Winter's Bone

Who's the Man?
2/10/11

Winter’s Bone was nominated for 4 Oscars this year, and they’re the big ones: 2 for acting, one for writing, and Best Picture. I’ll give it the acting noms, but I can’t say I’m in agreement with the Best Picture or Best Writing nods. I didn’t really go into this film with any great expectations, having never read the book and not really even knowing what it was about. But given the buzz that has surrounded it and its young ingénue, I was expecting to be wowed and left feeling rather under whelmed by it on a whole. It was decent, and Jennifer Lawrence in the leading role was impressive, but other than that I felt nothing particularly nuanced about this movie. Much if it is a reiteration of themes done over and over before, “country folk” are uneducated, violent, incestuous and uphold patriarchal values.

Winter’s Bone is about Ree Dolly (Lawrence) and her struggle to keep her family together in their home in the face of her father’s abandonment. 17-year-old Ree is left to care for her young siblings after her father, a well known meth addict, has gone on the lam and her mother rendered incompetent by a mental illness. When the county sheriff (Garret Dillahunt) has informed her that should her dad not appear for his court date, scheduled in a few days, Ree and her family will lose their house as he put it up as part of his bond. Facing this reality, she sets off on what turns out to be a dangerous journey to bring her father home.

It was at that point that the movie lost me. Winter’s Bone painted a vivid picture of a young girl trying to keep it together and care for her young siblings and dementia-inflicted mother. Yet, was unable to educate the viewer as to why this endeavor of tracking down her father was so dangerous and why the locals in her town, all of whom she seemed to be related to, warned her against it. Ree spends the entire film painstakingly tracking down her dad, and risks her own life to do so. The people and family members she seeks out to help her, more often than not, end up beating and threatening her. She learns to fend for herself with nearly no allies.

A reoccurring theme throughout the movie is that of family. Nearly everyone with whom Ree interacted is a cousin of sorts. Now, this might have been a comment of incest in her community, but it was often tied to issues of loyalty and protection. Initially she seeks out help from her father’s younger brother, Teardrop (played by Oscar nominated John Hawkes) who initially refuses to help her and even threatens her with violence should she continue of her search. Eventually, he decides to come to her aid and saves her from those inflicting actual harm upon her. Having her uncle on her side is going to be a good thing for Ree as people fear her uncle and know he’s not to be messed with. Unfortunately, the film is unable to articulate why he ultimately has a change of heart and the audience is just expected to sort of go with it. Furthermore, other than a few brooding moments and angry outbursts, it’s hard to understand just why this slight man with a few ominous tattoos (and a nickname which reminded me of Johnny Depp in Cry Baby) is so feared.

Tied into the family theme is that of the role of patriarchy and what that means to the family unit. This message is probably the most interesting thing about the film. Ree, this 17-year-old child who should be in school has been acting as both mother and father to her siblings: she feeds, bathes and cares for them in all ways possible. She even teaches them how to hunt and skin animals so they could one day provide for themselves. In the early scenes of the film Ree walks into her high school and observes a Home-ec class learning how to care for babies. This is almost a joke to someone who has been doing this all her life. Yet, despite her competency, she nevertheless needs to find her father to keep the house and her family in tact. In her quest to find her dad she comes across many women who claim to want to help her out, but don’t do so out of fear of their husbands’ reactions. When Ree breaks that hierarchy and tries to go to the men anyway it’s the women who turn out to inflict the most violence and who uphold this old time value almost more than their husbands.

This to me is the most powerful statement the film was making – the role of women in this staunchly patriarchal society. No matter how the men behave or how intimidating they are, or how self sustained the women seem to be, they will always protect their men. The ultimate redemption in the film only comes when some of the women who initially inflicted the most pain and upheld this order to the fullest, put that aside to bring Ree what she finally needed to survive.

Black Swan

Ugly Duckling or Swan Queen?
12/13/10

Warning: Contains Spoilers!

“The Return of the Repressed” is a phrase first introduced by Sigmund Freud and is now often thrown around in the discourse surrounding Horror Films. Freud’s theory, earliest applied to Hitchcock’s’ films, is the notion that anything a society or an individual represses will return as the monster and torment the subject. In Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, The Black Swan, the monster appears in a number of manifestations as what the main character, Nina Sayers (played by an impeccable Natalie Portman), has repressed.

In this film, Nina is the Prima Ballerina at the New York City Ballet. She has been crowned Swan Queen in the company’s season opening production of Swan Lake. In this new risqué version of the show, she will not only be playing the virginal White Swan, but also the more tempestuous Black Swan. Throughout the film, her artistic director pushes her to let herself and her self imposed restraints go in order to embody the characteristics of the Black Swan, as she inherently excels in the role of White Swan. Throughout her life Nina was constantly tormented by an obsession for perfection. She therefore disallows herself any physical pleasure or emotional displays which might take away from her quest for perfection. Be it sexual pleasure, or even something as simple as enjoying a piece of cake, she lives a controlled life unable to enjoy anything around her, even her success. Her mother, with whom she lives, cares for her as she has since childhood, reinforcing the restraint Nina puts on herself. Each night she undresses Nina, takes out her hearings for her and tucks her into bed before leaving her music box ballerina playing her to sleep. Any sense of adulthood or independence has been completely repressed and her mother is the external force driving that repression, as if Nina needed any more encouragement to be controlled.

From the instance that she is awarded the lead role, Nina’s descent from simple OCD ballerina to complete madness is made clear. She feels as though she must prove herself worthy of this position, and not only that, but she must keep any would-be lead ballerinas at bay. Everyone is competition. The introduction of a new ballerina, Lily (Mila Kunis), catalyzes her madness as Nina does not know if she should trust her as a friend or suspect her as someone who is vying to replace her. Lily ultimately becomes the focal point of Nina’s paranoia as she considers her to be the one who will be the biggest threat of dethroning her from her position. Even as the film comes to a close, the audience is left wondering, how much should we believe about Lily’s behaviors? Nina has positioned Lily to be hypercompetitive and a real threat, but is that actually true?

Nina’s madness manifests itself in a number of ways, most obviously in her almost constant paranoia of those around her. Aronofsky skillfully plays with the audience’s sense of reality by a constant focalization on Nina (she is in every scene). As Nina is the clear center of the film, and is in every single scene, there’s an almost naïve sense of trust we place on her as our narrator. Harkening back to films such as Fight Club and Memento, Black Swan leaves the audience questioning what they can trust and what existed within the diagesis of the film. As the film comes to its end, there are events left ambiguous and we are left questioning which scenes we should trust and which were just Nina’s psychosis rearing its ugly head.

Further, through the use of camera tricks and other means of visual deception, he creates a world in which what the audience sees ultimately proves to be untrustworthy, something jarring for a movie viewer who has been trained by cinema to trust what he sees on screen. Nina often imagines people who end up not really being there and often thinks she sees herself on others’ bodies. The real question turns out to be though, when does she see other people acting out certain behaviors that turn out to be her? A crucial scene between Nina and Lily turns out to be the one which alerts Nina to this possibility as she both the audience and the character herself begin to distrust what is being seen.

Moreover, the prevalent use of mirrors throughout the film offers a visual display of how Nina wishes she could reflect her self image towards others. Moreover, overlapping and broken mirrors offer a visual sense of the fragmented personality Nina devolves into, constantly wishing to be able to keep her life together but being unable to do so.

As mentioned, Nina spends a great deal of time repressing some of her deepest desires. One repression which is made quite clear is her sexuality. Her artistic director, Tomas (Nicholas Cassel) continually pushes her to let herself go and embrace her sexuality, even suggesting at one point that she go home and touch herself. While he does push some boundaries between teacher and student, he also recognizes that the role of the Black Swan requires a sense of sexual freedom. Nina has a hard time allowing herself to give into any of the urges which she has fought so hard to repress to let herself reach her ultimate goal of perfection. In the world she has created for herself (and her mother has encouraged) giving into desires and growing into a free thinking adult is a sign of imperfection and weakness. Even in the rare instances which she does give in to her desires, they result in utter humiliation, further pushing her into a continuance of the repression.

Nina's psychological repression physically manifested itself with Nina's scratching habit. Over the course of the film the audience comes to learn that she has had a chronic struggle with scratching at her back, often resulting in rashes and bleeds. Despite her mother best efforts at stopping this habit, buying expensive cover ups or tying socks on her hands while she slept, Nina persisted. Her scratching ultimately came to represent her desire to let her repressed traits come out. Ironically, it was those repressed traits which led to her success as the Black Swan. This literally becomes the case when she begins to imagine her skin crawling with barbs and other maladies that she must pull out. Nina succumbs to the scratching and allows herself to give in to that one desire. What results is an unexpected transformation. The Black Swan Queen is the embodiment of sexual freedom and it was only once she let herself go and gave into her desires for which so long she saw as imperfection was Nina able to literally embody her character and perform the Black Queen perfectly.

On a separate, but related note, the idea of beauty and what makes something beautiful was constantly in my mind as I watched this film. Ballet is supposed to be an embodiment of one of the most beautiful acts the human body can create. However, this film shows the dark underbelly of ballet and how so much of this goal of external beautiful perfection is born from such an ugly place of private and individual pain and suffering.

