Almost New Year's Greetings!
I've been reflecting on the fact that, in spite of anticipating having more time and more brain space to like have a life and an identity outside of work/training and stuff, that has not in practice actually been the case.
This is evident in many things, not the least of which being that this year signals the smallest number of blog posts I've written in a year since beginning this little blog, and the first year since its inception that I have ever-so-barely hit my 52-movies-per-year goal. I watched my 52nd movie last weekend after somewhat-frantically realizing that if I didn't aggressively step up my movie-watching game this month, I would fall short; as a result, I watch 9 movies this month. Obviously in some ways that's great, because that's a lot of movies... but it's also a cue that something is going on here that needs my attention.
My post in July definitely signaled a turning point for me, although where that turning point is leading me I'm still unsure. In spite of a very strong, rational, personal values and self-care-driven commitment to movies and writing about them, I sat to write that post and just didn't want to. With regard to this particular writing endeavor, I've been feeling strikingly blah and uninspired to varying extents ever since.
I've entertained the possibility that this is just something I've--what? outgrown? lost interest in?--but that doesn't feel right at all when I really sit with it. I would certainly have a hard time giving myself permission to opt out of something I've committed myself to, but that's not why I'm rejecting that potential explanation. It just doesn't sound right to me. And for that matter, if movies and talking about them in this forum is something I've lost interest in, it's the lack of interest that's a problem rather than the endeavor itself.
I think the more honest and difficult explanation is that I still have not figured out how to find a healthier and more livable balance in my life. To the contrary, I now get home later than I want to almost every work night and feel frenzied most of the time by all the things I am under-attending to when I'm not at work. That is in part because I have to find a job after my postdoc ends in a few months, which is of course a demanding exploit that has involved time off work with compensatory over-scheduling of clients on my non-off-work days to avoid disrupting their treatment while I'm away. It's also because my commute is way too long. It's also because I don't like saying no to things at work because I like my work. It's also because I have definitely not yet figured out how to set and adhere to boundaries that empower me to have a life with room to breathe.
Sometimes I despair because it seems like the era of my life in which I can actually have that breathing room will never come. There are certainly basically no people I can think of who seem to have that room, so the lack of role models is deeply disheartening. There's always another thing to hustle for, another thing where you tell yourself it'll just be like this for another few days/weeks/months/years and you can make it work. For godsakes, I don't even have kids yet (should I be lucky enough to have them at all).
Aside: The first person to tell me the era I'm longing for will come when I retire will be pinched.
ANYWAY. My lack of a sense of inspiration about this project, I believe, is a direct by-product of this imbalance, anxiety, frustration, exhaustion, and losing-battle struggle. It is therefore a thing I must fight to win back. Consider this the first of however many resolutions for 2016.
That, of course, and my vow to watch 52 movies.
Enjoy a wonderful evening tonight and a peaceful and happy New Year!
{Heart}
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Monday, November 30, 2015
Happy Belated Thanksgiving! 2015 Edition
Hihi,
In the grand and somewhat irregular tradition of this blog, I belatedly extend to you well wishes for an excellent Thanksgiving. I hope you all enjoyed abundant delicious things and pleasant time with loved ones!
Husband and I are just returning from where-I-grew-up home after an excellent week. We ate many Thanksgiving- and non-Thanksgiving-themed things, such as:
Hurray for holidays and time at home!
Looking back at my other post-Thanksgiving posts, I'm glad to report that this fall-to-winter transition hasn't been as difficult as previous years when I was sick and/or overworked and/or overtired and/or pretty much miserable. Although the last two months or so have been very busy, that has generally been due to positive things.
Por ejemplo: I took a trip to a beautiful city for an exciting convention, during which I presented a poster based on findings from my dissertation and enjoyed bonus quality time with friends.
In the grand and somewhat irregular tradition of this blog, I belatedly extend to you well wishes for an excellent Thanksgiving. I hope you all enjoyed abundant delicious things and pleasant time with loved ones!
Husband and I are just returning from where-I-grew-up home after an excellent week. We ate many Thanksgiving- and non-Thanksgiving-themed things, such as:
 |
| Do not be deceived by the styrofoam: dangerous amounts of deliciousness contained. |
Hurray for holidays and time at home!
Looking back at my other post-Thanksgiving posts, I'm glad to report that this fall-to-winter transition hasn't been as difficult as previous years when I was sick and/or overworked and/or overtired and/or pretty much miserable. Although the last two months or so have been very busy, that has generally been due to positive things.
Por ejemplo: I took a trip to a beautiful city for an exciting convention, during which I presented a poster based on findings from my dissertation and enjoyed bonus quality time with friends.
Fun times notwithstanding, like many/most people I imagine, I find it hard to fight the FOMO* whenever I have the opportunity to go do stuff, especially when the stuff includes traveling to nice places, seeing people I love, and/or doing things that are exciting. Those opportunities are very difficult to turn down. On the other hand, I am hoping things slow down at least a little for the next month or two. I could use some more at-home time and less rushing around time, knowing that the chance to see wonderful people and things is ever enticing.
On that note: part of what was so pleasant about our recent trip home was that it was, facilitated by soaring airfare prices, longer than we initially intended. Instead of what has typically been a glorified long weekend, Husband and I were where-I-grew-up home for a little over a week (because flying there and back on Mondays at exceedingly early hours is an excellent strategy for eluding Thanksgiving-induced airfare hikes).
Being in one place for a while with only a moderate agenda of things to do was pretty glorious, not least of which because it enabled us to balance the need to do stuff and the need to do no stuff.
Somewhere nestled spectacularly in the middle of these two dueling needs was the "task" of watching two of my favorite comedies with my family. In continuation of my advocacy for the importance of humor, I would love to share them with you, as well!
Comedy #1:
"Drop Dead Gorgeous" (1999)
I've previously made brief allusion to my adoration for this film. To summarize the reasons this movie is awesome:
- It boasts an excellent lady-dominated cast including a sparkling Kirsten Dunst, hysterical Ellen Barkin and Allison Janney (CJ!!!), an as-yet undiscovered Amy Adams, a sweet and weird Brittany Murphy, and a maniacal Kirstie Alley.
- Denise Richards is also pretty wonderful. I like to take bets with myself as to whether her lack of a midwestern accent was an intentional choice to make her character stand out as a snooty posturer, or whether... accents just... aren't a part of her skill set. Either interpretation is delightful!
- It came early in the growing mockumentary genre and set the bar unfairly high.
- The plot takes multiple unanticipated twists that are equally surprising and hilarious.
- The story focuses on the heroine's drive to fulfill her career goals and therefore is a wonderful predecessor for other (still annoyingly rare) lady-driven comedies that don't reflexively and often unnecessarily include a romantic subplot.
- It is line-for-line one of the most humorously dense movies I've ever seen. Every word is golden.
