Monday, July 28, 2008

Ordinary People (1980)

The best picture from 81 left me a little cold. I was with it for most of the movie but then one crucial moment left me wishing the whole thing were different.

The basic idea is that Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) and Calvin (Donald Sutherland) had two sons, Buck and Conrad (Timothy Hutton), but Buck (the eldest) dies tragically in a boat accident (before the action of the movie), which Conrad survives. Beth loved Buck intensely but can't really stand Conrad. Conrad, being the youngest and full of guilt about the accident and surviving the accident and his mother's indifference toward him, tries to kill himself, fails, ends up in a hospital for a few months, but is now back in school and in therapy with Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch).

The movie is well acted and Hutton is especially wonderful. But, and here's a spoiler, I wanted Beth to realize her arrogance and hurtful nature and change. At the critical moment where she goes into the bedroom to pack her bag to leave her husband and son when she has that moment where she might completely break down and let herself feel something, I was so hoping she would just have an Angelina Jolie in A Might Heart moment and just wail. But she doesn't. She leaves her family in favor of the pastel golfing vacation of Texas. I just felt like the whole movie was about these people (who are a little too privileged to be "ordinary") dealing with the death of a son/brother and the two more obviously vulnerable people, Calvin and Conrad, trying to help the one who was obviously the most hurt, Beth, and each one has an epiphany in his own way except Beth. She never deals with it but instead goes on in her stick up her ass manner.

Maybe I'll appreciate it more as I get away from it and I understand not having Beth break down--to save it from being unbearably sappy--but I do think there could have been an intelligent way to show us that she's dealing with it. Oh well. It's worth seeing but I do wish it were different.

And, random note, I think Liv Tyler stole her whole being from Elizabeth McGovern.

Weight by Jeanette Winterson (2005)

Another of the Canongate Myth series--seemingly published simultaneously with Atwood's. Regardless, I liked this one a great deal more than the Atwood. I've also never read anything by Winterson--the British getting in the way thus far--but I am enamoured with her style and language and manner of storytelling.

Weight is the re-telling, or "Cover Version" as Winterson wrote, of the Atlas and Heracles (the Greek version of the better known Roman counterpart, Hercules). The basic myth is that the gods punished Atlas, a Titan, and made him hold the earth, in essence making him the cosmos. One day Heracles visits Atlas (no one ever did) to ask his help. Hera (Hercule's stepmother) has cursed him and made him the slave of a worthless man who demands Heracles bring him the best items on earth, defeat the biggest monsters, etc. This time Heracles needs golden apples from Hera's tree which is planted inside the gates of Atlas's garden (on earth, from before he was punished) but Heracles cannot pick the apples himself. So, Atlas has Heracles hold the earth while he goes to pick the apples and then all manner of trickery, fate, and whatnot are evoked, just so I don't give anything away if the original myth isn't known.

Winterson's retelling focuses on retelling. The fact that we all want to tell the story again and again and again, which is especially clever because that's all these myths were and are, retellings whether the early oral versions or the various written versions or the versions we tell when trying to repeat the storyline. And, of course, it mimics the earth's revolution on an axis, and it's revolution around the sun both of which evoke Atlas. Tied in with the retelling of the older story, Winterson tells a contemporary version with humans and even brings Atlas into the twentieth century.

It's really a charming and compelling story (I read it in one sitting last night) that is tightly focused yet casts a wide enough net so that it can encompass the world whose story it tells. Really just lovely. I, of course, promptly sought out another Winterson so we'll see if my infatuation remains constant. And, of course, it gives me great hope for the rest of the Canongate series.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood (2005)

This is one of Canongate's Myth series--the first one or two of the myths to be published (Armstrong's A Short History of Myth was first, I think, and I'm not sure where Winterson's Weight falls--they may have all come out simultaneously actually). Anyway, I've never read anything by Atwood so I can't place it in terms of her work but it is a decent retelling.

I'm not super excited about it but it wasn't at all bad. It retells the Odyssey from Penelope's point of view (from the underworld in the 21st century)--adding in her life pre-Odysseus--with a chorus of twelve maids (those who were hanged by Odysseus and Telemachus upon Odysseus's return to Ithaca).

