Heroes in an unrecognizable half-shell
4/22/07
In a recent article in Entertainment Weekly, one of the producers of TMNT said that he hopes that this film will not only bring in new fans to the brand but bring back some of the old ones as well. Those original fans are 20-somethings with self-earned money to spent. The only problem with the latter portion of the theory is that for the older fans of the heroes in a half shell, there needs to be a sense of nostalgia to latch on to. They didn't even play the theme song!!! First of all, if you are my age, you've neither heard it called TMNT, nor have you or your friends referred to it as such. The new title is just the first in a long line of rebranding efforts hoping to update a 20-year-old cartoon.
Moreover, in this latest incarnation the only similarities to the original cartoon are the Turtles themselves. The "supporting cast" are all strangers. April, for one, used to be the sweet journalist who might as well have been the girl next door. Now she's a karate kicking archaeologist glamazon who doesn't seem to have any room for her organs in her tiny tummy. Furthermore, Casey now looks like a Japanamation Backstreet Boy and Splinter reminds me of a cross between Mr. Miagi and my 7th grade rabbi.
The animation is impressive, that's for sure, but it doesn't seem as though movie makers have quite caught on to the idea that no matter how cool the movie looks, if a strong story isn't there to back it up, the whole thing will fall flat. In TMNT, the script doesn't stick to one easy to follow plot. It's even hard to describe what the movie is about. I can tell you that Leonardo was out in jungles of South America finding himself when he encounters April on an expedition. He comes back to rejoin his brothers and save New York City from monsters that have been let loose by an immortal warlord who needs to send the monsters back through a time portal so he can regain his mortality and finally die after thousands of years...or something like that. There isn't much in the way of a three act narrative and there are so many conflicts that the viewer never really knows what is going to be the climax or the most significant incident.
Even though things were different I did like seeing those mischievous turtles again. To a certain extent it did bring me back hearing the Cowabungas and seeing all the pizza. Michelangelo was always my favorite because he was such a ham, and all the things I loved about him then were present in this movie. Raphael and Leonardo were at each other's throats more than I would have liked to see and Donatello was just trying to keep the peace and Splinter is, as always, always the moral center attempting to keep everything under control.
Culturally, this movie makes an interesting comment on the state of America in terms of what we allow our children to see. It is counter intuitive to what one might have thought. Most of our popular culture aimed at children is modest when it comes to sexual practices and liberal in the allowance of violence. However, any human on human (or human on turtle) violence is restrained whereas the audience discovers (in yet another unresolved plotline) that April and Casey live together and are romantically involved despite the fact that they are unmarried. It's hard to know why the story even includes this mention, because it is never developed, and ultimately it just seems out of place.
In the end, if this film does create a new generation of fans of the turtles, they would be fans of the new TMNT, not of the old school amphibians who Gen-Yers loved when they were kids. The original fans will find this flick filled with foreign, unrecognizable characters with a hard to follow story line. I say skip this one and rent the old-school movies and TV shows.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Be Careful or You'll Turn into Your Father!
During the 1950s and 1960s youth rebellion and counter culture flourished in this country. Throngs of young people were revolting against their parents and other adults during the post-war economic boom. They hated the older generations focus on material wealth. From universities to communes young people were turning on, tuning in and dropping out. And guess, what? It’s happening again today. The youth are rebelling against the adults, but doing it in an entirely different way. And the irony of the whole thing? They are rebelling against the same people who were of the generation who rebelled against their elders half a century ago. Its just human nature, or youth nature I should say, to revolt against conventional wisdom and practices.
It must be noted that their revolution is slightly different. The implicit irony with the YouTube culture is that the people posting their videos are all hoping to get rich, and quick, banking on the reliability of our celebrity obsessed culture. So, while in the 1960s youths rebelled against material wealth, today’s youth are striving to achieve it. Their rebellion lies in the way in which it is obtained. It’s a well-known adage that if you rebel too much against your parents you’re going to turn into your grandparents. That holds true, to a certain extent, here. Just like their grandparents, the stuffy adults in the 1950s, today’s youths want money. However, unlike their elders, they really aren’t willing to work for it. They look to this new technology to gain instant popularity and immediate fame.
Nevertheless, there are blatant similarities between this generation and their parents. The parallels are in the need for individual expression of self versus the abhorrence of big corporations with strong material values. With YouTube, On-Demand television, and blogging, young people of today are reclaiming social media and making it their own. They insist on instant gratification with content, as they want to see it, not as someone else dictates. Nontraditional platforms are becoming more popular than conventional arenas for displaying content while "old-media" moguls struggle to catch up. Jeff Zucker, the recently appointed head of NBC Universal, has placed conquering the digital world at the top of his "To Do" list. Mr. Zucker probably has a strong understanding of television content and its cultural implications given his close relationship with television production. I hope he understands this youth-centric rebellious trend. The thing with trends, though, is that they are fleeting. Once big corporate America takes over, the youth will find another way to create their own counter culture. It is not a coincidence that people’s first stop on their digital viewing tour is going to be YouTube before NBC.com or any other network’s website. YouTube is a place for the younger generation to express their individuality; it is the new commune, if you will. Void of adult influence, concern over FCC regulations and advertising needs, it is a place where individuals can express what they wish without external repercussions. It is the lack of corporate influence which makes it such a popular haven for youth identity.
Young people want to rebel; they want to feel like they are getting away with something. Mr. Zucker, in a company-wide town hall after his promotion to CEO (jacketless, in a very non-old world CEO manner), announced that he wanted to find a way to make money off of the NBC clips that become popular in digital formats. There is also constant talk of removing licensed material from the sight. That in it of itself might not be such a problem because it is their property to begin with. Furthermore, given its popularity with original programming, I’m sure the site doesn’t need licensed material to stay afloat. However I worry about the larger cultural implications of co-opting a medium such as YouTube. Yes, it is owned by Google, but Google is about as youth-centric and non-traditional as big business comes. And given the abundant supply of "alternative" programming, it remains untainted by "Big Business." During the 1950s and the 1960s when the youth were forging a new cultural identity, they did so independent of adult influence, and when the adults tried to come in and co-opt their ideas that pushed the rebellion even further. In universities when administrations attempted to negotiate with students, students refused and more often than not law enforcement was brought in to ease the tension. This of course sparked violence rather than subduing the uprising.
It must be mentioned that NBC does have its own, in house "rogue" digital studio which have come up with a number of "subversive" popular clips such as "The Easter Bunny Hates You." For the most part their "viral" videos for external sites (YouTube, MySpace and the like) don’t need a stamp of approval other than from the senior producer. Their funding does not come from NBC, which gives them a little freer reign than if their money did come from the company.
Individuals going to these alternative viewing sites don’t want their creativity and hard work to be moneymakers for big business. People have realized that they can take control of their viewing habits. DVR and TiVo allow people to avoid commercials, when they watch movies On Demand they don’t have previews to sit through, and when they watch the latest SNL clip on YouTube they can avoid all the non-funny content that the show provides at weekly at 11:30 PM.
All in all, history does repeat itself and any given generation’s youth will rebel against those who came before them. That rebellion generally comes in the form of gaining independence from an older generation they see as old-fashion and out of touch with their reality. Given that technology has become such a fundamental part of popular culture it is now a conduit for that rebellion. That being the case, it is imperative that that connection remains in the forefront of the minds of those in charge if they want to see their content continue to be a central part of pop-culture.
It must be noted that their revolution is slightly different. The implicit irony with the YouTube culture is that the people posting their videos are all hoping to get rich, and quick, banking on the reliability of our celebrity obsessed culture. So, while in the 1960s youths rebelled against material wealth, today’s youth are striving to achieve it. Their rebellion lies in the way in which it is obtained. It’s a well-known adage that if you rebel too much against your parents you’re going to turn into your grandparents. That holds true, to a certain extent, here. Just like their grandparents, the stuffy adults in the 1950s, today’s youths want money. However, unlike their elders, they really aren’t willing to work for it. They look to this new technology to gain instant popularity and immediate fame.
Nevertheless, there are blatant similarities between this generation and their parents. The parallels are in the need for individual expression of self versus the abhorrence of big corporations with strong material values. With YouTube, On-Demand television, and blogging, young people of today are reclaiming social media and making it their own. They insist on instant gratification with content, as they want to see it, not as someone else dictates. Nontraditional platforms are becoming more popular than conventional arenas for displaying content while "old-media" moguls struggle to catch up. Jeff Zucker, the recently appointed head of NBC Universal, has placed conquering the digital world at the top of his "To Do" list. Mr. Zucker probably has a strong understanding of television content and its cultural implications given his close relationship with television production. I hope he understands this youth-centric rebellious trend. The thing with trends, though, is that they are fleeting. Once big corporate America takes over, the youth will find another way to create their own counter culture. It is not a coincidence that people’s first stop on their digital viewing tour is going to be YouTube before NBC.com or any other network’s website. YouTube is a place for the younger generation to express their individuality; it is the new commune, if you will. Void of adult influence, concern over FCC regulations and advertising needs, it is a place where individuals can express what they wish without external repercussions. It is the lack of corporate influence which makes it such a popular haven for youth identity.
Young people want to rebel; they want to feel like they are getting away with something. Mr. Zucker, in a company-wide town hall after his promotion to CEO (jacketless, in a very non-old world CEO manner), announced that he wanted to find a way to make money off of the NBC clips that become popular in digital formats. There is also constant talk of removing licensed material from the sight. That in it of itself might not be such a problem because it is their property to begin with. Furthermore, given its popularity with original programming, I’m sure the site doesn’t need licensed material to stay afloat. However I worry about the larger cultural implications of co-opting a medium such as YouTube. Yes, it is owned by Google, but Google is about as youth-centric and non-traditional as big business comes. And given the abundant supply of "alternative" programming, it remains untainted by "Big Business." During the 1950s and the 1960s when the youth were forging a new cultural identity, they did so independent of adult influence, and when the adults tried to come in and co-opt their ideas that pushed the rebellion even further. In universities when administrations attempted to negotiate with students, students refused and more often than not law enforcement was brought in to ease the tension. This of course sparked violence rather than subduing the uprising.
It must be mentioned that NBC does have its own, in house "rogue" digital studio which have come up with a number of "subversive" popular clips such as "The Easter Bunny Hates You." For the most part their "viral" videos for external sites (YouTube, MySpace and the like) don’t need a stamp of approval other than from the senior producer. Their funding does not come from NBC, which gives them a little freer reign than if their money did come from the company.
Individuals going to these alternative viewing sites don’t want their creativity and hard work to be moneymakers for big business. People have realized that they can take control of their viewing habits. DVR and TiVo allow people to avoid commercials, when they watch movies On Demand they don’t have previews to sit through, and when they watch the latest SNL clip on YouTube they can avoid all the non-funny content that the show provides at weekly at 11:30 PM.
All in all, history does repeat itself and any given generation’s youth will rebel against those who came before them. That rebellion generally comes in the form of gaining independence from an older generation they see as old-fashion and out of touch with their reality. Given that technology has become such a fundamental part of popular culture it is now a conduit for that rebellion. That being the case, it is imperative that that connection remains in the forefront of the minds of those in charge if they want to see their content continue to be a central part of pop-culture.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Oscar Predictions
Here is the exchange on oscar predictions between my friend Eli and myself:
Eli's opinion:
Where to begin? Well the obvious place to start would be WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?!?! Leaving Dreamgirls out of the Best Picture nominations, and then giving it the most total noms (granted, 3 of them are for best song- which, BTW, Beyonce wasnt nominated despite having written at least part of it- she was nominated for the Golden Globe, after all). I will grant you that I didn't think Dreamgirls would actually WIN the Best Picture Oscar, but I think it should have at least been nominated. As for the other movies nominated, no real surprises there. I'd say it's really anybody's game at this point, but I'd go with 'The Departed' for Best Picture- unless Scorsese actually wins this time. In that case, look to 'Babel'.
On to the acting categories:
Lead Actor- I think they did a great job picking these. Though I am highly surprised that Leo wasnt nominated for The Departed- not even in a supporting role. I'm glad that Ryan Gosling was nominated. He seems to be very talented, but hasn't yet gotten his due. I think he could be a major player in the future. I would love to see Peter O'Toole win seeing as he has been nominated, (what, 8 times now?) and never won. And I would have loved to see Cohen nominated for Borat (at least he is nominated for adapted screenplay- which is strange considering a lot of it wasn't written. And what was it adapted from? The Ali G Show?). The probable winner will be Whitaker who has taken almost every major prize, tho at this point I would not be surprised if there was a major upset in this category- possibly O'Toole, but more probably DiCaprio to upset.
Lead Actress- This is a tight race too. The clear frontrunner for this category is Mirren, having won an Emmy 2 Golden Globes for playing queens, she certainly knows how to portray royalty. I am happy for Cruz, who has finally broken out of her usual 'sexpot' roles into something (supposedly) more substantial (I say 'supposedly' because I haven't actually seen the film yet). Each of the other three ladies nominated are amazing in their own rights. Kate winslet is something like 31 and has 5 Oscar noms? That's pretty amazing. Won't somebody just give her a damn Oscar already?! She will win it eventually, but not this year. Judi Dench is also supposed to be excellent in 'Scandal', but she's already won and Mirren's buzz is seemingly unstoppable. In my humble opinion, the only one who may stand a bit of a chance against her is Streep. She is just amazing- in everything she does. FOURTEEN OSCAR NOMINATIONS!! Unfortunately only 2 wins....She is due. It's been almost 25 years since she won last, and she turned a potentially throw-away role into something of substance. It's very rare for an actress to be nominated for Lead when the movie was a comedy (Diane Keaton in 'Something's Gotta Give' was the closest I can recall- and that's 2004- so that's 1 out of the past 15 nominations not including this year). Look to Mirren to win, Streep to upset.
Supporting Actor- I was completely and pleasantly surprised by the major changes from the Golden Globe awards. I'm sure you were not happy to see Nicholson not get a nom, but frankly, I didn't find his performance especially deserving of one. It's the usual Nicholson character- nothing new there. I kinda felt like 'been there, done that" while watching him. I am shocked that Brad Pitt didn't get a nom. He has been Hollywood's golden boy for a while now, and he delivered a wonderful performance. I'm glad that Mark Wahlberg was nominated- he was very good. However, I doubt he'll win the award. I haven't seen 'Little Children' and haven't heard anything as far as Haley's performance goes. In my mind, this is a 3-way race. Hounsou was amazing in 'Blood Diamond' and is certainly worthy of a nomination, as is Alan Arkin as the druggie-advice-giving grandpa in "Sunshine'. They are both wonderful in those movies, but I think Murphy's pulling off a dramatic role while most ppl only considered him a comedic actor could clinch the Oscar for him. He was wonderful as James 'Thunder' Earley in 'Dreamgirls' and definitely deserves to win. I think he'll win, though look to Hounsou as the possible upset.
Supporting Actress- The only change here from the Golden Globes was Emily Blunt from 'Prada' was passed over for Abigail Breslin in 'Sunshine'. It's unfortunate that 6 actresses couldn't be nominated, because I think Blunt deserved one for her witty performance in 'Prada', but I am very happy Breslin was nominated. She was excellent in 'Sunshine'- the one character which people cared for throughout the movie. I'm still deciding it that was because of her portrayal of the character or just how she's written, but either way it was a superb job. Though I'm glad she got nominated, I doubt she will win. Blanchett is great as usual, though I don't think the movie is big enough to earn her another Oscar. Both of the 'Babel' ladies were also wonderful- Kikuchi was fearless and Barraza was heart-wrenching and I think the nominations were well-deserved. As far as winning goes- I'd have to go with Hudson for her incredible DEBUT PERFORMANCE as Effie in 'Dreamgirls'. I have been listening to the soundtrack practically non-stop since I got it and I can't detect one false step she made. She still has work to do to become a major Hollywood player, but there's definitely potential, and nobody else pulled off nearly as moving a performance in the category. I'd say it's Hudson to win, with a minor chance of upset from Blanchett.
Director- If Scorsese doesn't win for 'The Departed' I don't think he'll ever win. The movie was very well directed. It's hard for me to decide this category since I have only seen that and 'Babel'- which rightly earned Inarritu a nom, but probably won't earn him the award. Paul Greengrass was a surprise, though I guess they wouldn't nominate Eastwood twice in the same category. I doubt Greengrass will win, though 'United 93' is supposed to be excellent. It's still too fresh for me to watch the movie, and I think that will affect at least a couple of Oscar voters as well. From what I've heard of 'The Queen', it is really Mirren's performance that stands out in that movie- nothing especially amazing aside from that. Doubtful he'll win. Eastwood, however, has proven to be an Academy favorite- having won 2 awards for 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Unforgiven'. He out did himself by making 2 complimentary movies. I doubt that this will be overlooked. The only hesitation I have is that neither of his movies were major box office hits, whereas 'The Departed' was. Look to Scorsese to win, Eastwood to upset.
My opinion:
Leading actor: Forrest Witaker is probably going to win the oscar, giving the immense buzz about his performance. I think his only real competition is Peter O'Toole, who has been nominated 8 times but never won. The academy have not traditionally given sympathy oscars (the aviator is the best example I can think of). If they dont think the performace is worthy, they wont give it the award no matter how old or accomplished the nominee is. Plus, they usually give the neglected an honorary lifetime acheivement thing instead. HOWEVER, that being said, O'Toole is an incredible actor and even though I havent seen Venus, Im sure he is amazing in it. I hope to see it before feb 25! I also think Leo might have a shot because he did such a good job in both of his movies so they might reward him for that, but unlikely.
Leading actress: Its going to be Helen Mirren, no doubt. Like you said, Meryl might get it, but given the award success she's already had, I am going to bet on Helen to win.
Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy, no doubt. He was great in Dreamgirls and he probably deserves it, but I would LOVE to see Alan Arkin win - he really stole every scene he was in. He brought an extra flair to Little Miss Sunshine, and while all the actors were fantastic, I think he was the strongest performer of the lot.
