Charlie Sheen is “Losing” but what does that say about us?

This afternoon, Deadline Hollywood reported that Charlie Sheen’s “planned "Violent Torpedo Of Truth" tour, featuring a 21-venue live show, still has plenty of tickets available and are by no means sold out as previously claimed. The show itself is supposed to be a 70-minute rant by Sheen aided by the audience, multimedia and a few of Sheen's ‘goddesses.’” My initial reaction was one of pride, impressed with the American public for realizing that Sheen is an incredibly ill individual who should be hospitalized rater than celebrated for his recent behavior.  Good for us for recognizing his need for help and we will not pay him any more heed until he gets better.

However, as I thought about it a bit more we probably don’t actually deserve this pat on the back for our good will.  His decline in popularity probably means something else entirely.  First, I think that that the initial shock of his actions have worn off and since he hasn’t done anything particularly crazy the American public have moved on.  He hasn’t held anyone hostage recently, gone on an insane media rampage, or coined any new ridiculous terms lately (bi-winning, anyone?)  It’s actually a sad state of affairs that in our heightened media landscape someone has to be constantly one-upping himself in crazy antics to retain the attention of the media. 

The second thing I began to think about relates to the first, it’s an idea I started to formulate a few weeks ago, and have named it “Media A.D.D.”  It refers to the fact that the media – and by that I primarily mean cable news and network news, but even print news is not innocent – is completely unable to multitask its story-telling.  An example of this is last Wednesday, when I woke up to a CNN email alert that Elizabeth Taylor had died.  This news, while albeit a big event and the loss of a talented actress considered by most to be Hollywood royalty, completely and utterly overshadowed the rest of the day’s news.  Another big event that day was a bus bombing in Jerusalem.  This bombing, the first one of its type in a half a decade, and one which killed one woman and injured 30 others, not to mention the implications it has for peace in that region should be something people are concerned about.  Even those with no ties directly to Israel, should have an appreciation for what an act like this means, especially as the rest of the Middle East seams to be imploding at the moment.  

It’s become painfully obvious that media coverage these days has actually nothing to do with getting audiences the information they need to be an informed citizen.  Rather, it has become a sensationalistic medium, barraging viewers with images that will grab their attention.  Stories will often run for hours without offering new information, or even images, even.  We’re sucked into what they have to offer, like children or puppies, totally mesmerized by nothing more than shiny objects.  With the only thing distracting us is a new shiny object, no more substantial, but just something to look at.

                    

Our collective “over-it-ness” with Charlie Sheen unfortunately has nothing to do with our disinterest in exploiting someone who should be receiving medical attention.  Rather, the sparkle from this particular “sheen” has simply worn off as we’re drawn to the next shiny object. 

Titular Moments

It's the moment I wait for in almost every movie, especially those with cryptic or non-obvious titles.  It's the titular line of the film.  The part of the screenplay where a character says the title outright.  This clip below is compilation of 81 titular lines from classic and not so classic movies.  Some of the meanings of the titles are more obvious than others, but, for me at least, I always feel like it's a very insider moment, when the director, screenwriter, or actors are sharing something with me.

How many of the movies below in the clip have you seen??
Enjoy!!

Jimmy Does Dylan

Jimmy Fallon, the newest pop-culture hero, takes on multiple generations in this amazing video.  LOVE LOVE LOVE

Art of the Title

Every movie and TV show has it: a title, or opening, sequence.  This video, put together by Art of the Title for SXSW this year, is a montage of the history of cinematic (and eventually TV) opening titles.  The opening to a film has long been a site of artistic potential, and a spot which often allows the director to set the tone for the entire film.  Psycho’s opening title is broken and disjointed; Juno’s is free-spirited and whimsical.  Despite it’s prevalence, in the world of cinematic criticism and has traditionally been overlooked as a place where meaning can be drawn.  This montage, putting so many iconic opening sequences together, shows that in-fact it’s an important part of the film. 

