Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Monday, July 5, 2010

SEE THIS MOVIE!



This weekend I FINALLY had the opportunity to see the critically acclaimed documentary, "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work," which follows the once revolutionary and always iconic comedienne through a year of her roller coaster career, when it seems to have come to a tragically discouraging low point. I went into this expecting big things, and my expectations were met and even surpassed.

Most people of my generation regard Rivers as a mere caricature that is the constant source of parody and endless mockery. A plastic surgery cautionary tale and a red carpet gadfly. What the documentary illustrates is how she's aware of, okay with and participates in that the parody is for the benefit of her career, and the alternative to it, is not having a career at all. And one thing Rivers is not okay with, is abandoning the pursuit of artistic relevance. Her place on the comedic hierarchy is one that has shifted drastically and is fascinating to see chronicled in a documentary, as it is also fascinating to see the psychological results that that shifting can have on a real individual in relentless pursuit of their passion.

Piece of Work also shows how the purpose of comedians in society is to fill that role, making things that could be construed as tragic as humorous and more bearable. The difference between Rivers and many comedians though, is her level of credibility amongst the general public has suffered because of her ability to manipulate her image and turn it into shtick.

Part of this is obviously because she is a woman, and female comedians are certainly coming from a disadvantaged position as they're limited by the bounds of societal propriety about what they can joke about and how they're allowed to perform their funny. But Joan has defied those confines throughout her entire career making her presence as a pop cultural feminist justified, relevant and productive.

I don't just want to gush here about how much I love her and what she's done for women in comedy and how her resilience is so fairly portrayed in this film without indulgent glorification or the public's oversimplification of her, BUT, I will say that if you haven't heard of this movie watch the trailer here and go see it because you won't regret it!

Saturday, March 6, 2010

THE OSCARS ARE COMING THE OSCARS ARE COMING


My Oscar load is finally about to blow and though this season the majority of the awards seem blatantly predictable, I will never falter in my viewing and will always watch for tears and gowns. AND PENELOPE CRUZ!

Here’s my predictions as well as who I feel most warrants the award for several of the major categories, i.e. the only ones anyone outside of the film industry, and many insiders as well, care about in the first place.


Best Supporting Actress

Will Win: Mo’nique for Precious

Should Win: Mo’nique for Precious

There’s really nothing to be said for this that hasn’t already been said. She shocked and terrorized audiences with her fervor and emotional depth. Plus the Academy owes her from snubbing her for her brilliance in Beerfest.

Best Supporting Actor

Will Win: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds
Should Win: Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds

Though I admit I still haven’t seen The Messengers and probably never will see The Lovely Bones, this one is Waltz’s to lose. Plus is it weird that I find him really attractive in an older and would take care of you but control you kind of way? Maybe I’d best keep those sentiments to myself. Although I did feel that they could have cut on the Matt Damon nomination and given one to Brian Geraghty for his playing a violently conflicted military man in The Hurt Locker whose existential crisis frames arguably the most horrific turn of events for any of the characters in the movie.


Best Actor in a Leading Role
Will Win: Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart

Should Win: Morgan Freeman for Invictus
I am very conflicted about this one. And I do feel as though on many levels it is an advantageous position in terms of winning Oscars to be playing a specific character that really exists, as Freeman did, mastering the mannerisms and delivery of Nelson Mandela. Whereas Bridges was working more with an archetype, with less of a solid example against which to measure the value of his work. Eh fuck it give them both Oscars.

Best Actress in a Leading Role

Will Win: ::mumbled through gritting teeth:: Sandra “Miss New Jersey” Bullock for the remake of Mighty Joe Young

Should Win: Gabourey Sidibe for Precious
It’s Erin Brockovich all over again. Who knows? Maybe the Academy is smarter than I’m giving them credit for and is realizing that there is potential for danger when marketers will be able to sell movies like, All About Steve by saying, “featuring Academy Award Winning Actress, Sandra Bullock,” and that maybe we shouldn’t reward performers who continuously put out product as low-quality as Hope Floats. There’s a strong possibility this could go to Meryl, who really should be as inundated with awards as she has historically been with nominations. Who knows. There will be hell to pay and a strongly-worded letter though if by the end of the night Sunday, Practical Magic stars two Academy-Award winners.