At first I didn't quite believe the voice of Penelope but at the story progressed, I settled into the narration (although some of the choruses didn't completely work for me). Atwood does interesting things in terms of allowing Penelope her story while also allowing the maids their story and allowing the two to conflict with the Odyssey and with each other. And, at the very end, giving us a glimpse of Odysseus and his afterlife. And, of course, Atwood puts a feminist spin on Homer while acknowledging that she's doing so--a sort of meta feminism--and allowing an intertextuality without over-stressing it but making it fun while not undermining or trivializing it (Penelope chooses to tell her story from the beginning, for example, because there are only two ways--from the beginning or the middle--and she thinks the former the better choice when, of course, Homer chose in medias res).

All in all a quick short worthwhile read. I'd need to re-read Homer but it might be interesting to teach this with the "original" text and something like O, Brother.

Rope (1948)

This one marks another one off the list--although completely inadvertently. Per usual, it was on tv and seemed the only thing even remotely interesting so I watched it.

It's fine. I understand why it's on the list. For one, it's Hitchcock and, like Woody Allen, just about all of his films are on the list. But the most important feature of the film is that it was supposed to be shot in one continuous sequence (hello, Russian Ark) but instead Hitchcock shot it in ten minute sequences. So it's important in that sense.

Anyway, the basic plot is that Brandon and Phillip have killed David (as the movie opens we see David being strangled) and put into a chest in the living room of Brandon's apartment (that looks very similar in structure to the apartment in Roman Holiday). After the murder Phillip is waffling about the action while Brandon is reveling in the fact that he's killed someone for no real reason other than he can because he's of a higher station. And Brandon is giddy because they are having a party at the apartment in a matter of minutes and it's exhilarating to have a dead body right there with no one noticing. Well, the problem is that they've invited an old teacher, Rupert (James Stewart) to the party. Brandon thinks that Rupert holds the same opinions on murder--and he does, in theory but not in practice. So the whole movie is a party during which Phillip acts squirrelly, the guests are very worried about where David might be (because he was invited to the party too), and Brandon philosophizes about murder while serving food from the chest in which David lies instead of from the usual place of the dining room table. Rupert, of course, figures it all out and turns them in.

It's really only interesting in terms of the creation of the thing. I never really believed that Rupert would go along with the boys' plot nor did I think Rupert would approve of his theories being put into action nor did I think Rupert wouldn't discover the dead body. The only question was when the body would be discovered and the running time of the film sort of dictated that because once the body was found the game was up and so would be the trick of the film.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

I'll admit to thinking "what the hell?" when I first heard about this movie. But what else are you supposed to think when you hear it's about a guy who falls in love with a sex doll?

I was very pleasantly surprised and delighted with this movie. It's very sweet and touching and funny. Lars experiences a break of sorts. His sister in law is pregnant which dredges up his issues with his parents (mom died in childbirth and dad was too heartbroken to be such a great parent) and his brother (who left town as soon as he was old enough without consideration of Lars being left behind). And, yes, then Lars orders and has a relationship with a sex doll he named Bianca. What follows is a moving story of how a small town rallies behind Lars's relationship with a doll and how the doll actually ends up touching the hearts of the townspeople.

Not only is it a wonderfully sweet story but it's well acted. You totally believe that Ryan Gosling is in love with Bianca and you can see how heartbroken everyone is when anything goes wrong. Patricia Clarkson is wonderful as the doctor, Emily Mortimer is wonderful as the sister-in-law, Paul Schneider is fantastic as the brother, and Kelli Garner is adorable as Margo. It's lovely, it's just a really lovely movie.

Looking for Kitty (2004)

It was on tv. I'd confused Edward Burns for Edward Norton. It was terrible.

