Thursday, August 24, 2006
For those who wondered how the director of Bad Taste and Brain Dead got to direct The Lord of the Rings, this 1994 film from director Peter Jackson supplies the answer. In 1954 two teenage girls brutally murdered one of their mothers in what must be the most sensational murder in New Zealand history. Heavenly Creatures tells the strange story of these two girls and their unique relationship. If you think this is just a reality-based splatter flick, then you are going to be much more than surprised and impressed by what Jackson has accomplished.
Pauline Rieper (Melanie Lynskey) is a simple and rather dull young girl who is totally dazzled when Juliet Hulme (Kate Winslet) enters her life. Juliet is impressed as well, because Pauline has a scar on her leg from an operation. Juliet declares that, "All the best people have had chest and bone disease! It's all frightfully romantic!" Eventually both the romance and the frightfulness of it all reaches a tragic conclusion. In their all-consuming friendship, Juliet and Pauline create a "Fourth World," better than heaven (because it has no Christians), inhabited by the clay figures they have fashioned to represents their friends, and where the music of Mario Lanza, the greatest tenor on earth, is always in the air.
Jackson brings this fantasy world alive, which allows him to explore the pivotal theme of juxtaposition throughout the film. This comes into play most notably at the beginning and ending of Heavenly Creatures. Jackson begins with a 1950s newsreel about Christchurch, New Zealand, which is interrupted by the appearance of the two screaming and bloodied girls, thereby symbolizing the way this sensational case shocked the nation. Even more effective is the film's conclusion, where the murder is intercut with what the girls think will happen if they do not find this way of saving themselves.
With any film based on historical events there are omissions, alterations, substitutions, and the like, and Heavenly Creatures is no exception. On the plus side of the ledger, Jackson attempted an almost morbid verisimilitude. Almost all of the locations used for filming were the real locations where events occurred, including the tea shop where Honora Parker ate her last meal, which was torn down a few days after the shooting ended. However, the cast and crew found the actual murder scene uncomfortable and moved further down the path. All of the journal voice-overs come directly from Pauline's diary, as do the characters in the girls' make-believe world. However, since the two filled up 15 notebooks and hundreds of letters devoted to their fantasies, the movie actually underplays these elements.
However, having familiarized myself somewhat with the actual "facts" of the case, and the recollections of the woman one of the girls grew up to be, the key point of dispute is the motive. But if Jackson is guilty of becoming fixated on the idea that these two young girls committed a murder because they could not bear to be separated and have their fantasy world unravel, then he can be hardly faulted for finding that a fascinating interpretation of the evidence (the girls never testified or were examined in court, but Pauline's diary was seen as providing all the answers). More importantly, Jackson does not seem guilty of taking liberties, merely with offering a valid interpretation of the evidence. For example, the murder sequence greatly reduces the number of blows, but the effect is still horrific, so it seems trivial to complain about any inaccuracy.
From an artistic standpoint his interpretation is more than justified, especially at the end. In addition to the information we receive between the final scene and the closing credits that tells what happened to Pauline and Juliet, Mario Lanza sings "You'll Never Walk Alone," which is as perfect a choice of a song to play at the end of a film as you will ever hear, forcefully underscoring the film's thesis. Jackson says this is "a murder story about love, a murder story with no villains," and it is hard to argue with this idea after watching his film.
Heavenly Creatures received an Oscar nomination for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen for Jackson and Frances Walsh. The film won every award for which it was nominated in the New Zealand Film and TV Awards, including Best Actress for Lynskey and Best Foreign Performer for Winslet (both of whom were perfectly suited for those roles), and earned film festival awards in Venice and Toronto. This is a striking and unforgettable film, both creative and thoughtful. Those who are drawn to it because it was directed by Peter Jackson might be shocked by the subject matter, but they will not be disappointed with the results.Last week, the Pentagon released video footage of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, because of a lawsuit filed by a not-for-profit watchdog organization named Judicial Watch. The Pentagon released it amid hopes from both federal officials and Judicial Watch that conspiracy theorists could finally be at ease with the new footage.
Those hopes didn't come true. Not only are conspiracy theorists among message boards and chat rooms across the internet still holding onto beliefs that the government not only knew, but planned, the September 11 attacks, they're making up new ones that coincide with the new video. They say a plane the size of Flight 77 could no way look as small as it did in the video, and it must have been a missile.
No amount of reasoning with conspiracy theorists will ever get them to stop. When you point out how disgraceful it is to the victims of 9/11, they say that you should "stop being a sheeple" and question everything the government tells you. When you ask where a missile could possibly be seen in the video, they remain silent or come at you with some link from "9/11 Truth".
Conspiracy theorists aren't only disgracing victims of 9/11, they're also making the people they usually align themselves with, namely liberals, look bad. I'm not exactly sure what makes them distrust the government so badly to insinuate that the government kills completely innocent people just to go to war with a country or obtain oil, but I'm tired of it. If Donald Rumsfeld himself came out and told the country that the government had planned it, conspiracy theorists wouldn't be satisfied. They would question why he was telling us, and then come up with new theories as to why.
So, here's my plea. Cut it out, conspiracy theorists. Pretty please?
