kristen

Under discussion:

A Night at the Roxbury  (1998)

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

Under discussion:

Hamlet  (1948)

            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

Under discussion:

Forgetting Sarah Marshall  (2008)

           To my dismay, Forgetting Sarah Marshall beings with all the college student movies clichés. A boy comically brushes his teeth in the mirror. Then he grabs a whole box of cereal and eats it in his grossly decorated apartment. The montage of lazy, filthy boy continues. We see him in sweat pants flopping from one lazy position on the couch to another. He tries to exercise but can’t find the motivation. Then his lovely girlfriend calls and says she’ll be home early. Boy must clean the house.

           When Sarah Marshall arrives Peter steps out of the shower completely naked to greet her only to realize that she is breaking up with him. Instead of being awkward and vulnerable comedy, the scene drowns in insincerity. Every real moment is traded for the laugh. The director seems to celebrate his cleverness yet at every step falls flat to cheap jokes.

           I almost walked out of the theater. Fortunately, the movie gets a lot better. Peter tries to escape his misery by going on vacation to a lovely spot that Sarah and he frequently talked about in Hawaii. Only it turns out that Sarah had the same idea. To his horror, Sarah is at the same hotel with her flippant pop singer boyfriend Aldous Snow- a recipe for cheap jokes. For example, Peter stalks them back to their room and interrupts their kiss. He tells his stepbrother on the phone that he thinks her ruined Sarah’s day. Cut to Sarah having orgasmic sex with Aldous. There are jokes about Peter sobbing in his suite like an old woman, jokes where Peter has to sit at a table looking at Sarah, jokes about Peter drinking all the time.

           Only when the movie stops the cheap jokes and relies on sincere drama does it work. Peter meets a wonderful girl named Rachel who seems to be the perfect girl. But the movie understands what it is like to get over an ex. It takes time, even if you meet someone else. Rachel does help Peter to have fun, but when Peter sees Sarah again, he cries. Sarah then begins to realize how great Peter was only when Rachel threatens to take him away. These are the remnants of a real relationship. Sarah realizes that her pop-star boyfriend is not as special as Peter. Peter realizes that Sarah was great but maybe she didn’t always understand him.

           There are some fantastic moments. When Sarah’s TV show is canceled Aldous cannot understand her fear about the future. Peter walks by Sarah and recognizes her pain. Peter is able to comfort her, a reminder of the relationship they once had. At another point, Sarah confesses to Rachel how pretty Rachel is. This shows both jealousy and real respect for Rachel as a person who is able to help her ex in his time of need. At an awkward dinner where Sarah accepts a courteous invitation to dine with Rachel and Peter, Peter and Aldous bond over laughing at Sarah’s ridiculous role in a movie (where cell-phones kill people). Rachel seems to bond with Sarah, respecting her role as a movie star. While surfing, Aldous comes up to Peter and gives him a respectful compliment about his music. Peter is grateful and feels that Aldous really understood what he was trying to do with his music. At another point, Sarah confesses how hard she tried to make the relationship work, but that Peter was too lazy to notice. This is the first point where he seems to understand what went wrong.

           The movie evolves into a pretty realistic look at break-ups, the struggles with getting over a past love. It is clear that the relationship is over for these two, but that in no way means it is easy. The rebound relationships aren’t perfect. Peter has to evolve before he can make things work with Rachel, who genuinely seems a perfect match.

           The comedy does not work for the most part. The Dracula musical seems to rely on a Dracula musical with puppets being inherently funny. No thought or effort is put in to developing the joke. The movie works best with its realistic depiction of relationships and breakups and fortunately there are a few funny moments that make this entertaining. I was pleasantly surprised with the way the movie turned out.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg  (1964)

It’s hard to know where to being to begin to describe my personal reaction to this movie but it helped me to understand a deep tragedy in my life- in the views I had adopted. Maybe it helped me to realize the reality of the love that I had so soundly convinced myself was inconceivable, unobtainable, lost. And so, it is a movie about the lost love of my life and the movie that helped me to find him again.

I begin with my “DEPARTURE” (the 2^nd section of the movie) with Guy. In this section of my life, I convinced myself that even the most real love was suspect and could not sustain a relationship. I believed more in logic than in love because I knew that, from my own experience, I had the best love, the truest love, and that it had escaped me. I tried with all my powers of deception to make love compatible with logic. I convinced myself that I could will myself in love. Now I know this is foolishness, but I had to test the idea. I tried to love another man. He was practical, kind, thoughtful, romantic (in an odd way), eccentric- potentially a match.

