What I'm Watching March Edition: We Need to Tall About Cosby, Home Economics, Mr Mayor, The After Party, Welcome to Flatch

Welcome to Flatch (Fox): It’s a key ingredient in small-town comedies that you have to add a healthy dose of quirk but few shows have been able to find the comic sweet spot in those peculiarities as well as this show. The show uses a mockumentary style that might evoke comparisons to Parks and Recreation but the characters are much less universally relatable. The show’s protagonists are a pair of aimless cousins (likely around age 20) who are the product of a lack of parental supervision, a little bit of suppressed cabin fever, and hyper-active imaginations. Joining them is lovelorn small-town newspaper owner Cheryl Petersen (Aya Cash) who came to Flatch from the big city as the significant other to the town pastor (Seann William Scott) but got dumped at some indeterminate point. Cheryl, forever upbeat but often frightened at the change to small-town life, is an apt audience surrogate (and on a side note, my hero as a small-town journalism admirer). There’s also an uptight town historian, a perverted blind man, and a love interest for Shrub (one of the cousins) who is emotionally catatonic. Very few character beats are wasted on this show.

We Need to Talk About Cosby (Showtime)-W. Kamau Bell does his homework here in this thorough and emotionally moving look at Bill Cosby’s rise to fame as well as the development of the Dr. Jekyll behind one of Black America’s most steadfast role models. Bell has always been a relatively neutral journalistic storyteller and he does his best to treat even-handedly the people who might be accused of enabling Cosby or supporting him past the point of no return. For the most part, the target is Bill Cosby himself and the documentary hammers home pretty well how awful this person’s actions were. Through his monstrous smears against media outlets and academics who covered him unfavorably, the documentary establishes a pattern that gaslighting and its subsequent forms of psychopathy that were a long part of Cosby’s persona. If you didn’t already know, Cosby’s rapes very much went hand-in-hand with gaslighting as he roofied his victims, violated them while unconscious, and then insisted to them that nothing had happened (even those who might have partially awoken or smelled something fishy). Many a brave victim bears their story in a very matter-of-fact way and there’s a lot of resonance in hearing the same story over and over.

The After Party (Apple TV)-Although we like to tell ourselves and our peers that we’re past high school, I suspect the abundance of TV shows about high school with adult audiences is good evidence that we never completely leave those formative years behind. It’s for that part of our identities that “The After Party” hits on the nose so well. Sure, we don’t spend every waking moment thinking about high school by the time we are 15 years out. However, put us in a room with our high school cohort and I have no doubt that there are always unresolved threads — an unexpressed attraction, a latent inferiority complex, a what-if ticket to stardom, a misbegotten grudge — that is rife for drama fifteen years later. That’s essentially where the show places us. And there’s a murder mystery on top of it because why not? That the show could function well enough without a murder to solve, bodes well for how solid the show’s comic infrastructure is. It also doesn’t hurt that the cast is a pretty solid blend of random comic talent (Ben Schwartz, Tyia Sinclair, Ilana Glazer, Tiffany Haddish, Ike Barinholtz among others).

Dropout (Hulu)-The limited series docudrama covers the true story of Stanford dropout Elizabeth Holmes who invented a way to diagnose multiple diseases through blood or something like that, and then cut corner after corner to the point where she went from wide-eyed dreamer to over-stressed manager to someone who could unequivocally be classified as the bad guy.

Played by the always-talented Amanda Seyfried, Holmes is portrayed early on as an overachiever with curious asocial tendencies. She comes off as a social pariah when she insists to her fellow students in a Mandarin immersion program that they speak Chinese like an unpaid dorm RA and she even practices a form of code switching by deepening her voice with her male benefactors. It’s hard not to admire her pluck and her underdog nature as a diminutive woman in a man’s world. It’s equally hard to put a finger on what or who Elizabeth Holmes is but she’s a fascinating enough figure (even for someone like myself who had no knowledge of her real-life counterpart) to try to pick apart.

Then, of course, there’s her inevitable downfall. While the show does a good job of forecasting how her inability to give up would lead Holmes to divorce herself from reality when things go wrong, the demise gets overly long and protracted until the show becomes smart enough in episode six to figure out she’s no longer the most interesting part of the story. That’s when two interns (Dylan Minnette and Camryn Mi-young Kim) start to go All the President’s Men on Elizabeth’s ass and things start heating up again.

