list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Boys Don't Cry on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Boys_Don_t_Cry/135104/default.aspx Title: Boys Don't Cry
Year: 1999
Director: Kimberly Peirce
Plot: Based on a true story, this drama was adapted from the life of Brandon Teena, born Teena Brandon, a woman who chose to live her life as a man and suffered tragic consequences as a result. In 1993, 20-year-old Brandon (Hilary Swank) leaves Lincoln, Nebraska for the nearby community of Falls City, where she sports a crew cut, favors jeans and boots, and is regarded as a man by most of the people in town. While Brandon's friend Lonny (Matt McGrath) warns her that sexual outsiders aren't looked upon kindly in Falls City, she develops a reputation for being something of a ladies' man, and is soon living with a single mother named Candace (Alicia Goranson). But when Brandon meets teenage Lana (Chloe Sevigny), the two become romantically involved almost immediately. Brandon makes friends with Lana's mother (Jeanetta Arnette) and a burly ex-con named John (Peter Sarsgaard). John and his buddy Tom (Brendan Sexton) run with a rough group of men who like to drink and carouse, and they accept Brandon as one of their own. However, when Brandon ends up in jail on a traffic violation, her secret comes out, and, while Lana stands by Brandon's side, John and Tom feel betrayed -- and their anger soon boils over into violence. A distinguished feature debut for director Kimberly Peirce, Boys Don't Cry was enthusiastically received in its showings at 1999 film festivals in Venice, Toronto, and New York. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 33
Number of Lists: 22
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 4
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 01:53:01 GMTBoys Don't Cry1999Kimberly PeirceBased on a true story, this drama was adapted from the life of Brandon Teena, born Teena Brandon, a woman who chose to live her life as a man and suffered tragic consequences as a result. In 1993, 20-year-old Brandon (<a href="/players/P___167442/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hilary Swank</a>) leaves Lincoln, Nebraska for the nearby community of Falls City, where she sports a crew cut, favors jeans and boots, and is regarded as a man by most of the people in town. While Brandon's friend Lonny (Matt McGrath) warns her that sexual outsiders aren't looked upon kindly in Falls City, she develops a reputation for being something of a ladies' man, and is soon living with a single mother named Candace (Alicia Goranson). But when Brandon meets teenage Lana (Chloe Sevigny), the two become romantically involved almost immediately. Brandon makes friends with Lana's mother (Jeanetta Arnette) and a burly ex-con named John (<a href="/players/P___237700/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Sarsgaard</a>). John and his buddy Tom (<a href="/players/P___395919/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brendan Sexton</a>) run with a rough group of men who like to drink and carouse, and they accept Brandon as one of their own. However, when Brandon ends up in jail on a traffic violation, her secret comes out, and, while Lana stands by Brandon's side, John and Tom feel betrayed -- and their anger soon boils over into violence. A distinguished feature debut for director <a href="/players/P___271477/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kimberly Peirce</a>, Boys Don't Cry was enthusiastically received in its showings at 1999 film festivals in Venice, Toronto, and New York. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide33Tag Target (>10)22743http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t058022e6e3.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Boys_Don_t_Cry/135104/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/4/19/41654.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 4/19/2009 3:47:07 PM
Body: Welcome to a new feature on Reel Thoughts – and, perhaps, something I should have begun a long time ago. In light of a recent discussion that heated up (in a good way) in the Oscars group (request membership!), I have decided, since my Netflix queue is pockmarked with contenders and winners of Oscars past and semi-present, that I would call attention to and/or highlight this status, since I frequently, if not always, am inspired to watch such films because the Academy saw fit to recognize them at least through nominations. Now, some may call that a narrow or limited worldview, but the fact of the matter is that I, personally, watch many types of films, not just Oscar films, and, just like for the AFI Project, this feature will be associated merely with what's up on the queue, not to the exclusion of viewing those other films (and will apply to only those films I haven't blogged about before--though I may go back and edit the others--and to those that are not on an AFI list). Notably, I am drawn to the Oscar contenders, though, because I love the broadcast with all of its overwrought pageantry, and sometimes, just sometimes, I think the Academy gets it right. So, for a film deemed an "Oscar Flashback," you'll see these new elements in addition to the format to which I, and perhaps you, have sort of grown accustomed in this blog (if you're paying attention at all, thank you): a mention of the Oscar for which the film was nominated or won and a list of the other nominees. It's important to have context, see. There will also be a comparison discussion, if at all possible – as in, did the film deserve to win or lose, not only in my humble estimation but also in the grand context of the awards themselves. After all, the most convolutedly celebrated and despised aspect of the Oscars is the political and populist propensity of the Academy to award some films and not others, deservingly or no. Of course, there are those who just don't like the concept of an Oscars, but, to those readers, I would submit that this portion of my blog is probably not your cup of tea anyway. So, the first Oscar entry flashback is Boys Don't Cry (which is also the first of the quintet of LGBT-themed Oscar films I alluded to previously), for which Hilary Swank won the Best Actress Oscar and for which Chloe Sevigny was nominated for Best Supporting Actress (film year 1999; awarding year 2000). The other nominees in both categories were: Boys Don't Cry - Hilary Swank American Beauty - Annette Bening The End of the Affair - Julianne Moore Music of the Heart - Meryl Streep Tumbleweeds - Janet McTeer Girl, Interrupted - Angelina Jolie The Sixth Sense - Toni Collette Being John Malkovich - Catherine Keener Boys Don't Cry - Chloë Sevigny Sweet and Lowdown - Samantha Morton Boys Don't Cry is a biopic about Teena Brandon aka Brandon Teena, a transsexual man who was ultimately raped and murdered in rural Nebraska in 1993. Swank plays Brandon, and as the film opens, Brandon is establishing his male identity in appearance while fleeing his hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska, for nearby Falls City due to some petty thefts and other misdemeanors for which a warrant for his arrest has been distributed. While in Falls City, Brandon becomes associated with a rough crowd, including John (Peter Saarsgard), Tom (Brendan Sexton III), and Lana (Sevigny), for whom Brandon falls and who used to date John. While Brandon lives with another member of the group, Candace (Alecia Goranson - Becky from Roseanne!), he also gets a reputation for being a bit of a ladies' man. The film explores the growing relationship, sexual and romantic, between Lana and Brandon that begins almost immediately, but when the warrant for his arrest catches up with Brandon, he is jailed in the women's section of the prison, and the local paper publishes the arrest. Lana visits him and is accepting of the truth, but when John, Tom, and John's family learn that Brandon is biologically female, they visit their bigotry upon Brandon with the worst ultimate consequences. This film is actually very well put together, thanks to the direction of Kimberly Peirce, in her debut outing. She clearly thoroughly researched her subject and put together the building blocks of this film in an engaging way. Between creative uses of lighting and camera and a well-chosen soundtrack, she heightened the emotional intensity of an already emotionally intense subject and made it hard to look away even as it was hard to watch. As an independent picture, there weren't many flashy technical elements, but Peirce strategically and artistically painted Brandon's chaotic life with washes of light and dark that upped the emotional ante of the picture. Of course, the true trademark of this film is the no less than gutsy and riveting performance of Swank. Of the five Best Actress films nominated from 1999, I've only seen two now: American Beauty and this one. While Annette Bening was truly nutty and interesting in the former, which is one of my favorite films, I can't imagine how Swank would lose this award at the time she was given it. She took on a difficult character - difficult not only because Brandon was a transman but also because the emotional context was so powerfully confused and gut-skewering by the time Brandon's physical gender is discovered - and she did it in such a way that disbelief was completely suspended. Of the supporting actress nominees for 1999, I have seen three: this film, The Sixth Sense, and Being John Malkovich. I have not seen the winner, Girl, Interrupted, so I can't comment as to whether Angelina Jolie deserved to win that particular award. I can surmise that this was also a tough role for Sevigny, playing a woman confused but ultimately accepting of her relationship with someone having a sexual identity crisis, who is left behind when John and Tom commit their heinous actions. She also played Lana extremely convincingly. It's Swank's and Sevigny's performances that define the film and make it as good as it is. Aside from these two actresses, however, the film isn't perfect. The performances from the rest of the ensemble, most of which are relatively unknown B-actors, are not quite as skillfully rendered, with the exception of Saarsgard, who put a fresh spin of evil on the consequences of old prejudices. Also, apparently some license was taken with the story, which is to be expected in a transition to film but can also serve to undermine the point of making the film to begin with. Apparently, the real Lana sued the filmmakers because of how her character was portrayed in addition to inaccurately showing some of the details and chronology of events, and since she's a sympathetic character (even if she is shown to be young and spun out on drugs), there is a problem with taking license in what is a biopic meant to highlight certain themes, such as bigotry against transgendered individuals. Also, I like the title of the film, but if you're going to use the title of a fairly well known Cure song, why use a remakeof the song in the film? Perhaps, Peirce couldn't get the rights, but the remaking artists could? I feel like both versions should have been included because I was personally expecting the Cure's version. It's a small gripe, but, again, it's the title of the film, and that's a fairly well known song. It was hard for me to love this picture because of its subject matter and minor flaws as stated above, but it's still a powerful and emotional movie that can inspire true anger and sadness at the state of the world today (or even just ten years ago). Transsexuality is still largely misunderstood if understood at all, but resorting to violence when confronted with what one does not understand is not right or appropriate, which is the underscoring theme of this piece. In ratings land, I think this film deserves an 8 for being very good but with minor flaws. In the test's land, I don't see it passing, simply because I could never watch this film more than once. It's hard to watch, and it should be - but because of that, it doesn't merit repeat viewings and, therefore, a place in my collection. Still, it's a good film, deserving of its Oscar, and recommendable to those interested in Brandon Teena's story.
]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:47:07 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts4/19/2009 3:47:07 PMWelcome to a new feature on Reel Thoughts &ndash; and, perhaps, something I should have begun a long time ago. In light of a recent discussion that heated up (in a good way) in the Oscars group (request membership!), I have decided, since my Netflix queue is pockmarked with contenders and winners of Oscars past and semi-present, that I would call attention to and/or highlight this status, since I frequently, if not always, am inspired to watch such films because the Academy saw fit to recognize them at least through nominations. Now, some may call that a narrow or limited worldview, but the fact of the matter is that I, personally, watch many types of films, not just Oscar films, and, just like for the AFI Project, this feature will be associated merely with what's up on the queue, not to the exclusion of viewing those other films (and will apply to only those films I haven't blogged about before--though I may go back and edit the others--and to those that are not on an AFI list). Notably, I am drawn to the Oscar contenders, though, because I love the broadcast with all of its overwrought pageantry, and sometimes, just sometimes, I think the Academy gets it right. So, for a film deemed an "Oscar Flashback," you'll see these new elements in addition to the format to which I, and perhaps you, have sort of grown accustomed in this blog (if you're paying attention at all, thank you): a mention of the Oscar for which the film was nominated or won and a list of the other nominees. It's important to have context, see. There will also be a comparison discussion, if at all possible &ndash; as in, did the film deserve to win or lose, not only in my humble estimation but also in the grand context of the awards themselves. After all, the most convolutedly celebrated and despised aspect of the Oscars is the political and populist propensity of the Academy to award some films and not others, deservingly or no. Of course, there are those who just don't like the concept of an Oscars, but, to those readers, I would submit that this portion of my blog is probably not your cup of tea anyway. So, the first Oscar entry flashback is Boys Don't Cry (which is also the first of the