kristen Blog

Selfish bedtime stories

kristen — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:30:37 GMT

Bedtime Stories (2008, Adam Shankman, USA) **1/2

Cinema explores the ways in which fiction and life interact to the point of cliché. That is not to say that this theme is not worth exploring. Many movies (Stranger than Fiction), and many kid's movies use the theme in a charming and profound way (My favorite of these kids movies are Labyrinth and Spirited Away). But so many kids' movies use this theme (like Enchanted, The Never Ending Story, A Kid in King Arthur's Court) that I groaned at the idea of another one. I hoped that Bedtime Stories wouldn't be as bad as the most basic exploration of this theme, the dream wakeup twist. The idea of "It's not real, it's all a dream. Or is it…" The dream wakeup shows that fantasy does have real effects, but who cares? Obviously I came into the movie with very low expectations. I expected the to see the simple idea that stories have an effect on real life and real life shapes stories. And that essentially is the story of the movie. But the characters defy the conventions of the theme in such a way as to make this movie worth watching.

Skeeter Bronson (Adam Sandler) is an atypically selfish person for the hero of a fairy tale. While babysitting as a favor for his sister, Skeeter quickly finds out that his niece and nephew have prophetic imaginations. When together the three create a bedtime story, mysteriously the story manifests the next day into a real life equivalent. And Skeeter, being a selfish person, immediately realizes the many ways he can use this for his personal advantage. For the rest of the movie, Skeeter tries to manipulate the kids into writing the perfect scenario for his life- where he's the hero who gets the girl (Jill, played by Keri Russell), beats the enemy (Kendall, played by Guy Pierce), saves the town, pleases his boss (Barry Nottingham, played by Richard Griffiths), and gets his dream job (running a hotel) so that he lives happily ever after. Even when the kids write a bad ending for him, he doesn't tell them their powers and enlist their help. He instead tries to counteract their ending through means of his own (and by making himself fireproof).

Skeeter's best friend Mickey (Russell Brand) graces us with a unique kind of stupidity. He is not the same kind of stupid as Lloyd Christmas, Peter Griffith, or Billy Madison though he has the same IQ. Brand works with standard material (like the joke that he's too stupid to read) and makes his own brand (haha) of hilarity. Maybe it's because he looks like a European snob that his stupidity is so refreshing. Mickey has an ineffable magic worthy of a comedic starring role. He immensely adds to the enjoyment of the movie.

Bedtime Stories ends in cliché fashion of happily ever after. Skeeter, however, is rewarded for his selfishness. What kind of moral is that? Skeeter gets everything he wants from life because he manipulated others and decided to use the kids magic on himself instead of trying to do something noble like save the world or end poverty (which he easily could have done). This at least gives the movie some dimension and brings it a little closer to life, which is what it intended to do all along.

It is written to manipulate

kristen — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:06:10 GMT

Slumdog Millionaire (2008, Danny Boyle, USA/UK) zero stars

The movie opens with a device it will use to tell the rest of the story- a question followed by a very pointed yet mystical explanation of how Jamal will succeed. Jamal is one question away from winning 20 million rupees. How did he do it? A. He cheated. B. He’s lucky. C. He’s a genius. D. It is destiny. It is written. And that is half of the problem. Jamal’s life has a predetermined outcome calculated by the filmmaker to meet the desires of a hopeful audience.

Police kidnap Jamal (they suspect him of cheating on game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire) and torture him in order to elicit a confession. Torture methods of our innocent victim include beating, suspension by the arms, and electrocution. From this moment the audience naturally sympathizes with innocent hero. Jamal maintains that you don't have to be a genius to know the answers to those questions. Intrigued at this slumdog's stubbornness, the authorities agree to listen to an explanation, question by question, of how Jamal knows the answers. This device allows the movie to explore Jamal's life, providing insight into his character and setting up the love story.

Jamal explains situation after situation where he is the victim of some horrible atrocity (like having to jump in excrement because of his brother, having his mother's head bashed in before his eyes, him inches away from being blinded by an orphan collector, leaving his love in the hands of this horrible man, being threatened at gunpoint by his brother, and finally his brother raping the love of his life Lakita (she agrees so that Salim wont kill Jamal)). Each one of these atrocities explains how he knew the answer to the game show questions. Unfortunately, he did not learn a single thing at school (the final question asks about The Three Musketeers, a book he was supposed to read). Fortunately, his life “is written".