Supporting actress: Ok, so here is where we are going to disagree. I don't think Jennifer Hudson deserves the Oscar. There, I said it. I think she has an AMAZING voice and her singing was flawless. However, she is not an actress. Whenever she had a talking scene, especially the ones with Jamie Foxx, she made them all awkward. Whenever she had to kiss him it really just didnt work at all. During her songs she gave it her all and her emotion was there, but otherwise I don't think she was particularly outstanding. I would LOVE to see Abigail Breslin win the award, she was simply amazing and she was so intense in that role, especially during the difficult scenes. I think she should win, but she wont.
Director: Martin Scorcese, definitely. I think this could go back to the reference I made with O'Toole. However, the movie was great, the technical aspects were great and he is due. I agree with you that Frears could be the upset win, or possible perenial favorite Clint Eastwood, but I think that the lack of commercial success for either of his films this year could work against him.
Best Picture: First, I would like to address the Dreamgirls "scandal." It should not have been nominated, it's not oscar worthy. Technically it was just ok - the looping quality was very poor - it was SO obvious that they were lip syncing, the acting was ok (Beyonce sucks...but damn, did she look good!), and the script wasnt anything special either. The direction was pretty decent, and the songs were fun. The costumes were spectacular, except what they put poor Jennifer Hudson in. It would have been nice to see her in one dress that fit her. Also, as much as I love musicals, this one felt forced when the actors broke into song in the middle of the street. Also there was too much crossover between diagetic and nondiagetic music, it became distracting.
That being said...I think the departed should win. I loved that movie! Babel might be the upset win. However, one more push for Little Miss Sunshine: no one thought it would be nominated in major academy categories, so it might surprise everyone. Clearly the voters liked it and recognized it as a great movie, so who knows, that might sweep the night.
Eli's opinion:
Where to begin? Well the obvious place to start would be WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?!?! Leaving Dreamgirls out of the Best Picture nominations, and then giving it the most total noms (granted, 3 of them are for best song- which, BTW, Beyonce wasnt nominated despite having written at least part of it- she was nominated for the Golden Globe, after all). I will grant you that I didn't think Dreamgirls would actually WIN the Best Picture Oscar, but I think it should have at least been nominated. As for the other movies nominated, no real surprises there. I'd say it's really anybody's game at this point, but I'd go with 'The Departed' for Best Picture- unless Scorsese actually wins this time. In that case, look to 'Babel'.
On to the acting categories:
Lead Actor- I think they did a great job picking these. Though I am highly surprised that Leo wasnt nominated for The Departed- not even in a supporting role. I'm glad that Ryan Gosling was nominated. He seems to be very talented, but hasn't yet gotten his due. I think he could be a major player in the future. I would love to see Peter O'Toole win seeing as he has been nominated, (what, 8 times now?) and never won. And I would have loved to see Cohen nominated for Borat (at least he is nominated for adapted screenplay- which is strange considering a lot of it wasn't written. And what was it adapted from? The Ali G Show?). The probable winner will be Whitaker who has taken almost every major prize, tho at this point I would not be surprised if there was a major upset in this category- possibly O'Toole, but more probably DiCaprio to upset.
Lead Actress- This is a tight race too. The clear frontrunner for this category is Mirren, having won an Emmy 2 Golden Globes for playing queens, she certainly knows how to portray royalty. I am happy for Cruz, who has finally broken out of her usual 'sexpot' roles into something (supposedly) more substantial (I say 'supposedly' because I haven't actually seen the film yet). Each of the other three ladies nominated are amazing in their own rights. Kate winslet is something like 31 and has 5 Oscar noms? That's pretty amazing. Won't somebody just give her a damn Oscar already?! She will win it eventually, but not this year. Judi Dench is also supposed to be excellent in 'Scandal', but she's already won and Mirren's buzz is seemingly unstoppable. In my humble opinion, the only one who may stand a bit of a chance against her is Streep. She is just amazing- in everything she does. FOURTEEN OSCAR NOMINATIONS!! Unfortunately only 2 wins....She is due. It's been almost 25 years since she won last, and she turned a potentially throw-away role into something of substance. It's very rare for an actress to be nominated for Lead when the movie was a comedy (Diane Keaton in 'Something's Gotta Give' was the closest I can recall- and that's 2004- so that's 1 out of the past 15 nominations not including this year). Look to Mirren to win, Streep to upset.
Supporting Actor- I was completely and pleasantly surprised by the major changes from the Golden Globe awards. I'm sure you were not happy to see Nicholson not get a nom, but frankly, I didn't find his performance especially deserving of one. It's the usual Nicholson character- nothing new there. I kinda felt like 'been there, done that" while watching him. I am shocked that Brad Pitt didn't get a nom. He has been Hollywood's golden boy for a while now, and he delivered a wonderful performance. I'm glad that Mark Wahlberg was nominated- he was very good. However, I doubt he'll win the award. I haven't seen 'Little Children' and haven't heard anything as far as Haley's performance goes. In my mind, this is a 3-way race. Hounsou was amazing in 'Blood Diamond' and is certainly worthy of a nomination, as is Alan Arkin as the druggie-advice-giving grandpa in "Sunshine'. They are both wonderful in those movies, but I think Murphy's pulling off a dramatic role while most ppl only considered him a comedic actor could clinch the Oscar for him. He was wonderful as James 'Thunder' Earley in 'Dreamgirls' and definitely deserves to win. I think he'll win, though look to Hounsou as the possible upset.
Supporting Actress- The only change here from the Golden Globes was Emily Blunt from 'Prada' was passed over for Abigail Breslin in 'Sunshine'. It's unfortunate that 6 actresses couldn't be nominated, because I think Blunt deserved one for her witty performance in 'Prada', but I am very happy Breslin was nominated. She was excellent in 'Sunshine'- the one character which people cared for throughout the movie. I'm still deciding it that was because of her portrayal of the character or just how she's written, but either way it was a superb job. Though I'm glad she got nominated, I doubt she will win. Blanchett is great as usual, though I don't think the movie is big enough to earn her another Oscar. Both of the 'Babel' ladies were also wonderful- Kikuchi was fearless and Barraza was heart-wrenching and I think the nominations were well-deserved. As far as winning goes- I'd have to go with Hudson for her incredible DEBUT PERFORMANCE as Effie in 'Dreamgirls'. I have been listening to the soundtrack practically non-stop since I got it and I can't detect one false step she made. She still has work to do to become a major Hollywood player, but there's definitely potential, and nobody else pulled off nearly as moving a performance in the category. I'd say it's Hudson to win, with a minor chance of upset from Blanchett.
Director- If Scorsese doesn't win for 'The Departed' I don't think he'll ever win. The movie was very well directed. It's hard for me to decide this category since I have only seen that and 'Babel'- which rightly earned Inarritu a nom, but probably won't earn him the award. Paul Greengrass was a surprise, though I guess they wouldn't nominate Eastwood twice in the same category. I doubt Greengrass will win, though 'United 93' is supposed to be excellent. It's still too fresh for me to watch the movie, and I think that will affect at least a couple of Oscar voters as well. From what I've heard of 'The Queen', it is really Mirren's performance that stands out in that movie- nothing especially amazing aside from that. Doubtful he'll win. Eastwood, however, has proven to be an Academy favorite- having won 2 awards for 'Million Dollar Baby' and 'Unforgiven'. He out did himself by making 2 complimentary movies. I doubt that this will be overlooked. The only hesitation I have is that neither of his movies were major box office hits, whereas 'The Departed' was. Look to Scorsese to win, Eastwood to upset.
My opinion:
Leading actor: Forrest Witaker is probably going to win the oscar, giving the immense buzz about his performance. I think his only real competition is Peter O'Toole, who has been nominated 8 times but never won. The academy have not traditionally given sympathy oscars (the aviator is the best example I can think of). If they dont think the performace is worthy, they wont give it the award no matter how old or accomplished the nominee is. Plus, they usually give the neglected an honorary lifetime acheivement thing instead. HOWEVER, that being said, O'Toole is an incredible actor and even though I havent seen Venus, Im sure he is amazing in it. I hope to see it before feb 25! I also think Leo might have a shot because he did such a good job in both of his movies so they might reward him for that, but unlikely.
Leading actress: Its going to be Helen Mirren, no doubt. Like you said, Meryl might get it, but given the award success she's already had, I am going to bet on Helen to win.
Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy, no doubt. He was great in Dreamgirls and he probably deserves it, but I would LOVE to see Alan Arkin win - he really stole every scene he was in. He brought an extra flair to Little Miss Sunshine, and while all the actors were fantastic, I think he was the strongest performer of the lot.
Supporting actress: Ok, so here is where we are going to disagree. I don't think Jennifer Hudson deserves the Oscar. There, I said it. I think she has an AMAZING voice and her singing was flawless. However, she is not an actress. Whenever she had a talking scene, especially the ones with Jamie Foxx, she made them all awkward. Whenever she had to kiss him it really just didnt work at all. During her songs she gave it her all and her emotion was there, but otherwise I don't think she was particularly outstanding. I would LOVE to see Abigail Breslin win the award, she was simply amazing and she was so intense in that role, especially during the difficult scenes. I think she should win, but she wont.
Director: Martin Scorcese, definitely. I think this could go back to the reference I made with O'Toole. However, the movie was great, the technical aspects were great and he is due. I agree with you that Frears could be the upset win, or possible perenial favorite Clint Eastwood, but I think that the lack of commercial success for either of his films this year could work against him.
Best Picture: First, I would like to address the Dreamgirls "scandal." It should not have been nominated, it's not oscar worthy. Technically it was just ok - the looping quality was very poor - it was SO obvious that they were lip syncing, the acting was ok (Beyonce sucks...but damn, did she look good!), and the script wasnt anything special either. The direction was pretty decent, and the songs were fun. The costumes were spectacular, except what they put poor Jennifer Hudson in. It would have been nice to see her in one dress that fit her. Also, as much as I love musicals, this one felt forced when the actors broke into song in the middle of the street. Also there was too much crossover between diagetic and nondiagetic music, it became distracting.
That being said...I think the departed should win. I loved that movie! Babel might be the upset win. However, one more push for Little Miss Sunshine: no one thought it would be nominated in major academy categories, so it might surprise everyone. Clearly the voters liked it and recognized it as a great movie, so who knows, that might sweep the night.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Enough Already! - 2/11/07
Enough Already!
February 11, 2007
I know that this blog is meant to be exclusively for film reviews, but due to recent events, a different kind of cultural review is in order. The event? The sad, but ultimately not shocking, death of Anna Nicole Smith. I know, it’s tragic. She suddenly died and no one knows why. Of course I would never want to minimize the sadness of another human’s death, but I have to say that the attention the news has given it is obsene. The media have gotten to a point of ridiculousness. When the news first broke that she passed out MSNBC covered her fall for what seemed like over a half an hour. I thought that was a little over the top, but it was nothing compared to the coverage her death got. MSNBC covered her death for over three hours! I would have kept monitoring it, but I had to go home. Three hours? Are you kidding me? Was there nothing else going on in the world at the time? Had world peace suddenly broken out? Were snowstorms no longer killing people in the Midwest? Apparently there was nothing more important going on in the world that it was necessary to show the same stock footage of Anna Nicole flouncing down red carpets and hamming it up for the camera. The anchors didn’t even have any new information to offer throughout this three-hour circus. They just kept repeating themselves over and over.
One thing I did notice was that they kept saying that her life was such a public spectacle, and now so is her death. Well now, who would be to blame for that? It’s one thing if MSNBC and all the other news networks were innocent of keeping her out of the spotlight, but they are not. Clearly there is no longer a blur between the lines of news and entertainment news, and that is a sad comment on our culture. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with entertainment news. I follow the gossip blogs, the trashy mags and I also watch the shows that are entirely devoted to covering this sort of nonsense. However, when I turn into the a news network, I should be able to get informed about the presidential candidates and the latest news from the war in Iraq. Apparently I shouldn’t have set my expectations so high.
Why did MSNBC insist on running this non-story for so long? Well, the only way to really figure that out would be to call up the GM, Dan Abrams, but I’m sure he wouldn’t talk to me, so instead I am left to speculate. My guess would be because of ratings. It is clear that in television, ratings are the number one goal. In the media saturated world we live in, cable news networks need to find a way to grab viewers so the more sensational the better. Apparently, the commitment to bringing the hard news to the American people takes a back seat to the stories that carry fun and exciting images. But the problem with that theory, especially when it comes to Anna Nicole, who really wants to watch that for so long? Presumably the people who tune into MSNBC are people who are interested in following "real" news and not the fluff they can soak up on Access Hollywood. So the fact that her story has been all over the network has been extremely frustrating and disappointing.
It is not only the cable channels that are to blame. The network news programs are also at fault for sensationalizing it. While the story wasn’t the first one mentioned by NBC, CBS, or ABC, more time was devoted to covering it than was the Iraq war. Maybe they figure that people are sick of hearing about the war and they need something else to spice up their nights, but whose fault is that for the people being bored with hearing the news? Maybe if we were given an all encompassing understanding of what was going on and not a fragmented picture of the news we might be more interested in hearing about it. We would be able to understand it and be interested in learning more about it. When you have to cut down the amount of time to talk about the war, politics, economy, health and education so we can fill up time with a piece about Anna Nicole, someone famous just for being famous, you know there is something wrong with your culture.
I know that there has been a lot of negative backlash against the news coverage, and I can only hope that the outcry has trickled over to the news rooms and they tone down the coverage of Smith’s death. I also hope that they realize that they should not pander to sensationalism and acknowledge that their viewers are interested in real, hard hitting news stories that will ultimately affect their lives.
February 11, 2007
I know that this blog is meant to be exclusively for film reviews, but due to recent events, a different kind of cultural review is in order. The event? The sad, but ultimately not shocking, death of Anna Nicole Smith. I know, it’s tragic. She suddenly died and no one knows why. Of course I would never want to minimize the sadness of another human’s death, but I have to say that the attention the news has given it is obsene. The media have gotten to a point of ridiculousness. When the news first broke that she passed out MSNBC covered her fall for what seemed like over a half an hour. I thought that was a little over the top, but it was nothing compared to the coverage her death got. MSNBC covered her death for over three hours! I would have kept monitoring it, but I had to go home. Three hours? Are you kidding me? Was there nothing else going on in the world at the time? Had world peace suddenly broken out? Were snowstorms no longer killing people in the Midwest? Apparently there was nothing more important going on in the world that it was necessary to show the same stock footage of Anna Nicole flouncing down red carpets and hamming it up for the camera. The anchors didn’t even have any new information to offer throughout this three-hour circus. They just kept repeating themselves over and over.
One thing I did notice was that they kept saying that her life was such a public spectacle, and now so is her death. Well now, who would be to blame for that? It’s one thing if MSNBC and all the other news networks were innocent of keeping her out of the spotlight, but they are not. Clearly there is no longer a blur between the lines of news and entertainment news, and that is a sad comment on our culture. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with entertainment news. I follow the gossip blogs, the trashy mags and I also watch the shows that are entirely devoted to covering this sort of nonsense. However, when I turn into the a news network, I should be able to get informed about the presidential candidates and the latest news from the war in Iraq. Apparently I shouldn’t have set my expectations so high.
Why did MSNBC insist on running this non-story for so long? Well, the only way to really figure that out would be to call up the GM, Dan Abrams, but I’m sure he wouldn’t talk to me, so instead I am left to speculate. My guess would be because of ratings. It is clear that in television, ratings are the number one goal. In the media saturated world we live in, cable news networks need to find a way to grab viewers so the more sensational the better. Apparently, the commitment to bringing the hard news to the American people takes a back seat to the stories that carry fun and exciting images. But the problem with that theory, especially when it comes to Anna Nicole, who really wants to watch that for so long? Presumably the people who tune into MSNBC are people who are interested in following "real" news and not the fluff they can soak up on Access Hollywood. So the fact that her story has been all over the network has been extremely frustrating and disappointing.
It is not only the cable channels that are to blame. The network news programs are also at fault for sensationalizing it. While the story wasn’t the first one mentioned by NBC, CBS, or ABC, more time was devoted to covering it than was the Iraq war. Maybe they figure that people are sick of hearing about the war and they need something else to spice up their nights, but whose fault is that for the people being bored with hearing the news? Maybe if we were given an all encompassing understanding of what was going on and not a fragmented picture of the news we might be more interested in hearing about it. We would be able to understand it and be interested in learning more about it. When you have to cut down the amount of time to talk about the war, politics, economy, health and education so we can fill up time with a piece about Anna Nicole, someone famous just for being famous, you know there is something wrong with your culture.
I know that there has been a lot of negative backlash against the news coverage, and I can only hope that the outcry has trickled over to the news rooms and they tone down the coverage of Smith’s death. I also hope that they realize that they should not pander to sensationalism and acknowledge that their viewers are interested in real, hard hitting news stories that will ultimately affect their lives.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Queen - 1/2/07
Royal Treatment
1/2/07
In Stephen Frear’s The Queen, he explores the relationship between the British people and their monarch during the week that followed the death of Princess Diana. The film follows the royal family, and specifically Queen Elizabeth II, as they refused to leave their vacation at Balmoral to return to Windsor to be with the mourning public. The movie includes many conversations between the Queen and her inferiors as they plead with her to return to London and appease the British people.
The strongest element of this movie is Mirren’s performance. Her depiction of The Queen has the strength to carry the entire film. She dissolved into her role, blurring all lines between the actress and her character. The conveys a sense of regality and urgency of her dilemma. The audience gets a real sense of her struggle between her traditions and remaining a relevant personality to her people.
Something important to note is that the title of the movie is The Queen, not Queen Elizabeth. In the closing credits Helen Mirren is listed as The Queen. This is very telling as conveys the sense that the movie is about the monarchy, not one monarch. As the Queen, Elizabeth is upholding the long standing traditions of the royal family and not pandering to a culture that lets all of its emotions hang out. Conversations between Elizabeth and the Queen Mum show that she would have done the same thing. The Queen Mum confirms that the role of the monarch is to be a constant force of uprightness and civility that won’t conform to changing social behaviors.
