Away We Go

Directed by Sam Mendes
written by David Eggers and Vendela Vida
starring (deep breath now): John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Catherine O'Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney, Jim Gaffigan, Josh Hamilton, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Carmen Ejogo, Melanie Lynskey, Chris Messina and Paul Schneider (and exhale)

There is a moment during Away We Go, the fifth film by director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) where I leaned over to my friend and said "this isn't winning me over so far." It was very early on in the film. Less than ten minutes later, my defenses started to wear down and I was swept up in the utter beauty, not of this film (which is often beautiful) but of the main characters Burt and Verona (played with endearing earnestness and soft complexity by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, respectively). Their situation isn't always ideal, but their placement in relation to one another absolutely is, without a doubt. Should I want love, that's the kind of love I want. This film has been called many things, an indie-101 dramedy, a road-trip movie, a tired retread. It is, at its heart, a love story. That's what drives the film. That's what makes it work, and it does, rather spledidly, despite all of the things that beg it not to.

Verona and Burt are an unmarried thirty-something couple expecting their first child together. After Burt's parents (their only nearby relatives played by Catherine O'Hara and Jeff Daniels) announce plans to move to Antwerp, Belgium, the couple (at Verona's urging) decides to go on a journey all over North America looking for the perfect place to raise their family. The result is several different vignettes, titled "Away to Tuscon," and "Away to Montreal," etc. Burt is a space, yet intelligent man and is fiercely devoted to Verona. He wants their unborn daughter to have what he describes as a "Huck-finnish" upbringing. Verona loves Burt fiercely as well. But she is nervous about what kind of mother she will be, and nervous about their lack of roots. Her pregnancy has also brought on feelings of sadness about the death of her parents when she was in her early twenties. Verona refuses to marry Burt, but we never get the impression that it's because she doesn't love him. She says "I just don't see the point" and we believe her. A lesser film, or at least a more obvious one, would have made this a source of conflict between Verona and Burt. But both the director and the screenwriters know and love these characters too much to swim into those predictable waters.

On their journey, Verona and Burt encounter many different incarnations of the family. They see Verona's younger sister (Carmen Ejogo) unsure about an impending relationship, much like Verona herself. There is a couple in Montreal who has adopted several children of all ages in races (Chris Messina and Melanie Lynskey). An alcoholic woman in Tuscon who demeans her husband and children loudly and in public for her own amusement (Allison Janney), and a new age childhood family friend of Burt's named LN (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who refuses to put her children in strollers. Many people are dismissing this film as cheap, smug liberalism--the kind that advocates for different types of family, shameless shoving its liberal, NPR, McSweeney's values in your face (writers David Eggers and Vendela Vida write for McSweeney's). These are the same people who likely said the same thing about the multiculturalism in Rachel Getting Married--those who were distracted by it. It's a real shame, because in both cases, you miss what's great by focusing on said aspect. And it doesn't shove the values of these people down our throats as necessary or better than the typical nuclear family. For instance, LN is a college professor whose New Age attitude is wrapped in pretension, ignorance and racism. There is a moment when she says to Verona "Was it hard losing your parents? Your people have such a rich oral history." Before I worked in Candler Park--a liberal hippie enclave of Atlanta, Georgia, I would have said that LN was overwritten and that people like her don't exist. But her character rings very true to me, and I'm so glad that someone has finally addressed (maybe not finally) that white liberal racism may not be "worse" than white conservative racism, but it's certainly more obnoxious. Or what of the Montreal couple and their mixed race brood? Are they happy that they have created their own "United Colors of Benneton" family? Perhaps. Clearer is their devastation that they cannot conceive children of their own. Then there's Burt's brother (the always welcome Paul Schneider) who had the traditional nuclear family, and whose wife has just left him alone to raise their young daughter. It may seem simple and obvious, but the ultimate point is that none of these situations or families are ideal for anyone, especially Burt and Verona. For it isn't circumstance and surroundings that create family. It is only the people.

The cinematograpy here is top notch, never distracting as it takes on different landscapes and vistas of North America. Alexi Murdoch's music underscores the film perfectly, adding a warmth to it, much in the way that a great garnish caps off a great dish. The film isn't dependant on Murdoch's guitar and vocals to drive home the higher emotional points of the film, unlike other films that utilize music in this way.

I loved these performances. John Krasinski ups his game considerably, and you never doubt his enthusiasm or his devotion to his family. But the real best-in-show here is Maya Rudolph, whose subdued, understated performance may just be the film's saving grace. Pregnant women on film are sometimes difficult to handle. They are often written and directed as being too stereotypically pregnant, and their pregnancy serves as the first and foremost character trait. It's clear that Verona is written, directed and played as a flesh and blood woman first, pregnant second. And yet, Maya Rudolph handles it all with aplomb. If one pays attention, there are a lot of different character details that she has to hold on to, from the pregnancy, to the death of the parents, to her insecurities about her financial situation, to her fears about life with Burt. She never loses focus or consistency. A role like this could have been handled disastrously by a less imaginative actress, or a "louder" actress--one who isn't very skilled at the intricacies of internalized emotions. Rudolph knows exactly what she's doing here.

There are moments when I cried during this film. But they weren't cheap tears, and the characters weren't necessarily crying with me. Every emotion this film evokes is richly earned and never feels cheap. That is a rarity.

