The graduate was awesome. M didn't get it, which I fully understand, because she doesn't get anything that's important, ever.
List of things I get that M is clueless about that are completely important and should never be overlooked:
1) International Politics
2) Mindfreak (you know who I mean)
3) Monty Python
4) Internet Flash Animations
That's basically the top four, but you know there's tons of other stuff. This movie is absolutely hilarious, in that awkward larger-than-life (but still pretty serious) way that so many great movies conduct themselves. It's like Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine, or Smart People, except forty years previous. M and I had this same problem with Youth in Revolt. It's about this little square who hurts and destabilizes an incredible amount of systems and people in pursuit of a girl he loves. I loved it. M hated it, because all she could think about were the victims. She saw a selfish person acting on selfish impulses without regard for all the well-meaning people around him. I saw somebody with wrought-iron guts who absolutely refuses to settle for less or give up on his convictions.
It's never a positive comment to infer that the viewer need search out the comedy, but I'll say it anyway, because the editorially cutty humor we've been trained to look for in cinema is absent here and as such it tends to boggle the modern viewer. The punchline is this dude's life, really, and Ben's stiffer-than-wood attitude is so unflinchingly sincere and unsure that it'll make your heart ache and cringe for him. Watching this movie is like reading a protracted Beatnick retelling of some distorted confluence of events... The main character is rarely remarkable and the deeds he commits are often completely backward on the layperson's moral barometer, but they're pure in a way that is always miraculous and noteworthy. Much of this movie is made up of unsure, jangled interactions between people who feel an overwhelming urge to constrain what they're feeling and modify emotional responses to fit their over-inflated sense of appropriateness.
The beautiful revelation here is that Ben realizes he's not supposed to have sure footing. He learns that being oblivious to the ambiguous nature of what one's career and life should look like is very much okay. He seems to understand that moving compliantly in the direction of what is safe and well known and proper will not make him happy, that achieving his undergrad and then plunging into a career in plastics at twenty-one is just not the way. Indeed, we see through his actions that doing virtually anything but a set course of events has to be better, if only on the basis that it was his choice in the first place.
He charges through the exact center of everything laid out before him and ruins lives and destroys relationships and desecrates religious institutions and publicly humiliates well-meaning family. He does it all because he wants to, because it feels right in the moment, and because he believes in himself above absolutely everything else. I see in Ben a young man in the very moment of True Realization that everyone lucky enough to glimpse through the fog of Education and Propriety eventually must have. He is a person grappling with the idea that everything he's been taught and believes in might actually be ridiculous. In the movie's beginning he is already grasping at this concept, but it takes the illustrious and beguiling Mrs. Robinson to bring him into the Desert of the Real.
I always felt as a young person that drinking and sneaking out and going to parties actually elevated me to a form beyond that of simple adolescence but falling short of pure adulthood. I understand now that what I was tasting then wasn't what I thought it was. The momentary stimulation was the key, the actual notion of power and independent action was so completely intoxicating that I probably would have chased it no matter how it was represented to me. When you do something at any age that you have believed for your entire life was Bad and Crazy and realize that it actually isn't at all, you can't help but question everything else, especially if it's your first time brushing against such an experience. When Ben realizes that family and the institution of marriage might actually exist as a procreative function that developed out of necessity (instead of the Holy and happy-granting secret-to-life he may have believed it to be) he completely snaps and throws away everything else. This is the folly of youth, but also an intensely necessary one.
A generation of human beings that does not seek to bend its limitations and demand answers from the construct around them is not one I'd like to see. Ben has it right: a person must blaze their own path, and when they see something that's important to them, they absolutely must sacrifice everything necessary - even that which they're supposed to need - in exchange. Regret makes for uneasy bedfellows, and I wish I could say I cared as little for convention and peer approval as Dustin Hoffman's character. Growing into a man is about as messy a process as I've encountered and it cannot be done gracefully. The best favor anyone who understands the great hoax can do is dirty your perceptions and force you to act for yourself. Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson.
Watch The Graduate.
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
M's Musings on DICK TRACY
Dick Tracy. Dir. Warren Beatty. Written by Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. Based on characters by Chester Gould. Ft. Warren Beatty, Charlie Korsmo, Glenne Headly, and Madonna. Disney, 1990.
I liked all the colours. And I liked the faces. They were very bizarre and unbelievable in a very convincing sort of way. This movie IS comical, but at the same time, it tried to really stay grounded in its own universe. I liked the consistent association the characters have with styles and colours in determining their identities. I liked the over-the-top dress, particularly because none of it was questioned.
On some of the exterior shots, I was very much reminded of Halifax with the bright coloured and individuated houses and businesses. I think the world should always be painted in that kind of technicolour. I find it very expressive and inviting. It appeals to my senses to see so much loveliness captured on screen.
My biggest complaint about the film was about Tess Trueheart. Though she did, indeed have a true heart, I hated that she never confronted Dick Tracy about cheating on her. I mean, I know that Warren Beatty liked to screw women, but a sweet girl like Tess shouldn't have to stand for it. It broke my heart to watch her stand by her man... I know he really and truly loves her... But that isn't good enough if he can't keep his tongue in his mouth and his dick in his (yellow) pants.
The kid was the best character. I liked him best as the kid, before he became Dick Tracy Jr.
I like the characterization of the different villians, particularly Al Pacino which looked like a caricatured version of himself. In many ways he is playing a pretty normal role for himself, but because of all the extra makeup and what not, it seems newer and more unique.