We learn that we are dealing with a saint. Everything Jamal says is true. Here is a person who never inflicts harm on others. A person who is always innocent but always suffers. Even being on the show tortures Jamal for he must relive these horrible events. Because of his propensity for truth, the police come to believe what we knew from the beginning, Jamal is innocent.

But memory is a funny thing. Memory, even the memory of saints, fails. What human can possibly relate the story of his/her life objectively? No human I know. No Holden Caulfield. No Guido. Not even me. However, the movie believes sincerely that Jamal is a completely reliable narrator and asks us to believe the same. This is how we know that the story is told by device, not person. Even a person who is truthful to a fault will tell his or her story unfaithfully. If the movie wants to give us a character, shouldn't it allow him to fail?

Jamal is infallible therefore he lacks human dimension. The movie tries to avoid this by saying that he is human but a mystical hand guides him to success. This touch of magic harms what could have been really beautiful about the movie- the love story. Again the movie relies on techniques, this time it’s a technique that continually separates Jamal and Latika to make their love seem urgent and to force magic into their final reunion. Because of Jamal’s magical destiny he finds Latika immediately every time he looks for her. In Mumbai, with 19 million people (as his brother Salim points out) Jamal finds Latika in less than thirty minutes. He asks one person and then there she is, waiting to run to Jamal. Yes, the story was written that way.

However, Jamal must win Latika. It seems that her heart knows money and security offer happiness. She refuses to run away with Jamal out of love even if it means suffering abuse from a rich misogynist. Jamal must win 20 million rupees to win her heart. The problem is that true love doesn’t love money; it loves the person. If the movie wanted genuine romance, it should have (SPOILER) allowed Jamal to loose the 20 million rupees but win the priceless prize of love. Then love will have its victory. Instead, we have reason to doubt Latika’s love. Why wouldn’t she run away with a rich friend who loves her, who she’s known all her life, and who will not beat her under any circumstance? Any woman like her would choose Jamal over an abusive millionaire.

It has been written that "Slumdog Millionaire is the film world's first globalized masterpiece" (Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal). It seems that some critics completely overlook the facts. Though there are many internationally known movies like Modern Times, La Strada, Titanic, I guess that Danny Boyle is the only filmmaker with an internationally recognized "masterpiece". Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times described it as "a Hollywood-style romantic melodrama that delivers major studio satisfactions in an ultra-modern way". Yes, every section does feature at least one club song in its entirety from ultra-modern artists such as M.I.A. "The film uses dazzling cinematography, breathless editing, driving music and headlong momentum to explode with narrative force, stirring in a romance at the same time" (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times). The characters do spend most of their time running. McCarthy concluded, "As drama and as a look at a country increasingly entering the world spotlight, Slumdog Millionaire is a vital piece of work by an outsider who's clearly connected with the place". How? By making a movie about it? (as my friend Ryan said).

As the movie readily admits "It is written”, written to manipulate this response from its audience.

Cruise so powerful he intimidates Hitler!

kristen — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:17:44 GMT

Valkyrie (2008, USA, Brian Singer) **

Clearly, there is something entertaining about trying to kill the world’s best movie villain- Hitler, leader of the (dare I say?) NAZIS!!! Yes, the same Nazi’s that grace Indiana Jones. And now in Valkyrie American icon Tom Cruise plays Claus von Stauffenberg- a Nazi who attempts to assassinate Hitler. Fortunately, Stauffenberg is not the villain Nazi we American’s know so well. He is the leader of American dreams- our dreams to stop an unstoppable evil force. Stauffenberg’s mission then is to show American’s that, contrary to what the movies tell us, not all Germans are evil Jew killing Nazis.

Cruise reprises his iconic role as a confident to the point of arrogant, unswerving individual, headstrong hero (as best seen in Top Gun and Mission Impossible). The historical Stauffenberg tells a fellow conspirator in their first meeting "Let's be blunt, I am committing high treason with all my might and main...." Such boldness from the historical person gives a fair clue into the (slightly odd) casting choice of Cruise as a German Nazi (Who thought Cruise could convincingly portray a German?). Though Cruise will always be American, his strength as Stauffenberg is this shared confidence in themselves and in their missions. Cruise’s natural intensity on screen fits the character needed to assassinate the ultimate villain.