Grade: B+

Abbreviated Reviews -- "Drag Me to Hell" and "The Hangover"

Drag Me to Hell
directed by Sam Raimi
written by Ivan Raimi and Sam Raimi
starring: Alison Lohman, Lorna Raver, Justin Long, Dileep Rao and Adriana Barraza

Drag Me to Hell delivers on its title. Our heroine, Christine (played with rapt intensity, pitch-perfect for a horror film by Alison Lohman) is a bank clerk who refuses to grant a mortgage extension to a gypsy woman (Lorna Raver) and is cursed. She will be dragged down below in three days, but not before all hell breaks loose up on earth. This woman curses (and I mean curses) our poor little Alison Lohman (an aside: I'm so glad that they decided against first choice Ellen Page for the role. Alison Lohman is nearly thirty and she's still hard to buy as an adult sometimes.) This is about the most fun a diehard horror fan can have watching a PG-13 movie. It's very much a hearkening to the earlier days of Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead series being an obvious example), that mixes horror and off-the-cuff humor in a delightful blend that's sure to entertain. I was considerably...let's just say (ahem) altered while watching this film. But the details are still very vivid, and there are moments that offer up genuine scares. For instance, when Christine goes to see spiritual medium Shauna San Dena (Adriana Barraza), who saw the curse take a young boy to hell many years ago, watch how ominously the chanting of San Dena builds in perfect lockstep with Christopher Young's creepy score and Peter Deming's cinematography. Simple, obvious, yes. Creepy, still yes. Perhaps if the film had been rated-R, the audience would have finally gotten a glimpse of hell itself. But then again, we aren't the ones who denied some crazy old broad a mortgage extension on her house.

Grade: B (I'm really glad the movie resisted the temptation to turn into a meta-commentary on the recession and how it drives people to desperation to save their livelihood...or maybe it didn't. Once again..."altered")

The Hangover
directed by Todd Phillips
written by Scott Moore and Jon Lucas
starring: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Heather Graham

It is rare for me to find a comedy like this (frat-packy, very male, very heteronormative for its own sake) to be genuinely funny all the way through. The Hangover is already in the IMDB top 250 of all time (*sigh* what a reactionary list that is...) and probably doesn't deserve to be there. But it is a perfectly suitable and serviceable comedy, leagues better than I would have ever expected from the director of Old School, a film whose comedy is spotty and uneven at best.
No one is unaware of the film's premise at this point. Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms play a trio of groomsmen who, after a night of hard partying in Vegas, find themselves unable to remember the previous evening's events, and unable to find the groom. That's the setup. It wasn't destined to be funny, but it's dedication and commitment to comedy that saves this film from being another Jr. Fratpack entry. These are shallow characters, who may as well be wearing their archetypes as nametags on their shirts. Bradley Cooper is the foxy, narcissistic leader of the pack, Ed Helms is the straightman and Zach Galifianakis is the comedic oaf. That's about all we ever find out about these people, but it's to no major detriment to this film (or rather, the type of film it's trying to be). And the three leads play their roles so well (especially standout Ed Helms, who manages to actually be the funniest of the three, even though his lines and his character lends itself to that distinction the least).
There are a few moments in the film that led to more beard scratching than out-and-out laughter. The Mike Tyson vignette, for instance. I don't know that I can get behind Mike Tyson poking fun of himself in this way, when he is such a...terrible person, for lack of a better phrase. I'm not sure what it is. Maybe if the entire segmant itself had been written funnier, I would have been more forgiving. I chuckled a few times, but don't feel as if I would have been at any kind of loss had it been omitted. Also the flamboyant, effeminate(?) Chinese gangster, who garnered some big laughs from the audience, but also left me scratching my proverbial beard a bit. I couldn't really peg what they were going for there. I laughed, but I didn't feel good about myself. Just because something garners laughter doesn't mean it's always earned, if that makes sense. I feel the same way about tears in movies (I'll talk more about this when I review My Sister's Keeper.) Also, the bride to be, in the cutaways between the wedding preparations and the groomsmen riding back to LA for the wedding, seems to be getting assisted by some sort of mammy...though I may just be projecting. Funny movie, though!

Grade: B

The Big Ten

So, everyone who follows the Oscars is in an uproar upon hearing Wednesday's announcement that they will nominate ten films for best picture rather than the typical five. This hasn't happened since the days of The Wizard of Oz. In fact, Casablanca was the last best picture winner to be chosen from a pool of ten. The reactions have been varied. Some, like Sasha Stone of Awardsdaily are choosing to see the silver lining, arguing that this will mean greater inclusiveness. Films that are normally destined to be on the fringe are going to be invited to the party. Some think that this will lead to a best picture list padded with ten Oscar-baity films instead of five. The list will be packed to the rafters with Finding Neverlands, Chocolats and Benjamin Buttons.

I'm of several schools of thought about the whole thing. First of all, those who are saying that films like Star Trek are now in the running for a best picture nomination. Ridiculous. Banish the thought from your mind. Star Trek was...cute. I'll say very cute, even. Don't get me wrong. But best picture? Come on. While it's true that it's been a while since the best picture list has included 10 films, there is some precedent we can look to to see why a movie like Star Trek would never be nominated, even with that many films in the fray.

The Broadcast Film Critics Association, which has (for better or worse) become a fair predictor for Oscar nominees/winners, nominates ten films for best picture. The National Board of Review cites a top ten list. Last year, Iron Man was absent from both of these lists. That would seem like the film that is an apt comparison. It was a phenomenon, whereas the reaction to has been more along the lines of..."Wow, this movie isn't a total embarrassment." The notion that a film like Star Trek could ever manage a best picture nomination is baseless, knee-jerk and reactionary. It's silly.

My thoughts on the shift are as follows. Ultimately, it won't really change much. There are still only going to be five best director nominees. This pretty much does away with the "lone director" slot, which has previously gone to Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and The Butterfly and Paul Greengrass for United 93. Both of those films were BFCA nominees for best picture, and if the BP lists in their respective years had been inflated to 10, rather than 5, those films probably would have made the cut. I say "pretty much" because there are also lone directors, like Pedro Almodovar for Talk to Her and Fernando Meirelles for City of God whose films may have still have trouble making the list (see how Star Trek isn't getting a nomination?)

Even with ten films, having five best director nominees automatically cuts the list of legitimate contenders in half. Gone are the days of Grand Hotel and Driving Miss Daisy. No best director nomination pretty much means a death knell for your chances in best picture. And since most of the prestige pictures are adaptations, we're going to see a few best picture nominees with corresponding screenplay nominations either. That eliminates their chances as well, dontcha think?


