We watched this late last night after finding our power back on--nothing like brief deprivation to make you turn on everything that runs on electricity.
Anyway, this is the story of Fiona and Grant Anderson, a couple who have been married for 44 years and are now dealing with Fiona's decline into Alzheimer's. Fiona decides that she should be placed in a home for Alzheimer's patients against Grant's wishes. Grant would rather think that Fiona is just being her quirky creative self and is not, in fact, leaving him: physically because the home requires a 30 day separation from all visitors and, more importantly, in all other ways because she simply won't remember him yet he will see her and remember everything they've had for 44 years.
Julie Christie is wonderful as Fiona but I thought Gordon Pinsent was incredible as Grant. You could just see his discouragement, hope, love, and intense sadness and loss in his face at every moment. The flashbacks to the young Julie Christie look alike were slightly off-putting to me but just because they didn't seem to accomplish much. I can imagine what she looked like when she was younger (I know, as a matter of fact, because I've seen photos/movies etc.) and I just don't need basically still images of that actress throughout the movie. I did love the flashbacks Grant had to her skiing.
It's a sad movie but, me being me and having my views on aging and marriage and whatnot, found the end somewhat hopeful and the whole thing is very sweet and lovely.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Shopgirl (2005) (nat)
This came on right after Idlewild. An odd line-up but I suppose it worked. This one is definitely better.
The basic plot is that Mirabelle (Claire Danes) has moved to LA from Vermont and is a bit lonely because all she does is work at Saks in Beverly Hills (at the glove counter no less) and goes home to her cat who hides all the time and makes a drawing every six months or so. All at once two men come into her life, Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and Ray Porter (Steve Martin). The former is a slacker artist of sorts who has all the wrong moves and the latter is a rich older man who knows all the right moves. The trouble is that while Ray provides Mirabelle with a stable relationship and financial security, he refuses to allow himself to get close to her. Jeremy, on the other hand, can't give her anything but love. While Ray draws away, Jeremy betters himself for Mirabelle.
It's a very sweet love story (with just a touch of the bitter) in the end. One slight misstep, I thought, it a bit of an oddly placed anti-depressants story in the middle. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't fare better when it first came out.
The basic plot is that Mirabelle (Claire Danes) has moved to LA from Vermont and is a bit lonely because all she does is work at Saks in Beverly Hills (at the glove counter no less) and goes home to her cat who hides all the time and makes a drawing every six months or so. All at once two men come into her life, Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) and Ray Porter (Steve Martin). The former is a slacker artist of sorts who has all the wrong moves and the latter is a rich older man who knows all the right moves. The trouble is that while Ray provides Mirabelle with a stable relationship and financial security, he refuses to allow himself to get close to her. Jeremy, on the other hand, can't give her anything but love. While Ray draws away, Jeremy betters himself for Mirabelle.
It's a very sweet love story (with just a touch of the bitter) in the end. One slight misstep, I thought, it a bit of an oddly placed anti-depressants story in the middle. I'm not exactly sure why it didn't fare better when it first came out.
Idlewild (2006) (nat)
This one was on TV so I watched it. It's not all that interesting but it's entertaining for a little while. I like song and dance movies so I played along. Anyway, it's about childhood friends, Rooster and Percival (OutKast), from different sides of the track who grow up to work in the same speakeasy type club--Rooster running parts of it, running "hooch," and singing and Percival playing piano. Trumpy (a happy surprise of Terrence Howard) takes over the club and causes trouble for Rooster while Angel, a pretty singer, shows up and turns Percival's world upside down.
It's entertaining enough--worth a watch if you catch it on TV. But there is an odd "Mary Jane's Last Dance" moment toward the end.
It's entertaining enough--worth a watch if you catch it on TV. But there is an odd "Mary Jane's Last Dance" moment toward the end.
Love Actually (2003) (nat)
Joel bought this for me for Christmas and we watched it the other night--I'm getting a little behind in my posting. Anyway, it's super-cute.
It's a compilation of stories about love in various phases and intensities and most of them are quite sweet. Lots and lots of people: Colin Firth's girl cheats on him with his brother but he finds love with a non-English speaking Portuguese girl; Liam Neeson's wife has just died leaving him with a stepson who is madly in love with an American girl and they find a better love of each other as well as relationships with girls; Emma Thompson's husband Alan Rickman is having a sort-of affair with his secretary who is quite the slutty flirt; another guy has decided that he will be able to get more girls in the US; another couple find love after working together in an interesting job situation; Chiwetel Ejiofor has just married Kiera Knightly but his best friend loves her silently; Laura Linney tries to find love but is bound to her disabled brother; Hugh Grant has just become Prime Minister and reluctantly finds love with his head of catering (named Natalie); meanwhile Bill Nighy (as an aged has been rock musician) attempts to gain record sales and find flimsy relationships before realizing that his best relationship is with his longtime manager.
