I'm Not Shouting! Alright, I Am.

My Long, Ultimate (But Not Really), Super Personalized Television Shows List

2012-01-08T01:41:00.000-08:00

Hello my lovely readers... if there's anyone still out there.

I apologize profusely for my long absence. It has been a long several months in many ways - academically, personally, and in the entertainment and art world. I've seen many a movie and many many a television episode. I do not have much new to talk about or analyze. I could do quite a bit with We Need to Talk About Kevin, but I'd rather not because that would be digging too deep into my personal life and I really want to talk to my therapist about my relationship with that movie. I could talk about how things like We Need to Talk About Kevin and Breaking Bad, amongst many other things, remind me of my weirdly complicated relationship with my brother - which shouldn't be that complicated considering we've spoken very little with one another in about a decade. This is a subject matter I fully intend to explore through my film work. Expect lots of bizarre stories of young men and older brothers.

Right now, I feel more like discussing something more to my liking - making a list. I will delve into the personal realm (as I always do) as I plan to write in this post the master list of all the television shows I have ever watched (well, dedicated more than an episode or two to) and my experiences with them. Some I will brush over quickly, others I will talk about more extensively. This has little to do with whether I think a show is great or terrible. I will leave my thoughts as these shows as art and entertainment to another post another time, but here I do plan to explore my relationship with each of these shows. So, I hope this is enjoyed and I hope you don't mind that it's not as analytical or exciting as anything I'd like to write but this is what I want to write right now.

Note: I am skipping over a fair chunk of the television I watched as a kid. Things that have stuck with me, or that I've rewatched more recently, are more likely to be listed here. But things like Sesame Street, which, though great, I haven't watched since probably the mid-nineties isn't going to make it on this list.

Note Part 2: I will be including a lot of television I watched sporadically (as, pre-Heroes I didn't watch most television regularly). This will all be noted below.

Let us begin...

- 10 Things I Hate About You
Originally, I thought this show would be stupid. I loved the original movie it was loosely based off of and this was going on ABC Family. It also didn't get renewed. I also never finished this show. But it was actually kind of enjoyable and I liked being proven wrong for once. The sisters were good... the boys, especially the supposed-to-be-Joseph-Gordon-Levitt one weren't quite so solid. I haven't been able to bring myself to finish it because I know it won't be satisfying as it was canceled.

- 2 Broke Girls
Being as this is a more recent show, I've watched it from the very beginning. I'm thinking of quitting it now though. I love Kat Dennings and Beth Behrs as the leads, but the show doesn't seem to honor their talent and chemistry well enough. And I'm worried about messy mythology - which, for me, is essential in a good sitcom or any show really.

- 7th Heaven
I'm not (too) ashamed to admit I've seen every episode. I watched the first seven seasons in reruns and then started watching it from there. Not going to lie, I even embraced fan fiction for this one. I enjoyed the middle seasons where it started making fun of itself but wasn't as melodramatic as it started out and ended. I admit it's all pretty friggin ridiculous, but it was on after Gilmore Girls reruns on ABC Family afternoons so I ended up watching it too... and Smallville.

- 8 Simple Rules
I never got super into this one - I watched some reruns and caught a few new episodes. It was before I got into regularly watching television.

- All That
One of my childhood loves - I didn't get the Disney channel until I was about eleven or twelve (when it became part of our basic cable plan) so Nickelodeon was my place. It deserved to be too - shows like All That really were fun and kind of funny - especially to a kid who didn't get Saturday Night Live humour yet.

- The Amanda Show
Same as above. I watched both sometimes regularly, sometimes sporadically. I've probably seen most of the episodes of both, if not all of them at one point or another. With All That, though, I know they brought it back for years after I stopped watching with people whom I know nothing about so, at least for The Amanda Show, I probably watched it all.

- America's Funniest Home Videos
Some of them were really hilarious. Some weren't. Sometimes I watched. Frequently I didn't.

- American Idol
My relationship with American Idol is actually a fun story. I watched the season one finale, just the very end, where Kelly Clarkson won and sang "A Moment Like This." I was always into music and that's the moment I decided to be a pop star and eventually audition when I was old enough. I started watching around the Top 8 of season 2 and then watched regularly seasons 3 through 5. Then I was old enough to audition. At that age, 16, I wasn't sure I still wanted to do music, but I decided to go through with it anyway. As you can probably guess, I didn't make it. Didn't even make it to the proper auditions you see on screen. Not surprising to me (I was nervous as fuck all) and I didn't mind after a bit of childhood dream-crushing. See, American Idol started to literally put me to sleep in the 5th season. I would eat dinner, start my homework, half-watch TV, put on American Idol, pass out halfway through, sleep for a couple hours, finish my homework, then go to sleep proper. It was a regular thing. Nights when it wasn't on, it would be another show that would put me to sleep. Sophomore year must've been an exhausting year (oh 15/16-year-old self, I don't think a single year has been chill since). I watched a bit of the season 6 premiere to look for any sign of myself and then recently part of the NY auditions in the most recent season (where I recognized a girl I'd taken a PoliSci class with flirting with Steven Tyler... oi).

- Angry Beavers
Watched frequently as a kid, probably caught most of it. Seems funny to me now that I know other meanings of beavers.

- Animaniacs
This is how I learned e=mc2 amongst many other important things as a child. Watched a fair chunk, though not particularly regularly.

- Arrested Development
Currently progressing through (halfway through season 2). Everyone told me I should watch it. So far I'm really liking it. Like I've mentioned above, mythology is everything to me. It screams consistency and care in any television show. It doesn't have to be huge or central, just present.

- Batman
This live action Batman TV series was my show as a kid. It was my introduction to Batman, even before the animated show. Seeing the porno Batman XXX inspired by the show was wonderful too - the porn parts didn't matter to me but OH MY GOD was it hilariously pitch-perfect to the old TV show. I love this shit. Believe me, I love almost all of Batman, but this is my origin story.

- Batman: The Animated Series
A continuation of my love affair with Batman over my life, I've seen most, if not all, of this show. I started rewatching it a couple years ago (having downloaded the whole show) but got really lazy about it and stopped in the single digits.

- Battlestar Galactica (2004)
Well, if you know anything about my love for television, you know about my love for this show. One of my favorite television shows ever, I've seen every episode at least twice (though I admit to skipping over "Black Market" most of the times I've rewatched it), seen all the webisodes, and I own the entire series (TV movies included - well, not The Plan, but I've seen The Plan... it's kind of crap). 4.12 and 4.13 are probably my favorite episodes in the series, and Laura Roslin is likely my favorite character. She's one of the best female characters ever and that Mary McDonnell never got an Emmy nod is bollocks. Same about the show, but Jesus Christ especially her.

- The Big Bang Theory
Started watching this a couple years ago, caught up on the entire series, and have seen it all. It's got its moments and I do like it overall, although I understand discomfort with it - it can be pretty clear that the people behind it are painting a picture of nerds they know, not nerds they are.

- Bill Nye the Science Guy
Like any kid who took science in the '90s, this man is everything and his show was the highlight of science classes to me (until I took chemistry in high school and fucking loved it). We got a history teacher in 11th grade named Chip Nye and we had a kid in our class named Chip, which was in place of William - so we all hoped desperately that he was Bill Nye the Hist'ry Guy. Alas, that wasn't his first name, we had him for one class, he ended up in the hospital, and we never heard anything about him again.

- Boy Meets World
Boy Meets World was one of my favorite television shows growing up. I started watching it just as it ended its run at the end of the nineties/the early '00s and watched reruns constantly. I've seen it all and loved it all (even the more blah parts). "Chick Like Me" was one of my favorite episodes ever. Mr. Feeney was the best - one of the few folks I've ever splurged on a graphic tee for (I gave up on graphic tees generally when I was about 15 or so - now I buy them once in a blue moon for good reason - my Mr. Feeney T-shirt, my Nightwish T-shirt, my Hunger Games themed teefury T-shirt, my Leon Botstein T-shirt, and my Harry and the Potters T-shirt). I laughed, I cried, I admired Shawn's hair, and I to this day believe in the power of the contents of my purse to reveal everything about me.

- The Brady Bunch
My lesser of my two favorite shows in the Nick at Nite line-up, The Brady Bunch was good wholesome fun but also kind of dull at times. Still, I watched pretty much all of it. I still don't believe they never thanked Alice before that one episode though.

- Breaking Bad
This is my newest current project. After telling myself I'd watch it for years and being told to watch it by anyone whose site I read (and my brother most recently - though he was actually telling our parents but I'd been planning to eventually anyway), I finally dove last evening. I'm still on season one and slowly working my way into it. The scene with Jesse's family, so far... it makes me think this is who my brother might paint himself as. When I watch shows I know my brother loves (like this and The Wire), I see how he looks at them from what I know about him. He used to dress like Jesse. Still sort of does. Used to consider himself pretty "hood" but he had a nice wholesome home to come home to and a younger sibling, whom I can bet he imagined had conversations about whether to continue the piccolo or oboe. Just to let you know, Drew, we never had fucking conversations like that, considering I don't play any classical instruments and I had the decency to continue playing saxophone into college even though that drumset mom and dad bought for you went unused for years after you quit a year and a half into it. Ahem. Like I said, my personal life has been on a mind a lot lately. Excuse me.

- The Cape (2011)
Unlike Abed, I gave up on The Cape pretty quickly. I fell behind after the first four episodes and then it got canceled and I never bothered to catch up. I wanted to like it - I did like it - but it didn't work out between us.

- Caprica
Did you not read above how everything to do with Battlestar Galactica is my life? No? Well then, I've seen all of Caprica. I started from the beginning. I remember seeing advertisements when I visited my roommate in L.A. - I was so excited to see them. I was so excited for the show. Overall, I really did like it, although I liked 1.0 better than 1.5. Tamara's episode where she conquered the Matrix essentially... best. And Daniel threatening Zoebot with fire. Beautiful shit.

- CatDog
Watched this here and there as a kid. Never got very attached. As I had a cat and a dog, I found the premise pretty amusing though.

- Chuck
I started watching Chuck from the start because it aired with Heroes, which was my favorite show at the time. By the second season, Chuck was one of my favorite shows on the air. I even attended Chuckfest 2010 when I was in L.A. with my roommate (whom I had gotten into it) and watched the third season premiere there. I admit I've fallen behind on the latest season (the latest twist at the end of season four was not my favorite to say the least) but I intend to get back into it by the time my beloved series ends.

- Clarissa Explains It All
Oh Melissa Joan Hart - you were everywhere in the nineties. Including in my television when I watched the occasional rerun of this.

- Community
I started watching this from the start and have kept up with it lovingly. I own the first season on DVD as of a couple weeks ago. Community is one of my favorite shows ever and possibly my favorite sitcom ever. I love all the characters and admire Abed's dedication to pop culture I could never reach and, most of all, I relate most to the show as a whole and its feelings and opinions because very few shows have that sort of character of its own you can touch (that aren't simply the lead character) and feel connected to.

- Cowboy Bebop
Someone suggested I watch Cowboy Bebop when I was fifteen because the way we were Role-Playing Atton and Mira (from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords) reminded her a lot of Spike and Faye's relationship. I caught the second half of the third episode at about 2AM that night on my tiny TV in my room and was intrigued. I caught the entirety of the fifth episode a couple days later. I fell in love. I borrowed the first five episodes from a friend who was super into it, then bought the entire rest of the series myself. I've seen this show a number of times, and the movie, and it is one of my favorite shows ever, competing most frequently with Battlestar Galactica for that top spot. I named my cat Spike after Spike Spiegel. And more than the show itself, I absolutely love the music. Anybody who's seen the show would say the same. Being a saxophonist myself, the jazz music (and the many genres the music actually covers) was a revitalization of my love for music that had fallen away and assurance that being a saxophonist was super boss and a good thing to have chosen to identify as. I have never gotten sick of the music at large (though some songs, of course, have lost their touch). I've learned some of them on saxophone, including "Tank!" of course. I wrote my own song to the tune of "Goodnight Julia." That music, that show, made me love jazz. And I love jazz.

- Dexter
I'd started hearing a lot about Dexter after its fourth season, now that I had started listening to the winds of pop culture and the entertainment world. So I started watching. I worked through the first four seasons, assured I would love Lilah by an acquaintance and then hating her with a passion, realizing that season one was my favorite by a longshot and that I still liked the show overall. I've kept with the show, liking it and being disappointed in it in equal measure. Mos Def was the best part of season six and the big reveal came too late and in an otherwise blegh finale. But I won't quit it yet. I care too much about what happens next.

- Dexter's Laboratory
Who, my age, didn't watch this as a kid? Goddammit, Deedee, gtfo of his lab already! I've seen a fair chunk of this show though possibly not all.

- Doug
I really have no attachments to this show, though I watched it pretty regularly as a kid.

- Downton Abbey
Marathoned the first season early last semester after I'd started hearing about how good it was and loved it dearly. Then season two came and wasn't quite as brilliant, though still good, and thank god for that Christmas Special.

- Even Stevens
Shia LeBouf, I will always remember you as Louis Stevens and Stanley Yelnats, even if I questioned your casting as Stanley at the time (Stanley was supposed to be Caveman! He was supposed to be bulky!). I watched most of this show in reruns once we got Disney.

- Falling Skies
All the reminders to me of Battlestar Galactica have helped me really like this show more than I might have expected. It's not brilliant, but it's pretty good and I like most of the characters (even the teenage son - which is weird because teenagers on TV usually suck unless they're the main cast... when they still might suck but it's a bit more up in the air). Mostly though I love finding connections to one of my favorite sci-fi series.

- Firefly
Speaking of brilliant sci-fi, I finally watched through Firefly over the summer. I wasn't sure that I'd like it as much as I did because I'd been told for so long by so many people how great it was, and been told more underwhelming things by a few others. But whether it's a great show or not, I loved it. The movie too. Reavers are the most terrifying embodiment I've seen on TV in a long time. And man oh man was I all for Kaylee and Simon to live happily ever after. Spoiler alert, but someone told me the end of Serenity was like a bloodbath so I was expecting the worst. I was so glad I didn't have to watch everyone die like I expected.

- FlashForward
Well, Voldemort's younger brother Shakespeare was the lead and I find him mighty attractive and I was intrigued by the show and I stuck through it and watched it all and discussed it and liked it pretty well, but I wasn't so impressed that I was at all disappointed when it was canceled.

- The Flintstones
Watched this sporadically but quite a bit as a kid. This and The Jetsons were a big thing back then. My whole family were big fans.

- The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
Seen most of it via reruns. Oh Will Smith, I have adored you.

- Full House
I've seen the whole series, most of it multiple times, thanks to reruns. This is one show I regularly watched reruns for (and there were a lot of them) throughout my adolescence. I still watch reruns of it occasionally. It's got its moments. I liked the three dads routine. It also made my home feel pitifully small. Most TV I watched as a kid made me feel isolated. I did live on top of a hill at the end of a dead-end road in a rural town filled with lots of old people.

- Game of Thrones
Started watching this from the beginning and have seen it all. Nothing much to report, besides my love for how goddamn attractive Robb Stark is.

- Gilligan's Island
This was my favorite of the Nick at Nite crowd as a kid. Man oh man I loved this show. I loved that island. I loved the whole goddamn thing.

- Gilmore Girls
Like its other ABC Family rerun friends (7th Heaven and Smallville)), I started watching Gilmore Girls via reruns. I saw the first four seasons that way (the best seasons, in my opinion, culminating in that beautiful kiss between Lorelai and Luke and Kirk running naked out the front door). I watched the rest of the show as it aired regularly. Even though the secret Luke daughter drama and the Rory boyfriends drama (I was always, ALWAYS partial to Jess and think he should've been the one) got tired, Stars Hollow was always the best friggin place ever. It and Mystic Falls are my favorite fictional towns. Stars Hollow probably wins though because a lot less people die there. But they're both so adorable and tight-knit and event-y!

- Glee
I've seen it all (except the most recent episode) I'll admit. I loved it, I hated it, I have had extremely mixed but mostly annoyed opinions about it and I think it is one of the most ridiculous things ever. Even the covers, which were wonderful and fun at the start, have gotten terrible (for the most part). I mostly enjoy the show when it's just performances and no really dumb and inconsistent drama. This show is one example of how important continuity is to me. It's hardly existent here, thus I kind of hate Glee. I can't quit it though because it's such an interesting trainwreck to watch.

- The Good Wife
I caught the first two seasons over the summer, watching them through rapidly and realizing how much I was falling for this show and its brilliant cast despite its appearance as a procedural (I am generally not into procedurals). I can accept procedural format when the weekly-cases-of-whatever are actually interesting (like House in the first several seasons). Luckily, here they are, and here everything outside of the cases is even better and there's a lot of it, but it moves at perfect pacing. Not too quickly, not too slowly. Just right.

- Gossip Girl
I wasn't expecting to get into this. There was a really funny tumblr that featured pictures of outfits Chuck Bass wore and had cute snippy commentary for each. I realized how much I loved the fashion and began watching with that in mind. I really did enjoy the first two seasons very thoroughly, though. After that... I kept watching, liking certain parts and hating others, and enjoying overall the melodrama and still loving most of the fashion. I can accept Gossip Girl for being pretty terrible most of the time because it seems so self-aware most of the time... even if it does recycle plots and misuse guest stars pretty badly.

- Heroes
This was a big turning point in my television watching career. I wasn't regularly into television until Heroes. I didn't even watch it from the start - I got into it about halfway through season one. I started it, I caught up online, and I was addicted. I recommended it to everyone I knew. I obsessed. I loved the wiki for it with all the hilarious "fan theories" about Mr. Muggles. It made me want a Pomeranian. I even stuck with it lovingly through season two. I watched season three as well, enjoying moments more than the show overall, bonding with fellow college students as we watched it in a small group on Mondays after the Gossip Girl crowd (before I watched the latter). I even started watching season four. Then my parents' DVR ate the next few episodes and I was so disappointed in the show I had once loved that I gave up after the first two episodes of season four. Only once has someone defended the fourth season to me. I never went back.

- Hey Arnold
I hated how cool Arnold was. I hated how he could ride alone on a subway at age nine. I hated how isolated I was and that he had the freedom in a big city. I watched most of this, if not all, and hated it but not really - it was a good show, I was just so envious.

- Home Improvement
I watched this intermittently as reruns for the most part. This was Tim Allen's introduction to my life. And in Toy Story of course.

- Homeland
I heard this was good. It was fucking brilliant. My favorite new show of this season. Claire Danes has been a loved actress of mine for years even though there hasn't been much for me to celebrate about her (besides Temple Grandin last year, which was amazing). Now there is. So much to love, so much to think about, so much to look forward to.

- House
I started watching House in its fifth season. I concurrently watched the current fifth season while catching up on the prior four seasons on DVD. I even hid away a lot during our annual Thanksgiving trip to western New York to watch more of the back seasons on my laptop. I was rooting for House and Cuddy all along. Then they kissed. And then I stopped watching, because I got sick of how far the show had fallen and how bored I had gotten with it.

- How I Met Your Mother
A few summers ago, I decided to try HIMYM. I blazed through the first four seasons, while catching up on True Blood at the same time. Even though I'm not sure how much I love it anymore, the mythology has always been a strong point and the importance of callbacks and quirks has made me appreciate the effort and time put in. The characters have gotten a bit obnoxious the past couple years though. I still watch, but enjoy the drama more than the comedy these days.

- Human Target (2010)
I was super into this show, even though I never finished it once it was canceled (I made it a fair way through season two). It was greater than I think most people gave it credit for and one of my favorite things, as I've blogged about before, is its similarity to Cowboy Bebop. I also love action. I grew up on James Bond, loved MI4 recently, and dug the action in this.

- Invader Zim
I watched a bit here and there but, to be honest, I never liked this show or understood exactly why it caught on so popularly.

- The Jetsons
Like I said above with The Flintstones, this show was a great jam as a kid. I loved sci-fi in all forms, even dorky domestic ones.

- Johnny Bravo
I watched it here and there. The most I can remember is how much my mom loved this because she loved that Johnny treated his mother so well. I wonder if this was around the time my brother started treating her like crap. He grew out of it but there were several years (his teenage ones for the most part) where he was really dickish to her.

- Kenan & Kel
I watched a rerun of this a few weeks ago and it still feels fresh to me. I will defend Good Burger for all eternity because I love that shit... even if it is shit. And I loved both Kenan and especially Kel. I always wonder what happened to Kel. I watched most of this, if not all.

- Kim Possible
Ron Stoppable for some reason frequently reminds me of Ron Weasley. Kim was so badass - it was great. It was fun and I watched most, if not all, of this awesome set of missions.

- Life with Derek
I watched this show here and there and, have to admit, this was one of those times, since I was a bit older than a kid, where I was just focused on how much the two leads needed to hook the fuck up.

- Lizzie McGuire
Like any other girl my age, I've seen it all. I loved and hated Lizzie because she reminded me of myself so much. She was better and worse. But mostly better because she was a TV character and I was a real kid whose middle school years sucked massive balls enough to switch schools.

- Lost
I found it poetic that I started watching Lost on the day of its series finale. I watched it from the start, though, on hulu. I dove right in and marathoned through quite a bit. I made it to about halfway through season 5. I'd managed to spoil quite a bit for myself. I'd known from the start that Charlie died (I originally had thought I might watch it for Dominic Monaghan until I heard he died... and something about polar bears on a tropical island...) but I also found out about a handful of sixth season deaths. Then I joked to a friend that everyone died in the end and I knew. She, having seen the whole thing, lamented to me about everyone being dead. And then I was like "WTF I DIDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT." I never finished it. One day I might.

- Mad Men
I started in the second season, marathoning the first on DVD. I've loved much about this show, but especially Peggy. Everything about her, everything she's done, how human she is. And "The Suitcase" is one of the finest episodes of television ever, in my humble opinion.

- Misfits
After the second series had actually ended, I thought I might as well try this show - I loved superpowers after all. I really enjoyed it all, even though I was skeptical about the third season and super pissed off during the second season Christmas Special. Simon had been my favorite for a while, and like anyone, I loved Simon and Alisha together. Tumblr spoiled that for me before I bothered to finish season three though. Alas.

- Modern Family
I'd heard it was good, so I watched it, and it was good and it still is, though not the best.

- New Girl
I was skeptical at first, but it's grown on me as I've kept at it. And mostly Schmidt. I'm one of those people that liked the douchejar.

- Nikita
The pilot didn't impress me much. But since then, being a sucker for action and great female characters (especially leads), I've fallen pretty in love with the show. And Owen. Because he's skilled and super hot.

- The O.C.
There was a time when I watched this! About halfway through the first season, I started in. I wasn't super into each episode, but there's always be an amazing tease for next week, so I'd have to tune in. This continued for about a year, until I missed an episode about halfway through season two. Then I realized that I didn't really feel the strong desire to keep watching anymore. I hadn't been teased with a promise that wouldn't be fulfilled, so I stopped.

- Once Upon a Time
I've watched the first few episodes with friends. We've had a brilliant time mocking and somewhat enjoying the ridiculous fairytale drama.

- Parks and Recreation
One of this past summer's discoveries. I marathoned quickly through the first three seasons. I completely understand everyone's love for all of the characters. They're amazing and wonderfully presented by the writers and the actors. I've kept up and fully intend to until the end, whenever that may be.

- Phil of the Future
Phil was adorable. I watched this sporadically, though quite a bit. Another show where I just wanted the guy and girl to friggin hook up. They were clearly meant to be.

- Pinky and the Brain
I watched this plenty on and off. Home of one of my favorite catchphrases ever. "What we do every night, Pinky... try to take over the world."

- Pokemon
Possibly the first show I ever watched regularly, I would arrive home after school in the fourth grade, drop my backpack, plop on the couch, and immediately watch Pokemon at 4PM every weekday. I've seen a fair chunk of the (very long) first season and a sporadic other episode here and there. Recently, my friend and I started rewatching the show. We've made it about halfway through the first season. I miss Charmander. He was the cutest fucking thing ever. Pikachu also is. And Mew in the Pokemon movie. So. Cute.

- The Powerpuff Girls
I watched this loads as a kid, seeing a fair amount of the show overall. Bubbles was my favorite. Probably because she was blonde and wore blue (my favorite color at the time).

- The Proud Family
Al Roker has never been the same to me after this show. I watched most, if not all, of this. It, along with Kim Possible, was one of the animated series that was in my adolescence with me and was worth the time I put in.

- Recess
I wish I had watched more of this as a kid. I watched quite a bit, but not all of it I am sure. It was witty and great and in retrospect it's one show I regret not having spent more time on.

- Revenge
I was curious about the good reviews it was getting, and have been with it from the start. If not for Homeland, this would be my favorite new show of the year. I really hope Daniel dies though. I'll be disappointed if they don't go through with that tease. Madeleine Stowe is amazing. And Nolan is everything I wanted him to be and more, so far.

- Rocket Power
I watched this pretty often and probably saw a good chunk of it. I hated it though. Like Hey Arnold, part of it was the independence these kids had. Part of it was the fact that our leading man was a dick, though. He was just kind of an awful kid.

- Rugrats
Having watched Rugrats very frequently as a kid, it was the first place I realized I really wasn't into potty humour. I liked everything else about the show and found it quite funny but I could not stand behind the potty humour, even after reading an essay about body humour in children's lit.

- Sabrina, the Teenage Witch
Melissa Joan Hart part II, since this actually aired when I was attentive enough as a kid, I probably saw more of it than her other show.

- Saturday Night Live
I've never been a regular watcher of SNL, but I've watched enough episodes that I wanted to include it here. There's a lot I've loved, and a lot I've found distinctly unfunny. I hate Seth Meyers' Weekend Update. I rarely find it funny and he's always almost laughing. He made the "Founding Fathers would shit themselves due to cars if they were here, not care about our politics" joke I thought was hilarious and thought I had come up with in the fourth grade. Come on.

- Saved by the Bell
I am not sure how much of this I actually watched, but it was the first drama I actually watched as a kid. I was pretty young when I saw most of it and got a lot of my impressions about teenagers and high school from it.

- Sex and the City
I've never watched it regularly, having been asked to watch it with friends and watching reruns here and there when it's on TV. Everyone always asks themselves which girl they are. Everyone wants to be a Carrie right? I'm probably more of a Charlotte though with a bit of Miranda thrown in there. I'm probably none of them really because I'm actually Sarah.

- Sherlock
Just marathoned this about a week ago, I am so glad I was convinced to watch this because it's fucking brilliant and I love it.

- Sister, Sister
I'm pretty sure I've seen it all. I found the boyfriends interesting and I loved the later years, weirdly enough. The appendicitis bit is etched into my brain forever. My appendix has never been removed so every once in a while when I'm paranoid it's ruptured, I think of the scene in this show.

- Smallville
I watched the reruns of the first four seasons of this on ABC Family. I was intrigued, as I've always been pretty into superheroes (thanks to my indoctrination into Batman as a young child). I was into them, especially the mythology because, say it with me I love mythology. I started watching the fifth season regularly when it started up. I got bored though and didn't feel like bothering anymore and gave up. I've seen an episode here and there since I gave it up and am glad I did.

- So You Think You Can Dance (US)
Summer before last, I realized I should watch this show. Why? Because I love watching people who can actually dance. So I started with season seven, while hunting down the previous seasons online. I started season one but got so bored with it that I stopped just after the performances began. Maybe it was the lack of Cat Deeley. Maybe it was so many people whose dancing was not being challenged or really shown off that much. But when I started season two, I was in love. I watched all of the back seasons while and after I watched the seventh season and found my favorite routines and dancers and wanted to talk about it always. I watched last season too and, while I enjoyed it thoroughly, I can say confidently that my favorite seasons are three through five.

- SpongeBob SquarePants
I'm pretty sure I watched the first episode ever when it aired. It was the perfect timing - I was nine and watched a lot of TV, especially everything on Nickelodeon. I watched it quite a lot for the first few years (though not regularly, frequently enough with enough reruns that I probably saw most of it at the start). Then I grew out of it and it continued anyway.

- Star Wars: Clone Wars
I almost forgot about this short lived series of short episodes. It was boss. I watched it all, bought the DVDs, and watched it with a bunch of friends at school in the senior lounge senior year of high school during free periods. At one point, there were like six or seven of us watching, these two girls came in, Lexi and Shaina, and gave the TV and us this look (Mace Windu was being super badass, as per usual) and asked us what we were watching, why we were watching it, and if they could watch something else. Considering how much we were enjoying it and how much we outnumbered them, we turned them down and they, disgusted, left. Whatever.

- The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
I've hardly watched the spin-off, but I watched most of the original. Since I got Disney a bit later, as I was hitting adolescence, I watched a lot of Disney TV at an age when I might have been getting a little old for it. Just a little. I stand by the PRNDL over stickshift. I loved Brenda Song here. Like, legit - she was perfect.

- That's So Raven
Oh psychic Raven... you were so cool. I watched most, if not all, of this.

- Tom and Jerry
God knows how much Tom and Jerry there is and how much I've actually watched, but whenever I want something chill to watch and there's a Tom and Jerry rerun on, you know that's my channel.

- True Blood
As I mentioned above, I was marathoning True Blood's first season and the start of its second as I was marathoning How I Met Your Mother. I had started the former thinking about the gay rights metaphors I'd been told about. I also just really enjoyed Eric's existence and was pretty into Sookie/Bill. I hadn't decided whether I actually liked the show or not. I don't think I ever have, even though I've watched it all now. I don't think I like it much anymore, although I might have used to. I might quit it next season. I can only handle so much ridiculous camp.

- The Vampire Diaries
I was surprised when I heard this was actually good. I figured I didn't like vampires much. I couldn't get through Dracula when I tried to read it and Twilight was obviously dumb. I had been watching True Blood but wasn't sure I liked the vampire part of it. I'm still not sure I like vampires but after actually giving The Vampire Diaries a shot, I realized how awesome it was. I realized, and explained to friends I recommended the show to, that the diaries in question weren't really the angsty journals kept by the leads but, to me, were the old journals kept by folks like Johnathan Gilbert during the Civil War era about the vampires plaguing the town. The mythology of the show is great and never has a group of teenagers been so appealing to me (mostly because I like the adult characters too and they actually do things besides act like grown up teenagers, like the adults on shows like, say, Gossip Girl do). One of my favorite shows on the air, surprisingly. Or not so much - the pacing is also brilliant. So much happens but it never feels like too much.

- V (2009)
Alien invasion! Rebellion resistance! Shouldn't this be more exciting? I tried, and I did get into this show, really liking Hobbes in particular, more than it probably deserved (and began my love affair with Morena Baccarin). I watched it all, and was so glad at the death of Tyler, even though the show was canceled after that point.

- The Walking Dead
I was hesitant to start, but decided to try it over Thanksgiving break anyway. I wasn't sure I'd like a zombie show. The pilot was fucking brilliant, in my opinion. That poor goddamn horse, was all I thought. It hasn't been as good since, though I love crazy Shane and usually like Rick. Lori needs to act. Carl needs to gtfo. They need to get off that farm. But the mid-season finale was strong and I did get a fun zombie-related nightmare after my first night of watching. So it's progressing for me.

- The Weakest Link
Who didn't love Anne Robinson, the wonderfully snippy host of this? I loved her. I watched this pretty frequently when she was on. I was disappointed when there was a new host, but when she was around? My scene, man.

- Whose Line Is It Anyway?
Thank god for ABC Family reruns. This show introduced me to all things improv - my best friend later started an improv club in high school, which I was involved in. I loved it so much and this show made me laugh out loud more than most anything else. And they were all having so much fun, which was the best part. I've seen most, but probably not all, of this show.

- The Wild Thornberrys
Like most of my childhood shows, I saw quite a bit, but I'm not sure how much, of this show. I find Nigel's recent return to relevance hilarious. Tim Curry is my birthday buddy and I love him. It was a weird but fun show.

- The Wire
Ah, The Wire. The brilliant fucking Wire. Once day I will finish you. Until then, I will be stuck at the beginning of season three where Littlefinger appears. Where I am so sad Frank Sobotka could be so dumb. Where I am so depressed that everything always goes wrong. And so pleased that Omar Little exists.

The Problem With Jennifer's Body

2011-05-16T21:29:00.000-07:00

Please wake me up in about two years, so that The Hunger Games movie has come out and the fandom has had enough time to make their way through all the usual complaints a fandom undergoes when their beloved source material is changed on its way to the screen and I can talk with people again about the actual content of the story as opposed to whether or not every single person cast looks right for the role. And by looks right, not, I don't mean is made to look right via training and make-up and costume. I mean bitching about how a young actress actually has meat on her bones and is thus an inappropriate choice despite what the author and director say.

Despite being a bit above the target age range for Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games trilogy, about a month and a half ago I decided to give it a spur of the moment read and I admit I was instantly addicted. It's an engrossing story with what I think are generally interesting characters and pretty decent writing. I will happily discuss whether the love triangle is annoyingly overplayed in Catching Fire, whether Katniss' behaviour in Mockingjay is either due to proper characterization or author laziness, and whether the ending is sufficient or not.

What I cannot stand, however, are the same debates I participated in, intensely, mind you, once upon a time when I was a thirteen-year-old crazed and newly indoctrinated Harry Potter fan. Was I pissed that Daniel Radcliffe had blue eyes and not green and found it silly he wasn't wearing contacts to fix that? You bet. When I was older and I realized that a) such an obsession was stupid, b) that it really didn't matter that much, and c) that Daniel Radcliffe was unable to wear the contacts because of irritation, I got over it. I think most fans did eventually because we realized what a stupid little debate it was. Harry's blazing green eyes, like his mother's, are a huge deal in the books. In the movies, they're less so. They're still a deal - Lupin remarks on them particularly in the third film and I imagine they'll play their related role in the final film - but the films adjust for the problems faced.