Only in this movie, Cruise is so powerful that he intimidates Hitler. What kind of villain is this Hitler? This pale, meek Hitler bends at the knee at the sight of Cruise then lavishes him with the highest praise. This Hitler loves Cruise so much that he jumps at the chance to sign any document Cruise brings him. This trust seems most inspired by worship. Cruise has all the power but unfortunately, Hitler has all the luck.

Luck, the element Gen. Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp) warns Stauffenberg of when he reminds, “Nothing ever goes according to plan”. Why is it that the gods seem to be on the side of evil? How could God protect the man who most deserves to die? These men have done all that’s humanly possible to do what’s right and yet they fail. However, because of the form of the movie, this tragedy is overlooked.

Bryan Singer transforms history into a heist movie (of the conspiracy thriller kind). As typical of heist movies, Valkyrie has a three-act plot. In the first act the team comes together, the originators find their main conspirator Stauffenberg, and together they begin preparations for the coup. In heist fashion, the movie explains the type of bomb being used, explores the details of the room where the bomb will be detonated, and emphasizes the danger and shortage of time they will have to complete the assassination plot and initiate Operation Valkyrie. In the second act, Cruise plays mission impossible. He carries out the plan and puts Operation Valkyrie into effect. In the third act, things go wrong. Hopefully people know that Hitler does not die (he poisoned and shot himself). Though life does not go according to plan, Stauffenberg heroically proclaims, “Long live our Holy Germany!”.

The heist movie formula does not support tragedy because characters are traded for plot details. Character motivations are lost. The movie never explores why a member of Hitler’s party would turn on his leader? What conflicts would Stauffenberg have in putting his family at risk? Why is this mission so essential to their moral fiber? And the tragedy of the failed mission is not felt. Why was Hitler so lucky? Is there any justice in the world?

Most people know how Hitler died and so there is no suspense. Bryan Singer creates a false suspense by only revealing what Stauffenberg and the other conspirators’ think happened to Hitler, but we already know what they don’t. In the end, Singer tries to heighten the suspense but he should have heighted the sense of tragedy.

Changeling (2008, Clint Eastwood, USA) **

kristen — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:10:34 GMT

Clint Eastwood characters are like Sarah Palin saying repeatedly in the vice presidential debate that we need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. What she says is correct but one gets the feeling that she has no sophisticated understanding of the matter and no plan of attack (she lacks abstract thought). She correctly identifies an evil but simplifies it to a sound bite. In the same manner, Clint Eastwood portrays the corrupt LAPD as evil (which they may very well be) but reduces humans to flat charactures. Clint Eastwood in his simplistic manner says that the police force is corrupt and that we need to stop them. Is the matter really so black and white? Do all the people on the police force really have no soul? Is every action an act of pure evil? People and evil are more complex then Eastwood’s conception. This is an oversight that is an injustice to people and to evil. The rest of the movie follows this simplicity but does manage to have a few worthwhile moments.

Changeling first establishes how much Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) loves her son. When her son mysteriously disappears, Christine suffers injustice after injustice. First the corrupt LAPD deliver the wrong son. When she goes public with the news, pure evil Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) throws her into a mental institution to shut her up. Next come the shocking details of the child murderer in order to manipulate the audience to feel further sympathy. There is a turn of events thanks to Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). Christine and the Reverend proceed to right all the injustice. They expel the corrupt police force. They liberate the women in the mental hospital (who are wrongfully there because of the more police cruelty). They see that the child murderer receives the death penalty. And they continue to search for her lost son. To be sure, Christine never shy’s away from her responsibility (a running theme in the movie).

The one mature decision Clint Eastwood makes during the movie (that is to say a non-manipulative, unexpected move that helps the story) comes when Christine visits the child murderer Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Harner) the day before his execution. Everyone expects the murderer to admit that he killed Walter so that Christine can have some closure in her life. When he doesn’t tell her in the interview everyone expects him to shout it from the platform seconds before his hanging. Instead he takes his secret to the grave. This silence fits the character and allows the movie to continue because though unresolved, Christine now has hope.

