The Obenson Report

SUNSHINE

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:15:29 GMT

SUNSHINE is one of those films that had me hooked for most of its length, but then during the last act almost completely lost me; although not entirely in this case, thankfully. I was slightly disappointed that Danny Boyle, the director the film (also TRAINSPOTTING and 28 DAYS LATER), went for the conventional mainstream plot devices that he threw into the last act of film. I won’t say what they were… you’ll just have to see the film, and we can talk about it afterwards if anyone wants to… but anyway… I really liked the film overall – it’s one of those apocalyptic, end of the world scenarios that we’re presented with: in a nutshell, the sun is dying, and world governments assemble a team of scientists and astronauts to go on what is essentially on a suicide mission, into space, in a ship armed with a nuclear weapon meant to be launched into the sun’s core, where it will explode and reignite the sun… a scenario which we might actually find ourselves in some time in the our future, whenever that might be. The fact that this film was made on a $30 million budget shocked me… not that $30 million isn’t a lot of money for a feature, but compared to other comparable sci-fi movies that cost 3, 4, 5 times that number, it looks damn good! Danny Boyle spent the $30 million wisely, making it look like it’s a film that cost significantly more than what it actually did cost. It’s a good looking film… there are some scenes in which I remember feeling like I could just mute the audio all together, and put on Beethoven’s moonlight sonata and immerse myself in the moment… reminiscent of films like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and SOLARIS. In 2001, there are lots of zero-gravity, ethereal scenes in which the only thing Kubrick wants us to hear is Johann Strauss’s Blue Danube… really sort of eerie, but to wonderful effect. SUNSHINE is more 2001 and SOLARIS than say, ARMAGEDDON (the Bruce Willis/Ben Afleck/Michael Bay flick), or other more action-driven fanfare… essentially all of Michael Bay’s films :o). It’s a character driven sci-fi film, with splashes of both visual and audio blasts every now and then, but more time is spent on the characters, their motivations, and their decisions... sometimes very difficult, life-altering decisions they have to make in other to evolve as the film progresses… often life/death decisions… that sort of Armed Forces nationalistic notion of putting the fate of your country, or in this case, your world, before yours, even if it means giving your life. And throughout the film, I think almost every character is faced with that decision – some answer it willingly, and others have to be forced to answer it, or the decision is made for them. For the first 80 minutes I was mostly riveted with what I saw, heard, thought and felt, but something happens in the last 20 minutes that, as I said earlier, relied on typical Hollywood dramatics – essentially introducing a character, or more like a thing, meant to sort of “spice things up,” which leads to inevitable chases through dark walkways, and subsequent screams that all just sort of annoyed me, because it all seemed so unnecessary. It takes on a different tone altogether. If that character/thing wasn’t introduced, the rest of the film would have been great just as it was, because, again, it added nothing to the film, and instead took me out of it temporarily. But I won’t let that singular misstep take away the fun I had watching the film up until that moment… because the good far outweighed the bad, and when Sunshine is released on DVD in a couple of months, I’ll be shelling out my $20, or whatever it is, to buy it.

The performances are strong – Cillian Murphy and Michelle Yeoh especially – I’ve already talked about the visuals, and it moves along quite briskly at 107 minutes. And I would recommend it… again, if you liked Sci-Fi films like 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY, and SOLARIS (both the Tarkovsky and Soderbergh versions). I think you’ll like SUNSHINE as well.

Listen to my audio broadcast on cinema at www.obensonreport.com

Tambay A Obenson

www.obensonreport.com

THIS CHRISTMAS

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:06:15 GMT

THIS CHRISTMAS One of two holiday films that tell stories about black people – specifically black families. The other being the upcoming PERFECT HOLIDAY starring Morris Chestnut, and Gabrielle Union.THIS CHRISTMAS (TC) is as predictable and as simplistic as one might expect a film like it to be. But that makes it easier to digest, if, going in, you know just what you’re in for. The proverbial family drama but without very much real drama… no one is ever in any real quandary, even though the filmmakers try to make us believe that they are, not only because we know the clichéd Hollywood happy ending is forthcoming, but also because every dilemma feels a little too sugary sweet, wrapped up in mawkishness, didactics, and often suspect acting and dialogue deliveries.It’s clear that the film wants you to love it at all costs… to have that wonderful, joyous feeling afterwards. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. And one could even say that it succeeds, given the wonderful response it received from the near-sold-out audience I saw it with on Friday afternoon – an audience that was made up disproportionately of boys and girls under 21 years old – thanks in large part to the presence of adolescent R&B heartthrob, Chris Brown, who by the way, belts out two musical numbers during the 2-hour run of the film… maybe 1 too many, unless of course you’re a fan, which I can’t say that I am.