These sorts of issues, as The Hunger Games movie inches slowly towards filming and, eventually, completion, are floating around the fandom in abundance. People are bitching about everything, and while Willow Shields' unibrow was a big hot topic, the biggest hot topic of all is the casting of Jennifer Lawrence as the beloved lead character of Katniss Everdeen. Now, I think Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress and I can completely see her personifying what I think is a strong female protagonist in Katniss. She probably doesn't look anything like I originally imagined Katniss to look like, but I can see it in her, just like I started to see Peeta in Josh Hutcherson, who also looks differently than one might have imagined Peeta (and don't get me started on the fans who are still obsessed with picking naturally blonde actors who are rather stringy in my opinion). Some people, however, are far too obsessed with the appearance, particularly parts of Jennifer Lawrence's appearance that are harder to fix than her hair color - and I'm not talking about the debate raging over Katniss' skin color, I'm talking about her weight.

The objections to Jennifer Lawrence's curves, to put it bluntly, piss me the fuck off. It rings in my ears of all the horrendous standards that we hold women up to and the ways in which women are still objectified so much in film as having to be whatever image we deem correct and if it doesn't fit with our mold, then it is wrong. I know that when most people comment on Jennifer Lawrence's curves, they don't mean that actresses can't be curvy. Of course not, we have Queen Latifah, known for her bodacious body. But this is really not the norm. We have such bizarre and unrealistic and every-changing standards for women and we never seem to be able to do it right. As Jennifer Hudson has lost weight, many of her fans have been rather shocked and disappointed that she felt the need to lose weight, while simultaneously people are constantly wondering if Gabourey Sidibe should lose some weight because she might be dangerously unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, I do think obesity is a problem in this country and not one we should glorify. But neither should we glorify appearances that are unattainable or at the very least extremely difficult for normal women to attain. While we encourage girls to embrace their curves, we continue to bash women whose weight changes regularly, like Kelly Clarkson. When Lady Gaga puts on a few pounds, suddenly her stomach becomes a huge national problem - Why isn't she as skinny as she was in the Telephone music video!?!?!? we wonder, because it's wrong for these women who are supposed to be visually perfect to ruin our images of them by being human. Weight fluctuation is hardly unheard of amongst the normal folk and beneath the personal trainers and strict diets, celebrities are normal folk too.

That said, then, shouldn't we choose actors who can physically embody the very specific framework we have in mind for a character? Dumb, dumb, dumb. I get it, Katniss' character is very specifically one who has suffered from malnourishment her entire life. But even if we get a sickly stick of an actress who could potentially perform the role of Katniss brilliantly, there's still a difference between a healthy, skinny body and a malnourished, skinny body. And let's face it, we're not going to cast someone that is literally malnourished - that is, unless Christian Bale was in the role and he would just make that choice on his own probably and the fans would hail him for it, but would it be right? Everyone also worries when Christian Bale does such a thing, and we'd worry for whatever actress that played Katniss that would do it too. But, BUT, beneath that worry, don't even lie to yourself, you'd be proud of that actor for taking such a dramatic step. You'd be impressed and pleased that the actor would be willing to take such a risk for the sake of art. I'm not going to lie, I'd probably be impressed too. But while being impressed, I'd also be disgusted.

There is a poster that hangs in the health services office in my college. It shows two pictures of legs. One is a starving child. One is a runway model. Their legs, despite one pair being cleaner than the other, are indistinguishably similar in shape. That horrifies me, which is the point of the poster. If you are naturally skinny, there's nothing you can help about that. Same with if you're curvy. But there is still, always, a difference between what is natural and healthy and what is unnatural and unhealthy. You can suffer from either no matter what shape or size you are.

We need to stop boxing women into categories based on their size though. Daniel Radcliffe has grown up to be a lot stockier than I imagined Harry in the books to be - Harry always seemed so stretched and, at times, lanky. Daniel Radcliffe is of more average height and weight in appearance. But he has also grown into becoming a better actor and a better Harry over the years. Movie!Harry and Book!Harry are different in their appearance and y'know what? That's okay, because Daniel Radcliffe still manages to capture the general essence of what the character of Harry Potter is, at least in the movies. A smaller debate has raged in the Potter fandom community over the looks of its female characters. In the books, Ginny is supposed to be very popular and supposedly pretty good-looking, but Bonnie Wright's beauty doesn't seem to be particularly played up in the movies making her a bit more plain. Alternatively, in the books, Hermione is generally pretty average looking from the perspective and her hair frizzy, but by the third movie, Emma Watson was clearly turning into a pretty young woman and her hair was no longer made to look quite so frizzy. I have long contended, particularly in Hermione's case, that these are just examples of how different the book and movie versions of the characters are. And THAT'S OKAY.

Why is that okay? First of all, when it comes to movie adaptations of books, I tend to believe that the best adaptations are more interpretations. Good adaptations should be done by fans of the original source material, but intelligent fans who have enough distance from the source material to be able to know what the story is about without obsessing too much on details that may be less important. My favorite example of an adaptation is Lord of the Rings. I love the books and the movies, but though they capture a similar plotline and a similar essence, they are truly different stories, but they are both grand and know what story they want to tell. My main problem with, say, the Harry Potter movie adaptations is that they're a bit scatter-brained, not just because of the different directors, but also because most of the earlier films didn't give strong enough hints of what this story was supposed to be about. I have no expectation that The Hunger Games movie will be just like the book, and I really hope it isn't. I want to watch something that takes the plot and the morals and the characters and shape them ever so slightly different to fit the very different medium that film is from novels. I want the actors to be good and the script to be strong and the effects to be well-done and all the elements of filmmaking to be well-executed, and if it isn't the same as the book, so long as it's well-made, I am totally okay with that.

Secondly, reality is not so easy to manipulate as the written world of a book and whatever live-action movies are, they are capturing something that was physically there, in reality, at some point (not counting CGI). Reality can be manipulated, but in a different way, for different reasons.

Finally, I want to break out of the boxes we have created for women. Katniss can still be Katniss even if her ribs aren't frighteningly protruding. I cannot accept the fact that women have to be defined by their appearance, that Katniss can only be a skinny girl, for instance. Stanley Tucci is a pretty fit individual, small and seemingly average in his weight and yet isn't Caesar Flickerman supposed to be rather rotund? I have not heard a single person complain that his stomach isn't the right size for the role. You may argue that that isn't the same, it doesn't define Caesar like it does Katniss, but Katniss is defined by much, MUCH more than her weight. If all Katniss was was a malnourished girl, she wouldn't be the strong character I believe her to be. Women's appearances are a part of who we are, certainly, but there is so much more that goes into defining ourselves, just like men, that I really wish we could stop placing more value on a woman's appearance than her other features. "The Girl Next Door" is more of a look than a personality type. "The Blonde Bombshell." "The Femme Fatale." These types and the many others women exemplify are so defined by appearance in our minds rather than attitude, and most of the categories really are about the attitude.

So, in conclusion, either the entire world needs to change or I really need to learn how to bite my tongue. Well, I've already got a scar from biting through my tongue a lot as a kid, I might as well keep up the hard work.

On Film Criticism and the Ways I Watch Films

2011-04-23T08:18:00.000-07:00

When I see a movie, there's a part of me of course that dissects the movie, that criticizes it. But I could never be a film critic because those criticisms are for me, so that I can become a better filmmaker hopefully by understanding what worked and didn't work for other filmmakers. I don't see the point of publishing my criticisms, particularly when the chances of the filmmaker seeing them is zero to none. Why should I criticize if not to be constructive?

When I see a movie, there's a part of me of course that has a gut reaction, that likes or dislikes the films for a variety of reasons that likely aren't technical. They can turn technical quickly, though. Liking the Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice because it is so pretty ends up a compliment to the art direction and the fluid cinematography. Finding Twilight hilarious when it isn't supposed to be derides a bad story, bad acting, and so on and so forth.

When I see a movie, I want to enjoy it for whatever reasons. I never go into a movie wanting to hate it. Sometimes I'll go in expecting to not find it a good movie, but that doesn't matter because I still want to be entertained, which is why I've seen all three Twilight films despite holding no love for the franchise - they entertain me even if I don't think they're good.

It does matter to me if I think a movie is good or bad, but it matters equally if I think a movie is entertaining or not. As a movie-goer, I am an expert in neither, but in constant practice of deducing both.

Which one is more important to me? Well, that depends who I am watching that movie. If I am Sarah the Aspiring Filmmaker, it probably matters more to me if the movie is well-made or not. If I am Sarah the Amateur Movie-Lover, I don't really care about any faults of Tron: Legacy because I'm enjoying the ride so much. So I'll miss them, I won't discuss them, and I won't care.

These two sides overlap, of course. There's no helping letting them get in the way of one another, but that's good, because my favorite movies - maybe not the best movies ever made, but my favorite movies - fulfill both sides.

And I will criticize movies that people will roll their eyes about and tell me that it's not a "thinking" movie or that it doesn't deserve analysis or that I should shut up and just enjoy the ride, though honestly I don't do that to the extent several people I know do. To that I say it doesn't matter what the intention of the film was, it's what I take away that matters. If I take away from Tron: Legacy that lightcycles are badass, that's fine. If I take away from The Twilight Saga: Eclipse that Bella faces a common, old choice in fantasy fiction of choosing between the fantasy and the normal world in having to choose between her suitors, that's fine too. It's a selfish cause for me, to criticize films, because it gives me more to understand, helps me become better at my craft.

So what's the point of me rampantly denouncing the Twilight series as atrocious all over the internet? Sure, I do think they are bad movies, but who the hell is it going to help for me to criticize? Sure, some people have to do it as their careers and I don't deride them for that because they tend to be higher-profile, people listen to them (I amongst them) and listen to their advice based on their criticisms of films. That's great, because that can keep me from having a movie-going experience I might have regretted. Or, perhaps, it might keep me from having a movie-going experience that I would've enjoyed just the same, though it's likely hardly a life-ending dilemma if I miss out on Sucker Punch since the reviews came back bad.

It's the role of some to do that. It's not my job. Nobody's paying me, and even if they did, I don't want to. I don't like tearing down people's work for an invisible audience.

It always comes back to Ratatouille for me any time I breach these topics. Anton Ego knows where it's at. Even "bad" art takes effort, takes time, takes skill. Somebody wanted to do this and, likely, someone wanted it to be good. I'm sure there are the cases where it's ALL marketing, but honestly, there is something to this superhero trend - superheroes are interesting, fascinating, and sure, marketable - more than just some fat cat producer-type thinking it'll be a cash cow. That's part of it, but considering the things we see that work in these big budget flicks, even they have parts that stand up and shout "I WANT THIS TO BE GOOD." Everyone's definition of good might be a little different though. Put your cynicism aside, I'm not talking about one of those definitions being "it made money" - the definition I think would be most similar to that is "those explosions were so well-done the audience loved them." And sure, it takes some work to make good explosions, let's not pretend otherwise.

Whether it's a "bad" Hollywood blockbuster or a "bad" independent production, someone wanted to do something they thought would be good/entertaining. And why should we begrudge them that? We don't have to buy the tickets to see the movie if we don't want to, and if your cynicism is right, and in this case I imagine it is, not buying movie tickets will hurt all of these productions more than some scathing reviews. Saying "this is shit" will only go so far. Word-of-mouth is still powerful. For instance, I saw a rather terrible musical production on my college campus recently. What was I going to do to make sure none of my friends suffered the unfortunate fate of wasting their time seeing it? Not writing a nasty review in the school paper - I just told them it wasn't worth their time. Obviously, they'd make up their minds in the end if they were determined to see it, but it was one of those cases where it was so truly bad, I had to tell people it wasn't worth it. But my defense wasn't "well, the art direction was bad and the sound levels were rough and the script was jumbled" even though it was all true. My defense was "it's bad. It's boring. It's not worth it." Simple and still true.

Anyway, I'm going off on about fifteen tangents right now, so I will leave it at this. I think film criticism is, at a professional level, a generally good idea. However, as an aspiring filmmaker, criticism to me is important but a subject that must be handled well. When it comes to criticism, that's where we get into the specifics, complimenting and deriding different aspects. But if you criticize my film and you don't offer any suggestions, why should I listen to you? If you could make it better, then tell me how and I'll take your advice to heart. And if you have a gut reaction, an emotional reaction, a reaction that doesn't fit nicely into a proper critique, that's probably more important to me. I don't care as much if these small factors are good - if you liked my piece, or it made you feel something, that's important to me.

One of my classmates recently said that the best thing she ever heard from our professor was that her piece was doing what she had been trying to get her piece to do.

That's a pretty awesome feeling to know you're doing it right.

Dither, Dather, Teen Lit, Blah, Blah...

2011-04-12T00:33:00.001-07:00

on top of being a sucker for dystopian/utopian/post-apocalyptic fiction of all varieties, I think there are several good reasons why I got so addicted to The Hunger Games, I finished all three books in the past two days.

a) MYTHOLOGICAL THIRTEENTH TRIBE, ANYONE?

Oh hey there, Battlestar Galactica, that's right, you're all about a mythological thirteenth tribe too. The way the thirteenth tribes are handled is very different, but the set-up is similar. Twelve colonies/districts formed out of the shambles of the past. I guess maybe the First Cylon War might equate the Dark Days? But BSG's history is sort of wonky on me, I can never figure at what exact point the twelve colonies officially band together. Then, shit happens to both the colonies and the districts, which leads me to...

b) REBELLION.

Maybe why I can't like Gale very much is that he reminds me of the role of Marius in some versions of Les Miserables. Funny thing is, I kinda like Marius. But Gale, not quite so much. He's okay. I just feel as if the Peeta/Katniss/Gale love triangle is too contrived. It feels so obvious to me that Katniss and Peeta are perfect for each other and the only thing ruining Katniss realizing this is President Snow being all "CONVINCE ME" and nonsense. But regardless, I love a good rebellion story. Maybe that's why I love Star Wars so much. Beneath the typical story and the well-worn science fiction turf, it IS about a rebellion. Particularly Empire Strikes Back, which I think we can all agree is the bestest.

c) STRONG LEAD CHARACTER.

I can get criticism over Gale, and maybe even over Peeta, though I think both are clear in their characterizations even if I think Gale's just kinda meh in general, but Katniss is obviously a well-crafted and interesting character. In many ways, it's hard not to compare her to Bella Swan, because she is, in many ways, if Bella Swan were a more fully-formed character ... and had a plot independent of romance. And was awesome. Katniss is flawed, fabulous, and interesting. She reminds me more of Harry Potter's best moments, particularly once we're on to the rebellion phases, where she's learning and planning and becoming this leader she didn't know she was, not unlike Harry turning into a leader he didn't know he was with the DA and further.

d) EVEN THOUGH IT'S DUMB, I CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS IN THE LOVE TRIANGLE.

Well, maybe not Gale. But whereas the only time I can take the Edward/Bella/Jacob love triangle even slightly seriously is when I break it down into ideas, ideas that also apply to the Peeta/Katniss/Gale love triangle, but more effectively probably because everyone in the Hunger Games is more likable. Although, shockingly, depending on my mood, I could argue Jacob's more interesting to me than Gale. God, I'm sorry Gale, I feel like I'm hating on you so hard. But the idea that centers around both is the female protagonist's choices - who she could be, and who she is. Had Katniss not competed in the Hunger Games, she says it herself, she and Gale would've been right. But I knew as soon as Peeta was the only one who could help her nightmares in Catching Fire that Katniss and Gale could never work because she's not that girl anymore. However, in Twilight, it's just literal and dumb and Bella has both worlds and godihatethatseriesitsdumb. Phew. What I mean to say is that ideas or not, the characters in The Hunger Games actually interest me. The major "love triangle" characters as well as pretty much all of the minor characters. Cinna. Rue. Finnick. The way even passing characters become beloved. Darius. Boggs. I have such mixed emotions about most of the characters, but the positive ones tend to win out. And I'm glad they're mixed - instantly loving certain characters makes me wary as to why I love them. Instantly hating characters bores me.

e) THE ENDING LEAVES ME SURPRISINGLY SATISFIED.

When I asked my friend who'd finished the books recently if I'd be satisfied, she was hesitant. Because as amazing as everything is in and logical as the ending is for His Dark Materials, I can never finish those books with satisfaction. It just rips my goddamn heart, even if it's a fairly happy ending. And I think we can all agree that the ending of the Harry Potter series hardly ties up the loose ends satisfactorily enough. Let's not even get into that Epilogue. Book series frequently leave me with something to be desired in their ends. The Giver trilogy's third book was incredibly weak, IMO. Don't even get me started on how much I can't take The Last Battle (though I'm hardly a Narnia fan at large). The only one I've read that works is Lord of the Rings for obvious reasons, like, Tolkien would never write an unsatisfying ending. I'd rate Mockingjay somewhere between HDM and HP. It's more satisfying than either, but HDM is still generally better IMO. Sorry, Peeta, I may be a little in love with you, but Will Parry is my wallpaper. And I'd rather be Lyra than Katniss, even though I like them both plenty. Anyway, my point is, the books end in a place that works for me, that doesn't rub me the wrong way, though I feel as though surely there could've been more; obviously the last few chapters are a bit rushed. But it's okay.

I could've sworn I had more points relating elements of The Hunger Games to other popular culture things that have fascinated me, but I'm blanking beyond the Harry/Katniss talk and the Thirteen/Twelve Districts/Colonies. Bah, well, I'll just have to make a second installment when it comes back.

so the end point is that I really enjoyed these books.

They were all interesting, all good, fit together well, worked well enough separate (as is not uncommon in trilogies, I find, the first book works better on its own than any of the others), provided me with moments that made me sad, made me laugh, made me roll my eyes (though mostly delightedly... mostly). God now watch the movie be a hot mess. Although, not gonna lie, Josh Hutcherson seems visually perfect for Peeta. Even if I'm like "WTH Miley Cyrus' ex-boyfriend for Gale? Are you trying to make me like him LESS?"

Last note: how on hell is the movie going to get away with a PG13 rating without sacrificing the brutality that makes the books so engrossing?

okay, lengthy ramble over.

Putting on The Red Shoes

2011-04-08T08:58:00.001-07:00

Recently, I watched The Red Shoes for the first time. Not because it was recently released, not because anybody told me I had to see it, and not for a class. I watched it in part as a responsibility as a screener for Bard Film Committee but mostly because I was intrigued. I had first heard about The Red Shoes from A Chorus Line, where the girls sing about what inspired their love for ballet. Of course, everyone had seen The Red Shoes.

But I hadn't. And I haven't seen a lot of movies, a constant reminder I need to hash out at people when they assume that, being a film major, I've seen everything, from Raging Bull to Casablanca to The Room (which I also recently finally watched) to whatever random movie you can dream up. I can guarantee, I haven't seen a lot of movies. Just browse iCheckMovies.com. People there have seen way more movies than I have.

Back to The Red Shoes. It is a beautiful movie, a movie I would watch again, a movie that is both inherently similar and extremely dissimilar to Black Swan, another ballet movie only the one this generation will think of more often than a 1948 masterpiece like The Red Shoes. You can tell it is older. There are no gross-out moments, the psychology present inspired by the ballet The Red Shoes for our female protagonist is very different from the psychology inspired by the ballet Swan Lake for our female protagonist in Black Swan. The people in their lives are very different.

But I didn't write this blog post to compare and contrast two very different movies that both happen to follow a similar idea of a ballet affecting a ballerina's personal and professional life so strongly.

There is a moment in The Red Shoes that I kept wanting to bring up in my Aesthetics of Gaming class yesterday that stuck with me but I could never find the right moment, particularly because we were discussing something that the medium of film just wouldn't have fit in comfortably with. We were talking about narrative and games, the debate over whether games are narrative or if they merely share elements of narrative because games are so inherently different. We have spoken in the past about game logic and we spoke today about gameplay and about what are the characteristics of games, a question we have been approaching all semester.

In any medium's logic, there are things we would take for granted or that we do not question because of the medium. There are plenty of moments like that in every film. Film is interesting, not unlike most mediums in this way though, because people do expect different things of film logic. Sometimes we expect films to make sense linearly. Sometimes we expect films to test our suspension of disbelief. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense because it is in the film and that is how the film goes along.

The moment in The Red Shoes that stuck with me is not one of those more grand special effects moments come into play, like when the waves crash onto the stage or when the newspaper turns into a person and back into a newspaper again. The moment I am thinking of is when Vicky jumps, literally, into the red shoes on the stage. It is a moment of editing that has been used for a long time and a technique to signal a sudden appearance or disappearance. It is not new, it is not revolutionary, and yet I couldn't help but think "if this were not a film, if this were a real ballet, how would she get the shoes on? Would she sit down, pull off her normal ballet shoes, and put the red ones on? Would she go into the shoemaker's shop and emerge wearing them?" It too a while before it hit me - this isn't a ballet, it has no reason to be a ballet, and the logic that would fit into a ballet or some other form of live theater does not apply to film. This is a problem when people compare film and theater too literally, because the logic is so different. We don't need to see what we see in theater - we can see something much different. Both will make sense in their homes, but if we were to see theater logic in a film or vice versa, what we would see instead would be even odder, I think. If we had seen Vicky sit down and put on the red shoes, I would have thought "oh, well, she's performing a ballet in the film so of course they need to show the ballet logic she would actually be performing." But that would not fit in with the rest of the special effects we see throughout Vicky's performance of The Red Shoes. The film chose to use film logic in a way that we would understand that this is not how a ballet would go, but this is how the film goes.

This made me think, amidst our class discussion yesterday, about the way in which different mediums interact with each other and whether viewers or players are aware of those differences, if we just accept them, or alternatively, if using one medium's logic in another medium's would not be bothersome or noticeable at all. Many elements can cross between different mediums, as our discussion of elements of narrative fitting in with games proves, but there are techniques, there are greater pictures that are specific in their way to their medium, I believe. And it is odd to think about them, and jarring to imagine them cross-pollinating.

In the end, my main point is that I would encourage further observation for moments like that. That, and I think everyone should go see The Red Shoes.

Bard Video Project - "I Have Sex"

2011-03-18T19:24:00.000-07:00

While I'm really sorry I've been so super busy this semester, which has made it hard for me to find the time to write and post awesome blog posts, I have a project I wanted to share that I did during my free time since Wednesday before last. It's a very important project in my opinion and I've already posted about it a bajillion other places, but I thought here wouldn't hurt either, plus I can keep anybody who does read this updated that I am still around even if I'm extremely inattentive to this blog.

The explanation of the video can be found at the source, but here's the video as is:

A Couple Dream Nominees

2011-01-24T17:28:00.001-08:00

In roughly twelve hours, we will have our Oscar nominees 2011. There will be names of films I have yet to see and others I didn't like enough to understand why they're nominated. Amidst my existence of seeing mostly just the popular choices, not having quite the opportunity to be exposed to under the radar films before other people get a chance to tell me to see them, there still seem to be disappointments for me when nomination morning comes. I doubt anything tomorrow morning could upset me the way I wanted to break my television when The Dark Knight was snubbed for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay (all of which it deserved, in my opinion), but I'll still be disappointed in the likeliest of circumstances.

Thus, like everyone else, I have a few names and roles and things I'd like to see nominated come tomorrow morning. Let's run through some of my dream nominees, shall we?

While I liked Winter's Bone, I understand some people calling it "overrated" - it is a well-crafted film, a well-written story, and features some brilliant performances. However, I probably won't be too disappointed if it isn't nominated for Best Pictures. Jennifer Lawrence will get her due, which she deserves. I'll be more disappointed if John Hawkes' scarily intriguing and, as every role should be, complex and layered performance isn't nominated. Jeremy Renner for The Town or Matt Damon for True Grit were also good, so I can't complain too much, but John Hawkes would be my pick. If the supporting actress race were less challenging this year, I'd be more outraged at Dale Dickey's exclusion as well. The bizarre chorus of angry women in Winter's Bone and The Fighter were so fascinating. But, like I said earlier, Winter's Bone is a strong, well-crafted film from Debra Granik, in only her second feature film.

The Fighter is getting loads of notice for its performances, particularly its strong supporting performances from Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo and while they all deserve the attention, Mark Wahlberg's lead role is fan-friggin-tastic. I loved The Departed and thought he was great in that, but his more reserved performance here was even better and this will be the one he won't be nominated for an acting award for.

All the nominees I'm pulling for on varying levels of expectancy:

Best Picture: Exit Through the Gift Shop
Best Picture: How to Train Your Dragon
Best Director: Banksy, Exit Through the Gift Shop
Best Director: Debra Granik, Winter's Bone
Best Actress: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit
Best Actress: Emma Stone, Easy A
Best Actor: Mark Wahlberg, The Fighter
Best Supporting Actress: Barbara Hershey, Black Swan
Best Supporting Actress: Dale Dickey, Winter's Bone
Best Supporting Actor: Cillian Murphy, Inception
Best Supporting Actor: Michael Sheen, TRON: Legacy
Best Supporting Actor: Jon Hamm, The Town
Best Supporting Actor: John Hawkes, Winter's Bone
Best Adapted Screenplay: How to Train Your Dragon
Best Adapted Screenplay: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Best Documentary Feature: Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work
Best Documentary Feature: Exit Through the Gift Shop
Best Visual Effects: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Best Original Score: TRON: Legacy
Best Original Song: "Despicable Me" from Despicable Me

...and I'm kinda out. Some of these I'd be pulling for more than others (the music categories are some of my more fervent endorsements; that song from Despicable Me was perfect and I adored every aspect of the soundscape of Tron: Legacy, including and particularly the score). Jon Hamm, Michael Sheen, and Cillian Murphy I have no expectations for and their competitors are worthy. Barbara Hershey I feel deserves it more than Mila Kunis. Hailee Steinfeld I feel is really a lead performance and a good enough one that even her young age shouldn't keep her sitting in the supporting field. Exit Through the Gift Shop I just loved if it wasn't obvious. And Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work was just so well-crafted and so enjoyable and interesting, for lack of a better word. HTTYD is as good as TS3, and I wish I could give more love to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but it is hard to root for just one part of it.

It's really disappointing how few films I've seen this year, though. Shame. Shaaaame. I'll try to fix that in future years. But, mostly, I feel that also I just agree with at least half of the likely nominees.

Honestly, if there were anything I wanted to really push for, it would be a lockout for Alice in Wonderland (which will at least get a few nods if not wins), and switching out The Kids Are All Right for Best Picture with Winter's Bone. Maybe just ditching The Kids Are All Right in screenplay too - I wouldn't even mind shut outs elsewhere, but that'd be hoping too much. Hater that I am...

Well, Oscars, do your worst. Actually, please don't. Do your goddamn best, got it?

Night Before Oscar: List Update

2011-01-24T17:25:00.000-08:00

Let's update that list, shall we?

Likely/Possible/Longshot Contenders I Have Seen:
- Alice in Wonderland (unfortunately)
- Black Swan
- Despicable Me
- Exit Through the Gift Shop
- The Fighter
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
- How to Train Your Dragon
- Inception
- The Kids Are All Right
- The King's Speech
- Love and Other Drugs
- Shrek Forever After (also unfortunately)
- The Social Network
- Shutter Island
- Tangled
- The Town
- Toy Story 3
- Tron: Legacy
- True Grit
- Winter's Bone

Likely/Possible/Longshot Contenders I Plan to See/Might See:
- 127 Hours
- Animal Kingdom
- Another Year
- Blue Valentine
- Get Low
- I Love You, Phillip Morris
- The Illusionist
- Inside Job
- Made in Dagenham
- Never Let Me Go
- Rabbit Hole
- Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
- Waiting for "Superman"
- The Way Back

Not a whole lot of changes, but a few. I'll make a valiant effort to see a few more after the nominees for Oscar are announced tomorrow, and, truly, I'm genuinely interested in seeing all of these movies, awards or no.

Likability, The Kids Are All Right, and This Year's Awards Front-Runners

2011-01-06T22:10:00.000-08:00

A subject that's addressed when it comes to the awards season and when it comes to movie-goers in general is likability. Not necessarily of the actors, but certainly of the characters. A fond and frustrating memory serves as example: when watching Battlestar Galactica with my mother, she couldn't stand nearly any of the characters because she didn't find them likable. Likability is something that changes from person to person; I, on the other hand, can only say I honestly strongly dislike one major Battlestar character, though I hardly love them all.

The reason this is coming to mind is my very recent (as in just finished about thirty seconds ago) viewing of The Kids Are All Right. Obviously, a lot of good things have been said about it considering its high tomatometer rating on rottentomatoes and its critical support and awards circuit support. However, I went in to watch this without expecting anything too brilliant, though hoping for it. I was honestly still pretty disappointed. It took the entire movie for me to understand why Anette Bening is getting so much attention and, honestly, she deserves it for making a character that could be so easily disliked into probably one of my favorites in the movie (besides the kids because, as the title says, the kids are all right, even though the adults are pretty ridiculous). Jules, on the other hand, while given a valiant effort by Julianne Moore, I simply could not stand. While I didn't appreciate Nic's trashing of composting (living in the rural area of upstate New York, I have composted my entire life as composting means opening the back door and chucking apple cores into the woods or, alternatively, walking about a hundred feet to our designated compost pile). I, however, could not stomach Jules accusations of her gardener being a druggie (and firing him!) and later her knowingly wrongful assertion to Nic that he did blow.

The thing is, obviously, if a character is bad or annoying or frustrating that doesn't make them unlikable. Just look at Daniel Plainview, The Joker, Mark Zuckerberg, hell, even the entire Gossip Girl cast (well, save Jenny and Vanessa in my opinion as they are both incredibly unlikable in my opinion). Bad people make fascinating characters, but it takes a good writer and a good actor to make them worth watching. I'm not a huge fan of either Mark Ruffalo or Julianne Moore, but I'd liked them in films past (i.e. Zodiac and A Single Man, respectively). However, here, whether it's their fault or just plain old bad, melodramatic writing, I couldn't enjoy Jules and Paul. I get it, dysfunctional family, unconventional family, and family values all wrapped into one. Interesting setting, which I enjoyed. However, the actual story and the use of those two characters made me cringe and groan and pull my laptop up to take a break from the movie and browse some websites.

I'm a bit surprised The Kids Are All Right hasn't entered the conversation in this way as I've heard plenty about the likability surrounding the characters of The Social Network and The King's Speech, but that's probably because TSN and TKS are front of the pack for Best Picture while The Kids Are All Right is looking at a nod only. Personally, I'm not sure I'd even give it that. The story just turned me off so much and those two characters, sometimes three, were so unbearable, I couldn't take it.

It's worth noting, however, that there's a difference between bad characters we love and bad characters that are just bad and it's usually because the latter category tries to argue that they are good people. That's not really the case with The Kids Are All Right or with any actually quality story-telling - good character studies try to prove the humanity of their characters rather than defining them as good or bad.

However, somewhere along the way, I just think this study failed. I could see that Jules and Paul were human, flawed but good-intentioned, and yet I couldn't get behind them at all. I didn't want to see anymore of them. I could not have lasted another hour with them.

This is what interests me when I've heard criticisms about The Social Network's characters and how unlikable they are because my very first response after I saw The Social Network was that I could have watched those actors play those characters for hours more. Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker were pretty jerky, the Winklevoss twins were hardly nice guys, and Eduardo Saverin was hardly perfect, but I was so fascinated by them and the way they interacted with one another. Mostly, it was thanks to a great (albeit partially fictional, but who really cares about that besides the people whose names were borrowed?) story and great writing.

I'm having a hard time really pinpointing what makes me think The Kids Are All Right failed to entertain or interest me, but I think I'm going to go with the story. The set-up, the concept, the ambiance, the general filmmaking, and the acting (for the most part) was all well-done and enjoyable. But something about the ways in which the characters are portrayed through the story leaves them unflattering in a painful and cringe-worthy way. Simply put, I didn't like it.

But, like I said earlier, likability is all about opinion. While I dislike the characters of The Kids Are All Right but love the characters of The Social Network (and The King's Speech for that matter), not everyone agrees. It's much easier, after all, on paper to adore the middle-aging married couple (because or even if they are lesbians) than a twentysomething billionaire or a British prince. However, that's not how stories work. Stories convince you that even if Mark Zuckerberg is a selfish prick or even if Prince Albert is stuffy and royal these characters are people too and they're human and interesting.

Likability will always play a part. I usually haven't had a real problem with it, since I am first in line to defend unlikable characters as real, but something about these characters, something about this story left me dissatisfied and frustrated.

On a slight ending note tangent, I saw Love and Other Drugs a couple weeks ago now and I was actually originally planning to write a blog post on that, particularly on the likability of Anne Hathaway's character versus Jake Gylenhaal's and how I found the latter to be more likable because how he was written as opposed to the former (and I'd half-jokingly blame that on the male writers - it is hard to write a strong female character, isn't it? and, back on topic, The Kids Are All Right had to write two! AND they had a woman at the other end of the pen, so phooey).

Nearing the End of 2010: List Update

2010-12-24T23:01:00.000-08:00

The return of the lists!

We are now well into Oscarbait season and my thoughts can be pretty easily summed up in this comic here: http://multiplexcomic.com/strip/541. It's a time of good and bad movies and movies in-between. As such, it is also now time to account for the movies I have seen and the movies I plan to see. Here are my lists in all of their excitement:

Likely/Possible/Longshot Contenders I Have Seen:
- Alice in Wonderland (unfortunately)
- Black Swan
- Despicable Me
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
- How to Train Your Dragon
- Inception
- Love and Other Drugs
- Shrek Forever After (also unfortunately)
- The Social Network
- Shutter Island
- Tangled
- The Town
- Toy Story 3
- Tron: Legacy

Likely/Possible/Longshot Contenders I Plan to See/Might See:
- 127 Hours
- Animal Kingdom
- Another Year
- Blue Valentine
- Exit Through the Gift Shop
- The Fighter
- Get Low
- I Love You, Phillip Morris
- The Illusionist
- Inside Job
- The Kids Are All Right
- The King's Speech
- Made in Dagenham
- Never Let Me Go
- Rabbit Hole
- True Grit
- Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
- Waiting for "Superman"
- The Way Back
- Winter's Bone

...Well, that's a more even split than I expected. Obvs certain films, like I Love You Phillip Morris, are less likely to be major contenders, but I am too curious to not see that film for myself. Not sure when I can get my hands on Uncle Boonmee, but I am immensely curious about it. I know this probably isn't a good thing on my part, but I want to wait to rent 127 Hours because I am squeamish about things like arms getting chopped off and would rather avoid a big screen and intense theater experience for that. Also not sure when Another Year or The Way Back will make their way towards a theater near me, but I'll work it out.