Best Animated Feature Film

Will Win: Up

Should Win: Fantastic Mr. Fox
I don’t care if you call me a pretentious hipster! The story and the style through which it was told was innovative and artful. LOVE YOU WES. RIP ROALD.

Best Director

Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker
Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker

Blah blah blah first woman to win this award. ZOMG James Cameron's ex! Who cares? She made an artful and emotional but apolitical and contemporary war film that was packed with adrenaline but was not neither gratuitous nor tacky.


Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air

Should Win: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for Up in the Air

If you haven’t seen it yet see it. Yes it is excessively clever to the point that it may sacrifice verisimilitude, but I like wit in my dialogue and I value dialogue in my film. Jason Reitman knows how to do it. Fuck you Juno-haters!

Best Writing, Original Screenplay
Will Win: Mark Boal for The Hurt Locker

Should Win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds I don’t have much to say about this one as much as this is the award I’m most likely to be wrong about and it’s likely to go to Tarantino. I just have a hunch.

Best Picture

Will Win: Avatar
Should Win: The Hurt Locker

What I think I am doing here is expecting nothing as to avoid disappointment kind of thing. Though I have a strong suspicion that the Academy will award accessibility, heavy-handed metaphor, technological innovation, and James Cameron’s relentless arrogance and lack of appreciation for mankind aside from himself and give it to the blue-people. It would not be the first time that they split the Best Director/Best Picture honors, Ang Lee won for Brokeback Mountain but Best Picture went to Crash (which is just absurd and the fag in me wants to scream homophobia though who knows really) and Steven Spielberg won for Saving Private Ryan but Best Picture was Shakespeare in Love (Judi Dench What WHAAAAAAT). I do very much hope that the little war-film that could triumphs through and I am surprised, as I honestly feel that The Hurt Locker, and several of the other nominees, were superior films, but for now I’ll put my money on Avatar taking home the big one, and viewers will be forced to sit through the king of the world give himself a blow-job up at the podium.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Way to Make Me Feel a Fool For Hating on Sandy HFPA


For those of you who would criticize, I would like to make it perfectly clear that I know the Golden Globes were on Sunday, and that the three days that have lapsed between then and now are constituted as an eternity in internet time. Regardless, I have a couple of things to say about the ceremony, and apologize for any potential redundancy.

I was actually on a plane for the majority of the festivities so I missed most of it all happening in real time and was informed of a lot of the awards via text message from loyal friends and fellow cinematic enthusiasts. Believe me when I say I am eternally grateful to them for this service and believe me when I say I was visibly stressed about missing it on television to the point that I drew several concerned glances as I tapped nervously on my suitcase, annoyed that every bar in the airport was broadcasting the goddamn Jets game (congrats to THEIR fans though).

Because of the fact that I found out about the awards either like that or from reading the blogs when I got home late Sunday night, this won’t necessarily be in the order that the awards were given out. I’m also only going to talk about the movies, because much of the TV I don’t watch. I will just say Michael C. Hall made me cry like a baby. But let’s get into the meat of it all shall we?
Ricky Gervais’s humor can be an acquired one, but I found him to be well-received in a setting unfamiliar to a host role and I loved his jab at Angie and Mel Gibson in particular. Basically I think nobody should be allowed to host award shows anymore that isn’t him or NPH. In conclusion for that vein, love the host, keep it coming HFP, two thumbs up indeed.