Home Economics (ABC)-I’ve previously heralded this show as a worthy successor to “Modern Family” in that it’s sustainable comfort viewing with some nicely contrasting characters working through familiar family sitcom tropes.

I might even posit that there’s a little more meat on the bones of this premise as there’s a subtle classist examination on the lives of the three adult siblings at the center of this story: Oldest sibling Connor is decidedly more wealthy than his two siblings and that dynamic isn’t ignored as the story saunters along.

I also admire the show’s decision to go for a more horizontal than vertical approach with far less emphasis on the kids or grandparents. For all I care, they can switch up the child actors next year and I wouldn’t notice. Take away their bargaining power like Ray Romano’s kids, I say.

Lately, however, some of the plots are getting awfully basic. In the first season, there was a case of two of the adult siblings re-uniting with a girl they both hooked up with in summer camp. That episode had mistaken identities, cross talk, juicy secrets, and most importantly, real stakes.

A recent episode had two siblings bickering over writing a middle school play and a B-plot over whether two of the spouses are being cliquey by not letting one of the siblings in their friend group. In another plot, one of the spouses (who I assumed was Colbie Smothers, but is not which is another minus) wants her kids to be proud of her Mexican heritage and starts emphasizing words with Spanish pronunciations and cooks them guacamole. Sorry, these episodes have almost nothing to offer outside of the mildly pleasant characters. Here’s hoping things turn around.

Mr Mayor (NBC)-It’s good to have an old favorite back. Now that it’s the second season, can we do a little more world-building. I’m having trouble buying that in one of the 15 most populous cities in the world, the government can be run by only about five people (including one who’s semi-literate) and everyone else is just background. Maybe through in Tina Fey favorites like Tituss Burgess as a frazzled city department head, Dean Norris as the Los Angeles County sheriff, or Jon Hamm as a charismatic district attorney?

Re-evaluating my Summer of 2009 list 10 years later

This is my reaction to a Summer preview I wrote 10 years ago for Examiner.com. I will comment on italics on whether I actually saw the film and how they compared to my expectations

In the first month of Summer alone, most of the heavy hitters have already I arrived. I recommend seeing The Soloist, Star Trek, Angels and Demons, Night at the Museum 2 (it is better than you might expect), and Up before moving onto the newer films:

The Taking of Pelham 123 (June 12th)

The thriller centered on a hostage situation in a New York subway car is a remake of a 1974 film starring Walter Matthau. The vast majority of Denzel Washington roles the past few years involve him as a law official of some sort in some tense situation (see: Déjà vu, Inside Man, Out of Time, Training Day). Pelham 123 takes Denzel Washington, action hero, and places him in a Hithckock-like situation of the ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

Did I see this? Yep, on Netflix during its mailing delivery days.

Reactions: More or less what I was expected. Travolta channels a lot of his a—hole character from “Swordfish” and Washington is practically begging Saturday Night Live to hire someone whose main specialty is Denzel Washington impressions because his acting in this particular era was extremely predictable in a series of rote action thrillers (SNL hired Jay Pharoah the following year). The characters are familiar, in other words, and the (recycled) plot doesn’t aim high but is sufficient entertainment.

Bruno (July 10th)

Sacha Baron Cohen brought something truly original when he took to the screen with Borat in 2006. Although a little crude, the cultural collision between the primitive Kazak Borat with the Western world produced results that were sharply satirical, shocking, and flat-out hilarious. The initial problem I had with Bruno is that it’s 2009 and the silliness of homophobia is old news by now. Or is it? Sacha Baron Cohen dresses up as a flamboyantly gay Austrian reporter and, much like Borat, will seek to expose the underbelly of American prejudice. He might be successful or he might spark considerable controversy along the way but for the laughs alone, it will be worth it to find out.

Did I see this? In the theater.

Reactions: I was viscerably disturbed and needed to clench my palate so bad that I walked into the theater next door and watched The Hangover afterwards. I don’t know where the line is between watching people have uncomfortable sex and flat-out porn but this was just all too much for me. Whether it was worth some over-arching point, I admit I was nauseating through some of the film, but it’s hard to make the case that America is too homophobic when you’re sexually assaulting them and/or violating their personal space. Sacha Baron Cohen’s humor was still present but pretty far removed.

