Black-ish

Blackish, the new show on ABC offends me. Not on the basis of race, as many people assumed it would be, but based on how incredibly immature and selfish the adults in this show are. 

Blackish was originally marketed as a show which would buck stereotypes and show a thriving, affluent black family with two professional parents living in a nice house on a nice block.  They have 4 kids who go to a good school. 

Aside from the fact that the frenetic pace of the show and the dad's obsessive preoccupation with his kids being "black enough" makes it practically unwatchable, the parents utter selfishness just compounds it. 

Father Andre and mother Bo force their children to conform to their wants and needs. In one episode rather than taking pride in his son's social and academic achievements, Andre laments his son's disinterest in subscribing to black codes and notes that are largely irrelevant to his life. It's one thing to build in a love of ones heritage into a child's upbringing, it's another thing entirely to force it down their throats after the fact. And even another still to do it for your own reasons because of your own guilt and needs and not really for your kids. 

This is a running theme throughout the show. The parents time and again insist on their children behaving in certain ways because it's what they want, not because it's best for their kids.  This seems to be a growing trend in TV parents overall. There's an infantilization of parents and adults throughout TV these days.  It's hard to say or understand exactly why, but it seems like networks are pandering to their target audience - 25-54 year olds - and if they keep them feeling young they'll keep tuning in. Maybe that means it's not a problem with the shows, but rather with this generation of young adults who aren't ready to grow up and who aren't being told that they have to grow up. I'm not excluding myself from that group, it's scary to grow up and to be told that we have real responsibilities, but ignoring them and sidestepping them will not benefit anyone - not ourselves and not our children. Our children need mature adults to look up to and to learn from. They don't need to grow up emulating parents who look out for themselves and the best interests above all else. 

Media has always been a lens that both reflects and in turns influences our culture and society. Do we want to project the best or the worst of what the parents of the next generation will be. Do we want our children growing up to emulate parents who look out for themselves or for their children's needs. 

I won't be turning in to watch more of Blackish. It's too upsetting and frustrating to see what parenting has become, or expected to become. 

Patriotic Cognitive Dissonance

How do you reconcile two diametrically opposing feelings? I've been struggling with many emotions since the horrific news of the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers, Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Fraenkel. Even more emotions have piled on since the devastating news of their deaths crept out in the news.  Sad and angry for the senseless deaths. Pain for the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandmothers, grandfathers, cousins and friends who are directly enduring this loss. Sadness for a nation who weeps at the loss of three young innocent souls whose only crime was following in their parents' footsteps of fulfilling the promise made to our forefathers of inhabiting the land designated to the Jewish people. Sadness for a culture who swears "never again" but slowly sees antisemitism rearing it's ugly head under the guise of anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian sentiments.

Piled on top of those overbearing emotions is the disappointment and upset I feel towards our US leaders. How could president Obama remain silent for 18 days? How can he continue to fund a government that is known to be backed by an internationally recognized terrorist organization? How can the nation I live in and love for it's freedoms of human rights be so callous to say that both sides should show restraint when one celebrates by handing out candies and cakes upon hearing the news that Israelis have been taken?

Therein lies my internal conflicting feelings. I voted for president Obama twice, admiring his domestic policies. True liberal ideals, equal rights for all - gay marriage, women's health, universal health care, raising the bar on educational standards, etc. Even with many of his the overseas policies I agreed as he vowed to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to be a continued friend to Israel. And now, the president who I trusted with the country in which I live has torn my heart out regarding his attitudes for the country in which my heart lies. As a Jew living in the United States I feel marginalized. I feel all of a sudden like a second class citizen without equal rights. The hundreds of tweets, letters, and calls he received on this matter (many of which from me) fell on deaf ears. He ignored his own people who were pleading their needs to him. He avoided responding to the cries of a people who had sought out this country when their countries oppressed and slaughtered them.  Now as it's happening in the country of our homeland he's silent.  How can I on the one hand be proud of the domestic issues he tries to push through into policy and be shamed in how he's so mishandled issues regarding Israel.

Never did I think the day would come where being an American and being a Zionist would conflict, but the day has come. How do I support  a president whose policies on Israel are so antithetical to my belief system yet his American policies are so in line with what I would wish for for this country? I'm split in half and grappling with this tremendous weight. 

How has being a supporter of Israel become something that is split on party lines?  At a recent Shabbat meal when I said I was a liberal and an Obama supporter, the first question from a staunch republican was - "But do you think Obama's been good for Israel?"  Why are the republican Senators and pundits, who make me sick when they talk about US policy, the only ones who have said anything in support for Israel in the past few weeks?  Where is the outrage from Democratic leaders over the hypocrisy and violations of human rights by Hamas?  Why does a vote in support for US ideals mean a betrayal for my devotion to Israel?  When did it mean you are anti-Israel if you are Pro-choice in this country? 

These are the issues I've been facing of late.  I love both of my countries. That of my communal people and that of my personal history and place. How can my chosen leader betray me so?  I've been grappling with this since his first moments of deafening silence 18  days ago, I continue to grapple with it today and likely for days to come. 

The Power of Nostalgia

You might have seen the recent buzz surrounding LeVar Burton's Kickstarter campaign to resurrect Reading Rainbow.  As he explains in the accompanying video, he is hoping to raise 1 million dollars over the course of the month of June in order to be able to fund a reboot of the series and make it available to all children across all media for free.

In less than one day he reached his monetary goal of 1 million dollars.  By 4:30 on the second day he has already surpassed the 2 million dollar mark.  How did that happen so fast?  Why were so many people (over 45,000 people thus far) happy to open their wallets and make donations to fund this project?  To me, this exemplifies the power of nostalgia.