I'd have liked to see The Social Network again, and I will before the awards season is over, but not in theaters. I'm sure I'll do some sort of massive movie update - I saw Tron on Tuesday, Black Swan on Wednesday, and Love and Other Drugs on Thursdays - soon, but as it is late Christmas Eve, I'll leave it at the lists for now.

Happy hols and awards season!

PS: Since there is so much yet to see, I likely will either not do a Best Of 2010 list or else it will come probably in 2011. Not that the world needs another Best Of list, so chances are I might forgo it all together and just write about the movies I've seen and liked.

Thoughts on Children's Lit

2010-11-14T22:30:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since my last post hasn't it been? Well, not to get too personal, but I've been having a rough semester and a very busy one at that. My film production class has left me wondering how I managed to even make it into the film department, my screenwriting class is kicking my butt at this exact moment with too much homework, and even my hundred-level religion class resulted in a shittily graded paper.

But do you want to know what is going pretty freakin' well this semester? My Children's Lit class.

I was just rereading my earlier blog post about The Girl Who Owned a City and thought that I would like to revisit my thoughts from that post about children's literature. I know, this is more of a movies and television blog and I certainly could rant about how this season of Dexter has been so slow or say how I've given up on House for now or commend Community on doing what it does best. I could rave about The Social Network or get unnecessarily excited over going to the new Harry Potter movie midnight release on Thursday night, but I'd much rather discuss the real shining beacon in my life right now, which is, surprisingly, this lit class.

Not that it's perfect. My first paper wasn't great, I haven't had time to do more than a general outline for the paper due this Wednesday, and I'm close but not quite at A level. I've finished some of the reading a bit after it was technically due and I've still yet to cover Twilight in the class, but there are so many interesting things to take away from this class, none of which I can do justice in a blog post at 1:30am, but I can give you a quick survey of the genius that is this class and this subject and my own personal relationship with children's texts.

We kicked off the semester with an excerpt from Alice in Wonderland, but not the whole text (originally on the syllabus, but, amongst a few others such as The Giver, Alice in Wonderland was cut in the end). The Wind in the Willows was next in all its episodic glory (my favorite being Rat's interactions with the traveling Rat he meets). The Secret Garden introduced me to Dickon and re-introducing me to creepy crushes on children (this would continue with Will Parry as I was inspired to reread The Subtle Knife during my "free time"). I even ventured into the world of fan fiction veer so briefly before realizing that writing Dickon's manner of speech accurately removed any sexiness. My desires for attractiveness and accuracy conflicted. Peter and Wendy told me that I really just didn't like the story of Peter Pan very much after all. The Twins at St. Clare's reminded me of my childhood addiction to series like The Boxcar Children and The Babysitter's Club: basic children's books that nobody really takes seriously after a certain age. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe told me that, no, I don't like Narnia and The Last Battle that The Amber Spyglass did religion better. Also, we approached The Problem of Susan, and I started to get my ideas for my coming paper, wanting to approach my gender's role in all of this. What's so wrong with wanting invitations and nylons? On the flipside, we went over to The Golden Compass, one of my favorite books ever, and I was reminded how great the characters were and how one of my future cats should be named Iorek. The Ear, the Eye, and the Arm showed me another female character, though not the main protagonist, that I had originally written off but embraced by the end. Howl's Moving Castle was brilliant and I wonder how I'd never read it as a child. Officially decided another future cat shall be named Howl. I was also reminded that I am a sucker for a good literary romance - what's so wrong with Sophie and Howl having a happily ever after? Many of my classmates contested. Perhaps it's best we only read The Golden Compass and didn't introduce my beloved Will Parry. The Devil's Arithmetic brought me back to my middle school reading habits: American Revolution or Holocaust children's literature. How depressing! Magic made a comeback and time travel and another female protagonist, how fantastic! Finally, most recently, we've come to a collection of picture books and Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes. I don't remember ever reading any of the books: Where the Wild Things Are, Pat the Bunny, Goodnight Moon, Harold and the Purple Crayon, William's Doll, or Princess Smartypants.

Just take a glimpse through my notes from class sometime and you'll see a crazy amalgamation of ideas and concepts because in examining children's literature, it's not unlike examining adult's literature - there's quite a bit of everything. Adults have serialized literature that may not be brilliantly written, adults have historical drama and stories steeped in gender roles and fantasy and religion and science fiction. But when examining a whole group of literature, I never want to stop reading. I realized that today as I sat in the library, reading from our Oxford companion, filled with interesting essays on different topics in children's literature, we'd only read seven chapters of sixteen. I wanted to read them all! In fact, I want to read the gender roles chapter in time for my paper. I want to read the other dozens of books referenced.

Literature feels like a much more endless supply than movies or television. Not that one could watch the entirety of cinematic or televised history in a lifetime, but those mediums are so different from novels and poetry and essays and everything in-between. Children's movies are interesting and all, but there's something so much narrower about that library than the library of children's books. For exampls, film versions of these stories. Howl's Moving Castle was completely redefined and centered around a tale Miyazaki wanted to tell rather than the actual book's plot. The Narnia movies were even more ridiculous than the books, in my opinion. The Golden Compass, while well-cast, was watered down. I still have yet to see The Secret Garden. Peter Pan, the animated version, tries to simplify a simple story. Peter Pan, the live-action 2003 film, takes a completely different approach to the material, one which I might even like more than the book. And while Where the Wild Things is a good movie, in my opinion, it is an elongated version of the picture book from which the title hails. And that movie wasn't really made for kids so much as nostalgic adults.

There's a much more stream-lined narrative and style for "children's movies" than for children's books. Some of the worries centered around children's literature are much more apparent in movies for kids. Whereas some books are overly instructive or didactic, most movies for children are built around some life lesson moral that is hammered into the audience. Even in well-made features, such as Howl's Moving Castle, there is no escaping something so very clear. And gender roles are even worse in film, generally speaking.

I've always thought to myself which movies I would want to show my non-existent kids, being mostly a movie person. But I'm more interested now in understanding what books I also want them to read. The television I want them to watch. The games and toys I want them to enjoy. There is so much to learn, but even more to simply observe, to enjoy conflicting narratives that teach different lessons, allowing my kids their own agency of decision-making. It's easy to forget that kids aren't people too, but I'm still somewhat young enough to remember how intensely I thought about certain things and how not-intensely I thought about others.

Now is different. Now I see anything and I'm almost afraid I might over-analyze it. Everyday conversations involve some semblance of intellectualism. Ahh, college students, how they converse and interact. How they drag in the challenging of the concept of canon based on their children's lit reading from a couple weeks ago. But it feels so good to talk about those things, to have that perspective. Some might call it snobbery or elitism or silly to waste time learning about children's lit but there are so many ways to understand children, a huge part of this world, and one of which is to observe what goes into these texts and what comes out, whether it be in a college classroom or a child's bedroom.

My apologies for making this blog post so inherently steeped in my personal life. Unfortunately, I really don't have strong opinions about any movies or television I've watched lately (well, maybe except that the last few episodes of Glee have been a huge step up since the back nine, which were sometimes essentially unwatchable). Oh, well, I guess there's one big announcement: amidst my personal ~drama, I've started watching The Wire, which I am understanding to be one of the best television shows ever? Well, I'm certainly liking it. Liking it enough to start the second season rather than read the screenplays I need to for Tuesday.

"Emmy" TV Shows. Not Unlike "Oscar" Movies.

2010-10-22T15:24:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the long absence. I'm a busy student/employee/television addict/etc.

But as I catch up on last night's television shows, I started to wonder to myself about "the Academy." See, lots of people complain, whine, and moan over both the Academy that decides the Emmys and the Oscars. The thing is, though, I haven't seen many people spend all year discussing the Emmys, declaring this show an Emmy show and that show not an Emmy show, whereas even everyday movie-goers will easily be talking about the Oscar chances for The Social Network or Toy Story 3.

At first glance, this might indicate that the selectivity for the Emmys is not so severe as it is for the Oscars. You'd think an Academy that would nominate True Blood might actually have its marbles in a way an Academy that shut out The Dark Knight doesn't. I think though that you'd be wrong. True Blood, for example, has certain things going for it, including an Academy Award-winning main actress, a respected premium cable channel, and a "message" (y'know, how vampire rights in the show parallel modern day LGBT rights).

Don't fool yourself; the Emmys like the same things the Oscars do. Pedigree isn't everything though, as former Academy Award nominees Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos will tell you, having worked for years on a never-nominated critically-acclaimed little series called Battlestar Galactica everyone who knows me knows that I adore. It takes a certain class that comes, especially these days, with being on a premium cable network, which is why even though I haven't seen an episode of Boardwalk Empire, I'm convinced it will land several nominations next year. Because it's on HBO, it's classy like Mad Men, and it takes itself seriously.

As I'm sure the Buffy fans have lamented for ages, taking yourself seriously can be a big thing. I feel like one of the more common complaints about Mad Men would be a sort of "stuffiness" about it, coming from its slow, melodious pace and seriously fragmented (and often disliked) characters.

But the comedy category, you declare! Comedic shows are appreciated for irony! Just look at Glee? Though I decry Glee and watch it, such a contradiction as I am, Glee is actually something of an interesting anomaly in my opinion. It's a high school show, it's a musical, its pedigree is really not that impressive (Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele are the main show there - I won't count Jane Lynch, despite loving her more, because an unfortunate amount of not-young people don't realize how much she did pre-Glee). Glee's popularity comes from a more modern High School Musical approach - but you didn't see High School Musical get nominated for Best TV Movie, did you? Despite whatever sucks about Glee, it is kind of impressive for it to have gotten the formal recognition it has.

Besides Glee, however, the comedy area remains pretty locked for sitcoms and serious premium cable comedies (i.e. Weeds, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm). And, to be honest, the only reason Glee might get nominated again next year is because the current freshmen sitcoms are rather slim pickings, so I'd be prepared for a full-on repeat in the comedy series category.

Sitcoms are cute and quaint. They're very old-fashioned. Even Modern Family, which I watch and like and is lauded for its advancement, follows your old-school format of following a family around and seeing all their funny, morally-inclined hi-jinks in a short half hour. If there was a movie equivalent to sitcoms, actually, which there really isn't anymore, I'd be surprised if it got nominated for the Oscars, actually, because that area is even too backwater for them. When people talk about potential Oscar comedies, they think of raucous shit like The Hangover, which is more of a premium cable type show than a typical network sitcom.

But back to the drama category, where this all started for me as I thought longingly of The Vampire Diaries, the shockingly good show I have fallen in love with despite not being a big vampire fan and aware enough of trends to usually not be susceptible without my consent. The Vampire Diaries is a good show, hands down. Interesting characters, good plots, amazing pacing, problems are rectified, everything is reasonable, and as a bonus, the cast is gorgeous (and, so far as I'm aware, come across as respectable and scandal-free). The problems? The show doesn't take itself so seriously. Not in the same way, say, my beloved Chuck does, becoming a little bit too much of a self-parody at times, but there is an air of fun and danger that comes from a show willing to take risks, kill off a main character pretty quickly, and do a lot of things most shows aren't really willing to do. Second, the show doesn't have pedigree. It's highest pedigree right now is probably Ian Somerhalder, best known otherwise for his season-long and small recurring bit as Boone on Lost. Nina Dobrev did Degrassi. Matt Davis might be most recognizable for Legally Blonde. Seriously, this is not your A-list cast. But they're not just pretty, they're good. And, finally, The Vampire Diaries is on The CW. The CW may technically be a network station, but it is essentially trash to the bigwigs. The CW is home of Smallville and Gossip Girl, not a show that's better than Emmy-nominated True Blood (sorry, TB fans, I'm with you, but did you see the third season compared to TVD? Just, no).

Everything that might make a series worthy of Emmy recognition is simply not in this show, which is probably derided by people who've never seen it as part of the Twilight craze, as a teen drama with lots of skimpy clothes and scandal. I'm sorry, but this is neither True Blood nor Gossip Girl; there are few if none unnecessary shenanigans. High school is a setting, not a defining characteristic of the show (especially as of late; Mystic Falls is more the setting anyway, one of the coolest, cult-like towns ever). Skimpy clothes? Are you kidding me? Besides the car wash episode, there have been so few scantily clad moments. I can remember all of one legitimate sex scene in the entirety of this series. There are some sexy flashbacks, but it is nothing compared to the wild orgies of True Blood season 2, or even the least sexy of True Blood episodes. Scandals? I bet there are about five thousand more scandals in a single episode of Desperate Housewives than a full season of The Vampire Diaries. Vampire Diaries is more concerned with drama and action and zigzagging plots and surprises than with the kind of ~drama that fuels shows like Gossip Girl or One Tree Hill or Gilmore Girls (which I loved, but was soapy as hell sometimes).

Essentially, every stigma that The Vampire Diaries would attract is false. But that's true about a lot of shows that would never qualify for an Emmy nomination. There is no "Blind Side" slot in the Emmy nominees. The Emmys are probably even more out of touch with popular culture than the Oscars. Sci-fi has been at the Oscars for ages, from Star Wars to Avatar (more of a crowd-pleaser than it's-all-about-the-analogy District 9). Battlestar Galactica, despite being declared by many as one of the best DRAMA television shows ever, or at least a very good one in general, never got more than a technical nod at the Emmys.

So we bitch and moan and complain a lot about the Oscars, about the Academy Awards being old and how certain great movies will never be Oscar movies, but the Emmys are no better, if they're not even worse, especially since they can repeat old favorites in place of strong up-comers. While movies year after year can emulate and imitate older films, keeping that certain "old Hollywood" or "period movie" place in the Best Picture nominee line-up, Emmys can literally keep the same show in the running, even past its prime (I mean really? House? That show has been good at best, horrendous at worst, and meh most of the time for a couple seasons now).

And yet, few shows are looked at, saying, "this show was made for the Emmys" when one could look at, say, The King's Speech, and declare immediately "it's an Oscar movie!" There isn't a lot different between what makes television and movies appeal for "bigwig" Academies. If anything, audience size and critics matter more for the Oscars - I doubt you'll find many champions of House's last season (praise the mental institute episode all you want, there are over twenty other episodes in the season), but even The Blind Side was well-received by many, though certainly not everyone. House's audience has dwindled (and it was probably the most-watched series nominated for Best Comedy/Drama last year; remember, Glee's audience was pretty modest for most of the first season), but Avatar, District 9, The Blind Side, and Up were huge money-makers.

My point has been made clear by this point. Just like with the Oscars and movies, there will be brilliant shows that will never win an Emmy, that never won an Emmy, and probably were never seen by those who vote on the Emmys. And that's disappointing, sure, but that's life, and tastes change, though slowly, and one day all the types of shows we champion now will be detested by future generations as backwards and unworthy of admiration and we'll be clinging on.

Glee: The Rachel Problem & More

2010-09-29T19:08:00.001-07:00

Been a little busy with the kick-off of the semester, but I'm going to try for a minor new blog post.

So. Glee.

Sometimes cute. Often talented. And also quite often a piece of gooey, unkempt, poorly-defined messes.

I like Glee for some reasons, I really do. The cast is talented, there have been some stronger episodes (particularly toward the beginning of the first season), the musical numbers are usually quite entertaining, and lately when the show just gives in to its messes (i.e. Power of Madonna and last night's Brittany/Britney) it is quite enjoyable in that format. I mentioned earlier to a friend that if Glee just devolved into incoherent musical numbers (which, to an extent, it already does) I'd still watch it and truly enjoy it for the variety/cabaret like quality it could be and is best at.

There are also many problems with Glee. The writing is often weak, continuity is crap, the "realism" is pathetic, and the treatment of minorities often stumbles off the fine-line between embracing and exposing stereotypes, not to mention giving heavy-handed speeches hand-in-hand with satirical nonsense. It's these weaknesses that make me think Glee could be just as successful and twice as entertaining if it abandoned plot all together and just played with its cast of characters as is and ran it like the best, most epic variety show/cabaret. I've always wanted cabarets to make a comeback though...

Amongst my many issues with Glee, I'd probably say the biggest one right now has a name: Rachel.

Sure, many of the characters are mishandled, underused, overused, given too much credit for their lack of abilities (I'm looking at Finn's singing AND dancing), etc.... but Rachel really takes the cake for me.

The thing is, Lea Michele is undeniably talented. She's got a great voice. I'm not sure if it's my favorite voice, but it's definitely good. Clearly, it makes sense that Rachel is often the lead. She's assertive and talented. The problem? She's an unrestrained diva who never learns from her many mistakes. Rachel is not only annoying, she is often insufferable. All together, these two episodes in the second season, I think I may have liked her for all of about ten seconds, in the latest episode, when she tells Finn that she'll stop being controlling since she's discovered her own empowerment. AWESOME. GREAT. ...and then, she goes back to her crazy, dramatic ultimatums. And I think to myself, WHO DOES THIS? What kind of crazy pills is this girl on?

Rachel has no redeeming qualities. Her personality is horrible. She is controlling, obnoxious, rude, self-centered, and displays somewhat sociopath-like behavior (her "I'm doing this because I love you" shtick in the season opener, much?). Rachel also has an obsessive personality, which means when she gets on about something, she harps on about it incessantly, because she's also a loud-mouth. Sure, she "owns up" to her mistakes, sometimes, but then she goes and does another horrible thing next week. And whoops, again, and then another thing, and then she's got a clean-slate again. Seriously, I used to wonder what Rachel saw in Finn, but what the hell does Finn see in Rachel? She's pretty and talented, and that's about it.

And the show exploits this. The show is convinced that Rachel is our hero, that Rachel really does mean well, and that Rachel is worth loving despite her flaws... because why? Because she sings really, really well, and here, let's demonstrate by having her sing a big, dramatic number at the end of the episode (the modus operendi for this season thus far, and used a bit last season as well - Episodes 2, 17, and 18). We're led to believe that Rachel is redeemed because she sings a heartfelt song, but she still resorted to crazy-ass, selfish means to keep Sunshine out of the club, and she still gave Finn a crazy-ass, selfish ultimatum. I don't see how being talented makes up for being a shitty person.

Rachel is the center of Glee's problems for me, because Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing her as someone that she really does not come off as: a victim. In the first season, somewhat, when Finn was actively ditching her, I could see it, but now she's only a victim of her own behavior. Likewise, Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing its show as a well put-together, honest, real show, when it's really just a fun hot mess. The problem is that Glee has got an epic fanbase, a great appeal, lots of merchandising, and the ratings to keep going for years.

It reminds me of the second season of Heroes, however. I knew Heroes wasn't the strongest show, but I was in love with it anyways, in love with its possibilities and its conceits. Heroes too was a huge hit when it started, if anyone can remember that a few years back. But Heroes too lost itself in numerous characters, bad writing, weird plotting, and stock in unchanging characters (including, also, an unlikable heroine with Claire). Heroes fell off ratings-wise, however, killed by the writer's strike. Heroes also didn't have built-in merchandising. It was, however, also hailed for its originality. Heroes brought superheroes to network television, Glee brought the musical. Neither were first, exactly, but they were hailed as successes moreso than others, though. It seems odd, because Heroes and Glee are nothing alike in actual context, but I simply see a lot of similar problems. Glee is so in love with itself, so doting on its fanbase, and so inconsistent, doubting that it could ever go wrong. Maybe Glee will improve; I think it has the possibility, but I doubt it will.

I'll just keep on watching Glee until it's too much of a train wreck to stand anymore (give it another season). It's still enjoyable and has its moments, but I'm not recommending it to anyone anytime soon. I learned my lesson about corrupting my poor friends when Heroes was in a downfall. There I thought it would get better and was wrong. Maybe if I expect Glee to keep on descending in quality, it will actually get sharper.

And so ends my mega-long ramble on Glee. g'night folks. I'm off to watch No Ordinary Family! I also hope that is better than Heroes. >.>

The Heart of the Heist

2010-08-27T10:44:00.001-07:00

I know this may be silly and I don't really feel like writing up a whole essay on why I feel this way, but of the many talented men of Inception that could possibly be noticed on a supporting actor level, my choice would be Cillian Murphy's Robert Fischer.

Granted, one hardly needs an Oscar nomination or win to be remembered and I won't be surprised in a few months when Inception will fail to put up any nominees in the supporting actor category (as it is, neither Leonardo DiCaprio for lead nor Marion Cotillard for supporting are anywhere near safe bets, but are likelier than anything else). I do believe, however, of all the interesting supporting actors featured within Inception, whenever Cillian Murphy was on screen, that's where my attention went, and it's not just because he's attractive, it's because he played the part so well and it really was a plum part amongst Ocean's Eleven type caricatures (which, though fun and well-performed and well-written, aren't exactly screaming emotional depth).

Whether or not he gets any awards attention, I simply wished to express the beautiful supporting performance Cillian Murphy put on for us all. He is quite a talented actor and I'll certainly be looking into more of his works thanks to a fantastic job in Inception.

And this is not a knock to any of the other supporting gents; you are all great. But, if I had to choose one, there's no real question about it. That scene in the third level of the dream, with his father, was nearly as touching to me as the entirety of Toy Story 3. Some might complain that Inception is heartless, but it's not, and Robert Fischer is that heart. You may say it does not count, because he is dreaming and asleep, but in the immortal words of Albus Dumbledore, "Of course this is happening inside your head, but why on earth should that mean it's not real?"

I've been quoting Harry Potter a lot lately. So shoot me.

Why I Watch The Human Target

2010-08-21T12:05:00.000-07:00

I think I've discovered what it is that really draws me into The Human Target, and it's not just the really awesome action sequences and the slowly building mythology. I know there was a fair amount of sad faces over Chi McBride being somewhat underused thus far, but his partnership with Mark Valley's Christopher Chance reminds me very strongly of Jet and Spike from Cowboy Bebop, and the whole series at large is very reminiscent of that brilliant anime series (as someone who has never gotten into a single other anime series, I believe it's a sign of the quality of Cowboy Bebop that I love it so much).

Just look at those pictures and try to tell me how different those scenes are.

I don't know how influenced the current incarnation of Human Target is by the 1992 series, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this relationship in Human Target was influenced by Jet and Spike from Cowboy Bebop rather than anything from there. As for the rest of the Bebop, Guerrero is obviously Ed and his flaky, casual attitude is very reminiscent of Ed's excellent craziness. The host of female figures that wander in and out of Human Target play the role of Faye (although I hear a permanent female lead is coming in next season and maybe we'll get a real Faye going on). But in the end, it all comes back to Chance and Winston.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine a few years ago about the Cowboy Bebop cast. He commented about how he thought Jet was a rather unnecessary character next to Spike, Faye, Ed, and Ein, who all had their own purposes. I defended Jet, because I really like Jet and he is really the unifying link. His partnership and friendship with Spike was what was at the beginning and it was what was at the end.

Jet and Winston have a lot of those stick-in-the-mud sidekick characteristics to Spike and Chance's more reckless attitudes - they both tend to chide the lead character a lot, do a fair amount of yelling and sighing and eye-rolling, and sit to the sidelines a fair amount of the time. On the other hand, of course, it's proven in both Winston and Jet's cases that they are capable of much ass-kicking. Their histories are similar, as they are both former cops, just like Spike and Chance are the same person for their shady histories (Spike being an ex-mobster and Chance being an ex-assassin). Layer on top of that the characters of Baptiste and Vicious and their former-friend/protege-turned-rival relationships with Chance and Spike and it's kind of hard to distinguish the differences between these two series. They also both alternate between mission-of-the-week/bounty-of-the-week and the overall mythology of the series. And, of course, the mysterious dead(?) dame - Victoria is Chance's Julia - a badass woman worth falling for.

Human Target and Cowboy Bebop have their differences too, of course, namely that the bounty hunters of Cowboy Bebop are mildly less successful than Winston, Chance, and Guerrero, but even then, both Spike and Chance are infamous for causing major, expensive damage in the line of duty. Bounty hunting is also much different than the work Chance does, of course, which is essentially the opposite of bounty hunting.

But besides the series' similarities and differences, the central relationship between the reckless lead and his more sobering partner is one of my favorite parts of Human Target which, to be quite honest, makes better use of this relationship than Cowboy Bebop (but then Cowboy Bebop's got Faye, whom I adore to bits and pieces and I love all of her scenes with Spike so freakin' much).

Human Target doesn't attract a huge audience, which isn't surprising but is still a bit of a disappointment. It follows the good television rule of half procedural and half mythology, allowing current fans to be pleased while not shutting out potential fans. I'm really pleased Human Target's got a second season at all, even if it is in the death slot of Friday. I'm really excited to see more of the adventures Chance, Winston, and Guerrero go on and see a hint more of the mythology. Of course, I doubt the show will last much longer, but I can live with that. After all, Cowboy Bebop only has 26 half-hour episodes and it's still brilliant.

Objectification of both genders versus the objectification of just women - more or less progressive?

2010-08-18T15:29:00.001-07:00

Is the entertainment industry the only place where it's OK to objectify men and women?

The argument that, if Hollywood and the entertainment industry at large objectify women, this is okay would be that those in the industry put themselves out there for judgment - their entire lives are defined by the opinions of other people. Those opinions may center on their appearance, but actors are also admired for their talent, wit, personality, and poise. Actors (both male and female) are hired for many reasons and attractiveness is amongst these reasons.

This is, of course, something that would not stand in pretty much any other profession. But at the same time, I wonder, is the entertainment industry's objectification of both women AND men something that makes it more or less progressive than other industries?

Men, sit down and shut up because this is for the women. Honestly, when was the last time any man felt like they were being judged by their appearance for a job interview? I don't want to hear men complaining about being objectified or judged by their appearance because, believe me, women have it worse. Luckily, at the tender age of twenty, I haven't experienced a job interview where I've been judged based on my appearance, probably because my jobs have been mostly minimum wage based professions (i.e. cashier, hostess, tour guide). But that doesn't mean I haven't felt the brunt of judgment about my appearance.

Let me break it down for you. I've had big boobs since I was 12 years old and I'm a natural blonde. I'm also 5'3. How many people do you think look at me and take me seriously, especially since I have a goofy, outgoing personality and a liking for feminine clothing? Men, how many of you have felt the judging eyes because you're short or fat? I apologize to anybody who is a minority because I know that race is another huge judgment point for people.

But women have been objectified for ages. What's the image that comes to mind when you think stripper? It's always going to be a girl, a skimpily dressed young woman. Porn stars, sex tapes, anything raunchy, you're probably going to be thinking about girls.

Celebrities and others within the entertainment industry who aren't necessarily defined as celebrities, on the other hand, are judged for their appearance no matter which gender. It's easy to make the argument that judging someone based on their appearance is wrong no matter what and I don't disagree. On the other hand, it's foolish for anyone to go into the entertainment industry thinking that their appearance won't be a part of their image. Whether it's the typical actor, that wants to be recognized for his or her work within their films or television series or other projects, or the more celebrity-based actor whose personal life is the center of attention, it's all about the appearance. In the former case, how well does the appearance of the actor fit the role? That's why actors get a lot of cred when they shake things up majorly for a role, say, gain or lose a lot of weight or drastically change their appearance so as to be unrecognizable. In the latter case, it's still about appearance, but about the actual, natural appearance outside of the movies and videos. Either way, actors are putting out their entire selves to be judged, and that includes their appearance.

So is it really unfair to then go ahead and deem someone attractive or unattractive? More often, people deem those in the entertainment industry attractive. Nobody really writes posts or articles about how unattractive someone is, and I doubt you'll find any genuine, credible source talking about the attractiveness/unattractiveness of celebrities or actors in the first place, save if it's about a role transformation.

I understand the harm of basing opinions of someone solely on their appearance, I really do. Nobody wants to be seen as just a pretty face - actors want to be taken seriously as actors and though appearance is a part of that, it's the praise for the talent that matters more than the praise for the appearance. My counter-argument, however, is that there is a line between playful "s/he's so hot" and derogatory comments like "s/he's just a pretty face." Is it really so wrong to drool over a Google image search of certain actors, so long as they're acknowledged as something more?

Well, I'll bring it back to me because I'm a selfish ho and I know myself pretty well and can't speak for everyone else. I love getting compliments on my appearance. I love getting comments on my talent as a filmmaker/musician/good person more, but I would never begrudge someone for thinking me attractive, so long as they know there's more to me than that.

Back on the sexism track, sometimes it's tough for me to think that people actually do see more to me than blonde hair and a big rack. I don't know, but, men, do you have the same problem? Do you feel as if women look at you and they only see what you look like and could never see you as something more than a man?

Historically speaking, though I know men also face objectification, men have always been more than just their appearance though. Men have always held jobs or positions or some role in the public world. Women, on the other hands, have been defined for centuries based on our womanhood and nothing else, because we didn't work, we didn't hold positions - all we were good for was being a woman (which entails: looking pretty, having kids, being present, etc.).

Do I feel for actors who are judged entirely on their appearance, regardless of their gender? Yes, I do. However, I feel a lot more for the women, to this day, who suffer from their gender in the workplace. Nobody would dare to call a man who worked as an office manager "just a secretary" but they would dare to call my mother that because she's a woman - she, as a woman, is a secretary and any other title is a joke, whereas it would be an insult for a man to ignore his actual title. God, what is this, Mad Men?

It may not be entirely right to judge actors based on their appearances, but it is part of their job. It is in no way, shape, or form part of an office worker's job to be judged on their appearance (well, maybe outside of their outfit; I'd judge a dude who wore a scuba suit to work, because that's just inappropriate - there is a certain dress code to working in the professional world). And though this may sound cruel, at least the entertainment industry is a bit more fair, ogling both men and women as attractive. Women definitely have a tougher time and are more scrutinized, but at least it's a bit more fair than the rest of the world.

Just keep on the right side of the line and don't cross over to pure appearance judgment and I don't see what's so wrong about appreciating beauty. It's not everything, it shouldn't be everything, but an appreciation is acceptable. I appreciate Alexander Skarsgard, for instance, both as a very attractive man and as a fantastic actor in his current role as Eric Northman in True Blood. He embodies the wit, slyness, and power of Eric very well. But, at the same time, I very much like the way he looks. Am I wrong?

I'm sure some might think so, but whatever.

(Inspired in part by a conversation had with a chap in the comments section of this EW.com post.)

Pop Culture Dreams: Installment I

2010-08-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

Okay, so, being so immersed and interested in the entertainment world and pop culture, sometimes this seeps into my subconscious, as proven by a variety of dreams, including one I tweeted about back in June:

Last night I dreamed I was smoking pot with my BFF and Naveen Andrews' Sayid. Too much Lost? No. I'm more curious where I got the weed from.
1:52 PM Jun 15th via web

Also, not very long ago, I dreamed that I was actually in the top 10 or whatever of next season, season 8, of So You Think You Can Dance, despite the fact that I really can't dance very well and I haven't taken a dance class since I was eight-years-old. Regardless, I made it to like the top 8 or maybe it was even the top 6, but then, of course, I was knocked off because, well, probs because I can't dance. Everyone was sweet to me. It was great.

So, I thought, after these dreams (plus a few others) I should really start a segment on this blog about some of these pop culture dreams because I think it's hilarious.

ON THAT NOTE...

Last night, I had a sort of extension of my earlier SYTYCD dream, only this time it appears I was in season 7 because Robert Roldan and I were, like, kinda tight. And by kinda tight, I mean my RL crush on his gorgeousness and talents translated into my dream, except I could be tots obvious about it in my dream because he was right there in my house. We were chatting and he was sad I had left the competition, but I was happy for him for making it so far and was gushing over him essentially, telling him how he was talented and also very pretty. He was all blushy about it and gave me a hug, and while I wanted it to be a hug that was like "okay, so, talking time over, making out time, yes?" it was a friendly hug and I was like "OH SHIT. Is he gay? Or into someone else?" But before I could really obsess over it, he was asking me to dance, so we went into my living room and somebody else was there (I think it was Ashley Galvan) and I danced around rather shittily, in my opinion, but they seemed to like it. My dad was walking around and kind of stared at me as he passed by, but Robert was like shooing him or whatever. That's where it ends.

Also, there was another part to this dream that I think came earlier where we were all dancing for the show and I was a choreographer and I had choreographed Lauren's amazing Argentine Tango she did with Pasha last week and we were kind of doing a "best of." Except - the stage we were performing on was my high school's stage. AND THEN Lauren and Pasha did this other routine that looked nothing at all like the tango "I" had choreographed for them. I was sooo furious and then the stage manager or whoever told me that that routine had never been on the list and it was another routine entirely even though they were wearing the same costumes... and it was somewhere around there that my dream ended, though you know dreams, they're very fluid, and there was a lot of other routines going on.

There you have it! Sarah's pop culture dreams, now shared for the whole world to see and know and love and appreciate and analyze and freak out over. Or, y'know, the handful of people who actually read this.

...Robert Roldan, if you're reading this (which you probably aren't), I adore you; go win SYTYCD, plz and ty. And I'm sorry if I've freaked you out. Blame my subconscious. And the fact that you're pretty and talented.

(For those of you who are not Robert/don't watch SYTYCD, here are some links so you too can appreciate where my subconscious is coming from: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

So You Think You Can Dance? (I know I can't.)