It's a compilation of stories about love in various phases and intensities and most of them are quite sweet. Lots and lots of people: Colin Firth's girl cheats on him with his brother but he finds love with a non-English speaking Portuguese girl; Liam Neeson's wife has just died leaving him with a stepson who is madly in love with an American girl and they find a better love of each other as well as relationships with girls; Emma Thompson's husband Alan Rickman is having a sort-of affair with his secretary who is quite the slutty flirt; another guy has decided that he will be able to get more girls in the US; another couple find love after working together in an interesting job situation; Chiwetel Ejiofor has just married Kiera Knightly but his best friend loves her silently; Laura Linney tries to find love but is bound to her disabled brother; Hugh Grant has just become Prime Minister and reluctantly finds love with his head of catering (named Natalie); meanwhile Bill Nighy (as an aged has been rock musician) attempts to gain record sales and find flimsy relationships before realizing that his best relationship is with his longtime manager.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Rosie Little's Cautionary Tales for Girls by Danielle Wood (2006) (nat)
I love cute little hardback books (a la Ladies of Grace Adieu, which I still haven't read and which is now trapped in a cardboard box at my parents' house, sigh) and this one is a cute small black book with white polka-dots and a red spine. Book covers enthrall me.
What was within the cute cover was a passable collection of short stories. Some of them are very cute, some clever and actually quite good, and one or two were just trite. So by story:
"Virginity . . . The Deflowering of Rosie Little": This story is just ok. It's about Rosie losing her virginity in an interesting way although I don't quite get parts of it thanks to some Australian slang. It's not exactly the story you need to lead into a collection but it's not bad either.
Truth . . . Elephantiasis": Wood understands women and how we get trapped by little things that take over our lives. In this one the main character gets trapped and defined by an inadvertent collection of elephants. She's overweight and everyone starts giving her elephants thanks to her owning one (that was given to her as a souvenir from a friend's African safari trip). She is trying, as the story progresses, to escape her elephantiasis.
"Travel . . . Rosie Little in the Mother Country": This one is cute. Rosie goes to England from her Native Australia to visit her godfather who turns out to be none-too-kind. She also meets a boy and sort-of discovers herself. There is a bit in this one that doesn't get resolved--the godfather ends up being creepy in a sexual way.
"Beauty . . . The Wardrobe": I like this one a lot. A woman moves in with her beau (straight from her childhood home) who turns out to be not only a bit of a snob (throwing away her ratty clothes) but a full-on control freak (replacing the clothes with his choice of expensive ones). I won't give away the conceit but this is one Tracy should examine--lots of interesting body stuff.
"Art . . . Eden": I think DeLillo's Mao II has the best, most apt description of a bookstore from a book lover's perspective and I think this story has the best, most accurate description of procrastination that I've read. Eve quits her job and moves to the country to pursue painting. The story is about half-filled with the process of Eve setting up to get ready to paint (including the fact that she has to go buy the appropriate clothes to paint) and it's just fantastically accurate.
"Love . . . The Anatomy of Wolves": This one isn't bad. It's about a woman who falls in love with a "wolf" of a man who ends up abusing her and the consequences that follow.
"Commitment . . . The Depthlessness of Soup": This one is good but painful because you know what each of the characters is thinking but they only share with each other at the very end. It's about a man and woman who have been dating for awhile, a few years maybe, and she wants a commitment. Meanwhile, he is planning to propose. The strangled conversation that happens over soup in a restaurant is painful but well-written.
"Marriage . . . Vision in White": This one is funny, in a mean way. A woman Rosie meets in the airport has decided that she should travel from the US to Australia in her full wedding regalia so that her new in-laws can meet her in her full glory (she does this because she had a vision of herself coming off the airplane in her wedding dress). Anyway, the woman leaves the airport and Rosie finishes her story. Funny.
"Work . . . Rosie Little's Brilliant Career": This one feels more like a transition than a important story.
"Longing . . . Lonely Hearts Club": This one is more experimental in that it's not a linear or complete narrative. It's from the perspective of several women who are all tied together eventually by a heart-shaped rock. It's not that great.