Reading Rainbow is a powerful brand to those of us who grew up watching it, and while he's done plenty of well know and important work (Roots, Star Trek), for many of us, Burton is mostly known as "the guy from Reading Rainbow."  We grew up in an age where cable TV was not as pervasive as it is today, and even if you had cable, the best children's programming was on PBS.  It was educational, empathetic, interesting, smart, and most of all, it didn't pander to the lowest common denominator of attention grabbing.  (See: Any of The Disney Channel's current line-up to see what I'm talking about).  Children were spoken to with the assumption that they were smart and excited to learn new things be it Reading, Math, how things are made, or even social skills (Thank you Mr. Rogers, 3-2-1 Contact, Square One).  The value of educational television for children on that level seems to have been lost in the bombastic ratings-grab game of the 21st Century.

Are people yearning to give today's children what we had back then? Are people excited to be able to relive a piece of what we grew up on?  Burton offered incentives for large donations - private dinners with him, etc - maybe that's what spurred some of the donations, but overall it's clear that like generations before us, we believe that the good old days were in fact the good old days and are willing to open our wallets to bring even a taste of it back.  I just hope that the things we valued then are adapted appropriately and functionally to this brave new world and can impart good into it, rather than being watered down and bastardized to fit our current frenetic pandering media landscape.

The Normal Heart

Devastating. Tragic. Heart-wrenching. Infuriating

These are just some of the words that come to mind when trying to describe how I felt while watching The Normal Heart, airing on May 25 at 9 PM on HBO.  

Brought to television and starring some pretty big Hollywood hitters, this film tells the story of the early days of the AIDS crisis in New York when gay men were suddenly coming down with a mysterious disease that was, as one character puts it, killing of a generation.

Written by Larry Kramer as a semi-autobiographical play in 1984 and premiering on Broadway in 1985, these issues were still fresh and ongoing.  President Ronald Regan hadn’t even publicly said the word AIDS when Kramer began writing this.  National research funding was very limited, and thousands of people were dying every year from something that was killing off an entire generation of young men.

Starting in 1981, The Normal Heart, opens on a carefree Memorial Day weekend trip to Fire Island. Ned Weeks (the Kramer figure, played by Mark Ruffalo) joins his friends for partying and having a good time, but that carefree enjoyment soon turns to tragedy when one of their friends, Craig (Jonathan Groff) mysteriously collapses on the beach in a coughing fit.  The joy turns to concern for this individual and this is the moment the film turns into a horror story.  No one yet quite understands the more global problem that this seemingly isolated event represents.  Until this point the “only” hurdle gay men had to face was social and political disparagement, little did they know they would be faced with something far more sinister.

This initial scene lays the groundwork and foreshadows much of the narrative from that point on.  In an era where until that point, love was free from fear and the gay community was just starting to mainstream, comes a danger that lurks underneath that carefree attitude.  Not only their lifestyles were marginalized by society, but their sex lives now had real life and death consequences.

As the story goes on, Ned observes more and more of his peers falling ill and dying, including his lover Felix (Matt Bomer, who proves he’s more than steely blue eyes and devilishly good looks in one of the film’s strongest performances).  He endures the lack of respect and acknowledgement from leading political figures like Ed Koch and family members like his brother, Ben (Alfred Molina).  He finds one ally in Dr. Emma Brookner (an unusually dowdy Julia Roberts), a polio stricken doctor who has been in the front lines of the burgeoning epidemic as she has treated hundreds of dying men to this mysterious illness.

What is so painful for Ned, and in turn for modern audiences watching in 2014, there doesn't seem to more public outrage on the hundreds and thousands of deaths.  This disease didn't have a name yet, it was still referred to as Gay Cancer, as it tore through New York and the US.  Ned insists on being that voice of outrage – despite the resistance he gets from his family members and friends.  He, along with a few friends, found The Gay Men’s Health Crisis as a nonprofit to spread the word about AIDS awareness.  Even within the group there’s a schism over how they should plead their case.  Ned is a loud, sharp voice who wants to scream and yell to get heard, but there’s also the closeted Bruce Niles (Taylor Kitsch, having shed all of his Tim Riggins persona) and Tommy Boatwright (a strong Jim Parsons) feel like they’ll catch more flies with honey.  Nevertheless, despite the differing ways they feel will be most effective in how to get people’s attention, the film, as did the play before it, capture the real sense confusion and urgency of action at this time.  They didn’t know what to do, but they knew something must be done.

What is so fascinating about this story is how little people under the age of 35 actually know what went on in those early days.  Despite films like Philadelphia and And the Band Played On, there has been limited public and widespread presence to this issue of the early days in our popular culture, and unfortunately without the knowledge of our past, we are destined to relive it.  In one impassioned  plea to Felix, Ned decries what would have happened if the Jews in America and in Europe had spoken up and out against the Nazis.  Moreover, Emma states that “People once died from Polio” to say that this too could be curable, if people paid attention to it.  In these instances, Ned and Emma are not only the voices of their generation and "his people," but he’s also the voice of future generations who will need their voices heard on their important issues.  Above all else, The Normal Heart is a warning of what happens when people don’t stand up to social justice issues - either for causes that directly effect them or for injustices they see going on in the world.  This happens to be a great film with stellar acting and impressive direction, but it’s most important element is it’s truth.

The truth is that today the big fight is about gay marriage and equal rights which is a huge step from 30 years ago when politicians wouldn't even recognize the gay community of deserving equal health care.  The fight for equal rights for this minority group has evolved, but it still continues.  In fact, the fight for equality for all minority groups continuities and the importance of The Normal Heart is important not only to know the history of this historic fight, but as a lesson for the future on how we treat people in our societies and to ask ourselves, what side of history do we really want to be on?  And, if the outrage isn't there and you think it should be, sometimes, in order to win a war, you have to be willing to start one.