2010-08-06T11:44:00.001-07:00

This summer was dedicated to Lost early on, but I have strayed toward So You Think You Can Dance since then. My interest and dedication to SYTYCD has gone so far as to make a chart of the genres each contestant has performed in and how many times. Now, as the finale is only six days away, anyone who has talked to me knows my preference lies with either Robert or Lauren. I like Kent, don't get me wrong, but he is not my favorite contestant now or ever, even though he has had some really good routines. But you know who else had good routines? Billy and Alex and Ashley and Cristina and AdeChike and they're all kaput (I personally loved both of Cristina's routines before she was cut; she really should've made it a week longer than Melinda).

My main problem with Kent is that, though he has certainly grown as a dancer and as a person, the growth is much more apparent in his competitors at this stage. I've always liked Robert and his goofiness never bothered me, but his goofiness has become less of his personality and more of an occasional quirk as time has gone on. He has proven himself a serious, beautiful, and talented dancer. If AdeChike had learned how to let himself go more, he could've been the strongest looking partner on the show, but since he didn't, that honour goes to Robert, in my opinion (also, if Alex had lasted longer he might've taken that crown). Lauren has always been freakin' talented. We didn't get to see too much of Ashley to know how talented she was, but the other three girls were no rival for Lauren's skill (even though I will consistently remind the world that Cristina surprised me hugely in her two weeks on the show, but alas, we only got two weeks of her). But Lauren seriously has tackled so many genres and conquered them. She never looks uncomfortable or awkward and she's gotten really good at getting into character. Not to mention that the package when the other top six described each other and Lauren was pegged as the weirdo she became my hero. Also, the zillion and a half activities she does? I don't care that she's two years younger than me; I want to be Lauren when I grow up.

Comparing the remaining dancers, I can go on and on about how Robert's disco was better than Kent's and how Robert's hip hop was better than Kent's or how more physically stronger Robert comes across in all his ballrooms where Kent still looks like a kid, but I think that it's fruitless at this point to really hope for a Robert victory (as much as I want it). Robert's had a journey making it out of the bottom 3 the times he has (WHY? WHY did it take so long for the audience to wise up to the fact that AdeChike, despite all his strength and talent, just couldn't bring the it factor to most of his routines save three - contemporary with Kent, hip hop with Lauren, and lyrical hip hop with Comfort). I am so freakin proud of Robert for making it this far because he has been surprising me since the first week and winning my love over the course of the show.

But even Kent's greatest routines leave me unwilling to vote for him. Maybe it speaks to personal preference, but I'll take Robert's goofiness over Kent's rambling messes of speech anyday. I just don't get Kent, I guess. Talented, yes. Appealing to younger audiences, yes. But he is not the strongest contender on the show, he has not been the most attractive on the show, he has had some really stellar routines, but he makes the same consistent mistake week after week (as Mia will happily point out, the pulling of the faces) and that still didn't lose him any steam, although apparently it did for AdeChike eventually (his lack of connection and looseness in many of his routines).

It's kind of disappointing that the dancers who've grown the most have been the ones who've been in the bottom more. Lauren overcame her "girlishness," Robert overcame his goofiness, and Billy overcame his own problems with partnering as shown in his freakin' gorgeous contemporary with Ade last week. But Billy's gone and Robert was at risk of departing the competition several times and even Lauren's been in the bottom. But it took three weeks to give Melinda the boot when she wasn't growing, it took way too long to give Jose the boot after he'd stopped growing, and if Kent's got more growth to show, he is taking his sweet-ass time.

For this reason, I'm really glad Kent got disco. I'm glad Jose got that Broadway. Because choreographers can hide a contestants weaknesses all they like and get praise (a la Jose's pretty Sonya contemporary routine with Allison, which was pretty but really didn't need much skill from Jose), but it's important that a dancer's weaknesses are shown too. If the audience ignores them, whatever, but it's important to see them nonetheless. Through this we can understand what the problem with the dancer is. The problem with Jose, for instance, was that he was all personality and very unrefined talent. The problem with Kent is that as adorable as he comes across, there is a lack of strength there too. The problem with Melinda was that, even with a partner as talented and gorgeous as Pasha, she still didn't even bother to connect with him either time she danced with him, though it was very clear HE was trying.

I am happy with the finale three we've got, though, because as much as I complain about Kent, it's not because I don't think he's talented. I just think he would've deserved his potential win if he'd have auditioned in a couple seasons, when he he could actually exude more maturity, especially outside of the dance. Because when he dances, it is possible to forget the "farmboy" he is (well, in his best routines, like his contemporary with Lauren, or with AdeChike, or with Neil). But once the dance is over, I remember why I am not a Kent fan.

If only Alex Freaking Wong were still around! If it was Alex, Robert, and Lauren in the top three my dreams would've come true. But next season! Next season, dearest Alex will be back and the judges better get Anthony Burrell into the top 10/20 next season. I was annoyed enough when he didn't make it this season. :(

PS: I saw Despicable Me. It was pretty darn cute.

A Twitter Trend I Can Get Behind.

2010-07-19T18:44:00.000-07:00

Inception, Inception, Inception. It's the talk of the town, isn't it? I know I, for one, have been fangirling all over that thing for months. But, to be quite honest, I've quieted down a lot about it in recent weeks as it really approached. I've been excited for it, yes, but I was avoiding learning too much, theorizing too much, because I really like the experience of seeing a movie without truly knowing what you are going to get out of it. I had seen the basic trailers, but I avoided the spoilers, the plot details, pretty much all of it beyond the very basics everyone knew.

It paid off for me. I didn't even see the movie on opening day; I'd been thinking about a midnight screening, but had made plans to see it today and thought I might as well wait a couple extra days. I took my time, heard bits and pieces of the critiques, and just went into the movie without knowing precisely what I was getting.

I personally quite loved Inception. It was smart without being pretentious or much over my head, its cast was amazing, its technical side was stunning (that score! that cinematography! that EDITING!), and it was just an engrossing tale. Of course I applaud Christopher Nolan for his originality, but also for his dedication and his skill in bringing this fascinating tale to life. I thought the pace was tremendous as well, and like my favorite "long" movies, it didn't feel long in the least. I was thrilled to see more and more and more.

If I am to make a small comparison to The Dark Knight, however, I would say that the pace is better in Inception. I know there is some criticism about the ever-high tension of The Dark Knight, which I personally loved, and is still very much apparent in Inception. However, as Inception works in the layers that it does of the dream world, rather than through a straight time-line of different conflicts in The Dark Knight, the ever-heightened tension works better for Inception. That is really the only comparison I want to make between the two, because their handling is not so different despite their much different stories and tones in regards to the pacing of the films.

I want to watch Inception again, of course, before I really decide how much I liked it. I do know that I want the Academy to recognize it because it is brilliant and it is well-crafted and it is original. I know that many will argue that Christopher Nolan deserves his due because of the snub for The Dark Knight, but that's not why I want him to get recognized. I want him to get recognized because he has done consistently great work and this may not be his most critically-acclaimed film, but it is clearly one he poured himself into and is so very much his.

No matter if the Academy ends up acknowledging Nolan despite their snub of The Dark Knight and his work on it, they still snubbed a great modern film two years ago. Call me a fangirl all you want, but The Dark Knight is a freakin' fantastic movie and of all the Academy snubs in recent years, that is one of the most egregious, in my opinion.

But back to Inception. I really don't have a whole lot to say about it because though certain things stand out, every moment was as well-crafted as the last and the next. I did not see and points that made it weak. In its own concept, in its own world, it was done just right. Are there better movies, better tales both original and adapted? Sure, probably. But that does not take away from Inception's perfection in and of itself. I, personally, wouldn't change a thing about it. I wouldn't dare touch it.

My Thoughts on Eclipse. Let Me Give Them To You.

2010-07-06T00:11:00.000-07:00

I have to give credit where credit is due. I may not have wanted to face it, but I admit that The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is probably the most tolerable Twilight movie. There were fewer moments than the earlier installments where I just wanted to scream it was so bad, but there are several reasons for that and there is one in particular, near the end, that stands out.

As much as I can't stand Bella as a character, she does give an interesting speech that I think relates to a lot of fantasy stories, the central idea being that, only in said fantasy world does she really belong. Now, I don't know if that stems from the actual book or if it's a movie only thing because I've never read the book, but it was interesting. I'm not sure if I like it, though, because it is a question that I feel is important to consider in any fantasy landscape.

The Hero's Journey, as written about in a book I recently read on screenwriting entitled The Writer's Journey (by Christopher Vogler), has a step near the end called "The Road Back." Such a grand example could easily be found, say, in The Lord of the Rings where it is a literal road back to the shire. The literal road back leads our four dear hobbits back to their homeland. Whether the book version or the movie version (because The Scouring of the Shire chapter is not in the movie), the shire is (or is eventually) a proper home for three of the four again. Sam, Merry, and Pippin, despite their wild adventures, can find home in this place. Frodo, on the other hand, does not belong in this world anymore. Bilbo, also, in The Hobbit can be said to have gone on the road back to the shire and he lives comfortably there for a long time after his adventures outside of his home.

One reason I think it is very easy for Bella to not go on the road back is because she doesn't really go on a road to the vampire world. To be quite fair, I read an article recently comparing the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises and stating that one obvious advantage Harry Potter has over Twilight is the fantasy world. Comparisons aside, there really isn't a lot of definition over the vampire world. Vampires are described, sure, but there isn't a lot of fantasy involved and Bella isn't really transported into a whole new environment, unlike in Harry Potter where Harry is constantly learning the crazy differences between the muggle and wizarding worlds. But, like I said, this is comparison aside. The world of Twilight is very normal and, honestly, not very interesting. I like my mortality most of the time, however, and unlike Bella, I feel as if I can achieve things in a mortal life, as if I do belong here, even when it's uncomfortable, awkward, or stunted, which it often it.

Even on The Road Back, however, there really is no going back, especially because The Road Back is not the last stop. There is still "Resurrection" and "Return with the Elixir." To be quite honest, Twilight follows this Hero's Journey outline well in the end. Bella clearly goes under a resurrection when she is transformed and boy oh boy, does superstar model and wicked talented vampire!Bella have an elixir. The road back isn't about returning to an old life as much as it is returning to an old home as a new person. There is no spontaneous "Happily Ever After" and then fade to black, because we are always growing beyond the end, which is clear in the last sections of the journey. I think the problem here with Twilight is that it assumes a happily ever after and there is an eternity where neither Bella nor Edward nor the other Cullens will ever grow. It is as Rosalie says in Eclipse, how they are frozen in time.

So while it is easy to say other literary characters such as Bilbo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to their old lives, it is also wrong. They all return to their old homes as completely changed persons/hobbits, leading their old lives into new realms. That is their resurrection (well, if we're ignoring The Scouring of the Shire, which could be cited as the real zone off a resurrection) - upon their return, they resurrect their old lives with new spirits and lessons.

Even in Harry Potter, as much as we may criticize the Epilogue of Deathly Hallows, it does prove interesting to observe what happens after the final battle, what happens after Harry goes back. Not to his old life as a wizard stuck in the muggle world, no, but back to being a generally normal kind of life, but after some very abnormal experiences. We see Harry as a new person, as a father and husband and man changed by his adolescent ordeals. It is important to understand this, even if its execution leaves something to be desired (I mean, Albus Severus? Really? Poor kid, poor poor kid...), because we see Harry resurrected into his future self. This is kind of a double resurrection though, as only a chapter earlier did Harry undergo a semi-literal resurrection after Voldemort supposedly kills him but he doesn't actually die and has that beautiful conversation with Dumbledore in "King's Cross." Oh how I love that chapter. But that resurrection is a figurative one as he comes back not so different than he was beforehand - he still has a battle to fight and he has not really gone on the road back yet; he hasn't finished his job just yet, but he's nearly there.

I think the reason Breaking Dawn split fans was that it presented a shitty conclusion to a mildly interesting premise. Bella gets to live in both the ordinary and fantasy world in the end, which is not right and downright selfish of Stephanie Meyer to grant her protagonist that. She gets to have a child, something to propel her forward, as well as remain in the fantasy world forever. It's gross and one of the many reasons I absolutely hate the introduction of "teethbaby" (aka Reneesme or however it's spelled). The debate between Team Jacob and Team Edward, the debate between life as it should be and life as it is (as Bella phrases it in the movie), is destroyed in the final chapter as totally irrelevant, which is appalling to me.

But Eclipse gets credit as probably the most interesting installment in the franchise. Bella and Edward, though still Mary Sues and lacking personality to the point of painfulness, have grown as a couple and are not totally disgusting when they're together (as a perpetually single girl surrounded by her perpetually dating friends, I know the difference between a sickening couple and a couple who has grown into their affection for each other, which sometimes takes a really long time and sometimes no time at all, but my personal life aside...). While the action is still horrible, the dialogue cheesy, and most of the characters pointless or annoying, there is something appealing in the actual story of Eclipse. I don't like what Bella chooses, and I hate how it turns out thanks to that atrocious author, but I relish the decision that has to be made and the options and the weight of it all. I can respect Bella's choice for one reason: namely the way she phrases it as how life "IS" rather than how life "SHOULD BE." That is such a mature and great phrasing that I can forgive her other nonsense about not fitting into a normal world, which, though understandable, just makes me dislike her more and more because it never feels like she deserves that special world. She never earns her keep, to me, which makes her such a dull character. But that aside, I have to give it to the three leads, their acting was totally watchable and occasionally, OCCASIONALLY, engrossing. Mostly, though, I live for Charlie, because he gets the only good dialogue in any of the movies.

I still can't stand Twilight for the many reasons I have brought up in the past and will bring up in the future, but I respect the movies more than the books. It helps that it would be even stupider to describe on film CONSTANTLY Edward's beauty and perfection. Actually, it's quite tamped down in this installment, which I liked a lot. On some occasions, I could almost even spot a personality. Granted, when he said things like how he'd let Bella go if he chose Jacob, I also felt like he was thinking to himself "...and then I'd kill myself." But I might blame that on the Eclipse 8-bit game of AWESOME where I know there's at least one scenario where Edward dies of a broken heart. Regardless, I feel as if some of the major flaws in the books are fixed in the movies. But the story is still rather crappy, so there's really no fixing that, no matter how many unintentionally interesting premises come into play.

For instance, I wonder to myself if Stephanie Meyer actually caught that Jasper had filled the same shoes as Riley once. I know the film noticed it, but it wasn't particularly direct, though clear to any intelligent moviegoer (which, I think it is safe to say, many Eclipse viewers cannot claim upon their viewing of the film. NOT THAT THEY ARE STUPID PEOPLE, but fangirls will be fangirls and when you are drooling over your fave hunks, you are not paying attention to plot details). I have no faith in Stephanie Meyer's writing abilities though, to be quite honest, and I feel that it may have been an unintentional thing. She MAY have realized it later, but I'll be a wee bit surprised if she had intended such a connection.

All in all, I can say that there were parts of Eclipse I genuinely liked (more than Twilight, where the only elements I liked for real were the vampire baseball and the soundtrack/score... and New Moon, where the only elements I liked were nothing). It was still bad overall, but I can understand the appeal more than ever. But then, that's me. Sexy vampire romance? Eh, not my thing exactly. Topics that raise a question that every fantasy story tackles in one way or another? I'm totally sold. That's what Eclipse has going for it, in my opinion, and that is where Eclipse surpasses the previous two films (not that it's too hard to do that).

I could go on for ages about the "ordinary world" and the "special/fantasy world" and the Hero's Journey and fantasy stories at large, but I'll hold onto that for another time because this post is long enough.

Yet Another Reason I Hate Twilight... and some gender ranting

2010-07-02T10:24:00.000-07:00

'scuse me that I'm bringing this up, but there's something interesting that was touched on in this article over on Entertainment Weekly that I addressed in the comments but felt was really worth sharing.

The quote that bothered me most?

“A grand paradox in all this is that a great many professed Twilight haters are young men who, though they may not acknowledge it, are threatened by this pop-cultural juggernaut.”

My response?

"To be quite fair, I am the exact demographic, a young woman, that Twilight is aimed at and I know plenty of young women just like me who are professed Twilight-haters. Sure, I believe that there are plenty of young men who hate Twilight, I know quite a few myself, but for young women like me, it’s hard not to be insulted by the creation of these books and their aim at people like me. The belief that I am a sucker for anything dazzling romantic just because I’m a young woman? Insulting. I mean, I can stomach some rom coms every now and then and sometimes I even actively seek them out, but story still matters, even then. Just like how I can’t stand a shrill heroine (a la Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up – TBH that girl has every right to trash that role), I can’t stand a, not only passive, but downright inconsiderate and selfish heroine like Bella. Why would I ever want to watch or read about a girl who is supposed to be like me, but doesn’t appreciate anything in her life despite parents and friends who care about her? I would never want to be like Bella, and I think it is incredibly insulting that people think I should want to be like her just because I am a young woman."

All in all, women have more of a reason to be Twilight haters than men.

Men have plenty of their own say in pop culture - people make the argument that it's all them for the superhero movies, for things like Transformers and James Bond flicks or things like Star Wars or Star Trek. To be quite honest, that's a stupid, sexist stereotype as I am hardly a tomboy (love me some stilettos and skirts) but I have seen at least one movie in each of the aforementioned franchises and enjoyed them immensely. My favorite effing movie is probably Star Wars. But regardless, if the argument is that men are jealous of Twilight hogging some spotlight in pop culture, I think it is an immensely weak argument. If men were supposed to be the sexist stereotypes people write them out to be, they'd probably be thrilled that women were drawn into something so bad rather than going to the movies for incredibly intelligent fare which would show them as a true threat.

Of course, this is all complete bullshit. Sure, there are sexist stereotyped men out there, but it's unfair to say the whole gender is that way, just as it is equally unfair to say that women love Twilight.

It is because of this second assumption - that young women should be very interested in the Twilight franchise according to market research or whatever - that is the reason I think many a woman hates Twilight. We are insulted by these assumptions about ourselves and what kinds of stories we like. I think men should be just as insulted when things like "men have to love Transformers 2 even if it sucks, but because things blow up" pop into the conversation.

All in all, trying to figure out the success or failure of a franchise still, unfortunately, comes down to this sexist crap. Women movie-goers fit into one category, men movie-goers into another. When an audience is over 70% one gender, CLEARLY the movie is made for that gender. But 30% of the other gender is nothing to sniff at. And it's rare that you hear such a huge percentage for one gender. Most of the time, I see the range is usually smaller, the difference usually less than 30%. It's sometimes a big gap, but I doubt there's a single movie that has never drawn both genders for whatever reason.

Women and men both like crappy movies. Women and men both like good movies. Women and men hate the same movies. Women and men hate different movies. For every girl who says a war movie is too bloody for her, you get a girl like me who adores a good war movie, no matter how bloody it is. For every guy who complains about chick flicks, you get a guy who can actually enjoy a clever enough chick flick.

I know marketers have a job to do when they're selling a movie, and they're trying to find the right demographic. I understand that, but stop boxing us up too. Just because Twilight draws a female-heavy box office doesn't make "women between the ages of 18-34 love Twilight" accurate because I am in that demographic and I can't stand that crap. You're just making me hate it more by assuming I like it.

The Girl Who Owned a City

2010-06-24T12:25:00.000-07:00

Call me obsessed with revisiting my childhood and I probably wouldn't call you wrong. I mean, I just saw Toy Story 3 for the second time yesterday, I just finished the final installment in the Confessions of Georgia Nicolson series that I first picked up in my early teens by the suggestion of a friend, and I just reread The Girl Who Owned a City for the first time in nearly ten years.

When I first read The Girl Who Owned a City, I was 11 years old and in sixth grade. We read it for class, although I don't remember the why. I loved the book but it terrified me as well. I mean, I was eleven and the book depicts the story of an adult-less world where the oldest people still alive are twelve. I would've been the older generation. Not to mention that as much as my parents sometimes frustrated me, I didn't want them to die. I remember, after finishing the book, going up to my mother, crying and hugging her and telling her that I didn't want a plague to kill her.

Well, luckily it hasn't and now being well over the age of twelve, if the plague came true, I'd be dead. I expected this to be a reassuring thought, but honestly, the book still struck me just as much as it did when I was eleven. I won't be crying and hugging my mother not to die, but... wow, what a depressing book.

There were two major thoughts that ran through my head after I finished it. Firstly, where was the sequel??? I mean, what a cliffhanger! Lisa is returned to power in her city of Glenbard, but only after provoking a far-away army who is off to join the King of Chicago and his army of roughly 5,000. Even Lisa acknowledges that the army of Chicago was bound to come after them sooner or later at the end of the book. I'm just left there wondering what the hell happens next in this post-apocalyptic world.

The second, of course, was how much I want this book to be a movie. It would be such a glorious failure. The problem, of course, is that it is such a dark book, really. Dead bodies are never explicitly stated to be anywhere, but their presence is implied. Not to mention small children learning how to fire weapons and make molotov cocktails. Tom Logan gets oil burned down his face, Lisa gets shot, and Jill has to remove the freakin' bullet. The Girl Who Owned a City is an R-rated movie, but all of its characters are children. The thing is, not a one of them is innocent.

Which is simply twisted and hard to forgive. I love the story and, though it isn't the best-written thing in the universe, I think it is fascinating and I want to read it again and again. Not everyone, however, can appreciate children being violent and doing adult things. Just take a peek at the uproar over Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass and multiply that times a thousand because The Girl Who Owned a City is full of hundreds of Hit-Girls, all trained to kill and torture. I mean, they literally mention torture in the book! Children torturing each other for information!

The Girl Who Owned a City reminds me of The Road, unsurprisingly. I mean, they're both these post-apocalyptic stories of the fight between "good" and "evil" but the lines are really blurred. The only thing that truly separates The Man and his son from the rest of the survivors is their refusal to turn into cannibals. Aside from that, they are equally violent when need be. All the children in The Girl Who Owned a City have to turn violent, whether it is for attack or defense. And though The Girl Who Owned a City gives a supposedly brighter future, the last page is so depressing that I can't help but wonder how long the city of Glenbard can last before the world turns into a world not unlike The Road where civilization is too far gone for anyone to even dream of rebuilding it the way Lisa does and instead all they can do is what the gangs do - steal and kill to survive. Both tales are incredibly depressing and though The Road is much more wonderfully written and definitely more depressing and incredibly inappropriate for children, The Girl Who Owned a City also tells a compelling take and is still quite depressing and is a bit inappropriate for children. Granted, I heartily appreciate having read it when I was young enough to fit myself into the story.

I don't normally dedicate this blog to books because, not going to lie, I do not do a lot of book-reading anymore. I was a much more avid reader when I was younger (although, to be fair, I did just read three books in less than twenty-four hours). But, my goodness, do not make the mistake of thinking that I don't love them. The Girl Who Owned a City does not need to be a movie, of course. My only inclination to bring it in that direction is to make up for some of the weak writing in the book. And I love the book so much, I would just want to work on a project with it, whether it be a sequel or a movie, because I simply want to continue to live within that sad, awesome world.

Again, that brings me back to my earlier point, about how a movie version would be a total failure. I cannot see an audience who would want to watch children suffer and toil in a world with no help and little hope. They would call it insensitive and cruel and depressing. But this is one of those moments when I really feel like a filmmaker, like an artist rather than an entertainer. I don't care about the audience, to be frank. I'd want to make this movie because it is a beautiful story, whatever you say, and it deserves to be told over and over again.

Lisa, for all her bossiness, never would have made me think of myself when I was younger. I was whiny and did not want to live in her world - most of the time. Maybe it was after reading the book, maybe it was before, but I tried to imagine a harder world where I would have to fight to survive. What if my parents died? What if we had a fire and lost everything in our house? What if I lost my voice or my hearing or my sight? All these "what if"s and more plagued me and I would make secret loots in case of anything. A "just in case" bag filled with things if I needed to run away. Hotel shampoo bottles that had been cleaned out and filled with water hidden around the house "just in case." And Lisa's attitude, her beautiful, brilliant attitude, that if she can toughen up then everyone can toughen up, reminds me so painfully of myself that it hurts. It is not an uncommon flaw, but it is a harsh one, to forget that it is hard work to grow and some people just have not gone through it. It is also not uncommon and just as harsh to forget that no matter how much we've grown, there is so much more growing to do. Both of Lisa's major flaws are ones I see in myself which, though I am nearly twice her age, make me feel like a child again.

Sure, I may be revisiting my childhood, but what is so wrong there? There are so many beautiful lessons and important messages to be found and reminded of. Only just a few days ago was I listening to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone on audiobook, listening to the chapter, "The Mirror of Erised" and Dumbledore's conversation with Harry toward the end of the book when I remembered why I fell in love with Harry Potter all those years ago. It was for the wonderful things J.K. Rowling had to share about life and death and friendship and courage and fear and so on and so forth. I am so excited for my Introduction to Children and Young Adult Literature class this coming fall where I will get to read literature supposedly for children and young adults, but really for all of us.

After all, many animated movies aren't just for children either, even if they can be - thank you Pixar and DreamWorks.

Ego: Anton Ego and yours.

2010-06-19T01:22:00.000-07:00

When I think about which Pixar movie is my favourite - and believe me, as a clear lover of everything Pixar, I think about this often enough - Ratatouille usually isn't at the top of my list (though it is never at the bottom). But that isn't because I don't love it - I truly do. Ratatouille was a grand experience - my first real foray into appreciating animated "kids" movies as, well, not an adult, but a seventeen-year-old, who might normally think they're too good for an animated movie and fully capable of seeing every movie at that age (three years later, I still get thrown off when I get carded 'cause I'm just so used to seeing everything regardless of rating, something my thirteen-year-old self would be jealous of). I'd seen most of the other Pixar movies, I'd lived through the Disney renaissance, but not like this.

The main thing I take away from Ratatouille is not the beautiful main message of the film, the one whose slogan rings throughout - "anyone can cook" - and translates into a tale of rising above one's circumstances based on talent and drive. The most beautiful and meaningful message any film has given me is also the most grounding of them - Anton Ego's stunning review of his meal at Remy's hands.

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."

One reason I admire film critics and all people who love film is how they love finding something new to share with everyone else. It's such a pleasure to ask a friend, "have you seen ___?" and to hear them reply in the negative. Then, you are granted the opportunity to open their eyes to that world.

But it is that same admirable quality that I also can't stand in film critics, people who love films, and oftentimes even in myself. Because, as much as I love film myself, most people do not care nearly as much as people like me and people who dedicate themselves to a life of loving, understanding, and analyzing film.

We all have different opinions. Like everyone else, I fall prey to being upset when someone disagrees with something I feel so strongly about - people who refuse to see Star Wars or people who avoid animated movies because they're "for kids" or people who are too stuck up to appreciate the badassery of Death Race or people who are too bored with film to listen to my recommendations. But all of those people exist and I'd be a fool to hate all of them for those reasons. I love film, but people who only like it or don't like it at all are not any worse or better than me by that mere characteristic.

Ego's speech from Ratatouille, particularly the first few sentences, often give me the swift kick in the rear I think everyone involved in film (other fields too, I'm sure, but the entertainment and art fields in particular fall prey to this most, I feel) really needs. We all need a reminder that our opinions, what we say and what we write and all the time and energy we dedicate to our field isn't the be all and end all. So many people simply do not care about what we have to say or what we do. Saying that one movie sucks or one movie is awesome doesn't really matter at all, because we're all going to make up our own minds, and so many people won't even bother to do as much as they simply don't care enough to see the movie. You might praise some obscure title non-stop, but that won't it an instant classic. You might get a few more viewers, but there's no guarantee, no matter how influential your position is. Even Oprah doesn't reach everyone.

Our dedication and love for our craft matters to us, but not to everyone, so we shouldn't get frustrated or try to change the world to fit our style. I would never discourage anyone from doing what they love - considering my life as a film student, this is not news - but I would recommend not obsessing over it to the point where you simply cannot accept a contrary point of view.

Now, where does this all come from? Of course, it comes from a combination of Ego's speech always being with me and from the few negative reviews Toy Story 3, which I previously reported brought me to crazy-ass tears. There are two ways I can spin this little speech of my own. Firstly, I can say that it is totally the opinion of the reviewers to say what they will. As much as I may be prejudiced against and frustrated by the reviews, they're just opinions and they don't change how the movie made me feel.

The other thing to take away, though, is where the reviews are coming from. I won't dare to presume that these couple reviews come from anyplace unnatural or forced, but I know there are critics in the world who do enjoy being mean or contrary for the sake of their own enjoyment and to be different in some way or another. Or they choose to only look at a movie or other work of entertainment/art from a certain perspective so as to find the negative angles. To those critics, I say shame on you. Let your opinions come from your heart as well as your head. We can praise the technical achievements or complain about ordinary dialogue, but what really matters is what the film does for you, personally, and that's all we can take away. Each review is individual to the person who writes it and we might agree or we might not. We all appreciate different works for different reasons, and that's fine by me. I mean, my love for Toy Story 3 comes from somewhere deep in my heart, though I'd also defend most other aspects of the film. Other films, though intelligent and well-made and good in so many respects, may still leave me wanting more or totally emotionless.

I want to be involved in a movie I watch, not detached and watching it for the sake of observing it. As a film student, I do plenty of observing and, though it's useful, it's also work. Some films take work and it pays off, but others don't give me anything. And I like films that can absorb me and fill me up - there are good films that give and good films that take.

Anyway, I'm rambling. My point, simply enough, is that first and foremost, no man is an island and no one should ever assume that what they love would capture anyone else in the same way. As a film major with so few film major friends, I am reminded again and again that my friends really don't want to talk about movies 24/7, although I most certainly could. We lovers of cinema shouldn't be so full of ourselves... and believe me, plenty of us are that full of ourselves.

Second and final point: Within that larger scope of life on Earth in general, there is the smaller scope of the film world. Within it, none of us are the same. There are those who make film for entertainment and those who make it for art. There is plenty of success and plenty of failure in both categories. Let's not be snooty or untrue to our own tastes. I won't pretend I like something because other people do, but I also won't trash on something other people like just to be different. I wish more people lived by that.

Toy Story 3

2010-06-18T21:53:00.000-07:00

This is a comment I posted on awardsdaily.com on this newspost.

"I need to see this again. I was too emotionally crazed to really be able to tolerate anyone saying it was less than perfection. But I was in tears from the beginning, when we saw how many toys had disappeared over the years (not unlike my own storage units in the family garage, which are missing most of my old childhood toys), and barely held it together in the end when Andy played with his toys one last time with Bonnie. I was afraid I was going to audibly sob I couldn't stop crying.

Toy Story 3 may not be the best storytelling of some of the other films, but it is also clearly an installment in a franchise, which makes it different from most of the films. It is, indeed, its most emotional though. I have never been more touched by a movie in my life, but that's something my generation, who were kids when Toy Story first came out, and Toy Story 2, and now are coming back for thirds having been in Andy's exact place, is bound to experience. But I think it's something all adults can relate to and all kids will dread relating to (if I were young enough to still have toys in my room, you know I'd have gone home to instantly play with them for hours). Watching Woody, Buzz, and the gang go through all their trials is like watching what happens to your childhood, hoping that it doesn't get destroyed, but knowing it will never be the same as it was before, which is just as heart-breaking.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to rationally discuss Toy Story 3 because it just touched a place in me I'd forgotten I had. The first two feel so quaint and sweet these days, but this movie just feels too real, almost too personal, though I was never as cool a kid as Andy was, and I didn't love my toys quite the same way he did. But I think that just proves all the more what a fantastic movie it is, that it strikes a cord so strong that everything else beyond the tears and laughter is creates, doesn't really matter. It reminds me of Ego's review in Ratatouille, like all brilliant things do, and how technicalities and hard-hearts and reality aside, beauty is beauty and there are some things that are simply beyond proper criticism."

It'll be a long time before I can sum up my feelings on Toy Story 3 (I only left the theater about two hours ago), but I think the first reaction matters almost as much as the last. And, boy oh boy, have I got a first reaction. I know it's still soon after, but this was just one of those movie-going experiences where I feel like I'm a different person on the other side and I have no idea how I've changed, but I just feel it, but it could also be the emotional overload from the past few hours... it's too confusing.

But I do know that I dug my stuffed animals out of a trash bag in my brother's room, gave them a talking to about how much I love them, and set several of them around my room, including my poor, mistreated American Girl dolls.

The Cultural Importance of Harry Potter and the Lack Thereof of the Twilight Saga.

2010-06-14T14:03:00.000-07:00

I've never been a Twilight fan and I doubt I ever will be. This is unlike my initial distaste for Harry Potter when it first exploded onto the scene, because I've actually read parts of Twilight, I've seen the movies, and I still can't stand it. After I watched the second Harry Potter movie, I actually quite liked it and decided to give the books a shot and fell in love.

But the main thing that bothers me about Twilight is the fan culture, and I'm not talking about the rabid Taylor Lautner/RPattz fans. I'm talking about some of the major differences between the tiny generational divide of my age group, which grew up with Harry Potter, and the tween/teens now, who are growing up with Twilight.

The Harry Potter craze brought us fans who invented a musical genre, who helped kick off a renewed interest in reading and writing, and brought the famed sport of the books to life. Whereas the Twilight fans seem only capable of adorning their rooms with as much memorabilia as they can hunt down. Thanks to Harry Potter, I decided that I had wanted to be a writer, I actually ran a freakin' Harry Potter website for eight months (while having been a member of said site for nearly four years now), I downloaded albums of wizardrock (The Remus Lupins! Draco and the Malfoys!), and I have the guidebook to Quidditch because my school added a Quidditch team and I hope to bother to join soon enough.

It doesn't matter that, in my opinion, the Harry Potter books are much more well-written than the Twilight books (not sure I'd call them masterpieces, but they introduce interesting themes, well-rounded characters, and tell a classic, fascinating story) - what really matters to me in the debate of Twilight versus Harry Potter is the fandom. The question: What do these books contribute to the world?