"Crash" is a complex movie with a simple premise: set in Los Angeles it follows eight main characters (and many, many more supporting) from all walks of life and races whose lives intersect at some point during one 24 hour period. These people are all different yet all alienated, to the point of breaking, so much so that when they come together, things explode.
The complexity of the film comes from the encounters between characters and their tangled lives and worlds. Paul Haggis' screenplay is so intricate and delicately written I couldn't begin to try to summarize the actual plot line (which destines this article to be kind of vague), but everyone meets everyone else at some point in the film (and there are a whole lot of characters).
Suffice to say, these meetings are variably intense, casual, fleeting, and dangerous, but they all effect the participants in profound and provocative ways, causing lives to find enlightenment or swerve violently, and watching it all unfold is mesmerizing because Haggis (Oscar Nominated writer of Million Dollar Baby) made the film meaty with messy characters and topics and stories to chew and hurtle along with.
The all-encompassing theme of the film is racism, and it is dealt with bluntly, honestly, and without reservation. Every single character participates in the perpetuation of the ugly cycle but also suffers because of it. Where racism makes for an interesting enough subject for an already provoking and fairly experimental film (I was surprised to see this get wide release), it's only the catalyst for a deeper, resounding story of redemption and the universality of our lonely situation which the movie becomes during its second hour (what you could call Act II).
It switches from a somewhat depressing contemplative amalgamation of moments about racism in everyday life and how destructive it is, to a throbbing, intense web of choices and consequences — life and death, vivifying or soul killing — and the chance at redemption.
Following their actions in Act I, everyone meets a fork in the road or is given a second chance of some sort. Some take it, some don't, but regardless, by the end of the movie everyone has changed. This is what gives the movie wings during its second hour, makes it interesting, keeps you guessing and on knife's-edge. It also gives the characters depth and soul and shows that despite perceived and upheld differences, when it comes down to it we aren't different (which we see in a shattering scene between the characters played by Ryan Philippe and Larenz Tate after Tate notices that he and Philippe have the same St. Christopher statue), in fact we desperately need each other.
It's one of the few films I've seen where everyone is at fault somehow and yet there are no villains. It gives hope, particularly with something as ugly as racism: everyone is fallible, but everyone has the capacity for good and nobility. That said, each of these character's inner struggles makes for all the conflict and resolution you need.
A talented ensemble drives the film, sharing almost equal amounts of screen time, but the folks who really stood out and had my full attention each time were Terrence Howard (plays a TV director), Matt Dillon (as a patrol cop), Sandra Bullock (a rich housewife), Don Cheadle (a detective), and Michael Peña (a locksmith). These five gave deeply, deeply felt performances portraying a wide range of emotions and personal situations, giving souls — alone, yearning, and searching in a world that doesn't seem to care — to shells of imperfect people.
But the actors triumph in little moments of human contact: a glance, an embrace, a pause, a smile, a wince, things that breathe life into the film and with simple visuals give it profundity. This is beautifully illustrated in a small scene between the downward spiraling Jean (Sandra Bullock) and her maid after she's begun to realize all her problems may not be about the two black guys who car jacked her, but her own life.
Some closing notes
At times the dialogue and acting can be stilted and unnatural; some of the initial "racial" situations seem forced; certain scenes could have used some editing or fine tuning, but by the end I didn't care.
It also may be helpful to know that the first hour spends its time setting everything up for Act II, although it will seem more like a photo essay on racism than a setup. But by the time Act I ends you're ready for something substantial to happen, and at the perfect moment, stuff happens. I was entirely satisfied with this movie, I couldn't have asked for anything more.
Still it's impressive, with his debut Haggis made a film that magically maintains a storytelling balancing act about people's lives that almost seamlessly flows, takes an honest look at racism with an understanding of mankind, a belief in redemption, and even hope. As I walked out of the theater into the rainy night it resonated with me and colored my thoughts as I made my way through the crowds of unknown fellow people filling the cinema.
That's about all I can ask for in a film.
Mariah Carey seems to be one of the few artists who I truly admire for a number of reasons. She is, first and foremost, an amazing vocalist. Her music is always appealing to me, and her lyrics are also very professional. She displays an air of talent not seen from someone who is commonly perceived as a blonde bimbo.
Aside from the cover versions she has recorded, Mariah Carey writes and produces nearly every song. Not many artists can do this successfully. Mariah can, and her latest album proves it. I admire Mariah the most for clawing her way back to the top. From 2001's cinematic Glitter-era, Mariah has risen from the ashes and become a beautiful woman all over again. It's taken her a few years, but the wait has been truly worth it; The Emancipation Of Mimi ranks amongst Carey's greatest work of her already-impressive 15 year career.
This album is one of the most anticipated of the year, and the hype has been swirling since January. Anything Mariah releases I will buy, so there was no question I would be buying this the day it came out. Many people were disappointed with 2002's Charmbracelet. I was not. However, it wasn't an album that left me speechless.
The Emancipation Of Mimi most definitely does. Here, Mariah stays loyal to her trademark ballads, but they're different somehow. Mariah is less dramatic with the vocals, and the songs sound fresh and original. The R&B edge of the album is incredible, roping in only the best in the industry.