The Normal Heart Trailer

On May 25th, HBO's film version of Larry Kramer's Tony winning play, The Normal Heart will hit the airwaves.  The Normal Heart tells the grim story of the early days of the AIDS crisis in New York City.  It implicated doctors, politicians and every day citizens in covering up the crisis and not taking it seriously as a national and global epidemic.

The Normal Heart stars Julia Roberts, Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer, Jim Parsons and Taylor Kitsch and it is directed by Ryan Murphy.  It is sure to pack a punch.  Here is the first trailer promoting the film.  I highly recommend watching it and saving the date to watch the whole film on May 25th on HBO.

Oscars 2014

Tonight is the 86th Oscar ceremony, honoring the year's best films - or the films the Hollywood Machine has told us are the best.  I watch every year with ritual.  I have my ballot, my highlighter, my notes, and I do it all - alone.  My phone is off, my friends, my family and husband know that this is my night and not to bother me.  I will be acting out this ritual again tonight, and yet, I won't do it with the same fervor that I usually do.  Why? Well, frankly, I don't think this year's films deserve all of the attention that they're getting.

As a group at least.  Not one film has risen to the level of acclaim they've been receiving.  Her was a terribly boring film that had me squirming in my seat for 2 hours.  Joaquin Pheonix falls in love with his phone's operating system - and yet, no one seems to think this is strange.  If it was a comment on how we a society are becoming to reliant on technology then the film might have had something to say, but that's not what it was saying.  It seemed to be asking the question of can machines feel and think.  This topic is not new - the Twilight Zone asked this of us half a century ago.  There was never a moment of revelation where the characters realized how much better human interaction is, nor was there a time where the audience was given any real insight as to how the characters on screen believed this to be a viable option.  The acting was...ok.  Phoenix's character oscillates between being a nebbish ne'er do well and a likeable loner.  Amy Adams is a cute filmmaker and friend to Phoenix's Theodore but her character never is given the opportunity to develop fully - and, let's be real, Adams is always cute and likable so that's no shocker or a stretch for her.

American Hustle was just ok- it's characters were all caricatures, which made for a fun romp, but serious film it is not.  The plot was convoluted and inane with little character development, but the acting and costumes were definitely superb.

12 Years a Slave offered a powerful story with excellent acting, but the screenplay was often forced and many directorial choices were odd.  For instance, a major plot point - like the moment that Solomon Northup, the main character, was kidnapped and sent down south to be sold as a slave was vague and convoluted.  One would think that this pivotal moment would be wrought with emotion and nuances.  Yet, it was lacking.  And yes, it does take on a powerful important story to tell, and it's important to keep the atrocities of slavery top of mind in our history to make sure we do not repeat the sins of our fathers. 

Gravity made a huge splash this year because of its technological achievement, but as far as storytelling goes, there wasn't much there.  Sandra Bullock spends much of the film floating around space just trying to get back into planet earth's atmosphere.  There is an emotional heart at the center of the film, but best film winner it is not. 

Of the films that I actually liked were Dallas Buyers Club and Wolf of Wall Street.  Both films are biopics, telling a part of the story of our national history and about a person who made a difference - good or bad in our historical narrative.  They were good, yes, and definitely deserving of nominations.  Will they go down in history as best films of all time?  Probably not. 

2014 should not go down in history as a year of great filmmaking, but as the Hollywood machine dictates, we have to honor up to 10 films with "best film" nominees.  I am excited about the show and the pomp and circumstance that comes with the show because I love the glamor.  What I am not excited about is being forced to root for a film that I am not excited about.  The FYC campaigns that surround the titles and entice voters to cast their ballot for the film that spends the most money is a system that falsifies its results and doesn't truly honor the best in show. 

So during tonight's telecast, let's consider those who might not have had the most money to spend or the biggest horn to blow and consider some of the true artistic expressions that deserve the top prize.

Dallas Buyers Club

For all of its cultural, historical, and medical significance, you would think Hollywood would devote more time to exploring the AIDS crisis in America.  Be it the onset, politics or social repercussions of it.  However, save for a few poignant and landmark films, Hollywood has explored AIDS with a near deafening silence.

30 years after AIDS emerged Hollywood continues to tentatively explore the disease with Dallas Buyers Club.  Starring Matthew McConaughey as Ron Woodroof, a homophobic rodeo cowboy/electrician who finds himself stricken with HIV.  He is given 30 days left to live, and after the initial shock wears off he decides that he won’t resign himself to the initial prognosis and lack of traditional medicine and takes action.  Not someone to follow protocol and stick to rules he finds alternative medicines and ways of getting the drugs to other sick men. 

McConaughey is getting a lot of rightfully positive attention for this film.  He physically transformed himself for the role of Ron Woodroof by losing 40+ pounds and he solidly asserted himself as more than a comedic actor with this turn.  Another transformation was made by Jaret Leto, playing the transvestite, Rayon who becomes Ron’s unlikely friend and business partner.  Leto dissolves into the role and un-selfconsciously became his character allows the audience to be sympathetic with someone who they might find strange and maybe even repugnant in real life.  He brings heart to someone who, even in our modern day culture, is either maligned as the strange other trying to hide in their own skin, or celebrated as a bombastic, fierce performer. 

Upon their first meeting each is disgusted and offended by the other.  Ron is a homophobic, violent drunk who emotionally alienates and cheats anyone who comes into his world.  Rayon can be both soft and biting - clearly someone who has learned to take care of himself when no one else would.  They discover that to survive their fates they learn to trust and rely on one another even though in other circumstances they would never tolerate cooperating.  Through the evolution of the friendship between Ron and Rayon, the audience too learns to admire these characters and their strength.

