Good afternoon!
I want to pop by for a quick chat about "McQueen" (2018)!
First, some caveats: This movie is a bit long (almost two hours). It's also at times bleak (content warnings: suicide, death of loved ones, substance use, self-loathing-driven plastic surgery, workaholism).
Those acknowledged, I was completely engrossed by this movie and the incredible work it showcased. I am not in the least a fashionable human being, but I nevertheless love a good fashion documentary, and as you know, I love some fashion-based reality tv. "McQueen" delivered on my visual hunger for astonishing fashion with fury and gusto. Despite my note about the movie's length, I wish it had been extended to allow for more time to absorb the gonzo, lush, bombastic fashion shows shown throughout. They are entrancing, and as a result the film leaves you wanting ever more.
I watched "McQueen" because I was intrigued by his work. What I did not anticipate was how much I would come to care about Lee Alexander McQueen as a person. He came from a humble background as the son of a London taxi cab driver. He diligently and seemingly voraciously learned practical skills for constructing garments through a series of jobs in various menswear and fashion houses, went to fashion school because his aunt was able to pay his school fees, and created his first fashion line with the funds he received from the dole while essentially going without food (except when he could eat at home). At the height of his career, he was delivering multiple fully-formed, theatrical shows a year. He was, it seems, unstoppably talented--a juggernaut of fashion.
It's likely cliché to be excited about McQueen's work, since he garnered so much attention and infamy over the course of his intense career and in many ways tortured life. But, watching "McQueen" provides proof that he deserves our attention, and our excitement.
I gave the movie a 5.
{Heart}
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Thursday, May 7, 2020
"Moonstruck" by How Bizarre Nicolas Cage Is
Hihi,
I want to talk about "Moonstruck" (1987).
At times I have been diverting from my arguably more snooty lists of indie films to instead watch classic or much-referenced movies I have never seen. Enter: "Moonstruck".
To start with the good: Cher is delightful, obviously. She is deliciously magnetic, so profoundly charismatic that it's impossible to tear your eyes off her. I sincerely enjoyed her! Something about her performance fills me with warmth and affection for her. I just want to listen to her talk and watch her react to stuff.
That said.... This earned her an Academy Award?? Was 1987 a slow year for movies? (Survey says: Maybe!)
Looking at the field of nominees, I have a few reactions:
1) #OscarsSoWhite is, was, and feels like it will almost always be real.
2) I am admittedly not familiar with all of the movies for which leading women were nominated in 1987. The only other one I am familiar with is is Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" (1987), and... seriously?? These are some rough, extraordinarily narrowly-defined gendered roles for ladies.
3) Real talk? "Moonstruck" is just "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" (2002), but Italian. The notion that a cute, passable romcom gets any Oscar nods at all blows my mind.
I suppose all this should just make me appreciate how far the industry has come in the last 30 years, inasmuch as it's progressed at all.
So already I'm not so on board with this movie getting the acclaim that it did. Even taking the delightful Cher into account, I just do not find this story all that interesting or compelling. It is, as I said, a passable romantic comedy. It is aggressively fine.
...But then we have to contend with Nicolas Cage.
Guys. WHAT is the DEAL with Nicolas Cage in this movie? (I would say "in general," but I don't pretend for a second to have the kind of time and energy required to even try to tackle that question.)
First off, he comes in more than a little hot.
And he's not exactly selling himself as a viable love interest.
But here's the thing I have NEVER seen mentioned about "Moonstruck", and I'm honestly deeply offended that no one thought it was necessary to mention it:
The wooden hand. THE WOODEN HAND. NICOLAS CAGE HAS A WOODEN HAND?!
I mean OF COURSE he has a wooden hand because he's Nicolas Cage, but I nevertheless insist on the following questions:
WHAT.
WHY.
WHAT AND WHY.
CAN HE NOT BE STOPPED.
Like... I understand that there needed to be deep-seated acrimony between Cage's Ronny and his rival brother Johnny. I get that. But we really couldn't have figured out a less unnecessarily bizarre, distracting, and off-putting manifestation of that acrimony than a goddamned absurd-looking wooden hand?
I can't.
In summary and as punishment for this nonsense, I gave the movie a 2.
{Heart}
I want to talk about "Moonstruck" (1987).
At times I have been diverting from my arguably more snooty lists of indie films to instead watch classic or much-referenced movies I have never seen. Enter: "Moonstruck".
To start with the good: Cher is delightful, obviously. She is deliciously magnetic, so profoundly charismatic that it's impossible to tear your eyes off her. I sincerely enjoyed her! Something about her performance fills me with warmth and affection for her. I just want to listen to her talk and watch her react to stuff.
