Universal Appeal
10/23/07
From the first time I saw a trailer for Across the Universe I knew that it was a movie I wanted to see. When I walked out of the theater last night I was not disappointed. Julie Taymor's (Frida and Broadway's The Lion King) latest vehicle is a feast for the eyes and the ears. Combining a sense of new postmodern visual artistry with familiar sound she has breathed new life into music that was already so timeless.
Across the Universe is a period piece, taking another stab at exploring the socio-polical culture of the 1960s (and potentially it's significance today). It is about a young man, Jude (Jim Sturgess), who journeys across the pond to find the GI father he never met. During his journey he meets Max (Joe Anderson) and Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), a brother and sister pair who are itching to break free of their stuffy New England mold. The trio travels to New York to find their freedom among the musicians, student radicals and druggies who are all looking for the same thing.
But it isn't the story that keeps you sucked into this movie. The plot isn't anything new; the story of alienated youth has been told a million times. The crux of this movie hinges on the music. Throughout the 2 hours 11 minutes of Universe, 31 Beatles songs are woven throughout the narrative. Some fit quite nicely, others just seem to have been thrown in because Taymor really liked the song - there are 2 songs in particular which stood out as not having anything to do with the plot. I Want to Hold your Hand is sung by a high school girl named Prudence (T.V. Carpio) as she lusts after one of her fellow Cheerleaders. Later in the story when Prudence is sad because another crush isn't paying attention to her the cast sings, you guessed it, Dear Prudence, to make her feel better. Perhaps the director was making a statement of the idea of free love that reigned in the 1960s and the lack of tolerance homosexual relationships garnered before the sexual revolution, but that would be a stretch...
However, for the most part the songs did fit quite nicely into the narrative and it further proved that the Beatles tunes are truly timeless. The songs about love is one thing; I don't think anyone would argue that themes of love and loss are universal across time and space, but it also makes the psychedelic songs and the anti-war revolutionary ballads relatable. Not to mention that all of the actors have exceptional voices. Wood and Sturgess stand out as the main roles and they bring all the heart and emotion one would want to a Beatles song, I mean, if you're going to cover the Beatles you better make sure you do it well! The rest of the supporting cast brings their own flair to the songs as well. Dana Fuchs plays Sadie, a Janis Joplin-esque superstar singer wannabe who tours with her lover, JoJo (Martin Luther McCoy) a dead ringer (and guitarist) for Jimi Hendrix. The blending of these musical influences bring another level to the songs as it furthers the transcendence of the music - saying that it works in any time and in any voice, or genre, of music.
The war in Iraq is more present in this movie-awards season than it has been in any previous year, and it has generally been approached with a straightforward, no nonsense mentality. Other than being set in the 1960, Universe has been able to truly capture the spirit of the 60s where music united the peace-movement. Music was a rally tool for protesters and this movie attempts to capture that and perhaps renew that spirit to rebel against a seemingly unjust and amoral war. It is when this happens, when the songs actively bridge the gap between today and yesterday, is when the movie soars. When Jude barges into Lucy's protest headquarters singing Revolution, begging her to know "it will be alright," it's almost as though he is pleading with the audience that no matter how bad it seems now with the quagmire that is the Iraq war, we should know that eventually it will be alright.
All in all it is the music that makes this movie so enjoyable. The plot is rather thin, but if you are a Beatles fan you are more than likely going to see past that and enjoy the sounds emanating from the screen.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Superbad
Super-FUN!
8/23/07
I heard someone refer to Superbad as the movie American Pie wanted to be. That is a pretty accurate description for this male-driven teen "get sex and booze" movie. The premise revolves around Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera), two best friends who have one last party to attend before splitting up and leaving for college. Their goal: have sex with the girl's they've been crushing on since kindergarten and to get alcohol for them. The result: two hours of (hilariously) awkward interactions. Awkwardness was what writers Seth Rogan (Knocked Up) and Evan Goldberg was going for. The zany and bizarre situations generally cause laugh out loud reactions from the audience.
What is interesting about this movie, however, is that despite it's seeming premise that these two guys are on the prowl for women and having the ultimate connection with them, they are really searching for a way back to each other. Seth and Evan (characters, not writers) have been best friends for life and when Evan heads over to Dartmouth for college, it will be the first time he and Seth have something they can't share. Ultimately, the climactic love scene is between the two boys as they are about to fall asleep in Evan's blanket. They express their love for one another, not for the women they just spent 12 hours trying to impress. In that sense, this is an ultimate buddy flick rather than a teenage sex romp. Ultimately, it seems as though sex isn't all that interesting to these kids. When given the chance, none of them could really deliver, for whatever reason. Girls are the cause of anxiety - not to mention the actual sex. Aside for the threat of STDs, remember Rogan's last movie when he had sex. He was stuck with a girl who didn't really like him and child he never wanted. Sex is a scary thing for people living in the 21st century. Most people having it are having it with multiple partners and are doing it before being in a committed relationship where trust is involved. All of that anxiety seemed to seep out of the characters and onto the screen, thus making the boy on boy emotional explosion, even if awkward, a lot safer.
Superbad also features Bill Hader and Seth Rogan as Officer Slater and Officer Michaels, rebellious cops who are missing their own teenage years, so rather than busting one of Seth's friends for using a fake ID to get the coveted liqueur, they embrace him, taking him on an adventure of their own. The use presence of cops as the authority figures in this movie is quite interesting because usually in High School-based movies the school's administrators are called upon to look like fools. Superbad take that to the next level by depicting actual police officers as the fools, rendering Principals and the like obsolete. Why this decision was made is unknown, but it seems to be saying that as a society our high schoolers have left the realm of school pranks, and have ventured into actual law-breaking. This is a throwback to the days of James Dean and the Juvenile Delinquents of the 1950s. In those days school figures were absent and it was the incompetent legal authorities who were made to be fools. (Remember Office Krupkee, or even Officer Obie?) Officers Slater and Michaels are made to look like fools, but an important difference is that they themselves were rebellious teenagers and tried to work within the law, but even as adults they continue to be rebellious, they weren't able to reform. Our legal system cannot work if the people inside of it aren't dedicated. At least from the decades gone by while the cops were morons, they were dedicated to upholding the law, that is not the case with Superbad.
The dialogue isn't all that impressive, tending to rely on raunchy and crude language rather than clever lines, but that's okay, it's funny nonetheless. This movie isn't looking to win any awards or to go down in history as a film that made a difference in society, rather as a 2 hour return to the horrible teenage years that when you look back at how awkward it was, all you can do is laugh.
8/23/07
I heard someone refer to Superbad as the movie American Pie wanted to be. That is a pretty accurate description for this male-driven teen "get sex and booze" movie. The premise revolves around Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera), two best friends who have one last party to attend before splitting up and leaving for college. Their goal: have sex with the girl's they've been crushing on since kindergarten and to get alcohol for them. The result: two hours of (hilariously) awkward interactions. Awkwardness was what writers Seth Rogan (Knocked Up) and Evan Goldberg was going for. The zany and bizarre situations generally cause laugh out loud reactions from the audience.
What is interesting about this movie, however, is that despite it's seeming premise that these two guys are on the prowl for women and having the ultimate connection with them, they are really searching for a way back to each other. Seth and Evan (characters, not writers) have been best friends for life and when Evan heads over to Dartmouth for college, it will be the first time he and Seth have something they can't share. Ultimately, the climactic love scene is between the two boys as they are about to fall asleep in Evan's blanket. They express their love for one another, not for the women they just spent 12 hours trying to impress. In that sense, this is an ultimate buddy flick rather than a teenage sex romp. Ultimately, it seems as though sex isn't all that interesting to these kids. When given the chance, none of them could really deliver, for whatever reason. Girls are the cause of anxiety - not to mention the actual sex. Aside for the threat of STDs, remember Rogan's last movie when he had sex. He was stuck with a girl who didn't really like him and child he never wanted. Sex is a scary thing for people living in the 21st century. Most people having it are having it with multiple partners and are doing it before being in a committed relationship where trust is involved. All of that anxiety seemed to seep out of the characters and onto the screen, thus making the boy on boy emotional explosion, even if awkward, a lot safer.
Superbad also features Bill Hader and Seth Rogan as Officer Slater and Officer Michaels, rebellious cops who are missing their own teenage years, so rather than busting one of Seth's friends for using a fake ID to get the coveted liqueur, they embrace him, taking him on an adventure of their own. The use presence of cops as the authority figures in this movie is quite interesting because usually in High School-based movies the school's administrators are called upon to look like fools. Superbad take that to the next level by depicting actual police officers as the fools, rendering Principals and the like obsolete. Why this decision was made is unknown, but it seems to be saying that as a society our high schoolers have left the realm of school pranks, and have ventured into actual law-breaking. This is a throwback to the days of James Dean and the Juvenile Delinquents of the 1950s. In those days school figures were absent and it was the incompetent legal authorities who were made to be fools. (Remember Office Krupkee, or even Officer Obie?) Officers Slater and Michaels are made to look like fools, but an important difference is that they themselves were rebellious teenagers and tried to work within the law, but even as adults they continue to be rebellious, they weren't able to reform. Our legal system cannot work if the people inside of it aren't dedicated. At least from the decades gone by while the cops were morons, they were dedicated to upholding the law, that is not the case with Superbad.
The dialogue isn't all that impressive, tending to rely on raunchy and crude language rather than clever lines, but that's okay, it's funny nonetheless. This movie isn't looking to win any awards or to go down in history as a film that made a difference in society, rather as a 2 hour return to the horrible teenage years that when you look back at how awkward it was, all you can do is laugh.
Chuck
more like up-Chuck
8/23/04
This Fall NBC has yet another chance to try and reclaim the coveted number one network spot, but from the look of this pilot, it's going to have to try even harder. I know it's not always fair to judge a book by it's cover or a series by it's pilot, but the premise of Chuck is just so flimsy that I can't see it sustaining a whole season, let alone an entire series.
Chuck is about a self proclaimed computer nerd (Zachary Levi) who enjoys his simple life working at "BUY MORE," as a techie helping people with all sorts of gadget-related issues. He doesn't have too much in the way of professional aspirations, he's awkward with women, and has so much social anxiety he tries to escape his own birthday party before being dragged back into the house by his sister. On the night of his party an old college buddy sends him an email containing all of the CIA's secrets encoded in millions of pictures. Unknowingly, Chuck opens the email and unbeknownst to him, the secrets are instantly downloaded into his brain, making him Enemy #1.
It seems as though NBC is trying to strike gold with these types of shows - all of this fall's pilots seem to revolve around an innocent, sweet, protagonist who has some sort of special circumstances forced on him or her, without any say in the matter. This pilot has the flimsiest of plots. I can accept a man randomly traveling through time or a woman who suddenly has super powers because of bionic limbs before I am willing to suspend disbelief that by looking at some pictures one person can posses all of our nations secrets. I just don't buy it. There's a lot more going on that's too hard to believe, first of all, why would a Stamford engineering student choose to still be making 11 dollars an hour seven years after graduating!? That might seem like a simple idea, but if he had enough going for him that he would get into such a promising program, why would he be so satisfied doing a job that millions of high school kids could do?
After the episode was over I was so thankful I could move onto something else. Levi is endeering enough to keep me interested in him, but it's too bad the rest of show is so week that other than this one episode, I probably won't be watching much of the season.
8/23/04
This Fall NBC has yet another chance to try and reclaim the coveted number one network spot, but from the look of this pilot, it's going to have to try even harder. I know it's not always fair to judge a book by it's cover or a series by it's pilot, but the premise of Chuck is just so flimsy that I can't see it sustaining a whole season, let alone an entire series.
Chuck is about a self proclaimed computer nerd (Zachary Levi) who enjoys his simple life working at "BUY MORE," as a techie helping people with all sorts of gadget-related issues. He doesn't have too much in the way of professional aspirations, he's awkward with women, and has so much social anxiety he tries to escape his own birthday party before being dragged back into the house by his sister. On the night of his party an old college buddy sends him an email containing all of the CIA's secrets encoded in millions of pictures. Unknowingly, Chuck opens the email and unbeknownst to him, the secrets are instantly downloaded into his brain, making him Enemy #1.
It seems as though NBC is trying to strike gold with these types of shows - all of this fall's pilots seem to revolve around an innocent, sweet, protagonist who has some sort of special circumstances forced on him or her, without any say in the matter. This pilot has the flimsiest of plots. I can accept a man randomly traveling through time or a woman who suddenly has super powers because of bionic limbs before I am willing to suspend disbelief that by looking at some pictures one person can posses all of our nations secrets. I just don't buy it. There's a lot more going on that's too hard to believe, first of all, why would a Stamford engineering student choose to still be making 11 dollars an hour seven years after graduating!? That might seem like a simple idea, but if he had enough going for him that he would get into such a promising program, why would he be so satisfied doing a job that millions of high school kids could do?
