Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Monday, March 17, 2014

It's just sand in my shorts that's making me cr(ank)y

The movie's entitled Beaches because they didn't have the guts to call it "Bitches."

I remember seeing this not long after my brother died and thinking, this is the worst exploration of loss and grief and resolution you could possibly imagine. Done by someone who has never experienced any of the above.

While at the time it felt as though I were alone in that conclusion, I was heartened to see years later in an episode of Absolutely Fabulous ("Death," 1994), one of the guest characters lay waste to the movie's "depth."

Sondra, a particularly unctuous pop psychologist from California ("I brought you a copy of my new book, Hey! It's Great to Grieve!"), noted that she, too, had felt great sadness in her life.

"You are talking to someone who has sat through Beaches twelve times."

Yep, that would count as profound suffering in my book. I'd be crying endlessly for sure, mostly at having been tortured by all the schlock and histrionics.  

Beaches gives a whole new meaning to the term "water-bored-ing."

Monday, April 22, 2013

Walking the line

Reese Witherspoon at the Cannes Film Festival.
CC BY-SA 3.0. Attribution: Georges Biard.
It's OK, Reese Witherspoon.

Personally, I was already embarrassed by your behavior when you made Sweet Home Alabama.

As a Southerner, you really, really, really, should have known better.

I can only assume you were drunk when you signed your contract and disorderly when you acted your way through that cornponefest.

Cute Southerners in the form of secondary characters in one of your movies (or you, for that matter) are just fake and annoying.

Y'all.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

A deviation. Or three.

"You can't get what you want . . ."

Finish that lyric with the appropriate line--

a) "But you get what you need"

b) "Until you know what you want"

c) All of the above

If you chose c) all the above, you're incorrect (the answer is technically speaking b) ), but you're actually "more correct" in a greater, more global, psychological-lil'-ol'-me sense.

Short version? I went to see the Iranian film A Separation last night. I heard from yet another old boyfriend (that makes three since Valentine's). Yesterday was the 5th anniversary of my father's death.

Quite a little trifecta of angst, no?

Long version? Well, how much time do you have?

* * *

First, the movie, which was quite good. I don't know that I thought it was Oscar-winner worthy (Oscar-nominated worthy, most definitely), as I think our illustrious Academy of Motion Picture Sales and Special Effects tends to pick the safest Best Foreign Film every year. #MyOwnOpinion as the kids say on the Twitter. But my opinion and general sense of ridiculousness are what you visit here for, n'est-ce pas?

The movie works on a couple of levels--one being that it shows you a very different world from our own, in which women's fixed roles in society and the pervasiveness of religion, repression, and class affect people's judgments and abilities to act on their own, in their own best self-interest, and in the best interest of others.

Oh hahahaha, had you going there, didn't I!? I know, like, right? How is that any different that our own world? It seems to me to be just a matter of degrees and a few chadors added as part of the set design.

Seriously, it does show differences, how life might operate under a system where religion and the state have a significant role in every aspect of life. But it's really not that different. If anything, the issues at hand--the classic who's telling the truth, what is real and what is not--are universal. Everyone has a version of truth in the story, everyone has their prejudices and perceptions that affect their version of the truth. Their guilt, their needs, their shame, their frustrations. Peeling back the layers reveals even more layers and then finally . . .

As of this writing, A Separation has now been showing in Pittsburgh now for at least three weeks, testament to its appeal and universality I would like to think. If you get the chance, do go see it.

* * *

The story begins with a married couple, Nader and Simin, talking to a legal or religious "interrogator" (according to IMDB, that's the role) about a divorce. Simin wants to leave the country to find a better life for herself, her daughter, and her husband, Nader. Nader, on the other hand, feels he cannot leave the country because his father is infirm and needs constant, round-the-clock care and oversight.

Nader's father has Alzheimer's, which just so happens is the same affliction that befell my father and eventually took his life.

Upon realizing that, I almost left the movie theater. It was, after all, the fifth anniversary of my Dad's death, an event that even just a week earlier had me in tears while I was getting dressed for work. I just wasn't sure I could handle watching the movie in a public space. On the one hand, the movie struck too close to my heart; I wasn't sure I could watch the movie without being overcome with grief and emotion. On the other hand, if the movie got Alzheimer's wrong, dramatizing it for cinematic purposes rather than giving it a more reality-based portrayal, I would get angry and spend the time cursing under my breath at the actors on the screen.