Without a doubt the Hollywood Foreign Press and The Academy make a wise choice in its placement of Best Actress in a Supporting Role as the first award of the night. It’s one that most viewers care about, rather than something like screenplay or technical awards, but it isn’t positioning things to peak too soon. It also tends to be awarded to an actress who is disproportionately grateful for it compared to other recipients of the awards because she and her career, at some point, weren’t necessarily regarded with such prestige.

Mo’nique is a classic example. If you had told me this time last year that Mo’nique would become a Golden Globe winner in the next year and would be a strong Oscar frontrunner, I would have guffawed in your face. I don’t know what that would have looked like but I would have done it. Mo’nique in her speech just killed me. Really. Thank God I didn’t watch the thing live. I would have just died. My friend texts me saying, “Mo’nique for Best Supporting Actress. You would be weeping right now.” Yeah. No shit!

Plus the girl looked great in her strapless beige dress, better than the rest of the army of actresses who rocked this year’s excessively represented flesh-toned look (Nicole Kidman looked like she ripped off her bed sheets and turned them into some Grecian disaster). Her speech was earnest and moving and emotionally packed, setting a great precedent for the evening.

Christoph Waltz was a shoe-in and will win an Oscar. The man was brilliant in Inglorious Basterds. RDJ for Sherlock Holmes I’m okay with, though I was rooting for Joseph Gordon Levitt, who is incomprehensibly adorable. I haven’t seen Holmes yet though. When I do I’m certain that between RDJ and Jude Law I’ll need to bring an extra pair of pants for the inevitable load I’ll blow everywhere. Tasteless, I know. Moving on.

I have yet to see Crazy Heart, though I heard that Jeff Bridges was exceptional in it, and when it does play here I will without a doubt see it cause it’s got my girl Maggie Gyllenhal. Plus having seen all the other performances I’ll say his only serious competition would have been Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela or maybe Colin Firth, if you didn’t fall asleep in the excessively lugubrious A Single Man.

Now the part that I’ve been dreading. Sandra Goddamn Bullock for The Blind Side. When I got this text letting me know of this appalling news I called my friend as to verify that this was not sort of sick and offensive joke she was playing on me. But alas, Sandra Bullock is a Golden Globe-winning actress. Initially I was irrationally annoyed at this, but then I had to stop and think, “Okay, well, so is Madonna.” And my perspective was regained.

But so help me god if I live to see the day that Sandra Bullock is an Academy Award winning actress. I mean, she’s funny, she’s cute, and she’s a powerful woman in Hollywood. But I regard her as possessing the acting chops of Jennifer Aniston without the tabloid drama. And I very sincerely hope I never see the day where critics are speculating Oscar potential for Jennifer Aniston.

Her speech though was humble and did give her points in my book, certainly not enough points though for me to forget she won over the allegedly exceptional Carey Mulligan in An Education, Emily Blunt in The Young Victoria (who didn’t seem to hide her disdain at her loss), and the promising novice Gabby Sidibe for Precious (LOVE her!). I’m hoping that Meryl’s able to sweep up the lead actress statuette for Julie and Julia, which was another non-surprise of the evening.

I have nothing to say on The Hangover winning Best Picture Comedy/Musical as I, embarrassingly, still haven’t seen it. I do know that Nora Ephron made a move as contrived as her scripts in ostensibly ripping up her acceptance speech as its victory was announced. Sorry Nora. Maybe make something with less irritatingly blatant messages and cheesy scores.

Last but not least, the astronomically worth-accruing beast of a film, Avatar. Again, I am one of the last people in America who still hasn’t seen it. Recently I was called out by a coworker for being a movie snob who doesn’t go into a movie without a preconceived opinion and confirmation bias to prove.

Therefore, I will say this: It is difficult for me to imagine a movie made as artfully and skillfully as Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker that is pertinent to the present, but inclusive of universalist themes, while showing a nuanced representation of a population that does not fall back on clichés of demonization or glorification. Though, I will see Avatar, probably within the next week, and will inform the masses if my mind is changed by the viewing, though I will admit, that at this point, I am dubious at the potential for an attitude adjustment.