I definitely ennjoyed this movie from beginning to end. It is light, easy, and has a fun, full cast.
And, I didn't want to tell T. this, but, I am positive that I've seen it as a child! A happy memory, indeed.
I liked all the colours. And I liked the faces. They were very bizarre and unbelievable in a very convincing sort of way. This movie IS comical, but at the same time, it tried to really stay grounded in its own universe. I liked the consistent association the characters have with styles and colours in determining their identities. I liked the over-the-top dress, particularly because none of it was questioned.
On some of the exterior shots, I was very much reminded of Halifax with the bright coloured and individuated houses and businesses. I think the world should always be painted in that kind of technicolour. I find it very expressive and inviting. It appeals to my senses to see so much loveliness captured on screen.
My biggest complaint about the film was about Tess Trueheart. Though she did, indeed have a true heart, I hated that she never confronted Dick Tracy about cheating on her. I mean, I know that Warren Beatty liked to screw women, but a sweet girl like Tess shouldn't have to stand for it. It broke my heart to watch her stand by her man... I know he really and truly loves her... But that isn't good enough if he can't keep his tongue in his mouth and his dick in his (yellow) pants.
The kid was the best character. I liked him best as the kid, before he became Dick Tracy Jr.
I like the characterization of the different villians, particularly Al Pacino which looked like a caricatured version of himself. In many ways he is playing a pretty normal role for himself, but because of all the extra makeup and what not, it seems newer and more unique.
I definitely ennjoyed this movie from beginning to end. It is light, easy, and has a fun, full cast.
And, I didn't want to tell T. this, but, I am positive that I've seen it as a child! A happy memory, indeed.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
M's Musings on BIG
Big. Dir. Penny Marshall. Screenplay by Gary Ross, with Justin Schindler and Anne Spielberg. Ft. Tom Hanks, Elizabeth Perkins, John Heard, Jared Rushton and Robert Loggia. 20th Century Fox, 1988.
This movie was heartfelt and delightful from the very beginning. Seeing kids act like kids, but in 80s garb, made my day. It made me think... what more do you need to be happy? Ah... to be able to rock the side ponytail with no repercussions... Sigh.
Tom Hanks was wonderful in this film. Completely enthralling. He captivated me from the moment he took the screen. Seeing him run around in patterned tighty whities, trying to find something to cover himself was sweet. He just really seemed to pull of the youthfulness. I completely bought that he wasn't just playing a kid, but really was a kid stuck in a body that was all stretched out and hard to handle.
The dynamic between him and his best friend was good, though I thought a slightly stronger child actor would have been able to pull it off better. As the dominant member of that friendship, watching Tom Hanks look to the kid to help him find a place and negotiate bank transactions, etc, was just delightful. When he had to spend the first night in his hotel alone, I wanted to jump into that film set twenty years ago and tell him everything was going to be alright. Super sweet.
The dynamic between Josh and Susan was super weird. I never quite got comfortable with that. I know I am a super prude (which T told me throughout this movie no less than fifty times), but kids in sexual situations with adults is never okay. Even in silly fantasy scenarios. That freaked me out and made me super uncomfortable. It would have been better if Susan didn't want him so badly. It was just terrifying. And then... the "maybe you could contact me in ten years" scene at the end... Also too much for me. Seriously lady, keep it together. Think it through.
That said, the best moment in the whole movie was when Josh morphs back into a kid in Tom Hank's fancy suit. It drags along the ground, and he turns back to look at Susan. Seeing the innocence and confusion in his face as he struggles with having taken on more than any kid should have to... was a touching moment that was really well shot.
It was good to be reminded he was still so small and young, and that he had no place in the world of the "big".
All in all, I am glad the film treated this as an ideal scenario, and not some realistic imagining of what it looks like when young people run away from home and end up in big cities. I wasn't ready for Josh to pimp himself out to various male clientele on the streets of New York. I wasn't ready for him to lose twenty pounds and be picking through garbage. I wasn't ready for him to go to jail and be taken advantage of even more... I'd much rather see him designing new toys with a Keep Out sign on his office door.
Awesome movie. It seems sad that I didn't see it before now.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
M's Musings on RUSH HOUR 3
Rush Hour 3. Dir. Brett Ratner. Screenplay by Jeff Nathanson. Based on characters by Ross LaManna. Ft. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. New Line, 2007.
Having just returned to my computer after four decontamination showers, I am ready to say something about Rush Hour 3.
Chris Tucker was paid $25 million to be in the film. I hope he used the money to do something to work against racial stereotypes, just like the character he played. So, hopefully his future is in drugs and skin. He probably has a very nice fur coat, too. And a rap cd, dropping next month. I apologize for saying such things. This is not the way people should be encouraged to speak or act, unlike this film suggests.
This movie was just awful. I was so sad to see that after three films, there was no attempt to move beyond the typecasting of the first film. I would have liked to see... another film entirely. There is no way to fix this film.
I hope that someday, new non-English speaking talent, as well as racially diverse talent of any kind, can experience a "break through" in the film industry without resorting to taking on roles like the ones written here. This movie was written for people who feel patriotic because they like to exclude people. They are the ones who encourage stereotypes, because they themselves are stereotypically dull and, unfortunately, racist.
I look forward to watching a slew of excellent movies to bury this day in review history.