While such a huge part of our modern history and central to our culture, AIDS has not been a mainstay in popular culture as other historical atrocities has.  I suppose it makes perfect sense as it can be traumatizing to revisit and relive a time that is still effecting so many people directly.  And yet at the same time, to not tell the story to future generations would be a mistake as it’s vital to make sure generations to come know what happened and how the revolution came at such a grass roots level thanks to vocal activists.  Today, we have some key films and plays that tell the story - The Normal Heart (an award winning Broadway play and an upcoming HBO Film), The Band Played On, Philadelphia, and now, Dallas Buyers Club (and hopefully more to come) will all be a part of the legacy and education for future generations.

The Kennedy Assassination 50 Years Later: Why do we still care so much?

If you've turned on a TV this week you've been likely to see some mention of a special about the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination.  There have news specials, documentary films, and entire News Magazine shows devoted to the tragic events that unfolded 50 years ago, this Friday.  Sure, it’s a ratings grab.  Every network wants a piece of the pie.  But the question is, why is there even a pie to be shared?  Why are Americans so drawn to the barrage of coverage that there are enough eyeballs to watch everything and make them profitable?

What is it about the untimely death of our 35th president that is still so intriguing to Americans that it warrants so much time and attention by our popular media?

John F. Kennedy is an enduring character in our popular and political culture, yet his story is so uncharacteristic of who Americans tend to hold up to our highest regards.  He did not struggle to the top from humble beginnings.  He was not an underdog who overcame great odds to become our president.  He was born to a wealthy family with great political, social and economic resources.  He had the best education America had to offer and great social status.  He is the antithesis to the American dream.  He didn't have to work for his social and economic status.  He probably didn't have to work at all if he didn't want to.  Not that everything was handed to him on a silver platter (despite chronic medical woes he was a decorated Navy lieutenant who fought in WWII and suffered injuries during his service, and he worked his way up in politics to our country's highest office), he does not embody the values that the American character tends to celebrate. 

So, what then is it about him that endures?  I've been watching a lot –and I mean a lot of the specials on Kennedy and there are 2 themes are at the heart of almost all of the retrospectives and explorations into Kennedy’s life and death.

The first is how he is frozen in time as this handsome, charismatic young man who had so much potential to make this world a better place and all of that potential was cut short in one instant.  His beautiful wife and children are the things fairy tales are made of.  He had it all and he could have been our great savior – after all, he founded so many important social, environmental and scientific initiatives that are, till today, cornerstones of our society such as the Peace Corps, desegregation initiatives, Space exploration, foreign policy, and the list goes on.  Who knows what he could have gone on to do?  He was a doer and a joiner.  In today’s era where things are so contentious and divisive and seemingly nothing actually can get done in Washington, he was someone who had ideas about what would make our country – and this world – a better place, and he actually got a lot done.  So yes, he was born into greatness, and he reached a place of potential, but just how much farther could he have gone?

The second theme is the conspiracy theories that endure till today.  The Warren commission swore up and down that there was no conspiracy.  Additionally, new forensic evidence and 21st century technology and experiments also have shown that there was no second shooter, no magic bullet and no government involvement in the death of our president.  Yet there are still some strongholds out there that there is more going on than what that evidence seems to point to.  Oliver Stone, the director of the 1991 movie, JFK said it then and reaffirms now that he believes that there had to be a conspiracy surrounding the shooting.  Part of it is that Americans love a good murder mystery.  But I think the other part of it is that there’s a disbelief – or a want to disbelieve that the most powerful person in the free world could be taken down by just one guy with a grudge.  One guy hiding out in a book depository who no one noticed taking aim at our President.  Could security be that lacking?  The conspiracy theory also feeds our seeming need to distrust government and big brother who watches and controls the day to day of our society.  The events surrounding his assassination is rife with questions and so rich with opportunity for conspiracy theories and doubts of the actual events, its no wonder people are still trying to piece together all of the elements to form a sequence of events that give closure.

These are two fundamental pieces of our American character.  So while John F. Kennedy was not the typical character one might write up to be a model of the American dream but in his death so many questions are left unanswered.  That rich text for exploration and questions will endure because there’s no way to answer “what if” and each generation can place their hopes and dreams onto what could have been and hope for something better for them.

The Great Gatsby

The 1920s is having a moment.   The decadence, the opulence, the sheer extravagance seem to make its way onto the big and small screen time and again and pervade so many aspects of our popular culture today.  It’s no surprise, however, that this should be the case.  Both now and then have many similarities. In a time of great economic instability – then, right before major economic upheaval and us right after – the wealthy seem to be getting richer and the poor seem to be pushed into deeper economic despair.  Music and fashion are pushing cultural boundaries.  Social and political unrest are prevalent and a growing distrust of the government is blooming.  It is no wonder than in both of these times another constant is that people are looking for some kind of relief and outlet for their woes. 

Directed by Baz Luhrmann, The Great Gatsby is a retelling of an old story – both because we’ve all read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book at least once and because the themes of lost loves, lavish excess, star crossed lovers, cheating lovers, outsiders, insiders, rich and poor have all been covered throughout the history of literature and film.  In his film, Luhrmann puts his own unique auteur stamp on it.  Through his whimsical and often chaotic aesthetic style and a true understanding of the medium in which he works, he layers together his special brand of filmmaking.  The bright and vibrant colors, quick cuts, and close up shots are all signature Luhrmann.  He magnificently recreates the world of the narrative and brings a new and exciting vibrancy to 1920s New York.  

Gatsby takes place in 1922, right at the height of stock market boom, before it all came crashing down.  Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is our narrator, the outsider to the world in which he takes us, the viewers.  His cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) is married to an old Yale buddy of his, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) out on Long Island.  Across the Bay is the famed yet mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who is in love with Daisy and throws extravagant parties for whomever wishes to join yet remains allusive to all of his guests.

