Pursuing the American Dream
12/25/06
In "The Pursuit of Happyness" Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a man down on his luck. He and his wife are barely making enough money to keep a roof over their son’s head. As a salesman, he made a faulty investment on a medical device which turned out to be too expensive for doctors to purchase. Unable to sell enough of them to produce a profit, his wife Linda (Thandie Newton) is relegated to working double shifts as a laundry woman in a local hotel. They are behind on their rent payments, parking tickets and daycare fees when Linda finally gives up and leaves Chris and their son Christopher (Smith’s real life son, Jaden) to fend for themselves. One day, Chris meets a broker who tells him that as long as he is good with numbers and people he has a shot at making it big. Clearly someone who is interested in get-rich-quick gigs, Chris puts all of his energy into pursuing this newest endeavor. He is accepted to a prestigious (unpaid) 20-person internship at a big brokerage firm and starts putting all of his efforts into being the one intern awarded a job at the end of his six-month program.
The title of the film refers to Thomas Jefferson’s words from the Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness is an ideal intertwined with American values. As much as people insist that money does not buy happiness, this film would beg to differ. As Americans we are guaranteed life and liberty, but not happiness. We are guaranteed to pursue happiness, but a final result is not assured. Perhaps it is because happiness is subjective. Some would be happy with a roof over one’s head. However, Gardner needs much more. He lusts over Mercedes Benz’s, mansions and box seats at football stadiums. He will not be truly happy unless he can provide all of those amenities for his son. The spelling of the title is a bit of irony thrown in for good measure. The preschool which his son attends is in the heart of Chinatown, the teacher barely speaks English and the students watch television to pass the time. Outside, on the school’s front wall, the word "Happyness" is spray-painted. How can his son be expected to get a decent education if a simple word such as happiness can’t even be spelled correctly?
One of the biggest problems with this movie is how, whenever Gardner is at his lowest of lows, something comes along to give him some respite. A film professor once told me that just because something happened in real life, does not mean that it can translate onto film. That idea holds true with "The Pursuit of Happyness." Even though the movie starts out with the disclaimer that it is based on a true story, presumably most of the major turning points actually happened. However, it difficult to believe that he would twice be able to recover stolen scanners, or that just when he had 21 dollars in his bank account he was able to make a sale after 4 months of no progress. Those scenes made the story less believable rather than more impressive.
It is hard to deny that the story is pretty much one sided. Linda is a shrill woman consumed with fulfilling her own happiness, even if it means abandoning her son and husband when things did not work out to her exact expectations. The film, meant to highlight Gardner's life and relationship with his son, very deliberately makes the mother figure as mean and self-centered as possible. On the flip side, Will Smith gives one of the most powerful performances of his career as a father trying to provide enough love and enough sustenance for his son. In one of the most heart-wrenching scenes, Christopher asks his father if "mom left because of me." The scene takes place when the duo is at their lowest of lows, sleeping in a communal room at a church shelter with only one broken scanner left to sell, Chris assures his son that "mom left because of mom." In a scene such as this, the audience sits in the theater fully aware that they are being emotionally manipulated, but given the narrative it is what they want to see. Viewers want to know that Chris is the good guy who is going to save his son from tough times. Furthermore, with Linda being the antagonist it gives an outlet for their hardships; she can be the bad guy and become the one on which blame can be placed (even though she was the one pulling the double shifts while Chris was trying to sell a defective product).
