Gossip Girl--Sturm und Drang

It would seem that the new ads for the CW series "Gossip Girl" have stirred up a mild controversy (pretty much the only level of controversy that anything connected to the CW could hope to elicit). The ads feature pull quotes from various sources condemning the show for its supposedly overtly sexual content. Like this one, featuring star Blake Lively looking titillated as an unseen male nuzzles her neck, with the words "Every Parent's Nightmare" plastered across the ad. The ads themselves have been called everything from "desperate" to "disgusting." And as you can see below, people seem to have a few choice words to say about the show as well.




It's because I've never watched "Gossip Girl" (and probably never will for reasons far beyond its supposed lewd nature) that I can't say whether the show is "offensive" (I really hate that word). I probably wouldn't find it offensive in the strictest sense of the word. I'm not sure I disagree entirely with the notion that the ads themselves are kind of desperate (but isn't advertising by nature always desperate on some kind of level?). I can say that I love the idea of taking our (mostly) stupid hangups regarding sexuality and turning them (somewhat) on their ear. Our culture definitely exhibits this weird skittishness when it comes to contemplating female sexuality--teenage female sexuality even more so. This would be fine if it weren't for the fact that teenage male sexuality is viewed with a playful "Boys will be boys! Get 'em, Tiger!" attitude (not teenage male homosexuality, mind you. But that's another discussion entirely). I know I'm hardly breaking new ground when I bring up the double standard as it relates to men, women, and sex. But I think that the reasons behind the double standard, and tangentially, the hubbub over "Gossip Girl" are much more interesting and insidious. It even starts from birth--pink for girls, blue for boys. Studies have been conducted for years regarding the connotation of certain colors on a subconscious level. Guess which color (blue or pink) is regarded with more seriousness and importance?

Let's say (for argument's sake) that "Gossip Girl" really does encourage sexual activity among teenage girls. Is that so much worse than the messages young girls receive, not just from the media, but from those around them? Call me crazy (and you're welcome to) but I think that our society in general encourages women to commodify themselves in ways that men are never expected to. Even virginity pledges for girls are often a way of commodifying them. "Who's going to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?" I still hear that and it frightens me because it positions women as things that need to be kept shiny and new so they can attract the best buyer (or in this case caregiver). And yet virginity is almost valued inversely for men. How can we still have these attitudes, and then say that women have more choices today? We're conditioned (in the best case scenarios) to view women as inferior to men and (in the worst case scenarios) hate them. If you think I'm overreaching or being too sweeping, ask yourself (if you're a parent) if you have ever asked your daughter to sacrifice more than your son. Observe how single motherhood is framed in our culture versus single fatherhood (scorned versus uplifted and revered. True, yes?) Think about how people are reacting to female teenage sexuality on "Gossip Girl" and look how the world reacted to male teenage sexuality in a film like Superbad. I know what you're thinking--one's a television show, the other's a movie. Fine. But what if Superbad had been about two female high school seniors on a quest to buy liquor, so they could go to a party and have sex with the boys of their respective dreams? The public outcry would have been so massive...actually, it wouldn't. Because Hollywood would never dream of producing such a film. Because girls don't sometimes have sexual feelings, right? They aren't allowed to. For girls, sex is a way for them to gain power and influence men, right? Again, commodification of women. Even look on the supposed fringes of Hollywood at an independent film about a certain pregnant heroine. Juno, despite all of its supposed strengths, ultimately lacks the balls (sorry, Diablo Cody) to address the issue of Juno (Ellen Page) initiating sex with Paulie (Michael Cera), or the reasons behind said action with any semblance of depth or insight. Because, once again, the idea of a woman (teenage or otherwise) enjoying sex is still viewed as taboo in the twenty-first century.

Ultimately, I'm not writing this to say that I am in favor of teenagers (male or female), giving in to every biological impulse. But, it doesn't matter what I think. Nor does it matter what anyone else thinks. Teenagers are going to have sex, as they have since the beginning of time. Is it really useful to portray teenage sex as being slightly more acceptable for boys than for girls? I'd say, it's pretty damn harmful, not to mention stupid and illogical. After all, who are all these teenage boys having sex with? There are definitely problems with the things we tell young girls about their own sexuality. No one is fed more mixed-messages in our culture than girls. But an attempt to remedy the situation, or even spark a mere discussion should neither start nor end with a trifle of a show like "Gossip Girl" in mind. Please, somebody just wake me when our culture regains its ability to engage critically in discussion and debate, stops being so reactionary and puritanical and stops focusing on surface-y bullshit that really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I think I'll die of shock when that happens.

Favorite Opening Sequences...

I just felt compelled to talk about some really great opening sequences from films. This top ten list would probably not even be my absolute "favorite" if I really sat down and thought about it, but they're really good anyway. Some of them come from films that I only feel so-so about.

10. Junebug (2005)
When I saw this film for the first time back in '05, it was after it had reached hype hysteria of epic proportions (hey, has anyone seen The Dark Knight or better yet, read my review of it?). Once you get some distance from the film, it definitely improves on subsequent viewings. You may still have trouble convincing me of this film's brilliance, but it boasts some wonderful performances and a great opening sequence. Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz) meets George (Alessandro Nivola) in a an art gallery. A look, a few words and as the credits role, they make love playfully in the empty gallery (could you help yourself if you were either of them?) The wonderful sequence ends with a breathless Madeleine asking George "Where do you come from?" And with a smile (God, that smile) he replies "Pfaftown, North Carolina." So little is said, yet it sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Plus, aren't you already booking your ticket to Pfaftown?

