Sex & the City ad

This is hilarious. The first time I started watching, I thought it might be an ad for the next movie (already!) but turns out it's just an ad for some marathon instead. Still: brilliant.

Technically, the girls did not go to grade school together, so it wouldn't really make sense for that to be part of the next movie anyway. Though that would be amazingly entertaining, it would negate all sorts of background established over the course of the series. Oh well. But this does make me really excited to know what the plot of the next movie will be!!

Hair

True, I have seen this movie more times than I'd like to admit. But the lovely Miss Chelsea had NOT, and on a drunken Friday night, what else are you going to reach for on the DVD shelf? It was this or Mamma Mia!, and frankly, there's no comparison. (I actually really love that movie as well, but I can talk about that another time.)

If you haven't seen Hair, you have really missed a magical wonder of the 1970s. The movie is based -- I would argue loosely -- on the 1968 musical about hippie culture and Vietnam. I say "loosely" because if you're familiar with the musical on stage at all, the film will probably surprise you. On stage, the show is wall to wall music and seemingly formless. The film is far more structured, contains about a third of the music, and some of the song lyrics are even altered to make the plot more cohesive. If you have the option to see either and you're not sure you're into the whole experimental musical idea, I suggest you start with the film. It's like, stoned-lite. Contrary to some questionable college productions of the show that shall not be named, the musical is meant to be a kick-ass trip down freedom lane. So if you can't handle loose plot structure and fluid shifting form, probs not for you.


Give it a try! As Chelsea pointed out, it's like a way superior version of Across the Universe. She might have only made the connection, and I might have added the superlatives. But it's true! If you've seen the latter, you will notice a lot of pilfering, er, um.... parallels. It's ridic. Guess which one's in my collection?

Wikipedia-media

Check out this really interesting article I just finished reading for my Teaching with Technology class.  Did you ever wonder who created Wikipedia, and why it exists in the first place? If you have ever edited or posted to the site, you probably have some questions about how it is policed. At least I did...

Anyway, you may find this article of interest if:

a) you are a journalist of some kind

b) you use Wikipedia.... ever

c) you don't know what I just said in point b

d) you live in this century.

Very interesting exploration of the community-encyclopedia idea.  Interested to know your comments, if applicable -- this is a huge controversial topic in Education classes.  i.e. Should teachers accept Wikipedia as a resource?  You might want to read this article before you answer.  ahhh, intrigue....

The Five Obstructions

Something really magical happens while you're watching this film. Something unique. Yes, at the moment I'm writing this, I'm affected by the succinctly compelling language of the film itself. I am compelled wholly by this film, in so many ways. As an artist, I cherish its reverence for the creative process - the moment of imaginative conception in all its glory. As a filmmaker, in particular, I am impressed by the versatility of this man, the subject of the film, Jorgen Leth (pictured here), who is able to work so ingeniously. As a person, I am challenged by the concepts of beauty and limitation impressed through the film. Overall, I am blown away.


Alright, so it's not perfect, but only because nothing is! But it's darn close. That's right: darn. You'll notice it's missing half a shoe in my assessment. I'm modifying my format here, and not including my rubric anymore -- I felt it was oppressing the flow. However, I will say that a meager 3 points were subtracted from the overall score, which is pretty astounding. This film is really worth watching, whether or not you consider yourself "artsy." Lars von Trier, the director, has such an overwhelming love for Jorgen Leth, his subject, that he has enlisted him to recreate his own 1967 film, The Perfect Human. Von Trier creates a series of obstacles for Leth to overcome in his re-shootings. These range from "no edit can exceed 12 frames" to "shoot it in Cuba." At one point in the three year process, von Trier insists that he is providing a therapy - at another point, he chastises Leth for not producing the "crap" he's anticipated. Von Trier is visibly mystified by his subject's tenacity and brilliance through every hindrance, forcing the viewer to ask Who is the student, and Who is the teacher? By the end of the film, I wasn't sure what had happened, and who won in this ambitious challenge. The only thing I found certainly: the greatness of Jorgen Leth.

As a student of Education these days, I found myself continuously asking, "How can I use this film in my classroom?" There are some red flags in the idea of using the thing in its entirety: there's a fair smattering of nudity and sex imagery, for example. But, I'm going to find a way to incorporate the film into my teaching somehow. There's a lesson to be learned here about technique, genre play, risk taking, etc. As I said, this film exposes valuable lessons on the process of creation, whether you create "art" or anything else.