In Luhrmann’s brilliant twist of fate, he gives Nick the voice of Fitzgerald as the literary voice behind the narrative.  After graduating from Yale, where he had hoped to become the next great American writer, Nick abandons that dream to become a stock broker and make money.  His summer takes a turn for the strange when he meet’s Jay Gatsby at one of his lavish parties.  Immediately he is sucked into the drama that comes with someone like Jay.  Additionally, he pairs up with his cousin, Daisy and her bombastic and disgustingly rich husband Tom.  Nick finds out about Jay’s history with Daisy and suddenly becomes a part of their secret love triangle.  It is at his psychiatrist’s behest that he writes down journal entries of what bothers him and yet what he is unable to convey through the spoken word.  Those entries become the story of The Great Gatsby.  It is Luhrmann’s tribute to Fitzgerald for maintaining his objective view while living in and observing the world he so delicately wrote about.

Gatsby rehashes the age old trope that money cannot buy happiness.  For all of the characters, there is a constant to feel full – full of money, full of friends.  The more you have, or pretend to have, is how you can prove your worth in this world.  This was the case in the 1920s and this is again the case now.  People believe that the more things they have the better they seem and the more people will like them.  For Gatsby he thought that providing people with lavish parties full of free alcohol and entertainment made him loved.  As it turned out, all of those were empty gestures.  When he died, none of those takers were there to give back to him and pay their respects.  He was surrounded by photographers and the press who ogled in the spectacle that was Jay Gatsby.  The only one who was around for him and who really cared was Nick.  Not coincidentally, he was also the one person who refused to take anything from him.  The one person who just wanted his company and his friendship.

Ultimately the lives that our characters live become a race to see who can become the one to die with the most toys – and for what?  No one, not one person in the whole story has a meaningful relationship. Nick thought he had one with Gatsby, but in truth, we don’t actually see a true friendship blossom.  Nick only finds out about who Jay Gatsby was at the end of the film and right before Gatsby dies.  Perhaps they were on their way to a great friendship, but that opportunity was snuffed out.  Daisy and Gatsby – the great star crossed lovers whose fate was never realized – also did not have any evidence of a real relationship outside lust at first side and raw sexual desire.  Five years before our story begins they met at a party and were instantly attracted to one another.  He was in love with her yet when she heard he was penniless she found someone who could provide her with the riches she (and her social status) so desired.  Tom and Daisy, while they are married and have a child together are another dysfunctional pair as he has a wandering eye and hops into bed with any woman he finds beautiful.  He somehow seems to think it’s a redeeming quality of his that he always comes back to Daisy.  

The story, mostly told through flashback, is narrated by Nick while psychiatric care after his summer with Gatsby and the Buchannans.  This perspective conjured up a comparison to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – the idea that the insane are running the asylum.  As a culture we value those with money because that status gives them power.  They gorge themselves on material wealth and neglect their emotional states for it.  It is those who go against that grain and don’t buy into that hype are relegated to the sidelines because they don’t have the same “values” or cash on hand to enjoy the finer things in life.  Nick is perfectly happy in his small cottage that he rents for $80 a month.  He wants to use his summer to learn a trade – the stock and bonds business.  Yet he is sucked into the world that Daisy, Tom and Gatsby inhabit and it ends up driving him crazy.

Nick is the consummate outsider – commenting on and observing other people’s drama.  In his voice over narration he laments how he is the keeper of everyone’s secrets which places him both on the inside of their lives and yet always just to the side of it.  Initially he so wants to be a part of it, doing all he can to join in.  Yet, it is his outsider status that ultimately allows him to maintain his sanity and an objective viewpoint to bring him to the other end of the narrative where no one else was able to.

Maybe it’s not that the early 2000s is so similar to the 1920s, rather that American culture is a constant and that The Great Gatsby has maintained its status throughout the generations since it was written because of its universality.  The story recounts struggles that everyone faces in one form or another at some point in life.  Since 1776, the American dream has been such that people believe they are always able to pull themselves out of whichever social or economic sphere they were born into and grown into the next one up.  Generations of successful Americans have proven that to be a viable option. Yet as The Great Gatsby states, the dichotomy between the Nuevo-riche and the old money people is a constant struggle.  The idea that being born into money (as is the conversation in Gastby) or being the “dominant race” or religion, or in today’s cultural climate, the “right sexual preference” somehow gives you a greater stronghold in the world goes directly against the ideal of the American dream yet is alive nonetheless.  Gatsby is a story for the ages and never has that been more evident in Luhrmann’s most recent retelling.  I have no doubt it will be told again and again for decades to come.

JC YL GIFs

When I tell main shul members that I have three roommates in a converted one bedroom apartment they're like:

and I'm like:

When we have to sit through another membership appeal speech:

Signing up for all YL events:

When I'm pressured to go to a public lecture in the main shul:

Walking down the OZ stairs friday night:

Walking into YL minyan on shabbos morning:

When I think I look cute eating the chulent and potato kugel at kiddush:

When I told my friends I was moving to the west side and not the heights:

When I walk into shul and realized I got there JFK:

When my little sister moved to the west side she's like:

When my mom comes for shabbos and wants to go to OZ friday night:

What I wish simchat torah at the JC was like:

Getting ready for the YL Purim Shpeil:

Walking into shul before Torah reading has started I'm like: 

When the JC raised YL membership rates, I was like: 

YLers before the Shmini Atzeret lunch started:

How I look at work:

and how I look at shul:

When I'm on the elevator going to kiddush and I see main shul members coming:

PURIM!

