Confessions of a Self-Proclaimed Megalomaniac

I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus... And I Didn't Leave Right Away

2010-08-09T08:32:00.001-05:00

We all have movies or TV shows or music that we look back on as we grow up and can't help but think to ourselves, "Really? No, seriously?!?" Some of it might be because it's just so damn bad now, but more often than not, I find it's because there's always that "adult" humor that manages to slip under your radar. Part of me is always a little grossed out and amused because, well, it's good stuff (believe me, after a re-watching of Hocus Pocus you'll know what I'm talking about) but other stuff? Other stuff can only be described as, "oh dear God, why do children find that funny?!?" For instance, whenever Jerry drops an iron on Tom's head? Yeah, I've only had one fall on my foot and it hurt like hell, so I fail to see the hilarity in that.

But see, I wasn't like most kids. I took myself a little too seriously. I wouldn't watch cartoons because, well A) My parents never really let me, but B) I always thought that violence was no laughing matter. Now after all this years, i clearly see what I've been missing both in cartoons and laughing at violence... when it should be laughed at, of course... although I still don't get the appeal of America's Funniest Home Videos... How many times do you hafta watch a guy getting hit in the balls before it gets funny? I'm always surprised by how many guys laugh, because I can say from personal experience, it's never very funny when it's happening to you.

But besides the mystery of America's Funniest Home Videos, there was one other thing that always bothered me. Remember the song I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus? Yeah, well, does anyone remember the next lines? "What a laugh it would have been, if Daddy had only seen, Mommy kissing Santa Claus last night?" She does know what "laugh" means, right? I mean, i get it because daddy and santa claus are the same person so it's supposed to be all like, "aw, how cute", but she doesn't know that, does she? For all she knows, mommy's making out with some stranger who came down the chimney.

See, to me that doesn't sound like cause for a laugh, that sounds more like motive and opportunity for a double homicide. But nooo, you can't write about that because that would sell at Christmas time. Either way you look at it, this little girl sounds a little nuts, because for real, who wants their mom to kiss someone else? That's just weird! I mean, forget the sanctity of marriage or whatever, that's just... that little girl is pretty much pimping out her mother, that's all I'm saying. It's just a weird song to be playing when it comes times for family togetherness or whatever. Unless it's a song about her mom hooking up with a mall santa, but I think that might even be weirder.

Batman Takes a Look Under the Red Hood

2010-08-08T12:30:00.000-05:00

Batman Under the Red Hood does something surprising in the DC universe. It embrace the flaws of the caped crusader and works it into a compelling and emotional story, which is a rarity for most animated movies. Not only that but, to be fair, my expectations for it were a little low. Let me put it this way; my love of Batman has burned me before.

I've suffered through countless lackluster straight to DVD movies that even featured Batman, no matter how minimal, because I wanted to see what each incarnation brought to the table. There's no doubt that Batman Under the Red Hood is for comic books fans so if you're strictly into Batman on a surface level or not a comic fan, I'm warning you now that this movie is for the fanboys (and girls) like myself.

The movie starts off with a bang,literally. It starts off with the death of the ill-fated boy wonder, Jason Todd, which is a fairly dark place to start. Where it goes from there straddles the lines of vigilanteism and righteousness, much like the caped crusader himself. However, what makes the Red Hood such an interesting villain is that it becomes clear that he has a very defined code of ethics, but they work outside of batman's own code. The most important? The Red Hood breaks the cardinal rule of Batman's crime-fighting philosophy and declares that killing criminals is fair game.

In many ways, the movie focuses on batman at odds with himself, which is always an interesting take. The problem with that is that the story has been done before. More importantly, it's hard to imagine that type of material being handled better than Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Still, it provides plenty of conflict to satiate hardcore Batman fans' appetites for brooding.

But the main focus of the film isn't with Batman himself or even with the Red Hood. Instead, it focuses on Batman's relationship with his young wards, namely Dick Grayson (who is in fine form as Nightwing) and the aforementioned Jason Todd. It explores the complicated relationship between Batman's impossible standards and the inevitable failings of his boy wonders. In many ways, it deals a lot with daddy issues, but never in a melodramatic fashion. It deals with the pressures of living up to a legend, but also, what it means to be able to take care of someone else and growing up too fast.

By the end, it's fairly clear who the Red Hood is, but that doesn't detract from the entertainment of the first two acts and the emotional resonance of the final one. Batman Under the Red Hood presents a similar Batman to one's we have seen before, but adds maturity and sincerity to present a more mature and complex figure. This isn't the same hero that i grew up with, but it's only fitting that I should view this Batman differently. Batman Under the Red Hood holds up well as a straight-to-DVD movie that deserves credit as an impressive addition to the legendary saga of the dark knight.

My Inner Child Is Tired of Being Profiled!

2010-08-06T11:06:00.000-05:00

Listen, we all have our guilty pleasures, right? Most people who know me (or really anyone with an internet connection and my Facebook) know that I'm a sucker for comic books, particularly Batman. I could go on and on about the caped crusader and what he means to me and how I relied on those comics to escape the boredom of predominantly white, middle-upper class suburbia, but really, who wants to hear about that?

So every so often, I indulge myself a little, pick up a trade or an animated movie. You know, it's the small things that keep us sane and all that Anna Quindlen stuff. So naturally, I was pretty excited about the new batman animated movie Batman: Under the Red Hood. Believe me, I've sat through some bad ones, but anything for Bruce Wayne. For those who are fans, it's actually not half bad and I was surprised that they went with a storyline that nobody else would want to touch when they brought Jason Todd into the picture. All you Batman fans know the story of the ill-fated Boy Wonder... But this isn't a review. Okay, on a quick side note, for Batman fans, I recommend checking it out because it's got some great animation and a surprisingly well-executed storyline.

But no, this is about something else entirely. I know to some it might seem like I spend a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. Then again, who doesn't love a good rant? So if you're not interested in what ridiculous problem I've got now, well, I can't imagine why you've even read this far.

When I sat down to watch the movie, I was getting all ready to get in touch with my inner nerd and enjoy some comic book fun, but what's this? I've gotten used to having to trudge through studio logos and previews for other animated abortions I have no interest in seeing, but first up was a commercial for Mattel Collectors. I don't know how many of you know them, but toy collectors can be a particularly odd bunch. Every so often, you get the passionate, down to earth folks, but believe me when I say it's a rarity. And here I was, being lumped in with the rest of them.

Like I said, I indulge myself when I watch these movies. I'm not expecting cinematic masterpieces, but I can count on a good time, even if it is a little childish. But there's no need to just profile me as some emotionally stunted guy who lives in his mother's basement drinking kool-aid and eating rice krispie treats while playing World of Warcraft. Don't get me wrong, if that's your thing, that's cool too, it's just not mine. But still, we all get lumped together.

What if it's just an innocent ad aimed at kids, you say? Well, how many kids do you know that are serious toy collectors? Sure, maybe I took it a little too personally, but I'm just here to say, we're not all the same guy, or girl for that matter. Who am I to say that some women wouldn't enjoy this movie? Exactly! I have no right, just like you dicks at DC Universe. Quit trying to make me a full-fledged geek, when me and my inner child are just trying to have a good time.

Kick-Ass: A Study in Cultural Phenomenon

2010-08-05T09:32:00.000-05:00

Kick-Ass is a great many things. Equal parts humor, some parts melodrama, and plenty of the American dream thrown in together and what do you get? You get a frantic exercise in media consciousness in the 21st century.

At its heart, Kick-Ass claims to be an underdog story. It's got all the elements of the makings of a superhero; love, loss, betrayal, but most importantly, it's got plenty of victimization. Sure, there's the protagonist Dave Lizewski, but there are plenty of other examples, but I don't want to get ahead of myself. Dave is the perfect candidate for superherodom for a variety of reasons, but noticeably, because he knows what it feels to be stripped of his masculinity (both in the physical world and the rumor of his homosexuality) in a man's world. All these factors come together to create the alter-ego of Kick-Ass, but what does that mean exactly? As his friends point out, there are no discernable superpowers and he doesn't even go through a training montage to prepare for his battle against evil.

Yes, it's sad but true that Kick-Ass serves purely as an idea and never truly represents a physical threat to evil-doers anywhere. I mean, look at the beatings that he constantly takes and when confronted by something truly dangerous? Either Hit Girl and Big Daddy come in or he runs from it.

But that's not the point, because Kick-Ass stands as a representation of good versus evil. He doesn't have to do anything other than dress up in a costume and get himself hurt in the name of all things good. Still, Dave Lizewski didn't get this power alone. Where did it come from?

Yup, that's right, the internet. This doesn't just happen overnight though... well, actually, it kind of does, but that's crucial to the development too. Kick-Ass gets his start as a YouTube phenomenon and nothing more. However, like all great pieces of American pop culture, he transcends the ideological and becomes something physical, something tangible that people can ask for guidance or some sort of guidance.

Then again, he never does completely transcend the ideological, because he never really becomes that good at what he does. Still, it's the idea that he is somehow accessible to the people which makes him a man of the people. However, it is fame, garnered through the YouTube sensation, that cripples him in a sense. His ego becomes inflated and his focus on doing any real good is warped into public appearances and the ideas behind his actions, rather than his somewhat unimpressive actions.

Things are made more interesting when Red Mist comes on to the scene, effectively as fraudulent as Kick-Ass but a result of calculated PR and menace. Note that there is no real difference between the two, but once again, it is the ideological. This, however, is an idea that can't really be conveyed through cell phone videos or websites, so Red Mist is taken at face value.

As the power struggle between good and evil continues, evil is the only palpable force in the real world. Sure, Kick-Ass does his thing sometimes, but once again, it is rarely on his own and frequently underwhelming. All of his power is derived from that clip that made its way to YouTube rather than anything real. The evil in the world? That's real. Still, this is an idea that is never given much credit throughout the course of the film as it goes from mocking the superhero genre with harsh reality to becoming yet another article in the superhero canon. This isn't to dismiss Kick-Ass as unimportant or even uninteresting, because it certainly does both on a surface level, but much like its titular hero, it never transcends the ideological world into something real.

Spielberg Returns to the Summer Blockbuster: Revisiting His Roots

2010-08-04T09:59:00.000-05:00

Spielberg over the years has mastered many of the genres, proving himself to be a more than capable director and certainly a master storyteller. However, every director has his or her missteps and Spielberg is certainly not immune.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull starts out awful and only gets worse. When asked to analyze the film, it’s difficult to wrap my head around it because I can’t even begin to understand what Spielberg could possibly have been thinking with this film. Although Last Crusade may not be everybody’s idea of a best Picture winner, it’s definitely a solid film. However, to give him credit, in his long awaited follow up to his largely successful Indiana Jones series Spielberg treads somewhat unfamiliar ground for the series. As we discussed in class, in his previous Indiana Jones movies he’s dealt with pillars of the Judaic and Christian faith. It’s a difficult area to deal with, especially in such a blatant crowd-pleaser, but Spielberg handles both topics with sensitivity, but his most recent Indiana Jones film doesn’t deal with either faiths, but sets off in an entirely different direction. At first it seems daring to abandon the traditions that fans know and love, but Spielberg shamelessly panders to audience’s expectations without forcing them to question anything as he’s definitely done with his more recent films. Still, knowing Spielberg’s roots in the entertainment field, after minimal examination, it’s clear that he has returned to his regular stomping grounds by producing yet another Summer blockbuster, just different from his Indiana Jones blockbusters. Like I said, after such ballsy movies as Munich, it’s difficult to not only watch him return to making popcorn flicks, but even worse when he does it poorly.
My main issue with the film is predominantly why others like it. I’ve heard a great many people say that they liked the fact that the film took place in the 50s. It set up Indiana Jones in a new era for a new generation of movie-goers while providing a familiar enough set up for older fans of the films. While I respect the fact that he took a chance, the 1950s are an era that he is familiar with and works too hard to make his audience familiar with. His references to the 1950s are heavy handed at best (The Wild One reference comes to mind). This is just one of the many examples of how he gives his audience everything they want, sacrificing his craft for whatever reason. What I will give him credit for is his telling of the 1950s. Although so blatant, the story involving the aliens is something fitting of a 1950s film so it seems right at home in this action flick set in the 50s.
Regardless, in the long run, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull disappoints not only as an Indiana Jones film, but as a Spielberg film. He has once again returned to his place in Hollywood-dom as one of the Summer blockbuster directors (fittingly enough since he’s responsible for the Summer blockbuster). However, it’s been a long time since he’s been in a purely entertainment movie making zone, so he even seems somewhat uncomfortable returning to the genre. All in all, it works as mindless entertainment, but I’ve come to refuse mindless entertainment from Spielberg, seeing as he’s proved his capability as a serious filmmaker.

Zombie Helen Keller Pitch

2010-08-03T09:56:00.000-05:00

It's hard out there to be a middle aged woman in what's primarily a man's world. Helen has all the daily trials and tribulations of the average working woman. Throw in looking for love in all the wrong places, and hilarity ensues. As if that's not enough try looking for love when you're blind, deaf, and undead! What you're sure to have is a laugh riot! Join zombie Helen Keller as she tries to balance work and love in the latest sitcom everyone's sure to be talking about!

If any of you guys have any network connections, please pass on my pitch to like NBC or maybe Fox, okay? Sweet! Thanks!

It FEELS like love to me...

Ramblings of the Forgotten Man (Fiction Writing)

2010-08-02T08:55:00.001-05:00

He sat and waited at the bus stop in his tattered, checkered coat. Actually, he’d been sitting and waiting for some time now. He glanced down at his watch only to see that it had stopped ticking at a quarter past three some morning, he didn’t know when. At his age, he never looked at the clock or his watch much anymore, each second hand a painful reminder that time didn’t move any slower for an old man, no matter how slowly he moved.
He let loose a heavy sigh from his frail body, his shoulders quivered as he drew in more air. He looked down at his watch hand again, quickly this time as if spending less time staring at the clock would make the 78 express come any faster. Almost three quarters past 5. The bus should’ve been here by now.
As he had grown older he had become increasingly frustrated at today’s society running at its own leisurely pace, almost unaware as the world kept turning, the sands continued to collect at the bottom of the hourglass. Time. People these days had no concept of it, he thought to himself, no respect for it. That’s the trouble these days, no respect for time, no respec- he was interrupted mid-thought by the squeaking of the poorly oiled brakes of the 5:30 78. The man slowly looked up from his rusty, stopped watch as he heard the gentle hiss of the 78 express bus door swing open.
He looked up hesitantly at the driver of the bus and gently folded his day old newspaper he‘d been
reading to pass the time. The grey haired man looked up into the stormy eyes of the bus driver, colorless, much like the clouds of that Chicago February he sought shelter from on the Express. He stopped before getting on the bus, as if afraid to crack a smile, but his lips curled to show a twisted sort of grin. A smile not truly of happiness, but rather a tired smile that had been used many times before. He had used it at obligatory social gatherings, weddings, social situations in which he felt he had no place. This sort of smirk that the man presented to the bus driver as a sort of exchange of pleasantries without any actual spoken words, was quickly shot down by the man at the wheel. The driver, with an incredible lack of grace, scratched at his ass as he coughed up phlegm as he prepared to speak.
That’ll be a buck fifty. The old man looked at the driver once again. He began to study the driver’s features as he mounted the steps, his eyes fixed upwards. His slightly dampened shoes from the afternoon shower squeaked as they made their way, slipping across the rubber of the steps. The driver, the old man had noticed, had some sort of sadness about him. Make no mistake, the driver’s face showed no signs of sadness. But that was just it. His face seemed almost comfortable in its hardened state. It was this that gave him away. Also his eyes, the very same eyes that had once looked down on the old man, now at eye level, for some reason or another, seemed to melt as they met with the man’s tired, blue eyes. He turned his head away from the stare of the driver as he fumbled through his pockets for the change to make up his fare. He blindly dropped the coins into the slot, never once making eye contact again with the bus driver, and made his way back to his seat.
As he made his way towards the back of the bus, he casually looked at his watch. 5:49. It had taken him almost 5 minutes for him to make his way onto the bus. Well, what can I say? He thought. I just don’t move like I used to. He was sure of that. He remembered all the times he had hated time, all the times he had prided himself on his disobedience to Father Time. He thought about those old days. That one summer when he had won the regional finals for the 100 meter dash. 12.37 seconds. Even till this day, he still held the record for his small, desolate Kansas town. But times have changed. He could no longer run 100 meters in 12.37 seconds. This is Father Time’s way of getting back at me. He thought to himself. This is the price I pay for my hubris.
Excuse me. A young man, a twenty something, briefcase in hand, ready for another day at the grind interrupted the man’s thoughts. Would you care for a seat? He asked. The twenty something added a nauseating smile to this offer, as a sort of effort to seal the deal, a technique he had no doubt learned from some second rate community college in Noweheresville, USA. It was the old man’s turn to smile, a sort of fuck you to the young businessman. How dare you comment on my age? The elderly man wanted to say. Instead, he looked at the young man, thanked him for him for his generosity, but assured him that he would be quite fine standing or looking for another seat.
The younger man scoffed a sort of good luck and returned to what he was doing before the elderly stranger had come along. The old man began to look around the bus for any empty seats, but much to his dismay the young businessman had been right, seats were hard to come by. He stood holding on to the plastic hoop hanging down from the metal bars of the bus for support.
As he stood there, he once again began to look around the bus. However, this time he began to look more closely at the faces of those who surrounded him. All of them seemed to be lost in their own definitions of importance. The businessman looking at the Wall Street stock exchange. The young woman blissfully unaware of her surroundings as she listened to her music. The teenaged school boy with a look that could only be described as apathetic.
He began to wonder. I see all these things when I look at them, all the people around me, lost in a category. I see the twenty some year old man, trying to work his way up in the business world. I see the young woman searching to find some happiness in her escape of reality through any means necessary. I see the stereotypical teen, lethargic and uncaring as he makes his way home to yet another evening of “How was school?”s and “What did you learn today?”s. I see all of this, clear as day. But what do they see? The question he was so afraid to ask. What do they see when they look at me? Do they see what I was? How could they? My former days of glory, surrendered to an age of osteoporosis and arthritis. All they see when they look at me is a shriveled old shell of a man. He was sure of it. They can’t possibly understand what I was, they can’t get past who I am here, now. And they’ll never know. No one listens to the ramblings of an old man, talking about the good ol’ days. No one hears him. They all pretend to listen as they continue running about their daily lives. This is my punishment for my arrogance, my flaunting in the face of time, my eagerness to race through it. They will never see who I was. They only see how time has made a fool of me.

The Rules of Adulthood

2010-08-01T08:49:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a little under a year now since I graduated from college. Well, 8 months at least. I'm not in any rush to make myself seem older, I can tell you that much. Has the job market cleared up? Not really. I mean, sure I've got a great job that keeps me busy and I honestly love it, but does love sustain us? Sadly, the answer to that is no. It's nothing personal, but I need money now. That being said, the job that I currently have is both in my field and something I truly love to do, plus, it's a surprisingly minimal commitment.

But see, there it goes again, getting off track. The problem isn't the current job, it's the fact that the current job is the only job. Sure, I know that everyone's having a rough go of it with the economy and job market what it is right now. I'm not going to pretend like I'm any other college graduate, where I'm somehow better or more qualified than those around me. I have an undergraduate degree like most everybody else. See, I did what so many of our parents told us to do. I went to school, got good grades so I could get into college. In college, I worked hard and applied myself (whatever that means) so that I could graduate. This is where it gets tricky. I graduated and the way that parents tell it, jobs are just waiting for you.

Well, as soon as you leave the ivory halls of academia, it hits you that that's a lie just like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. I know that this hasn't always been true, but it's the way that things are now. Hell, as soon as I finished up undergrad, jobs started looking at me with my measly undergrad degree as if to say, "Sorry buddy, that just doesn't cut it anymore." So I'm headed back to school, which is no big deal. It had always been part of my plan but I was hoping to work a little in between my undergrad and grad school, but no such luck, so I'm headed back to school.

That's not the thing here though. What really gets me is this; I played by the rules. I did exactly what I was supposed to do and what's the reward? Congratulations, you're living off Ramen for another year at least.

It just feels like there are these rules to live by, like do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Constantly, rules are being shoved down our throats. Do this. Don't do that. All along I've been doing my best to follow them, only to discover what every other college grad right now is discovering. The rules have changed. There's no sign at the the end of adolescence to show that you've arrived into adulthood. All you have to show for it is even less money and bigger problems. So consider this a plea, if somebody has an updated rulebook on the rules of adulthood, I'd love to check it out because I've been playing by the rules up until now and I've got nothing to show for it.

Hillbilly Horror: Hitting Too Close to Home?

2010-07-31T09:28:00.000-05:00

There are all sorts of divisions within the horror community. Well, not divisions so much as sub-sects within the same basic genre. There's the supernatural movies which consist of the haunted house genre or there's the slasher with all of its sexual mores. Still, there are some genres that deserve credit for being more topical and influential than most casual movie viewers give them credit.

One of the clearest examples is the nuclear mutation sub-genre. This type of movie has certainly died out over the years as we make way for the virus mutation genre, playing off American fears of bio-chemical warfare, of course. Still, the nuclear genre gave birth to all sorts of creature features in the 50s and 60s. Stories about giant man-eating mutating ants like Them! terrified audiences because for all their education on the subject, especially compared to what is known now, it was a surprisingly realistic fear.

But the nuclear genre soon tired of oversized animals attacking small-town citizens, which gave birth to Attack of the 50 Foot Woman and other movies like this. Sure, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman is a poorly disguised attack on feminism, but it also perpetuated the fear of nuclear politics. Eventually movies like that led to more graphic portrayals of violence and terror on the homefront, such as Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. As movies got increasingly violent and aggressive, the rules started to change with the times. We were no longer afraid of what nuclear power could do, we became afraid of our own potential for destruction and mayhem.

Thus, what is frequently called hillbilly horror was born. Now this genre itself was loaded with subtle attacks on Americana. As always, the goal of the horror movie continued to be to address the topical fears of everyday Americans. One of the earliest examples of these movies, The Last House on the Left which is, inherently a class struggle in horror form, was largely based on the terror of the Vietnam War. Everyday Americans were going out and committing acts of savagery that would later show up on TVs in living rooms across the nation. It was horrifying to think what everyday Americans were capable of doing in the face of wartime, specifically in a war that many felt we had no business fighting.

However, the attack against Republicans and the involvement in the Vietnam War was only the beginning of hillbilly horror. It continued to involve over the years, with different causes for the deformations and acts of cruelty. Unlike real life, the disfiguration of the characters, which allowed the audience to identify him/her as evil, do not occur in real life. One such explanation was inbreeding. This was a more metaphorical approach to American values that seemed to insist upon themselves. Of course, more American values beget more American values in the same way that inbreeding simply causes further destruction to one's self. More than anything else, it's an attack on party politics which was long overdue by this time.

Hillbilly horror movies still exist today, although with little purpose. The cutting edge of the hidden meaning has dulled over time as America has become increasingly disenchanted with its own way of life. Furthermore, there are few American horror filmmakers that are courageous enough to tackle these issues or even new material at all, leaving hillbilly horror to be immortalized as one of the last great political stances within the horror genre.

A Writer's Plea for Reading

2010-07-29T10:15:00.000-05:00

They say a woman's job is never done. There's the whole inherent sexism of our society, followed by marriage (or spinsterhood, I'm not one too judge) and then usually children (or many many cats if the spinsterhood thing is still an option) and then watching the kids grow up and run off. It's a valid sentiment. Sure, it sounds a little condescending, but you get the gist.

