thunderstorm outside my window, but that's another story. Lately, I've been on a Scrubs kick. It's an entertaining enough show, but more importantly, it's just about the perfect filler noise. There's the occasional musical interlude or cutaway, but nothing too distracting. Well, with the exception of one thing...

Whenever I hear the theme song, at the beginning and the end of each episode, I always have to watch just for that. I don't know what it is, because it certainly never really changes, but I do it anyway. In some seasons, the openings longer, in others, it's just a brief 15 seconds maybe. One thing remains the same though, and that is the end credits.

Now, this may sound ridiculous to some folks, but I feel compelled to watch the end credits even though if I had to pick one thing that annoyed me most about Scrubs is the end credits. Let me explain, I can watch the show in the background now because I've watched it before and many times at that, right? Then the end credits roll around and what are they? They're simple stills from the episode that just aired.

Do we live in an era where attention spans are so gnat-like that people need to be reminded within 15 minutes, what they just watched? Don't answer that. the sad truth is, I'm sure we do. It's nothing new, but that doesn't mean I can't be disappointed. The fact of the matter is, of one of my many high functioning neuroses, the whole hatred of condescension thing is at the top of my list. When I see those same still images that I saw less than 20 minutes ago, as crazy as it may sound, I interrupt it as TV execs thinking I'm too stupid to remember what I just watched. I don't expect it to make sense, but let me see if I can put it another way for some folks. have you ever watched a sitcom that was ruined by the laugh track? Just as much as it is unnatural and awkward in the reality of the sitcom world, isn't it the least bit frustrating to be told what is supposed to make you laugh? I'm just saying, I'll laugh at what I choose to find funny, thank you very much.

The way that the laugh tracks angries up my blood is a story for a different day. Today's hatred is directed at those end credits that are like, "Hey, remember? Yeah, you laughed at this... and then this happened... and then this happened..." It honestly gets so extensive, I could probably tell you the whole plot of the episode by watching the end credits alone. Just cut out the middle man, don't bother watching the show, and just get the quick synopsis from the end credits. is that what you want TV?!? Huh?!? Is it?!?

Monday, June 21, 2010

Atonement: Coming to Terms with Religion and Cinema

From even our youngest age, most of us are taught that there are several topics which, for whatever reason incomprehensible to our tiny minds at the time, are entirely inappropriate to discuss with people outside of our immediate family; money, politics, and perhaps most problematic, religion. This is not to say that religion isn’t a part of all of our lives in some form or another. However, in order to understand religion outside the confines of the Catholic church or the holy scriptures we must do the unthinkable, we must define what religion is. In simplest terms, religion is typically characterized as an organized set of values and/or beliefs impressed upon an individual or a group as a means to guide them through living a decent life. In a day and age where the focus of most movies onscreen is cramming as much violence, sex, and profanity as possible, and our focus offscreen is on who just checked into rehab and who is getting divorced, it may be hard to imagine that religion and film aren’t entirely different from one another. However, as just about anyone will tell you, movies are just as indicative of our values as the canonized works of any religion.
As a child, I was raised in the Catholic Church. We weren’t very strict followers, but we attended a Roman Catholic orthodox mass, which entails an hour and a half of mass, followed by an hour of Sunday school, and another hour and a half of the same mass as before delivered in Latin. To say that we were Roman Catholic would do a great disservice to the experience. My church was about as orthodox as any you could find in the Midwest, which instilled a great sense of what the Catholic Church would like me to believe. The trouble is, as any teen will tell you, that after a certain age, you don’t want to be told what to believe. You want to decide for yourself. Film played an integral role in this rebellion. Films are full of judgments and themes on life, death, and overall, the human condition. The beauty of this is that film is also an intensely subjective art. While I may understand the theme of a movie as one thing, someone else may pick up on something completely different. Together, as a class or an audience, we are free to discuss the importance of certain scenes of film’s to fully establish the film-viewing experience. Most religions tend to be very set in their understanding of the word of God or Gods, creating conflict through the various religious communities. One example of such is the main difference between the Jewish faith and the Christian church. While the Jews understand the teachings of Jesus Christ, it is their interpretation that he was not the son of God, but Christians praise him primarily because they believe that he is the son of God.
Although it’s important to understand the viewpoint that I personally take, that religion and cinema have the same express purpose, it’s important to understand how cinema and religion work together in some instances and in others, very clearly against one another. The very nature of any relationship with religion is very turbulent and of course, with the film world, it is no different. The instances of religion and film working towards a common goal are more historical than anything else. Some examples include some of the earliest epics which were directly adapted from the Bible, such as 1956 film The Ten Commandments. These films tended to focus on the blanket belief in a higher being and deliver the message of living a righteous life. These films were almost always purposefully vague, for the purpose of drawing a bigger audience as well as to not offend members of the Judeo-Christian faiths. More important than they were to deliver a wholesome message, movies such as this and the 1959 film Ben-Hur were spectacles. It would be naïve to say that this is the first, only, and/or last instance of religion being used for monetary gain. However, the most important aspect of these films is that they paved the way for Hollywood and the church to have a symbiotic relationship. Even today, there is a niche market for religious films as there is still a very strong religious presence both in the United States and abroad. However, it is important to understand that these are, as previously stated, primarily a niche and tend to draw the crowd that they once did in the heyday of the religious epic.
However, as the idea of the nuclear family and the “wholesome” America fell out of favor, more often than not, the topic of religion did as well. Although there are a few instances of films, such as the 1955 film Night of the Hunter, which presented a negative image of religion during the height of the popularity of the religious epic, these examples are few and far between. Following the idyllic representation of religion in the 1950s, films began to look at religion, particularly religious figures such as men of God but rarely God himself, with some cynicism. These films typically seemed to be a sort of backlash to the piety of the figures onscreen in these religious epics. People began to question whether humankind could be as good as the figures the public saw onscreen. As time went on, and more specifically in my own lifetime, religion in films was rarely discussed and religious films themselves were always viewed suspiciously. Films such as Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ stirred up controversy because of their presentation of religious material. This is not the first instance of film and religion being in conflict with the needs and/or desires of film-goers, but is easily one of the most memorable. The film itself, in my personal opinion, is an exercise in anti-semitic filmmaking. This is not to discredit its contribution to pop culture at the time of its release and the importance of the discussions that followed its release, but the film itself is far from being entertainment or even accurate. Another important force that has determined the negative relationship between film and religion in my lifetime is current events themselves. With the uncovering of the scandal in the Catholic Church surrounding priests and their predatory relationships with members of the church, religion in film was very much affected. While one of the most powerful institutions was being taken down by scandal, it seemed the perfect opportunity for atheists and other opponents of organized religion to launch their complaints. One example is the 2007 film The Golden Compass, which the author of the source material admits to being an anti-religious novel. Still these movies preach values, but most importantly, they tend to ask their viewers to question what is being taught to them. It would be unfair to call it “anti-religion” because what it tends to do is point out that these supposedly infallible systems are in fact flawed. However, since religion is such a controversial topic, there is little room for moral shades of gray in the eyes of public.
There is this strong insistence that any piece of media be either pro-religion or against religion. Just the same, there is the same push that religion and cinema cannot work together. However, there are clearly examples of religious cinema as seen in the 1950s which, in my opinion gives as much right to create anti-religious films as well. Most importantly though is that religion be understood. There are strong connotations to words like Jew or even Catholic. More often than not people think of secular places such as a synagogue or a cathedral. It’s important to understand that while these are deservedly revered places, holy places even, these are not the only places of religion. Just as easily, a dim lit movie theater can be a place of worship. The primary purpose of religion is to reflect values and a way of life and in many ways, we see our own ways of life in the movies of today and tomorrow. They showcase our values visually whereas religions may do it with sacred texts and the written word. In many ways, religion and film work with each other, in other instances they work against each other, but almost always, they are one and the same. They are a system of values we use to guide us through our everyday lives.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