Nonmembers on a non-hot kiddush day:

When I hear kiddush is on the 5th floor and YL davening was on the first:

When Facebook becomes a show-off showcase for everyone's cooking (and their kids):

Going to Ali Baba's on a saturday night at 4 AM:

When I can finally afford my own apartment:

My roommate dragging me to Darchei Noam:

When the shul tells me I've aged out of the YL membership price range:

Me on a first SYAS phone conversation:

When I spot a cute guy across the crowd at kiddush:

My roommate when I head out on a first date:

How I feel when my married friends invite me to Riverdale:

 

When I get my renewal email from SYAS:

When my mom insists I go back on SYAS, even if she's paying:

When a guy friend tries to be a suave wingman at the JC kiddush

-- 

Girls Recap - "One Man's Trash"

I know I haven't mentioned Girls on this blog yet.  But after watching last night's episode, "One Man's Trash" I felt compelled to speak out.  I have watched this show for now a season and a half unsure about how I felt about it.  I have now come to the conclusion that I'm over this show.

Quick recap of the episode:  Grumpy Bushwick resident (Patrick Wilson, character to be named later) comes into Mr. Grumpy's (ironic, huh?) because some scourge of the earth is dumping their trash into his garbage cans.  Ray knows nothing about this and refuses to implicate his staff in such a heinous crime. Unsatisfied with the response, he storms back home.

A few minutes later Hannah shows up at his door to confess to her misdoings.  He offers her lemonade.  She kisses him.  He kisses back and they have sex on his kitchen counter.  And of course Hannah's boobs pop out to say hello.  Oh, and we learn his name is Joshua (not Josh, get it right).  They both call in sick to work the next morning and spend the day lazing about, reading, eating and playing naked ping pong (boobs, boobs and more boobs, of course).  Joshua dotes on her, caresses her lovingly and cares for her like a loving husband or boyfriend would.  Later that night she breaks down emotionally and returns his boyfriend-like behavior with supposed girlfriend-like behavior - needy "love me" and "I deserve to be happy" tears.  Not surprisingly he's not turned on by this literal outcry of emotion from his one-day stand and suddenly the once charming guy becomes a distant stranger to Hannah.

Now here's my analysis:  First of all, I can't stand Hannah (or Lena Dunham's) self aggrandizing and self important nature.  First, put some damn clothes on.  I get it.  We all get it.  You're comfortable with your body, despite its odd disproportionate features.  But I don't need to see it.  Always.  In every episode.  Enough.  Seriously.

Additionally, similar to why I couldn't stand Carrie on Sex and the City, it's really not so pleasant watching someone constantly talk about how great they are or how deserving of a storied life they are.  You also are not so special that you deserve anything different from anyone else.  From the first episode Hannah was a brat.  Getting all pissed off at your parents because at 23 they aren't going to completely pay your way anymore is something that is supposed to happen.  (For more on people taking credit on things you're supposed to do, see Chris Rock at the 2:12 mark.)  I get it, young women make bad decisions when it comes to men.  That's true.  Getting attached to guys your not supposed to get attached to also often happens.  But her little pity party for herself when she realizes that she's not above being human was infuriating.

Hannah is 24.  Joshua is 42.  They are totally wrong for each other in so many ways - she tells him she didn't even know that houses like his - opulent and grand - existed in her neighborhood.  He is a successful doctor coping with a divorce.  She is a needy millennial who is convinced she is going to be the definitive voice of her generation.  I am smack in the middle of these two generations, so maybe that's why I don't get it.  I've had to (and am still) struggling to get my career off the ground.  I've had to work hard to get to where I am and seeing some kid complain that at her age she isn't as successful as her pipe dreams had assured her they will be makes me feel like this:
















Also, not to mention that Lena Dunham is the successful version of Hannah, so watching her play this pathetic, self-important, immature character is all the more frustrating.

That is all for now.  Comments.  Agreements. Disagreements. All are welcome.

Violence and American Culture

I've been thinking a lot about violence in our movies and popular culture lately.  The tragedy in Newtown, CT is just the latest in a string of violent acts.  Talking heads and politicians are always so quick to place blame - it's because we need tighter gun control or because our movies and TV shows are too violent.  Maybe it's because our video games are too violent.  

Those all might be true.  But I couldn't help but wonder, why is this a problem in the United States and not so much in other countries.  Our movies get shipped overseas and are seen across the entire planet.   I think it’s a deeper issue.  

We are a nation that values violence.  If we go back to our roots, it is how we became who we are today.  American broke free from the British rule through a major war.  Violence got us what we wanted.  Then we had another war on our land where the north and south fought over which way of life was better.  The North won, and history has proven that the victor in that moral dichotomy was in fact the appropriate victor.  When violence was perpetrated against us – both on Pearl Harbor and then again on 9/11 how did we react?  Through violence.  How did that turn out for us?  Well, with WWII we had a clear victory, and while with this current war on terror things aren’t as clear cut but with the elimination of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden I think people are ok with our whole “let’s go get the bad guys” way of reacting.  In the 1960s when the students and hippies were attempting peaceful protests more often than not they were met with violence (Kent State anyone?  How about the 1968 DNC?  Violence, violence, and more violence).  For better or for worse violence is how we as a nation get things done.  We always have.  

Our movies, TV shows and video games just glorify what we already know.  We know we get what we want through imposing violence on others.  And in a ratings rat-race on TV and a money hungry movie industry these standards are always getting upped higher and higher to outdo the last iteration.  It’s happening with sexual depiction as well, but our culture has always been on the prudish side of sexual explicitness so it’s a longer climb (but don’t worry, we’re getting there with a big thanks to premium cable!).  Moreover, when violence in real life occurs we tend to focus on the positive outcomes it had – the military victories for example.  Very little attention is paid to the thousands of dead, injured and maimed soldiers who risked their lives for the greater good.  So the consequences tend to not seem like they outweigh the result.  In media violence doesn’t have a long term consequence either.  In video games you can restart even if your character dies.  The characters you’ve killed come back in the next round.  Movies and TV shows end and death and destruction goes along with them.

