Titanic Revisited

Image source

As a movie fan, film reviewer and general cinema snob I often get asked what my favorite movie is.  I answer the same way every time – “Do you want my film geek answer or my real answer?”  The film geek answer is On the Waterfront and my real answer is Titanic.   This is generally met with smirks and nods of agreement that Titanic, while yes a huge blockbuster hit and created a generation of Leonardo DiCaprio fans, it couldn’t be taken seriously as a real piece of cinematic art.  Well, why not?  With the rerelease of the film on April 4^th in 3D for the 100^th anniversary of the tragedy I thought I’d take a stab at writing a meaningful review of the cultural relevance of the film and try to understand just why it was such a humongous phenomenon.  

I’m generally not a huge believer in “star theory” as being the main reason people go to the theater, it definitely has validity and especially when it came to Titanic Leo was the star responsible for most of the tickets being sold.  Up until that point his stardom was on a steady incline.  With notable performances in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, The Basketball Diaries, and Romeo +Juliette among others, DiCaprio was establishing himself as an actor both with a pretty face and with major acting chops who wasn’t afraid to take on important and risky roles.  However, oddly enough, his acting was among some of the harshest critiques of the film.  Of course I, as a 15-year-old girl wholly and totally obsessed with him, shuddered at the thought of Leo being less than perfect and scoffed at the criticism.   He was a big part of what drew me to the theater 5 times (yes, you read that correctly), and I’m not ashamed to say it.   

Another interesting change this movie brought to the landscape was that it highlighted the buying power of not just women, but teenage girls as well.  Teenage girls came to the theaters in droves.  At the time Titanic was the most expensive movie ever made, it also made the most money in the history of the movies.  Anecdotally I can report that it was not boys driving the dollar amounts sky high for Titanic, rather it was young girls going in packs and going again and again.  I wanted to BE Kate Winslet in those days.  I wanted her wardrobe, her looks and, of course, just like her, I wanted Leo.  Leo was a teenage phenomenon in the 1990s and no doubt brought a huge legion of fans into the theaters fantasizing about what it would be like to be Rose and have Leo stare at you dreamily with those big blue eyes.  These days movies like Sex and the City and Bridesmaids have made headlines being touted as proof that women have marketplace influence, but its movies like Titanic which also appeal to teenagers with a lesser sense of fiscal responsibility prove there is another demographic that are willing to pour more and more money into the movie.

Image source

At the time of its release Titanic was a spectacle film that broke out from the clutter of other films.  It was huge, epic, a sight for the eyes!  It didn’t rely on a 3D gimmick or the promise of impressive CGI special effects to get audiences.  Today it seems that all major studio films are just that.  In the media landscape today where there are so many platforms vying for attention from the coveted audiences more movies have to make more noise than they used to.  Titanic, for the most part, relied on actual props and backgrounds – while there was definitely an element of computer enhancement, Director James Cameron wanted as much to be authentic as possible and he actually built a scale model of the ship to accomplish that.  Something that today would be unheard of.  Why make what you can digitally fabricate?  As Janet Maslin wrote in her review of the film for the NY Times on December 19, 1997: “Memos, include Cameron's having persuaded the original carpet manufacturer to make an 18,000-square-foot reproduction of its "Titanic" weave and his having insisted that every sign, uniform and logo for the Southampton sailing sequence also be created in mirror image, so that the camera could reverse the apparent direction of the nearly life-size model ship.  Sets match old photographs right down to the sculpture and woodwork; costumes incorporate fragments of vintage clothing; even the silver White Star Line ashtrays had to be right.”  The movie wasn’t without its faults, of course.  I mean, the list of goofs on the IMDB page is about as long as I’ve ever seen for a movie, but given the scope of the film it’s not particularly surprising that he missed as much as he got right.  But as a viewer it is exciting getting a glimpse into a bygone world.   

That nostalgia for the pomp and circumstance of the past is just as alive today as it was then, and while impossible to attach a cause and effect relationship, it seems likely that Cameron’s movie sparked an interest in that bygone era with legacies including Downton Abbey (whose pilot opens with the news of the Titanic sinking, not to mention the much of the plot is precipitated by effects of the disaster).  While it’s easy to bemoan the way people lived back then, with the class warfare, seemingly unnecessary strict adherence to frivolous ceremony and unmitigated proscribed gender roles, there is clearly an interest in exploring those rituals and Titanic let us peer into that world on a grand scale.  Today we live in a world completely foreign to that one so there is a romanticism placed on these formalities, which in those days, I’m sure, was despised by many, especially the youths.  