Moon (June 12th)

I don’t know if I have ever been so intrigued by the movie critic blurbs that are intercut with action scenes during the trailer as I was with this movie. Among the blurbs for “Moon”, “Fantastic! Superb! Do Not Hesitate To Line Up For This One,” “One of those Rare Sci-Fi Gems,” and “Brainy and Thoughtful.” Let’s start with the third one. Summer movies have historically relied on high amounts of escapism and low amounts of thoughtfulness. In the case that a summer film is thought-provoking, it certainly wouldn’t be advertised. Some ambitious science-fiction films like Minority Report, I Robot and The Island have made their way onto the summer slate in previous years with mixed success but they mostly have been marketed as action films. Moon seeks to be more “A.I.” than “Minority Report” and seems to be shooting as high as “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Did I see this? No but in my defense, I don’t know if it was ever playing. It enjoys a status as a cult film and certainly has grown in stature as lead actor Sam Rockwell won an Oscar and this is one of his best performances. 

Away We Go (June 5th)

The film stars John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph as a couple looking to find the perfect home to raise their child. It has a definite indie feel. Entertainment Weekly critic Owen Gilberman describes as, ‘the comedy of quirkiness, in which ''eccentric'' characters are placed on screen to inspire an amused whatever! shrug.” The film intrigues me mostly because of director Sam Mendes. Away We Go is just Mendes’ fifth film (and first film to be made at such a low scale) but he has had many accolades including a best director Oscar for American Beauty. Mendes has an uncanny ability to capture mood and atmosphere whether it’s the underworld of Depression-era Chicago in Road to Peridition, married life in 1950’s New England or the angst of modern-day Suburbia in American Beauty. Away We Go stars two characters straight out of the popular blog stuffwhitepeoplelike.com, but I have a feeling he can transcend them.

Did I see this? I tried once on TV and might have even tried renting it. I like Sam Mendes’s style and how he commits well to world-building. However, John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph overthinking the fact that they’re about to have kids in a way that isn’t particularly comedic or dramatic didn’t feel particularly interesting and after the first couple scenes I gave up.

Land of the Lost (June 5th)

Will Ferrell stars in this big-screen adaptation of the notoriously low-budget television show. A good rule of thumb with remakes is that remaking a film or TV series that was originally good invites comparisons to the original while remaking something that had failed potential to be good is ideal. With one of the best comedic actors of filmdom in Will Ferrell and a most interesting supporting cast of fresh faces including Tropic Thunder’s Danny McBride  (good article on McBride found here) and Lonely Planet’s Jorma Taccone), there’s plenty to be excited about here.

Did I see this? In the theater 

Reactions: Second worst film of the year behind “Bruno.” The film’s jokes per minute ratio is really low unless you count people wandering around in poop or an unruly monkey (voiced by Jorma Taccone) being annoying. At the same time, I hardly know how I could have seen this coming because the trailer was actually quite appealing.

Food Inc (June 19th)

Michael Moore seems to be the only successful muckraker in the world of film in terms of garnering large audiences and critical acclaim (although I have to give Morgan Spurlock some credit for Supersize Me). Hopefully, there's room for one more in this expose about the evils of the food industry. It's been a popular topic since Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation" became a best seller and there was even a fictionalized version of Eric's film. In documentary form, however, Food Inc. could have even greater entertainment value and be far more educational. For further reading, see the official site.

Did I see this? By mail order Netflix 

Reactions: I’m not a humongous documentary person (If it’s simply an educational expose about a topic, I prefer reading or watching videos shorter than 90 to 120 minutes), nor am I an expert at dissecting the documentary as an art form. As far as a good example of an art form I’m not generally crazy about, this is quite good. It should be noted that in this year, Michael Moore followed up some of his game-changing world with “Capitalism: A Love Story” which is a mess of a film with no thesis.

I Love You, Beth Cooper (July 10th)

Imagine if the high school valedictorian declares his love for the high school cheerleader in the 8graduation speech? A fairly simple concept for a teen angst film but one with plenty of potential. That's at the heart of this film. The lead Paul Rust has made a name for himself in the world of internet sketch comedy and the female lead, Hayden Panettiere, has a chance to earn her movie star cred with this role.

Did I see this? I listened to the audio book two or three years later on a road trip. Then I saw the movie in parts on YouTube when you couldn’t upload more than 10 minutes at a time.  

Reactions: First things first, the book’s prose is a little on the weak sauce side and the dialogue is a little stilted. The film sticks pretty closely to the book so that doesn’t help. However, this is a really fetching premise and I like Andrea Savage in it (she plays a fairly minor role in it, though).