I found myself deeply absorbed in the movie, but afterwards I couldn’t help but think, other than Mirren’s performance, what does this film add to the cinematic landscape? All of the conversations are fictitious; we don’t actually know what happened behind closed doors. The audience watches Prince Charles argue with his mother about wanting to return to London, but there is no evidence that those conversations took place. Charles comes across in this film as completely useless and unable to stand up to and influence his mother, clearly traits not suited for a future king. But ultimately no one can be sure that these were his reactions to the death of his former wife and the mother of his children. It was almost frustrating at times because you expect this to be an "inside look" into a time that was so emotionally tumultuous, but you aren’t.
Another of the movies strengths, however, is how beautifully it highlights the struggle between old British stiff upper lip and the new sense of openness Diana exuded, both to her benefit and detriment. Diana’s fans wanted to see their monarch morning her the way they were and expressing her feelings the way Diana would have. Despite this, The Queen was simply unwilling to outwardly express sorrow or alter her traditions to fit the changing culture.
One particularly interesting cultural comment that this film makes is about the people’s potential power over the decisions over their leader. I did like the film’s depiction of a nation coming together to change the actions of of their leader. This movie is very much allegorical to the political atmosphere here in the US. Americans are constantly protesting President Bush’s war in Iraq and nothing seems to be changing. For The Queen to go against her traditions she would be breaking a centuries-old chain of customs, yet she acknowledged the importance of public opinion and values and ultimately acted on that realization. When it does come to convincing The Queen, the newly elected Tony Blair does it best. He appeals to her sense of country and her sense of duty by saying that her people need her in this time of need. Ultimately The Queen returns from her vacation home in Balmoral to her palace in London and is met by her grieving public. At this point she acknowledges their devotion to Diana (despite her protests that she was stripped of her HRH title) and that they wanted to see royal acknowledgement of her death. It is truly gratifying to see the power the people can hold over its leaders, and it is particularly moving to see it in this day and age.
1/2/07
In Stephen Frear’s The Queen, he explores the relationship between the British people and their monarch during the week that followed the death of Princess Diana. The film follows the royal family, and specifically Queen Elizabeth II, as they refused to leave their vacation at Balmoral to return to Windsor to be with the mourning public. The movie includes many conversations between the Queen and her inferiors as they plead with her to return to London and appease the British people.
The strongest element of this movie is Mirren’s performance. Her depiction of The Queen has the strength to carry the entire film. She dissolved into her role, blurring all lines between the actress and her character. The conveys a sense of regality and urgency of her dilemma. The audience gets a real sense of her struggle between her traditions and remaining a relevant personality to her people.
Something important to note is that the title of the movie is The Queen, not Queen Elizabeth. In the closing credits Helen Mirren is listed as The Queen. This is very telling as conveys the sense that the movie is about the monarchy, not one monarch. As the Queen, Elizabeth is upholding the long standing traditions of the royal family and not pandering to a culture that lets all of its emotions hang out. Conversations between Elizabeth and the Queen Mum show that she would have done the same thing. The Queen Mum confirms that the role of the monarch is to be a constant force of uprightness and civility that won’t conform to changing social behaviors.
I found myself deeply absorbed in the movie, but afterwards I couldn’t help but think, other than Mirren’s performance, what does this film add to the cinematic landscape? All of the conversations are fictitious; we don’t actually know what happened behind closed doors. The audience watches Prince Charles argue with his mother about wanting to return to London, but there is no evidence that those conversations took place. Charles comes across in this film as completely useless and unable to stand up to and influence his mother, clearly traits not suited for a future king. But ultimately no one can be sure that these were his reactions to the death of his former wife and the mother of his children. It was almost frustrating at times because you expect this to be an "inside look" into a time that was so emotionally tumultuous, but you aren’t.
Another of the movies strengths, however, is how beautifully it highlights the struggle between old British stiff upper lip and the new sense of openness Diana exuded, both to her benefit and detriment. Diana’s fans wanted to see their monarch morning her the way they were and expressing her feelings the way Diana would have. Despite this, The Queen was simply unwilling to outwardly express sorrow or alter her traditions to fit the changing culture.
One particularly interesting cultural comment that this film makes is about the people’s potential power over the decisions over their leader. I did like the film’s depiction of a nation coming together to change the actions of of their leader. This movie is very much allegorical to the political atmosphere here in the US. Americans are constantly protesting President Bush’s war in Iraq and nothing seems to be changing. For The Queen to go against her traditions she would be breaking a centuries-old chain of customs, yet she acknowledged the importance of public opinion and values and ultimately acted on that realization. When it does come to convincing The Queen, the newly elected Tony Blair does it best. He appeals to her sense of country and her sense of duty by saying that her people need her in this time of need. Ultimately The Queen returns from her vacation home in Balmoral to her palace in London and is met by her grieving public. At this point she acknowledges their devotion to Diana (despite her protests that she was stripped of her HRH title) and that they wanted to see royal acknowledgement of her death. It is truly gratifying to see the power the people can hold over its leaders, and it is particularly moving to see it in this day and age.
Monday, December 25, 2006
The Pursuit of Happyness - 12/25/06
Pursuing the American Dream
12/25/06
In "The Pursuit of Happyness" Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a man down on his luck. He and his wife are barely making enough money to keep a roof over their son’s head. As a salesman, he made a faulty investment on a medical device which turned out to be too expensive for doctors to purchase. Unable to sell enough of them to produce a profit, his wife Linda (Thandie Newton) is relegated to working double shifts as a laundry woman in a local hotel. They are behind on their rent payments, parking tickets and daycare fees when Linda finally gives up and leaves Chris and their son Christopher (Smith’s real life son, Jaden) to fend for themselves. One day, Chris meets a broker who tells him that as long as he is good with numbers and people he has a shot at making it big. Clearly someone who is interested in get-rich-quick gigs, Chris puts all of his energy into pursuing this newest endeavor. He is accepted to a prestigious (unpaid) 20-person internship at a big brokerage firm and starts putting all of his efforts into being the one intern awarded a job at the end of his six-month program.
The title of the film refers to Thomas Jefferson’s words from the Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness is an ideal intertwined with American values. As much as people insist that money does not buy happiness, this film would beg to differ. As Americans we are guaranteed life and liberty, but not happiness. We are guaranteed to pursue happiness, but a final result is not assured. Perhaps it is because happiness is subjective. Some would be happy with a roof over one’s head. However, Gardner needs much more. He lusts over Mercedes Benz’s, mansions and box seats at football stadiums. He will not be truly happy unless he can provide all of those amenities for his son. The spelling of the title is a bit of irony thrown in for good measure. The preschool which his son attends is in the heart of Chinatown, the teacher barely speaks English and the students watch television to pass the time. Outside, on the school’s front wall, the word "Happyness" is spray-painted. How can his son be expected to get a decent education if a simple word such as happiness can’t even be spelled correctly?
One of the biggest problems with this movie is how, whenever Gardner is at his lowest of lows, something comes along to give him some respite. A film professor once told me that just because something happened in real life, does not mean that it can translate onto film. That idea holds true with "The Pursuit of Happyness." Even though the movie starts out with the disclaimer that it is based on a true story, presumably most of the major turning points actually happened. However, it difficult to believe that he would twice be able to recover stolen scanners, or that just when he had 21 dollars in his bank account he was able to make a sale after 4 months of no progress. Those scenes made the story less believable rather than more impressive.
It is hard to deny that the story is pretty much one sided. Linda is a shrill woman consumed with fulfilling her own happiness, even if it means abandoning her son and husband when things did not work out to her exact expectations. The film, meant to highlight Gardner's life and relationship with his son, very deliberately makes the mother figure as mean and self-centered as possible. On the flip side, Will Smith gives one of the most powerful performances of his career as a father trying to provide enough love and enough sustenance for his son. In one of the most heart-wrenching scenes, Christopher asks his father if "mom left because of me." The scene takes place when the duo is at their lowest of lows, sleeping in a communal room at a church shelter with only one broken scanner left to sell, Chris assures his son that "mom left because of mom." In a scene such as this, the audience sits in the theater fully aware that they are being emotionally manipulated, but given the narrative it is what they want to see. Viewers want to know that Chris is the good guy who is going to save his son from tough times. Furthermore, with Linda being the antagonist it gives an outlet for their hardships; she can be the bad guy and become the one on which blame can be placed (even though she was the one pulling the double shifts while Chris was trying to sell a defective product).
Ultimately, the film holds true to the American dream. It states that if you work hard enough your dreams can come true. Nothing is left up to fate; it is all in your own hands to control your future. Gardner was a hard working, honest man who never compromised on his morals and therefore he got his dream. He put every bit of effort into excelling in his internship, studying until all hours of the night. At the same time he was devoted to his son and trying to keep him safe. The movie is also saying that was chosen to work at the firm because of his own behaviors, not because of any one else’s decisions. He took his life and liberty to pursue happiness and it paid off. This movie is a rah-rah American dream flick. It is overly sentimental and sappy, but that is how audiences like to see their American dream films. They don’t want the bad guy getting the prize or a good person not fulfilling his dreams. A movie such as these needs to be overly sentimental because that is the only way the audience will applaud along with Chris at the end.
12/25/06
In "The Pursuit of Happyness" Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a man down on his luck. He and his wife are barely making enough money to keep a roof over their son’s head. As a salesman, he made a faulty investment on a medical device which turned out to be too expensive for doctors to purchase. Unable to sell enough of them to produce a profit, his wife Linda (Thandie Newton) is relegated to working double shifts as a laundry woman in a local hotel. They are behind on their rent payments, parking tickets and daycare fees when Linda finally gives up and leaves Chris and their son Christopher (Smith’s real life son, Jaden) to fend for themselves. One day, Chris meets a broker who tells him that as long as he is good with numbers and people he has a shot at making it big. Clearly someone who is interested in get-rich-quick gigs, Chris puts all of his energy into pursuing this newest endeavor. He is accepted to a prestigious (unpaid) 20-person internship at a big brokerage firm and starts putting all of his efforts into being the one intern awarded a job at the end of his six-month program.
The title of the film refers to Thomas Jefferson’s words from the Declaration of Independence. The pursuit of happiness is an ideal intertwined with American values. As much as people insist that money does not buy happiness, this film would beg to differ. As Americans we are guaranteed life and liberty, but not happiness. We are guaranteed to pursue happiness, but a final result is not assured. Perhaps it is because happiness is subjective. Some would be happy with a roof over one’s head. However, Gardner needs much more. He lusts over Mercedes Benz’s, mansions and box seats at football stadiums. He will not be truly happy unless he can provide all of those amenities for his son. The spelling of the title is a bit of irony thrown in for good measure. The preschool which his son attends is in the heart of Chinatown, the teacher barely speaks English and the students watch television to pass the time. Outside, on the school’s front wall, the word "Happyness" is spray-painted. How can his son be expected to get a decent education if a simple word such as happiness can’t even be spelled correctly?
One of the biggest problems with this movie is how, whenever Gardner is at his lowest of lows, something comes along to give him some respite. A film professor once told me that just because something happened in real life, does not mean that it can translate onto film. That idea holds true with "The Pursuit of Happyness." Even though the movie starts out with the disclaimer that it is based on a true story, presumably most of the major turning points actually happened. However, it difficult to believe that he would twice be able to recover stolen scanners, or that just when he had 21 dollars in his bank account he was able to make a sale after 4 months of no progress. Those scenes made the story less believable rather than more impressive.
It is hard to deny that the story is pretty much one sided. Linda is a shrill woman consumed with fulfilling her own happiness, even if it means abandoning her son and husband when things did not work out to her exact expectations. The film, meant to highlight Gardner's life and relationship with his son, very deliberately makes the mother figure as mean and self-centered as possible. On the flip side, Will Smith gives one of the most powerful performances of his career as a father trying to provide enough love and enough sustenance for his son. In one of the most heart-wrenching scenes, Christopher asks his father if "mom left because of me." The scene takes place when the duo is at their lowest of lows, sleeping in a communal room at a church shelter with only one broken scanner left to sell, Chris assures his son that "mom left because of mom." In a scene such as this, the audience sits in the theater fully aware that they are being emotionally manipulated, but given the narrative it is what they want to see. Viewers want to know that Chris is the good guy who is going to save his son from tough times. Furthermore, with Linda being the antagonist it gives an outlet for their hardships; she can be the bad guy and become the one on which blame can be placed (even though she was the one pulling the double shifts while Chris was trying to sell a defective product).
Ultimately, the film holds true to the American dream. It states that if you work hard enough your dreams can come true. Nothing is left up to fate; it is all in your own hands to control your future. Gardner was a hard working, honest man who never compromised on his morals and therefore he got his dream. He put every bit of effort into excelling in his internship, studying until all hours of the night. At the same time he was devoted to his son and trying to keep him safe. The movie is also saying that was chosen to work at the firm because of his own behaviors, not because of any one else’s decisions. He took his life and liberty to pursue happiness and it paid off. This movie is a rah-rah American dream flick. It is overly sentimental and sappy, but that is how audiences like to see their American dream films. They don’t want the bad guy getting the prize or a good person not fulfilling his dreams. A movie such as these needs to be overly sentimental because that is the only way the audience will applaud along with Chris at the end.
Blood Diamond - 12/25/06
Diamonds Might Not Be Your Best Friend
12/25/06
Conflict diamonds: diamonds mined by slave labor and fueled by an army of kidnapped children. Did Americans even know this was an issue before Leonardo DiCaprio got involved?
Blood Diamond, directed by Edward Zwick, recounts the series of events surrounding the conflict over diamonds in the Sierra Leone region in Africa in 1999. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is taken hostage by rebel forces after they destroy his village and kidnap his family. The RUF force him to work in the illegal diamond mines. While enslaved, Vandy discovers a rare 100-karat pink diamond which soon becomes the object of everyone’s affection. Smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) learns about the pink diamond and makes it his mission to recover the stone and make a significant profit. What he doesn’t count on is the innumerable violent lengths others will take to capture the stone themselves. The war raged over this one diamond, and the violence is never ending, is a microcosm for what was done for countless others.
Matty Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is a do-gooder journalist type who has been living in the Sierra Leone for 3 months researching information so she can write a heart wrenching and legislative changing piece about the struggle over diamonds in that region. Since the diamond trade in Sierra Leone is illegal because of the great deal of political and social unrest it creates, they are smuggled across the border to Libya and then sold there as though native to that country. Matty has been unable to produce an effective story as of yet because of her lack of hard data. She cannot prove that the diamonds are being smuggled into Libya, and furthermore she has no evidence that they are then being sold to the international diamond seller in England. She hopes that her new acquaintance with Archer will provide her with enough information to write a story which will make a difference to Americans and perhaps force the lawmakers to change their policies.
Our American popular culture elevates journalists to a level where their work can alter public opinion and rally Americans to make a change. When was the last time that was actually the case? For the last half a century movies have taken the stand against political strife and have made efforts to gather people around certain causes. The state of our news media does not seem to be strong enough to make people stand up and make a difference. Bowen laments that fact when she tries to explain why the world isn’t coming to the people of the Sierra Leone’s rescue. She comments about how she can work for weeks on a piece, and her story might only air for a few minutes between sports and weather. The news networks, some of which exist just for 24-hour coverage, insist on pandering to an audience which only will watch what it wants to see. The fighting and violence isn’t as much fun as the latest Hollywood break-up or celebrating your team’s big win. People don’t want to focus on things that upset them too much, especially if they can’t really do much to change it. There aren’t too many things people can do from overseas that can rectify the situation, as Matty says, "What, are they going to send a check?" Even a donation cannot stop the magnitude of the warfare going on in the region. The irony is, of course, that films, which were invented to entertain, are now being used to inform and educate while journalism (especially television journalism) has become a venue for entertainment.
Ultimately the movie wants Americans to be more aware of the purchases they make and the consequences they might have. The closing disclaimer pleads with audiences to make sure that the diamonds they purchase are conflict-free. However, there is no real information about how to go about doing that. That might be the eventual lesson of the movie – that this is a film. In the end, while it is a gateway for learning about a world issue, this is a form of entertainment. The movie should serve as an introduction to a topic of concern and hopefully it will inspire audiences to become more informed about it.
Topics exploring African politics are currently very much in-vogue in filmmaking today, and making them relevant to Americans a big challenge. Of course, it helps when Leo is front and center of the issue (it helps even more when he isn’t wearing his shirt). Within the narrative of the film, however, the relevance is made clear. In one conversation we learn how conflict diamonds should be applicable to Americans’ lives. Matty berates Danny for smuggling diamonds and perpetuating the violence, but Danny insists he is providing a service that the market demands. "American girls dream of the storybook wedding," they all want the giant rock on their finger. This movie’s claim is that without even knowing it, our American standards are fueling a war thousands of miles away.
The movie does not focus on American versus non-American values; it barely focuses on racial issues. This movie has a mission and it does not want its message to get buried under a pile of other problems the world is facing. The biggest issue is clearly freeing the market from conflict diamonds and those who are tortured because of them. The other issue is that of insiders versus outsiders, in other words, Africans versus non-Africans. Archer is a white South African who talks about Africa being in his blood. Solomon is a black African whose family has been stolen and enslaved. Matty is an American who takes pictures and cries over the sights of all that is happening to these people. But ultimately, regardless of her efforts to become a part of it, she is an outsider.
The movie makers want audiences to understand why there is so much unrest. The land is so important to the African people, and even though there is great value in the resources it produces, the connection goes much deeper. Africans have seen their parents, children, friends and countless others murdered over the land. Archer laments never escaping the harsh reality that is his life; however, when given the chance he cannot seem to leave. His life is in Africa and no matter how much he tries, he cannot escape it. Furthermore, outsiders cannot understand the connection despite their efforts. Matty wants so much to be a part of it, but she is unable to truly understand; unless you have lived and lost in Africa, you are an outsider. The black-white issue isn’t nearly as dramatic as the African-non African dichotomy.