That said.... This earned her an Academy Award?? Was 1987 a slow year for movies? (Survey says: Maybe!)
Looking at the field of nominees, I have a few reactions:
1) #OscarsSoWhite is, was, and feels like it will almost always be real.
2) I am admittedly not familiar with all of the movies for which leading women were nominated in 1987. The only other one I am familiar with is is Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" (1987), and... seriously?? These are some rough, extraordinarily narrowly-defined gendered roles for ladies.
3) Real talk? "Moonstruck" is just "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" (2002), but Italian. The notion that a cute, passable romcom gets any Oscar nods at all blows my mind.
I suppose all this should just make me appreciate how far the industry has come in the last 30 years, inasmuch as it's progressed at all.
So already I'm not so on board with this movie getting the acclaim that it did. Even taking the delightful Cher into account, I just do not find this story all that interesting or compelling. It is, as I said, a passable romantic comedy. It is aggressively fine.
...But then we have to contend with Nicolas Cage.
Guys. WHAT is the DEAL with Nicolas Cage in this movie? (I would say "in general," but I don't pretend for a second to have the kind of time and energy required to even try to tackle that question.)
First off, he comes in more than a little hot.
And he's not exactly selling himself as a viable love interest.
But here's the thing I have NEVER seen mentioned about "Moonstruck", and I'm honestly deeply offended that no one thought it was necessary to mention it:
The wooden hand. THE WOODEN HAND. NICOLAS CAGE HAS A WOODEN HAND?!
I mean OF COURSE he has a wooden hand because he's Nicolas Cage, but I nevertheless insist on the following questions:
WHAT.
WHY.
WHAT AND WHY.
CAN HE NOT BE STOPPED.
Like... I understand that there needed to be deep-seated acrimony between Cage's Ronny and his rival brother Johnny. I get that. But we really couldn't have figured out a less unnecessarily bizarre, distracting, and off-putting manifestation of that acrimony than a goddamned absurd-looking wooden hand?
I can't.
In summary and as punishment for this nonsense, I gave the movie a 2.
{Heart}
Friday, May 1, 2020
TYSG: Pandemic Edition, Round 2
Salut!
I wanted to offer a follow-up to my recent TYSG update!
Last time, I discussed the difference between pain and suffering: pain being in profound abundance at the moment and not in our control, and suffering being an unskillful reaction to pain that worsens it but is within our control.
In brief, the moral of my last post is that our task, as much as we are able, is to NOT do suffering.
Under these particular circumstances, this will take some creativity. That is for several reasons:
--Almost none of us are accustomed to coping with this level of pain, so we are inexperienced with this task,
--Being in more pain than usual depletes our energy and resilience, making it more difficult to do the work of coping effectively, and
--Due to the nature of the pandemic, many/most of the resources we would normally use to cope are not available to us, and will be unavailable indefinitely.
All of this sucks. It is in and of itself yet another source of pain. However, it would be doing suffering to throw our hands up and declare ourselves powerless to change how we feel or to take care of ourselves.
One very small way in which I've been trying to get myself to NOT do suffering arose from my realization that, early on, it felt like all I was doing all the time was either thinking about the pandemic or talking about the pandemic. Going on social media in an attempt to find some diversion from the pandemic only revealed that literally every single corner of the internet seemed to be incapable of focusing on anything but the pandemic. It felt like there was absolutely no reprieve from being constantly bombarded from within and without with it.
I wondered: what would it take to purposefully think about something else?
In answer to this question, I had the simple but mercifully somewhat effective idea of coming up with conversation-starter questions. I've been posting them to social media and sharing them in a family group chat daily since the night after I came up with the idea and Husband and I came up with a bunch of options.
Just like last week's coping suggestion, these questions have a few basic parameters:
1) No questions in any way related to the pandemic. (This is hopefully obvious?)
2) Questions are generally positively valenced (e.g., only ask about least favorites, for example, when the answers are likely to be amusing or low stakes).
3) Steer clear of overly cliché questions that risk prompting only rote answers (e.g., try to avoid questions like, "What's your favorite color?").
4) As a complement to 3), some weirdness/creativity is definitely encouraged. This has the dual positive outcome of hopefully amusing people and also making it more likely that people consciously engage in thinking about and answering the question.
5) Whenever applicable, add "and why?" to increase mental engagement with the question. Follow up with people as needed when they don't answer this part of the question.