With this film and Tyler Perry’s WHY DID I GET MARRIED (WDIGM), I’m left wondering one thing: I hope these 2 films aren’t indicative of the make up of black families in this country, or just families in general, with every member of each family hoarding some potentially hurtful secret from all the others – secrets that are naturally revealed, either by consent or by force, in calculated precision points throughout the film, meant almost solely to push the film forward and add some needed dramatics to the rather dull, routine characters and story. The difference between WDIGM and TC is that the family machinations of TC are less unrealistic than the somewhat preposterous set ups in Perry’s film, but they still leave much to be desired.

I couldn’t help think of SOUL FOOD (SF) before, during and while watching this. I haven’t watched SF in years, so it barely registers with me, but the story dynamics seem similar – large families in some order of dysfunction, brought together by the sheer will/presence (even posthumously) of the family matriarch, a woman who is more often than not a replica of the disparaging Aunt Jemima or Mammy stereotype, which means she’s heavy (in terms of weight and physical type), somewhat servile, hopelessly selfless, asexual, and of course full of a never-ending stream of words of wisdom. Not that people like this don’t exist in real life, but there’s a good reason why it’s called a stereotype. It’s rather trite, and limiting in its depiction of the middle-aged to elderly black woman in America – one that we have seen duplicated almost ad nauseam by, unfortunately, comical black men in drag and fat suits, as was the case by Martin Lawrence (twice in the BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE series), and of course by Tyler Perry, in his MADEA films. Certainly our mothers and grandmothers are significantly more varied than portrayals like those will have us believe. With all the clandestine activity rampant throughout the film, those with short attention spans will likely be captivated for most of the 2 hours; the rest of us will have to rely on those few moments of genuine development which, for me, happened during the first 30 or so minutes of the film, as each character was introduced, their pros and cons. Although, there was one particularly humorous scene which involved a bottle of baby oil, a shower, a wet towel and a belt. Those who’ve seen the film know what I’m referring to. No, it’s not some sexually charged set-up… this is a family film remember. But it actually managed to generate an impulsive laughter out of me… which is saying a lot, for those who know me well enough.And can we actually have a film about a family with members of the family who actually look like they’re from the same mother and father? The running archaic racist joke is that we, black people, all look alike, so I don’t know if the filmmakers are subconsciously attempting to dispel that myth by populating the film’s family with siblings and parents who look absolutely nothing like each other. Can we have maybe even a smidgen of familiarity… other than the fact that they are all black… or some obvious trend/similarity, whether in height, or lip size… something. Overall, a rather lukewarm reception from me… but then again, I don’t think I’m the film’s target audience, being the publicly labelled film elitist that I’ve become. But I appreciated its generally good intentions, and would like to see it succeed in the marketplace. I suppose one could find a compliment or two in there somewhere.It was well-received by the audience I saw it with, and given the box-office results on opening weekend ($25 Mill), other audiences appreciated it as well.

It’ll be interesting to see if it has any legs going into next weekend.

Listen to my audio podcast on black cinema at www.obensonreport.com

Tambay A Obenson
www.obensonreport.com

Inland Empire = Rubbish!

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:32:28 GMT

Just finished watching INLAND EMPIRE, David Lynch’s last opus… suffice it to say that this is the last David Lynch film I’ll ever see! I’ve given the man enough hours of my life over the last 7 years, to convince me that he is a voice that I should pay attention to, or be interested in, and I’m regretting almost every second :o)

UGH! A 3-hour ride that goes nowhere, shows me nothing new, and doesn’t seem to care whether it accomplishes anything, other than confuse audiences into believing in its false sense of importance. If this film was made by any other person who wasn’t called David Lynch, it would be trashed fiercely by critics and dismissed altogether. But because it IS David Lynch, we’re supposed to automatically raise our heads and commend its genius.