"Documentary Now!" Review through Season 2 Episode 5

Documentaries are generally a pretty esoteric cinematic experience and co-creator Fred Armisen's comedy is also pretty esoteric. As a result putting those together is going to lead to something that's not easy to appreciate or particularly funny every time out of the gate.

While the premise's novelty-- re-imagining popular documentaries with a comic bent -- was enough to get it through the first season, the show usually sinks or swims based on how funny the episode is.
With the exception of Michael Moore, Spike Lee, Morgan Spurlock, or Werner Herzog, very few documentaries have ever surfaced to the national consciousness. As a result, many viewers (including myself) are not going to go to know of the original source either, so the comedy often has to stand on its own in a way that most direct parodies don't.

Despite these challenges, co-producers Fred Armisen, Seth Meyers and BIll Hader do an admirable job of working comic magic out of wayward references.

"The Town, A Gangster, a Festival" approaches the brilliance of Christopher Guest's films (what I'm sure is an influence on these guys) in terms of attention to detail. A whole world is colored in by oodles and oodles of funny characters. This should cater to the wheelhouse of a writing staff-- all SNL alumni  -- where creating characters who can display a memorable quirk within a minute or two of screen time is a prerequisite.

Without the advantage of the large ensemble format, the show faces a harder challenge with generally only two people front and center. The show can sometimes work brilliance here but some episodes have also fallen flat. Among the most brilliant entries are "Kunuk Now" and "Globesman" as both are hilarious based on stand-alone comic characters and broad reference(the primitive Eskimo in the former, the 1950s image of masculinity and the corporate salesman in the latter) rather than a specific cinematic style. "Kunuk Now" tells the story of a kooky producer who jumps production in Alaska and an intellectually-challenged Eskimo who single-handedly creates all our modern ideas of cinematography. "Globesman" takes the squeaky clean image of the 1950's and turns it into a portrait of sheer obnoxiousness.

Among the other episodes that work somewhat well, "The Blue Jean Committee" is an exaggerated character portrait of two men whose lives have gone in opposite directions since fame. It distinguishes itself by being perhaps the only episode in the series with sentimental value (the final hug between the two tugged at my heart strings). Armisen is a music obsessive and his effort falls flat in the similarly themed second season episode "Test Pattern" which feels derivative: It mines similar nuances of "Blue Jean Committee" in mining similar nuances of concert culture without giving us a reason to care.

"Dronez" also roughly works without any source material as it provides a never-ending supply of dumb people and juxtaposes them with an incredibly dangerous situation.

Others like "Juan Likes Rice and Beans" and "The War Room" are middling: They work based on the hyper-specific which will vary. In the case of the former, I saw "Jiro Likes Sushi" which helped me enjoy it at a fuller level.

The rest of the episodes, including the series premiere, fall painfully flat based on hyper-specificity. But that's the risk one takes when they follow their passion and there's a lot to admire by how often they succeed..

Film 27: Food Inc.

Food Inc.:
I think I still struggle with the nonfiction genre. Whether I'm qualified to judge anything is variable, because I'm just blogging, but if I were to draw the line somewhere as what I know and don't know, it would be documentaries. By and large, I'm not even a fan of the documentary as the ideal medium.

Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock make great documentaries because Spurlock makes it into a story arc and Moore is just plain entertaining and inflammatory.

I think this particular film is educational and it's interesting, but there's no reason that it wouldn't make an equally great coffee table book or museum exhibit.

So on the whole, the film educated me and by the end of the film I was passionate about something that was wrong in society and needed fixing. The film accomplished it's goal by that end. As for whether the film was entertaining, to some degree yes, but I might have gotten more entertainment in a different format.

The film even comes across like reading a book as it is divided up into different chapters: one on corn, one on costs, one on the cover-ups of government. There's even the filmic equivalent of an introductory blurb in the form of an introductory segment before the title credits that anyone can download or stream for free.

The film makes a few sharp points filmically. The juxtaposition of the wholesome rural image on food products in supermarkets against the very unpleasant image of real life farm life is poignant. There's also one scene in which the top of the roof is shown with text that tells us the animals never receive sunlight.

It's a difficult call to make as to whether this is suited to film but it did empassion me to the issue. Far more than Supersize Me, in fact.