9. Carrie (1976)
"You eat shit, Carrie!" Such strong hateful words that tell you everything you need to know about what you're in for here. From a gym class volleyball game, to a panning shot of locker room naughtiness. And then there's the score...I've seen Carrie more times than I can count and I still can't figure out if the soap-operish flute music is the smartest score or the most misplaced score I've ever heard. But as we see Carrie, bathing majestically in the shower, there's that critical shot of blood running down her legs that turns the scene on its ear. And of course leads us to one of the most immortal phrases in cinema history..."Plug it up!"

8. Gummo (1997)
Like Junebug, I'm not sure how I feel about Gummo. It's definitely jarring and I've had to re-watch it several times just to try to form some opinion of it. At the very least, it's fascinating (like the squirrely little director, Mr. Harmony Korine himself). Its opening credits are some of the most haunting I've ever seen. That female crooner, singing about her rooster going "cock-a-doodle-do" over the image of that creepy kid with his rabbit ears...always gets me.

7. The Shining (1980)
Okay, confession time. I'm a big Kubrick-phile, so right away I'm biased. I had to pick which of his films would make this list, and obviously, it had to be The Shining with its panoramic shot of a mountain road over a lake with some of the best horror-movie music ever composed. If you're somehow stumped as to how Kubrick got that shot, there's a big giveaway if you pay attention to some tell-tale shadows in the frame.

6. The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
I don't often cry at the movies. It's happened only a few times. Silkwood (how can you not?) and The Sweet Hereafter are two examples. This movie still gets to me. Upon first observation, it would probably seem like there's not a lot going on in this opening sequence. It's just a panning overhead shot of a couple sleeping in bed with their child. But it's actually one of the most powerful, important images in the film as it gets right to the heart of the film's themes--Our need as a society to protect our children, and the ultimate failure and desolation that is felt when that need is not met (for whatever reason). That, combined with Mychael Danna's lovely score (seriously, he might just be the most underrated composer working in film today) make this one for the books.


5. Boogie Nights (1997)
I'm a huge PT Anderson fan. Ultimately, even though it's still very fresh in my mind, I think that There Will Be Blood will be the masterpiece he's remembered for. But of all of his films, I enjoy the opening for Boogie Nights the most. It beats the vast open silence of There Will Be Blood's opening and the overly philosophical musings of Magnolia's opening. I love the tracking shot through Maurice's club, played beautifully against The Emotions' "Best of My Love." It's busy, but it's profound. We meet the eclectic cast of characters, including the lovely Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), Roller Girl (Heather Graham), porn-king Jack Horner and our hero Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg). One of the most important themes of this film is getting swept up, in one way or another, and no opening sequence sweeps you into the action better than this one.

4. The Graduate (1967)
Having just graduated from college, I don't feel as adrift as Benjamin Braddock, but I surely identify with the malaise brought on by the constant questioning from those around you..."So, what now?" The opening sequence, set to Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" (which bookends the film, no pun intended) has our antihero drifting aimlessly on moving sidewalks through an airport. Is it the most subtle metaphor in American cinema? Probably not. But it's still poignant anyway.


3. Blue Velvet (1986)
I have no problem with bizarre. I don't even explicitly have a problem with bizarreness for its own sake. But David Lynch definitely pushes it, which stops me from worshiping at his altar. But I definitely love the first scene of blue velvet, which showcases fucked up, overly-clean suburban Lumberton and the creepy critters that dwell beneath--quite literally, actually. Again, not the most subtle of images. But remember, it was 1986--before suburban satire had been done to death.

2. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
The Royal Tenenbaums is truly the dysfunctional family done up right. Normally, I'm not a huge fan of narration. But in this case, Wes Anderson made the decision to explain most of the history of the fucked up Tenenbaums in a short five minute opening sequence. Like all Wes Anderson films, it's beautifully art-directed (seriously, why no Oscar noms for art direction for his films?) and well-acted by the child performers. And it's played nicely against a string version of the Beatles' "Hey Jude." Awesome.


1. Do the Right Thing (1989)
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Up your wake! Up your wake! Up your wake! No film announces its intentions clearer or louder than Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, which opens to the loud bombastic sound of Public Enemy's "Fight the Power," while Rosie Perez dances forcefully. I love, love, love this opening sequence.

The Dark Knight

I still don't feel like I have enough distance from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight to speak about it with any semblance of objectivity--that's how haunting it is. It gets underneath your skin and festers, making you ponder things that you never thought you'd be pondering, while walking out of a comic book movie. I'm trying to get beyond the hyperbolic praise that's been floating around, both of the film and of Heath Ledger's tour-de-force, writ-large performance. But ultimately, it's hard to do so for a film that so richly lives up to months (years, actually) of hype, ever since the end of 2005's Batman Begins, where audiences first caught glimpse of the Joker card. It's been said so many times that it will seem trite at this point, but make no mistake--The Dark Knight completely re-writes the rules of the comic-book/superhero-film. This is the one that all others will be judged against from now on.