Poppycock!!

If David Lynch didn’t exist, the film world wouldn’t miss him… at least I certainly wouldn’t.

Listen to my audio podcast at www.obensonreport.com.

Tambay A Obenson
http://www.obensonreport.com/

Fuck Your Freedom Of Expression :o)

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:30:06 GMT

So... word on the street is that the noose is becoming the next bling accessory.

I hear it comes in 3 colors: bloody red, the customary KKK white, and of course rigor mortis blue.

You can even get your name engraved on it! Wow!

Sizes available include: XXL (or KING), for those who like it a little loose and sagging (expected to be the most popular model), as well as a yet to be labeled much snugger fit, that's sure to never leave you hanging, if you catch my drift.

Of course, an expected Tree add-on, will be sold separately, for those who want the full bling effect!

As expected, there are doubters of this new bling phenomenon... but supporters, as well as expected future connoisseurs of the noose bling, claim that this is partly an attempt to simply take the power out of the symbol, much like they tried to do with the N-word.

Get yours now before it all goes mainstream, like the X cap did in 1992!

(COMEDIAN KAT WILLIAMS AT THE BET HIP-HOP AWARDS LAST NIGHT)

TAO

My NPR Editorial Op-ed Piece...!

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:27:16 GMT

Hey Folks!

Last week, NPR asked me to write an oped piece for the "News and Views" section of their website. I just received an email notifying me that they loved it, and have published it on the site, along with a picture of me (I had to use an old pic, since it's the most professional one I've got), and of course a link to my podcast. The producer also says that they'll mention my piece during next week's "News & Notes" show, so listen to NPR next week to hear it, or just follow the link below to read what he called my "brilliant op-ed piece."

So, one editorial down, one to go. I still have to write the piece for Filmmaker Magazine, which will be significantly longer and more extensive. I'll let you know when that's ready.

This is exciting... here's the link: NEWS AND VIEWS

Tambay A Obenson
tao@tambayobenson.com
www.tambayobenson.com

www.obensonreport.com

Filmmaker Magazine Mention...!

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:24:31 GMT

Hey Folks!

Just learned that Scott Macauley, editor at Filmmaker Magazine, posted my NPR op-ed on the Filmmaker Magazine website yesterday, along with a link to my podcast. It's in their blog section.

Here's the link: http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/blog/. It's towards the middle of the page, under the "Tuesday, November 06, 2007" section, titled "Toward A New Black Cinema." Feel free to leave a comment while you're there .

It will also be mentioned in their weekly newsletter that goes out to all their subscrbers.

This is certainly helpful press, given the magazine's readership. I hope it translates to more hits.

Cheers!

TAO

LISTEN NOW - Episode 24, Obenson Report Podcast On Black Film!

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:22:28 GMT

Sponsored in part by ActNow Foundation

Recorded Monday, November 12, 2007, 9PM
TRT 60 Minutes

TOPICS DISCUSSED:
- Movie club selection for the week BROTHER TO BROTHER - listen to find out the rules.
- An extensive review of the Malian film masterpiece YEELEN.
- Creating alternate channels of film distribution for black cinema.
- Revisiting "collective/movement power," and the "capable tenth" funded black film studio.

Email me you comments at talk@obensonreport.com; or go to http://www.obensonreport.com/ and leave your comments.

TAO

"...hippy hippy hips... give me some lips..."

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:20:32 GMT

Momma was right
From the New York Post this morning...

LEARNING CURVES: THE WIDER GALS' HIPS, THE HIGHER THEIR IQ
By RITA DELFINER

November 13, 2007 -- These hips don't lie - women with hourglass figures tend to be more intelligent and have smarter kids, a new study says.

Researchers have even come up with a scientific explanation for their theory - and for why men prefer voluptuous women with large hips and small waists.

It's all about omega-3 fatty acids and a woman's waist-to- hip ratio, or WHR - a measurement that, according to an online calculator offered by Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, "looks at the proportion of body fat stored on your waist compared to that stored at your hips and buttocks."