After the episode was over I was so thankful I could move onto something else. Levi is endeering enough to keep me interested in him, but it's too bad the rest of show is so week that other than this one episode, I probably won't be watching much of the season.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Bionic Woman
Girls rule...but only if THE MAN lets them...
8/20/07
The Bionic Woman is one of NBC's newest, and probably most buzzworthy, Fall TV shows. The question is, as it is every September, will the show live up to the hype or will it fall by the wayside with Studio 60 and the countless others of fall hopefuls who just can't quite seem to capture the audience's attention for a whole hour once a week. I like to take a look at the cultural implications of a show and what the true meaning is behind the series. This year's Bionic Woman, starring Brit, Michelle Ryan, has a female lead and is being touted as a show that will teach women, and young girls, that a woman can be strong and powerful (and still have picture perfect cleavage, a cute boyfriend, and awesome hair). But with a closer look, does that ideal hold true?
Television and Film has long attempted the portrayal of a strong female lead, but this newest try falls a bit flat, and frankly a bit insulting. Jamie, is a strong, loyal and quite smart woman, who, after a near fatal car crash has most of her limbs, and a number or organs, replaced by bionic parts. When she waked up from her surgery her boyfriend, Will (Chris Bowers), tells her what has happened. Her reaction is that of someone who is both freaked out and unusually strong (her super-strength is revealed when she almost effortlessly throws will into a glass door). As the pilot develops more details about the people who did this to her begin to surface and the more Jamie resists being controlled.
This show strongly positions itself as a girl-power, boys drool type of show. After all, the protagonist is a young woman willing to do anything or "bury anyone" who dares to cross her.
As Jamie escapes her captors by running down a long country road, a young, wistful young girl sees her and tries to point Jamie out to her mother. Rather than supporting her daughter the woman reprimands her for making up stories. In response to her mother's admonishment she says, "I just thought it was cool for a girl to do that."
Despite all these good wishes for female empowerment, the feeling I was left with was the opposite. Jamie, first of all, doesn't necessarily want her new fate. It was forced upon her by her boyfriend and the other men who come into her life. Furthermore, her new found strength makes her invincible to everyone except one other person - the first bionic woman. So, even though men aren't competition for her, she still has to fight to the death against another woman. This is almost to say that society cannot function with a plethora of strong female leads, one is enough.
On that note, what does this show say about society's role in creating these female leads? Yeah, so society has created her to be strong, but when she resists their specific training she becomes the enemy. One of the scientists, Jonas (Miguel Ferrer) tells her that her options are, "Heads you loose, tails you die." In other words, this is a loose loose situation for our heroine. Either she accepts her new societal role or she is killed trying to avoid it. I guess a woman can only be so strong if she fits into the confines of a strict behavioral code. So much for girl power. Yes, these "improvements" may have saved her life in one regard, but have sincerely destroyed it in another. For a show that thinks quite highly of itself as a message of female empowerment, it does the exact opposite.
The Bionic Woman premieres on NBC, Wednesday September 26th
8/20/07
The Bionic Woman is one of NBC's newest, and probably most buzzworthy, Fall TV shows. The question is, as it is every September, will the show live up to the hype or will it fall by the wayside with Studio 60 and the countless others of fall hopefuls who just can't quite seem to capture the audience's attention for a whole hour once a week. I like to take a look at the cultural implications of a show and what the true meaning is behind the series. This year's Bionic Woman, starring Brit, Michelle Ryan, has a female lead and is being touted as a show that will teach women, and young girls, that a woman can be strong and powerful (and still have picture perfect cleavage, a cute boyfriend, and awesome hair). But with a closer look, does that ideal hold true?
Television and Film has long attempted the portrayal of a strong female lead, but this newest try falls a bit flat, and frankly a bit insulting. Jamie, is a strong, loyal and quite smart woman, who, after a near fatal car crash has most of her limbs, and a number or organs, replaced by bionic parts. When she waked up from her surgery her boyfriend, Will (Chris Bowers), tells her what has happened. Her reaction is that of someone who is both freaked out and unusually strong (her super-strength is revealed when she almost effortlessly throws will into a glass door). As the pilot develops more details about the people who did this to her begin to surface and the more Jamie resists being controlled.
This show strongly positions itself as a girl-power, boys drool type of show. After all, the protagonist is a young woman willing to do anything or "bury anyone" who dares to cross her.
As Jamie escapes her captors by running down a long country road, a young, wistful young girl sees her and tries to point Jamie out to her mother. Rather than supporting her daughter the woman reprimands her for making up stories. In response to her mother's admonishment she says, "I just thought it was cool for a girl to do that."
Despite all these good wishes for female empowerment, the feeling I was left with was the opposite. Jamie, first of all, doesn't necessarily want her new fate. It was forced upon her by her boyfriend and the other men who come into her life. Furthermore, her new found strength makes her invincible to everyone except one other person - the first bionic woman. So, even though men aren't competition for her, she still has to fight to the death against another woman. This is almost to say that society cannot function with a plethora of strong female leads, one is enough.
On that note, what does this show say about society's role in creating these female leads? Yeah, so society has created her to be strong, but when she resists their specific training she becomes the enemy. One of the scientists, Jonas (Miguel Ferrer) tells her that her options are, "Heads you loose, tails you die." In other words, this is a loose loose situation for our heroine. Either she accepts her new societal role or she is killed trying to avoid it. I guess a woman can only be so strong if she fits into the confines of a strict behavioral code. So much for girl power. Yes, these "improvements" may have saved her life in one regard, but have sincerely destroyed it in another. For a show that thinks quite highly of itself as a message of female empowerment, it does the exact opposite.
The Bionic Woman premieres on NBC, Wednesday September 26th
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Ratatouille
Oh, Rats!
7/17/07
I so wanted to like this movie. I have had a long standing loving relationship with Disney (to this day The Little Mermaid reigns supreme as one of my top ten favorite movies). They have always impressed me with the characters, humor and pictures. No matter how doubtful I was, Disney (and now Pixar) have never disappointed me. Closeted superheroes? Fabulous! Talking cars? Hysterical! But I will admit that my skepticism ran a little deeper when I heard their latest animated feature was about a rat who loves to cook, but since it was Pixar I gave it a chance. I'll be honest, I just couldn't stomach the sight of all those rats scurrying around the streets and restaurants of Paris. This time it was to Pixar's detriment that they create such lifelike and realistic characters. The rats reminded me of my nightly experience in the subway on my way home and the local news when they are reporting that another restaurant doesn't meet health standards.
The movie tells the story of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswald), a French rat who has a special sense of sniff. He is able to tell exactly what it is any edible item just by smelling it. When this talent is first discovered, his father employs him to smell all items the pack eats to ensure that no one consumes a poisoned morsel. But this role bores him and he wants to do more with food. He ventures into the kitchen of the woman's whose house he and his friends have infested and comes across a cookbook by famed French Chef, Gusteau (Brad Garrett). While searching for flavors that would help create delicacies he wakes the old woman who discovers the rodent and a shooting spree eventually leads to the escape of Remy's extended family. In the course of the great escape, Remy is separated from his family and finds himself outside the famed Gusteau restaurant.
Haunted by the ghost of Gusteau, he watches the hustle and bustle of the busy restaurant kitchen and is entranced by all the creating below. One young cook, Linguini, catches his eye as he throws whatever is in arm's length into the pot. After falling into the kitchen below he tries to salvage the soup. During this soup-resuscitation, Remy is caught by the young restaurateur and when they realize that they can help themselves, a new friendship is forged and a new cooking team is created. Working together they bring Gusteau's flailing restaurant back to it's five-star status. Their ultimate goal is to impress relentless food critic, Anton Ego (voiced by the irreverent Peter O'Toole). O'Toole's performances are always mesmerizing, and even in animated form his turn as the animated maniacal food expert is no exception.
Ultimately this Disney-Pixar collaboration stays true to form, having the final message being about friendship, family and being true to one's self. However, despite the cute comments and impressive animation I couldn't sympathize with Remy, no matter how cutesy they drew him. If anything, Linguini was the character who garnered the most sympathy from this reviewer. I wanted to see him succeed and wished he could do it without the help from his verminous pet.
7/17/07
I so wanted to like this movie. I have had a long standing loving relationship with Disney (to this day The Little Mermaid reigns supreme as one of my top ten favorite movies). They have always impressed me with the characters, humor and pictures. No matter how doubtful I was, Disney (and now Pixar) have never disappointed me. Closeted superheroes? Fabulous! Talking cars? Hysterical! But I will admit that my skepticism ran a little deeper when I heard their latest animated feature was about a rat who loves to cook, but since it was Pixar I gave it a chance. I'll be honest, I just couldn't stomach the sight of all those rats scurrying around the streets and restaurants of Paris. This time it was to Pixar's detriment that they create such lifelike and realistic characters. The rats reminded me of my nightly experience in the subway on my way home and the local news when they are reporting that another restaurant doesn't meet health standards.
The movie tells the story of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswald), a French rat who has a special sense of sniff. He is able to tell exactly what it is any edible item just by smelling it. When this talent is first discovered, his father employs him to smell all items the pack eats to ensure that no one consumes a poisoned morsel. But this role bores him and he wants to do more with food. He ventures into the kitchen of the woman's whose house he and his friends have infested and comes across a cookbook by famed French Chef, Gusteau (Brad Garrett). While searching for flavors that would help create delicacies he wakes the old woman who discovers the rodent and a shooting spree eventually leads to the escape of Remy's extended family. In the course of the great escape, Remy is separated from his family and finds himself outside the famed Gusteau restaurant.
Haunted by the ghost of Gusteau, he watches the hustle and bustle of the busy restaurant kitchen and is entranced by all the creating below. One young cook, Linguini, catches his eye as he throws whatever is in arm's length into the pot. After falling into the kitchen below he tries to salvage the soup. During this soup-resuscitation, Remy is caught by the young restaurateur and when they realize that they can help themselves, a new friendship is forged and a new cooking team is created. Working together they bring Gusteau's flailing restaurant back to it's five-star status. Their ultimate goal is to impress relentless food critic, Anton Ego (voiced by the irreverent Peter O'Toole). O'Toole's performances are always mesmerizing, and even in animated form his turn as the animated maniacal food expert is no exception.
Ultimately this Disney-Pixar collaboration stays true to form, having the final message being about friendship, family and being true to one's self. However, despite the cute comments and impressive animation I couldn't sympathize with Remy, no matter how cutesy they drew him. If anything, Linguini was the character who garnered the most sympathy from this reviewer. I wanted to see him succeed and wished he could do it without the help from his verminous pet.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry's newest challenge
7/11/07
I will always go see a Harry Potter movie. I love the whimsy and the magic that the movies create. The music alone is enough to transport me a world of witchcraft and wizardry. Isn't that so much about movies are meant to do? Take you away from reality? Let you enjoy a few hours of pure escapist entertainment? That is precisely what keeps me coming back. The fifth installment of the Harry Potter series is no exception. In the Order of the Phoenix, Harry finds himself in a much darker world of magic where death seems to be everyone's mind.
This movie, while by author J.K. Rowling's own insistence, is not meant to mirror any current political goings-on, does have some heavy moments where the students are forced to live in a Hogwarts under the control of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton in a role scarier than the Dark Lord himself), a member of the Ministry of Magic. She moves through the school seemingly innocuously as she clicks her pink heels on the cold stones of Hogwarts, her pink poncho flowing through the wind as she ascends the stairs to her office adorned with cat-plates and pink curtains. She imposes rules and regulations, she is watching the every move of the students, and her interrogation and punishment practices all seem to be just over the edge into the realm of cruel and unusual, something not unfamiliar in today's world.
These movies have been able to achieve something not many film-from-book adaptations have been able to do. For myself and everyone I have spoken to, these movies have taken the images my mind creates while reading the books and directly transports them to the silver screen. It is for that reason I never want them to end. However, as far as movies go, this being adapted from an 800-page book Phoenix could have been well on its way to being an 8-hour movie. To compensate for that, director David Yates was able to shrink it down to a cool 2 hours 18 minutes So while it's great for the numbers-guys in the corner offices who have deemed movies over a certain length unmoney-makeable, the fans lose out. The story felt stilted, as though you could tell that something was missing. There was such a profound lack of context in that even for someone who has read all of the books thus far, the story was a bit confusing and difficult to follow. Furthermore, so much of what makes the Harry Potter series is how relatable the school sequences and the social interactions are, and yet so much of that has been deleted. For example, in the book the students are so preoccupied with studying for their O.W.L. exams that it hinders from their magical practices. In the movie the significance of the O.W.L.'s are grossly neglected.