Furthermore, the presence of television opening sequences is interesting in this montage.  TV openings have always been a big part of the show (just think about how All in the Family or Friends’ openers became so iconic of their eras).  However with the advent of DVR, for many TV shows, there has been a move from extended opening sequences.  Shows today often try to grab the viewers’ attention quickly by giving them the information they need while also not really giving them enough time to fast forward through them.  Interestingly, the television opening titles that are highlighted here are a mainly from shows which air on premium cable and therefore DVR fast forwarding is relatively a non-issue (Six Feet Under, Dexter).  They are also of high artistic value.  Take Dexter for instance.  The show runners decided to use the opening sequence to introduce audiences to Dexter’s character and the dark side of his personality by showing him during his morning routine, doing things anyone else might do.  The direction of the opening however, alerts the audience to a much darker side of him. 

This montage is a fun and interesting way to honor and respect this rich aspect of our film history.  Enjoy! 

A Brief History of Title Design from Ian Albinson on Vimeo.

Glee

Image from TVSquad.com

We Like You Just The Way You Are
3/11/11

I am proud to admit that I was a full blown Gleek from the first episode back in the Spring of 2009.  I was drawn to the music, the characters, and the general camp that the show brought to television landscape.  High School shows are nothing new, but this narrative has been offering something different from the rest of them.  Glee is able to tell the stories of kids today, and all the issues they face, in a relatively realistic fashion (minus the whole breaking out into choreographed song and dance) while also being mainstream.  Historically, High School-based shows have not managed to be both commercially successful and positive messaging.  Consider the shows I grew up on that took place in high school like Saved by the Bell, where the very special episode was where Jesse was addicted to caffeine pills.  That show achieved huge commercial success, spawned multiple iterations from middle school to high school versions and eventually to the college years, and it still has legs today through reruns and a general presence in the zeitgeist.  Existing on the other end of the spectrum are shows like Freaks and Geeks and My So Called Life, which had decent cult followings but only existed for one or two seasons.  While they haven’t completely fallen off the pop cultural radar, are definitely not as pervasive as the more commercially successful shows.

Maybe it’s through its use of music, its realistic, relatable and ultimately positive characters, or true to life stories that Glee has emerged as a pop-culture phenomenon.  Whatever it is, audiences are drawn to Glee more than just Tuesday nights at nine.  In two short seasons it’s become an awards darling, spawned a concert series, 5 albums so far, and even a whole line of make-up and nail polish at Sephora.  People can’t get enough of this show about underdogs who stand up for themselves and create a world where they have value and aren’t picked on just because the greater society doesn’t have a place for them to neatly fit into.

The show offers a chance for underdog to have a voice.  It tells the stories that are relevant to today’s youth, and frankly, pretty much everyone.  But while watching this week’s show I started getting annoyed.  Now I know I shouldn’t let ultimately petty things get to me, but I couldn’t help it.  What was this offensive behavior you ask?  Well, 2 things.  First, I would just like to say, will Gwyneth Paltrow please go away.  We know you act, and now apparently you sing, but really a show about outsiders and underdogs is really not a place that you fit in.  And, if we’re being completely honest, you’re singing isn’t all that great to warrant a return to the show with three solo acts.  I get it that the version of Forget You that you sang with Cee Lo Green apparently gave you license to appear on the Grammys, record the song, and now get a music contract, but really, go away.  You should know that this musical moment you’re having is just our overhyped pop culture and marketing culture trying to squeeze any last dime out of you it can.  Ironically, Glee is about the outcasts trying to fit in with the cool kids and Gweny’s appearance made her seem like the cool kid trying to be nerdy to fit in with the cool crowd cuz she’s already alienated everyone else.  Over. It.

The second part of this commentary is a sort of open letter to Glee.  Consider this me, begging and a pleading with you to not jump the shark.  Glee, you have managed to provide just the right amount of camp, never going too far overboard (even when you did the Rocky Horror Picture Show, the movie that just about defined camp, you kept it on the level).  However, I fear that you feel like you need to keep pushing the envelope to see how far you can take the show.  Just like the kids on the show, you are great just the way you are.  Don’t feel like you need to attract big celebrity names to make the show better, you don’t.  And, for the record, I am not putting John Stamos in that category, he’s awesome.  Another suggestion, please don’t start going too nutty with the musical numbers (this week’s spontaneous foam dance got too close for comfort on that one).  We can get on board when the characters break into song, and even when they seem to instantly change costumes mid-performance.  Just don’t make things too crazy or you will alienate your viewers.