Let's face it. Even when the Academy nominates five films, only two (sometimes three in a particularly weird year) are really in contention for the top prize. 2006 is a recent example of when people talked about any of the five contenders conceivably winning. The Departed eventually won, but it was probably only Little Miss Sunshine that gave it a run for its money. One comment that I keep reading is that its hard enough finding five films good enough to vy for best picture in a given year, let alone ten. And that came from an unnamed person within the Academy. What an incredibly cynical thing to say about the industry in which you work. Yes, if you search only among the "prestige" films and refuse to think outside the box, then yes, last year's best picture list would have included Doubt, Defiance, and Changeling as possible contenders. Or, it could have contained The Wrestler, Rachel Getting Married or Wall-E. Lack of imagination on the part of the voters has always been a problem, and we'll likely see expanded mediocrity rather than a best picture list that invites strange new faces to the party. But, I am a pessimist...

Will Post More Soon...

Will be posting more soon. I will have reviews for Drag Me to Hell, The Hangover and Away We Go up in the next five days, all of which I enjoyed (some more than others obviously). Oh, I also forgot that I saw State of Play earlier this year...not a good sign.

Up

Written and directed by:
Bob Peterson
Pete Docter

Featuring the voices of Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordon Nagai, Bob Peterson and Delroy Lindo.

I remember watching Beauty and the Beast as a child and being extremely excited and entranced. It was a feeling marked both by the majesty and the splendor of the film, as well as remnants of similar feelings from The Little Mermaid. I didn't necessarily have the language to express how I felt, but I know that I was living in a certain golden age of animation--one marked by crisp, tight storytelling, compelling characters and gorgeous visuals. It was great, then it ended. Most people like to point to Pocahontas as the film that marks the beginning of the end of said golden age. I'd go as far to say that it started with Aladdin, which marked a severe drop in quality between that film and its predecessor (Beauty and the Beast). Aladdin and The Lion King both have their moments, but they pale in comparison to Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid.

Now, as an adult, we are smack dab in the middle of another golden age. One need only watch the first ten minutes of Up (Pixar's tenth feature) to realize this--ten minutes of perfectly hewned storytelling, marked by rich, earned emotion. The movie opens with a young child named Carl Frederickson (voiced by Ed Asner) who watches newsreel footage of his favorite adventurer, Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) who explores South America and other far off places. Carl wishes that was him, and so does Ellie, a delightful young girl who befriends Carl through this shared passion for adventure and exploration. They eventually marry, and in a beautiful, mostly silent montage, we see the simple beauty that is their marriage. They love each other deeply, and they vow to voyage to Paradise Falls, like Charles Muntz. Everyday expenses and sudden acts of God get in their way. They grow older. Time marches on. It was a heavy way to open the movie, and just the right note. It clearly confused a lot of the children in the theater, from what I observed, but the sniffles and gasps from the adults were audible and plentiful.

Carl, now a widower becomes somewhat of a curmudgeonly recluse, never venturing much further than his front stoop. He is very attached to his home, which views as a symbol of his late wife Ellie. And one day, rather than being banished to a nursing home, Carl decides to fill his house with thousands of balloons and lift off (or up rather) for a voyage towards Paradise Falls. Also in the house (unbeknownst to Carl at the time of takeoff) is a plucky young Wilderness Explorer (think Boy Scouts) named Russell who is obsessed with obtaining his "assisting the elderly badge."

And really, I think that's enough plot description that the movie needs. This is a film that definitely stretches the idea of film as a visual medium. Stanley Kubrick once said that a marker for a good film is one where you can take the sound off and still entrance the viewer, sucking them into the world that has been created. Conversely, a marker of a bad film (according to Kubrick) is one in which you can take away the visuals, leaving only audio and the audience still follows along just the same. In fact, one might even find it prudent in this case to focus away from plot. Then, one doesn't notice how tangled and cluttered (plotwise) the film becomes towards the end. This is, surprisingly, of very little detriment to the film itself. It isn't necessarily the plot, or even the dialogue that makes this film so special. It's the way that Carl, while still cartoonish in apperance, has one of the most expressive and emotionally etched faces in recent cinematic memory. It's the way that Michael Giacchino's score takes us on a journey through the aforementioned ten minute montage in the beginning of the film. It's how the light is reflected from the hoards of balloons as Carl's house floats by a little girl's bedroom window. That is what I remember, as I suspect it is what most young viewers will remember too. Especialy since many of the film's heavier themes will understandably be lost on many children (more on that later).

It's such a joy to see animated films released by Pixar, especially when compared to those of Dreamworks. One of the reasons that Pixar continues to run laps around Dreamworks is that they have truly recognized the opportunity for animated films to evolve, not just visually, but in the way they tell their stories. Computer animation is all well and good. Up certainly uses it. But it doesn't rely on it the way something like, Monsters vs. Aliens does. The storytelling is what sets Pixar into a wholly different class all its own, whereas other studios seem much more willing (or obliged to, rather) talk down to their audiences (not that that sort of filmmaking doesn't have its place. There will always be those who prefer Shrek over Monsters Inc.) Dreamworks, as well as all of the other animation studios that aren't Pixar seem to be very fixated on the notion of animated films being a medium for big showy voice actors. Which is why the choice of Ed Asner to voice Carl in Up is so inspired. It's definitely an example of restraint paying off. For instance, Up features talking dogs. But in a clever departure, the dogs themselves aren't talking. Rather, their thoughts are vocalized through inventive collars around their necks created by a human scientist. This is a really imaginative way to sidestep the old cliche' of the talking animal in animated films. It's simple, yet there's so much one can do (and the filmmakers did) do with this idea.