Year five at Hogwarts does offer a glimpse into a new stage of life for Harry, Hermione and Ron. In Phoenix, the hormones begin to rage and the friendly relationships begin to morph into something else. Ron becomes more protective of Hermione as his feeling towards her leave the Platonic realm, and Harry finally garners up enough courage to do something about his year-long crush on Cho. We are also introduced to a number of new characters, one of whom I would be remiss not to mention. Luna Lovegoode (Evanna Lynch) is my new favorite Harry Potter character. Whenever she's in a scene she completely steals it from the other actors. Her distant demeanor and loony behavior is addictive and Lynch was a great casting choice for the quirky teen.
The climactic ending of the movie is the most exciting moment, not only in this chapter of the saga, but that of all the films. The special effects of the showdown between Voldemort and Dumbledore have the audiences on the edges of their seats, the theater was rumbling from both the sound effects and the heavy score. But ultimately the movie left me wanting more (which may have been its exact goal). I wanted to see more Voldemort, more Hogwarts, more Dumbledore, more professors, more ghosts, more Draco, more magic and frankly, more Hermione and Ron. This is probably the most Harry-centric film, focusing on his inner demons and the connection with Voldemort, so in order to sort that out, the rest of the players tend to get neglected. I definitely, though, left the midnight screening feeling satisfied. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix delivered what I expected it to deliver. Magic, mystery, a great story, fantastic performances, special effects that are beyond compare and an excitement for the upcoming book and all future movies.
7/11/07
I will always go see a Harry Potter movie. I love the whimsy and the magic that the movies create. The music alone is enough to transport me a world of witchcraft and wizardry. Isn't that so much about movies are meant to do? Take you away from reality? Let you enjoy a few hours of pure escapist entertainment? That is precisely what keeps me coming back. The fifth installment of the Harry Potter series is no exception. In the Order of the Phoenix, Harry finds himself in a much darker world of magic where death seems to be everyone's mind.
This movie, while by author J.K. Rowling's own insistence, is not meant to mirror any current political goings-on, does have some heavy moments where the students are forced to live in a Hogwarts under the control of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton in a role scarier than the Dark Lord himself), a member of the Ministry of Magic. She moves through the school seemingly innocuously as she clicks her pink heels on the cold stones of Hogwarts, her pink poncho flowing through the wind as she ascends the stairs to her office adorned with cat-plates and pink curtains. She imposes rules and regulations, she is watching the every move of the students, and her interrogation and punishment practices all seem to be just over the edge into the realm of cruel and unusual, something not unfamiliar in today's world.
These movies have been able to achieve something not many film-from-book adaptations have been able to do. For myself and everyone I have spoken to, these movies have taken the images my mind creates while reading the books and directly transports them to the silver screen. It is for that reason I never want them to end. However, as far as movies go, this being adapted from an 800-page book Phoenix could have been well on its way to being an 8-hour movie. To compensate for that, director David Yates was able to shrink it down to a cool 2 hours 18 minutes So while it's great for the numbers-guys in the corner offices who have deemed movies over a certain length unmoney-makeable, the fans lose out. The story felt stilted, as though you could tell that something was missing. There was such a profound lack of context in that even for someone who has read all of the books thus far, the story was a bit confusing and difficult to follow. Furthermore, so much of what makes the Harry Potter series is how relatable the school sequences and the social interactions are, and yet so much of that has been deleted. For example, in the book the students are so preoccupied with studying for their O.W.L. exams that it hinders from their magical practices. In the movie the significance of the O.W.L.'s are grossly neglected.
Year five at Hogwarts does offer a glimpse into a new stage of life for Harry, Hermione and Ron. In Phoenix, the hormones begin to rage and the friendly relationships begin to morph into something else. Ron becomes more protective of Hermione as his feeling towards her leave the Platonic realm, and Harry finally garners up enough courage to do something about his year-long crush on Cho. We are also introduced to a number of new characters, one of whom I would be remiss not to mention. Luna Lovegoode (Evanna Lynch) is my new favorite Harry Potter character. Whenever she's in a scene she completely steals it from the other actors. Her distant demeanor and loony behavior is addictive and Lynch was a great casting choice for the quirky teen.
The climactic ending of the movie is the most exciting moment, not only in this chapter of the saga, but that of all the films. The special effects of the showdown between Voldemort and Dumbledore have the audiences on the edges of their seats, the theater was rumbling from both the sound effects and the heavy score. But ultimately the movie left me wanting more (which may have been its exact goal). I wanted to see more Voldemort, more Hogwarts, more Dumbledore, more professors, more ghosts, more Draco, more magic and frankly, more Hermione and Ron. This is probably the most Harry-centric film, focusing on his inner demons and the connection with Voldemort, so in order to sort that out, the rest of the players tend to get neglected. I definitely, though, left the midnight screening feeling satisfied. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix delivered what I expected it to deliver. Magic, mystery, a great story, fantastic performances, special effects that are beyond compare and an excitement for the upcoming book and all future movies.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Sicko
It will make you sick
7/6/07
In Michael Moore's newest piece investigative documentariansm he investigates the state of American health care. The film goes deeper, however. What he is really asking is, how can a country, which claims to care for the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, treat them with such indignity and lack of respect? As the movie admits to in the beginning, it is not going to be about the thousands of citizens who cannot afford heath care. It won't focus on those who have to choose which finger they will be able to afford to reattach. Rather, it will be about those who pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars per year in insurance fees and yet, when an emergency occurs or a procedure is needed, their claims will be denied based on a plethora of excuses the insurance companies invent. He explores how people suffer and have to make impossible decisions to try and stay healthy. How doctors are praised for denying care and procedures if it saves the insurance companies. How people have gotten sicker and have even died because their health insurance refuse to pay for something which they claim to be experimental. All the while the audience sits in the theater in utter shock and awe at how such atrocious occurrences happen in what we consider to be a great country. The movie offers tremendous laughs, usually at the expense of the politicians and the state of our health care. The laughs are usually uncomfortable chuckles as the audience realizes how so fundamentally UnAmerican it is to deny care to those who are sick, and yet, it seems to be happening on a scale that no one could have ever imagined.
The next piece of the film focuses on the government elected officials who squashed any attempts to socialize the medical system. No one is safe from the menacing insurance companies who are willing to buy out anyone who wants free health care for everyone. Moore successfully links the current lack of national health care to the Red Scare, where socialism equals EVIL! He explains that the Republican politicians crush any attempt to socialize health care because it is akin to communism and everything to which "American Ideals" are in direct opposition . Moore, in his infinite liberal wisdom skews the film in a very leftist direction to ensure the viewers think as he wants them to.
In the next part of the movie he actually travels to other countries, which, like America, pride their Democratic government and yet allow national health care to strive. In England, France and Canada, health care is public and the system seems to be successful. The people are happy and cared for, the doctors are living the high life and they all look at America with shock that that is not the case across the pond. However, in this exploration it is strikingly clear how he does not interview the "other side." He does not explore any downsides to Nationalized health care - such as the "optional" treatments that Americans tend to have access to which these people do not.
The final piece focuses on the 9/11 rescue workers who are still suffering from maladies incurred while saving lives. What Moore documentary would be complete without a mention of 9/11 and how the American infrastructure screwed up there? Moore introduces us to workers who have neither been able to afford nor receive medical care for their post 9/11 injuries. In a related note he makes it clear (through official testimonials) that the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba receive top notch care, most of which is never seen by law abiding citizens. He takes the workers to Gitmo to try to obtain some of this care. I'm sure you can guess what happens as they approach the compound. In the end it is the Cuban doctors and nurses which are able to provide the care for these American Heroes who have been neglected by the very country they risked their lives for. Again, it is not explained how Americans were able to receive this care from the Cubans because they are not citizens of Cuba.
As all Moore documentaries, he does not strive for a journalistic value of unbiased equal reporting. Sicko is very much a one sided argument. There is no mention of how the American health care system does succeed, such as, the level of medical expertise that isn't necessarily offered in other countries. He also doesn't mention the failings of a socialized system or interview those in France or England who find fault in their nationalized system. So take this movie with a giant boulder of salt because Moore does a very good job at finding fault where he wants you to find fault, without giving you the resources to make a truly informed opinion. However, in the end Moore does make a number of excellent points and really does highlight the incredible failing of our health care industry. As usual, Moore is not afraid to go where no other will go. The hope of this film is to mobilize Americans to do something, anything, to change things. To refuse the status quo and insist on better conditions. To be adamant that being ranked #37 in the world for health care in unacceptable. And while Moore does exaggerate to a certain extent (not every Cuban has access to the best health care in the world either), it is all to prove his ultimate point, as Jeffrey Lyons said, "Don't get sick."
7/6/07
In Michael Moore's newest piece investigative documentariansm he investigates the state of American health care. The film goes deeper, however. What he is really asking is, how can a country, which claims to care for the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, treat them with such indignity and lack of respect? As the movie admits to in the beginning, it is not going to be about the thousands of citizens who cannot afford heath care. It won't focus on those who have to choose which finger they will be able to afford to reattach. Rather, it will be about those who pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars per year in insurance fees and yet, when an emergency occurs or a procedure is needed, their claims will be denied based on a plethora of excuses the insurance companies invent. He explores how people suffer and have to make impossible decisions to try and stay healthy. How doctors are praised for denying care and procedures if it saves the insurance companies. How people have gotten sicker and have even died because their health insurance refuse to pay for something which they claim to be experimental. All the while the audience sits in the theater in utter shock and awe at how such atrocious occurrences happen in what we consider to be a great country. The movie offers tremendous laughs, usually at the expense of the politicians and the state of our health care. The laughs are usually uncomfortable chuckles as the audience realizes how so fundamentally UnAmerican it is to deny care to those who are sick, and yet, it seems to be happening on a scale that no one could have ever imagined.
The next piece of the film focuses on the government elected officials who squashed any attempts to socialize the medical system. No one is safe from the menacing insurance companies who are willing to buy out anyone who wants free health care for everyone. Moore successfully links the current lack of national health care to the Red Scare, where socialism equals EVIL! He explains that the Republican politicians crush any attempt to socialize health care because it is akin to communism and everything to which "American Ideals" are in direct opposition . Moore, in his infinite liberal wisdom skews the film in a very leftist direction to ensure the viewers think as he wants them to.
In the next part of the movie he actually travels to other countries, which, like America, pride their Democratic government and yet allow national health care to strive. In England, France and Canada, health care is public and the system seems to be successful. The people are happy and cared for, the doctors are living the high life and they all look at America with shock that that is not the case across the pond. However, in this exploration it is strikingly clear how he does not interview the "other side." He does not explore any downsides to Nationalized health care - such as the "optional" treatments that Americans tend to have access to which these people do not.
The final piece focuses on the 9/11 rescue workers who are still suffering from maladies incurred while saving lives. What Moore documentary would be complete without a mention of 9/11 and how the American infrastructure screwed up there? Moore introduces us to workers who have neither been able to afford nor receive medical care for their post 9/11 injuries. In a related note he makes it clear (through official testimonials) that the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba receive top notch care, most of which is never seen by law abiding citizens. He takes the workers to Gitmo to try to obtain some of this care. I'm sure you can guess what happens as they approach the compound. In the end it is the Cuban doctors and nurses which are able to provide the care for these American Heroes who have been neglected by the very country they risked their lives for. Again, it is not explained how Americans were able to receive this care from the Cubans because they are not citizens of Cuba.
As all Moore documentaries, he does not strive for a journalistic value of unbiased equal reporting. Sicko is very much a one sided argument. There is no mention of how the American health care system does succeed, such as, the level of medical expertise that isn't necessarily offered in other countries. He also doesn't mention the failings of a socialized system or interview those in France or England who find fault in their nationalized system. So take this movie with a giant boulder of salt because Moore does a very good job at finding fault where he wants you to find fault, without giving you the resources to make a truly informed opinion. However, in the end Moore does make a number of excellent points and really does highlight the incredible failing of our health care industry. As usual, Moore is not afraid to go where no other will go. The hope of this film is to mobilize Americans to do something, anything, to change things. To refuse the status quo and insist on better conditions. To be adamant that being ranked #37 in the world for health care in unacceptable. And while Moore does exaggerate to a certain extent (not every Cuban has access to the best health care in the world either), it is all to prove his ultimate point, as Jeffrey Lyons said, "Don't get sick."