As it turns out, Alzheimer's only played a role in the plot, not *the* role, serving as a catalyst for many of the events that take place. And the way the disease was portrayed seemed emotionally and factually accurate as well. Nader struggles with his job, his life, and his father's care-giving. The efforts to provide for his father's well-being strains and disrupts his life and his family. Simin, who in some ways seems heartless for leaving Nader at that moment, merely suffers from frustration and bad-timing; she clearly loves her husband and her father-in-law and is concerned for her family's well-being, taking great steps to assist and protect them.

In desperate need of assistance, Nader (with Simin's help) hires Razieh to provide care-giving to his father. She, like many of us in this situation, barely understands the problems and needs that Nader's father has. She tries to give him instructions that he clearly can't comprehend. Razieh's daughter Somayeh (perhaps the most adorable little child ever seen on screen) mistakenly lets Nader's father escape from the locked apartment and wander into the street. Nader's frustration grows with Razieh, his father's care-giving, and the complex, desperate situation.

I still found myself cursing under my breath at the screen. Well, not so much cursing, as barking out information. "He can't understand that!" "Watch the door!" "You need to speak slowly!" "What's the underlying need?" (this latter command in relation to why Nader's father kept trying to get out in the open and down the street to the news vendor). "Understand that, and he won't try to escape!"

Of course, it's easier to see all this from hindsight. In the middle of it, trust me, it's difficult to see much of anything, at least if you're a close, impatient relation of the person suffering. My own experience with my Dad during Alzheimer's was somewhat limited as I didn't live in the same city, state, or region as he did. I saw him on periodic visits home and witnessed a generally happy man but one whose mental and physical capacities were gradually in decline. I'll spare you the details, but it's important to note that Alzheimer's not only affects memories of people, places, and times; it eventually affects the remembrance of basic functions, such as walking, eating, and swallowing.

Trying not to take the former personally is a serious challenge. You want your father to remember you, to be the man you always knew him to be. The latter underscores the point that there's nothing personal about Alzheimer's. Stuff happens to people you love, and often it's completely out of everyone's control. It's not all about you. It's not all about me either.

* * *

The return of yet another old boyfriend warrants a post all its own. In fact, each and every one that has reappeared in some capacity in my life since February deserves some digital space and time from me. Eventually, eventually.

For now, it's all a bit too new, and I don't want to talk about it too much, at least until I've sorted things out a bit more in my head.

But let's just say it was something of a cosmic, world-shifting moment to hear from the Baron after many, many years. Five I think? No, more than that, maybe six or even seven.  He called me up at work, having tracked me down through the wonder tool that is the internet. On the anniversary of my father's death.

And essentially the message was this: To ask my forgiveness for how things went down between us years ago.

I'm not a push-over these days. After an especially bumpy couple of years, emotionally and professionally, I have learned some hard, overdue lessons about life and about human nature. Since my Dad's death I have also become a somewhat quieter and more private person than before, not sharing myself too easily with others and finding it more difficult to make connections with people. I am a friend, a lover, a colleague, a brother, a son, and I serve in all those roles very well and genuinely. Nevertheless, only a few, only the trustworthy, get in too deep.

But since my Dad's death and other life events, and with the help of a good therapist, I have also somehow become a little lighter in spirit, freer to feel like myself and be that person in public, come hell or high water. I have learned to take life's setbacks and hardships less personally than before. It's not all about me, after all. Sometimes people are just shitty because that's what they do. It doesn't mean that I necessarily did something to bring that out in them and cause them to treat me shabbily. It doesn't even mean that's how they well and truly are. Maybe that's just them at that moment in time. Maybe they're not even being shitty; maybe they're just trying to live their lives, and somehow we end up on the wrong end of their behavior or our perception of their behavior.

Best to just let it go. It's not about you. It's not even about them.

* * *

By no means have I become the Zen master of Pennsylvania. While maybe just maybe I'm expressing some new-found maturity, it doesn't take me long to return to my slightly more paranoid, hyper-sensing side. Nor does it take me long to balance the uncertainty with my lighter, jokier, sillier self.

After seeing A Separation, I couldn't help but compare our situation, the Baron's and mine, to the theme of the movie. What is true? What is truth? Who is telling the truth? Is it possible to have more than one truth in any given tale? Misconceptions, misunderstandings, missed connections, mixed emotions--it's all in there, with an unhealthy dose of religious guilt and social shame tossed in for ill measure.

I think we have the makings of an Iranian movie about our lives. Lots of misinterpretations of meanings, lots of unanswered mysteries, lots of repressed desires. In honor of all that Mahmoud Ahmadinijad has wrought in the lives of people, gay and straight in Iran and elsewhere, let's call it . . . A Deviation.

Curse you, Ahmadinijad. But praise be to "allah" you (groan) in my life, past, present, and future. You make it what it is, and it's pretty damn alright most of the time.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

You ought (not) to be in pictures

What a world we live in to spend so much time and energy focused on some old scandal-prone slag with fascist tendencies.