What’s reassuring is that Glee still does have all the heart and soul it always did – like the exchange Kurt and his dad had about sex and Santana’s honesty with herself and then with Brittany.  Glee manages to be both mainstream and subversive at the same time.  Challenging social taboos and bringing to light cultural issues that are relevant today is something Glee has always done, and always done well, and I just hope it stays the course.

The Way We Were

Image from Amazon.com

Are We Still this Way?
3/6/11

Ask any female of a certain baby boomer age and she’s likely to tell you that The Way We Were was the ultimate chick flick of its era. Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford are gorgeous in this film, so if nothing else, just watching them is a joy. I’m also impressed by how well the story holds up. It’s a love story through the decades, beginning when the couple meets in college when Katie (Streisand) is a brainy anti-fascist student activist and Hubble (Redford) is a popular jock. Katie has fallen hard for Hubble, not even because of his striking good looks, but because of his intellectual acumen. Nothing really comes of their relationship until the two meet again about 5 years later when she’s working in Manhattan and he’s a sailor on leave.

Now, the year is around 1942 and I wonder how probable it was to have a 20-something single woman living in a one bedroom apartment holding down three or so jobs. This movie came out in 1973, during the height of the women’s lib era and it’s hard to tell if that’s a retrospective assertion on what should have been likely, or if it could actually have been the case. I was probably more distracted by that question than I should have, but nonetheless, that’s where the story went.

It is at this point when their relationship comes to fruition. However, it is not without its problems. Katie continues to be outspoken on almost every issue, causing tensions with Hubble’s friends. Eventually he has enough of it and ends things with Katie. They ultimately reconcile under the conditions that she will learn to let things go and won’t turn everything into a fight. Despite the conditions, Katie and Hubble form a contentious but passionate relationship which ultimately leads to marriage and a move out west to Hollywood where Hubble can pursue his interest in being a Hollywood screenwriter. During a protest at the trial for the “Hollywood 10” Katie can’t keep her true self contained anymore and releases her rage on the situation and the injustices being served. Hubble, a screenwriter at this point and has some obvious ulterior motives of not wanting to draw too much attention to himself during this contentious era, does not agree with Katie on this particular topic. They come to realize that despite their passion for one another they cannot get past the fundamental difference that she is a pot-stirrer while he is a status quo kinda guy. The pair splits and Katie returns to New York to resume her activist life where she left it.

I found this story to be so sad because even though they loved each other and had so much passion for one another, they were not good for each other. Hubble wanted to have the quiet WASPy wife who wouldn’t shake things up too much and just go with the things as they were. He is the go with the flow guy without and while he’s very smart, no particularly strong passions other than the desire please people. There is no real reason that these two should have been drawn to one another. It’s made clear that Katie has a strong physical attraction to him, but other than that and she is impressed by how bright he is, but often looses patience with him for not insisting on following any sort of passion for his talent. He is initially impressed with her passion for ensuring justice is served, but eventually that fades into a frustration for her insisting to make an issue out of everything. Eventually, these two really had no business being together other than the fact that they simply loved one another, and once they realized it was no longer working, they ended the relationship. It just goes to show that love can only last so long without any other commonalities.

What I also found interesting on a cultural level is that there was a lot of mention of the fact that Katie was Jewish and Hubble was “Goyish.” Katie, in many regards, is a stereotypical image of a Jewish person as intellectual, outspoken and opinionated. It was because of these character traits that she and Hubble had so much turmoil in their relationship. By the end of the film, when the pair is no longer together, we find that Katie has remarried a “David X. Cohen,” obviously a Jew, and has found what seems like will be a lasting happy marriage. It seems as though the only person who could not only tolerate her opinionated and outspoken nature, but can match it as well is another Jewish person; as if this is a Jewish-specific character trait. Ironic that a love story about two people from very different backgrounds that sets off to send a message about assimilation ends up reaffirming the reasons not to.