Harner gives a great performance. As a villain he manages to be creepy but almost too mentally off to hate. In his own strange way he is charming (even though we saw him viciously hacking child to death). He has a strange innocence even in his guilt.

By the second half of the movie, I had such low expectations that any ending other than Walter Collins (Christine’s son) running into his mother’s arms in slow motion would be appreciated. I think I can say safely that most people expect this saccharine ending, which makes the way Eastwood actually ends the movie quite clever. It’s not a good ending, it’s a Hollywood ending but it does enough so that critics don’t turn their heads and moan and it gives the general audience the sweetness they desire. It also preserves some mystery about the case, gives Christine hope, and at least paints Walter Collins as a hero (someone Christine can be proud of). The end delivers the expectations while preserving tragedy. This ending shows a great understanding of audience and critics. Eastwood knows how to play the game. This understanding of the politics of filmmaking and his wonderful personality are (what I believe) the reason for his acclaim (aside from his one great movie Unforgiven where he rightfully deserves praise).

Basquiat (1996, Julian Schnabel, USA) ½

kristen — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:08:02 GMT

From a quick online inquiry into his artwork it seems that Julian Schnabel is not as much of a screw up as a painter as he is as a filmmaker. I have now seen two of his abysmal films, the first being The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (an utter abomination) that earned Julian Schnabel a best director nomination at the 2007 Academy Awards (of course the academy likes his pretentious dribble). The second miserable film of his I had the displeasure of watching is Basquiat, a biopic about contemporary (and possible friend) Jean-Michel Basquiat.

I read on wikipedia that Basquiat had regular art showings with Julian Schnabel. This leads me to believe that Schnabel knew the man and could at least provide some insight into his art, his mind, his mannerisms, something, in his movie. Unfortunately, Schnabel is a terrible filmmaker and in this case, maybe a terrible observer of humanity. He portrays Basquiat as a hollow, lackluster shell of a human being. Actor Jeffrey Wright gives an empty performance marked only by his strained facial features and painful following-the-motions mannerisms of conflicted genius. Schnabel assumes Basquiat is a genius without ever giving the audience a reason to agree. The first we are told about Basquiat is that he likes to damage other people’s property with his not so impressive graffiti (but he can do this because he is such a genius). Then he goes into a restaurant and pours syrup onto the table and draws a picture of the waitress face. She is so charmed that she immediately gives him her number then jumps into bed with him. These are the first signs of an obnoxious indie movie. Then in a Wes Anderson dismay, Basquiat despondently walks around the city to the tunes of songs telling his dejected mood (some of which are good, like Bowie’s “A Small Plot of Land”). Toward the end of the movie, Basquiat walks around the city to three different songs, back to back. Finally as the songs find liberation, so does Basquiat. The movie ends with a pretentious story about a king who shares beauty with the world while trapped in a tower, just like Basquiat.

After reading a short biography about Julian Schnabel it seems that Basquiat is as much of an autobiography as a biography. Schnabel, like Basquiat, had a quick rise to popularity seemingly from out of nowhere. (You can read this short biography at http://www.leninimports.com/julian_schnabel.html). Schnabel had a charismatic and eccentric personality (we could only wish that the character Basquiat have some charisma). But the most impressive thing about Schnabel is his paintings. And the most impressive thing about the movie are the paintings, all of which Schnabel created (“since rights to Basquiat's work were not granted to the filmmakers by the artist's estate” Allmovie.com). The paintings are what give the character Basquiat respect but this is ultimately a respect for Schnabel’s work. So isn’t this movie more of a celebration of Schnabel’s genius than Basquiat’s? Well, it’s a poor celebration at that. So much for stroking your own ego.

This is a movie by an insider of the New York art scene in the 1980’s that doesn’t seem to have an idea about that world. Maybe Schnabel did too many drugs to know what was going on in the world around him. Despite the fact that this is an insiders view, the movie tells us nothing of interest. It is a sub-standard biopic because in Basquiat not even the acting is good and the plot is certainly not entertaining. The only thing that saves this movie from zero stars is David Bowie as Andy Warhol. Bowie does a convincing job and is as always entertaining to watch.