Additionally, what was no doubt one of the biggest draws of the film is the timeless love story.  It’s Romeo and Juliette retold on a boat with beautiful actors in beautiful clothing.  Cameron knew that no matter what sets, costumes, technology or even stars you have at your disposal, if the story isn’t up to par the audiences won’t show up.  In Titanic we have star crossed lovers from opposite ends of the social spectrum who fall in love and insist on being together despite all external forces pulling them apart.  Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) is the 17-year-old daughter of a struggling socialite widow who has been betrothed to a much older man to secure her mother’s financial future.  She is unhappy with her lot and one night, when she had had enough, almost throws herself off the back of the ship.  Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) spots her and talks her out of ending her life.  At this point the pair begins their fated love affair.  Just as the ship has so much promise, so does their love, yet as audiences know even before they walk into the theater, they are doomed for disaster.  The way the story was structured gave another dimensionality to the story – the ship became another character.  Just as much as you want the characters to be able to survive, even though you know what happens, you want that boat to make it as well. 

Image source

Maslin also astutely notes that “Beyond its romance, "Titanic" offers an indelibly wrenching story of blind arrogance and its terrible consequences.”  The story is about what people considered to be an unsinkable ship.  They didn’t even bother putting on enough life boats, lest the sight of them hinder the beauty of the luxury liner.  This hubris has caused the downfall of men since the dawn of time until today.  Wasn’t much of the banking crisis caused when the seemingly “unpopable” bubble, popped? This story is so universal and so relatable that it’s no wonder it struck a chord with so many.  I believe that these two themes, romance and hubris, are what make Titanic so timeless and so universal.  These are issues which people face no matter what their circumstances and what era in which they live.

Finally, one last word about the music.  The theme song, sung by Celine Dion, no doubt became a phenomenon of itself.  It went on to become an Oscar winning song, played over and over again on the radio, in malls, elevators, weddings, etc, etc, etc.  But what I want to mention now is the overall score of the film, which was also an Oscar winner.  The score imbedded into the film that hearing just a few notes elicits the same emotional response that the visuals do.  It’s nearly impossible to hear the music without thinking of the narrative of the film, and that’s what makes for a great score.  It doesn’t live independently from the rest of the movie and it greatly enhanced all the elements within the narrative that so many years later it remains an iconic and essential element of the film.  

Obviously the film isn’t perfect, and over the last 15 years it hasn’t been immune to scrutiny – why didn’t Rose just stay on the life boat?  Why didn’t they switch off on the raft?  They both could have lived!  Why did Old Rose throw the diamond to the bottom of the ocean?!  And so on.  I’m not denying those frustrating questions, and I’m not claiming it’s the perfect film.  But there are obvious reasons as to why and how this film went on to make close to 2 billion dollars internationally and hopefully this essay had been able to shed some light onto that.

And Introducing...Famous Faces in their Film Debuts

The famous faces we see and know as Hollywood Royalty had to get their starts somewhere, right?  Here's a great video edited by Jason Bailey for FlavorWire that has lots of great first appearances by well-known actors and actresses.  They go by really quickly so I had to keep my mouse on the pause button so I could really see their faces, but it was really fun to see these favorites in unknown roles!

Enjoy!

The Hunger Games

Image source

After what seemed like an endless stream of casting and filming news, the film adaptation of the first of Suzanne Collins’ massive trilogy, The Hunger Games, has finally been released.  Telling the story of a dystopic and post-apocalyptic future where North America has been transformed into a new country called, Panem.  Divided into 12 districts, the country’s teenagers are forced to compete in an annual televised, and literal, fight to the death as punishment for the now defunct 13^th District’s uprising. 

Every year a boy and girl from each district between 12 and 18 years of age are chosen at random in what has become known as “The Reaping” to be named participants in the games.  The Capital administers the games and treats their “tributes” as celebrities, as though the opportunity of becoming a martyr is some sort of noble position.  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a hardened 17-year old from District 12 volunteers herself when her younger sister is chosen to participate.  She and fellow District 12 tribute, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchinson) head to the capital to face their fate.