Honestly, what can we say Twilight has contributed to the world? Heightened expectations in women of their perfect men that create FML stories like this one. Not to mention what a creepy-ass "guy" Edward Cullen is and how it's disappointing to see women of all ages wishing they had a man like him. Twilight has also spawned totally crazed fans that frighten me to death far more than the most rabid Harry Potter fan.

Sure, it's easy to say this now, three years after the final Harry Potter book was released and now that the storm has calmed, but even in my tween years, when I was one of those crazy Harry Potter fans, I was not adopting Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Tom Felton as my future lovers. Nor was I wishing that I could meet a man like Harry Potter. Why was that? Oh, because Harry isn't perfect - he's human, so to speak. A young man who spends paragraphs yelling because his hormones are out of whack and with a hero complex to shame... someone else with a huge hero's complex. J.K. Rowling treats her characters with enough respect to make them real.

Stephanie Meyer, however, has created Edward Cullen as a complete object. He is a dreamboat of perfection, of riches and chivalry and beauty. Bella is not much different with her Mary Sue flaw of clumsiness and beautiful individuality that attracts EVERYONE. Of course Harry gets attention; he's famous! What's Bella's excuse? And she hates it (whereas there is that beautiful moment in the sixth Harry Potter movie where Harry says defensively to Hermione, "but I AM the chosen one" and receives a thunk on the head), can't stand being who she is, is never comfortable with herself.

What kind of lessons can anyone take away from a story about a girl who has caring parents, is popular with girls and boys, beauty, and a bright life ahead of her but cannot be happy with any of it unless she has her man. It's worse than a Disney Princess! At least Jasmine gets pissed at Aladdin for lying to her, but Bella mopes and cries and tries to kill herself when Edward isn't around.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, teaches lessons of appreciating all those things in your life. Harry would be nothing without the strength of his friends, mentors, and everyone in his life. Harry is happy with himself most of the time - though being famous is hard work and he isn't pleased to be an orphan, even when he lives under the tyrannical rule of his aunt and uncle, he doesn't complain about it, merely makes the best of it with his wit and knowledge that life goes on. Seriously, we start off the first book with Harry pleased to look forward to going to a different school than his cousin so he could develop his own life. Even the much-hated epilogue of the final book provides that message: life goes on and it's worth living.

Twilight? Nothing's worth living for except hunky vampires and immortality.

Lessons aside, I've already listed the other cultural implications Harry Potter brought along. It has spawned so many excited and participatory fans that it is incredible. I met Harry and the Potters - I bought one of their freakin' T-shirts. I've dreamed of remaking the Harry Potter movies one day (though I doubt I'd bother nor would I probably be let to; it'll be too soon and the movies, for all their faults with continuity aren't bad). Harry Potter inspired me to do great things. I doubt Twilight could ever encourage such spirits. Musical genre? Collegiate sport? Literacy? Well, considering that Twilight is written the way that I wrote when I was thirteen...

Sure, I'm mean to Twilight, I'm hard on its fans. I can't blame people for liking the series; I'm sure that the right readers enjoy such tales. But there is nothing beneficial to take away from the books, and that they have succeeded Harry Potter as the "it" books is depressing because it is such a huge step down.

Oh popular culture. How interesting you are and how much I hate you until the Twilight movies are all made and freakin' over with.

...btws, rant was inspired by this interesting post over on incontention.com.

Worst Episode of Good Shows - COMPETITION TIME

2010-06-12T01:09:00.000-07:00

(edited 2:20pm 6/12/2010 - added synopses)

Before wasting sleeping hours rewatching episodes of So You Think You Can Dance (my latest obsession... and my return to actually enjoying reality television that isn't What Not to Wear or on HGTV), I managed to finally watch the much-hated episode of Lost that, in my anticipation, I compared to Battlestar Galactica's "Black Market." Not just for being totally useless as an episode, but also for the negative reaction and the admission of the actual creators that "hey, we made a crap episode." I also mistakenly thought the chick in Lost was also a hooker... but seriously, besides being a psychic tattoo genie or whatevs, she probably is. I mean, look at those clothes. No self-respecting woman would dress like that in dark alleys unless she's trolling for something.

So the verdict? Which sucks more? "Stranger in a Strange Land..."

...or "Black Market"?

First a brief, biased synopsis of both:

"Black Market" - After the success of the awesome Pegasus story arc and Roslin's life being saved, the show decides to kill some time with dear ol' Lee Adama and a random prostitute named Shevon that we're supposed to believe he's been seeing and is seriously into. Colonel Fisk, Cain's successor in commanding Pegasus, is killed and Lee is asked to investigate... why Lee? I'd think this is set up for Lee's ventures into lawyerhood later in the series, but it's a season too early, so it's more like a convenient plot device. Lee finds out that Fisk was involved in a black market that's been happening in the fleet (OH NOES) and then Shevon's daughter gets kidnapped and Lee feels responsible because he's been playing house with the kid and totally creeping her out. Oh and this is the episode where we start to see Dee and Lee flirting together, which makes me hate this episode even more for ruining my darling Billy's life. But anyway, back to the main suck of a plot, Lee goes after the head of the black market, kills him, and tells off the black market, but not entirely, more like "just don't take important stuff... oh and kids, kk?" Roslin gets pissed, but Bill lets Lee's arrangement go ahead. So essentially, NOTHING HAPPENS. We never hear from Shevon again (partially because she's not interested in playing house with Lee and partially because NO ONE CARES), the black market is never mentioned again, the fleet doesn't change at all, and... yeah. Pointless. Then the next episode we watch Starbuck get totally wasted, try to have drunken sex with Lee, and then almost kill herself for the billionth time, until Kat shows us that she doesn't suck as much as she used to.

"Stranger in a Strange Land" - This episode also kicks off after some intensely awesome stuff happening. Last episode was Desmond centric, which was great because Desmond is great, and we learned all about course correction (which, a few years later, FlashForward blatantly rips off in its failed attempt to be the next Lost) and how the universe is trying to kill Charlie. So what does the audience get next week? Zero Desmond, zero Charlie, and a whole lot of Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. Before Kate and Sawyer broke out of their cages, that would have been interesting, but instead we watch Kate and Sawyer bicker and lose Carl and find Carl and Sawyer lets Carl go and there's all this tension about having dead man walking sex and nobody cares because they reach their own island and that's about that. Jack's regular plot isn't so horrible, although the whole time I keep thinking Jack is being totally conned, but I think I was proven wrong, for like the first time ever when it comes to these characters conning each other. But anyway, Jack tries to protect Juliet for killing Danny or whatever his name was when she was letting Kate and Sawyer go. She's supposed to be killed, but he gets Ben to take that option off the table, so Juliet gets marked in a tramp-stamp way instead. Jack applies aloe. Fresh aloe hurts, I can tell you that. Tension is born, but I don't want it (as much as Juliet is growing on me). There's also some random sheriff chick, Isabel, if I remember correctly, who can read Jack's tattoo and all around just acts like a douchebag. The main problem with this episode though, of course, is the flashback. Jack is in Thailand to find himself (...) and starts by flying a kite on the beach (...) when he is helped because he can't fly a kite to save his life by some pretty thing that can speak English and is totally dressed like a hooker (... yeah). Jack and the chick start sexing it up and it appears she comes and goes as she pleases in his bed. They also fall off his bed at some point. Oh man, THAT was exciting. Then Jack drunkenly stalks her like the loser he is and finds out that, though she's dressed like a total hooker and wandering in dark alleys to some secret place and receives huge envelopes of money, she's not a hooker (well, maybe, I'm convinced she still is) - she's a MAGICAL TATTOO-IST. She can see who people are, so Jack acts like a douche and forces her to tell him and tattoo him although he's an outsider. Happy-go-lucky Jack leaves his house the next day, freshly inked, and creeps out some kid and then gets beaten down by the chick's brother and some of his friends. Jack presumably leaves Thailand now, having gotten inked. Whoo. I'll take the not-supernatural tattoos, please.

Well, those weren't that brief, but for being totally pointless, both episodes do eat up roughly forty-five minutes. THE VERDICT?

Honestly, it's a tough call. I was going to say that "Black Market" sucked more until the tattoo genie chick was all "I AM NOT A TATTOO ARTIST - I SEE THINGS IN PEOPLE." But it's tough, because I'm still really down on "Black Market" for its stupid retcon with Shevon the prostitute and her daughter, Lee's surrogate daughter for the one that exploded in his (OUT OF LEFT FIELD) pregnant girlfriend before she was born that Lee left before the apocalypse in the Twelve Colonies.

I also give favoritism to Battlestar Galactica for being a show I like more. No offense, Lost, but you move at a snail's pace at best. By the middle of the third season, Battlestar Galactica's characters had all frakked each other, made war and nice and war again with the Cylons, and had tackled issues of genocide, survival, abortion, crazy religion versus politics, religion in general, suicide bombings, forced occupation, and biological warfare. Lost has... coined some cool catchphrases, killed off a lot more central characters, and toyed with maybe two or three of those topics. Seriously, Emmys, can I hate on you times a zillion for ignoring Battlestar Galactica for, like, six years? And yet, giving the prize to Lost which, although being a great show in its own right, is still no BSG. There is no show like BSG.

Ahem. But we're comparing these episodes against one another, not the shows against one another. So I think I still might have to go with "Black Market" sucking more. Because, although Jack's flashbacks totally bite and the Sawyer and Kate plotline is just infuriating as per usual with them (and Kate lately has been pissing me off even more than usual), Jack's current day plot wasn't made of total suck (just partial suck). I mean, at least "Stranger in a Strange Land" fits within its narrative better. The question of Jack's tattoos is one that nobody cares about, sure, but nobody even asked "huh, I wonder how Lee's prostitute surrogate girlfriend and her daughter are doing?" BECAUSE THEY NEVER EVEN EXISTED BEFORE OR AFTER. Jack's tattoos at least will always be there. So now if anybody asks about them, we have the boring lengthy answer of that useless episode. But "Black Market" isn't just a useless episode but a horrible episode that disgraces everything that Battlestar Galactica is. Despite the occasional melodramatic bits of the show, it's usually pretty grounded (luls, har har, see how it's funny - it's because it's set in SPACE most of the time).

I do much more appreciate the controlled flashbacks of Battlestar Galactica, that held onto them mostly until the finale (save a bit of Kara flashback to Zak and ignoring the preggers!gf flashbacks of ten seconds Lee has in "Black Market" ...oh and the Final Five's memories on Earth) and just offered a couple character-defining moments that were really some of the most beautiful, sad, and touching moments in an otherwise action-packed and ending-packed finale. Lost, for being innovative in its use of flashbacks, also tends to overuse them on some characters (particularly Jack and Kate, but most characters really don't need like ten centric episodes. NOBODY is that interesting. Even Eko, for being fucking awesome and wicked interesting always only needed the three episodes he got). I long for the episodes where nobody gets a flashback and we can all live in the present because I am BORED with their pasts. I get it. Kate and Sawyer are criminals with hearts of gold. Jack had daddy issues. Charlie had drug issues. Locke had major daddy issues. Hurley was fat and crazy and is still fat and may still be crazy. I honestly don't care that much because that means half of the time the plot isn't moving forward, which is frustrating because already so much that is set in the present plotline isn't moving anything forward.

But this post wasn't supposed to be about Lost's shortcomings (though I could go on for quite some time with both praise and critique) - it is about the competition of bad episode against bad episode. And in that competition, "Black Market" takes the rotten tomato, mostly because of its horrible retcon in combination with the other bad elements that it shares with "Stranger in a Strange Land."

As my darling Television Without Pity ends their brief description of "Black Market" -

"Roslin is displeased with everyone and everything. She is right."

...and goodnight.

PS: I got McDonalds - TWICE, actually - and that commercial still won't leave me the fuck alone while I'm watching Lost on hulu.com, no matter how many times I say that the ad is not relevant to me. It is one of the few ads, if not the only, I have said that about. I AM MAD AT YOU, HULU.

Aaaaaah! (real monsters? No, CGI ones in ads)

2010-06-03T22:36:00.000-07:00

You know what I've been craving? McDonalds. Which is silly because the only thing I can eat there is, like the fries (and the salads and Mcflurries... just shut it, I KNOW WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T EAT).

But there are those crappy Shrek/McDonalds commercials that have been everywhere lately (and I keep telling hulu that they are NOT relevant to me and yet they keep playing as I watch Lost) and as much as I hate those commercials, every time I see them I just want McDonalds!

SEE THE MADNESS HERE.

I am so sick of that commercial. Even the 15 second version is killing me. Maybe if I finally buy some McDonalds, it'll stop. PLEASE STOP. I ALREADY SAW SHREK FOREVER AFTER AND IT SUCKED.

Although, I have two gems to share that I put into my phone's notepad because they were so awesome:

Shrek: "My donkey fell in your wafflehole." (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID)

and

Donkey: "Are my babies cute or do they make people uncomfortable?"

So ends this spontaneous mini-rant of doom. I take back what I said recently about commercials getting more awesome these days. Sure, there are the Ubykotex commercials and the Old Spice man on a horse, but beyond that... there are stupid picnickers (who the hell picnics with MCDONALDS?) not freaked out by the CGI ogre behind them.

Lost.

2010-06-01T23:48:00.000-07:00

Yep. That's right. I decided to finally jump on the wagon.

Granted, this isn't a big surprise. I'd been meaning to watch the show since forever, but then I heard about the polar bears and was all "nah, brah, I ain't touching that shit." I vaguely remember the whole Lost versus Heroes thing too and I was all sticking with Heroes.

Ha. Smart choice.

Anyway, so with the series finale the following day, I kicked off watching Lost (because hulu put up the entire freakin' series) last Saturday (not the recent one; the one before).

I am this far:

Yeah... that episode was kinda totally dull. I actually managed to get some reading done during it (been alternating between Lost and reading today and then realized Glee was on and also got majorly distracted by doing other things like dinner and... yeah).

So my analysis thus far is that I miss Ian Somerhalder's pretty face. Oh, right, the series. It's... interesting. So freakin' slow, though. I mean, people say Mad Men is slow, but at least they're all dressed nicely and the seasons are shorter. I mean, seriously.

Look how dapper they are:

And then...

Good thing it's a sexy cast. I mean, Matthew Fox's sexiness is the only thing that has gotten me to forgive him for being mostly dull and having the second stupidest flashbacks (the winner is Kate, of course). I mean, if Matthew Fox weren't so hot, I'd still want to kill Jack. I am not looking forward to the infamous episode about his tattoos. I feel like it'll be Black Market from Battlestar Galactica all over again. I mean, it's already got a similar plot of some random hooker coming into the life of our attractive male lead and being totally unimportant to the plot at all. And being a suck episode.

Hmm, now I am having difficulty choosing whether I think Matthew Fox or Jamie Bamber is sexier. Choices, choices... sheesh, they both have such nice arms... well, if we go with first/second season (pre-fat!Lee) Lee, I'm giving it to Jamie Bamber. Fat!Lee and Politician!Lee were distinctly unhot. But I blame that on the suits covering up his arms.

What a difference.

But anyway, back on topic...

So one of my twitter updates about Lost partway through the first season was all "HOOK UP LOSTAWAYS GODDAMMIT ALREADY" 'cause I was sick of all the "couples" that weren't coupling off. Jack/Kate, Kate/Sawyer, Claire/Charlie (before he started to suck so much and went all baby-napper and shit), Shannon/Sayid, Anybody/Anybody. Luckily, Sayid being the most awesome ever decided to make good on his flirtations, even if it was with the annoying Shannon. But they're both pretty, so it's okay. Mostly Naveen Andrews is really pretty. He's my favorite to look at since Boone's gone.

Mmmm. At least I get Ian Somerhalder in The Vampire Diaries, although he is far less sweat-sodden and more leather-jacket-y. More interesting too, though. Swoon, Ian Somerhalder. I named my camera after you, I hope you know. Well, actually, I hope you don't. I'm terrified to ever meet you now that I've named an object after you. I should've kept up the tradition of naming my electronics after fictional characters instead of legit people. Too late; Ian's got a nametag and everything.

So Lost is slow, I mentioned earlier. And though the flashbacks are cool and interesting, sometimes they are just dull. Like Hurley's flashbacks to his friend "Dave" in this latest episode. And sometimes they are Kate's flashbacks and almost immediately dull. It's like the hooker with a heart of gold concept is less fresh than the criminal with a heart of gold. The accidental criminal. Gawd, it's like the disappointment felt in Gossip Girl when Serena's dramatic "I KILLED SOMEONE" turned out to be more like "I WAS AROUND SOMEONE WHO DIED FROM DRUGS AND I CALLED 911 BUT IT DIDN'T SAVE HIM." God, Serena, you just suck so much.

(I know, Blair. I'm so disappointed by Serena's story too. You are far more interesting without "killing" anyone.)

But yeah, I think you all can tell by now that I have no interest in Kate whatsoever. Until she hooks up with Jack. Much as I like Sawyer, he is too interesting for Kate, whereas Jack is perfect: He has a compulsive need to fix people and Kate has a compulsive need to fuck herself up. They're a perfect match!

As annoying as Charlie has gotten lately, I've generally enjoyed his flashbacks (save the one with the rich daughter and the puking in the copying machine). But his actually make him out to be a more interesting person, in my books. It also might be my Dominic Monaghan bias; he was the reason I had originally wanted to watch the show (and then I heard he died and totally just gave up ever watching until recently).

Also, he's had a couple badass moments recently since he gave up trying to be a decent human being for Claire. Like totally faking out Ana Lucia and throwing one to the awesomest Sayid.

(Yeah, Charlie, that was BAMF.)

Ana Lucia is also annoying. Which sucks because Michelle Rodriguez is such a badass, but Ana Lucia is not really a badass, more just of an ass. I hope she gets looser in the time to come because I am sick of seeing her so tightly wound. I do like that though she wears the exact same tank top and jeans, she looks way better in them than any of the Lostaways do when they try to change things up (no matter what, Kate, you still look grody as hell).

So I'm giving Lost a chance. The first season hooked me like crazy, but this second season has been a lot slower. Of course, there are four more seasons after this one in which I'm sure I will be all pissy and annoyed and waiting for answers goddammit, and from what I hear, the finale doesn't give em all away. At least Battlestar Galactica gave nearly everything an answer (and dudes, even though nobody says it, I'm pretty sure enough anvils were dropped in the last season to tell us that Starbuck's an angel or whatever, so stop complaining about that one) even if some were arguably stupid answers (I personally liked the finale). But whatever. If I want fast-paced, I'll look to The Vampire Diaries or Chuck or, hell, True Blood moves pretty fast too, I'd say.

Well, Lost has got to be more fast-paced than How I Met Your Mother at least. Five seasons and we still haven't met the mother (save her ankle, that is).

So essentially, I like it thus far. Mr. Eko and Sayid are probs my faves at the moment, though I generally like Sawyer, Locke, and Michael too. Miss Michael right now. I hope he gets back soon. D: (DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING. I already know like half a dozen characters' imminent deaths.) Jack is growing on me. I'm torn about Locke. And Ben (though he hasn't been revealed as Ben yet) is thus far intriguing.

Anyway, must run. I'd watch more tonight, but it's already wicked late and I meant to be reading. Peace out. I'm sure I'll be obnoxious with another picture-heavy post soon.

PS: I'm bored by the movie fare recently, hence my focus on television. I mean, seriously, I don't care about anything until Toy Story 3 in two weeks and change.

TV talk-a-thon

2010-05-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

I know I'm really pre-empting this, but I want to come up with some of my dream Emmy nominations that may not happen/probably won't happen.

Chuck: Best Comedy Series, Best Leading Actor in a Comedy, Best Writing for a Comedy Series (seriously, last year there were FOUR from 30 Rock... LAME), and I'm not sure who yet, but I feel as if at least one of the guest stars deserves a nod.

The Big Bang Theory: Jim Parsons for Best Leading Actor in a Comedy! And this time maybe a win? I'd also throw some props to Simon Helberg in supporting...

Glee: Well, we all know it's going to get a Comedy Series nod, but beyond that, I hope they don't go overboard with love and restrain it to a nod for Jane Lynch and (it'd be awesome if there was also a nod) for Chris Colfer in supporting.

Human Target: Total longshot, but wouldn't it be awesome to see Mark Valley get a Best Actor in a Drama nod?

Community: I'd love for a Best Comedy Series nod.

FlashForward: Can I get a nod for John Cho in supporting drama land? Or, if not John Cho, Dominic Monaghan?

The Vampire Diaries: I know The CW will never get recognized EVER, but seriously... Ian Somerhalder for Best Actor in a Drama? Best Drama Series even? And give something to that bitchin' supporting cast!

Caprica: Sci-fi will never make it... but Best Drama Series? Seriously, I love Mad Men and all, but Caprica is like ten times smarter than Mad Men, but with a robot (which ruins its chances). I'd also love to see either Eric Stolz or Alessandra Torresani get recognized in the leading categories.

Mad Men: Well, of course it'll get its usual bout of nominations, but I'm mostly just pulling for its finale getting its due. The rest of the season was good, not spectacular, but the finale and the lawnmower episode were stunning.

True Blood: Let's get some love for Nelsan Ellis! Maybe even Alexander Skarsgard, Deborah Ann Woll, Anna Paquin, Michelle Forbes, Rutina Wesley... aw hell, can we just nominate the entire cast? Also Best Drama Series, please and thank you. You already snubbed the show once last year, Emmys. Don't make that mistake again.

Dexter: Two names: Michael C. Hall and John Lithgow. Nominate the series if you'd like, just make sure those two are on the ballots.

I'm not even going to kid myself by suggesting Leighton Meester from Gossip Girl. If the Emmys wanted to recognize Leighton Meester's surprisingly excellent work on Gossip Girl, they would have done it last season when she kicked so much ass it was CRAZY.

Also, I like House, I really do, but I hope it gets snubbed this year. Maybe throw Hugh Laurie a bone because he's still been doing it well, but this has been an off season all around and there are much better shows out there that deserve recognition. Watch this be the year they actually recognize Robert Sean Leonard. Blaaaaah.

But then again, it's the Emmys. They are boring and predictable. Watch 30 Rock and Mad Men conquer again.

...ALSO, congrats Chuck for getting renewed for a fourth season, V for getting a shot at a second, and Human Target as well. I look forward to seeing you all in the fall. Vampire Diaries too, because that was one BITCH of a finale. Suchasurprisinglyawesometasticshow!

We have enough damsels in distress; how about we try some knights in need?

2010-04-25T17:33:00.000-07:00

From the April 23/30, 2010 double issue of Entertainment Weekly:

"'In the original script, there was a huge sequence where Edwin Salt saves his wife, who's in danger,' says [director, Phillip] Noyce. 'And what we found was when Evelyn Salt saved her husband in the new script, it seemed to castrate his character a little.'"

...I'm sorry, but are you saying that it is completely okay for a woman to be a damsel in distress but that it is in no way okay for a man to need a woman to save him? I'm calling shenanigans. I know that women have traditionally been cast as more damsel in distress roles and I know that I feel confident enough in my gender and sexuality to admit that I am okay putting my ego aside. I am not asking that women never be cast as damsels in distress, because it happens; everyone needs saving. But it's just that; EVERYONE needs saving, including men.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with a man playing the role of a "damsel" in distress - let's call him a "knight in need" if we want to keep with alliteration. Knights in need happen because, sorry guys, but you need us probably more than we need you. And I think that it is a horrible message to send to men to tell them that they cannot be vulnerable creatures. We are slowly coming to a time where we can see women as tough creatures, tougher than men, able to kick just as much ass. We are complex.

Men are complex too. The problem with an approach like this, however, is that it is training men to go to the old standby - they always have to be tougher than the women. Maybe the woman is the center of attention, like Evelyn Salt in the upcoming movie, Salt. But the man still needs to be just as tough, if not tougher, than the woman. She can take the spotlight, but he's still the MAN, you know?

No, actually, I don't. I don't presume to know how this will play out in the actual movie, but the way that this article was phrased, the way the director put it, it just riled me up. Being a woman is fucking hard because if we want to be more than the damsel in distress we have to prove it daily and if we are the damsel in distress then we're dragging down those women who don't want it. Men can be vulnerable and women can be tough and there is nothing wrong with either of those options. There is nothing wrong with a woman saving a man, and yet, it makes men uncomfortable.

Well, I'd honestly love to see a few men squirm to see that because that's exactly how I feel when I see silly women having to be rescued by the most masculine of men. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, however, when it makes sense, when it isn't about the gender and it's about the characters. When a female character ends up in harm's way and a male character has the ability and the will to rescue her, that's not always a painful thing for me to watch. And it would be equally comfortable if I were to watch a man end up in such a dire situation where a female protagonist would need to take charge.

Now, I have the feeling that the end product of the film will still prove that Angelina Jolie's Evelyn Salt is a badass and capable of saving her husband and that, perhaps, she will still come out being shown to be the tougher of the pair. But I also have the feeling that the original draft placed Edwin Salt's wife in a much more embarrassing situation because it could because women can be placed in more embarrassing damsel in distress scenarios. Only that's wrong.

We women may not understand quite how being kicked in the balls feels, but that doesn't mean that being kicked in the vagina doesn't hurt.

I don't define myself as a feminist, not that there's anything wrong with empowering women. When I read things like this, I realize that women still need empowering. We are not equal to men and we are not interchangeable. Sure, genders have their differences, but not like this. I hope that Evelyn Salt will prove that women can be tough too. And it'll probably be better for the story if her husband is not a total damsel in distress. But it would have been nice for men to see what we women get to see on a regular basis.

And believe me, the pain it strikes through me and the damage it does to my life as a woman lasts a lot longer than getting kicked in your balls does.

Getting Your Ass Kicked.

2010-04-22T20:53:00.000-07:00

Yeah, my apologies as usual for not updating very often.

So I DID see Kick-Ass. Last weekend. When it came out. And yes, I quite liked it. The more I thought about it, though, the more depressing it got for me. It's not depressing like The Dark Knight, where you go in expecting a down movie and get it, but Kick-Ass is advertised as a comedy and the thing is, it is funny... but incredibly sad.

Watch out for potential spoilers, folks. I'll try to be gentle though.

As we all know, Kick-Ass is an average guy. And his first foray into crime-fighting goes very poorly. In fact, he gets stabbed. Then hit by a car. Sure, the getting hit by a car is much worse, but watching him get stabbed was just so painful to me. Once he gets out of the hospital, he's still not very super; just a super punching bag. His "super power" is total defense, which means that to be of any use, he has to get his ass kicked. I took no joy in watching him endure all the pain he does and it is was a sad fanaticism that Kick-Ass pursues his career as a crime-fighter. He's bad at it, he almost gets killed a lot, and his ass is saved by the real super hero, Hit Girl, multiple times. Watching Hit Girl is a delight. Watching Kick-Ass is just so sad.

The movie opens with the question, as we have seen in the trailers, asking why no one else tried being a superhero before Kick-Ass. And after watching this movie, I understand and myself have no desire to pursue a career of crime-fighting. There is no glorious montage where Kick-Ass learns how to fight or actually does any ass-kicking at all. Even his fight with Red Mist toward the end is just a show of his incompetent they both are. With no power, comes no responsibility, sure, but is also means having no power, including all the advantageous parts of being a superhero. While the best superhero stories involve the question of how painful and lonely it can be to be such a powerful figure (see: superhero deconstruction, aka, why I love superheroes), Kick-Ass is so ordinary it is painful to watch him get his ass kicked. When Batman is getting his ass kicked, we know he can handle it, because he is Batman. But Kick-Ass is really just Dave with a scuba suit; his mask is the only thing that makes him different than everyone else. At least Nite Owl and Silk Spectre had some training.

Dave, in the end, is just an average guy in way over his head. He can handle the pain, physically, so he survives because that's his ability: to survive. But that's it. He's just like the faceless human beings that survive with the help of the real, trained, able superheroes, or simply heroes. The tough ones who can endure the pain, but also can't do anything to stop it.

Kick-Ass is not a superhero movie; if it really was, it would be called Hit Girl, because she is the superhero. She's got the training, the bloody fight sequences, and the strong origin story. Kick-Ass is, instead, the story of everyone who is not a superhero, but people like Dave, like me, like every fan on the planet, that dreams even for a second what that life would be like. Kick-Ass shows us that that life sucks. It would be hard and unrewarding. So unless we go to ninja school or have a mother train us for a life of crime-fighting or build a super suit or get bitten by a radioactive spider, we are screwed. Because being a superhero takes more than wanting to be a superhero; it takes dedicating yourself to the role. Dave doesn't do that, so he just manages to scrape through and make a few heroic moves outside of all the non-heroic moments he has in the movie. He's the Bond girl to Hit Girl's Bond; he might lend a hand, but really, he's just normal.

So when I first left the theater, I was a bit disappointed that Dave wasn't more badass, that he wasn't more heroic. But as I thought more about it, I just realized that I wanted him to be tougher because it was hard to see him be so normal. It reminded me just how normal I am and that if I were to try what he tried, to just put on a scuba suit and fight crime, I'd probably get stabbed in the gut too. Superheroes aren't normal. And that's just fine; they shouldn't be. Being good at anything takes real dedication, not just posturing in front of a mirror and doing a few sit-ups.

I'd like to see it again, of course, to further assess it and to understand what it is going to give me rather than what I want out of it. If I want a story of a heroic super-human, I'll watch my Dark Knight or Iron Man DVDs. If I want to be brought back to Earth, well, that's what Kick-Ass is for.

Iron Man 2 hits theaters in 2 weeks. That's good, because I need some badassery to keep me sane.

YARGH VIKINGS!

2010-03-27T21:48:00.000-07:00

Earlier this evening, I went to see How to Train Your Dragon, fully aware that this screening would include lots of children. It's been a while since I've been afraid to see a movie by myself and that includes "children's" movies. Some movies, yes, are explicitly made for those under eight-years-old and can only really be appreciated by that crowd. But the best children's movies aren't exclusive to just children.

The only real downside aside from looking like a creeper to being probably the only person over 12 without a child in the vicinity (and if anyone else was my age or older without a child there, they likely brought a friend or date) is that the little children who are unable to whisper might destroy my enjoyment. This isn't the first time I've dealt with this, though; I saw Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, and The Princess and the Frog in theatres filled with many children while I myself was old enough to be in the alternative R-rated films by myself. And while there were some very unhushed whispering, I managed to enjoy the movie anyway.

Well, actually, it was more than enjoy. How to Train Your Dragon was fantastic. The plot wasn't particularly surprising, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable or any less well-done. I enjoyed those ninety-something minutes so much, so glad that despite being sick with a cold and plagued by an obnoxious headache, I made it out to see that movie, even with whispering tykes and a preview for what looks like the stupidest movie ever with a pornalicious title (FURRY VENGEANCE... REALLY?).

I'll never stop myself from seeing a movie just because its genre isn't made for me. My gender and my age have nothing to do with the movies I choose to see. I skip the bad rom coms (usually) and I absolutely love a good action flick (I even see some of the bad ones). I'll pass over some of the more dramatic fare made for my young adult status for animated films typically geared toward the younger generation, a la How to Train Your Dragon. Like many of the Pixar films I adore, How to Train Your Dragon follows in that grand tradition of being accessible for children and adults. I may be nearly twenty, I may have seen roughly a thousand movies, I may have seen many an experimental film, but I will not be jaded. A tale of a Viking boy and his fierce dragon is a tale worth seeing.

Simply put: How to Train Your Dragon was great. I highly recommend it for anyone.

Countdown to Kick-Ass: 19 days. YES.

I Am Excited For Blockbuster Season!

2010-03-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

So I've been woefully negligent about seeing movies recently, but I've been wicked busy. I saw Alice in Wonderland, but that's about it for recent films. To make up for this, I'm going to write my anticipation list! Movies that I want to see this coming year and that might change, but things do that sometimes.

Currently in theatres:
Shutter Island
maybe Greenberg and The Runaways.

Shutter Island has been getting mixed reviews, but if I don't see it in theatres, I'll probably rent it because I still want to see it for myself. Greenberg has been getting pretty good reviews and I honestly think that Ben Stiller is a great actor. The Runaways has been getting a lot of attention and I'm interested in seeing Kristen Stewart in something that isn't a stupid vampire flick.

Coming soon:
How to Train Your Dragon

I've been hearing that, like Avatar, this one should be seen in 3D. I also think it looks adorable. Dreamworks isn't Pixar, but they do provide some excellently healthy competition for Pixar. Before Pixar made me cry, Dreamworks tugged at my heartstrings with The Prince of Egypt (remember back in the day when people still made mostly 2D movies with a little bit of CGI help?!) Dragon looks fantastically cute and fun. Animation isn't just for kids, yo. I will love animated movies well into my adulthood.

Hot Tub Time Machine

I'm a little torn on this one. I blame Sandra Bullock and her recent comments about comedic roles for women (i.e. they don't exist except in rom coms) and I see all these funny looking raunchy comedies and really notice how they're all men. I'll get to this in another post though. Hot Tub Time Machine looks like it could be ridiculously funny in a Hangover kind of way. So maybe I'll see it, maybe I'll rent it, maybe I'll skip it. I like comedies though!

Clash of the Titans

TITANS WILL CLASH may be a stupid tagline, but Liam Neeson! Sam Worthington! And isn't Ralph Fiennes in it too? I also love action films. Here's to hoping it is fun action and not boring, a la Matrix Revolutions.

Date Night

I didn't really give this movie the time of day but the more I see the trailers, the more I think, "y'know... this could be genuinely hilarious." It IS Tina Fey and Steve Carrel and they are funny people. I'm going to wait on the reviews to make my choice.

Kick-Ass

Now this movie... I am REALLY psyched for. As I've been promoting it to people with my enthusiasm, it looks like the movie Watchmen should have been. An adult comic book adaptation with a real look at superheroes in the real world. Not to mention with some bitchin' action sequences and Nicolas Cage as a Batman-esque character named Big Daddy (since BioShock came before Kick-Ass the comic, I wonder if it's a direct reference) BUT WITH A SHOTGUN. I LOVE SHOTGUNS. (I know; this is weird. Blame Mass Effect.) Just go watch the trailers and you can see how awesome this movie looks for yourself.