A few things one should know about this film--it's incredibly dark (no pun intended). And I do mean dark in every sense of the word. Literally, there's a lot of harsh light and dark contrasts going on here, a lot is heavily shadowed (though if you ask me, Joker is never more terrifying than when he's out in broad daylight...more on that later). Content wise, this is a very dark, downbeat movie. No cheesy, Spiderman-style one-liners for the kids. No cutesy romances. And no wrap-it-up cleanly ending. To put it plainly, this film will fuck with your head in ways that no glowing review can prepare you for.

First of all, I want to talk about a few key aspects of this film that make it particularly inspired. The casting of Maggie Gyllenhaal, as Rachel Dawes, for one. I love that she was cast in place of Katie Holmes for several reasons. When I was watching Holmes in Batman Begins, I didn't really get the air of an Assistant District Attorney so much as a young actress all dressed up in her mommy's clothes. Gyllenhaal brings a certain adult sexiness and personality to the role that Holmes never could have (perhaps because Holmes isn't really sexy and lacks a discernible personality of any kind ever since Tom Cruise had that part of her brain removed.) Gyllenhaal elevates Dawes beyond a traditional female reflector, transforming her into a character that we truly care about (something very key for this film).

Secondly, I want to talk about Heath Ledger's Joker. All that's been said about that is accurate. This is his movie. He commands every single scene he's in, and a few he's not since the Joker is always a looming, menacing presence in this film. You never know when he's going to show up, and when he does, it's terrifying. Beyond Ledger, I think a key aspect of the success of his performance can be credited to writer-director Christopher Nolan and his decision not to sexualize the Joker. It would have been so easy to go there, I think. There's one thing I know, and that's men need sex, whatever variety it may be. There's a key scene in the film where the Joker has a confrontation with Rachel Dawes. It is here that you truly see how he can't be bought. Compare this to Tim Burton's Batman, where Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) is so easily duped and seduced by Vicki Vale. Ledger's Joker is so not interested--not in money, nor women, nor any other earthly delights you can throw at him. He thrives on chaos and destruction, and even then, it has to be on his terms. And Ledger plays the insanity and the hysteria beautifully. Yet, you cannot watch the performance without feeling a lingering sadness. If the impact of Ledger's death hasn't hit yet, the huge amount of talent that was lost last year is on full display here and makes this already dark film that much darker.

Christian Bale is better here than he was in Batman Begins. This time around, he allows himself to be both Batman and Bruce Wayne, making the latter into a fully-formed, well-rounded character, rather than delving too headlong into gruff, monotone smolder. That is why we feel more deeply for Wayne. We sense his pain and his dilemma. His desire not to be Batman, because he knows what he must sacrifice, is at odds with his inability to give up his mask and cape because he knows too deeply what's at stake. He's human here. I can't help but picture Christopher Nolan behind the camera saying to Bale "Bruce Wayne, not John Wayne." And he gets it right.

Finally, I was actually the most blindsided by Aaron Eckhart, who brings a depth to District Attorney Harvey Dent that I wasn't expecting. It would have been more easy and simplistic to make Dent the man that Rachel Dawes was seeing simply because she couldn't have Bruce Wayne (at least not the way she wanted). But you understand, not only why she's with him, but that she does in fact love him and that is due very much to Eckhart's sympathetic portrayal. Not only does he make you believe in Harvey Dent, he gives off the air of a Harvey Dent who believes in himself, which makes a later plot-twist all the more effective.

Everything about this film, the top-notch cinematography, to its wonderful score by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer (two of my favorites), will command the attention of an astute watcher of cinema. A lot of talk has been flying around about Oscar consideration, mainly for Heath Ledger. Not since Peter Finch (Network) has a performer won a posthumous Academy Award. There are a lot of hurdles to overcome. Early release date. This film, for all of its triumphs, does happen to exist in a genre that doesn't typically garner major awards consideration--and the Academy is very slow to change, as we all know. I will have to see how the year progresses before I decide whether I'm completely for an Oscar-win for Ledger, but I can't imagine him not making my final five, come year's end. A nomination is almost assured, though a win...I'm not so sure. Even if he is deserving (and he very well might be) I doubt that this is the type of performance that the Oscars would reward if Ledger were alive. I would submit that if the studio campaigns strategically, it could even land a best picture or best director nod--especially if some of the highly anticipated heavy hitters being released at year's end are disappointments. This is already shaping up to be a disappointing year in cinema (I don't think we have another 2007 on our hands). My point is this, if Gladiator and The Departed could win best picture (the latter of with I have a fondness for, though I downright loathe the former), then why can't The Dark Knight sidestep all of the aforementioned barriers and at least land a nomination? This is the best film of the year so far, and is certain to be a place-holder on several critics top ten lists--the ones who are paying attention, anyway.

Grade: A- (though leaning towards B+) We'll see

It's Been a While

Okay, so I haven't posted in over a month...I said I would do this and I'm going to keep at it. But life has been calling me. I'm diving headlong into shooting my feature film, which is going well (all things considered). That's all I'm going to say on the matter (I don't want to get too personal here.)

I just came back from a midnight screening of The Dark Knight. It is almost like the No Country for Old Men of comic book movies...let that mean for you whatever it needs to. I'll be posting a full review sometime this weekend once I've given it a chance to marinate a little. Honestly, I still don't know exactly how I feel about it, beyond the initial...wow. It's an incredibly haunting film. If you thought Batman Begins was dark, you are in for a surprise. And Heath Ledger's performance does actually deserve most (if not all) of the hyperbolic praise being thrown its way. I won't dedicate the full review to singing his praises, because there is a lot of other good to be talked about. Also, watching Ledger's Joker, it fills you with an overwhelming sadness for the obvious reasons...