Final thought: I'm with Brooks Barnes in thinking that Fantastic Mr. Fox should have been more seriously considered as I found it to be superior to Up.

Friday, January 8, 2010

Sandra Bollocks: Or Why I Hate "The Blind Side"




Living in the south has put me into an environment where viewers are responding with particularly strong fervor to this trite, watered down inspirational sport flick which has, admittedly, bolstered my disdain for its relatively high regard. "The Blind Side," for anyone living under a rock, is the "true story" of All American Football player Michael Oher and his journey from homelessness to the NFL through the help of Leigh Anne Tuohy, a wealthy mother and interior designer with the drive of Christian charity and semblances of white guilt.

Though I admit to be a little late on the boat with this post, I haven't written anything on here in awhile and have found myself increasingly frustrated with the amount of times I have had to explain to people that "The Performance of Her Career" is hardly a momentous superlative when you're referring to an actress whose career highlights include "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood" and who brought us great franchise flicks such as "Speed" and "Miss Congeniality." To be frank one of the most excruciating parts of all of it is that her southern accent is probably the only variation on the quirky but assertive woman role that Bullock has shown us time and time again and it was probably the worst attempt at a twang I've heard since Julia Roberts in "Steel Magnolias."

In the film, Michael is able to attend a private, Christian high school with influence from the school's football coach, who sees a promising athletic potential from Michael's above-average build. Michael is depicted as struggling in the new academic setting, as his educational experience before his attending the school was faulty if not lacking entirely. Born into an environment tainted with a crack-addicted mother, a neighborhood sustaining itself largely on welfare or crime, the odds are heavily painted against him. Though as I'll mention later these portrayals are more watered-down caricatures of a reality most fans of this flick could not handle.

After a school atheltic event where Michael is portrayed as picking up after the gym to retrieve scraps of popcorn and any other leftovers, Tuohy insists to her husband that they bring him home, like a lost puppy in need of a loving home and family. The Tuohy's grow close to Michael and begin to appreciate and treat him as a member of their family and his "protective intuitions" are illustarted as beging particularly valuable to them.

As the film progresses Michael's atheltic prowess is harnessed and perfected, with the help of fast-talking, straight-shooting Leigh Anne, and he becomes the school's star football player and a top recruit for many colleges.

If you haven't noticed yet, this post is packed with plot spoilers aplenty. But the film in itself is a plot spoiler, in that, as A.O. Scott put it, it is "a movie made up almost entirely of turning points yet curiously devoid of drama or suspense." It's structured with this large conflict, quick resolution formula that is reflective of another trend I noticed in the plot of coddling its, majority white, viewers from any harsh realities of urban poverty, systemic inequalities, or human suffering. The film bolsters the incorrect attitude that isolated acts of charity are a sustainable and inspirational means at creating social change.

It also demonstrates the point that the only way for poor, urban, black children to succeed in our stratified society is for them to be taken under the wing of the white majority and to adapt to the dominant culture. And they will only be successful in doing so if they show an interest and talent in the athletic arena, highlighting the theory by Michigan State sociologist Ronald E. Hall in his essay, "The Ball Curve: Calculated Racism and the Stereotype of African American Men." Protective instincts? Athletic exception? Is this a person we're referring to or a golden retriever?

When I've discussed this criticism of the film's inspirational message being contingent on an attitude embedded in racism people have told me that that is the reality of the situation and that that gives the film a higher degree of merit because of its relation to truth. Whether or not that is the case is disputable but if it is then I don't find it to be inspirational I find it to be more depressing than anything. And it furthers the point that the film is designed for white viewers to distance themselves from their position of privilege by making them think that this isolated act is a groundbreaking tale of the possibility for goodness.