The album opens with the first single "It's Like That." This song hit No.4 in the UK charts last week, becoming Mariah's biggest hit single in almost six years. Mariah is not over, people! This song is a hot summer club banger with a catchy hook and some quirky vocals. The lyrics are cool and sophisticated, and the beat is addictive and very Now.
"We Belong Together" is the second single from this album, and it's a very catchy mid-tempo ballad, reminiscent of "Always Be My Baby" from exactly a decade ago. The piano here is superb, twisting around Mariah's emotional vocals. She really belts the song out at the end in grand style.
"Shake It Off" features Jermaine Dupri and is a catchy club hit. The beat is soft but very addictive. The vocal-whoops are catchy and tight, creating a perfect summer song. "Mine Again" is a classic Mariah ballad which might take a while to grow on you. I didn't really like it at first, but it has definitely grown on me. Mariah's vocals are very powerful here.
"Say Somethin'" is an album highlight for me. This song features Snoop Dogg and is absolutely incredible! With The Neptunes behind this track, you might think it's becoming a bit old-hat for these guys to work on every song around, but this is very catchy and so irresistible. This is a true club banger that reminds me of Snoop's recent duet with Justin Timberlake. I love the way Mariah has arranged the vocals on this song and the hand-claps and drum beats work amazingly.
"Stay The Night" has a brilliant atmosphere in it which is very soulful and old-school. The chorus is amazing and Mariah's vocals are superb, especially towards the end. "Get Your Number" features Jermaine Dupri and is another brilliant R&B club song with an edge. The beat is dirty and funky, and Mariah's got a really sexy whisper-section going on. "One And Only" features Twista and is a good song and is something you'd totally expect from the guest on this song. I'm not really a fan of Twista, and his rapping is so fast it makes me laugh more than anything else, but this song is so catchy.
"Circles" is another amazing song. It's just Mariah on her own, and the instruments are kept back for most of the song. This allows Mariah's vocal to stand on its own, which really shows her incredible range. The backing vocals also really add to this song. "Your Girl" is a light, mid-tempo song which features a chimp-like voice at the start! I had big fears when I started listening to this, but they were dispelled as the song progressed. The chorus is very catchy and beat-laden. Mariah almost screams her lyrics in the chorus, but believe it or not, it works very well.
"I Wish You Knew" — now this is something special! Albums usually get weaker towards the end, but obviously not in Mariah's case. This song is sung as if live on stage in front of an audience. We hear a screaming crowd going wild for Mariah, as she sings in a '60s-style ode to Miss Ross. The music is very representative of that era, and the spoken section halfway through is amazing. This song also has the high-note! It's incredible, and the audience goes wild! Hehe.
"To The Floor" features Nelly, who is an artist I usually cannot stand. However, he's working with Mariah, so I'm prepared to make an exception. This song is so tight and it blows his duet with Christina out of the water! The drum beat is very funky and will bang into your brain for days on end. "Joy Ride" is probably my least favourite song on the album, but I still really like it. This song is rather sickly-sweet with soppy lyrics and a light piano.
The album closes with the amazing "Fly Like A Bird." This is one of my favourite final songs from any Mariah album, because it's the song that best epitomises "Emancipation" on this album! Backed with a soulful and soaring gospel choir, Mariah's vocals hit the high-notes over and over in this powerful and memorable mid-tempo song about going higher and higher through the night like a bird.
Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong is both fun and informative. It is bound to evoke a wide range of emotions in most readers: anger, shock, disbelief, relief, incredulity, laughter, surprise, and finally gratitude that we have honest reporters such as John Stossel and the real experts upon which he relies to help us separate the truth from both the simple falsehoods in which we commonly believe and the often malicious lies and scams to which we are all too often exposed.
As a long-time resident of the greater NYC Metropolitan area, I have been familiar with the Stossel's work since his appearances on WCBS-TV as an in-your-face consumer reporter early in his career. I took notice when he moved to network TV after being hired by Roone Arledge, and continued to enjoy his reporting even as I sometimes disagreed with some of his premises.
I watched his TV specials which often questioned liberal orthodoxy with such catchy titles as "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" I regularly found these to be both informative and provocative and was very pleased when he became the co-anchor of 20/20. I met when we both attended a conference several years ago, and since then I have seen him once or twice a year at other events that we have both attended and regard him as a casual friend. We share a common philosophical outlook about the benefits of free market competition rather than government regulation, and generally agree on many topics. This book is no exception; there are a few areas where I disagree with his interpretation and commentary, but none where I fault his facts.
A disclaimer: Because I believe in the educational value of Stossel's work (and its potential to be a catalyst for classroom discussion of the topics involved) I have provided modest financial support to intheclassroom.org, the organization that provides copies of Stossel's programs and classroom guides to high school teachers interested in the material.
As Stossel explains in his introduction, his investigative team consistently gets out their shovels and digs through a lot of nonsense and deception to discover the truth. And most surprisingly, every once in a while as they are looking for the pony in the pile of manure, they discover one! Occasionally a popular belief concerning a controversial topic that has attained mythic proportions actually turns out to be true.