"Loss . . . The True Daughter": Creepy. But in a good way. It reminds me of an Aimee Bender story (or even some of Rachel's) in that almost everything is normal but there is one quirk that's disturbingly odd. This one is about an in-home nurse who works with people as they are dying. She gets a new job with a woman who always talks about her daughter but the daughter never materializes and there are no photos. Disturbing.
"Destiny . . . Rosie Little Joins the Dots": This is the trite one. Rosie leaves her job and begins work on a cruise ship. And she tries to connect the stories in a really thin, silly way. I could do without a few paragraphs of this one because it's just silliness.
I think the book is worth a read. It's easy and simple and fun and, because they are short stories, can be put down and picked up at any point without much consequence. And some of the stories are quite good (not to mention being able to add a cute book to the shelf).
What was within the cute cover was a passable collection of short stories. Some of them are very cute, some clever and actually quite good, and one or two were just trite. So by story:
"Virginity . . . The Deflowering of Rosie Little": This story is just ok. It's about Rosie losing her virginity in an interesting way although I don't quite get parts of it thanks to some Australian slang. It's not exactly the story you need to lead into a collection but it's not bad either.
Truth . . . Elephantiasis": Wood understands women and how we get trapped by little things that take over our lives. In this one the main character gets trapped and defined by an inadvertent collection of elephants. She's overweight and everyone starts giving her elephants thanks to her owning one (that was given to her as a souvenir from a friend's African safari trip). She is trying, as the story progresses, to escape her elephantiasis.
"Travel . . . Rosie Little in the Mother Country": This one is cute. Rosie goes to England from her Native Australia to visit her godfather who turns out to be none-too-kind. She also meets a boy and sort-of discovers herself. There is a bit in this one that doesn't get resolved--the godfather ends up being creepy in a sexual way.
"Beauty . . . The Wardrobe": I like this one a lot. A woman moves in with her beau (straight from her childhood home) who turns out to be not only a bit of a snob (throwing away her ratty clothes) but a full-on control freak (replacing the clothes with his choice of expensive ones). I won't give away the conceit but this is one Tracy should examine--lots of interesting body stuff.
"Art . . . Eden": I think DeLillo's Mao II has the best, most apt description of a bookstore from a book lover's perspective and I think this story has the best, most accurate description of procrastination that I've read. Eve quits her job and moves to the country to pursue painting. The story is about half-filled with the process of Eve setting up to get ready to paint (including the fact that she has to go buy the appropriate clothes to paint) and it's just fantastically accurate.
"Love . . . The Anatomy of Wolves": This one isn't bad. It's about a woman who falls in love with a "wolf" of a man who ends up abusing her and the consequences that follow.
"Commitment . . . The Depthlessness of Soup": This one is good but painful because you know what each of the characters is thinking but they only share with each other at the very end. It's about a man and woman who have been dating for awhile, a few years maybe, and she wants a commitment. Meanwhile, he is planning to propose. The strangled conversation that happens over soup in a restaurant is painful but well-written.
"Marriage . . . Vision in White": This one is funny, in a mean way. A woman Rosie meets in the airport has decided that she should travel from the US to Australia in her full wedding regalia so that her new in-laws can meet her in her full glory (she does this because she had a vision of herself coming off the airplane in her wedding dress). Anyway, the woman leaves the airport and Rosie finishes her story. Funny.
"Work . . . Rosie Little's Brilliant Career": This one feels more like a transition than a important story.
"Longing . . . Lonely Hearts Club": This one is more experimental in that it's not a linear or complete narrative. It's from the perspective of several women who are all tied together eventually by a heart-shaped rock. It's not that great.
"Loss . . . The True Daughter": Creepy. But in a good way. It reminds me of an Aimee Bender story (or even some of Rachel's) in that almost everything is normal but there is one quirk that's disturbingly odd. This one is about an in-home nurse who works with people as they are dying. She gets a new job with a woman who always talks about her daughter but the daughter never materializes and there are no photos. Disturbing.
"Destiny . . . Rosie Little Joins the Dots": This is the trite one. Rosie leaves her job and begins work on a cruise ship. And she tries to connect the stories in a really thin, silly way. I could do without a few paragraphs of this one because it's just silliness.
I think the book is worth a read. It's easy and simple and fun and, because they are short stories, can be put down and picked up at any point without much consequence. And some of the stories are quite good (not to mention being able to add a cute book to the shelf).