Though some people have tried to convince me that my disdain for this film comes from my inability to appreciate sports dramas I can just say that when John Lee Hancock made a less superficially offensive sports drama that I, in the right mood, could cry upon viewing, "Remember the Titans," I appreciated it for what it was and did not dispute its value as an inspirational story dealing with issues of race, athletics, integration, etc. But "The Blind Side" is a story too pat and unwarrantedly acclaimed to ever give me any reaction aside from distaste and boredom.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

A Story About Two Strangers, One a Little Stranger...


So after having seen the trailer for the new(ish) Fox Searchlight flick, Adam, I immediately thought "I have to see this movie," cute, atypical love story with a hot chick and a quirky guy, everything I ever wanted when I was straight. Though I'm starting to admit myself the realization that more often than not trailers turn out to be much more enthralling than the films they're advertising, and this was unfortunately not an exception.
Point of warning, there are plot spoilers in here, so if you intend to see this movie, I have two pieces of advice, one, don't read this, two, wait for the DVD.

The movie tracks the relationship of aspiring children's author and daughter of privilege Beth and Asperger's syndome sufferer Adam, who we learn from the film's opening scenes has just lost his father and works as an electrical engineer for a toy company, a job framed as unsuited for him because of his overzealousness about the technological capabilities of his creations and a lack of attention towards the necessity of efficient production.

Beth and Adam have a meet-cute in the laundry room of their building, where she has just moved into, and he loans her his laundry card as she unloads her clothes into the washing machine and her back story onto Adam. The film then tracks their interactions and illustrates Adam's bafflement about how to deal with his attraction to Beth, and Beth's underexplained attraction to Adam's eccentricities (which any viewer who saw the trailer knows all along is caused by his disability).

There's also a kind of cumbersome side plot of Beth involving her father, Peter Gallagher, who comes across as a Sandy Cohen but is really way more a Caleb Nichol, and legalities behind some business dealings...I don't know. I think that her dad was intended to act as a foil to Adam in that although Adam lacks tact and is a fountain of impulsive honesty, her dad's dishonesty was always cloaked in a manipulative masquerade of good intention. But this is really beside the point.

The point is that from the beginning Beth is a completely unsympathetic character who is too self-centered and unjustifiably perpetuating problems for herself with her own naivety. It is clear to the viewers from their initial interaction that there is something different about Adam that is rooted in more than nerves or a low level of social skills. His Asperger's, which is a form of autism characterized by difficulties in social interaction, is pretty ostensibly manifested in his interactions with her to the point that she comes across as oblivious and self-martyring for trying to maintain a romantic relationship with him.

I am definitely not saying that romantic relationships aren't possible for these people. However, the film doesn't realistically portray what motivates the development of Beth's attraction to Adam beyond the level of friendship. She just comes across as unjustifiably feeling sorry for herself for misalignments of their points of views and comes across as selfish and cruel at points in the way that she seems to set him and herself up for collective emotional instability.

The one good part is that they don't live happily ever after. But the film does take an equally formulaic approach of tying loose ends. Adam moves to California doing something with astronomy, which is a topic he is an idiot-savant for, after having been heavily prepped for the interview process by Beth. And Beth stays in New York, opting not to go with him and instead publish her children's book about a family of racoons living in Central Park that just didn't belong there (a reference to their first date of sorts).

Beth acts as, how Neil Morris puts it, "Adam's social guide dog" into the closing scene of the movie where it all becomes apparent that without all that heartache, Adam never would have ascertained his full potential. And neither would have she.

I will say that for an indie flick it did lack the typical overwhelming element of social commentary, aside from the obvious exposure of living with Asperger's (which I do think is important exposure) and one scene where an egregious arrest is attempted on Adam for looking for Beth at the school playground (damn the pigs), and it also lacked the excessive use of handheld camera (though it found its nauseating way into a couple scenes). Overall save yourself the eight bucks and ask an open-minded only child what they think it'd be like if they fell for an autistic guy in an apartment they probably don't deserve in Manhattan. You'll probably get a similar narrative as Beth's.