You calculate it by dividing the waist circumference by the hip circumfer ence.

The lower the WHR, the better, according to the study by William Lassek of the University of Pittsburgh and Steven Gaulin of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

The study found that women who had a larger difference between their waist and hip measurements scored higher in tests than did those with "apple-shaped" bodies.

"Women with lower WHRs and their children have significantly higher cognitive test scores," their study found.

They say that's because the fat on a woman's hips and thighs contains omega-3 fatty acids, which help in "critical brain-building" - and the curvier the hips, the higher the level.

The fat around the waist has higher qualities of omega-6 fatty acids, less helpful to brain growth.

"Shapely hips and thighs hold essential nutrients that nurse brains and could produce smart kids, too," Gaulin told London's Telegraph.

That could explain why other studies have shown that men in Western countries "prefer women with both a low WHR [0.6 to 0.7] and a low body-mass index [17 to 20]," the researchers said.

"Men respond because it's reproductively important," Lassek said.

If that's the case, a completely unscientific look at Hollywood shows that Harvard-educated actress Mira Sorvino scores a low WHR of .69 based on estimated measurements of a 24-inch waist and 35-inch hips.

By contrast, actress Keira Knightley, based on estimated online measurements of a 25-inch waist and 33-inch hips, would score a .76 WHR.

The researchers tested their thesis by looking at data from a study of 16,325 women aged from birth to 90. The results will appear in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.

rita.delfiner@nypost.com

CHILDREN OF MEN

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:18:07 GMT

Rented and watched this last night for the first time.

My most simplistic interpretation: the nativity story retold dystopian style. Oh, and Mary is black (likely Ghanaian), and the son that God sends down to save humanity is really a daughter... and she's African too :o)

Relevant and ambitious - especially for an American studio production.

Beautifully realized, despite the stark bleakness of the world the story exists in.

Should have won the Academy Award for best picture of 2006.

Certainly has it's flaws, but the pros dwarf the cons.

Wish I had seen it at the theatre.

CHILDREN OF MEN

TAO

So, I hear that men are increasingly rejecting booty calls...

tobenson — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:17:00 GMT

Oh My Goodness!! What the hell is going on in the world? First I learn that Anne Coulter is really a man, and now THIS?

Chuckle... chuckle... chuckle...

BEGIN

"The number of women who will just sit on a condom-free, erect penis without any kind of announcement or discussion is just shocking..."

He's Just Not That Into It: Why are guys increasingly rejecting booty calls? Seems they've got feelings too.
From Details Magazine

One morning a couple of years ago, Tyler Barnett woke up with a woman he barely knew. No surprise there: He was just your garden-variety twentysomething guy, a P.R. man in Los Angeles who enjoyed casual, commitment-free hook-ups. Yet sometime before dawn, something in him shifted. And once the sun was up, he decided he was over casual sex. He chased her out with a flimsy excuse: that he had to get to work.

Sure, Barnett was concerned about STDs and pregnancy. But mostly he'd gotten fed up with putting out. And he's not alone. These days, in seeming defiance of male sexual stereotypes, the guy is suddenly the one saying no.

Click here for the quiz to find out if you're afraid to get laid

Is a man who rejects casual sex a freak of nature? Increasingly, he's not. Putting aside any situation-specific reasons—she's too drunk, she's a stalker, she's got a goiter—some guys are finding they don't like how casual sex makes them feel.

Barnett, for one, has no qualms about screening a booty call. "I got a text this weekend from a girl: 'What are you doing tonight, I miss you, I want to come over.' We've had sex a couple times, but I didn't want to go through the whole song and dance, having to worry about her sleeping over. So I didn't respond." Ben, a 30-year-old account manager in Cleveland , says that in his twenties he used to screw "like it was shaking someone's hand," but now, he says, he's had it with sleeping around. "To do that consistently over a long period of time," he says, "you really have to be emotionless, like a robot." Ben came to loathe the ambiguity of casual sex. "After going out a few times with this one woman, she let me know we'd be better off as friends—but two days later, we're having sex for the first time," he grouses. "It's like, Where are we now?"