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) (nat)
We saw this in the smallest non-Nickelodeon theater I've ever been in. Really. There were maybe 10-15 people in the theater and it felt a little crowded. So that was a surprise.
I don't know that I ever needed to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman having sex. Ever. He was quite good, though. It's really amazing the scale of smarmy-ness that he can achieve. Capote wasn't smarmy at all, Charlie Wilson's War was a little smarmy, and here, well, he's just about as smarmy as I've ever seen him.
I also love Marissa Tomei. I wish she were in more movies with larger parts. And I wish we saw a little more of her here (although I know the movie was about the brothers and father, blah blah blah. I just like her.) Ethan Hawke was great as well. The scene where Hoffman tells him what store they are going to rob and Hawke's face goes all smushy is really quite good. And Albert Finney, of course, is wonderful.
AND. This is one non-linear film that worked. Why? I think maybe because while there was a non-linear quality, the film took the time to develop the characters AND pay attention to leaving only the smallest plot holes. It can be done.
But. I think the end was a little easy. A little Million Dollar Baby. It worked and it's ok but I think there is something better that could have been done. And we still have loose ends to clean up--what happens with Hawke is the big question I have.
I don't know that I ever needed to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman having sex. Ever. He was quite good, though. It's really amazing the scale of smarmy-ness that he can achieve. Capote wasn't smarmy at all, Charlie Wilson's War was a little smarmy, and here, well, he's just about as smarmy as I've ever seen him.
I also love Marissa Tomei. I wish she were in more movies with larger parts. And I wish we saw a little more of her here (although I know the movie was about the brothers and father, blah blah blah. I just like her.) Ethan Hawke was great as well. The scene where Hoffman tells him what store they are going to rob and Hawke's face goes all smushy is really quite good. And Albert Finney, of course, is wonderful.
AND. This is one non-linear film that worked. Why? I think maybe because while there was a non-linear quality, the film took the time to develop the characters AND pay attention to leaving only the smallest plot holes. It can be done.
But. I think the end was a little easy. A little Million Dollar Baby. It worked and it's ok but I think there is something better that could have been done. And we still have loose ends to clean up--what happens with Hawke is the big question I have.
There Will Be Blood (2007) (nat)
I waited awhile to write about this one. Joel and I actually saw it Thursday night.
Anyway, it's good points first. Daniel Day-Lewis acts his ass off and makes it look effortless. Especially in the last scene of the film with Eli. He's haunting. Quite a bit of the movie is beautifully and interestingly shot. The movie kept at least a little part of my interest the whole time.
Ok, now for the less-than-favorable points. I don't dislike the movie--that's an important point--but I have concerns about it, especially since it's getting such rave reviews. It's a long film (158 minutes) and it drags a bit.
First, the brother, Paul Sunday, who first tells Daniel about the oil on the Sunday ranch and in the surrounding areas, just disappears. He never makes another appearance and is only mentioned at about the midpoint of the movie and then again at the end. That's not enough to have a character in the film. There is no explanation of why this brother told Daniel about the oil, why he and Eli have such a bitter relationship, why the brother has left the family farm, how the family (besides Eli) feel about Paul, nothing, and it has to be important especially because Paul is obviously Eli's twin and there is obviously bad blood in the family because of Paul (hence Eli's attacking of his father).
Second, the film is very heavy handed in its consumer/capitalist culture v. religion dichotomy. Obviously both Daniel and Eli are the devil as well as the savior at various points in the film but I would have appreciated the theme more had it been much more subtle (basically, had it been a theme instead of substituting for the plot).
Third, to follow number two, I would have liked a stronger, more obvious plot thread running throughout the whole film. Believe me, I know that the new trend is non-linear narratives that don't quite connect. The problem is, for the most part, those aren't quite working. Especially when there are holes in the character development thread. Really, I think the filmmakers need to choose one or the other; they can have artistic holes in either the plot or the character development, not both.
I guess at the end of the film, while I enjoyed it and the last scene was really intense and immediately drew me back into the film, I wish the whole movie had been as engaging. It's one that I'm happy to have seen but never need to see again (unless I teach Upton Sinclair for some unknown reason) and really I just left the theater with a sense of "eh." I just didn't end up caring about it.
It's worth seeing, once at least, for Daniel Day-Lewis's performance.
