Julie & Julia

I went and saw Julie & Julia tonight.

First, a little b**ching. I have this magical card that Karasotes theaters offer called the 5 Buck Club card. After a movie has been out for two weeks (or more if it's like, Harry P) you can see it, any time of day, for only 5 bucks. Great, right?

On;y problem is, they send you the email about which movies are going on the $5 list on like Wednesday, but the price isn't actually valid till that FRIDAY. Basically, I think I'm too smart for them, and instead of reading what the email says (where it clearly states that the beginning date is the 21st and not the 20th), I base my assumption of when these prices begin on the nationwide truth that movie theaters change movies, and movie times and all that, on, you guessed it, THURSDAYS.

So, imagine my chagrin when, for the second time, tried to only pay $5 for a ticket that was still full price*. And to the same cashier. Mortifying.

*I actually never pay more than $7 for any movie, because they have student discounts. I'm actually a pretty bg fan of Karasotes.

Anywho....

I'm guessing you've heard of Julie & Julia, and I will say - 1. Yes, it is fairly long. 2. Yes, it is like two movies in one.

Why do people have a problem with this? You just got two movie for the price of one. What is your problem?

The pacing was good. The editing was... what you would expect - not to gaudy, not too many match action cuts between stories, but just enough to satisfy, and kept it from feeling slow (I knew I had been there for a while, but I was still very interested in both stories)

And the acting. Well. What is there to say about a Meryl Streep film? She's amazing. And this time she had Stanley Tucci playing opposite - amazing - not to mention one of the greatest comediennes of our time, Jane Lynch, playing Julia Child's sister.

And this brings me to my main point. This is ho you know good acting (or, one of the ways at least) = the characters personalities are very dissimilar to you. Opposite, even. And yet... you see yourself in them.

When Julia finally spots her sister Dorothy at the Train station, they run towards each other screeching. My sister and I have never once done this. Not after months of not seeing each other or anything. Usually it's more like, "Hey. What up? Where do you wanna have dinner?"

But in that scene and the following scenes of Julia and her sister,I was transported to thinking of my sister and I. The way that childhood jokes and mannerisms come flooding back as though you've never been apart. The way you can finish each others sentences because you're thinking the same thing. Streep and Lynch captured this connection so fully that, honestly, it was almost distracting because I couldn't help thinking about how similar we were - which we totally aren't.

So, yeah. Amy Adams, totally one of my recent favorites for actresses, and Meryl Streep one of my "old" favorites. So, if you like acting; if character driven stories are more your thing; and if you're prepared to either just get up and go or hold it, then you should probably see this film.

And I suggest on the big screen so you can have the full enjoyment of the food shots!

Sydney Pollack: Tootsie, The Way We Were and Absence of Malice

For my final in Cinema History II I wrote a paper on the directorial themes of Sydney Pollack.  I chose to focus on the theme of honor, as this was something we had specifically focused on in our in-class discussion of The Yakuza, Pollack's film about an American WWII veteran and his return to Japan and the world of Japanese honor codes.

The assignment was to choose 3 films from a director and write on one theme.  Although I could have used Yakuza as one of the films, I decided to choose three of Pollack's other films, feeling this would give my claim a little more credibility.  I won't go into what the paper's said here; basically, all three films I watched had strong themes of honor running through them.

OK, The Way We Were was a bit of a stretch.

Here instead are a few brief reviews of the three films.

Tootsie:  I was happy to see that I still really enjoyed this film.  It was one of my favorites to watch at my aunt's house when I was little (she had a VCR and would tape things off the TV - we didn't even have a color TV for a long time).  If you've never seen it, well, firstly, do.  Secondly, it's a story about an out of work actor, played by Dustin Hoffman, who decides to dress as a woman and attempt to get a job on a popular soap opera.  Of course it works, and both hijinks and a hero's journey ensue.

Recently I was in an adult ed at church with two transgender people and we were talking about the difference in acceptance between generations.  I cited Tootsie as an influence for me of acceptance, even though Hoffman's character is definitely not trans, or even gay.  After watching the film again with fresh eyes, I still think it has a lot to say about acceptance.  It wouldn't be a good story if there wasn't growth, and one of the ways he grows is by accepting the more feminine aspects of his personality and thereby identifying with the women he previously objectified.

Anyway, that's what I was thinking about when I saw this, but it's really not a heavy movie.  It has a lot of humor and a little romance, but it's definitely not a rom-com.  It's very early eighties in the best way possible and done really well.  I especially liked the editing of the farm montage when Hoffman is really falling into his character (interesting look at how he is most honest when he is lying about a pretty bug thing!) 