A delayed (almost) top 10

A month and nine days after the year originally ended, I still haven't really been able to compile ten films (I've now seen 30) I enthusiastically recommend without any reservations, but i'm pretty close. Here it goes, and watch out because I'll be using a lot of fancy words:

1. Frost/Nixon, directed by Ron Howard, starring Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon: Frost/Nixon is an excellent political thriller. It's kinetic, fast-paced, energetic, and more importantly, it is profoundly relevant to our times: Power is determined by who can make themselves look best in front of a camera. I also admire the film for creating a battle of wits with an indistinguishable line between who's the protagonist and the villain, yet taking time to humanize the "villain" at the film's end. Frank Langella has an incredibly difficult role to play as a former president and he doesn't even bother going to the original source to pull off his interpretation. I found Langella's Nixon (an the whole movie, for that matter) to be reminiscent of Citizen Kane in that Citizen Kane was powerful and wealthy beyond anyone's wildest dreams, but he never felt truly loved by the people and that was the film's big reveal.

2. Gran Torino, directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Hor-The story about a grumpy and somewhat bigoted veteran of the Korean War who copes with the changing makeup of his decaying town and his faith as he enters old age sounds more like a film one would see in Sundance due to its character-centered plot. If it hadn't been for an A-list star like Cliint Eastwood the film might not have ever reached a wide release which is a shame because this is among the most profound and moving pictures in years. Gran Torino is a sweeping exploration at shell-scock, culture clash, urban decay and especially ageism. In this film, Eastwood clearly looks like a shadow of his former self, but he plays a hero with the resolve, grit, and firepower of Dirty Harry or the "Man with No Name." When he befriends his neighbors and takes on the gang that threatens their safety, you've never seen an 80-year old hero on screen like this before and that's a tribute to Eastwood as an actor.

3. Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle, starring Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal: Although it's set in India and directed by a Brit, Slumdog Millionaire is the most American of stories. It's the classic rags-to-riches dream of a boy working his way to riches and it's set in the country whose notoriously rigid class system makes it harder than anywhere else to get out of poverty. In this setting, uneducated slum boy Jamal Malek uses his life experience to try to win a fortune on the Indian rip-off of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Shot on location, the film is such an engrossing visual experience that you can almost taste, smell and touch the Bombay slums. What's more, the film is also an amazing love story between Jamal and the love of his life who he'd give anything to get out of harm's way.

4. Wall-E, directed by Andrew Staunton: Some might call the first 30 minutes a Chaplainesque comedy and classify the film accordingly while I see Wall-E as a Dystopian fantasy of two star-crossed robots who inadvertently save a disenfranchised human race. Whether you see it as a comedy, science-fiction, an unconventional romance, or a moral parable, it's a winner either way. To even suggest making an animated film about two robots who can't talk is bold enough, but to make us care about these two inanimate objects is a feat for the ages. It's also safe to say from all the critical reception that Wall-E is far more than a cartoon, and has transcended the complement of "a good animated film." The Pixar studio has been fawned over for it's innovation so it must feel good for those folks to have one of their films be praised so highly on an adult level, for the first time.

5. Doubt, directed by John Patrick Shanley, starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Meryl Streep, Viola Davis: I haven't seen this film, but what the heck, I only feel enthusiastic about 9 of the films I've seen so far, and of all the films I haven't seen, this seems like it has potential to be great. I've started to get more and more fascinated by it after watching interviews with the cast and seeing all four of it's stars get nominated for Oscars. Other contenders for films that look great are Australia, Religulous, and Frozen River. Why haven't I seen it? Last time I went to the movie theater, we were 15 minutes too late and saw Rachel Getting Married instead and now I can't afford to see a movie again, unless you donate to the site or buy DVDs from my site. (see "Reasons Why You Should Donate Money to Me #41")

6. Burn After Reading, dir. by the Coen Brothers, starring John Malkovitch, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, JK Simmons, Richard Jenkins, Frances McDormand: I personally find the work of Joel and Ethan Coen to be uneven but I couldn't resist the brilliance of the storyline and the brothers' ability to manipulate its various threads. The film resembles a British comedy of errors where characters exist in varying degrees of being in the dark as to what's going on, except it's taken to extremes. The characters are all hilariously inept and the comedy builds to an explosive climax as the circumstances become more and more outrageous. The Coen brothers usually have a strong sense of place in their films and as a Washingtonian, I got a special thrill out of saying the the Coen Brothers so cleverly lampoon the inefficient and bloated bureaucracy that plagues every corner of life in this city. It's truly an unforgettable film.