Please, please don't make another one.
Having just returned to my computer after four decontamination showers, I am ready to say something about Rush Hour 3.
Chris Tucker was paid $25 million to be in the film. I hope he used the money to do something to work against racial stereotypes, just like the character he played. So, hopefully his future is in drugs and skin. He probably has a very nice fur coat, too. And a rap cd, dropping next month. I apologize for saying such things. This is not the way people should be encouraged to speak or act, unlike this film suggests.
This movie was just awful. I was so sad to see that after three films, there was no attempt to move beyond the typecasting of the first film. I would have liked to see... another film entirely. There is no way to fix this film.
I hope that someday, new non-English speaking talent, as well as racially diverse talent of any kind, can experience a "break through" in the film industry without resorting to taking on roles like the ones written here. This movie was written for people who feel patriotic because they like to exclude people. They are the ones who encourage stereotypes, because they themselves are stereotypically dull and, unfortunately, racist.
I look forward to watching a slew of excellent movies to bury this day in review history.
Please, please don't make another one.
M's Musings on RUSH HOUR 2
Rush Hour 2. Dir. Brett Ratner. Screenplay by Jeff Nathanson. Based on characters by Ross LaManna. Ft. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. New Line, 2001.
Thank God there was a second one! God forbid we let this film franchise fade into obscurity. Nah... We'll do it one better: we'll make Rush Hour 2 the top grossing live action "martial arts" film of all time. And then, we'll celebrate it. Take that, China! Take that, kung fu! Who needs you, anyway?
T and I only half watched this movie while writing our carefully thought-through reviews for the last movie. From what I saw, I was impressed. No, honestly, I am serious. This movie was actually better than the last one. They took a more no-holes-barred approach to the humour. Instead of tip toeing around being offensive... this film is like, shit man, I am going to lay out every white stereotype I can about black people AND Asian people in an hour and a half!
Asian people are cuddly, but asexual, "like Snoopy". Black people like titties. Asian men have small penises. Black men need small bills because they are broke ass. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
The best part of this movie was all the dialogue in Chinese. Particularly for T. and I, who watched it without subtitles. At one point we just looked at each other and said, "It's not like it matters anyway". We need to do a cleanse and watch a good martial arts movie. Maybe it's time we review Hero. It is both beautiful, and stars Zhang Ziyi, who is also beautiful. In Rush Hour 2 she plays the evil villian who never, not once, speaks English (it makes her easier to villify that way).
Before I go wash my eyes out with soap, I'd like to mention one more thing: This movie did not have even a fleeting reference to a Rush Hour.
That is all.
Thank God there was a second one! God forbid we let this film franchise fade into obscurity. Nah... We'll do it one better: we'll make Rush Hour 2 the top grossing live action "martial arts" film of all time. And then, we'll celebrate it. Take that, China! Take that, kung fu! Who needs you, anyway?
T and I only half watched this movie while writing our carefully thought-through reviews for the last movie. From what I saw, I was impressed. No, honestly, I am serious. This movie was actually better than the last one. They took a more no-holes-barred approach to the humour. Instead of tip toeing around being offensive... this film is like, shit man, I am going to lay out every white stereotype I can about black people AND Asian people in an hour and a half!
Asian people are cuddly, but asexual, "like Snoopy". Black people like titties. Asian men have small penises. Black men need small bills because they are broke ass. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
The best part of this movie was all the dialogue in Chinese. Particularly for T. and I, who watched it without subtitles. At one point we just looked at each other and said, "It's not like it matters anyway". We need to do a cleanse and watch a good martial arts movie. Maybe it's time we review Hero. It is both beautiful, and stars Zhang Ziyi, who is also beautiful. In Rush Hour 2 she plays the evil villian who never, not once, speaks English (it makes her easier to villify that way).
Before I go wash my eyes out with soap, I'd like to mention one more thing: This movie did not have even a fleeting reference to a Rush Hour.
That is all.
M's Musings on Rush Hour
Rush Hour. Dir. Brett Ratner. Screenplay by Jim Kouf and Ross La Manna. Based on a story by Ross LaManna. Ft. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. New Line, 1998.
Really had little to do with a rush hour. It seems that in LA the traffic jam was a pretense for the kidnapping of a young girl. Really, this movie centred around something that could not be encapsulated in two words. This is a cop comedy that is also a juxtaposition of extremes from the east and the west. Likely written by a white guy in his basement (note: upon some basic internet research, survey says: it is), this movie is based on the balancing of two different sets of racial stereotypes.
In some ways, we can view this as positive. It inverts the usual racialized sidekick by having them both act equally in this capacity to each other. And, the criminal turns out to be white. So... a big step forward for the film industry?
I think not. This movie had lots of stuff blow up. It also had lots of jokes surrounding mispronunciation and cultural assimilation... I found it was funny, but never in a laugh-out-loud kind of way. I felt like it both was and wasn't trying to be politically correct. It definitely was appealing to the lowest common denominator... In some ways I kind of felt like it was meant to give them a little "culture". What it actually did was showcase how sad and conventional American culture and the film industry continue to be. In this way, I am glad it happened. At least there is no illusions about what we are dealing with here.
Watching the little girl sing along to the radio was sweet. Watching Jackie Chan do the same thing was, well... taking an icon from one country and depriving him of his masculinity and status. He became the butt of the joke, which, I guess, at least made him a ton of money.