I'm of course talking about Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Windsor, the subject of Madonna's new movie, W.E. Honest.

The week's best headline (so far) comes to us in French from the online daily news site, Cyberpresse.ca, based in Montréal.

I translate the headline, "Madonna cinéaste? Hélas, pas encore . . ." in two ways:

"Madonna a filmmaker? Alas, not yet . . ."

Or my preferred version, "Madonna a filmmaker? Good grief, not again . . . ."

I suspect the former is more accurate, but the latter is more fun to read--and closer to world opinion, I would imagine.

I won't translate the entire article--we'd be here all day and then some--but in the second paragraph, the author remarks on the "obstinancy with which Madonna applies herself to cinema to be both touching and troubling."

Or possibly just really, really tiresome.

* * *

I've just finished a biography of the famed French composer of popular song (and all-around provocateur), Serge Gainsbourg (Serge Gainsbourg: A Fistful of Gitanes by Sylvie Simmons), in which the author contemplates Serge's possible frustration with his creative, uh, oeuvre. Monsieur Gainsbourg successfully composed  musically and lyrically innovative, clever, and appealing popular songs for himself and many others and was always striving for new sounds, expanding the bounds of language, and challenging himself and others with his work.

And yet . . . he also attempted to write, paint, photograph, make commercials (!), and make films, with varying degrees of success, all perhaps as a way to be seen as more "serious." Simmons speculates that Gainsbourg did so because he didn't fully appreciate his songwriting, because composing came so easily to him and because he was writing pop songs, not heavy, more "consequential" works.

The author of the Cyberpresse article makes some of the same points about Madonna, that her filmmaking is a way to be taken seriously, when, in fact, she's already very good at what she does.

If history serves as a guide, I don't think any of the critics--or me--are bound to change Madonna's mind, that's for sure. If the critical or popular reaction to Swept Away, The Next Best Thing, Body of Evidence, or Shanghai Surprise didn't do it, clearly nothing will.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Helpful

As part of my half-hearted approach to rein in my, shall we say, expressiveness in language (i.e., I cuss a lot), for the remainder of the summer I am going to smile at those who vex me and say, "Care for a slice of pie?"

If you saw (or perhaps read) The Help within the last little while, you should understand my meaning. Let's see how long I stick to this resolution.

* * *

Recently, I went with my friend The Music Lover to see The Help, the movie based on the novel by Kathryn Stockett. The premise is this: It's 1963 in Jackson, Mississippi; the doesn't-quite-fit-in-but-well-born Eugenia (or "Skeeter," as she is more commonly known--and only in the South would Skeeter be an acceptable nickname in polite society) returns from Ole Miss, determined to be a writer. When she is assigned a cleaning advice column, a topic she knows nothing about, she turns to a friend's maid (aka The Help), Aibileen, for expert knowledge. Within a short while, Skeeter begins to pay attention to more than how to get stains out of the rug: She begins to appreciate Aibileen's life's work and starts noting how the allegedly more refined talk to Aibileen and the other maids, how they talk about them, how they talk down to them, and how they treat them. She befriends Aibileen and another maid, Minny, and together they, along with many other African-American maids in the town, (spoiler alert!) write a book providing testimony to their work, lives, and the dying days of American Apartheid.

OK, so no one calls it American Apartheid in the movie, but, really, how was it any different? Lots of laws, lots of regulations, lots of rigid social customs, all to justify fear, hatred, cruelty, and a separate-but-completely-unequal social order. Somedays you just gotta realize how crazy this country's relationship with race really is.

Now, truth be told, I was unsure about going to see The Help. I was curious about it, yes; it looked amusing in the previews; Bryce Dallas Howard looked as though she had totally nailed the classic Queen Wasp (or WASP)/"Poison Magnolia" character of Hilly; and the reviews were generally good.

But, lordy, Hollywood so rarely gets the South right on film or TV, or only gets one aspect of it and beats you to death with it (or, if you prefer, turns a fire hose on it, sics dogs on it . . .) over and over and over. Been there, done that, have tried to turn out the lights on that fateful night in Georgia myself. The last "Southern" movie I enjoyed was, I believe, Junebug, which was extraordinarily good. The last "Southern" movie I saw was Sweet Home Alabama. I'm still waiting for an apology from Reese Witherspoon. Little short of her early, permanent retirement from cinema will suffice.


I haven't read the book yet; it's on my list, I swear! Hollywood screws up films about books just as much as it does about the South, so there was more trepidation for my mind.