- It contains one of my favorite out-of-left-field lines of all time, immediately following this little outburst:
If you haven't already, SEE THIS MOVIE.
Comedy #2:
"Some Like It Hot" (1959)
I've already discussed my deep love for Marilyn Monroe, which I appear to have successfully transmitted to my little sister via this incredible film. We watched it together when she visited Husband and I a few years ago, and to my delight requested that we re-watch it over our Thanksgiving visit.
I'm sure there are plenty of comedies from this era about which we've all forgotten, so who knows if this one is at all illustrative of the standard of the day. That being said, I watch movies like "Some Like It Hot" and get mad at the crap we put up with in the comedy department today. Nevertheless, there are so many reasons a film like this one has endured; it glitters and pops with incredible writing and intoxicating performances by legendary performers.
Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon are so much fun to watch as they experience firsthand the perils and indignities of womanhood in prohibition-era America, including negotiating unwanted advances from hands-y men and breaking themselves of the habit of leading whilst dancing.
In lots of little wholly unexpected ways, this is a remarkably progressive and even feminist film in how it forces men into a woman's perspective.
But of course we're ultimately watching Marilyn. She is absolutely electric in her beauty, sweetness, and vulnerability.
 |
And her dresses!! They're jaw-dropping by any era's standard!
 |
| Yow! |
If you haven't yet, SEE THIS MOVIE TOO.
It's about time for me to start getting ready for bed since I must make the transition back into the post-vacation work routine tomorrow. I hope you enjoy the movie recommendations if they haven't made your acquaintance already!
{Heart}
* = Fear Of Missing Out, an at times chronic and debilitating condition.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
A Halloween Sampler for All Souls: 2015 Edition!
Halloooooooooooooooooo!
It is time for the treasured tradition of reviewing the movies I've seen so far this year and offering up the creepiest selections in celebration of this spooky time of the year! Yay!
To continue with Halloween Sampler protocol, each of this year's frightening films will be rated not only according to my usual 1 - 5 rating scale, but also with the scary/intense rating system of 1 - 5 exclamation points (e.g., ! = not at all scary, !!!!! = so scary!).
Let's dive in, shall we?
It is time for the treasured tradition of reviewing the movies I've seen so far this year and offering up the creepiest selections in celebration of this spooky time of the year! Yay!
To continue with Halloween Sampler protocol, each of this year's frightening films will be rated not only according to my usual 1 - 5 rating scale, but also with the scary/intense rating system of 1 - 5 exclamation points (e.g., ! = not at all scary, !!!!! = so scary!).
Let's dive in, shall we?
"The Omen" (1976)
Rating: 3.5 Scary Rating: !!!
This year's throw-backy entry! This classic "bad seed" tale has many delightful and unexpected twists and turns, including but not limited to a trip to an Italian cemetery, spooked giraffes, infuriating outdated psychobabble, and awesome dun-dun-DUNNN moments in a photography darkroom. Drawback: it's possible this movie was a player in the freak-out over Rottweilers whose present-day manifestation is the freak-out over pitbulls. But the dogs, for all their forboding and ominousness, look beautiful?
"Nightcrawler" (2014)
Rating: 3.5 Scary Rating: !!!!
In an earlier post, I already mentioned how over it I am with the now-quite-tropey character piece centered on a soulless male psychopath. That being said, "Nightcrawler" makes for a pretty potent creepfest from beginning to end, thereby making it perfect for Halloween.
Jake Gyllenhaal does a deeply disconcerting turn as Louis Bloom, a reptile doing its darndest to impersonate a human. Not actually, but that's really what he seems like. He's actually an off-putting screw-up with delusions of grandeur whose aim is to be the best carnage documenter for the local news. And by "best" I mean "most sociopathic." It's a charming, breezy romp! (In case it wasn't clear: sarcasm.)
Jake Gyllenhaal does a deeply disconcerting turn as Louis Bloom, a reptile doing its darndest to impersonate a human. Not actually, but that's really what he seems like. He's actually an off-putting screw-up with delusions of grandeur whose aim is to be the best carnage documenter for the local news. And by "best" I mean "most sociopathic." It's a charming, breezy romp! (In case it wasn't clear: sarcasm.)
"The Blob"(1958)
Rating: 4 Scary Rating: !
This year's even throw-backier offering!
Also: STEVEN McQueen??!!!
This film was this year's superb selection for our viewing-whilst-jack-o'-lantern-carving pleasure. It is a completely absurd delight. The effects become increasingly desperate as the movie progresses. The movie appears to periodically forget that it's telling the "chilling" tale of a gelatinous, carnivorous interstellar being possibly bent on world destruction while it instead postures as a dreamy little romance. THAT THEME SONG. WHY IS IT SO PERKY?
Perhaps the only truly spooky part of this movie is the oddly prescient final quip that the world will be safe from the eponymous blob "as long as the Arctic stays cold." And all this time I was thinking the blob was communism, it was actually catastrophic global climate change!
Also: STEVEN McQueen??!!!
This film was this year's superb selection for our viewing-whilst-jack-o'-lantern-carving pleasure. It is a completely absurd delight. The effects become increasingly desperate as the movie progresses. The movie appears to periodically forget that it's telling the "chilling" tale of a gelatinous, carnivorous interstellar being possibly bent on world destruction while it instead postures as a dreamy little romance. THAT THEME SONG. WHY IS IT SO PERKY?
Perhaps the only truly spooky part of this movie is the oddly prescient final quip that the world will be safe from the eponymous blob "as long as the Arctic stays cold." And all this time I was thinking the blob was communism, it was actually catastrophic global climate change!
"Let the Fire Burn" (2013)
Rating: 5 Scary Rating: !!!!
This year's documentary offering!
This film tells the harrowing story of the slow-brewing, ultimately disastrous and deadly conflict between MOVE, an increasingly cornered and radicalized African-American led activist group, and Philadelphia police and elected officials in 1985.
Although the film isn't set up to be a horror story, it is nevertheless disturbing, frightening, and chilling just as much as it is also sickening and heartbreaking. The title of the movie refers to then-mayor Wilson Goode's instructions to firefighters on the scene after police dropped an incendiary bomb on MOVE's occupied headquarters. The aftermath is not only an indictment of City leaders' overly militarized response to a fringe group, but also its willingness to destroy and never rebuild the otherwise-not-involved surrounding community.
This film tells the harrowing story of the slow-brewing, ultimately disastrous and deadly conflict between MOVE, an increasingly cornered and radicalized African-American led activist group, and Philadelphia police and elected officials in 1985.
Although the film isn't set up to be a horror story, it is nevertheless disturbing, frightening, and chilling just as much as it is also sickening and heartbreaking. The title of the movie refers to then-mayor Wilson Goode's instructions to firefighters on the scene after police dropped an incendiary bomb on MOVE's occupied headquarters. The aftermath is not only an indictment of City leaders' overly militarized response to a fringe group, but also its willingness to destroy and never rebuild the otherwise-not-involved surrounding community.