Monday, June 11, 2007
Once
Once isn't enough
6/11/07
Every once and a while a movie quietly comes along that is so simply touching. These films usually come to the masses from small independent companies; Hollywood usually can't get it together to make something so simple and honest. In fact, most American movies, even when trying to depict a gritty atmosphere, are somewhat glossed over. Once is one such movie. The aesthetics are so quantifiably different from what we are used to stateside. At times it can be jarring because it seems at times like a grainy home video or the unfamiliar cinema verite, but ultimately the medium is the message. The message: Simplicity and love is what ultimately endures.
Directed by John Carney, Once tells the story of an Irish street musician (Glen Hansard) who plays his sad songs alone with one scrappy guitar. He doesn't need much to play his music, just his voice and a well worn instrument. One evening whilst playing, a Czech girl (Marketa Irglova) stops to listen and is immediately awed by his sound. During this pivotal scene the audience melds with the narrative. As we become entranced by his song so does the she, and the pair immediately forms an friendship. The songs they sing are what help bind them together. She too has suffered loss and music is the only way they are able to heal. The audience learns that he has a lost love who's moved to England. Their relationship is displayed through a series of vignettes and home videos. She has an partially estranged husband back in the Czech Republic who we learn about through the presence of her daughter who's come with her to Ireland. What was so striking about their relationship is that throughout the course of the movie their friendship develops into love. But the question that remains throughout is, will it remain Platonic or morph into romantic? That question, and ultimate answer is what keeps the audience riveted throughout.
Neither character is given a name; names make everything too personal when the story is meant to convey a universal message. They bond over their love for and attachment for music. Music is central to the film, as it is the manner in which the narrative moves along. That is the way in which Once becomes a musical. I hesitate calling it a musical because no one spontaneously breaks into song or commences in outlandish dance numbers in the streets of Dublin. Rather, songs are a labor of love, verses which have been toiled over. The music creates a format in which articulation occurs. The songs show real emotion rather than the lavish grandeur of other big budget musicals.
It seems that the ultimate meaning of the movie speaks to the potential power of song. Music is the way the characters relate to life. They use music to express themselves. It also speaks to music as being a universality that everyone can relate to. You don't have to be a professional to write it or sing it, as long as you have something to sing about. The songs themselves are also particularly interesting. Without sounding like a remake of others' music, it feels as though these songs are already part of the international soundtrack. Listening to them sounds like something homey, something familiar, and something that just seems right.
6/11/07
Every once and a while a movie quietly comes along that is so simply touching. These films usually come to the masses from small independent companies; Hollywood usually can't get it together to make something so simple and honest. In fact, most American movies, even when trying to depict a gritty atmosphere, are somewhat glossed over. Once is one such movie. The aesthetics are so quantifiably different from what we are used to stateside. At times it can be jarring because it seems at times like a grainy home video or the unfamiliar cinema verite, but ultimately the medium is the message. The message: Simplicity and love is what ultimately endures.
Directed by John Carney, Once tells the story of an Irish street musician (Glen Hansard) who plays his sad songs alone with one scrappy guitar. He doesn't need much to play his music, just his voice and a well worn instrument. One evening whilst playing, a Czech girl (Marketa Irglova) stops to listen and is immediately awed by his sound. During this pivotal scene the audience melds with the narrative. As we become entranced by his song so does the she, and the pair immediately forms an friendship. The songs they sing are what help bind them together. She too has suffered loss and music is the only way they are able to heal. The audience learns that he has a lost love who's moved to England. Their relationship is displayed through a series of vignettes and home videos. She has an partially estranged husband back in the Czech Republic who we learn about through the presence of her daughter who's come with her to Ireland. What was so striking about their relationship is that throughout the course of the movie their friendship develops into love. But the question that remains throughout is, will it remain Platonic or morph into romantic? That question, and ultimate answer is what keeps the audience riveted throughout.
Neither character is given a name; names make everything too personal when the story is meant to convey a universal message. They bond over their love for and attachment for music. Music is central to the film, as it is the manner in which the narrative moves along. That is the way in which Once becomes a musical. I hesitate calling it a musical because no one spontaneously breaks into song or commences in outlandish dance numbers in the streets of Dublin. Rather, songs are a labor of love, verses which have been toiled over. The music creates a format in which articulation occurs. The songs show real emotion rather than the lavish grandeur of other big budget musicals.
It seems that the ultimate meaning of the movie speaks to the potential power of song. Music is the way the characters relate to life. They use music to express themselves. It also speaks to music as being a universality that everyone can relate to. You don't have to be a professional to write it or sing it, as long as you have something to sing about. The songs themselves are also particularly interesting. Without sounding like a remake of others' music, it feels as though these songs are already part of the international soundtrack. Listening to them sounds like something homey, something familiar, and something that just seems right.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Waitress
Another Piece of Pie, Please
6/7/07
It's not every day Hollywood produces a purely feel good fantasy live action fairy tale, but that's what it has seemed to do with Waitress. It's simple and predictable, but that's all a part of it's charm. Maybe it's because Hollywood didn't really produce this one. Waitress was a Sundance hit this year, and while it's not quite charming as last year's breakthrough, Little Miss Sunshine, it definitely has some of the same allure to it. Of course, no matter how sweet the film itself is, it will be shrouded with sadness as it cannot escape the tragedy surrounding Adrienne Shelly, its writer/director/actress', murder just mere months before the movie's screening. Ironically, the movie does offer up a sense of optimism and hope by conveying the message that no matter how dismal the situation may be, you are ultimately in charge of your own destiny and can change your fortunes by sticking to your beliefs.
Kerri Russel plays Jenna, a sweet southern waitress and pie chef stuck in a miserable marriage and a thankless job who's only solace is hiding away to create her famously tasty pies. She is a dreamer who envisions herself escaping to a better life with a pie shop of her own, but when she gets pregnant by her emotionally abusive husband (Jeremy Sisto), she finds herself even more trapped than before. Without a baby she could plot an escape, but a child would make an exit all the more complicated. Abortion is never an option for her, which is an interesting comment on society. As far as she is concerned, a child would ruin her dreams, yet she won't even consider terminating the pregnancy - the word abortion isn't mentioned even once. An American fairy tale would never tolerate an abortion, so Jenna makes some excuse for why she needs to keep the baby. Narratively, the baby is needed to introduce her to (and keep her in touch with) her cute, yet married, OBGYN, Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). Their instant attraction leads to an affair neither one seems to care all that much about hiding. Interestingly, one might think that two married people engaging in an affair with one another would be something punishable by American movie standards, however neither character is penalized for his or her behavior.
To help her alleviate her misery, Jenna dreams about the pies she could make which would would mirror her situation. The desserts all have creative and whimsical names like, "'I don't want to have Earl's baby' Pie." Waitress takes a new spin on the American preoccupation with Pie; it brings back the pure connotation which had been besmirched by the American Pie movies. Once again, Pie becomes a icon of an idyllic American existence. Jenna is a small town waitress who uses her relationship to the pastry to envision a better life and thus equates pie with wholesome goodness.
Jenna also relies on her friends to help her through the tough times. Becky (Cheryl Hines) and Dawn (Shelly) wouldn't trade places with her, but they are a constant source of support for her as she makes her way through her unwanted pregnancy.
Ultimately this movie is predictable and the ending wraps up a little too easily...as though the writers didn't think about the ending too much, they just wanted to make it as clean as possible. But the ending, as sugary as it may seem, actually would be the perfect ending of the movie. Anything else wouldn't have made it the fairy tale it was ultimately meant to be.
6/7/07
It's not every day Hollywood produces a purely feel good fantasy live action fairy tale, but that's what it has seemed to do with Waitress. It's simple and predictable, but that's all a part of it's charm. Maybe it's because Hollywood didn't really produce this one. Waitress was a Sundance hit this year, and while it's not quite charming as last year's breakthrough, Little Miss Sunshine, it definitely has some of the same allure to it. Of course, no matter how sweet the film itself is, it will be shrouded with sadness as it cannot escape the tragedy surrounding Adrienne Shelly, its writer/director/actress', murder just mere months before the movie's screening. Ironically, the movie does offer up a sense of optimism and hope by conveying the message that no matter how dismal the situation may be, you are ultimately in charge of your own destiny and can change your fortunes by sticking to your beliefs.
Kerri Russel plays Jenna, a sweet southern waitress and pie chef stuck in a miserable marriage and a thankless job who's only solace is hiding away to create her famously tasty pies. She is a dreamer who envisions herself escaping to a better life with a pie shop of her own, but when she gets pregnant by her emotionally abusive husband (Jeremy Sisto), she finds herself even more trapped than before. Without a baby she could plot an escape, but a child would make an exit all the more complicated. Abortion is never an option for her, which is an interesting comment on society. As far as she is concerned, a child would ruin her dreams, yet she won't even consider terminating the pregnancy - the word abortion isn't mentioned even once. An American fairy tale would never tolerate an abortion, so Jenna makes some excuse for why she needs to keep the baby. Narratively, the baby is needed to introduce her to (and keep her in touch with) her cute, yet married, OBGYN, Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). Their instant attraction leads to an affair neither one seems to care all that much about hiding. Interestingly, one might think that two married people engaging in an affair with one another would be something punishable by American movie standards, however neither character is penalized for his or her behavior.
To help her alleviate her misery, Jenna dreams about the pies she could make which would would mirror her situation. The desserts all have creative and whimsical names like, "'I don't want to have Earl's baby' Pie." Waitress takes a new spin on the American preoccupation with Pie; it brings back the pure connotation which had been besmirched by the American Pie movies. Once again, Pie becomes a icon of an idyllic American existence. Jenna is a small town waitress who uses her relationship to the pastry to envision a better life and thus equates pie with wholesome goodness.
Jenna also relies on her friends to help her through the tough times. Becky (Cheryl Hines) and Dawn (Shelly) wouldn't trade places with her, but they are a constant source of support for her as she makes her way through her unwanted pregnancy.
Ultimately this movie is predictable and the ending wraps up a little too easily...as though the writers didn't think about the ending too much, they just wanted to make it as clean as possible. But the ending, as sugary as it may seem, actually would be the perfect ending of the movie. Anything else wouldn't have made it the fairy tale it was ultimately meant to be.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Ex
Ex misses the spot
5/15/07
Another post-Oscars pre-Summer Blockbuster disaster.
The opening of this movie offers a lot of promise. Tom (Zack Braff) and a very pregnant Sophia (Amanda Peet) are lying in bed trying to decide on a name for their new baby. After a series of humorous options they eventually agree to wait before making any decisions and Tom leaves for work. Thus concludes the funniest five minutes of the movie.
Tom then heads to work, where instead of earning the promotion he was hoping for, he gets fired for shooting his mouth off. While he is wallowing in self-pity, he gets the call that Sophia has gone into labor. After having the baby (and naming him Oliver, after their anaesthesiologist) the couple decides it's time for Tom to take his father-in-law (Charles Grodin) up on the job offer at his small advertising firm in Ohio. They pack up their sedan and hit the road. When Tom arrives at his first day at work he meets Chip Sanders (Jason Bateman), Sophia's old fling, his father in law's sycophant and his new boss. Needless to say the two don't get a long.
The rest of the movie flows like a bad episode of Three's Company: one misunderstanding after another. Sophia's father gets fired, a major account is lost, Sophia moves out, and Tom is beaten up during a game of wheelchair basketball when he is discovered to not be a paraplegic. Everyone hates Tom; the man cannot catch a break, until the writers decided that they needed to wrap up the movie, so for no good reason everyone all of a sudden is back on Tom's side.
This movie made no sense, the script was lame and Charles Grodin's dye job made him look rediculous. I wish I had more to say about this movie, some redeaming qualities, but there really aren't. For the amount of times I laughed, I rolled my eyes twice as much so I can't even say that the humor was a redeaming factor. The Ex certainly did not lead to any treasure.
5/15/07
Another post-Oscars pre-Summer Blockbuster disaster.
The opening of this movie offers a lot of promise. Tom (Zack Braff) and a very pregnant Sophia (Amanda Peet) are lying in bed trying to decide on a name for their new baby. After a series of humorous options they eventually agree to wait before making any decisions and Tom leaves for work. Thus concludes the funniest five minutes of the movie.
Tom then heads to work, where instead of earning the promotion he was hoping for, he gets fired for shooting his mouth off. While he is wallowing in self-pity, he gets the call that Sophia has gone into labor. After having the baby (and naming him Oliver, after their anaesthesiologist) the couple decides it's time for Tom to take his father-in-law (Charles Grodin) up on the job offer at his small advertising firm in Ohio. They pack up their sedan and hit the road. When Tom arrives at his first day at work he meets Chip Sanders (Jason Bateman), Sophia's old fling, his father in law's sycophant and his new boss. Needless to say the two don't get a long.
The rest of the movie flows like a bad episode of Three's Company: one misunderstanding after another. Sophia's father gets fired, a major account is lost, Sophia moves out, and Tom is beaten up during a game of wheelchair basketball when he is discovered to not be a paraplegic. Everyone hates Tom; the man cannot catch a break, until the writers decided that they needed to wrap up the movie, so for no good reason everyone all of a sudden is back on Tom's side.
This movie made no sense, the script was lame and Charles Grodin's dye job made him look rediculous. I wish I had more to say about this movie, some redeaming qualities, but there really aren't. For the amount of times I laughed, I rolled my eyes twice as much so I can't even say that the humor was a redeaming factor. The Ex certainly did not lead to any treasure.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Georgia Rule
Rules were meant to be broken
5/7/07
Lindsay Lohan has an uncanny talent - she is able to single handedly sabotage any scene she is in and make a potentially decent movie intolerable. Furthermore, knowing that this was the movie from which came the letter from Morgan Creek criticizing Lohan's inappropriate and unprofessional behavior on set, I was even less impressed with her performance. It used to be that an actor's personal life might be able to enhance his or her careers - take Marlon Brando or James Dean. However, in today's media saturated culture a star's personal life takes away from his or her professional persona. With Lohan and the other starlets of today their images are splashed all over magazine covers, Internet blogs and entertainment TV shows so it seems unnecessary to pay to see them even more. Lohan's public behavior is so similar to that of her character, so spending 2 hours in a darkened theater watching even more of it seems superfluous and repetitive.
That being said...Georgia Rule tells the story of Rachel (Lohan) when she is essentially dumped at her Grandmother's house in Idaho for her last summer before college. Grandma Georgia (Jane Fonda) is a strict rule-keeper who imposes her schedule and regulations on everyone around her. Georgia's alcoholic daughter, Lily (Felicity Huffman) is at her wits end with her own daughter, Lohan, a rebellious teenager who can't follow any rules. Even though Lily can't stand her mother, and left home herself, she thinks it will be a good idea to send her daughter to the small Idahoan town for a summer of Grandma Boot Camp.
Rachel doesn't even make it all the way to Grandma's house before running into a load of trouble. Her mother kicks her out of the car with a few miles to go before arriving at their destination. She is picked up by Simon (Dermot Mulroney) and driven into town by the stranger. When he does not take her up on her advances she insults his intelligence and sexuality. A few scenes later we are (not) shocked to find out that he is in fact a respectable doctor (vet) in the community who is still mourning the loss of his son and wife in a car accident a few years earlier. Trying to earn sympathy points and to redeem herself Rachel tells Simon that she has been repeatedly raped by her stepfather since she was 12. The rest of the movie searches back and forth trying to, not only make Rachel seem sympathetic but also figure out whether the story she told was in fact true.
The movie set its sights high - with many different subplots - none of which really come to fruition. There's the Mormon teenager who Rachel insists on sexually corrupting, Simon who she attempts to seduce, her relationship with her stepfather, mother and grandmother are all tested and finally she has to deal with herself. That seems like a lot for one small movie, and it is. None of those issues ever seem to pan out and the viewer is left feeling unsatisfied and frustrated. What I think was ultimately supposed to be the point of the movie was that the mother/daughter bond is so strong that nothing can break it apart, but who knows - it wasn't marketed as a Mother's Day movie. I say skip this movie and if you are looking for a nice family oriented flick, go watch On Golden Pond again.
5/7/07
Lindsay Lohan has an uncanny talent - she is able to single handedly sabotage any scene she is in and make a potentially decent movie intolerable. Furthermore, knowing that this was the movie from which came the letter from Morgan Creek criticizing Lohan's inappropriate and unprofessional behavior on set, I was even less impressed with her performance. It used to be that an actor's personal life might be able to enhance his or her careers - take Marlon Brando or James Dean. However, in today's media saturated culture a star's personal life takes away from his or her professional persona. With Lohan and the other starlets of today their images are splashed all over magazine covers, Internet blogs and entertainment TV shows so it seems unnecessary to pay to see them even more. Lohan's public behavior is so similar to that of her character, so spending 2 hours in a darkened theater watching even more of it seems superfluous and repetitive.
That being said...Georgia Rule tells the story of Rachel (Lohan) when she is essentially dumped at her Grandmother's house in Idaho for her last summer before college. Grandma Georgia (Jane Fonda) is a strict rule-keeper who imposes her schedule and regulations on everyone around her. Georgia's alcoholic daughter, Lily (Felicity Huffman) is at her wits end with her own daughter, Lohan, a rebellious teenager who can't follow any rules. Even though Lily can't stand her mother, and left home herself, she thinks it will be a good idea to send her daughter to the small Idahoan town for a summer of Grandma Boot Camp.
Rachel doesn't even make it all the way to Grandma's house before running into a load of trouble. Her mother kicks her out of the car with a few miles to go before arriving at their destination. She is picked up by Simon (Dermot Mulroney) and driven into town by the stranger. When he does not take her up on her advances she insults his intelligence and sexuality. A few scenes later we are (not) shocked to find out that he is in fact a respectable doctor (vet) in the community who is still mourning the loss of his son and wife in a car accident a few years earlier. Trying to earn sympathy points and to redeem herself Rachel tells Simon that she has been repeatedly raped by her stepfather since she was 12. The rest of the movie searches back and forth trying to, not only make Rachel seem sympathetic but also figure out whether the story she told was in fact true.
The movie set its sights high - with many different subplots - none of which really come to fruition. There's the Mormon teenager who Rachel insists on sexually corrupting, Simon who she attempts to seduce, her relationship with her stepfather, mother and grandmother are all tested and finally she has to deal with herself. That seems like a lot for one small movie, and it is. None of those issues ever seem to pan out and the viewer is left feeling unsatisfied and frustrated. What I think was ultimately supposed to be the point of the movie was that the mother/daughter bond is so strong that nothing can break it apart, but who knows - it wasn't marketed as a Mother's Day movie. I say skip this movie and if you are looking for a nice family oriented flick, go watch On Golden Pond again.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
TMNT
Heroes in an unrecognizable half-shell
4/22/07
In a recent article in Entertainment Weekly, one of the producers of TMNT said that he hopes that this film will not only bring in new fans to the brand but bring back some of the old ones as well. Those original fans are 20-somethings with self-earned money to spent. The only problem with the latter portion of the theory is that for the older fans of the heroes in a half shell, there needs to be a sense of nostalgia to latch on to. They didn't even play the theme song!!! First of all, if you are my age, you've neither heard it called TMNT, nor have you or your friends referred to it as such. The new title is just the first in a long line of rebranding efforts hoping to update a 20-year-old cartoon.
Moreover, in this latest incarnation the only similarities to the original cartoon are the Turtles themselves. The "supporting cast" are all strangers. April, for one, used to be the sweet journalist who might as well have been the girl next door. Now she's a karate kicking archaeologist glamazon who doesn't seem to have any room for her organs in her tiny tummy. Furthermore, Casey now looks like a Japanamation Backstreet Boy and Splinter reminds me of a cross between Mr. Miagi and my 7th grade rabbi.
The animation is impressive, that's for sure, but it doesn't seem as though movie makers have quite caught on to the idea that no matter how cool the movie looks, if a strong story isn't there to back it up, the whole thing will fall flat. In TMNT, the script doesn't stick to one easy to follow plot. It's even hard to describe what the movie is about. I can tell you that Leonardo was out in jungles of South America finding himself when he encounters April on an expedition. He comes back to rejoin his brothers and save New York City from monsters that have been let loose by an immortal warlord who needs to send the monsters back through a time portal so he can regain his mortality and finally die after thousands of years...or something like that. There isn't much in the way of a three act narrative and there are so many conflicts that the viewer never really knows what is going to be the climax or the most significant incident.
Even though things were different I did like seeing those mischievous turtles again. To a certain extent it did bring me back hearing the Cowabungas and seeing all the pizza. Michelangelo was always my favorite because he was such a ham, and all the things I loved about him then were present in this movie. Raphael and Leonardo were at each other's throats more than I would have liked to see and Donatello was just trying to keep the peace and Splinter is, as always, always the moral center attempting to keep everything under control.
Culturally, this movie makes an interesting comment on the state of America in terms of what we allow our children to see. It is counter intuitive to what one might have thought. Most of our popular culture aimed at children is modest when it comes to sexual practices and liberal in the allowance of violence. However, any human on human (or human on turtle) violence is restrained whereas the audience discovers (in yet another unresolved plotline) that April and Casey live together and are romantically involved despite the fact that they are unmarried. It's hard to know why the story even includes this mention, because it is never developed, and ultimately it just seems out of place.
In the end, if this film does create a new generation of fans of the turtles, they would be fans of the new TMNT, not of the old school amphibians who Gen-Yers loved when they were kids. The original fans will find this flick filled with foreign, unrecognizable characters with a hard to follow story line. I say skip this one and rent the old-school movies and TV shows.
4/22/07
In a recent article in Entertainment Weekly, one of the producers of TMNT said that he hopes that this film will not only bring in new fans to the brand but bring back some of the old ones as well. Those original fans are 20-somethings with self-earned money to spent. The only problem with the latter portion of the theory is that for the older fans of the heroes in a half shell, there needs to be a sense of nostalgia to latch on to. They didn't even play the theme song!!! First of all, if you are my age, you've neither heard it called TMNT, nor have you or your friends referred to it as such. The new title is just the first in a long line of rebranding efforts hoping to update a 20-year-old cartoon.
Moreover, in this latest incarnation the only similarities to the original cartoon are the Turtles themselves. The "supporting cast" are all strangers. April, for one, used to be the sweet journalist who might as well have been the girl next door. Now she's a karate kicking archaeologist glamazon who doesn't seem to have any room for her organs in her tiny tummy. Furthermore, Casey now looks like a Japanamation Backstreet Boy and Splinter reminds me of a cross between Mr. Miagi and my 7th grade rabbi.
The animation is impressive, that's for sure, but it doesn't seem as though movie makers have quite caught on to the idea that no matter how cool the movie looks, if a strong story isn't there to back it up, the whole thing will fall flat. In TMNT, the script doesn't stick to one easy to follow plot. It's even hard to describe what the movie is about. I can tell you that Leonardo was out in jungles of South America finding himself when he encounters April on an expedition. He comes back to rejoin his brothers and save New York City from monsters that have been let loose by an immortal warlord who needs to send the monsters back through a time portal so he can regain his mortality and finally die after thousands of years...or something like that. There isn't much in the way of a three act narrative and there are so many conflicts that the viewer never really knows what is going to be the climax or the most significant incident.
Even though things were different I did like seeing those mischievous turtles again. To a certain extent it did bring me back hearing the Cowabungas and seeing all the pizza. Michelangelo was always my favorite because he was such a ham, and all the things I loved about him then were present in this movie. Raphael and Leonardo were at each other's throats more than I would have liked to see and Donatello was just trying to keep the peace and Splinter is, as always, always the moral center attempting to keep everything under control.
Culturally, this movie makes an interesting comment on the state of America in terms of what we allow our children to see. It is counter intuitive to what one might have thought. Most of our popular culture aimed at children is modest when it comes to sexual practices and liberal in the allowance of violence. However, any human on human (or human on turtle) violence is restrained whereas the audience discovers (in yet another unresolved plotline) that April and Casey live together and are romantically involved despite the fact that they are unmarried. It's hard to know why the story even includes this mention, because it is never developed, and ultimately it just seems out of place.
In the end, if this film does create a new generation of fans of the turtles, they would be fans of the new TMNT, not of the old school amphibians who Gen-Yers loved when they were kids. The original fans will find this flick filled with foreign, unrecognizable characters with a hard to follow story line. I say skip this one and rent the old-school movies and TV shows.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Be Careful or You'll Turn into Your Father!
During the 1950s and 1960s youth rebellion and counter culture flourished in this country. Throngs of young people were revolting against their parents and other adults during the post-war economic boom. They hated the older generations focus on material wealth. From universities to communes young people were turning on, tuning in and dropping out. And guess, what? It’s happening again today. The youth are rebelling against the adults, but doing it in an entirely different way. And the irony of the whole thing? They are rebelling against the same people who were of the generation who rebelled against their elders half a century ago. Its just human nature, or youth nature I should say, to revolt against conventional wisdom and practices.