Iron Man 2

...uh... DUH I AM EXCITED. I loved Iron Man. The sequel, even if it isn't as good as the original, it still has Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark. So we're golden.

Robin Hood

Torn as I may be as to whether this Gladiator-esque adaptation (both directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russel Crowe, I also totally got this Gladiator-esque vibe of the warrior-hero being turned into a badass outlaw fighting the corrupt system from the trailer) will be any good, I still want to see it. It IS Robin Hood. And I liked Gladiator.

Shrek Forever After, Sex and the City 2, and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

All three movies I will probably see. The last one is the only one I really feel strongly inclined to see. The other two, I liked the preview films (although Shrek the Third not as much), so I'll go see 'em. It'll be summer. I'll drive-in like crazy.

Toy Story 3

Um... okay, so The Prince of Egypt might have been the first movie I remember crying during, but Toy Story 2 came out a year later and did the same damage to me. Goddammit, Jessie's song makes me cry to this day. It's freakin' Pixar! And Toy Story! If it isn't good, I'll be shocked and upset. But chances are it will be. The real question is: will it be as good or better than the first two?

Despicable Me

Remember what I said about animated films being awesome? Well, this one looks adorably clever. And I want to see it. So there.

Inception

Probably the most high brow of the many films I'm excited for this spring/summer, Inception features a fantastic team-up of TDK's Christopher Nolan and everything's Leonardo DiCaprio. Not to mention that supporting cast... JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT. Ken Watanabe! Ellen Page! MARION COTILLARD! Michael Caine! CILLIAN MURPHY! This movie will be great. If it isn't, again, I'll be very sad.

Beyond those, into the summer, I'm also vaguely interested in The Sorcerer's Apprentice (it'll probably suck though), Salt (it could go either way), Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (I actually haven't seen the original, but hilariously, Gordon Gekko is based off of a Bard grad), The Last Airbender, and The A-Team (which looks like it has a bitchin' cast... SHARLTO COPLEY... OH WAIT SHARLTO COPLEY OKAY THIS FILM IS ON MUST SEE LIST NOW... Sharlto Copley is my favourite, if you didn't know yet).

Also, I am vowing to see Memento while I'm on spring break.

Vampire Diaries returns tomorrow!

Chuck has continued to be AMAZING this season. I will be PISSED if/when Chuck isn't nominated for an Emmy for Best Comedy, Zachary Levi for Best Actor in a Comedy, and Adam Baldwin for Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy (I'd also totally pull for Yvonne too).

Um. I'm out of stuff, aside from the women in comedy thing. I'll do that later.

Oh yeah...

2010-03-13T19:57:00.000-08:00

BTWs, I am totally embarrassed by how long it took me to realize that I was misspelling and therefore mispronouncing Gabourey Sidibe's name. Not that she will ever read this (much less anyone else), but apologies LYKEWHOA, yo.

Also, she is fabulous. I want to be her friend. I want her energy! <3

...also, I'm lazy and not doing an Oscar write-up. I tweeted during most of it though, so you can check it there.

Movies are my life, Television is my hobby.

2010-03-13T16:36:00.000-08:00

So, as we all should know by now, my love for movies has extended to my interest in theatre work recently and a love for television shows (scripted, that is) that has been growing over the past little while. While I only watch a little over a dozen television shows and am behind on a few, after watching the most recent Caprica, I wanted to do a little bit on my favourite TV shows right now (a la EW's recent article, but mine will be specifically catered to... me, duh).

1. CHUCK.

Goddamn, I love Chuck. What started as a casual viewing experience because it aired before Heroes has grown into a full-blown love affair, including glee at seeing Yvonne Strahovski in Mass Effect 2. While it could easily be the mission-a-week experience it started out as and would still be entertaining, it has built so much into the past two and a half seasons. It has a strong cast and writing and through that it has presented some of the best character development ever. Chuck has grown as a character and a series over the past couple years and I've loved every moment of it. The chemistry between our two leads as well as their peripheral interests proves to be interesting. And while things sometimes don't change that much, there are important developments over time and although Chuck is in a similar position than what he was in at the beginning of the show in a superficial way, way too much has happened to ignore.

2. CAPRICA.

Battlestar Galactica was the best show I missed and later watched and watched again. It is one of my favourites shows ever and would only lose out to Cowboy Bebop. But Caprica would be close behind and maybe if Caprica makes it through four seasons, it too could top BSG. Because, honestly, the two series are so different. While BSG was filled with excellent action set pieces and featured a lot more militaristic drama, Caprica does present us mostly with the actions of two families and their affiliates, so the crazy romantic webs aren't as rampant (yet). Caprica is also wicked smart; while BSG planted a lot of great philosophical debates and questions over time, Caprica has carried on that tradition most strongly. Not to mention superb writing that helps support just how smart this show is. While it started off slowly and I wasn't sure that it would keep my attention, I have most certainly fallen for Caprica.

3. THE BIG BANG THEORY.

While I don't normally love sitcoms because I'm more of an intensely complex scripted series (which is why it's so weird that I haven't watched Lost yet; but I'm too far behind now, I'll watch it in a year or something), TBBT has proven to be hilarious, smart, and genuinely fun. Smart, obviously, because it's about a bunch of scientists. TBBT is one of the series that has not disappointed me in its sitcom-y ways. I enjoy the nerdy references as a professed nerd myself and have so much fun each half an hour.

4. TRUE BLOOD

After I disliked Let the Right One In, I assumed that I just didn't like vampire things. I never get into Dracula and, unsurprisingly, I hate Twilight, so how on earth did I like True Blood? I'd heard it was decent, so I gave it a shot and while it took me a while to really fall for it, I did, Stephen Moyer's horrid accent and all. Again, we have here an excellent cast and a well-written program that doesn't treat the supernatural like a disease; the best sci-fi and fantasy use their genre as a setting more than as a plot point, and True Blood excels at that, which makes me love it even more. And it hardly hurts that Alexander Skarsgard is as hot as he is.

5. GLEE.

While inconsistent and sometimes downright annoying, every Glee episode is still fun and the cast is too talented to stay mad at. And when Glee is good, it is GOOD. I still love watching the football team break out into the "Single Ladies" dance the fiftieth time I see it. I'm hoping that the show has now found its footing and will use that to its advantage. Not to mention that it has one hell of a breakout character in Jane Lynch's Sue Sylvester (and major props to Amber Riley and Chris Colfer for bringing us Mercedes and Kurt).

6. THE VAMPIRE DIARIES.

Judge me all you want for this, but for a show that could've been so bad, I have been pleasantly shocked by how good this show really is. I love shows with complex mythologies and The Vampire Diaries has certainly been building us an interesting one. The characters, despite some supernatural influences, are believable and well-portrayed; I just love seeing my female protagonists kick some ass (and stab pencils into evil vamps). The Salvatore brothers are also incredibly hot, and Damon is so deliciously evil and a wonderful villain/potential anti-hero? He's totally a Lex Luthor in his wavering alliances and villainous deeds, and those are the best kinds of villains.

7. MODERN FAMILY.

Again with the sitcoms! But Modern Family also boasts a wicked talented cast of all ages, from the infant Lily to patriarch Jay. The series is witty and always fun to watch, not to mention that the lack of a laughtrack really helps. But the stories are not only fun, but also smart and warm; Modern Family reaches out to its audience and doesn't try to outsmart us or make us rely only on some stupid gimmicks.

8. DEXTER.

While at times I don't LOVE the show Dexter, I am always absolutely fascinated by Michael C. Hall's portrayal of the character Dexter. I was so pleased when he won the Golden Globe, folks, and I hope he brings home an Emmy too. The supporting cast has always also been talented, even the often annoying Rita (I never found her so bad as many other people criticized though). And if I'm ever in doubt about the strength of the series as a whole, I just look back to Dexter's stellar first season; since then, it may not have been AS strong, but it hasn't let me down.

9. MAD MEN.

Although I completely understand some people's complaints that the series is too slow, too much talking, characters that we can't relate to, I still find myself totally invested in this show. While not every episode satisfies me in the way more action-packed series do, there are those moments where everything is just beautiful, for instance, the season three finale. And even if the characters are sometimes inaccessible, that's no fault of the fantastic cast. (Just remember to bring back Sal for season four, PLEASE!?)

10. FLASHFORWARD.

FlashForward mostly gets this spot for its potential. While thus far the show has been a bit too slow, I've still been pleased by it and enjoy the world that it is trying to build around it. While Joseph Fiennes, though gorgeous to look at, isn't the strongest lead, his supporting cast is outstanding, particular call-outs to Dom Monaghan and John Cho (Merry and Sulu!). But even when considering the critiques of the show's sometimes too-slow pace for its premise, there are a number of moments that I still absolutely love, particularly the sad but fantastic exit of Al.

11. COMMUNITY.

When I'm looking for laughs and one of my favourite bromances ever (Abed and Troy together forever, please!), I need not look further than Community. (again with the sitcoms, Sarah, why do you watch so many of them?) While not always spectacular, Community is always funny, though sometimes funnier than other times. Also, I LOVE telling people about the mascot The Human Being.

12. V.

Another show with a too-slow pace for its premise, but still my attention, I hope desperately that V will step up its game. I enjoyed the first four episodes, but they did feel kind of like Battlestar Galatica's introductory mini-series: interesting introduction, but now let's bring in a "33" like episode where we can all be blown away by how fantastic this premise can be. I like all the threads that are building from different directions. I hope my interest will not be in vain.

13. HUMAN TARGET.

Mind you, I'm wicked behind on this show. But I love me some straight-up action. Human Target has so far, of what I've seen, been what Chuck could have been if we didn't want to make it about character. We get to go on fun action-packed missions every week, and I love that. That's all I want out of this show and it does that superbly. Not to mention that Jackie Earle Haley is so great.

14. GOSSIP GIRL.

I'm not in love with Gossip Girl this season, but I loved the second season's playing with the perfect pair: Chuck and Blair. Now that they're together, Blair is still fun to watch, although a bit dull, but Chuck has been spiraling down into truly boring territory, which is disappointing, because HE'S CHUCK BASS. Also annoying me this season has been Serena's long string of boring relationships (let's hope Nate works out better for her; I've liked them for the one episode we've seen of them so far). The positive? Jenny has FINALLY gotten interesting to me. After two seasons of finding her so freakin' annoying, seeing her as a true bitch and a drug dealer has gotten me interested.

15. HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER.

This season is definitely not my favourite. I love NPH and Barney Stinson, but I am a bit sick of Barney. I'm much more interested in Ted. Ted is the center of the show and his distinct personality should not be relegated to the background just because Barney is more dramatic and a total usually-but-not-recently fun sleazeball to watch. We got some fantastic hints about the mother; can we meet her? I'd really like that. Or at least some more Adventures In Ted-Dating; I like those too.

16. HOUSE.

And here we conclude the shows I watch. House, despite being entertaining, is not my favourite show. I like it, sometimes love it, but this is one of the most habitual shows I watch. But then, having it finish my list does not mean that I don't like it. Rather, I don't watch shows I don't like (i.e. why I dropped Heroes). So while House is entertaining and good and sometimes really good, it's more a worthwhile habit than a conscious devotion.

Well, this was a fun waste of time!

Not quite seasons of love.

2010-03-05T10:21:00.000-08:00

With two days left until the Oscars, I haven't entirely slowed my blog reading. Of course, sometimes I am infuriated with the level of snobbery I encounter (and people call me a movie snob), but then I acknowledge that I'm just an undergraduate film student and my opinion matters pretty much not at all.

Doesn't mean I don't have one though.

So I wanted to offer my wishful thinking winners for the Oscars. I haven't seen all of the films and I am not commented on foreign, documentary, or the shorts. But here goes anyway...

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker
Best Actor: Colin Firth
Best Actress: Meryl Streep OR Gabourney Sidibe
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Best Original Screenplay: A Serious Man
Best Adapted Screenplay: District 9
Best Editing: District 9
Best Cinematography: The Hurt Locker
Best Art Direction: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Best Sound Mixing: The Hurt Locker
Best Sound Editing: Star Trek
Best Costume Design: Bright Star
Best Original Score: Up
Best Animated Feature: Up
Best Visual Effects: Avatar OR Star Trek
Best Makeup: Star Trek
Best Song: "The Weary Kind"

This is, of course, ignoring those nominees I wish were there at all. If they were nominated, I would change...

Best Actor: Sharlto Copley
Best Cinematography: Bright Star
Best Makeup: District 9
Best Original Score: A Single Man

But for the most part, I'm not DISPLEASED with the nominees. Not much of it particularly thrills me as this wasn't a year where I was particularly passionate about too many of the movies. There were several films I really, really liked, many I really liked, lots I liked, and several that had some awesome elements. But, unlike last year, there was no Dark Knight or WALL-E that made me fall in love with it (over and over and over again; I've seen both films probably a dozen times and they've been out for barely more than a year and a half). I'd go with Up as my favorite movie of the year, but it's still not on par with most other movies I've ever loved. The Hurt Locker is magnificent, in my opinion, but I don't love it quite like I've loved other movies. If anything, this year, I found several elements of movies that I loved (i.e. A Serious Man's script and leading man, Sharlto Copley's performance in District 9, the escapist feeling of Avatar, the artistry of The Hurt Locker, the haunting beauty both in Colin Firth's performance and in the score of A Single Man, the fantastic crafts of Bright Star, and so on and so forth). But none of those made for movies I can say I love as much as many other films. I've seen Up about five times now, but I don't know that I want to see The Hurt Locker for a third time now, or Avatar, or Inglourious Basterds.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that, I loved Avatar, Star Trek, and District 9, but I've loved other sci-fi more. I loved Up, but I've loved other Pixar more. I loved The Hurt Locker, but I've loved other war films more. I liked Inglourious Basterds, but I've liked other Tarantino more.

If I had to argue that any of the films this year were among the best of a category in my mind, I'd go with Bright Star. Period romances are pretty to watch and fun, but Bright Star was also beautifully made, well-written, and all around stunning. If any period romance were to rival it in my mind, I might go with Sense and Sensibility, but really, I'd love to see Bright Star again.

But even then, I've loved other movies more.

I look forward to the Oscars nonetheless. I always do.

Theatre, Life, Movies, and Bloggin'

2010-02-23T19:11:00.000-08:00

Hello movie world!

You may have noticed my dismal absence from this blog (if you're one of the zero people who reads this, anyway) and there are a few excuses. First and foremost, computer problems are the main cause, I suppose. I was without internet for over a week as my computer was having some serious issues. All is fixed now, though. Goody!

Suspect number two is THEATRE. No, worry not, I'm still planning on living out a life of movies and movie related shizz (I am moderating into Film and Electronic Arts this semester... hopefully...), but I am taking a theatre class entitled Directing Seminar this semester that is joyfully eating my life. I'm quite pleased to say that this is probably my favourite class this semester. Currently, I am directing a scene from A Doll's House with two lovely actors as Nils Krogstad and Christina Linden. We have six hours of rehearsal a week. I'm also directing/co-directing/performing in a Disney Musical Revue, so that's going to tack on an additional eight hours of rehearsal a week, at minimum, starting this week (directing meant that I had to be involved in auditions and casting and blah blah blah). But the directing seminar is great fun. The book is incredibly useful (for film directing in many respects as well, in my opinion) and rehearsals have been productive. I love making lists and organizing, and planning for rehearsals like that is fab. I've got stuff to prepare for my rehearsals this weekend for the Disney thing too.

But even though I may not have been blogging, I have been seeing movies and doing plenty of reading about the awards season. I finally saw Crazy Heart this past weekend. I also made my first video project (which kinda blew) and the second one is due next Tuesday. Personal life just keeps creeping up in here doesn't it? Well, that does make sense, since I hope my personal life eventually equates the lives I love discussing in this blog.

In the television realm, I finally managed to catch up on Caprica when I was home this past weekend. Good, good show. Very smart. Great characters. I'm really looking forward to more. I'm not as into it as I am, say, into Chuck or even True Blood, but I do watch it with a great interest for the moment, until it furthers my attention (I'm sure at some point it will truly captivate me, but for now, I'm enjoying the ride nonetheless). Chuck has been continuing to be fantastic this season. Chuck is my new favourite show to recommend to everyone. Unlike the other NBC show I used to watch, Chuck has a trustworthy team of writers and showrunners behind it and they haven't let me down for two and a half seasons. For the moment, they have my complete trust. Josh Schwartz knows what he's doing.

In the Oscar race, you can't believe how pumped I am with all that The Hurt Locker's accomplished. The night the DGAs happened, I had two dreams, one in which Kathryn Bigelow won and the other in which James Cameron won and I was so relieved when I woke up to find out that Bigelow was the winner. She deserves it. The Hurt Locker is the best of those movies nominated for Best Picture (even though I put Up above it in my favourite movies list, that doesn't reflect what I think is the best movie of the year, just my personal taste).

There have been several other revelations to me. Like how much The Blind Side annoys me as I think about it more. Not that it's a bad movie, but it's so simplistic and complacent. Maybe Invictus would've been better as a nominee. But The Blind Side is more popular, which is really the only reason I give it a leg up in my mind. Also, how much I want Star Trek to grab the sound award, how I feel it was robbed for a Best Pic nod, and how its subtle-yet-stunning special effects are better utilized than Avatar's mind-blowing-but-everywhere CGI. Best Visual Effects? Avatar, I suppose. But Best Use of Visual Effects? Star Trek. The District 9 snub for make-up hurts more everyday. As for Sharlto Copley's snub. I saw it coming a mile away, but he SO deserved a spot on that list. He'd have been my winner, even after watching Jeff Bridges go all loose-belted in Crazy Heart.

I know Sandra Bullock is popular with the industry and she's not likely to be nominated again with her usual line of work, but I still would rather see any of her competitors win (I haven't seen The Last Station yet, so I'll count Helen Mirren out for the moment, but I'm sure she earned her place). But Meryl, Gabby, and Carey were all fantastic. My personal favourite is Meryl although I'd also definitely give Gabby my major props. She's been overshadowed by Mo'Nique this awards season to an extent, when it comes to winning that is, but her performance was really great. Overall, I've come to appreciate Precious more and more as time goes on. I think I left it off my top 16 list and I sort of regret that now. Well, if I did. I might not have and I might just be forgetful right now.

As I go on in my life as an avid movie lover, I never question why I love it, and I think that's how I know how much I care about everything. From watching the awards season to the bloggers to the Yahoo! posts about random shizz to the need to check off all the movies I see on icheckmovies.com to watching video art in my Video class to looking at directing from the theatre perspective, everything I do just reminds me how much I love it.

Well, maybe aside from Philosophy and Film. We watch good movies, we have interesting discussions, but boy oh boy does that class assign way too much reading. And weekly prompts like asked for don't come as easily as, say, my documentary class' prompts last year. Blargh. I like film. But philosophy... not quite as much. Not always. Sometimes. This is my trouble class this semester. I just can't get into it.

But anyway, the point of this post is the ramble as usual to help prove that I'm still alive and kicking, that I am not here for lack of caring about the movies, but for a distinct love that keeps me distracted from being here and instead relegated to making short tweets about movie stuff. I've got most of my Oscar predictions set, although I'm still debating about original screenplay and, of course, the shorts. I'll be sure to share once I feel fully set. 'slaters.

PS: I do not approve of many of the things they are planning to do with the Oscars. I sincerely hope I am proven wrong when I watch the telecast... but we'll see. *shiver*

Immediate Post-Oscar Thoughts...

2010-02-02T05:46:00.000-08:00

I guess the main surprise to me, and I know that other people saw this coming, was that The Blind Side snuck into the Best Picture race, eliminating Invictus in its wake. That's not really a move up or down to me, but rather sideways, as I liked both films, but wasn't particularly passionate about either of them. I'm a little disappointed that, even with the lackluster Best Picture love for Invictus, Matt Damon still stole a Supporting Actor nod. I love Matt Damon and he's a wicked talented actor and I suppose this is the Academy's way of making up for not nominating him for Best Actor for The Informant!, but I'd have liked to see The Hurt Locker love showered onto Anthony Mackie, perhaps, or maybe a deserved nod for Alfred Molina, who was snubbed. I haven't seen The Last Station, so I can't judge Helen Mirren or Christopher Plummer's nods, although, of course, I am a bit sad to see newer faces like Emily Blunt and Abbie Cornish forgotten. Although, of course, Helen Mirren probably deserves the nod.

I was especially placed by the inclusions of A Serious Man and District 9 both in the screenplay races and in the Best Picture line-up. People have been predicting District 9 as a likely one for both and A Serious Man as a likely possibility for screenplay, but I was psyched to see A Serious Man included in the Best Picture line-up. I was slightly baffled, but not entirely, to see Penelope Cruz nominated for Best Supporting Actress. I haven't seen Nine, but I suppose Penelope Cruz's talent and charm make up for the bad press and supposedly-eh movie.

I haven't seen In the Loop, but I will, and I am pleased to see it get a spot. I'm even more pleased to see Avatar shut out of the screenplay race. Not that Avatar had a bad script, as many would argue, but simply that there are far stronger scripts in the running this year.

I think I'm out of things to say for this moment, but I do have to run anyhow off to class. These nominees weren't full of too many surprises, but if the inclusion of The Blind Side for Best Picture says anything, it says that Sandra Bullock is definitely the frontrunner, which makes me sad, because, to be frank, Meryl Streep's performance was infinitely better. She's won before, sure, but jeezum, she still deserves it now.

I am sad that pretty much none of my longshots, at least of the announced categories, came through, but that was to be expected.

Spontaneous Longshot Love

2010-01-29T22:18:00.000-08:00

Things I'm pulling for, or would pull for despite already deservedly crowded categories, that probably won't happen or are wobbling on the edge of possibility, AKA Some of My Favourite Longshots:

Sharlto Copley for Best Actor
Bright Star for Best Cinematography
Bright Star for Best Costume Design (its best chance, but even there it's a bit slim)
Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty for Best Supporting Actor
Alfred Molina for Best Supporting Actor
Neill Blomkamp for Best Director
District 9 for Best Picture
"Stu's Song" for Best Original Song
Michael Stuhlbarg for Best Actor
A Serious Man for Best Picture
ALL of the supporting cast from Precious (besides Mo'Nique, the lock)
Star Trek for Best Score
Matt Damon for Best Actor
Abbie Cornish for Best Actress
District 9 for Best Editing
Rosamund Pike for Best Supporting Actress
Both of the Inglourious Basterds ladies in whichever Actress category
Tom Ford for Best Director
A Single Man for Best Adapted Screenplay

And my number one ridiculous hope that I have no faith in happening:
Max Records for Best Actor - It's such a crowded category, as usual, but he was such an amazing and perfect presence in Where the Wild Things Are. He was the ideal child actor: talented and able to embody the spirit of childhood without ever for a second having us imagine that he's anything else but a flawed, real, fantastic character.

I'm sure I've forgotten a few, but that's where my head's at right now. I just saw District 9 for the second time tonight and was reminded just how amazing Sharlto Copley's performance was and how great the movie is overall. But really, without Sharlto Copley's excellent, well-rounded, and complex performance, the movie wouldn't be nearly the same. He's definitely my favourite longshot.

DGA tomorrow! I really hope the Director's Guild knows where it's at and gives Kathryn Bigelow her deserved award. And then the Oscar nominees are coming in on Tuesday... so soon! Jeezum crow, I hope there are a few spontaneous, awesome surprises. Like Sharlto Copley. I'll never give this doomed campaign up.

Top 16(!?) of 2009... well, in my opinion...

2010-01-18T18:53:00.000-08:00

16 is a weird number.

This list is really more for myself than for anyone else because, well, to be frank, I doubt anyone but me reads this blog. But I have compiled the list of my favourite 16 movies from this year. It was a nice 15, but then I saw The Hurt Locker today and changed it... but anyway, this list is seriously lacking because, obviously, I haven't seen every movie released this past year. I have, at the end of this post, a list of movies I haven't seen but want to just to make clear that, yes, the reason this movie or that movie might not be included is because I just haven't seen it. But, without further ado, here is my ridiculously long list, because I just HAD to write this and that about each of the movies. The comprehensible full list, in proper order, can be found at the end.

---

#16 Duplicity
I love a good caper and this one was legitimately very enjoyable. It had fun twists and turns, it had Clive Owen charming and sly and wonderful again (no wonder I wanted him for Bond during the Brosnan/Craig transition), Julia Roberts was similarly enjoyable, and simply overall it was a fun, time-twisting, delightful heist movie. Not the most memorable film of the year, but right up my alley.

#15 I Love You, Man
An unfortunately forgotten and incredibly enjoyable comedy from early on in the year, this is one of the funniest films I’ve seen this year (and yes, I saw The Hangover. Twice, actually; no Zombieland yet though). It didn’t set me off quite like Role Models did last year, but it was clever and fun and featured one of my favourite things: a well-done bromance.

#14 An Education
I’m not sure if I’m pleased with the direction the movie took, although that’s due to its source material I am sure, but I do know that the movie itself felt like a great journey that Carey Mulligan’s Jenny brought us along for. Seeing the new world, albeit a bit skeptically, as the fun and delightful and shady place she entered, growing up, getting her brand of education, learning and eventually, at the end, returning to where she belonged, but with a better sense of her life. Carey Mulligan is stunning, as is the supporting cast, from Alfred Molina as her gullible father to Rosamund Pike as her ditzy new-life friend to Olivia Williams as Jenny’s intelligent, guiding teacher who makes it all better.

#13 Adventureland
I saw this movie as part of a weekend home to celebrate my nineteenth birthday back in April, and it was such an honest film that I fell into it with ease. It wasn’t really trying for gimmicks and it wasn’t regurgitating anything I could recognize other than the nostalgia of something quite like an amusement park and the reality that they’re all pains in the ass (I went to two this past week while I was in southern California and I can’t see a single thing enjoyable about working there). But then, in the stupidest parts of life are some of the most fun and memorable bits, and a strange and great romance within. Adventureland has a great big heart and is so easy to access and enjoy. I still don’t understand why I was the only one so in love with it as we left the theatre.

#12 (500) Days of Summer
Many movies try to do things out of order to build suspension or to hint at future events or whatever, but most of the time I find these attempts to be useless and dull or sometimes too much (I’m looking at you, The Blind Side, for your weird flashforward to a confusing and utterly useless scene that does not build anything at all for your viewers). But with (500) Days of Summer, the out of order setting might not be necessary, but it doesn’t hurt the ride in the least, making it interesting rather than confusing, tantalizing rather than frustrating. The dance through time and between Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Tom and Zooey Deschanel’s Summer is well-done and incredibly enjoyable and, well, the movie features one of the most satisfying endings of a film that is not necessarily happy I’ve seen recently. But in the interim between the beginning of summer and the beginning of autumn, the ride is fun and real and understandable. I give the movie a bit of shit for its similarities to How I Met Your Mother, but it’s not as if the television show’s premise isn’t any good. (500) Days of Summer was essentially a well-told story wrapped in a package wrapped with delightful scenes and a very cool dance routine.

#11 The Brothers Bloom
I said before that I like a good caper, and The Brothers Bloom is at the very minimum a clever caper of a film. Featuring a broody Adrien Brody and a charming Mark Ruffalo, not to mention an enjoyable eccentric Rachel Weisz and a scene-stealing, albeit silent, turn by Rinko Kikuchi, The Brothers Bloom is simply a brilliant sophomore work by Rian Johnson, who directed one of my favourite films of all time, Brick. But while his newest work focuses on something different, the stylistic flair of a confident director remains, allowing The Brothers Bloom to be something aside from your generic Ocean’s movies, featuring the typical leads (although, don’t get me wrong, I quite enjoy the Ocean’s franchise). Its plot is fun and twisty and quite fitting as it is, but it is mostly its flair that really gets me going, much like Rachel Weisz’s Penelope with that weird drunken montage with the train and the moans. Like Brick, The Brothers Bloom oozes with style and an air that the characters are not your everyday kind of people, but clearly something beyond the norm, people who will do these fantastic crazy things provided for them. I can’t wait for Rian Johnson’s third film.

#10 Bright Star
I have a mixed record with period romance types of films. I can be a sucker for them without really liking them, but there are some genuinely great ones, such as Sense and Sensibility, and, in this case, Bright Star. Featuring a romance that is sweet, real, and yet very untouchable, Bright Star isn’t obsessed either with chastity or bodice-ripping, something period romances tend to fall into traps with, but rather providing us with an intimate and sweet story. Jane Campion’s directing of Bright Star is among some of the most underappreciated of the year to me, and Bright Star also features stunning cinematography as well as art direction, costuming, and etc. It is one of the most visually beautiful films I saw this past year, watching with my eyes round as saucers as Fanny sat on her bed and the curtain blew in at her, sunlight streaking through, giving the movie an other-worldly feel, but not removing any connection I could feel. The acting was brilliant and it’s sad to have seen Abbie Cornish’s praise diminished nearly as soon as it had begun, but the work by Ben Whishaw and Paul Schneider especially was also very good, very moving, but nothing that felt forced or wrong. I expected to be a bit bored by the movie, not really involved, as when I went in, all I had heard was that Abbie Cornish was great in it. But I was surprisingly pleased when the whole movie fell so well with me. One of my favourite romances of the year, Bright Star is much more than that, showcasing a beautiful relationship much more than simply the romantic parts of it.

#9 Up in the Air
Up in the Air was a great ride to me, but, like An Education, some of the twists and turns I didn’t want to go down, particularly concerning the resolution of Ryan and Alex’s relationship. But all three leading actors were magnificent, getting the chance to see Clooney as more than just the self-assured man he was, but also as someone genuinely lost, Farmiga taking a character I normally wouldn’t be able to like but managing to, and Anna Kendrick pleasing me beyond all measure as, if not for Mo’Nique in Precious, the best supporting actress I’d seen all year. The story’s background, which Jason Reitman brought to great attention, was best described by some short silent moments, like Natalie in the empty room full of chairs, she and Ryan arriving in a cleared out building with a few terrified employees left for them to dispose of in Detroit, and, of course, the memorable scene of Natalie firing a man by video who is only in the next room. The movie is torn between the characters and the overarching theme, which don’t necessarily match up so easily, but finds a good balance and managed to strike a strong emotional chord with me.

#8 A Serious Man
I had some weird unknown beef with this film about the lack of ending that is so like the Coen brothers and so unpleasant for me about a movie supposedly based roughly off of The Book of Job which I had read earlier in the year for a class entitled Narratives of Suffering, which was a wonderful class that made me strongly appreciate different facets of storytelling that I hadn’t grasped previously. And if A Serious Man was not supposed to be based off of The Book of Job, I wouldn’t have any complaints… but The Book of Job is extremely important for its bizarrely happy ending, in which Job goes back to life with tenfold what he had before, not potentially dying or with his children facing an ominous and symbolic tornado. Ending aside, the movie itself is a great work by the Coen brothers, featuring a great turn by Michael Stuhlbarg and a good supporting cast (Stuhlbarg is on my ideal Oscar ballot for Best Actor and that ballot was one of the hardest for me), and the rest of the story struck me so strongly, as I spent the whole semester looking through fifteen different texts, trying to find the meaning of suffering, just as Larry does in A Serious Man, so I could sympathize with his journey, and I understood when he was forced to simply go back to life and ignore the questions (so like Job, until the extra couple minutes at the very end). I think my frustration simply comes from a place of great investment in the film, where Larry too feels such frustration and can understand it as easily as I do.

#7 Inglourious Basterds
I’ve been a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s work for, well, not a long time since I only really began dedicating myself so heavily to movies a couple of years ago, but about since that began. I’ve missed a few of his features (Jackie Brown and Grindhouse/Death Proof), but both Kill Bill movies and certainly Pulp Fiction would end up being some of my personal favourite movies. Inglourious Basterds has been lauded by many as perhaps his best film and, while I’m not sure I agree, I certainly do believe that it is a fantastic film unto itself. There was nothing more satisfying in cinema this past year than seeing history turned on its head with such appropriate irreverence. There was no performance as electrifying as Christoph Waltz’s all year. Not to mention the cast at large being great and Tarantino’s script being a fun masterpiece all on its own. The very cool film references to the time, which were fun (I had two classes last year where we talked at least a little bit about Goebbels, one of which was my documentary class with, of course, a section on propaganda, most famously on Triumph of the Will and other such projects of the WWII era). Regardless of my attachment to the littler parts of the film, there is such unpredictability when it comes to Tarantino’s works. Many films, you see a formula at work and you know what’s coming, who will survive, who will die, but when it comes to Tarantino, I’m not sure if he’s going to kill nobody, everybody, or some number in-between. There’s a whole different kind of suspense at work in Inglourious Basterds than can be found in other, more grim features such as The Hurt Locker, but this suspense isn’t nail-biting, it’s fun.

#6 Avatar
I know that there are a lot of people out there who are vehemently against Avatar, or who want to see it fail because of its populist image, or who simply just didn’t like it all too much or find it too reliant on the CGI and not enough on being original. And, as I tell most Avatar-haters, far too few “original” films have ever been made. But that is hardly a problem to me. Because one of the best things about Avatar is the familiar epic touch it has, unafraid to attempt a new language, a new species, a new world, all in the name of creating something truly escapist and enjoyable. Normally, I scoff a little when people say that they go to the movies to escape (which is a normal reaction, but movies are much more than that to me), but Avatar really was an escape, 160 minutes on Pandora, somewhere I want to return to and explore more and more of. Yes, the CGI is brilliant and there have been better scripts this year, but I hardly think that the script suffers because of too much emphasis on the CGI, or that the script suffers at all. There was no cheesy dialogue that made me cringe, nothing that made me roll my eyes or groan in disbelief. Everything was fitting and right and, well, it is certainly quotable (I have said “You’re not the only one with a gun, bitch” several times since I first saw it, actually, as, although hardly poetic, it is a great line). I see no reason to nitpick at Avatar, to complain about its similarities to other (mostly great) films, to make jokes about the Na’vi being smurfs or cat people, because it’s stupid to reduce such an epic to something so base (something I was responsible for doing to the Harry Potter book series before giving it a chance, reading it, and unabashedly loving it). Avatar is not the best film made this year, but it is one of the most enjoyable, stunning, and engrossing. It stole me away in a manner few other films managed to this year, and I cannot ignore the longing I feel within me to keep going back, to want more of Pandora, more of this new world. As cheesy as this sounds, far more cheesy than anything from Avatar, my heart is what assures me that I loved that movie. And, honestly, if your heart isn’t in a movie, if you can’t feel it tugging at you, then there’s no legitimate connection.