The hope is that this movie entertains audiences. However, other purpose is to educate audiences about an issue that claimed thousands of peoples’ lives. While the conflict in the Sierra Leone has ended, the movie makes sure to tell audiences that conflict diamonds still exist and they should be aware of what purchasing them means. Furthermore, there are still thousands of child slaves in African (and throughout the world). Perhaps if they are educated about history and current policies that will ensure that history does not repeat itself.
12/25/06
Conflict diamonds: diamonds mined by slave labor and fueled by an army of kidnapped children. Did Americans even know this was an issue before Leonardo DiCaprio got involved?
Blood Diamond, directed by Edward Zwick, recounts the series of events surrounding the conflict over diamonds in the Sierra Leone region in Africa in 1999. Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) is taken hostage by rebel forces after they destroy his village and kidnap his family. The RUF force him to work in the illegal diamond mines. While enslaved, Vandy discovers a rare 100-karat pink diamond which soon becomes the object of everyone’s affection. Smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) learns about the pink diamond and makes it his mission to recover the stone and make a significant profit. What he doesn’t count on is the innumerable violent lengths others will take to capture the stone themselves. The war raged over this one diamond, and the violence is never ending, is a microcosm for what was done for countless others.
Matty Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is a do-gooder journalist type who has been living in the Sierra Leone for 3 months researching information so she can write a heart wrenching and legislative changing piece about the struggle over diamonds in that region. Since the diamond trade in Sierra Leone is illegal because of the great deal of political and social unrest it creates, they are smuggled across the border to Libya and then sold there as though native to that country. Matty has been unable to produce an effective story as of yet because of her lack of hard data. She cannot prove that the diamonds are being smuggled into Libya, and furthermore she has no evidence that they are then being sold to the international diamond seller in England. She hopes that her new acquaintance with Archer will provide her with enough information to write a story which will make a difference to Americans and perhaps force the lawmakers to change their policies.
Our American popular culture elevates journalists to a level where their work can alter public opinion and rally Americans to make a change. When was the last time that was actually the case? For the last half a century movies have taken the stand against political strife and have made efforts to gather people around certain causes. The state of our news media does not seem to be strong enough to make people stand up and make a difference. Bowen laments that fact when she tries to explain why the world isn’t coming to the people of the Sierra Leone’s rescue. She comments about how she can work for weeks on a piece, and her story might only air for a few minutes between sports and weather. The news networks, some of which exist just for 24-hour coverage, insist on pandering to an audience which only will watch what it wants to see. The fighting and violence isn’t as much fun as the latest Hollywood break-up or celebrating your team’s big win. People don’t want to focus on things that upset them too much, especially if they can’t really do much to change it. There aren’t too many things people can do from overseas that can rectify the situation, as Matty says, "What, are they going to send a check?" Even a donation cannot stop the magnitude of the warfare going on in the region. The irony is, of course, that films, which were invented to entertain, are now being used to inform and educate while journalism (especially television journalism) has become a venue for entertainment.
Ultimately the movie wants Americans to be more aware of the purchases they make and the consequences they might have. The closing disclaimer pleads with audiences to make sure that the diamonds they purchase are conflict-free. However, there is no real information about how to go about doing that. That might be the eventual lesson of the movie – that this is a film. In the end, while it is a gateway for learning about a world issue, this is a form of entertainment. The movie should serve as an introduction to a topic of concern and hopefully it will inspire audiences to become more informed about it.
Topics exploring African politics are currently very much in-vogue in filmmaking today, and making them relevant to Americans a big challenge. Of course, it helps when Leo is front and center of the issue (it helps even more when he isn’t wearing his shirt). Within the narrative of the film, however, the relevance is made clear. In one conversation we learn how conflict diamonds should be applicable to Americans’ lives. Matty berates Danny for smuggling diamonds and perpetuating the violence, but Danny insists he is providing a service that the market demands. "American girls dream of the storybook wedding," they all want the giant rock on their finger. This movie’s claim is that without even knowing it, our American standards are fueling a war thousands of miles away.
The movie does not focus on American versus non-American values; it barely focuses on racial issues. This movie has a mission and it does not want its message to get buried under a pile of other problems the world is facing. The biggest issue is clearly freeing the market from conflict diamonds and those who are tortured because of them. The other issue is that of insiders versus outsiders, in other words, Africans versus non-Africans. Archer is a white South African who talks about Africa being in his blood. Solomon is a black African whose family has been stolen and enslaved. Matty is an American who takes pictures and cries over the sights of all that is happening to these people. But ultimately, regardless of her efforts to become a part of it, she is an outsider.
The movie makers want audiences to understand why there is so much unrest. The land is so important to the African people, and even though there is great value in the resources it produces, the connection goes much deeper. Africans have seen their parents, children, friends and countless others murdered over the land. Archer laments never escaping the harsh reality that is his life; however, when given the chance he cannot seem to leave. His life is in Africa and no matter how much he tries, he cannot escape it. Furthermore, outsiders cannot understand the connection despite their efforts. Matty wants so much to be a part of it, but she is unable to truly understand; unless you have lived and lost in Africa, you are an outsider. The black-white issue isn’t nearly as dramatic as the African-non African dichotomy.
The hope is that this movie entertains audiences. However, other purpose is to educate audiences about an issue that claimed thousands of peoples’ lives. While the conflict in the Sierra Leone has ended, the movie makes sure to tell audiences that conflict diamonds still exist and they should be aware of what purchasing them means. Furthermore, there are still thousands of child slaves in African (and throughout the world). Perhaps if they are educated about history and current policies that will ensure that history does not repeat itself.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
For Your Consideration - 12/14/06
Definitely "Consider" this one
12/14/06
For Your Consideration opens with Bette Davis declaring her love for Henry Fonda in a classic Hollywood scene from Jezebel. This richly glamorous and emotional scene starkly juxtaposes the film which ensues. Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy collaborate once again to spoof Hollywood in this latest vehicle. Guest and Levy abandoned their traditional "mockumentary" platform for a more traditional narrative. In this film, Catherine O’Hara plays Marilyn Hack, an aging actress who can’t even remember the roles which made her famous. In her newest movie, Home for Purim, she is the dying mother to Shmuel (Brian Chubb being played by Christopher Moynihan) and Rachel (Callie Webb played by Parker Posey). Before Purim is even completed, a set onlooker posts a blurb on his personal blog about how he thinks that Home for Purim could be an Oscar contender and its leading actors could be up for nods as well. As the coverage over the potential nominations grows, so do the egos. Their self-inflation leads them to ridiculous plastic surgeries and absurd senses of their self worth and self-promotion. Of course, when the nominations don’t all go according to plan, their egos are quickly deflated and the actors are relegated to menial acting tasks such as teaching, doing commercials and performing in lame one-woman shows – as if one’s worth as an actor is only defined by the awards for which they are nominated and the media attention they can garner.
In one scene, the "suits from the office" coming down to suggest to the producer (Jennifer Coolidge) and writers (Bob Balaban and Michael McKean) that they change the movie’s name from Home for Purim to Home for Thanksgiving to make it more appealing to a mass audience. This is a blatant reference to Hollywood pandering to audiences who will make them the most money. The suits insist that this change is to "tone down the Jewishness" and thereby appeal to a greater audience. Of course, what makes no difference to them is the loss of cultural importance and religious significance the holiday holds to the characters and to the film itself. This is a clear dig to Hollywood’s constant insistence on investing money in movies which appeal to mass audiences and earning the most money for the studios, regardless of what cultural importance might be lost in the process.
Furthermore, relying heavily on insider jokes, this film is the latest in the growing list of self referential programming being produced by Hollywood. Preceded by the Emmy winning Entourage, 30 Rock and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Consideration relies heavily on this growing tradition. The audience is expected to deduce which characters are which: the publicists, directors, etc are introduced without having their roles explicitly explained. With all of the Hollywood-centric programming out there, the "insider" club is a lot less exclusive and a lot more accessible. That is something which also detracts from the glamour of Hollywood. The more accessible it is, the less exciting and alluring it becomes. Additionally, the 24/7 paparazzi attacks have also detracted from Hollywood glitz and taught America that movie stars are human and make the same mistakes other people do. Through this, Hollywood "starlets" have lost the glamour that they were once so known for. Film actresses are no longer idealized as they once were, and furthermore, movies no longer have lines that with which people say along while tears are brimming in their eyes; it is almost as though smart and interesting dialogue is inconsequential. The writing process is about as far removed from that of the "olden days" as possible. Movies are all about the image, and appeasing the mass audiences who watch them. The scene from Jezebel showed audiences how powerful a movie can be without compromising those ideals.
Furthermore, another aspect of the movie industry which it mocks is the fact that it doesn’t even matter how the final outcome of the movie looks. A film’s worth is only dependant on how the press focuses on it, and subsequently, the media will center its attention on saying what they think the audiences want to hear. That exact thing happened this season with Dreamgirls. This movie is the most buzzed about film of the season, and much of the buzz began well before editing of the film was even complete. However, that buzz created such a frenzy about the movie all of the media outlets insisted on singing its praises without ever having seen the film. That media indulgence is depicted in this movie by Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. They play a pair of perfectly annoying Entertainment Tonight-esq anchors who cater to the interests of the audience who support the program. When interviewing the cast of Home for Purim, they care little about asking about the actual film; rather they focus on silly gossipy questions and other nonsense.
In their typical style the collaborators who brought us A Mighty Wind and Best in Show, bring audiences another spoof on another American tradition, this time attacking the very medium which has brought them their fame and fortune. Yet, by kicking this gift horse in the mouth they somehow manage to do it in a non-ungrateful manner, and hopefully it will even strengthen the industry from whence it comes.
12/14/06
For Your Consideration opens with Bette Davis declaring her love for Henry Fonda in a classic Hollywood scene from Jezebel. This richly glamorous and emotional scene starkly juxtaposes the film which ensues. Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy collaborate once again to spoof Hollywood in this latest vehicle. Guest and Levy abandoned their traditional "mockumentary" platform for a more traditional narrative. In this film, Catherine O’Hara plays Marilyn Hack, an aging actress who can’t even remember the roles which made her famous. In her newest movie, Home for Purim, she is the dying mother to Shmuel (Brian Chubb being played by Christopher Moynihan) and Rachel (Callie Webb played by Parker Posey). Before Purim is even completed, a set onlooker posts a blurb on his personal blog about how he thinks that Home for Purim could be an Oscar contender and its leading actors could be up for nods as well. As the coverage over the potential nominations grows, so do the egos. Their self-inflation leads them to ridiculous plastic surgeries and absurd senses of their self worth and self-promotion. Of course, when the nominations don’t all go according to plan, their egos are quickly deflated and the actors are relegated to menial acting tasks such as teaching, doing commercials and performing in lame one-woman shows – as if one’s worth as an actor is only defined by the awards for which they are nominated and the media attention they can garner.
In one scene, the "suits from the office" coming down to suggest to the producer (Jennifer Coolidge) and writers (Bob Balaban and Michael McKean) that they change the movie’s name from Home for Purim to Home for Thanksgiving to make it more appealing to a mass audience. This is a blatant reference to Hollywood pandering to audiences who will make them the most money. The suits insist that this change is to "tone down the Jewishness" and thereby appeal to a greater audience. Of course, what makes no difference to them is the loss of cultural importance and religious significance the holiday holds to the characters and to the film itself. This is a clear dig to Hollywood’s constant insistence on investing money in movies which appeal to mass audiences and earning the most money for the studios, regardless of what cultural importance might be lost in the process.
Furthermore, relying heavily on insider jokes, this film is the latest in the growing list of self referential programming being produced by Hollywood. Preceded by the Emmy winning Entourage, 30 Rock and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Consideration relies heavily on this growing tradition. The audience is expected to deduce which characters are which: the publicists, directors, etc are introduced without having their roles explicitly explained. With all of the Hollywood-centric programming out there, the "insider" club is a lot less exclusive and a lot more accessible. That is something which also detracts from the glamour of Hollywood. The more accessible it is, the less exciting and alluring it becomes. Additionally, the 24/7 paparazzi attacks have also detracted from Hollywood glitz and taught America that movie stars are human and make the same mistakes other people do. Through this, Hollywood "starlets" have lost the glamour that they were once so known for. Film actresses are no longer idealized as they once were, and furthermore, movies no longer have lines that with which people say along while tears are brimming in their eyes; it is almost as though smart and interesting dialogue is inconsequential. The writing process is about as far removed from that of the "olden days" as possible. Movies are all about the image, and appeasing the mass audiences who watch them. The scene from Jezebel showed audiences how powerful a movie can be without compromising those ideals.
Furthermore, another aspect of the movie industry which it mocks is the fact that it doesn’t even matter how the final outcome of the movie looks. A film’s worth is only dependant on how the press focuses on it, and subsequently, the media will center its attention on saying what they think the audiences want to hear. That exact thing happened this season with Dreamgirls. This movie is the most buzzed about film of the season, and much of the buzz began well before editing of the film was even complete. However, that buzz created such a frenzy about the movie all of the media outlets insisted on singing its praises without ever having seen the film. That media indulgence is depicted in this movie by Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. They play a pair of perfectly annoying Entertainment Tonight-esq anchors who cater to the interests of the audience who support the program. When interviewing the cast of Home for Purim, they care little about asking about the actual film; rather they focus on silly gossipy questions and other nonsense.
In their typical style the collaborators who brought us A Mighty Wind and Best in Show, bring audiences another spoof on another American tradition, this time attacking the very medium which has brought them their fame and fortune. Yet, by kicking this gift horse in the mouth they somehow manage to do it in a non-ungrateful manner, and hopefully it will even strengthen the industry from whence it comes.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Holiday - 12/11/06
And you thought you needed a vacation
12/11/06
Just in time for the holidays comes this year’s fluffiest romantic comedy, aptly named The Holiday. The title has a double meaning, referring to both the vacations the leading characters take and the time of year in which they take it. Directed by Nancy Meyers (What Women Want and Something’s Gotta Give) this movie isn’t just about one type of love, it’s about the need for love, what that entails, and the different types of love one encounters. It is about romantic love, familial love and friendship love. All of the characters in this movie are looking for connections with others as the sense of loneliness during the holiday season creeps in.
In this flick Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz play women on opposite sides of the pond in desperate needs of time away from their real lives. Iris (Winslet) is a newspaper columnist trying to get over a recently engaged ex-boyfriend and Amanda (Diaz) is a high powered movie-trailer producer in Los Angeles whose career keeps pushing away men who try to get close to her.
On a whim Amanda looks online for vacation locations so she can escape her loneliness during the Christmas season, and she comes across a home exchange website where Iris has listed her house. The two women exchange some instant messages and decide that they will make the switch the next day. Upon arrival to each others homes, it becomes apparent that these two women could not be more different. Iris is in awe of Amanda’s luxurious home. She races through the house basking in the glory that is the home gym, plasma television, modern kitchen, Olympic sized pool, and finally the king sized bed. Paralleled to that is Amanda’s arrival at Iris’s modest cottage in the snowy English town. Schlepping her luggage through the snow in her stiletto heals, Amanda cannot believe her misfortune upon the arrival to this quaint and quiet home. She wanted to be alone, but not that alone.
Not until Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) arrives does Amanda begin to see the redeeming qualities of her vacation spot. Not knowing his sister is out of town Graham drunkenly imposes upon her home and to his surprise, a lonely American girl awaits some excitement. In a rare moment of spontaneity (as Amanda puts it) she takes him to bed (his sister’s bed no less…yuck!). Similarly, back in L.A., Iris is also looking for companionship. However, hers comes in a very different way. It comes in the form of her 90 year old neighbor Arthur Abbot (the always remarkable Eli Wallach). Arthur is an old time Hollywood screen writer and through his love of the movies and the strong leading women in those films, Iris learns to recapture her own gumption to be able to let go of her obsession with her ex, Jasper (Rufus Sewell). Once she learns this, she can see another new acquaintance, Miles (Jack Black), as more than just a new friend.
This movie tries to be a lot smarter than your average holiday-time romantic comedy. It employs a lot of tongue in cheek humor and makes many references to classic films from a bygone Hollywood era. Arthur waxes nostalgia about the days of Louis B. Meyer and when the writing was worth listening to. There are clever tie-ins, teaching the audience terms like meet-cute and cameos from Bill Macy and Shelley Berman, actors from said era.
However, clocking in at over 2 and a half hours, it is a lot longer than it needs to be. The length does make the movie drag along by the end. It also does have almost every cliché in the book. Throughout the movie a running theme is Amanda’s inability to cry. She hasn’t cried since her parents split up when she was 15. Gee, I wonder what’s going to happen after she leaves Graham and his admission of love as she heads back to the airport.
I will say this, the casting was great. All four leading roles were written for the actors who played them. Jack Black probably wouldn’t be the first person who comes to mind when thinking of a romantic lead to pair with Kate Winslet, but in The Holiday it works. If her character would be pining away for him, it wouldn’t be so believable, but as the go to nice guy friend, he is perfect. Ms. Winslet is perfectly cute and sweet as she plays the romantically obsessed writer determined to make a new life for herself. Ms. Diaz is superbly cast as the workaholic career driven woman who will never compromise on glamour, no matter how ridiculous the situation. And finally, who else but Mr. Law could play the super sexy yet possibly less than noble suitor for the high-strung Amanda?
Perfect for those who are looking for a light romantic comedy during Oscar season’s heavy politically charged dramas, The Holiday will lighten your spirits fulfill the annual need for a low-key, love filled movie about finding the right one during the holiday season.
12/11/06
Just in time for the holidays comes this year’s fluffiest romantic comedy, aptly named The Holiday. The title has a double meaning, referring to both the vacations the leading characters take and the time of year in which they take it. Directed by Nancy Meyers (What Women Want and Something’s Gotta Give) this movie isn’t just about one type of love, it’s about the need for love, what that entails, and the different types of love one encounters. It is about romantic love, familial love and friendship love. All of the characters in this movie are looking for connections with others as the sense of loneliness during the holiday season creeps in.