Truly a product of its time, the message of this movie is also not for a woman to learn her place and quiet down to get a man. She can be as strong as she wants to be, and it is the man who needs to learn to be with her. If he is unable to be with her, she will move on and not relinquish her passions to be with her supposed dream-guy. At the end of the film Katie and Hubble run into each other one last time. This is when we learn that Katie has remarried and we briefly meet Hubble’s new “girl.” Nameless to the audience, this new girl does not speak one word, but clings closely to him when she observes the passion in his eyes upon seeing Katie once more. Katie’s like a drug for him: he knows she’s bad for him, but he’s drawn to her nonetheless. That spark will always be there, which makes the ending even more tragic. They never fell out of love, they just couldn’t survive it.

The movie definitely holds up today, almost 40 years after first coming out: as long as opposites attract this story will resonate with audiences.

The Fighter

Image from IMDB.com

Fighting for His Life
3/5/11


Boxing movies is nothing new to the cinematic landscape. It’s also not new to awards bait. From Rocky to Million Dollar Baby and now The Fighter. What is it about this genre that is so appealing to people? For the most part these movies rely on a very similar plot structure – protagonist is generally from a poor neighborhood with a somewhat unsavory home life who finds boxing as a way to overcome their less than favorable upbringings. They literally have to fight their ways out of their situations to claim a valuable spot in society. At its soul its essentially retellings of the American Dream story. The Fighter fits nicely into this mold and what’s most interesting is that these stories, no matter how repetitive they seem to be, continue to capture the fascination and interest of American audiences. Further, with each iteration, there seems to be added messages in each new film that emerges.

The movie is about half-brothers Dick Ecklund (Christian Bale) and Micky Ward (Mark Whalberg), two boxers, Dicky the has-been and Micky the rising star. They are 2 working class guys from a large Irish family in the Boston suburb of Lowell, Mass. That’s what it’s about in the simplest sense, but what gives this movie a little more is all the extras director David O. Russell put into it. So much more than just a simple plot driven story about 2 poor kids overcoming their upbringing, The Fighter is about a family struggling to stay together in the face of many challenges.

The movie opens on Dicky dragging his brother through the streets of Lowell while he preens and brags about the HBO film that he says is being made about him and his comeback. He’s training Micky to be a great fighter, but as far as Dicky is concerned, however great of a fighter Micky becomes it will all be because of him. Micky looks up to his older brother and does not have the heart to leave him for another trainer and on some level truly believes that his brother will make him a great fighter. Micky passively goes through life allowing his brother and his mother (Melissa Leo) to dictate his every move. Mother Alice, always surrounded by her cadre of her seven spinster (and ugly as hell) daughters, is not only the matriarch of this family, but uncontested top dog. She is her sons’ manager and bookie and has a death-tight grip on her youngest son and he doesn’t have the strength to combat her. It’s not until Micky meets Charlene (Amy Adams), a rough talking a no bullshit taking bartender, that he has someone who actually is interested in helping him stand up for his own needs.

There are a few elements of this film that really stood out to me. First of all, the roles the women have in this story are profound. The two leading women in this film were both nominated for Oscars, and rightly so. Melissa Leo as the fiercely aggressive mother who will stop at nothing to get her sons where she wants them to be is an interesting portraits of a mother’s love. Her character forces us to ask how far is too far? And at what point do the lines blur between wanting the best for your child and wanting the best for yourself? Her sons were her meal ticket out of the poor existence she has been living for what seems like her entire life. Her rule over her sons is challenged when Charlene comes into the picture. She’s equally as strong as Alice, and loves Micky very much but in very different ways. She sees Micky for what he is – and that’s not just a tool of his mother’s control. She wants him to be great to fulfill his potential, not so he can be a meal ticket out of Lowell for his family.