"A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night" (2014)
Rating: 4 Scary Rating: !!!
This year's contemporary offering!
"A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night" is truly a movie after my heart. It's like "Let the Right One In" (2008) and "Sin City" (2005) had a baby that was raised by "Persepolis" (2007), but with an awesome soundtrack.
And skateboarding.
It's visually stunning, beautifully and hauntingly atmospheric, intoxicating and transfixing. I've never seen anything truly like it, but I hope to see a hell of a lot more. Ana Lily Amirpour, I've got an eager eye on you!
Also there's a cat.
Really, what more could I ask for?
I hope you all enjoy an expertly titrated mix of spookiness and fun this Halloween! Happy Hauntings!!
{Heart}
{Heart}
Friday, September 4, 2015
Passed!, or: How to Conquer EPPP in 67 Easy Steps
Greetings,
I am so exceedingly pleased to inform you that I passed the Examination for the Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) this week. That means, once I've completed some pretty straightforward remaining paperwork, that I will finally, FINALLY be a licensed clinical psychologist.
In plainer language, that means I'm finally a real, live, full-blown professional psychologist.
Since I've made it through this most recent and possibly final gauntlet of training in clinical psychology, I am proud to make available to you, dear readers, the Psychocinematic Licensure Study System, or PLSS (as in PLSSsssssss let this be overrrrrrrrrrrrr). The system boasts a 100% success rate, based on my sample of one.
To pass EPPP according to my system, just follow the exceedingly torturous steps below!
To anyone with this terrible exam in their future, good luck and may God have mercy on your souls! To everyone else, just be grateful.
{Heart}
* = I/O is industrial/organizational psychology, for which one has to get an entirely different degree if one wants to be an industrial/organizational psychologist. You cannot be an industrial/organizational psychologist if you have only gotten training as a clinical psychologist. There is literally no reason I/O should be on the credentialing examination for CLINICAL psychologists.
I am so exceedingly pleased to inform you that I passed the Examination for the Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) this week. That means, once I've completed some pretty straightforward remaining paperwork, that I will finally, FINALLY be a licensed clinical psychologist.
In plainer language, that means I'm finally a real, live, full-blown professional psychologist.
Since I've made it through this most recent and possibly final gauntlet of training in clinical psychology, I am proud to make available to you, dear readers, the Psychocinematic Licensure Study System, or PLSS (as in PLSSsssssss let this be overrrrrrrrrrrrr). The system boasts a 100% success rate, based on my sample of one.
To pass EPPP according to my system, just follow the exceedingly torturous steps below!
- Ambivalently acquire study materials, maximizing the number of free things
- Read through the entire study guide you got from a colleague, underlining an absurdly high proportion of the text as if that's somehow going to help your retention
- Meet with said colleague for "study sessions," and by "study sessions" I mean "friend dates during which you eat good things, gossip, and half-heartedly answer 3-5 practice questions"
- Take first practice exam
- Fail utterly
- Feel like a fraud
- Question how you earned a doctorate while evidently learning so little
- Question everything
- PANIC
- Avoid studying for 4-6 weeks
- Feel justified in avoiding studying because the whole thing is bullshit anyway
- Toy with the idea of taking exam 3 months ahead of time
- Spring for $30 flashcard iPhone app during a brief pendulum-swing from righteous avoidance into overcompensating hysteria
- Attempt to use flashcards
- Get angry anew about how little you know after reading that ENTIRE GODDAMNED STUDY GUIDE
- RAGE ADDITIONALLY ABOUT I/O* BEING ON THE EXAM
- Return to flashcards
- Gripe endlessly to colleagues about:
- how stressful the test is
- how much it sucks that everyone finds the test so stressful
- how it's stupid that everyone finds the test so stressful, as we are all smart and you only have to get a 75!!
- how DO THE TEST MAKERS NOT UNDERSTAND THAT PROFESSIONALS HAVE ACCESS TO GOOGLE. I DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE KUDER-RICHARDSON FORMULA IS IN MY EVERYDAY LIFE.
- how if I'm going to be expected to know all this shit about psychiatric medications, does that mean I'll be paid commensurate with psychiatrists after I pass?? No?? Then fuck you.
- how aforementioned rageful oppositionality to the stupidity of the test makes studying emotionally impossible, and finally
- the agonizing realization that the myths that we will ever, EVER be done proving ourselves and that the endless hurdles of graduate training do in fact have an end, those myths are lies, LIES (sob!)
- Come to terms with maybe being a nanny or waitress since passing exam might be impossible
- Wonder if one could ever earn enough tips to pay off student loan debt
- Consider possibility of skipping town to be a waitress in a foreign land where debtors could never find you
- At recommendation of one griped-at colleague, begin system of reinforcement for short intervals of testing
- Invest in a high-quality sticker chart
- Be embarrassed at how motivated you, an adult, are by stickers
- Supplement sticker chart with additional reinforcers (e.g., white cheddar popcorn, Facebook time, and depressingly, paying bills)
- Rapidly devolve into a time spent in study:reinforcement ratio of 1:5
- Discover that you don't even know the names for therapies you *DO*, apparently
- Take second practice test
- Seemingly impossibly, do WORSE on second practice test than you did on the first one
- Lapse into brief period of inefficacy-induced malaise
- Get a studying-stress-induced cold that refuses to vacate your body for ~3 weeks
- Scuttle plans to take exam 3 months early, settle for taking it right on time
- Grudgingly begin sacrificing significant portions of weekends to studying, but still refuse to find time to study at work--except during exceedingly boring meetings
- Observe steady, predictable decline in self-care as studying inexorably takes over your life
- At least, continue to accumulate stickers on sticker chart?
- Become embarrassed anew at the sense of accomplishment you experience in counting the number of stickers you've accumulated
- Finally cease avoidance and sit down to "schedule" (translation: "pay $700 for") exam
- Discover that there are literally no testing appointments available for the next month in the entire major metropolitan area in which you live
- Don't even freak out because the freak out parts of your brain have died
- Do, however, discover that the rage parts of your brain are still quite alive and well when you learn that the company that runs the test prompts you to anxiety-purchase practice tests as you're waiting to schedule your exam?!?!