Taking the Stage

I am totally in love with this new MTV show called Taking the Stage. Yes, it's a reality show, and I don't care what that connotes, because it's awesome.

Basically, the show follows a few "main characters" who attend the Cincinnati School for Creative and Performing Arts (SCPA), so basically a reality Fame. The show's greatest strength is its portrayal of school-wide talent. One of the main characters is a music major, others study dance (ballet or hip-hop), and most are multi-talented singers/performers. It's completely addictive, and there have only been 3 episodes. T.t.S. does lack some high quality drama. I mean, come on, these are high school students. So, of course, the gossip revolves around Tyler trying to get with Jasmine while secretly flirting with Mia, which Shaakira and Malik totally saw coming. But seriously, what else constitutes drama in reality tv?

MTV admits that some of the scenes are re-shot reality. As in, they sometimes have to "re-enact" important moments or stage conversations in more concise snippets for sake of pacing. I don't really mind that in principle, but these kids are not actors. Usually you can tell what is being re-shot vs. what is actually happening real time. This does give the show sort of a fakey veneer, at times. But honestly, the showcase of talent and creative challenges far outweigh the poor "un"-script. Check it out -- you'll be glad you did.

I just don't know.

Apologies. Not so much to you, because you probably don't give a damn. Apologies to myself. For not keeping up with this damned blog. Like most journals and diaries of my past, I have slacked and neglected.

Here's the problem:

Every time I think of something I want to write about, I end up asking myself, "Is this truly blog worthy?" But why? I invented this thing, and it can live or die by my hand. Maybe I don't want to limit this blog to movies. For example, I enjoyed writing that last post, which was only peripherally related to a movie-review. Maybe I should just make this blog a review of... whatever? It might be more interesting. And I might have more interest in keeping it maintained. Sure, I will still have insecurities. Am I interesting? Am I saying anything original? Who cares? What's the point? When am I going to do laundry?

I'm all over the place on this one. Bottom line: I need some inspiration. Since my last entry earlier this month, I've watched Kinsey, Born into Brothels, Ordinary People, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Rachel Getting Married, and Jesus Camp. You will notice that I haven't reviewed any of these films and frankly, I don't intend to review them. I am rebelling against my own system! (Foiled again!) But why!? Kinsey made me shrug. Born Into Brothels was sad but I forgot it 20 minutes later. Ordinary People is way dated in every way possible... and not in a great sense. Cuckoo's Nest had me watching the clock. Rachel impressed me, but my critique ended there. And Jesus Camp.... well let's just say I almost vomited. And that was about the strongest reaction I had to any of the above.

Yesterday my mailbox surprised me with Kramer vs. Kramer, the next film on my agenda. And, though I've had over a day to take it in, I have stalled. I think I need to give myself permission to just go wherever this thing takes me. It's like wandering around in a city I hardly know... I have sort of an idea of what I'd like to see, but if I don't get there, I'll probably still enjoy myself. I hope....

In closing, a picture of the #1 Victorian Novel you should avoid this year. Or ever...

Ralph Fiennes vs. Liam Neeson

Ok, this is not a review of anything. I just have to put this out there.

I have this problem. I thought by acknowledging it and talking about it with other people, maybe it would resolve itself. I thought I could laugh it off. I thought this would heal itself. But no. As time goes on, it just worse and worse. And I don't know what to do.

I cannot tell the difference between Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson. Seriously. It's like, I know they're two separate people, and I can recognize that, side by side, they look different. But when I'm looking at just one of them, I literally cannot imagine the other one. When I saw The Reader a few weeks ago, I spent the whole movie thinking how impressed I was with Liam Neeson's performance, only to realize DURING THE CREDITS that the whole time, it was definitely Ralph Fiennes. Please consider this comparison: black and white photographs including nondescript hand gestures.
















Am I right or am I right? I mean, seriously.