More to come later...

Love, Peace, and Pretension

More to Come...

I haven't been posting as much as I'd like to. I've been seriously busy and it doesn't look like it's slowing down any time soon. Yesterday, I started principal photography on the film I'm directing. I had so many nightmares the night before about all the things that would go wrong, but it went surprisingly smoothly and I'm sure now more than ever that this is what I want to do with the rest of my life. It was such a high. But enough about me...

• I saw The Happening on Friday and will be posting a review shortly. It's definitely not Shyamalan's worst movie to date. But sadly, that's not saying much at all. Honestly, it'd be pretty tough to top Lady in the Water in that arena.
  
• Scratch that. I don't have it in me to revisit The Happening in the way I would need to to write a full review.
  Grade: C-. I'll post a mini review much much later.
  
• I recently watched Evening for the first time. I (wisely) missed it when it came out last year. Man, that movie is a mess. How they can assemble so much talent in one place and come up with...that is a testament to bad writing/directing.
• This is just a general sentiment. Something I need to get off my chest. Normally, I'm not very easily offended. And this is no exception. What I'm about to say comes less from my being offended than it does from my being annoyed/unamused. Fuck Carlos Mencia. There I said it. I happened to have Comedy Central on in the background and since I don't have a remote, and therefore have to get up to change the channel, in the process of doing so, I happened to catch a little bit of his show. Fuck him. "Hillary Clinton can't win because she's not hot enough." He actually said that. No clever double-entendres. Nothing else witty to add. That was the joke. The audience loved it. Excuse me while I fucking projective vomit. Fuck Carlos Mencia right up his ugly, developmentally challenged ass. He's like a composite of every single socially retarded, homophobic, racist guy I went to elementary/high school with and the fact that he's made it onto television makes me lose faith in the world in ways I never thought possible. Again, not easily offended here. George Carlin, who is often homophobic/racist was one of my favorite comedians. Judd Apatow's stuff is also often offensive in the same way. You know why I like these people? Because they're...wait for it: FUNNY! Carlos Mencia is neither funny nor clever enough to get away with half the shit he gets away with saying. He's like that kid who giggles every time he hears the word "booby." Fuck him. He's. Not. funny. Fuck him. Fuck him. Fuck him. Fuck. Him.
  

Random Thoughts

Okay. So I'm a bit late in addressing the MTV Movie Awards , which were held almost two weeks ago. I had initially planned on ignoring them altogether, like I always do, but a recent comment from an acquaintance prompted me to address something tangentially related to the MTV Awards.

I was on campus this week and ran into someone who I haven't seen since I was a lowly freshman. We got to chatting, about school/life, etc. When he found out I had graduated from the film/video program, the conversation veered towards movies. He asked me if I had watched the MTV Awards, which I replied "no." Then he said something about it being better than the Oscars, because "at least [he] had actually heard of most of the movies." That really made me think...

Are the movies nominated for Oscars always better than those nominated for MTV Movie Awards? Well, the short answer is yes. Anyone who knows me knows that I find the Academy Awards fascinating. I love the spectacle. I love when they get it right and I love arguing when they get it wrong (which is more often than not). I think about my favorite movies of the past decade or so:

2007: No Country for Old Men
2006: Children of Men
2005: Brokeback Mountain
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2003: In America
2002: Far from Heaven
2001: The Royal Tenenbaums
2000: Requiem for a Dream
1999: Fight Club
1998: American History X
1997: Boogie Nights


Of those titles, only two were actually nominated for best picture, and only one took home the title. My point? Both the Academy Awards and the MTV Movie Awards often show a lack of imagination/discernment when it comes to their choices. But yes, I would rather take the Academy Awards' selections over the MTV Awards' selections any day of the week, and I don't think that makes me a snob. Maybe it does. I don't care. Transformers won best movie this year. It boggles my mind that more people voted for that film than any of the other films released in 2007. This is unforgivable for so many reasons, not the least of which was that No Country for Old Men was not even nominated! Seriously. Maybe my social circle is a little skewed because I've been hanging out with film students for the past four years, but you'd be hard pressed to show me a more zeitgeist-y movie from 2007 than No Country. It certainly wasn't unpopular, and certainly not among young people. And if the MTV crowd is going for action, that's fine. But Transformers? A movie made by the egomaniacal Michael Bay that, while definitely a step up from previous efforts, was still a muddled, overlong mess? Why not go for something like The Bourne Ultimatum or even 28 Weeks Later both of which were action-packed, intelligent and well-made? It's choices like these that remind me of that student in one of my classes who told me that Ryan Gosling was her favorite actor. Yet when I asked if she had seen Half Nelson or The Believer or (to a lesser extent) Lars and the Real Girl, she replied "no." That irks me. And people like her exist by the thousands. And they aren't doing good actors like Ryan Gosling any favors by only seeing him when he makes commercial, yet pedestrian efforts like The Notebook. Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe you don't...