This past week I watched the season finale of HBO’s Boardwalk Empire.  A show which I like and which I’ve followed since it premiered 3 years ago.  In the finale Richard (Jack Huston) walks into a house that was overrun with the mobsters from his opposing gang and one by one shoots them all with a rifle.  Blood smeared everywhere.  Death and destruction all around him.  What’s his punishment?  Not much other than getting a scolding and a disappointed look from his girlfriend.  Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained unleashed almost nonstop bloodshed from the first scene to the overbearingly gory  final sequence.  But it’s ok because the people who are doing the killing are the good guys and they’re working to stop slavery.  It’s justified slaughter.  It’s ok to kill if you think what you’re doing is ok.  What are the consequences?  Well, either you’ll be a hero or you’ll get in trouble, but either way you’ve done what you think is ok. 

So yes, other nations around the world watch and consume our violent entertainment, but they do so know it’s not their culture.  We create and consume our own media making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

Since the Newtown shootings there’s been a lot said about imposing new gun laws.  The NRA is doing all it can to fight it.  President Obama is doing his part in imposing them.  I’m all for imposing stricter gun laws that keep guns controlled and in the hands of people who know how to use them.  We need this legislation and stronger laws to protect us.  Daily, it seems that assault weapons are getting into the wrong hands and imposing devastating and fatal damage to innocent people.  However, what I think is missing from the conversation is an appreciation of why gun culture is the way it is here.  There are other nations who understand violence – take Israel for example.  Whenever I go there and I see 18 year old soldiers walking around carrying m-16 or when a waiter at a restaurant I was at leaned over and the pistol which was holstered to his hip was revealed I don’t feel an ounce of fear.   This a society which deals with violence on a frequent basis and its citizens know the dire consequences of it as they are directly affected by it.  The frivolity in which we as Americans handle bloodshed is embarrassing and quite problematic.  Hopefully by both implementing stronger gun control laws while understanding why we behave the way we do on a cultural and psychological level we as a society won't totally miss the point and just put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound. 

Lincoln

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln is, from a cursory vantage point, exactly what you would expect from sweeping period piece assembled by a superstar director, accomplished and prolific screen writer, impressive cast.  In that regard it's like a brand name that you know will be good so you don't have to worry about being disappointed.  However, what sets Lincoln apart are the nuances it brings to the screen.  Not surprisingly, Daniel Day-Lewis is fantastic.  He embodied Lincoln to the point where you forget your watching an actor at times.  It was uncanny.  Day-Lewis is a chameleon in all of his roles, so it was no surprise he was going to absolutely nail this one, but to see the performance is to watch art in motion.  Sally Fields was a question mark for me going into this, but she did an excellent job as well.  Tommy Lee Jones, playing his usual ornery character shows his softer side as well.   Rounding out the rest of the cast, as a friend of mine put it, is a veritable who's who of "Oh, it's that guy!"  You'll recognize most of the actors (yes, mostly men) in the film, and you'll spend the rest of the time trying to figure out if you'd know who they were if they weren't wearing those huge 19th century beards.

From a cultural perspective, this film comes out at a particularly appropriate moment in modern history and current events.  It's probably partially coincidental, but as this is often the trend with films it's also more intentional.  As I was watching it, I thought to myself, the title could have been Lincoln: Nothing’s Changed.  The white, controlling male majority was so fearful of losing their footing as such that any notion of rights for other groups was considered a traitorous affair.  In this narrative, freeing the slaves was a heretical thought for many and sparked physical and verbal vitriol against those who opposed them.  Screenwrite Tony Kushner did a masterful job using language to highlight how similar this argument is to issues surrounding gay marriage today or as (literally) laughable as giving women the vote.  Yes, we've evolved in many ways as a society - this film is about freeing black slaves and today we have a black president!  However, it’s painful and pathetic to see that 150 years later as a society we have not evolved enough to understand that change is good.  In that sense Lincoln is speaking to those political blowhards and often time bigots to beg them to see that being on the side of allowing civil rights to flourish is a GOOD THING.  

The message of the film is “which side of history do you want to be on?”  Watching Lincoln in 2012 it’s so beyond obvious that abolishing slavery is the right thing to do.  All the relatively small details like worrying about the economic changes the south will face and the stress that the opposing party has to deal with in this new social structure is pittance compared with the moral obligation of freeing the slaves and the march towards enlightenment.  Let's hope that in 150 years (most definitely less, here’s hoping) movies will be made about the struggle towards equality for homosexuals (and women, unfortunately we’re still dealing with that too) and audiences will be shocked to see something that they take so for granted was a hugely polarizing issue once upon a time.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Abuse.  Sexual, drug, child, emotional, bullying: in any number of forms, abuse is a resounding theme in The Perks of Being a Wallflower. 

Perks is a coming of age film that is firmly grounded in this age.  It’s basically along format “It Gets Better” video to a generation of wallflowers and outsiders.  Perks tells the story of Charlie (Logan Lerman) as he embarks on his freshman year of high school.  In a new place with no friends he counts down the days till graduation and does all he can to not stand out.  He is intrigued by Patrick (Ezra Miller), a flamboyant class clown who offers Charlie an island of acceptance when no one else does.  Patrick and his sister Sam (Emma Watson who has entirely shed her Hermione Granger persona) bring Charlie into their group of Wallflowers and misfits. 