Ultimately, while very impressive, Up does fall short of the magic of last year's WALL-E. It almost seems unfair to compare the two. No matter what Pixar followed it up with, WALL-E was always going to be a tough act to follow. One thing I will say is that the themes in Up are less obtuse than the themes of enviromentalism in WALL-E. I was kind of left wondering how many children, outside of their relationships with their grandparents, can truly wrap their head around the notion of not having enough time to accomplish all your dreams, living your life to the fullest, and freeing yourself of vices (physical or otherwise) that will hinder you from doing so. I'm not even 23 and I'm just now starting to feel it. I say thank God for thematic subtlety and ambiguity in a medium that doesn't often lend itself to such characteristics. Of course, there's talk of whether Up will finally be the first animated film since Beauty and the Beast to land a best picture nod at the Academy Awards. Many skeptics are saying "absolutely not," especially since WALL-E, which is arguably more "sophisticated" couldn't even manage. I'd wager that Up is a more likable movie, even if I didn't actually like as much as I did WALL-E. It's more fun and could definitely appeal to the Academy, whose median age is like 68 or something like that (lifelong membership will be the bane of that organization's existence, but that's another conversation). I'm skeptical, simply because the "Best Animated Feature" film is like a ghetto in the same way that the "Best Foreign Language Film" is in keeping said movies from cracking the best picture top five. Regardless, Up is definitely one for the ages. The year's not even half over yet, but this is top ten material if I ever saw it.

Grade: A-

Up Up and Away...then Back down to Hell

I will be seeing Up and Drag Me to Hell this week (though not necessarily in that order). I suppose I should see Terminator: Salvation at some point. But based on everything that I've heard, plus my misgivings about the project from its earliest moments of pre-production...I can't even get motivated. When I even think about thinking about thinking about (you get the picture) paying money, and sitting down for two hours, give or take, to watch it, I just sort of...deflate. I am very excited about both Up and Drag Me to Hell (I wonder what it would be like to see them back-to-back). After seeing WALL-E last year and loving it, I'm over my bias against seeing animated films in the theater (I really regret not seeing Coraline in 3-D earlier this year. From what I understand, that's the best way to experience the film). I'm not sure how good Drag Me to Hell will be, but I'm just so glad that Sam Raimi is back doing horror.

Peace, Love and Pretension.

What Happened to "Rachel Getting Married?"

I know the 2008 Oscar season is long behind us. But the lack of awards attention for Rachel Getting Married outside of the Indie Spirits still baffles me. I have the DVD, which I've watched several times. The movie rewards repeat viewings and I'm now convinced more than ever that it will become one of my favorite films of this decade. But I have tried to analyze in my head exactly what went wrong here. It had an Academy-Award winning director at the helm (Jonathan Demme), a bonafide star headlining the cast (Anne Hathaway) and it was written by the daughter of a Hollywood legend (Jenny Lumet, daughter of Sidney Lumet). But the more one watches the film, and observes trends, it becomes slightly less confusing, if still baffling in the end.

1. Release date.
Rachel Getting Married got an October release date. Most of the time, films are released too late (Che, Revolutionary Road, and Children of Men being a few recent examples), but the October release date probably led to it being lost in the shuffle.

2. Law of averages.
2007 boasted one of the best (if not the best) Oscar best picture shortlists of the decade. It's a little unrealistic to expect two great years in a row. Once I saw how good 2007's shortlist was, I actually said to myself "Ooh...but this means 2008's shortlist is going to suck," which it more or less did, with a few exceptions. The best film of the year was left off the list. It happens sometimes.

3. Debra Winger.
Maybe people do still hate her...

4. It's not a tidy film.
There's no caption at the end that reads "Kim goes back to rehab because...it was written." The movie is wrenching, it's uncomfortable and often times, it's downright grating. Oscar is usually less forgiving of films such as these when they are...

5. Female-centered.
Oscar likes its complex men, but it doesn't like its complex women for the most part. So many layered and complicated women. And written by a woman. Juno was a bit easier to digest.

6. The dishwashing scene.
While I didn't hate it, I could definitely see how it would lose some people, and turn them against the movie if they were riding the fence. One of the people I saw it with said "All of that just so the father could find the plate? It seems a little bit roundabout." And maybe they were right.

7. I've Loved You So Long
Sony Pictures Classics put all of their steam behind this train early on in the year, especially when there was talk of Kristin Scott Thomas possibly WINNING best actress (she wasn't even nominated.) It was clear that this was the pony they were betting on. By the time Anne Hathaway emerged as the one more probable to get a best actress nomination, it was kind of too late to mount a serious, tasteful campaign for the entire film. Speaking of which...

8. The National Board of Review
Although they did name Anne Hathaway as their best actress, the absence of the film from their top ten list (especially since non-starters like Changeling, Gran Torino and Defiance made the list) suggested that the film was an awards vehicle for Hathaway and nothing more. Since NBR is first out of the gate and rarely makes inspired choices, they're fun to blame.

9. Lack of starpower.
Anne Hathaway and Debra Winger are the two biggest names in the film. Winger, while an accomplished actress took long absences from the screen and is not exactly what you'd call a "movie star." Hathaway, while definitely famous, is not an actress who has typically been associated with good acting in serious drama. For those who were paying attention, the greatness she accomplished here was hinted at in the past. For others, it wasn't so obvious and her name alone may have steered a few moviegoers and Academy voters alike. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've spoken to who won't see the movie because they "don't like Anne Hathaway."

10. The multiculturalism.
A friend of mine said she was put off by the "kumbaya" aspect of the film, which she (as a black woman) read as inauthentic. This has been discussed ad nauseum, but some people feel it's a valid concern. I disagree.

Thoughts on the "Jon and Kate Plus 8" Season Premiere.