What's the point of this rant? It's that you're not going to be told what movies are good or bad by awards shows. You have to search to find the great titles, which is becoming increasingly easy with information being at our fingertips. Don't take what's force fed to you. Seek out quality in every piece of culture that you consume. Be it the coverage you choose to follow about the presidential election, the books you read, the music you listen to, the television you watch (though I recently discovered that Desperate Housewives is actually a pretty smart show underneath all the mainstream hype...who knew?) and the movies you see. Seek out quality!

Review--The Strangers

The Strangers is a film that was never going to live up to its trailer. That shot of Liv Tyler standing unknowing in the kitchen, while a mysterious man with a bag over his head stands in the background is probably infamous by now. And sadly, nothing beats seeing that for the first time. I went into this film thinking that it would be genuinely creepy. The trailer for another film titled Bagman really says it best. "There's nothing more frightening than a guy looking in your window with a bag on his head." Not sure if that's true, but it's still pretty scary anyway. And yet, I'm shocked by how...meh this movie was.

The Strangers is both written and directed by newcomer Bryan Bertino. The film's direction is just as it should be. He has a real eye and he knows how to direct the viewer's eye. It's the writing part that I might leave to someone else next time around, if I were him. The screenplay is incredibly hollow, though I guess I appreciate what he was trying to do here...is appreciate the right word? I'll just say that I understand. He's trying to strip away typical cliches of the "slice 'em up" horror-genre by first introducing these two characters and their hazy backstory. Essentially, Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman play a couple who are clearly going through a rough patch. He has recently proposed to her, and she's rejected. The tension's so thick you could cut it with a knife, no pun intended. Also he's kind of behaving like a petulant child, if you ask me. Of course this all becomes irrelevant when they go to his family's summer home in the middle of East Jesus Nowhere (thank you Diablo Cody) and the pair soon find themselves under siege by three masked attackers. Fine. But there are so many plotholes, it's almost embarrassing that whoever read this screenplay and chose to finance didn't catch them. For instance, if she rejected his proposal, why then would he still take her up to his summer house with rose petals on the bed and champagne at the ready? Why not just go home? Why do characters in horror movies always tell each other "you must have imagined it," or "that didn't happen" or some variation on that sentiment? If someone tells me that an intruder came into the house, then we're leaving, whether it's true or not. Why chance it?

I would be more forgiving of little things such as these if the movie were actually scarier. Not to say that there aren't some genuinely frightening moments. For instance, the first time one of the strangers knocks on the door and asks for "Tamara." She's not masked, but her face is obscured by the darkness. They tell her she has the wrong house, and she responds with a menacing "See ya later." But for the most part, the movie pretty much blows its wad during the first third, leaving the last two parts kind of stagnant and predictable. And there was no reason whatsoever for this story (which I seriously doubt is "based on true events" ) to unfold the way it did when you have a group of two perfectly capable adults versus a group of three perfectly capable adults, the former of which has a loaded shotgun at their disposal.

Grade: C+

I was actually excited about this film, which is saying a lot, because I rarely get excited about, or even have the desire to see horror films. But it was so richly disappointing.

Sydney Pollack 1934-2008

Academy Award winning director Sydney Pollack (Out of Africa, Tootsie, They Shoot Horses Don't They?) passed away today in Los Angeles. He was 73 and had been suffering with cancer for some time. He'll truly be missed.

2008 Movie Reviews Vault

Here is a list of movie reviews/grade of films I saw in 2008.

Let the Right One In (A)
The Reader (B+)
The Visitor (B+)
Wendy and Lucy (B+)
WALL-E (A-)
The Wrestler (A)
Revolutionary Road (B-)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (C+)
Doubt (B)
Slumdog Millionaire (B)
Quid Pro Quo (B-)
Ordinary People (A-)
Milk (A-)
Australia (B-)
Synechdoche, New York (A- I've settled)
Heavenly Creatures (A)
Rachel Getting Married (A. Wow...just...wow)
W. (C)
Terms of Endearment (B+ Damn...Debra Winger is bad ass)
A Girl Cut in Two (B+)
Blindness (B-)
Choke (C+ Aren't dark comedies just a dime a dozen these days?)
Moulin Rouge! (A-)
Burn After Reading (B)
Towelhead (C-)
Happy Go Lucky (B+)
Frozen River (B)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (B+)
Pineapple Express (B-)
The Happening (D-) M. Night Shyamalan has lost his f***ing mind.
The Dark Knight (B+)
The Strangers (C+)
Margot at the Wedding (C- though a big A for Nicole Kidman)
Baby Mama (B-)
88 Minutes (D)
Street Kings (C-)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (B-)
Smart People (C+)
Stop Loss (B)

Can We Talk About....Anthony Mackie?

D.O.B: September 23, 1979, New Orleans, Louisiana

Where you know him from: She Hate Me, Half Nelson, We Are Marshall, Crossover, Million Dollar Baby

Ideal Career Trajectory: As successful as Denzel Washington, as bankable as Will Smith, yet still as interesting and daring as Samuel L. Jackson

Worst Case Scenario: Cuba Gooding Jr, post-Oscar (God, what a mess)

The Rundown:
I first saw Anthony Mackie in 2004 in Clint Eastwood's emotionally moving (if somewhat facile) Million Dollar Baby. Although his part was small (a clear villain. They're so easily identifiable in Clint Eastwood movies) I couldn't help but take notice to how Mackie commanded attention each time he was on screen. His presence is undeniable, his talent and range seemingly limitless. He next caught my attention when I watched indies like Brother to Brother and most notably Half Nelson where he comfortably held his own against the film's two powerhouse leads (Ryan Gosling and Shareeka Epps). It really upsets me when I read lists of hot rising talent in Hollywood in magazines like Entertainment Weekly that fail to mention actors like Mackie, clear forces to be reckoned with to anyone who's actually paying attention and watching films—the people who do tend to rank also speaks volumes about the people making said lists, but that's another issue entirely.