So, after The Reader incident, I really focused on learning the difference between these people. Then I ended up 'flixing Kinsey (which I am yet to write a review of, basically because I feel uninspired). On the box, of course it has Liam Neeson's name printed in big letters. And during the opening credits, once again, "Liam Neeson." Alas, without fail, 45 minutes into the movie my mind wanders a little and I realize that I've been thinking, "Wow, this role is so different than The Reader. That's pretty impressive, Ralph Fiennes." Umm.... what is wrong with me? Example #2 for comparison: color photo with similar dramatic intensity.
















To make matters worse, I sometimes also mix Colin Firth into this equation. This rarer problem, objectively, makes less sense - I recognize this. But for whatever reason I just can't figure it out. Then complicate the whole thing with crazy make-up and special effects... I am just a lost cause.


Yeah... no chance. I have no idea who any of these people are.

Kissing Jessica Stein

Have you ever heard of this movie?  It was released in 2001, but I feel like I've been hearing about it forever.  I'm not sure why I missed it in theatres if it was only 8 years ago.... I mean I was 14 or 15, so surely old enough to appreciate the premise.  But actually, I'm kind of glad I waited until this point in my life to see it.

Kissing Jessica Stein follows a year in the life of this Jewish artist, Jessica, who's living in New York and trying to find a successful relationship (see trailer below).  She actually ends up dating a woman, Helen, and basically they fall in love, even though neither of them really considered themselves gay or queer before their relationship.

I think the most interesting theme this movie deals with is our society's handling of sexuality.  Yes, we are really dealing with Jessica's journey -- she's trying to figure out who she is and what it means to her that she's seeing a woman.  But the film takes place "today," and the biggest concept the film ultimately tackles is: what makes a relationship to us, and what makes it to the people around us?  Here in "today" (and in NYC, additionally), no one is going to SAY that they have a problem with Jessica's sexuality.  It's not going to be a "problem" in an Oscar Wilde sense of the word.  As an audience, we're not wondering when Jessica is going to be outed and ridiculed, we're just wondering, "how is everyone going to handle this? -- with love? -- with questions? -- with disbelief? -- with denial? -- with avoidance?"  Socially, we may be beyond a point of blatant homophobia (well, some of us are...) but we're not totally sure what to say, how to react, and how to move on.  That's really the crux of the movie here.  One by one, her coworkers have to figure out that Jessica's been skipping out of the office to see her girlfriend.  Her best friend figures out Jessica hasn't answered her calls because she was at her female lover's house.  And eventually, her ex-boyfriend and mother have to figure out that Jessica's friend Helen is something more significant than a mere yoga-buddy.  There are funny moments in this movie, but more importantly: it really unpacks the emotional issues involved in this woman's self-discovery.

 

Technically speaking, this flick is just well done.  I didn't recognize anyone in the cast, but everyone fit and pulled it off as a fantastic ensemble.  Especially Jessica's mother, played by Tovah Feldshuh - truly top notch.  Also a really sexy killer soundtrack, compiled exclusively of female vocal talent like Ella, Billie, Peggy, and Anita.  Visually a little simplistic, but solid and appropriate for the film -- focus on this one is really on the story and characters.  Interesting hand-held camera throughout makes it feel a little impromptu and intimate, and though not exciting, is really fitting and just stylish enough.  This one definitely deserves its 4.5 out of 5 rating.  

  

He's Just Not That Into You

Someone please explain why this movie is supposed to be good. Please. I spent 8+ dollars on this, and I almost walked out 30 minutes in. You have to understand: I never do this. But I was seriously surrounded by hoards of laughing viewers and I had yet to even crack a smile. I'm not joking. What is going on? On Valentine's Day no less!

Ok, He's Just Not That Into You is one of those movies you're sort of supposed to tune out of an just enjoy. I can absolutely appreciate the beauty of Romantic Comedies as the Victorian Novels of our time -- we go in knowing it will end well and just stick around to float our way through the drama therein. I can handle this task, and was utterly prepared to embark on the journey, even knowing the premise was basically to tell women that they think too much. Even THEN, I was open minded and looking forward to this release.

Something has gone terribly wrong. For a movie that's supposed to be some sort of guru on relationships, I am seriously disappointed in the sage advice given, and the hideous examples made of the following character types: the hopeful dating woman, the empowered single woman, the gay anybody, the straight man, the bride-to-be, and even the rarely seen Wiccan wedding date. I didn't know it was legal to simplify and stereotype so many people in one movie.