Chris Tucker's shrill voice will probably keep me awake tonight. Yeesh.
Really had little to do with a rush hour. It seems that in LA the traffic jam was a pretense for the kidnapping of a young girl. Really, this movie centred around something that could not be encapsulated in two words. This is a cop comedy that is also a juxtaposition of extremes from the east and the west. Likely written by a white guy in his basement (note: upon some basic internet research, survey says: it is), this movie is based on the balancing of two different sets of racial stereotypes.
In some ways, we can view this as positive. It inverts the usual racialized sidekick by having them both act equally in this capacity to each other. And, the criminal turns out to be white. So... a big step forward for the film industry?
I think not. This movie had lots of stuff blow up. It also had lots of jokes surrounding mispronunciation and cultural assimilation... I found it was funny, but never in a laugh-out-loud kind of way. I felt like it both was and wasn't trying to be politically correct. It definitely was appealing to the lowest common denominator... In some ways I kind of felt like it was meant to give them a little "culture". What it actually did was showcase how sad and conventional American culture and the film industry continue to be. In this way, I am glad it happened. At least there is no illusions about what we are dealing with here.
Watching the little girl sing along to the radio was sweet. Watching Jackie Chan do the same thing was, well... taking an icon from one country and depriving him of his masculinity and status. He became the butt of the joke, which, I guess, at least made him a ton of money.
Chris Tucker's shrill voice will probably keep me awake tonight. Yeesh.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
T's Take on CANADIAN BACON
What can I say? It's a classic. Really the only Michael Moore movie I can point to and say the word "classic" without irony. I remember my parents laughing about this movie and talking about it as being hilariously political, but when I watch it now the movie's humor feels somehow sapped. So much of this movie rings true today in so many ways... It was very over-the-top and ridiculous in its time, but even then there was a clear edge of terrifyingly transparent reality. I guess by this point in my life I've seen the messages conveyed here play out some many times over that much if it isn't funny anymore. I'm not afraid of Americans prodding Canada in an effort to stir up war tension. I am afraid of that country bringing some terrible wrath down upon themselves as a result of Government/Big Business crossbreeding, because you know damn well they're not annexing Mexico. Not as a first choice, anyway.
Every time I have a chance encounter with an American they're incredibly guarded and distainful at first, but after about twenty seconds of conversation they they open right up with their opinions and convictions, almost all of which tend to be extremely rational and humanistic (basically). I remember speaking with one woman about box stores: she was telling me with dismay that they used to have a great selection of bookstores where she was from, but a Half Price Books moved in and chased out all the competition. She said it hurt their town and put too many people out of business who cared about books and employed a bunch of fifteen year olds who didn't read because that was the only set of people who would work for what they paid. And yet, everyone shopped there. She said, "This is happening everywhere. Who's going to pay for all of this? I feel so sorry for your generation. Things are just going to get worse."
Hunter S. Thompson wrote on October 16, 2001: "Generals and military scholars will tell you that eight or 10 years is actually not such a long time in the span of human history — which is no doubt true — but history also tells us that 10 years of martial law and a war-time economy are going to feel like a Lifetime to people who are in their twenties today. The poor bastards of what will forever be known as Generation Z are doomed to be the first generation of Americans who will grow up with a lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed. That is extremely heavy news, and it will take a while for it to sink in. The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed. The last half of the 20th century will seem like a wild party for rich kids, compared to what’s coming now. The party’s over, folks."
I thought Alan Alda made a great stand-in for Bush, even though Jr. wasn't around for years to come when this awesome movie came out. As near-omnipotent superspy Snake Plissken used to say: the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's just one crisis after another, isn't it? The worst part is that they seem more and more authentic. Either the puppetmasters are growing more confident and skilled in their coercion or we're just spiraling faster and faster out of control. If these are the days in which greasy government officials don't need to invent pretend calamities to keep us spending and perpetuate their own control we are well and truly fucked.
Last night Michael Moore gave me chills. Quote me.
This movie is gut-splittingly hilarious and absolutely terrifying at the same time. You feel either one (or both) at any given time because it's not impossible to imagine many of the characters behaving the way we see them in this movie. Here we see a stupendous, goofy world where anything is possible and everything is hilariously over exaggerated. In creating such an environment Canadian Bacon jerks us down to grim realities that North America as a whole has yet to face fully fifteen years later. The actors do a great job of capturing the haplessness and simple-mindedness Michael Moore clearly wanted to portray in the various classes and I caught myself laughing so hard I needed to rewind more than once. Having said that, any instance where the person you're watching some supposed cinematic gold alongside falls asleep repeatedly before ten o'clock it doesn't really say much for the narrative.
No characters learned from their mistakes, we saw no growth or development, everybody in the film was two-dimensional, the schemes were transparent and less than well thought out... The outcomes were predictable and the general tone very baseline. In the end it was all a little too true to life for comfort.
Watch Canadian Bacon.
Every time I have a chance encounter with an American they're incredibly guarded and distainful at first, but after about twenty seconds of conversation they they open right up with their opinions and convictions, almost all of which tend to be extremely rational and humanistic (basically). I remember speaking with one woman about box stores: she was telling me with dismay that they used to have a great selection of bookstores where she was from, but a Half Price Books moved in and chased out all the competition. She said it hurt their town and put too many people out of business who cared about books and employed a bunch of fifteen year olds who didn't read because that was the only set of people who would work for what they paid. And yet, everyone shopped there. She said, "This is happening everywhere. Who's going to pay for all of this? I feel so sorry for your generation. Things are just going to get worse."