quintet of LGBT-themed Oscar films I alluded to previously), for which Hilary Swank won the Best Actress Oscar and for which Chloe Sevigny was nominated for Best Supporting Actress (film year 1999; awarding year 2000). The other nominees in both categories were: Boys Don't Cry - Hilary Swank American Beauty - Annette Bening The End of the Affair - Julianne Moore Music of the Heart - Meryl Streep Tumbleweeds - Janet McTeer Girl, Interrupted - Angelina Jolie The Sixth Sense - Toni Collette Being John Malkovich - Catherine Keener Boys Don't Cry - Chlo&euml; Sevigny Sweet and Lowdown - Samantha Morton Boys Don't Cry is a biopic about Teena Brandon aka Brandon Teena, a transsexual man who was ultimately raped and murdered in rural Nebraska in 1993. Swank plays Brandon, and as the film opens, Brandon is establishing his male identity in appearance while fleeing his hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska, for nearby Falls City due to some petty thefts and other misdemeanors for which a warrant for his arrest has been distributed. While in Falls City, Brandon becomes associated with a rough crowd, including John (Peter Saarsgard), Tom (Brendan Sexton III), and Lana (Sevigny), for whom Brandon falls and who used to date John. While Brandon lives with another member of the group, Candace (Alecia Goranson - Becky from Roseanne!), he also gets a reputation for being a bit of a ladies' man. The film explores the growing relationship, sexual and romantic, between Lana and Brandon that begins almost immediately, but when the warrant for his arrest catches up with Brandon, he is jailed in the women's section of the prison, and the local paper publishes the arrest. Lana visits him and is accepting of the truth, but when John, Tom, and John's family learn that Brandon is biologically female, they visit their bigotry upon Brandon with the worst ultimate consequences. This film is actually very well put together, thanks to the direction of Kimberly Peirce, in her debut outing. She clearly thoroughly researched her subject and put together the building blocks of this film in an engaging way. Between creative uses of lighting and camera and a well-chosen soundtrack, she heightened the emotional intensity of an already emotionally intense subject and made it hard to look away even as it was hard to watch. As an independent picture, there weren't many flashy technical elements, but Peirce strategically and artistically painted Brandon's chaotic life with washes of light and dark that upped the emotional ante of the picture. Of course, the true trademark of this film is the no less than gutsy and riveting performance of Swank. Of the five Best Actress films nominated from 1999, I've only seen two now: American Beauty and this one. While Annette Bening was truly nutty and interesting in the former, which is one of my favorite films, I can't imagine how Swank would lose this award at the time she was given it. She took on a difficult character - difficult not only because Brandon was a transman but also because the emotional context was so powerfully confused and gut-skewering by the time Brandon's physical gender is discovered - and she did it in such a way that disbelief was completely suspended. Of the supporting actress nominees for 1999, I have seen three: this film, The Sixth Sense, and Being John Malkovich. I have not seen the winner, Girl, Interrupted, so I can't comment as to whether Angelina Jolie deserved to win that particular award. I can surmise that this was also a tough role for Sevigny, playing a woman confused but ultimately accepting of her relationship with someone having a sexual identity crisis, who is left behind when John and Tom commit their heinous actions. She also played Lana extremely convincingly. It's Swank's and Sevigny's performances that define the film and make it as good as it is. Aside from these two actresses, however, the film isn't perfect. The performances from the rest of the ensemble, most of which are relatively unknown B-actors, are not quite as skillfully rendered, with the exception of Saarsgard, who put a fresh spin of evil on the consequences of old prejudices. Also, apparently some license was taken with the story, which is to be expected in a transition to film but can also serve to undermine the point of making the film to begin with. Apparently, the real Lana sued the filmmakers because of how her character was portrayed in addition to inaccurately showing some of the details and chronology of events, and since she's a sympathetic character (even if she is shown to be young and spun out on drugs), there is a problem with taking license in what is a biopic meant to highlight certain themes, such as bigotry against transgendered individuals. Also, I like the title of the film, but if you're going to use the title of a fairly well known Cure song, why use a remakeof the song in the film? Perhaps, Peirce couldn't get the rights, but the remaking artists could? I feel like both versions should have been included because I was personally expecting the Cure's version. It's a small gripe, but, again, it's the title of the film, and that's a fairly well known song. It was hard for me to love this picture because of its subject matter and minor flaws as stated above, but it's still a powerful and emotional movie that can inspire true anger and sadness at the state of the world today (or even just ten years ago). Transsexuality is still largely misunderstood if understood at all, but resorting to violence when confronted with what one does not understand is not right or appropriate, which is the underscoring theme of this piece. In ratings land, I think this film deserves an 8 for being very good but with minor flaws. In the test's land, I don't see it passing, simply because I could never watch this film more than once. It's hard to watch, and it should be - but because of that, it doesn't merit repeat viewings and, therefore, a place in my collection. Still, it's a good film, deserving of its Oscar, and recommendable to those interested in Brandon Teena's story. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/27/39987.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/27/2009 5:01:13 PM
Body: Both are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/27/2009 5:01:13 PMBoth are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/edwa8698/archive/2008/10/13/36242.aspx Post By: edwa8698
Post To: edwa8698 Blog
Post Date: 10/13/2008 12:19:30 AM
Body: I have followed Hilary Swank's career since Next Karate Kid and have to say that she has showed real chops as an actress. This is probably her bravest and most known performance. The film itself is dark, disturbing and very, very inspiring. It talks about bigotry and ignorance. I can't really say anything about this other than watch it.
]]>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:19:30 GMTedwa8698edwa8698 Blog10/13/2008 12:19:30 AMI have followed Hilary Swank's career since Next Karate Kid and have to say that she has showed real chops as an actress. This is probably her bravest and most known performance. The film itself is dark, disturbing and very, very inspiring. It talks about bigotry and ignorance. I can't really say anything about this other than watch it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/10/8/36031.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 10/8/2008 12:09:05 PM
