Inspirational movie speeches

Movies are really only as strong as their scripts.  Often times, narrative story structures include an inspirational speech by one of the characters either right before or right after the climactic scene.  In this video 40 of these speeches have been mashed together.  There isn't enough time to hear all of the speeches, but these snippets offer a glimpse into them and brought a smile to my face and (almost) a tear to my eye.  I thought I'd share it here in case you'd like to watch it too.

Ides of March

Image source

George Clooney is the writer/director/producer of Ides of March, and has chosen to explore the dirty underbelly of politics and current events in his subject matter.  In this film Clooney plays Mike Morris, an idealist, energized, honest and down to earth governor hoping to win the democratic ticket in the primaries. Ryan Gosling is Stephen Meyers, Morris' idealistic, energized, honest and down to earth campaign strategist who finds himself privy to information which renders him unable to trust those around, his mentors, or even his own instincts.  Despite his best intentions to avoid it, he realizes that if he is to have any success in this field he must succumb and become a tool in the machine of political conniving and deception.

In the film, Morris turns out not to be the upstanding family man he portrays himself to be.  He is neither noble nor selfless and ultimately all of the pontificating he does about values proves to be lip service to the public so he can get what he wants.  He energizes crowds by saying what they want to hear, not what he believes in or what he intends to do. 

On basic level, March takes on the dishonesty of politicians and the lying and cheating they all do to get to the top.  In that sense it's an old story - politicians lie.  We all know that.  The interesting piece of this film, however, is when it's seen as an allegory to the current administration and leadership.  Morris is clearly meant to be an Obama figure (the imagery aligns him as such in almost every way down to the copycat iconic "Hope" poster).  Is this how Clooney has come to see Obama?  In the last 3-ish years of his presidency (even less if you stop counting when the script was written) has Obama become such a major failure that even his staunchest Hollywood supporter sees him nothing more than a liar?

Clooney has been an ardent supporter of President Obama and in this film he seems to be conveying his disappointment, possibly in Obama himself, but more likely in the political system as a whole.  Not to say that he believes that Obama has done some of the terrible things Morris has done to get to the top.  Rather it seems to be saying that no matter how impressive a candidate starts out as, they will inevitably disappoint they're supporters.  There is no nobility or altruism in this field and anyone who thinks otherwise will be disappointed. 

This film does a good job at depicting what could be a real life political cover-up and explains the inner-workings of campaign strategists and how they interact with the press and the campaign managers from other candidates.  A stellar cast rounds out the other supporting characters - Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood all shine in their roles bringing depth and life to their characters.  At times it seems some of the lengths they go to might not be plausible, but really I wouldn't put it past anyone running for office to be as sleazy as the movie makes them out to see, despite the shiny exterior.  And that's ultimately the message the film is going for.

Golden Globe Nominations

The Golden Globe nominations were announced this morning.  Here's the full list! 
What do you think of the nominations?  Anyone undeserving of a nod?  Anyone grossly neglected of recognition?  I'd love to hear what you think in the comments!!

Enjoy!

MOVIES
BEST PICTURE: DRAMA
“The Descendants”
“The Help”
“Hugo”
“The Ides of March”
“Moneyball”
“War Horse”
BEST PICTURE: COMEDY OR MUSICAL
“50/50”
“The Artist”
“Bridesmaids”
“Midnight in Paris”
“My Week With Marilyn”
BEST DIRECTOR
Woody Allen (“Midnight in Paris”)
George Clooney (“The Ides of March”)
Michel Hazanavicius (“The Artist”)
Alexander Payne (“The Descendants”)
Martin Scorsese (“Hugo”)
BEST ACTOR: DRAMA
George Clooney (“The Descendants”)
Leonardo Dicaprio (“J. Edgar”)
Michael Fassbender (“Shame”)
Ryan Gosling (“The Ides of March”)
Brad Pitt (“Moneyball”)
BEST ACTRESS: DRAMA
Glenn Close (“Albert Nobbs”)
Viola Davis (“The Help”)
Rooney Mara (“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”)
Meryl Streep (“The Iron Lady”)
Tilda Swinton (“We Need to Talk About Kevin”)
BEST ACTRESS: COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Jodie Foster (“Carnage”)
Charlize Theron (“Young Adult”)
Kristen Wiig (“Bridesmaids”)
Michelle Williams (“My Week With Marilyn”)
Kate Winslet (“Carnage”)
BEST ACTOR: COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Jean Dujardin (“The Artist”)
Brendan Gleeson (“The Guard”)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“50/50”)
Ryan Gosling (“Crazy, Stupid, Love”)
Owen Wilson (“Midnight in Paris”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo (“The Artist”)
Jessica Chastain (“The Help”)
Janet McTeer (“Albert Nobbs”)
Octavia Spencer (“The Help”)
Shailene Woodley (“The Descendants”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh (“My Week With Marilyn”)
Albert Brooks (“Drive”)
Jonah Hill (“Moneyball”)
Viggo Mortensen (“A Dangerous Method”)
Christopher Plummer (“Beginners”)
BEST ANIMATED FILM
“The Adventures of Tintin”
“Arthur Christmas”
“Cars 2”
“Puss in Boots”
“Rango”
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
“The Flowers Of War” (China)
“In The Land of Blood and Honey” (USA)
“The Kid With a Bike” (Belgium)
”A Separation” (Iran)
“The Skin I Live In” (Spain)
BEST SCREENPLAY
”The Artist”
“The Descendants”
“The Ides of March”
“Midnight in Paris”
“Moneyball”
TELEVISION
BEST ACTRESS, TV COMEDY
Laura Dern (“Enlightened”)
Zooey Deschanel (“New Girl”)
Tina Fey (“30 Rock”)
Laura Linney (“The Big C”)
Amy Poehler (“Parks and Recreation”)
BEST ACTRESS, TV DRAMA
Claire Danes (“Homeland”)
Mireille Enos (“The Killing”)
Julianna Margulies (“The Good Wife”)
Madeleine Stowe (“Revenge”)
Callie Thorne (“Necessary Roughness”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, TV SERIES, MINI-SERIES or MOVIE
Peter Dinklange (“Game of Thrones”)
Paul Giamatti (“Too Big to Fail”)
Guy Pearce (“Mildred Pierce”)
Tim Robbins (“Cinema Verite”)
Eric Stonestreet (“Modern Family”)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, TV SERIES, MINI-SERIES or MOVIE
Jessica Lange (“American Horror Story”)
Kelly Macdonald (“Boardwalk Empire”)
Maggie Smith (“Downton Abbey (Masterpiece)")
SofiaVegara (“Modern Family”)
Evan Rachel Wood (“Mildred Pierce”)
BEST ACTOR, TV COMEDY
Alec Baldwin (“30 Rock”)
David Duchovny (“Californication”)
Johnny Galecki (“The Big Bang Theory”)
Thomas Jane (“Hung”)
Matt LeBlanc (“Episodes”)
BEST COMEDY SERIES, TV
“Enlightened”
“Episodes”
“Glee”
“Modern Family”
“New Girl”

Melancholia

 **Fair warning, this review is quite involved and probably reads more like an essay, but I think, and hope, it offers some interesting insights.  Enjoy**

Image source

I was torn about going to see Melancholia.  Like for so many of my grandparents’ generation who love opera and classical music but found themselves struggling over whether they can listen to Wagner’s music knowing his political allegiances, I too was not particularly pleased with supporting someone who seems to want to bring Nazism back in vogue.  Director Lars Von Trier made some horrible comments at the Cannes Film Festival a number of months back which showed allegiance to the Nazi party and was declared “persona non grata” by the festival and general social outcast.  Nevertheless, as a scholar and fan of the movies and given the artistic noise the film has been making I made the decision that the art and the artist can be separated.  After all, as a student of the cinema I am a strong supporter of the old adage, “Trust the art, not the artist.”