- Apply for extension of limited permit so it doesn't expire 10 days after your now-behind-schedule test date
- Start an at-work sticker chart
- WHAT EVEN IS MORITA THERAPY SERIOUSLY
- Finish going through all the iPhone app's flash card tests twice
- Create an iPhone app flash card deck of only the extra special hard flashcards--feel like a badass for pushing yourself so hard
- Contemplate what you have become
- Make reference to material you studied and learned a hot second ago in sessions as if you'd known that stuff all along
- Shift focus to again taking practice tests, considering this move both a) a logical next step in your study strategy and b) exposure to a deeply triggering stimulus
 |
| NO. |
- Become filled with feminist rage that questions regarding the cultural universality mens' preferred waist:hip ratio in women are in your study materials because WHAT RELEVANCE COULD THAT *POSSIBLY* HAVE TO THE PRACTICE OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
- Suspect that the most assuredly male writers of the test include such questions for the sole purpose of subtly oppressing their female colleagues because the patriarchy reigns always, even where you least expect it
- For the first time ever, pass a practice test (by narrowest possible margin)
- Get ridiculously cocky
- Take more practice tests
- Continue to score within passing range on subsequent practice tests
- Become insufferable in your pridefulness
- Write the majority of this post in the days leading up to the exam as one final bid for more avoidance
- Arrive at day of exam
- Arrive at predictably anonymous-looking building to take exam
- Provide two forms of identification, multiple palm scans, a photograph, a blood sample, a hair sample, fingernail clippings, and a pinky promise that you will never ever break the precious secrets of the exam before being admitted to take the exam
- Struggle miserably, constantly fending off panic and despair, for four and a half hours
- Stagger out of the testing room feeling as if you've been struck by a large vehicle
- Get handed, alarmingly perfunctorily, a folded piece of paper with your results IMMEDIATELY after all that staggering--on just a NORMAL PIECE OF PAPER like it's NOTHING
- Numbly assess precisely how far away you would need to be from the waiting area to avoid disturbing people with your wails and moans should you have failed
- Decide the bathroom down the hall is good enough I guess
- Nervously check results
- SUCCESSFULLY PASS EXAM
- PROFIT!!(??)
To anyone with this terrible exam in their future, good luck and may God have mercy on your souls! To everyone else, just be grateful.
{Heart}
* = I/O is industrial/organizational psychology, for which one has to get an entirely different degree if one wants to be an industrial/organizational psychologist. You cannot be an industrial/organizational psychologist if you have only gotten training as a clinical psychologist. There is literally no reason I/O should be on the credentialing examination for CLINICAL psychologists.
Friday, August 7, 2015
36 Angry Men: A Celebration of (Actually Good) Remakes
Hello friends!
Last week I shared my undying love and admiration for JLawASchu, aka the best celebrity friendship ever. Although I noted that I had already divulged my affinity for Jennifer Lawrence, my most recent post is the first time I’d mentioned how much I truly enjoy Amy Schumer.
Generally speaking, her show is pretty brilliant. It’s inventive and funny, fresh and intelligent, but also childishly gross in a smart-girls-like-poop-jokes-too kind of way. While I very frequently laugh my ass off watching “Inside Amy Schumer,” it’s often a painful kind of laughter. The humor in Schumer’s show increasingly revolves around the dual and inescapably linked themes of feminism and internalized sexism.
One of the show’s boldest episodes was an at times shot-for-shot remake of Sidney Lumet's “12 Angry Men” (1957) (as evidence of the show’s delightful penchant for raunch, the full episode title is “12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer”).
The crime under dispute in the show’s version is Schumer deigning to believe she’s “hot enough for cable.” It’s honestly a pretty brutal episode, because even as it skewers male entitlement to female objectification, the arguments about Schumer’s insufficient hotness so embody that no-but-dudes-ACTUALLY-talk-this-way-without-hearing-how-unforgiveably-douchey-they-sound dynamic that very actively pervades our consumerist and appearance-overvaluing society.
Feminism ever so briefly and temporarily aside, as a film lover it’s just a fucking great episode and it enhances Schumer ever more in my esteem.
If you’re in the mood for EVEN MORE ANGRY MEN, I strongly recommend Nikita Mikhalkov's “12” (2007), a Russian remake of the original film.
Not altogether unlike the Schumer remake, there are moments of delight and aching heartbreak in “12” (although maybe the painful moments hurt a bit more than in the one that aired on Comedy Central). Perhaps obviously unlike Schumer’s iteration, the movie updates and Russianizes the narrative in a manner that breathes vibrant life into the '50s narrative.
In “12,” the accused is a Chechen youth whose family was brutally killed in the conflict between Russia and Chechnya and who was subsequently adopted by a Russian military officer. The youth stands accused when the officer is also murdered.
Unlike Lumet's film, in which the action is fully contained in the court house, “12” is based in a school’s dilapidated, freezing gymnasium because the court house’s facilities are being renovated and travels in flashes to key moments in the Chechen boy’s life and to his confinement in an austere jail cell. The narrative is interwoven with themes of cultural bias in Russian society, ethical indifference born of political corruption, and lack of hope for, or even interest in, justice.
What makes “12 Angry Men” so special, beyond the conceit of its self-imposed limitations (12 strangers stuck in a room together until they unanimously agree on their answer to a life-or-death question), is that it actively brings to light the frailty of human reasoning. Each man is called out for his biases, faulty assumptions, intellectual laziness, passivity, and lack of empathy as he idly and indifferently frets about making a train or getting back to his job even as he holds another man’s life in his hands. Each iteration of this narrative starkly lays bare these universal human shortcomings and nevertheless upholds the power of just one person willing to stand in the way of the steamroller of intellectual, emotional, and ethical weakness in the name of justice. For anyone deeply invested in social justice, these stories are incredibly powerful calls to arms.
While Schumer’s version is bite-sized (under 30 minutes), “12” is quite the epic at 2 hours and 40 minutes. The former is streamable on Hulu and Comedy Central's website (if you have access through your cable provider), and the latter is streamable on Netflix. I very adamantly recommend both.
I hope you enjoy!
{Heart}
Last week I shared my undying love and admiration for JLawASchu, aka the best celebrity friendship ever. Although I noted that I had already divulged my affinity for Jennifer Lawrence, my most recent post is the first time I’d mentioned how much I truly enjoy Amy Schumer.
Generally speaking, her show is pretty brilliant. It’s inventive and funny, fresh and intelligent, but also childishly gross in a smart-girls-like-poop-jokes-too kind of way. While I very frequently laugh my ass off watching “Inside Amy Schumer,” it’s often a painful kind of laughter. The humor in Schumer’s show increasingly revolves around the dual and inescapably linked themes of feminism and internalized sexism.
One of the show’s boldest episodes was an at times shot-for-shot remake of Sidney Lumet's “12 Angry Men” (1957) (as evidence of the show’s delightful penchant for raunch, the full episode title is “12 Angry Men Inside Amy Schumer”).