Body: I've recently watched a string of bad movies.They're not bad as in they never should have been made. It's more disappointing than that. They're bad because a good idea and often talent was wasted on poor execution.I should have known better than to throw away my time on them. They were all released in the dumping ground casually referred to as the Spring Season. Few decent U.S. films debut during this time. It's home for stupid family fare featuring Martin Lawrence (College Road Trip and Wild Hogs) and now random offerings from this year's unexpected double-dipper, Dennis Quaid. 2007 was a rare exception to the rule with Zodiac, Grindhouse, and the widely liked but personally loathed 300. Typically, it's an overall mess.The films that I ignored post-Oscar rush and pre-Summer Blockbuster are now on DVD and at the library. Since now I don't have to pay to see them, the slightest bit of interest that I suppressed in March and April by staying home now looks at me every day at work and has, in several cases, followed me home.The results have not been pretty.Smart People looked like another potential Wonder Boys. It was not. Thomas Hayden Church's performance was the only bright spot, but Quaid, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Ellen Page were wasted. The trailer for Vantage Point looked great. The actual thing was far from it. The movie makes you wonder what kind of dirt the director had on Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Forrest Whitaker, Matthew Fox, and, yes, Quaid.Then there's Stop-Loss, which holds a special place in my heart. It's the first movie that I've watched alone and couldn't get through.*I won't see just any movie. Pass the Grey Poupon. Since there are so many new releases in addition to the monstrous back-log of DVDs and videos, I can only see so many and the ones I choose to see must meet a certain criteria to even be considered. So, if I'm watching a film, it's certifiably special.Of the films I see, I like 95% of them. Of the sour 5%, I'll watch them to their completion because, up until now, my hope in them has been rewarded by enough imagination and intrigue on their part to keep me away from the Eject button. When the credits roll, I may not have liked what I've seen overall (see above titles), but, as was expected when the film became personally desirable, it had its moments. I wouldn't recommend these films, but they're not total disasters.Stop-Loss, however, is a class-5 hurricane hitting Cape Cod. It's hard to imagine a more heavy-handed approach to the Iraq war, and that's saying a lot. Give credit to co-writer/director Kimberly Peirce (who guided Hilary Swank to her first Oscar in Boys Don't Cry) for bluntly stating the opinions of returning (and subsequently departing) soldiers that aren't always voiced. These thoughts are genuine and I agree with them. They are also the same thing that Mr. Bullhorn is spouting in front of the White House.The ridiculously wooden dialogue and Ryan Phillippe at his unexpected worst (did they tape him when he was working out his Texas accent in rehearsals?) combined with a hokey plot to ruin a great concept. The hardships of this generation of soldiers' home lives had yet to be explored in a major film, but Stop-Loss does no justice to our military. The film adds to the pile of recent failed attempts to translate the current conflict to the screen, and had me skipping scenes by the half-hour mark. Unfortunately (or fortunately for my free time), the beginning of each new DVD chapter began with the same dumb talk or events that plagued the film's start. When the credits showed up, I was glad to be done. It's doubly disappointing that I was forced to skim through the rest because the opening Iraq combat scenes were done so well. Peirce does a fantastic job of depicting the mammoth tension of Baghdad roadblocks and of putting the audience amidst the squad as they fall under attack. She should have stayed in the Middle East and taken most of the Spring releases with her.But it's not all a pile of poo.Drillbit Taylor was awful on most fronts, but there was enough charm and general Owen-Wilsonness to elicit a positive feeling. Most surprising was In Bruges, a.k.a. Colin Farrell's Coming Out Party. Witty dialogue: check. Great acting: check. Expert direction and cinematography: check, check. Everything I could want from a film is found in this sleepy Belgium town. Plus, Mr. Consistency (Ralph Fiennes) is there in a role that rivals his Voldemort, Tooth Fairy (Red Dragon), and Amon Goeth (Schindler's List) for Most Menacing. The guy can play bad and play it very well.But these two bright spots (one, really) don't excuse the regularity of stinkers during this time of the year. Spring should be left for Oscar-nominated films that were given little or no release to be screened at the national level. Often, excellent foreign films will trickle in during this time, and they're welcome, too. Studios are cheating audiences and themselves by putting out sub-par material Spring after Spring. Filmgoers deserve more. Spring is an opportunity for catching up on the under-appreciated foreign, indie, documentary, and short films. We should continually be celebrating the best, not being fed soggy leftovers. Anything less is not good enough.Are you with me?*My fiancee Sarah embraces the attitude that you don't have to finish a book if you don't like it or don't want to. I agree with that, but since I read about 1/10 as many titles as she does in a year, the books I choose meet an even harder criteria than the films I see. If you look at my GoodReads ratings, you won't find anything I read outside of school that I didn't at least like (and, more than likely, loved). She also, according to the frequency in which she conks out on the sofa, believes that you don't have to finish a film. With Stop-Loss, despite my rigorous initial screening process, perhaps I've come to agree with that, too. It's not that I didn't believe you could drop a film; I'd just never been pushed to the point of losing faith in a film ever getting better. Still, since I continue to keep up my guard, I don't expect to repeat the Stop-Loss massacre very often.