This activity has been helpful in a lot of pleasant ways. Coming up with the questions has given me and Husband something to focus our creative energy on and is a fun mental puzzle. Posting them has given me the opportunity to connect with people from across several domains of my life (remember, what social media used to be actually kind of great for?). People's responses have generally been fun and entertaining! There have also been a few people who have noted that they enjoy the questions even if they don't always participate, which also gives me some small hope that they're having the intended effect on maybe more people than just those showing up to share their answers: maybe they're providing even just a tiny breather from the constant anxiety, sadness, and helplessness of this time.
Here's where 4) is often really important: coming up with questions that involve a little fantasy is intentional. We all need a little escape. Why not create a tiny bit of that for ourselves, together?
And now, some examples! I've been noticing some emerging themes as I've now been doing this for a few weeks.
This is admittedly a small and humble way that I've tried to take charge of the contents of my mind and actively not do suffering, but honestly, it's one of the best strategies I've found so far...
...other than hanging out with my child, which is the greatest diversion I never realized I'd so deeply need.
I hope, like me, these give you just a little brief breath of relief.
{Heart}
I wanted to offer a follow-up to my recent TYSG update!
Last time, I discussed the difference between pain and suffering: pain being in profound abundance at the moment and not in our control, and suffering being an unskillful reaction to pain that worsens it but is within our control.
In brief, the moral of my last post is that our task, as much as we are able, is to NOT do suffering.
Under these particular circumstances, this will take some creativity. That is for several reasons:
--Almost none of us are accustomed to coping with this level of pain, so we are inexperienced with this task,
--Being in more pain than usual depletes our energy and resilience, making it more difficult to do the work of coping effectively, and
--Due to the nature of the pandemic, many/most of the resources we would normally use to cope are not available to us, and will be unavailable indefinitely.
All of this sucks. It is in and of itself yet another source of pain. However, it would be doing suffering to throw our hands up and declare ourselves powerless to change how we feel or to take care of ourselves.
One very small way in which I've been trying to get myself to NOT do suffering arose from my realization that, early on, it felt like all I was doing all the time was either thinking about the pandemic or talking about the pandemic. Going on social media in an attempt to find some diversion from the pandemic only revealed that literally every single corner of the internet seemed to be incapable of focusing on anything but the pandemic. It felt like there was absolutely no reprieve from being constantly bombarded from within and without with it.
I wondered: what would it take to purposefully think about something else?
In answer to this question, I had the simple but mercifully somewhat effective idea of coming up with conversation-starter questions. I've been posting them to social media and sharing them in a family group chat daily since the night after I came up with the idea and Husband and I came up with a bunch of options.
Just like last week's coping suggestion, these questions have a few basic parameters:
1) No questions in any way related to the pandemic. (This is hopefully obvious?)
2) Questions are generally positively valenced (e.g., only ask about least favorites, for example, when the answers are likely to be amusing or low stakes).
3) Steer clear of overly cliché questions that risk prompting only rote answers (e.g., try to avoid questions like, "What's your favorite color?").
4) As a complement to 3), some weirdness/creativity is definitely encouraged. This has the dual positive outcome of hopefully amusing people and also making it more likely that people consciously engage in thinking about and answering the question.
5) Whenever applicable, add "and why?" to increase mental engagement with the question. Follow up with people as needed when they don't answer this part of the question.
This activity has been helpful in a lot of pleasant ways. Coming up with the questions has given me and Husband something to focus our creative energy on and is a fun mental puzzle. Posting them has given me the opportunity to connect with people from across several domains of my life (remember, what social media used to be actually kind of great for?). People's responses have generally been fun and entertaining! There have also been a few people who have noted that they enjoy the questions even if they don't always participate, which also gives me some small hope that they're having the intended effect on maybe more people than just those showing up to share their answers: maybe they're providing even just a tiny breather from the constant anxiety, sadness, and helplessness of this time.
Here's where 4) is often really important: coming up with questions that involve a little fantasy is intentional. We all need a little escape. Why not create a tiny bit of that for ourselves, together?
And now, some examples! I've been noticing some emerging themes as I've now been doing this for a few weeks.
Theme One: Food
Includes: a good example of what I'm talking about in 2)
Theme Two: Entertainment
I mean... obviously I would veer toward that.
Theme Three: Mindfulness of Our Environment
These are a subtle bid for people to have a chance to have a
positive emotional response to being at home.
Plus, see an example of a 5)-style "and why?"
Theme Four: Inventive Fantasy
Some primo examples of 4). These don't always get the most responses,
but the responses people give are fun and they're really fun to come up with.
Husband gets credit for several of these.
...other than hanging out with my child, which is the greatest diversion I never realized I'd so deeply need.
I hope, like me, these give you just a little brief breath of relief.
{Heart}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)