Like any student of Freud or film knows, however, that the harder one represses something, the more forcefully it will return. This is especially true with Nina. In her quest for ultimate perfection she mistrusts anyone around her and sees them as a monster who needs to be defeated. This idea culminates in the last few scenes of the film. In the climactic final scenes Nina sets out to destroy the one person who can and will take her place as lead ballerina. A dramatic and bloody fight ensues with Nina feeling satisfied that she has been left invulnerable from defeat and that she has achieved her goal of perfection, with little concern for the long term consequences.

The Social Network

Socially Inept?
10/08/10

Marketers and critics are lauding The Social Network as a movie which defines a generation. As a member of its purported generation, I have what to say about this assessment.

I think that this statement has good intentions, although a little overreaching. Namely, I do not think it’s accurate to declare that it’s the film which defines a generation. If anything it should refer to the website upon which the film is based. This film tells the story of how Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) founded Facebook back in his dorm room at Harvard University. It’s unclear how much of the film is true to reality as all parties involved signed non-disclosure agreements as part of their settlements with Zuckerberg, but the filmmakers insist they have stuck to the truth to tell an honest story (and to, of course, avoid libel lawsuits).

To say that the film defines a generation is a bit of an overstatement. It might be more accurate to say that the film is about a website that has had a lot of influence over a generation. I know, not nearly as catchy, but what would it mean that this film defines a generation? Is it the backstabbing or the selfishness of the main character which defines my generation? Or perhaps the people Zuckerberg left in the dust in the generation being defined. Are we a generation that has been betrayed by others? I’m not quite sure what it means to say that this film defines me and my peers.

The Social Network, or The Facebook Movie as it is colloquially being called, is based on Ben Mezrich’s book, The Accidental Billionaires. With the real Saverin acting as consultant, the story is clearly one sided and frames Zuckerberg in the most negative of lights. According to this film, Zuckerberg is an antisocial and amoral social climber who only cares about getting in with the cool crowd and has no regard for the hurt he causes along the way. He creates facebook as a way to get back at his ex-girlfriend, and alienates his best friend in the process.

Sorkin’s screenplay is nothing short of poetry and the acting is stellar. The cast recites Sorkin’s words with ease as they fully embody their characters. The narrative structure of the film is particularly interesting to note. Interwoven within the storyline are two separate lawsuits. One is between Zuckerberg and twins, Cameron and Tyler Winkelvos (both played by Armie Hammer) and Divya Narendra (Max Minghella), the group from who he supposedly stole Facebook from. The other is between Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), his only and best friend at the time who he pushed out of the company as it was about to hit its stride. What I can only imagine was one of the more daunting editing tasks, the film pieces together accounts of what happened between these three parties as the website started and began to grow. It also expands to include how Sean Parker, Napster founder (played by Justin Timberlake) encouraged Zuckerberg to implement some significant changes.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this film since seeing it. Mostly, about what the world thinks about my generation if it thinks that this film defines us. The title assumes people are networking socially. Zuckerberg has changed the word friend from a noun with a distinct definition and specific traits to a verb with a scattered definition and amorphous meaning. Friends are no longer those with whom you connect with on a personal level, share interests and traits with or even know directly. In our age of “social networking,” Facebook defines a friend as anyone who you want to have a digital dotted line to. It has gotten to the point where if someone isn’t, God forbid, on Facebook, they must be some sort of outsider or social deviant. I am an anomaly as someone who only accepts or sends out “friend requests” to people I actually know. Once “friends” with someone you are free to block people, limit their access to your profile or even unfriend them at your will. If this was actual reality there would be some consequence to that behavior. At the very least the other person would know! Today, rarely is that even the case. What kind of friendships are those? The film portrays Zuckerberg as borderline Aspergers with no sense of remorse or notion of consequences nor is he capable of making and retaining friendships. Has he created a culture where everyone is mimicking him? Is that what we should be socially aspiring to? Is that how our generation is seen by others? Are we a considered to be a demographic devoid of social responsibility and unable for connecting on personal levels? While these questions are probably impossible to definitively answer, the questions themselves are important even to be considering.

Moreover, according to the film, Zuckerberg was intent on maintaining a certain level of exclusivity on the site to keep people thinking it was “cool.” As someone who himself was excluded from Harvard’s elite final clubs, college sports teams and often felt alienated from social gatherings, this was his way to get back at the world. He created a place where he got to choose who was able to join or not. At its inception this held true, limited to Harvard and a few elite colleges, Zuckerberg could hold control over his definition of what makes cool. However, as he saw the monetary potential the site could have and his greed for putting his digital fingerprint across the planet he seems to have lost sight of his original intentions (well, maybe his secondary intentions after he got back at his exgirlfriend). Initially, he didn’t even want ads on his website, lest people not consider it “cool.” However, almost making a 180 degree turn from what the movie claims he said about the site, today Facebook is overrun by corporations and other organizations trying to make their own mark on the Facebook network. These companies believe that tapping into a preexisting and preorganized community in “social media” it will help them build their own brands. To me at least, this is the antitheses of what socializing means. Since when is capitalizing on social connections for monetary gain socially acceptable? I guess the answer to that is since Zuckerberg did just that to his own real life social network he has set the standard.

Personally, I think to say that this movie, or even the website, defines a generation is minimizing all the other things that young people today are doing these days. Yes, we keep up with people we once knew in previous lives through the computer screen by never having to actually talk to them. Instead of connecting directly with a long lost high school friend you can now just click a link and be connected with them. You learn what town they now live in, where they work, who they married and see their kids. All from the privacy of your apartment (or, lets be real, cubicle). Facebook fulfills a voyeuristic need in all of us, but this is not new; it’s something Hitchcock knew half a century ago when he put voyeurism at the center of many of his narratives.

However, despite this growing trend I do not believe that our generation is defined by a change in the way we interact with people from our past. Maybe the word “friend” now has a broader interpretation, but real true friends are still the people we want to hang out with, share intimate details with in person, and keep them up to date with what’s going on in our worlds. Furthermore, there are far more important things than a social media website which has defined my generation. What about the job crisis and how many of us are professionally stunted because of the economic meltdown? What about the thousands of soldiers from my generation who have given their lives and limbs for this country? Those are just two major happenings in our adult lives which have greatly effected us and I believe will have a far more lasting effect than how we define the word, “friend.” We are a generation raised as multitaskers who, for all our lives, have been trained to take on as many projects and activities as we possible can, and to reduce us to a single idea is insulting. I do agree that Facebook has probably changed the way my generation interacts with the world, but to reduce is to being defined by it is a little overreaching.
The S

Can You Ever Come Home Again?

The Town
10/4/10

Every few years or so a seemingly seminal, and always grave, film about Boston comes out. Be it directed by Gus Van Sant, Clint Eastwood, Ben Affleck or even the traditional New York-ophile, Martin Scorsese, they always seem to be both a partial love story to the city and a warning of sorts. They have depicted some of the seediest, nastiest neighborhoods inhabited by some of the most sordid of folks. Further, whether an original screenplay or an adaptation, there’s almost always a murder, double crossing and deception. Boston as a city in Hollywood’s recent cinema seems to have become a stand in for the worst of what America has to offer.

Take Ben Affleck’s recent vehicle, The Town, for instance. This film is yet another example of how Boston is depicted as less than savory locale with opportunistic and dangerous inhabitants. The strange thing about this representation is that Affleck has declared his love for his home state numerous times and in numerous ways. As documented by the Papparazzi, he proudly dons his Red Sox baseball hat around LA, attends his team’s games with frequency and even owns a home back east for his family to inhabit for part of the year. He also frequently shows off his native accent upon request (for instance, on Jimmy Kimmel Live). Yet, his two directorial efforts about his hometown seem to be anything but an unconditional love story. In The Town, Affleck plays a leader of a Charlestown bank-robbing gang. They are mixed up with uzi-wielding mobsters who commission them for one dangerous heist after another.

Despite the bank-robbing and guns, the movie pretty much plays like a romantic comedy. Boy meets girl (ok, so it was while he was holding her hostage) and falls in love with her but has to keep his true identity a secret lest she find out what he did. Given that premise I’m sure you know what happens eventually, so I won’t spell it out for you and risk spoiling it for the one person who has never seen a movie with this formula before. Not knowing that Doug (Ben Affleck) was the one who put a gun to her back, Claire (played by Rebecca Hall) falls for the bait and is taken with her mysterious suitor. He would like to make a change and go straight, but things begin to get complicated as he is expected to conduct more escalated robberies and eventually things are no longer in his control. To make matters more complicated he has to hide his burgeoning relationship from his best friend and fellow bank robber, Jimmy (Jeremy Renner) who risks exposing Doug to Claire for who he really is.

While most of the native Charlestown-ians are unabashedly evil people, there is a moral code to which they all abide. Throughout the film, a clear and present theme in the narrative is the sense that Charlestown is a place where people take care of their own. Loyalty to family and those like family is paramount as they trust each other with their lives on a seemingly hourly basis. Furthermore, being born and raised in Charlestown, for the locals, is a sort of badge of honor. Doug and his buddies display their heritage with pride. Be it with tattoos depicting the fighting Irish, four leaf clovers, or even the Charlestown Zip Code emblazoned in a tattoo across the outline of Massachusetts adorned with the Irish flag. They almost exclusively wear Red Sox and Bruins apparel and use their distinct accent as almost to mark their territory, getting stronger when holding their ground about something. To be a native Bostonian is something they are proud of and impostors beware. Not only do the locals claim to be proud of their upbringing, they put down the yuppie transplants who are gentrifying the neighborhood and refer to them as “Toonies.” These “Toonies” are outsiders who will never truly understand what it means to be a local.