What do they say about writers? Well, nothing really... the age of print is dying so we don't get much credit here or there. Still, look how many movies people are watching. Of the three new releases coming out tomorrow, Charlie St. Cloud is based on a book and Dinner for Schmucks, which is based on The Diner Game is based on a play. The third? Well, Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore doesn't look like it was based on anything but the inane ramblings of a three year old hopped up on cough syrup locked up in the same kennel as their dog, so I'm not sure if we'll even count that one.

My point, after all that rambling, is that writers are too frequently discounted. The life of a writer isn't easy and it's damn near impossible to survive. I mean, forget the lousy pay and the plethora of rejection, let's look at some of our best writers, shall we?

Ernest Hemingway? Killed himself and an alcoholic. Edgar Allan Poe? Drunkard, gambler, and still no one really knows how he died, although theories range from rabies (seriously?) to liver failure. Jack Keruouac? Inspired the beat movement and died penniless from alcoholism. Catch my drift?

Now I'm not saying that all of us writers are alcoholics and gamblers. I'm just saying that the writer's lifestyle allows for plenty of stressors, but not much relief. I mean, sure there are those bestseller authors, but eventually it becomes more about the movie than the craving to put pen to paper. Writers who are so firmly committed to their craft (and mind you, I'm not claiming to be one of them) frequently suffer for it.

Now I'm not saying this because it's National Library Month or anything. Do we even have one of those? Anyways, I'm just saying this because writing day in and day out can be tiring. I love what I do otherwise I wouldn't do it, but it's pretty much a constant blow to the ego. You do it because you have to get it out of you, but there's also this desire to be read, to be affirmed by the faceless, nameless readers of the internet. God knows I won't get that validation any time soon, but hell, do it for yourself. Look around (and I'm not just saying my blog, it could be anyone's) and who knows, you might find something worth reading.

Real World Solutions for Childhood Problems

2010-07-28T10:16:00.001-05:00

Today is the day and age of growing up way too fast. I don't know when it happened or how to fix it, but that's where we are these days. Kids are starting to become sexually active at a younger age. Hell, I even saw an 8 year old with an iPhone at the bus stop with her babysitter the other day. If we're being perfectly honest, I was more upset that an 8 year old can afford nicer things than I can, but that's irrelevant!

As children grow up too fast, the issue at hand is that childhood problems don't go away. For instance, you think you because your kid has got a Coach purse she (or God bless the little fella, he) isn't gonna have problems at school? That just makes her/him an easier target if you ask me. But then again, none of you did ask me. Well, not directly, but I guess by reading my blog you sorta are asking for my advice... That's kinda flattering... You'd actually be surprised by how few people ask for my advice. Why? I don't know, I give great advice. But right, back on message, gotta stay on point.

Alright, so where was I? Oh yeah, even though kids may act more and more like miniature adults (shut up, I know that that's kinda what they are anyway) doesn't mean they stop having kid problems. Using the kids I see in the world around me, I'm here to offer some real world solutions to childhood problems.

1. Problem - Your son or daughter is getting picked on at school by a bully.
Solution - While I would never advocate your child using violence of any sort, I do encourage an open discussion between parents and children. Be sure to show interest/concern for your child. Children should feel safe to talk to their parents and ask for their help. That's why, if your child seems like he/she is the victim of bullying, you should offer your help like any parent would. Money. If he/she is concerned about his/her safety, there's always the option of hiring someone else to teach this bully a lesson. Remember, I said I'd never advocate the child using violence, never said no to anyone else. Take a page out of that Texas mom's handbook, the one who took a hit out on the other girl on the cheerleading squad. I mean, people remember her for a reason.

2. Problem - Your son or daughter has a crush and is nervous about asking out a boy/girl at school.
Solution - Show interest. Ask them about their crush. Sure, they may be mortified at first, but in the end it'll pay off. Oh wait, I take that back. Tell them to watch Pretty Woman instead. They'll soon realize that a way to another person's heart isn't through love or affection, it's through money. If they're not Julia Roberts fans, which believe me, I can relate, tell them to check out The Real Housewives of New Jersey or any other city. They really both prove the same point. Money talks. Then the best you can do is step back and let the magic happen. Oh, and leaving your kid a couple of 20s certainly wouldn't hurt your chances at the "Parent of the year" award.

3. Problem - Your son or daughter is struggling in school.
Solution - Like I said, showing interest is key... but listening to kids' problems is boring. Ship 'em off to a shrink who will pump them full of drugs till they're too numb to whine about anything. Yet another problem solved by paying someone else to care. If you're one of those folks who doesn't believe in pharmacology, at least cut the kid some slack and hire someone else to do their homework. They get the good grades and you get to look like the hero.

So there you have it. Three common problems met with three real-world life lessons taught by yours truly. You may note that I myself do not have children. It'll happen one of these days and until then, I live vicariously through the parents of the world, buying their children's affection one day at a time. God bless America.

CelebReality

2010-07-27T08:03:00.000-05:00

There was a time, granted it wasn't when I was alive, but there was a time when the movie star was a revered position in America. He/She told us what to smoke, what to drink, what to wear but that wasn't all. They told us what was American. There was a bizarre sense of patriotic duty in their work, perhaps because there was a stronger need for patriotism, but I'm not here to theorize on the state of affairs in present-day America.

The relationship between the movie star and the American public. The movie star needed people to continue to go to their movies. The American public needed someone to idolize, to revere almost. For a long time, that was the way it worked, with countless PR folks controlling the strings and doing all the behind the scenes work to hide any trace of flawed humanity. This helped to establish the golden age of screen culture. Sure, it was a messy business, but the men and women behind the scenes didn't care as long as their pet project stayed out of the gossip columns. The American people at home? I find it hard to believe they really didn't know that there was a darker side to Hollywood, but it was almos mutually agreed that nobody talked about it. It wasn't an age of decency, it was the packaging, production, and placement of the American dream. "What's that? Donna Reed uses Mop and Glo? You should too!" It was all about the money, but at least there was this false promise of purity.

Now what do we have? We have celebrities doing, I'm sure, the same thing that people did in the golden age of celebrity screen culture, we just have different needs this time around. Now, your average American doesn't want to be sold a pack of Virginia Slims by some big-eyed starlet. No, now we want that element of flawed humanity. We want to know that these big names make the same mistakes as us. In fact, if at all possible, we want them to make bigger mistakes than us. Today's celebrity culture wants to strip away the layers and see that everyone's just as fucked as everyone else.

There are a variety of contributing factors, but who's the real culprit? Why, it's everybody's best friend, technology. I mean, the blame can't be squarely placed on the shoulders of Twitter and cell phone cameras. After all, celebrities do have to take responsibility for their own actions like the rest of us. Still, this fascination of the reality of the American celebrity (or celebreality for short) is this. The constant level of exposure usually leads to one of two extremes; either the American public is smitten or they quickly become disenchanted and disengaged from the work the celebrity produces based on their actions in real life. One of the more recent examples is the whole Mel Gibson racist, anti-semitic rant. I was disgusted by what he said, as I hope most people were. However, it is his personal life that informs us on his professional life. If we had never heard that rant, would people be more likely to see his movies? Well, maybe not because he doesn't seem to make much these days... plus, there's that whole DUI thing... but if he did, without this exposure to the inner most workings of his seriously depraved mind, none of us would have known any better.

I'm not taking a stance either way. Believe me, I hate that most of us, myself included, have gotten to point of judging people based on anything besides their work, but in certain instances, they're just too horrible in real life that it's impossible to avoid. Still, I'm just saying, there's no way Frankie Avalon would've tried to pull this shit. We've come along from the birth of celebrity culture to our star obsessed celebreality.

Character Study

2010-07-26T09:07:00.001-05:00

He wanted to like who he was. Or at least who he was with himself. He offered some sort of false hope, that he was somehow better than all his shortcomings and his modest successes. He wasn’t. He knew this much to be true. These thoughts clouded his mind on days when he was confined to his room, no voice except his own hammering out concise statements, philosophizing on life and the eternal human condition. These were the days he felt a prisoner of his own mind, doomed to his small room, thinking and theorizing about a life he knew he would never live. There was madness in his process, but there was a sense of security, a safety as he hid away from any real human connections other than the intimate one he had forged with himself years ago. But what he saw was an opportunity, the possibility that all his antiquated and bitter sentiments about mankind and his mistresses were somehow products of his environment, falsehoods that he told himself to rationalize an irrational fear of human touch. The window of his room offered outlook, but a removal from the world around him. It’s easy to judge behind panes of glass. But not him, the man with the weathered face and the tired eyes. The expression he wore was a testament to the cruelty of the outside elements, the physical abuse and emotional torment of going through life, living for the next day but never for the moment in which he resided. He saw in his glassed over eyes the regrettable nature of living, the flesh stripped of all signs of life as it hung, wearily, from the man’s gaunt face. He clung to these images of self, these preserved moments in which his existence, his reality, was undeniable. He didn’t need someone else to see him, to touch him, to hear the steady beat of his heart, because he had all these things. He knew the others, the weak ones outside his realm of self, the ones who needed to be touched and to be heard to know that they were alive. He scoffed at them because he knew what the lives of others brought. He knew that with the touch of others came the responsibility to hear and be heard, to touch and be touched, to feel for others, to be hurt by others. He didn’t need to feel that again. He didn’t need to know the misery of others as proof of life. He had built a life of his own within the safety of the decaying walls, the yellowing wallpaper of his room that curled up in the corners, reminders of the damage that had been done to this room and to himself. His squalid surroundings seemed a fitting cage for his fractured thoughts and false declarations of superiority. He was imprisoned in this room. He clung to its reminders of the passing of time, and the passing of his time. He wasn’t always alone.

Behind Lynch's Blue Velvet Curtain

2010-07-22T08:38:00.002-05:00

Ever since Hitchcock invited audiences to engage in people’s most private moments with his 1954 film Rear Window, America’s fascination with the going-ons of other people’s lives has continued. This has led to a sub-genre of sorts in which the protagonist is not necessarily in the right, but through the film’s progression the audience itself becomes complicit. This was illustrated recently with the film Disturbia which applies the illicit gaze technique. However, other films in this genre took lessons from Hitchcock and managed to create something uniquely their own such as film auteur David Lynch and his 1986 film Blue Velvet. Blue Velvet’s voyeuristic tendencies bear a striking resemblance to Hitchock’s classic film, however Lynch manages to draw from his predecessor and manipulate his own story in a way that is just as similar to Hitchcock’s piece as it is his own.
Blue Velvet’s initial premise of a young man’s fascination with the inner workings of a mysterious older woman is one of the most obvious elements. Lynch clings to the idea of voyeurism throughout the film. One of the strongest scenes where Jeffrey is watching Dorothy through her closet door illustrates the “perverse joy” of watching and being watched quite well. Once again, the importance of gender is an element crucial to the film as well. Audiences may note that the voyeur, and arguably the characters who tend to have the upper hand throughout the film, are male characters. This is demonstrated through Jeff’s watching and Frank’s abusive nature and stature, such as his violence against Dorothy, the rape scene, and his positioning of himself above her except when he regresses to his childlike form. Although this film is a product of the 1980s the role of Sandy as love interest and accomplice is almost a caricature of the leading ladies in the old Hollywood films that Lynch seems to be mocking. One scene that demonstrates this is after Jeff calls Sandy who has just helped a naked and crazed Dorothy into an ambulance. Almost immediately after Jeff’s apology, she accepts in an almost laughable manner. However, most of these elements can be forgiven in Lynch’s approach to the material. With this film, Lynch explores alternative elements while paying homage to Hithcock.
One of the most palpable themes of the film is the concept of sensory perception. Throughout the film there are clues that challenge the viewer to experience the movie beyond mere vision. Such an example can be found in one of the film’s inciting incidents, when Jeff finds the severed ear. Even though we are only seeing the movie, it immediately conjures up thoughts of what we hear. Furthermore, the film’s title is not only a song, but it is also a fabric, evoking both the senses of touch and sound. This is illustrated in another way as Jeffrey’s adventures transcend the voyeurs and his story becomes more experiential. For instance, it is upon his second encounter with Dorothy that he is dragged into her depraved world. Very soon there after, Jeff finds himself entangled in Dorothy’s life as well as the misdeeds of Frank with very real bruises from both experiences to prove how hands-on he has become. Another thematic idea that is expressed visually in the film is that not everything is as it seems. This is demonstrated in the film’s opening when Mr. Beaumont collapses and the camera shows the bugs crawling through the turf in the seemingly perfect lawn. However, it is also evidenced in the very setting of the film itself. The town Jeff lives in is the idyllic quiet town that is often associated with the 1950s, but at its heart there is evil, which is personified by Frank. In a way, the setting of the film is one of the most explicit representations of Lynch’s themes of the film.
Although these visuals communicate very basic ideas, Blue Velvet never claims to be complex. While its execution may be atypical, most of its themes seem very rudimentary. They are themes that we have seen in hundreds of films before and will continue to for years to come. Although its resemblance to Hitchock’s Rear Window is uncanny, Lynch manages to make good use of some of the themes of Rear Window in this film, while supplying a new location to drive home some ideas of his own. Regardless, Lynch’s Blue Velvet is a return to the themes of voyeurism and antiquated gender roles while finding a new way to make the film more experiential and forcing the audience to be aware that nothing is as it seems, not even in suburbia.

The Unsung and Undressed Heroes of Horror

2010-07-21T08:30:00.000-05:00

Millions of young people flee to LA with stars in their eyes and the dream of making it big. The reality of it? At least a couple hundred will end up slinging hamburgers, even more will end up on a bus back home and, well, some will try less legal means to survive before admitting failure. Yeah, don't pretend you don't know what I'm talkin' about...

But every so often the paths of the ill-fated and the starstruck cross. We like to call that the horror movie. Sure, I love horror movies as much as... no, probably more than the next guy. Still, I'm not gonna pretend it's glamorous. I mean, sure there's the blood and the splatter and for some reason the occasional nip slip, but what do we expect? It's Hollywood, sex and violence go together like milk and cookies.

Still, this isn't some rant about the amoral products of Hollywood. No sir, this is about that dream of making it big, and where do you start? Shakin' your goods for the cameraman in a horror movie. I mean, look at the track record folks. Jennifer Aniston in Leprechaun. I mean, sure, she's not much of an actress, but she's cute as hell and that didn't seem to bother much of America during her Friends days. Renee Zellwegger in The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or as I like to call it Oh God Please Let This Be the Last One or Kill Me Now So I Don't Have to Suffer Through ANother Renee Zellwegger Movie. There's a surprisingly long list of actors and actresses (although primarily actresses) who have gone legitimate after their horror debuts.

Alas, I digress again. You see, this isn't about the folks that make it big. If you thought that it was, my apologies. This is about their co-stars, the ones that get left behind and singed by the blast as others skyrocket towards fame. Most famously, "the naked girl". Now you may be thinking, "What naked girl? What the hell is he talking about?" But let's not be naive. When talking about horror, specifically the slasher, we're usually talkin' some nudity. This is before the days where PG-13 horror dominated, of course.

But let's talk a minute, and stop and thinking about all those women that got their kits off for the enjoyment of the audience, only to be brutally murdered by some masked figure. Ignore the absolute humiliation of being found naked and dead, I'm talkin' about the actress here. She gets to look forward to callin' home and saying, "Look ma, I made it!" I mean, sure, there's that, followed quickly by "Oh no, no, that's fine, you don't need to see it. I just wanted to tell you I got an acting job..." I'd take being discovered naked over that awkward conversation any day, but that could just be me. So this is for you ladies, the unsung and undressed heroes of horror. May God and your mother never see your shame.

Danticat's Delicacy in The Dew Breakers

2010-07-20T08:58:00.002-05:00

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.

Spielberg's Direction: Where He's Come From & What Lies Ahead

2010-07-18T08:47:00.000-05:00

Spielberg is arguably one of the most versatile directors of our generation. Although he first established his footing in the Hollywood system by providing an escape for movie-goers as he evolved, he has allowed his films to take a more realistic turn. Spielberg, in no uncertain terms, has been hailed as a success both critically and commercially. However, the element that makes his films so fantastical and others, more honest, is the element of Spielberg himself. He invests a great deal into his craft, addressing elements of his own heritage in some films, while modeling his films about fantasy and science fiction after his own fears. Spielberg is by no means the first to have done this, but what makes Spielberg’s journey so memorable is how he got his start. Beginning with Jaws, we saw him deal with his characters insecurities. He began his career by displacing his own fears and projecting them onto characters. Although the process was a somewhat convoluted one, Spielberg later made the issues of his characters much more personal and for lack of a better term “more Spielberg”. All the while, Spielberg continued to make movies. It was as if he enabled American audiences everywhere to watch as he evolved. American movie-goers have watched as he essentially grew up, making his story of success a much more personal one. Some of the best examples of his growing up and addressing his past can be found in Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, and Catch Me If You Can while other films of his about confronting the future are The Lost World: Jurassic Park, AI: Artificial Intelligence, Minority Report, and War of the Worlds.
Schindler’s List is easily one of Spielberg’s most obvious films. This is not to discount its message, but by this stage in his life Spielberg had discovered his own personal understanding of the importance of being a Jew. However, this is Spielberg’s first film where he expressly says this by telling the story of Oskar Schindler who saved the lives of thousands of Jews in a time when the Jewish people needed a hero. This film, although obvious, is also complicated in the general feel of it. Spielberg shows the urgency of understanding the atrocities committed by the Nazi party during the Holocaust. He unflinchingly shows the utter desecration of the Krakow ghetto in one of the most moving scenes in recent movie history. However, all of this is done in black and white with the exception of the little girl in the red coat. Although the symbolism behind the red coat has been a topic of debate since the film’s release, the only reason it receives any importance is the rest of the film being black and white. Spielberg gives color to the little girl while leaving the other deaths cold and gray in a sort of respectful censorship of his own work. Nothing is to be gained by pouring on gallons of fake blood, but rather, the imagery of these corpses is just as powerful in black and white, while at the same time, somewhat softening the blow for both audiences and to an extent, Spielberg himself. Spielberg has grown in being able to even show these horrors in black and white at all. However, Spielberg, after shocking audiences with this brutal imagery, returns to his attempts to make audiences happy. While the story of Oskar Schindler is an important story to tell, it is a triumphant one in a period which was not traditionally marked by salvation. Although some may argue that the film wouldn’t be as well received if Spielberg had told a tale that ended with everyone dying, death in the Holocaust is an important part of Spielberg’s heritage as a Jew. This is not to say that the film is any less of a film because Spielberg ended on a fairly positive note, but rather that Schindler’s List in some ways feels like a test to Spielberg. Not only is he questioning if he can handle making such a personal film, but it’s as if he’s asking himself if he can bear to disappoint his audience by not giving them a traditional somewhat hopeful ending. Regardless, Schindler’s List is a bittersweet homage to Spielberg’s own history.
Saving Private Ryan is 5 years down the line for Spielberg. In it, he re-visits the same time period as Schindler’s List, but concentrates on a very different matter. He concentrates on the American involvement in the efforts of World War II. Once again, Spielberg shocks audiences in this film with the graphic portrayal of the war effort. However, in this film there are several key differences from Schindler’s List which in some ways made it more relate-able to audiences and at the same time, all the more horrifying, while illustrating how Spielberg had grown in between the two. First and foremost, Spielberg filmed Saving Private Ryan in color. He brought to life the grit of the trenches in a way that he was almost too afraid to do in his earlier work. Merely a few minutes in, Spielberg re-creates the invasion of Normandy in frightening realism. With Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg was unafraid in his portrayal of WWII. He was fully aware that what occurred during the time the World was at war was terrifying. With this film, he sought to show younger generations, generations that had only been shown the victorious photographs of WWII and read about it in textbooks, just what America had been through. This was also a crucial difference in Saving Private Ryan. Whereas Schindler’s List had been set in Poland with Europeans, this film took Americans abroad. While American audiences were able to watch Schindler’s List and few able to actually experience the film, Saving Private Ryan was about Americans, there was no longer any way for audiences to disassociate. This was a daring move on Spielberg’s part, but showed his maturity in being able to break away from his image as the blockbuster crowd-pleaser. Once again, Spielberg by the end of the movie is trying to make amends for what he’s done to audience members over the course of the film, but there is a sense of a changed man in this film’s ending. Spielberg kills off Miller who is essentially his main character. Not only that, but viewers see Miller die onscreen. The concept alone of the main character dying isn’t something Spielberg had toyed with before really until Schindler’s List and even then, we are only shown his grave. In Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg illustrates his growth in ways that audiences had never seen before. Although Private Ryan lives because Miller dies, Spielberg offers a far more intense bittersweet ending than in his previous work.
Catch Me If You Can is one of Spielberg’s most backwards films in terms of his cinematic evolution. It once again returns to some of the issues that have been plaguing Spielberg since his childhood, predominantly his conflict with his father. Most importantly, the issues that Frank has with his father mirror the issues that Spielberg has with his own father. Just like in Spielberg’s own life, the family unit goes down the drain. However, although these are old issues, Spielberg addresses them with a newfound understanding. In many of his movies, Spielberg fights to keep the family together or form a new family and everyone will be happy again. In Catch Me If You Can, Frank’s family falls apart in the first part when his father is discovered as a criminal and later, Frank’s mother has an affair. This is initially one of the deciding factors that sends Frank into a life of crime. While the film is about Frank Abagnale Jr. and his madcap crimes, to Spielberg, the focus never seems to shift from Frank as a person and of course, his interaction with his family. One of the most realistic aspects of the film that Spielberg seems to be working towards is the lack of resolution with the father figure. At one point when Frank is told that his father has passed away, he reaches the most emotional state the audience has seen him in. Spielberg seems to be hinting at the fact that he’s not entirely over his own issues with his father and there’s a good possibility that he will never resolve them. Further more, when Frank sees his mother again he finds out that she has moved on and created a family of her own with the man that she was having an affair with. Together, the two have a child, thus completing their family. There is no longer a need for the prodigal son. This being established, Spielberg establishes for the audience that things will never be the same for Frank. His issues with his father left unresolved, and his mother moving on with a new family, there seems to be no hope left for him. Spielberg’s own disappointment is what characterizes this film as maturation in terms of the Spielberg film. It’s as if for the first time Spielberg is being absolutely honest and absolutely blunt about his own feelings of displacement as a result of his own father’s abandonment. There’s a certain fearfulness in his portrayal of the family that is also recognizable in other Spielberg films addressing other matters.
One example of such is The Lost World: Jurassic Park in which Spielberg returns to familiar territory with this sequel. Spielberg has fun with the sequel, largely playing it off as mere entertainment or yet another Summer blockbuster. However, the dynamics in The Lost World are interesting in the way that Spielberg has played with them. For example, Malcolm returns except this time with an African-American daughter. Spielberg, after marrying Kate Capshaw who had previously adopted children, adopted one of Capshaw’s children, Theo, an African-American child. Although such a minute detail, it shows Spielberg’s more involved approach to his film-making, injecting a little bit of himself into the project to make it his own. Also, the concern for the children is once again a major part of the story although in this film, it’s only one child. Malcolm’s daughter differs from Tim and Lex in that Spielberg also seems to be saying that as wonderful as they are, it’s also difficult to raise children. Throughout the film, Malcolm and Kelly are at odds with each other for most of the time starting from when Kelly stows away and sneaks onto the island until the end. However, Spielberg also shares with the audience some of his newer, sub-conscious fears which manifest themselves in the finale of the film. In 1997, Spielberg was 51, which is by no means old, but it also the age where the philosophy that “age is just a number” seems to lose some of its rationale. His fear of growing old comes alive towards the end of the film when we see old, represented by the T-Rex, meet the new, which is illustrated in San Diego. Of course when the T-Rex arrives in San Diego mass hysteria ensues. The only way that the problem can be solved is when the T-Rex is tranquilized and shipped back to the island from which it was created. There’s no place for the old in the age of the new. Spielberg’s films were still wildly successful in 1997 and continue to be in this day and age, but Spielberg’s irrational fear of becoming old or dated come alive in an interesting way in The Lost World: Jurassic Park.
In A.I. Spielberg once again faces the future, however, his fears take a variety of shapes in this film. Perhaps the most universal fear that Spielberg addresses in the beginning of the movie when it discusses the effects that global warming has had on the Earth. In 2001, global warming wasn’t as widely regarded a phenomenon as it is today, but it still seemed urgent enough for Spielberg to place as a detail in the movie. It is by no mistake that he doesn’t make it the central focus of the film, because he uses the rest of the film to recognize much more personal fears, but in using the detail that global warming has reduced some of the World’s greatest cities to things of the past, he is addressing it as a very real problem and an utterly universal issue. Although the problem of global warming is predominantly addressed in passing, Spielberg occupies his audience with one of his more personal problems which is the issue of love. Love is obviously a very strong theme in the movie since it is the driving force for David’s actions which span thousands of years. As viewers we are shown the profound impact David’s ability to love has on his actions and the actions of those around him, but more importantly, we see the effects of a lack of love. We see this when Henry’s love for his own son trumps whatever emotion he had for David who was merely a stand-in for his son. As soon as Henry’s son comes back, his love for his own son complicates his relationship with David. It’s as if Henry were simply waiting for David to screw up so he could get rid of him and focus on his relationship with his biological son. Still, David persists. He continues to love Monica because in actuality, she was the only one who showed any real love for him. This allows the audience to see Henry, a father figure, as weak and even callous in his actions, once again returning to Spielberg’s complicated relationship with his own father. However, in Monica, we see true love. Monica’s ability to see past biological vs. non-biological is what makes her a dimensional character to the audience. In a way, this is Spielberg once again returning to his experience with adoption. Through this film, he works through his own personal fears surrounding the questions that adoption has raised for him. In the very beginning, Spielberg is asking himself “Can I love this kid enough?”. Spielberg’s own father might not have been able to, but Spielberg seems fairly certain that he can by the end of the movie when Monica tells David that she has always loved him. Perhaps an even more important question Spielberg asks himself is in the scene at the flesh fair. With this scene he seems to be asking “What will my child have to endure?”. Obviously the differences between Steven Spielberg and Theo are pronounced. Spielberg seems to fear that these differences will have a profound effect on his adopted children. Not necessarily from his standpoint, but how other people interact with them. However, all of his fears are resolved in the conclusion of the film when he states that love is enough. Love is what drove David and allowed Monica to accept him regardless in a time when people seemed to be afraid of the advancements of technology.
By 2002, something had changed within Spielberg. Technology was no longer something that offered hope, but it had since become an instrument of power. However, he is quick to make the distinction that it is not technology that is inherently evil, but the people that abuse it for their own gains are evil. This is the main focus of Minority Report. With this film, Spielberg shows exactly why he has lasted so long as a director. Although loosely based off of a Phillip K. Dick novel, Spielberg brings his own touch and a certain sense of sensibility to the film bringing a touch of realism to the science fiction epic. By this period in time, America had been transformed by the events of 9/11 and the actions that the government was taking had begun to transform the nation into a unified community, but also, a very suspicious community. Minority Report functions beautifully as a product of its time. Even though it could’ve been created at any time, a certain potency lingers thanks to the fact that it was created when it was. It wasn’t soon after the American public found out about Bush’s wire tapping thus, in a way, confirming the fears that Spielberg had outlined in Minority Report. Another aspect of Minority Report is Spielberg’s fear of the system which in most of his films is either not addressed, more than likely because he has the system to thank for his success, or is otherwise considered to be a minor plot point. It shows a side of Spielberg that realizes his influence on the Hollywood system and on movie-going audiences. He is asking audiences everywhere to question what is going on, to do more than just accept the course that the American government had taken in limiting the rights of its citizens. However, Minority Report is set in the further future and takes a much more extreme route, therefore it serves almost as a cautionary tale. Spielberg seems to be saying with the film that things have gotten bad in America, but they always could get worse. Although in some respects it’s a reflection of America’s current state, it also serves as a cautionary tale of what we could become.
War of the Worlds is also a product of the post-9/11 craze that very much affected the American public, except with the subject matter being invaders from outer space, the fear is clearly an outside one. Spielberg seems to enjoy making War of the Worlds on a very different level than his other films. He seems somewhat detached from the project, perhaps because it is predominantly recycled material, or perhaps because it simply is less personal. The concept of foreign beings and the fear of them is not something particularly characteristic of Spielberg himself, but it represents the fear of the American public seen through Spielberg’s eyes. Although most people before they even saw the film were aware of the role it played in U.S. history when Orson Welles first broadcast it on the radio in 1938, it’s fair to say that Spielberg’s film enveloped audiences and re-created the fear that audiences knew so well. One particularly memorable moment in War of the Worlds is when Rachel, in the grip of fear, timidly asks if it’s the terrorists that are doing this. This line is particularly telling because not only does it represent the fear in a post-9/11 world, but also how even years later, the media and the government, essentially all of America, continues to sensationalize every story in order to keep Americans in a constant state of fear for other terrorist attacks. Spielberg seems to attempt to communicate that fear is a very basic human emotion. It’s to be expected that people would be living in fear, but at the same time, there are things to be more fearful of than terrorists. While at no point during the film does Spielberg make the events as realistic as they were when first heard in 1938, he does seem to consider the effects of fear to be a very real experience. As ridiculous as it may sound, War of the Worlds is just as much an alien movie as it is Spielberg expressing his own fear about what people become when in a state of fear. The utter desperation of the situation is perhaps more frightening than the mechanical beings themselves. There are a variety of examples, but perhaps the most upsetting is when Ray kills Harlan. Audiences have watched Ray from the beginning, we see how he cares for his kids, how he reacts when the tripods first attack, but we see a complete overhaul of his character when he feels that Harlan threatens his own and his daughter’s chances of survival. He kills the man because he feels it is what must be done, but at the same time, it represents a darker side of Ray than audiences thought capable. Especially since Ray is portrayed as a very every man American figure, it represents the capability of destructiveness that lives within us all. Although War of the Worlds is at first glance a story of fear of the unknown and foreign figures, it is just as much about the fear of the unknown within ourselves and the fear of desperation and even fear itself.
Spielberg examines a variety of themes in his always versatile projects. A main focus of his is that Spielberg examines both the past and the future in an effort to understand himself, both in terms of his heritage as illustrated in a variety of his films and his fears which usually manifest themselves in his more fantasy-oriented films. Although Spielberg has grown throughout his time as a film-maker he continues to remain somewhat guarded in the handling of his own fears while he is also able to distance himself to a certain degree with the removal of himself in his historical films. Regardless, throughout his films Spielberg continues to grow and expose himself to movie-going audiences everywhere, allowing a more personal look into the life and works of one of America’s cinematic geniuses.