Julain Schnabel should stick to his paintings. Only in those does he find some sort of artistry.

http://www.moca-la.org/museum/pc_media_viewer.php?acsnum=85.82&dim=600px

http://www.moca-la.org/museum/pc_media_viewer.php?acsnum=85.83&dim=600px

36 Fillette (1988, Catherina Breillat, France) ***

kristen — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:06:06 GMT

I grew up in a puritanical household so at fourteen, I had no concept of sexuality except as an evil that tempts women to defile their bodies. Sexuality has always been used by others to suppress women or used by women as liberation. I was plagued with guilt whenever an unwholesome sexual thought entered my fourteen-year-old head. I even believed that fantasizing about kissing a boy was damnable.

This movie is about a girl who is much more aware of reality, society, and sexuality than I was at her age. She is somehow by the age of fourteen liberated, socially free, much more like my sister then myself. I followed all the rules. I trusted adults when they said that this or that was bad and that I shouldn’t do it. I never had stage of rebellion (as a teenager). Maybe I’m more of a rebel these days. I am going to marry a wonderful heathen who I now live unlawfully with.

Then again, I had my own reasons for abstinence. I’m a romantic who wants an intimate bond with the love of my life. Yes, I want to be fully devoted to one person. And at the age of fourteen, I knew that I do not want to have children. These things kept my mind away from sex and showed an independence of my own.

The protagonist of 36 Fillette, a fourteen-year-old Lili (Delphine Zentout) knows what I never did, her powers as a woman. She longs to be free even at her young age. She is feisty, manipulative, vulnerable, and innocent. Our coquette Lili entices middle-aged Maurice (Etienne Chicot) who clearly has had his fare share of women. He knows the tricks of the game. When Lili jumps out of his car and threatens to find a better time elsewhere he (mocking the situation) asks her “Did I not pay enough attention to you?” He lets her go her own way after asking her for a date later that night. Ignore her just a little and she’ll want him even more.

She wants to have sex because she wants to be free of this first boundary to womanhood. But she asserts her independence and proves a challenge to get into bed. Maurice must play the full game. He has to listen to her, talk to her, buy her gifts, promise to see her even if it means driving all night from a far away business trip. He has to go through the motions to make this first time seem meaningful to her. She conquers him even as he conquers her.

Lili cries in her bed after a long night with Maurice- a night where she almost willfully lets him rape her. She cries for confusion, loss of youth, and then mostly, her inability to have sex. She is a virgin who wants mostly to loose her virginity. Being so young, she is at risk of being condemned as a slut. Men don’t face the same condemnation.

Lili’s inexperience in the bedroom eventually turns Maurice off. A woman finds her distraught in the hotel bed and tries to comfort her. The woman condemns Maurice but Lili is only upset at herself. She knows that Maurice did not take advantage of her. She tried to use him to find her own freedom and could not deliver. Lili calls the woman a bitch for her ignorance.

Lili immediately seduces another young man to have sex with her. This time she looses her virginity. When the young man asks her how his performance was she replies “It’s never good the first time”. From this point on she can look forward to more pleasurable encounters.

A coy smile at the end of the movie shows that she has conquered man and at least views herself as triumphant- not a trace of guilt to be found.

The movie offers a fresh view of women’s sexuality. Of course fourteen is a little young, but Lili is fully aware of what she is doing and of the potential consequences of her actions (ex. Getting pregnant). Breillat at least gives Lili a voice and an admirable independence even though the subject matter is difficult. The movie does not advocate sex at a young age, but it does demand that women be free to use sex as they like, not as how men see fit. The movie allows women to think about their sexuality. This is a freedom I never knew.

A Plastic Face the only Human Part

kristen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:47:32 GMT

Get Smart (2008, Peter Segal, USA) *

Anne Hathaway began her movie career as the ugly duckling in The Princess Diaries (2001). But as we know, the ugly duckling turns into the most beautiful swan. And Presto! A little bit of makeup and beauty coaching completes her transformation. A darling new woman appears on screen and even snags her prince charming. In 2006, Hathaway co-starred in The Devil Wears Prada playing an unfashionable assistant who transforms into savvy fashion queen. That same year she was named one of the 50 most beautiful people by People magazine. But in life did something strange happen to Anne Hathaway's innocent face? Did she feel the need to undergo a real transformation? Don't her lips seem to crinkle in the most unnatural way? There have been rumors of plastic surgery though none have been confirmed (to my knowledge).