If you were born and bred in Charlestown you hold some legitimacy with your peers and you can be trusted. However, deflectors will not be tolerated one iota. There’s one heated exchange with Doug and Dino Ciampa, an FBI agent (played by Titus Welliver) who crossed over from local to Fed and is now considered a traitor. Loyalty is the number one most important characteristic anyone can have in Charlestown, and if you betray that, you’ve betrayed your people.

Yet, despite all this, it seems that so often a strict adherence to this way of life is going to cause problems. (Sorry for the spoiler, but if you’ve ever seen a movie, ever, you know that a gang of bank robbers from a blue collar town is not going to have a happy ending for all parties.) While so many decry their loyalty to Charlestown and the way they grew up, there are still those who seek a better life. The only way to achieve this better life is to strive to get the hell out of there, not even to a suburb, but across the whole country.

I’m not quite sure why Boston has been deemed a city of despair, but it is interesting that while lamenting so many of its downfalls and having main characters want nothing more than to get out of the only city they’ve ever known, filmmakers keep coming back. They keep exploring how this city could be considered both “The Spirit of America” and yet have so many people fleeing.

Maybe that right there is the new “Spirit of America.” In our current society, so fractured by social and political issues, where the mention of The Tea Party no longer elicits unequivocal pride in our nation’s ability to stand up for itself against tyranny and injustice, but, rather conflicting messages of extremism and passivism for its opposers. Where national pride is debated across the cable news spectrum and where if you don’t agree, you can find your own outlet. Boston, therefore, in these films, stands as a microcosm of how we might see ourselves as Americans today. For the characters in The Town and in other Boston-based films (Good Will Hunting for example), one’s home town is a place that has nurtured and taken care of its inhabitants in the past, but it can not offer everything they need. These films seem to be saying that perhaps the way of life we once knew isn’t actually it’s all cracked up to be and we need to seriously rethink the direction we’re going.

So then, what are the options that these films offer? Do we deflect and become the traitorous Fed who is trying to solve things from the inside out? Are we willing to risk getting killed while clinging to some last hope for keeping to what we know? Or, do we just make it our goal to leave our shattered pasts behind us and start over somewhere new? Is one option nobler than the other? Is that the ultimate lesson though of these films -- to leave our pasts behind us and start over in hopes of finding something better?

In any event, The Town asks us to take a deep look into what we hold dear and implores the viewers to make a decision about which direction they want their lives to take. The Town is not simply saying that the goal for the characters is to escape a town which glorifies violence. Rather, this is a story about grappling with the desire to stay true and loyal to ones past and acknowledging that where someone comes from is important while also admitting that our futures are important as well. We can neither forget where we come from nor who took care and nurtured us when we needed it most. But it also asks us to also take a more objective stance and reassess our goals in life and make decision based on the now rather than the past. In other words, don’t let your past impede the greatness that can be your future.

Goodbye As the World Turns

This Friday something that has been integral in my life since literally the day I was born will come to an end. I have no control over it, it’s simply an inevitability that it will cease to exist. What am I talking about you’d like to know? Before I reveal it I would like you try to not roll your eyes or scoff and dismiss what I have to say without reading this all the way through.

So, you ask, to what am I referring? I am talking about the cancellation of the 54 year old soap opera, As The World Turns. I should consider myself lucky that I’ve had so much time with the characters and stories, and that while the actual cast members and production team had to say goodbye in June I’ve got to enjoy the show through to the middle of September. But I honestly don’t know how I’m going to say goodbye to the Hughes and Snyder families and the rest of the host of characters who inhabit Oakdale, IL.

For my 18th birthday before I went off to college my parents got me a VCR. It was exactly what I wanted and they knew the number one reason why I wanted it. They knew I wouldn’t be able to give up my favorite show nor would I always be able to schedule my classes around the 2-3 pm time slot so I could rush back to my room. When I studied abroad in Australia for a semester my mom would give me weekly recaps. When my mom’s work schedule got to hectic for her to watch every day she would call me after Friday’s episode so I could give her the full recap of the week and tell her who the new characters were. In turn, when an old character returned after years of absence I would call my mom and ask for his or her back-story.

Mostly, it has been the relationships between characters and the fantasy that kept me tuning in every day. First of all, no matter what drama was going on in my own life, those characters had it worse. No one in my life was sleeping with her sister’s ex husband (who also happens to be their step cousin). I didn’t know anyone who came back to life 12 times to torment him son and ex wife to ultimately reveal that his ex wife’s new husband is his son from a first marriage. Yes, I’ll admit often stories were crazy and at times I rolled my eyes at some of the drama that people created for themselves. But ultimately sticking with something and going through their ups and downs is what connects you with them and even if its through a television screen a bond begins to grow as they become a part of your daily routine.

The other unique thing about soap operas, especially one like As The World Turns with such a rich history as the first daytime drama, is that viewer are really given the time to get to know characters. Every day there is an opportunity to flesh out some personality traits, understand some more back ground, and learn a little bit about their psyche. Unlike a primetime drama or sitcom where you get 30 minutes or an hour once a week for 23 episodes a year, a soap opera gives you day by day updates all year round. I often spent more time with those characters more often than most family and friends because every single day I got to learn something new about them and watch their stories unfold.

At the 50th anniversary event at The Paley Center I got to meet many of the actors in person and ask them about their characters and roles on the show. Upon speaking to Jon Hensley, who has portrayed Holden Snyder since he was a teenager, I told him how I’ve been watching the show since I was a little kid and responded by saying, “Wow, you’ve watched me grow up.” I know it’s just a show and I know that often times the story lines are ridiculous and outlandish. But there is something to be said about having followed the same characters (and often the same actors) for years. Over that amount of time you see them develop and regress, you watch them fall in and out of love and maybe even die and come back to life. I also had the chance, everyday to escape into a fantasy land where the laws of nature don’t exist. Time can stand still or zoom ahead at the writers’ whim. Characters who had long been dead can return to life with a simple explanation and new characters can pop up suddenly as though they’ve got a rich history.

Personally, not to sound trite or overly melodramatic, but this show was something that was something that bound 3 generations of women in my family. My mother grew up watching it from when she was a little girl. She watched every day with her mother. As I grew up I watched it with her. I remember sitting down with my mom after dinner to catch up on the show she had taped during the day. It was our time to sit together and share something. I am lucky to have a strong relationship with my mom outside of As the World Turns, and this by no means was the only commonality we share, but it was always something we could catch up on and chat about.

The cancellation of ATWT just proves once again, that unfortunately soap operas continue to be considered the bastard child of the television industry. Network executives want high ratings for low cost. The Soap Opera started as a way to sell soap to housewives. It was daily programming for women who were home all day who would be hooked on the drama. Lately, as more women are working during the day they have been slipping in the ratings. Show-runners have been doing everything in their power to cut costs and attract new viewers, but unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be working. The sad state of affairs is that this television staple and piece of history will be replaced by a banal game show which appeals to the lowest common denominator of viewer, one which can come in and out as he or she pleases. The Soap Opera, while maybe not the highest art form does deserve a certain amount of regard and respect that I think is being forgotten in the quest for high ratings.

It’s fitting that I will be home the day the show goes off the air. My mother and I will take a break from cooking for the Jewish holidays and we will sit down together to watch the final episode. The personalities of As the World Turns are not merely one dimensional and fleeting TV characters, they have been a real part of my life for 28 years and I’m not yet sure how I’ll say goodbye. What I do know is that my mom and I will have to have a box of tissues handy.

Whats "good" and what's "bad:" A Jacob/MIB Theory

A major mythology of the show is in regards to the Manichean allegory – black vs. white, good vs. bad. Is someone destined to be good? Is it a feature you have or you don’t and is it something that can coexist inside of you? Is goodness and badness something with which the individual is constantly struggling with or is it decided upon at an early age? Finally, what does it mean to be good or bad? The characters are all constantly struggling with that. Something that’s come up on the recent episode, Ab Aeterno, is more of the relationship between the Man in Black and Jacob. A few more details have been given, yet it’s still difficult to determine which is the bad guy, and which is the good guy. But I think that’s the entire point.

Jacob declares to Richard in this episode that he brings people to the island to give them the opportunity to be good. But they seem to be failing as he also said that all the people he’s brought up until that point were dead. The nature of good versus evil is yet again brought to the forefront. What is also interesting about these two characters is that no one seems to be able to see them unless specifically invited to do so. Jacob declares that no one is allowed into his cave unless invited, and other than Richard, no one knows what the “original” form of MIB looks like (“original” is in quotes because we cannot even be sure that this form we see isn’t the inhabited body of another, similar to the way he took over Locke’s body). This observation has lead me to, what I think, is an interesting theory.

So much of the show deals with not only human nature but how people deal with their own nature. The survivors of oceanic flight 815 were all struggling with something that was essentially self-inflicted. “They're all carrying around a shitload of guilt—for various reasons—and no matter how much they repent to others, they'll never truly be free until they forgive themselves. They're the causes of their own suffering, and their guilt is their cross to bear (http://jezebel.com/5501254/lost-recap-la-vida-loca-de-guyliner).” They’ve all struggled with their desires to be good or bad -- Sawyer had his demons over tracking down and killing the man who he thought was the cause of his parents’ deaths (even though he turned out to be wrong). Kate was running from the law after killing her stepfather, an issue itself that was not clearly good or bad. Jack was dealing with the death of his own father and feeling that it was his fault and blaming his own inadequacy for his father’s death. The list goes on and on, but ultimately all the survivors are dealing with something very personal and they are all fighting their own demons both internal and external.