#5 Star Trek
Raised on Star Wars as opposed to Star Trek, I’d never had an interest in the franchise, and since I saw the new Star Trek movie, I tried my hand a bit at some of the older fare, two of the movies (Voyage Home and Wrath of Khan) and a few minutes of one of the original series episodes and I realized that no, the reason I like the new Star Trek movie has nothing to do with the source material and everything to do with it being, on its own, a fantastic ride. Star Trek features a fantastic cast, which is one reason it originally caught my attention. Led by the before-unknown (although I’d had a celebrity crush on him since The Princess Diaries 2) Chris Pine as the fantastically cocky and amazing Captain Kirk, and Sylar’s Zachary Quinto proving that his brilliance as Sylar (even as Heroes fell further and further into suckage) was only the tip of the acting iceberg. The supporting cast was also built up with two-time sci-fi stars this year Anton Yelchin (one of my favourite parts of Terminator Salvation) and Zoe Saldana (in that little film a lot of other people saw called Avatar), Eomer’s Karl Urban, Brit Simon Pegg, Harold and Kumar’s John Cho, and Eric Bana in a limited, but strong, villainous role. All of the supporting cast, although faced with generally limited screen time, made the most of their appearances on camera. Star Trek also featured probably my second favourite opening sequence of this year (the first being Up’s story of Carl and Ellie): the brilliant space battle where George Kirk died and James Kirk was born. Upon second viewing, this opening nearly brought me to tears it was so grand. I’d really like to give some credit to Star Trek’s great score here too. Beyond the opening, Star Trek didn’t waste any time. It told a good story, strong, but nothing spectacular, and introduced familiar characters (well, to other people) in a way that someone a Star Trek newbie like me could understand and appreciate them without thinking that too much is being thrown in at once. I’m a sucker for quality space operas, and Star Trek is, at the heart, exactly that. The film is stunning in every manner and has a humour without selling itself short, without resulting in the camp I later saw in the original version. Star Trek is one of the most delightfully and simply enjoyable movies I saw this year, not the smartest but smart, not the best but excellent, and not the wildest but incredibly entertaining.

#4 The Damned United
The Damned United is probably the best sports movie I have ever seen, and my prior knowledge of British football is that my friends all tend to be Manchester United fans and that Chelsea supposedly sucks and we Americans have David Beckham now. I went into the movie, fearing that I might be confused or lost, but that was hardly true. The Damned United was extremely accessible and highly gratifying. Not to mention that it contained one of my favourite bromances of all time, led by two talented actors, Michael Sheen and Timothy Spall. I hate that Michael Sheen will once again not be recognized for his masterful work here, and that Timothy Spall has been equally ignored, but I feel extremely privileged to have gotten the chance to watch the film and fall in love with it. It felt so good, watching Brian Clough and Peter Taylor kick ass and move up the ranks in the sport they clearly have a talent for working at. Not a moment is wasted and there is nothing in the film that bothered me in the least. Michael Sheen played Clough with impeccable talent, making a man that we root passionately for and yet don’t groan too loudly in frustration when he makes a stupid mistake, and then cheer for as he grows up and learns his place and begs for his dearest and best friend back on his knees (an amazing, amazing moment). It is such a flawless portrait of a man and his ambition and arrogance, but also his care and love and understandable determination. Not to mention that the sports part is very entertaining, something that doesn’t always catch my eye in a film (or in sports in general, as they tend to bore me).

#3 District 9
It’s been a little while since I went to Johannesburg with Sharlto Copley and the aliens derogatorily called the “prawns,” but I remember how satisfied and pleased I was with the movie. One of my biggest upsets with the awards season thus far is, not only the lackluster love for the movie, but also the total neglect for its heart and soul, no matter how blackened that heart seems at time, Sharlto Copley as perhaps my favourite lead performance of the year: Wikus. Wikus is ordinary and boring and he doesn’t transform into the hero in the end, doesn’t undergo some miraculous personality shift and change his allegiance because of deep love the way Jake Sully does in Avatar. Rather, Wikus distrusts his new allies to the end, wants more than anything to be human again, although he clearly has come to understand the hardships of the imprisoned aliens in the process. The effects and technology of the movie boast of a gigantic budget the film never had and never needed, giving us proof that while some movies like Avatar can prove that their big budget was worth it, you don’t need such a budget to make a sci-fi epic. With its excellent story straight out of reality, showcasing any instance of segregation (most notably Apartheid, of course), District 9 moves to become more than a sob story of a repressed race and doesn’t come around to have the natives win at life, but gives us a real portrayal of a struggle and the slow resolution that comes with real stories. There’s nothing I dislike about District 9, and it makes me confident in the ability of unknown filmmakers to provide us with a stunning vision where the movie doesn’t need stars, big names, or lots of money to get the story out… and make a great deal of money while at it. Paranormal Activity might be the low budget film story of the year, and I haven’t seen it, but District 9 is all the more impressive for the scale it dishes out, the epic quality of it, without trying too hard or selling out.

#2 The Hurt Locker
The most recent of the films I have watched, it reminded me of something a few of my friends complained about when watching The Dark Knight, about how the movie felt like it was always at a climax, building and building and building. That was one of my favourite things about The Dark Knight and the constant intensity and anything-can-happen spirit of The Hurt Locker made it instantly shoot to the near-top of my list of my favourite movies of the past year. I skimmed the Wikipedia article just now and was pleased and impressed to see how influenced the film was by Kathryn Bigelow’s excellent vision, even when talking about something that to passer-by fans is totally useless, like the type of stock used, Bigelow amazes me; I’ve used 16mm film and it doesn’t look anything near the artistic mastery shown in her piece (granted, she used Super 16, but regardless, they’re ultimately quite similar in my humble, barely educated opinion). The cast itself is stunning and it was a nice surprise to see beyond the amazing three leads some familiar faces; I kept arguing with myself “That’s Ralph Fiennes! Is that possible? Could it be?” and he’s barely in the movie, but even characters like his that only appear for short bursts are excellently portrayed. You can see writer Mike Boal’s experiences and trust in them to show such a stunning and engrossing adaptation of the real events of the War in Iraq (though, technically, as my documentary film professor reminded me, war was never officially proclaimed, but let’s not get into technicalities like this just now). The focus on the bomb squad, specifically on that 38 day rotation we saw them through, made the movie so much better than it could have been if it had tried to be any of the other sappy, dramatic epics trying to capture the whole thing. I’ll be sad to see the supporting cast, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty, not get the attention they deserve, but awards season is always tough. I do hope that The Hurt Locker pulls out to be the winner. I know some audiences don’t like it when the little unknown wins (well, that is, if it didn’t make as much money as Slumdog Millionaire, Little Miss Sunshine, or Juno, which I’d reckon a guess The Hurt Locker hasn’t), but The Hurt Locker is definitely the more masterfully made movie over its main competitor, Avatar (although it is also on my list of favourite movies this past year). All in all, I will stop weighing its awards chances and leave it at this: I am so glad I got the chance to rush into danger along with The Hurt Locker, feeling the experience very strongly, and although not wanting to go back to Iraq like one would want to go back to Pandora, understanding the other-worldliness and relishing it nonetheless.

#1 Up
There were a lot of good films this year that I saw and that I didn’t see, but Pixar has a habit of stealing my heart, ever since I first saw Toy Story when I was only just learning to spell. I first saw Up at the drive-in with my friend, her boyfriend, and her mom, and so I put a lot of effort into not crying during the movie. Then, a couple weeks later, after being in a horrible mood all evening, I rushed out at night and went to see Up and cried several times, feeling wonderful the whole time. Up is a beautiful portrait of, excuse my sort-of lifting of The Lovely Bones’ tagline but, a beautiful marriage and everything that came after. As many have said before me and many will say after, the first ten-odd minutes of the movie are enough to prove the movie’s excellence, much like people said of WALL-E’s opening half an hour. But then, the movie goes on past Ellie’s death and proves to us, like Pixar is so skilled at doing, that although the introduction is a story onto itself, stories are vaster and more grand than even the span of seventy years in the life of Carl Fredricksen. And those seventy years, illustrated in mere minutes, seemingly insignificant to the rest of the film, were everything and represented more than any words could ever say. When I first showed my mother the film recently after acquiring it on DVD, she saw Carl, older, alone, walk past the empty “Paradise Falls” coin collector and sighed, “It’s so easy to forget your dreams.” But I glanced over at her and told her to keep watching the movie, because as the movie teaches us, Carl’s life wasn’t one into which he settled and was deprived of the adventure he wanted when he was young, nor was Ellie’s – they both lived full and wonderful lives of strong love between them, many years of affection and care that are impossible to count out. The rest of the movie, beyond Carl and Ellie’s story, is a wonderful example of the adventure that Carl had wanted, but never needed, but it did allow him to appreciate, as Russel mentions, “the little things,” like eating ice cream on a curb, playing pointless, silly games, and so on. Dug too, although I was initially wary of having talking dogs (especially talking dogs that fly fighter planes), plays a beautiful role in the education of Carl, especially when complemented by the separate, but equally heart-warming, short film “Dug’s Special Mission.” Up is visually beautiful, the score is extremely fitting and one of my favourites of the year, but its story is, unsurprisingly, its best element. I will never tire of the masterpieces Pixar manages to churn out.

---

FULL LIST:
#1 Up
#2 The Hurt Locker
#3 District 9
#4 The Damned United
#5 Star Trek
#6 Avatar
#7 Inglourious Basterds
#8 A Serious Man
#9 Up in the Air
#10 Bright Star
#11 The Brothers Bloom
#12 (500) Days of Summer
#13 Adventureland
#14 An Education
#15 I Love You, Man
#16 Duplicity

And as a special treat, I’m taking the People’s Choice Awards categories (because it’s funny) and naming my favourites:

Favourite Movie Actor: Sharlto Copley
Favourite Movie Actress: Meryl Streep
Favourite Action Star: Jeremy Renner*
Favourite Breakout Movie Actor: Sharlto Copley
Favourite Breakout Movie Actress: Anna Kendrick
Favourite On-Screen Team: Michael Sheen and Timothy Spall
Favourite Independent Movie: District 9 or The Hurt Locker
Favourite Comedy Movie: I Love You, Man
Favourite Movie: Up

*Because his character’s attitude to defusing bombs is totally that of an action star.

---

Disclaimer of movies I've missed:

I haven’t seen several movies I might enjoy as much if not more, or at least want to see, including, but perhaps not limited to: Nine, Zombieland, A Single Man, The Lovely Bones, Crazy Heart, The Road, Bad Lieutenant, Broken Embraces, The White Ribbon, The Beaches of Agnes, Good Hair, The Cove, Food Inc., Every Little Step, Anvil! The Story of Anvil, A Prophet, The Messenger, The Maid, Whip It, Capitalism: A Love Story, Ponyo, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, In the Loop, and Moon.

Sequels, Threequels, Franchises, oh my!

2010-01-05T07:48:00.000-08:00

Last night, as I was trying to sleep, a thought kept coming into my head. And that thought was no, not about Anton Yelchin or Alexander Skarsgard you fools, but about sequels and threequels.

Now, it has become a long-standing fear of fans of something quality that a mediocre or bad sequel will come of it. However, ever since 1972 and The Godfather, Part II, this fear has been ruled with some notable exceptions. However, there have been over the past several years, particularly in recent years with the heightened popularity of franchises, several examples of sequels that are considered to be nearly as good as, as good as, or better than the original film on which they are based. For example, there is the aforementioned Godfather, Part II; Empire Strikes Back; Terminator 2: Judgment Day; I-haven't-seen-it-but-have-been-led-to-believe-it-fits-here Aliens; Toy Story 2; Shrek 2; Spider-man 2; The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers; The Dark Knight; X2. To name a few, that is.

Obviously, this is a totally non-scientific manner in which I am determining whatever the hell I am rambling on about.

Sequels have been proven to not simply be a marketing ploy for Disney to sell a bunch of Direct-to-VHS/DVD movies (although, in its defense, The Lion King 2 is actually quite enjoyable... moreso than most of its sequel counterparts via Disney). There are loads of bad sequels or sequels that incredibly disappoint.

But I remember seeing both Shrek the Third and Spider-man 3 and easily disliking the both of them. Shrek the Third had its moments and Spider-man 3 had James Franco being the only good thing about the entire movie, but overall, they were far cries from the first two movies. Even the unsteady X-Men franchise had a decent opening film, an improved second film, and then a blah third film. Other franchises start off with a strong first film and then settle into two mediocre sequels (Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix, for example).

Even Return of the Jedi and The Godfather, Part III, while both being good films in their own rights, are still mere shadows of the brilliance of their first two installments. The third Terminator movie was only mediocre. And while Lord of the Rings: Return of the King should disprove this theory that threequels nearly always never measure up, it's an unfair comparison, as all three Lord of the Rings films were made in a grouping, all principal photography done together during the same stretch of time, a nearly identical team of production and post-production for the three films, and the like. And the James Bond franchise also doesn't count in my book, like the Harry Potter franchise (although, it is my personal opinion that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is rather poor), because the two although in the same franchise, really seem to differ between the films. Which is one of my main beefs with the entire Harry Potter film franchise. Keeping the same cast does not unite films. Look at James Bond! You've got to settle on a unified, continuous plot, filming style, and set design. But, alas, this isn't the place for my Harry Potter film rants.

Besides that, however, when a franchise like James Bond has made as many films as it has, each "sequel" tends to differ based on its own natural merits and not on its relation to the past film(s). But, in this vein, yes, both From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are good "sequels."

While I have gotten over the understandable fear of sequels to good material, because there are so many excellent exceptions, many of which are some of my favourite films of all times, it is difficult for me to think of many threequels that have really stood up well. I suppose I could argue that Ocean's Thirteen was a good threequel, after the okay sequel of Ocean's Twelve, but it feels odd comparing Ocean's Eleven to The Godfather or Star Wars, even if it is a fun romp.

Mostly, I am hoping that Pixar might help eliminate my fear of threequels with Toy Story 3. Pixar hasn't disappointed yet, but the odds seem more against them than ever, in my opinion. Other people were pleasantly surprised by the quality of Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up, but Pixar has been making odd concepts into great films ever since Toy Story. And they made a brilliant sequel to one of those films. But a threequel? Pixar has earned my trust, but threequels haven't. I've met very few threequels I've really liked. I suppose Return of the Jedi and Ocean's Thirteen might be saving graces, but it's hard to get over Sofia Coppola's poor acting in The Godfather, Part III, or everything but James Franco in Spider-man 3.

In conclusion, there really isn't much that can be got out of this roundabout ramble. My point is simply that the fear of sequels has been calmed a bit, despite the annoyance of clear box office bait that is a sequel to The Hangover, Sex and the City 2, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and so on and so forth. There are some great cinematic experiences that are sequels. However, few threequels have ever risen to any form of glory. I'm hoping Pixar disproves that and then Christopher Nolan makes an assist by making that third Batman movie and making it awesome.

At least in the meantime we've got Inception.

Lookin' Back

2009-12-31T23:06:00.000-08:00

Two hours into the new year, I wish to look back on my accomplishments of last year. On top of zillions of other movies, I have watched the following movies that have even the slightest chance of nabbing at the very least a technical Oscar:

(500) Days of Summer
2012
9
Avatar
The Blind Side
Bright Star
The Cat Piano
Coraline
The Damned United
District 9
An Education
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hangover
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Informant!
Inglourious Basterds
Julia*
Julie & Julia
Partly Cloudy
Precious
The Princess and the Frog
Public Enemies
A Serious Man
Sherlock Holmes
Star Trek
Terminator Salvation
Up
Up in the Air
Watchmen
Where the Wild Things Are

Other movies released this year (well, in the US in some cases) that I saw:
12
17 Again (blame the plane)
Adventureland
Away We Go
The Brothers Bloom
The Class
Duplicity
Land of the Lost (wish I hadn't)
I Love You, Man
The Proposal
The Soloist
State of Play
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (also mostly wish I hadn't)

Tack on my Documentary class screenings plus outside of class watches necessary along with catching up on last year's award movies (watched Frozen River and Happy-Go-Lucky the day of the Oscars, actually), not to mention good old general viewing and a crapload of TV shows (beloved BSG included)... and this was a productive year, entertainment-wise. I hope to top myself in 2010!

*technically, I saw Julia in 2008.

Sidenotes.

2009-12-30T16:24:00.000-08:00

Also, notes:

- Caught up on Dexter. SO GOOD. Jesus, I don't understand why Michael C. Hall hasn't won an Emmy or Golden Globe yet. Love ya, Jon Hamm, love Hugh Laurie, love most of the repeat nominees, but my vote is going to Michael C. Hall this year. Just brilliant work this season (not to mention every season). I also understand the upset over Jennifer Carpenter being left off, at least at the Globes this year. Man, she was extremely powerful this past season. Highly impressive.

- Starting to catch up on House. And admittedly, a bit bored. Granted, I've never been intensely into House. Love Hugh Laurie, LOVE Robert Sean Leonard, love Lisa Edelstein, love Chase's accent, love Taub, loved Kutner... but I've never been particularly thrilled with procedurals. I'm still a few episodes behind though. I'll catch up soon.

- Seeing Sherlock Holmes tomorrow. Excited. Lykewhoa. I love RDJ. I tend to enjoy Guy Ritchie films. I love bromantic action flicks. So, this should be enjoyable if nothing else.

- icheckmovies has gotten me horribly wrapped into the world of watching movies. OH GOD WHAT A HORRIBLE PLACE. Kidding. But I did finally watch A History of Violence earlier and Saving Private Ryan and Artificial Intelligence are waiting for me. Not to mention my 15 or so movies on my external harddrive, the three or four DVDs I own that I've never watched, the few cool looking movies hulu offers, and all the movies I have yet to see in theatres (oh dude, I totally forgot about The Road in my last post... whoops... well, I'll see it). But it feels so nice to see my number go up when I watch a new movie! Like what happened after I saw The Blind Side on Monday. Whoo! Oh, btws, yes, Sandra Bullock was pretty awesome in it. Movie itself had me grimacing a little, but it was, for what it was, warm and gooey and enjoyable.

Rambling complete.

PS: Rewatching last episodes of Chuck. SO FRIGGIN EXCITED FOR ITS RETURN. SQUEE.

PREDICTIONS? Hardly, as if Sharlto Copley and Michael Sheen are getting nominated...

2009-12-30T15:59:00.001-08:00

I have made the roughest combination of a dream list/prediction sheet. You'll see some glaring omissions, particularly from films I haven't seen yet, although some clear front-runners to get nominated I have left in some categories either for lack of a better suggestion or because I have faith that said film is awesome in that particular field. There are a couple categories that have an extra nominee because I couldn't narrow it down. There is a very clear bias in these selections. I have cut out a lot of Nine, there's no Invictus to be found, very little The Lovely Bones, but I also haven't seen any of those three so that's no surprise.

Movies yet to be watched, Oscar-wise, include (but are not limited to): The Lovely Bones, Nine, Invictus, The Last Station, The Young Victoria, The Hurt Locker, A Single Man, Crazy Heart, The Messenger, Brothers, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and a big host of others I could see. As it is, chances I'll see The Last Station or Brothers are kind of wobbly. Love Helen Mirren and the stars of Brothers, but goddamn does the material look eh.

Also to note, my original best Actor category had eight people (Michael Stuhlberg, George Clooney, and Matt Damon were also on it). I feel like a traitor totally ignoring Morgan Freeman, but this is a tough category this year, IMO.

ANYWAY, here is my intensely rough list praising District 9 and Bright Star far more than either will ever get praised:

(*asterisks mark movies I haven't seen*)

Best Picture
Avatar
District 9
An Education
*The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Julie & Julia
A Serious Man
Star Trek
Up
Up in the Air

Best Actor
*Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart
Sharlto Copley – District 9
*Colin Firth – A Single Man
*Jeremy Renner – The Hurt Locker
Michael Sheen – The Damned United

Best Actress
Sandra Bullock – The Blind Side
Abbie Cornish – Bright Star
Carey Mulligan – An Education
Gabby Sidibe – Precious
Meryl Streep – Julie & Julia

Best Supporting Actor
*Woody Harrelson – The Messenger
Alfred Molina – An Education
Stanley Tucci – Julie & Julia
*Stanley Tucci – The Lovely Bones
Cristoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress
Vera Farmiga – Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick – Up in the Air
Melanie Laurent – Inglourious Basterds
*Julianne Moore – A Single Man
Mo’Nique – Precious

Best Director
*Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker
James Cameron – Avatar
Jane Campion – Bright Star
Joel and Ethan Coen – A Serious Man
Lone Scherfig – An Education
Quentin Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds

Best Original Screenplay
(500) Days of Summer
*The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up

Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9
An Education
The Informant!
Precious
Up in the Air

Best Editing
Avatar
*The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up in the Air

Best Cinematography
Avatar
Bright Star
District 9
*The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds

Best Costume Design
Bright Star
*The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Inglourious Basterds
Julie & Julia
*Nine
*The Young Victoria

Best Make-Up
Avatar
District 9
Star Trek
Where the Wild Things Are

Best Art Direction
Bright Star
District 9
Inglourious Basterds
*Nine
A Serious Man

Best Visual Effects
2012
9
Avatar
District 9
Star Trek

Best Sound Editing
Avatar
District 9
*The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Up

Best Sound Mixing
Avatar
District 9
*The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Up

Best Original Score
Avatar
The Informant!
The Princess and the Frog
Star Trek
Up
Where the Wild Things Are

Best Song
“I See You” – Avatar
*“The Weary Kind” – Crazy Heart
“Almost There” – The Princess and the Frog (or “When We’re Human” or “Down in New Orleans”)
“Cinema Italiano” – Nine
“All Is Love” – Where the Wild Things Are

Best Animated Feature
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
*Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog
Up

(excluded: Best Animated Short, Best Live Action Short, Best Documentary Short, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Documentary Feature)

Re: Up in the Air, An Education

2009-12-24T13:19:00.001-08:00

Spoilers, people, if you haven't learned to expect them here.

Goddamn, can you stop ruining my romances with secret marriages? I mean, I was totally cool with it in An Education, and honestly, I'm okay with it in Up in the Air (although it does make me want to punch Vera Farmiga's character in the face; a similar sentiment I felt in The Departed), but WHINE.

But yes, Up in the Air was very good. I quite enjoyed it, it brought me to tears a few times, Anna Kendrick is stunning, George Clooney really does do a great job in the role, and Vera Farmiga, for making me want to hit her, does very well also. The film is very much of its time, and felt extremely satisfying in that way. It was very good.

Because Nobody Likes a Total Snob.

2009-12-23T19:21:00.000-08:00

Two things.

One - I hate film snobs. I love movies. I love good movies. I love bad movies. I love commercial movies. I love experimental/artsy/etc. movies. Not all of any of those categories... but I can't help that. There are good movies I dislike (Let the Right One In... that's supposed to be a good movie, right?). There are bad movies I dislike (...this list would be much longer, but let's limit it to a piece of trash like You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Yeah, I wasted money on that movie). There are commercial films I dislike (er, again, this would make a long list, but I think Zohan fits here too). There are experimental/artsy/etc. movies I dislike (I don't see a lot of these, to be frank, but film class helps expose me to them and some just are not my style). But no matter what movie I see, even if I go in thinking I will hate it or like it or whatever, there's still a clear opinion that I cannot deny myself. Like Avatar, which I went into expecting to not be impressed, determined to not be impressed and was... impressed. Like Let the Right One In, which I'd heard was awesome, which people told me was great, but I walked away not really enjoying it. Like Twilight, which actually had some awesome moments for so bad a movie I will happily admit to (and honestly, with such shitty material, snaps to Catherine Hardwicke for doing it any decency).

So, pretty much, I just really hate people who rip on commercial films because of the industry. Or people who rip on foreign language films because for whatever reason people hate subtitles (honestly, I love me some subtitles; I used to watch movies in English with subtitles for kicks). Or people who rip on independent filmmaking because they think it's too snobby (unfortunately, too often, they're right). I dislike the pressure some people put on me as a socially conscious individual to avoid commercial filmmaking, to avoid Hollywood, to avoid supporting the big guy. And y'know what? I would love to focus in on independent fare. And I love independent fare. But you know what else? There are some major pretentious jackasses over there, just like there are some obnoxious full-of-themselves douchebags in commercial filmmaking. Wherever you go, there will be jerks. So I might as well watch and make movies that I like, whether it be through a big distributor or a small one. 'Cause, really, in the end, we can generalize all we want about each field, but there's no right or wrong way to make a movie. And I tend to prefer movies made for art rather than money, but there are some SHITTY movies made for art rather than money too.

To all you film snobs out there determined to hate big movies, to diss on The Dark Knight because it's too commercial to like, like my former college film advisor, who complained about the Hollywoodization of Milk: shut the fuck up and just enjoy the movies. You can criticize the roots separately, but the movie itself is something worth approaching and appreciating without major critique to where it is coming from. Just enjoy the experience without the jadedness while you're watching it. Relive that innocence within you. It's refreshing, believe me.

On that note, yes, I do like Juno. No, I do not think it is the bee's knees, I think it is wildly overrated but still a good movie. Yes, I do have something against Diablo Cody and it's not just her "dress" she wore when she won an Oscar. Although I appreciate where her attitude of "I'm so awesome" comes from, I dislike what she does with it, promoting the most crappy eclectic things as she can and being the ultimate hipster goddess. Jesus H. Christ.

I can get a bit snobby about movies, but believe me, I like my fair share of crappy movies, commercial products, and movies from many walks of... production. I rented Maid in Manhattan like once a week when I was 12. I LOVED that movie. I still think it's kind of cute. >.>

Two - I am seeing Up in the Air tomorrow. I am excited.

4 Movies, 5 Days...

2009-12-22T13:57:00.000-08:00

Not bad, not bad at all in my humble opinion. Since my arrival home Thursday evening I have seen Avatar, Fantastic Mr. Fox, An Education, and The Princess and the Frog. All of which I think were good. I blabbed on about Avatar and although I certainly liked the other three movies, I don't really feel too strongly about blabbing on for ages.

And in older film world... I've been slowing making my way through The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly on hulu. I'll finish it tonight is my hope. >.>

If Dexter doesn't distract me! Or gnawing guilt over my unfinished internships applications that I seriously need to get down to. Or how behind on House I am.

Gah.

I will say that the music in The Princess and the Frog was quite excellent. I love the nostalgia of 2D Disney animated musicals. Carey Mulligan was fabulous in An Education (and Rosamund Pike was adorably ditzy). Fantastic Mr. Fox was cleverly adorable. But as for their respective best bet categories, although Carey Mulligan has an excellent chance at the Best Actress, Meryl Streep's Julia Child was simply stunning. LOVED it. And Fantastic Mr. Fox is excellent... but you got to be kidding me, it is no Up. If it was competing against the opening montage of Carl and Ellie's life together only, it would still lose in my book. People cheer over the beautiful silent opening of Wall-E... well, I say, what Wall-E does in half an hour, Up does in about five minutes. Not to mention reducing me to tears.

These are the logs of the Starship Sarah. Her ongoing mission? To seek out unknown space, to see movie after movie after movie, to talk and talk about them until people roll their eyes, fall asleep, and beg for mercy.

BTWs, no, I am not a Star Trek fan (save the new one). As I explain to all of my friends, Star Wars is pop culture, Star Trek is cult, and I love me some cult, and I like camp, but Jesus Christ, all I thought while watching Wrath of Khan was "Khan has a REALLY nice chest" and "I wish I were watching Star Wars." >.>

Still to see in theatres in the coming days? Up in the Air (comes out Wednesday! :D), Invictus, Nine, The Blind Side, A Single Man, Crazy Heart, The Messenger, and The Lovely Bones. Maybe The Last Station and The Young Victoria. Hope to catch The White Ribbon eventually, and The Beaches of Agnes. Will rent Food, Inc., The Hurt Locker, In the Loop, and others...

I saw it. Avatar.

2009-12-19T13:33:00.000-08:00

I'm not going to blab on particularly long about Avatar because, well, I don't have that much to say. It was, to be frank, quite awesome. I really enjoyed it. Some people complained beforehand about the story being trite and thin and the dialogue being rather meh, but it hardly distracted me. It was hardly Shakespeare, but when it comes to sci-fi epics, I mean, how simple are the Star Wars lines that are endlessly quoted?

"May the Force be with you."
"My name is Luke Skywalker, I'm here to rescue you."
"I love you." "I know."
"No, I am your father."

None of these are exactly poetry either, but they are all incredibly awesome lines, particularly Harrison Ford's improvised ESB line pre-carbon freeze. So I see nothing to complain about with Avatar. Beside that, it is an EPIC. And by epic, I mean that the plot is going to be somewhat traditional in many ways, and that's nothing to guffaw at. Storytelling-wise, there's nothing revolutionary about the movie. The special effects are fucking amazing, of course, but the story itself is what it is supposed to be - strong, powerful, striking, and good. But not revolutionary.

But on the special effects, can I say how fucking amazing they are again? And it's not just the Na'vi, which were done very well, but also simply all alien life on Pandora. Every creature, all the flora, the whole thing was just so beautiful and, for lack of better word, exotic. It felt like I was truly transported to this location, which is what the best sci-fi and fantasy epics do. I have the same feeling with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and to bring in video games, the sci-fi epic I am partial to: Mass Effect. These are spectacular worlds that tell amazing but traditionally-based stories. I am happy to see Avatar and look at it as a new classic. Although the special effects will soon enough be commonplace and not long after become outdated, the epic nature of the beast will keep it around for a long time.

It's not the special effects that made Star Wars or Lord of the Rings as awesome as they are, and it's not that they told a wildly original story - they simply brought us into this new world and captivated us with a beautiful story and a well-thought out and captivating world.

In fact, I want to return to Pandora really soon, and I hope that, if good sequels can be imagined, that there will be sequels. But only if they can be good (take a cue from Pixar; even though Toy Story 3 is eleven years after Toy Story 2, it's because they were waiting for a good story and I have few doubts that Toy Story 3 won't deliver the goods. Toy Story 2 did). We have enough bad sequels in the world. Other than that, I look forward to seeing Avatar again. I might dare to do it again in theatres if I find time between all the other movies, but probably not. I will see it again. And hopefully love it just as much. Because it truly is a GREAT film in both content and era. While maybe not the best film I've seen of this year or my favorite (and I am still lacking several, so we'll see what happens), I have a feeling that this movie will last.

I think I read somewhere that James Cameron doesn't see this film to be as timeless as Titanic, but I have a feeling it'll prove otherwise. For example, over thirty years later, everyone still knows what Star Wars is. Even if the damned fools haven't seen it.

Don't worry, I'm fixing that. Bard Film Committee is doing a Star Wars weekend next semester. A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back. I am FORCING all my WEIRD friends who haven't seen Star Wars to come. I just don't understand. It's such an amazing classic.

One of my favourite things about future!motherhood (y'know, in ten years or so is what I'm aiming for) is going to be sharing my childhood experiences with my kids. The Pixar films, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter. And you know what? They're seeing Avatar too. And a shitload of other movies. 'Cause, well, if you know anything about me, I effing love movies. My kids better too.

PS: Let me make this very clear. Yes, I think Sam Worthington is a hunk. Yes, I think he was amazing in Terminator Salvation (as was Anton Yelchin. Sorry, Christian Bale, you're normally great but you really blew in that movie). Yes, I am going to start seeing movies probably explicitly because he is in them. No, Anton Yelchin is still my future husband.

PPS: I am attempting to do a double feature tomorrow of Fantastic Mr. Fox and An Education. Wish me luck! Hope it doesn't snow TOO much.

Lists. I Like 'Em.

2009-12-06T10:00:00.000-08:00

Quick, useless-to-anyone-but-me updated To See list:

- The Lovely Bones
- Nine
- Avatar
- Invictus
- The Blind Side
- Amreeka
- An Education
- Sherlock Holmes
- Fantastic Mr. Fox
- The Princess and the Frog
- The Road
- A Single Man
- The Messenger
- Up in the Air
- Crazy Heart
- The Last Station
- The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
- The Beaches of Agnes
- Food, Inc.
- Ponyo
- The Hurt Locker
- Every Little Step

That's manageable over winter break, right? I might weed some of these out. I actually don't really care about Leo Tolstoy, but I do love Helen Mirren hence wavering interest over The Last Station. Point is, some of these movies are on here because I like to see all the awards contenders I can. But, luckily, I have genuine interest in nearly all of these films anyway, so nyeh.

As for possible contenders seen: 2012, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, The Damned United, Up, Coraline, Precious, The Cat Piano, Partly Cloudy, Star Trek, District 9, Public Enemies, The Informant!, Where the Wild Things Are, Bright Star, Julie & Julia, (500) Days of Summer, The Hangover

No, I think it's hilarious too that The Hangover has submitted itself for Best Picture. But you want to know what's funnier? Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has as well. Just because there are ten best picture slots doesn't mean we have to revert to BAD block-busters to fill the spots. 'S why Star Trek has the fighting chance it does. I'll be surprised and pretty impressed if Star Trek ends up nominated, BTWs.