Absence of Malice:  This film stars Paul Newman and Sally Fields.  Fields plays a journalist who s tipped a bad story framing Newman as a murder suspect (which he's not).  This is a pretty dark film for having Sally Fields.  I mean, I'm sure she's done plenty of dramas, but that's just not how I think of her ("You like me!  You really like me!").  There's a lot here about honor and integrity and truth versus accuracy, and those concepts aren't buried very deep.  Some would say this makes for a shallow film, but I kind of feel like... well, as whoever it was who said it says, "If you want the audience to see the gun in the drawer, SHOW them the gun in the drawer."  If you think an idea or moral is important enough to be in your film, shouldn't you do everything in your power to make sure every viewer gets it, versus hoping they'll take the time to hunt for it?   

The Way We Were:  I admit, one reason I chose this film was because of it's standing in pop culture.  I like to get as many references as I can as fully as I can as often as I can, so I knew I was long overdue to see this.  And boy was I glad I did!  A few nights after my semester was over, I decided to watch an old favorite of mine, Boys on the Side.  Low and behold, what movie should be viewed  but The Way We Were!  And, like most references to other works of art in films, this was a very apt film for the characters to watch - a tale of two star crossed lovers whose love can never really win - basically the same theme that runs through Boys on the Side!

Anyway, I really liked The Way We Were, especially because it seemed like it would be really shallow dramatic love story, but it had some depth to it with political matters entering in to it and what not.  Also, beautifully shot and I really noticed the sound since one of the classes I just finished was Sound for Image.

And that brings me to the end of the semester - Three A's (Sound for Image, Acting for the Camera, and Cinema History II) and one B (Cinema Production II)!  Amazingly, that brought my GPA up a little to 3.51, so I think I'm close to being back on the Dean's List.  We'll see how this summer goes!

Dirty Confessions

I just saw Confessions of a Shopaholic, the latest chick-lit turned chick-flick box office pleaser featuring Isla Fisher, along with two gaggles of girls and two boyfriends (who seemed to enjoy themselves).

I read a couple reviews online, and one talked about how tasteless the movie is because it, "masqurades as a moral tale about living within one's means after devoting most of its running time to fetishizing the labels that landed the heroine in the red in the first place." (Melissa Anderson)  I, however, beg to differ.  Here's a couple reasons I think that was a fairly un-thought out statement:

1) Obviously this is a film trying to bank off the success of The Devil Wears Prada (and btw, this one's actually a bit better, but I could just be saying that because I really dislike Anne Hathaway), and so we expect to see prada, and gucci and Ives Sant Laurant (did I spell that right?  I don't care enough to hit search) etc.

2) There are people like this. I am not one of them, you are most likely not one of them, but they do exist, and you do find them in NYC.  If the movie had focused on her big spending excursions to Target and JCPenney... well, we wouldn't really care would we?  At least not unless it was a documentary... or an episode of MTV's True Life.  For us to believe it, she has to be buying all the big name crap.  

3) And besides, they really only talk about the designers; it isn't like every scene begins with a run down on who she's wearing. 

So I guess what I'm saying is that it was a pleasant way for me to unwind after a full day, and if you like slightly (OK, super) embarrassing rom-coms, then this may be a good one to see.  Also, the sound was pretty fantastic.  They use Amy Winehouse's Rehab song three times, once straight on, once as elevator music (! I almost screamed I was so excited) and lastly re-mixed with an upbeat tempo when our heroine is on her way to getting her life back on track- in essence when she is in the process of her rehab.  Rule of three and clever use of sound, who could ask for more?

Oh, and one more thing - the reason for the title of the post - I have to admit to a soft spot for the film because I myself have been afflicted by the lure of shops and credit.  I have it under control now, but I wonder if it has something to do with my liking the film because I completely believed her when she was talking about how shopping made her feel because I have been there.  Comedy's aren't funny unless without underlying truth of pain.

p.s. check out my side bar... I added a rating system to the movies I've seen column - it's out of a possible 5 !'s 

Crooklyn

On Sunday I watched Spike Lee's semi-biographical Crooklyn. I liked it a lot, more then School Daze or Girl 6 I think. The writing, and acting that went with it, seemed very honest and I also liked the cinematography, though I am not sure I could tell you why yet.

The end is very sad, so watch out! I only tell you because if I had read the back of the box I would have been warned, but as it was, I was totally shocked and felt like my heart was wrenched out. I literally cried for the last 20 minutes of the film!