Told almost as two separate movies, Melancholia introduces us to a world where another planet, a much larger one, is on a collision course with earth.  Subtitled "Part 1: Justine," the first half of the film is about a wedding.  Kirsten Dunst plays Justine, the daughter of two very dysfunctional parents who is marrying Michael (Alexander Skarsgaard), the seemingly most patient and loving man she could ask for.  He loves her tremendously and for the most part ignores her instabilities to be with her.  Justine suffers from manic depression, and even at her own wedding finds herself in a state of melancholy (no coincidence as we will see) and often sneaking off to just be alone.  The wedding is constantly being delayed due to her disappearances and her wealthy sister and brother-in-law who have funded the gala affair grow increasingly frustrated with the situation. 

The second half of the film, titled "Part 2: Claire," is told from the perspective of Justine's sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainesbourg).  A short amount of time has passed since the wedding and Justine has returned to her sister Claire’s house to live.  Her depression has worsened and she’s in a near catatonic state.  As the approaching planet nears, questions of whether the collision will actually occur still loom.  No one seems quite sure what will happen.

Image source

Von Trier creates an interesting aesthetic landscape for Melancholia.  The opening few minutes of the film are highly stylized and almost painting-like as they introduce us to the scenes of despair for some and peacefulness for others at the moment of impact while the rest of the film is the story of one family’s life in the weeks leading up to the collision.  These first images contextualize the impending situation, and while foreboding, does not offer simply a sense of doom.  They are beautiful images in which, often times, the subjects are arranged to directly mirror famous works of art and therefore evoke certain emotional responses.  For instance, one shot shows Justine lying in a shallow pool of water in her wedding dress holding a bouquet of flowers similar to John Everett Millais's 1852 painting Ophelia, which audiences are shown later in the film.  This mise en scene directly links Justine with another fated bride.  Often times throughout the entire film, Justine is found mirroring paintings or photographs on display.  This use of iconic imagery in the opening of the film offers audiences a opportunity to settle into the ideas that will become prevalent through the film: depression, ominousness, being trapped, relationships with the natural world all are conveyed through these scenes and are all important themes in the film.

Further, his mis en scene is also used to directly align Justine with the approaching planet.  On an emotional level, as Justine begins to exhibit emotional distance and melancholy the planet is still far away, scientists unsure of its meaning and path.  However, as it gets closer Justine's mood begins to worsen.  In one particularly striking scene Justine wakes up in the middle of the night and follows its light outside the house.  Her sister hears the noise and follows Justine outside.  In this scene Justine walks through Melancholia's light while Claire stands in line with the light of the moon.  Similar to the familiar heavenly body, Claire is stable and predictable.  Justine, however, is like Melancholia: erratic and has the potential to cause disaster.  However, as Justine does offer much comfort to her young nephew, if the collision does not occur, and just passes through, it also has the ability to offer great relief and beauty.  Moreover, the planet is further linked with Justine through its name.  Called “Melancholia,” it evokes the feelings and mental state which Justine cannot pull herself out of.  Even in what should be her most joyous time, her wedding, she cannot bring herself to be truly happy.  People constantly ask her if she’s happy and all she can do is simply nod and smile without having the true emotion behind it.  So too, Melancholia evokes a schism for people as they want to be able to appreciate the beauty and majesty of the planet, but also fear what pain it can cause.

Just like the orbiting planet, Justine represents a lack of control – the planet cannot be controlled by the scientists on earth, she can neither be controlled by her family nor can she control her mental state or her actions most of the time.  Her family tries to control her and make her just like them.  In the first speech at her wedding she is lauded by her boss as the best copywriter he’s ever had and even gives her a promotion as a wedding gift.  She is seemingly on her way to professional success, which, one would think, would bring her happiness.  However, as she reacts to most things which are supposed to make her happy, she rejects it.  She also recognizes that work will never satisfy her because work gives you money and money does not impress her.  At times her illness seems to give her clarity, but it alarms those around her.  Her sister warns her not to tell her new husband of her mental illness lest he leave her.  She should repress her true self to be more mainstream.  However, the more she represses this self the worse she gets, ultimately being unable to care for herself at all. 

Towards the end of the film Justine begins to exhibit odd, almost prophetic, abilities.  She’s completely at peace with the impending situation and offers some interesting advice to her panicked sister.  Stating that no one will miss earth when it’s gone, Justine feels calmed knowing that if earth were to be eradicated ultimately it will not matter because no one will be left to mourn for it.  Claire, on the other hand, is unhinged by this news fearing the possibility of death for her, but more importantly, her son.  The melancholy Justine had been suffering from at last offers her peace where others cannot be placated.

Image source

The question of outer space being the great unknown is nothing new, but I find it interesting that this year alone came two films about the existence of other planets whose existence directly and drastically impact life on earth.  Another Earth explored the issue of a mirror planet and the effects it has on the self.  Melancholia deals with the impact of a newly discovered planet offering a threat to our world.  In a year where the trend in filmmaking seems to be looking backwards, these two stand out as looking forward, but with trepidation and a sense of despair and an inability to do anything about the inevitable tragedy which is about to befall everything we know about our world.

Melancholia does not feel like a dystopic film.  As with typical dystopian films, this world has not broken into mass violence and warfare.  People are not rioting in the streets.  Rather, there is a quiet ominous and suspenseful feeling throughout the length of the narrative that despite best attempts to maintain order and understand the world, inevitably suffering will befall the planet due to nothing in our control.  This is of course rather ironic as the suffering we face as a global marketplace in reality is all due to the misanthropic deeds of man. 

The current economic situation and much of the pain and suffering on a macro level has come at the hands of man's greed and insistence of acquiring wealth.  In Melancholia not even excessive wealth can bring our characters happiness or peace.  John (Kiefer Sutherland), Claire’s husband, tells Justine that it was worth it for him to pay the high bill for her wedding as long as she promises to be happy.  She tries to tell him she is, but in truth is not.  In this literal sense, money cannot buy her happiness.  Furthermore, Claire and John live on an expansive estate, with gardens and stables and house-servants.  Yet despite all of this, all the money in the world cannot ensure ultimate happiness and stability should Melancholia collide with the earth.