Precious: A Difficult Feeling

2009-12-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

Last night's episode of Glee was one of the best of the season. The music of the episode wasn't the best, no, but the story was brilliant. I love Glee, but sometimes things are too much of a mash-up when I just want it all to move like a real story.

Maybe it's just me, but I really wasn't that in love with Coraline. I liked it, I wanted to really like it, but I just couldn't. It was a great film visually, but the story felt too thin at times that I just couldn't love it the way some of my critics seem to.

But onto more convoluted and lengthily-written sentiments...

I saw Precious this past Thanksgiving weekend (last Saturday, to be exact). I was almost ashamed that I didn't actually cry during it. I teared up, for sure, the same moment Mariah Carey's character was kind of blubbering on screen, and the whole film just left me in this state of mind that I just wasn't allowed to talk about it. Which is so interesting from the perspective we're taking from reading Maus in my literature class this past week. The idea that the Holocaust cannot be retold, but rather that Maus acts as a substitution, never daring to presume that it is a retelling or a recreation - it simply is what it is.

But something tugs at me and tells me that Precious is supposed to be real and that is what makes me clam up about it. Not that it's based directly off of a true story - although Oprah and Tyler Perry find themselves taking it and applying it to real tales around them, and I can't blame them for doing that in the least - but that it isn't trying to substitute for anything, it's trying to take the place of that reality, trying to show us it. I'm not sure how I feel about that, about seeing this depressing-as-hell story told to me. I can't really talk about the film, about the elements of it. I feel as if I'd be betraying what the movie is showing. I don't dare to put the film into a frame like we're asked to when we're asked how we feel about a movie or how it is. And some movies, most movies that I see actually, I can do that. I can talk and talk about the narrative structure, about what I liked and didn't like, about the portrayals and this and that and on and so forth. But some movies, like Precious, just leave me with the sense that I'm not allowed to say anything about it. I can't even know how I feel about it. I can pick out little things, talk about the skillful acting, about the interesting structure and bleakness of it all, but I can't even dare to seriously summarize or react to it.

This is something I don't want to have. I'd rather have the courage to be able to do what Art Spiegelman does and take the frikkin Holocaust and find some way to express myself without betraying the original event, without betraying Precious and her story, but still managing to express what that experience brings. I haven't read the novel the movie is based off of, and maybe the movie does that for the novel. Successfully substitutes the sufferings of the novel with the sufferings in the movie. There is something that so nicely converts a story sometimes when it is translated from a textual to a visual medium. But I'm rambling, and I don't even make sense to myself by this point.

My point is that this class, Narratives of Suffering, has changed the way I look at everything around me, no joke. I also saw A Serious Man and thanks to Narratives of Suffering, despite really enjoying the movie and thinking it was good, I have some serious beef with it that I am still trying to articulate in my mind to make into an eventual post. But A Serious Man is still something of a comedic movie, something quirky, by the Coens' brothers. Not like Precious, not like this brutally honest thing that I just don't want to confront but is haunting me everyday that I don't try to face it down and accept what it was trying to tell me. It's simple really: the horrors people can put on those they supposedly love, the hurt that "love" provides, and real love that can be found, a way to escape and a hope for something more. But there's still such a trauma there.

It's funny how everything pieces together so smoothly in life. Not only did I see these two movies all about suffering in the midst of trying to understand it through the lens of this class and the fifteen books we've read for it (The Road is last and coincidentally enough, the movie version just came out!), but one of my friends just did a presentation on trauma this evening, the last portion of which I attended. It was a pretty straightforward synopsis of trauma, providing the important information about it, and presenting it mostly within the idea of sexual abuse and on college campuses. But after having just finished rereading Maus, trauma seems so much bigger than that, so much more complicated. But basically my life is surrounding me with these narratives of suffering and asking me, begging me, in fact, to confront and understand them. The song I'm doing for my jazz final is even called "I Want To Be Happy!" I mean, what the hell, life?

It always circles back around to that class lately. And not without good reason. I'm glad that a class I'm taking has had such an effect on my life. Not like my film classes which, although awesome, have provided more of a technical and aesthetic appreciation and skill, but something that has truly made me think more profoundly and to look around me at the world with more thought. A year ago, I would have simply accepted Precious and A Serious Man as amazing films, and when Precious would have scared me from trying to talk about it, I wouldn't have bothered to try to think about why and have simply accepted that it's a difficult story.

And it is a difficult story, and a very difficult movie. But I want to try to talk about it without feeling the eyes on me, asking why I, such a privileged person whose worst worries are about getting her homework all done in time and adequately, should ever dare to think about such pain. Who am I to think about such pain? But it's not about looking at it apart, seeing it as myself. I want to look at this movie and not get lost in the pain and suffering but see it analytically as well, understandingly, but without losing my humanity in the process. Yes, I feel for Precious, I watch her in the movie and my heart tries to leap out of my chest to be closer to her, to join souls with her, but I don't want that to cloud my ability to see the movie as a narrative. It's easy to let that happen as I've felt with several of the narratives we've read in my class. And it's easy to step back and forget how to feel. I want to do both and it's a struggle, but a worthwhile one, because in feeling but understanding, like Art Spiegelman seems to succeed at in Maus, I can lay myself next to the story, and love it.

On FlashForward, TV this season, New Moon, The Blind Side, Film Class, and Precious (granted, Precious got one sentence...)

2009-11-20T11:49:00.000-08:00

Last night's FlashForward was quite good, wasn't it? And I am really liking V as well as it progresses. Although I started off the season more focused on the new comedies (Modern Family, Community, and Glee), I find myself slinking more toward the sci-fi dramas because, well, they're awesome (nothing against the other shows; they're quite good as well). Although I am loathe to admit that I am not as passionately crazy about Glee as I was in the beginning, I still am a big Gleek at heart, downloading the music and episodes as soon as I can. But last night's character-driven FlashForward? So freakin' GOOD. I am really excited to see more of Keiko; she seems like such a great character.

In other news, you may all have heard of a little movie coming out today called New Moon (which, if I even bother to pay money to see, won't be for another month when the fangirl numbers coming en masse to theatres have dropped considerably), which I am psyched to see being critically smashed to pieces. The funny thing is, the worse the reviews are, the more I want to see the movie. If it was just a snooze-fest of "eh, blegh" I would be disappointed. But hearing about the poor effects, the funny camera angles, and the hilarity of it all (thank you TWoP) just makes me interested in having a few laughs. Twilight made me crack up consistently, for example, so I have a feeling New Moon can entertain appropriately as well. Unfortunately, New Moon will kick ass at the box office. Blargh.

I am seeing Precious a week from tomorrow. I am excited!

And I have finally discovered the art of editing. I mean, my editing may be shit for all I know, but hey! I have now edited three approx. three minute projects. Booyah. This weekend is "get shit done for film class" weekend, which also means I need to shoot my fifth project. Fun fun times! Next weekend is internship weekend, the first weekend of December is jazz class weekend, and the last weekend of the semester is "oh hay, final paper for lit class!" weekend. Yeah. Fun fun times.

And on a final note, you have no idea how glad I am that The Blind Side has been getting reasonably good reviews. It makes me feel like less of a total loser for genuinely wanting to see that movie.

BTWs... about Heroes... + Why FlashForward Is Better Than You Give It Credit For

2009-11-13T12:17:00.001-08:00

Pretty sure I changed my mind from before; I haven't bothered watching Heroes since like the third episode and probably won't bother to continue. I just hope it dies soon. NBC seems to be fizzling out all its other dramas too, so why not this tired and never-going-to-improve one?

My ulterior motivation in doing this is to eventually remake the series better. I doubt I would ever actually do that because there are other things I'd rather do, but I would totally blow up New York and hire some better writers.

And... House. I feel bad because I actually do want to keep watching House, but there are just so many other shows I'd rather be watching these days so I am not up to date on that show either. I'll try to catch up one day... but not now.

Oh and Dexter too. I still haven't finished the third season. Oops! >.>

On another note, although most people don't seem to be in love with FlashForward, I have a couple things to say in its favor. The reason I think that I personally am getting so invested in this show has to do with a literature class I am taking right now called Narratives of Suffering. In fact, FlashForward and my class overlap in ways enough that I wrote it into the conclusion of my midterm paper for the class (my professor actually quite liked it and thanked me for bringing the show to his attention; I had a paper conference with him earlier this week, just after (**SPOILERS**) Al offed himself and I told him about that and how interesting it was).

My paper was about the idea of suffering and human agency in regards to it. In many ways, we do not have control over the suffering that is given to us. Depending on who you ask or your source material, it might be that suffering is randomly assigned to people who undergo tragic experiences that plague them or cause suffering due to a complete removal or one from one's comfortable life. We've talked about this in class in relation to an identity within a frame that we create for ourselves. And then something comes along and while we suffer, we are removed from our frames and all that we felt we could control before is taken away from us and we are left in the infinite space of the universe, the wall we built up around ourselves as a symbol of who we are is suddenly taken away from us and we are lost. It could also be said that this natural, part of being human (something that can be taken away in particular from the poetry of Emily Dickinson or that seems to be implied in Samuel Beckett's play, Endgame). Or a condition of our being in a certain state (the focus of my paper was primarily on Harriet Jacobs' narrative of her life in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl). Either way, when we suffer and we are removed from our place, there is a sense of nothing we can do, that we have to give into our eventual fate and let suffering take us where it will.

Or, we can make a choice. Even if there is nothing physically that we can do to overcome our suffering, we can make a mental choice that we want to survive. In Owen Chase's narrative Loss of the Ship Essex, Sunk by a Whale, although he and his companions are starving on a boat far away from land, unable to even move at points because they have been so physically reduced, it really it the mental state that each man takes on that controls whether or not they will survive. Chase writes, "all was dark [Isaac Cole] said in his mind, not a single ray of hope was left for him to dwell upon; and it was folly and madness to be struggling against what appeared so palpably to be our fixed and settled destiny. I remonstrated with him as effectually as the weakness both of my body and understanding would allow of" (pg. 67). Although Chase fails to convince Cole that his destiny was not fixed as a dead man, here is the beautiful demonstration of human agency even when it seems we have none left. So many of the characters that we explore in this class make a conscious choice that, despite their state, they will fight it somehow. Mary Rowlandson in The Sovereignty and Goodness of God stands by her bible even while in the hands of the Indians, keeping her faith strong as she suffers, choosing to believe that God will deliver her from it, and he does. Chase eventually survives to tell the tale (although it is rumoured that he went crazy from the cannibalism they had to employ to survive and the long-term starvation and suffering each survivor endured). Jacobs manages to escape to the north after several years in a tiny space where she hid before she could leave the south.

But then, at the same time, none of the characters truly finds happiness in the end. As I said, Chase goes crazy, and when Jacobs goes up to the north, she finds that the world up there isn't a whole lot better to black women than the south was. We also watched a couple films in the class, The Sweet Hereafter and Leaving Las Vegas (which is why I was more than a little pissed off when Owen Gleiberman describes Nicolas Cage's character as someone who is "full of longing and regret" neither of which ever seems to cross the character from the perspective I watched the film). But I want to focus on the former film. In the closing narration, Nicole, the only child who survives the tragic bus accident, comments that in the process of moving past the grief and coming out of suffering that the town didn't exactly return to happiness, rather, they were now in a "strange and new" world, as she describes it. One of Dickinson's poems goes as follows:

"I shall know why-when Time is over-
And I have ceased to wonder why-
Christ will explain each separate anguish
In the fair schoolroom of the sky-

He will tell me what “Peter” promised-
And I-for wonder at his woe-
I shall forget the drop of Anguish
That scalds me now-that scalds me now!"

No matter what comes later, anguish will leave its mark. Suffering will leave its mark. There is a chance of removing yourself from suffering, but you will never reenter the world you had before it came.

And here is where FlashForward comes in. FlashForward has characters who see firsthand the suffering they will go through, or their flashforwards cause suffering upon their sight. Olivia is terrified of her eventual adultery. Mark is scared of returning to his alcoholism and losing his family. Nicole is frightened of a world where she finds herself deserving of being drowned to death. Demetri is, unsurprisingly, unpleased by the prospect of being murdered. Aaron is fraught by all kinds of despair when he sees his supposedly dead daughter alive. And Al, poor Al, wants to stop himself from being the cause of death for a single mother.

Yet, the agency that these characters employ? It's pitiful! The show seems to endorse the nonsensical concept of determinism, which Lloyd calls Simon out for using in yesterday's episode. But there are little things that characters do. Mark burns the friendship bracelet his daughter makes for him... all while constructing the board he sees in his future. Olivia throws away the lingerie she sees in her flashforward. Nicole tries to be the best person in the world, one who hardly deserves her death. And Al... kills himself.

I give Al two gigantic thumbs up, as well as the writers of FlashForward, for that game-changing decision. I cried, not only because it was so sad, but also because it was a much-needed remonstration of how the future is not set in stone (didn't we learn this lesson in Terminator all those years ago?). I had been waiting since the beginning for someone to jump off a building or take a gun to their head. It seems such a depression alternative, but in this case, it is a form of agency, better than the efforts the other characters have been making. They obsess over their futures rather than trying to live their lives as if their futures are still within their control. They are thrown out of whack, out of their comfortable little frames of lives, and forget that they have any control whatsoever. They are acting like Chase's companions and admitting defeat, that there's nothing to be done, the destiny has already been prescribed, there's no way out.

But there is, and that is what is so interesting and frustrating and beautiful about FlashForward. It provides us with this amazing study of how we all can react to a loss of control. It's not the same as being lost on a tropical island, not about finding that you have super powers, not about supernatural beings and powers. But all of these scenarios, they show new potential by being removed. But this... FlashForward, is so unique. It's not a change of what's already happened that leads this people to make their new choices and to arrange their new lives. There was a big dramatic event, the blackout, yes, but that's not all. Not only is there that bookend with the deaths of millions and the destruction of many places, but there's a future seen too. The potential is lost when people see the future and find themselves bound to a destiny, lost from their control, not just from the life they've already had, but the life they wanted or planned to have.

FlashForward isn't perfect. But I am so tired of hearing it labeled as a Lost knock-off, as too slow-moving or whatever else people find bad about it. FlashForward raises some of the most interesting questions and observations about human nature in regards to this loss of control, in regards to suffering, both of which I believe to be so important and central to human life, than I have seen in a while.

I will close this lengthy argument with the closing paragraph of the paper I wrote for my class. It was written before the latest two episodes of FlashForward were aired and therefore before Al's suicide. It may be repetitive of what I've already said, it may not be as articulate or clear or as in favor of the show as I am trying to be here. But it is an example of how truly fascinating this is:

"As an extension of this particular concept of human defiance versus submission to the fate’s commandment of suffering, there has been something tugging at my brain for some time now. This subject consistently reminds me of a new television series by the name of FlashForward. In the series, each of the characters is privy to a two minute and seventeen second “flashforward” (a vision with the clarity of a memory but of something that hasn’t yet happened) to a point approximately six months in the future. What people see brings them to do many things they may not have done had they not seen their future, especially those who see negative things in their flashforward (reverting to alcoholism after seven years of sobriety, having been murdered prior to that date, being in an extramarital affair with an unknown man, etc.) But what really surprises me is how some of the characters follow the strings, allow themselves to be drawn into the web of destiny or fate or whatever leads them to that place in the future, to that place where they would rather not go. Of course, the solution is not to simply kill oneself, although that would surely defy what is seen in the future. But when the woman avoids the man she will supposedly have an affair with, when the girl who sees herself as being “deservedly” murdered resolves to do absolutely no wrong in her life that would allow her such a fate, it reminds me of the strength of humanity to fight against what is to come. Here’s to hoping that some of them are actually capable of defying fate. Otherwise, the argument for humanity’s ability to use our small portion of agency to fight back will have been smacked down as completely false. If we can’t even stop the things we have been forewarned of, what hope is there when we don’t get that opportunity to see where the road goes?"

...the only thing I'm worried about? I'm only worried that FlashForward won't realize how smart it is (Heroes style... but I think FlashForward is already a lot stronger than Heroes was in the beginning) and ruin the beautiful study is has presented to us. Maybe I can even hope some of the dudes involved read this and realize what I'm getting out of it! ...but I doubt that. So the end.

Oh Movies! How I Long to See You! Let Me Count You...

2009-11-13T11:49:00.000-08:00

Up in the Air
...because I love that who seems to be the most successful Twilight actor played an annoying human and I am rooting a hundred percent for Anna Kendrick even though I have only seen the previews. Oh and George Clooney and Jason Reitman are fabulous too. I liked Thank You for Smoking far more than I liked Juno (I liked Juno plenty; but it was way overrated) and the previews just look stunning and I've only heard good things.

Fantastic Mr. Fox
...because, although sometimes I am not that into Wes Anderson, this looks wonderful. I didn't really pay it much attention until I finally saw the preview before Where the Wild Things Are and then thought to myself how wonderful that film would be. Meryl Streep and George Clooney hardly hurt my desire to see what looks like a very clever and quality animated film. Also, good reviews encourage me.

The Road
...because, although I've been back and forth on my expectations for this film ever since I heard about it, if Cormac McCarthy thinks it's a good adaptation of his magnificent novel, I might end up genuinely liking it. Plus, Viggo Mortensen does no wrong.

Precious
...because I like crying during movies. I'm a little apprehensive that it'll be overhyped and a replay of the whole Slumdog Millionaire craze (good, tear-jerking indie movie sweeps the awards... not that the two are the same movie because I've gotten the impression that Precious is no holds-barrel depressing and horrific as opposed to Slumdog Millionaire's general cheeriness despite the slums), but it's also been beloved by many, even if not by all. I can understand the fatigue, but I still liked Slumdog Millionaire too.

Invictus
...because I adore Morgan Freeman and am excited to see a movie that looks perfect for him. Not to mention that the trailer looks very strong, the plot is interesting, and Matt Damon is also a really fantastic actor. Clint Eastwood directing doesn't hurt it either.

The Lovely Bones
...because I fell in love with the book when I was required to read it the summer before my freshman year of high school, staying up until 9am finishing it, crying like a baby. Saioirse Ronan is a wonderful actress (one of the actually quite good parts of Atonement, as the Academy recognized her before), Peter Jackson is certainly a capable director, and although Mark Wahlberg can be kind of questionable, he did kick major ass in The Departed (Oscar nom!) and the rest of the cast looks solid. Oh and the trailer makes me cry every time I see it.

The Hurt Locker
...because I'm behind on the game and missed it over the summer and my feminine power side is just so excited that Kathryn Bigelow is being talked up as a Best Director possibility because it is still so sad how old-fashioned the film industry is. I love me some old white guy movies, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see alternatives succeed! Not to mention that I've only heard the best things about this movie and I enjoy quality action-centric films.

The Princess and the Frog
...because for all that Disney has done wrong, they made some awesome movies in the '90s and this seems like a good return to form. Maybe it won't be quite Pixar-level, but I still think it'll be an enjoyable ride.

2012
...because I am so curious as to see what happens after the world implodes.

Avatar
...because I want to be convinced that it is actually worth the hype (I doubt I will be). Alternatively, I look forward to telling everyone how it isn't good enough. But I love Sam Worthington, so I'd also like for it to succeed. Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see. I'm really wary of this movie.

Sherlock Holmes
...because it looks badass and Robert Downey Jr. is beyond amazing (not to mention that the rest of the cast is also quite strong and Guy Ritchie does make some good films... let's all forget that he remade the already nutty Swept Away...). I love action flicks too, if I didn't already make that part clear.

An Education
...because the critics told me to for Carey Mulligan and I am their slave (I wish I were lying).

A Serious Man
...because I've heard it is good. And I do like me some Coen brothers. And I went to my first bar mitzvah this year so now I'll all kinds of curious about the whole premise of this film.

A Single Man
...because I do quite like Colin Firth and want to see how he does in this (supposedly, fabulously).

Nine
...because I remember when I saw the trailer before I even heard most of the awards prediction possibilities about it and thought to myself "well this looks AWESOME" and watched the trailer about ten more times that evening. Also, just LOOK at that cast. And it's directed by Rob Marshall of Chicago... and I went back and rewatched Chicago for the first time in a while recently and remembered just how actually good it was. And those visuals? Oh god, I am exciting myself all over again for this movie.

The Blind Side
...because although it could easily be cheesy and lame and eh, I still find myself attracted to it in all its tear-jerking glory.

And god I hope that's all the movies I plan to see (there will be more, especially when the award nominations start rolling in and I realize which ones I'll need to see... fuck the Oscars for naming the nominees so late this year; I'll already be back at school with absolutely no time or a Netflix account... bizznatches). I also hope that most of these movies are worth seeing.

PS: Fuck tag limits. I also intended to tag: 2012, The Princess and the Frog, and Other Awards, but the stupid character max stopped me. >.<

Filmic Weekend: Filming Wal-Mart and Seeing Some Movies.

2009-11-07T13:47:00.001-08:00

Saw Where the Wild Things Are and The Damned United. After/before, yes, filming inside and outside of the local Wal-Mart for my film class. Yeah. I'm that cool.

I wanted to like Where the Wild Things Are more than I did. Not to say that I didn't like it; I actually quite liked the movie. But not as much as I wanted to. I'll admit it: I've never read the book. But I was still a bit disappointed at times. I was glad that there was no enormous annoying plot going on because it wasn't that kind of movie, more importantly relying on the relationships and on growing up and being a kid at the same time. And Max Records is the most adorable child I have ever seen, hands down. He's incredibly charming and sweet and playful and was perfect in the movie. And the beginning and end and most of the in-between really struck within me. But the movie was a whole... it's hard for me to say I loved the whole thing. It feels a lot like Across the Universe in some ways, in that it has so many great moments but overall, I can't say I was in love. But, no doubt, I did really enjoy it.

My roommate saw Paranormal Activity while I was in WTWTA, and I am surprised to hear that she was really disappointed and disliked it. Granted, I never really intended to see the movie, but it' surprising hearing people being disappointed by it. But whatevs, I doubt it's the best movie ever, and that's fine by me.

Then yesterday we went out and saw The Damned United. Now, believe me, my knowledge of British football relies on friends of mine who actually give a crap, most of whom are Manchester United fans. So I knew next to nothing going in, but that worked out fine. I wasn't as confused as I expected I might be. The movie itself was really, really good. I really enjoyed the bromance at the core of the movie and realizing how much I really adore Timothy Spall and Michael Sheen. I'm always sad when I see these awesome little films and think to myself, "eh, nobody's going to remember them in a couple months." But hey, the Academy surprised me last year with a nom for Richard Jenkins for The Visitor, so we'll see about Michael Sheen, eh? After being over-shadowed by Helen Mirren and then Frank Langella, I just feel like it's his turn to get noticed for being the awesome actor he is.

Also, saw previews for Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I've decided I'd really like to see (it looks so gooood. And George Clooney is just so smooooth). So many movies! And I'd also like to see A Serious Man before the weekend's out (but we'll see how that goes). In the meantime, lots of homework to do. 40 days.

I Hate Feeling So Behind Even Though There Is Still So Much To Arrive...

2009-11-01T08:22:00.000-08:00

Being a full time student + part time employee + college students who enjoys socializing in her spare time when she isn't doing a shitload of homework = less time to see movies. As it is, I am far behind both on Oscar movies and regular enjoyment movies (helloooo, Zombieland). I haven't been to the theatre in nearly three weeks when I saw a few new films, including Bright Star. So there have been movies I have missed and hopefully they will remain in theatres until next weekend when I take a short detour home for a couple days to catch up on TV, movies, and good food.

Movies I Would Like To See This Month: Where the Wild Things Are, Zombieland, Good Hair, An Education, The Road, The Damned United, A Serious Man.

The Road and An Education come out in time for Thanksgiving break, while I'm going to have to hurry up to see Zombieland and Where the Wild Things Are before they disappear from theatres. I'd also like to see Clive Owen in The Boys Are Back, but, come on, I'm already assigning myself the task of seeing 7 movies during a three day weekend plus a four and a half day break, which also involves crossing the state to visit family for half of that.

But winter break will be a lot more interesting. The past two winters have seen me watch movies like a crazy woman between Netflix and the theatre. It is quite a bit of fun to see me and try to equate to yourself how many movie tickets I buy each year. Next to food, it's probably my biggest outlet for spending money. And this doesn't include the scenarios where I ask my friends to go with me, they say they don't have the money, and I just pay for them because I've already seen like 5 movies by myself that season.

Which leads me to the hard part about these two short breaks: I'm not going home alone. My roommate has decided that she wants to tag along next weekend (but I can just drop her off at Paranormal Activity, which she really wants to see), and then another of my friends, who, as an international student, lives across the world, isn't going home for Thanksgiving break, will be accompanying me then. But this will happen! I must see these movies. Not only do I really have a vested interest in seeing them and, as a film student, I should be watching lots and lots of movies, but I am a NERD when it comes to awards season. For reals, yo.

And we're not even into the major season yet. Like I said, I'll have more time come winter break (approx. six weeks of laziness... and a day or two of meeting my brother's Brazilian girlfriend), but there will also be more movies. Invictus. Nine. The Lovely Bones. Sherlock Holmes. Precious. Avatar. Up in the Air. Any other of a host of last minute surprises and things that suddenly occur to me "oh hey, that looks awesome, I should see that." Not to mention the netflixing of movies I missed earlier, like The Hurt Locker. But anyways, the more I think about this, the crazier I go, and I can't go crazy just yet; still got a month and a half left of classes. Blegh on that. I would much rather just watch movies.

I did finally see Waltz with Bashir (one year later). How that did not win Best Foreign Film is beyond me.

On another note, considering how The Road is being reacted to so far, maybe I was too quick in my judgment to assume that it could never match up to the book. I have become more interested in seeing it as of late. Viggo Mortensen looks like he gives a fantastic performance (I was close to saying that he looks fantastic, but he doesn't, which is the point), and so I will go see The Road when it comes out. So color me excited (in a minimal way).

Television Shows I Will One Day (Re)Watch ... + Bright Star

2009-10-11T22:07:00.000-07:00

Rewatch:
- Battlestar Galactica (again; seen two times through, but will never get tired of... or have the time again...)
- Cowboy Bebop (I've seen it many times, but it's been years and recently I've been recalling just how truly amazing it is)
- True Blood (maybe I'll skim some of the first season, but I'd like to revisit it)
- Heroes (...first season. I saw it many times, but that was before the subsequent seasons were so bad)
- Glee (once the first season ends, I look forward to revisiting it and loving every moment)
- Chuck (...it's so good and I miss it so much. DON'T KILL ME; I never saw the season 1 finale)

Watch:
- Lost (when it finishes)
- Breaking Bad (...I'll start it eventually)
- Upstairs, Downstairs (I loved Gosford Park; this seems appropriate)
- My So-Called Life
- Freaks and Geeks

So mostly, I wrote this post because I really, really, really want to rewatch Cowboy Bebop. And Battlestar Galactica (but I always want to be watching BSG; I hope there is a parallel universe somewhere where all I do is watch BSG). But mostly, recently, particularly because I am (or rather, should be) writing a paper on Yoko Kanno, frontwoman of The Seatbelts, responsible for the brilliant soundtrack to the only anime I've ever given the time of day to. Cowboy Bebop was my favourite TV series prior to discovering Battlestar Galactica (yeah, I like me some space settings), and sometimes I forget why. Not because it's not brilliant, but because I haven't touched it in so long. I want so badly to have the thirteen (fifteen including the movie) hours necessary to just watch the whole thing. Stupid frakking homework.

On a brighter (no pun intended) note, I saw Bright Star earlier this afternoon. My mother (rightfully) thought it was slow, but I enjoyed the pace of the movie. It didn't feel slow to me because it didn't drag and the pace was steady; no rushing thither and hither (something that pissed me off about Becoming Jane was its sort-of-ending where the back-and-forth just contrasted far too much with the rest of the movie and was just blegh... but there are other reasons I don't like Becoming Jane that much that I won't get into here). Anyway, not only did I fall head-over-heels in love with the GORGEOUS Ben Whishaw, but I also loved Abbie Cornish's performance (as many have already noted in the critical world, but I don't have the bonus of advanced screenings and a career devoted to the habits that I have to find time to indulge). She was a real treat, as was the whole movie. I normally don't like historical/period romances very much. Atonement bothered me, Becoming Jane was annoying, the only ones I really tend to like are Jane Austen adaptations (Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice were both delightful, in my opinion). But I really did enjoy watching Bright Star and only felt about two ounces of guilty over it (but I blame that on my torn eye between the buzzed-about Abbie Cornish and the beautifulbeautifulbeautiful Ben Whishaw). And even if the movie wasn't a spectacular sensation, the delicacy of it and how well put together it was reflects very strongly on Jane Campion, who directed the film extremely well. No wonder she's one of the only three women to ever be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Director. And as Lina Wertmuller made Swept Away (comment on the politics all you want, that is one effed-up movie) and Sofia Coppola disgraced The Godfather, Part III (thank god she's a better writer/director than actress), I think she's probably my favourite of the small club. I know it's a tough season alongside James Cameron, Jason Reitman, Clint Eastwood, Peter Jackson, and even another woman (thank goodness!) Kathryn Bigelow, but I really admired Jane Campion's work in the direction of Bright Star. I just wonder to myself how long until someone updates Wikipedia with a listing of fact vs. fiction for the film (I know next to nothing about John Keats so I wouldn't know myself).

Anyway, that's all I've got to say for now. Might see Zombieland before the long weekend's out, but I wouldn't count on it. But Friday = Where the Wild Things Are! Please let it be amazing!

And Heroes!?

2009-10-10T16:47:00.001-07:00

This is the comment I posted in regards to EW.com's recap of the Heroes season four premiere:

"I was sure I was going to give Heroes up after this premiere, after being someone extremely proud of her commitment to Heroes all through three seasons no matter how bad, predictable, and lame the storylines and characters got. But then I watched the season premiere and although FAR from being good or properly redeeming, there were enough good points (and the bad points were comical enough) that I might actually bother to continue watching (that is, DVRed episodes when I find some spare time). I really like the carny folk, and for the first time in forever is Peter’s nice guy behaviour actually interesting and refreshing. And, although everything about the Matt/Sylar storyline referred to far better scenarios (firstly, the already noted BSG subconscious nestling cylons incredibly lamed-down by Ricky Worthy’s appearance; secondly, the use of a substance abuse program to refer to a substance no one else has in common like in season 2 of Dexter (except that Dexter wasn’t even trying to get better and his “power” of serial killing is far more interesting); and thirdly, the whole bad cop, uneasy marriage calls back to the far superior new series FlashForward’s main characters), I actually found Zachary Quinto’s performance to be wonderful. Of course, especially with Star Trek’s (and his) success, he’s really too good for the show anymore, but he was fun to watch. So Heroes is definitely nowhere near my favourite show like it used to be back in its first season, but I might actually bother watching. Plus, the way it’s going, it’s not going to last much longer anyway, right (God, I hope so)?"

So I suppose I might bother to keep watching. It's not exactly fun in the way it used to be because it's just lame television (that makes me say "WTF?" about every five minutes), but there's still a part of me that enjoys seeing those characters (well, maybe except for Claire... I hate her so...) do their weird things. Plus, the battle between Peter and Edgar-The-Fast-Dude-With-Swords was NICE; I've always been hard on Heroes for skimping on the whole power-battles thing and it was nice to actually see one, even if it was relatively short.

I Guess I'll Stand By House...

2009-10-10T14:35:00.000-07:00

Okay, I've changed my mind. Although I'm not as interested in House as I used to be, I don't think I'm going to be giving it up. Heroes on the other hand? While, I'm going to take a stab at the season premiere sometime tonight I think and then I'll make up my mind... but I'm pretty sure I'm just giving up on that one.

On a more movies oriented note, I finally saw The Informant! last night. I liked it, Matt Damon was great, I enjoyed seeing Scott Bakula about (related: I hope that he isn't done with Chuck; I really love him there as well), and Joel McHale, and the movie overall was very cool and quirky. But, not gonna lie, the last forty minutes or so were rather dull for me. This is partially attributable to this being a 9:10pm showing, but I heard several people as they exited mention falling asleep toward the end and I myself was feeling a bit drowsy. So not my favourite movie of the season, but I liked it, and I hope Matt Damon is taking off that weight as easily as he put it on. Oh, and a sidenote, I couldn't help but notice that despite the toupee and the oldmanish behaviour, beneath all the jazz, he still looks pretty young (he's still not 40). And it's kind of cool/bizarre to see actors playing older than they are, rather than the other way around (I'm sorry, but seeing older dudes with younger ladies on screen pretending that the age gap is much smaller than it is is kind of creepy. If the age gap is SUPPOSED to be wide, that's different, but when it's apparent how giant it is really as opposed to the story... blegh). But anyway, I would definitely support Matt Damon in his Best Actor attempts (although, with the plethora of films coming out this fall, I might relegate him to just a Best Actor (Comedy) at the Golden Globes...), and I'd be totally up for Scott Bakula for Best Supporting Actor (the real competition there thus far is Christoph Waltz, whom I am totally rooting for thus far). Best Picture/Best Director? Eh... there are way many better looking movies coming out/already come out, even with the inflated Best 10 Picture nominees this year (which leads everyone to think "oh maybe THIS random unexpected movie will be nominated" and I'm like "uhh... it's only 10 best nominees, not fifty, dudes").

Anyway, that's my mild update. Now maybe I'll go try to watch Heroes. Maybe it'll be so bad it'll make me think "hey, trekking through Moby Dick slowly but surely sounds like a fabulous idea!" Ooh... I like this thought...

Return of the Chuck: How NBC Will Probably Ruin It

2009-10-09T14:38:00.000-07:00

So with all the excitement over at EW.com about Chuck's possible earlier return, a lot of good points have been brought up that are very important to Chuck's long term success rather than Chuck coming back as soon as possible.

a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.

b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.

The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.

Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.

Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.

Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.

PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.