Ultimately, the film holds true to the American dream. It states that if you work hard enough your dreams can come true. Nothing is left up to fate; it is all in your own hands to control your future. Gardner was a hard working, honest man who never compromised on his morals and therefore he got his dream. He put every bit of effort into excelling in his internship, studying until all hours of the night. At the same time he was devoted to his son and trying to keep him safe. The movie is also saying that was chosen to work at the firm because of his own behaviors, not because of any one else’s decisions. He took his life and liberty to pursue happiness and it paid off. This movie is a rah-rah American dream flick. It is overly sentimental and sappy, but that is how audiences like to see their American dream films. They don’t want the bad guy getting the prize or a good person not fulfilling his dreams. A movie such as these needs to be overly sentimental because that is the only way the audience will applaud along with Chris at the end.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Blood Diamond - 12/25/06
Diamonds Might Not Be Your Best Friend
12/25/06
Conflict diamonds: diamonds mined by slave labor and fueled by an army of kidnapped children. Did Americans even know this was an issue before Leonardo DiCaprio got involved?
Blood Diamond, directed by Edward Zwick, recounts the series of events surrounding the conflict over diamonds in the Sierra Leone region in Africa in 1999. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is taken hostage by rebel forces after they destroy his village and kidnap his family. The RUF force him to work in the illegal diamond mines. While enslaved, Vandy discovers a rare 100-karat pink diamond which soon becomes the object of everyone’s affection. Smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) learns about the pink diamond and makes it his mission to recover the stone and make a significant profit. What he doesn’t count on is the innumerable violent lengths others will take to capture the stone themselves. The war raged over this one diamond, and the violence is never ending, is a microcosm for what was done for countless others.
Matty Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is a do-gooder journalist type who has been living in the Sierra Leone for 3 months researching information so she can write a heart wrenching and legislative changing piece about the struggle over diamonds in that region. Since the diamond trade in Sierra Leone is illegal because of the great deal of political and social unrest it creates, they are smuggled across the border to Libya and then sold there as though native to that country. Matty has been unable to produce an effective story as of yet because of her lack of hard data. She cannot prove that the diamonds are being smuggled into Libya, and furthermore she has no evidence that they are then being sold to the international diamond seller in England. She hopes that her new acquaintance with Archer will provide her with enough information to write a story which will make a difference to Americans and perhaps force the lawmakers to change their policies.
Our American popular culture elevates journalists to a level where their work can alter public opinion and rally Americans to make a change. When was the last time that was actually the case? For the last half a century movies have taken the stand against political strife and have made efforts to gather people around certain causes. The state of our news media does not seem to be strong enough to make people stand up and make a difference. Bowen laments that fact when she tries to explain why the world isn’t coming to the people of the Sierra Leone’s rescue. She comments about how she can work for weeks on a piece, and her story might only air for a few minutes between sports and weather. The news networks, some of which exist just for 24-hour coverage, insist on pandering to an audience which only will watch what it wants to see. The fighting and violence isn’t as much fun as the latest Hollywood break-up or celebrating your team’s big win. People don’t want to focus on things that upset them too much, especially if they can’t really do much to change it. There aren’t too many things people can do from overseas that can rectify the situation, as Matty says, "What, are they going to send a check?" Even a donation cannot stop the magnitude of the warfare going on in the region. The irony is, of course, that films, which were invented to entertain, are now being used to inform and educate while journalism (especially television journalism) has become a venue for entertainment.
Ultimately the movie wants Americans to be more aware of the purchases they make and the consequences they might have. The closing disclaimer pleads with audiences to make sure that the diamonds they purchase are conflict-free. However, there is no real information about how to go about doing that. That might be the eventual lesson of the movie – that this is a film. In the end, while it is a gateway for learning about a world issue, this is a form of entertainment. The movie should serve as an introduction to a topic of concern and hopefully it will inspire audiences to become more informed about it.
Topics exploring African politics are currently very much in-vogue in filmmaking today, and making them relevant to Americans a big challenge. Of course, it helps when Leo is front and center of the issue (it helps even more when he isn’t wearing his shirt). Within the narrative of the film, however, the relevance is made clear. In one conversation we learn how conflict diamonds should be applicable to Americans’ lives. Matty berates Danny for smuggling diamonds and perpetuating the violence, but Danny insists he is providing a service that the market demands. "American girls dream of the storybook wedding," they all want the giant rock on their finger. This movie’s claim is that without even knowing it, our American standards are fueling a war thousands of miles away.