7. Be Kind Rewind, dir. by Michael Gondry, starring Jack Black, Muriel Hemmingway, Mos Def, Danny Glover-When the videotapes are accidentally erased of their content in an ailing video store, two friends try to save the store from foreclosure by creating their own homemade versions of the store's films. The film also stars Danny Glover as the store owner. The fun of watching Mos Def and Jack Black attempt to recreate low budget versions of Driving Miss Daisy, Rush Hour 2, King Kong and Ghostbusters is worth the price of admission alone but the film also has deeper themes about the way we consume and create art and the joy of the process.

8. Encounters at the End of the World, dir. by Warner Herzog-How about adding a documentary to the list? I don't normally spring for docs but I saw three this year and I felt this was a really great film in the mold of escapism. If a film's job is to take you out of the mundane and into a brand new world, where else can you go but the metaphorical world's end? A filmmaker goes to Antarctica and not only shows you how otherworldly the flora and fauna are, but how quirky the land's inhabitants are as well. If I had to make a complaint, Warner Herzog could have used a narrator other than himself, considering his accent is a little distracting.

9. In Bruges, dir. by Martin McDonaugh, starring Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleason, Ralph Feinnes-It's kind of funny because I spoke so highly of this film to my parents and they went to watch it and hated it because it has so many bad words, but if you look a little past that, you'll see some very interesting dialogue and very interesting characters. The film just won best screenplay at the British version of the Oscars (the BAFTAs) and it is nominated for best screenplay at this month's Oscars, so I can't be the only one to think that the film is doing something right. The film isn't just a slightly dark comedy. It plunges all the way into the dark side. At one point, a guy is risking life and limb to save someone who insists on wanting to commit suicide anyways.



10. Quantum of Solace, dir. by Marc Forrester, starring Daniel Craig, Matthieu Almaric, Gemma Arterton, Judi Dench, Jeffery Wright, Olga Krulyenko-I felt the series' reboot was justified not by Casino Royale, but by its follow-up, Quantum of Solacae. The action scenes and visuals were amazing, Craig is even more comfortable in his groove, but more importantly, Bond finally seems human. Yes, the trend started in Casino Royale, but this was the first time that a Bond film actually surprised me. Bond not shooting a villain or bedding a girl just because those are filmic conventions is something truly novel.

Buy some of these films:


To recap, during my last two years as a columnist for D.C. Scene, I submitted two top ten lists to them. Here they are:
2007:
1. 3:10 to Yuma, James Mangold
2. There Will be Blood, PT Anderson
3. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Sidney Lumet
4. Michael Clayton, Tony Gileroy
5. Charlie Wilson's War, Mike Nicholls
6. Sicko, Michael Moore
7. Great Debaters, Denzel Washington
8. Juno, Jason Reitman
9. Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford
10. Darjeeling Limited, Wes Anderson

2006:
1. Flags of Our Fathers, Clint Eastwood
2. Little Miss Sunshine, A pair of unknown directors whose names I can't remember
3. Departed, Martin Scorsese
4. Babel, Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalu
5. Blood Diamond, Ed Zwick
6. Prairie Home Companion, Rob Altman
7. Dreamgirls, Bill Condon
8. Bobby, Emilio Estevez
9. Hollywoodland, Allan Coulter
10. Cars, John Lassiter

Buy these films on amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/RUBXKQEVDWL7Q/ref=cm_lm_pthnk_view?ie=UTF8&lm%5Fbb

Help! We've been attacked!

BEST WEBSITES OF 2008

An article recently surfaced which caught my friend's attention and he asked me to comment on it. The article is http://www.nypress.com/21/17/news&columns/feature3.cfm

Here's my response:
I think this guy has 8 or 9 articles that he merged into one and makes a lot of generalizations which don't generally hold true. You have to read it, however, like a big textbook and agree with some and disagree with some. If the guy wanted to make sense, he should have stated that his article was targeting a specific type of blogger rather than everyone except for himself. For example, I loved Bobby and Darjeerling Limited and promoted the hell out of them, which are two movies he likes.
I also think Premiere was a great magazine (which is ironic because the author hates it) and I mourn its death as much as the next guy. I actually don’t particularly want to be a “blogger” and really want to be in the print media anyway. This started out as a way to promote my stuff so that I might get hired in the print media, and I would gladly seize doing this at once, if it meant that someone in the print media who I am a fan of, could keep their job.
I think it's very sloppy to imply that Ebert has never contributed much. Yes, Ebert the TV critic just does thumbs up or thumbs down, but in writing he has great insights and he is constantly stressing to his readers in his Q and A not to pay too much attention to stars. I agree that a lot of criticism boils down to "Is the film good or bad" but that's mostly in the world of print media, anyway, because print media caters to what the everyday Joe wants to know which is "should I see this movie?” But the internet sites have the advantage along with more in-depth journals and academic literature of analysis.
He might be right that historical context is missing from the great majority of film criticism. I think that's one of the most important things you gain from studying movies is understanding history (and not film history but actual history) better. There are courses in most film curriculums that focus on movies and society, however.