]]>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:09:05 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog10/8/2008 12:09:05 PMI've recently watched a string of bad movies.They're not bad as in they never should have been made. It's more disappointing than that. They're bad because a good idea and often talent was wasted on poor execution.I should have known better than to throw away my time on them. They were all released in the dumping ground casually referred to as the Spring Season. Few decent U.S. films debut during this time. It's home for stupid family fare featuring Martin Lawrence (College Road Trip and Wild Hogs) and now random offerings from this year's unexpected double-dipper, Dennis Quaid. 2007 was a rare exception to the rule with Zodiac, Grindhouse, and the widely liked but personally loathed 300. Typically, it's an overall mess.The films that I ignored post-Oscar rush and pre-Summer Blockbuster are now on DVD and at the library. Since now I don't have to pay to see them, the slightest bit of interest that I suppressed in March and April by staying home now looks at me every day at work and has, in several cases, followed me home.The results have not been pretty.Smart People looked like another potential Wonder Boys. It was not. Thomas Hayden Church's performance was the only bright spot, but Quaid, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Ellen Page were wasted. The trailer for Vantage Point looked great. The actual thing was far from it. The movie makes you wonder what kind of dirt the director had on Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Forrest Whitaker, Matthew Fox, and, yes, Quaid.Then there's Stop-Loss, which holds a special place in my heart. It's the first movie that I've watched alone and couldn't get through.*I won't see just any movie. Pass the Grey Poupon. Since there are so many new releases in addition to the monstrous back-log of DVDs and videos, I can only see so many and the ones I choose to see must meet a certain criteria to even be considered. So, if I'm watching a film, it's certifiably special.Of the films I see, I like 95% of them. Of the sour 5%, I'll watch them to their completion because, up until now, my hope in them has been rewarded by enough imagination and intrigue on their part to keep me away from the Eject button. When the credits roll, I may not have liked what I've seen overall (see above titles), but, as was expected when the film became personally desirable, it had its moments. I wouldn't recommend these films, but they're not total disasters.Stop-Loss, however, is a class-5 hurricane hitting Cape Cod. It's hard to imagine a more heavy-handed approach to the Iraq war, and that's saying a lot. Give credit to co-writer/director Kimberly Peirce (who guided Hilary Swank to her first Oscar in Boys Don't Cry) for bluntly stating the opinions of returning (and subsequently departing) soldiers that aren't always voiced. These thoughts are genuine and I agree with them. They are also the same thing that Mr. Bullhorn is spouting in front of the White House.The ridiculously wooden dialogue and Ryan Phillippe at his unexpected worst (did they tape him when he was working out his Texas accent in rehearsals?) combined with a hokey plot to ruin a great concept. The hardships of this generation of soldiers' home lives had yet to be explored in a major film, but Stop-Loss does no justice to our military. The film adds to the pile of recent failed attempts to translate the current conflict to the screen, and had me skipping scenes by the half-hour mark. Unfortunately (or fortunately for my free time), the beginning of each new DVD chapter began with the same dumb talk or events that plagued the film's start. When the credits showed up, I was glad to be done. It's doubly disappointing that I was forced to skim through the rest because the opening Iraq combat scenes were done so well. Peirce does a fantastic job of depicting the mammoth tension of Baghdad roadblocks and of putting the audience amidst the squad as they fall under attack. She should have stayed in the Middle East and taken most of the Spring releases with her.But it's not all a pile of poo.Drillbit Taylor was awful on most fronts, but there was enough charm and general Owen-Wilsonness to elicit a positive feeling. Most surprising was In Bruges, a.k.a. Colin Farrell's Coming Out Party. Witty dialogue: check. Great acting: check. Expert direction and cinematography: check, check. Everything I could want from a film is found in this sleepy Belgium town. Plus, Mr. Consistency (Ralph Fiennes) is there in a role that rivals his Voldemort, Tooth Fairy (Red Dragon), and Amon Goeth (Schindler's List) for Most Menacing. The guy can play bad and play it very well.But these two bright spots (one, really) don't excuse the regularity of stinkers during this time of the year. Spring should be left for Oscar-nominated films that were given little or no release to be screened at the national level. Often, excellent foreign films will trickle in during this time, and they're welcome, too. Studios are cheating audiences and themselves by putting out sub-par material Spring after Spring. Filmgoers deserve more. Spring is an opportunity for catching up on the under-appreciated foreign, indie, documentary, and short films. We should continually be celebrating the best, not being fed soggy leftovers. Anything less is not good enough.Are you with me?*My fiancee Sarah embraces the attitude that you don't have to finish a book if you don't like it or don't want to. I agree with that, but since I read about 1/10 as many titles as she does in a year, the books I choose meet an even harder criteria than the films I see. If you look at my GoodReads ratings, you won't find anything I read outside of school that I didn't at least like (and, more than likely, loved). She also, according to the frequency in which she conks out on the sofa, believes that you don't have to finish a film. With Stop-Loss, despite my rigorous initial screening process, perhaps I've come to agree with that, too. It's not that I didn't believe you could drop a film; I'd just never been pushed to the point of losing faith in a film ever getting better. Still, since I continue to keep up my guard, I don't expect to repeat the Stop-Loss massacre very often. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/28906.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 5:13:57 AM
Body: (There are some spoilers here, but as the film is based on a well known incident, I'm not giving much away) One of the most critically acclaimed films of 1999, Boys Don't Cry is an effective piece of cinema with a harrowing climax. Although it was contraversial for its gay-friendly message, it's more of a true-to-life drama than an Oliver Stone-like political tract. It makes some effective social commentray along the way because its argurments those are the only possible conclusions a reasonable person could reach. The movie is based on the tragic life story Brandon Teena, a Nebraskian biological female who felt that she was really a man. Lacking the funds for a sex change operation, s/he simply dressed and acted masculine and things went reasonable well until John Lotter and Marvin Nisson, two of Brandon's male friends, found out his secret and brutally raped him in retaltion. After Brandon reported the crime to the police, he and two of his friends were murderd in an apparent effort to destroy evidence on New Year's Eve, 1993. After his death, Brandon's mother successfulyl sued John Laux, the sherrif that Brandon had reported his rape to, for failing to protect him from the rapists. The two killers were both found guilty, Nisson sentecned to life in prison and Lotter receiving the death penatly. The film stays reasonably close the facts and doesn't claim to be an exact account of exactly what happend as so many films of this kind do. Although there are some inappropraite music video-type touches from director Pearce, much of the film comes off as realistic, beleivable and unsensational. What is crucial to the movies success is the three-deminsional chararcters. Brandon Teena, as played by Hilary Swank (who won a Best