The movie does not focus on American versus non-American values; it barely focuses on racial issues. This movie has a mission and it does not want its message to get buried under a pile of other problems the world is facing. The biggest issue is clearly freeing the market from conflict diamonds and those who are tortured because of them. The other issue is that of insiders versus outsiders, in other words, Africans versus non-Africans. Archer is a white South African who talks about Africa being in his blood. Solomon is a black African whose family has been stolen and enslaved. Matty is an American who takes pictures and cries over the sights of all that is happening to these people. But ultimately, regardless of her efforts to become a part of it, she is an outsider.
The movie makers want audiences to understand why there is so much unrest. The land is so important to the African people, and even though there is great value in the resources it produces, the connection goes much deeper. Africans have seen their parents, children, friends and countless others murdered over the land. Archer laments never escaping the harsh reality that is his life; however, when given the chance he cannot seem to leave. His life is in Africa and no matter how much he tries, he cannot escape it. Furthermore, outsiders cannot understand the connection despite their efforts. Matty wants so much to be a part of it, but she is unable to truly understand; unless you have lived and lost in Africa, you are an outsider. The black-white issue isn’t nearly as dramatic as the African-non African dichotomy.
The hope is that this movie entertains audiences. However, other purpose is to educate audiences about an issue that claimed thousands of peoples’ lives. While the conflict in the Sierra Leone has ended, the movie makes sure to tell audiences that conflict diamonds still exist and they should be aware of what purchasing them means. Furthermore, there are still thousands of child slaves in African (and throughout the world). Perhaps if they are educated about history and current policies that will ensure that history does not repeat itself.
12/25/06
Conflict diamonds: diamonds mined by slave labor and fueled by an army of kidnapped children. Did Americans even know this was an issue before Leonardo DiCaprio got involved?
Blood Diamond, directed by Edward Zwick, recounts the series of events surrounding the conflict over diamonds in the Sierra Leone region in Africa in 1999. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is taken hostage by rebel forces after they destroy his village and kidnap his family. The RUF force him to work in the illegal diamond mines. While enslaved, Vandy discovers a rare 100-karat pink diamond which soon becomes the object of everyone’s affection. Smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) learns about the pink diamond and makes it his mission to recover the stone and make a significant profit. What he doesn’t count on is the innumerable violent lengths others will take to capture the stone themselves. The war raged over this one diamond, and the violence is never ending, is a microcosm for what was done for countless others.
Matty Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is a do-gooder journalist type who has been living in the Sierra Leone for 3 months researching information so she can write a heart wrenching and legislative changing piece about the struggle over diamonds in that region. Since the diamond trade in Sierra Leone is illegal because of the great deal of political and social unrest it creates, they are smuggled across the border to Libya and then sold there as though native to that country. Matty has been unable to produce an effective story as of yet because of her lack of hard data. She cannot prove that the diamonds are being smuggled into Libya, and furthermore she has no evidence that they are then being sold to the international diamond seller in England. She hopes that her new acquaintance with Archer will provide her with enough information to write a story which will make a difference to Americans and perhaps force the lawmakers to change their policies.
Our American popular culture elevates journalists to a level where their work can alter public opinion and rally Americans to make a change. When was the last time that was actually the case? For the last half a century movies have taken the stand against political strife and have made efforts to gather people around certain causes. The state of our news media does not seem to be strong enough to make people stand up and make a difference. Bowen laments that fact when she tries to explain why the world isn’t coming to the people of the Sierra Leone’s rescue. She comments about how she can work for weeks on a piece, and her story might only air for a few minutes between sports and weather. The news networks, some of which exist just for 24-hour coverage, insist on pandering to an audience which only will watch what it wants to see. The fighting and violence isn’t as much fun as the latest Hollywood break-up or celebrating your team’s big win. People don’t want to focus on things that upset them too much, especially if they can’t really do much to change it. There aren’t too many things people can do from overseas that can rectify the situation, as Matty says, "What, are they going to send a check?" Even a donation cannot stop the magnitude of the warfare going on in the region. The irony is, of course, that films, which were invented to entertain, are now being used to inform and educate while journalism (especially television journalism) has become a venue for entertainment.