In this flick Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz play women on opposite sides of the pond in desperate needs of time away from their real lives. Iris (Winslet) is a newspaper columnist trying to get over a recently engaged ex-boyfriend and Amanda (Diaz) is a high powered movie-trailer producer in Los Angeles whose career keeps pushing away men who try to get close to her.
On a whim Amanda looks online for vacation locations so she can escape her loneliness during the Christmas season, and she comes across a home exchange website where Iris has listed her house. The two women exchange some instant messages and decide that they will make the switch the next day. Upon arrival to each others homes, it becomes apparent that these two women could not be more different. Iris is in awe of Amanda’s luxurious home. She races through the house basking in the glory that is the home gym, plasma television, modern kitchen, Olympic sized pool, and finally the king sized bed. Paralleled to that is Amanda’s arrival at Iris’s modest cottage in the snowy English town. Schlepping her luggage through the snow in her stiletto heals, Amanda cannot believe her misfortune upon the arrival to this quaint and quiet home. She wanted to be alone, but not that alone.
Not until Iris’s brother Graham (Jude Law) arrives does Amanda begin to see the redeeming qualities of her vacation spot. Not knowing his sister is out of town Graham drunkenly imposes upon her home and to his surprise, a lonely American girl awaits some excitement. In a rare moment of spontaneity (as Amanda puts it) she takes him to bed (his sister’s bed no less…yuck!). Similarly, back in L.A., Iris is also looking for companionship. However, hers comes in a very different way. It comes in the form of her 90 year old neighbor Arthur Abbot (the always remarkable Eli Wallach). Arthur is an old time Hollywood screen writer and through his love of the movies and the strong leading women in those films, Iris learns to recapture her own gumption to be able to let go of her obsession with her ex, Jasper (Rufus Sewell). Once she learns this, she can see another new acquaintance, Miles (Jack Black), as more than just a new friend.
This movie tries to be a lot smarter than your average holiday-time romantic comedy. It employs a lot of tongue in cheek humor and makes many references to classic films from a bygone Hollywood era. Arthur waxes nostalgia about the days of Louis B. Meyer and when the writing was worth listening to. There are clever tie-ins, teaching the audience terms like meet-cute and cameos from Bill Macy and Shelley Berman, actors from said era.
However, clocking in at over 2 and a half hours, it is a lot longer than it needs to be. The length does make the movie drag along by the end. It also does have almost every cliché in the book. Throughout the movie a running theme is Amanda’s inability to cry. She hasn’t cried since her parents split up when she was 15. Gee, I wonder what’s going to happen after she leaves Graham and his admission of love as she heads back to the airport.
I will say this, the casting was great. All four leading roles were written for the actors who played them. Jack Black probably wouldn’t be the first person who comes to mind when thinking of a romantic lead to pair with Kate Winslet, but in The Holiday it works. If her character would be pining away for him, it wouldn’t be so believable, but as the go to nice guy friend, he is perfect. Ms. Winslet is perfectly cute and sweet as she plays the romantically obsessed writer determined to make a new life for herself. Ms. Diaz is superbly cast as the workaholic career driven woman who will never compromise on glamour, no matter how ridiculous the situation. And finally, who else but Mr. Law could play the super sexy yet possibly less than noble suitor for the high-strung Amanda?
Perfect for those who are looking for a light romantic comedy during Oscar season’s heavy politically charged dramas, The Holiday will lighten your spirits fulfill the annual need for a low-key, love filled movie about finding the right one during the holiday season.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Bobby - 11/27/06
Bobby, as a Lesson for the Future
11/27/06
What is it about the Kennedy family that intoxicates Americans? Almost 40 years after the assassination of the younger member of America’s royal family, the story still invokes tears and gasps from audiences. Emilio Estevez’s Bobby tells the story of the events that took place in the Ambassador hotel the day that Robert Kennedy won the California primary and was then shot in the kitchen of the hotel. The movie follows a number of people and how they go about their day the political potential was killed. All of those individuals end up in the ballroom listening to RFK accept the win, and a number of them are in the kitchen with him when he is shot.
One theme which is constant through the movie is that of violence – both domestic and abroad. The violence referred to is both between individuals and on a national level. The social turmoil in America at that time was tangible. Violence existed between race, class, and nationalities. The characters Estevez follows embody all of those social tensions as well. Elderly men lament about how society rejected them once they reached a certain age, young men talk about how they are afraid of being shipped off the Vietnam, women discuss their roles and how they are expected to put themselves out to protect the wellbeing of their husbands and they aren’t supposed to feel neglected. Finally, a young African American political worker is distressed over the lack of support towards encouraging poor black citizens to vote. These individuals are microcosms of the greater social strife, and one of the main strengths of the movie lies in its ability to personalize global problems and puts a face to the conflict.
Another interesting artistic choice is to interweave archival footage and voiceovers from speeches RFK made during the campaign trail. Estevez makes very conscience decisions about which of RFK’s speeches to highlight in the film. It is clear that he is making a direct parallel between the socio-political situation in the 1960s and that of today. The speeches all talk about how America cannot survive as a nation divided by race, economics and political opinions. At a time where there are a number of parallels being drawn between the two eras, this movie is no exception. There was so much hope among Americans when Bobby was running for president. People expected him to take over his brother’s legacy and bring America back to a place where people could be proud. The optimism was almost palatable. When the shots from Sirhan Sirhan’s gun ring out throughout the hotel, that promise fades along with him.
Interwoven throughout the movie are real pieces of archival footage from goings on in the 1960s and from Bobby Kennedy’s campaign trail. One of this movie’s greatest strength is using those images to further its agenda. The movie wants to the audience to identify with the characters and by using that footage it reminds viewers that this isn’t just a fictional account of what happened. The people and events depicted are real and the issues the country was facing at the time was real and pressing. So too, the danger of times we are currently in are just as imminent and Americans are yearning for a savior, like the one they saw in John F. Kennedy and then with his younger brother, Bobby.
Another theme throughout the movie is that of escapism. Characters work hard to find their own ways to escape from the harsh reality of the world in which they live. Lounge singer Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore) chooses to escape into “a bottle of very fine scotch.” Two young pollsters (Shia LeBouf and Brian Geraghty) wish to buy a joint from a hippie (Ashton Kutcher), but instead they get a chance to experience their very first acid hit. Others, like Diane and William (Lindsay Lohan and Elijah Wood) choose to get married to keep William away from the front lines in Vietnam. This young couple is escaping from their real lives to marry one another in order to not have to face the harsh reality of where young boys are being sent every day. Ultimately, the message is that there is no escape. Those who try the hardest to escape come face to face with the harsh realities of the world. There is no shelter from violence, no matter what measures are taken to protect oneself. However, the escape seemed to be possible, that is, until Kennedy was shot. At this point, people faced the real danger and the sadness as soon as their political leadership was literally unable to help them forge a new future.
Ultimately the message of the film is that violence at home cannot be underestimated. Bobby Kennedy ran on a platform which stated that until we can live together in peace domestically, we cannot expect peace from abroad. This is a message which is relevant today. The current war in Iraq is an issue which has this country divided, but the message cannot be forgotten that we should not abandon our ideal of peace to end a war abroad. Bobby Kennedy represented hopefulness for a better future. His life was cut short by an act of senseless violence. That is why his legacy remains powerful and relevant until today. It is the same reason his brother’s legacy is strong as well. The movie closes with home photographs of the Kennedy brothers together and smiling. People at that time thought, especially after Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. murder, that RFK was the country’s last chance for not only peace, but for social unification. The sentiment of this movie seems to be saying that we still haven’t found someone who can lead us like our potential leadership from 40 years ago. The film wishes for a return to a leadership whom the American people can look towards with an idealistic sense of hope.
Finally, Bobby is a who’s who of Hollywood. It seemed that anyone in Hollywood who considers him or herself a liberal wished to jump on this bandwagon. At times it was distracting – always knowing that the next character to appear is another big name actor you were not expecting to see. Sometime is would have been better to leave some of the roles to less known actors. For instance, I would have enjoyed the movie far greater had some other young ingénue play the role of Diane. I did not need to hear Lindsay Lohan raspily drone on about the perils of the war and the selflessness of her act to marry William when in real life, her shenanigans are anything but selfless or cautionary. Furthermore, while Laurence Fishburne is a fantastic actor, it was needless for him to play the wise chef. The role was too small for him and his monologue about how much of a king Jose (Freddy Rodriguez) is for giving him Dodgers tickets was too melodramatic to be believable. It was, however, fantastic to see Sharon Stone and Demi Moore play women their own ages who resist just that – being a middle aged women in a youth obsessed culture. They were cast perfectly in those roles.
As award season rolls along, politically charged films are anything but a novelty. However, what is particularly interesting about this film is its use of politics which are close to 40 years old to make a film which is so relevant today. Not only does the movie succeed at making this link, but it does so quite seamlessly at that. So the question individuals have to ask themselves is, will we as a country allow ourselves to watch history repeat itself? We have not fully regressed to the level of violence, domestically that is, that existed in the 1960s, but perhaps this film should be a warning to Americans and American leadership of what may happen if things continue to escalate.
11/27/06
What is it about the Kennedy family that intoxicates Americans? Almost 40 years after the assassination of the younger member of America’s royal family, the story still invokes tears and gasps from audiences. Emilio Estevez’s Bobby tells the story of the events that took place in the Ambassador hotel the day that Robert Kennedy won the California primary and was then shot in the kitchen of the hotel. The movie follows a number of people and how they go about their day the political potential was killed. All of those individuals end up in the ballroom listening to RFK accept the win, and a number of them are in the kitchen with him when he is shot.
One theme which is constant through the movie is that of violence – both domestic and abroad. The violence referred to is both between individuals and on a national level. The social turmoil in America at that time was tangible. Violence existed between race, class, and nationalities. The characters Estevez follows embody all of those social tensions as well. Elderly men lament about how society rejected them once they reached a certain age, young men talk about how they are afraid of being shipped off the Vietnam, women discuss their roles and how they are expected to put themselves out to protect the wellbeing of their husbands and they aren’t supposed to feel neglected. Finally, a young African American political worker is distressed over the lack of support towards encouraging poor black citizens to vote. These individuals are microcosms of the greater social strife, and one of the main strengths of the movie lies in its ability to personalize global problems and puts a face to the conflict.
Another interesting artistic choice is to interweave archival footage and voiceovers from speeches RFK made during the campaign trail. Estevez makes very conscience decisions about which of RFK’s speeches to highlight in the film. It is clear that he is making a direct parallel between the socio-political situation in the 1960s and that of today. The speeches all talk about how America cannot survive as a nation divided by race, economics and political opinions. At a time where there are a number of parallels being drawn between the two eras, this movie is no exception. There was so much hope among Americans when Bobby was running for president. People expected him to take over his brother’s legacy and bring America back to a place where people could be proud. The optimism was almost palatable. When the shots from Sirhan Sirhan’s gun ring out throughout the hotel, that promise fades along with him.
Interwoven throughout the movie are real pieces of archival footage from goings on in the 1960s and from Bobby Kennedy’s campaign trail. One of this movie’s greatest strength is using those images to further its agenda. The movie wants to the audience to identify with the characters and by using that footage it reminds viewers that this isn’t just a fictional account of what happened. The people and events depicted are real and the issues the country was facing at the time was real and pressing. So too, the danger of times we are currently in are just as imminent and Americans are yearning for a savior, like the one they saw in John F. Kennedy and then with his younger brother, Bobby.
Another theme throughout the movie is that of escapism. Characters work hard to find their own ways to escape from the harsh reality of the world in which they live. Lounge singer Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore) chooses to escape into “a bottle of very fine scotch.” Two young pollsters (Shia LeBouf and Brian Geraghty) wish to buy a joint from a hippie (Ashton Kutcher), but instead they get a chance to experience their very first acid hit. Others, like Diane and William (Lindsay Lohan and Elijah Wood) choose to get married to keep William away from the front lines in Vietnam. This young couple is escaping from their real lives to marry one another in order to not have to face the harsh reality of where young boys are being sent every day. Ultimately, the message is that there is no escape. Those who try the hardest to escape come face to face with the harsh realities of the world. There is no shelter from violence, no matter what measures are taken to protect oneself. However, the escape seemed to be possible, that is, until Kennedy was shot. At this point, people faced the real danger and the sadness as soon as their political leadership was literally unable to help them forge a new future.
Ultimately the message of the film is that violence at home cannot be underestimated. Bobby Kennedy ran on a platform which stated that until we can live together in peace domestically, we cannot expect peace from abroad. This is a message which is relevant today. The current war in Iraq is an issue which has this country divided, but the message cannot be forgotten that we should not abandon our ideal of peace to end a war abroad. Bobby Kennedy represented hopefulness for a better future. His life was cut short by an act of senseless violence. That is why his legacy remains powerful and relevant until today. It is the same reason his brother’s legacy is strong as well. The movie closes with home photographs of the Kennedy brothers together and smiling. People at that time thought, especially after Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. murder, that RFK was the country’s last chance for not only peace, but for social unification. The sentiment of this movie seems to be saying that we still haven’t found someone who can lead us like our potential leadership from 40 years ago. The film wishes for a return to a leadership whom the American people can look towards with an idealistic sense of hope.
Finally, Bobby is a who’s who of Hollywood. It seemed that anyone in Hollywood who considers him or herself a liberal wished to jump on this bandwagon. At times it was distracting – always knowing that the next character to appear is another big name actor you were not expecting to see. Sometime is would have been better to leave some of the roles to less known actors. For instance, I would have enjoyed the movie far greater had some other young ingénue play the role of Diane. I did not need to hear Lindsay Lohan raspily drone on about the perils of the war and the selflessness of her act to marry William when in real life, her shenanigans are anything but selfless or cautionary. Furthermore, while Laurence Fishburne is a fantastic actor, it was needless for him to play the wise chef. The role was too small for him and his monologue about how much of a king Jose (Freddy Rodriguez) is for giving him Dodgers tickets was too melodramatic to be believable. It was, however, fantastic to see Sharon Stone and Demi Moore play women their own ages who resist just that – being a middle aged women in a youth obsessed culture. They were cast perfectly in those roles.
As award season rolls along, politically charged films are anything but a novelty. However, what is particularly interesting about this film is its use of politics which are close to 40 years old to make a film which is so relevant today. Not only does the movie succeed at making this link, but it does so quite seamlessly at that. So the question individuals have to ask themselves is, will we as a country allow ourselves to watch history repeat itself? We have not fully regressed to the level of violence, domestically that is, that existed in the 1960s, but perhaps this film should be a warning to Americans and American leadership of what may happen if things continue to escalate.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Babel - 11/19/06
Babbling Through the World
11/19/06
Mass communication. Global contact. Immediate gratification. These are the themes the world is living with in 2006. Someone in Alaska can send an email to a friend in Southeast Asia and in a matter of seconds the email is read. When an employee in New York needs assistance with a computer glitch, he calls a 1-800 phone number and the operator on the other end is sitting in a cubicle in Bombay. These communication advancements are things that we as a society are proud of, but what are the interpersonal costs? Are people really communicating with those who are right there in front of them? Are cultures able to understand each other better? Those are the themes that director, Alejandro González Iñárritu explores in his new movie, Babel.
Babel tells the stories of many characters, all of whom are connected to one another. It opens in a Moroccan home where a shepherd buys a rifle so he can shoot lurking jackals. His two sons take the rifle to practice their shots. They begin by aiming at nearby rocks, but in an effort to challenge themselves with items further away, a passing bus becomes a new target. Richard and Susan Jones (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) are on vacation in Morocco when a bullet tears through the window of their bus, hitting Susan in the shoulder. With no access to medical attention the tour bus rushes to a local village to await help. This incident sets off four related stories – the Moroccan and American lead searches for the person who committed the horrific act, the story of a young deaf-mute in Japan, and the housekeeper in California who has to take her two young charges to her son’s wedding in Mexico.
The film’s title refers to the biblical story of the people in the city of Babel who try to build a tower up to the heavens to make themselves on par with God. They want to know all that He knows and do all that He does. However, as a punishment for this arrogant project, God destroys the tower and disperses the people throughout the planet, giving them all different languages and cultures so that no one can understand another.
Perhaps we as a global society have become as arrogant as the people in Babel. Do we think that we deserve an understanding of all of God’s doings? For much of the film, even those speaking the same language do not understand one another. Furthermore, language is not the only separating factor. Culture and religion are as well. The young Jones children have been raised by Amelia and understand Spanish however, when in Mexico they are introduced to an entirely new way of life. As they enter the country they ask their nanny’s nephew, Santiago (Gael García Bernal), if Mexico is dangerous. He answers with his tongue firmly planted inside his cheek that it is so dangerous because so many Mexicans live there. While playing with the other children, they are horrified to see Santiago break the head off of a chicken while the “native” children scream with delight.
Each one of these narratives carries the same theme – communication and what it means. Everyone wants to be heard and, probably more importantly, understood. Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), the deaf mute high schooler in Japan wishes so much that she could be heard. When people can’t understand her, she translates the feeling of isolation to the inability to connect with people. As a remedy, she tries to be touched, physically by anyone with whom she can get close. The need for physical attention becomes important to those who don’t feel as though they are being heard. Physicality becomes a language all its own. Susan and Richard Jones fight over something that neither one can articulate; however when Susan reaches over to touch her husband’s hand we know that they have a mutual understanding. Back in California, Susan and Richard’s children are being put to bed by Amelia (Adriana Barraza), the au pair who has cared for the children since they were born. Debbie Jones (Elle Fanning) is scared of what happened to her baby brother when he went to sleep, and cannot understand something which happened to someone she loved. She will not go to sleep without Amelia sitting on her bed stroking her hair.
Furthermore, although this movie seems to be telling four separate stories, all of the characters are connected to one another. In our media today, we are consumed by tales of interlocking stories – how people are connected fascinates us right now. Movies like the Oscar-winning Crash, and television shows like 6 Degrees and The Nine tell stories of people whose lives are inexplicably intertwined, and Babel is no exception. As the narrative continues the interweaving of the lives of all the characters becomes further apparent. In an age where no one seems to be personally connected to anyone, our art tries to remedy that. It gives back stories which tell audiences that no matter how disconnected one feels from another, there will common ground.