In our reality, the greediness of people and a consumption-obsessed society has brought us to our knees and we saw how vulnerable as a society we are.  However, compared to a cosmic force beyond anyone’s control which could literally destroy the planet, this is nothing.  In Melancholia, nature is now working against human-kind seemingly through no fault of their own.  In this sense, this movie is a lot like Hitchcock’s The Birds.  There has been a lot of talk over what “The birds” represent.  In his book, Hitchcock's Films Revisited, Robin Wood writes that the birds don’t represent one idea – like communism or sickness, rather they are an embodiment of a general state of anxiety.  Similar to the 1960s, the whole world is anxious right now.  Economies are crumbling and wars are raging and no one quite knows what our future holds or what our world will look like when and if we emerge from this current situation.  The approaching planet is that anxiety.  Any fear or worry can be put onto that orbiting being as it threatens to wipe out our world.  So while human kind might not have literally caused this specific threat to society, the anxieties we've created are manifested into this natural disaster. 

Image source

Further, as Sigmund Freud discusses, as we repress fears and anxieties they don’t disappear.  Rather, they strengthen under the surface and ultimately return as a monster. The same theory can be applied here.  We are so consumed with controlling our environments and keeping order that the monster of being out of control is repressed more and more until it returns as something which cannot be controlled.  Further, as we as humans continue to neglect our planet and think our actions don’t have consequences regarding global warming, or that our wastefulness won’t impact the planet in the long run, we are simply taking for granted our environment and future generations will likely suffer due to our negligence.  This is another way in which Justine and nature are linked.  She was told to suppress her mental illness and act “normal” to keep her husband, to keep her job, and to keep her outward appearances mainstream.  We hide our garbage by burying it landfills or sending it out to space.  We might even recycle at times or close lights when we leave the room, but as a global society we are just keeping up appearances thinking that we can keep up this act without any fallout.  Justine and Melancholia tells us that that is not possible. 

While most of the films this year look back to remind us to learn from our pasts either to remind us of where we came from or as a warning to not let history repeat itself, this film is a warning of what the future can hold if we do not recognize and appreciate our world.  We must appreciate nature and recognize the direct link we as humans have with our environment.  We must understand the impact of our actions upon it if we expect to be cared for by it.  I think that’s the ultimate lesson of Melancholia, that we are not independent from our environments – both the natural environment and the other people we surround ourselves with.  We must care for, value and respect our relationships with both and taking anything for granted can have dire consequences.

History Repeats

I'm happy, even proud, to admit the only Fox News I watch is when Jon Stewart shows clips from the shows. I don't have a Nielsen box so even if I did watch they wouldn't get the rating points, but even still I can't bring myself to ever opt to watch it.  I also admit, although not for reasons of disdain but for reasons of boredom I don't watch C-Span or any other programs which cover congressional or senatorial sessions.  Recently The Daily Show did a couple of segments that featured Fox News and a senate session quite prominently that got me thinking about something that I thought was important to discuss.

First is Fox News' insistence on creating a so-called war on Christmas by individuals or companies who offer wishes of "happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" or "tree lighting" and not "Christmas tree lighting". Puh-lease!  As though this country would ever neglect Christmas. Aside from our innate Christianity, our capitalist nature would never allow for it lest profit margins decline. Fox News, you're just being narrow minded and evangelical just inciting conflict.  It it has to stop.

The second segment he did, and this is more significant, was on the senates recent proposal to pass a bill which would essentially disregard the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.  This bill would allow the courts to jail anyone who could be considered a terrorist or associated with a terrorist. The qualifications for "terrorist" include things from people who are missing fingers to anyone who has more that 7 days worth of food in their pantries. These are arbitrary and dangerous qualifications to base terrorist activities on and since its in the name of "keeping America safe" there has been little outrage over the fact that aside from the disregard of civil liberties, we are turning our backs on our Constitution, a document whose main objective was to protect the rights of our citizens, not to vilify them. 

I, however, am outraged and cannot believe we as Americans are refusing to learn from our past to recognize this dangerous path down which we are headed. A little over a half century ago senator Joseph McCarthy allowed the same fear mongering to go on in the name of catching communists. He accused anyone of anti-American activities and of being a communist, no matter how peripheral their connection was.  Ultimately, he was proven to have caused more harm than good for this country and history has not been kind to him. 

However, it's important to note that during his time, the time the country was in a large part behind him because they feared their freedoms to be at risk, despite the lives that would be ruined forever.  This was a dark spot on our modern history and one which should never be repeated.  The movie Good Night and Good Luck forewarned us of the potential of such unfortunate events repeating themselves and yet no one seems to have heeded the warning.

With all that is being said and done in the name of "protecting religion and our freedom" basic rights are being violated with little to no outcry over the utter irresponsibility of these actions.  The ideal of separation between church and state seems to be evolving more and more into "state dependent on church."  Enough trouble has been caused in this world based on religious extremism and the last thing we should be doing is following that model, albeit in a different manifestation.  We should be aware enough to learn from our national mistakes lest we fall prey to them again and allow history to unabashedly repeat itself.

Looking Backwards

I've noticed something about this season’s crop of high level, artistic, intellectual movies.  Many of them seem to be about the movies themselves or are simply nostalgic for the past and longing for a different era. 

Take a look at this:

The Muppets:  A movie whose success relies significantly on the nostalgia of long time fans revisiting a well-loved franchise from their youth.

Hugo: When the movies were, quite literally, magical.  Where movies are direct connections to our past.

My Week with Marilyn: A romantic time where movie stars were elusive and untouchable and where Hollywood was mysterious and sexy.

The Artist: About a time where the movies were still new and the medium was still developing.

J. Edgar is largely about looking back at our history to better understand our present.

Even The Descendants, while not about movies per se is about appreciating what you have before it’s gone. 

So what does this all mean? Why this insistence on looking backwards?  Is this what Americans are yearning for or is it what Hollywood thinks audiences are looking for?  Also interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be one front runner leading the pack.  Every year there seems to be a film which is a shoo-in for at least some of the top awards.  One film which captures the hearts of audiences and which people root for.  This year’s film pool doesn’t seem to have that.  Martin Scorsese’s Hugo might have some of that, but a lot of people are considering a children’s film even though it has begun to win some of the industry's top awards.

I propose that these movies all look to our past to help us, and implore us, to learn from it. We live in a world focused on the future: How do we fix things now?  Where are we going from here?  When will our current social and economic state improve?  How do we secure our future?  In all of these conversations there does not seem to be much of a concern for how we got here and how to possibly avoid history repeating itself.  These films teach us the importance of learning from and appreciating out history and from where we come.

Additionally, in these unsteady times, looking backwards can offer comfort and a feeling of security for a time gone by.  For two hours in a darkened theater we can be swept away by the flickering images on screen and be totally immersed in a time where things were better, or a time where the movies can make things seem better.  This is nothing new for Hollywood films which have traditionally offered respite for audiences in tough times.  Those times always seem better in retrospect because we know that we survived them.  Perhaps looking backwards gives us hope and confidence that we'll be able to once again emerge victorious. 