Hunter S. Thompson wrote on October 16, 2001: "Generals and military scholars will tell you that eight or 10 years is actually not such a long time in the span of human history — which is no doubt true — but history also tells us that 10 years of martial law and a war-time economy are going to feel like a Lifetime to people who are in their twenties today. The poor bastards of what will forever be known as Generation Z are doomed to be the first generation of Americans who will grow up with a lower standard of living than their parents enjoyed. That is extremely heavy news, and it will take a while for it to sink in. The 22 babies born in New York City while the World Trade Center burned will never know what they missed. The last half of the 20th century will seem like a wild party for rich kids, compared to what’s coming now. The party’s over, folks."
I thought Alan Alda made a great stand-in for Bush, even though Jr. wasn't around for years to come when this awesome movie came out. As near-omnipotent superspy Snake Plissken used to say: the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's just one crisis after another, isn't it? The worst part is that they seem more and more authentic. Either the puppetmasters are growing more confident and skilled in their coercion or we're just spiraling faster and faster out of control. If these are the days in which greasy government officials don't need to invent pretend calamities to keep us spending and perpetuate their own control we are well and truly fucked.
Last night Michael Moore gave me chills. Quote me.
This movie is gut-splittingly hilarious and absolutely terrifying at the same time. You feel either one (or both) at any given time because it's not impossible to imagine many of the characters behaving the way we see them in this movie. Here we see a stupendous, goofy world where anything is possible and everything is hilariously over exaggerated. In creating such an environment Canadian Bacon jerks us down to grim realities that North America as a whole has yet to face fully fifteen years later. The actors do a great job of capturing the haplessness and simple-mindedness Michael Moore clearly wanted to portray in the various classes and I caught myself laughing so hard I needed to rewind more than once. Having said that, any instance where the person you're watching some supposed cinematic gold alongside falls asleep repeatedly before ten o'clock it doesn't really say much for the narrative.
No characters learned from their mistakes, we saw no growth or development, everybody in the film was two-dimensional, the schemes were transparent and less than well thought out... The outcomes were predictable and the general tone very baseline. In the end it was all a little too true to life for comfort.
Watch Canadian Bacon.
M's Musings on CANADIAN BACON
Canadian Bacon. Written and directed by Michael Moore. Ft. John Candy, Alan Alda and Rhea Perlman. Fox, 1995.
My expectations of what this movie was about and my experience watching the film were very different, to say the least. I thought this movie was totally Canadian, set in Canada, and a parody of exclusively Canadian life. When I saw that Michael Moore was director.... I was just confused. The CanCon, while high, was not the real focus.
In actuality, this film is a critique of American culture and society, which hyperbolizes Canada to help emphasize some of the societal and governmental problems of the US. The film doesn't critique Canada, but instead essentializes us as a sweet, docile country with a heart that is an easy and unjustifiable target for America at the end of the Cold War. Without the money that comes from warmongering, many people are out of jobs and desperate. The current president incites hatred against a common enemy, both accusing and blaming Canada to gain political sway.
The movie has a lighthearted tone, and I, for one, mostly like its portrayal of Canada. While not at all realistic, its nice to imagine that overall the American caricature of Canada is friendly and caring, if a bit gullible. The constant rearranging of the RCMP acronym was sweet. My favourite moment was when the "night shift" at the power plant was an old couple reposing in a living room setting. If only life were really like that!
The film does, however, point to the relatively unclear identity of Canada as a nation on the international stage. In general, the portrayal is very diminutive. Its one of those movies where the message is supposed to be that America really needs to reassess its corrupt values and government. But, another of its underlying messages is, well, at least we are brave and strong unlike these sissy, small Canadians. The fact that we could be so easily manipulated and controlled by the government was a frustrating admission to our lack of independence and power.
Though fifteen years old, I think many of the issues presented here are as real now as they were then. The world is still struggling economically, and now the divide between rich and poor is even more extreme. The "closed power plant" scenario of Niagara Falls seems to be applicable to large portions of both countries.
How do we define ourselves and deal with these economic issues? Besides scapegoating and warmongering, tactics that have largely failed, what are our options? Surely to god we can come up with something better. I know it.
While this movie is a comedy, I think its outlook is pretty bleak. National pride is not a useful commodity. It doesn't fix problems... it only seems to provide a sense of security and comfort in uncertain times.
I wouldn't watch this again. I appreciate the film's goal, but I wasn't engaged with it. I had to watch it in two sittings, and then I had to double check plot points before posting. Maybe it just wasn't my genre.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
M's Musings on SOME LIKE IT HOT
Some Like It Hot. Dir. Billy Wilder. Screenplay by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond. Based on a story by Robert Thoeren and Michael Logan. Ft. Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon. MGM, 1959.
Gender and performativity. This film was made for a women's studies classroom. Whether you like it or hate it, it does an amazing job of showing and telling the ways in which femininity and womanhood are performed actions that are associated with attributes and characteristics that are learned and reproduced based on culturally inherited values. When we see the 'gals', Josephine and Daphne overemphasize words, practice their walks, raise their voices, it is only the beginning. When we see Sugar (seriously?) use her body and play the "saviour" of Shell Oil Jr's lost manhood, or when we see Daphne accept Osgood's proposal to take him for all his money, we see femininity at its extremes. No matter how you see it, this movie is fun.