In the age of mass communication, instant gratification is also something that we expect. Digital cameras, high speed internet, on demand viewing are all examples of the need to get things when we want them and how we want them. This movie takes that desire for immediate satisfaction and distorts it. The time line of the movie is not straightforward, and the non-linearity of it is not apparent until the movie almost ends. The Mexican wedding clearly takes place over the course of a day. However, how long is it between the time that Susan gets shot and eventually gets saved? When does the shooting take place in relationship to Amelie bringing the children to Mexico? How long does it take for the shooters to be found? Iñárritu does not give the audience the same privileges to the audience that they might expect.
There is a lot more that separates people than just verbal language. Even if they are bordering societies, cultures can be worlds apart. That is something that should be taken into consideration as we head deeper into our global society. We have to remember that there still remains a lot to know about one another and we are not one large global society just because our information can cross oceans in a matter of seconds. Babel takes a conservative approach to the dawning of our global society and perhaps offers a cautionary warning that we should be careful, lest history repeat itself. As much as we think we have out fooled God because we think we can all understand each other, we should be a little less arrogant and realize that He probably knows something that we don’t.
11/19/06
Mass communication. Global contact. Immediate gratification. These are the themes the world is living with in 2006. Someone in Alaska can send an email to a friend in Southeast Asia and in a matter of seconds the email is read. When an employee in New York needs assistance with a computer glitch, he calls a 1-800 phone number and the operator on the other end is sitting in a cubicle in Bombay. These communication advancements are things that we as a society are proud of, but what are the interpersonal costs? Are people really communicating with those who are right there in front of them? Are cultures able to understand each other better? Those are the themes that director, Alejandro González Iñárritu explores in his new movie, Babel.
Babel tells the stories of many characters, all of whom are connected to one another. It opens in a Moroccan home where a shepherd buys a rifle so he can shoot lurking jackals. His two sons take the rifle to practice their shots. They begin by aiming at nearby rocks, but in an effort to challenge themselves with items further away, a passing bus becomes a new target. Richard and Susan Jones (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) are on vacation in Morocco when a bullet tears through the window of their bus, hitting Susan in the shoulder. With no access to medical attention the tour bus rushes to a local village to await help. This incident sets off four related stories – the Moroccan and American lead searches for the person who committed the horrific act, the story of a young deaf-mute in Japan, and the housekeeper in California who has to take her two young charges to her son’s wedding in Mexico.
The film’s title refers to the biblical story of the people in the city of Babel who try to build a tower up to the heavens to make themselves on par with God. They want to know all that He knows and do all that He does. However, as a punishment for this arrogant project, God destroys the tower and disperses the people throughout the planet, giving them all different languages and cultures so that no one can understand another.
Perhaps we as a global society have become as arrogant as the people in Babel. Do we think that we deserve an understanding of all of God’s doings? For much of the film, even those speaking the same language do not understand one another. Furthermore, language is not the only separating factor. Culture and religion are as well. The young Jones children have been raised by Amelia and understand Spanish however, when in Mexico they are introduced to an entirely new way of life. As they enter the country they ask their nanny’s nephew, Santiago (Gael García Bernal), if Mexico is dangerous. He answers with his tongue firmly planted inside his cheek that it is so dangerous because so many Mexicans live there. While playing with the other children, they are horrified to see Santiago break the head off of a chicken while the “native” children scream with delight.
Each one of these narratives carries the same theme – communication and what it means. Everyone wants to be heard and, probably more importantly, understood. Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), the deaf mute high schooler in Japan wishes so much that she could be heard. When people can’t understand her, she translates the feeling of isolation to the inability to connect with people. As a remedy, she tries to be touched, physically by anyone with whom she can get close. The need for physical attention becomes important to those who don’t feel as though they are being heard. Physicality becomes a language all its own. Susan and Richard Jones fight over something that neither one can articulate; however when Susan reaches over to touch her husband’s hand we know that they have a mutual understanding. Back in California, Susan and Richard’s children are being put to bed by Amelia (Adriana Barraza), the au pair who has cared for the children since they were born. Debbie Jones (Elle Fanning) is scared of what happened to her baby brother when he went to sleep, and cannot understand something which happened to someone she loved. She will not go to sleep without Amelia sitting on her bed stroking her hair.
Furthermore, although this movie seems to be telling four separate stories, all of the characters are connected to one another. In our media today, we are consumed by tales of interlocking stories – how people are connected fascinates us right now. Movies like the Oscar-winning Crash, and television shows like 6 Degrees and The Nine tell stories of people whose lives are inexplicably intertwined, and Babel is no exception. As the narrative continues the interweaving of the lives of all the characters becomes further apparent. In an age where no one seems to be personally connected to anyone, our art tries to remedy that. It gives back stories which tell audiences that no matter how disconnected one feels from another, there will common ground.
In the age of mass communication, instant gratification is also something that we expect. Digital cameras, high speed internet, on demand viewing are all examples of the need to get things when we want them and how we want them. This movie takes that desire for immediate satisfaction and distorts it. The time line of the movie is not straightforward, and the non-linearity of it is not apparent until the movie almost ends. The Mexican wedding clearly takes place over the course of a day. However, how long is it between the time that Susan gets shot and eventually gets saved? When does the shooting take place in relationship to Amelie bringing the children to Mexico? How long does it take for the shooters to be found? Iñárritu does not give the audience the same privileges to the audience that they might expect.
There is a lot more that separates people than just verbal language. Even if they are bordering societies, cultures can be worlds apart. That is something that should be taken into consideration as we head deeper into our global society. We have to remember that there still remains a lot to know about one another and we are not one large global society just because our information can cross oceans in a matter of seconds. Babel takes a conservative approach to the dawning of our global society and perhaps offers a cautionary warning that we should be careful, lest history repeat itself. As much as we think we have out fooled God because we think we can all understand each other, we should be a little less arrogant and realize that He probably knows something that we don’t.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Deja Vu - 11/12/06
Déjà Vu? No thank you.
11/12/06
Déjà vu? More like Déjà-don’t! In this quasi-thriller quasi time travel extravaganza Denzel Washington takes an unlikely trip back to the past to save the life of a woman with whom he has recently become obsessed, oh and then there are the 540 men, women, and children who were innocently killed too. The movie opens with the beginnings of a Mardi Gras celebration for navy officers and their families when a car bomb explodes the local ferry on which they were enjoying the day. Don’t worry, I'm not giving anything away. If you’ve ever seen an action movie, let alone a flick produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, you know this idyllic scene of innocent fun and joy cannot end well.
After the explosion, Doug Carlin (Washington), a federal agent from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Unit, comes to investigate the scene. The exploration brings him to the scorched body of a woman who was killed before the explosion ever occurred. His involvement eventually leads him to be asked to be a part of an elite team who, with special surveillance equipment are able to look back and retrace the days that led up to the explosion.
However, as the first act comes to a close, we learn that their equipment is much more than just simple satellite surveillance. When that realization was made, my suspension of disbelief couldn’t be suspended any longer. At first it took me a moment to accept the concept that our government’s newest satellites could penetrate walls and peer into our homes and watch our every move. Initially I was skeptical, but eventually I conceded because it’s beyond the government to watch and listen to our every move (cough, cough). Audiences accepted the cinematic surveillance that initially seemed unlikely with “Enemy of the State” a hit. So why not this too? However, when it was revealed that they were not in fact watching old satellite footage, rather a window into the past – a wrinkle in time if you will – I lost interest. That was just too much to accept. The script tries to hide the absurd concept with a lot of techno-jargon coming from the Ph.D. who invented the machine; however that just confused me more. From that point on, until the lights finally came on, it’s pretty clear how the movie is going to end. It became rather formulaic and predictable.
So obsessed with rescuing Claire (Paula Patton), the murdered woman, Carlin insists he travels back in time. Despite the warnings from the physicists and other detectives, he goes back four days to track down Carroll Oerstadt (Jim Caviezel), the man who committed the horrific crimes. The artist formerly known as Jesus now plays a gun toting, ideals spewing terrorist. For the greater good he was willing to take lives, including his own. He goes on tirades that denounce the state of American politics and patriotism. He berates Americans for not being as jingoistic as he thinks they should be. He is disappointed with the waning support of the war and the troops overseas.
This plotline was so hard to accept because in most time travel movies there is an element of fantasy. This was rooted too deeply in reality. Our world is a little too scary these days to intertwine such detailed political upset with fantasy. Something just felt off about the convergence of the two themes. Escapism is something that people want, but after seeing this movie I realized that it has to be done in the right way.
Aside from that, the other aspects of the movie do not have the strength to hold the plot together. The weak script combined with the average acting did not help matters. Carlin never met the woman previous to the narrative, nor had she met him, yet almost instantly they fall for each other. The kiss they share after knowing each other for one hour was laughable – and the rest of the audience made it clear that they felt similarly when they burst into laughter at the moment of the kiss. The lack of character development is astounding. It’s as if the writers spent too much time working on learning all the technical terminology that they forgot to actually develop their characters…woops.
The concept of government surveillance is an interesting topic to tackle, especially in a day when it is actually happening at levels unseen before this administration. Furthermore, with Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, and a number of other good actors there was a lot of promise going in to the making of this movie. It is a shame that a movie with such good intentions carried it out so poorly.
11/12/06
Déjà vu? More like Déjà-don’t! In this quasi-thriller quasi time travel extravaganza Denzel Washington takes an unlikely trip back to the past to save the life of a woman with whom he has recently become obsessed, oh and then there are the 540 men, women, and children who were innocently killed too. The movie opens with the beginnings of a Mardi Gras celebration for navy officers and their families when a car bomb explodes the local ferry on which they were enjoying the day. Don’t worry, I'm not giving anything away. If you’ve ever seen an action movie, let alone a flick produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, you know this idyllic scene of innocent fun and joy cannot end well.
After the explosion, Doug Carlin (Washington), a federal agent from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Unit, comes to investigate the scene. The exploration brings him to the scorched body of a woman who was killed before the explosion ever occurred. His involvement eventually leads him to be asked to be a part of an elite team who, with special surveillance equipment are able to look back and retrace the days that led up to the explosion.
However, as the first act comes to a close, we learn that their equipment is much more than just simple satellite surveillance. When that realization was made, my suspension of disbelief couldn’t be suspended any longer. At first it took me a moment to accept the concept that our government’s newest satellites could penetrate walls and peer into our homes and watch our every move. Initially I was skeptical, but eventually I conceded because it’s beyond the government to watch and listen to our every move (cough, cough). Audiences accepted the cinematic surveillance that initially seemed unlikely with “Enemy of the State” a hit. So why not this too? However, when it was revealed that they were not in fact watching old satellite footage, rather a window into the past – a wrinkle in time if you will – I lost interest. That was just too much to accept. The script tries to hide the absurd concept with a lot of techno-jargon coming from the Ph.D. who invented the machine; however that just confused me more. From that point on, until the lights finally came on, it’s pretty clear how the movie is going to end. It became rather formulaic and predictable.
So obsessed with rescuing Claire (Paula Patton), the murdered woman, Carlin insists he travels back in time. Despite the warnings from the physicists and other detectives, he goes back four days to track down Carroll Oerstadt (Jim Caviezel), the man who committed the horrific crimes. The artist formerly known as Jesus now plays a gun toting, ideals spewing terrorist. For the greater good he was willing to take lives, including his own. He goes on tirades that denounce the state of American politics and patriotism. He berates Americans for not being as jingoistic as he thinks they should be. He is disappointed with the waning support of the war and the troops overseas.
This plotline was so hard to accept because in most time travel movies there is an element of fantasy. This was rooted too deeply in reality. Our world is a little too scary these days to intertwine such detailed political upset with fantasy. Something just felt off about the convergence of the two themes. Escapism is something that people want, but after seeing this movie I realized that it has to be done in the right way.
Aside from that, the other aspects of the movie do not have the strength to hold the plot together. The weak script combined with the average acting did not help matters. Carlin never met the woman previous to the narrative, nor had she met him, yet almost instantly they fall for each other. The kiss they share after knowing each other for one hour was laughable – and the rest of the audience made it clear that they felt similarly when they burst into laughter at the moment of the kiss. The lack of character development is astounding. It’s as if the writers spent too much time working on learning all the technical terminology that they forgot to actually develop their characters…woops.
The concept of government surveillance is an interesting topic to tackle, especially in a day when it is actually happening at levels unseen before this administration. Furthermore, with Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, and a number of other good actors there was a lot of promise going in to the making of this movie. It is a shame that a movie with such good intentions carried it out so poorly.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan - 11/9/06
Borat!: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
11/9/06
Why is America so enthralled by Borat? He has been a star of the small screen for years and now he has been selling out theaters across the country. The people in those audiences spend an hour and a half rolling in the aisles. It is safe to assert that he is becoming a national phenomenon.
The types of laughter explosions throughout the movie vary. You have your nervous laughter – is it ok to laugh at Borat’s footage of the “running of the Jew?” You have the shocked laughter when people he interviews openly admit to racism, misogynism, homophism, and anti-Semitism. Then you have the uneasy laughter as you ask yourself, “Why am I laughing as two men were wrestling naked throughout a hotel?”
British (Jewish) comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is responsible for invoking all these different types of laughter. He has come up with what seems like a new type of ironic humor. Posing as a Kazakhstanian journalist who travels to America to make a documentary about America for the ministry of Kazakhstan, Baron Cohen interacts with all sorts of Americans and reveals interesting side of our culture. He comes to America completely ignorant of American social norms. He doesn’t know that African-Americans don’t go by “chocolate face” or that kissing strangers on the subway is not an acceptable form of introductions. He begins his journey in New York before he convinces his producer, Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian) to travel to California to search out his secret obsession in Pamela Anderson.
In a series of hilarious events, Borat tries to acclimate to American society. What makes him so charming is his endearing innocence. We can forgive his social lacking after seeing him mistake the elevator for the hotel room or when he complains to the bell boy that the American television hasn’t changed programs in 3 hours (it is then revealed to us that he is watching the hotel’s service channel). Borat knows not what he does wrong. And with that conceit, we can travel with him throughout the country to see what he has to reveal about ourselves. The pair buy the cheapest vehicle they can find (an old ice cream truck) and set out for the American West. This trip proves that the old fronteir is still, in a lot of ways, the great unknown.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the movie is the ease in which people accept Borat’s ridiculous statements. While still in New York he has a driving lesson before buying a car. When a driving instructor tells him women can have sex with any one she wants, he exclaims “WHAAAAATTT?” While seemingly dismayed, the driver almost had a look of slight agreement on his face. As he travels south he stops at a bed and breakfast which turns out to be owned by an older Jewish couple. In fear that they have tried to poison him and want to kill him he escapes. The next day we see him at a local gun store. When asking a gun salesman which would be the best to use to protect himself against the Jew, without missing a beat the man hands him a .40 millimeter pistol. After leaving the store Borat explains that he could not buy a gun there because he is not from this country (but it wasn’t a problem that he wanted to use it to protect himself from the approaching Jew). By posing as a culturally and socially backwards ignoramus, the same is revealed about American society.
Then there is the matter of the audience rolling in the aisles. As I sat in the Times Square theater, I am almost certain the majority of the audience saw the irony in the situations. However, is that the case nationwide? It is almost a certainty that when this movie shows plays for an audience in some of the regions which Borat visits on his journey, the irony is lost on a lot of the theater. So many people he encounters readily agree with his backwards mentality and it would be interesting to see their reaction as they watch themselves on the big screen.
What Baron Cohen, a Brit who is an outsider himself, reveals is an interesting look at American culture. As a country, there is a lot of talk these days about blue versus red states, pro-war versus bring our troops home, and about religious right versus liberal ideals. We have not been a nation so divided in decades, and this movie brings that division to life with a touch of ironic humor. While in the South, he visits a group of socialites and the camera notes that they live on “Secession Dr.” In Dallas he explores an antique shop filled with Confederate memorabilia which the owner boasts as artifacts from the nation’s heritage. How much of our country still values Confederate ideals? Should that be a national concern? It is probably not limited to Dallas, not even to Texas.
Another point this film aims to make is that those in the “blue states” have a warped sense of the demographics in this country. Those in the blue probably don’t realize the extent to which those in the red states disagree with their ideologies. And it works both ways. Beyond the laughter and the shock, audiences see another part of our country which rarely gets noticed. We make fun of Borat whose cultural sophistication is so backwards, when we are the ones who need to be examined through a microscope. Are those who agree with him any different? From the sexist frat boys who don’t think there’s anything wrong with leading women on to the general manager of the rodeo who encourages Borat to stay away from “the gays,” there is a whole underbelly of backwards thinking we associate with Borat, when we should be looking to ourselves.
It is not a new idea that it takes a stranger to reveal things about ourselves that we didn’t see before. Borat takes a new spin on it by not just telling us, but showing us. The credo of a journalist is to show and not tell, and that is exactly what Baron Cohen does. He uses our own prejudices and intolerances and puts them up to a mirror and shows us exactly what it is we as a country should stand up against and of what we should take notice. We laugh at him, but we are also laughing at ourselves. We are disgusted by him, but we should also be disgusted with our own behavior. Is our laughter nervous because we are scared to admit our own shortcomings? Probably…but hey, it’s also funny to watch a grown man make a complete ass out of himself. It’s ok to laugh, just make sure you know why you are laughing.
11/9/06
Why is America so enthralled by Borat? He has been a star of the small screen for years and now he has been selling out theaters across the country. The people in those audiences spend an hour and a half rolling in the aisles. It is safe to assert that he is becoming a national phenomenon.
The types of laughter explosions throughout the movie vary. You have your nervous laughter – is it ok to laugh at Borat’s footage of the “running of the Jew?” You have the shocked laughter when people he interviews openly admit to racism, misogynism, homophism, and anti-Semitism. Then you have the uneasy laughter as you ask yourself, “Why am I laughing as two men were wrestling naked throughout a hotel?”