In her latest movie Get Smart, Hathaway disguised as Agent 99 discusses her (rumored) plastic surgery. In the self-proclaimed most honest part of the movie (Maxwell Smart played by Steve Carell coaxes the truth from Agent 99). Agent 99 confesses that she used to look like her mother and that she regrets having lost that unique feature. This true moment comes out in the most artificial way because the movie is completely devoid of human nature and incapable of inspired human interaction. In Get Smart, Agent 99 underwent a complete cosmetic makeover because her identity was compromised on a mission. And in the process, she took a few years off her face. Now the agent uses her face to complete her missions. She escapes death by kissing a terrorist (who plummets to earth). She seduces evil Russian Ladislas Krstic to gather necessary information. The actresses' looks are constantly referenced. At dinner, Agent 99 remarks on how it seems she can eat all the carbs she wants without worry because she never seems to get fat. Maxwell Smart creates the funniest part of the movie (or the only funny part) when he consciously mimics Agent 99's kiss tactic in order to throw the enemy off guard.

Hathaway's career is marked by an obsession with beauty. This is not unique. Most women, especially actresses, feel the pressure to be beautiful. And fortunately for her, many people think she is beautiful (even if her most sexy role is Agent 99 who had complete facial surgery). As Agent 99, every character in Get Smart finds her attractive regardless of her artificial face. The characters accept her altered face the way the audience accepts her new look for this movie. The characters believe that the face she has is the real Agent 99. And that artificial face does belong to her. So what's all this talk of plastic surgery about? Hathaway denies having plastic surgery but in an interview with the Herold Sun she reveals that “When I was growing up, I wanted a nose job because I just didn’t think my nose was good. Now I feel like it’s [acting] what lets me change my face a lot".

Isn't acting a little bit like plastic surgery? She changes her face to fit the demands of the audience. And that is the kind of surgery she is talking about through her character Agent 99. In the same interview, Hathaway exclaims, "I can be glamorous as Agent 99, but I’ve just made a movie with Jonathan Demme where I play a recovering drug addict and I look really rough". The face of an actress is always altered to the movie. So in a strange way, Get Smart touches on an issue directly related to Hathaway's life. Unfortunately, the connection is a little too vague and there are no other human parts in the movie.

In many ways, Get Smart is like The Love Guru. The comparisons wrote themselves. These two miserable comedies opened on the same day, inviting the fight to the death competition. The Love Guru died though Get Smart is just as dead boring. The Love Guru offended many of the Roger Ebert type with its juvenile penis and defecation jokes. If this sounds promising, its a facade. Mike Meyers regurgitates his old persona's into a careless plot with mind rotting results. Get Smart suffers from the same insipid nature. In Get Smart, the audience was so starved for jokes that they laughed hysterically when Maxwell slams into a wall and exclaims, "missed it by that much!" (a joke we've all seen a mission times in the trailer). The plot of Get Smart is a rehash of action movies like Mission Impossible and the James Bond series, which could provide fertile ground for a comedy. Unfortunately, the movie includes the never-been-done-before parody of Entrapment where the characters seductively weave their bodies through a web of lasers (obviously a hilarious joke). Terrence Stamp plays an unoriginal villain (one bent on destroying the world). Of course the love story is weak, but at least Hathaway is more than a stupid sex toy existing only to sleep with like Jessica Alba (and she always plays this insult to womanhood). The jokes are so stale that both movies fail even to be escapist entertainment. Instead we realize how miserable we are for having nothing better to do than sit through these blunders of cinema.

~Kristen Gorlitz

"Are you two Gay?" "Nooo... YES!!!"

kristen — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:11:12 GMT

A Night at the Roxbury (1998, John Fortenberry, USA) **

This is the most unintentionally gay movie I have ever seen. I know that Doug (Chris Kattan) and Steve Butabi (Will Ferrell) are brothers in the movie but everyone knows that they aren't brothers in real life. I know, I know, movies require a suspension of disbelief. But the characters act less like brothers and more life lovers to remember that they are supposedly siblings.