That being said, since no one seems to be able to see MIB and/or Jacob, AND since we never get a name for MIB, my theory is that they are one in the same. They represent the two sides of the same person. MIB IS Jacob. One is Id and one is Superego: the id (possibly MIB) tries to lead people down the paths of their own desires and follow their impulses while the superego (presumably Jacob) tries to guide people to do good and believes that goodness is attainable. The island acts as the ego, the mediating force between these two impulses that brings them together and allows people’s two opposing sides to be mediated. Everyone has “good” and “bad” impulses in them, and life is all about how one control’s those desires. Similarly, these two forces on the island are trying to sway people one way or another and it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they want to behave and who they want to become.

The island is the perfect place for all these people to put their struggles to the test. They can face their insecurities and their shortcomings and put them to the test. Jack, the ultimate control freak and perfectionist has to learn that he cannot infact control everything. Sawyer, the consummate conman and loner must learn to live with people, and not only does he do that but he also becomes the head of Dharma security at one point. Even Sayid comes to terms with his violent and abusive past and sees proverbial light and regrets his former ways. Claire, a confused teenager who wanted nothing to do with the life growing inside her had a chance to become the mother she thought she didn’t want to be. The island acts as the mediating ego and creates a space where people can have a second chance to make good on what was a once failing and flailing life. Furthermore, all these people who were once pretty much loners (not just Sawyer) have come together and have found a place where they all belong and have a role of sorts to learn to live as a community, whatever that might mean.

Getting Lost

So I recently took on the task of catching up on all 5+ seasons of ABC’s mega-hit Lost. Why you ask? Well, to begin I should preface this by saying over the past 5 years I have been adamantly against watching this show. I had seen an episode back in its inaugural season and hated it. I was bored, confused and unimpressed. But over the years with all its great press, buzz and my friends going on and on about it, I’ll admit to a little bit of Lost FOMO. So when I stumbled upon the entire series on Hulu.com, I figured I’d give it a shot. My friend Elana and I decided to take on this task together so we’d be able to bounce conspiracy theories off each other and try to navigate our way through the series. It was going to be great, we’d watch a few episodes on our own or get together a few times a week and watch a couple of episodes here or there with the hope that we’d be done in time for the series finale.

I watched the first episode on February 3rd and was intrigued. The narrative structure of the show is arranged in such a way that the viewer is actively engaged in the story line. The characters were interesting, covering a litany of personalities and character types. The show is a pure televisual experience, utilizing all facets of the medium, stimulating in sight, sound and story. I instantly recognized that this was not a show during which I could multitask; it would require my full attention. When I get home at night and begin to go through my DVR, rarely do the shows get my full attention. They have to share the time with cooking dinner, blowdrying my hair, talking on the phone, doing homework and cleaning my room. However, when I tried to do this with Lost, I was utterly confused and had to rewind. I also realized that I would not be able to only watch one or two episodes at a time.

After 2 days I found myself on episode 7 of season one and I was entirely hooked. When I checked in with Elana to see how she was doing, she had barely finished the first episode, and I realized that I was on my own. Survival of the fittest, if she can’t handle the intense Lost-watching schedule I had already decided I was about to undertake then she was left behind. Sorry honey, live together, die alone! Another friend, Dov, had been a fan since the beginning so he became my sounding board for all my ideas and questions.

I must say, I don’t know if I could have done it without his help. Every episode introduced a slew of new questions and he helped me sort through those which were going to be important trends (like what’s the deal with those numbers?! What is that smoke monster thing? Why can’t anyone find them? Who keeps stealing people? And on and on…) and then there were the not so important ones which he helped me get out of my head (Why does it rain all the time?) Most of our communications took place over gchat, and sometimes when I needed him the most (I can’t believe he just killed them! is she really dead, like forever? Who are those people in the village?! Or I KNEW we’ve seen Desmond before) and he wasn’t there I would just send him the messages anyway so when he signed online he’d be barraged with a million “while you were offline” messages. Thankfully he was happy to oblige in my craziness and he answered all my questions, always making sure never to give away crucial plot points. He also filled me in along the way with what I missed from the Lost blogosphere and the fanboy culture that grew around it. He also filled me in on Lost trivia. Thanks Dov, now I can’t get my receipt from the cab without PTSD of Smokey attacks.

All was going well with my schedule and I was averaging a season per week. At this point I had hopes of catching up well before season 6 was in full swing and maybe I’d even start reading all those blogs, in REAL TIME! When, suddenly, in the middle of season 2 when suddenly what all internet viewers dread the most occurred…Buffering. Hulu stalled buffered for seconds, even minutes on end! What was a girl to do! Thankfully, Dovie was there once again with his DVD collection. Seasons 1-4…what more could I ask for? I went over on Saturday night and got seasons 2 and 3 from him. That weekend happened to be President’s Day weekend and I had a full schedule of things that needed to get done, schoolwork, apartment stuff, etc all had to get done. Too bad I spent the majority of the time watching Lost. Lying in bed with remote in hand I kept saying to myself after episode after episode ended that its ok, just one more and then I’ll go to bed. Suddenly it was 4 am and the birds were chirping and I just couldn’t keep my eyes open any longer to find out what would happen with Ben’s surgery or with Sawyer’s pacemaker, so I went to sleep. The next morning I couldn’t stand the suspense any longer, so another 3 or 4 episodes ensued before I got that “too much TV” crankiness and headache and realized I should probably get some fresh air before nightfall. And plus, I knew I had a whole other day to watch, and that my schoolwork and trip to the library would just have to wait.

I finished season 3 by the time Tuesday rolled around. My friends who were all keeping up with my progress were impressed and little shocked by the speed in which I was getting through the episodes. At one point after hearing “last week on Lost” blast from the DVD, my roommate, Mira, said from behind her closed door, Judith, you’re a machine. I couldn’t get enough. By this time I had my own theory on the metaphors for the show. Probably based on my upbringing, I began to see the show as an allegory for the Arab/Israeli conflict. The show is about the survivors of a crash who are now on this land without any way to get back and they are being tormented and tortured by those who claim they were there before them. These so called “others” had made the island their home and saw it as theirs. However, they neglect to acknowledge that neither were they the native inhabitants of the land and that Ben actually had killed off those who came before him in favor for the other “others,” a group still not understood. However, as the seasons progressed we learn that the crash survivors were actually brought to the island for a reason; they were meant to be there to protect and serve the land, much like the way the Zionists felt in regard to when they came to Israel. They were there to cultivate the land that now belongs to them after years of being in exile. While not a perfect analogy and I won’t be able to fully work it out until the series has ended, it does fit quite nicely. There’s even a temple which seems to have healing powers surrounded by a protective wall, a clear allegory to the Jewish temple. Hopefully I will have more worked out as the season comes to a close. We shall see.

About a week later, I was all caught up. Done by March 3 and ready to join the rest of the Lost world in progress. I had begun DVRing in preparation for this momentous day. My first episode in real time was Lighthouse, where Hurley and Jack learn more about the island and possibly why they are there. It was definitely a strange feeling watching it along with the rest of the world. Among the oddities was not being able to IM Dov and ask him what the heck was going on! He didn’t know either and this was really strange, no one knew anything and people were asking all the same questions I was with no possible answer. I was used to having the answers at my fingertips if I wanted them. Lostpedia.com had become an off-limits zone so I wouldn’t come across any unwanted spoilers. Now I found myself researching all I could to have as much of a grasp on everything so I wouldn’t be overly confused.

FAIL! I was overly confused. This was partly due to plot becoming so muddled and complicated. Another factor was due to my Lost binge and I was having a hard time retaining some of the details. Someone compared it to cramming before a test: you spend a short amount of time getting all the details into your brain during this massive binge right before you purge that information out onto a test. However, there was no single test to purge the information, so it just sorta seeped out. I now find myself more confused than I would had I had a real opportunity to watch each episode, let a week or even a season go by so it could sink in. So now I find myself going back and watching clips of old episodes and barely remembering those episodes even happened. But, it’s all ok because I still have Dov and now Doc Jensen to lead me through to salvation, if those Lost producers ever give it to me.

Oh, and I think Elana is still on season one. Only the strong survive!

Hurray for Hollywood!

From as long as I can remember I have been affected by the visual image projected on screen. When I was seven I wanted to be Ariel and one day find a Prince Eric of my own. Later that year I learned the lines between good and bad aren’t always so clear when my parents showed me West Side Story. To this day when I enter a theater, and sit there as the lights dim and the screen fills with images which come together to form a cohesive story I get the same excitement I did all those years ago. What am I going to come away with this time? Will I learn that there’s truly no place like home and does a spoonful of sugar really make the medicine go down? Will I fall in love with a performance that touches me and so deeply affects me like the first time I saw James Dean in Rebel without a Cause, or just the performer (ahem, yes I’m talking about Leo DiCaprio from his Titanic days)? To this day when I see a movie and I get lost in the narrative and I feel like a child again. For me, when I watch a movie I believe that anything is possible and dreams can and do come true. Maybe it’s a bit naïve, but over the years it’s become who I am.