I forgot about this (although I don't know how), so a postscript: The soundtrack was one of the worst things I've ever heard. The first sounds of the movie came on and I literally thought there was something wrong with the speakers--it just sounded like feedback, really loud and harsh feedback. The whole movie was like nails on a chalkboard for me. Anyway, it's an important point that probably feeds my concerns about the movie.
Anyway, it's good points first. Daniel Day-Lewis acts his ass off and makes it look effortless. Especially in the last scene of the film with Eli. He's haunting. Quite a bit of the movie is beautifully and interestingly shot. The movie kept at least a little part of my interest the whole time.
Ok, now for the less-than-favorable points. I don't dislike the movie--that's an important point--but I have concerns about it, especially since it's getting such rave reviews. It's a long film (158 minutes) and it drags a bit.
First, the brother, Paul Sunday, who first tells Daniel about the oil on the Sunday ranch and in the surrounding areas, just disappears. He never makes another appearance and is only mentioned at about the midpoint of the movie and then again at the end. That's not enough to have a character in the film. There is no explanation of why this brother told Daniel about the oil, why he and Eli have such a bitter relationship, why the brother has left the family farm, how the family (besides Eli) feel about Paul, nothing, and it has to be important especially because Paul is obviously Eli's twin and there is obviously bad blood in the family because of Paul (hence Eli's attacking of his father).
Second, the film is very heavy handed in its consumer/capitalist culture v. religion dichotomy. Obviously both Daniel and Eli are the devil as well as the savior at various points in the film but I would have appreciated the theme more had it been much more subtle (basically, had it been a theme instead of substituting for the plot).
Third, to follow number two, I would have liked a stronger, more obvious plot thread running throughout the whole film. Believe me, I know that the new trend is non-linear narratives that don't quite connect. The problem is, for the most part, those aren't quite working. Especially when there are holes in the character development thread. Really, I think the filmmakers need to choose one or the other; they can have artistic holes in either the plot or the character development, not both.
I guess at the end of the film, while I enjoyed it and the last scene was really intense and immediately drew me back into the film, I wish the whole movie had been as engaging. It's one that I'm happy to have seen but never need to see again (unless I teach Upton Sinclair for some unknown reason) and really I just left the theater with a sense of "eh." I just didn't end up caring about it.
It's worth seeing, once at least, for Daniel Day-Lewis's performance.
I forgot about this (although I don't know how), so a postscript: The soundtrack was one of the worst things I've ever heard. The first sounds of the movie came on and I literally thought there was something wrong with the speakers--it just sounded like feedback, really loud and harsh feedback. The whole movie was like nails on a chalkboard for me. Anyway, it's an important point that probably feeds my concerns about the movie.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I'm Not There (2007) (nat)
I was there. Physically there in the theater on Sunset Blvd. while this film was playing. I was not, however, in whatever world or frame of mind Todd Haynes was in or requires of his viewers. I was not there, wherever "there" may be. That is all to say, I just don't quite get it.
I didn't dislike it. I thought much of it beautiful. I thought it all very well-acted. I wasn't too thrown by the idea of a lack of linear narrative, or any real so-called narrative. I thought the concept intriguing. I was interested in each of the six Dylans almost equally (although, admittedly, a nude Heath Ledger, a sculpted cheek-bone broody Christian Bale, and a superbly-androgynous Cate Blanchett kept my attention better than the child, the unknown-to-me actor, or the bedraggled Richard Gere). But the movie seemed to have some sort of agenda that wasn't known to me. I couldn't quite get enthusiastic about it while I was watching it. It's an odd feeling to like the actors you're watching, to find their characters likable and sympathetic, to find the situations they're in interesting and engaging, to enjoy the settings and music and color v. black/white juxtapositions, and etc. and yet not really engage with the movie (while not feeling like the movie has alienated its viewer on purpose). It's baffling, really. I guess I could say that it was over-ambitious. But I'm just not sure.
I didn't dislike it. I thought much of it beautiful. I thought it all very well-acted. I wasn't too thrown by the idea of a lack of linear narrative, or any real so-called narrative. I thought the concept intriguing. I was interested in each of the six Dylans almost equally (although, admittedly, a nude Heath Ledger, a sculpted cheek-bone broody Christian Bale, and a superbly-androgynous Cate Blanchett kept my attention better than the child, the unknown-to-me actor, or the bedraggled Richard Gere). But the movie seemed to have some sort of agenda that wasn't known to me. I couldn't quite get enthusiastic about it while I was watching it. It's an odd feeling to like the actors you're watching, to find their characters likable and sympathetic, to find the situations they're in interesting and engaging, to enjoy the settings and music and color v. black/white juxtapositions, and etc. and yet not really engage with the movie (while not feeling like the movie has alienated its viewer on purpose). It's baffling, really. I guess I could say that it was over-ambitious. But I'm just not sure.