Filmed in a blue-tinted sepia aesthetic, District 12 is one of the poorest districts and as the visual landscape offered during the reaping in District 12 was so reminiscent to footage, both original and Hollywood-made, of The Holocaust.  Whether intentional or not, the similarities are clear.  As the children of District 12 are herded into their lines for the reaping, given the medical examinations needed to prove their identities and are unable to escape this prescribed role they’ve been assigned the file into the courtyard of the government quad like sheep to the slaughter to hear their names being called.  I couldn’t help but make this comparison watching people being forced to give their lives as martyrs whether they wanted to or not.

Upon arrival to the Capital Katniss and Peeta immediately find that they are on very different ground from what they’re used to.  Unlike the hardened faces of the coal mining community from whence they come, they are greeted with overly made up and adorned faces of Capital inhabitants.  The wealthiest of the districts, these privileged citizens seem to only concern themselves with fashion, food and taking enjoyment from the sport of the games and placing bets on which tribute will come out victorious.  Katniss and Peeta are whisked into a make-over area where they are plucked, waxed and shined up to be presentable on television.  This scene was very “we’re not in Kansas anymore” similar to when Dorothy et al were buffed and curled before meeting Oz.  How far we’ve come, huh?

As we peer into the world of Panem and the citizens of its 12 districts we are looking into a world that, while might seem very foreign to us, it has a number of similarities that we as a society might not be willing to admit.  Each district has its role in society.  While District 12 are the coal miners, and on the lowest rung of the social totem pole, there are others responsible for luxury items, grain, agriculture, lumber, etc.  Everyone has their role and purpose to making sure the country survives.  In contrast, it seems that the citizens of the capital control all the power and have the easiest lives because of the hard work the other districts contribute.  They are, one could consider, the 1%.  Despite this, and as much as we viewers would like to distance ourselves from them and their grotesque features and outlandish fashion choices, their obsession with the games and the level of joy and entertainment they garner from watching this ultimate reality television show, they are more similar to us than we’d like to think.

Additionally, cinema has a long tradition of playing with one’s voyeuristic needs, just watch any Hitchcock film, and this one is no exception.  What’s great about staring at someone in a movie is that there’s no risk of getting caught.  The characters are not going to “catch” you gawking at and judging them.  Most notably I found the citizens of The Capital the object of my voyeurism.  These people adorned in the most overly stylized and outrageous manners are hard to look away from.  But the harder I looked at them, the more I realized I was looking into the future of “us.”  We as a society are on a path headed right into the Capital, both from a social/cultural perspective and a cosmetic/aesthetic perspective.   The people of the Capital are by far the richest in Panem.  They dress lavishly and, to them, beautifully.  Seeing what they have accepted as the aesthetic norm initially is shocking, but as I continued to watch I understood how they could have gotten to that place as we are slowly approaching ridiculousness ourselves.  Just turn on any Hollywood movie featuring a woman over 45 and it’s like you are watching stretched and pulled plastic figurines strutting across the screen.  Pop stars are constantly trying to one-up each other with what looks more bizarre, hiding under the veil they call art.  Lady Gaga? Ke$ha? Nikki Minaj?  They are our “Capital” citizens.  While the people of The Capital might be an extreme, the books and now film are definitely commenting on where too much of a focus on physical looks will take us.

Secondly, and I think the more important message is the cultural effects of where our reality television obsessed culture is headed.  Ceasar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), the Master of Ceremonies and perennial host of The Hunger Games is a vapid sycophant that unfortunately is not foreign to the television screen.  With his blue hair and shiny veneers he preens across the stage grasping for the attention of those watching him and feigning sympathy when the narrative calls for it.  The people of Panem are held in rapt attention as he narrates The Hunger Games as they are televised nationally across the nation on every screen imaginably (oddly, the people all seem to be without smartphones, rather screens magically appear on walls, windows and other surfaces so even though it’s not in the palm of their hands they are able to watch anywhere they want).  They cheer and swoon as children are sent to their deaths and celebrate as victors are presented in the most morbid and literal version of “Elimination.” 

Moreover, throughout the “Games” the children also must remember that they are in fact on television and while fighting for their lives they must create telegenic personalities to ensure they are sent medicine, weapons and other gifts from “sponsors.”  The premise initially seems outlandish, and a gut instinct would want me to think that this is ridiculous and would never happen.  But upon further consideration we are almost there in a sense.  While people are not literally killing each other (although the tragic suicide of one “character” from The Real Housewives franchise is an exception), reality TV is figuratively doing just that.  Bad behavior from people on reality programs is encouraged for ratings.  On-screen cat fighting, name calling and general conflict are insisted upon by networks and producers if it means pulling in more eyeballs.  Appealing to the lowest common denominator is celebrated and encouraged in our current landscape of reality television.  So it only makes sense to keep pushing that common denominator down as people get bored with the status quo, so it almost seems like a natural progression to take it to the next level, which The Hunger Games does.