I don't think I'll be watching "Jon and Kate Plus 8" this season. It feels too depressing/manufactured (even moreso, I mean) in the wake of all the allegations that Jon cheated on Kate. I haven't been following the gossip rag too closely regarding said allegations because I really don't feel like it's all that interesting/complicated. Either he cheated on her or he didn't. Watching that show, I always got the impression that the marriage was on borrowed time. And with the season premiere this week, I feel it even more. But none of this has to do with why I can't watch the show. I want to preface that I in no way condone cheating on your spouse, obviously. But I can see how Kate would definitely be a difficult woman to live with. I look at Jon and Kate, and I see the worst parts of my own parents' marriage. I look at Kate Gosselin, and I see the worst parts of my mother, the obvious exception being that Kate isn't physically abusive to her children (to my knowledge). Let me explain.

During the season premiere, Kate spoke of how the family is now being followed by the paparazzi nonstop because of the media firestorm surround the cheating allegations. One of the sextuplets said something to the effect of "There's the paparazzi," when the family was out shopping and Kate viciously corrected him. Apparently, she doesn't want her children using the word "paparazzi." They must refer to them as "P-People." This annoys me/infuriates me/drums up so many memories of the way my mother parented my siblings and I. So bizarre was her need to censor and sugarcoat the obvious, even when doing so accomplished absolutely NOTHING. The paparazzi will still follow your family around, no matter what your children call them, Kate. In fact, it might be best to allow the word "paparazzi" to become part of their vocabulary. After all, you got them into this. I didn't even know the correct term for the word "penis" until I learned it during family-life at Catholic school in the second grade (which only further confused things, but that's another story). My mother, to this day, still hasn't told me where babies come from. I asked her once when I was about six or seven and she told me that women get pregnant from "eating food." When I was eleven, my mom and her sisters were discussing Mike Tyson and I asked her what the word "rape" meant. She told me it's when "a man attacks a woman," which I suppose isn't technically inaccurate, nor is it any kind of useful definition for the word. I see the way Kate parents her children and it infuriates me because I know what that kind of useless secrecy and repression does to a kid, how it emotionally stunts them. An early episode of "The Simpsons" titled "Moaning Lisa" has always struck a chord with me, particularly a scene in which Marge urges Lisa to smile even if she doesn't feel like smiling and to bottle up her sadness. My mother was the same way. We were not allowed to feel bad in my mother's house. Correction: we were not allowed to let it be known that we felt bad. Sadness, anger, frustration. These very natural emotions irked my mother. She would say to me "Stop being so angry at the whole world," but it never dawned on her to ask why I felt sad or angry. It wasn't always the case, but often times the cause was her. I get it. I understand that between working a full-time job, and looking after three people (my siblings, myself and my father) things like emotional health were not high up on her priority list. I understand that West Indians, by nature, are taught to inherently sublimate their emotions and repress them. I also get that a lot of West Indians beat the shit out of their kids. This is true. But I am reminded of a quote from Jodie Foster. "Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable."

There was an earlier episode of the show when a babysitter unknowingly gave the children gum, which they are not supposed to have. Kate had a bitchfit like you wouldn't believe, and almost went so far as to throw away one of the sextuplets teddy bears because it had gum on it. Again, I think of my mother. The way she would lose her temper over the silliest things, and how it would usually result in cruel and arbitrary punishment, very often of a violent nature. Like the time she sent me to my room for the entire weekend for eating a bowl of dry cornflakes in the basement. Or when she slapped me for reading a magazine when I was eating at the table. By myself. Because we weren't supposed to read at the table (a rule I always found silly because as far back as I remember, we weren't a family that had lively or important conversations of a legnthy nature, be it at the dinner table or at all. We all very much retreated, both within our own corners of the house and within ourselves). I always thought that as I became an adult, I would understand my mother's rules, her fixations and her punishment. Now, as a twenty-two-year-old adult, I seriously think she must have been/still is just a little bit unstable. Kate Gosselin, I wager, is just an eensy bit unstable herself. She may not be physically abusive, the way my mother was, but she is definitely emotionally abusive, both to Jon and to her children, though Jon is no peach himself.

I get frustrated with him too, as I did and still do with my own father. His passive nature, which can easily be read as disinterest or even disdain (I know that's how I read my father for the longest time. I now know he's just incredibly emotionally retarded, as am I for having grown up in their house). Mostly, I think about the way he allows Kate to micromanage the children to the point that she berates and talks down to them, without stepping in strongly and stopping her. I think about the way my own father allowed my mother to smack us around, discipline us fiercely and randomly and call us stupid without ever standing up for us and it infuriates me.

Not to get all Helen Lovejoy, but the real victims in all of this really are those eight kids. The twin girls Maddy and Cara, who are probably old enough to know what's going on and are considerably more terrified. Maddy, who (to paraphrase Kevin Spacey from American Beauty) is already well on her way to becoming a "real bitch, just like her mother" (it needed to be said) and will likely be dragging around a gaggle of her own emotionally abused kids when she's Kate's age. The only hope for these children is that they can form some kind of lasting bond that makes growing up in that house a little more bearable. Sadly, my siblings and I were not able to do so and I feel we will only drift further and further apart. A child needs to feel like they have some sort of ally at home that they can turn to unconditionally, without fear of being laughed at, mocked, or (even worse) hit. I wish my brother and sister had stood by me the many times I tried to confront my mother about her abusive behavior, instead of remaining silent and judgmental, making me feel as if I was some ungrateful brat for turning my back on my family. I wish they would stand with me and say to my mother "Yes, you were abusive. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, it doesn't mean you didn't love and take care of us. And it doesn't mean we don't love you. But, you were abusive and it's NOT okay." If that had happened, maybe my mother wouldn't have cause to blatantly and openly deny and deflect about events that she knows for a fact took place when we were growing up. She has to know how abusive she was. I have to believe that. My mother is not a stupid woman, and neither is Kate Gosselin from what I gather. Her children are luckily young enough that she can change in time, but she probably won't. We rarely change. We just get older.