Ultimately the movie wants Americans to be more aware of the purchases they make and the consequences they might have. The closing disclaimer pleads with audiences to make sure that the diamonds they purchase are conflict-free. However, there is no real information about how to go about doing that. That might be the eventual lesson of the movie – that this is a film. In the end, while it is a gateway for learning about a world issue, this is a form of entertainment. The movie should serve as an introduction to a topic of concern and hopefully it will inspire audiences to become more informed about it.
Topics exploring African politics are currently very much in-vogue in filmmaking today, and making them relevant to Americans a big challenge. Of course, it helps when Leo is front and center of the issue (it helps even more when he isn’t wearing his shirt). Within the narrative of the film, however, the relevance is made clear. In one conversation we learn how conflict diamonds should be applicable to Americans’ lives. Matty berates Danny for smuggling diamonds and perpetuating the violence, but Danny insists he is providing a service that the market demands. "American girls dream of the storybook wedding," they all want the giant rock on their finger. This movie’s claim is that without even knowing it, our American standards are fueling a war thousands of miles away.
The movie does not focus on American versus non-American values; it barely focuses on racial issues. This movie has a mission and it does not want its message to get buried under a pile of other problems the world is facing. The biggest issue is clearly freeing the market from conflict diamonds and those who are tortured because of them. The other issue is that of insiders versus outsiders, in other words, Africans versus non-Africans. Archer is a white South African who talks about Africa being in his blood. Solomon is a black African whose family has been stolen and enslaved. Matty is an American who takes pictures and cries over the sights of all that is happening to these people. But ultimately, regardless of her efforts to become a part of it, she is an outsider.
The movie makers want audiences to understand why there is so much unrest. The land is so important to the African people, and even though there is great value in the resources it produces, the connection goes much deeper. Africans have seen their parents, children, friends and countless others murdered over the land. Archer laments never escaping the harsh reality that is his life; however, when given the chance he cannot seem to leave. His life is in Africa and no matter how much he tries, he cannot escape it. Furthermore, outsiders cannot understand the connection despite their efforts. Matty wants so much to be a part of it, but she is unable to truly understand; unless you have lived and lost in Africa, you are an outsider. The black-white issue isn’t nearly as dramatic as the African-non African dichotomy.
The hope is that this movie entertains audiences. However, other purpose is to educate audiences about an issue that claimed thousands of peoples’ lives. While the conflict in the Sierra Leone has ended, the movie makes sure to tell audiences that conflict diamonds still exist and they should be aware of what purchasing them means. Furthermore, there are still thousands of child slaves in African (and throughout the world). Perhaps if they are educated about history and current policies that will ensure that history does not repeat itself.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
For Your Consideration - 12/14/06
Definitely "Consider" this one
12/14/06
For Your Consideration opens with Bette Davis declaring her love for Henry Fonda in a classic Hollywood scene from Jezebel. This richly glamorous and emotional scene starkly juxtaposes the film which ensues. Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy collaborate once again to spoof Hollywood in this latest vehicle. Guest and Levy abandoned their traditional "mockumentary" platform for a more traditional narrative. In this film, Catherine O’Hara plays Marilyn Hack, an aging actress who can’t even remember the roles which made her famous. In her newest movie, Home for Purim, she is the dying mother to Shmuel (Brian Chubb being played by Christopher Moynihan) and Rachel (Callie Webb played by Parker Posey). Before Purim is even completed, a set onlooker posts a blurb on his personal blog about how he thinks that Home for Purim could be an Oscar contender and its leading actors could be up for nods as well. As the coverage over the potential nominations grows, so do the egos. Their self-inflation leads them to ridiculous plastic surgeries and absurd senses of their self worth and self-promotion. Of course, when the nominations don’t all go according to plan, their egos are quickly deflated and the actors are relegated to menial acting tasks such as teaching, doing commercials and performing in lame one-woman shows – as if one’s worth as an actor is only defined by the awards for which they are nominated and the media attention they can garner.