Although many are credited for saying it, it’s unclear who actually came up with the phrase, “trust the art, not the artist.” Despite its murky origins I think this phrase is what has guided my love of the movies even before I had heard it actually articulated just a few years ago. That phrase is all about the essence of the movies. While volumes have been written about theory, aesthetic, thematics and history of film, dissecting scenes frame by frame, applying to the era from which it came, I think the spirit of film and what makes them so popular is ultimately its ability to relate to their viewers, and it might not have even been the intention of the filmmaker. When someone walks out of a movie-going experience and is able to take something, anything, away and relate it to their own personal experiences and is what makes a film a success. I recently walked out of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland inspired to follow my heart and dreams rather than what might be someone else’s. I felt encouraged to be courageous and do what’s right to me in my heart even if it’s not the safest or even popular decision. Had I not been entrenched in a life guiding career decision, I might have walked away with a completely different lesson from the film.

Oscar night, for this reason, is one of my favorite nights of the year. I sit down with my ballot all set out in front of me. One highlighter reserved for who I want to win, another who my prediction is for who will actually win and then finally, the actual winner. I laugh, I cry and I cheer as names are rattled off. Tears stream down my face during the “In Memoriam” portion of the evening as the industry, so often concerned in the here and now honors those who’ve paved their ways and innovated films and built the empire on which they stand and rely. This year two memorable names stood out to me. I got particularly choked up as Carl Malden and Bud Schulberg’s names and faces graced the screen. Respectively they were an honest and graceful actor and trailblazing screenwriter who helped shaped the place of films in the cultural zeitgeist. Furthermore, every year in addition to the excited anticipation, I hear the same complaints from friends and critics alike that the speeches are boring, the show drones on forever, and who cares about the random technical awards. For me it is just the opposite. Of course the “big” awards are important to me, but the so-called smaller awards are just as central to the Oscar night experience.

It’s generally the sound mixer or editor who goes unnoticed during all the glitz and glam of Hollywood. They aren’t known for their good looks, who they are dating or who they are wearing. Rather, it is these unsung heroes who are making the images we see pop on screen both visually and audibly and come together seamlessly. They are also those who often have some of the most inspiring stories of them all. Personally, as someone trying to navigate her way through a career in entertainment, desperately trying to find my way in such a volatile industry, I love hearing those speeches. Tonight, one of my favorites came from Michael Giacchino who won the Oscar for Best Score for Disney/Pixar’s Up. In his speech he told children, but also people in general, to never let others tell them that what they’re doing is a waste of time and not useful. He spent his childhood experimenting with cameras and being creative and he was lucky to always have people around him encouraging that creative spirit. What a wonderful message to send people today – that what you do matters. In an era of twitter and constant facebook status updates and people looking for that instant gratification that what they are thinking at any given moment is important, what really matters is the positive enhancements you bring to this world, the creative energy you bring to the table and to believe in yourself.

Another theme of the night, which is piggybacked on this one, is one that was reinforced time and again. It’s that you should always follow your dreams. Trust your gut and don’t be afraid to make mistakes. Take Katherine Bigelow, tonight’s winner for Best Director and the first female to take home the prize. She’s been working in an industry which tends to be male-focused and male-centric and she even made a “male” movie but she did it her way and she had been honored with the industry’s top awards for doing so. All the other winners from The Hurt Locker praised Bigelow and spoke to her unwavering integrity to her work and her vision. And this is something important to take away from how to live life and guide one’s career. Now, again, these are all themes which I took away from the show and the power of cinema because those are themes I am dealing with directly in my life and career right now and it’s something perhaps I needed to hear.

As anyone who knows me knows, I am pretty much unreachable during the Oscars. Phone is on silent, computer shut down and door locked, just like the movies which I have come to love and admire, so too the show which honors their achievement is a site for my inspiration. I get lost in the show just like I get lost in the movies and the power of film reaches me today the same as when I was just an impressionable child. I guess not all that much has changed.

Quirky Coraline

Coraline (2009)
On DVD July 21, 2009


Just like so many people today seeking out an alternative to what they consider a tedious existence, Coraline Jones saw a way out and jumped on (or to be more accurate, crawled through) the opportunity. She wishes she could escape her dank sepia-toned life and follows a tunnel to what seems to promise a better and more colorful life. She is surprised when one night her dream seemingly becomes a reality.

Told through dazzling stop-motion animation and 3D, Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) is an adventurous and spunky preteen who has just moved to a new neighborhood with her parents. Her new house is old and creeky, as are her new neighbors. The strange boy who lives next door offers little friendship, and his constant chatter makes her wish he would just keep his mouth shut. Her parents are too preoccupied with their own needs to tend to hers. Her mother (Teri Hatcher) has little patience for her insistent questions and constant requests to play outside in the rain. Her father (John Hodgman), not much more patient than her mother, encourages her to count the windows in their house as a form of entertainment. They see her more as a nuisance than as their daughter. Meals consist of gloopy green and brown vegetable concoctions and shopping outings provide little more than grey school uniforms. Coraline cannot rely on those around her to provide any sort of entertainment or thrill to life so she must create it on her own. She follows her father’s window-counting suggestion, but adds her own creative and imaginative flair to it. One of her discoveries while counting the windows in her new home is a small door in the living room which has been locked up and covered up by wallpaper. She thinks it odd, but when trying to open it proves futile, she moves on to her next self-made adventure.

One night she is awakened by an odd noise and follows the clammor downstairs only to find the mystery door wide open. Following her childlike instincts, she ventures through the door. Through the door (which might as well be Alice’s Rabbit Hole or Dorothy’s venture into Oz) is everything Coraline dreams of. In this new world, everything exists like it does on the other side, only better; she even has new parents. This “Other Mother and Other Father” are the polar opposites of her real parents – they are attentive and care for her and offer her all the things that were forbidden in her real home. Her newfound house is full of bright colors and smiling parents. Her Other Mother serves up full delicious meals where she can even choose her own milkshake flavor. Her neighbors are whimsical and offer her hours of entertainment. Even the noisy boy next door has his mouth sewn shut, a dream come true for Coraline!

All is seemingly perfect except for one odd difference – in place of eyes everyone she encounters in this alternate universe has buttons for eyes. Her Other Mother even offers her a permanent place in this new reality. Initially excited, Coraline soon realizes there’s one major catch. She can only stay if she replaces her eyes with buttons, just like everyone else in this Other World. Furthermore, the Other Mother turns out to be a cruel witch who has a history of kidnapping unsuspecting children and keeping them trapped in her Other World. Coraline soon comes to realize that the grass is not always greener on the other side and chooses her old life over the newfound one. She also comes to realize that things might not have been so bad with her real parents, they just need to learn more about each other.

One of the most interesting pieces of the film lies in the examination of the mother figure. Coraline seeks out this Other Mother when her real mom is not paying attention to her. She needs that motherly affection that is so basically human and she thinks she has found it in this new incarnation of her mother. While she is no angel herself, Coraline is not deserving of such neglect from her mother. Motherdom throughout the history of film is a source of much anxiety (thank you Norman Bates), and this film comments that not only can a mother do great harm to her children, but there is also a fine line between good and bad parenting. Coraline’s mother is demonized for not giving her anything she wanted, yet her Other Mother, the one who gave her whatever her heart desired, was literally a witch.

It’s also no coincidence that the Others on the other side of the door have no eyes. Not only that, the witch who took the shape of Coraline’s mother has a history of stealing the eyes of other unsuspecting children. Eyes are commonly thought to be the window to the soul, and without eyes the soul is lost or hidden. What does it mean that a mother, a supposed nurturer and caretaker is the one stealing eyes? In fact, in both realities, the mother is the character stealing or squashing souls. Coraline’s real mother has no tolerance for her ’tween’s ambitious nature and seeks to put the kibosh on her explorations while her Other Mother wants to trap her in the alternate universe and take what is so uniquely hers, her eyes, the way in which not only does the world see her, but the way in which she sees the world, the way she puts her own unique stamp on the universe. Mothers continue to get a bad reputation in American cinema, the difference here is that Coraline and her mom eventually work out their differences and come to respect one another’s needs.

The marvel of this film, in addition to the great story telling and vibrant characters, is the animation. Similar to The Nightmare Before Christmas, Coraline is filmed stop-motion animation, but with a twist. This time, director Henry Selick decided to add another dimension to this film – literally. Shot in 3D, the images leap off the screen in animated glory which makes the story come alive and the true contrast between Coraline’s old and new worlds come into deeper focus.

Coraline, like The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland, explores the issue of leaving home for a better life, albeit an unknown one. Like her predecessors, she comes to realize that no matter how exciting it seems over the rainbow or down the rabbit hole, there is no place like home.

Wonderful Wall-E

Wall-E
7/7/08


Disney for a long time has had the market cornered on sad. Snow White had to run away from her father’s house and was nearly killed by her stepmother, Bambi witnessed the murder of his mother, Simba his father, and the list goes on. With Wall-E Disney/Pixar moves from sad to purely depressing. This is also probably the first Pixar movie which really is for adults more than children. The first half hour or so depicts a garbage-riddled planet earth that can no longer sustain life. Humans live on a space-ship where they are tended for by state of the art robots. But from the depths of this depression, the film leaves audiences with some hope that that our fate is not locked. Furthermore, in what can be considered a cinematic masterpiece, Pixar has also managed to improve upon themselves once again, not only with the CGI animation, but with the story and script as well.