The crime under dispute in the show’s version is Schumer deigning to believe she’s “hot enough for cable.” It’s honestly a pretty brutal episode, because even as it skewers male entitlement to female objectification, the arguments about Schumer’s insufficient hotness so embody that no-but-dudes-ACTUALLY-talk-this-way-without-hearing-how-unforgiveably-douchey-they-sound dynamic that very actively pervades our consumerist and appearance-overvaluing society.
 |
| Okay maybe guys don't literally say *this,* but it's implied. |
Feminism ever so briefly and temporarily aside, as a film lover it’s just a fucking great episode and it enhances Schumer ever more in my esteem.
If you’re in the mood for EVEN MORE ANGRY MEN, I strongly recommend Nikita Mikhalkov's “12” (2007), a Russian remake of the original film.
Not altogether unlike the Schumer remake, there are moments of delight and aching heartbreak in “12” (although maybe the painful moments hurt a bit more than in the one that aired on Comedy Central). Perhaps obviously unlike Schumer’s iteration, the movie updates and Russianizes the narrative in a manner that breathes vibrant life into the '50s narrative.
In “12,” the accused is a Chechen youth whose family was brutally killed in the conflict between Russia and Chechnya and who was subsequently adopted by a Russian military officer. The youth stands accused when the officer is also murdered.
Unlike Lumet's film, in which the action is fully contained in the court house, “12” is based in a school’s dilapidated, freezing gymnasium because the court house’s facilities are being renovated and travels in flashes to key moments in the Chechen boy’s life and to his confinement in an austere jail cell. The narrative is interwoven with themes of cultural bias in Russian society, ethical indifference born of political corruption, and lack of hope for, or even interest in, justice.
What makes “12 Angry Men” so special, beyond the conceit of its self-imposed limitations (12 strangers stuck in a room together until they unanimously agree on their answer to a life-or-death question), is that it actively brings to light the frailty of human reasoning. Each man is called out for his biases, faulty assumptions, intellectual laziness, passivity, and lack of empathy as he idly and indifferently frets about making a train or getting back to his job even as he holds another man’s life in his hands. Each iteration of this narrative starkly lays bare these universal human shortcomings and nevertheless upholds the power of just one person willing to stand in the way of the steamroller of intellectual, emotional, and ethical weakness in the name of justice. For anyone deeply invested in social justice, these stories are incredibly powerful calls to arms.
While Schumer’s version is bite-sized (under 30 minutes), “12” is quite the epic at 2 hours and 40 minutes. The former is streamable on Hulu and Comedy Central's website (if you have access through your cable provider), and the latter is streamable on Netflix. I very adamantly recommend both.
I hope you enjoy!
{Heart}
Friday, July 31, 2015
TYSG: Freebie Edition
Hi guys,
So I'm just barely sliding under my self-imposed minimum one-post-per-month deadline, and although I have at least one, possibly two ideas for movies I'd like to write about, my brain suddenly, instantly, and utterly without warning atrophied upon my return home.
It's a shame, because a) I'm really excited to write about Amy Schumer's "Trainwreck" (2015) and also possibly "The Babadook" (2014) and b) as I left work today, I was really pleased with myself for having an unusually productive Friday for once. In postdoc land, Friday is research day, which means I spend it alone in an office with a computer, woefully under-socially-stimulated and resultantly inexcusably under-focused. Not today! I finished not one, but TWO (semi-) major tasks today!! I assumed my expansive sense of accomplishment would carry me on a high tide of motivation through the rest of my evening, fueling abundant, enthusiastic film analysis writing that would flow out of me with ease and abandon.
Wrong. WRONGGGGGG.
As soon as I got home, I felt like I'd been either hit with a tranquilizer dart or drugged, or both. I actually recently opened the window to let fresh air in because I was concerned I was getting carbon monoxide poisoning (from air conditioning window units? Is that possible? Or am I confusing that with the recent, terrifying micro-epidemic of Legionnaires' disease?). I felt so bleh, so foggy-brained, so heavy-limbed. To my immense chagrin and disappointment, I was and am not mentally where I want to be in order to write something I'll feel proud of, especially about two movies I really enjoyed.
It is precisely in a moment like this, when I'm feeling all sorts of mentally, physically, and emotionally not great, topped with frustration with myself as I have to let go of my hopes for a weekend evening, that I desperately need a little TYSG-style pick-me-up.
Celebrity news (via Husband) to the rescue!!
For those of us who care to remember: I really love Jennifer Lawrence.
I ALSO really love Amy Schumer.
As I was feeling all wonky and beating myself up for feeling all wonky, my genius Husband gave me the following news:
GUYS.
GUYS.
THEY WENT ON A JET SKI TOGETHER.
THEY'RE KIND OF MAYBE FRIENDS NOW.
What makes this extra adorable is that Schumer might be as star-struck by and girl-crushy on Jennifer Lawrence as I am (along with all humans who have hearts, brains, and good taste in lady celebrities). Evidence:
So while I don't have a substantive movie-based post for you and I'm still feeling a little wonky with no real explanation other than sometimes our bodies and brains just don't perform the way we expect them to, I'm still feeling lucky and grateful the universe felt like doing me a little favor today.
Hope you enjoy this treat as much as I do!
{Heart}
So I'm just barely sliding under my self-imposed minimum one-post-per-month deadline, and although I have at least one, possibly two ideas for movies I'd like to write about, my brain suddenly, instantly, and utterly without warning atrophied upon my return home.
It's a shame, because a) I'm really excited to write about Amy Schumer's "Trainwreck" (2015) and also possibly "The Babadook" (2014) and b) as I left work today, I was really pleased with myself for having an unusually productive Friday for once. In postdoc land, Friday is research day, which means I spend it alone in an office with a computer, woefully under-socially-stimulated and resultantly inexcusably under-focused. Not today! I finished not one, but TWO (semi-) major tasks today!! I assumed my expansive sense of accomplishment would carry me on a high tide of motivation through the rest of my evening, fueling abundant, enthusiastic film analysis writing that would flow out of me with ease and abandon.
Wrong. WRONGGGGGG.
As soon as I got home, I felt like I'd been either hit with a tranquilizer dart or drugged, or both. I actually recently opened the window to let fresh air in because I was concerned I was getting carbon monoxide poisoning (from air conditioning window units? Is that possible? Or am I confusing that with the recent, terrifying micro-epidemic of Legionnaires' disease?). I felt so bleh, so foggy-brained, so heavy-limbed. To my immense chagrin and disappointment, I was and am not mentally where I want to be in order to write something I'll feel proud of, especially about two movies I really enjoyed.
It is precisely in a moment like this, when I'm feeling all sorts of mentally, physically, and emotionally not great, topped with frustration with myself as I have to let go of my hopes for a weekend evening, that I desperately need a little TYSG-style pick-me-up.
Celebrity news (via Husband) to the rescue!!
For those of us who care to remember: I really love Jennifer Lawrence.
I ALSO really love Amy Schumer.
As I was feeling all wonky and beating myself up for feeling all wonky, my genius Husband gave me the following news:
GUYS.