When in Rome Does What the Romans Do

Every so often, there's a movie that comes out that completely re-defines a tired and trite genre. Kristen Bell's latest movie to hit blu ray and DVD, When in Rome is far from one of those movies. It has the tired back stories and the over-the-top slapstick style humor that one should expect after watching the trailer. However, sometimes, that's not such a bad thing. It's kind of nice to know what to expect every so often, not down to every last joke, but then again, let's look at the genre we're talking about? There hasn't been a whole lot of new stuff to come out in the way of the romantic comedy for some time.

When in Rome shouldn't be written off as every other rom com though. It has one secret weapon that's enough to forgive its use of cliches and that is, Kristen Bell herself. Let's be real though, as lovely and charming as Bell may be, sometimes it's hard to get behind her choices. I mean, I'm no Hollywood agent, but even I could have predicted Pulse ending badly for her. Still, Kristen Bell's charm, even as a lovelorn cynic in When in Rome, is winning to say the very least. Her comedic timing is strong enough to guide the movie through some bumpy areas, but in the end, she makes When in Rome an enjoyable escape.

However, when it comes to the rest of the cast, it really is problematic. I mean, sure her charm and comedic timing provide a nice distraction, but she doesn't have the strength to carry the whole movie through four creepy suitors.Dax Shepard, Danny DeVito, and Will Arnett should all be a little disappointed in themselves. Note: I leave Jon Heder off the list because he should pretty much always be ashamed of himself. The former three that are mentioned are talented comedic actors. Well, they are in at least in one movie or a TV show. That being said, the appeal of the movie isn't hard to understand. It truly is a solid idea, but the issue is, well, it lends itself to a creepy nature. It could easily be done tastefully with moments of over-the-top humor, but something just doesn't translate when When in Rome starts. It was like they were trying to push the comedy as far as they could but wound up just on the other side of creepy. Once again, this is reserved specifically for Dax Shepard, Danny DeVito, and Will Arnett. Jon Heder's "contribution" is forced and unfunny and constantly creepy. Honestly, the movie would have been much more enjoyable without him or his character, but it's unfair to blame all the movie's problems on him. There are certainly problems with When in Rome such as its foray into creepy territory and its moments of "magic", which wreak of lazy screenwriting and force the viewer out of the moment.

In the end, the saying "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" best sums up this movie. It adds nothing new to the rom com genre, but seems happy to play along as the others do. Luckily, Kristen Bell's charisma elevates this movie into the rent-worthy category instead of pure miss-ability. It's an enjoyable, if not flawed, escape but don't expect a miracle.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Studio Logos that Grind My Gears

I'm a man of simple pleasures. I mean, really, it doesn't take much to make me happy. Sure, I get a little annoyed with some of the little things, but I guess that's the price you pay for having disturbingly low standards. I don't lose sleep over them or anything, but there are just some things that, no matter how hard you try or how often it happens, you just can't get behind.

Like studio logos. I know it's a weird thing to take a stance on, but I'm just sayin', we all have our limits. Now this isn't the case with every studio, but I'll just use the example of Universal, because they're particularly bad about it. I get the advertising aspect, no one needs to explain economics to me. I know that you need to be a visible force, especially when it comes to movies, to make money, but here's the thing. I bought the DVD or blu-ray or whatever it may be. You already have my money. Hell, even if I only rented it, you're still taking my money. I'm at peace with that, the whole money in exchange for goods and/or services thing.

My question is, then why do I have to sit through your logo about three times before I even get to the titles? In the case of Universal here's the breakdown. Once before the previews, pretty much immediately after you put the blu ray in and then a second time after the previews but before the main menu, with the third time being right as the movie begins. Look Universal, I'm glad you've stamped your studio logo on all these pieces of shit (no movie specifically, let's just be real, most movies these days are turning out to be shit), but in the immortal words of Valerie Cherish "I don't wanna see that!"

To add salt to the wound, at least on most movies I've encountered, there's no way to skip it. In fact, on a couple of them, when you hit the menu button, it just takes you back to the beginning so they make you watch it all over again. I know it may seem like I'm blowing this out of proportion, but it's not like it's the anti-piracy warning or anything. This is just for the studio's own vanity and money-making purposes. Besides, as soon as I see that spinning globe, I can tell you it's Universal, do I really need to stick around for the trumpet fanfare?

This petty complaint brought to you by John Calhoun Kersten. Thanks for reading.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Dr. Strange Not So Strange After All... or Interesting

Every so often, searching through those straight to DVD titles, you find a gem or two. Sure, it's a rarity and you have to sift through a whole lot in order to get to one, but it happens. Just to be clear, this is not one of those stories.

Marvel Animated has been working for years to get some of its B-listers into the good graces of audiences. Why they thought that releasing straight to video titles would do this, no one can ever really know. This is really a shame because I'd like to know who to ask for 76 minutes of my life back. Dr. Strange is one of those films that seems to suffer from the pacing of the first act and never quites learns it's listen.

The overly maudlin backstory is revealed through flashbacks which is already trite enough, but of course, it's your typical cookie-cutter "something bad happened to someone close to me, so I withdrew from the world Charles Foster Kane style, but hey wait, there's hope for me yet!" The only spark of originality the movie has to show for itself is that at least some horrible fate doesn't befall a fiance or wife. No, no, no, they went out on a limb and made it his sister. Granted, the origin story itself can't be blamed on the creators of the movie, but the "unraveling" of the stock anti-hero turned good guy is no one else's fault but their own.

Another aspect of Doctor Strange that felt clumsily told or just plain unlikeable is the whole fantasy element. Never been one for fantasy, but when dealing with super heroes, creators always tend to walk a thin line. Usually it can just be ignored, but my favoritism of the more realistic is shown in some of my personal favorite superheroes such as Batman or Iron Man. Sure, there are ridiculous parts to each of them, but at least the latter two lend themselves towards more realistic depictions seeing as the requirements of heroism for them are money and courage, both of which they have in spades. Still, in Doctor Strange it's more than a mere preference. The use of fantasy and alternate dimensions feels both clumsy and lazy, two less than inspiring traits that feel all too familiar by the movie's end.