I like Ed Burns just fine (although I like Norton better) but I am not a fan of his "ode to New York" movies. She's the One is cute and quirky enough and he should have stopped there (and I really only like that one as much as I do because Tom Petty did the entire soundtrack)--of course that would have stopped him just two movies into his career but whatever. I'm all for New York. I liked it a lot when I visited it twice. I like the idea of it. I get that New Yorkers have a deep deep love for New York in the same way Texans love Texas and South Carolinians put that damned Palmetto tree on everything. I get it. I don't need a movie in which awkward lines about the architecture are inserted. I see that the little old guy didn't sell out and that the big glass mega structure had to be built around the historic one. I see that. I don't need the lecture in the middle of a supposed detective story.

Oh, right, so the basic idea is that Burns is a down on his luck private eye (maybe formerly of the NYPD but we don't know for certain) who is given the case of a very Mario Brother looking David Krumholtz who is looking for his wife (the titular Kitty) who left her husband six months ago after asking for a divorce and is now shacked up with a rock star named Ron Stewart (right, Ron, not Rod). Burns's wife is dead but we don't know for how long and he's lonely and Krumholtz is lonely and they make friends. So then Burns talks Krumholtz into the idea that the woman is just not good enough for him because she's not interested in his all-consuming baseball passion. And then Krumholtz leaves New York without his wife who Burns then meets and chastises without actually doing so.

It's just bland and not so very interesting and not even a great love letter to New York.

The Dark Knight (2008)

I've been in love with Batman forever:






And I've been in love with Christian Bale since about 1993. So, it just makes sense that I really really really loved this movie. It had a lot going against it: the almost 3 hour run time, the hype surrounding the film and Ledger's death seemed a little much, the expectations based on the hype and my life-long love . . . . But the movie really is just wonderful. (Spoilers to follow)

First, they managed to have the courage to kill off the "girlfriend." A superhero just can't have a girlfriend and especially not one who had the audacity to tell him that no she would not date him. Spiderman would have gone soooo much better without Mary Jane (well, and without the emo bangs, dance number . . . ). A superhero has to have some angst and a dead girlfriend just makes it that much deeper.

Second, it manages to give us one full-fledged villain while creating and killing off another in the course of the film (and, of course, giving us an all too brief glimpse at Cillian's pretty blue eyes). That's hard to pull off and even harder to do well. This is all not to mention, of course, Ledger being brilliant as the Joker. I don't know that he'll get an Oscar nod--really, who is going to get one for a Batman movie? Hollywood just doesn't take superhero movies that seriously yet (I think the tide is turning, though). Anyway, he's genius. And Aaron Eckhart does a magnificent job as a good guy gone bad, a bad guy who is just wacko, and not trying to compete with Ledger. There is a wonderful balance to the villains.

Third, we got to see Batman go through a crisis of conscience while maintaining the dignity of the film and the character (for a bad example of this, see Daniel Craig in Casino Royale--the script's treatment of James Bond, not the acting). And we also see Bruce Wayne go through a similar crisis and Bale manages to keep the characters separate while maintaining their intrinsic connection.

And, of course, there are all of the fun Batman gadgets, Alfred, and all of the other fantastic characters that make a Batman movie just lovely.

One tiny confusion does arise in the scene where Batman is leaving the police station after learning that Dent and Rachel are in danger. Gordon seems to ask Batman who Batman is going to save. Batman yells "Rachel" but then ends up at the location with Dent. The rest of the film then rests on the fact that Batman chose to save the "White Knight." The problem is whether Batman chose to save Dent or whether it was a trick of the Joker. Was Batman telling Gordon to go to Rachel (because Gordon says later that he was supposed to save her--albeit to Dent/Two Face in order to save his own son so it could have been a lie)? Was Batman tricked? Did Batman change his mind? None of this would be super important except the juxtaposition of White v. Dark Knight and the choices humanity makes are crucial to the second half of the film. But, regardless of that one thing, the movie is just wonderful, really very wonderful. Definitely a must see, definitely a must own.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

I am amazed at how they manage to make the Hellboy movies so damned boring. The idea is super interesting. The characters seem likable and intriguing and complex. The basic plots are universal and somewhat complicated. And, yet, both Hellboy movies have just been boring. Not violently boring but boring nonetheless.