As mentioned at the top of this review, The Fighter is the ultimate in the reaffirmation of the American Dream. The Ward family is poor, working class, at the bottom of the social barrel living in a poor, but proud, town. I’m always fascinated with movies that take place in Boston because rarely is the geographical setting merely by happenstance. What I mean by this is whether the movie takes place in Southie, Cambridge, Charlestown or Lowell, the city in which the characters inhabit is almost always another character in the film, or at the very least, a central part of the plot. While it’s a reality that Ward family is from Lowell, it acts as an interesting narrative point as well. Lowell, Mass is famous for being the birthplace of the industrial revolution. It was a mill town that made a lot of people very rich. The only people who did not get rich were the actual residents of Lowell, the ones doing the hard labor. And in an almost ironic twist of history, it’s become the town that got left behind. Dicky, in many ways, is the anthropomorphic embodiment of his hometown. He started his career with so much promise, and had one great success, but eventually hit rock bottom and couldn’t pull himself out of it.

The resolution for the character could only come with redemption. For Dicky, it is only once he saw he landed in jail and was forced to get sober did he realize just the depths of his addiction and how it had hurt so many people he loved. Micky needed to break free from his mother’s grip and his brother’s delusions of grandeur to be able to reach his true potential. In the surest sense, this is the promise of the American Dream, the ability to break free from your proscribed place in society to reach unimagined heights. It’s a message that we as a society have been telling ourselves and striving to attain for centuries. It seems that in 2011it is still as strong as ever as Hollywood, our “dream factory,” continues to perpetuate.

American Idiot

Are we all American idiots?
3/2/11

Image from AmericanIdiotonBroadway.com

I know this is a film blog, but I just got home from seeing American Idiot on Broadway, and I felt compelled to write about it. So many of the themes resonate with American pop-culture, both in theater and in film. I hope you like it.

American Idiot comes to us from the Green Day album by the same name. It opens with the titular song and an array of young people singing about how the media controls peoples actions and those people in turn blindly follow the lead of the media. Lyrics such as “I'm not a part of a redneck agenda. Now everybody do the propaganda. And sing along to the age of paranoia… Don't want to be an American idiot.  One nation controlled by the media. Information age of hysteria…” open the musical as both a call to action and a refusal to succumb to the mass media and society’s expectations.

The plot develops around three young men who, all feeling the need to escape, do so in ways that make the most sense to them. Billy finds out his girlfriend is pregnant and takes the responsible route and stays at home with her. Tunny joins the army and Johnny turns to hard drugs. Despite their varied approaches to finding meaning in life, none seem to succeed. All Billy does at home is drink and get high, Tunny gets his leg blown off, and Johnny escapes into a black hole of drug, being egged on by his new “friend” St. Jimmy. These three men all go their own ways to create a meaningful world for themselves, yet none end up happy.

I found this play to be very interesting on a number of levels. First, I find the parallels between it and Hair quite similar. Both tell the stories of disaffected youth rebelling against their families and the government. It’s interesting that in the 40 decades that separate these two musicals, they both ended up on Broadway at the same time (Hair in a revival and American Idiot in its debut). It’s also interesting to see that while there are definite differences, so many of their themes are strikingly similar. Have we really not evolved that much as a society that the young people are still hating it? Or is it just something that “the youth” will always feel? Starting in the 1950s youth rebellion emerged into the public sphere when James Dean yelled at his parents, “You’re tearing me apart!” in 1955’s Rebel without a Cause. Have we as a society spent the last half a century continuing to do just that to the youth in this country?

If the three main characters represent the three paths available in life, the play presents a rather futile existence to audiences. Even when Johnny is able to break away from his drug habit and take on a “responsible” job he feels more trapped and doomed for death than he did when he was lying on the floor drugged out of his mind. And what about Johnny? He did what he thought was the responsible thing and stayed home to be the dad to his child, but he found himself resenting his girlfriend and their situation. When she finally leaves him he laments “Nobody likes you/Everyone left you/They're all out without you/Having fun.” The grass is always greener. Little does he know that his two best friends are equally as miserable as he is.