Wall-E tells the story of what will happen in 700 years from now if humans (namely Americans) continue to live the lives of excess consumption and frivolity with the earth’s resources. At this future date humans have been living on a cruise ship-like space ship for nearly a millennia because the earth has become so overrun by trash it can no longer sustain life. The fictional mega-story Buy-N-Large has become the corporate monster which seems to be at root of all the troubles that plagues the planet. It was the CEO that came up with the idea to send away all humans until earth once again became livable. Unfortunately this optimistic outcome has yet to come about. Wall-E is an old school, boxy and mechanical robot whose job it is to clean up earth’s garbage, and he’s the last one of his kind having outlasted all his counterparts. It’s not until Eva, a super-sleek robot from the human ship sent over to find proof that life can be sustained on earth once again, that an understanding of the movie’s plot comes about. Wall-E and Eve’s courtship is not unlike more traditional romantic comedies. But in this version the unlikely couple communicate through a series of beeps, barely able to say each other’s names and, as only Pixar can do, their emotions are so vividly

Eva doesn’t appear until about a half hour into the movie and up until that point the audience is treated to Wall-E’s exploration of the remnants of human life. In a throwback to the silent-era’s masters, Wall-E takes its time, establishing characters and setting without rushing itself too much like so many movies do today.

Furthermore, this film seems to be paying tribute to the stories and genres which have paved the way for its existence. After collecting his goods, Wall-E brings them back to his hollowed out truck to put them on display. While obviously not knowing what the items are he organizes and utilizes them – very similar to the scene from Disney’s The Little Mermaid when Ariel plays with her treasures in her cave of wonders. What’s old is new again. Also through the use of music and other visual and thematic clues Wall-E builds upon the foundation its predecessors laid before it, which is an extension of its theme of recycling and renewal. In the world of Wall-E, recycling is a lost art; a society of excess and disposable goods has created a physical environment where an ozone layer has been replaced by a trash layer.

While the initial impression of the film is a rather depressing one, a bleak world overrun by trash no longer able to host human life, the truly depressing aspect was the prediction of the future of humankind. Apparently if we stay the course we are currently plotting, our fate (according to Disney) is to be grossly overweight consumers devoid of any human interaction who rely on pureed food and hover-chairs. However, ultimately, like any good Disney pic, the lasting message is that of hope and opportunity. That our fate is not locked in, it’s not too late to change the course of our destiny.

Across the Universe

Universal Appeal
10/23/07

From the first time I saw a trailer for Across the Universe I knew that it was a movie I wanted to see. When I walked out of the theater last night I was not disappointed. Julie Taymor's (Frida and Broadway's The Lion King) latest vehicle is a feast for the eyes and the ears. Combining a sense of new postmodern visual artistry with familiar sound she has breathed new life into music that was already so timeless.


Across the Universe is a period piece, taking another stab at exploring the socio-polical culture of the 1960s (and potentially it's significance today). It is about a young man, Jude (Jim Sturgess), who journeys across the pond to find the GI father he never met. During his journey he meets Max (Joe Anderson) and Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), a brother and sister pair who are itching to break free of their stuffy New England mold. The trio travels to New York to find their freedom among the musicians, student radicals and druggies who are all looking for the same thing.

But it isn't the story that keeps you sucked into this movie. The plot isn't anything new; the story of alienated youth has been told a million times. The crux of this movie hinges on the music. Throughout the 2 hours 11 minutes of Universe, 31 Beatles songs are woven throughout the narrative. Some fit quite nicely, others just seem to have been thrown in because Taymor really liked the song - there are 2 songs in particular which stood out as not having anything to do with the plot. I Want to Hold your Hand is sung by a high school girl named Prudence (T.V. Carpio) as she lusts after one of her fellow Cheerleaders. Later in the story when Prudence is sad because another crush isn't paying attention to her the cast sings, you guessed it, Dear Prudence, to make her feel better. Perhaps the director was making a statement of the idea of free love that reigned in the 1960s and the lack of tolerance homosexual relationships garnered before the sexual revolution, but that would be a stretch...

However, for the most part the songs did fit quite nicely into the narrative and it further proved that the Beatles tunes are truly timeless. The songs about love is one thing; I don't think anyone would argue that themes of love and loss are universal across time and space, but it also makes the psychedelic songs and the anti-war revolutionary ballads relatable. Not to mention that all of the actors have exceptional voices. Wood and Sturgess stand out as the main roles and they bring all the heart and emotion one would want to a Beatles song, I mean, if you're going to cover the Beatles you better make sure you do it well! The rest of the supporting cast brings their own flair to the songs as well. Dana Fuchs plays Sadie, a Janis Joplin-esque superstar singer wannabe who tours with her lover, JoJo (Martin Luther McCoy) a dead ringer (and guitarist) for Jimi Hendrix. The blending of these musical influences bring another level to the songs as it furthers the transcendence of the music - saying that it works in any time and in any voice, or genre, of music.

The war in Iraq is more present in this movie-awards season than it has been in any previous year, and it has generally been approached with a straightforward, no nonsense mentality. Other than being set in the 1960, Universe has been able to truly capture the spirit of the 60s where music united the peace-movement. Music was a rally tool for protesters and this movie attempts to capture that and perhaps renew that spirit to rebel against a seemingly unjust and amoral war. It is when this happens, when the songs actively bridge the gap between today and yesterday, is when the movie soars. When Jude barges into Lucy's protest headquarters singing Revolution, begging her to know "it will be alright," it's almost as though he is pleading with the audience that no matter how bad it seems now with the quagmire that is the Iraq war, we should know that eventually it will be alright.

All in all it is the music that makes this movie so enjoyable. The plot is rather thin, but if you are a Beatles fan you are more than likely going to see past that and enjoy the sounds emanating from the screen.

Superbad

Super-FUN!
8/23/07

I heard someone refer to Superbad as the movie American Pie wanted to be. That is a pretty accurate description for this male-driven teen "get sex and booze" movie. The premise revolves around Seth (Jonah Hill) and Evan (Michael Cera), two best friends who have one last party to attend before splitting up and leaving for college. Their goal: have sex with the girl's they've been crushing on since kindergarten and to get alcohol for them. The result: two hours of (hilariously) awkward interactions. Awkwardness was what writers Seth Rogan (Knocked Up) and Evan Goldberg was going for. The zany and bizarre situations generally cause laugh out loud reactions from the audience.

What is interesting about this movie, however, is that despite it's seeming premise that these two guys are on the prowl for women and having the ultimate connection with them, they are really searching for a way back to each other. Seth and Evan (characters, not writers) have been best friends for life and when Evan heads over to Dartmouth for college, it will be the first time he and Seth have something they can't share. Ultimately, the climactic love scene is between the two boys as they are about to fall asleep in Evan's blanket. They express their love for one another, not for the women they just spent 12 hours trying to impress. In that sense, this is an ultimate buddy flick rather than a teenage sex romp. Ultimately, it seems as though sex isn't all that interesting to these kids. When given the chance, none of them could really deliver, for whatever reason. Girls are the cause of anxiety - not to mention the actual sex. Aside for the threat of STDs, remember Rogan's last movie when he had sex. He was stuck with a girl who didn't really like him and child he never wanted. Sex is a scary thing for people living in the 21st century. Most people having it are having it with multiple partners and are doing it before being in a committed relationship where trust is involved. All of that anxiety seemed to seep out of the characters and onto the screen, thus making the boy on boy emotional explosion, even if awkward, a lot safer.

Superbad also features Bill Hader and Seth Rogan as Officer Slater and Officer Michaels, rebellious cops who are missing their own teenage years, so rather than busting one of Seth's friends for using a fake ID to get the coveted liqueur, they embrace him, taking him on an adventure of their own. The use presence of cops as the authority figures in this movie is quite interesting because usually in High School-based movies the school's administrators are called upon to look like fools. Superbad take that to the next level by depicting actual police officers as the fools, rendering Principals and the like obsolete. Why this decision was made is unknown, but it seems to be saying that as a society our high schoolers have left the realm of school pranks, and have ventured into actual law-breaking. This is a throwback to the days of James Dean and the Juvenile Delinquents of the 1950s. In those days school figures were absent and it was the incompetent legal authorities who were made to be fools. (Remember Office Krupkee, or even Officer Obie?) Officers Slater and Michaels are made to look like fools, but an important difference is that they themselves were rebellious teenagers and tried to work within the law, but even as adults they continue to be rebellious, they weren't able to reform. Our legal system cannot work if the people inside of it aren't dedicated. At least from the decades gone by while the cops were morons, they were dedicated to upholding the law, that is not the case with Superbad.

The dialogue isn't all that impressive, tending to rely on raunchy and crude language rather than clever lines, but that's okay, it's funny nonetheless. This movie isn't looking to win any awards or to go down in history as a film that made a difference in society, rather as a 2 hour return to the horrible teenage years that when you look back at how awkward it was, all you can do is laugh.

Chuck

more like up-Chuck
8/23/04

This Fall NBC has yet another chance to try and reclaim the coveted number one network spot, but from the look of this pilot, it's going to have to try even harder. I know it's not always fair to judge a book by it's cover or a series by it's pilot, but the premise of Chuck is just so flimsy that I can't see it sustaining a whole season, let alone an entire series.

Chuck is about a self proclaimed computer nerd (Zachary Levi) who enjoys his simple life working at "BUY MORE," as a techie helping people with all sorts of gadget-related issues. He doesn't have too much in the way of professional aspirations, he's awkward with women, and has so much social anxiety he tries to escape his own birthday party before being dragged back into the house by his sister. On the night of his party an old college buddy sends him an email containing all of the CIA's secrets encoded in millions of pictures. Unknowingly, Chuck opens the email and unbeknownst to him, the secrets are instantly downloaded into his brain, making him Enemy #1.