The dominant similarity among the chapters in the book is that these 12 topics are all areas where Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity are prevalent. Each chapter examines several interesting myths, and there were far too many for me to choose just a few favorites. Among those I enjoyed the most were discussions of how mouthwash often makes our breath worse, why antibacterial soap does little to help your health (viruses are usually a greater threat than bacteria and how you wash your hands is more important than what you use), and how laptop computers can reduce male fertility. In addition, the discussion of why premium dog food appeals to people but is not better for your dog was interesting if a little gross; dogs love udders and other byproducts which humans find to be repulsive.
While most of the scientifically-challenged myths mentioned above will probably not create much controversy among this book's readers, Stossel's willingness to challenge commonly held beliefs in such areas as economics, politics, the environment, and government regulation will undoubtedly outrage many of those individuals whose "special interests" are being skewered. An example of these myths and his "truths" is that a higher minimum wage helps workers, to which he retorts that it "helps some workers, but hurts more."
Even more controversial is a topic frequently in today's headlines and a source of heated political debate: the belief that outsourcing is a "crisis" which takes jobs from Americans. To which he replies "outsourcing creates American jobs." However, his most biting criticisms are reserved for his associates in the press and most acerbically for the politicians who want to both control our lives and perpetuate their power while claiming to be our friends.
I was already familiar with the facts in his discussion of the lies perpetuated in the Congressional Record (which is in reality a non-record), the falsehoods in which would be investigated by Congress if anyone else published it. I still enjoyed his examples. Most telling, however, was his discussion of the myth that the average politician will fulfill his election-year term-limit pledge. The single anecdote that best demonstrates how they view themselves and their relationship to the voters who elected them was the quote by a Congressman (you'll have to read the book to find out who uttered it) who — 16 months after explaining why he wanted to be a citizen legislator rather than a lifetime politician — informed his constituents, according to a newspaper article, that "he'd been talking with the Lord, who had absolved him of his pledge."
Another thing I enjoyed was the frequent use of highly descriptive terminology, which strikingly illustrated the concepts which were being discussed. One example that vividly remains in my mind under the discussion of price controls and price -gouging was the image of price increases during catastrophes performing the "vital task of economic triage."
Another was the image of the "invisible fist" of the plaintiff's bar supplementing Adam's Smith's invisible hand of the marketplace. Other examples are Americans' "addiction to insurance" (surely much more dangerous than any addiction to oil) and the current "censorship by intimidation" so rife on college campuses today (to which Larry Summers certainly can testify).
Finally, this book also contains a lot of very helpful advice. Stossel's chapter about child-raising myths, written from his perspective as a parent, is very worthwhile reading. I wish that he had written a book with these helpful insights when I was trying to figure out how to raise my two daughters. I found the description of how kids become "mother-deaf" fascinating. And everyone should find his investigation into attaining happiness and his discussion of the power and nature of forgiveness worthwhile.
Of course, the fact that this book discusses a very diverse group of topics undoubtedly means that many readers will find some chapters very stimulating, some of little interest, and perhaps a few controversial. Furthermore, the book is basically a collection of a great many ideas organized around a few unifying themes. I found it satisfying to read one chapter at a time, rather than attempt to proceed too rapidly through the various topics. Since it does not have to be read sequentially, this is also the type of book with which you can either randomly jump from myth to myth, or simply go where your interests take you.
I bet you do! And I bet you'd love to see a movie about her, right? I certainly do. And Hollywood thinks you'll want to see a movie about Janis too!
Who you want to play Janis, however, is not a question Hollywood thinks you should have any say in. My personal pick would definitely be Ms. "I Am The Next Janis Joplin" herself, P!nk. Who's yours?
I really think it's time for a Janis Joplin biopic. Come on, we already have films about blind piano players (Ray Charles), men who saved literally thousands of people from brutal slaughter (Paul Rusesabagina, Hotel Rwanda), would-be pedophiles (J.M Barrie, Finding Neverland), and eccentric billionares (Howard Hughes, The Aviator). It's time to stop with the unoriginal and give us Janis!
There are two Janis Joplin biopics coming out sometime in the next two years. The first was rumored to star the famous singer Pink — the girl who sounds eerily like an offspring of Janis' — but she has since pulled out, saying that the entire casting process was turning into a "circus" and that Janis Joplin fans deserved more than the "it" girl of the time starring in a role about Janis Joplin. And I have to agree with her. I can't see Britney Spears (who is rumored to have auditioned) or Scarlett Johannson (also rumored) playing Janis. We want someone who can sing!
On another front — a more terrifying one, I might add — we have Renee Zellwegger playing Janis in the second movie, entitled Piece of My Heart. I really can't see Renee pulling this one off, either.
"How happy is the blameless vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot. Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd." - Alexander Pope
Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a bizarre but wonderful movie, a very strange and remarkably tender experience, which I suppose is only to be expected from screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, the man behind Being John Malkovich.
The film was produced by Focus Features (Lost in Translation, 21 Grams), a company which strives to offer original, quality films to the true cinema lovers. If the company keeps producing films this good, they may become hugely successful in the future, if not already.
The previews portrayed the movie as a bouncy, cheery comedy in the vein of Adaptation, the last film written for the big screen by Charlie Kaufman, when it is really a tender movie about love and romance. This is Jim Carrey's best performance to date, and may open the eyes of his prejudiced haters who have only imagined him as Ace Ventura and a certain cable guy for his entire career.