What she (and my mother) don't realize is that her children will grow up to resent her, often hating her, as I often do my own mother. Like when she tries to get us to validate her parenting in front of others. Or when she openly scorns and condemns reports of child abuse on the news, as if she herself wasn't an abuser. Abusing us was bad enough. By failing to apologize or even acknowledge it in my adult life, my mother has made it so much worse. As I prepare to move across the country, I really wonder what the future holds for us. My mother turns 60 in less than two weeks and she still hasn't apologized or even acknowledged. Her age leads me to believe she never will. I don't know where that leaves us. I can't continue to bring it up and throw it in her face. As messed up as my childhood was, that isn't fair to her. I guess I can only accept that this is the woman who raised me and try to move on from there. But I worry about myself, as I do about Jon and Kate's 8 children. How can I be sure that I haven't inherited the worst of my parent's qualities? How do I ensure I don't hurt the person I choose to spend my life with? How If I ever have children, how can I be sure that I never make them feel as stupid and worthless as my parents often made me feel without constantly and consciously monitoring myself? And most importantly, I think, how do I ensure that my children, should I have any, aren't raised in a home that lacks open lines of communication, truth and true intimacy as mine did? It's a tall order, for sure. It's interesting to me that Kate talks about how parents of multiples have triple the divorce rate, and that she isn't sure that she and Jon will be able to beat that. It's a sad notion, for sure. Sad no matter how you look at it. Because children are so incredibly absorbent and I fear that no matter what happens, no one's walking away unscathed. No one gets away clean.

TV Season Retrospective

Big Love
Man. What a great season. It dared to go places that previous seasons wouldn't, but not in gimmicky or attention-grabbing ways. It's kind of sad that it seems like they're running out of things to do with Sarah, as witnessed by her engagement to Scott, but I love the way Sarah's pregnancy/miscarriage was handled. Usually miscarriages for television characters who shouldn't be having children feel like copouts, but there were some hardfelt consequences and issues that arose as a result. Also, Nicki continues to both reveal and conceal more of her hand as Bill struggles between trying to hold on to her with all of her faults, or letting her go with dignity. Chloe Sevigny deserves an Emmy nod for how she handled such a complex character. She kept track of so many different things--Nicki's devotion to her family, which is genuine I believe. The lies, the selfishness and the lies to cover up more lies. Also, the revelation of her daughter. Is she earnestly trying to atone? Or is it a clever ploy to worm her way back into the sympathies of her husband and sister wives? Isn't it funny that season 2 dealt with how Barb was slipping away from him. Season 3 dealt with Nicki finally putting her resentments toward Bill on the table. And with Margene's new business ventures rearing their head, I think we'll see her slipping further away as well. I can't wait and I'll be back for Season 4. I just hope that Roman is dead for good this time.
Season Grade: A

Brothers and Sisters
I'm mostly pleased with season three of this show, which continues to be watchable, even in its more ridiculous moments (most of which involve Sally Field in some way). I was interested to see how they would handle the possible shark-jumper that was Rebecca not being a Walker and her romance with Justin, but they did about as well as expected. For the most part, the lack of chemistry between Dave Annable and Emily Van Camp isn't too distracting. My major criticism of season 3 was the ponderous way in which they handled Tommy's exit. I get that Balthazar Getty was causing shit on the set, and with his recent affair, they wanted him gone (which is fucked up, I think. I don't condone cheating on your wife, but it shouldn't get you fired). But both the setup (his embezzlement) and the result (Tommy working on some compound in Mexico to "find himself") feel contextually ridiculous and unsupportable. But I'll be back for season 4. Tommy's exit not only got rid of the least interesting character, it got rid of the second least interesting character (his wife. What's her tits? It doesn't matter).
Season Grade: B

Grey's Anatomy
Yes, I still watch this show. Shut up. This season was a mixed bag that had trouble finding its footing from the get go. Everything felt ponderous. Callie's lesbianism, Cristina's sexual frustration, Meredith and Derek dancing around the commitment issue. And of course, there was the whole "Izzie fornicates with a ghost" storyline that was...pardon my french, fucking ridiculous. But there was some good here too. Meredith has really come into her own as a doctor and a person, and is really a more likable character because of it. I loved the way she stood up to the chief this season on several occasions. Dr. Weber is my least favorite character on the show and his self-righteousness and pushiness (particularly where issues with Meredith and her mother are concerned) make him impossible to root for. I'm glad Lexie and George didn't hook up. I'll say that even though the writers would have us think differently, George is one of the bigger assholes on this show and I wouldn't be terribly upset if he's as dead as the last episode suggested. The Izzie/cancer storyline was also compelling, though I hate that people call Katherine Heigl a bitch for wanting to abandon "Grey's Anatomy." Yes, she's a bitch. Obviously (have you read any interviews with the woman?) But wanting to abandon a show that's probably on its downslope doesn't make her a bitch. Why should anyone participate in anything that they don't want to? It's like the people who want to drag Michael Cera kicking and screaming back to "Arrested Development" for a movie that may not even be necessary. I love that show, but a movie? Do we really need it? The show ended on such a perfect note. I rarely defend actors, but this ownership that fanboys/girls declare over stars is a little strange. Like any other profession, hell like anything in life, you shouldn't pursue endeavors that you aren't fully invested in. I don't know that I'll be back for all of season 6.
Season Grade: C+

Parks and Recreation
I initially had a lot of misgivings about this show, but like "30 Rock" it improved exponentially from its first episode. Amy Poehler is very funny here. I think some of the very early problems in the show's timing, etc. stemmed from the writers not sure what to do with Leslie Knope as a character. The comparisons to "The Office's" Michael Scott are obvious, but they managed to make her inept in a way that's totally unique and not just a Michael Scott retread. The supporting cast here is pitch-perfect, although maybe I'm just giddy because I get to see Aziz Ansari, Rashida Jones AND Paul Schneider in the same place at the same time. Chris Pratt is also hilarious. Of the supporting players, Aubrey Plaza is a standout as bored college-aged intern
April. The restaurant where I work is right near the Emory University campus and I'm telling you that Plaza has purposely captured the unique mix of stupidity, apathy and entitlement that many college-aged girls exhibit. I'm very glad this show has been renewed for a second season and I will be watching.
Season Grade: B+