GUYS.
THEY WENT ON A JET SKI TOGETHER.
THEY'RE KIND OF MAYBE FRIENDS NOW.
What makes this extra adorable is that Schumer might be as star-struck by and girl-crushy on Jennifer Lawrence as I am (along with all humans who have hearts, brains, and good taste in lady celebrities). Evidence:
My reaction to Jennifer Lawrence saying my name at comicon. Vid by #roadmanager pic.twitter.com/VlsIFCszUx
— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 10, 2015
So while I don't have a substantive movie-based post for you and I'm still feeling a little wonky with no real explanation other than sometimes our bodies and brains just don't perform the way we expect them to, I'm still feeling lucky and grateful the universe felt like doing me a little favor today.
Hope you enjoy this treat as much as I do!
{Heart}
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Snap Judgment: "Jurassic World"
Bonsoir!
Husband and I are wrapping up the second half of an excellent European tour. During a long-ish layover before catching our international flight, we decided to ditch the airport and pop into the nearby city to watch a movie and kill some time. I thought this was a very exciting plan, because we decided to see "Jurassic World" (2015).
Snap judgment number four: commence!!
Snap judgment: my alternate title for this post was "Jurassic World": Like "Jurassic Park" on Opposite Day.
First off: remember how I re-watched "Jurassic Park" (1993) a few years ago and got all excited all over again because a) not only does the movie hold up really well but also b) the movie is just fucking awesome in the formal, inspiring-awe sense of the term? Yeah I had neither of those reactions watching "Jurassic World."
Without further ado, my five bullet points:
- A brief list of things that apparently cannot save this movie:
--Chris Pratt
--Chris Pratt training raptors
--Chris Pratt riding a motorcycle through the jungle while hunting with raptors
--Raptors
You would think any combination of the items on that list could save a movie, but not "Jurassic World." Because:
--Chris Pratt training raptors
--Chris Pratt riding a motorcycle through the jungle while hunting with raptors
--Raptors
You would think any combination of the items on that list could save a movie, but not "Jurassic World." Because:
- This movie has literally the worst script in the world.
There was not one line that sounded authentic in the entire goddamn movie. By the latter third or so of the film, Husband and I were both rolling our eyes or gesticulating in exasperation every time someone opened their mouths. It honestly felt as if every single line was written to be a place holder until the writers came up with words worth saying on film, and then they either shat themselves or just forgot to actually write memorable stuff. Either way, the attitude seems to be some approximate of "whateva, the CGI will distract you from the terrible sentences!"
This is especially disappointing/enraging/astonishing because, as you'll note in earlier my "Jurassic Park" post, one of the best things about the original movie was its eminent quotableness and delightful sense of humor. There was so many great one-liners in that movie! One-liners for every occasion! One-liners for when you're afraid, one-liners for when you're being pursued by something that wants to eat you, one-liners for when someone outsmarts you, one-liners for when there's lots of poop.
Not ONE one-liner in "Jurassic World". GOD IT WAS SO BAD.
To make matters worse:
This is especially disappointing/enraging/astonishing because, as you'll note in earlier my "Jurassic Park" post, one of the best things about the original movie was its eminent quotableness and delightful sense of humor. There was so many great one-liners in that movie! One-liners for every occasion! One-liners for when you're afraid, one-liners for when you're being pursued by something that wants to eat you, one-liners for when someone outsmarts you, one-liners for when there's lots of poop.
Not ONE one-liner in "Jurassic World". GOD IT WAS SO BAD.
To make matters worse:
- Prehistoric levels of sexism.
So remember how I picked basically the tiniest feminist bone with "Jurassic Park"? Apparently I picked up on the tiny remnant of all the sexism that was stored up and saved for "Jurassic World".
First of all, there are literally no worthwhile female characters in the movie (although to be fair there are only 2.5/3 female characters in the first place, and there are literally no worthwhile characters in the movie).
Anyway, the main female character is played by Bryce Dallas Howard, who was costumed in the most fucking ridiculous outfit ever, including spike heels:
First of all, there are literally no worthwhile female characters in the movie (although to be fair there are only 2.5/3 female characters in the first place, and there are literally no worthwhile characters in the movie).
Anyway, the main female character is played by Bryce Dallas Howard, who was costumed in the most fucking ridiculous outfit ever, including spike heels:
 |
| Grade for practicality of wardrobe: F- |
I guess I should be grateful that the costumers tried to pick up the scriptwriters' slack.
Secondly, Howard's character is subjected to the most cringe-y, clunky sexual tension ever. These characters are so two-dimensional a gentle breeze would knock them over, but there is just enough to them to tell me with absolute certainty that there is literally absolutely no way that her character and Pratt's character would ever actually be remotely interested in each other.
As a sidenote, I don't know how, or more importantly WHY, they made Chris Pratt so horrifically uncharismatic and unsexy, but they achieved this end with gusto. I wish I could unsee his scenes with Howard and just return to the gentle, wholesome, sexy days of "Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014).
Okay... that helps a little...
Thirdly, Howard's character just kind of sucks at everything. She is tasked with keeping tabs on her two (thoroughly unredeemable) nephews, and she delegates it to her assistant. She is also apparently tasked with running basically every aspect of the "Jurassic World" theme park, and you can guess how that goes.
She shoots a dinosaur this one time, but other than that she's basically the worst.
Finally, Howard's aforementioned, unexplicably extremely British, lady assistant has by far the most horrific death in the entire movie--much worse than even the villian's death, which occurs largely offscreen. Pretty much immediately after the two nephews, who have spent most of their time at the theme park with the assistant, watch her die terribly, they turn to see Howard and Pratt kissing (cringeeeee), and immediately somewhat blithely express curiosity about whether Pratt is their aunt's boyfriend.
WOW. This movie cares so little about its characters--and in this case, specifically its women characters--that it can have one die by being meta-eaten by dinosaurs (yes, that's getting eaten by a dinosaur that is being eaten by a dinosaur) and just bop right along to some thoroughly conjured pseudo-romance stuff. Because a woman dying is of much less interest to the audience than whether another woman is in a relationship with a guy with whom she has literally no chemistry.
I just can't with this bullshit.
- Four words: deux ex machina fish.
Apparently the strategy in crafting this narrative was: when all else fails, bring in the DeM fish.
 |
| Also apparently Great White Sharks aren't endangered anymore or we have just given up on conservation because why else would you use them as bait in your dino-Sea World performances. |
- Cynicism.
To back up, the movie's premise is that bored park-goers and dwindling theme park attendance have led Jurassic World bio-engineers to concoct ever more "scary" dinosaurs to draw people back in. The resulting "more teeth" strategy produces the mega dinosaur that then unleashes mayhem upon those same park-goers. Therefore, to "Jurassic World" visitors and, by proxy, to the audience of "Jurassic World," the message seems to be: You asked for it.