Actress Oscar), is a complicated but essentialy sweet and kind person, although he is not very intelligent and makes some poor choices (committing minor theft) and keeping bad company. The tragidity at the end of the film is even more sad because Brandon is an actual person and not a perfect figure whose sole purpose in the script is to be killed. The other crucial character to the film is John Lotter (Peter Sarsgaard), who (in the film anyway) is a human and not demonic figure. Lotter genuinly likes Brandon as a friend and is a good father to his young daughter, which is why his murderous homophobia at the end of the film is so hard to watch. The film presents a small town society so prejudiced that we cam understand (although of course not accept) why he feels so betrayed by Brandon and his "sickness" and why he acts the way he does. The love affair that grows between Brandon and his girlfriend Lara (Chloe Sevingey) is moving as well. The major flaw of the film is until the third act there is no real story, and as such the movie feels like a series of tenously related events and scenes. Some are interesting, some are not, and the movie could probably be about fifteen minuets shorter. But when the horrible events occur, the movie takes on a real emotional reasoance. The violence of the rape and murder is hard to watch, and Lara's faithfulness is all the more moving. It's not perfect, but Boys Don't Cry is great human drama that (and you know how rarely I say things like this) might actually make someone who is homophobic at least reconsider their stance. That's a real achievement, and an important one. Boys Don't Cry (1999)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 09:13:57 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 5:13:57 AM(There are some spoilers here, but as the film is based on a well known incident, I'm not giving much away) One of the most critically acclaimed films of 1999, Boys Don't Cry is an effective piece of cinema with a harrowing climax. Although it was contraversial for its gay-friendly message, it's more of a true-to-life drama than an Oliver Stone-like political tract. It makes some effective social commentray along the way because its argurments those are the only possible conclusions a reasonable person could reach. The movie is based on the tragic life story Brandon Teena, a Nebraskian biological female who felt that she was really a man. Lacking the funds for a sex change operation, s/he simply dressed and acted masculine and things went reasonable well until John Lotter and Marvin Nisson, two of Brandon's male friends, found out his secret and brutally raped him in retaltion. After Brandon reported the crime to the police, he and two of his friends were murderd in an apparent effort to destroy evidence on New Year's Eve, 1993. After his death, Brandon's mother successfulyl sued John Laux, the sherrif that Brandon had reported his rape to, for failing to protect him from the rapists. The two killers were both found guilty, Nisson sentecned to life in prison and Lotter receiving the death penatly. The film stays reasonably close the facts and doesn't claim to be an exact account of exactly what happend as so many films of this kind do. Although there are some inappropraite music video-type touches from director Pearce, much of the film comes off as realistic, beleivable and unsensational. What is crucial to the movies success is the three-deminsional chararcters. Brandon Teena, as played by Hilary Swank (who won a Best Actress Oscar), is a complicated but essentialy sweet and kind person, although he is not very intelligent and makes some poor choices (committing minor theft) and keeping bad company. The tragidity at the end of the film is even more sad because Brandon is an actual person and not a perfect figure whose sole purpose in the script is to be killed. The other crucial character to the film is John Lotter (Peter Sarsgaard), who (in the film anyway) is a human and not demonic figure. Lotter genuinly likes Brandon as a friend and is a good father to his young daughter, which is why his murderous homophobia at the end of the film is so hard to watch. The film presents a small town society so prejudiced that we cam understand (although of course not accept) why he feels so betrayed by Brandon and his "sickness" and why he acts the way he does. The love affair that grows between Brandon and his girlfriend Lara (Chloe Sevingey) is moving as well. The major flaw of the film is until the third act there is no real story, and as such the movie feels like a series of tenously related events and scenes. Some are interesting, some are not, and the movie could probably be about fifteen minuets shorter. But when the horrible events occur, the movie takes on a real emotional reasoance. The violence of the rape and murder is hard to watch, and Lara's faithfulness is all the more moving. It's not perfect, but Boys Don't Cry is great human drama that (and you know how rarely I say things like this) might actually make someone who is homophobic at least reconsider their stance. That's a real achievement, and an important one. Boys Don't Cry (1999) http://www.spout.com/blogs/bitelittledogy4/archive/2008/1/3/23454.aspx Post By: bitelittledogy4
Post To: bitelittledogy4 Blog
Post Date: 1/3/2008 12:49:45 AM
Body: When I watch a film and it leaves me thinking... for days... I know i've really enjoyed it, and this film did that to me... I just couldn't forget about certain scenes for days... I felt for this film.....
]]>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:49:45 GMTbitelittledogy4bitelittledogy4 Blog1/3/2008 12:49:45 AMWhen I watch a film and it leaves me thinking... for days... I know i&#39;ve really enjoyed it, and this film did that to me... I just couldn&#39;t forget about certain scenes for days... I felt for this film..... http://www.spout.com/groups/Double_Feature/Re_Re_Unlikely_Double_Features/426/21705/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: gambrel83
Post To: Double Feature
Post Date: 11/15/2007 1:14:25 PM
Body: The Children's Hour (1961) and Boys Don't Cry (1999) Both films deal with sexuality issues, but in different ways. I think they were both revolutionary and important for their time.
]]>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:14:25 GMTgambrel83Double Feature11/15/2007 1:14:25 PMThe Children&#39;s Hour (1961) and Boys Don&#39;t Cry (1999) Both films deal with sexuality issues, but in different ways. I think they were both revolutionary and important for their time. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/8/14/18028.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 8/14/2007 1:04:00 AM