Another complaint is the lack of attention paid to DelToro's aesthetic. We see all of these wonderful creatures in the troll market, we see the fairies throughout the film, and we get glimpses of other creatures but the only ones who are actually given any substance, any back story, any interest are the tooth fairies. And then they leave the film. I don't see much of a point in showing us the cool guy with the houses on his head if we don't even get to know his name or what he is.

And, finally, the eco message is severely undercut by the eco warriors using mechanized things to carry out their goals. The golden army is not exactly eco-friendly.

Overall, it was fine but just fine.

Atmospheric Disturbances by Rivka Galchen (2008)

Ugh. I've been putting off updating the blog because I didn't want to write about this book. The basic idea is that Dr. Leo Liebenstein's wife, Rema, presumably goes missing one day and a simulacrum is sent to her home in her place. This ersatz wife is exactly like Rema, with the exception of barely perceptible differences--that are only barely perceptible to Leo because we supposedly never see the "real" Rema, only the simulacrum. Leo then proceeds to "hunt" for Rema, in the loosest sense of the word. He is also disturbed by what is first a "russet" dog but is later described as a miniature greyhound (none of which are russet I believe). Leo first looks around the city, mainly just going to the coffee shop where he first stalked, er, met, Rema. Then he goes to Rema's mother in Argentina, whom he's presumably never met. Then he goes to Patagonia on "work." Right. So Leo is supposedly a trained psychologist and that is his profession but then he begins to believe the delusion of a patient, that they are super-meteorologists of sorts who control the weather. Right. And he has to Patagonia to do this.

The main problem I have here is that the ersatz wife situation doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like Leo is delusional, from page one. Even with a suspension of disbelief that a simulacrum of one's wife could show up at one's apartment, the narrator (who is unfortunately Leo) has to convince us that this is actually the case. He doesn't do this though. He only convinces us that he is crazy. From the first page, we get the idea that this may actually be his wife. That Rema is in fact herself and it is Leo who is just bonkers. So then the reader has the unpleasant feeling the whole length of the book that the end will divulge that all of this has been in the imagination of the narrator. I might have been ok with that if the author actually divulged what was wrong with Leo . . . Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, delusions, etc. But we never learn anything. We don't know if it is the real Rema, we don't know if Leo has imagined the whole thing, we don't know what might be wrong with Leo, etc. All of this is compounded by the fact that Leo is not a likable character and is not only not a reliable narrator but is a violently annoying narrator. At every turn, he's pushing you out of the book. If it weren't for my curiosity about how bad the book would be, I would have stopped reading almost immediately.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Chinatown (1974)

I have to admit to being very tired when I watched this the other night. I did like it but it was a bit sleepy for me to really appreciate it, I think.

So we have private eye, JJ Gittes (Jack Nicholson) who is hoodwinked into investigating the faux affair of Hollis Mulwray by an actress posing as his wife. The real Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) then shows up at Gittes office and everything starts to unravel. Mrs. Mulwray has a few secrets as does the water department and they all come to light for Gittes, before being swept under the rug in Chinatown.

I liked the movie well enough. I was tired and the movie is a little slow but I love Faye Dunaway and Nicholson is wonderful at his best. I also liked the whole look of the movie.

The Good Fairies of New York by Martin Millar (1992)

Millar is a Scottish writer (though he lives in London) who is praised (and introduced in this novel) by Neil Gaiman. I can't remember where I read anything about this book but I'm happy I did. It's a fun piece of fluff. Super easy to read, funny, and wonderful.

The basic plot is that two Scottish fairies have been run out of Scotland and end up in New York, the same happens to a few English and Irish fairies. The two Scottish fairies befriend a couple of humans after having a falling out between themselves (clan feuds amongst fairies) while the Irish and English stick to the animals in Central Park. What follows is a cute story about punk rock fairies, human suffering and love, modernization/industrialization of the fairy world, race concerns amongst fairies, and other concerns.

The plot is a tad complicated for easy synopsis and there are so many characters it would be hard to follow anyway. But it is a charming book that's worth a read.