British (Jewish) comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is responsible for invoking all these different types of laughter. He has come up with what seems like a new type of ironic humor. Posing as a Kazakhstanian journalist who travels to America to make a documentary about America for the ministry of Kazakhstan, Baron Cohen interacts with all sorts of Americans and reveals interesting side of our culture. He comes to America completely ignorant of American social norms. He doesn’t know that African-Americans don’t go by “chocolate face” or that kissing strangers on the subway is not an acceptable form of introductions. He begins his journey in New York before he convinces his producer, Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian) to travel to California to search out his secret obsession in Pamela Anderson.
In a series of hilarious events, Borat tries to acclimate to American society. What makes him so charming is his endearing innocence. We can forgive his social lacking after seeing him mistake the elevator for the hotel room or when he complains to the bell boy that the American television hasn’t changed programs in 3 hours (it is then revealed to us that he is watching the hotel’s service channel). Borat knows not what he does wrong. And with that conceit, we can travel with him throughout the country to see what he has to reveal about ourselves. The pair buy the cheapest vehicle they can find (an old ice cream truck) and set out for the American West. This trip proves that the old fronteir is still, in a lot of ways, the great unknown.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the movie is the ease in which people accept Borat’s ridiculous statements. While still in New York he has a driving lesson before buying a car. When a driving instructor tells him women can have sex with any one she wants, he exclaims “WHAAAAATTT?” While seemingly dismayed, the driver almost had a look of slight agreement on his face. As he travels south he stops at a bed and breakfast which turns out to be owned by an older Jewish couple. In fear that they have tried to poison him and want to kill him he escapes. The next day we see him at a local gun store. When asking a gun salesman which would be the best to use to protect himself against the Jew, without missing a beat the man hands him a .40 millimeter pistol. After leaving the store Borat explains that he could not buy a gun there because he is not from this country (but it wasn’t a problem that he wanted to use it to protect himself from the approaching Jew). By posing as a culturally and socially backwards ignoramus, the same is revealed about American society.
Then there is the matter of the audience rolling in the aisles. As I sat in the Times Square theater, I am almost certain the majority of the audience saw the irony in the situations. However, is that the case nationwide? It is almost a certainty that when this movie shows plays for an audience in some of the regions which Borat visits on his journey, the irony is lost on a lot of the theater. So many people he encounters readily agree with his backwards mentality and it would be interesting to see their reaction as they watch themselves on the big screen.
What Baron Cohen, a Brit who is an outsider himself, reveals is an interesting look at American culture. As a country, there is a lot of talk these days about blue versus red states, pro-war versus bring our troops home, and about religious right versus liberal ideals. We have not been a nation so divided in decades, and this movie brings that division to life with a touch of ironic humor. While in the South, he visits a group of socialites and the camera notes that they live on “Secession Dr.” In Dallas he explores an antique shop filled with Confederate memorabilia which the owner boasts as artifacts from the nation’s heritage. How much of our country still values Confederate ideals? Should that be a national concern? It is probably not limited to Dallas, not even to Texas.
Another point this film aims to make is that those in the “blue states” have a warped sense of the demographics in this country. Those in the blue probably don’t realize the extent to which those in the red states disagree with their ideologies. And it works both ways. Beyond the laughter and the shock, audiences see another part of our country which rarely gets noticed. We make fun of Borat whose cultural sophistication is so backwards, when we are the ones who need to be examined through a microscope. Are those who agree with him any different? From the sexist frat boys who don’t think there’s anything wrong with leading women on to the general manager of the rodeo who encourages Borat to stay away from “the gays,” there is a whole underbelly of backwards thinking we associate with Borat, when we should be looking to ourselves.
It is not a new idea that it takes a stranger to reveal things about ourselves that we didn’t see before. Borat takes a new spin on it by not just telling us, but showing us. The credo of a journalist is to show and not tell, and that is exactly what Baron Cohen does. He uses our own prejudices and intolerances and puts them up to a mirror and shows us exactly what it is we as a country should stand up against and of what we should take notice. We laugh at him, but we are also laughing at ourselves. We are disgusted by him, but we should also be disgusted with our own behavior. Is our laughter nervous because we are scared to admit our own shortcomings? Probably…but hey, it’s also funny to watch a grown man make a complete ass out of himself. It’s ok to laugh, just make sure you know why you are laughing.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Television Matters and Studio 60 Tells us Why - 10/30/06
Television Matters
With one line during the second episode, Aaron Sorkin pleaded with audiences to watch Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The president of the fictitious network, NBS, Jordan McDeer, says that she “Does not believe that the people who watch TV shows are any dumber than the people who make television shows.” Television is a reflection of our culture and what goes up on that screen means a lot: it will effect politics and politics will effect it.
NBC’s new behind the scenes dramedy has been getting a lot of criticism by people who say that Sorkin doesn’t realize that TV isn’t all that important to the general public and that he’s elevating what happens behind the scenes of a sketch-comedy show is as important as what goes on in the White House, or more specifically in the West Wing. People disparage it because Saturday Night Live isn’t as important as Studio 60 wants it to be. I say those people are right about SNL, but they are wrong about Studio 60. When NBC said Studio 60 wasn’t about SNL, they meant it. Studio 60 is about making television matter and making those who watch it realize that it matters. In three words, television is important. OK, so the guys writing and acting in it aren’t necessarily the decision-makers who choose when and where to drop the bomb, but don’t think they don’t influence those decision makers. It’s no coincidence that people want to see John Stewart and George Clooney run for office.
Television and movies matter. Pop-culture does not exist in a vacuum. It’s about politics and how that impacts what we watch and what becomes our pop-culture. It’s about the interweaving of all parts of our lives and the affect each one has on another.
If you saw the October 23rd episode of Studio 60, you watched Tom Jeter (Nathan Cordry) walk through the studio reciting the history of Television to his parents and staring dumfoundedly at them when they had never heard of “Who’s on First.” He doesn’t understand how his parents can have no idea what he was talking about. You also felt his pain when, after describing all the history and the design of the studio, his father said, “So, you’re an interior designer?” Anyone watching the show (fan or not) realizes the ignorance of that comment and sympathizes with Tom. Furthermore, when Tom begs his father to realize the importance of his work, his father’s only response is that he cannot think this important when he has a son in Afghanistan. While fighting a war overseas and acting in a late night sketch comedy show are vastly different, there is still a disconnect between the relationship between politics and media.
In that episode you also watched Cal (Timothy Busfield) realize that the man wandering around the studio (in a superb guest appearance from Eli Wallach) isn’t just some senile old kook, but that he is a WWII hero who not only won the war, but helped shape television and the movies as we know it.
Mr. Wallach plays Eli Weinreb, a comedy writer from the 1940s at the “Philco Comedy Hour” who was blacklisted after writing his first sketch. He was also a member of the fleet that stormed the beaches of Normandy. He’s a national hero for winning the war, but also for standing up for what he believed in and putting it on the air. To Sorkin, winning WWII is equivalent to defying censors and standing up for your beliefs. Eli Weinreb talks about Clifford Odets being so adamant about protecting his friends and being a “radical” for a cause. But Odets went before the House on Un-American Activities Committee and he named names, an act which “killed him” emotionally.
Comedy, television, popular culture all come from somewhere in our history. It’s more important that people might think. Why do we, in 2006, feel that censorship is such a horrible thing? Maybe because in our collective consciousness we remember when Joseph McCarthy went on a rampage seeking out and destroying the lives of any and all possible communists. Why is comedy, in any form, so valued? Perhaps it lies in the fact that we as a nation are mired in a war that is killing thousands of our sons and daughters and we need an escape from it. All of these themes are imbedded within Sorkin’s writing.
As Weinreb tells the executive producers, Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) and Danny Tripp (Bradley Whitford) about the writers he worked with, he mentions Eugene Bookman, a writer “who always liked political humor, of course the network wasn’t comfortable with that in those days.” Matt and Danny share a glance at each other. Of course they know that the same thing holds true 50 years later. The first episode of Studio 60 is all about the network censor squashing a sketch called “Crazy Christians.” The government is trying to censor television content now just as they did back there. How did things turn out for the mavericks of the industry back then? Well, they were forced to turn on their friends and colleagues, the government controlled what people saw, thought and consumed, and the general mood of the country disintegrated into overwhelming fear. Elementary school students were told that if they crouch under their desks and hold their binders over their heads then the A-bomb wouldn’t hurt them. Take one look at the popular culture from the 1950s and that fear becomes glaringly apparent.
In the years from 1940s t0 the 1960s the images Americans consumed changed. Gone was the innocence of Uncle Miltie and Abbott and Costello. No more were movies about there being “no place like home,” they were about longshoremen being forced to rat on their friends. In the 1950s James Dean emerged on the silver screen yelling to his parents, “You’re tearing me apart!” On TV, welcomed were the melodramas of US Steel hour and Marty. The world became a lot scarier and a lot less funny.
So, is there a causal relationship between television and politics? Of course. Does television matter? Absolutely. Should the American public be aware of and interested in the points that Studio 60 is making? Well, that’s up to you to decide.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but watching Studio 60 last night inspired me. To me it wasn’t one show trying to be a mere “behind the scenes” look at another. It was about showing the nation that what we watch and what we consume has an impact. And if I may say so, I think Mr. Sorkin was warning us that we better start paying attention to which values we hold dear, what we watch and what we want to see on our cultural landscape because if we don’t, we might in for a bought of history repeating itself.
With one line during the second episode, Aaron Sorkin pleaded with audiences to watch Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The president of the fictitious network, NBS, Jordan McDeer, says that she “Does not believe that the people who watch TV shows are any dumber than the people who make television shows.” Television is a reflection of our culture and what goes up on that screen means a lot: it will effect politics and politics will effect it.
NBC’s new behind the scenes dramedy has been getting a lot of criticism by people who say that Sorkin doesn’t realize that TV isn’t all that important to the general public and that he’s elevating what happens behind the scenes of a sketch-comedy show is as important as what goes on in the White House, or more specifically in the West Wing. People disparage it because Saturday Night Live isn’t as important as Studio 60 wants it to be. I say those people are right about SNL, but they are wrong about Studio 60. When NBC said Studio 60 wasn’t about SNL, they meant it. Studio 60 is about making television matter and making those who watch it realize that it matters. In three words, television is important. OK, so the guys writing and acting in it aren’t necessarily the decision-makers who choose when and where to drop the bomb, but don’t think they don’t influence those decision makers. It’s no coincidence that people want to see John Stewart and George Clooney run for office.
Television and movies matter. Pop-culture does not exist in a vacuum. It’s about politics and how that impacts what we watch and what becomes our pop-culture. It’s about the interweaving of all parts of our lives and the affect each one has on another.
If you saw the October 23rd episode of Studio 60, you watched Tom Jeter (Nathan Cordry) walk through the studio reciting the history of Television to his parents and staring dumfoundedly at them when they had never heard of “Who’s on First.” He doesn’t understand how his parents can have no idea what he was talking about. You also felt his pain when, after describing all the history and the design of the studio, his father said, “So, you’re an interior designer?” Anyone watching the show (fan or not) realizes the ignorance of that comment and sympathizes with Tom. Furthermore, when Tom begs his father to realize the importance of his work, his father’s only response is that he cannot think this important when he has a son in Afghanistan. While fighting a war overseas and acting in a late night sketch comedy show are vastly different, there is still a disconnect between the relationship between politics and media.
In that episode you also watched Cal (Timothy Busfield) realize that the man wandering around the studio (in a superb guest appearance from Eli Wallach) isn’t just some senile old kook, but that he is a WWII hero who not only won the war, but helped shape television and the movies as we know it.
Mr. Wallach plays Eli Weinreb, a comedy writer from the 1940s at the “Philco Comedy Hour” who was blacklisted after writing his first sketch. He was also a member of the fleet that stormed the beaches of Normandy. He’s a national hero for winning the war, but also for standing up for what he believed in and putting it on the air. To Sorkin, winning WWII is equivalent to defying censors and standing up for your beliefs. Eli Weinreb talks about Clifford Odets being so adamant about protecting his friends and being a “radical” for a cause. But Odets went before the House on Un-American Activities Committee and he named names, an act which “killed him” emotionally.
Comedy, television, popular culture all come from somewhere in our history. It’s more important that people might think. Why do we, in 2006, feel that censorship is such a horrible thing? Maybe because in our collective consciousness we remember when Joseph McCarthy went on a rampage seeking out and destroying the lives of any and all possible communists. Why is comedy, in any form, so valued? Perhaps it lies in the fact that we as a nation are mired in a war that is killing thousands of our sons and daughters and we need an escape from it. All of these themes are imbedded within Sorkin’s writing.
As Weinreb tells the executive producers, Matt Albie (Matthew Perry) and Danny Tripp (Bradley Whitford) about the writers he worked with, he mentions Eugene Bookman, a writer “who always liked political humor, of course the network wasn’t comfortable with that in those days.” Matt and Danny share a glance at each other. Of course they know that the same thing holds true 50 years later. The first episode of Studio 60 is all about the network censor squashing a sketch called “Crazy Christians.” The government is trying to censor television content now just as they did back there. How did things turn out for the mavericks of the industry back then? Well, they were forced to turn on their friends and colleagues, the government controlled what people saw, thought and consumed, and the general mood of the country disintegrated into overwhelming fear. Elementary school students were told that if they crouch under their desks and hold their binders over their heads then the A-bomb wouldn’t hurt them. Take one look at the popular culture from the 1950s and that fear becomes glaringly apparent.
In the years from 1940s t0 the 1960s the images Americans consumed changed. Gone was the innocence of Uncle Miltie and Abbott and Costello. No more were movies about there being “no place like home,” they were about longshoremen being forced to rat on their friends. In the 1950s James Dean emerged on the silver screen yelling to his parents, “You’re tearing me apart!” On TV, welcomed were the melodramas of US Steel hour and Marty. The world became a lot scarier and a lot less funny.
So, is there a causal relationship between television and politics? Of course. Does television matter? Absolutely. Should the American public be aware of and interested in the points that Studio 60 is making? Well, that’s up to you to decide.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but watching Studio 60 last night inspired me. To me it wasn’t one show trying to be a mere “behind the scenes” look at another. It was about showing the nation that what we watch and what we consume has an impact. And if I may say so, I think Mr. Sorkin was warning us that we better start paying attention to which values we hold dear, what we watch and what we want to see on our cultural landscape because if we don’t, we might in for a bought of history repeating itself.
Network Drama - 5/20/06
Network Drama
5/20/06
It’s an age-old debate: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? When NBC announced its fall lineup this May it added more fuel to the debate. With only two new comedies on the schedule, it is clear that the network sees dramas as the place to boost ratings. How does that artistic decision relate to life today? Why does NBC think dramas are more appropriate for bringing in ratings? More significantly, what is it about the specific topics that the shows explore which make them socially relevant?
There are two new comedies in the lineup. The first is Tina Fey's 30 Rock, a behind the scenes look at what goes into producing a comedy sketch show. The other is 20 Good Years where John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor are two old buddies who realize that they are at a point in their lives where they have only 20 good years left to live so they decide to live them to the fullest. Along with the 4 new dramas, that brings the fall lineup to a staggering 10 dramas, 4 comedies, 1 reality show, 1 news magazine, and 1 game show (Deal or No Deal will be on twice a week next fall).
What is it about our current cultural climate that insists on a dramatic overload? In a time where the country is in a “blue state” of mind, people are not interested in purely escapism entertainment. Americans have brought President Bush’s approval rating to an all time low, the support of the war in Iraq is plummeting and it seems that there is an overall feeling of national uncertainty as to where our country is currently heading. It took a while for that morale to seep into the media, but now that it is here, it has come full on. This past Oscar season was overwhelmingly morose and reflected a certain sense of political discomfort. It was only a matter of time for television to follow that trend.
During the upfronts, NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly remarked that NBC needs to “bulk up” in the drama department. The network executives recognize that dramas are where the ratings are. But again, the question is, why? To truly understand the cultural relevance of the dramatic inclination, it is necessary to delve into each one and see what they are about. The supernatural drama, Heroes heads up the fall lineup on Monday night. This show is about ordinary people who wake up one morning to find they have acquired extraordinary powers. This show is a twist on the American dream, which states that anyone can do anything or be anyone they want if they try hard enough. In an uncertain time, this show seems to be sending a hopeful yet paradoxically futile message. These people start out as regular, everyday folk, but because of no effort of their own, they have become powerful. On the one hand, Heroes is saying that things will get better and that hope is on the way. However, at the same time it is relaying the idea that the only way for our situation to improve is with special, out of the ordinary heroes. Furthermore, no matter how hard people work their lives are predestined to a certain extent; there is no need to work hard at something because one’s destiny is not dependant on his or her effort. Similarly, the national ethos is one that says that unless something extraordinary happens then there is no way to change the political situation.
Following Heroes on Monday night is Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. This is a behind the scenes look at a failing late night sketch comedy show. This show is similar to the comedy, 30 Rock. It will be interesting to see in which venue the storyline thrives – comedy or drama. The cultural relevance is interesting here because with Sunset 60, they’ve taken a possibly comedic situation and made it serious. This is saying that there is drama in all situations no matter how potentially comedic they might be.
Tuesday night’s new drama is Friday Night Lights. This is a show about the culture of football in Texas, where the sport is much more than just a game. The show centers on in the head coach and his attempts to “mold these boys into champions and encourage them to be better men,” according to the NBC website. What does it mean to be a “better man”? Is it to embody the ruggedness of the stereotypical male character? Is it to exemplify that American need to be the best of the best? This is a topic the media has been debating for decades and recently reached new heights with this year’s Oscar season, especially with Brokeback Mountain (a film put out by Focus Features, a division of NBC Universal). Moreover, this show is attempting to strengthen the American morale by tapping into the success of so many successful sports movies, and more specifically football movies. “Sports” is something that binds Americans together; it is something in which everyone can participate and enjoy. In a time where there is such a division in America, here is one thing upon which where everyone can agree. In addition to the cultural significance, this show is perhaps a way to promote Sunday night football, which is coming to NBC in the fall.