It seems to me that this film relies on the time honoured comedic tradition of gender bending in a way that is not particularly nuanced, or any any way remarkable. But, its conventions, which we are all familiar with make us positively anticipate the action and plan accordingly. You don't watch a comedy like this for its underlying message. You watch it so that men need to readjust their boobs, and realize that being a woman is a whole lot harder than it looks.
I really like that the Joe/Josephine character performs economic status as well as gender. These social conventions are all equally false, but they are rooted in things we find important. I tried to discuss performativity with a group of second year English students once. They understood gender, but they didn't understand race. It took a bunch of tries, but in the end, they got it through a mix of Stuff White People Like and White Chicks. Performance of wealth I think is a something universally relatable, and something many people feel more comfortable with than the idea of performing gender or race. We know that when we buy name brand clothes, wax our car, or tell our date they can order anything they want off the menu, we are trying to improve how we are perceived economically. When Joe becomes Shell Oil, Jr, Sugar treats him differently. In fact, she responds by creating a higher economic status for herself though stories of the conservatory and coming out parties.
This movie was a product of its time. I don't think we could see it recreated in the same way right now. Interestingly, like Baby Face, the film was tried by the film board for its sexuality. Marilyn Monroe's kisses were too hot for the National Legion of Decency, which classified it as condemned. Since this was the end of the 50s and beginning of the 60s, this rating did not result in a censored version being released. Instead, it resulted in the disbanding of the Production Code several years later. That said, this film did not get approval from the MPAA, and so it was not released with this endorsement, which we in today's society just assume is there, and really don't know the difference one way or the other. We live in a time which is somehow both more tolerant, and more interested in controlling. Now we are allowed to be make more sexually focused films, but we aren't allowed to produce a Hollywood film that does not pass a board verdict. So, though we are less aware of it, censorship of sexuality is still a major part of modern filmmaking. This goes against the themes of this movie, and those like it, which encourage us to explore sexuality and the conventions that surround it and pollute it.
My one major reminder, as is the case in all entertainment which uses the convention of gender bending, is that those who are fooled always forgive and forget. I have yet to see a comedy, from Twelfth Night to Tootsie, where gender confusion is treated as a serious problem. Its like it is allowable for us to step outside gender conventions, as long as it isn't for "real". What about the people who really do want or need to perform a gender other than the one pushed on them by their genitalia? No one is ever upset in comedies when people confuse gender boundaries, which, in real life, can be extremely poorly received. The reality of these situations is that people place WAY too much stock into gender categories. Many, many types of abuse happen as a result of an over reliance on these pretend differences between men and women. Dramas such as Boys Don't Cry treat this issue with the seriousness we need to remember these issues are rooted in.
We laugh when we see something that makes us uncomfortable. This gives us an opportunity to explore why these things are important to us, and whether they have any real inherent value at all. Marilyn Monroe's femininity is more over the top in this movie than is the case in any of the hyperbolic gesturing either of the men make in that direction. So, break this down, think about it... and then imagine Josephine in a bathtub with a suit on under the bubble bath, and makeup and a wig on her face. The person in there is neither of these, but instead, exists somewhere on the spectrum in between them. That's where the rest of us are, too... somewhere in the suds.
Gender and performativity. This film was made for a women's studies classroom. Whether you like it or hate it, it does an amazing job of showing and telling the ways in which femininity and womanhood are performed actions that are associated with attributes and characteristics that are learned and reproduced based on culturally inherited values. When we see the 'gals', Josephine and Daphne overemphasize words, practice their walks, raise their voices, it is only the beginning. When we see Sugar (seriously?) use her body and play the "saviour" of Shell Oil Jr's lost manhood, or when we see Daphne accept Osgood's proposal to take him for all his money, we see femininity at its extremes. No matter how you see it, this movie is fun.
It seems to me that this film relies on the time honoured comedic tradition of gender bending in a way that is not particularly nuanced, or any any way remarkable. But, its conventions, which we are all familiar with make us positively anticipate the action and plan accordingly. You don't watch a comedy like this for its underlying message. You watch it so that men need to readjust their boobs, and realize that being a woman is a whole lot harder than it looks.
I really like that the Joe/Josephine character performs economic status as well as gender. These social conventions are all equally false, but they are rooted in things we find important. I tried to discuss performativity with a group of second year English students once. They understood gender, but they didn't understand race. It took a bunch of tries, but in the end, they got it through a mix of Stuff White People Like and White Chicks. Performance of wealth I think is a something universally relatable, and something many people feel more comfortable with than the idea of performing gender or race. We know that when we buy name brand clothes, wax our car, or tell our date they can order anything they want off the menu, we are trying to improve how we are perceived economically. When Joe becomes Shell Oil, Jr, Sugar treats him differently. In fact, she responds by creating a higher economic status for herself though stories of the conservatory and coming out parties.