There is a danger in that, however.  We must not rest on our laurels allow this fantasy of assuming everything will be OK this time just because they worked out last time to make us complacent.  Things worked out because of the hard work and dedication of those who made an effort to enact change.  We also must remember that our history might seem so great back then because we looked at it through rose colored glasses and through images which look good on the big screen. 

The Artist

Image source

 In an age where movies seem to be shouting louder and louder to be heard in a cluttered and frenetic media landscape, it is a bold and daring move for director Michel Hazanavicius to make a black and white silent film.  The film is meant to hearken back to a day where film was a young art form, still in the early days where directors were learning intricacies mise en scene, the nuances montage can bring to a story, and where actors were still honing their craft in this medium still in its infancy.  This was a time where much of the techniques we take for granted today had not even yet invented.  Yet there is something to be said for revisiting this style and eliminating many of the external hype to make a film which focuses on the artistry of the medium. The Artist is aesthetically beautiful with great attention paid to costumes and set design.  If not for some of the recognizable actors, one might think it was actually made in the era about which the story is told.

The Artist is about George Valentin (Jean Dujardin who captures the puckish flair of an Errol Flynn), a mega star from the silent era.  He's a charismatic, charming, and well-loved actor in the height of the silent film's popularity until the talkies come in and he's rendered obsolete.  Not helping matters, he refuses to accept this new medium and is convinced his beloved silent films will continue to endure.

A young ingenue, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) with whom he had done a couple of projects and whom he had mentored to a degree, however, thrives with the new style and is propelled into stardom.  While she encourages him to adapt, George's pride doesn't allow him to accept the help and he continues to spiral down into his own self inflicted despair until he eventually accepts the fate of progression and parlays his talents and skills into a new era.

To a certain extent, The Artist is a retelling of Sunset Boulvard, but with a nicer and less crazy main character.  I kept expecting George to announce that he is still big and the pictures got small.  The difference ultimately is based on ones ability to adapt to changing surroundings. George was dangerously close to becoming a Norma Desmond 2.0 had Peppy not stepped in and brought him out of it, and had he not agreed.

 The aesthetic beauty of the film is both a strength and weakness of The Artist as it provides a beautiful visual landscape, yet ironically it undermines it's own message.  The irony of the movie is that it’s about the failure of someone who has the inability to adapt to a changing world.  So by making in the style that was long ago abandoned for technological achievements seems to go directly against the case it's trying to make by bringing this genre back.  In the end of the film George does learn to take his talents and apply them to a movie with sound, thereby evolving with the times.  Therefore the lesson seems to be to evolve or die.  Shouldn’t that message be provided in a movie that’s 3D Imax?  Teaching this through an antiquated art form seems a little incongruous.   Furthermore, one of the biggest reasons why this movie won't be seen is because it's a silent black and white film and most movie goers have no interest in that. As The Artist makes perfectly clear, no one wants to see silent films anymore; their message is directly oppositional to its own style.

Image source

The greatest strength of The Artist is its subtle grace and artistry of the film.  It's beautiful to watch, and really asks the audience to sit back and enjoy the aesthetic experiences.  While it's about evolution and adapting to modern times it also asks us to remember where film came from as an industry and, in an era where interesting characters and strong stories are often neglected to make way for showcasing technology, asks us to return to what has always been and what will always be the most important elements of film: the story and the characters.  No matter how great the technological achievements, it cannot alone carry a film.  The Artist makes it clear that the basic elements are still and will always be necessary.

Clocking in at over 2 hours, the movie is a little long, especially for a silent film.  It's not boring, but it's slow at times. I will say though that it's definitely worth seeing as not only are the characters dynamic and interesting, but it's a rare opportunity to see a silent black and white film made to mimic those which preceded it with the sensibilities and influences of nearly a century of filmmaking knowledge applied to it.

Hugo

Image source

It’s hard to believe that the Martin Scorsese, a director who is known for his bloody, violent films such as Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, and The Departed could also be responsible for something as sweet and tender as Hugo.  Yet, despite lacking some of the obvious  Scorsese hallmarks, a number of themes and motifs remain that are undoubtedly his and his excellence in story telling combined with what was clearly a passion project resulted in a magical adventure told through the eyes of a child, and in turn creates a childlike wonderment for audiences.

Hugo is about a young boy (Asa Butterfield in the titular role), no more than 11 years old in 1930s Paris, who, after his father (played by Jude Law in flashbacks) dies, is sent to live with his negligent drunk uncle in Paris’s train station.  His uncle is responsible for winding the clocks each day and teaches Hugo the trade.  When his uncle disappears on a drunken binge never to return, Hugo is left solely in charge of keeping the time in the train station.  Stealing food and other odds and ends to get by, he lives behind the walls of the train station fending for himself.  Hugo lives his life watching out at other people and observing the world from behind the giant clocks that loom over the station.  He cannot roam freely in station lest he be captured and sent to the orphanage, so he can merely watch from afar.   

The only item he has to remember his father by is a automaton, a mechanical man that he and his father were working on restoring together.  His father, a watchmaker by trade, taught Hugo about machines and a value to them beyond just gears and switches.  After his father’s death Hugo commits himself to fixing the automaton himself, not knowing what it will lead him to discover.  He steals little gears and knickknacks from wherever he can find them, most often from the toymaker’s booth. 

Image source

The toymaker is a crotchety old man (Ben Kingsley) is Georges Melies, a pioneer of not only the movies themselves, but of special effects.  Once a famed artist and maker of movies, Melies eventually falls out of fame and is left with nothing other than the toy store he runs in the train station.  Melies started his career as a magician and applied that sensibility to the cinema, creating some of the most whimsical short films of the early years of cinema, many of which still remain as among the most important in pioneering special effects in the movies.  None of this, of course, is known to Hugo who only sees him only as a miserable man stuck behind a booth full of novelty toys.  Hugo befriends his God-daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), and the pair bond over their shared love of adventure.  They seek out to discover the mystery behind Papa Georges' sour attitude and the meaning behind their shared connection to the automaton.

I don’t want to give away too much because watching the story unfold is a wonderful journey and I’m afraid if I say more it might ruin some of the charm of the film.  But I will say this: ultimately this film is a movie about movies.  Isabelle is fascinated by books, yet Hugo introduces her to the world of cinema.  For Hugo, and for all of us, movies are a means by which we remember and connect to our past.  It’s a way he can connect to his father, who introduced him to the medium.  It’s a way to be transported to other worlds and experience adventures one might never go on himself.  It’s a dream screen that, as Melies himself said, a way to watch our dreams unfold before our eyes in a totally conscious state.  

For Scorsese, film history and film preservation is a passion project.  He peppers this film with references, both direct and more subtle to the film pioneers and the importance of preserving their legacies.  The Lumiere brothers, Charlie Chaplin, Edwin S. Porter, Buster Keaton, and others all make appearances in one way or another in this movie.  Comments regarding how time has not been kind to old films refers to Scorsese’s tireless work in film preservation, bringing once lost and orphaned films back to life.  In Hugo, Scorsese treats us to some of these old films, some of which on the brink of extinction and now considered canonical in the study of film history. 