The Solution:
Things are slightly easier for a black man in Hollywood than they are for a black woman (read: slightly). That's why Mackie has been relegated to certain roles less than worthy of his greatness. The somewhat forgivable We Are Marshall and the unfathomable Crossover are just two titles on that list. He was also in 8 Mile, which some people regard as having certain merits, though I was uninterested, as I am with Eminem in general. But his filmography is actually not so disastrous as most up and coming black actors, which is a good sign. When you're as talented as he is, it may pay off in the end to show some discernment and taste when it comes to what roles you take. Just heed my warning to all up and coming black actors, Mr. Mackie: steer clear from the double-edged sword that is Tyler Perry. Not. Worth. It.

What does the Future Hold:

Look for Anthony Mackie to break into mainstream consciousness in a big way within the next couple of years. In 2008, he has The Great Observer a silent (ballsy) film about young Louis Armstrong (he's not playing Louis). He also has Iraq-war thriller The Hurt Locker, which sounds interesting enough, but after Stop Loss, I'm not getting my hopes up. He also has a supporting role in Eagle Eye, the new Shia Labeouf vehicle which should guarantee some viewership. Hey, the ends justifies the means, okay? It's 2009 that should have Mackie fans hearts aflutter. Two biopics, one in which he plays a lead. There's Notorious, the biopic about slain rapper Notorious B.I.G in which Mackie plays Tupac Shakur. I'm shaky and nervous about how this film will play out, but it will definitely be a cultural event and guarantee some ink for Mackie. Then there's Jesse Owens, which tells the story of the African-American Olympic athlete. Confession time—biopics are not my thing most of the time. But they usually get attention, and for once I'm glad that attention will be turned on a worthy performer. And who knows? Maybe, we'll be hearing Mackie's name uttered alongside the elusive O-word sometime in the not so distant future. One can dream, right?

Some Thoughts on the Presidential Race

This is the first post actually dedicated to the 2008 Presidential Election and may very well be the last for any number of reasons. Not the least of which are that I don't want to make it the focus of this blog. Also, I'm a legal permanent resident in this country, which means I am not allowed to vote until I become a citizen (if and when I choose to), so I'm not really supposed to be complaining, nor am I allowed to have an input. This is all fine with me of course, because even though the election is more than five months off, I'm already bored/done with it. My candidate of choice (Kucinich) is nowhere near the ballot, and in the end who ever wins is going to feel so much like the less desirable friend of the person you really wanted to have sex with. That being said, I hate the Hillary-or-nothing Democrats just as much, if not more, than the Obama-or-nothing Democrats. They're both just as foolish and short-sighted in my book, but in the end, it's the former that may cause John McCain to coast to a victory come November and that's what makes me feel bored/done.

Here's the thing. I am not particularly fond of any of the three remaining presidential hopefuls, that is Obama, Clinton, or Mccain, for different reasons obviously. As a black man, I am surprised how immune I've been to this notion that Obama represents change--real, meaningful change. It might have something to do with the fact that his voting record/political positions are hardly reflective of this so-called "change" he speaks of. Are we to assume he represents change because he's black? Yet he wants people to look beyond his race when making their decision, which is understandable and necessary if he hopes to win (and, since he's the presumptive Democratic nominee, I do hope he wins by the way). But he can't go in wanting to be both exempted from and exalted because of his race. It's kind of a crapshoot either way and he's just got to hope for the best when it comes to how the electorate reacts to the possibility of a black president.
I flat-out dislike McCain because of his ridiculous plans to keep us in Iraq well past his own life-expectancy.

And Ms. Clinton. A lot of people have given her a lot of flack over the past...well, always. That's why I admire her for going at this head-first and getting as far as she did. She put up a hell of a fight and either her or Obama are more than qualified, IMHO, to be president of the United States. Again, neither would be my top choice. But I think that enough really is enough. By staying in the race, all Clinton is doing is fueling those ridiculous rumors about her wanting John McCain to win so she can run again in 2012. Which is (repeat) a ridiculous theory. Hillary is a smart person and she knows that this country will never elect a 65-year-old (which is how old she'll be) WOMAN into the Whitehouse. Though the same country seems to have no problem with potentially electing Crimean War veteran John McCain into the same position. But sexism abounds when it comes to politics--that's just a fact and Hillary knows this. However, she needs to drop out so that the party can rally around Obama as the nominee (which he pretty much is anyway), pick a VP nominee (which, if he's smart, he'll seriously consider picking her. Don't know if she'll accept...) and start campaigning against McCain. And I hope that Obama is ready for the big show. Because the battle between him and Hillary is going to seem like shits and giggles compared to what McCain and the Republican party have in store for him...

That is all. Peace. Love. And Pretension.