Other than Emma Watson, all of the other “kids” who lead this film this have had small parts here and there but are virtual unknowns.  They carry this film with gravitas and strength through its emotional ups and downs.

Based on a book by the same name, the narrative is set in the 1990s.  It's interesting that the story is set twenty years ago rather than today where bullying has become so prevalent and part of the national conversation after the suicides of bullying victims.  I think that is significant because in our age of facebook and twitter bullies have a much larger stage to abuse their victims but the notion of being an outsider in high school is nothing new.  In some instances this is a retelling of all high school stories from Rebel without a Cause to Grease and everything in between and everything since then. 

Charlie is plagued by demons –he’s lived through the hell of losing his beloved aunt and suffered through the suicide of his best, and only, friend.  Charlie has a darker side and as the narrative progresses we learn more about that.  His parents and teachers exist on the periphery, supporting him but never truly seeing all the parts of him and breaking through his tough exterior shell.  This is about young people coming together to support one another and creating a family of their own.   This concepts is not new in cinema, since James Dean burst onto the scene as America's rebellious teenager, "The Movies" have been fascinated by this concept of young people creating their own societies where the mainstream one has failed them.  One significant difference here, though, is that the parents are not ineffectual or absent.  Whereas traditionally teenagers found themselves unable to relate to or trust their parents, in Perks, they very much want to help their children, and when they do step in their help is appreciated and successful.  However, here the teenagers are seeking their independence despite the best intentions and efforts of their parents. 

Sexual abuse is another unfortunate reality of the teenagers at the heart of this narrative.  Charlie by someone he loved.  Sam by her father's business associate.  These children have been unfairly been forced to grow up beyond their years.  However, directly in contrast with the theme of abuse, though, is the theme of love.  Charlie asks his teacher, about Sam, why do some people choose the wrong people to love.  His teacher's response is, we accept the love we think we deserve.  When you're a broken person you believe you only deserve broken love.  It is through their close bond as a group that these three learn to respect themselves and to understand that they are in fact deserving of the good things that life has to offer, not only of the pain that it sometimes unfortunately throws their way.

Crossfire Hurricane

I had the privilege of watching Crossfire Hurricane at HBO's US premiere of the film Tuesday night at the Ziegfeld theater in New York.  The band was in attendance and introduced the documentary with humor and excitement.  The theater was packed and you could feel the excitement in the room as the rock legends paraded down the aisle to speak from the podium.  However, once the film started and while watching the "Rise of the Stones" and listening to them talk about how they were the antidote to the good-boy Beatles and how they offered a release to a generation yearning to break free from the older generation I couldn't help feel as though I was experiencing a very meta-moment.  I was in a room full of industry insiders - member of the press, television executives, and a number of socialite New Yorkers (not to mention the sheer amount of botox and collagen implants on the aging women)  - exactly the population that the young Stones were rebelling against.  The documentary also highlighted those sentiments.  It was very much about a band who was founded on the notion and ideal of being the anti-establishment.  The irony was not lost on me.  However, as the documentary closes on Jagger stating that "You can't be young forever" it became clear that while yes, these guys have been playing the bad boys of music well into their 70s, they have mellowed some, as we all must, to become functioning members of society. Jagger is quoted in the film as saying that their music resonated with the youth because they were so dissatisfied with the generation that they think controls them - but what does it mean when the rockers singing about dissatisfaction are well above the age of that so-called generation?

Watching Brett Morgen's Crossfire Hurricane I couldn't help but feel as though a major theme was just how strongly the idea is that the 1960s was essentially a failed experiment by "the youth" to create a Utopian society based in anti-establishment, anti-bourgeois, and anti-authoritarian society.  It pains me to say this, but the concert at Altamont makes that abundantly clear - Mick Jagger's voice over introduces the segment by saying that this was going to be the youth's chance to prove that they can create a society where police are not needed and they can gather peacefully.  When it ended with a murder and the band in genuine fear of being attacked the realization that that is impossible becomes clear.  The involvement of the Hell's Angels to be the "security" proved to be more dangerous that actual police officers and the abundant drug use was ultimately one of the major causes of the disturbance.  Ultimately social order is necessary to a functioning society and the band came to realize that and Altamount ultimately marked a major turning point in their evolution.

The doc doesn't delve into the peripheries of the life of the - namely the women that came in and out of their lives were noticebly absent - it is truly about the band, and about how the members as individuals came together to make music history.  The drugs do play a major role in the film - one of the opening scenes shows Mick snorting cocaine off a knife blade.  Keith Richards talks candidly about his run ins with the law over his drug use and how it both enhanced and hindered their music making at times.  Additionally, the aging rockers talk openly about the band members who have both come in and out of the Stones throughout the years.  Brian Jones' tragic death is handled with elegance and delicately while Mick Taylor's rather sudden departure from the band is also covered with candor and in Taylor's own words.

Also interestingly, while the Morgen recorded 80 hours of interviews, none of those hours were on screen.  The documentary was told entirely in voice over while stunning archival footage shows the story.  At first I was hoping to see the band in their current state telling their story, but as the documentary went on I found that I wasn't missing that at all.  In fact, the voice over allowed for the images to tell the story of the history rather than focusing on where the band is now.  Yes, Mick's voice is so distinct and Richards' voice is so ravaged it was often clear as to when they were speaking and while Morgen did often offer visual cues as to who the speaker was, it was still unclear at times and that left me wanting a more obvious context as to who was offering the voice over.

Clocking in at just about 2 hours, the film felt long towards the end, but all in all offers an interesting glimpse at the band which, after so many years in the spotlight (not to mention a plethora of other documentaries made about them) still feels fresh and illuminating.  Definitely worth the trip.

Crossfire Hurricane airs on Thursday night at 9PM on HBO.