Here is his list of ten things which film bloggers and other critics make the mistake of doing:
1)“The Three Amigos” Iñárritu, Cuarón and del Toro are Mexico’s greatest filmmakers while Julian Hernandez is ignored.

Yeah, sorry never heard of Hernandez. Just like every member of the public I can’t know of every person who’s ever picked up a movie camera and made a film. I’m not making a conscious decision to denounce him. If you want to promote Hernandez, fine, great. Point taken. You might also have a point that as amateurs we don’t have access to someone like Hernandez, but that’s hardly a new discovery.


2) Gus Van Sant is the new Visconti when he’s really the new Fagin, a jailbait artful dodger

Gus Van Sant isn’t that much of an auteur, I personally don’t care for him, but more to the point, he’s not the central point of a lot of discussions. In terms of a couple of his films I know of, Finding Forrester was primarily a Sean Connery vehicle and Good Will Hunting’s autuers, at least in the eyes of the public, were writer-actors Damon and Affleck who initiated the project. So to me, you might call me in agreement with you. I don’t really know who Visconti and Fagin are, sorry.

3) Documentaries ought to be partisan rather than reportorial or observational.

I think that people tend to place partisan labels on a documentary that the documentarians don’t see themselves. I also feel that Armond White shows his blog himself, person is biased against the “liberal elite” or whatever. When he writes. “but it is the shame of middle-class and middlebrow conformity that critics follow each other when praising movies that disrespect religion, rail about the current administration or feed into a sense of nihilism that only people privileged with condos and professional tenure can afford,” he clearly can’t avoid his own partisan biases either, which I think is worse when he’s trying to suppress other people’s right to voice their own opinions.

Nevertheless, I think the view of most critics is that documentaries come in all shapes in sizes: A documentary can be partisan or non-partisan, so long as it doesn’t try to pass itself as the wrong category. The current beating the HBO film “Recount” is taking, is an illustration of that point, since it’s far less observational than it claims. I think Michael Moore, which I imagine White is referring to since a discussion about documentaries can’t possibly exclude the most influential and commercially successful one of the decade, is fairly handled by critics. Most critics advise their audiences to take Moore with a grain of salt, knowing he has a clear partisan bent.

4) Chicago, Moulin Rouge and Dreamgirls equal the great MGM musicals.

Well, I am somewhat of an expert on musicals so I can answer this. First off, there’s hardly any agreement on whether Chicago or Moulan Rouge is the true second coming of the musical. There’s plenty of people who hate Chicago and like Moulan Rouge and plenty who feel the opposite. Dreamgirls is generally considered as a respectable follow-up by Condon to Chicago, treated adequately by the awards season: A proverbial “6th nominee” that feel just short of making the final five. I don’t think much of the literature on Chicago and Moulan Rouge as the revival of the musical is saying that Chicago and Moulan Rouge equal the high point of MGM but they revived the musical and made it marketable again as evidenced by the fact that after 2002, the genre was able to be marketable and Broadway adaptations (Rent, Producers, Dreamgirls), remakes (Hairspray) and all sorts of experimental films (Across the Universe and Sweeny Todd) were able to make it to theaters. If you look at the AFI list of top 25 musicals recently released, Chicago and Moulan Rouge were on their but towards the bottom, behind the great MGM musicals.


5) Paul Verhoeven’s social satire Showgirls was camp while Cronenberg’s campy melodramas are profound.

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t think Cronenberg’s melodramas are profound. He does a good job at creating tension and makes a good thriller (are you referring to History of Violence and Eastern Promises?) but I don’t know by what criteria you call them campy. Showgirls was rated X and I was like 11 when it came out, so I didn’t see it unfortunately. Should I catch it on DVD or so, so I can enter into the conversation?