Nicole Kidman--A Mess of Contradictions

Nicole Kidman has gotten a lot of flack for her choice of roles. It's no secret that her post-Oscar career has been less than stellar, so much so that there's no point in even listing all the duds. I remained conflicted about her for the longest time, less forgiving of the projects she chooses to work on than say Halle Berry. Don't get me wrong. Berry has a lot to answer for too. But for a woman who looks like Nicole Kidman, you'd have a tough time convincing me that there aren't infinitely more opportunities for good roles than someone who looks like Halle Berry.

I recently saw Margot at the Wedding for the first time on DVD. I initially avoided it, not because of Nicole Kidman, but because of writer-director Noah Baumbach whose 2005 offering The Squid and the Whale annoyed me to no end (and when not even Laura Linney can't save a movie for me, that says a lot). Having now seen his second feature, I can now respectfully call Mr. Baumbach a hack. He incorporates the worst parts of Wes Anderson's writing-style, with absolutely none of Wes Anderson's charmingly meticulous attention to detail, nor his flair for art direction. With the exception of Nicole Kidman (whose characterization of a loving yet spiteful and biting woman is spot on--anyone who has a sister will especially recognize this), it's almost all quirk, no substance. Straight out of "Indie-Screenwriter 101" and it's probably no coincidence that The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, Anderson's worst film to date, was co-written by Baumbach. But this isn't about him.

After watching Margot at the Wedding, and then re-watching The Hours for about the tenth time a few days ago, I'm now convinced more than ever that the talent is there for Nicole Kidman--in spades, actually. She's actually better in Margot at the Wedding than she's been in years, so much so that I'm beginning to question why there was no Oscar nomination here? People have certainly gotten nominations for worse performances in worse films, and I know that the Academy is just waiting to invite her back to the party. It's their way of justifying who they give Oscars too. How else would you explain Hilary Swank's second win for Million Dollar Baby, or Charlize Theron's throwaway nomination in 2005 for doing the exact same thing she did two years earlier?

I never thought I'd be writing a post defending Nicole Kidman, but I just don't understand the reaction to her performance here (or lack of a reaction.) I know I'm months too late, but it's a little baffling to me. With the exception of Marion Cotillard, I sincerely believe that the Academy got all the acting awards right this year. But that doesn't change the fact that they rarely reward performers for taking risks and stepping outside of their comfort zone. Nicole did that with Margot at the Wedding by daring to play such a complex, unlikable woman. I've been trying to rationalize it, and I can't come up with anything. It's a great performance in a bad movie, but the Academy has rewarded those before, so that doesn't seem to be an issue. Baffling...

Review of Margot at the Wedding: C- (Some good ideas, but try again Mr. Baumbach)
Review for Nicole Kidman's performance: A (Note perfect. Better than she's been in years)

Mini Reviews--"Baby Mama" and "88 Minutes"

It's been forever and a day since I posted here. Busy, graduating from college and all (thank you, thank you) plus working on a feature film, but sticking with it. On the grind, as they say. Since I saw Baby Mama and 88 Minutes so long ago, I'll be making my review of each a little shorter.

Baby Mama:
This is the type of movie I feel kind of conflicted about. I love Tina Fey, love Amy Poehler and even liked most of this movie. But I can't help thinking about how much better the film would have been with Tina Fey at the helm as writer, or even director. I was surprised to find that Tina Fey neither produced nor wrote the script for this film when I saw the trailer many months ago. I've mentioned before how 30 Rock is one of the most consistently funny shows on television, and I really commend Tina Fey for making it successful. But I digress.

By now, everyone knows the plot of Baby Mama. Tina Fey plays a successful, career-driven woman who, because of her responsibilities, may have missed the biological window for having a baby. So she enlists the help of an uncouthed surrogate (Amy Poehler) to carry her baby. Hilarity ensues. I'm not being sarcastic either. This movie is very funny, even in all its absurdity, which often undermines the moments when it's trying to be a serious(?) acting showcase for Tina Fey. Okay, maybe I didn't word that correctly. Tina Fey is playing it like she's in an actual movie, while Poehler plays it likes she's in the confines of a really funny SNL sketch--but in a good way. I think it totally works, despite what critics are saying about the film. A few talking points to discuss in this shortened review:

1. What was up with Romany Malco's character? While I love the guy, he was totally unnecessary here, and bordered on offensive.
2. Why does Maura Tierney keep showing up in these thankless film roles? It's more forgivable here because Baby Mama is infinitely better than the hot mess that was Semi-Pro. But is she seriously trying to forge a film career out of these bit parts in comedic films where she neither says anything interesting, nor does she get to crack a joke.
3. Who knew Sigourney Weaver was funny?

There are more if I think of them. Ultimately, for someone who's a fan of Tina Fey and her self-deprecating brand of comedy, you'll at the very least find Baby Mama worth a rental (save it's ending, which is a such a colossal miscalculation it almost made me forget everything I'd seen before it.) Like I stated earlier, I have no doubt in my mind that Fey can write and direct a better film for herself. She actually has the potential to be the female Judd Apatow, building up a repertory of regular female players...herself, Poehler and dear God, please throw poor but talented Rachel Dratch a bone.