Hancock (2008)

Hmmmmm. I love a good superhero movie. I really do. But only a good superhero movie. What I don't like is when one movie is comprised of two half-assed movies crammed together, is marketed as a comedy when only the first half is funny while pretending to have lofty morals in terms of a origin story that doesn't make a damned bit of sense. I wanted to see the funny, clumsy, drunk, belligerent superhero terrorize LA while sort-of saving it. I did not want to see some of that and them a stupid, ill-conceived creation of the earth myth with an equally unexplained second superhero. And I certainly don't like a movie that doesn't answer or at least acknowledge a lack of answer to its own questions. It's not horrible but it's not good either.

The 351 Books of Irma Arcuri by David Bajo (2008)

One might think a book with "just enough" blow jobs might be interesting. Not the case. Not the case at all. This entry is going to be a bit lewd. In an effort to see just how many bjs were "just enough," I kept a log. The trouble was that the book had so much more than the occasional bj. Well, so much more by way of sexual acts. Not so much more in terms of actual content.

So, the basic gist of the novel is that Irma Arcuri has disappeared herself and left her 351 books to her off/on (right now off) lover Philip. Supposedly, Philip is going to set out to find her wherever she's hidden herself. Also coming into the picture is a strange woman, Lucia, who resembles Irma and becomes Philip's lover, Philip's first wife Rebecca and her children Sam (still in high school) and Nicole (in college), Philip's second wife Beatrice, Philip's friend Isaac, and various other players--most of whom have slept with each other and all of whom have slept with Irma (yep, women and high school boys included).

More or less Bajo wanted to retell Don Quixote but doesn't do such a great job. He's got the bumbling guy trying his damnedest to find his "fair Dulcinea" but he doesn't so much capture anything else about the older text, certainly none of the subtlety or literary quality. The other HUGE problem is that while this is titled the 351 books of Irma Arcuri, we only get scant information about 26 of them. That seems wrong and flimsy. We get the most, of course, about Don Quixote which just makes the whole re-telling aspect of this book trite. AND, Irma Arcuri is never found (she MAY show up on the very last page but we don't know). I have many many many more complaints about the book but they are really just too stupid and annoying to rehash or list.

So, just because I made this list in order to count how many bjs are"just enough" (7 by the way, apparently 7 is just enough), I'm putting it here. Just skip it if you want. And definitely give the book a skip.

"zed" p1-2 female nudity (Irma)
"zed" p2 "twin volcanoes with late morning light flooding down their chutes" (really? did we need this?)
"zed" p4-5 female nudity, intimations of sex, hard on (Irma & Phillip)

ch1 p23 Phillip picks up Lucia in bar (who writes her phone number on a Chinese finger puzzle, wink wink. This finger puzzle returns as a book mark and idle toy repeatedly.)
ch1 p25 erection while riding behind Lucia on Vespa (Phillip)

ch2 p27 sex (in Irma's book between I&P doppelgangers)
ch2 p35 threesome (Irma, Phillip, & Beatrice)
ch2 p36 threesome redux
ch2 p37 revelation of lesbian affair (Beatrice & Irma to Phillip)

ch3 p39 continued revelation of lesbian affair
ch3 p40 girls make out (Irma & Beatrice)
ch3 p41-2 girls have sex (I&B)
ch3 p43 blow job (P&B)
ch3 p43 oral (P&B)
ch3 p44 intimations of sex (P&B)
ch3 p53 revelation of loss of virginity

ch4 p55-6 sex several times (I&P)
ch4 p57 female nudity (I)
ch4 p62 nudity (Lucia &P)
ch4 p62 erection (P)
ch4 p63 oral, erection (L&P)
ch4 p64 sex against hotel window which has no drapes (L&P)

ch5 p72-3 blow job#2 (L&P)
ch5 p73 sex (L&P)
ch5 p73 nudity (L)
ch5 p74 nudity (P)
ch5 p74 sex (I&P)
ch5 p76 ref to bj on p72
ch5 p 76 sex in Irma's book (I&P doppelgangers)
ch5 p78 sex--5 times (I&P's friend Isaac)