No snippy quotes, outrageous humor or bizarre antics in Sunshine — Carrey plays a true, realistic, three-dimensional character named Joel Barrish, who plans to have memories of his girlfriend, Clementine (Kate Winslet), erased by a new company called Lacuna, after he discovers that she herself has had the procedure performed only a week before. Joel meets with the company's founder, Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson), and is informed that the procedure — although "technically" brain damage — is on par with a heavy night of drinking. "Nothing you'll miss much," he is told, as he plunges into a bizarre world of long forgotten memories.
The entire process of the operation is quite fascinating, really, if a bit reminiscent of an idea founded by none other than one of Kaufman's favorite writers, Philip K. Dick, who wrote the source short story for the Ah-nuld movie "Total Recall." All items relating to the person you want erased from your brain are assembled together, and the technicians at Lacuna (Mark Ruffalo and Elijah Wood) then "map" an outline of your memories, which are supposedly stemmed together.
I have my doubts about the seriousness and remote possibility of such a procedure being performed, and the explanation is quite simply utter bull, but we don't care because the entire erasing of Joel's memories serves as a backdrop for a deeper meaning: If you could forget about past romances, would you really want to? And if so, would you be willing to sacrifice all the good ones, along with the bad ones?
The conclusion that Sunshine arrives at is, to be totally truthful, as honest as can be. During the procedure, Joel's subconscious realizes that it doesn't want to let go of its memories of Clementine, and so begins a strange labyrinth of fragmented memories, constantly changing surroundings, and mental materializations of Clementine. The movie is like a very bizarre dream, when you're trying to interact with people, but they're not responding, and you shout and try to get their attention but they don't seem to notice.
Joel's entire odyssey of the interior of his mind makes "Being John Malkovich" look normal — but as I didn't like Malkovich very much, and thought its strangeness was unjustified, it fits perfectly in Sunshine there are some great special effects, such as when Joel is wandering through his own memories, drifting in and out of sleep, hearing the voices of the technicians erasing his memories and watching as objects and areas around him vanish and deconstruct. It's so bizarre but yet also so beautiful.
There is a very deep message in Sunshine, and it is arguably Kaufman's deepest film to date. Love and romance and memories of both have rarely been examined as thought-provokingly and tenderly as they are in this wonderful motion picture. The movie has a very profound message that all viewers should pay attention to. There are many small intricacies in the film, surely picked up on more thoroughly on repeat viewings, and the entire construction of the movie is completely enthralling and intelligent.
I saw two people leave the rather empty theater during the screening I attended. It tanked in the US, which is a shame, because this is the smartest film of 2004 and has the most to say about our lives than any other film this year. While everyone flocks to see the new Denzel Washington action movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is forgotten, which is quite depressing — people would rather spend their money on forgettable entertainment than view something unique that has something important at its core.
I think what the movie finally asks us after its long, emotional journey, is would we want our own memories erased? And if so, what would the consequences be? A lesser film might examine this idea poorly — Sunshine is not. It is perfect in almost every conceivable way, and anyone who complains that it is not original must be joking — in my entire lifetime, this is one of the most unique film experiences I have ever had.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a beautiful movie, eloquently voiced by Gondry, firmly constructed and rooted in an eerie nightmarish fantasy land where anything is possible. It's beautiful, it's bizarre, it's exceptional, it's funny, it's lovely, it's touching, it's witty, and it's one of the best movies I have ever seen.
5/5 stars.
Bizarre. Fascinating. Flawed. Out of control. Definitely not ordinary. I can use all those expressions to show what I feel about Holy Smoke, but they are not enough to express all my mixed feelings about it. This is not an easy film to watch and even more difficult to review, but I can say that its qualities overcome the majority of its flaws.
At the centre of Holy Smoke is Ruth, a young Australian woman who travels to India and there starts to take part in a cult, getting fascinated with it. Her family contracts PJ Waters to make Ruth forget her new beliefs and return to a normal life. They will spend some very unusual days in a hut on the desert, during which time we don't know who is in charge.
Jane Campion writes and directs this weird and tense story with a wonderful passion. She tries to escape from all the clichés and succeeds in doing so. There are some other stories of Ruth's weird family: her gay brother, her nymphomaniac sister-in-law, her ingenuous mother. This is the humorous part of the film, where you'll see even a sheep serving as a table at Ruth's house. But, strangely, Holy Smoke didn't feel as a dramatic comedy. It's one of those pictures that you can't define the genre with clarity.
All the qualities and flaws of Holy Smoke come from the directing and the writing. There are some slow moments, exaggerated situations, some out of places scenes that could have been easily deleted. These are the main reasons why I didn't enjoy Jane Campion's earlier works: the overrated The Piano and the tasteless The Portrait of a Lady. But here the flaws sometimes can be forgotten because Campion explains the story better than in her other works and succeeds in captivating the audience, discussing subjects as sex and religion with the right tone.
The actor who really shines here is Kate Winslet. Harvey Keitel is great as always, but Ms. Winslet gives us an Oscar-caliber performance. She doesn't have problem in appearing naked, singing, dressing Keitel in a red dress and saying what she thinks. I'm sure that her performance won't disappear in smoke, at least for me.