Grade: B-


88 Minutes
I now think that it may have been a bit of a mistake to wait so long after seeing this movie to write a review. 88 Minutes is a ridiculously contrived movie. Needlessly complicated, so much so that I'm struggling to remember what it was even about. Al Pacino (and his crazy hair) plays a psychiatrist/college professor who (as far as I can tell) sometimes works with the FBI. Whatever. He put this serial killer away, who liked to hang women upside down and do terrible things to them. The killer is days (hours actually) away from execution, but then women start showing up murdered, in the same fashion as his victims(gasp!) And now Al Pacino's character has received a phone call from a mysterious voice, saying that he will die in 88 minutes. Doesn't say how, except we can assume that he wasn't injected with anything or otherwise poisoned. I'm sure he could get that checked out by a doctor if he explained the situation, then he could just go to a police station and chill out until the 88 minutes are up...wait, that would all make sense. Not that kind of movie.

Instead, the movie wants us on the edge of our seats, asking ourselves if Al Pacino's testimony put away the wrong man? Suspense abounds...except, not. Because we saw the guy killing some girl at the beginning of the movie, so we already know that he did it. So what we're essentially watching is an entire film (that's more than 88 minutes, mind you) of Pacino trying to find out who the copycat killer is. Is it his lesbian co-worker, played by Amy Brenneman? Is it the Dean, played by Deborah Kara Unger? Or is it one of his students? Leelee Sobieski, Alicia Witt (love her. Hate that she's here) or Benjamin McKenzie?

Ultimately, you do find out and it all feels kind of anti-climatic for several reasons.

1. You probably already guessed it (jokingly), but you were right.
   
2. There's nothing here that makes you care even remotely about these characters, so why start now?
3. It's all so ridiculous that you gasp that the half-jest guess you made about the film's conclusion turned out to be correct.

I've already spoken about Leelee Sobieski, so I won't pick on her any more here. She's had more than 88 minutes to prove her worth, and I still remain unconvinced. I so want to see Alicia Witt do well, but I fear her time is running out for a truly great role. And finally, it's a shame to see someone like Al Pacino taking such a nosedive in the quality of work he puts out there. His last good project was Angels in America, which you may not even want to count since it was a mini-series. If we're just talking features, I would feel safe in saying he hasn't had a great film since The Insider, more than nine years ago. And the hair...

Grade: D

Random Thoughts...More to Come

Happy May Day!

I have not forgotten this blog. I just had finals this week and was insanely busy. I don't know how I survived, but I did. Now unto the breach! I posted 11 times in April, and my goal is to double that amount for May.

Since I last posted, I saw Baby Mama and 88 Minutes. I will post mini-reviews of each, since they've both been out for some time now. In short, I liked Baby Mama for what it was, though I find myself wondering about its third act and how much stronger it would have been with Tina Fey in the writer's chair. And 88 Minutes...starring Al Pacino and his hair. I walked out knowing one thing--before, I was merely unconvinced by Leelee Sobieski. I can now say whole-heartedly that I do not enjoy her as an actress. More to come...

Here are some random thoughts before I post more at length:

• I re-watched Capote recently and was surprised to find out how much better I liked it this time.  I don't think the Academy has made a better, more astute choice in recent years than nominating Capote for best picture and best director (maybe nominating Laura Linney for The Savages).  It's so noticeably absent of all the tricks and gimmicks the Academy usually goes for.  I'm also more convinced than ever that Clifton Collins Jr. got totally shafted in the best supporting actor race that year.
• I don't normally like horror movies, nor do I normally like movies starring Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman (who?) but the trailer for The Strangers is incredibly creepy and I'm kind of intrigued.
• If I see one more ad for the DVD release of 27 Dresses or for the theatrical release of that new Patrick Dempsey movie I will shoot someone. Seriously, does anyone even remember that 27 Dresses even existed? And advertisers, you will never convince me that Katherine Heigl is "America's Sweetheart." Ever. Both Heigl and Dempsey presented at the Oscars this year, only slightly more deserving of being there than Miley Cyrus. Is there no escape?
  
• Guillermo del Toro finally comes forward and makes it official that he's directing The Hobbit. And Sir Ian McKellan will reprise his role as Gandalf. And the sky is blue. Dudes, we've known this for months. But thanks for telling us.
• Confession time: my favorite hour long drama is Brothers and Sisters (shut up. Shut. Up.) I've had a good five or six days to let it marinate since the last episode, and the more I think about it, the more I consider the distinct possibility that the series has jumped the shark. More on this later.
• Say what you will about Madonna (and people do), but she's proven that she can still move product with the release of her latest album "Hard Candy." Apparently, Madge has still got it.
  
• It is the first of May. And you know what that means...there are approximately 265 days left of George W. Bush's presidency, until the Inauguration on January 20th. Oh, and by the way, Bush is now officially the most hated president in modern history. His disapproval ratings are at a whopping 71%. Bush probably ain't sweating, though, since his grades were worse than that when he got into Yale. (I'm here all week).
• Peace. Love. and Pretension.
  

Tina Fey is Awesome...But We Pretty Much Knew that Already

Tina Fey seems to be taking over the world these days, and I for one couldn't be happier. "30 Rock" is consistently one of the funniest shows on television, and her new movie Baby Mama opens tomorrow, and features Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Romany Malco and Sigourney Weaver (seriously, what else do I need?)

In honor of Ms. Fey, I'm posting this hilarious clip of her on the Howard Stern show, talking about her experience when Paris Hilton hosted SNL. She really lays into Hilton and lets her have it. As well she should. Not to be a hater, but it really can't be said enough what a detestable waste of time Paris Hilton is. Fey really sheds some more light on the topic. Enjoy!