My list of reasons for not going goes on. The Help portrayed in the trailers looked like a period piece chick flick, sort of a Sex and the South scenario, all white, all girly, all ready to cotillion and meet Mister Rhett. I suspected the white Southern accents (just say no, y'all) would be horrible, and that whole effect is not unlike a chicken's feet raked across a chalkboard for this North Carolina refugee. Alternately, I figured the white Southerners would all be ignorant racists, the African-American Southerners all noble and long-suffering. Or, alternately again, the white people would end up feeling good about themselves, the black people showing them their better selves. That whole magical/numinous Negro thing going on that Spike Lee and others have pointed out and talked about.

In short, the whole mess looked too Oprah-approved for my tastes.

But all of this fussbudgetry over why I might not like the movie just avoids the issue: Not wanting to confront my problem with race. As a Southerner of a certain age and political bent, that's bound to be a topic I'm not going to be comfortable with and may, in fact, feel tremendous guilt and grief over. And as an American of any age, I'll do my best to avoid dealing with reality, racial or otherwise, for as long and as well as I can.

But I have to start somewhere . . .

* * *

So let's begin by reviewing the film itself, which, much to my surprise, I quite enjoyed. There were some chick-flick moments, if by "chick flick" we are referring to more emotional moments, ones that don't involve explosions, space aliens, kicking the butts of bad guys, and characters with names like "Maverick," "Iceman," or "Goose." But this wouldn't qualify as a chick flick if by that term we mean the plucky white heroine perseveres to see all her dreams (i.e., romance, family, and career, in probably that order) come true. Yes, the movie (spoiler alert!) ends on a positive note--but Skeeter's story is only part of the tale; there is significant focus on Aibileen and Minny's stories as well. In fact, I'd say that Viola Davis's Aibileen is really the main protagonist of the tale, even if Emma Stone's Skeeter gets top billing. Racism? Or just trying to sell the movie to a younger audience? Maybe some of both.

I think Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer (Minny), along with Bryce Dallas Howard, walk away with the picture. Emma Stone holds her own, and to her credit, doesn't go all NuRebel Commando Woman on us, mouth blazing, pen-is-mightier-than-the-sword hysterical. But I don't know that she takes the part and runs with it either. Whether that's down to direction, writing, acting, or the role itself, I could not say. I'm not a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so, really, what do I know?

Don't be fooled by the trailers on TV: There's more depth to the movie than you might think. There are some very funny moments and some very poignant ones as well. I think some of the movie works, and some of it doesn't quite--and this may have as much to do with the source material as anything. Like I said, I haven't read it yet.

It was a little hard for me to imagine Minny saying and doing some of the things she did and living to tell about them in 1963 Mississippi, "insurance" against Hilly aside. It was also a challenge for me to imagine that (spoiler alert!) the published book itself would have been for sale in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1963 as well, and that Skeeter wouldn't have been called all sorts of vulgar names and run out of town--or worse, much worse--for, as is pointed out, going against Mississippi law and illegally aiding "the Negro."

I also wasn't quite sold on Skeeter's transition from go-getter Ole Miss co-ed to Sensitive New Southerner. It's not that it didn't happen--I just didn't see the transition carried out on screen as clearly or as evocatively as I might have liked. That didn't have to be done with some grandiose reveal; it could have happened in little ways over time. I think that was the point, but on first viewing, I can't say it came across that way.

To the film's credit, I did feel Skeeter's outsider-ness, her yearning to achieve more than what was expected of her (marriage and children). I felt Aibileen's pain and Minny's frustration and resignation as well. Aibileen and Minny have to find their ways to resist their outsiderness--from their families, friends, and employers--plus the onslaught of denigration and hatred.

I found believable, too, the interlocking of lives, both black and white, despite racial segregation and the overt racism of the time. It was unavoidable all along and segregation only delayed the inevitable and kept everybody miserable, both black and white (although obviously not equally), and trapped in unsatisfying roles. I enjoyed the relationship between Minny and Celia and totally bought the (spoiler alert!) reasons for Celia's ostracism. The only thing nearly as bad as being African American in the Old (?) South was being White Trash. Or a Yankee.

I found the menacing Hilly all-too-reminiscent of people I knew then and who we encounter now on the national stage. She's one of those people who foist their beliefs, bigotry, and fears upon everyone else in the most ruthless yet glib manner, using the battering ram of their religion and their political beliefs to bust through any resistance, considering anyone who disagrees with them morally weak or a mortal enemy. Skeeter's, Elizabeth's, and Celia's reactions all seemed quite real to me, too--sometimes when faced with someone that mean-spirited or something that hateful, you're just stunned and don't know what to do. It takes courage, a courage many of us find difficult to rally, to resist passively let alone actively.