He fell in love with me just as Mr. Cassard fell in love with Genevieve. Mr. Cassard’s character is interesting because he is a longing romantic, though admits that he fell for a woman who never loved him. Genevieve reminds him of that woman. But Genevieve gives him new hope and new grounds to walk on. At least he can be completely happy in this relationship. This is probably because Mr. Cassard has never known the love that Guy and Genevieve share. Mr. Cassard only gives love; he has never been loved.

I gave my Mr. Cassard hope. I felt that for all practical intents and purposes that I should love him; should be with him. But the memory of my Guy never left me, not for a day. Genevieve similarly is grateful that someone will accept her in her vulnerable (pregnant) state. She believes that her child needs a father. She wants her love Guy to return from the war but her hope in happily ever after wanes as he consistently forgets to write. So she chooses Mr. Cassard- a completely rational choice- though never forgets Guy (she names her daughter Françoise in memory of Guy). This is how we know she will always long from the love she once had.

She is moderately happy because there are other things in her life to love like her daughter. This happiness is part of the deception I told myself while dating Mr. Cassard. Genevieve lives securely, and like life, security provides a livable happiness.

By the “ARRIVAL” (3^rd Act) I realized that I too had thrown away, given up on my Guy. Why had I stopped believing in the truly magical love of Act 1? Why did I settle for a relationship where only one person loved? Is that happiness?

I was greatly disturbed for the rest of the day. The movie shook the logic that was he foundation of my relationship with Mr. Cassard. The movie does not so much ask what could have been. It knows the answer. Guy and Genevieve had a love so rare that only a few are blessed to have it, but they chose something practical. The movie, however, is never cynical but quite realistic. Even though they never eternally realized their love, their lives continue with moments of happiness. And there’s always the memory of what once was.

Even after the movie, I was happy with just the memory of my Guy. I could not conceive of how we would get back together. Now I realize that the tragedy of Guy and Genevieve was almost my tragedy. I, for so long, denied my first, my only love, my real happiness.

I was so close to experiencing the painful moment years in the future when it became impossible to restart our relationship. I would have had to live with that torturous moment when a married Genevieve and encounters Guy for the first time in years. The bittersweet movie shows how they do have their happiness, but they do not love their spouses out of anything more than duty and security.

Duty and security led me to believe that I loved Mr. Cassard. Now I know that I never forgot my Guy.

This movie helped me avoid Guy and Genevieve’s tragedy. It perfectly shows true love. There is an ever-present sense that Guy and Genevieve should never be apart, but the movie, being a realistic representation, shows what happens in a world where logic survives over love. The movie captures the tragedy that happens to so many people. Yet the movie never denies the greatness of love, even when the characters fully do. That is how the movie is great. The movie knows life but longs for love.

I learned a great deal about life with Mr. Cassard, but thankfully the movie restored my faith in love. I got a second chance with Guy. This time I was able to make a brilliantly illogical decision- all in the name of love.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Gallipoli  (1981)

A better runner film than Gallipoli (1981) is Hugh Hudson’s Chariots of Fire (1981). A better male bonding film is Howard Hawk’s Rio Bravo (1959). A better historical representation film is Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) But as a fantasy film, Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981) works with a grace unique unto itself.

            Archy, Mark Lee, trains hard to be the fastest runner. Gallipoli (1981) does not explore this passion for running as in Chariots of Fire (1981). Running may be a way for Archy to advance in life. However, the film implies that his uncle Jack may like the fact that Archy runs more than Archy does. Archy tells Jack that there is more to life than racing. The film does not explore the dynamics of the sport, or introduce intense passion to win a race.

Instead, the fact that Archy is a runner serves as a base for a friendship with Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson.  In the first organized race of the film, Archy defeats the cocky Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson. The two have talent, and their athletic inclinations allow for nonsexual male bonding. Frank and Archy wander in the desert, uncivilized like the cowboys of the west, though their comradery is not as profound as iconic cowboy John Wayne and his partners in Rio Bravo (1959). The bond does not make a deep impression because Archy and Frank are flat characters.

We learn background information on Frank. The British murder his mother and that is why he opposes the war. Yet, Frank remains the lovable rebel for the duration of the film. He has his adventures (he hops a train), his fun (he sleeps with a prostitute), and his problems (he has no money). Frank is good deep down, and Archy sees that. Archy is an optimist and always in good spirits. He is naïve for he devotes himself fully to the war without thinking of the horrors it brings. Archy is too good to be interesting. He risks his life for Frank by refusing a safe position. Frank may have a loose morality, but he would never harm anyone. The two go from a time of joy, to a time of despair in war, yet their outlooks do not change. It seems that the death that surrounds them has no effect. To the fault of the film, the characters are static to an ever-dynamic backdrop.