This movie was a product of its time. I don't think we could see it recreated in the same way right now. Interestingly, like Baby Face, the film was tried by the film board for its sexuality. Marilyn Monroe's kisses were too hot for the National Legion of Decency, which classified it as condemned. Since this was the end of the 50s and beginning of the 60s, this rating did not result in a censored version being released. Instead, it resulted in the disbanding of the Production Code several years later. That said, this film did not get approval from the MPAA, and so it was not released with this endorsement, which we in today's society just assume is there, and really don't know the difference one way or the other. We live in a time which is somehow both more tolerant, and more interested in controlling. Now we are allowed to be make more sexually focused films, but we aren't allowed to produce a Hollywood film that does not pass a board verdict. So, though we are less aware of it, censorship of sexuality is still a major part of modern filmmaking. This goes against the themes of this movie, and those like it, which encourage us to explore sexuality and the conventions that surround it and pollute it.
My one major reminder, as is the case in all entertainment which uses the convention of gender bending, is that those who are fooled always forgive and forget. I have yet to see a comedy, from Twelfth Night to Tootsie, where gender confusion is treated as a serious problem. Its like it is allowable for us to step outside gender conventions, as long as it isn't for "real". What about the people who really do want or need to perform a gender other than the one pushed on them by their genitalia? No one is ever upset in comedies when people confuse gender boundaries, which, in real life, can be extremely poorly received. The reality of these situations is that people place WAY too much stock into gender categories. Many, many types of abuse happen as a result of an over reliance on these pretend differences between men and women. Dramas such as Boys Don't Cry treat this issue with the seriousness we need to remember these issues are rooted in.
We laugh when we see something that makes us uncomfortable. This gives us an opportunity to explore why these things are important to us, and whether they have any real inherent value at all. Marilyn Monroe's femininity is more over the top in this movie than is the case in any of the hyperbolic gesturing either of the men make in that direction. So, break this down, think about it... and then imagine Josephine in a bathtub with a suit on under the bubble bath, and makeup and a wig on her face. The person in there is neither of these, but instead, exists somewhere on the spectrum in between them. That's where the rest of us are, too... somewhere in the suds.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
T's Take on WAYNE'S WORLD
Party on, M.
I quote Wayne's World much more than I realized before re-watching this movie. Mike Myers can't help but be hilarious in his winsome, goofball way. The funniest bits weren't the rediculous catch phrases or the storyline aspects - most of those were weak and forced. It was the parts when Wayne was allowed to get carried away with silliness. The Milwaukee bits, the obtuse product placement, basically every time he reacted to something, distracting his girlfriend while she's on the phone with mummy-humping and crossdressing...
That's the Wayne Campbell I wanted to hang out with. I realize he was doing the rocker thing over-the-top on purpose, but Wayne's World is a necessarily gimmicky movie that plays on a lot of low-hanging fruit. Most of that fruit, of course, is considerably more commonly overdone and much less hilarious now, but I felt like a giggling little kid again for about a half hour of its combined one-hundred and seventy-four. The first half isn't very... Erm... Compelling(?) and in the beginning I often wonder why I ever liked this movie, but by the end I'm always won over.
One of the reasons I like Wayne's World is that most of its jokes are immediately appologized for afterward. Mike Myers did not want anyone mad at him, clearly. Like when the boys are hassling a cop, but it quicky turns into chummy guy-time... The spoofy montage about how boring Milwaukee is with a follow-up sarcastic jab to Alice Cooper, quickly followed by a short diatribe about how the town really is more than meets the eye:
Wayne: So, do you come to Milwaukee often? (facetious grin)
Alice Cooper: Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century.
Pete: Hey, isn't "Milwaukee" an Indian name?
Alice: Yes, Pete, it is. In fact , it's pronounced "mill-e-wah-que" which is Algonquin for "the good land."
Wayne: I was not aware of that.
PS: you can't appear informed, politically correct and enlightened if you're casually referring to First Nation peoples as "Indian".
The funniest thing about Wayne's World is that a lot of metal enthusiasts I've known referred to the movie as being Excellent, loving it to pieces and quoting it often, having no idea that the entire MTV character concept was a complete mockery of the kind of douchebaggery that surrounds the rock scene. When asked to stretch his three minute bit on how useless and empty-headed hardcore rockers tend to be, I think the end result came out as a little more loveable and straightforward than what was originally intended.
Still, the movie is fun and I have fun when I watch it. There's a very Bill and Ted too-stupid-to-hate goodness here that leaves you with the notion that some people are still decent and occasionally the good guys win. It's easy, it's a fun ride, and it brings back memories.
"... Entertaining, whimsical yet relevant, with an underlying revisionist conceit that belied its emotional attachments to the subject matter." - Wayne Campbell
I quote Wayne's World much more than I realized before re-watching this movie. Mike Myers can't help but be hilarious in his winsome, goofball way. The funniest bits weren't the rediculous catch phrases or the storyline aspects - most of those were weak and forced. It was the parts when Wayne was allowed to get carried away with silliness. The Milwaukee bits, the obtuse product placement, basically every time he reacted to something, distracting his girlfriend while she's on the phone with mummy-humping and crossdressing...
That's the Wayne Campbell I wanted to hang out with. I realize he was doing the rocker thing over-the-top on purpose, but Wayne's World is a necessarily gimmicky movie that plays on a lot of low-hanging fruit. Most of that fruit, of course, is considerably more commonly overdone and much less hilarious now, but I felt like a giggling little kid again for about a half hour of its combined one-hundred and seventy-four. The first half isn't very... Erm... Compelling(?) and in the beginning I often wonder why I ever liked this movie, but by the end I'm always won over.