So we're expected to eagerly gobble up poor writing, utterly unlikable characters, lame action, overly complicated and half-baked plots and subplots, and nowhere near enough dinosaurs and still walk away feeling excited and satisfied because at least we got another sequel?
No thank you. I'll just watch "Jurassic Park" again.
Movie score: 1.
{Heart}
Friday, May 29, 2015
"Avengers: Age of Ultron" vs. "Mad Max: Fury Road"
Ohai!
As devoted friends of the blog may remember, one of my earliest posts was a head-to-head comparison of two somewhat related yet very different movies. I think we are long overdue for another such post.
Today's opponents:
As devoted friends of the blog may remember, one of my earliest posts was a head-to-head comparison of two somewhat related yet very different movies. I think we are long overdue for another such post.
Today's opponents:
"Avengers: Age of Ultron" (2015)
vs.
"Mad Max: Fury Road" (2015)
Common elements:
- Both movies are utterly ridiculous and so packed with action as to be totally absurd. To say either fully has a plot might be a bit generous.
- Both movies are nevertheless very fun. Spectacle! Explosions! Fighting and stuff!
- Both movies involve women and men fighting a common enemy side-by-side.
Major differences:
- "Mad Max" is a fucking awesome feminist film, and is fun for all genders. It made me feel like this:
- "Age of Ultron", on the other hand, made me feel like this:
To back up, lest I appear to be taking myself too seriously or something: Yes, I know both of these movies are completely stupid, fluffy, explode-y fantasies. Maybe holding them up to any even barely substantive analysis is therefore unfair and/or silly.
However, a) it's goddamn 2015 and b) there is literally zero harm in adding a little gender equity into a narrative--unless, of course, you ONLY want misogynist dudes for an audience. I therefore can't help but be exceedingly annoyed when moviemakers appear to thoughtlessly, or worse intentionally, choose the same boring and stereotyped gender roles over and over for female characters.
Allow me to explain.
There are basically 2.5 lady characters in "Age of Ultron". Here is what two of them look like:
 |
| I know, she's mostly covered, but at least they added light-up striping to accentuate her hourglass figure! |
 |
| Nice modified schoolgirl, complete with a glimpse of red lacy bra. |
There were six significant lady characters in "Mad Max", and the main lady character looks like this:
 |
| Yes, the belts are a bit corset-y, but I'm digging the overall functionality, mild griminess, and robo-arm. |
Also, I'm minorly distracted by naming choices for female characters. In "Age of Ultron", the naming formula for women is apparently "color + gendered w-word." Black Widow. Scarlet Witch. Not so much with the dude-bro characters (e.g., Could they be Green Angrybro? Red Metalguy? Blue Armyman? Blond Hammerdude? Oh god the men so outnumber the ladies, I think I forgot someone. Oh! Bruised Archer?). In "Mad Max", Charlize Theron is Imperator Furiosa. Her name alone conveys formidability and awe, whereas her "Avengers" counterparts conjure bugs and Halloween costumes.
Point: "Mad Max".
In "Age of Ultron", all the goddamn dudes have powers that are badass as shit (with the exception of Hawkeye... poor, lame Hawkeye). Some of them are powerful enough to literally tear cities apart.
Black Widow's power is essentially giving assists to her male counterparts.
 |
| "You dropped your shield, Blue Armyman!" |
Alternatively, the Scarlet Witch is actually insanely powerful. It's not 100% clear exactly what her powers *are*, but it's some kind of red lightning-y telekinetic mind control?
Anyway, so they were starting to win me over a little, and then this fucking line. This fucking line, from the LAMEST, most injury-prone character in the movie to arguably the most powerful, happened:
"I'm not here to babysit."
 |
...Excuse me??
Wait for it.
...................
Wait.... for it.....
Anddddd I'm done with this fucking movie.
In "Mad Max", to the contrary, Furiosa easily steals the show from the film's namesake.
 |
| Oh hey. |
 |
| Don't mind me. |
 |
| I'm just righteously owning the apocalypse. |
As if that gratifying, exhilarating reversal weren't enough, there's this counterpoint to the above never-to-be-mentioned-again line. Max, played excellently by the incredibly watchable Tom Hardy, hijacks Furiosa's rig, which is filled with women she's trying to liberate from sexual/forced childbearing slavery. He starts commandeering all their weapons and demands that one of the women pass a gun to him. One of her female compatriots says to her,
"You don't have to just because he tells you to."
Okay, it might seem like a little thing. But instead of cowering in front of an aggressing man, despite having spent God knows how long in the captivity of men, the women of "Fury Road" don't forget their agency. They are essentially stating, "If we allow you to wield power in our midst, it's with our agreement. Because we have power too."
To clarify, "Mad Max" is hardly a ball-busting estrogen romp. It's simply a story in which women are powerful *too*. (God I can't tell you how annoying it is that this is remarkable.) Furiosa, Max, and their motley assortment of co-warriors, men and women alike, ultimately make an excellent team--a team in which the heros don't compulsively and constantly attempt to oppress the heroines by invoking their femaleness as if it constitutes some kind of weakness. In "Mad Max", that's what villains are for.
Are you catching the hint, "Avengers"?
Again, point: "Mad Max".
Ultimately, my extreme frustration and exasperation with the gender dynamics of a movie like "Age of Ultron" is this: would it *hurt* for there to be gender equity in these films? Why *not* make that choice? Do you not trust your audience to watch a movie in which women aren't fetishized and demeaned? Do you not think there are any men who find powerful women appealing? Do you not care whether women buy tickets to your film or feel empowered watching it?
Although I'm currently focusing on the gender dynamics of these films, I'd be remiss if I didn't also note the completely infuriating lack of diversity in "Age of Ultron". All minority characters have been so pointedly relegated to sidekick status that it's frankly bizarre.
To follow my line of inquiry, why *not* diversify the cast of these films? Why not cast a Latino Ironman? Or an Asian Thor? (The white people can keep Hawkeye... no one wants Hawkeye.) I've heard tell that they're finally ethnically updating Captain America, but fuck you. You've taken too long. There is no reason a cast of *eight* characters should be comprised of only white people--especially eight *imaginary* characters, where you can choose any and all features and traits you see fit. God forbid the movie's cast show diversity that is at least attempting to be commensurate with the actual population of the country that created the film. Or do you not trust your audience to watch movies with casts that actually fully represent us?
So, clearly, if you were to choose between these two completely absurd but nevertheless fun movies, I would strongly recommend a ride down "Fury Road". Think of it as a vote for cinematic progress.
In closing, my ratings were as follows:
"Avengers: Age of Ultron" (3)
"Mad Max: Fury Road" (4)
Thanks for reading!