All of the single women in this movie are completely enslaved by their singleness. They're either insecure and act like stupid waifs as a result, or they're desperate to find themselves through someone else's vision of them as "special" -- they are completely pathetic. The women in relationships simply want to get married. The single girl who doesn't want to get married ends up a lonely lounge singer, and the married woman who ends up single only does so because her husband blatantly lies and cheats on her. All of the gay characters are peripheral; they're slutty and flamboyant men who only exist to self-depricate and tell the straight characters when they need a cookie (literally). I could go on, but it makes me sad to even replay the scenes in my head.

What is this movie teaching us exactly? It is bad for women to act according to their emotional impulses. Also, it is bad for women to analyze their relationships, unless they are doing it to manipulate the situation in their favor. No man wants to get married. If he does, he's needy. Gay men are fun to laugh at. If there was supposed to be social commentary happening, I think I missed the commentary part. I stayed through the whole movie, and the biggest lesson I learned is that American Spirit cigarettes have an excellent advertising budget. Also, Ginnifer Goodwin has really gorgeous skin (*jealousy*), and I should do all my shopping at CVS and Home Depot. Most importantly, though there may be 500 reasons a guy is just not that "into" me, if I call it anything but "he's just not that into me" then I'm being a stupid girl, and I should be fixed into a smart girl. Except, in the process of getting fixed by whoever I'm "into," hopefully the guy I'm "into" will realize that, actually, he is "into" me -- mostly because he got the chance to fix me and thought I was stupid, but oh well at least I have a boyfriend now! Thank god now my life's complete and I can die happy. Oops - the only problem is that I'm just not that into this crap.

Happy Endings

This movie was on my list for a long time and I'm not sure how I originally heard about it. Several big names: Lisa Kudrow, Jason Ritter, Tom Arnold, Maggie Gyllenhaal - but I don't remember seeing ads for its 2005 release. At any rate, I've seen it now! Huzzah!

What is it about this movie that makes it so hard to explain? Happy Endings is one of those drama-comedy flicks about 10 different characters intersecting through various relationships and conflicts. You know those? Like... Love Actually is one of those I guess. The thing that makes this film so different is its quirky brand of self-consciousness. What the hell do I mean by this? Am I just trying to sound pretentious? No! For real: hear me out on this one.

First of all, the movie is called Happy Endings but to read the premise, you would think that it's quite the opposite (i.e. guy blackmailing Lisa Kudrow with information about the baby she gave up for adoption... you know, the baby she had with her gay stepbrother at age 17? yeah, happy). Furthermore, the first shot of the film includes Kudrow getting hit by oncoming traffic after running through the woods crying while being followed by men yelling at her. Happy! But interestingly, as soon as this happens, we see the first in a series of title cards explaining that she's not going to die, and that actually: the movie is a comedy "sort of." These little title cards come in from time to time to either reassure the viewer that everything is going to work out, or to give background information about a new character. Very helpful, considering the plot is rather complicated and extensive in scope. This self-consciousness moves to a new level in the epilogue, during which the title cards essentially take over, even referencing an "I" who is unseen. Funnily enough, the movie really is a comedy. I produced audible laughter at least half a dozen times, which is notable, and the ending is actually.... pretty happy. Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal sings a lot:

Well crafted story while not wholly compelling. I was definitely invested in the characters' journeys, but even though the title cards were needed at times to intellectually clarify the tone, I was still left emotionally unclear. Written explanation does little to change the effect of what we're visually digesting, even when it is lightening the mood. The performances really saved this one for me. Each actor was arguably in best form, especially Lisa Kudrow who may or may not have redeemed herself to me for life. Seriously.... whoa Lisa..... whoa. Without the incredible casting and acting happening here, this would be a totally different story... I mean, review. Weak link was Jesse Bradford (also the brother from Bring it On, so... yeah), but we're talking 1 downer in a stellar ensemble cast, so I'll let it go.

Young @ Heart

Well, as the first actual application of my rubric - and the doc rubric at that - I think we have a success! If I were to just guess on my netflix rating, I might have jumped to a 5 for this movie. But really, when I think about it, there are a few things I would have liked to see differently in this film.