An Open Letter to Sony Asshole Execs

2010-07-17T09:01:00.000-05:00

Dear assholes at Sony,
I'm sure with all the shit decisions you folks make day in and day out, I'm not the first person to address you as such. That being said, and the obvious aggression, I think it's safe to say that I have a bone to pick with you. I know that I've been other this with my slew of 21 followers (yeeeaahhhh, I may not have that much clout) but I've just got this one nagging question in the back of my mind.

Why blu ray? No, not why the format, I get the lossless audio and the high definition picture. In fact, you know how I know about those things? No, I'm not some nerd who reads Wired magazine and while it's true that I have a blu ray player (well, a PS3 that happens to be a blu ray player), that's not the reason either. It's because every time I sit down to watch a Sony issued blu ray, ya know what I get to sit through? That's right, that inane fucking ad about how blu ray is so much better and about how you should be buying blu ray instead of DVD.

Now, back when I had a DVD player (once again, an X-Box 360 that happened to function as a DVD player), it was just kinda condescending. Yeah, I get it, it's higher quality, but it's also more expensive. There were plenty of things (especially being a broke-ass college student at an art school ne less) that stopped me from getting things on blu ray. Even now, there are some things that I maintain I think look better on standard DVD than blu ray, but that's a whole other issue. I'm just sayin', it was douche-y when I couldn't afford it, to dangle it in front of my nose, but if I could, I think I'd rather go back to that.

See, here's the issue. Don't worry, I'll make it simple. I bought the PS3, right? So I now have a blu ray player. I then have gone on to purchase some blu rays, namely from your company, but what's that? Before the menu, what do I have to sit through again? That's right, why Sony blu ray is cutting edge and leading the way in motion picture technology and so on and so forth. I already caved, what else do you want? Yes, I support your company, so why with this persistent torture? Instead of being condescending, now it's just annoying and of course, it's there on every blu ray. I understand the capitalism angle, but seriously, just do everyone a solid and use a little more discretion.
Sincerely,
Yeah right, like I'm actually gonna sign my name here

The Internet is Really really Great...

2010-07-16T07:14:00.000-05:00

Today's post is decidedly rather PG-13 so if you keep on reading, well, you've been warned so that shit's on you. Now know I'm late to the game, but I'm just now getting around to watching "Lost", not because I want to but because I think it'll be beneficial in one of the classes I'm taking this fall. Now this is where it might get confusing for those who don't watch the show or who haven't watched the first season in a while, but just stay with me. In Locke's whole backstory, they make sure his life is super depressing and all that, but one thing struck me and that was his relationship with Helen, who at this point pretty much sounds like a phone sex operator.

Alright, done with Lost, now I can focus on the real issue. Not to sound all jerry Seinfeild-y, but seriously, what is the deal with phone sex? I legitimately cannot understand why someone would pay $2.99 to have some stranger tell them naughty things while they... are takin' care of business or whatever.

I mean, it's a scientific fact that the male mind is much more image-based and women's imaginations are driven verbally so if we were talking phone sex for women? Yeah, that I kind of get, but I'm not sure if they even have things like that. I mean, I guess I could have done some research before I woke up and start writing this, but that just strikes me as a situation that could get awkward really fast.

Still, I know that it was used to show the character's loneliness and eagerness to connect, but I mean, come on guys, can we put a little more thought into it? I mean, nobody can really accuse Lost of not thinking, but that was just lazy storytelling. Because here's the thing, although I may be the only asshole up at 7 AM writing about how he doesn't get phone sex, I can't be the only one who thinks it.

The reality of it is this, and I'm warning you that it's harsh, but here goes. If you want to spend that money doin' your business with some stranger over the phone who assures you that she's just wearing a nightie when she's probably just telling you what you want to hear, that's fine. I'm not one to judge so believe me, I won't. But the internet is full of free porn so if the issue is just getting your rocks off, why spend the money? If someone could explain this to me, that'd be great. Or just the phone sex thing in general. I've never really gotten it.

1960s Cinema: America At Odds With Itself

2010-07-14T08:47:00.000-05:00

Its important, when viewing a film, to find out where it comes from. As has been said, time and time again, films are indicative of the time in which they were produced, but what also must be understood is the time beforehand. Of course, in American society we understand that the 50s was an era that was ripe for popular culture. Even films today attempt to examine the complexity and disillusionment that is so characteristic of this decade. As a result, the films of the 1960s can be split up predominantly into 2 major categories. Although this is an oversimplification, for argument’s sake, the first half of the decade seemed to be much of a continuation of 50s ideals and attitudes. For instance, even though the beach party movies were alive and well in the previous decade, they continued into the 1960s as well. This attitude seemed to suggest the age-old philosophy of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. However, as the era saw continuing hostility against staples of 1950s culture, such as the inherent sexism and the need for conformity, Hollywood began to fight back the only way they knew how, by producing a new set of films. To understand films of the 60s, even with its own set of new issues, was in many ways reactionary to the previous decade.
One of the earliest films in this new decade to challenge the traditions of the 1950s, was made by legendary Billy Wilder as early as 1960. The film in question, The Apartment, exposed many of the questionable morals and going-ons of the typically unassuming and supposedly innocent business man. Billy Wilder, has always been known to be a rather daring writer and director, but with this film he explored office politics, sexism, and adultery, which were typically topics of discussion that wouldn’t be as explicitly discussed as they are in this film as early as 5 years before. What is perhaps even more shocking is that, these topics were the subject of comedy. It’s essentially common knowledge, in this day and age of South Park parodies and Saturday Night Live skits mocking presidential candidates, that if a topic is to be taken seriously, it must be joked about first. There’s no way somebody even as talented as Wilder could dive into these topics, that Americans had been working so hard to ignore all these years, in a serious manner and come out on top. This points to another area of Wilder’s intelligence in making this film. He was so in tune with what the American public would take away from this film and what they would put up with. Without serving up a high dosage of morality or ethics, he does force people to ask themselves hard-hitting questions that would have almost uncertainly otherwise gone unasked. He forced people to confront the social injustices that they had simply grown complacent with. All the while, and perhaps most alarming, he did it while making people laugh. Underneath Wilder’s rage or dissatisfaction with the state of office politics, whatever emotion he may have been feeling, he managed to channel the absurdity of reality in this film. It’s hard to say what made people laugh at this movie, whether it was the ludicrous nature of the truth or just discomfort, but this film did phenomenally both commercially and critically. Wilder’s own personal complexity is brilliantly illustrated in this film in one of the most memorable scenes of 1960s cinema. When C.C. Baxter comes across Fran in his apartment, after overdosing on sleeping pills, what ensues could be a heartbreaking and melodramatic portrayal of a woman at the end of her rope. Rather than deliver us the expected, Wilder plays it for a comical piece. In most instances in the film, Wilder opts for comedy, but still manages to allude to a stronger underlying emotional vulnerability in his characters. Furthermore, the film’s conclusion is far from the idyllic ending of pictures of the 1950s. While it is unquestionable that C.C. and Fran do what is right for them, there’s no way that that would even be consider an option in earlier films. Even though both of them quit their jobs in order to be together and to finally escape from the trappings of the corporate world, there is no real happy ending for them except their companionship. Interest in another job or another way to make a living is never referenced, but the two of them are together. While this is all well and good, it’s very outside of the definition of success for the time. In most films, the guy gets the girl, complete with the dream house and the dream job, but in The Apartment, Wilder’s truly auspicious offering besides the girl, is an escape from the corporate world.
A more incendiary response to the values of 1950s cinema, was Roman Polanski’s 1968 horror classic, Rosemary’s Baby. While the films of the previous decade encouraged conformity and more importantly, a sense of belonging, Rosemary’s Baby shuns away from it. It tells the story of Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse, who move to a new apartment in hopes of getting Guy more work. Like the classic wife of the 1950s, Rosemary is almost always more than happy to give up anything to better her husband. Throughout the beginning of the film, Rosemary seems to follow in the footsteps of the Donna Reed’s and June Cleaver’s of the world. However, as the film progresses, she begins to feel alienated and isolated from those around her. She begins to have these nightmares in which Satan is raping her, but even though she voices her concerns to her husband, he dismisses them and when she breaks down in hysterics in front of the neighbors, he even goes so far to admonish her. Guy represents, on the surface, a very typical male of these types of films. He exercises tough love and is always firm with her, but when times get tough, he’s always quick to reassure Rosemary of his love for her. What Guy really is representative of is the new male. Women were becoming more empowered and men like Guy began to feel threatened by this increase of female power. Guy’s typical response to Rosemary’s increasing hysteria and paranoia is to quietly dismiss them. By not giving them validity, he is controlling the power as best he knows how. By the end of the film, it is apparent that Rosemary’s hysterics are not due to a hormone imbalance as her doctors have told her, but that she is pregnant with the anti-Christ. Rosemary’s very worst fears are confirmed when she finds that Guy is part of this grand conspiracy. He has helped bring the spawn of Satan into this world in an effort to advance his career, thus establishing his dominance, not only as the male in the relationship, but by creating a situation where he essentially determines the fate of his wife and newborn, effectively rendering Rosemary to the weakened role of the female. Even in the film’s conclusion, when Rosemary finds the coven worshipping her newborn, the sight of her child weakens her. She succumbs to her womanly intuitions and mothers the child, even though she knows what he is. Another aspect of the film that is crucial to the film’s climax is this idea of the group. Where in earlier films, the group is the desired outcome, Polanski and Rosemary’s Baby author, Ira Levin, seem wary of the group. The sense of belonging is still promised in the film, but it is at the price of their newborn to a cult of Satan worshippers. This idea of community that was so ingrained in the culture of the 1950s is suddenly revealed as a horrifying concept in the late 1960s. Polanski seems aware of a variety of traditional values from the 1950s, but he forces his audience to question them. It is with horror that filmgoers watch as Rosemary joins the group and cradles the newborn son of Satan.
The 1960s film industry can still be seen today as an adverse reaction to the ideals and values perpetuated in 1950s cinema. Although these films exist in their own right, they must be seen as products of the 50s as well. The Apartment challenges the workplace in a comical manner, but brings some valid arguments to the table. Although the film’s conclusion may be unrealistic in its frankness, it shows progress from the earlier decades. It shows that people have a commitment to themselves and those they love, just as much as they do to a job. Rosemary’s Baby shows a very different side of the 1950s. It illustrates the horror inherent in the ideas that were commonly accepted at the time, including men’s unquestioned dominance and the role of the group. While both of these films explore very different facets of the culture, they serve to question what people had for so long refused to examine. With The Apartment and Rosemary’s Baby, these films represent the first mainstream and accessible criticism of American culture. These films remind even modern audiences that to idealize our nation’s history is irresponsible. Even in today’s world, there’s much progress to be made. However, speaking of the past, both these films exist as renowned and well-loved cultural artifacts, reminding us that to err is human, but to not question is reprehensible.

Heinemann's Successes and Failures as an Author and a Veteran

2010-07-13T07:57:00.000-05:00

Heinemann’s novel, Close Quarters, holds a very different tale for Generation Y than those alive during the Vietnam War. The novel communicates its necessity of impressing upon its readers the real experience of war. Those that were alive during the time of the Vietnam War at least saw the images of war. They realized, to a certain extent, the horror that soldiers were going through as they fought a war that so few of them really believed in. For so many of us it’s so difficult for us to understand that and to be able to visualize the emotional, mental, and physical anguish of our soldiers. All the past wars have been reduced to statistics and very structured educational and “objective” viewpoints, which makes Heinemann’s detailed account difficult to come to life. I’m speaking of course about our generation that, by and large, has never lived through such a horrid experience and even the war that our country is in now is very filtered. That being said, Heinemann had a very difficult task that he set out to do, to communicate the experience to a generation that hadn’t lived through the war, but in a very removed sense had somewhat “experienced” it through the books, films, and images of Vietnam that exist today.
Close Quarters both benefits and suffers from Heinemann’s own experiences. Obviously it engages the reader and establishes a sort of unspoken trust between the reader and the writer, knowing that he’s writing from sort of personal experience, but it is also his experiences that make the novel difficult to read and, at times, perhaps a bit tedious. I can’t imagine that this novel was intended as light Summer reading by the poolside, and the gravity of the novel’s subject matter and its themes is established early on. However, as a Generation Y-er and a student, the novel comes across as dense as a result. Of course, when I began to read it and knowing I was reading it for a class and what it was about, I had to prepare myself. That being said, it is difficult to prepare one’s self completely for such an account, and I’m not sure I ever got used to it. One thing that makes it difficult to get accustomed to the book is its vocabulary. It may be realistic and representative of the experience, but speaking as a college student, it’s difficult to personally invest one’s self and submerge one’s self in the experience when you have to look up most of the words and acronyms.
Most importantly, and oddly enough, I think that the thing that I disliked the most about the novel is one of the things that I most respect about Larry Heinemann as an author and as a soldier, and that is his honesty. We’re so accustomed to this perception of war as this glorified action and it’s difficult to understand war as this one thing. War is a great many things, both ugly and brutal and at times, an absolute necessity. He details these experiences of war and the complexities of the actions that soldiers are asked to perform. As a reader, it put me out of my comfort zone more often than not, but at the same time, I viewed that as such a wake up call. War isn’t something that should be written about safely. It should be bold and it should be daring and it should force you to ask questions of morality and does it even exist in wartime?
Finally, as a reader I felt that this novel challenged me. Heinemann and his characters in the novel force these questions upon its readers, but never really provide them with answers. He clearly has his own feelings about the war and he articulates them quite well, amidst the jumble of military jargon, but he never provides answers to these questions of morality. I don’t think he necessarily has the answers. I would imagine that even at his age now, he’s still looking for answers. That’s what he asks of us as an audience. He asks us to question the actions and the unfolding of the Vietnam War. More importantly, this novel seems to be a quiet and dignified plea to not let the Vietnam War be forgotten as it seems to have become in recent years. Heinemann beautifully details the reality of the Vietnam War as a soldier and through it’s difficulties, seems to succeed in relating the experience to the new generation.

Luck Be a Bitch Tonight

2010-07-12T08:52:00.000-05:00

We all have dreams of making it big. Some are more realistic than others, but the bottom line is, if somebody tells you they don't, they're probably bullshitting you. Still, in order to make it big, you either have to do one of two things; work hard or get lucky. Now, we all know it's the ultimate American turn-off in this day and age to actually work for what you get, so let's take a look at what's behind door number two, shall we?

Luck is a funny thing. Personally, I've never been one to put too much stock in luck, but then again, I've never been one too have much luck either. See, the way I see it is luck is called luck because whether it's good or it's bad, it's usually happening to someone else. Sure, there are those jackasses that claim that they're lucky and you hate 'em because you know it's the truth, but let's be real, that is a rare and elusive breed.

So my question is this; if luck is such an elusive thing (unless we're talking about bad luck, in which case you can't escape it) then why do we care so much? Is it the secret hope that next time that'll happen to us? It easily could be, but let's be honest. It's not so much that we want it to happen to us, but we don't want it to happen to somebody else. I'm not saying everyone out there is a bad person and completely selfish. I've seen plenty of examples of people's selflessness. Sure, they were usually on re-runs of "Touched By an Angel", but you get what I mean. I'm not damning the human race or condemning them which, face it, would be an easy task. I'm just looking at it from a pure odds perspective. Luck happening to somebody else is good fortune that isn't happening to you. It's understandable that someone would be pissed off about that. In fact, it'd probably be pretty normal to be bummed out about it.

And so the dysfunctional relationship with luck continues. Most people spend their lives counting the luck of themselves and others, but personally, that makes life more of a spectator sport. That's not really my thing. So my solution? I won't pretend it's eloquent or even very well thought out. My answer is to say fuck you to luck. If it comes my way? Sure, I'll be grateful for that and I definitely won't question it. Still, there's a big difference between that and waiting for it come around. I'm not gonna end on some cliche like "make your own luck" or some Chicken Soup for the Soul bullshit. Learn to live without and if it happens to come your way, don't wait too long because luck's not none to wait on too many folks.

REC Defies Horror Convention... By Embracing It

2010-07-11T09:04:00.000-05:00

With all the horror movies coming out that are either remakes of original American films or the lesser known American remake of horror films, it's difficult to sift through the wreckage. Things aren't looking great for the genre, but every so often, something comes along that breathes new life into something stale or reminds us just what it was that made us fall in love with something the first place. For me, it was the Spanish film [REC]. People had been telling me to watch it ever since it was released, but I've never been a big fan of the whole "shaky camera = terror" thing. It's just tired for me so I was hesitant to see yet another movie that tried to make it something frightening, but I was surprised by what [REC] brought to the table.