It seems as though NBC is trying to strike gold with these types of shows - all of this fall's pilots seem to revolve around an innocent, sweet, protagonist who has some sort of special circumstances forced on him or her, without any say in the matter. This pilot has the flimsiest of plots. I can accept a man randomly traveling through time or a woman who suddenly has super powers because of bionic limbs before I am willing to suspend disbelief that by looking at some pictures one person can posses all of our nations secrets. I just don't buy it. There's a lot more going on that's too hard to believe, first of all, why would a Stamford engineering student choose to still be making 11 dollars an hour seven years after graduating!? That might seem like a simple idea, but if he had enough going for him that he would get into such a promising program, why would he be so satisfied doing a job that millions of high school kids could do?

After the episode was over I was so thankful I could move onto something else. Levi is endeering enough to keep me interested in him, but it's too bad the rest of show is so week that other than this one episode, I probably won't be watching much of the season.

The Bionic Woman

Girls rule...but only if THE MAN lets them...
8/20/07

The Bionic Woman is one of NBC's newest, and probably most buzzworthy, Fall TV shows. The question is, as it is every September, will the show live up to the hype or will it fall by the wayside with Studio 60 and the countless others of fall hopefuls who just can't quite seem to capture the audience's attention for a whole hour once a week. I like to take a look at the cultural implications of a show and what the true meaning is behind the series. This year's Bionic Woman, starring Brit, Michelle Ryan, has a female lead and is being touted as a show that will teach women, and young girls, that a woman can be strong and powerful (and still have picture perfect cleavage, a cute boyfriend, and awesome hair). But with a closer look, does that ideal hold true?

Television and Film has long attempted the portrayal of a strong female lead, but this newest try falls a bit flat, and frankly a bit insulting. Jamie, is a strong, loyal and quite smart woman, who, after a near fatal car crash has most of her limbs, and a number or organs, replaced by bionic parts. When she waked up from her surgery her boyfriend, Will (Chris Bowers), tells her what has happened. Her reaction is that of someone who is both freaked out and unusually strong (her super-strength is revealed when she almost effortlessly throws will into a glass door). As the pilot develops more details about the people who did this to her begin to surface and the more Jamie resists being controlled.

This show strongly positions itself as a girl-power, boys drool type of show. After all, the protagonist is a young woman willing to do anything or "bury anyone" who dares to cross her.
As Jamie escapes her captors by running down a long country road, a young, wistful young girl sees her and tries to point Jamie out to her mother. Rather than supporting her daughter the woman reprimands her for making up stories. In response to her mother's admonishment she says, "I just thought it was cool for a girl to do that."

Despite all these good wishes for female empowerment, the feeling I was left with was the opposite. Jamie, first of all, doesn't necessarily want her new fate. It was forced upon her by her boyfriend and the other men who come into her life. Furthermore, her new found strength makes her invincible to everyone except one other person - the first bionic woman. So, even though men aren't competition for her, she still has to fight to the death against another woman. This is almost to say that society cannot function with a plethora of strong female leads, one is enough.

On that note, what does this show say about society's role in creating these female leads? Yeah, so society has created her to be strong, but when she resists their specific training she becomes the enemy. One of the scientists, Jonas (Miguel Ferrer) tells her that her options are, "Heads you loose, tails you die." In other words, this is a loose loose situation for our heroine. Either she accepts her new societal role or she is killed trying to avoid it. I guess a woman can only be so strong if she fits into the confines of a strict behavioral code. So much for girl power. Yes, these "improvements" may have saved her life in one regard, but have sincerely destroyed it in another. For a show that thinks quite highly of itself as a message of female empowerment, it does the exact opposite.

The Bionic Woman premieres on NBC, Wednesday September 26th

Ratatouille

Oh, Rats!
7/17/07

I so wanted to like this movie. I have had a long standing loving relationship with Disney (to this day The Little Mermaid reigns supreme as one of my top ten favorite movies). They have always impressed me with the characters, humor and pictures. No matter how doubtful I was, Disney (and now Pixar) have never disappointed me. Closeted superheroes? Fabulous! Talking cars? Hysterical! But I will admit that my skepticism ran a little deeper when I heard their latest animated feature was about a rat who loves to cook, but since it was Pixar I gave it a chance. I'll be honest, I just couldn't stomach the sight of all those rats scurrying around the streets and restaurants of Paris. This time it was to Pixar's detriment that they create such lifelike and realistic characters. The rats reminded me of my nightly experience in the subway on my way home and the local news when they are reporting that another restaurant doesn't meet health standards.

The movie tells the story of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswald), a French rat who has a special sense of sniff. He is able to tell exactly what it is any edible item just by smelling it. When this talent is first discovered, his father employs him to smell all items the pack eats to ensure that no one consumes a poisoned morsel. But this role bores him and he wants to do more with food. He ventures into the kitchen of the woman's whose house he and his friends have infested and comes across a cookbook by famed French Chef, Gusteau (Brad Garrett). While searching for flavors that would help create delicacies he wakes the old woman who discovers the rodent and a shooting spree eventually leads to the escape of Remy's extended family. In the course of the great escape, Remy is separated from his family and finds himself outside the famed Gusteau restaurant.

Haunted by the ghost of Gusteau, he watches the hustle and bustle of the busy restaurant kitchen and is entranced by all the creating below. One young cook, Linguini, catches his eye as he throws whatever is in arm's length into the pot. After falling into the kitchen below he tries to salvage the soup. During this soup-resuscitation, Remy is caught by the young restaurateur and when they realize that they can help themselves, a new friendship is forged and a new cooking team is created. Working together they bring Gusteau's flailing restaurant back to it's five-star status. Their ultimate goal is to impress relentless food critic, Anton Ego (voiced by the irreverent Peter O'Toole). O'Toole's performances are always mesmerizing, and even in animated form his turn as the animated maniacal food expert is no exception.

Ultimately this Disney-Pixar collaboration stays true to form, having the final message being about friendship, family and being true to one's self. However, despite the cute comments and impressive animation I couldn't sympathize with Remy, no matter how cutesy they drew him. If anything, Linguini was the character who garnered the most sympathy from this reviewer. I wanted to see him succeed and wished he could do it without the help from his verminous pet.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry's newest challenge
7/11/07

I will always go see a Harry Potter movie. I love the whimsy and the magic that the movies create. The music alone is enough to transport me a world of witchcraft and wizardry. Isn't that so much about movies are meant to do? Take you away from reality? Let you enjoy a few hours of pure escapist entertainment? That is precisely what keeps me coming back. The fifth installment of the Harry Potter series is no exception. In the Order of the Phoenix, Harry finds himself in a much darker world of magic where death seems to be everyone's mind.

This movie, while by author J.K. Rowling's own insistence, is not meant to mirror any current political goings-on, does have some heavy moments where the students are forced to live in a Hogwarts under the control of Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton in a role scarier than the Dark Lord himself), a member of the Ministry of Magic. She moves through the school seemingly innocuously as she clicks her pink heels on the cold stones of Hogwarts, her pink poncho flowing through the wind as she ascends the stairs to her office adorned with cat-plates and pink curtains. She imposes rules and regulations, she is watching the every move of the students, and her interrogation and punishment practices all seem to be just over the edge into the realm of cruel and unusual, something not unfamiliar in today's world.

These movies have been able to achieve something not many film-from-book adaptations have been able to do. For myself and everyone I have spoken to, these movies have taken the images my mind creates while reading the books and directly transports them to the silver screen. It is for that reason I never want them to end. However, as far as movies go, this being adapted from an 800-page book Phoenix could have been well on its way to being an 8-hour movie. To compensate for that, director David Yates was able to shrink it down to a cool 2 hours 18 minutes So while it's great for the numbers-guys in the corner offices who have deemed movies over a certain length unmoney-makeable, the fans lose out. The story felt stilted, as though you could tell that something was missing. There was such a profound lack of context in that even for someone who has read all of the books thus far, the story was a bit confusing and difficult to follow. Furthermore, so much of what makes the Harry Potter series is how relatable the school sequences and the social interactions are, and yet so much of that has been deleted. For example, in the book the students are so preoccupied with studying for their O.W.L. exams that it hinders from their magical practices. In the movie the significance of the O.W.L.'s are grossly neglected.

Year five at Hogwarts does offer a glimpse into a new stage of life for Harry, Hermione and Ron. In Phoenix, the hormones begin to rage and the friendly relationships begin to morph into something else. Ron becomes more protective of Hermione as his feeling towards her leave the Platonic realm, and Harry finally garners up enough courage to do something about his year-long crush on Cho. We are also introduced to a number of new characters, one of whom I would be remiss not to mention. Luna Lovegoode (Evanna Lynch) is my new favorite Harry Potter character. Whenever she's in a scene she completely steals it from the other actors. Her distant demeanor and loony behavior is addictive and Lynch was a great casting choice for the quirky teen.