One of the reasons I like Wayne's World is that most of its jokes are immediately appologized for afterward. Mike Myers did not want anyone mad at him, clearly. Like when the boys are hassling a cop, but it quicky turns into chummy guy-time... The spoofy montage about how boring Milwaukee is with a follow-up sarcastic jab to Alice Cooper, quickly followed by a short diatribe about how the town really is more than meets the eye:
Wayne: So, do you come to Milwaukee often? (facetious grin)
Alice Cooper: Well, I'm a regular visitor here, but Milwaukee has certainly had its share of visitors. The French missionaries and explorers began visiting here in the late 16th century.
Pete: Hey, isn't "Milwaukee" an Indian name?
Alice: Yes, Pete, it is. In fact , it's pronounced "mill-e-wah-que" which is Algonquin for "the good land."
Wayne: I was not aware of that.
PS: you can't appear informed, politically correct and enlightened if you're casually referring to First Nation peoples as "Indian".
The funniest thing about Wayne's World is that a lot of metal enthusiasts I've known referred to the movie as being Excellent, loving it to pieces and quoting it often, having no idea that the entire MTV character concept was a complete mockery of the kind of douchebaggery that surrounds the rock scene. When asked to stretch his three minute bit on how useless and empty-headed hardcore rockers tend to be, I think the end result came out as a little more loveable and straightforward than what was originally intended.
Still, the movie is fun and I have fun when I watch it. There's a very Bill and Ted too-stupid-to-hate goodness here that leaves you with the notion that some people are still decent and occasionally the good guys win. It's easy, it's a fun ride, and it brings back memories.
"... Entertaining, whimsical yet relevant, with an underlying revisionist conceit that belied its emotional attachments to the subject matter." - Wayne Campbell
M's Musings on WAYNE'S WORLD
Wayne's World. Dir. Penelope Spheeris. Screenplay by Bonnie & Terry Turner and Mike Myers. Based on characters by Mike Myers. Ft. Mike Myers and Dana Carvey. Paramount, 1992.
Party on, T.
I have always wished that I watch SNL. But I really never have. Between that and a childhood void of movies that were rated higher than PG, it is no surprise that this was my first encounter with the WOW (by which I mean World of Wayne... duh!) was this afternoon.
While I wasn't rolling in the aisles at every funny moment, I have to admit, I really enjoyed it. It was constantly appealing to different kinds of humour. In particular, I liked how there was a constant interaction with the camera in a mockumentary that predates The Office or Trailer Park Boys but is concurrent with the rise of the reality tv show (a la The Real World). Wayne & Garth made asides to the audience, and constantly broke the wall that separated the world of the film with the world of the viewer.
When Wayne argues against corporate sell-outs with the extreme product placement (reminded me of 30 Rock), again, the film was being self referential in a way that was clever AND hilarious. The contrivance of the conflict in the movie was stupid. Would two bozos be willing to talk about arcade games in order to continue their show and quit their dead end jobs? Of course. But that really isn't worth watching. Instead, the boys are willing to have corporate sponsors for their FILM, but their characters in the SHOW wouldn't sell out in that way. We were willing to include product placement in our film... but in a film where dudes don't want to sell out... it either needs to be really emphasized or guiltily hidden away. Since it seems far fetched that the two bozos with mullets could convince the world to buy anything... you only have one option. (Side note... the $$$ people made on this film is impressive... its longevity is also impressive what with all the merch, catch phrases, and general stamina this movie has had over the years).
The various times the movie stops and starts again at the end was perfect. How do you keep the film from becoming so cliche that it loses some humour? Layer on some cliches, and offer a choose-your-own-adventure format.
I feel like this movie would be funny if you were feeling like an intellectual snob, or if you just wanted to hear Wayne order the cream of "sum yung guy" and make penis jokes.
Party on, T.
I have always wished that I watch SNL. But I really never have. Between that and a childhood void of movies that were rated higher than PG, it is no surprise that this was my first encounter with the WOW (by which I mean World of Wayne... duh!) was this afternoon.
While I wasn't rolling in the aisles at every funny moment, I have to admit, I really enjoyed it. It was constantly appealing to different kinds of humour. In particular, I liked how there was a constant interaction with the camera in a mockumentary that predates The Office or Trailer Park Boys but is concurrent with the rise of the reality tv show (a la The Real World). Wayne & Garth made asides to the audience, and constantly broke the wall that separated the world of the film with the world of the viewer.
When Wayne argues against corporate sell-outs with the extreme product placement (reminded me of 30 Rock), again, the film was being self referential in a way that was clever AND hilarious. The contrivance of the conflict in the movie was stupid. Would two bozos be willing to talk about arcade games in order to continue their show and quit their dead end jobs? Of course. But that really isn't worth watching. Instead, the boys are willing to have corporate sponsors for their FILM, but their characters in the SHOW wouldn't sell out in that way. We were willing to include product placement in our film... but in a film where dudes don't want to sell out... it either needs to be really emphasized or guiltily hidden away. Since it seems far fetched that the two bozos with mullets could convince the world to buy anything... you only have one option. (Side note... the $$$ people made on this film is impressive... its longevity is also impressive what with all the merch, catch phrases, and general stamina this movie has had over the years).
The various times the movie stops and starts again at the end was perfect. How do you keep the film from becoming so cliche that it loses some humour? Layer on some cliches, and offer a choose-your-own-adventure format.
I feel like this movie would be funny if you were feeling like an intellectual snob, or if you just wanted to hear Wayne order the cream of "sum yung guy" and make penis jokes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)