Young @ Heart is a feel good documentary about a group of elderly retired people in New England that make up the Young at Heart Chorus. The film focuses on a couple of the "characters" who are long-standing members -- one woman, Eileen, is 92 years old, and has been singing with the group since she was 70. Over the course of the film, you get acquainted with some other zany misfits who also help give the chorus its charm. The charm, of course, is that the Young at Heart Chorus does not sing hymnals or standards, oh no -- they sing the Rolling Stones, Sonic Youth, and Coldplay. Hilarity ensues, with plenty of tenderness and life-lesson-learning to go around.

I scored a 3/5 for direction, which required a lot of consideration. I'm probably really warped from my own experience directing a documentary, but Stephen Walker kind of let me down here. Should we blame the old people, or the guy who's supposed to get the juice out of 'em? I imagine they might have been difficult to interview, at times, but there are some touching sad moments in this movie that could have been taken SO much further. Did he worry about exploiting them? I'm not sure. But though there were moments that left me completely speechless and teary-eyed (which is a HUGE rarity for me), I wanted them to last just a moment longer, or push a little harder.

Ok, I'm focusing on the negative, which is pretty tough to do with this movie. As you can see, outstanding score considering all the crap out there. For my first review, not a bad way to start. If nothing else, this movie will make you want to call your grandparents. Also, best version of Fix You ever. That's good enough for me.

thanks!

Just wanted to say: thank you so much for all the support already. I've already gotten all of these nice comments and feedback, via various venues. Therefore: I'm really going to follow through with this and do this - for real. Horrah!

And again, I just want to convey that this is very much a process for me. I've really missed being out of film school and not having the chance to have these conversations as part of my curriculum and education, so I'm just so glad I'll have an outlet for these ideas. I'm glad to hear that you're looking forward to it as well! Please leave comments when the mood strikes :)

novelty!

This is very exciting for me.  Blogging is something I have always wanted to do - I'm not going to lie.  But, like journaling, I have inevitably given up time and time again.  These days, everything is on my computer.  I have submitted to the wonders of gmail and g-calendar, and there is no question that I am a huge fan of the ole' facebook.  The only time I ever exercise my own handwriting anymore is during class.  Thankfully, I am frequently impressed with the preservation of my penmanship.  But I digress...

This blog has a lot to do with me.  Objectivity is overrated, and, I think, nonexistent anyway.  I have discovered that I am increasingly interested in my own process of judging the movies I watch.  I think a lot and I remember more than I even think I know.  I'm considerate, and I mean that in 2 ways.  First, I don't tolerate distracting people in movie theatres, and I don't leave during the credits (-- I could rant about this for hours, and may do so at some point).  Second, I really think about what I'm experiencing during, and after, a movie.  I don't make judgments lightly and I regard myself a pretty fair judge.  

I have invented a pair of grading rubrics which mimic my thought process.  That is, they are written based on my already-developed process of judgment, not the other way around.  I recognize that people have varying criteria, but I think mine are pretty solid.  Thus far, I have one for narrative film and one for documentary film.  Regardless, any feature length movie is capable of reaching 50 points maximum (-- I will modify a rubric if I decide to review any short films or fundamentally experimental work).  So, once I have a total score out of 50, I can also simplify that into a five-star rating, which is common on a lot of movie review sites.  I probably will use half-stars though... we'll see.

NARRATIVE RUBRIC

STORY  = {writing / 5} + {insight / 5}

SOUND  = {effect / 5}

AESTHETIC  = {cinematography / 5} + {art direction / 5}

ACTING  = {casting / 5} + {direction / 5} + {performances / 5}

EMOTIONAL IMPACT  = {concurrent emo effect / 5} + {extended emo effect / 5}

DOCUMENTARY RUBRIC

STORY  = {worthy / 5} + {flow / 5} + {insight / 5}

SOUND  = {effect / 5}

AESTHETIC  = {cinematography / 5} + {creativity / 5}

CHARACTER  = {subject focus / 5} + {direction / 5}

EMOTIONAL IMPACT  = {concurrent emo effect / 5} + {extended emo effect / 5}

Questions?  Comments?  Clarifications?  I'm really interested to see who's checking this out!  I will include my first entry soon enough, probably over the weekend.  Love to hear from you!  Another reason I wanted to do this is to hear others' opinions as well -- so vocalize!  That's half the fun.