Holy Smoke was very criticized and very snubbed, but it deserves a second chance. I agree it is obviously not for everyone. But watch it with patience, pay attention at the subliminal messages, have some fun and think a little. It is worth the price of the ticket.
Tom Perrota wrote Election, the book that was adapted to the screen starring Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick, and now gives us another gem to stack at the top of our bookshelves. I've never been so absorbed in any novel like I was while reading Tom Perrotta's brilliant Little Children, a drama of sorts that delves into the intimate lives of parents in a small suburban area. What makes this story so amazing is it works on every level to drag you into the characters' lives and make you understand and relate to them. Each player brings something different to the table and keeps your interest straight through to the end. This is much more than just a novel about raising children and having affairs but it's about living your life and finding happiness, if in all the wrong places.
First we have Sarah, a young, plain-looking feminist who feels almost trapped in a life she would have never imagined she'd live. She had much larger dreams for herself than to be the wife of a middle-aged porn addict and the mother of a somewhat anti-social but very demanding daughter Lucy. She's not only living the life she would have never picked but she's surrounded by other mothers who are content, happy, and almost threatened by the presence of an outsider of the likes of Sarah.
One such mother is Mary Ann, a very conservative woman who has a scheduled time for everything, going as far as to schedule weekly sex with her husband every Tuesday night. But it's her constant control of her surroundings that masks her unhappiness and insecurity. She's constantly butting heads with Sarah, not because she loathes her, but because she envies her. She has something Mary Ann could never attain. That is Todd, the Prom King, a stay-at-home father of young Aaron who has quickly become the fantasy man in all the married mothers’ lives. He's fit and good-looking, like the prom kings at school these mothers could never be with.
All of this brings us to the base of the story, which is an unlikely affair between Sarah and Todd, an affair that spurs out of control when they realize how much they need each other. Sarah is in a loveless marriage, a marriage falling further apart with every click of the mouse pad as her husband Richard falls deeper and deeper into his fantasy life with an online sex-site.
Todd on the other hand is less in a loveless marriage than he is in a marriage that makes him feel unaccomplished. He's surrounded with reminders that he's a failure, and as much as Kathy loves him she has a hard time showing it without criticizing his lack of maturity in his decisions. As the Sarah-Todd relationship deepens, we can see the almost innocence in their relationship, a childlike innocence. For the first time Sarah and Todd are experiencing love that is pure, that is real, but in all it's purity it's killing those closest to them ... like their children ... they are making decisions that could ruin their children.
Add to the mix Ronnie, a recently released pedophile who moved to the neighborhood and has become the talk of the town, resulting in protests and widespread panic. Ronnie is now living with his Mother May, who loves her son but fears he is not cured, and he's not. The novel does very well making Ronnie someone you despise because of his past but also feel for because he will never be accepted, even if he changes, and he knows that as well as everyone else. Especially since there is a neighborhood hero Larry Moon, an ex-cop who's struggling with his own demons while raising hell for Ronnie and his mother in his spare time.
With each character and each subplot we see a part of the human soul we don't visit enough. Each character is unsatisfied with their life, each of them are searching for something to make them complete, to make them happy but are unsuccessful, and just when they think happiness is around the corner they are all too often let down. And as far as the children are concerned, well as much as this novel revolves around adults and the choices they make, when it all comes down to it everything is done for the children.
The novel doesn't end on a good or a bad note, it just ends, but not like a Bret Easton Ellis novel, where you’re left wondering. As you read Sarah’s final thoughts you are content the story is complete even though you may be waiting for something more. This is a quick read (I read it in two days), mostly because it's so engrossing, gripping you with every word.
This is proof in what I've said for so long; it's not the story you tell but how you tell it. In less capable hands this could have been a dreadfully boring and uneventful novel, but in the hands of Perrotta this became a brilliant study in human relations and what makes us who we are. You will feel for each of these characters and understand they are all searching for the same things; they just can't help but hurt everyone else in the process.
The key to understanding the character of Vera Drake is "dear". Vera is one of the kindest souls one has seen in pictures in a long, long time. Vera Drake is a woman who will go out of her way to be of use to anyone that needs her. In fact, one's initial reaction to Mrs. Drake's activities is of complete disbelief.
Mike Leigh has created a film that, although not easy to sit through, is one of the finest movies to have come out of the English cinema in a long time. He keeps getting better with every new film. The subject of the film is something that has been at the heart of the recent elections in the USA. With the new climate in this country it's easy to see that situations like the ones we see in the story, could well be the norm here in a not too distant future.
The main, and perhaps the only, reason for watching this extraordinary film is the portrayal of Vera by that wonderful actress, Imelda Staunton. Her character is an example of a person who can't refuse anyone in need. There is a scene when the police confront Vera during a dinner at her house where we see her face as charges are hurled at her, and then little by little, Ms. Staunton breaks down in what is one of the great moments in acting by any actress in recent memory. One can see her eyes fill with tears because it suddenly dawns on Vera the immensity of what she has done.