The Australians remember the Battle of Gallipoli as a major controversial historical event in a way comparable to how Americans remember Vietnam as controversial (“Battle at Gallipoli”). The movie Gallipoli (1981) is a fictionalized account of this battle in World War I (Thompson and Bordwell pp 664). The problem with Gallipoli (1981) as a historical piece is that it spends so much exposition on Archy and Frank (fictional characters) and only leaves ten or so minutes for the battle to take place. The film so loosely bases the story on the battle that the battle becomes irrelevant. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) fictionalizes the Vietnam War with sets and characters, yet captures the controversy of the war. The Vietnam War is an indispensable part of Full Metal Jacket (1987).

Gallipoli (1981) does stand out in one aspect, and that is its 80’s synthesizer-pop score. The synth-pop music initiates when there is a race. This music is so jarring that it takes one out of the atmosphere of the film and places one in a science fiction- fantasy world. Since the characters are flat, the absurd music does a wonder to ruin any gravity that Gallipoli (1981) tries to establish. Three times the film transports us to a world beyond our understanding. The music leaves a more memorable impression than any other aspect, which is why this is such a good fantasy movie. The world is beyond what we would expect, but we like it all the same.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Rabid  (1977)

            Cronenberg redefines the word "sweet". Cronenberg is just the director to pull off a typical plot with such mastery that even though you know what is going to happen next, it shocks you all the same. Cronenbergs second commercial film Rabid (1977) takes the epidemic horror film to a new level.

            It shocks me that I could predict the next move while remaining so tightly wound up in the plot that I felt surprise all the same. The predictable quality of the story ceases to matter. The movie gives the audience what it wants. There are really cool looking, gruesomely gorey scenes, that are not cheesy because Cronenberg knows the film he is making. Rabid (1977) is a film that builds suspense with the threat of horror. It does this in such a way that the audience lives fully in the world of the film. The look of the film (the original special effects true only to Cronenberg films) and the dialogue can be cheesy, but that is what makes the film believable. Only Cronenberg has been able to make this cliched and cheesy film realistic, scary, and even touching. The end of the film poignantly reflects on the effects of violence.

            In Cronenberg form, the characters morph from normal citizens to sexually free characters obsessed with violence. Cronenberg is able to make a point of the horrors of both worlds. We see this theme through many of his other films (all of the ones I have seen, in fact). Rabid (1977) is amazingly entertaining, and has a point as well.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Stardust Memories  (1980)

            I am sorry to mention Fellini's 8 ½ (1963) because this movie is not 8 ½. It is Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories, but there are so many plot overlaps that it is hard to forget 8 ½. The movies are different: one cannot repeat 8 ½ and I do think that Allen makes the story of Stardust Memories his own. I do not even think that Stardust Memories should be compared to 8 ½, but I see why it is. I mean, the opening sequence is so similar to the opening of 8 ½. I am not going into the other similarities. I think that the big difference is that Allen tries to find meaning, while Fellini does not try for anything per se. Stardust Memories searches, 8 ½ happens.

            So now to leave all 8 ½ comparisons behind, Woody Allen’s Stardust Memories chronicles the life of a successful filmmaker who strives for meaning, for some justification of comedic movies when the world suffers so much. The film provides insight into Allen as a filmmaker, his egoism, narcissism, neuroticism, heroism. Although the movie does give more insight to Woody Allen’s character, the point of Stardust Memories is not for Woody Allen to complain about his difficulties in filmmaking but rather to point out inconsistencies in humanity and poise a philosophical debate about meaning.

            The film is a metaphysical mess of levels of reality: film inside a film inside a film relating to the real life of a filmmaker in a film reflecting the true filmmaker outside of the film (you get the picture). Sifting through these levels of reality can be confusing but that adds to the dimension of the search for meaning. What place does comedy have in the world? What should we be doing with our lives? Can movies bring us meaning? What role do we play in life? Should we be won over be sentimental traps? One part in Stardust Memories, Woody Allen reflects on life’s meaning, almost gives up, but then remembers one moment where he looked at one of his girlfriends and found happiness in her. This is a beautiful notion, but the film does not leave us with that sentimentality. It questions the beauty of the moment. It is a good move, for it allows us to question beauty. What is the meaning of this happiness?

            Stardust Memories questions and does not answer. The end hurls the audience again into the metaphysical world and leaves one to decide for himself whether the falsity of the film renders everything meaningless, or if the comedy saves it, or if there is another way. Meaning is left to the audiences' discretion.

~Kristen Gorlitz