Finally, the last new drama on the fall lineup is Kidnapped, on Wednesday nights. This show revolves around the Cain family whose fifteen-year-old son is kidnapped. The NBC website explains that, “desperate to reclaim their son, they enlist the help of an expert named Knapp who is known for his dangerous, yet effective, high-profile rescues.” This family does not trust the police to rescue their son; rather they hire a private investigator with less than conventional and possibly questionable tactics. The police cannot be trusted; the government is the enemy. Does that sound familiar? This seems to be a sharp criticism on our political leadership. Especially coming off of the recent NSA wiretapping scandal, the American people have such a great distrust of authority and now misgivings are being transferred onto the small screen.
Overall, the fall lineup seems promising with a slew of new television shows that are very much culturally relevant. People deal with real life problems all day long; when we turn the TV on, we want some sense of escapism, but one that is rooted in reality. Scripted shows, unlike reality TV, allow the possibility of everything working out in the end and therefore there is a sense of optimism wrapped into the drama. This, in some sense, can allow people to retain hopefulness for the future political and social situation. Network executives believe that the best way to achieve that is with dramatic shows, which reflect many aspects of the current American social climate. It seems that David Sarnoff’s prediction about television continues to be applicable until today: “It is a torch which shines like a torch of hope in a troubled world.” As long as political and social unrest continues to exist, television will reflect that tension and possibly imbue a sense of hope for the future.
5/20/06
It’s an age-old debate: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? When NBC announced its fall lineup this May it added more fuel to the debate. With only two new comedies on the schedule, it is clear that the network sees dramas as the place to boost ratings. How does that artistic decision relate to life today? Why does NBC think dramas are more appropriate for bringing in ratings? More significantly, what is it about the specific topics that the shows explore which make them socially relevant?
There are two new comedies in the lineup. The first is Tina Fey's 30 Rock, a behind the scenes look at what goes into producing a comedy sketch show. The other is 20 Good Years where John Lithgow and Jeffrey Tambor are two old buddies who realize that they are at a point in their lives where they have only 20 good years left to live so they decide to live them to the fullest. Along with the 4 new dramas, that brings the fall lineup to a staggering 10 dramas, 4 comedies, 1 reality show, 1 news magazine, and 1 game show (Deal or No Deal will be on twice a week next fall).
What is it about our current cultural climate that insists on a dramatic overload? In a time where the country is in a “blue state” of mind, people are not interested in purely escapism entertainment. Americans have brought President Bush’s approval rating to an all time low, the support of the war in Iraq is plummeting and it seems that there is an overall feeling of national uncertainty as to where our country is currently heading. It took a while for that morale to seep into the media, but now that it is here, it has come full on. This past Oscar season was overwhelmingly morose and reflected a certain sense of political discomfort. It was only a matter of time for television to follow that trend.
During the upfronts, NBC Entertainment President Kevin Reilly remarked that NBC needs to “bulk up” in the drama department. The network executives recognize that dramas are where the ratings are. But again, the question is, why? To truly understand the cultural relevance of the dramatic inclination, it is necessary to delve into each one and see what they are about. The supernatural drama, Heroes heads up the fall lineup on Monday night. This show is about ordinary people who wake up one morning to find they have acquired extraordinary powers. This show is a twist on the American dream, which states that anyone can do anything or be anyone they want if they try hard enough. In an uncertain time, this show seems to be sending a hopeful yet paradoxically futile message. These people start out as regular, everyday folk, but because of no effort of their own, they have become powerful. On the one hand, Heroes is saying that things will get better and that hope is on the way. However, at the same time it is relaying the idea that the only way for our situation to improve is with special, out of the ordinary heroes. Furthermore, no matter how hard people work their lives are predestined to a certain extent; there is no need to work hard at something because one’s destiny is not dependant on his or her effort. Similarly, the national ethos is one that says that unless something extraordinary happens then there is no way to change the political situation.
Following Heroes on Monday night is Aaron Sorkin’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. This is a behind the scenes look at a failing late night sketch comedy show. This show is similar to the comedy, 30 Rock. It will be interesting to see in which venue the storyline thrives – comedy or drama. The cultural relevance is interesting here because with Sunset 60, they’ve taken a possibly comedic situation and made it serious. This is saying that there is drama in all situations no matter how potentially comedic they might be.
Tuesday night’s new drama is Friday Night Lights. This is a show about the culture of football in Texas, where the sport is much more than just a game. The show centers on in the head coach and his attempts to “mold these boys into champions and encourage them to be better men,” according to the NBC website. What does it mean to be a “better man”? Is it to embody the ruggedness of the stereotypical male character? Is it to exemplify that American need to be the best of the best? This is a topic the media has been debating for decades and recently reached new heights with this year’s Oscar season, especially with Brokeback Mountain (a film put out by Focus Features, a division of NBC Universal). Moreover, this show is attempting to strengthen the American morale by tapping into the success of so many successful sports movies, and more specifically football movies. “Sports” is something that binds Americans together; it is something in which everyone can participate and enjoy. In a time where there is such a division in America, here is one thing upon which where everyone can agree. In addition to the cultural significance, this show is perhaps a way to promote Sunday night football, which is coming to NBC in the fall.
Finally, the last new drama on the fall lineup is Kidnapped, on Wednesday nights. This show revolves around the Cain family whose fifteen-year-old son is kidnapped. The NBC website explains that, “desperate to reclaim their son, they enlist the help of an expert named Knapp who is known for his dangerous, yet effective, high-profile rescues.” This family does not trust the police to rescue their son; rather they hire a private investigator with less than conventional and possibly questionable tactics. The police cannot be trusted; the government is the enemy. Does that sound familiar? This seems to be a sharp criticism on our political leadership. Especially coming off of the recent NSA wiretapping scandal, the American people have such a great distrust of authority and now misgivings are being transferred onto the small screen.
Overall, the fall lineup seems promising with a slew of new television shows that are very much culturally relevant. People deal with real life problems all day long; when we turn the TV on, we want some sense of escapism, but one that is rooted in reality. Scripted shows, unlike reality TV, allow the possibility of everything working out in the end and therefore there is a sense of optimism wrapped into the drama. This, in some sense, can allow people to retain hopefulness for the future political and social situation. Network executives believe that the best way to achieve that is with dramatic shows, which reflect many aspects of the current American social climate. It seems that David Sarnoff’s prediction about television continues to be applicable until today: “It is a torch which shines like a torch of hope in a troubled world.” As long as political and social unrest continues to exist, television will reflect that tension and possibly imbue a sense of hope for the future.
Brokeback Mountain
If it aint “Broke” don’t fix it
9/5/05
Brokeback Mountain is not one of those movies where you walk out and say, “Wow! That was great!” or “I can’t wait to see that movie again!” However, it is a movie that will stay with you for a long time. Under the direction of Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain is a movie that changes our perception of one of the most romanticized images in our culture: The Cowboy. It uses the iconic images that we know so well to do just that. While most people might see this movie as nothing more than a “gay cowboy” flick, in reality it is much more than that. It is about love, loss, and the inability to share those feelings with anyone.
Heath Ledger plays Ennis Del Mar, a quiet young rancher who was raised by his brother and sister after his homophobic parents were killed in a car crash. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist is the more outgoing of the pair as a wannabe rodeo star. The two meet during the summer of 1963 when they both sign on to be shepherds on Wyoming’s Brokeback Mountain. Despite Ennis’ quiet façade the pair becomes friends. One night, an overnight frost forces Ennis into Jack’s tent. That night, the friendship becomes something more, much more. Neither knows how to react to these new feelings. Their first love scene is more violent than tender. It is almost as if the characters use violence to prove they are still men. In a society which forbids men to be affectionate with one another, they must be aggressive to overcompensate for the love they feel for one another. Many of the scenes that should be loving instead turn out to be violent. They roll around on the ground in a manner that resembles fighting more than affection. When it comes to actually talking about what is going between them and dealing with their feelings, Jack seems more comfortable with the recent twist their relationship has taken while Ennis insists he “Aint no queer.”
Jack and Ennis do all they can to prove to the world they are “real men” – their clothing, their jobs and their speech all strengthen the stereotypical images of what men are supposed to be. Their dress is the most striking of these attempts at proving their masculinity. “The Marlboro Man,” to this day, is the ultimate symbol of masculinity. They use clothing to try to prove to the world that they comply with and perpetuate this myth. As long as they dress the part of the heterosexual man, they think they can fool the world into believing they actually are. The American West is traditionally the final frontier; it is the only place where men can be men. This film makes the bold claim that it is also the only place where men can be with men. Jack and Ennis are only comfortable being with one another in the privacy of the wilderness. In this place they experience passion that is never again duplicated, in any aspect of their lives. They never find that excitement with either their work or eventual spouses. They know cannot expect the world to accept their way of life.
Their looks also invoke images of classical Hollywood and the hetero-normative myth that it perpetuated. Ennis physically resembles James Dean from his role in Giant. With his cowboy hat pushed down his face, his body slumped over, and his labored speech, the two are almost identical. The two leading male stars in Giant were Dean and Rock Hudson. Both of these men lived in the proverbial closet. Dean’s bisexuality never reached the widespread knowledge that Hudson’s did; perhaps it is because his life was cut short when he was 25. Nevertheless, Dean and Hudson were both symbols of masculinity in the 1950s. In 1955 when Giant came out, the cowboy was still the masculine heterosexual figure popular culture knew and loved. However, by 2005 the world can learn better and can no longer deny the fact that no matter the façade, some things cannot be kept in the closet.
After their summer together Ennis and Jack go on their separate ways not to see each other for another four years. During the hiatus, Ennis marries his high school sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), has two children, and attempts as much of a “normal” life as possible. Jack meets Lurleen (Anne Hathaway), a rodeo queen and the daughter of a wealthy farm equipment salesman. They too lead the seemingly hetero-normative lifestyle. Nonetheless, neither man is ever fully satisfied. Jack yearns to see Ennis again and returns to Brokeback Mountain in the summer of 1964 in hopes of finding him there. Ennis too, despite his insistence on being a heterosexual cannot escape his true nature. In one poignant love scene between Ennis and Alma, he violently flips her onto her stomach in a manner that parallels his first sexual encounter with Jack. Ennis has so much passion for Jack bottled up inside of his that he doesn’t know what to do with it. When Ennis and Jack are finally reunited after four years that unbridled passion reignites; again they embrace in violent kisses. From that point on they begin their annual rendezvous up to Brokeback Mountain, masked as fishing trips. Jack is idyllic and tries to convince Ennis that they could have a good life together living on a ranch together far away from society. Ennis, still scarred from when his father brought him to see the corpse of an old rancher who was murdered for living with another man, refuses. They continue this sporadic relationship as long as they can, hoping that their families do not catch on.
What makes this film so great is its truly universal themes. It proves that a theme can transcend a specific situation. It is about forbidden love and the tragedies it brings. The subject matter is as classic as Romeo and Juliet, only this affair is between two men. The other part of this tragedy is the irony of the time period in which it takes place. The film takes place from 1963-1983, one of the most sexually liberated time periods in American history. Yet, this story is so isolated from it and so far removed from the reality that so much of America was experiencing. The one reference that is made to “the 60s” is made by Jack. As he is leaving Brokeback Mountain, he tells Ennis that does not want to return to life as he knew it because of the possibility of getting drafted and set off the Vietnam. That is all they know of, not that the youth of the country are banding together to change the repressive society the older generation has created.
Another aspect of this tragedy is the ultimate legacy of the youth rebellion. How much of our country was truly affected? Matthew Shepherd was killed in Wyoming in 1998 for being a homosexual. Hate crimes are committed against people each day just because others don’t agree with whom they love. Furthermore, by the mere fact that people refuse to see the movie because they think it is nothing more than a “gay cowboy” film is a further example of people’s inability to accept that something they once held dear, the image of the lone man on his horse as the ultimate symbol of masculinity and freedom, is something other than their initial impression.
Take this film as you will, but keep in mind its universal themes. The splendid acting and direction will take your breath away and leave you wanting more. Over the course of the 2 and a half hours the characters become real, and an ultimate goal of this film is to prove that love has no boundaries be it age, race, and especially, gender. Maybe if one thinks about the message of the movie, the more one will realize that this is truly is a great film (even if declaring it out loud isn’t an initial reaction).
 |
| Image Source |
Brokeback Mountain is not one of those movies where you walk out and say, “Wow! That was great!” or “I can’t wait to see that movie again!” However, it is a movie that will stay with you for a long time. Under the direction of Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain is a movie that changes our perception of one of the most romanticized images in our culture: The Cowboy. It uses the iconic images that we know so well to do just that. While most people might see this movie as nothing more than a “gay cowboy” flick, in reality it is much more than that. It is about love, loss, and the inability to share those feelings with anyone.
Heath Ledger plays Ennis Del Mar, a quiet young rancher who was raised by his brother and sister after his homophobic parents were killed in a car crash. Jake Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist is the more outgoing of the pair as a wannabe rodeo star. The two meet during the summer of 1963 when they both sign on to be shepherds on Wyoming’s Brokeback Mountain. Despite Ennis’ quiet façade the pair becomes friends. One night, an overnight frost forces Ennis into Jack’s tent. That night, the friendship becomes something more, much more. Neither knows how to react to these new feelings. Their first love scene is more violent than tender. It is almost as if the characters use violence to prove they are still men. In a society which forbids men to be affectionate with one another, they must be aggressive to overcompensate for the love they feel for one another. Many of the scenes that should be loving instead turn out to be violent. They roll around on the ground in a manner that resembles fighting more than affection. When it comes to actually talking about what is going between them and dealing with their feelings, Jack seems more comfortable with the recent twist their relationship has taken while Ennis insists he “Aint no queer.”
Jack and Ennis do all they can to prove to the world they are “real men” – their clothing, their jobs and their speech all strengthen the stereotypical images of what men are supposed to be. Their dress is the most striking of these attempts at proving their masculinity. “The Marlboro Man,” to this day, is the ultimate symbol of masculinity. They use clothing to try to prove to the world that they comply with and perpetuate this myth. As long as they dress the part of the heterosexual man, they think they can fool the world into believing they actually are. The American West is traditionally the final frontier; it is the only place where men can be men. This film makes the bold claim that it is also the only place where men can be with men. Jack and Ennis are only comfortable being with one another in the privacy of the wilderness. In this place they experience passion that is never again duplicated, in any aspect of their lives. They never find that excitement with either their work or eventual spouses. They know cannot expect the world to accept their way of life.
Their looks also invoke images of classical Hollywood and the hetero-normative myth that it perpetuated. Ennis physically resembles James Dean from his role in Giant. With his cowboy hat pushed down his face, his body slumped over, and his labored speech, the two are almost identical. The two leading male stars in Giant were Dean and Rock Hudson. Both of these men lived in the proverbial closet. Dean’s bisexuality never reached the widespread knowledge that Hudson’s did; perhaps it is because his life was cut short when he was 25. Nevertheless, Dean and Hudson were both symbols of masculinity in the 1950s. In 1955 when Giant came out, the cowboy was still the masculine heterosexual figure popular culture knew and loved. However, by 2005 the world can learn better and can no longer deny the fact that no matter the façade, some things cannot be kept in the closet.
After their summer together Ennis and Jack go on their separate ways not to see each other for another four years. During the hiatus, Ennis marries his high school sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), has two children, and attempts as much of a “normal” life as possible. Jack meets Lurleen (Anne Hathaway), a rodeo queen and the daughter of a wealthy farm equipment salesman. They too lead the seemingly hetero-normative lifestyle. Nonetheless, neither man is ever fully satisfied. Jack yearns to see Ennis again and returns to Brokeback Mountain in the summer of 1964 in hopes of finding him there. Ennis too, despite his insistence on being a heterosexual cannot escape his true nature. In one poignant love scene between Ennis and Alma, he violently flips her onto her stomach in a manner that parallels his first sexual encounter with Jack. Ennis has so much passion for Jack bottled up inside of his that he doesn’t know what to do with it. When Ennis and Jack are finally reunited after four years that unbridled passion reignites; again they embrace in violent kisses. From that point on they begin their annual rendezvous up to Brokeback Mountain, masked as fishing trips. Jack is idyllic and tries to convince Ennis that they could have a good life together living on a ranch together far away from society. Ennis, still scarred from when his father brought him to see the corpse of an old rancher who was murdered for living with another man, refuses. They continue this sporadic relationship as long as they can, hoping that their families do not catch on.
What makes this film so great is its truly universal themes. It proves that a theme can transcend a specific situation. It is about forbidden love and the tragedies it brings. The subject matter is as classic as Romeo and Juliet, only this affair is between two men. The other part of this tragedy is the irony of the time period in which it takes place. The film takes place from 1963-1983, one of the most sexually liberated time periods in American history. Yet, this story is so isolated from it and so far removed from the reality that so much of America was experiencing. The one reference that is made to “the 60s” is made by Jack. As he is leaving Brokeback Mountain, he tells Ennis that does not want to return to life as he knew it because of the possibility of getting drafted and set off the Vietnam. That is all they know of, not that the youth of the country are banding together to change the repressive society the older generation has created.
Another aspect of this tragedy is the ultimate legacy of the youth rebellion. How much of our country was truly affected? Matthew Shepherd was killed in Wyoming in 1998 for being a homosexual. Hate crimes are committed against people each day just because others don’t agree with whom they love. Furthermore, by the mere fact that people refuse to see the movie because they think it is nothing more than a “gay cowboy” film is a further example of people’s inability to accept that something they once held dear, the image of the lone man on his horse as the ultimate symbol of masculinity and freedom, is something other than their initial impression.
Take this film as you will, but keep in mind its universal themes. The splendid acting and direction will take your breath away and leave you wanting more. Over the course of the 2 and a half hours the characters become real, and an ultimate goal of this film is to prove that love has no boundaries be it age, race, and especially, gender. Maybe if one thinks about the message of the movie, the more one will realize that this is truly is a great film (even if declaring it out loud isn’t an initial reaction).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)