Feeling vulnerable, that's where. "It's hard to have casual sex without getting emotionally involved," says Ben, who occasionally goes so far in his just-say-no approach as to abandon a girl at a crowded bar when he senses an impending hook-up. "Eventually, one of you is going to get involved. And in my experience, it seems to be me."

Vulnerability is hardly the only reason a guy might take a rain check. Maybe he doesn't want a gift that keeps on giving. "The number of women who will just sit on a condom-free, erect penis without any kind of announcement or discussion is just shocking," says "Isaac," a 33-year-old L.A. artist who recently finished a one-year sabbatical from casual sex. (Some names in this story have been changed.) "They would just go for it: no latex, no discussion of STDs, not even 'It's okay—I'm on the pill.' Dude!"

Isaac says he won't have sex with someone he's not emotionally attached to. He once walked away from a no-brainer—when a "gorgeous" former student "told me she sucks really good dick"—because he felt he couldn't be giving, as he was emerging from a bad break-up. Another time, turned off by a former lingerie model's excessively dental oral technique and her weird pillow talk, Isaac did the unthinkable: "I just pulled on my pants and made a run for it—out the door, down the steps, onto the street, and into the car."

When a guy hangs up on a booty call, he might be responding to simple biology. "As men age, the refractory period, or the interval between when they are physically ready for sex, gets longer, so they might not be as easily stimulated," says Jean Elson, a University of New Hampshire sociologist who studies voluntary abstinence. Harry Fisch, the author of The Male Biological Clock, says, "Testosterone starts to decrease at age 30"—so your sex drive decreases as your spare tire inflates.

Chemistry might also awaken feelings a man wants to avoid, further deterring him from casual encounters. "Sexual stimulation increases levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is associated with feelings of romantic love," says Helen Fisher of Rutgers University 's Center for Human Evolutionary Studies. "And orgasm causes a flood of oxytocin and vasopressin, hormones associated with deep attachment. So a man stands a chance of falling in love or getting attached when he doesn't want to." In other words, according to Fisher, "there's no such thing as casual sex."

But don't mistake a guy's unwillingness to score for an inability to seal the deal. "I never regret not going home with someone, but I frequently regret the opposite," says Brian Battjer, 30, a product manager in New York . "When you've had too much casual sex, it becomes enough to know that you could've taken a girl home—you don't have to actually end up going through with it."

Another New Yorker, "Greg," says he's forced himself to disengage from about 20 near hook-ups—sometimes naked, as when he suddenly found himself showering with a girl before deciding whether he was into her. (Nope.) "Sometimes I can't imagine whether I'll be turned on or off until we're in the moment," he says. "There's plenty of hot girls I've hooked up with who I should be turned on by, but in the moment I'm not." He once claimed cat allergies but got busted two weeks later at a mutual friend's house, where the Cat Lady caught him snuggling a tabby.

No matter what the excuse, a single woman spurned is likely to sound pretty miffed. "I had set my sights on this drummer boy who'd been giving me the eye," says "Amy," a 39-year-old comic. "He acted like we were going to do it, but when we were mid-make-out in his loft bed, he suddenly sprung on me that he'd only had penetrative sex with four women and wanted to keep it that way. I was pissed—because unlike most women, I really only get off from penetrative sex," she says. "What a stupid fucking night that was."

Women, it seems, just aren't used to guys not wanting sex. They rarely believe that no means no when it's the guy who's saying it. "One woman was like, You're kidding, right?" Tyler Barnett says. "And then for hours she tried to convince me to have sex." Another woman challenged his sexuality, he says. "If I acted that way, that would make me a monster."

Here's another double standard: Guys can be made to feel like dicks for withholding theirs. "There have definitely been times I wanted to turn down sex but couldn't bring myself to do it," says "Jeff," a 27-year-old grad student in New York . "We're socially conditioned to feel like pussies if we don't live up to the guys-will-****-anything stereotype. And because of this stereotype, women take sexual rejection more personally than men do."

"Being on the other side of someone going through the motions—I know how miserable that is," Greg says. "I'd rather go without."

END

Oh, and for those of you dudes out there who think that they may be, um, afraid, or apathetic about getting laid... TAKE A QUIZ to find out where you stand!

TAO