{Heart}
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Snap Judgment: "Whiplash"
Hey guys,
Last weekend, Husband and I online-"rented" "Whiplash" (2014). We were pretty pumped about it given the immensely positive reception it's gotten, and it came to us via some credible recommendations.
Third snap judgment: commence!!
Snap judgment: great acting, but really overrated.
Leading with the good:
Later, Andrew gets in a car accident--for what's one of the truest shocks in the movie, to be fair--and STILL drags himself onstage and attempts to perform in a major competition, only to tackle Fletcher after he tries to end the performance because Andrew is so freaking bloodily concussed and possibly bleeding internally that he can't play.
Finally, after Andrew gets Fletcher fired through dubious legal action, he runs into Fletcher by chance, enabling Fletcher to set a massive trap for Andrew by getting him to perform at Carnegie Hall with Fletcher's new jazz ensemble and intentionally not telling Andrew what the first song of the performance is, so Andrew heroically botches the performance of that song.
Nope. Nope nope nope.
Fucking please. Given everything we've seen of Fletcher, there is no goddamned way EVER that perfectionistic, bloodthirsty, megalomaniac of a dude would throw a performance he was conducting at CARNEGIE FREAKING HALL just to settle the score with some ex-student. No. Just no. Rewrite that bullshit part of the script and try again, because no.
And then... they're cool at the end? They have a little Sam and Frodo moment? Are we serious. Are we actually serious?
I need to stop because I just can't with this nonsense.
Additionally, a public service announcement: any directors in the universe, please take note that constant unmitigated tension does NOT constitute a coherent, intelligible emotional story arc. 98 minutes of undifferentiated anxiety does not make for a pleasant movie-watching experience (especially when you didn't think you were signing up for a horror movie), and it certainly doesn't make us feel like we were just a part of something that told a story about people who have changed. And last time I checked, that's kind of a prerequisite of any real story, isn't it? That someone, ANYONE, changes, at least a little?
Ugh.
With all my very apparent frustration, I still think it's a movie worth watching if for nothing other than the performances.
So, final movie score: 3
{Heart}
Last weekend, Husband and I online-"rented" "Whiplash" (2014). We were pretty pumped about it given the immensely positive reception it's gotten, and it came to us via some credible recommendations.
Third snap judgment: commence!!
Snap judgment: great acting, but really overrated.
Leading with the good:
- J.K. Simmons: really great!
The role I most remember J.K. Simmons in is the very sweet if a bit clueless dad in "Juno" (2007). For something of a tonal change, he takes a fun, terrifying, intense turn as Fletcher, a brutally exacting, emotionally abusive teacher in "Whiplash." He's as mesmerizing to watch as he is frightening. That's largely because he performs the everloving fuck out of this role, and it's great.
It's also because, as an audience member, you're experiencing the kind of fear-instilled watchfulness someone experiences when they're in an abusive relationship of any kind. In that position, you learn fast that if you're not watching the person carefully, walking on eggshells, and carefully sensing every subtle shift in their mood, you could get a chair thrown at you and never see it coming.
So well done, sir. (I guess?)
- Miles Teller: pretty great, but Jesus christ have you heard of MacGuffins??
I'm not as familiar with Teller's previous work, but it's very convincing that he is fully set on becoming a famous jazz drummer as Andrew. Andrew pays immense, frankly absurd costs in pursuit of his aim.
 |
| I believe you, but whyyyy |
The thing is, this character has basically zero back story, and I have a hard time caring if he's successful when I don't know why his goal means so much to him. In an early scene, Fletcher all but points out this movie centers on a giant MacGuffin when he observes that Andrew doesn't have any musicians in his immediate family. It's almost as if the scene was put in the movie to make sure the audience notices that the main character's merciless drive for success is, as far as we can tell, rootless.
- Pretty much copying the opening scene from "The Social Network" (2010): but in a less satisfying manner!
Additionally making it difficult for me to care about Andrew: he's kind of a jackass. For example: he breaks up with his sweet, probably-too-good-for-him girlfriend in a super shitty, cocky, egotistical manner, telling her that she's basically standing in the way of greatness by dating him. Even though as far as we can tell she just wants to hang out with him sometimes.
Okay.
1) OH MY GOD dude get over yourself.
2) Run, girl. RUN.
So it's not that I'm shedding any tears over the end of that relationship other than tears of relief for that poor girl. But the thing is, the scene feels so ripped off from another movie about a socially callous narcissist...
 |
| Seem familiar? |
...and that scene happens to end much more satisfyingly:
So there's that.
- Reiterating for at least the fifth time in recent memory the now-tropey character study of the soulless male psychopath: meh!
I might have enjoyed "Whiplash" more if it wasn't tiresomely reminiscent of several other recent films, most of which have admittedly received significant acclaim.
Sidenote: I'm starting to wonder about the psyche of the average film critic if they find narratives about characters like these so appealing.
Anyway, although some films using this trope are definitely more skillful and interesting than others,
oh
God
enough
 |
| I blame you, "Drive." But I would. |
already.
- Can I please just have a plot that makes sense: apparently not! (Spoilers ahoy!)
Later, Andrew gets in a car accident--for what's one of the truest shocks in the movie, to be fair--and STILL drags himself onstage and attempts to perform in a major competition, only to tackle Fletcher after he tries to end the performance because Andrew is so freaking bloodily concussed and possibly bleeding internally that he can't play.
 |
| Nope. |
Finally, after Andrew gets Fletcher fired through dubious legal action, he runs into Fletcher by chance, enabling Fletcher to set a massive trap for Andrew by getting him to perform at Carnegie Hall with Fletcher's new jazz ensemble and intentionally not telling Andrew what the first song of the performance is, so Andrew heroically botches the performance of that song.
Nope. Nope nope nope.
Fucking please. Given everything we've seen of Fletcher, there is no goddamned way EVER that perfectionistic, bloodthirsty, megalomaniac of a dude would throw a performance he was conducting at CARNEGIE FREAKING HALL just to settle the score with some ex-student. No. Just no. Rewrite that bullshit part of the script and try again, because no.
And then... they're cool at the end? They have a little Sam and Frodo moment? Are we serious. Are we actually serious?
I need to stop because I just can't with this nonsense.
Additionally, a public service announcement: any directors in the universe, please take note that constant unmitigated tension does NOT constitute a coherent, intelligible emotional story arc. 98 minutes of undifferentiated anxiety does not make for a pleasant movie-watching experience (especially when you didn't think you were signing up for a horror movie), and it certainly doesn't make us feel like we were just a part of something that told a story about people who have changed. And last time I checked, that's kind of a prerequisite of any real story, isn't it? That someone, ANYONE, changes, at least a little?
Ugh.
With all my very apparent frustration, I still think it's a movie worth watching if for nothing other than the performances.
So, final movie score: 3
{Heart}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)