6) Brokeback Mountain was a breakthrough while all other gay-themed movies were ignored.
No, anyone who follows the Oscars is aware that Transamerica and Capote were honored well-enough. This might have been a complaint perhaps a decade ago when Ian McKellan from Gods and Monsters lost to Hillary Swank.

7) Todd Haynes’ academic dullness is anything but.
Again, I don’t think people are analyzing Todd Haynes in an auteur sense. I think people saw merit in Far From Heaven and I’m Not There (although I’m Not There had fairly mixed reactions).

8) Dogma was a legitimate film movement.
I think you mean “Dogme 95” but nonetheless, I think there’s a great deal of filmmakers who find Von Trier’s films insulting and nonsensical, and surely the general public feels antagonized by him even more. Whether it’s a legitimate film movement is not really for us to judge. That’s like judging whether you have a legitimate article. It’s an article you wrote, but does it say good or bad things, well that’s the debate. I think Dogme 95 creates more constraints on the filmmaking than its worth (he had to break some of his own rules to make Dogville), but at the same time, I think some of his ideas have some merit and some don’t. I also think it’s clearly worth studying the movement’s context in history just as you say.

9) Only non-pop Asian cinema from J-horror to Hou Hsiao Hsien counts, while Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow are rejected. 10) Mumblecore matters.
Don’t know much about Asian cinema, so I won’t respond. Don’t know what mumblecore is.

"You want the truth, you can't handle the truth!"

I was watching the Dixie Chicks documentary "Shut Up and Sing" and first of all, very good documentary that stirred some passions in me. I think it stirred some passions in me about the way that people can interfere with each other's right to free speech and I strongly feel that we need to allow our creative minds to be able to voice their opinions without fear of repercussions. While I admire the Dixie Chicks' resolve to not let things get to them, they still got to me. There's arguments on both sides of the story. One side of the argument is that just as people have a right to voice their opinions, other people have a right to chose whether or not to buy their records. What I don't think is right, however, is to interfere with other people's choice as to whether or not to buy the records or to actively mobilize opinions and to try to influence contingents of people to boycott a record. Especially through questionable means: The right wing plays on rudimentary mislogic to try to influence large droves of God-fearing people. They present the logic: Bush=A representative of a party that traditionally associates itself with God=The wishes of God, therefore The Dixie Chicks who oppose Bush=The Devil, therefore buying=The Dixie Chicks album. They spewed this stuff out to congregations and just influenced a lot of people, it's a disgusting hijacking of religion and yes, people can chose whether to listen to the Right Wingers, but there's a lot of grey area here, and the first ammendment is capable of underestimating the power of people to be manipulated by groups who proclaim they're doing things in the name of God. I would just like to live in a country where the right wingers who supposedly have a higher moral sense than anyone else, would stop pretending their politics are in the name of God and stop preying on innocent church going people. So good for the Dixie Chicks for winning the album of the year at the Grammys.



But anyway, one scene got me thinking. Where the head of a record company straight-up lied to the camera and to congress that he wasn't ordering people to stop playing stations. He just admitted it and he got caught up in his own logic. And you know what? People can't afford to admit that they're wrong when there are millions of dollars at stake.

That was one of the themes of a recent film I saw, Michael Clayton, which features two characters on parallel descents to madness. One character, played by Tom Wilkinson slowly descends into a breach of legal ethics as he realizes that a class action law suit he has been working on for 6 years, is ethically wrong and that he is helping a corporation do something that is morally reprehensible. At the same time, Tilda Swenson's character is slowly descending into a breach of ethics (as in killing people, lying to people, swindling innocent people out of their money) as she tries to preserve the legal ethics of her job.

My dad saw the film with me and commented that Tom Wilkinson wasn't aloud to do that. And I said "how"? He said, it's a violation of legal ethics to aid the other side and disclose information. Well, in my option, our existing legal system is one that was never ethical to begin with. The idea of two opposing people spinning the same situation into two different versions of the truth that they're supposed to belive in and defend to the best of their ability, is fundamentally wrong to me.

I know this is a sweeping statement but a lot of wrongs result from the fact that in our society, it's in people's job descriptions not to tell the truth. Companies cannot admit truths like "we messed up" when billions of dollars are at stake, politicians can't admit the truth and admit mistakes because too many constituents are at stake, and lawyers can't admit the truth because it's unethical.





by the way, I have no respect for Toby Keith anymore