There is little shown of the reactions by the other districts from around Panem, other than The Capital, but it is made clear that not all of them are in support of these annual games.  While the children from District 1 are prepped for this their entire lives, being called “Careers,” and celebrate the opportunity to live up to what they’ve been primed for since infancy, others mourn the loss of their children.  In District 11, after one of theirs is killed, we watch the riots that occurred while lawmakers and “peacekeepers” tried to quell the revolts of the people who were rebelling against what they considered to be immoral behavior on the part of the government.  The so-called peace keepers sprayed them with an unidentified substance, (maybe it was just water, but it’s unclear), physically intimidated them and did whatever else was needed to do in order to “keep the peace.”  When people aren’t permitted to protest what they see as immoral what kind of humanity do they have?  Who is the immoral party in this situation? Are the inmates STILL running the asylum?  These are important issues our country has been facing for decades, long before Ken Kesey asked it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and clearly ones we are still grappling with.

Interestingly, and similar to themes common in the 1950s cinema and then again in the 1980s, this film tackles the issues of what happens when adults, those supposed to be the caregivers, mentors and protectors of children are in fact posing more of a threat to them than any other influence.  In addition to the direct danger the government is putting them in to be pawns in their games, Katniss faces an ineffectual mother as she has been emotionally vacant since her father’s death and even her mentors, Haymitch who is more often drunk than he is sober and Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), her Capital representative who looks like Katie Perry met Jem and the Holograms, is more concerned with public appearances than actual survival.  The kids have to save themselves because there is no one else to do it for them.  This is also a story about children staying true to their own values and not giving in to social pressures of immorality.  There’s a lot of talk these days of children inheriting a flawed economy and having to deal with the fallout from the mistakes the adults around them made, so it’s no wonder these themes would be permeating our popular culture.

Any adapted film has to unfortunately cut out what sometimes feels like important details and plot points, and The Hunger Games is no exception, this adaptation works very well as a film.  It maintains the dark and dystopic overtones of the books and was not “glammed up” to fit Hollywood’s standards.  The topic of killing children could be easy to shy away from and gloss over, however director Gary Ross tackles it with cinematic grace and sensitivity without losing the gravitas of the moments of slaughter.  My one criticism of the film is that it felt very rushed.  Clocking in at around 2.5 hours, it’s hard to imagine it would feel like more time was needed, but it was.  I was disappointed that there didn’t seem to be enough time to really get to know some of the more peripheral, yet still important characters.  One of my favorite casting calls was Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, and I feel robbed that he did not have enough screen time.  Even Gale (Liam Hemsorth) wasn’t as present in the film as he was in the books.  His relationship with Katniss didn’t have a chance to get fully fleshed out, which is think is unfortunate especially given how important their background becomes in the upcoming two books. 

The Hunger Games offers a glimpse into a worst-case-scenario situation for where a media/conflict/looks based society can head.  It’s an extreme case of fiction and dystopia, but it’s also our responsibility to make sure it stays that way.

Letter and Number based films

Below are two videos which I find totally and completely mezmerizing and exciting in the way familiar works are reimagined.  They are short animations that ask you to guess the titles of films based on audio and visual cues.  Additionally it speaks to the iconography of classic films and how little you need to alert a fan to the specific piece. Take a look at the them and let me know if you can guess what movies are being referenced!  I was able to get most of them and will post in the comments sections.

The first one is number-based film titles from 1-13.   The second video is an alphabetical order of films from A-Z.

Enjoy!



   


ABCinema from Evan Seitz on Vimeo.

The Oscars Recap

Image source

Ok, so what did you all think about The Oscars this year?  Here are my thoughts.  I apologize in advance for being so curmudgeony.  I honestly didn't think it would come across this way when I set down to write this piece...

I always look forward to the Oscars.  It's my personal highest of Holy-days.  I sit with my printed ballot and mark who I want to win, who should win and who will win.  It's color coded and carefully considered well before the night of the telecast.  I listen to all of the acceptance speeches (yes, even in the technical categories) and cry at the In Memoriam section.  I love the pomp and circumstance of The Oscars as all of the actors get all glammed up and celebrate their craft and their industry. 