It must be noted that their revolution is slightly different. The implicit irony with the YouTube culture is that the people posting their videos are all hoping to get rich, and quick, banking on the reliability of our celebrity obsessed culture. So, while in the 1960s youths rebelled against material wealth, today’s youth are striving to achieve it. Their rebellion lies in the way in which it is obtained. It’s a well-known adage that if you rebel too much against your parents you’re going to turn into your grandparents. That holds true, to a certain extent, here. Just like their grandparents, the stuffy adults in the 1950s, today’s youths want money. However, unlike their elders, they really aren’t willing to work for it. They look to this new technology to gain instant popularity and immediate fame.
Nevertheless, there are blatant similarities between this generation and their parents. The parallels are in the need for individual expression of self versus the abhorrence of big corporations with strong material values. With YouTube, On-Demand television, and blogging, young people of today are reclaiming social media and making it their own. They insist on instant gratification with content, as they want to see it, not as someone else dictates. Nontraditional platforms are becoming more popular than conventional arenas for displaying content while "old-media" moguls struggle to catch up. Jeff Zucker, the recently appointed head of NBC Universal, has placed conquering the digital world at the top of his "To Do" list. Mr. Zucker probably has a strong understanding of television content and its cultural implications given his close relationship with television production. I hope he understands this youth-centric rebellious trend. The thing with trends, though, is that they are fleeting. Once big corporate America takes over, the youth will find another way to create their own counter culture. It is not a coincidence that people’s first stop on their digital viewing tour is going to be YouTube before NBC.com or any other network’s website. YouTube is a place for the younger generation to express their individuality; it is the new commune, if you will. Void of adult influence, concern over FCC regulations and advertising needs, it is a place where individuals can express what they wish without external repercussions. It is the lack of corporate influence which makes it such a popular haven for youth identity.
Young people want to rebel; they want to feel like they are getting away with something. Mr. Zucker, in a company-wide town hall after his promotion to CEO (jacketless, in a very non-old world CEO manner), announced that he wanted to find a way to make money off of the NBC clips that become popular in digital formats. There is also constant talk of removing licensed material from the sight. That in it of itself might not be such a problem because it is their property to begin with. Furthermore, given its popularity with original programming, I’m sure the site doesn’t need licensed material to stay afloat. However I worry about the larger cultural implications of co-opting a medium such as YouTube. Yes, it is owned by Google, but Google is about as youth-centric and non-traditional as big business comes. And given the abundant supply of "alternative" programming, it remains untainted by "Big Business." During the 1950s and the 1960s when the youth were forging a new cultural identity, they did so independent of adult influence, and when the adults tried to come in and co-opt their ideas that pushed the rebellion even further. In universities when administrations attempted to negotiate with students, students refused and more often than not law enforcement was brought in to ease the tension. This of course sparked violence rather than subduing the uprising.
It must be mentioned that NBC does have its own, in house "rogue" digital studio which have come up with a number of "subversive" popular clips such as "The Easter Bunny Hates You." For the most part their "viral" videos for external sites (YouTube, MySpace and the like) don’t need a stamp of approval other than from the senior producer. Their funding does not come from NBC, which gives them a little freer reign than if their money did come from the company.
Individuals going to these alternative viewing sites don’t want their creativity and hard work to be moneymakers for big business. People have realized that they can take control of their viewing habits. DVR and TiVo allow people to avoid commercials, when they watch movies On Demand they don’t have previews to sit through, and when they watch the latest SNL clip on YouTube they can avoid all the non-funny content that the show provides at weekly at 11:30 PM.
All in all, history does repeat itself and any given generation’s youth will rebel against those who came before them. That rebellion generally comes in the form of gaining independence from an older generation they see as old-fashion and out of touch with their reality. Given that technology has become such a fundamental part of popular culture it is now a conduit for that rebellion. That being the case, it is imperative that that connection remains in the forefront of the minds of those in charge if they want to see their content continue to be a central part of pop-culture.
It must be noted that their revolution is slightly different. The implicit irony with the YouTube culture is that the people posting their videos are all hoping to get rich, and quick, banking on the reliability of our celebrity obsessed culture. So, while in the 1960s youths rebelled against material wealth, today’s youth are striving to achieve it. Their rebellion lies in the way in which it is obtained. It’s a well-known adage that if you rebel too much against your parents you’re going to turn into your grandparents. That holds true, to a certain extent, here. Just like their grandparents, the stuffy adults in the 1950s, today’s youths want money. However, unlike their elders, they really aren’t willing to work for it. They look to this new technology to gain instant popularity and immediate fame.
Nevertheless, there are blatant similarities between this generation and their parents. The parallels are in the need for individual expression of self versus the abhorrence of big corporations with strong material values. With YouTube, On-Demand television, and blogging, young people of today are reclaiming social media and making it their own. They insist on instant gratification with content, as they want to see it, not as someone else dictates. Nontraditional platforms are becoming more popular than conventional arenas for displaying content while "old-media" moguls struggle to catch up. Jeff Zucker, the recently appointed head of NBC Universal, has placed conquering the digital world at the top of his "To Do" list. Mr. Zucker probably has a strong understanding of television content and its cultural implications given his close relationship with television production. I hope he understands this youth-centric rebellious trend. The thing with trends, though, is that they are fleeting. Once big corporate America takes over, the youth will find another way to create their own counter culture. It is not a coincidence that people’s first stop on their digital viewing tour is going to be YouTube before NBC.com or any other network’s website. YouTube is a place for the younger generation to express their individuality; it is the new commune, if you will. Void of adult influence, concern over FCC regulations and advertising needs, it is a place where individuals can express what they wish without external repercussions. It is the lack of corporate influence which makes it such a popular haven for youth identity.
Young people want to rebel; they want to feel like they are getting away with something. Mr. Zucker, in a company-wide town hall after his promotion to CEO (jacketless, in a very non-old world CEO manner), announced that he wanted to find a way to make money off of the NBC clips that become popular in digital formats. There is also constant talk of removing licensed material from the sight. That in it of itself might not be such a problem because it is their property to begin with. Furthermore, given its popularity with original programming, I’m sure the site doesn’t need licensed material to stay afloat. However I worry about the larger cultural implications of co-opting a medium such as YouTube. Yes, it is owned by Google, but Google is about as youth-centric and non-traditional as big business comes. And given the abundant supply of "alternative" programming, it remains untainted by "Big Business." During the 1950s and the 1960s when the youth were forging a new cultural identity, they did so independent of adult influence, and when the adults tried to come in and co-opt their ideas that pushed the rebellion even further. In universities when administrations attempted to negotiate with students, students refused and more often than not law enforcement was brought in to ease the tension. This of course sparked violence rather than subduing the uprising.
It must be mentioned that NBC does have its own, in house "rogue" digital studio which have come up with a number of "subversive" popular clips such as "The Easter Bunny Hates You." For the most part their "viral" videos for external sites (YouTube, MySpace and the like) don’t need a stamp of approval other than from the senior producer. Their funding does not come from NBC, which gives them a little freer reign than if their money did come from the company.
Individuals going to these alternative viewing sites don’t want their creativity and hard work to be moneymakers for big business. People have realized that they can take control of their viewing habits. DVR and TiVo allow people to avoid commercials, when they watch movies On Demand they don’t have previews to sit through, and when they watch the latest SNL clip on YouTube they can avoid all the non-funny content that the show provides at weekly at 11:30 PM.
All in all, history does repeat itself and any given generation’s youth will rebel against those who came before them. That rebellion generally comes in the form of gaining independence from an older generation they see as old-fashion and out of touch with their reality. Given that technology has become such a fundamental part of popular culture it is now a conduit for that rebellion. That being the case, it is imperative that that connection remains in the forefront of the minds of those in charge if they want to see their content continue to be a central part of pop-culture.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Oscar Predictions
Here is the exchange on oscar predictions between my friend Eli and myself:
Eli's opinion:
Where to begin? Well the obvious place to start would be WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?!?! Leaving Dreamgirls out of the Best Picture nominations, and then giving it the most total noms (granted, 3 of them are for best song- which, BTW, Beyonce wasnt nominated despite having written at least part of it- she was nominated for the Golden Globe, after all). I will grant you that I didn't think Dreamgirls would actually WIN the Best Picture Oscar, but I think it should have at least been nominated. As for the other movies nominated, no real surprises there. I'd say it's really anybody's game at this point, but I'd go with 'The Departed' for Best Picture- unless Scorsese actually wins this time. In that case, look to 'Babel'.
On to the acting categories:
Lead Actor- I think they did a great job picking these. Though I am highly surprised that Leo wasnt nominated for The Departed- not even in a supporting role. I'm glad that Ryan Gosling was nominated. He seems to be very talented, but hasn't yet gotten his due. I think he could be a major player in the future. I would love to see Peter O'Toole win seeing as he has been nominated, (what, 8 times now?) and never won. And I would have loved to see Cohen nominated for Borat (at least he is nominated for adapted screenplay- which is strange considering a lot of it wasn't written. And what was it adapted from? The Ali G Show?). The probable winner will be Whitaker who has taken almost every major prize, tho at this point I would not be surprised if there was a major upset in this category- possibly O'Toole, but more probably DiCaprio to upset.
Lead Actress- This is a tight race too. The clear frontrunner for this category is Mirren, having won an Emmy 2 Golden Globes for playing queens, she certainly knows how to portray royalty. I am happy for Cruz, who has finally broken out of her usual 'sexpot' roles into something (supposedly) more substantial (I say 'supposedly' because I haven't actually seen the film yet). Each of the other three ladies nominated are amazing in their own rights. Kate winslet is something like 31 and has 5 Oscar noms? That's pretty amazing. Won't somebody just give her a damn Oscar already?! She will win it eventually, but not this year. Judi Dench is also supposed to be excellent in 'Scandal', but she's already won and Mirren's buzz is seemingly unstoppable. In my humble opinion, the only one who may stand a bit of a chance against her is Streep. She is just amazing- in everything she does. FOURTEEN OSCAR NOMINATIONS!! Unfortunately only 2 wins....She is due. It's been almost 25 years since she won last, and she turned a potentially throw-away role into something of substance. It's very rare for an actress to be nominated for Lead when the movie was a comedy (Diane Keaton in 'Something's Gotta Give' was the closest I can recall- and that's 2004- so that's 1 out of the past 15 nominations not including this year). Look to Mirren to win, Streep to upset.
Supporting Actor- I was completely and pleasantly surprised by the major changes from the Golden Globe awards. I'm sure you were not happy to see Nicholson not get a nom, but frankly, I didn't find his performance especially deserving of one. It's the usual Nicholson character- nothing new there. I kinda felt like 'been there, done that" while watching him. I am shocked that Brad Pitt didn't get a nom. He has been Hollywood's golden boy for a while now, and he delivered a wonderful performance. I'm glad that Mark Wahlberg was nominated- he was very good. However, I doubt he'll win the award. I haven't seen 'Little Children' and haven't heard anything as far as Haley's performance goes. In my mind, this is a 3-way race. Hounsou was amazing in 'Blood Diamond' and is certainly worthy of a nomination, as is Alan Arkin as the druggie-advice-giving grandpa in "Sunshine'. They are both wonderful in those movies, but I think Murphy's pulling off a dramatic role while most ppl only considered him a comedic actor could clinch the Oscar for him. He was wonderful as James 'Thunder' Earley in 'Dreamgirls' and definitely deserves to win. I think he'll win, though look to Hounsou as the possible upset.
Supporting Actress- The only change here from the Golden Globes was Emily Blunt from 'Prada' was passed over for Abigail Breslin in 'Sunshine'. It's unfortunate that 6 actresses couldn't be nominated, because I think Blunt deserved one for her witty performance in 'Prada', but I am very happy Breslin was nominated. She was excellent in 'Sunshine'- the one character which people cared for throughout the movie. I'm still deciding it that was because of her portrayal of the character or just how she's written, but either way it was a superb job. Though I'm glad she got nominated, I doubt she will win. Blanchett is great as usual, though I don't think the movie is big enough to earn her another Oscar. Both of the 'Babel' ladies were also wonderful- Kikuchi was fearless and Barraza was heart-wrenching and I think the nominations were well-deserved. As far as winning goes- I'd have to go with Hudson for her incredible DEBUT PERFORMANCE as Effie in 'Dreamgirls'. I have been listening to the soundtrack practically non-stop since I got it and I can't detect one false step she made. She still has work to do to become a major Hollywood player, but there's definitely potential, and nobody else pulled off nearly as moving a performance in the category. I'd say it's Hudson to win, with a minor chance of upset from Blanchett.