30 Rock
The most consistently funny and watchable show on television, even if I don't consistently watch it. I have no excuses, other than I work most Thursday nights. Plus, I love letting them build up, then watching them in a big hilarious laugh-my-ass-off block on my days off. Jane Krakowski is a comedic genius, not to undermine Tina Fey of course. But it needs to be said. Very loudly, and preferably in front of Emmy voters. Even Salma Hayek, who isn't funny or even a particuarly good actress IMO (yes, I saw Frida. It was a hot mess) didn't bog down the show's whip smart writing and great pacing. Of course I will be back for season 4.
Season Grade: A-

The Office
Man, this season was kind of uneven. There were high points and low points. A lot of interesting stuff, sure, but man it all made for a serious lack of connectivity overall. The show is still funny, of course (that's never been the problem). But it feels like it's on its downslope. I think the problem is that ever since Jim and Pam got together, the writers are struggling with what to do with these characters, since so much of the drama involved them not being together and the awkwardness therein. I was really annoyed that after Pam failed out of art school, that was the last we heard of it. One would think that her having to return to Dunder Mifflin after getting a taste of art school would stir up restlessness and more resentment of the paper business, Scranton and Jim (by extension). It may seem like a predictable direction to go, but based on everything we've seen thus far, I don't buy Pam NOT being restless. And now with the implied pregnancy at the end of the season...oy. I'll be back for season 6, of course. But I'm a little curious/pessimistic to see how long they can keep the show interesting.
Grade: B-

Comprehensive Movie Reviews

Adventureland
Man...one of the most advantageous things a filmmaker can do for his/her film is decide what kind of film it should be. Had writer-director Greg Mottola gone with just one of the dozen movies puttering around in this hackneyed retread, it'd correct a serious lack of connective tissue. We can't be all things to all people. It wants to be a filthy sex romp a la Superbad. It wants to be a sappy/angsty romance a la Garden State. It wants to be make a profane yet profound(?) statement about the world of amusement park employment, the same way some people think Waiting... unmasked the seedy server culture. And there's a bit of The Graduate thrown in there too, because when you're being a total hack, why not reach for the stars? I may have listed some interesting titles, but don't be mistaken. Adventureland certainly doesn't combine the best elements of these films, and what it does combine doesn't really come together. I think the publicity team behind Kristen Stewart wants us to think she's this angsty, alternative queen of the weird. But in films and interviews, she just comes off as entitled and an asshole. And she seems stupid, which means she probably really have the right to be either. Jesse Eisenberg isn't nearly as cute as Michael Cera, and I don't think Michael Cera is that cute. Ryan Reynolds, on the other hand, is every bit as cute and charming as he thinks he is and can kind of do no wrong. Seriously, does Hollywood not see that Reynolds is capable of much more than the projects he typically participates in? Oh, and Bill Hader is awesome (though it's not as if he needed to participate in this film to make that known).
Grade: C


X-Men Origins: Wolverine
What an absolute waste of time. More obnoxious were the fanboys and their exasperation with this movie. The same people who complained about how much the first three X-Men movies sucked were shocked and offended when this one (wait for it...) sucked. It's amazing how people get selective amnesia about these things, and all it takes is a flashy trailer with a helicopter. It bears repeating: What an absolute waste of time. Except Ryan Reynolds. It bears repeating: He can do no wrong.
Grade: D

Star Trek
Surprisingly enjoyable, which is saying a lot for me as I have little or no connection to the franchise. The cast are all positively inspired choices and it's not overlong (which is usually the case for films of this genre). The movie is smart because (unlike the Wolverine movie) it seems to start from the premise of "Okay...everyone knows we don't need another Star Trek movie. What can we do to get around that?" Very smart. It's tongue-in-cheek when it needs to be, with well choreographed action-scenes and a tight script. As far as loud, summer fare goes, one could do a lot worse.
Grade: B

Wow...It's been a while...

I have not blogged in over TWO MONTHS. This is inexcusable (though I do have a few excuses). I'm currently working on editing the feature film I'm shooting...by which, I mean I'm supervising the very awesome, very cool and very skilled person who I'm paying to edit my movie (I wouldn't want me editing any projects.) I'm preparing to go to grad school at AFI in the fall (yikes...I've got to get ready) and I've been working a lot and saving money.

Waiting tables is kind of addictive If you work in a steady, busy restaurant like the one where I work, you get addicted to the cash in hand and the temptation to work double shifts is very looming. I can easily break $250 ($300 on a really good day) working a weekend double shift. You also get addicted to the cash-in-hand every day. The downside: I think that I've lost all faith in humanity. I don't know if it's really that most people are stupid assholes, or if going out to eat turns people into stupid assholes. I wager it's some combination of the two. A man at one of my tables today literally smacked my arm to get my attention today. This is after his mother ate her entire entree, and wanted a refund because she "didn't like it" (she was licking her fork as she told me this). Or I had another table move because a party of five black women sat next to them. It's shit like this that makes me think there's no hope for us. So much so that when customers are actually pleasant/cool, it throws me off my axis. Said party of five black women were there for a birthday party and their glee/joy was infectious. The woman whose birthday it was hugged me and told me I'm a great server. They were the last table of my shift and a great way to end the day. That kind of courtesy takes NO EFFORT at all, yet really makes a different. Showing that you think about the thoughts and feelings of someone other than yourself is one of the best first impressions you can make. I've learned that. Also, as Ryan Reynolds said in Waiting..."don't fuck with the people who handle your food."

On a more personal note, I've recently finished another screenplay which is probably the most personal thing I've ever written. It was at once incredibly difficult and incredibly therapeutic. Writing a character who has suffered physical abuse at the hands of a parent and acknowledging that it's partially based on personal experience are two things that I never thought I'd be able to do. For the longest time, there was so much shame, secrecy and denial on my part when it came to acknowledging the fact that my mother beat my siblings and I. I'm nowhere near resolved with the issue, and I'm not sure where this takes me. Still, I feel like an enourmous weight has been lifted off my shoulders and it's simply due to me acknowledging that A.) it happened and B.) there's nothing to be gained by pretending that it didn't.