In one scene, the "suits from the office" coming down to suggest to the producer (Jennifer Coolidge) and writers (Bob Balaban and Michael McKean) that they change the movie’s name from Home for Purim to Home for Thanksgiving to make it more appealing to a mass audience. This is a blatant reference to Hollywood pandering to audiences who will make them the most money. The suits insist that this change is to "tone down the Jewishness" and thereby appeal to a greater audience. Of course, what makes no difference to them is the loss of cultural importance and religious significance the holiday holds to the characters and to the film itself. This is a clear dig to Hollywood’s constant insistence on investing money in movies which appeal to mass audiences and earning the most money for the studios, regardless of what cultural importance might be lost in the process.
Furthermore, relying heavily on insider jokes, this film is the latest in the growing list of self referential programming being produced by Hollywood. Preceded by the Emmy winning Entourage, 30 Rock and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Consideration relies heavily on this growing tradition. The audience is expected to deduce which characters are which: the publicists, directors, etc are introduced without having their roles explicitly explained. With all of the Hollywood-centric programming out there, the "insider" club is a lot less exclusive and a lot more accessible. That is something which also detracts from the glamour of Hollywood. The more accessible it is, the less exciting and alluring it becomes. Additionally, the 24/7 paparazzi attacks have also detracted from Hollywood glitz and taught America that movie stars are human and make the same mistakes other people do. Through this, Hollywood "starlets" have lost the glamour that they were once so known for. Film actresses are no longer idealized as they once were, and furthermore, movies no longer have lines that with which people say along while tears are brimming in their eyes; it is almost as though smart and interesting dialogue is inconsequential. The writing process is about as far removed from that of the "olden days" as possible. Movies are all about the image, and appeasing the mass audiences who watch them. The scene from Jezebel showed audiences how powerful a movie can be without compromising those ideals.
Furthermore, another aspect of the movie industry which it mocks is the fact that it doesn’t even matter how the final outcome of the movie looks. A film’s worth is only dependant on how the press focuses on it, and subsequently, the media will center its attention on saying what they think the audiences want to hear. That exact thing happened this season with Dreamgirls. This movie is the most buzzed about film of the season, and much of the buzz began well before editing of the film was even complete. However, that buzz created such a frenzy about the movie all of the media outlets insisted on singing its praises without ever having seen the film. That media indulgence is depicted in this movie by Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. They play a pair of perfectly annoying Entertainment Tonight-esq anchors who cater to the interests of the audience who support the program. When interviewing the cast of Home for Purim, they care little about asking about the actual film; rather they focus on silly gossipy questions and other nonsense.
In their typical style the collaborators who brought us A Mighty Wind and Best in Show, bring audiences another spoof on another American tradition, this time attacking the very medium which has brought them their fame and fortune. Yet, by kicking this gift horse in the mouth they somehow manage to do it in a non-ungrateful manner, and hopefully it will even strengthen the industry from whence it comes.