Director- If Scorsese doesn't win for 'The Departed' I don't think he'll ever win. The movie was very well directed. It's hard for me to decide this category since I have only seen that and 'Babel'- which rightly earned Inarritu a nom, but probably won't earn him the award. Paul Greengrass was a surprise, though I guess they wouldn't nominate Eastwood twice in the same category. I doubt Greengrass will win, though 'United 93' is supposed to be excellent. It's still too fresh for me to watch the movie, and I think that will affect at least a couple of Oscar voters as well. From what I've heard of 'The Queen', it is really Mirren's performance that stands out in that movie- nothing especially amazing aside from that. Doubtful he'll win. Eastwood, however, has proven to be an Academy favorite- having won 2 awards for 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Unforgiven'. He out did himself by making 2 complimentary movies. I doubt that this will be overlooked. The only hesitation I have is that neither of his movies were major box office hits, whereas 'The Departed' was. Look to Scorsese to win, Eastwood to upset.
My opinion:
Leading actor: Forrest Witaker is probably going to win the oscar, giving the immense buzz about his performance. I think his only real competition is Peter O'Toole, who has been nominated 8 times but never won. The academy have not traditionally given sympathy oscars (the aviator is the best example I can think of). If they dont think the performace is worthy, they wont give it the award no matter how old or accomplished the nominee is. Plus, they usually give the neglected an honorary lifetime acheivement thing instead. HOWEVER, that being said, O'Toole is an incredible actor and even though I havent seen Venus, Im sure he is amazing in it. I hope to see it before feb 25! I also think Leo might have a shot because he did such a good job in both of his movies so they might reward him for that, but unlikely.
Leading actress: Its going to be Helen Mirren, no doubt. Like you said, Meryl might get it, but given the award success she's already had, I am going to bet on Helen to win.
Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy, no doubt. He was great in Dreamgirls and he probably deserves it, but I would LOVE to see Alan Arkin win - he really stole every scene he was in. He brought an extra flair to Little Miss Sunshine, and while all the actors were fantastic, I think he was the strongest performer of the lot.
Supporting actress: Ok, so here is where we are going to disagree. I don't think Jennifer Hudson deserves the Oscar. There, I said it. I think she has an AMAZING voice and her singing was flawless. However, she is not an actress. Whenever she had a talking scene, especially the ones with Jamie Foxx, she made them all awkward. Whenever she had to kiss him it really just didnt work at all. During her songs she gave it her all and her emotion was there, but otherwise I don't think she was particularly outstanding. I would LOVE to see Abigail Breslin win the award, she was simply amazing and she was so intense in that role, especially during the difficult scenes. I think she should win, but she wont.
Director: Martin Scorcese, definitely. I think this could go back to the reference I made with O'Toole. However, the movie was great, the technical aspects were great and he is due. I agree with you that Frears could be the upset win, or possible perenial favorite Clint Eastwood, but I think that the lack of commercial success for either of his films this year could work against him.
Best Picture: First, I would like to address the Dreamgirls "scandal." It should not have been nominated, it's not oscar worthy. Technically it was just ok - the looping quality was very poor - it was SO obvious that they were lip syncing, the acting was ok (Beyonce sucks...but damn, did she look good!), and the script wasnt anything special either. The direction was pretty decent, and the songs were fun. The costumes were spectacular, except what they put poor Jennifer Hudson in. It would have been nice to see her in one dress that fit her. Also, as much as I love musicals, this one felt forced when the actors broke into song in the middle of the street. Also there was too much crossover between diagetic and nondiagetic music, it became distracting.
That being said...I think the departed should win. I loved that movie! Babel might be the upset win. However, one more push for Little Miss Sunshine: no one thought it would be nominated in major academy categories, so it might surprise everyone. Clearly the voters liked it and recognized it as a great movie, so who knows, that might sweep the night.
Eli's opinion:
Where to begin? Well the obvious place to start would be WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?!?! Leaving Dreamgirls out of the Best Picture nominations, and then giving it the most total noms (granted, 3 of them are for best song- which, BTW, Beyonce wasnt nominated despite having written at least part of it- she was nominated for the Golden Globe, after all). I will grant you that I didn't think Dreamgirls would actually WIN the Best Picture Oscar, but I think it should have at least been nominated. As for the other movies nominated, no real surprises there. I'd say it's really anybody's game at this point, but I'd go with 'The Departed' for Best Picture- unless Scorsese actually wins this time. In that case, look to 'Babel'.
On to the acting categories:
Lead Actor- I think they did a great job picking these. Though I am highly surprised that Leo wasnt nominated for The Departed- not even in a supporting role. I'm glad that Ryan Gosling was nominated. He seems to be very talented, but hasn't yet gotten his due. I think he could be a major player in the future. I would love to see Peter O'Toole win seeing as he has been nominated, (what, 8 times now?) and never won. And I would have loved to see Cohen nominated for Borat (at least he is nominated for adapted screenplay- which is strange considering a lot of it wasn't written. And what was it adapted from? The Ali G Show?). The probable winner will be Whitaker who has taken almost every major prize, tho at this point I would not be surprised if there was a major upset in this category- possibly O'Toole, but more probably DiCaprio to upset.
Lead Actress- This is a tight race too. The clear frontrunner for this category is Mirren, having won an Emmy 2 Golden Globes for playing queens, she certainly knows how to portray royalty. I am happy for Cruz, who has finally broken out of her usual 'sexpot' roles into something (supposedly) more substantial (I say 'supposedly' because I haven't actually seen the film yet). Each of the other three ladies nominated are amazing in their own rights. Kate winslet is something like 31 and has 5 Oscar noms? That's pretty amazing. Won't somebody just give her a damn Oscar already?! She will win it eventually, but not this year. Judi Dench is also supposed to be excellent in 'Scandal', but she's already won and Mirren's buzz is seemingly unstoppable. In my humble opinion, the only one who may stand a bit of a chance against her is Streep. She is just amazing- in everything she does. FOURTEEN OSCAR NOMINATIONS!! Unfortunately only 2 wins....She is due. It's been almost 25 years since she won last, and she turned a potentially throw-away role into something of substance. It's very rare for an actress to be nominated for Lead when the movie was a comedy (Diane Keaton in 'Something's Gotta Give' was the closest I can recall- and that's 2004- so that's 1 out of the past 15 nominations not including this year). Look to Mirren to win, Streep to upset.
Supporting Actor- I was completely and pleasantly surprised by the major changes from the Golden Globe awards. I'm sure you were not happy to see Nicholson not get a nom, but frankly, I didn't find his performance especially deserving of one. It's the usual Nicholson character- nothing new there. I kinda felt like 'been there, done that" while watching him. I am shocked that Brad Pitt didn't get a nom. He has been Hollywood's golden boy for a while now, and he delivered a wonderful performance. I'm glad that Mark Wahlberg was nominated- he was very good. However, I doubt he'll win the award. I haven't seen 'Little Children' and haven't heard anything as far as Haley's performance goes. In my mind, this is a 3-way race. Hounsou was amazing in 'Blood Diamond' and is certainly worthy of a nomination, as is Alan Arkin as the druggie-advice-giving grandpa in "Sunshine'. They are both wonderful in those movies, but I think Murphy's pulling off a dramatic role while most ppl only considered him a comedic actor could clinch the Oscar for him. He was wonderful as James 'Thunder' Earley in 'Dreamgirls' and definitely deserves to win. I think he'll win, though look to Hounsou as the possible upset.
Supporting Actress- The only change here from the Golden Globes was Emily Blunt from 'Prada' was passed over for Abigail Breslin in 'Sunshine'. It's unfortunate that 6 actresses couldn't be nominated, because I think Blunt deserved one for her witty performance in 'Prada', but I am very happy Breslin was nominated. She was excellent in 'Sunshine'- the one character which people cared for throughout the movie. I'm still deciding it that was because of her portrayal of the character or just how she's written, but either way it was a superb job. Though I'm glad she got nominated, I doubt she will win. Blanchett is great as usual, though I don't think the movie is big enough to earn her another Oscar. Both of the 'Babel' ladies were also wonderful- Kikuchi was fearless and Barraza was heart-wrenching and I think the nominations were well-deserved. As far as winning goes- I'd have to go with Hudson for her incredible DEBUT PERFORMANCE as Effie in 'Dreamgirls'. I have been listening to the soundtrack practically non-stop since I got it and I can't detect one false step she made. She still has work to do to become a major Hollywood player, but there's definitely potential, and nobody else pulled off nearly as moving a performance in the category. I'd say it's Hudson to win, with a minor chance of upset from Blanchett.
Director- If Scorsese doesn't win for 'The Departed' I don't think he'll ever win. The movie was very well directed. It's hard for me to decide this category since I have only seen that and 'Babel'- which rightly earned Inarritu a nom, but probably won't earn him the award. Paul Greengrass was a surprise, though I guess they wouldn't nominate Eastwood twice in the same category. I doubt Greengrass will win, though 'United 93' is supposed to be excellent. It's still too fresh for me to watch the movie, and I think that will affect at least a couple of Oscar voters as well. From what I've heard of 'The Queen', it is really Mirren's performance that stands out in that movie- nothing especially amazing aside from that. Doubtful he'll win. Eastwood, however, has proven to be an Academy favorite- having won 2 awards for 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Unforgiven'. He out did himself by making 2 complimentary movies. I doubt that this will be overlooked. The only hesitation I have is that neither of his movies were major box office hits, whereas 'The Departed' was. Look to Scorsese to win, Eastwood to upset.
My opinion:
Leading actor: Forrest Witaker is probably going to win the oscar, giving the immense buzz about his performance. I think his only real competition is Peter O'Toole, who has been nominated 8 times but never won. The academy have not traditionally given sympathy oscars (the aviator is the best example I can think of). If they dont think the performace is worthy, they wont give it the award no matter how old or accomplished the nominee is. Plus, they usually give the neglected an honorary lifetime acheivement thing instead. HOWEVER, that being said, O'Toole is an incredible actor and even though I havent seen Venus, Im sure he is amazing in it. I hope to see it before feb 25! I also think Leo might have a shot because he did such a good job in both of his movies so they might reward him for that, but unlikely.
Leading actress: Its going to be Helen Mirren, no doubt. Like you said, Meryl might get it, but given the award success she's already had, I am going to bet on Helen to win.
Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy, no doubt. He was great in Dreamgirls and he probably deserves it, but I would LOVE to see Alan Arkin win - he really stole every scene he was in. He brought an extra flair to Little Miss Sunshine, and while all the actors were fantastic, I think he was the strongest performer of the lot.
Supporting actress: Ok, so here is where we are going to disagree. I don't think Jennifer Hudson deserves the Oscar. There, I said it. I think she has an AMAZING voice and her singing was flawless. However, she is not an actress. Whenever she had a talking scene, especially the ones with Jamie Foxx, she made them all awkward. Whenever she had to kiss him it really just didnt work at all. During her songs she gave it her all and her emotion was there, but otherwise I don't think she was particularly outstanding. I would LOVE to see Abigail Breslin win the award, she was simply amazing and she was so intense in that role, especially during the difficult scenes. I think she should win, but she wont.
Director: Martin Scorcese, definitely. I think this could go back to the reference I made with O'Toole. However, the movie was great, the technical aspects were great and he is due. I agree with you that Frears could be the upset win, or possible perenial favorite Clint Eastwood, but I think that the lack of commercial success for either of his films this year could work against him.
Best Picture: First, I would like to address the Dreamgirls "scandal." It should not have been nominated, it's not oscar worthy. Technically it was just ok - the looping quality was very poor - it was SO obvious that they were lip syncing, the acting was ok (Beyonce sucks...but damn, did she look good!), and the script wasnt anything special either. The direction was pretty decent, and the songs were fun. The costumes were spectacular, except what they put poor Jennifer Hudson in. It would have been nice to see her in one dress that fit her. Also, as much as I love musicals, this one felt forced when the actors broke into song in the middle of the street. Also there was too much crossover between diagetic and nondiagetic music, it became distracting.
That being said...I think the departed should win. I loved that movie! Babel might be the upset win. However, one more push for Little Miss Sunshine: no one thought it would be nominated in major academy categories, so it might surprise everyone. Clearly the voters liked it and recognized it as a great movie, so who knows, that might sweep the night.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Enough Already! - 2/11/07
Enough Already!