One striking similarity between American Idiot and Hair is the relationship both the plot and the characters have to the war. Both works emerged during a time when American was fighting an unpopular war, however the main difference is that in the 1960s the young people were being drafted and forced to fight in a war they saw as unjust while in today’s war there is no draft and soldiers are going off to fight for a whole plethora of reasons which I am not about to assume to understand. That difference, however, is striking. In American Idiot, Tunny goes off to fight in today’s war to find a meaning and to bring respect for his life. He returns from the war, albeit physically damaged, but with that sense of meaning. Because of the conscious decision he has made to fight for his country, he returns a man, while scarred, someone who has found love and self respect, and appreciation for his friends. Clyde, however, in Hair does not return from Vietnam. The country and the government who forced him to fight has killed him and left no sense of optimism for his or the any of the futures of the nation’s youth.

Another interesting parallel is the relationships the youths have with their parents. Parents and adults are largely absent from both shows, yet they are alluded to. In Hair there is a complete disconnect between the parents and the children. When in relation to one another the two parties are simply referred to as 1948 and 1968, underlying the difference is based on their generations. Something interesting to note in American Idiot, is that parents are physically absent from the play entirely. They are merely mentioned as Johnny talks about his mother and father. The relationship he has with his parents differs from his mother to his father. When escaping the life he hates he brags about how he stole the money from his mother, only to amend the statement to say that she in fact gave it to him. His mother loves him and he so much wants to hate her, but he cannot. His father on the other hand is the bigger source of strain. This is not uncommon as sons have traditionally looked to their fathers for guidance and role models. Again, starting with James Dean, fathers in popular culture got the bad rap as sons couldn’t look at their fathers for guidance as they saw them solely as hypocrites and tools of society.

What Johnny learns that James Dean’s character never did is that being a so-called tool of society is a necessary evil. It’s not something that fathers like to do, but it’s something they had to do to provide for their families. The whole idea of growing up and having actual responsibilities isn’t romantic or sexy, but it’s reality. It’s how the world functions and the other alternatives, as shown by the main characters, are not always a better choice either.

So what’s the message? It’s pretty dire to think that the whole idea of the play comes down to the fact that we actually all are American idiots. We will live the nuclear lifestyle that keeps the world turning. However, to keep from being the idiot Green Day warns of, we can go through our lives, but keep an eye out for being “controlled by the media” and refusing to be a part of the “redneck agenda.” As enlightened and educated members of society it is our responsibility to refuse to get sucked into the insanity that surrounds us every day in so many ways. We must learn to filter out all of the idiocy around us and lead lives that are meaningful to us, and not just get sucked into, as the song goes, “Information age of hysteria. [That’s] calling out to idiot America.”


Addendum:

There has been some feedback from people that they aren’t clear on whether I enjoyed the show or not, so I wanted to add to my posting that yes, I did greatly enjoy the show.  From a technical standpoint, thought that the staging was interesting.  Central to it, the use of new media as a central piece of the set design was particularly interesting and added another layer of meaning to the whole notion of what it means to be an “American Idiot.”  The images were built into and projected onto the backdrop, making the media an inescapable part of both the audience’s experience as well as the characters’ lives.

To echo Shaina’s comment below, a big part of my enjoyment comes from the fact that I happen to really like Green Day’s music.  That obviously helped tremendously.  I already thought the music to be moving and powerful as a standalone album and seeing it woven together in a cohesive storyline was powerful.  While I’ll admit to being a bit unclear about what was going on for some of the show, especially as the plot was getting underway, overall the story held together nicely.  The characters were compelling and relatable.  Furthermore, one character, St. Jimmy, was particularly interesting.  Played by AFI’s Davey Havok, who just replaced Green Day front man, Billy Joe Armstrong in the role, he represents Johnny’s id, his urges to fulfill any and all of his base desires, namely heroin.  It’s is St. Jimmy that precipitates Johnny’s descent into addiction, but without that fall Johnny also would not have realized the important lesson he came to learn by the end of the play.