There is something interesting about the use of clocks as a reoccurring motif.  Hugo lives his life peering out from behind clocks.  Clocks are something which are looked upon to record the passage of time, as a pure function.  To Hugo, clocks are literally his life.  They’re where he lives, where he works, and where he connects to his father.  Hugo identifies with these machines, explaining that just as clocks and each of the individual dials and gears which go into making it have a defined purpose, so must he.  Everyone has a role in the world and it’s his responsibility to both discover and fulfill that role.  Only once he is able to emerge from behind the clocks and exist in the world with everyone else will he be able to truly understand his father's legacy and fulfill his purpose in the world.

Scorsese knows a thing or two about movie magic, and takes the lessons he's learned from Melies and applied it to this film.  Another visual motif he employs is one which has come into popularity recently.  This movie, similar to Sherlock Holmes or Wild Wild West, relies on the aesthetic sensibilities of Steampunk which is based in the Victorian age where steam was used to power machinery.  Steampunk has become a movement quickly emerging into greater popularity, especially aided by movies like these which bring it closer to the forefront.  The use of gears and a heavy reliance on machinery is the clear link to Steampunk and it's important here as it was really pioneered by Jules Verne in his book, 2000 Leagues Under the Sea.  Hugo even makes a direct reference to this book as a site of great adventure (and  Scorsese's wink to Steampunk aficionados).  The movie is all about adventure and excitement and using a Steampunk design is the perfect visual indicator to signify this idea.

Through the magic of movies, Hugo quite literally goes on one of his greatest adventures and ultimately finds the family which he thought he thought of which he would never once again be a part.  It’s a wonderful movie which fulfills the early film pioneers’ goals of transporting the audience to a magical place and taking them on a wondrous adventure. 

***UPDATE***

Video about Georges Melies on The BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16262815

The Muppets

Image Source

This Muppets movie, the first big screen feature film since 1999’s Muppets in Space, hit exactly the tone it should have. With the right amount of irreverentness, sarcasm and nostalgia, this movie comments on what it thinks we might have lost as a society, yet also allows for hope to creep in as well.

The story is about Gary (Jason Segel, who also co-wrote the movie), a simple and happy guy from Smalltown, USA who wants nothing more than to make his brother Walter happy. Walter has always been different from the rest of his family and a bit of a social outcast, but when he discovers the Muppets as a child he finds people just like him. (You see, Walter is a Muppet too.) So when Gary invites Walter along on his trip to LA with Mary, his long-time girlfriend (Amy Adams, perfectly casted in this sweet and charming role) so he can visit the Muppets studios and take a tour of the grounds, he’s absolutely elated.

What Walter finds when he arrives at the studios, however, is nothing like he expected. Abandoned, decrepit and all but forgotten, this once magical place of escapism and happiness now lays barren. While exploring Kermit’s office, Walter overhears a plot being hatched by the evil Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) who plans to level the studio to drill for oil. Tracking down Kermit the Frog, they decide the only way to stop Richman is to hold a Muppets variety show which will raise enough money to save the studio. The Muppets have been out of touch with one another for some time so along with Gary, Walter and Mary, Kermit sets out to regroup with his old friends and put on a show.

Peppered with tongue-in-cheek self-referentialisms and a strong awareness of its audience as both longtime and new fans, The Muppets, is adept at entertaining all groups of audiences who would enter the theater. From the one hand, Walter’s discovery of a group which is just like him and accepts him for who he is is perfect for this generation of kids who are dealing with issues of bullying and an overwhelming state of alienation. This is the younger generation who has not necessarily grown up on the Muppets but might have an idea of who they are just based on their general presence in popular culture. Walter has always been different and while he’s been able to find comfort in watching the Muppets through his TV screen, he only fully comes into his own and finds his true self once he has the opportunity to interact with them and create interpersonal connections and ultimately help them as well. This is interesting as so many of our interactions these days are done through a computer or smart phone screen and we often neglect the significance of interacting with people directly.

Secondly, the other group that this movie was made for and, not to mention, made by, are those of us who grew up on the Muppets. Spanning the 70s, 80s, and 90s, these furry creatures captured the hearts of thousands of Gen-Xers, Gen-Yers, and Millennials be it through the original show, movies, or even the Muppet Babies cartoon show.  They've popped up in youtube videos, in cameos on SNL and countless other occurrences.  It's no wonder that even those of us who might not have been huge fans of the originals (I know, blasphemy.  Sorry.), would not only want to see this movie but would hope for it to offer us a positive connection with our childhood.  Further, a lot of our pop-culture has roots in all things Muppet as now that those raised on this strong cultural force are responsible for creating the next generation of pop-culture. The fact that Segel was so passionate about bringing this project to fruition because he grew up as a fan of the show is telling of the power of the brand.

Further, as much as the movie was about Walter finding himself, it was also about Gary realizing what was truly important to him: making a life with Mary. Personally, one thing I got out of the film was that it reminded me of a time where priorities were less complicated. Where you knew what was right and wrong, in other words, childhood. Not to say we should completely regress to when we were kids, there's obviously a lot to be said about growing up, but maybe take a lesson from what was so much simpler back then and put our priorities into the right order.

The movie had me smiling from the first frame, bringing me back to when I used to watch the movies and TV shows. I loved the innocence of the narrative, the song and dance numbers and the cameos! This time of year the movies are all dark and challenging and vying for awards, so if you’re looking for some light fun, go see The Muppets. Leave all cynicism as the door, there’s no room for it in this movie. And if you can do that, you’ll enjoy enjoy yourself and the film.

Dark Shadows Insight

With the upcoming Dark Shadows movie now in production I thought I'd post this video clip of my grandfather, JJ Lupatkin, talking about his experiences working on the show.  He was the technical director of the original Dark Shadows TV show which ran on ABC from 1966-1971.  In addition to DS, over the course of his career he worked for at NBC in Studio 8H for the famed Arturo Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra, ABC's Wild World of Sports, All My Children and Live! With Regis and Kathy Lee.  My grandfather is the most modest person I know, and has never thought his contribution to television was important or significant to evolution of the medium.  As an engineer by trade, he mostly enjoyed his work as it was an opportunity to be challenged technically, never once caring for celebritydom or fame.  As a student of television and film I've tried to impress upon him just the impact he helped make, but he always rolls his eyes and just tells me that it's more important to be a good person.  In this clip you'll see how he approached his career, as he does everything in life, with passion, attention to detail, and pride.  Hopefully this will give you some insight into the roots of what will possibly be one of the blockbusters of 2012.

J. Edgar

Image Source

I had high expectations going in to see Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar.  Firstly because in my eyes Leo DiCaprio can do no wrong.  Sorry, I just have to admit to that bias up front.  And while Leo did come through, as this is probably one of his best performances to date, the rest of the film didn’t quite hold up to the expectations I’d set forth for it.  Secondly, given that it's an Eastwood vehicle and has gotten all the awards buzz that accompany movies, especially biopics with big names attached to them, I assumed it would be a masterpiece.