Peace Love and Pretension

What to Expect...

I'm going to try to blog more often than I have been. There's always a bit of fatigue that comes after the Oscar race, at least for me. Plus, a lot has happened in the last couple of weeks.

1. I found out I was accepted as a screenwriting fellow into the American Film Institute Conservatory. I'm incredibly exciting and it still has not sunk in yet.

2. I've pretty much wrapped principle photography on my film and am now moving into the editing phase, which means that one way or another, this is about to get finished. It kind of snuck up on me.

3. I've finished a new screenplay, which was probably the most difficult thing I've ever had to write.

That's all I'm going to share. I don't want to get too personal. It's not my style. What you can look forward to in the next coming weeks (I'm talking of course to the few people who actually read this blog) is a lot of retrospective reviews and film talk. Some new recurring series. I'll also be publishing a running list of my 100 favorite movies. Thank God for Netflix. I have so much stuff to watch and re-watch for the first time. I'm rediscovering old loves. Like Ang Lee's The Ice Storm, which I re-watched today...such an amazing film. Where was Sigourney Weaver's Oscar nomination for that one? Agh...

To anyone actually reading this blog, I'm totally open to suggestions/comments about how to improve. I'm going to start up the "Can We Talk About" series again, which I really enjoyed doing. However, I did one on Kristen Stewart last year and in the wake of the Twilight fatigue, which subsequently revealed what an entitled dumbass she is, I kind of want to take back every nice thing I've said about her...

Peace, Love and Pretension.

Who's Watching the Watchmen?

According to second-week box office sales, not many people apparently. What a dip...I'm about to make myself sound like an enormous nerd by admitting that I saw Watchmen twice. Once in IMAX and once in regular-max (I'm here all night people). I must say that part of the experience, at least the first time, was convincing myself that I liked it a lot better than I did. It has receded very much in my memory as a totally forgettable film. Maybe I was initially just pleasantly surprised that it wasn't the total embarrassment that 300 was. Whatever the case, one thing is clear. In the wake of The Dark Knight, every comic book movie released from here on out is going to try to reinvent the wheel and few will succeed. It's debatable whether The Dark Knight itself succeeded. Watchmen does not on most levels. My initial review as a B. Now it's lingering in C/C+ territory after a second viewing.

I have never read the graphic novel and I saw it with three other people who had never read the graphic novel. But from what I gather from my brother (who read the comic and disliked the film), the Republican undertones of the graphic novel were much more tongue-in-cheek and subtle than in the film. I obviously can't judge that aspect, but I have a hard time imagining it NOT to be true. The whole "clever" playing with history thing seemed almost childishly obtuse on one end and frighteningly earnest on the other (if that makes sense).

To call Zak Snyder a visionary (which many people are) is kind of ridiculous. He's VISUAL, certainly. But a VISIONARY? I totally understand why he's the go-to director for stuff like this, but I would have liked to see how someone like say Ang Lee, who has actually proven himself a visionary AND an actor-driven director, would have handled the same material. Of course, that would never happen because the reaction to the first Hulk movie was so ridiculous and unmeasured, so much so that we're forced to pretend it doesn't exist at the behest of the new one, which wasn't even as financially successful.

Expect to see more comic book films attempting similar feats. Trying to appear daring and edgy, all the while saying "See! We can be dark like that Batman movie was!" It's already happening. The Superman movies are going to have a re-imagining in that vain, which I don't get. Superman was never a dark comic book in the way that Batman was, so that doesn't even make sense. I'm not entirely sure what they'd even do there. Even Fantastic Four is going to have a tear down, starting with the firing of Jessica Alba. I think this is funny for several reasons. It assumes that Jessica Alba was the biggest problem with those films. I personally don't want to give her that much power. And in the blandness department (we're talking about talent here) Alba's got it in spades...but she's got nothing on Malin Ackerman who is pretty much the first candidate out the gate for a Worst Actress Razzie. Not that it's entirely her fault (like I said before, Snyder is NOT a director of actors). That fact considered, Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl do the best considering the bad material they're railing against. It's nowhere in the same ballpark of greatness as the last project that Wilson and Haley did together, but Patrick Wilson is always watchable...always. After the great year he had in 2006, it'd be nice to see him in a project that's worthy of him.There's nothing else really to say about Watchmen except to point out a nice bit of irony. Billy Crudup plays a man who leaves his more mature companion for a younger, but less interesting and blander woman. Anyone who knows about his personal life will find this little bit of life imitating art very amusing.

Grade: C+

From the Horse's Mouth...

"It's funny because I love this fucking dude dearly. I would die for this fucking dude. He's my brother. But, by God, we are so into our fucking women it's ridiculous."
-Ed Westwick of "Gossip Girl" regarding rumors that he and co-star Chace Crawford are lovers.

"I can't help it. I'm a womanizer sometimes I know, but I just think that bringing a woman home and getting some hot poon is about the greatest thing in the world."
-Mr. Garrison of "South Park" who has since come out of the closet, gotten sexual reassignment surgery to become a women, and then gotten sexual reassignment surgery to become a man again.

What a coincidence. When I'm panicking/scrambling/lying, it brings out the profanity in me as well. Laughing off gay rumors TOO hard and getting all bent out of shape about them to the point of legal action are just two sides of the same coin, in my opinion. Insomuch as it usually means you're gay. Isn't it funny that in denying rumors about his alleged homosexuality, Westwick used the expression "fucking dude" twice? Plus "we are so into our fucking women it's ridiculous"? I'll agree about the ridiculous part. I dunno...me thinks the lady doth protest too much. What do you think?



Here's what I think: To paraphrase Dwight Schrute, I think they could both do better.