However, something felt different this year.  Something caused the whole night to fall flat.  I think part of it was the fact that the movies this year, on a whole, were not great.  So the first piece of it was that I wasn't particularly invested in any of the winners.  I didn't feel so passionately about any of the movies.  Hugo was my favorite, The Artist was interesting and it was cool to see an homage to Hollywood past.  Clooney did a good job in The Descendants.  The Help was good too, but other than that, eh.  I couldn't bring myself to see Iron Lady, Moneyball or War Horse - they all just looks so painfully boring.  So I didn't even really care all that much about who won or lost.

There were some high points.  I love that Christopher Plummer finally got his due.  His speech was thoughtful, sensitive and eloquent.  Esperanza Spalding's "What a Wonderful World" was heartfelt and provided a beautiful soundtrack to the memorial moment of the night.  I loved the surprise win by Brett McKenzie and his gratitude to Jim Henson was something all us Gen-X, Gen-Y and Millenials could appreciate. And, while I think I'm one of the few, I liked the movie montages they included.  After all, shouldn't a celebration of "the movies" showcase and honor those which laid the groundwork for future generations of film?  I only wish there was more.

I think what really irked me though was that all that pomp and circumstance was ultimately for a year's worth of work that wasn't really all that deserving.  As Billy Crystal said in the beginning of the show, we're watching millionaires hand out little gold statues to one another.  For the first time, for me at least, the show felt woefully out of touch.  Billy Crystal and the producers did a good job trying to make it feel more relevant and give it a little lift without obviously pandering to the 18-25 demo (Can we all agree to erase the James Franco/Anne Hathaway debacle from the record).  I thought the addition of Cirque Du Soliel was great and the little comedic snippets like with Kermit and Miss Piggy or the Wizard of Oz "focus group" were clever.  But ultimately I felt like we were rewarding people for a lot of mediocrity.  Sure, the awards have to happen so someone has to win, but it feels so lame watch the self-congratulatory nature of this group recognizing and honoring what is ultimately overall sub-par work.

Another point I'd also like to make now that I have the floor is that the documentaries, doc shorts, and animated shorts should be more available to the public.  Often times these are the categories doing the most important and creative work and yet there is a limited to no feasible way to actually view the content.

And finally, will someone PLEASE feed Angelina Jolie?

I just hope next year's crop of films will be better so we can put this whole mess behind us.

Oscar Nominations




Image source

 Anecdotally, this year's Oscar noms have already started spurring a lot of heated debates.  According to my very scientific research on Twitter and Facebook, people seem to be overwhelmingly unhappy about the results.  Understandably, upset is generally over those who were either overlooked or who undeservingly got nominated.  Additionally, people get annoyed when the nominations are too predictable, but conversely also are irritated when nods are given to those who seem to come from obscurity.  The Internet exploded with wrath that Ryan Gosling wasn't nominated for any of his work this year.  How could Leo or Clint be neglected in this race?  The Tree of Life, seriously?  In short, The Academy can never win.  But do movie fans win either?

I always set my alarm early the morning of the announcements to see the announcements.  Often having seen most of the movies I get excited when my favorites are also the favorites of those who make the decisions.  Then, why this year did I not bother to wake up till after the announcements had been made?  Probably because on a whole, I am underwhelmed by this year's films and therefore I don’t have a tremendous amount invested in who is nominated and who isn’t.   

The only standout films, for me, this year were Hugo and The Artist.  The others, such as The Descendants or the much hyped The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo left me feeling as though something was lacking in the narrative.  I will say that I was surprised by a few of the choices, like Leo’s acting nom omission.  But J. Edgar wasn’t all that great of a film even though he happened to shine in it.

Also interesting, this years’ nominated best picture films are among the lowest grossing nominated films in Academy history. Some have been calling this a further example that the voters are out of touch with the movie-goers, but I would disagree. There really have been no stand out record breaking movies this year, and those which have done well tended to skew the numbers because they were in 3D and the tickets cost more to begin with. I hate to say it, but movies have just not been that good this year. 