It's difficult to say what Doctor Strange suffers from, even after watching the movie; the all too familiar trappings of your average, run-of-the-mill superhero or the boredom that ensues? The end result is nothing spectacular or even really worth watching. It sounds cruel, but there's a reason why some superheroes never achieve great recognition and after watching Marvel Animated's attempt at making Dr. Strange interesting, it's easy to put him back on the shelf with all the other B-listers.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Cartoons Come to Life

We all have our favorite cartoons or characters that still hold a place in our hearts. Okay, well, maybe I have more than one or two, but the point is, there are just those characters that bring us back to our childhood. The question I ask of you is how much do you know about your beloved cartoon characters outside of the TV screen? That is to say; what do you know about the men and the women behind the voices?

Here are a couple of tidbits for readers, some of which you may or may not know. For instance, Bart Simpson is voiced by Nancy Cartwright, who if you can't tell by the name is clearly a woman. Mel Blanc, who voiced Bugs Bunny, wasn't fond of carrots so every time he had to gnaw on one for his trademark line, he would have to spit it out immediately after in a nearby garbage can. He was unable to chew and swallow quickly enough to pull off the line, so it was his only choice. I guess the point I'm trying to drive home is that for the instrumental role these actors played in most of our childhoods, not many people take the time to get to know them.

This has changed over the years, of course, as cartoons have been replaced as mere childhood foder and been refined into satirical, adult-directed humor such as Family Guy or to a greater extent American Dad. Looking at Family Guy, there's the memorable paraplegic, Joe Swanson. Even the most casual cartoon viewers usually recognize his voice, the voice of actor Patrick Warburton. Warburton is one of the few voice actors who, at least it seems, I became acquainted with through his voice work and then began to recognize him in his live action work.

Warburton, as much as I love him, is one of the undeniable reasons why cartoons and the people that voice them just do not mix. His level of voice acting is so indescribable and his live-action performances aren't bad either, but the two of them just feel so incompatible. Maybe it's because his voice lends itself to a different look or I'd just built him up in my head so much that it's impossible for him to meet my standards? I don't really know, I can't say but I do know that, no offense to Mr. Warburton, but if forced to choose, I'd pick Joe Swanson and Brock Samson over his role as the bodyguard in Scream 3 any day. I'm just saying, there's something terribly unsettling about seeing the man or woman behind the voice. It's like watching cartoons come to life.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Devil's in the Deatails

In Edwidge Danticat’s The Dew Breakers, she illustrates a way with words that is unparalleled in beauty and simplicity. Although the novel’s title itself is a reference to the brutality of those who tortured innocent Haitians, the way she weaves the story is as delicate as the sensitive subject itself.
What is quite possibly the most enchanting aspect of this novel is the author herself, who shows the kind of respect for her stories and the language with which she tells them. One example is the short story entitled Book of Miracles. In it she details a family’s experience at midnight mass when they think they see one of the torturers from Haiti. What could easily be an overly dramatic piece is instead treated with a sense of compassion that is almost indescribable. This is part of Danticat’s gift, her removal from the experience. She herself never underwent the torturous practices of the Dew Breakers, but she never claims to be able to voice this experience. In a world where it seems everyone’s clamoring for the next shocking tell-all, Danticat seems content in making her audience feel. Most importantly, while torture is obviously an awful experience, she does not paint it as simply a terrible experience. With close attention to detail and simple, accessible language she creates the complexities of the emotional stigma of the events that took place. To find a writer as humble in her expression of these stories is both alarming and charming at the same time in our modern literary world.
Danticat’s novel is engaging for a myriad of reasons. Perhaps the most distinguishable is that her novel has no pretensions. She feels the story must be told, but she takes the time to illustrate her characters as real life people, not merely victims. Also, she doesn’t barrage the audience with gory details, she uses intense settings sparingly and beautifully, to draw the reader out of his/her comfort zone, to make the experience real. Regardless of personal preferences when it comes to literature, Edwidge Danticat has envisioned an important and compassionate portrayal of the lives of those with painful and all too real pasts.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Women in 1970s Horror Cinema

The 1970s were a time of social unrest. Riding on the backs of the 1960s and the Civil Rights movement, there was a realization that African Americans weren’t the only ones being treated differently. While the struggle of the black community was an unquestionably noble one, by the time the 1970s came around there were other areas that Americans had to force themselves to confront. One of those areas was that of the role of women. While there are many issues to consider when discussing the roles and representation of women in various media outlets, specifically film, attitudes towards women and the presentation of sexuality were one of the first areas to be completely overhauled. Although many of the film makers producing these motion pictures were male, their own understanding of women is reflected through some of their films. One film that explores women as complex and deeply human creatures is Brian DePalma’s 1976 film, Carrie.
One of the first scenes of the film takes place in the women’s locker room as Carrie gets her first period. As she shrieks in pain, the other girls assault her with tampons, refusing to help her but rather taking the opportunity to revel in her pain. An interesting dynamic in this movie is that although it is a horror film, it is never entirely clear who is the true horror in Depalma’s eyes, Carrie and her telekinetic powers or her tormentors. On a subtextual level, it is a statement on all human cruelty, but the relationships between the women, both Carrie and her schoolmates as well as Carrie and her mother, are perhaps the most brutal. One of the most noticeable aspects of the film is the immediate demonization, by other girls, of Carrie’s blossoming sexuality. For instance, in the scene in the bathroom when Carrie becomes a woman, she is assaulted. In a way, the film seems to be suggesting that her classmates have already experienced the pain and almost seem to have been hardened by it. It’s almost as if this rite of passage is his idea of the key as to what makes these girls so evil. Even after Carrie experiences her period, this is when audiences may perceive her descent into “evil”. Her sexualization and in turn, her journey into womanhood is the first thing we see, but it is her use of telekinetic powers to slaughter most everyone at the prom that is one of her final acts and one of the most memorable ones. Even when her mother finds out, she associates it with some sort of sin, Carrie’s being punished. This also stems from her mother’s own past, having a baby out of wedlock and her husband in turn leaving her. Another example of how we see sexualization as the key to downfall. It doesn’t seem that Depalma is agreeing with this perception, but rather, he’s saying that elements in his life such as religion led to this idea that the female body is an object of shame. In other films, and even in male characters, the female figure is worshipped whereas the women in this film are far from accepting of it and even in some instances, downright shameful or hateful of it.
In the 1972 film The Last House on the Left, we see femininity used in a very different way. Whereas women were somewhat demonized and essentially weaponized in Carrie, we see women as instruments of justice. While most of the film centers on what happens to Mari and Phyllis, these characters are designed to elicit emotion. As audience members are forced to watch the rape and torture of these two young girls, the horror, disgust, and eventual rage of the degradation of these two girls leads us to view Mari’s parents as we do. While Dr. Collingwood plays an instrumental role in the unfolding of events once the killers take refuge in their home, his character is diminished in relation to his wife, Estelle. As a movie audience, we accept this without question for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, Estelle is the mother of Mari. While it sounds painfully simple to say, it must be understood what the mother’s typical role is in most films. As the woman who gave birth to Mari, there is an undeniable connection between the two. This is not to say that Dr. Collingwood is cold towards the loss of his daughter, but the emotional response of the character is diminished in comparison to Estelle’s sense of loss. Also, the violence in this film is primarily against women. It’s difficult to watch the rape and torture of any people, but the fact that these are two teenage girls never leaves the forefront of our minds. It almost seems natural that should violence occur against Krug, Junior, Weasel, and Sadie, it would be at the hands of a woman. Once again, while Dr. Collingwood does play a part in the destruction of the gang, he doesn’t assert his masculinity. In fact, it’s only because of Junior’s distraction that Dr. Collingwood is able to kill Krug at all. This plays into the stereotype of most intellectual male figures of film, that they are somehow weaker and/or less manly. However, when it comes down to it, Estelle is the one who really delivers. While Carrie pointed to women’s sexuality as a root of evil, it is Estelle’s sexuality that allows her to get her revenge. She uses her womanly wiles to seduce Weasel and eventually biting off his penis, seriously injuring him while also, effectively rendering him less of a man. She is now in a situation where she has established her dominance over the men who murdered her child using her sexuality as a primary tool. Furthermore, the other act of violence we see her commit pits Estelle against Sadie. In most cases, a man beating and/or killing a woman, no matter the crime she may have committed is unacceptable so the use of the two women against one another is fairly understandable. Also, this further empowers Estelle who throughout the course of the movie has shown her ability to love, but also her ability to strike down both man and woman who have taken her child from her.
Carrie and The Last House on the Left both explore issues of the portrayal of women in film, particularly in the horror genre. While DePalma makes the main focus of the film an evil woman, it is unclear as to whether she herself is evil or the whether the world she lives in has made her so. In Craven’s film, he portrays women as subjects of brutal humiliation, but he also re-asserts their strength by the film’s end. It seems that both pictures are conflicted in which message they’re sending about women. However, the fact that women were being given complexity and depth to their characters is one of the most notable traits about these two films. Their issues of feminine identity are what drive the films and are never more visible than in this period.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

I know What You Did... I'm Even Bored By the End of This Title

Nostalgia has a funny way or affecting things. It makes food taste better, drinks taste sweeter, and yes, occasionally, it makes a bad movie better. One movie that nostalgia has not been kind to is the Jennifer Love Hewitt "slasher" I Know What You Did Last Summer. Honestly, if you have no idea what the movie is, you must be Helen Keller or something because the movie has been spoofed so many times that the spoofs aren't even funny or topical anymore. One could make a case for whether they were funny at all, but that's another story.

In the tale of innocence lost and PLDs (Poor Life Decisions, for those of you who don't know), Julie James and her trio of equally awfully-named friends are being stalked by an unknown figure who, you guessed it, knows what they did last summer. As he begins to appear and murder them one by one, which first happens around the hour mark so folks may want to use their fast forward button on their remotes, the identity is slowly revealed.

One of the issues of the movie is, don't get me wrong, murdering people is bad. Still, considering Julie and her friends murdered someone and covered it up and now they're being murdered... I mean, it's just a little confusing is all. For people who have seen the movie, the only thing more confusing than why anyone would care that these terrible people are being killed is the identity of the killer himself. That's just an issue within the film, but believe me, there are plenty of issues with the film outside of its reality set in Southport, North Carolina.

Just an example, most people are aware of the gender politics that go into making a horror movie i.e. the blonde bimbo usually dies, deviant behavior is punished, and the "final girl" is usually the demure one. Especially in the meta-90s slasher craze, after Scream and all, one should be very careful when tackling these tried and true methods. That's why it feels a bit obvious when the audience is first shown Helen Shivers (Didn't even make up that last name, the makers legit called her Helen Shivers) in a swimsuit, posing for an audience, it's impossible not to think, "Well, there goes the neighborhood". Seriously, it's a character so flawed and one-dimensional that, sans her showdown with the killer, not even Buffy could make her look cool.

However, beyond the treatment of Helen, there's Julie James herself. Not only does she start off in the movie under the guise of being a feminist, an ideal she quickly drops in favor of the damsel in distress routine, but as she says those lines, the cameraman gets a nice cleavage shot. Still, when it comes down to it, the filmmakers are painfully obvious in labeling her the Final Girl. Given that the audience really only has two to pick from, it's not terribly surprising, but a bit of a letdown nonetheless. Once relegated to her "holier than thou" status, Julie spends the rest of the movie in floor length skirts that even the Amish would call stifling and prudish. For someone, at least in the movie, who claims to know so much about gender roles, she sure falls into them awfully conveniently.

I Know What You Did Last Summer is full of contradictions and not so clever nods to the genre. It's probably it's "see, I can be clever!" attitude that detracts from anything that could be remotely horrifying about this movie. Honestly, this movie might have been a good introduction into the 90s slasher craze, but this movie and most of its counterparts aren't worth revisiting.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Growing Up Stonewall

In Nardi’s Growing Up Stonewall: Life Stories of Some Gay Men he begins the book by giving a brief synopsis of the evolution of homosexuality as perceived by the American public and as felt by the queer community. This helps to provide a sense of context for the various interviews that follow, chronicling the experiences of 4 different men: Danny, Ed, and George & Harold (whom the author notes are the only couple interviewed in the study). It seems that each of these men is really only bound together by the simple fact that they are gay men. For instance, there is Danny who is really the all-American boy type and right after him, the author puts Ed who is an immigrant from Norway. However, it’s interesting to see how drastically this affects the similarity of their stories. For instance, as in the example of Danny and Ed, both felt a certain disconnectedness with their fathers. Yet each of these interviews illustrates just how different these people are as well. In the previous example of Danny and Ed, Danny is unable to really explain the lack of connection with his father, whereas Ed explains that it was somewhat characteristic of his culture and more than likely, a result of his father’s death at age 14. Some of the concepts that the interviewees addressed are incredibly difficult to describe in this response but also as a gay man, I felt a certain strength and almost camaraderie in being able to identify with each of these men in one way or another. It’s somehow comforting knowing that although being the only openly gay kid in my high school at the time, it was (as cheesy as it sounds) almost like knowing that I wasn’t alone, that these men that were bleeding their hearts on the pages that lay before me, they knew exactly where I was.
At the same time, as I described before, it’s so confusing to read about something as personal as sexual orientation because I was unable to remove myself from the situation, which might very well be the author’s intention. I read each one of these various accounts and I know for a fact that I was comparing myself to these men. Not in like a traditional comparative sense like “Ha! My coming out story is better than yours!” but seeing just how much the very fact that we are gay men and how it defined us or even if it did define us at all. I think that concept is most interesting to me and definitely something that I hope to continue to explore throughout this semester. Although I don’t define myself as a gay man, how much does being a gay man define me?

Friday, June 11, 2010

When Yossi Met Jagger

As a rule of thumb, I'll be honest, I tend to steer clear of gay-themed movies. There are some good ones out there, but most have little to value in terms of story or acting. However, every so often, something truly legitimate does come along. Granted, it's been awhile since this movie's 2002 release date, but it remains as compelling, emotionally complex, and compelling as the day it was made.

It centers on two Israeli army officers who love one another, but being male, they decide to keep their relationship secret from the others. However, matters are complicated when a young female officer arrives at the base and sets her eyes on Jagger. Honestly, when detailing the plot, it sounds more comical than anything else, but to be sude Yossi and Jagger is mined for all of its dramatic potential.

One instance is the setting itself, within a base station in Lebanon. It creates a perfect setting for a sense of despair and also a sense of longing. It's easy to see why Jagger wants more out of Yossi, certainly more than the life that the two lead at the beginning of the film. Still, it's interesting to see it from this perspective because, at least as far as I can tell, it's okay to be openly gay and serve in the Israeli army. Military restrictions on gays openly serving were lifted in 1993, which adds a completely different dimension to the film. Yossi and Jagger hiding their affections from one another isn't a legal issue, as most folks in the US can attest to, but rather, it seems to be a personal choice. There's no telling what the ideas towards openly gay members of the Israeli army are, which might explain their fear, but it's more of a social issue than it is a legal issue, as is the case here in the US.

There are many more examples of Yossi and Jagger's dramatic potential being fully realized as the film progresses. What is perhaps most chocking about this is the film's running time. At a mere 67 minutes, a running time so short that it was never granted a US theatrical release outside of the festival circuit, it manages to flesh out the reality of the situation. It's running time is just the perfect length to emotionally engage an audience, while also using it's a short running time to its own advantage.

See, one of the most powerful elements of the film is its ending. Without giving it away, it ends when it is least expected with an emotionally devastating result. This sort of "shock and awe" approach to a beautifully portrayed, emotionally in-depth romance can be either be done well or it can come across as hackneyed or tired. Yossi and Jagger ends with a tragic ending that one can see from a mile away, but it doesn't detract from its emotional resonance, even in repeat viewings.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Confessions of a MIdnight Addict

One of my first pieces of fiction writing for the blog.

He was full-fledged now. No leading in. He was officially an addict. A two-pack-of-Nicoderm-CQ-a-day-yellow-finger-nailed-patch-wearing junkie. He had tried his best, he really had. He had desperately wanted to quit and still to this day wanted to quit. But he was exhausted. Nothing could take the edge off quite like that first drag of a cigarette. But no, he couldn’t. Not now. Not after 46 days, 7 hours, and 15 minutes of not having a cigarette. That’s the thing about addicts, no matter how long it’s been since their last hit or fix or whatever it is that you wanna call it, they can always tell you when it was. It had been so long since his last drag, but he was still trying his best to resist the cigarette’s sweet siren call. He’d used it all, the gum, the patch, even hypnotherapy, a desperate cry for help that had made him feel ridiculous in addition to putting him out a good 150 dollars; but, nothing seemed to cut it. There was always something more, something just under the surface, an itch that needed to be scratched, a problem that couldn’t simply be chewed away. He needed to feel the warmth of the filter pressed between his dry lips. He needed to inhale, to suck life from the cigarette and exhale the promise of a robotic drone of a voice and an early grave. That was how he had tricked himself to quitting in the first place: that voice. Not so much the fear of death, that had always seemed an irrational fear to him. Death was inevitable. He had always felt this way, however it was his fear of the tracheotomy that had sworn him off cigarettes. The thought of the knife cutting into his throat, the scar that would never quite heal. Those were the things that scared him. Not this antiquated idea of a shadowy figure that would come to pay a visit all too soon, forcing him to leave this world even sooner. But fear as a tactic had only worked for so long.
In times of despair, he would often recall fondly the last time the sweet filter had graced his lips. He allowed himself this, and only this, the memory of his last cigarette. The ash from the tip of the cigarette had danced its way to the ground where it lay, writhing as it was devoured by the lifeless colors of autumn. The cigarette from which it had fallen dangled from between the bony knuckles of his hand. Its orange glow grew intense for a brief moment, a sort of S.O.S., a cry for him to inhale before it met the fate of its sons and daughters, among the cool wet leaves of the crisp fall night. He had raised the cigarette to his lips, not knowing it would be the last time he would do so. He had sucked in, breathing life into the treacherous cancer stick, which would undoubtedly be his end. He had to stop, he told himself. It was becoming an addiction, he thought. He scoffed at the mention of the word “becoming”. Becoming would’ve been ages ago, he joked. This was, if even in the stages of becoming, the last stages, he told himself. It had transformed since then, since this imaginary phase of “becoming an addiction.” Addiction seemed like far too sweet a word to describe this thing that controlled his body. It wasn’t simply addiction that made his body ache with desire.
Now, weeks later, that dismal fall night merely a memory, he knew there was something worse than addiction. Although weeks ago he couldn’t imagine anything more painful than this feeling that had grabbed hold of his body and wouldn’t seem to let go. He needed even more desperately now to break free from this new feeling, the sickening feeling of withdrawal. They went hand in hand, addiction and withdrawal; or, rather, withdrawal just confirmed his status as an addict.
The worst part though, the real kick in the teeth, was those commercials for solutions to problems like his, like commercials for the patch or some new kind of gum to control his cravings. He’d tried them all before, but each time he saw those goddamn commercials he thought there might be some kind of hope, something that he’d missed the first time around. There wasn’t. It was always the same bullshit, pre-packaged and sold by some leggy blond who’d probably never smoked a cigarette in her life but only eaten them to burn holes in her stomach to control her weight. The very same falsehoods he had hoped would offer some sort of salvation always brought him back to that autumn night that reminded him of that sweet taste made all the sweeter by his own resolve to not give in. It was tempting him, this memory, a harmless image in his mind that brought him closer to relapse… but no, he couldn’t think like that. He was determined not to. Instead, he thought about those smiling faces in the ads that had brought him to this current state of frustration. The GQ-esque man with silvering hair, always smiling with glistening white teeth, giving a thumbs up or some other generic sign of approval. The successful business woman in her “classy” beige pant suit, her hands full of non-descript paperwork, gazing up towards her blond highlighted bangs, her eyes in a roll as if to say “Smoking’s the last thing on my mind.” He looked at these faces and recognized nothing familiar in them, nothing even human in their eyes. This man, that woman, these people were nothing like him. He knew because he had often searched for a likeness as he gazed in the mirror day in, day out. He’d hoped to god to be greeted by the man’s charming smile or the woman’s exuberant eyes or at least something like it. Yellowing teeth he could never seem to get clean no matter how hard or how often he brushed, bloodshot eyes from yet another night struggling in a losing battle against Mr. Sandman, these were the things that stared him in the face every night and every morning. These faces in these ads, they weren’t him. They weren’t anybody. They were a mockery of his struggle, of every addict’s struggle. The man in the ad’s blinding white teeth seemed to ridicule him as he glanced in the mirror, turning his gaze from the model’s shimmering teeth to his own that had grown yellow despite his brushing three times a day and frequent visits to the store for yet another unsuccessful whitening kit that turned his teeth simply a more pale yellow than the previous shade.
To him this was more than about the ad, it was greater than corrective dentistry, it was a sign of failure. It was a stain on his record. He struggled with this; he fought the idea that it was simply him, that it was his fault, that he had failed. He hadn’t.
He looked up from his cup of black coffee. He stared at the clock through his oily strands of hair. He glanced up at the night shift waitress, standing under the unforgiving light of the diner. He nodded to her to refill his half-empty drink. She ambled to his place at the counter. She poured his coffee. He looked outside at the black of night. He clutched at his empty breast pocket.
“Christ, I need a cigarette.”

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Bateman and Hoffman: Crusaders for Gay Rights or "Just Friends"?

Today's post has a whole "if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" feel to it. By now, most people have seen and/or heard about the whole Jason Bateman and Dustin Hoffman kiss at the Lakers game. If you haven't, well, then you must not watch as much TV as me... but that's definitely not a bad thing.

Anyway, the two locked lips in order to secure a spot on the kiss cam at the game, but they did a little more than that. The news cycle, although I hesitate to call E! and Perez Hilton news, has been flooded with coverage over this infamous kiss between the two stars. Besides the obvious questions, such as "Ew, why Dustin Hoffman?", there's an undeniable political charge to the prank.

There used to be a time, well, maybe "used to" isn't the right term, but before, Hollywood's homosexuality stigma kept folks in constant fear of being openly gay or even suspected of being gay. In fact, it's ruined more than its fair amount of careers. So the question is, why is this time okay?

Have we gotten to the point where homosexuality is no longer considered a deviant social behavior? To say that seems a little premature, yet with these two, there's been little to no professional or societal backlash since it took place.

One of the elements that can't be ignored are the politics of it. It was non-threatening. I mean, it was at a Lakers game for God's sake. But the act itself could be considered very apolitical. After all, they're two well-established actors so there's no real threat of them being accused of being gay or anything. It's that threat removed that lets people just dismiss it as a boyish prank and move on.

But God forbid, two men or two women display a sincere public display of affection for each other, especially on the kiss cam. It's that type of double standard that politically charges the exchange between Bateman and Hoffman. While no official statement has been released on the whole event by either of them, and it's safe to say there probably won't be.

That being said, can a display such as this really be considered a political act? I'd like to think so, but only Bateman and Hoffman can give it explicit meaning. However, regardless of how the kiss was intended, the politics of it are beyond the control of the two men. More effective than the No H8 campaign, Bateman and Hoffman, arguably, have given way to an understated sexual revolution, highlighting the double standards of society while also giving hope for a new understanding of homosexuality in a one-dimensional world.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

"The Road" Less Travelled

The Road, which was brought to the screen by John Hillcoat, has the unique displeasure of bringing Cormac McCarthy's desolate future to the screen. It does so with a beautiful palate of browns and grays, more earthy tones, accented by the occasional streak of orange. This kind of cinematography lends itself to the film, but unfortunately, pretty pictures alone do not make a film.

Hillcoat has a difficult job with the film. The world that's been created is a barren one as the planet slowly dies as a father and son try to make it to the coast, in hopes of starting a new life. This was one of the issues of the film that was a little bit confusing since the words "the planet is dying" were thrown around quite a bit. If the whole planet is dying, what difference will location hold? It's clear that this movie is a tale of survival, but it was unclear if the location change would make any difference. It could have been just an inability to comprehend/accept that there was no way out of the situation, but if that was the case, why not commit suicide? These types of questions may signify a lack of understanding to some folks, but they're crucial elements to the story that were never properly addressed in the movie. It could easily be as comment on the human spirit, but either way, the material wasn't entirely primed for a film adaptation.

However, I think an even bigger issue is the emotional subject matter of the film. It's understood when going into a post-apocalyptic movie, that not many people are going to leave with the warm fuzzies. Still, there's little to no addressing of the emotional toil that this film takes on the audience. Yes, it's supposed to be brutal and it's supposed to be difficult to watch, but they keep poking at it over and over again. What resulted was a complete emotional shutdown, at least on my part. The movie continued to play out, but I just turned off emotionally. Any film person worth their weight in dirt will tell you that emotional involvement on the part of the audience is a crucial element. i firmly believe that McCarthy has an understanding of that in his book. However, the film feels completely unaware or uncaring, it's difficult to tell which, of it's audience's emotional state. In the end it the film proved more exhausting and drawn out than it did thought provoking. Again, this is probably largely due to the clumsy handling of some of the emotional material, but it's difficult to say. All that is certain is that if this road is The Road less travelled, it's not hard to see why.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Love & Loss in Todd Field's "In the Bedroom"

In the Bedroom is a rare example of one of those movies that people will stumble upon years later and it manages to hold its own still. WHile there are those that may not appreciate the time that the movie takes to unfold, there is a certain artistry in what the audience is shown and what the audience is not shown. More than that, it makes a powerful case for the state of what independent cinema has become. It's steady decay into something just as profitable as any Hollywood project, as 500 Days of SUmmer proved, is truly a death worth mourning. Still, in re-visiting In the Bedroom it's impossible not to be filled with hope for the artistry of it, as well as despair for the characters that inhabit it.

One of the things that so firmly secures this project as worth noticing is in the imagery of it alone. There are beautiful shots that make the movie stand out as a powerful example of the beauty of the moving image. However, as odd as it may sound, there's an indescribable beauty added to the majestic New England coast when the pictures are so richly invested with meaning. The landscape and the feel of the town is so important to the credibility of the picture. Director Todd Field holds a sort of reverence for the small New England town, while enriching it with everyday life details. What results is the unthinkable happening in "anywhere, USA." But just as the universality of the story is important, it's even more crucial to see that it's not happening anywhere. It's happening here, and it's happening to these people.

After all, at it's heart, that's what In the Bedroom is: a character piece. While the director allows the audience to share in the grief of Matt (Tom Wilkinson) and Ruth (Sissy Spacek), it is always their burden. Sure, there are some heartbreaking moments, but at the end of the day, Matt and Ruth are faced with the reality of the situation and what they've done to contribute to their own son's death at the hands of another man. It's an examination of what people will do and can do for love and the difference between them. This type of character study could easily be forgotten amidst a myriad of other projects about grief and the loss of a loved one. What makes this movie powerful is not the subject matter, but the way that it unfolds and the performances of those involved in it.

Wilkinson and Spacek are tragic as the aging married couple who lose their son. It isn't enough that they lose him, but it's about coming to terms living with each other without him. In a way, each of them blames the other for what happened to him, but deep down, both are aware of the role they played. This type of deconstruction of their marriage is slow and deliberate. The emotional toll it takes on the audience is one of the most unforgettable parts. While both were nominated for the Academy Award for their roles in the film, neither won that year, which is a shame that won't soon be forgotten. They drive forward Todd Field's character study, culminating in a chilling ending that truly demonstrates what people are capable of doing for love.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Brokeback Mountain: The Celluloid Closet Case

In adapting literature, even short stories, the audience knows that there are sacrifices to be made. Since literature is a medium that primarily consists of words and film is one where the visual is crucial, there are obvious changes to be made to make the text more accessible to film-goers. Over the years, it would seem that by now studio executives would be getting something right. Sadly, this is not always the case. Stakes need to be heightened for film and the exposition and occasionally internal thought need to be cut down, but largely the end result remains the same. However, on occasion there are films that bear nothing more than a passing resemblance to their source material, even instances where the only similarity is that the two share the same title. However, it is particularly offensive when a beautiful short story is turned into a film for reasons other than its exceptional story. The particular atrocity I’m referring to is that of Brokeback Mountain, originally written by Annie E. Proulx for The New Yorker in 1997 and directed for the screen by Ang Lee in 2005. The original short story is a compassionate account of two men’s love affair which plays out through the course of their lives. Ang Lee’s account of the story stays faithful to the events of the short story, but being that it is a film, loses most of the emotional complexity of the characters. Although Proulx felt that her source material was done justice, it is my personal belief that Brokeback Mountain should be understood merely as a product of its time and not as some great beacon of hope for the gay community.
Let me begin by saying that I commend Brokeback Mountain, Proulx’s short story and Ang Lee’s film, for addressing a topic that was considered so taboo in both polite society and rural America as well. In 1997, when the story graced the pages of The New Yorker, it took readers by storm. It engaged the author herself and her readers in a manner that few publications really do. Proulx’s inspiration, the examination of homophobia in “cowboy country”, brought the topic of homophobia out of the West and into the minds of people everywhere. It even won several awards, most notably the 1998 National Magazine for Fiction Award which was awarded to The New Yorker for its publication. However, we must also understand that this was in the end of the 20th century. It would still be over 5 years before the story was ever made into a film. This is not to say that the screenplay didn’t exist for all these years before Lee was approached about making it into a film, because the fact of the matter is that it did. A little known fact is that there were actual several directors that had signed on, but too few actors or studios were willing to back the making of this film. This fear of “gay” and what it can do to a career or to profits is still alive and well today. It even existed during the commercialization of this film. One instance of this can even be seen in the trailer of the film. The text reads, “It was a friendship... that became a secret.” throughout the rest of the trailer homosexual love is alluded to, but never once is the term “love” used in the trailer. After all, that’s what we’re meant to understand this to be, isn’t it? Doesn’t Proulx make it a very clear point that, although complicated and although the times will not allow Jack and Ennis to be together, the two men are in love? Sadly, the importance of time in the process of making Brokeback Mountain and even the marketing of the film should not be underestimated. Yes, people were provoked by Proulx’s prose when it appeared on the page, but what was there to draw audiences into the theater? There is a very clear difference between reading about the love between two men and seeing it on screen. Studio executives knew that there was nothing that would convince people to see the film. They knew that they had to downplay the significance of the film until the time was right. It was at this point that Brokeback Mountain ceased to be a mere short story or an idea for a film, and it became a tool for the studios to ride out until the time was right.
Studios felt that the time was right almost a decade after the original publication of the piece. Brokeback Mountain was issued a wide release in the United States on december 16, 2005. Now, being that we live in a Capitalist society it is understood that films are expected to be released based on the potential for profitability. However, this film’s release also has severely political implications in its release. 2004 had been a Presidential election year. The combative nature of the campaigns between George W. Bush and John Kerry had been one of the most aggressive in recent years. One of the major issues that had seen America divided was about the issue of gay marriage. The debate still rages today but in 2004 it was a major cause of controversy. The religious right sided with george W. Bush that a Constitutional amendment ought to be passed defining “marriage” as strictly between a man and a woman. An almost equally impressive voice from the left, and particularly the gay community, fought back declaring such an amendment as unconstitutional. However, from a studio perspective, it was clearly a profitable market. On one hand, the religious right and social conservatives were openly condemning the film. Whether the conservatives liked it or not was irrelevant to the studios, because it was causing controversy and controversy, in economic terms, is essentially free publicity. The protests from conservatives forced average Americans to ask themselves “What are they getting so worked up about?”. In essence, in boycotting the film, figures like the Reverend Fred Phelps, piqued people’s curiosity, resulting in more people seeing the film. Then, from a more progressive standpoint, you also have the gay community who showed up in droves to support a film that contained a homosexual love story. It’s no wonder that Brokeback Mountain has the highest per-screen gross of any non-animated movie in US history. People were driving from all over to see the film that had caused such a stir in the wake of such a divisive Presidential election.
Furthermore, Americans outside of the gay community praised this film for its “realistic telling” of a love story between two men. It would be another several years before even another gay-themed film would be nominated for Best Picture. The difference between Brokeback Mountain and Milk, although both Best Picture losers, is that Brokeback Mountain dealt with the homosexuality in terms that Americans were able to deal with at the time. There’s no doubt about the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a gay-themed film, but the representation of homosexuality is so subdued that audiences could handle it. Although the loves scenes between Jack and Ennis are explicit, they are no more explicit than the scenes with their respective wives. One could even make the case that in the film portrayal the sex scene between Jack and Lureen is more explicit than any of the scenes between him and Ennis. More importantly, sex between two men, on screen at least, was something that people were hesitant but willing to see on one condition. The love story is not a triumphant one. It has no happy ending. Most of the short story and the film deal with wanting to be “different”. “Different”, clearly meaning gay in this instance, was something to be feared and something that was so clearly undesirable. While this is an accurate portrayal of the times, it also is somewhat telling of audiences as well. In recent history essentially every gay-themed film (Boys Don’t Cry, Brokeback Mountain, Milk, etc.) ends with one of the characters being killed because they are gay. It’s difficult to take anything away from this “great love story” between Jack and Ennis when Jack is dead in the end. Once again, the “gay” becomes something tragic and pitiable, rather than a celebration of homosexuality, because American audiences have proved themselves, repeatedly, unable to deal with the real celebration of homosexuality.
Brokeback Mountain is a complex movie. While it is true that it was one of the first high-grossing films with two mainstream actors willing to play gay, it also must be understood as a political and almost exploitative look at homosexuality. Its origins, in writing, are filled with good intentions, but its pathway to being made forces me to question the motives of the studios and the filmmakers themselves. Meanwhile, when it finally was made it capitalized on the political attitudes of the time to make money, something that I still wish didn’t shock me as much as it did. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this film is often praised for breaking boundaries, which it certainly did. However, it also played it safe in many regards, particularly the marketing and the illustration of Jack and Ennis’s relationship. While the film certainly does have its finer attributes, I feel it’s important to understand it as a pawn in a larger game that still has yet to be played out.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Final Destination 2 is Like a Highway Riddled with Plot Holes

When talking about the dreaded horror sequel, let's be real, no one's expecting gold. I mean, the horror genre is already sneered at by most "legitimate" critics, but when it comes to sequels? Well, sometimes it's hard to get excited about them even as hardcore fans.

A prime example is in the Final Destination series. The first one is at least enjoyable as what it is. It's a new horror franchise with an unbeatable villain which really means infinite possibilities. What happened next in the series, with Final Destination 2 was a clear evolution, but that's just it. There was no tension, no character development, and no overwhelming desire for anyone to live. Now I'm not saying that there are people out there that I want to die, but when you pack your movie with so many irredeemable characters? Well, you're sorting of asking for it at that point.

I mean, within the first 10 minutes, the movie shows boobs, at least two different forms of drug use, and plenty of other aberrant behavior. By horror standards, you're guaranteed to know who dies by the end of the film. Final Destination 2 in true horror sequel fashion, packs no punches. Anyone who's read Men, Women and Chainsaws or even seen Scream knows the "rules" of the horror movie and this flick chooses to cash in on all of them. That type of lazy writing, which really should be more surprising than it is, plus these characters that aren't even given a glimmer of development until 5 minutes before they check out, really slow down Final Destination 2.

The problem with Final Destination 2 honestly doesn't have that much to do with the characters. They make the film irritating to watch for 90 minutes, but let's be real, not too many folks out there are watching for the stellar acting. If you are one of the odd people that does look for credibility and consistency in your horror movies, then I'd say Final Destination 2 isn't for you. But back to my main point. What's lacking from this film is audience engagement. It too often does something random and half-hearted to provide a cheap thrill. As a fan of gore, I'll admit there are some times when the method of death is just unimportant as long as I get my splatter. The movie provides it in some instances, but it just is. An even bigger problem is that, when it does come, the thrill of the first kill has already worn off. The death scenes, when you're given no reason to like any of the characters, are too far apart to warrant spending all 90 minutes of your life watching it. Do yourself a favor and skip it entirely or at least fast forward to all the kill scenes. I mean, it is pretty obvious when they're coming so you have plenty of time to hit play.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Check it out...

I've been writing for this awesome site, called The Scorecard Review for a little while now, but today features one of my first film reviews! Granted it's on the movie Marmaduke, but hey, writing is writing and at least I got to be brutal... Check it out and become fans of The Scorecard Review on facebook!

http://thescorecardreview.com/review/film-reviews/2010/06/04/marmaduke/10857

Thursday, June 3, 2010

What is Gay?

In Berzon's Dealing With Issues: What Gay Is and Is Not she talks about how society's current understanding of homosexuality and all that encompasses impacts the gay community. Rather than accept it, she recommends that people speak out when faced with homophobia. she offers a variety of situations where one can speak out against other's homophobia. She also examines what people know versus what people think they know about homosexuality. Being a homosexual male growing up in middle/upper class predominantly white suburbia, I was faced with my fair share of ignorance regarding my sexuality. There are many pre-conceived notions surrounding one of America's "dirtiest secrets". What I mean to say is that for something that is considered impolite to discuss, people in Wyoming, Ohio think they've got it all figured out. One example of this was pretty soon after I came out freshman year. This one girl walks up to me and starts talking to me. I try to be polite and pretend like I actually care what she's talking about until she gets to her point. This girl continues to yammer on for a solid 5 minutes before I start tuning in, just long enough to hear her ask "So, do you wanna, like, go shopping sometime?" It was astounding to me. here I was, a chubby freshman and suddenly I was every woman in the school's best friend. I mean, I'd heard of the term "fag hag" but this was getting to be ridiculous. Factor in the whole part where for the majority of my high school career I wore only white tees and jeans and this girl asks me if I'd like to go shopping. I could tell I wouldn't be much help in the shopping department, but that's just one of the many stereotypes surrounding gay males, particularly in suburbia, a dangerous territory in and of itself. However, it was also disheartening on a much more profound level. I had worked hard to establish myself as my own person in high school. It never even occurred to me that other people would have the power to strip me of that. I'm not gonna pretend like it was hard for me, growing up gay. I dealt with it as anyone else has to deal with the cards that life deal them. What was hard was being reduced to other people's understanding of my sexuality. It's a constant struggle.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

A Tale of Two Nutjobs

You know that girl that stays with the guy even though he treats her like shit and calls her stupid? Yeah, it's rough watching relationships like that, but believe me, as far as dysfunctional relationships go, they could be a lot worse off. That's the main lesson to take away from the 2007 documentary Crazy Love. The film focuses on the relationship and subsequent marriage of Linda Riss and Burt Pugach and all the trials and tribulations they've faced.

Why is the movie named Crazy Love you may ask. Well, there's something important to understand about Linda and Burt. After Linda broke Burt's heart, he hired several men to go to her house and throw acid in her face, which blinded her. If he couldn't have her, no one could. Now, I'm no Carrie Bradshaw or Dan Savage, but to me, that might cause momentary pause. Yet, the relationship continues and they remain married to this day. Oh yeah, and the acid incident was after Burt lied about being married as well as getting a divorce. Left blinded after the incident, Crazy love feels like a disturbing account of Stockholm Syndrome. Linda was essentially ruined to the world after that and couldn't find a man that would love her the same way that Burt did.

Now the documentary itself leaves something to be desired. It starts out with an interesting albeit twisted premise, but it just doesn't deliver. The pacing feels rushed in many parts and I found myself wanting to know more. By the end of the film's 92 minute running time, I wished I'd spent that time reading a book or newspaper articles about the couple instead of watching the doc. God knows there are enough clippings about it. But it's clear to see that it's a labor of love for the director. Unfortunately, that kind of passion for a story often leaves the creator blind (pun intended) to the flaws of the film.

The movie feels like Dan Klores and Fisher Stevens may have wanted to focus on too many things for one movie, while I was simply interested in the two folks. It reads much better as a character study for me. See, while Burt is certainly depraved in his way, Linda's no picnic either. I'm not saying she deserved to have this happen to her, but something shifted in accounts of her from before the accident as opposed to after. After the accident she tried to start over, but Burt continued to write to her from jail. She then proceeded to ask him for money, only to inform the police that he was still writing to her. She conveniently left out the detail that she asked for and accepted money from him.

The film focuses on Burt as the monster, which he clearly is, but that doesn't mean Linda is free of blame. They're both awful people that truly deserve each other. At least, that's what I took away from it. Instead, the film suggests the moral is that love knows no bounds, even if it's illegal. In short, Crazy Love is an interesting premise that falls apart on execution, on both a cinematic and an ideological level.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Now Ya See 'Em, Now Ya Don't

I don't pretend to be a TV purist. I like some of the trashiest stuff imaginable and I'll fully admit to that. Still, it feels like a little consistency isn't too much to ask. I mean, from show creators it is (sorry Ryan Murphy) but by and large, not askin' for the moon here. That's why it always gets to me when a character just up and disappears.

Now, sure Ryan Murphy is guilty of this crime, but he honestly wasn't even the guy I was thinking about. Anyone who knows me knows that I love just about all creations Aaron Sorkin and I would never dream of defaming him. Still, sometimes his character send-offs leave something to be desired. For instance, anyone remember Mandy, Moira Kelly's character in season one of The West Wing? I say specifically season one because, even though her storyline was still going strong, come the season two premiere, she's nowhere to be found.

It's times like these I can't help but think of Jason Reitman's 2004 movie (you know, the one Jason Reitman movie I actually like) Thank You for Smoking. In it, Rob Lowe is supposed to be a caricature of the Hollywood exec. When presented with a problem, he simply says to write a line of dialogue to explain the problem away. It's cheap and it's shoddy film making, but hey, it's what many folks end up doing.

I always laugh at that moment in the film because I can name at least three instances where I wish the creator would just do that already. The disappearance of Mandy was never too troubling for me. She nagged and was no good for Josh anyway, but I still can't say I entirely welcome her disappearance. Sure, I didn't want her to stick around, but at least give her a send-off episode. Hell, not even that, but at least a line. Instead, they just pretend it never happened. It's kind of troubling, but that's the reality of it.

So my point (if I even have one) is this. You want people to get emotionally involved in these characters? Then treat these characters with the same respect you would your audience. Just give it a damn quick fix, anything besides the random disappearance. I understand that this can't always be done, but to me, that casual disinterest in your own characters is a pretty bad sign for what audiences have in store.