First of all, it's important to understand that what works for [REC] is fairly "outdated" by American style. It reached its pinnacle with Scream and since then, it's been used in just about every other horror movie. So much so that what started out as a novel idea has become as trite as many of the standard horror go-tos, but the level of self-awareness that [REC] brings to the screen works well for it. While other movies would rely on it for some of the sight gags or the kills, [REC] acknowledges what it is and proceeds from there. Are there tired elements to this film as well? Certainly, but they're played for their potential. It has a sense of humor about itself that sometimes borders on inappropriate, but never crosses that line. Instead, it makes for an enjoyable genre film that seems to have no pretensions about being anything else.

Another element of [REC] that surprisingly worked for it was the style. The "shaky camera = terror" thing that I hate so much? Yeah, I was surprised by how effective it was in the film. However, that's because the camera is treated as the object that it is. You know how all cameras in these types of movies have infinite battery lives or seem to conveniently catch something that nobody else saw? I'm not sure where people buy these super powered cameras, but they seem to exist. [REC] plays the camera for its limitations. It doesn't see anything that the audience or the movie's characters don't see. This, of course, leaves the audience in the dark for so much of the film, but it helps when leading up to the conclusion. Also, call me old-fashioned, but I'm always a "less is more" kind of guy, so I personally enjoyed the limitations. They don't give it away all up front, but instead, they give you plenty of pieces to work with and some realistic gore that is truly impressive.

[REC] is by no means a perfect movie, but then again, horror fans probably gave up on perfect a while ago. Instead, it's enjoyably atmospheric. It plays the conventions of the genre to its advantage and what results is a thoroughly engaging horror flick.

Shameless Self-Promotion

2010-07-10T10:29:00.000-05:00

Today is a day for shameless self-promotion. Check out The Scorecard Review for several of my own reviews as well as reviews from many other movie writers. Check it out for movie reviews and trailer reviews and be sure to sound off in the comments section.

The Crazies: Not as Crazy As It'd Like to Think

2010-07-09T08:13:00.000-05:00

The Crazies is yet another example of one of those movies I would have loved to have loved, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. It has all the makings of a good horror movie, but it wallows in its self-important political message.

Don't get me wrong, I'm political. I was even just about write "I watched all of the West Wing" but I realized that might distract my point. Regardless, I'm not one of those "Well, it doesn't affect me" type youths. In fact, I love political messages in movies, even if I don't personally agree with them. The thing is, there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The Crazies just doesn't feel like it has its heart in its meaning. I mean, i's never easy to remake a Romero flick, but throw in Romero's political savvy and his conviction and he's an out of this world filmmaker. Okay, maybe he's going through a rough patch with Survival of the Dead but even his rank movies now can't undo the political courage of his films of the 60s and 70s.

But this isn't about Romero's classic. God, how I wish it was, but it's not. This is about yet another remake that doesn't serve any real purpose. But see, that's where I get confused. The movie takes an early anti-government stance by illustrating the callousness and procedural violence that the government is willing to take against everyday Americans. In a way, it works. The violence itself is chilling in its depiction. However, the fervor and passion stirred up with this scenes is allowed to remain dormant for too long while we get to know our characters a little better. Olyphant and Mitchell are enjoyable to watch and provides interesting characters, but throw Joe Anderson and Danielle Panabaker into the picture? It becomes pretty clear early on that they only serve as adding to the body count, but nevertheless, they still get their moments to shine.

Honestly, it's nothing against their characters, just the way that the movie is executed. There are some great chilling moments (unfortunately, a few too many of them have been given away in trailers) but nothing too overwhelming. IN most parts of it, it's too dull or timid to be considered entertainment and in others it's too political to be seen as just entertainment. The issue is, well, the question of "what is the issue?" is the real problem. Is it an anti-government film? Is it a rally against the traditional values of small-town America? It never seems too sure. I firmly believe in its questioning of the U.S. government and their capabilities, but its execution is too distracted to be considered poignant. The film straddles having a real point and its desire to be entertainment, something that few directors besides Romero have been able to accomplish. If looking for scares? Look somewhere else, this movie is kind of lacking. If you're looking for a standard anti-government "who are the real monsters here?" morality tale? This could be your cup of tea, but don't mind me while I look for something a little stronger.

Blue Velvet: Lynch's Response to Hitchcock's Rear Window

2010-07-08T07:41:00.002-05:00

The 140 Character Critic

2010-07-07T09:59:00.000-05:00

We live in a society where, well, I'll be impressed if you've made it to the end of this sentence. We want it and we want it now. Damn the introduction and the notion of subtlety. One of the best examples of this, as I've said before but will repeat in case no one was listening, is the current fascination with Twitter.

Now when I talk about tis obsession that people seem to have with twitter, I don't want anyone to think that I somehow feel superior. Sure, I resisted it at first. Then when I finally broke down and signed up, I told myself that it was in the name of this blog. I mean, hell, it's free promotion. Now I spend most of my time tweeting thoughts like "Have you ever thought about how chum means shark bait AND friend? Coincidence? I think not!" and other pearls of wisdom.

But I swear I'll get back on track. I'm developing an idea (well, actually, consider it developed) about creating another Twitter account. I keep my personal one for my wanton acts of frivolity and the other I shall call (this is where I imagine the fanfare in my head) "the 140 character critic".

The goal of the 140 character critic is to boil the essential qualities of a film down to a tweet. Sure, I won't be able to delve into the complexities of characters or the subtle nuisances that the director brings to the film, but what's that saying? Don't judge a book by its cover? Yeah, I've never been able to fully get behind that so I guess that's what I'll end up doing... except replace the word "book" with "movie"... and "cover" with "tweet". Okay, so they aren't exactly interchangeable, but at their core, it's not hard to see what I'm getting at.

SO basically, what I'm getting at (and as I go over 300 words, I truly congratulate those who stuck it out to read this essay of epic proportions, I know it must've been tough) is these are getting too long for you, keep an eye out. I'd like to think that people can handle the occasional 500 words or so, but if I've learned anything, it's always better to underestimate people. Keep an eye out for "the140charcrit" for updates on what to see and what it's okay to miss.

O Captain My Captain

2010-07-06T08:34:00.000-05:00

You know those feel good dramas about inner city school teachers overcoming adversity and teaching their students about the subject and some valuable life lessons? Okay, well, I could take a couple cues from those movies, because right now, I'm all dried up. I mean, not literally (although that seems like a stupid thing to say because how could I be dried up literally? Oh wait, now I get it... gross) but needless to say, inspiration is not an endless stream.

Instead, I'm filled with dread about the direction my life is headed and a little unsure of, well, just about most things. But listen to me go on. I know, it's not just me. Hell, I can think of at least 5 other people my age that are in the same boat as me. I would take comfort in that if it weren't for the fact that it's a bad place to be and it's an even worse place to have company, because I feel just as much for them as I do myself. So here goes, here's my attempt at an inspirational speech...

Who are we kidding? We all knew that wasn't going to go anywhere good. It probably would have included some misquoting of some obscure literary figure that I thought would make me look smart, followed by a confession that I only found out about that author thanks to GoodQuotes. org and then we'd all be just as bummed as when you started reading this.

So for your sake and my fear of carpal tunnel, we'll just skip that part. This isn't where I'm going to tell you that I'm the best in the field or that we're all special. I mean, look at the people that are working from my graduating class? Are they good? The sad thing is that they can be, but they don't have to be. A lot of them got lucky. I know this may be the exact opposite that your mommy taught you, but here's the reality of the situation. Being good is a perk, but not a job requirement. If it were then my graduating magna cum laude would mean something in the real world, but I can't even get Starbucks to call me back.

This isn't a speech to depress you or to bore you or to make you feel bad for me or yourself. This is the God's honest truth. Talent's no longer a requirement that all employers are looking for so don't try to get in on talent alone. I can't say I have any more pearls of wisdom for you, but it's safe to say that I'm sufficiently bummed out now. I think this might have been the reason I never made it as an inspirational speaker...

30 Days of Night Really Feels Like it

2010-07-05T09:07:00.000-05:00

Every once in a blue moon, a horror movie comes along that does little to shock or excite their viewer but instead, casts two attractive leads hoping it'll distract audiences long enough to sell their P.O.S. Sorry Josh hartnett, you're not that pretty.

From the beginning, 30 Days of Night lurches along at a near glacial pace as we're forced to deal with the exposition. Early on, there's a little violence thrown in to satisfy, but the key word of that last sentence is "exposition". Anybody know why? Because with exposition you're promised a story or at least some semblance of one, perhaps some character development even? Not with this flick. After being forced to sit through one of the most excruciating set-ups (after all, let's be real, nobody does the whole "I know we're separated, but I still love you" bit like Die Hard) it would help if there was some sort of pay off. I know that the film's "emotional" ending is supposed to show a growth in the lead character, but it's just so sudden after all this time, that it seems out of character and is essentially rendered unimportant.

Then again, when it comes to a lot of these vamp flicks, character isn't really what counts, it's the body count. If that was my only criteria, it'd be fair to say that 30 days of Night delivers in some regard. None of it really makes up for the weak characters, most of which I had no idea had names, but at the end of the day, there's plenty of blood to go around. The issue is that the movie peaks too early. It gives us some of the best gore moments early on and those are the ones that I remember best at least. However, it also has some moments that shine towards the end of the film as well. Several key beheadings are among the things that this movie does pretty well, but like I said, none of this is enough to sustain it.

The real issue at the heart of the movie is the pacing. If I'm supposed to care enough about these people to want them to survive or at least spend a fake 30 day period with them, I should know names or at least not secretly hope for the next person to go. There's too much character development in some areas and not nearly enough for a majority of the movie. Even the violence needs to be paced better. It gave it all away up front which doesn't exactly leave audiences satisfied, but at the same time, it's grisly nature is almost recognized as old hat these days. By the end of 30 days of Night it really does feel like it took that long to make it through the movie, which is never a good thing. It was an interesting premise that was handled poorly in execution with unlikeable characters (or ones that I didn't even know that I was supposed to recognize) and enough to gore to satisfy most horror buffs, but little else.

Independence Day

2010-07-04T10:22:00.000-05:00

Today, in honor of July 4th and the principles our forefathers fought and died for, I was considering writing about how far we've strayed from the ideals of justice and freedom. However, it's early and well, in honor of this day, I've decided not to reprimand the majority of Republicans in middle America. Enjoy this get out of jail free card and have a happy and safe holiday. Oh, and if you're really bored, enjoy the fireworks.

Emily Post in the New Millenium

2010-07-03T11:43:00.000-05:00

Okay, as we're well into 2010, it may be a little late to call it the new millenium, but "new age" sounds like a "hey, let's all go out and buy some black Windrunners" level of creepy. Anyway, not the point. Something I've noticed more than the lack of jobs for America's youth or our increasingly anti-social behavior and reliance on technology (believe me, I'm a victim of both of these phenomenons) is our attitude. Now I'm not saying this in a disapproving motherly tone nor am I going to pretend like I'm always on my best behavior. This is just a general observation that the attitudes and mannerisms of the youth in America (and by youth, I really mean anyone under the age of 30) leaves something to be desired. So don't think of this as condescending or me looking down my nose at my peers, but think of this as an Emily Post for our gen... although I hesitate to call myself an Emily Post figure... mainly because I'm a dude... and again I digress. ANyway, here it goes, just a simple guide for meets and greets.

1. When meeting someone a handshake is appropriate. I'm not saying you hafta love the person or go in for the hug. In fact, I've had way too many people go in for the hug on the first meet and greet. When faced with this awkward hug, the only thing to do is tighten up with your hands at your side. This should let the hugger know that this level of familiarity within 15 seconds of meeting one another is unwelcome. No, but seriously it seems to be one extreme or the other; either too little respect for boundaries or no respect at all. It's just common courtesy to shake hands and it's not like it's the hardest thing in the world to do. Like they always say, it takes 17 muscles to smile, 43 muscles to frown, and countless muscles to be a dick so just do the damn handshake already.

2. Listen, I know our generation (especially myself) is known for having an inappropriate sense of humor, but maybe wait a little while before you pull out the Helen Keller jokes. Oh yeah, that goes for using terms like "that's so gay" or "quit bein' so retarded". Don't get me wrong, I use these as much as the next guy (oh God, I'm goin' to hell) but it's safe to say that your boyfriend or girlfriend's parents won't find them as funny... at least until you get to know them. I know, I know, you may ask "well, what the hell's wrong with them?" if they don't laugh at this, but I guess some people are just politically correct or some bullshit...

3. A little modesty and respect for your elders is never a bad thing. Listen, I know we all have fun and colorful names for the in-laws or even our own parents. The one thing to remember is... well, they might not find them as funny as you do. For instance, I call my old man "Doc Bob". I mean, sure it works for me, it's an affectionate pet name or whatever. In an introduction, you might do well to show a little humility. You say "Dr. Kersten" or "Mr. Kersten" and once prompted with "Oh, you can call me Bob" you're in the clear. But in general, nicknames are best suited for taking behind one's back. If not, shit can get awkward pretty quick.

You stick to these rules and you're golden. No, but in all seriousness, use some goddamn common sense folks. I've literally gotten a "What a polite young man" because I shook someone's hand and said "It's nice to meet you". These things should be pretty standard. Don't get me wrong, I love the compliments, but if you can't even muster that, well, then you're in a bad way. The basic civilities shouldn't warrant compliments, but evidently folks don't expect much these days or they've been given reason not to... either way, it's too grim to think about it.

Stop with the coming out stories!

2010-07-02T10:06:00.000-05:00

What is the obsession with the coming out story? I had to sit through a screening that was just one of the many coming out stories that I've filed away in my mind as never wanting to re-visit. Don't get me wrong, my coming out is no worse than anybody else's. In fact, despite it being pretty damn awkward, I count myself lucky. Still, as a gay man, I've done my time.

I came out, even as I choked on the words as I tried to spit them out. I don't need to see it happen to somebody else on the big screen. There's something that I don't think most people realize about the whole experience. Mind you, I'm not here to glorify the whole thing. After all, I pretty much said "hey mom, I hafta tell you something... I'm gay. I'm gonna go finish mowing the law." There were no hugs and I didn't stick around to see if there were tears. It was simple, but more than that, it was personal. It was my own moment and it was my decision. Everything about it was purely my own, so it's understandable that it'd be personal to me.

Yet every so often, some jackass comes along with yet another coming out story. It'd be different if they were unique, but everyone seems to think that the same thing every damn time that someone comes out. Either they're kicked out of their house or mommy's like "oh sweetie, I'm so glad you told me" or some stupid shit. I understand that the movies are supposed to be an escape from reality in so many ways, but for me, the whole ordeal just isn't something I take lightly.

Adding insult to injury, it always seems like some guy who's married with 2.5 kids is directing these things. There's no authentic voice to these movies because there's no authenticity. Let me try to explain this... it would be like me making a movie about a girl getting her period. It's her passage into womanhood or whatever and she's no longer a girl, but she's a woman. How am I gonna do that? I can't even begin to imagine the female experience. I could give it a shot using lots of research and plenty of female consultants to see if I was doing the experience justice, but it would never really be authentic. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who's like "well, only gay people should play gay people in movies". Sure, I'd like them to stop getting accolades for having to kiss a dude when i do it everyday, but you get what I mean, I'm in no way narrow minded about these things. But still, can straight male directors stop pretending they know my pain or whatever they say to artistically justify it? If you want to give me something authentic, that's fine, but I'm tired of these paint-by-the-numbers coming out stories.

Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Fabulous?

2010-07-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

I don't use the term "that's so gay" very often. Okay, well, that's not entirely true... especially for an openly gay man, I probably use it a lot more than I should. But what I mean to say is, I don't say it a lot and really mean it. I tend to steer clear away from gay movies. It's not like I put the "homo" in "homophobic", but think about it, how many good gay movies have you seen? Most of 'em have beautiful men at the expense of acting or are just plain bitter and/or depressing. If I want to see beautiful men, I don't want to sit through 25 minutes of exposition, if you know what I mean. So it was by complete accident that I happened upon this one. Well, not entirely but let me explain.

Those who read me know that I'm a horror fan. For those who know me better, I'm specifically a Freddy fan. I even sat through that cinematic abortion of a reboot for the sake of Elm Street. After watching Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge I was more shocked that they didn't try to reboot the franchise after this one. Freddy's barely in it and the male lead (well, the only lead) is obnoxious and angst-y, not exactly what people want from their heroes.

But while the flaws of the movie are numerous, that's not the point. I seriously doubt that I have seen a gayer movie in my life. I mean, so many horror fans or even academic types discuss how the horror genre is riff with social and sexual mores, but Nightmare on Elm Street 2 takes it to a whole new level. For the first time in my life, I feel like it's safe to say that I saw more male nudity in a horror film than female. I mean, that alone is a rarity.

There's been a lot of debate on the whole thing about whether it was intended or people have just been reading too much into it, but after sitting through all painful 87 minutes? I've heard plenty of people make arguments for why it is a gay movie, but how can you even deny it? I mean, a good portion of the movie takes place in either a gay sex dungeon or a gym locker room? I'm not even exaggerating.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting idea to have a gay lead in a movie, but can we butch him up a little beforehand? I'm not saying that as a self-loathing thing, I just think that Jesse could have a little more menace as Freddy tries to use his body to break into our world or at least a little more dignity. Let's be real, speculation of the main character's sexuality is the least of this movie's worries. Not enough gore or even enough of a villain is the main issue with this film that's so beyond saving. Don't bother, even for the camp value.

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

2010-06-30T08:54:00.000-05:00

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.

A Dick and a Dream

2010-06-29T08:48:00.000-05:00

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?

The Days of the Drive-In & Counter Cultural Cinema

2010-06-28T16:37:00.000-05:00

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.

Come So Far (Got So Far To Go)

2010-06-27T10:11:00.000-05:00

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!

Saawariya's Exploration of Women in Bollywood

2010-06-26T16:38:00.002-05:00

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.

The Woman We See Through Hitchcock's Rear Window

2010-06-25T15:46:00.000-05:00

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.

... Didn't I Just Watch This?

2010-06-23T10:04:00.000-05:00

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?!?

Atonement: Coming to Terms with Religion and Cinema

2010-06-21T10:25:00.001-05:00

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.

When in Rome Does What the Romans Do

2010-06-20T09:36:00.000-05:00

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.

Studio Logos that Grind My Gears

2010-06-18T09:22:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2010-06-17T09:09:00.000-05:00

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.

Cartoons Come to Life

2010-06-16T10:07:00.000-05:00

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.

The Devil's in the Deatails

2010-06-15T09:40:00.000-05:00

Women in 1970s Horror Cinema

2010-06-14T09:54:00.002-05:00

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.

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

2010-06-13T08:38:00.000-05:00

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.

Growing Up Stonewall

2010-06-12T16:32:00.001-05:00

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?

When Yossi Met Jagger

2010-06-11T10:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Confessions of a MIdnight Addict

2010-06-10T08:26:00.002-05:00

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.”

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

2010-06-09T11:21:00.000-05:00

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.

"The Road" Less Travelled

2010-06-08T09:28:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2010-06-07T09:54:00.000-05:00

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.

Brokeback Mountain: The Celluloid Closet Case

2010-06-06T09:12:00.003-05:00

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.

Final Destination 2 is Like a Highway Riddled with Plot Holes

2010-06-05T08:20:00.000-05:00

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.

Check it out...

2010-06-04T10:42:00.000-05:00

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

What is Gay?

2010-06-03T19:04:00.000-05:00

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.

A Tale of Two Nutjobs

2010-06-02T09:01:00.000-05:00

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.

Now Ya See 'Em, Now Ya Don't

2010-06-01T10:07:00.000-05:00

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.

Candyman 2 Not as Sweet as the Original, But A Solid Sequel

2010-05-31T18:00:00.000-05:00

There's little room for the recognition of sequels in the horror canon. Most of them can't begin to capture the glory of the original, while choosing to focus instead on the bloodshed. But while most of us enjoy a good slash or two, true horror films find a way to mix both. Clive Barker's Candyman found a way to do that when it first appeared on the scene in the early 90s. It found a way to combine the practicality and reality of fear with the fear of legend, while supplying the gallons of blood that so many horror fans crave.

In 1995, Tony Todd came back as the man who plagued the nightmares of so many children. Candyman 2 relocates the villain of the piece and gives audiences a new heroine. It sound ludicrous, after all, he was the urban boogeyman, which is what made it work so well. This relocation to New Orleans feels sudden, but it manages to breath new life into the franchise. While the first concentrated on the claustrophobia of the concrete jungle, this one uses its location to its advantage. It adds an element of gothic horror that does plenty to make the film creepier. The word "creepier" is chosen for a specific reason though. This film doesn't try for outright scares in many places, although there is one worth mentioning in the opening sequence, but instead chooses to crawl along at its own pace. It plays off the mythos of the first, while using the atmosphere to its advantage. That being said, it's a good little creeper, but certainly not the supernatural slasher that is the first one.

Part of this is due to the heroine and the other part is due to the treatment of the villain. Kelly Rowan, who many may recognize as Seth Cohen's mom from "The OC" does her best to breath new life into the heroine. The problem is, she's not Virginia Madsen. It's not her fault, there's no way she could compare, but it does drag the movie down a little. She's charismatic in all the right parts and terrified in all the others, but there's not much to care about when it comes to character. The only thing that keeps the audience invested in her may be the sense of duty felt, but not much else. However, on the part of Candyman himself, they make the mistake of giving us too much to care about. While he's given a backstory in the first film, this one expands on it. It shows his fate through flashbacks in order to garner some sense of sympathy or something, but that takes away the element of fear. When the audience knows all there is to know, there's no fear of the unknown. Worse yet, sympathy for the character quickly turns to pity. These factors drag down the movie, but in terms of horror sequels, it remains a strong one, largely due to the setting and the Southern gothic horror feel of it.

Craven's Depravity Gets a Makeover

2010-05-28T07:37:00.000-05:00

See, let me start with the fundamental problem of Netflix with its 5-star rating system. Films like Last House on the Left (2009) are meant to be experienced, not really "liked". I mean, when it comes down to it, I'll rate it as at least "Liked It" or "Really Liked It" but it just feels so wrong saying that about a movie like Last House on the Left. It makes me sick to my stomach and it's supposed to, but with out relatively limited vocabulary when it comes to film (I mean, seriously? Two thumbs up? It doesn't get much more simple than that), it's not surprising that Netflix would keep it simple.

But I digress. Most people's issue with the film is in relation to the outwardly political sentiment of the original. While this is a "remake", it should be noted that this is a term that should be applied very loosely. The original is brutal and unflinching and more often than not, depraved. This remake shares the same sick sense of self that the original, but shockingly enough, pulls it back for its audiences. There are some changes made that definitely shape the characters in a different light. When first watching it, the changes seemed minimal and unimportant in order to define the characters in the director's own way, until larger changes were being made. Overall, it turned the movie into something much more optimistic than the original. The brutality of this remake is still disturbingly effective, but somewhat contained when compared to the first one.

In a day and age where "torture porn" reigns supreme, I truly believe that Last House on the Left is a different story than most of the others. While most "torture porn" horror movies delight in their depravity and relish the realism of the character's agony, with this remake, you can't wait for it all to be over. There's such intensity to an already much shorter rape scene than in the original. I honestly couldn't believe that Aquamarine (Sara Paxton, but she'll pretty much always be Aquamarine to me) had agreed to do such a hardcore role. It's part of that intertextual image that makes her rape and torture so effective, not that it would've been any less so with any other actress. Its the villain's exploitation of her body in every way imaginable that makes the movie so horrifying, but not simply for horror's sake. There's a purpose to their exploitation.

But what's most interesting is the movie's exploitative nature before the villains encounter the Collingwoods. the camera pans and scans Mary as she prepares to go for a swim. It is made sure that the camera and the audience take in every inch of her physicality. It's difficult to say why this is, but it creates a sort of shame base. The camera is instructing the audience to look at this young girl's toned body, but shaming it for taking part in this act of voyeurism. AFter all, voyeurism is the name of the game here.