ch6 p86 "lake seduction" (I's novel)
ch6 p87 hand job (I's novel)
ch6 p87-8 Phillip's doppelganger loses his virginity in high school to a girl who also runs track--on the mat after a jump DURING a meet with their clothes on with detail given as to this works exactly and it lasted more than 10 seconds (I's novel)
ch6 p88 sex 3 more times with the above track girl who has a boyfriend (I's novel)
ch6 p92 female nudity (Lucia)
ch6 p92-3 sex (Lucia&Phillip)
ch6 p93 blow job#3 mid-sex (L&P)

ch7 p115 memories of sex with Irma (P)
ch7 p126 3way kiss in pool (P&I&Phillip's first wife Rebecca)
ch7 p126 Video-taped sex (P&R)

ch8 p130 female nudity (I)
ch8 p130 erection (P)
ch8 p133 sex in chair (P&R)
ch8 p134 sex (P&I)
ch8 p140 watching video of sex with Rebecca that Rebecca filmed and that her then ex but now reconciled husband and father to her children watched (P)
ch 8 p140 while watching video, notices splice of Irma's nude back indicating R's affair with Irma(P)
ch8 p143 reveal of affair with Rebecca's kids, Sam (in high school) and Nicole (freshman in college)

ch9 p149 kiss (R)
ch9 p150-1 sex (I&P)
ch9 p151 blow job (I&P)
ch9 p151 sex (I&P)

ch10 p178 blow job (P&I)
ch10 p184 female nudity (I)

ch11 p195 reference to sex (Sam and Irma's niece)
ch11 p202-3 wives' seduction, step kids, seduction, stories told to Irma's nieces and nephews (P about I)

ch12 p217 erection (Sam thanks to I)
ch12 p218 erection (conversation b/t I&S)
ch12 p210-20 invite to hotel and acceptance (S&I)
ch12 p223 blow job (B&P at windmills in Spain)
ch12 p223 oral (P on B)
ch12 p223-4 sex (B&P)

ch13 p251 make out (P&I)
ch13 p252 talk sex with Lucia posing as Irma
ch13 p252 sex (I&P)
ch13 p253 Lucia kisses Philip while pretending to be Irma
ch13 p254 kissing (L&P)
ch13 p255 female nudity (L)
ch13 p255-6 oral (P on L)
ch13 p256 hand job (L on P)
ch13 p256 sex (L&P)

ch14 p258 sex (I&P)
ch14 p261 blow job wake up call (L or maybe I on P)
ch14 p261 69 (L or maybe I with P)
ch14 p263-4 reference to sex on p261
ch14 p267 reference to sex (I)
ch14 p271 make out (L&P)
ch14 p272 sex (L&P)
ch14 p272 naked (I)
ch14 p283 kiss (maybe from Irma to Beatrice, maybe Philip to Beatrice, maybe Philip to Irma)

The Women (1939)

Oh, I am a bit behind on the blogging. I watched this movie while I was at my parents' house the other week. I am fairly certain one of my high school teachers told me to watch this or to read the play . . . I don't remember which. Anyway, The Women is certainly an interesting film.

The basic premise is that one woman's husband is cheating on her and her group of friends becomes involved to something of a detrimental effect. So, you've got the married woman with the cheating husband, a married friend who is certain her husband would never cheat (that doesn't so much work out for her) who is a terrible gossip and instigator and also the cousin of the married woman, a newlywed whose husband won't let her have a say in anything, and a "feminist" (gasp!) who is not married. Then you have the gold-digging perfume saleswoman who is the temptress in the affair. High jinks ensue and all works out in the end for the good girls (at least by the terms the movie sets).

What is interesting about this film is that there are no men in it. Not one. Yet almost the entire subject matter of the film revolves around men. What makes this trick sort-of bad is that a film that is ostensibly about women, ends up being all about the absent men. And, given that it was made in the late 30s, the hurrah! moment of the end doesn't feel as great for women as I'm sure it did then. What the film does well is capture the gossip and the speech patterns of women as well as the intricacies of our friendships.

The cast is spectacular: Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell . . . and some I don't know the names of but who performed wonderfully.

It's a good movie with interesting things to say about how far women have come--especially since this was marked as a turning point for women--but it does feel a little long in parts. I am incredibly interested to see how the film is updated for the remake due out later this year (I think). I'm not sure it will work and still be the same premise but I'm interested to see what they try.