12/14/06
For Your Consideration opens with Bette Davis declaring her love for Henry Fonda in a classic Hollywood scene from Jezebel. This richly glamorous and emotional scene starkly juxtaposes the film which ensues. Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy collaborate once again to spoof Hollywood in this latest vehicle. Guest and Levy abandoned their traditional "mockumentary" platform for a more traditional narrative. In this film, Catherine O’Hara plays Marilyn Hack, an aging actress who can’t even remember the roles which made her famous. In her newest movie, Home for Purim, she is the dying mother to Shmuel (Brian Chubb being played by Christopher Moynihan) and Rachel (Callie Webb played by Parker Posey). Before Purim is even completed, a set onlooker posts a blurb on his personal blog about how he thinks that Home for Purim could be an Oscar contender and its leading actors could be up for nods as well. As the coverage over the potential nominations grows, so do the egos. Their self-inflation leads them to ridiculous plastic surgeries and absurd senses of their self worth and self-promotion. Of course, when the nominations don’t all go according to plan, their egos are quickly deflated and the actors are relegated to menial acting tasks such as teaching, doing commercials and performing in lame one-woman shows – as if one’s worth as an actor is only defined by the awards for which they are nominated and the media attention they can garner.
In one scene, the "suits from the office" coming down to suggest to the producer (Jennifer Coolidge) and writers (Bob Balaban and Michael McKean) that they change the movie’s name from Home for Purim to Home for Thanksgiving to make it more appealing to a mass audience. This is a blatant reference to Hollywood pandering to audiences who will make them the most money. The suits insist that this change is to "tone down the Jewishness" and thereby appeal to a greater audience. Of course, what makes no difference to them is the loss of cultural importance and religious significance the holiday holds to the characters and to the film itself. This is a clear dig to Hollywood’s constant insistence on investing money in movies which appeal to mass audiences and earning the most money for the studios, regardless of what cultural importance might be lost in the process.
Furthermore, relying heavily on insider jokes, this film is the latest in the growing list of self referential programming being produced by Hollywood. Preceded by the Emmy winning Entourage, 30 Rock and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Consideration relies heavily on this growing tradition. The audience is expected to deduce which characters are which: the publicists, directors, etc are introduced without having their roles explicitly explained. With all of the Hollywood-centric programming out there, the "insider" club is a lot less exclusive and a lot more accessible. That is something which also detracts from the glamour of Hollywood. The more accessible it is, the less exciting and alluring it becomes. Additionally, the 24/7 paparazzi attacks have also detracted from Hollywood glitz and taught America that movie stars are human and make the same mistakes other people do. Through this, Hollywood "starlets" have lost the glamour that they were once so known for. Film actresses are no longer idealized as they once were, and furthermore, movies no longer have lines that with which people say along while tears are brimming in their eyes; it is almost as though smart and interesting dialogue is inconsequential. The writing process is about as far removed from that of the "olden days" as possible. Movies are all about the image, and appeasing the mass audiences who watch them. The scene from Jezebel showed audiences how powerful a movie can be without compromising those ideals.
Furthermore, another aspect of the movie industry which it mocks is the fact that it doesn’t even matter how the final outcome of the movie looks. A film’s worth is only dependant on how the press focuses on it, and subsequently, the media will center its attention on saying what they think the audiences want to hear. That exact thing happened this season with Dreamgirls. This movie is the most buzzed about film of the season, and much of the buzz began well before editing of the film was even complete. However, that buzz created such a frenzy about the movie all of the media outlets insisted on singing its praises without ever having seen the film. That media indulgence is depicted in this movie by Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. They play a pair of perfectly annoying Entertainment Tonight-esq anchors who cater to the interests of the audience who support the program. When interviewing the cast of Home for Purim, they care little about asking about the actual film; rather they focus on silly gossipy questions and other nonsense.
In their typical style the collaborators who brought us A Mighty Wind and Best in Show, bring audiences another spoof on another American tradition, this time attacking the very medium which has brought them their fame and fortune. Yet, by kicking this gift horse in the mouth they somehow manage to do it in a non-ungrateful manner, and hopefully it will even strengthen the industry from whence it comes.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Holiday - 12/11/06
And you thought you needed a vacation
12/11/06
Just in time for the holidays comes this year’s fluffiest romantic comedy, aptly named The Holiday. The title has a double meaning, referring to both the vacations the leading characters take and the time of year in which they take it. Directed by Nancy Meyers (What Women Want and Something’s Gotta Give) this movie isn’t just about one type of love, it’s about the need for love, what that entails, and the different types of love one encounters. It is about romantic love, familial love and friendship love. All of the characters in this movie are looking for connections with others as the sense of loneliness during the holiday season creeps in.