Body: While drag humor is definitely not new to movies, queer drag may only be relatively new to mainstream film. Whether or not you care to differentiate between straight and gay men playing women, and straight and gay men playing gay men playing women, it’s all about interpretation. It’s all about spin. Breeder or queer, they’re making a statement about the excesses of feminine behavior, and what sort of comportment society expects of its’ women. Of course now, while Patrick Swayze may be copying gay men in a movie like, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar or doing his best to tap into his own homoerotic energy, that can be very different from Charles Busch doing a (relatively subtle) caricature of the whiskey-voiced matriarch in Die Mommie Die! Queer drag always carries the implication that gay men can trump self-identified, biologically designated females when wielding bitchy attitude. It is, without a doubt, a step forward that major studios are willing to pick up films like: Boys Don’t Cry, Die Mommie Die! and Girls Will Be Girls where alternate gender expression is a thematic component, especially in comedies where we understand the illusion of gender is used to mock society’s expectations and assumptions. It’s obsessive need to identify and limit gender as if it could be reduced to list of gestures and clothes. It may be the need for major studios to refine and advance Queer Drag Humor that’s throwing off the chemistry. As anyone who has visited the Rose Room (or any other Queer Drag Venue) will tell you, often the best drag is evolved from traditional burlesque with its’ over-the-top affectations and raunchy, iconoclastic gags. I would not (in this case) presume to suggest a formula, but for some reason the humor in movies like Girls Will Be Girls isn’t connecting. The three main characters: Evie, the salty, aging, degenerate movie diva, Varla, the sweet-natured ingenue, and Coco, Evie’s long-suffering housekeeper and companion are anything but demure. Hence the irony that informs 90% of the jokes. Gay men playing women without restrictions. Who in a sense are as “free” as men. Free to fuck, free to fart, free to puke on camera. In the best tradition of camp comedy we see them at their worst moments or casually revealing the most unsavory details of their personal lives. Coco seduces every guy she meets, desperate for another visit to her dreamy abortion doctor. Varla devours a can of spray cheese without bothering to use crackers. Evie reveals she’s had more “babies pulled out of me than a burning orphanage.” Early in his career, John Waters showed us movies didn’t have to be tasteful, big budget or subtle to be funny. Or to work. Movies like Desperate Living, Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, starring the legendary Divine, were trashy, grotesque, worse than amateurish and funny as hell. Waters reveled in his lack of polish. And perhaps that’s what is missing from Girls Will Be Girls. You don’t have to be familiar with early silent films to know that “talkies” required a different kind of acting technique. Delivery with finesse and understatement. But queer drag may conceivably turn that on its head. The content of Girls Will Be Girls feels right. It’s nasty and perverse and unapologetic but the performances, which may have been subdued for the screen, don’t facilitate it. Writer/director Richard Day is walking a tightrope and the retorts (sometimes badly timed) haven’t got any bounce. Mostly they plummet. I love the retro-look, the goofs on television’s desire to empower female characters while still knuckling under to glitz, fashion and allure. They can dress Milton Berle or Flip Wilson or Boys in the Hall in “female attire” but give Sheila Kuehl and Meg Foster the boot because they’re too dykey. I love the sets with that tacky trendy bourgeois charm that was so prevalent a few decades ago. I love the three leads: Jack Plotnick, Clinton Leupp and Jeffery Roberson. Plotnick gets particular credit for the first naked drag I’ve ever seen. While they may not have gotten the tone right (Day’s responsibility) there’s no question of their considerable talent. Though seriously flawed, Girls Will Be Girls is noteworthy for testing uncharted waters. Queer Drag is a unique genre and it could take awhile to find how it best translates to film. Ironically, movies that treat gender-shift as drama, so far seem to be more successful. To borrow wisdom from David Henry Hwang, the successful illusion of gender comes less from emulating women than creating what men want them to be. By using queer grasp of the feminine, Richard Day spoofs this illusion, rather than the men who cross-dress to cultivate female energy. He may be pioneering new cinematic territory.
]]>Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:04:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun8/14/2007 1:04:00 AM While drag humor is definitely not new to movies, queer drag may only be relatively new to mainstream film. Whether or not you care to differentiate between straight and gay men playing women, and straight and gay men playing gay men playing women, it&rsquo;s all about interpretation. It&rsquo;s all about spin. Breeder or queer, they&rsquo;re making a statement about the excesses of feminine behavior, and what sort of comportment society expects of its&rsquo; women. Of course now, while Patrick Swayze may be copying gay men in a movie like, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar or doing his best to tap into his own homoerotic energy, that can be very different from Charles Busch doing a (relatively subtle) caricature of the whiskey-voiced matriarch in Die Mommie Die! Queer drag always carries the implication that gay men can trump self-identified, biologically designated females when wielding bitchy attitude. It is, without a doubt, a step forward that major studios are willing to pick up films like: Boys Don&rsquo;t Cry, Die Mommie Die! and Girls Will Be Girls where alternate gender expression is a thematic component, especially in comedies where we understand the illusion of gender is used to mock society&rsquo;s expectations and assumptions. It&rsquo;s obsessive need to identify and limit gender as if it could be reduced to list of gestures and clothes. It may be the need for major studios to refine and advance Queer Drag Humor that&rsquo;s throwing off the chemistry. As anyone who has visited the Rose Room (or any other Queer Drag Venue) will tell you, often the best drag is evolved from traditional burlesque with its&rsquo; over-the-top affectations and raunchy, iconoclastic gags. I would not (in this case) presume to suggest a formula, but for some reason the humor in movies like Girls Will Be Girls isn&rsquo;t connecting. The three main characters: Evie, the salty, aging, degenerate movie diva, Varla, the sweet-natured ingenue, and Coco, Evie&rsquo;s long-suffering housekeeper and companion are anything but demure. Hence the irony that informs 90% of the jokes. Gay men playing women without restrictions. Who in a sense are as &ldquo;free&rdquo; as men. Free to fuck, free to fart, free to puke on camera. In the best tradition of camp comedy we see them at their worst moments or casually revealing the most unsavory details of their personal lives. Coco seduces every guy she meets, desperate for another visit to her dreamy abortion doctor. Varla devours a can of spray cheese without bothering to use crackers. Evie reveals she&rsquo;s had more &ldquo;babies pulled out of me than a burning orphanage.