The Academy has often been accused of neglecting the masses, that the movies they choose are not what the people are seeing.  I don't think that's a huge problem.  Take Bridesmaids for instance.  Funny movie, lots of people saw it and loved it.  Do I think it's best picture worthy?  Definitely not.  The Oscars are about celebrating the craft and artistry of film and filmmaking.  I hate to sound like a snob, but when it comes to those qualifications, Bridesmaids does not fit the bill.  And should no be nominated solely based on the fact that a lot of people saw it.  It's finding the crossover that is important, that's the sweet spot between mass adoration and quality artwork. 

I’d also like to add that in a cinematic landscape where the independent films are continuing to hold ground and make an impression on voters and viewers (http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/oscars-indies-capture-60-nominations/), I find it increasingly frustrating that there are little to no opportunity to see the documentaries or foreign films before the Oscar telecast. Art house films should be distributed more widely and offered to a larger audience than is now.

So there’s my take on this morning’s announcements. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Here’s the complete list of nominations:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
The Artist (2011): Thomas Langmann
The Descendants (2011): Jim Burke, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011): Scott Rudin
The Help (2011): Brunson Green, Chris Columbus, Michael Barnathan
Hugo (2011/II): Graham King, Martin Scorsese
Midnight in Paris (2011): Letty Aronson, Stephen Tenenbaum
Moneyball (2011): Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz, Brad Pitt
The Tree of Life (2011): Nominees to be determined
War Horse (2011): Steven Spielberg, Kathleen Kennedy

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Demián Bichir for A Better Life (2011)
George Clooney for The Descendants (2011)
Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011)
Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
Brad Pitt for Moneyball (2011)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs (2011)
Viola Davis for The Help (2011)
Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011)
Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn (2011)
Jonah Hill for Moneyball (2011)
Nick Nolte for Warrior (2011)
Christopher Plummer for Beginners (2010)
Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo for The Artist (2011)
Jessica Chastain for The Help (2011)
Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids (2011)
Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs (2011)
Octavia Spencer for The Help (2011)

Best Achievement in Directing
Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris (2011)
Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (2011)
Terrence Malick for The Tree of Life (2011)
Alexander Payne for The Descendants (2011)
Martin Scorsese for Hugo (2011/II)

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
The Artist (2011): Michel Hazanavicius
Bridesmaids (2011): Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo
Margin Call (2011): J.C. Chandor
Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen
A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
The Descendants (2011): Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
Hugo (2011/II): John Logan
The Ides of March (2011): George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon
Moneyball (2011): Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Bridget O'Connor, Peter Straughan

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
A Cat in Paris (2010): Alain Gagnol, Jean-Loup Felicioli
Chico & Rita (2010): Fernando Trueba, Javier Mariscal
Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011): Jennifer Yuh
Puss in Boots (2011): Chris Miller
Rango (2011): Gore Verbinski

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Bullhead (2011): Michael R. Roskam(Belgium)
Footnote (2011): Joseph Cedar(Israel)
In Darkness (2011): Agnieszka Holland(Poland)
Monsieur Lazhar (2011): Philippe Falardeau(Canada)
A Separation (2011): Asghar Farhadi(Iran)

Best Achievement in Cinematography
The Artist (2011): Guillaume Schiffman
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Jeff Cronenweth
Hugo (2011/II): Robert Richardson
The Tree of Life (2011): Emmanuel Lubezki
War Horse (2011): Janusz Kaminski

Best Achievement in Editing
The Artist (2011): Anne-Sophie Bion, Michel Hazanavicius
The Descendants (2011): Kevin Tent
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter
Hugo (2011/II): Thelma Schoonmaker
Moneyball (2011): Christopher Tellefsen

Best Achievement in Art Direction
The Artist (2011): Laurence Bennett, Robert Gould
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Stuart Craig, Stephenie McMillan
Hugo (2011/II): Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo
Midnight in Paris (2011): Anne Seibel, Hélène Dubreuil
War Horse (2011): Rick Carter, Lee Sandales

Best Achievement in Costume Design
Anonymous (2011/I): Lisy Christl
The Artist (2011): Mark Bridges
Hugo (2011/II): Sandy Powell
Jane Eyre (2011): Michael O'Connor
W.E. (2011): Arianne Phillips

Best Achievement in Makeup
Albert Nobbs (2011): Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnson, Matthew W. Mungle
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight, Lisa Tomblin
The Iron Lady (2011): Mark Coulier, J. Roy Helland

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
The Adventures of Tintin (2011): John Williams
The Artist (2011): Ludovic Bource
Hugo (2011/II): Howard Shore
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011): Alberto Iglesias
War Horse (2011): John Williams