Told as a back and forth between flashbacks as an aging J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) dictates his life story to a revolving door of clerks and agents who have been charged with the task of typing up his tale.  We learn about his early life as a new agent to the department of justice and how he rose in the ranks of the department from young paranoid, arrogant clerk to old, paranoid, arrogant bureau chief.  The audience is supposed to be able to keep track of different timelines, mostly, by relying on the makeup used to age the characters.  This is pretty unfortunate because the makeup was horrific, resulting in most of the characters looking like burn victims rather than old people.  The story ends up being rather convoluted and the narrative structure is more complex that it really needs to be, which is unfortunate because had it been a little more delicately handled it probably could have worked.

The movie goes on a little longer than it probably needed to, but does tell the story of a man central to shaping the America we know today, so it is an important tale to tell.  What was troubling, as is often the case with biopics, is that the lines are blurred between fact and speculation.  It has been largely assumed that Hoover was a homosexual and was in a relationship with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his right hand man and close confident for decades.  I found it somewhat troubling that for something that's speculative at best, the film does its best to make you believe it was fact. While I recognize that this is commonplace with films that take on historical figures, it seemed overdone in this one.

One overarching theme that struck me as the most significant in this film is the focus it puts on Hoover’s insistence on keeping information.  To him, as he says outright, information is power.  Hoover was famous for his information collection and he would, as the movie makes clear, threaten anyone who he considered to not to be loyal or anti-American with the dissemination of the information.  In this film, and maybe he was, he comes across rather paranoid and over the top.  He even threatens Tolson, the man who has stayed by his side for years, when he accuses him of being less than honest.  Hoover's insistence on both national and personal loyalty was paramount and would not tolerate anything less.

This control of information, and the constant references to it in the film, seem to be a direct commentary on the state of our relationship with personal information in 2011.  Take the subject of another recent biopic, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the movie The Social Network.  He too is depicted as a paranoid and arrogant guy who prides himself on the control of information and will take anyone down should they prove to be anything less than up to his standards of loyalty.  However, the main difference with this character is that his goal is to share information.  Speaking on behalf of Facebook recently, his sister announced that anonymity on the internet is no longer available.  Your information and anything you post will be subject to public viewing. They positioned it not as something which should make you upset, but just the next phase in our social evolution; it's our new reality.  Initially people might have been shocked or horrified at this notion, but it hasn't kept people from posting minute detail of their lives online.  Oversharing and publicly putting any thought, picture, or comment on display for anyone with an internet connection.  So then, is Zuckerberg the anti-Hoover as he disseminates information to the masses?  Or is the next generation of Hoover as he too controls information but is simply moderating the sharing of information in this different world?

Additionally, another relationship with modern society seems to have been made clear through the Hoover’s commentary on those who are considered to be anti-American.  In those days the threat was communism, from both abroad and domestic.  From the film, it seems as though Hoover spent his entire career keeping the communist forces at bay to keep America safe.  The idea of protecting America is once again an important social issue nearly a century after Hoover began his work.  These days we have a different enemy, but similarly the threat comes from both from outside our borders and within as well.  Now, however, those doing the accusing seems to be any news outlet who wants to boost its ratings, not a genuine interest in protecting the country.  The important lesson we must learn from this historical repetition is to not be like an opportunist as was Senator Joseph McCarthy (so stated Hoover), but to protect the country in a meaningful way.  What is not helpful is the fever pitch that has become Fox News accusing anyone who doesn’t think like them of being anti-American.

Ultimately this film set out to tell an in depth story of a man who kept secrets.  Not only the secrets of countless Americans, but secrets of his own, and secrets he never wanted coming out.  Even some of the people closest to him, and there were not that many, didn't know the true J. Edgar Hoover.  It seems as though, despite Eastwood's best intentions, while we might get a glimpse into some of his dealings, neither will we.

The Descendants

Image Source

The Descendants is the latest George Clooney movie to be making Oscar noise (don't they all though?).  Coming quick off the heels of Ides of March, this vehicle is a departure from general Clooney-ness.  As seasoned movie-goers, we’ve become conditioned to expect to see him as often the charismatic and moral center of his films.  His characters always know what to say and can generally charm anyone he encounters.  Even when he’s not being the moral center (see Ides)¸he’s still in charge and knows how to handle any situation in which he’s placed.  It’s unusual seeing this side of Clooney, the clumsy, unsure of himself and a little paunchy, it’s nice to see that he’s actually a good actor and when he stretches his characters he can thrive in that setting as well. 

Set in Hawaii, Clooney is Matt King, a 4^th or 5^th generation Hawaiian whose wife is in a coma after suffering from a terrible head injury due to a boating accident.  While dealing with his wife’s current state and coming to terms with the fact that now he will have to take a more active role in his daughters’ lives, he also learns that his wife has been cheating on him.  To add to his stress level, in the coming days he will have to make a major decision regarding the sale of hundreds of acres of his family’s land on the island of Kauai.

Things all seem to pile on him at once, and unable to handle the pressure, this actor whose characters generally take things in stride, starts to crack.  In fact, Matt is someone who didn't take things in stride, he ignored them and brushed them under the rug, never wanting to deal with them.  In one particularly intense scene he starts screaming at his comatose wife, finally expressing the emotions he's been unable to share till this point. It's interesting to see this scene juxtaposed to the one when he says goodbye to her.  It's a cinematic treat seeing the character development of a character come full circle.  

As Matt is considering the sale of his family's land at the same time he is reconnecting to his daughters and coming to terms with his wife's ultimate demise, the relationship between the characters and the land is interesting.  While creating a sense of connection between the land that, as Matt admits, has come to him through nothing he’s actually done to deserve it.  Through learning to appreciate his family, the daughters who he fully admitted to being disconnected to, he also learns to appreciate this land, as is also a connection to his family.  As a parent he fully admits to being the "understudy," the parent who steps in only when his wife was unable.  Now he must take full responsibility for his daughters.  So too with the land he must accept responsibility for a property that was placed in his lap, a responsibility which is cannot neglect nor deny. 

The runaway stars of this film are the two young actresses who play the daughters.  Amara Miller is the precocious 10 year old who is more naïve than she wants you to believe.  The Secret Life of an American Teenager’s Shailene Woodley is the other daughter, Alexandra, the troublemaking 17 year old.  Alexandra’s drinking, swearing and general rebelliousness seems to be the cause of her dad’s abundance grey hair.  However, Alexandra becomes his confidant and the one person he learns to trust throughout this ordeal.  She is stronger and more mature than he ever appreciated and turns out to be the rock he can center this new life on.  Hers is a powerful performance and I’m sure we’ll be seeing more of her in the future.