I feel like one of the things I liked about Crooklyn was the way it dealt with telling the story of this family in Brooklyn in the early '70s. I didn't feel out of place because they did such a good job of putting universality into the storytelling. For instance, when the family is facing money woes, they send some of the children off with relatives for the summer. Troy, the only girl and the main character, is sent to live with a middle-class aunt and uncle who an adopted daughter a littler older then Troy. The aunt immediately takes out Troy's braids and straightens her hair, something Troy's mother would never have allowed. Although the act of braiding vs. straightening is exclusive to African-American culture, most families can relate to a relative who disagrees with the way we were raised or the way we dress. The film portrays many such common bonds, while also giving us insight into a community we are not a part of.

Born Romantic

(caution: Spoiler Ahead! But really, it's a romantic Comedy, what do you thinks gonna happen?)

This weekend I also watched Born Romantic, an English film with Craig Ferguson, my favorite late night host. Anyway, this was an impulse buy at the corner store near my apartment for $2...what can I say? I can't pass up an English Romantic Comedy with a Scottish actor!

The film focuses on three men and their love interests. Frankie (played by Ferguson), a somewhat crass but hopelessly romantic divorcee has the hots for "a classy lady"; Furgus (David Morrisey) has traveled to London in search of the woman he calls his soul mate...after leaving her at the altar eight years before; and Eddie (Jimi Misty, what a name!), an amateur thief who uses chloroform to rob people, ends up falling for one of his targets, a hypochondriac who dresses graves for a living.

Two things work to tie the plots together - the salsa lounge where they all meet up, and trying to give a deeper meaning to the whole thing is Jimmy, the cab driver who lost his wife a few years before. The best thing about this script is that they kept the cabby's speeches to a minimum and his bursts of insight short and sweet, relying more on the actor's ability to use subtle facial gestures to communicate with the audience. This allowed for him to sound intelligent and insightful, vs. the side character played by Ian Hart who goes into long speeches about how women can't actually feel love and other crap (by the end, this gets tied up nicely as well). Other than that, this film's script had something lacking, and really was carried by the ensemble cast, nice cinematography and the fact that they all had accents.

My absolute favorite scene is one in which Frankie sings "L.O.V.E." in total homage to Dean Martin, Sinatra and all those dudes - and he does a good job! The accent (American) sounds funny coming from him, as it always does, but it just adds to his lovable character.

Of course, everyone gets his girl in the end...and even the cab driver starts dancing with the foxy salsa instructor as the aperture closes around their faces.

Iron Man

Hey! Here is a bit about the film I saw this afternoon with my brother, who taught me much of what I know about looking at cinema critically. I hope he will be a semi-frequent commentator on this blog, letting me (and y'all) know when I have missed the mark and when I need to dig deeper (of course, y'all may do the same, and I welcome it with great anticipation!)

So, Iron Man, with Robert Downey Jr. as Stark (billionaire weapons maker turned vigilante) and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, the no-nonsense assistant, not to mention the other famous to semi-famous actors who make an appearance. I was inclined to see this film because I actually love superhero movies, both bad and good. I also like to watch how we as a society often turn to fictional superheros when our problems get to big for us to face on our own. It's not a coincidence that Iron Man grossed over $98,000,000 opening weekend, or that several other very successful, if less well done, superhero flicks have come out in the past few years or are slated to come out soon (ex: Spiderman (I & II), Batman Begins, Hell Boy, Dare Devil, The Fantastic Four (I & II), The Avengers, you get the picture)

Within the first few scenes I thought, "oh great, here we go with another macho-man superhero who degrades women and really loves power more then he loves saving the world" There is a scene in which a young journalist from Vanity Fair wants to interview Stark about his work making weapons for the government...she ends up in his bed, and then kicked out by his assistant - "I do whatever Mr. Stark needs me to do...sometimes even taking out the trash" (Potts) And, somehow, a flight with his Air Force buddy to Afghanistan to show off a new weapon, ends with them getting drunk together and the flight attendants prancing around like go-go dancers.

But after his return from captivity, Stark appears to be changed. Not completely, which, thankfully, leaves us open for sequels with further character development. This is a general problem I have with action films - if there is no character development in the first film, there sure as hell won't be any in the second or third, but people tend to lose sight of that, what with all the explosions.

There are a lot of underlying themes, concepts, and little jabs at society, in this film that allow for some interesting DVD viewings when the time comes. I look forward to it, as well as any future sightings of Iron Man that Marvel has in store for us.

Here is an interview with Downey Jr. from April on the David Letterman Show. I think he seems really pompous (about the script re-write stuff), but some would (and did) say he is "just playing a Robert Downey Jr. character". What do you think?