In this flick Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz play women on opposite sides of the pond in desperate needs of time away from their real lives. Iris (Winslet) is a newspaper columnist trying to get over a recently engaged ex-boyfriend and Amanda (Diaz) is a high powered movie-trailer producer in Los Angeles whose career keeps pushing away men who try to get close to her.
On a whim Amanda looks online for vacation locations so she can escape her loneliness during the Christmas season, and she comes across a home exchange website where Iris has listed her house. The two women exchange some instant messages and decide that they will make the switch the next day. Upon arrival to each others homes, it becomes apparent that these two women could not be more different. Iris is in awe of Amanda’s luxurious home. She races through the house basking in the glory that is the home gym, plasma television, modern kitchen, Olympic sized pool, and finally the king sized bed. Paralleled to that is Amanda’s arrival at Iris’s modest cottage in the snowy English town. Schlepping her luggage through the snow in her stiletto heals, Amanda cannot believe her misfortune upon the arrival to this quaint and quiet home. She wanted to be alone, but not that alone.
Not until Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) arrives does Amanda begin to see the redeeming qualities of her vacation spot. Not knowing his sister is out of town Graham drunkenly imposes upon her home and to his surprise, a lonely American girl awaits some excitement. In a rare moment of spontaneity (as Amanda puts it) she takes him to bed (his sister’s bed no less…yuck!). Similarly, back in L.A., Iris is also looking for companionship. However, hers comes in a very different way. It comes in the form of her 90 year old neighbor Arthur Abbot (the always remarkable Eli Wallach). Arthur is an old time Hollywood screen writer and through his love of the movies and the strong leading women in those films, Iris learns to recapture her own gumption to be able to let go of her obsession with her ex, Jasper (Rufus Sewell). Once she learns this, she can see another new acquaintance, Miles (Jack Black), as more than just a new friend.
This movie tries to be a lot smarter than your average holiday-time romantic comedy. It employs a lot of tongue in cheek humor and makes many references to classic films from a bygone Hollywood era. Arthur waxes nostalgia about the days of Louis B. Meyer and when the writing was worth listening to. There are clever tie-ins, teaching the audience terms like meet-cute and cameos from Bill Macy and Shelley Berman, actors from said era.
However, clocking in at over 2 and a half hours, it is a lot longer than it needs to be. The length does make the movie drag along by the end. It also does have almost every cliché in the book. Throughout the movie a running theme is Amanda’s inability to cry. She hasn’t cried since her parents split up when she was 15. Gee, I wonder what’s going to happen after she leaves Graham and his admission of love as she heads back to the airport.
I will say this, the casting was great. All four leading roles were written for the actors who played them. Jack Black probably wouldn’t be the first person who comes to mind when thinking of a romantic lead to pair with Kate Winslet, but in The Holiday it works. If her character would be pining away for him, it wouldn’t be so believable, but as the go to nice guy friend, he is perfect. Ms. Winslet is perfectly cute and sweet as she plays the romantically obsessed writer determined to make a new life for herself. Ms. Diaz is superbly cast as the workaholic career driven woman who will never compromise on glamour, no matter how ridiculous the situation. And finally, who else but Mr. Law could play the super sexy yet possibly less than noble suitor for the high-strung Amanda?
Perfect for those who are looking for a light romantic comedy during Oscar season’s heavy politically charged dramas, The Holiday will lighten your spirits fulfill the annual need for a low-key, love filled movie about finding the right one during the holiday season.