February 11, 2007
I know that this blog is meant to be exclusively for film reviews, but due to recent events, a different kind of cultural review is in order. The event? The sad, but ultimately not shocking, death of Anna Nicole Smith. I know, it’s tragic. She suddenly died and no one knows why. Of course I would never want to minimize the sadness of another human’s death, but I have to say that the attention the news has given it is obsene. The media have gotten to a point of ridiculousness. When the news first broke that she passed out MSNBC covered her fall for what seemed like over a half an hour. I thought that was a little over the top, but it was nothing compared to the coverage her death got. MSNBC covered her death for over three hours! I would have kept monitoring it, but I had to go home. Three hours? Are you kidding me? Was there nothing else going on in the world at the time? Had world peace suddenly broken out? Were snowstorms no longer killing people in the Midwest? Apparently there was nothing more important going on in the world that it was necessary to show the same stock footage of Anna Nicole flouncing down red carpets and hamming it up for the camera. The anchors didn’t even have any new information to offer throughout this three-hour circus. They just kept repeating themselves over and over.
One thing I did notice was that they kept saying that her life was such a public spectacle, and now so is her death. Well now, who would be to blame for that? It’s one thing if MSNBC and all the other news networks were innocent of keeping her out of the spotlight, but they are not. Clearly there is no longer a blur between the lines of news and entertainment news, and that is a sad comment on our culture. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with entertainment news. I follow the gossip blogs, the trashy mags and I also watch the shows that are entirely devoted to covering this sort of nonsense. However, when I turn into the a news network, I should be able to get informed about the presidential candidates and the latest news from the war in Iraq. Apparently I shouldn’t have set my expectations so high.
Why did MSNBC insist on running this non-story for so long? Well, the only way to really figure that out would be to call up the GM, Dan Abrams, but I’m sure he wouldn’t talk to me, so instead I am left to speculate. My guess would be because of ratings. It is clear that in television, ratings are the number one goal. In the media saturated world we live in, cable news networks need to find a way to grab viewers so the more sensational the better. Apparently, the commitment to bringing the hard news to the American people takes a back seat to the stories that carry fun and exciting images. But the problem with that theory, especially when it comes to Anna Nicole, who really wants to watch that for so long? Presumably the people who tune into MSNBC are people who are interested in following "real" news and not the fluff they can soak up on Access Hollywood. So the fact that her story has been all over the network has been extremely frustrating and disappointing.
It is not only the cable channels that are to blame. The network news programs are also at fault for sensationalizing it. While the story wasn’t the first one mentioned by NBC, CBS, or ABC, more time was devoted to covering it than was the Iraq war. Maybe they figure that people are sick of hearing about the war and they need something else to spice up their nights, but whose fault is that for the people being bored with hearing the news? Maybe if we were given an all encompassing understanding of what was going on and not a fragmented picture of the news we might be more interested in hearing about it. We would be able to understand it and be interested in learning more about it. When you have to cut down the amount of time to talk about the war, politics, economy, health and education so we can fill up time with a piece about Anna Nicole, someone famous just for being famous, you know there is something wrong with your culture.
I know that there has been a lot of negative backlash against the news coverage, and I can only hope that the outcry has trickled over to the news rooms and they tone down the coverage of Smith’s death. I also hope that they realize that they should not pander to sensationalism and acknowledge that their viewers are interested in real, hard hitting news stories that will ultimately affect their lives.
February 11, 2007
I know that this blog is meant to be exclusively for film reviews, but due to recent events, a different kind of cultural review is in order. The event? The sad, but ultimately not shocking, death of Anna Nicole Smith. I know, it’s tragic. She suddenly died and no one knows why. Of course I would never want to minimize the sadness of another human’s death, but I have to say that the attention the news has given it is obsene. The media have gotten to a point of ridiculousness. When the news first broke that she passed out MSNBC covered her fall for what seemed like over a half an hour. I thought that was a little over the top, but it was nothing compared to the coverage her death got. MSNBC covered her death for over three hours! I would have kept monitoring it, but I had to go home. Three hours? Are you kidding me? Was there nothing else going on in the world at the time? Had world peace suddenly broken out? Were snowstorms no longer killing people in the Midwest? Apparently there was nothing more important going on in the world that it was necessary to show the same stock footage of Anna Nicole flouncing down red carpets and hamming it up for the camera. The anchors didn’t even have any new information to offer throughout this three-hour circus. They just kept repeating themselves over and over.
One thing I did notice was that they kept saying that her life was such a public spectacle, and now so is her death. Well now, who would be to blame for that? It’s one thing if MSNBC and all the other news networks were innocent of keeping her out of the spotlight, but they are not. Clearly there is no longer a blur between the lines of news and entertainment news, and that is a sad comment on our culture. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with entertainment news. I follow the gossip blogs, the trashy mags and I also watch the shows that are entirely devoted to covering this sort of nonsense. However, when I turn into the a news network, I should be able to get informed about the presidential candidates and the latest news from the war in Iraq. Apparently I shouldn’t have set my expectations so high.
Why did MSNBC insist on running this non-story for so long? Well, the only way to really figure that out would be to call up the GM, Dan Abrams, but I’m sure he wouldn’t talk to me, so instead I am left to speculate. My guess would be because of ratings. It is clear that in television, ratings are the number one goal. In the media saturated world we live in, cable news networks need to find a way to grab viewers so the more sensational the better. Apparently, the commitment to bringing the hard news to the American people takes a back seat to the stories that carry fun and exciting images. But the problem with that theory, especially when it comes to Anna Nicole, who really wants to watch that for so long? Presumably the people who tune into MSNBC are people who are interested in following "real" news and not the fluff they can soak up on Access Hollywood. So the fact that her story has been all over the network has been extremely frustrating and disappointing.
It is not only the cable channels that are to blame. The network news programs are also at fault for sensationalizing it. While the story wasn’t the first one mentioned by NBC, CBS, or ABC, more time was devoted to covering it than was the Iraq war. Maybe they figure that people are sick of hearing about the war and they need something else to spice up their nights, but whose fault is that for the people being bored with hearing the news? Maybe if we were given an all encompassing understanding of what was going on and not a fragmented picture of the news we might be more interested in hearing about it. We would be able to understand it and be interested in learning more about it. When you have to cut down the amount of time to talk about the war, politics, economy, health and education so we can fill up time with a piece about Anna Nicole, someone famous just for being famous, you know there is something wrong with your culture.
I know that there has been a lot of negative backlash against the news coverage, and I can only hope that the outcry has trickled over to the news rooms and they tone down the coverage of Smith’s death. I also hope that they realize that they should not pander to sensationalism and acknowledge that their viewers are interested in real, hard hitting news stories that will ultimately affect their lives.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Queen - 1/2/07
Royal Treatment
1/2/07
In Stephen Frear’s The Queen, he explores the relationship between the British people and their monarch during the week that followed the death of Princess Diana. The film follows the royal family, and specifically Queen Elizabeth II, as they refused to leave their vacation at Balmoral to return to Windsor to be with the mourning public. The movie includes many conversations between the Queen and her inferiors as they plead with her to return to London and appease the British people.
The strongest element of this movie is Mirren’s performance. Her depiction of The Queen has the strength to carry the entire film. She dissolved into her role, blurring all lines between the actress and her character. The conveys a sense of regality and urgency of her dilemma. The audience gets a real sense of her struggle between her traditions and remaining a relevant personality to her people.
Something important to note is that the title of the movie is The Queen, not Queen Elizabeth. In the closing credits Helen Mirren is listed as The Queen. This is very telling as conveys the sense that the movie is about the monarchy, not one monarch. As the Queen, Elizabeth is upholding the long standing traditions of the royal family and not pandering to a culture that lets all of its emotions hang out. Conversations between Elizabeth and the Queen Mum show that she would have done the same thing. The Queen Mum confirms that the role of the monarch is to be a constant force of uprightness and civility that won’t conform to changing social behaviors.
I found myself deeply absorbed in the movie, but afterwards I couldn’t help but think, other than Mirren’s performance, what does this film add to the cinematic landscape? All of the conversations are fictitious; we don’t actually know what happened behind closed doors. The audience watches Prince Charles argue with his mother about wanting to return to London, but there is no evidence that those conversations took place. Charles comes across in this film as completely useless and unable to stand up to and influence his mother, clearly traits not suited for a future king. But ultimately no one can be sure that these were his reactions to the death of his former wife and the mother of his children. It was almost frustrating at times because you expect this to be an "inside look" into a time that was so emotionally tumultuous, but you aren’t.
Another of the movies strengths, however, is how beautifully it highlights the struggle between old British stiff upper lip and the new sense of openness Diana exuded, both to her benefit and detriment. Diana’s fans wanted to see their monarch morning her the way they were and expressing her feelings the way Diana would have. Despite this, The Queen was simply unwilling to outwardly express sorrow or alter her traditions to fit the changing culture.
One particularly interesting cultural comment that this film makes is about the people’s potential power over the decisions over their leader. I did like the film’s depiction of a nation coming together to change the actions of of their leader. This movie is very much allegorical to the political atmosphere here in the US. Americans are constantly protesting President Bush’s war in Iraq and nothing seems to be changing. For The Queen to go against her traditions she would be breaking a centuries-old chain of customs, yet she acknowledged the importance of public opinion and values and ultimately acted on that realization. When it does come to convincing The Queen, the newly elected Tony Blair does it best. He appeals to her sense of country and her sense of duty by saying that her people need her in this time of need. Ultimately The Queen returns from her vacation home in Balmoral to her palace in London and is met by her grieving public. At this point she acknowledges their devotion to Diana (despite her protests that she was stripped of her HRH title) and that they wanted to see royal acknowledgement of her death. It is truly gratifying to see the power the people can hold over its leaders, and it is particularly moving to see it in this day and age.
1/2/07
In Stephen Frear’s The Queen, he explores the relationship between the British people and their monarch during the week that followed the death of Princess Diana. The film follows the royal family, and specifically Queen Elizabeth II, as they refused to leave their vacation at Balmoral to return to Windsor to be with the mourning public. The movie includes many conversations between the Queen and her inferiors as they plead with her to return to London and appease the British people.
The strongest element of this movie is Mirren’s performance. Her depiction of The Queen has the strength to carry the entire film. She dissolved into her role, blurring all lines between the actress and her character. The conveys a sense of regality and urgency of her dilemma. The audience gets a real sense of her struggle between her traditions and remaining a relevant personality to her people.
Something important to note is that the title of the movie is The Queen, not Queen Elizabeth. In the closing credits Helen Mirren is listed as The Queen. This is very telling as conveys the sense that the movie is about the monarchy, not one monarch. As the Queen, Elizabeth is upholding the long standing traditions of the royal family and not pandering to a culture that lets all of its emotions hang out. Conversations between Elizabeth and the Queen Mum show that she would have done the same thing. The Queen Mum confirms that the role of the monarch is to be a constant force of uprightness and civility that won’t conform to changing social behaviors.
I found myself deeply absorbed in the movie, but afterwards I couldn’t help but think, other than Mirren’s performance, what does this film add to the cinematic landscape? All of the conversations are fictitious; we don’t actually know what happened behind closed doors. The audience watches Prince Charles argue with his mother about wanting to return to London, but there is no evidence that those conversations took place. Charles comes across in this film as completely useless and unable to stand up to and influence his mother, clearly traits not suited for a future king. But ultimately no one can be sure that these were his reactions to the death of his former wife and the mother of his children. It was almost frustrating at times because you expect this to be an "inside look" into a time that was so emotionally tumultuous, but you aren’t.
Another of the movies strengths, however, is how beautifully it highlights the struggle between old British stiff upper lip and the new sense of openness Diana exuded, both to her benefit and detriment. Diana’s fans wanted to see their monarch morning her the way they were and expressing her feelings the way Diana would have. Despite this, The Queen was simply unwilling to outwardly express sorrow or alter her traditions to fit the changing culture.
One particularly interesting cultural comment that this film makes is about the people’s potential power over the decisions over their leader. I did like the film’s depiction of a nation coming together to change the actions of of their leader. This movie is very much allegorical to the political atmosphere here in the US. Americans are constantly protesting President Bush’s war in Iraq and nothing seems to be changing. For The Queen to go against her traditions she would be breaking a centuries-old chain of customs, yet she acknowledged the importance of public opinion and values and ultimately acted on that realization. When it does come to convincing The Queen, the newly elected Tony Blair does it best. He appeals to her sense of country and her sense of duty by saying that her people need her in this time of need. Ultimately The Queen returns from her vacation home in Balmoral to her palace in London and is met by her grieving public. At this point she acknowledges their devotion to Diana (despite her protests that she was stripped of her HRH title) and that they wanted to see royal acknowledgement of her death. It is truly gratifying to see the power the people can hold over its leaders, and it is particularly moving to see it in this day and age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)