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
The Muppets (2011): Bret McKenzie("Man or Muppet")
Rio (2011): Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown, Siedah Garrett("Real in Rio")

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, Bo Persson
Hugo (2011/II): Tom Fleischman, John Midgley
Moneyball (2011): Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco, Ed Novick
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush, Peter J. Devlin
War Horse (2011): Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson, Stuart Wilson

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Drive (2011): Lon Bender, Victor Ray Ennis
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Ren Klyce
Hugo (2011/II): Philip Stockton, Eugene Gearty
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Ethan Van der Ryn, Erik Aadahl
War Horse (2011): Richard Hymns, Gary Rydstrom

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011): Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler, John Richardson
Hugo (2011/II): Robert Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann, Alex Henning
Real Steel (2011): Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Danny Gordon Taylor, Swen Gillberg
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011): Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White, Daniel Barrett
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011): Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew E. Butler, John Frazier

Best Documentary, Features
Hell and Back Again (2011): Danfung Dennis, Mike Lerner
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (2011): Marshall Curry, Sam Cullman
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory (2011): Joe Berlinger, Bruce Sinofsky
Pina (2011): Wim Wenders, Gian-Piero Ringel
Undefeated (2011): Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin, Rich Middlemas

Best Documentary, Short Subjects
The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement (2011): Robin Fryday, Gail Dolgin
God Is the Bigger Elvis: Rebecca Cammisa, Julie Anderson
Incident in New Baghdad (2011): James Spione
Saving Face (2011/II): Daniel Junge, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (2011): Lucy Walker, Kira Carstensen

Best Short Film, Animated
Dimanche (2011): Patrick Doyon
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (2011): William Joyce, Brandon Oldenburg
La Luna (2011): Enrico Casarosa
A Morning Stroll (2011): Grant Orchard, Sue Goffe
Wild Life (2011): Amanda Forbis, Wendy Tilby

Best Short Film, Live Action
Pentecost (2011): Peter McDonald
Raju (2011): Max Zähle, Stefan Gieren
The Shore: Terry George, Oorlagh George
Time Freak (2011): Andrew Bowler, Gigi Causey
Tuba Atlantic (2010): Hallvar Witzø

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Image source

The American adaptation of Steig Larsson's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was probably one of the most highly anticipated films of the 2011 awards season.  The Swedish mystery novel has been extremely popular since it's debut in 2008 and has spawned 2 sequels and Swedish film versions of all three books.  This American film, directed by David Fincher (The Social Network), is just the latest iteration of the stories about expert hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) and investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig). 

In Dragon Tattoo, Blomkvist is tasked with tracking down the murderer of Harriet Vanger, the niece of business tycoon and millionaire Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer).  Blomkvist hires Salander as a research assistant and the two begin unraveling a story that turns out to be much more than a missing person's case.  Blomkvist becomes uncomfortably familiar with the innerworkings of this family whose lineage contains more than its fair share of molesters, Nazis and other unsavory folks.  He delves into the details of the fateful day when Harriet disappeared, trying to understand the events that led up to her supposed murder.  Salander, a girl lacking normal social skills and mores, comes on as Blomkvist's research assistant.  She is chosen for her expert hacking skills and almost obsessive attention to detail.

The casting information came with bursts of excitement as people buzzed about how they thought the choices lived up to their expectations.  I've been underwhelmed by this series since its debut and I was actually looking forward to this installment as a Fincher, Craig and Mara fan.  Unfortunately when the content isn't compelling no matter how much dressing up gets done to it, not much changes.  For me, the most compelling part of the whole movie were the visually intriguing opening credits set to Trent Reznor's jarring score.  I had hopes that it would be foreshadowing to a visually compelling film...unfortunately I was disappointed.

I must say that often times I feel like this story is like the Emperor's New Clothes - almost that I have to say I like it or else I'll be deemed some sort of idiot.  But this is my blog and I'll say what I want.  I don't like this series at all.  I found the books boring, the writing style extraneous, and finally, I simply did not connect to the characters or even the story line.  Of all the characters in this story, Salander is probably the most interesting, and her story isn't even fully explained until the second installment.  Furthermore, she's billed as some kick-ass heroine who swoops in and saves the day.  While there are some elements of that, it is definitely not the focus of the narrative.  This film also does not highlight her hacking skills as much as it thinks it does and instead paints her more as an anti-social outcast with a history of being being abused by men. 