Most people's issue with the film is the purpose that the original served. It was reactionary. It was political. It's difficult to find that kind of meaning in the overall movie, but the characters that inhabit this world make it disturbing and fascinating to watch. While the movie isn't perfect and in some cases, shows a little too much, it's an experience. It's not an all together good one, but there's something to be said about the disturbing authenticity of this remake that sets it apart from the other countless horror remakes.

What is community?

2010-05-26T09:17:00.000-05:00

These been this been this idea that's been instrumental to every civil right's movement. That idea is in one word ; community. The idea that there are like-minded folks who share your beliefs and your passion in making that dream a reality is crucial to the success of any cause. What happens when the idea of community loses importance though? Does that mean we're forced to say goodbye to any possibility of any real change?

I've asked myself this question a lot over time. Now I know what you're thinking, but this isn't some "woe is me" line of crap about how difficult I've had it, but my story is important, at least to me and to this idea of community. Let's be real, coming out in small town Ohio is never an easy task, but I relished the fact that if anybody wanted to start something with me, I was pretty damn sure I would be the one to finish it. No, this isn't a coming out story.

In fact, life in Ohio was pretty uneventful. It was when I moved to Chicago that the pressure to identify one's self within the gay community really got to me. See, I've always been a man. This isn't to say that gay guys aren't men, but I was a man first and gay was a secondary characteristic. ANyone can tell you, it's hardly the first thing people know about me and I'd like to think it isn't the only thing people remember about me. Now this isn't stemming from some internal homophobia or anything. I'm happy with who I am, but this is where the idea of community comes in.

Is there any room for someone who identifies as gay as a secondary trait in the "gay community"? Because according to some, there's no room for us at all. See, after being bribed with the promise of beer to go to the pride parade, I went along with a couple friends. It was there that I was enlightened. No telling how it came about, but at one point, some drag queens walking a few yards behind us looked at me and said, "You're not gay enough to be here." Now, I wasn't aware that there was a qualifying exam, but the two major items on the checklist (1. Attraction to members of the same sex and 2. Facing the same discrimination that other gay folks do) I've got in spades.

This brings me to my point. Is there such a thing as the gay community. I mean, certainly there are kindred spirits and we're bound by some of the same things, but is that really enough? These ornery drag queens didn't seem to think so. But I've never thought of wearing my homosexuality on my sleeve. Like I said, it's a part of me, but only a part. There are certainly those who make their livelihoods based on their sexuality and I wouldn't dare judge them for that. But honestly, looking at some of the people around me in the "gay community", it's difficult to believe such a thing exists. There's so much tension and division within the "gay community" so my question is, is that really a community?

An Open Letter to HBO

2010-05-25T09:18:00.000-05:00

Dear HBO,
You may not know me, but I certainly know you. Sure, my parents never wanted to spring for HBO when I was a kid, but what I didn't watch on the air airwaves, I made up for by buying it on DVD. I mean, I've been through it all from the beginning of Six Feet Under to the amazingly idiotic cancellations of shows such as Carnivale, Rome, and Mr. Show.

Still, that's not what this is about. In fact, I said pretty much all of that to butter you up. See, we have to talk. Don't get me wrong, I get it, you're HBO, but seriously guys? I think it should be stated for the record that I'm no prude and certainly no stranger to foul language. In fact, foul language is quite possibly my favorite kind of language. But the thing is, there's a time and a place. I know you wan to get your money's worth for being a premium channel, but throwing around "fuck" and "shit" just because the FCC isn't going to fine you is, well, frankly, it's a shitty reason to use the word "shitty." See what I did there? Yeah, I know, I'm clever.

But I can't be clear enough, this isn't coming to you as a letter from a concerned parent. Hell, this isn't even coming from someone who's that concerned. I just thought you should know, it's not as cutting edge as you think. I know, I know, you aren't TV, you're HBO, but you have to recognize the clout that that carries. In fact, it seems like folks over at HBO are a little too proud of the clout that it carries and less concerned about their programming.

See, I don't care about the station that I'm watching. I watch for the characters and the actors and actresses portraying them. I don't watch because I'm secretly hoping for a flash of a tit or maybe some ass action. This constant sex and swearing? It works for characters like Samantha from "Sex and the City" but you should know, not every character of every HBO show is Samantha.

To better illustrate my point, let me give you an example. I finally broke down and decided to give "True Blood" a try. Gap-toothed Anna Paquin aside, I'd heard good things, but I'd been warned that it was fairly "explicit" if you will. "Vampire porn" was the term used by some. Still, I knew that going into it. What I didn't know was that the opening scene is literally a chick giving a guy a handjob while she drives. Not only is that incredibly unsafe, I mean, eyes on the road lady, but her reasoning? She was bored. Who gets bored and gives handjobs? Seriously, does anybody? Because the folks I know don't just give out handjobs to every 100th customer or whatever. I couldn't stop laughing so I paused the show for the night and I'm sure I'll try again later.

But HBO, that's not quality programming. It's not even smut. It's just lazy "we can do it because we're HBO" style writing. I know it's hard to not let it get to your head, but focus on the writing and the characters. I've heard promising things about "The Pacific" so your folks may already be back on track, but just for the record? Don't delude yourself, you're still TV.
Sincerely,
Calhoun Kersten

There is a Fate Worse Than Death... Scream 3

2010-05-24T09:09:00.000-05:00

Where to begin? Scream 3 is one of those movies that as you're watching, you find yourself thinking, "how does a movie like this get made?" It's only then, when you realize that you're actually watching it, that in doing so, you're actually worse than the people who made it. It's not that the story's unbearable, although it does come pretty close, but it's that delightful relish that's gone. In Scream 3, even the creators seem bored by what they're doing.

Before going off on what doesn't work about Scream 3, it's important to note what does work about it. The one saving grace of this movie is in its treatment of its characters, namely Sidney Prescott. We've followed Sidney long enough to hear her bitch and moan about her mommy issues and Scream 3 is no different. Then why is it better than the others, you may ask? Well, she's in it a whole lot less. SCream 3 pretty much belongs to Gale Weathers, in a surprising turn of events. Sure, it's a departure from the franchise, but what are horror characters if not replaceable?

Although it does offer a little Sidney Prescott reprieve, that's not nearly enough to save the film. The whole meta thing that most people loved about Scream is back for the concluding chapter of the trilogy. However, it stopped being clever by the end of the first movie. We get it, horror movies have conventions. People have been noting that for years, yet for some reason, it's supposed to be original when Wes Craven does it? Take a look at Wes Craven's New Nightmare if you want good meta horror, but SCream 3 prides itself on a sense of intelligence and cleverness that isn't really there.

The characters are molded into what the movie needs them to be and the whole Stab 3 being the location of all the murders in Scream 3? Yeah, it was a nice little wink in the opening credits of Scream 2 to throw Stab in but by now, this wink has worn off and it's just screaming at the audience "See?!? See what I did there? It's clever, right?"

However, what is easily the biggest letdown of Scream 3 are the kills. As any true horror fan will tell you, it's hardly about who lives and who dies. It's who dies the best death. In Scream 3, no one's bringing home any awards because the murders were just lazy. WIth the exception of maybe one or two people, everyone just resigns themselves to their deaths. There's no fighting back or even really running away. It just happens. Considering how inventive the deaths in the Nightmare on Elm Street series are, I'd grown to expect a little more from Craven.

Clearly, expecting anything from Scream 3 was the first step in a series of bad mistakes. Unfortunately, its insistence on its own cleverness undoes any fun that the movie could be. It brings nothing new to the series or even the genre and instead, re-hashes in a way that is too self-congratulatory to be any fun.

Beauty and the Beat: Scarlett Johansson & Pete Yorn's debut album

2010-05-23T10:21:00.000-05:00

Scarlett Johansson has a multitude of films under her belt and plenty on her plate with Iron Man 2’s release this May, but in the meantime the release of her album alongside Pete Yorn ought to keep audiences talking. While this isn’t the first time Johansson has dipped her toe into the singing pool, her debut album “Anywhere I Lay My Head” met with mediocre reviews and minimal fanfare from most fans. Truth be told, the premise of everyone’s favorite ScarJo releasing a Tom Waits cover album got me far from riveted. As a huge fan of Tom Waits, and perhaps an elitist, just about anyone doing covers of Tom Waits upsets me a little.
However, as Johansson dives into new territory, she may have actually found her mark with “Break Up”. The first single off the album entitled “Relator” showcases Scarlett Johansson’s vocals with a rich, smoky sound. She shows incredible promise after the rather unremarkable release of her first album. With “Break Up” the music seems to support her strengths. One of the greatest worries as a listener was Johannson’s somewhat limited range. The fatal flaw of “Anywhere I Lay My Head” was her attempt to embody the husky voice of the vocally mature Tom Waits. What she ought to have done, and what she has done with this album, is found music to support her own husky voice. Although she is uniquely her own in this album, her vocals seem vaguely reminiscent of Zooey Deschanel’s work in the group She & Him. Still, what is perhaps most enchanting about her voice on the album is the ease with which she sings. The sultry tone of Johansson works beautifully for “Break Up” and shows potential for a future career.
However, Yorn’s role in the process cannot be altogether forgotten. He provides the refrain for “Relator”, which is part of the song’s biggest sell, and definitely carries his own weight on the album. While it would be unfair to say that Yorn carries Scarlett Johansson, he complements her vocals beautifully, providing the strength and timbre that is necessary for the album. However, this is not entirely surprising as a man who’s put out 4 solo albums. As the experienced musician in the situation, Yorn’s songwriting also lends itself to the album. The 9 song album may lack the diversity of some other notable duet acts, but that’s far from a bad thing. Instead, it shows a logical progression as the album follows the degradation of its title relationship. It offers its listeners an intimacy that it’s difficult to find in most music these days especially with killer pop hooks. The album begins with the more radio-friendly songs, starting off with “Relator”. The album’s evolution begins with its retro beach blanket pop before diving into other pop/rock radio-friendly fare and saves its more somber material for the album’s end. What the listener is left with is a complete emotional experience as well as infectious melodies.

Style Over Substance in James Cameron's Avatar

2010-05-22T09:40:00.000-05:00

I've been putting off re-watching this movie for a long time. The first time around I admittedly bootlegged it because I refuse to give money to this project. I wasn't nuts about the story, but I thought in terms of the visual, it was enough to keep me occupied, maybe not for two and a half hours, but at least for part of it. Mind you, this was the height of the whole Avatar craze so I thought that maybe I was being unfair to it and the hype had somehow affected my viewing of it.

The second time I borrowed it from a friend because I wasn't even going to spend the money that goes towards Netflix for this one. Much to my surprise, the second time around nothing changed. I'm always willing to give films a second chance, but re-watching Avatar proved to be a huge mistake. It just succeeded in getting me worked up and pissed off, not for the reasons of the movie like the desecration of the earth or the slaughter of a native people. I've lived in America long enough to know my own history and to be pissed off. I didn't need some over bloated big budget movie to tell me how to feel about the atrocities that America's founded on.

See, let me start by telling you why I refuse to give money to Avatar. First and foremost, it's the most successful movie ever so I'm sure James Cameron can live without my 11 bucks. Second and more importantly, James Cameron's movies for the most part have always been about style over substance. Sure, the effects are cool but I'd rather have a low budget sincere effort from a filmmaker than what Avatar threw in my face.

I mean, sure it raised awareness about the genocide of a people (in a way at least) as well as the effects that our constant globalization has on environments, but let me put it this way. To me, the movie feels like a man gorging himself on caviar, sweetbreads and foie gras only to go out and make a movie about starving orphans in a third world. I'd be much more impressed with the effort if it actually showed an understanding of its preachy, self righteous material.

Also, releasing a bare bones DVD and blu ray on Earth Day while announcing explicit plans to re-release it with more special features in November to hit the holiday market? That doesn't make you eco-friendly just because you did it on Earth Day. It's wasteful and extravagant and money grubbing so quit pretending like you're on the side of the little man James Cameron. For all intents and purposes, James Cameron IS the man that the little guy is always struggling against! Still, he does make a pretty movie... albeit a trite plot and hokey dialogue, but eh, it's pretty enough.

Pretending to Eat Your Kids: Stimulating or Just Plain Creepy?

2010-05-21T08:46:00.000-05:00

I hope everybody's ready for another rousing segment of "why the hell do people do that?" because I've had this one on the back burner for a while. Now I know what I'm about to ask is just about as random as the act itself and, let's be real, nobody really acts that normal around babies, but here goes.

I was on the playground yesterday (yes, I'm 22 and there were mothers with their children so it may have given off the pedo vibe) and I was watching as these young mothers pushed their children. It's always sweet to see how mothers interact with their babies. There's such compassion and hell, after spending 9 months in my body, I'd probably be protective of a kid too if I were them. It was all very sweet and very Hallmark until the baby stuff kicked in. I'm not talking about inappropriate breast feedings or anything, but that whole thing that mothers do to their kids when they, like, pretend to eat their feet or whatever. Do you know what I'
m talking about? They go "om nom nom nom" and pretend to eat their kids feet while spouting out ridiculous baby talk and tickling them.

I was trying to find proof by googling it, but you'll just have to take my word for it after getting some disturbing results. Sure, some were articles that said that it stimulates the babies, whereas others were news articles about a woman ACTUALLY eating her baby, so consider my search for proof done.

So I get that it makes babies smile, but just think about it. I mean, it is a kind of weird practice? Maybe it's just as a casual observer it's weird to me, but whenever I see it, I get these traumatic stress flashbacks.

See, when I was little, my older brothers, my sister, and I all had pet rats. Don't ask me why, we just did and I loved Rizzo (being a pop culture savvy 5 year old, I named mine after the Muppet) but of course he had to go and get my sister's rat pregnant. Well, when we came down one day after the babies had been born, my sister's rat was eating her own babies. Not a great thing to walk in on when you're a little kid or really ever for that matter.

So, do you see where I'm coming from? Pretending to eat your own young after seeing firsthand a mother eat her own young is just kind of creepy. It adds an even creepier dimension after reading the article about the mother who chewed off her own baby's toes and ate part of his brains. Yeah, I got curious after seeing the headlines... Bottom line, I'm not looking for sense. The one thing I've realized is that people, especially mothers, are all but logical when it comes to their kids.

I Know What You Did Last Sorority Meeting

2010-05-20T09:00:00.000-05:00

Sorority Row is one of those movies that feels like a frustrating paint by the numbers game. By the end of the movie, when you find out who did it, not only do you not care, but you're also secretly hoping for every one of those annoying characters to die. This may sound particularly spiteful, but for those who have seen it, most know the feeling.

It's important to start at the beginning. While obviously this wasn't going to be as good as the original (or even the same plot line really) a little stupid fun never hurt anyone. There was a little hesitance in seeing it, but the whole slasher genre is pretty much ridiculous, so what was just one more? Also, admittedly the casting of Carrie Fisher had a certain appeal.

The inciting incident aka the killing of Audrina Patridge could not come soon enough. She honestly has that stereotypical dumb girl voice where every sentence ends with an upward inflection so it sounds like she's asking a question. Sadly, even after her death, there are plenty of other obnoxious characters to make audience members want to go homicidal. Nevertheless, acting has never been a priority of the slasher sub-genre (I mean, neve Campbell? C'mon) so that was nothing new.

What made these characters so obnoxious though is that none of them seemed worth saving. The audience is introduced to their misdeeds and vices before they can see their potential for good. What results is roughly five obnoxious spoiled brats who honestly deserve to be punished for what they've done. Maybe not by the means that the killer uses, but in some way or another. None of them, except the obvious Final Girl, seemed to even feel bad for what they had done. Naturally, it's hard for the audience to feel too bad for them when they get picked off one by one. It's difficult to tell if that's the result of the amateurish acting or it's the way that the characters are written.

The writing is certainly to blame in some parts as the dialogue is just too absurd to even be a guilty pleasure. When one girl finds the decaying corpse of another girl, rather than screaming, she says "Oh my God, she looks terrible..." as if she was telling her that her lipstick was the wrong shade or she used too much blush. Sure, it's an attempt at comedy to alleviate the suspense, but there are just two problems with that. First is obviously the issue of placement. There are some other comedic moments which are placed more appropriately, but even then, it's still not very funny. And finally, the mixture of tension and relief is a delicate balance in horror movies, but the most crucial element in that equation? Some actual tension or suspense!

In the end, it's difficult to say what doesn't work for Sorority Row. The whole thing is a mess that seems a little too proud of itself. The death scenes (the main reason so many people watch horror movies) are less than inventive and not nearly bloody enough to make it entertaining. There are a few good ones, but honestly, the DVD comes with a special feature which takes you directly to all the kill scenes. If you're in it for the gore, either watch that special feature or skip this cinematic abortion entirely.

The Hunter and the Hunted: Gender Politics in Night of the Hunter

2010-05-19T12:55:00.001-05:00

Film embraces its ability to show its viewers a world that they might otherwise never be exposed to, while relying on a combination of dialogue and other traditional literary devices with the power of the image. One such film is the 1955 Charles Laughton film, The Night of the Hunter. The story chronicles the exploits of Reverend Powell Powell as he seduces, marries, and subsequently murders a widow whose husband has left a great deal of money. The disguise of a man of God has everyone in the town fooled except for the widow’s children, who see the man for what he is. Although the dialogue of this film progresses the movie along a great deal and certainly spells out the themes for its audience, the accompanying visuals provide chilling scenery to add to the film’s atmospheric effect. One thing worth noting that may be particularly chilling to modern audiences is the treatment of women throughout the film and gender roles as a whole. The Night of the Hunter, through explicit dialogue as well as explicit visuals, demonizes male figures of the film and discounts the fairer sex throughout most of the film, while giving unparalleled strength to the heroine in the film but at the expense of her recognition as a “woman”.
The most immediate recognition of the film is man’s capacity for evil. Not even 5 minutes into the film the audience is shown the feet of a dead woman and then cuts directly to Powell (Robert Mitchum), speaking with the Lord about “doing his will”. The audience’s association with Powell as a murderer and a profound misogynist is instantaneous. As if the dialogue isn’t enough, Laughton follows the monologue with the Reverend in a strip club. At one point he reaches into his pocket and produces a knife that tears through his pocket. This knife is clearly a phallic symbol in terms of its placement and shape, but what is perhaps even more disturbing is Laughton’s equation of the phallus intrinsically related to violence. In short, Laughton makes it painfully clear that Powell is being set up to be the villain of the film and as a director, takes the opportunity to barrage us with images of stereotypical masculinity, such as the phallic knife. However, one of the more complicated male “bad guys” is given very little screen time, but has a lasting screen presence. That is, of course, the character of Ben Harper (Peter Graves), who robs a bank and kills two guards, so that he can provide for his family. While, as the audience, we understand his intentions, it is difficult to fully support them at the expense of two men’s lives. When the police come to take him away, his son John (Billy Chapin) cries out but police continue to assault him. It is the police’s actions that give some of the weight to this scene. They are all dressed in their uniforms that most audience members at least, recognize. The imagery of police uniforms gives viewers a good idea of “right” and “wrong” and since, in most films, police are shown to be on the side of justice and the morally superior, the audience itself recognizes Ben Harper as being worthy of punishment by society’s standards. Although these are just several male characters, the film is devoid on many other male adult figures. Laughton pays particular attention in noting that John will grow up to be a man, but that he is not one just yet. Through the few male adult figures in the film Laughton establishes distrust and even a dislike of them. However, he does little to the women to make them more digestible.
One of the most powerful examples of the disregard for women is illustrated in the character of Willa. However, once again, Laughton uses the male figures in relation to the strength of his female characters. For instance, Willa (Shelly Winters) shows signs of weakness through dialogue very early on, such as her husband’s trusting John to hide the money by saying, “You got common sense. She ain’t.” but it is mainly in Powell’s treatment of her that the audience actually sees her weakness visually. Although there are many examples of this concept of feminine inferiority, one of the most powerful instances is the scene of her wedding night. The scene opens on her preparing herself for her night of conjugal bliss in the bathroom, but when she opens the door to her bedroom, Powell has her back to her as he lays in the dark. The contrast between Willa bathed in light and Powell cloaked in darkness does a beautiful job of highlighting the differences between the two. As Powell turns to face her, she shrinks back and the viewer sees that the elements of light and dark are no longer so clearly defined. The darkness of the room seems to be forcing itself onto the light from the bathroom and almost seems to take over the scene. As this happens, Willa pins herself against the wall, effectively subjecting herself to his harsh stare. Throughout the rest of the scene, Powell commands both vocally and visually. As he chastises her for wanting to have sex without having any more children, she throws herself to the bed. She once again, lowers herself and Laughton makes it visually distinct that Willa is lessened and even passive in relation to Powell’s actions. Although dialogue motivates this scene, there is also a very primitive expressiveness to it almost reminiscent of silent films. For instance, although the audience hears Powell command Willa to go over to the mirror, he also forcefully points in the direction of the mirror. Even while facing it, and placing her in the foreground, Laughton is always aware of the male presence in the room. Furthermore through dialogue, Laughton forces the male perspective on his audience. Powell says “The skin of woman, profaned by Adam.” By doing so, he places the male experience as a priority and the experience of women as something that should be seen as secondary. This is illustrated in Willa’s surrender on her wedding night as she collapses to the bed as Powell towers over her. This scene visually indicates the weakness of women, but other scenes, such as the Sunday school picnic when Willa is sitting down and Powell lords over her or even her death scene as Powell takes out his knife and raises it high to strike her, she remains in bed with arms crossed in a position of repose and complete passivity. Willa’s actions in many ways do a great disservice to the representation of women in film as she passively accepts Powell’s knife, but it is the heroine of the piece who is perhaps most intriguing.
By the film’s close, John as the “hero” has become secondary. Laughton’s emphasis on both John and Pearl still being children is illustrated with the presentation of Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish). She is an older woman who has taken in countless orphans before them and the audience recognizes her as a matronly figure. While her mannerisms are motherly and, subsequently, feminine, there is also a complete lack of sexualization of her character. She is rarely seen with any male figures with the exception of Powell, who she directly assaults, and a shopkeeper, to whom she sells eggs and produce. This already puts her in a position of power as we see Willa brought down and even killed by the male influence in her life. However, going along with her lack of feminization, there is also a certain masculinity to her. She has a gruff way of speaking and a visible tough love approach, which is demonstrated as she is shown spanking John at one point. However, her motherly instincts play a large role in the conclusion of the film. When she sees that Powell is after the two children and means to hurt them, she confronts him with a shotgun. This use of the shotgun supplies a phallus for Rachel, with which she can defeat the villain. It is only through her lack of a strong female identity and the assignment of male qualities, such as her phallic shotgun, that the audience sees her as heroine. While it is true that Rachel is able to scare off Powell, she does so at the expense of her femininity.
Throughout the film, The Night of the Hunter gives conflicting accounts of gender roles, demonizing most male adult figures while weakening most of the women, but turning it around and providing a compelling heroine albeit at the expense of her feminine identity. Characters such as Powell himself and the minor character of Ben Harper illustrate man’s capacity for evil, sometimes in the name of what is good. Meanwhile, women such as Willa are shown as lesser beings in relation to men. However, the film’s heroine, Rachel Cooper, shows a lack of association with men which may arguably be her saving grace. The Night of the Hunter shows a complexity and a depth to its characters that even in today’s cinema is uncharacteristic. However, its pairing of a strong script and compelling visuals solidify it as a film classic and a study in gender roles well worth studying.