All of that said, I'm in love with the soundtrack. And the movie was a lovely music video to showcase Dylan covers (which I like better than the original Dylan . . . I know, sacrilege and all. I just don't really like Dylan's voice in most cases).
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Enchanted (2007) (nat)
Cute! I'm officially in love with Amy Adams and I've never even seen June Bug that everyone else loved her for. So this one is about Gisele (Amy Adams) who is stashed away in the woods a la Sleeping Beauty and she's awaiting her true love, Prince Edward (James Marsden). Well, they find each other and plan to marry but the evil queen (almost literally Maleficent) tempts her (a la Snow White) and tosses he down a well. That little trick ends up tossing her out in the middle of NYC via a sewer cover. She meets Robert (Patrick Dempsey) and his daughter, Morgan, and the strange fairy tale begins.
It simultaneously upholds the fairy tale and turns the stereotypes on their heads. And it makes veiled (and not-so-veiled) references to all of Disney's princess stories: Gisele calls a midget "Grumpy" at one point; there's a huge choreographed dance number with a calypso beat during which they are in a canoe on a pond, on a carriage, and which includes 12 (I think) men in hard hats; the poison apple makes an appearance; there's a ball and the issue of midnight; a dragon; etc . . . .
It simultaneously upholds the fairy tale and turns the stereotypes on their heads. And it makes veiled (and not-so-veiled) references to all of Disney's princess stories: Gisele calls a midget "Grumpy" at one point; there's a huge choreographed dance number with a calypso beat during which they are in a canoe on a pond, on a carriage, and which includes 12 (I think) men in hard hats; the poison apple makes an appearance; there's a ball and the issue of midnight; a dragon; etc . . . .
Charlie Wilson's War (2007) (nat)
I'm not sure about this one. I don't like Julia Roberts. I'm ambivalent about Tom Hanks. I love Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I'm loving Amy Adams. I have trouble with the fact that I know what happens after the movie ends and it's not good.
It's the story of (Tom Hanks as) Charlie Wilson (with Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring whispering (loudly) directions in his ear) and how he managed to hoodwink Congress into allotting money for arms to aid the Afghans against the Soviets.
I just don't know about this one. It's not executed poorly in any real way but I'm troubled by the situation presented in the movie (and was prior to watching it) and I just don't know . . . .
It's the story of (Tom Hanks as) Charlie Wilson (with Julia Roberts as Joanne Herring whispering (loudly) directions in his ear) and how he managed to hoodwink Congress into allotting money for arms to aid the Afghans against the Soviets.
I just don't know about this one. It's not executed poorly in any real way but I'm troubled by the situation presented in the movie (and was prior to watching it) and I just don't know . . . .
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Notorious Bettie Page (2005) (nat)
Don't you hate it when you decide to watch a movie on HBO that you think is going to be a fun, campy, sexy biopic of a woman overcoming the physical and sexual abuse in her past and present by taking control of her sexuality by posing for pin-up and bondage photos and that movie turns into the story of a wacko Christian who learns nothing from the world at large and returns to her wacko Christianity with more fervor than before?
That's this one. The version of the icon in this movie never takes control of her life, is the perennial naive farm girl (unaware that the bondage photos might be seen as a bit off), and is continuously taken advantage of by one man after another. She trades evangelical Christianity for the pin-up world after being abused by her father and gang-raped only to attach herself to various men and then go back to the evangelical nut-house version of Christianity after Congress begins probes into obscenity. She never learns anything and the movie has her forever failing at acting when she, in real life, had some parts in normal plays and etc. It's just not very interesting and doesn't have much movement as a story.
That's this one. The version of the icon in this movie never takes control of her life, is the perennial naive farm girl (unaware that the bondage photos might be seen as a bit off), and is continuously taken advantage of by one man after another. She trades evangelical Christianity for the pin-up world after being abused by her father and gang-raped only to attach herself to various men and then go back to the evangelical nut-house version of Christianity after Congress begins probes into obscenity. She never learns anything and the movie has her forever failing at acting when she, in real life, had some parts in normal plays and etc. It's just not very interesting and doesn't have much movement as a story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)