The action takes place in 1950 in a London still ravaged by the effect of WWII. The film recreates the era with great details. Vera's flat is so tiny, one wonders how four people live in such cramped quarters. Though they are poor, the Drake household is happy, as they all live together without getting on each other's nerves. Both children, Ethel and Sid, are well behaved; they love their parents. Stan and Vera love one another in a subdued, but caring way. Is it possible that Vera could be the monster she is accused of being?
The film also makes a point of the contrast between the humble way the Drakes live and the rich houses where Vera goes to work every day. Vera's home is tiny and the others are so well appointed it is only natural to assume that Vera will bear resentment toward her employers. On the contrary, she is a dignified woman who makes do with her meager wages.
There is also the irony about how Susan Wells, the daughter of one of Vera's employers, goes through the same thing as the other girls that Vera "helps", and everything is done in a civilized way. Mr. Leigh shows us in this case how things are different because Susan is able to buy a solution to her problem and deal with it safely.
The ensemble cast is marvelous. Imelda Staunton dominates the movie. We can't take our eyes away from the dowdy and plain woman we see on the screen. Phil Davis as Stan, Vera's husband, is excellent. Alex Kelly plays the mousy daughter Ethel, who never utters a word; this actress makes her real. Daniel Mays is Sid, the son who can't understand what his mother has done. Eddie Marsan as Reg, makes his character believable.
The film is a triumph for Mike Leigh.
Imelda Staunton was nominated for an Academy Award, Mike Leigh was nominated for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay (though the film was completely improvised) for Vera Drake
Quills is the modernized story of the Marquis de Sade, whose steamy writings whipped France into a sexual fury in the late 18th century. And by modernized I mean that it has been told through the experiences of a lot of French people who speak English with British accents. But no matter, I'm willing to accept that everyone in France in 1800 spoke perfect British English, even if only because of Geoffrey Rush's brilliant performance. With every movie that he makes, I become more convinced that there is nothing he can't do.
In order to know virtue, as the Marquis explains, one must first understand vice. In Philip Kaufman's Quills, the focus is on the Marquis de Sade after his writing has taken him beyond the artistic freedom generally accepted in the 18th and 19th centuries, even to elite aristocracy like himself. It is a detailed exploration of the events that led him from being a social elitist to living almost three decades in prison, writing things that caused his keepers to make it so difficult for him to write that he ultimately uses his own blood and excrement for ink, and his clothing, the walls of his cell, and his own skin as parchment.
Luckily for the Marquis, at first anyway, there is something of an understanding priest in the Abbe du Coulmier, another wonderful performance from Joaquin Phoenix. An intensely religious man, Coulmier believes that the Marquis should be allowed to write, if only to purge himself of the sadism with which his head is filled and which would later be named after him.
Kate Winslet plays Madeleine, a laundry maid who smuggles the Marquis' writing out of the asylum so that it can be published, a fact which makes many people unhappy, but pleases others. The Marquis dips into the extensive world of the forbidden sexual taboos of the 18th and 19th centuries, writing extensively about them without a care in the world for propriety. One may wonder to what extent the Marquis' writings were such a hit because they were forbidden, or because of their lewd content, which may be described as guilty pleasures for the masses. Indeed, Larry Flynt was not working, so graphic pornography was something of a rarity.
There is a curious relationship between the Marquis and a physician named Royer-Collard, played by Michael Caine, who is assigned to lay down the law to the Marquis and prevent him from writing any more. The glee with which the Marquis mocks and taunts him are some of the best parts of this outstanding film. There is a great parallel between the two characters, as well. Royer-Collard pretends to be a moral role model, at the same time taking a wife who is young enough to be his daughter, possibly even his granddaughter, and treats the Marquis with exactly the same sadistic (if I can again use the term for the behavior for which the Marquis would later be named) behavior that he condemns the Marquis for writing about. Both men engage in many of the same practices, it's just that the Marquis makes no attempt and has no interest in hiding his interests in the pleasures of the flesh.
I think that the most important thing to remember about this movie is that it deals with a person whose beliefs are, I like to think, beyond the range of the moral compasses of most of the people who will watch the movie, but it's not about what he was writing, it's about the fact that he was writing at all. It's about his defiance in the face of a corrupt moral authority and his insistence on maintaining an artistic expression that was not well received but that was certainly therapeutic for him.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Are we ready for a movie about September 11th? According to The Bourne Supremacy director Paul Greengrass, we are. If you're not living under a rock, you've no doubt heard of this movie. Emotional, critically acclaimed, "fact-based." A lot of people don't think we're ready for a movie demonstrating exactly what happened on the fateful day America changed. I'm one of those people.
It seems much too expeditious to even think about a movie about 9/11 that goes right towards people's emotions, in my humble opinion. It has only been five years. Five years. I might seem too judgmental when it comes to this, but the timing just seems too close for me. In my mind, I can see Paul Greengrass going to Universal with his wonderful little script and absolutely fantastic credentials, and good old Jeff Immelt (CEO of General Electric, which owns Universal) almost wetting himself thinking about the profits. "Hollywood? Using shock value?" you ask me. Yes. Hollywood uses shock value for profits, don't 'cha know. Lots of it. And turning America's biggest nightmare in twenty years into an action movie? Even better!