12/11/06
Just in time for the holidays comes this year’s fluffiest romantic comedy, aptly named The Holiday. The title has a double meaning, referring to both the vacations the leading characters take and the time of year in which they take it. Directed by Nancy Meyers (What Women Want and Something’s Gotta Give) this movie isn’t just about one type of love, it’s about the need for love, what that entails, and the different types of love one encounters. It is about romantic love, familial love and friendship love. All of the characters in this movie are looking for connections with others as the sense of loneliness during the holiday season creeps in.
In this flick Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz play women on opposite sides of the pond in desperate needs of time away from their real lives. Iris (Winslet) is a newspaper columnist trying to get over a recently engaged ex-boyfriend and Amanda (Diaz) is a high powered movie-trailer producer in Los Angeles whose career keeps pushing away men who try to get close to her.
On a whim Amanda looks online for vacation locations so she can escape her loneliness during the Christmas season, and she comes across a home exchange website where Iris has listed her house. The two women exchange some instant messages and decide that they will make the switch the next day. Upon arrival to each others homes, it becomes apparent that these two women could not be more different. Iris is in awe of Amanda’s luxurious home. She races through the house basking in the glory that is the home gym, plasma television, modern kitchen, Olympic sized pool, and finally the king sized bed. Paralleled to that is Amanda’s arrival at Iris’s modest cottage in the snowy English town. Schlepping her luggage through the snow in her stiletto heals, Amanda cannot believe her misfortune upon the arrival to this quaint and quiet home. She wanted to be alone, but not that alone.
Not until Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) arrives does Amanda begin to see the redeeming qualities of her vacation spot. Not knowing his sister is out of town Graham drunkenly imposes upon her home and to his surprise, a lonely American girl awaits some excitement. In a rare moment of spontaneity (as Amanda puts it) she takes him to bed (his sister’s bed no less…yuck!). Similarly, back in L.A., Iris is also looking for companionship. However, hers comes in a very different way. It comes in the form of her 90 year old neighbor Arthur Abbot (the always remarkable Eli Wallach). Arthur is an old time Hollywood screen writer and through his love of the movies and the strong leading women in those films, Iris learns to recapture her own gumption to be able to let go of her obsession with her ex, Jasper (Rufus Sewell). Once she learns this, she can see another new acquaintance, Miles (Jack Black), as more than just a new friend.
This movie tries to be a lot smarter than your average holiday-time romantic comedy. It employs a lot of tongue in cheek humor and makes many references to classic films from a bygone Hollywood era. Arthur waxes nostalgia about the days of Louis B. Meyer and when the writing was worth listening to. There are clever tie-ins, teaching the audience terms like meet-cute and cameos from Bill Macy and Shelley Berman, actors from said era.
However, clocking in at over 2 and a half hours, it is a lot longer than it needs to be. The length does make the movie drag along by the end. It also does have almost every cliché in the book. Throughout the movie a running theme is Amanda’s inability to cry. She hasn’t cried since her parents split up when she was 15. Gee, I wonder what’s going to happen after she leaves Graham and his admission of love as she heads back to the airport.
I will say this, the casting was great. All four leading roles were written for the actors who played them. Jack Black probably wouldn’t be the first person who comes to mind when thinking of a romantic lead to pair with Kate Winslet, but in The Holiday it works. If her character would be pining away for him, it wouldn’t be so believable, but as the go to nice guy friend, he is perfect. Ms. Winslet is perfectly cute and sweet as she plays the romantically obsessed writer determined to make a new life for herself. Ms. Diaz is superbly cast as the workaholic career driven woman who will never compromise on glamour, no matter how ridiculous the situation. And finally, who else but Mr. Law could play the super sexy yet possibly less than noble suitor for the high-strung Amanda?
Perfect for those who are looking for a light romantic comedy during Oscar season’s heavy politically charged dramas, The Holiday will lighten your spirits fulfill the annual need for a low-key, love filled movie about finding the right one during the holiday season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)