&rdquo; Early in his career, John Waters showed us movies didn&rsquo;t have to be tasteful, big budget or subtle to be funny. Or to work. Movies like Desperate Living, Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, starring the legendary Divine, were trashy, grotesque, worse than amateurish and funny as hell. Waters reveled in his lack of polish. And perhaps that&rsquo;s what is missing from Girls Will Be Girls. You don&rsquo;t have to be familiar with early silent films to know that &ldquo;talkies&rdquo; required a different kind of acting technique. Delivery with finesse and understatement. But queer drag may conceivably turn that on its head. The content of Girls Will Be Girls feels right. It&rsquo;s nasty and perverse and unapologetic but the performances, which may have been subdued for the screen, don&rsquo;t facilitate it. Writer/director Richard Day is walking a tightrope and the retorts (sometimes badly timed) haven&rsquo;t got any bounce. Mostly they plummet. I love the retro-look, the goofs on television&rsquo;s desire to empower female characters while still knuckling under to glitz, fashion and allure. They can dress Milton Berle or Flip Wilson or Boys in the Hall in &ldquo;female attire&rdquo; but give Sheila Kuehl and Meg Foster the boot because they&rsquo;re too dykey. I love the sets with that tacky trendy bourgeois charm that was so prevalent a few decades ago. I love the three leads: Jack Plotnick, Clinton Leupp and Jeffery Roberson. Plotnick gets particular credit for the first naked drag I&rsquo;ve ever seen. While they may not have gotten the tone right (Day&rsquo;s responsibility) there&rsquo;s no question of their considerable talent. Though seriously flawed, Girls Will Be Girls is noteworthy for testing uncharted waters. Queer Drag is a unique genre and it could take awhile to find how it best translates to film. Ironically, movies that treat gender-shift as drama, so far seem to be more successful. To borrow wisdom from David Henry Hwang, the successful illusion of gender comes less from emulating women than creating what men want them to be. By using queer grasp of the feminine, Richard Day spoofs this illusion, rather than the men who cross-dress to cultivate female energy. He may be pioneering new cinematic territory. http://www.spout.com/groups/Double_Feature/Re_Unlikely_Double_Features/426/17526/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: Double Feature
Post Date: 8/7/2007 2:08:34 PM
Body: [quote user="porcupine"] here's an example of a double feature that i think would bring out aspects of each film that wouldn't surface otherwise:Predator and Kindergarten Cop [/quote]Porcupine, if you put up a pair like that, you need to splain it. My first guess is that you had to help out in a kindergarten class one time and it totally freaked you out? (But no. If you were comparing kindergarten children to predators, like I hoped, you would have put the movies in the opposite order. So I guess this is like Fistful of Dollars and Bronco Billy or Terminator and Junior.)In which case I offer Going My Way and Bad Education.Perspectives on war:Letters from Iwo Jima and We Were SoldiersPaths of Glory and JarheadTimes change:Max and Der Untergang (Downfall)Pan's Labyrinth and L'Auberge Espagnole
]]>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:08:34 GMTjoem18bDouble Feature8/7/2007 2:08:34 PM[quote user="porcupine"] here&#39;s an example of a double feature that i think would bring out aspects of each film that wouldn&#39;t surface otherwise:Predator and Kindergarten Cop [/quote]Porcupine, if you put up a pair like that, you need to splain it. My first guess is that you had to help out in a kindergarten class one time and it totally freaked you out? (But no. If you were comparing kindergarten children to predators, like I hoped, you would have put the movies in the opposite order. So I guess this is like Fistful of Dollars and Bronco Billy or Terminator and Junior.)In which case I offer Going My Way and Bad Education.Perspectives on war:Letters from Iwo Jima and We Were SoldiersPaths of Glory and JarheadTimes change:Max and Der Untergang (Downfall)Pan&#39;s Labyrinth and L&#39;Auberge Espagnole http://www.spout.com/groups/What_An_Ending/A_Tragic_Ending/343/12648/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: blakngold
Post To: What An Ending
Post Date: 6/29/2007 9:28:08 PM
Body: I've not seen "All the Real Girls" yet but I do plan on watching it soon. But that movie did remind me of a truly raw and tragically emotional ending in the great film Boys Don't Cry. What did all of you think of the ending of that film?
]]>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:28:08 GMTblakngoldWhat An Ending6/29/2007 9:28:08 PMI've not seen "All the Real Girls" yet but I do plan on watching it soon. But that movie did remind me of a truly raw and tragically emotional ending in the great film Boys Don't Cry. What did all of you think of the ending of that film? http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1479

]]>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:48:35 GMT124783381479Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7160

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1002

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT71601691002Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/violent/MemberTagFilms.aspxviolent
Number of films tagged: 97

Number of people who tagged: 57

Number of times used: 153

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:06 GMT9757153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rape/MemberTagFilms.aspxrape
Number of films tagged: 1050

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:01 GMT105054124Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationship/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationship
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 189

]]>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:18:01 GMT109050189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/emotional/MemberTagFilms.aspxemotional
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 106

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:06 GMT6645106Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/boy/MemberTagFilms.aspxboy
Number of films tagged: 1318

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 60

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT13183660Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lesbian/MemberTagFilms.aspxlesbian
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 70

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:01:03 GMT583570Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lies/MemberTagFilms.aspxlies
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 85

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT1873285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nudity/MemberTagFilms.aspxnudity
Number of films tagged: 297

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 99

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:36:31 GMT2973199Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/small-town/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmall-town
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 62

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:39 GMT532862Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bar/MemberTagFilms.aspxbar
Number of films tagged: 36

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 48

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:58:40 GMT362648Tag