This whole thing wouldn't piss me off so much if they weren't using a director like Paul Greengrass, whose specialty is action movies. It also wouldn't piss me off so much if they weren't relying on made-up "facts." They don't know what went on in that plane. They have no idea. Unless, when the victims were calling their families, the person on the other line actually dropped down and took notes, I don't buy that this is a fact-based story.
The one up side of this movie is it's on a limited budget. It only cost fifteen million dollars to make it, although, keep in mind there isn't a single well-known actor in the movie. That way they can keep it more real. You know, because we never would have believed it otherwise.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
I've tried my best to ignore the guy. I've never been a fan. He can't act. He has no talent, besides being shorter than my Mountain Dew bottle I have sitting right here, and still managing to stay visible in the public eye. Now he's not only pissing feminists off, he's pissing 85% of the country off. His approval rating (assuming one doesn't exist) would be lower than our President's, and the man gets more press coverage than the most powerful man in the world!
Tom, I've tried to be nice. I've tried to tolerate your complete crap. But please, buy a private island (we both know you can afford it), take Katie and your soon-to-be-screwed-up kid there, and never come back. You'll still have fans and girls who want to rub your stomach. Fly them over. But please, please, please leave, so I don't have to hear about your advocating Scientology, fighting with Matt Laurer, or getting squirted in the face and threatening a lawsuit.
I beg of you, dude. Please. Just do it.
Overall, this album is very well done. When I first heard Pink (I'm a longtime fan) was doing a rock album, I was a little skeptic. The songs I love her for most are her R&B tunes, such as "You Make Me Sick" or "God is a DJ". However, she really pulled it off. Here's a track-by-track review.
1. "Stupid Girls"- I heard this song about 75 separate times (when it came out as a single), and I loved it. I loved it even more after I saw the video. Pink talks about our culture, and women, in particular, as dumbing themselves down to look exceedingly titillating. This trend seems to be coming from the upper classes of the country, i.e. Hollywood. She imputes (quite heavily, in my opinion) specific women such as Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and the Olsen Twins as encouraging young girls to also dumb themselves down to look attractive. This song has a great beat and wonderfully hilarious (while serious at the same time) lyrics. My favorite lyric, you ask?
"Disasters all around, A world in despair, Their only concern?, 'Will it f**k up my hair!?'"
7/10
2. "Who Knew"-This song also has a very catchy beat, and great lyrics. The song is addressing her boyfriend, telling him that he convinced her that they'd be together "forever and ever", but it didn't turn out that way. The occasional orchestra in this song is absolutely fantastic. Pink has also proven in this song, that she can sing with the rest of her fellow pop Princesses, but she's not generic whatsoever.
9/10
3. "Long Way To Happy"- "Long Way to Happy" talks about a guy (who she's also addressing) and how she was fooled into thinking they could somehow be in a relationship to cherish. The music itself is more of a blessing than the lyrics, but the vocals are also one of the best on this album.
7/10
4. "Nobody Knows"- This is definitely one of the most emotionally packed songs on the album. She talks about how nobody knows most of her emotions and how she chooses to display those emotions, by starting out in the intro proclaiming that nobody knows she sometimes cries. It starts out as a depressing slow ballad, but evolves into a faster and even more emotional soft rock ballad.
8/10 (One of the best on the album)
5. "Dear Mr. President"-Noo! Pink, did you go "liberal Hollywood" on us? Of course she didn't! She's Pink! This song is a surprisingly scathing diss going towards out beloved (just look at his opinion polls!) President, while somehow managing to stay classy. If the President heard this, I think he may have to turn it off during the first three verses. It's a slow song featuring the Indigo Girls, but she really puts her all into it. She asks him how he can sleep at night, and if a real father could hate his daughter if she were gay, and asks what kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away. The biggest (and I must admit, pretty funny) dig, in my opinion, was the lyric "You've come a long way..From whiskey and cocaine". I imagine most Bush voters wouldn't like this song, but even if you did, give this album a chance.
7/10 (Most politically charged song)
6. "I'm Not Dead"- This is another one of my favorite songs, and also the title of the album. She's speaking of relationships, yet again, but Pink is never one for the typical love songs. This song is great. Pink proves her range in every single song she makes on this album. I'm not really sure how to describe this song in words that it deserves, so just listen to it (download it if you must.)
9/10
7. "'Cuz I Can"- This song is definitely the worst song on the album. The beat is okay, I suppose, but the lyrics...argh, Pink. Argh! This doesn't even warrant anymore words.
2/10
8. "Leave Me Alone (I'm Lonely) " This song is pretty good. It's 2/5ths bubblegum, 3/5ths rock. She's telling her boyfriend what he should do, leave her alone, cook her food and what not. I don't listen to it as much as I do others, but it's aight!
7/10
9. "U + UR Hand " This song is another funny-ish song. Pink describes being at a bar but not wanting to sleep with any of the guys who approach her. I've only listened to it a few times, but it's decent. Not a strong point on the album.
6/10
There are five other tracks on the album, and I may get to it later, but honestly, I just don't feel like it.
Total album rating: 4/5
Keep 'em coming, Pink!
I appreciate you taking the time to read this! Truly. Stay tuned, or subscribe to my blog for more music and movie reivews, political commentary, and more!