To me the story feels forced, with the discoveries of each nuance of the mystery quite contrived.  I don't believe that after Henrik spending 40 years and loads of money trying to uncover the mystery, Blomkvist is able to do so with relatively little effort.  Furthermore, Larsson's writing style often contains extraneous sequences of irrelevant details and his narratives include scenes that are eventually unrelated to the overall plot, and unfortunately the movie did not do a good job of purging that information from the final project.

Additionally, and most frustrating for me, this film does not add anything to the cinematic landscape.  I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting with this movie, but I think it should have offered something new.  This feels like they might as well have dubbed over the original movie with English voice-overs.  The Swedish movie, while not perfect, offered a visual glimpse into the world Larsson created.  The American version pretty much duplicated it down to the color palate the film was shot in.  Interestingly though, this film was more violent and contained more graphic nudity than the Swedish version, a surprising turn for Hollywood, more often known for sanitizing its subject matters.   Moreover, the film and story claims to be a lot about female empowerment, as Blomkvist convinced Lisbeth to help him by telling her that they'd be catching "a killer of women."  Lisbeth is supposed to be an empowered female as well, but her greatest moments of badass-itude are uncontextualized and float in the story totally unconnected to the rest of the plot, this being the fault of either Larsson or director David Fincher.

What I did find impressive about the story after reading the book and seeing two film versions is just how attentive to details Larsson was when it came to constructing his narrative.  The entirety of the mystery relies on the unraveling of details based on photographs - a visual medium.  As an author, he needed to create vivid images for the reader to understand how the mystery unfolded.  The task of the filmmaker is much simpler, presenting the visuals directly to the viewer.  Ironically, the story works better as a novel as it allows the the viewer to take a more active role in understanding the story.  So it is interesting that a story which relies so heavily on visual components actually works better in the written form as opposed to a visual one.


So here it is, my declaration of dislike for this series.  I know I am going against the grain of almost every media outlet and critic out there, but here it is.  I see the Emperor and he's not wearing any clothes.

The New Girl is Adorkable

Image source

Has anyone been watching "New Girl?"  It's that new show on Fox with Zooey Deschanel which has coined the term "Adorkable."  I'm not sure why I started watching it, I'm usually not an early adapter when it comes to sitcoms.  I was late on the How I Met Your Mother train.  I am only now getting into The Big Bang Theory and while everyone seems to be loving Happy Endings, I just cannot get on board.  There's something about New Girl, however, that keeps me coming back.

A definite prerequisite of this show is that you must like Jess' (Zooey) quirkiness.  She's a total oddball, but there's something endearing and sweet to her demeanor that I totally works.  The premise of her breaking up with her boyfriend and then happening upon this apartment of three guys who agree to take her in is totally not believable, yet I let it go.  The three men (ok, boys) who she lives with are beyond sweet guys and while they also have their little character quirks and flaws, they are so relatable that they remind you of your guy friends, or the guy friends you wished you had. 

This show is about individual expression and being true to ones self.  Not once does Jess apologize for who she is, nor does she change because others are telling her to.  If anything, her being around encourages her friends to be more "out there."  What's also interesting is that her quirkiness and adorkability shines a spot light on the ridiculousness of being on the straight and narrow.  We live in an era where the conformists and the non-conformists are violently clashing.  That's essentially what the 99% Occupy Wall Street issue is raging over.  If it was merely over lack of jobs things would likely have not taken the turn they have.  The people sitting in Zucotti Park could be looking for jobs, volunteering their time, or doing something else to benefit society while they aren't working.  However, they have decided to make it known that they are nonconformists and are rebelling against those who work the system. 

That might be a bit of a stretch, but I think it's interesting that non-conformity is so much in the spotlight today, and manifests itself in different ways.  OWS has become very controversial and there is zero actual controversy in New Girl, so maybe thats the message.  That you can be different and assert your independence and not alienate mainstream society.  New Girl celebrates individuality and nonconformity but as an active member of the community.   Jess is different and quirky, but somehow she's also totally relatable.  All the characters are, in fact.  Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but nonetheless there might be something to it.

Inspirational movie speeches

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

Ides of March

Image source

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

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

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

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

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

Golden Globe Nominations

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

Enjoy!

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

Melancholia

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

Image source

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

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

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

Image source

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

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

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

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

Image source

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

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

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

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

Image source

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

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

History Repeats

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

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

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

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

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

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