So you want examples of their gayness? They sleep in the same room on silk sheets in leopard print underwear. Steve wakes up Doug with a twisler and the eats it. They wear matching (flamboyant) outfits. They keep disco balls in their bedroom. They listen to the Bee Gee's while strutting down the street. They work out together in spandex outfits (and Steve allows the equally queer trainer to feel his pecks). Both Doug and Steve are virgins (because they are so in tune with each other that they cannot interact with women). Doug is extremely jealous when Emily tries to steal Steve away. Doug ruins Steve's wedding by holding a boom box high above his head (a Say Anything move- clearly an act of trying to get back together with your girlfriend (or boyfriend)) blasting Haddaway's "What is love?" (I might add that this is the only hilarious part of the movie). Steve is so in love with Doug that he leaves Emily at the alter. He's not ready to give up with "brother" (is it strange that they never fight?). All Steve and Doug like to do is dance like animals in-sync on the dance floor.

I like that the movie is secretly gay but it should have been more aware of itself. The movie tries to be about two awkward guys who think they are cool enough to score with hot women. As a result, there are many scenes that unconvincingly try to show that these guys are into women. When Emily has sex with Steve, he does enjoy it until she gets passionate and then he looses interest (gay? yes). When two gold diggers seduce the brothers they keep telling their one-liners and try to figure out what the other one is doing. The girls have a hard time keeping these brothers apart. The movie becomes a mediocre success story of two ignorant club junkies. These not-being-able-to-get-a-woman jokes fall flat because these guys are so clearly gay. When will the wake up to that fact? The movie acknowledges that they are unaware of themselves but still insists that they are straight. Come on Hollywood; let these two out of the closet. The movie tries so hard to mask their gayness. But they're not fooling anyone. The real comedy lies locked away behind the mask of straightness.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Wall-E Destroys Mankind!

kristen — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:48:40 GMT

Wall-E (2008, Andrew Stanton, USA) **1/2

Be warned: humans grow fatter by the day by consuming fast food in a cup, the earth is in a state of decay, trash lines the cities, and robots- well robots are more cute and cuddly than ever (except…). EXCEPT the evil Hal robot (ok, so the computers name isn’t Hal, but it looks like Hal) bent on destroying man. It must want humans to get fat and it definitely does not want humans to return to earth. But why not? Earth is the universe’s biggest junkyard thanks to the humans’ carelessness (which presumably sent them up into space in the first place). But I guess evil Hal knows that complacent, fat humans are better than environmentally conscious ones. And good thing this Hal does not have a brain, because if it did it would know that letting fat humans who barely have a bone structure because of extreme decay (so much so that they can barely walk) and who think that pizzas grow on trees wouldn’t survive a day on the barren waste filled earth. Or maybe this evil Hal likes the human’s and wants them to survive, even if it means they live in The Brave New World.

The mission? For humans to return to earth- for after 3,500 years the earth’s atmosphere is finally able to support life, again. But Hal cannot let them complete the mission. Thank goodness for the anthropomorphic robots Wall-E and Eve.

Aren’t they adorable?

They can get the plant to the center of the spaceship so that humans can return home. Too bad these intelligent, capable, and loveable robots do not realize that earth for these pathetic humans is a death trap. The humans on the ship may envision earth as a utopia but they are unaware of the death and struggle that awaits them on earth. Without their food in a cup (their soma) how will they live? Food does not grow in a matter of days unlike the cheerful ending implies. No one realizes the utter destruction that the darling robots Wall-E and Eve unknowingly inflict upon these bestial humans. I would say even the creators at Pixar did not think that their safe, family friendly entertainment would secretly be the end of mankind. But now they have been warned, even the cutest robots reap destruction.

Is this evil what unknowingly happens when a movie tries to be the family friendly 2001: A Space Odyssey? Let’s face it, Wall-E opens in the full glory of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using the avant-garde technique first discovered by 2001- visuals as a means of storytelling- Wall-E discards dialogue for the first 27 minutes. Standard narrative storytelling has never been as abstract as this curious little robot Wall-E, after all isn't it shocking to hear no dialogue and just sound effects! 2001 would be glad that its avant-garde techniques (such as no plot, a 30-minute sequence of rapid colors, a star child, and monoliths) would be realized in this non-threatening, easy to swallow story made for audiences of all ages. After all, Kubrick intended to make a heartwarming, human tale, its just that Hal destroyed the mission.