The climactic ending of the movie is the most exciting moment, not only in this chapter of the saga, but that of all the films. The special effects of the showdown between Voldemort and Dumbledore have the audiences on the edges of their seats, the theater was rumbling from both the sound effects and the heavy score. But ultimately the movie left me wanting more (which may have been its exact goal). I wanted to see more Voldemort, more Hogwarts, more Dumbledore, more professors, more ghosts, more Draco, more magic and frankly, more Hermione and Ron. This is probably the most Harry-centric film, focusing on his inner demons and the connection with Voldemort, so in order to sort that out, the rest of the players tend to get neglected. I definitely, though, left the midnight screening feeling satisfied. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix delivered what I expected it to deliver. Magic, mystery, a great story, fantastic performances, special effects that are beyond compare and an excitement for the upcoming book and all future movies.

Sicko

It will make you sick
7/6/07

In Michael Moore's newest piece investigative documentariansm he investigates the state of American health care. The film goes deeper, however. What he is really asking is, how can a country, which claims to care for the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, treat them with such indignity and lack of respect? As the movie admits to in the beginning, it is not going to be about the thousands of citizens who cannot afford heath care. It won't focus on those who have to choose which finger they will be able to afford to reattach. Rather, it will be about those who pay out of pocket hundreds of dollars per year in insurance fees and yet, when an emergency occurs or a procedure is needed, their claims will be denied based on a plethora of excuses the insurance companies invent. He explores how people suffer and have to make impossible decisions to try and stay healthy. How doctors are praised for denying care and procedures if it saves the insurance companies. How people have gotten sicker and have even died because their health insurance refuse to pay for something which they claim to be experimental. All the while the audience sits in the theater in utter shock and awe at how such atrocious occurrences happen in what we consider to be a great country. The movie offers tremendous laughs, usually at the expense of the politicians and the state of our health care. The laughs are usually uncomfortable chuckles as the audience realizes how so fundamentally UnAmerican it is to deny care to those who are sick, and yet, it seems to be happening on a scale that no one could have ever imagined.

The next piece of the film focuses on the government elected officials who squashed any attempts to socialize the medical system. No one is safe from the menacing insurance companies who are willing to buy out anyone who wants free health care for everyone. Moore successfully links the current lack of national health care to the Red Scare, where socialism equals EVIL! He explains that the Republican politicians crush any attempt to socialize health care because it is akin to communism and everything to which "American Ideals" are in direct opposition . Moore, in his infinite liberal wisdom skews the film in a very leftist direction to ensure the viewers think as he wants them to.

In the next part of the movie he actually travels to other countries, which, like America, pride their Democratic government and yet allow national health care to strive. In England, France and Canada, health care is public and the system seems to be successful. The people are happy and cared for, the doctors are living the high life and they all look at America with shock that that is not the case across the pond. However, in this exploration it is strikingly clear how he does not interview the "other side." He does not explore any downsides to Nationalized health care - such as the "optional" treatments that Americans tend to have access to which these people do not.

The final piece focuses on the 9/11 rescue workers who are still suffering from maladies incurred while saving lives. What Moore documentary would be complete without a mention of 9/11 and how the American infrastructure screwed up there? Moore introduces us to workers who have neither been able to afford nor receive medical care for their post 9/11 injuries. In a related note he makes it clear (through official testimonials) that the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba receive top notch care, most of which is never seen by law abiding citizens. He takes the workers to Gitmo to try to obtain some of this care. I'm sure you can guess what happens as they approach the compound. In the end it is the Cuban doctors and nurses which are able to provide the care for these American Heroes who have been neglected by the very country they risked their lives for. Again, it is not explained how Americans were able to receive this care from the Cubans because they are not citizens of Cuba.

As all Moore documentaries, he does not strive for a journalistic value of unbiased equal reporting. Sicko is very much a one sided argument. There is no mention of how the American health care system does succeed, such as, the level of medical expertise that isn't necessarily offered in other countries. He also doesn't mention the failings of a socialized system or interview those in France or England who find fault in their nationalized system. So take this movie with a giant boulder of salt because Moore does a very good job at finding fault where he wants you to find fault, without giving you the resources to make a truly informed opinion. However, in the end Moore does make a number of excellent points and really does highlight the incredible failing of our health care industry. As usual, Moore is not afraid to go where no other will go. The hope of this film is to mobilize Americans to do something, anything, to change things. To refuse the status quo and insist on better conditions. To be adamant that being ranked #37 in the world for health care in unacceptable. And while Moore does exaggerate to a certain extent (not every Cuban has access to the best health care in the world either), it is all to prove his ultimate point, as Jeffrey Lyons said, "Don't get sick."

Once

Once isn't enough

6/11/07

Every once and a while a movie quietly comes along that is so simply touching. These films usually come to the masses from small independent companies; Hollywood usually can't get it together to make something so simple and honest. In fact, most American movies, even when trying to depict a gritty atmosphere, are somewhat glossed over. Once is one such movie. The aesthetics are so quantifiably different from what we are used to stateside. At times it can be jarring because it seems at times like a grainy home video or the unfamiliar cinema verite, but ultimately the medium is the message. The message: Simplicity and love is what ultimately endures.


Directed by John Carney, Once tells the story of an Irish street musician (Glen Hansard) who plays his sad songs alone with one scrappy guitar. He doesn't need much to play his music, just his voice and a well worn instrument. One evening whilst playing, a Czech girl (Marketa Irglova) stops to listen and is immediately awed by his sound. During this pivotal scene the audience melds with the narrative. As we become entranced by his song so does the she, and the pair immediately forms an friendship. The songs they sing are what help bind them together. She too has suffered loss and music is the only way they are able to heal. The audience learns that he has a lost love who's moved to England. Their relationship is displayed through a series of vignettes and home videos. She has an partially estranged husband back in the Czech Republic who we learn about through the presence of her daughter who's come with her to Ireland. What was so striking about their relationship is that throughout the course of the movie their friendship develops into love. But the question that remains throughout is, will it remain Platonic or morph into romantic? That question, and ultimate answer is what keeps the audience riveted throughout.

Neither character is given a name; names make everything too personal when the story is meant to convey a universal message. They bond over their love for and attachment for music. Music is central to the film, as it is the manner in which the narrative moves along. That is the way in which Once becomes a musical. I hesitate calling it a musical because no one spontaneously breaks into song or commences in outlandish dance numbers in the streets of Dublin. Rather, songs are a labor of love, verses which have been toiled over. The music creates a format in which articulation occurs. The songs show real emotion rather than the lavish grandeur of other big budget musicals.


It seems that the ultimate meaning of the movie speaks to the potential power of song. Music is the way the characters relate to life. They use music to express themselves. It also speaks to music as being a universality that everyone can relate to. You don't have to be a professional to write it or sing it, as long as you have something to sing about. The songs themselves are also particularly interesting. Without sounding like a remake of others' music, it feels as though these songs are already part of the international soundtrack. Listening to them sounds like something homey, something familiar, and something that just seems right.

Waitress

Another Piece of Pie, Please
6/7/07

It's not every day Hollywood produces a purely feel good fantasy live action fairy tale, but that's what it has seemed to do with Waitress. It's simple and predictable, but that's all a part of it's charm. Maybe it's because Hollywood didn't really produce this one. Waitress was a Sundance hit this year, and while it's not quite charming as last year's breakthrough, Little Miss Sunshine, it definitely has some of the same allure to it. Of course, no matter how sweet the film itself is, it will be shrouded with sadness as it cannot escape the tragedy surrounding Adrienne Shelly, its writer/director/actress', murder just mere months before the movie's screening. Ironically, the movie does offer up a sense of optimism and hope by conveying the message that no matter how dismal the situation may be, you are ultimately in charge of your own destiny and can change your fortunes by sticking to your beliefs.

Kerri Russel plays Jenna, a sweet southern waitress and pie chef stuck in a miserable marriage and a thankless job who's only solace is hiding away to create her famously tasty pies. She is a dreamer who envisions herself escaping to a better life with a pie shop of her own, but when she gets pregnant by her emotionally abusive husband (Jeremy Sisto), she finds herself even more trapped than before. Without a baby she could plot an escape, but a child would make an exit all the more complicated. Abortion is never an option for her, which is an interesting comment on society. As far as she is concerned, a child would ruin her dreams, yet she won't even consider terminating the pregnancy - the word abortion isn't mentioned even once. An American fairy tale would never tolerate an abortion, so Jenna makes some excuse for why she needs to keep the baby. Narratively, the baby is needed to introduce her to (and keep her in touch with) her cute, yet married, OBGYN, Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). Their instant attraction leads to an affair neither one seems to care all that much about hiding. Interestingly, one might think that two married people engaging in an affair with one another would be something punishable by American movie standards, however neither character is penalized for his or her behavior.

To help her alleviate her misery, Jenna dreams about the pies she could make which would would mirror her situation. The desserts all have creative and whimsical names like, "'I don't want to have Earl's baby' Pie." Waitress takes a new spin on the American preoccupation with Pie; it brings back the pure connotation which had been besmirched by the American Pie movies. Once again, Pie becomes a icon of an idyllic American existence. Jenna is a small town waitress who uses her relationship to the pastry to envision a better life and thus equates pie with wholesome goodness.

Jenna also relies on her friends to help her through the tough times. Becky (Cheryl Hines) and Dawn (Shelly) wouldn't trade places with her, but they are a constant source of support for her as she makes her way through her unwanted pregnancy.

Ultimately this movie is predictable and the ending wraps up a little too easily...as though the writers didn't think about the ending too much, they just wanted to make it as clean as possible. But the ending, as sugary as it may seem, actually would be the perfect ending of the movie. Anything else wouldn't have made it the fairy tale it was ultimately meant to be.