As the first directorial effort from Alexander Payne since 2004’s Sideways, this film nonetheless has all the hallmarks of a Payne film.  Its aesthetics, dark, dry humor all point to Payne.  The film also shows a version of Hawaii rarely seen, and this seems to have been a very deliberate decision as it creates a sense of realism in an world which is so often considered anything but “real life.”  By setting this film in a place which is often expected to be idyllic and paradise-like the predicament in which the characters find themselves is made more universal and relatable.  As though to say, just because something looks great on the outside doesn’t mean to say there isn’t trouble there.  This also allows the audience to accept their situations as well.  Watching this film can be a lesson to us all that while we might think all our troubles are so dire and everyone else around us has it all figured out, that is not really the case and people are struggling just like us.  Just like Matt had to learn to appreciate his family, something he had begun to take for granted, only when something tragic occurred, so too should we learn from his mistakes and appreciate what we’ve got going on in our lives.

Relying on familiar tropes of, “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” and “appreciate what you have before it’s gone,” I pretty much was able to ascertain a sense of how the film was going to end.  There are some twists and turns, but overall the film pretty much holds to your expectations of how a troubled family will ultimately band together to handle a severe trauma and come to appreciate each other like never before.  

Hunger Games trailer 2.0

A few months ago Lionsgate came out with what they called a trailer for The Hunger Games.  It was more of a teaser and I was not a fan (as you can read about here).  However, I woke up this morning to a new, and this time legitimate, trailer featuring all of the main players along with providing a glimpse into what Panem and District 12 will look like.  The trailer pretty much spells out the first third of the book/movie, but I guess they figure most people who are going to see the movie have read the book so they want to give fans what they think want to see.  Nonetheless, the trailer looks awesome and even though I'm still not sold on all of the casting, I'm pretty psyched to see this movie!

Enjoy!

Modern Day Fairy Tales

The Fall TV landscape this season has two supernatural and fantastical dramas based on fairy tales.  ABC's Once Upon A Time and NBC's Grimm are narratives which rely on familiar tropes and themes that have been in public parlance for decades, if not centuries.  Additionally, in another couple of months there will also be two similarly themed films coming out, both telling the story of Snow White.  I find this intriguing, but it's nothing new to retell old stories, in fact it seems as though that's all Hollywood's been doing lately. But it feels like something deeper going on here.

Fairy tales are deeply cultural and reveal many social anxieties. I have not yet seen either Snow White film iterations so I cannot comment on those, but I have been watching both Grimm and Once and have had some thoughts on them. Allow me to indulge.

Image source

In Grimm, our protagonist is Nick Burckhardt (David Giuntoli), a detective who recently learns from his dying aunt that he comes from a long line of Grimms, essentially monster hunters.  He acknowledges and accepts his legacy and fate as he has recently realized that he has the ability to see beyond the human exterior many of these werewolves, "blutbads" and other creatures that have been hiding in plain sight as humans.  The show is unraveling as a case-of-the-week serial with an overarching mythology as he explores who he is and where he comes from.


Once is similarly fantastical, although narrates through two parallel story lines rather than one linear story. In one story line Snow White and Prince Charming are forced to send off their infant daughter to escape the wrath of the Evil Queen who wants to kidnap her and kill them.  To punish them the Queen enacts an evil spell which causes everyone to forget who they really are.  Concurrently, the parallel story is about a little boy name Henry who lives in "Storybrooke, Maine" and has discovered that the evil witch has exiled of the fairy tale characters, including Snow White, to storybook and has made them forget who they are.  This little boy is now tasked with ensuring his family and those around him remember their true selves (and ultimately fulfill their destinies).

Some questions to ask include why is self-discovery such an important theme of these shows and why are fairy tales the method in which they are delivered to audiences?  Further, why are they important messages to be imparting?

Image source

Fairy tales are centuries old stories, which, for generations, were passed down orally.  Secondly, they are usually lesson-laden. Often tales of warning and caution, they reach deep into our psyches about things we fear.  Traditionally offered to children as cautionary tales, these stories are being marketed to adults. Be it regarding kidnapping (Hansel and Gretel), mommy/daddy issues (Snow White, and any other stories with a wicked step-parent), and the list goes on.  What these shows seem to be conveying is the sense that as a society we are like vulnerable children: unsure as to our place in this world and what the future will hold.  However, unlike children, we adults do not have the wide-eyed naivete that our young counterparts do.  We do not need the warning that bad things are out there; we are all too aware of the unfortunate realities that lie out there for us.

Therefore, are we as a society being infantilized by being given these once child-oriented stories?  Or are we as adults craving the comforts of out childhoods by seeking out these recognizable stories? Generally familiar stories are like brands and have a built in audience as people know what they will be getting. Studio and network heads know this, but it seems like it's popularity is relying on something a little more. They have also been relatively successful in an otherwise disappointing fall TV-launch season, also garnering some of the biggest buzz.

Moreover, and I think this is probably closer to the heart of the meaning behind these shows, perhaps these stories are currently important for adults to see to teach them the dangers of being too confident and not heading warnings.  We live in a world where the mistakes of those who were supposed to be taking care of the financial well being of the "99%" have wreaked havoc and caused immense financial breakdowns.  However, it is also the social and economic responsibility of every day citizens to care for themselves and for others in times of need.  Perhaps that is the underlying lesson of these modern day retelling of fairy tales.

1960s TV Today

Image source

With Pan Am premiering this past Sunday night, the amount of shows which depict 1960s American in a highly nostalgic and stylized manner is now at three.  Along with Mad Men and The Playboy Club, these shows nostalgize and simplify an era that was extremely complicated on a number of levels. Politically and socially the country was in a time of major upheaval.  If we were to go by pop culture from the past 40 years or so, the 1960s seem like such a fun time with limitless drinking, great fashions, and sexual revolutionaries!  What fun!  Women were finding their voices and asserting themselves in what they thought would be a soon-to-be formerly male dominated world. The world was idealistic and excited for how they would emerge from the post-war era with free love and youth culture abounding. 

In fact, the decade was fraught with violence and uncertainty.  People who lived through it know that that this time was in fact was full of contradictions. Yes, all of the above is true, but in addition, student radicals fought for academic and political freedoms, the hippies tuned in, turned on and dropped out, and the yippies sought general anarchy.  By the end of the decade three major political leaders had been assassinated in cold blood, the Vietnam War continued to rage on, and harder drugs were beginning to take hold.  By 1970, the innocent and exciting naiveté the decade opened with had all but disappeared.

Nevertheless, pop culture and general parlance has decided that the 1960s was a better time that should be relived and revered.  Currently, Pan Am, Mad Men and Playboy Club all assert what the 1960s were like to millions of people and neglecting so much else. There are some mentions of the outside culture.  Mad Men did an episode where they mentioned that JFK was assassinated and Pan Am hints to the fact that Maggie (Christina Ricci) is someone who has radical tendencies.  But rarely do these realities of the outside world permeate the general narrative of the shows.