Slow Mo Don't Work for This Mo

2010-05-18T08:52:00.000-05:00

Consider this a notice to all the directors of the world. That's right Zack Snyder and James cameron, I'm callin' you out on your shit! Now if only I could find a way to make Zack Snyder or James Cameron read my blog... but that's beside the point! This could even serve to help novice film makers. Yeah, I like phrasing it that way because it makes me sound like I'm actually providing a measurable service to the world instead of hiding behind the anonymity of the internet and bitching...

Anyways, we need to talk about this slow motion business. I get it, it looks cool and it allows you to draw attention to all the details that you and your team put effort into creating this world. I totally get that. Hell, if I was even halfway decent at making films, I'm sure I'd want to do the same. But the fact of the matter is I suck at making them, so I'm gonna take this time to concentrate on others (Once again, don't I sound like a humanitarian or something instead of a deeply unhappy 20-something?).

This whole slow motion business, let's be honest, it's a one trick pony. Then again, coming from Zack Snyder (What's that? Somebody already made this? Well, I can take it and do it again... I mean, if ya want) and James Cameron (Dude, we get it, aliens are awesome and the human race sucks, it's like the theme of every one of your movies), one trick pony is pretty much the name of the game. This isn't to say that I haven't enjoyed some of their films. I mean, let's put the emphasis on some, but the 2004 Dawn of the Dead was at least enjoyable. Maybe not as socially relevant as Romero's original, but ya know, it was fun. Now for James Cameron, we're gonna go back a little while to 1994 with True Lies because that's the last movie I've actually enjoyed of his, but I digress.

I get it, every film maker is flawed (so maybe some of us wanna stop acting like God, eh James?) but with this slow motion business, it's just ridiculous. I mean, if you look at 300 the damn movie wouldn't have been longer than 20 minutes if you cut out all of the slow motion. As for Avatar, which admittedly brought this rant on, I had no idea why slow motion was being used in half the parts that it was. It just didn't make sense. Now what a lot of film makers seem to be doing is this whole practice of "slow motion to heighten tension". It might work for some, but honestly, it does nothing for me. Maybe both of these movies just don't really resonate with me but the truth is, although Snyder and Cameron are the main perpetrators, it's been a while since I've seen slow motion used well, without it being for comic effect. It can work, but I'm just sayin', why don't we try something new for a little, okay fellas?

Re-Defining Horror in a Post- Scream World

2010-05-17T10:31:00.001-05:00

So, I'm sure by the end of this post, I'll already want to take back everything I've said in this first paragraph, but here goes. Every so often a horror film comes along that defies conventions. I mean, it's still filled with gore and implausibilities, but everything that we've known about horror films is turned on its head. While House of Wax isn't necessarily a genre re-defining movie, there's a certain level of consciousness that saves the movie from its own mediocrity.

Don't get me wrong, most of the characters are still stupid as hell and should figure out something's up before they're being chased down the hall by a knife-wielding maniac, but that's a problem for another day. What I mean is that the horror genre lives in two stages if you ask me. I hate to give Craven this much credit with all the garbage that he's turned out, but there is a very clear pre-Scream type of horror film and a post-Scream horror film. The difference between the two are the rules laid out in the first Scream. Most horror films after that couldn't ignore that the rules of horror had been done to death (Okay... pun intended).

This is where movie's like House of Wax come in. Is it forgettable? Oh yeah. Is it poorly acted? Oh hell yeah. There's nothing about it that doesn't scream out bad horror flick. Well, nothing except for the situations that the characters get themselves into. I mean, there's still the whole cliche "Hello? Is anyone there?" moments, but it's the turn of events that define the movie.

For instance, there's still the genre standard of the final girl. But, for those who have seen the movie, it's a very different pairing in the film's end. In most cases, either the girl is left alive and alone or it's her and her boyfriend. With House of Wax one of the first victims is the final girl's boyfriend. It's not terribly inventive, but it certainly makes one question if all the "rules" of the genre are going to apply to this movie. In what's become more and more common in horror films, the bond of siblings has replaced the whole love interest. House of Wax is one of the earlier movies to do so, at least in this revival of the horror genre that we've seen in the 2000s, although the reboot of Friday the 13th quickly followed suit.

Another thing that's interesting is the level of awareness of the audience and how film makers play with that. Paris Hilton's casting in this movie may be one of the most blatant cases of stunt casting or maybe the director was dimwitted enough to think she was right for the role. Either way, the film plays off of her notoriety in several cases. One of the most obvious is when she's in the car fooling around with a guy and their friends film her in night vision... like her sex tape, get it? I mean, it's pretty obvious, but still, this idea of celebrity in the horror film has usually been used to guarantee who will stay alive. High profile folks rarely get killed off. However, this was subverted with Drew Barrymore in Scream so this film takes a different route. It's the use of notorious celebrity to guarantee the demise of her character. T-shirts were even sold glorifying the fact that paris Hilton would die in this film. The studio gave audiences what they wanted and killed off her character, but what was most surprising is how long it took. Paris Hilton is one of the last deaths of the film, which was pretty shocking. They defied conventions by keeping her alive for so long (after all, she would be the promiscuous girl who gets killed before the opening credits in any other horror movie) but still gave audiences what they wanted by killing her.

House of Wax is full of instances that defy even the horror genre in a post-Scream age. Maybe that's why it wasn't a hit with most folks. or maybe it's just that it isn't very good? I can't really say one way or another, but it does remain one of the most interesting examples of horror cinema in the 2000s even if it falls short as a movie.

Batman in Retrospect...

2010-05-16T09:07:00.000-05:00

Now, I don't know how many people remember the show or even watched it, but for me, every weekday after school, life began at 4 and ended promptly at 4:30. "Batman :The Animated Series" on Cartoon Network was one of the bright spots in an otherwise dull suburban existence. See, I was raised by strict parents (who know every time we go out for dinner, ask if I want a beer with my meal... I mean, sure I'm of age, but it still seems weird) We had all sorts of rules; no chewing gum because people who did it were tacky, no swearing because people who swear are uneducated, and perhaps most crushing of all, no more than 30 minutes of TV time.

That may sound harsh to some or just plain ridiculous to others. let me be clear, I in no way rely on TV for some sense of emotional and spiritual fulfillment. But when you're raised in Wyoming, Ohio there isn't a whole lot going on. Factor in that I was too young to drive and you've got yourself one hell of a problem. So it all made sense that Batman would come to mean this much to me, it was pretty much my only chance at escape.

Still, there's no accounting for why it means as much as it does to me now. Well, I'm sure if I went into a therapy-induced rant, I could find a reason and probably blame it on my parents... but I'm willing to accept the fact that I'm still just a huge comic nerd, so you should too. But as is the case with most children-oriented programs or movies, as time marches on, the cracks begin to show.

First and foremost is this whole issue of the time... I mean, the whole thing is styled in art deco so that would suggest that it's supposed to take time around the time that Bob Kane (the creator of Batman) first began the comics. The fact that whenever Batman is watching the news, they make it a point to be in black and white further supports this. Then there's this whole issue of Batman having a computer. I understand the concept of suspension of disbelief, but when so much effort is put into making it look authentic and antique, just tossing in a computer is one of those things that just makes you go "huh?"

Still, perhaps more alarming are the meanings that these TV shows and movies, that used to be a symbol of our own innocence, take on as we get older. You could easily just attribute it to my sick mind, which probably has something to do with it, but there are just some things... One episode that even freaked me out when I was little was about a guy who steals an invisibility suit so that he can be with his daughter. His ex-wife doesn't want this little girl to have anything to do with her father and it's never really explained why. But then he sneaks into her bedroom one night and gives her a pearl necklace and it's easy to see why his ex wants him out of her life. I mean, sure the term pearl necklace has taken on a new meaning (seriously, if you don't know what it is, go to urbandictionary.com and search for it) but even the creeping in through her window thing is creepy.

I don't know, maybe it's just me and how time has warped my mind, but I mean, the anachronisms are obvious. You can't even really make an argument against that. I get that bruce Wayne is supposed to have the best that money can buy, but that doesn't mean he has technology from the future. More disturbing is what MY mind has turned into and how that can mess up what should be an innocent viewing of childhood nostalgia. Still, can't deny it's there.

Does Nostalgia Make the World Taste Better?

2010-05-15T10:23:00.001-05:00

Now, I don't think there's a single one of us out there that doesn't enjoy ice cream. Well, lactose intolerants might not like it so much... but then again, they could always take Lactaid BEFORE they eat ice cream... but that's not the point. Ice cream is pretty much enjoyed by all.

Even after working at an ice cream store, when I was so sick of the stuff and middle-aged men coming up to me and complaining that "his scoop is bigger" (don't laugh, it actually happens), I came back around. I missed the fatty-no-friends feeling of ice cream as it melts in your mouth or how you're instantly transported back to being a little kid. It's just a happy experience getting ice cream for some reason.

But, if "happy" is how I'd describe ice cream, "ecstatic" is the word that comes to mind when it comes to Dippin' Dots. How is it that ice cream, albeit in tiny pellets, tastes better than any other ice cream? I honestly don't know. It's pretty just freeze-dried preservatives (can't be too good for you) but there's something about it. I'm not sure if it melts differently or what, but for those who have had Dippin' Dots, I'm sure they understand what I'm talking about.

It's another case of instant nostalgia when I see them. I don't know, can nostalgia actually make something taste better? I'm sure there's a highly scientific answer to that, but have I ever been mistaken for a highly scientific guy? Nah, I'm just a nerd who waxes on about trivial things from his childhood.

Still, Dippin' Dots is one of those irreplaceable parts of childhood. If you've never had them, you truly are missing out. WHo knew my love of little ice cream pellets could go on for so long? If you're still reading, sorry about the rant... I think I'm just hungry.

Queer Cinema's Degradation & Re-Birth...

2010-05-14T07:55:00.003-05:00

Cinema, gay and straight alike, has been in a state of distress for some time. This isn’t to say that no good films are being put out now, but the actual worthwhile films have definitely decreased over the years. However, to understand the degradation of films, particularly queer cinema, it is important to understand the films that have stuck in our minds over the years. While the question of “what is it that makes a good queer-themed film?” is most certainly unanswerable, we can look to the past when queer-themed cinema was a more prevalent force in the world of film. Sadly, this is probably as far back as the 80s. While this niche film community still exists today it is not with the same force as in the 80s with films like Parting Glances. Parting Glances is an interesting film to start with particularly because of how its handling of sexuality and more importantly, the AIDS epidemic. While today it is better understood that HIV/AIDS is not merely a gay disease, in the 1980s it was most visibly affecting the gay community so it was important to Sherwood to get this message out about the deadly virus which, unfortunately, would claim his life only several years after the film’s release. However, on the more subtle but equally important topic of sexuality, Sherwood handles the film with a cool and collected manner. It was easily one of the first films to portray gay men as men who existed outside of the gay sub-culture. Certainly they were recognizably homosexual characters and lived up to some of the stereotypes that had been established in gay-themed films before them, but with Parting Glances, the characters of Michael, Robert, and Nick all existed as fully formed characters. While the films before had dealt with the fact that the subjects of the film were homosexual, they did little to overcome the preconceived notions of what homosexuality was. Other characters existed as figures in film that were formed solely by their sexuality, but Michael is a dimensional character that thinks and feels and is only influenced in a minor way by his sexuality. This worked to humanize homosexuals and to combat this idea that homosexuals were somehow uncharismatic and characterized by their intensely and graphic sexual drive and nothing else. Another point of interest in this film is the time of its release and the handling of its subject matter. This film was released during the AIDS epidemic, which saw a real sense of direction in queer-themed cinema. Nick’s status as an HIV-positive man is crucial to the success of this film and its importance in the timeline of the height of this film movement. While there were few films that dealt with the topic, those that did were drenched in a sense of melodrama and often seemed to take themselves too seriously. Sherwood never understates the importance and the seriousness of Nick’s status, but it’s more about the relationship between Michael and Robert and Michael and Nick than it is about the illness. This was significant in two ways. First and foremost, the disease was being talked about in film. In a time characterized by the paralyzing fear of the disease, film was an effective means to communicate because it had the power to reach such widespread audiences. Even a film, such as this independent picture, which wouldn’t have been as accessible to audiences all over the United States, were at least able to see that this was an issue worth talking about. Secondly, and this is an idea that cannot be expressed enough, is that Nick was never seen only as an AIDS victim. He was not defined by his disease which, given the death rate of people diagnosed with AIDS in the 80s, was inspiring. Typically, characters living with AIDS found purpose in their deaths. Directors and movie stars alike saw the possibility of educating people about the horrors of AIDS by appealing to their emotions. What leaves more of an emotional mark than the death of a beloved character? Filmmakers didn’t seem to be able to think of much else. However, Nick is never expressly given a death sentence in this film. While it is understood that, yes, he will die from this disease, depriving the audience of this visual strengthens Nick’s character. It helps us to realize him as the love of Michael’s life, which he is more importantly than he is a victim. This goal of humanizing the homosexual population and even trying to humanize the virus was a noble goal on Sherwood’s part. It embodies the purpose of queer-themed cinema in the 80s. Sadly, soon after, queer filmmakers and queer-themed cinema to lose sight of this goal.
Perhaps most important filmmakers, such as Sherwood himself, were among the ones whose lives were destroyed by the AIDS virus or maybe, the sense of urgency was lost over the time. Gays had politicized in the 80s, they had made themselves known individuals, it seemed that what was done had been done. Even as the precautions against AIDS began to be taken and the disease began to fade from the headlines, it was almost as if a sense of purpose was lost in the gay community. Gay filmmaking has continued since then, but it has by and large remained a fringe community in the world of film. Since then, the topic of homosexuality has become less taboo in some senses and been introduced into mainstream film in a way that oddly mirrors its first establishment. In the introduction of the homosexual into mainstream cinema, the homosexual character first existed in the role of a supporting character, primarily in films geared towards a female audience. Although homosexuality itself was out of the closet, so to speak, the “masculine” world was far from ready to deal with homosexual characters. More often than not, the gay character plays the best friend to the lead female in “chick flicks”. What’s perhaps most troubling is that the “supporting gay” very rarely exists in a role outside of comedic relief and often serves to perpetuate gay stereotypes that, over the years, many have worked to fight against. Very rarely, if ever, is the gay character ever in direct relation with any male characters in the film, unless of course, they are gay as well. This does little to assert the masculinity of gay men and leads to the creation of supporting gay characters that are exaggerated reflections of gay stereotypes, such as the character of Damian in Mean Girls. Damian embodies the understanding of homosexuality in mainstream cinema. The only purpose of the character was to fulfill a comedic role that could have easily been filled by a woman. He’s not even understood as a sexual being. He expresses no interest in any people in the film, male or female, so while it is never seen that he is homosexual, he is understood as such through his mannerisms and what other people say about him more than an actual sexual interest. It’s interesting to me that in the film’s conclusion, it was viewed as necessary that Janis Ian, the girl who everyone thought to be a lesbian, had to be given a male love interest, quickly and in perhaps the last 15 minutes, with no real detailing of the relationship, but just so it is understood that all those malicious rumors people spread about her being a lesbian were untrue. Meanwhile, the gay is left without even a potential love interest. The concept of actually sexualizing this character is left completely unexplored so as not to ruffle any feathers and keep audiences happy. Although this is a common trait of chick flicks, even now, gays have gradually moved out of the supporting role character into the world of drama.
Their existence in the world of comedy took place before the supporting role, but in a very different manner. The gay lead had been established much earlier on in cinema with films like La Cage Aux Folles, but was re-defined when The Birdcage, its American counterpart, took American cinemas by storm. It featured all of the gay stereotypes that Americans had come to know, but in some ways turned it on its head. It was an actual movie that, yes, featured unrealistic homosexual characters, but it was a movie with heart. The Birdcage is often credited with re-revolutionizing mainstream gay cinema in America, but another film that is an important film in re-defining homosexuality in American cinema was In & Out. What was most interesting in this film was the exploration of how sexuality is viewed in American culture. Where The Birdcage got most of its laughs from its gay characters and the stereotypical mannerisms of them, In & Out derived an equal amount of its laughs from both sides of the fence. In some ways, it criticized the American public for its condemnation of homosexuality and people would allow it to alter their perceptions of people they had gotten along with before coming out. However, this film was to be a widespread release so there was no way that studio executives would allow the film to end on a note such as Howard coming out and being completely unchanged except that he was openly gay now. This idea that Howard is the same man as he always was would have been too baffling for film audiences. People, as awful as it may sound, need there to be a clear division between gay and straight. That’s why the notion of a masculine homosexual is rarely realized on the screen and Howard is no exception. The film’s ending, which is perhaps its most memorable part, is a collective dance to The Village People’s “Macho Man”, the joke being, of course, that gay men can’t be macho. The idea of gay men being masculine figures is treated as laughable, at best. For all of the good that the film does in stating that homosexuality shouldn’t be treated any differently and having a homosexual lead, they do resort to the stereotypes for cheap laughs at times.
This is quite a different approach to the homosexual lead that was the focus of dramas in later films. There’s no real definable time that homosexual dramas came in to popularity, but one of the earliest instances is 1999’s Boys Don’t Cry, which earned Hilary Swank an Academy Award for her portrayal of Brandon Teena, a transgender teen. However, the main stigma that Hollywood and most of America has is with the concept of two men together in a serious and/or romantic manner. Unfortunately, the most well known example is that of Brokeback Mountain, which puts gay relationships in a less than favorable light. What both these films have in common is this perception of homosexuality or even the notion of “otherness” in defining one’s sexual identity, is something shameful and even punishable by death. While it cannot be ignored that each of these films expressly condemns the perpetrators of the crime, but the fact of the matter is that this takes place towards the end of the film. The majority of the films, particularly Brokeback Mountain, is defining the relationship and noting it for its irregularities. The notion of “homosexuals are no different than you or I” was thrown out when gays became the leads in dramatic films. They immediately became objects of shame. This was an idea that had been used in films before such as Victim or The Children’s Hour. As soon as a character faced the prospect of being gay or what society would do to him/her, they frequently killed themselves. However, Brokeback Mountain symbolized a change of sorts, although this change seems to have been equally as disturbing if not more so. Homosexual characters were no longer killing themselves, but homosexuals were being killed by others. There’s something to be said about the fact that homosexuals weren’t even viewed as strong enough to fight back, and that violence was being done to them as a testament to their own weakness. In some instances, this was done to put a face to the terrible discrimination that the GLBTQ community faced, but more often than not, this plan backfired and gays became objects of pity more than anything else. People saw that the idea of two men in love with one another could never end well and they felt bad rather than questioned their own values. For instance, in the 2004 election, one of the deciding factors was that Bush vehemently opposed gay marriage. This was an idea that people could get behind so they went with it. Less than a full year later, Brokeback Mountain was released. Here, you had a face to the issue and suddenly audiences were rushing to it. They became something to gawk at, particularly heterosexual audiences, to see two men engage in romantic behavior on the big screen and pride themselves on being better than the practically faceless villains they saw on the screen. Leads in these mainstream gay films served more purpose for heterosexual audiences than they did for the gay community. Gay filmgoers saw little to nothing recognizable in these characters that their heterosexual counterparts had such profound respect and compassion for. At least “compassion” is what most people labeled it as. The fact of the matter is that by this stage in Hollywood’s “age of understanding” the best way most studios knew how to humanize an idea like homosexual love was to make it something that audiences couldn’t altogether relate to, but rather, they could pity. In terms of understanding gay-themed films, mainstream audiences claimed an interest in it, but still, there was a lot of progress to be made in terms of the representation of homosexuals as equals and their love as a valid one.
In more recent years, this quest to humanize the gay community has evolved since films such as Brokeback Mountain. While there is still little to no sexualization of the gay community in films, the understanding of gay characters is quite different. They have since become characters in their own right existing, as many heterosexual characters have for years, outside of their sexual preference. These characters seem to face the uncharted territory of queer cinema. Parting Glances explored fully formed gay characters and modern films, such as RockNRolla or Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist, have been dealing more and more with characters that just happen to be gay. This theory of homosexuality as a secondary characteristic is a newer one and more common amongst those born during or after the initial gay rights movements of the 70s and 80s. It’s getting to the point in our film history that these younger types are becoming the filmmakers. Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist is an excellent example of what direction film seems to be heading in. Although Nick, the titular character, is not gay himself, he’s a member of a queercore band with several other guys. These characters, while supporting, are not reduced to the role of gossiping queens. They provide real support to the character of Nick and are an absolutely essential part of the progression of the film. More importantly, their homosexuality is not a major plot point. True, it provides for a couple of cheap laughs, but their masculinity is never undermined by their sexual orientation and the fact that they like members of the same sex isn’t constantly brought up, but rather, it’s handle in a quiet and tasteful manner. They are understood to be men first and, with the exception of one band member and his male love interest, the topic of sexuality is handle very respectfully and they are given the same common courtesy as their heterosexual counterparts. Although it sounds like such a minor victory, in the film’s conclusion, one of the gay characters gets in and wins a fight. From the time that queers were killing themselves and others were killing them, to have a gay man actually win a fight shows signs of progress. While this isn’t to say that violence is good or even justified, it shows strength in the gay community that has never really been portrayed before. It’s a minor win in the film that represents a win for the queer community in terms of its filmic representation.
Gays have just about always been in films and there are certainly signs that indicate no stopping any time soon. Although the progression of the portrayal of homosexuals and queer culture is spotty at best, there is a noticeable projection. From the role of comedic leads and supporting roles, to more dramatic roles, and the eventual evolution of cinema’s perception of sexuality, there have a number of roles that placed homosexuals in the lime light. Although its difficult to say if the negative has outweighed the positive, it’s clear that the visibility of homosexuality has increased over the years and the attention being paid to the representation of queer culture is increasing as well. While work has been done, it’s alarmingly evident that there’s still much more work than needs to be done. It’s difficult to say just where queer filmmakers and queer themed film will take us, but it’s clear that what lies ahead, in the characters that exist outside of the confines of stereotypes, is uncharted territory.

Love in All Its' Shades of Gray

2010-05-13T08:53:00.002-05:00

It is often said that a piece of work is only as good as the sum of its parts. In the world of art, this is a very simple statement to understand. As an audience we can see how the combination of oils and canvas can create a richly layered text with full dimensionality. Even with most films, it is clearly demonstrated how point a leads the protagonist to point b and so on and so forth. However, this is not the only way to interpret the old cliché. Some films stray from the beaten path and retain their purpose or are even perhaps strengthened by it. One such film is the 2006 piece, Paris, je t’aime. Each short film is written as a love poem to the city of Paris itself and those who have been touched by it. It should be understood that each piece on its own is a strong testament to the city, but it is through unification that the possibility of the film is realized. Although it is directed by several prominent directors, each responsible for a segment of the film, at the film’s close they are briefly united with a common purpose before the credits roll. Furthermore, throughout the course of the film the topic of love is on the lips of each of these characters, but rather than tart up the typical Hollywood portrayal of love, this film celebrates a love for the city of lights and its citizens in all their complexity. Paris, je t’aime’s celebration of love in all its various incarnations is detailed in each segment, but the true importance of the complications and different types of loves remains unstated until the end of the film.
One of the most basic portrayals of love is the somewhat antiquated and overly romanticized notion of Hollywood type love. This type of love is known to triumph over all despite being at odds with the world of reality. This idea is illustrated in the short film Quais de Seine which explores the love between a teenage boy and a young Muslim girl. Although there are few pieces that celebrate this type of somewhat impractical and unrealistic depiction of love, this short film explores the topic, paying tribute to the most basic understanding of love to a movie-going audience. One must always recognize the affinity for escape that is revered by the American audience. However, this piece has a dual purpose in the larger work of Paris, je t’aime. It shows the potential for good to come out of love. This is not to say that the film itself is especially cynical or particularly jaded, but the many incarnations of love are not glossed over and stylized as so many audiences are used to seeing. Quais is easily one of the most optimistic pieces but its placement as the 2nd segment of the film seems almost transparent. Its hope for the future of its two protagonists, who are never seen kissing or even holding hands, remains modest and in a way, prepares the audience for the understated expressions of love throughout the film, some sweet as this one is, but others bitter.
Another important aspect to the film is the notion of the the potential for love that remains relatively unexplored. Le Marais is Gus Van Sant’s piece in the film which details one man’s fascination with another, only to find that the two do not speak the same language. While this film features two male leads, one who barely says anything at all, there is an unexplored chemistry felt between the two which is only truly realized as the film comes to an end and one of the boys feels compelled to seek out the other. This segment, much like Quais explores potential that is unexamined. However, unlike Quais physicality is defined. The two interact for a brief moment when one’s hand touches that of the other. This may have been unintentionally similar to the focus of the previous segment, but the minimal growth between the two segments seems to demonstrate a more dialectic approach than a mere episodic film, as the casual observer might expect it to be. Furthermore, in the film’s final scene when all of the other lovers are seen interacting, the two leads are absent. Van Sant seems to return to the idea of the unexplored and leaves his audience to ponder their fate although the segment’s end suggests an unrealistic hopefulness for the two. However, the audience has a hope against hope that just maybe escapism will win out and the two will find each other.
Along with this idea of the unexplored is the unavoidable topic of loss. The film seems to relish in the various explorations of loss in its own way and understandably so. It allows for the display of all types of love that may otherwise appear flat and lacking any real dimension. One of the most notable segments dealing with loss in addition to the idea of the unexplored is the short Place Des Fetes, about a young man who is dying and his love of the female paramedic trying to save him. The film details his journey and makes it clear in its own terms that the two have had very little interaction, but the man’s feelings remain. With his final breath, he tells her how he feels and she is understandably taken aback, but still, when he passes, tears come to her eyes. She has experienced a loss of potential, for what could have been with this young man. Furthermore, as she kneels beside the body and begins to cry, a more seasoned paramedic approaches her and says “You’re new?” What is experienced at this moment is not only a loss of potential, but a loss of self. It’s difficult, if not all together impossible, to find people who say that they entered the field of medicine to watch people die. This woman has just been abruptly confronted with the reality of her life, that she will have to watch people die and that there are some things that are unavoidable. Still, as an audience member, it is difficult to imagine the amount of emotional engagement that is housed in this 5 minute film.
Another short film that deals with love and loss, albeit in a different manner, is the segment entitled Place des Victoires, about a woman coming to terms with the loss of her child. While this deals with the theme of loss very directly, it also introduces a new notion of love that is rarely explored in movies and that is the concept of familial love. When love is frequently addressed a romantic as well as sexual understanding of love is usually foremost in people’s minds, but the love of a mother for her child is almost as powerful if not more so. This departure from romantic love in the film is an unusual one, but certainly not the first. There are other shorts that deal with a young woman having to care for another child while leaving her own in daycare in order to make ends meet as well as another piece where a father is commissioned to babysit for his granddaughter. However, Place des Victoires is one of the most memorable ones due to its ability to transcend romantic love as well as the confines of most short films. In the span of 5 minutes it is able to evoke such powerful emotion as well as introduce the audience to a love that most have experienced, but is traditionally left unexplored. Although this film is not the only one to examine the love that a mother has for her son, it does so in a way that is both exceedingly personal as well as relevant to the rest of the film. It continues to investigate these ideas of love and loss, while dealing with a mother figure unlike any the audience has seen in this movie.
As important as the different kinds of love are and love unexplored as well as love lost, but it is the film’s final piece, 14e Arrondissement that the film explores a complete and utter lack of love for another individual. In this piece the protagonist details her trip to Paris and her loneliness. Instead of being sad or depressing, she details where she has been in her life and her experience in the city. It makes a point of establishing past relationships, but makes it equally clear that these opportunities have passed her by and that she is alone. That is, alone except for the city of Paris. Her love for the city in its entirety is an embodiment of her lack of love for any one person. Nevertheless, this segment seems to say that love is not confined to a person, but it may still exist as an idea, a passion, or a fervor for life as the woman in this segment sees it. This lack of love is a beautiful close to the film, because it supplies an emotional satisfaction that may otherwise be left unachieved. It brings to a close all the stories and professions of love in all its complexities and love lost. It shows an understanding of love in its most base form, as one person’s feeling, whether returned, unspoken, or purely felt, for someone or something.
The final scene is a compilation of all the characters of the various segments, some interacting with characters from other stories, some merely serving an end to their own stories. The film manages to conclude the film powerfully, by showing these varieties of love engaged in one grand scene. It illustrates the differences throughout the course of the entire film, but highlights the power with the film’s emotional finale. Ultimately, each segment examines the expression of love and it’s influence in the lives of its characters. As they stand alone, each film can be understood as a piece. However, it is through the collaboration of each that this idea of love is fully established in both its sweetness and its pain. Paris, je t’aime is a testament not only to the city of love, but to love in all its beauty and its ugliness.

Heteronormality...

2010-05-12T09:53:00.000-05:00

So most of you by now have already heard about Kristen Chenoweth hitting back at openly gay Newsweek writer Ramin Setoodeh about his supposedly homophobic article about why gay men can't play straight.

If you haven't read these articles, I highly recommend them.
Setoodeh's 1st article- http://www.newsweek.com/id/236999
Chenoweth's piece- http://www.movieline.com/2010/05/kristin-chenoweth-attacks-newsweek-article-on-openly-gay-actors.php
Setoodeh's rebuttal- http://www.newsweek.com/id/237758

It used actor Sean Hayes as a prime example of how difficult it is for openly gay actors to be taken seriously as heterosexual leading men. While many have interpreted Setoodeh's article as homophobic, myself included, I realize that it wasn't a matter of homophobia or not with his rebuttal. Honestly, the piece is just poorly written and has no real grasp of its subject matter until the last paragraph.

However, all this controversy got me thinking. Yes, to a certain extent I do believe that audiences project gay mannerisms on openly gay actors, but that's the individual viewers fault. That has nothing to do with their own sexuality, open or not. An example Setoodeh uses in Jonathan groff, who guest stars on "Glee" as Jessie St. James. Groff is apparently openly gay, something I didn't know until reading this article. I just had no interest in his personal life, but now that I know, I don't really care one way or another. As long as the character is played consistently and believably or even comedically, I could care less.

What I believe Setoodeh's article to be truly about, although terribly unfocused, is this idea of heteronormality. I'm not one of those militant gays who wishes that the whole world was gay so people recognize how hard it is for me. It's true, it's hard for a lot of people, but I'd like to think I'm a stronger, more mature being for what I've gone through. No, what I'm really talking about is this idea that straight is "normal" and anything not is abnormal. I mean, sure, I get it, there are more straight people in the world than there are gay people, but that's true of many identities. For instance, there are more women than men on the planet, does that make us males "abnormal" or even counter-culture? No, it makes us a minority, but in no way marginalized. Setoodeh seems to equate "minority" with "abnormal" which is an issue for me.

According to the article, people react differently when a gay actors play straight, but you garner praise when you're straight and play gay. This once again has to do with the fact that when straight people play gay, they're inhabiting a role and leaving it behind as soon as they leave the stage or the director yells cut. For gay people to play straight, well they just have no idea what it's like to be straight, so how could they possibly do it convincingly?

Let me tell you how. Just from my personal experience, I never dabbled in the whole "what am I?" category. At the age of 13 I came out. I wasn't bi. I wasn't questioning. I knew I was gay. I told the people that I respected and my loved ones that I was gay. It went over just fine with some, not so much with others, but never did it change who I am. I'm open, but I don't reveal my sexuality to anyone unless asked or if it directly affects them. It's not the first thing people should know about me, because it's not all that I am. That being said, I've been mistaken for straight plenty of times. Apparently, too bad I didn't go into the acting world where no other gay men can play straight, because I might've gotten some consistent work.

The biggest issue that I have with this whole debate is the issue that gay isn't identifiable. I mean, it's not on my skin or in my voice. It's part of me, but not the only part. I understand that Setoodeh was admittedly trying to spark debate about the topic, but he went about it poorly. Homosexuality and what I like to call "heteronormality" is a difficult thing to write about on the internet, something Setoodeh blames for the controversy. I agree with him on a lot of things in the article, once he clarifies, but the piece is just poorly written in the first place. As a gay man, I believe Setoodeh should recognize how detrimental these labels of "heterosexuality = normality" versus "homosexuality = something to be gawked at" but at the same time, we're all given the right to express ourselves. he has his opinion and I have mine. I don't begrudge him his, as long as I'm still allowed to speak my mind.

Chloe: Egoyan's Beautiful Disaster

2010-05-11T09:01:00.001-05:00

Atom Egoyan, for those film people out there, is honestly one of the most consistent directors that I've watched over my short lifetime. He manages to evoke nuanced performances from everyone of his actors to create beautiful and often shocking interwoven character studies. For a good first time film of his to watch, check out The Sweet Hereafter. The 1997 film follows a small town after a school bus crash that shakes the town to its core. It's emotional, it's intense, and at times, profoundly disturbing. There's so much potential in that piece alone.

However when watching Chloe, that Atom Egoyan that promised the world originality and beauty with his 1997 film is nowhere to be found. However, the blame can't be placed squarely on his shoulders. Chloe is an attempt at an erotic thriller, starring Amanda Seyfried as the titular character, Julianne Moore as Catherine, and Liam Neeson as her husband, David. It follows Catherine as she hires Chloe, a prostitute, to tempt her husband to see if he will be unfaithful. As if that isn't messed up enough, things get weirder as Chloe makes it clear that she won't just go away and inserts herself into Catherine's family life.

The first issue with the film is more a comment on the erotic thriller as a genre. The erotic thriller is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I mean, sure, it's possible to still make an erotic movie that has elements of a thriller, but as an audience, most are desensitized to it by now. Whether it be the current exposure to the intimacies of celebrity life, such as sex tapes and crotch flashing, or the earlier erotic thrillers that essentially forced audiences to watch everything, there's little that can be said or done to shock modern day audiences.

That being said, it doesn't even feel like Egoyan is trying. The moves are very calculated and save one final plot twist, it's very predictable. It honestly feels at some points that he watched a string of movies featuring a woman obsessed and took all the better parts of those for his own film. What results is a largely uneven piece on Catherine's mid-life crisis. There seem to be a couple of attempts at a profound statement but they fall short. Is it supposed to be a commentary on insecurity? Which characters is the audience supposed to feel for or even like? These all seem like easy enough questions, but with this muddled effort, it's hard to get a straight forward answer.

However, one of the saving graces of the film is the beauty of the cinematography and the acting performances. It sounds strange, but the locations for most of the film are more engaging than some of the dialogue. It ranges from Catherine's own house to even a simple hotel room, but the beauty of these places is transfixing. Still, Seyfried and Moore turn in impressive performances. There's a subtlety and an insecurity to each of these characters that makes them kindred spirits in a way. It's interesting to see the story unfold, even though the climax is somewhat contrived and predictable, mainly because of the actresses that brought them to life.

Chex Mix Segregation

2010-05-10T09:33:00.001-05:00

You should be ashamed of yourself Chex Mix. Priding yourself on being a healthier alternative snack (besides the massive amounts of sodium) and yet, we've come to this. Most people might not know what I'm talking about, but I'm calling foul on this one. Be prepared for shock when I reveal what I'm about to tell you folks. Chex Mix... is a racist.

Well, not in the traditional sense... okay, maybe not in any sense, but let me explain what I'm talking about. Have you ever had a bag of Chex Mix and you open it up and grab a handful or pour a little into a bowl? I don't know how you people eat your Chex Mix, I'm just saying. Whatever method you use, next time you do, take a look at the assortment. I can almost guarantee you you'll have all the same flavor, or whatever you call it. With my luck, I always get a handful of wheat Chex, the scourge of the earth.

To those nay sayers out there, they DO taste different, okay? The wheat ones are gross and the rice ones are delightful, but even the Chex portion of the mix aside, you'll notice that pretty much all are separate until you're down to the last handful. This could be due to a simple explanation, such as pretzels are heavier than rice Chex so that's why all the pretzels settle down at the bottom, but still! It's criminal! I mean, if I just wanted to eat them separately, why not just buy the bags individually? Lord knows I'd be left with less wheat Chex that way... but that's not the point!

The point is, when I go out to the store, what is it that I'm buying? That's right, I'm buying Chex MIX. I mean, it's in the title for God's sake, why is it so hard to fathom that there should be a variety? I don't think it sounds so ridiculous, but apparently to the evil geniuses at Chex, who apparently dream of an all wheat world, what I'm asking for is ludicrous. Well, I say that the buck stops here! I'm tired of only wheat Chex and pretzels and an occasional garlic chip! I want the mix I was promised damn it!

From this day forth, I shall not stop till I see some damn integration within the Chex Mix community! Okay, being a little more realistic now... I'll probably forget about this by lunch time, but still, let's have some variety, Chex Mix, okay? It's not too much to ask... but while I'm asking favors, let's cut back on the wheat, deal? It really does taste awful.

Mother's Day

2010-05-09T09:00:00.001-05:00

Very brief post today. In fact, it might not even be far to call this a post, but a quick reminder to all those other delinquent children out there (myself included) who tend to forget the important things... like birthdays and Mother's Day.

Happy Mother's Day to all my readers and be sure to show your mama's how much you appreciate them. That can take the form of flowers, breakfast in bed, or maybe just not being a brat for once. I don't know, I don't pretend to understand your family. Hell, I barely understand my own. But happy mother's day to you and yours!

Batman's Evolution From Burton to Nolan

2010-05-08T10:52:00.002-05:00

“I am the dark. I am the night. I am… Batman.” These few words came to mean so much to cartoon and comic book fans alike. Bob Kane’s character known as Batman came to embody both fear and heroism. He offered protection for the innocent and served justice to the wicked. So many people saw a true hero in the form of this pop culture icon who subsequently struck fear into the hearts of criminals while living an honorable life by an established code of ethics. However, these ideas are fairly easy to present in the typically one-dimensional world of comics or the small screen for television. However, the question of Batman’s transition to the big screen is on that could not be answered quite so easily. Arguably, the first attempt at a “serious” Batman film was Tim Burton’s 1989 film Batman. The film received both critical and commercial acclaim at the time of its release, but the franchise was diminished over the years, thanks in part to the box-office and critical failure of Schumacher’s Batman & Robin in 1997. However, in 2005, it was realized that a new hero was needed. Nolan opted for an old hero reborn, a point he makes clear in his film Batman Begins. Although both films star an incarnation of the figure known as Batman as well as several other similarities, both Burton and Nolan highlight their differences stylistically, thematically, and ultimately visually in both Batman and Batman Begins.
In order to understand the differences between the two, it is essential to recognize some of the similarities. The similarities between the two films are very basic in their presentation. For instance, the imagery that is frequently associated with Batman, such as the iconic cape and cowl, are by and large the same. The similarities are typically the details that precede the reputation of Batman. For instance, even most people that may not have seen either of these Batman films can recognize the emblem. There are some small, stylistic differences such as the insignia that vary, but that is to be expected with such defined design0oriented directors. There’s also the tragic origin of Batman that is similar in its execution, highlighting the innocence lost as Bruce watches his parents gunned down. However, the scene of the mugging is the most similar in terms of composition and the visual. Both function as a visual representation of moral decay in an urban environment. The Waynes are shown as wealthy, based on their clothing in both and, although today’s audiences may view it as an antiquated standard, the theater used to stand as a representation of class. The fact that they are leaving the theater in Batman and the opera in Batman Begins is visually telling the audience of their status. Furthermore, the juxtaposition between the attire of the Waynes and the dark alley setting, even to those who don’t know the story, seems to warn the audience that these folks are out of their element. It is only when confronted with their mugger that the audience’s fears are realized. What follows, in both pieces, is a very telling action on the part of Thomas Wayne. In both films, Thomas complies with the mugger telling him to hand over his wallet, but when his wife is directly threatened, such as grabbing her string of pearls, he springs into action. Although this leads to the murder of both Thomas and Martha Wayne, it instills the quality of protectiveness in our hero, leading up to his becoming Batman. This scene is one of the best examples of the visual similarities between the two films. It establishes what kind of man Bruce’s father was and foreshadows what kind of man Bruce has the ability to become. It seems both films realized the power of the visual in establishing the heroic figure of Batman. As previously stated, the similarities between the two films are kept very basic and crucial to the development of the Batman identity.
Although there are a few similarities between the two, the differences are far more pronounced. Although there are many differences between the two, they are more thematic than anything else, but are manifested visually. For instance, one of the biggest ideas of the 1989 film is Batman at odds with the corruption in the city of Gotham. Although this is also true of Batman Begins, it is not nearly as crucial to this film. The importance of corruption in Gotham is downplayed in this film, but is a topic re-visited in Nolan’s sequel, The Dark Knight. Furthermore, the ideas of corruption and evil-doing are represented very differently between the two pieces. Burton’s version puts Batman up against the city as a whole. This is seen in a variety of shots throughout the film, which help the audience to visually identify with Batman’s plight. It is overwhelming to think of one man protecting an entire city when Burton presents his audience with the expansive set against the frame of a sole actor. However, this thematic issue is represented visually and is arguably one of the most memorable aspects of the film. Some of the most iconic movie stills from Burton’s incarnation are images of the cloaked figure atop a building looking down on his city. This idea of one against many is given further credence in the film when it is shown that most of the inhabitants of Gotham are self-serving and greedy people. This is demonstrated in the scene when Joker rides his float down the street, tossing out money and people are shown debasing themselves and crowding in the streets for a few extra dollars. Alexander Knox simply states the idea of this scene when he says, “Get pictures of this. Gotham’s greed.” By this stage in the film, Batman’s quest against most of the city has been fairly established. Although Burton attacks this huge idea, he also attaches a memorable figurehead to it, a sole villain for the audience to identify with. In Batman, the Joker stands as a premier figure of all that is wrong with the city. This concept is furthered even more in the film when it is shown that Jack Napier, the man who became known as the Joker, is the very man that killed Bruce’s parents. This leads Batman to confront his alter ego Bruce Wayne for a split second in the film’s end. His commitment to justice wins out though. As Joker attempts to fly away, batman fires a Batarang to keep the Joker where he is. It is Joker’s struggle that leads to his fall, through no fault of Batman’s. There is no longer inner turmoil about what to do, because action has already been taken and Joker is already dead and Batman’s conscience is clear of any wrong-doing. Even before his death, Batman’s angst at his parent’s death is given very little screen time. The most memorable portion and his flashback to the death of his parents isn’t seen until about 90 minutes into a 125 minute movie.
This is the crucial difference between the two films. In Batman Begins the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne is at the forefront of the film. It is also seen in a flashback, but at about 15 minutes in to the film. It drives Bruce to become the guardian of the city. Furthermore, he struggles with his code of ethics and his anger, as is seen in a variety of scenes but most notably the prison yard in a Chinese prison. His rage is unleashed on the prisoners who are trying to start a fight with him. It is only after he is forced to re-live his past, through nightmares and hallucinations, that he begins his training, which leads him to the recognizable figure of Batman. However, even before he becomes the guardian of Gotham, his recent past is established so audiences are aware of the anger that he has been carrying with him for years. This is illustrated in the scene that he goes to the courthouse for the ruling on Joe Chill’s case. Even though the audience clearly sees that time has passed since his parent’s murder, he still feels strongly enough that he makes it clear, by going to the courthouse fully prepared with a gun to kill his parent’s murderer, that he wants revenge. Almost all of the flashbacks in this movie demonstrate Bruce coming to terms with his anger. However, his inner conflict remains even after he assumes the identity of Batman. Although it is discussed through dialogue it is also demonstrated visually in many ways. One of the ways is the environment that Bruce/Batman is frequently found in. As the film progresses, it seems that most of the geography is more defined and as a result, it seems to trap the character as well as the audience. This is illustrated in most of the earlier scenes by having the character indoors or in other instances, such as when Bruce goes to confront Falcone, the framing and the location work together. The shot is filmed right outside of a bar that is underneath a set of tracks. This serves two purposes, to show that this is the underbelly, but also to show that the character is confined. At this point in the film, Bruce has decided that he doesn’t want to be like Joe Chill and murder those who have hurt him, as demonstrated by him throwing the gun in the water. However, just because he doesn’t want to kill people, doesn’t mean that his pain is gone, which is also illustrated in this same scene. Right before he throws the gun away, the screen flashes back to right before his parents were shot. This conflict is a driving force in the film and remains throughout most of it and even into its sequel. Nevertheless, one of the strongest examples of Bruce/Batman’s entrapment is in the film’s end when Batman drives his car over the raising bridge, fully aware that he is isolating himself and is effectively trapped with Ra’s and his men. This embodies the hero’s sacrifice in the film and remains a powerful example of Bruce/Batman’s confinement. Although these are more coded representations of Batman’s central conflict with his past, the more obvious embodiment is one of the central villains, the Scarecrow, who uses a toxin to manifest his victim’s innermost fears. When Batman is gassed there are flashes of bats and his parents’ murder. Even as a physically powerful hero to the people, the conflict rages on between his past and his present. However, another battle that Burton barely touches on is also present in Nolan’s film: the battle between the persona of Bruce Wayne and the actions of Batman. Whereas Burton rarely shows Michael Keaton outside of the Batman costume, Nolan plays off the costume. His dialogue with the audience asks them to decide which one is real. This is accomplished by giving Bruce Wayne screen time in addition to the heroic actions of Batman. Scenes such as Bruce Wayne buying the hotel so his supermodel girlfriends can swim show a character that the audience is slightly uncomfortable with. Especially when juxtaposed with the knowledge that Bruce Wayne is out all night fighting crime as Batman. In essence, Nolan’s is a crisis of identity whereas Burton’s focus is on one man against many.
Both Batman and Batman Begins detail the story of a cloaked hero, but Burton and Nolan each tell the story in their own stylistic and thematic voice. Although much of the film’s pivotal origin scene is similar in both of the films, most of the similarities stop there. Batman is more abstract in its portrayal of corruption, greed, and evil. Although he is faced with one central villain, arguably the city itself is villainous as well. Batman Begins is much more inwardly focused. Through visual storytelling, Nolan tells the story of a man struggling with himself as well as other demons. Batman’s exploits as he fights corruption bigger than himself and even as he fights his past and his persona, he remains a hero.

More than Meets the Eye

2010-05-07T08:32:00.001-05:00

As film makers, we constantly struggle with our duties. Are we story tellers? Are we visionaries? Are we both? Is it even possible to be both? But then again, I'm in the same boat as the rest of those unemployed film grads, so I really can't say. IN a perfect world, I'd like to be lieve that it's a little bit of both. In my world, as a writer, I'd like to think that what I write matters so I'd have to go with the writing end of it. In the real world? Special effects sell. No one cared that Avatar had a trite story and terrible dialogue. Yes, in the real world, it's been proven that what is seen on the screen is prized above all else, at least for the majority.

Still, the questions remains, can there be harmony between the two? It's definitely a skill that not all film makers have, but I think that it's possible. One of the films that made me believe this was possible was Almodovar's Broken Embraces. It was your typical Almodovar which, if you aren't familiar with his work, features strong women as a main interest, the duality of human nature, and a hint of melodrama for the whole thing. It's not his best work, but it certainly had enough that it kept me interested.

The main story was an ill-fated romance between a screenwriter and his actress. Like I said, nothing too original, but the characters were enough for me. Almodovar has a fantastic quality with his actors and actresses that he's able to bring something out in them that's completely indescribable. Cruz is sensational in this role, but even better in Volver, the Almodovar movie that earned her an Oscar nomination before her eventual win. But I digress. At the heart of the movie is something so simple and yet so tragic and moving, that you almost forget that you've seen this movie before except with a different director and a different cast. The story manages to stay with you more than all the other tellings of that story.

However, to chock it up to just the actors and direction would be careless. Almodovar has a very distinct visual style for most of his movies and this one was no different. First and foremost, Cruz is absolutely stunning. It's easy to understand why she's the screen siren of the piece and she plays it beautifully. One of the most well known scenes of the film is when her character is trying on different wigs. While it obviously has context within the film, outside of it, I'd honestly just be content to watch it on its own. Everything about it is so breathtakingly beautiful, and Almodovar assures his audience that he knows that and takes full advantage of it. TRuth be told, a lot of the movie hinges on what Almodovar tells you is beautiful. It's his authoritative command of beauty that makes it work for the film.

So Broken Embraces is a difficult film to understand entirely on its own. The story itself is simple enough, but too truly appreciate it, at least a basic familiarity with Almodovar's command of the story and of what we see on screen is pretty necessary. It's not his best work, but it's enjoyable. More so, it's one of those beautiful examples that proves movies aren't just to be looked at. They are something to draw us in, tie us down emotionally with characters and story, and if they have something beautiful for us to feast our eyes on? Well, so be it.

Why do People Read Out Loud in Horror Movies?

2010-05-06T10:40:00.002-05:00

We all know that the horror genre has stupid conventions. The black guy dies first. The couple that stays together gets slain together. I mean, they’re all indicative of deeply xenophobic tendencies. But enough about that, we all know that exists in the horror genre. This isn’t to say it’s right but let’s be real, it’s old news. What I’d like to know right now isn’t a tendency of the horror genre itself, but more typically, the sub-genre of the monster movie.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been watching a lot “The Mummy: The Animated Series” or I’ve just had to watch too many lame creature features for film classes, but one thing has always bugged me. I mean, it all starts out innocently enough in the quest for knowledge, right? Usually it has to do with something like some sacred text or a book that was hidden away because it was too powerful for the common man. Okay, let’s say that’s NOT huge tip off that you shouldn’t be looking for it. I mean, just for the sake of this, let’s pretend. So it all starts out fine and dandy with some nerd wanting to find this thing, which is innocent enough.
Now, the time comes in the movie or show or whatever, for them to actually find the text. Undoubtedly some spooky stuff starts happening, warning the audience but evidently not the brilliant archeologist or historian who was able to track this down. I mean, you’ve got an audience of 8 year olds who can figure out that something’s going down before world-class archeologists? Once again, you’re losing me, but okay, whatever, we’ll just let it slide. I mean, it is just a movie.
But here comes the unforgivable part. For some reason, late at night or deep in the tombs of some ancient pyramid, some schmuck starts to read from the book aloud. Of course, this is how we get the villain of the piece, but I mean, seriously? First of all, who’s like “Hey, man, it sure is boring down here, why not pick up some ancient text for light reading?” I mean, that’s just idiotic even if there isn’t a mummy or something. Then you’ve got the fact that the section they always seem to read allowed is in the ancient language. It’s not like they’re translating by reading it out loud. Then it always seems like after they’ve read it aloud they say to themselves “Wow, what an odd warning… he will arise again and suck out my brains through my nose? Wonder what that means…” and then you’re surprised when you end up dead?!? I mean, it’s all right there. All the clues, even the description of how you’re going to get killed and STILL, surprised? And finally, seriously outside of a kindergarten classroom, who reads aloud? I mean, when you’re by yourself, that just seems like a weird practice to me. All I’m saying is, if you find yourself doing any of these things? You might just have it coming, that’s all.

Death to the Horror Remake!

2010-05-05T09:38:00.001-05:00

Now, I'm all for stupid horror movies. In fact, stupid horror movies are pretty much my whole life. I like my fair share of the mix ranging from the supernatural to the slasher genre, but this movie, even for me was just too much. I wasn't going into it with too many high expectations, but rather, a love for Dylan Walsh. I know that's just setting myself up for failure but I did it anyway. Considering I torrented it, I figured "eh, why not? Got nothin' to lose" so I watched it. Dignity. Self-respect. Love for Sean McNamara. Yeah, I lost all these things over the 90 some minute running time of The Stepfather.

First of all, we're in the remake category, meaning an easy PG-13. I knew not to expect too much in the way of gore and even though I checked out the "unrated director's cut" those things are rarely much different. I knew blood was going to be a sacrifice, but I was willing to let that one go for at least a decent story. Well, it may be a little too harsh to say that this movie had no right to be made, but it does make you wonder. I mean, it was clearly a marketing draw when casting Penn Badgley because lord knows he isn't a good actor, but I thought I'd be able to get over it over the course of the movie. Well, if you can't tell by now, I'll just outright say it. I didn't get over it and even though I slept on it, yeah, I'm still pretty pretty pissed.

Still, one of the weirdest changes that I thought I'd be able to dismiss in the remake was just unforgivable. Yeah, the main character in the original? A girl. It served a purpose to have a girl being the protagonist because it added all this weird, creepy sexual dimension to it. It gives the movie purpose and an actual point to it. The original seems to be a commentary on the American dream and the nuclear family. If that's the case, what's the point of this remake? It certainly didn't serve the same purpose. In fact, it was one of the most passive movie-watching experiences for me. It didn't seem to have anything to say other than "insert cash here." Still, I don't know those changes should surprise me as Hollywood's already proven its willingness to do anything for a buck.

But the passivity of watching this movie is truly unforgivable. I never thought I'd say this about a movie with so little blood, but this movie showed too much. There's no tension because you know who's doing what at all times. Even the very first death scene is just shot with a regular wide angle, with everyone in sight. I mean, sure, you know from the beginning who the killer is, but does that mean you need to show it every time? How about a nice point-of-view shot, the staple of the horror film? How about anything besides the flat, dimensionless images that are presented kill scene after kill scene? There could have been tension in this movie, but instead, it's honestly, just plain boring. That was my main issue with it, I think. It wasn't that it was bad, although it certainly isn't winning any awards, but it was boring and seemed content to be boring.

A Nightmare of Freddy Proportions

2010-05-04T09:06:00.001-05:00

I don't sleep well. It always happens this time of year, for the past 5 years. I just either stop sleeping or when I do sleep, I have nightmares. It's always the same one, but the other night, I don't know what it was, but I managed to break the cycle.

Well, this is obviously a good thing, but don't be fooled, it has its down side. I mean, I'm glad the nightmares are over but after the dream I had last night, I'd be willing to go back to the recurring nightmare. See, last night's dream, or at least what I remember of it, was a sex dream. I know, I know, you're all so scandalized because I'm actually talking about having a sex dream. But don't feel too bad, it was far from an enjoyable experience.

See, I'm not one for dream psychology and it's time like this, I'm especially glad I'm not. It was no ordinary sex dream. This dream was with... the pope. I know, I know, it's weird and particularly disgusting, but it just happened and when I woke up, I was a little too horrified to try to go back to sleep.

Even if I was a believer in dream psychology, what could this possibly mean? I mean, I get most of my dream psychology how "dream logic" allows us to interpret the physical world. When your teeth fall out in your dreams, it represents a fear of getting older and all that stuff. But seriously, what could the pope possibly represent? Because at this stage, I'm in denial and I need the pope to represent anything but the pope. That'd just be too creepy.

For starters, as a lapsed catholic, it's rare for me to think about the pope, if ever. Now throw in some Barry White and get the drinks flowing? It's more disgusting than I'd thought possible. I mean, we're talking the pope here. The guy did not get his job by sleeping up the corporate ladder and he did NOT earn it for his looks or Nazi-youth charm. He's pretty much disgusting in every way, but nevertheless, last night happened.

I wish it was one of those things that we don't talk about, but seriously, this is a nightmare of Freddy proportions. I mean, who does that?!? Or more importantly, how do I ever stop it from happening again? My fear of sleep and nightmares are back.

Explanation...

2010-05-03T10:27:00.002-05:00

To explain the title of my last piece, it was me writing from the perspective of a woman as a writing exercise to "let go of your own voice/identity". Weird exercise, but interesting enough...

Sex... as Told From a Make Believe Woman's Perspective

2010-05-03T10:20:00.000-05:00

Sex. When you’re little, your parents tell you it’s when a man loves a woman… and then awkwardness. As you get older, the reality of the situation sets in. Puberty hits and the hormones go wild. Unfortunately, it’s about the same time that zits become a problem for most of us so that keeps you in check. Then, we grow older and things cool off. Sex once again becomes the thing on most guys’ minds and what America keeps trying to sell us. What they complete ignore are the effects that this sex craze has on the female population. Sure, for most guys it’s all about bikinis and blowjobs, but for women, the act is supposed to be something more emotional.
This brings me to my point about just what sex is. Sure, it should be an act between two consenting adults, and ideally they wait until they’re married, but like I said, that’s not the reality of the situation? The fact of the matter? Girls want sex just as badly as men do. Now I’m not talking about the intimacy it creates or the eventual byproduct of sex, I’m talking about the physicality of the act. It’s impossible to explain why I have no issue about sex without commitment without going into a little history about what it means to be a girl/woman/female in this world.
We’re the polite ones. We’re supposed to play with dolls and have tea parties at a young age. Then as we get older, we’re supposed to want to find a man who will then marry us and give us a baby. Well, I’m sure there are some women out there who want that, but I can only speak for myself. What’s wrong with just wanting a man? Not to propose to me or have a baby with me, but just physically wanting a man? Well, believe it or not, I’m pretty much not allowed to. American society’s been teaching that for years. You can date it all the way back to the Puritans who didn’t believe women could or even should enjoy sex. There are plenty of examples in books, music, and movies that support this claim. Just look at The Scarlet Letter, which features a woman who has sex out of wedlock and is punished for it whereas the man escapes unpunished by society. Sure, they pretty much frown on sex as a whole, but the woman’s sexuality is inherently tied to shame and punishment.
It’s the 21st century now and sadly, very little as changed. The standards that women are held to continue to outweigh those that confront men. Even in slang terms, women are far more often demeaned for doing the exact same thing that men do. Here’s an example you may have heard; a guy sleeps with a couple of different girls at his school. What do his friends call him? He’s a “player”. He’s congratulated for his practice of sex without commitment. A girl has sex with a couple of guys from her school. What do people, a lot of other women included, call her? She’s a “slut”. She is shamed by her practice of sex without commitment. Not many people are willing to talk about what a ridiculous double standard that is, but there are some pop culture outlets that talk about this ridiculous practice. This is one of the things that “Sex and the City” states in its first episode. The standards that women are held to, work-related or sex-related, are entirely different. They’re completely unfair to women.
That being said, I’m not a frequent practitioner of sex without commitment. It’s just not for me. That’s not to say that I see anything wrong with it. If two consenting adults want to have sex without commitment, I have no issue with that. Sure, I think both parties should take responsibility for their choice to do so. But that is honestly between the consenting partners. Society’s mores have no place in the bedroom. I mean, if most God-fearing Americans had their way, sex for any other purpose besides a baby would be outlawed. Then again, America has a tendency to make its fear-based prejudices into laws. Just look at the ban on same-sex marriage. What practical purpose does either of these judgments serve? The answer is none.
The truth of the matter is, in a weird way, I respect the women that can do it. This isn’t to dismiss the fear of unwanted pregnancy or STDs, those are all valid concerns, but there’s something strongly feminist about a woman proudly enjoying casual sex with no shame attached. While society would have us call them sluts and shun them, there’s a certain art in being able to command their own body and so freely enjoy the pure physicality of casual sex.
I know it may seem weird to most people to take something as “irresponsible” as casual sex and manage to make it a political statement, but that’s just my view of the matter. No matter how we look at it, casual sex will remain a part of our culture. There’s no amount of shame or fear that can undo what the sexual revolution of the 1960s has done. That being said, I think we should encourage an element of responsibility i.e. safe sex practices, STD testing, when discussing casual sex, but remove the stigma that sex has associated with the female identity in our society.

Waiting For My Real Life to Begin...

2010-05-02T15:58:00.001-05:00

I've always been a Colin Hay fan since I started listening to his solo career. It's hard to believe that someone from men at Work could produce such impressive stuff when all they brought us before was "I come from the land down under" but Colin Hay has found a way. But what it is more than anything else, as cliche as it may sound, is the little slice of life truths that he explores in his music. One of my favorite songs is his song "Waiting For My Real Life to Begin" just because of how true to life it is.

I've been trying to be patient with everything that's been happening. Even though it feels like my life is slowing down, I'm starting to realize just how crazy these past couple weeks have been. I can't begin to describe it, between quitting my job, trying to get a new one, and applying to grad school, I've been bad about keeping up with my movies and even my writing.

I'm hoping this feeling of waiting isn't something that will take over. I'm trying to remain calm and remain positive, but when it feels like you're not even living your own life and you're just waiting for it to happen to you, well, it's not easy to say the least. I'll keep you posted on the job thing and definitely grad school, but until now, waiting is all I can do.

Why TV Couples Should Never Hook Up

2010-05-01T09:03:00.001-05:00

We've all had those dream couples, those two people you knew were just perfect for each other even if they couldn't see it themselves. Well, not in real life. I mean, God, that'd just be creepy, meddling in someone's life like that? No, I'm talking about those TV couples that fill our nights. For "Gilmore Girls" fans it was the "will they/won't they?" relationship of Luke and Lorelai, but every show has them. Even if it people can't understand the more cerebral plot lines of some shows, they can at least understand chemistry and when folks have it.

Here is plea. TV writers, if you're struggling with a will they/won't they type relationship... don't. I've seen too many shows suffer from the peak in their popularity by having their dream couple get together too early. And for all you nay sayers, I know for a fact that it can be done. Just look at "The West Wing". The chemistry between two of its lead players was palpable, but did they cash in on it? Well, yes, probably in a desperate attempt to save their last season's ratings, but the point is, they waited to cash out and look how well it worked for them.

Now, let's take a look at the fate of other TV couples shall we? I know I may make it sound like there a re a lot of options for our TV couples out there, but there really aren't. So the couple hooks up, right? Well, now they usually have to start dating, which can really go on for so many seasons. What follows is marriage which, if you think the dating plot lines and the whole "I never thought I would you see this way" dialogue as the music swells was bad, just wait for the wedding episode. The problem with TV marriages is frequently the problem with real marriages. They're boring. Why would you want to sit around and watch your favorite couple subject themselves to married life? This, of course, excludes shows that feature a staple married couple to begin with. I'm taking about the change from two single persons, when a lot of shows revolve around the "single life", to a married couple. It's worked for some, but not many.

The other, much less popular option is the break-up. Few shows have attempted this before and with good reason. Most shows go with some a little more life altering, like on of the people dying, rather than having two characters break up. Shows that have attempted this break-up of television soul mates have usually suffer the fate of mediocrity. The shows tend to plummet or just plan lose that indescribable spark about them. It sounds insane to invest this much in a TV relationship, but it's an important aspect of the show itself. Take a look at some of your favorites and I think you'll see what I mean.

Posts...

2010-04-30T10:39:00.002-05:00

Dear Facebook,
When you first lured me into this predatory relationship, it was with a promise. It was about connection, maintaining the relationships we all knew we were leaving behind once college came. Well, Facebook, you stopped holding up your end of the deal a long time ago. A lot of the people from high school? Present company excluded of course, are the ones I want to forget I even knew.

I gave up on Facebook as a tool for connection a long time ago. Still, I stuck with you. Through all the aesthetic changes and privacy settings, I was on your side. Well, I'm starting to wonder why. See the whole point of this post isn't to expose Facebook for its failures in keeping us connected or even keeping us entertained. It still keeps me entertained at least. But still, I rely on Facebook for really only one thing and that's to bring my writing to a wider audience.

Don't get me wrong, I still write on my own blog, but then Facebook posts my blog entries as notes so that they're more readily available for those who are interested. Here's the difficult part. It's not just a new thing, it's been happening way too often lately that my posts don't get... posted, for lack of a better term, and I can't afford to have that happen. In fact, the whole point of this entry is that I know that the people that still read me probably won't get this for another couple of days. That being said, I'm going to stop posting on Facebook. It's just not as reliable as I need it to be.

If you're still interested in reading, please go to http://selfproclaimedmegalomaniac.blogspot.com/ and become a follower. It's a simple process and it only takes a few minutes and I'd like to think it's worth your time. As for me and you, Facebook? Don't consider this a break up, just consider it a break. I think we need some time apart.

Sincerely,
Calhoun

Et Tu, Family Feud?

2010-04-28T09:22:00.003-05:00

Now anyone who knows me knows that I have an addictive personality. I'm not not talking about drinking and smoking. In retrospect, part of me wishes I was... but no, I'm talking about Facebook games. Back in the olden days, by which I mean last summer or maybe two summers ago at most, it was mafia Wars or Mob Wars. Honestly, it was in the beginning stages, because I can't even remember which one it was that I played. Then, it moved on to Farmville. Farmville was a nice transition because you planted crops and everything so you didn't need to be by your computer all day to check on crops. Then cafe World entered/ruled my life for some time. Meals, as most people know, are done faster than crops so this one required a little more attention to detail. By a little more, I really mean that I would set alarms on my cell phone to make sure I had time to serve food.

That's when I realized I had a problem. Now some of you may be thinking "crack is a problem" or "being sexually abused by the church deacon is a problem", but I assure you growing up in upper/middle class, predominantly white suburbia, this is the closest to an addiction I've probably ever come. SO I decided to ween myself, but any addict will tell you, it's a process. That being the case, I can proudly say, my name is Calhoun, I'm a Facebook games addict and I've been off Cafe World for about 2 months.

Which brings me to my next issue, which I hesitate to even call an issue. For those Facebook savvy folks out there, you may or may not know that Family Feud is available to play on Facebook. The problem is, my plan of moderation isn't going as well as I'd hoped. Sure, it only allows you to play 2 episodes a day, but what happens when they forget to add new episodes one day? Well, I can tell you because that's the sort of crisis I'm going through now. i haven't played since late last night after getting off of work. I use it as my stress relief, which isn't always effective, but whatever, it's a work-in-progress. So of course, right now, I'm doing all I can to avoid going back to my Facebook and checking if the Family Feud episodes are up for the day.

Now as for this stress relief thing, I don't know how many of you have guilty pleasures which you truly feel keep you sane, but I know I've got mine. Family feud is undoubtedly one of them. The issue is, well, you know how they survey Americans and you're supposed to guess what most Americans say? Well, we run into a little problem when most Americans are stupid. I don't mean to sound harsh... well, actually, I do. The category is "Name some of the most common things you find on a fast food burger". I go through all the staples of burgers like ketchup, pickles, and even bun. What was the number one response? Beef. Now, I don't know how you eat your burgers, but would you say that you find beef ON your fast food burger? You're an idiot if you would, honestly. It IS the burger, how can it be ON the burger? This isn't some philosophical question, I'm asking, quite literally, how can something be on what it is? It can't! Of course, this is the question that made me lose the round and kept me from Fast Money. What followed was a string of obscenities too profane even for the internet and a chain of events that led me to stubbing my toe on the corner of my table. needless to say, I'm re-thinking my stress relief, but then again, it has to be better for me than cafe World, right?

Childhood Ambitions? None for me, Thanks

2010-04-27T09:08:00.004-05:00

You know that time in your life where every little boy wants to be a policeman or a firefighter? Yeah, I don't. My reasoning? Policemen get shot. I mean, I know I was little, but I wasn't an idiot. I'd seen the news. It seems every other day it's about some tragedy that happened TO the police or some tragedy that the police couldn't prevent. Now, this isn't to say that policemen don't do good work, but seriously, why would I want to do that? Sure, you get the whole hero thing, but that usually comes at the expense of some self sacrifice. Firefighters were the same deal. Firefighters go INTO burning buildings when everybody else is going out of them. I mean, doesn't that seem like a clue to anyone else? Because it did to me. It was then and there that I decided that I was not going to follow in the footsteps of most of the kids around me. While they were getting shot at by bank robbers and drug addicts or running into burning buildings, I had no idea what I'd be doing, but I knew I'd be far away from there.

In 2nd grade, we were asked a new question just about every other week. The goal was to get us to think critically, and have us write down our answers and a picture to help explain our answer. Well, it just so happened that one week's question was, "Would you go into space? Why or why not?". Out "Question of the Week" was pretty much always something along those lines, something that had to do with the lesson plan that was going on and, as I told my teacher, it was typically 2 questions of the week so the title of the program was a little misleading. Well, being the precocious little scamp that I suppose I was, my answer was something along the lines of "No. Because in space there is no air. With no air, no one can hear you scream if the spaceship blows up." The accompanying picture was flurries of orange and yellow for the flames.

I used precocious before, but I'm not sure if that's the word I meant to use. Sadly, the English language doesn't seem to have one word that means "I was covering my own ass." I was the "anywhere but here" kid. I was "anything but that." Sure, it was weird and even a little guarded for a kid my age. Of course, that's something anyone who knows me knows that I've since left behind. And after all, think about it. How many kids wanted to be cops or firefighters or even astronauts? Alright, now think about how many of them BECAME cops or firefighters or astronauts? Don't get me wrong, I know that some of them did, but let's look at those stats. I can tell you those odds probably aren't that great. Sure, I was probably the kid that knew for the longest time what I DIDN'T want to do, but I was also one of the first kids to know what I was passionate about, and what I needed to do to get what I wanted. I mean, isn't that worth the price I paid as a kid?

Strangers on a Train: A Lesson in Old School Homo-Eroticism

2010-04-26T08:32:00.003-05:00

Would you ever casually joke with a stranger about having him murder your wife in exchange for you murdering his father? The answer is probably not, but that's the event that sets the Hitchcock masterpiece, Strangers on a Train, into motion. It sounds like a lot of suspension of disbelief is required for this movie, but surprisingly enough, while the inciting conversation is interesting and engaging enough, compared to most of the rest of the film, it's relatively forgettable.

As it seems with most movies, the "villain" of the piece is the most interesting. I use the term villain lightly because the hero of the piece isn't too great himself so the term "villain" must be used rather loosely. He lives with his mother and father still and has a disturbing affection for his mother, but strongly resents his father. It's not quite Oedipal because the relationship between the mother and son is almost like that shared between teenage girls. He fawns over her and she dotes on him. The father, who's the only thing standing between Bruno (the "villain" of the piece) and his mother, is the only voice of rationale in the family and as such clearly must be done away with. What's bizarre is Hitchcock's handling of the character. Based on his relationship with his mother and even his interaction with Guy, who is the "hero" of the piece, is particularly gay. His boyish fascination with the exploits of Guy even down to his degradation of all women that aren't his mother.

It's something that a lot have people seen as the movie ages. In fact, it's one of the most common readings of the film and just having watched it recently, it's hard to believe that there's any other reading at all. Then again, the sexual politics of the film are what make it an interesting movie, at least for me. Maybe that's just as a film buff or because I've been trained to look beyond the surface meaning of a movie, but who knows really?

As a casual observer, this movie is fun enough. It provides the suspense that Hitchcock is always hailed for, but there's still something not there for me. I think my main issue wasn't how the events played out, but just that the characters were so unlikeable and even boring. Most people know that Hitchcock can develop characters beautifully. In fact, it's pretty much all he does in movies like Rear Window and Vertigo. But these characters were just emotionless for me. Sure, I wanted Bruno to get caught and Guy to get his life back, but that mainly came from knowing that's what I was supposed to want. There were a few characters I was intrigued by, mainly Barbara who was played by Hitchcock's daughter, but they weren't usually afforded anything more than a cursory glance. All in all, Strangers on a Train is more interesting to me as a piece of film history and a statement on sexual politics at the time than it is an enjoyable movie-watching experience for me.