On the other hand, there were no colors--if you'll pardon the expression--to Hilly. You don't have a clue why she is the way she is, other than because she can be. She doesn't have a redeeming quality to her--or as my friend The Gladman put it, "she was just a jar of mustache wax away from Simon Legree territory." (Which is quite brilliant and tells me I need to up my writing game if this blog is to survive for long.) Maybe you can't redeem a racist or a Junior Leaguer, but the movie might have explained her a bit better, her motivations, her fears, her failings. Only briefly at the end (spoiler alert!) do you see her vulnerable, and then, it's not really clear why.

Turning a multi-page book into a two-hour-or-less movie almost promises dissatisfaction. There is a jumble of events, characters, and ideas, not all of them fleshed out. Skeeter's romance with Stuart Whitworth, for example; what a perfectly good waste of all things male and holy in the form of Chris Lowell. The other male characters fare no better, are ineffectual, and make the whole film slide dangerously close to a David E. Kelley "women's drama" any given night on ABC during the last decade.

Maybe better editing or a different, longer medium would have helped. At times like these, I long for the days of the miniseries or, at the very least, the British model of TV production, where you have six or more hour-long episodes to tell the tale. Most books, in my insufferable opinion, would benefit from this approach, rather than the 120-minutes-or-less movie model.

Overall, though, I thought the movie good and the message strong. And that message is this (spoiler alert!): Holding onto your dignity in the most undignified of situations is about the best any of us can do. You may boss me around, beat me, scream at me, threaten me, menace me, hurt me, ignore me, reject me--but you don't damn well own me.

* * *

I could go on (and, oh look, I have!), but you get the idea. Not everyone agrees with me, as this article from Salon conveys. Have I read it in whole or in part? No, not really--much like the posters who, like me, dismissed The Help outright as being both racist and a chick flick, without having seen anything more than the trailers.

I believe the author's premise to be correct: Hollywood (and America) whitewashes a lot of history and reality, especially America's highly uncomfortable racial history. Ironically, though, for every Hollywood whitewash, there must be at least more than a wringing handful of guilty white liberals who feel the need to point this out, in the spirit of true Calvinism and Capitalistic competition: You must feel bad about everything, but believe me, you'll never feel worse (and thus more self-satisfied) than me.

Is it me, or can't we Americans just enjoy anything anymore without parsin' and bitchin' it to death?

I'll read the article eventually. But not now. I enjoyed the movie and want to stay in that mood for a bit longer. It's not that it was all rosy and pretty; it portrayed a very harsh reality (although it did not exactly portray it harshly, it should be noted) that many of us would like to forget, myself included. I was only two years old when the action of the film takes place and only six or so when the Civil Rights Movement, the Summer of Love, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., Vietnam, and so much more collided and exploded spectacularly in 1968, a year of revolution.

And, yet, I can still remember some of that tension, the hatred, the fear, and the prejudice from the time. My sibs getting sent home from school because of race riots. The black kids on the bus uncomfortable and scared. Too many of the white kids, mean and antagonistic, for no good reason. The TV news, always shocking in its clear-eyed view of American humanity at its worst. The never-ending war. The racism, alternately casual and caustic. The endemic inequality, not just racial but economic, too. The bitter stinginess of people who hurt others and, indirectly, themselves without really understanding or caring why.

No one seemed very happy then. Not all that different from nowadays actually.

So my takeaway from The Help might be a bit different than yours. Although I remember that era through the haze of childhood, The Help resonated with me. It was personal, emotional, sometimes uncomfortable, and a little fantastic, too, attempting to satisfy some historical wish fulfillment. Would Skeeter, Aibileen, or Minny really have been able to do what they did and be rewarded for it? Or was the system so crushing that it would have ground them into a bitter dust? Would any of us have been as brave as Aibileen, Minny, Skeeter, Celia, or Skeeter's mother, fighting against injustice and the rigid, established order in our own way, little or large? Or would we have been Hilly? Or Elizabeth?

Maybe it's as my friend The Gladman put it: He liked the film, but with reservations. Perhaps the movie is kind of a muddle of too many points, parts, plots, and personalities. Perhaps the movie is a little too uplifting for its own good, a Disney lesson in surviving racism. For all its wish fulfillment, it at times still relies on stereotypes--racist Hilly, sassy Minny. I just don't know.

But at this moment in time, I can say that I liked it all the same, that The Help has much to commend it and little to quibble over. And, surprise surprise, the Southern accents didn't irritate me nearly as much as I feared they would.

Lordy, less complaining from me. There's your moment of uplift right there, y'all!