And now the humans in Wall-E stand to meet a similar fate as the humans in 2001. Why did we ever trust the robots!

~Kristen Gorlitz

Hamlet (1948, Lawrence Olivier, USA) **

kristen — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:09:36 GMT

Andre Bazin in his essay “In Defense of Mixed Cinema” claims that screen adaptations cannot damage the source literature- “ It is nonsense to wax wroth about the indignities practiced on literary works on the screen, at least in the name of literature. After all, they cannot harm the original in the eyes of those how know it, however little they approximate to it. As for those who are unacquainted with the original, one of two things may happen; either they will be satisfied with the film which is as good as most, or they will want to know the original, with the resulting gain for literature”. While this is technically correct- no one would say that a repudiated novel is horrible solely because the movie is bad, Bazin fails to realize that cinema offers a false substitution.

Surely, degradations do not directly damage the original. When (under pseudonym) Alonso Fernández de Avellaneda published his own inferior sequel to Don Quixote the work did not damage masterpiece Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, in fact, Cervantes incorporates this false sequel into his own sequel, using the blunder to his advantage.

Cinema seems to be a synthesis of other arts. It includes the auditory and visual strengths of theater, the mobility in time and false motion of literature, the memorable images of photographs and paintings, the notes of music, and to some extent the craftwork of sculptures. Because cinema contains elements from each of the art forms before it, at surface level cinema seems an evolutionary progression or extension of these other art forms. Cinema is in some perceptual ways more realistic than other forms of art because a main strength of cinema is its isomorphic representation of reality and its illusion of motion. Cinema appears to have more ties to reality. And being more realistic in auditory and visual ways, when cinema adapts literature it appears to be an almost evolutionary enhancement of literature- an extension of what was. This is not the case. But many feel that a cinematic adaptation is an apt substitute for literature- this is the illusion of substitution. Many feel that an adaptation equals the source, and as a result, one is often traded for another.

This substitution should never happen, but it does happen when people do not have the time to read the book. For example, James Whales’ movie adaptation of Frankenstein is a dim-witted, pale reflection of the original Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein though people more readily recall Boris Karloff as the monster than Mary Shelly’s novel. The viewer that substitutes the inferior movie for the original literary classic either 1. has no interest in the original work because of the poor quality of the movie, or 2. feels s/he has a sufficient understanding of the literature because of the information provided in the movie.

The fact is cinema is art and an art that is distinct from literature. A movie can equal or surpass its literary source in terms of greatness (see Kubrick). But one should not judge a book by its movie. Unfortunately, because a movie is related to its source book material, associations from the movie affect people’s perceptions of the book. If one watches a bad adaptation before reading the novel, it is possible that the viewer/ reader will (when reading the book) recall the images from the bad movie, and thus the movie will negatively impact their reading of the novel. We should remember the distinction between the two art forms and judge according to the standards of quality for each art, but one cannot deny that the perception of a movie does sometimes affect (and/or create an aversion) to the source book. Movie should not, but they do affect the reading of a book. Movies also help to create a popular conception of the source literature. And so, a bad adaptation can, contrary to Bazin’s claim, negatively effect literature.

Satisfaction with inferiority can damage art. “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams”. ~Hamlet, scene ii. Hamlet (in one aspect) is a play about the inifinite space of the human mind. Lawrence Olivier’s Hamlet offers a very weak interpretation of Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet (Bias alert- I think Shakespeare’s Hamlet is undeniably one of the greatest pieces of art in any category of all time). For the majority of the movie, Olivier (as Hamlet) is bounded in a nutshell, for his approach to the character is of a restrained melancholy introvert. As a result, Olivier denies us the mind of Hamlet through his too cautious restraint. O that his too too solid flesh would melt. Olivier is too firm, too resolved for a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders. As a result, we have the loss of infinite space. It is tragic to deny us this mind.

~Kristen Gorlitz