Image source

What I find the most interesting common thread that weaves through all of these shows is how gender roles are structured. Namely, how women are objectified and men are asserted as dominant and in control.  They all highlight the abject inequality of the sexes. And the one woman who is the most active in transcending these roles is Peggy in Mad Men, and she's characterized as a lesbian or bisexual.  In Mad Men, the men are the business leaders and the women are the sexualized. Peggy is not sexy at all; to be assertive, after all, is not sexy and must mean you have homosexual tendencies.  In The Playboy Club, men are businessmen, politicians, or gangsters and women are sexualized. In Pan Am, the men are idolized and heroic pilots or law men and the women are sexualized.

Additionally, all the men of power assert themselves by sleeping around.  This makes them sexier. Don Draper (Jon Ham) sleeps with anything that moves, neglecting his family and his marriage for filling his libido's needs. Nick Dalton (Eddie Cibrian) as an ongoing relationship with the head bunny and the stewardesses of Pan Am fly around the world sleeping with men who they think will care for them, but only realize they are being taken for fools when they meet the wives of these sleaze-balls.  For the women in all of these shows, what excited them the most is sleeping with men of power.  It feels as though it gives them power by proxy or they are able to attain a certain status based on the men they bed.  Either way, it’s still the men who have the control and the women who only have their sexuality at their disposal.

Another interesting message that all of these shows send is that of the idealization of the "man's man". This was an era where men were men and women were women; gender roles were clear and the men were at top because they are strong, successful and deserved to be there.  Women are generally frivolous and don't deserve a status of power.

So then, are the networks sending the message that this was a better time when gender roles were clear and defined?  So much else seems so idealized that why wouldn't this message extend to that as well?  For instance, in Pan Am flying is an actually enjoyable experience where the passengers were treated with respect and the airlines actually seemed to appreciate their business.  By associating these "better times" with the way gender roles were laid out, the two ideals are thereby aligned.

Image source

Pan Am tries to send the message that the stewardesses are the precursors to feminists as they are enlightened, independent women who know there is more to life than the roles they've been assigned by their parents and society.  It even asserts that these stewardesses are a result of natural selection as they have escaped their otherwise eminent futures of wives and homemakers.  True, they do have jobs which pay well and in which they get to see the world.  Nevertheless, they are still objectified and subordinate to males and their passengers.  From the strict regimenting of their uniforms (where Maggie was grounded for not wearing her girdle) to serving their pilots, the women, no matter how upwardly mobile the show wants to think, are still second class citizens.

The episode closes on a young girl watching with awe at the beautiful women in their neatly pressed uniforms and you can almost hear her thinking, "Mommy, that's what I want to be when I grow up."  They have chosen this life to see the world, but is it really a freedom or independence?  That image of the little girl directly contrasts the show’s open where a little boy is similarly staring at a plane about to take off.  The difference, however, is that he gets a nod from a pilot and gets excited about his future as such.  These don't seem like parallel hopes and dreams for the future to me. It's borderline offensive to pretend that these two dreams for the future are equal.

In fact, in many ways, this could not be further from the truth. Men and women, mostly in the younger generation were experimenting in all sorts of ways. Granted not all of these characters fall into the category of "youth" but they depict a rather narrow perspective of the era and don’t truly offer an honest perspective of the times. If the networks were really so keen on showing "the 60s" perhaps they should actually do so.

Ultimately TV is a revenue machine.  If a show doesn’t get the ratings it gets canned, no matter how good it is.  Programming (especially on network TV or basic cable) is a lot more consumable and relatable if the content is made more accessible.  The 1960s was a time of great change in this country, and is definitely one of the most important decades in our recent history.  It’s important to remember it as the complicated era it was and not simply what looks good on TV.

Follow @TheReelReviewer

Newsies!

Image source

Last week The Paper Mill Playhouse premiered its new stage version of the beloved Disney musical Newsies!  Complete with new songs and revamped characters, this show remains true to the original version while making way for nuances which give it a fresh feel.  There are a few character changes, most notably, Bryan Denton (who was originally played by Bill Pullman) is now a female character, Katherine Plumber and a love interest in Jack.  They've trimmed some of the excessive characters out as well.  For instance, we no longer meet David's family.  (This also cuts out any reference to David being Jewish). 

Definitely go see it.  If you liked the movie, you will really enjoy this production.  Alan Menken and Jack Feldman, who did the music and lyrics, respectively, for the original movie have returned for production and created new numbers for the stage version.  Not all of the new songs are up to par with old ones, like there is no need for Pulitzer to keep on singing, and now it feels like there is one to many ballads.  That being said, I should also mention that I am also having a hard time remaining objective in regards to the music because I hold the old songs so close to my heart. 

What was particularly interesting was how much the message of the story holds true today.  Telling the story of how Jack Kelly (Jeremy Jordan, soon coming to Broadway in Bonnie and Clyde) as he rallies his fellow newsies to strike against the greed of Joseph Pulitzer (John Dosset, who is one of those actors you've seen in a million things).  As a group, the newsies have to learn to stand up for themselves and fight for what they believe in.  They are the "little man" going up against the power hungry corporate interests that seem to be willing to stop at nothing to improve their bottom line numbers.  Sound familiar?  It's definitely a narrative which holds strong through today.

The play, more than the movie, also hammers home the idea that it is the responsibility of the youth to stand up and make a difference in their worlds.  This is a theme and a message not uncommon to youth oriented message films since the 1950s.  It's interesting that it still needs to be mentioned over and over, as if the world hasn't gotten it.  On the other hand, it's important that each generation finds new ways to get the message across in a way that's relevant to them.

Originally choreographed by Kenny Ortega (recently of High School Musical fame), the movie offered an impressive array of talent.  The play is nothing less.  The dancing is impressive and it builds on the foundational ground that the movie did.  Now, choreographer Christopher Gattelli does a good job incorporating much of the original dance moves, but also expands upon it and lets the cast members' talents really shine through.  It's truly an impressive feat of ballet, acrobatics, and definitely coordination. 

One thing that cannot go unmentioned is the set design.  Incorporating video backdrops to depict the city and their living conditions and screens to highlight text that the characters are reading or writing on newspapers, it changes the visual landscape that one might expect from a play and further aesthetically connects it with the original film while forging its own identity at the same time. 

What was great about going to see this show in a venue such as it's in, was that you truly felt like you were surrounded by fans.  People were mouthing along to the lyrics and when new plot twists were introduced there were collective gasps from the audience.  The energy in the theater was electric, and I'm sure, intimidating for the boys on stage.  But they pulled it off.  The show on a whole is a little rough around the edges, last night's performance was only their 6th, so it's understandable.  There were a couple of almost flubbed lined and tossed props occasionally dropped in the wrong places, but I could look past it.  Judging by the standing ovation and deafening applause at the end, most of the audience felt the same.  But for this to make it to Broadway, and I really hope it does, it will definitely have to be retooled some, but for the most part it was a great nod to a great Disney film which has, and continues to, live in the hearts for so many.

Newsies! runs at the Paper Mill Playouse until October 16. 

You can buy tickets here:
http://www.papermill.org/

You can watch clips here:
http://www.papermill.org/photovideo-gallery/video-gallery.html

Here's the clip from when they recently performed on The View: